Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.27.2015Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas January 27, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on January 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation in honor of "Wear Red Day" - CPR Awareness City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Elections for City Council seats for District 1 and District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - The 20th Annual Cupid's Chase Run/Walk will be held Saturday, February 7th Action from Executive Session Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, January 13„ 2014 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary C Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City of Georgetown to participate in an interlocal agreement with Region 16 Education Service Center for the purpose of participating in an interlocal joint and cooperative purchasing program -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer D Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation GTEC): Consideration and possible action to amend the 2014/15 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) Budget for projects with remaining funding and approval from 2013/14 -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer E Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution to submit an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and authorizing the Mayor to sign -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director F Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersection Improvements in the amount of $79,955.06 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director G Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a Task Order with BWM Group for professional services related to the design of the Williams Drive Pool renovation in the amount of $77,975 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager H Consideration and possible action directing the Interim City Manager to respond to proposed legislation that would provide Jonah Water Special Utility District with the option of electing its board of directors by district instead of at -large -- Jim Briggs, City Manager I Consideration and possible action to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Contract for Professional Architect Services with Architectural Design Group, Inc. (ADG) for the Public Safety Training and Operations Facility to delete Building Commissioning from the Scope of Services and to deduct the amount of $80,640 from the Contract -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police Legislative Regular Agenda J Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on the Rezoning of 13.1501 acres, described as Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, located at 70 Del Webb Blvd., from the Local Commercial (C-1) district to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, Interim Planning Director (action required) K Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances by adding Chapter 8.40 establishing minimum standards of care for youth recreation programs -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) L Discussion and possible action regarding use requirements for the former Albertson's Grocery building -- Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director M Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the potential 2015 Road Bond Recommendations -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer N Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve the pavement condition assessment findings and report prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director O Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a task order with KPA of Georgetown, Texas, for the 2014-2015 CIP Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $184,605.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager P Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action on a contract for professional engineering services with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $425,207.43 for flood protection planning -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Q Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for the construction of the CDBG — Madella Hilliard Sidewalk Improvements Project in the amount of $ $69,973.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director R Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 6.60 of the Code of Ordinances relating to alarm system registration, unpermitted alarm fees and false alarm fees, providing a severability clause, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions and establishing an effective date -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Police (action required) S First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2013/14 Annual Budget due to conditions that resulted in year-end budget variances, appropriating the various amounts thereof and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) T First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to the timing of capital and other projects approved in the prior year, appropriating the various amount thereof and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) U Forwarded form the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Title 13, Article 1, Section 13.04.083 titled "Distributed Renewable Electric Generation" of the code of ordinances of the City of Georgetown Texas, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions, including a severability clause and establishing an effective date -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) V Second Reading of an Ordinance creating "Assignment Pay" for certain assignments within the Fire Department, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing a severability clause, finding and determining that the meetings at which the ordinance is passed are open to the public as required by law and providing an effective date -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief And Tadd Phillips, Human Resource Director (action required) W Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, changing approximately 73 acres on the Future Land Use Plan from Employment Center to Moderate Density Residential for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) X Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to 250 acres of Single-family Residential (RS) District, 19.85 acres of Low - Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, and 15.89 acres of Agriculture (AG) District in the David Wright Survey for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) Project Updates Y Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), SE Inner Loop Corridor Study, Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Summit at the Rivery Hotel and Conference Center, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Overall Transportation Plan, West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane, Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Z City Secretary Department Update -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary AA Legal Department Project Update - Open Records -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. AB - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda 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. AC Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Public Safety Complex - Summit at The Rivery Project - Hughes Eminent Domain Suit Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Albertson's Building Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, 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 , 2015, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation in honor of "Wear Red Day" - CPR Awareness City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Elections for City Council seats for District 1 and District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - The 20th Annual Cupid's Chase Run/Walk will be held Saturday, February 7th Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, January 13„ 2014 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: Please see attached for draft minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: January 13, 2015 DRAFT Workshop Minutes January 13, 2015 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes LSTAR Report- January 13, 2015 Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 13, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan -- Nat Waggoner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:03PM Nat Waggonner introduced himself and Leslie Pollock, from HDR Engineering. Waggoner said HDR studied the Sidewalk Plan for the city hit on a great wealth of thoughts. He said he is encouraged on what we have as a city and where we are starting. He said he would like to get guidance from Council regarding the plan and how staff should move forward. He said the City is nearing the completion of the plan and spoke about the process of coming up with the plan. He said staff took a good look at the street and pedestrian network. He said they also took an inventory of the current sidewalks and added the city is at a great place to start. He said the city can be proud of the fact that it has 144 miles of sidewalk and 63% of those are in good condition. He said they began the process by reaching out to members of the community. He said the city held more than 14 engagement meetings and he spoke about public engagement and how they held a sidewalk open house meeting in the council chambers. He said staff took the community's input and analyzed it. He said they wanted to make sure to get the public engaged. He noted, in using the open house meetings and online tools, they did a public engagement survey. Pollock of HDR spoke about the public engagement process and the results. She said downtown, SISD and Southwestern were the top three sidewalk priorities as identified by the public. She said, they next developed an implementation plan and she described that for the Council. She said they developed a prioritization methodology. She said they broke it down into four main categories: pedestrian attractors, pedestrian safety, demographics and special consideration. She described these categories in detail. She said, as a result of the matrix and analysis, five top projects were identified. She said there were also citywide projects recommended and she described those for the Council. She described the analysis results of the priority one projects in detail. She said cost estimates were prepared for each of the items and she described how those amounts were developed. She showed Council maps and diagrams of each of the priority one projects as well as the total costs for each of those projects. She also described the priority two and priority three projects in detail. Waggoner spoke about the funding sources for these types of projects and where they need to be. He also spoke about potential funding and partnership opportunities. He said this master plan looks at current funding levels, which is about $75,000 annually (without inflation). He described some other potential funding and partnership opportunities. He said he would really like to figure out how to partner with the County and school district. He said he would like to take an opportunity to partner with the MUDs or PIDs in the community as well. He said sidewalks have a 10 year maintenance cycle and added the City has about $5 million in sidewalks that needs fixing. He described the projects staff determined could be done using in house staff. He said it would take $490,000 annually, adjusted 6% for inflation to achieve the goals laid out in the Sidewalk Master Plan. He summarized this process and plan for the Council. He outlined the remaining tasks needed to finalize the plan including an Open House scheduled for January 2211, the Public Hearing and First Reading on February 24th and a second reading and adoption of the ordinance on March loth Fought asked and Waggoner clarified some conclusion with the cost of new projects versus routine maintenance. Waggoner also spoke about the timeline for the projects in each priority category. Brainard asked and Waggoner and Pollock spoke about the arterial sidewalks in Sun City and how those are the only Sun City sidewalks in the Master Plan. Brainard asked about the philosophy of bicycles on sidewalks. Waggoner said, as of now, there is no Ordinance prohibiting bicyclists on sidewalks but roller skating is not allowed. Gonzalez spoke about Highway 29 and asked about State involvement with those. Polasek said the state allows cities to put in and maintain sidewalks by agreement but they will not touch them. Gonzalez asked and Polasek said the state does not maintain sidewalks and that is up to the local jurisdiction. Hesser asked and Waggoner spoke about anticipating maintenance costs. Waggoner said they took a look at the network as well as the growth of other utilities and the general population. Fought said he would like to Waggoner to rethink about having a reserve for sidewalk maintenance. Briggs said the Council is getting ready to discuss the budget and said it can be determined whether to incorporate maintenance of sidewalks into the discussions. Gonzalez said what is important is to build something that won't be an impediment or too hard to maintain. Fought and Gonzalez said the city is behind because there was no reserve put in place in the past to care of these maintenance costs. Jonrowe thanked the staff and members of GTAB for all of their work on this, especially Nat and Leslie. She said she is looking forward to Council achieving consensus on these projects. Jonrowe said she would like to see a matrix that incorporates the human element and added it is important to not trying to insert ourselves in the process too much. She said she would like to let staff and the public be the driving forces of these processes. Eason said this is an excellent report and said it is very comprehensive. She said she is pleased with the effort that went into this issue. She said her hope is that the city will follow through on these projects with regard to the priority structure. She said sidewalks have always been the afterthought. She said she hopes she is hearing a real commitment so the Council can get out of this situation and work to keep up with this issue. Hammerlun complimented staff and spoke about the public facility accessibility report. Waggoner said the sidewalk plan also looks at accessibility issues. Hammerlun said and Waggoner said the facility plan is being incorporated into their report as well. There was discussion on the next steps in this process. B Presentation and discussion of the Executive Summary of the Georgetown Overall Transportation Plan -- Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Edward G. Polasek, A.I.C.P, Director, Transportation Services With a Powerpoint Presentation, Polasek provided Council with an updated Overall Transportation Plan. He said the purpose is to understand the relationship between land use and transportation infrastructure. He said the OTP shapes long term capital planning and financing consideration as well as transportation infrastructure needs. He described the reasons for the update including that CAMPO updated their plan, the adoption of Georgetown's 2030 Comp Plan, changes the City and the fact that the implementation is critical to the city. He said the goals of the system are to develop a transportation system that is safe, efficient and economically feasible. He said the system should accommodate present and future needs, provide for a high degree of safety, incorporate the various modes of transportation, consider planned development patterns and meet the area's long term transportation needs. He showed Council a map of the study area. He spoke about the many participants in the study. He described the recommended design standards. He spoke about the existing transportation conditions for the city and said the current City UDC threshold is level of service C. He said there is an anticipated population of 100,000 by 2030. He said, once the city hits 50,000 in the next census, it will get access to all traffic signals. He said the city has to also consider funding for transit. He spoke about the network improvement recommendations which include new roadways, roadway extensions, roadway widening, contact sensitive solutions, adopt and implement sidewalk master plan and complete and adopt a bicycle master plan. There was much discussion regarding the sidewalk master plan. Brainard asked about the 2008 Road Bond Election and Polasek said this year we will have spent a little over $26 million on those projects approved in the 2008 election. Brainard asked and Polasek said he will be able to provide Council an update on the status of what was approved in 2008. Polasek spoke about how that applies to this coming election as well. Fought said, as we move ahead, he would like for Polasek to look at what was not built and why. He spoke about road surfaces and said chip seal is not an appropriate road surface for residential thoroughfares. He said the city needs to declare once and for all that the chip seal treatment is not going to go down in residential thoroughfares in Georgetown. Polasek said that issue will be discussed at the next meeting under the Pavement Condition Index item. Gonzalez said he is also not a fan of chip seal and would like to find a new and updated alternative option. He said it obviously is something to think about. Gonzalez said the other issue is related to connectivity. He said he would like for the city to look at situations like Majestic Oaks and determine what can be done in future situations like that. Polasek spoke about connectivity and street networks. He showed Council what they expect the street network to be in an ideal situation. Hammerlun thanked Polasek and staff for their presentation. He asked and Polasek confirmed that the road bond committee worked with all of this information when formulating their recommendation for the upcoming election. Jonrowe also thanked staff for their hard work. There was much discussion. C Discussion and Presentation on the 2015 Road Bond Recommendations -- Tom Crawford, 2015 Road Bond Committee Chair and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Crawford introduced himself to the City Council and said he has really enjoyed this process. He thanked the staff for their hard work on this project. He provided the Council with an agenda of what is to be discussed during this presentation. He introduced the committee members and said they have been meeting since June. He said the initial project list was composed of 34 projects made up of $550 million. He spoke about the process the committee went through in order to narrow down their recommended project list. He showed Council a map of all 34 projects on their final list. He said, as they pared down the list, they came up with nine objectives. He described all of those objectives for the City Council. He listed each of the projects by priority. He said objective #1 is to repair the critical faults on the Austin Avenue Bridges. He said objective #2 is to reduce traffic on Williams Drive and improve circulation in the gateway area with a cost of $32.8 million. He said the third objective is to reduce traffic on SH 29 at a cost of $129.4 million. He said the fifth objective is to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on Leander Road, which will be about $4.5 million. He spoke about objective #6 and said it is to improve intersection management. He said the seventh objective is to improve accessibility to GISD facilities from Austin Avenue and FM 971. He said the majority of these projects were also in the 2008 bond package. He said all of these have needed to be done several years ago. He said it is now time to step up to the plate and do what is required in preparation of a population of 100,000. He said objective #8 is to improve safety and access from SH 29 to Sam Houston Avenue for another $4 million. He said the last objective, #9, is to improve capacity and safety of eastern SH 29. He showed Council a map of the projects they are proposing. He said the recommendation is 22 projects at a total of $220 million to occur in a 15-20 year timeframe. Paul Diaz spoke about the funding options for these recommendations. With a Powerpoint Presentation, he presented a Road Bond Analysis to the Council. He said the committee recommendations total about $220 million. He described the tax impact assumptions which assume 10 equal issuances. He said debt would be issued every two years and the model assumes all issuances are 20 years terms. He said it assumed the city would have a 4% interest rate. He showed Council a graph of the anticipated tax rate impact. He showed Council the projected tax rate if all of the proposed projects were approved by the voters. There was much discussion about funding options. Brainard asked and Diaz confirmed this proposal would present a nearly 50% increase in the tax rate. Brainard asked and Crawford said the committee was not constrained by a tax rate when they worked on this project. He said they did not consider the tax rate until the end after they came up with the $194 million amount. Crawford said his personal opinion of this is that it is too conservative. Crawford said the tax rates would come down dramatically if the valuations of properties in Georgetown go up more aggressively. Brainard asked if the priority list would be different if there was a ceiling placed on the tax rate. Crawford said the committee would not change the priorities. Brainard said he does not think a $220 million bond issuance is feasible financially or politically at this time. Brainard said he thought the developer of Wolf Ranch was going to build the Wolf Ranch Parkway. He asked a few questions about various projects on the priority list. Gonzalez said this bond is one piece of a taxing entity and asked that the city look at his holistically and consider what the tax payers can bear. He said projects will change over time as well. He noted the city cannot predict what growth will do to the prioritization of projects. Crawford said the city can do a bond issue every two or three years but the ultimate tax impact is going to be the same. He noted he does not think any of these projects are going to be outdated. He said the city could pass this bond with transparency of what the current debt is and what the future debt commitments will be. He said transportation is bad and is only going to get worse. Fought said this is an impressive analytical piece and said the grouping they used helped him understand the logic they went through in preparing this list. He said he would like for staff to go back and annotate the list to tell the council whether or not the city is already committed to doing a particular project. Polasek said all commitments are indicated on the list provided to Council. Fought asked and Crawford said the proposal for the bridges would build brand new bridges, not repair of the current bridges. He said, during construction of those bridges, it will go to one lane but it will not shut down traffic. Hesser asked and Polasek said the city has construction ready plans for projects number 2-6. He said, with regard to project #1, staff could have plans ready soon. Polasek said GTEC funded the design work for some of these projects. Eason spoke about how this money approved by the voters would not be spent all at once and added the money will be used over time for the projects indicated on the list. There was much discussion regarding the impact of these bonds on the tax rate, timing and when the final list should be completed prior to calling the election. Hammerlun spoke about why it would be a mistake to ask the voters to approve money for a project that the city would not even start for another 18 years. Jonrowe said she is concerned with voter fatigue and asked if a citizen survey would help with this process. She asked about the last time a citizen survey was done. Hutchinson said he and Erin McDonald looked at doing an online survey and added it is something they can do if Council would like. Mayor asked and Rundell said the Council will be discussing this again in two weeks to make a final decision the projects that will be included in the bond package. There were many comments. D Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Codi Newsom, Senior Project Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police With a Powerpoint Presentation, Newsom provided an update on the facility and said final completion is scheduled for February 6th and move in is scheduled for February 2nd. She showed Council construction photos of the facility. She provided Council with a schedule overview. She spoke about the budget contingency funds. She said they are at $601,000 and said there are some anticipated future costs. She provided the current status of contingency accounts minus anticipated future costs. She said the delta is higher than it was before Christmas. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.074 of the Local Government Code — 5:25PM 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. E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Water Quality Ordinance Update - Public Safety Complex - Summit at The Rivery Project - EEOC Claims Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - VFW Parkland — Potential Purchase - Acquisition of real property for an electric utility easement- Oakmont Drive Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code - Legal Department Update Adj ournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, 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 , 2015, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Meeting was adjourned at 6:07PM Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 13, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8r" Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order — Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:08PM Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Compensation Committee Appointment Notification City Council Regional Board Reports Eason presented a report on the Lone Star Rail District, which is attached to the minutes of this meeting. Announcements - City Offices Closed for Martin Luther King Holiday, Monday, January 19, 2015 - Regular Trash Pickup on Martin Luther King Holiday - Elections for City Council seats for District 1 and District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 Action from Executive Session Motion by Jonrowe, second by Fought to approve the settlement of charge No. 451-2014-02930 George A. Bermudez vs. Georgetown Police Department in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the negotiated settlement agreements. Approved 7-0 Motion by Jonrowe, second by Brainard to authorize negotiation of the purchase of parkland at 203 E. 2"d Street adjacent to VFW Park on the terms discussed in Executive Session. Approved 7-0 Motion by Jonrowe, second by Gonzalez to authorize initiation of eminent domain proceedings as necessary to acquire real property for electric utility infrastructure improvements along the planned Oakmont Drive extension. Approved 7-0 Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, December 9„ 2014 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary C Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of Amelia Cruz as the Resident Commissioner on the Georgetown Housing Authority as recommended by the Georgetown Housing Authority Advisory Board — Mayor Dale Ross D Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of a selection committee to review Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) related to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Architectural Design and Engineering for renovating the 1987 Library and the Georgetown Communication and Technology Building, a New Plaza Canopy, and Preparing a Master Signage Plan for the City Center -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager E Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Discussion and possible action regarding amending the 2014/15 GTEC Budget for new projects -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer This item was moved to the Regular Agenda by Fought. F Consideration and possible action to approve Change Order No. 2 with Bartlett Cocke General Contractors, LLC for the Public Safety Training and Operations Facility -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Police and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney G Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to accept the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Final Report as Final and adoption of the proposed alignment of the Southwest Bypass/ Southeast Inner Loop roadway, from 1 35 to Rockride Lane -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director This item was moved to the Regular Agenda by Fought. H Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of Bioxide from Evoqua Water Technologies LLC of Sarasota, Florida, in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00,for Fiscal Year 2014/2015 -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director I Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a wholesale water agreement between the City of Georgetown and the City of Liberty Hill -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director J Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a proposed Assignment of Rights from San Gabriel Harvard Limited Partnership to 278 Georgetown Inc., contained within the Shadow Canyon Non -Standard Service Agreement --Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director K Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a proposed Assignment of Wastewater Reimbursements and Wastewater Service from San Gabriel Harvard Limited Partnership to 278 Georgetown Inc. -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director L Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of replacement Cisco Network Switches from Presidio Networked Solutions for $77,052.60 -- Mike Peters, Information Technology Director M Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Westin Engineering, Inc. for consulting services to provide requirements development, assessment, evaluation, implementation planning, and acquisition of a Customer Information System (CIS) with an optional phase to assist with procurement and contract negotiations for an amount not to exceed $193,250.00 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer N Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution appointing Councilmember Patty Eason as the City of Georgetown's representative on the Board of Directors for the Lone Star Rail District -- Mayor Dale Ross Motion by Eason, second by Hesser to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items E and G, which were pulled to the Regular Agenda by Fought. Approved 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda E Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Discussion and possible action regarding amending the 2014/15 GTEC Budget for new projects -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Fought asked what the City is committing to with these items. Rundell spoke about the projects being added and amended in the GTEC Budget. Fought said, in the interest of transparency, it is important to describe the projects in detail. Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 7-0 G Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to accept the Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study Final Report as Final and adoption of the proposed alignment of the Southwest Bypass/ Southeast Inner Loop roadway, from 1 35 to Rockride Lane -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Fought said this report is incredibly impressive. He noted, at another time, he would like for Council to sit down and talk about this alignment to make sure everyone is on the same page. Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to approve. Approved 7-0 O Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, changing approximately 73 acres on the Future Land Use Plan from Employment Center to Moderate Density Residential for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) Maddox said the next two items are a future land use amendment and a zoning request for the Three Forks project. He said the request is to amend the future land use plan to coincide with a rezoning request for a single family development in this area. He described the future land use plan for that area. He said what Council sees is the concept plan that reflects the current plan. He described the proposed zoning and said it is for additional single family property and bringing some of that employment center out of the development and taking the overlay out of the northern half of the property. He said some of the PUD will be in place near the south closer to some higher density development and the airport. He said the proposed land use plan for the area would remove 70 acres from the employment center and replace it with moderate density residential. He said there has been some discussion about the airport and the impact to the airport of having additional residential development in that area. He said the consideration is to consider whether or not the land use change is appropriate, airport impacts, unwinding of the PUD development concepts and future considerations for the remainder of the development. He said the CPA requires a supermajority vote (5-2). Brainard asked why this would be in the city's interest. Brainard asked and Maddox said the comprehensive plan puts heavy emphasis on employment center in this area. He said the question is how much council is willing to budge if the marketplace is not responding at this time. Hesser asked and Maddox said when the future land use plan was put in place, the initial consideration for employment center development was due to its proximity to the airport. Hesser said his concern is regarding the noise level at the airport and its impact on the proposed residents in that area. Jonrowe said she is flexible because as more people come into the area, it would be more likely to attract retail development. Gonzalez said a mix like this is probably acceptable. Maddox read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. There was much discussion. Public Hearing was opened at 6:45PM Speaker, Gary Newman, said the new rezoning is due to market. He said, when they did this in 2008, it was a different environment. He said the plan shown at this meeting is about the size of the Domain. He spoke about how the new proposed plan still has a lot of office property. He said this plan would be a fairly upscale development and would also be bringing a school to the property. He said he is there to answer any questions Council may have. Speaker, Mark Baker of SCC Planning, spoke about how they decided how much residential and how much commercial should be included in the plan. He said they are proposing to bring the residential line a bit south. Speaker, Raymond Husser, asked about the property to the east of the yellow line and if there is going to be anything that will prevent the residential development from backing up straight into commercial development. Public Hearing was closed at 6:52PM Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought to approve the item. Approved 7-0 P Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to 250 acres of Single-family Residential (IRS) District, 19.85 acres of Low -Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, and 15.89 acres of Agriculture (AG) District in the David Wright Survey for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) Maddox described the item and said this is the rezoning request that relates to the preceding item. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Public Hearing was opened at 6:54PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 6:54PM Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 7-0 Q Discussion and possible direction regarding new signage for the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner With a PowerPoint presentation, Brewer spoke about how many cites utilize different street signs to indicate historic districts throughout the community. She said signs are used to identify local and federally recognized district. She reviewed the benefits of district signage. She said all of the signs will be directional signage, including street signs, and they must conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. She said the staff proposal is to replace the existing street signs in the Downtown and Old Town Districts with new signage. She said this would amount to 124 sign in downtown, 382 signs in old town and 16 signs in the national register districts. She showed council a map of where these signs would be located. She said the budget includes $25,000 for signs which is comprised of $12,500 from TIRZ monies and the other half from HOT tax funds. She said this work would be contracted out to a vendor. She described the project timeline and said the initial sign design was present to HARC in October. She showed Council the proposed signage. There were many comments from Council about the brown color of the sign and if there are any other options for colors and design Motion by Jonrowe, second by Fought to direct staff to look into other design and color options for the signs. Approved 7-0 R Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase and installation of a splash pad at San Jose Park to Progressive Commercial Aquatics, Inc. from Manor, Texas in the amount of $296,000 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Garrett described the item for Council. She spoke about the proposed splash pad and said the purchase and installation of the pad will be through the Buy Board. She said the City has chosen Progressive Commercial Aquatics to perform the work. She said they are currently working on the Recreation Center outdoor splash pool deck and just completed the River Ridge pool renovation. She spoke about the design of the splash pad and said the city will be using a specialized filter that will reduce the backwash in order to conserve water. She said by using this process, the city will be able to have the splash pad open by early this summer. She said during normal years it will be open April -September. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 7-0 S Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Discussion and possible action to approve the Appraisal Report prepared by Airport & Aviation Appraisals, Inc. regarding Market Rate Analysis and Rate Schedule for leasing Georgetown Municipal Airport facilities -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Polasek described the item and provided a brief background on this item. He said the airport business analysis completed years ago recommended revised lease documents and a market rate analysis. He said, in the 2014/2015 budget, all revenue generated at the airport was also used at the airport. He said the last rate study was completed in 2010 and was not a market based study. He spoke about the data that came out of the last rate study. He spoke about the 2014 study and how they developed the rate increases for various hangar types. He said, pending Council approval, it can be assumed that these rates will go into effect by the second half of this fiscal year. He said the city will also implement the new lease agreements alongside these increases. Diaz spoke about strong fuel sales and fuel retail sales over the past 10 years. He provided Council with a forecast summation and said increased lease rates could result in $30,000 more into the airport fund for FY15, and $60,000 in FY16. He said early fuel sale numbers are encouraging and could have a significant impact on the airport fund if current trends continue. He concluded his review and said revenue forecasts will be monitored. Polasek summarized how this will be implemented. Motion by Hesser, second by Eason to approve the appraisal report. Speaker, Gary Hamilton, spoke about how he has been an airport user for many years and used to serve on the Airport Advisory Board. He said he was very disappointed when that board was disbanded. He noted there has not been enough transparency with regard to financial statements at the airport. Speaker, Carol Jenson, introduced herself and reviewed her background and experience with aviation. She said her business used to rent space at AeroCentex but no longer does because of cost. She noted she also rents a hangar at the airport. She summarized her opinion on why she feels this study is flawed. Speaker, Bobby Lacroix, expressed his concerns with this study and how the airport facility is a gem and affects the whole community. He said some increase would be warranted, but not as large of an increase as what it being proposed. Brainard asked and Diaz said the occupancy at the hangers is at about 95%. Polasek said the city has a waiting list of over 140 for hangar space at the airport right now. Brainard said and Polasek confirmed the city effectively has 100% occupancy. Gonzalez asked what the rates would do to the 140 people on the wait list. He asked if the increase would price those people out. Polasek said these hanger rates would be less than hangar rates in the area, with the exception of Taylor, Texas. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 T Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): First Reading of an Ordinance amending Title 13, Article I, Section 13.04.083 titled "Distributed Renewable Electric Generation" of the code of ordinances of the City of Georgetown Texas, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions, including a severability clause and establishing an effective date -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Zavala described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 U First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2013/14 annual budget due to conditions that resulted in year-end budget variances, appropriating the various amount thereof and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Morgan described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading. Motion by Eason, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Fought asked when the Council will get an opportunity to review the excess fund balance. Morgan said that issue will be coming back to Council at the end of February. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 V First Reading of an Ordinance creating "Assignment Pay" for certain assignments within the Fire Department, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing a severability clause, finding and determining that the meetings at which the ordinance is passed are open to the public as required by law and providing an effective date -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief and Tadd Phillips, Human Resources Director (action required) Sullivan described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Eason, second by Jonrowe to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 W Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas amending Section 14.04.010 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, Texas relating to the terms of the Franchise Agreement by and between the City of Georgetown and Atmos Energy Corporation, repealing conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions, including a Severability Clause and establishing and effective date -- Christopher Foster, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration (action required) Foster described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Eason, second by Hesser to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 X Second Reading of an Ordinance relating to the classifications and number of positions for all City of Georgetown Fire Fighters and Police Officers pursuant to Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code pertaining to Civil Service, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing a severability clause, finding and determining that the meetings at which the ordinance is passed are open to the public as required by law and providing an effective date — Tadd Phillips, Human Resource Director (action required) Phillips described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eason to approve. Approved 7-0 Y Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of deer within the city limits — Keith Brainard, District 2 Councilmember Brainard said he would like to gauge Council's interest in passing an Ordinance that would prohibit citizens from feeding the deer. Mayor asked and Brainard said in cases of egregious violations, citizens should be able to complain. He said, if it is deemed illegal, folks might be less likely to do it. Fought said there was a major division in Sun City on this issue and noted there were people who loved the deer and people who hate them. Motion by Brainard, second by Fought to direct staff to draft an Ordinance prohibiting the feeding of deer within the city limits. Approved 7-0 Project Updates Z Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), SE Inner Loop Corridor Study, Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Summit at the Rivery Hotel and Conference Center, Wolf Ranch/Hillwood, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Overall Transportation Plan, West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane, Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Speakers Kathy Sweeney and Mimi Kyle expressed their concerns about the traffic on West Majestic Oaks. They both showed support for closing down that road. Briggs updated the Council on the status of projects covered in this section. He spoke about where staff is in the process of considering the Majestic Oaks issue. 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. AA Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Water Quality Ordinance Update Public Safety Complex Summit at The Rivery Project EEOC Claims Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property -VFW Parkland — Potential Purchase - Acquisition of real property for an electric utility easement- Oakmont Drive Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code - Legal Department Update Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, 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 , 2015, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary MEETING ADJOURNED-7:52PM Jessica Brettle From: Patty Eason <pattyeason1950@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:29 PM To: Jessica Brettle Subject: FW: LSRD: Staff Report on Activities in Nov. and Dec. 2014 Hi Jessica: Please make this an attachment for my report on Tues and forward to all CC, Mayor, Jim, Ed, Nat, Laurie, Micki, and Mark Thomas. Thanks, Patty From: Alison Schulze [mailto:amschulze@lonestarrail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:39 PM To: Beverly Silas; Bill Bingham; Bill Spelman; Bruce Todd; Carroll Schubert; Daryl John; John Thomaides; Kim Porterfield; Mariano Camarillo; Patty Eason; Ray Lopez; Rebecca Viagran; Richard Gambitta; Ross Milloy; Sandy Nolte; Sheryl Cole ; Sid Covington; Tommy Adkisson; Tullos Wells; Will Conley Cc: Joe Black; Sarah Matthews Subject: LSRD: Staff Report on Activities in Nov. and Dec. 2014 Lone Star Rail District Board, I sent the following report on LSRD's activities in Nov. and Dec. 2014 to the Alamo Area COG to be included in the Alamo Area MPO agenda packet. I'm providing the report to each of you for your information and use in your own jurisdictions as appropriate. Lone Star Regional Rail Project: The federal environmental process is underway. LSRD and its consultant team are developing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the future LSTAR passenger line, passenger rail stations, and the proposed freight rail bypass. Early key milestones are public and agency scoping meetings. Six public scoping meetings will be held throughout the corridor in January. The meeting schedule is posted on the Rail District website (www.LoneStarRail.com) and on the project website (eis.LoneStarRail.com). Additionally, agency scoping meetings will be held in Austin and San Antonio. On December 4 the Rail District held a WebEx with federal, state, and local agencies to launch the agency scoping process. The purpose was to provide potential cooperating and participating agencies with an overview of the Lone Star Regional Rail Project and to present the preliminary statement of need and purpose. Staff continues to work with LSRD's local jurisdictions to develop local funding agreements for annual operations - and -maintenance (O&M) costs of the LSTAR passenger service. Currently the Rail District has interlocal agreements (IAs) in place with San Marcos, Austin, and Austin Community College District (ACCD). In December ACCD approved an IA with a participation rate of 50% of the future growth increment in the transportation infrastructure zones (TIZs) within its jurisdiction. In December the City of Austin amended its earlier agreement to also set its participation rate at 50%. Several IAs are in progress including agreements with Georgetown, Schertz, New Braunfels, and Kyle. Staff also continues to work with City of San Antonio staff. Staff is working with closely with Union Pacific on rail traffic controller (RTC) modeling. The RTC model is critically important: it will identify infrastructure needs in the existing UP right-of-way to support both local freight service and LSTAR passenger service, it will help ensure LSRD doesn't overbuild or underbuild the system, and it has the potential to save millions of dollars in capital costs and O&M costs. The model is also the tool that will determine the footprint of the LSTAR line for the EIS and it will provide the foundation for refining the cost estimates. Lone Star Rail District Board: 1. The Executive Committee met on Friday, November 7, via conference call at locations in San Antonio, New Braunfels, San Marcos, and Austin. The Committee approved contract amendments to continue work on freight rail negotiation services and website services. They also received progress reports on the EIS and on joint planning efforts with Union Pacific. 2. On November 7, after the Executive Committee meeting, LSRD and the Austin -San Antonio Corridor Council hosted a legislative luncheon in New Braunfels. Hays Co. Commissioner Will Conley chaired a panel of U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, Rep. Drew Darby, Rep. Doug Miller, Rep. Donna Howard, and Rep. Eddie Rodriquez who previewed the upcoming 2015 legislative session and the opportunities for transportation funding, including the Rail Relocation Fund. 3. The Board of Directors met on Friday, December 5, at the San Marcos Activity Center. The Board approved an approach with educational institutions to begin discussions on discount programs for students, faculty, and staff; received Committee reports and staff reports on the Lone Star Regional Rail Project, interlocal funding agreements, and planning activities with Union Pacific. The also received reports from TxDOT's Rail Division on the status of high- speed rail projects and from Chris Shields on state legislative issues. 4. In December Austin Community College District (ACCD) voted to become a member of the Rail District. ACCD will appoint a representative to the Rail District Board in January or February after the new ACC Board is seated. As always, if you'd like to discuss any of the items above, please contact me at 512-589-2709. Thanks much, Alison Alison M. Schulze, AICP LONE STAR RAIL DISTR/CT P.O. Box 1618 San Marcos, TX 78667 512.558.7367 512.589.2709 (cell) www.LoneStarRail.com Click here to report this email as spam. City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City of Georgetown to participate in an interlocal agreement with Region 16 Education Service Center for the purpose of participating in an interlocal joint and cooperative purchasing program -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown has the general legal authority granted by the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791 Texas Government Code to access the contracts of other government agencies available through local, regional and state cooperative purchasing programs. The purpose of this agreement is to authorize the City of Georgetown to participation in a joint and cooperative purchasing agreement with Region 16 Education Service Center ("ESC 16") through their TexBuy program, which would be highly beneficial to the City through savings realized. ESC 16 has established contracts and agreements through competition as prescribed by the laws of the State of Texas, and will have the ability to share such contracts and agreements under this interlocal agreement. Staff believes participation in this program will produce cost and administrative savings. Adoption of resolution will enable the City of Georgetown to realize the real benefits in terms of dollar savings and in the ability to maximize use of available resources. There is no cost to establish this interlocal agreement, and any purchase from a contract awarded by ESC 16/TexBuy exceeding $50,000 will be presented to City Council for consideration and approval. COMMENTS Purchases from any contract awarded by ESC 16/TexBuy exceeding $50,000 will be presented to Council for consideration and approval. ATTACHMENTS Interlocal Agreement Exhibit A Resolution to establish Interlocal Agreement with ESC 16 FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact results from entering into the Interlocal Agreement, and financial benefit is anticipated from savings associated with the use of ESC 16/TexBuy contracts. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement Interlocal Agreement Exhibit A Interlocal Resolution INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT for Participation in the Region 16 ESC Statewide Cooperative Purchasing Program Contracting Parties: City of Georgetown, Texas School District/Governmental Entity AND Region 16 Education Service Center Texas Education Code § 8.002 charges regional education service centers to provide services to enable school districts to operate more efficiently and economically. In order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of purchasing operations, the Region 16 Education Service Center ("ESC 16") and City of Georgetown, Texas] School District/Governmental Entity (the "Entity"), collectively referred to as "the Parties," enter into this Interlocal Agreement. I. Creation of the Cooperative Purchasing Program ESC 16, by this Agreement, agrees to serve as the sponsoring entity of a cooperative purchasing program (the "Program") in conjunction with the above -named Entity and any other entity legally entitled to enter into the Program, which executes a similar agreement. The purpose of the Program shall be to obtain substantial savings for participating school districts and other governmental entities through executions of economies of scale and through seeking vendors on a regional, state, and nationwide basis. 11. Authority Authority for the services provided under this Interlocal Agreement is granted under Government Code, Chapter 791, Subchapters A, B, and C; and Local Government Code, Chapter 271, Subchapter F, §§ 271.101 and 271.102. III. Termination This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") is effective upon final execution by ESC 16 and shall automatically renew annually unless either party gives sixty (60) days prior written notice of non -renewal. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either party upon (60) days prior written notice, or may also be terminated for cause at anytime upon written notice stating the reason for the termination and the effective date of such termination; however, the terminating party agrees to give the #484411 Page 1 of 4 affected party a thirty (30) day period to cure any identified breach. The terminating party further agrees to make any required payment to a vendor incurred during the time the party was a member of the Program. IV. Duties and Roles A. Role of the ESC 16 as Program Sponsor: (1) Provide for the organizational and administrative structure of the Program as Program Sponsor, by either using internal assets or through contracting with a third party to provide such matters. (2) Provide staff time necessary for efficient operation of the Program. (3) Provide for the initiation and implementation of activities related to the bidding and vendors selection process. (4) Provide members with procedures for ordering, delivery, and billing of goods and services available through the Program. B. Role of the Entity: (1) Commit to participate in the Program by taking all action necessary to authorize the execution of this agreement in the appropriate space below. (2) Designate a contact person for the Program who will act under the direction of and on behalf of the Entity. (3) Commit to purchase products and services that become part of the official products and services list when it is in the best interest of the member Entity. (4) Prepare purchase orders issued to the appropriate vendor from the official award list provided by the Program. (5) Accept shipments of products ordered from vendors in accordance with standard purchasing procedures. (6) Pay vendors in a timely manner for all goods and services received. (7) Pursue any disputes regarding the quality or quantity of a vendor's goods and/or services directly with that vendor. V. General Provisions A. The Parties agree to comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations in connection with the Program contemplated under this Agreement. This Agreement is subject to all applicable present and future valid laws governing such Program. B. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Texas and the Parties agree that venue shall be in the county in which the central administrative offices of ESC 16 are located. #484411 Page 2 of 4 C. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties hereto with respect to the matters covered by its terms, and it may not be modified in any manner without the express written consent of the Parties. D. If any term(s) or provision(s) of this Agreement are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. E. The Parties to this Agreement expressly acknowledge and agree that all monies paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid from budgeted available funds for the current fiscal year of each such Entity. F. The Parties agree that payments made through this Agreement fairly compensate the performing party for any services or functions performed. G. Before any party may resort to litigation, any claims, disputes or other matters in question between the Parties to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation. H. Nothing contained in this agreement prohibits a Party from either creating other purchasing cooperatives or participating as a member of other purchasing cooperatives. I. No Party to this Agreement waives or relinquishes any immunity or defense on behalf of themselves, their directors, officers, employees, and agents as a result of its execution of this Agreement and performance of the functions and obligations described herein. J. This Agreement may be negotiated and transmitted between the Parties by means of a facsimile machine or e-mail and the terms and conditions agreed to by such means are binding upon the Parties. VL Authorization ESC 16 and the Entity have entered into this Agreement to provide cooperative purchasing opportunities to public schools and other governmental entities and the governing boards of such entities delegate to the superintendent or chief executive officer of the Entity the discretion to determine that making purchases through the program provides the best value to the Entity. This Agreement was approved by the governing boards of the respective Parties at meetings that were posted and held in accordance with state law, including Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, commonly known as the Texas Open Meetings Act. VII. Non -Discrimination Clause It is the policy of ESC 16 and the Entity not to discriminate on the basis of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, or handicap in its programs, services, or activities as #484411 Page 3 of 4 required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The individuals signing below are authorized to do so by the respective parties to this Agreement. Entity By: Authorized Signature MAYOR Title Date JIM BRIGGS Entity Contact Person ACTING CITY MANAGER Title of Contact 113 E. 8Tn STREET Street Address GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 City, State Zip 512-930-3647 Contact's Telephone Number trina.bickford@georgetown. org E-mail Address ESC 16 By: Authorized Signature CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Title Date ANDREW PICKENS ESC 16 Contact Person DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING Title of Contact 5800 BELL STREET Street Address AMARILLO, TX 79109 City, State Zip 806-677-5040 Contact's Telephone Number andrew.pickens@esc 16.net E-mail Address Please send two signed original Interlocal Agreements to Region 16 ESC, Attn: Andrew Pickens, Director of Purchasing, 5800 Bell Street, Amarillo, TX 79109-6230. Upon execution, a signed original will be returned to the Entity Contact Person listed above. #484411 Page 4 of 4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT for Participation in the Region 16 ESC Statewide Cooperative Purchasing Program Contracting Parties: City of Georgetown, Texas School District/Governmental Entity AND Region 16 Education Service Center Texas Education Code § 8.002 charges regional education service centers to provide services to enable school districts to operate more efficiently and economically. In order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of purchasing operations, the Region 16 Education Service Center ("ESC 16") and City of Georgetown, Texas] School District/Governmental Entity (the "Entity"), collectively referred to as "the Parties," enter into this Interlocal Agreement. I. Creation of the Cooperative Purchasing Program ESC 16, by this Agreement, agrees to serve as the sponsoring entity of a cooperative purchasing program (the "Program") in conjunction with the above -named Entity and any other entity legally entitled to enter into the Program, which executes a similar agreement. The purpose of the Program shall be to obtain substantial savings for participating school districts and other governmental entities through executions of economies of scale and through seeking vendors on a regional, state, and nationwide basis. 11. Authority Authority for the services provided under this Interlocal Agreement is granted under Government Code, Chapter 791, Subchapters A, B, and C; and Local Government Code, Chapter 271, Subchapter F, §§ 271.101 and 271.102. III. Termination This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") is effective upon final execution by ESC 16 and shall automatically renew annually unless either party gives sixty (60) days prior written notice of non -renewal. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either party upon (60) days prior written notice, or may also be terminated for cause at anytime upon written notice stating the reason for the termination and the effective date of such termination; however, the terminating party agrees to give the #484411 Page 1 of 4 affected party a thirty (30) day period to cure any identified breach. The terminating party further agrees to make any required payment to a vendor incurred during the time the party was a member of the Program. IV. Duties and Roles A. Role of the ESC 16 as Program Sponsor: (1) Provide for the organizational and administrative structure of the Program as Program Sponsor, by either using internal assets or through contracting with a third party to provide such matters. (2) Provide staff time necessary for efficient operation of the Program. (3) Provide for the initiation and implementation of activities related to the bidding and vendors selection process. (4) Provide members with procedures for ordering, delivery, and billing of goods and services available through the Program. B. Role of the Entity: (1) Commit to participate in the Program by taking all action necessary to authorize the execution of this agreement in the appropriate space below. (2) Designate a contact person for the Program who will act under the direction of and on behalf of the Entity. (3) Commit to purchase products and services that become part of the official products and services list when it is in the best interest of the member Entity. (4) Prepare purchase orders issued to the appropriate vendor from the official award list provided by the Program. (5) Accept shipments of products ordered from vendors in accordance with standard purchasing procedures. (6) Pay vendors in a timely manner for all goods and services received. (7) Pursue any disputes regarding the quality or quantity of a vendor's goods and/or services directly with that vendor. V. General Provisions A. The Parties agree to comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations in connection with the Program contemplated under this Agreement. This Agreement is subject to all applicable present and future valid laws governing such Program. B. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Texas and the Parties agree that venue shall be in the county in which the central administrative offices of ESC 16 are located. #484411 Page 2 of 4 C. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties hereto with respect to the matters covered by its terms, and it may not be modified in any manner without the express written consent of the Parties. D. If any term(s) or provision(s) of this Agreement are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. E. The Parties to this Agreement expressly acknowledge and agree that all monies paid pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid from budgeted available funds for the current fiscal year of each such Entity. F. The Parties agree that payments made through this Agreement fairly compensate the performing party for any services or functions performed. G. Before any party may resort to litigation, any claims, disputes or other matters in question between the Parties to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation. H. Nothing contained in this agreement prohibits a Party from either creating other purchasing cooperatives or participating as a member of other purchasing cooperatives. I. No Party to this Agreement waives or relinquishes any immunity or defense on behalf of themselves, their directors, officers, employees, and agents as a result of its execution of this Agreement and performance of the functions and obligations described herein. J. This Agreement may be negotiated and transmitted between the Parties by means of a facsimile machine or e-mail and the terms and conditions agreed to by such means are binding upon the Parties. VL Authorization ESC 16 and the Entity have entered into this Agreement to provide cooperative purchasing opportunities to public schools and other governmental entities and the governing boards of such entities delegate to the superintendent or chief executive officer of the Entity the discretion to determine that making purchases through the program provides the best value to the Entity. This Agreement was approved by the governing boards of the respective Parties at meetings that were posted and held in accordance with state law, including Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, commonly known as the Texas Open Meetings Act. VII. Non -Discrimination Clause It is the policy of ESC 16 and the Entity not to discriminate on the basis of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, or handicap in its programs, services, or activities as #484411 Page 3 of 4 required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The individuals signing below are authorized to do so by the respective parties to this Agreement. Entity By: Authorized Signature MAYOR Title Date JIM BRIGGS Entity Contact Person ACTING CITY MANAGER Title of Contact 113 E. 8Tn STREET Street Address GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 City, State Zip 512-930-3647 Contact's Telephone Number trina.bickford@georgetown. org E-mail Address ESC 16 By: Authorized Signature CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Title Date ANDREW PICKENS ESC 16 Contact Person DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING Title of Contact 5800 BELL STREET Street Address AMARILLO, TX 79109 City, State Zip 806-677-5040 Contact's Telephone Number andrew.pickens@esc 16.net E-mail Address Please send two signed original Interlocal Agreements to Region 16 ESC, Attn: Andrew Pickens, Director of Purchasing, 5800 Bell Street, Amarillo, TX 79109-6230. Upon execution, a signed original will be returned to the Entity Contact Person listed above. #484411 Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND REGION 16 SERVICE CENTER FOR PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM; DESIGNATING THE PURCHASING MANAGER, AS OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN RELATING TO THE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code authorizes an interlocal agreement between the City of Georgetown ("City") and Region 16 Service Center ("Region 16"); and WHEREAS, Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code authorizes a local government to participate in a Cooperative Purchasing Program with another local government or local cooperative organization; and WHEREAS, a local government that purchases goods and services pursuant to a Cooperative Purchasing Program with another local government satisfies the requirement of that local government to seek competitive bids for the purchase of the goods, services and materials; and WHEREAS, the City and the Region 16 desire to enter into a Cooperative Purchasing Program which allow each party to purchase goods and services under each other's competitively bid contracts pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: Section I. The Terms and conditions of the interlocal agreement, attached as Exhibit A, having been reviewed by the City Council of the City of Georgetown and found to be acceptable and in the best interests of the City of Georgetown and its citizens are hereby in all things approved. Section II. The City Manager of the City of Georgetown, under the direction of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, is hereby designated to act for the City of Georgetown in all matters relating to the Purchasing Cooperative Interlocal Program with Region 16 including the designation of specific contracts in which the City of Georgetown desires to participate. Section III. This resolution shall become effective from and after its passage. DULY PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF 20 ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Dale Ross, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation GTEC): Consideration and possible action to amend the 2014/15 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) Budget for projects with remaining funding and approval from 2013/14 -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: The projects listed below have previous approval for funding within the GTEC Budget; have had GTEC Public Hearings.but due to the timing of the capital projects and other related expenditures, now need to be rolled forward into the 2014/15 GTEC budget. This is a routine annual item to adjust capital project budgets due to timing. GTEC 2014115 - Roll forward - $ 3,059,000 • FM 1460 - $1,500,000: The acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM1460 Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive). • Southwest Bypass - $820,000: The construction of approximately 1/3 miles of 2-lane interim roadway with bridges from Leander Road to its intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension. • Snead Drive - $739,000: The widening of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way, including appurtenant waste water improvements. COMMENTS This budget amendment was approved at the GTEC board on January 21, 2015. ATTACHMENT Exhibit A FINANCIAL IMPACT: The funding for these projects were projected to have been spent last year and were not, therefore actual year end fund balance was higher than projected. This entry does not impact the projected 2014/15 GTEC Budget fund balances. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A EXHIBIT A Roll Forwards 2014/15 Annual Budget Amendment Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance - prior year approved projects $ TXDOT Reimbursement revenue - 90% of allowable expenses Expenditures - project timing ROW - FM 1460 SW Bypass - 2243 to IH 35 Snead Drive Excess revenue over expenditures Total Budget Amendment (1,709,000) (1,350,000) 1,500,000 820,000 739,000 $ 0 $ (3,059,000) L:\Division\finance\Share2\AGENDA\2015\MuniAgenda\07 Jan 27\06 GTEC Rollforward\2015 BA Rollforward Exhibit A-GTEC City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution to submit an Application for Flood Protection Planning Grant to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and authorizing the Mayor to sign -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ITEM SUMMARY: In 2014, the City was awarded a grant from the TWDB for flood protection planning of all the city's major watersheds except the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River. The reason for their exclusion was the fact that the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River watershed boundaries extend far outside of Georgetown's regulatory limits. Staff is requesting permission to submit an application under the TWDB's most recent Request for Applications for Flood Protection Planning. Similar to the previously awarded grant, the terms would require a 50150 match between the applicant and the TWDB. In this instance, the City of Georgetown would be co - applicants with the City of Liberty Hill, the City of Leander, and Williamson County. All three entities have agreed to participate in the grant application with the intention of sharing the required match based on each entity's proportional watershed area. If awarded, an interlocal agreement between entities as well as funding would be considered in next year's (FY 16) annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 9, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the TWDB Flood Protection Planning grant application for the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City of Georgetown's proportional share of the required match, based on watershed area would be approximately $200,000. If the grant is awarded, these funds can be programmed through our normal CIP process. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright ATTACHMENTS: Resolution TWDB Request for Applications RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, ("City') Authorizing the submittal of an application to the Texas Water Development Board for a Flood Protection Planning Grant WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) published a request for applications for flood protection planning, pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §355.3, in November 2014; and WHEREAS, the TWDB offers grants to political subdivisions of the State of Texas for the evaluation of structural and non-structural solutions to flooding problems with consideration of flood protection need of the entire watershed(s); and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, has the authority to apply for a grant, enter into a contract and participate in a study with the Texas Water Development Board for this planning grant program; and WHEREAS, the proposed planning study would be conducted in order to adequately evaluate the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River and the watersheds located within and outside the City of Georgetown. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: 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 further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policies. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown finds it to be in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown to submit an application to the Texas Water Development Board for potential grant funds to conduct a fold protection planning study. SECTION 3. The City of Georgetown will commit local matching funds of $200,000 cash and in -kind services toward the regional study. SECTION 4. The mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary is authorized to attest thereto, on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Resolution # Page 1 of 2 TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant January 27, 2015 This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption Resolved this the ATTEST: day of January, 2015. Jessica E. Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Resolution # TWDB Flood Protection Planning Grant January 27, 2015 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Dale Ross, Mayor Page 2 of 2 : Texas Register http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=R&app=... «Prey Document Next Document>> Texas Register AGENCY Texas Water Development Board ISSUE 11/07/2014 ACTION Miscellaneous Request for Applications for Flood Protection Planning The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) requests, pursuant to 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §355.3, the submission of applications leading to the possible award of contracts to develop flood protection plans for areas in Texas from political subdivisions with the legal authority to plan for and abate flooding and which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Protection Planning Grant applications may be submitted by eligible political subdivisions from any area of the State and will be considered and evaluated. In addition, applicants must supply a map of the geographical planning area to be studied. Description of Planning Purpose and Objectives. The purpose of the Flood Protection Planning Grant Program is for the State to provide financial assistance to local governments to develop flood protection plans for entire major or minor watersheds (as opposed to local drainage areas) that provide protection from flooding through structural and non-structural measures as described in 31 TAC §355.2. Planning for flood protection will include studies and analyses to determine and describe problems resulting from or relating to flooding and the views and needs of the affected public relating to flooding problems. Potential solutions to flooding problems will be identified, and the benefits and costs of these solutions will be estimated. From the planning analysis, feasible solutions to flooding problems will be recommended. The flood protection planning study should also include an assessment of the environmental and cultural resources of the planning area as necessary to evaluate the flood control alternatives being considered. Solutions for localized drainage problems are not eligible for grant funding. Description of Funding Consideration. Up to $900,000 has been initially authorized for Fiscal Year 2015 assistance for flood protection planning from the TWDB's Research and Planning Fund. Up to fifty percent of the total cost of the project may be provided to individual applicants, with up to seventy-five percent funding available to areas identified in 31 TAC §355.10(a) as economically disadvantaged. In the event that acceptable applications are not submitted, the TWDB retains the right to not award contract funds. Deadline, Review Criteria, and Contact Person for Additional Information. Six double -sided copies on recycled paper and one digital copy (CD) of a complete Flood Protection Planning Grant application including the required attachments must be filed with the TWDB prior to noon, 12:00 p.m., February 25, 2015. Applications can be directed either in person to Mr. David Carter, Texas Water Development Board, Stephen F. Austin Building, 1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas or by mail to Mr. David Carter, Texas Water Development Board, P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-3231. Applications will be evaluated according to 31 TAC §355.5. All potential applicants can contact the TWDB to obtain these rules and an application instruction sheet. Requests for information, the TWDB's rules and instruction sheet covering the research and planning fund may be directed to Mr. Gilbert Ward at the preceding mailing address, or by email at gilbert.ward@twdb.texas.gov or by calling (512) 463-6418. This information can also be found on the Internet at the following address: http://www.twdb.texas.gov. TRD-201404980 : Texas Register http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=R&app=... Les Trobman General Counsel Texas Water Development Board Filed: October 24, 2014 Next Page Previous Page Re -Query Register Database Back to List HONIE I City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersection Improvements in the amount of $79,955.06 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is developing plans for the West Side Service Center near the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road. In conjunction with those plans, the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road requires upgrades for operations and safety of the intersection and to accommodate anticipated traffic growth. Previously, the City had engaged the firm of Kimley-Horn Associated, Inc., to conduct a signal warrant study for this intersection; the study determined that a signal was warranted at the intersection. The City proposes to engage the firm of Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, (KHA) for professional services for developing construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the proposed work to the intersection, inclusive of geometric and signal improvements. KHA proposes to provide these services in the amount of $79,955.06 for PS&E. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends the proposed Task Order KHA-15-001 based upon an acceptable scope of services for the project. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 9, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order KHA-15-001 with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc., of Austin, Texas, to provide Final PS&E services for the Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road Intersections Improvements Project in the amount of $79,955.06. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP Financial Analysis Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Project Budgetary Worksheet Proposed Task Order KHA-15-001 CDBG - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: Williams Dr @ Jim Hogg Rd 213W 12/31/2014 Intersection Improvements Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 80,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting (KHA-15-001) 79,955.06 79,955.06 100% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 79,955.06 79,955.06 Approved ULNLKAL LLUULK AGGUUN I NUMtSLK L;r tsuaget 660-9-0580-90-156 Westside Facility 80,000.00 Total Budget 1 80,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 80,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 0.00 79,955.06 79,955.06 100% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 1 79,955.06 1 79,955.06 Comments: Project to PART OF THE Westside Service Center project. Not part of the CDBG Grant TASK ORDER Task Order Task Order No. KHA-15-001, consisting of 17 pages. In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition, dated November 18, 2011, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: K 3. Specific Project Data A. Title: Intersection and Signal Improvements for Williams Drive at Jim Hogg Road. B. Description: Prepare construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate for the intersection improvements and traffic signal installation for Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road, inclusive of bidding and construction administration activities. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 100-5-0846-52-809 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-718-MSA Services of Engineer As shown in Exhibit B — Scope of Services. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: As Described in Exhibit C — Services to be Provided by the City 4. Times for Rendering Services As shown in Exhibit E — Project Schedule 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Basic Services Lump Sum $79,955.06 (See Attached Fee Schedule) TOTAL FEE S79, 955.06 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Paee 1 of 4 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. C. See attached Exhibit D — Man Hours and Fee Estimate for additional information. 6. Consultants: The Wallace Group — Surveyor 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None Exhibit A — Location Map Exhibit B — Scope of Services Exhibit C — Services to Be Provided By The City Exhibit D — Man Hours and Fee Schedule Exhibit E — Project Schedule 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective November 18, 2011. Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 — Task Order Form Paee 2 of 4 TASK ORDER Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is OWNER: City of Georgetown Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary 2015. ENGINEER: Kimley Horn, Inc. By. V4", Name: Andy VanLeeuwen Title: Senior Vice President Engineer License or Firm's Certificate No. F-928 State of: Texas /soDate: Z I q APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator STATE OF TEXAS § CORPORATE COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day of . (,°n��'� , 2014, Andy VanLeeuwen personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] — � ) Notary Public AAREN LOGAN GRIMES My Commission Expires Notary Public, State of Texas h= My Commission Expires March 08, 2016 D-Q[(D Georgetown —Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Pate 3 of 4 Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative For Task Order: Designated Representative For Task Order: Name: Bill Dryden Name: Brian Van De Walle, P.E., PTOE Title: Transportation Engineer Title: Associate Address: P.O. Box 409 Address: 10814 Jollyville Road Georgetown, TX 78627 Avallon IV, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78759 E-Mail: Bill.Dryden_na .,georgetow-n.org E-Mail: brianvandewallegkimley-hom.com Phone: (512) 930-8096 Phone: (512) 418-1771 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Fax: (512) 418-1791 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright (02004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment I — Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 G ttE Irvier, Loop 0 N T 7 r. C a[ N �C a O � O Q C C ti O Ow.EU l •y `O " a m 2 Ql V G AP NorOWestBt�d Dr° O--- N v t GPM CL � 8: a- o .o i M o a N O L yrl� v `�ea 611�M' 'ca E O 4 c Q E ; wea F`0 G rt+ 3a� > o O s L tll iU Q E 4qd W = 0 1O Y J ♦ N ++ V � � v rn M L 1� = U � E Y GT v MR d . U • 3 A O 7 O kA Q `m U E oa U Kimley>>> Horn December 11, 2014 EXHIBIT B Scope of Services Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signal Design Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road SCOPE OF WORK OVERVIEW Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) will provide design plans, specifications, estimates, and bid documents for intersection improvements and a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in Georgetown, Texas. The following assumptions pertain to this Scope of Work: The signal design will consist of a mast arm pole installation with VIVDS detection. An empty conduit will be provided for future connection to the City fiber network. ■ A left turn lane will be constructed on Jim Hogg Road from the intersection to the proposed City Service Center driveway as part of the Base Bid. Two alternate bid items will be included in the plan set, for 1) the construction of a turning roadway for eastbound Jim Hogg Road and 2) construction of an acceleration lane along Williams Drive for right turning traffic from eastbound Jim Hogg Road. Both alternatives will include provision for bicycle traffic travelling southbound along Williams Drive. ■ Base drawings for the intersection will be based on record drawings provided by the City of Georgetown and survey data collected by The Wallace Group. A One -Call Utility locate will be issued to field verify all marked utilities. ■ Signal design will be based on TxDOT standards and specifications. Roadway design will be in accordance with the City of Georgetown standards and specifications. ■ Signal plans will be prepared in accordance with the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). ■ Bid Documents will be based on standard contract material provided by the City of Georgetown. Kimley»>Horn Exhibit 8 December 11, 2014 Page 2 ■ Federal funds will not be used in the construction of these projects. ■ This site is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed that an exception will be obtained. TASK 1.0 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Project management spans the entire duration of the project and involves monitoring and coordination of services provided to the City to assure timely and efficient completion of the project. Included in this task are project control and scheduling, documentation, reporting requirements, staff forums, meetings, and quality control. Subtask 1A. Documentation Surveying notes, reports, technical memoranda, status reports, invoices, and other correspondence relevant to the project will be summarized and turned over to the City at the conclusion of the project. Subtask 1 B. Reporting Requirements Monthly status reports will be prepared and submitted to the City as part of the invoice, describing the services provided. Subtask 1 C. Meetings Project review and project specific technical meetings will be conducted under this subtask. Unless otherwise stated herein, it is assumed that all Project review meetings will be held at the City of Georgetown's Engineering Department offices. It is agreed for budgeting purposes that one kickoff meeting, one field review meeting, one PS&E review meeting and one technical meeting will be held relative to the Project. Subtask 1 D. Project Coordination The Engineer will coordinate data collection and design efforts with City staff. The Engineer will prepare up to three exhibits and attend up to two meetings for utility coordination. Kimley»>Horn Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 3 TASK 2.0 BASE MAPS, AND SPECIFICATIONS ASSEMBLY This task includes the collection and organization of data by the Engineer for use in other tasks of this project. The specific type, quantity and other requirements of the data to be surveyed, collected, reduced, and/or organized by the Engineer are described in the following subtasks. (a) KHA will assemble applicable design standards and specifications from the City of Georgetown and TxDOT. (TxDOT 2004 Standard Specifications.) (b) KHA will gather available existing record drawings and design file information of the Project from City files. (c) KHA will perform a field reconnaissance of the intersection to determine existing pavement widths, lane configurations, traffic control devices, and above ground utility locations. (d) KHA will hire a surveyor to collect data on existing utilities, pavement, and traffic control devices for 300 feet in either direction along Williams Drive, 400 feet along Jim Hogg to the east and 100 feet along Jim Hogg to the west. (e) KHA will prepare a base map of existing geometrics, utilities, and traffic control devices, from record drawings and site reconnaissance. TASK 3.0 PRELIMINARY PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS KHA will prepare preliminary traffic signal designs for the project locations. The basic design parameters will be based on discussions with the City and applicable TxDOT standards. Using the base maps from Task 2.0, KHA will prepare a conceptual layout showing the locations of the controller cabinet and signal poles. The conceptual layout will be utilized in a field review meeting with City staff and the electric utility provider. Adjustments will be made based on field conditions. Following the field review meeting, KHA will produce, provide internal quality control/quality assurance for, and submit preliminary plans to the City for review and comment. The anticipated sheets to be prepared and submitted are: (a) Title Sheet; (b) Project Layout; (c) Typical Sections; (d) General Notes; Kimley»>Horn (e) Quantity Estimates; (f) Plan and Profile (3 Sheets)*; (g) Traffic Control Plan (3 Sheets)* (h) SW3P (i) Cross Sections (50 foot intervals)**; (j) Signing and Pavement Markings (3 Sheets)*; (k) Existing Conditions; (1) Signal Layout; (m) Signal Elevations; (n) Conduit Run and Wiring Summaries; (o) Phasing and Detection Schemes; and (p) Preliminary detail sheets. Exhibit 8 December 11, 2014 Page 4 * 1 Base Bid Sheet and 2 Alternate Bid Sheets ** Cross Sections will be in the form of a secondary informational packages and not part of the construction plans. KHA will submit specifications and special specifications for inclusion in the bid documents to the City for review and comment. Task 3 deliverables will include: Preliminary Plans. KHA will provide three (3) paper copies, on 11" X 17" paper, to the City. Following receipt of construction as built markups from the contractor, one (1) set of reproducible record drawings will be provided to the City. TASK 4.0 FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATES Following the review meeting described in Subtask 1(c), KHA will produce the final plans, specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and bid document package. Final plans and specifications will be submitted to the City. Task 4 deliverables will include: Final Plans. KHA will provide three (3) paper copies, on 11" X 17" paper, and an electronic copy, to the City. Following receipt of construction as built markups from the contractor, one (1) set of reproducible record drawings and an electronic copy will be provided to the City. Kimley»>Horn Exhibit B December 11, 2014 Page 5 Final Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. KHA will provide three (3) copies to the City. TASK 5.0 EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE EXCEPTION REQUEST This project is located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Under this scope, KHA will prepare and submit a request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a project exception due to the limited size and scope of this project. If a Recharge Zone Water Pollution Abatement Plan Application is required, it will be considered as additional services and reimbursed on an hourly basis. Any fees required with or for submittals to TCEQ will be paid directly by the City. TASK 6.0 BIDDING ASSISTANCE KHA will provide the following bid assistance items: (a) Prepare bidding documents based on the standard City format. (b) Provide a Sharefile site for prospective bidders to download and print the plan sets and bid documents. (c) Prepare the Notice to Bidders and submit to the City for advertising. (d) Issue addenda and respond to bidding Requests for Information (RFIs) as required. (e) Attend one pre -bid meeting, attend the bid opening, prepare a tabulation of bids, and prepare a letter of recommendation for award of the contract. (f) Prepare the contract documents for execution by the contractor, receive and review such documents for completeness, and forward to the City for review and execution. The deliverables under this task will include: Preliminary Bid Documents. One (1) unbound set will be provided to the City, along with a PDF copy. Kimley»>Horn Exhibit 8 December 11, 2014 Page 6 Final Specifications. One (1) set of reproducible originals and one (1) bound copy will be provided to the City. TASK 7.0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING PLANS KHA will develop signal timing plans for the intersection that are coordinated with the existing plans along Williams Drive. KHA will use existing traffic counts from 2013 to develop signal phase times. KHA will obtain existing timing plans for the intersections of Williams Drive and Dell Webb Boulevard, Woodlake Drive, Wildwood Drive, and Shell Road. KHA will update the 2012 Synchro models for Williams Drive with existing timings and extend the model to the Jim Hogg Road / Williams Drive Boulevard intersection. KHA will use the updated Synchro models to determine signal plan offsets for green band progression along Williams Drive. No new traffic counts will be conducted under this task. The deliverables under this task will be signal timing plans at the intersection of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive for the morning, noon, afternoon and weekend. TASK 8.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES KHA will provide the City with the services during construction listed below, which are only related to the civil improvements designed under this contract for one phase. The City will administer all construction contracts. KHA will: (a) Make periodic visits to the project site, at intervals appropriate to the various stages of construction as KHA deems necessary, in order to observe the progress and quality of the civil aspects of the work of the construction contractor. Based on KHA's site visits, KHA will inform the City as to the progress of the work and advise the City of any substantial defects and deficiencies in the work of the contractor which are discovered by KHA, or are otherwise brought to KHA's attention. (b) Attend one (1) pre -construction meeting with the City, Contractor, or other members of the project team. Additional meetings, if required, will be invoiced on an hourly basis. (c) Consult with and advise the City and issue instructions to the contractor on civil engineering items requested by the City. Kimley»>Horn Exhibit 8 December 11, 2014 Page 7 (d) Conduct, in company with City staff, a final inspection of the traffic signal facilities of the project for conformance with the design concept of the project and in general compliance with the Contract. (e) Provide Engineer's concurrence letter to the City indicating that the traffic signal and median modification -related portions of the project were constructed in general conformance with the construction plans and specifications. KHA shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by the Contractor or the safety precautions and programs incidental to the work of the Contractor. KHA shall not guarantee the performance of the Contractor nor be responsible for the acts, errors, omissions, or the failure of the Contractor to perform the construction work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City agrees to include in all construction contract provisions for Contract indemnification of both the City and KHA for Contractor's negligence and to name both the City and KHA as additional insured on applicable contractor's insurance policies. Kimley>>> Horn December 11, 2014 EXHIBIT C Services To Be Performed By The City Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signal Design Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road SCOPE OF WORK OVERVIEW Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) will provide design plans, specifications, estimates, and bid documents for intersection improvements and a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Williams Drive and Jim Hogg Road in Georgetown, Texas. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY A. Provide a project coordinator to work with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) during the development of the project. B. Provide example plans for City formatting preferences. C. Provide GIS layers with City utility locations for each of the intersections. D. Provide plat and site plan information for surrounding properties, if available. E. Provide example Bid Documents and specifications for City formatting preference. F. Provide available as -built plans showing the location of storm sewer, water lines, and wastewater lines. G. Provide City specific detail sheets for traffic signals, where applicable. H. Provide existing signal timing plans at the intersections of Williams Drive and Dell Webb Boulevard, Woodlake Drive, Wildwood Drive, and Shell Road. I. Provide utility contact information. J. Provide timely review of submittals. M CD U0 f- N W 0 Wf-- to m pOp O 1- m to co co co to n cp N m N_ 0 M N 00 r- m O m CD O O M O 0 O I- I� V I� [I- r N h N n N� n r r O 00 y0 O F U V w m 0 M to p 0 Cl) N m M� I- w m co m M (p co N (O m V If7 m M v ' m N In v O N� r V3 M I� V) V) 7 N V) 63 V3 V) 6F3 OD V3 V) U7 V3 (.) V3 V) V) V) V) V3 C p O O co ci O O � C O O N O N Ci m m Cl) o 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m OD 00 OD ID OD 00 N 0O W a0 W OO OO OO OO ll7 M r - O V3 V) CO V) V) V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 d! (L` a m c0 Ifi f-- C', W 0 cO m cO m O m O 1- co m co N N N cO 0 co w co O N U O N m N O m N a0 I� n m O m O m In m O m O p m 6 m ni 0 V W I- m 6 N V O m 0 0 0 m O m O m O m In m (O 0 7 d O O M m (O N CO O m m (p co M O c0 V. 0 m v m V WO p a j U J V V3 0) co O O0 10 M m V3 I,- V) m M V3 (M N r N V3 N m V3 m V3 10 V3 cO M M V m V M N V3 In V3 O I� N U3 Vi V3 V) V) V) V) V) V3 V) V3 V) V3 V) V3 V) N m j O O O O O O O O o 00 0O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 M N fO m M cO (O N m cO l0 M N N m m 00 (O M I� cq p J 2 11 ,n m c V U �� C� O O a I-- U Q 5 N .O U O O O d Q o ai v m d o (D C O O O O 0 O 00 O CDO 00 00 o 0 0 0 o O HN m M V ui M N 7 N �R 4 00 4 00 cO 7 V O0 W c Va a)o a�i O o p o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 m In O O O N N — N N O d w ii m d v 3 d LO c o 0 0 0 0 0 o p 'm m o m v v v v (O N Q' W Vi m m m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R N c M W o M M r (O O M N - O cq N @ a1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a7 O aS O a7 O a n n M co co Y N m 0 cc Y 0 � w O ELL y LL O Ui U) N (n O n Z a m m Z O C Z C 0 ca . 3 mQ LU y 4)C a) m Y N E F '(� O U v p m w m N V) r o LL t-pCO a)daE)z c Y U U a> c wE w w o a> Jn cc a ai c E fl y o o6 c dZ 5 m-m U0 LU CO N m Q Um Z_y n a)J W m 0 Cn ' jN UCN(L a-m V O (D 0 .2jO N d 0 N cc aL% O O a)O 2 2 a w Q iDa a ai U i n i a oW Ua a o d d a aN od rn s •y- xm E 0m 0 LL r ' in J ' in J = U) J 92 x a a 3 It 7 7 M V 7 V V V V( o Lo Lo co O a0 0 OM MRr ca N O O N Ih O (n f� N N f� N f� 'L.t O A 06 06 M M W M O p F U M M (p N M N 0 V l!') V (O 7 (D - f� W M V ;� � ' (O (o (Of-- co O� V N h � cfl 61> cA efl 6-, eA eq. eA �('� � V:3 EA _ � N 60 M fA V3 EA EA EA EA C cc � N � c U CD m c0 (n c0 0 O 0 c0 0 (O to 0 (o 0 0 O O c c 7 o V o 7 V 00 vi M v 7 V 7 7 7 7 7 (n M N - o e» f» e» i» e» A. e» is� e» to e» i» « � a` a O O p (o co CD w N V V (0 V (0 co c0 co c0 V OOD V � p 7 aD n U O 0 O o O N g l0 q (O O 0) q (O q LO O 0 Cl) o M g cn o M rn O rn O rn Lci rn O rn cfl o M N LL 06 00 M ao • o M ao 00 ry) d O M M (p Cl) N co I� O M V LL� V LL') h f— Cl) f.. V (o 7 to 03 f— W M V r- co c0 co co (o M (o f- Un V coM n Co U O J N cA cA cA cH W O O N V) O fa V:3 VJ Vfl VJ N Gq cA _ O N Ef) M EA 6" EA 6" Ul EA EA p O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O IDO O Co0 O� O� N (n 00 M M 1�2 V V (n N M lh 0 )n (n M 00 N 11 m c V U N O O N O — O M ¢ U64 N .O U a Q o rn a`, o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HN OD a0 V V a0 V V V N N N V M V V 00 N V W = to N 0 C .� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N a N N N N a = w in m d v 3 c L o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N V N N N N N V N N 06 a' W t» O .LD m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CDO O W M N — r M y � N @ a1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O OV 7- � N OV F (A y W 7 W �a is N W a a a Z a Y ¢ ~ U ~ G y X m N W O ~ W Q t O LL y C N m O u m W 7 = Z ~ W L E w OU @ N E Q Q N @ Of (o Eu U W @(c(ci W n (D 0) C 4) J U O a NC W O O (D Q O W @ N co C CL 'E z ' i U O) NQ� O N oE J°0W ai ) a ¢ c J H H J y `m c@ Z a M u= m m' v J H H G@° E W Q a m m a U) o rn rn rn 0 La c z m m Q a"i o 0 aitmin LL a F C7 O a U iA cn co 0 0 y LL z z a m U @ a o •o a) Cf L •- x- £ c o c. Cd@ a W m a — > li F 7 y J 7 y J 7 y J 7 U) J 3 N C (D E d 0 `o. o U (D c O IA O U) O IA r� O a 0 I,- co (o O to Cl) 'ITO N CO T N c N 7 0 0 oD CO l[) CD O 0 w M 00 O to O O O to U7 00 7 oD O O wO M oD 7 N O U) p F 0 a0 U) M O (o (D CO N N Cq W N M O n W w M U7 0 I,- M n I� OD O U) V Co O (O M N V> Efl EA Ef> co EA V) v> V) N N 00 fA V> fA 60 EA cs fH cs (f) O O C co � � O O � O C U� N M 7 It N V N aD m U) (P Q) (o O V O mN N r N co O N N 07 (A ce EA GS � M EA CT O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O 0 - O O W V> (O EA W fA O EA W fA O fA O V> O V) O (A O ce O ul 7 N a` a m 0 0 0 (o y � O CD CD I- CDV CDI� N Co C.Co r- o) U O ; U) 7 U) V U, 7 oD N to V O M U) 7 oD I� 6 d) CD O CD 6) CD a0 n fl W O CO O O) O W U) a0 Q) U) 00 d d O N N 'It to M N o M m co O o N N a0 M O (y (a ❑ J U U7 O a? w V> h Q9 w EA O n V> a0 co Ef> U7 V> I- EA n EA W N - N � O- N K> (O N EA H> EA fA � EA EA EA ER EA � � m_a O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O CD O > 0 O r V 6 66� O V V M � S O W O) � M Lo J V m C V U E W O O O O m a (n v v W ci U Q I-- N 'O U O d Q o rn d o E c o 0 o O O O 0 0 0 ri n ri ri N W C (s> a`) o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 7 V W N N N co U7 N N a w v> m d v 3 d n o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 13, coO (Oo - N - - M (o N 7 M (ri (a (o W (» co .LDm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (n w N a0 CO U) (O N V m O T H> N C O Co N d L M o m m m O O O a n a Y O > Q m £ Y a + U E E ° o z x g U)M v O LL U) c X d c N Y U O. O J N z y ¢ O E o 2 0. aa)) U) E Q O m x 2 LL W a 7 O H d z 0 J `O '� v U) W 0 H p � a ur y U Q N m a) 0) ❑ O W LL m o O m m a) a C7 rn o 2 LL O) a a) 2 W ❑ f/i U N O C N D U a) N O LL O) C Z _N N CO N H C q p_ N 0 , C E O> 'V O J (n O Z .O m U Q X�~ C (n y O. 7 a) C Q ❑ U U Q co O E O Go am N N N d 0. N ZN OO m0. (Qn LLLLpCQLLdLL ❑0 OLLLLU m V m a o v m rn r m,0 n o o as o o d m N 0 £ o £ T 3 T LL F J y J y o x W J W U cn H U W 0 a Li H m_ 2 X W U) c 0 co U 0 c 0 U N O L c (0 c J O N001BOU000 E CL O ADDID00001 N Fi, H H a! N 'HHHr d a 0 � N L 11,11 Q � N � N � N W O s a� c O O M Z O m U CL K LU O r_ O mvyO V A N C FL Y a% M U Q: V : N CL c� N E 0 LL N L s y L" O m c L O L (I� ° In>. co " � U 3 O O c O N T N Cl) m <G 1- 00 1 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a Task Order with BWM Group for professional services related to the design of the Williams Drive Pool renovation in the amount of $77,975 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: Renovations to Williams Drive Pool were identified as a need by the Parks and Recreation Board Aquatics Subcommittee in 2012 and were included as a priority in the Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by the Parks Board in the 2013/14 budget process. Williams Drive Pool is the only public 50 meter pool within 45 miles. It is also the most attended outdoor pool in the City and is highly utilized by the neighborhood as well as local swim teams including Aquadillos, Texas Gold and high schools. Williams Drive Pool was built in 1978 and there have been several improvements to the park during the last 37 years. However, the park is currently in need of more substantial renovations. One of the primary reasons for renovation identified by the Parks Board is to provide ADA accessibility. This need was also identified in the City's ADA Transition Plan adopted by City Council in 2014. The renovation project was planned for in two phases to minimize disruption to the public and users groups. Phase one included planning, public input and an opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC). This process was utilized to develop a strategy for physical development of the park. Input was gathered from the Parks Board, General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee (GGAF), staff and the public through this process and will be completed in mid -January. The second phase includes the design and construction phase services. The approval of BWM Group will allow the project to seamlessly transition into this phase. This phase is scheduled to be completed in August to allow construction to begin after the pool season ends in September 2015. The funding for the renovations is included in the approved 2014/2015 Budget in the Parks Capital Improvement Plan. It is funded by Certificates of Obligation that are scheduled to be issued in May. The expected renovations are scheduled to be complete in May 2016. Input from August 12th Council Workshop noted the need to renovate the existing park in the short term but requested staff to investigate alternative locations for the facility as part of a long term plan. Finding an alternative location for a new 50 meter pool will be included in the City's facilities plan. A possible future location may be the Westside Park. However, staff will continue to investigate additional options that could be accommodated in the next 10 years. Construction of a new facility including a 50 meter pool will cost between $3.5 million and $4.5 million not including land acquisition and currently has no funding source. The land for Williams Drive Pool was dedicated as parkland in perpetuity in 1978 when the City was awarded a grant from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to build Williams Drive Pool. The land could be sold, but would have to go through a conversion with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, This can be accomplished, but it is a lengthy process. The design team is taking the possibility of relocation into consideration in design elements for the renovations. Additionally, the possibility of partnering with users groups for specific amenities was discussed during the public input process. Staff will continue to explore this possibility through phase two as the design develops. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved this item at their January 8, 2015 meeting. Staff is recommending approval of BWM Group for design services of Williams Drive Pool in the amount of $77,975. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This item was funded with cash in 2013/14. The budget for this item was approved in 2013/14 and is posted to be rolled forward in 2014/15 as part of tonight's agenda. SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Task Order Williams Drive Pool Master Plan UNME9192 YIPNNING 41MSGME 0.9041ERVRE CWLiYLM,t FN4WFEPIN6 !4C${6NCY$ project #15001 ATTACHMENT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES Approach Statement The purpose is to provide professional design services for Williams Drive Pool Improvements to facilitate • Demolition existing pool deck, restroom and (1) basketball court • New pool deck • Party pavilion • Equipment storage • Pump enclosure • Poolhouse • Parking lot • Regulatory compliance (ADA/TDLR, TCEC6. City, etc.) 1.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES — ARCHITECTURE Schematic Design Phase Based on the Client's program, schedule and budget requirements, the Consultant shall prepare, for approval by the Client, Schematic Design Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to generally describe the size and character of the Project. • Concept Floor Plans o Overall plans showing arrangement of rooms and fixed building elements o Room Sizes Labeled - • Identify sizes in square feet of proposedimprovements o Site analysis with a solar azimuth and altitude chart • Detail Plans o Concept Elevations o Up to two concepts included as needed • Code Search o International Building Code o Local Codes and Ordinances Design Development Phase Based on the Client's program, schedule and budget requirements, the Consultant shall prepare, for approval by the Client, Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate. • Floor Plans o Internal and external dimensions for "hard fix" o Floor, slab and level elevations; o Typical door types; o Typical partition types o Building core element well worked out with dimensions o Equipment and built-in furniture items - indication only and keyed to design requirements • Detail Plans o General Elevations o Sections o Details o Interior Elevations o Reflected Ceiling Plans o Schedules o Specifications 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas. 78664 512.238.8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg i of 9 III III I LZTA project #15001 o Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Design Development Set o Structural Design Development Set Construction Documents Phase Based on the approved Design Development Documents and any further adjustments in the scope or quality of the Project or in the construction budget authorized by the Client, the Consultant shall prepare, for approval by the Client, Construction Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifications setting forth In detail the requirements for the bidding/proposals and contracting for the construction of the Project. The construction documents shall include the following: • The Consultant shall assist the Client in the preparation of the necessary bidding/proposal information, bidding/proposal forms, the Conditions of the Contract, and the form of Agreement between the Client and Contractor. • The Consultant shall advise the Client of any adjustments to previous preliminary estimates of Construction Cost indicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions. • The Consultant shall assist the Client in connection with the Client's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Construction Phase After the receipt of bids/proposals, the Consultant shall render the following limited services in connection with the Project for which a construction contract is awarded: • The Consultant's responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with the award of the initial Contract for Construction and terminates at the earlier of the issuance to the Client of the final Certificate for Payment or 60 days after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. • The Consultant, as a representative of the Client, shall visit the site at Intervals appropriate to the stage of the Contractor's operations or as otherwise agreed by the Client and the Consultant in the EXECUTION section, (1) to become generally familiar with and to keep the Client informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, (2) to endeavor to guard the Client against defects and deficiencies in the Work and (3) to determine in general if the Work is being performed In a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Consultant shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. The Consultant shall neither have control over or charge of, nor be responsible for, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor's rights and responsibilities under the Contract Documents. • The Consultant shall at all times have access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. • Communications by and with the Consultant's subconsultants shall be through the Consultant. • Certificates For Payment o The Consultant shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. o The Consultant's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Client, based on the Consultant's evaluation of the Work as provided in this Section and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that, to the best of the Consultant's knowledge, information and belief, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3)to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Consultant. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Consultant has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on -site Inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78b64 512:238.8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg 2 of 9 ZI project #15001 (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Client to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. The Consultant shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples; but only for the limited purpose of checkingfor conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The Consultant's action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay In the Work or in the activities of the Client, Contractor or separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the Consultant's professional judgment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or systems, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents. The Consultant's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Consultant, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Consultant's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. If professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment are specifically required of the. Contractor by the Contract Documents, the Consultant shall specify appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. Shop Drawings and other submittals related to the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor shall bear such professional's written approval when submitted to the Consultant. The Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications or approvals performed by such design professionals. The Consultant shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives, with supporting documentation and data, if deemed necessary by the Consultant, for the Client's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and may, with the concurrence of the Client, authorize minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the ContractTime which are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. The Consultant shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion: shall receive from the Contractor and forward to the Client, for the Client's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Consultant shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance of the Client and. Contractor under, and requirements of, the Contract Documents on written request of either the Client or Contractor. The Consultant's response to such requests shall be made in writing within any time limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness. 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512.238.8912 p www.PLACEdesi9ners.com pg 3 of 9 94 project #15001 2.1 Civil Engineering • Project Mobilization, Design Survey, and Geotechnical coordination o Review. all existing site documentation provided by client, including survey, geotechnical & traffic reports (if available). o Participation in project kick-off meetings with the client and City. o Preparation of project approval schedule. o Review site development planning and review for compliance with City development codes. o Deliverables: • Site concept plan review comments • preliminary City meeting • coordination meeting with Owner • design survey Preliminary Site Development Plan o Overlay the proposed concept plan onto the existing survey. Prepare conceptual utility layout and grading. o Coordinate proposed site plan with the architectural plans & local codes o Deliverables • Master Concept Site Plan Construction Documents and Permitting o Prepare site development plans, including site layout, grading, utilities and drainage plans. o Prepare signage plans, transportation plans, erosion & sediment control plans o Prepare engineering report, including utilities, drainage and landscape compliance. o Prepare construction bid documents, details and specifications. o Provide project representation for City meetings. o Coordination for dry utilities (gas, electric, tel, cable) o Deliverables: • Construction Documents • Site Lighting Plan • Site Layout Plan • Drainage Report • Site Utility Plan • Site Erosion & Sediment Control Plan • Site Grading Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Water Pollution Abatement Plan or Exception Construction Phase After the receipt of bids/proposals, the Consultant shall render the following limited services in connection with the Project for which a construction contract is awarded: o The Consultant's responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with the award of the initial Contract for Construction and terminates at the earlier of the issuance to the Client of the final Certificate for Payment or 60 days after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Consultant, as a representative of the Client, shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of the Contractor's operations or as otherwise agreed by the Client and the Consultant in the EXECUTION section, (1) to become generally familiar with and to keep the Client Informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, (2) to endeavor to guard the Client against defects and deficiencies in the Work and (3) to determine in general if the Work is being performed in amanner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Consultant shall not be required to make 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512.238.8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg 4 of 9 a project #15001 exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. The Consultant shall neither have control over or charge of, nor be responsible for, the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor's rights and responsibilities under the Contract Documents. o The Consultant shall at all times have access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. o Communications by and with the Consultant's subconsultants shall be through the Consultant. o Certificates For Payment • The Consultant shall review and certify the amounts due the Contractor and shall issue certificates in such amounts. • The Consultant's certification for payment shall constitute a representation to the Client, based on the Consultant's evaluation of the Work as provided in this Section and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that, to the best of the Consultant's knowledge, information and belief, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject (1) to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, (2) to results of subsequent tests and inspections, (3) to correction of minor deviations from the Contract Documents prior to completion and (4) to specific qualifications expressed by the Consultant. • The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the Consultant has (1) made exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other data requested by the Client to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. The Consultant shall review and approve or take other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The Consultant's action shall be taken with such reasonable promptnessas to cause no delay in the Work or in the activities of the Client, Contractor or separate contractors, while allowing sufficient time In the Consultant's professional judgment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals Is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or systems, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents. The Consultant's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, unless otherwise specifically stated by the Consultant, of any construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Consultant's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. If professional design services or certifications by a design professional related to systems, materials or equipment are specifically required of the Contractor by the Contract Documents, the Consultant shall specify appropriate performance and design criteria that such services must satisfy. Shop Drawings and other submittals related to 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512,238.8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg 5 of 9 T project u15001 the Work designed or certified by the design professional retained by the Contractor shall bear such professional's written approval when submitted to the Consultant. The Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the services, certifications or approvals performed by such design professionals. • The Consultant shall prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives, with supporting documentation and data, if deemed necessary by the Consultant, for the Client's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and may, with the concurrence of the Client, authorize minor changes In the Work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time which are consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. • The Consultant shall conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion: shall receive from the Contractor and forward to the Client, for the Client's review and records, written warranties and related documents required by the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor; and shall Issue a final Certificate for Payment based upon a final inspection indicating the Work complies with the requirements of the Contract Documents. • The Consultant shall interpret and decide matters concerning performance of the Client and Contractor under, and requirements of, the Contract Documents on written request of either the Client or Contractor. The Consultant's response to such requests shall be made in writing within anytime limits agreed upon or otherwise with reasonable promptness. 2.2 Landscape Architecture • Develop landscape portion of the site development submittal. The landscape planting plan will include calculations for compliance with current landscape codes and ordinances identifying turf zones, planting zones, and required trees along with performance specifications, notes and details to satisfy permitting requirements. Method of irrigation, details and specifications will be included as part of this phase as necessary to satisfy permitting requirements. 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512238.8912 p www.PLACEdesiuners.ccm pg 6 of 9 0 project #15001 3.0 Exclusions to Scope of Services (Additional Services) Basic services include architectural, civil engineering, landscape design, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services, as defined by the following items. Should Consultant be required to provide services in obtaining or coordinating compilation of this information, such services shall be charged as Extra Services. Consultant assumes no responsibilities for the accuracy of such information or services, may rely on the accuracy of such information, and shall not be liable for errors or omissions therein, • Soils investigations and/or engineering • Re-zoning/Platting • Environmental and Archeological Studies other than TCEQ permit requirements Backflow Prevention Off -site Utility Approach Mains, improvements, or roads Irrigation Design Signage Design Any utility approach mains and site electric, communications, or data. Deliveries and over -night mail services Regulatory Agency Fees Traffic Impact Analysis (Study/Report) Dry utilities including electrical, telephone, cable, data, fiber, etc outside the building footprint. In the event that the design process is put on hold by the Client/Contractor in excess of 90 days, when the design process is reinitiated, the Consultant will invoice for remobilization time at a rate equal to 10% of the phase of services currently in progress. Any items not included in the scope of services of this agreement Final Deliverables Digital PDF copies of all Construction Documents Including drawings and specifications Meetings Meetings are defined as a physical meeting at a physical location, telephone conference call in lieu of a meeting, web conference meeting, or any other medium where two or more persons review and discuss design decisions forthe project. This does not include telephone conversations or emails for the purpose of data and information gathering through the process. 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512.238,8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg 7 of 9 IV AR u15001 ATTACHMENT B: FEE SCHEDULE 4.0 Fee Schedule Services described above shall be provided for the fixed sum as listed below in accordance with the terms and conditions in "Attachment A" attached hereto and which is incorporated and made per of this Agreement by reference. Professional Fees Task 1.1 Architecture Schematic Design To be provided at fixed sum ......................................... Design Development To be provided at a fixed sum .................................... Construction Documents Phase To be provided at a fixed sum ................... Bidding I Negotiations To be provided at afxed sum ................................. Construction Phase Services. To be provided of elated sum .......................... TDLR Submission and Review To be provided at afxed sum ...................... Mechanical I Electrical I Plumbint Engineering ................................... Structural Engineering....... Subtotal ..................... Task 2.1 Civil Engineering .................. $2,500.00 �.................. $4,000.00 ................... $6,600.00 ......... I............ $850.00 ... I... I ... ........ $2,500.00 ................... $1,800.00 ................... $2,500.00 ...... I... I........ $1,650.00 ......................... $20,600.00 Project Mobilization To be provided at afxed sum.....................................................:....... $6,500.00 Preliminary Site Development Plan To be provided at afxed sum ................ ................. .$10,875.00 Construction Documents and Permitting To be provided at a fixed sum ........................ $24,575.00 Construction Phase Services To be provided at ofixed sum ............................................... $6,525.00 Subtotal............................................................................................................................. $48,475.00 Task 2.2 Landscape Architecture To be provided at o fxedsurn ..................... ............................... $3,600.00 TotalContract...................................................................................................................... $74,475.00 Reimbursable Cap Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed without Client Authorization ......................... $3,500.00 The fees quoted assume no change in scope of the project or basic services. 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512.238,8912 p www.PLACEdesigners.com pg 8 of 9 WIMEMAIM project #15001 Hourly Rates These apply to supplemental services beyond the scope of services description Principal: ................................... ... ... ...... .. .. ... .......................... - . ................. ............ $ 150.00/hr. Professional Architect I Engineer: ........................................................... ................. .......... $ 135.00/hr. ProjectManager: ........................................... .................... .................... ....................... $ 125.00/hr. ProjectEngineer: ...................... ............................................ .......................................... $ 100.00/hr. Designer: ....................................................................... ..... _ ....... ....................................... $ 100.00/hr. Senior CAD Technician: ............ ......................................................... .............................. ...... $ 95.00/hr. CADTechnician:....................................................................................................................... $ 85.00/hr. Administrative...........................................................................................................................$ 75.00/hr 304 East Main Street Suite 100 Round Rock, Texas 78664 512.238,8912 p W .PLACEdesigners.com pg 9 of 9 WILLIAMS DRIVE POOL CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR CITY OF GEORGETOWN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 00101111 -006" 4 BOOTY'S CROSSING RO c� as w 0 w 0 w 0 A* .,r AD 0 LU A&s I All information furnished regarding this property is from sources deemed reliable. However, BWM Group has not made an independent investigation of these sources and no warranty or representation is made by BWM Group as to the accuracy thereof and same is submitted subject to errors, omissions, land plan changes, or other conditions. This land plan is conceptual in nature and does not represent any regulatory approval. Land plan is subject to change. 7 PROPOSED PARKI 64 TOTAL (36 EXISTING 28 ADDED) 19 (EXISTING-RESTRIPED) LAKEWAY DRIVE w ' 0 , ..ram. T OE OE OE OF Ll Of- r POOL PROPERTY ELEMENTS 1 POOL DECK 2 POOL HOUSE 3 BASKETBALL COURT (EXISTING) 4 PAVILION 5 SHADE STRUCTURES (EXISTING) 6 ENCLOSED STORAGE I LANE MARKERS 7 PUMP ENCLOSURE LEGEND x LIGHT POLE POWER POLE - OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE CHAIN LINK FENCE -%---�-% --- WOOD FENCE • c B W M G RO U P a PLACE designers company www.placedesigners.com December 24, 2014 0 10, 20' 40' NORTH City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action directing the Interim City Manager to respond to proposed legislation that would provide Jonah Water Special Utility District with the option of electing its board of directors by district instead of at -large -- Jim Briggs, City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: Jonah Water Special Utility District is sponsoring a local bill in the upcoming legislative session that will provide Jonah Water SUD with the option of electing its board of directors by district instead of at -large. Representative Larry Gonzales is willing to file the legislation on behalf of Jonah Water SUD, but has requested that surrounding cities be contacted concerning objections to the bill. Jonah Water SUD has requested that the City Council consider the proposed legislation and approve sending a letter of non - opposition. Staff recommends that the City of Georgetown remain neutral concerning this matter and that the Council authorize the City Manager to respond accordingly. ATTACHMENTS: Letter dated December 22, 2014 from John J. Carlton, General Counsel for Jonah Water Special Utility District proposed bill. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None known. SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Letter dated December 22, 2014 from John J. Carlton, General Counsel for Jonah Water Special Utility District proposed bill. The Carlton Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78746 Phone: (512) 614-0901 Facsimile: (512) 900-2855 John J. Carlton jol2ti@carltonIowaustill.com Mr. Jim Briggs Interim City Manager City of Georgetown 113 East 8th Street Georgetown, Texas 7/ 8626 Ms. Bridget Chapman (��Jtv_ALto_me-,A P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Re: Jonah Water Special Utility District draft legislation relating to the qualifications and method of electing directors of the Utility District Dear Mr. Briggs and Ms. Chapman: I have enclosed a copy of draft legislation that Jonah Water Special Utility District ("Jonah") wishes to pursue in the upcoming legislative session. As I have previously discussed with Ms. Chapman, this legislation is a local bill that will provide Jonah with the option of electing its board of directors by district instead of at -large. The Texas Constitution requires that notice of this legislation be published in the paper before it can be introduced, but Jonah wanted to ensure that the City of Georgetown was fully aware of the legislation before having it introduced. Jonah has been working with Representative Larry Gonzales, and he is willing to file this legislation on Jonah's behalf. However, he has asked that Jonah reach out to the surrounding cities to make sure they have no objections to the proposed legislation. To that end, Jonah would appreciate it if the Georgetown City Council would take up this proposed legislation at a council meeting and approve a letter to Representative Gonzales stating that they have no opposition to Z:1 the bill. If you have any questions, please contact me. I will be happy to attend any meetings with City staff or Council members in order to provide additional information about the legislation. I look forward to working with you on this matter. The Carlton Law Firm, P.L.L.C. Page 2 Sincerely, Jolu-t J. Carlton Jonah Water Special Utility District gm� Ey. No . .N ACT 2 relating to the qualifications and method of electing directors of 3 the Jonah eater Special Utility Lrl.strict. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEG St,.ATURE OF THE STATE OF T]EX S: 5 SECTION 1.. Subtitle C, Title 6, Special District Local Law 6 Code, is amended by adding Chapter 7218 to read as follows- 7 CHAPTER 7218. JCaNAH WATER SPECIAL UTTLI Y DISTRICT SU.8CRAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 33 Sec. 7218 � 001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter-. 10 t 1 "Board" means the board slr- directors of the r1 dist.x 1.2 (2) "Director" means a member of the board. 13 (3) "Dist ict" wens the Jonah Water Seca.ai t'tility i5 SUBCHAPTER B. BOARD OF DTRECTORS ld Sec. 721 1. COMPOSITION BOARD. The district is 17 averred 4 .a board eE nine direst=ers. 18 Sec. 7218.052. DIRECTOR ELrt1.TBILITY, TO be eli ible to be 19 listed on the ballot as a candidate fox or to s�r�e as a director, a Eta ar sin rant be 21 (1) a resident of the CUistrict; and 22 ( a. retail dater: or seer sexvice customer of the 23 district, 24 Sec- 721.E.. 053. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS FROM SINGLE -MEMBER I WSTRICTS. (a) The board by rule may pioviAde 'Ar, "the election of 2 some or all of the dixe.-Toxs Ram single-membei distAxts. „a (.b) In addition to i ne lc" l_tficat ons required by Section 1 from a s°tY'gle !E?.eiabe.r district, 8 d 3 st r i.c:% a SECTION 2. The changes in law made b-y Sections 7218.052 and 10 7218.053, special District r ic.t ,ve`..a Laws Code, as aided by this Act, do Q not affect the entitlement of sa member serving on the board of 12 directors of the Jonah water Special utility District immediately 3 before the effective date of this Act to continue to carry out the 24 board's fuactions a.oi'< the remainder cinder of the iateS':`ber is term. The 15 changes in law apply ..lax.y to d member elected on or after 3,.'ahe 1 effective date of this: ct;, This Act does net prohibit a person sti.fao 17 is a member of t_he:, board on the ef f ective date of his Act from being 18 reelected to the board i„4 the person has the qualifications 19 iecpAxed for a member under Sections 718.0"12 and 218.053, Special 0 District ict; Local Laws Code, as added by this Act. 21 SECTION 3. 1.at The legal notice of the intention e$..;:ion to 22 intn'a"o'duce. this Act, setting forth the general substance of this 23 „tea':t l'A.a.sbeen published as provided b4' law, and "i,',he notice and 2 24 copy of this Act have been furnished to all persons, agencies, G officials, or entities to which they e'ti' are xequiied to be furnished 26 umdex Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, and Chapter 313, 27 Government Code. . f 'I`i?e governor, one of the required recipients, has 2 submitted the notice and Act to the Texas Commission on 3 Friviy onme"nt.r_a:l Quality. (c) The Texas Commission can Environmental Quality has filed d its recommendations rebating to this Act with the governor, the 6 lieutenant governor', and the speaker of the house of representatives within the required time. €? (d) All requirements of the constitution and laws of this 9 state and the rules and pxocedures or the legislature with xespect 10 to the notice, introduction, and passage of this ,act: axe fulfilled 'r ane accomplished. 12 SECTION 4. This Act takes effect Septenaak 1, 21 � 84 I 3 2 PMtO-F 3 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Contract for Professional Architect Services with Architectural Design Group, Inc. (ADG) for the Public Safety Training and Operations Facility to delete Building Commissioning from the Scope of Services and to deduct the amount of $80,640 from the Contract -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Wayne Nero, Chief of Police ITEM SUMMARY: The Contract includes services for Building Commissioning. Building Commissioning is being deleted from the Scope of Services because it is no longer deemed beneficial to the Project. The Contract Amendment will deduct $80,640 from the Architect Contract. The funds will be returned to the Project Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Contract Amendment No. 2 Contract for Professional Architect Services Contract Amendment No. 1 (previously approved) FINANCIAL IMPACT: This action will result in $80,640 being returned to the Project Budget. SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Contract for Professional Architect Services Contract Contract Amendment No. 1 (Previously approved) Proposed Contract Amendment No. 2 This Contract for Professional Architect Services (Contract) is entered into on this the day of � , 2 2012, by and between the Cit), of Georgetawn, — "L'A Texas, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Architect Design Group, Inc. (Architect). 1.01 The project is generally described as Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility (Project). The Architect Services (Services) required for the Project are stated in Attachments A, B, and C attached to this Contract and incorporated by reference. 1.02 The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by US arvikizrt and regulations of Chapter 1051 of the Texas Occupations Code and the rules of the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners, Architect warrants that the professional services performed or provided by under this Contract shall meet or exceed such standard of care. 1.03 Architect may employ such Consultants as Architect deems necessary to assist in the performance or furnishing of the Services, subject to reasonable, timely, and substantive objections by City. 1.04 Subject to the standard of care set forth in Paragraph 1.02, Architect and its Consultants may use or rely upon design elements and information ordinarily or customarily furnished by others, including, but not limited to, specialty contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, and the publishers of technical standards. 1.05 Architect shall at all times be an independent contractor with the sole authority to control and direct the performance of the details of the Services. Architect shall, not purport to be an employee or agent of the City and shall not have any right or power to bind the City to any obligation. 1.06 Architect shall procure and maintain at its expense all licenses and permits necessary to perform Services. Architect shall require that its employees and Consultants are ri7roperly licensed to perform their respective portion of Services. 1.07 The Services to be performed under this Contract shall be performed entirely at Architect's risk. Architect shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Services to be performed -under this Contract. Architect shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of and shall provide all reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury, or loss to employees, the Services, or the Project. All damage or loss caused in whole or in part by Architect, Consultants, or anyone employed by either of them shall be remedied by Architect. 1.08 Architect shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any court, or administrative bodies or tribunals in any manner affecting the performance of this Contract, Architect Contract - ADG Page I of 11 including, without limitation, any applicable worker's compensation laws, minimum and maximum salary and wage statutes and regulations, and licensing laws and regulations. Architect shall furnish City with satisfactory proof of compliance when required or requested. Architect shall provide and perform the Services included in this Contract for an amount not to exceed $1,983,724.00, as stated in Attachment E attached to this Contract and incorporated by reference. 4.01 Time is of the essence in performance of the Services required by this Contract, Architect shall complete all Services within a period of 105 weeks from the date of execution of the Contract. The Project Schedule is included in Attachment A attached to this Contract and incorporated by reference. City shall extend the time for performance of the Services required by this Contract if Architect's performance of Services is delayed by City or another third party who is not under the control of Arebitect. 4.02 City shall make decisions, provide requested information and otherwise communicate with the Architect in a timely manner so as not to delay the Architect's performance of Services. If Architect fails, through its own fault, to complete the Services in the Contract Time, then City shall be entitled to the recovery of damages resulting from such failure. 4.03 As time is of the essence in performance of services required by this contract, the Architect may at its discretion phase and invoice Civil Engineering service to accelerate performance. 5.01 A change in scope of Services may be initiated by the Architect or City by a proposed Contract Amendment. The Contract Amendment shall- (1) describe a change in scope, including Services to be added, changed, or deleted; (ii) state the additional cost or cost reduction; and (iii) described schedule 'changes, if any. Architect's hourly rates for additional services are included in Attac I hinent D attacbed� to this Contract and incorporated: by reference. A Contract Amendment will be effective when executed by City and' Architect. Architect shall not perform under any prospective Contract Amendment unless and until the Contract Amendment is executed by City and Architect, 5.02 If, Architect becomes aware that a proposed change may require a Contract Amendment to increase the scope of Services, request additional cost or request additional time, Architect Contract -.ADG Page 2 of 11 Architect shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) days. If Architect determines that a Contract Ameridnichi is req*u'ired as a result of the change, Architect shall initiate a Contract Amendment Mthin ten (10) days 6.01 Upon City approval of the final design and final cost estimate, Architect shall provide fifteen (15) sets of Contract Documents to City. Architect --.hall also provide to City one set of -drawings and an autocad disk copy for the Contract Documents. 6.02 City shall have. title to and ownership of all documents produced or developed M Architect in connection with this Contract and the Project (Project Documents). Proi Docurnents include plans, drawings, designs, specifications, photographs, studies, r schedules, computer programs, publications and other data and work product in any form media. City shall have sole ownership of the copyright interest 'in the Project Documents to extent that the Project Documents may be copyrighted. Architect shall deliver all documents to City at completion of the Project, termination of Services, or upon City's Architect may a copy of the Project Documents for its records. 6.03 City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the technical accuracy of Architect's Services. Architect shall correct any such deficiencies in technical accuracy without additional compensation except to the extent such corrective action is directly attributable to deficiencies in City-fin-nished information, not reasonably known or discoverable by Architect. 6.04 Architect shall maintain the confidentiality of confidential information received from the City. 7.01 Architect shall submit invoices to City by the tenth (10) day of the month following the month the Services being invoiced were performed. City agrees to pay Architect in accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 2251. Architect shall pay all Consultants and other expenses incurred in accordanceAith Texas Government Code Chapter 2251. ARTICLE 'III — INDEMNITY 8.01 GENERAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ARCHITECT AGREES TO INDEMNIFY 'AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY, ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES AND VOLUNTEERS OF AND FROM DAMAGES, INJURIES (INCLUDING DEATH), CLAIMS,. PROPERTY DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOSS OF USE), LOSSES, DEMANDS, FORFEITURES, PENALTIES, FINES, COSTS, LAWSUITS, LIABILITIES� ACTIONITS1,ANNI) CAUSES OF ACTION, AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FEES AND CHARGES OF ARCHITECTS, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS, AND Architect Contract -ADG Page 3 of11 UNAVAILABILITY OF THE INFRINGING ITEM OR ITS NONINFRINGING REPLACEWNT. 8.03 Architect's indemnity obligations are independent covenants and shall survive completion of or termination of the Contract or any claimed breach of the Contract. 8.04 City shall promptly notify Architect, in wTiting, of receipt of notice of the commencement or threatened commencement of any civil, administrative or investigative action or proceeding involving a claim for which City seeks indemnification. No failure to so notify Architect shall relie-ve Architect of its obligations under this Contract except to the extent that Architect can demonstrate damages attributable to such failure. Within fifteen (15) days following the date on LAJInchanji response to a complaint or -summons is due, Architect shall assume control of the defense and/or resolution of the claim. 8.05 Architect shall promptly notify the City, in writing, of receipt of notice of the commencement or threatened commencement of any civil, administrative or investigative action or proceeding involving a claim for which City may be entitled to indemnification. Within fifteen (15) days following Architect's receipt of notice, but no later than ten (10) days before the date on which any response to a complaint or summons is due, Architect shall assume control of the defense and/or resolution of the claim. 8.06 Architect assumes full responsibility for the Services to be performed and releases, relinquishes, and discharges the City, its elected officials, officers, directors,, agents. employees, representatives and volunteers from all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character, including the cost of defense, for any injury to or death of any person (whether employees of either Party or other third parties) and any loss of or damage to any property that is caused by or alleged to be caused by, arising out of, or in connection with Services performed under this Contract. This release shall apply regardless of whether the claims, demands and/or causes of action are covered in whole or in part by insurance, and in the event of injury, death, property damage, or loss suffered by the Architect, any Consultant, or any person or organization directly or indirectly • by any of them to perform or finnish Services under this Contract. 9.01 At all times for the term of this Contract, Architect shall procure and maintain insurance required by this Contract. Architect's failure to procure and maintain the required insurance shall be grounds for termination or suspension of this Contract. 9.02 Architect shall cause City and its elected officials, officers, directors,. employees, representatives and volunteers to be listed as an additional insured on all applicable policies carried by Architect for the Project. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officials, employees, or volunteers. The additional insured status must cover completed operations as well, and the policy covering completed work must remain in effect until the expiration of the statute of repose. Architect Contract - ADG Page � of 11 9.03 Architect must complete and forward the required Certificates of Insurance to City when Architect executes this Contrae't as verification of coverage r�,qtiired as indicated. Architect itilsuchinsuranwha.& been reviewed and approved by city. Approval of insurance by City shall. not relieve or decrease the liability of Architect and shall not be construed to be a limitation of liability on the part of Architect. Architect must also complete and forward the required Certificates of Insurance to City 9.04 Architect's insurance coverage shall be written by companies licensed and by companies with A.M. Best rating A NTIII or better. 9.05 The "other insurance' clause shall -not apply to City where City is an additional insured shown on any policy. It is agreed that the Architect's insurance shall be considered primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance carried by City. City's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made andlor lawsuits brougbt, except with respect to the limits of insured's liability. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by Citv shall be considered in excess of the Architect's insurance and shall not contribute to it. 9.06 If insurance policies are not written for the specified amounts, Architect shall carry Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance for any differences in amounts specified. If Excess Liability Insurance is provided, it shall follow the form, of the primary coverage. 9.07 City shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to receive certified copies of policies and policy endorsements and may make any reasonable requests for deletion or revision or modification of particular policy ten -as, conditions, limitations, or exclusions except where policy provisions are established by law or regulations binding upon either of the Parties or the underwriter on any such policies. 9.08 City reserves the right to review the insurance requirements during the effective period of this Contract and to make reasonable adjustments to insurance coverage, limits and exclusions when deemed necessary and prudent by City. City may request, in a Contract Amendment, that Architect and its Consultants provide additional insurance coverage, increased limits, or revised deductibles that are more protective than those specified in this Contract. Architect shall obtain and shall require its Consultants to obtain such additional insurance coverage, different limits, or revised deductibles for such periods of time as requested by City in the Contract Amendment. 9.09 Architect shall. not allow any insurance to be cancelled nor permit any insurance to lapse during the term of this Contract or as required in this Contract. The policies must contain the following language: "This policy shall not be cancelled or not renewed until after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the additional insured, the City of Georgetown." In addition, Architect shall provide Owner thirty (30) days written notice of erosion of the aggregate limits below occurrence limits for all applicable coverages indicated within the Contract. Architect Contract - ADG Page 6 of 11 9.10 Architect shall be responsible for premiums,, deductibles and self insured retention" X any, as stated in policies. All deductibles or self insured retentions shall be a Certificates of Insurarice. I 9.11 The insurance coverages required under this Contract are required minimums are not intended to limit the responsibility or liability of Architect. 1 9.12 Without limiting any of the other obligations or liabilities of the Architect, the Architect shall require each Consultant to maintain, dining the term of the Contract, the same stipulated minimum insurance including the required provisions and additional policy conditions as are required of Architect. As an alternative, the Architect may include its Consultants as addi0on?i insureds on its own coverage as prescribed tinder these requirements. The Architect's Certificate of Insurance shall note in such event that the Consultants are included. as additional insureds and that Architect agrees to provide Workers Compensation for the Consultant-, and each the Consultants' employees. The Architect shall obtain and monitor the Certificates of Insurance from each Consultant in order to comply with the insurance requirements. I'he Architect shall retain the Certificates of Insurance for the duration of the Contract plus five (5) years and shall have dwe responsibility of enforcing these insurance requirements among its Consultants. City shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to receive copies of these Certificates of Insirrance. 9.13 Architect is required to provide the following insurance coverage: A. Commercial General Liability including, but not limited to, Premises/Operations, Personal and Advertising Injury, Products/Completed Operations, Independent Contractors and Contractual Liability with minimum combined bodily injury (including death) and property damage limits of $ 1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. If the insurance is written on a claims -made form, coverage shall be continuous (by renewal or extended reporting period) for not less than 24 months following the last to occur: 1) termination of this Contract; or 2) Architect's completion, and Citys acceptance, of all Services. Coverage, including any renewals, shall have the same retroactive date as the original policy applicable to the Contract. B, Business Automobile Liability covering owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with minimum combined bodily injury (including death) and property damage 'limit of $1 ,000,000 per occurrence. C. Workers! Compensation with statutory limits. Architect shall certify in ,vriting that the Architect provides Workers' Compensation Insurance for all employees involved in the Project. In addition, Architect shall meet each stipulation required by the Texas Workers Compensation Commission. If you have questions concerning the requirements, you are instructed to contact the TID at (800) 252-3439. A Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City must be included. D. Professioral Liability with limits of $2,000,000 per claim. Deductible shall not exceed $50,000. Coverage shall be continuous (by renewal or extendei Architect Com-pact - ADG Page 7 of 11 reporting period) for not less than .24 rnonths following the last to occur: 1) termination of this Contract; or 2) Architect's completion, and City's acceptance, of all Services. Coverage., including any renewals, shall have the same retroactive date as the original policy applicable to the Contract. 9.14 Certificates of Insurance shall be prepared and executed by the insurance company or its authorized agent, and shall provide for and warrant the following: A. The insurance company is licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Texas. B. The insurance is underwritten on forms whicb have been approved by the'rexas State Board of Insurance or ISO. C. All endorsements and insurance coverage complies with the requirements and instructions required by the Contract D. The Certificates of Insurance, and all endorsements, waivers and notices shall indicate. City of Georgeto%m, 300-1 Industrial Avenue� Georgeto%rn, Texas 78626, ATTN: ContractManager. Original endorsements affecting coverage shall be furnished with the certificates of insurance. V 10.01 City has the right to terminate this Contract for convenience at any time by providing ten (10) calendar days written notice to Architect. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for convenience, Architect shall immediately cease providing Services under this Contract; and protect and maintain the portion of the Services completed, unless otherwise specifically stated in the notice. City shall pay Architect as specified in this Contract, for Services completed to the date of termination. City shall not be liable ' for special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages, for loss of anticipated future Services, anticipated profits, administrative costs or overhead on anticipated Services, or other indirect costs as a result of a termination for convenience. 10.02 City hds the right to terminate this Contract for cause in the event of Architect's substantial failure to perform in accordance with this Contract by providing ten (10 calendar days written notice to Architect. This Contract will not terminate if Architect corrects the failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice. If Architect fails to cure the default City may provide written notice of termination to Architect. 11.01 If a dispute arises under this Contract, City and Architect agree to negotiate dispute in good faith for a period of 30 days from the date of written notice of the dispute. If t Parties fO to resolve a dispute through negotiation then the City and Architect agree that thl Arehifect Contract - ADG Page 8 of I I them arising out of or r�lating:to this Contract to mediation. Either Party may initiate mediation by giving written notice of a request to mediate to. the other Party. If mediation is unsuccessful in resolving a dispute, then any and all unsettled claims.. counterclaims, and other matters in question between City and Architect arising out of or relating to this Contract may be submitted tobinding arbitration by written agreement of the Parties or (b) may be filed by either Party in a court of competent jurisdiction. 11.02 Upon City's written request, Architect shall proceed with performance of Services under this Contract pending the final resolution of a Olispute. 12.01 This Contract is to be governed by and construed in accordance with Texas law. City and Architect each submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Williamson County, Texas. City does not waive its de-fense of sovereign immunity. 12.02 This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between City and Architect and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. This Contract may only be amended, supplemented, modified, or canceled by a duly executed written instrument. 12.03 Architect and City designate the following individuals to act as Architect's and City's Designated Representatives with respect this Contract. City: Construction Manager Title gum FJEMUMIMIU� Terry.iones@georgetown.org Email Architect Contract -.4DG Page 9 of 11 Architect: Ian Reeves, AIA, Name President Title Iowa my's Ufto'-mvp r"t;4IJILSIgg 407-645-5525 Facsimile ianr@adgusa.org Email The Designated Representatives shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive information, and render -decisions relative to the,Contract Any notice required under this Contract will be in ' writing and sent to the Designated Representative by personal delivery, facsimile, registered or certified mail postage prepaid, or a commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt. The Designated Representative may be changed with written notice to the Designated Representative of the other Party. 12.04 Any pro -vision or part of the Contract held to be void or unenforceable shall deemed stricken from the Contract, and all remaining provisions of the Contract shall continue be valid and binding upon City and Architect. WMver 01 13a provision, nor snait it at Z Lne entor7cauniq M Inat of this Contract. 12.06 No presumption against City will apply in favor of Architect in the interpretation of this Contract or in resolution of any ambiguity of any provisions of this Contract 12.07 Architect may not assign or transfer any rights, duties or obligations under or interest (including, but without limitation, moneys that are due or may become due-.) in this Contract without the prior Nwitten consent of City. 12.08 There are no third party beneficiaries of this Contract. The, provisions of this Contract do not, and shall not be construed to, create any legal or equitable rift, remedy or claim enforceable by any person or entity other than City and Architect. All duties and obligations undertaken pursuant to this Contract will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of City and Architect and not for the benefit of any other person or entity. 12.09 Each Party represents and warrants that the representative executing this Contract on behalf of the Party has the full right, power and authority to execute this Contract. Architect Contract - ADG Page 10 of I I George G-4Garver, Mayor Date Signed: Brettle, , City Secretary MIM t Ian Reeves, AM, Title: President Architect License or Firm"s Certificate No ltlo)l State of- Ifths Date Signed: STATE OF FLORIDA CORPORATE COLN,TY OF C>121-A46--i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Ontbis -�5-1 dayof AAA42—c--,44- 2012, Ian Reeves personally appeared before- me and proved I&Sio-vei. this documaeatt in mv presence. SEAL G L, KETCH MY COMMSSION 4 DDS33552 03,2012 Architect Contract - ADG Page 11 of 1.1 Notan, Public, in and for tKe State. of Florida ATTACHMENT "A" Scope of Services Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, T Q #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated March 1, 2012 i � c The project is generally described as Standard Architectural/Engineering Services for the City of Georgetown's Public Safety Operations and Training Facility. This facility is anticipated to be approximately 70,000 GSF and located at the north end of DB Wood Road on approximately 15 acres, next to the City's Fire Station #5 site. The Architect will review and make recommendations relative to the data contained within the accomplished 2007 Spatial Needs Assessment, as well as the update to this study accomplished in 2010, with a focus on operational functionality and planning for future growth needs. The construction delivery system selected by the City is the Construction Manager -at -Risk delivery method. The Phases of Services are herein identified as follows: 1. Phase 1: Pre -Design Services: IA: Building Program Verification / Update IB: Master Planning IC: Site Analysis 2.1 The Architect shall provide services for the standard design phases, including construction administration, as defined in the Owner/Architect agreement, for the proposed Public Safety Operations and Training Facility. 2.2 The Architect and the Owner recognize that the requested services are of significant magnitude, scheduling and complexity, which may include the facility being developed in terms of tornado level wind protection. 2.3 Additional Services, provided concurrent with Phase I services are noted in Attachment "C", with related fees itemized in Attachment "E". 2.4 The project will be developed utilizing the standard AutoCADD delivery. This will equate to a fee distribution per phase as follows: 2.4.1 Schematic Design Phase @ 15% of the gross Standard A/E Professional Fee. 2.4.2 Design Development Phase @ 20% of the gross Standard A/E Professional Fee. 2.4.3 Construction Documents Phase @ 40% of the gross Standard A/E Professional Fee. ATTACHMENT "A" Scope of Services Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX RFQ #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated March 1, 2012 Page 2 2.4.4 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Coordination @ 5% of the gross Standard A/E Professional Fee. 2.4.5 Construction Administration @ 20% of the gross Standard AIE Professional Fee. ATTACHMENT "A" Scope of Services Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX RFQ 14201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated March 1, 2012 Page 3 Milestone events of current and future progress. The time frames noted below begin from the execution date of this contract. 1. Pre-DesiLm Services: 1.1 Building Program Verification / Update 8 weeks 1.2 Master Planning (Concurrent with 1.1) 8 weeks 1.3 Site Analysis (Concurrent with 1.1) 8 weeks 1.4 Owner Review and Comments I week 1.5 Phase Total 9 weeks 2. Standard Architectural and En2ineerinq Services: 2.1 Schematic Design 6 weeks 2.2 Owner Review and Comments I week 2.3 Design Development 10 weeks 2.4 Owner Review and Comments I week 2.5 90% Construction Documents 12 weeks 2.6 CM/Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP/Bid) 4 weeks 2.7 Owner Review and Comments I week 2.9 Final 100% Construction Documents 3 weeks 2.10 Phase Total 38 weeks 3. Contract Award and Permitting Services: 3.1 Contract Award and Permitting 6 weeks 3.2 Phase Total 6 weeks 4. Construction Services 4.1 Construction 52 weeks 4.2 Phase Total 52 weeks 5. Project Total 105 weeks ATTACHMENT "B" Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, 'TX RFQ #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated March 6, 2012 Additional Services: The owner reserves the right to authorize additional work on the part of the Architect, or consultants, through the Architects. Said work shall be related to facilities for the City of Georgetown including, but not limited to: feasibility studies, design of new facilities, additions or renovations to existing facilities, master planning and grant applications. These services are to be provided only when authorized in writing by the appropriate authority. ITR The Architect, if authorized by the owner, shall participate in a public presentation of the proposed project and shall prepare a presentation for the purposes of assisting the City in the public awareness process. 2.1 The Architect shall provide the Owner with one set of documents, of said presentation, at no additional cost to the Owner. 2.2 The Architect shall make presentations to the general public at the fixed fee to be established on a per meeting basis. Said presentations shall be attended by up to two (2) members of the Architectural Team. 3. Phasing of Architects Services: Phase I shall consist of the pre -design services to include building program verification, master planning, and preliminary site analysis. Phase II shall consist of architectural and engineering services as related to the design, GMP coordination, and construction administration of the Public Safety Operations and Training Facility. 4. Schedules Services shall be scheduled and completed within a period of 105 weeks unless extended by the City of Georgetown. City shall extend the time for performance of the Services required by this Contract if Architect's performance of Services is delayed by City or another third party who is not under the control of Architect. r!•TIE "B" Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX RFQ #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 Page 2 The Scope of Services and associated Professional Design Fees are based upon the understanding of project needs as outlined herewithin. Said services and professional fees shall be adjusted at the conclusion of Phase 1: Pre -Design Services; or as adjusted by the City as the project proceeds. Adjustments are understood to be necessary as the final construction budget is approved, and/or the facility size (square footage) is increased above 70,000 gross square feet (GSF). H:\ADMIN\JOB\875 Georgetown, TX PSF\Contract\Attachrnent B 0306.12.docx ATTACHMENT Additional Services iices Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX Q #20I217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated March 6, 2012 I. Additional Services: The Architect, or his consultants, shall provide the following additional services: 1.1 On -Site Civil Engineering: Upon acceptance of the Conceptual Site Plan, on -site civil engineering will be provided based upon a scope of work established with the City Georgetown. Work typically identified as the Scope of Services for Civil Engineering is construction falling within the property lines or within on -site easements, including paving, grading and storm -water management, and/or the relocation of existing utilities. The Professional Compensation Fees for these services shall be as noted in Attachment "E". 1.2 Landscal2e Architectural Services: Landscape Architectural Services shall be provided by a registered Landscape Architect, selected by the Architect, to provide the Scope of Services to be defined by the accepted Master Site Plan. The Professional Compensation Fees for these services shall be as noted in Attachment "E". 1.3 Professional Liability Insurance: The Design Team shall maintain, during the term of this Contract, Professional Liability Insurance as required by this Contract. As compensation for the cost of such insurance, the Client will pay the Architect a value equating to 4% of the total Architectural and Engineering fee, excluding fees for the Building Program Verification, Master Planning, Preliminary Site Analysis, and Reimbursable Expense Allowance. The Professional Compensation Fees for these services shall be as noted in Attachment "E." 1.4 Permitting Coordination Services: The Architect shall provide permitting coordination services as follows: 1.4.1 Define all permits and/or review agency requirements and provide a graphic chronological assessment. 1.4.2 Prepare and/or coordinate the permitting applications and make the submittals in a timely manner and in accordance with the schedule to be submitted by the Architect upon execution of this agreement by the Client. 1.4.3 Monitor the permitting process and provide written progress reports to the City of Georgetown. 1.4.4 The Professional Fee for permitting associated with site and facilities shall be as noted in Attachment "E". ATTACHMENT "C" Additional Services Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX Q #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 - Updated March 1, 2012 The Architect shall either have constructed a "finished" scale model or a computer rendering(s) of the facilities or the overall Master Plan, illustrating site utilization, building massing, access and egress roadways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways and stormwater retention areas. If the City selects the completed physical model, it shall be encased in a Plexiglas cover. The Professional Services Fee shall be as noted in Attachment "E". 1.6 Security Consultant: The Architect shall obtain the services of a qualified Security Consultant for services related to site and building security systems, including C.C.T.V., access/egress controls, locking devices, and site security systems. The professional fee shall be established based upon a defined Scope of Services as noted in Attachment "E". 1.7 Building Commissioning: The Architect and its Engineers, if so desired by the City of Georgetown, shall provide complete building commissioning services of the Mechanical, Electrical, and low -voltage systems facility wide including creating a commissioning plan, integrating the commission requirements into project specifications, creating functional test procedures, perform a test and balance verification, and create a training plan. The professional fee shall be as noted in Attachment "E". 1.8 Communications Consultant: The Architect shall be responsible for all services related to the coordination of the communications system(s) for this facility including, but not limited to, transfer of existing equipment, selection and bidding of new equipment, itemization of facility services required (such as electrical, mechanical equipment, etc.) and any other criteria relative to the communications systems of this facility. The professional fee for this service is as noted in Attachment "E". 1.9 Audio -Visual Consultant: The Architect shall obtain the services of an individual/Firm with expertise in audio-visual systems and, based upon a defined Scope, shall provide the Client with a proposed professional fee, as noted in Attachment "E". 1.10 ADA Consulting: The Architect shall obtain the services of an individual/Firm with expertise in ADA Compliance Reviews and, based upon a defined Scope, shall provide the Client with a proposed professional fee, as noted in Attachment "E". ATTACHMENT «D" Hourly Rates Georgetown Public Safety Operations & 'Training Facility City of Georgetown, 'TX RFQ #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 Per hour rates of the Architects, Interior Designers and other personnel are established as follows: Principals..................................................................... Studio Department Principals/Project Architects ....... Associates................................................................... Project Managers......................................................... Designers..................................................................... Computer Draftsperson I ............................................. Computer Draftsperson 11........................................... Computer Supervisor .................................................. Threshold Inspector (Certified) ................................... Construction Administrators ....................................... Specification Writer .................................................... Senior Draftsperson.................................................... DraftspersonI.............................................................. Draftsperson11............................................................ Accounting Services .................................................. Staff (Word Processor 1)............................................ Graphic Designer....................................................... Interior Design Principal ............................................ Interior Design Designer ............................................ Interior Design Specification Writer .......................... Interior Design Draftsperson I .................................... ...................................................178.00/hr. ...................................................15 8.00/hr. ...................................................132.00/hr. ...................................................13 2.00/hr. ..................................................... 79.00/hr. ..................................................... 66.00/hr. ..................................................... 5 9.00/hr. ..................................................... 86.00/hr. ..................................................... 7 5.00/hr. ....................................................102.00/hr. ...................................................... 89.00/hr. ...................................................... 79.00/hr. ...................................................... 66.00/hr. ...................................................... 59.00/hr. ...................................................... 75.00/hr. ...................................................... 4 5.00/hr. ...................................................... 6 5.00/hr. ...................................................... 9 5.00/hr. ...................................................... 70.00/hr. ...................................................... 69.00/hr. ...................................................... 60.00/hr. Note: Any changes in the above noted hourly rates, after January, 2013 shall be provided to the Owner thirty (30) days prior to said date and cannot exceed the noted rates by an amount greater than fifteen (15%) percent. ATTACHMENT "E" Professional Fee Allocation Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX RFQ #201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Updated February 23, 2012 Fee Allocation: The following is the professional fee allocation for the various services defined in Attachments "A" and "C". 1.1 Building Program Verification / Update ............................................ $ 18,660.00 1.2 Master Planning ................................................................................. $ 48,480.00 1.3 Site Analysis ...................................................................................... $ 24,240.00 1.4 Phase I Subtotal ................................................................................ S 91,380.00 2. Phase 11: Standard Architectural and Engineering Services: The Architectural and Engineering services for the referenced project are based upon an established project budget of $17,864,890.00. 1.1 Basis of Fee: Estimated Construction Value of $17,864,890.00 @ 7.35% .................................................................. $ 1,313,069.00 1.2 Reimbursable Expenses Allowance ................................................... $ 40,000.00 1.3 Phase 11 Subtotal .............................................................................. S 1,353,069.00 2. Phase 11: Additional Services: Additional Services, consisting of a variety of tasks, are itemized and described in Attachment "C" of this Agreement. The following is a summary of these services and their related professional fee allocation. flue-11-M, TASK FEE 2.1 On -Site Civil Engineering .................................................................. $ 152,420.00 2.2 Landscape Architectural Services ...................................................... $ 48,000.00 2.3 Professional Liability Insurance ........................................................ $ 67,255.00 2.4 Permitting Coordination Services ...................................................... $ 28,000.00 2.5 Facility or Site Model / Computer Renderings .................................. $ 8,680.00 2.6 Security Consultant ............................................................................ $ 52,500.00 2.7 Building Commissioning ................................................................... $ 80,640.00 2.8 Communications Consultant .............................................................. $ 48,920.00 2.9 Audio -Visual Consultant ................................................................... $ 44,360.00 2.10 ADA Consulting ................................................................................ $ 8,500.00 2.11 Phase 11 Subtotal .............................................................................. S 539,275.00 ATTACAMENT Professional Fee Allocation Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility City of Georgetown, TX RFQ 4201217 ADG Project No. 875-12 February 1, 2012 — Update February 23, 2012 Page 2 Summary : following is a summary of services to be provided as well as related expenses: 3.1 Phase IA: Building Program Verification ......................................... $ 18,660.00 3.2 Phase IB: Master Planning ................................................................ $ 48,480.00 3.3 Phase IC: Site Analysis: .................................................................... $ 24,240.00 3.4 Phase 11: Standard Architectural Services & Reimbursables ............ $ 1,353,069.00 3.5 Phase 11: Additional Services ............................................................ $ 539,275.00 3.6 Total/Estimated Professional Fees .................................................. $1,983,724.00" .1 See Attachment 'T "for conditions of services relative to changes in project size andlor project value relative to adjustment of Professional Fees. THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WIL,L.IAMSON § AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE § CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT SERVICES CITY OF GEORGETOWN § This is an Amendment ("AMENDMENT") to the Contract for Professional Architect Services ("CONTRACT") entered into on March 22, 2012, by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas home rule city, ("CITY"), and Architect Design Group, Inc., ("ARCHITECT"). WHEREAS, the City and Architect entered into an Contract on March 22, 2012 to provide, among other things, architectural and engineering design services for Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility; and WHEREAS, the City and Architect desire to amend the Contract to add the necessary design and engineering documents to facilitate permitting, bidding and construction administration for the ancillary tactical training structure of approximately 18,000 GSF in an amount not to exceed $139,954.00; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual benefits to be derived by the parties from this Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the City and Architect agree as follows: 1. Section 1.01 of the Contract is amended as follows: 1.01 The project is generally described as Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility (Project). The Architect Services (Services) required for the Project are stated in Attachments A, B, B1, and C and attached to this Contract and incorporated by reference. 2. Section 2.01 of the Contract is amended as follows: 2.01 Architect shall provide and perform the Services included in this Contract for an amount not to exceed $2,123,678.00, as stated in Attachment E and Attachment B1 to this Contract and incorporated by reference. 3. Section 12.03 of the Contract is amended as follows: Amendment to the Architectural Contract The City designates the following individual to act as the City's Designated Representative with respect to this Contract: Brenda Jenkins ECM International, Inc. 1920 Corporate Dr., Ste. 108A San Marcos, TX 78666 512-569-5616 bjenkins@ecmintl.com OR Codi Newsom CMN Consulting, LLC 600 Williams Way Cedar Park, TX 78613 512-418-6559 CMNConsultingLLC@gmail.com 4. All other terms of the Contract not inconsistent with this Amendment shall apply. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Contract remains unchanged and in full force and effect, subject to its terms. 5. This Amendment is effective as of August 2014. qh SIGNED THIS = day of 20 By-�" Dale Ross, Mayor AA1. o Je sica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 , C Bridget Chapman,ity Attorney Amendment to the Architectural Contract SIGNED THIS day of TO � A 20 (Notarized acknowledgments follow) Amendment to the Architectural Contract COUNTY OF QraNc- -) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this E4 % day of 20 by TQX\ 9-Cr-V'f5 in her/his capacity as 4c'St&-r4 for Nmwicd5 s*% C-40,j TONYA H. CRON N opa NOTARY PUBLIC STA7 I E OF FLORI[jj� GMnA. EE105964 Expir s 5/6/2015 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON Notary blic in and for the State of c)y-lk ........... W ME This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of.&��C-Tlks —, 20 by Dale Ross, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, a Texas home - rule municipal corporation, on behalf of said City. 11 F A z MA ERIN BRETTLE 11 A LiQL6 I,40-rARY PUBLIC �Lblic in anW?o State of Tex" Notarl� P. r the -201 15 -0 -0, exp, 06 State (�4 E X A S Amendment to the Architectural Contract THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE § CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL § ARCHITECT SERVICES CITY OF GEORGETOWN § This is an Amendment ("AMENDMENT") to the Contract for Professional Architect Services ("CONTRACT") entered into on March 22, 2012, by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas home rule city, ("CITY"), and Architect Design Group, Inc., ("ARCHITECT"). WHEREAS, the City and Architect entered into an Contract on March 22, 2012 to provide, among other things, architectural and engineering design services for Georgetown Public Safety Operations & Training Facility; and WHEREAS, the City and Architect desire to amend the Contract to delete Phase II Additional Services for Building Commissioning included in Attachment "C" Section 1.7 and Professional Fee Allocation for Building Commissioning in the amount of $80,640.00 included in Attachment "E" Section 2.7; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual benefits to be derived by the parties from this Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the City and Architect agree as follows: 1. The Contract is amended to delete Phase II Additional Services for Building Commissioning included in Attachment "C" Section 1.7; 2. The Contract is amended to delete Professional Fee Allocation for Building Commissioning in the amount of $80,640.00 included in Attachment "E" Section 2.7; and 3. Section 2.01 of the Contract is amended as follows: Architect shall provide and perform the Services included in this Contract for an amount not to exceed $2,043,038.00, as stated in Attachment E and Attachment B-1 to this Contract and incorporated by reference. calculated as follows: Original Contract Amount $1,983,724.00 Contract Amendment No.1 $ 139,954.00 Contract Amendment No. 2 ($ 80,640.00) Adjusted Contract Amount $2,043,038.00 Amendment No 2 to the Architectural Contract 1 4. All other terms of the Contract not inconsistent with this Amendment shall apply. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Contract remains unchanged and in full force and effect, subject to its terms. 5. This Amendment is effective as of January 27, 2015. SIGNED THIS _ day of , 20_ CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS By: Dale Ross, Mayor ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON ) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2015 by Dale Ross, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation, on behalf of said City. Notary Public in and for the State ofTEXAS Amendment No 2 to the Architectural Contract 2 SIGNED THIS day of 12015. Architect Design Group, Inc. By: Name Title: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE Ian A. Reeves, AIA President CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 2015, by Ian A. Reeves in his capacity as President of Architect Design Group, Inc. Notary Public in and for the State of Florida Amendment No 2 to the Architectural Contract City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on the Rezoning of 13.1501 acres, described as Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, located at 70 Del Webb Blvd., from the Local Commercial (C-1) district to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, Interim Planning Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested rezoning from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base zoning of Local Commercial (C-1) to allow for development of a 13-acre resort style retirement center consisting of six main buildings housing a maximum of 300 independent living units and various amenities to serve the residents of the development. To facilitate this development, the proposed PUD includes exceptions to current standards for building height and signage, but establishes standards above UDC minimums for land uses, setbacks, parking, access, and buffering. Public Comment: Two comment letters and one email have been received by owners of neighboring properties in opposition to the request (see Exhibit 4). At the P&Z public hearing on January 20th, ten people spoke in opposition of the request, citing concerns over addressing, access, traffic, building height, buffering, parking, drainage, noise, and lighting. Planning & Zoning Commission: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their January 20th meeting, recommended approval (6-0) of the requested rezoning as presented. Recommended Motion: Approval of the first reading of the ordinance to rezone Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat from C-1 to PUD. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner, and Sofia Nelson, Interim Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Exhibits 1 & 2 - Zoning & Future Land Use Maps Exhibit 3 - Aerial Map Exhibit 4 - Public Comment Ordinance & Ordinance Exhibits A-B Ordinance Exhibit C - PUD Development Plan & Conceptual Land Plan Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: January 15, 2015 File No: REZ-2014-034 Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner Item Description Public Hearing and possible action on the rezoning of 13.1501, described as Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, located at 70 Del Webb Blvd., from the Local Commercial (C-1) district to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. Item Details Project Name: Seven Strand Senior Living Address: 70 Del Webb Blvd. Location: Near main entrance of Sun City development Total Acreage: 13.1501 acres Legal Description: Lots 5-7, Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat Applicant: Brian Blaylock Property Owner: Gregory Hall Existing Use: Undeveloped Existing Zoning: Local Commercial (C-1) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential surrounding a Mixed Use Neighborhood Center node Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant's Request The applicant has requested rezoning from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District with a base zoning of Local Commercial (C-1) to allow for development of a 13-acre resort style retirement center consisting of six main buildings housing a maximum of 300 independent living units and various amenities to serve the residents of the development. To facilitate this development, the proposed PUD includes exceptions to current standards for building height and signage, but establishes standards above UDC minimums for land uses, setbacks, parking, access, and buffering. The following provides a summary of the regulations proposed with the PUD (see also Exhibit A — Development Plan and Exhibit B — Conceptual Land Plan): Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 1 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Land Uses: The PUD establishes that the primary use will be multifamily attached residential units for seniors (independent living apartments) that may include an assisted living retirement center and/or nursing or convalescent home. Typically allowing multifamily by -right would be considered an exception to the UDC standards, but in this case the current zoning conditions allow this use by -right. Additional uses related to the primary use that may be allowed within the development include a hospice facility, skilled nursing facility, hospital, day care, overnight accommodations, and health services, all of which are allowed by -right within the C-1 district and could be constructed on the site currently. Accessory uses that may be provided in conjunction with the primary use for the residents of the development include a fitness/wellness center, barber/beauty shop, bank, theater, arts and craft studio, medical services, bar/lounge, restaurants, business center, library, chapel, concierge services, laundry services, housekeeping services, security services, and support offices. The by -right C-1 uses that will be prohibited with the PUD (except as otherwise allowed by the PUD) include residential uses (single-family, townhouse), civic uses, food and beverage establishments, entertainment and recreation, and professional and business offices. Density: The maximum dwelling unit density of 24 units per acre that is proposed with the PUD matches the maximum that could be developed under the current zoning ordinance for the property or could be approved via Special Use Permit within the C-1 district. Setbacks: The minimum setbacks proposed within the PUD exceed the minimum of the base C-1 district. The PUD proposes a minimum building front setback of 25 feet (C-1 is 25 ft.), rear building setback of 15 feet (C-1 is 0 ft.), side building setback of 15 feet (C-1 is 10 ft.), and east side building setback against the residential zoning district (Sun City) of 25 feet (C-1 is 15 ft.). Parking and garage setbacks are proposed to be 15 feet, except where adjacent to a residentially zoned property the setback will be 25 feet. Height: The maximum building height of the C-1 district is 35 feet. The PUD proposes an exception to increase the maximum building height to 60 feet. However, the maximum height steps down so that no portion of a building may exceed 45 feet in height within 150 feet of any property line and no portion may exceed 35 feet within 80 feet of the residential zoning district to the east (Sun City). Garages and accessory buildings may not exceed 25 feet in height. Parking: The standard UDC parking requirement for senior apartments is one space per dwelling unit plus an additional 5% (1 per 20 units) for visitors. The PUD proposes to increase this requirement to one space per unit plus one additional per each 15 dwelling units. Access: The proposed PUD prohibits access from this development to Red Poppy Trail. Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 2 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Landscaping and Buffering: Landscaping will meet the minimum standards of the UDC, except that the buffer required adjacent to the residentially zoned properties to the east (Sun City) will be increased from 15 feet to 25 feet (excepting a proposed drive aisle/fire lane encroachment). Screening materials will consist of a 6-foot masonry wall and evergreen trees. Signage: The UDC does not allow off -site signage. Due to the lack of frontage at the access points, the PUD proposes the allowance of off -site directional signage along Williams Drive and Del Webb Boulevard. Stormwater: The PUD provides for improvements to Lot 9 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat (stormwater pond adjacent to Del Webb Boulevard) including wet ponds, pathways and landscaping. Common Amenity Area: The PUD proposes to provide at least 5 common amenities on - site, which meets the UDC minimum number for properties with over 200 units. These amenities may be met by integrating a combination of uses including a fitness center, pool, game room(s), theater, art/craft studio, business center, walking trail, garden, game court(s) or outdoor dining areas. Site Information Location: This property is located near the northeast corner of Williams Drive and Del Webb Boulevard at the entrance of Sun City. Physical Characteristics: The 13-acre property is flat with no notable tree coverage. Surrounding Properties: The majority of the immediately surrounding property is developed and includes the Sun City neighborhood, rural residences, Walgreens, First State Bank, and medical offices. Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North e None Low Density Residential Rural residential Moderate Density Residential/ South AG Mixed Use Neighborhood Open Space/Detention Ponds Center Node East RS Moderate Density Residential Residences (Sun City) West C-1 & C-3 Moderate Density Residential/ Walgreens, First State Bank, Mixed Use Neighborhood medical offices, and vacant lots Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 3 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Center Node Property History The subject property was part of the original Sun City Development Agreement and Concept Plan, approved in 1995. Also in 1995, the property was annexed into the City and was zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and Residential Planned (RP) to reflect the Sun City Concept Plan that identified this as a location for an assisted living facility or something similar. In 1997, the 15-acre tract this property was part of was removed from the Sun City Development Agreement and Concept Plan by the Second Amendment thereto. Also in 1997, the property was platted and rezoned (Ordinance No. 97-37) from C-1 and RP to Office and Service Use (RM-3) to allow for an assisted living center; however the development was not pursued. With the adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2003 the RM-3 district was transitioned to the Office (OF) zoning district. In 2007, a retirement community project was proposed on the property that was to include living options at various levels of independence. The OF district did not allow the type of development proposed and the property was again rezoned in November 2007 with the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 8 acres be allocated exclusively to the development of a Continuum Care Retirement Community and accessory uses. These primary and accessory uses may include the following: a. Multi family Dwellings and Accessory Uses as defined in Section 16.03.030 (A) "Household Living" of the Unified Development Code (UDC). b. Residential Assisted Living Facilities and Accessory Uses as defined in Section 16.03.030 (B) "Group Living" of the UDC. c. Nursing or Convalescent Home and Accessory Uses as defined in Section 16.03.030 (B) "Group Living" of the UDC. 2. Provide a Type "C" buffer (Section 8.08.030.F. of the Unified Development Code) between the site and the lots fronting on Plover Pass. 3. The site plan for the development, as required pursuant to Section 3.09 ("Site Plan Review') of the Unified Development Code, shall be submitted for the review and approval of City Council. The proposed 2007 project was not pursued and in 2010 a new project, including an assisted living facility, was proposed on this property, resulting in a replat of the property in 2011. To this date, the property remains undeveloped. A plat application is under review at this time that will combine these three lots into one. 2030 Plan Conformance The 2030 Plan provides for a Mixed Use Neighborhood Center node at the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Williams Drive, all surrounded by the Moderate Density Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 4 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Residential land use category. Individually, these tracts are primarily shown as Moderate Density Residential; however, the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center node conveys the type of land use visioned to generate from that intersection, not the exact development boundaries or configurations. The Moderate Density Residential land use category single family neighborhoods densities ranging between 3.1 and 6 dwelling units per gross acre, but may also support non- residential uses along arterial roadways, although such uses may not be depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The Mixed Use Neighborhood Center land use designation accommodates, but does not require, mixed -use buildings with retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor, and offices or residential units above, and may also include stand-alone high density residential development. The exact size, location, and design of these areas should be subject to a more specific approval process, to ensure an appropriate fit with the surrounding residential pattern. The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A (Developed, Redeveloping), which is the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided, and where the bulk of the City's growth should be guided over the near term. Proposed Zoning District The PUD, Planned Unit Development District, is intended to allow flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally sensitive properties, which are to be developed in accordance with a common development scheme or planned associations of uses. PUD zoning is designed to accommodate various types of development, including a combination or mix of uses. The PUD zoning district may also provide for variations from the standard UDC requirements allowing for creation of a unique product. The C-1 district provides for areas of commercial and retail activities that primarily serve residential areas. The District is more appropriate along major or minor thoroughfares and corridors including Williams Drive. Typical allowed uses in the C-1 district include restaurants, offices, retail sales, and personal services. However, the Seven Strand PUD as proposed limits these uses to accessory/amenity for the residents of the development. The independent living use proposed in the PUD is classified as a multifamily use, which if not included in a PUD would require approval of a Special Use Permit; although, the conditions of the previous zoning ordinance for this property allowed the use by right. The City of Georgetown will provide electric, water and wastewater services at this location. Utility requirements are being determined through the platting process and as the project design progresses. Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 5 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Transportation This property has full access to Williams Drive, right -in/ right -out access to Del Webb Boulevard, and one-way exit only access to Yellow Rose Trail, all via access easements. While the property has frontage on Red Poppy Trail, no access will be permitted from this property and an existing wall/fence will remain in place. Williams Drive is an existing Major Arterial level roadway and Del Webb is a collector level roadway. Per the approved plat, the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is determined with the Site Plan application and is not required with this rezoning. pplication(s) Development of this property will also require approval of a Replat, Site Plan and Building Permit that will all be administratively reviewed and approved. Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: Staff is supportive of the proposed request for rezoning from C-1 to PUD based on the following: 1. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map placement of a Mixed Use Neighborhood Center node at Del Webb Boulevard and Williams Drive supports the PUD zoning and the proposed uses listed in the PUD Development Plan. 2. The property is currently zoned C-1 (the proposed PUD base district) and is adjacent to properties zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3), from which primary access to this tract will be taken. Increased setbacks and buffering have been proposed against the Single -Family Residential (RS) zoned properties to the east within Sun City. 3. The adjacent land uses include Walgreens, First State Bank, medical offices and rural residences as well as the Sun City neighborhood. Increased setbacks and buffering have been proposed against the Single -Family Residential (RS) zoned properties to the east within Sun City. 4. The PUD Development Plan outlines many provisions in excess of standard UDC requirements to mitigate for the additional building height, including increased setbacks, parking, and buffering and restricted land uses. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City - Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 6 of 7 Planning Department Staff Report Public Comments Thirty-two notices were sent out to owners of property within the city limits that are also within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. A public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 4th, 2015. As of the writing of this report, two written public comments have been received in opposition to the request (see Exhibit 4). Special Considerations None Attachments Exhibit 1- Zoning Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Aerial Map Exhibit 4 - Public Comment Exhibit A - PUD Development Plan Exhibit B - Conceptual Land Plan Meetings Schedule January 20, 2015 - Planning and Zoning Commission January 27, 2015 - City Council First Reading February 10, 2015 - City Council Second Reading Lots 5-7 Village Gate at Sun City — Seven Strand Senior Living Rezoning Page 7 of 7 Im Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Legend REZ-2014-034 ®Site Parcels EST. 1848 ©City Limits AGEETOWNExhibit #2EXAS 0 Georgetown ETJ i O Legend �✓ Thoroughfare mWil Existing Collector MENNEN Existing Freeway 111111111 Existing Major Arterial sommom Existing Minor Arterial •� Existing Ramp MEMO Proposed Collector MEMO Proposed Freeway .--. Propsed Frontage Road MEMO Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial m Proposed Railroad Future Land Use - Institutional - Regional Commercial Community Commercial Ag / Rural Residential Employment Center - High Density Residential �P Low Density Residential - Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center , Moderate Density Residential city Limitsp ME Open Space street - - Specialty Mixed Use Area ��Fi site . . . CoorainateSystem: GpsP�OMP Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US Feet o sW t,— Cartographic Data For GenerarPlanning Purposes Only ' F- J YEL �OW-ROSE TRL / to DSO WAO- %mw-.Z,-f � 4e4f 5T. 1tl4tl GEORGETOWN TEXAS Comments From Neighboring Progerty Owners CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are invited to express your views or concerns regarding the - described petition by returning the attached comment form and/or by attending one or both of the scheduled public hearings on the matter. Project Name: 13.1501 acres, described as Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, located at 70 Del Webb, to be known as Seven Strand Senior Living. Project Case Number: REZ-2014-034 -1/20 Case Manager: Valerie Kreger Name of Respondent: e/'ix�✓ (Please print name) Signature of Respondent: ? f (S' ature required for protest) Address of Respondent: /-0 7 1� � " / -.S s (Address required for protest) I am in FAVOR: Additional Comments: / kg A 11 S 6<X e I OBJECT: <4/t"r r � ,�•'P. � �' Gd 7-5 d fr /Y9 /SZ-7 z-12 L- 7- / & % Z / S 1 s. .x,4,o°, </- �- �i��✓ 1 l f/ '�- }2& -fir L2 T Vri�� com'S4 may be serf to �ity o Georgetown�lanning Department, P. O. Box 1458 Georgetown, Texas 78627. Emailed comments may be sent to planningfteorgetown.or$. Any such comments may be presented to the Commission. d -TXI ,4 b z�?R 5' s Page Z of 2 =IAI ;2- 0 j o 6/ D6 Gsc AoCe H i r44-56TS- RECEIVED LSY. ItlAtl GEORGETOWN TEXAS Comments From Neighboring Property Owners JAN 15 2015 CITY OF GEORGETOWN PLANNING AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINTWVELOPMENT You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are invited to express your views or concerns regarding the - described petition by returning the attached comment form and/or by attending one or both of the scheduled public hearings on the matter. Project Name: 13.1501 acres, described as Lots 5.7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, lgcated at 70 Del Webb, to be known as Seven Strand Senior Livia& Project Case Number: REZ-2014-084 - 1/20 Case Manager: Valerie Kreger Name of Respondent: QI uo V\ P-C' y� (Please print name) % I Signature of Respondent: , 10 fU-6�'Yh 0 , -6 II y�j(Signature required Pass for protest) 1 Address of Respondent: I I n U�� (Address required for protest) I am in FAVOR: Z0 IOBJECT: Written comments may be sent to City of Georgetown Planning Department, P. O. Box 1458 Georgetown, Texas 78627. Emailed comments may be sent to 121 ni cp eorgetown.org. Any such comments may be presented to the Commission. Page 2 of 2 Valerie Kreger From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good Evening, Steve, Allene Shelton <mashelton1@yahoo.com> Sunday, January 18, 2015 11:45 PM District4 Valerie Kreger Seven Strand (Public Hearing) Thank you for sending the information on the upcoming meeting to discuss the proposed Seven Strand zoning variation. I unfortunately won't be home from work in time to attend, but my husband is planning to go. I strongly oppose the rezoning and the construction of this four-story structure. I am against it for the following reasons: 1. Del Webb originally promised a peaceful, beautifully designed community for Sun City Texas; that is one of the reasons we — and many others - built our homes here 15 years ago, and a large part of what encouraged us to pay the premium price that such an environment commanded. This structure violates nearly all of these principles. As just one example — nighttime in Sun City is particularly serene because of the intentional omission of streetlights that allows stargazing. A four-story building will generate significant light at all hours of the night. 2. Our original Del Webb community was designed to ensure privacy for each home, and for many years, this principle held true. Unfortunately, recent construction, both inside and outside Sun City, has strayed from this concept. Homeowners residing near the proposed Seven Strand structure will sacrifice their privacy, just as the homeowners currently living on Red Poppy behind The Legacy. A drive down Red Poppy to see the numerous "for sale" signs makes one wonder if this is the homeowners' reaction to this encroachment. Surely a sale will not be easy considering the inevitable decline in property values that the proximity to a commercial building brings; who will compensate the proposed Seven Strand neighbors when their property values decline as well? 3. As a Sun City resident, you know all too well that traffic on Del Webb Boulevard has become a nightmare, due to the increase in development and traffic traveling from 195 to Williams Drive. The multi -year construction of this property will only add to the traffic, as will the employees and residents traveling to and from the structure once it has opened. Will this traffic be mitigated to ensure the safe flow of vehicles through the area? 4. It is my understanding that previous developers have not followed through on commitments to make their properties visually appealing and in line with other Sun City construction. Every day we drive past the phantom benches surrounding the mud puddle outside Walgreens — a visual reminder that the Walgreens property did not turn out as intended. 5. We have no guarantee that the management of this proposed entity will be successful. Is the proposed management qualified to run the enterprise? Have they performed adequate market research to ensure sufficient demand for this facility? Have the financial statements of potential investors been properly audited? If not, we may be left with a bankrupt four-story eyesore in our neighborhood. My husband and I retired here in 2000 because of the beautiful environment, what we were told were strict regulations on future development, and the uniform, meticulously landscaped grounds. The sale of land adjacent to Sun City and ensuing commercial development has negatively affected our community and will continue to impact property values and quality of life moving forward. I realize that Pulte likely no longer has any control over this land, but as elected official in the City of Georgetown, the City Council does. I strongly urge you to vote for maintaining our community by opposing this zoning variation. Thank you very much, Allene Shelton Click here to report this email as spam. ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 13.1501 acres, being Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12f day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 13.1501 acres described as Lots 5-7 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, recorded in Document Number 2011087677 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property'; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City's Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on January 20, 2015, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on January 27, 2015, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. 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 vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City's Unified Development Code. Ordinance Number: Description: Lots 5-7, Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat (Seven Strand) Page 1 of 2 Date Approved: February 10, 2015 Exhibits A-C Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-034 Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Local Commercial (C-1) District to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description), and Exhibit C (Development Plan) incorporated herein by reference. 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 in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 27t', day of January, 2015. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 1011, day of February, 2015. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle Dale Ross City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Lots 5-7, Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat (Seven Strand) Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: February 10, 2015 Exhibits A-C Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-034 Legend ® Site Ordinance Exhibit A 0 Parcels E11,1141 ©City Limits GEORGETOWN OGeorgetown ETJ TEXAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j.♦�'' VI to <2 . . . . . . . . r9e . . . . . . . . . . . Geoill I . . . . . . . . . . DP PY . . . . Y et0wn ETJ .Georg - -ice REZ=2014-034 ..... . . Site IOWA „a �So City Limits 0 Street Site • Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central ZoneINAD 83/US Feet 0 500 1,000 Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only Fe Ordinance Exhibit B Legal Description for REZ-2014-034 Lots 5-7, Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat (see attached) t^ cn cV� 1 1 a N w C,: 0 M Y / / cp i '� \ /� \ CEO \ N \ \✓/ I I \ \ md QZ_ vr�iai�: CN fix) Nea &mn / I N 1-1 N \ \ �� I ¢� NV)¢I 0 U cli CAcc CN N U. 04 CN 00 o .1 t\ N M V > AG w Q oo / N co WOV)N �— — — — �{ 1 cv 1� yi�r 1 �i781 li 0 �IA cq N °o �o� ��1� _ >� ado O _l lN► M W O N �" 1 x Y00 o109 55 • w o. CN l '= ttr Q' 00 0 1 ct G I LO O �' Q' , In f� � �ZS • o O O c' �` ` � ¢ > /Nri 1 CIO. 3 5h5'Fd a CN r ? to tn a o v) w u ¢ C1 W 3 a a ¢ s d� O a O °05 G91 0'6� t�s 6 ell ; S,9S [ � °61 J &� o ¢ ;ram u o O C o�11 /J�� O N p}tn w M33w /� �l��' r^► o Mo: =� =N� a rvvNoA— ooaxoo 0' — M 'o N '7 to M --• t f-3 °L N g(`- <ry31333 3ii`•_ :c:3333xV, ►..� Q Q Q_ N�oo� �oNCNO°N;r Nc�vrv'� INi cinv 00 0, ' .-. oo / .� ^• A . Laa 3 0 00 0 o 0 0 NAV A C N N00 ooMrr oo aoNt� 00 oN O,NO�N�rn� ��OM,otn pet�yN tt�N 0 N00 / = 00 pz W A �3zzzzzrnrnzv.zzv)zzzz�zz`Az,,,,,3:_ / /,�1 UWQ� U //� p _ r II II II II II II II II II it II II II II U II If II II I1 M _ ty� may' r+'1 0 ° �t ,p oo Q, O ry c,npl tV N N N N N N 00,04 .aJ�J W �.�.a.�J�JW W-J.3 7..]_]� pcn�oo / F,� O �" / 'r'�`� p IIN� z Nv1`�'z� /f / ¢�_=z �M N a `n ooc�voU/�Uu p.� 11ZU / ono O z o Z w \ Oo /moo °im . �, // ♦ �� / / \ �+ N U a3 a3 3�0Due c� 3 U �.r UN�UcvooUN�D�vivOUOF V moo // W � v 00 q w z II z cn z v, z U 064 p a \\ U \/ l Ordinance Exhibit C PUD EXHIBIT A Seven Strand Senior Living Planned Unit Development Development Plan A. PROPERTY The Seven Strand Senior Living Planned Unit Development District is located along Del Webb Boulevard at the entrance to Sun City and encompasses approximately 13.1501 acres, described as Lots 5, 6, & 7, Block A, of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat recorded in Document 2011087677, Official Public Records of Williamson County, herein defined as the "property". B. PURPOSE The vision for the Seven Strand Senior Living development focuses on creating a luxury resort style retirement center consisting of multiple retirement housing buildings with integrated amenities to serve the residents of the Seven Strand Luxury Senior Living development. This PUD serves to augment and/or modify the standards for development outlined in the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) in order to implement the vision for the property and insure a cohesive, quality development not otherwise anticipated by the underlying base zoning district. In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.0 "Development Plan Required", this Development Plan titled Exhibit A is a summary of the development and design standards for the property. C. APPLICABILITY AND BASE ZONING In accordance with UDC Section 4.06.010.A "Compatibility with Base Zoning District", all development of the property shall conform to the base zoning district of Local Commercial (C-1). Except for those requirements specifically deviated by this Development Plan, all development standards established in the most current version of the UDC at time of development shall be applicable. In the case that this Development Plan does not address a specific item, the City of Georgetown UDC and any other applicable Ordinances shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the regulations of this PUD and the regulations of the base zoning district, the PUD shall control. D. CONCEPTUAL LAND PLAN A Conceptual Land Plan has been attached to this Development Plan as Exhibit B to illustrate the land use and design intent for the property. The Conceptual Land Plan is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the general vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final document. As such, the proposed building and parking configurations are subject to refinement at time of Site Plan review. The Conceptual Land Plan depicts a series of buildings, parking, outdoor areas, and landscaping that may be developed in phases, provided the minimum requirements of the PUD district are met. Approval of this PUD, Development Plan, and Conceptual Land Plan does not constitute approval of a Site Plan per Section 3.09 of the UDC. Page 1 of 5 Ordinance Exhibit C E. LAND USES 1. Primary Use. The primary permitted use is multifamily attached residential for seniors. The development plan for the property (See Exhibit B) is for a resort style retirement center consisting of one or a mixture of the following types of related senior living housing choices: • Independent Living Retirement Center Apartments • Group Living in the form of an Assisted Living Retirement Center or Nursing or Convalescent Home 2. Additional Permitted Uses. • Hospice Facility • Skilled Nursing Facility • Hospital • Day Care • Overnight Accommodations Uses • Health Services Uses 3. Permitted Accessory Uses. The following shall be allowed as accessory uses within the primary buildings in support of the primary retirement center use: • Fitness/Wellness Center • Barber/Beauty Shop • Bank • Theater • Art and Craft Studio • Onsite Medical/Wellness • Espresso Bar • Bar/Lounge • Restaurants and Kitchen • Business Center • Library • Chapel • Concierge Services • Laundry Services • Housekeeping • Security • Offices providing support services within the facilities 3. Prohibited Uses. Unless listed as an allowed use in section E.1, E.2, or E.3 of this PUD (Exhibit A), the following uses are prohibited: Page 2 of 5 Ordinance Exhibit C Residential Uses: All residential uses listed as "permitted (P), limited (L) or special use (S)" under the C1 zoning column in table 5.02.010 of the UDC. Civic Uses: All civic uses listed as "permitted (P), limited (L) or special use (S)" under the C1 zoning column in table 5.03.010 of the UDC. Commercial Uses: All commercial uses listed under "Food & Beverage Establishments", "Entertainment & Recreation", "Professional & Business Offices" listed as "permitted (P), limited (L) or special use (S)" under the C1 zoning column in table 5.04.010 of the UDC. F. DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Density. There shall be a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre. There shall be no maximum on the number of dwelling units per structure. 2. Setbacks. The setbacks on the Property shall be as follows: Front (Southern) Setback - minimum 25 feet Side (Western) Setback - minimum 15 feet (Eastern) Setback to Residentially Zoned District - minimum 25 feet Rear (Northern) Setback - minimum 15 feet Accessory Building (Garage) Setback — minimum 15 feet Accessory Building (Garage) Setback to Residentially Zoned District - minimum 25 feet Parking Setback — minimum 15 feet Parking Setback to Residentially Zoned District — minimum 25 feet 3. Building Height. The maximum building heights on the Property shall be as follows: Maximum Height for Residential Buildings shall be 60 feet, however: • Any portion of a building within 150 feet of a property line shall not exceed 45 feet; and • Along the eastern property line, any portion of a building within 80 feet of the adjacent Residentially Zoned District shall not exceed 35 feet. Maximum Height for Accessory Buildings (Garage) shall be 25 feet. All other buildings shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 4. Building Size. There shall be no maximum building square footage or floor -to -area ratio for any residential or group living buildings on the property. 5. Exterior Lighting. Exterior Lighting on the Property and its buildings will comply with the requirements set forth in Section 7.05 of the UDC related to outdoor lighting unless otherwise described in this PUD. G. PARKING. Parking on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 9 of the UDC except as otherwise stated in this Development Plan. The specific parking requirement for the Independent Living Retirement Center use shall be: 1 space per dwelling unit + 1 space per Page 3 of 5 Ordinance Exhibit C each 15 dwelling units or fraction thereof for visitor and employee parking. Garage spaces shall count toward the overall parking requirements. Golf cart parking may count towards a maximum of 2% of the required parking spaces. H. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis, as noted in the recorded subdivision plat covering this property, will be deferred to the Site Plan application. 2. Driveways Access. Driveway access shall be prohibited from Red Poppy Trail. TREE PRESERVATION Tree Preservation on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the Unified Development Code unless otherwise stated in this Development Plan. J. LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS Landscaping on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 8 of the UDC except that a 25-foot wide landscape bufferyard, consisting of a solid six-foot screening wall constructed of two-sided masonry materials and plantings including two evergreen trees per each 50 linear feet, shall be required along the eastern property line adjacent the residential properties in the Sun City neighborhood. A 10 ft. encroachment by a fire lane into the 25 ft landscape bufferyard is allowed but shall require 4 evergreen trees per each 50 linear feet of encroachment. K. SIGNAGE Signage on the Property shall be in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code unless otherwise stated in this Development Plan. A maximum of two (2) identification signs are allowed off -site within Lots 1 thru 4 or Lot 8, Block A, of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat recorded in Document 2011087677. 2. A Master Sign Plan may be approved separately from the PUD, without cause for amendment to the PUD, following the approval process outlined in Section 3.12 of the UDC. L. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE Impervious coverage on the Property shall be in conformance with Note #15 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat. M. STORMWATER Improvements will be installed on the adjoining common -owned Lot 9 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat. Such improvements will include wet ponds, pathways, and native drought tolerant landscape plantings to enhance the environment. N. PARKLAND AND COMMON AMENITY AREA 1. Parkland. The parkland dedication requirements of UDC Section 13.05 will be met with fee -in lieu of dedication, as provided for in Section 13.05.010.D, at time of Site Plan approval, in an amount equal to $200 per new dwelling unit. Page 4 of 5 Ordinance Exhibit C 2. Common Amenity Area. The Common Amenity Area requirements of UDC Section 6.06.020 for any Independent Senior Living dwelling units will be met by integrating any combination of 5 of the following amenities on -site: • Fitness/Wellness Center • Pool/Hot Tub • Great Room • Billiards • Card Room • Theater • Art and Craft Studio • Business Center • Walking Trails (these may carry over onto Lot 9 of the Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat) • Community Garden • Yard Games/Courts (Bocce, horseshoes, washers, etc.) • Outdoor Dining Patio In conformance with Section 4.06.010.D.3 of the UDC, modifications to this Development Plan shall require City Council approval of an amendment to this PUD processed pursuant to Section 3.06 of the UDC, except, where the Director of Planning determines such modifications to be minor, the Director may authorize such modifications. Minor modifications may include changes to building sizes, uses, or locations providing those modifications conform to the general intent of this PUD, uses authorized by this PUD, or to applicable provisions of the UDC and any other applicable regulations. P. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A — This PUD Development Plan Exhibit B - Conceptual Land Plan Page 5 of 5 \ "000/ \ / )U NT 262 12 66 340 000_.0--o -0000 000 i 0' 10' 25' 50' 100' 200' 14" �Lp, TRUE NORTH 7STRAND 11.05.2014 PROJECT NO.: 201306100 SITE PLAN - ENLARGED GSC Architects © COPYRIGHT GSC ARCHITECTS 2014. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances by adding Chapter 8.40 establishing minimum standards of care for youth recreation programs -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown provides many after -school and summer recreation programs. The Standards of Care are intended to be minimum standards by which the City of Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department will operate the City's Youth Programs. The programs operated by the City are recreational in nature and are not licensed by the state of Texas as certified day care programs. Chapter 42 of the Texas Human Resource Code is established to regulate certain facilities, homes, and agencies that provide child care services. The purpose of this chapter is to protect children who are cared for in child care facilities by establishing statewide minimum safety standards and by regulating the facilities through a licensing program. The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is the agency tasked with enforcement of this law. Subchapter C. Sec 42.041, (b), (14) exempts: "Elementary -age (ages 5-13) recreation programs operated by a municipality provided the governing body of the municipality annually adopts standards of care by ordinance after a public hearing for such programs, that such standards are provided to the parents of each program participant, and that the ordinances shall include, at a minimum, staffing ratios, minimum staff qualifications, minimum facility, health, and safety standards, and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing the adopted local standards; and further provided that parents be informed that the program is not licensed by the state and the program may not be advertised as a child- care facility." This ordinance establishes the standards of care requirements set forth by Chapter 42 of the Texas Human Resource Code after a public hearing. The standards are intended to be minimum standards by which the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department will operate its youth recreation programs. These programs are recreation in nature and are not child care programs. The Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department previously developed similar department minimum standards for recreation programs. Therefore, the minimum standards set forth in Exhibit A will create no additional staffing or financial burden to the City. Additionally, it will not impact the effected recreation program fees. This ordinance will expire one year after its effective date and must be submitted to City Council for re - adoption no later than April 1 st of each year. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Exhibit A Section 8.40 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES; REPEALING CONFLICTING LAWS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's Parks and Recreation Department has determined that certain minimum standards of care are necessary to health, safety, and welfare of individuals participating in youth recreation programs; and WHEREAS, the State of Texas Human Resources Code Chapter 42 exempts certain after -school and summer recreation programs from state licensing requirements as identified in Subsection 42.041(14) stating "an elementary -age (ages 5-13) recreation program operated by a municipality provided the governing body of the municipality annually adopts standards of care by ordinance after a public hearing for such programs, that such standards are provided to the parents of each program participant, and that the ordinances shall include, at a minimum, staffing ratios, minimum staff qualifications, minimum facility, health, and safety standards, and mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing the adopted local standards; and further provided that parents be informed that the program is not licensed by the state and the program may not be advertised as a child-care facility"; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at a meeting on January 27, 2015, held a public hearing prior to amending Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown finds it to be in the best interest of the citizens of Georgetown to amend Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances by adding Chapter 8.40 to include the minimum standards of care for youth recreation programs set out herein in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: 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. Ordinance No. Parks and Recreation Standards of Care Date Approved: Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. It is hereby determined upon the basis of requirements set forth in the Texas Human Resource Code, the City of Georgetown shall be exempt from Texas Child Care Services regulations. SECTION 3. That should any section or any portion of any section hereof be decreed to be void, the invalidity of such section or such portion thereof shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and that each section and each portion thereof not decreed to be invalid shall remain valid and enforceable. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances that are in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading on this day of , 2014. PASSED AND APPROVED on second reading on this day of 2014. ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Dale Ross, Mayor Ordinance No. Parks and Recreation Standards of Care Date Approved: Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A - Code of Ordinances Adding Chapter 8.40 Sec. 8.40. - Standards of Care for Youth Recreation Programs. Sec. 8.40.010. - Definitions. A. "Camp Program Staff' means a person responsible for the direct care or supervision of participants, including volunteers and contractors. The term excludes a person whose primary duties include administration, clerical support, or facility maintenance. B. "Department" means the Parks and Recreation Department. C. "Director" means the director of the Parks and Recreation Department. D. "Designee" means a person appointed by the director to act on the director's behalf. E. "Facility" means a building or improvement operated or used by the department in conducting a recreational program. F. "Participant" means a child age 5 to 13 years old that is enrolled in a recreational program and is under the supervision of department staff. G. "Recreational Program or Program" means a fee -based children's program or activity offered and supervised by the department that requires a participant to enroll or register to participate. H. "Staff' means a person who is employed by the department to work in a recreational program. I. "Parent" means legal guardian of a participant. Sec. 8.40.020. - Purpose. The purpose of the standards of care established in this chapter is to exempt City of Georgetown after -school and summer recreation programs from state licensing requirements. The standards of care set forth in this chapter are intended to be the minimum standards by which the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Department will operate its youth recreation programs which are recreational in nature and not designated as child care programs. Sec. 8.40.030. - Participant and Camp Program Staff Ratios. A. Camp programs shall have no greater than a 10/1 ratio of participant to camp program staff for children 0-4 years of age. B. Camp programs shall have no greater than a 15/1 ratio of participant to camp program staff for children 5-9 years of age. Page 1 of 4 C. Camp programs shall have no greater than a 17/1 ratio of participants to camp program staff for children 10-13 years of age. D. Each participant should have a program employee who is responsible for him or her and who is aware of details of the participant's habits, interests, and any special problems as identified by the participant's parents during the registration process. Sec. 8.40.040. - Minimum Camp Program Staff Qualifications. A. Camp program staff must be at least 16 years of age. B. At least 50% of camp program staff must possess certification from a nationally recognized body in 1. First Aid 2. Community CPR or equivalent C. Camp program staff must complete a camp program staff orientation including but not limited to: 1. An overview of the City of Georgetown's Standards of Care; and 2. Policies including discipline, guidance, and the release of participants; and 3. An overview of symptoms of child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and the responsibility of reporting these; and 4. The procedures to follow in handling emergencies including but are not limited to: fire, explosion, tornado, toxic fumes, volatile persons, and severe injury or illness of a child or adult; and 5. The use and locations of fire extinguishers and first aid equipment. Sec. 8.40.050. - Employment Restrictions A. Criminal background checks will be conducted on prospective camp program staff. The following convictions, including deferred adjudication and pretrial diversions, regardless of when the conviction occurred will render applicants ineligible for participation with Georgetown Parks and Recreation Camp Programs: 1. Any drug distribution activity, including misdemeanor or felony 2. Rape 3. Aggravated Assault 4. Child Abuse or Molestation 5. Murder 6. Kidnapping 7. Or any other felony or crime involving moral turpitude, which involves acts of physical violence B. The following convictions within 10 years from the date of application for employment will render applicants ineligible for participation with Georgetown Parks and Recreation Camp Programs: 1. Any drug related activity, including misdemeanor or felony 2. Assault Page 2 of 4 3. Any other felony or crime involving moral turpitude which does not involve acts of physical violence Sec. 8.40.060. - Minimum Building Standards. A. The facility and equipment used do not present any known fire, health, or safety hazards and are kept free of accumulations of objectionable debris. B. The facility shall be subject to an annual safety inspection. C. The facility shall reasonably be kept free of insects, rodents, and stray animals. D. Facility buildings shall maintain clearly marked emergency exits. E. A disaster and evacuation procedure shall be posted at the facility. F. First -aid kits and infection control kits shall be available at the facility and taken to other locations at which the participants are engaged in program activities. G. First -aid guidelines shall be on file and available at the facility. H. The facility shall have a sufficient number of restrooms maintained in good repair and equipped for independent use by children and designed to permit staff supervision as needed. Sec. 8.40.070. - Minimum Health and Safety Standards. A. A participant who is ill or injured shall be supervised until the participant is released to a parent or other authorized person. B. A participant whose illness or medical condition requires a degree of supervision by staff that would compromise the health or safety of the other participants shall be kept separate from the other participants until the participant is removed from the facility. C. A participant whose illness or medical condition prevents the participant from comfortably participating in program activities or places other participants at risk may not be admitted or readmitted to the facility for the duration of the illness or condition. D. A staff member may not administer medication to a participant without a written parental medication authorization. Staff may not knowingly administer medication that is not in its original container or that is past the expiration date on the container. E. A staff member may not administer an amount of medication that is inconsistent with the prescribed dosage and parental direction. A staff member shall return the unused medication to the parent on the last program day. F. Medication should be kept in a secured location that is not accessible by participants. Page 3 of 4 G. A staff member shall maintain a medication and first aid log. Sec. 8.40.080. - Mechanisms for Installing and Enforcing Standards. The director or designee shall monitor the camp programs for performance. Compliance with these standards will be a factor in rating the performance of the youth program. Sec. 8.40.090. - Review. This Chapter will expire one year after its effective date. Sec. 8.40.100. - Recommendation for Amendment or Re -Adoption. No later than April 1 of each year the director or designee shall recommend to the City Council adoption of the local standards of care. Page 4 of 4 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action regarding use requirements for the former Albertson's Grocery building -- Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director ITEM SUMMARY: The City offered the former Albertson's property for sale by Invitation to Bid. At its August 13, 2013 meeting, City Council accepted the cash offer bid from MF Trinity Management, LLC. Following negotiations, the sale closed on December 17, 2013. The attached Deed Restrictions were part of the sale contract and limited the type of business that could occupy the building. The building owner now has a commercial services prospect that would like to occupy the building. As per the contract, the owner requests that City Council consider and approve the prospect under the current use requirements or expand the definition to include this user. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Deed Restrictions Letter from Mr. Bowers/Anderson Mill Acquisitions Exhibit B — Deed Restrictions 1) No tax-exempt or non-profit persons or entities shall own or occupy the Property. 2) Use of the Property is limited to persons or entities providing retail sales and/or commercial services. 3) Retail sales uses for the Property must generate at least $150 of sales per square foot of retail floor area, and are restricted to: a) general retail; b) agricultural sales; c) landscape supply sales/garden center; d) farmer's market; or e) artisan studio and gallery; unless an exception to this requirement is approved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown. 4) Commercial service uses must be approved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown and are limited to: a) personal services; b) dry cleaning drop-off; c) printing/mailing/repro services; d) fitness center; e) banking/financial services; or f) consumer repair. 5) The Deed Restrictions shall contain an express provision whereby they will automatically expire on the date which is ten (10) calendar years from the date of the Special Warranty Deed. Street Address 3724 Jefferson, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78731 Steven M. Bowers Attorney at Law P.O. Box 5035 Austin, Texas 78763-5035 January 12, 2015 Via Email. jim.briggs@georgetown.org Jim Briggs Interim City Manager City of Georgetown Re: Former Albertsons - Georgetown Dear Mr. Briggs, Phone: 512/470-1075 Fax: 512/453-8412 steve@stevebowers.com I am the attorney for Anderson Mill Acquisitions LLC, the Texas limited liability company that purchased the former Albertsons Grocery Store located at 610 N Austin Avenue from the City of Georgetown in December of 2013. As you may be aware, when my client purchased this property from the City it had been vacant for quite some time. Since acquiring the property, my client has been vigorously seeking to identify one or more tenants for this property, however, to date its efforts have proven unsuccessful. The leasing brokers that Anderson Mill Acquisitions has engaged to assist it in leasing the property have recently received indications of interest in the property from several established companies that would like to lease all, or a substantial portion of, the property for use as a call center, data center, or similar facility. According to our brokers, the property is attractive for, and can be easily adapted to, this type of use because of the large amount of open floor space within the building and also the large number of parking places that are available to accommodate a projected workforce of between 150 and 250 employees. However, in order to lease the property for use as a call center, data center, or similar facility, it will be necessary for Anderson Mill Acquisitions to obtain the City of Georgetown's consent, since this type of use is not permitted under the restrictive covenants that were included in the deed conveying the property from the City to my client. Before entering into extensive negotiations with these potential tenants, Anderson Mill Acquisitions would like to confirm that the city would be receptive to expanding the permitted use of this property to include a call center, data center, or similar facility, so long as the tenant is a viable, established company that would provide additional well - paying jobs for the Georgetown economy. Of course, if the City is amenable to this type Jim Briggs Page 2 of 2 of use, and if those negotiations prove successful, Anderson Mill Acquisitions would present the proposed transaction to the City Council for its review and approval. Please let me know what additional information you may need from us in order to present this matter to the Georgetown City Council the its consideration. Sincerely Steven M. Bowers Cc: Manny Farahani City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the potential 2015 Road Bond Recommendations -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: As part of the January 27th Workshop Agenda, a revised bond proposal was presented from the 2015 Road Bond Committee. This item is posted to provide the opportunity for City Council to provide direction to staff regarding establishing a contract with the voters, defining a potential bond program and to bring back necessary language to call an election in May 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be established with the terms in the Contract with the Voters describing the potential 2015 Road Bond Program. SUBMITTED BY: Edward G. Polasek, AICP City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve the pavement condition assessment findings and report prepared by Kasberg, Patrick and Associates, LP of Georgetown, Texas -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: KPA engineering was tasked with identifying and updating the Pavement Condition Indices and developing a Five Year Capital Improvement Program identifying and recommending annual treatments and projects for the roadways within the City of Georgetown. The City of Georgetown follows the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB-34) to manage our roadway assets. We are obligated to meet the following conditions using an asset management system: • Keep an up-to-date asset inventory • Perform condition assessments and report the results on a measurement scale • Estimate the annual amount to maintain and preserve the eligible infrastructure assets at the condition level established and disclosed by the government The City must document that the eligible assets are being preserved approximately at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the government. In 2005, the City began its pavement management information system (PMIS) and initial roadway inventory, using the pavement Condition Index (PCI) as a tool to comparatively value the network's worth. The roadway network overall PCI scores are updated every 3 years in accordance with GASB-34. The Council has directed staff to incorporate a policy to maintain a minimum average PCI of 85. The PCI for previous studies and the latest study are listed below: • 2005 — 92 • 2008 — 93 • 2011 — 87.7 • 2014 — 87.3 KPA has prepared a presentation to explain their latest findings and recommendations for the 5 year Capital Improvements Projects. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 9, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the findings of the pavement condition assessment and the resulting Five- year Capital Improvements Project Recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller ATTACHMENTS: City Wide PCI Map Pavement Condition Report Sepsis C.R . 152 C.R. 150 F.M. 972 WESTI N G H O U S E ROAD C . R . 1 0 2 C.R.147 C.R.143 SHEL L ROAD S T A T E H W Y 1 9 5 ST A T E H W Y 19 5 I.H . HW Y 35 STATE H W Y 2 9 OL D U . S . 8 1 H W Y C . R . 1 1 0 F . M . 1 4 6 0 F.M. 9 7 1 WEB B C.R . 24 5 JENNI N G S BRANC H SHE L L ROA D HO G G ROA D JI M F.M.3405 A N D I C E R O A D ( F . M . 2 3 3 8 ) STATE H W Y 2 9 F.M. 2 2 4 3 DE L B L V D . I . H . H W Y 3 5 GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAL AIRPORTL A K E G E O R G E T O W N CHAND L E R ROAD TEXAS EST. 1848GEORGETOWN © 20 1 3 Ka s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 4 \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 5 Y R C I P \ C A D \ E x h i b i t \ 2 0 1 4 - 1 2 - 2 9 5 y r c i p f u g r o \ 5 y e a r c i p f u g r o p c i . d w g LA S T S A V E D : 12 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 4 1 : 3 3 : 2 8 P M LA Y O U T : 5y r c i p Pl o t D a t e : 12 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 4 1 1 : 2 4 : 1 8 A M Pl o t t e d B y : SI L I F F FIVE YEAR CIP KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78628 CURRENT PCI ROADWAY SCORES PCI 41 - 65 66 - 75 76 - 85 86 - 95 96 - 100 0 - 40 CITY LIMITS ETJ 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 2000 4000 N O R T H REPORT SYNOPSIS The City of Georgetown has recognized the importance of preserving existing pavement infrastructure and optimizing available maintenance and rehabilitation funding. In order to optimize existing resources, the City is implementing a pavement management tool to track roadway network performance over time in accordance with the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34). The City of Georgetown contracted with Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates LP (KPA), who in turn utilized Fugro Roadware, Inc. (Fugro) to provide data collection for 100 percent of the road network currently maintained by the City of Georgetown. A survey was conducted using an automated system that collects pavement distress information, ride quality measurements, and rut depth measurements mounted on a host data collection platform. This information is converted to ratings or indices for the City's roadway network, allowing for comparisons between sections. The data collected in this survey is utilized to calculate the overall road network Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Score. The PCI score facilitates decision making for selecting appropriate treatments and timing for maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (M&R) strategies. The PCI score will be utilized to develop a 5-year CIP Maintenance program for Fiscal Year 2015 through Fiscal Year 2019. This project was initiated to perform pavement condition surveys for the City of Georgetown and to report road network health at the time of the survey in 2014. Key tasks in this implementation process include: A. Review network definition for accuracy and develop parameters for data collection. B. Conduct pavement condition surveys and ride quality measurements. C. Develop, utilize, and implement the Cartegraph asset management system to analyze the City's current pavement network. D. Prepare a report of the work conducted including background, execution, findings, conclusions and recommendations for a five-year network -level maintenance plan. Page 1 Calculation of Condition Scores Cartegraph calculates a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for each pavement section. The PCI can be based on a combination of different indices such as distress, ride, geometrics, and safety among others. However, when combining two or more different indices to calculate a composite score, the meaning of such a score is occasionally lost. The PCI uses a scale from 0 for a failed pavement to 100 for a pavement in perfect condition. PCI is based on the type, severity, and extent of surface distress as illustrated in Figure 2. The types of distress collected and included in the PCI calculation are fatigue cracking, block cracking, linear cracking, and rutting. Distress Distress l i Type Severity Quantity Figure 2. Pavement Condition Index (PCI) For the analysis of the City of Georgetown's data, the PCI index calculated only takes into account distress information. Each of the distress types include a severity level (low, moderate, and high) and have different impacts or "deduct" values for a range of extent. The calculation of the PCI is based on the IRI (International Roughness Index) values obtained from the data collection as shown in the profile data collection section above. Reporting Condition Scores The overall PCI score is 87.3 for the entire City of Georgetown road network in 2014. This network PCI classification is considered to be in the "Fair" condition rating. With approximately 3,641 pavement management sections included in the analysis, reviewing condition scores on a section -by -section basis can be tedious. Rather than review individual section data, the general health of the pavement network can be interpreted by reviewing the data distribution by score. Two common methods for displaying this information are bar chart histograms by condition state and cumulative frequency distributions. Pavement conditions can be described using subjective ratings such as Page 2 "Good," "Fair," and "Poor". These subjective ratings can be defined by assigning a numeric range to each category. Table 1 shows the condition category definitions applied to pavement scores. Table 1. Pavement Condition Index Ratings Rating Excellent Good Fair Marginal Poor Damaged Range 95 — 100 85 — 95 75 — 85 65 — 75 40 — 65 < 40 The PCI by functional classification is shown in Table 2, which depicts the overall condition of the three functional classes (Arterial, Collector, and Local) with the network PCI. Lane 1 conditions are reported in the table below as these are representative of the primary driving lane. Table 2. Pavement Condition Index by Functional Class (2014 — Lane 1, all Passes) Year Local Collector Arterial Overall Network 2014 86.5 86.1 90.0 87.3 2012 87.5 86.3 89.7 87.7 PCI Scores were updated based on recent maintenance treatments as described below: • Rejuvenator — measured field PCI • 1-Course Chip Seal —maximum of field PCI and 90 • 2-Course Chip Seal — maximum of field PCI and 90 • Cutler in -Place Recycling — maximum of field PCI and 95 Multiple lanes and passes were driven during the data collection process. Data was collected in up to four lanes in up to two passes (directions). Table 3 below summarizes the multiples pass information. There were a few Local streets where multiple passes were performed, but this represents a very small percentage. Page 3 Table 3. Pavement Condition Index by Functional Class (All Test Passes) Lane/Pass Combination Local Collector Arterial Overall Network Lane 1 - All Passes 86.5 86.1 90.0 87.3 Pass 1 86.4 86.3 89.6 87.0 Pass 2 88.3 85.2 90.5 89.1 Lane 2 - All Passes -- 93.8 91.3 91.5 Pass 1 -- 94.3 91.1 91.3 Pass 2 -- 93.3 91.5 91.6 Lane 3 - All Passes -- 93.4 -- 93.4 Pass 1 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 Pass 2 -- 90.0 -- 90.0 Lane 4 - All Passes -- 90.3 -- 90.3 Pass 1 -- 90.9 -- 90.9 Pass 2 -- 90.0 -- 90.0 All Test Passes 86.5 86.5 90.5 88.0 Condition State Bar Charts Figure 3 displays the road network PCI score distribution by functional class and for the overall road network as of 2014. Over 40 percent of the network falls into the "Excellent" category, with PCI scores above 95. The condition state graph shows conditions for the Arterial classification have a proportionately better rating than other classes, while the Local classification has a proportionately worse rating than other classes. The majority of the network is composed of residential streets, as is evident by the overall network rating being at nearly the same level as the residential functional class rating. Figure 3. PCI Score Distribution (Pass 1, Lane 1) Page 4 Figure 4 displays the road network IRI score (0 = perfectly smooth) distribution by functional class and for the overall road network as of 2014. Approximately 47 percent of the network (where valid readings were taken) exhibits an IRI value of less than 200. Brand new highways typically have an IRI value of between 40 and 60, damaged roadways typically have an IRI of over 200-300. As the IRI value increases, these are signs of increasingly damaged or distressed roads. Index values of over 600 are very poor and the comfortable driving speed on such roadways is likely very slow to not comfortable at any speed. The conditions of the ride quality are in line with the distribution of the PCI scores for the City's network. It should be also noted that the Arterial roadways are performing much better than the network as a whole. This is expected as ride quality is typically more of a concern and triggers maintenance or rehabilitation actions on Arterial roadways before other roadways. The Collector and Local roadways are performing nearly the same for ride quality. 60% t) 30% LL w O = 20% m i a 1 0% 0% > 600 500-600 400-500 300-400 200-300 100-200 0-100 IRI Score Range Local ■ Collector ■ Arterial ■ Overall Network Figure 4. IRI Score Distribution (Pass 1, Lane 1) At speeds below approximately 45 miles per hour, modern vehicle suspension systems diminish pavement roughness before it can be translated to the vehicle chassis, thus affecting pavement ride. Other variables such as acceleration and deceleration during testing can also influence data collection. The effects of accelerating or decelerating during data collection were not filtered from the collected roughness data. Given that the reference speed for the International Roughness Index is 50 miles per hour and that posted speed limits in the city (particularly for collectors and residential roads) are much Page 5 lower, there is little concern for the roughness of these roads at high speeds. Table 4 below shows a summary of IRI values invalidated during the QC process. Table 4. Percent of Segments with Invalidated IRI by Functional Class (Pass 1, Lane 1) Local Collector Arterial Overall Network 38% 12% 9% 30% Maintenance Policy The first step in producing a maintenance work plan is to understand the type of work activities currently in use by the City. The objective of developing a quality work plan is to select the right treatment, at the right time, for the correct pavement condition. Lists of work activities and costs for the City of Georgetown are presented in Table 4 below. Table 4 outlines the general treatments on AC roadways. Emergency maintenance such as pothole repair or patching for utilities is not included. Table 4. AC Work Plan Activities, Costs, and Impact Treatment Cost Cost + 10% Unit Growth Rate Impact Impact Type Fog Seal $0.05 $0.06 SF 5% 0-3 Relative Single Chip $0.34 $0.37 SF 5% 90 Absolute Double Chip $0.61 $0.67 SF 5% 90 Absolute Single Chip w/ Fog $0.39 $0.43 SF 5% 90 Absolute Double Chip w/ Fog $0.66 $0.73 SF 5% 90 Absolute Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) $1.71 $1.30 SF 5% 90 Absolute HIPR (Cutler) $1.71 $1.88 SF 5% 95 Absolute Rejuvenator $0.09 $0.10 SF 5% 0-2 Relative Rehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill & Overlay) $2 22 $2.45 SF 5% 30 Relative Reconstruction Backlog $15.00 $15.00 SF 0% 0 Relative For the treatments shown above, the Cost + 10% unit cost was used in the in budget analysis. An overall cost growth rate of 5% was assumed for all treatment types. Unit costs were based of the 2014 Street Maintenance Program average bid prices. Impacts classified as Relative, add the numeric value of the impact to the PCI score when a treatment is applied, whereas impacts classified as Absolute have the PCI score set to the numeric value shown. Page 6 The Cartegraph software provides tools for defining work types, associated costs, and expected improvements to the segment PCI when the treatment is applied. Current maintenance alternatives were selected based on current practices in the City of Georgetown, the State of Texas, and other similar networks. Additional maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) options can be considered by the City of Georgetown and incorporated at any time. These alternatives and their associated costs may be changed at any time to maintain current construction costs. Other policy tables include the PCI weights, which allow the weight of the condition indices to be altered if desired, and Distress and Ride Impact Factors, which represent the increase in condition index for a particular work activity. Preliminary recommendations for maintenance activities are based on the condition of the road segment or PCI score. A decision tree representing the M&R Policies was developed in based on discussions with the City Staff. Table 5 below shows the decision matrix used in the analysis. Four decision matrices were evaluated before the one below was selected as representative for the City of Georgetown for a 5-year network -level budget analysis. There is virtually no portland cement concrete (PCC) roadways in the City so the budget analysis was only set up for asphalt concrete (AC) roadways. Table 4. AC Work Plan Decision Matrix Treatment Functional Class PCI Min PCI Max Used Minimum Interval Fog Seal -- 85 95 N -- Single Chip w/ Fog Local 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Minor Collector 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Major Collector 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Minor Arterial 70 85 Y 5 yr Double Chip w/ Fog Major Arterial 70 85 Y 5 yr HIPR (Cutler) All 60 70 Y -- Rejuvenator -- 75 90 N -- Rehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill & Overlay) All 40 65 Y -- Reconstruction Backlog All 0 40 N -- It should be noted that Fog Sealing and Rejuvenation as stand-alone treatments were not included in the budget analysis. Fog Sealing should be utilized in conjunction with the Chip Seal Program. Rejuvenation is a stand alone process utilized to rejuvenate asphalt Page 7 pavement that has experienced oxidation. The impact of rejuvenation and fog sealing on the PCI score is little to none. The overall impact on the network -level PCI of not including these treatments is negligible. The rejuvenation and fog sealing treatments tend to be applied to whole neighborhoods / subdivisions at a time. Deferred Maintenance Analysis An additional analysis based on the No Funding scenario can be used to calculate the cost of deferred maintenance was setup with Cartegraph. Figure 11 shows how the deterioration of an unimproved network causes the eventual price of repair to increase significantly as maintenance is put off. The unimproved network PCI is shown on the x- axis along with the plan year. The blue bars show the cost of the maintenance backlog (all activities except reconstruction). The reconstruction backlog, represented by the red line shows the total area of roadway with a PCI of less than 40 that will likely be candidate roadways for reconstruction. The total backlog that includes reconstruction can quickly escalate as reconstruction costs can run between $12 and $20 per square foot. The reason that there is a drop in maintenance between years one and two is because several roadways in the pre -critical range dropped to a PCI score below 40. The volume of these roadways made the overall maintenance lower, excluding potential reconstruction roadways. When the volume of roadways requiring reconstruction is included, the overall backlog increases each year. Figure 11. Deferred Maintenance Cost Page 8 For example, if "unlimited funding" were available in year one of the analysis (2015 in this case), the network would be improved to a PCI of 92, for an approximate cost of $15,400,000, excluding roadways requiring reconstruction. As shown in Figure 11, the deferred maintenance cost grows significantly with time. Some of this is due to inflation and interest; however the majority is due to deferring recommended maintenance and rehabilitation activities. The results from the deferred maintenance analyses are also summarized in tabular form in Table 9, below. Table 9. Deferred Maintenance Summary Work Plan Year Calendar Year Maintenance Backlog Reconstruction Area (SF) PCI Change in PCI 1 2014-2015 $15,391,717 1,070,962 85.8 0.0 2 2015-2016 $14,718,624 1,605,613 83.3 -2.5 3 2016-2017 $21,074,368 2,454,139 80.5 -5.3 4 2017-2018 $25,308,368 3,291,803 77.5 -8.3 5 2018-2019 $31,615,131 4,382,617 74.3 -11.5 The results in Table 9 indicate that the cost of deferred maintenance steadily rises from year 2 to year 5. The drop between years 1 and 2 was explained on the previous page. The reason for the increase in cost per PCI each year is the amount and type of activities that are required in order to address the network's pavement deterioration. For example, what may have been a "Chip Seal" in year one of the analysis may deteriorate into a full "HIPR" by the end of year two or three. There is a large increase in deferred maintenance costs between years 3 and 4, which indicates that a large number of roadways are changing from a less expensive treatment type to a more expensive one during that plan year. In addition, the cost of treatments is rising with inflation and other market forces. These results show the importance of keeping roads in good condition, which can be accomplished by having a comprehensive pavement management system in place with reasonable M&R policies. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN OPTIMAL PMS Several scenarios have been run to demonstrate the system's capabilities but also to seek out initial results. Although these reports are informative, PMS analysis is an iterative Page 9 process and effort must be taken by the City to seek out enhancements to the maintenance policy to better correspond with the constraints and practices of the City. Typical examples might include adding new treatments or revising cost data as it becomes available, editing the prioritization policy, and other similar enhancements. With historical information, trends in deterioration can be evaluated, identifying locations of repeated maintenance that indicate a more severe underlying problem. Identifying prevalent distress types is essential to providing recommendations to prevent or mitigate them through improvements in pavement design or maintenance policy. As technology in the maintenance treatments evolves, the City may decide to include alternative treatments in the maintenance activity selection, the Cartegraph software allows these changes. Because a pavement management system is the best tool to track performance of different treatment types, it is recommended that the City of Georgetown test additional treatments to examine their performance and added value. All cost information programmed in Cartegraph and presented in this report was updated based on recent work order estimates accounting for the cost of materials, labor, and accoutrement costs associated with repaving operations. Page 10 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve a task order with KPA of Georgetown, Texas, for the 2014- 2015 CIP Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $184,605.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager ITEM SUMMARY: This project involves final design, bidding and construction administration services for the City of Georgetown's 2015 Street Maintenance Projects. The project consists of four (4) different roadway maintenance methods: chip seal with fog seal and or warm mix asphalt (WMA) application, hot in place recycling (HIPR/Cutler Process), and curb and gutter / ramp replacement. In-house project support will be included in the scope. The streets proposed to receive maintenance treatments and rehabilitation have been identified in the pavement condition surveys. These identified methods will be combined into three (3) separate bid packages as outlined in task order. (See attachment) In-house projects are identified in attachment #4. Each project will also include the evaluation of all existing pedestrian ramps along the proposed project route to determine if the ramps are ADA compliant. Any pedestrian ramp identified as non -compliant will be removed and replaced in conjunction with this project. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 9, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: KPA has successfully completed past pavement surveys for the City and has provided satisfactory engineering services for numerous Capital Maintenance projects in the past. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Task Order of Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the 2014- 2015 Street Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Project in the amount of $184,605.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP — Street and Drainage Rehabilitation Project — Budgetary Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller ATTACHMENTS: CIP Budget Form Task Order Map - Color Coded Proposed in house treatments CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT NAME: Division/Department Prepared By: DATE: 2015 Street CIP Engineering 12/31/2014 Transportation Services Director Approval Mark Miller Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 2,050,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting 184,605.00 184,605.00 9% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 184,605.00 GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER Approved CY Budget 201-9-0880-90-072 rejuvenate $ 23,550 501,000.00 1,171,000.00 378,000.00 201-9-0880-90-075 Cutler $106,590 203-9-0880-90-076 in-house $ 54,465 184,605 Total Budget TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Spent/Encumbered Consulting Right of Way Construction Other Costs 2,050,000.00 Current Year Costs Total Project Costs % Total Budget 184,605.00 184,605.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Total Project Costs 0.00 184,605.00 184,605.00 Comments: TASK ORDER Task Order KPA Task Order No.15-004 , consisting of 16 pages. In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition, dated March 23, 2011 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 2 3 E Specific Project Data A. Title: Professional Services for 2015 Street Maintenance Projects. B. Description: Professional Engineering Services for the preparation of plans, specifications, bidding documents and construction administration for three (3) different roadway maintenance methods: chip seal, warm mix asphalt and hot in place recycling (Cutler Process) and for In-house (City Performed) construction consisting of preparation of specifications, project layouts, product submittal review and project support for rejuvenation, chip seal and curb and gutter replacement. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: Several D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: Several E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No. F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-702-MSA Services of Engineer See Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement. Times for Rendering Services Phase Design Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) Package 3 (HIPR) In-house Project Support Completion Date March 1, 2015 April 1, 2015 .m Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Paae 1 of 4 TASK ORDER 5 0 7 Bidding Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) Package 3 (HIPR) Construction Phase Package 1 & 2 (Chip Seal & WMA) Package 3 (HIPR) In-house Project Support Payments to Engineer 15.2015 June 15. 2015 August 30, 2015 October 1, 2015 TBD A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Basic Services Final Design, Bidding and Construction Phase for 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Compensation Method A. Lump Sum Lump Sum Compensation for Services $184, 605.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. Consultants: Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP — Georgetown, Texas Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Fee Schedule Exhibit C — Overall Exhibit 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective March 23, 2011. Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. Ali rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 TASK ORDER Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is , 2015. • ./► By: Name: Title: Dale Ross, Mayor Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF ENGINEER: Name: Alvin R. Sutton III, PE, CFM Title: Principal Engineer License or Firm's Certificate No. F-510 State of: Texas Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator } CORPORATE } ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day of , 2015, Alvin R. Sutton III, PE, CFM personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this Document in my presence. [SEAL] Notary Public My Commission Expires: Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. Ali rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Paae 3 of 4 TASK ORDER DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name: Joel Weaver DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name: Alvin R. Sutton III. P.E.. CFM Title: Project Manager Title: Principal Address: 300-1 Industrial Avenue Address: 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Georgetown, TX 78626 E-Mail Address: joel.weaver@georgetown.org Phone: 512-931-7698 Fax: 512-930-3559 E-Mail Address: TSutton@kpaengineers.com Phone: 512-819-9478 Fax: Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A - DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Project Description: This project involves final design, bidding and construction administration services for the City of Georgetown's 2015 Street Maintenance Projects. The project consists of three (3) different roadway maintenance methods: chip seal with fog seal, hot in place recycling (HIPR/Cutler Process), and warm mix asphalt (WMA) application. Each project will also include the evaluation of all existing pedestrian ramps along the proposed project route to determine if the ramps are ADA compliant. Any pedestrian ramp that identified as non -compliant will be removed and in conjunction with this project. These methods will be combined into three (3) separate bid packages as follows: Bid Package 1 & 2: Chip Seal with Fog Seal or Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Chip Seal with Fog Seal Projects/Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Application Street From To Length Williams Drive Serenada DB Woods/Shell Road 6,500 Rockmoor Drive Woodview Drive IH 35 Frontage Road 3,600 San Gabriel Heights Subdivision 15,500 Norwood Drive Leander Road Leander Road River Bow Drive Leander Road Norwood Drive Riverwood Drive River Bow Drive Norwood Drive Norwood Cove Norwood Drive Cul-de-sac Ridgewood Drive Norwood Drive Inwood Drive Inwood Drive Deepwood Drive Cul-de-sac Ridge Oak Drive Ridgewood Drive Inwood Drive Tallwood Drive Ridge Oak Drive Leander Road Greenwood Drive Ridgewood Drive Inwood Drive Greenwood Court Ridgewood Drive Cul-de-sac Oakwood Drive Greenwood Drive Friendswood Drive Friendswood Drive Norwood Drive Tallwood Drive River Tree Cove Ridgewood Drive Cul-de-sac Katy Crossing Subdivision 16,800 Katy Crossing Boulevard Weir Road (FM 971) Meadowlark Circle Bastian Lane Dead End Katy Crossing Boulevard River Park Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard River Bluff Circle River Park Cove Katy Crossing Boulevard Cul-de-sac River Bluff Circle Dead End Cul-de-sac River Bluff Drive River Park Lane Stephen Lane Stephen Lane River Blugg Drive Katy Crossing Boulevard Tanner Circle Stephen Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard May Cove Tanner Circle Cul-de-sac Town Mill Lane Weir Road (FM 971) Katy Crossing Boulevard Prairie Springs Loop Town Mill Lane Town Mill Lane Kajon Court Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Janae Court Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Prairie Springs Cove Town Mill Lane Cul-de-sac Meadowlark Circle Katy Crossing Boulevard Claris Lane Claris Lane Katy Crossing Boulevard Wildflower Lane Total Length - Chip Seal with Fog Seal Project 42,400 Bid Package 3. Hot in Place Recycling (Cutler Process) Hot in Place Recycling (HIPR/Cutler) Projects Street From To Length Williams Drive Lakeway Dr Serenada Drive 4,200 River Bend Road Williams Drive Gabriel View Drive 2,600 Mesquite Lane River Bend Road Judy Drive 1,500 Dunman Drive River Bend Road Mesquite Lane 1,900 Bob White Lane River Bend Road Gabriel View Drive 575 Judy Drive Ranch Road Ranch Road 1,300 Parker Drive River Bend Road Power Road 1,900 Cottonwood Drive River Bend Road Ranch Road 1,400 Power Road Parker Drive Gabriel View Drive 1,800 Total Length - HIPR/Cutler Project 17,175 This project will also include Professional Engineering Services for In-house (City Performed) construction consisting of preparation of specifications, project layouts, product submittal review and project support for rejuvenation, chip seal and curb and gutter replacement. Scope of Services: The scope of services associated with this project is as follows: I. Design Phase a. Data Collection, Permits, and Utility Coordination i. The ENGINEER will utilize existing topographic information and City data to develop surfaces for curb and gutter replacement projects. ii. The ENGINEER will determine areas within the project that require tree pruning and care. Details and procedures will be developed, coordinated, and approved by the City of Georgetown arborist. iii. The ENGINEER will coordinate with utility companies and other City departments to identify any possible conflicts and/or proposed utility improvements on the proposed street maintenance projects. iv. The ENGINEER will investigate general drainage within the project area and conveyance to positive flow at the connection points of the project to existing conditions. Any areas of concern or non -conveyance will be reported to the City of Georgetown Staff and discussed. v. The ENGINEER will review curbs, driveways, etc. to determine conflicts with existing private property connections to the project. vi. The ENGINEER will conduct a review of all pedestrian ramps to determine their ADA compliance status along the project routes. vii. The ENGINEER will incorporate City of Georgetown imagery into the field surveys and integrate the two as a model. b. Develop Design Plans i. The ENGINEER will utilize the survey data and surface model to develop plan and profile sheets for the proposed curb and gutter replacement projects. The ENGINEER will illustrate all proposed slopes, typical sections, plan/profiles, and improvement locations. ii. The ENGINEER will develop plan/profiles for curb and gutter replacement projects. iii. The ENGINEER will develop erosion control/sedimentation/tree protection plans. iv. The ENGINEER will develop traffic control, striping and signing plans if required. v. The ENGINEER will develop all standard and special details for each construction method. vi. The ENGINEER will develop a quantity take -off and an estimate of probable construction cost for each roadway rehabilitation. c. Develop Technical Specifications for the Project i. The ENGINEER will develop detailed technical specifications for each roadway maintenance method. d. Review Plans with City Staff, Incorporate Comments i. The ENGINEER will schedule a meeting with City Staff to review the plans at the 50%, 75% and 90% design stages to discuss issues and report any dilemmas that have been encountered. ii. The ENGINEER will receive all City Staff comments and incorporate into the plans. Once comments have been incorporated the ENGINEER will schedule a second meeting with City Staff to review the revised plans. iii. The ENGINEER will submit the five sets of final plans to City Staff. II. Bidding a. The ENGINEER will develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City Staff for advertising the project for public bidding. The ENGINEER will also solicit bids from past contractors to acquire as competitive a bidding process as possible; b. The ENGINEER will manage and distribute bidding documents; c. The ENGINEER will prepare for the Pre -Bid Conference, develop an agenda and sign in sheet, conduct the Pre -Bid Conference, take notes at the conference, prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda; d. The ENGINEER will receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and answer in the form of an addenda; e. The ENGINEER will conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids and certify them; f. The ENGINEER will research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend award to the City of Georgetown. III. Construction Administration a. The ENGINEER will prepare contract documents; forward those to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, they will be checked for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution; b. The ENGINEER will schedule and conduct the Pre -Construction Conference. Minutes from the conference will be taken and distributed; c. The ENGINEER will receive and review all submittals and material samples for the project. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City of Georgetown and the contractor; d. The ENGINEER will hold regularly scheduled construction progress meetings. These meetings will include meeting agendas covering project specifics and schedules. Notes will be taken by the ENGINEER at the meetings. Minutes will then be developed and distributed to the City of Georgetown Staff and the contractor; e. The ENGINEER will make periodic visits the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City of Georgetown will provide daily on -site representation for the project; f. The ENGINEER will develop pay estimate forms for the project. These will be distributed to City Staff and the contractor. The ENGINEER will review the pay requests with City Staff; g. The ENGINEER will conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City Staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well; h. The ENGINEER will develop final record drawings for the City of Georgetown Staff. The record drawings will be presented in the form of a DVD with pdf of each plan sheet and a full 1 W 7 hard copy. EXHIBIT B FEE SCHEDULE KPA Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Summary of Proposed Project Costs Proposed Opinion of Bid Roadway Repair Method Professional Services Probable Total Project Cost Package Fee Construction Costs 1 Chip Seal with Fog Seal Application $ 54,465.00 $ 620,535.00 $ 675,000.00 2 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Application 3 Hot in Place Recycling - Local/Collector $ 84,290.00 $ 631,710.00 $ 716,000.00 Hot in Place Recycling - Arterial Reserve $ 22,300.00 $ 477,700.00 $ 500,000.00 4 In -House Project Support $ 23,550.00 $ 750,000.00 $ 773,550.00 Total Project Costs $ 184,605.00 1 $ 2,479,945.00 $ 2,664,550.00 EXHIBIT B: 1 & 2 - Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Incorporate Survey Data and All Utilities 6 2 2 2 12 Develop Chip Seal Plans 60 24 8 4 1 97 Develop Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Plans 40 18 8 4 1 71 Develop Traffic Control Plan 4 8 4 2 18 Develop Signing and Striping Plan 4 12 4 2 22 Develop Erosion/Sedimentation/Tree Protection Details 8 8 8 3 27 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 4 6 4 2 16 Develop Opinion of Probable Cost 8 8 2 1 19 Incorporate Permitting Requirements into Plans/Details 4 8 4 2 18 Prepare Technical Specifications 12 4 2 18 Review Plans with City Staff 4 4 4 11 13 Incorporate Comments and Prepare for bidding 1 4 4 2 1 11 Total Hours for Final Design 0 130 114 62 31 5 342 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Final Design Total Cost $ - $ 9,750.00 $ 11,970.00 $ 8,370.00 $ 4,960.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 36,050.00 Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Bidding Advertise / Solicit Bidders 4 4 2 2 1 13 Distribute plans andspecifications 3 3 Pre -Bid Conference 4 4 4 12 Answer Questions and Prepare Addenda 1 12 1 12 Receive & Tabulate Bids 2 2 1 5 Recommend Award 2 1 3 Total Hours for Bidding 9 0 8 6 22 3 48 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Bidding Total Cost $ 495.00 $ - $ 840.00 $ 810.00 $ 3,520.00 $ 600.00 $ 6,265.00 EXHIBIT B: 1 & 2 - Chip Seal & Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Applications Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Mana cr Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Prepare Contract Documents & distribute to Contractor 2 8 4 2 1 17 Review Submittals 8 4 2 1 15 Construction Meetings/minutes/etc. 4 4 4 12 Site Review 81 8 4 2 22 Final Walkthrough 4 4 4 12 Record Drawings 8 4 4 2 1 19 Total Hours for Construction Administration 2 8 36 28 18 5 97 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Construction Administration Total Cost $ 110.00 $ 600.00 $ 3,780.00 $ 3,780.00 $ 2,880.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 12,150.00 Project Total $ 54,465.00 EXHIBIT B: 3 - Hot in Place Recycling Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas Hot in Place Recvclin¢ Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Incorporate Survey Data and All Utilities 2 12 4 4 2 1 25 Develop Hot in Place Recycling Plans 160 80 32 12 4 288 Develop Traffic Control Plan 24 18 8 6 4 60 Develop Signing and Striping Plan 32 361 8 6 4 86 Develop Erosion/Sedimentation/Tree Protection Details 12 12 10 6 4 44 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 18 12 4 4 1 39 Develop Opinion of Probable Cost 2 16 8 8 4 38 Incorporate Permitting Requirements into Plans/Details 8 12 12 6 4 42 Prepare Technical Specifications 8 18 10 8 4 48 Review Plans with City Staff 6 6 61 4 22 Incorporate Comments and Prepare for bidding 41 6 61 6 4 4 30 Total Hours for Final Design 16 272 220 108 68 38 722 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Final Design Total Cost $ 880.00 $ 20,400.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 14,580.00 $ 10,880.00 $ 7,600.00 $ 77,440.00 Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate Engineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Bidding Advertise / Solicit Bidders 4 4 2 1 1 12 Distribute plans and specifications 2 2 Pre -Bid Conference 4 4 4 12 Answer Questions �iTd_Preparce Addenda 1 8 12 8 21 30 Receive & Tabulate Bids 2 2 1 5 Recommend Award 2 1 3 Total Hours for Bidding 8 8 8 18 17 5 64 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Bidding Total Cost $ 440.00 $ 600.00 $ 840.00 $ 2,430.00 $ 2,720.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 8,030.00 EXHIBIT B: 3 - Hot in Place Recycling Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Task Clerical CARD Tech Graduate Engineer project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Prepare Contract Documents & distribute to Contractor 4 8 4 2 2 20 Review Submittals 18 10 2 2 32 Construction Meetings/minutes/etc. 4 8 10 6 4 32 Site Review 18 16 41 2 40 Final Walkthrough 1 8 4 4 2 18 Record Drawings 4 16 8 4 1 1 34 Total Hours for Construction Administration 12 16 68 48 19 13 176 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Construction Administration Total Cos $ 660.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 7,140.00 $ 6,480.00 $ 3,040.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 21,120.00 Project Total $ 106,590.00 EXHIBIT B: 4 - In -House Project Support Project Name: 2015 Street Maintenance Projects Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, Georgetown, Texas In -House Project SUDDort Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate En ineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Final Design Collect Survey Data 2 2 2 1 7 Develop Curb and Gutter Replacement Plan/Profiles 14 8 2 1 2 27 Indenti Non -Compliant ADA Rams 6 8 2 1 1 18 Develop Non -Compliant ADA Ramps Replacement Plans/Exhibits 8 4 2 1 15 Develop Traffic Control Plan 6 2 2 1 11 Develop Striping Plan 8 4 2 1 15 Develop Miscellaneous Project Details 2 4 2 1 9 Provide Permitting Support 6 8 2 1 17 Prepare Technical Specifications 6 2 1 9 Meet with City Staff 4 10 8 8 2 32 Total Hours for Final Design 0 56 56 26 17 5 160 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 1 $ 105.001 $ 135.00 $ 160.001 $ 200.00 Final Design Total Cost $ $ 4,200.001 $ 5,880.001 $ 3,510.00 $ 2,720.001 $ 1,000.001 $ 17,310.00 Task Clerical CADD Tech Graduate En ineer Project Engineer Project Manager Principal Total Hours Construction Administration Review Submittals 4 4 2 10 Meet with City Staff 6 6 4 2 18 Site Review 6 6 4 2 18 Total Hours for Construction Administration 0 0 16 16 10 4 46 Hourly Rate $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 105.00 $ 135.00 $ 160.00 $ 200.00 Construction Administration Total Cost $ - $ - $ 1,680.00 $ 2,160.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 800.00 $ 6,240.00 Project Total $ 23,550.00 I� C- PLANNED ACTIVITY GEORGETOWN CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN ETJ UHINSEAL / WMA CUTLER IN HOUSE PROJECTS REJUVENATOR CHIPSEAL / CURB & GUTTER / POINT REPAIR m f N O R T H 0 2500 5000 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET f Is I ---- U� I vVN 1 Ll \1 1V KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS KA GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 PROPOSED 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM January 2, 2015 0 I� C- PLANNED ACTIVITY GEORGETOWN CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN ETJ UHINSEAL / WMA CUTLER IN HOUSE PROJECTS REJUVENATOR CHIPSEAL / CURB & GUTTER / POINT REPAIR m f N O R T H 0 2500 5000 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET f Is I ---- U� I vVN 1 Ll \1 1V KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS KA GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 PROPOSED 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM January 2, 2015 0 2015 CIP PAVEMENT REHAB IN HOUSE CENTER LINE FEET PLANNED ACTIVITY MISC STREETS CHIP SEAL 2 COURSE Apple Creek Rd. 1,000 Royal Dr. 1,360 Old Airport Rd. 3,200 Stadium Dr. 1,000 NE Inner Lp. CR 151 to FM 971 3,300 CR 152 - FM 971 to County Line 5,587 River Haven Dr. 809 WL Walden 1,523 3rd Austin Ave to Myrtle 928 TOTAL 18,707 OLD TOWN CHIP SEAL 1 COURSE 13th - Ash to James 2,520 Olive - University to 17th 1,831 15th - Olive to Hutto 1,728 Laurel -15th to Hutto 900 Vine - University to 15th 795 James -13th to 15th 454 Maple - 20th to 22nd 535 22nd - Maple to San Jose 496 Pine - San Jose to 13th 3,202 San Jose - E22nd to E15th 2,154 Vine - E15th to Dead End 1,524 E19th - Vine to Hutto 900 E18th - Vine to Hutto 900 E17th - Laurel to Hutto 1,123 E16th - Vine to Louise 566 Virginia - E16th to E19th 871 Louise - E16th to E19th 871 Katherine - E15th to E14th 326 E14th - Katherine to Hutto 380 TOTAL 22,076 SUN CITY REJUVENATOR / FOG SEAL Del Webb Blvd 10,000 Dove Hollow Trl 6,384 Fox Home Ln 1,586 Belfalls Dr 1,482 Breezeway Ln 3,700 River Rock Dr 800 Monarch Trl 2,600 Lindero Pass 700 Tea Tree Cv 222 Cobalt Cv 465 Farm Hill Dr 2,186 Prairie Grass Lan 550 Sunny Side Bnd 394 Fieldstone Dr 520 Butterfly Cv 444 Summit St 211 Deer Meadow Cir 3,295 Silver Bonnet Dr 506 Rosecliff Dr 1,040 Courtyard Garden Ln 306 Rainwater Cv 160 Caterpillar Ln 313 Armstrong Dr 920 Orion Rd 677 Venus Ln 546 Stardust Ln 976 Tipps Ct 114 Cowan Creek Dr 1,702 kingfisher Dr 597 Lampasas Pass 713 Travis Dr 1,078 Edwards Dr 393 Armstrong Dr 5,353 Summer Ridge Ln 1,410 Summit St 1,131 Piedmont Ln 806 Whirlwind Cv 600 Moon River Dr 330 Pristine Ln 961 Potter Ln 1,084 Chelsea Dr 355 Lake Sommerville Trl 1,442 Fieldstone Dr 1,707 Fort Boggy Dr 639 Barrington Farm Ct 507 Monument Hill Trl 2,167 Copper Breaks Dr 622 Bright Leaf Trl 1,777 Salt Creek Ln 3,341 Mill Creek Path 678 Sandy Creek Trl 551 Sun City Blvd 17,000 Mustang Island Trl 1,702 Meridian Path 267 Goose Island Dr 1,628 Mckinney Falls Ln 983 Independence Creek Ln 4,497 Angelina Cv 326 Cibolo Creek Dr 644 Mountain Creek Pass 1,039 Prairie Creek Trail 1,548 Bee Creek Ct 838 Cool Spring Wy 11,300 Pedernales Falls Dr 7,214 Lost Peak Path 1,000 Apache Mountain Ln 4,216 Sheldon Lake Dr 2,123 Cleburne Pass 546 Eisenhower Ct 425 Garner Cv 139 Huntsville Cv 722 Dixon Creek Ln 333 Trinity Ln 930 Bear Creek Ln 1,200 Caney Creek Cv 218 Old Blue Mountain Ln - PF to E. End 2,360 Star Mountain Ln 2,044 Major Peak Ln 336 Glass Mountain Cv 258 Shumard Peak Rd 1,217 Ranger Peak Rd 354 Duck Creek Ln 1,825 Pipe Creek Ln 2,010 Coleto Creek Ln 890 Hubbard Creek Ln 410 Emory Peak Trail 642 Capote Peak Dr 1,273 Eagle Mountain Cv 150 Beach Mountain Cv 487 TOTAL 146,135 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action on a contract for professional engineering services with Chan & Partners, LLC of Austin, Texas in the amount of $425,207.43 for flood protection planning -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ITEM SUMMARY: In August 2014, Council approved an agreement with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for a flood protection planning grant. The grant provided for a 50150 cost sharing (up to $200,000) for an updated drainage study and flood protection planning for the following basins: • Berry Creek • Mankins Branch • Pecan Branch • Smith Branch • Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River Chan & Partners was instrumental in preparing the successful grant application and has completed multiple drainage studies for the city over the past decade. Additionally, they have successfully completed multiple TWDB grant programs in the past. The results of the study will include a more accurate floodplain boundary for the basins noted above. Also, the study will provide recommended improvements for inclusion in the drainage capital improvement plan focused on reducing potential future flooding. Finally, the study will be built on updated topographical data to be acquired as part of this project, and usable on a multitude of city projects and master plans. Based on the results of the study, future consideration will be given to updating FEMA Regulatory Floodplain Maps. Also, a future TWDB grant application will be considered to study the significantly larger North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the December 11, 2014 GTAB Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Capital Improvement Plan has budgeted $400,000.00 for this project. The City is initially responsible for the full contract amount of $425,207.43. The TWDB will reimburse the city up to $200,000.00 per the terms of our agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright ATTACHMENTS: Task Order CIP Budget t Report TASK ORDER Task Order No. CPE-15-001, consisting of Iq pages. In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition, dated December 31, 2014, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows. 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Water Development Board Flood Protection Grant Project B. Description: Study of selected watersheds (Begy Creek, Mankins Branch. Pecan Branch, Smith Branch and Middle Fork of San Gabriel River) within the city limits and its ETJ areas to identify existing and future flood prone areas and develop a watershed storm water management plan to mitigate the flood problems. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2014-725-MSA 2. Services of Engineer See attached Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC Scope of Work dated August 26, 2014, Revised November 6, 2014. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: [Here incotporate applicable text or paragraphs for this Specific Project from Exhibit T, Schedule of Owner 's Responsibilities — either by reference or bl%insertion here.] Phase Completion Date Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright CE2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment I —Task Order Form Page I of 4 TASK ORDER 5 31 7 Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Basic Services (Study and Report, Preliminary Design, Final Design, Bidding or ;Vegroliating, Construction Phase) Compensation Method A. Lump Sum B. Standard .Hourly Rates C. [Insert any other compensation method/ Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Aino unt of Compensation for Services $425,207.43 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. Other Modifications to Agreement: [Siij_)131ement or mod?6,, Agreement and Exhibits, ff'appropriate.] 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective December 31, 2014. Georgetown —Revised 3,11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services --Task Order Edition Copyright t2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved, Attachment I — Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 TASK ORDER Tenns and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the teens and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Ow-ner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is OWNER: By: Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor Date: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS 2015. ENGINEER: By: Name: John R. King, P.E. Title: Vice President/Partner Engineer License or Finn's Certificate No. 13013 State of: Texas Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8,2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this -L_day of 2015, John R. King personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. HELEN V. SHENG-LEE [SEAL] Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires Aim gusl 31, 2131 f4' Notary Public My Commission Expires: U"--, Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services --Task Order Edition Copyright Oc 2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form Pate 3 of 4 TASK ORDER DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: TASK ORDER: Name: Wesley Wright, P.E. Title: Systems Engineering Director Address: 300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 E-Mail Address: wesley.wright@georgetown.org Phone: 512-9' ) 1-7672 Fax: 512-930-3559 Name: John King, P.E. Title: Vice President/Partner Address: 4319 James Casey St., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78745 E-Mail Address: johnk@chanpartners.com Phone: 512-480-8155 Fax: 512-480-8811 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright 02004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1—Task Order Form Pa2e 4 of 4 �� ~Chan��Partners Engineering, u_L^~ 4319 James Casey 3tree4Suite 300 Austin, Texas78745 Phone (51%)48O' |55 Pa;x (512)480-8811 T8lEFirm Registration No. F-}]O\] CONSULTING CAnL ENGINEERS www.chanpartners.com November 6i2O14 August 26, 2014 (original) Mr. Wesley VVright,P.E. Systems Engineering Director City ofGeorgetown 3OOIndustrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas 78626 RE: REVISED ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSAL (to include LIDAR for 237 square miles) CITY OF GEORGETOWN - TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLOOD PROTECTION GRANT PROJECT FOR BERRY CREEK, MANKINS BRANCH, PECAN BRANCH, SMITH BRANCH AND Dear Mr. Wright: Pursuant to your request, Chan & Partners Engineering, LLC (CPE)is submitting this engineering services proposal to assist City of Georgetown (COG) in performing a Mood protection planning study for the above -referenced creeks. Specifically, COG has successfully obtained a grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TlND8)tuperform the hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, fkoodplain modeling and a flood protection planning study for the creeks within the COG full purposes and its Extra -Territorial Jurisdiction (ET]) limits. CPE, formerly Raymond Chan 0'Associates, Inc. developed the [1kG Master Drainage Plan in 2GO2, assisted COG in the TWDB grant application, and is well qualified to perform this Mood protection planning study. The proposed study area impresented asfollows: Drainage Area Ge&graphic Area ' -Berry 0'ryBerry Creek hw�cd@eny[reek24,128 -- -_ -_- _--__-_- Cowan Creek of 6,848 ManhnsQramch 8/64 -_-_ -_-_-_ - - ' - Branch Pecan �pecanBranch Tributary #1 4,652 Sn»4hQranch8kVVe��Fo/k�w�U� - ' -- -- ------ 6,080_ Middle Fork of�mGabhe|R��r 1�DV8 - TOTAL 110,700 Study Drainage Area StreamStream �� Miles 78 22 Note: mudStre:, miles. represents Stream miles within City &Enareas. 37� A -'- - 10.7 � 6 I�'6 -- -- 6.1 7.3 8.6 9.5 -_� 8� 272 ----~---` - 11 ` ` 173.0 70.6 CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC Consuldng Chd Engftreers The objective of the proposed planning effort is to provide the City with accurate assessment of the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the subject watersheds and streams, and a practical storm water management plan to address the critical flooding problems, as well as provide the City with an important tool to manage growth and development. A detailed description of the proposed planning study scope of work is presented as follows: 1) Collection and Review of Baseline Information CPE project team will collect and review previous drainage studies, the previous Master Drainage Plan, FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and maps, FEMA LOMRs, master plan development (e.g. Sun City) drainage studies and reports, citizen drainage complaint reports, Tropical Storm Hermine damage reports and other available drainage reports of the proposed planning area. CPE will attend a kick-off meeting with COG project manager, TWDB project manager and the representatives from the participating entities, as applicable. The kick-off meeting will cover the following topics: • Project communication & reporting responsibilities — establish the frequency and method of COG's designated consultant interface with TWDB project manager, COG project manager and the representatives from the participating entities; • Project milestone and schedule; and • Project deliverables at each milestone 2) Development of a Base Map CPE, with the support from the COG GIS division (in -kind contribution as specified in the grant application), will develop a base map using the following information: • Most current LiDAR topography; • Current FEMA FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); • Digital GIS data of parcels, zoning maps, current and future land use maps and soils maps; • As-builts drawings for channel and bridge/culvert improvements; and • Approved LOMRs since the 2008 FIRM update. 3) Assessment of Environmental Constraints A majority of the proposed planning area is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and its Transition Zone, This project will include a record review and data research of Critical Environmental Features (CEF) previously identified by the City of Georgetown. CEF is generally defined as springs, bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves, sinkholes & recharge features and wetlands. This task will not include detailed field survey, investigation and determination of CEFs, but rather will establish the framework for the requirements of environmental assessment during the implementation and final design phase of the flood mitigation measures. CPE's subconsultant Halff & Associates will perform this task. City of Georgetown\TWDB Grant\flood protection grant prop.docx Page 2 of 8 Consuffing Civil Engineers Based on the previous Master Drainage Plan, flooding complaint list, Tropical Storm Hennine Damage Report and other available flooding reports, the flooding problem areas will be identified. COG will conduct public meeting to solicit input on the drainage problem areas including the specifics and nature of the flooding. COG will prepare a brief preliminary finding report on the Tasks 1) through 4) findings. 5) Perform Field Survey CPEwill utilize the most current UDAR data flown in the proposed planning area. The Master Drainage Plan performed in 2002 has field measurements of all the culvert/bridge crossings at the time. [PE will perform field reconnaissance tovahfvth� data. For new bridge/culvert orossings constructed after 2002 or culverts repaired after the Hermine storm, CPE will conduct field surveys and/or utilize as -built information. Jnaddition, CPEhas allocated field survey time topick uperitical regional detention facilities, bridge/culvert crossings, cross sections, finished floor elevations and channel cross section at an interval of approximately one cross section per stream mile. CPE will develop GBgeo-referenced hydrologic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS computer program, along with the preprocessorHEC-GeoHMS. CPEwill develop the Existing Condition and Ultimate Condition hydrologic runoff models. The Ultimate Condition will be based on the adopted COG IQ3UPlan land use and zoning designations. The following information will be \nco¢m��din�the H��KSmodels: • Regionaldetention facilities; w FEk;AL0&4Rhydrologic models; and • Other large scale storm water impoundment facilities (more than 10 acres in surface area) such axSCSDam orretention/stock ponds. ' COG G8Division (in kind contribution asspecified inthe grant application) will assist CPEk}the runoff curve number development inthe area ofimpervious cover calculations within the sub -basins for the existing and the ultimate land use conditions. The hydrologic model input parameters will bedeveloped based onthe following approach; RainfaHdaba—ThelatestUSGS 24'kourdesign storm with National Resources Conservation Service(NFCS) Type III distribution will be used. The 5-, 10., 25-, 50-,100-and r frequency storn�events m�|ben�mdm|ed. '-- Drainage Area —To insure consistency in the peak time computation within the HEC-HMS model, the subarea size for rural area (in the headwater area) will be divided to close to 5 square miles but will not exceed 8square mi/es.The subarea size for urban area (in the downtown and fully developed areas) will be divided to close to 0.5 square mile but will not beless than O.2Ssquare mile. Time of Concentration —The TR-55 equations for estimating the time of concentration for sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and channel/storm drain flow will be used. For rural area, sheet flow length will not exceed 2OQfeet. For urban area, sheet flow length shall not exceed lU0feet. City of 6�m�o����on�m����m _ . � Page 3uf8 K3G6AN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, Consulting Cipil Engineers � Runoff CurveKumber—The Runoff Curve Number(CN) for each sub -basin will becomputed based onprocedures outlined inthe NRCSTR-S5publication. Two sets uf[Nva\uesv:U/be developed for each sub -basin, the existing condition and the ultimate development condition. The existing condition CN will be computed based on latest existing land -use condition data. The ultimate development condition CN will be computed based on the ZO3OComprehensive Plan land -use condition data. The latest QRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGQ) database for Williamson County shall be used for soil type determination. For rural and sparsely populated sub -basins, [PE will use the best engineering judgment to determine the ultimate {and use condition CNvalues. For urban area and area within the COG full purpose limits, COG 8fS Division will develop the existing condition and the ultimate development condition CNs (in -kind contribution as specified in the grant The hydrologic model will be calibrated to peak discharges recorded during historic storm events prior to computing peak flows for hypothetical storm events. In particular, COG has extensive rainfall, runoff and high water marks data during the Tropical Storm Hwnninm event. This data will beused tocalibrate the HEC'HK8Sand HEC-RASmodels. CPE will develop 80 renced hydraulic models using the Corps of Engineers HEC-RA5 computer program, along with the preprocessor HE(-GouRAS. Similar tothe hydrologic models, the Existing Condition and the Ultimate Condition HE[-R4S models will be developed. The HECRAS hydraulic models will cover all the stream miles mentioned in the beginning of this proposal. Please note that some portions mfthe stream outside ofthe COG ET]area will not bemodeled bvHECRAS because this undeveloped and rural area has not expe�encedany flooding pnobkennsinth` pas t. ' The hydraulic model input parameters and modeling procedures are presented asfollows: * Peak discharges from the HE(-HMSjunctions will be specified at the appropriate cross sections. For channel or creek between two HEC-HMS]unctions, the downstream junction peak flow will beused two -third distance upstream along the creek and the peak flow from the upstream junction will be used one-third distance downstream along the creek. r KHmnning's roughness coefficients /.n">will be established based on field reconnaissance, aerial photos and standard engineering reference tables or publications. m Field reconnaissance will be performed to verify the bridge/culvert data obtained for the I002 Georgetown Master Drainage Plan Study. if the bridge/culvert has been nmodi§ed/repaired/uAgraded, new survey will be performed to obtain culvert/bridge sizes, upstream and downstream OovNines, |oxx chord and top of road elevations. In addition, field survey will be performed for any new roadway crossing constructed since the 2002 Georgetown Master Drainage Plan Study. w Field survey will also be acquired for channel cross section at an interval of approximately one cross section per utneanonmi|e- ' • Other HEC'RAS parameters, such as "ineffective flnvv area", "expansion/contraction coefficients" and "bridge/cu|ve/fenergy loss coefficients" will beused osappropriate. The HEC-RAS model will be calibrated based on available historical storm events such as Tropical Storm Hermine, prior to applying the hypothetical storm events. City of Gmm\floodprotection grant pmp.docx Page 4of8 KHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC tO Final Identification of Flood Problem Areas, Establishment of Flood Protection Criteria anj! Evaluation of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Based onthe information from Item 4)above and results ofthe hydraulic models, the flood problem areas will beidentified. COG has established the following flood protection criteria in its Drainage Criteria Manual: For roadway crossings, it must fully convey (through the opening of the crossing) the 2S- yearstorm ultimate development peak discharges with less than 12"over the top of the residential (|ocaAroadway orwith less than 6°over the top ofthe road for the collector or arterial roadwayfor the 100-yearstorm ultimate development peak discharges. For improved channel, it must fully convey the 25jearstonn ultimate development peak discharges with provisions to contain the 100'vear storm ultimate development peak discharges within the drainage easement mrhgMt'nf-vvay' For structure located adjacent to a 100-year floodplain, the finished floor elevation must be at least V above the 100-year storm ultimate development peak discharges. For each of identified flood problem areas, aflood problem severity index will bedeveloped. The elements of this index will include, but not be limited to, depth of flooding (in inches orfeet), number of structure affected, value of the affected structure, the ability to evacuateits inhabitants, the environmental impacts, and the frequency ofthe flooding. The flood problem severity index will assist inthe selection and prioritization ofthe proposed improvement projects. The storm water management and flood mitigation plan will include consideration of the following: Structural Approach: ~ Facility; • Channel improvements, particularly using the Natural Channel Method; • Roadway Bridge/Culvert Improvements; w Leveeo/8ernms/RoodwaUo; and • Combination ofany oftwo ormore ofthe above. Non -Structural Approach: w Update the COG Drainage Criteria Manual and existing land development ordinance if • Buy-outs ofthe flooded properties; • Installation ofEarly Flood Warning systems; • Installation offlood warning signs and barricades at frequent inundated roadway crossings 'mandbanicadesatfmeooantinundatedmoadvxaucvosaings and • Develop pubic information publications describing flood risks and flood insurance. 9) Perform Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analyses of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Hydroanalyses of flood mitigation alternatives will be performed using HEC-HMS and HEC-RA8models for the various hypothetical Moodexents. Preliminary flood control measures will be developed and delineated on plan, profile and cross section sheets, as applicable as well as the resulting 100-year flood plain limit maps (indicating the amount of property removed from the 100- year floodplains). City of Grant\floodprotection grant prop.docx Page 5 of 8 Consuhing Civil Engineers Flood mitigation alternatives will be evaluated not only at the problem area (to reduce the levels of flooding) but also the potential ofcausing adverse hydrologic/hydraulic innpactsatutherlocationsin the watershed. For example, a channel improvement project would likely reduce the time of concentration through the project area, thereby potentially increase the peak discharges at the downstream discharge point of the project area. CPE will insure that flood mitigation measures will not cause adverse flooding impacts elsewhere in the proposed flood improvement areas. Apublic meeting will bcconducted topresent the flood mitigation alternatives and tosolicit input from the property owners and stakeholders. To the extent possible, citizen and stakeholder concerns will be incorporated. The flood mitigation alternatives benefits will bedeveloped. Specifically, these benefits will include reduction in damages for structures (residences, commercials and public facilities), reduction in damages for roadway crossings, and reduction in economic loss (business interruptions and temporary job |ost). Each alternative of flood mitigation benefits will be compared to the cost of the proposed improvements, which will include administration, management, engineering and construction costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-FDA) software, or other compatible widely accepted software, will be used in the Benefit/Cost analysis. This effort will result in a ranking of proposed mitigation alternatives based oncost effectiveness and technical merits. A public meeting will be conducted to obtain citizens and stakeholders input on the flood mitigation alternatives and the results of the benefit/cmstana1ysis. Based on input from the public meeting, CPE will develop project implementation and phasing plan. The implementation and phasing plan will consider items such as funding sources, project duration, easement requirements, environmental impact of the proposed improvements,'nd beneUt/costnaMo' |naddition, consideration ofthe Oty'sadopted 2O]OComprehensive Plan willha important to ensure that the implemented flood improvement projects are compatible with the P|an^sgoals including economic development and quality oflife. 12) Prepare Final Report CPE will develop a draft final report summarizing the results of the hydrologic/hydraulic investigations, flood mitigation alternatives, benefit/cost analysis and stakeholder input, The draft report will include technical description of hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, methodologies, assumptions and modeling notes aswell asimprovement alternative costs, easement requirements (if applicable), phasing and implementation plan, floodplain maps and other applicable exhibits. Afinal public meeting will be conducted topresent the draft final report. Following the public meeting and incorporation of public input, the draft final report will be submitted to TWU8 for review. Upon addressing TWDB review comments, the final report will be submitted to TWDB. Wji Acquisition and Consisting of Approximately 237.58 Square Miles City of GentVlopdprotection grant pmp.doc Page 6nf8 Consulting Civil Engineers With the assistance from TNRKSand COG G|SDivision staff, CPEhas selected Sanborn toperform the UDAR acquisition and production services and URS to perform the 3d party QA/QC services.Their fees are included inthe Basis ofCompensation below. Sanborn and URSpricing tables are included as Attachments 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. BASIS OF COMPENSATION The above services will be performed based on a cost plus fixed fee with a not to exceed amount of $425,207-43' All expenses and aubconsuhants fees are included inthe not toexceed fee of$4Z8,QG8. The subconsultants' scope of services are presented as follows: • Scheibe Consulting, LLC —Hydndogic/ hydraulic analyses and modeling, flood problem area identifications and mitigation measures development, cost benefit analysis, and quality contrmi/qvai\tVassvrame. • HaUfAssociates, Inc. — Environmental Constraint Assessment. * F|uBe|Surveying —Bridge/culvert crossings and cross section survey. ' Somborn—LlDARacquisitionendreppoduction. • UR5—UDAR3mparty quality assurance/quality control. Attachment I presents the project budget and task description. In addition to the above nxyn1kvned subconsultants, it isour understanding that COG has committed to TWDB %ocontribute in -kind services of $50,000.00. The in -kind services are presented asfollows: a, -- �o^��ka��s�cctionandcmnt�/ct execution ' ------~------------ ---�— ,000 ��./ b. Project management, quality controls and coordination - 100 $10,000 (18rmonths) C. Base - - 40 4,000 � d. _ ��� data --- -- ----' $14,000 � e GG), assist in land use data and _0O_ 80 | 8,000lurure development trend t Rood problem area identifications and mitigation measures 8 D $ 0,000 / evaluations / _ g. Implementation plan and improvement budgeting Art $ 4,000 TOTAL 440 $ 50,000 Attachment 4 presents TWDB Subcontracting Guidelines for use by Contractor, which CPE will comply. TIME SCHEDULE A project schedule is transmitted herewith Z). Specifically, QPEanticipates completing the project within nineteen (19) months, excluding COG and TWD8 review time, City of 6mm\floodprotection grant prop.docx Page 7 of CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC .......... Consulting Civil Engineers CPE's key personnel who will be performing work on this project are as follows: Raymond Chan, P.E. --. Project Principal, QA/QC reviews. John R. King, P.E. Project Manager/Engineer, day-to-day contact Alexis Woffenden, P.E. Assistant Project Manager/Engineer and Technical Lead. V!2:1#4 Ito -mg I. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Letter of Map Revisions and flood mitigation construction drawings are not part of the scope of services. If needed, a separate amendment will be prepared and submitted to COG prior to in initiation of work. 2. Should the Owner request changes to the above defined SCOPE OF SERVICES or if additional services are requested, all incurred costs shall be billed on a time and materials basis. An estimate of additional costs will be provided and approved prior to proceeding with the project. 3. Jurisdictional fees for review and permitting if needed are the responsibility of the Owner. CPE appreciates the opportunity to provide our engineering consulting services to the City of Georgetown. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, CHAN & PARTNERS ENGINEERING, LLC Raymond M. Chan, P.E. President City of Georgetown\TWDB GrantVlood protection grant prop-docx Page 8 of 8 C m � O 3 t� � OO a cif 3 6 mmC ypu, M aY (f V `s � M � x W !• W 0 6 c c a � 6 � O 1 ate+ O p pq O C7 �s 's q � 2 + � i v c aas s i m Wk 5 my m u, F to M ry VM' n ID W It � M tt Q rt tD 09 00 I 4 yIgj9 vi N O i I V O fn Q o -T Q o of a N �ti t11 c v to G LL w m � c a v LL o r cr y u Er x X a c a o l = c o E ®> 73 A C d t ka to i i +n .n pN O pp C a i i ap to eQ-i 4 +J1 N i i tkt Op `h u c m c w 69 c O F V a a O w a to c o o 0 aal M m N c Q oa p; C C Ai m C '' C G aEi tr $ u ° aCL E "' 0CL LL d OD C C s v D a a a a` o. N e ti d sunborn 20� M�11 Company Name: The Sanborn Map Company, Inc. 'Nominal Point Density 4 Points per Square tM eter (0.5 ni NIPS 15 cm (Hood/Soils) &- 25 cm (Forest' At*isitfon Time Period Leafoff early 2015 Mliverableg Classified LAS Point Cloud Bare..Carth DEM lntoosft Y :Imoge HY4tt.1Cr;h!g Break lines --.-,d rzaartS as listed in SOW Unit Cost per 00 CIQCI* 4, Total Project Cost* 51,967.43 0 OR Defive.rables CAeWoimrrvey and Report WOAeCiaucy Assessment Report F1fl41-dA/GC Reporr List appropriate checkpoint Information below, LAND COVER UNIT COST QTY TOTAL Open Terrain Forest Other fees Totat Cost o I fzati6rilees RFPRFIRFO A-VGM vA 7700= kxk*d in it-gs Mona ZM tarMW=ft AW jprftora.Vg P6vw" ** aft, d*q rM b% Wod upon n dPkft*d Pricing--Ta- �ble _eIj 01 Voq�p_any Name: URS I UDAR GAjQC )oInt Survoyand Fteport Accuracy Assessment. Repon I List amrwriate chanknrint infnYmnfinn holn— LAND COVER UNIT COST I QUANTITY TOTAL OP-enTerrain (Nonfe stat ed !2d) $395 1 20 $7,900 Forest (Vagotated) $395 5 $1,975 Other fees $9,638 Total Cost t9,513 Name: L UlecKpoint Survey and RejpW I LiDAR Accuracy Assessment Report Final QA/0C Rowrt I I U%t Arxmvlfinfp nhkrvif inf­. LAND COVER UNIT COST a AN71TY TOTAL —open Terrain (Non-vegst`ated) $395 20 $7,900 Forest (Vegetatffq $395 10 $3,950 Other tees $11,390 Total Cost $23,240 --r-VJ,r? Y-3 EX_HIBrT B Ltems to Consider When Subcontracting Work Related to Texas Water Development Board Funded Projects The Texas Water Development Board requires that all subcontracts be consistent with the terms and requirements included in the TWDB funding contract. The requirements listed below must be included in your subcontract agreement in order for the agreement to be acceptable to TWDB. The following list is provided to facilitate the contract process and as such is not intended to be legal advice that would establish or create an attomey-client relationship. It is recommended that an attorney be consulted for any legal advice that you may require. State Auditor Clause By executing this Contract, the SUBCONTRACTOR accepts the authority of the State Auditor's Office, under direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct audits and investigations in connection with any and all state funds received pursuant to this contract. The SUBCONTRACTOR shall comply with and cooperate in any such investigation or audit. The SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to provide the State Auditor with access to any Information the State Auditor considers relevant to the investigation or audit. The SUBCONTRACTOR also agrees to include a provision In any subcontract related to this contract that requires the its contracting parties to submit to audits and investigation by the State Auditor's Office in connection with any and all state funds received pursuant to the subcontract. Financial Records The SUBCONTRACTOR (S) and its contracted parties shall maintain satisfactory financial accounting documents and records, including copies of invoices and receipts, and shall make them available for examination and audit by the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR of the BOARD. Accounting by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) and its contracted parties shall be in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, Ownership The BOARD shall have unlimited rights to technical or it data resulting directly from the perfon-nance of services under this CONTRACT. It is agreed that all reports, drafts of reports, or other material, data, drawings, computer programs and codes associated with this CONTRACT and developed by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) or its contracted parties pursuant to this CONTRACTshall become the joint property of the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) and the BOARD. These June 25, 2009 Page 1 of 3 materials shall not be copyrighted or patented by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) or by any consultants involved in this CONTRACT unless the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR of the BOARD approves in writing the right to establish copyright or patent; provided, however, that copyrighting or patenting by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) or its SUB-SUBCONTRACTORs will in no way limit the BOARD's access to or right to request and receive or distribute data and information obtained or developed pursuant to this CONTRACT. Any material subject to a BOARD copyright and produced by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) or BOARD pursuant to this CONTRAC-17 may be printed by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) or the BOARD at their own cost and distributed by either at their discretion. The SUBCONTRACTOR (S) may otherwise utilize such material provided under this CONTRACT' as it deems necessary and appropriate, including the right to publish and distribute the materials or any parts thereof under its own name, provided that any BOARD copyright is appropriately noted on the printed materials. The SUBCONTRACTOR (S) and its contracted parties agree to acknowledge the BOARD in any news releases or other publications relating to the work performed under this CONTRACT. of the BOARD from liability arising out of this CONTRACT. The SUBCONTRACTOR (S) shall indemnify and hold the BOARD and the State of Texas harmless, to the extent the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) may do so in accordance with state law, from any and all losses, damages, liability, or claims therefore, on account of personal injury, death, or property damage of any nature whatsoever caused by the SUBCONTRACTOR (S), arising out of the activities under this CONTRACT. June 25.200B Page 2of3 The SUBCONTRACTOR (S) shall be solely and entirely responsible for procuring all appropriate licenses and pen -nits, which may be required by any competent authority for the SUBCONTRACTOR (S) to perform the subject work. Items to consider when preparing the subcontract are: 9. Contract Dates 2. Contract Amount -subcontracts are to be cost reimbursable and on a tune and materials basis. Lump sum subcontracts for services are not acceptable. 3. Terms of Reimbursement 4. Scope of Work 5. Task Budget 6. Expense Budget 7. Signature When preparing reimbursement submittals: For direct expenses incurred by the CONTRACTOR(S) for outside consulting services -- copies of invoices to the CONTRACTOR(S) showing the tasks that were performed; the percent and cost of each task completed; a total cost figure for each direct expense category including labor, fringe, overhead, travel, communication and postage, technical and computer services, expendable supplies, printing and reproduction; and the total dollar amount due to the consultant. For non -labor, travel and subsistence expenses -- names, dates, work locations, time periods at work locations, itemization of subsistence expenses of each employee (limited however� to amounts authorized state employees by the General Appropriations Act� Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 200 Article IX, Part 5, as amended or superseded at: http://window.state.tx.us/comptrol/texastra.htmi)-it is recommended to provide copies of travel related Itemized receipts with the submittal (The Texas Water Development Board does not reimburse ""handling costs" on non -labor expenses or sub -contracts under the primary sub -contractor); I other transportation costs — copies of invoices covering tickets for transportation and names, dates, and points of travel of individuals; and I all other reimbursable expenses -- Invoices or purchase vouchers showing reason fda expense with receipts to evidence the amount incurred. I June 25, 2009 Page 3 of 3 7S n 1 1 I i ` I z j rl j ` j E E E j} y � C 4 C o O d V H >i £ N 4 o }_ YJ C N I `7 ( c c g O �LL � t a 1 i 1 .�i e�i ` N ri Uf V1 10 t° tDi tO £ ti H \ N rl H N tc 'E o 0 0 d d g 0 0 0 g��ir' 0 o o a a�i �'- y f m ar ° n ter'- r't'-f r-1 - to M to N t M U1 rl C W C y = E_W.0 a= aQ. u 2Ecmov �r.mary 1 L m c h o 345cu O }c j N op �OpcOv 3a E > m 6'C V > O{^ °. '^ Q °- ph' C 6a. QQ t [$3 i u - { f ' i FINANCIAL IMPACT: Example Project YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 (Construction (Other Costs 1,159,755 Available BUDGET Current Budget Budget BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,159,755 41,695 2.78% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE FINANCIAL IMPACT: Project 2 Example YTD Spent/Enc Agenda Item Engineering 238,550 Right of Way 60,000 Construction 1,220,000 Other Costs testing/inspection Available BUDGET Current Budget Budget BALANCE Variance TOTAL 1,500,000 298,550 1,201,450 1,220,000 (18,550) -1.24% General Ledger Account Number COMMENTS: Testing costs are expected to be 25,000 and will be funded from BUDGET BALANCE CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT NAME: Division/Department Prepared By: DATE: Chan & Partners 11/14/2014 TWDB Flood Protection Grant GUS/GTAB-Drainage Director Approval Wesley Wright Finance Approval La'Ke 11/7/14 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 400,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Encumbrance Item (A) before agenda item (B) Consulting Right of Way Construction Other Costs Total Current Year Costs 0.00 425,207.43 Approved UtNtKAL LtUULK AtA UUIV I IVUIVIbLK tr tsuaget 640-9-0880-90-076 1 400,000.00 **Reimbursable from TWBD Total Budget TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 400,000.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Spent/Encumbered Consulting Right of Way Construction Other Costs 400,000.00 Total Spent & Encumbered % Annual (A + B) Budget 425,207.43 106% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 425,207.43 200,000.00 Current Year Total Project % Total Costs Costs Budget 425,207.43 425,207.43 106% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 1 0.00 1 425,207.43 1 425,207.43 Comments: Project came in overbudget will have to address within the fund. City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for the construction of the CDBG — Madella Hilliard Sidewalk Improvements Project in the amount of $ $69,973.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown is the recipient of a grant Community Development Block Grant to install sidewalk improvements in economically eligible areas of the City. The City engaged Steger Bizzell to provide professional services to develop Plans Specifications and Estimate for sidewalk improvements around the Madella Hilliard Center and along 8th Street to MLK Street. The City received sealed bids for this work on Monday, December 15, 2014. Six bids were received, with Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, submitting the apparent low bid in the amount of $69,973.00. The project consists of furnishing and installing and providing all labor and materials required for concrete sidewalk, ADA compliant ramps, temporary erosion and sedimentation control and miscellaneous items. Steger Bizzell has evaluated all the bids for accuracy and compliance with the bid documents, checked Bidder's references and has determined Westar's bid to be the lowest and most responsive bid. Steger Bizzell recommends award of the Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, in the amount of $69,973.00. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 9, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with Steger Bizzell and recommends award of the Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of Georgetown, Texas, for construction of sidewalks around the Madella Hilliard Center and along 8th Street to MLK Street in the amount of $69,973.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project CIP Budgetary Worksheet. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: BudgetaLy Worksheet Engineer's Recommendation and Bid Tabulation CDBG - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: 2011 - 2102 CDBG Sidewalk Imp. Proj. 9AT 12/31/2014 Madella Hilliard Center to MLK Construction Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 69,973.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting (SBE-14-004)' 27,500.00 27,500.00 39% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction (Westar) 69,973.00 69,973.00 100% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 27,500.00 69,973.00 97,473.00 Approved ULNLKAL LLUULK AGGUUN I NUMULK L;r tsuaget 100-5-0846-52-806 Madellia Hillard 69,973.00 Total Budget 1 69,973.00 9AT TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 69,973.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting' 27,500.00 0.00 27,500.00 39% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 69,973.00 69,973.00 100% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 27,500.00 1 69,973.00 1 97,473.00 Comments: Project to be reimbursed by the CDBG Program 1 Not pant of the CDBG Grant STEGE*IZZELL December 16, 2014 Mr. Bill Dryden City of Georgetown 300-1 Industrial Ave Georgetown, Texas 78626 RE: Madella Hilliard CDBG Sidewalk Improvements City of Georgetown Bid No. 201512 Steger Bizzell Job No. 22261 Dear Bill: On Monday, December 15, 2014, bids were received for this project. Six contractors submitted bids ranging from $69,973.00 to $138,003.00. These bids were reviewed and tabulated, and Westar Construction, Inc. was determined to be the low bidder. We contacted references provided by Westar in the bid, and received positive responses regarding their quality of work and performance. In addition, Westar has a history of successfully completing projects for the City of Georgetown. Therefore, we recommend awarding this contract to Westar Construction, Inc. I have attached a copy of the original bid tabulation for your review. If you have any questions, please call Ben Lake at 512- 930-9412. Si erely, Curtis R. Steger, P.E. Enclosure cc: Ms. Vickie Graff, Contract Coordinator P:\22000-22999\22261 CoG Madella Sidewalk\Documents\Bidding Phase\Recommendation of Award.docx ADDRESS I P H O N E W E B 1978 S. AUSTIN AVENUE I GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 512.930.9412 1 STEGERBIZZELL.COM SERVICES TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-181 I >> ENGINEERS >> PLANNERS >> SURVEYORS pd. O N O co N O N r O N Z N v_ 00 Z c 3 n O O N � m O NN N .N (� m O N Z` N U CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0p0 0 000 p po000 G! V O 0 0 p0 0 0 00 Op 0 Ln On 00 p0 p0 0 O' C O O O O 00o v ON^N 00 Ln O O O m m E m 00' .1 Ln Ln N 00 ei -4 N .--I Ln .^-1 N VT V} in Ln V} V} i/} V). in V} VT V} V} Vf in `y O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O ar 4,, 0 0 0 O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L= .m •- o 0 0 0 vi o o o Lno Ln o o 0 o C a O O O O O O O C N O N O O .--1 N Ln rl Ln r` Ln n O O O O W r C 00 -AA. Ln Ln N rn r-1 Ln i) V V V! Ln VT V} ? V to V} ,"IV, i/? V} VI V! O 00 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 N O O O O O O p O O O O O O O g O O O oo Ln 0 0 g 0 o a gS oLo m S$�00 Ln CL3n) m lD' .-1 . -I' O m .--I' N W '4 rqLn O V` 14 F C V} V} V) V). in V} V} V} tOJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .0 - v O O O O c; O O o O O O O O O o O o0 O 0 O 0 O Ln CD 0 0 O O O O d D1 N Ln Ln 0 Ln 0 C -1 N 0 0 0 to Ol S a+ •C lD r-I to . m Ln Ln Ln N O O � V? V} N in V? V} in V> An Vf V} V} V} Vi Vt C O 0 0 O O O O O 0 o 00 0 O O O d o o 0 O O O O O O O O p o O O 000 3 a o 0o c ol0no a -' yr o Ln ti m Lr1 V N cq LL7 .-i m m i1O-. O V H V) V} V! V) VT V} V } m m u 0 V O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O O C C� 0) O o O o O o O 0 O o O o O o O 0 O Ln O 0 O o O p 0 O pp O o O 0 LL d O O O O •q' O O �--1 N N 0 O O u ca " c o Ln 0 ri 0 ff 0 LA � m o N .1 to Ln Ln m o m in v� V>• vt in V> V> v> an V> in V> +n v� i/>• d N O 0 0 o coo O O O D1 O O o O -� V O O O O N O O O O L-1 0 0 O O O 0 0 O Ln O o O O o Ol O o O o d o 00 0 moo v �5.4 0 0 o 'ch '-1 N Ln V n to N N 'i N t0 N W O ~ V1•(n AA V). V} VL' V! AA. V} t4 V} i/). V} t4 V} V o 0 0 o tD o 0 0 0 o rl o 0 0 0 c O k m u 0 O OO O O o o moo .-i O O 0 O 00to00 o .-1 o g 0 O 0 O a o 0 0 0 o o -i too '-L Ln Ln o o 0 0 W C 14 N Ln ei 'i N lD T U� V> Vt V> V� V). Vr Vt in V} V> V> An V> C W O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O p 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 o 0 0 0 0 O cc o O cc N O to rl O O O o 00 8 -to v mNrlmO 0 0 C m LA m 0) 01 N Ln .-i In Di 0 Vt V} -k V> V> Vw in VT vt i/i Vl 1/'� 414 m a+ N O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O CO y O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O V 0 o 0 O '-1 O O No Ln M p O O s d O o CD o O 0 O 0 M O M O Ln '-i N N m Ln 0 Ln O c O 0 & c m r cri Lri 14 ri Ln Di tn V> (n Ln in V� V�V1. i/? i/t ai o p0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00o0o o 0 y O 0 o 0 O O o o m o o 0 0 N 0 0 0 o O o a` pO O 0 0 O 00 lT N -1-L lD LDD Ol M 0 o O u O M ti' i N m O �..1 'i c-I Lf Ln ri Ln N O N 0a �~-I V} N V} V} VT V? m -' a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Q°l y d O O O o O O O O O N O O O O O to O O O O o O O 0 O o O o O O O 0 o C 0 0 0 p m 00 n rl r-I to w ri N m 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 O C enei .-i Ln li .-4 N N' a V� i/i In A^ Vl� V> +n V> Vt Ln V> V� in w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 c _ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o- 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 to LoDio0 0 0 LZ g 0 0 0 v $ 0 Ln Ln Ln o 0 0 o m Ln N o 1 r- rz Ln Ln O M .-I '-I In N n lT M ei N r\ V} V} Vt• to V} V} V} i/? i/} V} V) V? N U O O O O O O O p g O O 0$ p O 0 O 0 0 O tOi O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 `r 0 ^ 0 0 O O C 0 0 0 0 Q 0 rn Ln ymi O Ln N V Ln 't Ln L Ln O! C E en r-i .-i Ln ri r-1 t7 rl 3 J J J ❑ J W W to J W J J W J Im C r1 '-I H 11 O r\ to '-1 tD n n r-I M e-1 14 1 N LLn -I 0) Y D O o v O c O c 3 LL }; n n ❑ o e- m v �_ > u Ln 0 cl m❑ W v Y E= C .6 Y E 0 ov m z u O u d m mx o - N c .M d w .O v cu m 3 o N 7 3 L m m Q O C 01 .O O_ 7 U O 7 41 'O -O •� -O o D' = Ip Ln U Q N ate+ N U N y aO+ a C u N Y m m u w c C N O C f0 °L al av m m v� 3 al c v m w o LA E X v c c> UO c c c. ❑ m 41 � oQ �s o uuo� w c Lic m �o �uu3� O O a N C a+ Y Y O) N C C Y-. O O p Ln C am 01 im.• N L C 07 O 7 t.1 c 0Zi C 06 y O C .6 d' o6 to :� W W C 0.6 C 0 E K T C '= n Q L L U L > ate+ m >> L L M d m +° c Mn Mn c E E E o E E E m cO C C> > m m O LL 7 LL 7 LL C 7 LL� 0/ K OJ 2' N K N 0C 7 LL 7 in LL W d ZN M 'i Ln t D t` oo 6 .-1 1Nj � 'i N O 00 7 } } } N N 0 0 Ln r L-f N 9% cn fn co co a r ? cn afu,=Z:z V :�: ono U-o® co . o O O Ln m N 00 O O M kD f\ O N } } } %0 to v► Y E W W v U v w c on Wa c x W W LL O O = VF u ❑ W m y Z ZO Lou L11 O On F- ❑ Q m N `o rn a x x c io 75 cu m 3 O `m m m m City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 6.60 of the Code of Ordinances relating to alarm system registration, unpermitted alarm fees and false alarm fees, providing a severability clause, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions and establishing an effective date -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Police (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: On June 25, 2014 at the request of Councilman Brainard, GGAF had discussion regarding proposed changes to the alarm ordinance. The discussion included the following: • require that burglar alarm permits be updated every three years, rather than annually; • reduce the permissible number of false alarms that do not result in a fine, from three to two; • establish a fine of $100 for the third through the fifth false alarm each year establish a fine of $250 for each false alarm after the fifth; and • authorize the chief of police to waive or reduce fines, and to reduce permit fees, for non-profit, educational, and governmental entities. The intent of this discussion was to reduce the incidence of false alarms, align fines with the actual cost of response and administration of the alarm program, and to reduce any unnecessary burden on alarm permit holders. As some of the issues discussed at GGAF are governed by the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 214.191 — 214.200, staff was directed to assess the feasibility of the proposed changes resulting from the discussion and bring back options to GGAF at a future date. On December 02, 2014 staffed returned to GGAF and provided a historical summary of the alarm ordinance and data regarding the current state of the alarm program. Opportunities and limitations regarding the June 25, 2014 proposed amendments were also discussed. Staff was provided the following direction for proposed changes to the alarm ordinance: 1. Maintain an annual registration process for both residential and commercial permits. 2. Increase commercial permit fees to $35 annually (up from $25). 3. Institute a fine for false commercial panic alarms. a. Residential panic alarms are treated as an ordinary false alarm. b. Commercial panic alarms will be charged a separate fee according to a graduate schedule (First: Free; 2-3: $100; 4-5: $250; 6+: $500). 4. Institute a fine for response to non -permit holder. a. First offense — notice is mailed. b. 2+ (after 30 days from initial offense): $25 fine Residential; $35 Commercial. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Alarm data and financial impacts attached. SUBMITTED BY: Wayne Nero, Chief of Police ATTACHMENTS: TXLGC Burglar Alarms Alarm Ordinance Summary and Revision Options Alarm Data Summary Exhibit A Alarm Fees Registration Ordinance -First Reading Ordinance -Redline by a person who does not have a permit in compliance with this subchapter. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renumbered from Sec. 230.016 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12 . 002 (5) , eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 214.167. REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO ISSUE PERMIT. (a) An administrative refusal to issue a commercial building permit based on a violation of restrictions contained in a deed or other instrument is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction if, during the 90-day period after the day on which the permit is refused, the person contesting the refusal gives notice to the permit department that the suit has been filed. (b) If conditions in a subdivision change or if other legally sufficient reasons to modify the restrictions occur, a person who has been refused a commercial building permit may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to alter the restrictions to better conform to present conditions. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renumbered from Sec. 230.017 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12 . 002 (5) , eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 214.168. VOID PERMITS. A commercial permit obtained without full compliance with this subchapter is void. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renumbered from Sec. 230.018 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (5) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. SUBCHAPTER F. BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEMS Sec. 214.191. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: (1) "Alarm system" means a device or system that transmits a signal intended to summon police of a municipality in response to a burglary. The term includes an alarm that emits an audible signal on the exterior of a structure. The term does not include an alarm installed on a vehicle, unless the vehicle is used for a habitation at a permanent site, or an alarm designed to alert 33 only the inhabitants within the premises. (2) "Permit" means a certificate, license, permit, or other form of permission that authorizes a person to engage in an action. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.001 and amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. Sec. 214.192. CATEGORIES OF ALARM SYSTEMS. The category of alarm system to be regulated is burglary. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.002 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. Sec. 214.193. DURATION OF MUNICIPAL PERMIT. (a) If a municipality adopts an ordinance that requires a person to obtain a permit from the municipality before a person may use an alarm system in the municipality, the ordinance must provide that the permit is valid for at least one year. (b) This requirement does not affect the authority of the municipality to: (1) revoke, suspend, or otherwise affect the duration of a permit for disciplinary reasons at any time during the period for which the permit is issued; or (2) make a permit valid for a period of less than one year if necessary to conform the permit to the termination schedule established by the municipality for permits. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.003 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept 1, 2001. Sec. 214.194. MUNICIPAL PERMIT FEE GENERALLY. (a) If a municipality adopts an ordinance that requires a person to pay an annual fee to obtain a permit from the municipality before the person may use an alarm system in the municipality, the fee shall be used for the general administration of this subchapter, including the provision of responses generally required to implement this 34 subchapter other than specific responses to false alarms. (b) A municipal permit fee imposed under this section may not exceed the rate of $50 a year for a residential location. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.004 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 214.195. NONRENEWAL OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT AND TERMINATION OF MUNICIPAL RESPONSE; DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (d), a municipality may not terminate its law enforcement response to a residential permit holder because of excess false alarms if the false alarm fees are paid in full. (b) In permitting free false alarm responses and in setting false alarm fees, a municipality must administer any ordinance on a fair and equitable basis as determined by the governing body. (c) A municipality may not terminate an alarm permit for nonrenewal without providing at least 30 days' notice. (d) A municipality may revoke or refuse to renew the permit of an alarm system that has had eight or more false alarms during the preceding 12-month period. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.005 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 214.1955. MULTIUNIT HOUSING FACILITIES. (a) A municipality may not refuse to issue an alarm system permit for a residential location solely because the residential location is an individual residential unit located in a multiunit housing 35 facility. (b) In issuing an alarm system permit for an alarm installed in an individual residential unit of a multiunit housing facility, the municipality shall issue the permit to the person occupying the individual residential unit. (c) A municipality may impose a penalty under Section 214.197 for the signaling of a false alarm on the premises of a multiunit housing facility for a facility other than an individual residential unit only if the permit holder is notified of: (1) the date of the signaling of the false alarm; (2) the address of the multiunit housing facility where the signaling of the false alarm occurred; and (3) the identification of the individual facility, if applicable, located on the multiunit housing facility premises where the signaling of the false alarm occurred. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 214.196. ON -SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED. A municipality may not consider a false alarm to have occurred unless a response is made by an agency of the municipality within 30 minutes of the alarm notification and the agency determines from an inspection of the interior or exterior of the premises that the alarm was false. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.006 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12.002(6), eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 214.197. PENALTIES FOR FALSE ALARMS. A municipality may impose a penalty for the signaling of a false alarm by a burglar alarm system if at least three other false alarms have occurred during the preceding 12-month period. The amount of the penalty for the signaling of a false alarm as described by Section 214.196 may not exceed: (1) $50, if the location has had more than three but fewer than six other false alarms in the preceding 12-month period; (2) $75, if the location has had more than five but fewer than eight other false alarms in the preceding 12-month 36 period; or (3) $100, if the location has had eight or more other false alarms in the preceding 12-month period. Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 550, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Renumbered from Sec. 218.007 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 1420, Sec. 12. 002 (6) , eff . Sept . 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 214.198. VERIFICATION. A municipality may require an alarm systems monitor to attempt to contact the occupant of the alarm system location twice before the municipality responds to the alarm signal. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 214.199. EXCEPTION OF MUNICIPALITY FROM ALARM SYSTEM RESPONSE. (a) The governing body of a municipality may not adopt an ordinance providing that law enforcement personnel of the municipality will not respond to any alarm signal indicated by an alarm system in the municipality unless, before adopting the ordinance, the governing body of the municipality: (1) makes reasonable efforts to notify permit holders of its intention to adopt the ordinance; and (2) conducts a public hearing at which persons interested in the response of the municipality to alarm systems are given the opportunity to be heard. (b) A municipality that adopts an ordinance under this section may not impose or collect any fine, fee, or penalty otherwise authorized by this subchapter. (c) A municipality that adopts or proposes to adopt an ordinance under this section may notify permit holders that a permit holder may contract with a security services provider licensed by the Texas Private Security Board under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, to respond to an alarm. The notice, if given, must include the board's telephone number and Internet website 37 address. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2005. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg. , R.S. , Ch. 232 (H.B. 1784) , Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 214.200. PRIORITY OR LEVEL OF RESPONSE NOT AFFECTED; LIABILITY OF MUNICIPALITY FOR NONRESPONSE. (a) Nothing in this subchapter: (1) affects the priority or level of response provided by a municipality to a permitted location; or (2) waives the governmental immunity provided by law for a municipality. (b) A municipality that does not respond to an alarm signal is not liable for damages that may occur relating to the cause of the alarm signal. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 808 (S.B. 568), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2005. SUBCHAPTER G. BUILDING AND REHABILITATION CODES Sec. 214.211. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: (1) "International Residential Code" means the International Residential Code for One- and Two -Family Dwellings promulgated by the International Code Council. (2) "National Electrical Code" means the electrical code published by the National Fire Protection Association. (3) "Residential" means having the character of a detached one -family or two-family dwelling or a multiple single-family dwelling that is not more than three stories high with separate means of egress, including the accessory structures of the dwelling, and that does not have the character of a facility used for the accommodation of transient guests or a structure in which medical, rehabilitative, or assisted living services are provided in connection with the occupancy of the structure. (4) "International Building Code" means the W GEORGETOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT E$T. 1948 ALARM ORDINANCE REVIEW UPDATE OPTIONS December 2014 PREPARED FOR: GGAF PREPARED BY: Wayne Nero, Chief of Police DESCRIPTION: This document provides a review of current burglar alarm law/ordinance and presents options for updating the ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND GGAF has requested the police department to examine the current alarm ordinance and fee schedules and make recommendations for contemporary adjustments as well as to assess the feasibility of extending the alarm permitting to three years. CURRENT ALARM PROGRAM ACCOUNT DATA & FINANCIALS ALARM PROGRAM 4 YR HISTORY PERMITTING FEES FINES TOTAL REVENUE FY BUSINESS RATE REV RESIDENTIAL RATE REV FA FEES Est. REV ACTUAL REV 2010/11 428 $ 75.00 $ 10,700.00 1514 $ 25.00 $ 37,850.00 $ 14,583.00 $ 63,133.00 $ 61,333.34 2011/12 439 $ 25.00 $ 10,975.00 1621 $ 25.00 $ 40,525.00 $ 12,825.00 $ 64,325.00 $ 61,600.00 2012/13 471 $ 25.00 $ 11,775.00 1726 $ 25.00 $ 43,150.00 $ 19,176.00 $ 74,101.00 $ 71,605.50 2013/14 $ 25.00 $ 72,475.00 CURRENT ALARM RESPONSE DATA Alarm Responses **(calendar year) 2013 2014 Burglary Alarm Responses Totals 1382 1214 Commercial 718 603 Residential 664 611 Panic/Robbery Alarm Responses Totals 160 141 Commercial 78 60 Residential 82 81 Total Responses 1542 1355 **It should be noted that in 2013 only 5 reports were taken as a result of an alarm response and 12 reports were taken to date in 2014. We currently hold that approximately 99% of our alarm responses result in no emergency or criminal activity. COST OF POLICE RESPONSE & ALARM PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION While an exact cost would be very time consuming to detail, it is a conservative estimate that the police response to the 1659 alarm calls in 2013 cost approximately $23,000 and accounts for approximately 775 hours of time officers could have been engaged in preventive and/or directed patrols. **This calculation is based upon an average salary, assumes the average alarm call takes approximately 20 min, and 40% of the total calls may require a 2 officer response (open doors, panic/hold up, night time). We currently employ a full time admin position to administer the alarm program at a cost of about $52,000 per year. Thus, the total costs associated with administration and response can be roughly estimated at $75,000 - $80,000 per year. This estimate does not account for the other associated costs to include communications personnel time, software, mail/postage, etc. TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (Section 214.191— 214.200) Legal Requirements: • Permit valid for at least one year (214.193) • Permit Fee (214.194) o May not exceed $50 for residential accounts ■ 1 don't think we could collect more than a year (max $50) o Non-residential/Commercial is NOT addressed • Penalty for False Alarms are defined by law (214.197) o Fines may not exceed: ■ 1-3 FAs - $0 ■ 4-5 FAs - $50 ■ 6-7 FAs - $75 ■ 8+ FAs - $100 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORDINANCE CHANGES Permitting Fees Assumptions: 2250 Accounts (2014); all paid in full; no growth or new accounts. CURRENT ALARM PROGRAM ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE 2015 2016 2017 Residential 1775 1775 1775 $ 25.00 $ 44,375.00 44,375.00 $ 44,375.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 $ 25.00 $ 11,875.00 11,875.00 $ 11,875.00 ANNUAL REVENUE $ 56,250.00 56,250.00 $ 56,250.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 168,750.00 3 Year Permit w/ Current Fees ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE 1 2015 1 2016 2017 Residential 1 1775 1775 1775 $ 25.00 $ 44,375.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 $ 25.00 $ 11,875.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 56,250.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ (112,500.00) 3 Year Permit w/ Adjusted Fees: OPTION 1 ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE 2015 2016 2017 Residential 1775 1775 1775 $ 50.00 $ 88,750.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 $ 100.00 $ 47,500.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 136,250.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ (32,500.00) 3 Year Residential Permit w/ Adjusted Fees: OPTION 2 ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 Residential 1775 1775 1775 3 YR RENEWAL $ 50.00 $ 88,750.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 ANNUAL RENEWAL $ 50.00 $ 23,750.00 23,750.00 $ 23,750.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 160,000.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ (8,750.00) 3 Year Residential Permit w/ Adjusted Fees: OPTION 3 ALARM ACCOUNTS I FEE 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 Residential 1 1775 1775 1775 3 YR RENEWAL $ 50.00 $ 88,750.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 ANNUAL RENEWAL $ 75.00 $ 35,625.00 35,625.00 $ 35,625.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 195,625.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ 26,875.00 3 Year Residential Permit w/ Adjusted Fees: OPTION 4 ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 Residential 1775 I 1775 I 1775 3 YR RENEWAL 50.00 88,750.00 Non- residential/Commercial 475 475 475 ANNUAL RENEWAL 1 100.00 1 47,500.00 1 47,500.00 $ 47,500.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 231,250.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ 62,500.00 Additional Fee Options: False Panic/Hold Up/Robbery Alarms We currently have approximately 150-175 Panic/Robbery Alarms annually. For 2014 there were 34 repeat false panic/hold up/robbery alarms. Common practice is to allow one or two false alarms free from fine and then assess a flat fee or a graduated fee starting at $75 residential and $100 non-residential up to $500 for each occurrence. Alarm Response to a Non -Permit Holder It is not uncommon to see a fine for an alarm response to a non -permit holder. Currently, we yield about 10-15 of these per month. We respond and issue repeat notices of ordinance and requirements to resident/businesses, however, we do not currently assess a fine until they have their 4t" false alarm. Contemporary fines for no permit range from $75 - $200 per occurrence. CHALLENGES/CONSIDERATIONS 1. Revenue: If the direction is to incorporate changes while keeping a neutral impact on revenue than Options 2, 3, or 4 for permitting will achieve this. 2. Extending to a multi -year permit: This will make it easier on the resident/business, however, will make it more difficult for the police department to maintain accurate contact information when responding to alarms. When officers do not have accurate contact information they are on these types of calls much longer attempting to locate and communicate with responsible parties. Should the direction be to move to a multi -year permit we would recommend allowing the Alarm Manager to send an annual contact information update form. While we wouldn't expect a significant return, this would help us close the gap in maintaining accurate information. 3. Adding addition fines for no permit or false panic alarms: This will not generate significant revenue, however, will keep accounts consistent and help reduce repeat panic alarms which are a priority one call for service and generates a multi officer response. AREA FEE SCHEDULE SAMPLE FALSE PERMITS ALARM OTHER FINES FINES Q Q M Q Q W LLI 0LLI Z V Q V p O CC w O a J m a w �a O o"'C ~ a= OC V OC U 1 $50(4-5), $ Georgetown $ 25.00 $ 25.00 YR $75(6-7), $ - $ - $100(8+) RoundRock NO PERMIT Cedar Park NO PERMIT Leander $ 30.00 $ 30.00 1 YR $75(6-7), $100(8+) $ $ - $ 1 $50(4-5), $ Hutto $ 25.00 $ 50.00 YR $75(6-7), $ - $ - $100(8+) Pflugerville $ 10.00 $ 10.00 1 $25 (4+) $ - $ - $YR $50(4-5), Austin $ 30.00 $ 50.00 YR $75(6-7), $100 (3+) $100 (3+) $ 200.00 $100(8+) $75 $35 $50(4-5), $200(2); (residential); San Antonio Senior; $ 100.00 1 $75(6-7), $300(3); $300(3); $125 $40 YR $100(8+) $400(4); (Commercial) $500(5+) $500(5+) *plus a $300- $500 fine $50(4-6), $100(1), Dallas $ 50.00 $ 100.00 1 YR $75(7-8), $100 (ALL) $300(3), unk $100(9+) $400(4+) $128(2), $256.92 $256.92(3), (2); $385.37 $513.84 $107.05 1 $50(4-5), (4); (3); (residential), Houston $ 50.00 $ 40.85 YR $75(6-7), $513.84 $642.30 $214.10 $100(8+) (5+); (4+); (commercial) [$282.61 [$449.61 w/o w/o permit] permit] January 2, 2014 UPDATE On December 03, 2014 Staff was provided the following direction from GGAF for proposed changes to the alarm ordinance: 1. Maintain an annual registration process for both residential and commercial permits. 2. Increase commercial permit fees to $35 annually (up from $25). 3. Institute a fine for false commercial panic alarms. a. Residential panic alarms are treated as an ordinary false alarm. b. Commercial panic alarms will be charged a separate fee according to a graduate schedule (First: Free; 2-3: $100; 4-5: $250; 6+: $500). 4. Institute a fine for response to non -permit holder. a. First offense — notice is mailed. b. 2+ (after 30 days from initial offense): $25 fine Residential; $35 Commercial. Financial Impact of Proposed Changes: 1. Increase of Commercial permits from $25 to $35 will result in an annual gain of approximately $4750. 3 Year Permit w/ Current Fees ALARM ACCOUNTS FEE 2015 2016 2017 Residential 1775 1775 1775 $ 25.00 $ 44,375.00 $ 44,375.00 $ 44,375.00 Non-residential/Commercial 475 475 475 $ 35.00 $16,625.00 1 $ 16,625.00 1 $16,625.00 3 YEAR REVENUE TOTAL $ 183,000.00 CURRENT PROGRAM 3YR REVENUE $ 168,750.00 REVENUE GAIN/LOSS $ 14,250.00 2. Instituting a fine for commercial false panic alarms. In 2014, there were approximately 60 commercial panic alarms. Approximately 13 locations were responsible for 49 of the 60 false repeat panic alarms. If those repeat false panic alarms were allocated to the proposed graduated fine schedule the results would be as follows: # Violations Fine Amount Frequency of businesses reaching this threshold First Offense No Charge N/A 2-3 Violations $100 9 4-5 Violations $250 2 6+ Violations $500 2 This fine schedule as applied to 2014 false commercial panic alarm data would represent approximately $7,750 in fines. 3. Institute a fine for response to a non -permit holder. In 2014 the police department initiated correspondence to 38 active alarm/non-permit holders: 27 residential and 11 commercial. FALSE ALARM PERMITS FINES OTHER FINES O m Z iy J J Q J J Q 0 Z LU 2 Q 2 Z = L U Z H W G H J U LU U C O W O W LU Q W Q O W W oc U a J m a m a c� m a 50(4-5), $75(6-7), Georgetown $ 25.00 $ 25.00 1 YR $100(8+) $ _ $ _ $ - RoundRock NO PERMIT Cedar Park NO PERMIT $75(6-7), Leander $ 30.00 $ 30.00 1 YR $100(8+) $ - $ - $ - $50(4-5), $75(6-7), Hutto $ 25.00 $ 50.00 1 YR $100(8+) $ - $ - $ - Pflugerville $ 10.00 $ 10.00 1 YR $25 (4+) $ - $ - $ - $50(4-5), $75(6-7), Austin $ 30.00 $ 50.00 1 YR $100(8+) $100 (3+) $100 (3+) $ 200.00 $75 (residential); $200(2); $200(2); $125 $50(4-5), $300(3); $300(3); (Commercial) $35 Senior; $75(6-7), $400(4); $400(4); *plus a $300- San Antonio $40 $100.00 1 YR $100(8+) $500(5+) $500(5+) $500 fine $100(1), $50(4-6), $200(2); $75(7-8), $300(3), Dallas $ 50.00 $100.00 1 YR $100(9+) $100 (ALL) $400(4+) unk $128(2), $256.92(3), $256.92 (2); $385.37 (4); $513.84 (3); $513.84 $642.30 $107.05 $50(4-5), (5+); (4+); (residential), $75(6-7), [$282.61 [$449.61 $214.10 Houston $ 50.00 1 $ 240.85 11 YR $100(8+) w/o permit] w/o permit] (commercial) CHAPTER 6.60. - OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALARM SYSTEMS Sec. 6.60.010. - Definitions. In this Chapter the following words and terms shall have the following meanings ascribed to them unless the context indicates otherwise: "Alarm Administrator" means a person designated by the Chief of Police to administer, control and review false alarm reduction efforts and administer the provisions of this Chapter. "Alarm installation company" means a person in the business of selling, providing, maintaining, servicing, repairing, altering, replacing, moving or installing alarm systems in an alarm site. "Alarm notification" means a notification intended to summon the police or fire department, which is designed to be initiated purposely by a person or by an alarm system that responds to a stimulus characteristic of unauthorized intrusion or fire. "Alarm permit" means authorization granted by the Alarm Administrator to an alarm user to operate an alarm system. "Alarm site" means a single premise or location (one street address) served by an alarm system. "Alarm system" means any assembly of equipment or devices arranged to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which police or fire department personnel are expected to respond. The term "alarm system" includes the terms "automatic holdup alarm system," "burglar alarm system," "holdup alarm system," "manual holdup alarm system" and "fire alarm system" and also includes any audible sirens that can be heard by a person off the alarm site. "Alarm unit" means a unit established to register, track, bill, analyze and coordinate all activities associated with alarm systems, users and companies. "Alarm Unit Commander" means a Bureau Commander assigned to oversee the alarm unit. "Alarm user" means the owner, agent or person in control of the property on which an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm user awareness class" means a class conducted for the purpose of educating alarm users about the responsible use, operation, and maintenance of alarm systems. "Automatic alarm notification" means an alarm notification sent over telephone lines, by direct connection or otherwise, a pre-recorded voice message, or coded signal indicating the existence of the emergency situation that the alarm system was/is designed to detect. "Automatic dial" means any device connected to an alarm system which automatically sends a prerecorded message or coded signal indicating the activation of the alarm system to a predetermined location. "Automatic holdup alarm system" means an alarm system in which the signal transmission is initiated by the action of a robber. Page 1 "Building" means any structure or enclosure intended for use as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use. "Central station" means an office to which remote and supervisory signaling devices are connected, where operators supervise the circuits and relay alarm notifications to the municipality for the purpose of summoning law enforcement to the alarm site. "Disconnect" means to render an alarm disabled so as to prevent any direct or indirect notification to the police department by a silent or local alarm. "Emergency services" means police, fire, and emergency medical services. "Expired permit" means an invalid permit due to an expiration of the term of the permit period defined herein. "False alarms" includes alarms resulting from operator error, improper installation or maintenance, activation by animals, or other internal or external initiators. See "false alarm notification." "False alarm notification" means a direct or indirect alarm notification to the police, fire, or emergency medical services when responding personnel find no evidence of actual or attempted robbery, burglary, personal hostage, fire, medical, or any other emergency at the alarm site. "Local alarm" means an alarm system that emits a signal at an alarm site that is audible or visible from the exterior of a structure. "Manual holdup alarm system" means any alarm system in which the signal transmission is initiated by a direct action of the person attacked or by an observer of the attack. "Monitored system" means an alarm system, which a signal is sent to a central station to activate emergency services. "Panic or Hold Up alarm" means an alarm system signal generated by the manual activation of a device intended to signal a life threatening or emergency situation requiring law enforcement response. "Permit holder" means any person to whom an alarm system permit is issued. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, organization or similar entity. "Relaying intermediary" means any person who reports the activation of an alarm to the police department for compensation. Sec. 6.60.020. - Applicability. A. This Chapter shall apply to any person who operates or causes to be operated an alarm system at any alarm site. B. Registration fees shall not apply to alarm systems operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities. Page 2 Sec. 6.60.030. - Permit requirement; application; issuance. A. It is unlawful for an alarm system user to cause or permit the installation, maintenance or operation of an alarm system at an alarm site unless a permit has been issued by the City for the alarm system. B. An alarm system permit is necessary for each alarm site. A permit may cover one or more alarm systems at an alarm site. C. An application for an alarm system permit shall be made by the alarm system user on a form prescribed by the City. The application form shall include: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the alarm system user; 2. The street address of the alarm site; 3. The type of property to be protected (i.e., commercial, residential or industrial) and the type of alarm system to be installed at the site; 4. Any business name or title used for the alarm site; 5. Name, address and telephone number of the alarm protective service or person who will install and service the alarm system; 6. Names and telephone numbers of at least two people who are able to and have agreed to receive notification, and respond within 30 minutes, at any time from the police or fire department in order to deactivate the alarm system if it becomes necessary; and 7. Any other pertinent information required by the police or fire department which is necessary for the enforcement of this Chapter. D. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.60.040, the City shall issue a permit to the alarm system user upon submission of a complete application and payment of the appropriate fee. E. The owner or property manager of an apartment complex shall obtain a master alarm permit if an alarm system is operated in: 1. A residential unit on the premises, whether the alarm system is furnished by the owner or property manager or contracted for by an individual tenant; or 2. A non-residential area of the apartment complex, including a common tenant area, office, storage, or equipment area. 3. The City will treat information on applications for permits for alarm systems designed to detect criminal activity as confidential in accordance with applicable laws. F. Any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter is applicable only to the permit holder and is not transferable. A business that changes its name will retain the same permit, provided that the permit holder and alarm site remain the same. Any business that changes its name must notify the Georgetown Police Department, in writing, within ten days of the change and must update the alarm permit application. G. Each permit issued to an alarm system user is valid for one year or until one of the following occurs within the year: Page 3 1. Control of the alarm site is transferred from the permit holder to another person or the location of the alarm site is changed. 2. The permit holder voluntarily discontinues services provided by a particular alarm protective service or disconnects the alarm system. 3. The permit is revoked by the City pursuant to Section 6.60.110 H. No permit shall be issued or renewed if service fees assessed under Section 6.60.090 remain unpaid. No burglar alarm system permit will be terminated for non -renewal without 30 days notice by the City to the permit holder. I. A residence or business owner shall be charged an unpermitted alarm fee in the amount designated in Section 6.60.90 for each false burglary alarm call where the residence or business does not have a valid permit. The fee is subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon a first false alarm the department shall issue a notice of violation to the non -permit holder. The notice shall grant the owner of the residence or business 30 days to obtain a valid permit. Any subsequent alarms occurring during this 30 day grace period shall be treated as false alarms in accordance with Section 6.60.090. 2. Subsequent false alarms occurring after the 30 day grace period shall be charged an unpermitted alarm fee in the amount designated in Section 6.60.90 for each false alarm. Sec. 6.60.040. - Grounds for denial of permit. A permit may be denied for: 1. Any false statement on the application; 2. Any false statement by applicant in connection with the application; 3. An applicant has failed to pay a service fee assessed under this Chapter; or 4. An applicant has had an alarm site revoked, and the violation causing the revocation has not been corrected. Sec. 6.60.050. - Operation and maintenance of alarm systems. A. A permit holder shall: 1. Maintain the premises containing an alarm system in a manner that ensures proper operation of the alarm system; 2. Maintain the alarm system in a manner that will minimize false alarm notifications; 3. Respond or cause a representative to respond within one hour when notified by the City to repair or inactivate a malfunctioning alarm system, to provide access to the premises, or to provide security for the premises; Subsection 6.60.030 C.6. requires a representative to respond within 30 minutes. 4. Not manually activate an alarm system for any reason other than the occurrence of an event that the alarm system was intended to report; 5. Utilize "relaying intermediaries" for residential alarm systems of all classification types; and Page 4 6. Utilize "relaying intermediaries" for commercial alarm systems of all classification types except holdup alarms. B. A permit holder of a local alarm shall adjust the mechanism or cause the mechanism to be adjusted so that an alarm signal will sound for no longer than 15 minutes after being activated. Sec. 6.60.060. - Policies and procedures. A. The Chief of Police shall institute policies and procedures in the form of operational orders to implement this Chapter. B. The Chief of Police shall publish or make available on the City's website pertinent excerpts from this Chapter and any relative policy statements that may be issued concerning the "standards" for the operation of alarm systems subject to this Chapter. Sec. 6.60.070. - Police response. A. The response, if any, made to a signal from a permitted alarm system shall be subject to the policies and procedures of the police department and will be in accordance with the priorities set for police response. B. The issuance of a permit authorizing the use of an alarm system is not intended to nor shall it create a contract, either express or implied, nor does it create a duty or guarantee of response by the Georgetown Police Department. Any and all liability and consequential damages resulting from the failure to respond to a notification is hereby disclaimed and governmental immunity as provided by law is retained. Sec. 6.60.080. - Fees. A. A permit holder, including the holder of a master alarm permit, shall pay to the police department: 1. The permit fee; and 2. False alarm service fee assessed under Section 6.60.090 B. The fees assessed under this Section are established as follows: 1. Residential: $25.00. 2. Commercial: $35.00. 3. Alarm company: $100.00. Sec. 6.60.090. - False alarm notifications and service fees. A. The holder of an alarm permit shall pay a service fee, as provided for in the fee schedule found in Subsection E., for each false alarm notification that is in excess of three false alarms within any 12-month period determined from the date of alarm registration. B. Service fees are required to be paid within 30 days of the post mark on the invoice for such fees. Page 5 C. For any alarm notification for which a service fee is assessed, the Chief of Police, or their designee, has the authority to investigate the circumstances of the alarm, and may waive the payment of the fee. If the responding police or fire officer determines that an alarm notification was caused by an emergency, that notification shall not be considered in determining when a service fee will be assessed. D. An alarm notification shall not be considered in determining when a service fee will be assessed if the owner can demonstrate that the alarm notification was the result of severe weather affecting either the alarm system or the telephone lines delivering such notification or a power outage lasting for more than four hours. E. Service fees. Number of False Burglar Alarms Fees 13 $ 0.00 45 50.00 75.00 67 8 and above 100.00 Non -permitted False Alarm Fees First Violation $0.00 (30 Day notice mailed) 2+ Violations after 30 day grace period $25.00 each false alarm — Residential $35.00 each false alarm - Commercial False Commercial Panic/Hold Up Alarms 1 $0.00 2-3 $100.00 4-5 $250.00 6+ $500 F. As it pertains to a permit holder who has more than eight false alarms per year, the Chief of Police may require the alarm systems monitor to attempt to contact the occupant of the alarm system location twice before the City responds to the alarm signal as provided by V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 214.198. Sec. 6.60.100. - Exceptions. Page 6 The registration fee may be waived for local, state and federal governmental agencies, educational institutions, churches and non -profits. The listed agencies are subject to any and all service fees associated with false alarms. Sec. 6.60.110. - Denial; revocation of permit. A. The Alarm Unit Commander may deny issuance or revoke an alarm system permit if the Commander determines that: 1. There is a false statement of a material matter on the application for a permit; 2. The permit holder has violated any section of this Chapter; 3. The permit holder causes or permits any intentional activation of an alarm system for the purpose of testing the response by the police or fire department; 4. The permit holder has failed to make timely payment of a service fee assessed under Section 6.60.090; or 5. The number of false alarms at any one alarm site exceeds ten during any 12-month period. B. If the Commander revokes a permit, the Alarm Administrator will send to the permit holder by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action and a statement of the right to an appeal. C. It is unlawful for an alarm system user to operate an alarm system during a period in which the permit for the system is revoked. Sec. 6.60.120. - Appeal of service fee or revocation of permit. A. A permit holder may present evidence to the Chief of Police that the activation of an alarm system was not a false alarm. 1. A permit holder may appeal the assessment of a false alarm service fee by filing with the Chief of Police a written request for a hearing setting forth the reasons for the appeal within ten days after the assessment of the service fee. 2. The filing of an appeal with the Chief of Police stays the assessment of the service fee until the Chief of Police makes a final decision. 3. If an appeal is not made within the ten-day period, the assessment is final. 4. The burden shall be on the permit holder to prove that the activation of the alarm system was not a false alarm. 5. If the Chief of Police determines that the activation was not a false alarm, any response by the police or fire department to the activation will not be assessed fees. B. A permit holder may appeal the revocation of a permit to the Chief of Police. 1. Permit holder may appeal by filing with the Chief of Police a written request for a hearing, setting forth the reasons for the appeal, within ten days after receipt of notice of the revocation from the Alarm Unit Commander. Page 7 2. The filing of an appeal with the Chief of Police stays the revocation until the Chief of Police makes a final decision. If an appeal is not made within the ten-day period, the revocation is final. C. The Chief of Police or his or her designee will serve as Hearing Officer at an appeal hearing. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, and the Hearing Officer will make a decision on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. 2. The Hearing Officer will render a decision within 30 days after the request for an appeal hearing is filed. The Hearing Officer will affirm, reverse or modify the action forming the basis for the appeal. 4. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final as to administrative remedies with the City. Sec. 6.60.130. - Reinstatement of permit. A permit may be reinstated by the Alarm Unit Commander when the revoked permit holder pays the application fee and any outstanding service fees and shows: That the fees required under this Chapter have been paid; and 2. The alarm system is operated in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Sec. 6.60.140. - Penalty. A. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter, or fail to comply therewith, or with any requirements thereof, within the City limits shall be deemed guilty of an offense and shall be liable for a fine in accordance with the general penalty provision found in this Chapter. Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. B. Any person who operates, causes to be operated, or allows to be operated an alarm system without a valid permit shall be charged a fee as set forth in the false notification section herein for each notification of activation. This is in addition to any criminal penalty imposed for violation of this Chapter. This fee may be applied to an original alarm permit application for first time offenders. C. It shall be a class C misdemeanor for any person to knowingly cause any category of false alarm notification to be activated, or such incident may be investigated if applicable as a violation of Texas Penal Code § 42.06, "False Alarm or Report," a class A misdemeanor or State jail felony depending upon circumstances. D. The fee imposed for false alarms shall not exceed the amount set forth herein in the case of false alarm notification based on the type and category of alarm signaled. E. The alarm fee schedule in Section 6.60.090 is hereby adopted and may be amended from time to time by Chief of Police and approval of City Manager. Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ("CITY") AMENDING CHAPTER 6.60 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEM REGISTRATION, UNPERMITTED ALARM FEES AND FALSE ALARM FEES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Georgetown City Council deems it necessary to amend Chapter 6.60 of the Georgetown City Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Council now finds it necessary to make the following changes to the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Section 2. 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 Section 3. Chapter 6.60 "Operation of Commercial and Residential Alarm Systems," is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A. Section 6. 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 7. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. Ordinance Number: Page 1 of 2 Description: Alarm Ordinance Date Approved: , 2015 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of 12015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of 2015. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Alarm Ordinance Date Approved: 2015 M. Dale Ross, Mayor Page 2 of 2 CHAPTER 6.60. - OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALARM SYSTEMS Sec. 6.60.010. - Definitions. In this Chapter the following words and terms shall have the following meanings ascribed to them unless the context indicates otherwise: "Alarm Administrator" means a person designated by the Chief of Police to administer, control and review false alarm reduction efforts and administer the provisions of this Chapter. "Alarm installation company" means a person in the business of selling, providing, maintaining, servicing, repairing, altering, replacing, moving or installing alarm systems in an alarm site. "Alarm notification" means a notification intended to summon the police or fire department, which is designed to be initiated purposely by a person or by an alarm system that responds to a stimulus characteristic of unauthorized intrusion or fire. "Alarm permit" means authorization granted by the Alarm Administrator to an alarm user to operate an alarm system. "Alarm site" means a single premise or location (one street address) served by an alarm system. "Alarm system" means any assembly of equipment or devices arranged to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which police or fire department personnel are expected to respond. The term "alarm system" includes the terms "automatic holdup alarm system," "burglar alarm system," "holdup alarm system," "manual holdup alarm system" and "fire alarm system" and also includes any audible sirens that can be heard by a person off the alarm site. "Alarm unit" means a unit established to register, track, bill, analyze and coordinate all activities associated with alarm systems, users and companies. "Alarm Unit Commander" means a Bureau Commander assigned to oversee the alarm unit. "Alarm user" means the owner, agent or person in control of the property on which an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm user awareness class" means a class conducted for the purpose of educating alarm users about the responsible use, operation, and maintenance of alarm systems. "Automatic alarm notification" means an alarm notification sent over telephone lines, by direct connection or otherwise, a pre-recorded voice message, or coded signal indicating the existence of the emergency situation that the alarm system was/is designed to detect. "Automatic dial" means any device connected to an alarm system which automatically sends a prerecorded message or coded signal indicating the activation of the alarm system to a predetermined location. "Automatic holdup alarm system" means an alarm system in which the signal transmission is initiated by the action of a robber. Page 1 "Building" means any structure or enclosure intended for use as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use. "Central station" means an office to which remote and supervisory signaling devices are connected, where operators supervise the circuits and relay alarm notifications to the municipality for the purpose of summoning law enforcement to the alarm site. "Disconnect" means to render an alarm disabled so as to prevent any direct or indirect notification to the police department by a silent or local alarm. "Emergency services" means police, fire, and emergency medical services. "Expired permit" means an invalid permit due to an expiration of the term of the permit period defined herein. "False alarms" includes alarms resulting from operator error, improper installation or maintenance, activation by animals, or other internal or external initiators. See "false alarm notification." "False alarm notification" means a direct or indirect alarm notification to the police, fire, or emergency medical services when responding personnel find no evidence of actual or attempted robbery, burglary, personal hostage, fire, medical, or any other emergency at the alarm site. "Local alarm" means an alarm system that emits a signal at an alarm site that is audible or visible from the exterior of a structure. "Manual holdup alarm system" means any alarm system in which the signal transmission is initiated by a direct action of the person attacked or by an observer of the attack. "Monitored system" means an alarm system, which a signal is sent to a central station to activate emergency services. "Panic or Hold Up alarma4rm" means an alarm system signal generated by the manual activation of a device intended to signal a life threatening or emergency situation requiring law enforcement response. "Permit holder" means any person to whom an alarm system permit is issued. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, organization or similar entity. "Relaying intermediary" means any person who reports the activation of an alarm to the police department for compensation. Sec. 6.60.020. - Applicability. A. This Chapter shall apply to any person who operates or causes to be operated an alarm system at any alarm site. B. Registration fees shall not apply to alarm systems operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities. Page 2 Sec. 6.60.030. - Permit requirement; application; issuance. A. It is unlawful for an alarm system user to cause or permit the installation, maintenance or operation of an alarm system at an alarm site unless a permit has been issued by the City for the alarm system. B. An alarm system permit is necessary for each alarm site. A permit may cover one or more alarm systems at an alarm site. C. An application for an alarm system permit shall be made by the alarm system user on a form prescribed by the City. The application form shall include: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the alarm system user; 2. The street address of the alarm site; 3. The type of property to be protected (i.e., commercial, residential or industrial) and the type of alarm system to be installed at the site; 4. Any business name or title used for the alarm site; 5. Name, address and telephone number of the alarm protective service or person who will install and service the alarm system; 6. Names and telephone numbers of at least two people who are able to and have agreed to receive notification, and respond within 30 minutes, at any time from the police or fire department in order to deactivate the alarm system if it becomes necessary; and 7. Any other pertinent information required by the police or fire department which is necessary for the enforcement of this Chapter. D. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.60.040, the City shall issue a permit to the alarm system user upon submission of a complete application and payment of the appropriate fee. E. The owner or property manager of an apartment complex shall obtain a master alarm permit if an alarm system is operated in: 1. A residential unit on the premises, whether the alarm system is furnished by the owner or property manager or contracted for by an individual tenant; or 2. A non-residential area of the apartment complex, including a common tenant area, office, storage, or equipment area. 3. The City will treat information on applications for permits for alarm systems designed to detect criminal activity as confidential in accordance with applicable laws. F. Any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter is applicable only to the permit holder and is not transferable. A business that changes its name will retain the same permit, provided that the permit holder and alarm site remain the same. Any business that changes its name must notify the Georgetown Police Department, in writing, within ten days of the change and must update the alarm permit application. G. Each permit issued to an alarm system user is valid for one year or until one of the following occurs within the year: Page 3 Control of the alarm site is transferred from the permit holder to another person or the location of the alarm site is changed. 2. The permit holder voluntarily discontinues services provided by a particular alarm protective service or disconnects the alarm system. The permit is revoked by the City pursuant to Section 6.60.110 H. No permit shall be issued or renewed if service fees assessed under Section 6.60.090 remain unpaid. No burglar alarm system permit will be terminated for non -renewal without 30 days notice by the City to the permit holder. I. A residence or business owner shall be charged an unpermitted alarm fee in the amount designated in Section 6.60.90 for each false burglary alarm call where the residence or business does not have a valid permit. The fee is subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon a first false alarm the department shall issue a notice of violation to the non -permit holder. The notice shall grant the owner of the residence or business 30 days to obtain a valid permit. Any subsequent alarms occurring during this 30 day grace period shall be treated as false alarms in accordance with Section 6.60.090. 4-.2.Subsequent false alarms occurring after the 30 day grace period shall be charged an unpermitted alarm fee in the amount designated in Section 6.60.90 for each false alarm. Sec. 6.60.040. - Grounds for denial of permit. A permit may be denied for: 1. Any false statement on the application; 2. Any false statement by applicant in connection with the application; An applicant has failed to pay a service fee assessed under this Chapter; or 4. An applicant has had an alarm site revoked, and the violation causing the revocation has not been corrected. Sec. 6.60.050. - Operation and maintenance of alarm systems. A. A permit holder shall: Maintain the premises containing an alarm system in a manner that ensures proper operation of the alarm system; 2. Maintain the alarm system in a manner that will minimize false alarm notifications; 3. Respond or cause a representative to respond within one hour when notified by the City to repair or inactivate a malfunctioning alarm system, to provide access to the premises, or to provide security for the premises; Subsection 6.60.030 C.6. requires a representative to respond within 30 minutes. 4. Not manually activate an alarm system for any reason other than the occurrence of an event that the alarm system was intended to report; Utilize "relaying intermediaries" for residential alarm systems of all classification types; and Page 4 6. Utilize "relaying intermediaries" for commercial alarm systems of all classification types except holdup alarms. B. A permit holder of a local alarm shall adjust the mechanism or cause the mechanism to be adjusted so that an alarm signal will sound for no longer than 15 minutes after being activated. Sec. 6.60.060. - Policies and procedures. A. The Chief of Police shall institute policies and procedures in the form of operational orders to implement this Chapter. B. The Chief of Police shall publish or make available on the City's website pertinent excerpts from this Chapter and any relative policy statements that may be issued concerning the "standards" for the operation of alarm systems subject to this Chapter. Sec. 6.60.070. - Police response. A. The response, if any, made to a signal from a permitted alarm system shall be subject to the policies and procedures of the police department and will be in accordance with the priorities set for police response. B. The issuance of a permit authorizing the use of an alarm system is not intended to nor shall it create a contract, either express or implied, nor does it create a duty or guarantee of response by the Georgetown Police Department. Any and all liability and consequential damages resulting from the failure to respond to a notification is hereby disclaimed and governmental immunity as provided by law is retained. Sec. 6.60.080. - Fees. A. A permit holder, including the holder of a master alarm permit, shall pay to the police department: 1. The permit fee; and 2. False alarm service fee assessed under Section 6.60.090 B. The fees assessed under this Section are established as follows: 1. Residential: $25.00. 2. Commercial: $2-535.00. 3. Alarm company: $100.00. Sec. 6.60.090. - False alarm notifications and service fees. A. The holder of an alarm permit shall pay a service fee, as provided for in the fee schedule found in Subsection E., for each false alarm notification that is in excess of three false alarms within any 12-month period determined from the date of alarm registration. B. Service fees are required to be paid within 30 days of the post mark on the invoice for such fees. Page 5 C. For any alarm notification for which a service fee is assessed, the Chief of Police, or their designee, has the authority to investigate the circumstances of the alarm, and may waive the payment of the fee. If the responding police or fire officer determines that an alarm notification was caused by an emergency, that notification shall not be considered in determining when a service fee will be assessed. D. An alarm notification shall not be considered in determining when a service fee will be assessed if the owner can demonstrate that the alarm notification was the result of severe weather affecting either the alarm system or the telephone lines delivering such notification or a power outage lasting for more than four hours. E. Service fees. Number of False Burglar Alarms Fees 13 $ 0.00 45 50.00 67 75.00 8 and above 100.00 Non -permitted False Alarm Fees First Violation $0.00 (30 Day notice mailed) 2+ Violations after 30 day grace period $25.00 each false alarm — Residential $35.00 each false alarm - Commercial False Commercial Panic/Hold Up Alarms 1 $0.00 2-3 $100.00 4-5 $250.00 6+ $500 F. As it pertains to a permit holder who has more than eight false alarms per year, the Chief of Police may require the alarm systems monitor to attempt to contact the occupant of the alarm system location twice before the City responds to the alarm signal as provided by V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 214.198. Page 6 Sec. 6.60.100. - Exceptions. The registration fee may be waived for local, state and federal governmental agencies, educational institutions, churches and non -profits. The listed agencies are subject to any and all service fees associated with false alarms. Sec. 6.60.110. - Denial; revocation of permit. A. The Alarm Unit Commander may deny issuance or revoke an alarm system permit if the Commander determines that: 1. There is a false statement of a material matter on the application for a permit; 2. The permit holder has violated any section of this Chapter; 3. The permit holder causes or permits any intentional activation of an alarm system for the purpose of testing the response by the police or fire department; 4. The permit holder has failed to make timely payment of a service fee assessed under Section 6.60.090; or 5. The number of false alarms at any one alarm site exceeds ten during any 12-month period. B. If the Commander revokes a permit, the Alarm Administrator will send to the permit holder by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action and a statement of the right to an appeal. C. It is unlawful for an alarm system user to operate an alarm system during a period in which the permit for the system is revoked. Sec. 6.60.120. - Appeal of service fee or revocation of permit. A. A permit holder may present evidence to the Chief of Police that the activation of an alarm system was not a false alarm. 1. A permit holder may appeal the assessment of a false alarm service fee by filing with the Chief of Police a written request for a hearing setting forth the reasons for the appeal within ten days after the assessment of the service fee. 2. The filing of an appeal with the Chief of Police stays the assessment of the service fee until the Chief of Police makes a final decision. 3. If an appeal is not made within the ten-day period, the assessment is final. 4. The burden shall be on the permit holder to prove that the activation of the alarm system was not a false alarm. 5. If the Chief of Police determines that the activation was not a false alarm, any response by the police or fire department to the activation will not be assessed fees. B. A permit holder may appeal the revocation of a permit to the Chief of Police. 1. Permit holder may appeal by filing with the Chief of Police a written request for a hearing, setting forth the reasons for the appeal, within ten days after receipt of notice of the revocation from the Alarm Unit Commander. Page 7 2. The filing of an appeal with the Chief of Police stays the revocation until the Chief of Police makes a final decision. If an appeal is not made within the ten-day period, the revocation is final. C. The Chief of Police or his or her designee will serve as Hearing Officer at an appeal hearing. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, and the Hearing Officer will make a decision on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. 2. The Hearing Officer will render a decision within 30 days after the request for an appeal hearing is filed. The Hearing Officer will affirm, reverse or modify the action forming the basis for the appeal. 4. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final as to administrative remedies with the City. Sec. 6.60.130. - Reinstatement of permit. A permit may be reinstated by the Alarm Unit Commander when the revoked permit holder pays the application fee and any outstanding service fees and shows: That the fees required under this Chapter have been paid; and 2. The alarm system is operated in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Sec. 6.60.140. - Penalty. A. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Chapter, or fail to comply therewith, or with any requirements thereof, within the City limits shall be deemed guilty of an offense and shall be liable for a fine in accordance with the general penalty provision found in this Chapter. Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. B. Any person who operates, causes to be operated, or allows to be operated an alarm system without a valid permit shall be charged a fee as set forth in the false notification section herein for each notification of activation. This is in addition to any criminal penalty imposed for violation of this Chapter. This fee may be applied to an original alarm permit application for first time offenders. C. It shall be a class C misdemeanor for any person to knowingly cause any category of false alarm notification to be activated, or such incident may be investigated if applicable as a violation of Texas Penal Code § 42.06, "False Alarm or Report," a class A misdemeanor or State jail felony depending upon circumstances. D. The fee imposed for false alarms shall not exceed the amount set forth herein in the case of false alarm notification based on the type and category of alarm signaled. E. The alarm fee schedule in Section 6.60.090 is hereby adopted and may be amended from time to time by Chief of Police and approval of City Manager. Page 8 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2013/14 Annual Budget due to conditions that resulted in year-end budget variances, appropriating the various amounts thereof and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This budget amendment adjusts last year's final budget for costs for operations, grants and capital expenditures that occurred in 2013/14. This is a routine annual amendment that is administrative in nature and is required for compliance for the year end 2013/14 audit and financial reports. The proposed amendment does not change fund balances available for 2014/15 uses or projections for the upcoming 2015/16 budget year. The budget adjustments are summarized below. All are paid from additional revenues not previously budgeted or fund balances designated for those uses. The CTSUD purchase costs were paid with bond proceeds issued in September 2014 and operating revenues received after the merger. $1,413,410 Streets SRF — use reserves for repairs to D.B. Wood, Rivery Blvd. & Wolf Ranch Pkwy 184,700 Misc SRF adjustments for timing of grants and projects 173,700 Airport legal, utilities and bankruptcy settlement costs 258,900 Electric legal fees and settlement costs 5,670,000 Purchase of CTSUD and''/z months operating costs $7,700,710 Total budget amendment to 2013/14 Annual Budget None of the above items were known at the time the 2013/14 budget was adopted. This budget amendment addresses the legal and financial appropriation needed to accommodate these changes. The detailed distribution of the amendment is included in the attachments to the ordinance. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Charter requires that a majority plus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. The City charter allows for budget amendments in emergency situations and when the issues and needs were unknown at the time the budget was adopted. COMMENTS An additional budget amendment for the current budget (2014/15) will also be on this agenda. This 2nd Budget Amendment will be to roll forward items included and approved in last year's Annual Budget (2013/14), but due to the timing of capital projects and other project expenditures now need to be moved to the 2014/15 Annual Budget. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A - 2013/14 Year End Adjustment Amendment FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed budget amendment does not reduce the originally projected fund balances available for the 2014/15 budget, and therefore does not impact the current year budget. This amendment is necessary to be compliant with State Law and the City's Charter; as well as, be reflected in the 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to be presented to City Council in March. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013/14 ANNUAL BUDGET DUE TO CONDITIONS THAT RESULTED IN YEAR END BUDGET VARIANCES; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City had increased 2013/14 expenditures related to street arterial projects; additional expenses offset by additional funds in certain Special Revenue Funds (Permitting SRF, Tree SRF, PEG Fee SRF, PD Grants SRF, Abandoned Vehicles SRF, and Williams Drive Grant SRF); additional legal and capital expenses in the Airport Fund; additional legal and settlement expenses in the Electric Fund; and additional expenses for the acquisition of the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District acquisition in the Water Services Fund; and WHEREAS, these circumstances have resulted in higher than anticipated expenses with offsetting revenues, fund balances and revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year 2013/14 budget was approved; and WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Operating Plan by a Council majority plus one in emergency situations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SFCTInN 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. SFCTlnN 2 The amendment to the 2013/14 Annual Budget of the revenues of the City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2013, and ending September 30, 2014. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 3. The total of $7,700,710 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and payments of the funds and included in the Exhibit "A". Ordinance Number: Description: Prior Year Budget Amendment Date Approved: January 27, 2015 Page 1 of 1 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. This ordinance complies with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan. 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 upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 131h day of January, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 27th day of January, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Prior Year Budget Amendment Date Approved: January 27, 2015 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A Year End Adjustments 2013/14 Annual Budget Amendment Special Revenue Funds Revenues/Sources: Donations/Grants/Revenues $ (117,880) Fund Balance - Streets Arterial Reserve (1,413,410) Fund Balance - Other SRF's (66,820) Expenditures Street Sales Tax Fund - Repairs 1,413,410 Permitting SRF 24,490 Tree Fund SRF 2,425 Fire Billing SRF 58,050 PEG Fee SRF 8,770 PD Grants 6,165 Abandoned Vehicles 23,600 Williams Drive SRF 61,200 Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Airport Fund Revenues/Sources: Revenues - bankruptcy settlement $ (98,800) Revenues - fuel and other $ (74,900) Expenditures Operations - legal fees, bankruptcy settlement and utilities 173,700 Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Electric Fund Revenues/Sources: Revenues - electric revenues $ (258,900) Expenditures Operations - legal fees, settlement 258,900 Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Water Services Fund Revenues/Sources: Revenues - water sales $ (320,000) Revenue bond proceeds (5,350,000) Expenditures Operations - CTSUD for last 2 weeks 320,000 Purchase of CTSUD Assets 5,350,000 Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0 Total Budget Amendment $ 7,700,710 L:\Division\finance\Share2\AGENDA\2015\MuniAgenda\06 Jan 13\05 Budget Amend ment-Agenda-Susan\2015 BA PYE Adjustments Exhibit A City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to the timing of capital and other projects approved in the prior year, appropriating the various amount thereof and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This item rolls forward $18,597,000 for items included and approved in the 2013/14 Annual Budget, but due to the timing of capital projects and other project expenditures now need to be moved or rolled forward into the 2014/15 Annual Budget. This ordinance is an administrative item and these timing related adjustments are made annually. None of the above items were known at the time the 2014/15 Annual Budget was adopted. This budget amendment addresses the legal and financial appropriation needed to accommodate these changes. The detailed distribution of the amendment is included in the attachments to the ordinance. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Charter requires that a majority plus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. The City charter allows for budget amendments in emergency situations and when the issues and needs were unknown at the time the budget was adopted. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A - 2014/15 Roll Forward Amendment FINANCIAL IMPACT: This proposed budget amendment does not reduce the originally projected fund balances available for the 2014/15 budget cycle. The net increase in total budgeted expenditures for 2014/15 for the City of Georgetown is $18,597,000. The increase is funded through additional and unprojected fund balances available at the end of fiscal year 2013/14. This amendment is related only to project timing and is considered routine in nature. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Rxhihit A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014/15 ANNUAL BUDGET DUE TO DUE TO THE TIMING OF CAPITAL AND OTHER PROJECTS APPROVED IN THE PRIOR YEAR; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, certain capital improvement and other planned projects budgeted in FY 2013/14 were not completed in FY 2013/14; and WHEREAS, these certain capital improvements and other planned projects need funds and related budget appropriations to be rolled forward into FY 2014/15; and WHEREAS, the General Fund, General Capital Projects Fund Street Tax Special Revenue Fund, Parks Special Revenue Fund, Downtown Special Revenue Fund, Stormwater Drainage Fund, Electric Fund, and Water Services Fund had 2013/14 ending fund balance in excess of amounts projected at the time of the FY 2014/15 budget adoption; and WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year 2014/15 budget was approved; and WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Operating Plan by a Council majority plus one in emergency situations; 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. SECTION 2_ The amendment to the 2014/15 Annual Budget of the revenues of the City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2014, and ending September 30, 2015. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference herein. Ordinance Number: Description: Roll -forward Budget Amendment Date Approved: February 10, 2015 Page 1 of 2 SECTION 3_ The total of $18,597,000 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and payments of the funds and included in the Exhibit "A". 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. This ordinance complies with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan. 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 upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 27th day of January, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 10th day of February, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Roll -forward Budget Amendment Date Approved: February 10, 2015 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A, Continued Roll Forwards 2014/15 Annual Budget Amendment Stormwater Drainage Fund Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance - prior year approved projects Expenses - project timing Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements Excess revenue over expenses Electric Fund Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance - prior year approved projects Expenses - project timing CIP - Solar Farm Excess revenue over expenses Water Services Fund Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance - prior year approved projects Expenses - project timing Water Infrastructure Improvements Asset Management Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements Trasnfers Out- Rebate program Excess revenue over expenses Joint Services Fund Revenues/Sources: Transfer In - Water Fund Expenses - project timing Water rebate program Excess revenue over expenses $ (355,000) 355,000 $ 0 $ (3,270,000) 3,270,000 $ 0 $ (7,706,000) 6,939,000 359,000 244,000 164,000 $ 0 $ (164,000) 164,000 $ 0 Total Budget Amendment $ 18,597,000 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded form the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Title 13, Article I, Section 13.04.083 titled "Distributed Renewable Electric Generation" of the code of ordinances of the City of Georgetown Texas, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions, including a severability clause and establishing an effective date -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Staff recommends changes to the solar section of the Electric Rate Ordinance as bulleted below. These changes remove inconsistencies in the net metering program and credit calculations no longer needed with the cost of service rates adopted in the fall of 2013. It also cross references the contractor requirements for solar with the current Electrical permitting requirements in the City's Code of Ordinances. 1. Cross reference Contractor Requirements with current Electrical permitting requirements in City's Code of Ordinances by adding the following to Section E: o Contractor Requirements: Refer to Electric Permitting requirements in City's Code of Ordinances, Title 15 — Building & Construction, Chapter 15.16 — Electrical Code ■ This will ensure the requirements are consistent and are kept current with the adopted electric code requirements. ■ Any changes to the electric code requirements are updated and referenced correctly. 2. Clarify language associated with the billing of the net meter rate and credit. o The billing and credit calculation for net metering is set at the residential retail rate. o Energy is billed at the residential retail rate and a credit is calculated when energy is provided to the grid by the customer's system, using the same residential retail rate. ■ There is no longer a requirement to recover Transmission and Distribution costs in the credit amount. o Any credit on the customer account, after all applicable charges are deducted, can be refunded back to the customer. 3. Remove the "not to exceed" amount of $7,500 from the cumulative system rebate on net metering. 4. Update the Photovoltaic Interconnection Package currently in use: o Working to develop a more streamlined application, permitting, and inspection process. BOARD RECOMMENDATION This item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the December 11, 2014 GUS Board meeting ATTACHMENT Proposed Ordinance FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING TITLE 13, ARTICLE I, SECTION 13.04.083 TITLED "DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ELECTRIC GENERATION" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN TEXAS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown established its current electric rates in 2013; WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown wishes to amend technical requirements; and WHEREAS, The City of Georgetown wishes to clarify inconsistencies associated with the net metering rate category; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Georgetown wishes to amend the current, standard electric rates and adopt proposed language changes, effective on all utility billings after November 1, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. SECTION 2. 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 complies with the Vision Statement 2.5(A) of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan relating to providing cost effective utility services. SECTION 3. Section 13.04.083 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and adopted as shown in Exhibit A. 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 after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: 2015 PASSED AND APPROVED on the first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of Georgetown, Texas on this the day of , 2015 PASSED AND APPROVED on the second and final reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of Georgetown, Texas on this the day of , 2015. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Jessica Brettle , City Secretary Dale Ross, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: 2015 EXHIBIT A 13.04.010 Rates and Charges — Electricity - Schedule The monthly rates and charges for the sales made of services rendered by the electric system of the City are established, levied, fixed and prescribed as set forth in § 13.04.010 through 13.04.100 Service rendered under this Article is subject to the City's Rules and Regulations. 13.04.083. Distributed renewable electric generation. A. Availability. Available only to residential and small commercial customers that own distributed renewable electric generation (D-REG) facilities of ten kW or less that are located within the Georgetown Utility System's (GUS) electric service area and are connected to GUS's electric distribution system. The D-REG facility shall exclusively serve a single residential or small commercial premise connected to the GUS electric distribution system. 1. Customers shall be required to review and complete the City's interconnection package and execute a distributed generation contract with the City to install a D-REG system. 2. Non-residential customers that are ten kW or larger may purchase or install a D-REG system, but must negotiate a more comprehensive contract with the City, before construction can begin. B. Application. Available to customers with a solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen fuel cell or any renewable energy powered device that generates ten kW or less of electric power at a voltage of 600 volts or less from a residential or small commercial electric service at a customer's premise or at an off -site location that is connected to the City's electric distribution system. C. Definitions. Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: NET Meter = City generated kWh less D-REG generated kWh that is used at the premise. DEL = City generated kWh that is delivered to and used at the premise. RCVD = D-REG generated kWh that is not used at the premise and pushed out to the grid. REC = Total renewable kWh generated by the D-REG system. Standard rate = The current adopted electric rate for the applicable rate class for which the electric service qualifies. 2015 D. Incentives. To encourage the installation of qualifying renewable generation, there are incentive programs for which qualifying applicants may apply, in order to defray a portion of the costs associated with the installation of a D-REG system. 1. Renewable Energy Credits. a. In order to qualify for a renewable energy incentive, customers must assign all rights to any and all environmental attributes and/or credits, including any renewable energy credits (RECs,) carbon off -set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production associated with this rebate, to the City for the City's use, as it may choose. b. Customers may petition, in writing, to retain the environmental attributes and/or credits, including any RECs, carbon off -set credits, or similar environmental credits derived from the renewable energy production in order to achieve or maintain LEED Certification or any other energy efficiency designation requiring the retirement of RECs in the customer's name. C. Revenue from the sale of RECs, by the City, is designated for renewable energy incentive programs sponsored by the City. 2. Net Metering. Net metering is an incentive program that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS's electric distribution system. Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: a. Customer must purchase the REC meter that is installed and used by the City to register the renewable kWh generated at the premise. b. If a premise uses more electricity than the D-REG system produces, within a single billing month, the customer pays for the non -netted, GUS provided electricity at the standard rate: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate C. If a premise uses less electricity than the D-REG system produces, the customer is provided a credit equal to the standard rate x the total D-REG generated kWh that flow back to the City's electric distribution system: (DEL kWh - RCVD kWh) x standard rate 2015 d. Payment for D-REG power is provided to the customer in the form of a credit against the customer's utility bill at the upgraded premise. A credit on the customer account, after all applicable account charges are deducted may be refunded. e. Net metering is effective for the life of the D-REG system. 3. Rebate. A rebate is an incentive that is available to qualifying customers that have signed a distributed generation contract with the City and have successfully connected a D-REG system to GUS's electric distribution system. a. Funding for rebates is limited to availability. Rebate offerings will be announced as they become available, and will remain active until the allotted funding is depleted or until the program is discontinued by the City. b. Calculation of Rebate. i. The GUS Rebate application must be completed, signed and returned to the City before a rebate will be issued. ii. The rebate is based on the smaller of the Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: panel rating and the inverter rating (if they are different) and the efficiency of the system currently being installed. C. The City may, at any time, discontinue a program or any of its components, change guidelines, or increase/decrease rebate calculation methods, without prior notice. d. Once funds are depleted, no additional applications for participation will be accepted until the next fiscal year, or until more funding becomes available. e. There is no waiting list for inactive or future programs. Applications that are submitted, but not addressed, before program funding is depleted, must resubmit the following year. i. Rebates are paid on a first come basis, within the pool of qualifying applicants. ii. Application for rebate will not be accepted retroactively to any offering period. f. Rebates are for residential and small commercial customers, only. g. Rebates are applicable for retrofits, only. New construction does not qualify for this rebate. 2015 All system equipment must be purchased. No leased or lease/purchase equipment will qualify for a rebate. The rebate application form must include a copy of the itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer. D-REG systems will only qualify for this rebate once per 12-month period. After 12 months, an application for rebate may be submitted for expansion of the D- REG system. E. Contractor Requirements. Refer to Electric Permitting requirements in City's Code of Ordinances, Title 15 — Building & Construction, Chapter 15.16 — Electrical Code F. General Requirements for Interconnection. 1. Applicant must be the homeowner or property owner at the location being improved. 2. A D-REG system will not be designed to generate more energy than the average annual usage of the home for which it provides power. 3. All installations and improvements must be at locations with electric service provided by GUS and must meet all applicable national, local, and manufacturers' codes and specifications. 4. All necessary permits must be acquired from the City prior to installation. 5. The City does not compensate the installer for the equipment installation or for processing the necessary paperwork. 6. A pre -inspection by the City that entails a site evaluation of the proposed location for the D-REG system may be required. 7. Post —inspection by the GUS Building Inspection Department are required on all installations, before the issuance of the rebate. Failure to follow these or other requirements of the City building code may render the system ineligible for the incentive and the system will not be allowed to interconnect with the City electrical grid. G. Regulations Specific to Photovoltaic (PV) Systems. 1. Customers must provide a copy of their system design analysis, as calculated by PV Watts, the online calculation tool used for estimating the energy production and cost savings of grid connected PV systems. (This analysis is used to verify the optimal placement of the panels.) a. 100% - 80% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate b. 79% - 70% of optimal placement = Full per DC Watt rebate x .66. C. No incentive is provided for efficiency less than 70% Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: 2015 2. The City interconnect package must be reviewed, completed, and approved by City staff, prior to installation of PV system. 3. A pre -inspection site evaluation of the proposed location for the PV system to verify that the orientation and shading of the buildings are appropriate for adequate solar energy capture and conversion may be required. 4. All equipment must be new when installed and must come with, at the least, a five-year warranty on the inverter and a 15-year warranty on the panels. 5. The itemized and dated invoice from the contractor or retailer that is included with the application form must include the serial numbers for all panels and inverters. 6. Requests for rebates must be received by the City within 30 days of installation. 7. Payments will be made to the property owner that purchased the qualified equipment, unless authorized, in writing, by the program manager and the property owner. Ordinance Number: Description: Electric Rate Ordinance Date Approved: 2015 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance creating "Assignment Pay" for certain assignments within the Fire Department, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing a severability clause, finding and determining that the meetings at which the ordinance is passed are open to the public as required by law and providing an effective date -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief And Tadd Phillips, Human Resource Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The Georgetown Fire Department operates under an existing ordinance and statutory language that allows the Fire Chief to assign a Firefighter to a specialized position. The assigned member is compensated for the additional responsibility via an assignment stipend that is added to their base pay. The purpose of this agenda item is to amend the existing ordinance so that it addresses the current needs and operation of the Georgetown Fire Department. A redline version of the ordinance has been included for your reference. The primary changes include the addition of the "Paramedic" assignment and grammatical changes to the assigned title(s). For example, the Logistics Captain assignment will be referred to as the Logistics Officer. Assignment stipends are considered market competitive and have been benchmarked with Cities that include Round Rock, Sugar Land, and numerous other cities. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The addition of the Paramedic Assignment has been include within the cost projections for the program and contained within the budget allocations for the position. SUBMITTED BY: John Sullivan, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: Second Readiniz of an Ordinance creatinz "Assiinment Pay" for certain assiinments within the Fire Department ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING "ASSIGNMENT PAY" FOR CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETINGS AT WHICH THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown adopted Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code for its police and fire departments; WHEREAS, there are specialized assignments within the Fire and Police Departments that certain fire fighters and certain police officers perform that are not performed by every fire fighter or every police officer; WHEREAS, § 143.042 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the governing body of a municipality may authorize assignment pay for fire fighters or police officers who perform specialized functions in the Fire or Police Department; and WHEREAS, § 143.042 (c) of the Texas Local Government Code requires that the governing body must set forth in an ordinance the amount of assignment pay and the conditions under which it is to be payable to members of the Fire and Police Department; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. The matters and facts set forth in the preamble are hereby found to be true. Section 2. The assignment of "Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves developing, coordinating and implementing fire prevention and emergency management - homeland security activities to improve community safety and preparedness for potential emergencies or disasters in the City of Georgetown. There will be only one (1) member of the Department who is assigned to serve as "Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator" at any one point in time. When a member of the Fire Department is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve in this assignment, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred and Ordinance Number: Description: Assignment Pay Ordinance Date Approved: Page 1 of 4 Fifty Dollars ($350.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Section 3. The assignment of "Emergency Medical Services Chief' is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves oversight of all aspects of the Fire Department's medical services and the development, coordination, and implementation of EMS Training Programs. There will be only one (1) member of the Fire Department who may be assigned to serve as "Emergency Medical Services Chief' at any one point in time. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Emergency Medical Services Chief' for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($350.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Section 4. The assignment of "Training Officer" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves educating/training the employees in Fire Fighter responsibilities; educating/training the employees in the EMS responsibilities; maintaining the training field in an operational condition that promotes compliance to local, regional, State and National guidelines; and coordinate all training programs and related equipment for the Fire Department. There will be only one (1) member of the Fire Department who is assigned to serve as the "Training Officer" at any one point in time. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Training Officer" for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Section 5. The assignment of "Logistics Officer" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves technical administrative and functional work to meet the logistical needs of the Fire Department; responsible for coordinating the procurement and maintenance of department assets; serves as coordinator for department stock and supply operations, fleet services, facility and grounds; assists with technical programs including radios, maps, hydrants and other necessary supply and support aspects for the Fire Department. There will be only one (1) member of the Fire Department who is assigned to serve as the "Logistics Officer" at any one point in time. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Logistics Officer" for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Ordinance Number: Description: Assignment Pay Ordinance Date Approved: Page 2 of 4 Section 6. The assignment of "Deputy Fire Marshal" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves the management and oversight of the fire inspection, public education, fire investigation, plan review and code enforcement actions for the Fire Department. This position directly manages the functions of the "Fire and Life Safety" and serves a support function to the "Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator." There will be only one (1) member of the Fire Department who is assigned to serve as "Deputy Fire Marshal" at any one point in time. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Deputy Fire Marshal" for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Section 7. The assignment of "Fire and Life Safety Specialist" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves performing inspections, conducting public education, plan review, fire investigation, writing reports, and taking enforcement actions for the Fire Department. There may be no more than three (3) members of the Fire Department are assigned to serve as "Fire and Life Safety" at any one point in time. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Fire and Life Safety Specialist" for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month as Assignment Pay. The member must actually perform this assignment for more than two (2) weeks per month in order to be entitled to be paid this Assignment Pay. Section 8. The assignment of "Paramedic" is a specialized function within the Georgetown Fire Department and that assignment involves the responsibility for providing Advanced Life Support (ALS) care during medical and/or related incidents. This position is also responsible for patient care reporting (ePCR), quality assurance, EMS training and/or education, and other related duties as delegated. There will be a maximum of one (1) Paramedic assigned to each apparatus and is at the sole discretion of the Fire Chief. When a member is designated by the Fire Chief or his designee to serve as "Paramedic" for the Fire Department, that member is entitled to receive Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per month as Assignment Pay. Section 8. The terms of this ordinance and/or any payment of "assignment pay" do not apply to a member who is performing on a "step-up" "acting" or any other temporary basis unless it is the "Paramedic" assignment and required for the provision of emergency services. Section 9. It is hereby found and determined that the meetings at which this ordinance was passed were open to the public, as required by Section 551, Texas Government Code, and that advance public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meetings was given.. Ordinance Number: Description: Assignment Pay Ordinance Date Approved: Page 3 of 4 Section 10. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any purpose by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 11. All other ordinances, section, or parts of ordinances heretofore adopted by the City of Georgetown in conflict with the provisions set out above in this ordinance are hereby repealed or amended as indicated. Section 12. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately after its second and final reading. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of , 2015 at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 2015 at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Ordinance Number: Description: Assignment Pay Ordinance Date Approved: CITY OF GEORGETOWN Dale Ross, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, changing approximately 73 acres on the Future Land Use Plan from Employment Center to Moderate Density Residential for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment request removes approximately 73 acres of land from the Employment Center designation and replaces it with Moderate Density Residential. The amendment would allow a concurrent zoning request to be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed development project is similar to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project approved for this site in 2008, with the land use adjustment necessary to allow for more land area to be developed for single-family without the requirements of the PUD. This application is potentially the first step in a two-step process to revise the standards of the 2008 PUD. Staff and the applicant discussed the planned Employment Center land use designation in this area and its importance to the long-term plan for the city, and also the concern about additional residential adjacent to the airport. Staff agreed to process this first step to allow the developer to take the case to Council so that they can begin building homes on the northern half of the land, most of which was already approved for residential in the existing PUD. The overall density of residential would be lowered from the existing PUD zoning, but the single-family would cover a larger area. The southern remainder of the property will remain, for the short term, in a PUD zoning with a development emphasis on employment, retail and high -density residential. Future consideration of the balance of the land could occur at a later date. Considerations for the Council include the amount of land desired for this planned employment center hub, the compatibility of additional residential near the airport, and the landowner's stated difficulty of reserving the land for employment center under market pressure for residential. Another consideration is that the 2008 PUD zoning would remain in place if the land use amendment or zoning request is denied. Public Comments None received as of the writing of this report Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for Three Forks. Planning and Zoning Commission At the December 16, 2014, meeting, the Commission unanimously (4-0) recommended approval to City Council of the comprehensive plan amendment request. City Council At the January 13, 2014, meeting, Council unanimously (7-0) approved the comprehensive plan amendment request at first reading of the ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan Maddox ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Future Land Use Map Existing Zoning Mqp Aerial Map Ordinance CPA Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Revised City Land Use Plan Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: December 10, 2014 File No: CPA-2014-003 Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner Item Details Project Name: Three Forks Ranch Location: Airport Road Total Acreage: 285.74 acres Legal Description: 285.74 acres in the Wright Survey Applicant: Property Owner: Contact: Gary Newman Glynn Buie Gary Newman Existing Use: Agricultural Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential, Employment Center Proposed Change: Less Employment Center area Growth Tier: Tier 1 Overview of Applicant's Request The proposed comprehensive plan amendment request removes approximately 73 acres of land from the Employment Center designation and replaces it with Moderate Density Residential. The amendment would allow a concurrent zoning request to be considered. The proposed development project is similar to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project approved for this site in 2008, with the land use adjustment necessary to allow for more land area to be developed for single-family without the requirements of the PUD. Site Information Location: Airport Road near Berry Creek and I-35 Physical Characteristics: Contains significant tree cover in spots, environmental features, Berry Creek floodplain, and some significant historical features. Surrounding Properties: Three Forks 2015 PUD release (CPA) Page 1 of 3 Planning Department Staff Report The surrounding properties, most of which are in the ETJ, are primarily low -density residential to the west with an occasional non-residential property along Airport Road. Near the south end of the property is the Georgetown Municipal Airport, and additional land planned for future employment/industrial uses. The north borders Berry Creek and to the east are properties fronting I-35 and planned for future commercial uses. The property is unique in that it physically touches only one other parcel that is not divided by a roadway or water feature. Property Historynow In December 2006, the City Council adopted the annexation of the land, with the zoning to the Planned Unit Development approved in February of 2008. It is remained in agriculture use since that time. The home site is presently outside of the city limits and will remain in the ETJ at least through this zoning process. 2030 Plan Analysis The property is classified as Moderate Density Residential and Employment Center. Some discussion with the applicant and City staff has been ongoing, primarily pertaining to the City's desire to retain large areas of land to promote for business uses and increase the employment base in Georgetown. The area between I-35 and Airport Road is one of those areas, considering the proximity to the airport, City utilities, great access to the major highways, developable land, and large tracts. The City Council recently approved approximately 70 acres of this employment center land for retail use. The City's comprehensive plan vision for the area near the Airport is for employers, manufacturing, airport -associated businesses and other commercial and industrial development. The goal is find compatible uses to the airport that don't mind airplane noise, heavy trucks, and potential sights and smells that may conflict with a residential area. Staff has shared some of these concerns with the developer. A compromise was made to pursue an immediate land use and zoning adjustment for a small portion of the land, and continue to discuss the balance of the property within the context of a planned unit development that would serve the interests of both the developer and the city. A future consideration of land and use zoning on 70+ acres to the south will likely take place in 2015. The property is currently classified as Growth Tier 1 on the City's Growth Tier Plan, meaning that utilities and infrastructure are planned for this area in the 10-year CIP, and this property has major infrastructure needed for the long-term development of the area. Water, wastewater and electric will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). Discussions are ongoing regarding wastewater service and the optimal solution and timing for the provision of wastewater to the project. This property borders the location where the proposed Berry Creek Interceptor would be built to eventually relieve the plant Three Forks 2015 PUD release (CPA) Page 2 of 3 Planning Department Staff Report at Berry Creek, just north of the site. Transportation The project is served by several major roadways, including Airport Road, I-35 and an eventual roadway south towards the I-35 and 130 interchange. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done in 2008 that will need to be revised since the density is projected to be reduced. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. Public Comments A total of 23 notices were sent out to property owners in the city limits and ETJ within 200 feet of the proposed project. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 30, 2014. There were no comments received as of the writing of this report. Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map (2012) Proposed Future Land Use Amendment Three Forks 2015 PUD release (CPA) Page 3 of 3 W� is ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending the Comprehensive Plan to change approximately 73 acres, more or less, on the Future Land Use Plan from Employment Center to Moderate Density Residential; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.+ Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use Plan. Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on December 16, 2014, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested comprehensive plan amendment; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on January 13, 2015, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested comprehensive plan amendment. 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 vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City's Unified Development Code. Ordinance Number: Description: Three Forks CPA 2015 Date Approved: January 27, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Exhibits A and B Attached Case File Number: CPA-2014-003 Section 2. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Plan, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Graphical depiction of the property) and incorporated herein by reference. 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 in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 13th day of January, 2015 APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 27th day of January, 2015. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Dale Ross Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: Three Forks CPA 2015 Date Approved: January 27, 2015 ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary Page 2 of 2 Exhibits A and B Attached Case File Number: CPA-2014-003 W�l R4R GEORGETOWN TEXAS r) F w rr U a BERRY CREEK DR m Np1AN MOB BRANGUS RD Sq�\MA CAVU RD .I CREEK DR I PEBBLE CREEK sy VZ m CO 2 z 2 2 o_ Q Lo I W LANDUSE - Institutional - Regional Commercial - Community Commercial Ag / Rural Residential - Employment Center - Hlgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to 250 acres of Single-family Residential (RS) District, 19.85 acres of Low -Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, and 15.89 acres of Agriculture (AG) District in the David Wright Survey for Three Forks Ranch, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning corresponds to the request for a comprehensive amendment to the future land use plan to remove a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay on an approved multi -use development project on Airport Road. Originally known as Three Forks, approved for this site in 2008, the PUD allowed for about half of the land to be single-family, civic uses such as a school and parkland, a town -center style street grid with office and high -density residential, and some traditional retail. The PUD (attached here) is an extensive document that details a multitude of land development standards, architectural design, streetscapes, and some performance standards on amount of non-residential usage. The developer is requesting that the PUD- allowed single-family be expanded in area, even though the overall residential density is not decreased, and to remove the requirements of the PUD in favor of traditional UDC development. This application is potentially the first step in a two-step process to revise the standards of the 2008 PUD. Staff and the applicant discussed the planned Employment Center land use designation in this area and its importance to the long-term plan for the city, and also the concern about additional residential adjacent to the airport. Staff agreed to process this first step to allow the developer to take the case to Council so that they can begin building homes on the northern half of the land, most of which was already approved for residential in the existing PUD. The overall density of residential would be lowered from the existing PUD zoning, but the single-family would cover a larger area. The southern remainder of the property will remain, for the short term, in a PUD zoning with a development emphasis on employment, retail and high -density residential. Future consideration of the balance of the land could occur at a later date. Considerations for the Council include the amount of land desired for this planned employment center hub, the compatibility of additional residential near the airport, and the landowner's stated difficulty of reserving the land for employment center under market pressure for residential. Another consideration is that the 2008 PUD zoning would remain in place if the land use amendment or zoning request is denied. Public Comments None received as of the writing of this report Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rezoning for Three Forks. Planning and Zoning Commission At the December 16, 2014, meeting, the Commission unanimously (4-0) recommended approval to City Council of the rezoning request. City Council At the January 13, 2014, meeting, Council unanimously (7-0) approved the rezoning request at first reading of the ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan Maddox ATTACHMENTS: Zoning Staff Report Future Land Use Map Existing Zoning Map Aerial Map Zoning Proposal 2008 PUD Plan Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Field Notes Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: December 10, 2014 File No: REZ-2014-029 Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner Item Details Project Name: Three Forks Ranch Location: Airport Road Total Acreage: 285.74 acres Legal Description: 285.74 acres in the Wright Survey Applicant: Gary Newman Property Owner: Glynn Buie Contact: Gary Newman Existing Use: Agricultural Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD), with base districts of Residential Single -Family (RS), and Local Commercial (C-1) Proposed Zoning: Residential Single -Family (RS), Agriculture (AG), and Low -Density Multifamily (MF-1) Future Land Use: Moderate Density Residential, Employment Center Growth Tier: Tier 1 Overview of Applicant's Request The proposed zoning request removes approximately 285 acres from an existing PUD, to allow the developer to pursue a more traditional single-family and multifamily project. The remainder of the existing PUD will remain planned for office, retail, and high -density residential and the applicant has indicated that further revisions to that PUD are imminent. The overall residential density will be slightly lowered from the density forecasted in the existing PUD document. Site Information Location: Airport Road near Berry Creek and I-35 Physical Characteristics: Contains significant tree cover in spots, environmental features, Berry Creek floodplain, and some significant historical features. Three Forks 2015 PUD release Page 1 of 4 Planning Department Staff Report Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties, most of which are in the ETJ, are primarily low -density residential to the west with an occasional non-residential property along Airport Road. Near the south end of the property is the Georgetown Municipal Airport, and additional land planned for future employment/industrial uses. The north borders Berry Creek and to the east are properties fronting I-35 and planned for future commercial uses. The property is unique in that it physically touches only one other parcel that is not divided by a roadway or water feature. Property History In December 2006, the City Council adopted the annexation of the land, with the zoning to the Planned Unit Development approved in February of 2008. It is remained in agriculture use since that time. The home site is presently outside of the city limits and will remain in the ETJ at least through this zoning process. 2030 Plan Conformance The property is classified as Moderate Density Residential and Employment Center. Some discussion with the applicant and City staff has been ongoing, primarily pertaining to the City's desire to retain large areas of land to promote for business uses and increase the employment base in Georgetown. There is a separate application in process that proposes an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan that would facilitate this zoning, if approved. The property is currently classified as Growth Tier 1 on the City's Growth Tier Plan, meaning that utilities and infrastructure are planned for this area in the 10-year CIP, and this property has major infrastructure needed for the long-term development of the area. Proposed Zoning I The PUD document consisted of development standards that were designed to include new urbanism principles, both within the residential and non-residential areas. The single- family homes included some varied setback and lot size differences but generally were in conformance with the base zoning district that is being proposed to govern. The RS District allows single-family only, with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The density forecasted by the developer is less dense on an overall basis than the residential units allowed by the 2008 PUD. The MF-1, Low -Density Multifamily was recently created by the City to allow for small apartments and condominium detached single-family units on a single lot, up to a density of 14 units per acre. The remaining agriculture zoning is at the request of the existing owner, who desires additional property for agriculture use while he remains a resident on the land. The anticipation by the developer is that this property will eventually be folded into the larger development. Three Forks 2015 PUD release Page 2 of 4 Planning Department Staff Report Approximately 70 additional acres will remain within the original PUD that created in 2008. This land was projected for office, commercial, high -density residential and civic uses at the time, with strict controls on design and density. The developer of Three Forks (which may soon be renamed) has indicated to staff that a revision to the PUD document on the remainder of the property is likely in 2015. Staff anticipates that the revised PUD would seek to further the City's goals for employment center development, while offering the developer some flexibility to adapt to a changing marketplace as the area begins to develop with additional non-residential uses. Utilities Water, wastewater and electric will be provided by Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS). Discussions are ongoing regarding wastewater service and the optimal solution and timing for the provision of wastewater to the project. This property borders the location where the proposed Berry Creek Interceptor would be built to eventually relieve the plant at Berry Creek, just north of the site. Transportation The project is served by several major roadways, including Airport Road, I-35 and an eventual roadway south towards the I-35 and 130 interchange. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done in 2008 that will need to be revised since the density is projected to be reduced. Future Application(s) Preliminary and Final Plats will be necessary for each phase of development, per UDC regulations and Site Plans will be required for non-residential and multifamily development. Building permits will be required for all building construction. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the zoning. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 9 notices were sent out to property owners in the city limits within 200 feet of the proposed project. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 30, 2014. There were no comments received as of the writing of this report. Three Forks 2015 PUD release Page 3 of 4 Planning Department Staff Report Attachments Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map (2012) Proposed Zoning Boundary Exhibit Three Forks 2015 PUD release Page 4 of 4 W� is 0 300 600 1200 •DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS CONSERVATION 6 Scale: 1" = 600' SEC Planning, LLC Land Planning + Landscape Architecture + Community Branding AUSTIN, TEXAS 1512.246.7003 + f 512.246.7703 --planning.—+ info§e planning.com North Date: November 19, 2014 THREE F O R 101Cadfiles\PLANNING\Submittals\July 2014 Zoning and Comp Plan Submittal\Zoning Boundary Exhibit -Revised November 19.dwg KS Base mapping compiled from best available information. All map GEORGETOWN, TEXAS data should be considered as preliminary, in need of verification, and subject to change. This land plan is conceptual in nature and does not represent any regulatory approval. Plan is subject to change. ZONING EXHIBIT r1r Three Forks Ranch City of Georgetown, Texas PUD Planned Unit Development January 11, 2007 Applicant: Waterstone Development 4314 West Braker Lane Suite 250 Austin, Texas 78759 Prepared by: SEC Planning 12357 Riata Trace Parkway Suite A205 Austin, Texas 78727 512.246.7003 Exhibit A Three Forks Ranch Planned Unit Development A. Purpose and Intent The Three Forks Ranch PUD is composed of approximately 355.9 acres, as described in Exhibit B (Field Notes). The development of this property is planned as a high quality, mixed use community with a blend of retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, business park and residential opportunities. The vision for the design of Three Forks Ranch is centered upon many of the principles of new urbanism. Three Forks Ranch has been designed to create walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods which are closely knit and linked to the non-residential mix of uses. The blending of uses and pedestrian oriented designs are intended to reduce the dependency on automobile traffic within the community and provide an environment which encourages alternative modes of transportation. Because opportunities will exist to closely blend businesses, retail, entertainment, restaurants and residential, the overall demand for outside trips to accommodate daily needs can be reduced for future residents of the community. The contents of this PUD further explain and illustrate the overall appearance and function desired for this community. Because some of the principles and design ideas incorporated within a new urbanism concept differ from conventional suburban development, several modifications to the Georgetown Unified Development Code will be necessary to implement the vision for the community. A Concept Plan has been attached to this PUD, Exhibit C, to illustrate the design intent for the property. The Concept Plan is intended to serve as a guide to illustrate the general community vision and design concepts and is not intended to serve as a final document. The Concept Plan depicts a mix of residential products, open space areas and non-residential uses which are contemplated within the community. B. Applicability and Base Zoning All aspects regarding the development of this PUD shall comply with the 2007 version of the Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC), except as established in this exhibit, titled Exhibit A. For the purpose of complying with the UDC requirement of selecting a base zoning district, C-1 has been selected for the attached residential and non residential portions of Three Forks Ranch and RS will serve as the base district for the single family detached areas. This PUD allows the flexibility to mix the various land uses and define boundaries during the platting process. Each plat or site plan submitted to the City will identify the use at the time of City Submittal. All neighborhoods within the PUD will comply with Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 2 of 26 the modified development standards of this PUD. In the case that this PUD does not address a specific City requirement, the Georgetown Unified Development Code shall apply. In the event of a conflict between this PUD and the base zoning district C-1 as defined in the 2007 Unified Development Code, this PUD shall control. Where Light Industrial is contemplated within the Three Forks Ranch Concept Plan, the site shall be subject to the base zoning district regulations for BP within the Georgetown Unified Development Code. C. Concept Plan Exhibit C attached is a conceptual development plan intended to visually convey the design intent for the Three Forks Ranch community. The design of the community is not final, and is subject to refinement during the platting and site planning stages. This PUD zoning document does not constitute plat or site plan approval of the attached plan. The residential component of the project is comprised of a mix of various single family detached products as well as townhomes, condos and/or apartments. Additionally, Three Forks Ranch will include a cohesive network of open spaces, including parks, civic greens, water quality areas and trail corridors. The open space and trails system combined with the sidewalk network will be critical in establishing a walkable, inviting community. As the Concept Plan indicates, Berry Creek runs through the northern and eastern portions of the community. Recognizing the environmental and historical significance of Berry Creek to the citizen's of Georgetown, the design will incorporate a 30 foot wide corridor along the creek for a future regional trail system. To minimize disturbance to the floodplain area, this corridor alignment will be coordinated with future City infrastructure easements along the Creek. The non-residential areas of Three Forks Ranch will be a mix of retail and office components oriented to the street and linked together by a series of walking trails, pedestrian plazas and storefront sidewalks. The design balances visibility and access from major roads with the desire to create pedestrian oriented, walkable destinations for residents of Three Forks Ranch and visitors to the community. D. Allowable Uses The uses allowed within the Three Forks Ranch PUD shall comply with the list of allowed and prohibited uses defined in the Georgetown UDC Zoning Use Table 5.01.030 for the C-1 base district, with the addition of the following uses: ■ Outdoor Entertainment / Amphitheater ■ Single Family, detached ■ Single Family, attached ■ Townhouse ■ Multi Family Dwelling ■ Fuel Service Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 3 of 26 E. ■ Business Park (subject to Georgetown zoning standards for zoning district BP). Use is limited to a maximum of 30 acres and must be located along the southern boundary of the project. Light Industrial uses may not be adjacent to any residential use. ■ Community Gardens ■ Alcohol sales are permitted but may not occur within 150 ft. of a school or worship site. Lot Design Standards Residential Areas: Three Forks Ranch will include a variety of residential product types and sizes from detached single family homes to multi family. The detached residential has been broken into two categories based upon lot width and size. The attached products have been grouped into one category. Detailed design standards are included within this PUD, Table E.1, based upon the type of residential product. To ensure a variety and mix of residential product types within Three Forks Ranch, the following standards have been established: Maximum Residential Units Per the Approved Comprehensive Plan, exceed 1,019 units the requested residential total will not Residential Product Type Requirements 1. Attached Residential (Multi Family, Condo, Townhome) ■ Minimum of 400 units 2. Single Family Detached ■ Minimum of 250 units Non Residential Areas: Three Forks Ranch will include non-residential uses such as retail, commercial, restaurants, entertainment, office and worship. The non residential uses have been grouped into one non-residential category, Mixed Use, for the purpose of defining development standards (see Table E.1). A minimum of 700,000 s.f. of non-residential building space will be developed within the Three Forks Ranch. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 4 of 26 The Three Forks Ranch development will comply with the Development Standards set forth in Table E.1 Table EA — Development Standards RESIDENTIAL USES NON-RESIDENTIAL USES DETACHED DETACHED ATTACHED 70 ft. & wider narrower than Townhome, Multi- MIXED USE lot 70 ft. lot family, Condo Impervious Cover 55% 65% 70% 70% (maximum) Lot Width 70 ft. 40 ft. 20 ft. - (minimum) Front Setback 15 ft.* / 20 ft. 15 ft.* / 20 ft. 0 ft. / 10 ft. - (minimum) Required Front Build to Line, min. -- -- 15%/70%*** Side Setback 6 ft. 5.5 ft. 0 ft.** 0 ft.** (minimum) Corner Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. (minimum) Rear Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Oft (minimum) Building Height 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft. 60 ft. (maximum) Lot Area 7,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 2,000 s.f. -- (minimum) Units per structure Townhome: 8 (max.) -- -- Multi-family:48 -- Condo: 48 * If front loaded garage is located on the front of the building, the garage must be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the lotline. Minimum setback requirements are intended for living areas of the home or front porches. ** Minimum 10 ft. between buildings ***15% of the combined building facades along Airport Road shall be located within 5 feet of the right of way line. If a landscape buffer is employed along Airport Road, the 5 feet shall be measured from the landscape buffer. For internal lots and blocks in the non-residential areas, 70% of the overall building facades shall be within 5 feet of the right of way line. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 5 of 26 Detached Residential: 70 ft. and wider lot S41 f it fl 10 FT. CORNER SETBACK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK 20 FT. MIN. FRONT SETBACK FOR FRONT LOADED GARAGE 15 FT. MIN. FRONT SETBACK FRONT SETBACK VARIES, - FRONT LOADED GARAGE MUST BE SETBACK A V MINIMUM OF 20 FT. 70 FT. MINIMUM 10 FT.REAR SETBACK I I I I I I I I I " I I • I I I I I I I 6 FT. SIDE SETBACK _ I I — I J ' � SK)EWALK STREET Detached Residential: Narrower than 70 ft. lot fi 40 FT. MINIMUM 10 FT. CORNER SETBACK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK 20 FT. MIN. FRONT SETBACK FOR FRONT LOADED GARAGE 15 FT. MIN. FRONT SETBACK FRONT SETBACK VARIES, FRONT LOADED GARAGE MUST BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 20 FT. ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK 10 FT. REAR SETBACK 5.5 FT. SIDE SETBACK SK)EWALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 6 of 26 Attached Residential: Townhome 20 FT. MIN. 10 FT. REAR SETBACK ,11IAl &i1b]: w#iMT*0 0 FT. MIN, 10 FT. MAX. FRONT SETBACK SIDEWALK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK Attached Residential: Multi-family/Condo 10 FT, CORNER SETBACK w fN 0 FT. MIN, 10 FT. MAX. FRONT SETBACK SIDEWALK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK 10 FT. CORNER SETBACK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK FRONT SETBACK REDUCED TO LOCATE BUILDING CLOSER TO STREET SCENE, ENHANCING THE PEDESTRIAN SCALE ALONG THE STREET. MULTI -FAMILY LOT WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS LOCATED WITH LOT ui w N h Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 7 of 26 Non -Residential 0 FT REAR SETBACK 0 FT. CORNER SETBACK 0 FT. FRONT SETBACK SIDEWALK ROW LOCATED AT EDGE OF SIDEWALK F. Impervious Cover VARIATIONS IN BUILDING FACADE CREATE PLAZAS AND PATIO SPACES FOR MIXED USE TENANTS FRONT SETBACK ALLOWS BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED AT EDGE OF R.O.W. BUILDING LOCATED CLOSER TO STREET LEVEL TO ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT The Three Forks Ranch site is located over the Edwards Aquifer. Per the Georgetown Unified Development Code, Section 11.02, the impervious cover limit for land over the Aquifer is 50% with the potential for increases up to 65% with waiver criteria. The impervious cover maximum within the overall Three Forks Ranch community shall be 60%. The calculation of the impervious cover shall be measured as a whole based upon the entire property. Each subdivision plat and/or site plan shall contain an impervious cover table listing the cumulative tabulation of overall community impervious cover based upon the total gross acreage of the site. The following measures will be incorporated into the site design of the community to mitigate the impervious cover increase within the tract: ■ Low impact site design measures such as, but not limited to, bio swales, grassed filter strips and bio retention facilities will be incorporated into the design. Per UDC Section 11.02.020, A, 1, an impervious cover waiver of 7% for Low Impact Site Design is allowed. ■ Parking lot design configured to preserve existing trees within islands and parking lot medians and parking areas separated by planted or natural landscaping features. Per UDC Section 11.02.020, A, 2, a 5% impervious cover waiver is allowed if the development provides a parking lot design that breaks up the parking area into areas separated by planted or natural landscaping features. ■ The plan will exceed the City of Georgetown landscaping minimum requirements by at least 30%. Per UDC Section 11.02.020, A, 4, an impervious cover waiver of 3% is allowed for Over Provision of Landscaping by 30%. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 8 of 26 G. Parkland/Open Space Open space within Three Forks Ranch will create a network of trails and parkland that creates distinct neighborhoods and provides pedestrian walkways throughout the community. Per UDC Section 13.05.010, B, Formula for Calculating Area of Parkland, the acreage contributed for parkland shall be pro -rated in an amount equal to one acre for each 50 new dwelling units. Based on the above mentioned formula, and the PUD residential cap of 1,019 units, the Three Forks Ranch PUD is required to contribute a maximum of 20.38 acres of parkland. As illustrated on Exhibit D, Open Space Summary, the Three Forks Ranch PUD Concept Plan illustrates approximately 113 acres of parkland/open space; a mix of floodplain, greenbelts, civic greens, open space, trail corridors, parks and water quality. For the purpose of calculating the total parkland requirements, the Three Forks community shall be viewed as a whole. For example, one plat may have less than the required parkland in that specific area if the parkland is provided in another location within the community. The parkland requirements shall be calculated and tracked cumulatively within a summary table on each plat for the purpose of verifying that the total parkland requirements have been satisfied. The conceptual Parks and Open Space Plan, Exhibit D, shall be referenced as a guide at the time of platting to ensure that the overall open space and trail network described in this PUD is maintained. Due to lot sizes with small yards and a variety of attached product types, "civic greens" will be dispersed throughout the community within walking distance of all residents to encourage interaction and recreation activity. These public spaces will vary in size and configuration based upon the ultimate site design and the potential adjacent residential density. In certain situations, these civic greens may contain less than the City preferred standard of three (3) acre minimum size and 200' of street frontage. If the applicant can prove that a reduction in these size standards would create a park area that is a benefit to the adjacent residences, the City shall consider accepting these areas as parkland credit. Also being contemplated within the Three Forks Community are community gardens and linear park trail corridors. If community gardens and linear parks are included within the open space network of the community, the open space shall be allowed as parkland credit. H. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation will be a vital component of Three Forks Ranch. The community design will encourage an alternative mode of transportation within the mixed use development including strong links to residential components of the community. Exhibit E, Walking Distance Analysis, highlights the goal of establishing centrally located parks and mixed uses within close walking distances of all proposed residential. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 9 of 26 In the Mixed Use areas, street front sidewalks will provide pedestrian connections along the front of buildings. The walkways will be connected to the residential walkway system in an organized and logical circulation pattern for easy access between the uses and to encourage pedestrian activity. Additionally, centralized pedestrian corridors and plazas will be created within the Mixed Use areas to create public gathering places and break up the mass of buildings and parking facilities. The design of plazas will be developed during the site planning process and will be reviewed with the City during the Site Plan Submittal stage. A minimum corridor of 30' will be dedicated to the City along Berry Creek for a future regional trail system to be built by the City. This corridor may be located over future utility easements to minimize disturbance within the floodplain. L Roadway Design The Three Forks Ranch vehicular circulation pattern provides access to all parts of the project from Airport Road and Interstate 35. Additionally, the Concept Plan provides a roadway stub to the south which will ultimately connect to Interstate 35 and toll road 130. Due to the pedestrian oriented design and emphasis on an attractive streetscape, the roadway standards for Three Forks Ranch require deviations from the City of Georgetown standard roadways. Within the boundaries of Three Forks Ranch, the following alternative roadway sections and design standards shall apply. If not modified within this PUD, all other roadway standards shall be governed by the Georgetown UDC, Section 12.03, Streets. The roadway design classifications within Three Forks Ranch shall be generally in accordance with Exhibit F, Roadway Summary. A Road Improvement District will be created for Three Forks Ranch and shall include the following improvements: • Airport Road expansion to a 4 lane arterial from Berry Creek Road to Lakeway Drive • All internal collector level streets Details of the Road Improvement District will be included in a development agreement with the City and must also be approved by Williamson County. Construction of the complete Airport Road expansion will commence after 300 certificates of occupancy have been issued. If the traffic impact analysis (TIA) indicates a warrant for immediate minor improvements such as turn lanes, signals, etc., these improvements could occur prior to the complete expansion. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 10 of 26 The following roadway alternatives are allowed within Three Forks Ranch: Street A: Four Lane Divided Collector with Parallel Parking Street B: Two Lane Divided Collector with Parallel Parking Street C: Two Lane Divided Collector with Angled Parking Street D: Two Lane Collector with Angled Parking Street E: Two Lane Collector with Parallel Parking Street F: Two Lane Local with Angled Parking Street G: Two Lane Local with Parallel Parking Street H: Alley Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 11 of 26 Street A: Four Lane Divided Collector with Parallel Parking LANDSCAPE/ SIDEWALK R.O.W. lwi PARKING STREET MEDIAN STREET a J PARKING LANDSCAPE/ SIDEWALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 12 of 26 Street B: Two Lane Divided Collector with Parallel Parking A SIDEWALK MEDIAN LANDSCAPE L L- L10' 10' 20' VARIES 20 10 10' SUE dOC TO 6OC BOC TO dOC PUE R.O.W. VARIES SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK PARKING STREET MEDIAN STREET PARKING LANDSCAPE Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 13 of 26 Street C: Two Lane Divided Collector with Angled Parking SIDEWALK M PARKING STREET MEDIAN �STREET PARKING 18, 12' 12' 18' 31' _MIN._31' BOC TO BOC 15' BOC TO BOC 109, R.O.W. LANDSCAPE/ PARKING SIDEWALK n SIDEWALK M STREET MEDIAN STREET PARKING LANDSCAPE/SIDEWALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 14 of 26 Street D: Two Lane Collector with Angled Parking NDSCAPE PARKING IDEWALK 16' LANDSCAPE/ SIDEWALK PARKING STREET —24'- 61' BOC TO BOC 93 R.O.W. STREET PARKING JANDSCAPE SIDEWALK 16' LANDSCAPE/ PARKING SIDEWALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 15 of 26 Street E: Two Lane Collector with Parallel Parking Out- `J SIDE- I LAND- WAL SCAPE 5' 6' BOC TO BOC (101) 52' R.O.W. LAND-1 SIDE SCAPE WAL =6'----- le--5' (10') * 10' LANDSCAPE PARKWAY WHEN USED AS RESIDENTIAL STREET wHLK ok.Hrt AL as STREET PARKING LAND- SIDE- SCAPE WALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 16 of 26 Street F: Two Lane Local with Angled Parking DSCAPE PARKING IEWALK 18' a LANDSCAPE/ SIDEWALK PARKING STREET 61' BOC TO BOC 93 R.O.W. ILI STREET PARKING ANDSCAPE 18SIDEWALK 0 LANDSCAPE/ PARKING SIDEWALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 17 of 26 Street G: Two Lane Local with Parallel Parking SIDE WALK 10' _ PUE SIDE WALK 10 10 FOC TO FOC PLIE 47' R.O.W. SIDE LAND- PARKING STREET PARKING LAND- SIDE WALK SCAPE SCAPE WALK Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 18 of 26 Street H: Alley I In addition to the alternative roadway sections within Three Forks Ranch, the following roadway standards shall apply: 1. Horizontal Curve In order to provide flexibility within the roadway design, Table I.1 outlines the minimum horizontal curve radius for each roadway classification. Table I.1— Minimum Horizontal Curve Roadway Classification Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Street Design Standard A B C D E F G H Horizontal Curve (minimum feet.) 400 200 200 200 50 50 50 50 Design Speed (miles per hour) 35 30 30 30 25 25 20 20 2. Landscape Islands The preservation of existing trees will be a significant consideration during the design and platting of the community. As a result, this PUD permits the preservation of existing trees and vegetation in medians which are located within the public right-of-ways and allows the planting of additional trees and vegetation in medians and public right-of-ways. Said landscape tracts may be platted as private lots deeded to the Developer or Owners Association. The Developer or Owners Association is responsible for landscape maintenance and irrigation within said landscape lots and right of way. The maintenance areas and responsibility will be determined at final plat. Landscape and irrigation plans for proposed improvements will be submitted for review and approval prior to Final Plat approval. The plans will be reviewed to ensure compliance with utility placement standards and sightline standards established in the UDC. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 19 of 26 3. Driveways For detached residential lots, Georgetown UDC Section 12.03.010.c.3 shall be modified as follows: On local streets, no driveway is permitted closer to a corner lot than 40' . J. Parking Requirements The Three Forks Ranch is designed to encourage pedestrian activity and mixed use to reduce emphasis on vehicular trips per day. Due to the mix of higher density residential products in close proximity to retail and office, the internal demand for parking may be reduced. Additionally, with the incorporation of on street parking along the community roadway network, parking requirements can be distributed throughout the mixed use areas. The blend of office and retail uses within the compact area also provides the opportunity for shared parking arrangements. The following parking requirements shall apply within the Three Forks Ranch: On street parking within the public right of way as defined by the roadway sections within Section I of this PUD, may be included in the parking requirement calculations for a specific use within Three Forks Ranch. Table J.1 - Parking Requirements SPECIFIC USE GENERAL REQUIREMENT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT MIXED USE Eating Establishments 1 per 125 s.f. of Seating Area including outdoor seating area Office 1 per 350 s.£ of GFA Medical Office 1 per 350 s.f. of GFA Retail Sales and Service 1 additional per 500 s.£ FA (Shopping Centers larger 1 per 300 s.f. of net retail floor area over 20, 000 s.f. than 100,000 s.f.) Retail Sales and Services 1 per 350 s.f. FA for first 20,000 s.f. net 1 additional per 500 s.£ FA (All other Retail Sales retail floor area over 20, 000 s.f. and Services) (GFA - Gross Floor Area) (FA - Floor Area (Net)) Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 20 of 26 K. Architectural Criteria Once the design of the non-residential components of the development is refined and finalized, a comprehensive architectural theme will be developed which will specify the architectural style, materials and colors. In order to convey the architectural theme, items such as architectural elevations, material sample boards and color samples may be submitted to the City for review at the time of Site Plan Submittal. In order to maintain a comprehensive and complementary architectural style throughout Three Forks Ranch, the Developer will establish a community Design Review Committee (DRC) composed of an Architect, Landscape Architect and a representative of the Developer. The approval of the DRC does not take the place of any and all required submittals to the city, county or other governmental agency as necessary to receive regulatory approvals. Additionally, to emphasize the overall community theme of automobile trip reduction and environmentally responsible design, all buildings within the community are required to be LEED® Certified. L. Si na e The control and placement of all signs is especially important to the aesthetic harmony of Three Forks Ranch. A critical component of a cohesive community is the sense of place and identity. The Three Forks Ranch community signage is intended to accentuate the features of the existing historic ruins on the property. Water may also be incorporated into the primary subdivision signage to symbolize three river forks combining into one body of water, which is the basis of the land owner's origination of the name "Three Forks". All sign types within Three Forks Ranch shall employ the use of common forms, materials and colors to emphasize a cohesive appearance. Exhibits H, I, and J have been included with this PUD to illustrate the conceptual theme for the overall family of signage. In compliance with UDC Section 10.01.050, Master Sign Plan, a sign plan has been developed as a component of the Three Forks Ranch PUD. Exhibit G, Master Signage Plan identifies the primary sign components of Three Forks Ranch. Approval of this PUD is intended to permit the number and locations for the primary intersections and entrances to the community as indicated on Exhibit G and allow a consistent signage package for those locations as illustrated on Exhibits H, I and J. Approval of the Three Forks Ranch PUD shall permit signage at the indicated locations on Exhibit G, but shall not be interpreted as approval of a sign permit. Each proposed sign within this PUD must be submitted to the inspection department for review and permit. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 21 of 26 Due to the complexity of Three Forks Ranch as a multi use, complex project, not all uses have been defined or specifically sited within the community. Thus, every potential internal sign type and location has not been indicated on Exhibit G. As individual lots or blocks are platted within Three Forks, the signage areas, sizes and quantities for those lots shall be governed by the UDC Section 10, unless modified within this PUD. 1. Boundary Marker The Boundary Marker, as illustrated in Exhibit G, identifies Three Forks Ranch as one drives north along Airport Road. The feature is intended to be an architectural feature with the community logo to create a sense of arrival and identify the boundary for the Three Forks Ranch. 2. Free Standing Monument Signs Up to five (5) freestanding monument signs are allowed at the intersections of the internal community roads and Airport Road, as indicated on Exhibit G. The signs will identify the secondary access points to the community (see Exhibit I). Individual non-residential lots within Three Forks Ranch may request additional free standing monument signs. Any additional free standing signs must comply with the sign design and quantity standards described in UDC Section 10. 3. Multi -Tenant Signs Multi Tenant Signs shall be allowed per Section 10.06.050. Exhibit J illustrates the design theme and intent for the multi tenant signage. The location of each of sign must receive the approval of the City prior to construction. 4. Subdivision Entry Signs Three (3) freestanding, monument signs are proposed at the primary community entrances from major arterials per UDC Section 10.03.020.0.1. One subdivision sign is proposed along Airport Road, one on the southern boundary of the property and one on the eastern boundary. The size and form of such signs will generally comply with the conceptual sign design established in Exhibit H. 5. Neighborhood Entry Signs Up to four (4) freestanding, monument signs along the collector roads to create identification for the various neighborhoods within Three Forks Ranch. The Neighborhood Entry Signs will be smaller in scale while remaining consistent with the theme of the overall sign program. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 22 of 26 M. Miscellaneous Provisions Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, any one and all of which shall constitute the Agreement of the parties and each of which shall be deemed an original. Amendment. This Agreement may be canceled, changed, modified or amended, in whole or in part, only by the written and recorded agreement by the City and the then current owner of the Property. In the event that the Property shall be owned by more than one owner, then this Agreement may be cancelled, changed, modified or amended, in whole or in part, only by the written and recorded agreement by the City and the owners of sixty (60%) of the land area of the Property; provided, however, that so long as Developer or its Designated Successors and Assigns has at least a ten percent (10%) ownership interest in the Development Areas, it shall be required to join in any cancellation, change, amendment or modification of this Agreement. Section and Paragraph Headings. The section and paragraph headings herein contained are for the purposes of identification only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, both substantive and remedial. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between City and Developer relating to the Property and all subject matter herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the parties. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the permitted successors and assigns, heirs, and legal representatives of the parties hereto. Construction of Agreement. All of the parties to this Agreement have participated freely in the negotiation and preparation hereof, accordingly, this Agreement shall not be more strictly construed against any one of the parties hereto. Gender. As used in this Agreement, the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter, the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular as the context may require. Venue. Venue shall be Williamson County, Texas. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in effect without the unenforceable parts. Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 23 of 26 Exhibits. All exhibits described herein and attached hereto are fully incorporated into this Agreement by this reference for all purposes. Waiver. The failure of any party to exercise any right given hereunder or to insist upon strict compliance with any term, condition or covenant specified herein shall not constitute a waiver of such parry's right to exercise such right or to demand strict compliance with any such term, condition or covenant under this Agreement. Assignment. This Contract may be assigned by Developer to any other person, individual, entity, or otherwise, related or non -related to Developer, without notice to or consent of City and, upon such assignment, Developer shall be relieved of any further duties or obligations hereunder. This Contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties hereto, the Developer and City, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Force Maieure. City and Developer agree that the obligations of each party shall be subject to force majeure events such as unavailability of materials, labor shortages, natural calamity, fire, or strike. Cooperation. The parties shall cooperate with each other as reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement, including but not limited to the execution of such further documents as may be reasonably required. Authority. The signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City and Developer. Government Approvals. The City agrees to cooperate with Developer regarding any waivers, permits, or approvals Developer may need or desire from Williamson County, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or any other governmental authority in order to develop the PUD in accordance herewith. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given or served upon any party hereto in connection with this Contract must be in writing, and delivered (i) in person, (ii) by facsimile (with the original and a copy of the facsimile confirmation following in the United States mail), (iii) by overnight delivery service (including FedEx), or (iv) by certified mail, return receipt requested. If such notice is given in person or by facsimile transmission, such notice will be deemed to have been given when received or transmitted. If such notice is given by overnight delivery service (including FedEx), such notice will be deemed received the day following delivery to the delivery service of such notice. If such notice is given by certified mail, return receipt requested, such notice will be deemed received three (3) days after a certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. Notice will go to the parties at the following addresses: Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 24 of 26 If to City: With a copy to: If to Developer: Attention: Tel. Fax Attention: Tel. Fax Tel. Fax Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 25 of 26 Exhibit B Field Notes Three Forks Ranch - Planned Unit Development Page 26 of 26 355.96 ACRES THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD. DESCRIPTION FN NO 1053 NOVEMBER 16, 2007 PROJECT NO.20347.01.30 OF A 355.96 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 113, THE JOHN BERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 51 AND THE WILLIAM ROBERTS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 524, SITUATED IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 355.96 ACRE TRACT BEING A PORTION OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED AS 370.893 ACRES IN A DEED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD. AS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 355.96 ACRE TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, BY METES AND BOUNDS, AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the southwest corner of the said 370.893acre tract, same being in the north line of a 92.98 acre (Second Tract) conveyed to George Wood Taylor as recorded in Doculnent No. 9713945 (1997013945) of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, also being an ell corner of a 32.34 acre tract conveyed to Williamson County Park Foundation, Inc., as recorded in Document No. 2001070825 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE along the south line of said 370.893acre tract, saine being the north line of said 92.98 acre tract the following four (4) courses and distances: 1) S65054'54"W, a distance of 168.94 feet to a calculated angle point, 2) S68033'54"W, a distance of 472.61 feet to a calculated angle point, 3) S68046'54"W, a distance of 513.86 feet to a calculated angle point, and 4) S68054'2555W, a distance of 934.59 feet to a calculated point for the northwest comer of said 92.98 acre tract,. saine being the northeast coiner of a 64.84 acre (First Tract) conveyed to George Wood Taylor as recorded in Doculnent No. 9713945 (1997013945) of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE leaving the north line of said 92.98 acre tract, along the south line of said 370.893acre tract, same being the north line of said 64.84 acre tract the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) S61045'22"W, a distance of 809.74 feet to a calculated angle point, 2) S62°17'08"W, a distance of 897.18 feet to a 3/8 inch iron rod found, and FN 1053 Page 2 3) S61039127"W, a distance of 105.36 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of said 64.84 acre tract, same being the northeast corner of a 4.66 acre tract conveyed to Gail Rosson as recorded in Volume 969, Page 56 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE leaving the north line of said 64.84 acre tract, along the south line of said 370.893acre tract, same being the north line of said 4.66 acre tract, S62007'22"W, a distance of 437.33 feet to a 1 /2 inch iron rod found for the northwest comer of said 4.66 acre tract, same being an ell corner of the remainder of a 30.02 acre tract conveyed to Thomas J. and Gertrude E. Rosson as recorded in Volume 512, Page 450 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE leaving the north line of said 4.66 acre tract, along the south line of said 370.893acre tract, same being the north line of the remainder of said 30.02 acre tract, S61°58'19"W, a distance of 632.04 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 370.893acre tract, same being the northwest corner of the remainder of said 30.02 acre tract, also being in the east line of Ail -port Road; THENCE leaving the north line of the remainder of said 30.02 acre tract, along the west line of said 370.893acre tract, same being the east line of Airport Road, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) N 18 °46' 11 "E, a distance of 889.06 feet to a 1 /2 inch iron rod found, and 2) N23020'1355E, a distance of 1265.00 feet to a calculated angle point; THENCE leaving the east line of Airport Road, through said 370,893acre tract, the following ten (10) courses and distances: 1) N83 °54' 56"E, a distance of 860.79 feet to a calculated angle point, 2) N82037'2655E5 a distance of 246.74 feet to a calculated angle point, 3) N57030'53"E, a distance of 146.28 feet to a calculated angle point, 4) N49042'4955E, a distance of 168.80 feet to a calculated angle point, 5) N1003 8' 01 "W, a distance of 421.76 feet to a calculated angle point, 6) N89056'53"E, a distance of 50.80 feet to a calculated angle point, 7) N05037'34"E, a distance of 155.81 feet to a calculated angle point, 8) N10058'24"W, a distance of 141.69 feet to a calculated angle point, FN 1053 Page 3 9) S86041'42"W, a distance of 187.27 feet to a calculated angle point, and 10) N72°33'35"W, a distance of 624.34 feet to a calculated angle point in the west line of said 370.893acre tract, sane being the east line of said Airport Road; THENCE along the west line of said 370.893acre tract, same being the east line of Airport Road, the following nine (9) courses and distances: 1) N250W35"E, a distance of 538.75 feet to a calculated angle point, 2) N23014743"E, a distance of 517.18 feet to a calculated angle point, 3) N2304054355E, a. distance of 490.92 feet to a calculated angle point, 4) N23003'43"E, a distance of 386.41 feet to a calculated angle point, 5) N24002'4355E, a distance of 398.89 feet to a calculated angle point, 6) N16040'43"E, a distance of 354.86 feet to a calculated angle point, 7) N08027'14"W, a distance of 132.38 feet to a calculated point for the south comer of a 1.457 acre tract (First Excepted Tract) recorded in said Document No. 2005003918, 8) along the east line of said 1.457 acre tract, sanne being the west line of said 370.893acre tract, also being the east line of Airport Road, N11°10' 10"E, a distance of 205.36 feet to a concrete monument found, and 9) N02013'54"W, a distance of 580.81 feet to a calculated ell coiner in the center of Berry Creek, sanne being the northwest corner of said 370.893acre tract, also being the southwest comer of a remainder of a 371.05 acre tract conveyed to Joe L. Lykes as recorded in Document No. 199932320 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE leaving the east line of Airport Road, along the north and east line of said 370.893acre tract, same being along the center. of Berry Creek, the following twenty-one (2 1) courses and distances: 1) along the south line of a remainder of said 371.05 acre tract, N86013'43"E, a distance of 73.48 feet to a calculated angle point, 2) N80043'43"E, a distance of 483.11 feet to a calculated angle point, 3) N68002'435)E, a distance of 410.81 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found, 4) N73058'0155E, a distance of 383.18 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found, FN 1053 Page 4 5) S75008'43"E, a distance of 580.95 feet to a calculated angle point at the southeast corner of a remainder of said 371.05 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of a 0.3 acre remainder of a 72.67 acre tract conveyed to John W. Bishop, recorded in Volume 160, Page 171 of the Official Public Records, Williamson County, Texas, 6) leaving the south line of a remainder of said 371.05 acre tract, along the south line of said 0.30 acre tract, N78158' 17"E, a distance of 61.36 feet to a calculated angle point at the southeast comer of said 0.3 acre tract, sainne being the southwest coiner of a remainder of said 371.05 acre tract, 7) N75059' 17"E, a distance of 111.60 feet to a calculated angle point, 8) S64058'4355E, a distance of 365.81 feet to a calculated angle point, 9) S31 °24'43"E, a distance of 317.39 feet to a calculated angle point in the west line of a 51.99 acre tract conveyed to LBJ Properties, LLC recorded in Document No. 2004066950 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, 10) SO4°10'43"E, a distance of 612.64 feet to a calculated angle point, 11) S09038' 17"W, a distance of 372.90 feet to a calculated angle point, 12) S36046' 17"W, a distance of 223.80 feet to a calculated angle point, 13) S06030' 17"W, a distance of 229.62 feet to a calculated angle point, 14) S28031'43"E, a distance of 220.90 feet to a calculated angle point, 15) SO1028' 17"W, a distance of 205.62 feet to a calculated angle point, 16) S32026' 17"W, a distance of 189.19 feet to a calculated angle point, 17) S03013'435'E, a distance of 198.94 feet to a calculated angle point, 18) S06010' 17"W, a distance of 260.12 feet to a calculated angle point, 19) S07009' 17"W, a distance of 159.68 feet to calculated angle point in the west line of a 14.354 acre tract conveyed to Dean A. and Martha Edwards recorded in Document No. 9540790 (1995040790) of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, 20) S 10° 16' 43 "E, a distance of 381.82 feet to a calculated angle point in a west line of said 32.34 acre tract, 21) S36044' 17"W, a distance of 35.53 •feet to a calculated angle point, and 22) S32011'43"E, a distance of 578.93 feet to a calculated ell comer; FN 1053 Page 5 THENCE leaving Berry Creek, along the south line of said 370.893aere tract, same being the north, east and west line of said 32.34 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1) S53045/19"W, a distance of 62.02 feet to a 3/8 inch iron rod found, 2) S61 °28' 10"W, a distance of 61.39 feet to a 3/8 inch iron rod found, 3) N26055'54"W, a distance of 563.70 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found, 4) .S67022'03"W, a distance of 523.88 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found, 5) S21 ° 15' 31 "E, a distance of 764,94 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found, and 6) S2102054555E, a distance of 227.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 355.96 acres of land, more or less, within these metes and bounds. This fieldnote description has been prepared in conjunction with a digital survey, neap identified as Stanley Consultants, Inc,, drawing file "FN1053SKETCH,dwg", STATE OF TEXAS § KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS § THAT I, BLAINE J. MILLER, A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN WAS DETERMINED BY A SURVEY MADE ON THE GROUND DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2007, UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL AT AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS THIS 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007 A.D. ir F+ p D P BLAINE . MILLER, RPLS D� STATE OF TEXAS NO. 5121 6 1°6 MlLI STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. . •` 6836 AUSTIN CENTER BLVD., SUITE 350 d�• ���isr��-c� '�~ AUSTIN, TX 78731 /C (FN-1051— FN1100TN-1053) %..vm,r-r i rLMN 3C2 :\1 11';��,ffi, LAND USE ACRES 0 GreenbelVOpen Space 65.7 AC. Approximate Floodplain 48.4 AC. TOTAL 113.6 AC. PARK WATE KSTON E" e I h. L O Y M PNT M1 IK "W ALIGNMENT WILLIAMSON COUNTY PARK LAND 1 NORTH a 600 1200 2400 Scale' EXHIBIT D OPEN SPACE SUMMARY WALKING DISTANCE ANALYSIS MUHLIVVMT JUIVIIVIHRT V `m MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN The cower Jeatn,e mimic, architectnnd chm actecistics ofthe historical structure located on the property. Three water elements combine into one pool to sonboli/e the conOnence of nvew, which was the inspiration finthe name of die family ranch. N H architectural element to snatch tower feaunc of pluili,tg, rcra=sCeni ofabrticui tower feature Monument Tower Option Scale. 1/16" = 1 EXHIBIT H SUBDIVISION ENTRY SIGN L, vertical column element of sign reflects form of existing ruin base material - random stone existing building ruin on site 6.5' FREESTANDING SIGN A Scale: 114" = 1' detail from existing ruin 19' 10' incorporate wood accent tapered column and sign base FREESTANDING SIGN B EXHIBIT I Scale:1/4°=1 FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGNAGE base V existing building ruin on site stone existing example of timber frame vertical column element of sign reflects form of existing ruin MULTI -TENANT SIGN A Scale: 1/4' = T -' random limestone pattern x� �, ye 5' T MULTI -TENANT SIGN B Scale: 114" - 1' tapered column and sign base EXHIBIT J MULTI -TENANT SIGNAGE ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 285.74 acres in the D. Wright Survey, located near Airport Road and Brangus Road, from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to 250 acres of Single-family Residential (RS) District, 19.85 acres of Low -Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, and 15.89 acres of Agriculture (AG) District in the David Wright Survey for Three Forks Ranch, repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 1211, day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 285.74 acres in the D. Wright Survey, recorded in Document Number 2002003918 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City's Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on December 16, 2014, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on January 13, 2015, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. 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 vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Ordinance Number: Description: 285.74 acres in Wright Survey (Three Forks Ranch) Page 1 of 2 Date Approved: January 27, 2015 Exhibits A & B Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-029 Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City's Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to 250 acres of Single-family Residential (RS) District, 19.85 acres of Low -Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, and 15.89 acres of Agriculture (AG) District in the David Wright Survey for Three Forks Ranch, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Field Notes) incorporated herein by reference. 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 in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 13th day of January, 2015. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 27th day of January, 2015. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Dale Ross Mayor Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: 285.74 acres in Wright Survey (Three Forks Ranch) Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: January 27, 2015 Exhibits A & B Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-029 W�l Exhibit B SERLandesign Services, Inc, 1220 McNeil Road L.AND U) Suite 200 SURVEYORS d.' * Round Rock, Texas 78681 .� Firm Registration No. 10001800 512-238-7901 office FST 2002 512-238-7902 fax EXHIBIT " " METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ZONING RS BEING 250.017 ACRES OF LAND, SURVEYED BY LANDESIGN SERVICES, INC., OUT OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 13, THE WILLIAM ROBERTS SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 524, AND THE JOHN BERRY SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 51 IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 370.893 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (O.P.R.W.C.T.); AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" in the existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-O-W varies) and the west line of said 370.893 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" for the northwest corner of a called 9.30 acre tract conveyed to Glynn D. Buie and Dora Dean Buie recorded in Document No. 2005003918 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. bears South 25°48'38" West, a distance of 108.43 feet; THENCE along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road, and the west line of said 370.893 acre tract the following ten (10) courses; 1. North 25048'38" East a distance of 71.52 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 2. North 25°48'38" East a distance of 397.93 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants"; 3. North 23014'38" East a distance of 517.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 4. North 23040'38" East a distance of 490.92 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 5. North 23°03'38" East a distance of 386.41 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants"; 6. North 24002'38" East a distance of 398.89 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants"; Page 1 of 4 LAThree ForksTNOTES\Three Forks RS REV.doex Exhibit B 7. North 16040'38" East a distance of 354.86 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants"; 8. North 0802722" West a distance of 132.38 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" being the south corner of a called 1.457 acre tract in deed to County Judge Don Wilson in Volume 1502, Page 785 of the O.P.R.W.C.T.; 9. North 11010'05" East a distance of 205.36 feet to a TxDot Type I Monument; 10. North 02013'59" West a distance of 580.81 feet to a calculated point in the said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road, and being the northwest corner of said 370.893 acre tract, and being the southwest corner of a called remainder of 371.05 acre tract in deed to Joe L. Lykes in Document No. 19932320 of the O.P.R.W.C.T.; THENCE along the south line of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the north line of said 370.893 acre tract the following five (5) courses; 1. North 86°13'38" East a distance of 73.46 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 80043'38" East a distance of 483.11 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 68002'37" East a distance of 410.81 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 4. North 73°57'56" East a distance of 383.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 5. South 75008'48" East a distance of 580.95 feet to a calculated point being a southeasterly corner of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract, an angle point in the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and the southwest corner of a called remainder of 72.67 acre tract conveyed to John Bishop Estate in Volume 160, Page 171 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE North 78058'12" East along the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and along the south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract a distance of 61.36 feet to a calculated point being the southeast corner of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract, an angle point in the north line of said 370.893 acre tract, and being a southwesterly corner of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract; THENCE along the south line of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the north line of said 370.893 acre tract the following two (2) calls; 1. North 75'59'12" East a distance of 111.60 feet to a calculated point; 2. South 64°58'48" East a distance of 365.81 feet to a calculated point; THENCE South 31 °24'48" East along the south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract, the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, and the west line of a called 51.99 acre tract conveyed to LBJ Properties, LLC, in Document No. 2004066950 of the O.P.R.W.C.T., a distance of 317.39 feet to a calculated point; Page 2 of 4 LlThree ForksIFNOTESIThree Forks RS REV.docx Exhibit B THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said 51.99 acre tract the following nine (9) courses; 1. South 04014'18" East a distance of 612.47 feet to a calculated point; 2. South 09043'24" West a distance of 373.22 feet to a calculated point; 3. South 36046'12" West a distance of 223.80 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 06'30'12" West a distance of 229.62 feet to a calculated point; 5. South 28°31'48" East a distance of 220.90 feet to a calculated point; 6. South 01'28'12" West a distance of 205.62 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 32°26'12" West a distance of 189.19 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 03*13'48" East a distance of 198.94 feet to a calculated point; 9. South 06°10'12" West a distance of 260.12 feet to a calculated point; THENCE South 07009'12" West along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the west line of said 51.99 acre tract, and the west line of a called Tract I conveyed to Dean A. & Martha Edwards conveyed in Document No. 1995040790 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 159.68 feet to a calculated point; THENCE South 10016'48" East along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the west line of said Tract I, and the north line of a called 32.3441 acre tract conveyed to Williamson County in Document No. 2011066293 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 381.82 feet to a calculated point; THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the north line of said 32.3411 acre tract the following six (6) courses; 1. South 36°44'12" West a distance of 35.53 feet to a calculated point; 2. South 32011'48" East a distance of 578.93 feet to a calculated point; 3. South 53045'14" West a distance of 62.02 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 4. South 61 °28'05" West a distance of 61.39 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 5. North 26°55'59" West a distance of 563.70 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 6. South 67021'58" West a distance of 523.88 feet to a fence post; THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said 32.3411 acre tract the following two (2) courses; 1. South 21'15'36" East a distance of 764.94 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; Page 3 of 4 LAThree ForksTNOTEWhree Forks RS REV.docx Exhibit B 2. South 21 °20'50" East a distance of 235.05 feet to a fence post being the southeast corner of said 370.893 acre tract, an angle point in the west line of said 32.3411 acre tract and the northeast corner of a called 92.98 acre tract, described as "Second Tract," conveyed to George Woods Taylor in Document No. 1997013945 of the O.P.R.W.C.T.; THENCE South 68°45'50" West with the north line of said 92.98 acre tract, and the south line of said 370.893 acre tract a distance of 396.38 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing through said 370.893 acre tract the following nine (9) calls; 1. North 67°17'10" West a distance of 494.50 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 14*59'13" West a distance of 541.37 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 60016'26" West a distance of 173.60 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 89°46'33" West a distance of 539.35 feet to a calculated point; 5. North 07043'45" West a distance of 308.76 feet to a calculated point; 6. South 87'10'55" West a distance of 351.74 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 61 °07'59" West a distance of 343.31 feet to a calculated point; 8. North 08°53'28" West a distance of 103.63 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 9. North 80024'55" West a distance of 851.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; This parcel contains 250.017 acres of land out of the David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13, the William Roberts Survey Abstract No. 524, and the John Berry Survey Abstract No. 51 in Williamson County, Texas. Description prepared from an on -the -ground survey made during August, 2014. All bearings are based on the Texas Central Zone 4203 State Plane, derived from VRS coordinates provided by the Texas Cooperative Network ref6rence stations. David R. Hartman Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 5264 Job Number: Attachments: Survey Drawing L:\.DWG STFA��+" ADAVID R. HARTMAN q4�0 5264 SUS Page 4 of 4 L\Three ForksIFNOTES\Three Forks RS REV.docx Exhibit B Landdesign Services, Inc. 1220 McNeil Road I AND N Suite 200 SURVEYORS Round Rock, Texas 78681 .ri Firm Registration No. 10001800 512-238-7901 office Sr, 20°Z 512-238-7902 fax EXHIBIT " " METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ZONING AG BEING 15.781 ACRES OF LAND, SURVEYED BY LANDESIGN SERVICES, INC., OUT OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 13 IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 370.893 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (O.P.R.W.C.T.); AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a calculated point in the west line of said 370.893 acre tract and the existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-O-W varies) from which a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "RPLS 5784" bears North 58°41'11" West a distance of 0.64 feet; THENCE North 23°20'08" East along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-O-W varies), and the west line of said 370.893 acre tract a distance of 398.24 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing through said 370.893 acre tract the following ten (10) courses: 1. North 83037'40" East a distance of 1107.48 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "STANLEY CONSULTANTS"; 2. North 57°17'35" East a distance of 150.53 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "STANLEY CONSULTANTS"; 3. North 49042'49" East a distance of 164.51 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "STANLEY CONSULTANTS"; 4. North 10038'01" West a distance of 421.76 feet to a1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "STANLEY CONSULTANTS"; 5. North 89°56'53" East a distance of 50.80 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "STANLEY CONSULTANTS"; Page 1 of 2 LAThree Forks%FNOTES\Three Forks AG.doc< Exhibit B 6. North 05°37'34" East a distance of 155.81 feet to a calculated point; 7. North 10*58'24" West a distance of 114.83 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 80°24'55" East a distance of 21.41 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 9. South 08°53'28" East a distance of 1247.16 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found; 10. South 85°50'34" West a distance of 1695.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; This parcel contains 15.781 acres of land, David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13 in Williamson County, Texas, and being a portion of a called 370.893 acre tract conveyed to Three Forks Partnership, LTD., in Document No. 2005003918 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. Description prepared from an on -the -ground survey made during August, 2014. All bearings are based on the Texas Central Zone 4203 State Plane, derived from VRS coordinates provided by the Texas Cooperative Network reference stations. David R. Hartman Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 5264 Job Number: Attachments: Survey Drawing L:\.DWG Date LAThree Faks1FN0TES\Three Forks AG.doc( Page 2 of 2 Exhibit B SE14L 1Lwad esigint 6 eirvk(ces3 )f ni(cr 1220 McNeil Road LAND U) Suite 200 URVEYOPS Round Rock, Texas 78681 * Z Firm Registration No. 10001800 512-238-7901 office S-r. 2002 512-238-7902 fax EXHIBIT " METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ZONING MF-1 BEING 19.769 ACRES OF LAND, SURVEYED BY LANDESIGN SERVICES, INC., OUT OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 13 IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 370.893 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (O.P.R.W.C.T.) AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a calculated point in the south line of said 370.893 acre tract, and the north line of a called 92.98 acre tract described as "Second Tract" in deed to George Woods Taylor in Document No. 1997013945 of the O.P.R.W.C.T., from which a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" at the northwest corner of said 92.98 acres bears South 68°45'50" West a distance of 631.67 feet; THENCE crossing through said 370.893 acre tract the following nine (9) calls; 1. North 21 °05'39" West a distance of 71.15 feet to a calculated point; 2. Along a curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 34°43'33", a length of 303.04 feet and a chord which bears North 38027'26" West a distance of 298.42 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 55049'13" West a distance of 137.36 feet to a calculated point; 4. Along a curve to the left having a radius of 535.00 feet, a delta angle of 41°54'32", a length of 391.33 feet and a chord which bears North 13°13'31" East a distance of 382.66 feet to a calculated point; 5. North 07°43'45" West a distance of 440.92 feet to a calculated point; 6. South 89°4633" East a distance of 539.35 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 60°16'26" East a distance of 173.60 feet to a calculated point; Page 1 of 2 LAThree ForksTNOTES%Three Forks MF-t.docx Exhibit B 8. South 14059'13" East a distance of 541.37 feet to a calculated point; 9. South 67017'10" East a distance of 494.50 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 370.893 acre tract and in the north line of said 92.98 acre tract, from which a fence post being the southeast corner of said 370.893 acre tract, the northeast corner of said 92.98 acre tract, and an angle point in the west line of a called 32.3441 acre tract described in deed to Williamson County in Document No. 2011066293 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. bears North 68045'50" East a distance of 396.38 feet; THENCE South 68°45'50" West a distance of 1061.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; This parcel contains 19.796 acres of land, David Wright Survey, Abstract No. 13 in Williamson County, Texas, and being a portion of a called 370.893 acre tract described in deed to Three Forks Partnership, LTD., in Document No. 2005003918 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. Description prepared from an on -the -ground survey made during August, 2014. All bearings are based on the Texas Central Zone 4203 State Plane, derived from VR , coordinates provided by the Texas Cooperative Network reference stations. a - /? / e?/2 Y//T David R. Hartman Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 5264 Job Number: Attachments: Survey Drawing L:\.DWG Q�`•1's"t'•�� 9 5264 Q: 9tiOtiE�s�ot.01 SUIt Page 2 of 2 L lThree ForksTNOTEWhree Forks MF-i.docx City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), SE Inner Loop Corridor Study, Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Summit at the Rivery Hotel and Conference Center, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Overall Transportation Plan, West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane, Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss these projects as a collective. The City Council has also indicated that they would like to receive more information and have discussion regarding the following specific items: • American with Disabilities Act (ADA) • SE Inner Loop Corridor Study • Downtown Facilities • Downtown Parking - MLK/8th Street Surface Parking - Street Study and Design for Additional Parking Facility Downtown • Summit at the Rivery Hotel and Conference Center • Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property • Update regarding Overall Transportation Plan • Update regarding West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Updates as noted above 2. Council Project Log 3. GEDCO Project Update 4. GTEC Project Report and Status Update 5. GTAB Project Update FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is an update report. SUBMITTED BY: Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ATTACHMENTS: ADA Update to Council SE Innerloop Corridor Study Downtown Facilities Downtown Parkin Summit at the Rivery Update Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Overall Transportation Plan Update Majestic Oaks Council Project Log GTEC Project Reports GEDCO Project Log GTEC Project Status GTAB Project Updates GE 0RGETOWN TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Project Sponsor/Manager: Dave Hall, Building Official Nathaniel Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Date of Report Project Scope Statement: In conformance with the ADA Transition Plan approved January 27, 2015 by City Council in March of 2014 and along with the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan, a feasibility study is being conducted to analyze, evaluate, and prioritize all public access for sidewalks and facilities. Once the Feasibility Study is completed, it will be presented to the ADA Task Force for review. City Staff will work with the ADA Task Force to develop the ADA Webpage as an effective and meaningful resource for City Residents with Disabilities. Key Accomplishments: • ADA Task Force meeting was held on 10/30/2014 at 2pm in the Williamson Room at the GMC. Further discussion continued in order to prioritize government facilities. • A full facility (buildings) audit has been completed as of November, 2014. • Parks and Recreation Self -Assessment Task Order Amendment completed, work underway as the last week in November. Upcoming Tasks: • Staff received preliminary comments on the Georgetown ADA Transition Plan from Altura Solutions, L.P. for staff review. • The ADA Task Force wants staff to work on a proposed schedule of implementation and prioritization for the Transition Plan and has asked staff to bring back to the Task Force the first part of January 2015. Staff is currently working on the directive as stated by the ADA Task Force. • A full report is expected to be brought to the City Council sometimes in March 2015. Issues: . No issues as of this date. G EORG N TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT SE Inner Loop Corridor Study To Project Sponsor: Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Date of Report: Project Scope Statement: December 31, 2014 Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary engineering and prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design from IH 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue to determine engineer's estimates of probable project costs for each phase and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the westerly route (SH 29 to IH 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue. Key Accomplishments: Adopted by Council at its January 13, 2015, meeting. Upcoming Tasks: • None. Issues: • None at this time. Downtown Facilities December 31, 2014 Project Scope Redeveloping and relocating downtown city facilities to a central campus (see photos) Purpose To ensure highest and best use of existing city buildings. To leverage and capitalize on proximity and economies of scale as city staff is relocated and centralized. To return some of existing inventory to tax rolls. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Element Status Redesign GCAT for Key Accomplishment Municipal Court (510 W. • Feasibility studies completed by Winter & Co. and Ron Hobbs Architects 9tn Street) • Issued RFQ (Responses due on April 1) • Assembled selection committee to review proposals Upcoming Tasks • Updating Council on current status • Developing standard architectural contract for City • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies court's needs for foreseeable future • Involving Judge in design Challenges • Determining whether or not court room will be shared space • Secure buy -in for 8,500 square foot expansion to accommodate dais and courtroom • Developing multi -purpose space that can accommodate teen court, as well as AN for public meetings Rehabilitate Old Library as Key Accomplishment new City Hall (808 Martin • Secured funding from Council for design and construction Luther King Street) • GGAF review of RFQ to secure architect (same RFQ as GCAT Redesign) Upcoming Tasks • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies City Hall's needs for foreseeable future Challenges • Determining city staff to be relocated • Timing the sale of current City Hall to fund construction 101 E. 7tn Street Key Accomplishment • Approval to move Municipal Court to GCAT Upcoming Tasks • Determining how building will be used once municipal court moves Challenges • Secure definitive Council direction on whether or not City should sell or retain 101 E.711, Street Festival Area Key Accomplishment • Reviewed concept with City Council • Master Signage Plan in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library o Including Red Poppy Cafe canopy in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library Upcoming Tasks • Secure Council funding for festival area in FY 2015/2016 Challenges • Determine scope, which tentatively includes: o Festival Street o Park and Play Area o Plaza o Amphitheater o Tensile Structures • Secure buy -in from downtown stakeholders to move special events to festival area • Ensuring continuity of design throughout development • Focused and professional programming of festival area Old Power and Light Key Accomplishment Building (809 Martin • Discussion at GGAF on use of building Luther King Street) • Completed environmental assessment Upcoming Tasks • Police department to vacate building in early 2015 • Bring plan forward within 18 months for GGAF and Council review Challenges • Funding for rehabilitation o Potential to sell historic tax credits when building is rehabilitated • Determining use (public/private?) 113 E. 81" Street (current Key Accomplishment City Hall) and 103 W. 7th • Secured preliminary buy -in to sell 113 E. 8th Street to fund phase II of Street (current CVB) downtown west (renovation of 808 Martin Luther King Street). Upcoming Tasks • Formalizing the decision to sell 113 E. 81h Street • Securing definitive Council direction for future use of 103 W. 7th Street (sell or retain) Challenges • Avoiding pitfalls generally seen when municipalities sell buildings Downtown Parking December 31, 2014 Project Scope Addressing concerns regarding parking in the downtown overlay district. Purpose To ensure sufficient parking downtown to support continued economic vitality in and around the downtown overlay district. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Element Status Surface Lot at Martin Key Accomplishment Luther King Drive and 8th • Finalized interlocal agreement to use County's property for 10-years Street • Completed demolition of metal structures • Finalized Parking lot design (149 spots) Upcoming Tasks • Secure bids for construction • Coordinate construction around Red Poppy Festival Challenges • Business owner fatigue with public works projects downtown • Lighting and landscaping budget for new lot Downtown Parking Study Key Accomplishment • Secured Council agreement and signed contract to begin study • Consolidated all downtown parking data for consultant to review during parking assessment Upcoming Tasks • First site visit scheduled Feb 2 — 6 • Seeking input from downtown stakeholders during "office hours" on Feb. 6 from 10 am — 2pm in Library Classroom Challenges • Funding strategy for the anticipated cost of the parking structure • Coordinating parking study with on -going Downtown West discussions, sidewalk master plan, and ADA task force • Highlighting public parking that is currently available and creating awareness of available parking sots (over 1400 downtown) Expanding 3-Hour Parking Key Accomplishment • Finishing 91h Street improvements between Austin and Rock Upcoming Tasks • Bring an ordinance forward for Council approval • Informing downtown business and property owners. Challenges • Securiniz downtown stakeholder buv-in for exvandini� 3-hour varkiniz aloniz 9th and 8th streets GE 0RGETOWN TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT SUMMIT AT THE RIVERY HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER Project Sponsor/Manager: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Completion of the Rivery Master Development Agreement January 27, 2015 Amendments and issuance of a Notice to Proceed on or before December 31, 2014. Key Accomplishments: Agreements amended and approved by applicable Boards (GTEC, GEDCO and Rivery TIRZ) and City Council. Amended Agreements executed by the Mayor and Developer representatives. Park Improvements substantially complete. Upcoming Tasks: Novak/Hines 1. Received Notice of Intent to Proceed. Waiting on deliverables. a. Franchise Agreement b. Guaranty Agreement, certified financials, and legal opinion c. Hines/Novak Joint Venture Agreement d.Construction Contract Documents including Bonds/Insurance • Public Parking Garage • Public Infrastructure City 1. Final inspection and acceptance of Park Improvements. 2. Council Action at January 27 meeting for ratification. 3. Project Manager for Parking Garage. Joint 1. Pre -construction meeting for Hotel/CC/Parking Garage. 2. Public Infrastructure documentation. Issues: Developer closing postponed until January 2015. Construction commencement delayed until after closing. ARGGEo ETOVVN t_\AS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Project Sponsor/Manager: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, Shirley Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Compilation of Lease Agreements and terms January 27, 2015 related to City -Owned Property Key Accomplishments: • Copies of Lease Agreements provided to the City Council. • Summary Report regarding Lease Terms for each Lease Agreement provided to the City Council, including WCAD valuation of land and improvements. • Summary Report of other In -Kind Services provided to non -profits by the City of Georgetown provided to the City Council. Upcoming Tasks: • Complete and update survey with regional and like -sized cities regarding their policies related to leasing city -owned property and social service funding • Determination of Fair Market Leasehold Values • Report to Council Issues: • Long -Term Leases on City -Owned Property, including some on dedicated Parkland. G EORG N TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) To Project Sponsor: Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Nat Waggoner, PMP°, Transportation Analyst Date of Report: Project Scope Statement: December 31, 2014 This updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 with the adoption of the initial OTP, which provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area -wide travel demand model, review of the City's roadway functional classification system, and a revised Thoroughfare Plan. Key Accomplishments: • 2012 roadway network update completed. • 11 of 13 project elements completed. Final two elements (Chapters 8 and 9) are under review and are nearly complete. • OTP Chapter 6 has been updated to include 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and Park's Trails Master Plan by reference. • Presented to GTAB at its January 9th meeting. • Presented at Council Workshop on January 13th • Presented to P&Z for review and comments January 20tn Upcoming Tasks: Staff: • Will compile all comments and present the FINAL DRAFT OTP to GTAB February 13th for Public Hearing and its recommendation to Council • Will present FINAL DRAFT OTP to P&Z February 17th for its recommendation to Council. • Will present the Final DRAFT OTP to Council February 241h for Public Hearing and V Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP. • Will present 2nd Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP March 10th Issues: • Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has not yet adopted the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan nor the 2010 Travel Demand Model supporting that plan. Once adopted, the 2040 plan and model will provide key data which will allow supporting jurisdictions the opportunity to update their transportation plans. Georgetown transportation planning efforts will benefit from updated modeling data and should pursue funding to update the 2012 data currently informing the OTP. GE 0RGETOWN TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT MAJESTIC OAKS -SUN CITY CONNECTIVITY Project Sponsor/Manager: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Ed Polasek, Transportation Director Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Majestic Oaks at Apache Mountain Lane — Sun City January 27, 2015 connectivity Key Accomplishments: October 14 — Council approved a motion to defer this item until a traffic analysis and legal issues pending are completed Upcoming Tasks: Accept Sun City expansion traffic impact analysis (TIA) provided by Pulte's retained consultant. Initial report was received and City staff provided comments to the consultant to review impacts to additional intersections for a full level of service analysis. Updates to the report are expected to staff by the 23rd Issues: The consultant has also been asked to provide a timeline for making the updates. Final traffic study updates are anticipated to be complete by the end of January. a > > > > > > a d a ¢ ¢ ¢ a ❑ E 0 U .c N d ° cc C �_ N T O T a R C °N' 0 a) 16- N R E V J N O E 0 E L L 4i O N N N U U 0) = 3p j L C N 'C � 9 C, N =_ y L R N N r T N y O U C E O N C U N r J fo 0 EN C 00 N E L co +�' LL N N y 3 4° O E w C v a 'ap N 'O CA .T. a j U O° T C R~ N N R N N n C N lL L y 0 E H O a co O R C R R E O LR-. N V 0) D O y 0 0) R JE R a T C N O R N V m ii C C 0) .L... N O L O_ y co, 3n E 0) C v N Q a Qvcaom.°-Z' R J r n 0 R O R omm m cm mt aHNa N _> N C O O Q a O. u) n E R c0 N O n❑ R f0 E O) n 0 3~ 0) Ci E C y C O O O N m ID U¢ cu c -Lc:E yp U p> aL= pX aEN°pQ iY O C= N 0 n d O a R O C O R R 3 a N N N O) a 3 2 N° a N- C p O m T- Y N N E N❑ O R` R E an d C N ° °? R N O J a R ' LT L �- U N a C» N Ol R J °- N- .0 O R R L E •p O Y Y a j N F J m R R 0) U n O R Q y 'tn O O C 2 R O .V c dp a J p «p ROU T E f6 « R- vl O Q U Q 3> OO 3URU ❑N❑ f0N E M' a R >.«R O m 0 R Nn y 61 0U N Nm U a LL LL r ` CU N U p_« « O.L. F y as L_ cc N ❑ w O L U n EL" N> 1.LO. N = 3 O I o—°y Jo 3 N cl R R L n U a N O p M C R y C r a> n 3 F a) C N N y O T N R U° O > N 3 N Y E a C O. y 0 a O L U C R c C O C 3 O ° Y R a C N U aC_ R c0 N a L N 0. O N o H N E .O n N N Q N O T O) p U Q o a Co `� m 3 0 U (0 .°. '� U N C J C E o `o N c0 C O ` ~ TNQ 3 N E o N O U'Vj L O O_ a � «„t E-L a V) O.❑ J_ J R N N N N O_ Y_ a C C U U •- N O N d 3 C) O C N R O ❑�... a C a N p >. J Q J T Y U O a a� y v U (n N a a R °- ° m d J ° c U y O W O> 3 == Y •c E c O N> ? 2) O N O .� ° r d .L-. O a Z n OI C •_ 0) � R �O H a? 0.- N IRiI U 0 0) 0 R a d y `p C) N ❑ O V OI R E J 'C c3 C N N N U¢ E .0 C v C _ a N L U F O 'U a) ° 3 c N C Y d C 3 m R 0. O) _ C N° U C a C o •� L J O) C a t`Ct` U C N C C N O � C) C N J R I--• J CA tl1 co C _ C L C U �N, Q L° r? 'R6 a U E y U CI L — "T' 3 C p 2 --0-2 y •C R O c0 C 0 3 N J a O Cp O y C •-• O- .- O C C U U a O C�� L O R C E C 'y J W O' L� 3 U 0) cc T N n 0 J d R n m •E L-R p CL ❑- U O O r t •jN N N V "' R p y rn n d p L c j `1 O LL_. c •O � E - E E C N J y Y C U C N R U c >L-. O V O N T y N R E o �. 4? O N O 3 L y E a 0) C a d Q C V 0 C R C y 0) > N p N R c6 R q p O E E 01 `• ° O U R N N F- R O E 3 N m > E T L... R c `o ma cu Ta U S D U n 0 N O R N E C y O Q IL V O C m 0c O 0 N m T Y N pp t`9 C -= E m 0 "O N cu C R2 d R ❑ L w >� N N R R 0 N Ra. L- L L_ C N 3 r R 3 R y 0 •- L 3 O~ R in O R N 3 c0 L L_ O C a w N a N C y O d a O R a C R N L n L-. N 01 C y 01 Q N 'E 2` :O O R> = L O 3 o J R T O « d N F-• . d j 0' Q R CO .R.. r lh N p 0) R 0 O ° 0 V C C U N INiI L 0. � L.. 0 2 a m R C JO C «� R E J ` L O d U '7 U T C N E 2 V Q C c "J'� CII .L-• O C❑ O O C N= N ID S C O� L LL U> •> ti N a R T O > b� O C R •U C O O 0 N U O J 'O s N cG L N N a O O tRi1 C ¢° Ol co c 'U � 0 N N .❑U- N y y R a C N d p N y J .L-. j y Q .� J C> N �T, N O 'UO N O a)RJE J y L «J C J Z OCECL U 3 n m UnRnU UaO E NO nN 0 nL R c R N L U m N R ❑ C R N N❑ E R N Mn N N R Y m - a C!1 Q1 Q ° a y N l0 2 N H Y N m R w c W -E c w S c J(n > ❑ U. 'R'�2 a N N C t0 ❑ N l0 -' J c J O Q QI N a a O N R O = N N LR N R - T 3 C o a n R N Ln C O 0) R c CA N N U c O R R N NO F 0 c 16 0 N O L c L N C = 3 E aTi O L O > U y d C O w E O J 0 = `R a o a�� IL0 m ` 0 R a R O > N R m m o U E E C N ` T O Q - CL C Jp R d N O N Jp U) ca 0 3 c o_ U o y � 2 •p �= c .� .TN 0 2 cy0 R 10 c Una J N C E n J U U C C cu 2 `�-• E° > � R w - •Rp C R N Q R O C J FM 1460 (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive) Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc Rights -of -Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation January 2015 Project Description Acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM 1460 Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive). Purpose To have all ROWs cleared and utilities prior to TxDOT letting the project foe construction. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 0 J F 2 > 1110 ass 0 O O o o f %� � rZ ad L 0-- 00 o ZzQ Z O i w w c �`,��* J►am u, 0 -, �/ m v y v } m w_� -n �W F 8 0jX- ` / l7 0 0 0 o LL 2pG ,d Z O O LL1 = —'- t %�' Ln oc O Z Element Status / Issues Design Complete. Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 16t',, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings planned within the next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Section: North South Acquired: 31 8 Pending: 3 - Condemnation: 2 - Total: 36--F 8 Utility Relocations Utility Relocation Agreements were approved by meeting. Council at its October 28th Construction Construction scheduled to begin in February 2015. Other Issues None pending. Mays Street Extension (Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to Westinghouse Road) Project No. 5RI TIP No. None January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Extend Rabbit Hill Road northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. Purpose Project Managers Engineer To complete the schematic design, define rights -of -way requirements and complete 30% design. Bill Dryden, P.E. CP&Y, Inc. NIH 35 FWY N IH 3& NIH 35 FR S SB tz KE££E� DR W7* O �£PSo $ BEGIN PROJECT `p V � DA KMaryT pR 90 p1?000SFo" END PROJECT i a '9N ENGAUINA PA55 FA IR WAY pA7}( IPA PPe9P £�N PD Cti�£ `VPRE556LVD f+T a GREEN VISTA PL P F n 9� x TERAVIs7A PKWy MtiA'0 Oq �PK C£N1RA£ B`vD m09 z r 20 0 0.25 0.5 q Zc rOe uu`-,E.., !ra I, E` E-- Air s • A - • &F Miles MAYS STREET Element Status / Issues Design Engineering has submitted the proposed alignment and is working on the 30% PS&E. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way TBD. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues None. NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway Drive) Project No. 5QX TIP No. QQ January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and construct a portion of an IH-35 NB Frontage Road from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard Bridge of a proposed NB FR which would ultimately extend to Lakeway Drive. Purpose To relieve congestion in the Williams Drive/Austin Avenue intersection by providing a NB alternate, interim route to FM 971 and Georgetown High School. This project is the only remaining portion of IH 35 in Central Texas without a frontage road existing, under construction or being designed. Project Manager Bill Dryden Engineer Klotz Associates low Al . --REMOVE EXISTINZ% 1ENTRANCE RAMP iW A fie` Aft .31 Element Status / Issues Design Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way None identified Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Staff is working with TxDOT to develop the AFAs required to complete the project Northwest Boulevard Overpass (Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue) Project No. 5QX TIP No. QQ January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with Austin Avenue and FM 971. Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates 2 m H ° ok 0,9 NORfH WEST BLVD. 0 I a .t ru _-_l 1-' -.- _ Imo.' Element Status / Issues Design Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Environmental/ Archeological Concurrent with preliminary engineering and schematic design. Rights of Way Engineer is developing ROW strip map and individual parcel plats and documents. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Staff met with TxDOT to develop an AFA for TxDOT review of the bridge crossing of 135 and its frontage roads. Rivery Boulevard Extension (Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive) Project No. 511M TIP No. None January 2015 Project Description Develop the Rights -of -Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in anticipation of future funding availability. Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Surveying and preliminary design underway. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way Will begin when surveying is complete. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues TBD Snead Drive Project (SE Inner Loop to Airborn Circle) Project No. 5QZ TIP No. None January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Develop Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the widening of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way, including appurtenant waste water improvements. Purpose This project has been identified as GTEC eligible project and will provide necessary infrastructure for ongoing economic development in the area. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Steger Bizzell Sl y35/VB ) ` "X'%S-r Roadway Widening Proposed WW Linesunder roadway Proposed WW Lines outside of roadway Q Existing WW LiJes O 2 City Limits O O 02 i 0 5 0 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Included with PS&E. Rights of Way Awaiting property to be acquired for water quality pond. Utility Relocations Utility relocations either complete or are part of the construction contract. Construction Upon acquisition of property for water quality pond. Other Issues It was anticipated that the property for construct water quality pond would be donated, but owner has some issues with the mortgage holder concerning donation. Property owner is seeking compensation. Southwest Bypass Project (SH 29 to RM 2243) Project No. 5QC TIP No.14b January 2015 Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to SH 29 and Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the construction of approximately 1.3 miles of 2-lane interim roadway with bridges from Leander Road to its intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (TIP Project No. 14A. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and GTEC TIP. This project, in coordination with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension, will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH 35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR Engineering, Inc. PROPOSED I L.o.na r Ezisnr� Pans s cm ums W 1 F Element Status / Issues Design Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual construction. Environmental/ Draft Report detailing the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has Archeological been completed and submitted to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation for determination of issues to be mitigated. Rights of Way ROW Acquisition process moving to condemnation for the Weir Trust properties. Guy/Knight property - Closing pending Wolf property - Acquisition complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction TBD Other Issues None Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension Project (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) Project No. 5QV TIP No.14a January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design Schematic and Plans Specifications & Estimate for the construction of a roadway from Southwest Bypass (TIP Project # 14B) to DB Wood Road south of SH 29. The project is planned as a major arterial. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and the TIP. This project, in coordination with Southwest Bypass (#14B), will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH-35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Engineering, Inc. �■�■1J■A .14■a':f�� ®�•'� III ������ Element Status / Issues Design Engineer is completing the fencing plans, its required environmental clearance documents (to determine the fee for WCCF) and the construction PS&E bidding package. Environmental/ Archeological Final report concerning the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has been submitted for review. Rights of Way Complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction Future Other Issues Fencing may not be required with the purchase of the property by Hillwood Development — awaiting response from developer. a 0 c.> O Z N m } O Z O Z O Z a) U) C o c m o) C a) m c m [6 _ ca m C U V m U CO - 0 ❑ (D � LL 3 o p m E c m y c ap m c 2 0 E O a) — C W d� O O N CD OCL CL C, n N C) OC W 7 d 0 O d d0 a O EO N L O N m a) � ad p_ O E U ` r- U 0 c $ U M U i U T CD Cl) O m 0 CaLL C r C�m ! CD CN �.� d C- d NE T m N N a)EE C.. 0U _oo LL o� c) rm -a ra r�¢ m N .O O a C co o LL E N a a) O O N CDm o C a) m cl L a E a _ C a E 0 T a) C)C >O N LL Q CD LL m p. Z, Z a CD a o a) N 'C f m 'OC -0 a) E C >` C, ; C L C U LL LL d Q ti li LL 01 a m a o 0 >, c o co ap N c mo r N 0 N 0 N N U C (O O O O O C CO N 0) M co N > O O O N N ch N C) ([7 r co G V N ZZ N Q N aD = N L o '3 m O a) n o m m C'4 C. L 2 U)a m N d Q 3 m (a U T a)m E x C 2 ca 0 ..0.. N E o L m C C Y C— C m U ca O CDCd O I� >O U) m U ca C w E 2 O '- O❑ m d 7 0 LL r Z C N N m> E m 0 a) NU N W C > c jm CD y-,(LL m EaTNO T c U) a m3 N a) C O cc m o� c dLa) NU4 C'm WL-OO 'm'`oa =iCaN0) m j m QU w> LLZC` >d O O U C ME C tl�` O m E o E C:)aa)—N NO CCE .o (Q a OC m ccuL 0 o N m a) E ca U(n a) O U NaU > Oco LIJ a) `N n E n a) o L) aO o O CD E d a) a) C- m a)dQ 69 N m m a) m a= 0 a) O (6 N CD '� O) @ a) m C w O N yO m O(n D O T U (C 'CQ C U.N.Q Ea IL w o o C) 9 C, 3 E o o N Ew 7 3 U o C C a) aa)) a) m 0> o 3 o CD aci me m Z wU U o E� m 0. —O Lo 7 E N N a) O C U a 0� O O C C L C' N �--• C Co a) m > Q d O O N m C a. C N N m m 0) O) 3 c m O N C X (d6 �L" O m m C d N .0 a c Q C )) m in m N o aNi c o o m ~ c o TUCm mc aO a CD gm 0)•oa > oE a�m C_ d a U E'N om Cl) 'O mUN a) Lo Imo '0 O 7 a) aC)f 'O a) ch E C O a >.O 2 O � > a0) x >>U) �mo >>0O COc Na)69 N i� m n.CQ W maLL W d �i� CND V m a a) O J m U IL N c o o a) 0 U U =3 o m c m x U m O d U w Q ca � O IL W N D r 0 Z W 0 a D F- U W O w IL O U 0 W a o a, N O U Z Z Z Z N } V1 U C La a) U (D U O � a) U� a) C.)U a) — CL C La C L6 N C f6 p C L6 C a3 E o Q E Q E M QN E= Q E o Qv E o U O UCo O C)c O Cl)O C) >, p U O N (.5 C L6 O C N N O C a7 O C M l6 C C C 0 (6 d a0+ LL. L L) LL N LL N LL -O C,N LL C N N 4) N a) W N •7 Lo }a N >- C2 O N a7 a) .D C C 7 O U U- LL LL O (DN N U N C C C C LL LL LL LL LL N N M O O O O O a) V C C") N f7 N O L- CO > O o W 00 QU m N O N N N Liz: U p _ C� c .0-6 m e ao O --� C f-- •' W Q a) w C i o E N O O O N a) N N M= N E O La a Cl) _ p W -0 'O C.7 « C O N N o CO .— a) C) �"" +? N•O :0 O 6 y >O w d CJ Q� U N c r- E Q C J m M C f6 a)L 0 dp C O) C 1 p 0 E 2 y a) > V% C> C:) (� N O U Q �a E O N C� Q a) N C 0 0 a) F, Q a) l6 -p C o m N 3 E 3 o C N p a) a) C Q 0 F' W m y N C N W a0 > a) (� N m 3 d W La p (4 X >. V( a C N W m C m O a) O m L (V 7 z `«> Q a) O• a) 3 Q E Q T y 0 w a v c � .� O) p m E a) E O� O N C N E � y 3 a) o O• L4 La D o a) O Q a) 7— j E "" O C a) 7 C w@ C C 0 7 w N (' p w a3 O 4- C U" 'C O O> �o ui @ O N C a) — W C 'C 3 (.! m L N a) O U C a) O C m La > Q 7 O> Q p � CO m O O O =` Q Q Q a a) >, O> L1J nj .L-. O O C T U ` E C .— Q .-. a) C O C U 0 +-. C O o0EQ) 0U O O CJOco� C p Oaa•Ca)C)ON(DU a) "' O C. C O p oEmS0)EUa)a2 Q C w w C7) dw W .ELo. a) .«L. Q T O E (6 o m �" O C U Z' (0 '— m p Q C a) a) j:- O W O- La L@ N o O a) CO 7 3 M a) a) O Co co C «mow C m0 m O d Q CT j LL N U •y O¢ O U 3 0 o a) O T C 0 O '3 O oa m E O O O LL N O— E~ O a) E T U O 'O n 4) d a) C O) .O > a) a) O N a C O C E > a C N LO-. 3 ca. C O T � N CA � N > N C O d U d m CL NM -p @ N 'O o w N m N w O ,@ E Z CU O N 3 .X >. N a) p a) m w` •O x w CO 70 O N 0 m N 'O O w O Cl. Oi a U C d) Q E¢ o Lo, n V o p co -)) p r� N N G N C O U N X m N« O r o a) C N o aa)) in Uo C) a o axi c w o 3 y C a O U) v o o� o 2 a) c 3 N O Q W w w a) � 0 0 a) O� � � m O m F_ C c LL o O E m OU m O C 0 N E `� o o U o� 8 o E O E U �) � e» a) C U 2 N f6 0) d@ CO 7 m � C -O N fA C 7 a) O N U Q W ..+ C U O -O LL N N O a) �) a C N C D N> "O C =p a 3 2 L W N O C La m— Q (7 U C O CA 7 C @ N C N O N •O La C a) a) 3 W> 12 N 7 X ¢ a L >O (` C J Q O a) fl. "O d L (6 C Q a) a) CO W a) N C7) N >. M C" c a .O CA N O rL-. X C N C �. E O) U a) 3 N N N N NCD a) C a) a) N O- a) a) La Q .o 'D E N a) "' O N O a) OU (6 E '0 D p C O N N O N i -� O > U C 2 N N Q - N N N Z a) w O N N N a3 C > '= p) O a) ..m.. N d Q• M L N O 0 O o O ID CL o cm rU om O@ O dwfnD ONQQQ CL'O E La< d'O �O @Q a)OQ d QCL ut) .C7N.L.. NN LLd N U N (D U 0 0 o 0 � U Cn L6 d o N a) - C a)cm O U o N a a) c o 0 CD Q. a c L Q C � Y C U N C U w U O m C o 0 a) L9 61 N 7 LL N N a) X F Q 0 Z Q W a IL L- U W O LY a o d 0 O U 0 Z 6 Z 0 zi 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z a) C c (D m a) a) aD N E L It a3 LO N L CA E CL r c2 O O_ O_ O N O. O. O N O. O O U ON UN O Or O.- ON U y U M U o U c) U S C U) C C U (6 a) l6 N (6 a) 6) U E ILLL j N o a) C, U N m U N MO v v o N '00 C U a "a) '0) LL p 70 -o C �o C a C a C -o C (D 'O LL LL Li LL LL C O O O O O Li Z Z Z Z Z li M M V M V T C, N C:) N C) N C) N CD N C)�— N U O C O C)LO N M N CO O o N N N L- O av a d O O V) = 0) cep N C O_ U C O y 0 0 U U m C C= .N 9 o N Q C C)E -0 N E M C 0 0 N � N LL � U C p, O ~ n CD CL)C;C > C:)U'2 O o o X O CD+T„ w U N D Z p c c 3 0 a) — Q T m O » O o LL a) O 0 0 O a f U .o U a) c m U o as a�i m m c o W-0 o 2 WU` O op mom U CL� cU 0 C a 0 C 0 C W oOp o TL O a)m '�Q@ a1 E. ALL O 0 CD y d N 0 'O (D U a) > 'o p m L O w a) 4c Lam-. O W o O a) V O E V> •L.• O 'Cl U Q O Q D a) O O M O O C. O G. O O_ O Oa L X a O U O �O C. ... O Q 9 C:) O O N O CL O Q ..+ c a) U °� o a) O L O U 'o O J C I- n r N o N j N V) N V LO N N E fA a) E: >,69 V7 a) � c0 69 = O M EA E_ N E,9 O O) C Q L o :-' O O O A O. R. O O M O C Q 1 C N N N N C o C o) O a) C C O C 0) CO 0 m (` > E (` ` O (O N C U O) cu @ O C C m o O) N m E Q o) a) ns m o a) 7 6) m U r 01 n fO o p O) O `6 U v a) E 'o LO O O Q p o 7 'n m 'o O' E E a) m 'O 7 C) a) U LL '� N (� m �° O O > O > M O O- r > 'o U U @ OCDO a) > C N m > -O O > C N O m CD LLLL lL N dI- a EN ILO 6) a` E`r m a) C C U U C O a) U C m c a) O O L w L` N c O C O O acl U U i .@ o a U E E a) 16 o p c O ac .i — E C)0 y N U U 6s H X p w J > 63 a) ~ O (n m 7 Cn p - m a) O coi N GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT January 2105 11 Proiect to Date Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP Project Update On Schedule/ Project Project Available No. No. Or Behind Budget Cost Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue) #12 5QG Project Complete. Complete 112,995,6251 10,478,499 2,517,12 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB #14A 5QW Engineer is completing the fencing plans, its On Schedule 1,330,OOC 1,111,233 218,76 Wood Road) required environmental clearance documents (to determine the fee for WCCF) and the Unchanged construction PS&E bidding package. ROW has been acquired. Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243) #14B 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less On Schedule 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,30 construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual Unchanged construction. We have reached agreement with the representative of the Guy/Knight properties. ROW Acquisition process moving to condemnation for the Weir Trust properties. Appraisals have been updated. In -process 1,136,17 1,099,076 37,102 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Unchanged En ineer is developing ROW strip map and NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway) #QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel In -process 613,822 613,822� at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Unchanged ROW - 1460 #EEa 5RB Construction scheduled to begin in February On Schedule 11,788,23C 5,348,470 6,439,76 #EEb 2015. #EEc Utility coordination on -going as ROW is acquired. All appraisals are complete. Final offers have bee made for all ROW parcels. The paperwork has been filed for all parcels requiring condemnation. As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings planned within the next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Utility Relocation Agreements were approved by Council at its October 28th TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete. Complete 1,500,00 1,503,148 3,148 FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete. Complete 100,00 0 100,00 Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete. Complete 779,00 29,000 750,00 Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer shall develop the ROW Map, acquire On Schedule ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction PS&E in antici ation of future funding availability. Snead Drive 5QZ 1PS&E is complete; On Schedule 825,10 87,000 738,10 Awaiting ROW for water quality pond. Unchanged Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed On Schedule 196,00 196,000� alignment and is working on the 30 % PS&E. Unchanged IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ I TBD 650,00 0 650,00 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Projected Cost Available 000 000 283,35C 0 283,350 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 571,17 479,58 91,590 382,822 382,822� 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 000 750,00 0 750,000 825,10 87,000 738,100 196,00 196,00 650,00 0 650,000 L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-01.x1sx Page 1 of 2 12/29/2014 GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT January 2105 Project to Date Project Bud et Project Cost Available 1,137,50 1,137,50 000 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Budget Cost Available 1,137,50 0 1,137,500 000 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Report\2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-01.xlsx Page 2 of 2 12/29/2014 Austin Avenue - Bridge Evaluations (North and South San Gabriel Rivers) Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several phases - I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents, estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration. Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long-term vehicular capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP Element Status / Issues Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace Structure. Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed reconstruction of the bridge. Surveying TBD Environmental TBD during Phase II Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street. Utility Reloc'ns TBD (future) Construction TBD Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election; Project submitted for CAMPO funding; Project eligible for TxDOT Off -System Bridge Replacement Program. FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No.1BZ TIP No. QQ1 January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street. Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of 135 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to SH 130. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. L� Element Status / Issues Design Preliminary Engineering complete; Engineer working on 60% design submittal Environmental/ Archeological 10/2015 Rights of Way Complete Utility Relocations TBD Construction 10/2016 Other Issues Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review and construction administration. FM 971 at Austin Avenue Improvements in San Gabriel Park Project No.1BZ TIP No. QQ1 January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the moving of all park amenities from the new FM 971 ROW. Purpose To clear the ROW of park amenities and allow TxDOT review of the PS&E. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. 46 40 Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological N/A Rights of Way Complete Utility Relocations Complete Construction Contractor had defaulted; Surety has a replacement contractor and work is back under way; scheduled for completion in January 2015. Other Issues See Construction, above. FM 1460 Quail Valley Drive to University Drive Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update to existing Schematic, Right -of -Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway. Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on -the -shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 2 LL. H = > -} Wa(' aVa la \I Y0 OpQ�y� �p ?-1OZO O o,aza°00 >Z W m LLI ca ui bO . A �Ocl� - i W pNp1 00, ^ yid O ,a p ° 8- Z d 4� W o0 = y o Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 161h, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings planned within the next couple weeks for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Acquired: 31 Pending: 3 Condemnation: 2 Total: 36 Utility Relocations Ongoing as ROW is being acquired. Construction Bid opened August 2014 Construction scheduled to commence February 2015. Other Issues None Pending N Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Rec Center to Georgetown High School Project No.1CV TIP No. None January 2015 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the sidewalk improvements along N. Austin Avenue between the Georgetown Recreational Center and Georgetown High School. Purpose To provide a safe pedestrian route along North Austin avenue. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer URS Corporation Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Complete Archeological Rights of Way None Utility Relocations None Construction City and Contractor have completed the walk-through and Contractor has the punch list of remaining items of work. Other Issues (Dec 2014) GTAB had asked about needing MBGF along Austin Avenue where the new sidewalk and retaining wall cross the creek just north of the Dollar General store. Under AASHTO guidelines, slopes of 3:1 or flatter do not warrant installation of MBGF. The finished slope in this area is 4:1. Overall Transportation Plan Update January 2015 Project The updated OTP is a continuation of the effort that the City completed in 2004 Description with the adoption of the initial OTP. That document provided an analysis of existing conditions and travel characteristics, a refined area -wide travel demand model, review of the City's roadway functional classification system and a revised Thoroughfare Plan. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, Bill Dryden, P.E., Nat Waggoner, PMP® and Jordan Maddox, AICP Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. Overall Transportation Plan LTI-)cI�Ite Element Status / Issues Key • 2012 roadway network update completed. Accomplishments • 11 of 13 project elements completed. Final two elements (Chapters 8 and 9) are under review and are nearly complete. • OTP Chapter 6 has been updated to include 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan and Park's Trails Master Plan by reference. Upcoming Tasks Staff: • Will present the DRAFT OTP to GTAB for its review and comments January 9th • Will present the DRAFT OTP to P&Z for its review and comments January 20th • Will compile all comments and present the FINAL DRAFT OTP to GTAB February 136, for its recommendation to Council. • Will present the Final DRAFT OTP to Council February 2411, for Public Hearing and 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP. • Will present 2nd Reading of Ordinance adopting the OTP March 101h. Issues Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has not yet adopted the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan nor the 2010 Travel Demand Model supporting that plan. Once adopted, the 2040 plan and model will provide key data which will allow supporting jurisdictions the opportunity to update their transportation plans. Georgetown transportation planning efforts will benefit from updated modeling data and should pursue funding to update the 2012 data currently informing the OTP. Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit January 2015 Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan. Project Manager Nat Waggoner, PMP° Engineer HDR, Inc. Task Status / Issues Initiation - Task 1.3 — Project Kick Off Meeting completed May 15, 2014. Planning - Task 6.2 — Public Meetings (Adoption) Execution - See below .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _ ............. .................................................. Task Name Start End ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May-14 Jun-14 Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports May-14 Jun-14 Self -Assessment Survey of Downtown District May-14 Jul-14 Data Collection and Field Inventory Jun-14 Aug-14 City Facilities Survey Jul-14 Sep-14 Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization May-14 Oct-14 Parks and Amenities Survey Nov-14 Jan-14 Ongoing Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings May-14 Jan-15 Public Meetings and Hearings Periodic thru Mar-15 ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Targeting Mar-15 Other Notes ADA • NOV—Transition Plan amendment planning audit by Altura Solutions • JAN —RAS review & recommended revisions complete • JAN —Staff input complete • FEB —Boards, Commissions and Council review • MAR —Adoption Project Website • Launched July 15, 2014 Open House #2 • January 22, 2015, McCoy Elementary Library, 5:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. Description Estimated Fee Priority 1 Projects $10,600,000 Priority 2 Projects $7,040,000 Priority 3 Projects $7,770,000 Remaining Sidewalk Master Plan Projects $244,590,000 Southeast Inner Loop Corridor Study (IH 35 to Rockride Lane) Project No. None Project No. None January 2015 Project Develop preliminary design schematic alternatives, perform preliminary engineering and Description prepare an engineering report for the Southeast Inner Loop Schematic Design from I 35 to Rockride Lane (CR 110) and Sam Houston Avenue. Purpose To determine ultimate alignment, interim and ultimate engineer's estimates of probable project costs and ROW needs for the future SH 29 Bypass, connecting the westerly route (SH 29 to I 35) with Southeast Inner Loop and Sam Houston Avenue. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Draft Final Report and Alignment were presented to GTAB in September; and were forwarded to Council with a unanimous recommendation of the Board for adoption. Surveying TBD (future) Environmental/ Archeological TBD (future) Rights of Way To be conceptually established during the preliminary schematic phase and further refined through the design phases. Utility Relocations TBD (future) Construction TBD (future) Other Issues The Final Report and Alignment will be presented to Council at its January 131h meeting for adoption. Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No.1CA Project No.14c January 2015 Unchanged Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2-lane roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. The portion from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC. Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Project Manager Williamson County City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility. Alignment has been presented to staff and management. Surveying City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be acquired from Texas Crushed Stone. Environmental/ TBD by preliminary engineering phase. Archeological Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the schematic design phase. Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW Utility Relocations TBD (future) Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2 lanes of the ultimate roadway. Other Issues None Transit Study as Requested by City Council Project No. None Project No. None January 2015 Unchanged Project Council Motion: Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetown's Transportation Description Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the City's potential future participation in State and Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which would prompt the City's participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with -- Steve Fought, Councilmember, District 4 Amended Motion: 1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type of study over the next year. If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department, Finance Department and/or City Manager's Office work program, as outlined in the current draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year? 2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it transit programs? This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs. 3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit Administration. However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs. Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Transportation. CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310 transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction. CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and representatives from local governments. 4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through the project delivery agencies. (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City) 5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council. 6. Finally, some people 'can't see what the final project would look like' or 'can't see what a Transit Oriented Development would look like.' Years ago, when the City was looking at transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some on the ground research. Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff (GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves. We should have at least one field trip during this study. Since it has been about 8 years or so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years. Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6-1) (Hesser opposed) Project Ed Polasek, AICP Manager Engineer TBD Project Status Workplan Under Development Transportation Services Operations CIP Maintenance January 2015 Project Description 2013/14-2015 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays, Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects. Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of 85%. Project Manager Mark Miller Engineer/Engineers KPA, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc. Task Status / Issues 2nd and 61h Street (KPA) 2nd St to College St plans are complete. Advertising, bidding and Engineering construction will coincide with Parks and Recreation VFW Field reconstruction project in approximately June / July minimizing disruption to baseball season and to residents. The engineer's estimate is much greater than the project budget. Last year's 2nd Street funds (scheduled to roll) were utilized on additional 9th Street rehabilitation costs. The 2nd Street project can be bid and awarded by rolling and utilizing the funds for the 101h and 111h Street construction scheduled for 2015. Some of the downtown merchants have expressed concerns about the constant disruptions of the ongoing downtown rehabilitation. Rolling the projects would give a one year break from rehabilitation in this area. 9th Street (KPA) (Patin Construction) Austin to Rock portion 98% completed. A (Main to Rock) separate electric contractor is working on the Austin Ave. to Main St. portion placing additional underground conduit placement. Patin is scheduled to return to this section in early January when the conduit is in place. Contractor has worked hard to accommodate businesses during shopping season. Chip Seal 2015 proposed Chip Seal (2015 CIP Presentation for January GTAB) Fog Seal 2015 Fog sealing will be completed in-house. New product utilized by staff in October is performing well. Staff hopes to evaluate one more product manufactured by Western Emulsions before Spring. Cutler/overlay 2015 proposed Cutler Overlays (2015 CIP Presentation for January GTAB) Pavement KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year CIP Evaluation presentation scheduled for January GTAB. A final PCI report, 5 year CIP roadway maintenance plan, and FY 15 CIP design task order will be presented to GTAB on January 9th. City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: City Secretary Department Update -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: Please see attached for a memo from the City Secretary and related attachments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: City Secretary Department Update- January 2015 DRAFT Records Management Ordinance DRAFT Records Management Policy W EST.1848 /GEORGETOWN TEXAS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2015 TO: Mayor Dale Ross and the Georgetown City Council FROM: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary SUBJECT: City Secretary Department Update The purpose of this memo is to provide the Mayor and City Council a status update on new and ongoing projects in the City Secretary Department. Please feel free to contact Jessica Brettle if you have any questions or comments about any or all of these projects. Records Management Specialist Position The Records Management Specialist position was posted for a little over a week and around 150 applications were received. There were many qualified candidates. After extensive review of the applications, interviews for the top six candidates have been scheduled for Wednesday, January 28th and Thursday, January 29th. It is our hope to have someone in the position by the end of February. Records Management Ordinance and Policy The City Secretary Department has worked diligently on the update to the city's Records Management Ordinance as well as the creation of a city-wide Records Management Policy. The existing Ordinance is very outdated and it is pertinent that we bring forward an Ordinance and Policy that codifies the records management processes we currently have in place. After discussion and approval by Council, Records Management staff will be meeting with all departments over the next year to ensure all processes are solidified and being followed. We understand the importance of getting our records in order and this is one of many steps to streamlining our internal records practices. I have attached the draft of the policy for your reference. A final draft of both the Ordinance and Policy will be coming forward to Council for consideration at the February 10, 2015 meeting. Preservation of Historic Records Thanks to the generosity of the City Council, the City Secretary department has received funds that are assisting with the acceleration of preservation of the city's most historic records. On December 11, 2014, our preservation vendor Kofile picked up six books for repair. We are looking forward to getting them back in a few months. Once we get a better idea of cost and turnaround time, we will start sending off books in much larger numbers to ensure efficient preservation. Boards and Commissions Appointment Process The deadline for volunteers to submit applications to serve on a City Board/Commission was Friday, January 9th. The City Secretary's Office has been assisting Mayor Ross throughout the appointment process and official appointments will be made at the February 10th, 2015 City Council meeting. Continue Laserfiche Expansion/Purchase Additional Licenses With the addition of funds for new Licenses added to the 2014/2015 budget, our Electronic Records Management Program Laserfiche continues to expand into many city departments. The addition of the "forms" module and signature pads has increased the demand for use of the program. Council Compensation Committee Meetings At the first Council meeting in January, Mayor Ross appointed the 2015 City Council Compensation Committee. The City Secretary's Office has completed a survey of Council compensation data at comparable cities in the Central Texas area. This information will be provided to the committee as well as the City Council at a future date. The City Secretary will be coordinating and posting the meetings of the committee so that a recommendation can be presented to the City Council at the first Workshop in April. May 9, 2015 General Election/Road Bond Election The City Secretary's office is coordinating the May 2015 General Election for City Council Districts 1 and 5. Our office is also working alongside Finance in the preparation of election documents for the May 2015 Road Bond Election. Assist Police Records with move to new facility The Police Department is moving to the new Public Safety Operations and Training Complex next month. Our Records Coordinator, Robyn, has been assisting the police department with the transition of records to the new building as well as the proper destruction of expired records prior to the move. Attachments: - Records Management Ordinance - Records Management Policy 2 ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 97-28 & 900610 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 2.22 "RECORDS MANAGEMENT;" REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Title 6, Subtitle C, Local Government Code (Local Government Records Act) provides that a municipality must establish by ordinance an active and continuing records management program; and WHEREAS, Information is a critical strategic asset and must be managed effectively; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown recognizes that records management is an essential component of efficient and effective functioning of government; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown desires to adopt an ordinance for that purpose and to prescribe policies and procedures consistent with the Local Government Records Act and in the interests of cost-effective, and efficient record -keeping; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this action implements Focus End Statement 4.6 of the Century Plan — Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City provides appropriate, well managed information technology and services that support city operations and citizen access to information;" and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this action is not inconsistent or in conflict with any of the Century Plan Policies as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan; 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. Section 2. An ordinance adopting an acting and continuing records management program and prescribing policies and procedures consistent with the Local Government Records Act and in the interests of cost-effective and efficient record -keeping, as detailed in the attached Exhibit "A," is hereby, adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Section 3. 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. Ordinance Number: Page 1 of 2 Description: Records Management Amendment Date Approved: , 2015 Section 4. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective on March 1, 2015 and in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of , 2014. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 2014. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Dale Ross, Mayor Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 Description: Records Management Amendment Date Approved: , 2015 City of Georgetown Records Management Policy I. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to recognize that records management is an essential component of efficient and effective functioning of government and to prescribe records management authority and the creation of a city-wide records management policy. II. Scope This records management policy (hereinafter "policy") applies to all City officials, employees, and contractors that create, manage, or maintain municipal records. III. Definitions a. "Archival state record" means a state record of enduring value to be preserved on a continuing basis by the City until the City archivist indicates that based on a reappraisal of the record it no longer merits further retention. b. "Confidential state record" means a state record to which public access is or may be restricted or denied under Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, or other federal or state law. c. "Convenience copy" means a copy of a master record created for convenience, reference, or research. Convenience copies may be in any medium (e.g., electronic or hard copy). d. "Municipal record" means all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, photographs, sound or video recordings, microfilm, magnetic tape, electronic media or other information recording media, regardless of physical form or characteristic and regardless of whether public access to it is open or restricted under State law, created or received by the City or any of its officers or employees pursuant to law or in the transaction of public business, are declared to be the records of the City and shall be created, maintained and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this policy or procedures authorized by it and in no other manner. e. "Departmental Records Management Plan" means a department's written plan identifying the types of records it maintains for operation and the retention or disposition of those records in accordance with the Records Retention Schedule (RRS) and City disposition procedures. f. "Master Record" means the record retained, subject to the City's records retention schedule and disposition policies. The master record may or may not be the original and may be created or retained in any medium (e.g., electronic or hard copy). Refer to HBP 20.6.1 and State Record definition below. g. "Records Management" means application of management techniques to the creation, use, maintenance, retention, preservation, and destruction of City records. The term includes the development of retention schedules, the management of filing and information retrieval systems in any media, and the adequate protection of City records that are confidential, vital, or archival. Revised 2015.01.20 Page 1 of 5 h. "State Record" means recorded information created or received in the conduct of official City business. State record includes: i. A record that is created or maintained by the City; and ii. A record that is created, managed, or maintained for the City, and the City owns the information or has a right of access to it (e.g., a state record in the possession of a private contractor to the City). Also referred to as City records, official records, and master records. i. "Records Management Program" or "RMP" means a program established on an active and ongoing basis to implement records management controls for City records and recordkeeping systems; identify and protect confidential and vital City records; and cooperate with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission for the purposes of improving the efficiency of recordkeeping, ensuring access to public information under Chapter 552, and reducing costs. j. "Records Retention Schedule" or "RRS" means a document listing City records and providing retention periods and other information necessary for the operation of an effective records management program. The RRS must be recertified triennially by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. k. "Transitory Records" means records of temporary usefulness not an integral part of a records series listed in the RRS, nor regularly filed within a City recordkeeping system. This includes records required for a limited time period for completion of an action by an official, or employee, or in the preparation of an on -going records series. Transitory records are not essential to the fulfillment of statutory obligations or to the documentation of agency functions. If unsure if a document should be classified as a transitory record, verify with the RMD prior final processing. 1. "City Destruction Log" means a document for recording destruction or archival transfer of official City records that have met retention requirements listed in the RRS. in. "Vital State Record" means a record necessary to the resumption or continuation of City operations in an emergency or disaster, the re-creation of the legal and financial status of the agency, or the protection and fulfillment of obligations to the people of the state. (TGC 441.180(13), TAC § 6.1) IV. Records Management Officer a. Records Coordinator i. Duties 1. The Records Coordinator serves as the Records Manager for the City and is responsible for ensuring that the Records Management Ordinance and Records Management Policy are executed to the fullest and oversees all Records Management needs for the City. b. Records Assistant i. Duties 1. The Records Assistant will assist the Records Coordinator with the maintenance and execution of the Records Management Policy. In the absence of the Records Coordinator, the Records Assistant will act as the Records Manager for the City. Revised 2015.01.20 Page 2 of 5 Record Management Liaisons i. Duties 1. Work with the Records Management Department to continue the expansion and implementation of the Records Management policy, assist in communicating Records Management updates to departments, and attend scheduled Records Management Committee meetings. V. Responsibilities and Procedures a. General i. The records management program (RMP) for the City follows all applicable State law and City policies. ii. Master records may be created or retained in paper or electronic formats. When a paper record is imaged in accordance with City procedures the resulting image may be retained as the master record and the paper original disposed as a convenience copy. iii. A master record may only be destroyed if: 1. There is a retention code certified for the record type in the records retention schedule (RRS). 2. The record has met all retention requirements 3. A request to dispose form has been processed by records management department. 4. Any action against the record (e.g., audit, lawsuit, request for public information, etc.) has been resolved. Notice of an action being resolved will be provided by the RMD. b. City Responsibilities: i. Establish and maintain a RMP on a continuing and active basis. ii. Create and maintain records containing adequate and proper documentation of City functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions designed to furnish information to protect the financial and legal rights of the state and any person affected by the activities of the City. Ensure continuity of records and recordkeeping through successions of City precedents. iii. Assure that electronic state records are maintained in a secure environment for the duration of the period the electronic record must be retained. iv. Assure that all City records created, managed, or maintained by a private contractor to the City are maintained and accessible to the same extent as if the records were maintained by the City. v. Identify and protect confidential and vital state records. vi. Cooperate with Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC), the director and librarian, and other authorized designees of the director in the conduct of state agency records management surveys and other TSLAC state records management program initiatives. VI. Records Retention Schedules a. The City will follow the Texas State Library's retention schedules for all records. Records that do not match any listed definitions on the retention schedules will be addressed on an individual basis and a retention time will be determined with the help of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission staff. VII. Destruction of Records i. Before records can be destroyed, the records must be eligible for destruction based on: 1. Not of historical, archival, or inherent value; 2. Has met the State retention schedule; and Revised 2015.01.20 Page 3 of 5 3. Signed destruction form. ii. Destruction Authorization Forms 1. A Destruction Authorization Form must be filled out in its entirety and approved by the Supervisor of the Submitter, a member of Records Management Staff, and the City Manager before any documents can be destroyed. These forms can be found on the City's GO site under Records Management. b. Remote Storage i. Currently As of January 2015 the City uses Iron Mountain for its remote storage needs. Please contact the Records Management Department for all Iron Mountain needs, including but not limited to, storing new documents, retrievals, and destructions. c. Special Considerations i. Historic Records 1. The determination of a record's historic value will be made by the Records Coordinator. The Records Management Department will ensure that qualified historic records are preserved to maintain their integrity and value. ii. Litigation Hold 1. Any items placed on a litigation hold by the Legal Department are not allowed to be destroyed until the litigation hold has been lifted. Departments, employees, elected officials and/or contractors will receive documentation from the Legal Department when a litigation hold has been put into place and when it has been lifted. When a litigation hold has been received, it must be followed and all documents mentioned in it surrendered to the Legal Department. iii. Administratively Valuable 1. Some records are deemed administratively valuable (AV) by the Texas State Library. These items are to be kept as long as administratively valuable to the organization/department using the record. This retention period affords local governments the maximum amount of discretion in determining a specific retention period for the record described. Not all records are administratively valuable and items that are classified as administratively valuable should not be kept as permanent records. VIII. Responsibilities a. City Manager i. The City Manager, or his or her designee, shall uphold the policy to its fullest and ensure compliance to the policy by all employees and contractors via the Division and Department Heads. b. Division Heads i. Division Heads are required to ensure that the Department Heads and employees within their division are following the policy. c. Departments Heads i. Each department shall work with the City's Records Management Officer, or his or her designee, to come up with a department specific policy. Department Heads are required to ensure that the department specific policy is carried out by all members of the department. d. Employees, Elected Officials, and/or Contractors i. Employees, Elected Officials and Contractors are representatives of the City and therefor responsible of carrying out all aspects of the policy to the fullest. All Revised 2015.01.20 Page 4 of 5 contractors hired by the City, become representatives of the City and must also follow the Records Management Policy to fullest. IX. Employee Evaluations a. Employees with a direct impact on the records management program of the City will be reviewed on their participation during their evaluations. Employee participation will be determined by their supervisors. X. Resources a. Current Records Management information will be available on the City's GO site under Records Management. Employees will find the following: i. Links to all State retention schedules. ii. Procedure Manual iii. Records Management Ordinance iv. Additional resources deemed noteworthy by the Records Management Department. Revised 2015.01.20 Page 5 of 5 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Legal Department Project Update - Open Records -- Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: The purpose of this Open Records update is to provide the Council with an update on the City's current open records system and proposed open records policy. In 2014, the City implemented a new software system to process and track all open record requests received in the City. The Open Records Center enhances communication and transparency between requesters and the City by making the request status available to the requestor, enabling tracking of multiple requests submitted by an individual requestor, and establishing a central location for releasing responsive information and other correspondence regarding a request. The City's current public communication policy was last revised in August 2010 and does not reflect staff responsibility for processing open records requests or the implementation of the new software system. As a result, the Legal Department has prepared a draft updated Open Records Policy intended to not only accurately reflect the current process but also assist to streamline the process for managing public information requests in accordance with state law. One of the City's key values is effective communication, and this policy communicates public information request responsibilities to City Staff. The draft Open Records Policy includes: procedures for receiving, referring, processing, and releasing responsive information are included in addition to instructions on charges allowed for public information, requesting clarification, information available on the City website, and processing news media requests. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Open Records Policy FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Public Information Policy and Procedure City of Georgetown Public Information Act Policy and Procedure 1. PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................2 1.1 State Law............................................................................................................................. 2 2. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Texas Public Information Act.............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Public Information Center Guide......................................................................................... 2 2.3 Public Information Cost Guide............................................................................................ 2 3. RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY.................................................................................................. 2 3.1 City Manager's Office......................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Departments......................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 City Employees, Elected Officials and Appointed Officials ............................................... 3 3.4 Legal Department................................................................................................................. 4 4. PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................................4 4.1 Receiving and Referring Requests....................................................................................... 4 4.2 Processing Requests............................................................................................................. 5 4.3 Charges for Public Information........................................................................................... 6 4.4 Requests for Clarification.................................................................................................... 7 4.5 Additional Time................................................................................................................... 8 4.6 Responding to Repetitious or Redundant Requests............................................................. 8 4.7 Requests Requiring Legal Review....................................................................................... 8 4.8 Requests for Information in an Electronic or Magnetic Medium ........................................ 9 4.9 Requests for Inspection of Public Information.................................................................... 9 4.10 Information Not Available in Requested Form................................................................. 10 4.11 Information Available on City Website............................................................................. 10 4.12 News Media Requests........................................................................................................ 10 Revised 2015-01-23 1 1. PURPOSE 1.1 State Law It is the policy of the State of Texas that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act ("the Act"), Texas Government Code, Chapter 552. The Public Information Act defines "public information" as all information collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the daily transaction of official business by the City government or for the City government and the City government owns the information or has a right of access to it. This policy and procedure shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information. 2. REFERENCES 2.1 Texas Public Information Act 2.2 Public Information Center Guide 2.3 Public Information Cost Guide 3. RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY 3.1 City Manager's Office 3.1.1 The City Manager is the City's chief administrative officer and the City's official Public Information Officer under the Texas Public Information Act. The City Manager may delegate his or her authority under the Act to the designated public information officers as set out below. The City Manager retains ultimate responsibility for the accessibility, preservation, protection and maintenance of public information. 3.1.2 It is the responsibility of City Manager to properly instruct City Employees regarding compliance with these procedures and the Act. 3.1.3 The Public Information Officer shall ensure that a sign in the form prescribed by the Attorney General that contains basic information about the rights of a requestor, the responsibilities of a governmental body, and the procedures for inspecting or obtaining a copy of public information shall be prominently displayed. The officer shall display the sign at one or more places in administrative offices of the City where it is plainly visible to members of the public who request public information in person and the sign shall be displayed Revised 2015-01-23 2 near City Employees whose duties include receiving or responding to public information requests. 3.2 Departments 3.2.1 Each Division Director and Department Head is an agent of the Public Information Officer for the purpose of complying with the Act's provisions. Each Division Director and Department Head is responsible for his or her departmental public information and for ensuring that requests for public information are handled in accordance with law and this policy and procedure. The term department shall refer to the Head of the Department, the Liaison(s) as defined in this policy, and any other City Employee so designated or responsible for responding to public information requests. 3.2.2 Department Heads shall appoint one or more Public Information Liaisons ("Liaisons") who will be responsible for responding to, processing and filling requests for public information, and working with the Legal Department in handling public information requests. The Department Head shall also ensure that, if the Public Information Liaison(s) is unavailable, at least one Department staff member with knowledge of the public information process and all requests that are submitted to the Department, is available to process the request and/or work with the Legal Department in handling public information requests. 3.2.3 Departments are responsible for organizing and maintaining both active and inactive information in a manner that maximizes the ready availability of the information, especially information that is likely to be the subject of repeated requests. 3.2.4 The Public Information Act does not require the creation of new information. Departments should only provide information that responds to the request and that exists at the time the request is received. If a Department does not have information that responds to a request, the Department shall certify that fact in writing to the requestor. 3.2.5 Departments are responsible for handling requests for public information according to the terms of this policy. 3.3 City Employees, Elected Officials and Appointed Officials 3.3.1 City Employees, Elected and Appointed Officials may not inquire into the purpose for which the information will be used or make other inquiry of a requestor except to establish proper identification; if information requested in unclear, the requestor may be asked to clarify the request; or if a large amount of information has been requested, the requestor may be asked how the scope of the request might be narrowed. Revised 2015-01-23 3 3.3.2 All City Employees, Elected Officials and Appointed Officials shall treat all requests for information uniformly without regard to the position or occupation of the requestor, the person on whom behalf the request is made, or the status of the individual as a member of the media. 3.4 Legal Department 3.4.1 The Legal Department reviews all written requests for public information forwarded by Departments to determine whether any portion of the requested information may fall under an exception according to the Public Information Act. 3.4.2 In order to determine whether information is confidential or excepted from disclosure under the law, the Legal Department may ask the Department for a copy of the requested information before the information is provided to the requestor. 3.4.3 The Legal Department may send a briefing to the Texas Attorney General, or otherwise correspond with the Attorney General's office according to the provisions and time allowances articulated in the Public Information Act. Decisions may be requested when information is confidential as defined by law, or when information may be excepted from disclosure under the Act. 3.4.4 The Legal Department provides guidance, as needed, on all requests for public information. 4. PROCEDURE 4.1 Receiving and Referring Requests 4.1.1 Written Requests. All requests must be received in writing. A written request includes a request made in writing that is sent by the requestor to any City Employee or Elected or Appointed official by hand delivery, regular mail, electronic mail, or facsimile transmission. Individuals contacting the City with verbal inquiries regarding public information should be advised to submit a written request. 4.1.2 Forwarding Requests. Any City Employee or Elected or Appointed official receiving a written request for information must forward it immediately to their Liaison. 4.1.3 Logging Requests. Departments are responsible for logging all requests received in the Public Information Center. 4.1.4 Assigned Requests. Departments are responsible for completely processing all assigned requests in the Public Information Center. Revised 2015-01-23 4 4.2 Processing Requests 4.2.1 General 4.2.1.1 Requests shall be handled promptly and in the order in which they are received. When the time to respond to a request will exceed ten (10) business days from the date of the original request, the Department shall follow the procedure below for requests requiring additional time. 4.2.1.2 All public information possessed by the City at the time of a request that is not otherwise excepted by law must be copied and/or made available for inspection within a reasonable amount of time after the request has been made. The difficulty or inconvenience involved in making this information available is not a factor in determining whether or not information shall be released. 4.2.1.3 The availability and volume of information requested affect what constitutes a reasonable period of time. For larger requests, the task of compilation is larger and more time consuming. If a large amount of information has been requested, Staff may discuss with the requestor how the scope of the request might be narrowed, and may provide a statement of additional time required to the requestor pursuant to Section 4.3 below. 4.2.2 Tracking Costs and Time 4.2.2.1 Departments are responsible for assessing, collecting, justifying, and reporting all charges associated with compiling and copying information in accordance with Section 4.1 below. 4.2.2.2 Departments shall keep records of labor involved in compiling all requested information so that proper charges can be assessed in accordance with Section 4.1 below. 4.2.2.3 Departments shall provide a cost estimate to the requestor for all requests estimated to total charges of $40 or more. 4.2.3 Initial Review 4.2.3.1 Departments shall review each assigned request to determine which information is responsive to the request. Departments shall identify the location of responsive information and contact City Staff as necessary to gather all responsive information. 4.2.3.2 If the request is unclear, vague, or overly broad, Departments shall follow the procedure below to request clarification. Revised 2015-01-23 5 4.2.3.3 If the Department determines that responsive information may also be located in another Department's records, the Liaison shall coordinate with other Department Liaison(s) according to the Public Information Center Guide. 4.2.4 Compiling Requested Information 4.2.4.1 After compiling requested information, the Department shall review the gathered information to determine if all requested information has been located, if the request will involve charges exceeding $40, and if the request involves sensitive or confidential information. 4.2.4.2 If the request yields responsive information that is sensitive or may be confidential, Departments shall send a copy of the information to the Legal Department before providing access or copies to the requestor in accordance with Section 4.5 below . If this occurs, Departments shall not provide access or copies to the requestor until the Legal Department has reviewed the information and determined that the information can be released. 4.2.5 Release of Requested Information 4.2.5.1 Once the Department determines all responsive information has been gathered, the Department shall prepare the information for release, including redacting certain standard confidential information according to the Public Information Center Guide. 4.2.5.2 Copies of requested information may be made available for pickup or may be mailed to the requestor by first class United States mail, provided that the requestor has paid all costs associated with copying, as well as postage costs, in advance or at the time of pickup. 4.2.5.3 The Department shall also maintain a copy of the released information according to the appropriate record retention schedule. 4.3 Charges for Public Information 4.3.1 Departments shall charge requestors as allowed by Cost Regulations Promulgated by the Office of the Attorney General. Departments shall consult the Public Information Cost Guide for sample charge calculations and additional information for special circumstances such as calculating personnel, programming and overhead charges. Revised 2015-01-23 6 4.3.2 Cost Estimates 4.3.2.1 If a request will result in a charge of more than $40.00, the Department shall provide the requestor a written itemized statement that details all the estimated charges. All itemized statements must inform the requestor of his or her duties to respond within the time required by law and the consequences for not timely responding. The itemized statement must also inform the requestor of his or her right to file a complaint for overcharging with the Office of the Attorney General in accordance with Section 552.269 of the Public Information Act. 4.3.2.2 If there is a less costly alternative to view the information, the notice shall inform the requestor to contact the Department about the alternate method. 4.3.2.3 If the requestor does not respond in writing to the itemized statement within 10 days after the statement is sent, the request is considered automatically withdrawn. 4.3.2.4 If the actual charges exceed the written itemized statement by 20% or more, the Department shall send the requestor an updated itemized statement. 4.3.3 Deposits When charges for copying are projected with certainty to exceed $100, a deposit of $100 shall be charged, and a receipt for this amount shall be given when the deposit is received. 4.3.4 Public Interest Information and Information Benefitting the General Public The Mayor, City Manager, or City Attorney may waive or reduce charges for public information if any of these parties determines that releasing the information is in the public interest and will benefit the general public. 4.4 Requests for Clarification. 4.4.1 All inquiries to the requestor for clarification or narrowing of a request shall be made in writing and may be sent via email or via facsimile transmission. 4.4.2 If the requestor's request included the requestor's physical or mailing address, the communication shall also be sent by certified mail to the requestor's physical or mailing address. 4.4.3 The communication must state that all responses to the inquiry must also be made in writing and returned to the City by mail, email, or via facsimile transmission Revised 2015-01-23 7 and that failure to respond in a timely manner may result in the request being considered withdrawn. 4.4.4 If the City does not receive a written response from the requestor by the 61 st day after the date the certified written request for clarification or narrowing is sent, the request is considered to have been withdrawn by the requestor. 4.5 Additional Time. If the requested information cannot be produced within 10 business days after the date the information is requested, the Public Information Liaison shall certify that fact in writing to the requestor and set a date and hour within a reasonable time when the information will be available. 4.6 Responding to Repetitious or Redundant Requests 4.6.1 If the City has previously provided the responsive information to the requestor, the Liaison may respond to a redundant request by certifying to the requestor that the information was previously furnished to the requestor or made available. The certification must include: a description of the information for which copies have been previously furnished or made available to the requestor; the date that the City received the requestor's original request for that information; the date that the City previously furnished copies of or made available copies of the information to the requestor; a certification that no subsequent additions, deletions, or corrections have been made to that information; and the name, title, and signature of the Public Information Liaison making the certification. 4.6.2 No Charge for Certifications. A requestor may not be charged for a certification letter. 4.7 Requests Requiring Legal Review 4.7.1 When it is not clear whether requested information is excepted from required disclosure by the Public Information Act, the Department shall consult with the Legal Department to determine whether the records in question should be withheld or released. 4.7.2 Departments seeking to withhold requested information must notify the Legal Department within 4 business days of the receipt of said request and provide a copy of responsive information to the Legal Department for review. 4.7.3 Attorney General Review. The Public Information Act excepts a number of categories of information from required disclosure. On determination by the Legal Department that requested information falls within one of these excepted categories, the Legal Department shall submit a request for a decision to the Revised 2015-01-23 8 Attorney General to confirm that such information shall be withheld from public disclosure. On determination by the Legal Department that that requested information does not fall within one of the excepted categories, the request shall be processed following the routine request procedures specified above.. 4.8 Requests for Information in an Electronic or Magnetic Medium 4.8.1 If public information exists in an electronic or magnetic medium, the requestor may request a copy either on paper or in an electronic medium, such as on diskette or magnetic tape. Departments shall provide a suitable copy in the requested medium if. (1) the City has the technological ability to produce a copy of the requested information in the requested medium; (2) the City is not required to purchase any software or hardware to accommodate the request; and (3) provision of a copy of the information in the requested medium will not violate the terms of any copyright agreement between the City and a third party. 4.8.2 If the Department is unable to comply with the request to produce a copy of information in a requested medium for any of the reasons described above, the Department must provide a paper copy of the requested information or a copy in another medium that is acceptable to the requestor. The City is not required to copy information onto a diskette or other material provided by the requestor. 4.9 Requests for Inspection of Public Information 4.9.1 Inspections of public information shall take place on -site in City offices. Departments shall provide facilities and accommodations to accomplish such inspections. 4.9.2 Persons requesting access to public information must complete examination of the information within 10 business days from the date the information is made available to them. This period may be extended an additional 10 business days provided the requestor, during the initial period, files a written request for additional time. If the requestor does not complete the examination within 10 business days after the information is made available, and does not file a request for additional time, the request is considered withdrawn. An additional 10 business days may be granted if, within the additional period, the requestor files a second written request for additional time. This examination period may be interrupted if the information is needed for use by the City. This period of interruption is not included in the time period during which persons may examine information. Revised 2015-01-23 9 4.10 Information Not Available in Requested Form If the Department determines that the requested information is not available in the specific requested form, the Department shall provide the requestor with a written statement stating that the information is not available in the requested form and a description of the form in which the information is available. 4.11 Information Available on City Website If requested information is available on the City's website, the Department may refer the requestor to the website and the requestor may agree to accept information on the website as fulfillment of the request. If the requestor does not agree, the Department has not fulfilled its obligation under State law and must provide the requestor with copies and/or inspection of the requested information. 4.12 News Media Requests Any City Employee or Elected or Appointed Official who receives a request from a representative of the news media shall notify and send a copy of the request to their respective Liaison, Department Head, and the Public Communications Manager. Revised 2015-01-23 10 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda January 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Public Safety Complex - Summit at The Rivery Project - Hughes Eminent Domain Suit Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Albertson's Building ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: