The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes_GUS_06.15.2004 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 15, 2004 The Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , June 15, 2004. Board Members Present: Doug Smith, Patty Eason, Robert Kostka, Larry Brown, Jack Hunnicutt (Arrived @ 2:03), Kendall Young (Arrived @ 2:05) Board Members Absent: John Gavurnik Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Laura Wilkins, Jana Kern, Joel Weaver, Tom Benz, Glenn Dishong, Mark Miller, Rachel Osgood OTHERS PRESENT: John Kirby, Bob Felton Minutes Regular Meeting Meeting called to order at 2:01 p.m. by Doug Smith REGULAR AGENDA A. Approval of the minutes from the regular Board meeting held on May 18, 2004. Jana Kern/Laura Wilkins DISCUSSION: None ACTION: Motion by Eason, seconded by Kostka, to approve the minutes from May 18, 2004. Approved 4-0 (Absent Gavurnik, Hunnicutt and Young not present at time of the vote. BOARD MOVED TO ITEM C AT THIS TIME B. Review of the Construction Progress Report and timelines (including but not limited to items listed). Joel Weaver DISCUSSION:Weaver gave update on the projects. 13th Street to begin around June 21, 2004. Neighborhood meeting held last week. Notice of this meeting was posted in the Williamson County Sun, we also hung door hangers. H. Deck is the contractor for this and they are familiar with how we do things and how complicated it can get. They also are aware that they need to keep the residents informed and involved. There will be some ERAZ dollars spent on this project as well as 1/4 cent dollars. Airport Road Rehab is about 95% complete on Engineering - Should be ready for bid by the end of June. Smith asked for a sign to designate end of City limit/project. Country Club/Rivery Re-use Line is about 99% complete. We now have the capability to delivery water to the Country Club. Jennings Branch - Painting should start this week - on track for project. Berry Creek Wastewater Plant Is on schedule for the new site, waiting for delivery of pumping items etc., but scheduled for completion October 2004. At the Old Site: On Thursday, June 10, 2004 around 5:30 p.m.while the construction crew were still on site, there was a structural concrete failure. The basin wall moved outward about 3-4 inches due to a crack in the concrete foundation. Entire tank emptied onto the site, about 100,000 gall ons. The construction crew build berms for containment, then they started cleanup and repair. At about 4:30 a.m., berm broke and we lost about 30,000 of sewage. Wastewater service to residents of Berry Creek continued via pump trucks. The Plant was repaired and returned to service Friday, June 11, 2004 around 2:30 p.m. Q by Eason: What impact did this have on Berry Creek? A. by Dishong: We did biological sampling before and after and it appeared to have not impact on the creek at all. Q. by Young: Are there other remedies necessary to take to ensure we have no other problems? A. by Brandenburg/Dishong/Benz: This tank will be closed when new plant opens in October 2004. We might look at root cause but the aeration basin will be removed but the clarifier will stay in place. We will also be submitting an insurance claim to see if we can get anything back from the damage. ACTION: None BOARD MOVED TO ITEM "D" AT THIS TIME C. Consideration and possible recommendation of award for construction of Smith Branch Wastewater Interceptor Phase III. Glenn Dishong DISCUSSION: Glenn gave update of this project. Staff recommends award of this bid to McLean Construction Ltd. Q. by Kostka: What happens if the bidding is incorrect. A. by Weaver: We will only pay what was bid. Dishong add if there are any cost savings it will benefit the City. Q. by Smith: What is logic for setting the contingency at 15%? A. by Weaver: I don't feel that we will need this high of a contingency. This is one project that we could not afford not to have enough contingency to complete quickly, and did not want to go back to Council. Q. by Kostka: Will the existing sewer lines be abandoned once the new lines are in place? A. by Benz: Not all of the lines will be abandoned. ACTION: Motion by Eason, seconded by Kostka, to recommend bid award to McLean Construction Ltd. Approved 6-0 (Gavurnik absent) BOARD MOVED BACK TO ITEM "B" AT THIS TIME D. Consideration and possible recommendation of award of a contract for the 2004 Overlay Project to H. Deck Construction Company. Mark Miller DISCUSSION: Miller gave an update of this project. Q by Brown: How is the difference going to allocated? Bid of $623,558.40 with a budget of $685,915.00 where is the difference to be spent? A by Miller: Any type of contingency. Weaver also added - the only contingency could be for utilities, road crossings for water services that may be very shallow. Q by Young: Do we use this type of cost for all curb and gutter projects? A by Miller: Anytime you have a road way that is in fair condition - meaning if your sub-grade has not been breeched to a point of total failure. This is the way to do it. ACTION: Motion by Eason, seconded by Brown, to recommend award of bid to H. Deck Construction Co. in the amount of $685,915.00. Approved 6-0 (Absent: Gavurnik) E. Consideration and possible recommendation of award of the City's annual Flexible Base Material ASTM Sand & 3/8" Rock & Sandy Loam Bid No, 24023. Mark Miller/Glenn Dishong DISCUSSION: Miller gave and update on this project. Q by Eason why were there so many "No Bidders & No Response" is this standard. A by Miller: Because we do not purchase very large quantities. ACTION: Motion by Brown, seconded by Eason, to recommend award of the bid as recommended by staff. Approve 6-0 (Absent: Gavurnik) F. Review and possible recommendation for offsite utility construction cost sharing agreement between the City and Cottonwood Creek Development, LLC. Glenn Dishong DISCUSSION: Dishong explained the item. This is the inaugural attempt at utilizing the line extension policy previously approved by the Board (last year). Developers are required to extend Utilities (water, wastewater & drainage) to their properties at full cost to the developer and in accordance with 5 yr, 10 yr or the master plan.C ity may participate, in the cost, if the line is oversized for future use and it is in the 5 year plan. Example: 6200' water line that runs out Inner Loop - Cottonwood Creek Engineers gave us their cost estimate of $554,502 compare what they need - 10" line vs 16" line - ratio of cross sectional area of the pipe is leaving the City paying 61% of the bill. Q by Smith: That is not how I understood this. I thought City would be paying the marginal cost not the pro-rated cost? Capacity cost vs Constr uction cost. A by Dishong: Both options are available to us. I choose variable cost because at this time it is easier to figure the cost. We are signing up for costs two years into the future. Under the plan they would have to bid this out using both sizes then take the differentials. Kostka - Would like a comparison of incremental method vs the other marginal cost volume metric costs. Eason - Would help to know the costs that would be Pinnacles responsibility to know when the City could make up some of the costs. ACTION: Motion by Brown, seconded by Hunnicutt, That we agree in concept at what is being presented but strike the last paragraph. We also agree that what ever the construction cost difference is the City will cost participate. Approved 6-0 (Absent: Gavurnik) Motion by Young, seconded by Eason, to adjourn meeting. Approved 6-0 (Absent: Gavurnik) Meeting adjourned at 3:31 p.m. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Board Member Name Secretary