HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.10.2017 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 10, 2017
The Georgetown City Council will meet on October 10, 2017 at 3:00 PM at Council Chambers - 101
East 7th Street
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 three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTYusers route through Relay
Texas at 711.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Update on the progress of the Council Visioning Statement process -- Keith Hutchinson,
Communications Manager
B Update on the Fiscal Impact Model project -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Wayne
Reed, Assistant City Manager
C Presentation and discussion of the City's Comprehensive Planning Process -- Nat Waggoner,
AICP, Long Range Planning Manager and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
D Discussion and possible direction regarding the 3-hour downtown parking zone and 15-minute
parking zones -- Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
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
Sec.551.072: Deliberation About Real Property
-Parcel 15 (1603 Northwest Boulevard), Discussion of anAppraisal and Amended Offer, Rivery
Boulevard Extension Project -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
- Matter related to the granting of a Temporary Construction Easement, Rock and 9th Streets --
Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Work Plan
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Cat Update
Page 1 of 34
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Shelley Nowling, 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 , 2017, at
, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the
scheduled time of said meeting.
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 34
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 10, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update on the progress of the Council Visioning Statement process -- Keith Hutchinson, Communications Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
This is an update regarding the Council Visioning Statement process and progress. The City is working to create a
community vision statement for Georgetown, and Wendy Shabay with Freese and Nichols will present the results and
explain the process to date.
The project initiation began September 5th, and the first survey was conducted September 18th through September 23rd
We received 550 responses with words and phrases from this community survey, and these results were shared in
meetings with City Council members and during the Community Visioning Session held on September 27th. The second
survey was open from October 2nd through October 7th, in which respondents provided feedback on 22 phrases and the
results will be shared at this workshop to allow Council to review and begin to formulate a complete vision statement,
which will serve to help align the community's future direction and serve as a building block for City Council goal -
setting, updating the City's comprehensive plan, and future branding initiatives.
The Council may also discuss and finalize the vision statement, and begin setting the Council goals on November 1 It and
2nd
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY
Keith Hutchinson, Communications Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Visioning Presentation
Page 3 of 34
10/4/2017
Vision for Georgetown
City Council workshop
October 10, 2017
Vision Statement
Visioning objectives:
• City Council and community alignment on vision for
Georgetown
• Building block for City Council goal -setting
• First step in future branding initiatives and work on
update of the comprehensive plan
Page 4 of 34
1
10/4/2017
Vision Development Process
Project initiation and research
Sept. 5 - 23
Workshop with City Council
Sept. 12
Survey #1 via SurveyMonkey to
Sept. 18 - 23
community: 550 responses with words
and phrases
Use Survey #1 results in meetings with
Sept. 27
City Council members and community
workshop
Vision Development Process
Survey #2 via SurveyMonkey: XX
responses on 22 phrases
Oct. 2 - 7
Workshop with City Council to write
Oct. 10
vision statement
Workshop to finalize vision statement
Nov. 1 & 2
and start on Council goals
Page 5 of 34
10/4/2017
Vision Development Process
[Scores will be added after survey closes on Oct. 7]
Phrase Score (1 — 5)
Big city innovation
Green -growing -generous -good
Appreciates people, values history
Innovating for the future
Small city charm
Preserving our past
The most beautiful town square in Texas
Historic, small-town heart
A vibrant city with friendly people
Deeply -rooted history
Progressive and forward -thinking
Page 6 of 34
3
10/4/2017
Vision Development Process
[Responses will be added after survey closes on Oct. 7]
Other phrases from survey:
Vision Development Process
Vision statement ideas:
Page 7 of 34
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 10, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update on the Fiscal impact Model project -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background
The City Council identified expansion and diversification of the tax base as one of the City's strategic goals. Staff proposed a project in the 2017 budget
to build a Fiscal impact Model (FDA), which would objectively predict costs and revenue impacts associated with development proposals and citywide
growth development patterns. hi addition, it can be an effective tool for financial planning. The Council budgeted $120,000 for this project and, after a
competitive procurement process, approved a contract with TischlerBise in January.
This project seeks to enhance the City's ability to calculate the financial impact of development projects and land use policies as well as enhance long
range financial planning. The Fiscal Impact Model is a tool to assist staff and City Council understand how individual decisions impact Georgetown's
long-term fiscal sustainability. The model can be used when evaluating various land use decisions, such as annexations, rezonings, site development plans,
municipal utility districts, and financial incentive proposals. It can estimate the costs of providing services, such as street maintenance, public safety,
utilities, and other services, to new residential and commercial development. It will also predict additional revenues that are expected as a result of
projects. This information will provide Council additional information to consider when evaluating development and growth decisions in addition to other
factors.
This tool will be beneficial to long range budgetary and financial planning as well. It can assist in evaluating revenue projections, capital improvement
programming, levels of service changes, and operational and maintenance budgets. The model can be updated and used by existing City staff as projects
come in to be analyzed and during the annual budget process once completed.
It is also important to acknowledge that fiscal issues are only one aspect of evaluating development and growth trends. Environmental, land use, quality of
the development, jobs/housing balance, transportation, education, and other issues should also be taken into consideration when determining land use -
related policies and direction for the City.
Explanation of Fiscal Impact Analysis
The presentation will provide a higher level of detail and discussion.
Costs:
The approach of the Fiscal impact Model is to project future expenses using current levels of service. A"snapshot approach" is used in which it is assumed
the current level of service, as funded in the current City budget and as provided in current capital facilities, will continue through the analysis period.
Demand base data is used to calculate per unit costs and service level thresholds. Examples of demand base data include population, public school
enrollment, dwelling units, employment by type, vehicle trips, etc. No judgment is made as to whether the levels of service are adequate, inadequate, or
better than adequate. Nor are any assumptions made regarding changes in levels of service or revenue sources.
The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection period. Cost and revenue projections are in constant 2017 dollars. This assumption is
in accord with budget data and avoids the difficulty of speculating on inflation rates and their effect on cost and revenue categories. It also avoids the
problem of interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars over an extended period of time. In general, including inflation is complicated and
unpredictable. This is particularly the case given that some costs, such as salaries, increase at different rates than other operating and capital costs such as
contractual and building construction costs. And these costs, in turn, almost always increase in variation to the appreciation of real estate, thus affecting
the revenue side of the equation. Using constant dollars avoids these issues.
The General Fund is the main cost center along with Special Revenue Funds (with FTEs) and Joint Service Funds of the Fiscal impact Model. Costs that
are exclusively supported by restricted funding or in enterprise funds are not included in the analysis as they are assumed to be wholly sustained by the
respective funding sources.
Revenues:
Revenues are projected assuming the current revenue structure and rates, as defined by the FY2017 City of Georgetown Budget. (The model will be
updated annually with each adopted budget.) The Return on Investment to the City is included. Property taxes and sales taxes are analyzed based upon
current tax rates (i.e. does not predict future tax rate increases).
Development Analysis
Seven Fiscal Analysis Zones (FAZ) have been identified in the City's growth area. These zones are identified on the attached FAZ Map. Future
development was forecasted based upon historical rates of development, anticipated growth based upon approved (and potential) development plans, and
availability of infrastructure.
Land Use Prototypes were categorized as follows and average values have been calculated based upon key comparable units in the community using data
from the Williamson Central Appraisal District.
Residential:
Single-family Detached Starter (SFDS)
Single-family Detached Middle (SFDM)
Singel-family Detached Estate (SFDE)
Page 8 of 34
6mgie-ramuy lietacneaAge tcestrictea ��)rijAK)
Single-family Attached/Condos
Multi -family
Non-residential:
Class AOffice (mid- and high-rise)
Class AOffice: Medical/Healthcare (includes direct services to patients)
Class B Office (small foot print (<_ 10,000 sq. ft, single story)
Class B Office medium foot print (>10,000 sq. ft up to 25,000 sq. ft. and sometimes 2 story)
Light Industrial (Flex Space ): (offices, light assembly and production assumes warehouse characteristics for trip rates and number of employees)
Industrial: Transportation/Manufacturing/Etc...
Retail: Neighborhood Retail
Retail: Community Retail
Retail: Downtown
Retail: Restaurants
Lodging: Limited Services
Lodging: Full service
Summary:
The model estimates the costs of providing services, such as street maintenance, public safety, and other general services, to new residential and
commercial development, as well as the associated revenues to the City from the expected development.
As stated earlier, it is also important to acknowledge that fiscal issues are only one aspect of evaluating development and growth trends. Environmental,
land use, quality of the development, jobs/housing balance, transportation, education, economic development, and other factors should also be taken into
consideration when determining land use -related policies and direction for the City.
Next Steps
With GGAF and Council feedback on the FTM methodology, TischlerBise and staff will finalize the model and key staff across the organization will be
trained on the use. The following is a summary of next steps:
Continue review of methodologies and draft outputs with City staff
Update model with City's FY18 budget
Discuss reporting needs/modify model as needed
Develop policy/procedures on data control and integrity
Test Project Level Model with recent development project
Finalize and deliver models and user manual
Conduct staff training
Present additional updates to GGAF and City Council
TischlerBise will remain on -call to provide additional expertise when high impact and/or complex projects are proposed (as needed).
The GGAF reviewed the model methodology at their September 27, 2017 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
FAZ Map
FIM Presentation
Page 9 of 34
EST 1848
GEORGETOWN
TEXAS
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
FISCAL ANALYSIS ZONES
GR/
FMB
2
�7,
FMB
LIMMER LOOP
�CygNo`FR
RO
E SHi
FISCAL ANALYSIS ZONE
2
5
- 6
7
THIS MAP IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE
INFORMATION CURRENTLY HELD BY THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS.
WHILE EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE
TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE PRODUCT,
G.U.S. MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING
THE VERACITY OR PRECISION OF THE
INFORMATION DEPICTED OR THE DATA FROM
WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED AND ASSUMES NO
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES DUE TO ERRORS OR
OMISSIONS. THIS MAP IS NOT SUITABLE
FOR SURVEY PURPOSES.
AUGUST, 2017
0
Page 10 of 34
RM%
r
v
O 0.75 1.5
MILES
3
10/3/2017
�„eC N p� MINNESOiPf� � �� w�yp a�a\
Fiscal Impact Models
City of Georgetown, Texas
Briefing to Georgetown City Council
October 10, 2017
TischlerBise
V SCAL E00NOW- I FLMNNG
Presentation Outline
o Purpose of and differences in models
o Use of models
o Structure and design of models
• Fiscal Analysis Zones
o Key assumptions of the models
o Sample results
o Next steps
Page 11 of 34 1
10/3/2017
Purpose of and Differences in Models
o Improve ability to evaluate fiscal impact of policy,
budgetary, financial, and land use decisions
o Two Models:
• Citywide Growth Model: Evaluate the fiscal impact of
citywide growth at macro level; and
• Project Level Model: Evaluate the fiscal impact of
development proposals/projects at micro level
T6-_ch_W_r1km 3
Use of Models
o Multiple scenarios allow testing and comparing
• Property values
• Timing
• Type of land uses
o Inform land use decisions and test "what if"
alternatives
o Test and compare potential financial incentives
o Plan for short- and long-term operational and
capital improvement impacts
o Help meet City Planning, Financial, and Economic
Development goals
4
Page 12 of 34 2
10/3/2017
Project Approach and Influencing Factors
o Use City current levels of service as reflected in current
budget
• Supplemented with departmental interviews and data
analysis
• Current levels of service supplemented with CIP for capital
o Model current revenue structure
• Sources and distribution formulas, where appropriate
o Use characteristics of new development as drivers
• Population, employment, property values
o Allocate ETJ development assumed in City
T6-_ch_W_r1km 5
Design of Models
o Developed in Excel and Visual Basic
• Allows for flexible application
— Easily modified
— Additional modules can be integrated at a later date
• Transparent structure avoids "black box" concerns
— Data, assumptions, algorithms fully shown
o User input of development project/growth
assumptions
• By sub -area of City (Fiscal Analysis Zones)
6
Page 13 of 34 3
10/3/2017
Fiscal
Analysi
Zones
s
7
2
4
a
A All
%;
10
Tes Wr&se
Citywide Model: Growth Summary
NGLE FAMILY
15,616
-CITYSI
CITY MULTIFAMILY
7,261
TOTAL CITY UNITS
22,877
CITY POPULATION
56,795
ETJ POPULATION
69,711
NONRESIDENTIAL:
CITY RETAILSF
2,787,635
CITY OFFICE SF
1,284,210
CITY INDUSTRIAL SF
953,204
CITY INSTITI-ITIONAL SF
928,721
TOTAL CITY SF
5,953,770
CITY JOBS
]5,124
ETJ JOBS
16,927
■CITY CUMUL RESIDENTIAL REALTAXABLE VALUE
$3,695, 121,907
CITY CUMUL NONRESIDENTIAL REAL TAXABLEVALUE
$503,663,611
CITY CUMUL NONRESIDENTIAL PERSONALTAXABLE VALUE
$201,465,444
CITY CUMULATIVE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE
$4,400,250,962
T ischlerEu se
Page 14 of 34 4
10/3/2017
Project Level Model:
Project Inputs
Number of units
Type of housingunits
Total number of units
absorbed each
year
Single-family Detached St—, SFDS)
20 20
Single-family Detached Middle (SFDM)
1W 1W
Single-family Detached Estate (SFDE)
10 10
Single-family Detached Age Restricted (SFOAR)
W 50
Single-family Attached/Condos
JO ?O
Multi-fami
Number of
Land use type Total square
feet
squarefeet
absorbed each
Retail: Neighborhood Retail
2,000
2,OW
Retail: Community Retail
5,000
5,000
Retail: Downtown
10,=i
301000
Project Parameters
Retail: Restaurant
15,=)
15,000
FAZ [Dropdown Select]
FAZ 1
Office (Mid -and High -Rise)
20,=)
20,000
Inside City Limits?
Yes
Office: Medical/Healthcare
250,=)
250,000
Served by City Fire?
Yes
W =i
30,000
Inside Water Service Area?
No
ss B Office (510,OOD sq. ft)
35,=)
35,000
Inside Wastewater Service Area? No lass B Offlce (>lO,flOD sq. ft.)
Inside Electric Service Areal
NO
I Light Industrial (FIe Space)
40,000
40,000
Industrial: Transportation/Manufacturing
45,000
45,000
W,000
50,000
Industrial: Storage/Warehouse
Lodging: Limited service
W,000
W,000
70,000
70,000
Lodging: Full service
WOW
80,000
T
✓crl a>•e: ���� Institutional
City of Georgetown Funds Included
o General Fund
o Special Revenue Funds: Non -restricted and used
for growth -related purposes
• Street Maintenance Tax
• Paramedic
• Conservation
• PEG Fee
• Note: Revenues for CVB/Tourism, GTEC, and GEDCO are
projected separately.
o Joint Services Fund
o Capital Funds: Dedicated mill levy
>> Enterprise Funds or funds with restricted uses are
not modeled
T' se 10
Page 15 of 34 5
10/3/2017
Operating Assumptions
o Major revenues are driven by property values, retail sales
per square foot; all variable revenues projected
o ROI and franchise revenues derived based on projected
growth in customers for each utility
o Operating expenditures driven by demand from:
• Population: Household size rates applied to housing units
• Employment: Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
• Vehicle Trips: Trip rates by type of land use applied to residential and
nonresidential development
• Public safety calls for service: Fire/EMS and Police allocation by
residential/nonresidential development and traffic, then applied to
growth projections.
• Increase in City FTEs
• Direct operating impact from new lane miles, facilities, (e.g., Library
branch) or apparatus (e.g., Fire Engine)
T6—ch—W—r&m 11
Citywide Model: Capital Approach
o Full facilities are triggered when level of service
thresholds are triggered
o Public facility categories include:
• Streets
• Parks and Recreation
• Fire and EMS
• Police and Animal Control
• Library
• General Government
o Vehicle purchase costs reflect initial cost as well as
replacement costs after useful life is reached
(varies by type of vehicle)
Tisch188 12
Page 16 of 34 6
10/3/2017
Project Level Model: Capital Approach
o Pro -rated share of costs included in model
• Capital projects are pro -rated to reflect development's fair share (e.g.,
portion of a park; portion of a vehicle)
• Geographic triggers built in (e.g., Fire Stations)
o Categories and components are same as Citywide
Model
o Vehicle purchase costs reflect initial costs and
replacement costs and are pro -rated
T'�m
13
Page 17 of 34 7
10/3/2017
Sample
Results: Citywide Growth Model
Cum uiative (20-Year) Net Fiscal Impacts
Georgetown Fiscal Impact Analysis
sm4mo
smomo
smonoo
'
5�o,oao
0
5alo,oao
5mo,oao
so
si�o.oml
Scenario l: CITYWIDE TRENDS
■Revenues ■Expenditures ■Net Fiscallmpact
Tine
15
Sample Results: Project Level Charts
1 fISCAI IMRACTRRULR�SUMMMYCH11R14
1 SfE to cwpmlS sTEST YRo1ECT1
E�
L�LLRyY
LrYf,l
n
;,
H
a
:.N:
SNYL
sNYs
suui
so
b
Y
so
so
so
M—.l o,—, Fuld R.—
p■ sm"
W
??� '.TTTTTTTTTTIIIIIII_ITVI
Page 18 of 34
10/3/2017
Sample Results: Tables
r cicral (WPACT. Cumuictive Results
IULATIVE - Scenarlo Comparisons
SCENARIO
Scena io l: CITYWIDE
TRENDS
Scenario2Ci[ywide
Scenario3Ci[ywide
Category
Totol
REVENUES
I I I I
OPERATING EXPENDITURE DETAIL
Cumulative Operating Expenditures Detail -Scenario Comparisons (g$1,000)
SCENARIO
Scenario 1:
Scenario
Scenario
Cate o
CITYWIDETRENDS
City -id.
%
Citywide
%
O107-PLANNING
$2,990,011
1%
O%
D"/
D202- PARKS ADMINISTRATION
$1,083,357
O%
O'%
D%
0210-LIBRARY
$10,837,518
4%
O%
0%
0211- PARKS MAINTENANCE
$14,165,748
6%
O%
0%
0212-RECREATION
$24,550,260
10%
0%
0%
0213-TEN NISCENTER
$0
0%
0%
`XA
0214- RE CREATION PROGRAMS
$13,110,670
5%
O%
O%
0218-ARTS &CULTURE
$O
0%
0%
0%
0316-MUNICIPALCOURT
$308, 1"
0%
O%
0%
0402-FIRESUPPORTSERVICES
$2,348,064
1%
O%
0%
0422- FI RE EMERGEN CY SERVICES
$71,1T6,281
28%
0%
0%
0533-SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING SER
$0
0%
0%
`XA
0536-INSPECTIONS
$O
0%
O%
0%
'02- MA NAGEMENTSVSADMIN
$O
0%
O%
0%
0634-CITYCOUNCIL
$O
0%
0%
0%
0635-CITY SECRETARY
$1,268,030
1%
0%
`XA
0638-GENGOVTCONTRACTS
So
0"/
O%
0%
0655-PUB LICCOMMUNICATIONS
$660,235
09G
O%
0%
O702- POLICEADMINISTRATION
$3,235,060
1%
0%
0%
OT42- PO LI CE OPERATIONS
$50,909,243
20%
0%
O'/o
07" ANIMAL SERVICES
$7,313,493
3%
O%
0%
O745-CO DEENFORCEMENT
$3,550,841
1%
O%
0%
0802- PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN
$2,192,509
1%
0%
0%
0846-STREETS
$93,T38,850
1T%
0%
TOTAL $283,9is,336 100% $D o%1 SD O%
1-1 Mode11-1 —rw,oE
Next Steps
■ Continue review of methodologies and draft outputs
with City staff; update model with FY18 budget
■ Discuss reporting needs/modify model as needed
■ Develop policy/procedures on data control and integrity
■ Test Project Level Model with recent development
project
■ Finalize and deliver models and user manual
■ Conduct staff training
■ Present additional updates to GGAF and City Council
18
Page 19 of 34 9
10/3/2017
Wrap -Up
■ Questions and discussion
■ Thankyou
Tsce
MINNEWT • _ yp YC
I �(
M
-.4, J r�
www.tischierbise.com
TischlerBise
FISCAL ECOF40MC I PLANNNG
Page 20 of 34 10
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 10, 2017
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion of the City's Comprehensive Planning Process -- Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning
Manager and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
On January 26, 2016 the City Council directed staff to review the City's gateway corridors and overlay districts and to
develop options for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. In April 2016, staff provided Council an update of the City's
gateway corridors and overlay districts and reviewed the City's past long range planning efforts, including a summary of
the City's past comprehensive planning efforts. Staff also presented Council with options for the Comprehensive Plan
update ranging from (1) a cursory data refresh, to (2) an in-depth update to (3) a total reconstruction of the Plan. Council
elected to pursue an in-depth update and directed staff to develop a Fiscal Year 2018 budget request.
Staff has scoped a program to complete the Council's objectives of an update of the 2030 Plan which will align current
development processes including the emerging Fiscal Impact Model, approved departmental plans, and deliver an updated
Future Land Use Map, Housing Element and Gateway Plan. Included in the programming are strategies to align Council's
stated goals and vision with the Comprehensive Plan implementation plan in a format that is useful to staff, the
boards/commissions and the general public alike.
Presentation Overview:
During the October 10, 2017 City Council workshop, staff will provide City Council an overview of the current
comprehensive plan including a review of the critical comprehensive plan elements and a review of the draft schedule.
Staff will seek the following direction and feedback from City Council:
1. Staff is seeking to confirm the strategic focuses City Council has provided in previous workshops and long range
planning conversations (implementation centric approach, council involvement, public engagement and fiscal
alignment).
2. How does City Council define success for the comprehensive plan? Success of the process leading towards an
updated comprehensive plan and use of an updated comprehensive plan.
3. Direction on options for community input and Council involvement;
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All Comprehensive Plan activities were approved in the FYI 8 budget process.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP
Page 21 of 34
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 10, 2017
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction regarding the 3-hour downtown parking zone and 15-minute parking zones -- Jackson
Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
In an effort to support and encourage businesses beyond the core downtown square, and as part of an ongoing effort to
ensure sufficient and available parking downtown, staff is suggesting expanding the 3-hour parking zone to include
additional portions of Main Street, 8th Street, and Church Street. These include both sides of Main Street between 9th and
1 Oth Street, both sides of 8th Street between Rock and MLK Streets, and the west side of Church Street between 8th and
9th Streets.
This extension of the 3-hour parking zone is primarily to accommodate businesses beyond the core of the downtown
square. Downtown Georgetown remains a touchstone in the local economy, and as downtown continues to grow in value
and popularity, existing resources will need to be managed to ensure ample parking for residents and visitors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Existing resources will be used to mark the affected parking spots and install new signage.
SUBMITTED BY
Jackson Daly
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Downtown 3-hour Parking Zone Map
Page 22 of 34
Downtown 3-hour and 15-minute
Parking Zones
City Council
October 10, 2017
EST.1848
G EORGETOWN
TEXAS
Purpose
• Staff is seeking direction from Council on
whether or not to extend the Downtown Parking
3 Hour and 15 Minute Parking Zones
City Council can direct staff to extend designated
parking zones in downtown or to leave them
unchanged
EST.1848
G EORGETOWN
TEXAS
EST.1848
G EORGETOWN
TEXAS
Agenda
• Review Existing 3-hour Parking Zone
• Review Proposed Expansion of Zone
• Review Proposed Changes to Ordinance
EST.1848
G EORGETOWN
TEXAS
Background
• Ensure appropriate turnover in downtown
• In-house enforcement beginning this year
• Request to extend zone from businesses
as part of sidewalk projects, business
needs, or complaints
EST.1848
G EORGETOWN
TEXAS
F,
01
3 Hour Parking
1-7— Existing
Proposed Addition
J,
TT
M4 oil
W-T I
VA
oil
'__F AM
oil-1E17-T-H-S.
40
tv
LL
In
J!
-E 8TH ST-/
z W 8TH ST
A
0,
40
E-9TH, ST.
-W-9TH-S;T 0, 7.
1ATMT
Page 28 of
Proposed Addition:
8th Street between Rock and MLK
EST. 1848
G EO RG ETOWN
TEXAS
Proposed Addition:
Main Street between gth and loth
[ST.11148
G EO RG ETOWN
TEXAS
Proposed Addition:
Church Street between 8th and gin
;f*
[ST.11148
G EO RG ETOWN
TEXAS
0
Proposed Changes to Ordinance
9 Amend 3-hour Zone
— Main Street betweengthand 10tn
_ gtn Street between Rock and MLK
— Church Street between 8thandgth
Allow for 15-minute parking zones
— Recommendation of parking study
— Case -by -case basis
f ST. 11411
GEORGETOWN
TEXAS
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONES
�EGEl 1D
�• rtt , /^
<
V/
r Li 0 11
�j k
� � 3 Parking
Hour 'n
I
w Existing
O
LU F . F E = m
n
p� z� +� Proposed Addition
LL .4 a
maim
k
3Te .
:
.^_
e a
d
>ch-
--I
- —
' aE 8TH ST
D W"8TH ST N ;
=- + _
Al fj
z
c
O
m /loll II
'A 4-4111-
Z _ i THIS MAP IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE
INFORMATION CURRENTLY HELD BY THE
ar W9THST -WHILE EVERY EFFORT HAS
- -i CITY OF GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
EEN MADE
W-9TH ST , _ - - — G.U.S. G
-. TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OFBTHE PRODUCT,
THE
- -
�r# y - � ,'� U $ MAKES NO WARRANTIES REGARDING
VERACITY PRECISION INFORMATION DEPICTED OR THE DATA FROM
WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED AND ASSUMES NO
BIL TY FOR DAMAGES DUE
ERRORS
11
LI OMISSIONS. THIS MAP IS NOT OSUITABLE
OR
. Y
Af, „e.. - -- - , �I► FOR SURVEY PURPOSES.
OC'rOBER, 2017
Of
17
ki.�
1:1 550
1
-
O 50 100 2 0
i I
GEORGETOW N , �' 4k� ' r,�'. OFEET
�i'
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
October 10, 2017
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
Sec.551.072: Deliberation About Real Property
-Parcel 15 (1603 Northwest Boulevard), Discussion of an Appraisal and Amended Offer, Rivery Boulevard Extension
Project -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
- Matter related to the granting of a Temporary Construction Easement, Rock and 9th Streets -- Travis Baird, Real Estate
Services Coordinator
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Work Plan
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Cat Update
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 34 of 34