HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.12.2014 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
AUGUST 12, 2014
The Georgetown City Council will meet on AUGUST 12, 2014 at 3:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at 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.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy Update -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and
Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
B Presentation and direction to staff on developing a resolution to initiate the expansion of the
Downtown Overlay District and Downtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone to support continued
public and private investment in the District -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
C Planning Department Study and Business Plan - - Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
D Public Hearing on the proposed 2014 Property Tax Rate -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
E Discussion and possible direction regarding suggested Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments
to include in the 2014-2016 UDC amendment process -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principle Planner and
Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
F Staff presentation and overview of the draft Operating Agreement for the Georgetown Art Center,
between Georgetown Art Works and the City of Georgetown -- Eric Lashley, Library Director and
Laurie Brewer, Assistant 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.
G 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
- Discussion regarding a Settlement Agreement between CTSUD, City of Leander, and City of
Georgetown related to CTSUD CCN 11590 TCEQ Docket 2014-0437-UCR. - - Bridget Chapman,
City Attorney, Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities and Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director
- Wolf Ranch/Hillwood
- Airport Issues - Aero Centex
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project NAFTA
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 _________________, 2014, 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
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy Update -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and
Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this workshop item is to provide presentation and recommendations to City Council and elicit
feedback relative to the following 4 items:
1. Review the City's area of jurisdiction, growth predictions and role in shaping the direction of the 130
square mile area contained in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ);
2. Review existing MUD creation criteria codified in the UDC, describe experience with existing MUDs
and outline issues for Council discussion in this workshop;
3. Describe pending and expected MUD applications that have been or that are anticipated to be filed
with the City to provide context for the issues discussed in the workshop; and
4. Propose recommendations that would be codified to guide future administration of requested MUDs.
Action items will be docketed for Council at later meetings pursuant to any direction received in this
workshop. Such items may include:
1. Establishment of appropriate criteria for MUD requests;
2. Updated application submittal requirements and fees; and
3. A sector-based work program.
This item was previously scheduled for the July 22, 2014 but was moved to August 12 to facilitate additional
time for budget related discussions. The attached summary memo has been updated since that time and
therefore a redline version has been included to indicate updates.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None, policy discussion only. Follow up items may have fiscal or resource impacts.
SUBMITTED BY:
Micki Rundell and Andrew Spurgin
ATTACHMENTS:
Ultimate boundary map
Summary memo - clean
Summary memo - redline
Cover Memo
Item # A
±0 3,100 6,200 9,300 12,4001,550 Feet
1 inch = 12,3 48 f eet
Lege nd
map.GTO WN .U ltimateBndry
CITY_NAME
ET J
Rivers
Streets
Name
GEOR GETOW N
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # A
1
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 22, 2014, with revision for August 12, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
Through: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
From: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
Subject: Municipal Utility District (MUD) Issues
The purposes of this memo and workshop are as follows:
First, to provide background on the City’s area of jurisdiction, growth predictions and
City Council’s role in shaping this direction through extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
management.
Second, to provide a general overview of the City’s existing MUD creation policy (which
was originally adopted in 2006 and is codified in Chapter 13.10 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC)), describe existing MUDs in the City’s jurisdiction, and
briefly describe the issues that are the focus of this workshop.
Third, to describe currently pending and expected MUD applications that have been or
are anticipated to be filed with the City to provide context for discussion of the issues
addressed in this memo.
Finally, to propose adoption of specific recommendations that would be codified either
in amendments to Chapter 13.10 of the UDC or the Development Manual (as
appropriate).
Section I
BACKGROUND
The City of Georgetown currently has approximately 52 square miles of City Limits and 130
square miles of ETJ, cumulatively 182 square miles. The ETJ, by operation of law, is the area
intended for urbanization and ultimately annexation by the City and therefore must be planned
in a manner to allow for the future extension of city services in an efficient manner, for example
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 21
Item # A
2
with water lines that will allow safe fire flows. The Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan was
prepared to as a guidance tool as the City heads toward a forecasted population of 101,000
inside City Limits in anticipation of future annexations.
A September 24, 2013 City Council workshop included a population allocation exercise to
account for roughly 21,000 new residential units assuming existing development trends
yielding 5 single family dwelling units per acre and 24 multi‐family units per acre continue at
the existing 80:20 ratio, meaning roughly 3,520 acres of addition territory is necessary to annex
to the city limits. The Council was split into 2 workgroups to map out potential locations for
the new development, which in turn led to discussion among Council on the need for an
appropriate update to City annexation and MUD policies.
Alternatives to the need to house 50,000 additional population without annexation of 3,520
acres would be to allow more dense residential development, such as multifamily and/or allow
more “infill” development on vacant tracts abutting existing neighborhoods. Staff believes that
the strategies of increased density and infill alone are not viable alternatives to housing 50,000
additional residents when considered in the context of recent policy discussions with City
Council on the location and scale of multifamily and when considered with community
sentiments over recent proposals to establish “infill” development on tracts abutting existing
neighborhoods. The Planning Department will bring forward an updated Annexation Plan to
allow additional City Council consideration on the location and timing of future annexations
programs, at that time a formal updated MUD policy will be brought forward to better consider
disposition of the 130 square mile ETJ.
Section II
EXISTING UDC CHAPTER 13.10 AND EXISTING MUDS
A. CHAPTER 13.10 – Chapter 13.10 of the UDC, adopted in 2006, is entitled “Creation of
Special Districts” and has the following six sections:
Section 13.10.010 – Purpose and Intent
Section 13.10.020 – Definitions
Section 13.10.030 – Prerequisites to Consent to Creation of a District
Section 13.10.040 – Staff Analysis
Section 13.10.050 – Conditions to the City’s’ Consent to Creation of a District
Section 13.10.060 – City Operations Compensation Fee
A copy of Chapter 13.10 is attached to this memo as Attachment 1. The particular sections that
are the subject of this workshop are Sections 13.10.030, .040, and .050.
B. SECTION 13.10.030 “PREREQUISITES” – Section 13.10.030 of the UDC sets forth two
threshold issues for the City Council to evaluate prior to the creation of a MUD:
(1) whether the area proposed to be included in a MUD is in an area that the City
intends to annex (i.e., whether the area is within the City’s “”ultimate city limits
boundary” [shown with red line in map below]); and
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 21
Item # A
3
(2) whether the City intends to provide water and wastewater services to the area
within 4 ½ years.
If the answer to both questions (1) and (2) is “no,” then the City Council may consider a
MUD creation petition for the area and can allow MUD formation where otherwise feasible,
practicable, necessary and a benefit to the land. If the answer to either question (1) or (2) is
“yes,” then the City Council is not to consent to creation of a MUD “unless the applicant
demonstrates unique factors that justify its creation.” If such “unique factors” are present,
then the City Council can either enter into a Consent Agreement with the applicant setting forth
the terms and conditions upon which the MUD can be created, or annex the area into the City
limits and provide services consistent with other areas of the City similarly situated.
Application of the two threshold criteria specified in Section 13.10.030 was intended at
the time of its adoption to discourage creation of MUDs unless the area proposed to be included
in the MUD is outside of or on the fringes of the City’s “ultimate annexation area,” and/or there
are “unique factors that justify its creation.” Nonetheless, since the adoption of Section
13.10.030, the City received several MUD creation petitions and has granted all of them.
The table below identifies the MUDs whose creation the City has consented to (or not
objected to, if created by the State Legislature) and briefly describes the Section 13.10.030 factors
as applied to those MUDS:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 21
Item # A
4
MUD Name Answer to
Question 1
Answer to
Question 2
Unique factors that justify [MUD] creation
3 B & J MUD No No (n/a – Removed from Georgetown ETJ and
jurisdiction in 2007 and legislatively created in
2007.)
MUD 15
(Tera Vista)
No ‐ prior
to adoption
of Ultimate
City Limit
Boundary
No Allowed for completion of Round Rock’s Terra
Vista subdivision; completion of off‐site utility
infrastructure including 18” water line on
Westinghouse Road, two lift stations and force
main to Master Plan size. Provided fire station site
and school site.
MUD 23
(Oaks at San
Gabriel)
No No Conservation subdivision standards; hike and
bike trails; public park improvements; pedestrian
bridges spanning the Middle San Gabriel;
enhanced landscaping, fencing, and roadway
standards; sewer main along western property
boundary constructed at no cost to the City;
expansion of the Cimarron Hills Wastewater
Treatment Plant to 450,000 gpd and provision of
land for new water quality pond.
MUD 25
(Water Oak)
Yes Yes Facilitated construction and financed 85% of
regional wastewater line west of IH‐35 and
extension to the west; facilitated construction of a
planned roadway and bridge connecting SH 29 to
Leander Road; designed with conservation
subdivision principles including 30% overall open
space and planned City parkland for South Fork
trail; civic uses include sites for 2 Fire Stations and
a school site; agreed to build master plan water
line connecting SH 29 and Leander.
MUD 26
(Cimarron
Hills)
Yes No Created to replace existing but inadequate PID.
Facilitated construction of non‐discharge
wastewater treatment plant to serve Cimarron
Hills and adjacent Oaks at San Gabriel.
However, as is discussed more below, questions have arisen as to whether these are the proper
threshold questions to MUD creation and if so, what “unique factors” might City Council
consider important enough to justify MUD creation even when the threshold analysis would
indicate otherwise.
C. SECTION 13.10.040 “STAFF ANALYSIS” – Section 13.10.040 requires the staff to conduct a
detailed utility, land use, traffic, and financial analysis of a MUD, but several of the current
applicants do not provide this information at all or do not provide it early enough in the process
to enable staff to conduct any meaningful review or to convey any detailed information to the
City Council about the proposed MUD. Some MUD applicants have even argued that they
cannot provide the submittal documents required by the UDC because they have no
development plan and are merely seeking the MUD as an entitlement and speculative tool.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 21
Item # A
5
D. SECTION 13.10.050 “CONDITIONS” – Section 13.10.050 describes the terms and conditions
that are to be included in a MUD consent agreement. This section is quite detailed on financial
matters, but is much less detailed on other issues.
Section III
EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED MUD APPLICATIONS
There has been a significant uptick in the number of applicants who have submitted or
expressed interest in submitting MUD creation petitions seeking the City’s consent to creation
of a MUD. Since the September 24, 2013 City Council workshop, staff has been approached by
developers of at least 15 different projects seeking to establish a MUD or expand existing MUDs
on to additional territory. These proposals have ranged in size from as small as 100 acres with
300 dwelling units to as large as 1,700 acres with 4,000 dwelling units and have differing
degrees of complexity related to infrastructure, desired amenities, and financial structure.
Based on feedback from discussion with City Council, staff will proceed with a work
program using a sector approach to allow balanced growth with no one direction of the City
receiving the bulk of resources. Three sectors are proposed: Southwest – which is west of
Interstate 35 and to the south of the North Fork of the San Gabriel River and Lake Georgetown;
Northwest – which is west of Interstate 35 and to the north of the North Fork and Lake
Georgetown; and East which is east of Interstate 35.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 21
Item # A
6
The tables below summarize the existing and anticipated MUD applications, and the
map below show the location of the various sectors:
Location Existing MUD Applications Anticipated MUD Applications
Southwest
Sector
Wolf Ranch (Hillwood)
Crescent Bluff & Chapman
3 new MUDs
Major amendments to 1 existing MUD
Expansion to 1 existing MUD
Northwest
Sector
Parmer Ranch 2 new MUDs
Eastern
Sector
Woodhull 2 new MUDs
Expansion to 1 existing MUD
Preliminary analysis of some of these applications indicates that, under the existing
MUD policy, MUD creation would not be approved in the absence of “unique factors that
justify [MUD] creation.” However, some of the applications for new MUDs are not clear on just
what “unique factors” might “justify [MUD] creation” under Section 13.10.030. Also, some
applicants have not provided information necessary for the staff to perform the analysis
required by section 13.10.040 to facilitate City review of the proposal, and some applicants have
resisted acceptance of the standard financing conditions in Section 13.10.050 that City Council
has expressed an interest in both seeing and understanding. Nonetheless, based on comments
made at the prior workshops on this topic and the continuing discussions between staff and
City Council on MUD‐related items, staff has not rejected or stopped processing any of the
MUD applications because staff has sensed that the current City Council it receptive to MUD
creation provided unique circumstances exist. If that is the case, applicants and the staff need
additional guidance and clarification so that the current and anticipated applications can be
processed in a fair and consistent manner.
Therefore, in light of the large number of MUD creation petitions that have been or are
anticipated to be filed seeking the City Council’s consent to creation of a MUD, this workshop
provides an opportunity for the City Council to revisit its existing MUD policy as codified in
Section 13.10 and determine whether it still accurately reflects the City’s MUD policy, and to
review the application administration procedures to determine whether it provides an adequate
framework for analyzing the petitions and the merits of each proposed district.
Section IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following up on the current context outlined above, and in light of the number of applications
currently pending, staff requests guidance on certain specific topics and suggests that the
existing policy be amended along the lines generally described below:
RECOMMENDATION 1: Retain the two threshold questions under Section 13.10.030.
o MUDs are an appropriate tool to allow urban level density neighborhoods in locations
supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan but that are outside of the ultimate city
boundary where the City may annex in the future and where the City cannot provide
water and wastewater service within 4 ½ years.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 21
Item # A
7
RECOMMENDATION 2: If the UDC criteria that limits eligible location for MUDs is not a
desirable policy, provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation” to guide
determinations made under Section 13.10.030.
o Consistent with past Council actions, require the construction of specific regional
infrastructure improvements consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and master
plans and that are beneficial to the City. Examples include:
The construction of the South San Gabriel Interceptor as part of the Water Oaks
agreements opened up the land in Georgetown’s southwest quadrant for
development well ahead of the time that the City could have done so in the absence
of those agreements.
Cimarron Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant, built as PID and MUD allowed
expansion as part of the Oaks at San Gabriel agreements.
The contemplated bridge and parkway connection of Water Oak linking Hwy 29 and
Leander Road, as there is currently no north‐south connection between Ronald
Reagan Blvd and Interstate 35.
Conservation subdivision design that clusters development in low impact areas and
maintains existing topography, scenic views, natural drainage flows and wildlife
habitat.
Regional trail connections, off‐site, to link gaps in the City and County trail system.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Require applicants to submit information with the MUD creation
petition that would allow the staff to perform the level City Council has directed during
consideration of several recent MUD petitions.
o In addition to the items already listed in Section 13.10.040 and the information required
to determine compliance with Section 13.10.050, in order to assist boards, commissions
and the City Council with understanding the financing related aspects, require
applications to submit the following:
o A detailed project pro‐forma with assumptions of different tax rates and
homes at various price points,
o A marketing study completed within the previous six months of the date
the petition indicating project feasibility based on regional market
absorption rates that indicates projections in residential units per year for
specific years of the development. The marketing study should include
all proposed uses within the MUD
o A clear and understandable comparing MUDfinanced development
tonon‐MUD financed development should also be included in these
submittals including projections of municipal property tax generation.
o A copy of the petitioner’s financial statement and a detailed description
of the petitioner’s experience with MUDs. If petititioner and developer
are the not the same, provide documentation explaining the relationship
between the petitioner and developer.
o Documentation that all lien holders consent to the formation of the
proposed MUD.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 21
Item # A
8
o To streamline processing of MUD petitions, allow staff to defer comprehensive review
and consideration of applications until a complete application and all supporting
materials are submitted.
o Increase the application fee to a sum to allow for adequate cost recovery and that is
commensurate with staffing and workload impacts necessary for evaluating MUD
petitions and negotiating and drafting MUD Consent Agreements and any related
agreements.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Require MUD Petitions to be reviewed by a cross‐departmental
“MUD Petition Review Team” comprised, at a minimum, of members of the planning
department, utility department, finance department, parks department, public safety
departments, and legal department. MUD creation will impact many City departments so
they should have an opportunity to weigh in during the process.
o A standing committee structure would allow for consistency in review and oversight
over regional impacts beyond the boundaries of a particular MUD.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC land use and
development standards (not just meet UDC standards or be less than minimum UDC
standards), and address the land use provisions in the Consent Agreement or related
agreement:
a. Prohibit all age‐restricted development; provided, however, that one section or phase of
a development may be considered for age‐restricted development if it does not exceed
10% of the net developable land area and 10% of the total housing units within the
MUD.
b. Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility; Personal Services
Restricted as defined the Unified Development Code, Chapter 16, of Title 7 of the
Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others as determined by City Council.
c. Require at least 20% of overall net developable land area to be used for commercial,
office, industrial or related employment (nonresidential) uses, unless located in Low
Density Residential in the City’s Future Land Use Plan in which case a neighborhood‐
serving commercial site shall be included.
d. Require at least 30% of the proposed land use area to be used for commercial/retail uses
and to be developed within the first 5 years of the first building permit within the MUD.
i. All efforts should be made to exclude this commercial/retail land area from the MUD
in favor of full‐purpose annexation, or a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA)
should be required allowing the City to collect sales taxes from the area.
ii. The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City is entitled to
receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and that none of those taxes should be
shared with the MUD unless special circumstances exist.
iii. City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses other than one‐
and two‐family residential uses.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 21
Item # A
9
e. Require workforce housing to be provided through a homebuyers club that includes
programs such as down payment assistance, preferred sales pricing, subsidized
insurance premiums, ongoing financial counseling and homeowner maintenance
training. The homebuyers club shall be open to all current City of Georgetown,
Williamson County or Georgetown Independent School District employees.
f. Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the applicable School
District. Location(s) of school sites should be in a central, walkable location to minimize
travel along or across a collector or arterial roadway identified in the Overall
Transportation Plan (OTP).
g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and require major
amendments to a MUD land use plan shall require review by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council.
h. Require gross impervious cover to be kept below the maximums allowed by the UDC.
i. Require tree preservation to exceed minimum UDC standards. Where a site contains
little existing tree coverage, require at least two trees of 3” caliper or greater on every
single family lot and provide park and open space areas to increase gross tree canopy
coverage to 40% coverage upon tree maturity.
j. Require compliance with all water quality and water conservation ordinances with no
adverse impacts to the watershed including a preliminary plan indicating existing
facilities, proposed facilities and any improvements planned in the occupied site, spring
and stream protection zones established by the December 20, 2013 water quality
ordinance
k. Require protection and conservation of features unique to site such as clusters of trees,
archaeological sites, springs, the natural floodplain, recharge and karst features and
historic farm and ranch complexes.
l. Require higher standards for architectural design. For example, homes with front
porches at minimum 8 foot depth, 3‐sides stone, stone veneer or brick masonry,
variation in floor plans, and embellished architectural treatment and masonry façades
on homes facing street intersection corners or major streets.
m. Require submittal and City Council approval of a pattern book with a visual
representation of the architectural styles of buildings including cornice lines, roof
profiles, finish materials, windows and ornamentation
n. Require landscaping along any roadways identified in the Overall Transportation Plan
commensurate to that required for Scenic/Natural Gateways as identified in Unified
Development Section 4.13.
o. Require Signage consistent with UDC provisions.
p. Require innovative or non‐conventional subdivision design, such as conservation
subdivision design, housing diversity, vertical mixed use, and/or traditional
neighborhood development (TND).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 21
Item # A
10
RECOMMENDATION 6: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland
requirements (not just meet UDC standards or be less than UDC standards), and address
parkland provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require a park or series of parks open to the general public within the MUD in the size
and location approved by the Parks and Recreation Board.
b. Require installation and maintenance of park facilities improvements.
c. Require maintenance access to be provided.
a. Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses such as schools.
b. Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
c. Require usable trailheads with off‐street parking and ADA compliant trails.
d. Require financial contributions to regional park facilities such as Westside Park or Garey
Park (depending on the location of the MUD).
e. Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts from net usable park land.
f. Require provision of security and maintenance program.
g. Require protection and perpetuation of unique features on a particular site that should
be maintained as open space whether for environmental, conservation or scenic views.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Require applicants to address provision of public safety services,
and address public safety matters in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and optimize locations of
service delivery.
b. Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for new fire station or other
public safety facility as determined by the City.
c. If the City provides fire protection services to the MUD, require payment of Fire SIP fee
(or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and operations.
d. Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to existing
developed properties located outside of the MUD.
e. If located outside of the City Limits, then the MUD consent agreement may, at the City’s
discretion, include an interlocal agreement (“ILA”) to contract with the City of
Georgetown for fire, police, and solid waste services on terms acceptable to the City.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Require applicants to address transportation issues and include
transportation provisions in the Consent Agreement:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 21
Item # A
11
a. Require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and construction and/or funding
of both on‐ and off‐site improvements identified in the TIA, including roadways
identified in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan (OTP).
b. Require dedication of right‐of‐way, inclusion of bike lanes, sidewalks, and aesthetically‐
pleasing streetscapes consistent with the OTP.
c. Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased connectivity, reduced
cul‐de‐sacs, short block lengths, additional stub outs to neighbors except where
developed as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter 11 of the UDC.
d. Require creative stormwater management and water quality solutions to be provided
such as low impact development (“LID”) to minimize any downstream impacts.
e. Require adequate street lighting for vehicle and pedestrian safety.
f. An ETJ MUD shall provide a maintenance program approved by the City’s
Transportation Department that is consistent with City standards and appropriate
consultation with the County Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Require applicants to address utility issues, and include those
utility service provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with the Utilities
Master Plan.
b. Require the MUD the City to be the water, sewer and electric service provider unless the
area is within another entity’s certificated service area, or the City chooses not to require
those services to be provided by the City.
c. Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne by the
developer and/or MUD, not the City.
d. Limit cost‐sharing on MUD off‐site improvements to only those circumstances where
the necessity for the improvement is so great that limited CIP funds are appropriate for
overall system wide improvements that benefit multiple properties (i.e., regional
improvements that the City can afford to participate in).
e. Address water and wastewater rates. Generally, rates for in‐City MUD customers
should be the same as the rates for other in‐City customers, and the rates for ETJ MUDs
customers should be the same as for other out of City customers.
f. Require specific water conservation techniques that will be used to minimize demand
levels including xeriscaping, low impact development (“LID”), rainwater harvesting,
grey water reuse and other strategies in consultation with GUS.
g. Require all MUDs and their residents, whether in the City or in the ETJ, to comply with
City of Georgetown water conservation and drought contingency plan‐related
ordinances.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 21
Item # A
12
h. For all MUDS, require impact fees to be assessed at the time of final plat approval. For
ETJ MUDS, require payment of impact fees at the time the final plat is approved. For in‐
City MUDS, require payment of impact fees no later than the time of building permit
issuance. However, utility capacity reservation shall not occur until impact fees are
paid.
i. Address rates, treatment capacity, utility and other easements necessary for City
services, capacity for dwelling units, gallons per day usage for water and wastewater,
water, wastewater and electric infrastructure, permitting and design, and fiscal surety.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Require applicants to specify the amount of debt they intend to
issue, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule, and include those financial
provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule so that an opportune time for
annexation can be calculated.
b. For an in‐city MUD, limit debt issuance to “hard costs” associated with on and off‐site
water and wastewater and possibly, depending on the financial analysis, for roads. An
ETJ MUD may also issue debt for the hard costs of parks and trails facilities that will be
open to the general public. Debt shall not be issued for “soft costs” such as design and
engineering work, landscaping, signage, maintenance nor private amenities.
c. To the extent possible, debt should be structured to retire nonresidential lands first so
they can be annexed, if an ETJ MUD. Where multiple are MUDs are established for a
large project, nonresidential lands should be included in the first MUD created.
d. Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes, assessments,
charge, fees and fines of any kind.
e. A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities (city, county,
school district, MUD, ESD, etc) and the proposed MUD tax, demonstrating the total
anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD.
a. A date certain for annexation of the District shall be established in its creation
documents. Upon reaching that date certain, the City retains the right to extend the
annexation date or deny the annexation. The date of annexation set with the District
creation shall be indicated in a disclosure statement to buyers of all properties within the
District. Buyers shall be provided with the District’s pro‐forma in an easy‐to‐read,
understandable format that explains to the buyer that they are buying into an obligated
property and are made aware that the taxes and assessments are not imposed by the
City of Georgetown and were the choice of the developer.
b. Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is in the MUD at
the time of annexation that are different from rates charged to other areas of the City
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 21
Item # A
13
consistent with the provisions of Section 54.016(h) of the Water Code to compensate city
for assumption of MUD debt.
c. This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is annexed into the city
limits. At the City’s option, a “limited district” may be continued in existence after
annexation to maintain amenities or services beyond what the City typically provides
for neighborhoods similarly situated. In such cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA
stating conditions on which MUD will be converted to a limited district that will
continue to exist following full purpose annexation. Concurrently with the MUD’s
confirmation election, the MUD shall hold election on proposition to levy an O&M tax
per Section 49.107 of the Water Code to provide funds to operate the limited district
following full purpose annexation by the city; the MUD shall have no right to issue
bonds until proposition to levy an O&M tax is approved.
Section V
NEXT STEPS
After receiving direction from Council on the above recommendations, staff will determine
whether revisions to the UDC, Development Manual or both are required to implement the
approved recommendations and will bring those amendments forward to Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. Staff will continue to update the sector‐based work program
Section VI
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to bring forward for action at a future Council
meeting the following items:
1. Establish appropriate criteria for “unique factor” MUD requests and amend UDC
accordingly;
2. Enhance application submittal requirements and adjust the Development Manual
accordingly;
3. Update the MUD application fee; and
4. Establish a sector‐based work program that can be updated and shared with Council on
an ongoing basis.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 21
Item # A
14
Attachment 1
Section 13.10 Creation of Special Districts
13.10.010 Purpose and Intent
To provide for the prudent use of political subdivisions that are created pursuant to Article III,
Section 52, and/or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution and that are authorized by
law to provide water, wastewater, drainage, and other services (“districts”), in order to allow
development within the City’s corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction that is
generally consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
This section is intended to be equitably applied to the creation of, inclusion of land within, and
operation of all proposed districts, while allowing flexibility necessary to address unique factors
that may arise with respect to each proposed district.
Prior to considering whether to consent to or support the creation of a district, the City
will consider whether the City is able to provide water and/or wastewater service to the
area proposed to be included in the district and whether such area is within the City’s
projected ultimate city limit boundary.
The standards established in this section are intended to carry out the following purposes:
• Encourage quality development;
• Protect the water quality within all watersheds of the City;
• Protect the water quality of the City’s drinking water sources;
• Allow the City to enforce land use and development regulations consistent with the
City’s comprehensive plan;
• Provide for construction of infrastructure consistent with City standards and City
inspection of such infrastructure;
• Provide notice to residents of the district that the City may annex the district at some
future time;
• Facilitate cost‐effective construction of infrastructure to serve the area within the district,
including police and fire stations, that is consistent with City standards and plans, so
that the potential financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown will be reduced, in the
event of annexation of such land by the City;
• Provide for extension of water and wastewater lines that will serve future growth in the
City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction consistent with the City’s regional utility
planning.
• Establish guidelines for reasonable conditions to be placed on;
• Issuance of bonds by the district; and
• The City’s consent to creation of the district, including conditions consistent with the
City’s water and sewer bond ordinances regarding creation of districts that might
otherwise detrimentally compete with the City’s utility systems;
• Establish guidelines for other mutually beneficial agreements by the City and the
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 21
Item # A
15
district;
• Provide a procedural framework for responding to an application seeking the City’s
consent to the creation of a district; and
13.10.020 Definitions
A. Bond. Instrument, including a bond, note, certificate of participation or other instrument
evidencing a proportionate interest in payments due to be paid by an issuer or other
type of obligation that: (1) is issued or incurred by an issuer under the issuer’s
borrowing power; without regard to whether it is subject to annual appropriation; and
(2) is represented by an instrument issued in bearer or registered form or is not
represented by an instrument but the transfer of which is registered on books
maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer.
B. Certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN). A permit issued by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) authorizing a specified utility to be
the retail water or sewer service provider in a specified area.
C. City Council. City Council of the City of Georgetown.
D. Consent agreement. An agreement between the City and owners and developers of
land in a proposed district which, if agreed to, shall be attached to the consent
resolution adopted by the City Council.
E. Consent resolution. A resolution approved by the City Council setting forth terms of
its consent to creation of a district.
F. Consent to creation of a district. Authorization for the owners of land in a proposed
district to initiate proceedings to create a district as provided by law.
G. District. A municipal utility district (“MUD”), water control and improvement district
(“WCID”), flesh water supply district (“FWSD”), or similar political subdivision created
to provide water, sewer or drainage utility services, roads, or other services allowed by
law to a specified area, pursuant to Article III, Section 52, and/or Article XVI, Section 59,
of the Texas Constitution.
H. Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Unincorporated area generally extending two miles
from the City limit, excluding other incorporated municipalities and their ETJ, in which
the City has the authority to annex property, as determined in accordance with Chapter
42 of the Local Government Code.
I. Strategic partnership agreement. An agreement between the City and a district
addressing the relationship between the City and the district, including limited purpose
annexation of commercial areas and other matters pursuant to Section 43.0751 of the
Local Government Code.
J. TCEQ. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or its successor.
13.10.030 Prerequisites to Consent to Creation of a District
A. Before the City Council consents to creation of a district, the following issues shall be
considered in accordance with this chapter:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 21
Item # A
16
1 If applicable, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria for
annexation set out in the City’s annexation policy and is within the City’s projected
ultimate city limit boundary; and
2 Whether the City will provide water and/or wastewater services to the land within
the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence construction of
facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and substantially complete such
construction within 4½ years after submittal of the petition pursuant to the City’s
policies on the extension of utility services.
B. If the determination on both issues 1 and 2 above is negative, then before consenting to
the creation of a district, the City Council shall consider further whether the creation of
the district is feasible, practicable, necessary for the provision of the proposed services
and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City’s consent, consistent
with the other considerations in this policy.
C. If the determination on either of the two issues is affirmative, then the City Council shall
not consent to creation of the district unless the applicant demonstrates that unique
factors justify its creation. If appropriate under the circumstances, the City shall:
1. Commence negotiations with the owners of at least 50 percent of the land in the
proposed district and a majority of the qualified voters concerning the City’s
provision of water and wastewater services, upon receipt of a petition submitted by
such persons in accordance with Local Government Code, Section 42.042; or
2. Commence proceedings to annex the land in the proposed district.
13.10.040 Staff Analysis
Upon receipt of an application seeking the City’s consent to creation of a district and after a
preliminary determination of the prerequisites in Section 13.10.030, City staff shall analyze
the proposed development and its potential impact on facilities and services. The applicant
shall provide the following preliminary information relative to the land proposed to be
included in the district, if available:
A. Engineering report showing:
1 Preliminary water availability study, including copies of any proposed contracts;
2 Preliminary wastewater treatment availability, including copies of any proposed
contracts;
3 Preliminary drainage study; and
4 Preliminary road study for any roads proposed to be reimbursed by bonds.
B. Preliminary cost estimates for water, wastewater, drainage or road facilities or projects,
and any other proposed district facilities to be reimbursed or paid for by the issuance of
district bonds;
C. Master development plan showing general layout of proposed land uses; major streets
and roads; water, wastewater, and drainage facilities; and any other district facilities;
D. Information concerning provision of firefighting and law enforcement services;
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 21
Item # A
17
E. Estimated buildout schedule by year with estimated assessed valuations in the district;
F. Estimated ultimate amount of bonds to be issued by the district, ultimate debt service
requirements, and projected district tax rate;
G. District boundary and vicinity map;
H. Traffic study identifying potential impacts on:
1 The City’s road system serving the land proposed to be included in the district, if all
or any portion of the land is located within the City or within two miles of the City’s
boundaries; and
2 The county’s road system, this traffic study is in addition to any traffic studies
required by the City’s subdivision regulations in connection with submittal of
subdivision plats;
3. If all or any portion of the proposed district is located outside the City’s boundaries,
proof that the applicant has provided the following information by certified mail to
the Williamson County Judge and each member of the Commissioners Court: the
name, acreage, and location of the proposed district, buildout schedule, estimated
population on total buildout, and map of the area;
4. Such other information as City staff may reasonably require to analyze the need for
the proposed facilities and the development’s potential impact; and
5. Any proposed City consent agreements.
13.10.050 Conditions to City’s Consent to Creation of a District
If the City Council elects to consent to the creation of or inclusion of land within a district,
then it shall impose the following requirements as conditions of the City’s consent, and
such requirements shall be stipulated in the consent resolution and/or other ancillary
agreement, unless the City Council determines that requirements are not appropriate with
regard to a specific district.
A. All water, wastewater, drainage, and road infrastructure and facilities as well as any
other infrastructure or facilities to be reimbursed or paid for by the issuance of district
bonds, shall be designed and constructed to City standards, including without limitation
fire flow standards and utility and road design, construction and installation standards,
in accordance with plans and specifications that have been approved by the City. In the
event of a conflict between City water and wastewater standards and standards imposed
by the CCN holder for the proposed district, City standards shall prevail, unless
otherwise agreed by the City.
B. The City shall have the right to inspect all facilities being constructed by or on behalf of
the district and to charge inspection fees consistent with the City’s inspection fee
schedule, as amended from time to time.
C. Bonds, including refunding bonds issued by the district, shall, unless otherwise agreed
to by the City, comply with the following requirements, provided such requirements
do not generally render the bonds unmarketable:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 21
Item # A
18
1. Maximum maturity of 20 years for any one series of bonds;
2. Interest rate that does not exceed 2% above the highest average interest rate reported
by the Daily Bond Buyer in its weekly “20 Bond Index” during the one month period
preceding the date notice of the sale of such bonds is given;
3. The bonds shall expressly provide that the district shall reserve the right to redeem
bonds at any time subsequent to the tenth (10th) anniversary of the date of issuance,
without premium. No variable rate bonds shall be issued by a district without City
Council approval; and
4. Any refunding bonds of the district must provide for a minimum of 3% present
value savings and that the latest maturity of the refunding bonds may not extend
beyond the latest maturity of the refunded bonds unless approved by the City
Council.
D. The City shall require the following information with respect to bond issuance:
1. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, except refunding bonds, the district’s
financial advisor shall certify in writing that the bonds are being issued within the
existing economic feasibility guidelines established by the TCEQ for districts
issuing bonds for water, sewer, or drainage facilities in the county in which the
district is located and shall deliver the certification to the City Secretary, and the
City.
2. At least 30 days before the issuance of bonds, the district shall deliver to the City
Secretary, and the City Manager notice as to:
a. The amount of bonds being proposed for issuance;
b. The projects to be funded by such bonds; and
c. The proposed debt service tax rate after issuance of the bonds.
d. If the district is not required to obtain TCEQ approval of the issuance of the
bonds (other than refunding bonds), the district shall deliver such notice to the
City Secretary, and the City Manager at least 60 days prior to issuing such bonds.
Within 30 days after the district closes the sale of a series of bonds, the district
shall deliver to the City Secretary, and the City Manager a copy of the fi nal
official statement for such series of bonds. If the City requests additional
information regarding such issuance of bonds, the district shall promptly
provide such information at no cost to City.
E. The purposes for which a district may issue bonds shall be restricted to the purchase,
construction, acquisition, repair, extension and improvement of land, easements, works,
improvements, facilities, plants, equipment, and appliances necessary to:
1. Provide a water supply for the district for municipal uses, domestic uses, and
commercial purposes;
2. Collect, transport, process, dispose of and control all domestic, industrial or
communal wastes from the district whether in fluid, solid, or composite state;
3. Gather, conduct, divert, and control local storm water or other local harmful excesses
of water in the district; and
Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 21
Item # A
19
4. Pay organization and administrative expenses, operation expenses during
construction, cost of issuance, interest during construction, and capitalized interest.
5. If appropriate in a particular district, the City may consent to issuance of bonds for
purchase, construction, acquisition, repair, extension, or improvement of fi re
stations, roads, and/or other capital improvements that are mutually agreed upon by
the City Council and the applicant.
F. The district shall contain sufficient acreage to assure the economic viability of the district
but no more acreage than can feasibly be annexed at one time. In general, a district is not
expected to include less than 200 acres or more than 500 acres.
G. Development within the district shall be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
H. No district shall include land in more than one city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
I. The City and the owners of all land in the proposed district shall reach agreement on the
terms of a development agreement pursuant to Local Government Code, Section
212.171, et seq. to extend the City’s planning authority over land included in the district
by providing for approval of a development plan, authorizing enforcement by the City
of land use and development regulations, and including other lawful terms and
considerations the parties consider appropriate. The development agreement shall
include provisions relating to the following matters:
1. Land use plan reflecting all approved land uses and residential densities;
2. Compliance with City construction Codes, including permit requirements;
3. Compliance with City and other applicable stormwater and water quality
regulations;
4. Development standards comparable to City zoning regulations; and
5. Dedication and development of park land, open space, and trails.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is expected that the parties will
cooperate to identify those matters unique to the district that may be addressed in a
development agreement.
J. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, the district shall certify in writing that the
district is in full compliance with the consent resolution approved by the City Council
and, to the extent such agreements impose requirements on the district, with the consent
agreement, strategic partnership agreement and all other agreements executed by the
City and the district, and shall deliver the certification to the City Secretary, and the City
Manager.
K. No land within the district shall be allowed, at any time in the future, to
incorporate, join in an incorporation, or be annexed into any incorporated city other
than the City of Georgetown.
L. No land shall be annexed by the district without prior City Council approval.
M. The district shall not construct or install infrastructure or facilities to serve areas outside
the district or sell or deliver services to areas outside the district without prior City
Council approval.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 21
Item # A
20
N. After creation of the district, and unless otherwise expressly authorized by the consent
agreement or development agreement, no district shall be converted into another type of
district, consolidated with another district, divided into two or more new districts or
seek additional governmental powers that were beyond its statutory authority at the
time the district was created, without prior City Council approval.
O. If allowed by law, the City may annex any commercial development within the district
for limited purposes pursuant to Local Government Code, Section 43.0751, and may
impose a sales and use tax within the area annexed for limited purposes. If limited
purpose annexation is not allowed by law, then the City may not consent to inclusion
of commercial retail areas within the district. The City may consider sharing tax
receipts with the district, provided the district’s share is used to finance infrastructure,
retire bond debt or for other purposes acceptable to the City.
P. The district shall not issue any bonds other than those authorized by the consent
agreement without City Council approval.
Q. The district shall file a notice in the real property records of all counties in which the
district is located stating that the City has authority to annex the district. The parties
may attach a form of such notice to the consent agreement or development
agreement.
R. The district shall send a copy of the order or other action setting an ad valorem tax rate
to the City Secretary, and the City Manager within 30 days after district adoption of the
rate.
S. The district shall, send a copy of its annual audit to the City Secretary, and the City
Manager within 30 days after approval.
T. The City shall encourage the district to maintain a debt service structure that will ensure
that the district’s taxes are maintained at a rate at least equal to the City’s tax rate, to the
extent feasible.
U. The district shall provide copies of any material event notices filed under applicable
federal securities laws or regulations to the City Secretary, and the City Manager within
30 days after filing such notices with the applicable federal agency.
V. Construction of capital improvements such as fire stations and recreational amenities
shall be encouraged.
W. Sharing of fire stations, recreational amenities, and other capital improvements by the
City and the district shall be encouraged..
X. If construction or expansion of a wastewater treatment facility is proposed to serve the
district, the plant design shall conform to all applicable state and federal permitt ing and
design standards. In addition, any wastewater discharge shall be permitted to meet
effluent limitations no less stringent than 5‐5‐2‐1 (5 parts per million {“ppm”}
biochemical oxygen demand; 5 ppm total suspended solids; 2 ppm nitrogen; and 1 ppm
phosphorus) or the current limits in permit(s) held by the City, whichever is strictest.
The City reserves the right to protest any wastewater treatment facility permit
application or amendment.
Y. The board of directors of the district and landowners within the district shall assist the
City in annexing one or more areas as reasonably necessary for the City to connect areas
Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 21
Item # A
21
to the City that are outside the district and that the City intends to annex in the
foreseeable future.
Z. The City shall require the district to complete a traffic impact analysis pursuant to
Section 12.05 of this Code.
AA. The City may agree not to annex and dissolve the district any earlier than the fi
rst to occur of: (i) extension of water, sanitary sewer, and drainage facilities to serve
90% of the land within the district; or (ii) 15 years after creation of the district. The
contract between the City and the district may provide that the City may set rates for
water and/or sewer services for property that was within the district that vary from
those for other properties within the City in order to compensate the City for
assumption of district obligations upon annexation, in compliance with any statutory
requirements applicable to such an agreement.
BB. The consent agreement and ancillary documents shall include terms
providing for the district to be fully developed and ready for full purpose
annexation by the City within a reasonable time period.
CC. The applicant shall reimburse the City for expenses incurred by the City in
connection with the City’s consent to formation of the district, including but not limited
to professional fees incurred in connection with negotiation and preparation of the
consent resolution, consent agreement, development agreement, strategic partnership
agreement, and related documents.
13.10.060 City Operations Compensation Fee
A fee shall be assessed for each residential unit within the district equal to the proportion of
City operations attributed to serving residents of the district. The fee shall be calculated as
follows:
B = Total General Fund budget for the fiscal year in which the consent application is filed.
P = The estimated population of the City at the time the consent application is filed.
H = The estimated average household size within the City at the time the consent application is
filed.
D = The percentage of City services used by district residents. This percentage shall be adopted
by the City annually as a part of the City’s budget adoption process.
Y = Number of years of duration of the district.
R = Discount rate. This rate shall be adopted by the City annually as a part of the city’s budget
adoption process.
PV = Present Value.
City Operations Compensation Fee = PV(R,Y,‐((B /(P /H)) * D))
Example: B = $24,000,000 P = 41,000 H = 2.8 D = 15%
Y = 20 R = 6% Fee = $2,819.92
Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 21
Item # A
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 22, 2014, with revision for August 12, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
Through: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
From: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
Subject: Municipal Utility District (MUD) Issues
The purposes of this memo and workshop are as follows:
First, to provide background on the City’s area of jurisdiction, growth predictions and
City Council’s role in shaping this direction through extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
management.
Second, to provide a general overview of the City’s existing MUD creation policy (which
was originally adopted in 2006 and is codified in Chapter 13.10 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC)), describe existing MUDs in the City’s jurisdiction, and
briefly describe the issues that are the focus of this workshop.
Third, to describe currently pending and expected MUD applications that have been or
are anticipated to be filed with the City to provide context for discussion of the issues
addressed in this memo.
Finally, to propose adoption of specific recommendations that would be codified either
in amendments to Chapter 13.10 of the UDC or the Development Manual (as
appropriate).
Section I
BACKGROUND
The City of Georgetown currently has approximately 52 square miles of City Limits and 130
square miles of ETJ, cumulatively 182 square miles. The ETJ, by operation of law, is the area
intended for urbanization and ultimately annexation by the City and therefore must be planned
in a manner to allow for the future extension of city services in an efficient manner, for example
with water lines that will allow safe fire flows. The Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan was
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 21
Item # A
prepared to as a guidance tool as the City heads toward a forecasted population of 101,000
inside City Limits in anticipation of future annexations.
A September 24, 2013 City Council workshop included a population allocation exercise to
account for roughly 21,000 new residential units assuming existing development trends
yielding 5 single family dwelling units per acre and 24 multi‐family units per acre continue at
the existing 80:20 ratio, meaning roughly 3,520 acres of addition territory is necessary to annex
to the city limits. The Council was split into 2 workgroups to map out potential locations for
the new development, which in turn led to discussion among Council on the need for an
appropriate update to City annexation and MUD policies.
Alternatives to the need to house 50,000 additional population without annexation of 3,520
acres would be to allow more dense residential development, such as multifamily and/or allow
more “infill” development on vacant tracts abutting existing neighborhoods. Staff believes that
the strategies of increased density and infill alone are not viable alternatives to housing 50,000
additional residents when considered in the context of recent policy discussions with City
Council on the location and scale of multifamily and when considered with community
sentiments over recent proposals to establish “infill” development on tracts abutting existing
neighborhoods. The Planning Department will bring forward an updated Annexation Plan to
allow additional City Council consideration on the location and timing of future annexations
programs, at that time a formal updated MUD policy will be brought forward to better consider
disposition of the 130 square mile ETJ.
Section II
EXISTING UDC CHAPTER 13.10 AND EXISTING MUDS
A. CHAPTER 13.10 – Chapter 13.10 of the UDC, adopted in 2006, is entitled “Creation of
Special Districts” and has the following six sections:
Section 13.10.010 – Purpose and Intent
Section 13.10.020 – Definitions
Section 13.10.030 – Prerequisites to Consent to Creation of a District
Section 13.10.040 – Staff Analysis
Section 13.10.050 – Conditions to the City’s’ Consent to Creation of a District
Section 13.10.060 – City Operations Compensation Fee
A copy of Chapter 13.10 is attached to this memo as Attachment 1. The particular sections that
are the subject of this workshop are Sections 13.10.030, .040, and .050.
B. SECTION 13.10.030 “PREREQUISITES” – Section 13.10.030 of the UDC sets forth two
threshold issues for the City Council to evaluate prior to the creation of a MUD:
(1) whether the area proposed to be included in a MUD is in an area that the City
intends to annex (i.e., whether the area is within the City’s “”ultimate city limits
boundary” [shown with red line in map below]); and
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 21
Item # A
(2) whether the City intends to provide water and wastewater services to the area
within 4 ½ years.
If the answer to both questions (1) and (2) is “no,” then the City Council may consider a
MUD creation petition for the area and can allow MUD formation where otherwise feasible,
practicable, necessary and a benefit to the land. If the answer to either question (1) or (2) is
“yes,” then the City Council is not to consent to creation of a MUD “unless the applicant
demonstrates unique factors that justify its creation.” If such “unique factors” are present,
then the City Council can either enter into a Consent Agreement with the applicant setting forth
the terms and conditions upon which the MUD can be created, or annex the area into the City
limits and provide services consistent with other areas of the City similarly situated.
Application of the two threshold criteria specified in Section 13.10.030 was intended at
the time of its adoption to discourage creation of MUDs unless the area proposed to be included
in the MUD is outside of or on the fringes of the City’s “ultimate annexation area,” and/or there
are “unique factors that justify its creation.” Nonetheless, since the adoption of Section
13.10.030, the City received several MUD creation petitions and has granted all of them.
The table below identifies the MUDs whose creation the City has consented to (or not
objected to, if created by the State Legislature) and briefly describes the Section 13.10.030 factors
as applied to those MUDS:
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 21
Item # A
MUD Name Answer to
Question 1
Answer to
Question 2
Unique factors that justify [MUD] creation
3 B & J MUD No No (n/a – Removed from Georgetown ETJ and
jurisdiction in 2007 and legislatively created in
2007.)
MUD 15
(Tera Vista)
No ‐ prior
to adoption
of Ultimate
City Limit
Boundary
No Allowed for completion of Round Rock’s Terra
Vista subdivision; completion of off‐site utility
infrastructure including 18” water line on
Westinghouse Road, two lift stations and force
main to Master Plan size. Provided fire station site
and school site.
MUD 23
(Oaks at San
Gabriel)
No No Conservation subdivision standards; hike and
bike trails; public park improvements; pedestrian
bridges spanning the Middle San Gabriel;
enhanced landscaping, fencing, and roadway
standards; sewer main along western property
boundary constructed at no cost to the City;
expansion of the Cimarron Hills Wastewater
Treatment Plant to 450,000 gpd and provision of
land for new water quality pond.
MUD 25
(Water Oak)
Yes Yes Facilitated construction and financed 85% of
regional wastewater line west of IH‐35 and
extension to the west; facilitated construction of a
planned roadway and bridge connecting SH 29 to
Leander Road; designed with conservation
subdivision principles including 30% overall open
space and planned City parkland for South Fork
trail; civic uses include sites for 2 Fire Stations and
a school site; agreed to build master plan water
line connecting SH 29 and Leander.
MUD 26
(Cimarron
Hills)
Yes No Created to replace existing but inadequate PID.
Facilitated construction of non‐discharge
wastewater treatment plant to serve Cimarron
Hills and adjacent Oaks at San Gabriel.
However, as is discussed more below, questions have arisen as to whether these are the proper
threshold questions to MUD creation and if so, what “unique factors” might City Council
consider important enough to justify MUD creation even when the threshold analysis would
indicate otherwise.
C. SECTION 13.10.040 “STAFF ANALYSIS” – Section 13.10.040 requires the staff to conduct a
detailed utility, land use, traffic, and financial analysis of a MUD, but several of the current
applicants do not provide this information at all or do not provide it early enough in the process
to enable staff to conduct any meaningful review or to convey any detailed information to the
City Council about the proposed MUD. Some MUD applicants have even argued that they
cannot provide the submittal documents required by the UDC because they have no
development plan and are merely seeking the MUD as an entitlement and speculative tool.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 21
Item # A
D. SECTION 13.10.050 “CONDITIONS” – Section 13.10.050 describes the terms and conditions
that are to be included in a MUD consent agreement. This section is quite detailed on financial
matters, but is much less detailed on other issues.
Section III
EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED MUD APPLICATIONS
There has been a significant uptick in the number of applicants who have submitted or
expressed interest in submitting MUD creation petitions seeking the City’s consent to creation
of a MUD. Since the September 24, 2013 City Council workshop, staff has been approached by
developers of at least 15 different projects seeking to establish a MUD or expand existing MUDs
on to additional territory. These proposals have ranged in size from as small as 100 acres with
300 dwelling units to as large as 1,700 acres with 4,000 dwelling units and have differing
degrees of complexity related to infrastructure, desired amenities, and financial structure.
Based on feedback from discussion with City Council, staff will proceed with a work
program using a sector approach to allow balanced growth with no one direction of the City
receiving the bulk of resources. Three sectors are proposed: Southwest – which is west of
Interstate 35 and to the south of the North Fork of the San Gabriel River and Lake Georgetown;
Northwest – which is west of Interstate 35 and to the north of the North Fork and Lake
Georgetown; and East which is east of Interstate 35.
The tables below summarize the existing and anticipated MUD applications, and the
map below show the location of the various sectors:
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 21
Item # A
Location Existing MUD Applications Anticipated MUD Applications
Southwest
Sector
Wolf Ranch (Hillwood)
Crescent Bluff & Chapman
3 new MUDs
Major amendments to 1 existing MUD
Expansion to 1 existing MUD
Northwest
Sector
Parmer Ranch 2 new MUDs
Eastern
Sector
Woodhull 2 new MUDs
Expansion to 1 existing MUD
Preliminary analysis of some of these applications indicates that, under the existing
MUD policy, MUD creation would not be approved in the absence of “unique factors that
justify [MUD] creation.” However, some of the applications for new MUDs are not clear on just
what “unique factors” might “justify [MUD] creation” under Section 13.10.030. Also, some
applicants have not provided information necessary for the staff to perform the analysis
required by section 13.10.040 to facilitate City review of the proposal, and some applicants have
resisted acceptance of the standard financing conditions in Section 13.10.050 that City Council
has expressed an interest in both seeing and understanding. Nonetheless, based on comments
made at the prior workshops on this topic and the continuing discussions between staff and
City Council on MUD‐related items, staff has not rejected or stopped processing any of the
MUD applications because staff has sensed that the current City Council it receptive to MUD
creation provided unique circumstances exist. If that is the case, applicants and the staff need
additional guidance and clarification so that the current and anticipated applications can be
processed in a fair and consistent manner.
Therefore, in light of the large number of MUD creation petitions that have been or are
anticipated to be filed seeking the City Council’s consent to creation of a MUD, this workshop
provides an opportunity for the City Council to revisit its existing MUD policy as codified in
Section 13.10 and determine whether it still accurately reflects the City’s MUD policy, and to
review the application administration procedures to determine whether it provides an adequate
framework for analyzing the petitions and the merits of each proposed district.
Section IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following up on the current context outlined above, and in light of the number of applications
currently pending, staff requests guidance on certain specific topics and suggests that the
existing policy be amended along the lines generally described below:
RECOMMENDATION 1: Retain the two threshold questions under Section 13.10.030.
o MUDs are an appropriate tool to allow urban level density neighborhoods in locations
supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan but that are outside of the ultimate city
boundary where the City may annex in the future and where the City cannot provide
water and wastewater service within 4 ½ years.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 21
Item # A
RECOMMENDATION 2: If the UDC criteria that limits eligible location for MUDs is not a
desireabledesirable policy, provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation”
to guide determinations made under Section 13.10.030.
o Consistent with past Council actions, require the construction of specific regional
infrastructure improvements consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and master
plans and that are beneficial to the City. Examples include:
The construction of the South San Gabriel Interceptor as part of the Water Oaks
agreements opened up the land in Georgetown’s southwest quadrant for
development well ahead of the time that the City could have done so in the absence
of those agreements.
Cimarron Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant, built as PID and MUD allowed
expansion as part of the Oaks at San Gabriel agreements.
The contemplated bridge and parkway connection of Water Oak linking Hwy 29 and
Leander Road, as there is currently no north‐south connection between Ronald
Reagan Blvd and Interstate 35.
Conservation subdivision design that clusters development in low impact areas and
maintains existing topography, scenic views, natural drainage flows and wildlife
habitat.
Regional trail connections, off‐site, to link gaps in the City and County trail system.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Require applicants to submit information with the MUD creation
petition that would allow the staff to perform the level City Council has directed during
consideration of several recent MUD petitions.
o In addition to the items already listed in Section 13.10.040 and the information required
to determine compliance with Section 13.10.050, in order to assist boards, commissions
and the City Council with understanding the financing related aspects, require
applications to submit the following:
o a A detailed project pro‐forma with assumptions of different tax rates and
homes at various price points,
o as wellA a marketing study completed within the previous six months of
the date the petition indicating project feasibility based on regional
market absorption rates that indicates projections in residential units per
year for specific years of the development. The marketing study should
include all proposed uses within the MUD.
o A clear and understandable presentation comparing of MUD financed
development toversus non‐MUD financed development should also be
included in these submittals including projections of municipal property
tax generation.
o A copy of the petitioner’s financial statement and a detailed description
of the petitioner’s experience with MUDs. If petititioner and developer
are the not the same, provide documentation explaining the relationship
between the petitioner and developer.
o Documentation that all lien holders consent to the formation of the
proposed MUD.
o To streamline processing of MUD petitions, allow staff to defer comprehensive review
and consideration of applications until a complete application and all supporting
materials are submitted.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 21
Item # A
o Increase the application fee to a sum to allow for adequate cost recovery and that is
commensurate with staffing and workload impacts necessary for evaluating MUD
petitions and negotiating and drafting MUD Consent Agreements and any related
agreements.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Require MUD Petitions to be reviewed by a cross‐departmental
“MUD Petition Review Team” comprised, at a minimum, of members of the planning
department, utility department, finance department, parks department, public safety
departments, and legal department. MUD creation will impact many City departments so
they should have an opportunity to weigh in during the process.
o A standing committee structure would allow for consistency in review and oversight
over regional impacts beyond the boundaries of a particular MUD.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC land use and
development standards (not just meet UDC standards or be less than minimum UDC
standards), and address the land use provisions in the Consent Agreement or related
agreement:
a. Prohibit all age‐restricted development; provided, however, that one section or phase of
a development may be considered for age‐restricted development if it does not exceed
10% of the net developable land area and 10% of the total housing units within the
MUD.
b. Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility; Personal Services
Restricted as defined the Unified Development Code, Chapter 16, of Title 7 of the
Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others as determined by City Council.
c. Require at least 20% of overall net developable land area to be used for commercial,
office, industrial or related employment (nonresidential) uses, unless located in Low
Density Residential in the City’s Future Land Use Plan in which case a neighborhood‐
serving commercial site shall be included.
d. Require at least 30% of the proposed land use area to be used for commercial/retail uses
and to be developed within the first 5 years of the first building permit within the MUD.
i. All efforts should be made to exclude this commercial/retail land area from the MUD
in favor of full‐purpose annexation, or a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA)
should be required allowing the City to collect sales taxes from the area.
ii. The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City is entitled to
receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and that none of those taxes should be
shared with the MUD unless special circumstances exist.
iii. City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses other than one‐
and two‐family residential uses.
e. Require workforce housing to be provided through a homebuyers club that includes
programs such as down payment assistance, preferred sales pricing, subsidized
insurance premiums, ongoing financial counseling and homeowner maintenance
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 21
Item # A
training. The homebuyers club shall be open to all current City of Georgetown,
Williamson County or Georgetown Independent School District employees.
f. Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the applicable School
District. Location(s) of school sites should be in a central, walkable location to minimize
travel along or across a collector or arterial roadway identified in the Overall
Transportation Plan (OTP).
g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and require major
amendments to a MUD land use plan shall require review by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council.
h. Require gross impervious cover to be kept below the maximums allowed by the UDC.
i. Require tree preservation to exceed minimum UDC standards. Where a site contains
little existing tree coverage, require at least two trees of 3” caliper or greater on every
single family lot and provide park and open space areas to increase gross tree canopy
coverage to 40% coverage upon tree maturity.
j. Require compliance with all water quality and water conservation/drought restriction
ordinances with no adverse impacts to the watershed including a preliminary plan
indicating existing facilities, proposed facilities and any improvements planned in the
occupied site, spring and stream protection zones established by the December 20, 2013
water quality ordinance.
k. Require protection and conservation of features unique to site such as clusters of trees,
archaeological sites, springs, the natural floodplain, recharge and karst features and
historic farm and ranch complexes.
l. Require higher standards for architectural design. For example, homes with front
porches at minimum 8 foot depth, 3‐sides stone, stone veneer or brick masonry,
variation in floor plans, and embellished architectural treatment and masonry façades
on homes facing street intersection corners or major streets.
m. Require submittal and City Council approval of a pattern book with a visual
representation of the architectural styles of buildings including cornice lines, roof
profiles, finish materials, windows and ornamentation
n. Require landscaping along any roadways identified in the Overall Transportation Plan
commensurate to that required for Scenic/Natural Gateways as identified in Unified
Development Section 4.13.
o. Require Signage consistent with UDC provisions.
p. Require innovative or non‐conventional subdivision design, such as conservation
subdivision design, housing diversity, vertical mixed use, and/or traditional
neighborhood development (TND).
RECOMMENDATION 6: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland
requirements (not just meet UDC standards or be less than UDC standards), and address
parkland provisions in the Consent Agreement:
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 21
Item # A
a. Require a park or series of parks open to the general public within the MUD in the size
and location approved by the Parks and Recreation Board.
b. Require installation and maintenance of park facilities improvements.
c. Require maintenance access to be provided.
a. Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses such as schools.
b. Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
c. Require usable trailheads with off‐street parking and ADA compliant trails.
d. Require financial contributions to regional park facilities such as Westside Park or Garey
Park (depending on the location of the MUD).
e. Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts from net usable park land.
f. Require provision of security and maintenance program.
g. Require protection and perpetuation of unique features on a particular site that should
be maintained as open space whether for environmental, conservation or scenic views.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Require applicants to address provision of public safety services,
and address public safety matters in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and optimize locations of
service delivery.
b. Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for new fire station or other
public safety facility as determined by the City.
c. If the City provides fire protection services to the MUD, require payment of Fire SIP fee
(or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and operations.
d. Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to existing
developed properties located outside of the MUD.
e. If located outside of the City Limits, then the MUD consent agreement may, at the City’s
discretion, include an interlocal agreement (“ILA”) to contract with the City of
Georgetown for fire, police, and solid waste services on terms acceptable to the City.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Require applicants to address transportation issues and include
transportation provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and construction and/or funding
of both on‐ and off‐site improvements identified in the TIA, including roadways
identified in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan (OTP).
b. Require dedication of right‐of‐way, inclusion of bike lanes, sidewalks, and aesthetically‐
pleasing streetscapes consistent with the OTP.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 21
Item # A
c. Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased connectivity, reduced
cul‐de‐sacs, short block lengths, additional stub outs to neighbors except where
developed as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter 11 of the UDC.
d. Require creative stormwater management and water quality solutions to be provided
such as low impact development (“LID”) to minimize any downstream impacts.
e. Require adequate street lighting for vehicle and pedestrian safety.
f. An ETJ MUD shall provide a maintenance program approved by the City’s
Transportation Department that is consistent with City standards and appropriate
consultation with the County Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Require applicants to address utility issues, and include those
utility service provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with the Utilities
Master Plan.
b. Require the MUD the City to be the water, sewer and electric service provider unless the
area is within another entity’s certificated service area, or the City chooses not to require
those services to be provided by the City.
c. Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne by the
developer and/or MUD, not the City.
d. Limit cost‐sharing on MUD off‐site improvements to only those circumstances where
the necessity for the improvement is so great that limited CIP funds are appropriate for
overall system wide improvements that benefit multiple properties (i.e., regional
improvements that the City can afford to participate in).
e. Address water and wastewater rates. Generally, rates for in‐City MUD customers
should be the same as the rates for other in‐City customers, and the rates for ETJ MUDs
customers should be the same as for other out of City customers.
f. Require specific water conservation techniques that will be used to minimize demand
levels including xeriscaping, low impact development (“LID”), rainwater harvesting,
grey water reuse and other strategies in consultation with GUS.
g. Require all MUDs and their residents, whether in the City or in the ETJ, to comply with
City of Georgetown water conservation and drought contingency plan‐related
ordinances.
h. For all MUDS, require impact fees to be assessed at the time of final plat approval. For
ETJ MUDS, require payment of impact fees at the time the final plat is approved. For in‐
City MUDS, require payment of impact fees no later than the time of building permit
issuance. However, utility capacity reservation shall not occur until impact fees are
paid.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 21
Item # A
i. Address rates, treatment capacity, utility and other easements necessary for City
services, capacity for dwelling units, gallons per day usage for water and wastewater,
water, wastewater and electric infrastructure, permitting and design, and fiscal surety.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Require applicants to specify the amount of debt they intend to
issue, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule, and include those financial
provisions in the Consent Agreement:
a. Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule so that an opportune time for
annexation can be calculated.
b. For an in‐city MUD, limit debt issuance to “hard costs” associated with on and off‐site
water and wastewater and possibly, depending on the financial analysis, for roads. An
ETJ MUD may also issue debt for the hard costs of parks and trails facilities that will be
open to the general public. Debt shall not be issued for “soft costs” such as design and
engineering work, landscaping, signage, maintenance nor private amenities.
c. To the extent possible, debt should be structured to retire nonresidential lands first so
they can be annexed, if an ETJ MUD. Where multiple are MUDs are established for a
large project, nonresidential lands should be included in the first MUD created.
d. Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes, assessments,
charge, fees and fines of any kind.
d.e. A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities (city, county,
school district, MUD, ESD, etc) and the proposed MUD tax, demonstrating the total
anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD.
a. A date certain for annexation of the District shall be established in its creation
documents. Upon reaching that date certain, the City retains the right to extend the
annexation date or deny the annexation. The date of annexation set with the District
creation shall be indicated in a disclosure statement to buyers of all properties within the
District. Buyers shall be provided with the District’s pro‐forma in an easy‐to‐read,
understandable format that explains to the buyer that they are buying into an obligated
property and are made aware that the taxes and assessments are not imposed by the
City of Georgetown and were the choice of the developer.
b. Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is in the MUD at
the time of annexation that are different from rates charged to other areas of the City
consistent with the provisions of Section 54.016(h) of the Water Code to compensate city
for assumption of MUD debt.
c. This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is annexed into the city
limits. At the City’s option, a “limited district” may be continued in existence after
annexation to maintain amenities or services beyond what the City typically provides
for neighborhoods similarly situated. In such cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA
Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 21
Item # A
stating conditions on which MUD will be converted to a limited district that will
continue to exist following full purpose annexation. Concurrently with the MUD’s
confirmation election, the MUD shall hold election on proposition to levy an O&M tax
per Section 49.107 of the Water Code to provide funds to operate the limited district
following full purpose annexation by the city; the MUD shall have no right to issue
bonds until proposition to levy an O&M tax is approved.
Section V
NEXT STEPS
After receiving direction from Council on the above recommendations, staff will determine
whether revisions to the UDC, Development Manual or both are required to implement the
approved recommendations and will bring those amendments forward to Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. Staff will continue to update the sector‐based work program
Section VI
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to bring forward for action at a future Council
meeting the following items:
1. Establish appropriate criteria for “unique factor” MUD requests and amend UDC
accordingly;
2. Enhance application submittal requirements and adjust the Development Manual
accordingly;
3. Update the MUD application fee; and
4. Establish a sector‐based work program that can be updated and shared with Council on
an ongoing basis.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 21
Item # A
Attachment 1
Section 13.10 Creation of Special Districts
13.10.010 Purpose and Intent
To provide for the prudent use of political subdivisions that are created pursuant to Article III,
Section 52, and/or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution and that are authorized by
law to provide water, wastewater, drainage, and other services (“districts”), in order to allow
development within the City’s corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction that is
generally consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
This section is intended to be equitably applied to the creation of, inclusion of land within, and
operation of all proposed districts, while allowing flexibility necessary to address unique factors
that may arise with respect to each proposed district.
Prior to considering whether to consent to or support the creation of a district, the City
will consider whether the City is able to provide water and/or wastewater service to the
area proposed to be included in the district and whether such area is within the City’s
projected ultimate city limit boundary.
The standards established in this section are intended to carry out the following purposes:
• Encourage quality development;
• Protect the water quality within all watersheds of the City;
• Protect the water quality of the City’s drinking water sources;
• Allow the City to enforce land use and development regulations consistent with the
City’s comprehensive plan;
• Provide for construction of infrastructure consistent with City standards and City
inspection of such infrastructure;
• Provide notice to residents of the district that the City may annex the district at some
future time;
• Facilitate cost‐effective construction of infrastructure to serve the area within the district,
including police and fire stations, that is consistent with City standards and plans, so
that the potential financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown will be reduced, in the
event of annexation of such land by the City;
• Provide for extension of water and wastewater lines that will serve future growth in the
City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction consistent with the City’s regional utility
planning.
• Establish guidelines for reasonable conditions to be placed on;
• Issuance of bonds by the district; and
• The City’s consent to creation of the district, including conditions consistent with the
City’s water and sewer bond ordinances regarding creation of districts that might
otherwise detrimentally compete with the City’s utility systems;
• Establish guidelines for other mutually beneficial agreements by the City and the
Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 21
Item # A
district;
• Provide a procedural framework for responding to an application seeking the City’s
consent to the creation of a district; and
13.10.020 Definitions
A. Bond. Instrument, including a bond, note, certificate of participation or other instrument
evidencing a proportionate interest in payments due to be paid by an issuer or other
type of obligation that: (1) is issued or incurred by an issuer under the issuer’s
borrowing power; without regard to whether it is subject to annual appropriation; and
(2) is represented by an instrument issued in bearer or registered form or is not
represented by an instrument but the transfer of which is registered on books
maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer.
B. Certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN). A permit issued by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) authorizing a specified utility to be
the retail water or sewer service provider in a specified area.
C. City Council. City Council of the City of Georgetown.
D. Consent agreement. An agreement between the City and owners and developers of
land in a proposed district which, if agreed to, shall be attached to the consent
resolution adopted by the City Council.
E. Consent resolution. A resolution approved by the City Council setting forth terms of
its consent to creation of a district.
F. Consent to creation of a district. Authorization for the owners of land in a proposed
district to initiate proceedings to create a district as provided by law.
G. District. A municipal utility district (“MUD”), water control and improvement district
(“WCID”), flesh water supply district (“FWSD”), or similar political subdivision created
to provide water, sewer or drainage utility services, roads, or other services allowed by
law to a specified area, pursuant to Article III, Section 52, and/or Article XVI, Section 59,
of the Texas Constitution.
H. Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Unincorporated area generally extending two miles
from the City limit, excluding other incorporated municipalities and their ETJ, in which
the City has the authority to annex property, as determined in accordance with Chapter
42 of the Local Government Code.
I. Strategic partnership agreement. An agreement between the City and a district
addressing the relationship between the City and the district, including limited purpose
annexation of commercial areas and other matters pursuant to Section 43.0751 of the
Local Government Code.
J. TCEQ. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or its successor.
13.10.030 Prerequisites to Consent to Creation of a District
A. Before the City Council consents to creation of a district, the following issues shall be
considered in accordance with this chapter:
Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 21
Item # A
1 If applicable, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria for
annexation set out in the City’s annexation policy and is within the City’s projected
ultimate city limit boundary; and
2 Whether the City will provide water and/or wastewater services to the land within
the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence construction of
facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and substantially complete such
construction within 4½ years after submittal of the petition pursuant to the City’s
policies on the extension of utility services.
B. If the determination on both issues 1 and 2 above is negative, then before consenting to
the creation of a district, the City Council shall consider further whether the creation of
the district is feasible, practicable, necessary for the provision of the proposed services
and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City’s consent, consistent
with the other considerations in this policy.
C. If the determination on either of the two issues is affirmative, then the City Council shall
not consent to creation of the district unless the applicant demonstrates that unique
factors justify its creation. If appropriate under the circumstances, the City shall:
1. Commence negotiations with the owners of at least 50 percent of the land in the
proposed district and a majority of the qualified voters concerning the City’s
provision of water and wastewater services, upon receipt of a petition submitted by
such persons in accordance with Local Government Code, Section 42.042; or
2. Commence proceedings to annex the land in the proposed district.
13.10.040 Staff Analysis
Upon receipt of an application seeking the City’s consent to creation of a district and after a
preliminary determination of the prerequisites in Section 13.10.030, City staff shall analyze
the proposed development and its potential impact on facilities and services. The applicant
shall provide the following preliminary information relative to the land proposed to be
included in the district, if available:
A. Engineering report showing:
1 Preliminary water availability study, including copies of any proposed contracts;
2 Preliminary wastewater treatment availability, including copies of any proposed
contracts;
3 Preliminary drainage study; and
4 Preliminary road study for any roads proposed to be reimbursed by bonds.
B. Preliminary cost estimates for water, wastewater, drainage or road facilities or projects,
and any other proposed district facilities to be reimbursed or paid for by the issuance of
district bonds;
C. Master development plan showing general layout of proposed land uses; major streets
and roads; water, wastewater, and drainage facilities; and any other district facilities;
D. Information concerning provision of firefighting and law enforcement services;
Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 21
Item # A
E. Estimated buildout schedule by year with estimated assessed valuations in the district;
F. Estimated ultimate amount of bonds to be issued by the district, ultimate debt service
requirements, and projected district tax rate;
G. District boundary and vicinity map;
H. Traffic study identifying potential impacts on:
1 The City’s road system serving the land proposed to be included in the district, if all
or any portion of the land is located within the City or within two miles of the City’s
boundaries; and
2 The county’s road system, this traffic study is in addition to any traffic studies
required by the City’s subdivision regulations in connection with submittal of
subdivision plats;
3. If all or any portion of the proposed district is located outside the City’s boundaries,
proof that the applicant has provided the following information by certified mail to
the Williamson County Judge and each member of the Commissioners Court: the
name, acreage, and location of the proposed district, buildout schedule, estimated
population on total buildout, and map of the area;
4. Such other information as City staff may reasonably require to analyze the need for
the proposed facilities and the development’s potential impact; and
5. Any proposed City consent agreements.
13.10.050 Conditions to City’s Consent to Creation of a District
If the City Council elects to consent to the creation of or inclusion of land within a district,
then it shall impose the following requirements as conditions of the City’s consent, and
such requirements shall be stipulated in the consent resolution and/or other ancillary
agreement, unless the City Council determines that requirements are not appropriate with
regard to a specific district.
A. All water, wastewater, drainage, and road infrastructure and facilities as well as any
other infrastructure or facilities to be reimbursed or paid for by the issuance of district
bonds, shall be designed and constructed to City standards, including without limitation
fire flow standards and utility and road design, construction and installation standards,
in accordance with plans and specifications that have been approved by the City. In the
event of a conflict between City water and wastewater standards and standards imposed
by the CCN holder for the proposed district, City standards shall prevail, unless
otherwise agreed by the City.
B. The City shall have the right to inspect all facilities being constructed by or on behalf of
the district and to charge inspection fees consistent with the City’s inspection fee
schedule, as amended from time to time.
C. Bonds, including refunding bonds issued by the district, shall, unless otherwise agreed
to by the City, comply with the following requirements, provided such requirements
do not generally render the bonds unmarketable:
Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 21
Item # A
1. Maximum maturity of 20 years for any one series of bonds;
2. Interest rate that does not exceed 2% above the highest average interest rate reported
by the Daily Bond Buyer in its weekly “20 Bond Index” during the one month period
preceding the date notice of the sale of such bonds is given;
3. The bonds shall expressly provide that the district shall reserve the right to redeem
bonds at any time subsequent to the tenth (10th) anniversary of the date of issuance,
without premium. No variable rate bonds shall be issued by a district without City
Council approval; and
4. Any refunding bonds of the district must provide for a minimum of 3% present
value savings and that the latest maturity of the refunding bonds may not extend
beyond the latest maturity of the refunded bonds unless approved by the City
Council.
D. The City shall require the following information with respect to bond issuance:
1. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, except refunding bonds, the district’s
financial advisor shall certify in writing that the bonds are being issued within the
existing economic feasibility guidelines established by the TCEQ for districts
issuing bonds for water, sewer, or drainage facilities in the county in which the
district is located and shall deliver the certification to the City Secretary, and the
City.
2. At least 30 days before the issuance of bonds, the district shall deliver to the City
Secretary, and the City Manager notice as to:
a. The amount of bonds being proposed for issuance;
b. The projects to be funded by such bonds; and
c. The proposed debt service tax rate after issuance of the bonds.
d. If the district is not required to obtain TCEQ approval of the issuance of the
bonds (other than refunding bonds), the district shall deliver such notice to the
City Secretary, and the City Manager at least 60 days prior to issuing such bonds.
Within 30 days after the district closes the sale of a series of bonds, the district
shall deliver to the City Secretary, and the City Manager a copy of the fi nal
official statement for such series of bonds. If the City requests additional
information regarding such issuance of bonds, the district shall promptly
provide such information at no cost to City.
E. The purposes for which a district may issue bonds shall be restricted to the purchase,
construction, acquisition, repair, extension and improvement of land, easements, works,
improvements, facilities, plants, equipment, and appliances necessary to:
1. Provide a water supply for the district for municipal uses, domestic uses, and
commercial purposes;
2. Collect, transport, process, dispose of and control all domestic, industrial or
communal wastes from the district whether in fluid, solid, or composite state;
3. Gather, conduct, divert, and control local storm water or other local harmful excesses
of water in the district; and
Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 21
Item # A
4. Pay organization and administrative expenses, operation expenses during
construction, cost of issuance, interest during construction, and capitalized interest.
5. If appropriate in a particular district, the City may consent to issuance of bonds for
purchase, construction, acquisition, repair, extension, or improvement of fi re
stations, roads, and/or other capital improvements that are mutually agreed upon by
the City Council and the applicant.
F. The district shall contain sufficient acreage to assure the economic viability of the district
but no more acreage than can feasibly be annexed at one time. In general, a district is not
expected to include less than 200 acres or more than 500 acres.
G. Development within the district shall be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
H. No district shall include land in more than one city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.
I. The City and the owners of all land in the proposed district shall reach agreement on the
terms of a development agreement pursuant to Local Government Code, Section
212.171, et seq. to extend the City’s planning authority over land included in the district
by providing for approval of a development plan, authorizing enforcement by the City
of land use and development regulations, and including other lawful terms and
considerations the parties consider appropriate. The development agreement shall
include provisions relating to the following matters:
1. Land use plan reflecting all approved land uses and residential densities;
2. Compliance with City construction Codes, including permit requirements;
3. Compliance with City and other applicable stormwater and water quality
regulations;
4. Development standards comparable to City zoning regulations; and
5. Dedication and development of park land, open space, and trails.
The above list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is expected that the parties will
cooperate to identify those matters unique to the district that may be addressed in a
development agreement.
J. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, the district shall certify in writing that the
district is in full compliance with the consent resolution approved by the City Council
and, to the extent such agreements impose requirements on the district, with the consent
agreement, strategic partnership agreement and all other agreements executed by the
City and the district, and shall deliver the certification to the City Secretary, and the City
Manager.
K. No land within the district shall be allowed, at any time in the future, to
incorporate, join in an incorporation, or be annexed into any incorporated city other
than the City of Georgetown.
L. No land shall be annexed by the district without prior City Council approval.
M. The district shall not construct or install infrastructure or facilities to serve areas outside
the district or sell or deliver services to areas outside the district without prior City
Council approval.
N. After creation of the district, and unless otherwise expressly authorized by the consent
Attachment number 3 \nPage 19 of 21
Item # A
agreement or development agreement, no district shall be converted into another type of
district, consolidated with another district, divided into two or more new districts or
seek additional governmental powers that were beyond its statutory authority at the
time the district was created, without prior City Council approval.
O. If allowed by law, the City may annex any commercial development within the district
for limited purposes pursuant to Local Government Code, Section 43.0751, and may
impose a sales and use tax within the area annexed for limited purposes. If limited
purpose annexation is not allowed by law, then the City may not consent to inclusion
of commercial retail areas within the district. The City may consider sharing tax
receipts with the district, provided the district’s share is used to finance infrastructure,
retire bond debt or for other purposes acceptable to the City.
P. The district shall not issue any bonds other than those authorized by the consent
agreement without City Council approval.
Q. The district shall file a notice in the real property records of all counties in which the
district is located stating that the City has authority to annex the district. The parties
may attach a form of such notice to the consent agreement or development
agreement.
R. The district shall send a copy of the order or other action setting an ad valorem tax rate
to the City Secretary, and the City Manager within 30 days after district adoption of the
rate.
S. The district shall, send a copy of its annual audit to the City Secretary, and the City
Manager within 30 days after approval.
T. The City shall encourage the district to maintain a debt service structure that will ensure
that the district’s taxes are maintained at a rate at least equal to the City’s tax rate, to the
extent feasible.
U. The district shall provide copies of any material event notices filed under applicable
federal securities laws or regulations to the City Secretary, and the City Manager within
30 days after filing such notices with the applicable federal agency.
V. Construction of capital improvements such as fire stations and recreational amenities
shall be encouraged.
W. Sharing of fire stations, recreational amenities, and other capital improvements by the
City and the district shall be encouraged..
X. If construction or expansion of a wastewater treatment facility is proposed to serve the
district, the plant design shall conform to all applicable state and federal permitt ing and
design standards. In addition, any wastewater discharge shall be permitted to meet
effluent limitations no less stringent than 5‐5‐2‐1 (5 parts per million {“ppm”}
biochemical oxygen demand; 5 ppm total suspended solids; 2 ppm nitrogen; and 1 ppm
phosphorus) or the current limits in permit(s) held by the City, whichever is strictest.
The City reserves the right to protest any wastewater treatment facility permit
application or amendment.
Y. The board of directors of the district and landowners within the district shall assist the
City in annexing one or more areas as reasonably necessary for the City to connect areas
to the City that are outside the district and that the City intends to annex in the
foreseeable future.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 20 of 21
Item # A
Z. The City shall require the district to complete a traffic impact analysis pursuant to
Section 12.05 of this Code.
AA. The City may agree not to annex and dissolve the district any earlier than the fi
rst to occur of: (i) extension of water, sanitary sewer, and drainage facilities to serve
90% of the land within the district; or (ii) 15 years after creation of the district. The
contract between the City and the district may provide that the City may set rates for
water and/or sewer services for property that was within the district that vary from
those for other properties within the City in order to compensate the City for
assumption of district obligations upon annexation, in compliance with any statutory
requirements applicable to such an agreement.
BB. The consent agreement and ancillary documents shall include terms
providing for the district to be fully developed and ready for full purpose
annexation by the City within a reasonable time period.
CC. The applicant shall reimburse the City for expenses incurred by the City in
connection with the City’s consent to formation of the district, including but not limited
to professional fees incurred in connection with negotiation and preparation of the
consent resolution, consent agreement, development agreement, strategic partnership
agreement, and related documents.
13.10.060 City Operations Compensation Fee
A fee shall be assessed for each residential unit within the district equal to the proportion of
City operations attributed to serving residents of the district. The fee shall be calculated as
follows:
B = Total General Fund budget for the fiscal year in which the consent application is filed.
P = The estimated population of the City at the time the consent application is filed.
H = The estimated average household size within the City at the time the consent application is
filed.
D = The percentage of City services used by district residents. This percentage shall be adopted
by the City annually as a part of the City’s budget adoption process.
Y = Number of years of duration of the district.
R = Discount rate. This rate shall be adopted by the City annually as a part of the city’s budget
adoption process.
PV = Present Value.
City Operations Compensation Fee = PV(R,Y,‐((B /(P /H)) * D))
Example: B = $24,000,000 P = 41,000 H = 2.8 D = 15%
Y = 20 R = 6% Fee = $2,819.92
Attachment number 3 \nPage 21 of 21
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Presentation and direction to staff on developing a resolution to initiate the expansion of the Downtown
Overlay District and Downtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone to support continued public and private
investment in the District -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting direction to proceed with an expansion of the Downtown Overlay District to include
existing city properties and private properties requesting to be added to the District. The expansion of the
District would expand the Downtown TIRZ boundaries to match the district. Staff is also requesting direction
to extend the duration of the TIRZ for continued funding of capital projects in the Downtown Overlay
District.
The purpose of the proposed resolution for this item is to initiate the process to expand the District and the
TIRZ, allowing new properties access to the Mixed Use – Downtown (MU-DT) zoning, which is restricted to
properties located within the district boundaries.
Should City Council direct staff to develop the proposed Resolution, staff will initiate the expansion process
consistent with state and city land use regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
If Council approves the forthcoming resolution, the project will have notification costs and effect the tax
increment received by the Downtown TIRZ. Based on Council direction, more formal financial estimates
will be provided when the proposed resolution is submitted for review on August 26th.
SUBMITTED BY:
Matt Synatschk/jd
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Planning Department Study and Business Plan - - Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The FY2014 budget funded a study of the Planning Department to objectively identify strengths and
weaknesses in the Department including business processes, technology, municipal policies relevant to long-
range planning, budget and staffing. The study also discusses the housing coordinator and planning functions
of the Downtown & Community Services Division as well as aspects of GUS relative to the planning and
development process. The draft 200-page report makes 94 recommendations. The executive summary and
background sections of the study have been attached to this agenda item. The consultant retained for this
study will participate in the presentation of this item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The study was a funded line item in the approved FY2014 budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Executive Summary and Background
Cover Memo
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 1 Zucker Systems
Review of Planning Department
Georgetown, Texas
Executive Summary, Background and Purpose
By
Zucker Systems
Paul Zucker, President
Mary Blais, Planning Director
3038 Udall St.
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 260-2680
www.zuckersystems.com
paul@zuckersystems.com
May, 2014
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 2 Zucker Systems
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 3 Zucker Systems
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
This study was initiated by the Planning Director for a Review of the Planning Department.
B. KEY PRIORITY AREAS
This report includes 94 recommendations for improving the Georgetown Planning Department
and related functions. While all the recommendations are important, we believe there are six
key areas or groupings that need the highest priority as follows:
1. ORGANIZATION
Findings
The functions of the Community Development Department were split up among the
Planning Department, Utility Division, and Assistant City Manager. This moved the
planning function from Division status to Department status and placed the
Planning Director directly under the City Manager. This has allowed the City
Manager to participate more in decision making on planning issues. However, if the
current organization structure suffered a break down or if the City Manager did not
aggressively support planning, then we believe the planning function could be
deemphasized and it may not be able to play its role in the City’s desire to be “A
City of Excellence.”
Recommendations
If the current structure is to remain, then the Planning Department should have
better recognition in the new organizational structure. To do so we recommend:
Eleven specific actions to recognize the importance of planning,
Recommendation 2;
Changes to the Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County,
Recommendations 46 and 48;
Changes to the MUD policies, Recommendations 49 and 50; and
Review of CIP projects by the Planning Commission, Recommendation 62.
2. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Findings
While the Planning Department has performance standards, they do not cover all
appropriate areas, in some cases too long of timelines exist, and are not well
monitored.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 4 Zucker Systems
Recommendations
We suggest specific new performance standards in Recommendations 90 and 91.
3. LONG RANGE PLANNING
Findings
The City has an excellent Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
However, there are a few missing elements and both documents need a number of
improvements. These two documents are essential in the City’s desire to be a “City
of Excellence.”
Recommendations
Establish a monthly long‐range planning meeting, Recommendation 22;
Have at least one full time long range Planner, Recommendation 27;
Up‐date the Annexation Policy, Recommendations 42 and 43; and
Up‐date the Comprehensive Plan, Recommendations 44 and 45.
4. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Findings
While the City’s development process works reasonably well, we believe it can work
even better to satisfy customers and meet the City’s goal.
Recommendations
We suggest:
Empowering planners to be true project managers, Recommendation 24;
Reclassify Water Utility Engineer to Development Engineer and provide focus to
the development process, Recommendation 32; and
Re‐establish a Development Review Committee for complex projects,
Recommendations 83, and 87.
5. TECHNOLOGY
Findings
There is a rapidly moving national trend to have the development process paperless
and Internet based. This will be essential if Georgetown is to be competitive in the
marketplace. The City has begun some work in this area with the MyPermitsNow
program but it may not be sufficient in the longer time frame.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 5 Zucker Systems
Recommendations
Planning should actively participate in all software discussions,
Recommendation 33;
A provision should be made for on‐line project submittals, Recommendation 68;
and
A consultant should be hired to review the City’s current software and efficiency,
Recommendation 34.
6. BUDGET AND STAFFING
Findings
There is a shortage of planning staff for long‐range planning and with current and
anticipated increase in development activity; there will be a shortage of current‐
planning staff.
Recommendations
Revenue beyond that anticipated in the budget should be made available to
supplement planning staff, Recommendation 17;
The planning staff should include at least one full time long‐range planner,
Recommendation 27; and
Staff should be increased by one Current Planner, Recommendation 25.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 6 Zucker Systems
II. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
A. THE CONTRACT
This study was initiated by the Planning Director for a Review of the Planning Department.
The RFP for the study was issued November 20, 2013. Zucker Systems submitted a proposal on
December 18, 2013 and was selected for the work on January 9, 2014. A purchase order was
completed on January 15, 2014. Zucker Systems staff spent time in Georgetown on February 12,
13, and March 25, 26 and 27.
B. BACKGROUND
The Planning Department functions were reorganized effective October 1, 2012 with some
Department functions moving to Georgetown Utilities Services (GUS) and others moving to the
Downtown & Community Services Division to enable a more focused team of Planners on
current planning issues and to allow the City Manager to become more involved with the
development process, with a personal touch. Since hiring a new Planning Director in October,
2012 the Department has undertaken a number of enhancements to improve customer service,
outreach to development stakeholders, improved avenues of communication, and utilized new
technology.
In the area of customer service the Department created a customer service program consisting
of: staff standard operation procedures (SOP), a customer bulletin process, and required
customer service training of all staff. Outreach with development stakeholders was also
conducted at the City Manager’s monthly development breakfast, the Chamber of Commerce
Development Alliance and both the Austin Homebuilders Association and the local
Georgetown Homebuilders Association.
The Department initiated new techniques to examine workload and performance. Previously
the Department was graded on annual measures such as percentage of staff recommendations
approved by City Council and area of land annexed, which were not necessarily reflective of
either staff workload or performance. On a weekly basis the Department now tracks walk‐in
traffic, application submittals, plat recordation and on a monthly basis examines telephone
traffic and application trends compared to prior years.
The Department undertook a switch from the legacy “InCode” system to the paperless
MyPermitNow system that allows customers to submit PDF files rather than printing large
format plans, allows multiple reviewers to conduct their reviews simultaneously without
waiting for paper plans to be routed from one staff to the next and in the future MyPermitNow
should allow online submittals. As part of this technical conversion, all business processes were
flowcharted and hence the flowcharts and related materials were made available for use by
stakeholders to better understand the development process.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 7 Zucker Systems
The Department increased efforts to document determinations and communicate policies and
procedures with customers through published Code Interpretations and Customer Bulletins,
which have all been posted online. A Development Guide was created to provide an easy
reference tool tailored to readers unfamiliar with the area or who have never gone through the
development process.
The Department also took a hard look at a particular Unified Development Code (UDC)
provision relative to “abandonment” that was communicated to the Director through a group
convened by the City Manager. This provision was viewed as punitive and was a disincentive
to reuse and repurpose vacant buildings. The updated interpretation and related customer
bulletin on “abandonment” was well received by Georgetown stakeholders and will further
reduce the number of items that need to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
In late 2012, the City also moved to twice monthly Planning & Zoning Commission meetings to
offer assistance with development approval timelines. This was viewed as something the City
could offer without the need to amend ordinances or other policies and as a way to facilitate the
development process. In 2013, a School District liaison seat was also added to the Commission
to ensure there is dialogue between the District and the City as new residential development
occurs. To further School District awareness of development matters the Department also
instituted a notification process on rezoning cases to the District.
A series of City Council workshops have been held to update annexation and Municipal Utility
District (MUD) policies in consideration of completion of the annexation plan and due to the
number of requests for new MUDs that were coming in. In a collaborative effort with Finance,
Utilities, Legal, Transportation and other city departments this future annexation policy is
under study with a comprehensive examination of impacts across Department lines and as a
tool to implement the City of Excellence goals.
Finally, the Department has also supported the interdepartmental efforts to assist the City
through new federal and state mandates including the listing of the Georgetown Salamander,
an ordinance to reduce household water consumption, and efforts to comply with the MS4
storm water requirements.
The accomplishments since 2012 are all worthwhile efforts toward making the Department
more responsive to customers and City Council priorities. This study was initiated by the
Planning Director for a Review of the Planning Department. The purpose of this study is to
further analyze and identify issues that can be considered for continuous process improvement,
engaging long range planning in a broader context of urban affairs and maintaining a
responsive and effective development review process.
C. STUDY METHODOLOGY
Zucker Systems used a proprietary well‐tested, integrated methodology for this study, as
shown in Figure 1. We brought our extensive experience to the study, worked closely with staff,
and solicited input and observations from customers and policy makers. The methodology is
built on interrelating records, observations, and interviews. Each is necessary for valid studies.
National research has shown that each one of these three—if relied upon exclusively—can be
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 8 Zucker Systems
subject to substantial error. For example, record systems are often found to be as high as 50% in
error, or the wrong things are measured. We used observations and interviews to verify
records. Records and interviews were used to verify observations. Records and observations
were used to verify interviews. Each group of people, shown in Figure 1, was an important part
of the process.
Figure 1
Methodology Overview
Specific activities conducted for this study included the following:
One customer focus group of seven people;
A mail survey to 127 applicants for Planning approvals;
A short questionnaire completed by 10 staff;
A long questionnaire completed by 5 staff;
One‐on‐one interviews with staff, the Mayor, City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, and Assistant City Attorney;
Meeting with three GIS staff;
Meeting with three staff regarding MyPermitNow;
Review of reports, policies and data; and
Interview with Chairpersons of Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic and
Architectural Review Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment.
D. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This assessment found many exemplary features within the Planning Department as well as a
number of areas where improvement is possible.
Areas of Strength
Uses an electronic submittal and online permit tracking system (e.g.,
MyPermitNow) which is a best practice;
Operational
Analysis
Recommendation
and Action Plan
Customers
Observations
Records Interviews
Consulting
Experience
City Staff
Policy Makers
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 9 Zucker Systems
Established a customer service program and promotes customer service in all
Department communications;
Published Application Review Calendars, flow charts and timelines to help
applicants approximate when to submit formal applications in order to make
agenda deadlines and gauge overall processing timeframes for various
application types, which is a best practice;
Holds Pre‐application meetings prior to accepting a formal submittal, which is a
best practice, when structured appropriately;
Published a UDC Development Manual and, more recently, a Development
Guide, which is an easy to understand, comprehensive reference guide for
navigating the Unified Development Code (UDC), planning application and
development review processes, which is a best practice;
Planning staff in the Department, including the Director and Principal Planners,
are AICP certified;
Good 2030 Plan; and
Good Unified Development Code.
Opportunities for Improvement
Problem areas and opportunities for improvement are described throughout this
report. What we consider to be six key areas, or themes, are discussed in the
Executive Summary, the first chapter in this report.
Table 1 summarizes the 94 recommendations and opportunities for improvement
made throughout this study. To assist the reader, each summarized recommendation
is cross‐referenced to the page on which the supporting text appears. Although all of
these recommendations are important, each was given a priority number in order to
help the City with implementation. There are 28 priority number one
recommendations, 40 priority number two recommendations and 26 priority number
three recommendations. We assume that existing staff will implement many of the
recommendations and the cost, except for new staffing, generally should be
absorbed through greater efficiency.
To further help the City and departments in implementation, we have also coded all
the recommendations. “Phase One Actions” are recommendations, which we believe
should be completed in the first nine months. “Phase Two Actions” we believe
should be completed within 18 months.
There are 63 Phase One Action recommendations. Some of these are given priority 1,
2 or 3. However, that does not mean that only the priority 1 recommendations
should be addressed. There are 31 Phase Two Action recommendations. The
departments should develop a detailed implementation plan with time targets for
these recommendations.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 10 Zucker Systems
For each recommendation, we also indicate a responsible party for implementation.
While the above priorities and action schedules should help the City with its implementation
plan, it is essential to initially focus on the six key priorities discussed in the Executive
Summary.
Table 1
Table of Recommendations
# Recommendation Responsibility
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ph
a
s
e
On
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
Tw
o
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
1. Agree on an implementation plan Planning Director and City
Manager 1 X
ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW
2. Adopt 11 organizational changes for the Planning
Department
Planning Director and City
Manager 1 X
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
3. Replace Community Development Department
signage Planning Director 3 X
4. Remodel to include a variety of features as listed Planning Director and GUS
Division 2 X
5. Expand the Planning Department counter Planning Director and GUS
Division 2 X
6. Purchase computer for Permitting and
Inspections function GUS Division 2 X
7. Planning Department to be involved in building
remodel
Planning Director and GUS
Division 2 X
8. Email customer surveys Planning Director 2 X
9. Add features to MyPermitNow Planning Director and IT 2 X
10. Purchase scanning equipment Planning Director 2 X
Fees/Financial Issues
11. Update Planning Application Fee schedule Planning Director 2 X
12. Create escrow account to assure fee payments Planning Director and
Finance 2 X
13. Create a development fee calculator Planning Director 3 X
14. Update Planning application fees annually Planning Director 3 X
15. Attach fee to building permit for Comprehensive
Plan Planning Director and GUS 3 X
16. Fee payment available on‐line Planning Director and IT 3 X
17. Use increase of revenue over budget to add
resources to Planning Department
Planning Director and
Finance 1 X
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 11 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ph
a
s
e
On
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
Tw
o
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Other Items
18. Modify MyPermitNow for file storage Planning Director and IT 2 X
Meetings/Communication
19. Define purpose for all meetings Planning Director 2 X
20. Discuss mission in staff meetings Planning Director 2 X
21. Meetings with Housing, Historic Preservation and
Urban Forester to be decision meetings
Planning Director and
relevant functions 2 X
22. Establish monthly long‐range planning meeting Planning Director and
related functions 1 X
23. Create bi‐weekly meeting to coordinate
development City Manager 1 X
24. Empower planners to be project managers Planning Director and City
Manager 1 X
Staffing
25. Add one Current Planner Planning Director 1 X
26. Create a current planner staffing model Planning Director 3 X
27. Long‐range planner to be 100% on long‐range
planning Planning Director 1 X
28. Housing Coordinator and Historic District Planner
to be supervised by Planning Director
Planning Director and
Assistant City Manager 2 X
29. Refine role of Project Coordinator City Manager 2 X
30. Give Urban Forester access to Planning’s L:/drive Planning Director 2 X
31. Delegate some tree‐related inspections to
building inspectors Parks Department and GUS 3 X
32. Reclassify Water Utility Engineer to Development
Engineer GUS 1 X
Technology
33. Planning to participate in all permitting software
decisions Planning Director and IT 1 X
34. Hire a consultant to review permitting software Planning Director and IT 1 X
35. Expand webpage to include listed additions Planning Director 3 X
Training
36. Have 2% of personnel budget and 5% staff time
for training Planning Director 6
7 2 X
37. Conduct training sessions re development review Planning Director 6
7 2 X
38. Conduct training for customer service and
MyPermitNow Planning Director 6
7 2 X
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 12 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ph
a
s
e
On
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
Tw
o
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
39. Conduct supervisor and leadership training Planning Director 2 X
40. Cross train current and long‐range planners Planning Director 3 X
Work Program
41. Prepare annual work plan Planning Director 1 X
POLICY ISSUES
Annexation
42. Update Annexation Policy Planning Director 1 X
43. Include Annexation Policy in work plan Planning Director 1 X
Comprehensive Plan
44. Update 2030 Plan Planning Director 1 X
45. Update Land Use element of 2030 Plan Planning Director 1 X
Interlocal Agreement
46. Amend Interlocal Agreement with Williamson
County
Planning Director and City
Council 1 X
47. Planning Director to be lead staff for Interlocal
Agreement Planning Director 2 X
48. Include Interlocal Agreement in work plan Planning Director 1 X
MUD Policy
49. Adopt MUD policy consistent with
Comprehensive Plan City Council 1 X
50. MUD policy to establish a review team City Manager 1 X
51. Amend UDC re MUD policy Planning Director 2 X
UDC
52. Amend UDC re Administrative Variances Planning Director 2 X
53. Correct fencing and pergola standards in UDC Planning Director 3 X
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
54. Agree on packets Planning Director and
Historic District Planner 3 X
55. Bi‐annual study session with HARC and City
Council Assistant City Manager 3 X
56. Brief HARC on Council meetings Assistant City Manager 2 X
57. Change title on staff reports Assistant City Manager 3 X
58. Assistant City Manager to sign staff reports Assistant City Manager 3 X
59. Develop staff report template Assistant City Manager 2 X
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 13 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ph
a
s
e
On
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
Tw
o
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
60. Have professional recommendation on staff
reports Assistant City Manager 2 X
61. Expand training for HARC members Assistant City Manager 3 X
Planning & Zoning Commission
62. P&Z to review CIP City Manager 1 X
63. Bi‐annual study session with P&Z and City Council Planning Director 3 X
64. Revise staff report re recommendations Planning Director 3 X
65. Expand training for P&Z members Planning Director 2 X
66. Create policy and procedures manual for all
application types Planning Director 2 X
Zoning Board of Adjustment
67. Dissolve ZBA and transfer functions to P&Z City Council 2 X
PROCESS ISSUES
68. Provide for on‐line plan submittals MPN designers 1 X
69. Do not require pre‐application conferences for
Administrative CDC’s Planning Director 3 X
70. Amend UDC re Pre‐application Conceptual
Reviews Planning Director 3 X
71. Revise bulletins and flow charts re UDC changes Planning Director 3 X
72. Reject incomplete applications Planning Director 2 X
73. Same intake staff for all applications Planning Director 3 X
74. Charge fee for pre‐application conference Planning Director 3 X
75. Schedule pre‐applications online Planning Director 3 X
76. Revise pre‐application submittal checklist Planning Director 3 X
77. Principal Planner to chair all pre‐application
conferences Planning Director 2 X
78. Reduce the number of applications that require
pre‐application Planning Director 3 X
79. Modify pre‐application conference form Planning Director 3 X
80. Key decision makers to attend pre‐applications Planning Director and
relevant other functions 1 X
81. Create pre‐application comment worksheet Planning Director 1 X
82. Establish application submittal days Planning Director 2 X
Development Review Committee (DRC)
83. Re‐establish DRC function Planning Director 1 X
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 14
Item # C
Georgetown, Texas 14 Zucker Systems
# Recommendation Responsibility
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ph
a
s
e
On
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
a
s
e
Tw
o
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
84. Create DRC schedule Planning Director 2 X
85. Determine which applications should go to DRC Planning Director 2 X
86. Current‐planning Principal Planner to proactively
manage DRC meetings Planning Director 2 X
87. Assigned planner to lead DRC discussion Planning Director 1 X
88. Post DRC agenda on website Planning Director 2 X
89. Create discussion checklist for DRC Planning Director 2 X
Performance Standards
90. Set new performance standards for
Administrative Applications Planning Director 1 X
91. Set new performance standards for all processes Planning Director 1 X
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS
92. Conduct employee retreat re Questions 8, 11, 12
and 17. Planning Director 2 X
93. Establish annual employee training program Planning Director 2 X
CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS
94. Staff to review Questions 8, 11, and 16 and
respond to customer needs Planning Director 2 X
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 14
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on the proposed 2014 Property Tax Rate -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Texas Tax Code requires the City Council to hold two public hearings on the proposed tax rate prior to
adoption if the proposed rate exceeds the current effective tax rate.
The 2014 proposed tax rate of $0.4350 exceeds the effective rate of $0.42344 by 2.7%. The increase is
required to pay the operating costs of the new Public Safety Operations and Training Center, expand policy
services and various other new city programs to enhance city services to the community. The Council is not
required to adopt this rate; however, this is the maximum rate the Council may consider.
Currently, Council is considering a slightly lower rate of $0.4340, which is 2.5% over the effective rate.
An overview of the tax calculation and related General Fund revenue and expenditure information will also
be provided at the hearing and was reviewed with Council at budget workshops held on July 14, 15, 23 and
29.
The proposed 2014/15 Annual Budget workbook are available for public review at the Public Library,
located at 808 Martin Luther King or at City Hall located at 113 E. 8th Street. The information is also
available on the City's website.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This public hearing and the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 19 fulfill the requirements of the Texas
Local Government Code, Section 102.006 providing for public comment on the proposed 2014/15 Annual
Budget and for adoption of the City's 2014 tax rate. Both are scheduled for first reading at the August 26,
2014 regular Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
One page tax rate and budget summary
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City Manager's proposed 2014/15 Budget is $234.1 million, and has been reviewed and adjusted by
Council at its July meetings.
SUBMITTED BY:
Becky Huff
ATTACHMENTS:
Tax rate budget summary
Cover Memo
Item # D
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
2014/15 Proposed Annual Budget & Tax Rate Summary
Property Tax Rates
What is the proposed tax rate?
Notice proposed tax rate is $0.435 per $100 valuation, but the City Council’s recommended rate is slightly less
at $0.434, which is $0.005 or ½ cent lower than last years’ adopted tax rate of $0.4395
How will it impact me?
The Notice Rate of $0.435 rate is 2.7% above the effective tax rate, which is the rate required to raise the
same amount of tax revenues as last year for existing property. The recommended rate of $0.434 is 2.49%
greater than the effective rate.
For the average existing City homeowner, the annual increase is $50.79, or $4.24 per month, based on the
Council’s recommended rate of $0.434. This assumes a 7.4% increase in home value to last year’s average
homeowner.
Other revenues such as sales taxes are also increasing, why doesn’t the city just use that money to offset the
impact to average homeowners?
Yes, sales tax revenue and other revenues have increased which pays for most new programs and services.
However, a small increase in property tax revenues is needed to fund the demands for our growing city.
2014/15 Proposed Budget
What is included in the Proposed 2014/15 Annual Budget?
The 2014/15 Proposed Annual Budget of $231 million represents significant efforts toward meeting the Council’s vision
for Georgetown as the City of Excellence, including:
Nine new fire fighters and two transitional response vehicles (TRV’s) to provide a Fire-based Paramedic
Program. This proposed program is paid from fees and will not impact the General Fund.
Three new officers in Police to establish a new Crime Deployment Unit to rapidly respond to crime issues as they
are identified.
Completion and operations of the new 76,000 square foot, state of the art Public Safety Operations and
Training Complex (PSOTC), scheduled to open in December 2014.
Investment of $7.9 million in new Downtown, Sidewalk, Parks and City Facility Capital Projects:
o Downtown parking will be addressed including a new paved lot at the corner of Eighth & MLK Streets,
across from the Georgetown Library, and $400,000 to study options for design of a downtown parking
garage.
o Downtown Master Plan for Downtown West Phase I, including Municipal Court, for $1.7 million.
o Significant efforts in Parks including upgrading VFW Park, constructing a Splash Pad in the southeast
part of Georgetown, and designing on the next phase of the River Trails.
o Sidewalks will be constructed on Second Street and 11th Street.
Expand hours at the Georgetown Recreation Center to include Sundays.
Infrastructure investment of $22.9 million in Utilities and $12.1 million in Transportation, including the final $4.3
million needed to fund the widening of FM 1460, expected to start in February 2015 with a 2 year construction
time.
Continued efforts to maintain competitive, low electric rates for the City’s customers, with power supplies that
include both wind and solar energy.
No rate increases in Water, Wastewater & Electric. A $0.50 increase to pass through cost increases from TDS
is included for Sanitation.
Add 2 positions in Conservation to implement the water conservation programs needed to make best use of the
City’s water supplies.
Council invites input from the community at the two public hearings on the tax rate scheduled for August
12th & August 19 and a public hearing on the overall budget on August 26. For more information, please go
to www.georgetown.org.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # D
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction regarding suggested Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments to
include in the 2014-2016 UDC amendment process -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principle Planner and Andrew
Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
Establishing and approving a list of suggested amendments to consider to the Unified Development Code
(UDC) is the first step in the biennial UDC review process. Over the next couple of years this listed group of
items will serve as a “to do list” for staff to work from to draft potential text changes and updates to the UDC
for City Council consideration.
Between 2012 and 2013 City Council reviewed the existing UDC amendment process. The changes were to
separate proposed amendments to the UDC into different groups for purposes of processing. One of those
was a “general” group of amendments put into a list to be approved by City Council. The potential
amendments from that list would be reviewed by an appointed committee, with public input, over a two year
period.
The Unified Development Code Advisory Committee (UDCAC) was created in November of 2013, first
appointments made in March 2014, with the primary responsibility of reviewing and making
recommendations regarding UDC amendments included as part of the General Amendments List. The
UDCAC also reviews and makes recommendations on the General Amendments List itself. The proposed
General Amendments List was considered by the UDCAC on July 1st followed by Planning & Zoning
Commission review and recommendation on August 5th. City Council has final consideration and action on
the General Amendments List.
The list of requested General Amendments (see Exhibit 1) consists of items requested by city staff, items
requested by the public, and items requested by members of the UDCAC. The list is grouped by topics
generally following the chapters of the UDC with the specific amendments list separately followed by a
description, a corresponding UDC chapter or section reference, and the role of the requesting party (staff,
public, or UDCAC). This list does not include any amendments that will be prepared/ reviewed outside of the
General Amendment review process, such as Executive Amendments (incorporation of recently adopted
ordinances, etc.) or those approved by City Council to be reviewed separately from the standard review
process (review of historic related processes and requirements, etc.).
The 2014-2016 list of requested amendments is lengthy at 68 items. The majority are items identified by
staff, resulting from experiences applying the UDC where clarification or even simplification is needed or
where the UDC does not reflect actual practice. Also, staff has found that certain regulations have become
difficult to meet or are not producing the intended results. The public requested three amendments either
through applications, staff contact, or public meeting input. The public amendment requests include creating
a new district that would accommodate a “micro lot” residential product or reducing the required Planned
Unit Development (PUD) district size; allowing Contractor Services Limited and General and Office
Warehouse uses in the General Commercial (C-3) district; and limiting uses in the Downtown Overlay in
order to create a transition zone adjacent the Old Town Overlay. Two items resulted from UDCAC
discussion including removal/increasing of the 25,000 square foot building limitation in the Local
Commercial (C-1) district, and reduction of the required setbacks in the Industrial (IN) district.
The new UDC amendment process discussed with City Council sets out that the General Amendments List
will be reviewed and adopted by City Council every two years, with adoption of the UDC amendments
themselves following the same schedule. While not codified into the UDC yet at this time, the increase from
a once a year UDC update to a once every two year update was intended to reduce the frequency of UDC
changes the public and staff must track. A contributing factor to the number of requested amendments with
this review cycle is the fact that the last group of amendments, excepting special out-of-cycle amendments
such as the recent multifamily revisions, was completed in March of 2012. The UDCAC expressed concern
Cover Memo
Item # E
at their July 1st meeting with having all items on the proposed amendment list wait the two year period for
City Council adoption, and recommended items be allowed to be expedited and brought forward periodically
during the cycle as they are needed and completed. With this said, staff is requesting to process and bring
forward UDC revisions addressing some of the current amendment requests in an earlier time frame than the
proposed two years in order to address some items that need a more timely review. These first items could
coincide with other UDC amendments not included in the General Amendments List, such as the Executive
Amendments and/or “Emergency” historic amendments that will be brought to the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council in the upcoming months. The items that the staff feels are in need of the
earlier review cycle are marked on the list of requested General Amendments (Exhibit 1) with a star. By
timing the potential adoption of these early items with the other forthcoming amendments, there would not
be an additional update of the UDC beyond what would have otherwise occurred.
The goal today is to review the list of suggested amendments and discuss any amendments that should be
added, removed or modified. Pending feedback from City Council at this workshop, the proposed General
Amendments List for the 2014-2016 review period will be presented for final action at the August 26th City
Council meeting.
Unified Development Code Advisory Committee Recommendation:
At their July 1st, 2014, meeting, the UDCAC recommended unanimously (7-0) approval of the proposed list.
There were three citizens in attendance.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
At their August 5th, 2014, meeting, the P&Z recommended unanimously (7-0) approval of the proposed list
as presented. There were no speakers for the item.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
-
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 - 2014-2016 UDC General Amendment LIst
Exhibit 2 - Current Pending Executive Amendments
Powerpoint Presentation
Cover Memo
Item # E
Requested General Amendments for the 2014-2016 Review Period
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section Requester
1 Update the requirements of the Pre-application Process to reflect
updates in current practice.Update the requirements of the Pre-application Process to reflect updates in current practice. 3.02.010 Staff
2 Update the provisions related to the Development Manual process
to reflect updates in current practice.Update the provisions related to the Development Manual process to reflect updates in current practice. 1.11 Staff
3 Create a process to address requests for vesting determinations.
Vesting claims have been presented to the city occasionally over the past few years, but with no defined procedures for addressing.
These requests will likely increase over the next few years as the city has adopted new regulations that will apply to some existing
developments.
Chapter 3 Staff
4 Review the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan
requirements for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included in the Development Plan required for consideration of a PUD. Not all of these
details are always needed or applicable. Staff proposes we look at this list and consider whether all are needed or appropriate.3.06 & 4.06 Staff
7 Create a UDC section acknowledging the city’s current annexation
process.Formalize existing process, in keeping with State Law and the City Charter. Chapter 3 Staff
8 Review the criteria for approval used when evaluating rezoning
requests.
Assist P&Z and City Council with consistent approval criteria lessen subjectivity and potential for challenge of arbitrary or
unreasonable findings.3.06.030 Staff
10 Consider withholding or limiting approval on applications when the
property owner has unresolved City Code violations.
Existing language in Chapter 15 is unclear if additional entitlements may be withheld for violations of City Code, even when there is a
serious life, health, safey violation on a property.15.03.040 Staff
13 Reconsider the current three acre minimum PUD size requirement. Consider smaller PUDs in certain circumstances or consider various levels of requirements and/or scrutiny based on size. Chapter 4 Staff
15 Reconsider how the current Gateway Overlay districts are being
used.
Currently, the Gateway Overlay districts only provide for additional landscaping along the frontages of these roads. Staff would like to
explore utilizing these districts to address other issues that have presented over the last couple of years such as land uses or design.4.13 Staff
Consider allowing small scale residential cottage product by-right, something with "micro lots", maybe just in an infill situation or
allow for small residential PUDS.Chapter 5 Public
Reconsider allowing "Contractor Services Limited", "Contractor Services General", and "Office Warehouse" Specific Uses in the C-3
zoning district.Chapter 5 Public
Requested General Amendments
9 Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity regarding
revisions and to reflect updates in the process.
Update the Site Plan provisions to provide clarity regarding revisions, as there is some confusion regarding when something should
be handle as an Amendment to a Site Plan or a Minor Site Plan, and to reflect updates in the process including Site Plans
incorporating Construction Plans.
Application
Processes and
Requirements
Review the Special Use Permit (SUP) Conceptual Site Plan
requirements for review.
There is a very detailed list of items to be included on the Conceptual Site Plan required for consideration of an SUP. Not all of these
details are needed or applicable to all types of SUPs. Staff proposes we look at this list and consider whether all are needed or
appropriate.
3.07 Staff
Expand development agreement language establishing clear
requirements and processes.
Upcoming policies for procedures and consideration of special districts and development agreements are anticipated and would
require UDC amendments to implement.3.2 Staff
Staff3.09
Land Uses Staff is regularly presented with questions regarding the possibility of allowing different uses in districts they are not otherwise
allowed in and would like to address some of these through the public process in the next round of updates to the UDC. Examples
include allowing stand-alone medical offices in the Industrial district and whether recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as
primary quarters in the Agriculture district.
For larger tracts, consider a preliminary process such as a concept plan that creates long-term expectations for utilities,
transportation, public facilities, parks, etc. without requiring plat-level engineering and detail. Consider minimum acreage sizes for
preliminary plats and/or concept plans. Protect street connectivity between subdivisions by having more global plans.
3.08.070
Staff
Staff
Staff
StaffChapter 5
StaffChapter 5
The existing minimum acreage sizes for Industrial and Business Park present challenges in certain areas where the zoning would be
appropriate. Reconsider when and if the minimum size is appropriate.7.03 Staff
Zoning/ Overlay
Districts
Review Courthouse View Protection Overlay district requirements
for clarity and completeness.
The Courthouse View Overlay provisions should be reviewed to make sure they are complete, that there are no missing steps, and
that the specifics of how to apply this overlay are clear.4.12
Subdivision/
Platting
5
6
11
12
14
Review current exemptions to platting requirements for clarity.Update subdivision language to reflect case law, attorney general opinions and correct confusion between 3.08.020 and 3.08.010 E
relative to division of land for the purposes sale versus division of land for development.3.08.020
Review and update Preliminary Plat phasing provisions based on
experience.
17 Consider updating the list of Specific Uses in Chapter 5 to include
various uses that are not currently listed.
18 Consider changes to the zoning districts various Specific Uses may
be permitted in.
Over time new uses are presented to staff that are not specifically addressed in the UDC. Examples include self-service machines
(ice) and storage yards.
16 Consider whether the minimum acreage size for Industrial and
Business Park zoning should be lessened.
Page 1of 4
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # E
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section Requester
Reconsider the 25,000 square foot building limitation for retail and medical uses in the C-1 zoning district. Chapter 5 UDCAC
21 Acknowledge mobile food trailers as a use within the UDC and
outline appropriate regulations governing.Mobile food trailers have increased in popularity and the city’s codes should be updated to address them. 3.11 & 5.08 Staff
22 Review the current accessory dwelling unit regulations regarding
garage apartment rental.
Accessory dwelling units have become more and more popular and accepted in other cities around the area and country. Staff has
been approached many times by citizens interested in having a garage apartment either for personal reasons such as elder care or
for rental purposes. Clarification is needed regarding what may constitute rental as well as a fresh look at the concerns or challenges
of the rental of accessory dwelling units.
5.02.020.B Staff
23
Review provisions and definitions related to Sexually Oriented
Businesses (SOB) for consistency with the City’s Code of
Ordinances.
The City Code of Ordinances has provisions governing SOBs in addition to the UDC’s provisions. Some of the regulations within each
document are inconsistent with each other and need clarification and revision.5.04 & 16.04 Staff
24
Provide better clarification regarding when a use is considered an
accessory use and when it is considered an additional primary
use.
There has been some question in the past when more than one use is proposed on the same property or with the same business as
to whether the use should be treated as an accessory use to the primary use or whether it should be handled as another primary use
on the property. Also, clarity with regards to the standards that the accessory use must adhere to should be provided as well.
5.01.020 Staff
28 Review and update Conservation Subdivision standards to
encourage usage.
Update conservation subdivision section to relax restrictions and incentivize its use. Consider in light of salamander listing and water
conservation ordinance standards.11.06 Staff
Consider reducing the required setbacks in the Industrial District. Chapter 7 UDCAC
31 Address pedestrian connectivity between building entry and public
sidewalk.Ensure that buildings that are open to the public have reasonable, direct pedestrian access from the street / sidewalk. 7.04.040.E Staff
32 Clarify how setbacks are applied when right-of-way is dedicated or
reserved.
Review setback provisions to ensure the requirements are clear as to where the setback is measured from when right-of-way is to be
dedicated or reserved with a new development.7.03.030.B Staff
33 Provide more alternative site design options through the
Administrative Exception process.
The Administrative Exception process has successfully provided opportunities for alternative flexibility in certain aspects of the
development process. Consider if there are additional provisions that could fall under the Administrative Exception purvue to allow for
more flexible solutions.
Chapter 7 Staff
35 Review current requirements for screening of mechanical
equipment for options or exceptions.There are difficulties in applying the screening requirements in every situation. More exemptions or options are needed. 8.04.070.C Staff
Nonresidential
Standards
Land Uses, Cont'd
Residential
Standards
Review the current accessory structure requirements for clarity
and consider adding exceptions.
Staff has run into some challenges applying and interpreting the residential accessory structure requirements, particularly with
regard to the height and size limitations.6.06.010
Review the list of features currently allowed within the setbacks on
residentially zoned properties to determine if additional features
should be allowed.
Reconsider setback features, including certain patios in front yards which many homeowners are seeking. Also, consider features in
light of water conservation requirements. Clarification of driveway placement in setbacks, including circular drives.6.05
Revise Housing Diversity standards and separate attainability
(affordability) separate from diversity.
26
27
37
Landscaping Clarify application and calculation of landscaping requirements.
Based on experience with the provisions, staff has recognized the need to clarify the application of the street yard landscaping
requirements to projects located a great distance from the street as well as phased projects since, as written street yard landscaping
applies to yards defined by buildings, not areas. Additionally, clarification is needed regarding what areas are to be included or not
included in various landscape calculations.
8.04.030
Review current nonresidential landscaping requirements with
regard to the city’s water conservation efforts.
Consider updates to the nonresidential landscaping requirements to address the ongoing drought conditions and incorporate
provisions to address water conservation efforts.8.04
36
Allow development standard alternatives that will incentivize work force housing without requiring a variety of housing types and
expand incentives to include multifamily housing.6.07.020
25
29 Clarify applicability of and consider expanding exemptions to
building design standards.
Review the applicability of the nonresidential building design requirements for clarity and reconsider exemptions to the section,
including revising the exemption related to industrial uses in the Industrial District.
StaffChapter 5
StaffChapter 5
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff7.04
Staff
Staff7.05.010
Staff
Staff
Chapter 7
Portions of the section regarding lighting requirements for nonresidential developments are subjective or vague. Additional clarity is
needed.
20 Reconsider some of the limitations applied to specific uses.
30
Review required setbacks for districts and consider expanding
what may be allowed in the setbacks, particularly regarding
parking.
Review required setbacks for nonresidential district to determine if they are still appropriate in all cases, particularly when adjacent to
other nonresidential districts or within the same development. Also consider expanding what features may be allowed in the
setbacks and when, particularly regarding parking.
19 Add or amend standard conditions of approval for Special Use
Permits required for specific uses.
Staff proposes adding standard conditions of approval to Special Use Permits that currently do not have any and possibly refining
some of the conditions for those that do in order to provide better direction to applicants.
Based on experience applying certain limitations listed within Chapter 5, some need further clarification or need to be reconsidered.
These include civic use street access restrictions and building size limitations for retail and medical uses.
34 Provide more specification regarding current lighting
requirements.
Page 2of 4
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # E
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section Requester
39
Reconsider the residential fence street setback requirements
and/or consider grandfathering allowances for replacement of
existing fences.
The street setback requirement for residential fences has created issues in existing neighborhoods where fence lines are not
consistent and locational conflicts when replacing existing fences.8.07 Staff
40 Consider additional alternative parking space design options.
Consider updating the parking space design options to allow for alternative designs that have been considered since the last update
to this section.9.03.020 Staff
41 Review the paved surfaces currently approved for parking lots and
consider additional surfaces.
Consider an updated review of the materials or products that may be acceptable to meet the requirements for paved surfaces for
parking lots.Chapter 9 Staff
42 Consider expanding the roadway types on which high profile
monument signs may be located.
High Profile Monument signs are currently allowed only on I-35, 195 and 130. Other regional roadways that will be high-speed with
expanded rights-of-way (e.g. 29 west, 1460, Bypass/Sam Houston) may also warrant taller, architecturally sound identification
signage.
10.06 Staff
43 Clarify application of maximum sign area in Table 10.06.010.
The current language in Table 10.06.010 has caused some applicants to believe the maximum sign area is per sign, with no limit on
the number of signs.10.06.010 Staff
45 Consider increasing Subdivision Entry Sign size and height on
major thoroughfares
The City’s subdivision entry sign regulations require small entry signs. On high-speed major thoroughfares (SH 29, 2243, 195, etc.)
large residential subdivisions are asking for taller and larger signage for identification.10.06 Staff
47 Reconsider maximum height for monument signs when
landscaping is incorporated.Consider allowing an increase in maximum height permitted for monument signs when landscaping is incorporated at the base. 10.06 Staff
48 Update UDC regarding temporary signs for open house and model
homes as may be necessary now that they are being enforced.
Updates to the regulations governing Temporary Off-Premise Signs for Open Houses and Model Homes may be necessary to address
any changes in current city operations since the regulations were written.10.07.050 Staff
Impervious
Coverage 49 Consider bonuses for rain collection and other non-runoff
alternatives.Explore new alternatives and waivers for residential and non-residential for rain collection, etc. Chapter 11 Staff
50 Update the UDC based on the pending updates to the Overall
Transportation Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on pending updates to the Overall Transportation Plan. Chapter 12 Staff
54 Review access requirements on numbered county roads. Review access requirements on numbered county roads to determine if any additional provisions should be considered. 13.04.030 Staff
55 Address naming policies related to private streets and drives
internal to multi-tract developments.
Consider applying the city’s street naming requirements for public streets to private driveways/streets that serve more than one
internal tract in order to address 911 issues identifying emergency locations.12.03 & 12.04 Staff
Fences
Consider additional exceptions to fence height and assign
Administrative Exception action to the Building Official.
Expand the built-in exceptions for fence height to additional circumstances to allow more flexibility for residential fences. Additionally,
the Building Official should be authority on further exceptions to fence standards as permits for fences are handled directly through
the Inspections Department.
8.0738
Parking
Signs
Review temporary banner regulations to update event banner
provisions, address temporary banner approval, and consider
subdivision banners.
Review temporary banner regulations to update event banner provisions as they are no longer allowed across streets, to address
temporary banner approval downtown, and to consider internal subdivision banners.10.07
Consider updates to address whether various attention seeking
devices or structures are signage, including subdivision entry
features.
Provide some clarification as to when certain features or devices should be considered signage and to what extent. More and more
residential subdivisions (and some non-residential) are seeking to identify their development through architectural features and
monuments (e.g. stone towers, windmills, cisterns, walls, etc.). Additionally, there are regularly new methods of attracting attention to
a location that have been presented to staff that need clarification within the code as to whether it is signage or not.
10.03
When implementing new OTP (pending) and Fire Code (approved), consider new standard, alternative and contextual street cross
sections that account for public safety needs, traffic requirements and needs of private property in relation to public streets. Also,
there are current inconsistencies between current OTP design standards and the current UDC design standards. Additionally, the
city’s standards should be reviewed against Williamson County’s standards to address inconsistencies, especially related to any HB
1445 Agreement issues or potential updates.
Chapter 12,
Sections 13.04,
11.06
Review sidewalk extension and design provisions.Review sidewalk extension and design provisions and consider updates as may be necessary regarding upcoming Sidewalk Master
Plan and Public Facility Access Audit. Additionally, the residential sidewalk fund provisions should be reviewed.12.02
Transportation
Review and consider updates to the City’s provisions related to
connectivity (subdivision access points) between neighboring
developments.
Connectivity (subdivision access points) is extremely important to the function of our public safety and transportation network. In
process, design, and implementation, the City has not received adequate connection points and homeowners complain when streets
are connected. We need to globally reconsider the ratio, design, locations, and exemption process to protect traffic movement, public
safety access and ability to use street facilities as planned.
Chapter 12
Clarify what triggers the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) and when an appeal may be made and review the
improvements that are considered or required.
The City needs to ensure we are adequately preparing for future roadways with plats, dedications and reservations. Clarification is
needed regarding when Traffic Impact Analyses are required and appealed, and how right-of-way is being planned to implement the
City’s Overall Transportation Plan, for example, adequate intersection right-of-way.
Chapter 12
Consider updates to street standards to address current and
pending inconsistencies between different agencies and
documents.
51
52
53 Staff
Staff
56
44
46
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Page 3of 4
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # E
General Topic Requested Amendment Amendment Description UDC Section Requester
58 Remove the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board from the
approval process for allowing septic systems during.
Currently, a request to utilize a septic system in lieu of tying on to a public wastewater system must go to the Georgetown Utility
System Advisory Board for recommendation prior to City Council consideration. This amendment would remove this recommendation
step and instead send these requests directly to City Council.
13.06.030.A.4 Staff
Special Districts 60 Review special district procedures and approval criteria
The City is currently reconsidering its policy on special districts in light of an overwhelming number of requests and unique situations.
Update 13.10 to reflect new policies and procedures.13.10 and 3.20 Staff
61 Refine the UDC regulations regarding abandonment of a
nonconforming situation.Based on experiences with the provisions, staff would like to provide better clarity regarding the determination of abandonment. 14.01.060 Staff
62 Refine the UDC regulations regarding expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Consider refining provisions applicable to the expansion of buildings that do not conform to current requirements for clarification and
flexibility.14.04.080 Staff
Alternative Energy/
Green Building
Provisions
65
Update codes to provide provisions for green building strategies
and ensure regulations do not unintentionally prohibit such
strategies
The UDC should be reviewed to ensure there are not unintentional barriers to utilization of sustainable energy, such as requiring solar
energy panels to be screened.Various Staff
66 Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based
on updates to the Downtown Master Plan.Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on updates to the Downtown Master Plan. Various Staff
67 Consider adding limitations to certain uses to create a "transition
zone" between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.
Consider adding limitations to certain uses along the edge of the Downtown Overlay that are adjacent to residential uses outside the
overlay to create a "transition zone" between the Downtown and Old Town overlays.Chapter 5 Public
Zucker Systems
Study 68
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based
on a pending recommendations from the consultant’s study of city
operations.
Update various provisions of the UDC as may be necessary based on a pending recommendations from the consultant’s study of city
operations.Various Staff
A subcommittee of the Parks & Recreation Board has been created that is tasked with reviewing and providing recommended
changes regarding the city’s parkland provisions and policies.13.05
Utilities
Review and update of Chapter 13 provisions related to water and
wastewater improvements and extension requirements.
General review of language regarding utility improvements which have not been updated in some time, including extension policy for
plats and site plans. Review for updates, clarification of current policy and terminology. Includes Rural Residential Subdivision criteria
and standards. Also, update any regulations affecting provision of water in order to implement any changes that may result from the
potential merger with Chisholm Trail Special Utility District.
Chapter 13
Staff
Staff
Staff currently receives requests for determination of nonconforming status, particularly abandonment status, and the process for
this determination should be clarified and included in the UDC.Chapter 14
Definitions Revise various definitions for clarity or add new definitions as
needed.
Staff has come across several definitions that need clarity or definitions that are needed to provide clarity in other sections of the
UDC. Examples include clarification of street yard definition and consideration of the current contractor services, limited definition.
In addition this would include any revisions to definitions needed for other revisions made to the UDC.
Chapter 16
Staff
Staff
57
59
63
64
Nonconforming
Define process for determining nonconforming status and
consider if there are additional existing situations to exempt.
Parkland
Update provisions governing parkland dedication based on
forthcoming recommendations by the Parks & Recreation Board
subcommittee review.
Downtown Master
Plan
Page 4of 4
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # E
Category Amendment Amendment Description Chapter/Section
Emergency
Amendments Certificates of Design Compliance/HARC Review Review and amend development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay
District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey (Resolution #052714-N)Chapters 2, 3, 4 & 16
UDC Advisory Committee and Amendment Process Update as may be needed to incorporate reference to the new Unified Development Code Advisory Committee and
update the UDC Text Amendment to reflect changes in the process (Ordinance #2013-51)Chapters 2 & 3
Water Conservation Ordinance Update as may be necessary to remove any conflicts between the UDC and the recently updated Water Conservation
(Ordinance #2014-23)Chapter 8
Edwards Aquifer Water Quality Regulations Update water quality regulations to reflect recently adopted stormwater treatment requirements for properties located
over the Edwards Aquifer (Ordinance #2013-59)Chapter 11
Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Update to reflect the removal of the Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District (Ordinance #2014-14) Section 4.07
Previously Approved Amendments Update to reflect provisions of previously approved UDC amendments that were not updated in previous text revisions. Various
Unlisted Use – Event Facility Classification of Event Facility as a separate Specific Use in Table 5.04.010, including applicable limitations and
definitions (11/2012)Sections 5.04 & 16.02
Fence Height (Residential) Clarification of circumstances in which the maximum residential fence height may be increased (6/2013) Section 8.07.040.B.4.b
Outdoor Living Areas (Residential)Clarification of UDC provisions applicable to residential outdoor living areas, including patios, pergolas and outdoor
kitchens (8/2013)Section 6.05.020
Private Streets Clarification of situations in which private streets may be allowed within rural residential subdivisions (10/2013) Section 13.04.020
Nonconforming Abandonment Clarification of UDC provisions applicable to utilization of nonconforming structures and sites determined to be
abandoned per Section 14.04.060 (11/2013)Chapter 14
Standard Tolerance Determination that a standard tolerance of 6-inches is acceptable without approval of an Administrative Exception for
any minimum setback or maximum height listed in Chapters 5, 6, 7 or 8 (3/2014)Section 3.16
Setback Internal to a Project Determination that abutting properties with similar zoning districts that are part of a multi-lot unified development may
be developed as if it were one (1) property with regard to setbacks (7/2014)Chapter 7
Incorporation of
Recently Adopted
Ordinances
Ratification of
Published Director
Interpretations
Executive Amendments
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # E
Unified Development Code
2014-2016 General
Amendments List
August 12, 2014
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # E
Amendment Process
•UDC Advisory Committee - City Council appointed 7 member
committee; established November 2013; Appointed March 2014
•Amendment Types
•General Amendments – placed on a list approved by City Council;
reviewed by Committee
•Executive Amendments - legal requirements, code codifications, or
Council emergency designation; excluded from committee review
•Two year update cycle for General Amendments; Executive
Amendments handled as necessary
•Council direction of off-cycle General Amendment requests
2
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # E
General Amendment List
•First step in biennial UDC amendment process
•Serves as “to-do list” for Unified Development Code Advisory
Committee (UDCAC) over next two years
•Includes things such as discretionary modifications, changes to
existing policies, new procedures or requirements
•Does not include Executive amendment changes triggered by
ordinance adoptions, legal requirements, director interpretations,
or City Council “emergency” direction
•Can include amendments identified by staff, the public, the
UDCAC, P&Z, or City Council
3
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # E
Staff Identified Amendments
•Update various processes to reflect current practice or address
needed changes (#1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 56, 58, 60, 63)
•Reconsider current review criteria or minimum requirements for
various applications or processes (#4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 60)
•Clarify application of various sections or requirements (#9, 11, 24,
25, 32, 34, 36, 43, 46, 52, 61, 62)
•Update land use charts to acknowledge new or unlisted uses and
consider what districts uses are allowed in (#17, 18, 21)
•Review limitations or restrictions placed on certain land uses (#19,
20, 21, 22, 23)
4
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # E
Staff Identified Amendments Cont’d.
•Consider increasing flexibility/expanding allowances regarding
various requirements (#26, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47,
49, 62)
•Review various requirements or sections for needed changes (#12,
31, 39, 44, 48, 53, 54, 55, 64, 65)
•Examine certain provisions to see if they are accomplishing intent
or to encourage utilization (#12, 15, 27, 28, 37, 51, 59)
•Consider updates based on recommendations from separately
adopted plans or review groups (#37, 50, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68)
5
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # E
Public Requested Amendments
•The public requested three amendments either through
applications, staff contact, or public meeting input:
•Create a new district to accommodate a “micro lot” residential
product or reduce the minimum required Planned Unit
Development (PUD) district size (#17)
•Allow Contractor Services, both Limited and General, and Office
Warehouse uses in the General Commercial (C-3) district (#18)
•Limit uses in the Downtown Overlay in order to create a
transition zone adjacent to the Old Town Overlay (#67)
6
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # E
UDCAC Requested Amendments
•Two items resulted from UDCAC discussion:
•Remove/increase the 25,000 square foot building limitation in
the Local Commercial (C-1) district (#20)
•Reduce the required setbacks in the Industrial (IN) district
(#30)
7
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # E
Timing of Amendments
•New process calls for two year cycle
•Last group of amendments adopted March of 2012
•UDCAC concerned with timing, recommended items be allowed to
be expedited as needed
•Staff requests addressing some of the current amendment list in
an earlier time frame
•Coincide with upcoming Executive Amendments and/or
“emergency” historic amendments
8
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # E
Questions…
9
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # E
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
SUBJECT:
Staff presentation and overview of the draft Operating Agreement for the Georgetown Art Center, between
Georgetown Art Works and the City of Georgetown -- Eric Lashley, Library Director and Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
On May 28, 2013 Council approved a one-year Operating Agreement between Georgetown Art Works
(GAW) and the City of Georgetown, for operation of the Georgetown Art Center, located at 816 S. Main
Street. The Art Center opened in July 2013. During the past year Georgetown Art Works satisfied the City
that their organization can meet the requirements of the Operating Agreement. City staff and the executive
board of GAW have worked together to produce a draft three-year Operating Agreement for their continued
management of the Art Center.
The new Operating Agreement includes increased accountability for GAW: requirements of monthly written
reports that will be reviewed by the Georgetown Arts and Culture Board, an annual meeting between the
GAW executive board and the Arts and Culture Board, and in the second year, submission of a strategic plan
to the Arts and Culture Board.
The revised agreement also gives GAW flexibility to choose which two nights during each month that the
facility will be open, establishes a clear policy about serving alcohol in the Art Center, and requires GAW to
play the cost of utilities to the first floor of the building. (During the first year of operation the City paid the
utilities.)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost to the City of operation of the Georgetown Art Center will be reduced by GAW paying for the
utilities. However, the City will still be responsible for all repairs and maintenance to the building. GAW
provides its own housekeeping.
SUBMITTED BY:
Lawren Weiss
ATTACHMENTS:
redline operating agreement 8-4-14
Cover Memo
Item # F
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
OPERATING AGREEMENT
THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT is made the day of __________________,
_______, by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas home-rule municipal
corporation (“City”) and ___________________________, a non-profit corporation
(“Operator”). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Space Provided. City hereby agrees to provide space to Operator in the Old Fire
Station #1 located at 103 W. 9th Street, Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, as
shown in Exhibit “A” (the “Space Provided”), attached to this Agreement and
incorporated by reference.
2. Operating Term. The Term of this Operating Agreement shall be for one yearthree
years, beginning on September 1, 2014 and ending on August 31, 2017 (the “Term”).
3. Use of Property. The Operator will utilize the Space Provided to operate an art
center to benefit the City of Georgetown area according to the requirements shown
in Exhibit “B” (the “Operating Requirements”), attached to this Agreement and
incorporated by reference. No other use of the Space Provided shall be permitted by
the Operator without expressed written permission by the City. The City shall
maintain approval over the use of the Space Provided at all times. Operator’s use of
the Space Provided is nonexclusive.
4. Prohibited Use. Operator may not use or permit any part of the Space Provided to
be used for:
(a) any activity that is a nuisance or is offensive, noisy, or dangerous; or
(b) any activity that violates any applicable law, regulation, ordinance,
governmental order, or this Operating Agreement.
5. Revenue. All revenue from the operation of the gift shop in the Art Center and art
classes offered by the Operator, and further described in Exhibit B, shall be retained
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 10
Item # F
by the Operator and shall be used only to pay for the operating costs and expenses
of the Art Center.
6. Non-Discrimination. Operator will operate the art center without discriminating
against any person or class of persons and will seek participation by all interested
members of the public.
7. Oversight. The Georgetown Arts and Culture Board shall provide oversight to the
art center. Each month Operator will provide a report that includes door count,
name of exhibit, number of classes and class attendance, number of volunteer hours,
monthly revenue, and attendance of artist reception. income, expenses, number of
visitors, number of students enrolled in classes, name of artist who was featured in
the gallery, date of artist reception and number of people who attended.
8. Utilities. Operator shall be liable to pay the electric and water costs incurred in the
operation of the art center during the Term of this Agreement.
9. Meeting Space. City shall provide meeting space for scheduled public meetings of
Operator at no cost.
10. Improvements. If Operator desires to make any improvements to the Space
Provided, Operator must request and receive the City’s written approval prior to
construction or implementation of any proposed improvements. Operator shall be
liable to pay all costs of any improvement. The City assumes no financial
responsibility or obligation for payment of the cost of any improvements. Any
improvements to the Space Provided made by Operator shall remain and become
property of the City at the end of an Operating Term.
11. Insurance. Operator will provide insurance written by companies licensed to
conduct business in the State of Texas. Operator shall keep in full force and effect
during a Operating Term of this Operating Agreement insurance in the amounts
and types included on the sample Insurance Certificate attached as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated by reference. The insurance policies will name the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers as additional insureds. All insurance policies
shall be subject to the examination and approval of City for sufficiency as to form,
content, form of protection, coverage and insurance company. Operator shall
furnish a Certificate of Insurance to City evidencing compliance with the required
insurance requirements at the time Operator delivers the executed Operating
Agreement to City. Operator agrees to provide a copy of any insurance policy on
Comment [SM1]: Eric—Please confirm
this. I replaced the existing
language with the language from the
Exhibit, but make sure you don’t
want the old items with the items
from Exhibit B.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 10
Item # F
the City’s request. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage
shall not be canceled or materially changed without a minimum of thirty (30) days’
advance notice in writing to the City. Operator’s failure to timely comply with the
insurance requirements shall be cause for termination of the Operating Agreement.
12. Indemnity. City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, shall not be liable
to Operator, its directors, officers, officials, employees, members, customers,
volunteers, agents or representatives, for any damage caused by negligence of
Operator, its directors, officers, officials, employees, members, customers,
volunteers, agents or representatives. Operator assumes all liability and
responsibility for loss, damages, claims, injuries, lawsuits, judgments or causes of
action of any type. Operator releases, fully indemnifies, holds harmless and agrees
to defend City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, from any and all
liability, loss damages, claims, injuries, lawsuits, judgments or causes of action of
any type.
13. Default. Operator’s violation of any provision of this Operating Agreement shall
constitute a default. Operator shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of a notice
of default to cure the default. If the Operator fails to cure the default the City may
immediately terminate this Operating Agreement.
14. Notices. Notices or other correspondence concerning this Operating Agreement
shall be in writing and are effective when mailed, hand-delivered, or transmitted by
facsimile or electronic transmission as follows:
To City: To Operator:
City Manager ______________________________
113 E. 8th Street ______________________________
Georgetown, Texas 78626 ______________________________
T: 512.930.3723 T: ____________________________
F: 512.930.3622 F: ____________________________
Email: paul.brandenburg@georgetown.org E-mail: ________________________
15. Access by City. City may enter the Space Provided at any time for any purpose.
16. Condition of Property. Operator has inspected the Space Provided and accepts the
Space Provided in its present condition “AS IS” unless expressly provided otherwise
in this Operating Agreement. City has made no express or implied warranties as to
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 10
Item # F
the condition or permitted use of the Space Provided. At the time this Operating
Agreement ends, Operator will surrender the Premises in the same condition as
when received, normal wear and tear excepted. Operator will not cause damage to
the Space Provided and will not cause or allow hazardous materials or
environmental contaminants on the Space Provided. If Operator leaves any
personal property in the Space Provided after expiration of an Operating Term, City
may, at its sole option: (1) require Operator, at Operator's expense, to remove the
personal property within ten (10) after written notice to Operator; or (2) retain such
personal property as forfeited property.
17. Records. Operator shall provide a complete copy of its Articles of Incorporation,
Bylaws and/or other governing documents with the executed Operating Agreement.
Operator shall provide an annual independent audit, including a complete
accounting of all funds received and all funds disbursed, no later than the first day
of October during any Operating Termreport as required by Exhibit B to this
agreement. In addition, City shall be entitled to inspect and copy Operator’s records
concerning or related to the art center upon request with reasonable notice.
18. Entire Agreement. This Operating Agreement constitutes the sole and only
agreement of the parties, and supersedes any prior understandings or written or
oral agreements between the Parties, concerning the subject matter of this Operating
Agreement. There are no verbal or written representations, understandings,
stipulations, agreements or promises pertaining to this Operating Agreement that
are not incorporated in this Operating Agreement. If a provision of this Operating
Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such invalidity,
illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Operating
Agreement and this Operating Agreement shall be construed and interpreted as if
such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions had not been included. All exhibits
referenced in this Operating Agreement are attached and incorporated by reference
for all purposes.
19. Applicable Law. This Operating Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with Texas law. The parties agree that this Operating Agreement is
performable in Williamson County, Texas.
20. Amendment. This Operating Agreement may not be modified or amended except
in writing signed by the City and Operator.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 10
Item # F
21. Non-Assignment. Operator shall not assign or transfer any right or interest in the
Operating Agreement, in whole or in part, without prior written approval of the
City. Operator shall not sublease or rent out any part of the premises without prior
written consent of the City. This Operating Agreement shall bind the parties, and
their respective legal representative, successors, and permitted assigns.
22. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Operating Agreement shall not be construed as
affording any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Operator.
EXECUTED this day of _______________, 2014.
_______________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: __________________________________
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
__________, 2012, by _____________________________, a person known to me in his
capacity as _______________________________________ of the
_________________________________________.
_______________________________________
Notary Public – State of Texas
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 10
Item # F
City of Georgetown, Texas
By: _____________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
__________, 20124, by Dale Ross, a person known to me in his capacity as Mayor of the
City of Georgetown, Texas.
_______________________________________
Notary Public – State of Texas
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 10
Item # F
EXHIBIT “A”
Plan provided courtesy Gary Wang/Wang Architects
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 10
Item # F
EXHIBIT “B”
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
During the Operating Term of the Operating Agreement, Operator shall be responsible for:
A. Providing space for an exhibition gallery, instructional space, meeting facilities, and
a gift shop. Secondary functions may include but are not limited to: oversight of
outdoor sculpture installations, art installations in a pocket park, instructional
programs for pre-schoolers, summer camps and after school art programs;
coordination of advertising space for the local arts community such as local
galleries, the Palace Theatre, the Georgetown Symphony Society, Southwestern
University, and the Georgetown ISD; and other arts and culture related activities
such as small musical performances, when space is available. The Operator shall be
allowed to rent the Space Provided or a portion thereof for meetings or other events
consistent with the uses outlined above to third parties. Such rentals shall be subject
to all applicable Operating Requirements contained in the Agreement and
specifically this Exhibit.
B. Hours of operation shall be Tuesday through Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and
Sunday 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (44 hours per week). The art center shall be open an
additional two evenings per month for a minimum of 2 hours per for a total of 180
hours per month.
C. The gallery of the art center shall have between six and ten major shows per year. A
reception for the featured artist(s) shall be held with each exhibit.
D. Operator shall have a gift shop in the art center and revenue from the shop shall be
used to pay operating costs of the art center.
E. Operator shall provide art classes for children and adults. Revenue from class
registrations shall be used to pay operating costs of the art center.
F. Operator shall provide all equipment to operate an art center, which may include:
a. Cash register
b. Moveable walls for art display
c. Flat screen television
d. DVD player
e. Desktop photocopier
f. Stereo
g. Coffee pot
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 10
Item # F
h. Folding chairs and tables
i. Information board
j. Office supplies
k. Art supplies
l. Easels
m. Safe
n. Storage cabinet
o. Office furniture
p. Gift shop display cases
q. Postage
r. People counter for main entrance
s. Public address system
G. Operator will provide all regular housekeeping of the premises, including
restrooms, gift shop, instructional space, and gallery space.
H. Operator shall include a member from the Arts and Culture Board or the library
administration as a non-voting attendee at all meetings of the Operating Board.
I. Alcohol Policy. If the Operator sells alcohol, or leases the premises to a sublessee
who will serve alcohol, the Operator shall receive prior written approval by the
City. Whenever alcohol is served on the premises, the Operator and its lessee are
subject to all state and federal laws and regulations, including the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Code.
J. Monthly Reports. The Operator shall provide the City with monthly written reports
with information that includes: door count, name of exhibit, number of classes and
class attendance, number of volunteer hours, monthly revenue and expenses, and
attendance of artist receptions and other special events.
K. Annual Report. The annual report shall provide totals for the information compiled
in monthly reports and a list of milestones for the upcoming yearshall present a
strategic plan to the City of Georgetown Arts and Culture Board by the end of the
first year of the term of this Agreement. The Georgetown Arts and Culture Board
and the Executive Director of Georgetown Arts Works will hold an annual meeting
to discuss the annual report.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 10
Item # F
EXHIBIT “C”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Minimum insurance limits for Operator to provide throughout the operating term of this
Operating Agreement, at the Operator’s expense are as follows:
Minimum liability for damage claims through public use or arising out of accidents or
injuries occurring in or around the described premises,
- $100,000.00 per person each occurrence,
- $300,000.00 accident each occurrence,
- $100,000.00 property damage each occurrence.
The Operator also shall obtain insurance to cover the Operator’s property including
equipment located in the Space Provided.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 10
Item # F
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 12, 2014
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
- Discussion regarding a Settlement Agreement between CTSUD, City of Leander, and City of Georgetown
related to CTSUD CCN 11590 TCEQ Docket 2014-0437-UCR. - - Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, Jim
Briggs, General Manager of Utilities and Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director
- Wolf Ranch/Hillwood
- Airport Issues - Aero Centex
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project NAFTA
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # G