HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.11.2015 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
AUGUST 11, 2015
The Georgetown City Council will meet on AUGUST 11, 2015 at 3:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers,
101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City
Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at
113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Presentation and discussion on impact fees -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Engineering Director
B Public Hearing on the proposed 2015 Property Tax Rate and the FY2016 Annual Budget -- Micki
Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
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.
C 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
- Meet and Confer- Police and Fire
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation of Real Property
- Deliberation concerning real property located at 4300 S. IH-35, Georgetown, Texas – Terri Glasby
Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
- Deliberation concerning the acquisition of 9.951 acres at the NW corner of Southeast Inner Loop and
FM 1460, Georgetown, Texas – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Attorney Recruitment
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
August 11, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion on impact fees -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Engineering Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires political subdivisions to update their land use
assumptions and capital improvements plan for impact fee purposes at least every five years. Impact fees
were last updated in October 2010.
Pursuant to the Asset Transfer and Utility System Consolidation Agreement, as amended, and Service Area
Operations and Management Agreement, the City of Georgetown (City) and the Chisholm Trail Special
Utility District (District) agreed that the City would operate and maintain District’s water utility system. In
accordance those agreements, the City’s and District’s water utility systems have been physically integrated
and the City is currently operating and maintaining District’s water utility system in conjunction with the
City’s water utility system. Under the Service Area Operations and Management Agreement, the District’s
Board of Directors currently retains responsibility for adopting impact fees under Chapter 395 of the Texas
Local Government Code applicable to the area within District’s CCN area.
The City retained the services of qualified professionals (HDR and CDM) to update the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, and calculate new impact fees all in accordance with Chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code. They prepared a report which contains updated land use assumptions,
capital improvements plan information, and new impact fee calculations for both the District and the City.
The City appointed an impact fee advisory committee that reviewed the report and recommended adoption of
the new land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and adoption of a new impact fee at the maximum
amount calculated in the report.
Any impact fee adopted by the City cannot exceed the maximum calculated fee. However, the City can
decide to adopt impact fees that are less than the maximum amounts shown in the report.
Before any update can occur, state law requires a Public Hearing be held. Notice of this public hearing on the
proposed impact fee update and amendments was timely published in the Williamson County Sun on
Wednesday, July 8th.
A draft ordinance approving amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvement plan and
modification of the District’s impact fee is attached. A second and final reading is proposed for August 25th.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Please see attached impact fee report
SUBMITTED BY:
Wesley Wright
ATTACHMENTS:
Impact Fee Ordinance
2015 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Report
Impact Fee Presentation
Cover Memo
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN TEXAS (“CITY”) AMENDING CHAPTER 13.32 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES TO ADD CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; TO
AMEND THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS; AMEND THE IMPACT
FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER FACILITIES; AMEND THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREAS; AMEND THE WATER
AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE AMOUNT; AMEND PROVISIONS
RELATING TO TIME OF IMPACT FEE COLLECTION; AMEND THE
ASSESSED WATER AND WASTEWATER FEE HISTORY;
INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; INCLUDING A CONFLICTS
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 requires a city to
update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for impact fee
purposes at least every 5 years; and
WHEREAS, the City last updated its Impact Fees in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City has heretofore levied and collected an impact fee in
accordance with the procedures and requirements of Chapter 395, Texas Local
Government Code;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 395.052, the City caused qualified
professionals (professional engineers licensed to perform engineering services in the
State of Texas) to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and
calculate new impact fees all in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code and to prepare a report entitled “2015 Update of Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees” which contains updated land use assumptions, capital
improvements plan information, and new impact fee calculations for the City.
WHEREAS, the “2015 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees” report
also contains updated land use assumptions, capital improvements plan information,
and new impact fee calculations for Chisholm Trail Special Utility District’s
(“District’s”) water service area (being the land within the boundaries of Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity (CCN) #11590), because, pursuant to Asset Transfer and
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 2 of 8
Utility System Consolidation Agreement and the Service Area Operations and
Management Agreement between the City and the District, the City will own and
operate the District’s water supply and distribution assets and provide retail after
service to the District’s CCN area after all regulatory approvals are secured.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 395.056 of the Local Government Code,
the City appointed an impact fee advisory committee, and the committee reviewed the
engineering report and recommended adoption of the new land use assumptions,
capital improvements plan as set forth in the final report, and recommended adoption
of a new impact fees at the maximum amount calculated in the final report.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 395.055 of the Local Government Code,
notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions,
capital improvements plan and impact fee amount was timely published in the
Williamson County Sun on Wednesday, July 8th, 2015. The draft and final engineering
reports were also was made available to the public on the City’s website for review in
June and August 2015, respectively.
WHEREAS, a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendments to the land
use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fees was held by the City on
August 11, 2015.
WHEREAS, after consideration of engineering report, public testimony and
other data presented to the City, the City Council desires to amend the land use
assumptions and impact fee capital improvements plan, and to amend the City's
impact fee. Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1 The matters and facts recited in the preamble of this ordinance are
found to be true and correct and are incorporated as a part of this ordinance.
Section 2. The Council hereby adopts the updated land use assumptions and
capital improvements plan as presented in the final engineering report dated August
11, 2015 prepared by the City of Georgetown, HDR, and CDM.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 3 of 8
Section 3. Section 13.32.010.E of the City Code of Ordinances relating to
definitions is amended to add the following, with no other changes to the remaining
provisions of the section:
“COG Western District CCN” means the area contained within Certificate of
Convenience and Necessity #11590 in Bell, Burnet, and Williamson Counties,
Texas, as said area may change from time to time in accordance with applicable
laws and agreements.
Section 4. Section 13.32.020.A of the City Code of Ordinances relating to
land use assumptions is hereby amended and revised to provide as follows:
Section 13.32.020
A. The land use assumptions shown in Section 3 of the report entitled
"2015 Update of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees," which is on record
in the office of the City Secretary, are hereby adopted and incorporated into
this chapter by reference as if set forth in full.
Section 5. Section 13.32.040.A of the City Code of Ordinances relating to the
capital improvements plan is hereby amended and revised to provide as follows:
Section 13.32.040
A. The impact fee capital improvements plan for water and wastewater
facilities contained within the report entitled “2015 Update of Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees,” which is on record in the office of the City Secretary,
is hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference as if set forth in
full.
Section 6. Section 13.32.080.I of the City Code of Ordinances relating to
computation of impact fees is hereby amended and revised to provide as follows:
Section 13.32.080
I. On or after October 1, 2015, the water impact fee for 5/8-inch meters
installed for small residential units (i.e. residential units less than one thousand
two hundred (1,200) square feet of air conditioned/heated space where no
automatic landscape irrigation system will be installed) shall be assessed at 67%
of the assessed impact fee.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 4 of 8
Section 7. Section 13.32.090A and B of the City Code of Ordinances relating
to collection of impact fees are hereby amended and revised to provide as follows:
Sec. 13.32.090. - Collection of impact fees.
A. Impact Fees shall be collected:
1. For land located inside the corporate boundaries of the City but not
within the boundaries of a municipal utility district or other special
district and, at the time the City issues a building permit; or
2. For land located outside the corporate boundaries of the City but not
within the boundaries of a municipal utility district or other special
district, at the time an application for a utility connection to the City's
water or wastewater system is filed; or
3. For land located inside or outside the corporate boundaries of the City
and within the boundaries of a municipal utility district or other
special district, at the time of recordation of the subdivision plat
containing the connection; or
3. For land located inside or outside the corporate boundaries of the City
but not within the boundaries of a municipal utility district or other
special district, and if no building permits are issued, at the time an
application is filed for a utility connection to the City's water or
wastewater system.
B. Except as otherwise provided by contracts with wholesale customers or
other political subdivisions, no building permit shall be issued until all impact
fees have been paid to the City. No final plats shall be recorded for land within a
municipal utility district or other special district until all impact fees have been
paid to the City.
C. For a development which has received an approved development plan
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and for which
no reapproval is necessary prior to the purchase of a water or wastewater tap,
impact fees shall be collected at the time of the utility connect permit application.
Section 8. Exhibit A of Chapter 13.32 relating to the Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Service Area Map is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 5 of 8
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 6 of 8
Section 9. Exhibit B of Chapter 13.32 relating to Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee per Service Unit is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Item
Impact Fee per Service
Unit
Water (all areas)
Supply $207.00
Treatment $2,848.00
Pumping $803.00
Ground Storage $178.00
Elevated Storage $201.00
Transmission $2,798.00
Impact Fee Study $4.00
TOTAL $7,039.00
Wastewater (areas outside the South
Fork Area, including those areas inside
the Western District CCN Area, but
outside South Fork Area)
Treatment $1,139.00
Pumping $1,030.00
Interceptors $824.00
Impact Fee Study $4.00
TOTAL $2,997.00
Wastewater (areas inside the South
Fork Area, including those areas inside
the Western District CCN Area, and
inside South Fork Area)
Treatment $1,139.00
Pumping $1,030.00
Interceptors $2,279.00
Impact Fee Study $4.00
TOTAL $4,452.00
Combined Water and Wastewater
Outside of South Fork Service Area $10,036.00
South Fork Service Area $11,491.00
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 7 of 8
Each of the foregoing fees are per standard service unit. The impact fees for service
units greater than the standard 3/4-inch meter shall be calculated as set forth in
Section 13.32.050 of the City Code of Ordinances.
Section 10. Exhibit C of Chapter 13.32 of the City Code of Ordinances relating
to “Assessed Water and Wastewater Impact Fee History (per service unit)” is hereby
amended to provide as follows:
Development Approval
Date
Type Water Wastewater South Fork
Service
Area
Before October 1, 2003 Non-
residential
$1,325 $1,098 N/A
Before October 1, 2003 Residential $825 $600 N/A
After October 1, 2003 and
before October 11, 2005
All $2,295 $1,869 N/A
After October 11, 2005
and before November 5,
2010
All $3,324 $1,881 $3,114
After November 5, 2010
and before October 1,
2015
All $3,511 $1,694 $2,927
Section 11. That all ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 12. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
provisions or application thereof of this ordinance which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby declared to be severable.
Section 13. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the
City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective October 1, 2015.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 8
Item # A
Ordinance No. ________________
2015 Impact Fee Update
Page 8 of 8
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 11th day of August 2015.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 25th day of August 2015.
Dale Ross, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary (SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 8
Item # A
2015 Update of Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees
Prepared for the City of Georgetown
Prepared by:
Georgetown Utility Services and Chisholm Trail Special
Utility District Capital Improvements Advisory Committees
And
HDR and CDM
August 11, 2015
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 18
Item # A
UPDATED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLANS FOR
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
AND THE
CHISHOLM TRAIL SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
2.0 SERVICE AREA 2
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 4
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY 5
5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS 8
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT 12
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 14
8.0 COMPARABLES 14
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
1
2015 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
AND THE
CHISHOLM TRAIL SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report constitutes an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan
for the City of Georgetown (the “City”) and the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (“CTSUD”).
The City is a home rule city organized and operating in accordance with its charter and the laws
of the State of Texas and providing retail water and wastewater service to customers in its
service areas. CTSUD is a conservation and reclamation district operating under chapters 49
and 65 of the Texas Water Code and providing retail water service under Certificate of
Necessity No. 11590 (“CTSUD’s CCN”) in portions of Williamson, Bell and Burnet Counties.
The City and CTSUD entered into that certain Asset Transfer and Utility System Consolidation
Agreement dated October 15, 2013, as amended by a First Amendment to Asset Transfer and
Utility System Consolidation Agreement effective as of September 12, 2014, whereby the City
will acquire from CTSUD all of its water system assets. The City and CTSUD have also applied
to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and its successor agency the Public Utility
Commission of Texas for approval of the transfer and cancellation of the CTSUD CCN, and a
hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings is now pending regarding that application.
The City and CTSUD have also entered into that certain Service Area Operations and
Management Agreement effective as of September 12, 2014 pursuant to which, among other
things, the City agreed to operate and maintain CTSUD’s water utility system. In accordance
with the Asset Transfer and Utility System Consolidation Agreement, as amended and the
Service Area Operations and Management Agreement, the City’s and CTSUD’s water utility
systems have been physically integrated and the City is currently operating and maintaining
CTSUD’s water utility system in conjunction with the City’s water utility system. Under the
Service Area Operations and Management Agreement, the CTSUD Board of Directors (the
“Board”) retains responsibility for adopting impact fees under Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code applicable to the area within CTSUD’s CCN area, and the City is responsible
for collecting CTSUD’s impact fees from customers in the CTSUD service area. The City
Council of the City retains responsibility for adopting impact fees applicable to areas
The City and CTSUD are required by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code to
review their respective impact fees and update their respective land use assumptions and
capital improvements plans at least every five years. The City’s impact fees were last updated
in 2010 and CTSUD’s impact fees were last updated in 2013. For this update, in light of the
above-described City-CTSUD system consolidation project, HDR and CDM were retained to
prepare the land use assumption and capital improvements plan for both the City and CTSUD in
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
2
accordance with Subchapter B of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Therefore, this report includes land use assumptions and capital improvements plans for both
the City and CTSUD.
Maximum amounts mean that the determined fee amounts were calculated as the highest that
can be lawfully levied by the City, given the prospective capital improvements plan, the cost of
existing and new utility capacity, and consideration of a credit to new customers for net capital
contributions made through rate payments. Consistent with state law, this report also calculates
a maximum impact fee per service unit. Any impact fee adopted by the CTSUD Board or the
City Council cannot exceed the maximum fee. However, the City Council and the Board can
decide to adopt impact fees that are less than the maximum amounts shown in this report.
This report addresses the overall water and wastewater maximum fees in component pieces.
For instance, the overall water maximum fee is comprised of separate amounts for water
supply, treatment, pumping, storage and transmission. The overall wastewater maximum fee is
similarly comprised of wastewater treatment, pumping, and interceptor components. This will
facilitate the consideration of offsets or credits from the applicable fee if, for example, a
developer builds and dedicates eligible facilities to the City or the City provides wholesale
service to a neighboring utility and wishes to calculate a contractual impact fee specific to the
wholesale service being provided.
The maximum fee amounts set forth in this report do not include any capital costs for local
(neighborhood) water distribution or wastewater collection systems as these facilities are, by
City policy, provided by developers at their own expense, or if funded by the City, are typically
used to provide service to existing development. In either case, these local facilities would not
be applicable for the impact fee charge.
Planning, service demand, and design factor assumptions used in the facility sizing and costing
as well as data on current utility demand, outstanding utility debt and prospective cash versus
debt financing were obtained from or coordinated with the City of Georgetown staff. HDR
combined these elements into the maximum impact fee calculations presented in this report.
2.0 SERVICE AREA
For the purposes of this report, the term “Service Area” means and includes the entire area shown
on Figure 1. The following terms are sometimes used to describe distinct portions of the Service
Area:
• The “City Area”, consisting of:
o the area within the corporate boundaries of the City; and
o the area within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”), including a subsection
thereof described herein as the South Fork Wastewater Service Area
o the area within the City’s water CCN
o the area within the City’s wastewater CCN
• The “Western District” consisting of the CTSUD CCN area
• The “Potential Impact Fee Application Area” consisting of approximately 0.5 miles
outside the perimeter of the above-described areas
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
3
These subsections of the Service Area are also shown on “Figure 1.”
This report assumes that water service is available throughout the Service Area, but that
wastewater service is only available in the City Area.
Figure 1
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
4
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 1 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the Service Area.
The overall acreage shown in Table 1 is reflective of the City Service Area. This portion of the
Service Area encompasses over 45,452 acres with about 21% of that currently developed and
served. This portion of the sewer Service Area extends over 54,537 acres with about 17%
currently developed and served.
Table 2 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the Western District
Service Area. The overall acreage shown in Table 2 is reflective of the entire Western District
Service Area. This portion of the Service Area encompasses over 287,500 acres with about
13% of that currently developed and served.
Over time developed land in the Service Area will increase and become a higher percentage of
overall land uses. For example, in the City Service Area, about 30% of the developed water
service area and 26% of the wastewater service area is expected to be served at the end of the
10-year planning period. Similarly, in the Western District Service Area, about 20% of the
developed water service area is expected to be served at the end of the 10-year planning
period.
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
ITEM Acres %Acres*%
Water Service Area
Residential 7,191 15.8%10,159 22.4%
Non-Residential 2,209 4.9%3,650 8.0%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 36,052 79.3%31,643 69.6%
Total Land Use Acreage 45,452 100.0%45,452 100.0%
Wastewater Service Area
Residential 7,252 13.3%10,536 19.3%
Non-Residential 2,209 4.1%3,843 7.0%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 45,076 82.7%40,158 73.6%
Total Land Use Acreage 54,537 100.0%54,537 100.0%
Current 2025
TABLE 2
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS - WESTERN DISTRICT
ITEM Acres %Acres*%
Water Service Area
Residential 37,000 12.9%62,150 21.6%
Non-Residential 500 0.2%628 0.2%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 250,000 87.0%224,722 78.2%
Total Land Use Acreage 287,500 100.0%287,500 100.0%
Current 2025
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
5
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Table 3 indicates the number of water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size
for the Service Area in standard Service Units (SUs). For purposes of this report, one SU is
equivalent to a ¾” water meter. In accordance with the standards promulgated by the American
Water Works Association, the SUs for meters smaller or larger than ¾” area are scaled to the
flow capacity of the ¾” meter.
Table 4 provides the growth projections for the water system that are used throughout the
impact fee model for the 10-year period. The growth assumptions for the City Service Area are
based on 900 additional service connections per year for the first 5 years and 1,000 additional
service connections for the next five years. For the Western District Service Area, the model
assumes 600 additional service connections per year for the next 10 years.
TABLE 3
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Service Units Number of Number of
(SUs)Meters SUs
Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2014 (b) in 2014
WATER
3/4"1.0 29,960 29,960
1"1.7 1,228 2,047
1.5"3.3 275 917
2"5.3 349 1,861
3"10.7 122 1,301
4"16.7 34 567
6"33.3 12 400
8"106.7 4 427
10"166.7 - -
Total Water 31,984 37,479
WASTEWATER
3/4"1.0 20,313 20,313
1"1.7 698 1,163
1.5"3.3 189 630
2"5.3 226 1,205
3"10.7 42 448
4"16.7 27 450
6"33.3 6 200
8"106.7 2 213
10"166.7 - -
Total Wastewater 21,503 24,623
(a) Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 3/4" meter.
(b) Source: City of Georgetown, December, 2014.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
6
Table 5 provides the growth projections for the wastewater system that are used throughout the
impact fee model for the 10-year period. The model assumes an additional 1,000 service
connections per year throughout the Service Area.
Table 6 summarizes the projected water service demands and existing supply (service)
capability by facility in the Service Area. Table 7 summarizes the current and projected
wastewater service demands in the City Area. The number of existing SUs in these tables are
reflective of the system’s actual level of water and wastewater service demand, whereas the
meter inventory in Table 3 reflects the number of SUs embodied in each customer’s ultimate
meter capacity. This information indicates that the customers are, on the average, using less
than the maximum rated flow capacity of the meters.
Year
Service
Connections
Service Units
(SU)
Avg. Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Demand
(mgd)
Ground
Storage
Rqmts (mg)
Elevated
Storage
Rqmts (mg)
Annual
Growth
Rate
2014 31,984 37,479 16.245 32.490 58.482 9.240 5.172
2015 33,484 39,237 17.007 34.014 61.225 9.674 5.415 4.69%
2016 34,984 40,995 17.769 35.538 63.968 10.107 5.657 4.48%
2017 36,484 42,753 18.531 37.062 66.711 10.540 5.900 4.29%
2018 37,984 44,511 19.293 38.585 69.454 10.974 6.142 4.11%
2019 39,484 46,268 20.055 40.109 72.196 11.407 6.385 3.95%
2020 41,084 48,143 20.867 41.734 75.122 11.869 6.644 4.05%
2021 42,684 50,018 21.680 43.360 78.047 12.331 6.902 3.89%
2022 44,284 51,893 22.493 44.985 80.973 12.794 7.161 3.75%
2023 45,884 53,768 23.305 46.610 83.899 13.256 7.420 3.61%
2024 47,484 55,643 24.118 48.236 86.824 13.718 7.679 3.49%
2025 48,784 57,166 24.778 49.556 89.201 14.094 7.889 2.74%
TABLE 4
FORECAST OF WATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Year
Service
Connections
Service Units
(SU)
Avg. Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Demand
(mgd)
Annual
Growth
Rate
2014 21,503 24,623 5.688 20.476 4.65%
2015 22,503 25,768 5.952 21.429 4.44%
2016 23,503 26,913 6.217 22.381 4.25%
2017 24,503 28,058 6.481 23.333 4.08%
2018 25,503 29,203 6.746 24.286 3.92%
2019 26,503 30,348 7.010 25.238 3.77%
2020 27,503 31,494 7.275 26.190 3.64%
2021 28,503 32,639 7.540 27.142 3.51%
2022 29,503 33,784 7.804 28.095 3.39%
2023 30,503 34,929 8.069 29.047 3.28%
2024 31,503 36,074 8.333 29.999 3.17%
2025 32,503 37,219 8.598 30.951 3.08%
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
TABLE 5
FORECAST OF WASTEWATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
7
TABLE 6
EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facilty Type 2015 2025
Supply
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)46.6 46.6
Est. Service Demand 17.0 24.8
Excess (Deficiency)29.6 21.8
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *107,511 107,511
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)68,273 50,344
Treatment
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)38.1 38.1
Est. Service Demand 34.0 49.6
Excess (Deficiency)4.0 (11.5)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *43,895 43,895
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)4,658 (13,271)
Pumping
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)72.2 72.2
Est. Service Demand 61.2 89.2
Excess (Deficiency)11.0 (17.0)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *46,264 46,264
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)7,027 (10,902)
Ground Storage
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)14.4 14.4
Est. Service Demand 9.7 14.1
Excess (Deficiency)4.7 0.3
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *58,408 58,408
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)19,171 1,242
Elevated Storage
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)8.4 8.4
Est. Service Demand 5.4 7.9
Excess (Deficiency)3.0 0.5
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *60,870 60,870
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)21,632 3,703
Transmission
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)52.5 52.5
Est. Service Demand 61.2 89.2
Excess (Deficiency)(8.7) (36.7)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *33,646 33,646
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)(5,592) (23,521)
* Assume SU conversion factor of :433 433 gpd/SU for water supply
867 867 gpd/SU for treatment
1,560 1,560 gpm/SU for pumping
247 247 gals/SU for ground storage
138 138 gals/SU for elevated storage
1,560 1,560 gpd/SU for transmission
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
8
Analysis indicates there will be an average of 1,500 new SUs added each year. As indicated in
Table 3, the level of current and future utility demand varies by whether water and/or
wastewater service is provided. For instance, some developments in the City use municipal
water supplies and infrastructure, but not wastewater or vice-versa. Wastewater service is not
typically provided in the Western District area.
Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the
utility systems. As can be seen, with the realized and anticipated rapid growth of the Service
Area, service demand is expected to exceed the available capacity of most of the current
facilities by the year 2025, such that infrastructure improvements are needed in most of the
various facility components that provide utility service.
5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
Given the considerable growth expected in the Service Area in the next ten years,
improvements are needed in all other components of water utility infrastructure, including water
treatment, pumping, ground and elevated storage, and transmission pipelines.
Significant improvements to the wastewater system in the City Area will be needed, including
two wastewater treatment plant expansions and the construction of a new treatment facility.
TABLE 7
EST. WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facilty Type 2015 2025
Treatment
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)7.0 7.0
Est. Service Demand 6.0 8.6
Excess (Deficiency)1.0 (1.6)
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *30,303 30,303
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)4,535 (6,916)
Pumping
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)30.7 30.7
Est. Service Demand 21.4 31.0
Excess (Deficiency)9.3 (0.2)
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *36,953 36,953
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)11,185 (266)
Interceptors
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)77.8 77.8
Est. Service Demand 21.4 31.0
Excess (Deficiency)56.3 46.8
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *93,506 93,506
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)67,738 56,287
* Assume SU conversion factor of :231 231 gpd/SU for wastewater treatment
832 832 gpd/SU for wastewater pumping
832 832 gpd/SU for interceptors
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
9
Improvements are also identified for wastewater pumping (lift stations) and interceptor pipelines
that would serve future growth.
Specific projects that accomplish these service capacity goals are identified in Table 8 and
Table 9a along with their costs, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected
demand to these facilities. Project costs were projected to the anticipated date of construction
using an inflation rate scaled over time using an index from the Association of General
Contractors. A weighted unit cost of service ($ per SU) is then calculated by facility type, based
on the proportionate share of use of existing versus new facility capacity by the growth
anticipated over the next ten years.
For water transmission mains, the modeled system capacity at current and 2025 conditions
were used to calculate the unit costs. For wastewater pumping and interceptors, each project
was separately examined as to whether it added to overall system capacity.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
10
TABLE 8
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
WATER SUPPLY
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Supply 2,392,433$ 27.274 62,925 39,237 8,964 14,723 62,925
Lake Stillhouse Hollow 21,308,434$ 19.325 44,586 8,964 35,621 44,586
Subtotal Existing Facilities 23,700,867$ 46.599 107,511 220$ 39,237 17,929 50,344 107,511
FUTURE FACILITIES
-$ - - -
Subtotal Future Facilities -$ - - -$ - - -
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY 23,700,867$ 46.599 107,511 39,237 17,929 50,344 107,511
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =220$
WATER TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing WTPs 52,613,537$ 38.052 43,895 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895
Subtotal Existing Facilities 52,613,537$ 38.052 43,895 1,199$ 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895
FUTURE FACILITIES
New Treatment - Plant Expansion 50,000,000$ 12.500 14,420 3,468$ -
-$ - - -$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 50,000,000$ 12.500 14,420 3,468$ - 14,343 77 14,420
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT 102,613,537$ 50.552 58,315 39,237 17,929 1,149 58,315
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =3,014$
WATER PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Booster Pump Stations 16,831,824$ 72.190 46,264 39,237 7,027 - 46,264
Subtotal Existing Facilities 16,831,824$ 72.190 46,264 364$ 39,237 7,027 - 46,264
FUTURE FACILITIES
Pastor Pump Station 5,200,000$ 11.400 7,306 712$
Central 7,383,000$ 12.600 8,075 914$
High PS 8,725,000$ 2.700 1,730 5,042$
Sun City PS 1,168,000$ - -
West PS 5,948,000$ 11.400 7,306 814$
Subtotal Future Facilities 28,424,000$ 38.100 24,417 1,164$ - 10,902 13,515 24,417
TOTAL WATER PUMPING 45,255,824$ 110.290 70,681 39,237 17,929 13,515 70,681
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =850$
GROUND STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
GS Tanks 1,040,564$ 14.400 58,408 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408
Subtotal Existing Facilities 1,040,564$ 14.400 58,408 18$ 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408
FUTURE FACILITIES
Lake GST 3,763,000$ 2.000 8,112
Park GST 7,173,000$ 3.000 12,168
Subtotal Future Facilities 10,936,000$ 5.000 20,281 539$ 6,096 14,185 20,281
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE 11,976,564$ 19.400 78,689 39,237 17,929 21,523 78,689
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =195$
ELEVATED STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
ES Tanks 6,445,296$ 8.400 60,870 39,237 11,833 9,799 60,870
Subtotal Existing Facilities 6,445,296$ 8.400 60,870 106$ 39,237 11,833 9,799 60,870
FUTURE FACILITIES
Central EST 4,762,000$ 1.500 10,870
High EST 5,106,000$ 1.500 10,870
Rabbit Hill EST 1,765,000$ 1.250 9,058
Braun EST - West Service Area 7,434,000$ 1.250 9,058
Subtotal Future Facilities 19,067,000$ 5.500 39,855 478$ - 6,096 33,759 39,855
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE 25,512,296$ 13.900 100,725 39,237 17,929 43,558 100,725
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =233$
TRANSMISSION
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Transmission 35,361,940$ 52.500 33,646 33,646 - - 33,646
Subtotal Existing Facilities 35,361,940$ 52.500 33,646 1,051$ 33,646 - - 33,646
FUTURE FACILITIES*
Major Lines - Stillhouse 15,000,000$
Major Lines - Central 1,968,000$
Major Lines - High 24,329,000$
Major Lines - Rabbit Hill 3,039,000$
Major Lines - Sun City 1,487,000$
Major Lines - West 23,312,000$
Subtotal Future Facilities 69,135,000$ 37.000 23,712 2,916$ 5,650 17,929 133 23,712
TOTAL TRANSMISSION 104,496,940$ 89.500 57,358 39,296 17,929 133 57,358
AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU 2,916$
WATER TOTAL 313,556,028$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =7,428$
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Capacity
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
11
Table 9b identifies the expected average costs for the new South Fork Wastewater Service
Area. Due to the noticeably higher costs of installing collection systems in this area, capital
costs for wastewater improvements for the South Fork Wastewater Service Area were
separately calculated. The South Fork Wastewater Service Areafeeds into the City’s existing
TABLE 9a
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing WWTPs 13,193,352$ 7.000 30,303 25,768 3,435 1,100 30,303
Subtotal Existing Facilities 13,193,352$ 7.000 30,303 435$ 25,768 3,435 1,100 30,303
FUTURE FACILITIES
Northlands WWTP 12,000,000$ 1.500 6,494
Pecan Branch WWTP Expansion 1 9,000,000$ 1.500 6,494
Berry Creek WWTP Expansion 1,000,000$ 0.200 866
Subtotal Future Facilities 22,000,000$ 3.200 13,853 1,588$ 8,016 5,837 13,853
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT 35,193,352$ 10.200 44,156 25,768 11,451 6,937 44,156
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,242$
PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Lift Stations 4,352,198$ 30.730 36,953 25,768 3,691 7,494 36,953
Subtotal Existing Facilities 4,352,198$ 30.730 36,953 118$ 25,768 3,691 7,494 36,953
FUTURE FACILITIES
Berry Creek Interim LS/FM 7,700,000$ 7.500 9,019
Cowan Creek LS/FM 4,830,000$ 5.000 6,013
Dove Springs WWTP LS 4,354,000$ 6.500 7,816
McNutt LS/FM*4,335,000$ - -
San Gabriel Interim LS/FM*7,514,000$ - -
Stonehedge FM Re-Route 147,000$ 0.260 313
South Regional LS/FM*2,778,000$ - -
Park LS Expansion 5,076,000$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 36,734,000$ 19.260 23,160 1,586$ - 7,760 15,400 23,160
TOTAL PUMPING 41,086,198$ 49.990 60,113 25,768 11,451 22,894 60,113
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,113$
INTERCEPTORS
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Interceptors 29,669,269$ 77.760 93,506 25,768 8,588 59,150 93,506
Subtotal Existing Facilities 29,669,269$ 77.760 93,506 317$ 25,768 8,588 59,150 93,506
FUTURE FACILITIES
Berry Creek Interceptors*29,115,000$ -
Cowan Creek Interceptors 9,164,000$ 8.060
Mankins Basin Interceptors 7,089,000$ 9.750
McNutt Basin Interceptors*1,618,000$ -
San Gabriel (South) Interceptors*8,383,000$ -
San Gabriel (Lower) Interceptors 9,052,000$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 64,421,000$ 17.810 21,416.55 3,008$ - 2,863 18,554 21,417
TOTAL INTERCEPTORS 94,090,269$ 95.570 114,923 25,768 11,451 77,704 114,923
AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU 990$
WASTEWATER TOTAL 170,369,818$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =3,345$
* Does not add to system capacity.
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Capacity
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
12
sewer interceptor network, so a small allowable cost was also included for use of the existing
wastewater system.
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT
For Utilities that charge an impact fee for new or expended service, the new customer generally
pays for capital in two ways:
1. The up-front impact fee that gains the new customer an “equity buy-in” to the system,
and
2. Monthly utility rate payments, where a portion of rate payments are for debt service.
The recent 77th Texas Legislature amended Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code to
require that either: 1) consideration of a calculated credit for rate payments to be reflected in the
fee amount, or 2) a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of the capital
improvements plan be given in calculating the maximum fee amount.
Table 10 characterizes the present value of existing and prospective utility capital costs per SU
that is projected to be supported by the utility rates and attributable to the new customers. This
analysis considers the full term of existing or future bonds and is calculated using the number of
SUs that would be present in the year 2020 mid-way through the 10-year planning period.
The South Fork interceptor is expected to be developer-funded with reimbursements made to
those participating developers periodically through collections of the special impact fee for the
watershed’s interceptor system. Thus, the City will incur no debt for this project, but residents
connecting to this line will pay for capital through their utility rates. Thus, a rate credit calculated
for use of the City’s interceptor system would be applicable to the South Fork interceptor impact
fee calculation.
TABLE 9b
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
SOUTH AND MIDDLE FORK SAN GABRIEL WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
INTERCEPTORS mgd
Existing Interceptor System 17,994,506$ 24.000 28,860
Future Facilities
South Fork Interceptor Expansion 1 2,940,000$ -
South Fork Interceptor Expansion 2 6,157,000$ -
Interceptors LS Remove & Replace 7,271,000$ -
Wolf Ranch LS/FM Expansion 3,566,000$ - -
Total Interceptors 37,928,506$ 24.000 28,860 1,314$ 1,500 27,360 28,860
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,314$
Capacity
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
13
TABLE 10
EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Net Present Value Mid-point
of Debt Payments 2019 Debt Payments
Facility Type In Rates SUs per SU
WATER UTILITY
Supply
Existing Debt 654,720$ 48,202 14$
Series 2014-2023 -$ 48,202 -$
Subtotal Water Supply 654,720$ 48,202 14$
Treatment
Existing Debt 303,811$ 48,202 6$
Series 2014-2023 7,676,433$ 48,202 159$
Subtotal Water Treatment 7,980,244$ 48,202 166$
Pumping
Existing Debt 97,193$ 48,202 2$
Series 2014-2023 2,181,949$ 48,202 45$
Subtotal Pumping 2,279,143$ 48,202 47$
Ground Storage
Existing Debt 6,009$ 48,202 0$
Series 2014-2023 839,495$ 48,202 17$
Subtotal Water Storage 845,503$ 48,202 18$
Elevated Storage
Existing Debt 37,218$ 48,202 1$
Series 2014-2023 1,463,666$ 48,202 30$
Subtotal Water Storage 1,500,883$ 48,202 31$
Transmission
Existing Debt 345,209$ 48,202 7$
Series 2014-2023 5,307,102$ 48,202 110$
Subtotal Transmission Lines 5,652,311$ 48,202 117$
Total Water *392$
WASTEWATER UTILITY
Treatment
Existing Debt 217,063$ 31,494 7$
Series 2014-2023 3,028,263$ 31,494 96$
Subtotal WWTP 3,245,326$ 31,494 103$
Pumping
Existing Debt 71,604$ 31,494 2$
Series 2014-2023 2,528,187$ 31,494 80$
Subtotal WWTP 2,599,791$ 31,494 83$
Interceptors (not including South/Middle Fork System)
Existing Debt 784,187$ 31,494 25$
Series 2014-2023 4,433,721$ 31,494 141$
Subtotal Interceptors 5,217,908$ 31,494 166$
Total Wastewater 351$
Total Water and Wastewater 744$
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
14
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Table 11 summarizes the unit capital cost of providing new service, the two alternative credit
calculations for new customers, and the maximum fee calculation for each of the rate credit
options. Separately calculated maximum fees are shown for the South Fork Wastewater
Service Area and the remainder of the Service Area. They differ only with respect to the
wastewater fee amounts.
8.0 COMPARABLES
For comparison purposes, the current impact fees for other area political subdivisions are as
follows for a new standard residential connection (1 SU):
TABLE 11
DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Weighted
Capital Cost of - Option A -- Option B -
New Service Rate Less 50% Capital Highest of
ITEM per SU Credit Cost Adjustment - Option A -- Option B -Option A or B
WATER
Supply 220$ 14$ 110$ 207$ 110$
Treatment 3,014$ 166$ 1,507$ 2,848$ 1,507$
Pumping 850$ 47$ 425$ 803$ 425$
Ground Storage 195$ 18$ 98$ 178$ 98$
Elevated Storage 233$ 31$ 116$ 201$ 116$
Transmission 2,916$ 117$ 1,458$ 2,798$ 1,458$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Water 7,431$ 392$ 3,714$ 7,039$ 3,718$ 7,039$
WASTEWATER (outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area)
Treatment 1,242$ 103$ 621$ 1,139$ 621$
Pumping 1,113$ 83$ 556$ 1,030$ 556$
Interceptors 990$ 166$ 495$ 824$ 495$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Wastewater 3,349$ 351$ 1,673$ 2,997$ 1,676$ 2,997$
WASTEWATER (South/Middle Fork Service Area)
Treatment 1,242$ 103$ 621$ 1,139$ 621$
Pumping 1,113$ 83$ 556$ 1,030$ 556$
Interceptors 2,304$ 25$ 1,152$ 2,279$ 1,152$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Wastewater 4,663$ 210$ 2,330$ 4,452$ 2,333$ 4,452$
TOTAL WATER/WASTEWATER
Outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area 10,780$ 744$ 5,386$ 10,036$ 5,394$ 10,036$
South/Middle Fork Service Area 12,094$ 603$ 6,044$ 11,491$ 6,051$ 11,491$
Optional Adjustments
Optional Max. Fee Amounts
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
15
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the both the City and Chisholm Trail Advisory Committees’ activities
during the impact fee updating process:
• May 13, 2015 Committee Meeting – Presented draft report for the impact fee model where we
reviewed the following:
o Chapter 395 Impact Fee process and requirements
o Land Use and CIP information
o Unit Cost Calculations
o Maximum Fee Calculation
o Draft Report
Based on comments from the committee, the growth projections were modified slightly. These
changes reduced the impact fee a small amount.
• May 27, 2013 Committee Meeting – Presented updated numbers based on growth modifications.
Committee requested more information regarding maximum impact fees versus adopted impact
fees. That information is reflected in this report. The committee discussed various fee strategies.
The Advisory Committees each make the following findings and recommendations:
• The land use assumptions and Capital Improvement Plans underlying the maximum fee
calculations are consistent with State Law and good engineering practices.
• The Advisory Committee finds that the data and methodology underlying the maximum impact fee
calculation are reasonable and useful.
• By a unanimous vote, the Advisory Committee concurs with the methodology used in the
calculation of the following maximum fee amounts:
City/Utility Last Updated Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total
Manville WSC 2008 2,800$ n/a 2,800$
Brushy Creek MUD*2008 2,095$ 1,804$ 3,899$ 2,095$ 1,804$ 3,899$ 100%100%100%
Austin
Desired Development Zone**2014 700$ 400$ 1,100$ ************
Desired Development Zone - Outside ETJ 2014 2,500$ 1,400$ 3,900$ ************
Lots platted on or after January 1, 2014 2014 5,400$ 2,200$ 7,600$ 5,415$ 2,284$ 7,699$ 100%96%99%
Cedar Park 2007 2,250$ 2,000$ 4,250$
Leander***2012 3,880$ 1,615$ 5,495$ 4,154$ 1,648$ 5,802$ 93%98%95%
Hutto 2013 3,625$ 2,128$ 5,753$ 3,625$ 2,128$ 5,753$ 100%100%100%
San Marcos 2014 2,285$ 3,506$ 5,791$ 2,285$ 3,506$ 5,791$ 100%100%100%
Round Rock 2012 3,889$ 2,073$ 5,962$ 3,889$ 2,073$ 5,962$ 100%100%100%
Pflugerville 2014 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 100%100%100%
Current Georgetown 2010 3,511$ 1,694$ 5,205$ 4,714$ 1,694$ 6,408$ 74%100%81%
Current Georgetown - South Fork Basin 2010 3,511$ 2,927$ 6,438$ 4,714$ 5,240$ 9,954$ 74%56%65%
Current CTSUD 2013 4,700$ n/a 4,700$ 7,954$ n/a 7,954$ 59%n/a 59%
New Max Georgetown 2015 TBD TBD -$ 7,039$ 2,997$ 10,036$ 0%
New Max Georgetown - South Fork Basin 2015 TBD TBD -$ 7,039$ 4,452$ 11,491$ 0%
West Travis County PUA - Hwy 71 Service Area 2014 7,476$ 11,644$ 19,120$ 9,968$ 15,525$ 25,493$ 75%75%75%
**Includes Central Urban Redevelopment Combining District & the area bounded by Lady Bird Lake, Lamar Blvd, 15th Street and IH 35
***Currently being updated
****Maximum Fee is determined and then fees to be charged are determined for these zones.
Maximum Impact FeeAdopted Impact Fee
*Impact Fee has not changed since the study done in 2003. The 2003 study was done through a TCEQ process that applies to Districts and that
does not require a rate credit, so it is somewhat different than this process.
INFO NOT REC'D
Adopted Impact Fee as % of Max
INFO NOT REC'D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 18
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
16
MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATIONS
Citywide & Western District Fees (outside of South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area)
Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $2,997
Total Combined Fee per SU $10,036
South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area
Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $4,452
Total Combined Fee per SU $11,491
• Consistent with State Law and by a unanimous vote, the Committees recommend that the City
Council and the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Board adopt the water and wastewater
impact fees in the amount of the maximum fee per SU.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 18
Item # A
1 1
IMPACT FEES
Updated Land Use Assumptions
and Capital Improvement Plans
for Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees
August 11, 2015
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 12
Item # A
2
What are Impact Fees
One-time, up-front payment by new development to fund
the capital cost of providing utility service
Intended to mitigate rate impacts to existing customers and
help growth pay for itself
Assessed at Preliminary Plat
Collected at Permit
Out of city MUDs – Collected at Final Plat
Authorized by Chapter 395 of Local Government Code
Every 5 years Max
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 12
Item # A
3
Impact Fee Components
Water
Supply (raw water)
Treatment (plants)
Pumping
Storage (ground and elevated)
Transmission (large diameter lines)
Wastewater
Treatment
Pumping (lift stations)
Interceptors (large diameter lines)
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 12
Item # A
4
Maximum Impact
Fee Calculation
Define Impact Fee Area
Water – Georgetown CCN
Western District – CTSUD CCN
(Separate Process)
Wastewater – WW Service Area
(ETJ)
Note the South Fork Sewer Service
Area
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 12
Item # A
5
Maximum Impact
Fee Calculation
Project Growth and Utility
Demands
2012 – 768(W) / 789(WW)
2013 – 750(W) / 1013(WW)
2014 – 876(W) / 740(WW)
900 units (2015-2019)
1,000 units (2019-2024)
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 12
Item # A
6
Maximum Impact Fee Calculation
Identify Capital Improvements Necessary to Serve
Water
Supply - $23MM
Lake Belton/Stillhouse, Brazos River Authority
Treatment - $102MM
Lake, Park, Southside
Pumping - $45MM
Sun City, Central, West, High, Pastor,
Storage - $37MM
Rabbit Hill, Braun, Central, Sun City
Transmission - $104MM
Stillhouse, Central, West, Sun City, Rabbit Hill, High
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 12
Item # A
7
Maximum Impact Fee Calculation
Identify Capital Improvements Necessary to Serve
Wastewater
Treatment - $35MM
Pecan Branch, Northlands, Berry Creek
Pumping - $41MM
Berry Creek, Cowan Creek, Dove Springs, McNutt, San Gabriel, Stonehedge,
Westinghouse, Park
Interceptors - $94MM
Berry Creek, Cowan Creek, Mankins, McNutt, San Gabriel
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 12
Item # A
8
Maximum Impact Fee
Water
Current Calculated Max - $4,714
Current Assessed Fee - $3,511 (74.5% of calculated max)
New Calculated Max - $7,039
New Assessed Fee - TBD
Wastewater
Current Calculated Max - $1,694 ($5,240 South Fork)
Current Assessed Fee - $1,694 (100% of calculated max)
New Calculated Max - $2,997 ($4,452 South Fork)
New Assessed Fee - TBD
Combined
Current Assessed Fee - $5,205 ($6,438 South Fork)
2015 Max Calculated - $10,036 ($11,491 South Fork)
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 12
Item # A
9
Assessed Impact Fee
Council may choose to assess any fee between $0 and
maximum calculated ($10,036 / $11,491 South Fork).
Impact Fee Committee unanimously recommended adopting
the maximum fees.
Factors to consider
Competitiveness – lot cost
Current customers – utility rates
Maximum calculated rate results in 36.6 percent of
capital costs supported by existing rate payers
FY 15/16 Budget includes $7,900 combined fee with
no impact to rates.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 12
Item # A
10
Assessed Impact Fee
Fee Component Breakdown
Recommend adopting maximum Wastewater Fee
$2,997 outside South Fork
$4,452 inside South Fork
Major projects early in 10 year horizon
Flat rate – no peak/high use variable rate charges
Recommend any adjustment be to the Water Fee
$7,900 - $2,997 = $4,903 Water (all areas)
Higher tiered variable rates help offset expenses
Chisholm Trail SUD
Same Study, Combined Master Plan
Same Maximum Calculated Fee (Water Only)
Separate Process
Independently Adopted Fee
August 20th
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 12
Item # A
11
Next Steps
Notice Published in Wilco Sun
July 8, 2015
Public Hearing, Decide on Assessed Fee, & Ordinance First
Reading
6pm tonight (August 11, 2015)
Second Reading & Adoption
August 25, 2015
Fee effective October 1, 2015
Preliminary plat vests for City service area
Revisit fees every 3-5 years (2018-2020)
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 12
Item # A
12 12
IMPACT FEES
Updated Land Use Assumptions
and Capital Improvement Plans
for Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees
August 11, 2015
Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 12
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
August 11, 2015
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on the proposed 2015 Property Tax Rate and the FY2016 Annual Budget -- 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 2015 proposed tax rate of $0.4350 exceeds the effective rate of $0.41715 by 4.5%. The increase is
required to pay City operating costs and various new enhancements to City services to meet the growing
demands of the community. Also, additional debt service funding is included for an October 2015 bond
package to include the 1st $10M of the 2015 Road Bond package and $1.7M of the 2008 Parks Bond to
complete funding for the 1st phase of the San Gabriel Park rehabilitations. The Council is not required to
adopt this rate; however, this is the maximum rate the Council may consider.
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 16 & 17, and
when the City Manager’s Proposed Budget was presented to Council on July 28.
The City Manager’s proposed 2015/16 Annual Budget is available with the City Secretary, on the City’s
website and at the Georgetown Public Library.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This public hearing and the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 18 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 2015 tax rate under Chapter 26 of the Texas Property Tax Code. Both
the 2015 Tax Rate and 2015/16 Annual Budget are scheduled for first reading at the August 25, 2015 regular
Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City Manager’s proposed 2015/16 Budget is $284 million, and has been reviewed and adjusted by
Council at its July 28 meeting.
SUBMITTED BY:
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Publication Notice of Property Tax Rate
Cover Memo
Item # B
8/4/2015
1
FY2016 Annual Budget
City of Georgetown
2015/16 Annual Budget
2016 Property Tax Rate
Public Hearing
August 11, 2015
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Impacts On FY2016 Budget
•Managing Growth
–7.6% growth in 2014; 11.4 new residents a day
–Development pipeline shows growth trend will continue
•Information Technology
–Replacement of legacy systems no longer supported
–Using technology to enhance service delivery
•Ongoing Maintenance of Infrastructure
–Continued funding Internal Service Funds for capital
replacement and maintenance
–Ongoing commitment to street maintenance
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
2
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Impacts On FY2016 Budget
•Key Service Investments
–City of Georgetown EMS Activation
–Western District Merger
–In‐house utility plant operations
–CVB Service Delivery
–Parks and Recreation Enhancements
•Preparing for our Future (Studies/Reviews)
–Facility evaluations/studies
–Surveying and Goal Setting
FY2016 Annual Budget
TOTAL BUDGET = $285M
•23.3% increase over prior year
–Inclusion of Rural Water in FY2016
–Increased General Capital Projects ‐$37.4M
–Increased Contingency Reserves
•General Fund = $54M
–Up 2.7% increase over FY2015
•Total Water Services & Electric Funds = $128.2M
–Purchased Power = $34M
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
3
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Contingency Reserves = $22.23M
•Emergency reserves
–Uses determined by Fiscal & Budgetary Policy
•75 days city‐wide operating expenses
–Increased from $18.82M
–Due to operational increases & addition of Rural Water
operations in FY2016
•Includes:
–General Fund = 90 days operating expense
–$7.695M ‐2.9% increase or $230,000 in FY2016
FY2016 Annual Budget
$285M BUDGET BY FUND
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
4
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Goals ‐FY2016 Budget
•Initiate Voter Approved Bonds
–Road Bonds for Southwest Bypass
–1st phase ‐Garey Park
–1st phase ‐San Gabriel Park rehabilitation
–Goal to minimize impact on property tax rate
•Launch EMS operations
–Planned for October1
•Continued investment in maintenance & capital
replacement
–Increase funding for Parks maintenance
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Goals ‐FY2016 Budget
•Sustain competitive employee compensation &
benefits profile
–Funds Public Safety step program
–Market adjustments for Public Safety
–Market adjustments for non‐civil service employees
–2% merit
–10% increase for employee health insurance
•Sustain & enhance emergency preparedness
services
–Adds Emergency Management Coordinator
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
5
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 General Fund Budget = $54M
•2.7% increase over FY2015 Adopted Budget
•Revenue up 4.38% in FY2016
•Includes $515,714 transfer of YE2015 Fund
Balance to Council Discretionary SFR
–For future allocation by Council
FY2016 Annual Budget
General Fund Budget = $54M
Property tax revenue = $11.9M @0.434
Environmental
Svcs
12%Return on
Investment
14%
Charges for
Services
29%
Sales Tax
22%
Property Taxes
23%
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
6
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Goals ‐FY2016 Budget
•Provides resources needed to keep up with
current growth ‐General Fund:
–2 PT ballfield maintenance workers
•Maintain tournament quality ball fields
–School Resource Officer for middle schools
•50% funded by GISD
–Cataloging Librarian
•Meet growing demands at Library
–2 Building Inspectors
•Improve response times and service delivery
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
7
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: General Fund
Other new service enhancements:
•Regional SWAT for Police
•Additional technology improvements for Public Safety
•Bridge deicing program in Streets
•Strategic business planning ‐Planning Department
•Citizen & Employee Surveys
•Phase 2 – Historic Resource Survey
•Animal Shelter Master Plan
•Williams Drive corridor study
•Council goal setting facilitation & implementation
FY2016 Annual Budget
General Fund –PROPERTY TAX
•2015 Assessed Valuation = $5.9 Billion
–11.2% increase over 2014
–Existing property increased 8.11% over PY
–Frozen values increased 18.6 % to $1.97B
•Represents 33.3% of TOTAL TAX BASE
•New & Annexed value = $203M
•Average Taxable Homer Value = $246,986
–Up $23,164 over 2014
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
8
FY2016 Annual Budget
2015 TAX RATE
•PROPOSED RATE = $0.43400
–Same as 2014 Tax Rate
–4.04% greater than Effective Tax Rate
•Effective Tax Rate = $0.41715
–Rate needed to generate same revenue as PY on
current assessed valuation
•Rollback Rate = $0.44221
–Maximum rate without a rollback election
•Projected tax bill for “average home” = $1,018.97
–9.9% increase over PY average bill
FY2016 Annual Budget
2015 PROPOSED TAX RATE = $0.43400
•Maintenance & Operations = $0.20716
–Funds General Fund operations
•Interest & Sinking = $0.22684
–Includes $0.0014 for October Bond Issue
•$10M Road Bond
–First phase of Southwest Bypass funding
•$1.7M for San Gabriel Park improvements
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
9
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Annual Budget
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
10
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 –SALES TAX REVENUE
•FY2015 projection dampened due to slowing
trend indicators
–Hyper‐growth slowing in several sectors
•FY2016 BUDGET includes 2.5% increase over
YE2015
–Total Sales Tax = $21.5M
FY2016 Annual Budget
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
11
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 UTILITY RATES
•Water or Sewer rates –No changes
–W/WW Impact Fees to be adjusted October 2015
–Sewer to be reviewed in FY2016
•Electric Rates –No increases
–Potential savings after January 2016
•Stormwater Drainage ‐$1.25per month increase
–Funds MS4 mandated requirements
•Sanitation ‐No change
–Monthly yard waste pick up under existing contract to
begin October 2015
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Goals ‐FY2016 Budget
•Provides resources needed to keep up with
current growth ‐Utility Funds:
–10 positions in Electric Fund
•Meet service demands & provide redundancy within system
•24/7 Control Center operations
–15 positions in Water Services Fund
•Brings Water & Wastewater Plant operations in house
•Up to $5M in savings over next 5 years
–2 positions in Stormwater Drainage Fund
•Meet needs of MS4 regulatory permit
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
12
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Utility Funds
Electric Fund enhancements:
•100% “Green” logo replacement
•Redundant radio system
•Promote / Sponsorship of Holiday Lighting
Water Services Fund enhancements:
•Conservation Program
–Irrigation & landscape rebates
–Demonstration gardens
•Western District meter audits
•New Customer Information/Billing system
FY2016 Annual Budget
Major Goals ‐FY2016 Budget
•Provides resources needed to keep up with
current growth ‐Other Funds:
–1 CSR position in Customer Care
•Meet needs of Western District
–2 positions in System Engineering
•Support EAM system data management
•Utility CIP Inspector
–1 Mechanic in Fleet ISF
•Growing demand from Western District & TRV program
–2 PT positions in CVB/Tourism Fund
•Support Vistior’s Center operations
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
13
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Internal Service Funds
Facilities ISF enhancements:
•Lease of vertical life
•Relocation ‐Planning department to Old Police Bldg
Fleet ISF enhancements:
•Funds for TRV maintenance
Technology ISF enhancements:
•Disaster Recovery backup system
•Cyber protection and firewall upgrades
•Parks & Recreation management software
replacement
•VoIP phone system replacement
•Contract management software
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Other Funds
Airport Fund enhancements:
•Pavement management
•Temporary PT positions
•Foreign object debris removal equipment
Tourism Fund enhancements:
•New vehicle for CVB
•Special event shuttle
–In conjunction with new convention center
•Expanded advertising
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
14
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Other Funds
Street Maintenance Sales Tax SRF enhancements:
•$3.36M of expenditures planned for FY2016
–Expends accumulated fund balance
Main Street Facade Fund enhancements:
•8th Street Alley project – feasibility study
–Funded through 2015 “Table on Main” fundraiser
•Holiday Lighting funded through Electric Fund
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Capital Improvement
Projects
•Downtown projects $1,624,500
–Planning Festival area at Downtown West
–Austin Ave Bridge design
–Street light upgrades & replacements
–ADA improvements
–Reconfigure parking areas
•Facility Projects $9,407,049
–Downtown West construction
–GMC Remodel
–Transfer station/landfill improvements
–Fire Station 6 design in conjunction with ESD 8
–ADA improvements
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
15
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Capital Improvement
Projects
•Parks projects $5,850,000
–Phase 1 –San Gabriel Park rehabilitation
–Phase 1 –GareyPark construction
–Parks ADA transition plan improvements
•Transportation Projects $20,000,000
–Southwest Bypass
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Capital Improvement
Projects ‐Utilities
•Electric Fund $4,958,000
–Electric SCADA & substation improvements
•Water Services Fund $25,877,000
–Plant expansions
–Pecan Branch & Berry Creek interceptors
–Pastor Pump station improvements
–Western District line improvements
•Transportation $4,684,000
–Street mainentenace
•Stormwater Drainage Fund $1,150,000
–System drainage improvements
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
16
FY2016 Annual Budget
2015/16 Proposed Debt
•2015A General Obligation Bonds ‐ $10,000,000
–Road Bonds issued in October included 2015 Tax Rate
•2016 General Obligation Bonds ‐ $14,700,000
–San Gabriel Park improvements ‐$1.7M
•Total cost –Phase 1 = $2.7M balance funded with $1M in
remaining 2013 GO Bond proceeds
–Garey Park ‐$3M to begin construction
–Road Bonds ‐$10M to complete SW Bypass
–Issued in April 2016 for 2016 Tax Rate for 2016/17
FY2016 Annual Budget
2015/16 Proposed Debt
•2016 Certificates of Obligation ‐$3,248,000 (net)
–Austin Avenue Bridge Design
–Transfer station & landfill repair
–Facilities and ADA improvements
–Public Safety vehicles
–Technology equipment
•2016 Utility Revenue Bonds ‐$9,805,000
–SCADA & Substation improvements
–Western District water improvements
–Pecan Branch and Berry Creek interceptors
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 17
Item # B
8/4/2015
17
FY2016 Annual Budget
FY2016 Budget: Next Steps
•Public Hearings
–August 11
–August 18
•Ordinances
–August 24 –First Reading
–September 8 –Second Reading
•October 1 – FY2016 Begins
FY2016 Annual Budget
Questions?
Thank you!
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 17
Item # B
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
August 11, 2015
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has
a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Meet and Confer- Police and Fire
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation of Real Property
- Deliberation concerning real property located at 4300 S. IH-35, Georgetown, Texas – Terri Glasby
Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
- Deliberation concerning the acquisition of 9.951 acres at the NW corner of Southeast Inner Loop and FM
1460, Georgetown, Texas – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Edward G. Polasek,
AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Attorney Recruitment
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
To Be Determined
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # C