HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 05.08.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
M ay 8 , 20 18
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on May 8 , 20 18 at 3:05 PM at Co unc il Chambers - 101 East
7th Street
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Prese ntation and discussion regarding pro posed changes to Section 1 3.0 8 o f the Unified
Deve lo pment Code (UDC) regarding P arkland Dedication requirements -- Kimberly Garret,
Parks and Recreation Director
B Prese ntation and update regarding amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating
to Mobile Food Vendors -- Sofia Ne lson, Planning Director
C Prese ntation and discussion of a Coo peratio n Agreement to continue participation with
Williamso n County as part of the Urban County Entitlement for the Community Development
Blo c k Grant P rogram for FY2019-2 02 1 -- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coo rdinator and Sofia
Nelso n, CNU-A, P lanning Director
D Prese ntation and discussion of the Fisc al Impact Model -- Laurie Brewe r, Assistant City Manager,
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manage r, and Seth Gipson, Management Analyst
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
E Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati ons about Real Pro perty
- Do wntown Real Estate Sale
- Rock Street/8th Street
Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s
City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
Page 1 of 125
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 125
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n regarding proposed c hanges to Section 13.08 of the Unified Develo pment Code (UDC)
regarding Parkland Dedication requirements -- Kimbe rly Garret, Parks and Recreatio n Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
P arkland dedicatio n is a re quirement for any new residential subdivision that is developed. All residential deve lo pe rs
must dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu o f land de dication to be used by the City to ac quire parkland or deve lo p ne w
facilities. New develo pment generates a need for additional parkland and facilities, and parkland dedicatio n requires the
developer to contribute towards a portion of that cost for new parks, similar to other infrastruc ture such as roads, wate r,
wastewater and drainage.
Staff has recently reviewed the require ments and fees in our current regulations and have disc ussed propo sed change s
with both the Parks and Recreation Advisory Bo ard and the UDC Advisory Board. P roposed change s that will be
presented inc lude an increase in the parkland dedication fe e in lieu of land de dication. The current fee should be updated
to reflect real land values. In addition, a park impro vement fee should be considered so that the cost of building the park
is on the re side ntial developer rather than the City. Another pro pose d change is allowing partial credit to for private
neighborhood parks meeting certain criteria.
Feedback will be gathered and incorporated into a draft do cument. Public input meetings will be planned later this
summer with antic ipation o f an October 2018 ado ption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P arkland Dedic ation P res entation
Page 3 of 125
Parkland Dedication
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
City of GeorgetownPage 4 of 125
Purpose of the Presentation
•To gain feedback on the proposed
changes to the parkland dedication
regulations in Section 13.08 of the UDC.
Page 5 of 125
Presentation Outline
•Overview of Parkland Dedication
•Existing Parkland Dedication Regulations
•City Analysis Comparison
•Proposed Changes to the Parkland
Dedication Regulations
•Feedback and Direction
Page 6 of 125
Overview of Parkland Dedication
•Land dedicated as part of a residential
development; or
•Fee is collected and used by cities to
acquire and/or develop park facilities
•Applies to both in City and ETJ
developments
•Established by ordinance in 1995, fees
and land dedication last updated in 2001
City of GeorgetownPage 7 of 125
Current Regulations
•Focused on growing neighborhood
parkland inventory, with less emphasis on
funding development of the new parks
Criteria Requirement
Parkland Dedication Requirement 1 acre for every 50 dwelling units
Fee in lieu of land dedication -SF $250 per dwelling unit
Fee in lieu of land dedication -MF $200 per dwelling unit
Private Park Credit n/a
Park Development n/a
City of GeorgetownPage 8 of 125
City Analysis Comparison
•100% require parkland dedication
•4 Cities use one fee in lieu of parkland
dedication
•2 Cities require an additional parkland
improvement fee
•4 Cities allow partial credit for private
parks
City of GeorgetownPage 9 of 125
Fee Comparison by City
City Single
Family
Multifamily Parkland Improvement Fee
Georgetown $250 $200 n/a
Cedar Park*$720 $480 n/a
Leander*$1,050 $1,050 $400
Pflugerville $745 $496 n/a
Round Rock Varies from $200-$4,000/acre n/a
New Braunfels*$100 $100 $500
* Currently reviewing parkland dedication regulations
City of GeorgetownPage 10 of 125
Proposed Changes
•Increase fee in lieu of parkland
–Raise the fee in lieu of land dedication to be
comparable with current land values
–Propose $500 per dwelling unit for both SF
and MF
–150 unit proposed development
City of Georgetown
Parkland
dedication
Current Fee
in lieu
Proposed Fee
in lieu
3 acres $37,500 $75,000
Page 11 of 125
Proposed Changes
•Add a park improvement requirement
–Park improvement fee; or
–Option to build park improvements
•City currently funds improvements thru
parkland fees or CO bonds
•Development pays rather than whole City
City of GeorgetownPage 12 of 125
Park Improvement Fee
•Typical 3 acre (150 units) neighborhood
park costs $250K to build
–$250,000/150 units = $1,666 $1,500
–Assumes full cost of park development; fee
improvement fee could be less
•Trend is for developers to develop parks, it
is a selling point for their subdivision
•Fees could be phased in over 2-3 years
City of GeorgetownPage 13 of 125
Proposed Change
•Allow partial credit for Private Parks
•Up to 50% credit given for private parks
that meet established criteria
•Park in the neighborhood will mainly be
used by those residents
•Burden to the City for maintenance and
capital replacement is reduced
City of GeorgetownPage 14 of 125
Private Park Credit by City
City Private Credit
Georgetown No
Cedar Park*No
Leander*Yes
Pflugerville Yes
Round Rock Yes
New Braunfels*Yes
* Currently reviewing parkland dedication requirements
City of GeorgetownPage 15 of 125
Concerns-private park credit
•What if HOA does not maintain or
dissolves?
–Plat note or strong HOA covenants
•Argue that residents pay property taxes
which should fund park maintenance
City of GeorgetownPage 16 of 125
Process so far…..
•Past 6 months worked through the Parks
Board and the UDC Advisory Board for
guidance and direction
•Surveyed other cities in the area
•Received feedback from the City’s
Executive Development Review Team
•Presented to the Chamber of Commerce
Development Alliance group for feedback
City of GeorgetownPage 17 of 125
Next Steps
•Report back to the Parks Board and the
UDC Advisory board and begin working on
a draft document incorporating feedback
•Provide opportunity for public input
•Estimate adoption by City Council in late
September with an effective date of
October 1st or January 1st depending on
approval process and timeline
City of GeorgetownPage 18 of 125
Direction
•Direction from City Council on the
following:
–Increase Fee in lieu of Land Dedication
–Adding a Park Improvement Requirement
–Allowing Partial Private Park Credit
Page 19 of 125
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and update regarding ame ndments to the Unified Development Co de (UDC) relating to Mobile Fo od
Vendors -- Sofia Ne lson, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
Mobile food ve nding is a land use that is increasing in popularity across Georgetown and across the country. As we see
interest in mobile foo d vendors increase so to do we see a diversity in the types o f mo bile foo d vendors, site
requirements based o n the type, and the length of stay in one spot based on the business needs of the mobile food ve ndor
or a possible pe rmanent business it is associated with. Fo r the purpose of this presentatio n mo bile vendors may include
food trucks, trailers, and carts. This workshop is a fo llow up to the July 25, 2017 and Se ptember 26, 2017 City Counc il
workshop discussions. Staff is providing an update o n the UDC advisory committe e re c ommendation, stakeholder
outreach process, and is seeking direction on how to bring co nsistency and predictability to the development and
permitting process.
Current Requi rements:
Mobile o r Outdoor Fo od Vendor are defined by the UDC as a vehicle-mounte d food se rvice establishme nt that is
designed to be readily movable, including push carts, mo bile kitchens, hot dog carts, pretzel wagons, etc. Foods are
limited to prepackaged or commissary prepare d fo od unless the unit is e quipped and approved by the County He alth
District (WCCHD) to handle foo d preparatio n. Any unit that requires direct hand contact with the food shall have a hand
washing sink.
Devel opment Standard Requi rement
Type of P ermi t Temporary Use Permit
Zoni ng Regul ati on C3, BP, IN, PF, MUDT and MU zoning districts
Durati on Established by the Building Official at the time o f
approval of the Tempo rary Use P ermit. In the e vent
no time limit is established, the duration shall be a
period not to exceed 9 0 days
Stakehol der F eedback:
Concerns were expressed about enfo rcement of the times the trucks would be on-site and how inspections wo uld
occur.
The representatives of the properties using food trucks aske d for a 7 2 hour windows of time before requiring a
temporary use permit.
UDC Advi sory Commi ttee Recommendati on
A full recommendation is included within the attac he d pre sentatio n. Below is a summary o f the UDC advisory committee
recommendatio n.
Transient Use- mobile food ve ndors are recommended to be permitte d Thursday through Sunday without a
temporary use permit.
Ac c e ssory Use- mobile food vendo rs are recommende d to be permitted for 1 year with a temporary use pe rmit.
Longer time periods will require a special use permit.
Primary Use- mobile food vendors are re c ommend to be permitted with a special use permit.
Mobile fo od vendors without a fixed site are re commended to be permitted witho ut a temporary use permit.
Page 20 of 125
Mobile fo od vendors seeking to utilize city parks and right of way shall be permitted with a special event permit.
Restaurant Ow ner Survey on F ood Trucks
Following the March 13, 2 01 8 City Council Workshop, City staff c onducted an online survey of restaurant owners within
the area to obtain their fe e dback on the permitting and regulation pro cess of Fo od Truc ks within the City o f George to wn.
Of the 35 restaurants contacted, 17 provided respo nses. The results of the survey are attached as Attachment I.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time .
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Attachment I - Res taurant Owner Survey Res ults
P res entation
Page 21 of 125
64.71%11
35.29%6
Q1 Do you support food trucks operating in Georgetown, TX?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 17
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
1 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 22 of 125
88.24%15
11.76%2
Q2 Should the City of Georgetown regulate where food trucks can
operate?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 17
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
2 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 23 of 125
76.47%13
23.53%4
Q3 Should the City of Georgetown regulate how long a food truck can
stay in one location?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 17
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
3 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 24 of 125
47.06%8
52.94%9
Q4 Should food trucks be allowed to locate permanently in one location?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 17
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
4 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 25 of 125
82.35%14
17.65%3
Q5 Should the public be notified when food trucks plan to locate
somewhere permanently?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 17
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
5 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 26 of 125
Q6 Is there anything else the City should consider when regulating food
trucks?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
1 The Health Department, if the City approve the food truck, needs to make sure that temperatures
of the food are correct, as well as, the transportation of the food to the trucks
4/5/2018 8:54 AM
2 they should have the same requirements as buildings as far as water, restroom and hand washing
and parking access. It is very unfair for food trucks to operate with fewer requirements and then
utilize the mandated requirements at traditional locations...parking, bathrooms, health code etc.
4/4/2018 12:58 PM
3 Parking. Effects on nearby businesses. Transients that tend to hang out in the seating areas.
Pollution and trash that get blown about. Cheap signage.
4/4/2018 10:00 AM
4 What taxes and business and community obligations will be required of the food trucks? What are
the restroom facility requirements of an area with several food trucks? How far away from resident
tax paying food establishments will food trucks be required to park? For instance, parking taken
away from brick and mortar establishments.
4/3/2018 8:48 PM
5 The food trucks should not be in the downtown vicinity, unless it's for a festival or market days.4/3/2018 8:11 PM
6 The restrauntures in the Downtown Historic Square are held at a higher and stricter standard, and
invest, as well as produce the highest revenue for restaurants. I don’t believe it is fare to the
established restaurants to take a cut in their daily sales after investing an immense amount of
monies compared to “Food Trailers”
4/3/2018 7:10 PM
7 I think permanently established food trucks should be handled like a restaurant, though they may
not provide all the amenities, they do provide food ongoing. I think the public would like to know
where the trucks will be located and are very interested in them not detracting from what makes
Georgetown a great - our square. I think the trucks business would regulate the length of time it is
in Georgetown. If it isn't making business it would likely leave. The city needs to regulate the area,
the appeal, the cleanliness of the trucks, not necessarily how long it stays.
3/28/2018 2:29 PM
8 They are severing the same people as local restaurants and should be held to the same standards
as permanent establishments. Cleanliness, food safety etc...
3/28/2018 8:43 AM
9 When you mention food truck, most have the mindset that your business is making money hand
over fist. It couldn't be further from the truth. Any regulations/fees that are being discussed need to
keep that key element in mind.
3/27/2018 9:13 PM
10 I think food trucks are great, however it's important for the downtown businesses that we are not
overrun with too many food trucks that take away from our historic designation. Perhaps there is a
better location they can operate? Property owners on the square have invested a lot of money
updating historic buildings. I would like to see continued investment in historic buildings, and I
would expect the City to protect that investment by limiting the amount of food trucks downtown.
Thank you.
3/27/2018 4:00 PM
11 The key word is "truck" which makes it mobile. I believe they should never be allowed to stay at a
location permanently. Unless it is a food truck park where they may all gather.
3/27/2018 2:33 PM
1 / 1
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 27 of 125
100.00%12
100.00%12
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
100.00%12
0.00%0
Q7 Contact Information (optional). This information will only be used to
send survey results and reminders about upcoming meetings.
Answered: 12 Skipped: 5
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Business
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
7 / 7
City of Georgetown - Restaurant Owner Food Truck Survey
Attachment I
Page 28 of 125
Mobile Food Vendors
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
Page 29 of 125
Contributors to this Presentation
•Jackson Daly
•Andreina Davila-Quintero
•Keith Hutchison
•Kim McAuliffe
Page 30 of 125
Purpose of the Presentation
•Present feedback from public outreach
with brick and mortar restaurants.
•Present additional research requested by
the City Council.
•To gain feedback on the direction to take
with the permitting process for mobile food
vendors
Page 31 of 125
Presentation Outline
•Part 1 -Recap of past presentations
•Part 2 –Presentation of Public Outreach
•Part 3-Summary of Recommendation
•Part 4 -Request Direction from City
Council.
Page 32 of 125
Part 1
How did we get here?
•Recap of Current Requirements
•Recap of previous workshop
Page 33 of 125
Project Timeline
July 25,
2017
City
Council
Workshop
Sept. 26,
2017
City
Council
Workshop
Oct. 11,
2017
UDC
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
Dec. 13,
2017
UDC
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
Jan. 10,
2018
UDC
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
Mar. 13,
2018
City
Council
Workshop
Page 34 of 125
Recap of Current Regulations
Definition.
Mobile or Outdoor Food Vendor.
A vehicle-mounted food service
establishment that is designed to
be readily movable, including
push carts, mobile kitchens, hot
dog carts, pretzel wagons, etc.
Foods are limited to prepackaged
or commissary prepared food
unless the unit is equipped and
approved by the County Health
District (WCCHD) to handle food
preparation. Any unit that
requires direct hand contact with
the food shall have a hand
washing sink.
Development
Standard
Requirement
Type of Permit Temporary Use Permit
Zoning
Regulation
C3, BP, IN, PF, MUDT and
MU zoning districts
Duration Established by the Building
Official at the time of
approval of the Temporary
Use Permit.In the event no
time limit is established, the
duration shall be a period
not to exceed 90 days
Parking Subject to compliance with
UDC for restaurants
Page 35 of 125
Recap of Previous Workshop
Vendor without
Fixed Site
Only applies to vendors
that sell at construction
sites, neighborhoods
and special events.
No permit required.
The use of city parks
or ROW would require
a special event permit.
Accessory Use
A mobile food vendor
that supplements a
primary brick and mortar
development.
Thursday –Sunday no
permit required
All other days
Temporary Use Permit
Required (1 year)
Primary Use
A mobile food vendor
that is the primary use,
and does not need a
brick and mortar
development.
Special Use Permit
Page 36 of 125
Part 2-
Public Outreach
and Recommendation
Page 37 of 125
Outreach prior to the last workshop
•Three UDCAC meetings held:
–October 11th
–December 13th
–January 10th
•Feedback Received:
–Concerns were expressed about enforcement of the times
the trucks would be on-site and how inspections would
occur.
–The representatives of the properties using the food trucks
asked for 72 hour windows of time before forcing a
temporary use permit.
Page 38 of 125
Outreach since the last workshop
•Restaurant visits
•Restaurant Owners Survey
–Survey sent to 35 restaurants within the area
–Data collected from March 27 –April 6
–6 questions (one open-ended for additional
comments)
–17 responses
Page 39 of 125
Survey Questions
•Do you support food trucks in Georgetown?
–Yes = 64.71%
–No = 35.29%
•Should the City regulate where food trucks
can operate?
–Yes = 88.24%
–No = 11.76%
•Should the City regulate how long food
trucks can stay in one location?
–Yes = 76.47%
–No = 23.53%
Page 40 of 125
Survey Questions
•Should food trucks be allowed to locate
permanently in one location?
–Yes = 47.06%
–No = 52.94%
•Should the public be notified when food
trucks plan to locate somewhere
permanently?
–Yes = 82.35%
–No = 11.65%
Page 41 of 125
Part 4
UDC Advisory Committee
Recommendation
Page 42 of 125
Recommendation
Transient
Use
Secondary
Use
Primary Use
Page 43 of 125
Transient Use
May include food trucks that
come to a site for events.
Local Examples: Mesquite
Creek and Rentsch Brewery
Page 44 of 125
Transient Use
Primary Use Required
Connection to Utilities Not Allowed
Time-Trucks permitted Thursday through
Sunday. May not operate when primary use
is closed.
Maximum Number of Food Trucks -2
Permitting-No Permit Required except
when seeking to have a truck outside
of permitted days.
Amenities-Not Permitted
Zoning Districts:
Commercial districts,
Multi-family districts,
Public Facilities,
Industrial, Business
Park, Mixed Use
districts
Site Requirements:
Shall meet location
and parking
requirements
Enforcement:
Complaint based Page 45 of 125
Secondary Use
•Mobile food vendor that supplements a primary
brick and mortar development.
Local Example: Je Suis Coffee on 9th Street
Page 46 of 125
Secondary Use
Primary Use Required
Connection to electric service
permitted
Time -1 year temporary permit. May not
operate when primary use is closed. SUP
required for longer than 1 year.
Maximum Number of Food Trucks -3
Permitting -Temporary Use Permit
Amenities -Tables, Chairs, Restrooms,
Etc.
Zoning Districts:
C-1 and C3 districts,
Industrial, Business
Park, Mixed Use
districts
Site Requirements:
Shall meet UDC
parking
requirements. Site
plan not required.
Enforcement:
Review of
Temporary Use
Permit. Page 47 of 125
Primary Use
•Mobile food vendor(s) that utilize a site that as
the primary use. This may include one mobile
food vendor or developed as food truck park.
Local Examples: Black Box, Morrow Street
food park
Page 48 of 125
Primary Use
Primary Use Not Required
Connection to electric, water and
wastewater required
Time -Permanent
Maximum Number of Food Trucks -
based on site requirements
Permitting -Special Use Permit
Amenities -Temporary and Permanent
Required.
Zoning Districts:
C-1 and C3 districts,
Industrial, Business
Park, Mixed Use
districts
Site Requirements:
Site plan required.
Enforcement:
Review of special
use permit.
Designated park
manager required. Page 49 of 125
Summary of Recommendations
•Transient Use
–Trucks permitted Thursday through Sunday.
May not operate when primary use is closed.
No permit required.
•Secondary Use
–Permitted for 1 year with a temporary use
permit. Longer time periods will require a
special use permit.
•Primary Use
–Permitted with a special use permit.
•Vendor without a fixed site
–No temporary permit required.
•City Parks and ROW
–Special event permit.Page 50 of 125
Part 4
Direction from City Council
Page 51 of 125
Direction
•Does the City Council concur with UDC
Advisory Committee recommendation for
the following:
–Transient Use
–Secondary Use
–Primary Use
Page 52 of 125
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of a Cooperation Agre e ment to continue participation with Williamson County as part of the
Urban County Entitlement fo r the Community De velopment Block Grant Program for FY2 01 9-2021 -- Susan Watkins,
AICP, Housing Coo rdinato r and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This workshop will provide City Co uncil an update on the U.S Department o f Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Community Development Block Grant Program for FY2019-2 02 1 and a review of the existing Cooperatio n Agreeme nt
with Williamso n County. A Co operation Agreeme nt with Williamso n County allows Williamson County to co unt
Georgetown in its Urban County CDBG requalificatio n process for 2019-2021 and allows Georgetown to apply for
CDBG funds through Williamso n County. Staff is seeking Co uncil’s approval to renew the Cooperation Agre e ment as a
result of HUD’s delay in notifying citie s of their e ntitlement status and anticipates returning to Co unc il on May 2 2 for
execution of the agreement and letter of deferral.
At the February 27, 2018 City Co uncil Workshop, Council approved the submissio n of two public improvement pro jects
for the FY2019 CDBG funding call by Williamso n County. As part of the ongoing CDBG co ordination with Williamson
County, staff was advised by Williamso n Co unty o f a need to co nfirm continuation of the existing agreeme nt in the
summer o f 2 018 following notification of eligibility by the U.S Department of Ho using and Urban Development (HUD).
HUD originally estimated notifying the city of entitlement status and eligible funding levels in April 2018. However, due
to late adoption of the Federal budget, the timeline for HUD to dete rmine whic h c ities qualify as entitleme nt citie s has
been delaye d. HUD has re c e ntly informed the City that it will be May or June before the City will be notified abo ut
entitlement eligibility and the asso ciated award amount. Subsequently, Sally Bardwell, Williamson County Grants
Coordinator, no tified the City in early April, that a response to renew the Co operation Agree ment with Williamson
County is needed by June 1 , 20 18 . Because of the budge ting and eligibility delay, the City will likely need to notify
Williamson Co unty of the intent to renew the CDBG Cooperation Agreement befo re knowing the amount of funding the
city is entitled to receive directly.
Continuing the Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County allows the County to include Georgetown in its Urban
County CDBG requalific atio n process for 2019-2021 and allows Ge orgetown to apply for CDBG funds through
Williamson County (Attachment 1); providing procedural and funding assurances for bo th parties. A letter deferring the
City’s Entitleme nt Status is also required with the signed Co operative Agreement with Williamson County.
Should the City renew the Coo peratio n Agreement with Williamson County prior to being notified of entitlement status, a
clause exists in the agreement that releases the City if late r notified o f entitlement status by HUD. When the City is
notified by HUD of its entitlement eligibility, staff will bring a cost benefit analysis to Council fo r its evaluatio n and
direction to either continue the sub-recipient relationship with Williamson Co unty or become a direct recipient of funds
from HUD. The de adline to accept eligibility and be re leased from the three year agre e ment is July 27, 2018.
B ackground and Hi sto ry of Fundi ng
Williamson County was awarded Entitleme nt County Status by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developme nt
(HUD) in 2 00 4. As such, the County applies for and administers Community Development Blo ck Grant (CDBG) funds to
participating cities and co unties. The City of Georgetown has partic ipated with the County’s program since the program
began. The Williamso n County Co nso lidated Plan requires that participating citie s sign a Cooperation Agreement e very
three years.
The City o f Georgetown has co nsistently applied for CDBG funding through Williamson County and been awarded
between $50,00 0 and $3 92 ,370 annually, with the total amount awarded being $1,8 16 ,63 9.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Page 53 of 125
CDBG does no t require lo cal funds.
SUBMITTED BY:
Susan Watkins, AICP, Ho using Coordinator
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Attachment 1 – Williams o n County Community Development Blo ck Grant C o o p erative Agreement
Attachment 2 - P res entation
Page 54 of 125
Page 55 of 125
Page 56 of 125
Page 57 of 125
Page 58 of 125
Page 59 of 125
Page 60 of 125
Page 61 of 125
Page 62 of 125
Page 63 of 125
Page 64 of 125
Williamson County
Community Development Block
Group (CDBG)
Cooperation Agreement
FY2019-2021
May 8, 2018
Page 65 of 125
Purpose
•Overview of Cooperation Agreement
•Next steps for future of CDBG programs
2Page 66 of 125
Agenda
•Recap of CDBG activity
•Williamson County Cooperation
Agreement
•Next steps
3Page 67 of 125
Williamson County Entitlement
•Urban County Entitlement
–In 2004, Williamson County was identified as
an Urban County Entitlement for CDBG
program
–Since then, it has received yearly CDBG
allocation
–Georgetown population is included in
qualifying population
–County must re-qualify every three years
4Page 68 of 125
Cooperation Agreement
•Non-entitlement communities can be sub-
recipients of the Urban County through a
cooperation agreement
–Agreements are for 3 years and renew
automatically
•Cooperation agreement is necessary for
Williamson County’s requalification as an
Urban County
5Page 69 of 125
April 4,
2018
June 1,
2018
Oct. 1,
2018
CDBG Cooperation Agreement
Timeline
July 27,
2018
HUD
notification of
entitlement
eligibility
May or June 2018
Page 70 of 125
Funding History under Agreement
•City of Georgetown has applied for CDBG
funds through Williamson County from
FY2005-2016
–Allocations between $50,000-$392,000
–Total of $1,816,639 spent on projects in the
City of Georgetown
7Page 71 of 125
Next steps
•Return 5/22
–Sign FY2019-2021 Cooperation Agreement
–Sign letter deferring CDBG entitlement status
•Evaluate entitlement status if notified
by HUD of eligibility and funding
amount
8Page 72 of 125
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the Fiscal Impact Model -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, Assistant
City Manager, and Se th Gipso n, Management Analyst
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City Council identified expansio n and diversification o f the tax base as one o f the City’s strategic goals. Staff
proposed a proje c t in the 2017 budget to build a Fiscal Impac t Model (FIM), which wo uld objectively predict costs and
revenue impacts asso ciated with de velopment propo sals and citywide growth developme nt patterns. In addition, it can be
an effective to ol for financial planning. The Council budgete d $120,000 for this proje c t and, after a compe titive
procurement process, approved a contract with Tischle rBise in January 2017.
This project sought to enhance the City’s ability to calculate the financial impact of de velopment projects and land use
policies as well as enhance long range financial planning. The Fiscal Impact Model is a tool to assist staff and City
Council understand ho w individual decisions impact Geo rgeto wn’s long-term fisc al sustainability. The mo del can be used
when evaluating various land use decisions, such as annexations, rezonings, site de velopment plans, munic ipal utility
districts, and financial incentive proposals. It can estimate the c osts o f providing service s, such as street mainte nance,
public safety, utilities, and other services, to new residential and co mmercial development. It will also predict additional
revenues that are expected as a result o f projects. This will provide Council additional informatio n to consider when
evaluating deve lo pment and growth decisions in additio n to other factors.
This tool will be beneficial to long range budgetary and financial planning as well. It can assist in evaluating re venue
projections, capital improvement programming, levels o f se rvic e change s, and operational and maintenance budgets. The
model can be updated and used by existing City staff as projects come in to be analyzed and during the annual budge t
process once co mpleted.
It is also important to acknowledge that fiscal issue s are o nly o ne aspect of evaluating development and growth tre nds.
Environmental, land use, quality of the development, jobs/ho using balanc e , transportation, education, and other issue s
should also be take n into co nsideration when determining land use-related policies and direction for the City.
A high level summary o f the project plan is included below.
Status of F i scal Impact Anal ysi s
Costs:
The approach o f the Fiscal Impact Analysis is to proje ct future needs based on current levels of service. A “snapshot
approach” is use d in which it is assumed the current level o f service, as funded in the c urrent City budget and as provide d
in current capital facilities, will continue through the analysis period. Demand base data is used to calculate per unit co sts
and service level thresholds. Examples of demand base data include population, public schoo l enrollment, dwelling units,
employment by type, vehicle trips, etc. No judgme nt is made as to whether the levels o f service are adequate, inadequate ,
or better than adequate. No r are any assumptions made regarding changes in levels o f service o r revenue sources. The rate
of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the proje ction period, and cost and reve nue projections are in constant 20 16
dollars. This assumptio n is in accord with budget data and avoids the difficulty of speculating o n inflation rates and the ir
effect on cost and revenue categories. It also avoids the problem of interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars ove r
an extended period o f time. In general, including inflatio n is complicated and unpre dictable. This is particularly the case
given that some co sts, such as salaries, increase at different rates than other operating and capital costs such as
contractual and building co nstruction costs. And these costs, in turn, almost always increase in variation to the
appreciation of re al estate, thus affecting the reve nue side of the equation. Using co nstant dollars avoids these issue s.
The General Fund is the main cost center along with Special Revenue Funds (with FTEs) and Jo int Service Funds. Co sts
that are exclusively suppo rted by restricted funding o r in enterprise funds are not inc luded in the analysis as they are
assumed to be wholly sustained by the respective funding sources.
Page 73 of 125
Revenues:
Revenues are pro jected assuming that the current reve nue structure and rates, as de fined by the FY2018 City of
Georgetown Budge t. The Return on Investment to the City is included. Property taxes and sales taxes are analyzed base d
upon current tax rates (i.e. do es not predict future tax rate increases).
Development Analysis
Seven Fiscal Analysis Zo nes were categorized ge ographically and development was forecasted based upon rates of
development and kno wn development plans.
Land Use Proto types were categorized as follows and average values have been e stimated based upon key comparable
units in the community. Since September 2017 additional analysis has been conducte d, and fo ur non-residential landuse
prototypes we re added to the list below, those are: Retail: Big Bo x (aka Discount/Department Sto res), Retail: Inline
Buildings, Retail: Fast Fo od Restaurants, Retail: Banks.
Residential:
Single-family Detached Starter (SFDS)
Single-family Detached Middle (SFDM)
Single-family Detached Estate (SFDE)
Single-family Detached Age Restricted (SFDAR)
Single-family Attached/Condos
Multi-family
Non-residential:
Class A Offic e (mid- and high-rise)
Class A Offic e: Medical/Healthcare (includes direct services to patients)
Class B Offic e (small foot print (≤ 10,000 sq. ft., single story)
Class B Offic e medium foot print (>10,000 sq. ft. up to 25,000 sq. ft. and some times 2 story)
Light Industrial (Flex Space ): (offices, light asse mbly and productio n assumes warehouse characte ristics for trip
rates and number of employees)
Industrial: Transportation/Manufacturing/Etc.…
Retail: Neighborho od Retail
Retail: Community Retail
Retail: Do wntown
Retail: Re staurants
Retail: Big Box (aka Discount/Department Sto res)Retail: Inline Buildings
Retail: Fast Foo d Restaurants
Retail: Banks
Lodging: Limited Services
Lodging: Full service
Summary:
The model estimates the co sts of providing servic e s, such as street maintenance, public safety, utilities, and other ge ne ral
services, to new re sidential and commercial development, as well as the associated reve nues to the City from the
expected developme nt.
As stated earlie r, it is also important to acknowle dge that fiscal issues are only one aspe ct o f evaluating development and
growth trends. Environmental, land use, quality o f the develo pment, jobs/housing balance, transportation, education, and
other issues should also be taken into consideration when determining land use-related po licies and direction for the City.
Steps that have o c c urred since the last presentatio n:
Since the last staff presentation to GGAF and to the City Council, staff has worked diligently with TischlerBise to re fine
the fiscal impact mo del, including loading the FY 18 Budget, expanding the non-re side ntial land-use pro to types (as
mentioned earlier), developed usage procedures and manuals, and c onducted several staff training courses to increase
proficiency.
Page 74 of 125
The presentation will provide a gre ate r level of detail regarding the mo del, procedures and guidelines, and will include a
demonstration o f the model using Georgetown pro jects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Council budge ted $12 0,0 00 for this project and, after a competitive procureme nt pro cess, approved a contract with
TischlerBise in January 2 01 7.
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Wayne Re e d, Assistant City Manager, Seth Gipso n, Management Analyst
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Quality Co ntrol Meas ures
F IM Pres entatio n
Page 75 of 125
Fiscal Impact Model - Quality Control Measures
Below is a listing of measures that have been developed and are currently in place to guard the
integrity of the Fiscal Impact Model and to ensure that quality data is generated.
Usage Guidelines:
In addition to the comprehensive Fiscal Impact Model User Manual, the City has developed an
abridged version to provide a quick overview of the model and establish safeguards to further
protect the model. Those safeguards include:
1. Maintaining an original, unmodified copy of the model in addition to a copy of the
model that will be available to staff.
2. A defined process to authorize access to the model and to determine if a staff
member needs to be granted access, or if an existing user can generate the
requested project report.
3. Maintaining a list, in the City Manager’s Office, of all staff members that have access
to the model.
4. A Records Management Policy to ensure compliance with the City of Georgetown
Records Retention Program and the Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Retention Schedules. This policy also includes standards for file structure and
naming conventions.
5. Established requirements that must be met before publicly disseminating any
information from the model, which include a verification of the results by a second
staff member.
Model Maintenance:
The items listed below are to ensure that the model accurately reflects the current base level of
service factors and that the model is updated to reflect the organizational structure of the City.
- The model will be updated semi-annually by staff to load new fiscal year budgets and
make adjustments after the mid-year budget amendments.
- A check list has been developed to ensure specific data inputs are reviewed and
updated as a part of the annual review, when a new fiscal year budget is uploaded to
the model.
- Staff will continue to work with TischlerBise, on an as needed basis, when major
modifications and updates are needed to ensure modifications are administered
appropriately.
Training
Three staff trainings were held between December 2017 and February 2018, to increase staff’s
proficiency and refine the model structure.
1. December 2017 – Consultant provided an initial overview and training of the
models.
2. February 2018 – City Manager’s Office staff conducted a training to provide a more
in depth view of the model and the flow of calculations as well as review the usage
guidelines. This time was also used for staff to review the model, provide feedback,
and ask questions concerning modifications or corrections to the model.
3. February 2018 – Consultant returned and provided additional training and answered
questions related to areas of the model that staff requested clarification.
Page 76 of 125
Fiscal Impact Model
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
Page 77 of 125
Agenda
• Purpose
• Quality Control Measures
• Model Overview
• Demonstration
2
Page 78 of 125
Purpose
– Multiple scenarios allow testing and comparing
• Property values
• Timing
• Type of land uses
– Inform land use decisions and test “what if”
alternatives
– Test and compare potential financial incentives
– Plan for short- and long-term operational and capital
improvement impacts
– Help meet City Planning, Financial, and Economic
Development goals
3
Page 79 of 125
Quality Control
2
Page 80 of 125
Quality Control
• Restricting and managing those that have
access to the model.
• Creation of Usage Guidelines to address:
– Records Retention & Management
Requirements
– File naming protocols
– Standards for file creation and storage
– Public Dissemination
5
Page 81 of 125
Public Dissemination Policy
•Before any results can be disseminated
to the public (i.e. City Council, or an
Advisory Board or Commission), a
second staff member will verify the
project level data and results outlined
in the initial report.
6
Page 82 of 125
Quality Control – Maintenance
& Staff Trainings
•Regular maintenance and updates
•In addition to creating usage guidelines,
three additional trainings have been
conducted.
–December 11-12, 2017 training with consultant
–February 15, 2018 – in depth staff training and
review
–February 26, 2018 – additional training with
consultant
7
Page 83 of 125
Model Overview
8
Page 84 of 125
Model Structure
•Input and Output Modules
–Project Input
–Demand Base Module
–Tax Base Module
–Revenue Modules
–Capital Facility Costs Module
–Budget Summary and Outputs
9
Page 85 of 125
Fiscal Analysis Zones
10
Page 86 of 125
Model Structure – Project Inputs
11
Page 87 of 125
Model Structure – Project Inputs
12
Page 88 of 125
Model Structure – Demand Base Module
13
Page 89 of 125
Model Structure – Tax Base Module
14
Page 90 of 125
Model Structure – Revenue Modules
15
Page 91 of 125
Model Structure – Operating Costs
16
Page 92 of 125
Model Structure – Operating Costs
17
Page 93 of 125
Model Structure – Operating Costs
18
Page 94 of 125
Model Structure – Capital Costs
19
Page 95 of 125
Model Structure – Capital Facility Costs
Module
20
Page 96 of 125
Model Structure – Budget Summary
21
Page 97 of 125
Model Structure – Tables
22
Page 98 of 125
Model Structure – Tables
23
Page 99 of 125
Model Structure – Tables
24
Page 100 of 125
Model Structure – Tables
25
Page 101 of 125
Model Structure – Snapshot
26
Page 102 of 125
Model Structure – Charts
27
Page 103 of 125
Demonstration
• Georgetown Village
• Wolf Ranch Shopping Center
28
Page 104 of 125
Georgetown Village
Proposed Development
29
Type of Land
Use Acreage # of Lots /
sq.ft.
Median
Assessed
Value/Unit
Combined AV
Single Family 487 2,013 $257,000 $517,341,000
Multi-family 52 1,260 $155,000 $195,300,000
Subtotal 539
Commercial 81 396,230 $160 $63,396,800
Total 1,029 $776,037,800
Page 105 of 125
Georgetown Village – Project Input
30
Page 106 of 125
Georgetown Village – Project Input
31
Page 107 of 125
Georgetown Village – Project Input
32
Page 108 of 125
Georgetown Village – Outputs
33
Page 109 of 125
Georgetown Village – Net Fiscal Impact
34
Page 110 of 125
Georgetown Village – Net Fiscal Impact
35
Page 111 of 125
Georgetown Village – Capital Needs
36
Page 112 of 125
Georgetown Village – Summary Chart
37
Page 113 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center
38
Type of land Use Acreage
# Lots /
sq. ft.
Assessed
Value / unit Combined AV
Commercial – Discount
Store 19.5 210,732 $85/sq. ft. $17,912,220.00
Commercial – Retail
(multi-tenant)50.5 425,896 $174/sq. ft. $74,105,904.00
Commercial – Fast
Food 4.3 12,897 $512/sq. ft. $6,603,264.00
Commercial – Bank 2.8 9,687 $528/sq. ft. $5,114,736.00
Parkland 17
Total 94.1 659,212 $103,736,124
Page 114 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Project Inputs
39
Page 115 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Project Inputs
40
Page 116 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Outputs
41
Page 117 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Net Fiscal
Impact
42
Page 118 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Net Fiscal
Impact
43
Page 119 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center – Summary
Chart
44
Page 120 of 125
Wolf Ranch Town Center
45
• Comparison of projected versus actual
values related to sales tax and calls for
service.
Calls for Service
–Fire/EMS
Calls for Service
- Police
Sales Tax
Projected 210 828 $2,834,284
Actual 87 719 $2,807,581
*Note: Actual: 2-year average (2016 & 2017 calendar years)
Page 121 of 125
Zero Net Fiscal Impact
46
Page 122 of 125
Summary
• This is one tool that will aid in our ability to
evaluate the fiscal impact of policy,
budgetary, financial, and landuse
decisions.
• Upcoming Projects:
– Comprehensive Plan Update
– Miscellaneous Development Projects
47
Page 123 of 125
Questions?
48
Page 124 of 125
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 8, 2018
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o ns about Real P roperty
- Downtown Real Estate Sale
- Rock Street/8 th Street
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 125 of 125