Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.26.2014 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas AUGUST 26, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on AUGUST 26, 2014 at 3:00 P.M. at the 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 Discussion and possible direction on an update from the Housing Advisory Board regarding the implementation of the Housing Element -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Clay Woodard, Housing Advisory Board Chair B Overview of the City of Georgetown Board and Commission program including items for consideration and possible direction to staff -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager C Discussion and possible direction on residential in-fill design standards in the Old Town Overlay District -- Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. D Section 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 Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Deliberation concerning the proposed purchase of real property in connection with the Smith Branch Drainage Buy-Out Project -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator - Blue Hole park land exchange – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Section 551.074: Personnel Matters - Consideration and approval of Assistant City Attorney for the Legal Department Section 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Transportation Improvement Zone (TIZ) - Sun City Development Agreement Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas August 26, 2014 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction on an update from the Housing Advisory Board regarding the implementation of the Housing Element -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Clay Woodard, Housing Advisory Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: See attached report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Housing Advisory Board update report Attachment 1--Housing Element of the 2030 Plan Attachment 2--Potential Workforce Housing sites Attachment 3--Review of apartment fees Cover Memo Item # A Page 1 of 5  City Council Workshop:  August 26, 2014          Item Report  Subject: Discussion and possible direction on an update from the Housing Advisory Board  regarding the implementation of the Housing Element  ‐‐ Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP,  Housing Coordinator and Clay Woodard, Housing Advisory Board Chair     Item Summary:  On November 26, 2013, the Housing Advisory Board presented an update on their progress of  implementing the recommendations of the Housing Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,  adopted on July 24, 2012. This element provides background on the housing market in  Georgetown and policy recommendations for implementation through further plans and  programs (Attachment 1).    Of the seven adopted recommendations, the Board has been working to implement the first two  High Priority recommendations.    High Priority (One to five years)  1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to  provide new units.   2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use  compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city.  Workforce Multifamily Locations  At the last Council workshop, the board presented a map of potential sites for workforce  multifamily development as step towards Priority #2 (Attachment 2). The board considered four  main factors to determine sites that would serve the City, developers and future residents  efficiently.   Distance from retail services and employment areas. These include grocery stores, major  shopping areas and smaller retail like Walgreens and CVS and areas with one or two  major employers or areas with manufacturing/industrial parks. Site should be no more  than 2 miles from retail or employment.  This ensures a pool of available workers within  a practical proximity to their jobs.   Utilities. Sites within the Georgetown water and electric service territories will provide a  return through utility payments.  Additionally, through review with utility engineering,  these sites have capacity already in place for multifamily development.   City limits. All sites are either with the city limits or have an agreement with the City to  annex when development occurs. Future developments will provide income to the city  through property taxes.  Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # A Page 2 of 5  Other information provided on the map for consideration is the existing and proposed  transportation network, existing sidewalks, and locations of existing apartment and Multifamily  zoning districts.  Board members Walt Doering and Monica Williamson met with Joe Dan Lee, the  Superintendent of Georgetown Independent School District, on January 21, 2014 to present and  discuss the possible workforce multifamily location and the Board’s goals. In the meeting, Mr.  Lee expressed a need for more workforce housing and stated unequivocal support for the  locations.   To implement this plan and prioritize site for workforce multifamily uses, the board is  proposing an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to include these locations in long‐range  planning efforts.  At the September 9th City Council Workshop, the Planning Department will be  presenting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Annual Report, which will include a recommendation  for this amendment.  Incentivizing Workforce Housing  For Priority #1, the board has been examining current development code requirements and  required city fees to determine what incentives would be best utilized to encourage new  affordable housing development. By varying development standards in return for workforce  housing units, developers can build with greater density and decreased construction costs.   At the April 16, 2014 Housing Advisory Board meeting, members met with Ryan Nash, the  developer of the Gateway Northwest Apartments and Larry Peel, developer of Two Rivers and  Waters Edge Apartments.  With recent experience building apartments in Georgetown and  providing units at different price points, they were able to provide insight into possible  incentives that might entice future developers to set aside units in future development for  workforce housing. They both recommended monetary incentives as the best option.  Other  concerns that both voiced about the Georgetown review process had to with time and unclear  estimates of impact and inspection fees.  They stated that an estimate of fees for outside  engineering review were easily available and made budgeting the project difficult.   Additionally, any delays in the review process can cost the project extra money, so making the  project a priority within then development and utility reviews could reduce some costs.  For site  development incentives, they did not feel that the Unified Development Code standards were a  hindrance, however, both utilized a higher level of impervious cover (70%) than is currently  allowed by right (50%).    With the insight, the Board reviewed the current fee structure and development codes and  developed some recommended incentives.    Site Development Standards  These include setbacks, building height and massing, and impervious cover, which mostly  affect the exterior look and location of the site. No changes to building codes, fire codes and  parking standards were considered or are being proposed. The table below shows the current  restrictions for the MF‐2, High Density Multifamily District and the proposed incentive.  For  Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # A Page 3 of 5  each incentive, there is a minimum amount of Workforce housing units required to receive the  incentive.  Lot Size, minimum 2 acre Units  per acre  maximum 24 Apartments per Structure, max 24 Increase  to 40 for 5% WF units Lot width, minimum feet 50 Front Setback, minimum feet 25 Reduction of 5 feet per 10% workforce  units to 15  feet, min. Side Setback, minimum feet 15 Side Setback to Residential, minimum feet 30 Rear Setback, minimum feet 15 Rear Setback to Residential, minimum feet 30 Building Height, maximum feet 45 Accessory building height, max. feet 15 Impervious Cover, max 50% Increase  of 10% for 10% WF units, to 70% Imp  (will still require  UDC water quality  improvements). Unified  Development Standards for Multifamily  MF ‐2 Workforce Incentives   Fee Waivers  For fee waivers, the Board reviewed fees charged to recent multifamily developments  (Attachment 3).  They proposed that for eligible projects, the City waive a portion of the staff  review and inspection fees.  No waiver of impact fees is being proposed.  • For each Workforce Housing Unit included in the project, the developer will receive a  $2,500 waiver of City review and inspection fees, up to a total of $100,000.  • Total incentivized units cannot be more than 50% of total project.  Examples:  200 unit apartment complex  – Up to 40 units (20%) can receive fee waivers  – 40 x $2,500 = $100,000   20 unit townhome/apt project  – Up to 10 units (50%) can receive fee waivers  – 10 x $2,500 = $25,000  A set amount for fee waivers will be budgeted per year.  If the budget does not allow for  waivers, then only the site development incentives will be available to workforce developers.    Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # A Page 4 of 5  Implementation into the Unified Development Code  Within the Unified Development, Section 6.07 Special Development Types, there are established  incentives including a diverse selection of housing types and for affordable units within a new  development.  This section offers several site standard variations and fee waivers for single‐ family, and townhouse units.  In order to implement the recommendations described above,  this section can be amended and expanded to multifamily developments.  This section is  already included on the proposed amendment list that the Unified Development Code  Advisory Committee is reviewing.  With direction from City Council, the Housing Advisory  Board will present these incentives and standards to the UDCAC for amendment through the  regular process.  Concerns from Our Last Presentation  During the last HAB presentation to City Council, board members took note of questions and  concerns raised by various Council members.  The Board has worked to address all of these  items.   Spread diverse, mixed‐use housing throughout the community and for GISD.  o Since the last presentation by the Board, new UDC zoning regulations were  adopted by City Council.  This amendment removed multifamily housing as a by  right use from the commercial zoning districts.  Additionally, the single MF,  Multifamily District was divided into two different districts, MF‐1, Low Density  Multifamily and MF‐2, High Density Multifamily.  This will give the City  Council the ability to ensure developments are being placed appropriately with  other uses.    o As readily available sites are now reduced, the Housing Advisory Board can  work with planners and developers to help guide future multifamily  development sites and encourage the inclusion of workforce housing in market  rate developments.  o Board members presented the Workforce Multifamily Locations study to school  district officials, receiving support for the thoughtful distribution of the sites  throughout the district, avoiding the conglomeration of sites in any one school  zone.   Maintain quality construction standards and sustainability.  o In the proposed incentives, the Board has carefully reviewed the site  development standards to ensure that no standards are being offered that would  have an adverse effect on surrounding properties or for the operation of the new  development.  o No changes to building or fire codes are being proposed.  o The Building Standards Commission is currently reviewing the 2012  International Building Code and the 2012 Fire Code has already been adopted by  City Council.  These new code implementations will result in greater sustainable  and energy efficiency features required in new development.    Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # A Page 5 of 5   No reduction in parking requirements.  o The Board will not propose any alterations to the parking standards that are  established in the UDC.   Why housing research did not include surrounding communities.  o The goal of the Housing Element research was to examine affordability for those  who want to live, work and contribute to the quality of life in Georgetown.  o Incentives and other programs implemented by the City Council will only affect  the city limits/extra territorial jurisdiction.     Clearly state the definition of Workforce Housing.  o Nationally, housing is deemed “affordable” when a household spends no more  than 30‐33% of gross household income on mortgage/rental payments.  During  our research, the Board established 30% would be the threshold.  o Using 30% as the limit, housing research indicated that there is a deficiency of  housing for households that make less than 80% of Area Median Income.  ($60,300 for a family of four in 2014).   Ensure the credibility of data.  o The sources for the data are outlined within the Housing Element Chapters 2 and  3.  The primary resources for data were the 2010 Census, the 2010 American  Community Survey, the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) from the Williamson  County Board of Realtors and information of development.    Concern that the deficit is overstated.  o The affordable housing deficient was determined by identifying the gap between  existing demand plus the projected deficient by 2017 and the supply of new  affordable units expected to be created by 2017.  The existing demand was  calculated from the number of households that are already cost burdened and  those living in physically deficient units.  o These calculations can be reviewed with the most recent MLS and Census data  available and an update can be provided in during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan  Annual update in 2016.   Obtain input from builders and developers of rental housing.  o The Board invited several developers that have recently been through the City  reviews and built in Georgetown.  Larry Peel (Two Rivers & Waters Edge  Apartments) and Ryan Nash (Gateway Northwest Apartments) attended the  April HAB meeting and provided valuable feedback on the rental market and  construction process.   Provide housing for retirees as well as the workforce.  o The proposed incentives are based on income levels, which can also include  housing for retirees.  The Board will make sure that the language included in  future incentives and programs will include retirement/age‐restricted housing as  well.  Financial Impact:   None  Attachments:  #1:  Housing Element of the 2030 Plan, #2:  Workforce Multifamily Housing  Locations, #3:  Recent Apartment Development Review and Impact Fees  Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan (This page left intentionally blank) Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 41 Item # A Housing Element TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 2. Demographic Profile 16 3. Existing and Projected Demand 32 4. Policy Recommendations 40 Adopted by Ordinance 2012-49 August 14, 2012 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 2 (This page left intentionally blank) Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 3 Executive Summary Why Study Affordable Housing Needs in Georgetown? In 2005, the City Council of Georgetown appointed a Task Force to address the issue of affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Task Force recommended three specific actions, including the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing coordinator, and the creation of a Housing Master Plan with emphasis on affordable housing. The Housing Element of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan represents the fulfillment of a goal to research and analyze housing needs and to establish a framework for housing policy for the City. Why should the City analyze its housing needs? Housing is a core community value in Georgetown. This value is acknowledged in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The vision, as expressed within the plan, is for Georgetown to become a community with “residential developments that are well-connected…planned and designed to compliment the heritage and natural character…which offer a variety of housing types and price ranges.” What Is Affordable Housing? For the purposes of this report, affordable housing is defined as paying no more than 30% of one’s gross household income on shelter. For tenants, this means paying no more than 30% of household income towards rent. For homeowners, this means paying no more than 30% of household income towards the cost of principal, interest, taxes and homeowner’s insurance. This report is aimed primarily at the affordability of housing to households at or below 80% of the median income for the Georgetown area. Using 2010 income data from the census, this translates to households earning $48,734 or less. Primary Issues Addressed by this Study Georgetown’s Housing Advisory Board identified two issues to be addressed by this study:  What is the unmet need for housing?  What positive steps can we take to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower income households in Georgetown? Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 4 Three Geographic Areas of Analysis The first geographic area considered in this study is the current municipal boundary of the City of Georgetown. In spatial terms, the City continues to grow. From 2000 to 2010, the City of Georgetown annexed almost 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling the geographic size of the City. The second area is all of Williamson County. This provides reference for the area immediately surrounding Georgetown. Similar to the City, the County has also experienced significant growth in the last two decades. For some statistics, a third area of the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is included. This provides a larger point of reference for the entire Central Texas region. Why do so many people want to live in Georgetown? Georgetown has evolved from a sleepy, small town to a rapidly growing city that is the center of county government and an area that provides goods and services to consumers within the region. Many former Austin residents have migrated to Georgetown and its environs to escape the high cost of housing and traffic congestion. In 2008, Georgetown was named the second “Best Place to Live and Launch a Small Business” by Money Magazine. The City’s 2008 Citizen Quality of Life Survey revealed that residents cherish the community spirit, natural environment and small town character found in Georgetown. Sun City Texas has become a retirement destination for over 6,500 older households. A significant portion of Georgetown’s growth in population can be attributed to the popularity of Sun City. Younger households have sought out Georgetown as a living environment because of the lower relative cost of living, the good public school system, and the easy commute to work. The City has experienced a surge in population. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgetown’s population grew by 11,673. From 2000 to 2010, the City’s annual population increase averaged 1,906 persons, more than 60% above the annual increase during the 1990s. However, the highest annual growth rates were observed in Williamson County. There, the annual growth rate exploded from an average annual increase of 11,042 persons in the 1990s to 21,603 since 2000. Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 5 Georgetown’s vibrant economy drives the housing market Fundamentally, the housing market is a reflection of growth in the local economy. New jobs and increases in household income fuel the demand for housing. Williamson County’s economy is expanding and its workforce is increasing significantly. As the second fastest-growing county in Texas, Williamson County experienced a 69% surge in population since 2000. The robust economy tied to the technology industry, as well as the retail and service sectors, added 42,000 jobs in the county between 2003 and 2007. Many of Georgetown’s residents commute to employment destinations outside of the county. Although 56,552 residents both live and work in Williamson County, another 71,087 residents commute to jobs outside of the county. Traveling in the opposite direction, 32,935 people drive to Williamson County from areas outside of the county to work. The daily out-migration of workers characterizes Williamson County as a bedroom community for Austin and Travis County. Residents are willing to travel longer distances to work in exchange for the advantages of home ownership in Williamson County. Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 6 Every household needs a dwelling More so than population growth, housing demand in Georgetown is being generated by household formation. Household growth in Georgetown and its environs is part of a national trend that involves a number of factors such as longer life expectancy, young people remaining single for a longer period of time, couples marrying later in life and an increase in divorces. Each one of these events creates a new household. Demand is created because every household needs a dwelling. During the 1990s, household growth outpaced population growth in Georgetown. The household growth rate of 81% was significantly higher than the population growth rate of 70%. This trend has continued through the 2000s as households grew by 81% and population by 67% Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 7 The market responds by adding more than 9,000 new homes Favorable economic, demographic and market trends caused the City’s housing supply to expand dramatically. New construction added more than 9,000 units in Georgetown. Sun City accounted for nearly 3,000 of these homes. Overall, Williamson County witnessed the creation of over 72,000 new housing units between 2000 and 2010. Not all Georgetown residents are wealthy Even in the midst of a relatively steady economy and housing market there remain a significant segment of Georgetown residents that struggle to make ends meet. Forty percent of all City households had incomes of less than $50,000 in 2010. Moreover, 27% of all households in 2010 were cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Many of these individuals are employed in service industries, which provide 73% of the jobs, located in Williamson County. These jobs are typically among the lowest-skill, lowest wage jobs of the employment spectrum, providing employment opportunities in retail, arts and entertainment, and food and accommodations. In the past five years, forty percent of all new jobs added in the county were in the service sector. Williamson County’s rental housing wage was $18.35 in 2010 In Williamson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $954. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn a monthly income of $3,180. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $18.35 per hour. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $7.25/hour in 2008) must work 101 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 2.53 minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two- bedroom FMR affordable. Many occupations such as waiters, retail clerks and construction laborers are necessary for the economic vitality and success of a community. These “vital community occupations” are generally found at the lower and mid-range of the income scale, and, therefore, these workers can find it difficult to rent a decent dwelling unit. Based on the housing wage of $18.35, waiters, cashiers, retail salespersons, and construction laborers could not afford to rent a one-bedroom unit costing $783 per month as single-wage earning households. Entry level firefighters could afford the one- bedroom FMR but not the two-bedroom FMR. Elementary school teachers, accountants and registered nurses could afford a one-bedroom unit or a two-bedroom unit, even as single-wage earning households. Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 8 Georgetown’s Housing Market Real median household income has decreased 16% since 2000, meaning overall 50% of Georgetown households are making less money than they did 10 years ago. In the Georgetown East market (i.e., east of I-35), the median housing sales price declined 3.9% from 2000 to 2010, after adjusting for inflation. In the Georgetown West market (i.e., west of I-35), the median sales price decreased 5.9%, after adjusting for inflation. While the market has registered a decrease in home prices, the decrease in household income has made the housing market less affordable to existing households. Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Stock The median household income in the City was $60,917 in 2010. With this income, a household could purchase a home selling for $167,520. In 2010, there were a total of 417 units that sold for $167,000 or less. This was equivalent to 41.5% of the 1,004 total MLS sales transactions. A relatively affordable housing market is one in which households at the median household income could purchase at least 40% of the homes. The Georgetown market currently meets this threshold. Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 495 sales transactions involved housing units that sold for $134,000 or less. This price was affordable to a household earning up to 80% of the City’s median household income. These 495 units represented 24% of the total 2,083 sales transactions between 2010 and 2012. Sales Housing in Georgetown is Becoming Unaffordable Some households in Georgetown with incomes between 60% and 80% of the median area income can find affordable homes in the marketplace. With respect to sales housing, the total affordable housing supply (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand (2,295) for the period 2010- 2017. The local housing market is not addressing the need for affordable sales housing as evidenced by the number of new and existing sales units that sold for $134,000 or less (495 units). Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 9 Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Deficit Consists of Rental Units Georgetown made good progress in increasing the supply of affordable rental housing in the 2000s. However, Georgetown still has a higher demand for affordable rental units than supply. This is due to the growth of lower-wage jobs and, subsequently, lower income households. An additional 3,082 units will be needed in Georgetown to sufficiently address the rental housing need for households with incomes at or below 80% of the area’s median income. However, the 180 affordable rental units estimated to be available between 2012 and 2017 will address only a fraction of the affordable housing deficit. An additional 2,902 affordable rental housing units will be needed to meet the unmet demand through 2017. Why address the need The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should be available to those that want to live and work within the same city. Viability and Support of the Citizens The provision of work force housing is important for the continued viability of Georgetown. A readily available pool of service employees is essential for the day-to-day operations required by the residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to live within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and connected with the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With less time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired from travel and be more productive at work. Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 10 Economic Stability The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city. New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of factors when exploring new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community that already has a readily available local workforce supported by affordable housing alternatives in the city of their employment. Combined with the many positive economic development attributes that Georgetown already contains, the city will be in a better position to draw new businesses. Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the tax base, which will greatly benefit Georgetown. Diversity of Community Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community that has households of different sizes, cultures and age groups. Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing with easy to manage maintenance, while families with children require more square footage and yards in which to play. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross- generational households that require options that meet their size and structure. A diversity of households and family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can bring a variety of skills and experiences to educate and help each other. Social Responsibility It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for economically disadvantaged and temporarily disadvantaged individuals and families becomes important. It allows current residents to stay in the community where they are already established. Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed income households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown. By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing for various income levels through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to provide a community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth and fosters an environment in which residents can thrive. Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 11 Recommendations These recommendations offer a series of procedures which, when undertaken in whole or in part, offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering implementation. High Priority (One to five years) 1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to provide new units. 2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city. Medium High Priority (Five to seven years) 3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction. 4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing. 5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services. Medium Priority (Seven to ten years) 6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects 7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment. Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 13 1. Introduction Purpose of the Study The City of Georgetown is in the constant process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Plan. The City of Georgetown Comprehensive Plan has specific elements that are required by the City Charter, a Housing Element being one of them. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Framework states as vision for the city that “Georgetown residents respond to the needs of all economic levels of residents through the provision of affordable housing and adequate and accessible health and social service.” (Quality of Life 1.2.G) More importantly, however, the City will use the information contained in this report to implement feasible and practical strategies that address the increasing need for housing at all price points for households that wish to live and work in Georgetown. Background The need for affordable housing in Georgetown was affirmed in 2005 when the City Council of Georgetown appointed the Affordable Housing Task Force to examine the availability of such housing and possible strategies that could be implemented. In the spring of 2006, the Task Force recommended three specific actions to begin addressing the local housing situation. These recommendations included the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing coordinator, and the creation of a Housing Master Plan. The City Council adopted all three recommendations. In June 2006, the Housing Advisory Board was established. By March 2007, the Housing Coordinator was employed and the City’s new Housing and Neighborhood Development Department was established. The primary goals of the Housing Coordinator were to (1) oversee the development of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, (2) coordinate public/private affordable housing initiatives, and (3) secure available financial resources, such as CDBG and HOME Partnership funding from HUD. This study is the first step toward achieving these goals and will be used to establish a housing policy for the City of Georgetown. The purposes of the Housing Element are to: Identify demographic and economic trends that affect the demand for housing Define the Georgetown housing market area and the supply and demand characteristics of that housing market Analyze the demand for housing Recommend actions and initiatives aimed at expanding the supply of housing at different price levels. What is Affordable Housing? For this study, lower income households are defined as those with an annual income at or below 80% of the area median household income. Affordable housing is defined as paying no more than 30% of gross household income for housing expenses including mortgage or rent, plus utilities, regardless of income level. One of the goals of this study is to determine whether there is an Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 14 adequate supply of affordable sales and rental housing to meet the needs of households at or below 80% of median household income in the Georgetown housing market area. Defining the Georgetown Housing Market Area Three geographic levels were examined for analysis and comparison with the surrounding area. The corporate city limits of Georgetown is the first geographic level studied. Since 2000, the City of Georgetown has annexed 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling the geographic size of the City. This action was driven primarily by a City policy that advocated municipal control over private development and the desire to control land development more efficiently through zoning.1 The 2010 Census city limits reflected these changes in the new municipal boundary and no major annexations have taken place at the time of this study that greatly affect the current city limit numbers. The second geographic area is the entirety of Williamson County. Comparison to this area provides insight into trends that are regional versus Georgetown specific. A third geographic area that is available for some statistics is the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The use of these three geographical regions is based mainly on data availability. Due to changes in survey methods and data gathering, Census information is available in different reports, different geographical levels and is released on a different schedule than in the past. Most tables have been updated using the recent U.S. Decennial Census and 2008- 2010 American Community Survey 3-Year estimates. 1 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10. Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 15 How this Document is Organized In addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction section, the Housing Element includes three sections. Part 2 includes the Demographic Profile of Georgetown. In this chapter, population and household growth, the housing and economic profiles and housing affordability are compared and analyzed. Part 3 includes the step-by-step methodology utilized in determining the total affordable housing deficit in Georgetown. The final section of this report, Part4 includes a series of specific public policy recommendations that can assist the City and community in meeting the City of Georgetown’s affordable housing needs over the next five years and beyond. Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 17 2. Demographic Summary Population and household growth trends are a driving force for the regional housing markets. Variables such as expanding population, decreasing household size, new household formation, and migration determine housing demand. While demographics are not the primary determining factor in future trends of a housing market, they are a key indicator of the size and nature of demand for housing. The following section examines current population trends as well as population projections. Subsequent analysis examines household growth projections to 2012 and the resulting housing demand forecast. Population Williamson County was the second fastest-growing county in Texas between 2000 and 2010. Only Rockwall County, just outside of Dallas, had a higher rate of growth. This trend appears to be continuing. The July 2011 Census Bureau population estimate ranked Round Rock and Austin respectively as the second and third fastest-growing U.S. cities with a population over 100,000. County Population Growth Rates, 2010 Rockwall 81.8% Williamson 69.1% Fort Bend 65.1% Hays 61.0% Collin 59.1% Montgomery 55.1% Denton 53.0% Guadalupe 47.8% Kaufman 44.9% Kendall 40.7% Source: U.S. Census, Texas Data Center County Rate of Population Growth 2000-2010 Central Texas has seen great increases in population for the last two decades. New residents are relocating to the area from other parts of the nation and state. Williamson County also experience growth from new residents relocating from Travis County. Total Population Trends, 1990-2010 City of Georgetown Williamson County Texas 1990 16,666 139,547 16,986,510 2000 28,339 249,967 20,851,820 2010 47,400 422,679 25,145,561 Change 1990- 2010 184%203%48% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2010 data; Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 18 Since 2005, Georgetown has exceeded Williamson County on the annual rate of change. All areas saw decreases in the rate of change from 2002-2004 and 2008-2010, which corresponds to the economic downturns. From 2000 to 2010, Georgetown , with an overall growth in population at 67%, kept pace with Williamson County, which had a 69% growth. The growth rate in both areas exceeded the 37% population growth of the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA. Annual Population Trends, 2000-2010 City of Georgetown Williamson County Austin-Round Rock MSA 2000 28,339 249,967 1,249,763 2001 31,248 276,661 1,325,305 2002 32,889 289,969 1,355,241 2003 34,367 302,716 1,385,723 2004 35,631 316,508 1,423,161 2005 37,584 332,159 1,469,346 2006 40,306 350,879 1,532,281 2007 43,286 373,363 1,598,161 2008 45,236 395,146 1,654,100 2009 46,492 410,686 1,705,075 2010 47,400 422,679 1,716,289 Change 2000-2010 67%69%37% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for all 2000 & 2010 data; for 2001- 2009 data Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 19 With the population growth, the trends in age have continued to indicate that the median age of Georgetown has been increasing faster than the surrounding area. Median Age, 1990-2010 1990 2000 2010 City of Georgetown 30.6 36.3 44 Williamson County 30.1 32.5 34.2 Austin-Round Rock MSA 29.6 31 32.6 Texas 30.7 32.4 33.6 The 60 to 65 age group increased by 132%, a larger increase than any other age cohort in Georgetown. In 2010, 38.2% of Georgetown residents were 55 year or older, compared to Williamson County at 18.4% and the MSA at 17.7%. This is due in large part to the growth of the Sun City retirement community, which added over 4,000 new homes in the last decade. Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 20 Changes in Households The Census Bureau defines “population” as “all people, male and female, child and adult, living in a given geographic area.” The term “household” is defined to include “all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.” When describing housing markets and housing need, focusing the discussion on households is more relevant and accurate because each household requires a dwelling unit while several people may comprise the same household and live in the same housing unit. In other words, calculating housing need on the basis of the number of households in a geographic area is much more accurate than calculat ing housing need based on the number of persons. Over the last two decades, household growth outpaced population growth. From 2000 -2010, the City’s household growth rate of 81% exceeded the population growth rate of 67%. While this trend parallels national trends, it is doing so at a higher rate. Household Growth Trends, 1990-2010 The effect of this growth trend is smaller for average household sizes. Since 2000, the average household size has decreased by 0.15 persons per household. This statistic is largely due to rapid growth in the 55 and over age group, which typically have no children. The average household size for the Census Tracts that cover the Sun City area was 1.8 persons per household. Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010 1990 2000 2010 City of Georgetown 2.69 2.53 2.38 Williamson County 2.81 2.82 2.74 Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.50 2.57 2.58 Texas 2.73 2.74 2.75 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 21 It is also interesting to note that a comparison of the rental versus owner average household sizes show our rental units have more occupants than owner occupied units. This is counter to the trend in Williamson County, the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA, and the State of Texas. Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010 2010 Rental Owner All Housing City of Georgetown 2.50 2.34 2.38 Williamson County 2.49 2.85 2.74 Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.32 2.76 2.58 Texas 2.54 2.87 2.75 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 22 Income Income is broader than wages and represents the total funds available to a household. The Census defines income as the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage plus i nterest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; social security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income; public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and, all other income. The term “real income” refers to income that has been adjusted for inflation. Income trends can reveal the financial capacity of a region to support new housing construction, modernization of older housing units, and regular maintenance of existing units. Lower income households will have greater difficulty meeting the most basic of needs such as food and clothing, and generally have less disposable income to save toward a down payment to rent or purchase a home, or to make necessary repairs on an older housing unit. Median household income is often the benchmark against which housing affordability is measured. The median household income is the middle of the income range: one-half of all households in an area have an income higher than the median and the other half have an income lower than the median. The median household income in Georgetown in 2010 was $60,917. This represented a decrease in real median household income of 16% from 2000. All other areas also registered decreases, but at lower rates. Household income growth since 2000 has been very sluggish. The income gains achieved since 2000 are only a fraction of what they were in the previous decade. Real median household income increased 5% or less in all areas. Changes in Real Median Household Income 1990-2010 City of Georgetown Williamson County Austin- Round Rock MSA Texas 1990 Real Median Household Income*$39,714 $44,590 $36,930 $35,623 2000 Median Household Income $57,183 $60,775 $49,025 $39,933 % Change 1990-2000 44%36%33%12% 2000 Real Median Household Income**$72,410 $76,959 $62,080 $50,567 2010 Median Household Income $60,917 $67,168 $56,712 $49,585 % Change 2000-2007 -16%-13%-9%-2% *Adjusted to 2000 dollars **Adjusted to 2010 dollars 1990-2000 2000-2010 With the decrease in real income, the distribution of households by income was greater at the lower income ranges, with 41% of Georgetown households making less than $50,000 a year. This is a shift from 2000 where the distributions were fairly equal. Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 23 Distribution of Households by Income, 2000-2010 City of Georgetown, 2000 Williamson County, 2000 City of Georgetown, 2010 Williamson County, 2010 Less than $50,000 31%28%41%34% $50,000 to $99,999 37%41%37%39% $100,000 and higher 31%32%22%27% 2000 Census, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Housing Market The housing market is made up of the sales of new and existing individual housing units, as well as rental units in the multi-family properties. The availability of a variety of housing types at various price levels enables a community to respond to changes in households’ economic circumstances. The Census collects data on the value of all of the owner -occupied units if they were to be sold. From 2000 to 2010, the real median value of housing units in Georgetown only increased by 3%, while all other areas increased by a greater amount. This leveled out the difference in home values in the area, as Georgetown saw a much larger increase in values over the previous decade. Change in Median Housing Value, 1990-2010 1990 2000 Change 1990-2000 2000*2010 Change 2000- 2010 City of Georgetown $97,053 $141,413 46%$179,071 $183,600 3% Williamson County $95,150 $120,685 27%$152,823 $175,700 15% Austin-Round Rock MSA $98,489 $122,866 25%$155,585 $187,700 21% Texas $78,544 $82,449 5%$104,405 $127,400 22% US $103,270 $115,194 12%$145,870 $187,500 29% *In 2010 dollars Source: US Census When comparing the change in median housing values and median household income , the gap between increasing housing values continues to outpace the household income. This trend was similar for all geographic areas. Change in Median Housing Value and Median Household Income, 2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars) City of Georgetown Williamson County Austin- Round Rock MSA Texas 2000-2010 3%15%21%22% 2000-2010 -16%-13%-9%-2 Median Housing Value Median Household Income Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 24 When looking at housing sales data, it is clear that the decrease in value of the housing stock has lead to a decrease in sales prices. In 2010, houses for sale were staying on the market longer and selling for less than in previous years. Overview of Georgetown Housing Sales Data, 2010 Median List Price Median Sales Price Average DOM Transactions Georgetown East $139,900 $135,250 123 256 Georgetown West $215,450 $208,500 139 748 Total Georgetown Market $192,500 $185,000 135 1,004 Williamson County Association of Realtors® Multiple Listing Service Over the last decade, the real sales price of houses has decrease 4% on the east side of Georgetown, and 6% on the west side. While the price of housing has decreased, the decrease in median household income has been more severe, effectively making ownership opportunities more expensive. Changes in Median Sales Price and Median Household Income, 2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars) Georgetown East Georgetown West 2000 to 2010 -3.9%-5.9% 2000 to 2010 *Calculated for the City of Georgetown Change in Median Sales Price Change in Median Household Income* -16% Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 25 Housing Affordablility For Housing to be considered as affordable to a household, they must pay no more than 30% of gross household income for housing expenses, including mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance, and taxes, regardless of income level. When a household pays more than this amount, it is considered cost burdened. In 2010, the median sales price of home in Georgetown East was $135,250 and in Georgetown West was $208,500. Based on these prices, a household would requir e a minimum income of $54,100 in order to afford a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East. This income amount is equivalent to 89% of the median household income of $60,917. In the Georgetown West area, a minimum income of $80,192 would be required to purchase the median priced home, equivalent to 132% of the median household income. The following chart lists the median annual wages paid in 2010 for several job classifications in Williamson County. Of the 13 occupations listed, only three could afford to purchase a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East, and none could purchase a home in Georgetown West, as a single-wage earning household. Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 26 The Housing and Urban Development Department annually determines the Fair Market Rent that is required to rent housing based on the number of bedrooms. In 2010, the FMR for a three bedroom unit in Georgetown was $1,284. Based on the incomes of the same 13 occupations, only the top three could afford this rental rate. For a two bedroom unit, the monthly rent was $954, which would be available to three more workforce categories. A one bedroom unit monthly rent was $783, which included an additional category. Of the 13 occupations, five of the job classifications would not be able to afford a market rate unit in Georgetown as a single -wage earning household. Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown, Housing & Urban Development Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 41 Item # A Housing Element   27   3. Existing and Projected Demand for Affordable Housing The demand for affordable housing is comprised of both existing demand and projected demand. Existing demand for affordable housing is based on the number of households in the study area that are living in inadequate housing. Projected demand is based on the net increase in the number of lower income households expected to reside in the study area. The combination of existing and projected demand provides an estimate of the overall demand for affordable housing units in the City of Georgetown for 2010 to 2017. The time frame selected for projecting affordable housing need for this study is 2012 to 2017. Population and household projection data were obtained for this five-year period from City staff. In determining the extent of affordable housing need, it is important to identify the type of need in order to develop an appropriate strategy to address the need. For example, cost burdened renter households would benefit from rental subsidies while renter households living in substandard physical conditions would benefit from new construction activities. Cost burdened owner households, particularly those residing in older dwelling units, may benefit from rehabilitation, which includes weatherization improvements to lower monthly utility bills, thereby decreasing total monthly housing costs. Existing Affordable Housing Demand, 2010 To quantify existing demand, households with housing problems were identified utilizing the U.S. Census American Community Survey 3-Year estimates. Housing problems included the following two characteristics: (1) households who were cost burdened and paying more than 30% of income on monthly housing costs, and (2) households who were living in dwelling units with physical deficiencies (overcrowded conditions and/or without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities). The data used for this report is collected by the Census annually and compiled into estimates every three years that include cost burdened households and households living in physically deficient units. The American Communities Survey replaces the long-form Census that was previously only sampled with the decennial Census. Surveying yearly provides more timely data for projection purposes. This report focuses on households with incomes equal to 80% or less of the median household income, collectively referred to as lower income households, as defined by HUD. In 2010, the median household income (MHI) ranged from $60,917 in the City of Georgetown to $67,168 in Williamson County. Affordable housing demand was calculated according to the following income groups within each area: Extremely low income households (0% up to 30% MHI) Very low income households (30% up to 50% MHI) Low income households (50% up to 80% MHI). While median household income is used throughout this document, the following table describes households with housing problems that are based on the HUD median family income. The HUD median family income in 2010 was $74,039 for Georgetown and $77,423 for Williamson County. Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan   28 While this income amount is different from the median household income, the Census data is the only source describing cost burden households and households residing in physically-deficient units. The existing affordable housing demand in the City of Georgetown is 2,219 housing units. This number is comprised of 439 lower income households (350 renters and 89 owners) residing in physically-deficient housing units. In addition, another 4,883 households (2,327 renters and 2,556 owners) were identified as cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their income on monthly housing costs. In the remainder of Williamson County, there were 2,425 lower income households (1,065 renters and 921 owners) living in physically-deficient housing units. Cost burden was identified for another 42,912 households (18,094 renters and 24,818 owners). Households with Housing Problems, 2010 City of Georgetown Remainder of Williamson County City of Georgetown Remainder of Williamson County City of Georgetown Remainder of Williamson County All Households 5,642 41,515 12,157 88,921 17,799 130,436 Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) 1,460 6,281 767 4,009 2,227 10,290 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 1,316 6,047 599 3,335 1,915 9,382 Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 619 8,339 1,293 6,424 1,912 14,763 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 458 7,274 781 4,302 1,239 11,576 Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 1,341 7,561 1,759 10,081 3,100 17,642 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 520 3,016 484 5,902 1,004 8,918 Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI) 2,134 17,960 8,338 68,407 10,472 86,367 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 33 1,757 692 11,279 725 13,036 Physical deficiencies to unit 350 1,065 89 921 439 2,425 Renter Households Owner Households All Households   Note: Data is available only for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County. Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates Projected Demand for Affordable Housing, 2010 to 2012 Household projections by income group were calculated by City staff and clustered into the same three categories used for existing affordable housing demand. The following figure lists the projected change in the total number of households by income group between 2010 and 2012. The increases are projected to occur among higher income households. In the City of Georgetown, new higher income households will outnumber new lower income households by more than 2 to 1. The number of new households above 80% of median is projected to increase by 1,751 while the number of new lower income households is projected to increase by 798. In Williamson County outside of Georgetown, the number of new higher income households is projected to increase by 22,010 compared to 8,295 new lower income households. New lower income households will comprise less than thirty percent of all new households in Williamson County by 2017. Of the 22,010 total new households projected by 2017 in the County, 8,295 are projected to be lower income. This is equivalent to 27% of the total new households to be created. Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 41 Item # A Housing Element   29   Projected Change in Households by Income Category, 2000-2012 Number Percent City of Georgetown 2,227 2,294 2,466 239 10.7% Williamson County 12,517 13,124 14,714 2,197 17.5% City of Georgetown 1,912 1,962 2,091 179 9.4% Williamson County 14,763 15,796 18,561 3,798 25.7% City of Georgetown 3,100 3,206 3,480 380 12.3% Williamson County 17,642 18,283 19,942 2,300 13.0% City of Georgetown 7,239 7,462 8,037 798 11.0% Williamson County 44,922 47,203 53,217 8,295 18.5% City of Georgetown 10,472 10,956 12,223 1,751 16.7% Williamson County 96,839 102,860 118,849 22,010 22.7% Very Low Income Households (30% to 50% of MHI) Low Income Households (50% to 80% of MHI) All Households above 80% of MHI 2012 Estimate Change from 2010 to 2017 All Households up to 80% of MHI 2010 American Communities Survey 2017 Projection Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)   Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations. The net increase of 1,713 new lower income households in the City of Georgetown represents the projected affordable housing demand. This number is comprised of 875 extremely low income households, plus 93 very low-income households, plus 745 low-income households. The increase in total households will occur as a result of new household formation within the existing population and the migration of new households to Georgetown from elsewhere. Household changes in income groups may occur for similar reasons. Additionally, resident households may shift between income categories as a result of changes in individual financial situations. The projected demand for 798 units of affordable housing can be further refined to estimate the demand for renter units and owner units. Trends in the ratio of renters to owners from 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census data offer reasonable assumptions for future projections. The following methodology was utilized to estimate the tenure ratios for Georgetown: Among extremely low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990; 2000, the ratio was 62% to 38%; by 2010 the ratio was 69% to 31%. Given the increase in housing costs and the potential for stricter mortgage underwriting standards, it is reasonable to assume that most of the new households in this income category will be renters. As a result, a ratio of 70% renters to 30% owners is estimated for 2017. Of the 239 households, 167 are projected to be renters and 72 are projected to be owners. Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan   30 Among very low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990; 60% to 40% in 2000, and by 2010 the ratio was 37% to 63%. With this shift in trend, a conservative estimate assumes a ratio of renters to owners in 2017 could be 45% to 55%. As a result, the 179 households would be comprised of 81 renters and 99 owners. Among low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 50% to 50% in 1990; 41% to 59% in 2000; and by 2010 the ratio was 52% to 48%. For the same reasons listed above, it is reasonable to assume a ratio similar to the 1990 rates of 50% renters to 50% owners. As a result, the 380 households would be comprised of 190 renters and 190 owners. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the 798 households can be further classified as 438 renter units and 360 owner units. Projected Affordable Housing Demand by Tenure in the City of Georgetown, 2000-2012 Renter Units Owner Units Total Units Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) 167 72 239 Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 81 99 179 Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 190 190 380 Total Demand for Affordable Units 438 360 798   Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations. Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2010 to 2017 The total demand for affordable housing in the City of Georgetown is estimated to be 4,956 units. A combination of existing demand and projected demand is the total affordable housing demand for the year 2017. Existing demand is defined as the number of households that have housing problems (cost burden greater than 30% of income, and/or overcrowding, and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). The existing affordable housing demand in the City is 4,158 units. Projected demand for affordable housing is determined by the anticipated increase in the number of lower income households regardless of housing problems. The projected demand for affordable housing is 798 units. Note that existing demand exceeds projected demand by 420%. The following table provides a summary of total affordable housing demand in the City of Georgetown. Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 41 Item # A Housing Element   31   Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2010-2017 Renters Owners Renters Owners Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI) 1,316 599 167 72 2,154 Very Low Income Households (31% to 50% of MHI) 458 781 81 99 1,418 Low Income Households (51% to 80% of MHI) 520 484 190 190 1,384 Total Affordable Housing Demand 2,294 1,864 438 360 4,956 Existing Demand, 2010 Projected Demand, 2000 to 2017 Total   Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations. Affordable Housing Supply, 2010-2017 The second step in estimating affordable housing need is to determine the extent to which housing demand is likely to be met through the existing housing inventory and any projected new housing development. This can be achieved by identifying the extent to which the current housing delivery system is already providing housing for lower income households. The existing housing inventory, current building activity, and housing programs already in place must be evaluated. Recent Housing Activity, 2010-2012 Since 2010, a total of 835 new units have been added to the City of Georgetown housing inventory. In the Georgetown East market, the median housing sales price decreased 8.2% between 2008 and 2012. The average number of days that a house remained on the market increased 32.9% from 93 to 123 days. A total of 1,056 sales transactions have been completed during the period. The Georgetown West market has been more active as indicated by a higher number of transactions (3,092) but registered a decrease (-1.3%) in the median housing sales price between 2008 and 2012. The average number of days that a house remained on the market, however, has increased 17.3% from 119 to 139 days and remains higher than in the Georgetown East market. These indicators suggest that demand will remain relatively stable and the cost of purchasing a home in Georgetown may decrease slightly in the near future. This is largely due to nationwide economic conditions and a shift in lending practices. As the economy continues to improve continued household growth and higher median incomes will fuel the demand for new housing. Despite increases in housing construction costs, 495 MLS sales transactions in 2010-11 were units that sold for $134,000 or less—a price affordable to households earning $48,800, equivalent to 80% of the 2010 median household income of $60,917. These 495 units represented 24% of the 2,083 housing units sold in 2010 and 2011. Projected Housing Growth, 2012-2017 Projecting net change in the future housing supply can be difficult given the uncertainty of interest rates, construction costs, mortgage availability, developer behavior, etc. Today, one of the greatest concerns is the impact of unconventional mortgages. Increases in foreclosures could trigger a temporary increase in housing supply, but tighter lending standards may make it more difficult for potential home buyers to acquire their home. However, recent trends as well as projections of housing demand based on household formation rates provide reasonable benchmarks for likely Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan   32 estimates of net change in the housing supply. The following projections are based on the assumption that no changes are made to local policies and no new policies impacting affordable housing are adopted. It is projected that an additional 2,125 housing units will be created between 2012 through 2012. The net change in the existing housing stock in the City of Georgetown between 2010 and 2012 was 832 housing units at an average annual production rate of 418 units. This production rate is projected for 2012 through 2017 as Georgetown housing market continues to recover. While lending institutions may tighten their mortgage standards, this may be off-set by the influx of well- educated and higher income households moving into the area. However, tighter mortgage standards will more than likely impact lower income households more severely than higher income households. Based on these trends and assumptions, it is projected that an additional 2,088 housing units (approximately 425 units annually over the next five years) will be created between 2012 through 2017. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 1,565 units (75%) will be single family owner- occupied units and 560 units (25%) will be multi-family renter-occupied units. Furthermore, it is projected that the private housing market will continue to favor higher income households over lower income households and owners over renters. Projected Housing Inventory, 2017 2010 Housing Inventory 2012 Housing Inventory Average Annual Production Rate 2010 to 2012 (units) Projected Net Increase in Housing Units 2012 to 2017 Projected 2017 Housing Inventory City of Georgetown 19,211 20,046 418 2,125 22,171   Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the projected 2,125 market-rate housing units will be affordable to households with incomes up to 80% of the median household income. This estimate of 152 units is a more conservative number than the previous eight years. However, given the current housing crisis and recent building permit trends, a more conservative approach is warranted. City of Georgetown Affordable Housing Deficit, 2012-2017 Affordable housing need is determined by identifying the unmet affordable housing demand (i.e., the deficit). The following chart illustrates the number and type of affordable housing units identified in Georgetown. The affordable housing supply created between 2010 and 2012 included: 3495 residential units that sold for $134,000 or less in the Georgetown MLS market Attachment number 2 \nPage 32 of 41 Item # A Housing Element   33   Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County constructed 6 single family housing units in Georgetown The affordable housing supply in the “pipeline” or planned for development and occupancy between 2012 and 2017 was based on the following assumptions as well as information obtained from local affordable housing providers: The Texas Housing Foundation will develop 180 units of affordable rental housing at Gateway Northwest Apartment. Affordable Housing Need in the City of Georgetown, 2017 Owners Renters Total Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010) Households living in physically-deficient units 89 350 439 Households that are cost burdened:.0 Extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI) 599 1316 1,915 Very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI) 781 458 1,239 Low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI) 484 520 1,004 Total Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010) 1,953 2,644 4,597 Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017)0 New extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI) 72 167 239 New very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI) 81 99 180 New low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI) 190 172 362 Total Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017) 342 438 781 TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND 2,295 3,082 5,378 Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created (2010-2012) 2010-2012 Market sales units that sold for up to $134,000 (affordable to up 80% of MHI) 495 495 Habitat for Humanity 66 New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 0 0 Supply of Affordable Housing Units Anticipated to be Created (2012-2017) 2012-2017 Market sales units for <$134,000 (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 225 225 Habitat for Humanity 00 New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 180 180 TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY 726 180 906 TOTAL DEMAND MINUS TOTAL SUPPLY 1,569 2,902 4,472 Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations UNMET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFICIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY   Sources: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations. Attachment number 2 \nPage 33 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan   34 The local housing market has not addressed the affordable sales housing need for households earning up to 80% of the area median income. Because the total affordable housing supply for owner units (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand for owner units (2,295) for the period 2010-2017. There is an already existing demand in Georgetown due to cost-burdened households. Similarly, the local market has not adequately addressed the affordable rental housing need in Georgetown. The 180 affordable rental units estimated to be available will not provide sufficient housing opportunities for the 3,082 lower income households in need of housing. As a result, there exists a deficit of 4,471 affordable rental housing units in Georgetown. Public policy recommendations made in Part 4 are tailored to ameliorate this situation. As stated previously, the projections included in this section are based on the assumption that current public policies impacting the creation of affordable housing remain unchanged. If, however, new policies are approved that would provide incentives for the creation of new affordable housing units, then the total affordable housing supply could be increased, thereby decreasing unmet need. Attachment number 2 \nPage 34 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 35 4. Rationale and Policy Recommendations Rationale The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should be availabl e to people that choose to live and work within the same city . Viability and Support of the Citizens The provision of work force housing provides for the continued viability of Georgetown. A readily available pool of service employees are essential for t he day-to-day operation of services required by residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to live within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and to be connected with the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With less time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired from travel and be more productive at work. Economic Stability The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city. New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of fa ctors when exploring new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community tha t already has a readily available local workforce that is supported by affordable housing alternatives in the city . Availability of affordable housing, c ombined w ith Georgetown’s many other positive economic development attributes, places the city in a better position to draw new businesses. Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the tax base, which will enrich Georgetown. Diversity of Community Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community with a variety of households of different sizes, cultures and age groups . Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing with easy to manage maintenance , while families with children require more square footage and yards to play in. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross -generational households requiring housing that meets the size and structure. A diversity of households and family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can provide a variety of skills and experiences to educate and hel p each other. Social Responsibility It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for economically disadvantage d and temporarily disadvantage d individuals and families become important to allow current residents to stay in the community in which they are already established. Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed income households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown. By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing options for various income levels, through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to Attachment number 2 \nPage 35 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan 36 foster a community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth and provides an environment in which residents can thrive. Attachment number 2 \nPage 36 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 37 Recommendations These recommendations offer a series of procedures that, when undertake n in whole or in part, offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering implementation. High Priority (One to five years) 1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to provide new units. Waiving development fees and subsidizing impact fees is the primary method the City has at its disposal to subsidize affordable housing. These costs represent a significant portion of the development budget for an affordable housing initiative and through this program; the City can offer a sliding sc ale of incentives to encourage affordable development . This development will be dependent upon meeting quantifiable scoring criteria, which can be established within the program. Primary criteria to be considered and scored: Amount of affordable housing included in the project : City will establish a percentage requirement for the amount of workforce housing to be included in a particular project in order to be considered for any city subsidy in the form of development and impact fee credits. Proximity to employment centers : The goal of workforce housing is to allow low to middle -income employees the opportunity to live within the community in which they work, while expanding the available workforce for current and future employers. Infrastructure availability: Developers applying for the program will demonstrate that they are efficiently locating the dev elopment to utilize the existing infrastructure such as roads, electric, water and waste water lines . Access to the road and pedestrian transportation network : While land located further from the city center is often cheaper for developers, this will usu ally put a transportation burden upon the future residents, effectively shifting any savings on housing to increased transportation costs. Sites to be considered through the program must show the distances and road network available to public services, re tail centers and employment centers. Relationship to the surrounding property /Appearance : Projects, whether single or mu ltifamily, should complement and be complemented by the types of development adjacent to the site. Single-family residential units should not be out of scale and style with existing single-family developments. Multifamily projects should not pose an actual detriment to surrounding business or residences. Individual workforce housing units included as a component of single or multi-family projects should be architecturally indistinguishable from the market rate units within the same project. For any development, it is also important to consider t he demographic of future residents, the proximity of schools, jobs, retail and civic services . A basic return on investment analysis : The developer will be required to provide the Board with a future impact analysis of the project showing what financial returns the City can expect to see through increased tax and utility revenues. Combined with the overall Attachment number 2 \nPage 37 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan 38 positive impact an increased population will have on the surrounding business community , this will help offset any upfront subsidies the city may provide. Incentives: Waiver of development fees : Depending on the score of the project, the deve loper could receive a waiver of up to 100 percent of Planning and Inspection Fees. Subsidized impact fees: Impact fees include water, wastewater and electric fees that are collected to offset the cost incurred by the public infrastructure system. The amount of subsidy a developer can receive would be set on a graduated scale with the maximum amount of 75 percent of total fees. Increased land development densities: The City’s Unified Development Code has several lot development requirements that limit the amount of units a developer can put per acre. Impervious cover limits, setback requirements, lot width minimums and height limits can all be varied in such a way that developers can better utilize the land and develop more units. Program Management: Developers wishing to receive incentives shall present a complete plan to the Housing Advisory Board, which will be evaluated based on the criteria of the program. The Board will then make a recommendation to City Council for consideration. Council may seek evaluation and impact of project by city staff prior to making any final decision. Each case will be reviewed individually and funding for the program will be dependant upon budgetary restraints for that year. Developers considering applying to the program will be able to get a packet of program requirements with attached sample documents to allow for uniformity of applications and ensure the ease of applying. The Housing Coordinator will be available to meet with any developer wishing to take advantage of the program and will present completed applications to the Housing Advisory Board and City Council with a report showing how the project meets program requirements. As the project goes through the rest of the City development processes, t he Housing Coordinator will serve as the case manager. 2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing types within the city. The City of Georgetown is estimated to run a defici t of 2,902 affordable rental units by the year 2017. As the housing market demand is constantly shifting, it is important for the city to be in a position to help create a new supply of housing to meet the needs of its residents. In the current economic climate, the need for rental housing has increased, while the supply and demand for single -family homeownership has leveled off or decreased. With this shift, the housing market has an increasing demand for multifamily development. A quick glance at the City ’s Zoning Map indicates a number of sites that have been zoned for multifamily, however many of these are speculative in nature and will not have the necessary infrastructure for 5 years or more. If the City is proactively planning for zoning and determi ning a reas for multifamily development, new development s will be able to find appropriate multifamily sites. It can also avoid situations where a developer encounters local resistance that may drive them from the city. Attachment number 2 \nPage 38 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 39 There are provisions for medium and high-density residential units as components of mixed-use developments that are adequately accounted for in the future land use map. It should be recognized however that it is difficult for a developer of workforce housing to incorporate commercial space s in their developments due to the structure of financing methods used to facilitate affordable residential development. It is impractical to think that providing for medium and high-density residential development in mixed used zoning classifications alone will adequately address the shortage of workforce housing. The current multifamily deficit of 2,902 units as identified in this pla n would require approximately 120 to 160 acres of land. To address this deficit , the first step is to have the planning staff review the 2030 Land Use Plan for any possible changes to the high -density land use category. The Board will review these possible alternatives and then forward any change to City Council during the annual review of the Comprehens ive Plan in the Spring. This will actively plan for future high-density development sites. Second, staff will review possible tract s within the city limits conducive for rezoning as Multifamily to present to the Housing Advisory Board for consideration. In the analysis, the following criteria should be examined:  Consider sites close to major employment centers .  Consider sites close to planned public transportation hubs .  Consider sites near areas that may be less suitable for higher income housing.  Consider sites close to existing high-density developments .  Consider existing sites that are not conducive to higher income housing and as a result are undeveloped. Once a plan for potential rezoning has been made, the item will be forwarded to City Council for review and direction. Any potential City or developer initiated rezoning of tracts would still have to go through the public hearing process as mandated by state law. Medium High Priority (Five to seven years) 3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential co nstruction. The City currently provides a density bonus to development projects that include an affordable housing component. To date, no developers have taken advantage of this incentive. Over time, as developers become more familiar with this provisio n in the City’s zoning code and as development sites become scarce, it is likely that developers will become motivated to take advantage of this incentive. The City may wish to reevaluate the incentive or provide public infrastructure support for projects that involve creating affordable housing. The City may also wish to conduct a developer workshop to expand awareness and to obtain feedback on how the housing diversity component of the City’s zoning code can be modified to expand the supply of affordabl e housing. 4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing. As of the 2010 Census, the City’s population was 47,4 00. At the population mark of 50,000 , the City of Georgetown will become eligible for an annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement grant directly from HUD. By City estimates, this will not happen until 2014. While we still have time to plan for this , it is important to establish priorities for Attachment number 2 \nPage 39 of 41 Item # A City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan 40 the use of CDBG funds as a matter of public policy before entitlement s tatus is conferred on the City. Early prioritization will minimize the confusion and competition to secure CDBG funds for “pet” projects that inevitably occurs whenever grant money becomes available in a community. Rather than using this newfound source of revenue for activities that ease pressure on the City’s general fund, the community should prioritize the use of CDBG funds for affordable housing. CDBG funds can be used to acquire property, rehabilitate affordable housing, provide infrastructure improvements in support of affordable housing and provide human services to the residents or prospective residents of affordable housing. In certain circumstances, CDBG funds can be used to finance the construction of new affordable housing, but only when the funds are funneled through a community based nonprofit development corporation. Once the City’s CDBG program is operating smoothly, the City may want to work towards the designation of a neighborhood revitalization strategy area (NRSA) which is a provis ion in the CDBG regulations that makes it easier to utilize CDBG funds for mixed income housing initiatives. 5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services. Homebuyer counseling is aimed at credit repair and building basic home maintenance and budg eting skills. As such, it is an essential element of the affordable homeownership equation. While there are certain counseling services already available in Georgetown, these types of services need to be expanded and promoted. The City should encourage regional providers of counseling services to create or expand their presence in Georgetown. Commercial lending institutions and institutions of higher learning also have a vested interest in supporting or providing homebuyer counseling services. When ext ending public funds for affordable homeownership activities, the City should require each prospective homebuyer to successfully complete a certified homeownership counseling program as a condition of receiving financial assistance. Medium Priority (Seven to ten years) 6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects. One of the important roles of the City in terms of expanding the supply of affordable housi ng is to use its legal powers to apply for state and federal funds. Once funding approval has been obtained, the City would act as a pass -through of funds to one or more local development organizations. These organizations would then assume responsibilit y for implementation of the project. Williamson County is a CDBG entitlement urban county entity and the City of Georgetown may submit project requests to the county’s community development department. Requests for federal HOME funds must be submitted to the state. The City and its affordable housing partners should identify and prioritize a series of projects and activities that would qualify for CDBG and/or HOME funding. Every year, the City should submit at least one funding request under each program for priority projects. The City currently administers a homeowner housing rehabilitation program funded by general fund revenues. The City’s guidelines for this program closely follow federal requirements, including an income targeting provision that lim its access to financial assistance for households with incomes below 80% of the area median household income. Attachment number 2 \nPage 40 of 41 Item # A Housing Element 41 This housing rehabilitation program can be administered more efficiently by a local nonprofit organization or the Georgetown Housing Authority. The City may wish to enter into a cooperation agreement with a local housing organization to administer this program. 7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment. Given the limited supply of resources for affordable housing, the City should select certain areas of the community for intensive and comprehensive revitalization rather than pursuing a “shotgun” approach to the development of affordable housing. Thus, it is important to a sk city planners to select several target areas for intens ive revitalization. Each target area might consist of three or four blocks. Typically, these areas will require the removal or substantial rehabilitation of blighted properties, new lighting, sidewalks, streets, utility infrastructure, landscaping and infill housing. At least some of the infill housing should be affordable to low and moderate income households. This revitalization will benefit Georgetown as it improves the tax base and adds to the labor force. Attachment number 2 \nPage 41 of 41 Item # A Basic criteria for desired multifamily sites In determining a base area to examine potential multifamily sites, there were four main criteria that were considered.  Distance from retail services. This includes grocery stores, major shopping areas and smaller retail like Walgreens and CVS. Site should be no more than 2 miles from retail.  Distance from employment areas. This includes areas with one or two major employers (Tasus, Williamson County, etc) and areas with many smaller retail and manufacturing (Georgetown North Industrial Park). Site should be no more than 2 miles from employment.  Utilities—the intersecting area of the Georgetown water and electric service territories.  City limits. This looks at areas that are already with in the city limits (gray), or have an agreement with the City to annex when development occurs (blue). On the overall map, the orange/tan shaded color represents the area that meets all four of the above criteria. Other information provided on the map for consideration is the existing and proposed transportation network, existing sidewalks, and locations of existing apartment and Multifamily zoning districts. Attached for each area is a list of various districts and statistics for each area. Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 21 Item # A l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ^` ^` ^`^` ^` ^` ^` ^` ^` ^` 5 1 3 8 411 13 6 2 14 129 10 7 F M 9 7 1 S H 1 3 0 T O L L S B S H 1 3 0 T O L L N B WILLIAMS DR CR 152N IH 35 SB S IH 35 SB E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 FWY NB W U N IV E R S I TY AV E N E I N N E R L O O P S H 1 3 0 S B S H 130 S B N AUSTIN AVE S H 1 3 0 N B S H 130 N B S IH 35 FWY SB S IH 35 FWY NB S IH 35 FWY NB C R 1 5 1 S AUSTIN AVE SCENIC DR L A K E W A Y D R M A P L E S T N O R T H W E S T B L V D S I H 3 5 N B S IH 35 NB FM 1460LEANDER R D W S H 2 9 WOLF RANCH PKWY N COLLEGE ST S M A IN ST BOOTYS CROSSING RD B O O T Y S C R O S SIN G R D RAILROAD AVE SHELL RD N IH 35 NB N IH 35 NB H O L L Y S T R O C K R I D E L N OLD AIRPORT RD S M I T H C R E E K R D S M I T H C R E E K R D S M I T H C R E E K R D E 7 T H S T IN D U S T RIA L A V E PATRIOT WAY P A T R I O T W A Y SAN GABRIEL VILLAGE BLVD EXIT 261 NB E S H 2 9 Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ±0 1,9 00 3,8 00Feet Si te In fo rm ati on Po ssib le ne w MF a re a s Un d eve lop e d with MF Z on in g ^`Re tail Se rvice s l Em plo ym e nt Are a s City Lim its Pa rks an d Op en Sp a ce Wa ter & E le ctric S ervice A re a s An ne xatio n A g re e me nts Workforce Mul ti-family Locations Apar tm ents a nd Zoning Existin g A p a rtme n ts To w n h o u se D istrict Mu ltifa m ily D istrict Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 21 Item # A Area 1 Area size: 66 acres Future Land Use Designation: Employment Center, Community Commercial, High Density Residential, Open Space Current Zoning: C-1; Local Commercial, RS; Single-Family Residential Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Park Place City Council District: 6 Elementary School Zone: Cooper Middle School Zone: Benold/Forbes (split) High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.5 miles Employment: 0.33 Utilities: All Georgetown Area 2 Area size: 25 acres Future Land Use Designation: Employment Center, Open Space Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Park Place City Council District: 6 Elementary School Zone: Frost Middle School Zone: Benold High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.5 miles Employment: 0.5 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 21 Item # A Area 1 and 2 Pa rk Pla c e A pt s. 1 2 l l l N IH 35 FWY SB C R 1 5 1 LAKEWAYDR OL D AIRP OR T RD G O L D E N OAKS R D S H A D Y H O L L O W DR M E D A S T FREDD I E D R N E I N N E R L O O P R OYALDR A S P E N T R L N IH 35 SB B E N C H M A R K ST G A N N S T M A H O G A N Y L N N AUSTIN AVE W R I G HTBROTHER S D R R A N D Y S T I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C I R O R A N G E T R E E L N NORTHWEST B L V D F M 9 7 1 G A R D E N M E A D O WDR R I O V I S T A D R AIRPORT RD P A R Q U E C I R E CENTRAL DR P A R Q U E C VPARQUE C T P A R Q U E V I S T A D R NIH35NB E JANIS DR NE INNER LOOP N AUSTIN AVE GANN ST NEINNE R L O O P F M 971 N AUSTIN AVE L A K E W AY DR C R 1 5 1 N IH 35 SB A I R P O R T R D N IH 35 SB N AUSTIN AVE N IH 35 SB N IH 35 SB F M 9 7 1 PAR KS A ND RECR EATIO N ADM I N KAT Y CRO SSI NG T RAIL PA RK Transportation Network Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line Exi sti ng Sidewalk ± 0 700 1,400Feet Possi bl e new MF areas Undevel oped with MF Zoni ng ^`Retail Services l Empl oym ent Areas Georget own Pa rks A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Shady Oaks Cedar Ridge Condos Parkview Place Georgetown Square Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 21 Item # A Area 3 Area size: 72 acres Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential, Open Space Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Park Place City Council District: 6/7 (split) Elementary School Zone: Cooper Middle School Zone: Forbes High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.8 miles Employment: 0.8 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Area 12 Area size: 15 acres Future Land Use Designation: High Density Residential Current Zoning: MF-2; High Density Multifamily Existing Apartments with 1 mile: None City Council District: 7 Elementary School Zone: Cooper Middle School Zone: Forbes High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 2.2 miles Employment: 1.4 miles Utilities: TXU Electric, Jonah Water Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 21 Item # A Area 14 Area size: 18 acres Future Land Use Designation: High Density Residential Current Zoning: TH; Townhouse Existing Apartments with 1 mile: None City Council District: 7 Elementary School Zone: Cooper Middle School Zone: Forbes High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services Retail: 2.2 miles Employment: 1.4 miles Utilities: TXU Electric, Jonah Water Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 21 Item # A l 3 1 14 12 S H 1 3 0 T O L L S B S H 1 3 0 T O L L N B C R 1 5 1 E X I T 4 1 3 S B F M 971 P R I V A T E D V W I L DFLOWERL N M E D A S T D R I V E W A Y FREDD I E D R L A Z Y R D E A S T D R NE INNERLO O P I R I S D R A S P E N T R L JUNIPER DR E L K DR D O G W O O D D R B A S TIA N L N STEPHEN LN M A H O G A N Y L N RIV E R P A R K L N B I S O N D RLONNIETHOMASDR TANNE R C I R R A N D Y S T EVE R G R E E N CIR O R A N G E T R E E L N C L A R I S L N J A N A E C TKAJON CV C O U G A R DR J A S M I N E T R L AZALEA DR R O S E M A R Y C V B A R B E R R Y D R R I V E R B L U F F C I R CALADIUM DR RIV E R P A R K C V M A Y C V H I C K O R Y T R E E D R C R 1 5 2 K A T Y C R O S SI N G B L V D C R 1 5 1 C R 1 5 2 C R 1 5 2 C R 1 5 1 B A S TIA N L N C R 1 5 1 S H 1 3 0 T O L L S B N E I N N E R LOOP F M 971 C R 1 5 2 N E I N N E R L O O P F M 9 7 1 JUNIPER DR F M 971 C R 1 5 2 C R 1 5 2 Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t Possibl e n ew M F areas Unde vel op ed wi th MF Zon ing ^`Retai l S ervi ce s l Emp loymen t A reas Geo rg etown Parks Area 3 , 12, and 14 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 21 Item # A Area 4 Area size: 28 acres Future Land Use Designation: Community Commercial, Specialty Mixed Use, Open Space Current Zoning: C-1; Local Commercial, RS; Single-Family Residential Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Park Place, Georgetown Square, Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Apple Creek, Waters Edge, Two Rivers City Council District: 6 Elementary School Zone: Cooper Middle School Zone: Benold High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.2 miles Employment: 0.4 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 21 Item # A l l l l l l ^` ^` ^` ^` ^` ^` 4 S IH 35 FW Y SB N IH 35 FWY SB F M 9 7 1 T H O M A S C T O A K L N S IH 35 NB LO WERPARKRD N IH 35 SB CLAY ST E 2 N D S T R OYALDR S IH 35 SB G A N N S T F O R E S T S T C E D A R D R SHANNON LNWCENTRALDR S C E N I C DR P A R K L N BLU E H OLE PA RK RD BRIDG E ST A S H S T R I V E R Y B L V D W 2 N D S T MCCOYLN E L M S T J O H N C A R T E R D R N O R T H W ESTBLVD RIV E R SID E D R ADA M S S T P I N E S T W E S T S T E 5 T H S T E 8 T H S T E 4 TH S T E 6 TH ST S T A DIU M D R DAWN DR E 3 R D S T E 9 TH ST W 5 T H S T W 7TH S T W 3 R D S T S M A I N S T W JANIS DR B R E N D O N L E E L N W 6 T H S TRIVER O A K S C V R I O V I S T A D R E 9 T H 1 /2 S T H O L L Y S T P A R K W A Y S T N C O LL E G E S T E VA L L E Y S T W M O R R O W S T M A P L E S T R O C K S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E T I N B A R N A LY W 8TH ST W 4 T H S T S C O L L E G E S T S M Y R T L E S T E M O R R O W S T WILLIAMS DR WA L N U T S T W 9 T H S T NAUSTINAVE M E S Q UIT E L N WATE R S E D G E C I R HIGHKNOLL LN E 7 T H S T E L M S T DAWN DR S IH 35 NB SCENIC DR E L M S T S IH 35 SB W 9TH ST PARK LN S A U S T I N AV E RIVERY BLVD E 7 T H S T GANN ST N COLLEGE ST E 3 R D S TSIH35SB SCENIC DR E 7 T H S T WE S T S T RIVERY BLVD W 4T H S T E 3 R D S T E L M S T E M O R R O W S T E 3 R D S T E 4 T H S T N AUSTIN AVE RIV ERYBLVD E 2 N D S T N AUSTIN AVE A S H S T S IH 35 NB S C O L L E G E S T S IH 35 SB A S H S T W IL LIA M S D R W 8T H S T F M 9 7 1 N C O L L E GE ST R O C K S T OAK LN PARK LN E 4 T H S TS IH 35 NB S T A D I U M D R N IH 35 SB N IH 35 FWY SBNIH35SB E 8 T H S T SIH35SB E M O R R O W S T H O L L Y S T Transportation Network Ex ist ing Sidew alk Throroughfare Plan R oad Classification Pro posed Fr ontage R oad Exi stin g F rontage Ramp Exi stin g C oll ector Exi stin g F reeway Exi stin g M aj or Arterial Exi sitin g Minor Arterial Pro posed C ollector Pro posed Fr eeway Pro posed M ajor Arter ial Pro posed M inor Arter ial Pro posed R ail l ine ± 0 69 0 1,3 8 0Fe e t Area 4 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce Waters Edge San Gabr iel Village Condos Two River s Apple Cr eek Georgetown Square Cedar Ridge Condos Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 21 Item # A Area 5 Area size: 110 acres Future Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial Current Zoning: None (In the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction under agreement) Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Waters Edge City Council District: 2 (when annexed) Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett Middle School Zone: Tippit High School Zone: East View High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.15 miles Employment: 0.5 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 21 Item # A l l l l l ^` ^` ^` ^` ^` 5 11 W O L F R D SIH35FWYSB S K Y L I N E R D S I H 3 5 F W Y N B RIVERYDRIVE W A Y O A K L A N D D R S T A R V I E W L N W OLFRANCHPKWY R I V E R H I L L S D R S P R I N G HOLLOW RIDGEWOO D DR S IH 35 NB RIVERCHASEBLVD S U N S H IN E D R OVERLOOK CT RIVERY BLVD W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E MEMORIAL DR N H I L L V I E W D R D B W O O D R D S A N G A B R I E L B L V D S IH 35 SB S IM O N R D W O LF R D W O L F R D S IH 35 SB W U N IV E R S IT Y A V EWUNIVERSITYAVE WOLF RD S IH 35 SB W O L F R D SIH35SB M E M O R I A L D R S IH 35 SB S I H 3 5 N B D B W O O D R D S I H 3 5 S B WOLF RD S I H 3 5 N B RIVERY DRIVEWAY S IH 35 NB WOLFRANCHPK W Y S I H 3 5 N B Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 77 0 1,5 4 0Fe e t Poss ible new M F areas Undeveloped wit h M F Z oning ^`Ret ail Serv ic es l Employm ent Areas Parks and O pen S pace Annexation Agreem ent Area 5 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 21 Item # A Area 6 Area size: 17 acres Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential, Open Space Current Zoning: None (In the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction under agreement) Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Georgetown Place, Oaks at Georgetown, San Gabriel Senior Village, Stonehaven, Victorian Villages City Council District: 1 (when annexed) Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett Middle School Zone: Tippit High School Zone: Eastview High Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.3 miles Employment: 0.4 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 21 Item # A l l l l l l ^` 6 W 2 2 N D S T MADISO N O A K S A V E S I H 3 5 F W Y N B E 2 1 S T S TW 2 1 S T S T KENDALL ST W 24T H ST COOPERATIVEWAY W 15T H ST L O N D O N L N TA S U S WAY C O T T O N T A I L L N R A B B I T H O L L O W L N S A N J O S E S T M O U R N I N G D O V E L N E 2 2 N D S T F O R E S T S T W16THST W 18T H ST A L L E Y P I N E S T T IM B E R S T S M A I N S T E L M S T V I N E S T E 1 6 T H S T T O W E R D R S I H 3 5 N B A S H S T V A L L E Y D R S C E N I C D R PLEASA N T V A LLEYDR H O L L Y S T PA I G E S T M A P L E S T E 2 0 T H S T L A U R E L S T F M 1 4 6 0 S I L V E R V A L L E Y L N BRIDGE ST S AUSTIN AVE W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E W 1 3 T H S T WA L N U T S T E U B A N K S T W 1 9 T H S T L E A N D E R S T R A B B I T R U N W 1 7 T H S T G E O R G I A N D R E 1 9 T H S T S M Y R T L E S T C L O V E R V A L L E Y L N C O F F E E S T RAILROAD AVE K N I G H T S T E 1 3TH ST L E A N D E R RD S C O L L E G E S T E 1 5 T H S T E 1 8 T H S T S U N R I S E V A L L E Y L N IN D U S T R I A L A V E O L I V E S T SNEAD DR H A R TST S C H U R C H S T E 1 7T H S T M A P L E S T FM1460 V IN E S T S I H 3 5 N B T O W E R D R A S H S T W A L N U T S T E 2 0 T HST P IN E S T F M 1 4 6 0 E 1 5TH ST F M 1 4 6 0 H A R T S T E 1 5 T H S T W 1 6 T H S T S I H 3 5 N B F M 1 4 6 0 S M A I N S T S M A I N S T E 21ST S T W 16T H S T O L I V E S T A S H S T P I N E S T S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N AV E S AUSTIN AVE S C H U R C H S T S A N J O S E S T F M 1 4 6 0 M A P L E S T F M 1 4 6 0 E L M S T SCENICDR W 17T H ST R A B B I T H O L L O W L N SAUSTINAVE S AUSTIN AVE F M 1 4 6 0 LE ANDE R S T ASH ST EL M STH A R T S T W 1 7 T H S T F O R E S T S T E 1 6 T H S T M A P L E S T G E O R G I A N D R Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt Area 6 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Oaks of Georgetown San Gabriel Senior Village Georgetown Place Apar tments Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 21 Item # A Area 7 Area size: 3.35 acres Future Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial Current Zoning: C-1; Local Commercial Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Mariposa at River Bend, Westwood Townhomes, Cypress Creek, Whisper Oaks City Council District: 2 Elementary School Zone: Village Middle School Zone: Forbes High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.15 miles Employment: 0.08 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Area 8 Area size: 20 acres Future Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Density Residential Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture Existing Apartments with 1 mile: City Council District: 3 Elementary School Zone: Village Middle School Zone: Forbes High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.6 miles Employment: 0.5 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 21 Item # A l ^` 8 7R IV E R R D A D DIELN O A K L N W IL LIA M S D R DA W N DR ALG ERITA D R DUNM A N D R HIGHVIE W R D CANYONRD PARK E R C I R T I F F A N Y L N L O N E S O M E T R L RIDGECREST RD TE R RY LN PARK LN W HISPEROAKSLN OAK RIDGE CIR JUDY DR B R O K E N S P O K E T R L R O C K Y H O LL O W TRL WOODLAND RD KIM BERLY ST C R E E K D R SE R E N A D A D R P RI M R O S E T R L B U F F A L O S P RIN G S T R L B RIA R W O O D DR R A N C H R D THORNW O O D R D VERNA S P U R MELISSA CT GOLDEN OAKS DR BOB W HITE LN VILL A G E D R KATHI LN PECOS CT HED G E W O O D D R STACEY LN P A T TI D R PO W ER RD B R A N D Y L N P A R K W A Y S T M O R S E C V PARKER DR B L U E B O N N E T T R L OLD MILL RD CACTUS TRL HORSESHOE TRL MESQ UITE LN L A K E W A Y D R S O U T H C R O S S R D J O H N T H O M A S D R HAGEN CT W EST W OOD LN R I V E R B E N D D R W E S T E R N T R L G A B R I E L V I E W D R SPRI N G WOO D L N C OTTO N W O O D D R P O W ER R D L O N ES O M E TRL WILLIAMS D R R A N C H R D J U D Y D R W IL LIA M S D R PAR KE R D R BRANDY LN R O C K Y H O L L O W T R L P O W E R R D PATTI D R R I V E R B E N D D R WILLIA MS DR W IL LIA M S D R RID GEC R E S T R D WIL LIA M S D R O A K LN ADDIE L N G A B RIELVIE W D R O A K L N PA R K E R D R DAWNDR D A W N D RW IL LIA M S D R WILLIAMS DR G ABRIELVIEWDR S E RENAD A D R W IL LIA M S D R OAK LN D A W N D R R I D G ECRESTRD P A R K W A Y S T P RIM R O S E T R L L A K E W A Y D R Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 65 0 1,3 0 0Fe e t Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as Geo rg etow n Par ks An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt Area 7 and 8 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Mar iposa at Riverbend Westwood Townhomes Cypress Cr eek Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 21 Item # A Area 9 Area size: 6 acres Future Land Use Designation: Specialty Mixed Use Current Zoning: MF-2; High Density Multifamily Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Apple Creek, Georgetown Square, Cypress Creek, Mariposa at River Bend, Westwood Townhomes City Council District: 6 Elementary School Zone: Frost Middle School Zone: Benold High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.8 miles Employment: 0.6 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Area 10 Area size: 6 acres Future Land Use Designation: Specialty Mixed Use Current Zoning: MF-2; High Density Multifamily Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Apple Creek, Georgetown Square, Cypress Creek, Mariposa at River Bend, Westwood Townhomes City Council District: 6 Elementary School Zone: Frost Middle School Zone: Benold High School Zone: Georgetown High Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.0 miles Employment: 0.5 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 21 Item # A l l ^` ^` ^` 2 9 10 N IH 35 FWY SB N IH 35 SB LAKEWA Y D R GO L D E N O AKSRD F M 9 7 1 OL D AIRP OR T RD S H A D Y H O L L O W DR AIRPORT RD O A K L N TERRYLN LOWERPA R K R D N C O L L E G E S T S T A D I U M D R CLAY ST E M O R R O W S T ROYALDR C A N YONRD WHISPER OAKS LN G A N N S T C E D A R D R SHANNON LNWCENTRALDR P A R K L N MCCOYLN RIV E R SID E D R ADA M S S T GOLDEN OAKS DR DAWN DR G A R D E N M E A D O W D R THORNTON LN W JANIS DR NORTHWEST BLVD E JANIS DR E CENTRAL DR P A R K W A Y S T NORTHWOOD DR R I O V I S T A D R SILVERLEAF DR WESTWOOD LN M E S Q UIT E L N WILLIAMS DR SIH35SB RIVERY BLVD N AUSTIN AVE RIVERBEND D R HIGHKNOLL LN GARDEN VIEW DR N IH 35 SB OAK LN E M O R R O W S T W IL LIA M S D R DAWN DR NO R T H W O O D D R PARK LN W ESTWOODLN N AUSTIN AVE GANN ST GOLDEN OAKS DR NAUSTINAVE N IH 35 FWY SBNIH35SB L A K E W A Y D R PARK LN F M 9 7 1 N IH 35 SB E M O R R O W S T NORTHWEST B L V D DA W N DR N AUSTIN AVE 4 Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt Area 9 and 10 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Cypress Cr eek Westwood Townhomes Mariposa at Riverbend Shady O aks Nor thwest Apartments Cedar Ridge Condos Apple Cr eek Georgetown Square Parkview Place Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 21 Item # A Area 11 Area size: 20 acres Future Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial, Specialty Mixed Use Current Zoning: MF-2; High Density Multifamily Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Waters Edge City Council District: 2 Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett Middle School Zone: Tippit High School Zone: Eastview High Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.2 miles Employment: 0.2 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 21 Item # A l l l l ^` ^` ^` ^` 5 11 S IH 35 FW Y SB W O L F R D ENTR 262 SB O A K L N S IH 35 NB A S H W O O D LN W OLFRANCHPKWY HIGHVIE W R D RIVERYDRIVEW A Y S IH 35 SB PARKE R C I RRIDGECREST RD R I V E R H I L L S D R JUDY DR S P R I N G HOLLOW SPRING VALLEYRD C E D A R D R SHANNON LN FA W N LN BRIDG E ST R I V E R Y B L V D R A N C H R D H A R M O N Y LN CROSSLANDDR C O U N T R Y C L U B R D ADA M S S T W 9TH ST WE S T S T W JANIS DR R I V E R O A K S C V P O W E R C I R P A R K W A Y S T M O R S E C V G A B RIE L VIE W D R STARVIEWDR MEMORIAL DR N H I L L V I E W D R W 8TH ST HAGEN CT M E S Q UIT E L N RAILROAD AVE N OAK HO L L O W R D SCENIC DR WATE R S E D G E C I R HIGHKNOLL LN W IL LIA M S D R P O W E R R D S IH 35 NB M E M O R I A L D R WIL LIA M S D R C O UNTRY C L U B R D S IH 35 SB W E S T S T W E S T S T WE S T S T W O L F R D SIH35SB SCENIC DR S IH 35 NB SCENIC DR SIH35SB WOLFRANCHPK W Y R A N C H R D RIVERY BLVD P A R K W A Y S T W O L F R D W O L F R D S IH 35 NB S IH 35 SB RIVERYDRIVEWA Y W O LF R D W O L F R D WOLF RD SP R I N G V ALLEY R D S IH 35 SB S IH 35 SB RIVERY BLVD PAR K W A Y S T SIH35NB RIV E RYBLVD C O U NTRYCLUBRD Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce Area 1 1 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Attachment number 3 \nPage 19 of 21 Item # A Area 13 Area size: 20 acres Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential Current Zoning: MF-2; High Density Multifamily Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Oaks at Wildwood Condos City Council District: 5 Elementary School Zone: McCoy Middle School Zone: Benold High School Zone: Georgetown Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.4 miles Employment: 0.4 miles Utilities: All Georgetown Attachment number 3 \nPage 20 of 21 Item # A l^`^` Oa k s a t Wild w oo d C o nd o s 13 WILLIA M S DR W IL D W O O D D R MIRAMAR DR VERDE VISTA LAKE O V E R L OOK RD MADRID DR D B W O O D R D RUSTLE CV SUTTONPL L A S P L U M A S D R P E N N Y L N R I V E R W A L K T R L TA S C AT E ST WINDFLOWER LN C A P R O CK CANY O N T R L L O S T M A P L E S T R L C LIFFWOO D D R SHELLRD W OODSTO C K D R LA PALOMA DR A C K E R R D B I G T H I C K E T S T MANZANITA DR B O Q U IL L A T R L H I C K O RYLN NARANJO DR S E D R O T R L MORAL PASS POPLAR DR B RIL E Y S T ROSEBUD LN B L U E H A W D R B I R C H D R W E S P A R A D A D R S O N O R A T R C E W S E Q U O I A S P U R COUNTRYRD T E R I C T WESTBURY LN R O W A N D R ROSEDA L E B L V D B I G S P R I N G S T WOODLAKE DR PLU M CT BELLAIRE DR BIG BEND TRL VILLAGEPARKDR WESTBURY LN BLUEH A WDR WILLIAMSDR SHELL R D WILLIAMS DR W E S P A R A DADR SHELLRD WILD W OODD R SHELL RD B I G B E N D TRL WILLIAMS DR B I G B E N D T R L WILLIAMS DR W ESPARADA DR M ADRID DR P E N N Y L N B I G B E N D T R L WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS DR S H E L L R D SHELL RD W S E Q U O I A S P U R SHELL RD VERDE VISTA W O O D S T O C K D R D B W O O D R D S H E L L R D Transportation Network Exi sti ng Sidewalk Throro ug hf are Plan Road Classification Pro p osed Frontage Road Exist ing Frontage Ramp Exist ing Collector Exist ing Freeway Exist ing Major Arterial Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial Pro p osed C ollector Pro p osed Freeway Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial Pro p osed M inor Arter ial Pro p osed R ail line ± 0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing ^`Re ta il Se rvices l Em ployme nt Are as Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce Area 1 3 A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g Ex isting A partments Town house D istri ct Multifam ily D ist ri ct Attachment number 3 \nPage 21 of 21 Item # A Development Westinghouse  Pointe Gateway  Northwest* Units 250 180 Type Fund Staff Time General New Commercial Construction (Permit) (Electric,  Mechanical, Plumbing) 49,843.67$            59,051.31$                Past thru cost General Commercial Builidng Technology Fee 650.00$                 1,250.00$                  Staff Time Water Residential Water Connection Engineering/Inspection  Fee 62,500.00$            45,000.00$                Staff Time Water Residential Sewer Engineering/Inspection Fee 62,500.00$            45,000.00$                Staff Time General Commercial Plan Review Fee 24,935.15$            27,462.72$                General Fire Plan Review Fee 2,600.00$              5,000.00$                  Past thru cost Water Water Meter Connection 50.00$                  150.00$                     Staff Time Water Non‐residential Water Connection  Engineering/Inspection Fee 926.00$                 1,288.40$                  Past thru cost Water Sewer Tap Connection 650.00$                 450.00$                     Staff Time Water Commercial Sewer Engineering/Inspection Fee 277.98$                 386.52$                     Impact Water 4 inch Compound Meter Water Impact Fee 55,401.00$             ‐$                            Impact Water 2 inch Compound Meter Water Impact Fee 17,727.00$            17,727.00$                Impact Water 2 inch Simple Meter Water Impact Fee 950.00$                 ‐$                           Impact Water 4 inch Compound Meter Wastewater Impact Fee 31,351.00$            10,031.00$                Impact Water 2 inch Compound  Meter Waste Water Impact Fee Staff Time General Pool Permit 105.00$                     Recaptured /Impa Electric Electric Connection Fees 112,014.44$         78,800.00$                Past thru cost Electric Electrical Overhead Line Relocation ‐$                       49,989.59$                Past thru cost Electric Electrical engineering & Consulting Fee ‐$                       42,161.23$                Staff Time General Fire Alarm Permit ‐$                       285.00$                     Staff Time General Fire Sprinkler System Permit 285.00$                285.00$                     Staff Time General Temp Construction Trailer 110.00$                551.00$                     Staff Time General Temp Batch Plant (Concrete)2,610.00$              Total 425,381.24$        384,973.77$            Per unit cost 1,701.52$             2,138.74$                 Permitting, Inspections &  Infrastructure Fees  *Gateway Northwest received  $100,00, so their actual cost was less.  Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # A 25.98% Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # A Breakdown by fee type Westinghouse Pointe Gateway  Northwest Staff Time‐General 80,383.82$                  92,740.03$            Staff Time‐Utility 126,203.98$                91,674.92$            Past thru cost 113,364.44$                172,800.82$          Impact Fees 105,429.00$                27,758.00$            Total Staff Time fees 206,587.80$                184,414.95$          20 units 50,000.00$                  50,000.00$            25 Units 62,500.00$                  62,500.00$            40 Units 100,000.00$                100,000.00$          20% waived (25 units)41,317.56$                  36,882.99$            40% waived (50  units)82,635.12$                  73,765.98$            Maximum 50% waived 103,293.90$                92,207.48$            Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # A Breakdown by fee type Westinghouse Pointe Gateway  Northwest Staff Time‐General 80,383.82$                   92,740.03$            Staff Time‐Utility 126,203.98$                 91,674.92$            Past thru cost 113,364.44$                 172,800.82$          Impact Fees 105,429.00$                 27,758.00$            Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas August 26, 2014 SUBJECT: Overview of the City of Georgetown Board and Commission program including items for consideration and possible direction to staff -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: This workshop will outline the complete board and commission program including the board appointment and training process, training resources, board purposes, membership requirements, proposed changes to certain boards, and general items for consideration and direction. General Items for Consideration and Direction: 1. Review the purpose of current and newly established boards and consider the City Council’s expectations for what the board should accomplish. 2. Review the membership requirements of current and newly established boards to verify that appropriate skills and experience are represented and consider if any flexibility in the membership requirements is necessary. 3. Verify appropriate residency requirements for current and newly established boards. (For example: ETJ v. City Limits). 4. Identify whether certain boards will benefit from adding Council Member(s) to a board’s membership. 5. Review and determine the appropriate Chairman selection process. (For example: Mayor-appointed vs. Board-elected) 6. Should Commissioners-In-Training be authorized to participate in board meeting discussions? 7. Should Commissioners-In-Training automatically fill a vacancy on a board? 8. Discuss the benefits and disadvantages of a Downtown Development Corporation, or “Downtown Super Board” to facilitate regular communication and coordination concerning downtown issues? 9. Discuss whether there is a need to re-establish the Airport Advisory Board? 10. Identify whether certain boards will benefit from joint meetings. (For example: Parks & GGAF)? 11. Discuss Advisory Board/Council Consent Agenda policy and issues. 12. Consider any additional City Council direction or suggestions regarding Boards and Commissions. Attachments: 1. Overview of Boards and Commissions 2. Application and Training Program Summary for Boards and Commissions 3. City Charter Section 2.14_Boards, Commissions, and Committees 4. City Code of Ordinances 2.36_City Commissions, Committees and Boards 5. ADA Transition Plan_3.26.2014 6. Social Services and Youth Program Funding Task Force_Strategic Partnerships Board_4.8.2014 7. Aging Advisory Board and Summary Report 8. Items for Consideration and Direction FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Overview of Boards and Commissions Cover Memo Item # B 2. Application and Training Program Summary for Boards and Commissions 3. City Charter Section 2.14 regarding Boards, Commissions, and Committees 4. City Code of Ordinances Section 2.36 regarding City Commissions, Committees, and Boards 5. ADA Transition Plan_3.26.2014 6. Social Services and Youth Program Funding / Strategic Partnerships Board_4.8.2014 7. Aging Advisory Board and Summary Report_8.26.2014 8. Items for Consideration and Direction Cover Memo Item # B August 26, 2014 1 BOARD AND COMMISSION OVERVIEW DOWNTOWN AND COMMUNITY BOARDS PURPOSE, FUNDING AND ACTIVITIES MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Historic and Architectural Review Commission City Code Chapter 2.50 The HARC has the power and it shall be its duty: 1. To make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of historic sites or districts; 2. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; 3. To approve or disapprove Certificates of Design compliance; and 4. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant, on new construction or the restoration, alteration or maintenance of any historic resource or other building within the districts; and 5. To perform any other functions requested by the City Council. A. The HARC shall have the express authority to delegate review of minor projects (as defined by majority vote of the HARC) to either: 1. A subcommittee of the HARC composed of at least three members; or 2. City staff as designated by the City Manager. B. Any permit issued pursuant to such delegation of authority shall require the signature of the chair or vice-chair of the HARC and any denial may be appealed to the full HARC. 7 Members; and 3 Commissioners in Training: • All members must be registered voters • All members must have resided in Georgetown one year preceding appointment • 1 Member should be an owner of designated historic real property located in Downtown or Old Town Overlay Districts • When possible, a person who has demonstrated interest in the downtown area or have skills in design review. Preferred categories of experience: licensed architect, landscape architect, historian, developer, property owner of non-owner tenant with the Downtown Overlay District 1. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? 2. Should membership requirements be revised to allow property owners or business owners “whenever possible”? 3. Should ordinance clarify that Planning Director is authorized to designate a Historic Preservation Officer? Main Street Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.69 In almost every Main Street city, an advisory board is created to work with the Main Street Manager. A. The Board will assist the Main Street Manager in a number of ways, including the following: 1. Expand interest base/support group; and 2. Fund raising; for the Main Street Program or for special projects organized through Main Street, tapping local sources and federal and private grants and contributions. B. The Board will advise the Main Street Manager in a number of ways, including the following: 1. Work with low interest loan pool applicants in establishing the loan application process and follow up; 2. Work with building owners interested in Historic Preservation Tax Act Certification; 3. Make recommendations as to Main Street Program policy; 4. Setting the goals of the Main Street Program; and 5. Administering monies from the Main Street Facade Fund. 7 Members: • 1 member County Commissioner Precinct 3 or his/her representative • 1 member from the Chamber of Commerce • 1 member from the Georgetown Heritage society or WilCo Historical Commission • 1 member Downtown Business owner • 1 citizen at large • 1 member Downtown Commercial Property Owner • 1 member Downtown Association leader 1. Could/Should Board be combined with Downtown TIRZ? 2. Remove low-interest loan language 3. Purpose limited to strategic plan, guidelines for awarding façade grants, reviewing façade grants, fundraising, and reports to Council Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 2 Convention and Visitors Board City Code Chapter 2.68 A. The purposes of the Board are to advise the City Council in establishing policy regarding financial resources intended to encourage tourism in the Georgetown community, to raise the public visibility of local activity which may attract visitors to the City, and to promote and enhance tourism in the convention and hotel industry. The Board is directed to: 1. Develop a plan including specific goals and objectives for promoting tourism and the preservation and appreciation of historic and cultural attributes of our community, which plan may be evaluated and revised from time to time; 2. Develop guidelines for evaluating proposals for the expenditure of funds to promote tourism; 3. Provide a quarterly report to the City Council on its programs during the first 12 months of operation and on a timely basis thereafter as required by the City Council; 4. Submit a proposed annual budget for programs to promote tourism to the City Council; 5. Operate in full compliance with the requirements of the state laws pertaining to open meetings, conflict of interest and open records; 6. Recommend to the Council for action contracts with certain tourism providers when such contracts conform to the City Charter, and all applicable State and local laws; and 7. Seek funds through grants from agencies and through fund-raising events, and all funds received shall be forwarded to the City and are subject to budgeting review and approval. 7 Members: • 1 Member of the Chamber of Commerce • 1 member from the Downtown Georgetown Association • 1 member from the Heritage society • 1 member from Southwestern • 3 members should come from arts community, hotel industry, restaurant, major tourist attraction, country club, business community. • If not all applicants fit these categories, a citizen at large residing in the city limits or ETJ may be appointed. 1. Could/Should the purpose be limited to strategic plan, guidelines for awarding HOT Grants, reviewing HOT grant applications, reports to Council? 2. Suggest including language regarding State law requirements for HOT. 3. Should Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Arts and Culture Board City Code Chapter 2.112 A. The mission of the Board is to enhance the cultural and aesthetic quality of life in Georgetown by actively pursuing the placement of public art in public spaces and serving to coordinate, promote and support public access to the arts. The arts are an important part of the cultural and economic life of the entire community of Georgetown and enrich the participants in the arts as well as those who observe them. B. The Board shall operate in the general public interest serving the community as a whole. It shall serve no special interests. C. The Arts and Culture Board shall be specifically responsible for, but not limited to, the following: 1. The Board shall ensure the arts continue to be of value as an integral part of Georgetown; 2. The Board in its first year will propose to City Council a set of guidelines and standards by which it will review all future art projects, staying consistent with all existing codes, guidelines and policies; 7 Members: • All members must reside in the City Limits or ETJ • 5 members from arts, art organizations or businesses, art education, structural & landscape architecture • 1 member from GISD • 1 member from Southwestern 1. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 3 *Arts and Culture Board continued 3. The Board will seek to improve communication and organization of the activities in the arts community of Georgetown; 4. The Board shall promote the arts in Georgetown to enrich the lives of its citizens through education and demonstration; 5. The Board may assist the City Council, the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Board, Historic and Architectural Review Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission in using public art to enhance existing development in public parks and other public lands and in public structures; 6. The Board shall advise other City commissions and committees and City departments regarding artistic components of all municipal projects under consideration by the City. The Board may also serve as a resource for artistic components of private developments; 7. The Board shall develop and recommend to the City Council policies and programs that would enhance and encourage the planning, placement and maintenance of public displays of art in locations open to the public within the community. 8. The Board shall encourage connections with other local, regional and national organizations working for the benefit of art and preservation of artistic values, and other similar activities; 9. The Board shall recognize and encourage groups and organizations that enrich Georgetown life by bringing cultural and artistic values and artifacts to the City; and 10. The Board shall pursue funding, including gifts and grants for support of arts programs and activities and the procurement of public art. Library Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.72 The purpose of the Board shall be to participate in the Library Needs Assessment Study, update the Long-range Plan for the library, and serve to promote library programs and services in the community. 7 Members: • Members must reside in the City or ETJ 1. Suggest eliminating the “needs assessment study”? 2. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Housing Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.116 It is the purpose and intent of the Council to create an advisory board empowered to ensure the City has housing that is affordable for residents at all income levels. Note: There used to be 11 members, one for each district and then the 4 specific seats (Housing Authority, Habitat, mortgage lender, builder). The number of Members was reduced in 2009-10 to fall in line with membership seats on other boards and the original 11 seats were hard to fill. 9 Members: • 5 citizens at large • 1 Member from Habitat for Humanity • 1 Member also serving on the Georgetown Housing Authority • 1 Member with knowledge of home building and/or development industry • 1 Member with knowledge of mortgage brokerage 1. Suggest amending By-laws since the Housing Plan has been adopted. 2. Suggest reducing board size to 7 members instead of 9? 3. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 4 SPECIAL BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Housing Authority Texas Local Government Code Chapter 392 The State considers housing authorities as a unit of government with powers similar to a city, and it is an independent organization. The Housing Authority Board establishes policy, reviews the operation of subsidized housing in Georgetown for the Georgetown Housing Authority, and supervises the GHA Executive Director. The Housing Advisory Board serves the City Council as a mechanism to review and advise on affordable housing related issues including the Housing Element, review of Housing Tax Credit resolution requests, and the city’s Home Repair Program. 5 Commissioners; and 2 Resident Commissioners: • 2 Resident Members voted on by the Housing Authority community • 5 citizen at large Members appointed by the Mayor Per §392.031 of the Texas Local Government Code, “The presiding officer of the governing body of a municipality shall appoint five, seven, nine or 11 persons to serve as commissioners of the authority.” *DOWNTOWN AND COMMUNITY BOARDS CONTINUED PURPOSE, FUNDING AND ACTIVITIES MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Youth Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.108 The Board in its advisory capacity to the City Council will work within the community to promote healthy decisions, leadership skills and community involvement among the youth in the community. Up to 24 Members: • All members must reside in the GISD • Members shall represent each grade level from 8th grade through 12th grade • Maximum of 4 members representing each of these levels • 1 home-schooled member or private schooled member • 1 member from Richarte HS Parks and Recreation Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.104 The purpose of the Board shall be to recommend acquisition and uses of parkland and sports/recreational facilities and improvements in programs, activities, and facilities to meet current and future community needs for the City and its residents. 7 Members: • All members shall reside in the City limits or the ETJ 1. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? 2. Consider amending purpose to authorize review of Master Plans, Parks Bonds, Parks CIP. Animal Shelter Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.111 and Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 823 It is the purpose and intent of the Council to create an advisory board empowered to ensure the City Animal Shelter complies with all City and State laws governing its operation. The Board will make recommendations to the City Council on the shelter and its operations. 7 Members: • 1 Licensed Vet • 1 County or Municipal Official • 1 Person who works at the shelter • 1 Rep from an animal welfare organization • 3 citizens at large residing in City Limits or ETJ Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 5 PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS PURPOSE, FUNDING AND ACTIVITIES MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Downtown Georgetown Association (DGA) *referenced in Chapter 2.68 for membership on the Convention and Visitor’s Board 1. Non-profit, membership organization (offices at the Georgetown Visitors Center) established to support and promote local businesses 2. Funding through memberships and events such as Market Days and the Stroll 3. Downtown activities include: First Fridays, Market Days, Boo-Bash, co- sponsor of the Summer Concert Series (city sponsored event), Georgetown Art & Wine on the Square (formerly Art in the Square – city sponsored event), The Christmas Stroll (city-sponsored event) 6 Members Georgetown Heritage Society (GHS) *referenced in Chapter 2.69 for membership on the Main Street Advisory Board 1. A 501(c) 3 non-profit organization (offices at Grace Heritage Center) established in 1977 for the purpose to preserve and promote interest in Georgetown’s heritage – its historic buildings and sites and the people associated with them, as well as the documents, pictures and other records relating to them. 2. Funding comes from membership dues, an annual Holiday Home Tour, sponsorships and special fundraising events. GHS also receives income from managing rentals at Grace Heritage Center. 3. Downtown activities include: monthly programs, special seminars and events, annual Home Tour, actively promotes heritage tourism in Georgetown by manning Grace Heritage Center two days/week and makes the Center available for public & private events; produces publications such as the Downtown Walking Tour guide (free to the public) and a Neighborhood Driving Tour: Historic Homes of Georgetown, along with other educational pamphlets and books; and, upon request, provides guides for local tours, speakers, and volunteers. 9 Members: • Nine member volunteer board; one paid part-time staff member (office manager/wedding coordinator); GHS membership is approximately 300. Georgetown Palace Theatre No reference in Code 1. A non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Georgetown and Williamson County by providing a venue for quality and affordable entertainment and educational opportunities in the performing arts. 2. Programs consist of live theatre productions, including education program productions, inclusion shows for special needs citizens and their families, and Dancing with Parkinson’s program. Productions include a hearing induction loop for the hearing impaired, and audio description for the visually impaired. 3. Funding provided by ticket sales, granting, and public and private foundations. Built in 1926 as a movie theatre, transformed into a live theatre venue in 1986, and renovated in 1999. 20 Members: *16 Members credited on website The Williamson Museum No reference in Code 1. Founded in 1997 as a nonprofit (501c3) history museum, the Williamson County Historical Museum, the mission of The Williamson Museum is to collect and interpret the unique culture and heritage of Williamson County. 2. Receive funding from the county annually that pays for the staffing needs of the museum, and fundraise about $150,000 for all of our programs and events. 12 Board Members Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 6 *The Williamson Museum continued 3. Downtown programs consist of monthly First Fridays, Artifact of the Month exhibits, Hands on History for children and The Salon at Wildfire events. We offer weekly courthouse tours and are open to the public Wednesday through Saturday. We have two weekends of Ghost Tours on the Square as well as two cemetery tours each year. The museum host exhibits in four galleries in the building as well as an art space and we currently have four traveling exhibit that tour venues throughout the Central Texas area. Educational programs include 14 traveling trunks that are available for use in all 11 school districts in the county. We also offer field trips to the Georgetown Square. In 2014, we have served more than 12,000 students. 4. Two major annual events are Chisholm Trail Days in San Gabriel Park and Pioneer Days at Old Settlers Association Park. Collection includes more than 10,000 photos, artifacts and papers and we are actively collecting on a daily basis. Georgetown Art Works (GAW) 1. Non-profit, membership based organization established to promote the visual arts in downtown Georgetown. Georgetown Art Works is the managing partner with the City of Georgetown operating the Georgetown Art Center. 2. Funding through memberships and operations of art center. In the past, Georgetown Art Works has received small grants from the City’s Arts and Culture Board, but the majority of funding comes through individual donations, sponsorships, exhibit entry fees, and sales of art works in the Georgetown Art Center. 3. Downtown activities include: operations of art center with rotating exhibits, artist receptions, rentals of the art center, educational programming and camps. 10 Board Members DEVELOPMENT BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Unified Development Code Advisory Committee City Code Chapter 2.56 The purpose and goals of the Committee shall be: 1. To review proposed or requested amendments to the Unified Development Code (the UDC) other than executive amendments which are those amendments that are nondiscretionary, mandatory, or legislative revisions necessary to address state statutes or case laws, ratify published director interpretations, incorporate recently approved Council ordinances, process City Council designated emergency items, or address revisions otherwise determined necessary by legal counsel 2. To make recommendations and advise the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council on the proposed amendments to the UDC 3. To provide an additional forum for public participation and input regarding proposed amendments to the UDC 4. To assist general public in understanding the proposed amendments to UDC 7 Members: • All members must reside in the City limits or the ETJ • 1 member shall be a past P&Z Commissioner • 1 member shall be a present P&Z Commissioner • 1 active local developer • 1 Chamber of Commerce member • 1 active local home builder • 1 member with expertise in the development industry • 1 citizen at large 1. Should this Board include Commissioners-in-Training (CITs)? 2. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 7 Planning and Zoning Commission City Code Chapter 2.48 and Texas Local Government Code §211.007 The Commission has the power and it shall be its duty: 1. To make appropriate surveys, investigations, reports and recommendations relating to community planning and development to the City Council; 2. To make plans and maps of the whole or any part or portion of the City and of land outside the City located within five miles of the City limits and any other land outside the City, which, in the opinion of the commission, bears a relation to the planning of the City and to make changes in, additions to and extensions of such plans or maps when it deems the same advisable; 3. To act with and assist all other municipal and governmental agencies, and particularly the City Council, in formulating and executing proper plans for municipal development and growth; 4. To recommend to the City Council the passage of such ordinances as it may deem necessary to carry out its program; 5. To recommend to the City Council the adoption of a comprehensive community plan for the guidance and control of the future development of the community; 6. To make studies and recommend to the City Council plans for clearing the City of slums and blighted areas; 7. To aid and assist the City Council in the annual preparation of a long range capital improvement budget, and determination of sources of funds therefor; 8. To perform such other duties as may be prescribed by ordinance or State law; and 9. To function as the City zoning commission and exercise all of those powers and duties permitted by Chapters 211 of the Local Government Code, the City Charter and City ordinances, as each may be amended from time to time. 7 Members and 3 Commissioners in Training: • All members must reside in the City limits • All members must have lived in the City limits for at least one year prior to appointment • All members must be registered voters • 1 member on the GISD board 1. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? Zoning Board of Adjustment City Code Chapter 2.49 and Texas Local Government Code §211.008 Established to exercise the powers and duties of a board of adjustment as permitted by law, including Local Government Code Chapter 211.008, and City Charter, the City Unified Development Code and the City Code of Ordinances, as each may be amended. 5 Members: • All members must reside in the City and have lived in the City at least one year prior to appointment • All members must be registered voters • 1 member from the P&Z Commission Building Standards Commission City Code Chapter 2.64 and Texas Local Government Code Chapter 54, Subchapter C Established to hear and determine cases regarding alleged violations of ordinances as authorized by Chapter 54, Subchapter C, Texas Local Government Code and the City Code of Ordinances. 5 Members: • 4 members from electrical contracting, real estate profession, architecture, engineering, building construction, fire protection, mechanical contracting (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, hvac) or plumbing contracting • 1 member shall be a citizen at large Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 8 FINANCE AND CITY CORPORATION BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES General Government and Finance Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.52 It is the purpose and intent of the Council to create an advisory board empowered to review and analyze the general government and finance activities of the City that include but are not limited to the following areas: Finance administration, including the City budget, debt and treasury management; accounting and financial reporting; purchasing; the Municipal Court; facilities maintenance including construction and renovation of City facilities; vehicle services; information technology; compensation and benefits; City insurance; and other related items as recommended by the City Manager, and to report, by official vote, their recommendations to the City Council. 5 Members: • 3 members will be City Council members • 2 citizens at large Georgetown Economic Development Corporation – 4A Texas Local Government Code Chapter 504 The Corporation shall be a non-profit Corporation as defined by the IRS Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable regulations of the United States prescribed and promulgated thereunder. The Corporation is incorporated for the purposes set forth in the Articles of Incorporation acting on behalf of the city of Georgetown, Texas (the City) as its duly constituted authority and instrumentality in accordance with Section 4A of the Texas Development Corporation Act of 1979 and all applicable laws to which it is subject and from which it derives its powers. The purpose of the Corporation is to consider requests and grant funds for Projects authorized under Section 2(11)A and Section 4A (i) of the Act and as lineated in Georgetown City Council Resolution 121404-JJ. All proposals shall be submitted to the General Manager for general and financial review prior to consideration by the Board. In addition to the powers conferred by these bylaws, the Board may exercise all powers of the Corporation and do all lawful acts and things that are not prohibited by law, or the election held on May 7, 2005, or these bylaws including but not limited to the following: 1. Develop policies and operating procedures that do not conflict with any City policy 2. Undertake actions and projects which are determined by the Board to lead to the creation of retention of primary jobs and/or provide significant capital investment and which benefit the community of Georgetown. 3. The Corporation may, in pursuing its purposes as stated in this section: i. Acquire or lease property (land or buildings) within the City or ETJ ii. Negotiate market-discounted land agreements with developers or landowners iii. Plan, develop, improve, sell or lease land 7 Members: • All members shall reside in the City Limits or ETJ • 3 City Council Members • 4 citizens at large Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 9 *Georgetown Economic Development Corporation – 4A continued iv. Build or rehabilitate buildings v. Provide funding for or develop infrastructure vi. Make secured or unsecured loans or loan guarantees vii. Provide direct grants to businesses viii. Borrow funds and issue bonds ix. Develop and implement financial/incentive programs to attract or retain business x. Market and promote the city and amenities consistent with the purposes and duties as set forth in the bylaws 4. Develop long-range goals and programs for the Corporation. 5. Appoint standing or ad hoc committees, which may include City staff and/or individuals who are not members of the Board. Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation – 4B Texas Local Government Code Chapter 505 The Corporation is incorporated as a non-profit corporation for the purposes set forth in the amended Articles acting on behalf of the City of Georgetown, Texas (the City) as its duly constituted authority and instrumentality in accordance with the Texas Development Corporation Act of 1979 and other applicable laws to pay the costs of streets, roads, drainage and other related transportation system improvements, including the payment of maintenance and operating expenses associated with such authorized projects in accordance with Section 4B of the Act. The Corporation shall be a non-profit corporation as defined by the IRS Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable regulations of the United States prescribed and promulgated thereunder. It shall not be the purpose of the corporation to engage in carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. In addition to the powers conferred by these bylaws, the board may exercise all powers of the Corporation and do all lawful acts and things that are not prohibited by statute, or the election held May 5, 2001, or these bylaws including, but not limited to the following powers: 1. To purchase, otherwise acquire for the Corporation, any property, rights, or privileges which the Corporation is authorized to acquire, at such price or consideration and generally on such terms and conditions as they determine to be appropriate, and at their discretion to pay therefore either wholly or partly in money, notes, bonds, debentures, or other securities or contracts of the Corporation as may be lawful. 2. To create, make and issue notes, mortgages, bonds, deeds of trust, trust agreements and negotiable or transferable instruments and securities, secured by mortgage or deed of trust on any real property of the Corporation or otherwise, and to do every other act or thing necessary to effect the same. 3. To sell or lease the real personal property of the Corporation on such terms the board may see fit and to execute all deeds, leases and other conveyance or contracts that may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Corp. 7 Members: • All members must reside in the City limits • At least 3 members must NOT be employees, officers or City Council members • 1 member also serving on GTAB • Directors appointed by City Council Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 10 UTILITY BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.109 It is the purpose and intent of the Council to create an advisory board empowered to review and analyze the policies and resources of the Georgetown Utility Systems for purposes of providing advice to the Council concerning the business aspects of such policies and resources as they relate to City funded capital improvements projects, utility services, resource supplies, water, wastewater, stormwater and electric rates, impact fees, and other Council-assigned projects, and to report, by official vote, their recommendations to the City Council. 7 Members: • All members must reside in the City limits or the ETJ • 1 City Council member • 4 members with expertise in construction standards, finance, commodities trading or electricity Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.113 A. The purpose and goals of the Board are to: 1. To assist in the development of a continuing, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation planning process carried on cooperatively with state and local transportation agencies in concurrence with state and federal guidelines; 2. To advise the City Council on the status of the needs identified through the continuing multi-modal transportation planning process; 3. To facilitate coordination and communication between policy boards and agencies represented on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB); 4. To assist the general public in understanding transportation decisions and policies of the boards; 5. To act as a conduit for cooperative decision making by transportation officials of this urbanized area in cooperation with federal, state, regional, county and local transportation agencies, thereby serving as a basis for a integrative transportation planning process; 6. To review items related to transportation improvements, transportation modeling, transportation development, transportation planning, transportation infrastructure and stormwater and conveyance systems, including, but not limited to, streets, roads, sidewalks, highways, freeways, aviation, transit services and rail; 7. To review items related to safety, construction, leases, charges, maintenance and the operation of the airport; 8. To review/recommend various potential funding mechanisms to conduct necessary transportation improvements and projects 9. To make recommendations and advise the City Council on matters requiring Council action or direction as prepared by staff for Council consideration. B. The responsibilities of the Board include: 1. Establishment of short- and long-term goals and objectives for the transportation planning process; 2. Review and recommend approval of transportation planning, design and implementation projects for the City; 9 Members: • All members must reside in the City limits or ETJ • 2 City Councilmembers • 2 members with aviation expertise • 1 member also serving on the P&Z, preferably the Chair • 1 member also serving on GTEC, preferably the Chair • 3 citizens at large Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 11 *Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board continued 3. Review and recommend approval of leases, rates and other revenue options related to transportation and stormwater utilities; 4. Review and recommend changes to the Urbanized Area Boundary, the Transportation Planning Area Boundary, the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP), Airport Master Plan, and other special area transportation, stormwater and drainage studies; 5. Review and recommend changes to the adopted CAMPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and 6. Review and recommend approval of the City's Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCIP) for multi-modal capital and operating expenditures to insure coordination between local, County, Regional, and State capital and operating improvement programs. SPECIAL BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Civil Service Commission Texas Local Government Code Chapter 143 The Civil Service Commission is responsible for adopting, maintaining and enforcing rules governing the hiring and promotional process and serves as a disciplinary appeal board for civil service employees in the Georgetown Fire and Police Departments. The Commission is comprised of three commissioners appointed by the City Manager and confirmed by the Georgetown City Council. The commissioners serve staggered, three-year terms. 3 Members: • Members appointed by the City Manager and approved by the City Council. Ethics Commission City Code Chapter 2.20 1. The Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over ethics complaints involving City Officials. 2. The Ethics Commission shall have the authority to review and investigate complaints filed in accordance with this Chapter and issue a written finding of the Commission's determination when appropriate. 3. Service on the Ethics Commission does not preclude a member from filing a complaint with the Commission. The Commission member filing the complaint must recuse himself/herself from the Commission procedure. 4. The Ethics Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding revisions and changes to this Chapter. 5. The Ethics Commission may seek any necessary assistance from the City Council and City Manager regarding financial support needed to carry out the Commission's duties. 6. If warranted, independent legal counsel, a C.P.A., or other professional advisors may be utilized to advise and assist the Commission and take part in hearings. 8 Members: • Each Councilmember appoints a member from their district. The Mayor appoints a member of his choice from anywhere in the City limits. Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 12 Georgetown Village Public Improvement District No. 1 Advisory Board City Code Chapter 2.115 and Texas Local Government Code Chapter 372, Subchapter A 1. The Board shall prepare for the City Council's review and approval an annual budget for the Georgetown Village Public Improvement District No. 1 (the "District") consistent with Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, Ordinance No. 99-22 (relating to the creation of the District and the levying of assessments on property in the District), and the Service and Assessment Plan for the District, as these may be amended from time to time. 2. Upon approval of the District budget by the City Council, and the disbursement by the City of the GTVPID assessments to the District, the Board shall oversee and administer the maintenance and management of those improvements in District authorized to be funded by District assessments in accordance with Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, Ordinance No. 99-22 (relating to the creation of the District and the levying of assessments on property in the District), the Service and Assessment Plan for the District, and the City Council approved budget for the District, as these may be amended from time to time. 3. The Board is responsible to and shall act as an advisory body to the Council and shall perform such duties and exercise such additional powers as may be described by ordinances of the Council not inconsistent with the provisions of the City Charter, Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, Ordinance No. 99-22 (relating to the creation of the District and the levying of assessments on property in the District), the Service and Assessment Plan for the District, and the City Council approved budget for the District, as these may be amended from time to time. However, the ultimate authority for making decisions regarding the District lies with the City Council. 4. All Board members shall serve without compensation. 8 Members and 2 Alternates: • 5 Members shall be resident homeowners in the Georgetown Village subdivision ("GV Members") • 2 Members shall be members of the entity that is developing Georgetown Village ("Development Members"). • At such time as the development of the 811-acre Georgetown Village project is complete, as determined by the Development Members, the 2 Development Members shall resign and be replaced by 2 GV Members. TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT BOARDS (TIRZ) PURPOSE AND FUNDING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Downtown Georgetown TIRZ Establishing Ordinance 2004-77 and Texas Tax Code Chapter 311 Established for the purpose of making recommendations to the City Council on the administration of the tax increment reinvestment zone, its project plan and its financing plan. The funding for the project plan is from the annual incremental property tax revenue from the incremental appraised value that has increased since the establishment of the TIRZ in 2004 (currently around $150,000 per year) 5 Members: • Members of the Board must be a qualified voter of the municipality; or 18 years of age and own real property in the zone, whether or not the individual resides in the municipality. (Tex. Tax Code §311.009(e)) • GISD and the Commissioners Court of Williamson County have waived their right to appoint a member to the Board of Directors Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 13 Rivery Park TIRZ Establishing Ordinance 2007-91 and Texas Tax Code Chapter 311 The Rivery Park Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) was created by Ordinance 2007-91 and has been amended to establish the duration through December 31, 2041. The purpose of the TIRZ is to provide a financing vehicle necessary to facilitate a program of public improvements to allow and encourage the development of a 221 room hotel having a AAA 3 Diamond Rating or a 2 Star Forbes Rating, a 18,800 square foot conference center, and a 336 space public parking garage. Another purpose of the TIRZ is to construct amenities in and make other improvements necessary to increase accessibility to Rivery Park and enhance the park experience for visitors. Other development within the TIRZ is anticipated to include single and multifamily residential development and commercial/retail space, as allowed by the PUD Ordinance. The tax increment generated within the TIRZ would be used to finance costs associated with the construction, maintenance and repair of the Public Parking Garage, improvements in Rivery Park, public utilities within the TIRZ, public roadways (and related improvements) within and outside of the TIRZ boundaries, and other costs that meet the definition of “project costs”. 9 Members: • Members of the Board must be a qualified voter of the municipality; or 18 years of age and own real property in the zone, whether or not the individual resides in the municipality. (Tex. Tax Code §311.009(e)) • The City Council shall appoint 5 members to the Board of Directors • The Commissioners Court of Williamson County shall appoint 2 members to the Board of Directors • The State Representative and the State Senator or their designees within whose district the Zone is located are members of the Board of Directors and they may allow the Commissioners Court of Williamson County to choose their designees. Williams Drive Gateway TIRZ Establishing Ordinance 2006-104 and Texas Tax Code Chapter 311 The Williams Drive Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) was created by Ordinance 2006-104 and the duration is through December 31, 2031. The TIRZ was created to facilitate a program of public improvements to allow and encourage the development and redevelopment of the Williams Drive Gateway area into a mixed use, pedestrian oriented environment consistent with the goals of the City’s Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan. 5 Members: • Members of the Board must be a qualified voter of the municipality; or 18 years of age and own real property in the zone, whether or not the individual resides in the municipality. (Tex. Tax Code §311.009(e)) South Georgetown TIRZ Establishing Ordinance 2014-31 and Texas Tax Code Chapter 311 The South Georgetown TIRZ , created by Ordinance 2014-31, continues through December 31, 2044, or when all project costs (not to exceed $50M) has been reimbursed (including any bonds issued to fund these projects). The Zone is being created to fund public infrastructure necessary to encourage high quality commercial/retail development at IH35 and Westinghouse Rd. which is seen as the next major node as growth continues to move north from Round Rock. The TIRZ is approximately 595 undeveloped acres along Westinghouse Rd., between IH35 and FM1460 and includes commercial areas directly behind the future Bass Pro Shop, and proposed residential development adjacent to Terra Vista. The intersection at Westinghouse and IH35 is proposed to be major City job center, with not only offices, but also mixed use retail and other related services (including residential) in a campus style development. But, the barrier to traditional develop in this area has always been the cost of infrastructure, including sewer and road improvements. 7 Members: • Members of the Board must be a qualified voter of the municipality; or 18 years of age and own real property in the zone, whether or not the individual resides in the municipality. (Tex. Tax Code §311.009(e)) Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 14 Item # B August 26, 2014 14 NEWLY ESTABLISHED BOARDS PURPOSE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Advisory Board Resolution 032514-L Code Chapter - TBD The City should establish an ADA Advisory Committee. The ADA Advisory Committee would inform the City Council concerning Title II issues applicable to the City and provide ongoing recommendations concerning implementation and amendment of the ADA Transition Plan as necessary for compliance with the ADA. The ADA Advisory Committee would also allow for regular public participation from citizens and other interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities. Proposed: • City Staff including transportation, street parking and sidewalks, parks and recreation, facilities (public buildings and parking lots), public communication (to include the city’s web page), legal and citizen representatives including ADA mobility limitations, sight impaired, and hearing impaired. 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Notes: Resolution 032514-L adopting an ADA Transition Plan for the City is attached. The ADA Transition Plan is attached. Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Board Code Chapter – TBD A. Purpose Statement for City of Georgetown funding to the nonprofit sector: The City of Georgetown values partnerships with organizations that are committed to addressing our community’s greatest public challenges. The purpose of City funding to the nonprofit sector is to cultivate and sustain partnerships with 501(c)3 organizations that strengthen the City’s key priorities in the following areas: • Public Safety; Transportation; Housing; Parks & Recreation; Veteran Services; and Safety Net. TBD Suggested Membership includes: 5 Members • CPA or Accountant, preferably with nonprofit financial background • Professional with strong working knowledge of local nonprofits • Professional with expertise in grant writing and/or grant evaluation • 2 community members with appropriate skill (ex: health care, education, etc.) 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Notes: This Board is recommended to be established beginning FY 2015-2016. The Strategic Partnerships presentation is attached. PROPOSED BOARD(S) PURPOSE, FUNDING AND ACTIVITIES MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES Georgetown Commission on Aging Code Chapter – TBD 1. Advise the City Council on the needs and status of seniors in the entire City, recommending ways in which those needs may be met. 2. Determine and asses existing resources in the City which may be utilized by seniors to meet their needs. 3. Evaluate/assess proposed programs, grants and other governmental activities which may impact seniors. 4. Encourage, promote, assist, and safeguard the rights and abilities of older adults throughout the community to maintain maximum health, well-being, and independence. 5. Serve as a liaison between the City Council and the community of senior citizens in matters of public interest. 6. Use all available resources to inform senior citizens of Community Services in health, nutrition, recreation, housing, transportation and safety. 7. Receive input from the senior citizen community including input from other individuals and organizations on issues relevant to the senior community. 8. Act as liaison for senior citizen issues to governmental and private orgs. Proposed 8 Members: • 2 Members from the City Council • 1 Leader from service providers to seniors • 1 Leader from the business community • 1 Leader from the medical profession • 1 Leader from the local churches • 1 High School or college student • 1 citizen at large 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Notes: See the attached Report for the AdvantAge Initiative Committee Survey in Georgetown 2011. Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 14 Item # B Boards and Commissions Program Summary Overview: • 20 Boards and Commissions, 3 TIRZ boards, 168 total members • Staff Board Liaisons coordinate agenda packets, set up each meeting and take minutes • All Board agenda packets and minutes are available online. • Mayor recommends all appointments, which are approved by a majority of the Council (Section 2.14 of the City Charter). Mayor also appoints most Chairs (except for GEDCO, GTEC and the Housing Authority) • Each Board is governed by Chapter 2.36 of the City Code, State law, Board-specific Ordinances and Bylaws o Each member may serve a maximum of two, full two-year terms consecutively (Chapter 2.36.030 A) o Attendance policy: minimum of 75% attendance (Chapter 2.36.010 D) o Eligibility requirements are determined by the Board’s governing Ordinance Application Process: • Call for applications begins November 1 o Ads are on the City website, Williamson County Sun, Facebook and social media o New electronic application on the website via Laserfiche • Deadline for applications is mid-January • Selection process is determined by the Mayor, as outlined in the City Charter • Mayor’s recommended appointments are confirmed at the second Council meeting in February • New terms begin March 1 Training Program and Sessions: • City-wide Boards and Commissions Annual Training (OMA, PIA and Ethics) • Attorney General’s Online Training regarding OMA and PIA • Chair/Parliamentary Procedure Training • Staff Board Liaison Training • Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO): o Economic Development Sales Tax Use Training • Main Street Advisory Board: o Texas Main Street Board Training • Library Advisory Board: o Censorship Appeals Training • Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) o Renee Hanson training on Design Guidelines o National Park Service Preservation Brief #14- New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings o The role of the Historic Preservation Commission in Local Preservation Programs o Overview training on the Unified Development Code for properties located within a Historic Overlay District and subject to a CDC o The National Register for Historic Places o Customer Bulletins for CDC Applications o Americans with Disabilities Act and Historic Buildings o Historic Architecture, Compatibility and Alterations o Future Training Sessions Planned- 2012 International Building Code, Training on Design Guidelines, Parliamentary Procedure Training, Adaptive re-use of historic buildings Resources: • Website demo- https://guide.georgetown.org/ Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # B Sec. 2.14. Boards, Commissions and Committees. The Council shall have the power to establish boards, commissions and committees to assist it in carrying out its duties in accordance with State law. Members of such bodies shall be recommended by the Mayor and appointed by a vote of the majority of the Council in open meeting unless otherwise provided by law. Should the Mayor fail to recommend and/or the Council fail to appoint the member(s) recommended by the Mayor, a majority of the Council plus one may make the appointment(s) without a recommendation of the Mayor. (Ord. No. 880170, Amend. No. 4, 5-10-88; Ord. No. 86-12, Amend. No. 13, 2-25-86) Page 1 of 1Municode 08/20/2014https://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=13578&HTMRequest=https%3a%... Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # B A. B. C. D. E. F. Georgetown, Texas, Code of Ordinances >> - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Title 2 - ADMINISTRATION >> CHAPTER 2.36 CITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS >> CHAPTER 2.36 CITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS [5] Sec. 2.36.010. Duties of members. Sec. 2.36.020. Eligibility. Sec. 2.36.030. Appointment, terms and organization. Sec. 2.36.040. Filling vacated term. Sec. 2.36.050. Standing meeting date. Sec. 2.36.060. Adoption of bylaws, rules or procedures. Sec. 2.36.070. Conflict of Law. Sec. 2.36.080. Applicability of this Chapter to economic development corporations. Sec. 2.36.010. Duties of members. Commission, committee, and board members (hereinafter referred to as "Members") will represent unconflicted loyalty to the interests of the residents of Georgetown. This accountability supersedes any- conflicting loyalty such as that to advocacy or interest groups and membership on other boards or staffs. This accountability supersedes the personal interest of any Board Member acting as an individual. Unless otherwise specified by federal law, state law, the City Charter, or other provisions of this Code of Ordinances, committees, commissions, and boards are responsible to and shall act as an advisory body to the Council and shall perform such duties and exercise such additional powers as may be described by ordinances and the Local Government Code not inconsistent with the provisions of the City Charter Committees, commissions, and boards play a unique and important role in this advisory capacity, assisting the Council to carry out its responsibilities for making the decisions which shape City policy. Each Member is responsible to attend meetings prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. Attendance by Members is integral to success of the commission, committee or board. It is Council policy to require a minimum of 75 percent attendance of each Member at each regularly scheduled meeting including subcommittee meetings. A Member shall be allowed two excused absences for the Member's personal medical care, required medical care of a Member's immediate family member (as defined by City Ordinance), or Member's military service that shall not count against the 75 percent attendance requirement. Written notice shall be sent to a Member and the Member's City Council representative when it appears the Member may violate the attendance policy by being absent from more than 25 percent of regularly scheduled meetings, including subcommittee meetings. Excessive absenteeism may result in the Member being replaced by the Council. If a Member is removed from a committee, commission or board, that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be appointed to the Board in accordance with Section 2.36.040. Committees, commissions, and boards, and their Members, shall comply with applicable City ordinances, rules and policies. Page 1 of 4Municode 08/20/2014https://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=13578&HTMRequest=https%3a%... Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # B G. H. I. J. K. L. A. B. Members shall act and conduct themselves in a manner which will promote trust in their integrity, impartiality, and their devotion to the best interests of the City. During meetings, Members shall preserve order and decorum and shall conduct themselves in a manner which will not, either by conversation or activity, delay or interrupt the proceedings. Members shall not indulge in personalities, use offensive language, arraign the motives of other Members, charge deliberate misrepresentation, or use language tending to hold any Members, Council Members, the public, or the staff, in contempt. Members will comply with the directions of the presiding office. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic interest under state law, the City's Ethics Ordinance (Chapter 2.20, Code of Ordinances), or other applicable Laws, Rules and Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and shall refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The Member may remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member's option, while the matter is being considered and voted on by the other Board Members. Unless otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved by a majority of the Board Members present at the meeting. Members are encouraged to be active in discussions and activities of the commission, committee or board, seeking to be innovative, creative, and freely sharing the skills and knowledge which prompted their appointment. Communication between the Council and the committees, commissions and boards is important to fulfilling their purpose. Committees, commissions and boards shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how to best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports from the committees, commissions and boards at regularly scheduled Council meetings. Unless otherwise required by law, committees, commissions, and boards shall meet once a month. Meetings will be conducted in accordance with the bylaws of the committee, commission or board, and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures (Chapter 2.24, Code of Ordinances), as applicable. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members and is required for the committee, commission or board to convene a meeting and to conduct business at a meeting. Committee, commission and board meetings shall be noticed, conducted and recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Committees, commissions, and boards, and their Members, have no authority to expend funds or make obligations on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by City Council. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by them in the performance of their duties as Members when authorized by their respective committee, commission or board and the City Council. (Ord. No. 2012-85, § 2; Ord. No. 2012-52, § 2; Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.020. Eligibility. It is the past practice and the present intent of the City Council that Section 9.01 of the City Charter (relating to Nepotism) shall not apply to appointments of persons to City boards, commissions, or committees that are advisory only and that exercise no final authority on behalf of the City. It is the intent of the City Council that as many persons as possible be invited to serve on the City's various boards, committees and commissions. To that end, no person shall serve as a Member of more than one board, commission or committee if other qualified applicants are Page 2 of 4Municode 08/20/2014https://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=13578&HTMRequest=https%3a%... Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # B C. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. A. B. available to serve, unless the ordinance or bylaws of one board, committee, or commission require the participation of a Member from another board, committee, or commission. If a person who serves on a board, committee or commission is appointed to another board committee or commission before the end of his or her existing term, acceptance of the new appointment shall operate as an automatic resignation from the position previously held. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this Subsection shall not apply to persons appointed by the City Council to ad hoc or non-permanent advisory committees and such ad hoc committees may be comprised in whole or in part of persons who serve on the City's standing boards, committees, and commissions. City employees are not eligible to serve as board, commission or committee Members, unless otherwise required by law. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.030. Appointment, terms and organization. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the term of office for all committees, boards, and commissions of the City shall be two years in length with normal, yearly appointments. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms on the same board, committee, or commission. If reappointment beyond the original two consecutive terms is approved by City Council or if a vacancy occurs, appointments shall be made to preserve staggered membership terms on the board and ensure a balance between new and continuing members. Members shall continue to serve until reappointment for that position takes place. Members of the City's commissions, committees, and boards shall be appointed pursuant to the City Charter. Annual new member orientation shall occur within two weeks after the annual appointments are made to each commission, committee, or board. The City Council shall appoint a Chairman of the board, committee, or commission during the annual appointment process. Other officers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at the first meeting after the annual appointment process. The board, committee or commission shall select a vice-chairman, secretary and such other officers as it deems necessary. Officers serve for a term of one year. Unless otherwise required by law. A Member of a committee, board or commission may be removed from their office or position for any reason or for no reason by a majority vote of the City Council. Except as otherwise required by law, if any provisions of the Code of Ordinances, or the bylaws of a board, committee, or commission require the appointment of individuals with certain qualifications, and no such qualified individual is available to serve at the time that the appointments are made, then such other individual, otherwise qualified to serve, may be appointed. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.040. Filling vacated term. Vacancies that arise during the year shall be filled as soon as reasonably possible in accordance with the City Charter and Section 2.36.030 for original appointments. An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting consecutive terms. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Page 3 of 4Municode 08/20/2014https://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=13578&HTMRequest=https%3a%... Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # B A. B. Sec. 2.36.050. Standing meeting date. Each March, the City Council shall recognize all outgoing members, introduce new members, and honor the volunteer effort of the commission, committee, and Board Members. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.060. Adoption of bylaws, rules or procedures. The Council may, after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, adopt any rule or procedure to effectuate the provisions of this Chapter. Each board, committee, or commission shall adopt bylaws, subject to review and approval by City Council, in conformity with the City Charter, the Code of Ordinances, and with any other applicable law. The bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Members at any regular meeting of the Board, subject to approval by City Council. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.070. Conflict of Law. If any provision of this Chapter conflicts with state law then it shall be and is amended to comply with and conform to state law. (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) Sec. 2.36.080. Applicability of this Chapter to economic development corporations. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to corporations created by the City Council pursuant to the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended (Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 5190.6). (Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A)) FOOTNOTE(S): --- (5) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 2011-20, § 2(Exh. A), adopted May 10, 2011, amended Chapter 2.36 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, Chapter 2.36 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 870144.019, § 2; Ord. No. 900021, §§ 3—6; Ord. No. 92-32, § 2; Ord. No. 2002-09, § 2; Ord. No. 2002-20, §§ 2—5; Ord. No. 2002-47, § 2; Ord. No. 2004-41, § 2; Ord. No. 2007-16, §§ 2—4, and Ord. No. 2007-64, § 5. (Back) Page 4 of 4Municode 08/20/2014https://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=13578&HTMRequest=https%3a%... Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # B Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Standards for State and Local Governments City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 2 PART I - INTRODUCTION TO THE ADA The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990 and provides comprehensive rights and protections for individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA covers individuals with physical or mental impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of such impairment, and persons regarded or perceived as having such impairment. The law was designed to ensure that persons of all abilities have equality of opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, full participation in American life, and independent living. To ensure that the fundamental goal of the American with Disabilities Act is met, Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. This requirement extends not only to physical access at government facilities, programs, and events, but also to policy changes that governmental entities must make to ensure that all people with disabilities can take part in, and benefit from, the programs and services of the state and local governments. In addition, governmental entities must ensure effective communication, including the provision of necessary auxiliary aids and services so that individuals with disabilities can participate in civic life. The Title II regulations cover “public entities.” Public entities include any state or local government and any of its departments and agencies. All activities, services, and programs of public entities are covered, including activities of state legislatures and courts, town meetings, police and fire departments, motor vehicle licensing, and employment. PART II - CITY COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA Title II requires city governments to ensure that each of its programs, services and activities, when viewed in their entirety, are accessible to people with disabilities. This emphasis on access to programs, as opposed to access to buildings or facilities, distinguishes the requirements for public entities from those for private places of public accommodation. In providing access, city governments are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of any program, service or activity or that would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the City must take any other action it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity. Program Access covers the entire range of city services and programs, including as an example appropriate access along sidewalks and at intersections in the public right of way, access to a city building or facility such as City Council Chambers, the ability to pay a utility bill, or to access a Parks and Recreation Facility. Program Access may be achieved in a variety of ways: city governments may choose to make structural changes to existing facilities to achieve access; or it can pursue a variety of non-structural alternatives to achieve program accessibility. For Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 3 example, city governments may choose to renovate a non-accessible building, relocate services to an accessible level of a building or to another building that is fully accessible, or to deliver services in an alternate accessible manner. When choosing among possible methods of achieving program access, however, city governments must give priority to the choices that offer programs, services and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate. The City of Georgetown is committed to ensuring that its programs, services and activities are accessible to persons with disabilities in compliance with Title II. The City of Georgetown will not discriminate on the basis of disability regarding employment and services or programs provided by the municipality. Additionally, the City of Georgetown will inform individuals that reasonable accommodation will be provided and that protections against discrimination are provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. PART III - TRANSITION PLAN ELEMENTS New construction in the City shall be constructed in accordance with the applicable ADA Standards for Accessible Design. This Transition Plan addresses renovations or modifications required to achieve Program Accessibility. The Transition Plan is required to identify physical obstacles in the City that limit accessibility to its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities; describe in detail the methods that will be used to make all public facilities accessible; specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance in making the facilities accessible; and indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan. SIDEWALKS, CURB RAMPS, INTERSECTIONS AND STREETS The City of Georgetown recognizes that pedestrian walkways or sidewalks often play a key role in providing access to government programs and services and to the goods and services offered to the public by private businesses. When walkways cross a curb at intersections, a ramp or sloped surface is needed. Curb ramps allow people with mobility impairments to gain access to the sidewalks and to pass through center islands in streets. All newly constructed or repaired curb ramps are designed and constructed in compliance with the applicable ADA Standards for Accessible Design. When the City constructs new roads or alters existing roads, it is committed to installing curb ramps where public walkways cross curbs at intersections. Without the required curb ramps, sidewalk travel in Georgetown may be dangerous, difficult, and in some cases impossible for people who use wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids to navigate. Likewise, when new sidewalks or walkways are built or altered, the City is committed to ensuring that curb ramps or sloped areas are provided wherever they intersect with streets or roads. At existing roads and sidewalks that are not being altered, the City may choose in some cases to construct curb ramps at every point where a pedestrian walkway intersects a curb, or it may chose to provide curb ramps at only select corners or at other locations if equal access to the Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 4 programs served by these walkways can be ensured. Alternative routes to buildings that make use of existing curb ramps may be acceptable when people with disabilities must only travel a marginally longer route. Transportation Services is committed to evaluating on-street parking for ADA compliance and to investigate and act on opportunities to improve access to public walkways and facilities on all Capital Improvement projects. A City Sidewalk Study was conducted in 2001. Since that time, significant improvements have been made to miles of sidewalks, countless curb ramps, street parking and intersections throughout the City to facilitate accessibility and access to persons with disabilities. Current and planned improvement projects include: x Austin Avenue Sidewalk from Georgetown High School and the Recreation Center x CDBG Annual Parking Program x Street Maintenance Ramp Upgrade/Installation x Street Parking Around the Courthouse after Resurfacing x 6th Street Sidewalk Improvements x 9th Street Sidewalk Improvements x Tin Barn Alley Sidewalk Improvements The City also currently accommodates requests for unplanned curb ramps and sidewalks and for emergency repairs. A dedicated budget should be developed and funded for such unplanned contingencies. The City is currently planning a 2014 Sidewalk Study. The Sidewalk Study will include identification of sidewalk conditions that are not in compliance with Title II. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOTS Georgetown Support Services ensures application of ADA Standards for Accessible Designs to all new construction, remodels, renovations and alterations of public buildings and public parking areas. In addition, public buildings and public parking areas are maintained for ADA compliance. Examples include: x An ADA ramp on the sidewalk at the City Council Chambers was installed 8 years ago. x An accessible door was installed in the GMC Building lobby last year. x The Tennis Center locker room area is being remodeled this year. The sidewalks going down to the court have been identified as a future project for compliance. x Buildings that do not have automatic door openers meet the ADA pull requirements. Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 5 x Public and facility parking lots are maintained to ensure that stripping and signage is visible for accessibility. Georgetown Support Services is committed to maintaining public buildings and public parking for ADA compliance and to investigate and act on opportunities to improve access to public facilities on all Capital Improvement Projects. The Feasibility Study will identify any public facility and public parking deficiencies. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Georgetown Parks and Recreation is committed to providing access to recreational areas and programs for persons with disabilities. The Parks and Recreation Department’s Capital Improvement Plan identifies park renovation projects to provide ADA compliance. Additionally, the City will ensure facilities are in compliance as they are altered or replaced. Current Projects (2013/2014) x Creative Playscape Replacement x River Ridge Pool Renovations x San Gabriel Trail Additions x Chautauqua Park Renovations x San Jose Park Renovations x Rowan Park Development x Madrone Park Development x Old Town Park Renovations (Completed) Future Projects (Proposed 2014/2015) x VFW Renovations x Williams Drive Park Renovations x Emerald Springs Park Renovations x San Gabriel Park Renovations EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The City is committed to maintaining an effective means of communication with the public through public media, public meetings and project notification. Twenty years ago, interactions with the City often required a physical trip to a City facility to make a payment, request information, or attend a meeting. The City now uses its website, social media, and other communication tools to increase outreach and reduce barriers to access City services and information. Below are some of the ways that online services are providing access to City information and services for those with mobility limitations. City Council Meetings: The City began broadcasting meetings on tape delay in 1996 on local access cable channel 10. In 2009, the City began streaming City Council meetings live on Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 6 Georgetown.org and GTV channel 10. City Council meetings are also replayed on GTV and are available at any at any time for replay on Georgetown.org using a computer or mobile device. Online Payments: City utility bills, municipal court tickets, some permits, and some kinds of event tickets can be paid online via Georgetown.org. The Public Communications Department continues to seek ways to improve and expand online payments in order to reduce the need to visit City offices. City Records: Agendas and minutes for City Council meetings and board and commission meetings are available at Georgetown.org. Many other records such as current and past city ordinances and the local unified development code are available on the City website. City News and Information: City news releases and City project information is posted to Georgetown.org and to City Facebook sites such as www.facebook.com/CityofGeorgetown and www.facebook.com/LivePlayGeorgetown. These social media sites allow anyone with a computer or mobile device to stay informed about City events and projects or ask questions of City staff. Video: The City provides some messages and information via the City YouTube channel and on GTV channel 10 and on Georgetown.org. The Public Communications Department seeks to expand video programming in order to increase outreach of City information and programs to people of all abilities in the community. Website Accessibility: In designing websites for City departments, the Public Communications Department has avoided using Flash animation and some dynamic features that are not ADA compliant. The webmaster also has implemented responsive design on many of the key website pages which optimizes web content based on the type of device accessing the website. Such technology improves readability of webpages for those with visual acuity limitations. Improvements in screen reader technology will expand the options for web design in the future. As the City redesigns its websites in 2014, ADA compliance for City webpages as well as webpages from vendors that are providing City services will be a priority. The City will be developing a policy to verify that all digital communications are accessible through assistive technology such as screen readers and audio technology by following the guidelines below: x Adopt a City policy that requires all webpages, including those purchased from third party services, to meet the following 508c3 standards: Provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision, or support for assistive technology used by people who are blind or visually impaired. Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 7 Provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/70 in audio and enlarged print output working together or independently, or support for assistive technology used by people who are visually impaired. Provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user hearing, or support for assistive technology used by people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Where audio information is important for the use of a product, provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval in an enhanced auditory manner, or support for assistive hearing devices. Provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user speech, or support for assistive technology used by people with speech disabilities. Provide at least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user fine motor control or simultaneous actions and that is operable with limited reach and strength. x Train all webpage content creators so that they understand alternate tags, descriptions, and captions. Minimize the use of portable document format (pdf) or non-text documents for the conveyance of information, and when pdfs are necessary, train content creators how to make such documents accessible. x Ensure that all pages and documents include an easy to find contact phone number or email address so that users with disabilities have alternate ways to receive information. x Minimize the use of tables for formatting, ensure all form elements are tagged, do not rely on graphics for the conveyance of information, and explain the content of maps in an alternate way when that map is being used to convey critical content. x Routinely run digital services through online ADA check tools to ensure compliance. The City uses other communication tools such as the monthly City Reporter newsletter in the utility bill as well as monthly ads in the Williamson County Sun to provide information on City news and initiatives. Postcards mailed to customers are used for certain messages such as water restrictions or information about City elections. Through all these means, the City provides outreach to the community in a variety of ways for those who may have mobility impairments or difficulty in using certain kinds of electronic or print media. Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 8 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL The official responsible for implementation of the City’s ADA Transition Plan is the Building Official with Inspection Services in Georgetown Utility Systems, 300-1 Industrial Avenue Georgetown, Texas, 78626. The City will adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging violations of Title II. Complaints of alleged noncompliance and grievances concerning violations of Title II and Program Access in the City of Georgetown should be directed to: Dave Hall, Building Official 300-1 Industrial Ave Georgetown, Texas 78626 Telephone: (512) 930-2547 Email: dave.hall@georgetown.org BUDGET The financial cost to fully implement the ADA Transition Plan in compliance with Title II should be included in the City’s annual budget each year. Each affected City Department, including Transportation (street parking and sidewalks), Facilities (public buildings and public parking lots), Parks and Recreation and Public or Effective Communications (to include the City’s web page) should allocate funds in the respective budgets for inclusion in the City Budget. PART IV – RECOMMENDATIONS FEASIBILITY STUDY. The City should conduct a feasibility study to obtain an analysis and evaluation for proposed projects to determine if the projects are technically feasible and to provide an estimated cost for project prioritization and budgeting. The Feasibility Study will provide recommendations for implementation of the ADA Transition Plan, including prioritization of projects, scheduling and integration of those projects into the City CIP and City Budget. The Feasibility Study has been included in the scope of services for the 2014 Sidewalk Study proposal. Once the Feasibility Study is complete it will be presented to the ADA Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council. ADA ADVISORY COMMITTEE. The City should establish an ADA Advisory Committee. Membership on the Committee should include City Staff (including transportation, street parking and sidewalks), parks and recreation, facilities (public buildings and public parking lots), public or effective communication (to include the city’s web page) and legal and citizen representatives with ADA mobility limitations, as well as the sight and hearing impaired. The ADA Advisory Committee would inform the City Council concerning Title II issues applicable Attachment number 5 \nPage 8 of 9 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas ADA Transition Plan - 3.26.2014 Page 9 to the City and provide ongoing recommendations concerning implementation and amendment of the ADA Transition Plan as necessary for compliance with the ADA. The ADA Advisory Committee would also allow for regular public participation from citizens and other interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities. DATA ORGANIZATION. Data should be collected and organized in a form to be included in the City’s Asset Management System or other database to organize project data, including inspections and construction. WEB PAGE. The City has created an ADA page on the City’s website located at ada.georgetown.org. City Staff will work with the ADA Advisory Committee to develop the ADA page as an effective and meaningful resource for City residents with disabilities. Attachment number 5 \nPage 9 of 9 Item # B 08/20/2014 1 Social Service & Youth Program Funding Task Force City Council Meeting April 8, 2014 Background • City Council Met on January 6, 2014 –Established a Task Force to review current Policies and Guidelines and make recommendations to Council for future process Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 2 Background • Charge to Task Force – Define a Mission Statement for the City’s Social Services and Youth Program Funding Programs, redefine the process to include Categories of Services, Objectives, Measures, Outcomes, a Common Application Process, etc. and report back to the City Council with recommendations Task Force • Members – Paula Brent, Community Member – John Hesser, Georgetown City Council – Barbara Pearce, Community Member – Suzy Pukys, Georgetown Health Foundation – C.O. Smith, Community Member – Shirley Rinn, City of Georgetown Staff • Additional Reviewers/Consultants – Andrea Richardson, Bluebonnet Trails Community Services – Barbara Brightwell, Community Member • Task Force Met 8 times to Develop Recommendations Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 3 Assessing Purpose • Task Force Asked Purpose-driven Questions – What is the role of public funding in the nonprofit sector? – How can a $400,000/year investment in the nonprofit sector impact the City’s priorities? – Given the limited scope and resources of City government, what issue areas/organizations should the City invest in to strengthen the community? Questions Led to Research •Other Communities –National League of Cities. Dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. •Provides small- to mid-sized cities models for public-private partnerships to address pressing public challenges. Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 4 Research •City of San Marcos – Human Services Funding Advisory Board • Comprised of eight (8) San Marcos citizens; with one (1) non-voting member with a degree in social work or with experience in social service administration. • The purpose of this Board is to develop and enhance human services in San Marcos and to review applications and make funding recommendations to City Council for Human Services organizations. Research •City of San Marcos – Human Services Funding Advisory Board • City Council sets funding level. • Advisory Board reviews applicants and makes recommendations for allocations to Council. – Any agency presentations are made to Advisory Board • Agencies do not provide audit documentation, but rather a status report quarterly. • Funding is paid quarterly to agencies – Status must be received prior to disbursement of quarterly payment. Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 5 Research •City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. – Careful reading of vision, SWOT Analysis, and Quality of Life sections. •City of Georgetown’s Divisions. – Municipal government’s role in the community and areas of focus. •What does this information reveal about the City’s priorities? Purpose Statement •The City of Georgetown values partnerships with organizations that are committed to addressing our community’s greatest public challenges. The Purpose of City Funding to the nonprofit sector is to cultivate and sustain partnerships with 501(c)3 organizations that strengthen the City’s key priorities in the following areas: – Public Safety; – Transportation; – Housing; – Parks & Recreation; and – Safety Net. Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 6 Defining Key Priorities •Public Safety. – While the City is Georgetown’s Public Safety leader (Fire & Police), public safety also encompasses a broad scope of work that makes this community safe for all. • Eligible organizations and programs may include those that contribute to safe neighborhoods such as out of school time, youth empowerment, and neighborhood community centers. Defining Key Priorities •Transportation. –Eligible organizations include those that assist in meeting the transportation needs of Georgetown residents unable to access private transportation such as homebound seniors and youth under the age of 16 years. Attachment number 6 \nPage 6 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 7 Defining Key Priorities •Housing. –Eligible organizations include those that offer emergency shelter, transitional or temporary housing, and affordable housing. Defining Key Priorities •Parks & Recreation. –Eligible organizations include those that provide affordable, accessible activities that enhance Georgetown residents’ health and well-being, including sports, fitness, and other recreational programs. Attachment number 6 \nPage 7 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 8 Defining Key Priorities •Safety Net. – The City recognizes its responsibility to support efforts to address this community’s most pressing basic needs. Examples of basic needs include food insecurity, emergency financial assistance, mental/behavioral health care, substance abuse, domestic/family violence, and health care. Safety Net priorities will be based on ongoing analysis of unmet existing needs and emerging needs in this community, and may change over time. Recommendations for Action: 2014 Grant Cycle • Recommendations are intended to streamline the process, integrate objectivity, and strengthen accountability – Approval of Purpose/Mission Statement – Approval of Proposed Process, “Strategic Partnerships for Community Services” funding – Approval of ad-hoc committee in 2014 to review “Strategic Partnerships for Community Services” grants, or have the City Council as a whole review applications for the FY 2014-15 cycle – Approval of $10,000 minimum threshold for annual funding – Approval to add first 2 pages of newly drafted proposal to the existing City of Georgetown grant application for the FY 2014-15 Funding Year Attachment number 6 \nPage 8 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 9 Recommendations for 2015-16 • Establish a standing Advisory Board for 2015 and beyond. – Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Board • Advisory Board Structure: 5 Volunteer Members – CPA or accountant, preferably with nonprofit financial background – Professional with strong working knowledge of local nonprofits – Professional with expertise in grant writing and/or grant evaluation – Two additional community members with appropriate skill sets (health care, education, etc.) Recommendations for 2015-16 • Review and analysis will NOT include presentations from grant applicants • Integration of new grant application and rubric in 2015-16 process • Continue to fund annual grants rather than multi-year to avoid committing future funding and Councils Attachment number 6 \nPage 9 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 10 Future Considerations • Funding for fine arts, humanities, cultural and historical programs to be supported through the Arts and Culture Board – There is currently $50,000 in the FY 2014-15 budget for Arts & Culture Board for use of its operations, including grants. • An upper threshold for annual funding? • Explore public-private partnerships that achieve objectives in 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Future Considerations • Uniform payments to funded agencies – City is currently not consistent • Agencies receive their funding either – Annual – Quarterly, or – Monthly • Current Audit/Reporting Cycle is Bi-Annual • Annual Report due prior to new FY funding cycle would simplify process and reduce reporting burden to Agencies. Attachment number 6 \nPage 10 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 11 Timeline for FY 2014-15 • April 8 – Council Workshop • Task Force Recommendations • April 18 – Send out FY 2014-15 Applications to Agencies who currently received funding; and – Advertise in Williamson County Sun and on Website • April 22 or May 13 – If approved, need to establish Ad Hoc Committee to review FY 2014-15 Applications • May 30 – Deadline to turn in Applications Timeline for FY 2014-15 • Before June 9 – Training for Committee or City Council on use of Scoring Rubric for Applications • June 9 – Applications and Scoring Rubric to Ad Hoc Committee or City Council for Review • July 1-July 11 – If approved, Ad Hoc Committee Meetings to determine allocations recommendations (as necessary) • Presentations by Agencies are not recommended • July 22 – Ad Hoc Committee or City Council Recommendations for allocations to City Council for Consideration and Approval Attachment number 6 \nPage 11 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 12 Timeline for FY 2014-15 • August 12 – Finalization of allocations and First Reading of Budget. • September 16 – Second Reading of Budget and approval of Performance. Agreements • October 1 – FY 2014-15 Budget Year begins. • October 15, 2014 – First Payments to Agencies. • Need to determine if all agencies will be on same payment schedule. Right now it is not consistent: annual, quarterly, and monthly. Timeline for FY 2015-16 • Establish the “Strategic Partnership for Community Services” Advisory Board – Ordinance establishing the new Advisory Board needs to be approved by the City Council prior to November 2014 in order to be included Appointment process for new Board Members in February 2015. Attachment number 6 \nPage 12 of 13 Item # B 08/20/2014 13 Timeline for FY 2015-16 • February 2015 – Appointment of New Members to “Strategic Partnerships for Community Services” Advisory Board • March/April 2015 – Train new Advisory Board Members on use of Scoring Rubric for new Applications – Provide Training to Agencies on use of new Application •May 1 – New Funding Process for Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Begins for FY 2015-16 QUESTIONS Attachment number 6 \nPage 13 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 18 Item # B Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 18 Item # B Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 18 Item # B August 2012 SUMMARY REPORT For the AdvantAge Initiative Community Survey in Georgetown, 2011 The Georgetown Aging Initiative: To ensure a community of excellence for older adults and their caregivers Attachment number 7 \nPage 4 of 18 Item # B 1 Purpose: The Georgetown Aging Initiative (GAI) began in 2009 as a group of Georgetown residents who came together with the desire to make the community one that continues to be friendly and welcoming to seniors of all ages and abilities. Georgetown has a population of 47,400 (2010 US census) of which 18,108 or 38% are over the age of 55 years and 12,205 or 26% are over the age of 65 years. Over the last 10 years, Georgetown has experienced a 141% increase in individuals age 60 and older. This summary explores how well the community serves older adults and their caregivers and provides insights into steps that can be taken to help adults sixty years and older remain active and engaged as long as possible. Who was involved in the Aging Initiative: The Georgetown Aging Initiative includes community leaders, community volunteers, and a number of persons age 60 and older. The Initiative is funded by the Georgetown Health Foundation, through a contribution to the Chisholm Trail Communities Foundation. It is also supported by a federal grant received by Family Eldercare from the Administration on Aging, “Community Innovations for Aging in Place.” Other sponsors include the Georgetown Ministerial Alliance, Sun City Texas Community Association, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Georgetown. How the survey was conducted: In order to get broad Georgetown area representation, polling was conducted during the fall 2011 with 40 community partners representing: health & human service agencies, city parks & recreation, public library, personal home visits, churches, community centers, senior living communities, and Sun City. Targeted outreach was made to the Hispanic and African-American older adults, yet they are underrepresented in the polling data. Focus groups and community- wide polling gathered perspectives on local health, social services, and transportation services, as well as opportunities for social and civic engagement and support for families and caregivers. Just over 10% of all seniors in Georgetown (1,847 individuals) completed the polling form. One- third of the surveys were completed on-line, and 85 individuals participated in the focus groups. The remaining respondents used printed forms. Half of the respondents participated in the poll with an expressed goal of helping the community. Those who responded: Of the total (1,847) respondents, thirty-eight percent (38%) identified themselves as from Sun City, with twenty-four percent (24%) from Northwest Georgetown but not Sun City. Over fifty Attachment number 7 \nPage 5 of 18 Item # B 2 percent of those who responded have lived in Georgetown less than 10 years. Over one-third of respondents were 75 years and older. Eighty-five percent (85%) of those responding own their own home. Bear in mind that the respondents constitute a self-selected group, not a random statistical sample. Key geographic differences: Fifty-two percent of the respondents from South Georgetown earned less than $20,000 annually compared to 19% community-wide. The respondents from the South were also more likely to be renters and women. The respondents from the South also felt less safe than respondents from other areas of Georgetown. Respondents from the South and East more frequently reported skipping meals and having few places to buy fruits and vegetables. Key findings: a) Georgetown is seen as a good place to grow old. It is seen by the vast majority of participants as safe, peaceful, friendly, and clean. Both in the polling and focus groups, these older adults noted that Georgetown is a good place to grow old. Eighty -nine percent of all respondents stated that safety is excellent or very good. Participants mentioned the vibrant faith community and the diversity of faith options. The feeling of peace and a sense of community were also frequently mentioned as community assets. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents are actively engaged in the political environment and vote regularly. b) Georgetown is perceived as safe. Most respondents (89%) consider neighborhood safety to be excellent or very good. Problems identified include lack of public transportation, dark streets, and sidewalks either lacking or needing repair. c) Georgetown has a breadth of assets: There is a diversity of faith community- options, strong social services, free income tax assistance, and the like. d) Overall, respondents reported generally good health and access to health care. The vast majority of respondents have access to health insurance, predominantly Medicare , and report being in overall good health. However, respondents have some concerns about access to care and maintaining their health as they age. e) Seniors responding want to age independently in place for as long as possible: Over three quarters (77%) of all respondents strongly agree that they want to live in th eir own home. They want to have a continuum of housing options and support s that will allow them to remain independent for as long as possible. f) Georgetown seniors who responded desire to have a purpose and feel useful for as long as possible either through work or volunteer activities: Almost two-thirds (63%) of those responding volunteer in churches, non-profit organizations, etc.; 11% continue to work either full- or part-time. Attachment number 7 \nPage 6 of 18 Item # B 3 g) The most commonly identified barriers to successful aging are: Lack of transportation and affordable housing, social engagement, knowledge of how to access services, affordable dental care, and lack of access to recreational/cultural opportunities. h) Seniors who responded are concerned about the pace of growth and the ability for Georgetown to maintain its small town feel and infrastructure: They are concerned about the ability for infrastructure to keep up with the growth and about health facilities moving away from transportation that they can access . i) Southwestern University: Almost two-thirds (64%) of the participants responded that fine arts performances/concerts/events would bring them to the liberal arts campus; over 50% would also come to the campus for special events and lectures. Over 60% responded that they would consider participating in the Paideia program if they had more information (Southwestern University's Paideia program aims to enrich its students' liberal arts education by integrating scholarship and out -of-class academic and non-academic activities). Issues facing Older Adults: Transportation: Both in the polling and in the focus groups, the most frequently mentioned area of concern was transportation. Respondents recognized that as they age, their ability to provide their own transportation will decline. They noted that there is a lack of access to public transportation and that private transportation is costly. Focus groups emphasized the need for awareness of services available (for example, Faith in Action Caregivers). Housing/Aging in Place: Older adults polled want to age in place. Eighty-five percent of respondents own their own home. Forty-nine percent don’t think their living situation will change in the future. Over one-third (37%) were somewhat confident or not too confident that they can afford their current house as long as they want . Over one-third thought they would end up in senior housing, closer to family/friends, or in a nursing home or smaller/larger home. Of the homeowners, 83% report that they don’t need major repairs to their homes. Of those that do need repairs, one-third report that bathroom repairs and roof and plumbing are the major areas that will need to be addressed, which can be costly. The primary reasons for not being able to conduct repairs were lack of skill and affordability. Key issues facing older adult respondents who want to age in place are: having consistency with caregivers; providing them with the dignity, tools, and control to make decisions about when to move; and the reality that often individuals have to move out of their home unexpectedly due to the results of a fall or other health crisis. Health: The majority of respondents are covered by health insurance. Sixty percent consider their health excellent or very good. Seventy-nine percent use private physicians and 92% know Attachment number 7 \nPage 7 of 18 Item # B 4 the medications that they are taking. Half of all respondents keep the list of medications in their wallet or purse and 27% keep the list on their computer. Respondents generally report accessing routine medical check-ups with 70% having completed a physical exam in the last year, 92% a blood pressure check, and 73% a flu shot. Overall, 50% report eating five servings of fruits and vegetables several times a week. A relatively low percentage of women completed a mammogram (41%). Key health issues: The most frequently identified area of health concern was the l ack of access to affordable dental care. Of respondents 75 years or older, 21% have had a heart attack or heart condition, and 51% report hypertension/high blood pressure. Of those with depression or anxiety, 41% received no counseling or professional help. In the focus groups, participants expressed some concern about the movement of medical facilities away from the center of Georgetown to areas outside of public transportation access. Social Engagement: Older adults reported a desire to have a purpose and feel useful for as long as possible, either through work or volunteer activities. Sixty-three percent of respondents volunteer, almost half of the volunteer work was conducted with in their faith community. However, less than half (48%) of respondents have daily contact with someone and almost one quarter (23%) report having no friends in the community. Information/Communication Resource: Focus groups and older adults polled noted that there is an evident lack of knowledge of available services. Respondents are not aware of the various services available to older adults such as senior lunches (44%), home repairs/safety modifications (57%), caregiving respite (50%), Area Agency on Agency (63%), and free legal services (75%). Services Respondents Would Like to See Implemented:  Public transportation improvements  Information resources; accessible resource links; a clearing house  Neighborhood alert system (for example, “front porch light”)  Social network and/or buddy system  Access to affordable dental care  Affordable adult daycare Other issues to consider:  Low response rate of the study from Hispanic and African-American populations  Service needs of the population earning less than $20,000 annually Attachment number 7 \nPage 8 of 18 Item # B 5  The respondents in the South and East sides of the community indicate more vulnerability than other respondents  Investigate further the needs of our under-served older adults  The high percentage of persons 75 years and older predicts a larger demand for home and community support services as they continue to advance in age. Opportunities identified include:  Create and promote a source of information for seniors  Identify and develop opportunities for social engagement; such as: o Work and volunteer options o Increased social opportunities for individuals in the South and East o Enhanced recreational activities specific to older adults  Develop health education strategies  Strengthen resources that support aging in place  Organize or coordinate transportation to all the above Outcomes and the future of the Aging Initiative: What is the future of the Aging Initiative given the results of this poll ? The committee offers the following vision of coordinated task forces or coalitions for identified social issues. Georgetown has abundant resources for some of the shortfalls identified in the survey. An Information/Communication Task Force – Addressing the need to communicate with possible candidates for services, a communication task force would be able to evaluate how to make available services better known, e.g., organizations that drive or deliver meals are ready means of communication with their service populations. Senior Community Engagement Task Force – Promoting and publicizing work, volunteer and recreational activity opportunities for the senior community. A Senior Health Task Force – Comprised of service providers and stakeholders interested in promoting health education and information on health services for all seniors especially low income. A Task Force focusing on Aging in Place – For home repairs, Project Restore (a collaboration of many churches and local government) remodeled three houses in 2012 and five in 2011. The survey responses suggest that there are more needs than will be solved by major remodeling at this level. Project Restore leadership can assess the project recruitment process and the Attachment number 7 \nPage 9 of 18 Item # B 6 outcomes to date and develop methods of communication to promote the activity. It is possible that the major remodeling jobs have met the largest need and that there are many more needs, smaller in scope or urgency. Area businesses and other community groups may be able to add resources to this area. A Transportation Task Force – A number of non-profits provide transportation and many are parts of the larger national or regional organizations. Few provi de wheelchair transportation. A task force for transportation could review the survey data and inquire of their larger organizations for solutions proven elsewhere. Business and local government may have a role in the task force and in the future. These task forces can monitor and sample the population they serve for progress in the areas identified by this survey. It is the hope of The Aging Initiative leadership that the community will engage in these critical issues facing our aging population. Attachment number 7 \nPage 10 of 18 Item # B 7 Acknowledgements Congratulations Georgetown! “The community outreach conducted for the Georgetown survey has been a remarkable demonstration of enthusiasm, organization, and engagement. I could tell when I met with the dozens of volunteers recruited for the project that it was going to be a great success and generate not only very good data, but also tons of support that will keep Georgetown moving toward positive change.” Philip B. Stafford, PhD, Director, Center on Aging & Community at the Indiana Institute on Disability & Community To Report Recipients: Thank you for your continued support. Best wishes to you and for a future with hope for all Georgetown older adults. Special thanks to Tamara Hudgins, former Executive Director of the Chisholm Trail Communities Foundation, for her leadership and foresight of the initiation of this project. Thanks to Professor Brook T. Russell, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, from Casper College in Casper, Wyoming for his statistical contribution. Note: This summary report is based on the initial draft compiled and organized by Sam Woollard of Knox-Woollard Professional Management, LLC. Attachment number 7 \nPage 11 of 18 Item # B 8 Georgetown Aging Initiative (www.agingingtown.com): Angela Atwood, Family Eldercare Dan Bonner, Chairperson, The Wesleyan Homes Bob Brent, Georgetown Commercial Properties Barbara Brightwell, Georgetown Health Foundation George Brightwell, Community Volunteer Melissa Brower, Elderhaven of Williamson County Dina Cavazos, Williamson County and Cities Health District Kathleen Coggin, Family Eldercare Karen Cole, Chisholm Trail Communities Foundation George Garver, Mayor, The City of Georgetown Paula Goodson, Director – Senior Nutrition, Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities Rita Handley, Faith in Action Caregivers-Georgetown Joyce Hefner, Family Eldercare Mike Martin, Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Linda Meigs, Community Volunteer Vickie Orcutt, Family Eldercare Joyce Pohlman, Family Eldercare Suzy Pukys, Georgetown Health Foundation Mary Faith Sterk, Community Volunteer Ron Swain, Southwestern University Mike Weir, Chisholm Trails Communities Foundation Michael Wilson, St. David’s Foundation Administration on Aging – www.aoa.gov AdvantAge Initiative – www.advantageinitiative.org Center on Aging and Community, Indiana University – www.agingindiana.org Chisholm Trail Communities Foundation – www.chisholm-trail.org Community Innovations for Aging in Place – www.ciaip.org Family Eldercare – www.familyeldercare.org The City of Georgetown – www.georgetown.org Georgetown Chamber of Commerce – www.georgetownchamber.org Georgetown Health Foundation – www.gthf.org Georgetown Ministerial Alliance – www.gtownmin.org Sun City Texas Community Association – www.sctxca.org Attachment number 7 \nPage 12 of 18 Item # B 9 Appendix I: Support Documents For more detail from the Aging Initiative Survey, these reports and data sets can be accessed via the Internet by going to www.AgingInGtown.com, then go to the “Survey” tab and click on “Reports.”  Advantage Initiative Community Survey in Georgetown, 2011  Georgetown Demographic Report  Q. 97: “What could Southwestern University do to encourage your participation on campus and make you feel welcome?”  Georgetown Aging Initiative Focus Groups  Georgetown Ministerial Alliance, GAI Focus Group, October 12, 2011 Appendix II: Avoiding bias in samples: the problem of random sampling and bias Statistical analysis is based on the argument that two outcomes are associated if chance would not have produced the observation. If an event occurs by chance less than one time in twenty, the event probably did not occur by chance and may have a significant relationship. Bias, finding relationships that are not real, allows outcomes that are not related to appear related. Random samples have the best chance of avoiding bias. If one plans to set policy th at involves use of funds, random sampling is a credible means to avoid bias. If one plans to report perceptions/opinions, then randomized samples are less important. Our sample is convenient and not random and cannot be used to generalize to the larger s enior population of Georgetown, because the people who responded may be different from those who did not. The survey speaks only to interests and opinions of those who responded. The responses point to areas that may affect non-respondents and deserve consideration by local leaders in government, business and nonprofit organizations. For example, the frequently cited need for transportation is viewed as real, but the magnitude of the need in the older population may not be the magnitude of the survey respondents. Support for medical care is less of a reported need than is transportation. Does that mean that funding should be diverted to transportation from medical care? The survey does not address the larger public opinion concerning the appropriate use of resources. This survey does not address the issues of the greatest impact of incremental funding to a choice of problems. Policy makers must use many tools beyond this survey when allocating resources to have the greatest impact. Attachment number 7 \nPage 13 of 18 Item # B 10 Appendix III: Transportation Among respondents, transportation is more a problem for women, particularly younger women. < 75 >75 Male 37 33 Female 101 79 Attachment number 7 \nPage 14 of 18 Item # B 11 Appendix IV: Hypertension Reported hypertension was higher with age until the nineties. Is it a decrease or does hypertension take a toll by decreasing survival? Future guidelines for treatment (American Heart Association) allow higher blood pressure levels over age ninety, reflecting the concern for side effects of therapy in nonagenarians outweighed the risk of under treatment of hypertension. The chance of premature consequences of hypertension after age ninety is an oxymoron, while side effects of medications are real and common. Hypertension None Male >85 20 44 75-84 90 98 65-74 148 207 60-64 41 68 Female >85 57 52 75-84 152 128 65-74 199 262 60-64 71 130 Attachment number 7 \nPage 15 of 18 Item # B 12 Appendix V: Homes in need of repair Home repairs were needed by 14% of respondents (296 of 2048). Of those, 28% reported the work would not be done due to lack of skills or funds. Respondents reported home ownership in 85% of surveys. When the work would not be done, 37 of 53 are female of which 17 have income less than $20,000. Younger men and older women reported needing help with home repairs. Attachment number 7 \nPage 16 of 18 Item # B 13 Appendix VI: Social Engagement Men reported less daily contact. While women reported decreased contact with age, men reported the same degree of social engagement or isolation at all ages . Women Men no daily contact 522 416 daily contact 541 308 Social engagement decreases in the older age range for men but not for women. Attachment number 7 \nPage 17 of 18 Item # B 14 Appendix VII: Obesity and longevity For the respondents, the decline in frequency of obesity with age is powerful graphic evidence for the health impact of excess weight. Obese Not obese Male >85 4 60 75-84 19 168 65-74 78 275 60-64 29 79 Female >85 4 101 75-84 40 239 65-74 112 350 60-64 61 40 Attachment number 7 \nPage 18 of 18 Item # B August 26, 2014 1 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION GEORGETOWN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS General Items for Consideration: 1. Review the purpose of current and newly established boards and consider the City Council’s expectations for what the board should accomplish. 2. Review the membership requirements of current and newly established boards to verify that appropriate skills and experience are represented and consider if any flexibility in the membership requirements is necessary. 3. Verify appropriate residency requirements for current and newly established boards. (For example: ETJ v. City Limits). 4. Identify whether certain boards will benefit from adding Council Member(s) to a board’s membership. 5. Review and determine the appropriate Chairman selection process. (For example: Mayor-appointed vs. Board-elected) 6. Should Commissioners-In-Training be authorized to participate in board meeting discussions? 7. Should Commissioners-In-Training automatically fill a vacancy on a board? 8. Discuss the benefits and disadvantages of a Downtown Development Corporation, or “Downtown Super Board” to facilitate regular communication and coordination concerning downtown issues? 9. Discuss whether there is a need to re-establish the Airport Advisory Board? 10. Identify whether certain boards will benefit from joint meetings (For example: Parks & GGAF)? 11. Discuss Advisory Board/Council Consent Agenda policy and issues. 12. Consider any additional City Council direction or suggestions regarding Boards and Commissions. Board Specific Items for Consideration (proposed changes): Historic and Architectural Review Commission: 1. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? 2. Should membership requirements be revised to allow property owners or business owners “whenever possible”? 3. Should ordinance clarify that Planning Director is authorized to designate a Historic Preservation Officer? Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # B August 26, 2014 2 Main Street Advisory Board: 1. Could/Should Board be combined with Downtown TIRZ? 2. Remove low-interest loan language 3. Purpose limited to strategic plan, guidelines for awarding façade grants, reviewing façade grants, fundraising, and reports to Council Convention and Visitors Board: 1. Could/Should the purpose be limited to strategic plan, guidelines for awarding HOT Grants, reviewing HOT grant applications, reports to Council? 2. Suggest including language regarding State law requirements for HOT. 3. Should Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Arts and Culture Board: 1. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Library Advisory Board: 1. Suggest eliminating the “needs assessment study”? 2. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Housing Advisory Board: 1. Suggest amending By-laws since the Housing Plan has been adopted. 2. Suggest reducing board size to 7 members instead of 9? 3. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: 1. Should a Council Member be added to the Board’s membership? 2. Consider amending purpose to authorize review of Master Plans, Parks Bonds, and Parks CIP. UDC Advisory Committee: 1. Should this Board include Commissioners-in-Training (CITs)? 2. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? Planning and Zoning Commission: 1. Should CITs be allowed to participate in meeting discussions? Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Advisory Board: 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Board: 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Proposed Board: Georgetown Commission on Aging: 1. Establish Board purpose. 2. Establish number of board members. 3. Establish Membership requirements. Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas August 26, 2014 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible direction on residential in-fill design standards in the Old Town Overlay District -- Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The Council has adopted design standards to be used when considering improvements to historic properties, as well as new construction within the City's historic overlay districts. When the Council adopted the most recent update to the design guidelines, they requested that staff bring back options for additional standards and review of new residential construction in the historic overlay districts. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner Cover Memo Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas August 26, 2014 SUBJECT: Section 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 Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Deliberation concerning the proposed purchase of real property in connection with the Smith Branch Drainage Buy-Out Project -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator - Blue Hole park land exchange – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Section 551.074: Personnel Matters - Consideration and approval of Assistant City Attorney for the Legal Department Section 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Transportation Improvement Zone (TIZ) - Sun City Development Agreement ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # D