HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 09.11.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Sept ember 11 , 20 18
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on September 11, 2018 at 3:00 P M at Council Chambers - 101
East 7th Street
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Mayo ral presentation and possible discussion regarding selected Robert's Rules Procedures --
Mayo r Dale Ross
B Prese ntation and discussion of the 2 01 8 Citizen Survey conducted by Texas State University --
Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Dr. Thomas Longoria, Texas State University
C Prese ntation and discussion on Water Oak MUD Agreements -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City
Manager
D Prese ntation update and discussion o n Downto wn West Constructio n and Other Contracted
Se rvices, including Audio/Visual, Furniture, Fixed Seating, Security and Data Cabling -- Eric
Johnson, CIP Manager
E Prese ntation and discussion conc e rning ethics -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and
Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
F Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
- Ho skins-Brown Update
- 3 70 1 West Highway 29
Se c . 55 1:0 72 : Del i berati on of Re al Pro perty
- Purchase-Parcel 10, Northwest Blvd
Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s
City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
- City Manager Work Plan
Page 1 of 121
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
Mayoral presentatio n and po ssible discussion regarding selected Robert's Rules Pro c e dures -- Mayor Dale Ross
ITEM SUMMARY:
The mayor will highlight with city council some o f the principles of Robert’s Rules that he will be focusing on going
forward at both c ity council workshops and meetings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
RLD for Mayo r Ro ss
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Ro b erts Rules Pres entatio n
Page 3 of 121
Robert’s Rules of Order
September 11,2018
Page 4 of 121
Time and Sequencing
•Mover of the motion is always allowed to speak
first.
•A time limit for speaking should be allowed and
enforced.
•No member can speak twice to the same issue
until everyone else has spoken to it first.
•The mover may speak again only after other
speakers are finished, unless called upon by the
Chair.
Page 5 of 121
My Approach
•When it is obvious that most Council Members will have
something to say on a motion,especially if I anticipate a
lengthy and detailed discussion,I will put time limits in
place on each speaker,as I have done in the past.
•When we veer off track into direct questioning,or other
inappropriate behaviors,I will enforce the principle of
Speaking through the Chair.
•In all cases,I will rigorously enforce rules of common
courtesy and respect in our comments,and in the
behavior of the audience.
•In short,we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Page 6 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the 2018 Citizen Surve y conducted by Texas State University -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the
City Manager and Dr. Thomas Longoria, Texas State University
ITEM SUMMARY:
In April, the City of Geo rgeto wn partnered with Texas State University’s Center for Re search, P ublic P olicy, and Training
to conduct the biennial Citizen Survey. Texas State also co nducted the 2016 citizen survey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
City Council appro ved a service agreement on April 10 for Texas State to conduct the biennial citizen survey. The
financial impact for co ntracting with Texas State was $6,0 61 .
SUBMITTED BY:
Jack Daly
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
2018 Citizen S urvey Presentatio n
S urvey Instrument
F ully Exec uted Agreement with Texas State - C itizens ' S atisfac tion Survey for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn (FY18)
Page 7 of 121
City of Georgetown 2018 Resident Survey
Summary of Results
Thomas Longoria, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Center for Public Policy, Research and Training
Texas State University
tl28@txstate.edu
Page 8 of 121
About the Survey (Research Method)
•The survey was mailed to a random sample of 2,300 households. 469 residents completed the survey
•The response rate for the random sample survey was 20 percent. Based on the response rate we can be 95% certain that the results for the questions reflect the views of Georgetown households with a margin of error of +/-4%
•In addition, a link to an open survey was also made available to the public. 873 residents completed the open survey
•This summary of results presents the findings for each of categories of questions in a graph that presents the distribution of responses across each question
•Noteworthy findings are indicated in each section
•A common benchmark is 80% who rate the service “good” or “excellent”
•Comparison of Georgetown’s 2018 results to 2016 results and put Georgetown’s ratings into context with changes overtime and comparison with similar cities (to date, only one other city participated in 2018)
Page 9 of 121
About the Survey (Understanding Results)
•The responses are best viewed as perceptions. In other words, these results represent the perceptions of residents rather than some objective “reality.”
•Perceptions are influenced by expectations
•If a person is expecting a small town atmosphere, they are likely to perceive traffic differently than a person with different or no specific expectations about a small town atmosphere
•Questions that are not applicable were skipped by the respondents. Note the number of respondents changes. This approach was used to estimate the perceptions that were applicable or relevant to the respondent.
Page 10 of 121
Respondent Characteristics
•The random and open survey match US Census data closely in the
cases of years living in Georgetown and race
•The random and open survey do not match US Census data closely in
the cases of home ownership and age of householder
Page 11 of 121
Demographic Comparisons
53
47
55
4547
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Less than 5 years More than 5 years
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Years Lived in Georgetown
Random Sample (n=466)Open Survey (n=852)US Census
16
84
23
77
17
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Non-White White
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Racial Background
Random Sample (n=483)Open Survey (n=922)Census
Page 12 of 121
Demographic Comparisons, cont.
90
10
90
10
73
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Own Rent
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Home Ownership
Random Sample (n=464)Open Survey (n=847)Census
25
75
41
5956
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Under 65 Over 65
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Age of Householder
Random Sample (n=343)Open Survey (n=724)Census
Page 13 of 121
Summary of Results
•81% rate the value of city services for taxes paid as good or excellent
•98% rate the overall quality of life in Georgetown as good or excellent
•The city met or exceeded benchmark in 82% of cases (32 of 39 indicators)
•Ratings increased in 32% of cases (8 of 25 common indicators (2016-2018))
•Street repair (+12%)
•City beautification (+8)
•A place to work (+7%)
•Emergency Preparedness (+6%)
•Ratings decreased in 4% of cases (1 of 25 common indicators (2016-2018))
•Traffic flow on major streets (-16%)
•The top three priorities volunteered by respondents are (1) traffic; (2) infrastructure and roads; (3) manage growth
Page 14 of 121
Respondent Characteristics and Perceptions
•33 key service indicators were examined by 7 demographic categories (random sample survey)
•There were 30 statistically significant associations out of 231 possible (13%)
•Highlights include:
•Lower income residents less satisfied with employment and housing
•Younger residents less satisfied with the city as place to work and walking for leisure
•Non-white residents less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control, and water services
•Women are less satisfied with the city as a place to work and biking for leisure
•Owners are less satisfied with traffic and parking. Renters are less satisfied with housing opportunities
•Households that include children are less satisfied with walking for leisure
•Residents for more than 10 years are less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control, street repair and traffic signal timing
Page 15 of 121
Comparison to the Open Survey
•As noted earlier an open survey link was made available to residents
•Respondents were asked to report their nearest intersection.
•Respondents from outside the city limits were reformed from the analysis
•Duplicated IP Addresses were examined and if no logical reason, these responses were deleted
•Results of Open Survey
•In all but 1 of 40 cases, the respondents to the open survey rated the service or issue lower than respondents to the random sample
•The average percent good or excellent
•79% (random sample)
•73% (open survey)
•Very large differences
•Quality of new development (58% good or excellent, 18% percent lower)
•Permitting and Inspections (64% good or excellent, 14% percent lower)
•Ease of biking for leisure (48% good or excellent, 12% lower)
•Value of city services for taxes paid (71% good or excellent, 10% lower)
Page 16 of 121
Results
•The following slides are the results for the random sample survey
Page 17 of 121
Value of City
Services
81% of respondents
rated the value of
city services for
taxes paid as good or
excellent
In 2016, 78% of
respondents
indicated that the
value of city services
for city taxes paid
was good or
excellent
26.1
54.8
16.6
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Value of City Services for Taxes Paid
Page 18 of 121
Quality of
Government
83% of respondents
rated the quality of
local government as
good or excellent.
80% rate county
government as good
or excellent.
62% rate state
government as good
or excellent
55% rate the federal
government as good
or excellent
9.4 10.1
15.5
20.8
45.3
51.5
64.2 61.8
33.3 30.1
17.2 14.812
8.3
3.1 2.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Federal
Government
(n=393)
State Government
(n=396)
County
Government
(n=413)
City Government
(n=427)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Quality of Government by Level of Government
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 19 of 121
Quality
of Life In
Georgetown
Over 98% of
respondents rated the
overall quality of life in
Georgetown as good or
excellent, the same
percentage was found in
2016
81% of respondents
indicated that
Georgetown was a good
place to work. A 7%
increase over 2016
64.5
60.6
38.4
68.4
60.3
32.7 34.3
42.1
25.7
37.2
2.4 3.5
14.8
4.4 2.10.4 1.6 4.8 1.5 0.40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
The City as a
Place to Live
(n=468)
A Place to Raise
Children
(n=315)
A Place to Work
(n=271)
A Place to
Retire (n=452)
Overall Quality
of Life (468)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Perceptions of Quality of Life
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 20 of 121
Perceptions of
Development
56% of residents rate
employment
opportunities as good
or excellent
69% rate housing
opportunities as good
or excellent
84% rate the quality of
businesses and
services as good or
excellent
19.7
10.8
15.9 18
64.4
45
52.6 50
13.9
32.3
24.4 27.2
2
12
7.1 4.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Quality of
Businesses and
Service
Establishments
(n=461)
Employment
Opportunities
(n=346)
Housing
Opportunities
(n=397)
Retail Options
(n=434)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Perceptions of Development
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 21 of 121
Traffic and
Parking
25% of respondents
rate traffic flow as
good or excellent.
In 2016, 41% rated
traffic flow as good
or excellent.
The percentage
who rated traffic
flow as poor
increased from 18%
to 28%
2.1
6.6
23.2
40.7
46.3
36.5
28.4
16.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets (n=404)
Amount of Public Parking
(N=457)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Traffic and Parking
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 22 of 121
Alternative
Transportation
Modes
79% rate the ease of
walking for leisure as
good or excellent
30% rate the ease of
walking to work as good
or excellent
30% of respondents rated
the ease of biking to work
as good or excellent
17.8
4.5
38.7
6.3
41.9
25.5
40.2
16.1
28.5 30.6
17.4
28.7
11.9
39.5
3.7
48.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ease of Biking for
Leisure (n=270)
Ease of Biking for
Work (n=157)
Ease of Walking for
Leisure (n=455)
Ease of Walking for
Work (n=174)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Walking and Biking
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 23 of 121
Emergency
Services
96% of respondents rated
police services as good or
excellent
93% of respondents rated
emergency preparedness
as good or excellent
55
68.9
41.341
28.1
51.7
3.4 2.5 5.60.7 0.5 1.30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Police Services
(n=444)
Fire sevices
(n=441)
Emergency
Preparedness
(n=375)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Emergency Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 24 of 121
Municipal Courts
and Traffic
Enforcement
80% of respondents
rated traffic
enforcement as good or
excellent
92% rated municipal
courts as good or
excellent
30.8
25.1
60.7
55.1
7.3
15.1
1.2 4.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Municipal Courts
(n=247)
Traffic
Enforcement(n=414)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Municipal Courts and Traffic
Enforcement
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 25 of 121
Code
Enforcement
and Permitting
78% of respondents
rated code enforcement
as good or excellent
87% rated animal
control as good or
excellent
78% rated permitting
and inspections as good
or excellent
22.2
32.7
17.7
55.3 54
60.2
18.1
10.2 15
4.4 3.1 7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Code Enforcement
(n=320)
Animal Control
(n=352)
Permitting and
Inspection (n=254)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Code Enforcement and Permitting
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 26 of 121
Streets and
Sidewalks
73% rated street
repair as good or
excellent, a 12%
increase since 2016
72% rated street
lighting as good or
excellent
53% rated traffic
signal timing as
good or excellent
15.9 17.8
9.9
57.4
52.4
43.2
20.7 22.8
31
6.1 7
15.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Street Repair
(n=460)
Street Lighting
(n=460)
Traffic Signal
Timing (n=465)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Streets and Sidewalks
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 27 of 121
Waste Services
94% of respondents
rated the quality of the
garbage collection as
good or excellent
91% rated recycling as
good or excellent
76% rated yard waste
pickup as good or
excellent
52.6 51.8
32.8
40.9 39
43.4
5.8 5.9
14.9
0.6 3.2
8.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Garbage Collection
(n=462)
Recycling (n=438)Yard Waste Pickup
(n=403)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Waste Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 28 of 121
Utility
Services
94% of respondents
rated sewer services
as good or excellent
92% of respondents
rated electric services
as good or excellent
90% rated city water
services as good or
excellent
38 38.8
44.3
51.2
54.8
47.8
8.9 6.2 7.4
2 0.2 0.50
10
20
30
40
50
60
City Water Services
(n=461)
City Sewer Services
(n=436)
City Electric Services
(n=431)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Utility Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 29 of 121
Parks and
Recreation and
Public Library
95% of respondents
rated city parks as good
or excellent
98% of respondents
rated the public library
as good or excellent
55.6
44.1
70
22.6
38.9
49.2
27.9
45.5
5 6.3 1.9
25.1
0.5 0.3 0.2
6.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
City Parks
(n=437)
Recreation
Programs
(n=333)
Public Library
(n=427)
Community
Events (n=367)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Parks and Recreation and Public Library
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 30 of 121
Services and
City
Beautification
89% of respondents
rated services to youth
as good or excellent
88% of respondents
rated services to
seniors as good or
excellent
92% rated city
beautification as good
or excellent
37.8
33.7
41.2
49.7
55.6
50.4
11.7 9.1 8
0.8 1.6 0.40
10
20
30
40
50
60
Services to
Seniors (n=368)
Services to Youth
(n=252)
City Beautification
(n=452)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Services and City Beautification
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 31 of 121
Service
Utilization
57% of respondents visited the downtown square often or very often
32% of respondents visited a city park often or very often
32% visited the city library often or very often
19% utilized a recreation program often or very often
17% visited the city website often or very often
15
9.4
12.4
21.7
5.1
16.5
9.9
19.1
35
11.9
30.4
19.5
36.2
32.4
26
19.1
25.8
21.2
7.7
24.2
19.2
35.4
11.1
3.2
32.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
City Library
(n=467)
Recreation
Programs
(n=466)
Visted a City
Park (n=382)
Visited the
Downtown
Square
(n=466)
Visted City
Website
(n=454)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Service Utilization
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Page 32 of 121
Sources for
News about
Georgetown
57% of respondents
used the city social
media as a source for
news (up 9% from
2016)
63% of respondents
used Community
Impact as source for
news often or very
often
Top three sources of
news in 2018:
•Community Impact
•City Newsletter
•Williamson County
Sun
13.9
5.5
22.1
27.6
2
6.8
36.4
14.3
22.6
34.9
3.7
13
24.3
19.4 16.9 17.5
5.5
22.9
8.9
17.4 16
9.9
14.3
18.716.5
43.4
22.4
10.1
74.5
38.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
City
Newsletter
(n=461)
City Social
Media
(n=454)
Williamson
County Sun
(n=456)
Community
Impact
(n=456)
GTV Ch. 10
(n=455)
Local TV
Stations
(n=455)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Source for News about Georgetown
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Page 33 of 121
Citizen-
Initiated
Contacting
54% percent of
residents had
contact with a city
employee in the
last year
91% rated the
service the
employee provided
as good or excellent
overall
54.4
45.6
Percent of Residents Who Had
Contact with a City Employee
Yes No 54.336.4
3.9 4.7
Rating City Employee Contact
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 34 of 121
Neighborhood
Safety
90% of respondents
rated neighborhood
safety at night as good
or excellent
89% feel safe in their
neighborhood at night
95% of respondents
feel safe in the
downtown square
64
47 47.4
30
41.5
47.9
5.1
9.6
4.50.9 2 0.30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Neighborhood (Day)
(n=470)
Neighborhood
(Night) (n=460)
Downtown Square
(n=397)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Neighborhood Safety
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 35 of 121
Safety in
Recreation and
Shopping Areas
88% of respondents
rated safety in city parks
as good or excellent
79% rated safety in
recreational waters as
good or excellent
95% rated safety in
shopping centers as
good or excellent
81% rated the safety of
city drinking water as
good or excellent
32.5
27.8
40.9
36.9
55.1
50.9 53.9
44.3
12.1
17.5
4.9
10.3
0.3 3.8
0.2
8.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
City Parks
(n=314)
Recreational
Waters (n=234)
Shopping
Centers (n=445)
Drinking Water
(n=447)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 36 of 121
Top priorities
(open ended)
Top Three Priorities
1.Traffic
2.Infrastructure and
Roads
3.Manage Growth
221
157
129
126
104
101
93
63
52
40
37
24
11
8
0 50 100 150 200 250
Traffic
Infrastructure and Roads
Manage Growth
Quality of Life Programs
Safety
Taxes and Spending
Retail, Restaurants, Businesses
Housing
Other
Schools and Education
Public Transit
Water Access
Clinics and Health
Jobs
Number
Co
d
e
d
C
a
t
e
o
r
y
Total Number of Mentions
Page 37 of 121
Questions?
Page 38 of 121
Page 1 of 4
City of Georgetown 2018 Citizen Survey
This survey is being conducted by Texas State University on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Your address has been
randomly selected to receive this survey. Your responses are completely confidential. While participation is optional, your
feedback is extremely important to the City. Surveys may be mailed back to the Center for Research, Public Policy and
Training; Texas State University, UAC 355; 601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666 or completed online by using
the link provided below. The online code is used to ensure that survey results are not duplicated. Thank you in advance
for your time. Please contact crppt@txstate.edu or keith.hutchinson@georgetown.org with questions. EN ESPAÑOL:
Por una versión de este encuesta en español, mande un correo electrónico a tl28@txstate.edu o llama 512-245-
3256. If you have any concerns about this survey, contact Dr. John Lasser Texas State Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Chair at 512-245-3413 or lasser@txstate.edu or Monica Gonzales at meg201@txstate.edu
Please return this survey by April 30, 2018.
To complete online visit: www.bit.ly/1Rnv2dk and enter online code:
Please bubble in the response that best represents your opinion for each of the items below. Feel free to select
N/A if you don’t know, have no opinion or if the question does not apply.
1. In your opinion, what are your top three priorities for
the City of Georgetown?
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
2. Please rate the following elements of quality of life in
Georgetown.
Poor Fai
r
Good Excellent N/A
The city as a
place to live
A place to raise
children
A place to work
A place to retire
Overall quality
of life
3. Please rate the following aspects of mobility in
Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Ease of walking for
leisure
Ease of walking to work
Traffic flow on major
streets
Amount of public parking
Ease of biking for leisure
Ease of biking to work
4. Please rate the following characteristics of
development in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Quality of new
development
Overall quality
of businesses
Employment
opportunities
Housing
Availability
Retail Options
Page 39 of 121
Page 2 of 4
5. Please rate the quality of each of the following
protective services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Police services
Fire and EMS
services
Municipal
courts
Traffic
enforcement
Code
enforcement
Animal control
Emergency
preparedness
6. Please rate the quality of each of the following public
services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Street repair
Street lighting
Garbage
collection
Recycling
Yard waste
pickup
Traffic signal
timing
City water
service
City sewer
service
City electric
service
Permitting &
inspection
services
Other comments about City services.
7. Please rate the quality of each of the following
community services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
City parks
Recreation
programs
Services to
seniors
Services to
youth
Public library
City
beautification
8. In the previous 12 months, how many times have you
or members of your family used the following services?
Never Rarely Some
-times
Often Very Often
City library
Recreation
centers
A city park
Downtown
Square
9. In the previous 12 months, how often did you receive
news about the City of Georgetown from the following
sources?
Never Rarely Some
-times
Often Very Often
Georgetown
.org (city
website)
Reporter
(Utility bill
newsletter)
City Social
Media
Williamson
Co. Sun
Community
Impact
GTV Ch. 10
Local TV
Sta.
Other Media Source(s):
Page 40 of 121
Page 3 of 4
10. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services
provided by each of the following levels of
government?
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
The Federal
Government
The State
Government
County
Government
City
Government
Now we would like to ask you some questions about
your satisfaction with contact with city employees.
11. Have you had any in-person, phone, email or social
media contact with any employee of the City of
Georgetown within the last 12 months?
Yes
No
12. If you answered yes to #12, what was your
impression of the employee(s) of the City in your most
recent contact?
Department contacted:___________________________
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Overall
impression
13. Please rate safety in the following areas throughout
the City?
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
In your
neighborhood
(day) In your
neighborhood
(after dark)
In downtown
square
In city parks
In recreational
waters (Blue
Hole, Lake
Georgetown)
In shopping
centers
Drinking city
water
14. In Georgetown, residents pay property taxes to the
City, the County, and the School District. The School
District rate accounts for approximately 60% of total
property taxes paid, the County rate accounts for
approximately 20% of total property tax paid, while the
City’s rate accounts for less than 20% of property taxes
paid. Based on this information, do you think the value of
services you receive from the City is:
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
15. Anything else you want us to know?
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Now we would like to ask you some questions about
you and your household. Remember that your
responses are completely confidential and
anonymous.
Please complete the questions
on the next page
Page 41 of 121
Page 4 of 4
16. How many years have you lived in Georgetown?
17. Which of the following best describes the building you live in?
18. Do you own or rent?
19. What is the nearest neighborhood intersection near your home? (e.g., 1st and Main)
________________ and ________________
20. What is your gender?
21. Which of the following options best describes your age category?
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 years +
22. Please select all that apply:
23. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?
Yes No
24. What is your race or ethnicity?
25. What is your household income?
Less than
$25,000
$25,001 to
$50,000
$50,001 to
$75,000
$75,001 to
$100,000
$100,001 to
$150,000
Over $150,001
26. How many adults (18 or older) live in your household? ___________
27. How many children (younger than 18) live in your household? _________
Thank you for participating in our survey! The City of Georgetown values your
opinions.
Less than 2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years
Single-family home
(detached)
Duplex or
townhome
Apartment or
condo building
Mobile home
Other
Own Rent Other Arrangement
Male Female Other____________
Full Time Employee
Unemployed
Retired
Student
Part Time Employee
White
Black or African
American
Asian, Asian Indian,
Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Other
Page 42 of 121
Services Agreement
This agreement is entered into by the City of Georgetown located at 300-1 Industrial Ave Georgetown, Texas 78626 (Contractor) and Texas State University located at 601 University Dr. San Marcos TX 78666 (University).
1.Term and Termination.
(A)This agreement is effective as of April 1, 2018 and shall terminate on October 31, 2018.
(B)Either party may terminate this Agreement sooner for any reason by giving the other party at least
30 days' written notice of its intent to terminate. Upon termination, the Contractor will pay the University
for all work completed prior to the date of termination and for any non-cancelable obligations that the
University has Incurred in connection with this Agreement.
2.Scope and Consideration.
(A)The University will perform the work set forth in Exhibit A.
(B)The Contractor will pay the University on a Fixed Price basis as provided in Exhibit B.
3.Liablllty.(A)Each party agrees to be solely responsible for the wrongful acts of its own employees, contractors,
and agents. However, nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver by either party of Its sovereign
immunity.
(B)Neither party will be liable to the other under this Agreement in an amount that exceeds the payment
that the University will receive from the Contractor or for any special, consequential, incidental, or
exemplary damages, including damages for lost profits, savings, or business opportunities.
4.Copyright & Publication
(A)Project Intellect ual Property "Project Intellectual Property" means the legal rights relating to
inventions copyrights, trademarks and service marks, mask projects, and computer software first made
or generated in performance of the project described in this Agreement.
(B)University retains title to Project Intellectual Property first produced-solely by its employees under
this agreement. Jointly developed Project Intellectual Property shall be jointly owned.
(C)Either party may publish works based on the data collected under this agreement without prior
consent of the other party.
(D)Each party grants to the other a non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use Project Intellectual Property
for educational and Internal purposes, including academic publications.
5.Independent Contractor
The parties are acting as independent contractors in this arrangement. Neither party will be an
employee of the other, nor will neither party have any claim or right arising from employee status. This
Agreement does not create a partnership, joint venture, or other arrangement that would make one
party liable for the acts or omissions of the other.
6.Miscellaneous.
This is the only agreement of the parties respecting this subject, and it supersedes any prior written or
oral agreements between the parties regarding this subject. The parties may not amend this
agreement except in writing, dated after the date of this agreement and signed by each party's
representative.
Texas State #A 2018-0068
Page 43 of 121
7.Venue.This agreement shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Any legal action relating to this agreement shall be brought in Hays County, Texas.
8.Disputes. Any dispute arising under this agreement shall be resolved pursuant to the regulationsestablished in Texas Government Code chapter 2009.
9.Breach. Contractor's failure to fully comply with the payment terms set forth herein constitutes amaterial breach by Contractor and University may terminate this agreement by giving Contractor at leastten days' prior notice, except that any such notice will not result in termination If the breaching partycures the breach before the ten-day period elapses. In the event of breach by Contractor, Universityshall retain sole and exclusive ownership of all work performed by University pursuant to thisagreement.
10.Nondiscrimination. In their execution of this agreement, all contractors, subcontractors, theirrespective employees, and others acting by or through them shall comply with all federal and statepolicies and laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct. Any breach of thiscovenant may result in termination of this agreement.
11.Payment. The Contractor's payment obligations are payable only and solely from fundsappropriated by the City Council of the City of Georgetown and available for the purpose of thisagreement.
12.Duly authorized representatives of the contacting entities have execu ted and delivered this lnterlocalAgreement by the signatures below.
Reviewed and Approved to Sign-ne Palmer, OT�
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
By: (Z.,e. � Dale R9r, �ayor Date: 4 I o �ol '.D
�
Y:
Charlie McNabb, City Attorney
Page 44 of 121
ATTACHMENT A
Scope of Work
The University will conduct a citizens' satisfaction surve y for the City of
Georgetown that will Include questions that are specific to the City, along with
questions that are generalized to the Central Texas Region.
DELIVERABLES
Upon conclusion of the work, the University will deliver:
•A bi-lingual survey instrument on citizen satisfaction
•Statistical analysis of survey results
•A report on aggregated regional results
•A report on City specific results
•An executive summary of results
•Content description and summaries of each survey topic
•Profile of survey respondents•Overview of survey research method
•Copy of survey Instrument
•Printing and mailing of surveys
•Two presentations to city council
Fieldwork can be completed by 08/31 /18 or sooner.
The reporting will occur concurrently with the fieldwork and can be submitted by
08/31 /18. This report can likely be submitted to the City staff responsible for the
survey.
A final report is expected by 10/31/18. Delays in this submittal date may occur
due to city staffs' comments or review.
Final Invoice is expected at submittal of final report or before 10/31/18.
This work and deliverables will be conducted as a fixed price contract.
Page 45 of 121
ATTACHMENT B
Recipient shall pay $6,061 to Texas State University for the contract period on a fixed price
basis.
ESTIMATED BUDGET
For Fixed Price Amount of $6,061.00
Longoria, Thomas
City of Georgetown/Citizens' Satisfaction Survey
Project Period: 04/01/2018-10/31/2018
Salary
Thomas Longoria, Pl
Fringe Benefits
Thomas Longoria, Pl
Materials and Supplies
Postage Bulk mall for 2500 surveys, plus
business reply postage charges at an
estimated response rate of 40%
Supplies 2500 business reply envelopes;
printing services estimated for 3 page
survey front and back
Total Direct Costs
Total Indirect Costs@ 10%
Total Project Costs
Invoices for services shall be submitted to:
Mr. Paul Diaz
113 E. · Eight Street
Geogetown, TX 78626
(512)930-3696
Paul.Diaz@georgetown.org
Payment shall be remitted to: Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
Post-Award Support Services
Texas State University
601 University Drive, JCK 420
San Marcos, TX 78666
Total Costs
$ 3,125.00
$ 875.00
$ 990.00
$ 520.00
$ 5,510.00
$ 551.00
$ 6,061.00
Page 46 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n on Water Oak MUD Agreements -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Council is being asked to provide feedback o n potential amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision’s consent and
development agreements, which impac t the existing Williamso n County Municipal Utility District (“WCMUD #25”) and
up to two future MUDs (a.k.a. “Water Oak MUDs”). The amendments to the co nsent agreement and developme nt
agreement approved by City Council in Septe mber of 2017 were terminated because the Conditions Precedent were no t
completed, including the closing on the Water Oak South property by the buyer in January. Therefore, the Water Oak
development is controlled by the 2012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement and the 2012 Ame nded and Restated
Development Agreement (co llectively the “Agreements”). Blake Mage e , on be half of Hanna/Magee, LP, is pre sently
under co ntract with the bank to purc hase approximately 1,1 47 acres, which includes all of Water Oak South, the 76 .6
acres in the floodplain along the South San Gabrie l River, and a roughly 20 acre tract located on the north side of the river
in Water Oak No rth. An ame ndment to the Agreeme nts will require nego tiatio ns with the WCMUD #25 as well as
Hanna/Magee. This presentation is focused on negotiatio ns with Hanna/Magee for the portio n of the property (1 ,14 7
acres) described above (referred to as Parkside on the River, see Attachment 1).
Background
The City Counc il approved its MUD Policy on July 2 4, 2018. In this Policy, Council affirmed, the purpo se o f a MUD is
“to assist in closing the financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed minimum City standards, provide a robust
program of amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure improvements are required that would serve the
MUD and surrounding properties.”
The Policy identifies the basic requirements for the creation and amendment to a MUD are as follows:
1. Quality Develop ment. The develo pment meets o r exceeds the intent of the developme nt, infrastructure, and
design standards of City code
2. Extraord in ary Benefits. The development pro vides extrao rdinary public bene fits that advance the vision and go als
of the Co mprehensive Plan, such as, but not limited to, extensio n, financial co ntribution, and/or e nhancement of
master planned infrastructure, diversity of housing, and enhanced parks, trails, open space, and recreational
amenitie s that are available to the public;
3. Enhance Pub lic S ervice and Safety. The development e nhances public se rvic es and optimizes service de livery
through its de sign, dedication of sites, conne c tivity, and other features.
4. City Exclusive Provider. The developme nt further promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewe r,
solid waste, and electric utilities;
5. Fiscally Respo nsib le. The development is financially feasible, doesn’t impair the City’s ability to provide
municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden o n the citizens of Georgetown in the e vent of
annexatio n;
6. Finance Plan . The develo per(s) contributes financially to cover a portion of infrastructure expense s witho ut
reimburse ment by the MUD or the City and as refle c ted in co nditio ns placed on the issuance of bo nds by the
district;
7. Annexa tion . The development will not impair the City’s future annexation o f the MUD or adjacent property or
impose co sts no t mutually agreed upon.
City staff finds the pro posed amendments to the Water Oak Subdivisio n Agreements as desc ribed in this presentation will
achieve the intent of the City’s MUD Policy (see attac hment 3).
P roposed Amendme nts (20 18)
There re mains work to be done on the division of responsibilities between WCMUD #25, which will re pre sent Water Oak
North, minus the 20 acres under contract, and Hanna/Magee (“Developer”), which will be responsible fo r Water Oak
Page 47 of 121
South. The follo wing o utline provides the high level terms and broad concepts under which the Developer has agreed it
would proceed with the purchase and development of the 1,1 47 acres:
Annexati on
Develope r has agreed to annex the po rtion of Water Oak South that is not located within the boundaries of
WCMUD #25 (see Attachment 2). The annexation would include approximately 847 acres. In addition,
Hanna/Mage e owns anothe r 90 acres located on the south side of RM 224 3; the Developer intends to add all o r a
portion o f the 9 0 acres into the WCMUD #2 5.
The City and the Developer will negotiate a development agreeme nt in advance of annexation that will assign,
allocate, and distribute existing and new rights and re spo nsibilities between the Deve lo per, WCMUD #25, and the
City as well as reco gnize a land use plan.
The Developer will submit annexation, PUD, and MUD applications concurrently.
The City will nego tiate new agreements with the Deve lo per separate fro m amending the existing Water Oak
Agreements with WCMUD #25.
In-ci ty MUDs
The following bond terms are for future In-city MUDs and contemplate a Chapter 552 Agreeme nt between the City of
Georgetown and future In-City MUDs. At this time, the portion Water Oak South that is located in WCMUD #25 will
remain in the ETJ as mentioned above. The terms outlined reflect the ne gotiations between City staff and the Developer
to date:
Bonds (in-city MUDs)
Di stri ct Onl y Tax Rate (Maxi mum): $0.6 5 per $100 AV for an in-c ity MUD
Maxi mum Amount of B onds to be Issued : $66 million (estimated)
Maxi mum Maturi ty of B onds: 30 ye ars [an increase from the current 20 years]
Re fundi ng of B onds: a In-City Distric t may redeem bonds at any time beginning not later than the fifte e nth
(15 th) anniversary of the date of issuanc e witho ut premium [An incre ase of 5 years]
Maxi mum Issuance P eri o d betw een Fi rst and Last Bo nd per Di stri ct: The latest Bo nd issuance date
for an In-City MUD shall be 15 years from the date o f the first issuance of Bonds issued by the first In-city
District (or 1 5 years from the date o f the first issuanc e of Bo nds by an In-city Successor District, if
Successo r In-City District issues Bonds be fore the first In-City District). [an increase from the current 1 0
ye ars]
Re i mbursement Agreements : The First In-City District and any Successor In-City District will not issue
Bo nds for the purpo ses of reimbursing the Develo per fo r any costs o r expenses paid by the Develo per after
the fifteenth (1 5th) anniversary of the Effective Date of a new Agreement, which costs and expenses wo uld
othe rwise be eligible to be reimbursed to the Deve lo pe r by the In-City District(s). [an inc re ase from the
c urre nt 1 0 years.
F aci l i ti es B o nds may be Issued to Fi nance: Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, Roads, Recreational
Fac ilities, and Refunding Bonds. The Bridge will be remo ved from the list of eligible co sts, because it is
propo sed that the City assumes this responsibility
Master Deve lo pment Fee
Maste r Devel opment Fee: The City will not co lle c t a MDF from any In-City MUD and will not collect it
fo r any portio n of WCMUD #25 under ownership of the Developer and located in Water Oak South. At this
time , the City intends to continue to assess and co llect the MDF from bo nds issue d by WCMUD #25 for
impro vements serving Water Oak North acco rding to the existing MDF Calculation Form. The MDF is
intended to set aside funds to cover a po rtion of the co sts asso c iated with the South San Gabriel Bridge (the
“Bridge”). The City will continue to c ollect the MDF to offset costs associated with the Bridge.
Chapter 55 2 Agreement
In addition to the terms for In-c ity MUD(s), City staff supports a Chapter 552 Agreement between
the City and o ne or more In-city MUD to establish reimbursement ranging fro m $0 .15 to $0 .20 per
$10 0.0 0 of taxable assessed value payable fro m collectio ns of the City's ad valo rem taxe s
attributable to Water Oak So uth ranging from $25 to $32.5 Million (the “Maximum Reimburseme nt
Page 48 of 121
Land Uses Water Oak South Land
Use Pl an (per
approved Land Use
P l an from 2012 )
P arksi de on the Ri ver
(Enti re 1,147 acres)
Parksi de o n the Ri ver
(Roughl y 84 7 acres, w hi ch
w oul d be annexed)
Acres 1,0 60 1,1 47 847
Single-family (max.)2,7 20 2,0 25 1,324
Multi-family and cluster
homes (est.)
0 MF = 600 (20 DU/AC)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
Commercial (acres)5.5 31 11
Open Space (ac re s)2 80 3 15 Portion
School Site (acres)12 16 16
Fire Station (#)1 1 Not included
Amo unt")
Eligible Public Improvements: Water Oak Pkwy, regio nal trail along the river and Wate r Oak
Parkway, major collector ro ad, and Traffic Improveme nts on FM 2 243.
Land Use
Land Use P lan. Developer will de velop a new land use plan (referred to as Parkside on the River at this
time ) for the entire Water Oak South area. Presently, the Water Oak Land Use Plan allo ws a maximum of
3 ,26 8 single-family homes, which includes the maximum of 54 8 homes in Water Oak No rth) and does no t
inc lude any multi-family; the existing Land Use P lan provides 17.7 acres for co mmercial, of which only 5 .5
ac re s are located in Water Oak South. The basic difference be twe e n the existing Water Oak Land Use Plan
and P arkside o n the River is illustrate d belo w:
NOTE: P arkside o n the River Land Use P lan include s all 7 7 acre s of floo dplain alo ng the So uth San Gabriel River and
about 20 acres of land no rth of the river that will have about 72 lots.
Deve lo pment and Design Standards. The development will remain subject to the UDC standards in place as
o f June 1 , 20 11. The Developer has e xpressed willingness to improve tree preservation standards (Hillwo od
arrangement) and will meet street design standards in general. The Developer has asked for some flexibility
around impe rvious coverage and stormwater. As negotiations proceed, mo re detail will eme rge around
deve lo pment and design standards, which will allow a more detailed analysis than is available no w. Ho weve r,
the intent is fo r the development to include standards that are consiste nt and, in some areas, exce e d the
minimum standards in place.
Transpo rtation
B ri dge. City will be responsible for the design, funding, and construc tion o f the Bridge.
Wate r Oak Parkway. De veloper/District will be responsible for the design, funding, and co nstruction of
Wate r Oak Parkway as a major arterial, which is identified on the City’s Overall Transpo rtation Plan (OTP).
A po rtion of this road (one-half of the ROW) will be aligned o n the adjacent Ge orgetown P roperties Trac t
II; two lanes of Water Oak Parkway will be built by the developer of the Geo rgetown Pro perties Tract II. A
te n (10 ) foo t wide trail along one side will be included. The minimum ROW is 13 5 feet.
P arkw ay B. De veloper/District will be respo nsible for the de sign, funding, and co nstruction of P arkway B,
whic h will likely be a four lane collector. City staff will work with the Develo pe r to identify the appro priate
roadway classification for this portion o f Water Oak South based upon a revised land use plan.
Si g nal i zed Intersecti ons on RM 22 43 (Tw o). Developer/District will be responsible for the design,
funding, and construction o f two signalized intersections located at Water oak Parkway and Parkway B
Page 49 of 121
when warrants are met.
Utilities
Excl usi ve Provi der. The City will co ntinue to be the exclusive provider of all services – wate r,
waste water, and solid waste. Impact fe e s to be the same regardless of inside city limits or in ETJ.
24 ” Water Transmi ssi o n Li ne. The City will provide a maximum funding of $4,062,0 00 toward the
c onstructio n of this master plan line and will co mplete the design too. The City will reimburse the
De veloper/District up to $3,000,0 00 for it to co nstruct the 24” Water Transmission Line from RM 224 3 to
the south side of the river; any cost over $3 ,00 0,0 00 fo r this stretch will be borne by the
de veloper/District. The City will use the remaining funds to connect the transmission line between Water
Oak No rth and Water Oak South.
On-si te Faci l i ti es. The Developer/District to cover the full cost of On-site Facilities (water, wastewate r,
drainage, road, etc…) internal to the Water Oak So uth development that are necessary to serve the Land
e xc e pt as o therwise agreed to, such as the 2 4” Water Transmission Line and the Bridge over South San
Gabrie l River.
Impact F ees. The Developer/District will be assessed c urrent water impact fee to address changes in co sts
of o pe rating the water systems and will pay a reduced wastewater impact fee in recognition o f the
de velopment’s past funding contribution toward the SSGI wastewater interceptor. The existing developme nt
agreement has lo cked impact fees in place at $3,324 pe r Service Unit for water and $2,683 per Service
Unit for wastewater. Based upon ne gotiations, the impact fees going fo rward will be as follows:
Water Impac t Fee. Each building permit will pay full wate r impact fee, presently $6,921;
and
Wastewater Impact Fee. City to provide up to a $7,6 57 ,60 0 credit for project’s past
financial c ontribution to SSGI. This will be in the form o f a lowe r wastewate r impac t fee
collected at time of building permits; rather than $4,348 paid with each single-family
building permit, the City agrees to fix the wastewater fee at $1,9 55 ($4 ,34 8 - $2,393 for
transmission) at time of permit applicatio n.
Public safety
F i re Stati on Si te. Develo pe r will dedicate to the City a 2.5 acre site along RM 2243 at no cost to the City
to o ptimize service delivery and response times as this area develops. In addition, the development will
re main o bligated to contribute a Fire SIP fee o f $630 to be colle c ted at time of application of building
pe rmit fo r each residential lot and c ommercial lot.
School Site
The Develo per will provide up to a 1 6 acre site to GISD for an eleme ntary scho ol site.
Parkland/Open Space/Regional Trail
The Developer/District will pro vide three 3 ac re neighborho od parks based upon the propo sed number of
dwelling units and dispe rsed througho ut the de velopment. The Developer/District will contribute $250 ,00 0
to develop e ach park. The parks may be public parks or HOA parks open to the public ; up to tow of the se
parks may be HOA Parks, but open to the general public. The developer shall receive credit for the
de dication of all or a po rtion of the flo odplain along the river against the estimated 65 acres o f re quired
parkland per the UDC standard for 1 acre o f parkland per fifty (50) dwelling units; based upon the estimate
3,2 75 swelling units (single-family and multi-family combined) as shown on the draft P arkside on the River
land use plan, this development will be required to provide 65 acres o f parkland.
The Developer/Distric t will design, fund, and co nstruct a public trailhe ad and designated parking are a
c ontaining at least 20 parking spaces in a lo c atio n that provides access from at least one side of Water Oak
P arkway to the regional trail along the river.
The Developer/District will design, fund, and co nstruct a 10 fo ot wide regional trail alo ng the South San
Gabrie l River consistent with City’s c urrent standards and specifications.
A Parkland Improvements Agreement will be an exhibit to the Development Agreement and will pro vide the
specifications and processes for the constructio n, deadlines, and approval of the Parkland Improve ments
lo c ate d in the public and HOA parks.
Council Action (in 2 01 7)
Page 50 of 121
While the amendments in 2017 to the co nsent and development agreeme nts were terminated due to no npe rformance by
the buyer, the City did o btain six (6) easements, which were necessary for the City to pro tect its long-term interests. The
following is a summary of all actions by Council in 2 01 7 co ncerning Water Oak:
January 23, 20 17 … Council appro ved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that o utlined certain gene ral paramete rs
to aid the parties in (1) negotiating and drafting revisions to the Amended and Restated (A&R) Development Agreeme nt;
(2) ne gotiating and drafting re visions to the A&R Consent Agreement, and (3) negotiating and drafting one or more
assignment and assumption agreement(s), pursuant to which the rights and obligations of the Original Developer that
pertain to Water Oak So uth would be assigned to and assumed by a Buyer.
August 2 2, 201 7… Council received an update on negotiations regarding potential amendments to the Water Oak
Subdivision consent agreeme nt and deve lo pment agreement, involving the revision to existing and additio n of ne w
provisions, and the assignment, allo cation, and distribution the existing and ne w rights and re spo nsibilities among
multiple developers separated between Water Oak No rth and Water Oak South.
September 26 , 20 17 … City Co uncil held a public hearing and conditionally approved a resolution on a First Amendme nt
to the Amended and Restated Consent Agreement and o n a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Developme nt
Agreement for the Water Oak Subdivision between the City of Georgetown, Lare do Water Oak LTD (“LWO”), ABG Water
Oak partne rs, LTD, (“ABG”), WRR interests, LLC, (“WRR”) and Williamson County MUD #2 5. The co nditio ns prec e de nt
included, among o thers, a requirement that the LWO and ABG grant six specific easements to the City and that the Buyer
entity to be created by WRR clo se on the ac quisitio n of Water Oak So uth no later than 120 days fo llowing the exe c ution
of the Agre e ments, which was approximately January 24 , 2018. If the Buye r entity did not close on the property within
this period, the Agreements shall automatically te rminate.
October 1 0, 2 01 7… City Council accepted six easements from LWO and ABG, including two (2) Utility Access
Easement Agreeme nts, a Wastewater Easement, an Access Easement Agreeme nt, and two (2) Roadway, Utility and
Drainage Easement Agreements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
City staff is analyzing the fiscal impact of the propo sed develo pment.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P arkside o n the River Land Use Plan
Map Illustrating Boundaries
Ap p ro ved MUD Polic y
Water Oak South P res entation
Page 51 of 121
Page 52 of 121
Water Oak SouthMUD 25 I00.25 0.5Mi
¬«29
RM 2243
Commercial
Green/Open
High Density Residential
Mid-Density Residential
Single Family
MUD 25
Page 53 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 1 of 7
The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) is to assist in
closing the financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed minimum City standards,
provide a robust program of amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure
improvements are required that would serve the MUD and surr ounding properties.
The following policies are to be used in guiding the consideration and action on requests for
creation and operation of all proposed special districts, including amendments. These policies
are reinforced in Section 13.10 of the UDC.
POLICY 1: Basic Requirements for Creation of MUDs
MUDs are an appropriate tool to allow urban level density neighborhoods in locations supported
by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan within the city limits. The City may alternatively consider
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) MUDs where the City may annex the property in the future.
Before consenting to the creation of a district, the City Council should consider whether the
creation of the district is feasible, practicable, and necessary for the provision of the proposed
services and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City’s consent, consistent
with the other considerations in this policy.
A. The City’s basic requirements for creation of a MUD shall be that:
1. Quality Development. The development meets or exceeds the intent of the
development, infrastructure, and design standards of City codes;
2. Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that
advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as, but not limited to,
extension, financial contribution, and/or enhancement of master planned
infrastructure, diversity of housing, and enhanced parks, trails, open space, and
recreational amenities that are available to the public;
3. Enhance Public Service and Safety. The development enhances public services and
optimizes service delivery through its design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and
other features.
4. City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes the City as the exclusive
provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities;
5. Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible, doesn’t impair the City’s
ability to provide municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden on the
citizens of Georgetown in the event of annexation;
6. Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a portion of
infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the MUD or the City and as
reflected in conditions placed on the issuance of bonds by the district;
7. Annexation. The development will not impair the City’s future annexation of the MUD
or adjacent property or impose costs not mutually agreed upon.
Page 54 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 2 of 7
POLICY 2: Provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation or amendments" to
guide determinations made in the UDC
Consistent with past Council actions, require the construction of specific regional infrastructure
improvements consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and master plans and that are
beneficial to the City. Examples include:
a. The acceleration of master planned public infrastructure improvements, including but not
limited to, wastewater interceptors, treatment plants, and major transportation
improvements, that not only provide a benefit to the developed property, but also to
other surrounding properties.
b. Conservation subdivision design that clusters development in low impact areas and
maintains existing topography, scenic views, natural drainage flows and wildlife habitat.
c. Regional trail connections located across the development, as well as off-site, to fill in
gaps in the City and County trail system.
POLICY 3: Address provision of public services, and address public safety m atters in the
Consent Agreement
a. Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and optimize locations for
service delivery.
b. Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for new fire station or other public
safety facility as determined by the City.
c. If the City provides fire protection services within the MUD, require payment of Fire SIP
fee (or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and operations.
d. Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to properties
located outside of the MUD.
e. If located outside of the City Limits, then the MUD consent agreement may, at the City's
discretion, include an interlocal agreement ("ILA") to contract with the City of
Georgetown for fire, police, and solid waste services on terms acceptable to the City.
f. An ETJ MUD may provide a maintenance program approved by the City's Transportation
Department that is consistent with City standards and should include appropriate
consultation with the County Engineer.
Page 55 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 3 of 7
POLICY 4: Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the
Consent Agreement
a. Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with the Utilities Master
Plan.
b. Require of the MUD that the City be the water, sewer and electric service provider where
it is located within the city’s single or multiple certificated service area.
c. Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne by the
developer and/or MUD, not the City.
d. Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site improvements to only those circumstances where the
necessity for the improvement is so great that limited CIP funds are appropriate for
overall system wide improvements that benefit multiple properties (i.e., regional
improvements that the City can afford to participate in).
e. Address water and wastewater rates. Generally, rates for in-City MUD customers should
be the same as the rates for other in-City customers, and the rates for ETJ MUDs
customers should be the same as for other out of City customers.
f. Require specific water conservation techniques that will be used to minimize demand
levels including xeriscaping, low impact development ("LID"), rainwater harvesting, grey
water reuse and other strategies in consultation with GUS.
g. Require all MUDs and their residents, whether in the City or in the ETJ, to comply with
City of Georgetown water conservation and drought contingency plan-related
ordinances.
h. For all MUDS, require impact fees to be assessed at the time of final plat approval [note:
Impact fee payments are eligible for reimbursement by the MUD]. For ETJ MUDS, require
payment of impact fees at the time the final plat is approved. For in -City MUDS, require
payment of impact fees no later than the time of building permit issuance. However,
utility capacity reservation shall not occur until impact fees are paid.
i. Address rates, treatment capacity, utility and other easements necessary for City services,
capacity for dwelling units, gallons per day usage for water and wastewater, water,
wastewater and electric infrastructure, permitting and design, and fiscal surety.
Page 56 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 4 of 7
POLICY 5: Specify the amount of debt intended to be issued, the purpose of the debt, and the
debt service schedule, and include those financial provisions in the Consent Agreement
a. Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule, including refunding bonds
issued by the district, unless otherwise agreed to by the City, to comply with the following
requirements, provided such requirements do not generally render the bonds
unmarketable:
1. Maximum maturity of 25 years for any one series of bonds; and
2. The last Bond issuance shall be not later than the date that is ten (10) years after
the date of the first Bond issuance.
b. Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes, assessments,
charge, fees and fines of any kind.
c. Establish a maximum tax rate of $0.55/$100 of assessed valuation for in-city MUDs and a
maximum tax rate of $0.95/$100 of assessed valuation for ETJ MUDs.
d. Limit debt issuance to capital infrastructure and related costs, for in-city and ETJ MUDs;
on and off-site water and wastewater infrastructure; stormwater infrastructure; roads,
bridges, and related transportation infrastructure; and parks, trails, and recreational
facilities.
e. To the extent possible, debt should be structured to retire nonresidential lands first so
they can be annexed, if an ETJ MUD. Where multiple MUDs are established for a large
project, nonresidential lands should be included in the first MUD created.
f. A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities (city, county,
school district, MUD, ESD, etc.) and the proposed MUD tax, demonstrating the total
anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD.
POLICY 6: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ
a. Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is in the MUD at
the time of annexation that are different from rates charged to other areas of the City
consistent with the provisions of Section 54.016(h) of the Water Code to compensate city
for assumption of MUD debt.
b. This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is annexed into the city
limits. At the City's option, a "limited district" may be continued in existence after
annexation to maintain amenities or services beyond what the City typically provides for
neighborhoods similarly situated. In such cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA stating
conditions on which MUD will be converted to a limited district that will continue to exist
following full purpose annexation. Concurrently with the MUD’s confirmation election,
the MUD shall hold election on proposition to levy an O&M tax per Section 49.107 of the
Water Code to provide funds to operate the limited district following full purpose
annexation by the city; the MUD shall have no right to issue bonds until proposition to
levy an O&M tax is approved.
Page 57 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 5 of 7
POLICY 7: Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and
development standards, and address the land use provisions in the Consent Agreement or
related agreement
a. Require higher development and design standards for residential and nonresidential land
uses to promote a superior development. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Enhanced architectural standards; such as higher percentages of masonry on
exterior walls and variations in floor plans; and
2. Improved materials for signage, such as masonry bases.
b. Age restricted developments shall not exceed 10% of the net developable land area and
10% of the total housing units within the MUD.
c. Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility; Personal Services
Restricted as defined the Unified Development Code, Chapter 16, of Title 17 of the
Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others as determined by City Council.
d. Ensure the City will benefit financially from commercial/retail land uses in developments
with ETJ MUDs.
i. All efforts should be made to exclude commercial/retail land area from an ETJ
MUD in favor of full-purpose annexation, or a SPA should be required allowing the
City to collect sales taxes from the area.
ii. The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City is entitled to
receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and that none of those taxes
should be shared with the MUD unless special circumstances exist.
iii. City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses other than
one- and two-family residential uses.
e. Require a diversity of housing offered within the district that is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan.
f. Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the applicable School
District. Location(s) of school sites should be in a central, walkable location within a
residential neighborhood away from a collector or arterial roadway identified in the
Overall Transportation Plan (OTP).
g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and require major
amendments to a MUD land use plan be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission
and approved by the City Council.
h. Require all in-City MUDs to submit a Planned Unit Development Application and all ETJ
MUDs to submit a Development Agreement Application, concurrent with the
development of a consent agreement, to memorialize development stan dards.
Page 58 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 6 of 7
POLICY 8: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements (not just
meet UDC standards or less than UDC standards), and address parkland prov isions in the
Consent Agreement
a. Require a park or series of parks open to the general public within the MUD in the size
and location approved by the Parks and Recreation Board.
b. Require installation and maintenance of park facilities improvements.
c. Require maintenance access to be provided, when needed.
d. Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses such as schools.
e. Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
f. Require usable trailheads with off-street parking and ADA compliant trails.
g. Require financial contributions to regional park facilities such as We stside Park or Garey
Park (depending on the location of the MUD).
h. Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts from net usable park land.
i. Require provision of security and maintenance program.
j. Require protection and perpetuation of unique features on a particular site that should
be maintained as open space whether for environmental, conservation or scenic views.
POLICY 9: Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the Consent
Agreement
a. May require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and construction and/or funding
of both on- and off-site improvements identified in the TIA, including roadways identified
in the City's Overall Transportation Plan (OTP), pursuant to Section 12.09 of the UDC
b. Require dedication of right-of-way, inclusion of bike lanes, sidewalks, and aesthetically-
pleasing streetscapes consistent with the OTP and City street design standards.
c. Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased connectivity, reduced cul -
de-sacs, short block lengths, additional stub outs to adjacent properties, except where
developed as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter 11 of the UDC.
d. Require creative stormwater management and water quality solutions to be provided
such as low impact development ("LID") to minimize any downstream impacts.
Page 59 of 121
City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy
(Approved by City Council July 24, 2018)
Page 7 of 7
POLICY 10: City Operations Compensation Fee
A fee shall be assessed for each residential unit within a district, located within the City’s ETJ,
equal to the proportion of City operations attributed to serving residents of the district. The fee
shall be calculated as follows:
B = Total General Fund budget for the fiscal year in which the consent application is filed.
P = The estimated population of the City at the time the consent application is filed.
H= The estimated average household size within the City at the time the consent application is
filed.
D = The percentage of City services used by district residents. This percentage shall be adopte d
by the City annually as a part of the City's budget adoption process.
Y = Number of years of duration of the district.
R = Discount rate. This rate shall be adopted by the City annually as a part of the city's budget
adoption process.
PV = Present Value.
City Operations Compensation Fee = PV(R,Y,-((B /(P /H)) * D))
Example: B = $24,000,000
P = 41,000 H = 2.8 D = 15%
Y = 20
R = 6%
Fee = 2,819
Miscellaneous Provisions
Where not otherwise specifically addressed in this Policy, the procedures in Unified Development
Chapter 13 shall prevail.
Page 60 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Water Oak South
Potential Creation of New MUD(s),
Annexation, a Chapter 552 Agreement, and
Land Use Plan
Presented by
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
September 11, 2018
Page 61 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Overview
•Purpose of Presentation
•Why Are We Negotiating on Water Oak?
•Water Oak Concept Plan (approved 2012)
•Parkside on the River Land Use Plan (draft)
•MUD Policy Basic Requirements
•MUD Policy Analysis to Proposal
•Next Steps
•Feedback and Direction
Page 62 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Purpose
Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a
request for creation of a new Municipal Utility District
(MUD) for portion of Water Oak, to negotiate a Chapter
552 agreement to encourage annexation, and a
corresponding Land Use Plan.
•Does Council support the new MUD under terms presented?
•Does Council desire to continue analysis of potential annexation with
corresponding 552 Agreement?
•Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan?
•Does Council wish staff to contact existing MUD #25 and initiate
negotiations to amend existing 2012 Consent and Development
Agreements?
Page 63 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Why Are We Negotiating on Water Oak?
•Create new agreements that assign, allocate, and distribute the existing and new rights and responsibilities among the multiple developers, including existing MUD #25
•Laredo Water Oak (LWO) filed for filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2016
•Bankruptcy Court foreclosed on Water Oak development in May 2018, effecting 1,147 acres of the 1,354 acre project
•Hanna/Magee submitted the successful bid to buy Water Oak South from bank
•Hanna/Magee is in its due diligence period
•MUD #25 Board has Authorized Attorney to Negotiate
Page 64 of 121
City Manager’s Office
•Approved in 2012
•1,354 acres
360 acres of open space
•3,268 SF Lots (max.)
•17.5 acres commercial
•2×2.5 acre fire station sites
•12 acre school site
Water Oak Concept Plan
Page 65 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Parkside on the River Land Use Plan
Acres
Water Oak Limits 1,354
Total inside MUD #25
(not to be annexed)544
Potential Annexation 847
MUD #25
Potential
Annexation
~820 acresNOTE: All acres are approximate
and will change if negotiations
proceed and legal descriptions are
finalized.
MUD #25
Proposed Land Use Plan
Page 66 of 121
City Manager’s Office
MUD Policy (Approved July 2018)
Purpose
The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a
Municipal Utility District (MUD) is to assist in closing the
financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed
minimum City standards, provide a robust program of
amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure
improvements are required that would serve the MUD and
surrounding properties.
Page 67 of 121
City Manager’s Office
MUD Policy: Basic Requirements
1.Quality Development
2.Extraordinary Benefits
3.Enhance Public Service and Safety
4.City Exclusive Provider
5.Fiscally Responsible
6.Finance Plan
7.Annexation
Page 68 of 121
City Manager’s Office
MUD Policy: Basic Requirements
Quality Development Extraordinary Benefits Public Service/Safety Exclusive Provider
Fiscally Responsible Finance Plan Annexation
Page 69 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Quality Development. The development meets or exceeds
the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design
standards of City codes
•Land Development. Developer has agreed to meet/exceed standards in UDC
(dated June 1, 2011); Developer will improve tree preservation over current
entitlement
•Commercial Centers. Developer plans to set aside 31 acres along RM 2243 for
future commercial
•Residential Standards. Developer has agreed to include design standards for
residential development similar to other developments with MUDs
•Tree Preservation. Developer has agreed to abide by Tree Preservation
standards identical to Hillwood’s PUD standards [not required in current
Water Oak Development]
•Infrastructure. Developer has agreed to meet the City’s infrastructure
standards and will participate in the construction and/or funding of major
infrastructure
Page 70 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides
extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
•Water Infrastructure. City to fund up to $4.1 Million to construct master planned 24”
Water Transmission Line from RM 2243 to Water Oak North. Developer to assist in
acceleration of the construction of master planned 24” Water Transmission Line
across Water Oak South with City funding a maximum of $3 Million
•Roads. Developer/District to design, fund, and construct extension of Water Oak
Pkwy (4 lanes) from the Bridge to RM 2243 as well as Major Collector (4 lanes)
•Trails . Developer/District to design, fund, and construct regional trail (10’ wide)
along South San Gabriel River and Water Oak Parkway
•Parks/Open Space. Developer agrees to provide neighborhood parks and preserve
more than 300 acres as open space
•Traffic Signals. Developer/District to fund, design, and construct two signalized
intersections on RM 2243
•Diversity of Housing. Land Use Plan (under development) provides a diversity of
housing with range of single-family lots/designs, multi-family, and cluster homesPage 71 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Enhance Public Service and Safety. The development enhances
public services and optimizes service delivery through its
design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features.
•Fire Station Site. Developer will dedicate a 2.5 acre site along RM 2243 at no
cost to the City to optimize service delivery and response times as this area
develops.
•SIP Fee. Developer agrees to maintain Fire SIP fee of $630 to be collected at
time of application of building permit for each residential lot and
commercial lot.
Page 72 of 121
City Manager’s Office
City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes
the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste,
and electric utilities.
•Exclusive Provider. The City will continue to be the exclusive provider of all
services –water, wastewater, and solid waste
•On-site Facilities. The Developer/District to cover the full cost of On-site
Facilities (water, wastewater, drainage, road, etc…) internal to the Water
Oak South development that are necessary to serve the Land except as
otherwise agreed to, such as the 24” Water Transmission Line and the
Bridge
•Impact Fees. The Developer/District will be assessed current water impact
fee to address changes in costs of operating the water system ($6,921 vs.
$3,324) and will pay a reduced wastewater impact fee ($1,955) in
recognition of the development’s past contribution toward the SSGI
wastewater interceptor
Page 73 of 121
City Manager’s Office
•Existing MUD #25 to remain in ETJ (approx. 300 acres in Water Oak South)
•In-city MUDs. Developer has agreed to annex ~820 acres with new MUDs:
–Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued: TBD
–Maximum Bond Maturity: 30 years [MUD Policy guide is 25 years]
–Bond Issuance Period: 15 years [MUD Policy guide is 10 years]
–Refunding Bonds: Not later than 15th anniversary of date of issuance
–Reimbursement Agmt .: 15 years from Effective Date
–District Only Tax Rate (Maximum):$0.65/$100 in Assessed Value
•City staff recommends not collecting a Master Development Fee from any In-
City MUD and to not collect it for any portion of MUD #25 under ownership of
the Developer and located in Water Oak South
Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a
portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the
MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the
issuance of bonds by the district.
Page 74 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a
portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the
MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the
issuance of bonds by the district.
•Chapter 552 Agreement. City staff supports a Chapter 552 Agreement
between the City and one or more In-city MUD to establish reimbursement
ranging from $0.15 to $0.20 per $100.00 of taxable assessed value payable
from collections of the City's ad valorem taxes attributable to Water Oak
South ranging from $25 to $32.5 Million (the “Maximum Reimbursement
Amount")
•Eligible Public Improvements. These will include Water Oak Parkway, major
collector road, transportation Improvements on RM 2243, and regional trails
Page 75 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible,
doesn’t impair the City’s ability to provide municipal services,
and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of
Georgetown in the event of annexation.
•The Bridge. City staff recommends the City assume responsibility for the
design, funding, and construction of this regional transportation
infrastructure. The estimated cost is between $5 and $6 million. This bridge
will be the only crossing of the South San Gabriel River between the
Southwest Bypass and Ronald Reagan Boulevard
•24” Water Transmission Line. Given the passage of a decade since the City’s
approval of the original Water Oak Agreements in 2006, the City’s water
system needs this master planned line constructed within the next one to two
years. City staff recommends the City assume the responsibility for the
design, funding, and construction of this regional water transmission line
Page 76 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Annexation. The development will not impair the City’s future
annexation of the MUD or adjacent property or impose costs
not mutually agreed upon.
•Developer has agreed to annex land not presently inside MUD #25
Land Uses Water Oak South
Land Use Plan (per
approved Land Use
Plan from 2012)
Parkside on the River
(Entire 1,147 acres)
Parkside on the River
(Roughly 847 acres, which
would be annexed)
Acres 1,060 1,147 847
Single-family (max.)2,720 2,025 1,324
Multi-family and
cluster homes (est.)
0 MF = 600 (20 DU/AC)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
Commercial (acres)5.5 31 11
Open Space (acres)280 315 Portion
School Site (acres)12 16 16
Fire Station (#)1 1 Not includedPage 77 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Next Steps
•Should Council direct staff to continue negotiations, the next
steps would include:
–Developer to complete Financial Pro Forma
–City to complete Fiscal Impact Model
–Initiate negotiations with MUD #25
Page 78 of 121
City Manager’s Office
Feedback and Direction
Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a
request for creation of a new Municipal Utility District
(MUD) for portion of Water Oak, to negotiate a Chapter
552 agreement to encourage annexation, and a
corresponding Land Use Plan.
•Does Council support the new MUD under terms presented?
•Does Council desire to continue analysis of potential annexation with
corresponding 552 Agreement?
•Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan?
•Does Council wish staff to contact existing MUD #25 and initiate
negotiations to amend existing 2012 Consent and Development
Agreements?
Page 79 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation update and discussion on Downtown We st Co nstruction and Other Co ntrac ted Services, including
Audio/Visual, Furniture, Fixed Seating, Security and Data Cabling -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
This is an update regarding the Downtown West Civic Center project. Specifically, Co uncil will be given an update on the
progress of Constructio n for the renovation of the 1 98 7 Library and the Georgetown Co mmunication and Technology
(GCAT) buildings.
In addition, staff wo uld like to present the bids fo r Audio /Visual, Furniture, Fixed Se ating, Security and Data Cabling fo r
the Downtown We st P roject.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The contract with the architect, The Lawrence Group was appro ve on June 9, 2015. The contract with the construction
manager, Balfour Be atty, was approved on April 12 , 20 16 . The Guaranteed Maximum P rice was approved November 1 4,
2017. The budge t fo r Audio /Visual, Furniture, Fixed Seating, Security and Data Cabling have been included in the ove rall
project budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
RLD for Eric Jo hnso n
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Do wntown Wes t Up d ate
Page 80 of 121
September 11, 2018
Downtown West
Construction Update/
Other Contracted Services
Page 81 of 121
City of Georgetown
City
Hall
Page 82 of 121
City Hall
City of GeorgetownPage 83 of 121
City of Georgetown
City
Council
Chambers
Page 84 of 121
Council and Court Building
City of GeorgetownPage 85 of 121
Other Contracted Services
•Audio/Visual
•Furniture
•Fixed Seating
•Security
•Data Cabling
City of GeorgetownPage 86 of 121
Audio/Visual
•City Hall
–$203,900
•Council and Court Building
–$302,812
•Total
–$506,712
City of GeorgetownPage 87 of 121
Furniture
City of GeorgetownPage 88 of 121
Furniture
•City Hall & Council and Court Building
–$610,023
City of GeorgetownPage 89 of 121
Fixed Seating
•Council and Court Building
–$85,127
City of GeorgetownPage 90 of 121
Security
•City Hall
–$89,304
•Council and Court Building
–$126,570
•Total
–$215,910
City of GeorgetownPage 91 of 121
Data Cabling
•City Hall
–$49,800
•Council and Court Building
–$49,683
City of GeorgetownPage 92 of 121
Summary
City of Georgetown
CONTRACT CITY HALL COUNCIL AND
COURT TOTAL
Audio/Visual $203,900 $302,812 $506,712
Furniture $610,023
Fixed Seating $85,127 $85,127
Security $89,340 $126,570 $215,910
Data Cabling $49,800 $49,683
•Overall outside contracts are within budget
Page 93 of 121
Next Steps
•Items on Consent Agenda (Tonight)
•Council Tour
–Tentative -November 13 @ 3:00pm
•Complete Construction
–December 2018
–On time and On Budget
•Move in
–January 2019
•Grand Opening
–Early 2019
City of GeorgetownPage 94 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n concerning ethics -- Jac k Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye Masson, Assistant
City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
At the Octo ber 24 meeting, the City Counc il took actio n to amend the City's Ethics Ordinance. The Council also
appointed the members of the standing Ethics Commission to an Ethics Ad Hoc Committee, tasked with reviewing the
City's Ethics Ordinance and making recommendations to the City Council for amendme nts to the ordinanc e . The Council
asked the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee to make reco mmendations fo r a new ordinance. Those recommendations were
presented to Council o n June 12.
At the June 12 meeting, City Council directed staff to return with an analysis that compared current state law with the
proposed ethic s o rdinance. Staff is seeking directio n on each of the following topic s to include in a new ordinance:
• Gifts
• Conflicts of Inte re st (Financial Interest and Econo mic Interest)
• Disclosure Require ments
• Definition of Family
• Ethics Commission
• Sanctions
• General Conduct
This workshop is a co ntinuation of the workshop item from Aug. 14.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Jack Daly
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Ethics Presentation 09.11.2018
Page 95 of 121
Ethics Workshop
Sept. 11, 2018
Page 96 of 121
Agenda
•Background
•State statute vs. local ordinance
•Direction/Discussion
Page 97 of 121
Background
•Oct. 24 –Voted to overhaul ethics
ordinance
•June 12 –Reviewed recommendations
from ad hoc committee
•Staff committed to return with a review of
ethics ordinance by topic and compare to
state law
Page 98 of 121
Topics
Gifts
Conflicts of Interest
–Financial Interest
–Economic Interest
Disclosure
Requirements
Definition of Family
Ethics Commission
•Sanctions
•General Conduct
Page 99 of 121
Feedback from Aug. 14
•Gifts
–Consensus to reflect state law regarding
–Considering additional reporting requirements
for travel and lodging in excess of $2,000
Page 100 of 121
Feedback from Aug. 14
•Conflicts of Interest
–Use “financial interest” as opposed to “economic
interest”
–Exceed state threshold
•$5,000 or 5%, whichever is less
–Disclose “personal interest in real property”
–Clarify “good faith” offers of employment
–Disclose all investment
•Exceptions for mutual funds, trusts, etc.
Page 101 of 121
Feedback from Aug. 28
•Removed “business negotiations”
•Resolve quorum issue with multiple
conflicts
•Family
–Define family members by name
•First degree (parents, spouse, children)
–Include domestic partners, roommates,
tenants
–Relatives from current and past marriages
Page 102 of 121
Feedback from Aug. 28
•Ethics Commission
–Regular review of ordinance
–Review and investigate complaints
–Recommend sanctions
•Sanctions
–Letter of notification
–Reprimand
–Recommend removal
•Board or Commission
•Appointed employeePage 103 of 121
Sanctions
•Finding of a violation by Council
–Recommend recall
•City Council accepts the finding
Page 104 of 121
General Conduct
•Standards of conduct
–Some covered by state law
–Generally, don’t use position for personal or
professional gain
•Other items to include?
–Governance Policy
–Role of Council/Rules of Engagement
Page 105 of 121
General Conduct
•State Law
–Things to not do for
personal gain
•Disclose confidential
info
•Use City property
–Don’t act as surety for a
business before Council
–Acquire an interest in a
matter that will be affected
by upcoming Council
action
•Council Direction
–Do not
•Appear before Council
and represent their
personal interest
•Imply ability to influence
City action
•Represent the City in
litigation
•Induce others to violate
the Code of Ethics
–Can represent themselves
for items related to their
homestead
Page 106 of 121
Questions?
Page 107 of 121
Backup Slides
Page 108 of 121
Gifts
Gifts are a benefit from a person or entity
you know is getting something from the City
or is interested in getting something from the
City (purchase, contract, zoning, etc.)
Exceptions include: Gifts from people with
personal, professional, or business
relationship independent of official status
Page 109 of 121
Gifts
•State Law
–Penal code
•Class A misdemeanor
•Items more than $50
•Some exemptions for
–Transportation
–Lodging
–Conference
•May requires reporting
•Council Direction
–Differing opinions on
gift amount
•$25 vs $50
–Discussion regarding
exemptions for
•Transportation
•Lodging
•Conferences
Page 110 of 121
Conflicts of Interest
•You should not be voting or making
decisions that benefit you in your personal
or professional life
•Distinguishing what a personal or
professional benefit is can be tough
Page 111 of 121
Conflicts of Interest
•State Law
–Chap. 171
•Financial Interests
–Chap 176
•Disclosure
Requirement
•Council Direction
–Council members are
real life people
interacting in the
community
–Ambiguous definitions
are hard to understand
and enforce
Page 112 of 121
Financial Interest
•State Law
–Chap 171 –Business entity
interest
•10% or more of voting stock
or shares
•10% or $15K+ of business
entity
•Proceeds exceed 10% gross
income
–Substantial interest in real
property
•Interest is $2,500 or greater
–Related by first degree
•Council Direction
–Historically mirrored
state law
–Thresholds included in
ethics ordinance
Page 113 of 121
Economic Interest
•Local regulation above state law
•There are some things that could be
perceived as a conflict that are not
necessarily tied to money or fall outside
the State’s thresholds
Page 114 of 121
Economic Interest
•State Law
–Not in statute
•Council Direction
–Too broad to include all
“negotiations pertaining
to business
opportunities”
–Tough to enforce
“reasonable person”
standard
Page 115 of 121
Economic Interest Examples
•Interest in property
–Contractual interest
•Involvement in business
–Offers of employment
–Any investment in business before Council
•Less than State’s thresholds
–Amend language related to “business negotiations”
•Family involved
–State law only speaks to first degree
Page 116 of 121
Business Negotiations
•“Business negotiations” is vague
•Removed by ad hoc committee
•Comfortable with removing?
Page 117 of 121
Disclosure Requirements
•Council Direction
–Exceed state law if Council adopts economic
interest standard
–If quorum issues arise, disclose conflicts, but
then vote
•Cannot waive state law requirements
Page 118 of 121
Definition of Family
•State Law
–First Degree
•Parent, Child, Spouse,
Spouse’s parent or
child
•Council Direction
–Define family member
by name
–Include domestic
partners
–Relatives from current
and past marriages
•Step daughter-in-law
Page 119 of 121
Ethics Commission
•State Law
–Not in state statute
•Council Direction
–General consensus on
having commission
–Role
•Regular review of
ordinance
•Review and investigate
complaints
•Recommend sanctions
Page 120 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 11, 2018
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins-Brown Update
- 3701 West Highway 2 9
Sec. 551:072: De l i berati o n of Real P roperty
- P urchase-Parc e l 1 0, No rthwest Blvd
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Work Plan
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 121 of 121