HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.23.2016 Workshop
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 23, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on February 23, 2016 at 3:00 PM at 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 Overview and discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the
proposed Shadow Canyon development -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
B Discussion and Presentation on City of Georgetown Street Maintenance - Mark Miller,
Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
C Forwarded from Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Presentation and discussion of Treated Water Supply and Demand Management for 2016 and
beyond -- Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
D Presentation and discussion regarding the Texas State University Citizen Survey - Paul Diaz,
Budget Manager, Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager and Jack Daly,
Assistant to the 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.
E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which
the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- PEC/PUC Hearing
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of real property, the payment of
relocation benefits, and the subsequent payment of actual reasonable and customary moving
expenses in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, in connection with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project –
Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
1. Parcel 2, Leslie David Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo, 307 Shannon Ln
2. Parcel 8, Angie San Miguel, 1612 Park Ln
3. Parcel 9, Joseph M. Hertsenberg and Debby L. Hertsenberg, 1610 Park Ln
Page 1 of 81
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Evaluation Process
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Shelley Nowling, 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 _________________,
2016, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding
the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 81
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Overview and discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Shadow
Canyon development -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
278 Georgetown, Inc. is the owner of approximately 278.21 acres of property located adjacent to the Wolf
Ranch Development and situated entirely within the City of Georgetown. The property is proposed to be
developed as approximately 591 single family homes with an average home and lot price of $385,000.
Applicant identified reasons for requesting a MUD
The purpose of requesting a MUD is to reimburse a portion of the costs of the applicable utility facilities
necessary to serve the proposed single family development and develop the and in general conformance with
the City’s current standards.
Requested Feedback from the Council:
Is the use of an In-City MUD suitable in the proposed location?
Do the identified “unique factors” justify the creation of a MUD?
If there is a desire to proceed with the MUD process are there specific elements or focus areas you
would like staff to negotiate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The developer is proposing the following financial In-City MUD terms:
Estimated Bonded Indebtedness: $19,925,000
Estimated Developer Reimbursements: $17,005,487
Tax Rate: The overall projected combined tax rate is a total of $1.10/$100 assessed valuation and
includes a debt service tax rate of $0.6442, Maintenance Tax Rate of $0.016 and City of Georgetown
tax rate of $0.4395
Facilities for which bonds are proposed to be used include the following: water, wastewater, drainage,
organizational expenses, initial operating expenses, interest during construction, capitalized interest;
refunding; roadways, and recreational facilities. Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with
negotiating a consent agreement for a municipal utility district, a detailed financial impact statement will be
provided for City Council review.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Future Land Use Map
Request for a MUD
MUD Policy
Page 3 of 81
CIT
Y
OF GEORGETOWN
(R ive
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
)
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
Georg
eto
wn
ETJ
Georgetown ETJ
GeorgetownETJ
W S H 29
WEIRRANCH RD
W UNIVERSITY AVE
PP-2016-001
Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 2,000 4,000Feet
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
W U n i v e r s it y A v e
¬«29
L e a n d e r R d
W University Ave
Water
O
akPkwy
G
a
b
ri
e
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
e
d
a
r
H
o
l
l
o
w
Rd
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
dSite
City Limits
Street
Site
³
Location M ap
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
R
i
d
g
e
R
d
PP-2016 -001
Page 4 of 81
(Riv e r /S t rea
m
)
Georgeto w n E TJ
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
Geo
rg
eto
wn
ETJ
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
CIBOLORIDGE
DR
W
I
N
D
I
N
G
WAYDR
C
R
O
S
SMOUNTA
I
N
T
R
L
W SH 29
W UNIVE RSITY AVE
W
O
O
D
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
F
O
R
E
S
T
WEIRRANCHRD
0 2,000 4,000Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
PP-2016-001
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Comm unity Commercial
Employm ent Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rur al Residential W U n i v e r s it y A v e
¬«29
L e a n d e r R d
W University Ave
Water
OakPkwy
G
a
b
ri
e
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
Lea n d e r R d
Site
³City Lim its
Street
Site
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing M ajor Arterial
Existing M inor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Fr eeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed M ajor Arterial
Proposed M inor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
R
i
d
g
e
R
d
PP-2016 -001
Page 5 of 81
{W0668563.3}
Letter of Intent and
Evaluation of Compliance with City of Georgetown Interim MUD Policy
Adopted September 23, 2014
278 Georgetown, Inc. (“278”) is the owner of approximately 278.21 acres of property (the “Land”)
located adjacent to the Wolf Ranch Development and situated entirely within the City of
Georgetown (the “City” or “Georgetown”) corporate city limits. According to Joe Straub,
President of 278, the Land is expected to be developed as approximately 591 single family homes
with an average home and lot price of $385,000. Mr. Straub has received interest in the project
from numerous homebuilders and anticipates including three to five homebuilders that offer a
variety of houses ranging in size from 1,300 square feet to 4,500 with sales prices ranging from
$250,000 to $600,000.
The Land is subject to a variety of environmental constraints, including karst features and
endangered species habitat. The Land is the only property in Williamson County that has a 10A
Incidental take permit (the “Permit”) issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Permit
authorizes the development of the Land with certain restrictions related to density as well timing
of development.
Due to the Golden Cheek Warbler habitat, development must commence prior to February 28th in
any given year or be postponed until the following August 1st. The Permit does provide that once
development has commenced, development may be on-going.
Approximately 33% of the Land (91.73 acres) is designated as preserve areas, open space areas,
or private or public parkland.
Additionally, 278 commissioned a heritage tree survey in June 2015, which identified 122 heritage
trees located within the development area on the Land. 278 is making every attempt to save the
heritage trees, and, in connection with the City’s consent to creation of the District (defined below),
is agreeable to complying with the substantive requirements of the present heritage tree ordinance;
provided, however, that the City’s issuance of permits for heritage tree removal be ministerial and
administrative upon 278’s compliance with the ordinance’s mitigation requirements.
In connection with the approved Shadow Canyon Preliminary Plat, approved by the City in 2004,
a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared and remains on file with the City. In July 2015, 278
commissioned an updated preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis from R-K Traffic Engineering,
which has been used in the design and location of roadways on the Land in compliance with the
location of streets as outlined in the Permit.
Page 6 of 81
{W0668563.3}
Capital Research is preparing a market study, anticipated to be completed in November 2015,
which will outline the market conditions in the area of the Land as well as the projected type of
development expected to occur within the development.
278 has invested significant funds and time in confirming that the proposed Riverview
Development will comply with the City’s Unified Development Code as well its Interim MUD
Policy dated September 23, 2014.
Given the environmental and topographic constraints on the Land and the current market
conditions, 278 recognizes that it will need to access the financial opportunities of a special district
in order to minimize home prices at a level that would provide for a quality development with
homes consistent with workforce affordability.
Therefore, in late 2014, 278’s principal and consultants initiated discussions with City staff
regarding the creation of an “in-City” municipal utility district to be known as Williamson County
MUD No. 34 (the “District”). Subsequently, on May 13, 2015, City staff and 278 agreed to the
terms included on Exhibit “A” (the “Term Sheet”). Since that time, 278 has continued to pursue
the creation of the District and is now requesting that City Council act on this request so that the
creation process can be accomplished and development may start prior to February 28, 2016, as
required in the Permit.
The following information is 278’s evaluation of how its current development plan complies with
the City’s Interim MUD Policy:
City’s existing UDC Section 13.10 including the City’s statements of purposes for
creating a MUD,
Policies applicable to all MUD requests and
Examples of “Unique Factors” justifying (MUD) creation”
Any questions regarding this information should be directed to:
Joe Straub
278 Georgetown, Inc.
4408 Spicewood Springs Road
Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 231-1555
jwstraub@hnsdevelopers.com
Page 7 of 81
{W0668563.3}
Existing Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 13.10 provides the following statements
of purposes for creation a MUD. The standards established in this section are intended to carry
out the following purposes:
Section 13.10.030
1. If applicable, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria
for annexation set out in the City’s projected ultimate city limit boundary (shown
with red line in map below.
The Land is located within the City’s corporate city limits.
2. Whether the City will provide water and/or wastewater services to the land within
the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence construction of
facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and substantially complete
such construction within 4 1/2 years after submittal of the petition pursuant to the
City’s policies on the extension of utility services.
Page 8 of 81
{W0668563.3}
The City will provide both retail water and wastewater service to the District residents.
POLICY 2: Provide examples of “unique factors justifying (MUD) creation” to guide
determinations made under Section 13.10.030.
The following information includes four factors that 278’s principal and consultants believe are
unique and distinguish the Land from other subdivisions developed within the City’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Enhanced Growth/Development
Creation of the District will ensure quality single family development with affordable house prices
and is expected to spur the development of area commercial/retail development.
Enhanced Architectural Features
278 agrees to require each homebuilder within the District to adhere to higher standards for
architectural design.
1) Contribution and/or Expansion of City Regional Water and Wastewater Facilities
2) Master Development Fee
Although “in-City” municipal utility districts are not generally subjected to Master
Development Fee charges by the City, 278 agrees to pay to the City a Master Development
Fee equal to 10% of the net reimbursements received by 278 from each issuance of bonds
by the District up to a maximum of $1,500,000.
3) Parkland Commitment
Funds Contributed toward Utility Facilities Necessary to serve the Land
$1,595,000 Prepaid Impact Fees paid to Chisholm Trail
Contribution paid the for the extension of the 21" South San Gabriel
Interceptor from the westernmost edge of the Wolf Ranch shopping
1,900,000 Mall to the westernmost edge of the District (a)
$3,495,000 Subtotal - Prior Contributions
(a) Pursuant to the Offiste Wastewater Utility Construction Reimbursement Agreement, the previous owner
of the Land, spent $1.9 million in the construction of the SSGI as described above and was entitled to
reimbursement of $1,473,111 to be paid from the collection of wastewater impact fees by the City from
new improvements within the Riverview Development (previously named the Shadow Canyon
Development.
Page 9 of 81
{W0668563.3}
a) Trail System - 278 is committed to the development of a trail system along the South
San Gabriel River and has agreed to dedicate 22 acres of land situated along the River
to be developed as programmed public parkland.
b) Open Space – In addition to the above-referenced parkland dedication and
improvements, 278 will maintain approximately 69.73 acres of private parkland, open
space, and preserve areas.
$1,595,000 Prepaid Impact Fees paid to Chisholm Trail
Contribution paid the for the extension of the 21" South San Gabriel
Interceptor from the westernmost edge of the Wolf Ranch shopping
1,900,000 Mall to the westernmost edge of the District (a)
1,500,000 Master Development Fee(b)
$4,995,000 Total (Equal to just over $17,954/acre)
(a) Pursuant to the Offiste Wastewater Utility Construction Reimbursement Agreement, the previous owner
of the Land, spent $1.9 million in the construction of the SSGI as described above and was entitled to
reimbursement of $1,473,111 to be paid from the collection of wastewater impact fees by the City from
new improvements within the Riverview Development (previously named the Shadow Canyon
Development.
(b) To be paid from each issue of bonds sold by the District equal to 10% of net reimbursements up to
a maximum of $1.5 million.
Estimated Financial Contributions to the City
Page 10 of 81
{W0668563.3}
Exhibit “A”
Term Sheet
Relating to
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 34
Consent Agreement
General
278 Georgetown, Inc. (“278”) is currently requesting that the City of Georgetown (“Georgetown” or
the “City”) for approval of the creation of an “In-City” municipal utility district to encompass
approximately 278.21 acres (the “Land”) owned by 278, which is located within the City limits and is
situated adjacent to the proposed Wolf Ranch Development. To date, there have been a few
discussions with City staff regarding the creation of the “In-City” municipal utility district, and listed
below is 278’s understanding of what the City has requested and the commitments 278 is willing to
make to the City:
o The City agrees to the creation of an “In-City” MUD to be designated as Williamson
County MUD No. 34 (the “District”);
o 278 and/or the previous owners of the Land have contributed a total amount of
$1,900,000 as shown in the chart below:
o 278 is willing to contribute up to $1,500,000 to the City to be used as deemed
appropriate by the City;
Funds Contributed toward Utility Facilities Necessary to serve the Land
$1,595,000 Prepaid Impact Fees paid to Chisholm Trail
Contribution paid the for the extension of the 21" South San Gabriel
Interceptor from the westernmost edge of the Wolf Ranch shopping
1,900,000 Mall to the westernmost edge of the District (a)
$3,495,000 Subtotal - Prior Contributions
(a) Pursuant to the Offiste Wastewater Utility Construction Reimbursement Agreement, the previous owner
of the Land, spent $1.9 million in the construction of the SSGI as described above and was entitled to
reimbursement of $1,473,111 to be paid from the collection of wastewater impact fees by the City from
new improvements within the Riverview Development (previously named the Shadow Canyon
Development.
Page 11 of 81
{W0668563.3}
o Development standards within the District will be “Grandfathered” pursuant to the
approved 2004 Preliminary Plat but are agreeable to providing for connectivity of
roads within the District to other lateral roads in the area;
o 278 agrees, on a lot-by-lot basis and as a condition of residential building permit
issuance, to mitigate for the removal of Live Oak, Post Oak, Shumard Oak, Bur Oak,
Chinquapin Oak, Monterey Oak, Bald Cypress, American Elm, Cedar Elm, Pecan
Walnut, Texas Ash, or Southern Magnolia trees of 26” diameter or greater, measured
at a height of 4.5’ above ground, from resident lots within the District at a ratio of 3:1,
based on the total diameter inches of such trees removed from the lot, by either: (i)
planting mitigations trees from the City’s preferred plant list within the District, or (ii)
payment of $200 per diameter inch of such trees removed from the lot into a fund or
account to be used by the city for planting, pruning, irrigation, maintenance, and other
associated tree activities in City parks or other City-owned property.
o 278 agrees to fund the extension of the City’s planned park and trail system along the
South San Gabriel River.
The other terms of the creation of the District are listed below:
Name of the Municipal Utility District
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 34 (the “District”)
Land Encompassed by the MUD – 278.21 acres
Agreements
1. Consent Agreement
2. Strategic Partnership Agreement – District agrees to the limited purpose annexation of all
property within the District, at creation or any subsequent property annexed into the District,
for the purpose of sharing in any sales and use tax by the City (50%) and the District (50%)
ultimately collected by District.
Issuance of Bonds
Facilities for which bonds may be issued: water, wastewater, drainage, organizational expenses, initial
operating expenses, interest during construction, capitalized interest; refunding; roadways, and
recreational facilities.
Timing of Bond Issues – substantially as shown in Finance Plan
Bond Requirements
25 year maturity
Interest Rate not in excess of 2% above the 20 Bond Index
Optional Redemption – no longer than 10 years from date of issuance of bonds
Minimum of 3% net present value savings for all refundings
Maximum issuance date of 10 years from the date of first issuance of bonds
Remaining 4.06 through 4.12 are the same
Page 12 of 81
{W0668563.3}
Tax Rate Limitation - $1.10
Parks
1. Trail System - 278 is committed the development of a trail system along the South San
Gabriel River and has agreed to dedicate 22 acres of land situated along the River to be
developed as a trail.
2. Parking Lot – 278 also agrees to construct a parking site in order to provide the City’s
Parks Department access to the trail system.
3. Open Space – Additionally, 278 Land Plan includes approximately 69.73 acres of private
parkland, open space, and preserve areas..
City Compensation Fee - The District will be created as an “In-City” MUD therefore there will be
no City Compensation Fee.
Page 13 of 81
Response Compliance
Item
Policy 3: Submit information with the MUD creation petition that would allow the staff to perform the level City Council
has directed during consideration of several recent MUD petitions.
a. Require applicants to submit the following: i. A detailed projected pro-
forma with assumptions of different tax rates and homes at various
price points;
On page 67 of the application, please a detailed
projected pro forma including an average home value
of $385,000.
ii. A marketing study completed within the previous six months of the
date of the petition;
Capital Research is currently preparing a market study
which is expected to be completed by early November
2015. Based on the approval of the City Manager, the
application is being submitted at this time and the
market study will be submitted upon completion.
iii. A clear and understandable comparing MUD financed development to
non-MUD financed development should also be included including
projections of municipal property tax generation;
278 is applying for the creation of the “In-City” MUD
in order to procure approximately $17,000,000 in
reimbursements, as allowed by the TCEQ. Without
such reimbursements, the lot sales price to
homebuilders would have to increase by a minimum of
$28,000. This action would result in increased home
prices to individuals of approximately $43,000.
iv. A copy of the petitioner's financial statement and detailed
description of the petitioner's experience with MUD's;
278 is a single-asset entity formed in October 2014,
prior to purchasing the Land in November 2014. As
such, no financial statement is available at this time.
278's principal and sole shareholder, Joe Straub, is
developing two successful single family residential
projects within municipal utility districts in Williamson
and Travis Counties (Oaks at San Gabriel and The
Commons at Rowe Lane).
c. Increase the application fee to a sum to allow for adequate cost recovery
and that is commensurate with staffing and workload impacts necessary
for evaluating MUD petitions and drafting MUD Consent Agreements
and any related agreements.
The stated application fee of $3,050 provided by City
staff was paid at the time of submittal of the
application.
v. Documentation that all lien holders consent to the formation of the
proposed MUD.
All lien holders have consented. Please see Exhibits B
& C to the petition.
b. To streamline processing of MUD petitions, allow staff to defer
comprehensive review & consideration of applications until a complete
application and all supporting materials are submitted.
With the exception of the market study, see ii above,
the application is complete.
Page 14 of 81
Response Compliance
Policy 4: Agree to a cross-departmental "MUD Review Team" comprised, at a minimum, of members of the planning
department, utility department, finance department, parks department, public safety departments, and legal departments
Item
Since November 2014, 278's principal and consultants
have been meeting with members of planning, finance,
parks, transportation and legal departments and
expects that each of these staff members will review
and comment on the application.
Page 15 of 81
Response Compliance
Policy 5: Address provision of public services, and address pubic safety matters in the Consent Agreement
Item
a. Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and
optimize locations of service delivery.
278's predecessor-in-interest to the Land contributed
$1,900,000 to the City to fund the extension of the
wastewater interceptor from the westernmost edge of the
mall to the boundary of the Land. Additonally, 278's
predecessor-in-interest to the Land prepaid $1,595,000 of
water impact fees. These expenditures of $3,495,000 were
included in the purchase price paid by 278 for the Land.
Additonally, 278 has agreed to pay up to $1,500,000 to the
City to fund utility infrastructure serving the Land and/or
surrounding area.
b. Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for a new fire
station or othe public safety facility as determined by the City.
Due to environmental and topographic constraints on the
Land and the terms of related federal permits issued by the
US Fish & Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of
Engineers, no site is available on the Land.
c. If the City provides fire protection services to the MUD, require payment
of Fire SIP fee (or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and
operations.
Since the Land is located within the City's corporate city
limits, fire protection services provided to the District will
be funded by ad valorem tax payments by residents of the
District.
d. Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to
existing developed properties located outside of the MUD.
Due to environmental and topographic constraints on the
Land and the terms of related federal permits issued by the
US Fish & Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of
Engineers, the location of the collector road has been
agreed to by the City since 2004. 278 has designed the
internal street in a manner that will enhance access and
reduce reponse times.
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 applicable to the City.
The Land is located within the City's corporate city limits
and will receive City fire, police and solid waste services.
f. Require adequate street lighting for vehicle and pedestrian safety. 278 has agreed to install street lighting in a manner to
promote public safety.
g. An ETJ MUD shall provide a maintenance program approved by the
City's Transporation Department that is consistent with City standards and
shall be include appropriate consultation with the County Engineer.
The Land is located within the City's corporate city limits.
Page 16 of 81
Response Compliance
Policy 6: Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the Consent Agreement.
Item
a. Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with the
Utilities Master Plan
Since November 2014, 278's principal and consultants
have been meeting with the City's Utility Department and
therefore understands the City's Utilities Master Plan and
agrees to adhere to such plan.
b. Require the MUD the City to be the water, sewer, and electric provider
unless the area is within another entity's certificated service area, or the City
chooses not to require those services to be required by the City.
The Land is located within the City's corporate city limits
and will receive City water, sewer and electric utility
services.
c. Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne by
the developer and/or MUD, not the City.
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 MUD customers should be the same as for other out of
City customers
No relocation of utility infrastructure is required.
d. Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site improvements to only those
circumstances where the necessity for the improvements 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).
278 has agreed to contribute 10% of the net
reimbursements from each bond issue up to a maximum
amount of $1,500,000 to be used by the City to fund
utility infrastructure serving the Land and/or surrounding
area.
The Land is located within the City's corporate city limits.
Water and wastewater rates charged to the District
residents are expected to be the same rates charged to
other 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.
Since the Land is located within the City's corporate city
limits, all District residents will be subject to the City's
water conservation techniques, and 278 agrees to work
with GUS to include any other conservation methods
ibl
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.
The City's existing water and wastewater facilities are
sufficient to serve all District residents upon ultimate
build-out.
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.
Since the Land is located within the CIty', all residents
within the District will be required to comply with the
City's 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 fees are eligible for reimbursement by the MUD).
For ETJ MUDs, require payment of impact fees at the same time the 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.
278 agrees to pay impact fees no later than the time of
building permit issuance.
Page 17 of 81
Response Compliance
Policy 7: Specify the amount of debt intended to be issues, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule, and
include those financial provisions in the Consent Agreement.
Item
a. Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule so that an
opportune time for annexation can be calculated.
The Land is already located within the City's corporate
city limits.
b. For an in-City MUD, limit debt issuance to "hard costs" associated with
on and off-site water and wastewater, and possible, for roads. An ETJ
MUD may also issue debt for the hard costs of parks and trails facilities
that will be open to the general public. Debt shall not be issued for "soft
costs" such as design and engineering work, landscaping, signage
maintenance nor private amenities.
The proposed reimbursements include only the "hard
costs" associated with on and off-site water,
wastewater and drainage, as well as the "hard costs" of
the collector road within the District, if assessed
valuations are sufficient to result in a competitive tax
rate of no more than $0.95/$100 assessed valuation.
c.
e. A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities
(city, county, school district, MUD, ESD, etc.) and the proposed MUD
tax, demonstrating the total anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD.
See page 69 of the application. The combined total
District and Overlapping Tax Rate is expected to be
$1.10 per $100 assessed valuation.
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.
The Land is already located within the City's corporate
city limits.
d. Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes,
assessments, charge, fees and fines of any kind.
Agreed.
Page 18 of 81
Response Compliance
Policy 8: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ.
Item
a. A date certain for annexation of the District shall be established in its
creation documents. Upon reaching that certain date, the City retains the
right to extend the annexation date or deny the annexation. The date of
annexation set with the District creation shall be indicated in a disclosure
statement to buyers of all properties within the District. Buyers shall be
provided with the District's pro-forma in an easy-to-read, understandable
format that explains to the buyer that they are buying into an obligated
property and are made aware that the taxes and assessments are not
imposed by the City of Georgetown and were the choice of the Developer.
The Land is already located within the City's corporate
city limits.
b. Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is in
the MUD at the time of annexation that are different from the 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.
The Land is already located within the City's corporate
city limits.
c. This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is annexed
into the city limits. At the City's option, a "limited district" may be continued
in existence after annexation to maintain amenities or services beyond what
the City typically provides for neighborhoods similarly situated. In such
cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA stating conditions on which MUD
will be converted to a limited district that will continue to exist following full
purpose annexation. Concurrently with the MUD's confirmation election,
the MUD shall hold election on proposition to levy an O&M tax per Section
49.107 of the Water Code to provide funds to operate the limited district
following full purpose annexation by the City; the MUD shall have no right
to issue bonds until proposition to levy an O&M tax is approved.
The Land is already located within the City's corporate
city limits.
Page 19 of 81
Response Compliance
o. Agreed.Require Signage consitent with UDC provisions.
Policy 9: Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and and development standards, and address the land use
provisions in the Consent Agreement of related agreement
Item
a. Prohibit all age-restricted development; provided, however, that one
section or phase of a development may be considered for age-restricted
development if it does not exceed 10% of the net developable land area
and 10% of the total housing units within the MUD.
c. Due to environmental and topographic constraints on the Land and
the terms of related federal permits issued by the US Fish &
Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of Engineers, development of
the Land must be low density residential development. The Land,
together with the other parcels contained within the Shadow
Canyon Preliminary Plat, approximate the 20% requirement.
Agreed.
b.
Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility; Personal
Services Restricted as defined the Unified Development Code, Chapter
16, of Title 7 of the Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others
as determined by City Council.
No Correctional Facility or Personal Services Restricted
Development will be permitted on the Land.
d. Require at least 30% of the proposed land use area to be used for
commercial/retail uses and to be developed within the first 5 years of
the first building permit within the MUD.
See c. above.
See c. above.
f. Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the
applicable School District. Location(s) of school sites should in a
central, walkable location within a residential neighborhood away from
a collector or arterial roadway identified in the Overall Transportation
Plan (OTP)
Due to environmental and topographic constraints on the Land and
the terms of related federal permits issued by the US Fish &
Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of Engineers, no site is
available on the Land.
See c. above.
Agreed.
e. Require workforce housing to be provided through a homebuiyers club
that includes programs such as down payment assistance, preferred
sales pricing, subsidized insurance premiums, ongoing financial
counseling and homeowner maintenance training. The homebuyers
club shall be open to all current City of Georgetown, Williamson
County or Georgetown Independent Schoold District employees at the
time of closing on a property. A report shall be furnished annually to
the City's Housing Coordinator outlining the workforce housing actions
under- taken with the minimum programs being those identified above.
278 agrees to work with City staff to identify program parameters in
pursuit of establishing programs satisfying this policy item.
j. Require compliance with all water quality and water
conservation/drought restriction ordinances with no adverse impacts to
the watershed including a preliminary plan indicating existing facilities,
proposed facilities and any improvements planned in the occupied site,
spring and stream protection zones established by the December 20,
2013 t
Agreed.
g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and
require major amendments to a MUD land use plan shall require review
by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council.
Agreed.
h. Require gross impervious cover to be kept below the maximums
allowed by the UDC.
Agreed.
i. Require tree perservation to exceed minimum UDC Standards. Where
a site contains little existing tree coverage, require at least two trees of
3" caliper or greater on every single family lot and provide park and
open space areas to increase gross tree canopy coverage upon tree
maturity.
278 has commissioned a tree survey, which was prepared in June
2015. The tree survey identified 122 heritage trees located within
the development area on the Land, and 278 agrees to comply with
the substantive requirements of the present heritage tree ordinance;
provided, however, that the City's issuance of permits for heritage
tree removal be ministerial and administrative upon 278's
compliance with the ordinance's mitigation requirements.
k. Require protection and conservation of features unique to site such as
clusters trees, archaeological sites, springs, the natural floodplain,
recharge and karst features and historic farm and ranch complexes.
The plan of development of the Land recognizes environmental and
topographic constraints on the Land and complies with the terms of
related federal permits issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and
US Army Corps of Engineers.
l. Require higher standards for architectural design. For example, homes
with front porches at minimum 8 foot depth, 3-sides stone, stone
veneer or brick masonry, variation in floor plans, and embellished
architectural treatment and masonry facades on homes facing street
intersection corners or major streets.
Agreed. 278 will require higher standards for architectural design.
p. Require innovative or non-conventional subdivision design, such as
conservation subdivision design, housing diversity, vertical mixed use,
and/or traditional neighborhood development (TND).
The plan of development of the Land recognizes environmental and
topographic constraints on the Land and complies with the terms of
related federal permits issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Require at least 20% of overall net developable land area to used
commercial, office, industrial or related employment (nonresidential) uses,
unless located in a Low Density Residential in the City's Future Land Use
Plan in which case a neighborhood-serving commercial site shall be included.
i. All efforts should be made to exclude this commercial/retail land area
from the MUD in favor of full-purpose annexation, or Strategic Partnership
Agreement (SPA) should be required allowing the City to collect sales taxes
from the area.
ii. The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City is
entitled to receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and that none of
those taxes should be shared with the MUD unless special circumstances
exist.
iii. City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses other
than one- and two-family residential uses.
m. Require submittal and City Council approval of a pattern book with a
visual representation of the achitecutural styles of buildings including
cornice lines, roof profiles, finish materials, windows and
ornamentation.
Agreed.
n. Require landscaping along any roadways identified in the Overall
Transportation Plan commensurate to that required for Scenic/Natural
Gateways as identified in the Unified Development Section 4.13.
Agreed.
Page 20 of 81
Response Compliance
c. Require maintenance access to be provided.
278 agrees to obligate the District to provide such
program.
i Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses such as schools. 278 agrees to provide access to the regional trail
network.
See a. above.
Policy 10: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements (not just meet UDC standards or less than UDC standards), and
address parkland provisions in the Consent Agreement:
Item
Agreed.
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.
The plan for development of the Land includes 69.73
acres of parkland, open spaces and preserve areas.
Additionally, 278 has agreed to dedicate 22 acres of
public parkland located along the South San Gabriel
River to the City and further intends to develop such
area as determined the Parks and Recreation Board.
b. Require installations and maintenance of park
facilities improvements.
Agreed.
Trailheads, only, will be ADA compliant.
Agreed.
The plan for development of the Land recognizes
environmental and topographic constraints on the
Land and complies with the terms of related federal
permits issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and
US Army Corps of Engineers.
ii. Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
iii. Require usable trailheads with off-street parking and ADA compliant trails.
iv. Require financial contributions to regional park facilities such as Westside Park or Garey Park
(depending on location of the MUD).
v. Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts from net usable park land.
vi. Require provision of security and maintenance program.
vii. 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.
Page 21 of 81
Response Compliance
a.
b.
c.
d.
Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased
connectivity, reduced cul-de-sacs, short block lengths, additional
stub outs to neighbors except where developed as a conservation
subdivision pursuant to Chapter 11 of UDC.
Require creative stormwater management and water quality
solutions to be provided as low impact development ("LID") to
minimize any downstream impacts.
The plan for development of the Land meets
this policy item within the environmental and
topographic constraints on the Land and
requirements of related federal permits issued
by the US Fish & Wildlife Service and US
Army Corps of Engineers.
The plan for developmen of the Land has
been designed with increased connectivity,
reduced cul-de-sacs, short block lengths, and
additional stub-outs to neighbors.
Policy 11: Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the Consent
Agreement:
Item
Require completion of a Traffic 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).
The Traffic Analysis (TIA) prepared in
connection with the Shadow Canyon
Preliminary is on file with the City.
Require dedication of right-of-way, inclusion of bike lanes,
sidewalks, and aesthetically pleasing streetscapes consistent with
the OTP.
278 agrees to comply with the City's OTP in
effect at the time of submittal of the
application.
Page 22 of 81
{W0668558.2} 60
Appendix A: Location Map
Page 23 of 81
{W0668558.2} 67
E. Estimated Build Out Schedule
Williamson County MUD No. 34
Attached please find an estimated build out schedule related to the development of single family
lots and construction of single family homes thereon.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Section 1 8900 0 0 0089
Section 2 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 153
Section 3 9800 0 0 0098
Section 4 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 87
Section 5 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 92
Section 6 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 72
Total Lots Developed 187 153 87 92 72 0 0 591
Homes Constructed 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Section 1 16 36 37 0 0 0 0 89
Section 2 0 40 50 56 7 0 0 153
Section 3 14 48 33 3 0 0 0 98
Section 4 0 0 0 44 43 0 0 87
Section 5 0 0 0 0 41 51 0 92
Section 6 0 0 0 0 0 15 57 72
Total Units Constructed 30 124 120 103 91 66 57 591
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 34
Land Development Schedule
Lots to be Develo ped
Page 24 of 81
Page 25 of 81
Page 26 of 81
Page 27 of 81
Page 28 of 81
Page 29 of 81
Page 30 of 81
Page 31 of 81
Page 32 of 81
Page 33 of 81
Page 34 of 81
Page 35 of 81
Page 36 of 81
Page 37 of 81
Page 38 of 81
Page 39 of 81
Page 40 of 81
Page 41 of 81
Page 42 of 81
Page 43 of 81
Page 44 of 81
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion and Presentation on City of Georgetown Street Maintenance - Mark Miller, Transportation
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern on behalf of Mark Miller
ATTACHMENTS:
Street Maintenance Report
Page 45 of 81
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
STREET MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS
SUMMARY REPORT
Prepared By
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
&
KPA ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 2016
Page 46 of 81
Page | 1
1.0 Executive Summary
In 2005, the City of Georgetown implemented the use of a Pavement Management System (Cartegraph) for its
Street Maintenance Program. This system was implemented as part of the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statement 34. As required by the GASB 34 accounting standard, the system must be updated
once every three years. The Pavement Management System process results in a pavement condition index (PCI)
score for the City streets. The City adopted an overall PCI score of 85 for City streets.
In order to maintain these roadways, the City has utilized various street maintenance treatments. The current
street maintenance treatments consist of crack sealing, rejuvenator application, chip seal (single and double) with
a fog seal, and hot-in-place recycled pavement (HIPR). Costs for the Street Maintenance Treatments for this
report were calculated per lane mile. A lane mile is calculated at by multiplying a 12 -foot wide lane by 5,280-
feet. Below is the cost per lane mile for each street maintenance treatment utilized by the City of Georgetown:
Street Maintenance Treatment Cost per Lane Mile ($/Lane Mile)
Crack Sealing $0-1,000 per mile
Rejuvenator $3,520
Single Chip Seal w/Fog Seal $25,000
Double Chip Seal w/Fog Seal $42,000
Hot In Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR) $110,000
Rehabilitation (Point Repair with Chip Seal or
HIPR) $141,000
Located in Section 4 of this report are representative pictures of each street maintenance treatment completed in
the City of Georgetown within the last five (5) years.
Page 47 of 81
Page | 2
2.0 Street Maintenance
Street Maintenance History:
Street Maintenance prior to 1990 consisted of 90% Chip Seal, 10% overlays. The City provided approximately
$75,000 to Williams County to perform Street Maintenance Work. Chip seals were performed on all Streets
every 7 to 10 years. Chip seal projects were always quick and dirty but they were also very effective in protecting
the town’s 60 to 70 year old streets. As with most street maintenance applications, there were Citizen
complaints. The last County contracted chip seals were performed in approximately 1990. From the 20’s to the
70’s, periodic overlays were performed without the use of engineering services resulting in drainage issues
throughout old town. In the past, excavations from waste water projects frequently revealed old curb and gutter
section under existing curb and gutters. The City purchased its own asphalt paver and distributor in
approximately 1991. Maintenance budget in 1991 was approximately $500,000. Chip seals and overlays
continued on residential streets on a limited basis until approximately 2000. (The projects drew some complaints)
In-house overlays continued on failing pavements and chip seals were reserved for roads without curbs such as
College St. and roads in San Gabriel Park. Micro-surface was utilized in lieu of Chip Seal from 2000 to 2012.
The micro-surface application is primarily used to fill areas where rutting occurs and functions similar to a
rejuvenator for asphalt protection. It does not provide protection from cracking, nor does it seal existing cr acks.
The applications that the City has experienced of micro-surfacing lasted approximately 2 to 5 years before the
product would begin to unravel, exposing the surface course it was intended to protect. Chip seal use was
expanded to protect the City’s expanding roadway network. (The process continues to draw some complaints)
The General Fund maintenance budget grew from $500,000 in 1991 to $875,000 in 2004. Additional
pavement maintenance funds came with the ¼ cent sales tax for street maintenance. This amount has
slowly grown from approximately $1.7 million in 2005 to approximately $2.3 million in 2015.
Fig. 1: Pavement Preservation Graph (Typical)
Page 48 of 81
Page | 3
Fig. 2: Pavement Preservation Graph (Current City Street Maintenance Treatments)
Fig. 3: Pavement Preservation Graph (HIPR/Rehab/Reconstruction Treatments Only)
Page 49 of 81
Page | 4
GASB 34: Depreciation Approach vs. Modified Approach
One of the goals of GASB 34 is to help public works departments go from the traditional dire-need
maintenance approach to one of preventive maintenance and renewal . There are two methods allowed by
GASB for tracking and reporting assets. Those methods are the Modified Approach and Depreciation
Approach.
Depreciation Approach:
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 34 depreciation approach depreciates
the capitalized infrastructure assets. Under the depreciation approach, all assets must be inventoried,
valued at historical cost, and depreciated. This creates some interesting challenges for many public
agencies because the information on the original cost may no longer be available in the agency's files.
All assets reported using the depreciation approach, including infrastructure assets, have to be assigned a
useful life over which the depreciation will occur. It is difficult to utilize a standard list of useful lives for
capital assets because of the wide variation in quality of materials, quality of workmanship, use patterns,
climate, preventative maintenance received, and too many other variables to mention, it is nearly
impossible to develop a single useful life or even a range of useful lives that are meaningful over the
entire nation.
Modified Approach
As an alternative to the depreciation approach, which provides little useful information that operating
departments can use to manage the assets, the GASB allows the use of a condition rating system for
reporting infrastructure assets called the modified approach. In order for the modified approach to be
utilized, the following conditions must be met:
The government manages the eligible assets using an asset management system to:
o Keep an up-to-date asset inventory;
o Perform condition assessments and report the results on a measurement scale;
o Estimate the annual amount to maintain and preserve the eligible infrastructure assets at
the condition level established and disclosed by the government.
The government must document that the eligible assets are being preserved approximately at or
above the condition level established and disclosed by the government.
The City of Georgetown elected to utilize the modified approach, and in February 2005 completed its first
inventory for the basis of its pavement management information system. The initial assessment rated
Georgetown’s street condition as “good” with a 90.0 pavement condition index. The Council adopted an
overall PCI score of 85. As required by the accounting standard, the system must be updated once every
three (3) years.
Page 50 of 81
Page | 5
3.0 Street Maintenance Applications
The City currently utilizes five (5) different street maintenance applications. Pictures and descriptions of these
applications can be seen in Section 4.0. The current applications utilized are crack sealing, asphalt rejuvenation,
single and double chip seal with fog seal, hot-in-place recycled pavement (HIPR), and mill and asphalt overlay.
The City has in past utilized the street maintenance treatment methods of micro-surfacing and asphalt mill and
overlay. Micro-surfacing is no longer utilized due to performance issues and application costs in relation to a
similar application of a single course chip seal. The City has utilized HIPR in place of the traditional asphalt mill
and overlay due to the cost effectiveness of HIPR and similar performance results when compared to the
traditional mill and overlay.
The City of Georgetown contracted with KPA Engineers, who in turn utilized Fugro Roadware, Inc. to provide
data collection for 100 percent of the road network currently maintained by the City of Georgetown. The road
survey was conducted using an automated system that collects pavement distress information, ride quality
measurements, and rut depth measurements mounted on a host data collection platform. The use of an automated
system for data collection is an integral component of the City’s ability to objectively compare conditions across
the network. This information is converted to Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings for the City’s roadway
network. The distresses that are utilized in the pavement management system are pavement distresses (alligator
cracking, block cracking, and linear cracking) and rutting. These distresses are reviewed and approved by City
Staff prior to performing the first iteration of the PCI ratings. Though ride quality is measured, it is not included
in the overall PCI rating. The PCI ratings are then provided to the City in a worksheet and map format for review
and comment. City Staff reviews the data provided and ident ifies streets that may have been misread and/or
misidentified that resulted in a lower or higher than anticipated PCI rating. City Staff, KPA and Fugro perform
specific street site visits to evaluate any potential misidentified street conditions in relation to the PCI rating.
A decision tree is prepared utilizing the pavement management system policies. The decision tree and
subsequent recommendations for maintenance activities are based solely on the condition of the road segment or
PCI score. The table below shows the decision matrix utilized when selecting street maintenance applications.
Table 1. Street Maintenance Decision Matrix
Street Maintenance Treatment Functional Class PCI
Min
PCI
Max
Minimum
Interval
Rejuvenator Local 85 95 3 yr
Single Chip w/ Fog Seal Local 60 85 Varies
Double Chip w/ Fog Seal All except Local
60 85 Varies
WMA/TOM All 60 80 Varies
HIPR (Cutler) All 40 70 Varies
Rehabilitation (20% Patching + Mill &
Overlay)
All 0 40 Varies
Page 51 of 81
Page | 6
Below is a description of each street maintenance treatment utilized by the City of Georgetown.
Current Street Maintenance Treatments/Applications:
Crack Sealing -
o Cost of Installation - $0-1,000 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Restricts water penetration into underlying street base and subbase layers;
o Seals the pavement against contaminants;
o Extends the useful life of asphalt;
o Can result in tracking depending on temperature and installation;
o Does not leave streets aesthetically pleasing (spider web look);
o Applied at various locations throughout the City.
Rejuvenator -
o Cost of Installation - $3,500 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Replaces oils lost due to oxidation;
o Revitalizes the asphalt binder;
o Restores flexibility;
o Seals the pavement against contaminants;
o Extends the useful life of asphalt indefinitely;
o Can result in tracking depending on temperature and installation;
o Applied in Sun City in 2015 by City Crews and by Contractors in 2014 in
University Park Subdivision, Georgetown Crossing and various other
locations.
Single Course Surface Treatment w/Fog Seal (Single Chip Seal)
o Cost of Installation - $25,000 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Cost effective application, utilized mainly for street maintenance;
o Improved Skid Resistance;
o Effective Moisture Barrier;
o Seals & prevents reflection of small surface cracks;
o Fog Seal helps lock loose chips down and improves road noise;
o Loose chip (rock) is present during application and can experience
raveling at intersections;
o Reduced speeds are necessary during application and cleanup. (2 to 5
days)
o Though Fog Seals help road noise, the chip seal application has more road
noise than traditional asphalt overlays;
o Does not improve overall ride quality;
o Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12’ above
existing ground level;
o Applied in Katy’s Crossing Subdivision and Tallwood Dr., Norwood Dr.,
River Bow, Friendswood Dr., and various other roads in this subdivision
off Leander Road in 2015.
Page 52 of 81
Page | 7
Double Course Surface Treatment w/Fog Seal (Double Chip Seal)
o Cost of Installation - $42,000 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Cost effective application, utilized mainly for street maintenance;
o Improved Skid Resistance;
o Effective Moisture Barrier;
o Seals & prevents reflection of small surface cracks;
o Fog Seal helps lock loose chips down and improves road noise;
o Loose chip (rock) is present during application and can experience
raveling at intersections;
o Though Fog Seals help road noise, the chip seal application has more road
noise than traditional asphalt overlays;
o Does not improve overall ride quality;
o Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12’ above
existing ground level;
o Applied to Rivery Blvd., Wolf Ranch Parkway, D.B. Wood, NE Inner
Loop in 2014 and to Williams Dr. (Hwy 29 to Serenada) and Rockmoor
Dr. in 2015
Hot In Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR)
o Cost of Installation - $110,000 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Cost effective alternative to mill and asphalt overlay;
o Provides a smooth rideable surface;
o Two to Three times as expensive as Chip Seal;
o Trees along the project route must be trimmed approximately 12’ above
existing ground level;
o Due to the train process, machines give off extreme heat and will singe
adjacent vegetation and trees.
o Applied to Hutto Road, River Bend (Dawn to Williams), and Power Road
(Portion) in 2014 and Williams Drive (Lakeway to Serenada), Power Road
(Portion), River Bend, Mesquite Ln, Dawn Drive, Park Drive, and Booty’s
Crossing (Gabriel View to Williams Drive) in 2015.
Rehabilitation (Point Repair with Chip Seal or HIPR)
o Cost of Installation - $141,000 per lane mile (12-foot lane)
o Provide full depth street repair at specific points along the project route;
o Utilize HIPR, Single Chip Seal or Double Chip Seal based off the
remaining street conditions.
o Utilized on streets that cannot be repaired under standard street
maintenance methods.
o Applied to a portion of Hutto Road (HIPR) in 2014 and Dawn Drive
(HIPR) in 2015;
Page 53 of 81
Page | 8
The street maintenance treatments as described above are utilized in the following adjacent
governmental entities:
Williamson County;
Travis County;
TxDOT;
City of Round Rock;
City of Austin;
City of Belton;
City of Temple;
The City of Pflugerville is currently evaluating various street maintenance methods, including all of the
methods described above.
The City of Georgetown is currently evaluating a new Street Maintenance known as Thin Overlay Mix or
TOM’s. This process is similar to an asphalt overlay, but the thickness ranges from ¾” to 1 ½” thick.
The typical asphalt overlay is 2” thick. The TOMs are a warm mix asphalt application that utilizes
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material. The City applied the warm mix asphalt application on
Railroad Avenue in 2010. TxDOT has installed this product throughout the State to determine the life
cycle of the product. Cost of installation for TOM’s range from $65,000 to $85,000 per lane mile. This
cost range is based on the thickness of the TOM’s when applied and initial roadway preparation required
to install the TOM’s (level up, micro-milling, etc…).
Page 54 of 81
Page | 9
4.0 Street Maintenance Application Pictures
Crack Seal/Rejuvenator Applications
Before Installation
After Installation
LOCATION: SUNFLOWER
APPLICATION TYPE: CRACK SEAL AND REJUVENATOR APPLICATION
DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2013
COST OF INSTALLATION: $3,000 PER LANE MILE
Page 55 of 81
Page | 10
Microsurfacing
South Ridge Circle
South Ridge Circle
LOCATION: RIVER RIDGE SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION TYPE: MICROSURFACING (NO LONGER UTILIZED)
DATE INSTALLED: INSERT DATE
COST OF INSTALLATION: $30,000 TO $35,000 PER LANE MILE
Page 56 of 81
Page | 11
Single (One) Course Chip Seal w/Fog Seal
2011
2014
After Installation
LOCATION: OLIVE STREET @ 19TH STREET
APPLICATION TYPE: SINGLE COURSE CHIP SEAL W/FOG SEAL
DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2015
COST OF INSTALLATION: $25,000 PER LANE MILE
Page 57 of 81
Page | 12
Double (Two) Course Chip Seal w/Fog Seal
Before Installation
After Installation
LOCATION: WOLF RANCH PARKWAY
APPLICATION TYPE: DOUBLE COURSE CHIP SEAL W/FOG SEAL
DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2014
COST OF INSTALLATION: $42,000 PER LANE MILE
Page 58 of 81
Page | 13
Hot in Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR)
Before Installation
After Installation
LOCATION: MESQUITE DRIVE
APPLICATION TYPE: Hot in Place Recycled Pavement (HIPR)
DATE INSTALLED: AUGUST 2015
COST OF INSTALLATION: $110,000 PER LANE MILE
Page 59 of 81
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Presentation and discussion of Treated Water Supply and Demand Management for 2016 and beyond -- Mike
Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
An overview of Treated Water Supply and Demand Management will be presented. This will include the
current environment and future direction for Metrics, Performance Management, Supply Side Management
and Demand Side Management.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Item was presented at the January 8, 2016 GUS Board meeting. No action; update only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
None at this time, update only.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time, update only.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation - Final
Page 60 of 81
2016 Water Peak Demand
Strategy
City Council Workshop
February 23, 2016
Page 61 of 81
Expected Supply and Demand
•Raw Water
–Sufficient Raw Water Supply
•Treated Water
–Daily Peak
•Sufficient Plant Capacity (42 MGD) to meet Daily
Peak Demand (36 MGD)
–Intra-Day Peak (12:00 midnight to 9:00 am)
•Constrained for 2016 requiring additional
Treatment/Distribution System Resources
2Page 62 of 81
Intra-Day Water Peak Explained
•Peak water demand is irrigation driven,
occurring predominantly at night.
•65-80% of Peak Daily Demand is from
midnight to 8 am (Intra-Day Peak)
•Intra-Day Peaking Supply comes from
Treatment Plants plus Storage Tanks
•During the Intra-Day Peak, more supply
drawn from Tanks than Plants
3Page 63 of 81
Symptoms of Peak Constraint
•Some storage tanks bottom-out during the
Intra Day Peak
•Low Tank levels affect water pressure/fire
fighting capacity
•Plants are operated as peaking units
rather than base load units
•Longer system recovery time, more
susceptible to single points of failure
4Page 64 of 81
3 Types of Solution Strategies
•Metrics and Performance Management
•Supply Side Management
•Demand Side Management
5Page 65 of 81
Metrics and Performance
•Metrics
–Standardize/Formalize Plant Metering
–Calculate Tank Storage Volumes from Tank
Levels in SCADA. (SCADA formula).
–Capture Western District SCADA history in
GUS SCADA Historian. (none exists today)
–Calibrate data consistent with TCEQ required
reporting data points.
6Page 66 of 81
Metrics and Performance (cont)
•Performance Management
–Individual Tank Volume and Total Storage
Volume Initiative
•Available real time in Control Center
•Added to daily reports
•Use for operational decision making
•Historical data, basis for Engineering Analysis
7Page 67 of 81
Supply Side Management
•Treated Water Supply
–Round Rock Water Agreement (2016 Summer)
•4 –6 MGD Short –Long term
•No Infrastructure needed
–Leander Water Agreement (2016 Fall)
•1 –2 MGD Short term
•Minimal Infrastructure needed
–Lone Star Water Agreement (2018 Summer)
•1.5 MGD Long term
•GST and main extension
–Bell County WCID #1 Plant Expansion (2018
Summer)
•3 –10 MGD
•GST and main extension
8Page 68 of 81
Supply Side Management (cont)
•Storage Capacity
–Daniels Mountain GST (2016 Summer)
•3-4 Million Gallons
–Rabbit Hill EST (2017 Summer)
•1 Million Gallons
–Sequoia EST (2017 Summer)
•2 Million Gallons
–Future Sun City EST (2018 Summer)
•Estimated 2 Million Gallons
9Page 69 of 81
Supply Side Management (cont)
•System Configuration improvements
–Increase flow rate from Daniels Mountain Tanks
•Increased line size to increase flow rate (complete ’15)
–Add 4 New WD/GUS Interconnections
•1 on Williams Dr. and 1 on CR-245 (2016 Winter)
•2 on TX-195 (2016 Summer)
•1 on Shell Road (2017 Winter)
•Isolate DB Woods Interconnection
–Rehab Domel Well (2017 Summer)
•Push to Sun City at 1015’ rather than 30 miles at 1178’
(2016 Summer)
10Page 70 of 81
Demand Side Mgmt.(DSM)
•Dual objectives
–Reduce aggregate consumption
•220 GPCD targeting a number of 160 GPCD
–Flatten the Daily and/or Intra-Day Peak
•Peak Shaving [and Valley Filling]
–Move Peak Load to the shoulders
–Balance the percent of customers irrigating each day
11Page 71 of 81
Demand Side Mgmt. (cont)
•Tools for Water DSM
–Water Ordinance
•Construction Standards, Inspection
•Irrigation Day Schedule (2 x 3-day schedules)
–Drought Contingency Plan Ordinance
•Use restrictions
•Irrigation Schedule restrictions (2-day & 1-day)
•State Required
–Mass and Direct Marketing Conservation
12Page 72 of 81
Demand Side Mgmt. (cont)
•Mass Marketing Conservation Campaigns
–Prerequisites
•Objectives, Messages and Communications Plan
•Has a Slogan
•Easy to Remember
–Examples
•General Water Conservation
•Reduce irrigation zone times (to 6-8 minutes)
•Spread irrigation start times from peak to shoulder
13Page 73 of 81
Demand Side (cont)
•Direct marketing Conservation Campaigns
–Prerequisites
•Data Warehouse with Hourly Interval Meter Data
•Data Analytics
•Customer Relationship Mgmt. (CRM) System
•Objectives and Sequence of Messages
–Examples
•Wrong Day Irrigation
•Over Watering
•Potential Leak
14Page 74 of 81
Demand Side (cont)
DSM Summary Reduce GPCD Shave Peak
Ordinance
Construction Standards
Irrigation Schedule (2 x 3-Day)
Spread Start Time (mandated)
Schedule (3 x 2-Day) (mandated)
Mass Marketing
General Conservation Message
Reduce Zone Times
Spread Start Times (suggested)
Schedule (Pick 2 days) (suggested)
Direct Marketing (under development)
Wrong Day Irrigation
Over Watering
Potential Leak 15Page 75 of 81
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion regarding the Texas State University Citizen Survey - Paul Diaz, Budget
Manager, Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager and Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Texas State University is heading up a regional citizen survey which will measure citizen satisfaction in
areas relating to quality of life, infrastructure, public safety, utilities, and parks.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$2,500 base cost with an estimated additional cost of $2,000 for postage, printing, etc.
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Diaz, Budget Manager, Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager and Jack Daly, Assistant to
the City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Survey
Page 76 of 81
Page 1 of 4
City of ___________________ 2016 Citizen Survey
This survey is being conducted by Texas State University for the City of ___________. Your address has been randomly
selected to receive this survey. Your responses are completely confidential. Surveys may be mailed back to the Center
for Research, Public Policy and Training; Texas State University, UAC 323; 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 and input. Please contact crppt@txstate.edu or citycontact@city.gov with
questions.
Please return this survey by April 4, 2016.
To complete online visit www.city.gov/survey and enter online code:
Please circle the number or check the box that most closely represents your opinion for each of the items below.
1. Please rate the following elements of quality of life.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
The city as a
place to live
1 2 3 4 5
Your
neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5
A place to raise
children
1 2 3 4 5
A place to work
1 2 3 4 5
A place to retire
1 2 3 4 5
Overall quality
of life
1 2 3 4 5
2. Please rate the following characteristics of economic
development in _____________.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Overall quality
of new
development
1 2 3 4 5
Overall quality
of business and
service
establishments
1 2 3 4 5
The availability
of business and
service
establishments
1 2 3 4 5
Employment
opportunities
1 2 3 4 5
Housing
opportunities
1 2 3 4 5
3. Please rate the following aspects of mobility in
__________.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Ease of car travel
1 2 3 4 5
Ease of bus travel 1 2 3 4 5
Ease of bicycle
travel
1 2 3 4 5
Ease of walking
1 2 3 4 5
Availability of paths
and walking trails
1 2 3 4 5
Traffic flow on
major streets
1 2 3 4 5
Amount of public
parking
1 2 3 4 5
4. What do you think about the pace of growth in
_______________?
Much
too slow
Some-
what
too slow
Right
pace
Some-
what
too fast
Much
too fast
Unsure
Population
growth
1 2 3 4 5 6
Jobs growth
1 2 3 4 5 6
Retail growth 1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall
business
growth
1 2 3 4 5 6
City Logo
Page 77 of 81
Page 2 of 4
5. Please rate the quality of each of the following
protective services in ___________.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Police
services
1 2 3 4 5
Fire services
1 2 3 4 5
Ambulance/
Emergency
services
1 2 3 4 5
Crime
prevention
1 2 3 4 5
Fire
prevention/
education
1 2 3 4 5
Municipal
courts
1 2 3 4 5
Traffic
enforcement
1 2 3 4 5
Emergency
preparedness
1 2 3 4 5
6. Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in _________
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Street
Repair
1 2 3 4 5
Street
cleaning
1 2 3 4 5
Street
lighting
1 2 3 4 5
Sidewalk
maintenance
1 2 3 4 5
Traffic signal
timing
1 2 3 4 5
Bus/transit
services
1 2 3 4 5
7. Please rate the quality of each of the following
services in ________________.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Garbage
collection
1 2 3 4 5
Recycling 1 2 3 4 5
Yard waste
pickup
1 2 3 4 5
Storm
drainage
1 2 3 4 5
Drinking
water
1 2 3 4 5
Sewer
services
1 2 3 4 5
8. Please rate the quality of each of the following in
__________.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
City parks 1 2 3 4 5
Recreation
programs
1 2 3 4 5
Services to
seniors
1 2 3 4 5
Services to
youth
1 2 3 4 5
Public library 1 2 3 4 5
Public
information
services
1 2 3 4 5
City
beautification
1 2 3 4 5
9. In the following 12 months, how many times have you
or members of your family used the following services?
Never 1 - 2
times
3 - 12
times
13 - 26
times
More than
26 times
City library 1 2 3 4 5
Recreation
centers
1 2 3 4 5
Recreation
program/activity
1 2 3 4 5
Services to
youth
1 2 3 4 5
Visited the city
website
1 2 3 4 5
Ridden a local
bus
1 2 3 4 5
Recycled 1 2 3 4 5
Read the local
newspaper
1 2 3 4 5
Visited a city
park
1 2 3 4 5
Other ________
1 2 3 4 5
10. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services
provided by each of the following levels of
government?
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
The Federal
Government
1 2 3 4 5
Page 78 of 81
Page 3 of 4
The State
Government
1 2 3 4 5
County
Government
1 2 3 4 5
City
Government
1 2 3 4 5
11. If the city had to reduce spending, how much
would you support reductions in each of the following
areas?
Strongly
Oppose
Some-
what
Oppose
Some-
what
Support
Strongly
Support
Unsure
Library
Services
1 2 3 4 5
Transit
Services
1 2 3 4 5
Senior
Programs
1 2 3 4 5
Youth
Programs
1 2 3 4 5
Parks and
Rec
1 2 3 4 5
Public
Safety
1 2 3 4 5
Street
Mainten-
ance
1 2 3 4 5
What are your top three priorities for the ____________
community?
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
Now we would like to ask you some questions about
your satisfaction with contact with city employees.
Have you had any in-person, phone, or email contact
with any employee of the City within the last 12 months?
Yes No
What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City
in your most recent contact? (Please rate each of the
characteristics below).
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Overall
impression
1 2 3 4 5
Courteous 1 2 3 4 5
Responsive 1 2 3 4 5
Knowledgeable 1 2 3 4 5
Page 79 of 81
Page 4 of 4
Now we would like to ask you some questions about you and your household. Remember that your responses
are completely confidential and anonymous.
How many years have you lived in ______________.
Which of the following best describes the building you live in?
Do you own or rent your home?
What is the nearest neighborhood intersection near your home? (e.g., 1st and Main) ________________ and
________________
What is your gender?
Which of the following options best describes your age category?
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 years
or older
What is your employment status?
Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?
What is your race?
How many adults (18 or older) live in your household? ___________
How many children (younger than 18) live in your household? _________
How likely is it that you will:
Very
Unlikely
Unlikely Likely Very
likely
Unsure
Still be living in ______ in 5 years 1 2 3 4 5
Recommend living in _______ to someone else 1 2 3 4 5
Recommend ____________ as a place to visit 1 2 3 4 5
Anything else you want us to know? ___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
Male Female
Employed Unemployed Retired Student
Yes No
White Black or African
American
Asian, Asian Indian,
Pacific Islander
American Indian
or Alaskan Native
Other
Page 80 of 81
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has
a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- PEC/PUC Hearing
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of real property, the payment of relocation
benefits, and the subsequent payment of actual reasonable and customary moving expenses in compliance
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, in connection
with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim
Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
1. Parcel 2, Leslie David Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo, 307 Shannon Ln
2. Parcel 8, Angie San Miguel, 1612 Park Ln
3. Parcel 9, Joseph M. Hertsenberg and Debby L. Hertsenberg, 1610 Park Ln
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Evaluation Process
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
TBD
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 81 of 81