HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.26.2016 Workshop
Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 26, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on January 26, 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 Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Overview of the City’s Debt Program, including current outstanding and proposed debt
obligations -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
B Presentation of Texas State University's Citizen Survey -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager and
Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager
C Presentation and discussion of a Scope of Work and Interlocal Agreement with Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) for the Williams Drive Study -- Nat
Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator, Sofia Nelson,
Planning Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
D Discussion regarding Airport Educational Materials -- Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and
Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
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
- Hoskins Brown Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
(1) Consideration and possible action to approve the appraised value for the acquisition of
1.453 acres of real property in fee simple for right of way and 0.63 acres of permanent utility
easement to be acquired from Georgetown Independent School District in connection with the
Rivery Blvd. Extension Project and to authorize an initial offer to be extended to the
landowner based thereon. – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim
Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
(2) Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of real property and/or
easements, the payment of relocation benefits, and the subsequent payment of actual moving
expenses in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Page 1 of 127
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
a) Parcel 4, Castleberry, 305 Shannon Ln
b) Parcel 19, Rose, 1525 Park Ln
c) Parcel 20, Chapman, 1523 Park Ln.
(3) Deliberation concerning the acquisition of real property located at 307 Shannon Ln (Parcel
2) from Leslie David Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo in connection with the Rivery Blvd.
Extension Project – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim Briggs,
General Manager of Utilities
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City attorney recruitment
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, 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 127
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
January 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Overview of the City’s Debt Program, including current outstanding and proposed debt obligations -- Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Each year in preparation for the annual bond issuance process, staff prepares an overview of the City’s
current outstanding debt obligations, as well as, a preview of the upcoming bond issue that the Council will
consider in April 2016. This presentation provides a background on the City’s debt management program, as
well as, debt benchmark and comparison indicators. This annual presentation is also a requirement of the
City’s Fiscal and Budgetary Policy.
This overview will include Revenue Bonds related to the City’s utilities, as well as, both self-supporting and
taxable general debt obligations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial Impact of proposed bond issues included in the presentation
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
2016 Debt Overview Presentation
Page 3 of 127
1
City of Georgetown
2016 Debt Overview
City Council Meeting
January 26, 2016
Agenda
• Debt Policy considerations (fiscal and
budgetary policy)
• Types of Debt utilized by the City per
policy
• Current bond ratings
• Existing Debt, Statistics and Trends
• Budgeted/Proposed Debt
• Long Range Debt Planning
Page 4 of 127
2
Fiscal and Budgetary Policy –
Debt Section introduction
•The City of Georgetown recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities
is to provide services to the community. Using debt financing to meet the
capital needs of the community must be evaluated according to efficiency
and equity. Efficiency must be evaluated to determine the highest rate of
return for a given investment of resources. Equity is resolved by
determining who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In
meeting demand for additional services, the City will strive to balance the
needs between debt financing and “pay as you go” methods. The City
realizes that failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued
economic viability, but also realizes that too much debt may have
detrimental effects on the City’s long-range financial condition.
•The City will issue debt only for the purpose of acquiring or constructing
capital assets for the general benefit of its citizens and to allow it to fulfill its
various purposes as a city.
•A Debt Condition Update report will be provided annually.
Policy - Why issue City debt?
Population Growth Demands
Stretches “pay as
you go” resources
– Impacts continued
economic viability
Page 5 of 127
3
Policy - Cost / Benefit of Debt
Funding
• Long-term debt funding considered for
capital improvements when:
– Useful life of asset exceeds any debt repayment
– Future citizens are benefited
• Maintains stability of City’s tax rate
– Shorter term debt provides consistency for
funding and replacement
• Prepares for growth and future citizens help
pay for the cost of the impact of growth
Policy - Debt Type –General
Obligation
• Backed by City’s ability to “tax” for repayment
of debt
– Results in lower interest rates
• General Obligation Bonds
– Repaid through property taxes
– Approved thru referendum by voters
– Usually used for “large” or controversial items &
projects
• Significant impact to the tax payers
• Usually amortized over 20 years
Page 6 of 127
4
Policy - Debt Type -Certificates of
Obligation
• Allowed by Texas State Law and City policy
– Considered for non-discretionary or routine items
• Examples –fire stations, road improvements
– Public Notice required
• Generally considered “Tax Supported”
• Majority - 20 year bonds
– Maturities match life of asset
• City issues self-supporting CO debt
– City saves on interest cost by issuing CO debt
rather than revenue bonds
–Repaid through fees or rates
Policy - Other Types Tax Supported
Debt
• Limited Tax Notes
– Previously used when market conditions are
not favorable or as “bridge” financing
– Doesn’t require “notice of intent”
• Planned for Rivery Summit Project
• Certificates of Participation
– Usually 3 year notes
– Typically used to fund equipment
Page 7 of 127
5
Policy -Debt Type-Revenue
Bonds
• Funds the City’s utility infrastructure
– Issued on Electric/Water/Wastewater system
• Currently 20 year bonds – level debt service
– Repaid through system revenue
• “Coverage” required
– Number of times debt service can be divided into
net operating revenues (before capital)
• 1.35 times - bond covenants
• 1.5 times - City Fiscal & Budgetary Policy
Roles in City Debt Issuance
• Council
– sets policy and authorizes all debt issues
• Financial Advisor
– Provide technical expertise through debt issuance
– Advocates for city
• Bond Counsel
– Legal documents and Attorney General review
• Bond Rating Agencies
– Independent review of city/region financial conditions
– Determines “credit worthiness” for potential bond holders
Page 8 of 127
6
Impacts of Bond Ratings
• Rating Agencies review financial and
management conditions
• Determine City’s “Credit Worthiness”
• Impacts interest rates and cost of debt
• City’s Current Bond Rating:
–Standard & Poor’s – reviewed annually
–AA+ General Obligation
–AA Revenue
–Moody’s
–A2 General Obligation & Revenue
–
Current Bond Rating Report
• Positive Outlook
– Economic conditions
– Financial strength
– Leadership/Management
• “Concerns”
– Overlapping Debt
– Growth – impact of debt issued for growth related infrastructure
– Authorized but unissued debt
Page 9 of 127
7
City’s Current Debt
Outstanding
GO/CO Debt Outstanding
– December 31, 2015
$116,265,260 - Tax Supported
Includes GO Referendums:
• $14,570,000– 2004 Authorization –All issued
• $29,335,000– 2008 Authorization
• $25,950,000 authorized not issued - Roads
• $26,215,000 authorized not issued – Parks
• $29,500,000 – 2011 Authorization –All issued
•$10,000,000 – 2015 Authorization
•$95M authorized not issued
Page 10 of 127
8
General Government
Tax Supported Debt
GO/CO Debt Payments
Page 11 of 127
9
General Debt Capacity
• Allowable Levy -
$1.50 per $100
valuation
• Current levy -
$0.22684
• Percentage of
Allowable used –
15.12%
Self- Supporting
GO/CO Debt Outstanding
As of December 31, 2015:
•$24,729,660- Self-supporting
– $12,015,488 - GTEC
– $4,910,577 – Stormwater Drainage
– $1,333,595 – Airport
– $6,470,000 – Rivery TIRZ
Page 12 of 127
10
CO/GO Debt – YE Historical
Self-supported includes GTEC
Fiscal Year Tax Supported Self-Supported
2005/06 $37,583,855 $21,111,145
2006/07 $52,326,112 $21,068,888
2007/08 $54,293,528 $20,661,472
2008/09 $57,097,773 $25,692,525
2009/10 $68,987,618 $26,217,382
2010/11 $74,674,860 $25,135,140
2011/12 $97,392,121 $19,457,875
2012/13 $102,337,359 $17,892,426
2013/14 $103,056,309 $16,760,348
2014/15 $104,480,260 $24,729,660
GO/CO Debt – Breakdown by Type
Page 13 of 127
11
Revenue Bonds
• Outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2015:
–$30,279,446 - Electric Fund
–$47,800,641 - Water Services Fund
(W/WW)
Revenue Debt - YE Historical
Fiscal Year Water Electric
Services Services
2005/06 $28,076,208 $17,808,792
2006/07 $27,268,155 $23,801,845
2007/08 $32,655,050 $24,624,950
2008/09 $30,359,178 $23,280,822
2009/10 $37,977,843 $24,882,157
2010/11 $35,511,352 $23,218,648
2011/12 $32,467,189 $26,582,814
2012/13 $31,941,806 $26,473,415
2013/14 $41,875,303 $30,278,048
2014/15 $47,800,641 $30,279,446
Page 14 of 127
12
Revenue Debt - Historical
City Debt
Performance &
Comparison
Indicators
Page 15 of 127
13
Total Tax-Guaranteed Debt Per Capita
(Includes Self-supporting Debt)
City Assets Net of Related Debt
Page 16 of 127
14
Debt to Assessed Valuation
Comparison
Utility Revenue Bond Coverage
Page 17 of 127
15
Outstanding Utility Debt per
Customer
Total Electric Debt Compared
to Electric Assets
Page 18 of 127
16
Total Water Service Debt Compared
to Water Service Assets
2016 Budgeted and
Proposed Debt Issues
Page 19 of 127
17
2016 Budgeted Debt
• General Obligation Bonds - $24.7 million
– 2015 Bond Authorization (transportation)- $20M
• $10M issued in November 2015
• $10M planned for April 2016
• Southwest Bypass funding
– 2008 Bond Authorization (parks) - $4.7M
• $1.7M issued in November 2015 (San Gabriel Park)
• $3M planned for April 2016 (Phasing Garey Park)
2016 Budgeted Debt
• Certificates Obligation - $4,998,000
– Austin Avenue Bridge design ($675K)
– Landfill and Transfer station repairs ($210K)
– Facilities and Parks ADA phasing ($392K)
– Design for open space/Downtown West ($460K)
–Police Vehicle Replacement ($199K)*
– Fire apparatus replacements ($750K)
– IT firewall and server replacement ($162K)
–Facilities – Municipal Complex Remodel ($1.9M)*
– Stormwater Drainage projects ($250K)
*staff proposes to not include in 2016 issue
Page 20 of 127
18
2016 Budgeted Debt
• Revenue Bonds - $9.805 M
– Electric improvements - $1.795M
• SCADA and substation improvements
– Water improvements - $2.462M
• Western District/Pastor Pump Station
– Wastewater improvements - $5.548M
• Pecan Branch Interceptor
• Berry Creek Interceptor
2016 Other Debt
• Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation - $11,150,000
– Mays Street Extension - $10,150,000
– HWY 29 Improvements - $1,000,000
• SH29 Improvements –Haven to I35
• SH29 Bypass
Page 21 of 127
19
Rivery Project
•$8.13M total City debt per development agreement
(proceeds)
– $6,740,000 issued in Spring 2015
• Net proceeds of $6.418
– $1,712,000 to be issued – Spring 2016
• Amount issued will be slightly higher than net proceeds
available for project due to issuance costs
• Does not include 4A/4B Corp contributions
– $750K – GTEC (cash)
– $4.5 M – GEDCO
• $1.5 M cash
• $3 M bonds
2016 Proposed Debt
• Certificates Obligation - $3,449,000
– Austin Avenue Bridge design ($675K)
– Landfill and Transfer station repairs ($210K)
– Facilities and Parks ADA phasing ($392K)
– Design for open space/Downtown West ($460K)
– Fire apparatus replacements ($750K)
– IT firewall and server replacement ($162K)
–EMS equipment ($550K)
•Funded through fees
– Stormwater Drainage projects ($250K)
•Funded through fees
Page 22 of 127
20
Summary – Proposed Debt for
Spring 2016• General Obligation - $13M
– Estimated 2016 tax rate impact - $0.0155
• Cert. of Obligation - $3.449M –
– $250K Stormwater self supporting
– $550K EMS self supporting
– Estimated 2016 tax rate impact - $0.003
– Subtotal – $15.889M
• $0.0158 – total estimate impact, based on
current tax base
– Reduced with continued growth and new
property
Summary – Proposed Debt for
Spring 2016
• Utility Revenue Bonds - $9.805M
– Included in current rates
• GTEC - $11.15M
– Paid through 4B sales tax revenues
• GEDCO - $3M – for Rivery Project agreement
• Rivery/TIRZ - $1.712M
– Paid through Rivery TIRZ revenues
Page 23 of 127
21
Parks Planning/Phasing –
Garey Park
Est. Fiscal Year Construction Construction Completion
Option Time of Debt Amount Impact Tax Rate Impact Contract Date Contract Amt Date*18 mos
1 Spring 2016 8,500,000$ 0.013 16/17 Sept 2016 13,500,000$ March 2018
2 Spring 2016 3,000,000$ 0.0049 16/17
Fall 2016 or 3,000,000$ 0.0049 16/17
Spring 2017* 2,500,000$ 0.0036 17/18 Sept 2016 13,500,000$ March 2018
*Bond Reimb. Resolution issued before each contract is approved
3 Spring 2016 3,000,000$ 0.0049 16/17
Spring 2017* 3,000,000$ 0.0049 17/18 Sept 2016 11,000,000$ March 2018
Spring 2018* 2,500,000$ 0.0036 18/19 May 2017 2,500,000$ Dec 2018
*Bond Reimb. Resolution issued before each contract is approved
4 Spring 2016 3,000,000$ 0.0049 16/17
Spring 2017* 5,500,000$ 0.0049 17/18 Sept 2016 13,500,000$ March 2018
*Set debt schedule to "interest only" payment for first two years ‐ impact spread over three years
Garey Park – Debt at 25 years
20 year debt
• $8.5M issue
• Annual debt svc - $580K
• $3.1M interest expense
25 year debt
• $8.5M issue
• Annual debt svc - $520K
– 11.5% decrease annually
• $4.4M interest expense
– 42.9% increase in total cost
Page 24 of 127
22
Parks Planning/Phasing – San
Gabriel Park
Previously Issued Debt for design& construction ‐ 1,000,000$ 5/2013
Est. Fiscal Year Construction Construction Completion
Time of Debt Amount Impact Tax Rate Impact Contract Date Contract Amt Date*10 mos
Phase 1 Fall 2015 ‐ debt sold 1,700,000$ 0.00028 15/16 Oct 2016 2,100,000$ Aug 2017
* $600K design contract with Rvi for Schematics of Phase 1 & 2, design of Phase 1
Phase 2 Spring 2017 1,000,000$ 0.0015 17/18 design Oct 2016 design contract $650K June 2017
Fall 17 or Spring 18 2,400,000$ 0.0033 18/19 July 2017 $2,750,000 Mar 2018
* Design for Phase 2 could start in Oct 2016, bulk of actual cash for contruction of phase 1 not needed until Early 2017
* We could fund design of Phase 2 with funds issued in Fall 2015, and reimburse Phase 1 construction when phase 2 bonds are sold in 2017
Phase 1 cost estimate is $2.7M
Phase 2 cost estimate is $3.4M
Parks Funding Considerations
Option 1
• Spring 16
– Garey $3M - $0.0049
• Spring 17
– Garey $3M
– S.G $1M
– Total $4M - $.0065
• Spring 18
– Garey $2.5M
– S.G. - $2.4
– Total $4.9 - $.007
• Overall $.0184
• Option 2
• Spring 16
– Garey $3M - $0.0049
• Spring 17**
– Garey $5.5M
– S.G $1M
– Total $6.5M
•Spring 18**
– S.G. - $2.4
– Total $2.4
• Overall $.0184
– With adjusted principal for
first 2-3 years
Page 25 of 127
23
5-10 year debt planning
• Closely align 5 year CIP with property tax
model
– Include referendum supported debt, as
outlined in contract with the voters
– Include transportation, other projects
• Include in Spring 2016 5 year CIP
presentation
Assumptions
Same tax rate split
– 0.22684 for I&S
– 0.20716 for O&M
Growth
– Base growth at 5% in FY2017, 4% in the
outyears.
– Frozen growth at 4%.
– New growth at $225 Million in FY2017, $200
Million in the outyears.
– Gross AV totals $6.26 Billion in FY2017
Page 26 of 127
24
Rule of Thumb
• For every $1 Million dollars of debt,
$70,000 of debt service is required
annually.
• Frozen property tax revenue v. non-frozen
property tax revenue.
• One cent on the tax rate = $420,000.
Project Scheduling
• Road Bonds
– $10 M every year.
• San Gabriel
– Spring 2016 = $1.7 M of new debt. $1.0 M of
previous bond proceeds.
– Spring 2017 = $2.0 M of new debt.
• Garey Park
– Spring 2016 = $3.0 M
– Spring 2017 = $3.0 M
– Spring 2018 = $2.5 M
Page 27 of 127
25
Project Scheduling
• Fleet replacement schedule
• Facilities five-year CIP.
• Parks masterplan.
• Downtown West.
Next Steps:
• Council reviews debt -Feb 9, 2016
• Council authorizes SPFI to proceed with
bond documents –Feb 23, 2016
– Council approves “NOTICE OF INTENT”to
issue CO Debt –February 23, 2016
–“Not to Exceed” amount finalized
• Offering documents finalized
• Rating Agency presentation –March 20 week
• April 26 - Bond Sale
– Council adopts Bond Ordinances
• May 17 - Bond Closing
–City receives bond proceeds
Page 28 of 127
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
January 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation of Texas State University's Citizen Survey -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager and Keith Hutchinson,
Public Communications Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Presentation and discussion regarding Texas State University’s Citizen Survey
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$2,500 base cost with an estimated additional cost of $2,000 for postage, printing, etc.
COMMENTS:
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.
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Diaz, Budget Manager and Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Survey Project Overview
Sample Survey
Tx State Citizen Survey Presentation
Page 29 of 127
1
Central Texas I-35 Corridor Communities Survey
Center for Research, Public Policy and Training
Why A Regional Community Survey?
There is a critical need for a common survey
instrument delivered with the same
methodology and during the same time period
that would generate comparative data for
communities in the Central Texas I-35 Corridor
Region.
The purpose of collecting data is to make
comparisons. There are different ways of
making comparisons in the context of citizen
needs and satisfaction surveys:
Across service areas: Where are we doing well?
How can we improve?
Across years: Are we doing better compared to
the past? What are our trends?
Across geographic areas: How are we doing
compared to others?
All these questions are important because they
shed light on the why there are observed
differences and lead to more informed
responses.
However, at best, the current approach to
citizen surveys only answers the first two
questions. Larger cities benefit from
contracting with major firms that are able to
benchmark—at a significant cost—with other
major cities. The Center for Research, Public
Policy and Training proposes a strategy so that
we can answer the third question with a low-
cost solution that brings together communities
in the Central Texas Region.
There are three major justifications for the
proposed initiative. The use of comparative
data is in alignment with broader initiatives
from the ICMA (e.g., ICMA Insights) and others
to create meaningful and appropriate
benchmarks to inform administrators as they
seek to manage for quality. Decision makers
will have access to information that will allow
them to identify challenges satisfying residents
and also direct them to seek out information
and advice from communities that have found
better ways to provide and deliver programs.
Finally, elected officials and citizens care about
how their city “stacks up” against other
communities and bringing this information to
the city appointed leadership and staff will help
focus and align efforts.
Research on the importance of citizen
satisfaction surveys across jurisdictions suggests
that the information provided can be useful to
managers in conjunction with their efforts to
enhance performance. For example, Kelly and
Swindell (2002) outline how cross jurisdictional
surveys give managers opportunities to improve
programs and services. Furthermore, they
illustrated the importance of such feedback in
its usefulness in helping managers better target
scarce resources more effectively where
needed. Additionally, research conducted by
Van Ryzin et al. (2004) demonstrated the value
of such surveys and how they have been linked
to an enhancement in citizens’ trust in
government officials. Other examples of how
this approach has informed public officials in
their efforts to enrich their communities can be
found in the brief bibliography below.
Page 30 of 127
2
Required Steps
In order for this project to work, there are
several requirements.
1. The length of the existing survey must
be approximately 25-30 critical
common questions. However,
participating cities will still be able to
ask 10-15 customized questions.
2. Cities must be able to provide an
electronic spreadsheet of residential
addresses.
3. Each participating city must sign a
contract with Texas State University by
March 1st.
4. All communities must be prepared to
have the survey released no later than
April 1st.
Survey Method
In a 2015 test run of a pilot project with the City
of Hutto, we found that the demographic
characteristics and responses of on-line versus
mail survey were not statistically different from
one another. This finding supports past
research on survey methods. As a result, the
costs of conducting survey research are coming
down because there will be a need for less
postage and supplies and materials. However,
the cost for the materials and the postage will
be incurred by the city.
On-line surveys should be much briefer and
traditional paper surveys tended to be quite
long. However numerous clicks and multiple
pages lead to impatient respondents, which
produces a high roll off rate.
The survey will be widely advertised in local
newspaper and flyers. In addition, low cost
lawn signs at key intersections will be used to
announce the availability of the community
survey.
This regional approach creates economies of
scale that will allow us to provide English and
Spanish versions at no additional cost.
The sample will be drawn from utility mailing
addresses and a random sample that, at a
response rate of 20%, will produce a margin of
error of approximately +/- 5% for larger
communities.
Cost
The mission of the Center for Research, Public
Policy and Training is to assist public officials in
their efforts to serve their communities.
Therefore, we maintain efforts to keep the
costs of our studies and data analyses low.
Depending on the size of the sample and
methodology (online versus mail survey), your
price could be as low as $2,500 for data
collection, report writing, and presentations to
your office and city council.
Deliverables
The services provided by the Center for
Research, Public Policy and Training include the
following:
• Bi-lingual survey instrument on citizen
satisfaction
• Statistical analysis of survey results
• Report on regional results
• Report on city specific results
• Executive summary of results
• Content description and summaries of
each survey topic
• Comparison of results among
participating cities
• Profile of each city surveyed
• Profile of survey respondents
• Overview of survey research method
• Copy of survey instrument
Page 31 of 127
3
• Five (5) color copies of the final report,
in addition to an electronic copy of the
report to each participating city
• Planning meeting, orientation and
training for participating cities
Bibliography
Holzer, M., Charbonneau, E., and Kim, Y. (2009).
Mapping the Terrain of Public Service Quality
Improvement: Twenty-Five Years of Trends and
Practices in the United States. International
Review of Administrative Sciences (75)3: 403-
418.
Kelly, J. M., and Swindell, D. (2002). A Multiple-
Indicator Approach to Municipal Service
Evaluation: Correlating Performance
Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction across
Jurisdictions. Public Administration Review
62(5): 610-621.
Kelly, J. M., and Swindell, D. (2003). Service
Quality Across Urban Space: First Steps Toward
a Model of Citizen Satisfaction. Journal of Urban
Affairs 24(3): 271-288.
Kinney, A. S. (2010). The Public Perspective:
Public Involvement in Performance
Management. In The State and Local
Government Performance Management
Sourcebook. A. S. Kinney and M. J. Mucha, eds.
Chicago, IL: GFOA.
Van Ryzin, G. G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S.,
Gulick, L., and Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and
Consequences of Citizen Satisfaction: An
Application of the American Customer
Satisfaction Index Model to New York City.
Public Administration Review 64(3): 331-341.
Stipak, B. (1980). Local Government’s Use of
Citizen Surveys. Public Administration Review
40(5): 521-525.
Page 32 of 127
4
Principal Investigators
Thomas Longoria, Ph.D.
Thomas Longoria is a Professor of Political
Science at Texas State University and Director of
the Master of Public Administration
Program. He received his Ph.D. from Texas
A&M University in 1994. His areas of
specialization include local government, public
policy, and nonprofit leadership. Longoria has
conducted nearly $3,000,000 in research and
sponsored projects in the area of community
development. These projects work with
minority and low-income serving nonprofit
organizations. He has received funding from
the Environmental Protection Agency, the US
Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the
Corporation for National Service.
In addition to his ongoing program leadership
activities, he is author or co-author of over 20
articles that appear in journals such as the
American Political Science Review, Urban Affairs
Review, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Social Science
Quarterly, Journal of Social Policy and Public
Management, State and Local Government
Review, Death Studies, Journal of Minority and
Immigrant Health, and the Western Political
Quarterly.
Longoria teaches courses on nonprofit
management, public policy, urban politics, and
research methods. He frequently makes invited
presentations and conducts training seminars
across the US on topics related to community
and economic development and the impact of
social and demographic change on local
government policy and management.
Jayce Farmer, Ph.D.
Jayce Farmer is an Assistant Professor of
Political Science at Texas State University and
Director of the Center for Research, Public
Policy and Training. He received his Ph.D. in
Public Administration from Florida State
University in 2008. His areas of specialization
include local government, public policy, and
public financial management. Farmer has
conducted several research projects that
include investigating local government service
delivery and its impacts on local government
fiscal behavior. In addition to his research, he
has over 12 years of practical experience
working in local government budgeting and
finance. As a practitioner of public finances, he
served as the capital budget coordinator for the
City of Tallahassee.
He has authored or co-authored several articles
that appear in journals such as Publius: The
Journal of Federalism, Urban Affairs Review,
Public Performance and Management Review,
and The Journal of Rural and Community
Development. He has forthcoming publications
that will be featured in Public Budgeting and
Finance, and The Encyclopedia of Public
Administration and Policy, 3rd ed.
Farmer teaches courses on public budgeting
and finance, public performance management,
quantitative methods, and public sector
economics. He also conducts courses and
training seminars on public finances and
performance management for the Texas
Certified Public Manager Program.
Page 33 of 127
Page 34 of 127
Page 35 of 127
Page 36 of 127
Page 37 of 127
1/19/2016
1
2016 Citizen Survey
Council Workshop: January 26, 2016
City of Georgetown
Background
• The FY2016 Budget included funds for a
Citizen Survey.
• The last Citizen Survey was performed in
2013.
– Underrepresentation of demographics.
– Limited data collection methods.
City of Georgetown
Page 38 of 127
1/19/2016
2
Texas State Partnership
Opportunity
• In 2015, Texas State University launched
a pilot survey in the City of Hutto.
• Tested citizen satisfaction in key service
areas (e.g. infrastructure, public safety,
utilities, quality of life).
– Sample Survey is in your packet.
• Pilot program successfully validated
survey methodology research.
City of Georgetown
Regional Survey Overview
• 10 Central Texas cities to participate.
• Ask the same questions to establish
baseline results (Eco Devo, Public Safety,
Mobility)
• Currently,Schertz, Hutto, Converse, Kyle,
and Taylor on board.
• Timing of the project.
City of Georgetown
Page 39 of 127
1/19/2016
3
Survey Format
• Standardized Base Questions using Likert
Scale.
– “City’s overall efforts in attracting new
businesses.”
– “Level of safety in your neighborhood.”
• Customization of Questions
– Roughly 20 - 30 custom questions.
– Specific area of interests.
– Council direction on topics to discuss.
City of Georgetown
Texas State Deliverables
• Bi-lingual survey instrument.
• Statistical analysis of results, including
demographic and geographic breakdown.
• Comparison report of regional and city
specific results.
• Five color copies of the report, and a
presentation by Dr. Longoria to Council of
survey findings.
City of Georgetown
Page 40 of 127
1/19/2016
4
Benefit to the City
• Understanding of Citizen satisfaction.
• Baselines for performance measures.
• Help in prioritization of goals.
• Insight to how to better communicate with
our citizens.
• Regional benchmark
City of Georgetown
Project Schedule & Cost
• Timeline:
– Feb: Meet with Cities to discuss strategies,
needs, & ideas.
– Mar: TXST releases the survey & evaluates
response rates.
– May: Analyze data and work on final report.
– Jun: Produce the final report to the City and
present to Council.
• Costs: $2,500 base & $2,000 indirect
City of Georgetown
Page 41 of 127
1/19/2016
5
Questions
City of Georgetown
Page 42 of 127
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
January 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion of a Scope of Work and Interlocal Agreement with Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CAMPO) for the Williams Drive Study -- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst,
Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator, Sofia Nelson, Planning Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown is working with the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to
conduct a study of Williams Drive to address historic and emerging mobility and economic development
issues along this corridor. The study area includes Williams Drive from an area east of Austin Ave to the
City limits (Attachment C, Study Area). The study will recommend projects and provide implementation
plans that enhance transportation safety, mobility and connectivity; enhance economic development
potential; and establish the area as a premier gateway into Georgetown (Attachment A, Scope of Work).
Williams Drive is a four-lane roadway with continuous center turn lanes. More than 29,000 cars access this
major arterial daily, and the trend is expected to grow with the City’s expanding population. The City of
Georgetown and TxDOT have identified projects and committed funding within the corridor before 2025 that
will inform and impact development and mobility patterns as part of the recently approved 2015
Transportation Bond program. Key projects that will be completed in the area as a result of the 2015 Bond
include:
· The Northwest Boulevard Bridge extension;
· The Rivery Boulevard extension;
· Improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road including the addition of a dedicated right-turn
lane from Williams Drive; and
· Improvements to the Interstate 35 northbound service road from Williams Drive to Lakeway Drive.
It should also be noted that in 2006, the City accepted a Redevelopment Plan for a portion of the corridor
generally located at the intersection of Williams Drive and Interstate 35 (Williams Drive Gateway
Redevelopment Plan). The purpose of this Plan was to promote and guide redevelopment of the aging and
highway oriented uses with a livelier mix of uses in a denser and more pedestrian friendly environment. As
part of this effort, the City established a special taxing district designed to further the development within the
district consistent with this plan, and designated the subject and surrounding area with a Specialty Mixed Use
Area Future Land Use designation.
The adoption of the Gateway Redevelopment Plan and subsequent follow through by City staff resulted in
several transportation improvements and efforts to the corridor, including Northwest Boulevard Bridge,
Rivery Boulevard Extension, and improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road from Williams
Drive. However, despite enormous growth across the City and specific, renewed focus in the Downtown
area, the Williams Drive Gateway area has remained largely unchanged, hampered by poor access, a
fragmented property ownership pattern, limited infrastructure improvements, and changes in the market.
In order to address the mobility issues of Williams Drive, a more comprehensive review and analysis is
needed of the entire corridor, to include the Gateway area identified in the 2006 Plan. A comprehensive study
will identify recommendations to promote synergy between transportation, land use and other planning areas,
as well as an update of the 2006 Plan and an implementation program.
CAMPO has committed federal funding to support the City’s efforts to address the transportation needs and
demands for this corridor through its Platinum Planning Program. Through a localized planning effort, Plans
completed as part of this program meet shared goals and are consistent with CAMPO’s 2040 Regional
Page 43 of 127
Transportation Plan and the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations from plans completed
through this program will inform future iterations of the Regional Transportation Plan, and be eligible for
future federal funding allocated by CAMPO.
The Williams Drive Study seeks to help Georgetown and the region manage its growth challenges by
creating environments that provide for an efficient, effective and reliable system for moving people and
goods through multiple travel options; enhanced economic development and housing options near high-
quality transportation investment projects; ultimately positioning Williams Drive as a premier gateway for
the City of Georgetown and the Austin region.
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:
GTAB and P&Z provided a unanimous recommendation for approval by City Council on December 10,
2015 and December 15, 2015, respectively.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the attached ILA and scope of work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Plan budget approved as part of the FY 2016 Budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP®
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Scope of Work
Attachment C - Study Area
Attachment D - Interlocal Agreement
Attachment E - Presentation
Page 44 of 127
SCOPE OF WORK
CAMPO Platinum Planning
Project Name: Georgetown, TX Williams Drive Study
CAMPO is seeking services from a qualified consultant to conduct a study and develop
a plan to further the goals of CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program and the City of
Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the Overall Transportation Plan
(OTP) and Future Land Use Map, as well as address the immediate and future mobility
issues that stem from population growth and development pressures. The Consultant
will develop a plan that applies the elements of the Platinum Planning Program to the
study area, and recommends projects and implementation plans that enhance multi-
modal transportation safety, mobility and connectivity, enhance economic development
potential, and establish the area as a premier gateway into Georgetown.
CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed
multimodal transportation planning at the local level that will generate regionally
significant benefits through projects and policies. The program aligns local and regional
planning through a progressive, integrated, and inclusive process. Plans completed as
part of this program meet shared goals and are inclusive of state of the practice
elements consistent with CAMPO’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan goals.
Specifically, these plans will outline synergies between transportation, land use, and
other planning areas to better understand how the system performs. Recommendations
from plans completed through this program will inform future iterations of the Regional
Transportation Plan and be eligible for future Federal funding allocated by CAMPO. The
Platinum Planning Program includes three spatial areas: Subregions, Corridors, and
Centers.
Georgetown, Texas, is a rapidly growing community about 30 miles north of Austin.
The city has a population of over 50,000 people and serves as the county seat for
Williamson County. Georgetown is known for its walkable, historic downtown, family
oriented neighborhoods, and as a retirement destination. The city also serves as the
northern gateway for the Capital Area. This study seeks to help Georgetown and the
region manage its growth challenges by creating environments that provide for an
efficient, effective and reliable system for moving people and goods through multiple
travel options, enhance economic development and housing options near high-quality
transportation investments, and position Williams Drive to become a premier gateway
for the City of Georgetown and the Austin region.
Williams Drive is a four-lane roadway with continuous center turn lanes. More than
29,000 cars access this major arterial daily, and the trend is expected to grow with the
City’s expanding population. The City of Georgetown and TxDOT have identified
projects and committed funding within the corridor before 2025 that will inform and
impact development and mobility patterns as part of the recently approved 2015
Transportation Bond program. Key projects that will be completed in the area as a result
of the 2015 Bond include:
1
Page 45 of 127
• The Northwest Boulevard Bridge extension;
• The Rivery Boulevard extension;
• Improvements to the Interstate 35 southbound service road including the addition
of a dedicated right-turn lane from Williams Drive; and
• Improvements to the Interstate 35 northbound service road from Williams Drive
to Lakeway Drive.
The City envisions a transportation bond election in 2025 that may include
recommendations from this study. In addition, the City accepted a Master
Redevelopment Plan for a portion of the Corridor in 2006, and established a special
taxing district designed to further the development within the district limits in accordance
with this plan. To further this effort, the City also designated this area with a Specialty
Mixed Use Future Land Use designation, as well as created a new zoning district, the
Mixed-Use district, with the intent of drafting and adopting a mixed-use Regulating Plan
for the area.
CAMPO has identified a portion of the Corridor as a Growth Center in its 2040 Plan.
The Williams Drive Study will recommend policy, programming, projects and an
implementation plan for the study area that address and enhance mobility, safety, and
livability.
The Williams Drive Plan includes two Platinum Planning spatial area types:
1. Corridor Plan – Development of a context-sensitive corridor plan for several miles
on Williams Drive, which addresses access management strategies, multi-modal
transportation elements, safety and operational improvements, and
recommendations for a private realm built-form that supports different modes of
transportation and a sense of place.
2. Centers Plan – Development of a plan for a vibrant mixed-use center and
gateway along Williams Drive from an area south of Austin Avenue to Lakeway
Drive, consistent with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and special taxing
district and land use overlays. This includes development concepts for a mixed-
use catalytic project on the Georgetown ISD site.
In order to better respect the context of the City of Georgetown, key words used in this
scope are defined as below:
1. Multimodal – design and policy that ensures the safe, efficient, effective, reliable
and comfortable accommodation of various modes of travel including cars,
pedestrians, cyclists, and where/if appropriate, transit.
2. Mixed-use – the appropriate combination and mixture of land uses and density
that can produce a feasible amount of origins, destinations, and trip generators
(jobs, housing, services) that allow communities and the region gain the biggest
benefits/use from multi-modal transportation investments. Mixed-use may include
uses mixed vertically, or complimentary single uses adjacent to one another.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 46 of 127
3. Equity – Ensuring robust engagement of all segments of the population,
minimizing any adverse impacts of plan recommendations, and increasing
access to opportunity for all members of the community.
The consultant should have experience and knowledge in planning for implementation
consistent with the Platinum Planning Program elements:
1. Multimodal and Mixed-Use – Create connections to housing, jobs, and services
through the establishment of dynamic mixed-use environments, well-connected
street grids, high-quality transit options, as well as safe and useful pedestrian/bicycle
accommodations.
2. Housing – Develop a mix of housing types and price points appropriate for the study
area context that provides living options that can accommodate a variety of incomes,
abilities, and familial types.
3. Environment – Create a healthy environment that proactively protects and enhances
air, water, land, and people.
4. Economic Development – Promote the economic competitiveness of the study area
to yield positive impacts on the local tax base, high-quality jobs, and community
services.
5. Equity – Create positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes for all
residents and stakeholders in the study areas while minimizing adverse impacts.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 47 of 127
Study Area (See below for the study area maps)
The focus of the Williams Drive study is inclusive of the corridor from an area east of
Austin Avenue, just north of downtown, to the Georgetown City Limits. As stated
previously, this study includes two areas of focus:
• Corridor Plan Focus Area - Williams Drive from Lakeway Drive on the south, to
the Georgetown City Limits on the north. This area of Williams Drive is four lanes
with a center turn lane, discontinuous sidewalks, and a lack of streetscaping.
Land use along this section of the corridor includes mostly strip malls, retail
power centers at major nodes, some multi-family uses, and an overall auto-
centric low-density built form.
Corridor Plan Focus Area Map
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 48 of 127
• Centers Plan Focus Area - San Gabriel River on the south and east, Rivery
Boulevard, Oak Lane and Mesquite Lane on the West, and San Gabriel Park,
Apple Creek Drive, Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive on the north. This
area includes some low-density commercial uses, single-family homes, and a
new mixed use area off Rivery Boulevard. The area is also bisected by Interstate
35, and includes a mix of a disjointed traditional street grid on the southern
portion, and a curvilinear suburban street system in the northern portion.
Downtown Georgetown
Centers Plan Focus Area Map
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 49 of 127
Schedule
Work is to begin upon the execution of a Notice to Proceed from CAMPO and is
expected to take nine (9) months to complete. CAMPO reserves the right to extend this
timeline, subject to the approval of the Transportation Policy Board.
Our Scope of Services is presented in five stages (Tasks 0– 4):
Task 0. Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Task 1. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
Task 2. Concept Plan
Task 3. Draft Project, Policy Recommendations, Implementation Plan and
Project Prioritization
Task 4. Final Report
Project Budget
The budget for the project is not to exceed $250,000.00.
Project Management
CAMPO’s Long-Range Planning Manager, or his designee, will serve as the CAMPO
Project Manager, and the City of Georgetown will serve as the local partner for this
study. The consulting firm's Project Manager will serve as the primary point of contact
for all communication between CAMPO and the consulting team. The CAMPO Project
Manager will serve as the liaison between the local partners and the consultant team.
The consulting team may not change team membership or organizational structure
without the written approval of the CAMPO Executive Director.
Effective two-way communication is essential on a project of this complexity and
importance. The Consultant will schedule bi-weekly (or more frequent, if directed by
CAMPO) meetings with CAMPO staff and local partners with ad hoc meetings as
needed. On-line conference calls will be scheduled with screen sharing, as needed or
as directed by CAMPO, to go over issues and maintain communication in the most
efficient way.
Progress Reports and Invoices
The Consultant will prepare and submit detailed narrative progress reports and itemized
invoices to the Project Manager. Invoices will include all work performed during the
reporting period only. Detailed narrative progress reports shall include:
• A brief description of work accomplished for each task.
• The percentage of completion of the overall work project and each task.
• Changes in the estimated value (budget) of each work task.
• Special problems or delays encountered or anticipated.
• The anticipated work activities for the next work period.
• Log of communication associated with study that includes the person and entity
contacted, reason, date, and time (includes phone calls, emails, etc.)
• Additional information as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 50 of 127
The progress reports must include work performed by all sub-consultants associated
with the consultant team. The Consultant will be required to submit to the CAMPO
Project Manager one consolidated progress report for review, accompanied by
supporting documentation for each reimbursement request.
Sub-Consultant Management and Meetings
The consultant will prepare contracts for any sub-consultant(s), monitor sub-consultant
staff activities, ensure sub-consultant(s) adherence to the project schedule, and review
and recommend approval of sub-consultant invoices.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control:
The Consultant will provide continuous quality assurance and quality control throughout
the life of the study. CAMPO may refuse to process invoices for payment until work,
deliverables and related project management tasks are completed to CAMPO’s
satisfaction.
Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:
• Copies of sub-consultant contracts, within 30 days of contract execution.
• Monthly invoices and detailed narrative progress reports (including travel related
expense receipts, and any equipment purchase receipts, time-sheets and other
direct expense receipts). All receipts and documentation shall be maintained at
the billing site for contract monitoring/audit purposes. The consultant is also
required to submit a project schedule and timeline which includes important tasks
and milestones for review and approval by the CAMPO project manager.
TASK 0. Public and Stakeholder Engagement
The Consultant will work with CAMPO staff and the City of Georgetown to develop a
robust and inclusive public participation plan that will lead to meaningful participation of
various stakeholders. The stakeholder participation plan shall include but is not limited
to the following subtasks:
0.1- Steering Committee Meetings (Minimum of Three)
A Steering Committee will be established by CAMPO and the City of Georgetown to
guide the study. This committee will have representation from CAMPO, City of
Georgetown, TxDOT, and other stakeholders. Prior to each project meeting or activity,
the Consultant shall prepare agenda and agenda support materials for the next
upcoming Steering Committee meeting. The CAMPO Project Manager and City of
Georgetown representative will review and approve all meeting materials prior to their
delivery to the Steering Committee members.
At least one public meeting shall be held as part of each task (1-4) in the planning
process. A project kick-off meeting shall be held with the CAMPO and the City of
Georgetown to develop draft study goals that are consistent with both the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program elements.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 51 of 127
0.2 - Public Meetings (Minimum of Three)
Public meetings will be held at integral points during the study pursuant to a schedule
proposed by the Consultant within 10 business days of contract execution and approved
by the CAMPO Project Manager. The purpose of the public meetings is to gain the
perspective of local residents, key Homeowner Associations, Business Leaders,
Community Leaders, and other entities or specific groups recommended by the Steering
Committee. This planning process shall be conducted in close coordination with
CAMPO and the City of Georgetown.
Through the public outreach processes, people will have the opportunity to comment on
the plan and planning efforts via email, social media, post mail, or in person at
meetings. The Consultant team shall collaborate with CAMPO’s Public Outreach Group
and Georgetown Project Team to broaden the channels of communications with the
public. The Consultant shall facilitate and provide support personnel and exhibits for
the outreach meetings. The Consultant shall collaborate with the CAMPO Public
Outreach personnel and Georgetown Project Team to coordinate necessary logistics for
the meetings. The public meeting schedule shall be revised, to include scheduling
additional public meetings, as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager.
Throughout the project, if CAMPO and the City of Georgetown determines there is a
need for public outreach materials to be advertised or produced in a language other
than English, the consultant shall produce print and generate electronic materials in
multiple languages (prevalent in the study area) as directed by the CAMPO Project
Manager.
0.3 - Project Web Site and Other Methods
CAMPO will develop and host a project web site throughout the duration of the
study effort. The Consultant shall be responsible for submitting deliverables and
other content as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager for posting to the project
web site. As part of Task 0, the consultant may suggest to CAMPO, and upon
approval, develop additional outreach methods relevant to the study area; such as
through social media, online town hall meetings, apps, webinars, focus groups, etc.
Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:
1. Public Participation Plan, including a proposed public meeting schedule.
2. Surveys, questionnaires, or comment cards for public meeting participants
to fill out, including an electronic version to post on the CAMPO study
website.
3. Meeting materials including, but not limited to, informational hand-outs,
written materials, sign-in sheets, the printing of meeting hand-outs, and
the preparation and production of meeting display boards in high
resolution color.
4. Documentation of the meetings shall include: photographs of each event,
copies of informational displays, the number of people in attendance at
each meeting, copies of handouts and questionnaires distributed at the
meetings, comment cards and letters received, attendance sheets from
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 52 of 127
each meeting, and the contact information used in mailings.
5. Meeting summaries of each meeting in Microsoft Word format within 10
business days of the meeting date.
6. An appropriate range of exhibits and displays for all meetings. The
Consultant shall produce additional exhibits and displays for any and all
meetings as directed by the CAMPO Project Manager. The quality and
content of exhibits and displays shall be subject to review and approval as
required by the CAMPO Project Manager. The CAMPO Project Manager
may direct edits and revisions to exhibits and displays for any scheduled
public meeting.
The Consultant shall be responsible for submitting content and deliverables to
the CAMPO Project Manager for posting on the project website.
Task 1. Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
1.1 - Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Plans, and Reports
This task involves the review and evaluation of current local, state, and regional
documents and policies relevant to transportation and supportive land use planning.
The following documents will be provided for review by the City of Georgetown:
City of Georgetown Williams Drive Corridor Study (2003)
City of Georgetown Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Plan (2006)
City of Georgetown Travel Demand Model (TDM)
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Overall Transportation Plan including the approved 2015 Road Bond
Public Safety Plan
Housing Plan
Parks and Trails Master Plan
Utility Master Plan
Downtown Master Plan
Airport Master Plan
Future Land Use Plan
My35 Plans and Projects List
Sidewalk Master Plan
City of Georgetown Unified Development Code
City of Georgetown ADA Transition Plan
City of Georgetown Data Files – Most recent Geographic Information System
(GIS) files from the City and other databases, including aerial mapping and
associated data files that shows the location of City limits property lines, street
curbs, street names, sidewalks, trails, MPO boundary, topography, known
environmental features, land use, zoning and other features
Traffic Counts
Signal Timing Plans
City of Georgetown Trails Map
Central Texas Greenprint for Growth
Other previous studies relevant to the project
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 53 of 127
1.2 - Existing conditions
The Consultant shall collect any other data necessary to evaluate existing
transportation, demographic, market, and land use conditions relevant to the Platinum
Planning Program elements within the corridor and center areas. This effort shall
include, at a minimum, an evaluation of the existing street network and connectivity
(specifically across Interstate 35 and connections to Williams Drive from adjacent
areas); access management, mode split, and any impediments to the use of alternative
modes of transportation; an inventory of existing land uses and a supportive built
environment; and any other data requested by the CAMPO Project Manager.
The data collection will pay particular attention to the use of various multimodal
transportation related items such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, streetscapes and
street sections, and branding and wayfinding/signage traffic operations, parking, safety,
and land use related items such as market trends, existing built form and building types,
infill development, adaptive reuse, public spaces and the opportunities for economic
development, and housing. Specific tasks that shall be examined as part of both the
Centers and Corridor components of this study include, but shall not be limited to:
• Parking analysis
• Traffic counts and operations analysis
• Driveway and access assessment
• Street grid connectivity and barriers analysis
• Vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis
• Traffic signal analysis
• Intersection analysis
• Roadway design and loading
• Sidewalk inventory
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis
• Fiscal impact analysis
• Land suitability analysis
• Land use susceptibility to change analysis
• Public health Impacts
• Additional tasks for examination deemed necessary by the CAMPO Project
Manager
The Consultant shall complete a housing and retail market conditions analysis as part of
the centers component of the study.
1.3 – Revision of Goals and Objectives
The Consultant shall work with CAMPO, City of Georgetown and the Steering
Committee to revise the study goals and objectives as needed.
Consultant to Deliver to CAMPO:
• Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 54 of 127
Task 2: Develop Concept Plan
The Consultant shall prepare draft conceptual plans that are specific for both the
corridor and centers components of the study based on the existing conditions and
needs assessment. Although the study has two components, the concepts for both
component shall be complimentary. This concept plan shall identify relevant projects
and policies to improve the transportation network and supportive land uses that, if
implemented, will enhance mobility, connectivity, safety, and various multimodal travel
options; support economic development in the area with minimal impact on the
environment; provide for a housing mix that meets the needs of the community; and
enhance a sense of place.
Specifically, the study shall provide an analysis of the current and potential system
network and future land use mix within the study area. This analysis should propose
specific improvements to transportation infrastructure that will improve multimodal
transportation safety, connectivity and access. The analysis shall also identify possible
investment strategies and policies to leverage the desired land use and housing mix,
and development types in accordance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well
as analyze the market feasibility of the improvements.
2.1A - Concept Plan for the Corridor Component
• Corridor Performance – Develop concepts that will improve and optimize the
transportation network’s performance and safety in the corridor through an
efficient, effective and reliable system. This includes development of access
management concepts, traffic signal timing plans, intersection improvements,
roadway cross-sections and streetscaping concepts that balance the needs of a
variety of users/modes (pedestrians, cyclist, and cars), and enhance traffic flow,
environmental quality and economic development.
• Land Use, Private Realm, and the Transect – Develop land use and built form
recommendations that are supportive and complementary to an effective
transportation corridor. This should include concepts for development pattern
intensities that may change and transition along Williams Drive from the centers
area on the south end to the more suburban areas on the north end. All concepts
shall include recommendations that will be conducive to and promote mobility, as
well as address the placement and supply of parking. In addition,
recommendations shall include strategies on how the corridor should develop
and redevelop to become an effective multimodal transportation corridor and
iconic gateway into Georgetown over time. Development of a specific transect for
this corridor shall be included.
• Connections to Subdivisions – Develop concepts that identify ways to better
connect the subdivisions along Williams Drive to the corridor and one another.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 55 of 127
2.1B - The Concept Plan for the Centers Component shall include:
• Circulation and Connectivity - Develop a multimodal connectivity plan. The
concept shall address:
o Identifying transportation opportunities and specific needs for all modes of
transportation in the corridor and center. The potential for multimodal
transportation connections between the study area and Downtown
Georgetown, the Rivery Park Development, San Gabriel Park, and
adjacent neighborhoods. Specific attention shall be given to connectivity
across Interstate 35 and the San Gabriel River, as well as the intersection
of Austin Avenue, Williams Drive and Interstate 35.
o Strategies for parking management, including on-street, shared parking
(public and private), and other arrangements.
o Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle realm, appropriate sidewalks
and bikeways, streetscapes, pedestrian crossings, intersection
improvements signals and other supportive infrastructure.
o Identifying opportunities and specific needs for transit in the area, where
and if appropriate.
o Other strategies that will help balance the needs of users traveling thru the
centers area, as well as those destined to the centers. Addressing street
grid connections and redundancy, as well as mode shift will be crucial in
this analysis.
• Economic and Urban Development - Identify opportunities for context
sensitive, mixed-use infill, grayfield/brownfield redevelopment, and new
greenfield development (both vertical and horizontal) that creates a multimodal,
safe, comfortable, and vibrant environment, destination, and investment
opportunity.
o Concept shall include provisions for additional retail, services,
entertainment and other amenities that will enhance the neighborhoods;
make the area attractive and provide basic services for its residents and a
unique experience for visitors; complimenting services and amenities
offered in the downtown district; complimenting and ancillary services for
the City’s and Capital Area’s business/employment centers.
o A catalytic project concept should be developed to examine the
redevelopment of the Georgetown ISD site that is conducive to multi-
modal transportation investment. This may include mixed-use or housing
components. Pro formas, maps, renderings, and other pertinent
information, shall be developed as part each case study project.
o Potential opportunities for public/private partnerships should be explored
as part of this task.
• Housing - Identify concepts and strategies for inclusion of an appropriate mix of
housing types (including price points and typology) that serves the needs of the
community and properly utilizes and leverages the local and regional
transportation investments in the area.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 56 of 127
• Environment and Place
o Infrastructure Design – Develop concepts for infrastructure design that
minimize impacts to the natural environment, including construction
materials, storm water infrastructure, water quality, landscaping, scenic
roadway design, etc.
o Public and Green Space – Concept should identify the areas of
opportunity for high-quality public/gathering spaces, green space, and
areas that should be considered for preservation or limited development.
o Place-making – Develop concepts and visuals that demonstrate elements
of high-quality aesthetics in both the public and private realm through
streetscaping, greenery, public art, architecture, and view sheds. The
place-making concept shall include provisions for wayfinding and branding
of the area.
o Environmental Justice - Provide guidance on policies and projects that will
benefit and minimize adverse impacts to vulnerable populations.
Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:
1. Completed concept plan report narrative with graphics and methodology inclusive of
parking and connectivity strategies.
2. Catalytic project case study narrative, maps, pro formas, and rendering.
3. Corridor Transect for Williams Drive
TASK 3: DRAFT RECCOMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES, AND PRIORITIZATION
3.1 - Recommendations
The consultant shall create near-, short-, medium - and long-term projects, and policy
recommendations that are tailored to the needs of the stakeholder/implementing entities
in the study area. Timeframes for the recommendations and implementation strategies
are defined as:
• Near-Term – 1 Year or Less
• Short - Term – 2 to 4 years
• Medium-Term – 5 – 10 years
• Long-Term – 11 years or more
Recommendations and strategies shall include, but shall not be limited to:
• Maps, renderings, and drawings of proposed improvements and concepts
• Recommended roadway sections/schematics
• Recommended mobility management solutions to include traffic flow, signal
timing, access management
• Proposed changes or additions to the infrastructure design criteria
• Cost Estimates and funding sources for proposed improvements (separated
by implementer(s))
• Draft final fiscal impact analysis
• Description of tools and partnerships needed for housing economic
development concepts
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 57 of 127
• Proposed Unified Development Code language or zoning map changes, this
should include recommendations on parking, consistent with the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.
• Proposed changes to local and regional thoroughfare maps
• Proposed economic development agreement and partnership language (as
needed)
3.2 - Evaluation Categories and Measures of Effectiveness
The Consultant shall develop a set of criteria to assist in evaluating each improvement
concept. The broad categories of transportation efficacy, safety, VMT, travel times,
right-of-way, socio-economic impacts, urban design, health impacts, environmental
impacts, and pedestrian/bicyclist impacts and cost effectiveness will be further defined
into evaluation criteria. These criteria shall be written so that it may be included in the
CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program and Regional Transportation Plan
project selection criteria, if so desired.
3.3 - Evaluation of Cost-Effectiveness, Impacts, and Priorities
The Consultant shall evaluate cost-effectiveness to determine if the improvements
cause sufficient user benefits to justify the investment. The Consultant shall evaluate
cost effectiveness by determining the monetary benefits associated with the reduction
in vehicle delay due to short- term improvements, as well as compare the benefit to the
implementation cost. Benefits shall be determined using the results of the peak hour
model and converting the hourly delay values to estimated daily and annual delays,
which will then be multiplied by an average cost per hour of delay to achieve annual
benefits (dollar-value). Projects and policies shall also be evaluated based on the
metrics outlined in Task 3.2.
The consultant shall develop a prioritized list of projects and policies based on the
outcomes of the evaluation.
Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:
1. A summary of current and planned transportation projects and near, short,
medium, and long-term project recommendations that will impact the study
area.
2. Proposed cost estimates, funding sources, policy changes or additions, and
partnership(s) needed to implement study recommendations.
3. Draft catalytic project and centers implementation strategy and marketing brief
(not to exceed two pages).
4. Prioritized list of projects and policies.
5. Draft environmental justice analysis.
6. Draft health impact assessment.
7. Draft final fiscal impact analysis.
8. Draft ordinance and design manual changes or amendments.
9. Draft interlocal and economic development agreement language.
10. Traffic modeling data and analysis
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 58 of 127
TASK 4: FINAL REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
The Consultant shall prepare and deliver a final report at the conclusion of the study.
The report will be reviewed by CAMPO staff, City of Georgetown and the Steering
Committee. The report, executive summary, and visuals must be approved by
CAMPO before going to print.
The report shall include:
• Documentation of public and stakeholder input across all project stages,
overview of the planning process, existing conditions report, concept plan, and
final recommendations/implementation report;
• Discussion of any concepts considered but eliminated for not addressing the
study goals and objectives;
• Description of the study effort associated with identification, definition,
development, and refinement of urban design and multimodal transportation
improvement concepts;
• Explanation of methodology and evaluation criteria used;
• Summary of recommended transportation and land use projects along with
project descriptions, costs, benefits, and potential funding sources for each of the
implementing entities;
• Catalytic project and centers implementation strategy and marketing document;
• Corridor Transect that includes concepts for both the public and private realm;
• Complete fiscal impact analysis for the concept plan methodology;
• Narrative on air quality benefits;
• List of recommended projects prioritized in cooperation with the Steering
Committee and the stakeholders;
• Narrative on impacts and benefits to Environmental Justice populations;
• Health impact assessment;
• Sample ordinances, design manual, and agreement language needed for
implementation, as applicable (include in appendix);
• GISD Catalytic project proformas (include in appendix);
• Any additional content deemed necessary by the CAMPO Project Manager.
Consultant shall deliver to CAMPO:
1. Recommended concept for future development with integrated transportation
concepts.
2. A minimum of five ground level and/or bird's eye level artistic renderings and/or
computer generated photo simulations of (transportation) improvement concepts
to help the public visualize recommended improvements of significance.
3. Suggested strategies to influence development toward achieving the concept
plan.
4. Recommended near-, short-, medium - and long-term transportation projects to
improve mobility in the study area.
5. Benefit cost analysis for each recommended project.
6. Identify potential funding sources for each project recommended.
7. Base maps showing the location, layout, and typical sections for each concept
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 59 of 127
considered (one high resolution, reproducible digital copy).
8. Executive Summary of the study report with its high resolution, reproducible
digital copy, not to exceed five pages. (Word and PDF format).
9. Catalytic project and centers implementation marketing brief with its high
resolution, reproducible digital copy, not to exceed two pages (Word and PDF
format) for use in private realm development efforts.
10. All associated supporting documents located in the appendices.
11. Twenty-five (25) Hard Color Copies of the Final Report, Fifty (50) Hard Color
Copies of the Executive Summary and Ten (10) Hard Color Copies Appendices.
Final Report should be in 8.5’ X 11’ format.
12. All GIS, Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, MSWord, MS Excel, photo, graphics
and other associated files.
Section 500 – Scope of Work
Page 60 of 127
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
SAN GABRIELVILLAGEBLVD
WILLI
A
M
S
DR
IH
3
5
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
IH
3
5
IH 3
5
C
R
1
5
2
N CO
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
I
H
3
5
SH 130
N
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
L
O
G
A
N
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
SH
E
L
L
R
D
IH35
L
U
N
A
T
R
L
E 2ND STW 2ND ST
SH 19
5
LAKEWAY D
R
NE INN
E
R
L
O
O
P
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
S
H
1
3
0
WOLF
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
NE I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
CR 151
RI
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
IH35
IH
3
5
IH 35
S
H
E
L
L
S
P
U
R
N A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IH 3
5
FM 971
SANA
L
O
M
A
D
R
FM 97
1
D B
W
O
O
D
R
D
S
H
1
3
0
D E L W E B B B L V D
DEL
WEBB
BLVD
IH
3
5
FM 2
3
3
8
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
E MO
R
R
O
W
S
T
IH
3
5
E
M
O
R
R
O
W
S
T
IH 35
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
BLUEHOLEPARK RD
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
S
H
1
3
0
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
RIVE
R
Y
BLVD
IH
3
5
RIV
E
R
Y
BLV
D
S
H
1
3
0
IH
3
5
S
H
1
3
0
S
H
1
3
0
IH
3
5
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
IH 3
5
I
H3
5
IH35
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
N AU
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
RIVE
R
Y
BLVD
N COL
L
E
G
E
S
T
IH 3
5
FM 971
WO
L
F
RAN
C
H
PKW
Y
RIVERHAVEN DR
N
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
IH
3
5
E
M
O
R
R
O
W
S
T
IH 35
IH
3
5
IH
3
5
RIVE
R
Y
B
L
V
D
RIV
E
R
Y
BLV
D
4,250 0 4,2502,125 Feet
Document Path: L:\Division\Gus\TRANSPORTATION SERVICES\GIS PROJECTS\Williams Dr. Corridor Study (2015)\Study Area.mxd
Williams Dr. Study Area
Streets
Parcels
Centers Study Area
Williams Dr. Gateway TIRZ
Williams Dr. Corridor Study Area
Georgetown City Limits
³
0.5 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Page 61 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (CAMPO)
AND
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
FOR
WILLIAMS DRIVE STUDY
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made by and between the CAPITAL
AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, a metropolitan planning
organization, (“CAMPO”) and the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas Home Rule
Municipal Corporation in Williamson County, (“the City”) pursuant to the authority granted
and in compliance with the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791, Texas
Government Code.
WHEREAS, the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code Chapter
791 (the “Act”), provides that any one or more public agencies may contract with each other for
the performance of governmental functions or services for the promotion and protection of the
health and welfare of the inhabitants of this State and for the mutual benefit of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Texas has designated CAMPO (formerly the
Austin Transportation Study), acting through its Transportation Policy Board, to be the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Austin urbanized area(s), and the lead agency
for the region’s Metropolitan Planning process; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning process addresses requirements under state and
Federal law that promote efficient system management and operation; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program seeks to generate comprehensive
and detailed multimodal planning at the local level that will generate regionally significant
benefits through projects and policies; and
WHEREAS, CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program translates federal and state
transportation guidelines into actions that are consistent and appropriate for our region’s and
local communities’ context; and
WHEREAS, Williams Drive is one of the City’s major arterials with more than 29,000
vehicles accessing it daily, a figure which is expected to grow with the City’s expanding
population, and mobility issues that impede the potential growth and further development of this
corridor as planned in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to partner with CAMPO to complete a study of Williams
Drive, in accordance with CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program, to address the historic and
emerging mobility and economic development issues along this corridor, and recommend
projects and implementation plans that enhance multi-modal transportation, safety, mobility and
connectivity, enhance economic development potential, and establishes the area as a premier
Page 62 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
gateway into Georgetown and the Region (“Williams Drive Study”), as further described in the
Scope of Work (Attachment “A”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises made by the
parties, CAMPO and the City hereby agree as follows:
I. PAYMENT
CAMPO’s and the City’s payment obligations are payable only and solely from funds
appropriated by the City Council of the City of Georgetown and the CAMPO Transportation
Policy Board, respectively (“Appropriated funds”) and available for the purpose of this purchase.
The absence of appropriated funds or other lawfully available funds shall render this Agreement
null and void to the extent funds are not appropriated or available. Within 45 days of the
adoption of the City’s annual budget or CAMPO’s Unified Planning Work Program, the
applicable party shall provide the other party written notice of the failure of the party’s governing
body to make adequate appropriation for any fiscal year to pay for the amounts due under this
Agreement, or the reduction of any appropriation to an amount insufficient to permit the
applicable party to pay its obligation under this Agreement.
II. OBLIGATIONS OF CAMPO
A. CAMPO shall support the inclusion of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the
Overall Transportation Plan and Future Land Use Map, as part of the Williams Drive Study.
B. CAMPO agrees to actively work with the City of Georgetown in the development of the
Williams Drive Study consistent with Attachment A – Scope of Work.
C. CAMPO will form a steering committee that includes the City, TXDOT and other
stakeholders to guide the planning process of the Williams Drive study.
D. CAMPO will manage all phases of development and administration of a consultant contract,
including, but not limited to, procurement, contract execution, review and approval of
deliverables, enforcement of contract terms and conditions, payment of invoices, and contract
close-out. CAMPO will actively engage and partner with the City throughout the process to
ensure that the final plan meets the needs of the City, the goals of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the Platinum Planning Program.
E. CAMPO will coordinate with the City of Georgetown on any proposed and/or necessary
changes to the Project Schedule, Public Participation Plan, and other related documents, prior
to approval.
F. CAMPO will pay an amount not to exceed $200,000 or 80% of the total project costs of
$250,000 to cover planning services described under in Attachment A - Scope of Services.
Page 63 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
G. CAMPO shall include all required deliverables identified in Attachment A - Scope of Work
in the executed agreement with the consultant hired to complete the Williams Drive Study.
H. CAMPO will submit the completed Williams Drive Study for possible acceptance by the
Transportation Policy Board.
III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY
A. The City supports the inclusion of CAMPO’s Platinum Planning Program elements as part of
the Williams Drive Study as detailed in Attachment B.
B. The City will actively work with CAMPO in the development of the Williams Drive Study
consistent with Attachment A - Scope of Work.
C. The City will remit to CAMPO $50,000, or 20% of the $250,000 total project cost as the
local match for this study, within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement or
the date CAMPO executes the Advanced Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of
Transportation for the Williams Drive Study.
D. The City will participate in the consultant selection process and the planning process of the
Williams Drive Study.
E. The City will present the Williams Drive Study to its local decision making bodies for review
and possible adoption and implementation.
F. Upon completion of the Williams Drive Study, the City will track and report to CAMPO on
plan implementation activity such as transportation investments, new development projects,
public and private dollars invested, new policies established or amended, etc.
IV. TERM AND TERMINATION
A. This Agreement is effective on the date of the last party to sign, provided that the obligations
of the Parties shall be subject to CAMPO executing the Advanced Funding Agreement with
the Texas Department of Transportation for the Williams Drive Study. The Agreement
terminates on March 31, 2017, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to this Agreement.
B. If either party defaults in the performance of any terms or conditions of this Agreement the
defaulting party shall have 30 days after receipt of written notice of such default within which
to cure such default. If such default is not cured within such period of time then the offended
party shall have the right without further notice to terminate this Agreement.
C. This Agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, by either party whenever such
termination is found to be in the best interest of either party. Either party shall provide
written notification to the other party at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date
Page 64 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
of the termination. All notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed given when either
delivered in person or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail,
return receipt requested, addressed to the appropriate party at the following address:
If to CAMPO: Ashby Johnson
Executive Director
CAMPO
Post Office Box 1088
Austin, Texas 78767
with a copy to: Kelly Porter, AICP
Senior Multimodal Planner
CAMPO
Post Office Box 1088
Austin, Texas 78767
If to the City: Ed Polasek
Transportation Services Director
City of Georgetown
300-1 Industrial Ave
Georgetown, Texas 78626
with a copy to: Nat Waggoner
Transportation Services Analyst
City of Georgetown
300-1 Industrial Ave
Georgetown, Texas 78626
V. RESTRICTION ON LOBBYING
In accordance with 31 USC Section 1352, CAMPO and the City hereby certify that no Federal
appropriated funds have been or will be paid by or on behalf of CAMPO and/or the City to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant or loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement,
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of Federal contract, grant,
loan or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in
connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, CAMPO and/or the
City shall complete and submit standard form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying”, in
accordance with it instructions. CAMPO and/or the City shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers and that all
Page 65 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. CAMPO and its subcontractors shall
require that the language of this certification be included in any subcontract exceeding $100,000
by any tier in that any such subcontractor shall certify and disclose accordingly.
VI. INSPECTION OF WORK AND RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS
A. CAMPO when federal funds are involved, shall grant the U.S. Department of Transportation,
the Texas Department of Transportation and any authorized representative thereof, the right
at all reasonable times to inspect or otherwise evaluate the work performed or being
performed hereunder and the premises in which it is being performed.
B. All records or materials required by or produced under this Agreement, including records
produced by any subcontractor to CAMPO and/or the City, shall be maintained for at least
four (4) years after CAMPO and/or the City payment under this Agreement or the termination
or expiration of this Agreement.
VII. PROCUREMENT
In accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act, it is mutually agreed that all parties hereto
shall conduct all procurements and award all contracts necessary to this Agreement in accordance
with federal and state laws and regulations, including Federal Transit Administration Circular
4220.1D, if federal funds are used to execute procurement and award of services. No officer,
employee, independent consultant, or elected official of either party who is involved in the
development, evaluation, or decision-making process of the performance of any procurement
related to this Agreement shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement
resulting from the procurement.
VIII. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, void, or invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such
unconstitutionality, invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining
portions of the Agreement; and this Agreement shall be construed as if such unconstitutional,
void, or invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
IX. LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of Texas govern all matters arising out of this Agreement, and venue shall
lie in the state courts of Travis County, Texas. The parties acknowledge and agree that each party
shall be responsible for any attorney’s fees incurred by that party relating to this Agreement
X. NON-DISCRIMINATION
It is mutually agreed that all parties hereto are bound by the provisions of Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 21, which was promulgated to effectuate Title Vl of the Civil Rights
Page 66 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
Act of 1964, Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 710.405(b), and Executive Order 11246
titled “Equal Employment Opportunity” as amended by Executive Order 11375 and as
supplemented in Department of Labor Regulations (41 CFR Part 60).
XI. INTERPRETATION OF LAWS AND AUTHORITIES
CAMPO is responsible for the settlement of all contractual and administrative issues arising out
of procurement entered into in support of the contract work.
XII. ALTERATION, AMENDMENT, OR MODIFICATION
A. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, or modified except in writing and any
alterations, amendments, or modifications must be approved by both parties.
B. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between CAMPO and the City. No other
agreement, statement or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that is not
contained in the Agreement is valid or binding
CITY OF GEORGETOWN CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION
By:_______________________ By:___________________________
Dale Ross, Ashby Johnson,
Mayor Executive Director
Date:_____________________ Date:_________________________
ATTEST:
By:______________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:_____________________________ Title:____________________________
Approved as to form only:
_____________________________________
Page 67 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
Page 68 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Page 69 of 127
Georgetown Williams Drive Study
ATTACHMENT B
PLATINUM PLANNING ELEMENTS
The Platinum Planning Program provides an organized structure for CAMPO’s Long-Range Planning
work. The program seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed multimodal planning at the local level
that will generate regionally significant benefits through projects and policies. The program aligns local
and regional planning through a progressive, integrated, and inclusive process. Plans completed as part of
this program meet shared goals and are inclusive of state of the practice elements consistent with 2040
Regional Transportation Plan goals. Specifically, these plans will outline synergies between
transportation, land use, and other planning areas to better understand how the system performs.
Recommendations from plans completed through this program will inform future iterations of the
Regional Transportation Plan.
The Platinum Planning Program includes three spatial areas:
Subregions– Focuses on large areas across jurisdictional boundaries and travel sheds. These plans
will emphasize development of land use and transportation network scenarios that yield to a shared
vision across communities in the study area. Subregional efforts will also be inclusive of analysis and
recommendations for multiple corridors and centers (as described below), as well as other interstitial
areas.
Corridors – Focuses on mostly linear corridors and facilities across jurisdictional boundaries. These
plans will focus on projects specific to a principle corridor but also take into account adjacent and
intersecting facilities. Corridor planning will consider not only the context, form, and function of the
corridor but also how each corridor should perform as part of the larger system; specifically its
effectiveness at providing safe and efficient multimodal mobility between and access with -in centers.
Centers – Focuses on districts and areas of typically one square mile or less, but may also include
elements of corridor planning, particularly as corridors conn ect nodes. Centers plans will provide
clear guidance on how to develop vibrant mixed-use environments that possess the density, diversity
and design attributes that produce lower VMT, and support transit, bicycling, and walking.
Platinum Planning seeks to integrate:
1. Multi-modal and Mixed-use – Create connections to housing, jobs, and services through the
establishment of dynamic mixed-use environments, well-connected street grids, high-quality transit
options, as well as safe and useful pedestrian/bicycle accommodations.
2. Housing – Develop a mix of housing types and price points appropriate for the study area context
that provides living options that can accommodate a variety of incomes, abilities, and familial
types.
3. Environment – Create a healthy environment that proactively protect and enhance air, water, land
and people.
4. Economic Development – Promote the economic competitiveness of the study area to yield
positive impacts on the local tax base, high-quality jobs, and community services.
5. Equity – Create positive social, economic, and environmental outcomes for all residents and
stakeholders in the study areas while minimizing adverse impacts.
Page 70 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Williams Drive Study
Discussion with City Council
January 26, 2016
Nat Waggoner
Transportation Services
Andreina Dávila-Quintero
Management Services
Jordan Maddox, AICP
Planning
Page 71 of 127
Williams Drive Study
capmetro.org
Agenda
• Existing Conditions
• Past City Initiatives
• Study Area
• CAMPO Platinum Planning Program
• Study Goals
• Study Deliverables
• Schedule
Goal 1: Understand scope of study
Goal 2: Understand the interdependence of transportation and land use as study components
Goal 3: Gain support from Council of ILA for study
Page 72 of 127
Williams Drive Study
capmetro.org
Williams Drive ‐Existing Conditions
• 4-lane major arterial with continuous center turn lane
• Over 29,000 cars access road on a daily basis
• Variety of existing land uses and zoning districts (single
and two-family residential, office, neighborhood to
regional commercial, recreational and institutional
uses)
• Inconsistent development patterns
• Multiple Transportation Projects funded (City and
TXDOT)
TIRZ at Williams Dr and IH-35
Page 73 of 127
Williams Drive Study
• 2003 Williams Dr Corridor Study
• Located between IH-35 and CR
245
• Provide guide to development
and redevelopment
• Recommendations for
transportation improvements
and new development
standards (signage and
landscape)
• New development standards for
former 1986 RO zoning district
Not To Scale
Page 74 of 127
Williams Drive Study
• Former RO/SP-WM Zoning
District
• RO converted to SP-WM in
2003
• Limited permitted uses within
district and retained residential
design standards
• City initiated rezoning to remove
the SP-WM – effective March
2014
• Removed outdated
development standards
Page 75 of 127
Williams Drive Study
• 2006 Williams Dr Gateway
Redevelopment Plan
• 2004 study for the
redevelopment, recruitment and
retention of businesses
• Serve as the basis for future
rezoning
• TIRZ created in Oct 2006
• 2007 - New MU zoning district
created
• 2008 - FLU designation
changed to Specialty Mixed Use
Page 76 of 127
Williams Drive Study
capmetro.org
Page 77 of 127
Williams Drive Study
CAMPO Platinum Planning Program
• Seeks to generate comprehensive and detailed
multimodal transportation planning at the local level
that will generate regionally significant benefits through
projects and policies
• Multimodal -…accommodation of various modes of
travel including vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists as
appropriate
• Plans will outline synergies between transportation,
land use, and other planning areas to better
understand how the system as a whole performs
$200K of Federal Funds
$50K in local match
Approved as part of FY 2016 budget
Page 78 of 127
Williams Drive Study
CAMPO Platinum Planning Program
• Includes three spatial area plans, two of which will
apply to the Williams Dr study:
• Corridor Plan (linear study) – access management
strategies, multi-modal transportation elements, safety
and operation improvements, and recommendations for a
built-form
• Centers Plan (districts/areas study) – predictable and
high quality gateway tying together transportation,
economic development, housing choices, and place-
making recommendations
Page 79 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Study Goal
• Improve mobility and performance of the corridor
• Promote further development in the corridor that will…
• Enhance transportation safety, mobility and
connectivity
• Enhance economic development potential
• Establish the area as a premier gateway into
Georgetown… and the Capital Area
Address historic and emerging mobility and economic development issues along the Williams Drive
corridor
Page 80 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Study Deliverables
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan
• Public Participation Plan
• Steering Committee and Public meetings
• Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment Report
• Existing studies, plans and reports
• Concept Plan (Corridor and Center areas)
• Implementation Plan
• Near to long-term recommendations
Page 81 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Interlocal Agreement
• Partner with CAMPO to complete study
• CAMPO will serve as the Project Manager
• Establishes a steering committee (CAMPO, TxDOT,
and City)
• Georgetown will have equal weight to project
outcomes
• CAMPO and City will present final study to respective
elected bodies for consideration and possible adoption
Page 82 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Schedule
• Study is projected to take 9 months to complete
• Tentative schedule (subject to change)
• Approvals from appropriate agencies – Q1 2016
• RFP – Q1/Q2 2016
• Initiate study – Q2 2016
• Complete study – Q1 2017
Page 83 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Next Step
• RFP process - select a consultant
• Transportation Policy Board – March 2016
• Notice to proceed – April 2016
• Monthly updates when study begins to advisory boards
and City Council
GTAB recommended approval on December 10, 2015
P&Z recommended approval on December 15, 2015
Page 84 of 127
Williams Drive Study
Nat Waggoner
Transportation Analyst
512.930.8171
nat.waggoner@georgetown.org
Andreina Dávila-Quintero
Project Coordinator
512.931.7686
andreina.davila@georgetown.org
Jordan Maddox, AICP
Principal Planner
512.930.3584
jordan.maddox@georgetown.org
Questions, Guidance
Page 85 of 127
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
January 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion regarding Airport Educational Materials -- Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Jim Briggs,
General Manager of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
This list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with responses are provided to share information related to
airport topics with the Citizens of Georgetown. The questions / responses cover topics ranging from Planned
Airport Improvement Projects; Project Environmental Reviews; Future Plans for the Airport; Airport
Operational Requirements; and the Economic Impact/Financial Health of the Airport.
The list was organized by topic. Where beneficial, support documents are provided as attachments.
Residents in the vicinity of the airport have routinely shared their concerns with rumors being spread about
the airport. This FAQ list of questions was assembled to provide clarification of rumors as well as questions
typically posed to City Staff.
The planned use of this FAQ list includes publication on the Airport portion of the City Web site as well as
other methods of communication with the residents in the vicinity of the airport.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Airport/Citizen FAQ
FAA Hotline Complaint Response
Airport Closure Report
GTU Econimic Impact Study
Page 86 of 127
AIRPORT/CITIZEN FAQ
This list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with responses are provided to share information related to
airport topics with the Citizens of Georgetown. The questions / responses cover topics ranging from Planned
Airport Improvement Projects; Project Environmental Reviews; Future Plans for the Airport; Airport
Operational Requirements; and the Economic Impact/Financial Health of the Airport.
Why are the underground fuel tanks being removed and replaced with above ground tanks?
The existing Fuel Farm includes a 10,000 gallon Avgas and 12,000 gallon Jet A underground storage tanks
approximately 25 years old. Underground tanks are systematically being removed at airports all over the
Country. Considering the Georgetown Municipal Airport is located over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone,
removing underground storage facilities is an additional environmental benefit. The new above ground fuel
tanks are sized to 15,000 gallons for Avgas and 20,000 gallons for Jet A according to the design guidelines for
our existing traffic and operations at the Airport. The tank size also allows the City to benefit from the
purchase of bulk fuel without paying multiple delivery fees for smaller loads. Currently the existing
underground tanks meet the rules and standards of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
however, they are near the end of their expected life cycle. The airport has never been fined for any fuel spills
or tank leakage. As with all underground fuel tanks, tank leakage is constantly monitored to watch for any
possible indication of potential ground water contamination. The City did receive notice of violations on or
about December 20, 2003. Five violations were noted. Violations were related to inspecting components,
inventory control, renewal of Delivery Certificate, posting of Delivery Certificate and release detection
for piping. All violations were corrected within one week of inspection. The most recent 18 February 2014
inspection indicated no violations are present.
How do the proposed taxiway improvements, pavement management system and new lighting systems affect
the Georgetown Municipal Airport?
The new lighting systems, proposed taxiway improvements and pavement management program are bringing
the Georgetown Municipal Airport in-line with the most current standards for General Aviation Reliever
Airports. These improvements are designed for the safety and basic operations of existing aircraft at the
airport.
Page 87 of 127
Do all Airport Improvement Projects require completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?
Not for all projects. Per guidelines from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) are only required for certain categories of airport improvement projects. Projects subject to
an EIS would include “Airport Location, Runway Location, or Major Runway Extension.” Additional
information may be located in FAA Order 1050.1F.
–
Has the Georgetown Municipal Airport complied with EPA rules and regulations regarding environmental
review and public notice?
The FAA recently confirmed all maintenance and development activities involving Federal and State
supported grant funding have been completed according to regulatory requirements. Please read the attached
communication addressing the issue: FAA Response to Hotline Complaint.
Can the Georgetown Municipal Airport be closed or relocated?
Under agreements between the City of Georgetown and both State and Federal Agencies, the City of
Georgetown agreed to operate an airport at the current site of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. These
agreements range in dates from the 1940’s to present. Like Interstate 35, the Airport is part of the national
transportation infrastructure funded with federal money for the purpose of general public use. Relocating the
airport from its current location would require approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and the State
of Texas. Stipulations for relocating could involve reimbursements for more than $18.5 million in grant funds
provided for airport improvements; buying out existing tenant leases; and bearing total cost of new airport,
infrastructure improvements such as water, sewer, electrical service; and public roadways to support new
location. 2002 Airport Closure Study
Any plans to add commercial passenger service or large airplane cargo operators such as FedEx or UPS to
the airport?
No, Georgetown Municipal Airport is a General Aviation Reliever Airport. Adding passenger service or large
cargo operators to the airport it not planned at either the City or TxDOT levels.
Page 88 of 127
Does the city have any plans to extend the runway length at Georgetown Municipal Airport?
No, there are no plans at either the City or TxDOT Aviation level for any runway extension projects. A 1996
City Council Resolution 960123-JJ reaffirmed this.
Why has the land been purchased at the ends of Runway 11/29?
At the end of each runway is a Runway Protection Zone otherwise referred to as a “Clear Zone”. “Clear
Zones” must be free of obstructions and are established to improve visibility for airplanes taking off and
landing. They also provide protection for anything on the ground during these type maneuvers. Recent land
purchases were mandated by guidelines published in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 – Airport Design
requiring airport sponsors (City of Georgetown) that they must own the land in the “Clear Zones”.
Are there any plans to purchase through “fee or easement” any homes within the vicinity of the airport?
No plans exist at either the City or TxDOT level to purchase homes or other residential property near the
airport.
–
Why is the Georgetown Airport Master Plan being updated?
While most Airport Master Plans typically cover a 20 year life span, the current 2005 Airport Master plan is
scheduled to be updated in calendar year 2016. Consultant selection will commence late summer of 2016 with
publication of an updated plan estimated for summer of 2018. Public participation in the update process will
be key to adopt an effective Master Plan. Master Plans help provide guidance and direction for future planning
of airport improvements to meet the desired goals of the community.
Are public use airports allowed to limit airport hours of operations, the number of takeoffs, landings or
number of based airplanes at their airports?
No. These type restrictions violate the FAA Grant Assurance Provisions on use and access to public use
airports which are part of the National Airport System. FAA Grant Assurances are obligations an airport owner
must agree to for acceptance of federal grant funds. Airplanes using an airport can be limited based on the
airplane operational requirements such as runway length and elevation of airport. Each airplane operator is
responsible to ensure they can safely operate at an airport.
Page 89 of 127
How has the opening of the Control Tower affected flight patterns and traffic at Georgetown Municipal
Airport?
Since opening of the Control Tower in 2007, air traffic controllers now manage the flow of airplane traffic
both in and out of the Georgetown Municipal Airport. This has resulted in safety improvements of flight
operations over the previous uncontrolled operations at the airport. Air traffic control follows strict safety
criteria, guidelines and manages air traffic in a 5 mile radius of the airport. The Control Tower is open 7 days
per week from 7 AM to 10 PM. Due to sporadic night time airport use, from 10 PM to 7 AM the airport
reverts to an uncontrolled air space.
–
What programs are in place related to Airport Noise issues?
A 2002 Airport Noise Compatibility Study provided recommendations related to airport flight patterns and
ground maintenance operations. The study examined the voluntary “Fly Friendly” program with
recommendations for pilots utilizing the airport. With the 2007 activation of the Control Tower, traffic
patterns now follow airport traffic control guidelines. Airport Management has identified two locations for use
for ground maintenance high power engine testing. These locations were selected to minimize noise issues
from engine run operations.
What economic benefit does the airport provide to the City of Georgetown?
The Georgetown Municipal Airport generates economic activity through capital and operations expenditures,
business activities of airport tenants, and spending by visitors using airport facilities. The Airport provides an
economic benefit to the local economy through employment of over 200 personnel at various businesses on the
airport. A 2011 Texas Department of Transportation Economic Impacts Report concluded the airport has an
Annual economic impact to the City of Georgetown local economy of over $23million dollars. Please read the
attached report Economic Impact Report.
Page 90 of 127
What is the financial health of the airport?
The financial health of the airport continues to improve. While the airport currently does not cover every cost,
fees collected on land leases, hangar and tie-down rentals, and fuel sales cover 100% of items such as grant
shares, airport staffing, operations and maintenance. These fees are paid by airport users. What the airport is
not able to cover is the city mandated 45 day contingency (rainy day funding) requirement. This contingency
requirement is to cover emergency type items. Through continued reductions of airport expenses and
additional airport revenues, the long term plan is that the airport fund will also cover all contingency
requirements.
Page 91 of 127
Page 92 of 127
Page 93 of 127
Page 94 of 127
Page 95 of 127
Page 96 of 127
Page 97 of 127
Page 98 of 127
Page 99 of 127
Page 100 of 127
Page 101 of 127
Page 102 of 127
Page 103 of 127
Page 104 of 127
Page 105 of 127
Page 106 of 127
Page 107 of 127
Page 108 of 127
Page 109 of 127
Page 110 of 127
Page 111 of 127
Page 112 of 127
Page 113 of 127
Page 114 of 127
Page 115 of 127
Page 116 of 127
Page 117 of 127
Page 118 of 127
Page 119 of 127
Page 120 of 127
Page 121 of 127
Page 122 of 127
Economic impacts • 2011
T e x a s D e p a r T m e n T o f T r a n s p o r T a T i o n
Georgetown municipal airport
Georgetown, tX
Page 123 of 127
Geor G e T own mU ni C ipa L a irpor T • Geor G e T own, T x
Georgetown Municipal Airport logs more than 6,000 operations monthly with the majority designated as corporate activity, flight training, and recreational activity. The airport also hosts several events each year, including: AirFest each fall; Easter Egg Drop in the spring; and numerous Young Eagles and Experimental Aircraft Association events. The airport is also planning a canned goods donation drive. Georgetown is located north of Austin.
Runways:
18/36 - 5,000 ft. x 100 ft.
11/29 - 4,100 ft. x 75 ft.
Page 124 of 127
n Capital Expenditures for infrastructure and other airport improvements from 2006-2010 generated $2.7 million in economic activity that created 23 job-years of employment. (A job-year equals one job lasting one year.)
n Airport staff is working with the regional communications director and tourism manager to promote the airport and attract more community involvement, with a goal of attracting a restaurant to the airport.
Description impacts
Economic activity $ 23,738,564
salary, Wages, and Benefits $ 9,872,319
Employment 227
sources: survey responses, impLan, and authors’ estimates
In conjunction with the local economic development
organization, new efforts are being made to facilitate
development at the airport.
The general aviation system in Texas provides important infrastructure that promotes both regional economic development and community recreational opportunities. The system’s airports also generate economic activity through capital and operations expenditures, business activities of airport tenants, and spending by visitors using airport facilities. This analysis examined the economic impacts of the facilities that are part of the Texas Airport System Plan (TASP). In total, the state’s general aviation airports and general aviation activities at commercial airports create:
Economic Activity$14.6 billion
Salary, Wages, and Benefits$3.1 billion
Employment56,635 permanent jobs
GeneraL aviaTion
impacts on Texas
2010 eConomiC impaCTs
Page 125 of 127
Texas
Department
of Transpor tationTexas Department of TransportationAviation Divisionwww.TxDOT.gov/business/aviation1-800-68-PILOT125 E. Eleventh StreetAustin, TX 78701-2483
prepared by:Center for Economic Development and ResearchDepartment of EconomicsDenton, TXhttp://www.unt.edu/cedr
airport statistics
faa identifier – GtU
Latitude / Longitude
30-40-43.7124n / 097-40-45.7815W
elevation – 790 ft.
Location
3 miles north of Georgetown, tX
PD
S
1
2
1
1
0
6
1
2
/
1
1
Page 126 of 127
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Agenda
January 26, 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
- Hoskins Brown Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
(1) Consideration and possible action to approve the appraised value for the acquisition of 1.453 acres of real
property in fee simple for right of way and 0.63 acres of permanent utility easement to be acquired from
Georgetown Independent School District in connection with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project and to
authorize an initial offer to be extended to the landowner based thereon. – Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate
Services Coordinator, Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
(2) Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of real property and/or easements, the payment
of relocation benefits, and the subsequent payment of actual 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
a) Parcel 4, Castleberry, 305 Shannon Ln
b) Parcel 19, Rose, 1525 Park Ln
c) Parcel 20, Chapman, 1523 Park Ln.
(3) Deliberation concerning the acquisition of real property located at 307 Shannon Ln (Parcel 2) from Leslie
David Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo in connection with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project – Terri Glasby
Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City attorney recruitment
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
To be determined.
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 127 of 127