HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.08.2013Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
JANUARY 8, 2013
The Georgetown City Council will meet on JANUARY 8, 2013 at 6:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at 101
E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
City Council Regional Board Reports
City Manager Comments
- Boards and Commissions Applications
- Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday
- May 11, 2013 Election
Action from Executive Session
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on
the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which
you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting.
You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by
contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the
subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at
512/930-3651.
B - John Gavurnik regarding lack of consistent sidewalk policy
- David Shiflet regarding traffic flow into Sun City via Yellow Rose Trail
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one
single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon
individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council
Meeting held on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Forwarded from the Airport Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve the request from RA Services, LLC, dba Longhorn Jet
Center, to amend the lease agreement dated March 28, 2012, to allow Tenant AVS Real Estate,
LLC to operate as an FBO and to purchase and sell fuel at 301 S. Hangar Drive -- Sarah Hinton,
Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Manager
E Consideration and possible action regarding a Resolution granting a petition and setting public
hearing dates for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey
for Rock Springs Hospital, located on SE Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
and Andrew J. Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
F Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution adopting the Articles of Amendment to
the Articles of Incorporation for the Georgetown 4 A Corporation, Georgetown Economic
Development Corporation (GEDCO) relating to the numbers of members on the Board of Directors --
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Legislative Regular Agenda
G Public Hearing for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey
for Rock Springs Hospital, located on SE Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
H Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Residential Single-Family (RS)
District, Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District, for 4.23 acres in the C. Stubblefield
Survey, including Lot 1 of Good Luck Subdivision, to be known as Wolf Ranch North, located from
1020 to 1100 West University Avenue -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning
Director (action required)
I First Reading of an Ordinance renaming County Road 111 to “Westinghouse Road” -- Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director (action required)
J Consideration and possible action to award a contract for the Austin Avenue Sidewalk Widening
Project to Keystone Construction, Inc. of Austin Texas for the base bid of $177,475.00 plus alternate
bids of $53,400.00 for a total contract amount of $230,875 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
K Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council approving and
adopting amendments to the bylaws of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -- Bridget
Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
L Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution supporting the addition of lettering “Home
of Southwestern University” on all of the City’s gateway Monument Signs -- George Garver,
Mayor and Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular
session.
M 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
- LCRA Update
N Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property
-1460 Inner Loop Right of Way
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2012, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
City Council Regional Board Reports
City Manager Comments
- Boards and Commissions Applications
- Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday
- May 11, 2013 Election
Action from Executive Session
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
- John Gavurnik regarding lack of consistent sidewalk policy
- David Shiflet regarding traffic flow into Sun City via Yellow Rose Trail
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council Meeting
held on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see attached for draft minutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
December 11, 2012 DRAFT Workshop Minutes
December 11, 2012 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes
LSTAR Report
LSTAR RFQ
LSTAR 12-7-12 Board Meeting Summary
LSTAR Board Meeting Calendar
LSTAR Executive Committee Board Meeting Summary
LSTAR 2012 Q4 Financials
LSTAR 12-7-12 Board Agenda
Cover Memo
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Danny Meigs, Rachael Jonrowe, Jerry
Hammerlun, Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
Bill Sattler, Tommy Gonzalez, Patty Eason
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City
Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Chris Foster, Financial Analyst; Shelley Nowling,
Assistant City Secretary; Jim Briggs, General Manager for Utilities; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City
Manager
Minutes
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 03:30 PM
A Aging Initiative Update -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Sattler, Gonzalez, Eason absent.
Brandenburg described the Aging Initiative and the goals of the group. He said, every two or three years, the City
puts out its own survey but noted this one is focusing on aging in the community. He said staff had a very good
meeting last Friday with Bonner and the Aging Initiative group. He said he was interested in the results from the
aging survey and how it affects the City and its growth. He noted he is very excited about how the group and the
City will be able to utilize the survey results moving forward.
Bonner thanked Council for giving their time to the group. He said the aging initiative was brought into being with
a vision of the Chisholm Trails Community Foundation. He introduced the citizens who participated in this
process. He said a copy of the report of the results from the survey has been given to the Council. He gave a
brief background of the survey and said they enlisted the Indiana Center on Aging to administer this survey. He
noted Georgetown was the lowest in population to do the survey but has the highest percentage of people over
60 who filled out the survey. He said roughly 10% of that age group in Georgetown filled out the survey and
spoke about how that is an extraordinary participation level. He said they think they have done an adequate job
of canvassing the community to find out the perceived interests of that age group. He noted they hope policy
makers will find this information useful. He said the next action step is the formation of five task forces in the
various areas identified as areas of growing concern by the survey. He noted these areas are communication,
senior community engagement, senior health, aging and place and transportation. He said they are not
interested in siloing the creation of modalities called task forces that are redundant to what the city is already
doing. He said they are wanting to work collaboratively to get at making Georgetown ever better for senior
adults. He asked that the City post the report as a link on the website and participate with them and the ongoing
work of their task forces so that the seniors of Georgetown continue to find this a place they are proud to call
home. He introduced Mike Weir, who summarized some of the key findings of the survey.
Mike Weir introduced himself to the Council and summarized the findings of the survey. He said, to begin with, he
wanted to recognize the limitations of the survey. He said what is on the screen in front of Council is a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 3 Pages
combination of statements from the report as well as questions from the survey instrument that address those
particular questions. He listed some of the topics covered in the survey. He spoke about the high participation in
the survey and said, though there was a 10% response rate, it was not a random sample. He said part of the
process was to have polling as well as focus groups, which confirmed what the survey reported. He said both
groups noted a lack of access to public transportation their decline in private transportation use. He spoke about
some of the other questions in the survey related to mobility and transportation. He said it is his hope that the
task force would be able to look at other models for what the City has in Georgetown and be able to find some
solutions. He said he worries that if City staff works on its own in isolation that there will be a bus route and noted
he is not sure that is the solution. He spoke about the importance of having a task force participate with the City
in this effort. He noted, with housing 85% of older adults own their own homes. He spoke about the housing
related questions and issues contained in the survey. He said the survey reveals that the housing needs of the
older community are greater than anticipated. He spoke about social engagement and how it seems women
become more isolated as they age and that is not as much the case for men. He spoke about what services
respondents would like to see implemented including public transportation improvements, information resources,
neighbordhood alert system and affordable day care. He listed some other services as well. He said the survey
also covers computer access to information. There was much discussion regarding the results of the survey.
Meigs said this issue is one thing about Georgetown that is very unique and noted it is best for all entities to work
together to solve some of these issue. He said the City does a huge amount in transportation, most having to do
with infrastructure. Weir said he would like to see one group of people that is either led by or that has the
transportation individuals from City government working with representatives from other entities dealing with the
transportation issue. Hammerlun asked where the city is with respect to Georgetown moving forward with regard
to public transportation. Brandenburg said it is going to be a big issue for the City in 2013 because the city will
need to address what to do short term and long term. He said, during the next seven months, Council will be
very engaged in this issue. He spoke about the fact that they want to make sure no one in the community falls
through the cracks regarding transportation services. Polasek spoke about the city's discussions with Capital
Metro about how to continue transportation services in Georgetown. He summarized the next steps in this
process. Hammerlun asked and Polasek said staff will have to be back to Council with a specific plan by the
spring. Hammerlun said he is glad he is aging in Georgetown because the city has the wisest people who knows
gathered together to work on this. He said he appreciates the work the team is doing. He said there is a lot of
momentum and energy there and it appears there is a couple of areas where the City has a natural leadership
role and noted transportation is one of them. Brandenburg spoke about the City responsibility on these issues
including Ed Polasek with transportation, Jennifer Bills with Housing, Kimberly Garrett with Parks and the Chiefs
with public safety. Bonner said this is sweet music and noted on behalf of the working group, it seems the
Council "gets it." He called this a new depth in collaborative effort. Mayor thanked Bonner and asked that he send
a timetable of when the task force meeting will be held.
B Update on the City’s Sales Tax revenue profile including historical information as well as sales tax revenue
projections -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Chris Foster, Financial Analyst
With a Powerpoint Presentation, Foster provided an update on the City's sales tax revenue and where that
revenue comes from. He said there are about eight different sales tax categories and noted the largest is retail.
He showed Council a graph of each sales tax segment and the growth in the segments. He pointed out the
information segment and noted, for one quarter, it was higher than building materials. He said the City's
information sector is growing while it is not in other cities. He spoke about what contributes to this sector,
including data centers. He said there is a lot of population moving into this area and noted that is expected to
continue. He said, because of this, the building materials sector will continue to carry Georgetown. Brandenburg
said we have a lot of car dealerships here and there is an assumption that we can sales tax from vehicle which is
not the case. He said the only money we get is from parts and repairs. Foster said there is a great correlation
between increase of sales tax revenue and increase in inflation.He said they target between 2 and 4% each year
for inflation. He reviewed the sales tax forecast and said we have been pretty good over the past few years. He
noted 2012 was a 6.4% increase over last year. He said he is showing a $250,000 jump in 2013, which is a
3.11% change. Meigs congratulated Foster for his projections and noted he is happy that the City budgets
conservatively. Jonrowe said he thinks it is good to be conservative but not too conservative but noted the
amount over budget can not be spent on recurring items. She noted it speaks volumes about the quality of staff
that the City does continue to meet such high standards.
C Review of the Open Meetings Act -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
With a Powerpoint Presentation, Chapman said Eason asked for this presentation. Chapman said the purpose of
the Open Meetings Act has been described by the Texas Supreme Court to protect the public interest. She
summarized the various elements of the Open Meetings Act including quorum of members, public notice of
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 3 Pages
meetings, managing discussions at open meetings, recording of meetings and enforcement of the act. She
noted, generally, there are two types of meetings and she described those for the Council. She said a quorum is
five members of the City Council or four City Council members and the Mayor. She noted the other kind of
meetings are closed meetings or executive sessions. She noted the generally applicable closed session
provisions are consultation with attorney, deliberation regarding real property, personnel matters, economic
development negotiations, and deliberations about prospective gifts. She noted all action coming out of executive
session is taken in open session. She listed the exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. She noted action taken
during a meeting that is not posted correctly is voidable but can be ratified at a later meeting. She noted the
criminal offense comes when a member knowingly participates in a meeting that is not posted correctly or should
not be a closed meeting. She described the penalties for this offense. She said the second criminal offense
under the act is conspiring to circumvent the Act by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of
secret deliberations. She spoke about walking quorum and its definition. She noted it is rare for Texas
prosecutors to seek criminal penalties for Open Meetings Act violations. She said the investigations are usually
local. She noted, more importantly, it is extremely difficult to prove a violation of the Act and she described why
this is so. She said, in Travis County, they have only prosecuted one open meetings act violation in the past ten
years. She described the San Antonio case regarding a walking quorum and, in that case, they were indicted but
the punishment was to take more open meetings act training. She spoke about the current open meetings
challenge going on the the City of Austin and described the collateral damage of the Open Meetings Act
violations. Chapman summarized the Governance Policy the City just recently revised. She said the Council
authority is held collectively, not individually. She reviewed the summary of the Governance Policy and what it
stated about the duty of the Council. She noted the Council and the Mayor shall conduct business in open
meetings. She added elected officials shall not given direction or orders to staff. She noted communication
between Council and staff shall be through the City Manager. She said it also requires the City Manager to
coordinate meetings between staff and Council. She reviewed staff's recommendations for compliance with the
Open Meetings Act. She said all City related business should be done through the City email address and she
described why that is the recommended method. She continued to describe the main points of the Governance
policy.
Mayor asked and Chapman said the City Manager has discretion on how he will handle requests from a Council
member to meet or speak with staff. Brandenburg said that issue came up during the formation of the
procedures and he gave an example of how he would handle this type of situation. He said staff also needs to let
him know when a meeting is taking place so that he can notify the Council. He noted all information or documents
given to one Council member needs to be given to all Council members. Mayor asked and Chapman said there
is not currently an enforcement provision in the policy or repercussions if these things occurred. Mayor asked and
Chapman said if there was enough Council interest in a particular subject matter, there will be a Workshop.
Chapman said the policy makes it the City Managers discretion as to whether or not a meeting is appropriate.
There were many questions and much discussion.
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.072 of the Texas Local Government
Code -- 4:51PM
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:10PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 06:10 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 6 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Rachael Jonrowe,
Jerry Hammerlun, Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
Bill Sattler, Tommy Gonzalez
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City
Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Chris Foster, Financial Analyst; Jim Briggs, General
Manager for Utilities; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Minutes
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM
(Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
A Call to Order -- Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:15PM
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
City Council Regional Board Reports
Eason said there is a very long report from the Lone Star Rail District that is attached to this meeting's minutes.
She summarized some of the high points from that report.
City Manager Comments
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve a site for a westside park and to submit an offer to purchase
the property on terms discussed in Executive Session. Approved 7-0
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table
at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak
and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward
to speak when the Council considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the
City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the
topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 6
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 6 Pages
B- As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda.
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to authorize an agreement with Mary Ann Collins for the purchase of
property located at 304 Rock Dove Lane, Georgetown, Texas, described as Lot 12, Block C, Dove Springs,
Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet H, Slides 28-29, Plat Records, Williamson County, Texas, in the
amount of $79,500.00, plus closing costs, in connection with utility operations -- Glenn Dishong, Utilities
Director and Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 5-0 (Gonzalez,
Sattler absent)
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
E Consideration and possible action to approve a proposal of $99,650 from TF Harper to construct a splash
pad in the courtyard of the new Georgetown Art Center -- Michael Seery, Capital Projects Coordinator; Eric
Lashley, Library Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Lashley described the plan for the Art Center and the construction of a splash pad in the courtyard at the corner
of Main Street and 9th Street. He spoke about expanding the sidewalk one extra block and creating an attraction
that would serve as a park, outdoor meeting space and attraction. He said the splash feature will be designed to
use recirculating water. He said the splash pad gives the City flexibility in the fact that, when the space is needed
for other activities, it can be turned off and becomes a flat surface. He described how this project will be funded.
Speaker, Linda McCalla, said she wants to express the excitement the Main Street Board feels with a possibility
of a splash pad. She noted it is a quality of life feature that will bring people downtown and keep people
downtown for longer. She said it is a great compliment to the art center and she loves the symbolism of water
and its significance to Georgetown. She said she thinks this is also something that will appeal to a broad
spectrum of the community. Jonrowe asked and Lashley described the proposed plan for the center. Jonrowe
asked and Lashley said the bench seating is still going to be there and will act as a buffer between the splash
pad and the street. Lashley said the bench area will also hide the mechanical areas. Hammerlun asked and
Lashley confirmed the unit prices have been agreed upon. Eason said she is excited this is finally happening.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve. Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
F Second Reading of an Ordinance levying the assessments for the cost of certain improvements in the
Georgetown Village Public Improvement District #1; fixing charges and liens against the property located in
Section 6 of the Georgetown Village Planned Unit Development subdivision and included in the district and
against the owners thereof; providing for the collection of the assessment; providing an effective date; providing
for a savings clause and repealing conflicting ordinances or resolutions -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney (action required)
Rundell said this is the second reading of an Ordinance that levies the assessment for Georgetown Village PID
#6. She said this is another section of the PID that is being annexed. She read only the caption of the Ordinance
on second reading.
Motion by Hammerlun, second by Jonrowe to approve the Ordinance. Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez
absent)
G Second Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) with a base district of Residential Single-family (RS) District, for 65.603 acres in the W. Roberts, L.B. Lord
and M.A. Lewis Surveys, to be known as Creekside at Georgetown Village, located on Village Commons
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 6
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Boulevard -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director (action required)
Hellmann recused himself from this item.
Benton said this rezoning is for a residential section of Creekside at Georgetown Village. She described the item
and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Eason, second by Meigs to approve the Ordinance.
Hammerlun asked and Benton said the developer is working with our engineers related to traffic . Approved 4-0
(Gonzalez, Sattler absent) (Hellmann recused himself)
H Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2012/13 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) due to
the approval of the Public Safety Compensation Study; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and
repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
(action required)
Rundell explained the item and noted the amendment appropriates funds for the Public Safety Compensation
Plan. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
I Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 224.17 acres in the
Walters Survey, to be known as Section II of the Madison at Georgetown , located on Ronald Reagan Blvd --
Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
Spurgin described the item and said the associated rezoning is Item J. He said the action is pursuant to the
annexation schedule set by City Council on August 14. He said this is the fifth and final step for this annexation.
He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading.
Mayor asked and Spurgin said 28 acres on this property will remain agriculture and that is why the acreage on
Item J is less than this item. Vote on the motion: Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
J Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential
Single-family (RS) District, Multifamily (MF) District, and Local Commercial (C-1) District for 224.17 acres
for the Madison at Georgetown, Section II, located on Ronald Reagan Blvd near SH 195 -- Jordan J. Maddox,
AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
Spurgin described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
K Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Plan, adding
a Regional Commercial node to the intersection of FM 1460 and SE Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP,
Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
Spurgin described the item and said City Council recommended approval on first reading. He read only the
caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
L Second Reading of an Ordinance a Special Use Permit to allow a Psychiatric Hospital in the Industrial (IN)
district on Lot 2A, Block A, of Georgetown South Industrial Park Block A Lot 2 Replat, located at 3101 S. Austin
Avenue -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action
required)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 6
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Spurgin reviewed the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the Ordinance. Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
M Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow an Automobile Services, General use
(collision center) in the General Commercial (C-3) District, on Lot 2, Block A, of Parkwood Plaza, located at 912
Rockmoor Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
(action required)
Spurgin described the item and said this is the special use permit to establish an automobile services use for that
site. He said on first reading, the Council...
He read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
N Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from Residential Single-family (RS) District to Two-family
(TF) District for Quail Meadow, Unit III, Block 10, Lot 5 of Amended Final Plat Veade Subdivision and Lot 5, and,
Quail Meadow, Unit III, Block 10, Lot 4A in Block 10 of Amended Plat of Lots 2, 3, and 4, located at 2501 and
2503 Oak Lane -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action
required)
Elabarger described the item and said this rezoning is for two properties on Oak Lane. He read only the caption
of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading.
Hellmann said he is in opposition to this and in favor of more commercial development along Williams Drive.
Approved 4-1 (Hellmann opposed) (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
O Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Local Commercial (C-1)
District for Lot 10 and the westerly 2.164 acres of Lot 9, San Gabriel Estates subdivision, to be known as
Georgetown Retirement Residence, located at 3700 and 3720 Williams Drive -- Mike Elabarger, Senior
Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
Elabarger described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
P Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) District for Lot 11, Block 1, San Gabriel Estates subdivision, to be known as Avalon, located
at 3750 Williams Drive -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action
required)
Elabarger described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hammerlun to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
Q Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.36 of the Code of Ordinances related to the
attendance policy for City Commissions, Committees and Boards -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
(action required)
Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the Ordinance on second reading. Approved 5-0 (Sattler,
Gonzalez absent)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 6
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 5 of 6 Pages
R Discussion, staff direction and possible action related to reconstitution of certain Advisory Boards enabling
effective communication and recommendations to City Council -- Jim Briggs, General Manager for Utilities
Briggs said this item is in preparation for the work the City has been doing with the consolidation of the City and
the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District. He said staff has been working with Legal in order to prepare
Ordinances to establish the composition of the various related boards. He spoke about the LGC Board and, with
that, taking the opportunity to look at the other utility and transportation boards as well. He spoke about changing
the transportation board into encompassing intermodal transportation elements, including the airport. He said
staff is looking for direction from Council relative to Ordinances that will come to Council in January.
Briggs spoke about the different ideas of consolidation and reconfiguarion of the board. He spoke about the
existing GUS governance model that the City has today. He said all items go through the GUS Board which
brings recommendations to Council.
Mayor left the dais.
He said the proposed governance model with the LGC Board is to consolidate the City and Chisholm Trail
system into one functioning board. He noted this would be the water and wastewater board for the region that
would cover both CCNs. He said, because of circumstances related to the City's electric operations, staff felt it
pertinent to create a separate board for Electric issues. He said there would be a water board, an electric board
and both current transportation boards with GTAB being consolidated with the Airport Board. He noted, therefore,
there would be a GTEC Board and a GTAB Board that would discuss airport issues. He said, administratively,
the City will still be supporting four boards as it is doing today. He said the proposed model for the LGC would
include two rural members that would come from Chisholm Trail. He reviewed his recommendations for the
members to sit on the newly created LGC board. He spoke about the many discussions Council has had on this
issue. He said staff is prepared to come back to Council with the final Ordinances after the first of the year. There
were many questions regarding the proposed changes to and reconstitution of the Boards. Mayor summarized
the high points of the discussion. Hellmann said he likes the structure and noted everything makes sense.
Jonrowe asked and Brettle spoke about how the members will be appointed to the Boards. Jonrowe asked and
Briggs confirmed the Airport Board would be dissolved and then two airport members would be on the GTAB
Board.
No action was taken.
S Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution amending the bylaws for the Georgetown 4 A
Corporation, Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) – Paul E. Brandenburg, City
Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Chapman described the item and said this Resolution would add two new citizen at large board members to the
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation. She noted Council had previously said they would like for this
change to be made.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the Resolution. Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
T Consideration and possible action to consider the appointment of a GISD Boardmember to the City of
Georgetown’s Planning and Zoning Commission and direct the City Manager to send a letter to the
Georgetown Independent School District -- Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg described the item and said this is an extensive of the communication between the City and GISD.
He said this item would authorize the City Manager send a letter to GISD and encourage someone to apply for a
position on the Planning and Zoning Commission. He noted that member, however, must be a voting member in
the Georgetown City limits. He said City Council still has the final decision on if they want to appoint any person
that applied to the board. Meigs asked and Brandenburg said this would be an encouragement for a GISD
board member to apply to serve, not a requirement for the board. Hammerlun thanked Brandenburg for thinking
of this. Mayor asked questions regarding the proposed process. Brandenburg clarified and said they are asking
for an elected Board member to apply, not just any employee within the school district. He noted, however, the
Charter requirement of a Planning Board member being a voting member of the City limits will limit who can
serve.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 5-0 (Sattler, Gonzalez absent)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 6
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 6 of 6 Pages
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 07:27 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 6
Item # C
1
Jessica Brettle
From:Patty Eason <pattyse@verizon.net>
Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46 PM
To:Jessica Brettle
Subject:FW: LSRD: Proposal Evaluation & Selection Committees -- 2 Committees Appointed
12-07-2012
Attachments:RFQ.On-Call Program Support Services.FINAL.pdf
Importance:High
Hi Jessica: Please add this info to the minutes for Dec 11 and forward to the Mayor, CC, Paul, Ed, and Laurie.
Thanks, Patty
From: Alison Schulze [mailto:amschulze@lonestarrail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:46 AM
To: Tullos Wells; Dean Danos; John Langmore ; Sandy Nolte; George Antuna; George Antuna (2); Patty Eason; Sarah
Eckhardt; Kim Porterfield; Carroll Schubert
Cc: Sid Covington; Ross Milloy; Joe Black; Sarah Matthews; Ingrid Petty; Cindy Raleigh; Peter Einhorn
Subject: LSRD: Proposal Evaluation & Selection Committees -- 2 Committees Appointed 12-07-2012
Importance: High
Lone Star Rail District Board members,
On behalf of Chairman Covington, below is a list of members the Board Chairman appointed to two committees on
Friday, Dec. 7. Each committee will evaluate and recommend consultant teams for a current or upcoming RFQ, as
follows:
1. Evaluation & Selection Committee for On‐Call Program Support Services (e.g., identify & assist with grant
applications; review engineering plan documents and cost estimates, environmental documents, service plans;
support planning activities, etc):
Committee Members: Sid Covington, Committee Chair; Members: Tullos Wells, Dean Danos, John Langmore,
Sandy Nolte
The RFQ (attached, FYI) was issued on Oct. 24, responses are due this Wed., Dec. 12. Staff will distribute the
proposal packages on Wed., Dec. 12. The Committee will meet in early‐ to mid‐January in San Marcos on a date to
be determined.
2. Evaluation & Selection Committee for Freight Bypass Environmental Studies/NEPA Clearance:
Committee Members: Sid Covington, Committee Chair; Members: George Antuna, Patty Eason, Sarah Eckhardt,
Kim Porterfield, Carroll Schubert.
This RFQ will be issued in the very near future. Staff is still drafting the procurement document, which will be issued
in late‐Dec. or Jan. The Committee will meet in February. Staff will keep you apprised of progress on the RFQ.
Many thanks for your participation on these important committees,
Alison
_________________________________
Alison M. Schulze, AICP
LONE STAR RAIL DISTRICT
P.O. Box 1618
San Marcos, Texas 78667
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # C
2
512.558.7367
512.589.2709 (cell)
www.LoneStarRail.com
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # C
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
from Firms to Provide
On Call Program Support Services
to Lone Star Rail District
RESPONDENT REGISTRATION FORM
RECIEPT DATE OF RFQ: _____________________________________________________
CONTACT PERSON: _________________________________________________________
ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______________________________________________________
EMAIL: _______________________________________________________________________
FAX NUMBER: _______________________________________________________________
DATE SENT: __________________________________________________________________
Please return this respondent registration form to Lone Star Rail District
via Fax at (512) 558-7365
ATTN: Joseph Black, Rail Director
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 11
Item # C
2 | Page
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
from Firms to Provide
On Call Program Support Services
to Lone Star Rail District
RFQ Issue Date: October 24, 2012
Response Due: 2:00 PM Central, December 12, 2012
Physical Address: Lone Star Rail District
River House
304 N. CM Allen Parkway
San Marcos, TX 78666
Attn: Joseph Black
Mailing Address: Lone Star Rail District
PO Box 1618
San Marcos, TX 78667
Attn: Joseph Black
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 11
Item # C
3 | Page
LONE STAR RAIL DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FROM FIRMS FOR
ON CALL PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES
Lone Star Rail District (Rail District) requests statements of qualifications from firms interested in
providing the Rail District with on call program support services. The Rail District will retain said
services to assist in completing its environmental and business planning work program for the
LSTAR passenger rail line and freight rail urban bypass line as well as subsequent work programs
within the term of the contract.
The Contractor shall provide program support services on a task order basis, in support of Rail
District business and environmental planning studies, including joint high capacity transit
planning with Rail District partners, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) coordination and support on
passenger rail joint operations studies and freight rail urban bypass studies, review of
engineering plan documents, review of cost estimates and funding/financing plans, review of rail
planning work products, review of environmental documents, review of service plans,
identification of and application for federal and state grant and loan opportunities, assistance
with preparation of program management documents such as RFQs, RFPs, and contracts, and
public and agency involvement activities. Prospective respondents should note that they will be
precluded from proposing in any capacity on any RFQs/RFPs that they prepare.
Firms/teams submitting RFQ responses must be well established in the business of providing
program support, business planning, environmental planning, engineering, cost estimation,
federal and state grant writing and loan application, and rail planning services for governmental
entities, especially transportation authorities and/or rail districts. Firms/teams whose primary
business is located outside the state of Texas are encouraged to team with local firms in the
Austin-San Antonio corridor.
Twelve (12) copies of the RFQ response must be submitted no later than 2:00 PM Central on
December 12, 2012. Responses received after that date and time will be considered non-
responsive and will be disqualified.
DESCRIPTION OF RAIL DISTRICT:
The Rail District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas authorized and existing pursuant
to the laws of the State of Texas, including Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, Art. 6550c-1 and
ratified by local governments for the purpose of planning, designing, constructing, and
operating a regional intercity passenger rail system in the Austin and San Antonio corridor. The
governing body of the Rail District is a Board of Directors appointed in accordance with the
provisions of the State statute.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 11
Item # C
4 | Page
PURPOSE OF THE RFQ:
The purpose of this solicitation is to retain a firm or team of firms to assist the Rail District with
on call program support services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES:
The Scope of Services to be provided may include the following, provided on a task order basis:
review of environmental documents which will be used to establish a single
environmental document that incorporates the environmental analysis on the existing
right of way to be used for passenger service and a new right of way to be used for
through freight service,
identification of and application for federal and state grant and loan opportunities,
support of regional high capacity transit planning activities with Rail District partners,
support of strategic planning activities, including negotiations with Rail District partners,
support of joint rail operations planning activities with UP,
support of freight rail urban bypass studies with UP,
review of engineering plan documents,
review of cost estimates,
review of funding/financing and business plans,
review of service plans,
assistance with preparation of program management documents such as RFQs, RFPs,
and contracts (consultant will be precluded from proposing in any capacity on any
RFQs/RFPs that they prepare), and
support of public and agency involvement activities.
RESPONSES TO THE RFQ SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
Qualifications and Capabilities -
Describe the prime firm’s and all subconsultants’ qualifications. Provide a synopsis of
each firm’s experience in providing program support services with particular emphasis
on experience with passenger rail, freight rail, and/or other transportation-related
projects, and in the area of large infrastructure projects.
Provide an overview of the firms’ technical capabilities to meet the requirements of this
project.
Provide an organization chart/staffing plan identifying project management and key
personnel for the prime firm and all subconsultants (if any). Designate the firm’s principal
office and officer to be directly responsible for the Rail District project.
Submit resumes of key staff assigned for this project and outline their related work
experience.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 11
Item # C
5 | Page
Submit a Staff Guarantee Memo, over the signature of each firm’s chief executive,
guaranteeing that the key personnel named in the staffing plan will be assigned to the
project unless their employment is terminated. If substitutes or “backup” personnel are
planned on a contingency basis, such personnel shall also be reflected in the
aforementioned staffing plan and guaranteed in the same fashion.
Disclose any conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. Disclose all contractual or informal
business arrangement/agreements, including fee arrangements, consulting agreements,
and the nature of any legal representation, between your firm and: the Rail District staff
and/or any of its Board members; any entity that provides services to the Rail District;
and any governmental entity or political subdivision within the geographic area
encompassed by the Rail District. Responders must comply with the Conflict of Interest
disclosure policies contained in Section III of the Procurement Policy adopted by the Rail
District’s Board of Directors and available at the Rail District website:
http://www.lonestarrail.com/.
Provide a summary of any regulatory and legal proceedings initiated since January 1,
2006, in which the firm has been named as a respondent or defendant, including the
nature of the proceeding, the claims made and resolution or current status thereof.
Relevant Experience — Case Studies or Project Descriptions -
Provide no more than two (2) case studies or project descriptions wherein the firm(s)
served in a program support, general planning consultant, and/or general engineering
consultant role for a transportation or other large infrastructure project. Each case study
or project description should list a name, address, and telephone number of client
contact.
Provide no more than two (2) case studies or project descriptions wherein the firm(s)
successfully secured federal and/or state grant funds for a governmental entity. Each
case study or project description should list a name, address, and telephone number of
client contact.
Submit references for at least three (3) clients with whom the firm(s) has worked in a
professional capacity within the past five (5) years providing program support services.
Project Approach -
Describe the basic approach the firm/team will use in providing the services specified in
this Request.
Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Participation –
The Rail District’s Procurement Policy describes its program for Historically Underutilized
Business (HUB) participation. A copy of the full Procurement Policy is available at
http://www.lonestarrail.com/. The Rail District’s DBE/HUB participation program is as follows:
The Rail District makes a firm commitment to maximize participation by Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) and Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) in its contract
opportunities. The Rail District asks that recipients of contracts involving subcontracts
make reasonable efforts to award at least a percentage of the contract amount for
Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 11
Item # C
6 | Page
participation to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and businesses.
Joint ventures with contractors are encouraged. The goal for each contract awarded to
which a DBE, HUB or both is applicable shall be determined by the Rail District at the
time bids or proposals are requested. The Rail District seeks to create a level playing field
on which DBEs, HUBs or both can compete fairly for Rail District contracts, to help
remove barriers to the participation of DBEs and HUBs and to assist in the development
of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE or HUB
program.
Adequate good faith attempts to involve HUB firm(s) must be demonstrated for an RFQ
response to be considered responsive, and HUB participation will be evaluated as part of the
scoring matrix. If any portion of the work is to be subcontracted to any State of Texas certified
HUB firm, provide the name of the firm, the principals, a summary of the work to be performed
and the percentage of the total contract.
SUBMITTAL RESTRICTIONS:
RFQ responses shall be limited to twenty (20) pages in length, exclusive of professional resumes,
cover sheets, flyleaves, tables of content, dividers, etc., printed on two sides and double-spaced.
Materials submitted in excess of the specified 20 pages will not be reviewed. Preprinted
brochure material may be included in the submittal if desired and will not be counted in the 20-
page maximum.
CLARIFICATION OF RFQ:
Should a respondent require clarification of this RFQ, the respondent may notify the Rail District
in writing via e-mail in accordance with the information below. All questions must be in writing
and must be received by the District no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2012. Written
questions should be sent via e-mail to: Joseph Black, Rail Director, e-mail address:
jblack@lonestarrail.com. Requests for clarifications, questions and comments must be clearly
labeled in the e-mail subject line as: “RFQ for On Call Program Support Services: Clarification.”
The Rail District is not responsible for failure to respond to a request that has not been labeled
as such. Questions and Rail District responses to the questions will be distributed to all
registered respondents.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 11
Item # C
7 | Page
PROJECTED PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE:
EVENT DATE
RFQ Issued 10/24/12
Notice of RFQ Published in Austin & San Antonio newspapers, Texas
Register
10/25/12
(papers), 11/2/12
(Register)
RFQ Responses Due 12/12/12
Evaluation Committee Meeting(s) Week of 1/7/13
Interviews Conducted (Optional) Week of 1/14/13
Board of Directors Approves Selection 1/21/13
Contract Negotiations Initiated 1/22/13
Notice to Proceed Issued (est.) 3/1/13
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:
The Rail District will use the following criteria to evaluate the RFQ Responses:
Qualifications, Capabilities and Relevant Experience (20 points maximum) -
Qualifications of the firm, key personnel, and subcontractors, if any. The firm’s technical
capabilities to meet the requirements of the contract. Location of key personnel. Specific
and related experience of the firm(s) and key personnel in providing program support,
GEC, and/or GPC services for a major transportation project and/or large infrastructure
project.
Project Approach (40 points maximum) -
Strategy to provide outlined services, including commitment to provision of key
personnel under the Staff Guarantee provision.
Understanding the Rail District’s Needs (30 points maximum) -
The firm’s understanding of the purpose, goals and objectives of the project.
DBE/HUB Participation (10 points maximum)
SELECTION OF FIRM:
The Rail District will make its selection based on demonstrated experience, knowledge, and
qualifications. An evaluation and selection committee appointed by the Rail District Board
Chairman will initially review the RFQ responses and provide feedback, recommendations,
and/or rankings. The selection committee may make a recommendation to the Board of
Directors as to a firm to select or a short-list of firms to be interviewed by the Board or the
committee. The Rail District Board of Directors will make the ultimate selection of a firm or firms,
if any. The Rail District has not committed itself to employ a firm, and neither the suggested
Attachment number 4 \nPage 7 of 11
Item # C
8 | Page
scope of services nor the terms of an agreement should be construed to require that a firm will
be employed for any or all of the services described in this RFQ. The Rail District reserves the
right to make those decisions, and the decision on these matters is final. The Rail District
reserves the right to negotiate services to be provided, the fees therefor, and to reject any and
all proposals.
COSTS OF RFQ RESPONSES:
All costs directly or indirectly related to preparation of a response to this RFQ, or in any oral
presentation required to supplement and/or clarify the RFQ, shall be the sole responsibility of,
and shall be borne by, responding firms.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND OPEN RECORDS:
All RFQ responses shall be deemed, once submitted, to be the property of the Rail District.
Response documents may be subject to public disclosure under the Texas Public Information
Act (PIA). Any material deemed to be proprietary, confidential, or otherwise exempt from
disclosure under the PIA shall be clearly marked as such. The Rail District will notify responders
in the event a PIA request is received during the pendency of this procurement which might
cover all or part of the RFQ response.
DELIVERY AND DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES:
All RFQ responses shall be received by the Lone Star Rail District, River House, 304 CM Allen
Parkway, San Marcos, Texas 78666, Attn: Joseph Black, no later than 2:00 p.m. CENTRAL,
December 12, 2012. Twelve (12) copies of the response shall be submitted.
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
The contract to be awarded is funded through financial assistance from the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the Texas Department of Transportation. As such, the contract must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulations.
DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION:
The contract to be awarded is funded through financial assistance from the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Therefore, responders will be required to certify that they are not debarred,
suspended or otherwise excluded from participating in a federally assisted project. All
prospective contractors are required to execute a “Certification of Primary Participant” form (see
Attachment number 4 \nPage 8 of 11
Item # C
9 | Page
Attachment A) and a “Certification of Lower-Tier Participant” form (see Attachment B), if
applicable, as part of their response.
ANTI-LOBBYING:
During the pendency of this procurement prospective respondents may not contact members of
the Rail District Board of Directors concerning work for the Rail District. Violation of this
restriction is grounds for disqualification.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 9 of 11
Item # C
10 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
CERTIFICATION OF PRIMARY PARTICIPANT
REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSBILITY MATTERS
__________________________________________________________________________
Firm Name/Principal
certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
2. Have not within a three-year period preceding this response been convicted of or had a
civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in
connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or
local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state
antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
3. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a government
entity (federal, state, or local), with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in
paragraph two (2) of this certification; and
4. Have not within a three-year period preceding this response had one or more public
transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default.
If unable to certify to any of the statement in this certification, the participant shall attach an
explanation to this certification.
THE PRIMARY PARTICIPANT __________________________________________________
Primary Firm Name/Principal
CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE
STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTION 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE THERETO.
_______________________________________________________________ Date: _______________
Signature and Title of Authorized Officer
Attachment number 4 \nPage 10 of 11
Item # C
11 | Page
ATTACHMENT B
CERTIFICATION OF LOWER-TIER PARTICIPANTS
REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY
EXCLUSION
__________________________________________________________________________
Firm Name/Principal
certifies, by submission of this response, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.
If unable to certify to any of the statement in this certification, the participant shall attach an
explanation to this certification.
THE LOWER-TIER PARTICIPANT _______________________________________________
Firm Name/Principal
CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE
STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTION 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE THERETO.
_______________________________________________________________ Date: _______________
Signature and Title of Authorized Officer
Attachment number 4 \nPage 11 of 11
Item # C
Board Meeting
Friday, December 7, 2012
10:00 a.m.
San Marcos Activity Center
501 E. Hopkins
San Marcos, Texas
Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Chairman and Member Comments
3. Items for Consent:
The following items will be considered for approval by one motion. Any item may be
removed from the consent motion upon request by any Board member.
A. Consider Approval of September 7, 2012 Board Meeting Summary
B. Consider Approval of 2013 Board Meeting Calendar
C. Consider Approval of Amendment to Extend End Date of Jacobs Contract for
Alternatives Analysis on Freight Bypass
D. Consider Approval of Amendment to Extend End Date of Interlocal Agreement with City
of Austin upon Approval by City of Austin
E. Consider Approval of Financial Statement
4. Committee Report: Executive Committee Meeting October 5, 2012
5. Consider Executive Director’s Report
6. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Amendment to McGinnis Lochridge & Kilgore
Contract for Freight Rail Negotiation Services and Legal Services Related to Rail System
Funding
7. Consider Report by The PFM Group on Finance Plan
8. Consider Report on 2013 Appointments to Rail District Board
9. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Freight Planning Issues
10. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Report on Status of Environmental and
Engineering Studies on Passenger Rail Project
11. Consider Presentation by TxDOT Rail Division on Oklahoma City-South Texas Corridor
Study
12. Consider Status Report by TxDOT Rail Division
13. Consider Report on Legislative Issues
14. Concluding Board Member Comments (no action taken)
15. Public Comment
16. Adjourn
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # C
Board Meeting Summary
Friday, September 7, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Hill Country Event Center
107 Centerpoint Road
San Marcos, Texas
1. Call to Order
Notice was duly posted and a meeting of the Lone Star Rail District Board was held on Friday,
September 7, 2012. Board Chairman Sid Covington presided, noted a quorum was present, and
called the meeting to order at 10:14 a.m.
Participants:
Sid Covington, Chairman
Tullos Wells, Vice Chairman
Tommy Adkisson
George Antuna, Jr.
Mariano Camarillo
Sheryl Cole
Will Conley
Dean Danos
Sarah Eckhardt
Karen Huber
Debbie Ingalsbe
Sandy Nolte
Kim Porterfield
Other participants included Ross Milloy, Joe Black, Alison Schulze (Rail District), Bill Bingham (Rail
District General Counsel), Jennifer Moczygemba (TxDOT Rail Division), and Scott Trommer (Public
Financial Management).
2. Chairman and Member Comments
Chairman Covington announced that San Antonio appointed Council Member Carlton Soules to
represent the city on the Rail District Board. The Chairman also announced that he made
assignments to the Board’s four standing committees in July, and directed the members’ attention to
the list of assignments included in the agenda packet. Members who would like to volunteer on
other committees or change their committee assignments should contact Chairman Covington.
There were no additional comments.
3. Items for Consent
A. Consider Approval of June 1, 2012 Board Meeting Summary
B. Consider Approval of Contract Amendment for A3 Design
C. Consider Acceptance of FY11 Audit of Lone Star Rail District
D. Consider Acceptance of Risk Assessment and Monitoring Policy for Financial
Functions
E. Consider Approval of Financial Statement
Chairman Covington noted the five consent items would be considered for approval by one motion,
and any item could be removed from the consent agenda upon a Board member’s request. There
was no discussion. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Tullos Wells and second by Commissioner
Karen Huber, the Board unanimously approved the consent agenda items.
December 7, 2012 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 3A
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 2
________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Committee Report: Finance Committee Meeting August 24, 2012
Council Member Kim Porterfield, Chair of the Finance Committee, directed the Board’s attention to
the meeting summary included in the agenda packet and noted there was a great turnout by
Committee members to fully vet the agenda items. Council Member Porterfield briefed the Board on
the items considered on August 24:
The Committee reviewed and discussed the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 reimbursement
agreement between the Rail District and the Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council. The
Committee voted unanimously to approve the FY13 reimbursement policy and to forward the
Committee’s recommendation for approval to the Board for action on Sept. 7. The Board will
consider the reimbursement agreement under Agenda Item 7.
The Committee reviewed and discussed the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget and voted
unanimously to recommend the Board approve the budget. The Board will consider the FY13
budget under Agenda Item 7.
The Rail District received a clean audit for FY11. The Committee heard a staff presentation on
the audit and, after discussion, voted unanimously to accept the audit and recommend the
Board accept the audit. The Board took action under the consent agenda, Agenda Item 3C.
Staff presented a proposed policy on risk assessment and monitoring of finance functions.
Upon discussion the Committee voted unanimously to approve the policy and to forward the
Committee’s recommendation to the Board for action on Sept. 7. The Board took action on the
policy under the consent agenda, Agenda Item 3D.
There was no discussion. Board Chairman Covington thanked Council Member Porterfield for her
leadership and for ensuring the Committee fully discussed and made recommendations to the Board
on all the items, which are necessary to continuing the Rail District’s operations in the coming year.
5. Consider Executive Director’s Report
Ross Milloy briefed the Board on several items of interest:
Staff is working in Travis and Hays counties to secure agreements on local operations and
maintenance funding. Staff made a presentation to Austin’s City Manager on August 14; a
presentation to the City’s Audit and Finance Committee is scheduled for Sept. 26. In Hays
County, the Rail District team is meeting with city staffs and making presentations to city
councils throughout the county; the last meeting was in Kyle on August 15. Rail District staff
and leadership also met with the City Manager and staff in San Antonio on June 26 to begin
laying out a tax increment financing plan. The team will be setting up meetings with staff from
Bexar County and VIA to involve them in development of the TIF plan. Further meetings will
likely be delayed until after the November elections.
The Rail District’s financial consultants are working on the finance plan. Scott Trommer with
Public Financial Management (PFM) will brief the Board under Agenda Item 13. Staff has also
been meeting with Alstom, Balfour Beatty, Parsons Brinckerhoff, AECOM, Argenta group and
others to discuss public-private partnership financing and opportunities. Staff also met with
Michael Morris of the North Central Council of Governments to discuss potential joint analyses
of development opportunities between Dallas and the Austin-San Antonio corridor.
In late July the Texas Transportation Commission awarded the Rail District $2.5 million―$2
million for the local match on the $10 million CAMPO STP-MM funds awarded for the freight
bypass, and $500,000 for financial and business planning activities. The Board will consider
funding for financial planning activities under Agenda Item 8.
Public engagement activities and presentations in August included the New Braunfels
Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee, August 7; a Project Connect update to
representatives of the Federal Transit Administration in Austin, August 13; a panel discussion
for the Project Connect North Corridor study in Round Rock, August 16; TxDOT’s IH-35
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 3
________________________________________________________________________________________
Planning and Environmental Linakges Study in San Antonio, August 16; and the San Antonio
chapter of the Certified Residential Specialists, August 21.
On July 30 staff conducted an orientation work session for new Board members George
Antuna, Jr., Schertz Mayor Pro Tem; Sandy Nolte, New Braunfels Council Member; and
Carlton Soules, San Antonio Council Member.
Mr. Milloy noted that other activities would be reported under the project-specific agenda items
6. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Letter of Appreciation for Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison
Ross Milloy reported that Board members recommended the Rail District send a letter to Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchison thanking her for her years of service, her efforts on improving transportation in
the state, and her assistance on behalf of the Rail District. He directed the Board’s attention to a
letter included in the agenda packet, which would go out over the Board Chairman’s and Vice
Chairman’s signatures. Upon a motion by Mayor Pro Tem George Antuna, Jr., and second by
Board Vice Chairman Tullos Wells, the Board unanimously approved the letter of appreciation.
7. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on FY13 Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council-
Lone Star District Reimbursement Agreement and FY13 Budget
Ross Milloy reported the Corridor Council provides administrative staff and offices for the Rail
District, and the terms for reimbursement are outlined in the reimbursement agreement. As part of
the annual budget process, staff presents the agreement to the Finance Committee to review and
approve the apportionment of expenses. The Fiscal Year 2013 reimbursement agreement is
included in the agenda packet and the Corridor Council’s costs are reflected in the Rail District’s
FY13 budget under locally funded expenses, line items 4-28.
Board Chairman Covington noted the Board decided early on to use the Corridor Council for
administrative functions instead of leasing stand-alone office space and hiring a large staff. The
agreement with the Corridor Council reduces the administrative costs of the Rail District and is
reviewed and updated each year as costs change.
Alison Schulze briefed the Board on the state and federal sections of the FY13 budget. State funds
are shown in line items 29-44 and the sources include the 2009/2011 appropriation from the state
legislature as well as the $500,000 in State Mobility Funds awarded by the Transportation
Commission in July. State funded expenses for FY13 reflect some new projects the Board will
consider later in the agenda―for example, real estate/value capture consultants and financial
planning, but for the most part the expenditures are focused on continuing current contracts. State
funds also pay for the Rail District’s two permanent, full-time staff positions.
Federal funds are shown in line items 45-60. Federal income includes two federal grants received
by the Rail District in FY01 and FY06; of the original $7.7 million, $885,000 remains, and all
proposed FY13 expenditures are to continue work on existing contracts. The federal STP-MM funds
received from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) are shown in a
separate category, line items 54-60, because the MPO funds are earmarked for specific purposes―
environmental studies on the passenger rail project and environmental studies on the freight rail
bypass―and can’t be comingled with the Rail District’s grant funds.
Ms. Schulze reported the proposed FY13 budget was presented to the Finance Committee on
August 24, and the Committee unanimously recommended that the Board approve the FY13
reimbursement policy between the Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council and the Rail District, and
approve the FY13 budget.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 4
________________________________________________________________________________________
Board discussion followed on the staff expenses shown under state funds, which include salaries as
well as benefits, health insurance, taxes, and reimbursable expenses paid by the employees.
Chairman Covington noted that a motion or recommendation from a committee doesn’t require a
second, and the Board unanimously approved the FY13 reimbursement agreement and the FY13
Rail District budget.
8. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Amendments to Jacobs Contract for
Environmental Studies on Passenger Rail
Alison Schulze directed the Board’s attention to the back-up material in the agenda packet, which
includes a memo that summarizes the amendments. The two amendments to be considered―
financial planning tasks and coordination with Union Pacific―are unrelated except that they both fall
under the Jacobs Engineering contract on passenger rail studies. The first amendment would
authorize the expenditure of $500,000 in state funds for financial planning tasks. The second
amendment would add $100,000 to the contract so that Jacobs could continue their technical
support services regarding coordination with Union Pacific.
Ms. Schulze noted the Rail District was awarded $500,000 by the Transportation Commission in July
specifically for financial and business planning activities. Three preliminary scopes of work are
included in the agenda packet that would advance the finance plan: continuing Knudson LP’s work
with local governments to secure agreements on local operations and maintenance (O&M) funding,
authorizing R.L. Banks & Associates to calculate the benefits of the new freight rail bypass, and
continuing Jacobs’ project management and technical (e.g., GIS and mapping) services in support of
the financial team. The preliminary scopes and fee estimates exceed the $500,000 award by
$15,000. Staff recommended the Board approve the $500,000 expenditure on financial planning
tasks and authorize the Executive Committee to oversee and approve the final scopes of work and
the allocation of funds among the three firms.
The second contract amendment would continue Jacobs existing work authorization for technical
support and coordination with UP. The Rail District continues to make progress with UP, but staff
relies on Jacobs’ technical support to continue moving the projects forward. Staff recommended the
Board authorize an amendment to add up to $100,000 to continue Jacobs’ services to support Rail
District’s work with UP.
Ms. Schulze summarized the staff recommendation:
That the Board approve the expenditure of $500,000 for financial planning tasks, and authorize
the Executive Committee to approve the final scopes of work and oversee the allocation of the
funds among the firms, and
That the Board approve adding up to $100,000 to Jacobs’ contract to continue technical
support and coordination with Union Pacific, and
That the Board authorize the Board Chairman to execute the amendments including the
associated interlocal agreements with TxDOT since the funding source is state funds.
Board discussion followed on reducing the fee estimates on financial planning tasks to stay within
the $500,000, the potential impact of the Census Bureau’s new urbanized area designations on local
funding, the importance of funding the state Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund, and asking the
Austin and San Antonio MPOs to pass a joint resolution of support for rail relocation funding when
the two MPOs meet together on November 9.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Karen Huber and second by Council Member Sandy Nolte, the
Board unanimously approved the staff recommendation.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 5
________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Authorizing Staff to Proceed with
Procurement of Real Estate/Value Capture Consultant Services
Ross Milloy reported the Board authorized staff earlier in the year to begin the procurement process
for a real estate/value capture strategy team. The value of the land along the existing freight line will
increase when through freight is relocated and replaced with passenger service, so the consultant
team would look at the potential for capturing the increased real estate value―that is, how the land
might be developed and what the total value of the real estate might be. The calculations for
developing a pro forma are linked to the analyses currently being performed by Capital Market
Research and Knudson LP on the TIF financing element of the financial plan, and the information
from the value capture analysis would get funneled back into the financial plan. Staff initially
envisioned issuing an RFP/RFQ for the services, but it would be more efficient to use the Rail
District’s existing consultants who are already analyzing real estate issues rather than hiring a new
team which would be delayed by a learning curve. Mr. Milloy recommended that the Board
authorize up to $250,000 for the additional services to be provided by existing consultants and
authorize the Board Chairman to execute an interlocal agreement with TxDOT since the funding
source would be state funds.
Board discussion followed on whether the consultants would analyze every station. Mr. Milloy noted
the consultants would pick one station for the detailed analysis and make assumptions for the other
stations. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Tullos Wells and second by Mayor Pro Tem George
Antuna, Jr., the Board voted unanimously to authorize $250,000 for real estate/value capture
services to be provided by existing consultants as outlined by staff.
10. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Authorizing Procurement Process for
Environmental Studies on Freight Rail Bypass and Authorizing TxDOT Administrative
Fee
Alison Schulze briefed the Board on the status of securing the funding on the freight bypass
environmental studies, and directed the Board’s attention to the memo in the agenda packet that
outlines the issues. On December 2, 2011, the Board authorized the Board Chairman to enter into
an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) with TxDOT to access the $10 million in CAMPO STP-MM
funds awarded for environmental studies on the freight bypass. In February 2012 Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) staff questioned the eligibility of the freight project for STP-MM funding.
Since then the Rail District’s leadership and staff have been working with FHWA, TxDOT, and
CAMPO on the eligibility issue. In August 2012 FHWA agreed the freight project is eligible since
passenger service can’t be implemented until the through freight is moved; but, the Rail District must
combine the passenger and freight projects in one environmental approval process, one
environmental document, and one federal action.
The Rail District and TxDOT will terminate the existing AFA on the passenger project and replace it
with a new AFA that includes both passenger and freight funding awards. The new approach does
not affect the existing contract between the Rail District and Jacobs Engineering for environmental
studies on the passenger rail project. Rail District staff is working with FHWA, TxDOT and CAMPO
staff to develop the final AFA. The Board’s approval in December 2011 to enter into an AFA is
sufficient for the new AFA. However, the new AFA will include an administrative fee of up to
$200,000 to “cover the State’s oversight activities for all off-system, federally funded projects.” Staff
recommended that the Board authorize the Board Chairman to execute the necessary AFA with
TxDOT, which includes payment of an administrative fee up to $200,000, and authorize staff to
begin the procurement process for environmental studies on freight bypass.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 6
________________________________________________________________________________________
Board discussion followed on the purpose of TxDOT’s administrative fee; the schedule for the
procurement process, which staff hopes to begin by the end of the year with consultant selection
and contract negotiations anticipated in spring 2013; the status of Jacobs’ work on the passenger
rail studies, and how the two environmental efforts by two different teams will be coordinated without
impacting the work done to date on the passenger component.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe and second by Board Member Dean Danos, the
Board unanimously approved authorizing the Board Chairman to execute the AFA with TxDOT
including payment of an administrative fee up to $200,000, and authorizing staff to begin the
procurement process for environmental studies on freight bypass.
11. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Authorizing Procurement Process for
Program Management Team
Ross Milloy reported that the magnitude of the combined environmental studies leads staff to
recommend hiring a program management team to serve as an extension of staff to help manage
the two environmental contracts and coordinate the two documents, and identify grant opportunities.
Alison Schulze added that staff is managing a lot of projects, including projects with engineering cost
estimates and plans, and it’s important the Rail District have an independent, objective third party to
assist staff not only with the engineering components of the environmental studies but also with
overseeing the federal environmental process and taking advantage of grant opportunities by
developing applications for funding. A high-end estimate for the contract could be as much as $1
million over three years; the FY13 budget includes $333,000 in state funds for a program
management contract pending Board approval and authorization to begin the procurement process.
Joe Black noted that the contract would not be a traditional program management contract but would
be an on-call type contract so that when staff needs assistance, whether it’s on engineering tasks or
on grant applications, the program management team would be called on to address a specific need
or task.
Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to begin the procurement process for a program
management team or general engineering consultant, and authorize the Board Chairman to execute
the necessary interlocal agreement (IA) with TxDOT to use state funds on the contract.
Board discussion followed on the type of individual or firm staff envisions for the contract; staff
responded that due to the range of expertise required on the various tasks, it’s more likely that a
team would be selected rather than an individual. Upon a motion by Commissioner Karen Huber
and second by Mayor Pro Tem George Antuna, Jr., the Board unanimously approved the staff
recommendation.
12. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Freight Planning Issues
Joe Black briefed the Board on the various elements of freight planning currently underway. On the
Local Government and Stakeholder Engagement services contract, staff continues to meet bi-
weekly with the Hahn,Texas team, Rail District staff, consultants, and Union Pacific representatives
to coordinate messaging and to report on on-going outreach efforts. Staff has ramped up
stakeholder engagement activities in San Antonio and Bexar County, developed messaging
documents, and created a specific presentation for the Bexar County-San Antonio region with the
cooperation of Board members from the area. Staff has met with nearly all the Tier 1 stakeholders―
that is, elected officials and staff, priority stakeholders, and utility and electric suppliers in the areas
most likely to be affected by the freight bypass. Staff is now beginning to meet with Tier 2
stakeholders, which include chambers of commerce and business organizations in the affected
areas and elected officials and staff in the peripheral areas. Staff is also beginning outreach in
Attachment number 6 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 7
________________________________________________________________________________________
Williamson County based on feedback received in stakeholder meetings. Finally, staff has received
a preliminary draft study on the economic benefits of the freight relocation.
On the alternatives analysis study of the freight bypass, the draft report is still under review. Bill
Bingham is doing the initial review, then Mr. Black will conduct his review. Jacobs Engineering will
address and incorporate the review comments in a final draft, and following a final review, staff will
issue the final document that identifies viable alternatives to be taken into the environmental
process.
Board discussion followed on the pending meeting with officials in Guadalupe County and several
Board members asked to be notified when the meeting logistics are set. Commissioner Will Conley
also directed staff to meet with the farming and ranching communities in the affected counties. Mr.
Black encouraged all Board members to notify staff of stakeholders who should be on the meeting
list so that staff can follow up.
13. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Report on Status of Environmental and
Engineering Studies on Passenger Rail Project
Joe Black reiterated that most tasks in the environmental contract are temporarily on hold pending
the resolution of lead agency issues and combining the passenger and freight efforts into one
environmental process; but a few tasks are on-going. One is joint operations planning with Union
Pacific. Rail District staff and consultants and high-ranking officials from UP conducted a joint
inspection and operations planning trip in June. As a follow up, Rail District staff and consultants
met with UP engineering and network planning officials in Omaha on July 24 to debrief on the June
joint inspection trip. Joint operations planning continues―UP is currently developing a network
simulation model using RTC software to determine capacity and infrastructure needs to support
reliable, on-time service for passenger trains while also allowing UP to continue local freight service.
Rail District and Jacobs staff provided service plan and rail equipment performance planning data to
UP in August to inform the rail network simulation modeling effort. The modeling will take three to
four months to complete.
The other on-going task is local financial planning work by Joe Lessard, Knudson LP. Work
continues to secure agreements for annual local operations and maintenance (O&M) funding. The
team made a joint presentation on TIFs to Austin City Manager Marc Ott on August 14, and a
presentation to the Council’s Audit and Finance Committee is scheduled for September 26. In Hays
County the team is beginning to meet with city staffs and making presentations to city councils; the
last meeting was with Kyle city staff on August 15 to discuss alternative financial strategies for local
funding.
Public Financial Management (PFM), a consultant on the finance team, is working out the details of
the financial and P3 strategy the Rail District will follow in coming months to begin securing capital
funds for the project. Mr. Black introduced Scott Trommer, PFM, for a brief update on the status of
the financial plan.
Scott Trommer briefed the Board on the finance plan approach. The key objective of the effort is to
develop a comprehensive funding and financing strategy for both the construction of the freight
bypass as well as the construction and operation of passenger rail service. PFM, working in concert
with all members of the finance team, is looking at the annual expenditures required for constructing
both projects, the operating plan and operating needs for passenger service, and identifying a
variety of funding sources both public and private. PFM met with the Project Connect finance team
to integrate their strategy in the Rail District’s financial plan, and is also working with Joe Lessard on
the evaluation of alternative operating funding strategies using TIF revenues. PFM will develop a
Attachment number 6 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 8
________________________________________________________________________________________
detailed year-by-year cash flow analysis that takes a comprehensive look at each source of funds,
identifies gaps, and identifies funding sources to close the gaps. At this point in the process PFM is
developing a financial planning model that will be used to craft planning scenarios in an iterative
process. PFM will present a conceptual level baseline financial plan by the end of the year, and
then continually update the plan as new data becomes available. Once the model is constructed,
PFM will rank alternative scenarios for the Rail District to consider and establish a blueprint for a
financing strategy. Once a preferred baseline financial strategy is identified, PFM will begin informal
discussions with the private sector on the elements that could be potential public-private partnership
opportunities.
Board discussion followed on the viability of the federal TIFIA program, which was expanded with
the adoption of MAP-21, the reauthorized federal surface transportation program. TIFIA loans can
now fund up to 49% of project costs; it previously was capped at 33%.
14. Consider Status Report by TxDOT Rail Division
Jennifer Moczygemba, TxDOT Rail Division, briefed the Board on the Rail Division’s on-going
projects:
The Rail Division is making presentations on the Oklahoma City-South Texas Corridor Study to
the MPOs in the I-35 corridor as well as the My 35 Committee and the affected I-69
Committees. Ms. Moczygemba stated she would like to give the same presentation to the Rail
District Board in December. The contract with CH2MHill should be signed within the month
and the project should be underway shortly thereafter.
The Rail District is using state funds on several contracts. The funds are contingent on rolling
over the state appropriation to the next biennium. If legislature doesn’t roll over the funds, the
money won’t be available to the Rail District.
Ms. Moczygemba said she would look into the TxDOT administrative fee on the CAMPO funds.
To date, the Rail Division has waived the administrative fee on previous Rail District AFAs.
The statewide ridership analysis is moving forward. The model should be done in November.
TxDOT will meet with corridor planners before the end of the year to discuss the
methodologies used and how the statewide analysis can be used at the corridor level.
The Dallas/Ft. Worth – Houston project is moving forward. TxDOT met with the Federal
Railroad Administration on the scope of work and contract issues.
TxDOT has an interagency contract with the Texas Transportation Institute to provide support
in various areas such as surveys, general outreach, and website development.
Board Chairman Covington asked if TxDOT had included funding for the Rail Relocation and
Improvement Fund in its legislative appropriations request (LAR). Ms. Moczygemba stated funding
for rail relocation was in the original LAR, but it has been through several iterations and she didn’t
know if it was still in the LAR. She encouraged Board members to contact TxDOT’s administration
to ensure the funding request remains in the LAR. The original request was either $50 million or
$100 million per year. TxDOT is developing the project prioritization process, which has to be in
place before rail relocation funds can be distributed.
15. Consider Report on Legislative Issues,
Ross Milloy reported he developed a legislative agenda for the Rail District for the upcoming
session. There’s not enough money in the budget for all the legislative work that needs to be done,
and he will try to raise the additional funds through other avenues. Mr. Milloy also encouraged all
Board members and member jurisdictions to support the Rail District’s priorities in their own
legislative programs: The Rail District’s 4-part agenda includes: 1) funding for the Texas Rail
Relocation and Improvement Fund, 2) protect and extend any unspent funds from the $8.7 million
appropriation, and protect and extend the existing $50 million appropriation to be used as state
Attachment number 6 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Board Meeting
September 7, 2012 Page 9
________________________________________________________________________________________
matching funds for federal dollars, 3) get a $2 million appropriation to replace the toll credit match
with cash on the passenger rail environmental studies, and 4) $46 million for preliminary engineering
and final design on freight bypass project. Commissioner Adkisson urged Mr. Milloy to share his list
of priorities with all elected officials in the Austin-San Antonio Corridor.
16. Concluding Board Member Comments (no action taken)
Chairman Covington announced the next meeting would be a meeting of the Executive Committee
on October 5. The meeting will either be at the San Marcos Activity Center or by conference call,
depending on the nature of the agenda items. The next Board meeting will be December 7 at the
San Marcos Activity Center. There were no additional comments.
17. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
18. Adjourn
Chairman Covington adjourned the meeting at 11:56 a.m.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # C
Board of Directors
2013 MEETING DATES
Date Day Time Location1
BOARD MEETINGS
March 1, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
June 7, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
September 6, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Event Center San Marcos
December 6, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
No meeting in January
February 1, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
March 1, 2013 1st Friday Board meeting (see above)
April 5, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
May 3, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
June 7, 2013 1st Friday Board meeting (see above)
July 12, 2013 2nd Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
August 2, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
September 6, 2013 1st Friday Board meeting (see above)
October 4, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
November 1, 2013 1st Friday 10:00 am Activity Center San Marcos
December 6, 2013 1st Friday Board meeting (see above)
1 Meeting Locations
Activity Center: San Marcos Activity Center, 501 E. Hopkins, San Marcos, TX
Event Center: Hill Country Event Center, 107 Centerpoint Road, San Marcos, TX
December 7, 2012 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 3B
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # C
Executive Committee Meeting
Friday, October 5, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Locations: McGinnis Lochridge & Kilgore, 600 Congress Ave., Suite 2100, Austin, Texas
Georgetown City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas
Bracewell & Giuliani, 106 S. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 800, San Antonio, Texas
Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council, 304 N. CM Allen Parkway, San Marcos, Texas
Participants: Austin:
Sid Covington, Chairman, Executive Committee
Sarah Eckhardt, Executive Committee member
Ross Milloy, Lone Star Rail District Interim Executive Director
Jennifer Moczygemba, TxDOT Rail Division
Georgetown:
Patty Eason, Executive Committee member
San Antonio:
Tullos Wells, Vice Chairman, Executive Committee
Mary Briseño, Executive Committee member
San Marcos:
Kim Porterfield, Executive Committee member
Carroll Schubert, Executive Committee member
Joe Black, Lone Star Rail District
Alison Schulze, Lone Star Rail District
Sarah Matthews, Lone Star Rail District interim staff
Remote locations:
Brad Davis (Dallas); Rob Maxwell, Gill Saunders (Austin); Jacobs Engineering
1. Call to order
Executive Committee Chairman Sid Covington announced the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Committee was being held by conference call. Chairman Covington called the meeting to order at
10:02 a.m. and announced the meeting of the Executive Committee was being conducted via
teleconference call pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Open Meetings Act ;
Article 6550c-1, section 3A; and the bylaws of the Rail District. He called the roll for Committee
members, noted a quorum was present, and stated the meeting was being conducted at four
locations, the meeting was open to the public, and the public could attend and participate at any of
the posted locations. Chairman Covington then asked all attendees at each posted location and at
remote locations to identify themselves for the purpose of recording the meeting. Following the
introductions, the Chairman reminded each location to circulate the sign-in sheet and ask all
attendees to sign in for the meeting record.
2. Chairman and Member Comments
Board Chairman Covington reported that he and Alison Schulze made a presentation on October 2
to Union Pacific’s Community Advisory Panel (CAP) in San Antonio. The CAP has several new
members, the update was well received, and UP and the CAP are very supportive of the project.
There were no other comments.
December 7, 2012 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 4
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Executive Committee Meeting
October 5, 2012 Page 2
________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Consider Approval of May 4, 2012 Executive Committee Meeting Summary
Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Tullos Wells and second by Council Member Patty Eason, the
Executive Committee unanimously approved the May 4 meeting summary.
4. Consider Executive Director’s Report
Ross Milloy briefed the Committee on recent activities:
Financial planning tasks are moving forward. Public Financial Management (PFM), Rail District
staff and various consultants meet bi-weekly by conference call to coordinate elements of the
financial plan. Staff anticipates presenting a draft plan to the Board in December.
Staff is developing an RFQ for on-call program management services, which the Board approved
in September. The draft document is under internal review. Staff plans to issue the RFQ by the
end of the year.
On November 9, the Austin and San Antonio MPOs will hold a joint meeting of their policy
boards at the City of San Marcos Conference Center at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San
Marcos. Immediately following the joint MPO meeting, the Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council
will host a legislative priorities luncheon, also at the Conference Center in San Marcos.
Public engagement opportunities and presentations in September included the San Antonio
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 10, the Austin Area Research Organization on Sept.
10, the San Marcos Transportation Committee on Sept. 11, and the Texas Economic
Development Association on Sept. 25. Rail District staff also participated in Project Connect
North presentations to Eggers Neighborhood Association in Round Rock on Sept. 18 and to
Sustainable Neighborhoods of North Austin on Sept. 20.
Joe Black attended the APTA annual meeting on October 1-2 and met with representatives from
Keolis, RATP Dev, and Bombardier.
Mr. Milloy noted that other staff activities would be reported under the project-specific agenda items
to follow.
5. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Amendments to Jacobs Contract for
Passenger Rail Environmental Studies for Financial Planning Tasks
Alison Schulze directed the Committee’s attention to material included in the agenda packet―a
cover memo with an overview of the contract issues and scopes of work for Jacobs Engineering and
two of its subconsultants, R.L. Banks and Associates (RLBA) and Knudson LP. On September 7,
the Board approved an expenditure of $500,000 in state funds for financial planning tasks and
authorized the Executive Committee to oversee the allocation of funds among the financial planning
firms. The final scopes of work and fee estimates include $100,000 for Jacobs for financial planning
support, GIS and mapping, and project management; $160,000 for RLBA for calculating benefits of
the freight relocation project in order to advance the development of funding options; and $240,000
for Knudson LP to continue Joe Lessard’s work program with local jurisdictions on options for
funding annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Staff recommended the Executive Committee (1) authorize staff to develop contract amendments for
additional financial planning services, as follows: add $100,000 for Jacobs Engineering, add
$160,000 for RLBA, and add up to $240,000 for Knudson, LP, and (2) authorize the Board Chairman
to execute the contract documents and the associated interlocal agreement with TxDOT to use state
funds on the contract. Upon a motion by Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt and second by Council
Member Kim Porterfield, the Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Executive Committee Meeting
October 5, 2012 Page 3
________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Freight Planning Issues
Joe Black briefed the Committee on the freight planning projects currently underway. The Freight
Bypass Alternative Alignments/Fatal Flaw Analysis conducted by Jacobs Engineering is nearing
completion. The final draft report has been reviewed by Bill Bingham, Jacobs is addressing Mr.
Bingham’s comments, Mr. Black will conduct the final review, and then the final report will be issued.
The report identifies alignments that will be taken forward into environmental analysis process,
which staff hopes to begin in early 2013.
On the Local Government and Stakeholder Engagement Services contract, LSRD staff, consultants
and Union Pacific representatives continue to meet bi-weekly to coordinate messaging and ongoing
outreach efforts. Meetings with Tier 1 stakeholders―elected officials and staff in the study
area―are complete and staff is now meeting with Tier 2 stakeholders―chambers of commerce,
civic organizations, etc. There is a lot of interest in Bexar County and staff is ramping up the
outreach effort on the south end of the corridor with a new presentation geared specifically to the
greater San Antonio area and focused more on the larger message and the project’s benefits than
the previous more-technical presentation.
On the freight bypass environmental studies, staff anticipates issuing an RFQ/RFP before the end of
the year and selecting a contractor in early 2013. Alison Schulze reported the Rail District is working
with TxDOT and FHWA staff to finalize the Advance Funding Agreement for the bypass
environmental studies and hopes to execute the AFA in October.
Committee discussion followed on the new presentation which targets a higher level, less technical
audience and concentrates the message on the purpose of the project and its regional benefits; and
on the status of meetings with individual elected officials in Travis County regarding the Rail
District’s tax-increment financing (TIF) initiatives. Commissioner Eckhardt suggested that
scheduling meetings would become easier after the November election.
7. Consider and Take Appropriate Action on Environmental and Engineering Studies on
Passenger Rail Project
Joe Black reported the environmental studies remain on hold while staff works to combine the
passenger rail and freight rail environmental studies into one process, which should help resolve the
lead agency issue. In the meantime, two activities continue to move forward. The first is Union
Pacific joint operations planning. Rail District and Jacobs staff held a design charrette to look at
UP’s desired infrastructure additions in the existing rail corridor; the purpose was to identify cost-
effective solutions. During the charrette, staff also looked at the feasibility of using UP’s Mainline 2
(ML2) instead of Mainline 1 in the Schertz area. Use of ML2 would avoid a large industrial area of
rock quarries and the associated truck traffic that serves the quarries. ML2 would also better serve
Schertz’s plans for a proposed large-scale, transit-oriented development in north Schertz.
The second on-going activity is local O&M funding discussions. Joe Lessard continues to reach out
to local governments, but progress has been to subject to budget processes, political processes,
and the upcoming election in November. The next major meeting is with the City of Austin’s Audit
and Finance Committee of the Council in October
Regarding Project Connect, the CAMPO Transit Working Group (TWG) reconvened on September
21 after a summer hiatus. The Project Connect team presented an overview of a comprehensive
financial plan, which includes the Georgetown to San Marcos segment of the LSTAR passenger
project. Project Connect’s financial consultants met with the Rail District’s financial team to share
data and ensure the strategic financial plans are coordinated and congruent.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # C
Lone Star Rail District Executive Committee Meeting
October 5, 2012 Page 4
________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Consider Status Report by TxDOT Rail Division
Jennifer Moczygemba, TxDOT Rail Division, briefed the Committee on issues of common interest:
The AFA for the freight rail bypass (discussed under item 6) is down to resolving final comments
and how to roll over the original AFA for the passenger rail studies into the new AFA.
The statewide ridership analysis is making progress and is about 60% complete. The model
should be done in November, then the consultants will perform testing and iterations. TxDOT
will hold a meeting on November 28 to discuss the statewide model in conjunction with the
models under development for the Oklahoma City – South Texas Corridor Study and the
Dallas/Ft. Worth – Houston Corridor Study. It will also be the first meeting of the peer review
panel established through the Texas Transportation Institute. Rail District staff should plan to
attend.
On the Oklahoma City – South Texas Corridor Study, TxDOT signed the contract with CH2MHill
and held a kick-off meeting earlier in the week. TxDOT will start conducting stakeholder
meetings in the next couple of months followed by public scoping meetings. In conjunction with
the study, HNTB is working on infrastructure analyses of the existing railroads and roads.
9. Consider Report on Legislative Issues
Ross Milloy reported that Rep. Lamar Smith sent a letter to Joe Szabo, Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration, on the new rules for Categorical Exclusions. Rep. Smith asked that
projects within existing right-of-way be excluded from requirements to perform an environmental
impact statement. The Rail District’s legislative consultants are meeting with Rep. Mica’s
transportation committee staff on methods to accomplish this within the existing regulatory
framework.
Congressman Doggett suggested the Rail District consider the Projects of Regional and National
Significance program under MAP-21 as a possible funding source. Staff will continue to monitor the
program, but the regulations have not yet been written and the funds are not yet authorized.
On state legislative issues, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst appointed Sen. Robert Nichols chairman
of the Senate Transportation Committee. Mr. Milloy has been meeting with individual state
representatives regarding the Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund to ensure they are informed of
the issues prior to the upcoming session. Finally, another Rail District legislative priority is to carry
over the state appropriation awarded to the Rail District. Staff’s goal is to have the funds fully
committed or spent by October 2013, but will pursue carrying over the funds as a safeguard.
10. Concluding Board Member Comments (no action taken)
Chairman Covington announced the next Executive Committee meeting will be Friday, November 2,
at 10:00, and will likely be held by conference call to minimize member’s travel. The next Board
meeting will be Friday, December 7, at 10:00 a.m. at the San Marcos Activity Center.
Council Member Patty Eason reported the Georgetown Council approved Rail District dues for the
coming fiscal year. She thanked Tullos Wells and Ross Milloy for meeting with Council members
and urged staff to continue to meet with and educate local officials, staff, and organizations. There
were no additional comments.
11. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
12. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # C
Revised Budget 02.03.12
Local Funds Receivables
A/R - Membership Dues -$
Local Funds Payables
A/P - Local Funds 38,056.76$
LSRD Cash Reconciliation July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012
Beginning Cash Balance as of 07.01.12 66,152.72$
Cash Inflows:
FY12 Membership Dues 49,500.00$
TxDOT Deposit 457,057.21$
City of Austin 34,547.43$
Total Cash Inflows: 541,104.64$
Cash Out Flows:
GASACC-Local Funds -$
Invoices 525,288.74$
Total Cash Outflows: 525,288.74$
Ending Cash balance as of 09.30.12 81,968.62$
Local Funds Expenditures - Accrual Basis of Accounting
Quarterly 4th Qtr Year To Date
Budget Actuals Variance Budget Actuals Variance
STAFF PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 65,340.74$ 58,172.11$ 7,168.63 234,000.00$ 232,347.81$ 1,652.19$
Payroll Taxes 4,711.87$ 1,770.55$ 2,941.31 16,677.00$ 11,202.19$ 5,474.81$
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Legal Services 22,500.00$ 7,392.00$ 15,108.00 90,000.00$ 51,229.73$ 38,770.27$
Accounting 3,750.00$ 723.75$ 3,026.25 15,000.00$ 25,218.00$ (10,218.00)$
Legislative Services 23,239.25$ 52,774.20$ (29,534.95)92,957.00$ 107,957.00$ (15,000.00)$
DIRECT EXPENSES
Automobile & Mileage Expenses 1,125.00$ 2,032.70$ (907.70)4,500.00$ 5,952.97$ (1,452.97)$
Board & Committees meeting support 1,975.00$ 1,843.50$ 131.50 7,900.00$ 6,354.75$ 1,545.25$
Computer Maintenance 750.00$ 472.49$ 277.51 3,000.00$ 3,231.84$ (231.84)$
Computer Network Server Maintenance 500.00$ 526.47$ (26.47)2,000.00$ 1,779.87$ 220.13$
Courier Service 50.00$ 26.45$ 23.55 200.00$ 150.00$ 50.00$
Equipment Lease: Copier/Fax 1,125.00$ 709.54$ 415.46 4,500.00$ 2,710.97$ 1,789.03$
Insurance: Business 750.00$ 939.78$ (189.78)3,000.00$ 1,458.15$ 1,541.85$
Miscellaneous 75.00$ 26.72$ 48.28 300.00$ 26.72$ 273.28$
Non Board meeting expenses 87.50$ 337.95$ (250.45)350.00$ 1,084.17$ (734.17)$
Office Equipment & Supplies 1,250.00$ 1,355.30$ (105.30)5,000.00$ 4,581.58$ 418.42$
Postage 175.00$ 12.35$ 162.65 700.00$ 994.62$ (294.62)$
Postings/RFPs/RFQs 400.00$ -$ 400.00 1,600.00$ 16.00$ 1,584.00$
Printing 25.00$ -$ 25.00 100.00$ -$ 100.00$
Subscriptions 137.50$ 215.28$ (77.78)550.00$ 472.28$ 77.72$
Telephone and Facsimile 1,125.00$ 1,107.38$ 17.62 4,500.00$ 4,350.31$ 149.69$
Trade Group Participation 750.00$ 750.00$ 0.00 3,000.00$ 3,230.57$ (230.57)$
Travel 5,000.00$ 4,072.86$ 927.14 20,000.00$ 15,035.13$ 4,964.87$
Website domain/hosting 100.00$ 216.17$ (116.17)400.00$ 229.17$ 170.83$
Rail Relo 6,000.00$ 6,133.12$ (133.12)24,000.00$ 29,443.94$ (5,443.94)$
Reserve for future local expenses 2,566.50$ -$ 2,566.50 10,266.00$ 1,249.00$ 9,017.00$
SUBTOTAL 143,508.36$ 141,610.67$ 1,897.69 544,500.00$ 510,306.76$ 34,193.24$
Local Funds- Summary of Activity
FY 2012 Fourth Quarter
July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012
December 7, 2012 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 3E
Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # C
Local Funds Receivables
A/R - Membership Dues -$
Local Funds Payables
A/P - Local Funds 38,056.76$
LSRD Cash Reconciliation July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012
Beginning Cash Balance as of 07.01.12 66,152.72$
Cash Inflows:
FY12 Membership Dues 49,500.00$
TxDOT Deposit 457,057.21$
City of Austin 34,547.43$
Total Cash Inflows: 541,104.64$
Cash Out Flows:
GASACC-Local Funds -$
Invoices 525,288.74$
Total Cash Outflows: 525,288.74$
Ending Cash balance as of 09.30.12 81,968.62$
Local Funds Expenditures -Cash Basis of Accounting
Revised Budget 02.03.12
Local Funds Summary of Activities
FY 2012 Fourth Quarter
July 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012
December 7, 2012 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 3E
Local Funds Expenditures - Cash Basis of Accounting
Quarterly 4th Qtr Year To Date
Budget Actuals Variance Budget Actuals Variance
STAFF PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 65,340.74$ 33,007.56$ 32,333.18 234,000.00$ 191,021.14$ 42,978.86$
Payroll Taxes 4,711.87$ 1,975.81$ 2,736.06 16,677.00$ 11,202.01$ 5,474.99$
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Legal Services 22,500.00$ 8,568.00$ 13,932.00 90,000.00$ 47,617.73$ 42,382.27$
Accounting 3,750.00$ 456.25$ 3,293.75 15,000.00$ 24,950.50$ (9,950.50)$
Legislative Services 23,239.25$ 50,365.60$ (27,126.35)92,957.00$ 80,365.60$ 12,591.40$
-$
DIRECT EXPENSES -$
Automobile & Mileage Expenses 1,125.00$ 2,077.54$ (952.54)4,500.00$ 6,156.28$ (1,656.28)$
Board & Committees meeting support 1,975.00$ 416.00$ 1,559.00 7,900.00$ 4,927.25$ 2,972.75$
Computer Maintenance 750.00$ 417.52$ 332.48 3,000.00$ 2,235.65$ 764.35$
Computer Network Server Maintenance 500.00$ 451.47$ 48.53 2,000.00$ 1,704.87$ 295.13$
Courier Service 50.00$ 26.45$ 23.55 200.00$ 150.00$ 50.00$
Equipment Lease: Copier/Fax 1,125.00$ 745.39$ 379.61 4,500.00$ 2,680.15$ 1,819.85$
Insurance: Business 750.00$ 1,233.24$ (483.24)3,000.00$ 2,165.84$ 834.16$
Miscellaneous 75.00$ 26.72$ 48.28 300.00$ 26.72$ 273.28$
Non Board meeting expenses 87.50$ 267.95$ (180.45)350.00$ 804.17$ (454.17)$
Office Equipment & Supplies 1,250.00$ 1,160.69$ 89.31 5,000.00$ 5,257.77$ (257.77)$
Postage 175.00$ 112.80$ 62.20 700.00$ 933.62$ (233.62)$
Postings/RFPs/RFQs 400.00$ -$ 400.00 1,600.00$ 16.00$ 1,584.00$
Printing 25.00$ -$ 25.00 100.00$ -$ 100.00$
Subscriptions 137.50$ -$ 137.50 550.00$ 686.50$ (136.50)$
Telephone and Facsimile 1,125.00$ 954.53$ 170.47 4,500.00$ 3,904.51$ 595.49$
Trade Group Participation 750.00$ 750.00$ 0.00 3,000.00$ 3,230.57$ (230.57)$
Travel 5,000.00$ 4,818.36$ 181.64 20,000.00$ 15,373.18$ 4,626.82$
Website domain/hosting 100.00$ 178.75$ (78.75)400.00$ 191.75$ 208.25$
Rail Relo 6,000.00$ 6,133.12$ (133.12)24,000.00$ 16,463.17$ 7,536.83$ Rail Relo 6,000.00$ 6,133.12$ (133.12)24,000.00$ 16,463.17$ 7,536.83$
Reserve for future local expenses 2,566.50$ -$ 2,566.50 10,266.00$ 1,249.00$ 9,017.00$
SUBTOTAL 143,508.36$ 114,143.75$ 29,364.61 544,500.00$ 423,313.97$ 121,186.03$
Attachment number 9 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Airport Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve the request from RA Services, LLC, dba Longhorn Jet
Center, to amend the lease agreement dated March 28, 2012, to allow Tenant AVS Real Estate, LLC to
operate as an FBO and to purchase and sell fuel at 301 S. Hangar Drive -- Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager
and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
RA General Services has requested to amend their lease agreement to allow Tenant, AVS Real Estate, LLC
to operate as an FBO and to purchase and sell fuel at 301 S. Hangar Drive. The City Attorney's office has
reviewed the attached documents and approves them as to form.
Airport Board Recommendation:
At their December 17, 2012 Meeting, the Airport Board unanimously recommended approval of the
amendment.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Subject to Fuel Sales
SUBMITTED BY:
Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
RA General Services Amendment to Lease Agreement
RA General Services Lease Agreement - March 28, 2012
Cover Memo
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # D
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 31
Item # D
Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 31
Item # D
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action regarding a Resolution granting a petition and setting public hearing
dates for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey for Rock
Springs Hospital, located on SE Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew J.
Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is a formality required by State Statute for annexation procedures, where the City acknowledges
that a petition for annexation has been made and sets public hearing dates for consideration. The resolution
can be and often is considered on the same day as the first public hearing for non-controversial annexation
requests.
The proposed annexation is for property adjacent to the existing Citicorp data center, off of Inner Loop. The
planned use is for a psychiatric hospital and was approved through a development agreement in Fall 2012,
known then as Springstone. Site and Construction Plans have been approved and there is a companion
application for rezoning.
In order to complete the annexation the following process will be followed:
December 2012 – February 2013 Calendar
January 8: Resolution accepting petition
January 8: 1st Public Hearing held at City Council Meeting.
January 22: 2nd Public Hearing at City Council Meeting.
February 12: 1st Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting,
February 26: 2nd Reading of Ordinance. (Second Reading can be held up to 90 days from 1st reading, the
last scheduled Council Meeting in the 90 days is April 23, 2013.)
Recommended Motion:Approval of the resolution granting the voluntary petition and setting the public
hearing dates.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
City services, including police and fire protection, emergency medical services, solid waste collection and
disposal, maintenance of water and wastewater facilities, maintenance of road, streets and drainage, street
lighting, maintenance of City park and recreation facilities must be provided to the annexed area within sixty
(60) days after the effective date of the annexation, as applicable.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan J. Maddox
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A - Location
Exhibit B - Survey
Petition Letter
Cover Memo
Item # E
Resolution Number _______________________
Rock Springs Annexation Petition 10.0 acres
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, granting a
Petition for Voluntary Annexation of 10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey, for Rock
Springs Hospital; and Directing Publication of Notice and Public Hearings for
Proposed Annexation
Whereas, the owners of the hereinafter described area of land have requested the governing
body of the City of Georgetown, pursuant to Local Government Code Section 43.028, by written
petition, properly acknowledged, to annex said area of land into the City of Georgetown, to-wit:
10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey, Williamson County, Texas, more particularly shown on
the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and described by metes and bounds in Exhibit “B,”
both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full; and
Whereas, the said area of land, is contiguous to the existing city limits of the City of
Georgetown, and is vacant and without residents or has fewer than three qualified voters residing on
it.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS:
That the said Petition, being proper and according to law, shall be, and it is hereby, granted;
and, further, the City Secretary is directed to commence the publication of notices of two public
hearings to be held January 8, 2013, and January 22, 2013, before the City Council on the subject of the
proposed annexation of the said area into the City of Georgetown; and further, to place upon the City
Council Agendas for February 12, 2013, and before April 23, 2013, the consideration of the passage of
an ordinance annexing said area into the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of January, 2013.
ATTEST:
____ __ __
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
__
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # E
Georgetown
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
Georgetow
n
ETJ
Georgetown
E
T
J
SE INNERLOOP
S I
H
3
5
N
B
L E A N D E R R D
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
SE INNER
LOOP
FM 1460
IND U S T RIALAVES A
U
S
T
I
N
AVE
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
F
M
1
4
6
0
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
S I
H
3
5
S
B
SIH35FWYSB
S A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
COOPER
A
T
I
V
E
WAY
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S
N
E
A
D
D
R
L E A N DER RD
SE INNER L
O
O
P
SE INNER L
O
O
P
0 2,500 5,000Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit A
ANX-2012-005 - Rock Springs
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
E
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution adopting the Articles of Amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation for the Georgetown 4 A Corporation, Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO) relating to the numbers of members on the Board of Directors -- Paul E.
Brandenburg, City Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
On December 11, 2012, the City Council approved a Resolution Amending the GEDCO Bylaws to expand
the GEDCO Board membership from five (5) members to seven (7) members. The attached Resolution
amends the Articles of Incorporation to be consistent with the new Bylaws and add two additional members
to the Board of Directors.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A
Cover Memo
Item # F
Resolution No. Page 1 of 2
GEDCO Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Date Approved
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS APPROVING AND ADOPTING ARTICLES OF
AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR THE
CORPORATION CREATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 4A OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT OF 1979, AS AMENDED AND THE
MAY 7, 2005 ELECTION; CHANGING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2005, the voters of the City of Georgetown, Texas approved a proposition
relating to the adoption of a sales and use tax within the City for the promotion and
development of new and expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one percent
to be used to reduce the property tax rate, as authorized by Section 4A of the Development
Corporation Act of 1979, as amended (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Original Articles of Incorporation for the “Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation” were approved by the City Council on June 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
on February 13, 2007; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 8, 2013, the City Council considered amendments
to the Articles of Incorporation relating to the number of members of the Board of Directors;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council approves the Articles of Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation of the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation attached hereto as
“Exhibit A.”
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION ONE. That the facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution
are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein
and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
SECTION TWO. That the Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (the “Corporation”) that are attached hereto
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # F
Resolution No. Page 2 of 2
GEDCO Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Date Approved
as “Exhibit A,” and which are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if set forth in
full, are hereby approved and adopted by majority vote of the governing body of the City of
Georgetown. All provisions of the Articles of Incorporation (as amended) that are in effect on
the date of this Resolution that are not amended by or in conflict with the Articles of
Amendment attached hereto as “Exhibit A” shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION THREE. That the Mayor of the City Council of the City of Georgetown is authorized
to sign and file the Articles of Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation that are attached hereto
as “Exhibit A”, with the Texas Secretary of State, and to take any other actions necessary to
establish and maintain the Corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of Texas and
the United States.
SECTION FOUR. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary to
attest.
SECTION FIVE. This Resolution shall become effective on March 1, 2013.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the _____ day of __________, 2013.
ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
______________________________ By: _____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # F
Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Page 1 of 3
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
TO THE
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF THE
GEORGETOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (the "Corporation"), pursuant to the
provisions of Section 4A of the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended, adopts the
following Articles of Amendment to its amended Articles of Incorporation:
SECTION ONE
The following amendments to Article VI were adopted by the City Council at its regular
meeting on January 8, 2013:
ARTICLE VI
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of
seven (7) Directors, who are appointed by the governing body of the City and three (3) of the
seven (7) directors shall be current City Council Members. A Director's term of office shall not
exceed six years or, for directors who are Council Members, until the end of their term of service
on the City Council, whichever is less. Any Director who is a member of the governing body of
the City shall cease to be a Director at the time he or she ceases to be a member of the City
Council. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, a director shall hold office until
his/her successor shall have been appointed and qualified.
Directors may be removed at any time for any reason by majority vote of the City
Council.
The Directors shall serve as such without compensation; however, they may be
reimbursed for their actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as Directors.
Any vacancy occurring on the Board of Directors through death, resignation, removal, or
otherwise shall be filled by appointment by the governing body of the City to hold office until
the expiration of the term being filled.
SECTION TWO
These Articles of Incorporation are hereby amended in accordance with the provisions of
Article VII of the Articles of Incorporation (as amended), which provides that the Articles of
Incorporation may be amended at any time to make any changes and add any provisions which
might have been included in the Articles of Incorporation in the first instance, and accomplished
in the following manner:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # F
Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Page 2 of 3
(ii) the governing body of the City may, at its sole discretion, and at any time, amend
these Articles of Incorporation, and alter or change the structure, organization, programs
or activities of the Corporation, or terminate or dissolve the Corporation (subject to the
provisions of the Act, and subject to any limitation provided by the constitutions and laws
of the State of Texas and the United States of America on the impairment of contracts
entered into by the Corporation) by written resolution adopting the amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation or articles of dissolution at a meeting of the
governing body of the City and delivering articles of amendment or dissolution to the
Secretary of State, as provided in the Development Corporation Act of 1979. Restated
Articles of Incorporation may be filed with the Secretary of State as provided in the Act if
approved by the City Council.
(See Articles of Incorporation, as amended, Article VII, item (ii)).
SECTION THREE.
These amendments were adopted in the following manner:
The amendments were approved at a meeting of the City Council of the City of
Georgetown, Texas held on January 8, 2013, and received the vote of a majority of the
City Council members in office. A Resolution effective March 1, 2013, of the City
Council adopting these Articles of Amendment is attached hereto.
Dated: _____________________________
____________________________________
George Garver, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # F
Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
Page 3 of 3
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared George Garver,
Mayor, City of Georgetown, Texas, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the foregoing document, and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the statements therein
contained are true and correct.
Given under my hand and seal of this office on this _____ day of ________, 2013.
___________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
My commission expires:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # F
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of10.0 acres in the Dyches Survey for
Rock Springs Hospital, located on SE Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and
Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The proposed annexation is for property adjacent to the existing Citicorp data center, off of Inner Loop. The
planned use is for a psychiatric hospital and was approved through a development agreement in Fall 2012.
Site and Construction Plans have been approved and there is a companion application for rezoning.
In order to complete the annexation the following process will be followed:
December 2012 – February 2013 Calendar
January 8: Resolution accepting petition
January 8: 1st Public Hearing held at City Council Meeting.
January 22: 2nd Public Hearing at City Council Meeting.
February 12: 1st Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting,
February 26: 2nd Reading of Ordinance. (Second Reading can be held up to 90 days from 1st reading, the
last scheduled Council Meeting in the 90 days is April 23, 2013.)
There is no action required at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
City services, including police and fire protection, emergency medical services, solid waste collection and
disposal, maintenance of water and wastewater facilities, maintenance of road, streets and drainage, street
lighting, maintenance of City park and recreation facilities must be provided to the annexed area within sixty
(60) days after the effective date of the annexation, as applicable.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Maddox
ATTACHMENTS:
Location
Survey
Service Plan
Owner Petition Letter
Cover Memo
Item # G
Georgetown
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
Georgetow
n
ETJ
Georgetown
E
T
J
SE INNERLOOP
S I
H
3
5
N
B
L E A N D E R R D
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
SE INNER
LOOP
FM 1460
IND U S T RIALAVES A
U
S
T
I
N
AVE
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
F
M
1
4
6
0
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
S I
H
3
5
S
B
SIH35FWYSB
S A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
COOPER
A
T
I
V
E
WAY
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S
N
E
A
D
D
R
L E A N DER RD
SE INNER L
O
O
P
SE INNER L
O
O
P
0 2,500 5,000Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit A
ANX-2012-005 - Rock Springs
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 1 of 13
Exhibit C
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN
AREA: ROCK SPRINGS HOSPITAL
COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 1
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2012
I. INTRODUCTION
This Service Plan (the Plan) is made by the City of Georgetown, Texas (City) pursuant to
Sections 43.056(b)-(o); 43.062, and 43.052(h)(1) of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC). This
Plan relates to the annexation into the city limits of the land shown on Exhibit “A” and Exhibit
“B” to this Service Plan, which has sometimes been referred to as “Rock Springs Hospital.” The
provisions of this Plan were made available for public inspection and explained to the public at
the two public hearings held by the City on January 8, 2013, and January 22, 2013, in accordance
with Section 43.056(j) of the LGC.
NOTE: This annexation was initiated by the petition or request of the owners of land in the
annexed area. As stated in Section 43.056(e) of the Texas Local Government Code, the
requirement that construction of capital improvements must be substantially completed within
the period provided in this service plan does not apply to a development project or proposed
development project within an area annexed at the request or on the petition of the landowner.
The development of this property will follow the terms of an approved development agreement
between the City and Propstone, approved in 2012.
II. TERM OF SERVICE PLAN
Pursuant to Section 43.056(l) of the LGC, this Plan shall be in effect for a ten-year period
commencing on the effective date of the ordinance approving the annexation. Renewal of the
Plan shall be at the discretion of the City Council and must be accomplished by Ordinance.
III. INTENT
It is the intent of the City that municipal services under this Plan shall provide municipal
services in accordance with the timetables required by the LGC. The City reserves the rights
guaranteed to it by the LGC to amend this Plan if the City Council determines that changed
conditions, subsequent occurrences, or any other legally sufficient circumstances exist under the
LGC or other Texas laws that make this Plan unworkable, obsolete, or unlawful.
IV. CATEGORIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
The municipal services described herein are categorized by those services which are (1)
available to the annexed area immediately upon annexation; (2) those services which will be
available to the annexed area within 2½ years from the effective date of the annexation; and (3)
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 2 of 13
those services for which capital improvements are needed and which will be available within
4½ years from the effective date of the annexation based upon a schedule for construction of
such improvements as set forth herein.
For the purposes of this Plan, “provision of services” includes having services provided by any
method or means by which the City provides municipal services to any other areas of the City,
and may include causing or allowing private utilities, governmental entities and other public
service organizations to provide such services by contract, in whole or in part, and may include
duties on the part of a private landowner with regard to such services.
In addition, in accordance with Section 43.056(g) of the LGC, if before annexation the annexed
area had a lower level of services, infrastructure, and infrastructure maintenance than the same
being provided by the City to other areas within the City limits, this Plan shall be construed to
allow for the provision to the annexed area of a level of services, infrastructure, and
infrastructure maintenance that is comparable to the level of services, infrastructure, and
infrastructure maintenance in other parts of the City with topography, land use, and population
density similar to those reasonably contemplated or projected in the annexed area.
V. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED UPON ANNEXATION
1. Police Protection –Upon annexation, the Georgetown Police Department will extend
regular and routine patrols to the area.
2. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services– Upon annexation, in the areas
where the City has jurisdiction over fire protection and emergency medical services
or a contract under which the City provides such services, the City of Georgetown
Fire Department will provide response services in the annexed area consisting of:
fire suppression and rescue; emergency response to 9-1-1 calls; fire prevention
education efforts, and other duties and services provided by the Georgetown Fire
Department to areas within the City limits.
3. Solid Waste Collection – Upon annexation, for occupied structures, the City will
provide solid waste collection services to the annexed area in accordance with City
ordinances and policies in effect on the date of the annexation. However, per the
terms of Sections 43.056(n) and (o) of the LGC, if a property owner chooses to
continue to use the services of a privately owned solid waste management provider,
the City is prevented from providing solid waste services for 2 years.
4. Operation and Maintenance of Water and Wastewater Facilities in the Annexed
Area that Are Not Within the Area of Another Water or Wastewater Utility – City-
owned water and wastewater facilities that exist in the annexed area will be
maintained upon annexation and such maintenance shall be governed by the City’s
ordinances, standards, policies and procedures. Per the provisions of Section 13.01.
020 of the Unified Development Code (“UDC”), for unplatted tracts in the annexed
area, the City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any public utilities or
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 3 of 13
services in any subdivision for which a Final Plat has not been approved and filed
for record, nor in which the standards contained in the UDC or referred to therein
have not been complied with in full. The property currently is in the Chisholm Trail
Service Area, not the City of Georgetown.
5. Operation and Maintenance of Streets, Roads, and Street Lighting – The City will
provide preventative maintenance of the existing public streets and roads in the
annexed area over which it has jurisdiction through maintenance and preventative
maintenance services such as emergency pavement repair; ice and snow monitoring;
crack seal, sealcoat, slurry seal, and PM overlay; and other routine repair. The City
shall not maintain private roads in the annexed area. Preventative maintenance
projects are prioritized on a City-wide basis and scheduled based on a variety of
factors, including surface condition, rideability, age, traffic volume, functional
classification, and available funding. As new streets are dedicated and accepted for
maintenance they will be included in the City’s preventative maintenance program.
Per the provisions of Section 13.01.020 of the UDC, for unplatted tracts in the
annexed area, the City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any streets or
street lighting to any subdivision for which a Final Plat has not been approved and
filed for record, nor in which the standards contained in the UDC or referred to
therein have not been complied with in full. With regard to street lighting, it is the
policy of the City of Georgetown that adequate street lighting for the protection of
the public and property be installed in all new subdivisions. Installation procedures
and acceptable standards for street lights shall be governed by the utility standards
of the City in effect at the time of subdivision construction or addition thereto.
6. Operation and Maintenance of Public Parks, Playgrounds, and Swimming Pools -
Upon annexation, publicly owned parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools in the
annexed area (if any) will be operated and maintained by the City in accordance
with the Section 12.20 of the City Code of Ordinances, and other applicable
ordinances, policies, and procedures in effect at the time of annexation for other
areas in the City limits. Privately owned parks, playgrounds, and pools will be
unaffected by the annexation and shall not be maintained by the City.
7. Operation and Maintenance of Publicly Owned Buildings, Facilities, and Services
– Should the City acquire any buildings, facilities or services necessary for municipal
services in the annexed area, an appropriate City department will operate and
maintain them.
8. Library – Upon annexation, library privileges will be available to anyone residing in
the annexed area.
9. Planning and Development; Building Permits and Inspections - Upon annexation,
the City’s Unified Development Code and Title 15 of the City Code of Ordinances
will apply in the area. These services include: site plan review, zoning approvals,
Building Code and other standard Code inspection services and City Code
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 4 of 13
enforcement; sign regulations and permits; and Stormwater Permit services. For a
full description of these services, see the City’s Unified Development Code and Title
15 of the City Code of Ordinances.
10. Animal Control Services – The provisions of Chapter 7 of the City Code of
Ordinances relating to animal control services shall apply in the annexed area.
11. Business Licenses and Regulations – The provisions of Chapter 6 of the City Code
of Ordinances relating to business licenses and regulations (Carnivals Circuses and
Other Exhibitions; Electrician’s Licenses; Gross Receipts Charge or Street Rental;
Peddlers and Solicitors; Taxicabs, Buses and Other Vehicles for Hire; Horse Drawn
Carriages and other Non-Motorized Vehicles for Hire; Sexually Oriented Businesses;
and Alcoholic Beverages) shall apply in the annexed area.
12. Health and Safety Regulations – The provisions of Chapter 8 of the City Code of
Ordinance relating to health and safety regulations (Fire Prevention Code;
Fireworks; Food Sanitation; Noise Control; Nuisances; Junked Motor Vehicles; and
Smoking in Public Places) shall apply in the annexed area.
13. Regulations Pertaining to Peace, Morals and Welfare -- The provisions of Chapter 9
of the City Code of Ordinance relating to peace, morals and welfare (Housing
Discrimination; Weapons; and Enforcement of Other Miscellaneous Violations) shall
apply in the annexed area.
VI. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN 4½ YEARS OF ANNEXATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
1. In General – The City will initiate the construction of capital improvements necessary
for providing municipal services for the annexation area as necessary for services that
are provided directly by the City.
2. Water and Wastewater Services– Water and wastewater services are only provided to
occupied lots that have been legally subdivided and platted or are otherwise a legal lot,
and that are located within the boundaries of the City’s authorized service areas.
Further, existing residences in the annexed area that were served by a functioning onsite
sewer system (septic system) shall continue to use such private system for wastewater
services in conformance with the provisions of Section 13.20 of the City Code of
Ordinances. Existing non-residential establishments in the annexed area may continue
to use an onsite sewer system (septic system) for sewage disposal in conformance with
the provisions of Section 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances. Upon the Development
of any property in the annexed area, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the UDC shall
apply. The City shall have no obligation to extend water or wastewater service to any
part of the annexed area that is within the service area of another water or wastewater
utility. For annexed areas located within the City’s authorized service areas, the City
shall, subject to the terms and conditions of this Plan, extend water and wastewater
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 5 of 13
service in accordance with the service extension ordinances, policies, and standards that
are summarized in Section X of this Plan, which may require that the property owner or
developer of a newly developed tract install water and wastewater lines. The extension
of water and wastewater services will be provided in accordance with any applicable
construction and design standards manuals adopted by the City.
3. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Schedule – Because of the time required
to design and construct the necessary water and wastewater facilities to serve the
annexed area, certain services cannot be reasonably provided within 2½ years of the
effective date of annexation. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 43.065(b) and (e) of
the LGC, the City shall implement a program, which will be initiated after the effective
date of the annexation and include the acquisition or construction of capital
improvements necessary for providing water and wastewater services to the area. The
following schedule for improvements is proposed: construction will commence within 2
½ years from the effective date of annexation and will be substantially complete within 4
½ years from the effective date of annexation. However, the provisions of Section VII of
this Plan shall apply to the schedule for completion of all capital improvements. In
addition, the acquisition or construction of the improvements shall be accomplished by
purchase, lease, or other contract or by the City succeeding to the powers, duties, assets,
and obligations of a conservation and reclamation district as authorized or required by
law.
4. Roads and Streets – No road or street related capital improvements are necessary at this
time. Future extension of roads or streets and installation of traffic control devices will
be governed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City’s Overall Transportation Plan,
the City’s Capital Improvements Plan; the City’s regular or non-impact fee Capital
Improvements Program, and any applicable City ordinances, policies, and procedures,
which may require that the property owner or developer install roads and streets at the
property owner’s or developer’s expense. It is anticipated that the developer of new
subdivisions in the area will install street lighting in accordance with the City’s standard
policies and procedures. Provision of street lighting will be in accordance with the
City’s street lighting policies.
5. Capital Improvements for Other Municipal Services – No capital improvements are
necessary at this time to provide municipal Police; Fire Protection; Emergency Medical
Services; Solid Waste Collection; Public Parks, Playgrounds, or Swimming Pools; Public
Buildings or Facilities; or Library Services. The annexed area will be included in the
City’s future planning for new or expanded capital improvements and evaluated on the
same basis and in accordance with the same standards as similarly situated areas of the
City.
VII. FORCE MAJEURE AND SCHEDULE EXTENSIONS
1. Certain events, described as Force Majeure Events in this Plan, are those over which the
City has no control. Force Majeure Events shall include, but not be limited to, acts of
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 6 of 13
God; terrorism or acts of a public enemy; war; blockages; riots; strikes; epidemics; forces
of nature including landslides, lightening, earthquakes, fires, storms, floods, washouts,
droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes; arrest and restraint of government; explosions;
collisions, and all other inabilities of the City, whether similar to those enumerated or
otherwise, which are not within the control of the City. Any deadlines or other
provisions of this Plan that are affected by a Force Majeure Event shall be automatically
extended to account for delays caused by such Force Majeure Event.
2. In accordance with Section 43.056(e) of the LGC, this Plan and the schedules for capital
improvements necessary to provide full municipal services to the annexed area may be
amended by the City to extend the period for construction if the construction is
proceeding with all deliberate speed. The construction of the improvements shall be
accomplished in a continuous process and shall be completed as soon as reasonably
possible, consistent with generally accepted local engineering and architectural
standards and practices. However, the City does not violate this Plan if the construction
process is interrupted for any reason by circumstances beyond the direct control of the
City.
VIII. AMENDMENTS
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 43.056(k) of the LGC, on approval by the City Council, the
Plan is a contractual obligation that is not subject to amendment or repeal except as provided by
state law. Section 43.056(k) of the LGC provides that if the City Council determines, after public
hearings, that changed conditions or subsequent occurrences make the Plan unworkable or
obsolete, the City Council may amend the Plan to conform to the changed conditions or
subsequent occurrences. An amended Plan must provide for services that are comparable to or
better than those established in the Plan before amendment. Before any Plan amendments are
adopted, the City Council must provide an opportunity for interested persons to be heard at
public hearings called and held in the manner provided by Section 43.0561 of the LGC.
IX. FEES
The City may impose a fee for any municipal service in the area annexed if the same type of fee
is imposed within the corporate boundaries of the City. All City fees are subject to revision
from time to time by the City in its sole discretion.
X. SUMMARY OF CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION POLICIES
Per the requirements of Section 43.056(e) of the LGC, the following summary is provided
regarding the City’s current service extension policies for water and wastewater service.
However, this is a summary of the current policies, and the policies and regulations related to
water and wastewater utility extensions that are included in the City Code of Ordinances, the
Unified Development Code, the City’s Construction and Specifications Manual; Drainage
Manual, and other published policies and technical manuals, as the same may be amended from
time to time, shall control the extension of water and wastewater services to the annexed area.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 7 of 13
In addition, these policies and ordinances are set by City Council and can be amended in the
future:
1. In General -- The provisions of Chapter 13 of the City’s Unified Development Code
(“UDC”) shall apply in the annexed area and Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances.
Portions of the current Chapter 13 of the UDC and the current Chapter 13 of the Code of
Ordinances are summarized below. Note that these provisions are established by
ordinance of the City Council and are subject to change from time to time.
A. The City shall not repair, maintain, install or provide any water services, wastewater
service, gas, electricity or any other public utilities or services to any property that
has not been legally subdivided or is a non-legal lot.
B. For property that is required by the City’s UDC or other City regulations to construct
water or wastewater facilities, funding and construction of those facilities are the
responsibility of the property owner or developer (the “subdivider”).
C. Subdividers shall be responsible for providing an approved public water supply
system for fire protection and domestic/ commercial/ industrial usage consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Where an approved public water supply or
distribution main is within reasonable distance of the subdivision, but in no case less
than one-quarter mile away, and connection to the system is both possible and
permissible (including adequate system capacity), the subdivider shall be required to
bear the cost of connecting the subdivision to such existing water supply. The
subdivider shall, consistent with all existing ordinances, make a pro-rata
contribution to funding of needed storage facilities, treatment facilities, and specific
distribution lines as determined necessary by the City.
D. Subdividers shall be responsible for providing an approved public sanitary sewer
system, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, throughout the entire subdivision
such that all lots, parcels, or tracts of land will be capable of connecting to the
sanitary sewer system except as otherwise provided herein. Where an approved
public sanitary sewer collection main or outfall line is in no case less than one-half
mile away, and connection to the system is both possible and permissible (including
adequate system capacity), the subdivider shall be required to bear the cost of
connecting the subdivision to such existing sanitary sewer system. Where an
approved public wastewater collection main or outfall line is more than one-half
mile away from the property boundary, and where extension of a sanitary sewer
collection main or outfall line is scheduled in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan
to be completed to a point within one-half mile of the property boundary within five
(5) years from the date of the Preliminary Plat approval, the subdivider shall be
required to install a public wastewater collection system. The design and
construction of a public sanitary sewer system shall comply with regulations
covering extension of public sanitary sewer systems adopted by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 8 of 13
E. All infrastructure and public improvements must be designed and installed in
accordance with all of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the
minimum requirements established by the UDC, the City's Construction Standards
and Specifications for Roads, Streets, Structures and Utilities, and any other adopted
City design or technical criteria. No main water line extension shall be less than
eight inches. All new public sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and
constructed to conform with the City’s Construction Standards and Specifications
and to operate on a gravity flow basis by taking advantage of natural topographic
conditions and thereby reducing the need for lift stations and force mains.
2. If the specific undeveloped property does not have City water or wastewater facilities
and capacity fronting the property – the owner may make an application for an
extension of service to the property. If the Assistant City Manager for Utilities
determines in writing that adequate water or wastewater capacity is available, or will be
available, and if the project does not include City cost participation or reimbursement, if
the proposed facilities are depicted on the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans,
and the requested service otherwise meets the City’s requirements, the extension size,
capacity, and routing may be approved by the Assistant City Manager for Utilities for
construction by the developer at the developer’s cost and expense.
3. If the specific undeveloped property does have adequate City water or wastewater
facilities and capacity fronting the property – the owner may receive water or
wastewater service from the City by applying for a tap permit and paying the required
fees.
4. If any property in the annexed area is using a septic system – the property owner
remains responsible for the operation and maintenance of the septic system. If the
property is in a Rural Residential Subdivision as defined in Chapter 13 of the UDC, or is
a legal lot greater than one acre in size and used for single family residential purposes,
the property shall continue the use of a septic system after annexation until such time
that the use of the property changes, the property is further subdivided or developed, or
a public sanitary sewer line has been extended to within 200 feet of the property
boundary and the property owner has received notification from the City of the City’s
desire for the property to be connected to the public sanitary sewer line. If the septic
system fails before the City’s centralized wastewater service is extended to within 200
feet of the property and the City determines that the provision of centralized wastewater
service is not feasible or practical at that time, then the property owner must either
repair or replace the septic system in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.20 of
the City Code of Ordinances. Properties using a septic system that are not in a Rural
Residential Subdivision , or are not legal lots greater than one acre in size and used for
single family residential purposes at the time of annexation, but that are designated as
either residential, open space or agricultural on the City’s Future Land Use Plan shall
continue the use of a septic system until such time that the use of the property changes,
the property is further subdivided or developed, or a public sanitary sewer line has been
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 9 of 13
extended to within 200 feet of the property boundary and the property owner has
received notification from the City of the City’s desire for the property to be connected
to the public sanitary sewer line.
5. Reimbursement and cost participation by the City – Pursuant to Section 13.09.030 of
the UDC, the City, in its sole discretion and with City Council approval, may participate
with a property owner or developer in the cost of oversized facilities or line extensions.
The actual calculation of the cost participation and reimbursement amounts, including
limits and schedules for the payments, are set forth in the UDC.
6. City Code of Ordinances: (The following provisions are set by the City Council and can
be amended in the future by ordinance.)
Chapter 13.10 of the City Code of Ordinances currently provides as follows:
Section 13.10.010 Policy established.
This policy shall apply to improvements to the City's utility systems, including system upgrades,
system expansion, and plant capacity additions. In this Section, the term “utility system” shall
mean the City’s water system, wastewater system, reuse irrigation system, and stormwater
drainage system.
Section 13.10.020 System Planning.
The City shall maintain and periodically update system plans for each utility so that system
improvements are implemented to maintain adequate capacity for growth while maintaining
proper service levels to existing customers.
Section 13.10.030 Project Timing.
A. Projects designed to expand or upgrade a utility system must be completed and ready
for operations such that capacity requirements by state regulatory agencies and City
system plans are met.
B. When possible, the City should coordinate the construction of system improvements
in a particular location with the expansion or maintenance of other utility
infrastructure to minimize the future impact on each utility.
C. Projects should begin the design phase when existing demand at a specific location
exceeds 75% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the current
total capacity.
D. Projects should begin the construction phase when existing demand at a specific
location exceeds 90% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the
current total capacity.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 10 of 13
E. Projects required to facilitate the development of a specific tract shall be done in
accordance with the Unified Development Code.
F. Projects required as a result of an annexation service plan shall be provided as stated
in the approved Service Plan for such annexed tracts.
Section 13.10.040 Project Financing.
A. Projects required to facilitate the subdivision of a specific tract shall be paid by the
subdivider in accordance with the Unified Development Code, unless otherwise
authorized in writing and approved by the City Council in accordance with the terms
of Section 13.09 of the Unified Development Code or other applicable law.
B. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City’s utility service area,
but the City is not otherwise required to provide service or planning to provide
service as reflected in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan, the City may
nonetheless, at the City’s sole option, facilitate the design and construction of the
required utility extensions or upgrades by managing the project with the cost of such
extensions to be shared and fully paid by the requesting landowners or subdividers
prior to commencement of the project.
C. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City’s utility service area,
the City shall evaluate degree to which the project 1) facilitates contiguous growth, 2)
maximizes the provision of service to the service area, 3) enhances economic
development, 4) improves system operations, 5) contributes to conservation or other
environmental concern, and 6) facilitates the completion of the utility master plan.
D. At the City’s sole option, the City may also facilitate the installation of utility
expansion requests through 1) financial cost contribution, 2) financing of the
improvement using individual contracts between the City and each landowner for a
proportionate share of the project cost to be paid out over a specified period of time at
a specified rate of interest, 3) Impact Fee or connection fee reduction or waiver.
Chapter 13.20 of the City Code of Ordinances currently provides as follows:
Sec. 13.20.010. General.
A. It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of any
premises where any person lives or works, or occupies the same, to establish,
maintain or use any water closet, bathtub, lavatory or sink except by one of the
following means and consistent with the other terms, conditions and requirements of
this Chapter and with the City’s Unified Development Code:
1. Connection to an approved Onsite Sewage Facility that is constructed
and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of all
appropriate state and local agencies having jurisdiction over such
facilities; or
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 11 of 13
2. Connection to a public centralized wastewater collection main with all
wastewater discharged to a centralized public wastewater collection
system.
B. Upon the “Development” of property, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Unified
Development Code (pertaining to Infrastructure and Public Improvements) shall
govern the provision of wastewater service to the property. For the purposes of this
section, the term “Development” shall have the same meaning as in Section 16.05 of
the City’s Unified Development Code.
C. It is the duty of each such person referenced in subsection (A), above, to connect such
fixtures to an approved wastewater system, and to maintain the same.
Sec. 13.20.020. On Site Sewage Facilities.
A. General. All On Site Sewage Facilities must be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriate state and local agencies
having jurisdiction over such facilities.
B. Availability of a Public Centralized Wastewater Collection Main. If a public
centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of a property line,
and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity to receive and transport the
wastewater flow produced by the property, then property owner shall connect that
property to said utility line at the earliest to occur of either of the following events:
failure of the On Site Sewage Facility servicing the property, or the date that is five
(5) years after receipt of notice of the availability of a wastewater collection main
within 200-feet of the property line.
C. Failure of On Site Sewage Facility. When an Onsite Sewage Facility fails, the
following provisions shall apply:
a. If a public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of
the property boundary, and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity
to receive and transport the wastewater flow produced by the property, then the
property must be connected to said utility line by the property owner;
b. If no public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of
the property boundary, the City shall evaluate the feasibility of providing
centralized wastewater collection services to the property via a gravity or low
pressure system. Where the provision of gravity sewer service or low pressure
system is technically feasible, utility system improvements may be made in
accordance with Chapters 13.10;
c. If the City determines that the provision of wastewater service via a centralized
wastewater collection main is not necessary due to existing or future land use,
then the On Site Sewage Facility may be repaired or replaced.
(Prior code § 12-101)
Sec. 13.20.030. Privies prohibited.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 12 of 13
It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of any premises in the
City to establish or maintain any privy or dry closet.
Sec.13.20.040 Low Pressure Sewer Systems
A. A “Low Pressure Sewer System” is an individual lift station located at each utility
customer or property owner location having a private force main connecting to a
public force main or gravity main located in a public utility easement or public right-
of-way.
B. Each property owner and utility customer shall be responsible for the cost of
installation and maintenance of the individual lift station and private force main.
Section 13.20.050. Prohibited Discharges into Sewer System
No person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged, either directly or
indirectly into the public sewer system, waste or wastewater from any of the following sources
unless allowed by the City Manager, or his/her designee:
A. Any wastes or wastewater that does not meet the limitations imposed by Section
13.24 of the Code of Ordinances.
B. Any stormwater, groundwater, rainwater, street drainage, subsurface drainage, or yard
drainage;
C. Any unpolluted water, including , but not limited to, cooling water, process water or
blow-down water from cooling towers or evaporative coolers;
D. Any wastes or wastewater, or any object, material, or other substance directly into a
manhole or other opening into the sewer facilities other than wastes or wastewater
through an approved service connection.
E. Any holding tank waste, provided, that such waste may be placed into facilities
designed to receive such wastes and approved by the City Manager, or his/her
designee.
Section 13.20.060 Sewer System Maintenance
A. For properties with gravity wastewater service, the property owner and utility
customer shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of
the sewer system in the building and the service lateral between the building and the
point of connection into the public sewer main.
B. For properties with low pressure service, the property owner and utility customer
shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of the sewer
system in the building and the service lateral, lift station (grinder pump) and force
main between the building and the point of connection into the public sewer main.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 13
Item # G
Annexation Service Plan Rock Springs Hospital
Page 13 of 13
C. When, as a part of sewer system testing, the City identifies a flaw in a private service
lateral or force main where a repair is necessary to prevent infiltration or inflow, the
property owner and utility customer shall be responsible to cause the repairs to be
made within one (1) year of the date of notification by the City.
D. If repairs are not complete within one year of notification by the City, City may
engage the services of a contractor to make the necessary repairs with the costs for
such repairs to be paid by the City and subsequently charged to property owner and
utility customer.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 13
Item # G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
G
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Residential Single-Family (RS)
District, Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District, for 4.23 acres in the C. Stubblefield
Survey, including Lot 1 of Good Luck Subdivision, to be known as Wolf Ranch North, located from 1020
to 1100 West University Avenue -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
BackgroundThe applicant has requested to rezone 4.23 acres in the C. Stubblefield Survey (including Good
Luck Subdivision) from Residential Single-Family (RS) District, Agriculture (AG) District and Local
Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-
1) District for the development of five (5) commercial lots. The PUD is proposed due to the irregular shape
of the property that includes access constraints, and the desire to have Wolf Ranch North complement the
architectural and site design of Wolf Ranch Shopping Center.
Public Comments:No written public comments have been received.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:On December 18, 2012, after a Public Hearing, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, with a vote of 6-0, recommended to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Residential Single-Family (RS) District, Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-
1) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District as
requested.
Special Considerations:None.
Recommended Motion:Approval of the First Reading of the Ordinance rezoning 4.23 acres in the C.
Stubblefield Survey (including Good Luck Subdivision), from Residential Single-Family (RS) District,
Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a
base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant has paid the required fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carla Benton
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Location Map
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
P&Z Minutes
Exhibit A
Cover Memo
Item # H
Exhibit B
Development Plan
Ordinance
Cover Memo
Item # H
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 1 of 7
Report Date: December 10, 2012
File No: REZ-2012-004
Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Wolf Ranch North
Location: 1020 -1100 West University Avenue (SH 29 West) (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 4.23 acres
Legal Description: 4.23 acres in the C. Stubblefield Survey, including Good Luck
Subdivision
Applicant: Jason Rodgers, P.E., Garrett-Ihnen Civil Engineers
Property Owner: Iva Wolf McLachlan and Simon Riverhills, LP
Contact: Jason Rodgers, P.E.
Existing Use: Mini-storage units, retail building, cell tower and undeveloped land
Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) District, Agriculture (AG) District and
Local Commercial (C-1) District
Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Local Commercial (C-1) Base
District
Future Land Use: Regional Commercial
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a 4.23 acre PUD for the development of five (5) commercial lots.
The PUD designation is proposed due to the irregular shape of the property that includes
access constraints, and the desire to have Wolf Ranch North complement the Wolf Ranch
Shopping Center PUD on the south side of West University Avenue (SH 29 West). This item
was recently approved by City Council to move forward for reapplication after denial without
meeting the 12 month waiting period due to significant changes in the proposal including
removal of the proposed automotive use.
The requested PUD includes exceptions for landscape, signage, setbacks, drive aisles, vehicle
stacking, parking space size, land use, display, access, and building height with mitigations
provided primarily in landscape, buffering and land use. An architectural theme is proposed
that will be consistent with the materials and design of Wolf Ranch Center PUD as reflected in
Exhibit C-4.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 2 of 7
The Wolf Ranch North development proposes to provide for retail/commercial uses as
allowed within the Local Commercial (C-1) District with the exception of fuel sales that will be
prohibited.
Site Information
Location:
This property is located at the intersection of Simon Road and West University Avenue,
directly across from Wolf Ranch Center. (See Exhibit 1)
Physical Characteristics:
The lots front on West University Avenue and abut the City of Georgetown Community
Cemetery to the north. The shape of the overall development is triangular with the
commercial lot on the west narrowing to a depth of 112 feet. (See Exhibit 4)
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include a City-owned cemetery and an office. (See Exhibit 3)
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North
Agriculture (AG)
and Residential
Single-Family (RS)
Open Space City-owned Cemetery
South
PUD with General
Commercial (C-3)
Base District
Regional
Commercial
Wolf Ranch Center and
undeveloped outparcels
East
Residential Single-
Family (RS) and
General Commercial
(C-3) District
Regional
Commercial Undeveloped land
West Residential Single-
Family (RS) District
Regional
Commercial Office
(See Exhibits 2 and 3)
Property History
The subject properties were annexed into the City by Ordinance #86-59 in 1986, with a default
zoning of Residential Single-Family (RS) District and in 2008 by Ordinance #2008-78 with a
default zoning of Agriculture (AG) District. The self-storage facility, office and cemetery were
established prior to annexation. On August 26, 1996, the Good Luck Subdivision, a one lot
commercial plat, was recorded and a Site Plan was approved on January 9, 1997. A rezoning
from RS to C-1 was approved in 1998 by Ordinance #98-32 for the east properties. The
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 3 of 7
Planning and Zoning Commission at the May 15, 2012 meeting recommended denial of a
request for a PUD that was subsequently denied by City Council at the September 25, 2012
meeting by vote of 6-1. At the City Council meeting of November 27, 2012 the applicant
requested to make application for reconsideration of this item prior to the 12 month delay
stipulation and was granted permission to reapply based upon significant changes in the
proposal to remove the proposed automotive use.
2030 Plan Conformance
The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of
Regional Commercial, which applies to areas that contain large concentrations of commercial
uses that serve to draw a regional market, such as major shopping centers, stand-alone big-
box retail, tourist attractions and supporting accommodations, and automobile-oriented
commercial uses that rely on convenient access from major highways.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A (Developed, Redeveloping), which is
the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically
provided, and where the bulk of the City’s growth should be guided over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The intent of the PUD is to ensure a more desirable, consistent and compatible impact at a
major entry into the community. The architectural and design standards will be consistent
with the Wolf Ranch Shopping Center and CR 265 Subdivision to the west. The PUD
proposes to develop this location for commercial and retail activities that serve the region and
community.
The PUD allows uses permitted in the C-1 Base District and prohibits uses such as fuel sales,
kiosks, parking of commercial vehicles or recreational vehicles or equipment or domicile uses
as described in Section 11.1 of the DP.
The Regional Commercial Land Use category is typically designed for major commercial
centers, such as the University Avenue and IH-35 area, as reflected by the predominance of
the C-3 District in this area. The proposed C-1 Base District is intended for commercial and
retail uses primarily serving residential areas, but also includes the larger community, and is
appropriate along major and minor thoroughfares and corridors. Therefore, the proposed use
is considered compatible and supportable.
A summary of the PUD Development Plan is provided in the following Table:
Table of Exceptions
UDC Section Ref/type Standard Exception
Section 5.09.030.B. Out-
door Display, Limited
30% of linear distance along wall,
within 5’ of the building
25% of the sidewalk area within 15’ of
the building
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 4 of 7
Section 7.02.010.B.1.
Lot Requirements
All lots must have direct access and
frontage on a public street
Internal cell tower lot will have access
through an easement
Table 7.03.020
Building Height
C-1: Maximum height 35 feet Corner lot, is proposed to have one (1)
architectural feature at a maximum
height of 45 feet (Exhibit F-2)
Table 7.03.020
Lot Design
25-foot rear setback adjacent to
Residential Single-Family (RS) District;
10-foot side setback between lots
No bufferyard is required because
although the zoning is RS and AG,
buffering is only required adjacent to
residential use
Parking is proposed along the rear
property line, up to 5 feet from the
fence at the property line. No side
setback is proposed between internal
commercial lots
Table 7.03.030.C.4.
Features allowed in
Setbacks
Driveways are allowed to cross the
setback, not run parallel to the road
Encroachment of driveway is
requested within the Simon Road
setback
Section 8.02.030 Tree
Protection
20% retention of trees is required; 40%
of caliper inches
15% retention of trees is proposed
8.02.050.B Tree Priori-
ties
Priorities given to Heritage Trees only Heritage Tree priority is requested for
Protected Trees
Section 8.04.040.B.
Parking space distance
from trees
All parking spaces must be no more
than 50’ from a tree
Requesting ability to exceed the 50’
distance to maximize utilization of
existing trees; maximum distance
requires Planning Director’s approval
at Site Plan
Section 8.04.050.C.2
Gateway Overlay Trees
Gateway trees are required to be shade
trees
Requesting ability to use shade trees
and ornamental trees
Table 9.03.020B Aisle
Widths and Stalls
Drive aisle width is 26 feet for two-way
drives with 9’ stalls
Requesting 25-foot primary inter-
connecting access drive aisles and 24-
foot secondary (site development)
drive aisles with a 28-foot SH29W
entry access drive aisle. (Exhibit B) All
parking is proposed to have 9’ stalls
Table 9.04.010 Vehicle
Stacking
To order box 6 spaces and to pick up 4
spaces; total 10 spaces.
Total proposed is 8 spaces
Table 9.04.020.A Space
length
20-foot parking space length required Parking space lengths are proposed to
be 18.5 feet
Section 10.06.010 Sign-
age
Six (6’)-foot maximum height of
monument sign
Eight (8’)-foot maximum height of
monument sign consistent with Wolf
Ranch Shopping Center
The following are mitigations and justification for the exceptions proposed in the PUD:
· The outdoor display area will be limited to 10% of the interior floor area of the building
and sales will be limited to 3 consecutive days per week.
· The wireless communication tower is an existing facility that will continue to be
provided with access through an easement.
· The proposed additional building height for an architectural feature will be consistent
with the architectural features, such as the towers of Wolf Ranch Center, but requires
approval by the Planning Director at Site Plan review.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 5 of 7
· Due to the partial RS zoning at the cemetery, an increased setback is required, but no
buffering. As mitigation, a six (6) foot masonry wall is proposed along the entire
length of the common property line in order to provide preferred buffering, privacy
and protection from commercial impacts.
· A 25-foot Medium Level buffer as described in UDC, Section 8.04.060 C.2 is proposed
between two west commercial lot and office use, providing a sound barrier and
offsetting the east side driveway encroachment along Simon Road.
· 43% of existing tree caliper inches are being retained; no oak or elm along the cemetery
property line will be removed, and the City’s Urban Forester will assist in design of
peninsulas and fencing for optimal preservation of root zones.
· A 25-inch Live Oak, #8540, will be preserved and pervious pavers used in the root
zone.
· The applicant will increase planted caliper shade trees from 3” to 4.”
· There will be a four (4)% increase in overall landscape area within the site.
· Although vehicle queuing spaces and sizes are proposed to be reduced, the flow of
traffic will not be allowed to encroach into drive aisles, impede traffic flow or block
parking.
· The Gateway Overlay Buffer is proposed to provide ornamental trees to add diversity
of design that will provide visual softening and shade for the site.
· The reduced aisle widths and stalls are requested to address the minimal lot depth but
is consistent with standards of Wolf Ranch Shopping Center, and allows for flexible
design of drive aisles and landscape.
· Parcel constraints limit design for potential drive-through motion, but the proposed
design intends to minimize the impact of vehicular flow.
· The exceptions to the maximum signage are proposed for consistency with Wolf Ranch
Center outparcels.
Utilities
Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that
there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer
participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Transportation
The lots are located along West University Avenue (SH 29 West), a major arterial. A Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) will be reviewed by the Development Engineer in connection with the
platting process.
Access from West University to this development is being reduced from four existing access
points to two right-in-right-out driveways on West University Avenue and one driveway on
Simon Road. Connectivity is being provided between all lots to ensure a more desirable
design for internal traffic flow and minimize ingress and egress movements from the roads.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 6 of 7
Future Application(s)
The following applications will be required to be submitted:
· Preliminary Plat to be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission;
· Final Plat to be processed administratively;
· Site Plans and Construction Plans, for each lot, to be processed administratively;
· Building permits for construction; and
· Certificate of Occupancy for all new structures.
Staff Analysis
Staff is supportive of the requested PUD for the following reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Regional Commercial, as approved by City
Council for this particular area, supports both major commercial and retail uses located
along arterial roadways.
2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area is primarily C-3 with commercial
uses. An existing office development zoned RS, and the cemetery zoned RS and AG
were both in existence prior to annexation into the City and are legal non-conforming
uses, which means they would not be allowed by right if proposed today. While
cemetery uses are allowed in Agriculture (AG), Residential Single-family (RS), General
Commercial (C-3), Industrial (IN) and Public Facility (PF) zoning Districts, they are
only allowed by Special Use Permit and the cemetery does not have a Special Use
Permit. The existing office is not allowed without rezoning.
3. The surrounding developed uses, include Wolf Ranch Center, a commercial Planned
Unit Development (PUD), a professional office, Walgreen’s and a cemetery.
4. The application has provided mitigation and justification for the requested exceptions
to the Code, is consistent with the Wolf Ranch Shopping Center to the south and CR
265 Subdivision to the west, provides increased enhancement to the area through
landscape by an increase in percentage of overall landscape, increase in percentage of
preserved diameter inches of protected trees and increase in the size of planted trees.
Additionally, the PUD provides a 25-foot landscape buffer adjacent to the office use to
the west, a 6-foot masonry buffer wall adjacent to the cemetery, which will respect the
existing vegetation along the common property line, prohibits fuel sales and reduces
drive cuts along West University from four to two drive cuts for a safer driveway
design.
5. The applicant has worked closely with the neighboring property owners to provide
appropriate considerations in their design. They have worked with the Director of
Parks and Recreation to ensure the needs of the cemetery are considered and with the
Urban Forester for the trees on site and along the boundary of the cemetery. In
response to those efforts the PUD proposes to provide a 25-foot landscape buffer for a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # H
Planning & Development Staff Report
Wolf Ranch North PUD Rezoning Page 7 of 7
sound barrier to the west adjacent to the office use, and a six (6)-foot masonry wall and
preservation of existing vegetation along the property bordering the City-owned
cemetery in order to provide privacy, a sound barrier, and limit commercial impacts
such as trash blowing onto the cemetery grounds. The applicant has also noted in the
Development Plan that special consideration will be given during construction of the
area adjacent to the cemetery to ensure sensitivity to possible unforeseen disturbances.
6. The overall relatively small size of the development, consisting of 4.23 acres as
compared to the larger Wolf Ranch development to the south with over 600,000 s.f. of
buildings.
Staff is supportive of the proposed PUD rezoning as the proposed uses are commercial uses
that are compatible and consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of Regional Commercial as
approved by City Council, are consistent with the intent of the C-1 zoning district, and the
PUD proposes appropriate development and mitigations for the property.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The Director of Parks and Recreation has worked with the applicant to address the needs of
the City-owned cemetery to the north of the proposed development. The applicant has
proposed to provide a 6-foot masonry wall for screening of the cemetery and to work with the
Urban Forester to preserve existing trees along the boundary with the cemetery. Special care
will be given during the development of the site to ensure sensitivity to possible unforeseen
disturbances.
Public Comments
A total of 12 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on December 2, 2012. No public
comments have been received as of the writing of this report.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2011)
Exhibit 5 – PUD Development Plan
Meetings Schedule
December 18, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 8, 2013 – City Council First Reading (pending)
January 22, 2013 – City Council Second Reading (pending)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # H
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown ETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
SIM
O
N
R
D
W U N I V E R S I TY AV E
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
MEMORIAL DR
REZ-2012-004
0 310 620Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
C IT Y OF G E ORG ETOW N
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown
ETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J S P R I N G
H O L L O W
SIM
O
N
R
D
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
WOLF RANCH PKWY
MEMORIAL DR
W
O
L
F
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
REZ-2012-004
0 470 940Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Ag / Rural Residential
Employment Center
HIgh Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
C
I
TY
O
F
G
EO
R
G
E
TOW
N
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY
OF
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Georgetown ETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
REZ-2012-004
S P R I N G
H O L L O W
SIM
O
N
R
D
WOLF RANCH PKWY
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
MEMORIAL DR
0 470 940Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
REZ-2012-004 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
RG
E
TO
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown ETJ
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
W
O
LF
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
S
I
M
ON RD
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
MEMORIAL DR
0 400 800Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2012-004
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / December 18, 2012 Page 1 of 2
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Draft Minutes
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the
Commission and will be available at the Planning & Development Office, located at 300
Industrial Avenue. You may also visit the City of Georgetown web site at www.georgetown.org
and review the staff report on the proposed application no later than the Saturday prior to the
Planning and Zoning meeting described above.
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Vice-chair; Annette Montgomery,
Secretary; Sally Pell, John Horne, and Robert Massad
Commissioners in Training: None present
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Regular Agenda
Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning from Residential Single-Family (RS)
District, Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1) District, for 4.23 acres in
the C. Stubblefield Survey, including Lot 1 of Good Luck Subdivision, to be known as Wolf
Ranch North, located from 1020 to 1100 West University Avenue. REZ-2012-004 (Carla
Benton)
A Staff Report was presented by Carla Benton. The request to bring this application back
before the Commission was approved by City Council on November 27, 2012 due to
significant changes, more specifically in the removal of the proposed Firestone with all
proposed uses being in compliance with the C-1 District. Additionally, the fuel sales will
remain prohibited. The applicant will continue to provide the screening wall adjacent to
the cemetery and preserve existing landscape along that property line. Mitigations will be
provided that includes tree protection and additional landscaping. The applicant is
working very closely with the City Urban Forester for preservation of the trees.
No public comments have been received in response to notifications. Applicant was
present to answer any questions.
The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no speakers. Sally Pell inquired about the
taller wall, but Commission discussion noted that the taller wall would require more
impact to branches of existing trees along the fence line.
Motion by Cochran 2nd by Horne. Approved by vote of 6-0.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
Ordinance Number: _____________
Description: Wolf Ranch North Page 1 of 2
Date Approved: ____, __, ______ Exhibits A, B & Dev. Plan Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _______
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 4.23 acres in the C.
Stubblefield Survey, including Good Luck Subdivision, to be known as
Wolf Ranch North from the Agriculture (AG) District and Local
Commercial (C-1) District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base
district of Local Commercial (C-1) District; repealing conflicting ordinances
and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an
effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
4.23 acres in the C. Stubblefield Survey, including Good Luck Subdivision, to be
known as Wolf Ranch North, as recorded in Document Numbers 2005003863,
2005023681, 2011070953, 2004030119 of the Official Public Records of Williamson
County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official
Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing
and for its recommendation or report; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on December 18, 2012,
held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City
Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on January 8, 2013, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # H
Ordinance Number: _____________
Description: Wolf Ranch North Page 2 of 2
Date Approved: ____, __, ______ Exhibits A, B & Dev. Plan Attached
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1)
District to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a base district of Local Commercial (C-1)
District, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map), Exhibit B (Legal
Description) and Development Plan and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of
adoption by the City Council.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of January, 2013.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of January, 2013.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Jessica Brettle George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
GE
TO
W
N
CITY OF GEORGETOWN Georgetown ETJ
Georgetown ETJ
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
SIM
O
N
R
D
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
MEMORIAL DR
0 340 680Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit A
REZ-2012-004
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
H
1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WOLF RANCH NORTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
1. DEFINITIONS All definitions listed in Chapter 16 of the Unified Development Code of the City of
Georgetown (the “Code”) shall govern interpretation of this Development Plan. Any terms not defined shall be interpreted using Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, subject to
the approval of interpretation by the Planning and Development Department.
2. PROPERTY This Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”) covers approximately 4.238 acres
of land located within the city limits of Georgetown, Texas, and being more particularly
described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
3. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Plan is to ensure the development of an integrated, unified development that meets the following PUD standards: (i) is equal to or superior to development that would
occur under the standard ordinance requirements, in particular, Local Commercial (C-1); (ii) is
in harmony with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Georgetown, Texas; (iii) is an
orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; and (iv) will be staged in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely
provision of public utilities, facilities and services.
4. APPLICABILITY OF CITY ORDINANCES 4.1 Zoning The Property shall be regulated for purposes of zoning by this Plan. All aspects not specifically covered by this Plan shall be regulated by applicable sections of the Code. All uses and
development within the Property shall generally conform to the Development Plan as set forth
herein. The PUD is designed to be used in conjunction with Local Commercial (C-1), which is
the zoning designation most similar to and compatible with the uses proposed for the PUD. All standards and requirements of Local Commercial (C-1) shall apply unless specifically
superseded by the standards and requirements of this Development Plan.
4.2 Other Ordinances All other Ordinances within the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown shall apply to
the Property, except as clearly modified by this Plan.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 52
Item # H
2
5. SIGNAGE PLAN
The Signage Plan shall be as depicted in Exhibits “C”, “C-1”, “C-2", “C-3”, “and C-4”,
attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibits “C-1” narrates the designs of the signs
shown on the Signage Plan. Exhibit “C-2” provides Wolf Ranch North signage criteria. Exhibit
“C-3", attached separately but incorporated herein, contains renderings of each parcel’s
monument sign. Exhibit “C-4” contains the color palette applicable to the signs governed by
this section and the Signage Plan. All regulation of signage shall be pursuant to this section. If
not set forth herein, the applicable sections of the Code shall apply.
The primary goal of the Signage Plan is to effectively utilize signs as a means of clear visual
communication, blending with the natural environment, and improving pedestrian and traffic
safety. Owner/Tenant signage will only convey the name of the business and product of service
offered. All signs shall be constructed of materials and colors compatible with those utilized on
the primary building’s facades so as to blend into the environment and consistent with the
above stated exhibits.
6. UTILITY SCHEMATIC, DRAINAGE AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP
A Utility Schematic and Drainage Map and Topography Map, are attached hereto as Exhibits
“D” and “E" respectively, and incorporated herein. Both maps are conceptual in nature and
may be modified in the future. Plans for drainage facilities will be reviewed as part of the
subdivision and construction plan review process and approved by the City and/or the State of
Texas prior to installation.
7. SH 29 DRIVEWAY AND INTERNAL DRIVE LOCATION
The locations of the two newly constructed driveways off of SH 29 and the internal drive are
shown on Exhibit “B”. This plan eliminates four current driveways and replaces them with
two.
8. LANDSCAPING PLAN
The Landscaping Plans and cross-sections are attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “F” (Tree Mitigation & Landscape Plan) and Exhibit “F-1” (Gateway Landscape
Buffer Cross Sections). Exhibit “F-1” shows the location of preserved trees, replaced trees
and all of the required landscaping along the buffer yard. All regulation of landscaping shall be
pursuant to this section. If not set forth herein, the applicable sections of the Code shall apply.
All plant species selections for Wolf Ranch North will be from the approved Wolf Ranch plant
palette, with the exception of Live Oak (Quercus virginiana).
Attachment number 10 \nPage 2 of 52
Item # H
3
8.1 Street Yard Landscaping
A minimum of twenty-four percent (24%) of the PUD will be landscaped, exceeding the twenty
percent (20%) minimum requirement as stated in Section 8.04.030 of the Code.
8.2 Grass and Turf Areas
All landscaped areas not in groundcover or shrub beds, or undisturbed areas, will be planted
with common Bermuda and/or native grasses. St. Augustine grass is prohibited. Overseeding
in fall with cool season grasses is allowed. The use of edging material to separate all grass
areas from shrub and groundcover areas is encouraged wherever possible. The edging material
will be steel, stone, aggregate, or mulch. No plastic edging is allowed. No vegetative slopes
shall exceed a 3:1 ratio, unless constructed of solid sod or slope stabilization matting.
8.3 Irrigation
An underground, automatic irrigation system will be installed in all landscaped areas.
Sprinkler heads will be located to effectively water the landscaped areas with minimal spray
onto roadways, parking areas and walkways. Landscape areas within Simon Road Rights-of-
Way, if to be irrigated, will be irrigated in compliance with the City of Georgetown’s
regulations.
8.4 Parking Lot Landscaping
Landscape areas will be provided within all parking lots. Tree islands and peninsulas will be
located so as to maximize the protection of existing mature trees. In areas where no existing
trees are located within the parking field, tree islands will be provided to reduce the thermal
impact of unshaded parking lots. Trees may exceed spacing requirements to allow them to be
grouped to mimic existing clusters and create a more aesthetic effect.
8.5 Gateway Landscape Buffers
The SH 29 Gateway Buffer shall be within approximately twenty-five feet (25’) from the right-
of-way line, planted in close conformity with the landscape provisions of Section 8.04.050
Gateway Overlay District Landscaping section of the Code. Cross-sections of the SH 29 and
Simon Road Gateway Landscape Buffer Sections are shown on Exhibit “F-1", attached hereto
and incorporated herein. Buffer trees shall be a combination of both large, shade trees and
smaller, ornamental trees, interspersed in clusters along the buffer yards, in lieu of shade trees
only.
8.6 West Landscape Buffer
A 25’ medium level landscape buffer will be provided along the west side of the property per
section 8.04.060.c.2. The code only requires a 25’ setback.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 3 of 52
Item # H
4
8.7 Utility Lines
All utility lines will be underground to connection points provided by the utility service
provider. Special care and consideration will be given when digging along the rear of the
property in case grave sites are identified during construction. Special care also will be made to
the existing trees that are to remain.
All transformers will be screened by plantings and/or hardscape.
Electric service shall be installed according to the City’s Development Regulations.
9. TREE PRESERVATION
All proposed shade trees will be a minimum of four inch (4”) caliper. Exhibit ‘F’ - The Tree
Mitigation & Landscape Plan illustrates that 15% of the Protected Trees are being preserved on
site, compared to the 20% required by Table 8.02.030 within the Code. The Tree Mitigation
& Landscape Plan, as shown on Exhibit “F”, depicts the location of saved trees and replaced
trees, as well as all other buffer landscaping.
The Code requires that 40% of the total caliper inches of removed Protected Trees be replaced.
Based on the above, 43% of all caliper inches of currently existing trees will be saved and/or
replaced as part of the buffer requirements.
Additionally, mitigation for trees to be removed, will not be required if tree number 8540 (25”
Live oak) is to be saved and a pervious paving system is utilized within the critical root zone of
existing trees to be saved. No oak or elm trees along the cemetery property line will be
removed and the Urban Forester shall be involved in the sizing and alignment of parking
peninsulas to optimal preservation of the root zones of these trees to remain.
9.1 Tree Protection Plan
At or before site plan review, and prior to the removal of any trees, a Tree Protection Plan shall
be submitted to the Urban Forester Department pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Code. Unless
noted herein, all other provisions of the Code shall be complied with in full. Native trees of
desirable species shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Preserved natural areas
shall be integrated with the design of open space, screening and landscaped areas.
Since no Heritage Trees exist on site, protection measures for Protected Trees may also take
priority over conflicting requirements in the Code, including but not limited to setbacks, lot
design standards, building height limits, sidewalks, lighting, signage, landscaping and
landscape buffers, parking design, including depth, width and count, vehicle stacking spaces,
drive aisle widths, gateway overlay requirements, fencing, dumpster locations, drainage
criteria, connectivity, driveway separations, utility extension, utility location and easements,
Attachment number 10 \nPage 4 of 52
Item # H
5
and impervious coverage. Public health and safety shall be maintained with all proposed
designs.
After consultation with the Urban Forester, an alternative standard or design that gives priority
to Protected Tree Preservation may be approved by the Planning and Development Department
for administrative applications.
9.2 Tree Survey
A Tree Survey has been filed with, and accepted by, the Planning and Development
Department as required by Section 8.05 of the Code.
10. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE
The property within the PUD is allowed to be developed at 70% impervious cover. Permeable
pavers can be installed to obtain 75% impervious cover as long as they are installed in
accordance with the design requirements set forth by TCEQ and as long as the downstream
drainage is not increased or the downstream drainage system capacity is adequate.
When one Lot remains to be developed, and (1) it is determined during the design of this Lot
that it will exceed 75% impervious cover, and (2) if the Lot’s Developer can provide
documentation to the Director that the aggregate of the other Lots within the PUD, fully
developed, will not exceed 70%, then the Lot’s Developer can exceed the 75% impervious
coverage maximum, up to 80%.
11. PERMITTED USES AND LIMITATIONS
The PUD is designed to be used in conjunction with Local Commercial (C-1), which is the
zoning designation most similar to and compatible with the uses proposed for the PUD. All
standards and requirements of Local Commercial(C-1) shall apply unless specifically
superseded by the standards and requirements of this Development Plan.
11.1 Prohibited Uses
The Fuel Sales Specific Use will not be an allowable use under this zoning.
In addition to the items strictly prohibited within Local Commercial (C-1), the following items
are also expressly prohibited:
There shall be no free-standing “Kiosk” type building or small light structures
permitted in the parking areas or service areas outside of the main buildings.
No truck or commercial vehicle of any kind shall be permitted to be parked on the
property for a period of more than four (4) hours unless said vehicles are temporarily
Attachment number 10 \nPage 5 of 52
Item # H
6
present and necessary and incident to the business on the property. No truck or
commercial vehicle shall be parked overnight, except within a screened enclosure.
No recreational vehicle of any kind shall be parked within the proposed development
overnight, and no boats, boat trailers or trailers of any kind, campers or mobile homes
shall be permitted to park overnight on or near the property at any time unless kept
inside a screened enclosure.
No truck, commercial or recreational vehicle of any kind shall be used as a domicile or
residence, either permanent or temporary.
11.2 Cell Tower Parcel
The cell tower parcel will be included in the subdivision for Wolf Ranch North and will not be
required to have frontage to a public road. A permanent cross access easement to the cell tower
parcel will be provided as part of the subdivision process.
11.3 Outdoor Sales and Displays
Outdoor sales and displays are permitted in conjunction with the use of a building, so long as
said outdoor sales are temporary in nature. Any outdoor sales continuing for more than three
consecutive days are prohibited. Outdoor sales and displays in conjunction with the use of a
building are further limited to the following areas:
11.3.1 Sidewalks
Outdoor sales and displays are permitted on sidewalks adjacent to buildings, but limited
to an area of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the sidewalk area that is located
within fifteen feet (15’) from the building. In no event may the outdoor sale and display
area exceed ten percent (10%) of the interior floor area of the adjoining building. The
Code limits outdoor sales to 30% of the sidewalk area located within 5' of the building.
11.3.2 Dining Areas
Any outdoor café or outdoor dining area (including outdoor seating for a restaurant, bar,
tavern or pub) that: (i) is located and operated as an integral part of the principal use,
and (ii) does not comprise a separate business use or a separate business activity is
permitted.
11.4 Height Restrictions
All height restrictions established for Local Commercial (C-1) shall apply to all buildings
within the PUD. Height shall be measured to top of highest element including parapet walls,
Attachment number 10 \nPage 6 of 52
Item # H
7
sloped roofs and architectural elements. One forty-five foot (45') foot decorative architectural
feature, as part of the primary building design, may be considered by the Planning Director on
the easternmost development, as shown on Exhibit “F-2”,with review of the Site Plan, provided
that compatibility, appropriate scale, aesthetic enhancement of the intersection and consistency
with the larger development area are considered in determination of approval.
11.5 Setbacks (See Exhibit B )
All setbacks established for Local Commercial (C-1) shall apply to all buildings and parking
spaces within the PUD, except for the following setbacks:
Side Setback = 0’ for internal lot lines. (Code requires 10’)
Rear Setback to Residential District = 0’ (Code requires 25’, but a portion of the PUD abuts the
cemetery (zoned RS) at the rear).
All access drives proposed within the PUD are allowed to encroach within the Setbacks to
allow for cross-access between the proposed lots.
11.6 Buildings
11.6.1 Building Materials
All buildings will be constructed to follow a consistent architectural theme with
building materials consistent with Section 7.04.040 of the Code. All building materials
utilized within the PUD will be consistent with the materials shown on Exhibit “C-4”.
11.6.2 Building Articulation
Horizontal Articulation will be achieved through the use of projecting canopies,
awnings, masonry pilaster or accents or with change of materials and colors. Canopies
may be freestanding trellis elements or extend as a fixed facade element. Vertical
Articulation will be achieved by creating stepped parapets, towers or vertical feature
elements that extend above and back over the primary roof structure. The facades of the
retail shops will receive Vertical Articulation below the primary sign area, through the
use of sloped and flat canopies or awning elements mounted at varying elevations.
11.7. Outdoor Storage, Service and Loading Areas
All outdoor storage, truck docks, loading areas, trash compactors, refuse storage
containers and ground-mounted service equipment will be screened from public view
and constructed in compliance with the Code.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 7 of 52
Item # H
8
11.8 Exterior Lighting
11.8.1 Minimal Spillover
All site lighting will be designed and installed to restrict the level of illumination to two
(2) foot candles maximum measured at a height of three feet (3’) at the property line of
adjacent properties. All light fixtures will meet Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America standards for sharp cutoff. Facade lighting shall be accomplished by the
use of wall mounted light fixtures or ground lights.
11.8.2 General Parking Lot Illumination
All site lighting will be designed and installed so that the level of illumination as
measured in foot candles at grade provides a minimum of two (2) foot candles
maintained. Where possible on the site to maintain acceptable light uniformity, a
maximum to minimum light level design goal is not to exceed a ratio of five to one.
Light fixtures will be a Quality-Lighting-Design SL – metal halide deep shoe box light
with a concealed source and shall be mounted on maximum thirty (30') foot poles. The
color of the light fixture and post shall be dark bronze, anodized finish. No general
parking lot illumination light shall be attached to any structure..
11.8.3 Building mounted lights at service areas and service entrances
Standard wall pack, exposed source fixtures are prohibited. Fixtures are to be QL-
Design SL-Metal halide, deep shoebox fixture with a concealed source.
11.9 Parking Requirements
All parking and parking lot design shall be in compliance with Code Section 9.02.
Cross parking and cross access will be in place for each development within the PUD.
All access to parking aisles shall contain a painted stop bar on the exiting lane of the pavement
designating both the need to stop and the direction of the travel lanes, eliminating the need for
directional arrows as required in Section 9.03.020 of the Code.
11.10 Drive Aisle/Parking Space Widths
The internal access drive aisles shall be as shown on Exhibit B (25’ in the East-West direction
and 28’ in the North-South direction). All parking stalls that are accessed off of these drive
aisles may by 9’ wide.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 8 of 52
Item # H
9
All other drive aisles may be reduced to a minimum of 24’ and all parking stalls that are
accessed off of these drive aisles may be 9’ wide. Code Section 9.03.020B requires 9’ wide
parking stalls for 26’ drive aisles and 10’ wide parking stalls for 24’ drive aisles.
11.11 Drive-Through Stacking Requirements
Restaurant drive throughs shall provide for a minimum of 8 stacking spaces as measured from
the pick-up window. Code Section 9.04.010 allows for 6 stacking spaces measured from the
order box and 4 spaces measured between the order box and the pick-up window.
The length for the drive through stacking spaces shall be a minimum of 18.5’ which is being
reduced from the required 20’ length as provided in Code Section 9.04.020A. These queuing
spaces will not be allowed to encroach into the drive aisle in a manner that will impede traffic
flow or block parking.
11.12 Rear Yard Screen Wall
A 6’ high screen wall will be built along the rear property line, from the northwest corner of the
property to twenty-five feet (25’) west of the northeast corner of the property, in accordance
with the requirements of Code Section 8.07.070. The alignment of wall panels or groups of
wall panels may be intermittently offset toward the interior of each parcel as required to avoid
conflicts with existing tree trunks and major structural roots. In an effort to preserve as much
root zone as possible, the Urban Forester will be included in decisions as to where the fence
footings and panels will be located along the back property line. Open spaces between offset
wall panels will be allowed.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 9 of 52
Item # H
10
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Exhibit “A”: Property Description
2. Exhibit “B”: Development Site Plan
3. Exhibit “C”: Signage Plan
4. Exhibit “C-1”: Sign Descriptions
5. Exhibit “C-2": Signage Criteria
6. Exhibit “C-3” Monument Sign Elevation
7. Exhibit “C-4” Color Material Palette
8. Exhibit “D”: Utility Schematic and Drainage Plan
9. Exhibit “E”: Topography Map
10. Exhibit “F”: Tree Mitigation & Landscape Plan
11. Exhibit “F-1”: Gateway Landscape Buffer Sections
12. Exhibit “F-2”: Gateway Architectural Feature
13. Exhibit “G”: Existing Tree Plan
14. Exhibit “H": Sample Elevation
15. Exhibit “I”: Rear Screen Wall Exhibit
16. Exhibit “J” Summary of PUD Justification
Attachment number 10 \nPage 10 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “A”
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Attachment number 10 \nPage 11 of 52
Item # H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “B”
DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN
Attachment number 10 \nPage 15 of 52
Item # H
H:
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
S
I
M
(
S
i
m
o
n
)
\
S
I
M
1
1
0
3
3
(
W
o
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
)
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
P
U
D
\
C
a
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
P
U
D
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
.
d
w
g
11
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
2
Wolf Ranch North
Exhibit "B" - Development Plan
Internal Access Road
25' Landscape Buffer
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “C”
SIGNAGE PLAN
Attachment number 10 \nPage 17 of 52
Item # H
H:
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
S
I
M
(
S
i
m
o
n
)
\
S
I
M
1
1
0
3
3
(
W
o
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
)
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
P
U
D
\
C
a
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
P
U
D
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
C
.
d
w
g
11
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
2
Wolf Ranch North
Exhibit "C" - Signage Plan
Approximate Location Sign
A-2a
(Typ. up to Five Locations)
Approximate Location Sign
A-2a or A-2b
A-2aA-2aA-2a
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SIGN DESCRIPTIONS
Attachment number 10 \nPage 19 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 20 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 21 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 22 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “C-2”
SIGNAGE CRITERIA
Attachment number 10 \nPage 23 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 24 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 25 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 26 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 27 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 28 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “C-3"
MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATIONS
Attachment number 10 \nPage 29 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 30 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “C-4”
COLOR MATERIAL PALETTE
Attachment number 10 \nPage 31 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 32 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 33 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 34 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “D”
UTILITY SCHEMATIC AND DRAINAGE PLAN
Attachment number 10 \nPage 35 of 52
Item # H
H:
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
S
I
M
(
S
i
m
o
n
)
\
S
I
M
1
1
0
3
3
(
W
o
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
)
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
P
U
D
\
C
a
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
P
U
D
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
.
d
w
g
11
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
2
Wolf Ranch North
Exhibit "D" - Utility Schematic and Drainage Plan
Existing Inlet Remove Existing
Inlet
Existing Inlet
Existing Inlet
W Existing Water
W Proposed Water
SS Existing Sanitary
SS Proposed Sanitary
SD Existing Storm Drain
SD Proposed Storm Drain
FO Existing Fiber Optic
OHE Existing Overhead Electric
UGE Proposed Underground Electric
G Proposed Gas
New Curb Inlet
Existing 8" Water
Existing 8"
Sanitary Line
Proposed 8" Water
Existing 36" Storm
Drain
Proposed Manhole
Proposed Manhole
Connect to
Existing Manhole
Proposed 8"
Sanitary Line
Existing
Overhead
Electric
Proposed Gas
Raw Water Line
Connect to
Existing Waterline
Proposed Utility
Sleeves
Proposed Utility
Sleeves
Proposed Utility
Sleeves
Proposed
Underground
Electric
Existing Fiber Optic
Proposed Fire
Hydrant
Existing 8" Water
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
6
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “E"
TOPOGRAPHY MAP
Attachment number 10 \nPage 37 of 52
Item # H
H:
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
S
I
M
(
S
i
m
o
n
)
\
S
I
M
1
1
0
3
3
(
W
o
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
)
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
P
U
D
\
C
a
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
P
U
D
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
E
.
d
w
g
11
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
2
Wolf Ranch North
Exhibit "E" - Topography Map
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
8
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “F”
TREE MITIGATION & LANDSCAPE PLAN
Attachment number 10 \nPage 39 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 40 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “F-1”
GATEWAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER SECTIONS
Attachment number 10 \nPage 41 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 42 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “F-2”
GATEWAY ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE
Attachment number 10 \nPage 43 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 44 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “G”
EXISTING TREE PLAN
Attachment number 10 \nPage 45 of 52
Item # H
H:
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
S
I
M
(
S
i
m
o
n
)
\
S
I
M
1
1
0
3
3
(
W
o
l
f
R
a
n
c
h
)
\
J
o
b
f
i
l
e
s
\
P
U
D
\
C
a
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
P
U
D
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
G
.
d
w
g
11
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
2
Wolf Ranch North
Exhibit "G" - Existing Trees
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
0
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
6
o
f
5
2
It
e
m
#
H
EXHIBIT “H”
SAMPLE ELEVATION
Attachment number 10 \nPage 47 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 48 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “I”
REAR SCREEN WALL EXHIBIT
Attachment number 10 \nPage 49 of 52
Item # H
Attachment number 10 \nPage 50 of 52
Item # H
EXHIBIT “K”
SUMMARY OF PUD JUSTIFICATION
The purpose of this PUD is to establish and encourage the most desirable and efficient use of land while enhancing the
physical environment through functional and compatible land use configurations. The irregularly shape development parcel
provides for access constraints and development inefficiencies in the land use. This PUD contains many of the same criteria
that is within the Wolf Ranch PUD, and we felt that it is important to have this development complement Wolf Ranch so we
can provide a uniform and consistent theme for the residents and visitors entering the Gateway to Georgetown. Following
is a list of the requests for leniency from the current code as well as a list of items being proposed that are above and beyond
the code requirements.
REQUESTS FOR LENIENCY
LANDSCAPE
Section 8.02.050.B
Since the site has no Heritage Tree and therefore can not realize the benefit of saving that classification of tree, the same
benefits are being requested to be granted by taking priority to save Protected Trees.
.
Parking stalls in excess of 50 feet from the trunk of a tree will be allowed due to the shape and special constraints of site and
the preservation of existing trees.
Section 8.04.040.B.
Small, ornamental trees (in addition to shade trees) shall be allowed to meet the shade tree requirement of the Scenic
Overlay District.
Section 8.04.050.C.2
The majority of existing trees are hackberry and only a few desirable species exist on the developable portions of the site;
therefore, only 15% of the Protected Trees are being preserved on site, compared to the 20% required by code.
Table 8.02.030
Table 10.06.010 Sign Dimensions by District.
SIGNAGE
We are requesting the ability for one of our monument signs (Sign A-3 shown on Exhibit C) to be able to be 8’ in height to
accommodate the potential for a multi-tenant use. This 8’ height is what currently exists at the outparcel developments
along SH 29 at Wolf Ranch. The design of the sign will be consistent with the Wolf Ranch outparcel monument signs to
maintain consistency along the SH 29 gateway corridor.
All setbacks within the C-1 zoning have been maintained with the exception of the following:
SETBACKS
Rear setback to Residential District (RS). A portion of the tract will encroach upon this setback due to the zoning
classification of the cemetery being RS. In lieu of adhering to this setback, a masonry-type fence will be installed along the
entire rear property line to keep trash and debris from blowing onto the cemetery land and to provide privacy for family
visiting loved ones that have deceased.
We are requesting a reduction in the minimum aisle widths for 9’ wide, 90° stalls from 26’ to 24’ on all secondary drives
within Development Areas A and B. This width is consistent with the drive aisles that are in use at Wolf Ranch. This
request is being made to maximize the parking opportunities within this irregularly shaped development parcel.
Table 9.03.020B
We are requesting a reduction of Restaurant drive through spaces measured from the order box from six spaces to four
spaces with a total required stacking of 8 spaces. This is consistent with the request that was made for the restaurant drive
through on Lot 9 at Wolf Ranch. We will require that all additional stacking will not impede upon the internal access road
shown on Exhibit “B”.
Table 9.04.010
Attachment number 10 \nPage 51 of 52
Item # H
We are requesting a reduction of Restaurant drive through spaces measured from the order box from six spaces to four
spaces with a total required stacking of 8 spaces. This is consistent with the request that was made for the restaurant drive
through on Lot 9 at Wolf Ranch. We will require that all additional stacking will not impede upon the internal access road
shown on Exhibit “B”.
Table 9.04.010
We are requesting a reduction in drive through queuing space length from 20’ to 18.5’. Because the triangularly shaped
parcel provides for various site planning constraints, this request is being made so that we may be able to maximize the
opportunity to provide for drive through restaurants within this development. The PUD will require that vehicular stacking
at drive throughs will not impede upon the drive aisles or parking .
Table 9.04.020A
We are proposing to install a Gateway architectural feature, up to 45’, at the southeast corner of Development Area B, as
shown on Exhibit “F-2”. This feature is intended to provide a visual offset from the vertical dominance of the existing cell
tower and to complement the similar feature that exists at Wolf Ranch.
Section 12.4 Height Restrictions
BETTERMENTS
Landscape
Four percent more landscape area is being provided on the overall site area addressed by this PUD than the amount required
by code.
Section 8.04.030
Small, ornamental trees interspersed among shade trees will enhance the aesthetic of the street yards by diversifying foliage
and flower colors and textures as well as visually softening the buildings and complimenting the scale of their facades.
Section 8.04.050.C.2
Code requires shade trees to be a minimum of three inch (3”) caliper. This PUD requires a minimum of four inch (4”)
caliper shade trees.
Section 8.06.020
A superior, masonry or cementitious material will be used in lieu of wood for the Rear Yard Screen Wall, and the wall will
extend along the entire cemetery boundary.
Section 8.07.070
Enhanced materials (no plastic) will be required for edging of all turf grass areas
A permanent, underground irrigation system will be provided within all landscaped areas.
A pervious paver system for vehicular-use areas will be utilized within the root zones of existing trees.
Overall, a minimum of forty-three percent of all caliper inches of currently existing trees will be saved and/or replaced.
The ordinance requires mitigation for 40% of total diameter of Protected Trees removed.
A 25’ medium level landscape buffer will be provided along the west side of the property per section 8.04.060.c.2. The
code requires that a 25' setback only be provided.
While the C-1 Zoning allows for Fuel Sales, we are establishing Fuel Sales as a prohibited use within this Development
Plan.
General
The proposed plan eliminates four existing driveways and replaces them with two new drives.
Attachment number 10 \nPage 52 of 52
Item # H
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
First Reading of an Ordinance renaming County Road 111 to “Westinghouse Road” -- Edward G.
Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Street renaming occurs under two scenarios in the City of Georgetown. The first is by petition of the
property owners. The second is when the City annexes, takes over maintenance, or builds extensions to
portions of County Roads or State Highways that make the name of those facilities inconsistent with the
City's Street Naming Policy, which is the case with CR 111.
Between 1986 to 2008 portions of CR 111 have been annexed into the City of Georgetown. There has been
no official renaming of recently annexed portions of the roadway. Williamson County has agreed, and is the
process of renaming portions of CR 111 between IH 35 and Rockride Lane (CR 110) to Westinghouse Road
to have a consistent street name on the roadway.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance Street Renaming
Ordinance Street Renaming Exhibit
Background Memo
Cover Memo
Item # I
October 25, 2012
To: Property owners abutting CR 111
Re: Road name change
In an effort to limit the confusion of the Official name of Westinghouse Rd and CR 111,
it has been decided to rename all portions of the roadway to the name “Westinghouse
Rd”. This will include all segments of the road, from Interstate 35, all the way to the
intersection of CR110/Rockride Ln. These segments include the address range from 100
– 3834. In short, there will no longer be any parcels addressed as CR 111, they will all be
addressed as Westinghouse Rd. (See included location map)
Renaming County Roads typically occurs in conjunction with an annexation process.
Sometimes, as a City grows outwards, segments of the road are named as the City takes
in each separate piece. In other cases, the roadway is renamed once the City takes in all
portions of the roadway. In this particular case, the circumstances are different in that
completely separate portions of the road have been annexed at different times. Therefore,
in conjunction with Williamson County 911 Addressing, it was decided to rename the
entire road at once.
The entire length of the road is just under four miles. Of that distance, just over one mile
of roadway falls completely within the City of Georgetown City Limits. Two additional
miles of the roadway lie directly beside City of Georgetown City Limits, where the
property on one side might be in the City, but the road itself is not.
To further confuse matters, in the case of this road, all exit signs on Interstate 35
reference this road as “Westinghouse Rd”. This creates a dilemma for business owners
who have a different address than the name of the road used to access their business.
This letter should serve as your official notice of a change of address. On December 1st,
2012, I will officially make the change of address effective. From that day forward,
please make every effort to begin using the new address. I have spoken with the local
Post Office and they are aware of the impending change. The USPS does create a system
that, for one calendar year, you should receive mail addressed as the old CR 111 address
or the new Westinghouse Rd address. This courtesy is extended so that you can use any
stationary or printed documents within that time period and also to allow your business
and personal mail contacts to update your records to the new address.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # I
You should continue using the same street number that you have always used, simply
change the street name. For example, if your address was 1221 CR 111, it will now be
1221 Westinghouse Rd.
In the months of December and January, you should see the street signs along CR 111
changed to reflect the new name. I will also notify the local Utility and Cable providers
and will ensure that all of the pertinent Emergency Service databases are updated. You
will need to contact any billing agencies or personal contacts and provide them with the
new address.
I understand that a change of address is inconvenient and cumbersome for all involved,
and I make every effort to avoid the process whenever possible. However, situations such
as this do arise where it becomes necessary. I hope that explaining the process and
making myself available for information and assistance will make the process easier to
adjust to and prepare for.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this address change or the City addressing policy
in general, please feel free to contact me at (512) 930-8161 or email me at
jess.henderson@georgetown.org
Respectfully,
Jess Henderson
City of Georgetown Addressing Coordinator/ GIS Analyst
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # I
Ordinance No. _______________ Page 1 of 2
CR 111 to Westinghouse Road Renaming
January 22, 2013
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, renaming a
portion of CR 111 to “Westinghouse Road”; repealing conflicting ordinances and
resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, on January 24, 2006, the City adopted an ordinance establishing a uniform
addressing and street naming policy for the City; and
Whereas, due to annexation of areas that include portions of CR 111 Right of Way, the
continued use of the name “CR 111” on the annexed portion is inconsistent with the City’s street
naming policy;
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Georgetown finds that it is in the public’s best
interest to resolve these inconsistencies by assigning names to the subject streets in a manner
consistent with the City’s street naming policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby
found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly
made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance
implements the following Vision Statements, Goals and Policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 3: Provide a development framework for the fringe that guides sound, sustainable patterns of
land use, limits sprawl, protects community character, demonstrates sound stewardship of the
environment, and provides for efficient provision of public services and facilities as the city
expands.
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other 2030 Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements, Goals and Policies..
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby renames the portion of CR
111, from IH 35 continuing east to CR 110 (Rockride Lane), to Westinghouse Road.
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict
with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # I
Ordinance No. _______________ Page 2 of 2
CR 111 to Westinghouse Road Renaming
January 22, 2013
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to
attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 8th day of January, 2013
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 22nd day of January, 2013.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
____________________________ By:_____________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary George Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # I
C R 1 1 2
C R 1 6 6
C R 1 8 6
RIDGEBENDDR
PARKVISTATRL
W E S T I N G H O U S E R D
HI D D ENBROOKLN
F O X D R
MEADOW-
SIDELN
FLAT
STONE
CT
C O M M E R C E B L V D
P A G E W H I T N E Y P K W Y
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
H I L L V U E R D
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
M I D N I G H T L N
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
WOODVIS TA PL
R I D G E F I E L D L O O P
O
L
D
M
E
A
D
O
WC
TG
RA N D V I S T A C I R
GREEN VISTA CT
ROCK MIDDEN LN
C R 1 8 6
JULIANAS WAYUNIVERSITY B L V D
E
A
G
L
E
S
N
E
S
T
S
T
F
M
1
4
6
0
")1460
SUNRISE RD
FAIRWAYPATH
HALEYS WAY
S A T E L L I T E V I E W
L O O K O U T R D G
B
E
N
T
P
AT
H
S
O
L
I
T
A
I
R
E
HEWLETT LOOP
S E R V I C E
MEADOW-
SIDE
PATH
FAIRWAY PATH
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
L
O
N
E T
R
E
E
P
A
T
H
GREENSIDE TRL
GATE WAY DR
BENT WOOD CT
S I E R R A W A Y S T
WOOD MESA DR
P
L
A
C
I
D
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
T
O
N
I
A
L
O
O
P
HID
D
E
N
VIE
W
C
T
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
OLDRAVINECT
SIRIUS ST
H I L L R I D G E D R
F O R K R I D G E
P A T H
C L E A R
M E A D O W C T
Q U I C K S I L V E R C R
B
R
O
O
K VIE
W
C
T
GREEN VISTA PL
§¨¦35
C L E A R V I E W D R
L
O
R
S
O
N
L
O
O
P
T
E
R
A
V
I
S
T
A
P
K
W
Y
HIDDEN VIEW PL
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
B L U E S P R I N G S B LV D
M
E
A
D
O
W
V
I
S
T
A
L
N
S T O N E
SL O P E C T
G L E N -
F I E L D C TASH
T R E E C T
G R E A T -
VIE W C T
WINDIN G CREEK PL
L
O
S
T
L
E
D
G
E
P
A
T
H
C
O
U
R
T
N
E
Y
D
R
C L E A R V I E W D R
S
U
N
R
I
S
E
R
D
O U T C R O P
PAT H
P
R
E
C
I
P
I
C
E
W
A
Y
F
L
I
N
T
W
O
O
D
LN
F LI N T
W O O D
C T
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
M E S Q UI T E H O L L O W P L
PA
R
K
RID
G
E
PAT
H
R I D G E LI N E B L V D
A
V
A
L
A
N
C
H
E
A
V
E
CRESTWOOD LN
F
A
L
L
I
N
G
B
R
O
O
K
C
T
HILL
RID
G
E C
T
BENT WOOD PL
QUICKSILVER ST
ASHLEY DR
P I G E O N V I E W S T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
S T O N E -
TERRA ST
HA V E N L N
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
F
M
1
4
6
0
WEST
M
E
A
D
OWTRL
C R 1 1 1
R A BBIT H I L L T R L
T E R A V I S T A P KWY
OAKMONT
DR
TERAVIS T A C L U B D R
T E R A V I S T A C L U B D R
C
L
E
A
R
-
V
I
S
T
A
HIDDE NSPRINGSPATHWOOD-
H A V E N PAT H
BLUE RIDGE DR
W
IN
D
B
E
R
RY
CT
HERITA
G
E
W
E
L
L
L
N
G
R
E
E
N
T
R
E
E
D
R
R E S TON
S
C
E
N
I
C
LAKED
R
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
L
A
K
E
D
R
M O NTI-
C E L LO CT
QUIET
WATER PASS
B
A
R
C
H
E
T
T
A
D
R
CVASB U R Y
PA R K D R
W
A
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
G REYLEAFPATH
W OOD-
HAVEN CT
H
A
V
E
N T
R
L
W
O
O
D
FAIR
M
EAD
O
W DR
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
G R A N D M E S A D R
V I N E T R L
DR E S D E N
C V
C A N Y O N
S A G E P A T H
R
A
D
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
K E M P WO
O
D
L
O
O
P
V
I
S
T
A
V
E
R
D
E
P
A
T
H
RAIN-
MEADOW PATH
SPICEBERRY
PATH
W E S T V A L L E Y P L
P
E
B
B
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
T
R
L
GREENSIDEDR
CERVINIA DR
M O N T E R O S A L N
C O U R M AYEUR
MONTE
R
O S A LOOP
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
C R 1 1 1
APRILMDWSLOOP SUNNYMDWSLOOP
SUNNY TRL DR
C O A C H
L I G H T
D R
SCENIC LK DR
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
COLONY GLN
C H E S T N U T M E A D O W S B N D
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
C
R
E
S
T
E
D
B
U
T
T
E
N
A
T
U
R
I
T
A
D
R
G R A N D J U N C T I O N T R L
HewlettSubdivision
Park CentralOne
MidwayBusinessPark
La Conterra
Teravista
Teravista
Teravista
1 inch = 2,000 feet±
Legend
Proposed Street
Existing Street
Georgetown City Limits
Affected Roadway
Affected Parcels
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to award a contract for the Austin Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project
to Keystone Construction, Inc. of Austin Texas for the base bid of $177,475.00 plus alternate bids of
$53,400.00 for a total contract amount of $230,875 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
This project publicly advertised November 11th and 18th with bid opening on the Nov 27th. This project
will widen the west sidewalk along Austin Avenue between 7th and 8th Street to increase visibility of
businesses and create an improved atmosphere encouraging outdoor shopping and dining. The project will
correct accessibility issues currently existing on the sidewalks as well as improve drainage issues related to
roof drains and overhangs. The $53,400.00 alternate bid #2 is for the installation of new raised lighted and
irrigated planters and alternate bid #3 for no additional cost will put ADA compliant bar grate covers over
the new drain flume. Seven parking spaces will be eliminated as a result of the widening.
Due to the scope expansion of this project pushing the current costs beyond the original budget, alternate
bid #1 adding a “water feature” or recirculation system to the flume is not being recommended. Staff also
discussed the possibly negative public perception of adding a water feature in the downtown area during a
time of strict water conservation. The current design of the flume will include piping that will facilitate return
water if a water feature is funded and deemed appropriate at a future date.
Staff has met with and discussed issues with the fronting merchants throughout the development
process. The project and construction schedule was derived using their input. The construction will be
scheduled (pending council approval) to begin as soon as the contract documents can be signed with
substantial completion before the Poppy Festival in late April.
Steger Bizzell Engineering evaluated the bids and are recommending award.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the narrow window for construction and the cancellation of the December GTAB meeting,
staff is asking council to approve the award without GTAB recommendation so the timing of completion will
favor the merchants sales season. This project was budgeted in the Downtown Tax Increment Reinvestment
Zone Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the project and feels the bids support a good value for the work being done and
feels the improvements will be a positive addition on the square.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds were budgeted in the Downtown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone in 2011/12 for this
project. Additional funds from Parks budget were added to address the tree well improvements and tree
replacements. Funds from Stormwater Drainage are also utilized in order to address the unique drainage
issues for the buildings.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Miller - Transportation Services Manager (ljw)
ATTACHMENTS:
Cover Memo
Item # J
Engineers Letter of Recommendation
Bid Tab
Financial Worksheet
Cover Memo
Item # J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
J
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:1CJ 1/8/2013
Division/Department:Director Approval
Prepared By:Laura Wilkins Finance Approval La'Ke01/03/13
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 236,000.00
(Current year only)
Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent
Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual
(A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget
Consulting 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0%
Construction - Base Bid 177,475.00 177,475.00 75%
Other Costs - Alternate Bids 36.00 53,400.00 53,436.00 23%
Total Current Year Costs 36.00 230,911.00
Approved
GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget
293-9-0602-90-004 136,000.00
640-9-0880-90-020 100,000.00
Total Budget 236,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 236,000.00
(includes all previous yrs)
Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total
Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget
Consulting 0.00 0.00 0%
Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0%
Construction 177,475.00 177,475.00 75%
Other Costs 53,436.00 53,436.00 23%
Total Project Costs 0.00 230,911.00 230,911.00
Comments:
Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS)
Austin Avenue Sidewalks - Keyston Construction
CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # J
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City Council approving and adopting
amendments to the bylaws of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -- Bridget Chapman, Acting
City Attorney and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
This resolution is a bylaw change to enable the Planning and Zoning Commission to meet more than one
time each month. Allowing for additional Commission meetings is important to maintain efficient meeting
procedures as future development application workload increases. This change will also prevent unnecessary
delays in the development approval process. In cases where there are no applications requiring Commission
action, staff will not schedule a Commission meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Bylaws
Resolution
Cover Memo
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 1 of 7
BYLAWS
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ARTICLE I. NAME AND PURPOSE
Section 1.1. Name. Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”).
Section 1.2. Purpose.
a. The Commission is established to exercise the powers and duties of a zoning
commission as permitted by law, including Local Government Code Chapter 211,
the City Charter, the City Unified Development Code, and the City Code of
Ordinances, as each may be amended. See Ordinance Chapter 2.48.
b. The Commission has the power, and its duties include:
1. making appropriate surveys, investigations, reports and recommendations
relating to community planning and development to the City Council;
2. making plans and maps of the whole or any part or portion of the City and of
land outside the City located within five miles of the City limits and any other
land outside the City, which, in the opinion of the Commission, bears a
relation to the planning of the City and making changes in, additions to and
extensions of such plans or maps when it deems the same advisable;
3. acting with and assisting all other municipal and governmental agencies, and
particularly the City Council, in formulating and executing proper plans for
municipal development and growth;
4. recommending to the City Council the passage of such ordinances as it may
deem necessary to carry out its program;
5. recommending to the City Council the adoption of a comprehensive
community plan for the guidance and control of the future development of
the community;
6. making studies and recommending to the City Council plans for clearing the
City of slums and blighted areas; and
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 2 of 7
7. aiding and assisting the City Council in the annual preparation of a long
range capital improvement budget and determining sources of funds.
ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP
Section 2.1. Number of Members. The Commission will be comprised of seven (7)
Members.
Section 2.2. Eligibility. Each Member shall be a registered voter eligible to vote in
City elections, reside in the City of Georgetown corporate limits, and have resided in
the City of Georgetown for one year preceding their appointment. The Commission
shall be broadly representative as a whole. Members shall be drawn, for example, from
different residential areas, different racial and ethnic groups, different occupations and
professions and different interest groups.
Section 2.3. Appointment of Commission Members and Commissioners-in-
Training.
a. Members of the Commission shall be appointed pursuant to and in accordance with
the City Charter.
b. The City Council shall also appoint three persons, who would be qualified to serve
on the Commission, as Commissioners-in-Training. Commissioners-in-Training
shall not serve as alternates or as proxies for any Commission Member but shall be
eligible to be appointed to the position of Commission Member upon the expiration
of the term of a regular Commission Member or upon a vacancy on the Commission.
Section 2.4. Terms of Office. Generally, terms of office for each Member shall be two
(2) years. Generally, a Member may serve two (2) consecutive terms. Refer to Ordinance
Section 2.36.030A for additional provisions regarding terms of office.
Section 2.5. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur during a term shall be filled as soon as
reasonably possible and in the same manner as an appointment in accordance with the
City Charter. If possible, the Member shall continue to serve until the vacancy is filled.
An appointment to fill a vacated term is not included as a term for purposes of counting
consecutive terms.
Section 2.6. Compensation and Expenditure of Funds. Members serve without
compensation. The Commission and its Members have no authority to expend funds or
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 3 of 7
to incur or make an obligation on behalf of the City unless authorized and approved by
the City Council. Members may be reimbursed for expenses authorized and approved
by the City Council and the Commission.
Section 2.7. Compliance with City Policy. Members will comply with City
Ordinances, Rules and Policies applicable to the Commission and the Members,
including but not limited to Ethics Ordinance Chapter 2.20 and City Commissions,
Committees and Boards Ordinance Chapter 2.36.
Section 2.8. Removal. Any Member may be removed from their position on the
Commission for any reason, or for no reason, by a majority vote of the City Council.
ARTICLE III. COMMISSION OFFICERS
Section 3.1. Officers. The Commission Officers are Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Secretary. The Chairman is appointed by the City Council during the annual
appointment process. The other Commission Officers are elected by a majority vote of
the Members at the first meeting after the annual appointment process.
Section 3.2. Terms of Office for Commission Officers. Commission Officers serve for
a term of one year. In the event of vacancy in the office of Chairman, the Vice-
Chairman shall serve as Chairman until the City Council appoints a replacement
Chairman. A vacancy in the other offices shall be elected by majority vote of the
Members at the next regularly scheduled meeting, or as soon as reasonably practical for
the unexpired term. If possible, a Commission Officer shall continue to serve until the
vacancy is filled.
Section 3.3. Duties.
a. The Chairman presides at Commission meetings. The Chairman shall generally
manage the business of the Commission. The Chairman shall perform the duties
delegated to the Chairman by the Commission.
b. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties delegated to the Vice-Chairman by the
Commission. The Vice-Chairman presides at Commission meetings in the
Chairman’s absence. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman
in the Chairman’s absence or disability.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 4 of 7
c. The Secretary shall perform the duties delegated to the Secretary by the
Commission.
ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS
Section 4.1. Time and Date of Regular Meeting. The Commission shall meet at least
once a month on the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same
time, and at the same place. The regular date, time and place of the Commission
meeting will be decided by the Members at the first meeting of the Commission after
the annual appointment process. One additional meeting per month may be called with
consent of the Commission and at the direction of the Planning Director, as needed.
Section 4.2. Agenda. Items may be placed on the agenda by the Chairman, the City
Manager or designee, or at the request of a Member. The party (or individual)
requesting the agenda item will be responsible for preparing an agenda item cover
sheet and for the initial presentation at the meeting. Items included on the agenda must
be submitted to the Staff Liaison no later than one week before the Commission meeting
at which the agenda item will be considered. Agenda packets for regular meetings will
be provided to the Members in advance of the scheduled Commission meeting.
Agenda packets will contain the posted agenda, agenda item cover sheets, and written
minutes of the last meeting.
Section 4.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman or by
request of three (3) Members.
Section 4.4. Quorum. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Members. A
quorum is required for the Commission to convene a meeting and to conduct business
at a meeting.
Section 4.5. Call to Order. Commission meetings will be called to order by the
Chairman or, if absent, by the Vice-Chairman. In the absence of both the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, the meeting shall be called to order by the Secretary, and a temporary
Chairman shall be elected to preside over the meeting.
Section 4.6. Conduct of Meeting. Commission meetings will be conducted in
accordance with these Bylaws and City Council Meeting Rules and Procedures, as
applicable to the Commission. See Ordinance Chapter 2.24.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 5 of 7
Section 4.7. Voting. Each Member shall vote on all agenda items, except on matters
involving a conflict of interest, substantial financial interest or substantial economic
interest under state law, the City’s Ethics Ordinance, or other applicable Laws, Rules
and Policies. In such instances the Member shall make the required disclosures and
shall refrain from participating in both the discussion and vote on the matter. The
Member may remain at the dais or leave the dais, at the Member’s option, while the
matter is being considered and voted on by the other Commission Members. Unless
otherwise provided by law, if a quorum is present, an agenda item must be approved
by a majority of the Commission Members present at the meeting.
Section 4.8. Minutes. A recording or written minutes shall be made of all open
sessions of Commission meetings. The Staff Liaison is the custodian of all Commission
records and documents.
Section 4.9. Attendance. Members are required to attend Commission meetings
prepared to discuss the issues on the agenda. A Member shall notify the Chairman and
the Staff Liaison if the Member is unable to attend a meeting. Excessive absenteeism
will be subject to action under Council policy and may result in the Member being
replaced on the Commission. See Ordinance Section 2.36.010D. Excessive absenteeism
means failure to attend at least 75% of regularly scheduled meetings, including
Commission meetings and Subcommittee meetings. If a Member is removed from the
Commission that position shall be considered vacant and a new Member shall be
appointed to the Commission in accordance with Section 2.5 above.
Section 4.10. Public Participation. In accordance with City policy, the public is
welcome and invited to attend Commission meetings and to speak on any item on the
agenda. A person wishing to address the Commission must sign up to speak in
accordance with the policy of the Council concerning participation and general public
comment at public meetings. Sign-up sheets will be available and should be submitted
to the Chairman prior to the start of the meeting. If any written materials are to be
provided to the Commission, a copy shall also be provided to the Staff Liaison for
inclusion in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers shall be allowed a maximum of three
minutes to speak, but may take up to six minutes if another individual who signs up to
speak yields the time to the speaker. If a person wishes to speak on an issue that is not
posted on the agenda, they must file a written request with the Staff Liaison no later
than one week before the scheduled meeting. The written request must state the
specific topic to be addressed and include sufficient information to inform the
Commission and the public. A person who disrupts the meeting may be asked to leave
and be removed.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 6 of 7
Section 4.11. Open Meetings. Public notice of Commission meetings shall be provided
in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. All Commission
meetings and deliberations shall be open to the public, except for properly noticed
closed session matters, and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
Section 4.12. Closed Sessions. The Commission may conduct closed sessions as
allowed by law, on properly noticed closed session matters, such as consultation with
attorney on legal matters, deliberation regarding the value of real property, competitive
utility matters, and economic development negotiations. A recording or certified
agenda shall be made of all closed sessions of Commission meetings.
ARTICLE V. REPORTS TO CITY COUNCIL
The Commission shall meet with City Council, as requested, to determine how the
Commission may best serve and assist City Council. City Council shall hear reports
from the Commission at regularly scheduled Council meetings.
ARTICLE VI. SUBCOMMITTEES
Section 6.1. Formation. When deemed necessary by a majority of the Commission,
Subcommittees may be formed for specific projects related to Commission matters.
Subcommittees comprised of non-Members may only be formed with the prior consent
and confirmation of the City Council.
Section 6.2. Expenditure of Funds. No Subcommittee, or member of a Subcommittee,
has the authority to expend funds or incur an obligation on behalf of the City or the
Commission. Subcommittee expenses may be reimbursed if authorized and approved
by the Commission or by City Council.
Section 6.3. Open Meetings. Subcommittee meetings and deliberations shall be open
to the public, except for properly noticed closed session matters, and shall be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
ARTICLE VII. BYLAW AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Commission Members at any
regular meeting of the Commission. The Commission’s proposed amendments to the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # K
Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws
Revised May 2011
Page 7 of 7
Bylaws must be approved by City Council at the next Council meeting after the
Commission’s approval. Bylaw amendments are not effective until approved by City
Council.
Approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the _____ day of
____________________, 20__.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
_____ _____
City Secretary Mayor
Approved and adopted at a meeting of the Commission on the ______ day of
_________________, 20____.
ATTEST: COMMISSION
_____ _____
Commission Secretary Commission Chairman
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # K
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF THE CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to make certain amendments to the Bylaws of
the City Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the attached Bylaws have been amended to clarify the meeting dates and schedule
for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION ONE. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
SECTION TWO. The Bylaws attached as Exhibit A are hereby approved and adopted by the
City Council.
SECTION THREE. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary
to attest.
SECTION FOUR. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the _____ day of __________, 2012.
ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
______________________________ By: _____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # K
___________________________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # K
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution supporting the addition of lettering “Home of
Southwestern University” on all of the City’s gateway Monument Signs -- George Garver, Mayor and
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Mayor recommends that Council consider putting "Home of Southwestern University”on all of our
monument signs, includingthe large one on I-35 and Westinghouse Road. We currently have “Home of
Southwestern University” on the smaller monument sign on the east side of Highway 29 which is located on
Southwestern property.
With the retirement of President Jake Schrum, this action would memorialize his work and efforts, as well as
further recognizing the importance of Southwestern University’s presence in our community.
Thereis the possibility that TXDOT may be sensitive to any signs that are in their rights-of-way that
“market” or “advertise”. Staff is following up with local TXDOT officials to verify whether we can add
“Home of Southwestern University” to the Westinghouse/I-35 monument sign, and if so, we will ensure
compliance with their approval process. Furthermore, the way that this particular sign was constructed and
illuminated, the additional wording will not be visible at night.
The Mayor and staff respectfully requests that Council consider approval of a Resolution supporting the
addition of lettering “Home of Southwestern University” on all of its monument signs, including the one
located at Westinghouse and IH-35 contingent upon TXDOT approval if it is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Graphics
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Cost Estimates:
IH-35 and Westinghouse Road $3,098.99
D.B. Wood Road and Highway 29 on the Church of Christ Campus $2,706.00
South Inner Loop and South Austin Avenue across I-35 from Inner Caverns $2,706.00
$8,510.99
Cover Memo
Item # L
If approved by the City Council, funding is available in the Council’s Contingency Account.
SUBMITTED BY:
George Garver, Mayor and Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution
IH-35/Westinghouse Monument Sign Proof
Night Illumination - IH-35/Westinghouse - Monument Sign
Monument Sign - East Hwy 29
Cover Memo
Item # L
Resolution No. Page 1 of 2
Monument Sign—Southwestern University
Date Approved
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS SUPPORTING THE ADDITION OF LETTERING
“HOME OF SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY” ON ALL OF THE CITY
GATEWAY MONUMENT SIGNS.
WHEREAS, “Home of Southwestern University” is included on the City monument sign
located on Southwestern University property on the east side of Highway 29; and
WHEREAS, it has been requested that the City consider adding “Home of Southwestern
University” on the other City gateway monument signs located at:
I-35 and Westinghouse Road;
D.B. Wood Road and Highway 29 on the Church of Christ Campus; and
South Inner Loop and South Austin Avenue across I-35 from Inner Caverns.
WHEREAS, with the retirement of President Jake Schrum, this action would memorialize his
efforts, as well as further recognizing the importance of Southwestern University’s presence in
our community; and
WHEREAS, since the monument sign at I-35 and Westinghouse Road is located on Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) right-of-way, City Staff has contacted TxDOT to ensure
compliance with its approval process for modifications to that monument sign; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports adding “Home of Southwestern University” on all City
gateway monument signs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION ONE. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
SECTION TWO. The City Council hereby supports the addition of “Home of Southwestern
University” on the City gateway monument signs located at Westinghouse Road and IH-35, D.B.
Wood Road and Highway 29, and South Inner Loop and South Austin Avenue.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # L
Resolution No. Page 2 of 2
Monument Sign—Southwestern University
Date Approved
SECTION THREE. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary
to attest.
SECTION FOUR. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the _____ day of __________, 2013.
ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
______________________________ By: _____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
L
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
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
- LCRA Update
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # M
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 8, 2013
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property
-1460 Inner Loop Right of Way
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # N