The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 12.11.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the City of Georgetown, Texas December 11 , 20 18 The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on December 11, 2018 at 3:00 P M at Council Chambers - 101 East 7th Street The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930- 3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay Texas at 7 11. REVISE D AGENDA Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A Prese ntation and discussion of the City’s 2 03 0 Comprehensive Plan Goal Develo pment P rocess - - Sofia Nelso n, P lanning Director B Update and discussion regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amended and Re stated Co nsent Agreement and the Amended and Restated Develo pment Agreement. -- Wayne Re e d, Assistant City Manager C Prese ntation and discussion of the FY2 01 9 CIP Roll Forward and Ope ratio nal Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager D Update o f the use agreement for Grac e Heritage Center with Prese rvation Geo rgetown -- Laurie Bre wer, Assistant City Manager E Prese ntation and discussion on the Ce rtificate of Appropriateness deve lo pment process -- Sofia Nelso n, P lanning Director Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes, Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular se ssio n. F Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items Sec. 5 51 .072: Del i berati ons about Real Prope r ty - No rthwest Blvd, Parcel 3 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Rivery Blvd, Parcel 15 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manage r - Rivery Blvd, Parcel 16 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manage r - Do wntown Buildings Sales Update Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the Page 1 of 175 appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal - City Secretary Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the s cheduled time of s aid meeting. __________________________________ Shelley No wling, City S ecretary Page 2 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Goal Development P rocess -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director ITEM SUMMARY: Purpose of P rese ntati o n: The purpose of this wo rksho p is to provide the Council an overview of land use and develo pment patterns which have occurred sinc e the last goal setting pro c e ss with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff will review the current 2008 Land Use Goals, the 2 01 7 Vision Statement and the public input collected for the 2030 Update. B ackground: Key to the formation of the 2030 o f the Land Use Goals (in the 2008) was the development of supporting policies. Staff will not provide an in depth review of those polic ies but has included them as an attachment to this report. Presentati on Agenda: Staff will share with the Council an outline of the pro c e ss for reviewing goals at the jo int session with Planning and Zoning o n 1/10 /2019 and se ek critical feedback o n existing and emerging the mes and goals; as generally outlined in four (4) parts below. •Part 1: What has changed since adoption of the 20 30 P lan? •Part 2: Vision and goals. •Part 3: Pro c e ss for updating 2008 Land Use go als •Part 4: Dire c tion fro m City Council Requested Fee dbac k: Staff is seeking the fo llowing feedback from the Co uncil: Doe s the City Council support the appro ach to amending/updating the 20 08 Land Use goals? See k c ritical feedback on existing compre hensive plan goals. •Are there specific goals that sho uld be retained? •Are there specific goals that sho uld be removed? •Given changes since the co mprehensive plan was complete d and as a result of 2018 public o utreach efforts are there themes that are missing in the current goals? FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description 2030 Plan Go als and P o licies P ublic Inp ut Report wo rksho p pres entation Page 3 of 175 LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS OVERVIEW For decades, Georgetown’s pattern of land use has evolved based on a myriad of zoning, development, and annexation actions. These actions have often been triggered by individual private development initiatives, which, in turn, are often triggered by new roads, schools, high- ways, and other factors that influence development marketability and property values. Historically in Georgetown, actions on annexations and extensions of water and wastewater service have typically been taken to gain control over land use and development through zoning—an influence that the City cannot otherwise exercise within its ETJ. This response has led the City in recent years to annex a sizeable land area, which is likely to be considerably greater than is needed to meet the city’s growth needs through the 20-year horizon of the comprehensive plan. Another result of past incremental annexation decisions are the many existing pockets of low density, underserved areas of the unincorporated county, which remain as isolated “islands” surrounded by the city. Thus, a major initiative in this Land Use Element is for the City of Georgetown to become more proactive in purposefully guiding and consolidating growth patterns, through regu- latory powers, decisions on infrastructure investments, and annexations, so as to ensure sustain- able, long-term growth opportunities. Projected to accommodate several decades of “growing room,” this area represents an essential resource to sustain the city’s long-term growth. Vulnerable as it is to the many adverse impacts of sprawl and fragmentation, development in this area should be carefully planned, managed, and staged over time. Most developed areas of Georgetown can be expected to remain stable over time, with little change in land use. These areas will simply require protection from any impacts that could act as de-stabilizing influences, such as commercial intrusions or impacts of major highway construction. However, in other areas of the city—particularly in downtown, older neighborhoods, and along major highway corridors such as Williams Drive—land use change can be expected to occur through economic obsolescence and through infill, redevelopment, and revitalization. These repre- sent opportunities to incorporate a more diverse array of development types such as mixed-use, as well as housing types that appeal to a greater variety of households. The following excerpts from the Vision Statement form the basis and the starting point for the development of the land use goals and policies proposed in the next section of this document. Quality of Life Community Character We have retained our unique identity and heritage by protecting the historic character of  downtown and our older neighborhoods. We have raised the bar for development quality by encouraging innovation among forms  of development that maintain and enhance community character and that conserve land and natural resources, consistent with market demand. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.53Page 4 of 175 Quality Growth/Sustainable Development Th roughout Georgetown we have... Attracted desired forms of balanced development, creating quality urban, suburban, and  rural places that offer a choice of setting and lifestyle; Encouraged residential developments that are well-connected to the larger community,  planned and designed to compliment the heritage and natural character of Georgetown and offer a variety of housing types and price ranges; Encouraged sound, compact, quality growth, including pedestrian-friendly development  patterns that incorporate mixed-uses, a variety of densities, and resource conservation while accommodating public transportation, alternative fuel vehicles, biking, and walking as convenient substitutes for automobile use; Reserved well-planned and well-located sites for future employment centers, sufficient  to meet our long range need for economic diversification and suitable to attract desired “clean” businesses; and Maintained the quality and diversity of our housing stock in all our neighborhoods,  which are framed by safe, attractive streets. In downtown Georgetown and our older neighborhoods we have… Supported home-grown businesses and planned for an optimal mix of businesses,  services, retail, and entertainment suited to the scale and historic charm of downtown; and Promoted downtown and in-town housing including infill, mixed-use and the creation  of apartments and lofts over retail and offices. Along our major highway corridors we have… Promoted development compatible with safe, efficient traffic circulation through sound  standards for access management, limited installation of curb cuts, and parking facility connectivity; Selectively determined appropriate locations and applied design standards for large  commercial developments and other high traffic generating uses; Set high design standards for all commercial development and signage; and  Encouraged mixed-use, clustered and “village center” development types as alternatives  to conventional strip center and stand-alone “pad” sites. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.54 Page 5 of 175 In our suburban fringe we have… Exercised influence to prevent premature and incompatible development;  Encouraged the staged, orderly expansion of contiguous development to coincide with  the expansion of roads and infrastructure; Encouraged conservation development and other approaches that retain rural character  and promote retention of open space; Provided for the city’s long-range growth with strategically timed annexations; and  Consolidated development patterns within the city limits, where feasible, through judi-  cious annexation and capital investments. Balanced Transportation/Efﬁ cient Mobility Georgetown has reduced its reliance on conventional fuels and automotive traffic by  promoting alternative fuel vehicles; retrofitting streets with bike lanes and sidewalks in underserved areas to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility; incorporating these facilities in new developments; and encouraging compact mixed-use and other types of “walk-able” development; and Georgetown has carefully located employment and commercial centers, schools, and  other high-traffic generators. Effective Governance We have created and enforced innovative, effective and fair regulatory codes and  development standards to guide growth and improve development quality. We have streamlined the regulatory process, particularly for desired development types and loca- tions; and The City has coordinated with the Georgetown Independent School District for the  appropriate siting and timing of new school construction, consistent with the City’s growth management strategy. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.55Page 6 of 175 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.56 Page 7 of 175 GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policies and Actions 1.A. Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying den- sities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural devel- opment. Adjust zoning provisions to provide greater flexibility for mixed-uses, multiple housing 1. types, compact development, and redevelopment. Reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long-term commercial and employment uses 2. and prevent its use for residential subdivisions. 1.B. Promote more compact, higher density development (e.g., traditional neighborhoods, Transit-Oriented Development, mixed-use, and walkable neighborhoods) within appropri- ate infill locations. Establish guidelines and incentives for infill locations, including:1. Mixed residential uses and mixed-use where appropriate.  Connected, pedestrian-oriented streets.  Conditions for edge treatment (buffers, connectivity, compatibility).  Flexible requirements such as dimensional criteria, impervious coverage, and  parking to address local contexts. Provide density and intensity bonuses for the provision of housing and commercial 2. components of mixed-use developments with specific reference to dwelling types (student housing, elderly, etc.), and additional bonus provisions for affordable housing (as defined by the City of Georgetown). Coordinate infrastructure investment policies to ensure that they are consistent with 3. land uses that encourage compact development. 1.C. Establish standards appropriate for new residential development pertaining to lot sizes, open space, buffers, road connectivity, etc. Adjust development standards to address minimum requirements for open space and 1. protection of natural features; park, school, and transit hub site reservations; landscap- ing and street design; and subdivision connectivity and accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, while providing greater flexibility for the provision and integration of multiple housing types and densities. Continue to promote and apply conservation development principles to the design of 2. residential subdivisions in specifically designated areas. Goal 1 Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well-integrated trans- portation, public facilities, and open space amenities. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.57Page 8 of 175 1.D. Establish improved standards for commercial development. Prepare land use and zoning provisions to 1. discourage standard commercial “strip” development and encourage compact commercial and mixed-use centers at appro- priate locations. Prepare guidelines and design standards to improve the character of commercial 2. development. Identify highway corridors for the preparation and application of corridor design and 3. access management standards. Develop and apply standards for the location and design of “mid-box” and “big box” 4. retail centers to improve their aesthetics, maintain appropriate commercial scale and provide for their future adaptive re-use. 1.E. Expand regulatory provisions and incentives to encourage innovative forms of compact, pedestrian friendly development (mixed-use, traditional neighborhood design), and a wider array of affordable housing choices. Establish standards for and actively promote new forms of compact development to 1. include Transit-Oriented Development, as well as traditional neighborhood develop- ment (TND), mixed-use, and pedestrian-scale development. Provide2. density and intensity bonuses for the provision of housing and commercial components of mixed-use developments with specific reference to dwelling types (student housing, elderly, etc.), and additional bonus provisions for affordable housing, as defined by the City of Georgetown. Promote mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly 3. land use patterns, including community activity centers, neighborhood activity centers, conservation subdivisions, and walk- able neighborhoods: Promote development of community activity centers with complementary  mixed uses (e.g., neighborhood-oriented retail, higher density residential, schools, and other community facilities). Encourage neighborhood centers and walkable neighborhoods with devel-  opment patterns that replicate the scale and character of Georgetown’s traditional neighborhoods (compact development, interconnected streets, sidewalks, etc.). Encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street  network, safe pedestrian routes, and healthy, active living. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.58 Page 9 of 175 Narrative: While the city’s predominant single-family neighborhoods are a valuable resource that should be protected, the City should take every opportunity to encourage the introduction of new, more compact forms of development. Such opportunities include the introduction of higher density housing at appropriate locations, and smaller-unit housing types to meet the needs of a diversifying population, as well as for housing affordability. National demographic trends indicate that, at present, only 33% of all households include two parents and one or more children, a ﬁ gure that will decline further to 27% by 2030. Conversely, the number of single adult households will increase from 26% at present to 29% by 2030. At the same time, U.S. Census data indicates that between 1990 and 2000, certain sectors of the City of Georgetown—in particular those south and east of I-35—experienced signiﬁ cant growth in the number of younger families with children, with corresponding implications for housing types, sizes, and densities. The identiﬁ ed policies and actions will create new incentives for a more diverse array of housing choices, and will expand opportunities for inﬁ ll development beyond what is possible under conventional zoning, which tends to separate uses and limit ﬂ exibility in development siting. In addition, the “bonus” provisions proposed by Policy 1B.2 provide a tangible economic motivation to introduce mixed-use, affordable housing, and other needed development types. While these guidelines and provisions for ﬂ exibility are necessary, they are not sufﬁ cient to fulﬁ ll the promise of greater inﬁ ll investment and the introduction of higher densities. Many existing neighborhoods will tend to fear or resist the introduction of such new uses and may perceive them as threats to neighborhood stability. While some of these concerns may be misplaced, they must be addressed by carefully examining how and where such uses can be introduced in a compatible manner within neighborhoods and transitional areas, areas of blight, and along roadway corridors. Because compatibility must be evaluated based on site speciﬁ c investigation, more detailed neighborhood, corridor and sector plans will be needed to identify speciﬁ c inﬁ ll opportunities and create design criteria such as buffers that will ensure compatibility in particular circumstances. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.59Page 10 of 175 Policies/Actions 2.A. Remove present inadvertent impediments to infill and re-investment in older, developed areas. Establish criteria that define the characteristics of desirable infill development (e.g., 1. compatibility with adjoining uses). Revise zoning/development codes, the permitting process, and other applicable City 2. policies by identifying and removing impediments to infill, adaptive re-use, historic preservation and redevelopment, including: Application of creative code provisions to remove impediments in building/  zoning codes to reuse older buildings while retaining their historic character. Overlay districts (where specific requirements could be modified to allow  established character to be maintained; e.g., buildings pulled up to the street, credit for on-street/shared parking, etc.). Coordinated City departmental policies regarding infill (e.g., adjusting  requirements for stormwater, water/wastewater, and other policies/regula- tions when they affect the ability to develop infill sites). Adjust the City’s schedule of development fees (e.g., development review fees and costs 3. to upgrade infrastructure) to lessen financial burdens on investments in designated areas and more accurately reflect the different costs of providing services in developed areas (where infrastructure is available), suburban areas, and fringe areas (where costly infrastructure extensions are necessary). Narrative: The City’s code requirements were established and applied well after much of the older portions of Georgetown were originally developed. Due to constrained site and building conditions, some potential inﬁ ll sites may not meet current regulatory requirements (e.g., parking, setbacks, impervious coverage, and stormwater standards), which are suited to more ﬂ exible suburban conditions. Policies 2A.1 to 2A.3 seek to minimize or eliminate present unintended disincentives for re-investment in inﬁ ll and redevelopment throughout Georgetown’s urban areas. This necessitates ﬁ rst identifying speciﬁ c types of inﬁ ll development that are compatible and desired. Once this is accomplished, the UDC must then be revised to remove unnecessary or inadvertent impediments, or to waive such requirements in designated urban areas. Goal 2 Promote sound investment in Georgetown’s older developed areas, includ- ing downtown, aging commercial and industrial areas, in-town neighbor- hoods, and other areas expected to experience land use change or obsolescence. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.60 Page 11 of 175 2.B. Target capital investments to leverage private investment in designated areas. Conduct 1. community-wide public facility assessments to identify and prioritize corrections to deficiencies in infrastructure, including local streets and sidewalks, and other public facilities, including parks and recreation facilities. Through the City’s Capital Improvement Program,2. prioritize short and long-range capital investments in designated urban areas, including, but not limited to utility replacements, capacity improvements, area-wide stormwater systems, street improve- ments, etc. Identify 3. revitalization corridors for capital improvements (e.g., streetscape/landscap- ing, utility upgrades, etc.). 2.C. Identify potential opportunities and selectively target, plan, and promote development/re- use initiatives. Conduct a city-wide inventory of potential infill/reuse sites, including historic sites/1. buildings suitable for adaptive reuse. Based upon the city-wide inventory, as well as on neighborhood, corridor, and down-2. town planning initiatives, identify site-specific development target areas and sites. Take direct action to initiate and support 3. private investment , including land assembly (via voluntary sale and purchase) and clearance, developer solicitation and selection, and construction of capital improvements. Encourage use of financial incentives for reinvestment in 4. historic and/or abandoned properties. Provide incentives for the reintroduction of 5. neighborhood businesses and services into older neighborhoods (e.g., assistance with market studies, site assembly, environ- mental clearances, business capital investment, employee training, etc.). In coordination with other local governments, pursue 6. state legislative initiatives to make additional financial tools available for redevelopment (e.g., tax increment financ- ing, tax abatements, differential development fee schedules, etc.). Narrative: Although the removal of regulatory and other constraints are necessary to promote inﬁ ll and redevelopment, it may be insufﬁ cient to achieve the desired levels of re-investment. Policies 2B.1 to 2B.3 move the City’s posture beyond a “regulatory” mode and into a proactive position by targeting direct investments in capital improvements as catalysts for private investment. These policies call for a comprehensive assessment of the City’s facilities and infrastructure and a targeted assignment of priorities for capital improvements based, in part, on opportunities to leverage private investment. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.61Page 12 of 175 2.D. Continue to promote diversification and strengthening of downtown Georgetown and its in-town historic neighborhoods. Maintain a proactive program of City initiatives to promote downtown development 1. through: Capital investments to streets, streetscapes, infrastructure, and parking.  Establishment of site-specific downtown redevelopment and reinvestment  areas. Use of existing City powers (eminent domain, land assembly, bonding, etc.)  to execute designated redevelopment projects. Additional cultural, civic, and entertainment initiatives.  Actively support private initiatives consistent with the City’s policies to promote 2. downtown investment by: Creating density bonuses and other incentives for mixed-use, downtown  housing, and the creation of new centers of activity in downtown (employ- ment, specialty retail, entertainment, dining, etc.). Adjusting capital improvement programs to target streets, infrastructure,  and parking as necessary to promote and support desired private investment. Ensure that public and private initiatives preserve and enhance historic downtown 3. resources. Narrative: While preceding policies address removing impediments and creating incentives for private inﬁ ll initiatives, Policies 2C. 1 to 2C.6 place the City in a proactive position in actually targeting and carrying out redevelopment and inﬁ ll projects through partnerships with the private sector. Opportunities for such direct City action in targeted redevelopment areas fall into three broad categories. One category includes sizeable areas of the city where obsolescence—coupled with fragmented property ownership and potential brownﬁ eld contamination—may present too many obstacles for the private sector to address without City assistance. Such areas will include older industrial areas, as well as obsolete commercial “strips.” A second type may include a major civic facility (for example, a ballpark, arena, or performing arts center) for which no suitable site exists. This would necessitate action by the City in assembling and preparing such a site in partnership with a private or non-proﬁ t development entity. A third category pertains to the emergence of new patterns of obsolescence, which may surface in suburban locations. Of particular concern is the long term viability of “big box” commercial centers that could succumb to ever-changing consumer patterns and preferences. In these circumstances, the City should be prepared to intervene by preparing small area or “focal” plans and various implementing actions to rebuild and reuse these sites for higher value uses. Similarly, the City should apply development standards to properly locate such developments and to inﬂ uence their design to improve their aesthetics and provide for their adaptation to other uses. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.62 Page 13 of 175 Policies/Actions 3.A. Initiate a fringe area growth management framework comprising the following elements. Establish a tiered growth framework, as follows:1. TIER 1 (Short Term Growth Area – 10 Years): Tier 1A : Area within the current city limits where infrastructure systems are in place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where consolida- tion of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years. Tier 1B:  Area within the present city limits that were recently annexed or subject to development agreements, which are presently underserved by infrastructure. Tier 1B will require the provision of public facilities to meet the city’s growth needs as Tier 1A approaches build-out, over the next 10 years. TIER 2 (Intermediate Growth Area - 10-20 Years): Tier 2:  Area within the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are anticipated beyond the next 10 years and where premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inef- ficient development is discouraged by the City. TIER 3 (Long-Term Growth Area – Beyond 20 Years): Tier 3: Area within the ETJ where growth, annexation, and the extension of public facilities are anticipated beyond 20 years, and premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inef- ficient development is discouraged by the City. 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 effi- cient provision of public services and facilities as the city expands. Narrative: Comparable to Policies 2C.1 to 2C.6, these policies situate the City in a more proactive stance to promote its vision of downtown—one in which new development and re-investment are actively pursued to strengthen and diversify the land use and activity mix of downtown. The City will continue to be supportive of, and responsive to private initiatives through incentives, public parking, and capital improvements. In addition, these policies call for the City to develop its own “action agenda” for downtown, including the identiﬁ cation of redevelopment areas and plans for area-wide improvements to streets, parking, and urban design amenities. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.63Page 14 of 175 Define specific criteria for water and wastewater extensions and annexations, to 2. include: Contiguity with development patterns and present city limits.  Location within appropriate growth area.  Availability of infrastructure capacity.  Consistency with City development standards.  Fiscal impact assessment and mechanisms for the allocation of public facility  costs through a capital recovery fee. Future annexations shall avoid the creation of additional unincorporated  pockets. Narrative: Georgetown is expected to grow by an estimated 100,000 people during the next 20 years. Under current policies, a signiﬁ cant share of this growth would likely occur in areas—both within and outside the present city boundary—that are not currently (or only partially) served by infrastructure and community facilities. Growth tiers are the areas where development, annexation, and extension of public facilities will be staged over the 20+ year horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the tiered growth concept area is threefold: * To promote contiguous, compact and incremental expansion of the city’s edge. * To avoid excessive public expenditure on new facilities and services associated with fragmented, leapfrog development patterns. * To protect land that the city will need to sustain its long-term growth from premature development. Although growth areas located outside the present city limits remain largely outside of City regulatory authority until annexation occurs, their designation as a growth area for the city helps communicate Georgetown’s intent and policies governing the locations, patterns, and types of uses for which requests for water and wastewater extensions and annexations are likely to be approved. The tiered growth system does not stop growth or prohibit development in the outer tiers during the initial 10-year timeframe. Instead, the strategy endeavors to inﬂ uence the timing, location, and pattern of growth, slowing it when necessary to prevent overload of public facilities and services, or shifting it to locations where the City is best able to serve it in a manner that is ﬁ scally sustainable. It also transfers some of the cost burden to serve new growth from existing taxpayers, making new development “pay for itself” to a greater extent than it does at present. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.64 Page 15 of 175 Establish a proactive plan to provide infrastructure (water, wastewater, roads, etc.) in 3. advance of development (to provide City infrastructure where development is desired, with the developer bearing the responsibility of providing adequate infrastructure outside of transitional growth areas). Consider development of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to provide for the 4. timing of development concurrent with the availability of adequate road and public facility capacity. 3.B. Establish criteria, targets and timetables for the annexation of unincorporated “pockets” into the city. Criteria may include: Location within appropriate growth area.  Availability of infrastructure capacity.  Annexation timing so that infrastructure availability is concurrent with need.  Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit.  Compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies.  Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation.  Mechanism in place to relieve fiscal burdens on the City and its taxpayers through (self-  pay) tools such as special taxing districts. Narrative: Although the Tiered Growth concept provides a rational framework for staging fringe area development and annexations, the City is under no obligation to accept any or all development in Tiers 2 and 3. This policy encourages the City to carefully examine each development application, based on consistency with land use policies and careful assessment of impacts, public costs to be incurred, and the revenues that will accrue to offset those costs. As noted previously, public costs incurred to support fringe area “green-ﬁ eld” development are often of an order of magnitude greater than that for comparable inﬁ ll development, where all or most public facilities and services are already in place. Policy options to address this issue include the creation of a “capital recovery fee” to more equitably assign costs, as well as an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which would only permit development that can be accommodated at a given time, without imposing unacceptable impacts on road or public facility capacity. These policies are not intended to suggest that ﬁ scal assessment and a capital recovery fee should be applied so as to allow only those developments that fully “pay their own way.” However, such tools will allow both citizens and elected ofﬁ cials to make decisions based on a thorough knowledge of their ﬁ scal consequences. Chapter 3. - Land Use Element 3.65Page 16 of 175 Policies / Actions 4.A. Minimize impacts and encroachments of incompatible land uses (e.g., commercial intru- sions into healthy residential neighborhoods). 4.B. Revise the UDC to ensure development that is compatible in character with the surround- ing context. 4.C. Develop and apply neighborhood conservation strategies, such as code enforcement, hous- ing rehabilitation, and support for urban homesteading for first time buyers. 4.D. Revise the UDC to ensure proper transitions and buffering between established neighbor- hoods and adjacent commercial and manufacturing areas. Goal 4 Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas, etc.). Narrative: Within the present city limits are signiﬁ cant “pockets” of unincorporated land, some in the heart of the city. Rationalizing the city map is not however, the reason for annexing these “islands.” Land development and building standards in effect in these areas are different than those applied within the city limits. Unincorporated areas also pose special service delivery and governance problems. In most cases, the County is not able to keep up with the service demands of these areas, whose residents often have urban expectations. As unincorporated communities continue to develop, the standard of living may decline, leading to deteriorating housing, limited public services, and crime. On the other hand, with annexation the City becomes responsible for providing public services to these residents. While it is likely that many City services already are being used by nonresidents who live in unincorporated pockets of land within the city boundaries, the ﬁ scal implications of assuming this responsibility must be fully understood. Narrative: While much of the city is developed with stable neighborhoods and commercial areas, the emergence of obsolescence in some older industrial uses and shopping centers will lead to market- driven redevelopment. This set of policies/actions will ensure that as such redevelopment occurs in a manner that minimizes any adverse impacts on nearby stable neighborhoods and commercial uses. City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3.66 Page 17 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 1 INPUT REPORT This Input Report highlights the most common recurring comments and concerns expressed by the community during the goal setting phase of the 2030 Update through two community wide events. Additional input related to housing, gateways and growth scenarios will be considered later in the comprehensive planning process. The first event, “On the Table”, was held October 2, 2018 and the 2nd event was an online survey open from July to October 2018. Seven distinct themes have emerged from the input, which will be used to guide the development of the 2030 Plan Update . Those themes that address issues not being updated in this effort will be considered during future element updates.  Maintain the family-oriented, small-town feel  Continue to encourage high-quality development  Enhance citizen participation and engagement  Focus on housing and affordability  Enhance economic development opportunities  Maintain and add to the existing quality parks and recreation  Improve and diversify the transportation network OUTREACH EFFORTS At the beginning of the Update, a Public Engagement Plan was adopted which outlines goals, strategies and opportunities for the community to be involved with the Update. The On the Table Georgetown and an online survey were developed to meet the following goals of the Public Engagement Plan:  Provide participation opportunities where people are already gathered  Maximize existing networks  Facilitate as much meaningful input as possible  Gain representative participation  Remove/lower barriers to participation The flexible format of On the Table Georgetown allowed existing networks to facilitate their own discussions about the future of Georgetown. The online survey allowed the city to gain representative participation from each zip code in the planning area. Both opportunities lowered barriers to participation by allowing residents to take the survey at their convenience or host a discussion at their own homes or place of business. The next section of the report provides details of each input opportunity, the input received and the methods used to analyze the input and develop themes. INPUT REPORT Page 18 of 175 INPUT REPORT 12/5/2018 draft 2 “ON THE TABLE” EVENT AND INPUT OVERVIEW The City of Georgetown reviewed best practices for public engagement and implemented the “On the Table” community engagement strategy created by The Chicago Community Trust1, a nonprofit organization that has worked to increase meaningful civic engagement. Instead of one traditional public meeting hosted by the City, the On the Table model allows participants to host discussions at their own home or office with friends, family, coworkers, neighborhoods, church members, or other groups of approximately 8 to 12 people, and report the information back to the City via photo, email or drop-off. The small group discussions were intended to occur all on the same day, throughout the city for a citywide public engagement day. The City hosted the citywide Engagement Day on Tuesday, October 2, 2018, which coincided with National Night Out. While community members were encouraged to participate in the exercise during that day, the toolkits were also available for input through October. To maximize existing networks, the City partnered with six key community groups:  Georgetown Independent School District  Chamber of Commerce  Southeast Georgetown Community Council  Southwestern University  Georgetown Ministerial Alliance  Georgetown Health Foundation. A representative from each organization met in the months before the event to plan and reached out to their members to promote event participation. Each organization acted as a “Super Host” by offering meeting space to the public for discussions at certain times throughout the day at various locations. Residents were able to register to participate on the 2030 Plan Update website, which listed the times and locations of discussions open to the public. A promotional video was made and posted to the City’s social media sites. Neighborhood representatives who signed up for National Night Out were contacted and offered information about the event. Planning staff spoke at several civic group meetings and provided details about the input opportunity. A training was held a week before the event on September 26, 2018 for any resident to get more information and for registered groups to pick up discussion materials. 1 More information about the development of the initiative at: http://onthetable.com/, Reports available from research partner University of Illinois at Chicago’s Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement at: http://2017.onthetablereport.com/ Page 19 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 3 “Toolkits”, or handouts, to facilitate group discussions were developed and made available at the Planning Dep artment office, via email, and download via the City’s website. “Host” and “Youth” toolkits were customized for the intended participants. Each toolkit included an introduction to the comprehensive planning process, tips for facilitating a constructive meeting, a step-by-step checklist, a sign-in sheet, a list of conversation starters, and a notes page to record input. Participants were prompted to discuss a series of conversation starters, which included questions such as:  What are the biggest issues our community faces?  What would you say if you were bragging on Georgetown?  What are your favorite cities and why?  What aspect of Georgetown is most important to preserve as we grow? Following a group discussion, a notetaker documented the most important takeaways and ideas from the discussion on the Notes page that was then sent back to the city via email or drop off. The notetaker was also able to enter the information digitally through an online survey tool. Page 20 of 175 INPUT REPORT 12/5/2018 draft 4 On the Table Community Response In all, over 1,400 people participated in On the Table discussions throughout the city, collaborating in 71 groups and providing 841 unique comments. Almost half of the over 700 total city employees participated in sharing ideas for 2030. Volunteers from many departments led discussion groups throughout the day. The school district was able to facilitate discussions across grade levels, including second grade, middle school and high school classes, and also facilitated discussions with faculty and staff. Southwestern University had over 60 students participate in discussions in an effort led by the University Communications department and Student Government Association. Several large neighborhood groups in Sun City were able to host discussions during their National Night Out activities. The collective input results are shown in the following charts and graphics. Page 21 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 5 What do you BRAG about Georgetown? 7% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 2% Urban Design Family-Oriented/Small-Town Feel Recreation and Open Space Historic Preservation Events/Festivals Public Safety Public Buildings and Facilities Urban Design Family-Oriented/Small-Town Feel Recreation and Open Space Historic Preservation Events/Festivals Public Safety Public Buildings and Facilities Top TEN most frequently-mentioned categories 14% 11% 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% Economic Development Traffic Circulation and Public Transit Housing and Affordability Family-Oriented and Small-Town Feel Urban Design Recreation and Open Space Citizen Participation Historic Preservation Health and Human Services Infrastructure Economic Development Traffic Circulation and Public Transit Housing/Affordability Urban Design Family-Oriented/Small-Town Feel Recreation and Open Space Citizen Participation Historic Preservation Health and Human Services Infrastructure What are your CONCERNS for Georgetown? Traffic Circulation/ Public Transit Health & Human Services Housing/ Affordability Economic Development Citizen Participation Page 22 of 175 INPUT REPORT 12/5/2018 draft 6 What’s MISSING in Georgetown? Page 23 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 7 On the Table Input Analysis To quantitatively analyze the results, the responses returned to the City were collected and entered into a spreadsheet, which coded each individual comment with a corresponding category derived from the fourteen elements of the comprehensive plan prescribed in the City’s charter (e.g., economic development or housing). Five additional categories were added based on the volume of comments related to that idea. These categories were: education, general growth, family-oriented/small-town feel, diversity and events/festivals. Each comment also received a score for a general positive (+1), neutral (0), or negative (-1) connotation. The responses were tallied through an overall count of references (top ten), the most positive comments (brags), and the most negative comments (concerns). A fourth type of comment received was the identification of desirable activities or developments (what’s missing), which are organized generally by the font size representing the frequency of comment. The full listing of comments can be found as an appendix to this report. ONLINE SURVEY AND RESPONSES OVERVIEW The City conducted an online survey, which was open from July 20, 2018 to October 31, 2018. The survey was provided as a link on the City website’s front page and advertised on social media, in weekly city news emails, and the Georgetown Reporter that went out in utility bills. The survey was also available to be taken on iPad kiosks that were placed in the Georgetown Recreation Center, Georgetown Public Library, and Georgetown Municipal Center. Survey participation was available through both kiosks and paper surveys taken to outreach events including the Music on the Square event in Downtown Georgetown, the Words on Wheels mobile library and at multiple speaking engagements. The online survey questions included:  Why did you choose to live in Georgetown?  What do you like most about living in Georgetown?  Which places do you visit most in Georgetown?  What is your connection to Georgetown?  If you live here, for how long? The online survey asked participants what Georgetown should look like in the year 2030. This question allowed an open field for the respondent to enter their own comments. Online Survey Community Response The online survey received a total of 1,455 responses, which included 1,322 online responses and 133 responses from survey kiosks and printed paper surveys. The results of the input are shown in the charts below. Page 24 of 175 INPUT REPORT 12/5/2018 draft 8 Connection to Georgetown 1% 3% 10% 13% 28% 88% Hope to live Used to live Other Out of City, but in WilCo Work Live Why did you choose to live here? What do you like most about living in Georgetown? Which places do you visit most? 2% 3% 5% 6% 7% 8% 12% 18% 24% Schools Family Sun City Friendly Safety Parks Community Downtown/Sq. Small Town 3% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 10% 13% 16% 23% 24% 29% Palace Theater Sun City Home Depot Trails Lake Rec Center Gabriel Park Square Library Grocery Stores Restaurants Wolf Ranch 1. Small Town 2. Sun City 3. Family 4. Schools 5. Proximity to Austin 6. Quality of Life 7. Employment 8. Affordable 9. Round Rock 10. Low crime Page 25 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 9 Online Survey Input Analysis The online survey was created using the Survey Monkey online survey tool. Features of the tool include analyzing the most frequently used phrases to open ended questions. Bar charts and numbered lists were created to represent answers to the questions based on the Survey Monkey analysis. Survey Monkey provided a quantitative analysis of the questions except for the question, “In 2030, what should Georgetown look like?” The City ran the responses to this question through the software application WordStat that produced the most frequently occurring phrases. To provide consistency and basis for comparison, the comments were also coded in the same manner as the On the Table comments: the recorded responses were collected and entered into a spreadsheet, which coded each individual comment with a corresponding category to the fourteen elements of the comprehensive plan prescribed in the City’s charter (e.g., economic development or recreation and open space). Each comment also received a score for a general positive (+1), neutral (0), or negative (-1) connotation. Five additional categories were added based on the volume of comments related to that idea. These categories were: edu cation, general growth, family-oriented/small-town feel, diversity and events/festivals. In 2030, what should Georgetown look like? 1. Keep Small Town 2. Not Round Rock 3. Effective Public Transportation 4. Improve Williams Drive 5. Improve traffic flow 6. More service to Sun City 7. Increased green space 8. Not Cedar Park 9. More affordable housing 10. Control growth 15% 15% 15% 9% 9% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% Traffic circulation and public transit General growth Family-oriented/Small-town feel Economic development Historic preservation Future land use Conservation & env. resources Infrastructure Recreation and open space Urban design *Top ten most frequently mentioned categories Page 26 of 175 INPUT REPORT 12/5/2018 draft 10 INPUT THEMES The following themes emerged from the public input gathered from the two input opportunities. These themes, in conjunction with additional public input received throughout the comprehensive planning process, will guide the development of this 2030 Plan Update. Maintain the family-oriented, small-town feel 1. Given the inevitable growth of the community, it is crucial for the City to preserve this small -town feel to maintain a strong sense of community. 2. It should be a goal of the City to promote the incorporation of family-friendly development. 3. Host and promote family-oriented events. Continue to encourage high-quality development 1. Residents are proud of Downtown Georgetown and its appearance. Residents love how vibrant and walkable the downtown area is and mentioned how they like the historical buildings and local shops. 2. Many residents felt that Georgetown should not reduce development standards to attract development. Instead, they felt Georgetown should maintain high development standards while still promoting more affordable development. 3. Many felt that there should be more sidewalks implemented around the City. In addition, many felt that current sidewalks should be improved. Enhance citizen participation and engagement 1. Residents noted that it would be beneficial to the community to be notified as to when public events take place, allowing for greater community participation. Combining social media with more traditional forms of advertising would allow for more people to know about opportunities to provide their input. 2. Citizens explained that they would like to be better notified of the results of events involving public input. Although this information might be available to the public, residents explained that it is important to advertise it in such a way that most residents in the community are made awa re. 3. Pursue more opportunities to engage the community, including utilizing school events and festivals. 4. Communicate better on future and current development happening in the community , including utilizing social media. Page 27 of 175 12/5/2018 draft INPUT REPORT 11 Focus on housing and affordability 1. Rising housing prices have aided in creating a high cost of living, increasing to the point where many residents feel as though they might not be able to live in Georgetown in the near future. 2. There is not enough variety of housing types within the City. For example, developments could be permitted in more areas of the City. 3. Many residents suggested the use of incentives to help create a more affordable community. 4. Some participants expressed concern regarding the provision of low -income housing and preferred to focus on middle-income housing. Enhance economic development opportunities 1. Residents like the large variety of local businesses and restaurants throughout the community. Many noted that part of Downtown Georgetown’s distinct charm involves the larg e amount of local businesses in the area. 2. Improve Georgetown’s efforts to attract and accommodate younger generations. More nightlife and entertainment in Georgetown will attract college students and other younger professionals. 3. Recruit higher-paying employers/tech companies to combat the rising cost of living. 4. Develop the eastern areas of Georgetown to match the level of amenities available in other portions of the City . Maintain and add to the existing quality parks and recreation 1. Expand the existing trail network to connect to areas throughout Georgetown. 2. Improve access to parks and open space by allowing free entry. Many explained that Garey Park is not affordable and that all parks should be free to residents. 3. Many residents suggested an increase in the amount of open space throughout the community. More specifically, many liked the idea of adding parks to existing and future neighborhoods. Improve and diversify the transportation network 1. Many residents expressed the need for better public transit within the City. Some residents are unaware of GoGeo transit and feel that the service should be better advertised. Conversely, others explained that they would prefer the addition of a light rail system, such as a trolley. 2. Residents desire some sort of commuter rail that runs to Austin and surrounding areas. 3. Traffic light synchronization should improve to help alleviate traffic congestion. 4. Although traffic congestion has become an issue throughout the City, many residents have explained that Williams Drive needs significant improvements. Page 28 of 175 2030 PLAN UPDATE City Council Workshop | December 11, 2018 Page 29 of 175 PURPOSE •Familiarization of 2008 Land Use Goals, 2017 Vision Statement, 2018 public outreach input. •Provide context for what has changed since the last goal setting process with current 2030 comprehensive plan •Outline the process for reviewing goals at the joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission on 1/10/2019 •Gain critical feedback on existing and emerging themes and goals Page 30 of 175 FEEDBACK WE ARE SEEKING •Does the City Council support the approach to amending/updating the 2008 Land Use goals? •Seek critical feedback on existing comprehensive plan goals. •Are there specific goals that should be retained? •Are there specific goals that should be removed? •Given changes since the comprehensive plan was completed and as a result of 2018 public outreach efforts are there themes that are missing in the current goals? Page 31 of 175 AGENDA •Part 1: What has changed since adoption of the 2030 Plan? •Part 2: Vision and goals. •Part 3: Direction from City Council •Part 4: Process for updating 2008 Land Use goals Page 32 of 175 Part 1: What has changed since the adoption of the 2030 Plan? Population Land Use/ Utilities Housing Key Development Conversations Page 33 of 175 POPULATION, AGE, INCOME 59,436 2016 Population +32% 2009-2016 490,619 2016 Population +32% 2009-2016 +22% 2009-2016 2016 Population 1,942,615 $64,256 | Georgetown 2000: $54,098 2006: $55,700 Median Age: 2000: 36.9* 2008: 44.0* 2016: 45.8** Sources: *Decennial Census; Plan 2030 **U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 ACS ***U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 ACS $75,935 | Williamson Co. 2000: $60,642 2006: $62,494 $66,093 | Austin-RR MSA I N C O M E Page 34 of 175 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES City Limits (acres and sq. miles): 2008 –30,662 ac. = 47.9 sq. mi. 2018 –37,402 ac. = 58.4 sq. mi. (+22%) ETJ (acres and sq. mi.): 2008 –74,843 = 116.9 sq. mi. 2018 –78,778 = 123.1 sq. mi. (+5%) City Limits + ETJ (acres and sq. mi.): 2008 –105,505 = 164.85 sq. mi. 2018 –116,180 = 181.5 sq. mi. (+10%) Page 35 of 175 ZONING 2018 Agricultural, 34% Single Family 47% Duplex, Townhouse <1% Multifamily, 3% Commercial, Mixed, 9% Industrial, BP, 5% Public Facilities, 3% Page 36 of 175 REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Retail Trade Educational Services Accommodation and Food Services Health Care and Social Assistance Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Professional and Technical Services Administrative and Waste Services Finance and Insurance All Others 36% 36% 59% 90% 82% 63% (Texas Workforce Commission Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) –August 2018) % of ChangeWilliamson County Page 37 of 175 RENTAL HOUSING $0.70 $0.69 $0.72 $0.73 $0.76 $0.81 $0.87 $0.93 $0.95 $0.94 $0.96 $0.60 $0.65 $0.70 $0.75 $0.80 $0.85 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Planning Area Median Lease Rate Per SF $935 $912 $954 $963 $989 $1,050 $1,074 $1,050 $1,126 $1,195 $1,251 $850 $900 $950 $1,000 $1,050 $1,100 $1,150 $1,200 $1,250 $1,300 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fair Market Rent -Williamson County 2 bedroom (HUD Fair Market Rents)(ABOR/MLS July 2018) Page 38 of 175 FOR SALE HOUSING $100.73 $99.94 $100.34 $100.66 $105.06 $113.13 $120.66 $132.67 $138.38 $145.16 $146.02 $90.00 $100.00 $110.00 $120.00 $130.00 $140.00 $150.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Planning Area Median Sale Price Per SF 56.4% 21.3% 9.7% 6.0% 3.3%3.2% $0 to $199,999 $200,000 to $274,999 $275,000 to $349,999 $350,000 to $424,999 $425,000 to $499,999 $500,000 and up 7.5% 34.9% 24.2% 12.6% 9.5% 11.2% $0 to $199,999 $200,000 to $274,999 $275,000 to $349,999 $350,000 to $424,999 $425,000 to $499,999 $500,000 and up 2017-2018 2008-2010 Page 39 of 175 Part 2: Vision and Goals Current Comprehensive Plan Themes and Goals Updated Vision Statement 2018 Community Outreach Feedback Page 40 of 175 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THEMES 1.Quality of Life 2.Sustainable Development 3.Balanced Transportation/Efficient Mobility 4.Effective Governance Page 41 of 175 GOAL 1 Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well-integrated transportation, public facilities, and open space amenities. Page 42 of 175 GOAL 2 Promote sound investment in Georgetown’s older developed areas, including downtown, aging commercial and industrial areas, in-town neighborhoods, and other areas expected to experience land use change or obsolescence. Page 43 of 175 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. Page 44 of 175 GOAL 4 Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas, etc.). Page 45 of 175 2017 VISION STATEMENT “Georgetown: A caring community honoring our past and innovating for the future” Page 46 of 175 ON THE TABLE + ONLINE SURVEY Page 47 of 175 2018 INPUT THEMES Maintain the family-oriented, small-town feel Continue to encourage quality urban design Enhance citizen participation and engagement Focus on housing and affordability Enhance economic development opportunities Maintain and expand existing parks and recreation amenities Improve and diversify the transportation network Page 48 of 175 Part 3: Direction from City Council Page 49 of 175 FEEDBACK WE ARE SEEKING •Does the City Council support the approach to amending/updating the 2008 Land Use goals? •Seek critical feedback on existing comprehensive plan goals. •Are there specific goals that should be retained? •Are there specific goals that should be removed? •Given changes since the comprehensive plan was completed and as a result of 2018 public outreach efforts are there themes that are missing in the current goals? Page 50 of 175 Part 4: Goal Update Process Goal Structure Process for formalizing goals for the 2030 comprehensive plan update Next Steps Page 51 of 175 GOAL STRUCTURE Land Use Goals Future Land Use •Land Use Policy #1 •Land Use Policy #2 •Land Use Policy #3 Housing •Housing Policy #1 •Housing Policy #2 •Housing Policy #3 Transportation Parks Urban Design Health & Human Services etc.Page 52 of 175 1/10/2019 JOINT SESSION WITH PLANNING AND ZONING •Meeting Purpose: Refine the updated goals and themes •Presentation: •Summary of 2018 input and 2008 goals/themes •Recommended goal/theme revisions for consideration •Activity: •Break into groups of 3-4 with a mix of City Council and P&Z members •Review and discuss the 2018 input, 2008 goals/themes, and recommendations •Present conclusions back to the large group •Discussion and group consensus on any changes to 2008 goals/themes Page 53 of 175 NEXT STEPS •Joint workshop with P&Z •January 10th @ 6:00pm •Staff to return to Council following the joint session to confirm new goals/themes •Seek public feedback on updated goals/themes Page 54 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Update and disc ussio n regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amende d and Restated Consent Agreeme nt and the Amende d and Restated Development Agre e ment. -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: Council is being asked to pro vide directio n and feedback on modifications to the terms of the Water Oak MUD that will maintain its status as an ETJ MUD and include new provisions to enhance the quality of development, increase the partnership between the City and the developer on major infrastructure, and modify the financial terms. Following staff ’s presentation on September 11th on this to pic, staff conducte d additional financial analysis using the City’s fiscal impac t model and fo und the propo sed arrangement for an In-City MUD did not provide a positive, net fiscal impact to the City as well as did not pro vide an o ffsetting, in-kind reve nue arrangement to the developer sufficient to reimburse cost asso c iated with major infrastructure assigned to the deve lo per. Therefore, we continue d to negotiate with Blake Magee, on behalf of Hanna/Magee, LP, on modifying the terms of the existing consent agreement along with terms for a new developme nt agreement that wo uld cover approximately 1,131 acres, which are referred to as P arkside on the River in this presentation (see Attachment 1 for illustration); any modifications to the consent agreement would retain a recognition that the development will not impair the City’s future annexation of the MUD or adjacent pro perty sho uld the City de sire to annex this area at some point in the future in accordance with State laws. The attached PowerP oint provides an analysis of the proposal to the City’s MUD policy. Background The Water Oak MUD and develo pment are controlled by the 20 12 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement and the 2012 Amended and Restated De velopment Agreement (collectively the “Agreements”). Blake Magee is presently under contract with the bank to purchase approximate ly 1,1 49 acres, which includes all o f Water Oak South, including 76 .6 acres in the floodplain along the South San Gabriel River, a roughly 2 0 acre tract lo cated o n the no rth side o f the river in Water Oak North, and another 2.5 acres adjacent to SH 29. An amendment to the Amended and Restated Conse nt Agreement will require negotiations with the WCMUD #25 (see Attachment 2) as well as Hanna/Magee. The 2 01 2 Amended and Restated Development Agre e ment allows fo r an ame ndment to o c c ur between the City and the majority landowner on development terms. Thi s presentati on i s focused on negoti ati ons w i th Hanna/Magee for Parksi de o n the Ri ver, spe c i fi cal l y the porti on of the pr ope rty that i ncl udes the ri ver corri dor and al l l and so uth to RM 2 24 3 (see Attachment 1). The City Council approved its MUD Policy on July 24 , 20 18 . In the Policy, Council affirmed the purpose o f a MUD is “to assist in closing the financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed minimum City standards, provide a robust program of amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure improvements are required that would serve the MUD and surrounding properties.” The P olicy identifies the basic requirements for the creation and ame ndment to a MUD are as fo llows: 1 . Qu ality Development. The development meets or exc e e ds the intent of the developme nt, infrastructure, and design standards o f City co des; 2. Ex trao rdinary Benefits. The de velopment provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and go als of the Comprehensive Plan, suc h as, but not limited to, extension, financial contribution, and/or enhanc e ment of maste r planned infrastructure, diversity of housing, and enhanced parks, trails, open space, and re c reatio nal amenities that are available to the public; 3 . Enh an ce Pub lic Service and Sa fety. The development enhances public services and optimizes service delive ry thro ugh its design, dedication o f sites, connectivity, and other features. 4. City Exclu sive Provider. The development further promote s the City as the exclusive provider of wate r, se wer, so lid waste, and electric utilities; 5 . Fisca lly Responsible. The deve lo pment is financially feasible, do e sn’t impair the City’s ability to pro vide municipal services, and would not impo se a financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown in the eve nt o f annexation; 6 . Fina nce Plan. The developer(s) co ntributes financially to cover a po rtion of infrastructure expense s without reimbursement by the MUD o r the City and as reflected in conditions placed o n the issuance of Page 55 of 175 bo nds by the district; 7 . An nexa tion. The development will not impair the City’s future annexatio n of the MUD or adjac e nt pro pe rty o r impose costs not mutually agreed upo n. City staff finds the propo sed amendments to the Water Oak Agreements as described in this cover sheet and in the presentation will ac hieve the intent of the City’s MUD P olicy (see attachment 3). A high level summary o f the major propo sed amendments to the c onsent agreement as well as development and design standards that are propo sed to be included in a ne w develo pment agreement are as fo llows: ETJ MUD. The development will remain in the ETJ for the fo reseeable future, while the Consent Agreeme nt retains te rms under which the City may annex po rtions of the land co nsiste nt with the MUD Po licy, the Conse nt Agreement, and in accordance with State laws; Bond Te rms. Changes to the bo nd terms including increasing the maximum maturity from 20 years to 30 years, allowing each MUD (up to 3) to have 15 years to issue bonds, and allowing up to 15 years versus 10 years for reimburse ment agreements from the effec tive date o f new agreement. Land Use Plan and Commercial. Land Use Plan provides a greater diversity of housing with range of single-family lots/designs, multi-family, and cluster homes, plus increases c ommercial land area six fold over current plan and preserves oppo rtunity for an additional 30 ac re s all along RM 2243; Residential Standards. Adds single-family residential de sign standards to ensure a minimum standard of quality, thereby, creating equality with more recent develo pments with MUDs. Tree Prese rvation. Increases tree preservation standards o ver current minimum standards contained in existing agreement. Parks/Recreational Facilities/Open Space. Developer to co mmit to providing HOA neighbo rhoo d parks, private amenity cente rs, and preserving more than 30 0 acres as open space. P roposed Amendme nts (20 18) The fo llowing o utline provide s the high leve l terms and broad concepts under which the Deve lo pe r has agreed he wo uld proceed with the purchase and development of roughly 1,1 49 acres, plus adding an additional 9 0 acres lo cated on the south side of RM 2 24 3: Annexati on The developme nt would remain in the ETJ for the foreseeable future (20, 30, 40 years), but the Agree ments will retain terms that the development will not impair the City’s future annexation o f the MUD or adjacent pro pe rty consiste nt with the MUD P olicy and in acco rdance with State laws. o The c urrent Co nsent Agreement states “The City agrees that, except for Parkland, it will not annex or re-annex any of the Land until (1) the expiration or termination of this Agreement, or (2) the co mple tion of at least 90% of the construction of public infrastructure necessary to serve the Land with water, wastewate r, and drainage facilities consiste nt with the Amended and Restated Develo pment Agreement, and either (i) the Deve lo per has be e n reimbursed by the First District or the Successor Distric t(s) in accordance with the rule s o f TCEQ and the terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Develo pment Agreement, or (ii) the City has e xpressly agreed to assume the obligation to reimburse the Developer under TCEQ rules.” MUD Consent Ag r e ement The following bond terms are fo r ETJ MUDs. The terms outlined refle c t the negotiations between City staff and the Developer to date : Bond o Di stri ct Onl y Tax Rate (Maxi mum): $0 .92 per $100 AV (No change ) o Esti mated Amount of Bonds to be Issued: $100,100,000, no t inc luding MUD #25 o Maxi mum Maturi ty of Bonds: 3 0 years [An increase from the c urrent 2 0 years] o Refundi ng of Bonds: Distric ts may redeem bonds at any time beginning not later than the te nth (10 th) anniversary of the date of issuance without premium [No change ] o Maxi mum Issuance Peri od betw een F i rst and Last B ond per Di stri ct: The latest Bond issuance date fo r any MUD shall be 15 years from the date of the first issuance of Bo nds issued by each distric t. Page 56 of 175 Land Uses Water Oak South Land Use P l an (per approved Land Use P l an from 2012) P arksi de on the Ri ver (Enti re 1,1 31 acres, excl udes the 1 5 acres l ocated no r th o f ri ver) Comme nts Acres 1,06 0 1,131 Diffe rence is primarily the river co rrido r and accurate survey Single-family (max.)2,72 0 1,911 To tal lots o n P arkside plan is 1 ,96 5; excluded the fifty-one (5 1) lots located north of river Multi-family and cluster home s (est.) 0 MF = 326 (20 DU/AC) Cluster = 362 (12 DU/AC) Mix-use = 660 (20 DU/AC) Mixed use could be co mmercial or high density multi-family Commercial (acres)5 .5 32 Po tential to have all or a po rtion o f mixed-use parcels (3 3 acres) be commercial Open Space (ac re s)28 0 384 Inc ludes parks, open space, floo dplain, and river park School Site (acres)1 2 16 [No change in issuanc e length o f time , but it is a change by pro viding 15 years fo r each MUD, rather than 15 years for all districts from the date of the first issuance of Bonds issued by any District] o Rei mbursement Agreements : The First District and any Successor In-City District will not issue Bo nds for the purposes of reimbursing the Develo per for any costs or expenses paid by the Developer afte r the fifteenth (15th) anniversary of the Effective Date of a new Agreement, which costs and e xpenses would otherwise be eligible to be reimbursed to the Develo per by the District(s). [An increase from the current 10 years] o F aci l i ti es Bonds may be Issued to Fi nance: Wate r, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, Roads, Bridge, Recreational Facilities, and Refunding Bonds. [No change] Master Deve lo pment Fee o Master Devel opment Fee: No change. The City will collect the MDF fro m the proceeds from the issuance of bonds by the First Distric t and any Suc cessor Distric t at a rate of 10 % o f each net bond re imbursement received by the Developer. The MDF collected by the City will c ontribute toward the c ost o f designing and constructing the South San Gabriel Bridge (the “Bridge”) according to the existing MDF Calculation Form. The MDF is to be collected fro m bonds issued until the Bridge is substantially c omplete and has been accepted by Williamson County for mainte nance. Land Use Land Use P lan. Developer will se e k approval of a new land use plan (referred to as Parkside on the River) fo r the entire Water Oak South area, plus a 15 acre parcel lo cated in Water Oak No rth. P resently, the approved Water Oak Land Use Plan allows a maximum of 3,2 68 single-family homes, which includes the maximum of 54 8 homes in Water Oak North, and does no t include any multi-family; the existing Land Use Plan provides 17.7 acres fo r co mmercial, of which only 5 .5 acres are located in Wate r Oak South. Thro ugh September 3 0, 20 18 , there have be en 1 90 building permits pulled fo r new residential homes in Water Oak North since 2013 when the first permit was issued. Between April 1, 2 01 8, and September 30 , 2 01 8, there were 26 building permits pulled for new home co nstruction in Water Oak North. The basic differences between the existing Wate r Oak Land Use Plan for the area south of the river and Parkside on the Rive r are illustrated below: Page 57 of 175 Fire Station (#)1 1 Development and Design Standards. The development will remain subject to the UDC standards in place as of June 1, 2011 . Improvements to development and design standards include: o Tree pre servatio n standards will improve from the existing Water Oak standard to the Wo lf Ranch-Hillwood standard. o Single-family residential architectural standards will be added where none exist to day. There is no standard for Water Oak, leaving the possibility of low standards. The Develo per has asked for some flexibility around impervious c ove rage and stormwater. Transpo rtation B ri dge. The Developer/District will remain responsible for designing, funding, and constructing the Bridge, which will include fo ur travel lanes and a pedestrian walk. It is estimated to be abo ut $1 0 million. The Developer has requested the Construction Completion Deadline be c hanged as follo ws and the earlier of: o Seven (7) ye ars from the Effective Date of a new agreement; or o Maximum of 500 building permits in Parkside on the River on the west side; or Water Oak P arkw ay. Developer/District will be respo nsible for designing, funding, and constructing Water Oak P arkway as a major arterial, which is identifie d on the City’s Ove rall Transportation Plan (OTP ). A portio n o f this road (o ne-half of the ROW) will be aligned on the adjacent Georgetown Properties Tract II; two lanes o f Water Oak P arkway will be built by the developer of the Georgetown Pro pe rties Tract II when this tract de velops in the future. A ten (1 0) foo t wide trail alo ng o ne side will be included. The minimum ROW is 135 feet. Timing of the phasing o f the parkway will be negotiated and likely be tied to subdivision of adjacent land as development moves north. It is the intent to require the ro ad to co nnect to the Bridge by its Co nstruction Completion deadline. Parkw ay B. Developer/District will be responsible fo r de signing, funding, and constructing P arkway B. City staff will work with the Developer to identify the appropriate ro adway classification fo r this portion of Water Oak South. Phasing will be negotiated and will likely be asso ciated with the developme nt o f adjacent lands. Si g nal i zed Intersecti ons on RM 2243 (Two). Develope r/District will be responsible for designing, funding, and constructing two signalized intersections located at Water Oak Parkway and Parkway B when warrants are met and turn lanes as well as dedicate necessary right-of-way to meet the City’s major arte rial standard. Utilities Excl usi ve P rovi der. The City will co ntinue to be the exc lusive pro vider of all services – wate r, wastewater, and solid waste . Impact fees will remain at the c urre nt level. 24 ” Water Transmi ssi on Li ne. The Developer/District will be responsible fo r designing, funding, and c onstructing the 24” Water Transmission Line. However, the City will partner with the Developer to provide the funding to design and construc t the Transmission Line in advance of development with construc tion starting no sooner than January 1, 2 02 0. The Developer has agreed to bid and build the line within the City’s available funds. The developer has agreed to re pay the City the full cost of the Transmission Line up to $3 ,500,000 with an annual fixed payment of $5 00 ,000 over 7 years, starting with first payment made upon ac ceptance of water line. On-si te F aci l i ti es. The Developer/Distric t to cover the full c ost of On-site Facilities (wate r, wastewater, drainage, ro ad, etc…) internal to the P arkside o n the Rive r de velopment that are necessary to serve the Land. Impact Fees. The Developer/District will be assessed the existing water and wastewate r impac t fees listed in the current development agreement. The existing developme nt agreement has lo cked impac t fees in place at $3,3 24 per Service Unit fo r water and $2,683 per Service Unit for wastewater. Page 58 of 175 Public safety Fi re Stati o n Si te. Developer will dedicate to the City a 2.5 acre site along RM 2243 at no c ost to the City to optimize service delivery and response times as this area develops. In additio n, the development will remain obligated to co ntribute a Fire SIP fee of $630 to be co llected at time of application of building pe rmit fo r each residential lot and c ommercial lo t School Site The Developer will provide up to a 1 6 acre site to GISD for an e lementary school site. Parkland/Open Space/Regional Trail The Deve lo per/District will provide two HOA neighborhood parks adjacent to private amenity centers as shown on the proposed Parkside on the River land use plan. The Developer/Distric t will contribute $250,000 to develop each park. The Develo per/District will design, fund, and construct a public trailhead and designated parking area containing at least 20 parking spaces in a location that pro vides acc e ss from at least one side of Water Oak Parkway to the regio nal trail along the river. The Developer/District will design, fund, and co nstruct a 10 foot wide regional trail along the So uth San Gabriel River consistent with City’s current standards and specifications. In addition, the trail along Water Oak P arkway will be 10 feet wide, rather than the 8 fe e t that is allowed in the current development agre e ment.\ Council Action (in 2 01 7) While the amendments in 2017 to the co nsent and development agreeme nts were terminated due to no npe rformance by the buyer, the City did o btain six (6) easements, which were necessary for the City to pro tect its long-term interests. The following is a summary of all actions by Council in 2 01 7 co ncerning Water Oak: January 23, 20 17 … Council appro ved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that o utlined certain gene ral paramete rs to aid the parties in (1) negotiating and drafting revisions to the Amended and Restated (A&R) Development Agreeme nt; (2) ne gotiating and drafting re visions to the A&R Consent Agreement, and (3) negotiating and drafting one or more assignment and assumption agreement(s), pursuant to which the rights and obligations of the Original Developer that pertain to Water Oak So uth would be assigned to and assumed by a Buyer. August 2 2, 201 7… Council received an update on negotiations regarding potential amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision consent agreeme nt and deve lo pment agreement, involving the revision to existing and additio n of ne w provisions, and the assignment, allo cation, and distribution the existing and ne w rights and re spo nsibilities among multiple developers separated between Water Oak No rth and Water Oak South. September 26 , 20 17 … City Co uncil held a public hearing and conditionally approved a resolution on a First Amendme nt to the Amended and Restated Consent Agreement and o n a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Developme nt Agreement for the Water Oak Subdivision between the City of Georgetown, Lare do Water Oak LTD (“LWO”), ABG Water Oak partne rs, LTD, (“ABG”), WRR interests, LLC, (“WRR”) and Williamson County MUD #2 5. The co nditio ns prec e de nt included, among o thers, a requirement that the LWO and ABG grant six specific easements to the City and that the Buyer entity to be created by WRR clo se on the ac quisitio n of Water Oak So uth no later than 120 days fo llowing the exe c ution of the Agre e ments, which was approximately January 24 , 2018. If the Buye r entity did not close on the property within this period, the Agreements shall automatically te rminate. October 1 0, 2 01 7… City Council accepted six easements from LWO and ABG, including two (2) Utility Access Easement Agreeme nts, a Wastewater Easement, an Access Easement Agreeme nt, and two (2) Roadway, Utility and Drainage Easement Agreements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: City staff is analyzing the fiscal impact of the propo sed develo pment. SUBMITTED BY: Page 59 of 175 ATTACHMENT S: Description Att1 - Parksid e on the River Land Use Plan revis ed 2018-11-28 Att 2 - Map Illus trating b o und aries of MUD #25 over Water Oak Att 3 Approved Geo rgeto wn MUD Polic y P res entation - Water Oak S o uth Page 60 of 175 Page 61 of 175 Water Oak SouthMUD 25 I00.25 0.5Mi ¬«29 RM 2243 Commercial Green/Open High Density Residential Mid-Density Residential Single Family MUD 25 Page 62 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 1 of 7 The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) is to assist in closing the financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed minimum City standards, provide a robust program of amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure improvements are required that would serve the MUD and surr ounding properties. The following policies are to be used in guiding the consideration and action on requests for creation and operation of all proposed special districts, including amendments. These policies are reinforced in Section 13.10 of the UDC. POLICY 1: Basic Requirements for Creation of MUDs MUDs are an appropriate tool to allow urban level density neighborhoods in locations supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan within the city limits. The City may alternatively consider Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) MUDs where the City may annex the property in the future. Before consenting to the creation of a district, the City Council should consider whether the creation of the district is feasible, practicable, and necessary for the provision of the proposed services and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City’s consent, consistent with the other considerations in this policy. A. The City’s basic requirements for creation of a MUD shall be that: 1. Quality Development. The development meets or exceeds the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design standards of City codes; 2. Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, such as, but not limited to, extension, financial contribution, and/or enhancement of master planned infrastructure, diversity of housing, and enhanced parks, trails, open space, and recreational amenities that are available to the public; 3. Enhance Public Service and Safety. The development enhances public services and optimizes service delivery through its design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features. 4. City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities; 5. Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible, doesn’t impair the City’s ability to provide municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown in the event of annexation; 6. Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the issuance of bonds by the district; 7. Annexation. The development will not impair the City’s future annexation of the MUD or adjacent property or impose costs not mutually agreed upon. Page 63 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 2 of 7 POLICY 2: Provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation or amendments" to guide determinations made in the UDC Consistent with past Council actions, require the construction of specific regional infrastructure improvements consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and master plans and that are beneficial to the City. Examples include: a. The acceleration of master planned public infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to, wastewater interceptors, treatment plants, and major transportation improvements, that not only provide a benefit to the developed property, but also to other surrounding properties. b. Conservation subdivision design that clusters development in low impact areas and maintains existing topography, scenic views, natural drainage flows and wildlife habitat. c. Regional trail connections located across the development, as well as off-site, to fill in gaps in the City and County trail system. POLICY 3: Address provision of public services, and address public safety m atters in the Consent Agreement a. Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and optimize locations for service delivery. b. Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for new fire station or other public safety facility as determined by the City. c. If the City provides fire protection services within the MUD, require payment of Fire SIP fee (or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and operations. d. Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to properties located outside of the MUD. e. If located outside of the City Limits, then the MUD consent agreement may, at the City's discretion, include an interlocal agreement ("ILA") to contract with the City of Georgetown for fire, police, and solid waste services on terms acceptable to the City. f. An ETJ MUD may provide a maintenance program approved by the City's Transportation Department that is consistent with City standards and should include appropriate consultation with the County Engineer. Page 64 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 3 of 7 POLICY 4: Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the Consent Agreement a. Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with the Utilities Master Plan. b. Require of the MUD that the City be the water, sewer and electric service provider where it is located within the city’s single or multiple certificated service area. c. Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne by the developer and/or MUD, not the City. d. Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site improvements to only those circumstances where the necessity for the improvement is so great that limited CIP funds are appropriate for overall system wide improvements that benefit multiple properties (i.e., regional improvements that the City can afford to participate in). e. Address water and wastewater rates. Generally, rates for in-City MUD customers should be the same as the rates for other in-City customers, and the rates for ETJ MUDs customers should be the same as for other out of City customers. f. Require specific water conservation techniques that will be used to minimize demand levels including xeriscaping, low impact development ("LID"), rainwater harvesting, grey water reuse and other strategies in consultation with GUS. g. Require all MUDs and their residents, whether in the City or in the ETJ, to comply with City of Georgetown water conservation and drought contingency plan-related ordinances. h. For all MUDS, require impact fees to be assessed at the time of final plat approval [note: Impact fee payments are eligible for reimbursement by the MUD]. For ETJ MUDS, require payment of impact fees at the time the final plat is approved. For in -City MUDS, require payment of impact fees no later than the time of building permit issuance. However, utility capacity reservation shall not occur until impact fees are paid. i. Address rates, treatment capacity, utility and other easements necessary for City services, capacity for dwelling units, gallons per day usage for water and wastewater, water, wastewater and electric infrastructure, permitting and design, and fiscal surety. Page 65 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 4 of 7 POLICY 5: Specify the amount of debt intended to be issued, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule, and include those financial provisions in the Consent Agreement a. Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule, including refunding bonds issued by the district, unless otherwise agreed to by the City, to comply with the following requirements, provided such requirements do not generally render the bonds unmarketable: 1. Maximum maturity of 25 years for any one series of bonds; and 2. The last Bond issuance shall be not later than the date that is ten (10) years after the date of the first Bond issuance. b. Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes, assessments, charge, fees and fines of any kind. c. Establish a maximum tax rate of $0.55/$100 of assessed valuation for in-city MUDs and a maximum tax rate of $0.95/$100 of assessed valuation for ETJ MUDs. d. Limit debt issuance to capital infrastructure and related costs, for in-city and ETJ MUDs; on and off-site water and wastewater infrastructure; stormwater infrastructure; roads, bridges, and related transportation infrastructure; and parks, trails, and recreational facilities. e. To the extent possible, debt should be structured to retire nonresidential lands first so they can be annexed, if an ETJ MUD. Where multiple MUDs are established for a large project, nonresidential lands should be included in the first MUD created. f. A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities (city, county, school district, MUD, ESD, etc.) and the proposed MUD tax, demonstrating the total anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD. POLICY 6: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ a. Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is in the MUD at the time of annexation that are different from rates charged to other areas of the City consistent with the provisions of Section 54.016(h) of the Water Code to compensate city for assumption of MUD debt. b. This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is annexed into the city limits. At the City's option, a "limited district" may be continued in existence after annexation to maintain amenities or services beyond what the City typically provides for neighborhoods similarly situated. In such cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA stating conditions on which MUD will be converted to a limited district that will continue to exist following full purpose annexation. Concurrently with the MUD’s confirmation election, the MUD shall hold election on proposition to levy an O&M tax per Section 49.107 of the Water Code to provide funds to operate the limited district following full purpose annexation by the city; the MUD shall have no right to issue bonds until proposition to levy an O&M tax is approved. Page 66 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 5 of 7 POLICY 7: Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and development standards, and address the land use provisions in the Consent Agreement or related agreement a. Require higher development and design standards for residential and nonresidential land uses to promote a superior development. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1. Enhanced architectural standards; such as higher percentages of masonry on exterior walls and variations in floor plans; and 2. Improved materials for signage, such as masonry bases. b. Age restricted developments shall not exceed 10% of the net developable land area and 10% of the total housing units within the MUD. c. Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility; Personal Services Restricted as defined the Unified Development Code, Chapter 16, of Title 17 of the Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others as determined by City Council. d. Ensure the City will benefit financially from commercial/retail land uses in developments with ETJ MUDs. i. All efforts should be made to exclude commercial/retail land area from an ETJ MUD in favor of full-purpose annexation, or a SPA should be required allowing the City to collect sales taxes from the area. ii. The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City is entitled to receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and that none of those taxes should be shared with the MUD unless special circumstances exist. iii. City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses other than one- and two-family residential uses. e. Require a diversity of housing offered within the district that is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. f. Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the applicable School District. Location(s) of school sites should be in a central, walkable location within a residential neighborhood away from a collector or arterial roadway identified in the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP). g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and require major amendments to a MUD land use plan be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approved by the City Council. h. Require all in-City MUDs to submit a Planned Unit Development Application and all ETJ MUDs to submit a Development Agreement Application, concurrent with the development of a consent agreement, to memorialize development stan dards. Page 67 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 6 of 7 POLICY 8: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements (not just meet UDC standards or less than UDC standards), and address parkland prov isions in the Consent Agreement a. Require a park or series of parks open to the general public within the MUD in the size and location approved by the Parks and Recreation Board. b. Require installation and maintenance of park facilities improvements. c. Require maintenance access to be provided, when needed. d. Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses such as schools. e. Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet in width. f. Require usable trailheads with off-street parking and ADA compliant trails. g. Require financial contributions to regional park facilities such as We stside Park or Garey Park (depending on the location of the MUD). h. Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts from net usable park land. i. Require provision of security and maintenance program. j. Require protection and perpetuation of unique features on a particular site that should be maintained as open space whether for environmental, conservation or scenic views. POLICY 9: Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the Consent Agreement a. May require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and construction and/or funding of both on- and off-site improvements identified in the TIA, including roadways identified in the City's Overall Transportation Plan (OTP), pursuant to Section 12.09 of the UDC b. Require dedication of right-of-way, inclusion of bike lanes, sidewalks, and aesthetically- pleasing streetscapes consistent with the OTP and City street design standards. c. Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased connectivity, reduced cul - de-sacs, short block lengths, additional stub outs to adjacent properties, except where developed as a conservation subdivision pursuant to Chapter 11 of the UDC. d. Require creative stormwater management and water quality solutions to be provided such as low impact development ("LID") to minimize any downstream impacts. Page 68 of 175 City of Georgetown Municipal Utility District Policy (Approved by City Council July 24, 2018) Page 7 of 7 POLICY 10: City Operations Compensation Fee A fee shall be assessed for each residential unit within a district, located within the City’s ETJ, equal to the proportion of City operations attributed to serving residents of the district. The fee shall be calculated as follows: B = Total General Fund budget for the fiscal year in which the consent application is filed. P = The estimated population of the City at the time the consent application is filed. H= The estimated average household size within the City at the time the consent application is filed. D = The percentage of City services used by district residents. This percentage shall be adopte d by the City annually as a part of the City's budget adoption process. Y = Number of years of duration of the district. R = Discount rate. This rate shall be adopted by the City annually as a part of the city's budget adoption process. PV = Present Value. City Operations Compensation Fee = PV(R,Y,-((B /(P /H)) * D)) Example: B = $24,000,000 P = 41,000 H = 2.8 D = 15% Y = 20 R = 6% Fee = 2,819 Miscellaneous Provisions Where not otherwise specifically addressed in this Policy, the procedures in Unified Development Chapter 13 shall prevail. Page 69 of 175 City Manager’s Office Water Oak Subdivision (a.k.a. Parkside on the River) Proposed Amendments to the Existing Water Oak ETJ MUD Agreements Presented by Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager December 11, 2018 Page 70 of 175 City Manager’s Office Overview •Purpose of Presentation •Water Oak Concept Plan (approved 2012) •Parkside on the River Land Use Plan (revised Nov 2018) •MUD Policy Basic Requirements •MUD Policy Analysis of ETJ MUD Proposal •Next Steps •Feedback and Direction Page 71 of 175 City Manager’s Office Purpose Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a new proposal for the southern portion of the Water Oak development that will involve an amendment to the existing Water Oak Municipal Utility District (MUD) Consent Agreement and approval of a new Development Agreement. •Does Council support amendments to the existing 2012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement? •Does Council support the major terms as presented to a new Development Agreement covering Parkside on the River located south of, and including, the South San Gabriel River corridor? •Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan? •Does Council wish staff to contact the existing MUD #25 and initiate negotiations to amend the existing 2012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement, and if necessary the Development Agreement? Page 72 of 175 City Manager’s Office Water Oak Subdivision Consent Agmt. And Development Agmt. Consent Agmt. Terms •Consent to Creation of an ETJ MUD •Consent to change boundaries and creation of successor districts •Conditions for future annexation •Master Development Fee •Recognizes City as provider of water, wastewater, and garbage services •Terms for issuance of bonds •Establishes max. tax rate ($0.92) Development Agmt. Terms •Land Use Plan •Specifications for Roadways, including schedule for and design of the Bridge •Residential and Commercial Development Standards •Open Space and Trail Standards •Tree Preservation Standards •On-site Utility Obligations & Standards •Off-site Utility Obligations & Standards •Terms for City to provide retail water, wastewater, and garbage services •Impact Fees and Fire SIP FeesPage 73 of 175 City Manager’s Office •Approved in 2012 •1,354 acres 360 acres of open space 1,160 ac in Water Oak South 544 acres in MUD 25 •3,268 SF Lots (max.) –2,270 lots in Water Oak South •17.5 acres commercial –5.5 acres along RM 2243 •2×2.5 acre fire station sites •12 acre school site Water Oak Concept Plan Page 74 of 175 City Manager’s Office Parkside on the River Land Use Plan MUD #25 244 ac. Successor Districts ~810 acres MUD #25 300 ac. •1,146 acres 384 acres of open space 15 ac. located north of river 300 acres inside MUD 25 •1,965 SF Lots (max.) –51 lots located north of river •362 Cluster Homes (12 DU/AC) •326 Multi-family Units (20 DU/AC) –Potential for additional 660 on mixed use parcels, but could be commercial •32 acres commercial –Potential for additional 33 ac. on mixed use parcels •2.5 acre fire station site •16 acre school site Page 75 of 175 City Manager’s Office MUD Policy (Approved July 2018) Purpose The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) is to assist in closing the financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed minimum City standards, provide a robust program of amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure improvements are required that would serve the MUD and surrounding properties. Page 76 of 175 City Manager’s Office MUD Policy: Basic Requirements Quality Development Extraordinary Benefits Public Service/Safety Exclusive Provider Fiscally Responsible Finance Plan Annexation Page 77 of 175 City Manager’s Office Quality Development. The development meets or exceeds the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design standards of City codes •Land Development. Developer has agreed to meet/exceed standards in UDC (dated June 1, 2011), plus add the following enhancements to Development Agreement: –Residential Standards. Design standards for residential development to ensure minimum standard of quality and create equality with more recent developments with MUDs. –Commercial Centers. Set aside 32 acres along RM 2243 for future commercial compared to only 5.5 acres on current land use plan; plus preserve opportunity for more commercial in mixed use areas on additional 30 acres. –Tree Preservation. Abide by Tree Preservation standards identical to Wolf Ranch-Hillwood PUD standards. This is a significant improvement compared to minimal standards in Agreement. •Infrastructure. Developer has agreed to meet City’s infrastructure standards and be obligated to fund the design and construction of major infrastructure. Page 78 of 175 City Manager’s Office Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. •Roads. Developer/District to design, fund, and construct extension of Water Oak Pkwy (an OTP roadway) as well as Parkway B. [No change from 2012 Agreement] •Trails . Developer/District to design, fund, and construct regional trail (10’ wide) along South San Gabriel River and Water Oak Parkway. Current agreement requires an 8’ wide trail along Water Oak Parkway. •Parks/Recreational Facilities/Open Space. Developer to provide neighborhood parks, private amenity centers, and preserve more than 300 acres as open space. Existing Agreement does not require neighborhood parks or commitment to amenity centers. •RM 2243 Transportation Enhancements. Developer/District to fund, design, and construct two signalized intersections on RM 2243 at Water Oak Parkway and Parkway B when warrants are met along with dedication of right-of-way for major arterial and turn lanes. There are no specific obligations in current agreement. •Diversity of Housing. Land Use Plan provides a diversity of housing with range of single-family lots/designs, multi-family, and cluster homes, while increasing commercial as described earlier. Current plan allows only single-family. Page 79 of 175 City Manager’s Office Extraordinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. •Wastewater (Existing Benefit). The Water Oak development funded $12,807,158 and the City funded $2,627,738 in a partnership to extend a major wastewater interceptor (SSGI) west of I-35 to address growth pressures and support quality development consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. •Water Infrastructure (Existing Benefit). Developer/District to cover cost to construct master planned 24” Water Transmission Line from RM 2243 to Water Oak North. A change includes: –City will advance funding to construct transmission line ahead of development to improve availability of fire flow for the surrounding area, including the project, in response to strong growth along RM 2243 and to the south. –The Developer has agreed to bid and build the line within the City’s available funds. Developer may request reimbursement after January 1, 2020. The developer has agreed to repay the City the full cost of the Transmission Line up to $3,500,000 with an annual fixed payment of $500,000 over 7 years, starting with first payment made upon acceptance of water line. Page 80 of 175 City Manager’s Office Enhance Public Service and Safety. The development enhances public services and optimizes service delivery through its design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features. •Fire Station Site. Developer will dedicate a 2.5 acre site along RM 2243 at no cost to the City to optimize service delivery and response times as this area develops. [No change from 2012 Agreement.] •SIP Fee. Developer agrees to maintain Fire SIP fee of $630 to be collected at time of application of building permit for each residential lot, multi-family unit, and commercial lot. [No change from 2012 Agreement.] –Single-family (max. 1,965 DUs)……………………….…………………$1,237,950 –Multi-family/Cluster Homes (688 –1,348 DUs)… $433,400 -$916,640 –Total SIP Fee from Residential (max) ……………………………….....$2,154,590 –In addition, commercial development to pay $630 per lot Page 81 of 175 City Manager’s Office City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities. •Exclusive Provider. The City will continue to be exclusive provider of all services – water, wastewater, and solid waste. [No change from 2012 Agreement.] •On-site Facilities. The Developer/District to cover the full cost of On-site Facilities (water, wastewater, drainage, road, etc…) internal to the Water Oak South development that are necessary to serve the project. [No change from 2012 Agreement.] •Impact Fees. The Developer/District will be assessed the existing water and wastewater impact fees listed in the current development agreement. The existing development agreement has locked impact fees in place at $3,324 per Service Unit for water and $2,683 per Service Unit for wastewater. [No change from 2012 Agreement.] Page 82 of 175 City Manager’s Office •Bond Terms: –Estimated Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued for Future Districts: $100,100,000 based upon developer’s assumptions on valuations and absorption. This does not include land located within existing MUD #25. –Maximum Bond Maturity: 30 years [MUD Policy guide is 25 years] –Bond Issuance Period: 15 years from the date of the first issuance of Bonds issued by each district [MUD Policy guide is 10 years ] –Refunding Bonds: Not later than 10th anniversary of date of issuance –Reimbursement Agmt.: 15 years from Effective Date –District Only Tax Rate (Maximum):$0.92/$100 in Assessed Value •Master Development Fee to be applied to future districts and retained for MUD #25, all to be applied to cost to construct the Bridge Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the issuance of bonds by the district. Page 83 of 175 City Manager’s Office Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible, doesn’t impair the City’s ability to provide municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown in the event of annexation. •Development is responsible for on-site costs of infrastructure and will not impose financial burden on citizens of City of Georgetown. •Residential construction no sooner than 2021 and achieve full buildout by 2040. •Commercial construction of approximately 250,000 square feet of building area to begin construction in 2028 and built out over 10 years. Opportunity for more commercial is preserved on additional 30 acres. •Multi-family and cluster homes may begin in 2023 and take up to 11 years to achieve full build-out. Page 84 of 175 City Manager’s Office Feedback and Direction Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on a new proposal for the southern portion of the Water Oak development that will involve an amendment to the existing Water Oak Municipal Utility District (MUD) Consent Agreement and approval of a new Development Agreement. •Does Council support amendments to the existing 2012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement? •Does Council support the major terms as presented to a new Development Agreement covering Parkside on the River located south of, and including, the South San Gabriel River corridor? •Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan? •Does Council wish staff to contact the existing MUD #25 and initiate negotiations to amend the existing 2012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement, and if necessary the Development Agreement? Page 85 of 175 City Manager’s Office Next Steps (The following are suggestions) •Should Council support the proposed amendments: •Amend Consent and Development Agmts as described in presentation consistent with Council direction •Initiate negotiations with MUD #25 •Following approval of new agreements, deannex land along RM 2243, except for RM 2243 ROW, at some point in the future prior to actual land development Page 86 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n of the FY2019 CIP Ro ll Fo rward and Operational Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budge t Manager ITEM SUMMARY: This item corre spo nds with the amendment on the legislative session. Each year the City brings a roll forward amendme nt fo r capital projects or one-time items included and approved in the prior fiscal year. Due to the multi-year timing of capital projects, this appropriation no w needs to be moved to the current fiscal year. Additionally, the Charter and State Law allow the budget to be amended for other municipal purposes that were not foreseen at the time the original budget was adopted. Several o perational amendme nts are needed in FY2019 as well. These include the re vised agreement with Emergency Services District #8, the rec ognition o f the SAFER grant for Fire services, and measures to curtail spending in the Ele c tric Fund while the City renego tiates the lo ng position in purchase d power. This workshop pre sentatio n will cover the amende d funds. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: P aul Diaz, Budget Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description 2019 CIP Ro llfo rward Presentatio n Exhib it A Exhib it B Page 87 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget 2019 CIP Rollforward and Operational Budget Amendment City Council December 11, 2018 Page 88 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Overview of the Amendment •Annually in December staff brings forward a CIP Rollforward Amendment. •This amendment appropriates: –Multi-year large capital projects (roads, water treatment plants, facilities, etc), –Unused FY2018 one-time funds –Operational changes (fire and electric) •We are in a dynamic environment, and we have a complex financial ecosystem in the City. In total, 15 different funds are being amended. Page 89 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget General Fund -Operations •SAFER Grant and ESD #8 Contract –Recognize the revenue increases $1.84 M –Appropriate funds for the Station 7 staff and other new positions in Fire $918,338 •Reduce ROI revenue from Electric by $1.2 M and fully utilizing the Economic Stability Reserve •Street Maintenance one time fund of $250,000 •Bike Master Plan $41,677 Page 90 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget General Capital Projects •Issue C.O.s for Fire Station #6 ($5.2 Million) Fire Driver Truck ($47 K), Fire Logistics Truck ($47 K), and Police Vehicles ($65 K) –Recognize increased bond interest revenue with new proceeds as well as updating debt issuance costs for the fund •Transfer in form IT for Workday Project contingency of $250,000 Page 91 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget General Capital Projects •In the Community Services division: –$1,822,864 forward into FY2019 for San Gabriel Park and for ADA projects –$370,000 of existing proceeds from Garey Park •In Bond funded equipment: –$6,135,088 (ERP project, Radio Replacement, Fire Station 7) Page 92 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget General Capital Projects •In facilities: –$1,031,831 forward for Downtown West, Downtown Signage, and Parking Expansion •Road Bonds: –$18,251,515, including $10.3 M for Northwest Blvd Bridge and $3.9 M for FM970 •Sidewalks: –$2.03 M including 10th, 11th, and Austin Ave (SH29 to FM2243) Page 93 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Enterprise Funds -Operations •Electric Fund –Revenues •Recognize the full year impact of the PCA $2.46 M •Reduce bond proceeds to zero •Recognize $100,000 for the Bloomberg Grant –Expenses •Reduce transfer out to General Fund for ROI by $1.2 million •Reduce salary and benefits accounts related to three vacant positions which are not going to be filled in FY2019 Page 94 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Enterprise Fund -Operations •Electric Fund –Expenses Continued •Zero out expenses related to a Pressure Digger Vehicle approved in the budget $434,050K •Reduce the transfer out to Main Street Facade Fund for Holiday Lights $60K •Zero out expenses related to radio replacement $222K •Reduce expenses related to bond issuance costs $156K Page 95 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Enterprise Fund –CIP •Electric Fund –Expenses Continued •Reduce total CIP to $4M •This figure represents total bond proceeds from prior issuances •New CIP Plan –$2,700,000 for New Development –$200,000 for Rabbit Hill Road –$154,000 for University Mays Widening –$145,445 for DB Woods & SH 29 Intersection Page 96 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Enterprise Funds –CIP •Water Fund –Reduce bond proceeds to zero and remove the debt issuance cost –Water Projects to be rolled total $23.8M –Wastewater Projects to be rolled total $29.3M –Projects including Shell Road Water Line, County Road 255, and Braun Elevated Storage Tank Page 97 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Enterprise Funds –CIP •Stormwater –Reduce bond proceeds and bond issuance costs –Rollforward CIP projects including 18th and Hutto, Curb and Gutter Repair, and Village PID Inlet •Airport –Rollforward CIP projects include Runway Rehab for $516K and Taxiway Edge Lighting for $150K Page 98 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Internal Service Funds •Health Insurance Fund –Increase premium revenue and healthcare expense for the impact of new Fire staff •Fleet –Roll forward FY2018 Fire Attack Truck –Recognize transfer in revenue and expenses for the purchase of trucks for new Fire personnel •Information Technology –Roll one-time savings from FY2018 –Transfer one-time savings to Workday project for contingency Page 99 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Special Revenue Funds •Main Street Façade Fund –Roll the remaining FY2018 Main Street Façade funds into FY2019 –Reduce the transfer in from Electric for the Holiday Lights as well as the corresponding expense •Tourism Fund –Increase appropriation for the Holiday Lights Page 100 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Special Revenue Funds •GTEC –Rollforward $7.01 M in street projects which include Mays Street/Rabbit Hill Road ($1.0 M roll forward), Pecan Center Dr./Airport Road (roll forward $2.44 M), and the Southeast Inner Loop Widening (rollforward of $900,000) •Streets Sales Tax –The beginning fund balance is $2,220,866 more than projected due to savings in capital projects. Staff is proposing to appropriate the FY2018 savings in the FY2019 Budget. Page 101 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Special Revenue Funds •CDBG –Proposed amendment is to transfer $23,222 of project savings back to the GCP fund •Downtown TIRZ –Roll a total of $366,343 of capital improvement projects including Street light Upgrades, Grace Heritage Plaza, and Public Art Downtown Page 102 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Summary •Dynamic changing fast-growth environment •Increases to Fire revenue bring enhanced service to community •Maintain Electric fund 90 day contingency policy compliance •Roll forward major multi-year capital projects Page 103 of 175 FY2019 Annual Budget Questions Page 104 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action 2019 Amended Budget 610 - Electric Fund Beginning Fund Balance 8,814,823$ (6,844,132)$ 1,970,691$ Revenues Original Revenue 76,007,499$ 76,007,499$ Full Year Impact PCA 2,469,834$ 2,469,834$ Bond Proceeds 7,864,165$ (7,864,165)$ -$ Bloomberg Grant Revenue 100,000$ 100,000$ Total Revenues 83,871,664$ (5,294,331)$ 78,577,333$ Expenses Original Expenses 67,802,634$ -$ 67,802,634$ Remove Bond Issuance Costs 156,840$ (156,840)$ -$ Handling Fees 2,500$ 2,500$ Remove Holiday Lights Transfer 60,000$ (60,000)$ -$ Remove Pressure Digger Vehicle 434,050$ (434,050)$ -$ Reduce ROI Transfer Out 5,550,000$ (1,225,000)$ 4,325,000$ Freeze Vacant Positions - Salaries 283,677$ (283,677)$ -$ Freeze Vacant Positions - Health Ins. 32,811$ (32,811)$ -$ Bloomberg Roll and 2019 Project 170,805$ 170,805$ Radio Replacement 222,165$ (222,165)$ -$ Capital Improvements 7,642,000$ (3,624,993)$ 4,017,007$ Total Expenses 82,184,177$ (5,866,231)$ 76,317,946$ Ending Fund Balance 10,502,310$ (6,272,232)$ 4,230,078$ 90 Day Operational Contingency 4,082,999$ -$ 4,082,999$ Non-Operational Contingency 6,419,311$ (6,272,232)$ 147,079$ Available Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ Exhibit A - Budget Amendment The beginning fund balance for FY2019 is $1,970,691. The lower than expected fund balance is due the higher than budgeted purchase power costs in FY2018. Staff is recommending several amendments to the Electric fund. First, staff is recommending increase revenue by $2,469,834 for the full year impact of the Power Cost Adjustment(PCA). Next, staff is recommending reducing bond proceeds and the corresponding expenses of issuing debt. Staff is requesting adding $2,500 for Bond handling fees originally not included in the adopted budget. All capital improvement projects in FY2019 will be funded by previously issued bond proceeds. The transfer out to the Main Street Fund for Holiday Lights is zeroed out. That expense will be covered by CVB Fund. The expenses related to the Pressure Digger Vehicle are zeroed out as well. There will be a corresponding amendment in the Fleet Fund where the vehicle was budgeted to be purchased. The vehicle purchase price and maintenance costs totaled $434,050. The transfer out to the General Fund for Return on Investment (ROI) is proposed to be reduced by $1,225,000. The General Fund will adjust transfers in by this amount and fully utilized the Economic Stability Reserve by the same amount. Staff is proposing reducing the funds for radio replacement to zero. Staff is proposing to not hire three currently vacant positions. The salary savings totals $283,677. Health insurance for these positions totals $32,811. A corresponding amendment for $32,811 needs to be made in the Health Insurance Fund. Staff is proposing to rollforward $70,805 for appropriation for the Bloomberg Project in FY2018 to FY2019. Additionally, staff is proposing to recognize $100,000 of grant revenue and $100,000 of expense also for the Bloomberg Project. Finally, the Electric CIP will be reduced to a total of $4,017,007. The revised CIP plan will feature $2.7 M for New Development Projects and $154,000 for University Widening. Funds over the 90 day reserve are appropriated into the non operating reserve. Page 105 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 293 - Downtown TIRZ Beginning Fund Balance 89,620$ 354,321$ 443,941$ Revenues Original Revenues 264,301$ -$ 264,301$ Total Revenues 264,301$ -$ 264,301$ Expenses Capital Improvement 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ General Repairs -$ 105,341$ 105,341$ Street Light upgrades -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Gateway Design -$ 60,000$ 60,000$ Parking Improvements -$ 6,902$ 6,902$ Downtown Public Art -$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Grace Heritage Plaza -$ 139,100$ 139,100$ Total Expenses 250,000$ 366,343$ 616,343$ Ending Fund Balance 103,922$ (12,022)$ 91,900$ Available Fund Balance 103,922$ (12,022)$ 91,900$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 203 - Street Maintenance Beginning Fund Balance 870,000$ 2,220,866$ 3,090,866$ Revenues Original Revenues 3,566,550$ -$ 3,566,550$ Total Revenues 3,566,550$ -$ 3,566,550$ Expenses Original Expenses 3,636,550$ -$ 3,636,550$ Reduce Election Expense 50,000$ (50,000)$ -$ Street Main. CIP Rollforward 2,270,866$ 2,270,866$ Total Expenses 3,686,550$ 2,220,866$ 5,907,416$ Ending Fund Balance 750,000$ -$ 750,000$ Arterial Reserve 750,000$ -$ 750,000$ Available Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ The beginning fund balance in this fund is $443,941 due to CIP projects which span multiple years. Staff is recommending rolling the appropriation for several CIP projects into FY2019. CIP projects include Street Light Upgrades (roll $40,000), Gateway Design (roll $60,000), Downtown Public Art (roll $15,000) and Grace Heritage Plaza ($139,100). The beginning fund balance is $2,220,866 more than projected due to savings in capital projects. Staff is proposing to appropriate the FY2018 savings in the FY2019 Budget. Additionally, there is an amendment to reduce the expenses for the quarter cent sales tax election. Those expenses will be covered by savings in the City Secretary’s election expenses account. Page 106 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 226 - Main Street Beginning Fund Balance 4,830$ 80,684$ 85,514$ Revenues Original Revenues 47,000$ -$ 47,000$ Reduce Transfer In 75,000$ (60,000)$ 15,000$ Total Revenues 122,000$ (60,000)$ 62,000$ Expenses Original Expenses 126,830$ -$ 126,830$ Reduce Holiday Lights (60,000)$ (60,000)$ Main Street Façade Program 74,826$ 74,826$ Total Expenses 126,830$ 14,826$ 141,656$ Ending Fund Balance -$ 5,858$ 5,858$ Available Fund Balance -$ 5,858$ 5,858$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 215 - CDBG Beginning Fund Balance -$ 23,222$ 23,222$ Revenues Original Revenues 287,608$ 287,608$ Total Revenues 287,608$ -$ 287,608$ Expenses Original Expenses 287,608$ 287,608$ Transfer to GCP 23,222$ 23,222$ Total Expenses 287,608$ 23,222$ 310,830$ Ending Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ Available Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ The beginning fund balance for the fund is $23,222. The one proposed amendment is to transfer $23,222 to the General Capital Projects fund. Last year, the cost estimates for the Scenic Drive sidewalk project were higher than the budget. The GCP fund transfered funds to support the overage. However, after the close out of the project there were savings relative to budget. This transfer is to send back the remaining budget to GCP sidewalks. The beginning balance is higher than projected due to savings in the Main Street Façade program in FY2018. Staff is recommending to rollforward the savings of $74,826 from FY2018 into FY2019. Additionally, staff is recommending to reduce the transfer in from electric fund for holiday lights and the corresponding expense. Page 107 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 120 - General Capital Projects 1,444,673$ 27,411,116$ 28,855,789$ Revenues Original Revenues 21,193,500$ 21,193,500$ Sale of Buildings 2,366,800$ 2,366,800$ CO Proceeds-Fire Driver Vehicle 47,000$ 47,000$ CO Proceeds-Logistics Vehicle 47,000$ 47,000$ CO Proceeds-Police Vehicle Increased Cost 65,000$ 65,000$ CO Bond Proceeds Station #6 5,200,000$ 5,200,000$ Transfer In CDBG 23,222$ 23,222$ Transfer In IT 250,000$ 250,000$ Bond Interest 80,000$ 80,000$ Total Revenues 21,193,500$ 8,079,022$ 29,272,522$ Expenses Original Expenses 20,684,000$ 20,684,000$ Fire Driver Vehicle - Transfer Out Fleet 47,000$ 47,000$ Logistics Vehicle - Transfer Out Fleet 47,000$ 47,000$ Police Vehicle - Transfer Out Fleet 65,000$ 65,000$ Workday ERP 250,000$ 250,000$ Fire Station #6 5,200,000$ 5,200,000$ Updated Debt Issuance Costs w/ New Debt 400,000$ 400,000$ CIP - Community Services 1,822,864$ 1,822,864$ CIP - Bond Funded Equipment 6,135,088$ 6,135,088$ CIP - Facilities 1,031,831$ 1,031,831$ CIP - Streets 18,251,515$ 18,251,515$ CIP - Sidewalks 2,032,592$ 2,032,592$ CIP Garey - Park 370,000$ 370,000$ Total Expenses 20,684,000$ 35,652,890$ 56,336,890$ Ending Fund Balance 1,954,173$ (162,752)$ 1,791,421$ TIA Reserve 1,839,815$ (50,332)$ 1,789,483$ Available Fund Balance 114,358$ (112,420)$ 1,938$ The beginning fund balance for the GCP fund is $28,855,789. Fire Related Items: Two of the new positions in Fire will require fleet purchases; $47,000 for trucks for the logistics person and the fire driver. The expense is a Debt funded transfer to the Fleet fund for the purchase of the equipment. Also in public safety, the costs of replacement police vehicles has increased since the time the budget was adopted. Staff is requesting an increase of $65,000 for the replacement of police vehicles. The expense is a transfer of bond proceeds to the Fleet fund for the purchase of the equipment. Staff is recommending recognizing $23,222 of sidewalk project savings in the CDBG fund be sent back to the GCP which originally seeded the funds for the project. There is no expense appropriation needed for this item. Staff is recommending one-time savings of $250,000 for the Workday project in the IT fund be transferred and appropriated in the GCP fund for the Workday project. Staff is recommending issuing $5,200,000 of debt for construction of Fire Station #6 and a corresponding appropriation. Staff is recommending increasing interest earnings from new bond proceeds for Fire Station 6 to $80,000, as well as updating the debt service issuance cost for the fund. There are several CIP rollforward items in the GCP. First, in the Community Service division staff is recommending rolling a total of $1,822,864 forward into FY2019 for projects that include San Gabriel Park for $834,288 and $450,405 for ADA projects. Staff is recommending $370,000 of existing proceeds from Garey Park be rolled forward. In Bond funded equipment, staff is recommending rolling $6,135,088 for multi-year projects, such as ERP, radios, and Fire Station 7. In Facilities, staff is requesting rolling $1,031,831 forward for projects like Downtown West, Downtown Signage, and Parking Expansion. Staff is recommending rolling $18,251,515 for Road bonds. Projects in this category include $10.3 M for Northwest Blvd Bridge and $3.9 M for FM970. And lastly staff is proposing rolling forward $2.03 M for sidewalk repairs including 10th, 11th, and Austin Ave (SH29 to FM2243). Page 108 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 100 - General Fund Beginning Fund Balance 10,463,385$ 144,100$ 10,607,485$ Revenues Original Revenues 62,312,863$ -$ 62,312,863$ Reduction of ROI 5,550,000$ (1,225,000)$ 4,325,000$ ESD 8 Contract Increase 2,300,000$ 1,285,000$ 3,585,000$ Fire SAFER Grant 560,250$ 560,250$ Total Revenues 70,162,863$ 620,250$ 70,783,113$ Expenses Original Expenses 69,396,190$ 69,396,190$ Bike Master Plan 41,677$ 41,677$ Street CIP Rollforward 250,000$ 250,000$ 3 Firefighters 239,861$ 239,861$ Fire Driver 85,505$ 85,505$ Logistics Officer 66,076$ 66,076$ SAFER Grant Staffing 526,896$ 526,896$ Reserve TRV Maintenance 5,400$ 5,400$ Fire SCBA 27,515$ 27,515$ Total Expenses 69,396,190$ 1,242,930$ 70,639,120$ Ending Fund Balance 11,230,059$ (478,580)$ 10,751,478$ Economic Stability Reserve 1,225,000$ (1,225,000)$ -$ Contingency 9,750,000$ 227,771$ 9,977,771$ Benefit Payout 255,000$ -$ 255,000$ Available Fund Balance 59$ 518,649$ 518,707$ The beginning fund balance in the fund is $10,607,485. This figure is inclusive of moving the EMS Fund into the General Fund. There are several amendments in the General Fund. In Public Works, staff is recommending rollforward the Bike Master Plan for $41,677 as well as street maintenance funding of $250,000. Staff is recommending reducing the transfer in ROI revenue from Electric by $1,225,000. The Economic Stability Reserve will be utilized to cover the shortfall. The Fire Department received the SAFER Grant as well as finalized contract negotiations with ESD 8 since the adoption of the Budget. Staff is recommending increasing the budget revenues for both line items for a total of $1,845,250. Additionally, Staff is proposing moving up the start date for Fire Station 6 staff, as well as adding 3 new firefighters, a fire driver, and a logistics officer. All of these positions are sworn with the exception of the logistics position – it is a non-civil service position. Staff is also requesting to rollforward $27,515 for Fire Self Contained Breathing Apparatus equipment. With the addition of new Fire staff, the 90 day contingency calculation was increased. Per fiscal policy, the Economic Stability Reserve should be replenished as soon as practical. Page 109 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 201 - CVB/Tourism Beginning Fund Balance 1,192,734$ (21,933)$ 1,170,801$ Revenues Original Revenues 1,514,650$ -$ 1,514,650$ Total Revenues 1,514,650$ -$ 1,514,650$ Expenses Original Expenses 1,292,582$ 1,292,582$ Holiday Lights 60,000$ 60,000$ Total Expenses 1,292,582$ 60,000$ 1,352,582$ Ending Fund Balance 1,414,802$ (81,933)$ 1,332,869$ Contingency 271,189$ -$ 271,189$ Reserved for Capital 1,143,613$ (81,933)$ 1,061,680$ Available Fund Balance -$ -$ -$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 520 - Fleet Beginning Fund Balance 3,879,309$ 880,971$ 4,760,280$ Revenues Original Revenues 6,531,979$ -$ 6,531,979$ Remove Inspector Truck Transfer In -$ (32,462)$ (32,462)$ Bond Proceeds - Police (GCP) -$ 65,000$ 65,000$ TRV Maintenance Fees (General Fund ISF) -$ 5,400$ 5,400$ Bond Proceeds - Fire Vehicles (GCP) -$ 94,000$ 94,000$ Fire Vehicles Maintenance Fees (GF ISF)-$ 8,850$ 8,850$ Remove Pressure Digger (Electric)(434,050)$ (434,050)$ Total Revenues 6,531,979$ (293,262)$ 6,238,717$ Expenses Original Expenses 6,172,042$ -$ 6,172,042$ Remove Inspector Truck & Main. -$ (32,462)$ (32,462)$ Police Vehicles Purchase -$ 65,000$ 65,000$ TRV Maintenance Fees -$ 5,400$ 5,400$ Fire Vehicles Purchase -$ 94,000$ 94,000$ Fire Vehicles Maintenance -$ 8,850$ 8,850$ Roll for Fire Rescue Truck -$ 835,292$ 835,292$ Remove Pressure Digger -$ (434,050)$ (434,050)$ Total Expenses 6,172,042$ 542,030$ 6,714,072$ Ending Fund Balance 4,239,246$ 45,679$ 4,284,925$ Contingency 479,322$ -$ 479,322$ Reserved for Capital 1,055,600$ -$ 1,055,600$ Available Fund Balance 2,704,324$ 45,679$ 2,750,003$ The beginning balance in the fund totals $4,760,280. In the Joint Services Fund, an Inspector position received in the FY2019 Budget is going to be reclassed to another position. The new position does not require a vehicle. Therefore, staff is recommending to reduce the transfer in from the Joint Service fund as well as the expenses to purchase and maintain the vehicle: Cost of $32,462. The police vehicles scheduled for replacement FY2019 are now projected to cost more than originally budgeted. Staff is recommending increased bond proceeds and expenses to cover the vehicles. This amendment would be for $65,000. The Fire Department is requesting to keep the oldest TRV Ambulance as a training vehicle rather than selling it at auction. For this reason, additional maintenance dollars are needed. Also in Fire, the new Logistics Coordinator and Fire Driver positions will require new vehicles. Both vehicles will costs $47,000 with $4,425 for vehicle maintenance and lease fees. Staff is recommending the purchase of the vehicles via CO debt. Staff is proposing to roll $835,292 for the purchase of a Fire Rescue Truck which was scheduled for replacement in FY2018. Lastly, staff is recommening not funding the Electric Pressure Digger for a total of $434,050. The beginning balance in the fund is starting $21,933 lower than projected. Staff is recommending an increase in appropriation for the holiday lights of $60,000. Previously this expense was funded via a transfer from the electric fund to the Main Street Façade fund where the expense was budgeted. The funding source will be fund balance. The Reserve for Capital line was adjusted to compensate for slightly lower beginning fund balance and the holiday light expense. Page 110 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 570 - IT Beginning Fund Balance 1,431,188$ 989,542$ 2,420,730$ Revenues Original Revenues 6,951,851$ -$ 6,951,851$ Transfer In - General Fund (Fire) 15,000$ 15,000$ Total Revenues 6,951,851$ 15,000$ 6,966,851$ Expenses Original Expenses 6,956,569$ -$ 6,956,569$ Transfer Out - Workday ERP -$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Rollforward One-Time -$ 308,000$ 308,000$ Computer Equipment Charge -$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Total Expenses 6,956,569$ 573,000$ 7,529,569$ Ending Fund Balance 1,426,470$ 431,542$ 1,858,012$ Contingency 543,744$ -$ 543,744$ Reserved for Capital 882,727$ -$ 882,727$ Available Fund Balance -$ 431,542$ 431,542$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 660 - Water Beginning Fund Balance 27,669,833$ 61,489,870$ 89,159,703$ Revenues Original Revenues 59,719,104$ -$ 59,719,104$ Reduce Bond Proceeds 6,050,000$ (6,050,000)$ -$ Total Revenues 65,769,104$ (6,050,000)$ 59,719,104$ Expenses Original Expenses 43,532,965$ 43,532,965$ Capital Expenses 32,683,670$ 32,683,670$ CIP Roll forward 53,134,270$ 53,134,270$ Reduce Bond Issuance Costs 105,000$ (105,000)$ -$ Total Expenses 76,321,635$ 53,029,270$ 129,350,905$ Ending Fund Balance 17,117,302$ 2,410,600$ 19,527,902$ Contingency 7,498,183$ -$ 7,498,183$ Non Operating Contingency 9,500,000$ -$ 9,500,000$ Available Fund Balance 119,119$ 2,410,600$ 2,529,719$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 640 - Stormwater Beginning Fund Balance 700,652$ 696,596$ 1,397,248$ Revenues Original Revenues 3,659,900$ -$ 3,659,900$ Reduce Bond Proceeds 1,230,000$ (450,000)$ 780,000$ Total Revenues 4,889,900$ (450,000)$ 4,439,900$ Expenses Operating Exp. 2,966,029$ 10,000$ 2,976,029$ Non Operating Debt Service 419,458$ (7,500)$ 411,958$ Non Operating CIP 1,300,000$ 236,871$ 1,536,871$ Total Expenses 4,685,487$ 239,371$ 4,924,858$ Ending Fund Balance 905,065$ 7,225$ 912,290$ Contingency 578,286$ -$ 578,286$ Available Fund Balance 326,779$ 7,225$ 334,004$ The beginning fund balance for FY2019 is $2,420,730. There are several amendments in this fund. Staff is proposing to rollforward $308,000 for one time expenses. The one time projects include $280,000 for Disaster Recovery, $10,000 for furniture for new conference room, $8,000 for CAD Server Upgrade and $10,000 for PCI compliance study. Additionally, staff is recommending a transfer out to the General Capital Project fund of $250,000 for the Workday ERP project. Lastly, the General Fund is transferring $15,000 to the Fund for the new 5 positions in Fire. A corresponding $15,000 expense is also proposed. The beginning fund balance in this fund is $89,159,703 due to CIP projects which span multiple years. Staff is recommending rolling the appropriation for several CIP projects into FY2019. CIP projects include Berry Creek Interceptor ($10.3 M), Shell Road Water Line ($6.03 M), and the Braun Elevated Storage Tank ($4.35 M). In total, staff is proposing increasing the FY2019 budget by $53.1 M for CIP Projects. In addition to the roll forward of CIP, staff is also recommending reducing bond proceeds as well as the corresponding bond issuance expenses. In the original budget bond proceeds totaled $6,050,000. In the stormwater fund, Staff is proposing to reduce bond proceeds by $450,000 as well as the expenses of issuing the debt (-9,000) but increase handling fees of $1,500. This amendment would utilize existing bond proceeds in the fund before issuing more debt. The CIP roll forward portion of the amendment includes $236,871 for capital projects including 18th and Hutto as well as the Village PID Inlet. The operational portion is rolling forward $10,000 for MS4 Program costs. Due to FY2018 savings in CIP, the beginning fund balance has been adjusted up $696,596. Page 111 of 175 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 660 - Airport Beginning Fund Balance 462,181$ 600,760$ 1,062,941$ Revenues Original Revenues 4,391,662$ -$ 4,391,662$ Total Revenues 4,391,662$ -$ 4,391,662$ Expenses Original Expenses 3,817,214$ 3,817,214$ CIP Roll forward 666,500$ 666,500$ Debt Service Increase 5,830$ 5,830$ Total Expenses 3,817,214$ 672,330$ 4,489,544$ Ending Fund Balance 1,036,629$ (71,570)$ 965,059$ Contingency 264,442$ -$ 264,442$ Available Fund Balance 772,187$ (71,570)$ 700,617$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 590 - Health Insurance Beginning Fund Balance 3,319,839$ 156,390$ 3,476,229$ Revenues Original Revenues 8,720,000$ -$ 8,720,000$ Frozen Electric Positions -$ (32,811)$ (32,811)$ New Fire Positions -$ 110,550$ 110,550$ Total Revenues 8,720,000$ 77,739$ 8,797,739$ Expenses Original Expenses 8,978,000$ 8,978,000$ Frozen Electric Positions -$ (32,811)$ (32,811)$ New Fire Positions -$ 110,550$ 110,550$ Total Expenses 8,978,000$ 77,739$ 9,055,739$ Ending Fund Balance 3,061,839$ 156,390$ 3,218,229$ IBNR 650,000$ -$ 650,000$ Rate Stabilization 1,532,000$ -$ 1,532,000$ Available Fund Balance 879,839$ 156,390$ 1,036,229$ 2019 Approved Budget Impact of This Action/CAFR Adjustment 2019 Amended Budget 400 - GTEC Beginning Fund Balance 14,921,796$ 3,156,486$ 18,078,282$ Revenues Original Revenues 14,463,100$ -$ 14,463,100$ Total Revenues 14,463,100$ -$ 14,463,100$ Expenses Original Expenses 16,298,719$ 16,298,719$ Roll forward CIP 7,017,199$ 7,017,199$ Total Expenses 16,298,719$ 7,017,199$ 23,315,918$ Ending Fund Balance 13,086,177$ (3,860,713)$ 9,225,464$ Contingency 1,768,275$ -$ 1,768,275$ Available Fund Balance 11,317,902$ (3,860,713)$ 7,457,189$ Total Change in Appropriation 95,865,784$ The beginning fund balance in this fund is $18,078,282 due to CIP projects which span multiple years. Staff is recommending rolling the appropriation for several CIP projects into FY2019. CIP projects include Mays Street/Rabbit Hill Road ($1.0 M roll forward), Pecan Center Dr./Airport Road (roll forward $2.44 M), and the Southeast Inner Loop Widening (roll forward of $900,000). The beginning balance was increased due to CIP savings in FY2018 by $600,760. There are two proposed roll forward amendments in this fund. Staff is recommending roll forwards for $516,500 Runway Design and $150,000 for the Taxiway Edge Lighting Project. An adjustment for debt service issuance costs of $5,830 is also in the amendment. The beginning fund balance is 3,476,229, an improvement over the projected amount. The Health Insurance Fund needs to be amended for the frozen positions in Electric as well as the new positions in Fire. The frozen positions in Electric result in a reduction of $32,811 in transfer in revenue as well as $32,811 in medical expenses. The new fire positions will result in an increase of both transfer in revenue and medical expenses of $110,550. Page 112 of 175 FY2019 Amended Budget - Position Control 100 - General Fund 0402 - Fire Support Services FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Adopted FY2019 Changes FY2019 Budget ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 BATTALION CHIEF 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 FIRE CAPTAIN 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 FIRE CHIEF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 FIRE LIEUTENANT 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 -1.00 3.00 FIRE PLANS/CODE INSPECTOR 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOGISTICS OFFICER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 SUPV, ADMINISTRATIVE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0402 - Fire Support Services 14.00 14.00 14.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0422 - Fire Emergency Services FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Adopted FY2019 Changes FY2019 Budget BATTALION CHIEF 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 FIRE CAPTAIN 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 FIRE DRIVER 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 2.00 23.00 FIRE LIEUTENANT 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 Page 113 of 175 0422 - Fire Emergency Services FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 Adopted FY2019 Changes FY2019 Budget FIREFIGHTER 39.00 42.00 42.00 56.00 3.00 59.00 MEDICAL HEALTH AND FITNESS COORD 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0422 - Fire Emergency Services 84.00 87.50 87.50 101.00 5.00 106.00 100 - General Fund 98.00 101.50 101.50 116.00 5.00 121.00 98.00 101.50 101.50 116.00 5.00 121.00Total: Page 114 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Update of the use agreement for Grace Heritage Ce nter with P reservation Georgeto wn -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City currently leases the Grace Heritage Cente r, lo cated at 811 Main Street, to Preservation Georgetown (forme rly the Georgetown He ritage Society) to operate and promote history and historic tourism in Geo rgetown. The current lease is effective No vember 1 , 2 01 5 for a three year period and has an o ption to renew at the curre nt terms for an additio nal 3 year period. At pre vious workshops on January 9 and July 24 and October 9 , 2 018, the Council directed staff to work with Preservatio n Georgetown to enhance rentals and o ther activity for the GHC and to review c ost recovery options. Summary of cur r e nt ag reement: City pro vides interior and exterior mainte nance, including HVAC and plumbing GHS/P G provides insurance and quarterly rent payments of $975 GHS/P G shall provide space for an exhibitio n gallery, instructional spac e , meeting facilities, a gift display, and/or o ther temporary exhibits at the Pro perty. Minim um hours of ope ratio n shall be Thursday and Friday, 9-5, Sunday, 1 -4; and operation during the fo llowing downtown events; First Fridays, Red Poppy Festival, the Lighting of the Square and Christmas Stro ll. All hours of operatio n are subject to change when the y conflict with venue rental. GHS/P G shall be allowed to rent the P roperty or a portion thereof for meetings or events. Such rentals shall be subject to all applicable Operating Re quirements contained in this Exhibit and subject to the provisions of the Agreement. GHS/P G shall have a minimum of six public events per year, free and o pe n to the public, related to history, tourism o r culture. GHS/P G shall provide the brochures and publicatio ns on history to provide to the public. GHS/P G shall pro vide all regular housekeeping o f the premises, including gift display, instructional spac e , and public space. Quarte rly Reports. The GHS/PG shall submit to the City Manager quarterly, written reports with info rmation that includes: door count, any public events, number of eve nt rentals, number of volunte e r hours, a financial report, and attendanc e of special events. Annual Re port. GHS/P G shall prepare and submit to the City Council and the City Manager an annual report not later than thirty (30) days following the anniversary date each year during the term of this Agreement. The annual report shall provide totals for the info rmation compiled in quarterly reports and shall present a strate gic plan to the City Council by the e nd of the first year of the te rm o f this Agreement. Subsequent annual repo rts will include an updated strate gic plan. The City Manager and the President of the Georgetown Heritage Society will hold an annual meeting to discuss the annual report B ased upon Counci l ’s di recti on and di sc ussi o n w i th Preservati o n G eo r geto w n, the fol l o w i ng chang es are proposed: No exclusive lease agre e ment. PG will be allowed to utilize the space for regular membership mee tings, Prese rvation Fund Wo rksho p and co mmittee me etings, the Histo ric Ho me To ur and other preservation activitie s at no cost. The estimated number of days is 24. In return, PG will provide volunte e r or staff docents for regular open hours and first Friday eve nts to promote heritage tourism and allow the public to to ur the facility. PG will have office space in the GHC. City staff will market and promote the fac ility as an event venue for weddings, rehearsal dinners, baby showe rs, birthday parties, etc. All revenues from re ntals will be used to offset maintenance costs. Any excess reve nue s will be reserved for future major capital maintenance and repairs. City visito r center staff will provide access to the GHC for visitors who wish to tour the building during visitor cente r hours thro ugh a key-card system and self –guided tour brochures during hours that the facility is no t Page 115 of 175 staffe d by docents provided by PG. FINANCIAL IMPACT: P reservation Georgetown currently pays rent to the City in quarte rly payments of $97 5, for an annual total o f $3 ,90 0. Estimated annual maintenance c ost for the facility is $11 ,000, and is budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Fund. Utilities are estimated at $4,000 annually. SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description P res entation Current Leas e Agreement Latest Rep orts from PG P ro p o s ed New F acility Lease Agreement Page 116 of 175 City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 Grace Heritage Center Page 117 of 175 Agenda –Update from 10/9 work session Asking for direction to finalize Council’s agreement with Preservation Georgetown City of GeorgetownPage 118 of 175 Background/History •City owns the Grace Heritage Center •City leases to Preservation Georgetown since 1994 to operate –Preservation activities –Fund raising for preservation activities –Current lease expires Oct 2018 •City spent $419K to renovate facility in Fall 2017 •Council direction to increase utilization of facility –Promote downtown activities and further recover costs for maintenance City of GeorgetownPage 119 of 175 2018 Council GHC work sessions •1/9 –Direction to increase activity and use of the building; promote cost recovery •7/24 –Direction to give PG a certain number of days for PG use and City to operate rentals •10/9 –Yes to staff plan for City operating rentals and determine options for PG City of GeorgetownPage 120 of 175 Summary of Previous Direction •City staff to promote the space as a venue and for rentals •City collects revenue •Revenues used to offset maintenance – any excess reserved for future capital maintenance •City pays utilities, insurance, maintenance costs City of GeorgetownPage 121 of 175 Summary of Previous Direction •Evaluate market and adjust fees for rentals •Honor existing commitments •Increase event fee over time •Any excess revenues will be put towards future capital maintenance •Continue to work on joint promotion of events, downtown activities and preservation City of GeorgetownPage 122 of 175 Option Highlights •Option 1 –City staff operate rentals –PG offices at GHC and holds regular hours for the public in exchange for limited use of GHC •Option 2 –City staff operate rentals –PG rents facility when needed at non-profit rate –Public Hours options •A –City hires staff to hold regular public hours (or) •B –No regular public hours –self guided tours City of GeorgetownPage 123 of 175 Option1: PG license agreement •Preservation Georgetown reserves up to 24 days per year for meetings and other preservation activities for no cost •PG utilizes office space and opens center for regular visiting hours –Thursdays 9-5; Fridays 9-5 –PG hosts First Friday events at Grace to promote preservation and heritage tourism City of GeorgetownPage 124 of 175 Option1: PG license agreement •Library rental rooms Non-profit rate –Hewlet/Friends Room 136 capacity -$10 per hour –Classroom (27 capacity) –$5 per hour •Parks rental rooms –Non-profit rates –Community Room -$15 per hour –Conference Room -$10 per hour City of GeorgetownPage 125 of 175 Option1: PG license agreement •Estimation of Value of rental based upon non profit rates City of Georgetown Meeting Time Annual in Hours Hours Monthly membership meetings 2 24 Quarterly Preservation Fund meeting 2 8 Week of Spring Home Tour 8 56 Annual Picnic 4 4 Hours Per Year 92 Rental Rates For Grace Heritage Center (non-profit rate -estimated per hour)$15 based upon library and parks admin Annual Cost/Value of Facility Reservations 1,380.00$ Page 126 of 175 Option1: PG license agreement •Estimation of Annual Value of office space •Total value of use agreement –facility $6,155 City of Georgetown Value of Office Space Market Rate 250 square feet 19.10$ 4,775.00$ Page 127 of 175 Option1: PG license agreement Value of staffing Using national average for value of volunteer hours Monthly Volunteer Hours 7 hours per day; 2 days per week 56 First Friday - 2 hours 24 Monthly Hours of work 80 Hourly volunteer rate (2017)24.69$ Monthly Credit 1,975.20$ Annual Value 23,702.40$ Using city estimated costs for paid staff Hourly rate for visitor center staff 14.68$ FICA tax 1.12$ Misc other costs (15%)2.20$ 18.01$ Additional cost for City to staff Grace Heritage Center at80 avg hours per month 17,285$ City of GeorgetownPage 128 of 175 Summary: Option 1 •Value of space provided to PG $1,380 •Value of office space $4,775 $6,155 •Value of volunteers (lower est)$17,285 •Net benefit (to City)$11,130 City of GeorgetownPage 129 of 175 Summary –Option 2 A •City receives revenue from PG $1,380 •City pays PT staff to staff at same levels $17,285 •Net cost to City $15,905 City of GeorgetownPage 130 of 175 Summary –Option 2 B •City receives revenue from PG $1,380 •No paid staff –self directed tours with key card access from visitor center •Net revenue to City $1,380 City of GeorgetownPage 131 of 175 Summary/Next Steps •Option 1 –since it requires a written agreement, one has been drafted and is on regular agenda for consideration –Action: approve agreement on agenda •Option 2 –no agreement required, will continue to work through transition –Action: no approval of agreement on agenda –Direction: A or B staffing option City of GeorgetownPage 132 of 175 Summary •Option 1 –since it requires a written agreement, one has been drafted and is on regular agenda for consideration –Will be pulled if Option 2 is recommended •Option 2 –no agreement required, will continue to work through transition City of GeorgetownPage 133 of 175 Page 134 of 175 Page 135 of 175 Page 136 of 175 Page 137 of 175 Page 138 of 175 Page 139 of 175 Page 140 of 175 Page 141 of 175 Page 142 of 175 Quarterly Report | August - October 2018 Page 143 of 175 Grace Heritage Center Utilization ACCOUNTABLES August September October Total Visitors 353 330 473 Door Count (casual visitors) 217 205 203 Events / Meetings First Friday - 22 Art Show - 47 Third Thursday - 40 Book Lovers Tour - 15 First Friday - 60 Bridal Tour - 4 Software Demo - 3 Brick Management Meeting - 3 First Friday - 23 Art Show - 35 Georgetown Swirl - 11 Leadership Georgetown - 30 Bridal Tour - 2 Rentals -Wedding (1) - 45 Wedding (2) - 157 PG Meetings Board - 8 Preservation Fund Committee - 4 Board - 6 Preservation Fund Committee - 4 Board - 8 Preservation Fund Committee - 4 Volunteer Hours 140+335 200+ PG Quarterly Report Page 2Page 144 of 175 Preservation Georgetown - Financial Report P&L | May - Oct 2018 Income Expense Preservation Fund Donations 3533.29 Board Expense 260.57 Preservation Fund Donations 1300.00 GHC Income 5610 Events 1541.72 Preservation Fund Grant Payments 12995 Home Tour Income 5505.61 Finance Fees 329.08 Preservation Fund Net -11695.00 Membership 9635 GHC Expense 3832.69 Other Income 913.78 Home Tour 701.23 Interest Earned 32.05 Membership 217.83 Merchandise 240.73 Office Expense 2408.22 Payroll Expense 6296.37 Postage 251.67 Printing 1879.20 Training & Education 598 Total Income 25229.73 Total Expense 18557.31 Net Income -5022.58 PG Quarterly Report Page 3Page 145 of 175 Preservation Georgetown - Financial Report Balance Sheet | as of Oct 31, 2018 Assets Liabilities & Equity Austin Telco Savings 21546.45 Current Liabilities 100.00 Austin Telco Preservation Fund 13183.29 Net Assets 55126.46 First Texas Checking 15305.31 Net Income -5022.58 Petty Cash 168.83 Total Assets 50203.88 Total Liabilities & Equity 50203.88 PG Quarterly Report Page 4Page 146 of 175 Preservation Georgetown - Membership & Reach Channel Totals Facebook (as of Oct 31) 908+ followers 4275+ reach (posts seen) 1371+ engagement (posts liked) Instagram (as of Oct 31)456+ followers preservationgeorgetown.org (Aug 1 - Oct 31) 2454 page views from 31 states (US) 13 countries graceheritagecenter.org (Aug 1 - Oct 31) 980 page views from 16 states (US) 41 countries Membership Totals Paid Memberships (as of Oct 31)193 Individual Members 303 eMail Totals Subscribers 361 Open Rate (avg 6 emails/mo)35.7% PG Quarterly Report Page 5Page 147 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 1 FACILITY USE AGREEMENT PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN – GRACE HERITAGE CENTER STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This Facility Use Agreement (this "Agreement") is made effective as of this 11th day of December, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the City of Georgetown, Texas, a home-rule city located in Williamson County, Texas (“City”), and Preservation Georgetown. a Texas non-profit corporation located in Williamson County, Texas (“Preservation Georgetown”) (collectively, the “Parties”), and is as follows: RECITALS: WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the Grace Heritage Center (“GHC”) located at 817 S. Main Street, Georgetown, TX; WHEREAS, Preservation Georgetown and the City wish to enter a mutually beneficial agreement to provide the public with access to and tours of the GHC; WHEREAS, Preservation Georgetown acknowledges and agrees that the City has exclusive jurisdiction and control of the GHC. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises; in furtherance of the mutual benefits to be derived by the general public and members of the Preservation Georgetown; and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and the Preservation Georgetown agree as follows: 1. RECITALS ADOPTED 1.1. The recitals set out above in this instrument are hereby adopted in whole as though each were set out herein. 2. GRACE HERITAGE CENTER FACILITY 2.1. Preservation Georgetown shall provide docents at its sole cost and expense at the GHC for eighty (80) hours per month to provide tours and information to the public wishing to experience the architecture and history of GHC. 2.2. As consideration for the public service provided in Section 2.1, the City authorizes Preservation Georgetown to utilize the GHC at no cost for the following activities: a. One regular Preservation Georgetown membership for up to two hours once per month; Page 148 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 2 b. Preservation Georgetown Fund Committee meetings for up to two hours once per quarter; c. Preservation Georgetown annual picnic for up to one whole day once per year; and d. Spring Home Tour for seven days once per year. 2.3. The City and Preservation shall develop a joint annual calendar for Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHC pursuant to Sections 2.1 and 2.2. 2.4. Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHC is expressly subject to and subordinate to the present and future rights of the City, its assigns, lessees, grantees, and licensees, to use, operate, and maintain GHC. The City authorizes Preservation Georgetown to use the GHC only for the uses described above and Preservation Georgetown may not utilize GHC to generate Preservation Georgetown revenue for the use of Preservation Georgetown. 2.5. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit in any way the power of the City to alter or improve the GHC or to maintain, use, operate or renew any public utility facilities or franchises public utilities beneath or above the surface of the GHC. The City shall endeavor to provide the Preservation Georgetown with notice of proposed improvements, but shall be under no obligation to do so prior to commencement of work on such improvements. 3. INSURANCE 3.1 Prior to the commencement of Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHC under this Agreement, the Preservation Georgetown shall furnish copies of all required endorsements and an original completed Certificate(s) of Insurance to the City's City Manager. The Certificate(s) shall be completed by an agent and signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The City will not accept Memorandum of Insurance or Binders as proof of insurance. The Certificate(s) or form must have the agent's signature, including the signer's company affiliation, title and phone number, and be mailed, with copies of all applicable endorsements, directly from the insurer's authorized representative to the City. 3.2 Preservation Georgetown’s financial integrity is of interest to the City; therefore, subject to the Preservation Georgetown's right to maintain reasonable deductibles in such amounts as are approved by the City, the Preservation Georgetown shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement insurance in the following types and for an amount not less than the amount listed: TYPE AMOUNTS Page 149 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 3 1. Workers' Compensation 2. Employers' Liability 3. Commercial General Liability Insurance Statutory $1,000,000 I $1,000,000 I $1,000,000 For Bodily Injury and Property Damage of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate, or its equivalent in Umbrella or Excess Liability Coverage 3.3 The City shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to receive copies of the policies, declaration page and all endorsements thereto as they apply to the limits required by the City, and may require the deletion, revision, or modification of particular policy terms, conditions, limitations or exclusions (except where policy provisions are established by law or regulation binding upon the Parties hereto or the underwriter of any such policies) as may be required to comply with the terms of this Agreement. The Preservation Georgetown shall be required to comply with any such requests and shall submit a copy of the replacement Certificate of insurance to the City at the address provided below within 30 days of the requested change. The Preservation Georgetown shall pay any costs incurred resulting from said changes. City of Georgetown Attn.: City Manager P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, TX 78627 3.4 Preservation Georgetown agrees that with respect to the above required insurance, all insurance policies are to contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: • Name the City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, and elected representatives as additional insured's by endorsement, as respects operations and activities of, or on behalf of, the named insured performed under contract with the City, with the exception of the workers' compensation and professional liability policies; • Provide for an endorsement that the "other insurance" clause shall not apply to the City when the City is an additional insured shown on the policy; • Workers' compensation and employers' liability policies will provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. 3.5 Preservation Georgetown agrees to give the City written notice of any suspension, cancellation, non-renewal or material change in coverage of any of the insurance policies required to be obtained and maintained by the Preservation Georgetown under the terms of this Agreement. Within five (5) calendar days of a suspension, cancellation or non-renewal of coverage, the Preservation Georgetown shall provide a replacement Certificate of Insurance and applicable endorsements to the City. The City shall have the option to suspend the Preservation Georgetown's authorization and liability under this Agreement should there be a lapse in coverage at any time during this Agreement. Failure to provide and to maintain the required insurance shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. Page 150 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 4 3.6 Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Preservation Georgetown may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from the Preservation Georgetown's use of GHC as provided in this Agreement. 3.7 It is agreed that Preservation Georgetown's insurance shall be deemed primary and non- contributory with respect to any insurance or self-insurance carried by the City for liability arising out of Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHC as provided in this Agreement. 3.8 It is understood and agreed that the insurance required is in addition to and separate from any other obligation contained in this Agreement. 4. INDEMNIFICATION 4.1 PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN INDEMNIFIES THE CITY ONLY FOR CLAIMS ATTRIBUTED TO PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN AND PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN ASSUMES ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OR ACTIONS BASED ON OR ARISING OUT OF INJURIES, INCLUDING DEATH, TO PERSONS OR DAMAGES TO OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, SUSTAINED OR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN CONNECTION WITH OR TO HAVE ARISEN OUT OF OR INCIDENTAL TO PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN’S, ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS, THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES’ USE OF THE GHC PURSUANT TO THIS. 5. TERMINATION 5.1 Termination by Convenience. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party by delivering written notice of termination to the other Party not later than one-hundred eighty (180) days before the effective date of termination. 6. ASSIGNMENT 6.1. Preservation Georgetown shall not assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt by Preservation Georgetown to transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the consent of the City shall be null and void. 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1. Applicable Laws and Regulations. Preservation Georgetown shall not do, nor suffer to be done, anything at the GHC during the term of this Agreement in violation of the laws of the United States, the State of Texas, or any of the ordinances of the City. 7.2. No Waiver. No waiver by the City of any default or breach of any covenant, condition, or stipulation herein contained shall be treated as a waiver of any subsequent default or breach of the same or any other covenant, condition, or stipulation hereof. 7.3. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision thereof, and this Agreement shall Page 151 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 5 be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 7.4. Notice. Any Preservation Georgetown notices required or appropriate under this Agreement shall be given in writing to Preservation Georgetown at the address shown below, and to the City at City of Georgetown; Attn.: City Manager; P.O. Box 409; Georgetown, TX 78627. 7.5. Headings. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience of reference and are not intended to define, extend, or limit any provisions of this Agreement. 7.6. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement will be interpreted according to the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. Venue of any court action brought directly or indirectly by reason of this Agreement shall be in Williamson County, Texas. This Agreement is made and is to be performed in Williamson County, Texas, and is governed by the laws of the State of Texas. 7.7. Authorization. The signers of this Agtreement each hereby represents that he or she has full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party for which he or she is acting. 7.8. Financial and operating reports, including number of visitors. Preservation Georgetown shall provide a complete copy of its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and other governing documents with the executed Agreement. Preservation Georgetown shall prepare and submit quarterly reports and an annual report detailing Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHC pursuant to this Agreement. The quarterly and annual reports shall include the number of visitors to the GHC during Preservation Georgetown’s use of GHCf. In addition, City shall be entitled to inspect and copy Preservation Georgetown’s records concerning related to operation of the Grace Heritage Center and use of the Property upon request with reasonable notice. 7.9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and addenda contain the final and entire agreement between the Parties hereto and contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon, and supersedes all other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the maintenance of the Public Parkland, none of which shall hereafter be deemed to exist or to bind the Parties hereto; it being the intent of the Parties that neither shall be bound by any term, condition, or representation not herein written. Page 152 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 6 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, a Texas home-rule city By: Dale Ross, Mayor ATTEST: By: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Charlie McNabb, City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2018 by Dale Ross, Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a home-rule city, on behalf of the City. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS Page 153 of 175 {00010305 / v2 / / PARKS / GRACE / 12/04/2018} 7 PRESERVATION GEORGETOWN, a Texas non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2018 by ______________, the ________________ of Preservation Georgetown, a Texas non-profit corporation located in Williamson County, Texas. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS Page 154 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n on the Certificate of Appropriateness development process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director ITEM SUMMARY: Purpose of P rese ntati o n Confirm City Council direction fo r short, medium, and long term improvements to the Certific ate of Appropriateness (CoA) Developme nt Pro cess Feedback Requeste d Did we capture yo ur feedback from the 11 /2 7 workshop accurately? Does City Council want to proceed in making the Historic and Architectural Review Co mmission (HARC) a review/reco mmending body and City Council to beco me the approval authority fo r all COAs? Confirm City Co uncil direction for short, medium, and long te rm impro vements to the Certific ate of Appropriate ness (Co A) Development Pro c e ss. Presentati on Agenda Part 1 – Summary o f 11/27 workshop – Oppo rtunities for improveme nt – Strategies for improveme nt – Summary of Feedback received Part 2 – Council Direction Part 3- Ne xt Steps FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director ATTACHMENT S: Description wo rksho p pres entation Page 155 of 175 Certificate of Appropriateness Process Improvement December 11, 2018 Page 156 of 175 Purpose of Presentation •Confirm City Council direction for short, medium, and long term improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development Process Page 157 of 175 Feedback Requested •Did we capture your feedback from the 11/27 workshop accurately? •Does City Council want to proceed in making the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) a review/recommending body and City Council to become the approval authority for all COAs? •Confirm City Council direction for short, medium, and long term improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development Process. Page 158 of 175 Presentation Agenda •Part 1 –Summary of 11/27 workshop –Opportunities for improvement –Strategies for improvement –Summary of Feedback received •Part 2 –Council Direction •Part 3-Next Steps Page 159 of 175 Part 1 Summary of 11/27/18 Workshop Page 160 of 175 Stakeholder Feedback Themes COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown. Low Priority structures should receive less review. COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria. Part 4Page 161 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Education Regulation Process Policy Part 4Page 162 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan •Timeframe: January 2019 Execute HARC Commissioner Training Plan •Timeframe: continuous Prepare annual public education seminar/outreach •Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation Month Part 4 Education Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Page 163 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Public Outreach Feedback: Length of Development Process/ Low Priority structures should receive less review Implementation Timeframe: 3 to 6 month time frame Change: No Review of Low Priority Structures inside Old Town Downtown Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact: 468 resources out of 1,033 in Old Town would not go through COA review process Change: Staff only review of Low Priority Structures inside Old Town Downtown Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting process. Change: Use of In-kind materials rather than requiring restoration of original architectural features coupled with Option 2. Implementation: UDC Amendment and Design Guidelines Amendment Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting process with added flexibly in use of materials Strategy 4 Option 1 Strategy 4 Option 2 Strategy 4 Option 3 Page 164 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Public Outreach Feedback: HARC review of demolitions shall be limited to properties within a Historic Overlay District. Implementation Timeframe: 3 to 6 month time frame Change: No review of historic resources outside a Historic Overlay District Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:643 resources would no longer require review Change: HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District without 60 day waiting period Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact: 616 resources would no longer require reviewChange: Retain HARC review for High Priority structures, staff only review for Medium Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60 day waiting period Implementation: UDC Amendment Impact:Removes the 60 day waiting period. Strategy 5 Option 1 Strategy 5 Option 2 Strategy 5 Option 3 Page 165 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Regulation & Process Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Public Outreach Feedback: COA Development Process takes too long and process is inconsistent Strategy:Update HARC meeting calendar to meet 2X a month Implementation:March 2019 Strategy:Establishing annual or biannual review of Historic Resources Survey Implementation:Resolution to City Council Strategy:Work with City Legal Department to review for any conflicting language between Design Guidelines and UDC Regulations Implementation:3 to 6 months Strategy 6 Strategy 7 Strategy 8 Page 166 of 175 Opportunities for Improvement Part 4 Policy Strategy Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Public Outreach Feedback: Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown Strategy: Utilize local landmark process to focus on preservation efforts on highest priority community resources Implementation: 1 to 2 year time frame Strategy: Review Design Guidelines for Downtown Overlay Area 2 for consistency with Downtown Master Plan Implementation:6 to 10 month time frame. Result in update of UDC and Design Guidelines Strategy: Prepare Historic Preservation Element of 2030 Plan as called for in City Charter to allow for more long term goal setting approach to historic preservation. Implementation: 2 to 3 year time frame. Coinciding with the update of the Downtown Master Plan. Strategy 9 Strategy 10 Strategy 11 Page 167 of 175 Summary of Council feedback from 11/27 Page 168 of 175 Education •Strategy 1. Support was expressed for preparing a HARC Commissioner Training Plan. •Strategy 2. Support was expressed for executing on a HARC Commissioner Training Plan •Strategy 3. Support was expressed for preparation of an annual public education seminar/ outreach Page 169 of 175 Regulation/Process •Strategy 4. Consensus on review of low priority structures was not achieved. •Strategy 5. Consensus on review of demolitions outside of district was not achieved. •Strategy 6. General support for holding HARC meetings 2X a month. •Strategy 7. General Support to update the Historic Resource Survey every 3 to 5 years rather than every 10 years. •Strategy 8. Support for reviewing and removing conflicts between UDC and Design Guidelines. Page 170 of 175 Policy •Strategy 9. Support for reviewing design guidelines for consistency with Downtown Master Plan. •Strategy 10. General support for utilizing the local landmark process. •Strategy 11. General support for preparation of a Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 171 of 175 Part 2 Council Direction Page 172 of 175 Feedback Requested •Did we capture your feedback from 11/27? •Does Council want proceed in making Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) a review/recommend body and Council to become the approval authority for all COAs ? •Confirm City Council direction for short, medium, and long term improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development Process Page 173 of 175 Part 3 –Next Steps •Analysis of Council prioritized strategies (Winter 18) Define expected outcomes Stakeholder analysis (technical staff + stakeholders) •Draft action plan for Council review/approval (Spring 19) Page 174 of 175 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop December 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice from atto rney abo ut pending or conte mplated litigation and othe r matters o n which the atto rney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati ons about Real Pro perty - Northwest Blvd, Parcel 3 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Rivery Blvd, Parc e l 1 5 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Rivery Blvd, Parc e l 1 6 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Downtown Buildings Sales Update Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 175 of 175