HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.14.2016Notice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
June 1 4, 2 0 1 6
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on June 14 , 2016 at 6:00 PM at Co unc il Chambers, 101 E. 7th
St., Geo rge to wn, Texas
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, least four (4 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652
or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users ro ute through Relay Texas at
711.
Re gular Se ssion
(This Regular Sessio n may, at any time, be re cessed to convene an Executive Se ssio n for any purpose
authorize d by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Code 551.)
A Cal l to Order
Invocati o n
P l e dg e of Al l egi ance
Co mments from the Mayor
Ci ty Co unci l Regi onal Board Re po r ts
Announcements
- Summer Fan Drive
- Music on the Square Concerts
- Dive-In Mo vie
Ac ti on fro m Executi ve Sessi on
Statutory Conse nt Age nda
The Statuto ry Co nsent Agenda includes no n-c ontroversial and routine items that may be acted upon with
one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted
upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B Consideration and possible action to appro ve the mi nutes of the Special Meeting held May 18,
2 01 6 and the mi nutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 --
She lley Nowling, City Secretary
C F orw arded from the G eneral G o ve r nment and Fi nance Advi sory B o ard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to approve an appropri ati on o f $9 1,0 06 .32 to Infor P ubl i c
Page 1 of 165
Se c tor, Incorporated for annual maintenance on the Infor Enterprise Asset Management
software system -- Chris Bryce, IT Directo r
D F orw arded from the G eneral G o ve r nment and Fi nance Advi sory B o ard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Suddenl i nk Communi cati ons to
pro vide dedicated Internet service s fo r a total of $160,380.00 over thre e years -- Greg Berglund,
Assistant IT Director
E F orw arded from the G eneral G o ve r nment and Fi nance Advi sory B o ard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to r ecommend contracti ng with Deco rIQ o f Fate, Texas,
pending City Council appropriation in the FY2 017 budget, in the amo unt no t to exceed
$87 ,40 0.0 0 for the l easi ng, i nstal l ati o n, mai ntenance, and remo val of the 2 016 hol i day
l i g hts, the i nstal l ati on and mai ntenance o f the bui l di ng corni c e l i ghts, and the i nstal l ati on
and remo val of the hol i day wre aths and tree -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
Le gislative Re gular Age nda
F F orw arded from the G eorgetow n Economi c Devel opment Cor po r ati on (G EDCO):
F i r st Readi ng of an Ordinance amendi ng the 2016 G eorgetow n Eco no mi c Devel opment
Co r po rati on (“G EDCO”) B udg e t for the Retail Strategy and Rec ruitment P lan -- Leigh
Wallace, Finance Director (acti o n requi red)
G P ubl i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinance rezoni ng 11.16 8 acres of the John
Sutherland Survey located at 4950 Ji m Hog g Road from the Agric ulture (AG) District to the
Lo c al Co mmercial (C-1) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (acti on requi red)
H P ubl i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezone approximately 3.093 acres of the
N. Po rter Survey, located at 206 E. J ani s Dri ve, from the Residential Single-Family (RS)
District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1 ) District -- Sofia Ne lson, CNU-A, Planning
Dire c to r (acti on requi red)
I Discussion and possible di recti o n regarding new si gnage for the Downto wn and Old Town
Ove rlay Districts -- Matt Synatschk, Historic P lanner
Proje ct Update s
J Pro ject updates and status reports regarding current and future transportatio n and traffic project;
street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and othe r public safety projects;
eco nomic development projects; city facility projects;downtown proje c ts including parking
enhancements,city lease agreements, and possible direction to city staff -- Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
Public Wishing to Addre ss Council
On a subje c t that is posted on this agenda: Ple ase fill out a speaker registratio n form which can be found
on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item
on whic h you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start
of the me e ting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council conside rs that item.
On a subje c t no t po sted on the agenda: P e rso ns may add an item to a future City Co uncil agenda by
contac ting the City Secretary no later than noo n on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with
the subje c t matter o f the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be
reache d at 51 2/93 0-3651.
K - At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
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.
L Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
Page 2 of 165
- Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Se cretary and Municipal Judge : Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
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 _________________, 2016, 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 3 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cal l to Order
Invocati on
Pl edge of Al l e gi anc e
Comments fro m the Mayo r
Ci ty Counci l Re gi o nal Bo ard Reports
Announcements
- Summer Fan Drive
- Music on the Square Co ncerts
- Dive-In Movie
Acti on from Executi ve Sessi on
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - bh
Page 4 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the mi nutes o f the Special Meeting held May 18 , 2016 and the mi nutes of
the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, May 2 4, 2 016 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Minutes of S p ec ial Meeting 5.18.2016
Works hop Minutes 5.24.2016
Regular Meeting Minutes 5.24.2016
Page 5 of 165
Page 6 of 165
Page 7 of 165
Page 8 of 165
Page 9 of 165
Minutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E.
7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s
Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of
Councilmember District 2, Keith Brainard and Councilmember, District 5, Ty Gipson. Gipson arrived at 3.05 PM.
Policy Development/Review Workshop – Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion of proposed Transit Development Plan -- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst
Nat Waggoner, the City’s Transportation Analyst, provided the presentation of the Transit Development Plan
update to the City Council.
Waggoner began with the Agenda and noted that he would lead the Council through the changes:
Agenda:
Recap of 2/9 Discussion
City Council Guidance
Pursue Strategic Partnerships
Georgetown Health Foundation Agreement Summary
Updated Plan Summary
Financial Plan
Blended Service Financial Plan
Performance Measures
Service Plan
Work Plan FY16 and FY17
Waggoner presented a slide depicting the history of these discussions, labeled “Where We Left Off”.
The City Council Guidance from 2/9/16 was shown next:
1. Pursue Fixed route Bus Plan
2. Explore Strategic Partnerships
3. Develop Strategic Plan to Support Those Partnerships
4. Revise Routing, Service Hours, Financial Plan
5. Recommend Performance Measures
Waggoner spoke on the Georgetown Health Foundation. He said that they had initiated a needs assessment
in April 2015. Waggoner said that the finding from the focus groups and surveys suggested public
transportation as the most critical need. Waggoner explained that the Georgetown Health Foundation is a
grantor of assistance to Faith in Action for their transportation program. Waggoner announced that GHF has
committed to a year grant to the City for fixed route bus service up to $200,000.00. This commitment would
begin in 2017 and continue annually for 4 years. The City of Georgetown would be required to provide 4
fixed routes within 1 year of adoption by the Council. Waggoner explained that the City would handle
contracting and service delivery with Capital Metro and this would require forming a Steering Committee of
City of Georgetown, GHF, CARTS, Capital Metro and others to help guide service from 2017 through 2020.
Waggoner thanked the Georgetown Health Foundation for the generous offer. He then provided an Updated
Plan Summary:
1. Routing
- Adjusted routing on Blue and Orange routes to improve timing
- Added Recreation Center loop to the Blue Line
2. Service Standard to better reflect the service at implementation
Page 10 of 165
3. Updated Financial Plan to reflect changes to routes and to incorporate the Georgetown Health
Foundation funding.
Waggoner provided a slide on the Changes to Financial Plan Assumptions:
A Financial Plan was shown next.
Expenses
• Loaded capital costs
• Increased PT M-Sat
• Build from 6% FBR
• Cut spans to 12 hrs. M-F and 10 hrs. Sat.
• Blended FY17 Demand Response
Revenues
• No 5307 Carry-over
• Serenada Funds
• Health Foundation
• Advertising Revenue
Page 11 of 165
Waggoner explained that staff would recommend para-transit throughout the City. He went on to explain that,
with Council direction, it would take one year to prepare for a fixed route system. The proposed plan would
begin in June of 2017 and demand response service would continue until then. Waggoner explained the
funds from the Serenada Subdivision. He said that the capital outlays would be completed by FY2017.
Waggoner displayed the Service Transition FY17:
• Demand Response replaced with new service by mid FY17
• 10 months of Demand Response (Oct.-Aug.)
• 2 months fixed-route & paratransit (Aug – Sep)
• $50,000 in capital programmed for FY16
• Remaining capital improvements in early FY17
• Proportional Health Foundation and advertising revenue
Waggoner then provided detailed maps of the 4 proposed routes. He said that staff has involved other
community resources and other City departments and are making changes that are positive. Waggoner
spoke on the City’s growth and how it has affected traffic patterns. He said that routes have been corrected
because of this. He explained that demographic profiles have been examined and routes have been adjusted
accordingly.
Waggoner presented a slide on Service Standards and what information will be measured, some of which is
required to be reported to the FTA
Waggoner then presented the FY16 Work Plan:
Page 12 of 165
Waggoner spoke on the Next Steps:
Direct staff to:
• Finalize an agreement with the Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF)
• Present the final TDP and Agreement to Council at the June 28, 2016 regular session.
Waggoner explained that If Council wants to move ahead with a fixed route plan, staff would like to move
ahead with the Georgetown Health Foundation.
Fought said he appreciates all the work, but is not a fan of the fixed route system. He said that fixed route
busing does nothing for elderly or those with facilitation issues. Fought said he would like to see Faith in
Action continued because the door to door and volunteer factor is what is best for seniors and those with
mobility issues. Fought said he would like to shift Faith in Action out of social service funding and put it into a
permanent budget with an increase in the funds. He said that transportation is a function of government and
Faith in Action needs to be permanent. Fought spoke on measures of performance, with a monitoring group
and a control group. He said that if the program is not meeting 50% of performance measures, it will need to
be brought back to Council to examine. He said this would not be meant to take control away from staff, just
a need to look at. Fought said he thinks the plan is excellent.
Gipson congratulated Waggoner and staff on a good job. He asked for an explanation of the Serenda
funding scenario. Waggoner explained that places of importance are looked at in the Census every ten
years and federal transportation dollars were allocated to the Serenda area as transportation monies in
Central Texas. Waggoner explained that those monies have been going to traffic feasibility studies and
funding for direct response rides. If the City would now provide those studies and rides, the funds would be
given to the City.
Gonzalez asked how many demand response system rides are currently labeled paratransit. He said the City
would have to look at possible full costs for both fixed bus routes and paratransit rides. Gonzalez questioned
the estimated number of 10,000 riders per route and asked if that could be one person transferring from route
to route. Waggoner said there are 2 full time buses currently running demand response calls in Georgetown
and he would estimate 35% of those rides to be paratransit. Morgan said it is critical to understand the City’s
capacity for paratransit needs and that is why staff specifically asked to increase the paratransit numbers in
this proposal, in order to reflect a similar capacity with our on demand service.
Gonzalez asked if all paratransit rides are included in the costs shown. Waggoner confirmed. He explained
that staff was no longer proposing sharing a bus and the City would need to accommodate the needs of the
citizens. Waggoner corrected the figure of 10,000 riders to 10,000 trips. Gonzalez said the City might not be
ready for a fixed route system. He asked if Lift or Uber would consider giving citizens vouchers instead.
Gonzalez explained that he does not believe that the density needed for ridership is there yet. He said at $12
per person, people could have a lot of transportation in a voucher program.
Jonrowe thanked Waggoner for the presentation and thanked the Georgetown Health Foundation for the
generous offer. Jonrowe inquired about June 28th as an actual public hearing date. Waggoner said staff
would like to finalize an agreement with Capital Metro first. Jonrowe said students are hard to get in touch
with in the summer and if the date is moved out, the City could get more of their feedback. Morgan clarified
that this date is just a date to bring information back to Council and that there would still be a process to
Page 13 of 165
finalize all of the steps. Jonrowe said all of these workshops have been an example of good government on
large important issues such as this.
Eby thanked Waggoner. She said the time for this is now and she sees a great need in her district. Eby said
she likes the partnership with the Health Foundation. She spoke on outreach to citizens. Eby explained that
most of those needing the service are those that are the hardest to reach. She said that she wants to make
sure the City has a way to reach out to those without internet or phone service.
Hesser thanked Waggoner. He said that a fixed route is an outdated version of transportation. He asked if
staff had looked into Uber to see if it was more reasonable. Hesser asked how many paratransit trips happen
now. Waggoner said he does not know the figure at this time, but will come back to Council with an exact
figure.
Eby said the issue with vouchers is that the folks who need transportation do not necessarily have smart
phones. They might not have the technology for Uber or Lift.
Hesser said Uber might have a solution for those without the technology.
Fought said he supports continuing to investigate other partnerships, such as Uber. He said Hesser’s idea to
ask Uber and Lift for solutions is a good one.
Jonrowe warned the Council to be careful when talking about Uber and Lift as the solution to the City’s
transportation problems. She said with recent stories in the news, they could elect to pull out of a system at
any time. Jonrowe advised using a healthy level of skepticism and to be cautious. She added that she would
be much more comfortable putting her children on a bus, than in a car with a stranger.
Mayor Ross recapped what was discussed by the Council. He said that Council had agreed that staff should
continue to explore options, such as Uber and Lift. Ross said June 28th is not a deadline and there will be
plenty of opportunity to get the word out to the community. Ross recapped Fought’s suggestion of putting
Faith in Action into the permanent transportation budget, instead of through the City’s social funding program.
Ross said that staff had been instructed to come back to Council with clear performance measures.
Morgan asked for further clarification. He said that he had heard that prior to going forward with the fixed
route bus system, staff should examine voucher possibilities, such as Uber and Lift. Ross corrected Morgan
and said that fixed bus service is still going forward while exploring the other options as well. Morgan
thanked Ross for the clarification.
Gonzalez said he does not want to continue to invest money into things that might not be helpful. He said he
wants more definites and more data to support.
Ross said staff is coming back with performance measures that will address that.
B. Discussion and possible direction on the 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board -- Jennifer Bills,
Housing Coordinator
Jennifer Bills, the City’s Housing Coordinator, provided the 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board.
She spoke on the goals of working at workforce housing. She began by reviewing the pieces of the
presentation which included reviewing the Housing Advisory Board’s purpose, highlighting accomplishments
of the board since 2012 and the direction of a 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board.
Bills reviewed the Boards Purpose (By-Laws):
1. Ensuring the City has affordable housing for residents at all income levels
2. Providing long-term housing research and recommendations through the housing element
3. Making recommendations on affordable housing developments
Bills then reviewed the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
• Adopted on August 12, 2012 as part of the 2030 Plan
• Identified a need for 1,069 new workforce housing units by 2017
• Need for review in 2017/2018 per five year review Comp Plan requirements
Bills spoke on the housing element high priority policy:
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to provide new
units. Workforce Housing Standards (UDC) was approved March 8, 2016. An established review
process for housing tax credits was established in January 2014.
Page 14 of 165
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use compatibility for an
appropriate mix of housing types within the City. (Draft Workforce Multifamily Locations Study – last
revisited in January 2014). Bills provided a map of this draft.
Bills then spoke on the accomplishments made since 2012:
• Gateway Northwest Apartments (2015) – 177 workforce multifamily units
• Improved and retained affordable units
- San Gabriel Apartments, 1100 Leander Road, 136 units
- Georgetown Square, 2016 Royal Drive, 55 units
- Northwest Apartments, 1623 Northwest, 24 units
Bills presented a 2016 Work Plan Proposal and asked for Council feedback as she described the plan.
1. Revise Housing Tax Credit resolution process
- Establish deadline for the competitive applications
- Require public/neighborhood outreach
- Application criteria: Multifamily entitlements, future land use, zoning
- Funding: Existing staff and resources
- Timeline: Summer 2016 start, City Council approval September 2016, In place October 2016
before new funding cycle
2. Update Housing Element
- New demographic information
- Calculate updated housing deficit
- Update Workforce Multifamily Locations Study
- Public input
- Funding: Reallocate $24,000 in current budget
- Timeline: Winter 2016 Start, Present to Council Summer 2017
3. Feasibility of Housing Tools
- Provide analysis on strategies already in use nationally and in Texas: Examples: Housing Trust
Fund, Community Land Trust, Local Bond Issue, Requirements for workforce housing with
special development approvals (i.e. MUDs, PIDs, PUDs, TIRZ)
- Funding: New request $35,000 to $45,000
- Timeline: Spring 2017 start, study complete Fall 2017
Gipson asked if Council would be given more time to examine a project, instead of a very quick turn-around
for decisions. He asked if there is any way to lengthen the time to examine. Bills explained that the timelines
are set by the State and that the City must follow the State schedule. She explained that the City does not
get information or requests until the beginning of January and decisions must be made by March 1st.
Morgan said staff will be requiring more public input and will concentrate on getting information to the affected
areas. He also said that he would want all applications to come in at the same time and staff to present all to
Council at the same time.
Ross reminded the Council that the application request vote is a simple vote permitting the applicant to
proceed with his application for tax credits. He said that if the applicant is awarded the tax credits, they need
to come back to Council. Bills explained that this is not always the case. She said they would only come to
Council again if they required rezoning. Bills explained that if the property is already multifamily zoned, the
applicant does not need to come back to Council, if approved for tax credits. Gonzalez said until the Council
knows what the City is supposed to look like, it is impossible to vote. Ross explained that if the applicant has
zoning, the predictable UDC and tax credits, they can go ahead and build. Gonzalez said they should not
bring it to Council then.
Jonrowe asked Morgan if staff was doing a study on the cost of service of delivery to different types of
developments. Morgan answered that in the proposed budget for this summer’s consideration, Council would
be receiving a comp plan update. Morgan said this will include a long range plan update which will address
Councilmember Gonzalez’s concerns about the balance of different uses across the City and a cost to serve
model. Jonrowe said that would be a good time to incorporate the discussion of how Georgetown should
look.
Jonrowe asked about the updates to the UDC. Bills said no developers have come forward with a project.
Bills said recommendations for improving the process of an application will be coming to the Council soon.
Jonrowe asked about the timeline of the letters asking for tax credit. She asked if Council generally got
copies of these letters from the developers. Bills said the letters are received in January.
Page 15 of 165
Gipson said he wants the information provided to those affected and wants staff to provide public meetings.
Morgan said staff will now do that first, prior to Council notification.
Gonzalez asked Bills about the calculation of the updated housing deficit. He asked about the criteria and if it
was limited to city limits. Bills confirmed that the criteria is limited to Georgetown city limits.
Hesser asked about single family housing not being on the slide that was shown and wanted to know if that
was included. He asked for the ratio of single family and multifamily. Bills said that both are part of the
housing element. Hesser asked if workforce housing was split up between single family and multifamily. Bills
said the formula determined that there is a need for 889 single family workforce units and 1069 multifamily
workforce units.
Fought said that he applauds the study. Fought said the City needs to divide demographics and remedies
into 3 parts: senior, workforce and low income housing since different populations need different things.
Fought said his newsletter on this topic provoked more discussion than anything he has ever written about.
Fought said with senior living, nursing and hospice should be included. He added that the City needs to pay
reasonable wages in the general proximity of Georgetown. He suggests not providing housing, but
stimulating the economy with the correct wages instead. He suggested that staff needs to look at that income
range. Fought said there is a similar responsibility to companies the City recruits. He said if the City
stimulates the wages, they will make it possible for employees to have housing. Fought said that
Georgetown has a responsibility to do its fair share and that it is important to look at ourselves.
Jonrowe agreed with Fought. She would like to examine wages of employees and companies recruited
through economic development. Jonrowe said that low and very low income is a regional, state and national
problem. She said that Georgetown has a long history of going above and beyond and that there is nothing
wrong with doing more than our fair share.
Ross asked if this would be included in the budget request. Morgan confirmed. Ross confirmed with Council
that they are in favor of this.
Fought asked about the earlier study that was rejected and wanted to know if this study would contain the 33-
35 citizen member guidance group or focus group. Bills said it would not.
Ross recapped the discussions. He said Councilmember Fought said there are three components for
housing: senior, workforce, low income. Ross said that Council needs to give direction on general areas in
Georgetown good for these projects. Ross asked Bills at what time does Council need to provide the
direction. Bills explained that this presentation is the request for that direction.
Bills said if the work plan is approved, the board will work on it this year. Morgan said part of the housing
element would include updating the map and updating the different layers of housing, as related to
affordability. Ross said Council would want to weigh in on that. Morgan agreed and said the Housing
Advisory Board would review and bring back to Council. Ross asked for the timeline. Bills said they would
be working on it in conjunction with the Planning Department process and it would be brought back in early
spring of 2017. Morgan said the plan will overlap with other efforts and it would be important to work on it
with the comp plan update in mind so that all would align.
C. Overview and discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Homestead
development -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director, presented the overview. Nelson explained that this is a MUD
request for the Homestead development. Nelson listed the MUD Review Team, including the City Manager,
David Morgan, Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, Planning
Director, Sofia Nelson, Systems Engineering Director, Wesley Wright, Transportation Services Director, Ed
Polasek, Director of Parks and Recreation, Kimberly Garrett and City Attorneys Charlie McNabb and Skye
Masson.
Nelson said that the presentation would outline an overview of the Homestead Development and MUD
request, how the request compared in consistency with the interim MUD policy and staff recommendations.
Nelson said she would request feedback from the Council to include the following:
• Does the City Council want to pursue an In-City MUD for the proposed development?
• Do the identified “unique factors” justify the creation of a MUD?
• If there is a desire to proceed with the MUD process, are there specific elements, focus
areas, or staff recommendations you would like staff to negotiate?
Page 16 of 165
Nelson showed the proposed location map, the current zoning map, the 2030 plan guidance map and the
proposed subdivision layout for the property. Nelson said that water and wastewater services would be
provided by the City of Georgetown and electricity would be provided by PED.
Residential Projections were displayed:
Commercial projections were shown:
Page 17 of 165
Nelson explained that commercial retail would begin in 2019 and continue through 2023.
Nelson then described the open space areas, which is 94.3 acres of open space to be programmed as
preserve areas, civic greens, community gardens, dog parks, water quality areas and trail corridors. Nelson
spoke on the connectivity of the trails and parks in the area.
Nelson discussed the Staff Recommendations for Land Use
• Land development standards for the development shall be codified through PUD/Development
Agreement
• The Developer shall coordinate open space/trail connection to Berry Springs Park with the City
Parks Department and the County
• Age restricted development shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area and 10% of housing
units
• Require workforce housing to be provided
• Require submittal of a pattern book with the consent agreement.
Nelson spoke on the Financial Request:
• Maximum amount of bonds to be issued - $45,175,000
• Maximum maturity of bonds – 25 years from the date of issuance
• Facilities bonds may be issued to finance – water, wastewater, storm drainage, roads, recreational
facilities and refunding bonds
• District only tax rate - $0.516
• Fire SIP Fee - $650 per connection
Staff recommendations for the financial terms were shown by Nelson:
• Maximum maturity of 20 years for any one series of bonds
• Limit debt issuance to “hard costs” for water, wastewater and roads
• Prior to consent of a MUD the applicant shall submit a marketing study completed within the
previous 6 months
Ross asked the difference between 20 and 25 years, when financing. Morgan said Council adopted a policy
of 25 years in the MUD policy. Nelson said they could see infrastructure improvements consumed by debt.
Nelson showed a map of the utility improvements for wastewater. She then displayed a chart of the Utility
Improvements through a City and Developer Partnership.
Page 18 of 165
Staff recommendations for utility agreement terms determined that Section 1 and 2 wastewater improvements
shall be completed within 3 years of MUD approval. Nelson explained that this is so that the developer would
take care of it before the City would have to.
Nelson spoke next on transportation and explained that a traffic impact analysis is currently under review.
Nelson said that Airport Road would be a minor arterial. She spoke on the overall transportation plan and
the right of way and what the ultimate intersection would look like. Nelson said that staff has looked at the
development impact on this road and design and improvements would have to take place.
Nelson displayed the staff recommendations for transportation improvements:
• Require the completion of a TIA and construction/funding of both on-site and off-site improvements
identified in the TIA
• The TIA shall study the impact of the development on Airport Road
• Airport Road improvements shall be prioritized in negotiations
• Require the subdivision to be designed to include increased connectivity, shorter blocks and limited
cul-de-sacs
Nelson spoke on the adopted Mud Policy and how this request would align with the policy.
Policy Breakdown:
• Part 1:
General policies correlating to existing UDC provisions to ensure a complete review of all MUD
proposals
• Part 2:
Policies used in reviewing MUD requests for a “unique factor”
Nelson reviewed the MUD Policy Elements. She explained that MUDs are an appropriate tool to allow urban
level density in locations supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, outside of the ultimate city boundary
where the City may annex in the future. Nelson said they are also appropriate where the City cannot provide
water and wastewater service within 4.5 years.
Nelson displayed UDC Prerequisites.
Nelson then explained if the determination on either of these two issues is affirmative, then the City Council
shall not consent to the creation of the district unless the applicant demonstrates that unique factors justify its
creation. She also said that if the determination on both issues is negative, then before consenting to the
creation of a district, the City Council shall consider further whether the creation of the district is feasible,
practicable, 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 the policy.
Page 19 of 165
Nelson charted the evaluation of this MUD request:
Page 20 of 165
Nelson discussed previously approved MUDs and displayed a comparison of financial terms of In-City MUDS.
Nelson then provided a recap of recommendations from staff and a recap of staff’s requested feedback from
the Council.
Mr. Gary Newman, the developer, spoke. He provided slides on the unique features of the development. He
explained that the developer would be over-contributing on water features. He showed a map of the property
and said that the land owner was present in the audience. Newman described the zoning and the need to go
to MF1, which operates like a condominium. He next explained the buffer. Newman showed the unit
Page 21 of 165
summary with detailed explanations and provided the financial plan, which included $33.9 million in
development costs, with an additional $9 million in other costs. Newman said the developer is not asking for
very much of the expense. He then showed a market study of growth patterns in Austin and Williamson
County and explained why Georgetown is appealing to empty nesters.
John Tatum spoke next. He described the low impact development and how the water conservation is
unique. Tatum explained the water conservation systems and distributed ponds. He described the Purple
Pipe Irrigation System and the water balance results storage. Tatum spoke on potable water savings and
showed examples of low impact development. Tatum explained that another unique factor is the interceptor
project with provides 25,000 connections and the development will only use 1,500 of these. Tatum then
spoke on the Traffic Impact Analysis and the recommendations.
Angie Newman spoke on the overview plan. She showed the features and landscape of the current
property. Newman then provided architectural examples of projects they have developed in Austin and spoke
of their awards for land development. Newman showed images of the parks and open space - 93.4 acres of
open space. She described the trails and creek access and the connectivity they will provide, which will
include bike lanes and special lighting. She said that the open space will promote music and art and dog
parks and showed examples of community images.
Mayor Ross asked Gary Newman if there is anything he wants from Council. Newman said he would like age
qualified development changes to be 32% instead of 10%. He said this is because the dues have to support
the amenities. He said this could be a benefit to the City in that it would free up frozen taxes of those moving.
Nelson said the recommended 10% is because of the City’s MUD policy.
Gipson said this is a beautiful project. He asked about the roads and said he had concerns, especially in the
Berry Creek area. Gipson said he also has concerns with the age restriction element. Gipson asked if a
school was still in the plan and if it had been GISD approved. Newman explained that 13 acres have been
set aside in the development for a future school. Morgan said he has talked to Dr. Brent and GISD is very
interested. Gipson asked Morgan about MUD policy. Morgan said Council has asked to review the MUD
Policy and it will be brought for discussion soon. Morgan said a utility benefit is good with MUDS and this
particular development would have significance utility benefits. Gipson said roads must be looked at.
Newman said the developer can do utilities or roads, but cannot do both.
Jonrowe asked how many MUDs have been denied. Morgan said this is the 5th mud request since he
started with the City one year ago and it would be the 4th approved in 12 months. There are not any MUDs
that have not been approved. Jonrowe asked about the “needs further review” on the staff analysis. She
said that it seems like a lot. Jonrowe asked if age restrictions were part of any other MUDs. Nelson said she
is not sure. Newman, the developer, said the Hillwood development did have age restriction units. Newman
explained that the City will not take over the infrastructure, but rather the HOA would do this. Jonrowe said
she is concerned about the number of cul–de- sacs and would like to see more connectivity.
Newman spoke on the Purple Pipe Plan and how important the system is as a model project. He explained
that there would be a potable meter at each house, which would help the conservation water considerably.
Eby said she has concerns with MUD applications. She emphasized the importance to be consistent. Eby
said it is best to be consistent with the policy and In-City MUDs are a problem. She added that this is an
impressive development and she would follow staff recommendations. Eby said the City should follow policy
on the age restriction homes and she would not support the 32% change to age restricted housing.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 5:10 PM under Section 551.071, Section 551.072
and Section 551.074.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
D. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise
the City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 3, 1407 Williams Drive)
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 1, 1599 Williams Drive)
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- Fire Meet & Confer
Page 22 of 165
- Approval of appointment of Assistant City Attorney
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 6.00 PM
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________
Date
_____________________________ _____________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary
Page 23 of 165
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E.
7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s
Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance with the exception of
Councilmember Brainard, District 2.
Regular Session
(This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by
the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
- Proclamation for Motor Cycle Safety & Awareness Month
- Recognition Plaque to Jeanine Payne for Contribution to Shattered Dreams Program
City Council Regional Board Reports
Mayor Ross asked the Councilmembers if they had any regional board reports. Gipson answered that he did not
have a report at this time. Mayor Ross mentioned that the CAMPO meeting will be held June 6, 2016.
Announcements
Low Cost Vaccine Clinic for Pets
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve the appointment of Tadd Cleave as the Assistant City Attorney.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve the purchase of real property from Mari E. Siedel (Parcel 1),
plus closing costs and the payment relocation benefits and actual moving expenses in connection with the Rivery
Blvd. Extension Project on the terms discussed in Executive Session.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve the purchase of real property from Sally Hideko Imamura Baral
and Akane Alice Imamura (Parcel 3), plus closing costs in connection with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project on
the terms discussed in Executive Session.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single
vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as
part of the Regular Agenda.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Minutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Page 24 of 165
C. Consideration and possible action to accept the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC),
and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 --
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
D. Forwarded from the Georgetown Village Public Improvement District Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve award of blanket order for landscaping services in the public
areas of Georgetown Village to BrightView Landscape Services for approximately $97,000.00 annually, for a
period not to exceed 3.5 years (remainder of fiscal year with three one-year renewals) – Andreina Davila-
Quintero, Project Coordinator
E. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve a Task Order KPA 16-006 with Kasberg, Patrick and
Associates L.P. (“Engineer”) of Georgetown, Texas, for the 2016 Curb and Gutter Replacement and Sidewalk
design Project in the amount of $117,940.00 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager
F. Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve a Wastewater Services Agreement for the Gatlin Crossing
Subdivision -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
G. Forwarded from the Arts and Culture Board:
Consideration and possible action to authorize staff to apply for a Texas Commission on the Arts Cultural
District grant to provide funding for the annual 2016/17 Arts and Culture Guide -- Eric P. Lashley, Library
Services Director
H. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City of Georgetown, Texas approving the Third
Amendment to the Consent Agreement authorizing the creation of the Southeast Williamson County
Municipal District No. 1 -- David Morgan, City Manager
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve the Statutory Consent Agenda in its entirety.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
Legislative Regular Agenda
I. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of the City of Georgetown, Texas consenting to
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 34 (Shadow Canyon Development) consisting of 278.21
Acres (+/-) in the Isaac Donagan and Joseph Thompson Surveys, located at 2951 HWY 29 -- Sofia Nelson,
CNU-A, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director, spoke on the item. She noted that the Resolution is for the Shadow
Canyon development and the planned unit and MUD request. She explained that her presentation would involve
both Item I and Item J, as they are related. Nelson showed the map of the property location and showed a chart
of other approved MUDs.
Nelson spoke next on the project history. She explained the zoning and the requirements for the development.
Nelson said that the project would include approximately 600 lots. The project would include a residential
collector road and a major collector road. She explained that the average price of a home in the development
would be $385,000. Nelson said that the water and wastewater of the development would be City of
Georgetown, while the electric would be PEC. Nelson then showed the parkland and open space illustration.
Nelson described the Planned Unit Development District – Development Standards for the project.
Residential Development Standards
Parkland/Trails/Open Space/Amenity Center
Street Design
Tree Protection and Mitigation
Residential Landscaping
Environmental
Signage
The Financial Request was shown next. The total bond issuance for water, wastewater, drainage, recreational
and roads is $19,925,000.00. Nelson showed the tax rates:
Williamson County 0.442
GISD 1.398
Georgetown 0.434
Wm. City FM/RD 0.040
Page 25 of 165
MUD 0.660
Total 2.974
Nelson showed the utility infrastructure image, the overall transportation plan infrastructure image and an image
of the adopted MUD policy.
Nelson then provided the adopted mud policy breakdown:
Part 1: General policies correlating to existing UDC provisions to ensure a complete review of all MUD proposals
Part 2: Policies used in reviewing MUD requests for a “unique factor”.
Nelson showed a Mud Policy Evaluation for the project. The evaluation determines each policy element and
whether it has met the policy requirements or does not meet the policy requirements. Three elements were
shown to not meet the policy requirements:
Element 1: Retain the two threshold questions under Section 13.10.030
Element 2: Provide examples of “unique” factors justifying MUD creation” to guide determinations made under
Section 13.10.030
Element 9: 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. Nelson said that the
development does not have a school site and does not follow the signage requirements.
Nelson then showed the PUD rezoning criteria. Several items fell into the category labeled “unable to determine
based on provided information”. Only one PUD objective did not meet the requirement. This is the requirement
for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced
community.
Nelson reviewed previous City Council action regarding parkland, trails, open space and the amenity center.
She then reviewed previous Council action regarding ADA accessibility of the San Gabriel Trail.
Nelson read the caption.
Mr. Straub spoke. He thanked the Council. Straub explained that he also developed the Oaks at San Gabriel
project in Georgetown. He said that he is doing more than required with this project and is happy to help the
City. Straub said that he will contributing $500,000.00 to the City through this development agreement.
Motion by Fought, second by Gipson to approve Item I.
Gipson asked about the 20% of the criteria not meeting the requirement on the commercial side. Nelson said
this is because commercial is located outside of the scope of this development. Nelson showed an exhibit where
the commercial property lies.
Jonrowe asked about the signage variance that is being requested. Nelson said the subdivision sign request is
different than usual in height and location, but added that the developer has provided landscaping features that
are twice as much as required. She said the developer is proposing subdivision signs that would be internal that
would be larger than UDC standard. Jonrowe asked if similar variances have been granted. Nelson said she
believes that sign variances have been granted to other developments. Jonrowe asked the price difference from
the smallest to the largest home. The developer answered $250,000 to $500,000.
Eby said she cannot support the MUD request. She explained that she has nothing against the project itself, but
is not identifying unique factors required for a MUD.
Fought said the City sign policy, might need to be resolved. He agreed that it does make a big difference to the
project. Mark Baker spoke and explained the intention of the signage. He said that the variance has been
provided in other developments. Baker said that the project needs to make a statement from a roadway. He
explained that the letters need to be large enough to read from roadways. Fought asked for an example and
asked how big the Sun City development signs are. Fought said maybe the City policy is too small. Baker said
he does not know when and where the 40 feet requirement was established and added that entry features are
important. Gipson said he agrees that the City sign ordinance is too small.
Eby said she does not have an issue with the signage. She opposes the huge amount of debt issued and
whether it is appropriate for this project.
Gipson asked which MUDS have variances. Nelson said there are variances in development standards on all
MUDS in the city.
Fought said he estimates that 90% of criteria is met and 10% are variances. Morgan agreed. He said the
provision that is different with this project is that everything is on site and internal. Morgan added that projects
usually bring utilities to the site, which is not the case for this project. There will be no expansion of utility
services.
Page 26 of 165
Jonrowe said the City would not benefit from the MUD and staff needs clear direction from the Council.
Morgan said every time a MUD comes through, Council says they need to look into the City’s MUD policy. He
said that staff is working strongly on establishing best practices and bringing to Council. Morgan wanted to
provide a reminder that Council had received a previous workshop presentation on this development and its
uniqueness. Morgan described the established elements of this project’s uniqueness.
Gonzalez said the benefits of the uniqueness of this project seem marginal.
Motion by Fought, second by Gipson to approve Item I.
Approved: 5-1 (Brainard absent, Eby opposed)
J. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning approximately 278.21 acres of the Isaac Donagan and Joseph
Thompson Surveys, located at 2951 Hwy 29 West, from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Planned
Unit Development (PUD) District with a base zoning district of Residential Single-Family -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A,
Planning Director (action required)
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director, spoke on the item and its relationship to the previous item. Nelson
read the caption.
Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to approve Item J.
Approved: 5-1 (Brainard absent, Eby opposed)
K. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution by the City of Georgetown, Texas (City), approving
a change in the rates of Atmos Energy Corporation, Mid-Tex Division (“Atmos”) as a result of a settlement
between Atmos and the Atmos Texas Municipalities (“ATM”) under the rate review mechanism; finding the rates
set by the attached tariffs to be just and reasonable; finding that the meeting complied with the Open Meetings
Act; declaring an effective date; and requiring delivery of the resolution to the company and legal counsel -- Chris
Foster, MPA, CGFO, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration
Chris Foster, the City’s Manager of Resource Planning and Integration spoke on the item. Foster read the
caption and explained the timelines and intentions. Foster said he is in favor of keeping the rates low for a very
long period of time and Atmos continues to raise rates. They are known for their transparency in rates explained
Foster. There is not a lot that can be done with this type of rate change and tariff.
Motion by Fought, second by Gipson to approve Item K.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
L. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Cholla Pavement Maintenance, of Apache Junction,
Arizona, for two course chip seal and Polymer Modified Masterseal (PMM) on streets identified in the Pavement
Management Program for $1,600,719.40 – Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director
Ed Polasek, the Transportation Services Director, spoke on the item. He described examples of 2 course chip
seal and where it has been applied. Polasek spoke on average daily trips. He spoke on the challenges of the
process in 2015 and explained that best management practices have been studied and determined. Polasek
spoke on the specifications that have been added. He described the residential streets in the Sierra Vista
Subdivision and the plans for that project. Polasek then described the rejuvenation process. The product has
been discontinued and alternative products are being researched. He explained the treatment that is necessary
today and said that they have now found a proven good product and best practices. Polasek showed the map of
future street treatments and listed the streets with General Government and Finance Advisory Board
recommendation. Polasek said that staff would have the same recommendation.
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve Item L.
Fought said this needs to be done by an experienced contractor with quality control from the City. Polasek said
two levels of inspection have been implemented and rock, oil and temperatures will be monitored.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
M. Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve the execution of a Water Treatment and Transmission
Agreement between the City of Round Rock and the City of Georgetown -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
Page 27 of 165
Glenn Dishong, the Utility Director for the City, spoke on the item. He explained that the City of Round Rock has
excess water treatment availability. The excess could be used by the City of Georgetown instead of the City
building another facility. Dishong explained that Round Rock already has an existing interconnect with the City
of Georgetown. Dishong said that Round Rock will treat water and return it to Georgetown through Lake
Georgetown. He noted that the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board (GUS) had recommended approval.
Dishong then read the caption.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eby to approve Item M.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
N. Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve agreements with Itineris N.A. for the acquisition, implementation,
and licensing of a Customer Information (CIS) system in the amount of $2,500,557.00 -- Leticia Zavala,
Customer Care Director
Leticia Zavala, the City’s Customer Care Director, spoke on the item. She explained that the Georgetown Utility
System Advisory Board recommended approval at their meeting on May 13, 2016. Zavala explained the many
months of RFP reviews. She described the team who worked on the project. Zavala noted that preliminary
pricing had been brought to Council in April and described 3 areas of concern: Schedule risk, 41 integration
points across 17 systems and the roles and responsibility of data transfer. Zavala explained the decision that it
is better to have manpower be a vendor responsibility. She spoke on a request to train the super user.
Jonrowe asked when this would roll out. 18 months said Zavala. Jonrowe asked if customers would know of
any changes. Zavala said the process will be seamless to the customers. She explained that many more
programs can be added incrementally at later timelines. She said they are excited about the availability of future
conservation programs. Zavala explained how features could be sent specifically to very specific customers.
Jonrowe thanked staff for their hard work on this project.
Fought thanked staff for the better product and the savings and the customer service.
Zavala read the caption.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to approve Item N.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
O. Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Westin Engineering, Inc. for consulting services
to provide project management and support services for implementation of a Customer Information System in the
amount of $672,180.00 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director
Leticia Zavala, the City’s Customer Care Director, spoke on the item. She provided the history of the project and
spoke on the bidding process. Zavala explained that Westin was chosen because of their previous work with
other municipalities and their pricing. Westin services will be used during the 18 month implementation of the
Itineris project.
Gonzalez asked how a company gets experience if no one used them because they have no experience.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Gipson to approve Item O.
Approved: 6-0 (Brainard absent)
Project Updates
P. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street,
sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic development
projects; city facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements and possible direction to
city staff -- David Morgan, City Manager
Mayor Ross asked City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to report to the Council. Morgan
said nothing at this time.
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish
to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Council considers that item.
Page 28 of 165
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the
City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the
topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651.
Q. - At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 7.15 PM.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
R. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the
City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 3, 1407 Williams Drive)
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 1, 1599 Williams Drive)
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- Fire Meet & Confer
- Approval of appointment of Assistant City Attorney
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________
Date
_____________________________ _____________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary
Page 29 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the G eneral G overnment and Fi nance Advi sory B oard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to approve an appr opri ati on of $91,006.32 to Infor P ubl i c Sector, Incorporated
for annual maintenance on the Infor Enterprise Asse t Management software system -- Chris Bryce, IT Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is to request an appropriation of $91 ,00 6.3 2 fo r annual software maintenance on the Infor Enterprise Asse t
Management software system. The Infor system is used by Georgetown Utility Systems and the Vehicle Service Ce nter
to manage utility and vehicle assets.
License mainte nance costs increased by $23,50 6 over Fiscal Year 2016 as a re sult of two programs in appro ved in
previous budget years. The first pro gram was the purchase o f additional software licenses fo r collecting data on
stormwater assets to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency’s MS4 Sto rmwater P rogram ($15,173.7 6).
That program was approve d in the FY 16 budget. The seco nd was annual maintenance on the new Infor Fleet mo dule
approved as part of the FY 2 015 budget ($8,332.56 ).
COMMENTS:
This appropriation was recommended by the General Go vernment Finance Advisory Board at their May 25, 2016 me e ting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All items were budgeted during the FY 20 16 budget process. Expenses will be re corded in ac c ount 570-5-0641-51 -34 1
(Annual Contrac ts).
SUBMITTED BY:
Chris Bryce, Dire c to r, Information Technology - kj
Page 30 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the G eneral G overnment and Fi nance Advi sory B oard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to approve a co ntract with Suddenl i nk Communi cati o ns to provide dedicated
Internet services for a to tal o f $160,380.00 over three years -- Greg Berglund, Assistant IT Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is to request approval of a new three-year c ontract with Suddenlink Communicatio ns for a total of $160 ,38 0
(approximately $4 ,45 5 per month).
Suddenlink provides the fo llowing services to the City of Geo rgetown:
1. Primary Internet services delivered over dedicated fiber optic cables
2. A dedicate d fiber line to send the City’s Channe l 1 0 video feed to Suddenlink
3. All public IP addresses that connect City of Ge orgetown servers to the public Internet
The propo sed contract will increase City’s Internet capacity fro m 50 megabits/seco nd to 2 00 megabits/se cond. This
additional capacity is required to accommodate increased use o f the City’s public Wi-Fi and growth in the use of web
based applic atio ns by all City departme nts. The City’s current Internet c onnectio ns are maxed out, resulting in a
significant decrease in the performance of web based applications and Internet connectio n speeds.
Suddenlink is a sole so urce provider for this unique co mbination of services.
COMMENTS:
The contract was reco mmended by the General Gove rnment Finance Advisory Board at their May 25, 2016 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All items were budgeted during the FY 2016 budge t pro cess. Expenses will be reco rde d in account 570-5-0641-51-3 41
(Annual Contrac ts).
SUBMITTED BY:
Greg Berglund, Assistant Director, Information Te c hnology Director - kj
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S uddenlink Contrac t
Page 31 of 165
Commercial Service Order & Agreement v3.0 8.31.2011
Account Rep Joe Bethany System Address
Phone Number 979-676-3752
Fax Number 866-670-1295
Customer Information Authorized Customer Representative
Account Number Full Name Chris Bryce
Legal Company Name City of Georgetown Telephone 512-930-3579
Street Address 510 W 9th St Fax
City/State/Zip Georgetown, TX 78626 Email Address Chris.bryce@georgetown.org
Billing Address 510 W 9th St Federal Tax ID
City/State/Zip Georgetown, TX 78626 Requested Delivery Date: June 1, 2016
If Bar or Restaurant account, notate occupancy (1-50; 51-100; 101-150; 151-200; 201-300; 301-500; 501+)
Taxes and Fees Not Included
Service Description Quantity Unit Price
Term
(Months)
Monthly Recurring
(video rates subject to
no more than 10%
annual increases )
One Time Activation
& Setup Fees
200 Mb of Dedicated Internet-See Special Conditions 1 $3995 36 $3995 $0
Port Charge 1 $160 36 $160 $0
Video Channel 10 Feed-HD 1 $300 36 $300 $0
PLUS, check if Applicable:
NetSecure Service (Addendum attached) including
____ (number) Nodes
Totals $4455 36 $4455 $0
Equipment Charges
Description Quantity Unit Price Total Fee
For phone & PRI customers: A) change my local and my intrastate and interstate long distance services provider to Suddenlink Communications
B) Unless outbound international calling is authorized by initialing of this provision, no international call may be completed by
this/these numbers until such time that customer authorizes international calls to be allowed. ________________ (initial here)
Special Conditions (for point to point and multipoint services, include the addresses of all circuit termination locations)
Suddenlink will provision 150 Mb on port 1 and provision 50 Mb on port 2 of the Diverse Suddenlink Dedicated Internet connect for the City of Georgetown.
Promotion Details
NOTICE REGARDING 911 SERVICES
While your Suddenlink Phone Service may be supported by a battery backup, it is electrically powered. In the event of a power outage or Suddenlink network failure,
911 service will not be available. You are prohibited from moving the phone modem from the address where it was installed. If you move the phone modem, the 911
service may not function properly and emergency operators will not be able to identify the caller’s location.
By signing this Agreement; (i) you represent that you are the Customer or Customer’s authorized agent; (ii) you agree that you have received a copy of and have been
given an opportunity to review this Commercial Service Order and the Commercial Service Agreement, of which this Service Order is a part; (iii) you agree to the terms
and conditions of the Commercial Service Agreement; (iv) you acknowledge that you have read and understood the Notice Regarding 911 Services above; (v) you
agree that all work by Suddenlink or Suddenlink’s agent has been performed to your satisfaction as set forth herein; and (vi) you acknowledge that THIS
BUSINESS SERVICE AGREEMENT CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES. This Agreement
shall not be deemed effective until it has been executed by both parties. Final proposed prices in this Agreement are valid for 30 business days from the date below of
the Suddenlink signatory. The prices are firm for the term of this Agreement when signed below by the Customer and by Suddenlink.
______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Customer Authorized Signature Date
______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Print Name Title
______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ____
Cequel Communications, LLC dba Suddenlink Communications, Date
on behalf of its affiliates providing services hereunder (“Suddenlink”)
______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Print Name Title
Page 32 of 165
Commercial Service Agreement
TERMS OF SERVICE APPLICABLE TO ANY AND ALL SERVICE(S):
Customer, identified in the Service Order (defined in paragraph 1 below), understands and agrees that this Commercial Service Agreement, together with the Annex
and any applicable tariff, (collectively, the "Agreement") applies to each and every communication service provided to Customer by Suddenlink Communications and
any affiliate of Suddenlink Communications that to the extent such affiliate provides Services to you under this Agreement ("Suddenlink") ("Service(s)"), which may
include, without limitation, cable television service ("Video Service"), high speed data service ("High Speed Internet Service"), voice service ("Phone Service") and
related equipment ("Equipment"). This Commercial Service Agreement, along with the Annex, each as may be updated from time to time, can be found on our
website at www.suddenlink.com.
1. Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by the parties, and Services shall be provided for the Term (as defined in Section 5
below). Customer agrees to be bound to this Agreement by: (i) executing a copy of the Commercial Service Order presented to Customer at the time of
installation ("Service Order"), (ii) ordering a Service, or (iii) using one or more Services at Customer's location. Suddenlink may, in its sole discretion,
change, modify, add or remove portions of this Agreement at any time by giving Customer notice in accordance with this Agreement. Customer's continued
use of the Services following such notice shall be deemed as Customer's acceptance to any revision in this Agreement. If Customer does not agree to the
revised Agreement, Customer must immediately notify Suddenlink of Customer's intent to terminate Service and return all Equipment.
2. Services and Use. Suddenlink shall use reasonable efforts to make the Services available by any requested service date. Suddenlink shall not be liable
for any damages whatsoever resulting from delays in meeting any service dates due to delays resulting from construction or for reasons beyond its control.
The parties acknowledge and agree that, except for Web hosting, if applicable, and as otherwise set forth in the Commercial Services Order, Customer may
only use the Services for its own commercial purposes and not that of any third party, and Customer shall not resell the Services. Customer shall be
responsible for any software and content displayed and distributed by Customer or Customer's web hosting customers, if any. Unless otherwise expressly
set forth in the Commercial Service Order, Customer acknowledges that pay per view events and premium video and audio services may not be available,
and, if provided, may be subject to additional charges beyond the base rate. Suddenlink shall provide Customer with the Services and Equipment identified
on Customer's Commercial Service Order; provided, however, if Suddenlink determines that Customer's location is not serviceable under Suddenlink's
normal installation guidelines, Suddenlink may terminate this Agreement. Unless provided otherwise herein, Suddenlink shall use reasonable efforts to
maintain the Services in accordance with applicable performance standards, however, Suddenlink shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or repair
of networks, facilities and equipment not furnished by Suddenlink.
3. Payment. Customer shall pay all monthly service charges, plus non-recurring, one-time set-up, installation and/or construction charges as set forth on
the Commercial Service Order. Unless stated otherwise on the Commercial Service Order, Monthly Recurring Charges/Access Charges ("MRCs") for Services
shall begin upon, and Non Recurring Charge/One-time Activation and Set-up Fees ("NRCs") if any shall be due upon, the commencement of Services. Any
amount not received by the due date will be subject to additional fees as set forth below. If applicable to the Service, Customer shall pay sales, use, gross
receipts, excise, access, universal service fund assessments, 911 fees, franchise fees, bypass or other local, state and Federal taxes or charges imposed on
the use of the Services. Taxes will be separately stated on the Customer's invoice. Unpaid balances shall be subject to interest or late charges at the
maximum rate allowed by law. Failure to pay the total balance when due may be grounds for Suddenlink to impose an administrative fee ("Administrative
Fee") in accordance with applicable law. Any Administrative Fee imposed on Customer is intended to be a reasonable advance estimate of costs of
managing past due accounts. Suddenlink does not extend credit to Suddenlink's customers and the Administrative Fee is not interest, a credit service
charge or a finance charge. Failure to receive a bill does not release Customer from Customer's obligation to pay. Failure to pay the total balance when
due shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and may be grounds for termination of Service upon written notice to Customer if Customer has failed to
correct such non-payment default within ten (10) days of written notice from Suddenlink, removal of Equipment from Customer's premises and/or
imposition of an Administrative fee in accordance with applicable law.
4. Additional Fees. In addition to MRCs, NRCs, late charges, interest, and any Administrative Fee, additional fees may be imposed, including fees for
returned checks, charge card chargeback, early termination, reconnection and service calls. Additional charges, including attorney fees, may also be
imposed if collection activities are required to recover past due balances. A list of fees is available on Suddenlink's website (www.suddenlink.com)
("Schedule of Fees"). Suddenlink reserves the right to amend or change the Schedule of Fees from time to time by posting the changes on Suddenlink's
website.
5. Term, Early Termination. The term of the Service Order shall commence on the date that any Service commences and shall terminate upon the
expiration or earlier termination of the term set forth on the Service Order (the “Term”). If a Service Order does not specify a term, the Term shall be one
(1) year from the date that any Service commences. Upon the expiration of the Term, each Service Order(s) shall automatically renew for successive
periods of one (1) year each ("Renewal Term(s)"), unless prior notice of non-renewal is delivered by either party to the other at least thirty (30) days
before the expiration of the Service Term or the then current Renewal Term. Effective at any time after the end of the Term and from time to time therein,
Suddenlink may, modify the charges for HSI and/or Video Services to reflect then-current prevailing pricing subject to thirty (30) days prior notice.
Customer will have thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cancel the applicable Service without further liability. Should Customer fail to cancel
within this timeframe, Customer will be deemed to have accepted the modified Service pricing for the remainder of the Renewal Term. Except as provided
below, if Customer cancels, terminates or downgrades the Service before the completion of the Term, or prior to the term of any promotional offer,
Customer agrees to pay Suddenlink all sums, which shall become due and owing as of the effective date of the cancellation or termination, including: (i) all
non-recurring charges reasonably expended by Suddenlink to establish service to Customer and not remunerated, (ii) any disconnection, early cancellation
or termination charges reasonably incurred and paid by Suddenlink to third parties on behalf of Customer, and (iii) all recurring charges for the remaining
balance of the Term or term of the promotional offer. The Agreement is subject to the availability of funding. In the event that funds do not become
available the Agreement may be terminated or the scope may be amended. A 30 day written notice will be provided to Suddenlink and there will be no
penalty nor other charges incurred by the City.
6. Disputed Charges. Customer must notify Suddenlink in writing of billing errors disputes or requests for credit within thirty (30) days after Customer
receives the bill for which correction of an error or credit is sought. The date of the dispute shall be the date Suddenlink receives sufficient documentation
to enable Suddenlink to investigate the dispute. The date of the resolution is the date Suddenlink completes its investigation and notifies the Customer of
the disposition of the dispute.
7. Default. If Customer fails to comply with any material provision of this Agreement, including, but not limited to failure to make payment as specified,
then Suddenlink, at its sole option, may elect to pursue one or more of the following courses of action upon proper notice to Customer as required
by applicable law: (i) terminate service whereupon all sums then due and payable shall become immediately due and payable, (ii) suspend all or any part
of Services, and/or (iii) pursue any other remedies, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as may be provided at law or in equity, including the applicable
termination liabilities.
8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT FOR ANY REFUNDS OR CREDITS AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, SUDDENLINK, ITS OFFICERS,
SHAREHOLDERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, VENDORS, CARRIER PARTNERS, CONTENT PROVIDERS AND OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES
INVOLVED IN PROVIDING THE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (COLLECTIVELY, THE "SUDDENLINK PARTIES") SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS,
DAMAGE, COST OR EXPENSE INCLUDING DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, TREBLE, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OR
DAMAGES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF PROFITS, EARNINGS, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, LOSS OF DATA, PERSONAL INJURY
(INCLUDING DEATH), PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES, SOUGHT BY CUSTOMER OR ANYONE ELSE USING CUSTOMER’S SERVICE
ACCOUNT, AND/OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT OR OTHERWISE ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, FAILURE, REMOVAL
OR USE OF SERVICES AND/OR EQUIPMENT OR CUSTOMER"S RELIANCE ON THE SERVICES AND/OR EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION
ANY LIABILITY THAT ARISES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICES (INCLUDING THE INABILITY TO ACCESS
EMERGENCY 911 OR E911 SERVICES), MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, DELETION OR CORRUPTION OF FILES,
WORK STOPPAGE, ERRORS, DEFECTS, DELAYS IN OPERATION, DELAYS IN INSTALLATION, FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPER STANDARDS OF OPERATION,
Page 33 of 165
FAILURE TO EXERCISE REASONABLE SUPERVISION, DELAYS IN TRANSMISSION, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE
SERVICES AND/OR EQUIPMENT; OR RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OUT OF, OR OTHERWISE ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY
ALLEGATION, CLAIM, SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING RELATING TO SERVICES AND/OR EQUIPMENT, OR THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT,
PATENT, TRADEMARK , TRADE SECRET, CONFIDENTIALITY, PRIVACY, OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF ANY
THIRD PARTY. SUDDENLINK"S MAXIMUM LIABILITY TO CUSTOMER ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE THE LESSER OF $5,000.00 OR THE
AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY CUSTOMER FOR SERVICES HEREUNDER FOR THE RESPECTIVE REGULAR BILLING PERIOD.
9. WARRANTIES. CUSTOMER AGREES THAT THE SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT ARE PROVIDED BY SUDDENLINK ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE"
BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN, THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS, WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EITHER IN FACT OR BY OPERATION OF LAW, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-
INFRINGEMENT MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, RELATING TO THE SERVICES. SERVICES PROVIDED ARE A BEST
EFFORTS SERVICE AND SUDDENLINK DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES, EQUIPMENT OR SOFTWARE SHALL BE ERROR-FREE OR WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION. SUDDENLINK MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO TRANSMISSION OR UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM SPEEDS OF THE NETWORK. ALL USE OF
THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED AT CUSTOMER'S SOLE RISK AND CUSTOMER ASSUMES TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CUSTOMER'S OR ANY USER'S USE
OF THE SERVICES. THE SUDDENLINK PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTIES THAT THE SERVICE, EQUIPMENT OR SOFTWARE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ANY
CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT AND ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO
CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT. THE SUDDENLINK PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTY AS TO THE SECURITY OF CUSTOMER'S COMMUNICATIONS VIA
SUDDENLINK'S FACILITIES OR SERVICES, OR THAT THIRD PARTIES WILL NOT GAIN UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR MONITOR CUSTOMER'S
COMMUNICATIONS. CUSTOMER AGREES THAT CUSTOMER HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO SECURE CUSTOMER'S COMMUNICATIONS AND THAT
THE SUDDENLINK PARTIES WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS.
10. Indemnity. To the extent allowed under State law, Customer shall indemnify and hold Suddenlink and its respective affiliates, subcontractors, employees
or agents harmless (including payment of reasonable attorneys fees) from and against any claim, actions or demands relating to or arising out of or related
in any way to Customer's use of the Service, any other person's use of the Customer's account, the placement or presence or removal of Suddenlink's
Equipment, facilities and associated wiring on Customer's premises including without limitation (i) any content or software displayed, distributed or
otherwise disseminated by the Customer, its employees, or users of the Services, (ii) any claim that Customer’s use of the Service including the registration
and maintenance of Customer's selected domain name(s), infringes on the patent, copyright, trademark or other intellectual property right of any third
party; (iii) any malicious act or act in violation of any laws committed by Customer, its employees or users using the Services; and/or (iv) violation by
Customer, its employees or authorized users of Suddenlink’s Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”).
11. Miscellaneous. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Suddenlink and Customer for the Services and equipment provided herein. The
invalidity or unenforceability of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. This Agreement
may be modified, waived or amended only by a written instrument signed by the parties; provided however, that Suddenlink may modify this Agreement
and the AUP and if Customer continues to use the Service, Customer shall be bound by such modifications. The rights and obligations of the parties under
this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. The failure by either party to exercise one or more rights provided in this Agreement
shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise such right in the future. Notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered
either by personal delivery or by mail. If delivered by mail, notices shall be sent by any overnight mail service with proof of receipt; or by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested; with all postage and charges prepaid. All notices and other written communications under this Agreement shall
be addressed to the parties at the addresses on the first page of this Agreement, or as specified by subsequent written notice delivered by the party whose
address has changed. Suddenlink may also deliver any required or desired notice hereunder to Customer by contacting the telephone number on
Customer's account. All representations, warranties, indemnifications, dispute resolution provisions and limitations of liability contained in this Agreement
shall survive the termination of this Agreement, as well as any other obligations of the parties hereunder which, by their terms, would be expected to
survive such termination or which relate to the period prior to termination (including legal conditions, payment, and Suddenlink rights and the rights of
others).
12. Regulatory Authority-Force Majeure. This Agreement and the obligations of the parties shall be subject to modification to comply with all applicable
laws, regulations, court rulings, and administrative orders, as amended. In no event shall either party have any claim against the other for failure of
performance if such failure is caused by acts of God, natural disasters including fire, flood, or winds, civil or military action, including riots,
civil insurrections or acts of terrorists or the taking of property by condemnation. Suddenlink may, in its sole discretion, immediately terminate this
Agreement, in whole or in part, in the event there is a material change in any law, rule, regulation, Force Majeure event, or judgment of any court or
government agency, and that change affects Suddenlink's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement.
13. ARBITRATION. CUSTOMER AND SUDDENLINK AGREE THAT ANY CLAIM, DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS
AGREEMENT INCLUDING ANY OF ITS COMPONENTS, THE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT PROVIDED BY SUDDENLINK OR ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN
STATEMENTS, ADVERTISEMENTS OR PROMOTIONS RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR TO THE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (COLLECTIVELY, "CLAIM")
SHALL BE RESOLVED THROUGH ARBITRATION. ALL ARBITRATION SHALL BE INITIATED AND CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION RULES AND MEDIATION PROCEDURES OF THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION ("AAA"). THE AAA SHALL APPOINT THE
ARBITRATOR. ARBITRATION MUST BE INITIATED BY CUSTOMER WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE EVENT OR FACTS
GIVING RISE TO THE DISPUTE (EXCEPT FOR BILLING DISPUTES WHICH MUST BE INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS). CUSTOMER WAIVES ANY
CLAIM NOT FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE. THE PARTY INITIATING ARBITRATION SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO THE OTHER PARTY
BY MAILING A COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION TO THE OTHER PARTY AT THE ADDRESSES ON THE SERVICE ORDER. ALL PARTIES TO THE
ARBITRATION MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY NAMED AND THERE SHALL BE NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY FOR ANY CLAIMS TO BE ARBITRATED ON A CLASS
ACTION OR CONSOLIDATED BASIS OR THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE, UNLESS APPLICABLE STATE LAW MANDATES OTHERWISE. ARBITRATION OF
CLAIMS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH FORUM AND PURSUANT TO SUCH LAWS AND RULES RELATED TO COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK THAT ARE IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE NOTICE TO ARBITRATE.
14. Assignment. Customer may not assign, in whole or in part, this Agreement without the prior written consent of Suddenlink, which consent may be
withheld in Suddenlink's discretion. Suddenlink may assign, in whole or in part, this Agreement, and Service may be provided by one or more legally
authorized Suddenlink affiliates.
Page 34 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the G eneral G overnment and Fi nance Advi sory B oard (G G AF):
Consideration and possible action to recommend co ntracti ng with DecorIQ of Fate, Texas, pending City Council
appropriation in the FY20 17 budget, in the amount not to exceed $87,400.00 for the l easi ng , i nstal l ati on,
mai ntenance, and r emoval of the 2016 hol i day l i ghts, the i nstal l ati on and mai nte nance of the bui l di ng corni ce
l i ghts, and the i nstal l ati o n and removal of the ho l i day w reaths and tree -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The 2 016 Ho liday Lighting c ontract is a renewal o f the 2015 contract with DecorIQ, under the same terms and
conditions. P er section 4.0 of the invitation to bid, the City has the option to renew for up to four additional ho liday
seasons upon mutual agreement under the same te rms, conditions, and pricing.
Staff recommends co ntracting with DécorIQ. Tho ugh price was not the so le determining factor for sele ction, Déc orIQ’s
price fits with the budget appropriated for the project, and DécorIQ has all positive referenc e s. Déco rIQ is a qualified
bidder and Staff had po sitive experience with their project manager during the 201 5 se ason.
The proposed scope of work inc ludes: le asing, installing, maintaining, and removing holiday lights on 4 2 trees in the
downtown; installing and maintaining the building lights alo ng the co rnices of buildings do wntown; and installing and
removing the 67 wreaths on the antique light poles downto wn, as well as the Christmas tree on the Courthouse lawn.
This item as approved unanimously at GGAF on May 2 5. Additio nally, the Co unty has indic ate d that they are interested in
continuing to partner in the same capacity as the 20 15 holiday season.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding is continge nt upo n Council approval of the 20 16 -20 17 Budget.
The funding for the ho liday lights comes from se veral sources:
Hol i day Li ghti ng
Lease, installation, maintenance, and removal of tree lights for 42 trees - $49,000 (pending budget appro val, the se
will be funded by Geo rgetown Utility Syste m)
Lease, installation, maintenance, and removal of tree lights on the 9 large trees around the Williamson Co unty
Courthouse - $13,200 (pending budget approval, $11,000 funded by Georgetown Utility System; remainde r funded
by fundraising efforts between Main Street Advisory Bo ard and the Williamson County Museum, pending conse nt
to scope o f wo rk by Williamson County)
Total holiday lighting: $62,200
Other Servi ce s
Purchase, installation, and maintenance of building cornice light - $21,000 (Fac ilities internal service funding)
Installation and remo val of Christmas wreaths and tree - $4,200 (Conventio n & Visito rs Bureau funding)
SUBMITTED BY:
Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
DecorIQ Referenc e
Res ume
Invitation to Bid
Page 35 of 165
Page 36 of 165
1
Jackson Daly
From:Hairell, Oscar <OHairell@sanmarcostx.gov>
Sent:Monday, August 31, 2015 9:53 AM
To:Jackson Daly
Subject:RE: DecorIQ Reference
I would highly recommend using DecorIQ.
Oscar Hairell
Operations Manager ‐‐ Fleet/ Transit/ Facilities
Community Services
City of San Marcos, Tx
512.393.8410 (O)
512.644.6489 (C)
ohairell@sanmarcostx.gov
From: Jackson Daly [mailto:Jackson.Daly@georgetown.org]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:50 AM
To: Hairell, Oscar
Subject: RE: DecorIQ Reference
Mr. Hairell,
Just following up on this email. Can you provide a reference for DecorIQ?
Best,
Jack
From: Jackson Daly
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 4:02 PM
To: 'ohairell@sanmarcostx.gov'
Subject: DecorIQ Reference
Mr. Hairell,
We received a bid from DecorIQ to install our holiday lights in the downtown square. You were listed as a reference.
Would you recommend us using DecorIQ?
Thanks,
Jack
Jackson Daly
Executive Assistant to the Assistant City Manager
City of Georgetown
113 E. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
512.931.7679
Page 37 of 165
1
Jackson Daly
From:James Martin Richards Jr. <jrichards@downtownsa.org>
Sent:Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:34 AM
To:Jackson Daly
Subject:RE: DecorIQ Reference
Jackson
We used Mark’s frim to hang 250,000 lights at Travis Park in downtown SA for the 2014 holiday season. His team was
very professional and meet all of our tight timelines leading up to the lighting ceremony.
Sincerely
Jimmy
James M. Richards Jr.
Director of PID Operations
Centro Public Improvement District
110 Broadway Street, Suite 230
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Office: 210-225-3862
Fax: 210-225-1569
Cell: 210-882-6276
E-mail: jrichards@downtownsa.org
Web-site: centrosanantonio.org
NOTE: This message may contain information that may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for use only by he person to whom it is
addressed. The proprietary rights to this correspondence and any files transmitted with it are held exclusively by Centro San Antonio. If you received this message in
error, please do not forward or use this information in any way; delete it immediately; and contact the sender as soon as possible by the reply option or by telephone at the
telephone number listed. Disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited without expressed written
permission. Thank you.
From: Jackson Daly [mailto:Jackson.Daly@georgetown.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 4:03 PM
To: 'lincoln.stgeorge@sanantonio.gov'; James Martin Richards Jr.
Subject: DecorIQ Reference
Mr. St. George and Mr. Richards,
We received a bid from DecorIQ to install our holiday lights in the downtown square. You both were listed as a
reference. Would you recommend us using DecorIQ?
Thanks,
Jack
Jackson Daly
Executive Assistant to the Assistant City Manager
City of Georgetown
113 E. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
Page 38 of 165
2
512.931.7679
jackson.daly@georgetown.org
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 39 of 165
1
Jackson Daly
From:Lincoln St. George (DTOPS) <Lincoln.StGeorge@sanantonio.gov>
Sent:Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:31 PM
To:Jackson Daly
Subject:RE: DecorIQ Reference
Yes, they have done an outstanding job hanging lights along our River Walk and in our downtown Parks.
Thanks,
Lincoln
From: Jackson Daly [mailto:Jackson.Daly@georgetown.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 4:03 PM
To: Lincoln St. George (DTOPS); 'jrichards@downtownsa.org'
Subject: DecorIQ Reference
Mr. St. George and Mr. Richards,
We received a bid from DecorIQ to install our holiday lights in the downtown square. You both were listed as a
reference. Would you recommend us using DecorIQ?
Thanks,
Jack
Jackson Daly
Executive Assistant to the Assistant City Manager
City of Georgetown
113 E. 8th Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
512.931.7679
jackson.daly@georgetown.org
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 40 of 165
Page 41 of 165
Page 42 of 165
Page 43 of 165
Page 44 of 165
Page 45 of 165
Page 46 of 165
Page 47 of 165
Page 48 of 165
Page 49 of 165
Page 50 of 165
Page 51 of 165
Page 52 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the G eo rgetown Economi c Devel o pment Corporati on (GEDCO):
Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinance amendi ng the 20 16 G e org etow n Economi c Deve l opment Co rporati on (“GEDCO”)
B udget for the Retail Strategy and Recruitment P lan -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director (acti o n requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
City Co uncil approved the hiring o f Catalyst Commercial on April 1 2, 20 16 . This agreement requires GEDCO to pay
Catalyst $71 ,000, to perform a retail study. Therefore, this proposed budget amendment include s the additio nal expe nse
of $71 ,00 0 to Catalyst and reduces total expenses available for Eco nomic Development Projects by $71,000. The ne t
financial impact of this budget amendment is $0.
The above item was unkno wn at the time the 2 01 6 GEDCO budget was adopte d. The detailed distribution of the
amendment is inc luded in Exhibit A.
The Performance Agreement between GEDCO and Catalyst was approved by the City Co uncil on April 12, 2016.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director - kj
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P ro p o s ed Ord inance, GEDCO Bud get Amendment
P ro p o s ed Ord inance, Exhib it A
Page 53 of 165
Ordinance Number:____________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Reorganization Budget Amendment
Date Approved: June 14, 2016
ORDINANCE NO. __________________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2016 GEORGETOWN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANNUAL BUDGET DUE TO APPROVED
SPENDING OF AVAILABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FUNDS FOR THE RETAIL STRATEGY AND RECRUITMENT PLAN THAT
HAD NOT BEEN FINALIZED WHEN THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED, AND
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation is funded through
a portion of sales taxes in the City of Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation fiscal year 2016
operating budget includes $4,059,774 of funding available for Economic Development
Projects; and
WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year
2016 budget was approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Operating Plan by a
Council majority plus one in emergency situations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1.
The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found
and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made
a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
SECTION 2.
The amendment to the 2016 Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Budget
expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition
to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges
against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2015, and ending September 30, 2016.
A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION 3.
The total of $71,000 is hereby appropriated for payments to hire Catalyst and included in the
Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 4
Page 54 of 165
Ordinance Number:____________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Reorganization Budget Amendment
Date Approved: June 14, 2016
All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this
Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. This ordinance
complies with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan.
SECTION 5.
If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this
ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end
the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council
of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 14th day of June, 2016.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 28th day of June, 2016.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ ______________________
Shelley Nowling By: Dale Ross
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 55 of 165
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation
2016 Approved
Budget
Impact of
This Action
2016 Amended
Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 5,370,479$ -$ 5,370,479
Revenues
Total Revenues 4,500,813 - 4,500,813
Expenses
Economic Development Projects 4,059,774 (71,000) 3,988,774
Catalyst - Retail Plan - 71,000 71,000
All Other Expenses 5,475,190 - 5,475,190
Total Expenses 9,534,964 - 9,534,964
Contingency Reserves 336,328 - 336,328
Available Ending Fund Balance -$ -$ -$
Total Increase in Expenditures -$
Net Decrease in Fund Balance -$
EXHIBIT A
2016 GEDCO Budget Amendment
Proposed budget amendments include an increase in expenditures for a retail strategy consultant approved by
Council on April 12, 2016 and a reduction to the Economic Development Projects expenses.
Page 56 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Publ i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinanc e rezoni ng 11.168 acres of the Jo hn Sutherland Survey located at
4950 Ji m Hogg Road from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-
A, Planning Dire c to r (acti on requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The applicant has requested to rezone the site from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1)
District. The property was anne xe d at the May 1 0, 2 01 6 City Council meeting and assigned the default AG District. The
requested rezoning would provide the property owners with pe rmitted uses allowed by the C-1 District similar to o ther
commercial pro pe rties fro nting Williams Drive.
Publ i c Comment:
To date, staff has received seve ral phone c alls from neighboring ETJ pro perty owners concerned with access/conne c tivity
into their neighborhood with a future comme rc ial develo pment at the SW corner of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive.
Eleven (11 ) people spoke against the rezoning application at the May 17, 2 01 6 P&Z meeting, citing access/conne c tivity
concerns.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff recommends appro val o f the request to rezo ne the 11 .16 8 acre tract to the C-1 District.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At their May 17, 201 6 meeting, the P lanning and Zoning Co mmission recommended to the City Council approval (6 -1)
to rezone the 11.1 68 acres to C-1 District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time
SUBMITTED BY:
Juan Enriquez, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Exhib it 1 - Loc ation Map
Exhib it 2 - Future Land Use Map
Exhib it 3 - Zoning Map
Exhib it 4 - Pub lic Comment
C-1 District Develo p ment S tand ard s and Land Us es
Ordinanc e
Exhib it A - Loc ation Map
Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion
Page 57 of 165
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Oak Meadows Corner Rezoning Page 1 of 5
Report Date: May 12, 2016
File No: REZ-2016-016
Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Oak Meadows Corner REZ
Project Address: 4950 Jim Hogg Road
Location: SW Corner of Jim Hogg Road and Williams
Drive
Total Acreage: 11.168 acres
Legal Description: 11.168 acres of the John Sutherland Survey
Applicant: Joseph T. Sandoval, P.E.
Property Owner(s): Weldon Copeland, Kenneth Snow, Marvin Bachmeyer, A. Dearl Dotson
Contact: Joseph T. Sandoval, P.E.
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone the site from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local
Commercial (C-1) District. The property was annexed at the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting
and assigned the default AG District. The requested rezoning would provide the property
owners with permitted uses allowed by the C-1 District similar to other commercial properties
fronting Williams Drive.
Site Information
Location:
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive in the
north western portion of the City.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject site is 11.168 acres in size and is generally flat with various shrubs throughtout the
lot. The site has approximately 600 feet of street frontage along Williams Drive and Jim Hogg
Road. There are no heritage trees located on-site.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North No zoning. ETJ. Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Commercial uses
South No zoning. ETJ. Low Density Residential Single-Family Residences
East C-3 with
conditions Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Undeveloped commercial
lot
West No zoning. ETJ. Low Density Residential Undeveloped lot
Property History
The 11.168 acre property was annexed into the City on May 10, 2016 by Ordinance No. 2016-41.
Site
Page 58 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Oak Meadows Corner Rezoning Page 2 of 5
At the time of annexation into the City, the default AG District was assigned and therefore the
applicant is requesting to rezone from the AG District to the C-1 District. The property is
currently vacant and undeveloped. The commercial lot is currently in the final stages of platting
with PFP-2013-005 application.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. The
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center category applies to smaller areas of mixed commercial use within
existing and new neighborhoods. Neighborhood-serving mixed use areas abut roadway
corridors or are located at key intersections. Uses in these areas might include a corner store,
small grocery, coffee shops, and other personal services, as well as small professional offices.
They may include non-commercial uses such as churches, schools or parks. The exact size,
location and design of these areas should be subject to a more specific approval process, to
ensure an appropriate fit with the surrounding residential pattern. The intent of the Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Center category was to identify certain areas of the City that would support
localized personal services and retail locations for neighborhood goods and services, rather than
large commercial development and high-traffic generating uses.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 2. These areas are typically in
the ETJ and will likely be needed to serve the City’s growth needs over the next 10-20 years.
These areas will be served with City services once annexed into the City limits.
Transportation
The property fronts on Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive. Jim Hogg Road is classified as an
existing collector road and Williams Drive is classified as an existing Major Arterial road. The
City recently installed a traffic signal at the Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive intersection and
it will be in operation summer of 2016. As specific development is further pursued, a Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required if the use is anticipated to exceed 2,000 trips per day. A
TIA will dictate and evaluate the need for right-of-way dedication and improvements.
Utilities
Electric is served by Pedernales Electric Cooperative, and water and wastewater are served by
Georgetown Utility Services. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this
property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Proposed Zoning District
The C-1 District is intended to provide areas for commercial and retail activities that primarily
serve residential areas. Uses should have pedestrian access to adjacent and nearby residential
Page 59 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Oak Meadows Corner Rezoning Page 3 of 5
areas, but are not appropriate along residential streets or residential collectors. The District is
more appropriate along major and minor thoroughfares and corridors. Typical uses within this
district are general retail, restaurants (including drive-through), gas stations, medical or dental
offices, etc. In the C-1 District, the floor area ratio of a building cannot exceed 0.5. Additionally,
no more than eight (8) fuel pumps (4 fuel islands) are permitted in the C-1 District for gas station
uses.
Notable Development Standards in C-1 District:
Maximum building height 35 feet
Minimum front/street setback 25 feet
Gateway Landscape (properties fronting Williams
Drive)
25 feet
Maximum impervious cover 70%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5
Building Design Standards - Section 7.04 Applies
Lighting Standards - Section 7.05 Applies
Staff Analysis
The intersection of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive serves many purposes for both regional
and local traffic. From a local perspective, it is entrance to various residential ETJ neighborhoods
with existing commercially entitled property on the southeastern corner of the intersection. From
a regional perspective it is the entrance to Jim Hogg Park and a long planned and modeled
commercial node (identified on the City’s adopted Century Plan and 2030 Comprehensive Plan).
As part of the 2030 adoption process, the land use element of the plan identified a number of
land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action statements are the most
relevant to this request:
• Goal: “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.”
o The policies listed under this goal include “reserve and rezone land ideally suited for
long-term commercial and employment uses…”; “Prepare land use provisions to
discourage standard commercial “strip” development and encourage compact commercial
and mixed use centers at appropriate locations.”
The subject property is located in an area that has been identified in a commercial node in two of
the City’s long term plans and is suited for commercial development since it is fronting Williams
Drive. This property was already anticipated to be commercially zoned with annexation into the
City limits.
Page 60 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Oak Meadows Corner Rezoning Page 4 of 5
• Goal: “Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g. stable neighborhoods,
economically sound commercial and employment areas).
o The policies listed under this goal include “minimize impacts of encroachment by
incompatible land uses” and “Revise zoning ordinance to ensure property transitions and
buffering between established neighborhoods and adjacent commercial and manufacturing
areas.” The property will serve as a transition area and buffer from Williams Drive
as you enter established residential neighborhoods in the ETJ area. The rezoning
will also allow compatible uses consistent with the development patterns along
Williams Drive.
The proposed rezoning to C-1 along with the associated development standards (identified
above) directly help to implement the above goals of a balance of land uses as well as ensuring
transitions and buffers between residential and commercial uses. As development patterns
continue to extend west, the need for goods and services closer to residents (both current and
future) is necessary in order to achieve a balanced community as well as incrementally address
traffic related concerns.
UDC Section 3.06.030 establishes the following criteria for zoning changes:
The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is sufficient
and correct enough to allow adequate review
and final action
The application was reviewed by staff and deemed
to be complete.
The zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change is consistent with the
Future Land Use of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The zoning change promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City
The zoning change request supports orderly
development by placing zoning districts in the
appropriate location for buffering and transition
purposes.
The zoning change is compatible with the
present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding zoning districts, specifically those
fronting Williams Drive, current uses and character
of the area.
The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses
permitted by the District that would be applied
by the proposed amendment.
The uses allowed in the C-1 District are appropriate
at this location given the majority of the existing
land uses surrounding the property along Williams
Drive, including those in the ETJ, are commercial.
Page 61 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Oak Meadows Corner Rezoning Page 5 of 5
Findings
Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings:
1. The Future Land Use category of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center supports the C-1
District at this location since this category applies to areas of mixed commercial use within
existing and new neighborhoods. These type of developments typically serve as gateways
into the neighborhoods that they serve.
2. The location meets the intent of the C-1 District as the lot is located along Williams Drive, a
major arterial road, and may serve the nearby residential areas.
3. The uses allowed in the C-1 District are appropriate at this location given the majority of the
existing land uses surrounding the property along Williams Drive, including those in the
ETJ, are commercial.
4. The design standards for the C-1 District are appropriate for this location given the
limitations of Floor Area Ratio and lighting standards to protect the nearby residential
areas.
5. There is sufficient capacity of City utilities to accommodate the proposed rezoning from AG
to C-1 District at this location.
6. The newly installed traffic signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg Road and Williams Drive
will help alleviate some traffic concerns with traffic flow in this area.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request based on the above-mentioned findings.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits (1 notice mailed) were notified of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received one phone call from a
neighbor requesting general information about the rezoning application. Staff also received a
second phone call from a neighboring property owner concerned with access/connectivity on Jim
Hogg Road with a future commercial development at the subject property.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Page 62 of 165
D el W e b b B l v d
D elWebbBlvd
WilliamsDr
Shell
Rd
")3405
")262 Jim H o g g Rd
N L a k e w o o d s D r
")262
S e d r o T rl
")2338
REZ-2016-016Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 63 of 165
FM 3 4 0 5
DEL W E B B B L V D
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-2016 -016
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Em ployment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼½Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 64 of 165
JIMHOGGDR
JIM HO
G
G
R
D
S T A R L I G H T T R L
N L A K E W O O D S D R
A
N
N
I
E
S
C
V
WILLIAMSDRFOUNTAIN
W
O
O
D
D
R
ALLENCIR
H I G H L A N D S P R I N G L N
C
R
Y
S
T
A
L
L
N
SLAKEWOODSDR
K
A
T
I
E
M
A
R
I
E
C
V
L A K E V I E W LN
F O U N T AIN W O O D D R
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-016Exhibit #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼MiPage 65 of 165
PETITION FOR MORE CHOICE IN GROCERY SHOPPING:
The residents of Sun City and the surrounding area would like more choice in their
grocery shopping.
By signing this petition, you are showing your support for Randall's to consider building a
store convenient for Sun City residents. They will be taking Georgetown into
consideration for a possible new location.
Please sign your name below if you support this effort. (For further information, you
may call 512 630-6452.)
Page 66 of 165
PETITION FOR MORE CHOICE IN GROCERY SHOPPING:
The residents of Georgetown and the surrounding area would like more choice in their
grocery shopping.
By signing this petition, you are showing your support for Randall's to consider building a
store convenient for residents. They will be taking Georgetown into consideration for a
possible new location.
Please sign your name below if you support this effort. (For further information, you
may call Diane at 512 630-6452.)
Print Name Signature
Z { Z*r*u*ir'{"i:i lt-- --i {
/ c6 P"*{"& Vrpt
O? S.,J9e"*T6t /
t\ '; Lil tl, Llt,. ,. ilrr ,-'r,to*r.-$J
tr 3 Pr4tAj
| # I I'r{ t, u'f<C [i;
Page 67 of 165
PETITION FOR MORE CHOICE IN GROCERY SHOPPING:
o The residents of Sun City and the surrounding area would like more choice in their
grocery shoPPing.
o By signing this petition, you are showing your support for Randall's to consider building a
store convenient for Sun City residents. They will be taking Georgetown into
consideration for a possible new location.
o please sign your name below if you support this effort. (For further information, you
may call 512 63A-6452.)
Name Address Phone #Signature
///o* //)y'd^^/P i /,c1,17/y'?@''
dr tn,/)rd-)tu^htte/z (4*lzt*,u.'*
f-.tJta Or ra r
t o 3 da'f frNa Uo>
fr ^,n^ ^ ,6t v.dl8 -&A(t-nto R f*,L CAp*
-it litmft*4t)-
:?r^3* &cr"#
/t)
%, ,-lia-,n]-*-
?olorr|, G* *,. r /rts K.J 0.oLC,'""/.
{l)-
z4D t't,rLk S. fJ**.'TJ*\," E. ll
T, .,.itr;',1
"{).*i",," /^-n l-.3c-t, f,,../z tA. -* ,',.,.t $-',) l:/,O-I4//q (l-rnr^^ f.*-ru {
i-"wu 7PAlrlkM
4 "iN6t/d'b /#rut {0 $ u',^ft \ ,, q q4 4't1/
i. IMrr^ /.
Airrt K4,,rr,*-rz n *{lsro$,":{-(r l qft'(a$ Zw;
9,enit- '71\atNIze {Ai fw.t {,1ilaijx,te 5n-&b4an
R,* 1{tr.,*l-i:
"/,\('€:_r..-\{,:r-' iltul\r,rJ }-r;*it*,f*,5'h*tt A/*/*j*"#-#e*n
r '! ll q.- r ,t
l,Vr il , "'.,-"u ..) F-U'-1 *
-'rniltll-r- 1{ll.lt, ri Lr,, f-';7:x Yr: I 1tt'.t't ty' './ .f-t
Lefrt-^^.$i:tft/t tt .
Et;*-V*a i r. 7 lrtt "q4n/ l*Slz'F*,; "r.:ir tffif,,
*f**J "+**re
cI \u( y/*r*,?rz,\ t*{'it t-"?3f - rio t ai.- {'4**c, i,J**r_-
I
,1,,,4srJ,;-t ,lsD H,r*"t'{r,,.r}i,KrZ cii-r., 1/r_
**&-'""4-fi
{;1," i,.
' t-
h',*,tt
' 'j-r,'11
''p'(,L ^ir"::
/,i
.")r-o ':it't..
l^'1,{u,.l
ii
t\1,, t),rL
-/
a,l z? c-l
{9(,tuhTfi,- l/L' t,4*z , K(r'j *.1''lLo /*-*; tlxl
,ffut'.> Rat'{n / a4 Gct r (, e*tofit o16{- 6(t'f ,|t\n- JLd-(( 7,'*/{o r.
Page 68 of 165
,'1
/z
PETITION FOR MORE CHOICE IN GROCERY SHOPPING:
o The residents of Georgetown and the surrounding area would like more choice in their
grocery shopping.
o By signing this petition, you are showing your support for Randall's to consider building a
store convenient for residents. They will be taking Georgetown into consideration for a
possible new location.
o Please sign your name below if you support this effort. (For further information, you
may call Diane a|512 630-6452.)
Page 69 of 165
PETITION FOR MORE CHOICE IN GROCERY SHOPPING:
The residents of Georgetown and the surrounding area would like more choice in their
grocery shopping.
"Bv sisnins thiq petiliqn. vq-Lt ale shqwins vqur E-uppqllqr Rqnda!5-tp sqnsider lqildrng-a
-dore. eonvenienlfor residenls. Thev wlll be taklnq Georgetolun into co-nsiderallo-n for-a
f'ossible new location.
Please sign your name below if you support this effort. (For further information, you
may call Diane a|512 630-6452.)
SignaturePrint Name
7 kP 4 A';rJlAz'L<: L I
4's-a 4r ?rr->rt /.t -72 zi{iJ
':i,(( tr
rr.r!n-,;O L'n *!.t'/
- 4-/-) s t,S 7+rl/J b,i 7,, p tJ t?c:-r 7Alr'/,/a
"L t q f4O/1 /r tJ /2r" <" t''r''*- C.r/ /-e n)&- t2
-p.? :'tt lY CU lC ,t--.. /(
-*J .€ Cr \,." ('- 7-C '" n/
/ c a Di1;,( t+tEt-l D,',
- , t - f ),:,- ,1 t; ,l 7', ,t ,f-i r
:4(- --: i !\'-F,\! u'-i*t-\+ a-:. F\-(i.rl a*- {{ B
'&fLt l-rn
Page 70 of 165
Page 71 of 165
Page 72 of 165
Page 73 of 165
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Size = .5 FAR (0 feet for build‐to/downtown) adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
(only applies to those uses Side Setback = 10 feet MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts
marked with * below) Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet
Rear Setback = 0 feet
Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Agricultural Sales* Activity Center (youth/senior) Event Facility
Artisan Studio/Gallery* Bar/Tavern/Pub Meat Market
Assisted Living Bed and Breakfast (with events) Multifamily Attached
Automotive Parts Sales (indoor)* Business/Trade School Personal Services Restricted
Banking/Financial Services* Car Wash Private Transport Dispatch Facility
Blood/Plasma Center* Church (with columbarium) Student Housing
Consumer Repair* College/University
Dry Cleaning Service* Commercial Recreation
Emergency Services Station Community Center
Farmer's Market* Dance Hall/Night Club
Fitness Center* Day Care (group/commercial)
Food Catering Services* Fuel Sales
Funeral Home* Live Music/Entertainment
General Retail* Micro Brewery/Winery
General Office* Neighborhood Amenity Center
Government/Postal Office Park (neighborhood/regional)
Group Home (7+ residents) Pest Control/Janitorial Services
Home Health Care Services* Self‐Storage (indoor only)
Hospital School (Elementary, Middle, High)
Hotel/Inn (excluding extended stay) Theater (movie/live)
Integrated Office Center* Upper‐story Residential
Landscape/Garden Sales* Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Laundromat*
Library/Museum
Medical Diagnostic Center*
Medical Office/Clinic/Complex*
Membership Club/Lodge*
Nature Preserve/Community Garden
Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice
Parking Lot (commercial/park‐n‐ride)
Personal Services*
Printing/Mailing/Copying Services*
Restaurant (general/drive‐through)*
Rooming/Boarding House
Social Service Facility
Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery*
Urgent Care Facility*
Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major)
Veterinary Clinic (indoor only)*
Local Commercial (C‐1) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 74 of 165
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Rezone 11.168 acres of the John Sutherland Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-016
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 11.168 acres out of the
John Sutherland Survey from the AG (Agriculture) District to the C-1 (Local
Commercial) District also known as Oak Meadows Corner; repealing
conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and
establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
11.168 acres of the John Sutherland Survey, as recorded in Document Number
2006065937 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter
referred to as "The Property"; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on May 17, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on June 14, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the AG District (Agriculture) to the C-1 District (Local
Commercial), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal
Description) and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
Page 75 of 165
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Rezone 11.168 acres of the John Sutherland Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-016
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 14th day of June, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 28th day of June, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 76 of 165
D el W e b b B l v d
D elWebbBlvd
WilliamsDr
Shell
Rd
")3405
")262 Jim H o g g Rd
N L a k e w o o d s D r
")262
S e d r o T rl
")2338
REZ-2016-016Exhibit A
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 77 of 165
Exhibit B - Legal Description
Page 78 of 165
Page 79 of 165
Page 80 of 165
Page 81 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Publ i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinanc e to rezone approximately 3.0 93 ac res o f the N. Porter Survey,
located at 206 E. J ani s Dri ve, from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1)
District -- Sofia Ne lson, CNU-A, Planning Direc to r (acti on requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The property is located along E. Janis Drive between Westwood Lane and Park Lane, west of IH 3 5. The applicant has
requested a rezoning of the 3 .09 3 acres to the Low Density Multifamily district to develo p a multifamily developme nt to
be known as Colony Park Townhomes. This pro perty is located within the boundaries of the Williams Drive Gateway
Redevelopment Area Plan and is part o f the Tax Inc rement Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) set up for the redeve lo pment of this
area.
Publ i c Comment:
As of the date o f this report, staff has received 2 responses in oppo sition to the requested rezoning, citing conc e rns
regarding traffic, crime, environmental impac t, and the alre ady e xisting multifamily in the area. Two people spoke in
opposition to the request at the Planning and Zoning public hearing citing co ncerns regarding traffic and environme ntal
impact.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff is recommending De ni al of the applic atio n (see staff report fo r findings). Staff believes this rezoning request is
premature give n the pending development considerations for the area, specifically the e xtensio n of Rivery Blvd.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At their May 17th meeting, the Planning and Zo ning Commission, by a vote of 6 -1, recommended Appr o val of the
application.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Valerie Kreger, AICP, P rincipal P lanner, and Sofia Nelso n, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Attachments 1-4 - Map s
Attachment 5 - P ublic Co mment
Attachment 6 - MF -1 District Development S tand ard s and Land Uses
Ordinanc e
Ordinanc e Exhibits A & B
Page 82 of 165
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 1 of 9
Report Date: May 12, 2016
File No.: REZ-2016-011
Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Colony Park Townhomes
Project Address: 206 E. Janis Dr. (see Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 3.093 acres
Applicant: Tim Haynie, Haynie Consulting, Inc.
Property Owner: Jim Faulk, Inc.
Existing Use: Undeveloped Property
Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) District
Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multifamily (MF-1)
Future Land Use: Specialty Mixed Use and Moderate Density Residential
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The property is located along E. Janis Drive between Westwood Lane and Park Lane, west
of IH 35. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the 3.093 acres to the Low Density
Multifamily district to develop a multifamily development to be known as Colony Park
Townhomes. This property is located within the boundaries of the Williams Drive Gateway
Redevelopment Area Plan and is part of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) set
up as a financing tool for the redevelopment of this area.
Site Information
Physical Characteristics:
The property is long and narrow, approximately 900 feet at its longest and 200 feet wide,
although there is limited boundary fronting on adjacent roadways. The land is fairly flat
with some tree cover, although no tree survey has been conducted to determine if any are
preserved species.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Page 83 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 2 of 9
Property History
The subject property was annexed into the City of Georgetown in April 1964 (Ordinance
#64-A1) and assigned the default zoning, at that time, of Residential Single-family (RS). The
property has no record of platting or development.
This property falls within the area referred to as the Williams Drive Gateway
Redevelopment Area (WDGRA), a 70-acre area along the west side of Interstate 35 centered
approximately by Williams Drive (RM 2338). The City identified this area in 2004 as a high
priority for planning and economic development and wanted to revitalize and reimagine
the “gateway” to the western half of Georgetown. The goals included improving traffic
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Residential Single-family (RS)
High Density Multifamily (MF-2)
Moderate Density
Residential
Single-family detached
Single-family attached
South Residential Single-family (RS)
General Commercial (C-3) Specialty Mixed Use Single-family detached
Undeveloped
East High Density Multifamily (MF-2)
General Commercial (C-3) Specialty Mixed Use
Single-family attached
Apartments
Undeveloped
West Residential Single-family (RS) Moderate Density
Residential Single-family detached
Page 84 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 3 of 9
flow and access to the area, maximizing revenue generation of the area, attracting and
recruiting a mix of uses consistent with the vision of the area and the construction of
aesthetically pleasing buildings. The Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Area Master
Plan was adopted in April of 2006 that embraced the vision of the citizens and was to serve
as the basis for a future rezoning. The plan envisions a mixed-use pedestrian oriented
activity center where land uses are vertically integrated, buildings are pulled up to the
sidewalk, parking is de-emphasized and placed to the rear of buildings, and building
entries, façade treatments, streetscape, landscape, and signage design create an inviting and
comfortable pedestrian environment. Some of the ultimate goals included improving traffic
flow and access to the area, maximizing revenue generation of the area, attracting and
recruiting a mix of uses consistent with the vision of the area and the construction of
aesthetically pleasing buildings. Following the planning efforts, a Tax Increment
Reinvestment Zone was established in October of 2006 to create a sustainable financial
source to fund needed improvements within this project area.
The City adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which succeeded the Century Plan, in
February 2008. In the updated Future Land Use Plan, the WDGRA is represented by the
Specialty Mixed Use land use category. In March of 2008, the Mixed Use zoning district
was adopted in order to implement the Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Area Plan
(in addition to the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) plan), although due to economic
factors at the time it was never applied. Since that time, the extension of Rivery Boulevard,
which was not part of the original efforts, has been planned to extend through this area.
Utilities
The property is in the City of Georgetown water, wastewater, and electric service areas. It
is anticipated there is adequate capacity to serve the property once developed.
Transportation
The subject property has approximately 45 feet of frontage on Janis Drive and 50 feet of
frontage on Ryan Lane. Both Janis and Ryan Streets are designed, constructed, and used as
single family residential streets. Additionally, the future extension of Rivery Boulevard
from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard will cut the southeastern tip off this property,
leaving it ultimately with less than 50-feet of frontage as proposed.
Page 85 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 4 of 9
Subject Property
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
This property is designated on the 2030 Plan-Future Land Use Map as primarily Specialty
Mixed Use with some Moderate Density Residential on the northern portion of the
property fronting Janis Drive.
Page 86 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 5 of 9
The Moderate Density Residential category includes the city’s predominantly single-family
neighborhoods that can be accommodated at a density between 1.1 and 3 dwelling units
per gross acre.
The majority of the property, however, is designated Specialty Mixed Use Area (SMUA).
This category encourages mixed use developments and planned ‘centers’ that can integrate
complementary uses. Emphasized activities would include retail, offices, and
entertainment, with options for civic and parks/green spaces as well as higher density
residential options, including multi-family style housing. Mixed use categories should be
implemented through the application of zoning and development standards that encourage
appropriate form and character, such as Planned Unit Developments or Mixed Use
Districts.
The SMUA category exists in strategic locations where the desire is to create patterns of
development focused on pedestrian-oriented, storefront-style streets. The SMUA
designation at this location represents the City’s interest in revitalizing and reimagining the
“gateway” to the western half of Georgetown and implementing the Williams Drive
Gateway Redevelopment Area Master Plan
Growth Tier:
In order to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth of the city over the next two
decades, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes a tiered growth framework. The 2030
Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, that portion of the city where infrastructure
systems are in place, or can be economically provided and where the bulk of the city’s
growth should be guided over the near term.
Zoning Districts
Low Density Multifamily (MF-1)
The Low Density Multi-Family District (MF-1) is intended for attached and detached multi-
family residential development, such as apartments, condominiums, triplexes, and
fourplexes, at a density up to 14 dwelling units per acre and maximum impervious cover of
50%. MF-1 zoned properties should have access to major thoroughfares and arterial streets
and should not route traffic through lower density districts and may serve as a transition
between single-family districts and more intense multifamily or commercial districts.
Notable Development Standards in MF-1:
Max. building height 35 ft
Min. rear setback to residential district 20 ft (10 ft setback when not next to residential)
Min. side setback to residential district 20 ft (10 ft setback when not next to residential)
Bufferyard required between:
• MF-1 and RS
• MF-1 and MF-2
• 15 ft wide planting area. 1 shade tree, 2 evergreen
ornamental trees, 8 evergreen shrubs/50 linear ft
• None
Maximum units per structure 12
Page 87 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 6 of 9
Staff Analysis
The subject property is generally located on the outer edge of an established single family
neighborhood and immediately adjacent to undeveloped commercial property. As
identified in the transportation section of this report the Rivery Boulevard extension is
planned to touch the eastern tip of the subject property. The Rivery extension is planned as
a minor arterial level roadway (4 lane divided). As the roadway is constructed the use and
access opportunities for parcels immediately adjacent to the tract will evolve given the
traffic flow impacts of the new roadway.
Under today’s conditions the tract functions as a transitional tract, sandwiched between
single-family, multi-family and commercial property. Additionally, the subject property is
limited to frontage on two local residential roadways, with frontage on Janis Street limited
to approximately 45 feet. Under today’s conditions the property is encumbered with
conditions that limit development opportunities. Staff has evaluated the request under the
rezoning criteria established in the UDC and has made the following findings:
Rezoning Criteria:
Section 3.06 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) establishes criteria to consider when
evaluating a zoning change. Staff’s evaluation of each approval criteria is identified below.
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is
sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action.
The rezoning application is consistent with the above criteria statement.
2. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property straddles the moderate density and specialty mixed use future
land use designations. Each designation encourages multi-family development in
appropriate locations when access, transportation provisions, and adjacent uses support
the request. While the level of density associated with the MF-1 district could be
consistent with the comprehensive plan and infill development is desired, the current
access conditons along with the minimum development standards associated with the
MF-1 zoning district are not consistent with the overall intent of the future land use
designation and goals of the 2030 Plan:
• Promote more compact, higher density development (e.g., traditional neighborhoods,
Transi-Oriented Development, mixed-use, and walkable neighborhoods) within
appropriate infill locations.
Page 88 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 7 of 9
• Encourage forms of development that promote an interconnected street network, safe
pedestrian routes, and healthy, active living.
• Minimize impacts of encroachments by incompatible land uses and promoting more
compact, higher density development within infill locations.
3. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the
safe, orderly, and healthful development of the City.
The rezoning application is inconsistent with this criteria statement. While the type and
density of development allowed within this district may not negatively affect the health,
safety, and general welfare of the community, the lack of standards within the district
that would ensure the appropriate form of that development do not promote the safe,
orderly, and healthful development of the City. Additionally, without the extension of
Rivery Boulevard in place, access to the site is limited and would force vehicle traffic
from the development onto two existing local streets.
4. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of
nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood.
The rezoning request is consistent with the adjacent MF-2 zoning to the northwest and
multi-family non-conforming use to the north. The UDC identifies the MF-1 District to
be appropriate in areas designated on the Future Land Use Plan as high density
residential or one of the mixed-use categories, and may be appropriate in the moderate
density residential area based on location, surrounding uses, and infrastructure
impacts. However MF-1 should have convenient access to major thoroughfares and
arterial streets and should not route traffic through lower density residential areas.
Additionally, The MF-1 District is appropriate adjacent to both residential and non-
residential districts and may serve as a transition between single-family districts and
more intense multifamily or commercial districts when appropriate access is provided.
5. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the district that would be
applied by the proposed amendment.
Generally, the proposed use of multi-family development such as apartments,
condominiums, triplexes, and fourplexes could be suitable for the subject property if
access to the site was not reliant on routing traffic through a lower density residential
area.
General Findings:
Staff has reviewed the requested rezoning application and offers the following general
findings:
• The MF-1 zoning district does not best implement the goals of the 2030 Plan.
o The SMUA category anticipates a level of development that the by-right
standards for development under the MF-1 district cannot guarantee.
Page 89 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 8 of 9
Mixed-Use zoning, per UDC Section 4.09, isn’t feasible on this
property due its size. The implementation of the Mixed-Use zoning
requires a regulating plan that is best utilized on larger properties or
groups of properties rather than on a parcel by parcel basis.
A PUD could be utilized to rezone this property; however, because a
blueprint identifying how each tract contributes to the overall vision
has not been established, it is unclear at this time what PUD
considerations would be warranted.
o The MF-1 district does not provide standards that would require an
interconnected street network or provide for any safe pedestrian routes
through this property.
• Although it should be noted the current RS zoning district also does not best
implement the goals of the 2030 Plan, the district’s development standards are such
that development could be accomplished on the tract without a rezoning.
• The City has created the Williams Drive Tax Increment Refinance Zone (TIRZ) as a
means of spurring and incentivizing high-quality development/redevelopment
within this area. The type of development that occurs within the TIRZ affects its
financial success, therefore individual rezoning applications should be carefully
considered.
• The extension of Rivery Boulevard through this area will drastically change the
make-up of this area and the configuration and interaction of properties in a manner
still yet to be determined. It is premature to state this development’s additional
effect on the street system.
• City Council has initiated a Williams Drive Study that covers the area in which this
property is located. This study seeks to build on future transportation options such
as the Rivery extension and additional local streets that will support investment
opportunities in this area. The upcoming extension of Rivery Blvd will transform
many of the existing parcel configurations and provide tremendous access to I-35
and Williams where previously non-existent. The 3 acres in question are being
studied by staff and the Williams Drive Study consultants to determine how a
master plan for that area will enhance the development potential of the entire area.
The MF-1 district use of multi-family may end up being suitable for the area with
the right planning efforts but in this transition time period the current development
standards for the district do not provide the best long-term outlook. Even if the
property develops under the existing RS district, that development will ensure local
street connection with public utility extensions from Janis to the future Rivery Blvd.
The MF-1 District will ensure private development (possibly gated) that will not
promote balanced traffic distribution that is crucial for this area to support
development opportunities along Rivery.
Page 90 of 165
Planning Department Staff Report
Colony Park Townhomes Page 9 of 9
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending Denial of the application based on the above findings. Staff believes
this rezoning request is premature given the pending development considerations for the
area.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, property owners within a 200-foot radius
of the subject property and within the city limits were notified (42 notices mailed) of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper on May 1st, and signs were posted on-site. Staff has received two written
responses opposed to the applicant’s rezoning request citing concerns regarding traffic,
crime, environmental impact, and the already existing multifamily in the area.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – Aerial Map
Attachment 5 – Public Comments
Page 91 of 165
WilliamsDr
W
illia
ms
Dr
Lake w ay Dr
Lakeway D r
Booty'sCrossingRd
NAustinAve
N Austin Ave
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N Au
s
t
in
Av
e
W olfRanchPkw y
¬«130
S eren a da D r
")971
EMorro w St
N
orth
w
estBlvd
Lake w ay Dr
§¨¦35(River/Stream)
REZ-2016-011Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 92 of 165
R A N C H R D
N IH 35 FWY SB
WILLIA
MS
D
R
RYAN LNPARK LN
P A R K W A Y S T
NORTHWESTBLVD
OAK LN
S H A N N O N L N
T H O R N T O N C V
DAWN DR
WESTWOODLN
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D D
R
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
EJANIS DR
WJANISDR
C O U N T RYCLUBRD
TANGLEWOODDR
E CENTRAL DR
N AUSTIN AVECLAYST
ENTR262NB
G O L D E N O A KS D R
R
O
Y
A
L
D
R
W C E N T R A L D R
RIV E R Y B L V D
O
A
K L
N
A
P
P
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
FONTANA DRTERRYLN
ENTR 263 SB
NIH35SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-2016 -011
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Em ployment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 93 of 165
R A N C H R D
N IH 35 FWY SB
WILLIA
MS
D
R
RYAN LNPARK LN
P A R K W A Y S T
NORTHWESTBLVD
OAK LN
S H A N N O N L N
T H O R N T O N C V
DAWN DR
WESTWOODLN
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D D
R
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
EJANIS DR
WJANISDR
C O U N T RYCLUBRD
TANGLEWOODDR
E CENTRAL DR
N AUSTIN AVECLAYST
ENTR262NB
G O L D E N O A KS D R
R
O
Y
A
L
D
R
W C E N T R A L D R
RIV E R Y B L V D
O
A
K L
N
A
P
P
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
FONTANA DRTERRYLN
ENTR 263 SB
NIH35SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-011Exhibit #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼MiPage 94 of 165
P
A
R
K L
N
SHANNON LN
E JANIS DR
DAWN DR N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T B
L
V
D
FONTANA DR
W
J
A
NIS D
R
E CENTRAL DR
WESTWOOD LN
W CENTRAL DR
TERRY LN
RYAN LN
NIH35SB
DAWN DR
E JANIS DR
PARK LN
W JANIS DR
E JANIS DR
PARK LN
DAWN DR
NORTHWEST BLVD
PARK LN
E CENTRAL DR
WESTWOOD LN
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Aerial
REZ-2016-011 Le ge ndSiteCity Limits
0 250 500Feet
Page 95 of 165
Page 96 of 165
Page 97 of 165
Maximum Density = 14 units/acre Front Setback = 20 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Side Setback = 10 feet adjacent to RE, RL, RS,TF, or MH
Maximum Units per Building = 12 Side Setback to Residential = 20 feet districts; 10 feet with plantings
Rear Setback = 10 feet adjacent to residences in AG
Rear Setback to Residential = 20 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Group Home (7‐15 residents) Church (with columbarium) Activity Center (youth/senior)
Multifamily Attached Day Care (family/group/commercial) Assisted Living
Multifamily Detached Golf Course Bed and Breakfast (with events)
Rooming/Boarding House Nature Preserve/Community Garden Emergency Services Station
Utilities (Minor) Neighborhood Amenity Center Group Home (16+ residents)
Park (Neighborhood) Halfway House
School (Elementary) Nursing/Convalescent Home
Utilities (Intermediate) Orphanage
Wireless Transmission Facility (<41') School (Middle)
Student Housing
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Low Density Multifamily (MF‐1) District
District Development Standards
Page 98 of 165
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Colony Park Townhomes Case File Number: REZ-2016-011
Date Approved: June 28, 2016 Exhibits A & B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone approximately 3.093
acres of the N. Porter Survey from the Residential Single-Family (RS)
District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District; repealing
conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and
establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
3.093 acres of the N. Porter Survey, as recorded in Document Number 1999034530 of
the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as
"The Property"; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on May 17th, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on June 14th, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification for the
Property is hereby amended from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to the Low Density
Multifamily (MF-1) District, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and
Exhibit B (Legal Description) and incorporated herein by reference.
Page 99 of 165
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Colony Park Townhomes Case File Number: REZ-2016-011
Date Approved: June 28, 2016 Exhibits A & B Attached
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 14th day of June, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the28th day of June, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 100 of 165
Page 101 of 165
Page 102 of 165
Page 103 of 165
Page 104 of 165
Page 105 of 165
Page 106 of 165
Page 107 of 165
Page 108 of 165
Page 109 of 165
Page 110 of 165
Page 111 of 165
Page 112 of 165
Page 113 of 165
Page 114 of 165
Page 115 of 165
Page 116 of 165
Page 117 of 165
Page 118 of 165
Page 119 of 165
Page 120 of 165
Page 121 of 165
Page 122 of 165
Page 123 of 165
Page 124 of 165
Page 125 of 165
Page 126 of 165
Page 127 of 165
Page 128 of 165
Page 129 of 165
Page 130 of 165
Page 131 of 165
Page 132 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible di recti on regarding new si gnage fo r the Downtown and Old To wn Overlay Districts -- Matt
Synatschk, Historic P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown established the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts to promote the dive rse history of the
community. Staff is proposing the installation o f ne w street signs to identify the districts and promote them to residents
and to urists. The signs are designed in conformance with the Manual on Unifo rm Traffic Control Devices and the City of
Georgetown design specifications, with one e xc e ption. The MUTCD spe c ifies brown signs for cultural and histo ric
attractions; however, staff wo rked with the Transportation Engineer to allow for a red sign throughout the districts, which
is consistent with the Do wntown Master Sign Plan.
Staff is proposing two type s of signage to acknowledge the different types o f districts in Geo rgeto wn. In addition to the
local Overlay Districts, the City of Georgetown has four National Register of Historic Places Historic Distric ts. Each
district will have signs po sted at the entrance to the district, recognizing the co ntributions of tho se districts to the history
of the United States.
The propo sed signs will enhance the community's efforts to promote our historic reso urces and build upon our strong
heritage tourism pro grams.
Staff presented an initial design to the City Council in January of 2 01 5 and received direction to develo p so me design
options. Following a review o f several designs, staff selected two to present to City Council fo r their review.
The following Exhibits are included for your revie w:
Exhibit 1 – Reco mmended Street Signs
The recomme nded blade signs will replace the existing pole mounted signs at each intersectio n in the Downto wn
and Old To wn Overlay Districts. Staff selected the archite c tural detail design as their primary choice , with the
poppy design as an alternate.The City of Georgetown is home to one of the largest co llection of Mesker Bro s.
metal storefronts, which incorporate a crest or shell design in the co lumns and co rnice line s. Examples of this
design include the Geo rge to wn Art Center, the Dimmit Building, the H.C. Craig Building and the M.B. Lockett
building. The propo sed design pays tribute to the unique architectural heritage o f our co mmunity.
Exhibit 2 – Alte rnative Street Signs
The P oppy design is included as an alternative optio n for the blade signs.
Exhibit 3 – Williamson County Courthouse Natio nal Register District Signs
The propo sed sign will mark the entrances to the Williamson County Co urthouse National Register Distric t,
which includes approximately 12 blocks aro und the Square.
Exhibit 4 – Residential National Register Distric t Signs
These signs are pro posed to mark the e ntrances to the 3 residential National Register Districts. The design
reflects the Belford District, but the signs will also be used for the Olive Street District and the University – Elm
Distric t.
The maps of the current Downto wn and Old Town Overlay Districts and the Natio nal Registe r Districts are included for
review as Exhibits 5 and 6.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$ 34,700 is budgete d in account #120 9-0280-90 -05 4 and 20 1 5-0208-52-200. Anothe r $5 ,00 0 will be taken from the
TIRZ maintenance ac count 120-9-0280-90-050, if the council should approve this pro ject mo ving forward.
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 133 of 165
Matt Synatschk, Historic P lanner
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Exhib it 1 - Rec o mmended Street Signs
Exhb it 2 - Op tional S treet S igns
Exhib it 3 - Courtho us e Natio nal Regis ter Dis tric t Signs
Exhib it 4 - Res idential Natio nal Regis ter Dis tric t Signs
Exhib t 5 - Downto wn and Old Town Streets Map
Exhib it 6 - Natio nal Regis ter Districts Map
Page 134 of 165
Page 135 of 165
Page 136 of 165
Page 137 of 165
Page 138 of 165
Page 139 of 165
Page 140 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
P roject updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and
other infrastructure pro jects; police, fire and other public safety pro jects; econo mic development projects; city facility
projects;downtown projects including parking enhanceme nts,c ity lease agreements, and possible direction to city staff --
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss the se
projects as a collective.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This is an Council Update Item.
SUBMITTED BY:
Shirley J. Rinn o n be half of David S. Morgan, City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
GEDCO Projec t Update
GTEC Projec t P ro gres s Report
GTEC Projec t S tatus
GTAB Pro jec t Updates
Page 141 of 165
Name Description
Approved by
Council Funded Monitoring Compliance
Citigroup
$1.3 Million Grant for wastewater infrastructure disbursed in April
2008. 12/12/2006 Funded April 2008
Yes, Final compliance
date is Dec. 2018
Radix BioSolutions, Ltd.
Provided grant to assist with the work and future plans of Radix
BioSolutions at the TLCC. Agreement approved by GEDCO on
February 9, 2010 and Council approved the Agreement at its March
9, 2010 Meeting. Radix paid back $47K on 3/15/15. Radix paid
back $50K 3/10/16.3/9/2010 Funded May 13, 2010
Yes, Final compliance
date is March 2018
Lone Star Circle of Care
Provided a grant not to exceed $387,000 for Qualified Expenditures
for future site improvements at 205 East University Avenue,
Georgetown, Texas. Loan Agreement and Promissory Note have
not been executed. Agreement approved by GEDCO on June 23,
2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its June 28, 2011
Meeting. 6/28/2011
Funded November and
December 2011
Yes, Final Compliance
Date is July 28, 2016
Grape Creek
Provide a grant not to exceed $447,000 for Qualified Expenditures
for the lease/purchase and future site improvements at 101 E. 7th
Street and 614 Main Street for the operation of a winery on the
Downtown Square in Georgetown Agreement approved by GEDCO
on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its August
23, 2011 Meeting. Fourth Amended Performance Agreement, Lease
Agreement, and Promissory Note was approved by GEDCO on
August 20, 2012 and by the City Council on August 28, 2012. TIRZ
Agreement for $60,000 approved by City Council on 9-11-12. 8/23/2011 Funded
Yes, Final Compliance is
March 2018.
Georgetown Winery
Provide a grant not to exceed $70,000 for Qualified Expenditures
described as equipment for wine production and an agreement to
maintain and operate the existing winery in Georgetown. Agreement
approved by GEDCO on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the
Agreement at its August 23, 2011 Meeting. 8/23/2011 Funded
Yes, Final Compliance
Date is June 30, 2016
DiFusion Technologies (2)
Provide an extension of time for Difusion to retain unlimited access
to the ICP Spectrometor (equipment) under a lease agreement with
the TLCC for a year. At the end of the Agreement, Difusion will
purchase the Spectometor from GEDCO for $112,000.00.
Agreement Approved by GEDCO on December 21, 2015 and
Council on January 12, 2016.1/12/2016 No funding involved
Yes, Final Compliance
September 30, 2017
GEDCO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
May 16, 2016
Page 142 of 165
Name Description
Approved by
Council Funded Monitoring Compliance
GEDCO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
May 16, 2016
Georgetown Indpendent School District
Provided a grant not to exceed $200,560 for the purchase of
qualified expenditures related to the equipment for the Engineering
Program and Laboratories at Georgetown and East View High
Schools. GISD will offer the MSSC Certifications, implement a Job
Placement Program, provide and annual report and annual tour of
the facilities to the GEDCO Board. Agreement was approved by
GEDCO on September 17, 2012 and the City Council on September
25, 2012. The GEDCO Board approved the GISD request to amend
the Performance Agreement to allow the purchase different
equipment than outlined in the original agreement on November 18,
2013. 9/25/2012 Partially Funded.
Yes. Final Compliance
based on funding
available.
Texas Life Sciences Collaboration Center
(4)
Provide a grant of $100,000 for the maintenance of the TLCC.
Performance Agreement approved by GEDCO on 12/21/15. New
one-year agreement.1/12/2016 Funded February 2016
Yes. Final Compliance
October 31, 2016
The Rivery at Summit Conference Center
Provide a grant not to exceed $4.5 Million for Public Infrastructure
Improvements. Approved by the GEDCO Board on November 18,
2013. Approved by the City Council on December 10, 2013. 12/10/2013 Not Funded
Yes.Construction
Deadline is
June 30, 2016.
TASUS Texas Corporation
Provide a grant of $67,500 for job creation related to expansion of
manufacturing facilities. Approved by the City Council on February
25, 2014 and approved by the GEDCO Board on February 17, 2014 2/25/2014 Not Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
May 31, 2017
Radiation Detection Corporation
Provide a grant of $320,000 for job creation related to the relocation
of the corporate offices to Georgetown. Approved by City Council
and GEDCO on July 23, 2013. 7/23/2013 Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
December 31, 2021
DisperSol
Provide a grant of $250,000 for job creation related to expansion of
manufacturing facilities. Approved by the GEDCO Board on August
18, 2014. Company earned $50K (= 10 eligible positions at
$10/job). Check delivered 4/17/15 to company. Company earned
$20K for creation of 4 net new jobs @ $5K/job incentive. Check
delivered 5/9/16 10/16/2014 Partially Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
February 15, 2019
Page 143 of 165
Closed
No
No
No.
No
No
No
Page 144 of 165
Closed
No
No.
No.
No.
No
No.
Page 145 of 165
FM 1460
(Quail Valley Drive to University Drive)
Project No. 5RB TIP No. BO & CD
Rights‐of‐Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation
May 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM 1460 Project (Quail Valley
Drive to University Drive).
Purpose To have all ROWs cleared and utilities prior to TxDOT letting the project for
construction.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way
One (1) remaining parcel – pending closing
documents.
Section: North South
Acquired: 35 8
Pending: 1 ‐
Condemnation: 0 ‐
Total: 36 8
Utility Relocations Ongoing
Construction Under Construction.
Tentatively scheduled to be complete Spring 2018.
Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.
Page 146 of 165
Mays Street Extension
(Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to the intersection with Westinghouse Road)
Project No. 5RI TIP No. CK
May 2016
Project Description Extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection
with Westinghouse Road at Rabbit Hill Road. The widening along Westinghouse
Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional
turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals
and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the
anticipated alignment is approximately 1.2 miles.
Purpose To develop final PS&E and complete construction of the project.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer CP&Y, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way ROW acquisition on‐going Total Parcels: 6
Acquired: 2
Pending: 4
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Project advertised May 15th and 22nd;
Bids to be opened May 31st.
GTEC – June 15th
Council – June 28th
Anticipated NTP – Mid‐July
Anticipated completion Summer 2017
Other Issues
Page 147 of 165
NB Frontage Road
(SS 158 to Lakeway Drive)
Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF
May 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Design and construct a portion of an IH‐35 NB Frontage Road from Williams Drive
to Northwest Boulevard Bridge of a proposed NB FR which would ultimately
extend to Lakeway Drive.
Purpose To relieve congestion in the Williams Drive/Austin Avenue intersection by
providing a NB alternate, interim route to FM 971 and Georgetown High School.
This project is the only remaining portion of IH 35 in Central Texas without a
frontage road existing, under construction or being designed.
Project Manager Bill Dryden
Engineer Klotz Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design We have been informed by TxDOT that it will be doing the Schematic,
Environmental, etc., and PS&E for the NB Frontage Road as part of its proposed
Williams Drive Bridge project.
The City project is on indefinite hold but we will continue coordination with
TxDOT on its design of the project.
Environmental/
Archeology
TBD – By TxDOT
Rights of Way None identified
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues None at this time.
Page 148 of 165
Northwest Boulevard Overpass
(Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue)
Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF
May 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with
Austin Avenue and FM 971.
Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive
intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to
Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer is coordinating design with the design for Rivery Boulevard in moving
towards construction PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work between
these two projects.
Engineer has developed alternatives for stormwater outfall northward from NW
Blvd.
Environmental/
Archeological
Concurrent with preliminary engineering and schematic design.
Rights of Way ROW Documents are being finalized. Part of the ROW for this project is being
required to complete the Rivery Boulevard Extension project.
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Tentatively scheduled to begin mid‐FY 2019.
Other Issues Paper work has been submitted to TxDOT to create an AFA for design and
environmental reviews of the bridge over I 35.
Page 149 of 165
Rivery Boulevard Extension
(Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive)
Project No. 5RM TIP No. AD
May 2016
Unchanged
Project
Description
Develop the Rights‐of‐Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues
and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of
Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in
anticipation of future funding availability.
Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the
Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future
Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the
Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf
Ranch Parkway.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer has submitted 75% plans for City’s review.
Environmental/
Archeology
Complete
Rights of Way Appraisals complete. Offers have been made to 17 of
22. Closed on 6 parcels; 1 pending subject to GTEC
and Council approval.
Total Parcels: 22
Appraised: 22
Offers: 17
Acquired: 6
Closing pending: 1
Condemnation: 0
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Tentatively scheduled to begin mid‐FY 2018.
Other Issues TBD
Page 150 of 165
Snead Drive Project
(SE Inner Loop to Airborn Circle)
Project No. 5QZ TIP No. BM
May 2016
Project Description Develop Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the widening
of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way,
including appurtenant waste water improvements.
Purpose This project has been identified as GTEC eligible project and will provide
necessary infrastructure for ongoing economic development in the area.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way Easement has been acquired for water quality pond.
Utility Relocations Utility relocations either complete or are part of the construction contract.
Construction Under construction.
Substantial Completion date is mid‐May; Final Completion date is mid‐July.
Other Issues None
Page 151 of 165
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.
Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Project Complete.
Complete 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350
Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Project Complete.
Complete 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320
Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer is coordinating design with the design for
Rivery Boulevard in moving towards construction
PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work
between these two projects.
Engineer is developing alternatives for storm water
outfall.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY
2019.
In-process
Unchanged
1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590
NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY We have been informed by TxDOT that it will be
doing the Schematic, Environmental, etc., and
PS&E for the NB Frontage Road as part of its
proposed Williams Drive Bridge project.
The City project is on indefinite hold but we
will be coordinating with TxDOT on its design
project.
Indefinite Hold 613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0
ROW - 1460 #EEa
#EEb
#EEc
5RB Contractor has begun working on the project;
contract time is beginning to accrue.
Utility relocations - ongoing.
As of October 16th, the City has obtained PUAs or
have closings completed or planned for all the
remaining FM 1460 parcels.
Remaining parcel – pending closing
documents.
Under
Construction
Unchanged
11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete.
Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer has submitted 75% plans for City review.
Appraiser is completing appraisals on
remaining 4 parcels which are expected by the
end of March. Offers have been made to the
16 parcel owners from Park Lane southward to
Williams Drive. Closed on 3 parcels; 3 more in
process; 1 pending subject to GTEC/Council
approval.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid FY
2018.
On Schedule
Unchanged
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
May 2016
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 1 of 3 6/4/2016Page 152 of 165
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
May 2016
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
Snead Drive 5QZ Utilities are complete and tested; Contractor is
installing drainage items and has
begun installation of the road base.
Substantial Completion date is mid‐May; Final
Completion date is mid‐July.
Under
Construction
Behind
Schedule
825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI Design is Complete
ROW acquisition on‐going (3 of 6 parcels
acquired)
Project advertised May 15th and 22nd;
Bids to be opened May 31st.
GTEC – June 15th
Council – June 28th
Anticipated NTP – Mid‐July
Anticipated completion Summer 2017
In Process 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 2 of 3 6/4/2016Page 153 of 165
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
May 2016
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo
Project
5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0
Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives
and preliminary cost estimates.
On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 3 of 3 6/4/2016Page 154 of 165
Austin Avenue Bridges Project
(North and South San Gabriel Bridges)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
June 2016
Project
Description
Develop 30% plans for improvements along Austin Ave. between 3rd Street and Morrow
Street. The project involves several phases and requires participation and support from
various stakeholders– interested citizens, community businesses, professional
consultants, State and regional transportation partners City Staff and Council.
Schedule Phase Activity Completion
1 Public involvement and alternative analyses, evaluating
alternatives for feasibility and costs, etc. Mid 2016
2 Develop geometric layouts and preliminary construction
estimates for two alternatives Mid 2016
3 Selection of alternative by Council End 2016
4 Develop schematic and 30% plans. Mid 2017
Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Bill Dryden, P.E.; Nat Waggoner, PMP®
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
Element Status/Issues
Public
Involvement
2nd Public Meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2016 at the San Gabriel Community Center
Walking tour – 4:30 to 5:30, Public Meeting from 6:00‐8:00
Design Forensic testing completed.
Surveying Complete
Environmental 4f and Study Scope documents drafted, Meeting 5/13 with TxDOT
Rights of Way Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow; Additional ROW may be required 3rd to N.
of 2nd.
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues Reports from independent engineering firms
Page 155 of 165
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
MLK/3rd Street (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
June 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for
sidewalk improvements along MLK/ and 3rd streets from Scenic Drive to Austin
Avenue.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps along the route.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way N/A
Utility Relocations N/A
Construction Under Construction; approximately 60% complete.
Other Issues None
Page 156 of 165
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
University Avenue (SH 29) (I 35 to Hart St.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
June 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for
sidewalk improvements along University Avenue (SH 29) from I 35 to Hart Street.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
N/A
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations None identified
Construction Bids opened May 31st;
GTAB – today;
Council – June 28th;
NTP – 2nd week of July.
Other Issues None
Page 157 of 165
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. AG
June 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.
Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed
Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from
the west side of I 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel
Park and a more direct route to SH 130.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Preliminary Engineering complete;
Engineer’s work for the 60% design submittal is on hold pending discussion and
recommendation from GTAB for alignment.
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues Discussion on alternative alignments on today’s GTAB Agenda.
Page 158 of 165
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. BO & CD
June 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening and reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update
to existing Schematic, Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and
completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway.
Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW,
effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT
letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way 1 remaining parcel of original 36 – pending closing documents.
Utility Relocations Ongoing
Construction Construction is on‐going
Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.
Page 159 of 165
Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive
Intersection and Signalization Improvements
Project No. 1DE TIP No. None
June 2106
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening of Jim Hogg at the intersection of Williams Drive, inclusive of installation
of a traffic signal.
Purpose To provide a widened 3‐lane section with signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg and
Williams Drive. The proposed improvements will provide improved access for the
residents and the employees of the new City Service Center to Williams Drive.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations Complete
Construction Construction is on‐going;
Contractor is working roadway base and paving.
Signals have been installed; expect to be turned on this month.
Other Issues None
Page 160 of 165
Southwest Bypass Project
(RM 2243 to IH 35)
Project No. 1CA Project No. BK
June 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Develop PS&E for Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the
ultimate configuration for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane
roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner
Loop underpass at IH 35.
Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road
(RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.
Project Manager Williamson County
City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Williamson County
Project Status
(from WilCo’s status
report)
Southwest Bypass Driveways – Award of the construction contract was approved
at 3/8/16 Commissioners Court Meeting. Five (5) bids were received on 2/24/16, with
the apparent low bidder being Smith Contracting with a bid of $289,981.90. NTP is
anticipated to be issued 5/2/16 with Time Charges beginning on 5/12/16. A
Preconstruction meeting was held 4/15/16.
Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) – A meeting with HDR to discuss the WA
Supplemental and project status was held on 3/9/16. A meeting with TxDOT and the
City of Georgetown to discuss the turn lanes on RM 2243 was held on 3/9/16. A
meeting with the City of Georgetown and County staff was held on 2/26/16 to
discuss project status. A 30% PS&E Submittal for the Southwest Bypass Phase 1 was
received on 2/23/16 and is under review. A GEC Constructability review meeting
was held on 3/3/16. An ILA with the City of Georgetown was approved by
Commissioners Court on 2/23/16. Comments were issued 2/18/16 on a 60% PS&E
submittal for turn lanes on RM 2243 at Southwest Bypass.
Rights of Way Complete for the parcels east of the Texas Crushed Stone properties.
Other Issues City and WilCo completing the Interlocal Agreement for the Project.
Page 161 of 165
Transit Development Plan
(Fixed Route Bus)
June 2016
Project
Description
The purpose of this study is to develop a local transit plan for the City of Georgetown that
would serve transit needs within the city limits and connect to existing and future regional
transit options to form a regional transit network that would improve mobility, improve
the region’s environmental and economic sustainability, and slow the increase of congestion
on roadways.
Schedule Phase Activity Completion
1 Initiation Fall 2014
2 Public Involvement, Existing Conditions, Recommendations Spring 2015
3 Initial Report Completed Summer 2015
4 Boards and Commissions Review, Council May 2016
5 Consideration by Council June 28, 2016
Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Nat Waggoner, PMP®; Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer AECOM, Capital Metro
Element Status/Issues
Public
Involvement
2 Public Meetings
Public Intercept Survey, Online Survey, GYAB Survey, Multiple Stakeholder Interviews
More than 20 presentations
Design Revisions underway based on changed conditions
Next Step(s) Council consideration of TDP Adoption and FY17 Budget Inclusion
Page 162 of 165
Transportation Services Operations
CIP Maintenance
June 2016
Project Description 2016‐2017 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays,
Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects.
Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of
85%.
Project Manager Mark Miller
Engineer/Engineers KPA, LP
Task Status / Issues
Chip Seal Contractor has indicated his intention to move into Georgetown on July 25th
and work through August. PMM (polymer modified masterseal) with chip
seal contract.
Fog Seal Rejuvenation has been discontinued indefinitely (Staff continuing to
research proven products)
HIPR/overlay NTP anticipated early June. Contractor anticipating mobilization late June
to early July.
Curb and gutter
engineering 2016
Under way.
Page 163 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
- At the time of po sting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - bh
Page 164 of 165
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Atto rney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration o f the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - bh
Page 165 of 165