The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 06.25.2013Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas JUNE 25, 2013 The Georgetown City Council will meet on JUNE 25, 2013 at 6:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, TX The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - July 4th City Closures - 30th Annual Sertoma 4th of July Celebration at San Gabriel Park - Fireworks Prohibited - Water Conservation Regulations Action from Executive Session Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meetings held on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 and Tuesday June 11, 2013 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Consideration and possible action to accept a matching grant from the Texas Historical Commission for a Certified Local Government Grant in the amount of $7,000 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager E Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County preserving 11.7 acres of parkland as part of the County’s Regional Habitat Plan to protect endangered species -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager. Legislative Regular Agenda F Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution providing for withdrawal of the City of Georgetown from membership in the Lone Star Rail District -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney G Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning of 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck, from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director(action required) H Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck, to allow an automotive use in a C-3 Zoning District, located in the 7200 block of Kelley Drive --Carla Benton Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director(action required) I Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning of 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4700 Williams Drive, between Wildwood and Woodlake Drives, from 9.04 acres of the Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) J Second Reading of an Ordinance to approve formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2013/14 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) K Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a contract for the 2013 Street Asphalt Recycling/Mill & Overlay to Cutler Repaving Inc, of Lawrence, Kansas in the amount of $909,942.50 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director L Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc., of Lewisville, TX for the rejuvenation and single course surface treatment portion of the 2013 Street and Drainage CIP in the amount of $1,161,486.02 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director M Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract to Joe Bland Constructors, LP, of Austin, Texas, for the construction of the DB Wood RoadImprovements at Public Safety Operations Building in the amount of $ 638,448.42 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer 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. N 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 - Rivery Update - LCRA Update - DNT Claim - In re. Advanced Services et. al. Sec. 551.071: Competitive Matters - Discussion on CTSUD - CCN Agreement-- Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2013, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - July 4th City Closures - 30th Annual Sertoma 4th of July Celebration at San Gabriel Park - Fireworks Prohibited - Water Conservation Regulations Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meetings held on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 and Tuesday June 11, 2013 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: May 28, 2013 DRAFT Workshop Minutes May 28, 2013 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes June 11, 2013 DRAFT Workshop Minutes June 11, 2013 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 4 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 28, 2013 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Tommy Gonzalez, Patty Eason, Troy Hellmann, John Hesser, Steve Fought, Jerry Hammerlun Council Absent: Rachael Jonrowe Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Dave Hall, Chief Building Official; John Sullivan, Fire Chief; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Mike Peters, Information Technology Director; Robyn Rye, Records Coordinator Minutes Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 03:00 PM A Bed and Breakfast Establishments -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Dave Hall, Chief Building Official and Fire Chief, John Sullivan Jonrowe absent. Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:01PM. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Brewer gave a brief introduction and provided the definition of bed and breakfast (B&B) as identified in the City's Unified Development Code. She said the City's current B&B is at San Gabriel House, 1008 E. University Avenue and there are more short term/vacation rentals of homes, but they are not considered B&Bs because they do not serve the breakfast or have the owner on premise. She spoke about the type of people who use bed and breakfasts.She said staff has gotten together to discuss issues and considerations regarding bed and breakfasts. She said we want to make sure the buildings and architecture of the B&Bs are conserved. She said they also want to make sure they are considering turnover, building layout, safety issues as well as the environment.She said, if someone wanted to come in and newly construct a bed and breakfast, they would need to follow the UDC guidelines and current building codes. She said there is currently no purpose-built B&Bs in the City, although they have had people express interest in the construction of a bed and breakfast. She said they are considering the conversion process of moving residential property to the new B&B use. She listed the rules regulating B&Bs. She said, in the City of Georgetown, they require a special use permit for the establishment of a bed and breakfast. She spoke about building modifications needed to allow for a bed and breakfast. She said, this use in permitted under the city code as a home based business. She said a special use permit is required and there should be no more than eight guestrooms, no food preparation within guestrooms, no parking in front yard and it would require the operator to be a full time resident. She said they have an additional requirement for bed and breakfasts with events. She said in those cases, the owner shall attend all events, the events can be held Sunday through Thursday from 9am to 9pm, Friday through Saturday,9 am- 11pm and the outdoor area must be screened from view.She said, the City has adopted the 2003 international building code, which sets out the minimum standards for life and safety. She said in the code, changing the use from single family dwelling to a commercial occupancy types, turns it into a commercial building. She continue to describe how the international building code applies to B&B standards. She said we have a Building Standards Commission that does not meet frequently. She said the City has not adopted the 2013 residential building code. She said this is being reviewed by staff and Council will be seeing this in the next Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 4 Pages six to twelve months. She briefly reviewed some of the challenges of a bed and breakfast. She said they are doing a bed and breakfast survey and added some cities accept liability by amending building codes to permit reduced fire protection if certain standards are met. She said, in most cities, they do not amend their building codes. She reviewed the current incentives/assistance for bed and breakfasts. She listed some additional incentives and considerations they have been discussing as staff. She said one is the possibility of safety grants and sharing in the cost of fire sprinkler systems. She said other incentives include expedited review/permitting, fee waivers and/or reductions, marketing grants, ensure HOT is collected and community outreach prior to issuance of special use permits. Mayor asked and Brewer said they are looking to see if any of the Council direction has changed since these codes were adopted. She said they are also looking for feedback regarding possible incentives as well. Mayor asked and Brewer spoke about how Georgetown compares to what she has found in the survey. Gonzalez asked and Brewer said money for incentives would come from HOT tax funds, facade grants or fundraisers or from the general fund. There was much discussion regarding incentives. Hammerlun thanked Brewer and said she is doing a great job. Hammerlun asked and Brewer said, at the peak, Georgetown has four or five B&B establishments. Brewer explained why most of those establishments have gone out of business. She spoke about the requests the city receives for bed and breakfast establishments. Fought said he likes the idea of people staying downtown near the square. He said he is open minded regarding incentives and shared investments. Hesser said the city needs to answer the question regarding whether or not they want hotels downtown and how to evaluate that payback. He asked if there is a process for having the neighbors involved. Brewer said the City does not necessarily do a return on investment but it does do other measures including the preservation of the historic buildings. She said the special use permit process does require proper notification and a hearing process to neighbors. Hellmann asked and Brewer said the survey shows many communities either do not have the sprinkler system requirement or are not enforcing it. Hellmann spoke about why Georgetown is the perfect place for a B&B. Eason said she assumes we will always require smoke detectors. She asked about the sprinkler systems. Brewer said her understanding is that, when someone is in an unfamiliar area, the sprinkler system gives them more time to get out and reduces the fire to the point where they can more easily exit. Chief Sullivan spoke about the current requirements for sprinkler systems in the homes.Eason spoke about Fredericksburg and said their bed and breakfasts are all managed through one company. She asked if the City works with that management company to oversee the establishments. She spoke about advertising and marketing strategies to bring people in with bed and breakfasts. There were many comments. Gonzalez spoke about going out to homeowners to see if homeowners who would be interested in doing this. She said we can easily do a community coordination outreach workshop and see where that goes. Eason said she hopes we will be strict with our definition of bed and breakfatss so tourists can have a happy time visiting Georgetown. Mayor asked and Brewer said they will come back within the next three to four months with more information. B Workshop presentation and discussion regarding revisions to the current amendment process for the Unified Development Code (UDC) -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Kreger said we will be talking about the UDC amendment process and the possibility of changing that. She reviewed the history of the Unified Development Code and said it was adopted in 2003, regulated land development in Georgetown. She said it has been amended each year since its adoption. She reviewed the existing amendment process and said the annual process was created in 2004 to establish approval of an annual list of amendments. She said staff would schedule and hold two public workshops prior to P&Z and City Council consideration. She said the process was revised in 2008 to include a Task Force to participate in list creation and generation of language. She noted it took two years to complete the review process for those amendments. She said participants in these meetings changed from meeting to meeting as well. She said, last May, they did have a Council workshop on UDC and the amendment processes up to this point. She said the May 2012 Council direction on the UDC process was to revise the process, have less frequent code amendments, create council appointed committee with diverse membership and encourage more involvement of the P&Z commissions. She said, on May 16, there was a pubic meeting to get feedback from the public on this. She said there were mixed opinions on the creation of a committee. She said the public wanted to limit formality as much as possible to avoid discouraging public involvement, maintain open public discussion opportunities and provide increased public notice. She provided Council with a proposed committee structure. She said one thing that came up are non committee amendments which are nondiscretionary, mandatory or legally required changes, Director determinations or Council emergency amendments. She said these are posted on the internet for 30 days before it goes to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She said these can be held on an as needed base as determined by City Attorney or Council. She said the committee amendments will be done using a UDC amendment list. She noted, instead of an annual list, it would be an ongoing list that the committee would be in charge of. She noted there will be a public call for items every two years. She reviewed the process for general amendments and off-cycle amendments. She said Council can declare any item an emergency which would Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 4 Pages make it out of cycle. She spoke about topics needing special public input, greater research or additional expertise. She said, currently, staff will meet with experts or hold special public outreach meetings as needed. She said this would be based on public input from the meeting. She noted staff suggests continuing same process, with the Committee able to attend or provide direction as needed. She provided a summary of what staff is proposing for revisions of this process. Eason said she is not happy with this process. She said her concern is that we need to do something about the time frame. She noted the process had become a continuous one throughout the year and the city had trouble keeping people involved. She said she was hesitant in supporting the idea of a task force but noted it eventually became advantageous to the process. She noted it seems staff has gone away from the original plan of a task force. She said the process was supposed to continue as a collaboration between City Council, the task force, Planning and Zoning, staff and other entities. She continued to speak about what she thinks the process should look like. She said she prefers to stay with the Task Force structure. She said she thinks this should remain with the Planning and Zoning Commission and not a subcommittee. Hellmann said he agrees with Eason that this is redundant but notes he thinks that's a good thing. He said redundancy gives citizens the opportunity to vet things before they come to Council. Hellmann said the UDC is something a lot of people care about and it makes sense to him that it has its own committee. He said this seems like a reasonable solution and is a pattern that has worked well in the past. Hesser said he likes the idea of what has been presented. He said he thinks all views should be considered and they should be filtered out by someone long before it gets to Council. He said there is some work to be done but he thinks staff is headed in the right direction. Fought said he has concerns on the developer builder end that needs predictability. He said a constantly changing UDC is a problem and this new process seems to address that issue. He spoke about his dislike of the three minutes speaker policy. He noted he is happy this process will encourage free flowing dialogue. He said, fundamentally, he is happy with this. Hammerlun said he agrees with Fought that less change is better. He said he is a bit confused about the definitive nature of the City Council in this process. He said he does like the every two year thought process and noted he thinks this process has been a little out of control. Gonzalez spoke about emergency issues and how that should be a very rare occurrence in this process. He said he would prefer to see more technical qualified people on the subcommittee rather than pulling members from geographical areas. He spoke about how the City's committtees and volunteer community makes it a better place. Mayor asked and Kreger spoke about the next steps in the process. Brandenburg said this has become a full time job for staff. He noted being about to change the process and go back to what it was originally intended for will be beneficial. Eason spoke about how the citizens are being left out of the process. C Presentation of Information Technology (IT) major project status for the current fiscal year and the IT Master Plan update for FY2014 -- Mike Peters, Information Technology Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Peters said he comes in once a year to provide an update on IT planned projects for the coming years. He provided Council with a list of projects already in the 2013 fiscal year. He reviewed some of the major projects that are underway right now. He said they are working on introducing more tablet computers into the environment in order to provide accessibility to desktops when employees are away from their desks. She spoke about the virtual desktop implementation that is currently underway. He described the Laserfiche Records Management system as well as the Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system. He said they are getting rid of the Lotus Notes system. He described the EAM system and what it will provide to the City. He spoke about the public safety facility data center design and the timeline for that project. He said the customer information system project is the next major project after the EAM system. He spoke about some of the other projects occurring in fiscal year 2014 and projects on the horizon in the near future. D Records Management Update -- Robyn Rye, Records Coordinator and Jessica Brettle, City Secretary With a Powerpoint Presentation, Rye gave an overview of Records Management in the City. She said the City ships their files and documents offsite to a facility called Iron Mountain. She said they allow staff to search for items and documents that can be destroyed remotely. . She spoke about the Records Management newsletter that is being sent to staff each month. She described the newly implemented Open Records Request policy to the City Council. She said Rachel Saucier in the Legal Department handles all Police related requests and the City Secretary's Office logs the rest. She spoke about Laserfiche and how it is an electronic records management program. She noted it is able to read the document and enhances its search ability. She described how this program will be used for sharing and finding documents between department. She listed some of the documents currently in the program. She said the City Secretary's Office, the Legal Department and now Purchasing are all on the program. She added they sent all of the current contracts to Laserfiche to be scanned and those should be done relatively soon. She showed Council the Open Records website and listed some of the information available on that site, including frequently requested documents and the Laserfiche web portal. She spoke about Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 4 Pages some of the efforts being made to promote Records Management throughout the City. She described some of the future goals for Records Management, including continued expansion of the Laserfiche system and the possible addition of a Records Management assistant on City staff. She said efforts have been made toward historic preservation of City documents and added she sent the very first City records off to be preserved. She showed the Council the historic book and described hte preservation process. She thanked the City Council for their time. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Section 551.071 -- 5:14PM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:36PM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:36 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 6 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 28, 2013 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Tommy Gonzalez, Patty Eason, Troy Hellmann, John Hesser, Steve Fought, Jerry Hammerlun Council Absent: Rachael Jonrowe Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Dave Hall, Chief Building Official; John Sullivan, Fire Chief; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Mike Peters, Information Technology Director; Minutes Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM (Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) A Call to Order-- Meeting called to order at 6:38PM Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - Social Service and Youth Program Funding - 2013 Festival of the Arts May 30 - June 2, 2013 - Recognition- Firefighter Craig Owen Action from Executive Session Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eason to respond to the settlement proposal of the TexCon Oil Company claim on the terms as discussed in Executive Session. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 6 Pages City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda. Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of Robert Johnson as the Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to fill a vacancy -- Mayor George Garver E Consideration and possible action to authorize Mayor George Garver to sign a resolution endorsing the application for a cultural district designation for downtown Georgetown -- Eric Lashley, Library Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager F Consideration and possible action to authorize Mayor George Garver to sign the one-year revised Operating Agreement between Georgetown Art Works and the City of Georgetown for management of the art center located in Old Fire Station #1 -- Eric Lashley, Library Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager G Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the installation of conduit for Fiber Optic path by Denbow Company, of Austin, Texas, in conjunction with PEC addition of electric service for Oaks at San Gabriel Subdivision in the amount of $52,931.25 -- Jimmy Sikes, T & D Services Manager and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director H Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve First Amendment to Task Order SBE-12-005 with Steger Bizzell Engineering, Inc. of Georgetown, Texas, for professional services related to the West Side Service Center in the amount of $68,300.00 -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director I Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order DEI-13-001 with Dunham Engineering of College Station, Texas, for professional services related to James Street EST (Elevated Storage Tank) Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $60,000.00 -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director J Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the procurement of project management services for the meter exchange project from BCN Consulting, of Austin, Texas for the amount of $90,000.00 -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director K Forwarded from the General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to recommend CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) as the audit firm to serve as the City’s external auditor for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Susan Morgan, Finance Director Motion by Hammerlun, second by Hellmann to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) Legislative Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: L Public Hearing and First Reading of a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) District for 9.292 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4775 Williams Drive -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 6 Pages Elabarger said this is a rezoning request for a 9.2 acre property on Williams Drive just west of Shell Road. He said this property was annexed in two parts and is zoned AG. He said the applicant is seeking to rezone this to C-1 zoning. He said this is the predominant zoning in this area. He noted the Planning and Zoning approved this unanimously. He said staff is in support of this request and notes it meets the future land use for the area. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Public Hearing was opened at 6:51PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 6:51PM Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Eason asked if there is anything the city can do for the protection of those residential lots across the street from this location. Elabarger said the usual development standards would be applied here and added drainage will also be improved at this location. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) M Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action on the Final Report for the Rivery Blvd. Extension from Williams Dr. to Northwest Blvd -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden P.E., Transportation Engineer Hammerlun recused himself from the item. Polasek said this project has been conceptualized for six or seven years ever since the city did the Williams Drive Gateway study. He said the GTEC Board said staff should look at building some infrastructure required to initiate and encourage economic development in this area. He said this would take some congestion off of Williams Drive and, once Northwest Blvd bridge is constructed, it will take congestion away from the Williams Drive corridor as well. He said the city employed KPA to do an alternative analysis for the extension from Rivery to Northwest Blvd. He said the GTEC Board provided a third alternative, which is a compromise of the two options brought forward by KPA. He provided Council with all of proposed alternatives. He reviewed Option C, the third option, which is the GTEC and staff recommended option. Speaker, Jeff Seidel, showed Council the location of his property on the map. He spoke about his concerns with this project and how it will negatively affect his property. He said he believes in the project and thinks it will be beneficial to the city contingent on him receiving an appropriate curb cut on his property. Mayor asked and Polasek confirmed GTEC discussed the pros and cons of all of the proposed alignments. Hellmann asked and Polasek said staff will negotiate with the property owners on the driveways and access once this project gets up and running. Fought said he thinks it would be worthwhile to consider being able to buy the businesses and the property sooner rather than later. He said it is the City that is going to benefit from this and it should bear the burden of certainty rather than places it on individual properties. Gonzalez said GTEC looked at a road plan and not individual items because that is not yet part of the process. He said that will be sorted out when right of way acquisition occurs. Eason asked to see the difference between B and C and why staff preferred B. He said staff thought B left a more developable property to the west of the future Rivery Blvd extension. He said they tried to do away with the existing property lines and look at the whole area. He spoke about GTEC's conclusion and why they thought Option A was the best option. There was much discussion. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve the item. Approved 5-0 (Jonrowe absent) (Hammerlun recused himself) N Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action concerning a Signal Warrant Study and Alternatives Analysis, Del Webb Boulevard and Red Poppy Lane -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden P.E., Transportation Engineer Polasek spoke about the traffic concerns from residents in this area. He said, based on those concerns and using traffic morning, the City did a signal warrant study. He said attached to the item is the study which looks at Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 6 Pages the nine warrants the City must meet in order to get a signal at that intersection. He said none of the warrants were met. He said, when the City did the study, they also asked for an analysis of the intersection. He said, with those studies, the GTAB recommendation was to move forward with some steps to help the traffic in the area. He said the improvements would remove some of the vegetation along with the re-striping of the wide roadway to a left turn lane.He said those traffic improvements have been done and the visual distance has been increased by at least 50-75 feet. He said, when the City took this to GTAB, they made a further recommendation to request staff to get an estimate to purchase the access rights from the owners. He said staff has stared looking into that and what it would take to do a study and get an estimate. He noted, staff decided to come to Council to see whether or not to move forward with this study as they do not currently have a funding source for that study. Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to not pursue part two of GTAB's recommendation to purchase the access rights but to continue the warrant study at that intersection. Hellmann asked if there is anything else that can be done in the area to help the safety. Fought spoke of the different factors affecting traffic safety in Sun City including elderly drivers, cars and golf carts. He noted there is not enough space to take a turn onto Del Webb. He noted the city needs to take into account the type of traffic that is there and added it is in an unusual situation. Gonzalez asked if the City could slow down the traffic by incorporating speed bumps. Polasek said the City has avoided getting into the speed bump business because, as soon as we start, every neighborhood will want them. Fought mentioned how speed bumps would slow down public safety vehicles as well. Vote on the motion: Approve 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) O Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order SBE-12-008 with Steger Bizzell of Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the preliminary engineering and schematic design of a replacement bridge on DB Wood Road at the Middle San Gabriel River in the amount of $163,538.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Hellmann and Hammerlun recused themselves from the item. Polasek spoke about the bridge and said this is a bridge that will be out of compliance in two to three years with the number of trips being made on DB Wood Road. He said they found the conditions around the bridge has changed a bit. He spoke about what happens when the wing walls are in the flood way, as it is now. He said they felt it imperative to move forward with this design work now. He said this item is to start the design work. He said this is one of the potential bond projects with Williamson County. He said they are working on the design now to present to the County if it is approved for the bond work. He said staff is recommending moving forward with this task order and added the new bridge will be four lanes. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought to approve the task order. Approved 4-0 (Hammerlun, Hellmann recused themselves) (Jonrowe absent) P Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations for architectural services for the Westside Service Center with PGAL of Austin, Texas -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Mayor asked and Wright described the concept behind the Westside Service Center. He said it is going to be an annex for the Municipal Complex and the services it provides. He said they intend it to be an operational facility for GUS to serve the west side of town. He said have this annex will increase response time and decrease deficiencies. He said it is intended to expand the City's utility presence west of Rivery Boulvard. He described the land that was purchased for the center in late 2012 and he described that for Council. He said infrastructure improvements are going on right now. He said staff issues an RFQ for architectural services for this project back in February. He spoke about how PGAL became the winning firm and why it stood out from the rest of the applicants. Motion by Hammerlun, second by Fought to approve the item. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) Q Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a Standard Utility Agreement with Williamson County for a required utility relocation in conjunction with the IH-35 Frontage Road Project, to relocate the 16-inch Wolf Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 6 Pages Ranch Force Main -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Wright said as part of the IH-35 Frontage Road Project, there is a driveway being built in front of St. David's. He said this is a reimbursement agreement with the County for assistance in the relocation of the utility. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hellmann to approve the agreement. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) R Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve the Change Order for the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ) - VIII, Wastewater Rehabilitation to National Power Rodding Corporation of Austin, Texas, for an estimated amount of $101,500.00 -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director Wright said the City has a contractor under contract to improve sewer lines, man holes and other similar work. He said, with Council approval, they are ready to move forward with the rehabilitation of the Recharge Zone. Motion by Hellmann, second by Fought to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) S Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 21.47 acres in the Lewis Dyches Survey, to be known as the 1460 and Inner Loop Subdivision -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Maddox described the Ordinance and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Hellmann, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) T Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 4.5 acres in the Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford expansion, located on Gateway Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Maddox described the Ordinance and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Hesser, second by Hellmann to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) U Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 6.14 acres in the Powell Survey, to be known as Mercedes-Benz of Georgetown expansion , located on Gateway Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Maddox described the Ordinance and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion Hammerlun, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) V Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning from the Agriculture (AG) District to the General Commercial (C-3) District for 21.471 acres out of the Dyches Survey, located at FM 1460 and Inner Loop -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Maddox described the Ordinance and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) W Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 12.20.070 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, entitled Off-Leash Dog Recreation Areas – Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manage (action required) Garret described the item. She said the only change since the first reading is the definition of an aggressive incident. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Hammerlun, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 6-0 (Jonrowe absent) X Consideration and possible action regarding possible changes to the Council's workshop schedule -- Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 6 of 6 Pages This item was pulled from the agenda by Jonrowe. Y City Council Member appointments to Boards and Commissions -- Mayor George Garver Mayor described the item and spoke about this year's process for Council appointments to the city's Boards and Commissions. He said a list of appointments have been provided to the Council. He noted he asked for each member to submit their top three choices. Motion by Fought, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 5-1 (Gonzalez opposed) (Jonrowe absent) Eason asked and Mayor said the appointments will take immediate effect. Gonzalez spoke about scheduling problems and how he will not be able to attend the GUS meetings due to his work obligations. He said he did not have GUS as one of his three choices as he would not be able to attend those meetings. Fought said he likes this process and noted it is the Mayor's role to build the Council into a team and broaden their base. He noted, in allowing the Mayor to do it this way, it allows the Council to express its confidence in the Mayor and each other. He thanked Mayor for putting in the effort that went into it. Mayor said he ran into difficulties as the requested boards from each Council member were very similar. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 07:52 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 4 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 11, 2013 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Patty Eason, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Jerry Hammerlun, John Hesser, Steve Fought Council Absent: All Council Present. Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities; Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director; Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director; Minutes Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 03:00 PM A Presentation concerning the TxDOT Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities With a Powerpoint Presentation, Polasek gave a brief history of the I-35 and Rail studies. He spoke about the My35 corridor plan which was completed in 2009. He said TXDOT has taken on the job of participating in a study for rail from the border to Oklahoma City. He introduced Jennifer Moczygemba of TXDOT who provided a brief overview of the study and what has been discovered to date. Moczgemba provided a brief history on TXDOT and its involvement with Rail. She said, since 2005, TXDOT has had the responsibility of rail planning in the state. She continued to speak of the formation of the rail division of TXDOT. She said this is a passenger rail study that came about in 2008. She said it was a challenge for a lot of states to plan for rail systems due to the influx of new funds for rail. She said Texas was lucky enough to get some of the funds but didn't get the large dollars because it did not have any projects that were shovel ready. She said, in 2009-2010, there was some planning money available. She said that is where the money for this study came from. She said, when they applied for the grant, the study was called the Oklahoma City to South Texas Passenger study. She said they estimated the project at $14 million. She said it is an 850 mile long corridor and it connects multiple metropolitan areas. She added it makes it something that could be viable. She said the South Texas portion included anything south of San Antonio. She said the study gives them a service development plan and she reviewed what would be included in that plan. She said there is also an environmental document associated with the plan. She showed Council a map of the existing passenger rail lines in the state and said the current lines are serving through AMTRAK. She spoke about state supported routes and how those routes under 750 miles must be partly subsidized by the state. She provided the Council with some numbers regarding the current AMTRAK service in Texas. She said, several years ago, TTI had done a study for TXDOT looking at city pairs and other statewide studies for rail. She spoke about the DFW to Houston and DFW to San Antonio routes and how those have been approved. She spoke about levels of service and defined the different levels for the Council. She described core express service, regional service and emerging/feeder service for the Council. She spoke about the statewide ridership study and what is included in that study. She said it does not make sense to have high speed rail everywhere in Texas. She spoke about how they determine the levels of Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 4 Pages service according to city pairs. She said they are receiving input from the statewide passenger rail steering committee and community working groups. She described some of the feedback that was received as a result of those meetings. Fought said he is having a hard time distinguishing between the definition of passenger rail and commuter rail. Moczygemba said the best way is to determine the type of trip. She said home-work, work-home is commuter rail. She noted inner city high speed trips would be passenger rail. She said commuter trips are typically not over 70 miles. She continued her review and said they then took the city pairs and looked more specifically on a corridor, which is the Texas-Oklahoma corridor. She said the passenger rail study looked at that corridor and determined the levels of service for that corridor. She showed Council a map of the TOPRS study area and the existing rail. She spoke of what they are studying and what they are not studying. She said they are studying intercity and high speed passenger rail improvements and various speed and service levels, capacity enhancement and connections. She said they are not studying commuter rail, light rail, streetcar, highways, airports or other non-rail modes. She spoke about how decisions are made and how TXDOT works with the Federal Railroad Administration. She provided Council with a schedule of the process. She said they have stakeholder meetings scheduled for next week. There was much discussion regarding the public meeting schedule. She provided Council with the initial demand assessment of the proposed routes. She said the highest demand is the DFW to San Antonio route. She said the medium demand lines are from DFW to OKC and from San Antonio to Monterrey. She described the next steps in this process. She spoke about the various avenues of public involvement throughout this process. Jonrowe asked and Moczygemba spoke about how they have been working with the NCTCOG, DART Light RAIL, DCTA, etc. and how their plans will integrate. She said they have also been working closely with LSTAR. She said there are different trips people make and they need to get a system together that addresses all of those needs. Jonrowe asked and Moczygemba said they have to look at the economic development impacts but noted that is something that is still evolving. Hammerlun spoke about the realities on the funding side in terms of competition for the same dollar. Moczygemba said those are challenging issues and added they are trying to stay informed. Hammerlun asked and Moczygemba said, by law, there is not one entity that has the authority to require everybody to report things to them. She spoke about a passenger rail plan that needs to be updated each year. Frought spoke about the nature of difficulty between this rail and freight. Moczygemba said many issues play into that relationship and added the largest difficulty comes from the freight rails being privately owned. She expanded upon this issue. Hesser asked and Moczygemba said they do not know whether a route will go through Georgetown. She said they would not consider stops for cities less than 10,000. She said they have thought about a large park and ride that may work best in this area. Hesser asked and she spoke about the various factors that have to be considered for having rail in the Georgetown area. Hellmann asked and Moczygemba said this plan will show the plan for Texas and will incorporate the efforts being made by the Lone Star Rail District. Hellmann asked and she confirmed this study is an independent look at what the state needs in terms of rail. Hellmann asked and she said the full plan will be done in December 2014. Eason thanked Moczygemba for her presentation and noted this plan also incorporates the work being done by the Lone Star Rail District. There was much discussion about the relationship between this plan and the Lone Star Rail District. B GUS Capital Improvement Plan - Utilities & Transportation -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities With a Powerpoint Presentation, Briggs introduced the Capital Improvement Plan for 2013-2014. He provided a brief outline of this process. Wright reviewed the CIP process in detail for the Council. He said the Capital Improvement process starts in January, the list in finalized in April, the list is presented to Boards and City Council in May and June and it is adopted along with the budget in September. He spoke about the water/wastewater projects and noted the total costs of projects in this department. He said the water revenue typically comes from utility rates. He said the water CIP is driven by customer based growth and noted everything is pretty much service and rehabilitation. He spoke about the water main cost for next year and what that entails, including the Shell Road line, the North Georgetown Addition and Street Rehab. He said the major item in the Water CIP is the Sequoia Elevated Storage tank project. He noted it will cost almost $6 million and he spoke about why it is needed. He spoke about the Wastewater CIP Improvements including the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, Street Projects and Lift Station Upgrades. He spoke about the various plant upgrades planned for the upcoming year. He added there are no proposed irrigation system upgrades this year. He spoke about the Transportation projects and said the City does most of its streets work in the summer. He spoke of transportation services and said they manage, maintain and repair City streets and right of ways. He spoke about the plan to apply a rejuvenator to various roads in the City which will add another 3-5 years to the life of the pavement. He spoke about the street maintenance projects, including cutler repaving and chip seal. He spoke about some of the street rehabilitation projects totaling $556,000. He spoke about stormwater projects in the plan and said the proposed projects are Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 4 Pages related to curb and gutter replacements. He said $435,000 has been set aside for potential buyouts of the Smith Branch watershed. He showed the Council a list of additional future proposed stormwater projects and their related costs. He spoke about the current residential drainage fee and said it is $4.75 per residential unit. He said the proposed rate is $5.25 per residential unit and he described how the revenue from this increase will be used. He spoke about the Airport CIP and why they only have planned out two years of projects. He said the proposed projects include the design of a parallel taxiway and medium intensity runway lights. Hellmann asked about the arterial reserve and Wright said it was for long term maintenance. Hellmann asked and Wright described in further detail the Smith Branch buyouts and the process for this. Hesser asked about the Serenada culvert improvements. Wright said there is a section of Serenada that is in the City, so it is included in the City project. Fought asked and Wright confirmed the airport study will be incorporated into the plan next year. Polasek spoke about how the airport business plan will be used to program next year's Airport CIP. Jonrowe asked about the buyouts and Wrights said all buyout options will come back to Council for a final decision. Jonrowe said a lot of the improvements are in her district. She asked about the coordination of these projects so that they are not happening all at once. Wright said staff will sit down and determine the best way to handle improvements so that customers are only affected once. Gonzalez asked and staff confirmed the Smith Branch buyouts are still at 16 homes. Wright spoke about the pavement condition index and spoke about how Council has directed staff to maintain an 85 or above. There was much discussion regarding street maintenance. C Fiscal and Budgetary Policy - Workshop presentation and discussion on revisions to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the 2013/14 budget cycle -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Hellmann left the dais. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Rundell reviewed the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy and the proposed revisions to the policy that are up for approval on the regular agenda. She said this was reviewed by the General Government and Finance Committee. She provided Council with a historical overview of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy. She said it was adopted in 2001/02 and is based on recommended "best practices by GFOA." She noted the policy is reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget process. Fought left the dais. She spoke spoke about "police compliance" as defined in the policy. She said the policy requires 1.5 times coverage ratio for all funds with debt service requirements. Hellmann returned to the dais. Fought returned to the dais. She described the major sections of the policy, including the policy purpose, fund structure and basis of budgeting, fund balance policy, operating budget, revenue management, expenditure policies, purchasing policy, budget contingency plan, capital improvement program, capital maintenance, accounting and financial reporting, debt management, other funding alternatives, financial conditions, reserves and stability ratios, internal controls and staffing and compensation. She described how the contingency funds are spread throughout the City as well as the process for internal audits. She reviewed the major areas with proposed changes for discussion. She said the City added a table of contents. She noted the power contract credit reserve was added, they updated the document to reflect the City of Excellence, increase the auditor's contract from three to five years and add the inclusion of the new compensation program. She spoke about the next steps in this process and thanked the Council for their time. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Section 551.071 and 551.086 of the Local Government Code-- 5:13 PM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:39PM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:39 PM. Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 4 Pages Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 6 Pages Draft Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 11, 2013 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Patty Eason, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Jerry Hammerlun, John Hesser, Steve Fought Council Absent: All Council Present. Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities; Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director; Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director; Minutes Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM (Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) A Call to Order -- Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:41PM Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - Fireworks - Water Conservation - Police Promotions Action from Executive Session Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought authorizing the City Attorney to file a lawsuit to recover damages resulting from the gasoline spill in Sun City that occurred in April 2011. Approved 7-0 Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 6 Pages they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. B - Mr. Phil Brown regarding the Bed and Breakfast Workshop Item from the meeting held May 28, 2013 Brown was not present at the meeting to speak. Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Council may act on with one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary This item was pulled from the agenda by staff. E Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of Councilmember John Hesser, District 3, to the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board to fill a vacancy -- Mayor George Garver F Consideration and possible action to approve the appointment of Mr. Cass Wheeler to the Ethics Commission as the District 5 appointee to fill a vacancy -- Jerry Hammerlun, Councilmember, District 5 G Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of contract labor services from Modis, Inc. in the amount of $42,000 -- Mike Peters, Information Technology Director H Consideration and possible action to approve an interlocal agreement with Williamson County regarding the extension of Madrid Drive -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director I Forwarded from the General Government & Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve a renewal of the ESRI Small Government Enterprise License Agreement for GIS mapping software -- Chris Bryce, IT Applications Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer J Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to contract with Winter and Company to update the Downtown Master Plan for the City of Georgetown for the amount of $75,000 -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Motion by Eason, second Hammerlun to approve the consent agenda with the exception of Item C, which was pulled from the agenda by staff and item D, which was pulled to the Regular Agenda by Eason. Approved 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: D Consideration of the 2030 Plan Annual Update Report -- Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director This item was pulled to the Regular Agenda by Eason. Eason said she thought, since this is an annual update, she would like for it to be openly introduced and described for the public. Spurgin said this is something that is done each year. He said this plan is reviewed and monitored to make sure it is updated. He said there is also a five year update that is more comprehensive but noted this is the annual update. He said, since last year's update, the City has been enlarged due to annexation and he described those annexations for Council. He also spoke about disannexations as well. He listed some of the other major events over the past year including the population surpassing 50,000 and how that affects the City limits. He spoke about the rezoning cases that were approved last year as well as the conclusion of the release of the census data from 2010. He spoke about what the Plan hopes to accomplish over the next few years. He listed several unresolved issues including salamander endangered species listing, a possible merger with Chisholm Trail, questions about water supply and fire safety, the annexation policy for the city and the City of Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 6 Pages Excellence initative. Motion by Eason, second by Jonrowe to approve Item D. Approved 7-0 K Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning of 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from 9.04 acres of the Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Spurgin described the area involved in the rezoning. He said this would lessen the uses and entails a downzoning. He added staff and planning and zoning support this request. Mayor asked and Spurgin described the cross streets for the location. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Public Hearing was opened at 7:04PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 7:05PM Motion by Hellmann, second by Eason to approve the ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 L First Reading of an Ordinance to approve formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2013/14 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Rundell described the item and said this item amends the city's fiscal and budgetary policy. She listed the major substantial changes to the policy included in the Ordinance. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Eason, second by Hammerlun to approve the ordinance on first reading. Hellmann asked and Rundell said the amount of days in contingency policy is a recommended practice. Hellmann asked and Rundell said having that amount of reserves helps the city's bond rating. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0 M Update from the City’s Financial Advisor regarding the final savings related to the General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Rundell summarized the item and introduced Jennifer Douglas, of Specialized Public Finance, to the City Council. Douglas said they received approval to move forward with the refunding bonds through the delegation methodology. She said they priced back on May 14 and the savings are finalized at this point. She noted, since there, there has been an increase in interest rates. She said it worked out in the City's best interest to have the flexibility. She said the new bonds that will be replacing the old ones will have a new interested of 2.059%. She said, as a result, the City will receive savings of $743,264 spread out over the life of the issues. She noted this represents about 6% savings over what the City was currently paying. Mayor thanked Douglas for her time. N Consideration and possible action to approve the revised Rate Review Mechanism (RRM), between the ATMOS Texas Municipalities (ATM) and ATMOS Energy,Mid-Tex Division -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Briggs described the rate review mechanism and what it provides the ATM Cities. He said the 2008 rate review mechanism expired at the end of 2011. He said ATMOS filed its general rate case with the railroad commission. He spoke about the negotiations that occurred after that filing in order to come to its revised rate review mechanism (RRM). He said staff is asking to approve a resolution approving this new RRM. He noted this approval will not impact rates but will establish future rate filings. Motion by Fought, second by Hellmann to approve. Approved 7-0 O Consideration and possible action to approve a parkland improvement agreement between the City of Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 6 Pages Georgetown and the developer of The Summit at Rivery Park Subdivision – Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney, Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and David Munk, City Engineer Chapman described the agreement to Council. She spoke about how the agreement will require construction of a storm water detention pond. She spoke about the planned location of the detention pond. She noted, if approved, the pond and parkland improvements will be constructed and improved by the developer. She said the Parks Advisory Board has approved the terms of the proposal that have been included in this agreement. Speaker, Jeff Novak, spoke about the numerous agreements that have to be assembled in order to complete this project. He spoke about the work being done so far on this project. He thanked Chapman for her work and for Brandenburg's leadership. Motion by Hellmann, second by Gonzalez to approve the agreement. Approved 7-0 P Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Local Commercial (C-1) District for 9.292 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4775 Williams Drive -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director (action required) Spurgin described the property and the rezoning that will occur with this Ordinance. He said this item was approved unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff. He read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Hammerlun, second by Fought to approve the Ordinance. Approved 7-0 Q Review and possible direction to terminate the current contract with Lone Star Rail District in the annual amount of $50,000 as evidenced by the results of the 2012 Citizen Survey --Tommy Gonzalez, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember, District 7 Gonzalez said, after reviewing the citizen survey, one of the important categories on the survey was transportation. He said the results of the survey show only 11% of the respondents said adding transportation would make Georgetown a better place. He spoke about the survey response that showed 65% of respondents would be against increasing taxes for a rail system. He spoke about how his election validated the fact that his residents are not in favor of rail. He noted he thinks that money can be better spent on issues such as maintaining our CARTS service. He said, even though there is a vocal minority that supports rail, the city should not disenfranchise those that do not support it. The following citizens spoke to Council in opposition to the item: Marjorie Herbert, Arden Trevino, Porter Cochran, Ray Rodriguez, Paul Hundley, Dottie Westerfield, Diane Coker, Leeta Shands, Gini Sheffield, Ron Trimmer, Leonard Van Gendt, Rick Williamson, Walt Doering, Sharon Covey, Ross Hunter, Jodi Salyers The following citizens spoke to Council in favor of the item: Rick Lutowski, Pat Berryman, Georgia Williams, Michelle Brown For complete video and audio of the comments from the public, please visit the City of Georgetown's GTV website at http://government.georgetown.org/gtv/ Eason said, if nothing else, this proves that there must be more public discussion and research into this issue. She spoke about how there are two new members of the Council who do not know anything about the Rail District. She said her recommendation is to send this for more research. She said she could provide feedback on a lot of the questions brought forward this evening but noted most people would not believe what she is saying. She said more information and presentations must be given to the Council on this issue. She mentioned some of the other visions and decisions made by our forefathers which resulted in wonderful assets for the city, including San Gabriel Park and the Sun City development. She said the issue of public transportation and the rail district and its connection to the plans for the state and beyond is important to consider. She spoke about how it is imperative to do something visionary for the state as a whole as well as the local community. She noted more research needs to be done and shared on this issue before any kind of decision is made. She noted, if the City were to follow the logic that the survey is the determining factor for transportation issues in the City, there are no transportation issues on there that have received majority support. Hellmann said this has been going on for six years and he has been a part of it for two years. He said he voted against suspending the membership last year and the year before because he did not want to rush it and educate Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 6 Pages himself. He described how he has learned a lot about the difference between types of rail and why it is important to know the difference. He said the question is whether or not Council wants to keep spending $50,000 to be a part of this project. He said he feels this has been through due process and it has been vetted by many public forums. He spoke about some of the conversations he had with the leaders for the Lone Star Rail District. He said he does not feel there is an economic return on this investment in the membership in the Lone Star Rail District. Hesser said he felt this would be a very tough decision for him because he felt he does not have enough time and information to make this decision. He said a lot of misinformation has been passed out regarding this project and he spent a lot of time doing his homework prior to this meeting. He said he does not want the City to invest money in the rail and then have the rail pulled away from them. He said he would like to spend the City's energy on the current transportation projects instead of membership in the District. Fought supports rail and metro systems around the world. He asked why this did not get sent through GTAB early on. He said doing so gives a sense of order and transparency to the process. He said everything that he has heard and read tells him that this system is going down the pike to an unaffordable destination. He added each of the cities will have to build the station, maintain and operate the station and contribute to the overall operating costs of the City. He noted that is big money. He said what everyone is searching for is a commuter rail system and not a passenger rail system. He spoke about starting over and sending this concept to GTAB for further exploration. Hammerlun said a lot of what he would have said, Hellmann has already said. He said, for the first time, he and Berryman must have spoken to the same people because most of his constituents are not in favor of the City staying in the Lone Star Rail. He said he knows a lot more about this but noted we as the community have a lot of other issues we need to address, including a bus challenge the community faces now. He said he sat here today listening to the folks from TXDOT and, although he learned a lot of what is going on at the state level, he is disappointed in the leadership the state government has shown in relation to the rail initiatives. He noted, as we prepared to participate tonight, he did a great deal of research on the Capital Metro rail system. He noted he is not yet convinced there will not be a cost to the City. He said he likes Fought's suggestion that we step back and start the process over through GTAB. He said he can not support continuing to pay the money for this at this time. Jonrowe thanked everyone for attending and noted it is becoming obvious that there are members who have not listened. She said she is frustrated when people ask about cost and whether transportation options will cost money when they never ask those type of questions about roads. She spoke about the survey and how it was asking about a property tax increase. She described why this is not an indication of whether or not people support public transport. She said we said we wanted to be a destination city and added this is a project that will help bring people to Georgetown. She said this is a mistake but noted she feels there is nothing she can say to convince people to change their minds. . Gonzalez said this has been going on for the past six years and each year, Council says "one more year."He said the educational portion of this project falls upon Eason to inform the Council and the public on this. He said he is not opposed to a rail but noted let the Lone Star Rail contact Georgetown when they want to build the Austin to Dallas portion. He said the idea that the rail will be self supporting is not the case. He continued to described why he is opposed to spending money on this issue. Eason said she can only add that the Council members do not know what they are talking about. She described how the structure for the line is being built using federal and private funds. She said the facts of the matter are not being translated on several levels which is why she can not understand why people do not want this to go to GTAB before a final decision is made. She spoke about, by withdrawing from the district, if the city wanting to get back in it would have to pay more money. Jonrowe said an afternoon on the internet does not an expert make. She said the City needs to give this topic the time and consideration this town deserves. She noted, if GTAB comes up here and tells Council to get out, she would be the first person to put an item on the agenda telling us to get out. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hellmann to approve a Resolution to withdraw from the Lone Star Rail District. Approved 5-2 (Eason, Jonrowe opposed) Chapman said a formal Resolution to withdraw from the Lone Star Rail District will be on the next City Council agenda. Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # C City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 6 of 6 Pages R Consideration and possible action regarding possible changes to the Council's workshop schedule -- Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6 Jonrowe spoke about why she thinks we should have Workshops on Mondays and Council meetings on Tuesday. She said a new structure will encourage openness and diversity on the Council because the meetings would be at a time that works for everyone. She said, as the town gets bigger, there are more issues the Council needs to address. She said she often feels the Council is rushing things. She noted working constituents should be able to come and watch Workshop items. Eason spoke about how the Workshop schedule and Executive Session was on a Monday in the past. She said that structure gave staff and Council enough time to discuss all items fully and it was much more productive. She said there is a definite benefit of having more people present at the meetings and the two day schedule would allow for that. Mayor asked and Jonrowe and Eason clarified that they would prefer to have the Workshops on the Monday before the Council meeting. Hellmann said he is opposed to changing the current schedule and noted it would be harder for his family as well as staff members who will have to stay away from their families on two nights in a row. He said the online streaming of the meetings will address the issue of people not being able to attend. Hesser said having the staff being away from their families on one night instead of two would be beneficial. Fought said he will attend on any schedule but noted, staff will need to be compensated for any extra time at work. Hammerlun said he can not do Monday nights and will not work for him on a business commitment standpoint. He said he would like to stay with the current structure. Gonzalez said it puts a burden on a family to have to meet on two nights a week instead of one. Jonrowe withdrew her item from the agenda. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 09:30 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________________________________ Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to accept a matching grant from the Texas Historical Commission for a Certified Local Government Grant in the amount of $7,000 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown has been awarded a matching grant from the Texas Historical Commission. The grant request was for $7,000 with the City contributing matching funds of $7,000. The grant would be to help survey the Citizen's Memorial Garden cemetery located near Hwy 29 and IH 35.. There is no existing map or layout of the cemetery and this grant would be a first step in re-establishing the cemetery boundary and also to get an accurate record of who is buried there. This grant will also help the City to have the cemetery designated a historical cemetery. The Parks and Recreation staff would work closely and coordinate with the Citizen's Memorial Association. The grant must be completed by September 30, 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $7,000 matching funds are budgeted in account 231-5-0211-51-310 SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Grant Contract Cover Memo Item # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 3 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 4 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 5 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 6 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 7 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 8 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 9 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 0 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 1 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 2 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 3 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 4 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 5 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 6 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 7 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 8 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 9 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 0 o f 2 1 It e m # D At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 2 1 o f 2 1 It e m # D City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Williamson County preserving 11.7 acres of parkland as part of the County’s Regional Habitat Plan to protect endangered species -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager. ITEM SUMMARY: Williamson County is requesting that 11.7 acres of land dedicated to the City of Georgetown through parkland dedication for the Madison at Georgetown subdivision.remain natural to protect endangered species in the area. This property is adjacent to property that the county recently purchased. By partnering with Williamson County, a total of 64 acres will be preserved as open space with the ability for nature trails. There is an additional 3.84 acre tract of parkland in the subdivision that will be developed as an active park. The main component of the agreement is that the tract identified as Lot 9, Block K (Public Parkland) would maintain its natural character. Fencing would be the responsibility of the county through the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF) as would signage identifying the property as City of Georgetown parkland managed as a preserve by the WCCF. The City agrees to allow the property to retain its natural character subject to minor edge mowing for fire prevention or waterway/flood control which would be the city’s responsibility. Public access would be on a managed basis using the WCCF protocol for Leave No Trace. The term would be for 25 years, extending to 2038 with an option to renew. The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of the Interlocal Agreement at their June 13, 2013 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Agreement Location Map Cover Memo Item # E 00117298/jkg/ps INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS REGARDING MADISON SUBDIVISION PUBLIC PARKLAND This Interlocal Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (the “County”), a political subdivision of the State of Texas, and the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS (the “City”) a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Texas. The County and the City are herein referred to as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act, Sections 791.003(3)(E) and 791.003(4)(A) allow local governments to contract with one another to perform governmental functions and services, including for parks and recreation; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to contract with each other for the construction, maintenance, and use of public parkland located on properties owned by both Parties; and WHEREAS, entry into this Agreement would be mutually beneficial and not detrimental to the Parties; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. AUTHORITY This Agreement is entered into between the Parties pursuant to the authority contained in Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act. The provisions of Chapter 791 of the Government Code are incorporated into this Agreement and this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the Act. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the construction, maintenance, and use of certain public parklands owned by both Parties. 3. TERM The initial term of this Agreement extend until 2038. Unless otherwise terminated hereunder, or if a new agreement is entered into by the Parties, this Agreement shall automatically renew after the initial term for successive ten (10) year terms. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for such periods. It is understood and expressly acknowledged by the Parties that this Agreement does not commit the Parties to renew this Agreement after the initial term unless approved by future action of their respective governing bodies. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # E 2 4. OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY 4.1 The County, through the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (the “WCCF”), has entered into an agreement with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “USFWS”) to provide a preserve area ( a Karst Fauna Area or “KFA”) for the benefit of certain endangered species caused by the re-construction of SH 195. 4.2 The County has acquired properties that abut a certain 11.7 acre tract that has been dedicated to the City as public parkland (the “City Parkland”). When combined, both properties are large enough to be recognized as a KFA for the endangered species. 4.3 The County has agreed with USFWS to preserve the KFA in its natural state, with limited, clearly-defined walking pathways. The KFA will be maintained pursuant to a management agreement with the USFWS as a part of the County’s Regional Habitat Plan and under the Foundation’s “Leave No trace” program. 5. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 5.1 The City has accepted as public parkland, by plat dedication, Lot 9, Block K of the Madison at Georgetown Subdivision, as recorded in Volume ____, Page ______, Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas (the “City Parkland”). 5.2 The City agrees to allow the WCCF to operate and manage the City Parkland. 5.3 The City agrees that the City Parkland will be utilized by the WCCF as a passive, limited use public park, retaining the property’s natural character, subject to the conditions stated herein. 5.4 The public access to the City Park will be limited to clearly-defined walking pathways at locations determined by the WCCF after consultation with the City. Access to the remainder of the City Parkland will be limited to allow the natural character of the property to remain intact. 5.5 The WCCF will coordinate with the City to develop and implement a “Leave No Trace” protocol for access within the City Parkland. 5.6 The City may mow around the perimeter of the City Parkland for fire prevention or waterway/flood control. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # E 3 6. LIABILITY The Parties expressly agree that nothing in this Agreement adds to or changes the liability limits and immunities for a governmental unit provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act, Chapter 101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or other law. The Parties expressly agree that, in the execution of this Agreement, neither Party waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising in the exercise of its powers or functions or pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims Act or other applicable statutes, laws, rules, or regulations. 7. NOTICE All notices, demands and requests, including invoices which may be given or which are required to be given by either Party to the other, and any exercise of a right of termination provided by this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective when: (i) personally delivered to the intended recipient; (ii) three (3) days after being sent, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the intended recipient at the address specified below; (iii) delivered in person to the address set forth below for the Party to whom the notice was given; (iv) deposited into the custody of a recognized overnight delivery service such as Federal Express Corporation, Emery, or Lone Star Overnight, addressed to such Party at the address specified below; or (v) sent by facsimile, telegram or telex, provided that receipt for such facsimile, telegram or telex is verified by the sender and followed by a notice sent in accordance with one of the other provisions set forth above. For purposes of this section, the addresses of the Parties for all notices are as follows (unless changed by similar notice in writing given by the particular person whose address is to be changed): City of Georgetown Attention: City Manager ________________________ ________________________ and to: Attention: City Attorney ________________________ ________________________ Williamson County Attention: County Judge 710 Main Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # E 4 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises under this Agreement, the Parties agree to first try to resolve the dispute by referring same to the senior management of the City and County. The Parties hereby expressly agree that no claims or disputes between the Parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement or a breach thereof shall be decided by any arbitration proceeding, including without limitation, any proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC Section 1-14) or any applicable state arbitration statute. 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 No Third Party Beneficiaries. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to, or shall, create any rights in any person, firm, corporation, or other entity not a party hereto, and no such person or entity shall have any cause of action hereunder. 9.2 No Other Relationship. No term or provision in this Agreement is intended to create a partnership, joint venture, or agency arrangement between and of the Parties. 9.3 Current Revenues. Pursuant to Section 791.011(d)(3) of the Texas Government Code, each Party performing services or furnishing aid pursuant to this Agreement shall do so with funds available from current revenues of the Party. No Party shall have any liability for the failure to expend funds to provide aid hereunder. 9.4 Amendment. Amendment of this Agreement may only be by mutual written consent of the Parties. 9.5 Governing Law and Venue. The Parties agree that this Agreement and all disputes arising thereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas, and that exclusive venue for any action arising under this Agreement shall be in Williamson County, Texas. 9.6 Force Majeure. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, no failure, delay or default in performance of any obligation hereunder shall constitute an event of default or a breach of this Agreement if such failure to perform, delay or default arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Party otherwise chargeable with failure, delay or default; including but not limited to acts of God, acts of public enemy, civil war, insurrection, riots, fires, floods, explosion, theft, earthquakes, natural disasters or other casualties, strikes or other labor troubles, which in any way restrict the performance under this Agreement by the Parties. 9.7 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. The Parties may not modify or amend this Agreement, except by written agreement approved by the governing bodies of each Party and duly executed by both Parties. Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # E 5 9.8 Approval. This Agreement has been duly and properly approved by each Party’s governing body and constitutes a binding obligation on each Party. 9.9 Assignment. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Party may not assign this Agreement or subcontract the performance of services without first obtaining the written consent of the other Party. 9.10 Non-Appropriation and Fiscal Funding. The obligations of the Parties under this Agreement do not constitute a general obligation or indebtedness of either Party for which such Party is obligated to levy, pledge, or collect any form of taxation, and such obligations may be terminated at the end of a Party’s fiscal year if the governing body of such Party does not appropriate sufficient funds to continue the services provided under this Agreement. 9.11 Non-Waiver. A Party’s failure or delay to exercise a right or remedy does not constitute a waiver of the right or remedy. An exercise of a right or remedy under this Agreement does not preclude the exercise of another right or remedy. Rights and remedies under this Agreement are cumulative and are not exclusive of other rights or remedies provided by law. 9.12 Paragraph Headings. The various paragraph headings are inserted for convenience of reference only, and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any section thereof. 9.13 Severability. The Parties agree that in the event any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction that part of the Agreement is severable and the decree shall not affect the remainder of the Agreement. The remainder of the Agreement shall be and continue in full force and effect. 9.14 Open Meetings Act. The Parties hereby represent and affirm that this Agreement was adopted in an open meeting held in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act (Tex. Gov. Code, Ch. 551), as amended. 9.15 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts which, when taken together, shall be considered as one original. 9.16 Effective Date. This Agreement is made to be effective on the latest date accompanying the signatures below. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # E 6 APPROVED by the City Council, City of Georgetown, Texas, in its meeting held on the _____ day of ________________, 2013, and executed by its authorized representative. CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS By: George Garver, Mayor Date Signed: ________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Secretary APPROVED by the Commissioners Coot of Williamson County, Texas, in its meeting held on the _____ day of ________________, 2013, and executed by its authorized representative. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS By: _________________________________ Dan A. Gattis, County Judge Date Signed: ____________________________ ATTEST: ______________________________ Nancy Rister, County Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # E At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # E City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution providing for withdrawal of the City of Georgetown from membership in the Lone Star Rail District -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: On June 11, 2013, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Resolution terminating the City’s membership in the Lone Star Rail District. The City has paid for its membership in the Lone Star Rail District for fiscal year October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. Attachments: Proposed Resolution Resolution No. 121305-DD-1 FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Resolution_Lone Star Rail District Withdrawal RES 121305-DD-1 Lone Star Rail District Milestones Project Status April 2013 Lone Star Rail Stations Map Union Pacific Letter to Judge Biscoe - Travis Co. Cover Memo Item # F Resolution Number: _____________ Page 1 of 1 Description: Withdrawal from the Lone Star Rail District Date Approved: June 25, 2013 RESOLUTION NO. ____________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN TO WITHDRAW MEMBERSHIP FROM THE LONE STAR RAIL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 6550c-1, Section 2, Revised Civil Statutes, on November 22, 2005, the City of Georgetown elected to become a part of the Austin San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District, otherwise known as the Lone Star Rail District; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown committed to paying an $annual membership fee of 49,500.00 for administrative expenses to participate as a Lone Star Rail District member; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown is the steward of public tax dollars and is responsible for the management of local public infrastructure projects; and WHEREAS, as a result of the current economic climate and commitment to conservative fiscal management, the City of Georgetown wishes to reallocate the disbursement of public funds; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby agrees to withdraw from the membership of and participation in the Lone Star Rail District. RESOLVED this 25 day of June, 2013 ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ______________________________ _______________________________ Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # F At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # F At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # F Milestones: 2003 – 2013 2003  Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail District Board of Directors holds its first meeting February 2003, with 14 members: Austin (elected official and business community representative), San Antonio (elected official and business community representative), Bexar County, Travis County, Alamo Regional Transit, Capital Area Rural Transportation System, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, VIA Metropolitan Transit, Capital Area MPO, San Antonio-Bexar County MPO, and 2 representatives of the general public appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission  Executed staffing agreement with Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council  Adopted organizational bylaws  Adopted procurement and DBE/HUB policies  Applied for and received authorization for $5.7 million Federal grant for studies related to rail implementation  Applied for and received $1.4 million as 20% local match in toll credits from TxDOT  Negotiated agreements for local funding with cities, counties, and metropolitan transportation authorities in the region to cover operations and staffing of the District  Rail project approved in Austin (CAMPO), San Antonio (SA-BCMPO), TxDOT Transportation Improvement Programs  Executed Advanced Funding Agreement with TxDOT  Selected and executed contract with Project Management Team  Published three white papers: Project Funding, Railroad Coordination, Project Workplan  Approved Public Involvement Plan  Proposed potential relocation plan with TxDOT to Union Pacific  Formed Board Committees:  Finance  Freight Rail Relations  Program Management Oversight  Public Involvement  Rules and Procedures  Conducted initial staff organizational meetings with:  Federal Highway Administration  Federal Transit Administration  Federal Railroad Administration  TxDOT Multimodal & Senior Management Staff  State legislation approved granting LSRD Exclusive Development Agreement authority 2004  Created Rail District web site: www.asarail.org  Developed public information brochure  Selected and executed contract with federal legislative consultant  Participated in joint meeting of Austin and San Antonio metropolitan planning organizations  Completed macro-level economic impact study: The Regional Implications of Regional Passenger Rail  Created Executive Committee of the Board Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # F Lone Star Rail District Milestones 2003-2013 2 ____________________________________________________________________________  Completed 2004 Feasibility Study Update  Selected and executed contract for planning and preliminary engineering services  Participated in UP Relocation Task Force 2005  Worked with TxDOT and Bexar County on relocation negotiations with Union Pacific— MOU between State and UP signed March 2005  Established cost/alignment parameters for Union Pacific relocation  Conducted 9 public meetings throughout the Corridor  Created speakers bureau and gave presentations to agencies and civic organizations throughout the Austin-San Antonio corridor  Established electronic document control system to FTA standards  Website up and running (up to 7,000 hits/month)  Hired senior planner/administrator for Rail District  Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund passed by voters statewide by 54% margin  Revised District’s state legislation on Board terms, teleconferencing  Completed selection of Locally Preferred Alternative and MPO approvals from CAMPO and SA-BCMPO  Completed micro-level economic impact analyses on 15 preliminary station locations  Added three new members to Rail District: City of Georgetown, City of San Marcos, Williamson County 2006  Completed revenue forecasts for transportation infrastructure zones around rail stations  Executed contract for legal services related to freight rail negotiations  Executed contract for negotiation of tax increment financing agreements and transit-oriented development ordinances  Continued speakers bureau and gave presentations to agencies and civic organizations throughout the Austin-San Antonio corridor  Conducted orientation workshop for new Board members  Amended procurement policy  Executed interlocal agreement with City of Austin and Capital Metro for Seaholm station location study in downtown Austin  Executed interlocal agreement with VIA Metropolitan Transit for Westside Multimodal Center study of station location in downtown San Antonio  Received federal FY06 appropriation to continue planning and engineering studies  Completed financial analysis and developed local funding strategies  Completed Phase 2 and Phase 3 ridership modeling  Selected and executed contract with federal legislative consultant  Completed Station Design Report  Completed Conceptual Engineering Design Report  Conducted peer review of engineering cost estimates  Completed Seaholm station location study  Completed nine presentations to corridor jurisdictions’ elected officials on the project’s costs and benefits Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # F Lone Star Rail District Milestones 2003-2013 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ 3 2007  Awarded metropolitan mobility funds for regional passenger rail project—$10 million in FY11 and $10 million in FY12—from San Antonio-Bexar County MPO  Completed Financial and Economic Benefits Study  Completed eight presentations to corridor jurisdictions’ elected officials on project’s costs and benefits  Completed eleven presentations to corridor jurisdictions’ senior staff on project’s costs and benefits  Added three new members to Rail District: Hays County, cities of New Braunfels and Schertz  Completed Existing Conditions Report  Completed Alternatives Analysis Report  Approved station location evaluation criteria and process  Redesigned website and upgraded website functions  Completed Westside Multimodal Center study of station location in downtown San Antonio  Continued speakers bureau and gave presentations to agencies and civic organizations throughout the Austin-San Antonio corridor 2008  Awarded metropolitan mobility funds for regional passenger rail project from Capital Area MPO—$5 million in FY09 and $5 million in FY10  Conducted meetings and discussions with Union Pacific executive-level staff on early access to UP corridor for passenger service  Launched Amtrak Feasibility Study in partnership with Texas Department of Transportation and Amtrak  Completed high-level feasibility analysis of SH 130 corridor as possible future route for regional passenger rail service  Investigated and pursued state funding through the Texas Emissions Reduction Program for Rail District members  Executed agreement with Texas Department of Transportation to fund San Antonio Freight Study Phase 3  Initiated branding services for Rail District, selected consultant team  Formed a statewide coalition in support of the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund  Drafted and introduced state legislation on rail relocation funding  Continued speakers bureau and gave presentations to agencies and civic organizations throughout the Austin-San Antonio corridor 2009  Re-branded the Rail District, changed name to Lone Star Rail  Redesigned website and upgraded website functions  Amended state statute governing Rail District re: member eligibility, types of rail systems the Rail District can operate  Legislature approved $182 million for the State Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund for the biennium (subject to certification by State Comptroller)  Legislature designated $8.7 million for the Austin-San Antonio rail corridor  Executed two agreements with Union Pacific (August and December) for initial feasibility studies on freight bypass Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # F Lone Star Rail District Milestones 2003-2013 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ 4  Submitted, in partnership with TxDOT, application to FRA for its federal stimulus funding program: High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (August 2009).  Executed contract for environmental clearance and preliminary engineering on passenger rail project 2010  Launched federal environmental approval process on passenger rail project  Executed Memorandum of Understanding with Union Pacific  Added Rail Operations Manager to Rail District staff  Secured federal trademarks for new brand assets  Worked to secure certification of Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund  Conducted numerous presentations and briefings with federal, state and local partners on project status  Continued participation in Union Pacific’s Citizen’s Advisory Panel  Continued participation in city, county and MPO technical advisory committees 2011  Commenced alternative alignments fatal flaw analysis on freight rail relocation route  Attorney General’s opinion affirmed that Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund passed State Legislature’s 3-part test and should be certified by the State Comptroller  Secured $50 million in House appropriations bill for state matching dollars for federal rail relocation funds for the biennium  Launched contract to proactively engage local communities and stakeholders along the proposed freight bypass route on the scope and purpose of the project  Executed Memorandum of Understanding with North Central Texas Council of Governments to collaborate on long-range rail planning efforts between Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas to ensure system connectivity  Awarded $10 million in STP-MM funding by Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) for environmental studies required to implement freight rail bypass  In association with City of Austin, Capital Metro, and CAMPO, initiated Project Connect to coordinate and integrate high capacity transit in the CAMPO area  Executed Memorandum of Understanding with City of Austin, Capital Metro, and CAMPO to formalize a cooperative rail planning and integrated rail management approach 2012  Completed analysis of alternative alignments for freight rail bypass (final report under review)  Initiated development of comprehensive business plan that will encompass regional purpose, need, and benefits of LSTAR passenger rail and freight rail bypass, financial and implementation strategies, operations and policy, service plans, costs, risks and mitigation  Awarded $500,000 in State Mobility Funds by TxDOT for financial plan on combined passenger rail and freight rail bypass  Actively participated as staff resource in Project Connect―in association with City of Austin, Capital Metro, and CAMPO―to coordinate and integrate high capacity transit in the CAMPO area, and to provide technical support to CAMPO Transit Working Group  Deployed new module on Rail District website to provide information on freight rail relocation  Continued to engage local communities and stakeholders along the proposed freight bypass route on the scope and purpose of the project Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # F Lone Star Rail District Milestones 2003-2013 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5  With Union Pacific commenced joint operations and infrastructure planning to ensure on-time passenger service and timely deliveries to local freight customers on existing mainline  Conducted meetings with local jurisdictions to define potential interlocal agreements for annual operations and maintenance (O&M) funding  Issued RFQ for on-call support services  Drafted conceptual agreements with FHWA, TxDOT, and CAMPO on a combined federal environmental approval process for the passenger rail and freight rail bypass project 2013  Secured commitment from FHWA to serve as lead federal agency on environmental approval/NEPA process on combined passenger rail/freight rail bypass project  Selected consultant team for on-call support services April 2013 Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # F FFrreeiigghhtt RReellooccaattiioonn && RReeggiioonnaall PPaasssseennggeerr RRaaiill:: SSttaattuuss RReeppoorrtt www.LoneStarRail.com Lone Star Rail District is developing a critical mobility initiative in Central and South Texas that will add much-needed capacity in the congested I-35 corridor by providing passenger rail service on the existing Union Pacific freight line. The initiative has two components: 1) relocation of Union Pacific’s “through” freight between San Antonio and Taylor to a new freight bypass east of I-35, and 2) implementation of passenger rail service on the existing Union Pacific freight line once the through freight (freight traffic without an origin or destination in the corridor) is moved. Union Pacific’s existing freight line is currently at capacity, which causes traffic congestion and delays at road-rail intersections as mile-long freight trains rumble through the I-35 communities of Taylor, Round Rock, Austin, Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Schertz and San Antonio. In order to provide passenger rail service in this rapidly growing corridor, Union Pacific’s through freight must first be relocated onto the new bypass route. In October 2010, Lone Star Rail and Union Pacific executed a Memorandum of Understanding to study the feasibility of relocating UP’s through freight to a new route, generally located between Taylor and Seguin where it would connect with existing freight rail infrastructure to the north (toward Waco and Dallas) and south (into south San Antonio). UP would own and manage the new freight line and transfer ownership and management of the existing line to the Rail District for passenger service. The Lone Star Rail passenger rail project—adopted in 2005 by the Rail District Board as well as the Austin and San Antonio MPOs—is a 118-mile regional passenger rail system located in the existing Union Pacific rail corridor for most of its length. Sixteen stations are planned along the route, which is anchored by the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas with additional stations in Schertz, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle/Buda, Round Rock and Georgetown (see map on page 3). Intercity rail service will offer relaxing, stress-free travel that allows riders the freedom to make the most of their travel time by studying, working, or simply enjoying the scenery. Travel times will be competitive with, if not faster than, travel by automobile; but the key element is that rail travel is predictable and dependable, while accidents, weather conditions, and other variables can often cause unexpected delays for drivers. Significant technical work has been completed on the regional passenger rail project, including:  Conceptual Engineering  Alternatives Analysis  Station Location Studies  Station Economic Impact Analyses  Capital and Operating Cost Estimates  Operating Plans  Ridership Studies  Financial and Economic Benefits Studies To ensure on-going local and regional coordination and collaboration, the Rail District is governed by a Board of Directors that represents local governments and transportation providers throughout the Austin-San Antonio Corridor. Jurisdictions and organizations represented on the Board:  Cities: Austin, Georgetown, New Braunfels, San Antonio, San Marcos, Schertz  Counties: Bexar, Hays, Travis, Williamson  Transit Authorities: Alamo Regional Transit, Capital Metro, CARTS, VIA Metropolitan Transit  MPOs: CAMPO, SA-BC MPO  Business Communities: Austin, San Antonio (appointed by the respective City Councils)  General Public: Austin, San Antonio (appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission) PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT (Why are we doing this?)  Improve mobility throughout the Austin-San Antonio Corridor  Provide a predictable, reliable travel choice Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # F Lone Star Rail: Freight Relocation & Regional Passenger Rail Status Report, April 2013 2  Divert trucks from I-35 to the new freight bypass, thus improving the speed and efficiency of NAFTA trade flows  Improve safety in the I-35 corridor  Maintain air quality status (Austin and San Antonio are both near-non-attainment areas)  Create a regional, seamless, multi-modal transportation system  Create economic development opportunities OBJECTIVES OF THE REGIONAL RAIL SYSTEM  Express and Local trains (travel time): Express: 75 minutes or less between downtown Austin and downtown San Antonio with stops in San Marcos and New Braunfels Local: 120 minutes with stops at all stations  Operations (full service): 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Every 30 minutes during peak hours Every 60 minutes during off-peak hours  Passenger trains will have priority over freight trains RECENT MILESTONES 2010  Executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Union Pacific to study freight bypass route and add passenger service to existing rail line  Initiated analysis of alternative alignments for freight rail relocation 2011  Awarded $10 million in STP-MM funding by Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) for environmental studies required to implement freight rail bypass  In association with City of Austin, Capital Metro, and CAMPO, initiated Project Connect to coordinate and integrate high capacity transit in the CAMPO area  Launched contract to proactively engage local communities and stakeholders along the proposed freight bypass route on the scope and purpose of the project 2012  Initiated development of comprehensive business plan that encompasses regional purpose, need, and benefits of LSTAR passenger rail and freight rail bypass, financial and implementation strategies, operations and policy, service plans, costs, risks and mitigation  In partnership with Union Pacific began joint operations and infrastructure planning to ensure on-time passenger service and timely deliveries to local freight customers on existing mainline  Drafted conceptual agreements with FHWA, TxDOT, and CAMPO on a combined federal environmental approval process for the passenger rail and freight rail bypass project 2013  Secured commitment from FHWA to serve as lead federal agency on environmental studies for combined regional passenger rail/freight rail bypass project Visit the website—www.LoneStarRail.com—for project information and updates as they become available. Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # F Lone Star Rail: Freight Relocation & Regional Passenger Rail Status Report, April 2013 3 REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL ROUTE AND FREIGHT BYPASS CORRIDOR Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # F HAYS WILLIAMSON TRAVIS COMAL BEXAR GUADALUPE CALDWELL BASTROP WILSON to Dallas/Ft. Worth Austin to Laredo 35 10 410 181 281 281 123 183 79 71 290 183 45N 290 35 1604 to Houston to El Paso 35 35 183A 45N 1604 410 10 45SE 37 37 Georgetown TaylorHutto Liberty Hill Pflugerville RoundRockCedar Park Leander San Marcos Buda Lockhart Bastrop Kyle DrippingSprings Wimberley ElginManor Luling Seguin Schertz Universal City New Braunfels Floresville San Antonio Helotes Smithville 1 GEORGETOWN 2 DOWNTOWN ROUND ROCK 3 McNEIL JUNCTION 4 BRAKER LN/DOMAIN 5 35TH ST/MOPAC 6 DOWNTOWN AUSTIN 7 SLAUGHTER LN 8 KYLE/BUDA 9 SAN MARCOS/TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY 10 NEW BRAUNFELS 11 SCHERTZ/FM 3009 12 LOOP 1604 13 LOOP 410/AIRPORT 14 DOWNTOWN SAN ANTONIO/UTSA 15 PORT SAN ANTONIO 16 CITY SOUTH/TAMU SouthwesternUniversity Texas StateUniversityat Round Rock University of Texasat Austin Texas StateUniversity University of Texasat San Antonio Texas A&M Universityat San Antonio Texas A&MUniversityat Round Rock LSTAR Regional Passenger Rail Proposed Station Location LEGEND PROPOSED STATION LOCATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LONE STAR RAIL SYSTEM MAP Proposed Future Extension Universities LONE STAR RAIL DISTRICT Freight Rail Relocation Study Area Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # F Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # F City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning of 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck, from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director(action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background:The applicant has requested to rezone 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, for the expansion of the Mac Haik Ford dealership, from Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District. The Automobile Sales and Service Use Category is an allowed use in the C-3 District provided a Special Use Permit is also obtained. The proposed facility will provide services for their truck center with office, service bays, photo room, parts sales and storage, car-wash and detail bay. Public Comments:At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 4, 2013 a Public Hearing was held with no speakers. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:After holding a Public Hearing on June 4, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 6-0. Special Considerations:None. Recommended Motion:Approval of the First Reading of the ordinance for Rezoning of 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Carla Benton ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map P&Z Minutes Ordinance Ord Exhibit A Ord Exhibit B Cover Memo Item # G Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 1 of 4 AG to C-3 Report Date: May 21, 2013 File No: REZ-2013-003 Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner Item Details Project Name: Mac Haik Ford Truck Location: 7200 Block of Kelley Drive (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 4.503 acres Legal Description: 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey Applicant: Larry Neal, Larry Neal Architects Property Owner: W.O. Kelley Foundation Contact: Larry Neal, Larry Neal Architects Existing Use: Undeveloped land Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) District Proposed Zoning: General Commercial, C-3 with a Special Use Permit by separate application Future Land Use: Employment Center Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested to rezone 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, for the expansion of the Mac Haik Ford dealership, from Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District. The Automobile Sales and Service Use Category is an allowed use in the C-3 District provided a Special Use Permit is also obtained. The proposed facility will provide services for their truck center with office, service bays, photo room, parts sales and storage, car-wash and detail bay. Site Information Location: This property is located directly west of the existing Mac Haik dealership, on the east side of Kelley Drive. (See Exhibit 1) Physical Characteristics: The property is relatively flat and treeless adjacent to two large undeveloped areas. One is the Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # G Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 2 of 4 AG to C-3 future expansion of Celebration Church and the other is currently a residence. Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include automotive uses, a church and residence with large undeveloped areas. (See Exhibit 4) Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North ETJ Employment Center Undeveloped land South ETJ Employment Center Undeveloped land East ETJ Employment Center Celebration Church and one large acreage residence West C-3, General Commercial Employment Center and Community Commercial Multiple automotive dealerships (See Exhibits 2 and 3) Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # G Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 3 of 4 AG to C-3 Property History The subject property is currently in the annexation process that will be completed prior to consideration of the proposed rezoning by the City Council. A Special Use Permit is being considered simultaneously with the rezoning, by separate agenda item. A Final Plat is currently processing administratively by separate application. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Employment Center, which is intended for tracts of undeveloped land located at strategic locations, which are designated for larger scale employment. The overall area incorporates multiple automotive dealerships creating a larger scale employment and business activity center. 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. Proposed Zoning District The General Commercial District (C-3) is intended to provide a location for general commercial and retail activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the area along IH-35 that includes multiple automobile dealerships. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Transportation The access to this project is provided by Westinghouse Road to Kelley Drive or from IH-35 frontage road by way of Gateway Drive to Kelley Drive. (See Exhibit 1) Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: · Special Use Permit to be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; · Final Plat to be processed administratively; · Site Plan to be processed administratively; and · Building permits for construction. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # G Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 4 of 4 AG to C-3 Staff Analysis Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The Future Land Use designation of Employment Center supports the proposed increase to the development of a central automotive center use. 2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area is primarily C-3 with Special Use Permits for the automotive use. 3. The surrounding developed uses, include multiple automotive dealerships, a church campus and a residence, both with large undeveloped land. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 5 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on May 19, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2013) Meetings Schedule June 4, 2013 – Planning and Zoning Commission June 25, 2013 – City Council First Reading July 9, 2013 – City Council Second Reading Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # G CI TY O FGEORGETOW N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J N I H 3 5 F W Y S I H 3 5 F W Y W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 FR S I H 3 5 N B S IH 3 5 F W Y N B EXIT 257 SB K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259 NB S IH 3 5 FW Y S B H E W L E T T L O O P REZ-2 013-003 REZ -20 13-00 3Exhibit #1 Coor dina te System: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Z o ne/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anning Pur po ses O nl y 0 460 920Feet ¯ Leg endSiteParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ³§¨¦35 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 Site ³City L imits St ree t Sit e Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G CI TY O FGEORGETOW N C IT Y OF GE O R GE T OW N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S I H 3 5 N B N I H 3 5 F W Y S I H 3 5 F W Y N I H 3 5 F R S IH 3 5 F W Y N B S IH 35 FR H E W L E T T L O O P K E L L E Y D R S IH 35 SB EXIT 257 SB EXIT 259 NB S IH 3 5 F W Y S B REZ-2 013-003 0 400 800 Fe et Coor dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur po ses O nly ¯ Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Fu ture L and U se / Ove rall Tran spor ta ti on P lan Exhibit #2REZ-20 13-00 3 Le ge nd Thoroughfa re EC EF EM A EM IA ER F PC PF PF R PM IA Future La nd Use Institutional Regional Comm ercial Community Comm ercial Empl oy ment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use C omm unity Mixed Use N eighborhood Center Moderate D ensity Resi dential Open Spac e Specialty Mix ed Use Area Ag / R ural Residential PM A PR W e s ti n g h o u s e R d§¨¦35 Site ³ City Limits St reet Sit e Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G CITYOF GEORGETOWN C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N Georgetown ETJ RE Z-2013-003 W E S T I N G H O U S E R D K E L L E Y D R N I H 3 5 F W Y S IH 3 5 F W Y S IH 35 FR H E W L E T T L O O P EXIT 257 SB EXIT 259 NB S I H 3 5 N B S IH 3 5 F W Y N B S IH 3 5 F W Y S B 0 500 1,000 Fe et Coor dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur po ses O nly ¯ Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJREZ-20 13-00 3Zoning Informa ti on Exhibit #3 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35³City Limits Street Sit e Si te Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G REZ-2 01 3-0 03 S I H 3 5 N B S IH 3 5 S B S IH 3 5 F W Y N B N I H 3 5 F W Y S IH 3 5 F W Y S IH 35 FR W E S T I N G H O U S E R D K E L L E Y D R S IH 3 5 F W Y S B H E W L E T T L O O P EXIT 257 SB EXIT 259 NB Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Coo r dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US FeetCartographic D ata Fo r Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur poses O nly ¯ 0 500 1,000 Fee t Exhibit #4REZ-20 13-003 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 Site ³ City L imits St reet Sit e Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / June 4, 2013 Page 1 of 2 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Commission and will be available at the Planning & Development Office, located at 300 Industrial Avenue. You may also visit the City of Georgetown web site at www.georgetown.org and review the staff report on the proposed application no later than the Saturday prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting described above. Commissioners: Roland Peña, Chair; Porter Cochran, John Horne, Robert Massad, Scott Rankin, and Bob Brent Commissioners in Training: Kevin Vietti If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the City in advance. Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Automotive from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive. REZ-2013-003 (Carla Benton) Staff presented the application and a Public Hearing was opened. No speakers were present and the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Brent and Second by Cochran. Recommend approval by vote of 6-0. 3. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Automotive to allow an automotive use in a C-3 Zoning District, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive. SUP-2013-002 (Carla Benton) Staff presented the application and a Public Hearing was opened. No speakers were present and the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Horne and Second by Massad. Recommend approval by vote of 6-0. 4. Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings. (Commissioner Rankin) 5. Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda. 6. Reminder of the June 18, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 7. Meeting adjourn. Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G Ordinance Template 2012 Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 1 of 2 Date Approved: July 9, 2013 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 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey from the Agriculture District (AG) to the General Commercial District (C-3) to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 4.503 acres of the John Powell Survey(s) as recorded in Document Number 2002001129 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 4, 2013, 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 25, 2013, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Agriculture District (AG) to the General Commercial Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # G Ordinance Template 2012 Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: Mac Haik Ford Truck Rezoning Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: July 9, 2013 Exhibits A & B Attached District (C-3), 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 conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of adoption by the City Council. APPROVED on First Reading on the 25th day of June, 2013. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 9th day of July, 2013. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # G CI TY O FGEORGETOW N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J N I H 3 5 F W Y S I H 3 5 F W Y W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 FR S I H 3 5 N B S IH 3 5 F W Y N B EXIT 257 SB K E L L E Y D R EXIT 259 NB S IH 3 5 FW Y S B H E W L E T T L O O P REZ-2 013-003 REZ -20 13-00 3Exhibit #1 Coor dina te System: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Z o ne/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anning Pur po ses O nl y 0 460 920Feet ¯ Leg endSiteParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ³§¨¦35 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 Site ³City L imits St ree t Sit e Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # G At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 1 o f 3 It e m # G At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 2 o f 3 It e m # G At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 3 o f 3 It e m # G City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck, to allow an automotive use in a C-3 Zoning District, located in the 7200 block of Kelley Drive --Carla Benton Planner and Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director(action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background:The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey for the expansion of the Mac Haik Ford dealership. The proposed facility will provide services for their truck center with office, service bays, photo room, parts sales and storage, car-wash and detail bay. Public Comments:At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 4, 2013 a Public Hearing was held with no speakers. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:The Public Hearing was opened at the June 4, 2013 Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 6-0. Special Considerations:None. Recommended Motion:Approval of the request for a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck, subject to the approval of the proposed rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Carla Benton ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Map P&Z Minutes Ordinance Ord Exhibit A Ord Exhibit B Cover Memo Item # H Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck - Special Use Permit Page 1 of 3 Report Date: May 21, 2013 File No: SUP-2013-002 Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner Item Details Project Name: Mac Haik Ford Truck Location: 7200 Block of Kelley Drive (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 4.503 acres Legal Description: 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey Applicant: Larry Neal, Larry Neal Architects Property Owner: W.O. Kelley Foundation Contact: Larry Neal, Larry Neal Architects Existing Use: Undeveloped land Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG) District Proposed Zoning: General Commercial, C-3 with a Special Use Permit Future Land Use: Employment Center Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey for the expansion of the Mac Haik Ford dealership. The proposed facility will provide services for their truck center with office, service bays, photo room, parts sales and storage, car-wash and detail bay. Per Table 5.04.010 of the UDC, an “Automotive Sales and Services” Use Category for Sales, Rental or Leasing, is allowed in the C-3 zoning district, subject to approval of a Special Use Permit by the City Council. Site Information Location: This property is undeveloped land, located directly west of the existing dealership, on the east side of Kelley Drive. (See Exhibit 1) Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # H Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck - Special Use Permit Page 2 of 3 Property History The subject property is currently in the annexation process that will be completed prior to consideration of the proposed rezoning by the City Council that is being considered simultaneously with this Special Use Permit request. A Final Plat is currently processing administratively, by separate application. Utilities Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure. Future Application(s) The following applications will be required to be submitted: · Rezoning is being considered by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; · Final Plat to be processed administratively; · Site Plan to be processedadministratively; and · Building permits for construction. Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: This application is being brought forward for a proposed location of Mac Haik Ford Truck Center. This facility will expand the existing dealership on the west side of Kelley Drive and provide services for automotive dealership offices, service bays, photo room, parts sales and storage, car-wash and detail bay. The requirement for a Special Use Permit is to determine appropriate locations for the automotive industry to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and entries into the community. The proposed use is consistent with automotive uses in this area providing for the centralization of major automotive sales. Through the above analysis, staff is supportive of the request and recommends approval based on the request fully meeting the applicable criteria (below) listed in Section 3.07.030(C.): C. In addition to the criteria for zoning changes in Section 3.06.020, the City Council may approve an application for a Special Use Permit where it reasonably determines that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the general public. The City Council may consider the following criteria in its review: 1. The proposed use is not detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # H Planning Department Staff Report Mac Haik Ford Truck - Special Use Permit Page 3 of 3 surrounding neighborhood or its occupants. 3. The proposed use does not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the City through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to adequately provide services. 4. The proposed use does not negatively impact existing uses in the area and in the City through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard, or other injurious or noxious impact. Staff is supportive of the proposed request for a Special Use Permit for all of the reasons stated. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 5 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on May 19, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received. Special Considerations Approval of the Special Use Permit is subject to the approval of the request for rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to General Commercial (C-3) District being processed by separate application. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2013) Meetings Schedule June 4, 2013 – Planning and Zoning Commission June 25, 2013 – City Council First Reading July 9, 2013 – City Council Second Reading Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # H C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 FWY SB K E L L E Y D R GAT EWAY D R S IH 3 5 F W Y S B EXIT 259 N B S I H 3 5 F W Y NB SUP-2013-002 SUP -2013-002Exhibit #1 Coor dina te System: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Z o ne/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anning Pur po ses O nl y 0 500 1,000Fee t ¯ Leg endSiteParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ³§¨¦35 U n i v e r s it y B l v d W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 Site ³City L imits St ree t Sit e Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CI TY O F GEO RGETOW N CITY OF GEORGETOWN C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 SB GATEWAY D R K E L L E Y D R EXIT 257 SB S IH 35 FWY S B EXIT 259 NB S IH 3 5 F W Y NB 0 500 1,000 Fe et Coor dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur po ses O nly ¯ Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Fu ture L and U se / Ove rall Tran spor ta ti on P lan Exhibit #2SUP-2 013-00 2 Le ge nd Thoroughfa re EC EF EM A EM IA ER F PC PF PF R PM IA Future La nd Use Institutional Regional Comm ercial Community Comm ercial Empl oy ment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use C omm unity Mixed Use N eighborhood Center Moderate D ensity Resi dential Open Spac e Specialty Mix ed Use Area Ag / R ural Residential PM A PR W e s ti n g h o u s e R d§¨¦35 Site ³ City Limits St reet Sit e SUP-2013-002 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CIT Y O F G EOR G E TO WN CITY OF GEORGETOWN CITY OFGEORGETOWN C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N W E S T I N G H O U S E R D GAT EWAY DR K E L L E Y D REXIT 257 SB EXIT 259 NB S I H 3 5 N B S IH 3 5 F W Y S B S IH 3 5 SB S IH 3 5 F W Y N B 0 500 1,000 Fe et Coor dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur po ses O nly ¯ Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ SUP -2 013-00 2Zoning Informa ti on Exhibit #3 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D §¨¦35³City Limits Street Sit e Site SUP-2013-002 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H S I H 3 5 F W Y S IH 3 5 FW Y N B S IH 35 FR S I H 3 5 N B W E S T I N G H O U S E R D K E L L E Y D R H E W L E T T L O O P EXIT 259 NB Leg end SiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Coo r dina te Sys tem: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Zone/N AD 8 3/US FeetCartographic D ata Fo r Gen eral Pl anni ng Pur poses O nly ¯ 0 440 880 Fee t Exhibit #4SUP-2 013-00 2 W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D Site ³ City Limits Street Sit e SUP -2 01 3-0 02 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / June 4, 2013 Page 1 of 1 City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM Council Chambers 101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Commission and will be available at the Planning & Development Office, located at 300 Industrial Avenue. You may also visit the City of Georgetown web site at www.georgetown.org and review the staff report on the proposed application no later than the Saturday prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting described above. Commissioners: Roland Peña, Chair; Porter Cochran, John Horne, Robert Massad, Scott Rankin, and Bob Brent Commissioners in Training: Kevin Vietti If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the City in advance. Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m. 2. Public Hearing and possible action on a Rezoning of 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Automotive from AG, Agriculture to C-3, General Commercial, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive. REZ-2013-003 (Carla Benton) Staff presented the application and a Public Hearing was opened. No speakers were present and the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Brent and Second by Cochran. Recommend approval by vote of 6-0. 3. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Automotive to allow an automotive use in a C-3 Zoning District, located in the 7200 Block of Kelley Drive. SUP-2013-002 (Carla Benton) Staff presented the application and a Public Hearing was opened. No speakers were present and the Public Hearing was closed. Motion by Horne and Second by Massad. Recommend approval by vote of 6-0. 4. Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings. (Commissioner Rankin) 5. Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters considered on this agenda. 6. Reminder of the June 18, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 7. Meeting adjourn. Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: Mac Haik Ford Truck Special Use Permit Page 1 of 2 Date Approved: July 9, 2013 Exhibits A & B Attached ORDINANCE NO. _______ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, granting a Special Use Permit to allow Automotive Sales and Service in the General Commercial District (C-3) for 4.503 acres in the John Powell Survey, to be known as Mac Haik Ford Truck; 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 allowing a special use on the following described real property ("The Property"): 4.503 acres of the John Powell Survey(s) as recorded in Document Number 2002001129 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed special use request allow Automotive Sales and Service in the General Commercial District (C-3) to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 4, 2013, 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 25, 2013, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Section 2. The Zoning District classification(s) for the Property shall remain General Commercial District (C-3), and the Ordinance allowing for the special use of an automotive Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # H Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: Mac Haik Ford Truck Special Use Permit Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: July 9, 2013 Exhibits A & B Attached sales and service facility on the property is hereby adopted 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 conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of adoption by the City Council. APPROVED on First Reading on the 25th day of June, 2013. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 9th day of July, 2013. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # H C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N G e o r g e t o w n E T J G e o r g e t o w n E T J W E S T I N G H O U S E R D S IH 35 FWY SB K E L L E Y D R GAT EWAY D R S IH 3 5 F W Y S B EXIT 259 N B S I H 3 5 F W Y NB SUP-2013-002 SUP -2013-002Exhibit #1 Coor dina te System: Texa s State P lan e/C entral Z o ne/N AD 8 3/US F eetCartographic D ata For Gen eral Pl anning Pur po ses O nl y 0 500 1,000Fee t ¯ Leg endSiteParce lsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ ³§¨¦35 U n i v e r s it y B l v d W e s ti n g h o u s e R d §¨¦35 Site ³City L imits St ree t Sit e Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 1 o f 3 It e m # H At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 2 o f 3 It e m # H At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 9 \ n P a g e 3 o f 3 It e m # H City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning of 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4700 Williams Drive, between Wildwood and Woodlake Drives, from 9.04 acres of the Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The Applicant has requested to rezone the property from 9.04 acres of Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District. This request technically qualifies as a downzoning, whereby a more intense district (C-1) is proposed to be reduced, and a less intense district (OF) expanded. The existing zoning districts are fully compatible with the existing future land use designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, and this change in quantities of the districts maintains that compatibility. City Council meeting of June 11, 2013: This application had a first reading of the Ordinance at the City Council meeting on June 11, 2013. A public hearing was held and closed, with no speakers. Staff made a presentation, there was a brief discussion, and the Council voted 7-0 to approve the request. Public Comment: To date, there have been no comments submitted on the application. Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing: On May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning request; there were no speakers. The Commission then voted 6-0 to recommend approval to the City Council of the rezoning request. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning for 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4700 Williams Drive, between Wildwood and Woodlake Drives, from 9.04 acres of the Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the required fees. SUBMITTED BY: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Exhibit 1 - Location map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use/Transportation Exhibit 3 - Zoning Exhibit 4 - Aerial Exhibit 5 - Proposed Zoning Districts Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map Ordinance Exhibit B - Legal Description Ordinance Cover Memo Item # I Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 1 of 6 Report Date: May 15, 2013 File No: REZ-2012-015 Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Item Details Project Name: ADC Williams Location: Land generally located on Williams Drive near the intersection of Wildwood Drive (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 34.174 Legal Description: 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, Abstract AW0232 Applicants: Paul Linehan Property Owner: Andice Development Company Contact: Paul Linehan, Land Strategies, Inc. / 512-328-6050 Existing Use: Vacant Existing Zoning: Office (OF), 9.04 ac. / Local Commercial (C-1), 25.13 ac. (See Exhibit 3) Proposed Zoning: Office (OF), 14.97 ac. / Local Commercial (C-1), 19.20 ac. Existing Future Land Use: Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC) Growth Tier: Tier 1A (Developed/Redeveloping Growth Area) Overview of Applicant’s Request The Applicant has requested to rezone the property from 9.04 acres of OF (Office) and 25.13 acres of C-1 (Local Commercial) to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District; see Exhibit 5. This request technically qualifies as a downzoning, whereby a more intense district (C-1) is proposed to be reduced, and a less intense district (OF) expanded. The existing zoning districts are fully compatible with the existing future land use designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, and this change in quantities of the districts maintains that compatibility. Site Information Location: The property is located on the south side of Williams Drive, between Wildwood Drive and Woodlake Drive, approximately one-quarter mile west of the Shell/DB Woods intersection with Williams Drive. It resides in front of the neighborhood known as Terraces of Woodlake (subdivided as Woodlake, Phases 3 and 4), which contains approximately 160 homes. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # I Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 2 of 6 Physical Characteristics: The property has 2,000’ of frontage on Williams Drive, and is generally a rectangular shape and quite flat. There is a stand of trees on the southern end that runs the length of the property, and several dumping mounds of rock and other refuse in the center. Nearest Williams Drive, and at the corners with the two side streets, the land is cleared. See Graphic (1) below, and Exhibit 4. Graphic (1) – 34 acre ADC Williams Tract Surrounding Properties: Most significantly, to the south/west of the property is the Terraces of Woodlake subdivision of approximately 160 homes. To the east, across Wildwood Drive, is a commercial center consisting of two lease space buildings and a Bank of America branch. West, across Woodlake Drive, are several vacant subdivided lots and a commercial day care, with Ford Elementary School southwest of that. Across Williams Drive, to the north, is largelyl vacant land, with the only development being a small commercial subdivision and an office park subdivision behind it. All the properties surrounding this are in the City, but not all the development on the ground was developed while in the City. See the chart below, Graphic (1) above, and Exhibit 4 – Aerial map. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # I Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 3 of 6 Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North Local Commercial (C-1) and Agriculture (AG), across Williams Drive Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Vacant/ Commercial/ Office South Residential Single-Family Moderate Density Residential Residential East Local Commercial (C-1) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Commercial West Local Commercial (C-1) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Vacant Property History The property was annexed into the City as two parts – the portion nearest Williams Drive in 1995, and the portion adjacent the residential neighborhood in 2001. The zoning of the property was also done in two parts. • Ordinance 2001-78 rezoned a 7.431 ac portion – that is the area of this property nearest the Terraces of Woodlake neighborhood (see Exhibit 3) - from Agriculture (AG) to a district known as Office and Service Uses (aka RM-3). With the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2003, RM-3 became the Office (OF) District. • In 2002 (per Ordinance 2002-4), the remainder of this subject property was rezoned from Agriculture (AG) to Local Commercial (C-1). Note: with the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2003, the district name of C-1 remained as C-1. Beyond these rezonings, there were no records found of any land use applications being approved for this property, which appears to have never been developed. Utilities All areas of the City and ETJ are placed within a Growth Tier policy category that identifies where to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth over a period of the next two decades or more. These Tiers dictate where the delivery of municipal services may be focused, and thus, where growth is desired to occur. This property is Tier 1A, described as: Tier 1A designates areas within the current city limits where some infrastructure systems are in place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where consolidation of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The applicant submitted a Utility Evaluation application to the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) regarding water and wastewater service availability, with the basis of future development being a hospital, medical office, gas station, and retail space. In a letter dated October 1, 2012 from GUS, the results were: Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # I Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 4 of 6 • The property is within the City’s certified water service area, and within the existing service area for the City’s wastewater utility. • The City could serve the development with both water and wastewater. • Wastewater – the model analysis indicates that the increased flow [resulting from the proposed development] will not exceed the existing system’s capacity. • All final details and guarantees of capacity would be determined during the Final Plat approval processes, with capacity reservation occurring upon Impact Fee payment. Transportation The property has approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage along Williams Drive, and over 600’ along Woodlake Drive and over 700’ along Wildwood Drive. The recent widening (4 lane plus turn lanes) of Williams Drive has vastly increased the capacity of this road. Both of the side streets – Woodlake and Wildwood – have signalized intersections at Williams Drive, and it would be unlikely that another signalized intersection would be created from any development on this property to Williams Drive. Side access to these roads, and then to Williams Drive, is the likely primary means of access, though there will likely be driveways onto Williams Drives. All those details will be discussed and decided during the platting and/or Site Planning phases. Another point of access to this property appears to be at Cedar Lake Boulevard, which stubs into this property from the residential neighborhood to the south. This boulevard bisects that neighborhood, and stubs at the other end to a currently undeveloped 63-acre parcel that is bounded by U.S. Army Corps of Engineer property (ie, Lake Georgetown). The City’s Overall Transportation Plan designates Williams Drive as a major arterial, and the loop road of Wildwood and Woodlake, from their intersections with Williams Drive, as an existing collector. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, but may be required at some point with future applications. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Currently, the subject property is designated with the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC) future land use category; see Exhibit 2. The change in quantities is consistent with this category, and the lesser of the two districts (Office) is still adjacent the residential neighborhood and between that neighborhood and the Local Commercial District, which fronts the entirety of Williams Drive. Zoning Districts Currently, the property is zoned Office (OF) on approximately 9.04 acres and Local Commercial (C-1) on 25.13 acres. The Applicant seeks to expand the OF District to 14.97 acres, and reduce the C-1 District to 19.20 acres. The two zoning districts under discussion are described below, per the Unified Development Code (UDC): Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # I Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 5 of 6 The Office District, OF, is intended to provide a location for offices and related uses. The uses allowed have relatively low traffic generation. Small areas of the OF District may be appropriate adjacent to most residential uses and as a transition between residential areas and commercial areas. The Local Commercial District, C-1, 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 areas, but are not appropriate along residential streets or residential collectors. The District is more appropriate along major and minor thoroughfares and corridors. Future Application(s) If the applicant, or other future property owner, should seek to develop the property, the following applications would at a minimum be required: • Subdivision Plat and public infrastructure Construction Plans; • Site and Construction plans for on-site buildings and infrastructure; • Building permits for construction, and; • Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff reviewed and analyzed this application from the following points-of-view in order to get to a position of approval for the application: Future Land Use Category The change in quantities of the existing zoning districts maintains the current compatibility of the OF and C-1 districts with the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC) category. Utilities The City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans are based on the anticipated land uses and land use densities planned for in the Future Land Use and Growth Tier Plans. The change in quantities of the existing zoning districts would not create any new burden on the existing utility infrastructure in place or planned to serve the property. A prior Utility Evaluation was submitted by the applicant with the previous iteration of this rezoning request, when a portion of the property was seeking to be rezoned to the more intense General Commercial (C-3) District. The result of that evaluation is that that greater intensity of possible development (that could be expected with uses allowed by the addition of General Commercial zoning) could be served by the utilities in existence today. Findings for Approval The proposed rezoning – expanding the OF District, reducing the C-1 District – is supported by Staff for the following reasons: Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # I Planning Department Staff Report ADC Williams Rezoning Page 6 of 6 1. Downzoning – The request reduces the amount of the more intense district (C-1) and expands the size of the lesser intense district (OF). 2. Existing Zoning – The existing zoning of Office and Local Commercial, in both the current and proposed amounts, is consistent with other properties near or fronting on Williams Drive. 3. 2030 Comprehensive Plan – The existing zoning of Office and Local Commercial fulfills the MUNC category, and is in keeping with the overall direction of the Comprehensive Plan The MUNC designation is the appropriate land use category for location along a Major Arterial and being immediately adjacent an established residential neighbhorhood that is served by public and civic facilities (schools, daycare) and multiple retail/commercial outlets within a walkable ¼-mile area. Though done in the past, the City no longer considers or approves “conditional” rezonings of properties, and therefore, cannot rezone the property for any specific use(s), or concept plan, presented by an Applicant, unless done as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning. Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the subject districts when evaluating a rezoning request as well as all site development possibilities. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments A total of 66 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. Public notice was posted in the Williamson County Sun newspaper on May 5, 2013. At the time of publication of this staff report, no comments had been submitted to staff. The prior iteration of this rezoning request – which included a portion of General Commercial, C-3, District – received several comments in opposition when it was brought to public hearing. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map Exhibit 5 – Applicant’s Proposed Zoning District Survey Meetings Schedule May 21, 2013 – Planning and Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 – City Council First Reading (pending) June 25, 2013 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # I M O RELANDDR C E D A RLAKEBLVD WILDWOOD DR W O O D S T O C K D R WOODLAKEDR SU N D AY SC H O OL D R VERDE VISTA BIGBEND TRL LE A N N E D R WIN D H O LL O W D R WILLIA M S DR CLIFFWOODDR 0 560 1,120 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2012-015 REZ-2012-015 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I M O RELANDDR C E D A RLAKEBLVD WILDWOOD DR W O O D S T O C K D R WOODLAKEDR SU N D AY SC H O OL D R VERDE VISTA BIGBEND TRL LE A N N E D R WIN D H O LL O W D R WILLIA M S DR CLIFFWOODDR 0 530 1,060 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMA PMIA PR Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Ag / Rural Residential Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2012-015 REZ-2012-015 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I SU N DAY SC H O OL D R VERDE VISTA BIG BEND TRL M ORELAND DR LE A N N E D R WIN D H O LL O W D R WOODLAKE DR CEDAR LAKE BLVDCLIFFWOOD DR WOODSTOCK DR WILD W O O D DR WILLIA M S D R 0 530 1,060 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ REZ-2012-015 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Zoning Information Exhibit #3 REZ-2012-015 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I SU N DAY SC H O OL D R WILD W O O D D R VERDE VISTA BIG BEND TRL W O O D S T O C K D R M ORELAND DR LE A N N E D R W IL D W O O D D R WIN D H O LL O W D R WOODLAKE DR WILLIA M S D R WOODLAKE DR CEDAR LAKE BLVDCLIFFWOOD DR WILLIAMS DR WOODSTOCK DR WILDWOOD DR WILLIA M S D R 0 530 1,060Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2012-015 REZ-2012-015 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 6 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # I Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey Page 1 of 2 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 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from 9.04 acres of the Office (OF) District and 25.13 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property ("The Property"): 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, as recorded in Document Numbers 9636558 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and * Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on May 21, 2013, 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 11, 2013, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # I Ordinance Number: _____________ Description: 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: ____, __, ______ Exhibits A & B Attached Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for 34.174 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey is hereby amended from 9.04 acres of OF (Office) and 25.13 acres of C-1 (Local Commercial) to 14.97 acres of the Office (OF) District and 19.20 acres of the Local Commercial (C-1) District 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 conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect on the date of adoption by the City Council. APPROVED on First Reading on the 11th day of June, 2013. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 25th day of June, 2013. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman Acting City Attorney Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # I M O RELANDDR F O R T D A V I S S T C E D A R LAKEBLVD BIGBEND TRL W O O D S T O C K D R WOODLAKEDR WILDWOOD DR SUN D AY SCH O OL D R LE A N N E D R VERDE VISTA WIN D H O LL O W D R CLIFFWOODDR WILLIA M S DR 0 600 1,200Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ REZ-2012-015/CPA-2012-001 REZ-2012-015CPA-2012-001 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # I Attachment number 9 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # I City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance to approve formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2013/14 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This item is to review the proposed changes to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the upcoming budget and to gather feedback on various proposed changes. Proposed amendments include: Page 4 – Wording for Operating Budget section updated to reflect the City of Excellence vision and 5 focus areas. Page 9 – Adds the establishment of a Power Contract Credit Reserve to provide financial assurances to the City’s power supply contract providers. Page 18 – Amends the years an external auditor may be retained to 5 years, consistent with GGAF recommendations in January 2013 and GFOA best practices. Page 19 – Amends the Cash Management and Investments section to reflect changes to the Investment Policy adopted in January 2013 by adding Texas Municipal Obligations rated A or better to the authorized investments. Page 28 – Amends the Staffing policy to reflect changes approved by Council for the Compensation plan. In addition, references to fiscal year 2013/14 have been updated and designated amounts have been left blank. These amounts will be included once they have been determined and will be included in the final document that is included in the 2013/14 adopted budget. The Policy amendments were reviewed and recommended by GGAF at its May 29, 2013 meeting and a Power Point presentation provided at the June 11 Council workshop. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy changes CS Fiscal and Budgetary Policy changes Ordinance Fiscal and Budgetary Policy changes Attachment Cover Memo Item # J Council Meeting Date: June 25, 2013 or Council Workshop Date: Regular Agenda ⌧⌧⌧⌧ Consent Executive Session Attachments Ordinance Publication Date: June 5, 2013 Draft Ordinance to City Secretary: June 14, 2013 AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET SUBJECT: Second Reading. Consideration and possible action to approve an ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2013/14 annual budget and to guide financial operations. – Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY/SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is to review the proposed changes to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the upcoming budget and to gather feedback on various proposed changes. Proposed amendments include: · Page 4 – Wording for Operating Budget section updated to reflect the City of Excellence vision and 5 focus areas · Page 9 – Adds the establishment of a Power Contract Credit Reserve to provide financial assurances to the City’s power supply contract providers. · Page 18 – Amends the years an external auditor may be retained to 5 years, consistent with GGAF recommendations in January 2013 and GFOA best practices. · Page 19 – Amends the Cash Management and Investments section to reflect changes to the Investment Policy adopted in January 2013 by adding Texas Municipal Obligations rated A or better to the authorized investments. · Page 28 – Amends the Staffing policy to reflect changes approved by Council for the Compensation plan In addition, references to fiscal year 2013/14 have been updated and designated amounts have been left blank. These amounts will be included once they have been determined and will be included in the final document that is included in the 2013/14 adopted budget. The Policy amendments were reviewed and recommended by GGAF at its May 29, 2013 meeting and a Power Point presentation provided at the June 11 Council workshop. FINANCIAL IMPACT: COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance – with copy of Policy as Exhibit A Must be published 72 hours before meeting; deadline to WC Sun is 11:00 Monday Draft ordinance must be given to City Secretary one week before Council meeting Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J Ordinance Number:____________ Page 1 of 2 Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: ________________ ORDINANCE NUMBER _________________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TX FORMALY ADOPTING THE FISCAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council developed a Fiscal and Budgetary Policy and was adopted by City Council action in 2001; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy has been reviewed and adopted each year since 2001 by such Council action; and WHEREAS, this Policy is used to guide the City’s financial operations; and WHEREAS, the City’s Annual Budget is prepared in accordance with this policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved the amended Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for 2013/14; and WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed this Policy to be in effect: 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 complies with the Vision Statement of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. The City Council approves the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy as illustrated in Exhibit A. SECTION 3. In the event any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, provision sentence or part of this ordinance or the application of same to any person or circumstance shall for any reason be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance which shall be given full force and effect. SECTION 4: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # J Ordinance Number:____________ Page 2 of 2 Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: ________________ PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 11th day of June, 2013. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 25th day of June 2013. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle By: George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapmen, Acting City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # J City of Georgetown, Texas Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 30 Item # J 1 Table of Contents I. Purpose 2 II. Fund Structure and Basis of Budgeting 2-3 III. Fund Balance Policies 4 IV. Operating Budget 4-6 V. Revenue Management 7-9 VI. Expenditure Policies 10-13 VII. Budget Contingency Plan 13-14 VIII. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget 14-15 IX. Capital Maintenance and Replacement 16-17 X. Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting 18 XI. Asset Management 18-19 XII. Debt Management 20-23 XIII. Other Funding Alternatives 24 XIV. Financial Conditions & Reserves & Stability Ratios 24-27 XV. Internal Controls 27-28 XVI. Staffing 28 Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 30 Item # J 2 City of Georgetown Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Approved June 11, 2013 I. PURPOSE The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning, accountability, full disclosure and communication. The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to enable the City to achieve and maintain a long-term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day-to-day planning and operations of the City’s financial affairs. Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting and financial reporting, internal controls, both operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, investment and asset management, debt management and forecasting. This is done in order to: A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation; B. Provide precedents for future policy-makers and financial managers on common financial goals and strategies; C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and D. Demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local Government Code and other legal mandates. These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process. II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include: Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as well as, solid waste management. Special Revenue Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally restricted for specified purposes. The City currently budgets 17 SRF Funds and includes Tourism, Parkland Dedication, Library Donations, Animal Services Donations, and Street Maintenance Sales Tax. Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 30 Item # J 3 Debt Service Fund is used to account for the payment of general long-term debt principal and interest. Capital Project Funds are used to account for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by enterprise activities. Proprietary Funds: Internal Service Funds account for good or services provided by one internal department to another. The City uses this system to recognize cost for fleet replacement and maintenance, facility maintenance and computer replacement and maintenance. Enterprise Funds include the City’s “business like” activities including all the utility funds and the airport. Basis of Accounting and Basis of Budgeting The City’s accounts and budgets for all Governmental Funds using the modified accrual basis of accounting. This basis means that revenue is recognized in the accounting period in which it becomes available and measurable, while expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred. Because the appropriated budget is used as the basis for control and comparison of budgeted and actual amounts, the basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting. Exceptions to the modified accrual basis of accounting include: · Encumbrances, which are treated as expenditures in the year they are encumbered, not when expended. · Grants, which are considered revenue when awarded, not received. · Principal and interest on long-term debt, which are recognized when paid. General government funds include the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service fund and general capital project funds. Proprietary Funds, which include the enterprise and internal service funds are accounted and budgeted using the full-accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when they are earned and measurable, while expenses are recognized when they are incurred regardless of timing or related cash flows. The basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting except for principal payments on long-term debt and capital outlay which are treated as budgeted expenses. Exceptions include: · Depreciation which is not budgeted · Non-budgeted accruals such as compensated absences Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 30 Item # J 4 III. FUND BALANCE POLICIES The City’s Fund Balance is the accumulated difference between assets and liabilities within governmental funds, and it allows the City to meet its contractual obligations, fund disaster or emergency costs, provide cash flow for timing purposes and fund non-recurring expenses appropriated by City Council. This policy establishes limitations on the purposes for which Fund Balances can be used in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 54. The City’s Fund Balance will report up to five components: A. Non-spendable Fund Balance – includes inherently non-spendable assets that will never convert to cash, as well as, assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current financial period. Assets included in this category are prepaid items, inventory and non-financial assets held for resale. B. Restricted Fund Balance – represents the portion of fund balance that is subject to legal restrictions, such as grants or hotel/motel tax and bond proceeds. C. Committed Fund Balance – describes the portion of fund balance that is constrained by limitations that the City Council has imposed upon itself, and remains binding unless the City Council removes the limitation. D. Assigned Fund Balance – is that portion of fund balance that reflects the City’s intended use of the resource and is established in a less formal method by the City for that designated purpose. E. Unassigned Fund Balance – represents funds that cannot be property classified in one of the other four categories. IV. OPERATING BUDGET Budgeting is an essential element of the financial planning, control and evaluation process of municipal government. The “operating budget” is the City’s annual financial operating plan. The annual budget includes all of the operating departments of the general fund, proprietary funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds, and capital improvement funds of the City. A. Comprehensive Plan – The 2030 Plan is written from a perspective of some twenty years into the future. It expresses what we envision and desire our community to be in the year 2030, and it reflects on all that we have accomplished since we launched the revision of our Comprehensive Plan in 2006. The Plan utilizes a Vision Statement to guide the desired outcomes for the community. B. Council Vision – The Council has further defined the City’s Comprehensive Plan by defining its vision to become the City of Excellence. This vision is to be accomplished through five (5) focus areas. These focus areas become the City’s strategic goals through development and implementation of defined Business Plans for each focus area. 1. Economic Development 2. Signature Destination 3. Public Safety 4. Transportation 5. Utility Services Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 30 Item # J 5 C. Five-Year City of Excellence Business Plan – A “dashboard” plan will be developed that links the 2030 Plan with the City Council’s City of Excellence vision and five focus areas (strategic goals) that further the implementation of the Vision. From those strategic goals an implementation plan for each of the 5 focus areas will be created. 1. A Five-Year Financial Forecast will be created and updated annually that will identify potential tax impacts, rate adjustments and other factors that will impede the implementation of the City of Excellence Business Plan. 2. Year-One of this Business Plan is the basis for the Annual Budget. D. Preparation – The Charter (Section 6.02) requires “a proposed budget prepared by the City Manager and submitted to the City Council at least thirty days prior to the end of the fiscal year. The budget shall be adopted not later than the twenty-seventh day of the last month of the fiscal year. No budget will be adopted or appropriations made unless the total estimated revenues, income and funds available shall be equal to or in excess of such budget or appropriations, except otherwise provided”. Therefore, the budget will be presented to the City Council no later than the 1st day of August to provide the City Council time to adopt the budget in the required time frame. 1. Proposed Budget – A proposed budget shall be prepared by the City Manager with participation of all of the City’s Division Directors within the provision of the Charter and the 2030 Plan and the City of Excellence Vision. a. The budget shall include four basic segments for review and evaluation: · Revenues · Personnel Costs · Operations and Maintenance · Capital and other non-project costs b. The budget review process will include City Council participation in the development of each segment and allow for citizen participation in the process, and will allow for sufficient time to address policy and fiscal issues by the City Council. c. A copy of the proposed budget will be filed with the City Secretary when it is submitted to the City Council. A copy will also be available at the Georgetown Public Library for citizen review. 2. Adoption – Upon finalization of the budget appropriations, the City Council will hold a public hearing, and subsequently adopt by Ordinance the final budget as amended. The budget will be effective for the fiscal year beginning October 1st. The Annual Budget document will be submitted annually to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 30 Item # J 6 E. Balanced Budget – The goal of the City is to adopt and maintain a balanced operating budget using sustainable funding sources that are expected to continue to be available in subsequent fiscal years. Excess balances in operating funds from previous fiscal years shall remain in the fund in which they were appropriated until either such excess balances are proposed and adopted pursuant to Section B of the this policy; until they are used to reduce outstanding debt obligations of the City; or both. The Charter (Section 6.04) requires that an operating deficit created in any fiscal year shall be paid off and discharged during the following year. In practice, deficit has been interpreted to mean City funds as a whole. The City Council may choose from time to time to allow individual funds to have a negative balance as long as Operating Reserve requirements for the City as a whole are maintained. F. Planning – The budget process will be coordinated so that major policy issues are identified prior to the budget approval date. This will allow City Council adequate time for consideration of appropriate decisions and analysis of financial impacts. G. Reporting – Summary financial reports will be presented to the City Council quarterly. These reports will be in a format appropriate to enable the City Council to understand the overall budget and financial status. The City Manager will also present a mid-year updateto the City Council within 60 days following the end of the second fiscal quarter that updates the status of projects and related financial goals set forth in the budget. H. Control and Accountability – Each Division Director, appointed by the City Manager, will be responsible for the administration of his/her departmental budget. This includes accomplishing the Goals and Objectives adopted as part of the budget and monitoring each department budget for compliance with spending limitations. Division Directors may transfer funds up to $20,000 within the operations and maintenance or capital line items within a departmental budget category without additional approval. All transfers within the Personnel line items require approval of the Chief Financial Officer and City Manager. All other transfers of appropriation or budget amendments require either City Council or City Manager approval as outlined in Section IV.B. I. Budget Amendments – The Charter (Section 6.04) provides a method to amend for budget amendments and emergency appropriations. The City Council may authorize with a majority plus one vote, an emergency expenditure as an amendment to the original budget. This may be done in cases of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that was not known at the time the budget was adopted. In practice, this has been interpreted to include revenue-related expenses within the enterprise funds and timing differences on capital improvement projects. The following criteria will be used in evaluation of budget amendments: · Is the request necessary? · Why was the item not budgeted in the normal budget process? · Why can't a transfer be done within the Division to remedy the condition? The Chief Financial Officer must certify availability of revenues or funding sources prior to adoption. Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 30 Item # J 7 The City will amend the budget at year end, if needed, for revenue based expenditures that exceeded budgeted amounts due to increased revenue and recognize any grant funded expenditures for grants received after the budget was adopted or last amended. The City will also amend the budget if necessary as part of the Mid-Year Review process for any capital project timing adjustments from prior year, as well as, any other known adjustments needed and approved at that time. J. Contingency Appropriations – The budget may include contingency appropriations within designated operating department budgets. These funds are used to offset expenditures for unexpected maintenance or other unanticipated expenses that might occur during the year. Currently, the City maintains contingency appropriations for insurance deductibles, unexpected legal expenses and equipment repairs. K. Council Discretionary Account – The budget may contain appropriated funds to be used at the discretion of the City Council. Actual expenditure of these funds is specifically approved by the City Council on an item by item basis. The Council Discretionary Account for 2013/14 is $10,000 included in the General Fund. V. REVENUE MANAGEMENT A. Characteristics – The City will strive for the following optimum characteristics in its revenue system: 1. Simplicity – The City, where possible and without sacrificing accuracy, will strive to keep the revenue system simple in order to reduce compliance costs for the taxpayer or service recipient. 2. Certainty – A knowledge and understanding of revenue sources increases the reliability of the revenue system. The City will understand its revenue sources and enact consistent collection policies to provide assurances that the revenue base will materialize according to budget. 3. Equity – The City shall make every effort to maintain equity in its revenue system; i.e., the City should seek to minimize or eliminate all forms of subsidization between entities, funds, services, utilities, and customer classes, and ensure an on-going return on investment for the City. a. The City will make every effort to recognize the benefit that City tax payers contribute to City programs and services. b. The annual Parks and Recreation residential membership rates are established at 75% of non-residential rates plus or minus 10% at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director in keeping with the targeted market cost recovery. 4. Revenue Adequacy – The City should require there be a balance in the revenue system; i.e., the revenue base will have the characteristics of fairness and neutrality as it applies to cost of service, willingness to pay, and ability to pay. Overall Operational Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation for the Recreation and Tennis Centers is targeted to be between 50 – 60%, with some variance in individual programs. Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 30 Item # J 8 5. Realistic and Conservative Estimates - Revenues will be estimated realistically, and conservatively, taking into account the volatile nature of various revenue streams. 6. Administration – The benefits of a revenue source should exceed the cost of levying and collecting that revenue. 7. Diversification and Stability – A diversified revenue system with a stable source of income shall be maintained. This will help avoid instabilities in two particular revenue sources due to factors such as fluctuations in the economy and variations in the weather. B. Other Considerations – The following considerations and issues will guide the City in its revenue policies concerning specific sources of funds: 1. Cost/Benefit of Incentives for Economic Development – The City will use due caution in the analysis of any incentives that are used to encourage development. A cost/benefit (fiscal impact) analysis will be performed as part of the evaluation. 2. Non-Recurring Revenues – One-time or non-recurring revenues should not be used to finance current ongoing operations. 3. Sustainable Revenues – “Sustainable" means revenue that is consistently available year after year. 4. Property Tax Revenues – All real and business personal property located within the City will be valued at 100% of the fair market value for any given year based on the current appraisal supplied by the Williamson County Appraisal District. Conservative budgeted revenue estimates result in a projected ninety-eight percent (98%) budgeted collection rate for current ad valorem taxes. Two percent (2%) of the current ad valorem taxes will be projected as the budget for delinquent ad valorem tax collection. For budgeting purposes, the City will forecast the proposed property tax rate using the effective maintenance & operations (M&O) rate plus the interest & sinking (I&S) rate needed to fund tax supported debt service. Increases to the M&O rate will be deliberated and determined by the City Council. Proposed tax revenue will be budgeted at a 98% collection rate. 5. Interest Income – Interest earned from investments will be distributed to the funds in accordance with the equity balance of the fund from which the monies were provided to be invested. 6. User-Based Fees and Service Charges – For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct or indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible. The City will review fees and charges no less than once every two years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage for the cost of services. The City Council will determine how much of the cost of a service should be recovered by fees and charges. Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 30 Item # J 9 7. Enterprise Fund Rates – The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to generate revenues required to fully cover operating expenses, meet the legal requirements of all applicable bond covenants, and provide for an adequate level of working capital. Utility rates will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. A rate study will be conducted every 3 years to review rate methodology and ensure revenues will meet future needs. A restricted Power Contract Credit Reserve has been established to provide financial assurances to the City’s wholesale power contract providers as fiscal surety against any potential risk on the City’s behalf and will be maintained as “restricted” fund balance on the City’s financial statements. A Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Account has been established in the Electric Fund to offset and mitigate potential impacts to customer rates due to increased fuel costs or other external factors that may negatively impact Electric Rates. The Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) may provide funding for: · Deferring or minimizing the rate impact of future cost increases · Costs associated with providing additional power supply · Filling contractual obligations · Balancing of annual power costs RSR funds will be monitored monthly to ensure the electric rate is being managed per the Policy. Increases to RSR are made through the Power Cost Adjustment rate as determined by the fund, at the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager. Additionally, enterprise activity rates will include transfers to and receive credits from other funds as follows: a. General and Administrative Charges – Administrative costs should be charged to all funds for services of general overhead, such as administration, finance, customer billing, legal and other costs as appropriate. These charges will be determined through an indirect cost allocation following accepted practices and procedures and reviewed annually by the City’s external auditors. b. Payment for Return on Investment – The intent of this transfer is to provide a benefit to the citizens for the ownership of the various utility operations they own. For all utilities except for Electric: · In-Lieu-of-Franchise-Fee. This transfer, currently 3% of operating revenues generated inside the City, is consistent with the franchise rates charged to investor owned utilities franchised to operate within the City. · Return on Investment. The return on investment (ROI) transfer is currently calculated at 7% of operating revenues for all utilities except sanitation both inside and outside the City. Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 30 Item # J 10 The Franchise and Return on Investment for the Electric Utility is based on kWh sold. For customers inside the City, a $0.0102 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 3% and 7% paid by other utility customers, will be included in the cost per kWh. For customers outside the City, a $0.007253 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 7% ROI paid by utilities, will be included in the cost. 8. Intergovernmental Revenues – All potential grants will be examined for matching requirements and must be approved by the City Council prior to making application of the grant. It must be clearly understood that operational requirements (on-going costs) set up as a result of a grant program could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the program have been completed. 9. Revenue Monitoring – Revenues as they are received will be regularly compared to budgeted revenues and variances will be investigated, and any abnormalities will be included in the quarterly report to the City Council. VI. EXPENDITURE POLICIES A. Appropriations – The point of budget control is at the department level budget for all funds. The Charter (Section 6.03) provides that any transfer of appropriation between funds must be approved by the City Council and that the City Manager, without City Council approval, is authorized to transfer appropriations among departments, within the same operational division and fund. The City Manager may also authorize transfer of salary adjustment monies between funds that are budgeted in a citywide account. B. Personnel Costs – Costs related to salaries and benefits are budgeted at 100% total costs, assuming open positions are filled throughout the fiscal year. New positions that are added during the budget process may have staggered hire dates with appropriate costs reflected in the budget. 1. Vacancy Factor – General Fund appropriations will include a vacancy factor equal to 1% of total General Fund salaries and related benefits to offset salary savings within the budget. The vacancy factor will be budgeted as a negative expense within the General Government Department of the General Fund. For 2013/14 the Vacancy Factor equals_________. This factor will be reduced throughout the year as vacant positions are recognized within the department budget. 2. Benefit Payout Reserve - The City will establish a benefit payout reserve equal to 15% of the accrued benefit liability for employees who are currently meet eligible to retirement. Only terminating employee benefit expenses may be paid from this reserve. This reserve shall be funded as an offset to the vacancy factor. For2013/14, $30,000 is budgeted for this reserve. 3. Position Control – The annual budget includes a set number of positions within departments when approved and adopted by City Council. Additional positions cannot be added without approval of the City Council. The City Manager may approve the transfer of authorized positions between departments if funds are available within the department. Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 30 Item # J 11 4. Use of Excess Salary Savings – Departmental savings generated due to open positions or other salary line item savings cannot be spent by the department unless previously approved by the City Manager and validated by Finance as “excess funds”. C. Special Purpose Funding – In order to support community assistance programs, the City designates specific funding for special purposes, including Social Services, Children’s Programs, and Public Art. The City reserves the ability to cap this special purpose funding when necessitated by budget contingency or compliance issues, such as revenue shortfalls, or other reasons as determined by City Council. 1. Social Service Funding and Children’s and Youth Program Funding – The City has targeted funding for these programs to be $5.00 per capita, which may be adjusted to offset the effects of general inflation based upon CPI. If previous funding levels are higher than the targeted amount, and to avoid significant reductions in levels of funding, the City Council shall seek to attain this target chiefly through population growth. Funding for these programs will be split 83% for social services and 17% for youth funding. These funds will be allocated and paid according to the City Council’s guidelines for Social Service and Children’s and Youth Program Funding. The funding level for 2013/14 is _$_______ for Social Service Funding and _$_______ for Children’s and Youth Program Funding, both of which are the same as in the previous year. Any given year, unallocated funds in either the social Services Fund or the Children’s and Youth Program Funds can be allocated to the other fund, in an amount not to exceed the estimated increase for the following year in the fund receiving the transfer. 2. Public Art Funding - The City will annually allocate funding for Public Art on a year to year basis depending on the availability of funds in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the City Manager. Funding priority will be given to projects that include a matching donation, including contributions from local organizations and sponsors. Any unspent funds will accumulate and be reallocated in the following budget year. Disbursement of these funds will be determined by the City Council at the recommendation of the City’s Arts & Culture Advisory Board. Every effort will be made to include public art funding in future City facilities whose primary purpose is for public use. These projects will include a reasonable allowance for public art that fits the scope and purpose of the building so long that it does not negatively impact the project cost beyond the original budget. In the event there is cost savings in the construction of City Facilities, the City Council may consider utilizing that savings on the purchase of public art for the facility. Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 30 Item # J 12 D. Purchasing – The City will maintain and regularly review a written Purchasing Policy. All City purchases of goods or services will be made in accordance with the City’s current Purchasing Policy and with State law. The following shows a summary of approval requirements for purchases. Dollar Limits: Procurements: Requirements: Under $3,000 Under the small purchase limit No competitive bids and City credit cards may be used. $3,000 up to $50,000 Within informal bid limit A minimum of three informal competitive bids required unless exempted: HUB requirements apply in accordance with state law. $10,000 and above Within City Manager’s approval In addition to the requirements above, the City Manager must approve the purchase. $50,000 and above In excess of the informal bid limit Formal solicitations, which includes public notices, required unless exempted. Advisory board review and recommendation may be required. Council approval required. In addition to the above, all purchases must be approved accordingly to preapproved limits within each department. E. Contracts and Change Orders - Contracts and related change orders must follow the City Purchasing Policies and State Law. In accordance with State Law, change orders are limited to 25% of the total contract amount. Change orders greater than $50,000 require the same advisory board review and Council approvals as the original contracts. F. Prompt Payment – All invoices approved for payment by the proper City authorities shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of goods or services or invoice date, whichever is later in accordance with State law. The City will take advantage of all purchase discounts, when possible. G. Risk Management – The City will pursue every opportunity to provide for the Public’s and City employees’ safety and to manage its risks. The goal shall be to minimize the risk of loss of resources through liability claims with an emphasis on safety programs. H. Retirement Benefits – Proposals to revise benefits administered and provided by the Texas Municipal Retirement System shall include a written description, and, detailed and summary numerical assessments of the changes that would result from the proposed benefit revision. 1. The numerical assessments shall include the following: a. The estimated change to the TMRS contribution rate that would result from the proposed change in benefits, expressed as a percentage of employee pay and as an annual dollar amount to the General Fund and to each City fund. Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 30 Item # J 13 b. The estimated change to the City’s unfunded pension liability, expressed as a dollar amount. c. The estimated change to the City’s actuarial funding ratio. 2. The description and numerical assessments must be provided to the City Council at least 72 hours prior to consideration and approval, and must be read aloud to the Council prior to Council consideration. 3. The estimated changes to the City’s contribution rate and the unfunded pension liability presented pursuant to the section must be based on information provided by the TMRS actuary or by professional actuary authorized by the TMRS to provide such information. 4. Proposals to revise TMRS benefits must be voted on individually as part of the City Council’s legislative agenda. 5. The City has established -80% as the targeted funding goal for the City’s unfunded pension liability. The City’s funded pension liability is 85.0% as of December 31, 2011, as disclosed by TMRS. 6. The City may elect to make an annual 1-time payment prior to further fund the City’s unfunded pension liability. Such payment will be approved and authorized by the City Council prior to December 31 in order to be recognized in the following year’s TMRS employer contribution rate calculation. VII. BUDGET CONTINGENCY PLAN This policy is designed to establish general guidelines for managing revenue shortfalls resulting from local and national economic downturns that adversely affect the City's revenue streams. A. Immediate Action - Once a budgetary shortfall is projected, the City Manager will take the necessary actions to offset any revenue shortfall with a reduction in current expenses. The City Manager may: · Freeze all new hire and vacant positions except those deemed to be a necessity. · Review all planned capital expenditures. · Delay all "non-essential" spending or equipment replacement purchases. The City Manager shall report in a timely manner to the City Council the projected shortfall and the actions taken to resolve it. B. Further Action -. If the actions identified in subsection A are insufficient to offset the projected revenue deficit for the current fiscal year, the City Council may approve the following actions, in the order listed: 1. Apply unspent, unobligated surplus funds from prior fiscal years to fund one-time costs in the current fiscal year budget. Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 30 Item # J 14 2. Notwithstanding Section XII B.1 of this policy, authorize a reduction in the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, pursuant to Section XII B.1 of this policy, from 90 to 75 days. 3. Direct other reductions in services, including workforce reductions. C. Replenish Fund Balance - As soon as practicable, without placing undue strain on city services, the City Council shall increase the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, up to the 90-day amount required in Section XII B.1 of this policy. VIII. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET The City’s goal is to maintain City facilities and infrastructure in order to provide excellent services to the customers within the community, meet growth related needs, and comply with all state and federal regulations. A. Preparation – The City annually updates and adopts a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule as part of the operating budget adoption process. The plan is reviewed and adjusted annually as needed, and year one is adopted as the current year capital budget. The capital budget will include all capital projects, capital resources, and estimated operational impacts. · Needed capital improvements are identified through system models, repair and maintenance records and growth demands. · Economic development projects that have capital infrastructure needs must be reviewed and approved for funding by the City no later than March 1 to be included in the annual CIP process. Any economic development project approved for funding after March 1 will be included in the following year CIP process unless otherwise authorized by City Council. · A team approach will be used to prioritize CIP projects, whereby City staff from all operational areas provide input and ideas relating to each project and its effect on operations. · Citizen involvement and participation will be solicited in formulating the capital budget through neighborhood meetings, public hearings and other forums. · Capital infrastructure necessary to meet the requirements of the City’s Annexation Plan will be identified separately within the CIP plan, so that funding alternatives can be developed if needed. Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 30 Item # J 15 Prior to Council adoption, the following Advisory Boards will review the Capital Projects budget: Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS) Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee (GGAF) Parks Advisory Board Electric Water Wastewater Streets Stormwater Drainage Airport Facilities Other General Government Capital Parks and Recreation B. Control – All capital project expenditures must be appropriated in the capital budget. Availability of resources must be identified and then reviewed by the Finance Division before any CIP contract is presented to the City Council for approval. Prior to presentation to Council, the following Advisory Boards will review: Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS) Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee (GGAF) All utility contracts and other utility expenses greater than $50,000 All Transportation, Stormwater Drainage and Airport expenditures and contracts greater than $50,000 All General Government non-routine contracts and expenditures greater than $50,000 C. Financing Programs – Where applicable, assessments, impact fees, pro rata charges, or other fees should be used to fund capital projects which have a primary benefit to specific identifiable property owners. Recognizing that long-term debt is usually a more expensive financing method, alternative-financing sources will be explored before debt is issued. When debt is issued, it will be used to acquire major assets with expected lives equal or exceeding the average life of the debt issue. Short-term financing including Capital Leasing and other tax-supported obligations can be used to fund vehicles, computers and other operating equipment provided the impact to the tax rate is minimal. Caution should be used in replacing assets with short-term, tax-supported obligations due to the repetitive nature of the replacements. The total amount of I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate dedicated to fund short-term debt for equipment replacement will not exceed $0.04. Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 30 Item # J 16 IX. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT The City recognizes that deferred maintenance increases future capital costs. Therefore, a portion of all individual funds with infrastructure should be budgeted each year to maintain the quality within each system. A. Infrastructure Maintenance - On-going maintenance and major repair costs are included as capital expense within the departmental operating budgets. These costs are generally considered system repairs and are not capitalized for accounting purposes. They include such items as street seal coat, water line repairs and other general system maintenance. B. Modified Approach - Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement # 34 provides for an alternative approach to depreciation for measuring the value of infrastructure assets and the related costs incurred to maintain their service life at a locally established minimum standard. The City has elected to implement this modified approach in maintaining their non-enterprise fund infrastructure assets. In order to adopt this alternative method, the City has implemented an asset management system that determines if the minimum standards are being maintained. This measurement system will be updated at least every 3 years. The City has elected to use this alternative method for reporting its street infrastructure assets. The City uses the CarteGraph PavementView Pavement Management Information System to track the condition levels of each of the street sections. The condition of the pavement is based on the following factors: · Type of Distress · Amount of Distress · Severity of Distress · Deduct Values (function of first three) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a measurement scale is based upon a condition index ranging from zero for a failed pavement to 100 for pavement with perfect condition. The condition index is used to classify pavement in the following conditions: The City’s administrative policy is to achieve an average PCI level of 85. An 85 PCI is considered maintaining the streets in a “good” condition. Staff will prepare a street maintenance budget that meets this target for Council’s consideration during the budget process. PCI Rating 100 – 85 Good 85 – 45 Fair 45 – 0 Poor Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 30 Item # J 17 C. Internal Service funds – The City currently utilizes internal service funds to maintain and replace existing assets. Assessments are made to the using funds for the use of equipment currently in use and to be purchased during the year. In this way, suitable funds are available for the purchase of operational assets without the issuance of debt. 1. Fleet Maintenance and Replacement - The City has a major investment in its fleet of cars, trucks, tractors, and other equipment. The City will anticipate replacing existing equipment, as necessary and will establish charges that are assigned to the using departments to account for the cost of that replacement. Vehicle maintenance is also allocated in this manner. 2. Technology – It is the policy of the City to plan and fund the maintenance and replacement of its computer network and other technology systems. The City currently uses a four-year replacement cycle for all desktop computers. A reserve will be established within the ISF for replacement of major systems and will be funded over time through excess revenues within the Fund. Funding for major systems assumes that 50% of the replacement cost will be debt funded. 3. Facilities Maintenance – The City has established an on-going maintenance program, which includes major repairs, equipment, as well as contracts for maintaining City facilities, including Parks and Recreation. The City has anticipated a useful life of such equipment and established a means of charging those costs to the various departments in order to recognize the City’s continuing costs of maintaining its facilities. Determination for facility repairs is based on useful life of the various elements of each facility. . A proportional cost for each element is expensed within the budget for capital replacement. An additional unscheduled repair reserve equal to 10% value of annual internal service funding is also budgeted. The estimate reserve for 2013/14 equals $30,000. Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 30 Item # J 18 X. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING A. Accounting – The City is solely responsible for the recording and reporting of its financial affairs, both internally and externally. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible for establishing the structure for the City’s Chart of Accounts and for assuring that procedures are in place to properly record financial transactions and report the City’s financial position. B. General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF) – The City may establish a subcommittee consisting of (3) City Council members and (2) citizens that may meet monthly to provide additional oversight to the City’s Finance operations. This subcommittee will also review general government items that are not reviewed by another City advisory board before being presented to City Council. The City’s CFO will be the liaison for this subcommittee. C. Audit of Accounts – In accordance with the Charter, an independent audit of the City accounts will be performed every year. The auditor is retained by and is accountable directly to the City Council. The auditing firm will serve for up to 5 years, at which time, the City will re-bid these services, thereby changing firms at least every 5 years. D. External Reporting – Upon completion and acceptance of the annual audit by the City’s auditors, the City shall prepare a written Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which shall be presented to the City Council within 180 calendar days of the City’s fiscal year end. The CAFR shall be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and shall be presented annually to the Government Finance Officer Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. E. Internal Reporting – The Finance Department will prepare internal financial reports, sufficient to plan, monitor and control the City’s financial affairs. XI. ASSET MANAGEMENT A. Cash Management and Investments – The City Council has formally approved a separate Investment Policy for the City of Georgetown that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA), Section 2256 of the Texas Local Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the City Council and applies to all financial assets held by the City and applies to all entities (component units) included in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and/or managed by the City 1. Statement of Cash Management Philosophy - The City shall maintain a comprehensive cash management program to include the effective collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt deposit of receipts to the City’s depository, the payment of obligations, and the prudent investment of idle funds in accordance with this policy. Attachment number 3 \nPage 19 of 30 Item # J 19 2. Objectives – The City’s investment program will be conducted as to accomplish the following listed in priority order: · Safety of the principal invested · Liquidity and availability of cash to pay obligations when due · Ensure public trust through responsible actions as custodians of public funds. · Maximize earnings (yield) to the greatest extent possible consistent with the City’s investment policy. 3. Safekeeping and Custody – Investments may only be purchased through brokers/dealers who meet the criteria detailed in the investment policy, which also addresses internal controls related to investments. 4. Standard of Care and Reporting – Investment will be made with judgment and care, always considering the safety of principal to be invested and the probable income to be derived. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the overall management of the City’s investment program and ensures all investments are made in compliance with the investment policy. An investment report, providing both summary and detailed information, will be presented to the City Council quarterly. 5. Authorized Investments – The City can currently invest in the following: · Certificates of Deposit · U.S. Treasury and Agency securities · Investment Pools that meet the requirements of the PFIA · No-load Money Market Mutual Funds · Fully collateralized Repurchase Agreements · Obligations of Municipal Issuers in Texas rated not less than A or its equivalent. · Other investments as approved by City Council and not prohibited by law B. Fixed Assets – These assets will be reasonably safeguarded and properly accounted for, and prudently insured. 1. Capitalization Criteria - For purposes of budgeting and accounting classification, the following criteria must be capitalized: · The asset owned by the City. · The expected useful life of the asset must be longer than one year, or extend the life of an identifiable existing asset by more than one year. · The original cost of the asset must be at least $5,000. · The asset must be tangible. · On-going repairs and general maintenance are not capitalized. Attachment number 3 \nPage 20 of 30 Item # J 20 2. New Purchases – All costs associated with bringing the asset into working order will be capitalized as part of the asset cost. This will include startup costs, engineering or consultant type fees as part of the asset cost once the decision or commitment to purchase the asset is made. The cost of land acquired should include all related costs associated with its purchase. 3. Improvements and Replacement – Improvements will be capitalized when they extend the original life of an asset or when they make the asset more valuable than it was originally. The replacement of assets components will normally be expensed unless they are a significant nature and meet all the capitalization criteria. 4. Contributed Capital - Infrastructure assets received from developers or as a result of annexation will be recorded as equity contributions when they are received. 5. Distributions Systems - All costs associated with public domain assets, such as streets and utility distribution lines will be capitalized in accordance with the capitalization policy. Costs should include engineering, construction and other related costs including right of way acquisition. 6. Reporting and Inventory – The Finance Division will maintain the permanent records of the City’s fixed assets, including description, cost, department of responsibility, date of acquisition, depreciation and expected useful life. Periodically, random sampling at the department level will be performed to inventory fixed assets assigned to that department. Responsibility for safeguarding the City’s fixed assets lies with the department supervisor or manager whose department has been assigned the asset. XII. DEBT MANAGEMENT The City of Georgetown recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities is to provide services to the community. Using debt financing to meet the capital needs of the community must be evaluated according to efficiency and equity. Efficiency must be evaluated to determine the highest rate of return for a given investment of resources. Equity is resolved by determining who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In meeting demand for additional services, the City will strive to balance the needs between debt financing and “pay as you go” methods. The City realizes that failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued economic viability, but also realizes that too much debt may have detrimental effects on the City’s long-range financial condition. The City will issue debt only for the purpose of acquiring or constructing capital assets for the general benefit of its citizens and to allow it to fulfill its various purposes as a city. A. Usage of Debt - Long-term debt financing will be considered for non-continuous capital improvements of which future citizens will be benefited. Alternatives for financing will be explored prior to debt issuance and include, but not limited to: · Grants · Use of Reserve Funds · Use of Current Revenues Attachment number 3 \nPage 21 of 30 Item # J 21 · Contributions from developers and others · Leases · Impact Fees When the City utilizes long-term financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by conservatively projecting revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt. It will not finance the improvement over a period greater than the useful life of the improvement and it will determine that the cost benefit of the improvement, including interest costs, is positive to the community. The City may utilize the benefits of short-term debt financing to purchasing operating equipment provided the debt doesn’t extend past the useful life of the asset and the potential impact to the tax rate is within policy guidelines. The I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate cannot exceed $0.04 for short-term debt (3-10 years). B. Types of Debt – 1. General Obligation Bonds (GO’s) – General obligation bonds must be authorized by a vote of the citizens of Georgetown. They are used only to fund capital assets of the general government and are not to be used to fund operating needs of the City. The full faith and credit of the City as well as the City’s ad valorem taxing authority back general obligation bonds. Conditions for issuance of general obligation debt include: · When the project will have a significant impact on the tax rate; · When the project may be controversial even through it is routine in nature; or · When the project falls outside the normal bounds of projects the City has typically done. 2. Revenue Bonds – Revenue bonds will be issued to provide for the capital needs of any activities where the capital requirements are necessary for the continuation or expansion of a service. The improved activity shall produce a revenue stream to fund the debt service requirements of the necessary improvement to provide service expansion. The average life of the obligation should not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the bond issue, and will generally be limited to no more than twenty (20) years, An exception can be made for plant expansions or related system expansions whose useful life is in excess of 30 years. A cost benefit analysis will be done to fully disclose the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years. 3. Certificates of Obligation, Contract Obligations (CO’s) – Certificates of obligation or contract obligations may be used to fund capital requirements that are not otherwise funded by general obligation or revenue bonds. Debt service for CO’s may be either from general revenues (tax-supported) or supported by a specific revenue stream(s) or a combination of both. Typically, the City may issue CO’s when the following conditions are met: Attachment number 3 \nPage 22 of 30 Item # J 22 · When the proposed debt will have minimal impact on future effective property tax rates; · When the projects to be funded are within the normal bounds of city capital requirements, such as for roads, parks, various infrastructure and City facilities and equipment; and · When the average life of the obligation does not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the issue. Certificates of obligation will be the least preferred method of financing and will be used with prudent care and judgment by the City Council. Every effort will be made to ensure public participation in decisions relating to debt financing. 4. Self-supporting General Obligation Debt – Refers to certificates of obligation issued for a specific purpose and repaid through dedicated revenues other than ad valorem taxes. The annual debt requirements are not included in the property tax calculation. Both the Airport and Stormwater Drainage funds will issue this type of debt, In addition, the Electric and Water Services Funds can utilize this method of funding non-system capital assets. The City also issues debt on behalf of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) whom then pledges 4B sales tax revenue for the repayment of that debt. 5. Internal borrowing between City funds – The City can authorize use of existing long-term reserves as “loans” between funds. The borrowing fund will repay the loan at a rate consistent with current market conditions. The loan will be repaid within ten (10) years. The loan will be considered an investment of working capital reserves by the lending fund. 6. Other Short-term borrowing - The City may authorize the issuance of Public Property Finance Contractual Obligations (PPFCO) which is short-term obligations for the acquisition of personal public property, such as equipment. PPFCOs are payable from either ad valorem taxes or another dedicated revenue stream. Each issuance will be assessed to ensure cost effectiveness and the repayment schedule will not exceed the useful life of the asset. Multiple equipment acquisitions can be grouped in a single PPFCO issue in order to develop economies of scale. C. Method of Sale – The City will use a competitive bidding process in the sale of bonds unless conditions in the bond market or the nature of the issue warrant a negotiated bid. In such situations, the City will publicly present the reasons for the negotiated sale. The City will rely on the recommendation of the financial advisor in the selection of the underwriter or direct purchaser. D. Disclosure – Full disclosure of operating costs along with capital costs will be made to the bond rating agencies and other users of financial information. The City staff, with assistance of the financial advisor and bond counsel, will prepare the necessary materials for presentation to the rating agencies and will aid in the production of the Preliminary Official Statements. The City will take responsibility for the accuracy of all financial information released. Attachment number 3 \nPage 23 of 30 Item # J 23 E. Federal Requirements – The City will maintain written procedures to follow post issuance compliance rules, arbitrage rebate and other Federal requirements. · Post issuance tax compliance rules will include records retention, arbitrage rebate, use of proceeds, and · Continuing disclosure requirements under SEC Rule 15c2-12 or as may be required by bond covenants or related agreements. F. Debt Structuring – The City will issue bonds with an average life of twenty (20) years or less, not to exceed the useful life of the asset acquired. The structure should approximate level debt service unless operational matters dictate otherwise. Market factors, such as the effects of tax-exempt designations, the cost of early redemption options and the like, will be given consideration during the structuring of long term debt instruments. Exceptions to the 20 year average life include debt issues for major system expansions, such as water, sewer or electric plants, in which case the City may issue debt greater than 20 years since the average life of the asset exceeds 30 years. A cost benefit analysis indicating the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years will be completed. G. Debt Coverage Ratio – Refers to the number of times the current combined debt service requirements or payments would be covered by the current operating revenues net of on-going operating expenses of the City’s combined utilities (Electric, Water, and Wastewater). The City will maintain a minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.5 times for these utilities as a whole. The bond ordinances allow the City to forego a debt reserve fund for its utility debt if the coverage is maintained at 1.35 times or better. Debt coverage for 2013/14 is budgeted at ___times coverage. A coverage ratio of 1.5 times will also be required for all funds issuing self-supporting debt. H. Bond Reimbursement Resolutions – The City may utilize bond reimbursements as a tool to manage its debt issues, due to arbitrage requirements and project timing. In so doing, the City uses its capital reserve "cash" to delay bond issues until such time when issuance is favorable and beneficial to the City. The City Council may authorize a bond reimbursement resolution for General Capital projects that have a direct impact on the City's ad valorem tax rate when the bonds will be issued within the term of the existing City Council. In the event of unexpected circumstances that delay the timing of projects, or market conditions that prohibit financially sound debt issuance, the approved project can be postponed and considered by a future council until circumstantial issues can be resolved. The City Council may also authorize revenue bond reimbursements for approved utility and other self-supporting capital projects within legislative limits. Currently revenue bonds must be issued within 18 months after an eligible bond funded project is begun. The total outstanding bond reimbursements may not exceed the total amount of the City’s reserve funds. Attachment number 3 \nPage 24 of 30 Item # J 24 XIII. OTHER FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: When at all possible, the City will research alternative funding opportunities prior to issuing debt or increasing user-related fees. A. Grants - All potential grants will be examined for any matching requirements and the source of those requirements identified. A grant funding worksheet, reviewed by Finance, that clearly identifies funding sources, outcomes and other relevant information will be presented and approved by the City Council prior to any grant application being submitted. It must be clearly understood that any resulting operation requirements of the grant could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the project have been terminated. The City Council must authorize acceptance of any grant funding. B. Use of Reserve Funds - The City may authorize the use of reserve funds to potentially delay or eliminate a proposed bond issue. This may occur due to higher than anticipated fund balances in prior years, thus eliminating or reducing the need for debt proceeds, or postpone a bond issue until market conditions are more beneficial or timing of the related capital improvements does not correspond with the planned bond issue. Reserve funds used in this manner are replenished upon issuance of the proposed debt. C. Developer Contributions - The City will require developers who negatively impact the City's utility capital plans offset those impacts. These policies are further defined within the City's utility line extension policy and other development regulations. D. Leases - The City may authorize the use of lease financing for certain operating equipment when it is determined that the cost benefit of such an arrangement is advantageous to the City. E. Impact Fees - The City will impose impact fees as allowable under state law for both water and wastewater services. These fees will be calculated in accordance with statute and reviewed at least every three years. All fees collected will fund projects identified within the Fee study and as required by state laws. XIV. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESERVES, AND STABILITY RATIOS The City of Georgetown will maintain budgeted minimum reserves in the ending working capital/fund balances to provide a secure, healthy financial base for the City in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency, allow stability of City operations should revenues fall short of budgeted projections and provide available resources to implement budgeted expenditures without regard to actual timing of cash flows into the City. A. Operational Coverage – The City’s goal is to maintain operations coverage of $1.00, such that operating revenues will at least equal or exceed current operating expenditures. Deferrals, short-term loans, or one-time sources will be avoided as budget balancing techniques. Reserves will be used only for emergencies or non- recurring expenditures, except when balances can be reduced because their levels exceed guideline minimums as stated below. 1. Operating Reserves – The City will maintain reserves at a minimum of seventy- five (75) days (20.83%) of net budgeted operating expenditures. Net budgeted operating expenditure is defined as total budgeted expenditures less interfund Attachment number 3 \nPage 25 of 30 Item # J 25 transfers and charges, general debt service (tax supported), direct cost for purchased power and payments from third party grant monies. Total reserves for 2013/14 are $__________. The amount of these funds are allocated within the following operating funds and using the following guidelines to maintain the fund balance, working capital and retained earnings (reserves) of the various operating funds at levels sufficient to protect the City’s creditworthiness, as well as, its financial position from unforeseeable emergencies. 2. General Fund – The fund balance reserve in the General Fund should equal ninety (90) days or 25% of annual budgeted General Fund operating expenditures. 2013/14 reserves are $______ and are allocated as follows: a. Base Level Reserve – will equal sixty (60) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures which will be designated for emergency use only. b. Budget Stabilization Reserve – will equal thirty (30) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures and will be designated to protect the City against short term operating deficits. The funds will be available for the following purposes: i. Defer short term tax increases ii. Cover revenue shortfalls iii. Fund unanticipated expenditures If the Budget Stabilization Reserve is depleted during the fiscal year, the balance must return to the 30 day requirement within the following year’s adopted budget. 3. Tourism Fund – A minimum sixty days (60) or 16.67% of operating expenditures will be reserved within the fund balance. These funds are designated to be used to offset any potential revenue shortfall that occurs during the fiscal year and should be replenished in the following fiscal year’s budget. 4. Water Services Fund – Working capital reserves in should be 25% or ninety (90) days of operating expenses, net debt service and long-term water contract costs. These reserves are designated to be used to offset potential revenue shortfalls or fund unexpected or emergency expenses that occur during the fiscal year. These reserves should be replenished in the following budget cycle. 5. Other Funds – · Stormwater Drainage Fund - $ 250,000 for unforeseen emergencies or potential revenue shortfalls · Airport Fund – As funds are available, up to ninety (90) days or 25% of operating expenses (less fuel costs) for unforeseen emergencies or potential revenue shortfalls Attachment number 3 \nPage 26 of 30 Item # J 26 6. Electric Fund – The remaining balance to meet the citywide requirement of seventy-five (75) days of reserve funds will be maintained within this fund. It can be used for unforeseen emergencies and expenditures. The Rate Stabilization Account and the Power Contract Credit Reserve are not included in this Contingency Reserve. For all other non-enterprise funds, the fund balance is an indication of the balance of each particular fund at a specific time. The ultimate goal of each such fund is to have expended the fund balance at the conclusion of the activity for which the fund was established. Reserve requirements will be calculated as part of the annual budget process and any additional required funds to be added to the reserve balances will be appropriated within the budget. Funds in excess of the minimum reserves within each fund may be expended for City purposes at the will of the City Council once it has been determined that use of the excess will not endanger reserve requirements in future years. This action requires an amendment to the City’s Annual Budget. B. Liabilities and Receivables - Procedures will be followed to maximize discounts and reduce penalties offered by creditors. Current liabilities will be paid within 30 days of receiving the invoice. Accounts Receivable procedures will target collection for a maximum of 30 days of service. Receivables aging past 90 days will be sent to a collection agency. The Chief Financial Officer is authorized to write-off non- collectible, non-utility accounts that are delinquent for more than 180 days, and utility accounts delinquent more than 180 days, provided proper delinquency procedures have been followed, and include this information in the annual report to the City Council. C. Capital Project Funds – Every effort will be made for all monies within the Capital Project Funds to be expended in a timely manner preferably within thirty-six (36) months of receipt. The fund balance will be invested and income generated will offset increases in construction costs or other costs associated with the project. Capital project funds are intended to be expended totally, with any unexpected excess to be transferred to the Debt Service fund to service project-related debt service. D. General Debt Service Funds – Revenues within this fund are stable, based on property tax revenues. Balances are maintained to meet contingencies and to make certain that the next year’s debt service payments may be met in a timely manner. Fund balance should not fall below 45 days annual debt service requirements, in accordance with IRS guidelines. E. Investment of Reserve Funds – The reserve funds will be invested in accordance with the City’s investment policy. Existing non-cash investment would be exempt through retirement of the investment. Attachment number 3 \nPage 27 of 30 Item # J 27 F. Ratios/Trend Analysis - Ratios and significant balances will be incorporated into both the mid-year and annual reports to the City Council. This information will provide users with meaningful data to identify major trends of the City's financial condition through analytical procedures. The following ratios/balances will be used as key financial indicators: · Fund Balance/Equity: Assets - liabilities FB/E AL (Acceptable level) minimum reserve requirement · Working Capital: Current assets less current liabilities CA - CL AL minimum reserve requirement · Current Ratio: Current assets divided by current liabilities CA/CL AL > 1.00 · Quick Ratio: "Liquid" current assets divided by current liabilities Liquid CA/CL AL > 1.00 · Debt/Assessed AV Taxes Debt divided by assessed Ad Valorem value D/AV AL < 5 · Debt Ratio: Current liabilities plus long-term liabilities divided by total assets CL +LTL/TA AL < 1 · Enterprise Oper Coverage: Operating rev divided by operating expense OR/OE AL > 1.25 · Times Coverage Ratio: Operating revenue less operating expense divided by annual debt service (OR-OE)/DSV AL > 1.5 The City will be to develop minimum/maximum levels for the above ratios/balances through analyzing of City historical trends and future projections. These ratios will also be compared to other similar or regional municipalities for further analysis. XV. INTERNAL CONTROLS A. Written Procedures – Wherever possible, written procedures will be established and maintained by the Chief Financial Officer for all functions involving cash handling and/or accounting throughout the City. These procedures will embrace the general concepts of fiscal responsibility set forth in this policy statement. B. Internal Audit Program - An internal audit program will be maintained by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure compliance with City policies and procedures and to prevent the potential for fraud. Attachment number 3 \nPage 28 of 30 Item # J 28 1. Departmental Audits – departmental processes will be reviewed to ensure dual control of City assets and identify the opportunity for fraud potential, as well as, to ensure that departmental internal procedures are documented and updated as needed. 2. Employees or Transaction Review. - Programs to be audited include Petty Cash, City Credit Card accounts, time entry, and travel. All discrepancies will be identified, and the employee’s Division Director will be notified. The City Manager will also be notified depending on the seriousness of the infraction. 3. Results of all internal audits will be provided to City Council on a quarterly basis. C. Division Directors Responsibility – Each division Director is responsible for ensuring that good internal controls are followed throughout their department, that all Finance Division directives are implemented and that all independent auditor internal control recommendations are addressed. Departments will develop and periodically update written internal control procedures. XVI. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION Realizing the importance and contribution of employee’s in achieving and maintaining the City of Excellence, the City’s goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees who provide excellent, friendly services to our community in an effective and efficient manner. A. Adequate Staffing – Staffing levels will be adequate for the fiscal functions of the City to operate effectively. Workload allocation alternatives will be explored before adding additional staff. B. Competitive Compensation – In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City is implementing a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Policy to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: 1. Cost of Living Adjustment - (COLA) – To protect City employees from the effects of general inflation, every odd numbered year, the City may fund a COLA adjustment for all regular employees not included in a defined pay plan. The COLA will be based on a three-year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern cities pertinent to Georgetown’s population. 2. Pay Scale Review – To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, every even numbered year, the City will review its pay plan for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City’s pay scale. 3. Pay for Performance – Each year the City will fund pay adjustments to aid in retaining quality employees while recognizing increased job experience and rewarding quality performance. Attachment number 3 \nPage 29 of 30 Item # J 29 Adjustments are based on the previous year’s annual performance evaluation. The percentage adjustments are determined by the employee’s position within their pay grade, including merit adjustments for productivity and quality performance during the previous fiscal year. In addition, the City may also choose to fund a one-time on performance that exceeds expectations during the review period. Attachment number 3 \nPage 30 of 30 Item # J City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a contract for the 2013 Street Asphalt Recycling/Mill & Overlay to Cutler Repaving Inc, of Lawrence, Kansas in the amount of $909,942.50 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: This project publicly advertised May12th and 19thwith bid opening on the May 29th. This process is to resurface streets with deteriorated asphalt. The majority of the roads scheduled to receive this process are older with the exception of the Square. Staff has utilized the Cutler process for the past 6 years. Only one bid was received. This bid is from the company that originally patented the process. Although the equipment used in the Cutler process is not protected by patents and can be duplicated by other companies for competitive purposes, no other company in the US currently performs this process. Materials used for the paving process are purchased locally. The bid averaged $3.00 more per square yard than last year. Several circumstances attributed to this. The contract was approximately ½ of last year’s contract. The parking spaces around the square are too small for the large paving equipment increasing the amount of hand work. Striping costs are slightly elevated as only one business is currently operating in our area. Williams Drive and the Square both have a considerable amount of markings and striping. The itemized costs per square yard are very comparable to last year’s bid. All streets included are shown on attached map. Halff Associates evaluated the bids and are recommending award. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the June 14, 2013, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has experienced very satisfactory results with the product, the process and the contractor for the past 6 years. Staff agrees with the engineer and recommends award. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See attached financial budget sheet SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller/Ed Polasek ATTACHMENTS: Budget Sheet Cover Memo Item # K Engineer Letter Bid Tab List of Streets Cover Memo Item # K At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # K At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # K At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 3 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # K At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 3 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # K At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 4 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # K City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc., of Lewisville, TX for the rejuvenation and single course surface treatment portion of the 2013 Street and Drainage CIP in the amount of $1,161,486.02 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: This project was publicly advertised May 12th and 19th with bid opening on the June 4th. This project involves two processes to be used in different areas. The first process will apply a surface sealer to seal minute cracks and slow oxidation of existing pavements. The product name is TMRSS (Tire Modified Rubber Surface Sealer) and has been used successfully over the past two summers within the City. The areas included are River Chase subdivision, Wolf Ranch Parkway, Rivery Blvd., 18th St West of Austin Ave., Old Town in areas bound by (College to Maple / 2nd to 13th Streets), University Park, LaConterra, Pinnacle, Meadow Park, Katy Crossing, Airport Rd. (Ih35 to Lakeway Drive) and Shell Road from Williams Drive to Verde Vista. The second process will be used to resurface streets with a single course treatment on more heavily cracked roadways. The oil specified is HFRS 2P with a grade 5 Uvalde Trap Rock. This combination has been used by the City of Austin and Williamson County in residential areas in recent years. The list of roads include Inner Loop (South Austin Avenue to Katy Crossing Drive), Austin Avenue (Leander Road to 9th St. /6th St. to San Gabriel River), Williams Drive (Riverbend to Serenada Dr.), Shell Road (Verde Vista to Sycamore), and Del Webb Blvd. (Williams Dr. to Sun City Blvd.) These treatments will protect and preserve the pavement extending the useful life. These roads have been identified in the Pavement evaluation study and recommended for these applications. Halff Associates engineering evaluated the bids and are recommending award. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the June 14, 2013, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no experience working with Intermountain Slurry Inc., but has worked successfully with Ballou Construction which Intermountain bought out at the beginning of this year. Staff agrees with the engineer and recommends award. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See attached CIP Budget Sheet Cover Memo Item # L SUBMITTED BY: Mark Miller, Ed Polasek ATTACHMENTS: Engineer Letter of Recommendation Bid Tab Map of Streets Budget Cover Memo Item # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 3 \ n P a g e 1 o f 2 It e m # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 3 \ n P a g e 2 o f 2 It e m # L At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 4 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # L City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract to Joe Bland Constructors, LP, of Austin, Texas, for the construction of the DB Wood RoadImprovements at Public Safety Operations Building in the amount of $ 638,448.42 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ITEM SUMMARY: ITEM SUMMARY: The voters of Georgetown approved bonds to construct the Public Safety Operations Building fronting onto DB Wood Road. Because of the increased traffic in and out of this facility, there is a need for roadway improvements to promote greater safety for both the users of this facility as well as the traveling public. The project was publicly advertised and sealed bids were received on June 8, 2013, from three (3) bidders. The lowest responsive bid for the construction of the DB Wood Road Improvements at Public Safety Operations Building was submitted by Joe Bland Constructors, LP, of Austin, Texas, as follows: Base Bid in the amount of $ 574,364.42; Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $ 64,084.00; total bid in the amount of $ 638,448.42. in the amount of $ 638,448.42. The Base Bid is for the Roadway Improvements only; Alternate No. 1 is for the construction of the driveway approaches between the roadway and the ROW line. At the time of bidding, it was uncertain which construction contractor’s (roadway or facilities) schedule would complete the driveways first. Consequently, the driveways were included in this bid as Alternate No. 1. Joe Bland Constructors, Inc., has successfully and satisfactorily completed similar projects for the City. The Engineer, KCI has researched Joe Bland’s qualifications; and recommends award of the construction contract to Joe Bland Constructors, Inc., for the construction of the DB Wood Road Improvements at Public Safety Operations Building in the total amount of $ 638,448.42, (Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1). The Engineer’s estimate of probable construction costs was $750,573.94. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the June 14, 2013, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with KCI and recommends award of the Construction Contract to Joe Bland Constructors, LP, of Austin, Texas, for the construction of the DB Wood Road Improvements at Public Safety Operations Building in the total amount of $ 638,448.42, (Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1). FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached are spreadsheets of the budget and cost impacts for the project. SUBMITTED BY: EDWARD G. POLASEK/BILL DRYDEN ATTACHMENTS: ENG LETTER W/BID TABS BUDGET LOCATION MAP Cover Memo Item # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 1 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 1 o f 3 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 2 o f 3 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 2 \ n P a g e 3 o f 3 It e m # M At t a c h m e n t n u m b e r 3 \ n P a g e 1 o f 1 It e m # M City of Georgetown, Texas June 25, 2013 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Rivery Update - LCRA Update - DNT Claim - In re. Advanced Services et. al. Sec. 551.071: Competitive Matters - Discussion on CTSUD - CCN Agreement-- Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # N