The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 07.26.2011 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas JULY 269 2011 The Georgetown City Council will meet on JULY 26, 2011 at 3:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th Street If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. A Social Service and Youth Program Funding Applicant Presentations to Council -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager B Discussion regarding the selection of the 2011 Annexation Areas -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director 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. C Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to this week's agenda item - ABG Update - Williams Drive - Mosteller vs. City of Georgetown D Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property - Discussion regarding the proposed purchase of real property in connection with a Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") Aviation Improvements Program ("AIP") grant for safety design improvements and removal of obstructions at the Georgetown Municipal Airport -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager, Terri. Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator - Discussion on deliberations for the acquisition of a 0.776-acre tract of land from Georgetown Railroad Company for right of way in connection with the Southeast Arterial One Road Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director E Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations. - Project GT - Project Grape It i I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 11.3 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2011, 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 July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Social Service and Youth Program Funding Applicant Presentations to Council -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetownbudgets a limited amount of funds to pay for contracted Social Services and Youth Programs that benefit its citizens and the community. Eligible applicants are non-profit organizations in good standing under IRS codes or other governmental bodies with the authority to provide social services and children's and youth programs. The decision to approve or disapprove an application will be made by the City Council and will be based upon the need for services, the expectation that the need can be reasonably addressed, consequences of not providing the services, the qualifications of the applicant organization, and the availability of funds. Applicants have been notified that they can make a brief three -minute presentation during the workshop, and that they should be prepared to respond to any questions the Council might have about their applications. They were also informed that they needed to be prepared to answer questions from the members of the Council, including, but not limited to the percentage of the agency's budget that the request to the City represents, and how it will be used consistent with the City's adopted guidelines for the program, and how previous funds were utilized. The City has received fifteen (15) requests for Social Service Funding and six (6) requests for Youth Program Funding for the FY 2011-12 budget year. The total amount requested in FY 2011-12 from the fifteen (15) applicants for Social Service Funding is $365,400. In FY 2010-11, the Council allocated $303,750 to social service funding. The current preliminary amount budgeted in the proposed base budget for the upcoming fiscal year is $311,331. The City has also received six (6) requests for Youth Program Funding totaling $110,300 for FY 2011-12. In FY 2010-11, the Council allocated $96,500 to Youth Program Funding. The current preliminary amount allocated in the proposed base budget for the upcoming fiscal year for Youth Program Funding is $88,718. The amounts in the preliminary FY 201.1-12 budget are the same as the amounts budgeted in the FY 2010-11 budget per the Social Services and Youth Program Funding Policies and Guidelines and the current Fiscal and Budgetary Policy ($311,331 and $88,71.8). Funds have also been allocated in the proposed base budget to pay the utility bills for the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center and the Mary Bailey Child Development Center. The current preliminary amount budgeted is $20,000 (same as FY 2010-11). As in the past, WBCO has requested in its application that the City provide the utilities for these facilities. The City has also budgeted $91,718 in its FY 2011.-12 base budget for the Williamson County and Cities Health District pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement that the City has with the Health District. Eleven (1.1) of the fifteen (15) applicants for FY 2011.-12 received funding for FY 201.0-11 (Assistance League of Georgetown Area, Bluebonnet Trails MHMR Center — PRIDE Early Childhood Intervention, CARTS, Faith in Action Caregivers, The Caring Place, Habitat for Humanity, Literacy Council of Williamson County, Lone Star Circle of Care, Senior Center at Stonehaven, Williamson County Crisis Center, Williamson -Burnet County Opportunities). All six (6) applicants for Youth Program Funding for FY 2011-12 received funding for FY 2010-11. (Boys and Girls Club of Georgetown, Exceptional. Georgetown Alliance, Georgetown Cultural Citizen Memorial Cover Memo Association, the Georgetown Project, Getsemani Community Center, and Georgetown Partners in Item # A Education). Copies of the applications for both Social. Services and Youth Program Funding are included in these notebooks. Because of the volume of information provided by several of the agencies who have numerous programs, only the relevant information from the annual audits/financial reports has been copied. If any of you would like to have the additional information from the audits, please let me know and we'll get copies to you. We also did not copy brochures and other reports submitted along with the applications. Attachments 1. Comparison Charts for Social Service and Youth Program Funding Allocations for Actual FY 2001-02, FY 2002-03, FY 2003-04, FY 2004-05, FY 2005-06, FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08, FY 2008-09, FY 2009-10, 2010-11, and those proposed for FY 2011-12. Council Social. Service and Youth Program Funding Polices and Guidelines 3. Charts indicating Funding Requests for FY 2011-12 for Social Service and Youth Program Funding. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Funding Policy and Guidelines Historical Comparisons - Total Summary Historical Comparison - Discretionary Charts Historical Comparison Charts Social. Service Funding Requests Youth Program Funding Requests Cover Memo Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 2 4 )WN I a..ru ♦v SOCIAL SERVICES AND YOUTH PROGRAM FUNDING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES I. CRITERIA FOR SUPPORT — CURRENT STANDARDS: A. Social Services Council may consider providing funding to legally qualified non-profit organizations through a contract for services when such services are: a. services which. accomplish a public purpose and provide a measurable return or benefit to the community; and b. services that the City would provide absent the agreement, within the vision of the City, and that meet basic human needs, including food, shelter, physical health and personal security. B. Youth Programs The Georgetown City Council. may consider providing funding to programs for children and youth who have little or no access to City programs either because of costs or location through a contract for services to legally qualified non-profit organizations which provide services that the City is legally authorized to provide, but is not currently providing, when such services are: 1. offered on a regular basis after school. and/or during vacations and breaks, 2. have little or no charge or fees to participating youth and children; and 3. are open to the public and held at an accessible facility. The focus of the programs funded by the City shall be for the provision. of a safe and. nurturing environment. Social Service and Youth Program Funding Policies and Guidelines Page 1 of 2 Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 2 of 2 II. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES: A. Appropriation of funds for social and youth services does not encumber subsequent councils to continue appropriations for such funding, and does not imply that subsequent councils may provide such funding. Organizations receiving social and youth services funds from the city are encouraged to identify additional and alternative sources of funding. B. When evaluating applications for social services and youth services funding, the Council shall consider the portion of funding each organization receives from the City, with the objective of encouraging reliance on funding sources other than the City. C. 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. III. POLICY FOR ESTABLISHING FUNDING AMOUNTS A. Expenditure targets per Fiscal and Budgetary Policy approved by the City Council on June 8, 2010: 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 policies and guidelines for Social Service and Youth Program Funding that were approved by the City Council on January 27,2009. The funding level for 2011/12 is $311,331 for Social Service Funding and $88,718 for 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 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. Item # A Total Social Service & Youth Funding Social Services & Social Services Social Service Change Youth & Youth over prior Estimated Spending Funding(1) year Population per capita FY02 160 34,273 $0.00 FY03 204 27.3 % 35,300 $0.0000 FY04 248 21.8% 36,359 $0.0068 FY05 278 12.1% 38,265 $0,0073 FY06 303 8.7% 41,294 $0.0073 FY07 388 28.1% 44,324 $0.0087 FY08 441 13.8 % 47,353 $0.0093 FY09 456 3.3% 47,400 $0.0096 FY10 478 4.8% 48,164 $0,0099 FYI 510 6.7% 48,785 $0.0104 Proposed FYI 512 0.4% 49,350 $0.0104 (1) See attached tab for funding breakdown Social Service & Youth & Youth Spending per Change over Funding(1) capita prior year 160,237 $ 4.68 203,910 $ 5.78 23.6 % 248,422 $ 6.83 18.3% 278,409 $ 7.28 6.5% 302,550 $ 7.33 0.7% 387,566 $ 8.74 19.3% 440,985 $ 9.31 6.5 % 455,548 $ 9.61 3.2%'Counts Adjusted for 2010 Census 477,641 $ 9.92 3.2% 509,562 $ 10.45 5.3% 511,767 $ 10.37 -0.7% Please note that the percentage increase/per capita increase in 2010-11 is a direct correlation to the amounts budgeted vs. allocated in 2009-10. The amounts budgeted in FY 2009-10 were $311,331 for Social Services & $88,718 for Youth Funding. However, the amounts allocated in FY 2009-10 for Social Services &Youth Funding were less then the amounts budgeted; $304,500 for Social Services and $68,780 for Youth Funding. The amounts budgeted in the preliminary FY 2010-11 Budget are $311,331 for Social Services & $88,718 for Youth Funding, whltb"J9eAame amounts budgeted in FY 2009-10. FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FYI FYI Proposed FY12 ll) See attached tab for funding breakdown Total Discretionary Social Service & Youth Funding Social Services & Social Service Change Youth & Youth over prior Estimated Spending Funding(1) year Population per capita 103 34,273 $0.00 140 36.4% 35,300 $0.0000 180 28.6% 36,359 $0.0050 202 12.1 % 38,265 $0.0053 220 9.0% 41,294 $0.0053 297 35.0% 44,324 $0.0067 348 17.1 % 47,353 $0.0073 357 2.7% 47,400 $0.0075 373 4.5% 48,164 $0.0078 400 7.2% 48,785 $0,0082 400 -0.1% 49,350 $0,0081 Social Services Social Service & Youth & Youth Spending per Change over Funding(1) capita prior year 102,602 $ 2.99 140,000 $ 3.97 325% 180,000 $ 4.95 24.8% 201,750 $ 5.27 6.5% 220,000 $ 5.33 1.0% 297,000 $ 6.70 25.8% 347,790 $ 7.34 9.6% 357,250 $ 7.54 2.6 % 'Counts Adjusted for 2010 Census 373,280 $ 7.75 2.8% 400,250 $ 8.20 5.9% 400,049 $ 8.11 -1,2% Please note that the percentage increase/per capita increase in 2010-11 is a direct correlation to the amounts budgeted vs. allocated in 2009-10. The amounts budgeted in FY 2009-10 were $311,331 for Social Services & $88,718 for Youth Funding. However, the amounts allocated in FY 2009-10 for Social Services &Youth Funding were less then the amounts budgeted; $304,500 for Social Services and $68,780 for Youth Funding. The amounts budgeted in the preliminary FY 2010-11 Budget are $311,331 for Social Services & $88,718 for Youth Funding, which are the same amounts budgeted in FY 2009-10. Item # A 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05* 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007108 2008/09** 2009/10** 2010/11 2011/12*** bract Social Service Funding (a): outh Social Service Funding(b): Total Discretionary Social Service &:Youth Funding: (-Kind Social Service Funding: (Utilities) (111hunson Co. Health District Funding (Mandatory) - 102,602 - 1OZ602 14,735 42,900 140,000 __. -..... 140,000 14,410 - 49,500 - 180,000 -..... % 180,000 15,472 52,950 201,750 - 201,750 15,795 60,864 220,000 - 220,000 : 17,979 64,571 272,000 25,000 297,000 17,431 73,135 293,790 54,000 347,790 22,968 70,227 291,250 -66,000 357,250 21,857 76,441 304,500 -68,780 373,280 20,000 84,361 303,750 96,500 400,250 20,000 89,312 311,331 88,718 400,049 20,000 91,718 at Breakdown of Direct Social Service Fundin Organization 2001102 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05* 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007108 2008109 2008110 2010111 Assistance League of Georgetown 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,600 5,000 5,000 Bluebonnet Trail Community MHMR 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 8,250 Caring Place 26,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 ---- 45,000 18,750 ---- 50,000 55,000 55,000 Caring Place -Home Repair 15,000 27,500 43,540 CARTS 10,602 (1) 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 ,Crib" program 5,000 Central Texas Veterans 1,000". Faith in Action Caregiver 15,000 15,000 --15,000 15,000 15,000 Family Eldercare 5,000 5,000 6,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 Georgetown Community Clinic 47,500 50,000 57,000 64,000 64,000 Georgetown Information Volunteer Exchange - ---- _ - 10,000 Georgetown Interfaith Caregivers 10,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 Georgetown Project 5,000 6,500 6,500 - 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,000 10,000 - Georgetown United Way 9,750 Habitat for Humanity 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 20,000 24,000 24,000 35,000 40,000 Lone Star Circle of Care 82,500 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Stonehaven Center 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Williamson -Burnet Co. Opportunities 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 9,150 6,000 - 6,000 Williamson County Crisis Center 10,000 15,000 - 15,000 19,000 24,000 30,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 Williamson County Literacy Council -2,500 -3,500 3,500- 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Direct Social Service Funding: 102,602 140,000 180,000 201,750 220,000 272,000 293,790 291,250 304,500 303,750 - (1) Includes funds for a transit study - - *Included in the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy ** Amounts budgeted in FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were $311,331 for Social Services & $88,718 for Youth Funding. However, the amounts allocated in FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 for Social Services &Youth Funding were less then the amounts budgeted. ***Current Preliminary Proposed Budget. Amounts budgeted for Social Services and Youth Funding did not increase from FY 2010-11 -- Item # A (b) Breakdown of Youth Social Service Funding: Organization 2001102 2002103 2003/04 2004/05 200512006 2006/2007 2007/08 2008109 2009/10 2010/11 Clements Boys & Girls Club - Stonehaven Unit 14,500 ------ Boys and Girls Club ofCentral Texas ._. --20,000 ---- 20,000 34,780---40,000 Georgetown Partners in Education - 7,000 7,000 7,000 15,000 Georgetown Project 3,500 - 10,000 _ 10,000 10,000 15,000 Getsemani Community Center ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9,000 - 11,000 11,000 11,000 Georgetown Cultural Citizen Memorial Association, Inc. -3,000 3,000 3,000-3,000 - GeorgetownPalaceTheatre __. __. 5,000 5,000 Exceptional Alliance Georgetown -- -- -- -- -- -- 10,000 10,000 10,000 Boy Scouts of America Capital Area Council 2,500 Direct Social Service Funding: 0 0 0 0 0 - 25,000 54,000 66,000 68,780 96,500 Item # A Attachment number 5 Page 1 of 1 Social Funding Requests for FY 2011-2012 ORGANIZATION FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FUNDED REQUESTED 1 Assistance League of Georgetown Area $5,000 $10,000 2 Bluebonnet Trails Community MHMR $4,000 Plus $18,000 Center -Pride -Early Childhood $4,250 Intervention Challenge Grant if able to obtain funding from another governmental entity not currently providing funding for this Pro ram 3 Capital Area Rural Transportation $9,000 $9,000 (CARTS) 4 CASA of Williamson. County New Request in $5,000 2011/12 5 Faith in Action Caregivers $15,000 $20,000 6 Georgetown Caring Place - The Caring $55,000 $55,000 Place 7 Georgetown Citizens Police Academy New Request in $10,000 Alumni Association (CPAAA) 2011/12 Silver Bells Program 8 Habitat for Humanity of Williamson $40,000 $45,000 County 9 Light Texas New Request in $10,000 2011/12 10 Literacy Council of Williamson County $3,500 $4,500 11 Lone Star Circle of Care $100,000 $100,000 12 Senior Center at Stonehaven $12,000 $12,000 13 Williamson Co. Crisis Center $45,000 + $5,000 $45,000 + $5,000 Dba: Hope Alliance challenge grant challenge grant 14 Williamson -Burnett Co. Opportunities $6,000 (plus in- $6,000 (plus in -kind (WBCO) kind rent & rent & utilities utilities) 15 Williamson Council on Alcohol and New Request in $10,900 Drugs dba LifeSte s 2011/12/A $303,750 $365,400 TOTALS Item # A Attachment number 6 Page 1 of 1 Children's and Youth Funding Requests for FY 2011/12 ORGANIZATION FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FUNDED REQUESTED 1 Boys & Girls Club of $40,000 $40,000 Georgetown X Boy Scouts of America $2,500 Did Not File An Capital Area Council Application for 2011-12 2 Exceptional Georgetown $10,000 $15,000 Alliance 3 Georgetown Cultural $3,000 $3,800 Citizen Memorial Association 4 Georgetown Project $15,000 $25,000 5 Getsemani Community $11,000 $11,500 Center 6 Georgetown Partners in $15,000 $15,000 Education TOTALS $96,500 $110,300 Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the selection of the 2011 Annexation Areas -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ITEM SUMMARY: In September 2010, Council held a workshop that included a discussion on the basics of annexation, the City's overall annexation policy, the Annexation Priority Map, and the annexation fiscal impact model. Staff promised to begin a study of each remaining potential annexation area within the ETJ and create a new Annexation Priority Map with proposed time horizons for each area. The study subsequently divided areas of the City's ETJ into High, Medium, Low Priority areas (among other classifications) and staff brought forward each of the High Priority areas for Council consideration on May 10tb. Staff was then directed to return to a July workshop with detailed financial analyses, potential development timeframes, and consideration of utility options in the Southeast Development Zone to encourage economic development. In addition, staff was instructed to study the area north of Berry Creek along Shell Road. Staff completed this further study of the 2011 High Priority Areas and the additional area added. The study included how each might be served with infrastructure and basic public services in a cost-effective manner while producing desired development and return on investment. The list of nine has been divided and increased to a total of seventeen areas for Council's consideration. Staff is requesting Council decisions on all of the areas presented, and we are able to add additional territory to the list if the Council so desires. The regular meeting's action item will be the last opportunity to add new areas to the 2011 list. A complete rundown of the recommendations can be found later in this report. The primary reasons for annexation of the proposed 2011 areas are: economic development potential, closing "donut hole" infill areas, efficient provision of City services, and other areas of strategic interest to the City. Staff studied each area with an eye on costs and administration of services, capital requirements, and ultimate development potential. The most significant target in terms of size and capital improvements is the acreage between Inner Loop and Westinghouse Road, casually referred to as the Southeast Development Zone. This area is viewed as a priority development area and is being discussed as a potential special taxing district to help fund the improvements needed for development. Determining the Costs of Annexation: In the attached summaries for each area, you will find financial impacts along with the benefits and potential drawbacks of each. Staff used financial models to estimate the costs and revenues of annexing each area based on known factors and the future values could be higher or lower than those presented here. The fiscal impact totals do not take into consideration the capital costs and expected operations and maintenance of infrastructure improvements for those beyond the minimum annexation requirements. For example, if a new 8-inch water line is required by state law to be extended to a given parcel or area, the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost is accounted for in the Total. Fiscal Impact line; if a 16-inch wastewater line is desired by the City to help spur development in the area, the cost (or cost options) of that improvement are listed in the Utility Improvements line, but O&M costs are not part of the Total Fiscal Impact. The difference between minimum service requirements and capital infrastructure for ultimate or near - ultimate development prospects is an important distinction that staff wishes to clarify here. Since the utility improvements will likely become part of the CIP, additional O&M of those facilities and other downstream. improvements are not attributed to annexation costs and, thus, are not shown here. In addition, financing of debt on these improvements, if applicable, are not included in the annexation costs. For example, if property in the so-called Southeast Development Zone is annexed, staff will propose an amendment to the 2030 Plan so this area is placed in the highest priority growth zone, which will move some Master Plan utility improvements into the CIP. Which improvements would be built in a given timeframe would depend upon cost and timing, development of nearby property, the impact on the overall systems, and the development prospects of the land the improvements would benefit. Cover Memo Item # B Consideration of Certain Areas: Many of the areas under consideration are considered served with utilities, meaning no new infrastructure or maintenance will be required and few new hookups are expected. The primary exceptions are Areas 13-17, which have substantial infrastructure investments required solely for annexation purposes. Area 13 is Logan Ranch, which would require a very expensive water line to serve low -density residential. The cost of the line would outweigh the property tax revenue benefits and the return on investment is estimated to be 15 years. Staff looked at Areas 14-17 (from Shell Spur to SH 195) at the request of City Council and the capital costs required to serve the existing uses are extensive and do not offer enough growth potential or economic development opportunity to recover the upfront costs. The potential solution was to break the area into four groups, two of which (Areas 15 and 17) would involve minimal costs but would provide the City assurances of future land use and development standards. Areas 14 and 16, however, would serve existing commercial uses and require expensive on- and off -site capital improvements. There is the potential at this time to shift parcels within Areas 14 and 15 to allow the City to annex only properties that require no capital improvements. Area 10, which is Escalera Ranch and the Preserve, are currently served by the required utilities and would require service costs only for street maintenance and police protection. The primary consideration regarding Escalera Ranch is the distance to the closest fire station (#1), which is about 7.8 miles from its furthest point within the subdivision. The effect of this would be to have a residential neighborhood inside the city limits with a much higher ISO rating (an insurance risk standardization rating) than others within the corporate boundaries. The Water Oak subdivision next door has plans for a 2-acre fire station along FM 2243, at the time the City desires it, so there could be a station built to accommodate Escalera in the future. Estimated costs of a new station are about $2.5 million, which would currently serve a very sparse population. The additional consideration for Escalera is the timing, as the Water Oak project is in discussion to be removed from the city limits. Once that occurs, annexation of Escalera and other land west of Water Oak (including Garey Park) is not possible. Annexation was agreed to in the Escalera Ranch development agreement, but the subdivision has only been contiguous to Georgetown for the last few years. Area 7 is the CR I I I right of way (Westinghouse Road in the city limits). Staff has been in contact with the County about making some improvements to the roadway before Georgetown takes over its maintenance. We need to ensure that those improvements have been completed prior to annexation, which is why staff split the right of way out into its own area. Legal Considerations: Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code establishes the process by which the City may annex. The City has three options to consider for annexation: 1) voluntary petition of property owners of adjacent property; 2) unilateral planned (involuntary) annexation following the Municipal. Annexation Plan requirements; and 3) exempted unilateral/involuntary annexation. All of the areas identified for 2011 are eligible for voluntary or exempted unilateral/involuntary annexations under Chapter 43.052 (h) (1) "the area contains fewer than 100 separate tracts of land on which one or more residential dwellings are located on each tract. " The Local Government Code also sets a limit on the amount of land a municipality may annex each year, which is 10% of the total land area in the municipality as of January 1 of that year. Georgetown has about 20,000 acres available for annexation in 2011. Recommendations: Staff recommends continuing the process of annexation in the selected areas by finalizing a surveying contract, further refining the economic models, preparing public advertising and notification letters for property owners, and submitting a resolution to Council on August 23rd. According to the calendar created for the 2011 annexation, public hearings would be held in October. Because the timing of annexation hearing requirements is set by the Texas Local Government Code, a special meeting will be required in November for an ordinance reading. Staff also would like direction on designating certain parcels of land in the economic development areas to a zoning district more appropriate for commercial destinations and employment centers than the default district of Agriculture. The intent for those areas targeted for economic development is to provide a certain level of entitlement on properties to make them closer to be "shovel -ready" for development. Zoning the property at Cover Memo the time of annexation could save a property owner or developer time and money at a later date. Council can also consider zoning existing uses in the annexation areas to an appropriate district; for example, Escalera Item # B Ranch and the Preserve would appropriately be zoned RE, Residential Estate. Below are the staff recommendations on the 2011 Annexation Areas. • Staff is not recommending Area 13 due to the expense of the waterline required to serve the Logan Ranch subdivision. • Staff is not recommending Area 14 due to the expense of both water and wastewater and low development potential due to the area being nearly built out. At Council's direction, some boundary adjustments could be made to distinguish parcels staff considers "served" as opposed to those that would require service. • Staff is not recommending Area 16 because of the expense and downstream wastewater improvements required. • All other areas proposed are considered beneficial to the City in either the short or long-term, with either positive or neutral impact or capital investment expected to produce a significant return to Georgetown in the future. Short-term: Surveying costs estimated to be $18-20,000 in worst -case scenario. Might be revised lower in the final analysis. Notification costs estimated to be $1500. Long-term: To be determined based on selected areas, ultimate capital improvements, and the finalized Service Plans for each area. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: 2011.Process Calendar Exhibit B: Annexation Bank Summary Exhibit C: Overall Map of Annexation Areas Exhibit D: Overall Area Summary Area 1 Map and Summary Area 2 Map and Summary Area 3 Map and Summary Area 4 Map and Summary Area 5 Map and Summary Area 6 Map and Summary Area 7 Map and Summary Area 8 Map and Summary Area 9 Map and Summary Area 10 Map and Summary Area 11 Map and Summary Area 12 Map and Summary Area 13 Map and Summary Area 1.4 Map and Summary Area 1.5 Map and Summary Area 1.6 Map and Summary Area 1.7 Map and Summary Cover Memo Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 1 Annexation Calendar 2011 Annexation Process May 10 City Council initiates annexation analysis for staff recommended areas May 24 Meeting to present area maps and begin task of residential/commercial utility extensions requirements and cost projection. June 25 GUS provides final cost projections to Planning for utilities. July 5 Submit material to surveyor to prepare scope and cost estimate. July 26 City Council Workshop to finalize annexation areas August 23 Resolution setting Public Hearing date at City Council Meeting. August 25 Staff contacts WC Sun about holding space for Public Notices August 25 Deliver notice letters to Mayor for signature September 1 Finalize contract with surveyor September 2 Mail notices postmarked, to arrive by September 9th for property owners/utility (30 days prior to Vt public hearing, scheduled for October 11 1h). September 21 Send Public Hearing Advertisement to WC Sun. September 21 Send Notice to GISD/other school districts September 26 Begin producing Public Hearing Notebooks, to include: Area Maps, Service Plans, Financial Info September 28 Public Hearing notice printed in WC Sun. September 28 Finalize all Service Plans. September 30 Finalize Annexation Notebooks for CC and Staff. October 11 1st Public Hearing held at City Council Meeting. Action item posted after the public hearings for any potential area removal. October 23 2ndPublic Hearing notice in WC Sun. October 25 2nd Public Hearing at City Council Meeting. Action item to be posted after the public hearings for any potential area removal. November 4 Ordinance captions sent to WC Sun. November 9 Ordinance captions printed in WC Sun. November 17 Special Meeting: 1st Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting, >20 days from 2nd Public Hearing, < 40 days from 1 st Public Hearing. November 28 Deadline for corrections to survey, service plans and development agreements. December 13 2nd Reading of Ordinance at Regular City Council Meeting. December 16 Mail notice to utility providers, school districts concerning approved annexation. December 31 Effective Date of Annexations 0711912011 Page 1 diem # B City of Georgetown Annexation Bank Summary Acreage Year Area Beginning Area Annexed (voluntary & involuntary) Involuntary Area Annexed Voluntary Area Annexed Area End of Year Annexation Bank Area New Annexation Bank Total Available* o Annual Involuntary Annexation Budget* TotaF- Annexation Bank Carryover 1989 9,222.70 -81.41 9,141.29 1990 9,141.29 0.00 9,141.29 1991 9,141.29 113.55 9,254.84 1992 9,254.84 0.00 9,254.84 1993 9,254.84 0.00 9,254.84 1994 9,254.84 0.00 9,254.84 1995 9,254.84 2,052.29 11,307.13 1996 11,307.13 1,230.82 12,537.95 1997 12,537.95 995.79 13,533.74 1998 13,533.74 1,613.21 15,146.94 1999 15,146.94 58.23 0.00 58.23 15,205.17 1,514.69 1,514.69 2000 15,205.17 120.85 0.00 120.85 15,326.02 1,520,52 3,035.21 3,035.21 2001 15,326.02 252.68 0.00 252.68 15,578.70 1,532.60 4,567.81 4,567.81 2002 15,578.70 100.90 0.00 100.90 15,679.60 1,557.87 6,125.68 6,125.68 2003 15,679.60 699.68 0.00 699.68 16,379.28 1,567.96 7,693.65 7,693.65 2004 16,379.28 443.03 16.25 426.78 16,822.31 1,637.93 9,331.57 4,913.79 9,315.32 2005 16,822.30 5,061.65 1,561.52 3,500.13 21,883.95 1,682.23 10,997.55 5,046.69 9,436.03 2006 21,883.95 8,909.19 5,648A0 3,260.79 30,793.14 2,188A0 11,624A3 6,565.19 5,976.03 2007 30,793.14 362.00 0.00 362.00 31,155.14 3,079,31 9,055.34 9,237.94 9,055.34 2008 31,155.14 982.38 931.96 50.42 32,137.53 3,115.51 12,170.86 9,346.54 11,238.90 2009 32,137.53 22.51 0.00 22.51 32,160.04 3,213.75 14,452.65 9,641.26 14,452.65 2010 32,160.04 276.46 0.00 276.46 32,436.50 3,216.00 17,66&65 9,64&01 17,66&65 2011 32,436.50 32,436.50 3,243.65 20,912.30 9,730.95 20,912.30 2012 32,436.50 32,436.50 3,243.65 24,155.95 9,730.95 24,155.95 * 43.055 of the Texas Local Government Code: A city carrying over annexation area may not annex greater than 10% of the incorporated area of the city as of January 1 of that year, however an annexation bank can be created and used not to exceed 30% in one year. The lesser of Available vs. 30% Budget is the maximum amount of involuntary annexation the City may complete in one year. 412912011 Item # B 1✓' ' \ j Me v let I t ` 4 3 j it4 7 4 '�"� r t l Exhibit C , .,.` ' r'�� r�� s 2011Annexation Areas �t d rc��.....�., pp 1 y )T� , .,/.� S � r� July 18s 2011 S Legend � Parcels Annexation Areas Annexation Agreements streets �a � � � �j '! � �� ,�" � ?a `�' � �} � �� \ t,,v � � �r� ,✓^`� i r�� —�--r Ra Iroads ,�� 1.., y ^„y u� :'� t}`-`,�fy n' ? jT1'': /r`iw'" v^,,,„,"w'•+¢' �i �_l Lake Georgetown ddd,w 9 ,p streams ,+ `r s� �v'l r' t a F .. j Y '�. i �`€✓'� City Limits ETJ IT j�,✓"-J '�2r`J r S IN tj q 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Itemtlr ✓✓ ti c Exhibit D: Overall Area Summary Areas Acreage Parcels Ag Parcels 1 6.56 3 1 2 32.61 8 1 3 93.53 6 2 4 230.83 18 6 5 292.19 18 9 6 2.85 1 0 7 0.00 0 0 8 244.85 14 6 9 17.20 1 1 10 391.08 173 0 11 27.41 4 4 12 5.51 4 0 13 322.40 80 0 14 50.80 9 3 15 135.86 10 8 16 74.33 9 2 17 46.60 8 6 Totals 1974.61 366 49 Total Assessed Value $ 1,049,159.00 $ 811,676.00 $ 791,852.00 $ 6,788,212.00 $ 2,012,435.00 $ 1,162,336.00 $ 2,205,991.00 $ 2,022,349.00 $ 50,509,409.00 $ 4,680,054.00 $ 928,309.00 $ 38,532,416.10 $ 2,992,113.00 $ 795,255.00 $ 2,046,030.00 $ 2,077,070.00 $ 119,404,666.10 Avg Assessed Value $ 349,719.67 $ 101,459.50 $ 131,975.33 $ 377,122.89 $ 111,801.94 $ 1,162,336.00 $ 157,570.79 $ 2,022,349.00 $ 291,961.90 $ 1,170,013.50 $ 232,077.25 $ 481,655.20 $ 332,457.00 $ 79,525.50 $ 227,336.67 $ 259,633.75 $ 326,242.26 Item # B Exhibit D: Overall Area Summary Prop. Tax Revenue $ 3,735.01 $ 2,889.57 $ 2,818.99 $ 24,166.03 $ 7,164.27 $ 4,137.92 $ 7,853.33 $ 7,199.56 $ 179,813.50 $ 16,660.99 $ 3,304.78 $ 137,175.40 $ 10,651.92 $ 2,831.11 $ 7,283.87 $ 7,394.37 425,080.61 Item # B Attachment number 5 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 6.56 acres Parcels: 3 parcels Commercial: 2 Residential: none Ag Exemption: 1 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $1.05 million Total Market Valuation: $1.38 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $349,719 Property Tax Revenue: $3,735 Sales Tax Revenue: $10,616 General Expenditures: $124 Total Fiscal Impact: $23,676 Utility Improvements: None Description: Annexation of Embree subdivision that was disannexed in 2000. Includes new Shell gas station and convenience store (Landsdale). Two occupied commercial sites, one vacant commercial. Water and wastewater considered served. Benefit: Utilities already served. Resolve public safety jurisdictional issues along SH 195. Increase sales tax base. Development review for future commercial site. Infill. Development Timeframe: Existing 2005 Annexation Policy: To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 6 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 32.61 acres Parcels: 8 parcels Commercial: 3 Residential: 4 Ag Exemption: 1 ROW Length: 971 ft. In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $811,676 Total Market Valuation: $1.07 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $101,459 Property Tax Revenue: $2,081 General Expenditures: $87 Total Fiscal Impact: $1,994 Utility Improvements: $0 Description: Infill annexation that closes donut hole south of GMC office. Adds 971 ft of FM 1460. Wastewater served to every property. Water served to some, available to others but considered served. Benefit: Economic Development potential with extension of Madison Oaks Avenue to 1460 and High Tech Drive intersection. Utilities already served. Resolve public safety jurisdictional issues along 1460. Potential redevelopment of residential to commercial with FM 1460 project is completed. Development Timeframe: Existing. Within 5 years on Pierce tract. 2005 Annexation Policy: To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. To encourage growth in areas where existing services (typically though not always are adjacent to existing development) will result in a lower cost of service than if there were no limitation on the location of the development. To preserve the uture ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. 2030 Plan: 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 7 Page 2 of 2 Acres: Parcels: Commercial: Residential: Ag Exemption: ROW Length: In Water CCN: Total Assessed Valuation: Total Market Valuation: Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: 93.53 acres 6 parcels 2 1 3 2144 ft. yes $791,852 $5.3 million $131,975 $1,666 $781 $(7,535) $421,580 — Master Plan Cost $339,080 — Minimal Annexation Cost Description: Part of Southeast Development Zone, so significant economic development potential. Includes part of Longhorn Junction land and extra Citicorp parcels. Water and Wastewater available already, master plan water improvement would benefit beyond this area. Benefit: Economic development prospects. Sales tax, utility connects, land use control, utility extension to serve larger area. Development Timeframe: 0-5 years. 2005 Annexation Policy: To preserve the gLte ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 8 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 230.83 acres Parcels: 18 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 3 Ag Exemption: 6 ROW Length: 4174 ft. In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $6.7 million Total Market Valuation: $13.9 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: $377.122 $23,892 $942 $22,950 $932,738 — Master Plan Cost $185,133 — Minimal Annexation Cost Description: Part of Southeast Development Zone, so significant economic development potential. Includes part of Longhorn Junction land and Williamson County vacant property. Minimal utility services required for annexation, but strategic infrastructure extensions would encourage development. Master Plan water lines would service larger area. Benefit: Economic development prospects. Sales tax, utility connects, land use control, utility extension to serve larger area. Development Timeframe: 0-5 years. 2005 Annexation Policy: To preserve the gLte ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 9 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 292.19 acres Parcels: 18 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 1 Ag Exemption: 9 ROW Length: 3914 ft. In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $16.7 million Total Market Valuation: $23.7 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $932,045 Property Tax Revenue: $7,164 General Expenditures: $713 Total Fiscal Impact: $6,451 Utility Improvements: $466,280 * There are 4 tax-exempt parcels in this area, most of which is church property Description: Part of Southeast Development Zone, so significant economic development potential. Includes part of Kelly Trust and Celebration Church property. This area includes portions of Rabbit Dill Road and a potential wastewater improvement to serve economic development and benefit the downstream system. Benefit: Economic development prospects. Sales tax, utility connects, land use control, utility extension to serve larger area. Resolve jurisdictional gap on Rabbit Hill Road. Connect Inner Loop and Westinghouse portions of SEDZ to keep open options for tax - financing mechanisms. Development Timeframe: 0-5 years. 2005 Annexation Policy: To preserve the uture ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 10 Page 1 of 2 Attachment number 10 Page 2 of 2 Acres: Parcels: Commercial: Residential: Ag Exemption: ROW Length: In Water CCN: Total Assessed Valuation: Total Market Valuation: Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: 2.85 acres 1 parcel 1 0 0 none yes $1.16 million $1.16 million $1.16 million $4,137 $87 $3,050 none — improvements in Area 5 satisfy Description: Part of Southeast Development Zone, so significant economic development potential. Area 6 is a commercial auto body business donut hole created by voluntary annexation of Bourn property. Benefit: Sales tax and closes a 2.85 acre donut hole in between city limit lines. Development Timeframe: existing 2005 Annexation Policy: To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 11 Page 2 of 2 Description: CR 111 right of way. This is a County -constructed roadway that the City is awaiting improvements on prior to annexation. Benefit: Economic development of area. Resolve jurisdictional conflict between Westinghouse Road portion (City) and CR 111 (County). Development Timeframe: existing 2005 Annexation Policy: To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.13.2 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.13.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. 3.13.6 Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation. Item # B Attachment number 12 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 244.85 acres Parcels: 14 parcels Commercial: 1 Residential: 2 Ag Exemption: 6 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $2.2 million Total Market Valuation: $10.27 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $157,570 Property Tax Revenue: $7,853 General Expenditures: $482 Total Fiscal Impact: $7,371 Utility Improvements: None needed for annexation requirements $2.2 million for potential wastewater improvement * Discussions with Round Rock continue about possible wastewater options Description: Part of Southeast Development Zone, so significant economic development potential. Includes Teravista commercial and several large tracts of land ripe for development if infrastructure were available. Benefit: Economic development potential Development Timeframe: 0-10 years 2005 Annexation Policy: To preserve the uture ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.13.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 13 Page 1 of 2 ■ N 0 245 490 980 Feet rMMMMIl Lr ETJ Boundary Line m m City Limits Attachment number 13 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 17.20 acres Parcels: 1 parcel Commercial: 0 Residential: 0 Ag Exemption: 1 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $2.02 million Total Market Valuation: $2.02 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $2.02 million Property Tax Revenue: $7,199 General Expenditures: $54 Total Fiscal Impact: $7,145 Utility Improvements: None Description: Commercial corner at CR111 and FM 1460. Part of Teravista project, but not located within MUD. Benefit: Retail sales tax. Infill. Clean up anticipated jurisdictional conflict when FM 1460 is widened. Development Timeframe: 0-5 years 2005 Annexation Policy: To preserve the uture ability of controlling development and local control of specific areas. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 14 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 391.08 acres Parcels: 173 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 162 Ag Exemption: 0 ROW Length: 4.8 miles In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $50.50 million Total Market Valuation: $50.50 million Total Ultimate Valuation: Potentially $140 million (2011 dollars) Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: $297,688 $179,813 $2,400 $177,413 (on existing homes) None Description: Escalera Ranch and The Preserve subdivisions. Escalera Ranch development agreement with the City was that the project would be annexed. Until recently, the City has not been contiguous. City has small window to annex due to proposed Water Oak disannexation and then might not be annexed in the future. Annexation of Escalera would stand after disannexation of Water Oak in accordance with State Law. Water is served, wastewater is allowed septic. Benefit: Significant property tax revenue. Utilities served. Streets and drainage in good condition. Fire hydrants in place. Subdivision is only 1l3 built out. Build out value expected to be near 3x current value, with no additional infrastructure required. Negatives: Very far from existing urbanized area and out of 5-mile fire service area. Furthest lot from existing Fire Station #1 is 7.8 miles. City/ESD fire station planned for FM 2243 in the Water Oak development, the land for which City can request immediately. 2005 Annexation Policy: To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. 2030 Plan: Protect viable existing land use patterns Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.2 Availability of infrastructure capacity. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 15 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 27.41 acres Parcels: 4 parcels Commercial: 1 Residential: 1 Ag Exemption: 1 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $4.68 million Total Market Valuation: $5.05 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $1.17 million Property Tax Revenue: $16,660 General Expenditures: $186 Total Fiscal Impact: $22,917 Utility Improvements: None Description: 4-lot infill annexation with no utilities necessary in service plan. Benefit: Future development potential with extension of Verde Vista and Woodlake intersection. Sales tax and property value with capital infrastructure requirements. Existing commercial development served with water and wastewater. 2005 Annexation Policy: To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations: 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.2 Availability of infrastructure capacity. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 16 Page 1 of 2 Attachment number 16 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 5.51 acres Parcels: 4 parcels Commercial: 1 Residential: 1 Ag Exemption: 0 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $928,309 Total Market Valuation: $928,309 Avg. Assessed Valuation: $232,077 Property Tax Revenue: $3,304 General Expenditures: $164 Total Fiscal Impact: $5,198 Utility Improvements: None Description: 4-lot infill annexation with no utilities necessary in service plan. Benefit: Fill remaining portions of Williams Drive frontage. Development and redevelopment of lots along Williams. Sales tax and property value with no capital infrastructure requirements. Existing commercial development served with water and wastewater. Clear up jurisdictional issues on Williams. 2005 Annexation Policy: To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.1 Location within appropriate growth area. 3.B.2 Availability of infrastructure capacity. 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 17 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 322.40 acres Parcels: 80 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 80 Ag Exemption: 0 ROW Length: 2.2 miles In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $38.5 million Total Market Valuation: $40.6 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: $481,655 $137,175 $11,400 $125,775 $2.2 million for a 12" water line Description: Logan's Ranch subdivision infill Benefit: Nigh revenue generator in area close to existing City services. Remove wells from 80 residential lots. Close jurisdictional gaps on entry roads to Berry Creek subdivision. 2005 Annexation Policy: To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. To promote inter -governmental cooperation for coordinated service delivery among entities. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations Consolidate development patterns within the city limits, where feasible, through judicious annexation and capital investments. Protect viable existing land use patterns 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. 3.B.6 Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation. Item # B Attachment number 18 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 50.80 acres Parcels: 9 parcels Commercial: 5 Residential: 1 Ag Exemption: 3 ROW Length: 1140 ft. In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $2.92 million Total Market Valuation: $3.74 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $332,457 Property Tax Revenue: $10,651 Sales Tax Revenue: $7,300 General Expenditures: $11,400 Total Fiscal Impact: $6,551 Utility Improvements: $672,684 Description: Shell Road #1 Area. Contains several commercial businesses, office condos, and Alzheimer's facility, and others. No properties are served with City utilities. Includes Shell Spur right of way up until Logan Ranch lots begin. Does not include Shell Road. Benefit: Serve existing commercial properties with utilities for utility revenue. Negatives: Expensive to serve area with little future growth potential or significant sales tax. 2005 Annexation Policy: To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To provide for the orderly growth and development of the jurisdictional boundaries. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.6 Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation. Item # B Attachment number 19 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 135.86 acres Parcels: 10 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 2 Ag Exemption: 8 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $795,255 Total Market Valuation: $3.1 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $79,525 Property Tax Revenue: $2,831 General Expenditures: $468 Total Fiscal Impact: $2,363 Utility Improvements: none Description: Shell Road #2 Area. Contains two residences, both of which are considered served with water. Mostly agricultural properties Benefit: Land use protection and City development standards along Shell Road. 2005 Annexation Policy: To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To provide for the orderly growth and development of the jurisdictional boundaries. 1 1 . Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations Wisely guide new growth at the city's expanding suburban fringe 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B Attachment number 20 Page 2 of 2 Acres: Parcels: Commercial: Residential: Ag Exemption: ROW Length: In Water CCN: Total Assessed Valuation: Total Market Valuation: Avg. Assessed Valuation: Property Tax Revenue: Sales Tax Revenue: General Expenditures: Total Fiscal Impact: Utility Improvements: 74.33 acres 9 parcels 2 1 2 none yes $2.0 million $3.3 million $227,336 $7,283 $4,726 $26,421 $(14,412) $26.21 million (water and wastewater improvements) Description: Shell Road #3 Area. Contains two commercial businesses, a church and maternity home, none of which are served. Water and wastewater are not close or are not capable of service. $26 million in on -site and downstream improvements necessary. Benefit: City development standards along Shell Road and serve existing uses with utilities. Negatives: $26 million in improvements makes this area quite undesirable. 2005 Annexation Policy: To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To provide for the orderly growth and development of the jurisdictional boundaries. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations 3.B.6 Facilities brought up to City standard prior to or concurrent with annexation. Item # B Attachment number 21 Page 1 of 2 Attachment number 21 Page 2 of 2 Acres: 46.60 acres Parcels: 8 parcels Commercial: 0 Residential: 1 Ag Exemption: 6 ROW Length: none In Water CCN: yes Total Assessed Valuation: $2.07 million Total Market Valuation: $4.36 million Avg. Assessed Valuation: $259,633 Property Tax Revenue: $7,394 General Expenditures: $148 Total Fiscal Impact: $7,246 Utility Improvements: none Description: Shell Road #4 Area. Contains a church, an agriculture business and vacant property, some of which will become future SH 195 right of way. Benefit: City future land use and development standards along Shell Road and SH 195. 2005 Annexation Policy: To extend public facilities in an orderly fashion to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community. To protect existing neighborhoods and property values by having land use controls and building code protection. To provide for the long-term economic growth and development of the City. To provide for the orderly growth and development of the jurisdictional boundaries. To encourage major concentrations of development in growth centers/nodes, instead of piecemeal, unplanned parcel by parcel development. 2030 Plan: Provide for the city's long-range growth with strategically timed annexations Wisely guide new growth at the city's expanding suburban fringe 3.B.4 Positive or neutral fiscal impact or other overriding public benefit. Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advise from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to this week's agenda item - ABG Update - Williams Drive - Mosteller vs. City of Georgetown ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property - Discussion regarding the proposed purchase of real property in connection with a Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") Aviation Improvements Program ("AIP") grant for safety design improvements and removal of obstructions at the Georgetown Municipal Airport -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager, Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator - Discussion on deliberations for the acquisition of a 0.776-acre tract of land from Georgetown Railroad Company for right of way in connection with the Southeast Arterial One Road Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: RES Cover Memo Item # D City of Georgetown, Texas July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations. - Project GT - Project Grape ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: RES Cover Memo Item # E Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas JULY 269 2011 The Georgetown City Council will meet on JULY 26, 2011 at 3:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th Street If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Social Service and Youth Program Funding Applicant Presentations to Council -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager B Discussion regarding the selection of the 2011 Annexation Areas -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director 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. C Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to this week's agenda item - ABG Update - Williams Drive - Mosteller vs. City of Georgetown D Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property - Discussion regarding the proposed purchase of real property in connection with a Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") Aviation Improvements Program ("AIP") grant for safety design improvements and removal of obstructions at the Georgetown Municipal Airport -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director, Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager, Terri Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator - Discussion on deliberations for the acquisition of a 0.776-acre tract of land from Georgetown Railroad Company for right of way in connection with the Southeast Arterial One Road Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director E Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations. - Project GT - Project Grape 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 sL day of , 2011, at r 5?W , and remained so posted for at least 17continuous hours preceding the s eduled time of said meeting. s ca Brettle, y Secretary