HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.24.1995MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Council Present:
WEDNESDAY, October 18, 1995
Council Absent:
George Arroyos Winfred Bonner
Lee Bain
Doris Curl
Susan Hoyt
Ferd Tonn
Staff Present
Bob Hart, City Manager Clyde von Rosenberg, Chief Planner
Marianne Banks, City Attorney Charles Simon, Senior Planner
Sandra Lee, City Secretary b
Susan Morgan, Dir. of Finance & Admin.
Hartley Sappington, Dir. of Community Svcs.
Regular Session - Called to order at 5:40 p.m.
A Public Hearing for the annexation of an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun City
Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the W. G. Wilkinson, George
Thompson, Abner Short, R.T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and Daniel Monroe Surveys
von Rosenberg explained to Council that this was the first of two public hearings required
by law before initiating annexation, and reminded them that this area is being voluntarily
annexed. He noted that the service plan was included in the agenda packet, and that the
development agreement with Del Webb addresses this proposed annexation.
B Citizens wishing to address the Council
There were no citizens who wished to address Council at this time.
C Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports
Hart noted the memo that he had provided to Council regarding the vacancy left by
Councilmember Bonner's untimely death.
City Council Minutes
October 18, 1995
Page 1 of 4 Pages
Hart noted to Council that a vacancy had occurred on the Planning and Zoning
Commission due to John Harrison moving to Colorado, and told them that the appointment
of a replacement would be brought to them on the October 24 Council Agenda.
Wood asked Council to bring their recommendations to the next Council Meeting.
Hart told Council of being currently involved in the Redesign Phase of Development
Services, and that a final recommendation would be brought to the Council for approval
in eight or nine months.
Arroyos addressed the constituents of Councilmember Bonner's District saying that the
absence of their representative on the Council would not go unnoticed, and that each of
the remaining Councilmembers would share in the responsibility to assist the residents of
that district.
Regular Agenda
D Consideration of approving the Georgetown Industrial Development Corporation's
"Resolution Authorizing Georgetown Industrial Development Corporation Industrial
Revenue Bond (Triple S Plastics, Inc. Project) Series 1995; the Execution of an Indenture
and a Loan Agreement; and Other Matters Related to the Issuance of the Bond" and
consideration of approving certain changes to the bylaws and other matters related
thereto/Bob Hart
Hart introduced Carol Polumbo, serving as Bond Counsel for the Georgetown Industrial
Development Corporation (GIDC). Wood also recognized in the audience, Ms. Heidi
Weingarten of Triple S Plastics. Polumbo told Council that the GIDC had met yesterday
to authorize the bonds, that the bond are payable solely ,from payments from the company;
and necessary indemnifications have been done to protect the City. Polumbo told Council
that the Bylaws of the GIDC were changed to accommodate the extra members appointed
by the Council, changing the membership from three to five members. Polumbo added
that the company is already operational in Georgetown, and that Triple S Plastics and
GIDC appreciated the Council holding a special meeting to transact the business of the
bonds.
Motion by Bain, second by Tonn to approve the resolution of the Georgetown Industrial
Development Corporation authorizing industrial revenue bonds on behalf of Triple S
Plastics. Approved 6-0. (District 2 Councilmember position vacant due to death of
Councilmember Winfred Bonner)
F Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and
a Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known
City Council Minutes
October 18, 1995
Page 2 of 4 Pages
as Churchill Farms, Section Four; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry
and Hildy Kingma
Simon informed Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended
approval of this preliminary plat. Curl suggested that plantings be added next to the fences
to improve the aesthetics because Highway 29 is an entrance to the City. Simon replied
that the State, who owns the right of way from the fence line to the highway, has
recommended "no plantings" and that they would not maintain any plantings placed in
their right of way.
Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve the preliminary plat and variances to the
Subdivision Regulations. Approved 6-0.
E Consideration of a Final Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a
Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as
Churchill Farms, Section Four/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
Motion by Vincent, second by Tonn to approve the final plat. Approved 6-0.
m
G Consideration of approval of an agreement between the City of Georgetown and David
Ham & Associates for engineering services related to the design of the West 22nd and
Leander Street Stormwater Trunk Line and Outfall Structure, in an amount not to exceed
$58,000.00/Jim Briggs
Hart explained to Council that review of the contract had not been completed by the City
Attorney, so he would defer this item until the next agenda. He emphasized the need to
move forward as quickly as possible so as not to delay the projects. When asked about the
drainage problems in that area, and the proposed solution to deal with same, Hart replied
that an investigation showed that it would be $500, 000 less expensive to direct the water
to the San Gabriel River rather than to the Smith Branch.
Wood asked Hart if the Council could go ahead and act with the understanding that the
City Attorney would have the final approval on the contract. Motion by Tonn, second by
Bain to approve the agreement, only to become official with approval of the City Attorney.
Approved 6-0.
H Final comments and evaluation of meeting process
Hart told Council he would try to get a map to them showing the planned location of the
proposed concrete plant.
City Council Minutes
October 18, 1995
Page 3 of 4 Pages
The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
Leo Wood, Mayor
City Council Minutes
October 18, 1995
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
. / 1 1 1 I ■ �'
11'l• �� I etc _ •., a
o g
0". 93' 1 1M9�y
r 7
2?0.
F U =
DUPLEXMM TI>FAMIt.
• '��
2 3p
13 � 11 � 15 C � to I toy
8 I � 15 s RE C
3 �b}.. na 200• ACH A USIA I7 A 19 '--
N/3 I,s /Oy' /o / .*033 � 19
AWS Gov} 1700 d' C' j
�•o 0?3 it o tRc
tl
•
Z _ R
MIL
RETAIL. �� • -
BETA
THE RANCH AIr RIVER t7AKS W. CARRINGTON
PROPERTIES
1
SCALE IN FEET:
4 100 zoo 0 ,
4-
G CITY OF
w
FDLJN DED IN 1848
MEMORANDUM
To: Thomas and Dina Parks
John and Alice Pennington
John Pritchett
Charles Steger, Main Street Baptist Church
Mayor and City Council
Bob Hart, City Manager
From: Edward J. Barry, AICP - Director
Division of Development Services
Date: October 20, 1995
Subject: "Meeting between representatives of Main Street Baptist Church and
surrounding neighborhood
As I indicated in our meeting of Thursday, October 19, 1995, I am following up with the
agreements we -entered into at that time. Mrs. Pennington and Mrs. Parks indicated that the
concerns they shared regarding the addition to the Main Street Baptist Church included:
increase in drainage problems or runoff created by the new facility; the decrease in the
amount of sunlight reaching their property as a result of the height of the new structure; the
need for a fence to separate the properties and improve privacy; the location of windows on
the east side of the new structure which would permit persons in the church building
especially on the second floor to look into the rear yards of the adjacent residences; and the
construction of curbing along the north side of llth Street along the south edge of the Parks'
property.
With respect to these issues, the following agreements were made as represented by Charlie
Steger and the other members of the church congregation in attendance:
Regarding drainage, it was identified that the City was not requiring any additional drainage
improvements to the site due to the small increase in runoff. Neither will the State through
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission require filtration of the increased
runoff. It was agreed that the expansion of the building will be designed to drain any runoff
into the parking lot to be constructed on the south side of the church property or to drain to
the west side of the property into Main Street. The church representatives indicated that they
will not do anything to aggravate or increase the runoff from their property to that of the
residential properties to the east.
DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 0 POST OFFICE BOX 409 0 GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78627-0409 • 51 2/930.3575 0 Fax: 51 2/930-3681
The church agreed to build a six (6) foot privacy fence along the rear yard of both properties
from the property lines parallel to loth and 1Ith Streets respectively. At the south property
line the ,fence will be taken east several feet to tie back and abut the garage located on the
Parks' property. Additionally, six (6) foot gates will be built on either end of the new
expansion limiting access behind the church and the residences. The fence shall be erected
prior to the start of any construction for the expansion of the church including foundation
work.
The matter of decreased sunlight on the residential properties was discussed. Mr. and Mrs.
Parks acknowledged that after reviewing the plans for construction the reduction of sunlight to
their property did .not appear to be as severe as they originally anticipated. Also with the
removal of two (2) large trees, additional sunlight would be available to their property.
Concerning the possible location of windows on the east side of the new structure, the church
representatives indicated that at this time they could not determine whether or not their plans
would include the installation of windows. It was agreed that prior to finalizing their building
plans the church would share their building plans with the Parks' for review.
The Parks' wanted to install a driveway approach on the east side of their garage and wished
to coordinate this improvement with the construction of the curb along 11th street. It was
indicated that Charles Simon with the Planning Department would coordinate the activities of
the Street and Inspection Departments with the construction of the driveway approach for the
property.
At the conclusion of the meeting, everyone seemed to be in general agreement and satisfied
with the outcome of the discussions. At this time the church is unsure as to the timing for
these improvements. But at the time of building plan submittal, staff will assist in following
up on this agreement.
cc: Dave Hall, Building Official
Mark Miller, Streets Department
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
1r- -
Steger 8z Bizzell Engineering, Inc_
Consulting Engineers Surveyors
1978 South Austin Avenue
Post Office Box 858
Georgetown. Texas 78627
Mr. Ed Barry, Director
T1 n n + T1
L.�urtIil�,il� of Lt'�v'"ivpmcnt Sen►ceS
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627
RE: Rolling Prairie Settlement
Concept Plan a
Dear Sir:
Telephone: Facsimile:
Georgetown: (512)863-4521 (512)863-4523
Austin Area: (512)255-2582 (512)255-2632
Taylor: (512)352-2254 (512)352-8081
September 28, 1995
As the result of a meeting with your staff' and the affected landowners, I have prepared a
preliminary layout of the proposed realignment of C.R. 111, in order to attempt to comply with
the City's Century Plan. The alignment has curves with a radius of about 1200 feet which would
equate to a 50 mph speed limit. The owner of this tract have agreed to realignment of C.R. 111
subject to the following conditions:
1.) The road is constructed within one year of the date of approval of the concept
plan, and at no cost to Brady Trust;
2.) The cost of surveying and legal work will be paid by the City/County for transfer
of tracts;
3
3.) The Brady Trust will be paid, at the current market value, for all lands within the
new right of way, less any agreed donation of land as shown on the first concept
plan that was submitted to the City;
4.) The City/County would agree to construct a cul-de-sac that is near the Jonah WSC
Tract-,
5.) The Brady Trust would have driveway accesses as shown for all tracts that front
C.R. I II (new), -
Member: NSPE TSPE TSPS
September 28, 1995
Mr. Ed Barry
Rolling Prairie Settlement
Page Two
6. Water will be supplied to all tracts along the new C.R. 111 at no cost to the Brady
Trust; and
a�.
,,1l:t.aL.VVr:1GiJ
l �l Lll lip/ VL \/.11. `t/tul
I have attached a copy of the plat showing the proposed realignment for your review. Please give
me a call if you should have any questions.
Respect lly,
Don H. Bizzell, P.E.
Encicsure
cc: 4 Linda Brady
DHB/pkc
271dhb02
NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
TUESDAY, October 24, 1995
at 5:30 p.m.
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, will meet on Tuesday, October 24, 1995, at 5:30
p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at the northeast corner of Seventh and Main Street in
Georgetown, Texas. If you need accommodations for any type of disability, please advise in advance.
Detailed explanatory information on the items listed below is compiled in an agenda packet which is
distributed to the Mayor and each member of the Council. An agenda packet is also available at the
Public Library, for the use of interested citizens.
Regular Session -Call to order at 5:30 p.m. J• � � rn
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 that follows.
A Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
B S ec. 5 51.072 deliberation on real property
C Sec. 551.075 conference with employee
Regular Session
D Action on Executive Session items
E , Citizens wishing to address the Council
F Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports
• Joint Meeting with Parks Board on November 9 at 5:30 p.m.
Consent Agenda
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.
G Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of October 10 and Special
Meeting of October 18, 1995/Sandra Lee
H Consideration of award of semi-annual bid for poleline hardware to various bidders in the
estimated amount of $66,354.76/Terry Jones and Susan Morgan
City Council Agenda/October 24, 1995
Page 1 of 3 Pages
I Consideration of authorizing staff to negotiate a partnership contract between the City of
Georgetown and Central & Southwest Communications, Inc., to provide a Customer -Controlled
Load Management System (CCLM) to the City/Jim Briggs
J Consideration of approval of payment to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) under the
joint funding agreement for water resources investigations, for the period October 1, 1995,
through September 30, 1996, in the amount of $6,080.00/Jim Briggs
K Consideration of award of bid in the amount of $26,500.00 to John Kyser Construction for
reconstruction of a home at 1814 Main Street, funded by the HOME Grant/Hartley Sappington
L Consideration of award of bid in the amount of $48,033.00 to John Kyser Construction for
reconstruction of a home at 907 East 20th Street, funded by the HOME Grant/Hartley Sappington
M Consideration of a Final Plat of 24.17 acres in the John Sutherland Survey, to be known as
Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5, located on Nicole Way/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
N Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public utility easement
located along the northeast property line of'Berry Creek, Section 9, Block A, Lot 46/Ed Barry and
Hildy Kingma
O Consideration of approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 714072 between the City of
Georgetown and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs on behalf of Reedholm
Instruments, Inc. /Bob Hart
Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: (Council
may, at any time, recess the regular session to convene in executive session at the request of the Mayor,
a councilmember, or the City Manager.)
P Consideration of action relative to supplying water to the City of Leander/Doris Curl and George
Arroyos
Second reading of a rezoning of River Hills Section 4 Lot 1 from RS Residential Single Family
g g A, g Y
to RM-3, Office and Service District, or any more restrictive classification/Ed Barry and Hildy
Kingma
R Second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan for the
Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church from Intensity
Level Four to Intensity Level Five/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg
��_ � S Second reading of an ordinance amending stormwater drainage rates/Susan Morgan
T Consideration of a Concept Plan for a 144.73 acre tract in the William Addison Survey to be known
as Rolling Prairie Settlement/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
City Council Agenda/October 24, 1995
Page 2 of 3 Pages
U First reading of an ordinance updating TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) employee
service credits/Teresa Hersh
V Consideration of authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application for two police officers
under the Community Policing Federal Hiring Program/Bob Hart
W Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract for a joint use agreement
between the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Independent School District for a joint
school/park playground at Frost Elementary/Randy Morrow
X Consideration of instructing staff as to procedure to follow regarding vacancy of District 2 Council
position due to death of Councilmember Winfred Bonner/Bob Hart
Y Consideration of a resolution casting City of Georgetown votes for the election of the Williamson
County Appraisal District Board of Directors/Bob Hart
Z Consideration of an appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission/Leo Wood
AA Consideration of an appointment of a representative to the Capital Area Planning Council
(CAPCO)Bob Hart
Public Hearings
BB Public Hearing for the annexation of an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun City
Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the W. G. Wilkinson, George
Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis, and Daniel Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and
Clyde von Rosenberg
CC Public Hearing on proposed impact fees (to start at 7:00 p.m.)
DD Final comments and evaluation of meeting process
Adjournment
I,
was posted on the
TML Conference Schedule
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
City Secretary of the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting
_ day of , 1995, at a.m./p.m.
City Council Agenda/October 24, 1995
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Council meeting date: 10-24-95
Item No. 0
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 10, and Special
Meeting on October 18, 1995.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday, October 10, 1995
2. The minutes of the Special Meeting on October 18, 1995, will be provided on the dias.
Submi By:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
TUESDAY, October 10, 1995
Council Present:
George Arroyos
Lee Bain
Doris Curl
Susan Hoyt
Ferd Tonn
Staff Present:
Bob Hart, City Manager
Marianne Banks, City Attorney
Council Absent:
Winfred Bonner
Dick Vincent
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
Ed Barry, Dir. of Development Svcs.
Susan Morgan, Dir. of Finance & Admin.
Jim Briggs, Dir. of Community Owned Utilities
Elizabeth Gray, Dir. of Management Svcs.
Workshop --Called to order 5:50 p.m..
A Receive and discuss recommendation of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee/Ed Barry
Barry gave a brief overview of the intended function of the workshop. He noted that the
advisory board had made recommendations for the fee structures on a per -unit basis for
water and wastewater. Mickey Fishbeck of James Duncan and Associates explained a
suggested option which would allow a cash down payment and installments paid with
monthly utility bills. It is planned that these fees will be assigned according to land use
category. Chairperson of the Advisory Board Ercel Brashear explained the the suggested
method for collection of the fees would be to phase them in over several years for lots
platted after January 1, 1990. Hart advised that there would be a public hearing on this
subject on October 24.
Regular Session - Called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Executive Session
B Sec.551.071 consultation with attorney
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 1 of 12 Pages
C Sec.551.072 deliberation on real property
D Sec.551.075 conference with employee
Regular Session - Called to order at 7:20 p.m.
E Action on Executive Session items
There was no action taken on Executive Session items.
F Citizens wishing to address the Council
Mayor Ken Craven stated that the City of Leander has issued bonds and is ready to
consummate an agreement for water as soon as possible, and is concerned that a contract has
not been brought forth. Three other Leander councilmembers spoke that they were in
support of Mayor Craven's remarks.
Councilmember Randy Staudt spoke of the mutual benefit of a regional water system, and
brought up a concern regarding the timetable for linking Lake Georgetown and Lake
Stillhouse Hollow. He stated that he wants Williamson County to remain autonomous from
the City of Austin and LCRA. Mayor Wood responded that because this issue was not
posted on the agenda, no decisions could be made at this meeting.
Ginger Probyn of Leander spoke of "being thirsty" for Georgetown water.
Councilmember Arroyos asked if Mayor Wood should recuse himself from the dias during
the remarks regarding the City of Leander.
Mayor Wood turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Doris Curl for the remainder of the
remarks pertaining to the City of Leander.
Monica Teisberg of Leander told Council that her child attends school in Georgetown, and l
as a neighbor to Georgetown requested a reliable source of quality water. She feels
Georgetown has "given their word" about providing water to Leander.
Joel Howard, representing Harvey Hildebrant, spoke of concern that the development of the
Leander area would be slowed if the water source was not designated soon.
Mayor Pro Tem Curl told the Leander residents that the City Council would appoint
representatives to meet with them about this issue and turned the meeting back to Mayor
Wood.
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 2 of 12 Pages
G Mayor, Council, City Manager, and staff comments and reports
• Special Meeting, October 18, 5:30 p.m.
Hart reminded Council of the Special Meeting on October 18 to conduct a public
hearing for Sun City and take action necessary for industrial revenue bonds for
Triple S Plastics.
Silver Circle Award
Hart recognized Convention and Visitors Bureau Board President Bob Brent who
presented the Silver Circle Award that had been won for the Marketing Program of
the Georgetown Convention and Visitors Bureau, and commended the Council and
the staff, especially Convention and Visitors Bureau Director Molly Alexander and
Convention and Visitors Bureau Sales Representative Stephanie McClimon.
Herman Goldstein Award for Community Policing
Hart told Council that the award was officially announced last week and that the
previous winners were Kansas City and San Diego.
Hart and Council determined that a good time for the Joint Meeting with the Parks Board
would be November 9 at 5:30 p.m. at the Recreation Center on Austin Avenue.
Consent Agenda
Items I, P, and Q were pulled by Hart.
H Consideration of approval of meeting minutes --Regular Meeting of September 26,
1995/Sandra Lee
I Consideration of approval of an agreement between the City of Georgetown and David
Ham & Associates for engineering services related to the design of the West 22nd and
Leander Street Stormwater Trunk Line and Outfall Structure, in an amount not to exceed
$8,000.00/Jim Briggs (pulled by Hart due to incorrect posting)
J Pulled. (See Regular Agenda)
K Consideration of approval of a construction and maintenance agreement between the City
and the Texas Department of Transportation to allow the City to construct a sidewalk along
the north side of Leander Road (FM 2243), from near Norwood West Drive to
approximately 915 feet west of Norwood West Drive/Jim Briggs
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 3 of 12 Pages
L Consideration of approval of an interlocal contract for professional services with the Texas
Department of Information Resources (DIR) regarding acquisition of public safety
software/Elizabeth Gray
M Pulled. (See Regular Agenda)
N Pulled. (See Regular Agenda)
O Consideration of of a resolution of intent to initiate annexation of an approximately 300.6
acre portion of the Sun City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the
W. G. Wilkinson, George Thompson, Abner Short, R. T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and
Daniel Monroe Surveys/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg
P Consideration of a Final Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and a
Resubdivision of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as
Churchill Farms, Section Four/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Hart due to
incorrect posting)
Q Consideration of a Preliminary Plat of 15.182 acres in the William Addison Survey, and
a Resolution of Stonehedge Subdivision, Section Three, Lot 1, Block N; to be known as
Churchill Farms, Section Four; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry
and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Hart due to incorrect posting)
R Consideration of a Preliminary/Final Plat of an 11.659 acre Resubdivision of Stonehedge
Subdivision, Section Three, Block J, Lot 31, to be known as Churchill Farms, Section
Five; and Variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
S Consideration of a resolution of support for the City's application to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation to be named in a 1996 Great American Main Street Award
winner/Molly Alexander and Bob Hart
Motion by Curl, second by Tonn to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items I,
J, M, N, P and Q. Approved 5-0. (Bonner and Vincent absent)
Regular Agenda
J Consideration of approval of a Letter of Agreement to amend the standing engineering
contract between the City of Georgetown and Roming-Parker Associates for engineering
services related to the Dawn Drive Extension Project in the amount of $19,900.00/Jim
Briggs (Pulled by Tonn)
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 4 of 12 Pages
Tonn asked for clarification regarding the length of the project and the extent of the services
to be provided by Roming-Parker. Motion by Tonn, second by Curl. Approved 5-0.
M Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of an 18.69 acre tract to be known as Hartman
Acres; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy
Kingma (Pulled by Bain)
Bain questioned a remark in the "property owners comments" regarding "private school vs.
mobile home park." Kingma replied that the engineer's note on the plat regarding a septic
tank prompted the misconception about a mobile home park.
Motion by Bain, second by Tonn. Approved 5-0.
N Consideration of approval of a modification to the Detailed Development Plan for the
Georgetown Church of Christ/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma (Pulled by Hoyt)
Hoyt questioned whether Lot 5 wanted a fence also. Kingma acknowledged that Lot 5
should have also been included on the item cover sheet regarding the fenc6. Motion by
Hoyt, second by Tonn to approve the modification, adding Lot 5. Approved 5-0.
T First Reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan - Development Plan
for the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist
Church from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five/Ed Barry and Clyde von
Rosenberg
von Rosenberg explained that the amendment was due to the expansion of the church
building, which includes a day care.
Several citizens had asked to speak regarding this item so Mayor Wood invited them to
speak at the podium.
Tom and Dina Parks of 1006 Church Street told Council that they live directly behind the
Main Street Baptist Church. They asked that their neighbors in the audience be
acknowledged. They stated that they are not opposed to the Church, but wished to read their
letter expressing concerns such as increased traffic, the need for additional parking,
increased drainage problems, the possibility of a fence creating an opportunity for
vandalism, and perhaps the setting of a precedent to change the zoning. The proposed
building would block their view and cut out sunlight from their home. They shoed Council
a diagram demonstrating the blockage of sunlight. They also pointed out that the Church's
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 5 of 12 Pages
fence encroaches the property lines of the adjacent neighbors, and asked that the item be
tabled until further options could be explored.
John Pritchett of 1009 Church Street explained that he had similar concerns. He explained
to Council that he lives across the street from the Parks residence. He complained that
parking already spills over into the area of the neighboring residences and businesses,
expecting an additional 40 to 60 vehicles if the expansion is allowed. He said the drainage
will come down 1 lth Street and accelerate the damage to the asphalt due to heavy truck
traffic. He told Council he felt this would allow a bad precedent to be set regarding parking.
Curl asked about the discussion regarding the parking and drainage issues at the Planning
and Zoning Meeting. Kingma explained that the Community Owned Utilities Director is
allowed to waive detention requirements and even the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission regulations may be waived because there will be a minimal
amount of impervious cover being added. She also added- that a variance had been
previously granted to a another downtown church.
Charles Steger asked to speak on behalf of the applicant. He said the realignment of 1 lth
Street had been suggested by the City and was not an issue with the Church. He noted that
the Church is not invading building setback lines or asking for variances concerning the
structure. He also noted that two-story structures are allowed to be built adjacent to one-
story structures on a regular basis. He pointed out that there have not been any complaints
from the owners of the laundry or other surrounding businesses. As a trustee of the Church,
he asked Council to allow the project to continue. Hoyt asked about the fence. Steger stated
that he is not sure who owns the fence, and they would be willing to take it down. Bain
asked about the alignment of the street. Briggs said that because of traffic control at each
intersection, he doesn't feel there would be a problem. He spoke of a possible shift of the
alignment in order to make the best use of the available right of way.
Pritchett pointed out that at Church and 11 th the traffic control is a "yield" sign, and would
like to trade the City for a "stop" sign. Briggs acknowledged that would take place.
Curl expressed concern about the privacy fence creating an area for crime to take place,
about the lack of privacy for the neighbors adjacent to a two-story structure, and about the
safety issue of the inadequate parking. Curl expressed a desire for the homeowners to be
able to meet with the Church and the City staff about the options that could be utilized to
ease some of the homeowners' concerns.
Karen Hill, a resident of the area, spoke from the audience about the neighborhood being
crowded with parked cars and is most concerned about increased amount of traffic.
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 6 of 12 Pages
Dina Parks spoke again regarding the fence not being on the property line, and would like
to have a privacy fence, but asked that the City and the Church look into the issue of the
possible crime area being created.
Bain asked if the cost of the street re -alignment had been figured into this year's budget.
Briggs replied that it would be in the next fiscal year budget when the actual development
at the Church takes place. Briggs explained that the Budget would also include other street
improvements in that area.
Curl asked again that the Church meet with City staff regarding access for emergency
vehicles and asked how the pavement could be designated for parking restrictions.
Pritchett also expressed concern about emergency vehicles accessing the Weslayan Nursing
Home.
Steger replied that because commercial parking is usually available, he didn't think there
would be an increased parking problem.
Curl moved that the item be deferred to the next Council Meeting in order to allow the
Church to meet with area homeowners and City staff. Motion died for lack of second.
Curl asked if the City would be setting a precedent by removing one or two parking spaces.
Kingma replied that she didn't think any spaces would be lost due to the realignment of 1 lth
Street; a couple of spaces may be lost on Main Street, but there may be more on -site parking
due to the proposed improvements. Kingma noted that while 67 spaces might not be
provided on -site, there would be at least 67 public right of way spaces available in the close
proximity.
Bain asked if any deadlines would be in jeopardy by postponing this decision until next
week. Steger replied that it was important to the Church planning activities to keep this
project moving forward.
von Rosenberg read the caption only on first reading after satisfying the requirements in the
Charter.
Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to approve the amendment of Exhibit 1 of the Century Plan
on first reading. Approved 4-1. (Curl opposed)
U Consideration of a Detailed Development Plan of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8,
locally known as Main Street Baptist Church; and approval of variances to the Subdivision
Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 7 of 12 Pages
Kingma pointed out that the variances requested were the upgrading of existing conditions.
She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the variances and
recommended that the fence not be required.
Motion by Hoyt to approve the Detailed Development Plan, provided there be a stop sign
installed at Church and 1 lth Street and that the Church meet with the homeowners and staff
concerning the corridor that would be created by privacy fences.
Curl explained that blind corridors block the view of the police officers on patrol, and
suggested that something be installed to prevent access by those who might have criminal
intent.
Kingma stated that she was instructed to tell the Council that a stop sign would be installed
at Church and 1 lth by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday.
Barry explained to Council that the City doesn't have any standards regarding the
requirements for preventing a potential crime area and asked Council for direction as to the
position that the City staff is to take in this issue. Council generally requested that the City
staff act as a mediator in the meeting with the homeowners and the Church.
Motion by Hoyt, second by Tonn to approve the Detailed Development Plan as submitted,
provided that the fence be put back in and that staff get together as a mediator with the
neighbors and the Church. Approved 5-0.
Recessed at 8:47 p.m. - Resumed at 8:53 p.m.
V First Reading of an ordinance to rezone River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential
Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District, or any more restrictive classification/Ed
Barry and Hildy Kingma
Kingma explained that this area had originally been platted for commercial development in
1984, in the late 80's it was given RS-4 zoning designation. She said that due to the location
along the IH3 5 frontage road, a designation of RM-3 seems appropriate
Kingma read the caption on first reading after satisfying the requirements of the City
Charter. Motion by Bain, second by Hoyt. Approved 5-0.
W Consideration of a Short Form Final Plat of a Resubdivision of both River Hills, Section
One, Block E, Lots 18 and 19, and River Hills, Section Four, to be known as River Hills,
Section 4A; and approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations/Ed Barry and Hildy
Kingma
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 8 of 12 Pages
Kingma noted to Council that these were the same lots as in the previous item plus two
additional lots. She advised Council that both the Planning Zoning Commission and the
staff recommended denial of the variance regarding impervious cover, but recommended
approval of the resubdivision. Bain asked about primary access and was told that it would
be from the frontage road.
Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve the Short Form Final Plat with Planning and
Zoning and staff recommendations regarding the denial of the variance. Approved 5-0.
John Warden, representing the applicant, asked to be recognized and advised that he had
prepared a presentation. He was advised that the Council's action could not be disregarded.
He said the request for a variance to the impervious cover would be brought back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a later date. Curl thanked Warden for considering a
two-story structure as opposed to three-story structure.
X First Reading of an ordinance to rezone Legend Oaks II, Lots 1-6 from RS, Residential
Single Family to C-2A, Commercial First Height or any more restrictive classification/Ed
Barry and Hildy Kingma
Kingma advised Council of the applicant's proposal to construct mini -storage warehouses
in this location, and of the staff s concern because this is an entry corridor to Georgetown.
Wood recognized applicant Huey Hancock who explained to Council that he was requesting
C-2A in order to make his property more marketable. He told Council that he has had
inquiries to purchase his property for the express reason of building mini storage
warehouses. He said he didn't understand the reason that the warehouses would be
undesirable.
Kingma read the caption only on first reading after satisfying the Charter requirements.
Motion by Bain,. second by Hoyt to deny C-2A zoning but to allow C-1 zoning. Approved
5-0.
Y Consideration of a proposal for defining road segments and improvements in the
Transportation Element of the Century Plan/Ed Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg
von Rosenberg stated that this item is the result of a transportation improvement strategy and
would deal with transportation in a pro -active fashion. He noted that this proposal would
authorize the Planning and Zoning Commission to set priorities and determine the best
possible alignments for roadways in the Georgetown area. He advised that public hearings
would be held before the proposal was brought to the Council for approval to be a part of
the Transportation Element of the Century Plan.
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 9 of 12 Pages
Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to approve the proposal to define road segments and
improvements in the Transportation Element of the Century Plan. Approved 5-0.
Z Consideration of the road alignment for CRl 11 between the MKT Railroad and CR110/Ed
Barry and Clyde von Rosenberg
von Rosenberg told Council that the Century Plan indicates realignment due to two 90
degree turns. He noted that staff had met with the City Engineer and the property owners
in the area, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission had selected Alternative #2 of
five options presented. Don Bizzell, representing the Brady family, spoke to Council
regarding a swap of parcels between two property owners, that the Brady family would be
agreeable to donate the land for right of way in accordance with the Century Plan, and asked
Council's approval of the Concept Plan that will be on the Council Agenda on the October
24 Agenda.
Barry explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted the alignment defined
before dealing with the Rolling Prairie item. Bain asked if the City would be paying for this
alignment and was told that this would be a County and developer expense.
Motion by Tonn, second by Hoyt to approve Alternative 2. Approved 5-0.
AA Consideration and possible action on a request for a Detailed Development Plan of Gabriel
Heights Addition, Block 1, Lot 3A, and variances to the Subdivision Regulations, located
at 1409 Williams Drive/Ed Barry and Hildy Kingma
Barry explained that this site has been before the Council on numerous times for different
detailed development plans, and gave them a brief history of past action. Barry noted that
the applicant wishes to close a "drive-thru" from a previous use and add approximately 225
square feet to the building, adding that a condition on the previous action on this property
triggers the Council approval of a Detailed Development Plan. Barry explained that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had approved all of the variances requested by the
applicant for the duration of the current lease by the current applicant.
Curl asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed the possibility of this
applicant extending the lease, and if the requirements would need to be met if the same lease
was extended. Barry stated that the time frame was specific to the duration of the lease, and
the applicant would need to come back before the Council with a detailed development plan
if the lease was extended beyond that time frame. Bain asked for clarification for action
necessitated at the time of the end of the lease. Barry stated that the structure would need
to be removed or a detailed development plan would need to be approved.
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 10 of 12 Pages
Applicant Tom Sorrells explained to Council that the reason for requesting the variances was
because it is a temporary building being used as a real estate company, and the drive-thru
and deposit window are no longer compatible with any use for the subject property. The
building will be less than 800 total square feet.
Hart explained to Council that the restrictions placed with the Council's approval in 1993
triggered this requirement for the detailed development plan. Barry reviewed the history
of the previous action, saying that specifics were necessary due to the lack of regulations that
exist today, noting that when the property was taken over by the Resolution Trust Company,
it was sold without acknowlegement of the new requirements.
Motion by Tonn, second by Curl to follow the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Approved 5-0.
BB Consideration of approval of a Variance to the platted building setbacks at Stonehedge
Subdivision, Section One Block H, Lot 20 (a.k.a. Churchill Farms)/Ed Barry and Hildy
Kingma
Kingma explained that this request was for a corner lot to allow the house to be built up to
the lot line, adding that last year, Council denied the placement of a six-foot fence at this
location. Motion by Tonn, second by Bain to support the staff recommendations to deny the
requested variance. Approved 5-0.
CC First Reading of an ordinance amending stormwater drainage rates/Susan Morgan
Morgan read the caption only on first reading after satisfying the Charter requirements.
Motion by Hoyt, second by Bain. Approved 5-0.
DD Consideration of appointment of a Councilmember to serve on the Georgetown Public
Library Long -Range Planning Committee/Elizabeth Gray
Wood recommended that Susan Hoyt be the Councilmember to serve. Motion by Tonn,
second by Bain to approve the appointment of Susan Hoyt. Approved 5-0.
EE Consideration of a nomination for the Williamson County Appraisal District Appraisal
Review Board/Bob Hart
Hart asked Council to let him know if they had any nominations.
FF Final comments and evaluation of meeting process
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 11 of 12 Pages
There were no final comments.
Approved:
Leo Wood, Mayor
City Council Minutes
October 10, 1995
Page 12 of 12 Pages
The meeting was adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Attest:
Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
Council Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 Item No. 9
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Award of semi-annual bid for poleline hardware to various bidders in the estimated amount of
$66, 354.76.
ITEM SUMMARY
Bids were received to provide the City with poleline hardware for a six month period beginning
November, 1995. The staff recommendation is to award this bid to the low bidder for each line item,
as designated on the attached bid tabulation. For those items where there is a tie, the low bidder will
be decided by drawing lots.
Bids are taken every six months for poleline hardware at the request of the bidders. Price
increases and decreases are passed down from the manufacturers every six months and bidding
semi-annually provides a chance for more bidders to bid firm prices for the contract period.
Items on this bid are stocked in the City warehouse and are used primarily for maintenance of
the electrical distribution system.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
none
FINANCIAL IMPACT (cost of item, fund and division name, budgeted amt.)
Estimated total for this bid is $66,354.76. $100,000.00 was budgeted for this expenditure in
account 610-106-5204-00 Maintenance of Utilities of which this amount is included.
COMMENTS (from City Attorney, staff, boards and commissions)
none
ATTACHMENTS (list individually)
1. Bid Tabulation
Submitted By:
is, Purchasing Director
Director of Community Owned Utilities
EST.
6 MO.
NO, STOCK CITY
UNIT DESCRIPTION
1 36-4016 50
EA SPLIT BOLT CONNECTOR, PLATED, ACSR 4-6/4-6
BLACKBURN 02HPS
2 36-4017 100
EA SPLIT BOLT CONNECTOR, PLATED, 8 SOU#2STR
BLACKBURN 01 HIPS
3 36-4018 50
EA SPLIT BOLT CONNECTOR, PLATED, ACSR 6-8/6-8
BLACKBURN #4HPS
4 36-4019 50
EA SPLIT BOLT CONNECTOR, PLATED, ACSR 6 STR
TO 2/0 STR, BLACKBURN #20HPS
5 36-4020 25
EA TWO BOLT CONNECTOR WITH SPACER & PLATED,
210-2 TO 2/0-8, BURNDY KVSU26
6 36-4021 50
EA TWO BOLT CONNECTOR WITH SPACER & PLATED,
397.5-336.4 TO 397.5-4, BURNDY KVSU34
7 36-4022 10
EA TWO BOLT CONNECTOR WITH SPACER & PLATED,
397.5-900 to 410-900, BURNDY KVSU44
8 36-4025 400
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR, 2-6 TO 2-6 ACSR
BLACKBURN #WR159
9 36-4026 500
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR, 1/0 - 3 TO 2-6 ACSR
BLACKBURN #WR189
10 364027 200
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR, 2/0-1 TO 2/0-1 ACSR
BLACKBURN #WR279
11 36-4028 100
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR, 410.3/0 TO 2/0-1
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR399
12 36-4033 150
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 4/0-3/0 TO 2-6 ACSR
BLACKBURN #WR379
13 36-4030 50
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 336-336 TO 336-336
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR775
14 36-4034 50
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 477-336 TO 2/0-6
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR815
15 36-4037 25
EA COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 4/0-4/0 to 4/0-4/0
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR419
POLELINE HARDWARE
BID NO.95035
CUMMINS
DEALERS
1.07
1.02
1.22
1.10
0.88
0.73
3.96
1.43
3.39
3.56
6.40
6.55
17.50
14.46
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.25
0.37
0.44
0.40
0.44
0.40
0.44
2.90
3.18
2.45
3.87
0.40
0.44
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
0.84
2.22
0.
0.84 '
2.35
0.
1.39
1.57
0.
4.05
4.92
2.
3.29
4.72
3.
6.55
17.30
5.
16.75
NB
13.
0.22
0.24
0.
0.22
0.32
0.
0.39
0.38
0.
0.43
0.44
0.
0.40
0.46
0.
4.39
5.89
2.
2.35
2.81
6.
0.45
0.52
0,
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
93
NS
0.82
1.23
0.78 '
96
NB
1.95
1.36
0.95
56 '
NB
1.30
2.32
0,68
38
NB
4.00
7.14
1,98
22
NB
3.20 '
4.15
NB
43 •
NB
6.50
8.65
NB
09 '
NB
16.50
15.45
NB
90
NB
0.21
0.21
0.19 '
30
0.35
0.20
0.22
0.18 '
38
0.48
0.37
0.34
0.32 '
45
0.48
0.41
0,38
0.35 '
48
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.31 '
85
1.41 '
4.29
NB
NB
30
1.33 '
2.05
NB
NB
49
0.43
0.40
0,39
0.33 '
PAGE 2 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST.
6 MO.
NO.
STOCK #
QTY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
16
38-4035
25
EA
COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 795-477 TO 336-1/0
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR949
17
36-4036
25
EA
COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 795-477 TO 795-477
9,10
4.09
13.35
16.16
7,91
NB
13.04
3.35 '
4.35
ACSR, BLACKBURN #WR989
18
36-4029
25
EA
COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 336-336 TO 4/0
9.10
4.45
13.25
16.82
7.91
13.92
12.93
3.78 '
4.25
BLACKBURN #839
19
36-4031
25
EA
PARALLEL GROVE CONNECTOR CU-AL
4.12
NB
3.95
5.14
NB
NB
3.83
1.62 "
NB
#BSTR-1/0 ACSR - MAIN,#8STR-1/0 ACSR - TAP
BLACKBURN #PAC 345
20
36-4032
75
EA
PARALLEL GROVE CONNECTOR CU-AL,
1.80
1.65 '
2.85
2.82
NB
NB
1.89
NS
NB
1/0-366 ACSR - MAIN, #8 SOL-1/0 STR - TAP
BLACKBURN #PAC-7
21
36-4340
25
EA
COPPER CRtMPETS C-TYPE, #4-6 SOLID,
2.80
3.00
3.34
3.32
N8
NB
2.25 "
NB
NB
BLACKBURN #CF3-44
22
36-4179
100
EA
GROUND ROD CLAMPS TYPE GRD 5/8 ROD
0.55
NB
0.73
0.88
0.49
NB
0.71
0.42 '
0.56
WIRE SIZE 10 SOL.-1STR., BURNDY GRD 5/8
23
36-4184
100
Fro
HOTLINE CLAMPS 2/0-6 TO 1/0-8, ANDERSON BH-00
0.72
0.62
0.69
0.59 "
0.66
NB
0.83
0.61
0.63
24
36-4360
200
EA
TRANSFORMER TANK GROUNDING TERMINAL
6.47
NB
5.95
3.80 '
NB
NB
4.75
4.95
NB
6 SOL.-2STR., BLACKBURN TTC-2
25
36-4450
200
EA
TERMINAL LUG, 06-250 MCM,
1.85
NB
1.52
1.88
NB
NB
1.59
1.15 '
1.44
PENN UNION LSN 025 NTN
26
36-4451
100
EA
TERMINAL LUG, 1/0 - 500 MCM
9.85
3.06
2.93
2.00
NB
NB
1.17 "
4.40
NB
PENN UNION LSN 050 NTN
27
38-4055
24
EA
PIN TYPE INSULATOR 1" L.H. 55-3,
9.55
5.18
4.75
2.86 "
NB
NS
2.96
5.05
NS
PORCELAIN PR. #2613 (C) NECK
28
36-4056
200
EA
PIN TYPE INSULATOR 1" L.H. 55-4,
2.64
NB
2.42
2.29 '
2,50
NB
2.33
2.65
2.39
PORCELAIN PRO #3668 (F) NECK
29
36-4057
480
EA
SUSPENSION INSULATOR 6", BELL
3.35
NB
3.25
2.70 '
3.28
NB
3.25
3.38
3.19
PORCELAIN PRO #86012
30
36-4059
100
EA
SPOOL INSULATOR 3" PORCELAIN PRO 05101
7.28
NB
6.92
NB
6.36 "
NB
NB
6.73
6.53
1.03
NB
1.04
0.80
0.99
NB
1.30
0.80
0.93
PAGE 3 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST.
6M0.
NO.
STOCK #
CITY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
31
36-4310
25
EA
NICOPRESS SLEEVE #6 SOLID COPPER,
NICOPRESS #1-162-J
32
36-4316
25
EA
TENSION SPLICE SLEEVE 1/0 ACSR, KEARNEY
#OH 1/0.61/AS
33
36-4317
25
EA
TENSION SPLICE SLEEVE #4 ACSR, KEARNEY
#OH4-61-711AS
34
36-4318
25
EA
AUTOMATIC SLEEVE FOR 210 ACSR
35
36-4321
10
EA
JUMPER SLEEVE FOR 795 AAC
BURNDY #YCS43R, MUST FIT BURNDY DIE 342
36
36-4322
25
EA
JUMPER SLEEVE FOR 336 ACSR, 26-7
BURNDY #YCS341 RL, MUST FIT BURNDY DIE 327
37
36-4326
25
EA
FULL TENSION SLEEVE FOR 4/0
BURNDY #YDS28R
38
36-4327
10
EA
FULL TENSION SLEEVE FOR 336.4, 26-7
BURNDY #YDS32R
39
36-4328
10
EA
FULL TENSION SLEEVE FOR 2/0
BURNDY #YDS26RL
40
36-4329
20
EA
FULL TENSION SLEEVE FOR 1/0 ACSR,
BURNDY YDS25RL
41
36-4330
10
EA
FULL TENSION SLEEVE FOR 795 AAC
MUST FIT BURNDY DIE 342
42
36-4331
25
EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE ACSR FOR 1/0
FARGO GL406
43
36-4332
25
EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE ACSR FOR #4
FARGO GL402
44
36-4336
25
EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE ACSR FOR 4/0
45
36-4337
25
EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE ACSR FOR 336, 26-7
46
36-4333
25
EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE SOLID COPPER -
FOR #6, FARGO GL1 I I
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
0.57
0.64
0.58
0.88
NB
NB
0.65
0.58
0.54 `
4.20
4.72
6.15
NB
NB
NB
8.76
3.30 `
NB
4.75
3.22
4.25
NS
NB
NB
6.25
2.77 •
NB
9.64
NB
10.65
7.70
NB
NB
6.08 '
10.02
NB
33.25
16.01
NB
NB
14.44 •
NB
NB
NB
NB
13.65
6.58
NB
NS
5.93 `
NB
NS
NB
NB
13.50
11.81
NB
NB
10.27 `
NB
NB
NB
NB
24.49
18.73
NB
NB
17.30 `
NS
NB
54.74
NB
6.27
4.79
NB
NS
4.42 `
NB
NB
10.39
NS
5.95
4.66
NB
NS
4.20
NB
NS
3.30 '
NB
43.20
40.68 `
NB
NS
NB
NB
NS
NB
NB
6.06
NB
6.40
4.74 '
NB
NB
6.08
5.46
NB
4.35
NB
3.79
4.21
NS
NB
4.60
3.51 `
NB
14.54
NS
13.05
9.83 `
NB
NB
11.75
12.56
NS
NB
NB
21.50
26.49
NB
NB
NB
16.20 `
NB
2.10
NS
1.95 `
2.10
NB
NB
NB
2.16
NB
PAGE 4 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST,
6 MO.
NO. STOCK # OTY UNIT
DESCRIPTION
47 36-4334 25 EA
AUTOMATIC TENSION SLEEVE SOLID COPPER -
FOR #4, FARGO GL112
48 36-4102 25 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES #1/0 ACSR, C NECK INSULATORS
PREFORMED OWTC-0112 ONLY
49 36-4103 25 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES #410 ACSR, F NECK INSULATORS
PREFORMED #WTF-0218 ONLY
50 36-4104 50 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES 336 ACSR, F NECK INSULATORS
PREFORMED #WTJ-0422 ONLY
51 36-4105 50 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES, F-NECK, 110 ACSR
PREFORMED #WTF-0212 ONLY
52 36-4106 25 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES, F-NECK, #4 ACSR
PREFORMED#WTF-0200 ONLY
53 36-4107 25 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES, F-NECK #2/0 ACSR
PREFORMED #WTF214 ONLY
54 36-4108 25 EA
WRAPLOCK TIES, F-NECK 336 ACSR
PREFORMED #WTF-0222 ONLY
55 364190 150 EA
GUY GRIP 3/8", MUST BE TWISTED LOOP
PREFORMED #GDE-1107 OR HELICAL ONLY
56 36-4110 25 EA
SPOOL TIES #4 ACSR, PREFORMED
#SPL-1352P
57 38-4111 100 EA
SPOOL TIES #1/0 ACSR PREFORMED
#SPL-1356P
58 364112 25 EA
SPOOL TIES "0 ACSR PREFORMED
#SPL-1358P
59 36-4113 25 EA
SPOOL TIES 336, 26/7 ACSR
60 36-4114 50 EA
DOUBLE SUPPORT/DOUBLE ARM TIE, F-NECK,
1/0 ACSR, PREFORMED #DST-0153
61 36-4115 50 EA
DOUBLE SUPPORT/DOUBLE ARM TIE FOR F-NECK
336 ACSR, PREFORMED #DST-0158
62 36-4116 50 EA
DOUBLE SUPPORT/DOUBLE ARM TIE FOR J-NECK
336ACSR, PREFORMED #DST-0358
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
2.25
NB
2.45
2.25
NB
NB
NB
2.39
NB
3.57
NB
NB
NS
3.51 "
NB
NB
3.71
NB
4.75
NB
NB
NB
4,67
NB
NB
3.96 "
NB
6.75
NB
NB
NB
6.64 "
NB
NB
7.02
NB
3.70
NB
NB
NS
3.61
NB
NB
3.23 '
NB
3.46
NB
NB
NS
3.42 "
NB
NB
3.62
NB
3.90
NB
NB
NB
3.79 "
NB
NS
4.01
NS
6.92
NB
NB
NB
6.79 "
NB
NB
7.19
NB
1.55
NS
1.54
1.59
1.52
NB
1.50 '
1.55
NB
1.06
NB
2.21
NB
1.05 "
NB
1.15
1.12
NB
2.25
NB
2.27
1.66 '
1.92
NB
1.85
2.24
NB
1.77
NB
3.45
NB
1.73
NB
1.89
1.73
NB
3.25
NB
4.55
NB
3.11
NB
2.97 "
4.13
NB
7.14
NB
NB
NB
6.98
NB
6.21 "
7.40
NB
9.83
NB
NS
NB
9.61
NB
8.41
7.88 "
NB
13.18
NB
NB
NB
12.90
Na
11.10 "
13.65
NB
PAGE 5 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST.
6 MO
NO.
STOCK #
QTY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
63
36-4296
100
EA
DEAD IN WRAP #4 ACSR, HELICAL HD514 OR EQUAL
64
38-4298
25
EA
DEAD IN WRAP #2/0 ACSR, HELICAL HD524 OR EQUAL
65
36-4299
25
EA
DEAD IN WRAP #4/0 ACSR, HELICAL HD528 OR EQUAL
66
36-4297
100
EA
DEAD IN WRAP #1/0, HELICAL HD522 OR EQUAL
67
36-4140
24
EA
ANCHOR; 8 WAY, 10,0009
GRIPTITE #A322812
68
36-4141
24
EA
ANCHOR; SWAY, 20,000#
GRIPTITE #A322103
69
36-4143
50
EA
ANCHOR ROD TWIN EYE 20,0009
8' X 314"
70
36-4142
25
EA
ANCHOR ROD TWIN EYE 10,000#
71 .
36-4191
100
EA
GUY GUARDS (YELLOW)
72
36-4004
120
EA
t500W 240V CLEAR QUARTZ LAMP
#Q1500T3/CL
73
36-4006
150
EA
TWIST LOCK PHOTO ELECTRIC CONTROL,
FISHER -PIERCE #7760
74
36-4011
12
EA
1500 W METAL HALIDE LAMPS
75
36-4012
25
EA
100W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM SECURITY LIGHT
PKG., AMERCIAN ELECTRIC #11-57015-6/PKG B
76
36-4013
150
EA
100W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, LAMP ONLY
SYLVANIA LU-100
77
36-4014
24
EA
20OW HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, LAMP ONLY
SYLVANIA LU-200
78
36-4015
12
EA
40OW HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, LAMP ONLY
SYLVANIA LU-400
79
36-4161
250
EA
LAG SCREWS #508754
80
36-4144
50
EA
MACHINE BOLTS S/A- Yin" f`f%nDCD n0on4n
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
0.60
NS
0.79
0.92
0.60
NB
0.66
0.56 '
NB
2.03
NB
2.44
2.20
2.70
NB
1.91 '
3.59
NS
2.73 •
NB
2.90
3.11
5.07
NB
3.20
5.63
NB
1.45
NB
1.29
1.42
1.32
NB
1.37
1.21 '
NB
5.20
NB
4.95
5.03
NB
4.89
4.85
5.34
4.80 "
11.30
NB
11.05 •
14.25
NB
NB
11.60
12.34
12.15
8.15
NS
8.10 `
14.25
NB
8.35
8.25
8.50
NB
5.25 •
NB
5.34
NB
NB
19.60
NB
5.41
NB
3.16
NB
2.71 '
3.85
2.98
NB
3.12
3.16
2.76
6.92
6.14
NB
6.53
NB
NB
5.70 '
6.89
NB
4.72
NB
6.05
4.95
4.50
NB
4.55
4.60
4.25 '
45.45 '
54.37
NB
NB
NB
NB
53.56
91.08
NB
57.66
NB
53.90
N B
51.95 `
N B
56.40
56.93
57.60
11.67
9.53 '
13.95
11.66
10.50
NB
11.36
15.24
14.70
21.36
14.68
13.95 '
16.40
14.95
NB
19.30
53.80
NB
13.74
10.79 '
13,95
16.40
15.00
NB
13.65
18.34
16.86
0.34
NB
0,32
0.48
0.32
NB
0.44
0.32
0.29 '
0.58
NB
0.56 '
0.59
0.62
0.59
0.58
0.60
0.60
PAGE 6 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST.
6 MO
NO.
81
STOCK #
36-4145
OTY
600
UNIT
FA
DESCRIPTION
MACHINE BOLT 5/8" X 12".
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
MCGRAW #DF3812
82
36-4146
100
EA
MACHINE BOLTS 5/8" X 14", COOPER DF3814
0.67
NB
0.63
0.70
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.67
0.67
83
36-4147
50
EA
MACHINE BOLTS, 314" X 10", COOPER DF4810
0.72
NB
0.69 '
0.78
0.72
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.73
84
36-4148
100
EA
MACHINE BOLTS, 3/4" X 12,", COOPER DF4612
1.27
NS
1.30
1.54
1.26 '
1.99
1.58
1.53
NB
85
364148
50
EA
MACHINE BOLTS, 3/4" X 14", COOPER Df4814
1.26
NB
1.24
1.55
1.60
1.22
1.59
1.15 •
NB
86
36-4161
50
EA
OVAL EYE BOLTS 5/8" X 12"
1.48
NB
1.47
1.72
1.60
1.53
1.72
1.28 `
NB
MCGRAW DF2E12
87
36-4178
25
EA
OVAL EYE BOLTS 5/8" X 24", COOPER DF2E24
1.91
NB
1.84 •
2.20
1.93
2.08
2.01
2.04
2.15
88
36-4175
25
EAOVAL
EYE BOLTS 3J4" X 10", COOPER DF3E10
5.15
NB
5.39
NB
NB
5.20
NB
3.99 •
NB
89
36-4176
25
EA
OVAL EYE BOLTS 3/4" X 12", COOPER DF3E12
3.40
NB
3.20 '
5.40
NB
5.20
4.12
3.99
NB
90
36.4177
25
EA
OVAL EYE BOLTS 3/4" X 14", COOPER DF3E14
4.25
NB
3.83 '
8.10
NB
6.00
4.55
4.51
NB
91
36-4180
200
EA
OVAL EYE NUTS 518"
4•35
NB
6.25
3.46 "
NB
6.15
4.66
4.62
NB
MCGRAW *DG2E3
92
36-4182
50
EA
OVAL EYE NUTS 3/4"
1.05
NB
0.93 •
1.01
NB
0.98
1.01
0.98
0.94
93
36-4150
25
EA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8" X 20"
1.11
NB
1.12
2.09
NB
1.23
1.55
1.51
NB
94
36-4151
50
FA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8' X 14"
1.54
NB
1.47
1.65
1.47
1.62
1.63
1.69
1.52
95
36-4155
50
EA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8" X 16"
1.44
NB
1.55
2.23
1.34 •
1.43
1.44
1.65
1.36
96
36-4152
50
EA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8" X 18"
1.55
NB
1.49
1.80
1.49
1.41
1.54
1.79
1.45
97
36-4153
25
EA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8" X 22
1.47
NB
1.42
1.55
1.40 •
1.47
1.60
1.55
1.41
98
36-4154
25
EA
D.A. BOLTS 5/8" X 24"
1.65
NB
1.61
1.77
1.71
1.75
1.75
1.81
1.61
99
36-4160
100
EA
CARRIAGE BOLTS, 1/2" X 6"
1.75
NB
1.75
2.12
1.82
1.91
1.83
1.88
1.73
0.77
NB
0.88
0.59 •
NB
0.70
0.65
0.64
NB
PAGE 10 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST
6M0
NO.
STOCK #
QTY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELfNE
PM&N
149
36-4070
300
EA
METER 4 TERM., 24OV-3W, CLASS 200,TYPE D5S
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
ABB557000IGOS
150
36-4390
5
EA
METER CAN, 6 TERMINAL WITH 1"HUB
25.70
NB
NB
NB
26,00
NB
NS
27.00
25.08
MILBANK #1299W L
151
36-4391
2
EA
METER CAN, 8 TERMINAL WITH 1" HUB
54.25
NB
55.00
39.50 •
50.55
NS
NB
56.99
NB
MILBANK #S7235WL
152
36-4392
6
EA
METER CAN, 13 TERMINAL WITH 10 TEST BLOCK,
71.65
NB
59.75
81.40
45.31 '
NB
NB
61.82
NB
1" HUB, MILBANK #U7449-WL-TS10-0109 ONLY
153
36-4380
2
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, POLE MOUNT 200:5
169 87
NB
165.28
214.00
161.25 '
NB
NB
190.07
NB
SMALL
154
36-4381
4
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, POLE MOUNT 200:5
32.20 •
NB
NB
57.00
35.00
32.50
NB
40.25
40.00
BIG
155
36-4382
12
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, POLE MOUNT 400:5
42.50
NB
NB
84.00
45.00
41.W •
NB
64,40
65.00
BIG
156
36-4383
6
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, POLE MOUNT 600:5
42 50
NB
NB
84.00
45.00
41.80 '
NB
50.60
65.00
BIG
157
36-4384
6
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, PAD MOUNT 400:5
42.00
NB
NB
84.00
45.00
41.80 •
NB
50.60
60.00
158
36-4385
6
EA
CURRENT TRANSFORMERS, PAD MOUNT 600:5
57'50
NB
NB
57.00
40 00 •
56 90
NB
55.20
91.00
159
36-4386
4
EA
POTENTIAL TRANSFORMERS 300, 2.5:1 RATIO
57.50
NB
NB
57.00
62,00
56.90
NB
55.20 '
91.00
160
36-4387
4
EA
POTENTIAL TRANSFORMERS 480,41 RATIO
107.00
NB
NB
105.00
170.00
94.00 '
NB
111.55
134.00
161
36-4350
12
EA
ELECTRICAL JOINT COMPOUND PENETROX
107.00
NB
NB
105.00
170.00
94.00 '
NS
109.25
134.00
8 OZ SQUEEZE BOTTLE
162
36-4460
20
EA
CIRCUIT BREAKERS, CUTLER HAMMER CA2125 ONLY
3.95.
5.69
5.30
4.35
6.54
NB
5.05
5.60
3.98
163
36-4461
20
EA
CIRCUIT BREAKERS, CUTLER HAMMER CA2200 ONLY
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NS
NB
213.00 "
164
36-4462
5
EA
CIRCUIT BREAKERS, SQUARE D #1 D02L2200 ONLY
NB
NB
NS
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
213.00 •
120.96 •
123.48
179.00
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
' Low Bid
PAGE 7 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST.
6 MO
NO.
STOCK #
QTY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
100
38-4159
50
EA
CARRIAGE BOLTS, 3/8" X 5"
101
36-4125
100
EA
CROSSARM PINS - STEEL, CHANCE 881
102
36-4126
24
EA
POLETOP PINS
103
36-4189
50
EA
GUY ATTACHMENTS, HVY. DUTY, 5/8" HOLE
STANLY G. FLAGG & CO. #P135A
104
36-4188
50
EA
GUY ATTACHMENTS, HVY. DUTY, 3/4" HOLE
STANLY G. FLAGG & CO. #0133A
105
36-4183
150
EA
WIDE BASE CLEVIS, MCGRAW #D02C1
106
36-4300
200
EA
SQUARE WASHER 2 1/4"; 11/16" HOLE
MCGRAW #DEZW4
107
36-4301
100
EA
SQUARE CURVED WASHER 3" X 3" 11116 HOLE
108
36-4302
100
EA
ROUND WASHERS 1 3/8" DIA. X 9116" HOLE
COOPER #DF1 W2
109
36-4303
50
EA
SQUARE CURVED WASHER 4" X 4", 13/16 HOLE
110
36-4290
150
EA
THIMBLE CLEVIS, MCGRAW DG9TI
111
36-4170
50
EA
HOTLINE STIRRUP 4-1/0 ACSR
ANDERSON #AH LS-02201 9-E
112
36-4171
20
EA
HOTLINE STIRRUP 1/0-397,5
113
36-4172
10
EA
HOTLINE STIRRUP 795 MCM
114
50
EA
CROSSARM 3 518" X 4 5/8" X 8'
#X-ARM-8-R
115
25
EA
CROSS ARM ASSEMBLY, HVY DUTY 8'
HUGHES 2890-8
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWUES
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
0.36
NB
0.32 `
0.46
N8
0.64
0.34
0.34
NB
2.06
NB
1.96
1.91
NB
4.71
1.90 '
2.02
1.99
3.85 '
NB
3.96
4.02
NB
5.06
4.04
4.05
NB
1.82
NB
1.75
1.61
1.82
NB
1.35
1.27 •
1.71
3.07
NB
2.38
NB
NB
NB
2.53
2.30 '
3.71
2.70
NB
2.69
2.59 '
NB
2.69
3.31
3.00
NB
0.18
NB
0.14 '
0.15
NB
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.88
NS
0.41
0.60
NB
0.63
0.41
0.39 '
NS
0.05
NB
0.05
0.07
NB
0.06
0.06
.052
NB
1.32
NB
0.93
1.08
NB
NB
0.79 `
0.90
N8
NB
NB
NB
2.83
NB
NB
2.85
2.15 '
NB
8.42
NB
NB
14.23
NB
NB
6.90 '
7.59
NB
17.17
NB
NS
NS
NB
NB
15.88
14.95 '
N8
27.47
NB
N8
16.46 '
NS
NB
20.25
17.14
NS
31.80
NB
29.35 '
30.38
31.00
34.80
35.50
31.11
32.00
193.00
NB
NB
156.00
NB
NB
153.75 "
160.72
NB
PAGE 8 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST
6 MO
NO.
STOCK*
CITY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
116
36-4400
20
PR
WOOD BRACE 28% JOSLYN J5526
117
50
EA
WOOD BRACE 60' SPAND, HUGHES B2604CC30
118
36-4200
75
EA
CUTOUTS, 100 AMP, 7.2/14A
ABB XINCANAAII
119
36-4220
6
EA
LOADBREAK CUTOUT, 8,3 KV, 200 AMP, WITH
ARC CHUTE, NO LINK BREAKS, ABB 279C789A05
120
36-4221
200
EA
LOADBREAK ELBOWS, 200 AMP, 1/0 STRAND ALUM.
220 ML., RTE #2604,
121
36-4222
100
EA
POLE TERMINATIONS, JOSLYN E5200-BN-1/OS-MTG-1
122
36-4251
100
EA
9/10 KV LIGHTENING ARRESTOR,
ABB 634A100A10
123
36-4187
100
EA
WEDGE CLAMP 1/0-4 ACSR, BLACKBURN #W20-1
124
364186
100
EA
WEDGE CLAMP 110-4/0 ACSR,
BLACKBURN #W40-1
125
36-4185
250
EA
WEDGE CLAMP 2-6 ACSR, BLACKBURN #W62-1
126
36-4193
48
EA
POLE EYE PLATES FOR GUY STRAIN INSULATORS
STANLY FLAGG & CO. #PX88
127
364M
50
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 3 AMP
128
36-4086
25
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 8 AMP
KEARNEY #11008
129
36-4087
25
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 5 AMP
KEARNEY #11005
130
36-4088
25
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 10 AMP
KEARNEY #11010
131
36-4089
50
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 15 AMP
KEARNEY #11015
132
36-4090
25
EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 20 AMP
KEARNEY #11020
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PM&N
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
3.96
NB
3.88
3.84
4.00
3.80
3.61 '
4.19
N8
NB
NB
8.63
8.81
8.00 '
8.59
8.92
12.65
NB
40.05
NB
41.00
39.31
40.01
NB
42.06
40.77
36.49 '
109.27
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
95.53
NB
94.70 '
23.50
NB
24.00
NB
NB
24.95
19.68 '
25.69
28.15
42.50
NB
41.00
NB
32.78
NB
171.95
NB
29.35 "
27.22
NB
25.45
NB
24.80
26.10
26.73
24.04 '
24.95
1.49
NB
1.41
1.43
1.45
NB
1.30
1.20 '
NB
1.94
NB
1.59 "
1.64
1.89
NB
1.75
1.63
NS
0.89
NB
0.85
0.85
0.86
NB
0.77
0.74 '
NB
4.55
NS
4.85
N8
3.98 •
NB
5.46
4,28
4.28
2.25
NB
NB
2.65 '
NB
NB
NB
2.89
2.25
NB
NB
NB
2.65
NB
NB
NB
2.89
NB
2.25 '
NB
NB
2.65
NB
NB
NB
2.89
2.18
2.25 '
NB
NB
2.65
NB
NB
NS
2.89
2.29
2.25.
NS
NB
2.65
NB
NB
NS
2.89
2.29
2.25 '
NB
NB
2.65
NB
NB
NB
2.89
2.29
PAGE 9 - ELECTRICAL BID
EST
6MO
NO. STOCK # CITY UNIT
133 36-4091 25 EA
DESCRIPTION
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 25 AMP
KEARNEY #11025
134 36-4092 25 EA
LINE USE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 30 AMP
KEARNEY #11030
135 36-4093 25 EA
UNE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 40 AMP
KEARNEY *11040
136 36-4094 50 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 50 AMP
KEARNEY #11050
137 36-4095 25 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 65 AMP
KEARNEY 011065
138 3"M 50 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 80 AMP
KEARNEY *11080
139 36-4097 25 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 100 AMP
KEARNEY #11100
140 36-4098 25 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 125 AMP
KEARNEY #11125
141 36-4099 25 EA
LINE FUSE TYPE 20 DEGREE FITALL, 150 AMP
KEARNEY 011150
142 36-4258 4 LB
#4 ALUMINUM TIE WIRE, 25# COIL
143 36-4259 4 LB
06 ALUMINUM TIE WIRE, 25# COIL
144 36-4075 24 EA
METER SOCKET, 100 AMP, 4 TERMINAL, 1 114`
HUB, G.E. #741xl3G96
145 36-4077 72 EA
METER SOCKET, 200 AMP, 4 TERMINAL, 2" HUB,
G.E. #743x1G103
146 36-4079 12 EA
METER SOCKET, 200 AMP, 7 TERMINAL, 2" HUB,
G.E. #74lx30G1
147 36 4078 48 EA
METER SOCKET, i00 AMp, 4 TERMINAL, 2" HUB
148 36-4060 4 EA
METER SOCKET, 13 TERMINAL, 1" HUB, MILBANK
#UC7545WL
CUMMINS
DEALERS
KBS
POLELINE
PMBN
SWEUS
TECHLINE
TEMPLE
WESCO
2.45
NB
NB
2.88
NS
NB
NS
3.13
2.28 '
2.45
NB
NB
2.88
NB
NB
NB
3.13
2.49 '
2.65 "
NB
NB
3.11
NB
NB
NB
3.35
3.44
2.65 "
NB
NB
3.11
NS
NB
NB
3.35
3.44
3.75 "
NB
NB
4.43
NB
NB
NB
4.84
11.00
4.45 "
NB
NB
5.33
NB
NB
NS
5.72
5.91
4.45 "
NB
NB
5,33
NB
NB
NB
5.72
5.91
11.58
NB
N8
13.75
NB
NB
NB
14.82
5.26 '
11.58 "
NB
NB
13.75
NB
N6
NB
14.82
15.26
1.84
N B
1.72
1.81
1.75
1.78
1.65 '
1.73
1.78
1.84
NB
1.72 '
1.81
2.27
1.78
1.80
1.73
1.78
17.97
NB
15.90
16.25
17.26
16.40
21.85
21.80
15.80 "
21.79
NB
21.00
19.43
24.07
NB
17.01 '
24.42
18.85
69.42
NB
93.00
84.60
73.78
NB
35.00 "
61.82
88.45
16.96
NB
21.95
16.25
17.65
NB
23.15
21.80
16.20 `
96.57
NB
99.00
92.68
83.36
NB
NB
101.93
64.28 '
Council Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 Item No. I
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT •
Consideration of authorizing staff to negotiate a partnership
contract, between the City of Georgetown and Central & Southwest
Communications, Inc., to provide a Customer Controlled Load
Management System (CCLM) to the City.
I TEM SLR44ARY :
In order
evolving era of
a higher level
innovative and
will provide fi
participation
management. T.
also allow for
with a Supery
electric, watE
Customer Contr
interactive brc
of new service
:o retain current and attract new customers in the
deregulation, it has been determined that providing
of service to the customer is of great value. An
flexible Customer Controlled Load Management system
)r automatic meter reading, and allow for customer
in an electric and water load/conservation and
ze Customer Controlled Load Management system will
the City to access real-time utility information
-isory Control and Data Acquisition System for
r and wastewater utilities. In addition, the
Dlled Load Management system will provide for an
►adband communication system to allow for expansion
delivery products.
Therefore, staff requests Council authorize contract negotiations
to create a partnership agreement for the Customer Controlled Load
Management System with Central & Southwest Communications, Inc.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
NONE
S
by:
Jim Briggs, Director
Community Owned Utilities
Council Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 Item No. T
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT • -
Approval of payment to the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) under the joint funding agreement for water resources
investigations, for the period October 1, 1995 through September
30, 1996, in the amount of $6, 080.00.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Each year the City of Georgetown contracts with the USGS,
under a joint agreement, to monitor and collect data on parts of
the Edwards Aquifer within the City. Final reports for the data
collected for the 1995 water year should be completed within the
next 30 days.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE m
FINANCIAL IMPACT•
Funding in the amount of $6,080.00 are to be paid from Account
number 661-101-6301-00.
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed work for water year 1996 from the USGS
S
MR
Jim Briggs, Director
Community Owned Utilities
United States Department of the Interior
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RECEIVED
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION 0 CT 17 i995
8011-A Cameron Road
Austin. Texas 78754-3898
October 16, 1995
The Honorable Leo Wood, Mayor
City of Georgetown
PO Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Dear Mayor Wood:
Enclosed are four copies of our standard joint -funding agreement for the cooperative water re-
sources investigations to be conducted during the period October 1, 1995, to September 30, 1996.
Please sign and return three copies of the agreement. A fully signed copy will be returned to you.
If you require an additional original, please return all four signed copies. We request that this
agreement be signed and returned to us no later than December 15, 1995, in order to assure that
cooperative funds remain available.
Billing is scheduled annually, following the terms of the agreement. If you wish to discuss other
arrangements, please call me.
The USGS looks forward to this and future cooperative efforts in these mutually benefical water
resources investigations. If you have any questions, please call me at (512) 873-3049.
Sincerely,
6 z _/�J
pgc:pc Patricia G. Clark
encl. Administrative Officer
Form 9-1366 Department of the Interior TX96079
(REV. 6/86) Geological Survey TX079
Joint Funding Agreement
FOR
WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
IS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 1st day of October 1995 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part, and the CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
XAS, party of the second part.
1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities
there shall be maintained in cooperation the following studies: surface and ground water data collection and limited
studies, hereinafter called the program.
2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related
to this program, but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party.
(a) $6,080 by the party of the first part during the period October 1, 1995
to September 30, 1996
(b) $6,080 cash by the party of the second part during the period October 1, 1995
to September 30, 1996
(c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual
agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties.
3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and
regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be
paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second
part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy
fiscal requirements.
The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by
i authorized representative of the party of the first part.
5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their
authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first
part to insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement.
6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection
of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party may terminate
this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party.
7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request,
copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party.
8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible.
The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second
part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and, if already published by the party of the first part shall,
upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part, at cost, impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar
to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either parry shall contain
a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties.
9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered upon completion Payments of bills are due within 60 days
after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, interest will be charged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day
period, or portion thereof, that the payment is delayed beyond the due date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File
B-212222, August 23, 1983.).
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
20
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
UNITED STATES By
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(SIGNATURE & TITLE) By
District Chief
(USE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED)
Council Meeting Date: 10/24/95 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
K
SUBJECT
Award bid in the amount of $26,500.00 to John Kyser Construction for reconstruction of a
home at 1814 Main Street, funded by the HOME Grant.
ITEM SUMMARY
John Kyser Construction was the only bidder on the rehabilitation project of the home at 1814
Main Street. The City's cost estimate for the project was $25,335.00, and Mr. Kyser's bid was
in the amount of $28,405.00. The City, Mrs. Merena (the homeowner), and John Kyser have
agreed to Change Order #1 in the amount of $2,894.00, which reduces the bid to $25,511.00.
Mrs. Merena will be participating in the cost of the rehabilitation with $1,500.00 of her own
funds. The total funds to be obligated for the project include $25,000.00 HOME Grant funds
($24,011.00 plus $989.00 for contingencies) and $1,500.00 from the homeowner for a total
contract amount of $26,500.00.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the HOME Grant projects come from the Texas Department of Community Affairs,
which receives the funds through HUD.
COMMENTS
None
ATTACHMENTS
1. Contractor Selection Form
2. Change Order #1
Submitted By:
Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Services
IIOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR SELECTION
RE: - �' 'V ,a" a — t r�A Property Address
i t2 t�V A) '; I lomcowncr Name
1. Maximum Amount Assistance Available (I loincowner/City Contract): p �—
II. City's Construction Estimate:
Listed below, in descending order, is a list of qualified bidders, (lie amounts of their bids, and additional moneys needed to complete tlle Work.
Afler review of the above bidders, I freely and without duress select:
Conlin sency
Coulract
Amount
Portion of Hill Amount
Provided by Homeowner
�75�� k � �c'e - C- nQ'9.E 1r U - ,.j to be the Construction Contractor for the work to be erfornied onmy property. p yp . p y
Date: kol S 1 n
Signature of I lomcowner
Date:' 4,--
Witness
** DO NOT COMPLI:'('[: BOTTOM SECTION IF ADDITIONAL. MONEY IS NOT REQUIRED **
ADDITIONAL MONEY
I acknowledge by my signature below that in selection the Construction Contractor it will be necessary for me to provide either a cashier's check or •letter of commitment for
additional funds in the amount of S prior to the execution of a construction contract with the Contractor which I have selected.
Date:
ignature o(1 lonicowner
Deadline Date for Deposit of Additional Funds with the City: PIL� 9t; RI 1i3-47
Change Order #1
Homeowner: Eloisa Merena
Address: 1814 Main Street; Georgetown TX 78626
Contractor. John Kyser Construction
:..:.::..
:..
.:Contractor
;.Change. Order
Reuised
...... Item ; .
-
:::Bid >
_ .:
:Amount:
'Foundation<Work< ' {=
$1 474.00
$0.00
$1 474.00
Caulk.
$500.00
$0.00
$500.00
::Door Casing
$75.00
$0.00
$75.00
:'< Repair/Replace
Back Porch.
$17500.00
$200.00
>Festi.Treatment:
$650.00
$0.00
$650.00
Kitchen/Bath
$111799.00
$0.00
SI,799.00
Rewire
$4,000.00
$0.00
54,040.00
Plumbing/HVAC
$9,400.00
<$1,044.00>
58,356.00
Roofing
$4,507.00
$0.00
54,507.00.
Painting
$4,500.00
<$550.00> I
$3,950.00
Total
$28,405.00
<$2,894.00>
$25,511.00
Council Meeting Date: 10/24/95 Item No.
FA
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Award bid in the amount of $48,033.00 to John Kyser Construction for reconstruction of a
home at 907 East 20th Street, funded by the HOME Grant.
ITEM SUMMARY
Two bids were received for this reconstruction project:
John Kyser Construction $452746.00
Fred Otto III Builder, Inc. $50,600.00
The City's cost estimate for this project was $45,800.00.
Under the State of Texas guidelines for the HOME Grant program, a homeowner may select
any bidder who is within 10% (plus or minus) of the City's cost estimate. Mr. Kyser is the only
bidder within 10% (plus or minus) of the City's cost estimate.
It is recommended the Council award the bid to John Kyser Construction as follows:
$45,746.00 Base Bid
+ 2,287.00 Contingency
$ 48, 033.00 Total B i d
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The award of the bid is conditional on the homeowner selection form being completed and the
contract approved.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the HOME Grant projects come from the Texas Department of Community Affairs,
which receives the funds through HUD.
COMMENTS
None
ATTACHMENTS
None
Submitted By:
Hartley Sappington, Director of Community Services
Council meeting October 24. 1995 Item No. M
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Plat of 24.17 acres in the John Sutherland Survey, to be
known as Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5, located on Nicole Way
ITEM SUMMARY: The subject Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat that was
approved by City Council on September 26, 1995. This plat creates 21 single family lots. The
construction plans have been submitted and are still being reviewed by City staff. If any
revisions to the plat are required as a result of the plan review, this plat may have to be
considered again by the Commission and City Council.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Fountainwood Estates, Phase
5, provided the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation; unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and plat.
Submitted Bv:
Edwar 7. Barry,
Divisi of Devel
2
- Director Hildy L. kingma, AIC
t Services Chief Planner
FINAL PLAT OF 24.17 ACRES IN THE JOHN SUTHERLAND SURVEY, TO BE
KNOWN AS FOUNTAINWOOD ESTATES, PHASE 5, LOCATED ON NICOLE WAY
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Max D. Allen
Caprock Business Forms, Inc.
P. O. Box 1429
Georgetown, Texas 78627
869-2462 FAX: 869-6565
AGENT: Mr. Thomas Watts
Ralph Harris Surveyor, Inc.
1406 Hether Street
Austin, Texas 78704
444-1781 FAX: 444-6123
REQUEST: Final Plat of 24.17 acres in the John Sutherland Survey, located
on Nicole Way as recorded in Deed Records in Volume 2190,
Page 380 of Williamson County, Texas.
FACTS:
Location: Located on Nicole Way. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Undeveloped land.
Existing Zoning: This tract is located outside the City limits so zoning does not
apply.
Proposed Use: 21 single family lots.
Surrounding Uses: North: Fountainwood Estates, Phase 2, single family
residential (out of City)
South: Fountainwood Estates, Phase 4-B, single family
residential (out of City)
East: U.S. Corp of Engineers, park land (out of City)
West: Fountainwood Estates, Phase 4B (out of City)
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this location as
Intensity Level 1. The proposed use is within allowable
development limits for this acreage. SEE EXHIBIT B
Final Plat - Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5 October 16, 1995
FP#-95-21 / File: FTNW-5.FP Page 1
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
HISTORY: A Revised Concept Plan for Fountainwood Estates was approved in July
1993. Subsequent to the approval of the Revised Concept Plan, the
City approved a plat for Phase 2A and a Development Agreement that
stipulates that the 2.0 acres in Phase 2A will be deeded to the City as a
park land tract if an alternate parcel has not been deeded to the City
within five (5) years of the Agreement. The Agreement was signed in
December 1993. The alternate park land parcel is to be a minimum of
15 acres in size and has been proposed as the land identified on the
Revised Concept Plan as being located along a drainage area between
Phases 5 and 7. Given the location of the proposed park land (SEE
EXHIBIT A), it is required to have several access points adjacent to
public streets. The subject plat encompasses one (1) of those public
access points, located between Lots 16 and 17.
A Preliminary Plat of Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5, was approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 5, 1995, and by the
City Council on September 26, 1995.
ANALYSIS: The subject Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat.
The Preliminary Plat approval included consideration of variances to
allow the lot design of Lots 12 and 13, and to allow center line curve
radii on Nicole Way to remain as proposed. At the time of Preliminary
Plat consideration, staff recommended that the three (3) proposed curves
along Nicole Way be straightened to one (1) smooth curve in order to
support the variance. The applicant was concerned about preserving
several trees that are located within the right-of-way and that range
from four (4) to 14 inches in diameter. Staff and the applicant met at
the Commission's recommendation and determined that the
southernmost curve could be straightened, thereby meeting the curve
radius standard and lengthening the tangent sufficiently to meet that
standard. While some of the smaller trees may be impacted by this
revision, the larger trees located in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15 will
be preserved. The applicant also agreed to install "slow" signs at either
end of the curves at the time the roads are constructed. The Council
approved the variances based on this proposed revision to the street
alignment.
No construction plans have been submitted for this subdivision at this
time. The process for plat approval requires that the subdivision
construction plans be submitted and approved before the final plat is
Final Plat - Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5
FP#-95-21 / File: FTNW-5.FP
October 16, 1995
Page 2
considered for approval. Because no City utilities will be used for this
subdivision, staff has been flexible on this requirement. However, in
order to avoid the potential for changes to the final plat, and therefore a
second review of it, the construction plans were required to be
submitted prior to Commission consideration of the plat. They still
have not been submitted. Unless the construction plans are submitted
by October 9, staff recommends that this application be forwarded to
the Council with a recommendation for denial. Further, if the plans are
submitted by that date, the plat will not be forwarded to the City
Council until City staff has had the opportunity to review the plans
sufficiently to ensure that they are consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat. The staff review period for construction plans is 30
days. Therefore, given the late submittal of the plans, it may become
necessary for the applicant to concur with a delay to the City Council's
consideration of the plat in order to provide for sufficient review of the
plans. Otherwise, the plat will be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for denial.
Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to consideration
of this plat by the City Council. If they are not addressed by
September 29, 1995, or if the applicant does not concur with a delay to
the City Council's consideration of the plat to allow the Technical
Issues to be addressed, the plat will be forwarded to the Council with a
recommendation for denial.
1. Submit the subdivision construction plans by October 9, 1995.
2. Add the names of Paul T. Weyrauch and Edward J. Barry to the
Planning and Zoning Commission certification block.
3. Add a side setback to the south side of Lot 21.
Prior to Filing: The following items will be required before the plat will be recorded:
1. The water pollution abatement plan must be approved.
2. Two (2) copies of any deed restrictions to be filed must be
submitted for City review.
STAFF RECONEWENDATION:
Approval of the Final Plat for Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5, provided
the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration.
P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Final Plat for
Final Plat - Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5
FP#-95-21 / File: FTNW-5.FP
October 16, 1995
Page 3
Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5, provided the Technical Issues are
addressed prior to City Council consideration.
Final Plat - Fountainwood Estates, Phase 5
October 16, 1995
FP!#-95-21 / File: FTNW-5.FP Page 4
EXHIBIT A
-\ \ • ar4 \ J//
10.
). )r 1, •( Jim.\ •) r / _ ') � i.� � T /� � ' \
o-••o � werY+c ••o(• Q � ( i-
-[lftP•S CYCa..o (tti i �'� - f t 1 ,' -•
4C•14( i ,\
AL
�. :]•o/see � •� / ..c � �' \ \\) _7.°
It
IL
1 J, '
/
t
EXHIBIT B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
`DATE`: September 6, 1995
'PROJECT NAME': Fountainwood Estates Phase 5 - Final Plat
2. 'GIVEN'
24.17 acres of Intensity Level 1
acres of Intensity Level 2
acres of Intensity Level 3
acres of Intensity Level 4
acres of Intensity Level 5
acres of Intensity Level 6
24.17 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY
WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL
Peak GPD Average GPD
Peak Trip Ends
1
25,379 7,251
48
2
0 0
0
3
0 0
0
4
0 0
0
5
0 0
0
6
0 0
0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 25,379
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 7,251
Maximum Trip Ends: 48
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT: (a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
LAND USES WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detached SF I
Lar a Lot
22
25
81
verage Lot
25
29
55
Zero Lot Line
25
29
55
Attached SF
39
41
44
Multifamily
48
46
21
Mobile Home
39
38
57
Lodging
132
119
35
Institutional
73,990
78,815
57,479
Church
-with day care
82,398
87,361
3,107
-w/o day care
136,444
145,020
67,139
Medical Office
61,006
64,741
14,980
General Office
69,721
79,681
18,957
Retail, Mixed
39,044
44,485
2,927
Retail, Restaurant
16,268
15,106
4,252
Retail, Store
78,088
82,398
10,067
Employment Centers
69,721
79,681
10,564
Warehouse
445,237
517,929
80,567
Mini -Warehouse
6,344,625
7,251,000
185,923 I
(b)
(c)
(d)
MAXIMUM
PER DEV
DEVELOPMENT
UNITS
- ---- - --- ---------
REGS
- -----
ALLOWED/UNIT
--------------------------
22
48
22 housing units
25
175
25 housing units
25
234
25 housing units
39
351
39 housing units
21
700
21 housing units
38
38 housing units
35
35 rooms
57,479
57,479 square feet
3,107
3,107 square feet
67,139
67,139 square feet
14,980
14,980 square feet
18,957
18,957 square feet
2,927
2,927 square feet
4,252
4,252 square feet
10,067
10,067 square feet
10,564
10,564 square feet
80,567
80,567 square feet
185,923
------ -------- -----
----------- ------------
185,923 square feet }
---------- ------------------
r t I I
4
S20'1 1'52"E 977.80'
4 2.02' D
S05�
2b, BA -7 25 b. L,
Z�.
-ps' kt.
1,L)96 AC S06'20-,q.E
7 A
516.66-
-!a,c
15* fil-L rOA c 4
4e: w: to
b.L. coo!
, 6 r 1. 5; 4 AC
3 4 AC
r IP/o
z
.44
061 AC 114.3
AC RIN 1.614 AC
50' 8
1.506 AC 1.394 AC
05 -.L5: PUE
C to C 19 u I it I 1.001 AC
C 6 C
r
C 21 5D
r 3r
r r
C
lill, aaO.E c
7'
Ad"llb c 'a so
s c 31
poc
I in
C)
-TD, -�5- I I I B.L.
-�4 c 1 0
0 ic 0 L L LA
IS. 0 1k C
r 15' PUE
U
()b PUE c F3 15
C
I a
S21*IT3U-L
COLE WA Y co co
roO --26 Is. p c 11 Ni do' mow
V*1 1,C41 AC N21-17'30'W 465.82"
e•
Ilk
'7 C 25 C 24 78.8.5'
15' PUE
rm
5D. In
:k Gbg AC
t
6
re)
tn
JJ
01,;
053 AC- 001 A p
z i r 1,002 AC " % ' -
c P1
1, AC 1.001 AC 005 A 1.002 AC
01
\j
v
6, 0
-j IL
05b L L 25, S.L
1:!, C 56 75- ---
Y
Al b2' '44.38- 'o
316.20' N Ln
110.19, 1 * 6
-�6 w 5 IN 74 L
S2'7"2 14.00- %20-55
ev 20.00' 1b, 473 '4 \N
011 .6 2' -3
N18*07'5�"W t431
"0'20'lq-W - 130.79 . j-2O.8
48
.82
PHASE
Aw
Lau 1.7 f., N
s TE MAP
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
ff
SUBJECT: Consideration of a resolution to authorize a license to encroach into the public
utility easement located along the northeast property line of Berry Creek, Section 9, Block A,
Lot 46.
ITEM SUMMARY: All utility providers have agreed to allow a license to encroach into the
public utility easement as illustrated in Exhibit A. This request is being made to allow the
proposed driveway which leads to a side entry garage. Side entry garages are required by the
deed restrictions of the subdivision.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: None
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A
Resolution
Submitted Bv:
Edward/. barry, AICP Director
DivisioV of Developme t Services
<��- A-1-1 - -.
:�4
Hildy L. Ki ma, AICP
Chief Planner
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND STEVE AND LESLIE
DOERING, PERTAINING TO THE ENCROACHMENT OF A PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY INTO THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 46 OF BERRY CREEK,
SECTION 9 BLOCK A, AS RECORDED IN CABINET K, SLIDES 316 AND
317 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,
LOCATED AT 30412 LA QUINTA DRIVE; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received an application for a license to encroach
into the public utility easement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has enacted Ordinance No. 1645 regulating,
controlling, and governing encroachments; and
WHEREAS, in order for a license to be granted by the City Council of the City of
Georgetown, the Council must make certain findings of fact; and
WHEREAS, after hearing the application of Steve and Leslie Doering -to encroach into
the public utility easement, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, finds the
following facts:
1. That there are no utilities which would be interfered with by the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
2. That there are no utilities which would interfere with the utilization of the
property in the proposed manner.
3. That the proposed structure is in such a manner that it would not be feasible to
locate it outside the public utility easement.
4. That the land use in the neighborhood appears to be stable and the use to which
this property is being put is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood; and
Lot 46, Berry Creek, Section 9, Block A License Resolution No.
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council after hearing the application and finding the specific facts
as stated above now concludes and finds that:
1. The fact that the proposed structure is in such a manner that it would not be
feasible to locate it outside the public utility easement constitutes special
circumstances and conditions affecting the property which if not taken into
consideration would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
2. The fact that the land use is not likely to change within the foreseeable future and
that it is not economically feasible to remove the part of the proposed structure
that encroaches into the public utility easement does provide a basis for granting
the license necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial
property rights of the applicant.
3. The fact that the use of the easement area by the property owner does not
interfere with the utilities or access to the utilities and is not detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agrees to accept the terms of the license agreement as presented
to them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element:
1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure
that future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all
residents, businesses and organizations;" and
2. Utilities/Energy Policy 2, which states: "The City will establish utility policies
which take into consideration the needs of all citizens of the community and take
necessary precautions to prevent harmful ecological impact to the environment;"
and further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
Lot 46, Berry Creek, Section 9, Block A License Resolution No.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest
thereto on behalf of the City of Georgetown a License Agreement with Steve and Leslie Doering,
pertaining to the encroachment of a proposed driveway located on Lot 46 of Berry Creek, Section
9, Block A, as recorded in Cabinet K, Slides 316 and 317 of the plat records of Williamson
County, Texas, commonly known as 30412 La Quinta Drive, into the public utility easement on
the northeast property line.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
1995.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
Lot 46, Berry Creek, Section 9, Block A License Resolution No.
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
AT ,TAKE OV% O[[OR[ TVOL[[OH6 .1TH Ai- 0TKR v (/— 1 '
-"R A, ORO[RN6 uArcct L,. TK CONTRACTOR AND/0. -L .OT 4 �[J C TJ �:C
Y li, : •, �
Alb -CONTRACTOR, V"rY AD�EN,ION, �Np
N[A,l([AtNT,• IOCAl— OT ALL LOT 1-5. [AS[N[NTS.
R[OU.'[•INTS I"110 R ,1.p1N Ot NOT ON rlTVWASI.
'Eapc ,RT i— ipec hl"N x ,« Aw REAR rct0 DLO G K A
4ND SHALL DC R'XOI•hd.[ FOR Tr[t CORR[CTt{SS
HEAFT OF DD;; Y Gib[
\ c�)EGTION q
\ V(UILLIAMc�)ON COUNTY
\ TEXAS
l \
1
\
1'
a' ELM
12' ELM
3' ELM 0 \L ELM
L' ELM
6' ELM O
4' ELM
O
8' ELM
o •6' ELM
°e' ELM \,
O
i
4"ELM j
IO' E r1
4 ELM. L' ELM
7' ELM
L?ELI '4 ELM 7.°ELM ° 4• e.I.M�
4'ELM
�EL
ELM
y. ELM"'
IZ' OAK � TO' ELM
0 •3" ELM O
ELM 4 ELM C
6 ELM
.5' 5,
012' OAK IO'L 0 'Y E0A O
O �
12' ELM 10
0' L.0 121-3' ELM
b' ELM
O
1
O
b' OAK
a E M
w
I ST MZ' ELM
1 L O
0' L 0 I
ELM
L
rd• L.O.
ELM. 4• ELM
O Z�.S
eG' ELM
9 L ELM ... 1
ELM ELM .5' LM ..
4' ELM'
12 OAK
O
- '..t: - __
12" OAK
O
'r O P
4- EL 2-A' ELM ..• . 1 L. E M 6' OAK'
•5' ELM O °O
1 12'1
� IZ' •R.0
a 0
I •3' ELM
.5' ELM 4 ELM
09' ELM
� IDEA I
PLAN • 325ZL� 16' L O I 10 •
FLAN;
20' ELM
LSEE FOR O I o" L G
EXACT CIDGA TIONI
I ° 7' L OI a
-
31
.f21-2. ELM
- • 4. ELM
�Lo
3Sr
"L' ELM
-3, ELM 1
M Lb
\
4' ELM ELM
D,R D' ELM
1
2' 4' ELM
3L • 4 ELM - -� -
3' ELM LM Z65
0'A ELM 3' EL 2'
' 4' ..... ....
LMI
4'-3' ELM L{t.
eO 3- ELM V ELM
N1
O i ELM
3- GONGRETE ,,•I
• 4' ELM
SIDEWALK D" L 0
/0"? .3' EL o
- ...
6' R.O.
•E
015"ELM ,.
- . -
- M
3' ELM
3' ELM
; 1
' 1 A&;:L
TH 1)259 °ia - -.
D N 4C 30 30' [
3' ELM - .4..EL�1M••-�-�
LONO'REiE 1_rr`vATER
- DR1vT -
3 ELM "x
LA OU}NT,4 DRIV
'
ff� .}
.�s 3 4til's. � �R lit �'
t�� �I. � it • 7.
.y4'��i. 1
t - .ar w� �
Council meeting date: 10-24-95 Item No. O
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 714072 between the City of Georgetown and the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs on behalf of Reedholm Instruments, Inc.
ITEMS Y
This amendment is to revise the special conditions for the construction of the building for Reedholm
Instruments, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
l . Letter from Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
2. Amendment No. 1
Sub fitted by:
Bob Hart, City Manager
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
George W. Bush
GOVERNOR
Larry Paul Manley
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
October 16, 1995
The Honorable Leo Wood
Mayor,City of Georgetown
609 Main Street
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
Re: Texas Community Development Program (TCDP)
Economic Development (ED) Contract No. 714072
Amendment No. 1
Dear Mayor Wood:
RECEIVED
O C T 1 8 199`
BOARD MEMBERS
Margie Lee Bingham
CHAIR
Donald R. Bethel
Harvey Clemons Jr.
Florita Bell Griffin, Ph. D.
Richard C. Hile
Joseph Kemp
Walter Martinez
Paul R. Rodriguez
Mary Sanger
Enclosed are two (2) copies of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 714072 between the city of
Georgetown and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, for your review and
signature. Please sign and return both copies to this office at your earliest convenience. After
the amendment has been signed by the Executive Director of the Department, we will provide
you with a copy for your files.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
Karl Young of the Texas Department of Commerce at (512) 936-0281.
Sincerely,
*c 2 V, "i A
Ruth Cedillo, Director
Texas Community Development Program
RC:clt
Enclosure
cc: Contract File
811 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD - SUITE 100 0 P. O. BOX 13941 9 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3941 • (512) 475-3800
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
CONTRACT NO. 714072
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
Section 1.
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, an agency of the State of Texas,
hereinafter referred to as "Department", and the City of Georgetown, hereinafter referred to as
"Contractor", do hereby contract and agree to amend their original contr«ct, as initially executed by the
Executive Director of the Department effective November 21, 1994, through November 20, 1997, for
the performance of economic development activities.
Section 2.
The parties hereto agree to amend the contract identified in Section 1 above so that Section 22.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, Subsections B(2), B(3), B(6), B(7), and C(5) are revised to read hereafter as
described below:
B.2. Contractor shall not advertise or solicit bids for construction of the project assisted with
funds provided for building construction under this contract until Contractor has received the
applicable prevailing wage rates from Department. Funds budgeted for acquisition may be
provided for the property described in Special Condition B(6).
B.3. Contractor shall provide documentation to Department that the final plans and
specifications for construction of the buildings described in Special Condition B(6) have been
approved by the appropriate division director of the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation prior to Department's release of contract funds for building construction. This
documentation must include such director's assurance that the improvements will be in
compliance with the requirements concerning the elimination of architectural barriers
encountered by persons with disabilities as specified in TEX.REV. CIV.STAT.ANN.art 9102 and
the rules promulgated thereunder. Funds budgeted for acquisition may be provided for the
property described in Special Condition B(6).
B.6. Contract shall provide Department with a copy of a "certificate of insurance" verifying
flood insurance which cover the property described below or an original signed statement from
the City of Georgetown which indicates that the property does not require flood insurance.
Such property is described as follows:
Lot 4, of GEORGETOWN TECHNOLOGY PARK, Williamson County, Texas, according
to the map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet K, Slides 73-74, Plat Records,
Williamson County, Texas.
Page 1 of 3
B.7. Contractor shall provide documentation to Department that the Water Pollution
Abatement Plan for the proposed site as specified in Special Condition B(6) has been
reviewed, and when applicable, approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, prior to Department's release of contract funds. Such documents shall be sent to
the Teas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin Regional Office, 1700 South
Lamar, Building One #101, Austin, Texas 78704-3360 and shall be identified as activities
being financed through the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Funds
budgeted for acquisition may be provided for the property described in Special Condition B(6).
C.S. Contractor shall provide Department with a copy of a certificiate for builder's risk
insurance coverage prior to release of funds for construction and must remain in force upon
completion of the proposed building. A copy of a certificate of hazard and/or liability insurance
coverage must be provided upon completion of construction. Such coverage must be no less
than Three Hundred Twenty-three Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($323,000) or the actual cost
of construction, whichever is less.
Section 4.
The parties hereto agree to amend the contract identified in Section 1 above so that Exhibit C, Project
Implementation Schedule, is revised to read hereafter as given in the Project Implementation
Schedule attached to this amendment, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit C, and hereby made a part of
this amendment. Exhibit C consists of (1) page.
.1 Section 5.
The parties hereto agree that this amendment shall become effective on September 28, 1995.
Section 6.
The parties hereto agree that this amendment shall require no change to previously approved funding.
Section 7.
The parties hereto agree that all of the terms of the contract identified in Section 1 above shall remain
in effect and shall continue to govern except to the extent that they conflict with the terms of this
amendment.
Section 8.
The parties hereto agree that nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing any
violation of federal, state or local laws or regulations as they pertain to the contract identified in
Section 1 above.
Section 9.
By the signing of this amendment, the parties hereto expressly understand and agree that this
amendment shall become a part of the contract identified above in Section 1 above as though it were
set forth word for word therein.
Page 2 of 3
WITNESS OUR HANDS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 28, 1995.
The Honorable Leo Wood
Mayor, City of Georgetown
Approved and accepted on behalf of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
Larry Paul Manley, Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
This contract amendment is not effective unless signed by the Executive Director of the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs, or his authorized designee.
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit C
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
City of Georgetown
ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1. Contract x-----------x
Negotiation
2. Environmental x-----------x
Review
3. Real Estate:
Acquisition x--------x
Equity n/a
4. Infrastructure n/
5. Bldg. Const. x------------------- !-------------x
6. Working x-------------------------------------x
Capital
7. Mach. & Equip.:
Acquisition n/a
Equity x---x
8. Engineering x-
---------------------------------------- ---
-x
9. Administration x--------------- ------------------------------------------
10. Audit/Closeout x x I
x-----x
11. Other n/a
NUMBER OF JOBS: — — -- --
CREATED PER QTR -0- -0- 8 -0- -0- -0- -0- 2 2 3 3 0-
RETAINED PER QTR
CONTRACT BEGINNING DATE: November 21, 1994
CONTRACT ENDING DATE: November 20, 1997
Council meeting date: 10-24-95
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Action relative to supplying water to the City of Leander
ITEM SUMMARY
Item F
No.
The Council Subcommittee met with Leander last Monday evening. At that time, the staff presented the
anticipated water use over the next five years and Leander's impact on projected City usage. This
presentation will be made at the Council Meeting.
In the meantime, the staff will meet with LCRA officials and Trans -Texas consultants, and pursue potential
financing alternatives.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of Resolution 950822-RR
2. Map of region
Submitted by:
Doris Curl, Mayor Pro Tem
George Arroyos, Councilmember
RESOLUTION NO. SOv22'R�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, STATING THE GENERAL INTENT TO ENTER
INTO A POTENTIAL REGIONAL WATER PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
CITY OF LEANDER; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in June 1994, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, sent
a letter to the City of Leander, offering to work with Leander to establish a regional water
partnership;
WHEREAS, in August 1995, the City of Leander is still seeking to resolve its long-
term water needs through the acquisition of adequate drinking water supplies;
WHEREAS, Georgetown and Leander City officials and staff have been negotiating
the terms of an interlocal agreement to assist in the provision of water to Leander;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution
are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference
herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby
finds that this resolution implements the following policies of the Century Plan - Policy
Plan Element:
Utilities and Energy Policy 1:
"The City will provide water, wastewater, electricity, and solid waste collection services
which meet the immediate and future needs of all citizens and which encourages and
provides for economic development;
Finance Policy 1:
"The City will conduct all municipal operations in an efficient business -like manner"; and
Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1:
"The City will develop a water resources system that provides a sufficient water supply
of high quality to meet future City needs, economic development and recreational
requirements, and to conserve wildlife".
The City Council further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in
conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the
Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
Leander Water Partnership Resolution No1508Z2— RR
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown reconfirms its willingness
to work with the City of Leander toward the establishment of a regional water partnership,
through an interiocal agreement and such other agreements as may later be determined
to be necessary. The Georgetown City Council has requested that the City staff
negotiate the terms of the regional water agreement with the Leander officials on or
before October 15, 1995, and to bring this agreement to the Georgetown City Council for
its consideration upon approval of the form of the agreement by the City Attorney.
The terms of this agreement shall include the following concepts:
1. Be a partnership as opposed to a wholesale contract;
2. Will enable the City of Georgetown to serve the western portion of the CCN;
3. Will not cause a rate increase to Georgetown utility customers.
4. Will not negatively impact the present or future water supply for Georgetown
utility customers;
5. The City of Leander will pay for its share of infrastructure required for
service and all operation and maintenance costs.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this 22nd day of August, 1995.
7ATTES
Sandra D. Lee
City. Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: d /
Leo Wood, Mayor
Leander Water Partnership Resolution No. 1508 —
Rrlv,�
Page 2 of 2
MI 5.
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No. a
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Second Reading of a Rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS,
Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District, or any more restrictive
classification
ITEM SUMMARY: River Hills, Section Four, was platted in 1986 for commercial or
multifamily development. Section Four was a one (1) lot subdivision that is now being replatted
as part of Section 4A (see separate agenda item). The requested RM-3 zoning district is
consistent with the land use designation on both the original plat and the proposed resubdivision.
The RM-3 district permits all residential uses, and such non-residential uses as hospitals and
clinics, religious and educational institutions, office buildings of 5,000 square feet or less,
personal service shops, artist and photographer studios, and nursing homes. Given that this
property is located along the IH35 frontage road and is assigned Intensity Level 5, these would
all be appropriate uses in this location.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The second reading of this rezoning ordinance will not
proceed to City Council until the plat for River Hills, Section 4A, is recorded or a metes and
bounds description of the subject lot is provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested rezoning of River Hills, Section
4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service District.
The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance at their meeting of October
10, 1995.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report and ordinance
Submitted By:
Edward arry, AICP 4elreices
tor Hildy L. 'ngma, AICP
Divisio of Develop men Chief Planner
REZONING OF RIVER HILLS, SECTION 4A, LOT 1, FROM RS, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY TO RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT, OR ANY MORE
RESTRICTIVE CLASSIFICATION
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Gregory G. Hall, Trustee
S & H Joint Venture
213-B W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
930-5448 FAX: 930-3989
AGENT: Mr. John Warden, AICP
Situs Planning & Design
3541-D North Hills Drive
Austin, Texas 78731
345-6592 FAX: 345-6592
REQUEST: Rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 as recorded in
Document No. 9534957 of the Official Deed Records of
Williamson County, Texas.
Location: Located on west IH35 frontage road, between Williams Drive
and SH29. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Undeveloped land.
Existing Zoning: This property is zoned RS, Residential Single Family.
Proposed Use: Multifamily/Commercial.
Surrounding Uses North: Undeveloped land, known as the Rivery (RS and C-2A)
and Zoning: South: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS)
and the Texas Sampler Antiques (C-1)
East: IH35 (RS)
West: River Hills, Section One, single family residential (RS)
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates proposed Lot 1
and a portion of proposed Lots 2 and 3 as Intensity Level 5.
Part of the resubdivision request (agenda item 6b) includes
reallocating the allowable demand from that portion of Lots 2
and 3 that are assigned Intensity Level 5 to Lot 1. The analysis
Rezoning - River Hills, Section 4A October 16, 1995
RZ-95-19/File:RVRHIS4A.RZ Page 1
CM:HK
shown in EXHIBITS B-1 and B-2 assumes this request is approved.
The plat indicates that Lot 1 will be developed for multifamily
commercial use, but no indication is given as to the land area that will
be devoted to each use. Therefore, if a mixed use development is
proposed, the total amount of development on Lot 1 will be limited to
what Intensity Level 5 allows for the proposed allocation of uses.
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
HISTORY: River Hills, Section Four, was platted in 1986 for commercial or
multifamily development.
ANALYSIS: The RM-3, Office and Service district zoning classification requested is
consistent with the land use designation on the original plat for River
Hills, Section Four, as well as the proposed resubdivision to River
Hills, Section 4-A, Lot 1. The RM-3 district permits all residential
uses, and such non-residential uses as hospitals and clinics, religious
and educational institutions, office buildings of 5,000 square feet or
less, personal service shops, artist and photographer studios, and
nursing homes. Given that this property is located along the IH35
frontage road and is assigned Intensity Level 5, these would all be
appropriate uses in this location. At this time, the wastewater utility
service is not available to serve any of these uses, however. The
following agenda item considers the resubdivision of this property and
the provision of utility service is a requirement of that process.
Therefore, before any development can occur on the subject property,
the required public improvements will be installed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the rezoning of River Hills, Section 4-A, Lot 1, from RS,
Residential Single Family to RM-3, Office and Service district.
P & Z ACTION: At their regular meeting of October 3, 1995, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the requested
rezoning of River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1, from RS, Residential Single
Family to RM-3, Office and Service District.
Rezoning - River Hills, Section 4A
RZ-95-19/File:RVRHIS4A.RZ
CM:HK
October 16, 1995
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
4A At Eft TO
fw1�: 1• • : i 1'. cc0eILKI
�acR
G� Q 1 3.D
"� YEYIM 3O
4 3 A
I
L r
• 1 T. so. •C T .l 'rJ,
SOw , C.
e.z1 K.
SPN
ORT
I 1
cc0wcE To..
courrTaT uue
252 / ])e
96.32i4
•c wEeti,+cr S—.0] e...•. •so
/9�r I
I Z]9..0'.c
>> •c MA:
•Cr Ew r0 I / wEf[w O I Tl� •cfCw 10 •7h
\ 0e,2 2 oe.. I S "M
/ C-2A first reading) 71
\ LP
I
-- RS
\ S LE I 00
f
� o,ew.c.c• y
�6•
oU114 1 S.O,y - -
5 G
C-2A •E5Ew TO
\ ,o,t
.O c(Yc T`Cffl
�
ea�strictod
(3649
2604 AC
1 - .4 _ Oa1vf
•ryCN "Ills
o
I Z n A yy
i�l - hip Q : FF',:F •ARK
r H OL 2
OL6 OLS OL3
., 41 R OL•
JI c \ wErEw r0 �— k
u1T o, )121a I
I,oa/732
l`36 .9 .0
�T \965
i
RS x
k.w wawq _ _ _ -- —_ _ _ — _ •- _ — -- - --ii w. c•Yec[ iwrC
*SO.sts z_,6
Ct YC Tcwr
17 73 .c.. SO •C.. ]o
LEE w•Tlw 'y .'fc..i,J� �r oo .c-06/196
`1017
-L 00 wG f•S� -
1, 00 .[ 1
I2. 1 S HIGHW AY 29
31
13 tC - _•r 1 _— -
Y 29 11 1 1, 1 ..,.cs-ow T. ,,
2 A 200 I =i` �- I ,Ot: 22, I D.
GEORGETCI7Y _[MIT P,1 \I\
OL 32
were 20I
s r L .0E1 33 .1• .... .r 1
I I'll
20O.0 x 3 1 OL18
Z2 1 4 r
II T'31 •c / �a OL33 ,.[ST ,3 ,. STwEET w
II
I MJL 37,
11
,o• ' OL 32-530
I
•. ♦. �EKr '. /rEus ...E •K.r. e.... �--� - -
1 T2]..C1 1
K) 0]2 •C
Project Name: River Hills Section 4A
����Name of Respondent:;C244 Ali
_
Address of Respondent �J ✓
I am in favor: I object:
submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the
p(ig.a J ning Commission and City Council.
it of Georgetown
r-
Pl ase reply jo._ , C Y g
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1968, AND
AMENDING PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION,
SECTION 4A, LOT 1, FROM THE RS, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICT TO THE RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of
changing the zoning district classification of the following described real property ("the
property") :
RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 4A, LOT 1, AS RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NO.9534957 OF THE OFFICIAL DEED RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON
COUNTY, TEXAS, hereinafter referred to as "the property";
WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen
(15) days for the first day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on October 3,
1995, recommended changing said zoning district classification of the above described property
from the RS, Residential Single Family district to RM-3, Office and Service district zoning
classification.
River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element:
1. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that
future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents,
businesses and organizations"; and
2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory
actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the
opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense"; and
3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 4, which states: "The City will encourage
new development and infill redevelopment in the community"; and
4. Environmental and Resource Conservation Policy 1, which states: "The City will take
the steps necessary to protect the physical attributes that make Georgetown attractive";
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning
District for the property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the RS, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO RM-3, OFFICE AND SERVICE DISTRICT, and is hereby
adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, in accordance with Exhibit "A"
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
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 in (10)
River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 3
ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of . 1995.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of . 1995.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
River Hills, Section 4A, Lot 1 Rezoning Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 3
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
c
3 "o I I C-2A Ao.:
CLEORGE ToW§ 'A I �T,
." aw -c
HiGHW-' 29
- 7,c
I c
OL 15
4>L 3 7 A:
lL
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Consideration and second reading of an ordinance amending Exhibit 1 of the
Century Plan - Development Plan for the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known
as Main Street Baptist Church from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five.
ITEM SUMMARY: The site contains an existing church building, which includes a day care.
The applicant proposes to add 8,430 square feet to the building, which exceeds the allowable
building size for Intensity Level Four, with water and wastewater as the limiting factors. The
Community Owned Utilities Division reports adequate water and wastewater infrastructure and
capacity to serve the site at Intensity Level Five. The day care use currently utilizes
approximately 1,920 square feet of the church building. Although there is no proposal to expand
the day care use, Intensity Level Five would allow an increase of 63 trip ends and an expansion
to 7,423 square feet. Since the church is not located on an arterial level street, Intensity Level
Five is not considered appropriate due to the transportation demand. Limiting the transportation
trip ends on this site to that allowed under Intensity Level Four will avoid excessive demand from
being placed on the transportation system.
w
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
COMMENTS: The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on October 10,
1995.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report; Ordinance
Submitted By:
�ld
Edwar J. Barry, AICP - Director
Divisi of Developm nt Services
Clyde von Rosenberg, AI
Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
CENTURY PLAN AMENDMENT OF GLASSCOCK ADDITION,
BLOCK 22, LOTS 5-8, LOCALLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET BAPTIST CHURCH
FROM INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR TO INTENSITY LEVEL FIVE
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Mr. C.H. Steger
Main Street Baptist Church
1001 Main Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512/869-7854
AGENT: Mr. Charlie Steger, P.E.
Steger and Bizzell Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78628
512/863-4521 FAX: 863-4523
REQUEST: Century Plan Amendment of Glasscock Addition, Block 22,
Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church as
recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and
Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of
Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level Four to
Intensity Level Five.
FACTS:
Location: 1001 Main Street. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Main Street Baptist Church
Existing Zoning: This tract is zoned C-2A, Commercial First Height.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: North: Hewlett Used Cars (C-2A)
South: Russell Laundromat (C-2A)
East: Single family residential (RS)
West: Hewlett Auto Sales, commercial strip and house (C-2A)
Proposed Use: An 8,430 square foot addition is proposed, to include classrooms
and a fellowship hall dining area.
Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church October 4, 1995
File:MS-BPTST.CPA Page 1
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this tract as
Intensity Level Four. Surrounding Intensity Levels are Level
Five, Level Four and Level Three. SEE EXHIBIT A
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
ANALYSIS: The existing building, including the "main building" and the
"1977 addition" contains approximately 22,934 square feet. The
church operates a day care which uses an approximately 1,920
square foot portion of the church facility. The size of the
existing church facility is within the allowable development
under Intensity Level Four, which is 23,845 square feet. The
size of the day care is also within the allowable development
under Intensity Level Four, which is 3,393 square feet. The
church use and the day care use can be analyzed separately,
since the "Church with day care" land use activity in the
Development Plan is based solely upon the demands generated
by the day care use and the "Church without day care" land use
activity is based solely upon the demands generated by the
church use. SEE EXHIBIT B-1 The proposed addition to the
church contains 8,430 square feet, which, when added to the
existing building, exceeds the allowable square footage for the
church use at Intensity Level Four by 7,519 square feet. None
of the addition to the church is proposed for use by the day care.
Amending the Intensity Level for the site to Level Five would
provide for the proposed expansion of the church use, as the
allowable development would increase to 38,890 square feet.
The allowable development for the day care use would increase
to 7,423 square feet. SEE EXHIBIT B-2
Water and Wastewater
The limiting factors for the church use under both Intensity
Level Four and Intensity Level Five are water and wastewater.
The proposed amendment to Intensity Level Five increases the
total allowable demand for water by 2,799 gallons per day and
the total allowable demand for wastewater by 845 gallons per
day. The actual demand for these uses may be far less than
what is allowable, since the entire facility is not likely to be
fully utilized at any one time, with the typical use pattern of a
church involving the participants moving from one part of the
Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church
October 4, 1995
File:MS-BPTST.CPA Page 2
facility to another. The Community Owned Utilities Division
reports adequate capacity in both the water and wastewater
systems to serve this increased demand, with negligible impact to
the systems.
Transportation
The limiting factor for the day care use under both Intensity
Level Four and Intensity Level Five is transportation. Under
Intensity Level Four, the day care use is allowed to utilize a
maximum of 3,393 square feet of the church facility. It
currently operates within only 1,920 square feet, and the
proposed church expansion does not include an expansion of the
day care use. The Intensity Level Five designation would allow
for 7,423 square feet of day care use, increasing the total
allowable demand for transportation by 63 trip ends. The
Intensity Level Five designation is intended for a site that has
access to an existing or planned arterial roadway. The church
site is one block away from Austin Avenue (Business IH35) and
SH29, which are the closest arterial level roadways. For this
reason, it may be advisable to limit the total allowable demand
for transportation on this site to the number of trip ends allowed
under Intensity Level Four. This would allow for expansion of
the day care use at the church from 1,920 square feet to 3,393
square feet, as allowed under Intensity Level Four; however, it
would prevent this project, or any other use proposed on this site
in the future, from putting excessive demand on the
transportation system.
STAFF RECONUgENDATION:
Approval of the Century Plan Amendment of Glasscock
Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street
Baptist Church as recorded in Volume 395, Page 286, Volume
209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed
Records of Williamson County, Texas, from Intensity Level
Four to Intensity Level Five, with the number of transportation
trip ends generated being limited to that allowed under Intensity
Level Four.
Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church
File:MS-BPTST.CPA
October 4, 1995
Page 3
P&Z ACTION: At the October 3, 1995 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Century Plan Amendment
of Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as
Main Street Baptist Church, from Intensity Level Four to
Intensity Level Five, with the number of transportation trip ends
generated being limited to that allowed under Intensity Level
Four.
Century Plan Amendment - Main Street Baptist Church
File:MS-BPTST.CPA
October 4, 1995
Page 4
EXHIBIT A I
3 ° b D
Ma
3
6 _ �
8 1 2 3 8 n
7 5 CITY 2
HALL g
re oo' o oo' o oe p .
7 Ih STREET
n �
2
n
C
U)
�
3
Z
N
n
<
Z
C
m
7
5
-I
6 3
S n
.re ov
8
I
7
2
6
}
5
.n o
u
INTENSN'Y LEVEL 6 ( e ,h STREET
i
I! .>ae. >a°e r •°T— .°.� .eoo I— ,°oo I ..ee° � I ..o� —>�-; o '(eee .rove
+-----
6 7
Ig 2
I I
i
-r--------------------� 9 S;REEI-13NTEN SITY LEVEL 3
----�---
e
tNT NSITiY LEVEL
I z '
1 i �
' t
I c...c.o
R3
I I� � O 1 / ). ` 1 — — ' (• `,` •.' , • ' V `O � � }fi' -�YY�����M
I •O..t O. �1 i I.o— 1 � I . ... .a �.4 R ,'ty .i�i� i .— —__
�k»5! , I
I !C 1 -- I ..• , I I I I L
I/ I
to^ .•)/. r. :(tr-.ob •„olK „o,� I .(-•, (. ��x��� 'r` i .. .. II th STREET I
E-1
I
,o
I I ....,
I i _
INLEN �Y LEVEL4 I I I I C E rl iElo
' g
I 2 fh STREEINTENSITY LEVEL 4
. •C.f. O. Co ..0
580, I I I •) I ... ,.., , ., ,[� ..X �_—elk
Iasi/y.6 ! ♦.Ca�. -i i
t- _ LE-
e r E
7
2
i 6
j
le
e I
II th STREET
STATE HIGHWAY 119
I I
I
I
I
EXHIL311 is-1
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
1. -DATE': September 14, 1995
'PROJECT NAME': Main Street Baptist Church
Detailed Development Plan
2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1
acres of Intensity Level 2
acres of Intensity Level 3
0.66 acres of Intensity Level 4
acres of Intensity Level 5
acres of Intensity Level 6
0.66 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY
WATER
WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL
Peak GPD
Average GPO
Peak Trip Ends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
4,435
1.267
53
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
4 TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPO Water Capacity:
4.435
Maximum GPO Wastewater Capacity:
1.267
Maximum Trip Ends:
53
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT:
POTENTIAL UNITS
(a)
BY UTILITY
(b)
MAXIMUM
(c)
PER DEV
(d)
DEVELOPMENT
LAND USES
-----------------------------
WATER
----------------------------------------------------
WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION I
UNITS 1
----
REGS 1
--------
ALLOWED/UNIT
- ----- -----------
------------------------ ------
Detached SF
1
4
1
1 housing units
Large Lot
9
4
5
60 1
4 1
5 1
4 housing units
Average Lot
4
5
60 1
4 1
6 1
4 housing units
Zero Lot Line
7
7
49 1
7
10 I
7 housing units
Attached SF
8
23 1
8 1
17 I
8 housing units
Multifamily8
7
7
62 I
7 1
1
7 housing units
Mobile Home
23
21
38 1
21 I
I
21 rooms
Lodging
12,931
13.774
62,782 1
12,931 I
I
12,931 square feet
Institutional
Church
-with day care
14,400
15,267
1
3.393 (
3.393 (
(
3.393 square feet
23.8-45 square feet
-w/o day care
23.845
10,662
25.344
11,314
73,333
16.362 1
23,845 j
10,662 1
1
10,662 square feet
Medical Office
General Office
12,185
13,925
20,706 1
12,185 1
1
12,185 square feet
Retail, Mixed
6,823
7.774
3.197 1
4,644 I
3.197 I
2.640 I
1
1
3,197 square feet
2,640 square feet
Retail, Restaurant
2,843
13.647
2.640
14,400
10,995 I
10,995 I
1
10,995 square feet
Retail, Store
Employment Centers
12,185
13,925
11,538 1
11,538 I
I
11,538 square feet
77.811 square feet
Warehouse
77,811
1.108,800
90.514
1,267.200
88,000 1
203.077 1
77,811
203,077 I
I
I
203.077 square feet}
Mini -Warehouse
-------------------------- I
-------------------- 1-----------------
I
---------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT B-2
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
1. 'DATE': September 14, 1995
'PROJECT NAME': Main Street Baptist Church
Detailed Development Plan
2. 'GIVEN' acres of Intensity Level 1
acres of Intensity Level 2
acres of Intensity Level 3
acres of Intensity Level 4
0.66 acres of Intensity Level 5
acres of Intensity Level 6
0.66 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY WATER WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL Peak GPD Average GPD Peak Trip Ends
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 7,234 2,112 116
6 0 0 0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPO Water Capacity: 7.234
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 2.112
Maximum Trip Ends: 116
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT:
(a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
(b)
MAXIMUM
LAND USES
WATER
-------------------------------------------
WASTEWATER
-
TRANSPORTATION I
---------------------------
UNITS
----------------------------------------------------
Detached SF
6
7
193 I
6
Large Lot
7
8
130 I
7
Average Lot
7
8
130
7
Zero Lot Line
11
12
106
11
Attached SF
14
14
51 I
14
Multifamily
11
11
136 I
11
Mobile Home
38
35
83 I
35 I
Lodging
Institutional
21,089
22,957
137,337 I
21,089
Church
-with day care
23,486
25,446
7.423
7.423
-w/o day care
38,890
42,240
160,417
38,890
Medical Office
17,388
18,857
35,792 I
17,388
General Office
19,873
23.209
45,294
19,873
Retail, Mixed
11,129
12,957
6.992
6.992
Retail, Restaurant
4.637
4,400
10,158 I
4,400
Retail, Store
22.257
24,000
24.052 I
22,257
Employment Centers
19.873
23,209
25,240 I
19,873
Warehouse
126.905
150,857
192.500 I
126,905
Mini -Warehouse
1,808.400
----------------------------------------------------------------
2,1 12,000
444,231 I
I
444.231
-----------
(c)
(d)
PER DEV
DEVELOPMENT
REGS I
ALLOWED/UNIT
--------------------------
1 I
1 housing units
5 I
5 housing units
6 I
6 housing units
10 I
11 housing units
17 I
14 housing units
11 housing units
35 rooms
21.089 square feet
7.423 square feet
38,890 square feet
17,388 square feet
19,873 square feet
6,992 square feet
I
4,400 square feet
22,257 square feel
19,873 square feet
126,905 square feet
444.231 square feet
--------------------------------------------
PRUPERTY OWNER'S COMMENTS
Project Name:_ Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Ameridrr�ent
Name of Respondent: Z
Address of Respondent: /4 G�7IJ VL, G, T t;
1 'im �n �7inr•
I object:
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 9/27/95, it will be provided to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P. O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
1006 Church St.
Georgetown, TX. 78626
September 22, 1995
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627
Dear Sirs
After reviewing the Main Street Baptist Church - DDP and Century Plan Amendment. "'ve have strong
objections to the proposed plan
As it stands, the proposed building would totally obstruct our view to the west as well as block access to the
usual and customary solar resources associated with residential property and in so doing diminish our ability
to provide a greenbelt buffer for our residence Further, it would invade the visible privacy of our residence
by means of two-story overview and compromise one of the essential benefits of home ownership
Secondarily, church parking is already inadequate. Church members having to park in other merchants'
parking lots and on the street works a hardship on the neighborhood as a whole, not only to other
residences, but also to the small independent merchants by forcing their patrons to utilize parking heretofore
available to the general community. The addition of a structure this size will further increase the need for
additional parking and will increase the traffic through the residential area.
These two fundamental changes in the nature and characteristic of this transition zone between residence and
commercial sections of the historical area would serve to further expand commercial area at the expense of
the residential area. It would set a precedence, for further encroachment into the residential area and
continue the trend away from a valuable mixed use central city which has been a key asset to the prosperity
and appeal of central Georgetown
In addition, the proposed building will be 20 to 24 feet in height and only 7-feet from our property line and
approximately 38-feet from the back of our residence, this will have a dramatic effect on our property value
and the ability to sell our property in the future
We feet like the proposed 2-story building will impose an unnecessary hardship on our ability to enjoy our
residence, and will continue to harm the already deteriorating historic nature of downtown Georgetown
The Main Street Baptist Church's proposed plan shows a complete disregard toward the church's residential
neighbors
In conclusion, we are hopeful of a positive reply from the city However, we plan to exhaust all legal means
to protect our rights as property owners
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Parks
TMP/tmp
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING EXHIBIT 1- INTENSITY MAP OF
THE CENTURY PLAN - DEVELOPMENT PLAN PASSED AND ADOPTED
ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 1990, TO CHANGE THE GLASSCOCK
ADDITION BLOCK 22, LOTS 5-8, LOCALLY KNOWN AS MAIN STREET
BAPTIST CHURCH, FROM INTENSITY LEVEL FOUR TO INTENSITY
LEVEL FIVE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Charter of the City of Georgetown was amended by vote of the
people in April 1986 such that comprehensive planning was established as a continuous and
ongoing governmental function; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on March 8, 1988, adopt by Ordinance Number
880097 the Georgetown Century Plan - Policy Plan as the Comprehensive Plan for the City
pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on March 13, 1990, adopt by Ordinance Number
900149 the Georgetown Century Plan - Development Plan as the Land Intensity, Transportation,
and Utilities functional plan elements pursuant to Section 1.08 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Century Plan Development Plan contains the Intensity Map designed to
assign development intensities throughout the Georgetown Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, an application has been made by the Main Street Baptist Church to construct
an 8,430 square foot addition to an existing church building, necessitating changing the intensity
assignment of the Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist
Church, from Intensity Level Four to Intensity Level Five; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on October 3, 1995, conduct a
public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan -
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City, which stated the time and place of hearing which time was not earlier than fifteen
(15) days for the first day of such publication; and
WHEREAS, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set
for the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within
two hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the applicant for such Plan amendment placed on the property at the
Glasscock Addition, Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, such
sign(s) as required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less
than fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did, on October 3, 1995, recommend
that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to EXHIBIT 1 of the Century Plan -
Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
ordinance implements the following Policies of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element:
1. Economic Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will encourage diversified
growth and promote business opportunities to create jobs, broaden the tax base and
minimize the impact of economic fluctuations", and
2. Growth and Physical Development Policy 1, which states: "The City will ensure that
future land use patterns provide economic, cultural, and social activities to all residents,
businesses and organizations;" and
3. Growth and Physical Development Policy 2, which states: "The City's regulatory
actions will efficiently and effectively implement the Policy Statements and provide the
opportunity to seek change with reasonable effort and expense;"
as well as the following Goal of the Century Plan - Development Plan Element:
1. Policy 8, Goal A, which states: "The City will prepare and adopt a land use
management program to promote orderly growth, address environmental issues, and
coordinate provision of City services;"
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the
Policy Plan.
Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. EXHIBIT 1 - Intensity Map, contained within the Century Plan -
Development Plan, is hereby amended by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
to change the Intensity Level Four designation to Intensity Level Five for the Glasscock Addition,
Block 22, Lots 5-8, locally known as Main Street Baptist Church, as recorded in Volume 395,
Page 286, Volume 209, Page 457 and Volume 531, Page 133 of the Official Deed Records of
Williamson County, Texas, and as shown on Attachment A of this Ordinance, provided that the
number of transportation trip ends generated be limited to that allowed under the Intensity Level
Four designation.
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 in (10)
ten days on and after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the loth day of October, 1995.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 24th day of October, 1995.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Century Plan Amendment -Main Street Baptist Church
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 3
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Leo Wood
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
3
3
2 3 4
7 g
CITY
2
HALL 8
7 to STREET
2
3
m
C:
m
INTENSf'-TY LEVEL 6 I 8 to STREE7
7
I B ° I I i 2
2
3
G
9 ?h S T Rr INTENSITY LEVEL 3
tNT NSITY LEVEL 5
2
I C�
I G
,0 nS P: T
otm A
M.
2
6
t4
1: lh STREE
L
-10
2
:2 to STREEiNTENSITY LEVEL 4 STAT=_ HIGHWAY 29
. . .................
...,< ii I , to � .... �
0 1.°I
Council Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
An ordinance amending stormwater drainage rates. Second Reading.
ITEM SUMMARY
Stormwater drainage rates will be raised $0.50 per month for customers. This increase will be used to pay for
costs of drainage maintenance operations. The revised rate will be $1.25 per billing unit.
This ordinance also changes the definition of benefitted property to match recent state legislation.
SPECTAL CONSTDERATTONS
The revenue increase will help offset the Stormwater Drainage Fund's operating deficit.
FTNANCTAL IMPACT
This proposed change has been used in the preparation of the Annual Operating Plan Element of the City of
Georgetown Century Plan for 1995/96.
COMMENTS
This ordinance has been properly published in the local paper and the ordinance made available for public
inspection. Therefore, full public reading is not required. State law requires an additional 30 days notice for
changes to drainage ordinances. This requirement and the additional notification requirements have been met.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Ordinance.
Submitted By:
Susan L. Morgan, Director of Finance and Administration
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE
OF ORDINANCES §13.28.100 RELATING TO STORMWATER DRAINAGE
FEES; AND §13.28.020 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF BENEFITTED
PROPERTY; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, within the City of Georgetown ("City") there is an existing municipal
drainage system which has been developed over a number of years for the purpose of collecting and
disposing of stormwater runoff, and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown desires to develop a Citywide Master Drainage Utility
Plan for compliance with the Century Plan; and
WHEREAS, portions of the present system are inadequate to control and manage stormwater
runoff within the incorporated limits; and
WHEREAS, the present system requires maintenance rehabilitation and periodic
improvements to control and manage stormwater runoff within the incorporated limits; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act requires that certain cities regulate stormwater drainage
in order to reduce the generation and discharge of nonpoint source pollutants into receiving water
courses and water bodies; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission regulates the activities
conducted over the Edwards Aquifer, in order to reduce generation of these pollutants, and
subsequent contamination of the aquifer, and in furtherance of the requirements of the Clean Water
Act; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary and essential to ensure that the collection and disposal of
stormwater drainage within the city limits adequately protects the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of Georgetown including, but not limited to, the protection from loss of life and property
caused by surface water overflows and surface water stagnation; and
WHEREAS) it is necessary and essential that the City address the various environmental
issues that may further burden its infrastructure requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined into the manner and time of the giving and
publishing of the notice of a hearing to consider this proposed ordinance and has found that notice
of said hearing was duly, properly and legally given as required by law, said notice having been given
Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No.
Pagel of 4
by advertisement inserted at least three times prior to the date of such hearing, in a newspaper
published and of general circulation in the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas, the first
of which publications was made at least on or before thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of Chapter 402, Subchapter C, as
amended, Local Government Code (the "Act") to establish a municipal drainage utility ("Drainage
Utility") within the boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of the Act to provide rules for the use,
operation, and financing of the Drainage Utility; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the provisions of the Act to prescribe bases on which
the Drainage Utility may be funded and fees in support of the drainage utility may be assessed, levied,
and collected; and
WHEREAS, in setting the schedule of charges for drainage service the calculations are based
on an inventory of the lots and tracts within the City and the size, area and topography of benefitted
properties; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to fund a Drainage Utility which fairly and equitably
allocates the cost of drainage to property owners in proportion to the stormwater drainage runoff
potential for each property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Government Code, Chapter 402, Subchapter C, the City of
Georgetown has adopted Ordinance No. 92-18 which declares the drainage services of the
municipality to be a public utility; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the establishment of a drainage utility fee will be held on
October 10, 1995, after publication of this proposed ordinance in the Williamson County Sun on
September 6, 17 and 24, 1995;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown is of the opinion that the proposed
stormwater drainage fee changes are warranted to cover operating costs of the utility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also deemed it necessary to amend the definition of
"Benefitted Property" to comply with recent changes in state law;
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
Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 4
~nade a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance
mplements Finance Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "the City will
conduct all municipal operations in an efficient business like manner", and further finds that the
enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as
required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. Section 13.28.020 Definition is amended as follows:
"Benefitted property" means an improved lot or tract to which a drainage service is made
available under this ordinance and wiicf j. tecie v es vvater,, wastewater or electric utifity se, v ice
SECTION 3. Section 13.28.100, relating to Stormwater Drainage Utility Fees, of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown, is hereby amended for billing periods ending after October
31, 1995 as follows:
13.28.100 Calculation of drainage utility fees.
C. The following BU rate is established and shall be used to calculate the total monthly
drainage utility fee for all property located in the City, in accordance with the applicable
formula established in the ordinance codified in this section:
BU rate = $0.75- $1.25 per BU per month
SECTION 4. 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 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application
thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and
to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect in (10) ten days on and
after publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown.
Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 4
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of )1995.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of , 1995
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Sandra D. Lee By: LEO WOOD
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
Amending § 13.28.100 Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 4
l;
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
TO
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Concept Plan for a 144.73 acre tract in the William Addison
Survey to be known as Rolling Prairie Settlement.
ITEM SUMMARY: This Concept Plan proposes 25 single family residential lots, most of
which are approximately five (5) acres in size. A collector street is proposed to access lots in
the southern part of the subdivision.
There are two (2) major Century Plan issues involving this Concept Plan.
It is impacted by three (3) of the probable routes of State Highway 130 (Mokan). The
SH130 issue is resolved by setting aside an area on the eastern side of the Concept Plan property
that will not be developed at this time. Neither the exact route of SH130 nor the right-of-way
needed for it are known at this time. The most eastern route has been endorsed by the City
Council and is the most likely location for the road, according to TxDOT. By setting aside this
area, it will prevent development from conflicting with the most likely route. Hopefully, the
SH130 route will be determined and the needed amount of right-of-way will be known prior to
any proposal to develop this area.
The other Century Plan issue is the realignment of CR110 and CR111. The Century Plan
proposes that these roads be realigned, eliminating the existing double 90 degree turns which
form the western boundary of the proposed subdivision. To complete the straight roadway,
realignment is also proposed east of the subject Concept Plan on CR105. The City staff has met
with the County and owners of property in the affected area to determine the best possible route
for the curves. The owners have agreed to a route which traverses the area of the Concept Plan.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant indicates that a variance will be requested with
the Preliminary Plat of Phase One to permit lots to take access from the County Roads.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
6-0 to approve the Concept Plan for Rolling Prairie Settlement provided all of the Technical
Issues are addressed prior to City Council consideration. This approval does not indicate
acceptance of the lot layout as shown in Exhibit C of the staff report.
Revised plats have been submitted to the City that address all Technical Issues. The area
set aside for the SH130 route is marked in red and will be incorporated into the Concept Plan
originals following the City Council action.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If this item is approved by the City Council, it will be
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, unless stated otherwise.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Revised Concept Plan.
Submitted By:
Edward/J. Barry, AICP - irector
Divisi of Develovme Services
<I �-Ot� -r- L- V,�
Hildy L. kingma, AICP
Chief Planner
T TPD A TPn
CONCEPT PLAN OF A 144.73 ACRE TRACT IN THE WILLIAM ADDISON,
CALVIN BELL AND JOSEPH MOTT SURVEYS
TO BE KNOWN AS ROLLING PRAIRIE SETTLEMENT
LOCATED AT CR110 AND CR111
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ms. Linda Brady Johnson, Co -Trustee
303 East Ninth
Georgetown, Texas 78626
863-5674
AGENT: Mr. Don Bizzell
Steger and Bizzell Engineering
P.O. Box 858
Georgetown, Texas 78627
863-4521 FAX: 863-4523
REQUEST: Concept Plan of 144.73 acres in the William Addison, Calvin
Bell and Joseph Mott Surveys, to be known as Rolling Prairie
Settlement, and recorded in Volume 2084, Page 564 the Official
Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas.
Location: Located on County Roads 110 and 111. SEE EXHIBIT A
Existing Site: Undeveloped land.
Existing Zoning: This property is located outside the City limits so zoning does
not apply.
Proposed Use: 25 large single family residential lots.
Surrounding Uses
and Zoning: Undeveloped land (out of city)
Century Plan: The Century Plan Development Plan designates this property as
Intensity Level Five. The proposed development can be
accommodated within the assigned intensities. SEE EXHIBIT
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement October 19, 1995
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP Page 1
CM/CS
B There are several transportation improvements included in the
Century Plan that impact this property. These are outlined in
detail in the report.
Notification: The notification requirements have been completed.
ANALYSIS: The proposed 25 lot subdivision is located just south of the
intersection of County Roads 111 and 110. It meets the criteria
for being considered a rural subdivision and therefore is subject
to the standards for rural subdivisions. Like other concept plans
reviewed by the Commission, this one incorporates more
information than what is required. All 25 lots are shown on the
plan.
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
State Highway 130 (Mokan)
The proposed subdivision is situated such that three (3) of the
State Highway 130 (Mokan) alternative routes affect it. SEE
EXHIBIT C Each alternate route identified is a 1,000 foot wide
study corridor defined by the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT), within which the required 400 foot
wide right-of-way would be located. Obviously, only one (1) of
these routes will be the ultimate location of SH130. Although
TxDOT has not yet identified the actual route, the Georgetown
City Council has endorsed Alternate F as the preferred route
within Georgetown's Planning Area. Alternate F is the most
eastern of all routes, not only at this location, but also over the
entire length of SH130 through the Georgetown area. That route
cuts off a portion of the subject Concept Plan on the extreme
east side. Preliminary indications from TXDOT's engineering
consultant indicate that Alternative F will be the preferred route
from a point north of SH29 to FM3406 in Round Rock.
CR110/CR111
County Road 110, according to the Century Plan, is required to
have a 120 foot right-of-way from its intersection with CR 111 to
its intersection with CR105. The effect on this property is that
40 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated along CR110 to
provide one-half of the difference between the existing right -of -
October 19, 1995
Page 2
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
way width (40 feet) and the proposed right-of-way width (120
feet). SEE EXHIBIT D
Another issue related to this Concept Plan is the improvement of
CR 111. The Century Plan calls for CR 111 to be straightened
out to form a direct east -west thoroughfare and eliminate the two
(2) existing 90 degree curves. The segment between IH35 and
SH130 (Mokan) is listed in the Century Plan as a Priority One.
The location of this realignment, preferred by the City, County
and the applicant, is just west of the subject Concept Plan site.
The land in that area is owned by two (2) separate owners for a
distance of approximately 2,800 feet beyond the subject
property. SEE EXHIBIT E This is an ideal route since the
owner of 2,200 feet of frontage on the north side of the road
also owns 2,500 feet of frontage directly on the south side of the
road. Therefore, the owner can join the property cut off on the
south side of the new road with the existing property on the
south, provided that the former CR111 right-of-way is
abandoned. Also, there is a substantial length of area available
to provide the two (2) curves necessary without any obvious
obstructions. This alignment affects this Concept Plan since the
portion of CR111 north of the concept plan area will become a
segment of the realigned CR111. SEE EXHIBIT F As such, it
requires a 120 foot wide right-of-way. Similar to what was
discussed previously in this report for CR110, one-half of the
difference between the existing right-of-way width and 120 feet
must be dedicated.
Other Issues
As mentioned earlier, this subdivision is subject to the rural
subdivision standards established by Section 36000. As such,
access to numbered County roads is prohibited. Normally, this
is not a consideration in concept plans, but it must be discussed
in this case since the lots are shown on this Concept Plan. The
issue of a variance to this standard can only be considered at the
preliminary plat stage. The previously discussed Century Plan
proposal for the improvement of CR110 and CR111 indicates
that these two (2) roads will be major arterials at some time in
the future. Residential access to arterial streets is not permitted
October 19, 1995
Page 3
according to the Subdivision Regulations, nor is it in the best
interest of safety and efficient traffic flow. Therefore, the City
staff will not support a variance to this standard. The lots shown
on the Concept Plan are not in compliance with this standard and
must be brought into compliance before the project can be
considered as a Preliminary Plat.
The Concept Plan does not propose any park land dedication.
For the 25 proposed lots, 0.17 acres are required. In lieu of
dedicating the park land, the applicant has the option of paying a
fee of $5,625. The park land fee must be paid at the rate of
$225 per lot prior to each final plat being recorded.
Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to City
Council consideration of this Concept Plan. If they are not
addressed by November 3, 1995, or if the applicant does not
concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the
Concept Plan to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the
Concept Plan will be forwarded to the Council with a
recommendation for denial.
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
1. The Concept Plan must include an area to accommodate the
SH130 Alternate F route. This is to be set aside as an area in
which no development is proposed at this time. This is not an
actual dedication of right-of-way nor is it a commitment to
dedicate right-of-way. It is an area in which the applicant
recognizes the possibility of SH130 being located. Because of
the general location of the SH130 study corridor and the scale of
the maps used as the source of information, the area set aside by
the applicant may encompass more area than what the maps
indicate as the 1,000 foot wide study corridor for Alternate F.
The actual right-of-way for the highway will most likely be 400
feet wide and may possibly not even include any of the land in
this Concept Plan. However, setting aside this area ensures that
it will not be developed and the probable route will remain clear
of obstructions, easing the acquisition of right-of-way for all
parties involved and minimizing the impact on property owners.
The intent of setting aside the area in the Concept Plan is to
allow the applicant to develop the first phase of the project and
October 19, 1995
Page 4
allow for the right-of-way for SH130 to be acquired so that the
remainder of the subdivision can then be planned around the
actual right-of-way, avoiding the risk of creating lots in the route
of the highway.
Due to the long term plans of SH130 and the uncertainty of
when the actual route may be determined, a limit may be set on
the length of time that the area set aside will be valid. The
alternative to placing a time limit is to set aside the area for an
indefinite length of time. It is suggested that the Commission
determine the amount of time the area will be set aside, should
there be a time limit, and the method by which the area set aside
is removed from the plan.
2. The width of the CR111 right-of-way is not indicated on the
Concept Plan. It shall be indicated and the additional right-of-
way for the widening of the northwestern portion of CR111, as
indicated in Exhibit F (one-half of the difference between the
existing right-of-way width and 120 feet) must be shown on the
Concept Plan.
3. The additional 40 feet of right-of-way for the widening of
CR110 must be shown on the Concept Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the Concept Plan for Rolling Prairie Settlement
provided all of the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City
Council consideration.
P & Z ACTION: At its September 5, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5-0 to table this request until the October 3,
1995, P&Z meeting.
UPDATE: At the September 5, 1995, Commission meeting, the two (2)
owners of the properties to the west spoke regarding the
realignment of County Roads 110 and 111 and the effect it
would have on their property. They requested the ability to have
more input into the decision regarding the route of the
realignment, which resulted in the Commission tabling the
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement October 19, 1995
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP Page 5
CM/CS
request. Since the meeting, staff has met with Community
Owned Utilities representatives, County representatives and
affected land owners to discuss possible routes of the
realignment. Several routes were studied and the City staff
recommends Alternative #2 shown on Exhibit G.
Another item of discussion at the September 5, Commission
meeting was the necessity of dedicating approximately 40 feet of
right-of-way along CR111 to provide one-half of the difference
between the existing right-of-way width and 120 feet, as required
by the Century Plan. The Commission discussed the possibility
of requiring the dedication of right-of-way in the amount of one-
half of the difference between the existing width and 80 feet. If
this is done, or if dedication is based on anything less than the
120 feet width required by the Century Plan, it is recommended
that a building setback line be established at the same location it
would be with a 40 foot wide right-of-way dedication. SEE
EXHIBIT H
Updated Technical Issues: The following Technical Issues must be addressed prior to City
Council consideration of this Concept Plan. If they are not
addressed by November 3, 1995, or if the applicant does not
concur with a delay to the City Council's consideration of the
Concept Plan to allow the Technical Issues to be addressed, the
Concept Plan will be forwarded to the Council with a
recommendation for denial.
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
1. The Concept Plan must include an area to accommodate the
SH130 Alternate F route. This is to be set aside as an area in
which no development is proposed at this time. This is not an
actual dedication of right-of-way nor is it a commitment to
dedicate right-of-way. It is an area in which the applicant
recognizes the possibility of SH130 being located. Because of
the general location of the SH130 study corridor and the scale of
the maps used as the source of information, the area set aside by
the applicant may encompass more area than what the maps
indicate as the 1,000 foot wide study corridor for Alternate F.
The actual right-of-way for the highway will most likely be 400
feet wide and may possibly not even include any of the land in
October 19, 1995
Page 6
this Concept Plan. However, setting aside this area ensures that
it will not be developed and the probable route will remain clear
of obstructions, easing the acquisition of right-of-way for all
parties involved and minimizing the impact on property owners.
The intent of setting aside the area in the Concept Plan is to
allow the applicant to develop the first phase of the project and
allow for the right-of-way for SH130 to be acquired so that the
remainder of the subdivision can then be planned around the
actual right-of-way, avoiding the risk of creating lots in the route
of the highway.
Due to the long term plans of SH130 and the uncertainty of
when the actual route may be determined, a limit may be set on
the length of time that the area set aside will be valid. The
alternative to placing a time limit is to set aside the area for an
indefinite length of time. It is suggested that the Commission
determine the amount of time the area will be set aside, should
there be a time limit, and the method by which the area set aside
is removed from the plan.
2. The width of the CR111 right-of-way is not indicated on the
Concept Plan. It shall be indicated and the additional right-of-
way for the widening of the northwestern portion of CR111, as
indicated in Exhibit F must be shown on the Concept Plan and
the building setback lines along the right-of-way shall be
established 65 feet beyond the existing right-of-way regardless of
the width of dedication.
3. The additional right-of-way for the widening of CR110 must
be shown on the Concept Plan and the building setback lines
along the right-of-way shall be established 65 feet beyond the
existing right-of-way regardless of the width of dedication.
4. Should Alternatives #2, #3, #4 or, #5 be chosen by the
Commission as the route of the realignment of County Roads
110 and 111, its location shall be indicated on the Concept Plan.
UPDATED STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the Concept Plan for Rolling Prairie Settlement
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
October 19, 1995
Page 7
provided all of the Technical Issues are addressed prior to City
Council consideration.
P&Z ACTION: At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to approve the Concept Plan for Rolling
Prairie Settlement provided all of the Technical Issues are
addressed prior to City Council consideration. This approval
does not indicate acceptance of the lot layout as shown in Exhibit
C of the staff report.
Concept Plan - Rolling Prairie Settlement
CP-95-02 / File:R-P-S.CCP
CM/CS
October 19, 1995
Page 8
to, V20?
2-Is c
C' IQEMS SrarE Iii., G 1—
c OJ AC
(:g1 BiAct
•
ac
75�
65
S—IIS 6 LO— Assoc
--oo, -1171238
8- 20AC o? 12,C oo.c
a'F.S
'c
-Lu.. B'c"
--C ... 0 Yu --A, 812/.2.
f .1,03.c 1
'20 .03.c kooAc
L —Of-sow
3 /164
907 C
5 00
00 ac.
Y07,
(290(
Z' OOAC
7 00 4c
(.SON
7oo �c
Y2737
/ 3 SCALE 400-
3 7 ..P� G O. PA I T ( So.
3-0 57
SA-13 I LoA. ISSOC .2.
"B"iiC o23.c
2o.c
i02.32Ac looa •I
8? 33AC
looAc
•
. . . . . . . . . . .
11 OoAc
.... . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . .
ZOOOAC I .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.."o., c
oc..u.
A'
as6. c
A c
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ..
... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
To"
o Sal /6.0
.5 c
'!)STAG
�•� . ' 1 .: .: •.
.0ee..S. rP
4?*GACI
AC
13 AC
-'LT.. CoC.aur
445/ 34 -, - t
hats AC I 41
J. s. ac oo.c
0$63AC)
15AC)
o
- It
112AC)
f:3oo.c)
ou z
Ac
— -(Be -
.(L' STE
EXHIBIT B
DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
GIVEN A SINGLE LAND USE
1. 'DATE': August 10, 1995
'PROJECT NAME': Rolling Prairie Settlement
Concept Plan
2. 'GIVEN': acres of Intensity Level 1
acres of Intensity Level 2
acres of Intensity Level 3
acres of Intensity Level 4
144.73 acres of Intensity Level 5
acres of Intensity Level 6
144.73 TOTAL ACRES
3. ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
INTENSITY
WATER
WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL
Peak GPD
Average GPD
Peak Trip Ends
1
0
--------- ------ ----
0
------------ --------
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
1,586,241
463,136
25,328
6
0
0
0
4. TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEMAND:
Maximum GPD Water Capacity: 1,586,241
Maximum GPD Wastewater Capacity: 463,136
Maximum Trip Ends: 25,328
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT:
LAND USES
Detached SF
Large Lot
Average Lot
Zero Lot Line
Attached SF
Multifamily
Mobile Home
Lodging
Institutional
Church
-with day care
-w/o day care
Medical Office
General Office
Retail, Mixed
Retail, Restaurant
Retail, Store
Employment Centers
Warehouse
Mini -Warehouse
-----------------------------
(a)
POTENTIAL UNITS BY UTILITY
(b)
MAXIMUM
(c)
PER DEV
(d)
DEVELOPMENT
WATER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASTEWATER
TRANSPORTATION
-------------------
UNITS
-----------------
REGS
----
ALLOWED/UNIT
----------- -------------------
1,371
1,589
1,603
1,853
42,283
28,587
1371
1589
289
1,051
289 housing units
1,051 housing units
1,589
2,440
1,853
2,646
28,587
23,301
1589
2440
1,401
2,101
1,401 housing units
2,440 housing units
3,004
2,440
2,969
2,400
11,153
29,903
2969
2400
4,201
2,969 housing units
8,262
7,592
18,274
7592
,400 housing units
2,400 rooms
4,624,609
5,034,087
30,116,231
4,624,609
4,624,609 square feet
5,150,132
5,579,952
9,262,720
I
1,627,747
35,177,431
1,627,747
8,528,176
1,2,square feet8,528,176
4,135,143
7,848,698
3,813,079
,58,176 square feet3,813,079
3,813,9 square feet4,357,804
5,089,407
2,841,325
9,932,451
1,533,342
4,357,804
1,533,342
4,357,804 square feet2,440,370
1,533,342
4,880,741
964,867
2,227,595
II
964,867
square feet1,016,821
964,867 square feet
,,
5,089,407
,,17
5,534,910
4,880,741 I
4,357,804 I
4,880,741 square feet4,357,804
33,081,143
463,136,000
42,212,917
27,828,786
,357,80 square feet27,828,786
27,828,786 square feet396,560,200
97,414,423
97,414,423
----
--------- --
97,414,423 square feet-------------------
EXHIBIT C 11
-- N71"01'05'E 944.20' I \ 185 B�38e 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ —fX$T. !" +A� ——305.41' — — 166.90' _ — — es'�" B NL AON Ari NATFR 5 u.0
ST 6* WL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — L — — — — — —
��/ I N70'4 ' 11z1.31' COUNTY ROAD NO. 11
11 j 56 so' im
322.00' 3n.so' 321'50,
I� ml
o
Nn 3ooe'E - ---_ a
m
i DC7 t i 582,68' 5 v26 �- 5 26,
N
o I Ac. Ac 504 2 4 mw � 3
z I qc ,5'p4 q S, p4 n 8 5.05
Ac Ac
S•O2 P mm
ImZ OAc �ot
f I I BLOCK "B"
BLOCK "A" i
" I
N7100"WE
p------'a6322.00' I 5C 321,50"
592.24' N71'00'00'E
N71'00'00 E 1283.51' _
Z IN a s. Ig >> a .
o I� 5' 00' q - --� ` 58
1 � P
J I IO, N71V0'00,E
601.64'
O
I I
. / so 3.w p84 ` 6 6
qc j �9 se 4 Sr A
c-
raP t ` VO
u•
s Ipm
F S'Og qc \ ` 6. DSO ` c 5 Vti1LL
P
v a I P
P _ m
N o m ` O.
_ u 71'00 00 E
-
Air
S71"48'11'W 965.23'
1
71 ao P 8
I iS..7i
N I z1
-m
m W r
o n o
-- i
A30 �C
`m I 0 --- 1 Ao, ,; -- -- - - O
j� ♦ , ! 9
N50J7ac c 5.0p tic 1
ROBBI ` i - — 00' - -�
'34.1
2 4C. 10
73 S.Ono I �c
m i � Or cc n I �
rn I ..
ASO OG
14
♦ � 4c �
` S7G-38'16_W 11841
536.53'
ROLLING PRAIRIE SETTLEMENT
.` A 55.93 ACRE SUBDIVISION SITUATED
IN THE JOSEPH MOTT SURVEY A-112,
.� THE WILLJAM ADDISON SURVEY A-21,
AND THE CALVIN BELL SURVEY A-437
Approxcimate Location of Routes
E- C� ...
,ZOO C.
Lll
zzlz/ '" " ooK
-z -
+---RElOUIRED 120' RIGHT—OF—WAY*
0 C.
zO.c -0? lz.c
00-C
-c
3 1937
-3'2737
+'••Sew C 1-tT(.So.
5-0155?
Ac
0 ?3 c
"103AC'
-C..([ ..0(..
'o I c
o.
12oo( z' OOAC
O.0
—C
6
00 -c
ZC
c[
SC-' L E 400'
?0' . "? •C'
zo'c 32-
Li 5I.c .00.c
. . . . .. . . .
0 1 . . . . . .
.......
11 oo.c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\j ,.�L ror c«. uw � \•' �•'.�•'�'`. ••'twra'e;;,g%.%o»,1ial';: r.' :\
... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . .
-lE los
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/73z.5.0
�':~\ \ ' I, LCr a •oee�w a, • •\•.
. . .•
. . .•
. . . . . . .•
. . . . . . . .
. .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'181A, C'
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
-'Lroft .45/ fa -•\'i� / \
f -52 1 ' c
—c
t\3
lo.c
I-C I
3-C I•
G
'tlo
EXHIBIT F.
m, j 'o,.N•e mOmCVCuTT
, o , V2�? 32 6 / , 2 .
I c L 4636rkc iooC
I EST.TC
NOGCM E CACTTC
67105,
,Z. ^ C_
L. LEE
-67 . C)
'C . 0 5 `,E
s
LLECv S73
L
o.. .....
0LC_oo. /Z36 0
I-I'T 'o?j'.2•C'
I.AC 12,
3 . 1111,0
3`2737 c
.L... S'E.S
5/.? 2 SC L E I" t 4()0'
.:3 1937 A...
'�9
"1-G3?S5.LOAN ISSOC
ZOAC .0, 3? 00 c
Ot
00
-OL.-O I . . . . . . . .
M 00AC
A
016 . . . . . . ...
lose i G
.. . . . ... . . .
1.0
131 45AC
c
-.LEY
"58/34o . . . . .
.2 'c i
Z
coc....
5.
_ it '
c
5o.c
TZ (52.c,
100 A C I
c� 'z
VS
\ 5.O.
'00
14
JOHN VALENTA 13
2225/432 / 9 -1
ZO 116 1
Ar-
12
4,
10
uAPVtN G PATTERSON
S"U(L PATTERSON
J,74 9,4r� 1 2
1902/4t.9
U 5 4 AC 2!, W. 00 181
1 AC 1
2 1
140-1 —SM IVA C PAT-CRSON 22
2.50iqOZ /467 23
t ?0 7 '7 6 2 -C 100 -C
A 102 32AC I OOAC LE-RE.Cf FOSBERG.
84 20 c 779
3nl 6-0 13.99 5
2 !17 4 5 AC I Dr
61 53AC I.00AC
SC E 4 00'
-,-.,3/27 37
3 1937 wARVIN GPATTERSON
510/. "1
I 1 14 914C I
0
5, ".0
4 PC
kOl'L0 w KA';.P(k 3 AC POQAC
707.762 AC)
84 204C 02 3, AC IOOAC 08(RT E
3 a
(26 00-C
2 5 OCIAC
BURKE
542/ 52-
\,(9 00 A C
x
ai
15 AC
H ROBERTSON
0 / 366
2000ACU2S. --I
1 1111
130 I 95 25 AC 1 OOAI LJ
to F
-ILTC7coc" L" e
31/t
88 60 Al IOOfC
MOWN LAIRENCE FOSSE RG. C prr Jor
7. r 351/610
5i ( 2); 45AC I
92 AC
•t /, 11RILEY R ROIBBINS. TR
/ .( /� �' 1 \ 1 Y,,a / 3 ao
(34 12 AC)
41 86 AC T
31 1 3 AIC
L 7 0 N COC-RUM
465/56 6
1 1 52 9 AC I
134 91AC
19 6 5 AC)
OACI C'.
o.
0 50AC
EXHIBIT H
t T
4 O': 4 0'
Property Line Property Line
20' Proposed Dedication
••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••
40' Proposed Dedication
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
25' Building setback line 45' Building setback line
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------
September. 26, 1995
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627
To Whom it May Concern:
I will be unable to attend the planning and zoning commission
meeting on October 3, 1995. I would like to state my position
concerning the realignment of County Road 111, as it relates to the
proposed Rolling Prairie Settlement. I believe it is generally in
line with conclusions reached at the September 22, 1995 meeting of
the Development Services Division and adjacent landowners.
The Century Plan proposes that the 90 degree turns in County Road
111 be straightened. I believe the adjacent landowners should
share in the benefits and also the problems created by this
realignment. I would favor that the county road be realigned as
diagrammed on Exhibit A. I would also be interested in the land
swap of the triangles of land created by the changes in the
direction of the road. The southeast corner of my property could
be swapped with the northwest corner of the Brady farm. From my
point of view, this would be advantageous in that an unusable
portion of land would not be created, that did not have access and
was without water. I would also lose less frontage property along
the road.
This realignment of the county road would also be predicated upon
a number of conditions. One, I would not be willing to pay for the
new road since the main benefit would be for the general use of the
county, nor am I interested in developing this land, other than for
agricultural use. Two, the county would also build a new fence
along the north side of the road. Three, I would also like to have
access from my property to the County Road 111.
Hopefully, the details of this can be worked out without a great
deal of difficulty.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald W. Kasper, M.D.
RWK:bsm
EXHIBIT A
.00
.0%.C.G
2 7 c
3 1937 Jr - SC AL C 400'
c I
ols.c
. . . . ... . . . .
100G.0
131/1.o
I A c I
12 c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-ose-1.
1•1I*o .2 c ,
13
so.c
LJ
f
fil
August 30, 1995
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Georgetown
Development Services Division
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627
RE: Subdivision application for ROLLING PRAIRIE SETTLEMENT,
located on Co. Rd. 110 and 111, Linda Brady Johnson, ET AL
Development is enevitable, but subdivision development is special and must be
controlled through strict deed restrictions to protect not only the adjoining and
surrounding property owners, but protect the people who buy in a new
subdivision. Since we do not know the restrictions proposed for the Rolling
Prairie Settlement subdivision application, and have not talked to any of the
landowners, we are AGAINST the subdivision application until we see strict
deed restrictions included in the plans. We will bring copies of deed restrictions
we would like to see enforced along with other information to the meeting on
September 5.
Some deed restrictions might include something like:
a) All lots, tracts and parcels shall be for single family residential
purposes only with no more than one such dwelling or residence on
any lot, tract or parcel of land.
b) Nothing shall be done which may create or become a nuisance or
annoyance, visually, by odor, noise, sound or otherwise, to the
neighborhood or to any adjacent lot, tract or parcel of land.
c) No said lot, tract or parcel of land lying within the designated
subdivision shall be divided or resubdivided.
d) Any residence dwelling shall contain not less than 1500 square feet
living area.
e) Every single story dwelling shall have no less than 2/3 exterior
masonry or stone veneer construction, excluding stucco type
construction and excluding concrete block type construction,
which are prohibited. A log cabin home is the exception.
f) No part of the property shall be used for the storage of garbage,
trash, debris, junk or waste material of any kind.
g) No mobile homes, tract homes or pre-fab homes of any kind will
be allowed in the subdivision.
h) Normal deed restrictions found in most subdivision plats be
followed (i.e. approved sanitary plumbing, proper surface water
drainage, etc.).
i) Providing a retaining pond built to contain runoff from subdivision
property (i.e. our adjoining property has 3 tanks on it, and we
certainly want to protect our natural water from any chemicals, etc.
from contaminating our property)
j) A legal way to enforce deed restrictions like an Architectural
Control Committee, etc. composed of 4 or so people to authorize,
approve, oversee and enforce strict deed restrictions.
As landowners of acreage at the intersection of County Roads 110 and 111, we
have been informed over the past 10 years or more that MoKan would probably
come through our property either on Route A, Route B or Route C—all
proposed routes either touching or crossing our adjoining property as well as the
proposed Rolling Prairie Settlement.
How can the Planning and Zoning Commission give their authorization to this
subdivision application in its present location when the MoKan routes are so up
in the air?
Since I-35 is only 4 miles directly to the west of the intersection of County
Roads 110 and 111, this intersection has been linked in the past with an outer
loop for Georgetown. A lot of people living to the east of I-35 use this `��
intersection to drive into Round Rock Austin and points south and west. We
� ,
and other surrounding landowners, do not want to lose any road frontage on this s, �
very valuable piece of property —our heritage —which is the road frontage we own
on county roads 110 and 111.
Thank you for considering our concerns, ideas and questions regarding this
subdivision application.
Barbara Kay Patterson Marvin Glenn Patterson
P.O. Box 503 Rt. 9, Box 25
Bartlett, TX 76511 Georgetown, TX 78626
Project Name: Rolling Prairie Settlement
Name of Respondent:
Address of Respondent, : f
I am in favor:
I obj ect :
If you wish to submit written comment, please respond by 8/30/95,
it will be provided to the Board of Adjustment or Pla
Zoning Commission and City Council.
Please reply to: City of Georgetown
Development Services Division't` \
P . 0. Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627i� __�
Council meeting date: October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Y
SUBJECT
First reading of an ordinance updating TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System)
employee service credits.
ITEM SUMMARY
TMRS benefits are an important part of the City's employee benefit package. The
formula used to calculate TMRS benefits is based on "service credits", which take into
account both length of the employee's service and average salary over a predetermined
three-year period.
Each year the City may choose to update the three year period over which the
employee's salaries are averaged. This update makes the benefit more valuable to the
employee. Because salaries tend to increase over time, an updated three year average
salary results in an increased retirement benefit.
Upon adoption of this ordinance, TMRS members' accrued retirement benefits will
be recalculated based upon each member's average monthly salary for the three year
period 1992-1994. It would become effective January 1, 1996. (Service credits were last
updated for three-year period 1991-1993).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City matches the employee's contribution 2:1. Based upon current actuarial
predictions the City's actual contribution required to meet obligations will be 6.08%. The
contribution amount will be approximately $29,647.
COMMENTS
None
ATTACHMENTS
TMRS Ordinance
Submitted By:
Teresa Hersh, Director of Employee and Organizational Services
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, REVISING CHAPTER 3.04 "TEXAS MUNICIPAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM" OF THE GEORGETOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES REGARDING UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS; PROVIDING
FOR INCREASED PRIOR AND CURRENT SERVICE ANNUITIES;
REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR SUCH ACTIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified as a principal goal the need to maintain a
qualified City Staff, and;
WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal Retirement System is viewed as an integral portion of the
City's employee benefits package; and;
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to properly reward retired City employees
for their years of loyal service;
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 Finance
Policy 1 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will conduct all
municipal operations in an efficient, business -like manner", and further finds that the enactment of
this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by
Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
0
SECTION 2
Authorization of Updated Service Credits
(a) On the terms and conditions set out in Sections 853.401 through 853.404 of Subtitle G of
Title 8, Government Code, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "TMRS ACT"), each
member of the Texas Municipal Retirement System (hereinafter referred to as the "System")
who has current service credit or prior service credit in the System in force and effect on the
1st day of January of the calendar year preceding such allowance, by reason of service in the
employment of the City, and on such date had at least 36 months of credited service with the
System, shall be and is hereby allowed "Updated Service Credit" (as that term is defined in
subsection (d) of Section 853.402 of the TMRS Act).
(b) On the terms and conditions set out in Section 853.601 of the TMRS Act, any member of
the System who is eligible for Updated Service Credits on the basis of service with this City,
who has unforfeited credit for prior service and/or current service with another participating
municipality or municipalities by reasons of previous service, and was a contributing
member on the 1 st day of January of the calendar year preceding such allowance, shall be
credited with Updated Service Credits pursuant to, calculated in accordance with, and
subject to adjustment as set forth in said Section 853.6011 both as to the initial grant
hereunder and all future grants under this ordinance.
(c) The Updated Service Credit hereby allowed and provided for shall be 100% of the "base
Updated Service Credit" of the member (calculated as provided in subsection (c) of Section
853.402 of the TMRS Act).
(d) Each Updated Service Credit allowed hereunder shall replace any Updated Service Credit,
prior service credit, special prior service credit, or antecedent service credit previously
authorized for part of the same service.
(e) In accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 853.401 of the TMRS Act,
the deposits required to be made to the System by employees of the several participating
departments on account of current service shall be calculated from and after the effective
date of this ordinance on the full amount of such person" s compensation as an employee of
the City.
SECTION-3
Increase in Retirement Annuities
(a) On terms and conditions set out in Section 854.203 of the TNIRS Act, the City hereby elects
to allow and to provide for payment of the increases below stated in monthly benefits
payable by the System to retired employees and to beneficiaries of deceased employees of
the City under current service annuities and prior service annuities arising from service by
such employees to the City. An annuity increased under this Section replaces any annuity
or increased annuity previously granted to the same person.
(b) The amount of the annuity increase under this Section is computed as the sum of prior
service and current service annuities on the effective date of retirement of the person on
whose service the annuities are based, multiplied by 7/0% of the percentage change in
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, from December of the year immediately
preceding the effective date of the person's retirement to the December that is 13 months
before the effective date of this Section.
(c) An increase in an annuity that was reduced because of an option selection is reducible in the
same proportion and in the same manner that the original annuity was reduced.
(d) If a computation hereunder does not result in an increase in the amount of an annuity, the
amount of the annuity will not be changed hereunder.
(e) The amount by which an increase under this Section exceeds all previously granted increases
to an annuitant is an obligation of the City and of its account in the municipality
accumulation fund of the System.
SECTION 4
Dates of Allowances and Increases
The initial allowance of Updated Service Credit and increase in retirement annuities
hereunder shall be effective on January 1, 1996, subject to approval by the City Council. An
allowance of Updated Service Credits and an increase in retirement annuities shall be made
hereunder on January 1 of each subsequent year until this ordinance ceases to be in effect under
subsection (e) of Section 853.404 of the TMRS Act, provided that, as to each subsequent year, the
actuary for the System has made the determination set forth in subsection (d) of Section 853.404 of
the TMRS Act.
SECTION 5
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 6
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 7
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 on the 1 st day of January 1996.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of , 1995.
1995. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of ,
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
Council meeting date: 10-24-95 Item No. V
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consider authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application for two police officersunder the
Community Policing Federal Hiring Program
ITEM SUMMARY
The recent Federal legislation enacted by Congress established a grant program for hiring additional police
officers in order to support community -oriented policing strategies. The time frame for applications is very
quick in order to meet the political pledges made to have more police officers on the street. During our
budget preparation we felt that two additional police officers would be needed next year to primarily deal
with narcotics.
This grant program allows for flexibility in assigning officers which would help us to meet both our local
need for narcotic officers as well as meeting the major objectief of promoting community -oriented policing
strategies.
The funding cycle is such that the two officers under this program would not be approved until the second
quarter of this fiscal year, and given the time that is needed for recruitment and training, the officers would
not actually be on the street until late in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year or at the beginning of the 1996-
1997 fiscal year.
The total requested funds is $61,000, of which the local share would be $7,000, and would be phased out
over a three-year period.
ATTACHMENTS
Application
Submitted
0
Bob Hart, City Manager
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING APPLICATION FORM
This form is to be completed by jurisdictions wishing to apply for grants to pay for salaries
and benefits of new or rehired police officers under the Universal Hiring Program. Com-
plete the information below. By signing this form you also acknowledge your understand-
ing that Universal Hiring grants provide a maximum federal contribution of 75% of the
salary and benefits of each officer over three years unless a waiver is authorized, up to a cap
of $75,000 per officer, with the federal share decreasing and local share increasing from
year. to year. Ifyour agency has received a COPS AHEAD or COPS FAST grant award
do not use this form -you will be contacted by mail and informed about how to participate
in this program. ALL REQUESTED U14FORMATION MUST BE TYPED.
Applicant Organization's Legal Name: City of Georgetown
Executive Information:
Law Enforcement Executive's Name: Larry M. Hesser
Agency Name: City of Georgetown Police Services Division
Title: Chief of Police
Address: 809 Martin Luther King
City : Genrgern�.m State: Texas Zip Code: 78626
Telephone: (512) 930-3510 FAX: (512) 930-3524
Law Enforcement Agency EIN Number (Assigned by the IRS): 74-6000974
Law Enforcement Agency ORI Number (Assigned by FBI for UCR Reporting)
TX2460200
Government Executive's Name: Bob Hart Title: City Manager
Name of Government Entitv: City of Geo
Address: P.O. Box 409
City : Georgetown State: Texas Zip Code: 78626-0409
Telephone: (512) 930-3652 FAX: (512) 930-3659
Congressional District: 21st District/Lamar Smith Congressman
General Information:
Type of Police Agency
® Municipal ❑ County ❑ State ❑ Sheriff
❑ Indian Tribal ❑ Transit Cl School ❑ University/College
❑ Public Housing ❑ New/Start Up (please specify type of new agency) y
❑ Other (please specify)
Is your jurisdiction the recipient of other COPS grants? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, under which program have you received federal funds?
Opy
❑ COPS: Phase 1 ❑ COPS AHEAD ❑ COPS FAST ❑ COPS MORE
Total number of new officers requested in this round of the Universal Hiring Program. -
Full -Time 2 Part -Time
Total amount of federal funds requested: S
Total non-federal matching funds required: S
140,527.08
46.842.36
Population served- Est. 20,000 and square miles covered 15.3 sq. mi. (Exclude the
population and square miles primarily served by other law enforcement agencies within your jurisdiction)
Current authorized sworn force strength (as of May 1, 1995)-
Actual sworn force strength (as of May 1, 1995):
31
27
To assist the COPS Office in planning, how many additional officers would you like to have supported by the
COPS Office in each of the following calendar years -
Full -Tim
1996-
2
1997-
2
1998:
2
1999-
2
2000-
2
Part -Time
Are you requesting a waiver of the local match requirement based upon extraordinary local fiscal hardship?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, attach a one page typewritten description of the extraordinary
local fiscal hardship upon which you are basing your request for a
waiver.
I certify that the information provided on this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand
that prior to any grant award, the applicant must comply with all application and program requirements of the
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 and other requirements of federal law.
Law Enforcement Executive's Signature: 1'Y1� Date:
Government Executive's Signature: Date. L
Return this form, the Community Policing Information Form(s), the Budgetary Information Form(s), and
any additional information that is required postmarked by:
July 31, 1995, for Round l;
October 15, 1995, for Round 2*; or
March 15, 1996, for Round 3*
To this address: U. S. Department of Justice
COPS Universal Hiring Program
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
* Awards for Round 2 and 3 are subject to future appropriations.
VMb A (OV&J R I I V3-VUL /, tX . 3/Y5
�^ U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
UNIVERSAL HIRING: Community Policing Information
Part I
You need to fill out the following form which provides information about your
community policing goals and the activities of the new officers you plan to hire with
your grant funds. The COPS Office will work with you towards meeting these goals.
Question 6 must be typewritten. Assistance in completing this information is
available from the Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770, or by
writing the COPS Office, 1 100 Vermont Avenue, Washington, DC 20530. You may
add additional information concerning your plans by attaching typewritten materials
at the end of this form.
The following information will help the COPS Office understand the public safety problems facing
your community.
1. Please rank in descending order the following public safety issues your community faces.
Rank only those public safety issues that concern your community. For example, if
weapons are the greatest threat to public safety in your community, put the letter "f" in rank
number one.
Rank:
Major Public Safety Issues:
1
B
a.
Violent crimes against persons
2.
I
b.
Property crimes
3.
H
c.
Motor vehicle thefts
4.
A
d.
Vandalism
5.
E
e.
- Gangs
6.
D
f.
Weapons
7.
C
g.
Prostitution
8.
J
h.
Drug crimes
9.
F
i.
Domestic violence
10.
L
j.
Alcohol related crime, including DWI
11.
K
k.
Disorderly conduct
12.
0
I.
Traffic violations
13.
G
m.
Agricultural crimes
14.
M
n.
Wildlife crimes
15.
N
o.
Hate crimes
16.
P
p.
Other (specify)
page I
y partnerships, crime
Community policing is a way of providing policing services that emphasizes communit
prevention, and problem solving. While all law enforcement agencies hope to respond and react to crime, community
policing adds a focus on working to prevent crimes before they occur. By working with members of the community
to identify and solve problem situations, community policing can be a tool to reduce crime and improve the quality
of life of citizens.
The information in the questions below will provide the COPS Office with basic knowledge about your
current community policing efforts, and how you will use your new position (s) to further the implementation of
community policing.
You are not expected to engage in all of the activities listed below. They are examples of the community
policing efforts of other law enforcement agencies. If you have a written document that serves as your community
policing plan, please attach it at the end of this form.
Overall Approach:
2. Please indicate which of the following are part of your overall approach to community policing, and which you hope
to implement under your UNIVERSAL HIRING grant:
a) Crime Prevention Efforts:
Have
Plan to
Implemented
Implement
®
❑
®
❑
®
❑
®
Cl
b) Problem -Solving Activities:
a. Youth programs (e.g., in -school, after school, weekend police/youth programs)
b. Anti -drug programs
c. Regular meetings with community groups to discuss crime
d. Anti -violence programs
e. Other (specify) H E A T (Help End Auto Theft_
Have Plan to
Implemented Implement
® ❑ a. Identifying crime problems with members of the community and other
government agencies (e.g., prosecutor and courts, social services, probation
office)
❑ ® b. Identifying crime problems by looking at crime trends (e.g., keeping records
of crimes and the types of requests for help)
® ❑ c. Preventing crime by focusing on conditions that lead to crime (e.g., abandoned
buildings and cars, referrals to other civil agencies)
® ❑ d. Other (specify) G. R . I. P - Georgetown Runaway Intervention
Program (treats runaways as victims)
c) Community Partnerships:
Have
Plan to
Implemented
Implement
®
❑
a. Writing a strategic plan for community policing
❑
❑
b. Locating office or stations within neighborhoods
®
❑
c. Community policing training for officers
Cl
93
d. Community policing training for citizens
®
❑
e. Other (specify) Citizens' Advisory Committee
page 2
Communities:
3. Please indicate which of the following groups you have worked with or consulted with to develop
partnerships to combat crime in your community:
Consulted
Plan to Consult
®
❑
a.
Other government agencies (e.g., probation office, sanitation)
®
❑
b.
Civic groups
®
❑
c.
Neighborhood associations
®
❑
d.
Tenant's associations
❑
❑
e.
I
Organizations of your employees, including collective bargaining groups
®
❑
f.
Business groups I
®
❑
g.
Religious groups j
L
h.
I
Schools
®
❑
i.
Other (specify) Charitable Organizations; Hospital
Citizens:
4. Please indicate which of the following partnership activities are currently performed by citizens in yourjurisdiction,
or are planned under your UNIVERSAL HIRING grant:
Currently
Planned Under
Perform
Grant
_
®
❑ a.
Neighborhood watch
®
❑ b.
Volunteering with your law enforcement agency
®
❑ c.
Citizen advisory groups to your law enforcement agency
❑
❑ d.
Citizen patrols within your community
®
❑ e.
Participate in anti -drug or anti -violence programs
®
❑ f.
Other (specify) "Are You O.K.?" (Elderly Program)
Patrol Officers:
5. Please indicate which of the following activities are currently performed by patrol officers, or which are planned
under your UNIVERSAL HIRING grant:
a) Crime Prevention
Activities
Currently
Planned Under
Perform
Grant
®
❑ a.
Foot patrol, bike patrol or mounted patrol
®
❑ b.
Making door-to-door contact with citizens and businesses
®
Cl c.
Meeting with community leaders and groups to explain crime prevention
techniques
®
❑ d.
Using business cards, cellular phones or beepers to maintain contact with,
and be contacted by, citizens regarding public safety concerns
®
Cl e.
Working in schools or other public agencies to teach crime
®
❑ f.
prevention
Other (specify) Bicycle Registration; Child ID; "Safety
City" Education
page 3
b) Problem -Solving Activities:
Currently
Planned Under
Perform
Grant
C�
❑
❑
❑
a. Working with citizens to solve community crime problems
b. Using computer systems to collect and analyze information
c. Working with other public agencies to solve disorder problems (e.a., trash
collection, public works agencies to solve lighting problems)
d. Other (specify)
6. Your COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING grant award creates one or more new officer position(s) in your law
enforcement agency. You are required to either dedicate these new officers, or an equal number of current
officers, to community policing. Briefly describe how you will use your new officer positions that are
resulting from your COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING grant award to advance community policing. (Please
type your answer: use additional blank sheets, if necessary)
See Attached Page 5
7. How many hours of community policing training will officers hired under this program receive during:
a. Basic academy training 18
b. In-service training 36
C. Other training (specify) 80 See Attached Page 6
8. When will you hire these new officers? Month / Year Ol / 96
When will their training begin and end? Begin Month / Year 0_/ 96
End Month / Year 08 / 96
When will they be deployed? Month / Year 08 / 96
Complete your Community Policing Information - Part I by signing and dating below. Both the law enforcement
executive and the government executive must sign.
We, the undersigned, attest to the accuracy of the Community Policing Information submitted above.
Law Enforcement Executive
Government Executive:
Title: Chief of Police
Date.- 10/ 10/95
Title: City Manager
Signatur
Date.- 10/ 10/95 Signarur
Person Completing Form: Title- Professional
Standards Uommander
page 4
Name (typed): Larry M. Hesser
Name (typed Hart
N&ne (typed)- Lt 4 James M. Simonson
\�
Date: 10/10/95 Signature:
Y \i
Only the following applicants are required to continue with Part 11:
' Departments that serve a population of over 50,000 and have not
previously applied for a COPS hiring grant
Jursidictions that do not now have an established department and wish to
STOP! establish one STOP'
' Departments that serve a specialized jurisdiction, such as transit, housing,
university, school or natural resource police
Page 5
Part 2, Question 6:
The Georgetown Police Services Division's philosophy for policing is:
We believe that policing should be an interactive, results oriented process
between the police and the community. The process is information driven and
should. create partnerships between the police employees, the division and those
tii/e serve; identify problems that impact the quality of life in the community;
devise strategies to address those problems; and work collaboratively to solve
them by utilizing all resources available. The goal of the process is that Georgetown
be a competent community in the pursuit of peace and tranquility.
For the citizens of Georgetown to experience our philosophy of policing in real terms, we
train every officer as a Community Police Officer, rather than employ a specific Community
Policing Unit. Every police officer is expected to provide police services in accordance with our
philosophy. Our city is divided into three geographical areas, with two patrol officers assigned to
each area per watch, for a minimum of one year at a time. This allows the officers and the citizens
in these districts to develop a relationship, and work together to solve the crime problems and
prevent future crimes in their areas.
By organizing our Patrol Services Department in this way, we are currently unable to
effectively combat the ever-growing drug problem in Georgetown. We are creating a Narcotics
Unit to focus specifically on substance abuse. However, to staff this unit with the required two
individuals, would mean compromising our efforts in the Patrol Services Department, as we
would transfer two patrol officers to work in the Narcotics Unit. Such a transfer would mean less
officers out in the community, and would essentially leave a district of the city with a lower level
of policing services than the other two districts. It would be impossible for the Police Services
Division to maintain its commitment to our philosophy if we are required to compromise the level
of Patrol Services that we offer to the community.
The two officers we are requesting through the Universal Hiring Grant would be trained
as Community Oriented Police Officers, and assigned to a specific patrol district for at least one
year at a time. These officers will take the place of two existing patrol officers that are to be
transferred into the Narcotics Unit, to assure the same level of quality service that we are
dedicated to offering to our community.
During the past 18 months, the Georgetown Police Services Division has been undergoing
a transformation from a traditional law enforcement agency to one that is a progressive, proactive,
community -oriented police agency. The following documents describe our on -going efforts in
this transformation:
Appendix A: Georgetown Police Services Transformational Process and Accomplishments
Appendix B: A Brief Synopsis of Our Community Oriented Policing Practices
Appendix C: Corporate Strategy for Effective Policing
Page 6
Part 2, Question 7, Page 4, (c):
The 80 hours of Community Policing Training that we provide to all of our officers include:
Community policing Training Workshop, sponsored by the National Criminal Justice
Training and Assessment Institute
Community Police Officer Training, sponsored by the National Criminal Justice Training
and Assessment Institute
U. S. Department of Justice
1 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
UNIVERSAL HIRING: BUDGET INFORMATION
Form "A" - Requesting Five or Fewer Officers
This worksheet below will assist you in properly organizing and estimating your costs and providing the necessary
details for financial review. Complete one worksheet for each officer you plan to hire, up to a maximum of
five. If you are requesting more than five officers, use the Budget Information - Form "B" - Requesting More Than
Five Officers.
The budget information you provide will be used to calculate your grant amount. Assistance in completing this
information is available from the Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770, or by writing the
COPS Office, 1 100 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530.
1. OFFICERS TO BE HIRED 3. COST PER OFFICER - YEAR 2
This worksheet describes the cost for Year 2 Annual Base Salary s24,325 (d)
(check one of the following]
Year 2 Fringe Benefits:
® One new entry level officer FICA/Social Security $ 1,860.00
g Full Time Part Time Health Insurance $ 1,636.64
Life Insurance $
❑ One rehired former officer Vacation $
Full Time Part Time Sick Leave
❑ One lateral transfer from other police agency Retirement $ 1,474.10
Full Time Part Time Workmen's Comp $ 1,780.59
Unemployment Ins $
The average number of hours per week the part time officer Other TEC $ 135.00
will work is
Total Fringe Benefits $ 6,879. 19 (e)
2. COST PER OFFICER - YEAR 1
Total Year 2 Salary and Benefits" $ 31, 222, 19 (0 (d+ e)
Current Annual Entry Level Base Salary $ 23 , 732 (a)
Annual Fringe Benefits T4 . COST PER OFFICER - YEAR 3
FICA/Social Security $ 1,815.50 Year 3 Annual Base Salary s24,933
(g)
Health Insurance $ 1 , ! 46. 64
Year 3 Fringe Benefits:
Life Insurance $ Vacation $
FICA/Social Security $
1907.37$ 1, 646.64
Sick Leave Health Insurance $
Life Insurance $
Retirement $ 1,438.16 Vacation
Workmen's Comp. $ 1,737.18 Sick Leave $
Unemployment Ins. $ Retirement $ 1,510.94
Other- TEC $ 135.00 Workmen's Comp. $ 1,825.10
Unemployment Ins. $
Total Fringe Benefits 6 , 777.4$b) Other-—TEC 135.00
Total Fringe Benefits $ 7, 02505 (h)
Total Year 1 Salary and Benefits S307504.48(c) (a + b)
Total Year 3 Salary and Benefits" $ 31 , 958. 05 (i) (g + h)
'Fringe benefits other than those listed must be specified in "Other." The costs of equipment, training,
uniforms, vehicles and overtime are not permitted.
**If year 2 and/or year 3 totals are greater than year 1, please explain why (COLA, Step raises, etc.).
page I
Universal Hiring: Budget Information, continued...
Form "A" - Requesting Five or Fewer Officers
5. FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED
Total three years salary and fringe $ 93, 684.72 (j) (lines c + f + i}
Line j multipled by .75
Amount on Line k, or 575,000,
Whichever is LESS
x 75
s 70, 263.54 (k)
5 70, 263.54 (m)
UNLESS A WAIVER IS AUTHORIZED, FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THIS OFFICER CANNOT EXCEED
THE AMOUNT ON LINE m (75% OF THREE YEARS SALARY AND BENEFITS, OR $75,000,
WHICHEVER IS LESS).
I BUDGET SUMMARY
After completing one worksheet for each officer (up to a maximum of five) complete the following questions. You need to
complete this section only once.
1. Name of the Federal Agency to which audits of your federal grants are sent (your "federal cognizant agency"). If you don't
know, call 1-800-421-6770 for assistance.
2. Starting date of your fiscal year: Ending date:
3 Under this COPS Universal Hiring Grant, your department plans to (enter the number of officers for each that applies)
Hire new entry level officer(s) Rehire former officers
Hire lateral entry officers Hire _part time officers
4 The total three year cost for salaries and benefits for all of the officers requested is $ (as in line j)
5. The total amount of federal funds requested $ (as in line m)
6. Under COPS grants, the federal share of total salaries and benefits must decrease each year leading to full local funding by
the fourth year of officers' employment. At the same time your local share must increase each year. Please summarize how
the federal share will decrease and the local share increase over the three years of the grant:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Federal Share (must decrease) $ $
Local Share (must increase) $ $
Total Salaries/Benefits $ (c) $
5 $ Total grant funds
(as in line 5)
$ Total local funds
(0 5 0) S Total costs
(as in line 4)
The undersigned attests to the accuracy of the Budget Information submitted above.
Name (typed) of Authorized Official:
Signature: Date:
Title:
page 2
U. S. Department of Justice
�1 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
UNIVERSAL HIRING: BUDGET INFORMATION
Form "A" - Requesting Five or Fewer Officers
This worksheet below will assist you in properly organizing and estimating your costs and providine the necessar,
details for financial review. Complete one worksheet for each officer you plan to hire, up to a maximum of
five. If you are requesting more than five officers, use the Budget Information - Form "B" - Requesting More I*h,in
Five Officers.
The budget information you provide will be used to calculate your grant amount. Assistance to completing this
information is available from the Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770, or by writing the j
COPS Office, 1 100 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530.
1. OFFICERS TO BE HIRED
This worksheet describes the cost for
(check one of the following).
® One new entry level officer
X Full Time Part Time
❑ One rehired former officer
Full Time Part Time
❑ One lateral transfer from other police agency
Full Time Part Time
The average number of hours per week the part time officer
will work is
3. COST PER OFFICER - FEAR 2
Year 2 Annual Base Salary
Year 2 Fringe Benefits.
FICA/Social Security
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Vacation
Sick Leave
Retirement
Workmen's Comp
Unemployment Ins
Other TEC
Total Fringe Benefits
S24,325 (d)
s 1,860.00
S 1,636.64
S
S
S
s 1,474.10
S 1,780.59
S
S_ 135.00
s 6,879.19 (e)
2. COST PER OFFICER - YEAR 1 I
Current Annual Entry Level Base Salary $ 23 , 732 (a)
Annual Fringe Benefits:
Total Year 2 Salary and Benefits-' S 31, 222. 19
(f) (di e)
4 . COST PER OFFICER - YEAR 3
FICA/Social Security
$ 1,815.5
Year 3 Annual Base Salary $ 24 , 933
(g)
Health Insurance
$ 1,646.64
Life Insurance
$
Year 3 Fringe Benefits:
907.37
FICA/Social Security S 1,907.37
Vacation
$
Health Insurance 5 1646.64
Sick Leave
S
Life Insurance S
Retirement
1,438.16
Vacation
Workmen's Comp.
$_ 1,737.18
Sick Leave S
Unemployment Ins
$
Retirement S1,510.94
Other-. TEC
$ 135.00
Workmen's Comp S 1,825.10
Unemployment Ins S
Total Fringe Benefits
$ 6, 777.4ab)
Other- TEC 5 135.00
Total Fringe Benefits S 7, 025, 05
(h)
Total Year 1 Salary and Benefits 00,
504.48 (c) (a + b)
Total Year 3 Salary and Benefits" $ 31, 958.05
(g - n)
'Fringe benefits other than those
listed must be specified in 'Other." The costs of equipment, training,
uniforms, vehicles and overtime
are not permitted.
-If year 2 and/or year 3 totals are
greater than year 1, please explain why (COLA. Step raises, etc.)
page 1
Universal Hiring: Budget Information, continued...
Form "A" - Requesting Five or Fewer Officers
5. FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED
Total three years salary and fringe $ 93, 684. 72 0) (lines c + f + i)
Line j multipled by .75
Amount on Line k, or $75,000,
Whichever is LESS
x 75
$ 70, 263.54 (k)
$ 70, 263.54 (m)
UNLESS A WAIVER IS AUTHORIZED, FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THIS OFFICER CANNOT EXCEED
THE AMOUNT ON LINE m (75% OF THREE YEARS SALARYAND BENEFITS, OR $75,000,
WHICHEVER IS LESS).
BUDGET SUMMARY
After completing one worksheet for each officer (up to a maximum of five) complete the following questions. You need to
complete this section only once.
1. Name of the Federal Agency to which audits of your federal grants are sent (your "federal cognizant agency") If you don't
know, call 1-800-421-6770 for assistance.
United States Department of Justice
2. Starting date of your fiscal year: October, 1995 Ending date: _ September, 1996
3. Under this COPS Universal Hiring Grant, your department plans to (enter the number of officers for each that applies)
Hire 2 new entry level officer(s) Rehire former officers
Hire lateral entry officers Hire _part time officers
4. The total three year cost for salaries and benefits for all of the officers requested is $ 187, 369.44 (as in line j)
5. The total amount of federal funds requested $ 140,527.08 (as in tine m)
6. Under COPS grants, the federal share of total salaries and benefits must decrease each year leading to full local funding by
the fourth year of officers' employment. At the same time your local share must increase each year. Please summarize how
the federal share will decrease and the local share increase over the three years of the grant:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Federal Share (must decrease) $ 53, 982.61 $ 46, 986.40 39, 558.07 $140, 527.08 Total grant funds
(as in line 5)
Local Share (must increase) $ 7 , 026 _ 35 $ 1 5 , 457 - 98 $ 24, 358- 03 $ 46, 842. 36Total local funds
Total Salaries/Benefits $ 61, 008. 9) $62, 444. 3� $63, 916.10(i) $187, 369.44 Total costs
(as in line 4)
The undersigned attests to the accuracy of the Budget Information submitted above.
Name (typed) of Authorized Official: Susan Morgan Title:Director of Finance
Signature: ` / Date: 10/10/95
page 2
U.S. Department ojJustice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
ASSURANCES
Several provisions of federal law and policy apply to all grant programs. We (the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services) need to secure your assurance that you (the applicant)
will comply with these provisions. If you would like further information about any of the
matters on which we seek your assurance, please contact us.
By your authorized representative's signature, you assure us and certify to us that you will
comply with all legal and administrative requirements that govern the applicant for acceptance
and use of federal grant funds. In particular, you assure us that:
1. You have been legally and officially authorized by the
appropriate goveming body (for example, mayor or city coun-
cil) to apply for this grant and that the persons signing the
application and these assurances on your behalf are autho-
rized to do so and to act on your behalf with respect to any
issues that may arise during processing of this application.
2. You will comply with the provisions of federal law which
limit certain political activities of your employees whose prin-
cipal employment is in connection with an activity financed
in whole or in part with this grant. These restrictions are set
forth in 5 U.S.C. § 1501, et sea.
3. You will comply with the minimum wage and maximum
hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, if
they apply to you.
4. You will establish safeguards, if you have not done so
already, to prohibit employees from using their positions for
a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, moti-
vated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others,
particularly those with whom they have family, business, or
other ties.
5. You will give the Department of Justice or the Comptrol-
ler General access to and the right to examine records and
documents related to the graft.
6. You will comply with .all requirements imposed by the
Department of Justice as a condition or administrative re-
quirement of the grant, with the program guidelines, with
the requirements of OMB Circulars A-87 (governing cost cal-
culations) and A-128 (governing audits), with the applicable
provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, as amended, with 28 CFR Part 66 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements), with the provisions of the
current edition of the Office of Justice Programs Financial
and Administrative Guide for Grants, and with all other ap-
plicable laws, orders, regulations, or circulars.
7. You will, to the extent practicable and consistent with
applicable law, seek, recruit, and hire members of racial and
ethnic minority groups and women in order to further effec-
tive law enforcement by increasing their ranks within the
swom positions in your agency.
1 hereby
8. You will not, on the ground of race, color, religion, na-
tional origin, gender, disability or age, unlawfully exclude
any person from participation in, deny the benefits of or em-
ployment to any person, or subject any person to discrimi-
nation in connection with any programs or activities funded
in whole or in part with federal funds. These civil rights re-
quirements are found in the nondiscrimination provisions of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
as amended (42 U.S.C. § 3789(d)); Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000d); the Indian
Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303); Section 504 ,of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. §
7$4); Title II, Subtitle A of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seg.)- the Age Discrimina-
tion Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. § 6101, e se .); and Depart-
ment of Justice Non -Discrimination Regulations contained
in Title 28, Parts 35 and 42 (subparts C, D, E and G) of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
A. In the event that any court or administrative
agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, disability or age against
you after a due process hearing, you agree to forward a
copy of the finding to the COPS Legal Division, 1100 Ver-
mont Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530.
B. If you are applying for a grant of $500,000 or
more an artment regul ns (28 CFR 42.301 et sea.)
require you to s a rrent Equal Opportunity Employ-
ment Plan, you will d so 2t-t a time of this application, if
you have not done in the past. ou are applying for a
grant of less than 00,000 and the regulations require you
to maintain a Pla on file in your office, you will do so within
120 days of yo on
award.
9. You will insure that the facilities under your ownership,
lease or supervision which shall be utilized in the accom-
plishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that
you will notify us if you are advised by the EPA indicating
that a facility to be used in this grant is under consideration
for listing by EPA.
TO. If your state has established a review and comment
procedure under Executive Order 12372 and has selected
this program for review, you have made this application avail-
able for review by the State Single Point of Contact.
ify compliance with 1 the above assurances that govern the application and use of Federal funds.
Signature '
Appendix A- Legal Assurances
Date
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION
AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE
REQUIREMENTS; COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AGENCIES; AND
NON -SUPPLANTING
Although the Department of Justice has made every effort to simplify the application process, other provisions
of federal law require us to seek your certification regarding certain matters. Applicants should read the
regulations cited below and the instructions for certification included in the regulations to understand the
requirements and whether they apply to a particular applicant. Signature of this form provides for compliance
with certification requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying" and 28 CFR Part 67,
"Government -wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government -wide Requirements for
Drug -Free Workplace (Grants)," and the coordination and non -supplanting requirements of the Public Safety
Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994. The certifications shall be treated as a material representa-
tion of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Department of Justice determines to award the
covered grant.
1. LOBBYING
As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and
implemented at 28 CFR Part 69, for persons entering into a
grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000, as defined
at 28 CFR Part 69, the applicant certifies that:
(a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or em-
ployee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Con-
gress in connection with the making of any Federal grant,
the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the ex-
tension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification
of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement;
(b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have
been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence`an officer or errioloyee of any agency,
a Member of Congress;lan officer or employee of Congress,
or an employee of a 1`�ember of Congress in connection
with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the un-
dersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form — LLL,
"Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its
instructions;
(c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all
subawards at all tiers -(including subgrants, contracts under
grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and
that all sub -recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPOW
SIBILITY MATTERS (DIRECT RECIPIENT)
As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Sus-
pension, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, for prospec-
tive participants in primary covered transactions, as defined
at 28 CFR Part 67, Section 67.510 —
A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals
(i) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to a denial of Fed-
eral benefits by a State or Federal court, or voluntarily ex -
cluded from covered transactions by any Federal depart-
ment or agency:
(ii) Have not within a three-year period preceding this appli-
cation been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered
against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense
in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or per-
forming public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or con-
tract under a public transaction: violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, mak-
ing false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(ill) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or
local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated
in paragraph (A)(ii) of this certification: and
(iv) Have not within a three-year period preceding this ap-
plication had one or more public transactions (Federal, State,
or local) terminated for cause or default: and
B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the
statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an
explanation to this application.
3. DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES OTHER
THAN INDIVIDUALS)
As required by the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, and
implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, Subpart F, for grantees, as
defined at 28 CFR Part 67 Sections 67.615 and
67.620 —
A. The applicant certifies that it will or will continue to pro-
vide a drug -free workplace by:
(i) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the un-
lawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or
use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's
workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violation of such prohibition:
(ii) Establishing an on -going drug -free awareness program
to inform employees about —
(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
Appendix A - Legal Certifications
(b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free work-
place;
(c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and em-
ployee assistance programs; and
(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for
drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace,
(Ili) Making it a requirement that each employee to be en-
gaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of
the statement required by paragraph (i);
(iv) Notifying the employee in the statement required by
paragraph (1) that, as a condition of employment under the
grant, the employee will —
(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for
a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the work-
place no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
(v) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days
after receiving notice under subparagraph (iv)(b) from an
employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such con-
viction. Employers of convicted" employees must provide
notice, including position title, to: COPS Program, P.O. Box
14440, Washington, D.C. 20044. Notice shall include the
identification number(s) of each affected grant;
(vi) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar
days of receiving notice under subparagraph (iv)(b), with
respect to any employee who is so convicted —
(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an
employee, up to and including termination, consistent with
the requirements of the Rehabititation.Act of 1973, as
amended; or
(b) Requiring such employee to par icipate satisfactorily in
a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved
for such purposes by a Federal Slate, or local health, law
enforcement or other appropriate agency;
(vii) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a
drug -free workplace through implementation of paragraphs
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi).
B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the
site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with
the specific grant:
Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state,
zip code)
Check 0 if there are workplaces on file that are not identi-
fied here.
Section 67.630 of the regulations provides that a grantee
that is a State may elect to make one certification in each
Federal fiscal year, a copy of which should be included with
each application for Department of Justice funding. States
and State agencies may elect to use OJP Form 4061/7.
Check 0 if the State has elected to complete OJP
Form 4061 /7.
4. COORDINATION
The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act
of 1994 requires applicants to certify that there has been
appropriate coordination with all agencies that may be af-
fected by the applicant's grant proposal if approved. Af-
fected agencies may include, among others, the Office of
the United States Attorney, state or local prosecutors, or
correctional agencies. The applicant certifies that there has
been appropriate coordination with all affected agencies.
5. NON -SUPPLANTING
The applicant hereby certifies that Federal funds will not be
used to replace or supplant State or local funds, or funds
supplied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that would, in the
absence of federal aid, be made available to or for law en-
forcement purposes.
The applicant further certifies that funds required to pay the
non-federal or "cash match" portion of the grant program
shall be in addition to funds that would otherwise be made
available to or for law enforcement purposes.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, 1 hereby certify that the
applicant will comply with the above certifications.
City of Georgetown Police Services Division 809 Martin Luther Ring Georgetown, T%
Grantee Name and Address 78626
Universal Hiring Grant 74-6000974
Application Number and/or Project Name Grantee IRS/Vendor Number
Larry M. Hesser Chief of Police
Typed Na a and Title of Authorized Representative
--f Yy�
Signature
Date
Appendix A - Legal Certifications
Apwovcd by O► I5
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES 0348-0046
Complete this form to disclose lobbying activities pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352
(See reverse for public burden disclosure.)
1. Type of Federal Action:
2. Status of Federal Action:
3. Report Type:
F] a. contract
a. bid/offer/application
a. initial filing
Flb.
b. grant
b. Initial
award
material change
c. cooperative agreement
c. post -award
For Material Change Only:
d. loan
e. loan guarantee
year quarter
f. loan insurance
date of last report
4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity:
S. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter
Name and Address of Prime:
O Prime O Subawardee
Tier • if known
Congressional District, if known:
Congressional District, if known:
6. Federal Department/Agency:
7. Federal Program Name/Description:
CFDA Number. if applicable:
8. Federal Action Number, if known:
9. Award Amount, if known:
S
10. a. Name and Address of Lobbying Entity
b. Individuals Fiierforming Services
Gf individual, last name, first name, M1):
(including address if different from No. 10a)
(last name, first name, MI):
(auach Con(rnualion 91etWs) 51`41.L-A. it neCessary)
11. Amount of Payment (check all that apply):
13. Type of Payment (check all that apply):
O a. retainer
S ❑ actual O planned
O b. one-time fee
12. Form of Payment (check all that apply):
O c. commission
❑ a. cash
❑ b. in -kind; specify: nature
O d. contingent fee
O e. deferred
value
❑ f. other; specify:
14. Brief Description of Services Performed or to be Performed and Date(s) of Service, including officer(s),
employee(s), or Members(s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in item 11:
-- NOT APPLICABLE
--
(jttach ConhnuJt.r)n Shve(hl
S14LL A, r1 necessary)
1S. Continuation Sheet(s) SF-LLL-A attached: O Yes
O No
16. Information requested through this form is authorized by tid,c 31 U S C.
sc<tiors 1352 This disclosure of lobbying activities is a material relxcscn
Signature: � R/
tatrnn of fact upon which reliance was placed by the tier al>o- when
this transaction was made or entered into This disclosure• „ required
Print Name: Larry M. flesser
pursuant to 31 U S C 1352 This information will be reported to the
Congress semi-annually and will be mailable (or t,uhhe ns1N r t uo Any
Title:-- Chief of Police
person who fails to file the required disclosure shall Ise sub,eci to a r iv,l
Ix•nalty of not less than S10.W0 and not more then s100.(M lot each
Telephone No.: (512) 930-3510 Date:10/ 10_ 95
such failure.
://i�I . 1` I.\•: /. '.� :.:: I! ' • : l:. fI /jAI-` : ! �J: flJ:::IJ: /.\•::::.: ::. ..........• ...... :.::::::::::::..... :::..� -.. ....\'::::::::. ::::. :.-I.YJ:: n•. . 7/ ....: f JJ/ / f l.................
.'::::::: . J. :•/:: J:: :•JJ::::: ::::•:
APPENDIX A:
GEORGETOWN POLICE SERVICES
TRANSFORMATIONAL
PROCESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CppY
GEORGETOWN POLICE SERVICES
TRANSFORMATIONAL PROCESS AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PROCESS
In late 1993, early 1994, the Mayor, Council and City Manager of the City of Georgetown made a
decision to change the operating philosophy and style of delivering police services in the city. The
decision was to follow the philosophy known as Community Oriented Policing.
A new Chief of Police was employed in February of 1994. The new Police Chief conducted a Climate
Survey to determine the issues and concerns that would have to be successfully addressed in order to
transform the police division from a "traditional" police department to one that would be effective in
addressing the "issues of the day" and the future. (See appendix A, pages 44 - 50 of the Corporate
Strategy)
In order to effectively change the culture of the police organization and to successfully transform it, the
7S model for change was chosen as the process for redesign.
The 7S model consists of:
Subordinates
Missio17
Philosophy
Values
Principles
Style
Staff
Skills
Structure
Systems, aild
Strategies
The first step of the transformational process was to write a "business or master" plan. The Corporate
Strategy was developed with input from the employees, the city manager and citizens of Georgetown.
The Corporate Strategy was then published and taught throughout the division and the community.
The second step was to evaluate where we were, where we needed to be, and how were we going to
get there. This step consisted of "aligning" the Staff, Skills, Structure, Systems, Strategies and Style
with the Subordinates (Mission, Philosophy, Values, and Principles)
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
.4'1r7lf'hlry -
b. Organized a Citizens Advisory Committee.
► The organization was re -structured around the 5 systems of an organization and
"product" philosophy. (See pages 11 -27 of Corporate Strategy)
Ss�y tens -
Skills -
Sta -
► Redesigned the written Directives System, internal affairs process, manpower allocation
and distribution process, report writing process, discipline process, property evidence
system, recruitment and selection processes, promotion processes, administration
records systems, personnel evaluation process, salary scale, need based training process,
purchasing process, and the information management system.
► Provided training to Division personnel on philosophy of policing and management
principles.
► Implemented a monthly 4 hour in-service training program.
► Identified several advanced training needs and sent several employees to advanced
training courses.
► Published Training Bulletins on a regular basis.
► Developed Field Trainers in Patrol and Special Operations.
► Created lst line supervisory positions in Communications and Records.
► Created Field Training Officer positions in Patrol and Special Operations.
► Supplemented paid support staff with citizen volunteers.
► Taught and coached the Values, Philosophy and Principles written in the Corporate
Strategy consistently over the 18 month period.
Strategies -
Reworked the Neighborhood Watch Program to a Neighborhood Wellness Program to
address social issues that contribute to crime.
Developed and implemented an Employee Bridge Team to address internal issues and
concerns.
Improved Victim Assistance Program to assist all victims of crimes, not just victims of
violent crimes.
Developed and implemented a Georgetown Runaway Intervention Program (GRIP) the
treats runaways as victims.
Implemented a program to reduce potential for gang problems and curb graffiti.
10. Prioritized crime prevention and redefined it as Public Education and established the
guiding principles, goals and objectives.
Held the first Annual Police Fair in conjunction with National Police Week.
Developed and implemented the ARE YOU OK? program with the Williamson County
Sheriff's Office.
P. Converted to an 800 MHz radio system.
Assigned all patrol officers to established beats and the same watch for at least one year
at a time.
Integrated neighborhood service delivery philosophy into daily, tactical and strategic
operations.
b. Solved many public safety problems in neighborhoods in partnership with the citizens.
Organized and participated in two major neighborhood clean-up projects.
Develop the infra -structure of our Information Management System to support an
Information Management System that is compatible with our policing philosophy.
APPENDIX B:
A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING PRACTICES
COPY
The following is a brief synopsis of our existing Community Oriented Policing practices
Corporate Strategy for Effective Policing: This document in partnership with the
community and made public for all citizens, is the organizational design for the Police Services
Division. It is the framework for generating awareness and developing a common understanding
between the community and the police, by explaining what is important to the organization, what
our division proposes to do, and how we propose to do it.
Citizens Advisory Committee: The Citizens Advisory Committee was established to give
citizens direct input about areas of community concern. Committee involvement has been
enormous with Sub -committees taking part in the employee hiring process, Police/Citizen
Relations, Curfew issues and many other items.
Manpower Allocation Distribution Study: This City of Georgetown is approximately
15.3 sq. miles with a population of 20,000. The city is divided into three large districts (North,
Central, and South) and 67 smaller reporting areas. To establish these districts, the calls for
service from the 67 reporting areas were tallied and the reporting areas were then grouped into
districts, ensuring an equal call load per district.
Shift Assignments: Each year, officers are allowed to bid for Patrol Districts within the
city. These officers are then assigned to work in that district for a minimum of one year. This
allows the officer to get to know the profile of their district and establish a relationship with it's
citizens.
Fire Warden Program: Our Fire Warden program was created from the Community .
Policing framework. The City was divided into 12 geographic areas called Fire Boxes. These fire
boxes are evenly distributed within the Police Districts (four fire boxes per district). A Firefighter
is permanently assigned to each fire box. Their responsibility is to assist the neighborhoods
located within their area with code violations. Police Officers and Firefighters work together,
with their communities on problem solving.
POP Projects: All patrol officers, on their own initiative, seek out problems or area of
concern to their assigned neighborhoods, and attempt to find and implement solutions to correct
these concerns. Officers use the S.A.R.A. model to assist and document each project. A
complete file on each project is maintained, including a resource list that is developed during the
course of the project. The program is managed by a Sergeant in the Patrol Division.
In -Service Training: The City of Georgetown amended the Police Services Division
budget by granting $60,000 for in-service training so that all employees, sworn and civilian, could
undergo intense training that included our Community Oriented Policing philosophy, the entire
Problem Oriented Policing process, and the Corporate Strategy for Effective Policing.
Field Training Orientation: The Field Training Officer program has been updated to now
include an in-depth orientation for newly hired officers that includes our Community Oriented
Policing Philosophy, the Problem Oriented Policing process, and the Corporate Strategy for
Effective Policing.
Take Home Cars: Each officer is assigned a car in which to work. The officer drives his
car during his tour of duty and then keeps it at his residence during hours off time. The officers
are allowed limited personal use of the vehicles when off duty. This allows the cars to be parked
in neighborhoods for long periods of time, and also provides for a much larger "police presence"
on the streets.
Cellular Phones: Each police vehicle is equipped with a cellular phone. This allows
citizens that call the dispatch center to be transferred directly to the officer that is responding to
their location. Citizens at risk on the roadway, at accidents, or having car trouble may call from
any police car for family members or friends.
"Call me...I care": In an effort to make the officers more accessible to the neighborhood
they patrol, and also to enhance the citizen perception that police care, all patrol cars have a
message in 2 inch reflective lettering on the rear of the car stating, "Call me ... I care" along with
the Celltlar phone number for that officer's car.
Bicycle Program: Our department purchased Trek Police bicycles and all patrol officers
were issued Bike Patrol Uniforms. Bicycles are used at all special events held within the City.
Officers also periodically ride bikes in their neighborhoods as well as in commercial areas. The
primary focus of the bicycle program is to allow police officers direct, person -to -person contact
with the public.
Problem Oriented Policing International Conference: In November 1994, our division
sent the Commanders of Patrol and Special Operations, as well as the Sergeant to be in charge of
our POP program to attend the 5th Annual POP Conference and the POP Supervisors Training
Course held in San Diego, California. While in San Diego, these officers also worked with the
San Diego Police Department's Community Policing Unit.
Conference Presentation: As a result of projects that our department has undertaken and
successfully completed, the Sergeant in charge of the POP projects for our Department has been
requested to present instruction on POP Project at the 6th Annual Problem Oriented Policing
Conference in San Diego, California.
Herman Goldstein Excellence in Problem Solving Award: Our division tackled a huge
Public Safety issue at a public park located in the heart of Georgetown on the San Gabriel River.
Through working with the neighborhoods, other City Divisions, the City Manager, the local
media, and local business, the park was reclaimed for the neighborhood from the violence and
illegal activity that plagued the park. For the efforts and coordination involved in this project, and
its remarkable success, this project has been selected as the winner of the International Herman
Goldstein Excellence In Problem Solving Award.
Texas Association Against Crime Ativard: The Georgetown Police Service Division was
one of Departments in the state to receive the Texas Association Against Crime
Award. This award was given for the commitment of our Division and our efforts against drugs
and crime.
School Mentoring Program: The School Mentoring program can best be described as
"communities in schools". Being part of the community of Georgetown that we live and raise our
families in naturally affect us. Police Services Division employees work in concert with the school
district in providing mentors to individual children and need based safety programs and
presentations, such as 9-1-1 education where children can interact with 9-1-1 telecommunication
operators in GTE provided telephone training equipment.
. Meetings with City Businesses: Daily meetings with City businesses provide that one on
one, face to face contact that is critical to the style and quality of customer service desired by our
citizens and mandated by our City Council. This contact allows the opportunity for police to act
as problem solvers to commercial and retail businesses. These meetings range from informal to
formal such as conversations about parking to shop lifting prevention seminars and situational
armed robbery prevention training for store and financial institutions' employees.
Neighborhood WatchlNeighborhood Wellness Programs: The Neighborhood Watch
program has been around since the seventies but is still used successfully in its original form in
Georgetown. However, it also serves as the framework and security element of our
Neighborhood Wellness Program that takes the next step. That step being a "product" that
affects crime and the quality of life in Georgetown. As an example, the need of community clean-
ups, parking issues, abandoned vehicles, youth issues such as teen pregnancy and gangs.
Child Safety: The Child Safety programs and presentations have been the "Corner Stone"
of out community involved policing. The programs range from a Safety City for bike training,
McGruff suit and puppet training, Vince and Larry crash dummy shows, alchohol and drug
awareness and seat belt "Teddy Bear" traffic stops.
Senior Citizens Groups: Senior Citizens are the hidden resource of a community. We
have a vision of a greater partnership with the retired members of our city. Currently, we have
involvement ranging from articles in the Senior Beacon, newspaper, to neighborhodd watches to
volunteering.
Fingerprinting of Children: The Division of Police Services recognizes the need of
identifying children that fall victims of crime. However, fingerprinting and other forms of
identification retention also serves to heighten the parents' level of awareness and serve as a
"Teachable Moment" in the child's life. As part of our on -going effort in proactive policing we
regularly have child I.D. at local events and provide this service upon request seven days a week.
D.A.RE.: Drug Abuse Resistance Education has been recognized by the United States
Department of Justice as "Community Policing" in its June 1995 issue of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance Bulletin. It states "D.A.R.E. program goals and activities are consistent with an
integrated communtiy policing approach and reflect many community policing values." We at the
City of Georgetown Police Services Division consider our D.A.R.E. program to be a milestone in
the evolution of our department. We have been successfully instructing D.A.R.E. since the fall of
1990.
Gangs/Graffiti Teams: The city of Georgetown is a value based organization. One of the
key elements is teamwork. Teamwork is exhibited in our work to thwart gang involvement and
graffiti criminal mischief. Being precise, our course of action in prevention and education, mainly
in the public schools, intervention and enforcement at the street level by police officers, detectives
and juvenile services of the County. Williamson County Juvenile Services also works with our
Special Operations Department to paint over or remove graffiti and participate in community
clean-ups.
Reorganization/"Hot Spot" Targeting: Through citizen involvement (such as the
Citizen's Advisory Committee), interaction between city divisions, officer to officer, and
computer inquiry of crime analysis, we come to recognize certain crimes, persons and locations
that require additional efforts or resources. For example, action by our education, prevention and
intervention section focuses on Crime -specific targets like tobacco sales to minors, or on location -
specific targets such as gang and drug activity reduction in Kelly Park.
Victim Services Unit: The Victim Services Unit of the Georgetown Police Services
Division is committed to protecting the rights and providing services to all victims of violent
crime and accidents. The Unit will make every effort to address the needs of all individuals who
request assistance from the Police Services Division, whether the incident is of a criminal or a
non -criminal nature. Some examples include, but are not limited to: domestice disturbances,
suicide, homeless persons, emotionally disturbed persons, major accidents or disasters.
Council MeetingDate: 10-24-95 4(1 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
A Resolution and contract approving a joint use agreement between the City of Georgetown and
Georgetown Independent School District for a joint school/park playground.
ITEM SUMMARY
Georgetown Independent School District Superintendent, Dr. Jim Gunn, requested financial assistance from
the City of Georgetown to help build a joint school/park playground at Frost Elementary on 711 Lakeway
Drive. The request was for approximately $23,000, but there is only $10,000 in parkland dedication fees
for that area of town.
The request was brought before the Parks and Recreation Board which voted unanimously to give G.I.S.D.
$10,000 out of parkland dedication fees for that zone area with the stipulation that signs be installed saying
joint school/park playground and public use after school hours. The school has built the playground with
existing playground equipment that was previously located behind Frost Elementary and also built a new
running track at the new school park.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Considerable savings to City of Georgetown by not having to buy land and construct a new park
playground and savings to the Georgetown Independent School District by the City of Georgetown giving
$10,000 for use of the park playground after school hours. Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is all the money
that is in this zone for parkland dedication.
COMMENTS
This joint use agreement will help add more park facilities on the west side of IH 35, which only has
Williams Drive Pool at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Contract
Submitted by:
Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation
RESOLUTION No.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT USE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, AND THE GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A JOINT SCHOOL/PARK
PLAYGROUND AT FROST ELEMENTARY LOCATED AT
711 LAKEWAY DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAME AND THE CITY SECRETARY TO
ATTEST.
WHEREAS, Section 332.021 of the Local Government Code specifically provides for the
joint operation of parks and playgrounds by a City and an Independent School District; and,
WHEREAS, both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Independent School
District have recognized the need for providing adequate recreational facilities for the use and
benefit of the general population of the City of Georgetown, and especially for the benefit of
school -age children; and,
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Independent School District has made the land available for
joint use as a playground development; and,
WHEREAS, a substantial savings to the public will result by the joint development and
use of such land for both school and park purposes; by providing a playground to Georgetown
Independent School District and in turn the City of Georgetown will pay G.I I. S . D . $10, 000 with
parkland dedication fees for use of the playground when school is not in session.
WHEREAS,by joint use of G.I.S.D. school facilities with the City of Georgetown, the
public will benefit by having an increased number and higher quality located facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements Recreation and Cultural Affairs Policy 2 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan
Element, which states, "The City will assist in providing all its citizens the opportunity to
participate in recreational and cultural programs"; and further finds that the adoption of this
resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by
Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
JOINT USE AGREEMENT (CITY/GISD)
Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Georgetown approves the joint use for
the park located at 711 Lakeway Drive in Georgetown, Texas. The City Council hereby
authorizes and directs its City Manager to represent and act for the City of Georgetown in dealing
with the Georgetown Independent School District for the purposes of this program.
SECTION 3. That the Mayor is authorized to execute the joint -use agreement and the City
Secretary to attest, and the City Attorney to approve after approval by the Georgetown
Independent School District.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
JOINT USE AGREEMENT (CITY/GISD)
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 2
,19
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
By: Leo Wood
Mayor
STATE OF TEXAS § A JOINT USE AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN § AND THE GEORGETOWN I.S.D.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS THE
DATE OF BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(HEREINAFTER CALLED "CITY") AND THE GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION (HEREINAFTER CALLED
"SCHOOL").
Section 1. For and in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements of the parties hereto,
each to the other, the parties do hereby agree to jointly use a school playground on property presently
owned by the School, said School property being located at 711 Lakeway Drive.
Section 2. In consideration of the City's agreement to provide $10,000 for the above -mentioned
playground, the City will install signs stating joint school/city park and public use after school hours.
Section 3 It is hereby agreed that the School will furnish playground equipment on the 711 Lakeway
Drive property and maintain the play equipment in a safe condition.
Section 4. During the normal school year, the School shall have the right to use the playground for
school activities. After normal school hours during the school year, the use of such playground shall be
under the administrative responsibility and control of the City, acting by and through its Director of Parks
& Recreation, or his designee. It is herein agreed, however, that after normal school hours during such
school year, the School may use all or such portions of the playground as mutually agreed upon by the
School authorities and the City's Director of Parks & Recreation or his designee. In the event that the
administrative authorities of the School and the City fail to agree upon the use of the playground during
this time, the matter shall be referred to the governing bodies of the City and School respectively.
During the summer vacation period, the City shall have the administrative responsibility
and control the use of the playground shall be in the City, acting by and through the Director of Parks &
Recreation or his designee.
Section 5. The School shall immediately report to the City's Director of Parks and Recreation any
condition existing on the playground area which the School is aware is dangerous or could become
dangerous to any person using the said premises. Upon such notification, the City will promptly respond
and take such remedial measures as the circumstances require. Nothing herein stated shall place any duty
upon the School to inspect and report any such condition, nor create any additional obligation, liability
responsibility beyond that which the School District already has to maintain the playground in a reasonably
safe condition. However, the School assumes the risk of injury to any person that the School allows to use
the playground area for School purposes once a dangerous condition is noticed.
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 1
Section 6. This instrument is subject to all legal requirements of both the City and School, and should
a court of competent jurisdiction determine any portion of this agreement to be invalid for any reason, the
parties hereby agree that provision of the agreement is severable, and it is the intention of the parties that
the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. This agreement is performable in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas.
EXECUTED THIS DAY OF
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
By:
Leo Wood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By:
Gene Lawhon, President/School Board of Trustees
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
by , President of the Georgetown School Board of Trustees for the
Georgetown Independent School district, a political subdivision, on behalf of said political subdivision.
SEAL
Notary Public State of Texas
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 3
Council Meeting Date: 10-24-95 Item No. 1%
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
A Resolution and contract approving a joint use agreement between the City of Georgetown and
Georgetown Independent School District for a joint school/park playground.
ITEM SUMMARY
Georgetown Independent School District Superintendent, Dr. Jim Gunn, requested financial assistance from
the City of Georgetown to help build a joint school/park playground at Frost Elementary on 711 Lakeway
Drive. The request was for approximately $23,000, but there is only $10,000 in parkland dedication fees
for that area of town.
The request was brought before the Parks and Recreation Board which voted unanimously to give G.I.S.D.
$10,000 out of parkland dedication fees for that zone area with the stipulation that signs be installed saying
joint school/park playground and public use after school hours. The school has built the playground with
existing playground equipment that was previously located behind Frost Elementary and also built a new
running track at the new school park.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Considerable savings to City of Georgetown by not having to buy land and construct a new park
playground and savings to the Georgetown Independent School District by the City of Georgetown giving
$10,000 for use of the park playground after school hours. Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) is all the money
that is in this zone for parkland dedication.
COMMENTS
This joint use agreement will help add more park facilities on the west side of IH 35, which only has
Williams Drive Pool at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Contract
Submitted by:
Randy Morrow, Director of Parks and Recreation
RESOLUTION No.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT USE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, AND THE GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A JOINT SCHOOL/PARK
PLAYGROUND AT FROST ELEMENTARY LOCATED AT
711 LAKEWAY DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAME AND THE CITY SECRETARY TO
ATTEST.
WHEREAS, Section 332.021 of the Local Government Code specifically provides for the
joint operation of parks and playgrounds by a City and an Independent School District; and,
WHEREAS, both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Independent School
District have recognized the need for providing adequate recreational facilities for the use and
benefit of the general population of the City of Georgetown, and especially for the benefit of
school -age children; and,
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Independent School District has made the land available for
joint use as a playground development; and,
WHEREAS, a substantial savings to the public will result by, the joint development and
use of such land for both school and park purposes; by providing a playground to Georgetown
Independent School District and in turn the City of Georgetown will pay G.I.S.D. $10,000 with
parkland dedication fees for use of the playground when school is not in session.
WHEREAS,by joint use of G.I.S.D. school facilities with the City of Georgetown, the
public will benefit by having an increased number and higher quality located facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements Recreation and Cultural Affairs Policy 2 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan
Element, which states, "The City will assist in providing all its citizens the opportunity to
participate in recreational and cultural programs"; and further finds that the adoption of this
resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by
Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
JOINT USE AGREEMENT (CITY/GISD)
Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Georgetown approves the joint use for
the park located at 711 Lakeway Drive in Georgetown, Texas. The City Council hereby
authorizes and directs its City Manager to represent and act for the City of Georgetown in dealing
with the Georgetown Independent School District for the purposes of this program.
SECTION 3. That the Mayor is authorized to execute the joint -use agreement and the City
Secretary to attest, and the City Attorney to approve after approval by the Georgetown
Independent School District.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this day of
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks
City Attorney
JOINT USE AGREEMENT (CITY/GISD)
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 2
19
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
By: Leo Wood
Mayor
STATE OF TEXAS § A JOINT USE AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN § AND THE GEORGETOWN I.S.D.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS THE
DATE OF BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(HEREINAFTER CALLED "CITY") AND THE GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION (HEREINAFTER CALLED
"SCHOOL").
Section 1. For and in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements of the parties hereto,
each to the other, the parties do hereby agree to jointly use a school playground on property presently
owned by the School, said School property being located at 711 Lakeway Drive.
Section 2. In consideration of the City's agreement to provide $10,000 for the above -mentioned
playground, the City will install signs stating joint school/city park and public use after school hours.
Section 3. It is hereby agreed that the School will furnish playground equipment on the 711 Lakeway
Drive property and maintain the play equipment in a safe condition.
Section 4. During the normal school year, the School shall have the right to use the playground for
school activities. After normal school hours during the school year, the use of such playground shall be
under the administrative responsibility and control of the City, acting by and through its Director of Parks
& Recreation, or his designee. It is herein agreed, however, that after normal school hours during such
school year, the School may use all or such portions of the playground as mutually agreed upon by the
School authorities and the City's Director of Parks & Recreation or his designee. In the event that the
administrative authorities of the School and the City fail to agree upon the use of the playground during
this time, the matter shall be referred to the governing bodies of the City and School respectively.
During the summer vacation period, the City shall have the administrative responsibility
and control the use of the playground shall be in the City, acting by and through the Director of Parks &
Recreation or his designee.
Section 5. The School shall immediately report to the City's Director of Parks and Recreation any
condition existing on the playground area which the School is aware is dangerous or could become
dangerous to any person using the said premises. Upon such notification, the City will promptly respond
and take such remedial measures as the circumstances require. Nothing herein stated shall place any duty
upon the School to inspect and report any such condition, nor create any additional obligation, liability
responsibility beyond that which the School District already has to maintain the playground in a reasonably
safe condition. However, the School assumes the risk of injury to any person that the School allows to use
the playground area for School purposes once a dangerous condition is noticed.
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 1
Section 6. This instrument is subject to all legal requirements of both the City and School, and should
a court of competent jurisdiction determine any portion of this agreement to be invalid for any reason, the
parties hereby agree that provision of the agreement is severable, and it is the intention of the parties that
the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. This agreement is performable in Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas.
EXECUTED THIS DAY OF
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
By:
Leo Wood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
GEORGETOWN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By:
Gene Lawhon, President/School Board of Trustees
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Marianne Landers Banks, City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
by , President of the Georgetown School Board of Trustees for the
Georgetown Independent School district, a political subdivision, on behalf of said political subdivision.
SEAL
Notary Public State of Texas
JOINT USE AGREEMENT PLAYGROUND
City of Georgetown/Georgetown Independent School District Page 3
Council meeting date: 10-24-95 Item No. x
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consideration of instructing staff as to procedure to follow regarding vacancy of District 2 Council position
due to death of Councilmember Winfred Bonner/Bob Hart
ITEMS Y
As outlined in my memo of October 18, (copy attached), there are three options to follow regarding the
vacancy. Please consider giving me your direction as to how to deal with this situation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo of October 18, 1995
Su itted by: --��
`�' -Z Bob Hart, City Manager
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 1995
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Bob Hart
SUBJECT: Vacancy in District 2
Due to Death of Councilmember Winfred Bonner
Undoubtedly, many of you are receiving phone calls concerning the method for filling the Council
seat vacated due to Councilmember Bonner's untimely death. You have three options.
(1) The position can be left open until the May, 1996 Election. That would leave the seat vacant
for just over six months. When former Councilmember Lupe Carranco resigned his Council
seat, the Council at that time decided to let that seat remain vacant until the next regular May
election, which resulted in the seat being vacant for approximately three months.
(2) You may call a Special Election to fill the vacancy until the next regularly scheduled
General Election. In this case, the election would be held on the third Saturday in January,
January 20, 1996. Following this schedule, the election would need to be ordered on the
November 14 Council Agenda.
In this particular case, absentee voting would be conducted at City Hall from Tuesday,
January 2 to January 16, 1996; the voting on January 20 would take place at the Library.
The filing deadline would be 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 20, 1995.
The estimated cost of the election is $1,255.00.
(3) You may appoint a resident of the district to fill the unexpired term. Section 2.03 of the City
Charter states that the Council may fill the position by a majority vote of the
Councilmembers.
In either of Options 2 or 3 above, the seat would be filled only until the May regular election.
BFUsl
Council meeting date: 10-24-95
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Item No.
SUBJECT Resolution casting City of Georgetown votes for the election of the Williamson
County Appraisal District Board of Directors.
Attached, is a memo requesting that you cast 60 votes for one or more of the following candidates:
There are five positions to be filled.
1.
David Acosta
6.
Deborah Hunt
2.
Gregory Boatright
7.
Fern Kedzierski
3.
Cecil Calvin
8.
Earl Klattenhoff
4.
Art Carroll
9.
Melvin Marek d
5.
Carl Doering
Attached is a list of the number of votes allotted to each of the taxing jurisdictions that make up the
Appraisal District. If the City votes with GISD (455 votes) and Williamson County (740 votes), one
candidate could receive a total of 1255 votes.
1. Memo from Williamson County Appraisal District
2. Ballot for Board of Directors, WCAD
3. List of Allocated Votes
4. Proposed Resolution
Submitted
Bob Hart, City Manager
Williamson CountyAppraisal District
510 W. 9th Street, P.O. Box 1120, Georgetown, Texas 78627-1120
Georgetown/Austin (512) 930-3787 Taylor/Granger/Hutto (512) 352-8542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Voting Entities of WOAD
FROM: Donna Mo Appraiser
SUBJECT: WCAD Board of Directors Election
DATE: October 17, 1995
RECEIVED
0 CT 1 8 1995
Attached is a ballot listing the nominations for WCAD Board of Directors -and a listing of the
number of votes each entity may cast.
The votes must be cast by written resolution and returned to me no later than November 14,
1995. You may cast all votes for one candidate or you may distribute the votes among any
number of candidates.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me.
Ballot
Board of Directors
Williamson County Appraisal District
1. David Acosta
2. Gregory Boatright
3. Cecil Calvin
4. Art Carroll
5. Carl Doering
6. Deborah Hunt
7. Fern Kedziersld
8. Earl Klattenhoff
9. Melvin Marek
Number of Votes for Each Voting Unit
'taxing Jurisdiction
1994 Levy
Percent
X 1000
X5 = Number
of Votes
City of Cedar Park
lf045r279
.0075
7
35
Coupland ISD
275,859
.0020
2
10
City of Florence
75,039
.0005
1
5
Florence ISD
854,142
.0062
6
30
City of Georgetown
1,724,028
.0124
12
60
Georgetown ISD
12,681,520
.0913
91
455
City of Granger
109,505
.0008
1
5
Granger ISD
481,611
.0035
3
15
City of Hutto
57,700
.0004
1
5
Hutto ISD
11155,145
.0083
8
40
Jarrell ISD
508,969
.0037
4
20
City of Leander
549,877
.0040
4
20
Leander ISD
19,936,607
.1436-
143
715
Liberty Hill ISD
1,533,974
.0110
11
55
City of Round Rock
6,901,335
.0497
50
250
Round Rock ISD
64,752,823
.4663
466
2,330
City of Taylor
1,152,893
.0083
8
40
Taylor ISD
3,989,046
.0287
29
145
City of Thrall
20,816
.0001
1
5
Thrall ISD
489,624
.0035
3
15
City of Weir
6,797
.0001
1
5
Williamson Co FM/RD
201570,184
.1481
148
740
iTotal
138,872,773
1.0000
11000
5,000
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, TO CAST VOTES IN THE ELECTION OF THE
WILLIAMSON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown is a voting entity in the Williamson County Appraisal
District; and
WHEREAS, a ballot has been furnished asking for votes to be cast by resolution and
returned to the Appraisal District by November 14, 1995; and
WHEREAS, according to the distribution of allowable votes to the entities of Williamson
County, the City of Georgetown is entitled to cast a total of 60 votes for any one or a number of
the candidates listed on the ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
a
SECTION 1.
The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found and
declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a
part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements
Finance Policy 3 of the Century Plan - Policy Plan Element, which states: "The City will
encourage tax rates in the community that are reasonable and fair and do not hinder economic
development"; and implements Governmental Policy 1 which states: "The City will actively
pursue increased cooperation with all other entities which provide services in the community"; and
further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other
Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative Chapter of the Policy
Plan.
SECTION 2.
The City of Georgetown hereby casts its 60 votes in the following manner:
David Acosta
Gregory Boatright
Appraisal District
Resolution No. _
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Cecil Calvin
Art Carroll
Carl Doering
Deborah Hunt
Fern Kedzierski
Earl Klattenhoff
Melvin Marek
Total Votes Cast
SECTION 3.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute, and the City Secretary to attest thereto this
resolution on behalf of the City of Georgetown.
SECTION 4.
This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this 24th day of October, 1995.
Attest: -
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Marianne Landers Banks
Appraisal District
Resolution No. _
Page 2 of 2 Pages
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: Leo Wood
Mayor
Council meeting date: 10-24-95 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission
ITEM SUMMARY
This item has been placed on your agenda because of the resignation of John Harrison who has moved to
Colorado Springs. We have applications from the following persons: Charles Burson, Terry Christlieb,
Scott Griscom, William Harris, and Clare Mashburn (copies are attached). Pursuant to the Governance
Policies, the Mayor is to indicate his preference to the Council 10 days prior to consideration. This has been
placed on the agenda to initiate that process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applications
revi
Bob Hart, City Manager
I Application for Boards and Commissions I
Mayor and City Council
I City of Georgetown I
I P.O. Box 409
I Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 I
I Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about your background, I
I interests, and experiences. Return this application by Friday, January 6,1995 to the address above.
Home phone Work phone j
. I l
I - . � Z -n
dress I
4 -
i
Do you live inside Georgetown City limits? Yes ❑ No I i
(Some boards have residency requirements) I
I Board or Commission for which you are aplying:
I ❑ Airport Advisory ❑ Hospital Authority I
I ❑ Board of Adjustment ❑ Housing Authority I
I ❑Building Standards Commission ❑Library Advisory Board
❑ Convention and Visitor's Bureau ❑ Parks and Recreation Board
I
I ❑ Electric Examiner's Board Planning and Zoning Commission j
I I�r Historic Preservation Commission I j
I
I
I
I;
I
January 6, 1995
Mayor and City Council
City of Georgetown
Gentlemen:
I am very interested in serving my community in a meaningful way.
I am f;tired and have the time to do it. I have always been interested
in government on the national, state, and local levels.
My career was with the Texas National Guard as a full time person.
During these thirty three years, I was responsible for:
1.Providing supervision in administration and personnel matters
in my office and in sub-ordinant offices in other cities
2-Keeping aware of all regulations, changes, etc. and making
decisive recommendations
3-Evaluating performance of employees
I was Command Sergeant Major for the Army National Guard for seven-
teen years. My duties here were:
1. To assist Commander in the welfare of all personnel
2. Supervise SGM's of sub-ordinant units
3. Keep Commander informed on admistration, personnel and training
matters
During my sixteen years as Chief Warrant Office, I acted as personnel
officer. After my National Guard retirement, I went on active duty
for another four years.
In my community I have been a member of the J.C.'s, a charter member
of the Evening Lions, a member of the Church of Christ, and have been
actively involved in both boy scouting and girl scouting, spending one
very dedicated year in helping to build the Girl Scout House on Laurel
Street.
I have three chldren and five grandchildren. I am married to Nelda
Burson, a retired GISD librarian. She presently serves on the City
Library Board.
I am concerned as to how our city grows and developes and the effect
that the growth will have on family life in Georgetown. I would
especially like to be a part of the Historic Preservation Commission
or the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you for the opportunity of introducing myself to you.
R-e.spectfully,
(J Z
Charles W. B�irson
V v
Application for Boards and Commissions i-
Mayor and City Council
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627-0409
Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about your background,
interests, and experiences. Return this application by Friday, January 6,1995 to the address above.
Name Home phone Work phone
��rZ►2Y CF4R1 5-rt_ lE F.3 5�,3 -ZZ lS q7Z-SO1-o
Address
IS0S /4s 577,E-57— G cD)2,6C=-70LJQ ?}C 7`b Z
Do you live inside Georgetown City limits? /9 . Yes ❑ No
(Some boards have residency requirements)
Board or Commission for which you are aplying:
Y Airport Advisory
U Board of Adjustment
2� Building Standards Commission
❑ Convention and Visitor's Bureau
❑ Electric Examiner's Board
❑ Historic Preservation Commission
2 Hospital Authority
21 Housing Authority
2 Library Advisory Board
❑ Parks and Recreation Board
Planning and Zoning Commission
Signature � Date
� c /5
1805 Ash Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
January 5, 1994
Mayor and City Council
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627-0409
Dear Mayor Wood and Council Members:
I would like to be considered for a Board or Commission assignment.. I would be willing to
serve on any of the ones I checked on the form, although the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Board of Adjustment would be my first choices. But I'll let you decide where I could be
most useful. I have attached a resume to give you some information about my background.
Thank you for considering my application, and thank you for your efforts on behalf of our city.
Sincerely,
Terry J. Christlieb
TERRY J. CHRISTLIEB
1805 Ash Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Phone: (512) 863-2218
Family
Married to Kristine Christlieb, Director of Planned Giving and Special Gifts at Southwestern
University.
Education
The University of Texas School of Law, J.D., May 1994; licensed in Texas, November 1994
Syracuse University, Ph.D. in philosophy, 1988.
University of Nebraska -Lincoln, M.A. in philosophy, 1983.
Harding University, B.A. in religion (magna cum laude), 1975.
Employment
Law Offices of Larry Laden, Austin, Texas, Attorney, present.
Pluymen & Ivy, Austin, Texas, Law Clerk, January -June 1994. h
Phillips & Akers, Houston, Texas, Law Clerk, summer 1993.
Funderburk & Funderburk, Houston, Texas, Law Clerk, summer 1993.
Tarkio College, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, 1989-91.
University of Notre Dame, Instructor of Philosophy, 1988-89.
Interim Minister, North Syracuse Christian Church, 1987.
Syracuse University, Instructor of Philosophy and Teaching Assistant, 1983-88.
University of Nebraska, Graduate Teaching Assistant, 1981-83.
Burlington Northern Railroad, Switchman/Brakeman, 1976-1981.
Volunteer or Professional Service Assignments
Student Evaluation and Assessment Committee, Tarkio College, 1990.
Core Curriculum Development Committee, Tarkio College, 1990.
Extension Programs Committee, Tarkio College, 1989.
Steering Committee Chairman, North Syracuse Christian Church, 1986-1987.
College of Arts and Sciences Promotions Committee, Syracuse University, 1984.
President, Philosophy Graduate Students, Syracuse University, 1984.
Deacon, Capitol City Christian Church, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1981-1983.
Board Member, College/Career Christian Fellowship, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1982-1983.
President or Committee Chair, College/Career Christian Fellowship, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1978-
1982.
Adult Sunday School Teacher, several churches since 1977.
Organizations and Activities
Texas Law Review; Member, 1992-1994; Articles Editor, 1993-1994.
Intern for Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips of The Supreme Court of Texas, 1993.
Republican Party Precinct Chair and State Convention Alternate Delegate, 1994.
Community Christian Church, Round Rock.
Texas Bar Association.
Christian Legal Society.
American Philosophical Association.
Society of Christian Philosophers.
Publications
"Why Superseding Cause Analysis Should Be Abandoned," in Texas Law Review, Vol.
721, No. 11 1993.
Review of Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy, in Faith and
Philosophy, 1993.
"Which Theisms Face an Evidential Problem of Evil?" in Faith and Philosophy, 1992.
Review of A Prayer for Owen Meany, in Christianity Today, 1989.
Review of Ethics, Faith, and Reason, in Faith and Philosophy, 1988.
Review of The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, in Nous, 1987.
"Coherence and Truth: BonJour's Metajustification," in The Southern Journal of
Philosophy, 1986.
Awards
Endowed Presidential Scholarship, The.University of Texas School of Law, 1993-94.
Academic Scholarship Awards at The University of Texas School of Law, Syracuse
University, the University of Nebraska, and Harding University.
Invited Participant, American Philosophical Association Teaching Workshop, 1990.
Post -Doctoral Fellowship, University of Notre Dame, 1988-89.
Invited Participant, IFACS Conference on Religion and Ethics, 1984.
References
Available upon request.
oU-v
I Application for Boards and Commissions"
I Mayor and City Council
I City of Georgetown I
I 1�. P.O. Box 409
I I
I Georgetown, TX 78627-0409 I
I Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about our back round I
I interests, and experiences. Return this a lication b Frida y g . I
I PP y y, January 6,1995 to the address above. I
JE.
I P Work phone jI4.
Name Home hone I
a .'
I Address
i I ��� IDo you live inside Georgetown City limits? C�Yes ❑ No x
1.
(Some boards have residency requirements)
I Board or Commission for which you are aplying:
❑ Airport Advisory
❑ Hosnital
Scott Allen Griscorn
805 Garden Meadow
Georgetown, TX 78628
PERSONAL DATA Social Security Number: 460-15-1188
Birth date: January 13, 1969
Delaware Indian Tribe Registration Number: 20409
Texas Driver's License Number: 12550743
Marital Status: Married
EDUCATION Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. Degree earned: Bachelor of Arts. 5/91
Major: Political Science Minor: German
All required Texas board of Tax Professional Examiners courses.
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice course; Lincoln Graduate Center
CERTIFICATION Texas Board of Tax Professional Examiners Registration No: 67335-0
Registered Professional Appraiser designation as of 12/14/94.
(successful completion of RPA level 4 exam 11/01/93)
WORK EXPERIENCE Appraiser, Travis Central Appraisal District 6/7/91 to present, supervisor: Mike Amezquita
- Responsible for Commercial, Residential, and Vacant Land Valuation.
-Personally responsible for the valuation an maintenance of properties worth in
excess of $4, 000, 000,000.
- Measurement and classification of Commercial and Residential improvements.
- Daily interface with taxpayers concerned with valuation and procedures.
- Chairman of Performance Standards Committee.
- Instrumental in development of a Direct Capitalization system on main database.
- Responsible for valuation of many special use properties.
- Responsible for handling ARB hearings including all property types throughout
Travis County.
- Responsible for training data collection field staff.
Senior Residence Assistant, Southwestern University school term '90 and '91,
supervisor: Dave Newell
- Supervised a staff of 10 Student Advisors in residence halls.
- Assisted in the day to day operation of Ruter Hall Men's Dormitory.
- Provided educational and social programs for residents.
- Liaison between students and administration.
Clerk, Harris County Attorney's Office summers'89 and '90, supervisor: Ryna Francis
- In charge of mail room.
- Filed documents with various courts of law.
- In charge of case files and file room.
- Established a new filing system and inventory for the office.
CIVIC AND EXTRA -CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
Member of Texas Association of Assessing Officers.
member of Phi Delta Ti it2t'd i=1cutftI11ty.
Student Lobbyist at State Capiftl 1991.
Student Representative to the University Athletic Committee.
German / American Partnership Program participant.
*References available upon request.*
Application for Boards and Commissions
Mayor and City Council
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627-0409
riome rnone
Do you live inside Georgetown City limits? Yes
(Some boards have residency requirements)
Board or Commission for which you are. applying:
+gna
❑ Airport Advisory Board
❑ Board of Adjustment
❑ Building Standards Commission
❑ Convention and Visitor's Bureau
❑ Electric Examiner's Board
❑ Historic Preservation Commission
.j
t
vvonc rnone
�16 9-'1� 17v
❑ No
❑ Hospital Authority
❑ Housing Authority
❑ Library Advisory Board
❑ Parks and Recreation Board
,YPlanning and Zoning Commission
❑ Williamson County and Cities Health
District
to
/- 16, - ��
Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about your
background, interest, and experiences. Return this application to the address above by
January 6, 1995.
Application for Boards and Commissions
City of Georgetown
P.O. Box 409
Georgetown, TX 78627-0409
Name Home Phone Work Phone
CLARE EASLEY MASHBURN 930-3934 480-0848
Address
912 FOREST, GEORGETOWN 78626
Do you !ive inside Georgetown City limits? XXYes
(Some boards have residency requirements)
Board or Commission for which you are applying:
❑ Airport Advisory Board
❑ Board of Adjustment
❑ Building Standards Commission
❑ Convention and Visitor's Bureau
❑ Electric Examiner's Board
❑ Historic Preservation Commission
❑ No
❑ Hospital Authority
❑ Housing Authority
❑ Library Advisory Board
❑ Parks and Recreation Board
xX Planning and Zoning Commission
❑ Williamson County and Cities Health
District
Signature > Date
�!'f rlz10./4/95
Please attach a cover letter or resume which tells the Mayor and City Council about your
background, interest, and experiences.
RECEIVED
0CT 6 1995
Clare Easley Mashburn
912 Forest
Georgetown TX 78626
October 4, 1995
TO: Mayor Wood, Members of the City Council
RE: Application for Boards and Commissions
ABBREVIATED RESUME
I have been a real estate broker in the Georgetown area since 1978
I owned CLARE MASHBURN COMPANY and was a partner in GT KEY PROPERTIES
I own and operate CLAIBOURNE HOUSE B&B
I have restored 6 historic homes in GT
I served 2 terms on the GISD Board of Trustees
I served as president of GHS, PFA, Tri Delta Alums; as vestry member at Grace Church and
All Saints in Austin; and on many committees and boards of the City of Georgetown.
I am intensely interested in how Georgetown will develop and grow in the immediate
future.
I have also been a victim of "no quorum" committees and commit to attending meetings
regularly.
Council meeting date: 10-24-95 Item No. AA
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT
Consider appointment of a representative to the Capital Area Planning Council (CAPCO)
ITEM SUNfMARY
Councilmember Bonner served as Georgetown's representative to CA.PCO since his election in 1989. This
item is being placed on the agenda for your consideration. CAPCO makes a number of appointments to
regional planning efforts, including law enforcement training, solid waste, and other state -mandated
regional planning efforts.
The representative to CAPCO must be an elected official from the governing body.
ATTACHMENTS
None
bmitted
Bob Hart, City Manager
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the annexation of an approximately 300.6 acre portion of the Sun
City Georgetown Planned Unit Development, Phase 2, located in the W.G. Wilkinson, George
Thompson, Abner Short, R.T. Jenkins, Mary Ann Lewis and Daniel Monroe Surveys.
ITEM SUMMARY: The Del Webb Corporation has requested voluntary annexation of a portion
of Phase 2 of the Sun City Georgetown project. The annexation area will include proposed
single family residential and commercial development, including the proposed Scott and White
medical facility.
This is the second of two (2) public hearings required by State law before initiation of annexation
can begin. The purpose of the public hearings is to describe and receive comments on the City's
plans for providing services to the annexation areas. The service plans for the areas to be
annexed are attached. State law requires that the proposed service plan be explained at the public
hearing. While it may be amended as a result of the public hearings, the provision of any service
may not be deleted.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None
FINANCIAL EWPACT: The City has a development agreement with the Del Webb Corporation
for Sun City Georgetown.
COMMENTS: On October 10, 1995, the City Council passed a resolution to adopt the proposed
service plans and set the public hearing dates for the annexation of these two properties.
ATTACHMENTS: Map and proposed service plan for areas to be annexed.
Submitted By:
-�c �1/ �
Edward J. at, AICP - Di
Division Development VC
Clyde von Rosenberg, AI
Chief Planner, Long Range Tanning
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN
SUN CITY GEORGETOWN - 300.6 ACRE PORTION OF PHASE 2
Introduction
This service plan has been prepared in accordance with Texas Local Government Code,
Chapter 43 - Municipal Annexation. This requires that the service plan provide for the extension
of full municipal services to the area to be annexed by any of the methods by which it extends
services to any other area of the municipality.
Police Protection
Regular and routine patrolling of streets, responses to calls, and other police services will be
provided upon the effective date of the annexation.
Fire Protection and Code Enforcement
Fire protection and prevention services are currently being provided to the area through an
agreement with Williamson County. These services will continue to be provided to the area upon
the effective date of the annexation. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the City Code
Enforcement Officer will periodically patrol streets in the area to ensure that all properties are
in conformance with City Code.
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection and disposal services will be provided upon the effective date of the
annexation, in accordance with, the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code.
Water Service
Water service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development
agreement with the City of Georgetown.
Sewer Service
Wastewater service will be provided to the annexation area through the terms of a development
agreement with the City of Georgetown.
Maintenance of Roads, Streets, and Drainage
Roads, streets and drainage facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City
Code and policy upon the effective date of the annexation.
Street Lighting
Street lighting will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, upon request of
the property owners, in accordance with City Code and policy.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 1 of 2
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation facilities dedicated to the public will be maintained according to City Code
and policy upon the effective date of the annexation. Recreation services will be provided to all
residents in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions contained in the City Code.
Planning and Zoning
Upon the effective date of the annexation, the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City will
extend to this area. The area will be zoned according to the uses described in the Sun City
Georgetown Revised Concept Plan (Second), as approved through regular procedures.
Inspection Services
All inspection services, including building, electrical, plumbing, etc., provided by the City will
be extended to the area upon the effective date of the annexation.
Library Services
Library services will be provided to all residents in accordance with the rates, terms, and
conditions contained in the City Code upon the effective date of the annexation.
Other Services
Other services provided by the City, such as animal control, court, and general administration,
will be made available upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with the City
Code and policies.
Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy
City Ordinance Number 900404, a Utility Expansion and Improvement Policy, guides the
planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of all utility system improvements,
including water, wastewater and electrical service.
Annexation Service Plan, Page 2 of 2
Council meeting October 24, 1995 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on proposed impact fees.
cc
ITEM SUMMARY: The second step in the adoption of impact fees for Georgetown, requires
the completion of a water and wastewater impact fee report. This study was completed by our
consultant in July with the assistance of the City's outside engineering consultant. The report
analyzes the type and level of improvements necessary to accommodate Georgetown's anticipated
growth over the next ten (10) years. These improvements have been costed out and allocated
on a per unit basis to the expected development. This result is in the level of impact fees that
can be charged.
The Impact Fee Advisory Committee has met on several occasions to review this report
and prepare recommendations as to the adoption of fees and their implementation. The Public
Hearing will allow the City Council to receive public comments regarding the adoption and
implementation of impact fees. Staff and committee members will be in attendance to provide
information concerning this issue.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
COMMENTS: None.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
Submitted Bv:
Edward J 6rry, AICP -
Division f Developments
Pirector
Services