Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 04.28.2015
Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas April 28, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on April 28, 2015 at 6:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation for National Day of Prayer - Proclamation for Community Wildfire Protection Plan City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Election for City Council Seat for District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Early Voting - City Accepting Applications for Community Services Grant Funding - Class Registration for Aquatics Action from Executive Session Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 1 of 516 C Consideration and possible action to appoint Mary Faith Sterk as the City of Georgetown's representative on the Williamson County and Cities Health District Board -- Mayor Dale Ross D Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of various surplus and abandoned equipment and vehicles to be disposed of using online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville, Texas -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Legislative Regular Agenda E Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance amending portions of the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Andreina Ddvila-Quintero, Project Coordinator and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) F Consideration and possible action to approve an Agreement regarding Release of the Lively Tract from the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Water CCN between the City of Leander, Chisholm Trail Special Utility District, and the City of Georgetown -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director G Consideration and possible action to approve an Agreement between the City of Georgetown, the City of Leander, Sentinel Land Company, LLC and the Donald H. Lively Family Partnership to Release approximately 50 acres of land in Georgetown's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to the City of Leander -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney H Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to execute an Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement with Sentinel Land Company, LLC (Texas) and the West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2 for the Lively Tract -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director I Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander for service to the Lively Tract -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director J Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a Temporary Wholesale Water Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander for service to the Lively Tract -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director K Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve the Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11- 001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $88,500.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director L Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CPY-15-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction plans, specifications and estimate for the Mays Street Extension from Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road in the amount of $464,330.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director M Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTAB and GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve the Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11- 001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $350,500.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Page 2 of 516 Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director N Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action on the development agreement with 500 South Austin Avenue LLP -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney O First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Code of Ordinances relating to Compensation or Expense Reimbursement for the Mayor and Councilmembers -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required) P Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Second Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2015/16 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Q Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to increased operation and capital costs, including the addition of six (6) new positions for the Emergency Response Program -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) R Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution in support of national action on the misuse of antibiotics -- Rachael Jonrowe, District 6 Councilmember Project Updates S Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property; 2015/16 Annual Budget Update; 2015 Bond Issue Update; EMS Transition Update; Planning Department Annual Report; Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. T - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda 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. U Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Development Agreement with 500 South Austin Ave., LLP - Meet and Confer Update - Albertson's Property - Status of Pending Litigation Matters Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of Page 3 of 516 the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2015, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 4 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Proclamation for National Day of Prayer - Proclamation for Community Wildfire Protection Plan City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Election for City Council Seat for District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Early Voting - City Accepting Applications for Community Services Grant Funding - Class Registration for Aquatics Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Page 5 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: April 14, 2015 DRAFT Workshop Minutes April 14, 2015 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes LSTAR Report- April 14, 2015- March Activities Page 6 of 516 Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 14, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8" Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A Review and direction regarding the lease for Grace Heritage Church to the Georgetown Heritage Society -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Preservation Officer; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Mayor called the meeting to order at 3PM. Brainard absent. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Synatschk reviewed the Operating Plan with Grace Heritage Church, which is up for renewal. He reviewed the site improvements and said currently, the church is in need of exterior and structural work. He described those needs for the Council. He said the City is currently contracting with ArchiTexas to complete a structural assessment and develop a rehabilitation plan. He said the cost of the rehab is estimated at $250,000. He said staff intends to include the project in the upcoming CIP. Hammerlun asked and Synatschk said the estimate for the rehab is a year and a half old. Hammerlun said he is thinking the cost might be more. Synatschk summarized the history of the Grace Heritage Church lease agreements with the Georgetown Heritage Society. He said the current lease expires this year and the Heritage Society could ask for a renewal. He reviewed the current lease requirements for the 2005 lease and said staff is asking direction on how to move forward with this lease. Fought asked if there is an option to privatize the building. Synatsck said the city will continue to own the building. Fought asked and Synatschk described the review and approval process for the improvements to the church. Fought asked and Synatschk said there is no income coming in for the City. Fought asked if there is anything wrong with the agreement as it stands now. He said he would prefer not to operate this on a city budget but said he is nowhere near giving this to someone else. Mayor said he would like to have measurables in the agreement moving forward. Mayor said he is in support of this and said the Heritage Society does great work throughout the city. Gonzalez said, if the city looks at what Georgetown Heritage Society does on a regular basis, the return on investment would be obvious. Hesser asked and Syntaschk Heritage Society currently has about 300 members. Hammerlun asked about the timeline for the professional assessment of the structure. Syntaschk said the city should have the assessment this summer so that it can be put in the budget for next year. Syntaschk spoke about some other funding options. There were a few questions about the timeline for this project. B Review of the City's Fiscal & Budgetary Policy and discussion of possible amendments for 2015/16 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer With a Powerpoint Presentation, Zavala reviewed the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the Council. She reviewed the agenda to be discussed today. She gave Council a historical overview of the policy. She spoke about policy compliance and said sustainable funding sources must fun ongoing expenses. She said the policy's purpose is to provide financial discipline. She said the policy also outlines the operating budget preparation and links to the 2030 plan. She said it requires quarterly reports to Council. She said it determines the appropriate uses for the unanticipated and unappropriated general fund balances. She said it also outlines revenue management by defining sustainable revenue. She said another recommendation included in the document is to further clarify the internal cost recovery. She described this for the Council. She said the document also details the purchasing policy. She said it discusses a budget contingency plan and outlines the use of the contingency reserves and how to replenish them if the city uses them. She said it speaks about the capital improvement program. Brainard asked about the City Manager contingency account and well as the long term liabilities section. He expressed his opinions on both of these issues. He said the long term liabilities section is a tremendous addition. Page 7 of 516 C Council Compensation Committee Report — Patty Eason, Councilmember District 1 and Jerry Hammerlun, Councilmember District 5 Mayor gave a brief background of this item for the audience. Mayor thanked Brettle for her hard work. Hammerlun said the process worked well and the meetings were very productive. He briefly reviewed the discussion that was held in the three meetings. He said it is imperative to have quality Council members sit up on the dais on a regular basis. He noted the first meeting spoke about the reality of the experience of being a Council member. Hammerlun spoke about some of the information the committee reviewed when determining the appropriate compensation amount. He said, during the committee's second meeting, the idea of paying per official meeting attended option came up. He noted the committee decided to meet one more time. He noted the compensation committee got back to the point that they were convinced that a single lump sum amount per month was the best route to take. He said, after much discussion, they came to the conclusion that $1,100 a month for the Mayor and $800 a month for Council was a fair salary amount. He noted the final vote on that motion was 6-1. Gonzalez asked and Hammerlun said the dissenting vote was Johnston. Hammerlun said Johnston voted against the motion because he viewed it as a public service and he was never paid when he was on City Council. Fought said they agree it is public service and you are not sitting on Council to get rich but there are a couple of issue to protect, including diversity on the Council. Fought said his expenses are not as much as people with babysitting or other expenses. He said he is on the low end of financial commitment. He said he wishes it could be more, but the burden of submitting receipts could be cumbersome and subjects a member to being questioned. Jonrowe thanked everyone on the committee for their hard work. She offered a few thoughts. She said she agrees that the $800 goes some way toward making people whole. She shared her list for March meetings and events she attended for that month. She suggested that the Council be paid the $1,100 a month amount to get back to where the city was in terms of reimbursement for the members' time. She said she thinks that figure would come closer to making the time on Council more feasible for people. Gonzalez said the Council should know this is not about financial gain but noted it is important to make sure the Council has a chance for diversity. He said he accepts what the committee has done and he feels the diversity issue is the primary focus. Eason said both she and Hammerlun were pushing the diversity issue. She said she thinks what the Council learned is by putting two Council members the committee gets a true look at what a City of Georgetown City Council does and how it is unique throughout Texas. She said this is a fairly new concept around the state and there is not a standard measurement for what to pay a Council member. Brainard thanked the Committee, Eason and Hammerlun. Brainard asked and Hammerlun said this change will go into effect June 1 st. Mayor listed the members of the committee and thanked all of them for their work. There were many comments. D Review and direction regarding the facilities plan for fiscal year 2015-2016 -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Brewer reviewed the facilities plan for the Council. She said the facilities plan is part of the budget process and she reviewed the agenda for the presentation. She gave a brief background of the facilities plan. She spoke about some of the renovations and projects that have recently been completed under the plan. She reviewed the current projects under the plan, including the Grace Heritage Church Center, the GUS Westwide Service Center and the Downtown West Civic Center. She spoke about the Downtown West Civic Center project and the status of that project. She showed Council a map of where the Civic Center would be located. She said the city worked with Winter and Company during the Downtown Master Plan for a feasibility study and Ron Hobbs for an independent architectural assessment. She said Option B for the development of the Center was what was approved and added to the CIP. She spoke about the schedule for the projects under this option for the Civic Center. Brainard asked and Brewer said the completion dates for the first phases of the plan are pretty solid. Brainard asked and Brewer said the GCAT redesign and City Hall renovation would be completed in 2016. She reviewed the Phase 1 costs for the Civic Center. Jonrowe asked and Brewer said the programming phase would take 30-60 days and then they will come in to talk to Council about the final plan for the Center. She said Option B that was approved delays the construction at the Power and Light Building to accommodate future growth and needs. She said the current option for that building is to move Planning, Economic Development, Public Information, Housing and Main Street to this facility. She said it would be $115,000 to $150,000 to do that. She said doing that would delay the future phases for an expanded City Hall quite a bit. Eason asked and Brewer said the second phase is to move the visitor center to Council Chambers in 2016. She said this would keep the visitor center on the square. She said the other appealing thing is that the building has accessible restrooms. She spoke about Phase III of the plan in great detail. Brainard spoke about how turning the Shotgun House into a Museum on the History of African Americans in Georgetown would be a regional draw. Brewer spoke about the plan for City Hall and said they hope t sell the City Hall/Old Post Office in 2017 for between $1 million and $2 million. There was much discussion regarding future plans for other city facilities, including fire stations, the animal shelter, library branches and the Tennis Center. Brewer reviewed the next steps for the process. She said she would like to get feedback and support for current plan before moving forward. Brainard said he thinks it is great and a lot of thought has gone into it. He said, in general. it is great and he hopes staff will continue in this direction. Hammerlun agreed and said he thinks it make sense to incorporate the process for moving the other departments into the old police department building. He recommended that Council Page 8 of 516 utilize the construction manager- at -risk process for the short term and they need to be engaged now sooner rather than later. He said the city needs to continue to talk about Williams Drive pool and the reality of where it sits and the safety issues there. Gonzalez thanked staff for their hard work and said it might be good to consider public -private partnerships and the possibility of putting some of these properties back on the tax roll. E Discussion and Possible Direction to Staff on Street Network Connectivity Policies -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Maddox spoke about the public street system connectivity requirements. He read a related section from Chapter 12 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). He showed Council a map of the interconnected network downtown and how it compares to other areas in the city. He showed a disjointed network and how this will turn into a problem around DB Wood and Williams Drive as that area is moving toward a commercial center. He spoke about some bad examples of connectivity include Majestic Oaks, Sun City, Northwest Boulevard. He summarized how past decisions have caused connectivity issues in these areas. There was much discussion about these areas. Fought said the purpose of all of this is to build a great community, not to move traffic. He spoke about the importance of protecting the integrity of a community while moving traffic. He said Sun City is a senior golf cart community and it would not do well without the character of the ways in and out. He said the way you get out of Sun City is through major boulevards. He spoke about how Sun City was developed to allow for safe use of golf carts in the community. He spoke about the importance of the Williams Drive and DB Wood intersection and how the traffic in that area will change over time. Maddox agreed with Fought and said there are multiple reasons for connectivity. Maddox showed Council a map of the connectivity in practice. He described how connectivity should ideally work throughout the community. He spoke about the impact of connectivity to the fiscal health of service response and the transportation network. He spoke about how a street network should function. He reviewed the street standards for Council. He spoke in detail about how fire and police routes and safety standards are considered when building connectivity and street networks. He reviewed the UDC standards for connectivity and the amount of access points required for different types of development. Fought spoke about how it is important to not give the right perception for what was originally requested by Sun City in terms of connections. Maddox described the formula that is currently used to determine connections and how it would relate to Sun City. Gonzalez spoke about how it is important to consider the rate of growth in the community. He noted staff and Council need to go back and analyze the current communities and see if any connections should be added. He said some connections made years ago should be re-examined. He noted it is important to prepare for future growth patterns when developing new communities. He said it is important to get ahead of the curve. Maddox spoke about how planning addresses connectivity and all of the timing issues that are involved. Chapman spoke about the relationship with the County when working on some of these issues. Maddox spoke about how the city will have to work with the County on connectivity issues and fire code regulations. Gonzalez spoke about the importance of communicating and partnering with the County on connectivity issues and their transportation plan as well. Maddox agreed and said the city's interest do align with the County. Maddox spoke about the possibility is out there that the city may have to add street connections that do not exist for fire and EMS response. He said the other option is to build new facilities. He said staff is seeking direction from Council on how to move forward with these issues including new street designs, safety standards and the transportation network. He spoke about an exemption process and considering all elements if a development enters this process. He said staff would like to increase the amount of connection points and then allow for the exemption process. Gonzalez said Council should consider having a super majority vote for any issues related to this exemption process. Mayor said that would be a charter and state law process. Maddox said staff has thought about imposing more qualifications that need to be met. Fought said he is hesitant about developing a formula for an issue as complex as connectivity. Hesser spoke about how people in Sun City sometimes do not understand that the City is trying to remove their "island" nature and golf cart community. He said safety is also one of the bigger issues on this as well. Eason spoke about the history of the development of Sun City and how Del Webb came with their plan to make money and build houses. She said they wanted as few infrastructure costs as possible back then. She summarized the connectivity issue in Sun City and what has transpired in the past. She spoke about how Council fought to have five connections, but it lost by a 4 to 3 vote. She said she likes the idea of a formula so that a similar situation does not occur. She noted it is not staff's fault that this happened. Maddox said staff is looking for a lot more flexibility to consider the uniqueness of each development independently from others. Fought said he thinks staff should have the ability to make exceptions to the formula that is created. Maddox described some timing issues with these types of requests. Jonrowe spoke about pedestrian connections and how those should be considered as well. There was much discussion about this issue. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.071 and 551.074 of the Local Government Code — 5:15PM 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. F Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Page 9 of 516 Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items EMS Contract Discussion Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property -Inner Peace Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Interim City Manager Compensation Adjournment — Meeting returned to Open Session and was adjourned at 6:000 Page 10 of 516 Notice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 14, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 71h St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order —Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:OOpm Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Presentation of Proclamation in honor of National Bookmobile Day - Garey Park Garey addressed the Council and the audience about his future intentions and plans for Garey Park. City Council Regional Board Reports Announcements - Red Poppy Festival April 24th to April 26th - Election for City Council seat for District 5 will be held May 9, 2015 - Road Bond Election - Georgetown Green Energy Promotional Video Action from Executive Session Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eason to authorize the Interim City Manager to provide notice to Williamson County and other emergency service organizations of the city's intention to withdraw from and not renew the city's participation in the agreement between Williamson County, Texas and the other Williamson County emergency service organizations, effective October 1, 2015. Approved 7-0 Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hammerlun to approve Mutual Aid Agreements for emergency medical services on the terms discussed in Executive Session and to authorize a Mutual Aid Agreement for emergency medical on such terms with Williamson County, American Medical Response of Texas, Inc and Acadian Ambulance Service of Texas, LLC and to authorize execution of the agreements by the Interim City Manager. Approved 7-0 Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eason to increase Jim Briggs' salary as General Manager of Utilities to $180,000, effective May 4, 2015. Approved 7-0 Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 11 of 516 C Consideration and possible action to appoint members of the Georgetown City Council as alternates for Mayor Ross on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board — Mayor Dale Ross D Consideration and possible action to authorize the application to FEMA for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant for the amount of $33,720 with the goal to improve firefighter health and safety through Fire Prevention activities — John Sullivan, Fire Chief E Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase to Zeno Imaging in the amount of $58,205.71 for Printer Maintenance and Supplies Services -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager and Mike Peters, Information Technology Director Motion by Eason, second by Fought to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0 Legislative Regular Agenda F Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of two Dodge 4500-Diesel Transitional Response Vehicles (TRV's) through a Buy -Board contract. Cost not to exceed $320,000 for two ($160,000 each) -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief Sullivan described the item and asked that Council approve the purchase of the two TRVs. He said these vehicles are coming in well under budget. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Jonrowe to approve the pruchase. Approved 7-0 G Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order BGE-15-001 with Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. of Austin, TX for professional engineering services related to design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the widening and reconstruction of Airport Road from Lakeway Drive to Aviation Drive, inclusive of intersection improvements at Lakeway Drive and 135 southbound frontage road improvements in the amount of $485,700.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Polasek described the item for Council. Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve the contract. Approved 7-0 H Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): First Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2015/16 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Zavala described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Brainard, second by Gonzalez to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0 Speaker, Terry Putnam, spoke about the Ordinance and expressed his opinion on the policy. I First Reading of an ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to increased operational and capital costs, including the addition of six (6) new positions for the Emergency Response Program; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) Zavala described the item and reviewed the history of this issue for the Council. She summarized what would be included in this budget amendment. She said this is related to the implementation of the new Emergency Response Program. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Brainard, second by Eason to approve. Approved 7-0 Page 12 of 516 J Consideration and possible direction to staff regarding changes to the City Council's compensation -- Patty Eason, Councilmember District 1 and Jerry Hammerlun, Councilmember District 5, Co -Chairs of the Council Compensation Committee Hammerlun reviewed the related discussion that was held during the Workshop session earlier in the day. He summarized the recommendation from the Council Compensation Committee. Motion by Hammerlun, second by Eason to approve a monthly salary of $800 for Council and $1,100 for Mayor. Approved 7-0 K Consideration and possible action to temporarily restrict vehicular traffic at the intersection of West Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane in the Sun City Subdivision -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager, Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director and Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Briggs summarized the discussion that has been held on this issue over the course of the past year. He spoke about the meetings that have been held with the community stakeholders. He described the various options available to address the traffic in the area. Polasek reviewed the proposed recommendations from staff and the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). He summarized the issues that were discussed with the community. He said, in the end, both sides agreed to a method of temporary closure once the connection to Rocky Hollow Trail is opened for about 60-90 days. He said, after that time period, they would reopen the road and perform another traffic study for further consideration. Speakers Keith Cambron, David Baker, Donna Betts, Cheryl Thompson, Kurt Schaller, Don Scott, Liza Dominguez, Brian Robinson, Madison Mann, Nabiha Driscoll, Pamela Friedman, Linda Schaffer, Ben Butler, Debra Stransky and Mike Hausman gave their opinions on this subject. For a complete video of these comments, please visit the city website at www.georgetown.org. Motion by Hesser, second by Fought to accept the recommendation by staff. Hesser thanked Briggs and his staff for coming to a conclusion on this issue. Fought thanked everyone involved and said this is a serious issue. He said he wishes this was a situation that had never occurred or had been resolved a while ago. He spoke about County's involvement and how the County determined they could not do anything on legal basis. He spoke about safety and the width of the road and whether a Public Improvement District had ever been considered. Chapman said the option of a PID is possible in the County. She said they would not have to be annexed. Fought asked and Polasek said police and fire would have to stop and remove the barricades in order to use the road. Fought said he would like for staff and the residents to look into the option of a PID. He also mentioned that he would like the barricade to be one where emergency vehicles could get through without causing delay. Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to amend the motion that the method of barricade has to be such that emergency vehicles can transit. Eason said she thinks it is essential to have a barricade that would not delay public safety vehicles. Fought reviewed the recommendation from staff. Brainard asked and Polasek spoke about the feasibility of that type of structure. Polasek described how this would work. Vote on amendment: Approved 7-0 Jonrowe asked and the Sun City Council representatives summarized the feedback they have received on this issue. Hesser said this is a safety issue and that is what this should be based on. Hammerlun said he drives on a street that is within the city that is no more unsafe or safer than the Majestic Oaks situation. He said the Council needs to know how many similar situations exist throughout the city. He said safety is always paramount but the city needs to look at all the issues. Gonzalez asked about the direction of traffic and the counts leaving and going in to Sun City. Maddox said there was some amount of traffic going into Sun City from Woodland Park. Polasek said 33 trips in the morning peak time were leaving Woodland Park and going into Sun City. Brainard asked and Briggs said the closure would not occur until after the Rocky Hollow Trail connect is made. Eason said the improvements to the street are not the problem. She said it is the fact that they feed into streets that are built for less volume. Jonrowe spoke about why she is voting against this motion. There was much discussion from Council. Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved 5-2 (Brainard, Jonrowe opposed) Meeting recessed at 8:OOPM Meeting returned to session at 8:07PM Page 13 of 516 Project Updates L - Project Updates from the Interim City Manager Briggs reviewed the information that was provided under the Project Updates. He said an update on the EMS program will be included in this item moving forward. He described a recent bill at the legislature that will affect the city directly. Hesser asked and Briggs said the bill would not affect the city's 100% renewable energy effort. Brainard asked if they could craft the bill so it would affect only municipally owned utilities of a certain size. Brainard said he would be happy to go and speak with Mr. Schwertner if need be. Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. M - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. N Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items EMS Contract Discussion Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Inner Piece Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Interim City Manager Compensation The meeting was adjourned at 8:14PM Page 14 of 516 LONE STAR RAIL DISTRICT Lone Star Rail District's (LSRD) report on activities in March 2015 follows. Lone Star Regional Rail Project (LSRRP): 1. The Burns & McDonnell Public Involvement Team (lead by Hahn Public Communications, with assistance by KGBTexas, Cultural Strategies, and Aguillon & Associates) briefed the LSRD Board on March 6 on the preliminary results of the public comments submitted during the scoping phase of the LSRRP. The public comment period ended February 27 and the team continues to categorize the comments, but the most prevalent topics were station locations and impacts, connectivity, and the freight rail relocation route. The online survey results identified the issues of greatest concern are traffic congestion and growth, and the lack of access to other travel modes. The survey also indicated that most people who travel the corridor are traveling for entertainment or to visit family and friends, followed closely by work trips and shopping trips. The key issues that concern them most are quality of life and travel time. The PI Team's assessment of the first phase of the public outreach effort is that there was relatively good attendance at the public meetings (586 people attended the six meetings) and the online tools performed well: feedback was collected from more than 950 stakeholders, which included 726 online surveys, 56 comments from the online virtual open house, and 132 website comments. But the PI Team noted they want to hear from more people and from a broader spectrum of stakeholders. The next phase of public outreach will be in late summer or early fall of 2015 when the Rail District presents the alternatives to be studied in the environmental impact statement (EIS). The PI Team is expecting more intense scrutiny as freight rail routes and passenger rail station locations are shown on the maps; additionally, they will continue online efforts and proactively reach out to potentially affected areas and interest groups. 2. Leadership and staff held a meeting on March 5 with Spartan Solutions to discuss public -private partnership (133) concepts, funding, and financing issues. The March meeting followed up on a prior meeting held in October 2014. The Spartan Solutions team shared its experience on different P3 models and the risks associated with each model, P3 considerations and success factors, and a step- by-step procurement process. 3. LSRD leadership and staff continue to meet with elected officials, senior staff, and civic organizations in the cities and counties along the proposed freight rail relocation corridor. The purpose of the small -group meetings is to supplement the formal outreach effort and recent public meetings to ensure stakeholders are fully informed of the LSRRP. 4. Staff continues to work with LSRD's local jurisdictions to develop funding agreements for annual operations -and -maintenance (O&M) costs of the LSTAR passenger service. An interlocal agreement (IA) with Georgetown is in final negotiations. Staff is also meeting with the cities of San Antonio, Schertz, and New Braunfels to begin developing their IAs. The executed IAs with the cities of San Marcos and Austin provide a template this is being used with the other member jurisdictions. Lone Star Rail District Board: The LSRD Board of Directors met on March 6. Action and/or discussion items included the following: 1. The Board unanimously reelected Sid Covington as Board Chairman and Tullos Wells as Board Vice Chairman. 2. The Board appointed two new members to the Board Executive Committee: Board Member Beverly Silas, who represents Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Board Member Dr. Richard Gambitta, who represents VIA Metropolitan Transit. 3. The Board authorized LSRD Executive Director Ross Milloy to enter into a contract for federal legislative assistance, and approved an amendment to the Jacobs Engineering contract that will Page 15 of 516 allow the local funding team to continue its work in securing interlocal funding agreements for the future O&M costs of the LSTAR passenger rail service. 4. The Board heard reports on the San Antonio Mayor's Forum hosted by LSRD and the Austin -San Antonio Corridor Council on February 25, on the annual SA -to -DC trip sponsored by the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce and the San Antonio Mobility Coalition February 2-5, on the preliminary results of the public outreach and engagement during the scoping phase of the LSRRP (see item #1 under LSRRP, above), and on the status of fare policy discussions with colleges and universities. Lone Star Rail District: Stakeholder engagement in March included meeting with Caldwell County Commissioners Moses and Roland (March 9), the South Austin Civic Club (March 10), a joint meeting of the South Austin Neighborhood Alliance and the Onion Creek Neighborhood Association (March 17), Cibolo Economic Development Corporation (March 19), and the VIA public open house for the proposed northeast park- & -ride (March 26). LSRD Rpt.2015 March Activities AMSchulze 04-13-2015 Page 16 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to appoint Mary Faith Sterk as the City of Georgetown's representative on the Williamson County and Cities Health District Board -- Mayor Dale Ross ITEM SUMMARY: This position is vacant due to the resignation of Robert T. Hardy. Section 1.4 of the Cooperative Agreement outlines the qualification requirements for Directors who are appointed to the WCCHD Board: "To be qualified as a director, a person must be a citizen of the United States and must have resided at least three (3) years in the jurisdiction covered by the District. A director shall not be an elected official or employee of the Members or their immediate families, or employees of the District or their immediate families." Ms. Sterk resides in the extra -territorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown and within the jurisdiction covered by the WCCHD. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Resume of Mary Faith Sterk Page 17 of 516 BRIEF RESUME MARY FAITH STERK, LCSW EDUCATION • MSW, Our Lady of the Lake University, Worden's School of Social Work, San Antonio, Texas • BA in Psychology, cum laude, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas • BFA in Theatre, cum laude, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas LICENSURE • Licensed Clinical Social Worker, State of Texas EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS AND CURRENT COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND SERVICE • Williamson County and Cities Health District Board 19 years; County Commissioner's appointment; chair for 12 years. • Chair, Indigent Health Care Advisory Committee to Texas Department of Human Services • Member, Williamson County Mental Health Advisory Board • President, Georgetown Area United Way Board of Directors • Unit Chair, Central Counties Unit, National Association of Social Workers/Texas • Executive Committee Member, NASW/Texas • Committee on Inquiry, NASW/Texas • Co-chair, NASW/Texas Task Force on Health Care • Mid -Tex Red Cross Implementation Team • Family Outreach of East Bell County Board of Directors • Healthy Families/Temple Board of Directors • Richarte High School Site -based committee • Advisory Committee, Central Texas Information and Referral • Georgetown Project Task Force • Board Member and President, Society for Social Work Leadership in Health Care, Texas • Member, Steering Committee, Georgetown Community Clinic • Member of Temple Community Free Clinic Steering Committee • Member, National Association of Social Workers PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (more detail available) CLINICAL LIAISON, GEORGETOWN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INSTITUTE September, 2014 to present DIRECTOR OF DATA, REPORTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2014 PRN SOCIAL WORKER, ST. DAVID'S GEORGETOWN HOSPITAL August 2012 to September 2014 PRN SOCIAL WORKER, ESTRELLA OAKS REHAB GEORGETOWN May 2012 to May, 2013 DIRECTOR OF PATIENT -CENTERED SERVICES, LONE STAR CIRCLE OF CARE April, 2011 to March, 2012 Page 18 of 516 BRIEF RESUME MARY FAITH STERK, LCSW VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, REMINGTON MEDICAL RESORTS June, 2006 to December, 2010 DIRECTOR OF CONTINUUM OF CARE, SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, TEMPLE, TEXAS December 1991 to May 2006 (formerly Department of Social Work) DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WORK AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, WILLIAMSON CO. HEALTH DISTRICT ASSISTANT PROJECT DIRECTOR, HEALTH RISK REDUCTION, WILLIAMSON CO. HEALTH DEPARTMENT OWNER -OPERATOR OF LANDSCAPING COMPANY DIRECTOR, CAPITAL LODGE TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM, AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKER, AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL TEACHING AND PRESENTATIONS: • Previous Adjunct Instructor, Southwestern University Psychology Department, overseeing undergraduate psychology student internships at the Austin State Hospital. • Guest lecturer for Baylor University School of Social Work • Presentations statewide and nationally on integration of service delivery, nurse/social work case management models, integrated eligibility, outcome studies for Medicaid prenatal case management programs, building outcomes accountabilities for social work programs. • Development and on -going presentation of unique 3-day staff orientation program. HONORS AND AWARDS • Valedictorian, Keller High School • Member, Cardinal Key National Honor Society • Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities • National Association of County Health Officials: National Primary Health Care Award • Recipient, Manager of the Quarter, Scott and White Hospital • NASW Central Counties Unit Social Worker of the Year • Citation of Merit, Southwestern University Alumni Association • NASW Central Counties Unit Social Worker of the Year • NASW Central Counties Unit Lifetime Achievement Award Page 19 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of various surplus and abandoned equipment and vehicles to be disposed of using online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville, Texas -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: Various vehicles and equipment (detailed on attachment) has been deemed of no further use by all City departments. Staff recommendation is to declare these items surplus and authorize staff to dispose of through online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville, Texas. Additionally several abandoned vehicles have been confiscated by the Police Department and placed in impound yard. After all required procedures have been completed, State law allows Police Departments to sell abandoned vehicles and the proceeds from the sale are deposited into the abandoned vehicle fund for the purchase of police equipment. The City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances states, in section 4.28 Disposition of Excess Property, that the City Council may declare any City property to be excess, as recommended by the City Manager. The ordinance states that the City Council shall determine the method of disposal of any surplus property. Staff recommends that these items be sold through online auction firm currently under contract with the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All fees from the online auction event will be paid by the buyers — there is no charge to the City. Staff anticipates the income from this auction to be approximately $70,000 for surplus vehicles and equipment and approximately $5000 for abandoned/confiscated. Revenue received from the sale of the vehicles and equipment will be deposited in the Sale of Property, account # 100-4-0001-44-361 and the Abandoned Vehicles Fund, account #273-4-0701-44-235. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: List of Surplus & Abandoned Vehicles & Equipment Page 20 of 516 SURPLUS EQUIPMENT/VEHICLES - Impound Sell List 2015 Spring UNIT STATUS YEAR MAKE MODEL VIN NOTES Last Known Mileage 106-13 IMPOUND YARD 1999 Inter. Digger Truck 1HTSHSDR2XH227091 1999 13070 106-18 IMPOUND YARD 2002 INHT Altec Boom Tip 1HTMKAAR32H517444 2002 39021 106-36 IMPOUND YARD 2002 FORD F250 1FTNF20F72EC58252 TBS 130636 108-09 IMPOUND YARD 2007 FORD F350 1FDSF34P97EB44042 TBS 144627 108-27 IMPOUND YARD 2006 FORD F350 1FDWF34PX6EC11263 142155 108-28 IMPOUND YARD 2006 FORD F350 1FDWF34P16EC19851 TBS 92107 110-04 TO BE SOLD 2004 FORD F350 1FDSF34P74EC12284 SD REG CAB SR SM CRANE 124787 110-06 IMPOUND YARD 2004 FORD F350 1FDSF34P54EC12283 TBS 111784 110-29 AT SHOP 2006 FORD F350 1FDWF34PX6EC19850 SD REG CHASIS CAB 99435 114-24 IMPOUND YARD 2002 FORD F550 1FDAF56F82EB01929 SM BUCKET/DRW 4X2 130126 134-06 IMPOUND YARD 2003 FORD F-150 2FTPF17L43CA51291 2003 F150 83339 134-12 ITO BE SOLD 2001 FORD F250 3FTNX20F111VIA47005 TBS OR REASSIGNED 108025 134-25 IMPOUND YARD 2003 VIBROMAX 265 JKC5306505 SMALL ROLLER 669 hrs 134-26 IMPOUND YARD 2003 VIBROMAX 255 JKC5305804 SMALL ROLLER 520 hrs 134-36 IMPOUND YARD 1999 JOHN DEERE 210 LOADER LE T021OLE854936 LANDSCAPE TRACTOR 3765 266-04 IMPOUND YARD 2005 FORD F250 1FTSF20P75EC07804 TBS 85990 426-03 IMPOUND YARD 1999 FORD E250 VAN 1FTFE24H1THB03103 41628 435-20 ITO BE SOLD 2000 FORD F150 1FTPF17L9YKA84600 97070 736-42 IMPOUND YARD 2006 TORO 5500-D 250000412 REELMOWER 1556 hrs 736-46 IMPOUND YARD 2006 TORO 5500-D 250000414 REELMOWER 1332 hrs 864-008 IMPOUND YARD 2007 FORD CROWN VIC 2FAHP71W07X132123 OUT OF SERVICE 78088 864-020 IMPOUND YARD 2004 FORD CROWN VIC 2FAHP71W04X142226 Bad transmission 71412 864-026 IMPOUND YARD 2005 FORD CROWN VIC 2FAHP71W25X139684 TBS 88986 864-042 1 IMPOUND YARD 2006 FORD ICROWNVIC 2FAHP71W86X123250 moved to retired facility 83554 864-069 IMPOUND YARD 1997 FORD IF150 1FTDX176XVKDO1707 TBS 55589 864-081 IMPOUND YARD 2008 HONDA IST1300PA JH2SC51797M500144 TBS 66577 864-098 IMPOUND YARD 2006 GULFSTREAM 1NLlGTJ2251071603 TBS 864-103 IMPOUND YARD 2004 FORD CROWN VIC 2FAFP71W74X142215 TBS 86625 864-108 AT SHOP 12005 IFORD CROWN VIC 12FAFP71W75X142152 11TBS 1 74650 864-127 IMPOUND YARD 12008 IFORD F150 SUPERCAB JIFTPX12V38FA87071 JTBS OR REASSIGNED 1 95396 925-04 IMPOUND YARD 12001 IFORD CROWN VIC j2FAFP71W31X164630 jTBS 1 63684 VEHICLES Veh. L.P. Year Make Model Color Mil VIN Auct.Rcpt Notified PD # Rcpt # Sale Price Auction -ready Photos CP21`458 1995 MERC 2D WHI 1MiMs2W9SH628356 1543822 5/29/2014 2014039177 6/27/2014 Y BTH9214 1989 MERZ 4D BLK WDBDA29D7KF660440 1543823 6/13/2014 2014043976 7/15/2014 Y J48BDW 2000 CHRY 4D SILV 2C3HD46R5YH387192 1543824 5/27/2014 2014039175 6/25/2014 Y** CZ1X443 2004 CHRY 4D SILV 1C3EL46X04N416023 1543828 7/14/2014 2014052070 8/12/2014 Y BY8R778 / 411596 1994 ACUR SD Grn JH4DC4352RS022122 1543826 7/29/2014 2014055452 8/27/2014 Y 46380C 1971 SEBR BT GrnNVhi Boat HN: 920722 1543840 8/14/2014 11891 9/15/2014 Y 581368H 1992 HMDE TL Org n/a 1543830 9/22/2014 12269 10/21/2014 Y W89KTH / DC6N663 1995 BUIC SW Whi 1G4AG85M6S6417306 1543832 9/26/2014 12303 10/27/2014 y CLX8999 2000 DAEW 4D Mar KLAJB52Z5YK515591 1543833 9/4/2014 12096 10/6/2014 Y BJ00963 1997 CHEV PK Mar 1GCC19RXVE214251 1543834 11/5/2014 12704 12/5/2014 Y DST2104 1999 MITS SUV Elk JA4LS31 H1 XP038636 1543832 11/21/2014 12944 12/22/2014 Y 1 DHfK 1994 PONT 4D Elk 1G2NE5537RC820387 1543821 12/10/2014 13111 1/13/2015 Y Page 21 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance amending portions of the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This is an amendment to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15 and 16 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey (EXHIBIT A). This item was continued from the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting. On May 13, 2014, the City Council held a workshop to review and discuss the development standards, rules, and procedures governing the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) and Historic Overlay Districts. At the workshop, City Council expressed concerns regarding the standards that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey, HARC's powers and duties, property rights, and the incentives allotted for historic preservation in the City. The City Council found that a comprehensive review and modification of these standards and procedures was needed to create a balance between land use regulations and historic preservation. On May 27, 2014, City Council approved Resolution No. 052714-N (EXHIBIT B) directing staff to initiate an executive UDC amendment to address those concerns (outside of the general UDC Advisory Committee process). On October 28, 2014, staff provided a general outline of recommended changes (EXHIBIT C) to City Council during the workshop session. City Council was supportive of those recommendations including increased staff review, revised demolition procedures, and creation of historic landmark designations. Following this meeting, staff began the process of drafting the proposed UDC amendments for public review and input. A brief overview of the proposed amendments is included as EXHIBIT D. A summary of the Project Timeline to date is included as EXHIBIT E. Public Input: City staff has worked to gather public input throughout the review and amendment process. In addition to hosting several meetings, staff created a public website, https://udc.georgetown.org/harc-amendments/, and encouraged interested community members to sign up for email updates. The website was updated during the review process, providing additional information for the public. A comment form for public feedback was added to the website, through which staff received several comments. Following the February 10, 2015 First Reading public hearing, City Council directed staff to conduct additional workshops with affected stakeholders. The purpose of these workshops was to give the stakeholders additional opportunity to review the proposed amendments and submit their comments to staff. City staff hosted two workshops: the first on February 26, 2015, with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC); and the second on March 12, 2015, with property and business owners and other interested members of the public. The workshops were structured into four major topics of discussion based on the majority of the comments and concerns previously received, which included Public Notification, Historic Landmark Designation, Review Authority for Certificate of Appropriateness and requests for the Relocation, Removal or Demolition of historic structures. A complete list of all public comments received to date is included as EXHIBIT F. This list also indicates whether those comments have been incorporated into the proposed UDC amended text. All revisions and changes from the draft of proposed amendments presented to City Council on February 10, 2015, based on comments received are highlighted in yellow in EXHIBIT G. Page 22 of 516 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 3, 2015, held a public hearing on this item (EXHIBIT H). A total of nine (9) stakeholders signed -up to speak on this item. Due to the concerns expressed by the public at the hearing, as well as the need for further public review and input, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (4-1) of the amendment, as proposed, with a further recommendation that the City Council allow for additional time for further public review, clarification and editing of the proposed amendment. The major comments and concerns discussed at the meeting are summarized in the attached EXHIBIT I. City Council First Reading February 10, 2015: At the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting, City staff presented First Reading of the Ordinance for the proposed amendments to the UDC (EXHIBIT J). A total of nine (9) stakeholders signed -up to speak on this item. City Council postponed First Reading of the Ordinance (6-1), and directed staff to conduct additional workshops with the stakeholders and later as a workshop item to City Council. City Council Workshop March 24, 2015: City staff presented the proposed amendments to City Council at their March 24, 2015 workshop, to include any changes or revisions made based on some of the comments and feedback received from affected stakeholders (EXHIBIT K). The City Council provided general comments on the proposed amendments, to include any documentation of currently known historic properties within the city limits, applicable regulations to properties listed on the Historic Resource Survey and its impact on property rights, and criteria used for the proposed changes and HARC's roles. No additional changes were made to the proposed UDC amendments as a result of this workshop. However, it is important to note that the proposed amendments to the UDC were written with the purpose of creating a balance between land development regulations and historic preservation, as well as clarifying and simplifying the application review process to focus on the City's historic resources and historic districts. Proposed changes to the UDC stemmed from feedback received from different sources such as former applicants, property and business owners, City Council and HARC members, the Planning Department's Zucker study report, and review of regulations from other municipalities. The Historic Resource Survey is a tool used to document the condition, configuration and status of existing structures, as well as to make informed decisions about historic preservation policies, local historic (overlay) zoning districts, and guide decisions on regulations for new development within these districts. The Historic Resource Survey is not meant to be used as a definitive regulatory document for developing property. Because of this, City staff is looking at updating the current 1984 and 2007 surveys to accurately document the City's historic resources and what changes to current policies, if any, should be made. Additional changes to the UDC may be required based on the results of the revised Historic Resource Survey, once completed. Next Steps: The proposed amendments are scheduled for second reading of the ordinance on May 12, 2015. The UDC Development Manual will be updated following the approval to reflect the amendments, as well as other applicable Departmental policies and procedures. The Historic Resource Survey Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on March 27, 2015, with a submission date of May 1, 2015. City staff will review the applications, and anticipates placing the contract on the May 27, 2015 General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) agenda, and the June 9, 2015 City Council Agenda. If approved, work will begin in summer 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 23 of 516 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments EXHIBIT B - Resolution 052714-N EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 EXHIBIT D - Proposed UDC Changes Brief Overview EXHIBIT E - Project Timeline EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments EXHIBIT G - Changes to the February 10, 2015 UDC amendments draft EXHIBIT H - February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Item C Cover Sheet EXHIBIT I - Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Summary of Comments EXHIBIT J - February 10, 2015 City Council Meeting Item R Cover Sheet EXHIBIT K - March 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Item B Cover Sheet EXHIBIT L - Comparison in Approval Authority Page 24 of 516 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,15 AND 16 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC), RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RULES, AND PROCEDURES THAT AFFECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN A HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND/OR LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 11, 2003, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, adopted a set of comprehensive development regulations known as the Unified Development Code ("UDC") via Ordinance No. 2003-16 which codified various zoning and subdivision standards; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, the City Council of Georgetown, Texas, held a workshop to review and discuss the rules and regulations governing the Historic and Architectural Review Commission ("HARC") and Historic Overlay Districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council voiced concerns regarding development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's powers and duties, property rights, and the incentives allotted for historic preservation in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that a comprehensive review and modification of the development standards, rules and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey was needed to create a balance between land use regulations and historic preservation; and WHEREAS, the City Council established a UDC Advisory Committee on November 12, 2013, to review proposed or requested amendments to the UDC other than executive amendments which are those amendments that are nondiscretionary, mandatory, or legislative revisions to address state statutes or case laws, ratify published directors determinations, incorporate recently approved Council ordinances, process City Council designated emergency items, or address revisions otherwise determined necessary by legal counsel; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 052714-N on May 27, 2014, designating the amendment to the UDC relating to development standards, rules, and procedures that affect ORDINANCE NO. PAGE 1 OF 3 DESCRIPTION: REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT HISTORIC PROPERTIES DATE APPROVED: Page 25 of 516 properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey as an emergency item; and WHEREAS, by City Council declaring this amendment relating to development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey as an emergency item, it will be processed as an executive amendment that is not reviewed by the UDC Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the draft amendment at their February 3, 2015 regular scheduled meeting, and recommended disapproval of the amendment to the City Council, with a further recommendation that the amendment, as proposed, be subject to further public review, clarification and editing prior to final adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1: The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2: Portions of the UDC are hereby amended as described in EXHIBIT A. SECTION 3: All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4: If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This Ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of State Law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. ORDINANCE NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE APPROVED: REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT HISTORIC PROPERTIES PAGE 2 OF 3 Page 26 of 516 APPROVED on First Reading this day of 2015. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading this day of 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. Dale Ross, Mayor PAGE 3 OF 3 DESCRIPTION: REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT HISTORIC PROPERTIES DATE APPROVED: Page 27 of 516 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 1 General Provisions Section 1.14 Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts adopted as Ordinance No. 2001-48, as amended from time to time, is hereby adopted by reference as if set forth in full. The Design Guidelines establish ^r��-olp icier to guide improvements to properties and work within the Downtown Overlay District, and Old Town Overlay District, . Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 28 of 516 A - 1 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 2 Review Authority Section 2.01 General 2.01.020 Summary of Review Authority The following Table summarizes the decision -making authority of each review body for the City of Georgetown. Table 2.01.020: Summary of Review Authority Procedure Up L C 0C ao �0 m0 L O O a, .� a�i c C W L a0+ �, LO LL O C rp ° it = #A0 LJ a N U Q = Q m N N i a V O aJ u City Council Action Access Point Connection Exemption R R R <DM> Annexation R <DM> Comprehensive Plan Amendment R <R> <DM> Conservation Subdivision/Site Analysis Map R R DM Development Agreement R <R> <DM> Historic Overlay District Designation R R <R> <R> <DM> Historic Landmark Designation R <R> <DM> Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) R <R> <DM> Special Use Permit R <R> <DM> UDC Text Amendment R <R> <DM> Administrative Action Administrative Exception DM A A' Administrative Plat (minor or amend plat) DM R A Administrative Certificate of swig+ Compliance Ad., inisrrativeAppropriateness DM DM — A Construction Plans DM A Courthouse View Height Determination DM A Driveway Permit DM A Final Plat DM R A Heritage Tree Protection Priority DM R R A Heritage Tree Pruning Permit A DM Heritage Tree Removal DM A License to Encroach DM A Master Sign Plan DM A Sign Permit DM A Site Plan DM R A Stormwater Permit DM A Temporary Use Permit DM A Traffic Impact Analysis DM A Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) Action Certificate of swig+ Gernpliap,ce P R <DM> A Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 29 of 516 A - 2 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments on L on �r c `o>U Procedure cu c �, -vu ;� a, . r� n ;� a a N N cd o' ao mp a>i c o= v;00 2 a In w U- d +j• a u HARC Exception (Building Height/ Setback_ variations pursuant to Section P R - <DM> A 4.08initorn�t;,,o o�rU;n, Dian) Heritage Trod Drete -tinn Drier;*., R R R DM A Master Sign Plan P R <DM> A Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) Action Appeal of Administrative Decision <DM> Special Exception R <DM> Variance <DM> Planning and Zoning Commission Heritage Tree Protection Priority R R R DM A Minor or Final Plat w/Waiver R R DM A Plat Waiver R R DM A Preliminary Plat R R DM A Variance (floodplain Et stormwater) <DM> Variance [water quality regulations R <DM> A (Section 11.07.003)] R - Review or Recommendation DM - Decision Making Authority A - Appeal Authority < > - Public Hearing * Administrative Exceptions related to Chapter 8 items are sent to the City Council, all others are appealed to ZBA. Section 2.02 Administrative Officials 2.02.010 Director of Planning and Development Department (Director) B. Powers and Duties The Director of Planning and Development Department has the following powers and duties: 1. Final Action The Director is responsible for taking final action on the following procedures described in this Code, subject to the specific criteria for each procedure as described in the Code. a. Administrative Exceptions b. Administrative Plats c. Final Plats d. Site Plans 2. Review and Report The Director shall review and make either a report or recommendation to the Hister; c and Architectufal Review Cemf issi .r Zoning Board of Adjustment, Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council on the following procedures, subject to the terms and conditions set forth for such procedures in this Code. Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 30 of 516 A - 3 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments a. Access Point Connection Exemption eb. Comprehensive Plan Amendment dc. Development Agreement ed. Historic Overlay District Designation fe. Preliminary Plat gf. Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) hg. Special Exception ih. Special Use Permit ii. Unified Development Code Text Amendment hi. Variance 3. Additional Duties The Director shall have the following additional duties: a. To comply with any other duty or responsibility clearly assigned to the Director elsewhere in this Code; b. To ensure conformance with all provisions of this Code; c. To meet with potential applicants in Pre -application Conferences as described in this Code; and d. To act and serve as staff for each review body appointed by this Code,, , var-ious efforts and programs furthering historic pr-eser-vati 4. Delegation The Director may delegate any duties to members of the Planning and Development Department staff. Such designation authorizes the staff member to act on the Director's behalf, but does not relieve the Director of overall responsibility for any final action, report, recommendation or additional duty described in this Code. 2.02.060 Historic Preservation Officer A. Designation The Director may designate a Historic Preservation Officer to function as described in this Code. B. Powers and Duties The duties of the Historic Preservation Officer shall include, but are not limited to: 1. Providing review, report and recommendation to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)regarding Certificates of Appropriateness and any other provisions of this Code requiring action by HARC; 2. Reviewing and taking final action on Administrative Certificates of Appropriateness; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 31 of 516 A - 4 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 3. Reviewing and taking final action on Alternative Parking Plans in a Historic Overlay District; and 4. Coordinating local historic preservation efforts with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, TAC Chapter 15.6, as amended and any additional federal and state enabling legislation. Section 2.03 Historic & Architectural Review Commission (HARC) 2.03.010 Powers and Duties The Historic and Architectural Review Commission H( ARCLhas the following powers and duties as described in this Code: A. Final Action The HARC shall be responsible for hearing and taking final action on the following procedures described in this Code: 1. Certificate --of Appropriatenessof Pesign Complianee; and 2. HARC Exceptions ons {Building Height and Setback variations pursuant to Section 4.08: of this Code ; and_ 3. Hear and take final action on an appeal of an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness. B. Review and Recommendation The HARC shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on the designation of Historic Overlay Districts and Historic Landmark Designatiens subject to the terms and conditions set forth for the procedure in this Code. C. Additional Duties The HARC has the following additional duties: 1. To act and assist the City Council in formulating design guidelines and other supplemental materials relevant to historic preservation or design review; and 2. To render advice and guidance, upon request of the property owner or occupant, on new construction or the restoration, alteration, or maintenance of any histerie building or structure within the Po "^t^T••"', Old Town' ^raa Historic Overlay Districts or designated as a Historic Landmark. 3. 14ear- and decide an appeal of an Administrative Ger-tifieate of Pesign Compli Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 32 of 516 A - 5 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 3 Applications and Permits Section 3.01 General 3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures The following Table shows which review procedures, applications and permits apply in the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Table 3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures City Limits I Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Prior to Subdivision, Platting and any Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X UDC Text Amendment X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X Historic Overlay District Designation X Historic Landmark Designation X Special Use Permit X Development Agreement X X Access Point Connection Exemption X X Subdivision & Platting of Land Recording Plats X X Preliminary Plat X X Construction Plans X X Plat Vacation X X Plat Waiver X X Development Application Process Site Plan X Construction Plans X Zoning Verification Letter X Legal Lot Verification Letter X X Temporary Use Permit X Master Sign Plan X X Certificate of D86igR Compliance Appropriateness X Appeal of an Administrative Decision X X License to Encroach X X Variance X Administrative Exception X Special Exception X Stormwater Permit X X Driveway Permit X X Sign Permit X X Courthouse View Height Determination X 3.01.030 Simultaneous Submission of Related Applications A. Submission of different applications related to the same development may be made simultaneously, although consideration of applications must remain in the following sequence: Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 33 of 516 A - 6 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments I. Comprehensive Plan; 2. Zoning; 3. Subdivision and Plat; 4. Certificate of ]Design Cem have^Appropriateness; then S. Site Plan. B. Any application submitted simultaneously is subject to approval of all other related applications. Denial or disapproval of any concurrently submitted application shall stop consideration of any related applications. C. An applicant may withdraw any individual application from a group of simultaneously submitted applications. Section 3.02 Common Review Elements 3.02.010 Pre -application Conference Prior to the submission of an application required by this Code, a Pre -application Conference with the Director shall be required as follows. A. A Pre -application Conference is a meeting between a potential applicant under this Code and the Director of Planning and Development Department or a designated representative. The conference is an opportunity for an applicant to describe what application is being considered, and the Director to indicate which application is appropriate, which review body is responsible for final action, and what criteria will be used to determine whether the permit should be approved. B. There is no required format for a Pre -application Conference; it may occur in any form so long as the potential applicant receives the information described above. The applicant is responsible for completing a Pre -application Conference, and must sign a Pre -application Statement indicating the date of the Pre -application Meeting. C. A Pre -application Conference is required for the following applications: • Access Point Connection Exemption • Administrative Exception • Annexation (Voluntary) • Certificate of Design Com liarea Appropriateness • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Conservation Subdivision Site Analysis Map • Construction Plans • Courthouse View Height Determination • Development Agreement • Driveway Permit • Historic Overlay District Designation Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 34 of 516 A - 7 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments • Historic Landmark Designation • License to Encroach • Master Sign Plan • Planned Unit Development • Plat Waiver • Plat Vacation • Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) • Site Plan • Special Exception • Special Use Permit • Stormwater Permit • Subdivision Plats - All • Temporary Use Permit • Unified Development Code Text Amendment • Variance D. Pre -application Conferences may be combined when an applicant will be making simultaneous applications for the same project. E. Completion of a Pre -application Conference does not imply or assume subsequent approval of the permit or application. Section 3.03 Public Hearing and Notice 3.03.010 Provision of Public Notice A. Summary of Notice Required Notice shall be required for application review as shown in the following Table. Table 3.03.010: Summary of Notice Requirements Access Point Connection Exemption Published X Mailed X PostedProcedure X Certificate of Design G^mplianGe Appropriateness Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, � removal or demolition, or setback modification Development Agreement Historic Overlay District Designation X X X Historic Landmark Designation X X X Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 35 of 516 A - 8 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Replat without Vacating (§212.0145) X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X X X Special Exception X X X Special Use Permit X X X UDC Text Amendment X Variance X X X X = Notice Required * = Notice to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20 $ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission B. Published Notice 1. A Public Notice shall be published at least once in a local newspaper of general circulation, as designated by the City Council, within the City prior to the meeting. The Notice shall contain the time and place of such Public Meeting or Hearing and a brief description of the agenda items that may be considered or reviewed. 2. A published notice shall be published at least 15 days in advance of the Public Meeting or Hearing. C. Mailed Notice 1. Generally A Notice of Public Hearing shall be sent by U.S. mail to owners of record of real property within 200 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, as determined by the most recent municipal tax roll information. The notice may be served by its deposit in the municipality, properly addressed with postage paid, in United States mail at least 15 days prior to the date set for the Public Hearing or as otherwise required by the Texas Local Government Code, as amended. 2. Special Mailed Notice Required for Certain Replats Replats containing any area or lot that, during the preceding five years, was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot or in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot, require mailed notice to all owners of lots that are part of the original subdivision and located within 200 feet of the boundary of the property to be replatted, in the same manner as prescribed in Section 3.03.010.C.1 above and in accordance with §212.015 of the Texas Local Government Code, as amended. 43. Special Mailed Notice Required for PUD Modification a. For purposes of mailed notice, the boundary of a PUD Modification shall be the boundary of any tract of land for which PUD standards or requirements are proposed to change due to the modification. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 36 of 516 A - 9 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments b. In addition to the requirements of Paragraph 1 above, mailed notice shall also be provided all owners of property within the entire PUD boundary, not otherwise notified. D. Posted Notice 1. Notice shall be posted in a format approved by the Director on the subject property, along rights -of -way contiguous to the proposed development according to the following standards: a. One sign for tracts of less than 300 feet of right-of-way frontage; b. One sign at each interval of 1,000 feet; and c. The total number of signs shall not be required to exceed a total of four signs per right- of-way. 2. Notice of application shall be posted at the project site such that it is visible from the public right-of-way, including contact information and meeting date. shall pr-ovide eentaet information and the expeeted date of deEiskffi. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for posting and maintaining the sign on a format approved by the Director, and for removing the sign within five days following the Public Hearing on the application. 4. Posted notice shall be posted not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing. E. Content of Notice Published or mailed notices shall contain at least the following specific information: 1. The general location of land that is the subject of the application, including a location map with the mailed notice only; 2. The legal description or street address; 3. The substance of the application, including the type of proposed development and the current Zoning District; 4. The time, date, and location of the Public Hearing; S. A phone number to contact the City; and 6. A statement that interested parties may appear at the Public Hearing. F. Constructive Notice Minor defects in notice shall not impair the notice or invalidate proceedings pursuant to the notice if a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with applicable notice requirements. 3.03.020 Required Public Hearing The following Table identifies the types of applications requiring a Public Hearing and the review body responsible for conducting the Hearing. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 37 of 516 A - 10 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Table 3.03.020: Summary of Required Public Hearing of Application Access Point Connection Exemption HARC Board ZoningType of Adjustment Zoning Council X Appeal of Admin. Decision X Certificate of i3 ee Appropriateness X* Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X Development Agreement * X Historic Overlay District Designation X X X Historic Landmark Designation X X Replat (Resubdivision) X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X X Special Exception X Special Use Permit X X UDC Text Amendment X X Variance X X = Public Hearing Required * = Public Hearing to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20 $ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Section 3.06 Zoning Map Amendment — Rezoning 3.06.010 Applicability For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within the territorial limits of the City, the Official Zoning Map may be amended based upon changed or changing conditions in a particular area, or in the City generally, or to rezone an area or extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or Overlay District. All amendments must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of the Section related to rezoning are adopted pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 and the City Charter. 3.06.020 Review Process A. Initiation Initiation of a map amendment may be made upon: 1. Application of a property owner or their designated agent; 2. Recommendation of the City Council; 3. Recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission; er 4. For a Historic Landmark or Historic Overlav District designation, recommendation of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission; or 5. Recommendation of the Director. Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 38 of 516 A - 11 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments B. Application and Completeness Determination The Director is responsible for checking that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary for the City Council to render an informed decision. C. Staff Review 1. The Director shall review the application, considering any applicable criteria for approval and prepare a report to the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (where applicable), and City Council. 2. The Director may establish procedures for administrative review necessary to ensure compliance with this Code and state statutes. 3. The Director may assign staff to review the application and make a report to the Director. 4. The Director's report may include a recommendation for final action. D. Historic and Architectural Review Commission DE. When a request is made for Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District designation, the Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and state law, and make a recommendation to the City Council following notice in accordance with Section 3.03. Planning & Zoning Commission Review Following notice in accordance with Section 3.03, the Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and state law and make a recommendation to the City Council. Designation of a Historic Landmark shall not require review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. F_City Council Final Action 1. The City Council shall hold a Public Hearing and may take final action on the proposed amendment. 2. The amendment shall become effective when approved by the City Council and in accordance with the City Charter. If a proposed amendment has been recommended for disapproval by the Planning & Zoning Commission er-and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (where applicablelthe amendment may not become effective except by a three -fourths vote of all members of the City Council. 3.06.030 Approval Criteria (Rezoning) The City Council shall consider the following approval criteria for zoning changes: A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action; B. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; C. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City; D. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 39 of 516 A - 12 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments E. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. 3.06.040 Approval Criteria (Planned Unit Development) In addition to the zoning change criteria above, the City Council shall consider the following specific objectives and criteria for approving the PUD. A. Specific Objectives Rezoning to and development under the PUD District will be permitted only in accordance with the following specific objectives: 1. A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community; 2. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; 3. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways; 4. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; 5. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and 6. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services. 3.06.050 Approval Criteria (Overlay Districts) - Reserved. 3.06.060 Approval Criteria (Historic Overlay DistrictsDesignati) A. In addition to the approval criteria for zoning changes mein Section 3.06.030, the City Council shall eensider make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for approving a Historic Overlay District is met: -1-. A. Character, interest, or value of the structures sites or area because of As -their unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the Ecity , county, Sstate o or nation; 2-.B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the structures sites or area; -3-.C. Identification of the structures sites or area with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the city, county, state, or nation; 4D. Embodiment in multiple buildings in a c'-r���e site or area under consideration of distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship related to a uniqueness to the area, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to:; 1. Scale of buildings and structures typical of the area; 2. Architectural style of the buildings and structures; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 40 of 516 A - 13 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 3. Architectural period of the buildings and structures; 4. Building materials typical of the area; S. Colors and textures used in the buildings and structures typical of the area; 6. Typical relationships of buildings in the area to the street; 7. Setbacks and other physicalpatterns of buildings in the area; S. Typical patterns of rooflines of buildings in the area; or 9. Typical patterns of porch and entrance treatments of buildings in the area; and E. Archaeological value in the sense that the structures sites or area la-s-have produced or can be expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of history or prehistory;; -,ate, area; EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 4. Shapes the bttilding-,�, of 6. Per tFeatments the , -eh and entrance of 7. Height the buildings,�and and mass of 8. Relative the buildings to height-, to deptl#. pr-oper-tions of (width Width 3.06.070 Approval Criteria (Historic Landmark Designation) The City Council shall make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for designating a building, structure or site within the City limits a local Historic Landmark is met: A. Character, interest, or value of the building, structure or site because of its unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, county, state or nation; B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the building, structure or site; C. Identification of the building, structure or site with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the city, county, state, nation, or society D. Distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship that make it an established or familiar visual feature, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to: 1. Architectural style of the building or structure; 2. Architectural period of the building or structure; 3. Textures and colors of materials used in the building or structure; 4. Shape of the building or structure; S. Roofline of the building or structure; 6. Porch and entrance treatments of the building or structure; 7. Height and mass of the building or structure; or S. Relative proportions of the building or structure (width to height, width to depth); and E. Archaeological value in the sense that the building, structure or site can be expected to • i based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of history or prehistory. 3.06.080 Interim Control during Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District Consideration A. Upon deeming an application for a Historic Landmark or Historic Overlav District designation complete, Nno Building Permit may be issued by the City for alteration, construction, demolition or removal of any building or structure located within an -the area proposed for such designation. to the u;st c Pistr-iet B. This Building Permit hold period shall commence onfFem the date the application for Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District designation is deemed complete until its final disposition by the City Council. For City initiated requests, this Building Permit hold period shall Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 42 of 516 A - 15 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments commence on the date the Resolution to initiate the request is adopted until final disposition by the City Council. C. The Building Permit hold period shall not apply to, •• alterations, removal or demolition i-,authorized by formal action of the Building Standards Board as necessary for preservation of the public health, welfare or safety as provided for Dangerous Buildings in Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances. in no event will t4e delay be foF more t4an 120 days-. Section 3.12 Master Sign Plan 3.12.010 Applicability A Master Sign Plan shall be required for all multiple -tenant buildings, Planned Unit Developments, and all multi -building or multi -occupant commercial developments before any signs for such development may be erected on the property. All owners, tenants, subtenants, and purchasers of individual units within the development shall comply with the approved Master Sign Plan. 3.12.020 Review Process A. Review of a Master Sign Plan shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 3.03.0403.03.050, save and except a Master Sign Plan for property located in a Historic Overlay District. B. Review of a Master Sign Plan for property in a Historic Overlay District shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. 3.12.030 Criteria for Approval In addition to the general ^,am inistr-at ., review criteria in Section 3.0'�P3.03.050.D or 3.13 for property in a Historic Overlay District, the Building Official or Historic and Architectural Review Commission, as applicable, must determine the following in order to approve the Master Sign Plan: A. The plan provides that signs of a similar type and function within the development will have a consistent building material.. B. The plan provides for signs that meet the size limitations, location requirements, and other applicable requirements of this Unified Development Code:; and C. Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District shall be in keeping with the adopted design gtti liRes Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelinesef the Hisser-i , Gye -lay Distr-_et 3.12.040 Responsibility for Final Action A. The Building Official is responsible for final action on Master Sign Plans, save and except Master Sign Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District. B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission is responsible for final action on Master Sign Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District. C. A Sign Permit for all signs in the Master Sign Plan shall also be reauired in accordance with Section 3.18. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 43 of 516 A - 16 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 3.12.050 Expiration A Master Sign Plan shall expire 24 months after the date that the Master Sign Plan was approved unless: A. A Building Permit application has been approved or, if no Building Permit is required, a Certificate of Occupancy, or equivalent, has been issued. B. In case of projects where more than one building or phase is to be built, the applicant may submit a series of Building Permit applications. The first application must be approved within 12 months from the date Site Plan approval is granted. Each subsequent application must be submitted within 24 months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Official for the previous phase of the development. LExistin4 Section 3.13 removed and replaced by new Section 3.13 as follows: Section 3.13 Certificate of Appropriateness 3.13.010 AQplicability A. Pursuant to the authority granted to the Cite Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 and the City Charter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with Table 3.13.010 below. Activities that include more than one Project (Scope of Work) shall be subject to the review process and criteria for approval for each specific Project as identified in Table 3.13.010. Table: 3.13.010: Certificate of AQpropriateness Required HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required New Construction (Infill Development New building construction All Historic Overlay Districts HARC Additions To create or add to an existing street facing facade Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non -street facing fagades Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR New addition does not comply with the zoning Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure standards of the historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 44 of 516 A - 17 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Additions (continued) Awning or canopy Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Porch,, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes Restoring historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non- Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure * historic architectural feature Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing roof materials with different roof Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * using in -kind material Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Paint removal from historic and significant architectural features (back to original condition; Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* does not include repainting) Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes to paint color on previously painted Historic Landmark HPO surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on Contributing Historic Structure* previously_ painted surface) Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 45 of 516 A -18 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes (continued) New paint on unpainted historic and other significant architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes in color to awning fabric abric Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication Historic Landmark* HPO equipment that result in no modifications to the Contributing Historic Structure* building fagade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication Historic Landmark HARC equipment that result in modifications to the Contributing Historic Structure* building facade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Removal Demolition or Relocation Awnings or canopies Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Exterior non -historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic siding Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction of Historic Landmark HARC any historic and architectural features that is Contributing Historic Structure* integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 46 of 516 A - 19 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Removal. Demolition or Relocation (continued1 Non -historic additions that are made of non -historic Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Attached carport, porch, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made of non- Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * historic materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to original Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * condition Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Street facing fagade Historic Landmark HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR 15% or more of the square footage of a building Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Less than 15% of the square footage of a building Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Relocation of a building or structure on the same lot Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure Relocation of a building or structure to a historic Historic Landmark HARC overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or Contributing Historic Structure structures within the same historic overlay districts) Non -Contributing Historic Structure Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 47 of 516 A - 20 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Removal. Demolition or Relocation (continued1 Relocation of a building or structure outside of the Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Siona4e Master Sign Plan All Historic Overlay Districts HARC New signage, to include new signage that is HPO consistent with an approved Master Sian Plan New signage that is inconsistent with an approved HARC Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines Changes in content or configuration (re -facing) that HPO do not involve changes in sign location, dimensions, lighting or total sign area Amending an approved Master Sign Plan HARC Fences New fence, railing or wall that is consistent with the All Historic Overlay Districtst HPO overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with HARC the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines Removal of chain, link,, plywood, or vinyl fence and HPO replacing with wood, wrought iron, or masonry Miscellaneous HARC exceptions (building height and setback All Historic Overlay District HARC variations pursuant to Section 4.081 Renewal of an expired Certificate of Appropriateness All Historic Overlay Districts HPO Historic Landmark *Only applicable to a street facing facade tOnly applicable to fences along a street lot line or located in a street yard tCLG demo delay period and Demolition Subcommittee review not applicable B. Exemptions A Certificate of A pmp ateness shall not be required for the following 1. Ordinary Maintenance and Repair, as this term is defined in Chapter 16 of this Code. 2. Interior construction or alterations the building. d the alterations do not alter the exterior wall of Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 48 of 516 A - 21 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 3. New single-family and two-family residential development in the Old Town Overlay District provided the building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. 4. New additions to existing single-family and two-family structures provided the addition does not create or add to a street facing facade, and the addition in combination with the existing building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. S. New, modifications or removal of existing awnings (to include changes in color), canopies, exterior paint color or exterior lighting that are attached to a single-family or two-family residential structure provided the alterations do not alter the exterior wall of a building designated as a Historic Landmark. 6. Demolition of a building or structure that the Building Official has declared a dangerous structure in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City Code, as amended, or determined that demolition is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. a. Should the Building Official declare a building a dangerous structure or determine that demolition is necessary for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare, the Building Official shall coordinate with the Historic Preservation Officer and property owner to identify historic and significant architectural features that are unique to the building or structure, era or district and that may be salvaged. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall create a record of the building or structure to be demolished through archival -quality photo -documentation, drawings, and other information similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey. The list of identified historic and significant architectural features to be salvaged shall also be made part of this record. 7. Site alterations and other hardscape features provided that these do not alter a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or that is a contributing historic structure to the Historic Overlay District. C. No Building Permit shall be issued by the Building Official for any building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or that is located in a Historic Overlay District until the application for such permit has been reviewed and approved by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or the Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, and the project, as proposed, is in compliance with all other applicable regulations of this Code. 3.13.020 Certificate of Appropriateness — Administrative Approval A. Review Process 1. Initiation Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic Preservation Officer may be made upon application by the property owner of the affected property or their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this Chapter. 2. Application Completeness a. The applicant shall submit all of the information and materials required in the UDC Development Manual as specified on the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness checklist. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 49 of 516 A - 22 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary to review the Certificate of Appropriateness' conformance with applicable criteria for approval in accordance with this Code. 3. Staff Review Once a Certificate of Ap- -p gtenesshas been initiated and the application deemed complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with any applicable criteria for approval. 4. Responsibility for Final Action a. The Historic Preservation Officer is responsible for final action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for certain projects as specified in Section 3.13.010 of this Code. b. Should the Historic Preservation Officer be unable to approve the request, the Historic Preservation Officer may forward the request to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for review and final action at the next available meeting following public notification in accordance with Section 3.03 of this Code. B. Criteria for Approval The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the following criteria: 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Compliance with applicable design and development standards of this Code; 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; and S. The overall character of the applicable Historic Overlay District and the building or structure is preserved, and the design is compatible with the Historic Overlay District. 3.13.030 Certificate of Appropriateness — HARC Approval A. Review Process 1. Initiation Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may be made upon application by the property owner of the affected property or their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this Chapter. 2. Application Completeness a. The applicant shall submit all of the information and materials required in the UDC Development Manual as specified on the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness checklist. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 50 of 516 A - 23 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary to review the Certificate of Appropriateness' conformance with applicable criteria for approval in accordance with this Code. 3. Staff Review a. Once a Certificate of Appropriatenesshas been initiated and the application deemed complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with any applicable criteria for approval. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall prepare a report to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. c. The Historic Preservation Officer's report shall include a recommendation for final action. 4. Responsibility for Final Action a. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall review the application, the Historic Preservation Officer's report, conduct a hearing in accordance with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's established procedures and state law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. An application before the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall be considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. B. Criteria for Approval The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall determine whether to zrant a Certificate of Appropriatenessbased on the following criteria: 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; S. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding12roperties in the applicable Historic Overlay District; 7. The overall character of the applicable Historic Overlay District is protected; and 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines -and character of the Historic Overlay District. C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height Exceptions Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 51 of 516 A - 24 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments I. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District; b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A visual analysis that identifies: i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the character of the District; and b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings. 3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District. 2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a setback exception: a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 52 of 516 A - 25 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the Proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that Previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; 1. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. E. Additional requirements for relocation, removal or demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure In addition to the Staff Review process established in Section 3.13.030.A, applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be subject to the following additional review: 1. Demolition Delay Period Certified Local Government (CLG) Program a. Upon deeming the application complete, requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be subject to a 60-day demolition delay period. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall not take action on a request for demolition until the 60-day demolition delay period is complete. b. During this 60-day delay period, the applicant shall coordinate with the Historic Preservation Officer to reach a satisfactory resolution that preserves the building or structure, or that preserves historic and significant architectural features that are unique to the building or structure, era or district. c. The Historic Preservation Officer shall coordinate with local, county and other historic organizations to explore possibilities for preserving, to include the possible relocation of the structure. d. The Historic Preservation Officer shall present the findings and resolution, if applicable, to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission with the request. Del ted language is stFiRetlifeuO Added language is underline Page 53 of 516 A-26of50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 2. Demolition Subcommittee Review a. No later than the 301h day from deeming the application complete, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's Demolition Subcommittee shall complete a walk- through of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated with the Historic Preservation Officer and the applicant. b. The Demolition Subcommittee shall review the application and analyze the building or structure to determine possibility of preservation and restoration, and appropriateness for demolition or relocation. In the event of demolition, the Demolition Subcommittee shall also create a list of historic salvageable materials identified during the walk- through. c. The Demolition Subcommittee's report shall include a recommendation for final action. 3. Responsibility of Final Action a. In addition to the application and Historic Preservation Officer's report, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall review the recommendation by the Demolition Subcommittee, conduct a Hearing in accordance with the HARC's established procedures and state law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application Hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. As conditions of approval, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may require historic materials to be salvaged, archival -quality photo -documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer. F. Criteria for Approval for relocation, removal or demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: a. Loss of Significance i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the Historic Overlay District; and ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 54 of 516 A - 27 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the Historic Overlay District or the City's Historic Resources; or b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship i. The aRplicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or relocated; and ii. The applicant must Prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. 3. Relocation of a structure to a Historic Overlay District In the event the building or structure is proposed to be relocated to a property in a Historic Overlay District, in addition to the above, the applicant must demonstrate the following with the application: a. The architectural compatibility of the relocated building or structure with adjacent buildings according to the applicable Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC standards for new construction; and b. The proposed siting, setback and other applicable site -specific treatments according to pertinent Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC standards of the applicable Historic Overlay District; and c. Relocation will not damage existing contributing historic buildings or structures, or the character of the Historic Overlay District. 3.13.040 Relocation, removal or demolition prior to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness A. Demolition, including demolition by neglect, of a building or structure Prior to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, when required, shall be subject to an automatic hold on all permits. No permit may be granted until this period is complete and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission has granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable. B. The permit delay period shall be determined by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, but in no case shall it exceed 365 days. C. The Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable, shall be reviewed and final action taken by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission concurrently with the determination of the longevity of the permit hold period. D. During this delay period, the applicant shall provide the following information to the Historic Preservation Officer: 1. Documentation regarding the original and existing condition of the building or structure, to include structural integrity and the extent of work necessary to stabilize the building or structure. Deleted language is stFiRetlifeuO Added language is underline Page 55 of 516 A-28of50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments 2. Site Development Plan (or Plot Plan) identifying proposed development on site following demolition of the building or structure. 3. List of any salvageable materials, and a plan offering donation or sale of the remaining building or structure and any salvageable materials identified. E. In the event of demolition by neglect, the applicant shall complete any work required to stabilize and arrest further deterioration of the building or structure. 3.13.050 Certificate and Compliance Inspections A. It shall be the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Officer to issue the actual Certificate of Appropriateness following approval by the Historic Preservation Officer or the HARC, with any designated conditions, and to maintain a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness, together with the proposed plans. The Certificate shall be forwarded to the Building Official. These shall be public documents for all purposes. B. Work performed pursuant to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness shall conform to the requirements of the Certificate. In the event that work is not in compliance, the Building Official shall issue a stop work order and/or citation as prescribed by ordinance. 3.13.060 Limits on Resubmission No application for the same project shall be considered within 180 days of the rejection or disapproval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, of an application. The applicant may submit a design for an entirely new project or a revised design that substantially responds to the reasons for denial as set forth by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, at any time. 3.13.070 Expiration A. A Certificate of Appropriateness, except as noted below, expires if the work authorized b, Certificate of Appropriateness is not commenced within 24 months from the date of the final action to approve the request. In the case of a phased project, after the initial phase is complete or a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, each subsequent phase shall commence within 24 months of the completion or Certificate of Occupancy of the prior phase. The Historic Preservation Officer may extend the time commencement of work upon written request by the applicant. B. A Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition expires if a Permit for relocation or demolition has not been issued within 180 days or, if a permit is not required, the work authorized by the Certificate of Appropriateness is not commenced within 180 days from the date of the final decision to approve the request. The Historic Preservation Officer may extend the time for commencement of work upon written request of the applicant. 3.13.080 AQpeals A person aggrieved by a final action of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the final action. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 56 of 516 A - 29 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Appeals from an administratively issued Certificate of Appropriateness will be processed through the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, subject to the procedures established for new applications. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the administrative action. A. Appeal Hearing The Hearing shall be set for the next available City Council or HARC meeting, subject to the provision of public notification. Notification shall be provided in the same manner as the initial Certificate of Appropriateness. B. Burden of Proof in Appeals When an appeal is considered by the appellate body, the final action by the original reviewing authority is presumed to be valid. The person filing the appeal shall present sufficient evidence and have the burden to justify a reversal of the action being appealed. C. Findings and Conclusions All findings and conclusion necessary to the appeal decision shall be based upon reliable evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a Court of Law) will be preferred whenever reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based solely upon incompetent evidence unless competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence in question appears to be particularly reliable, and the matter at issue is not seriously disputed. In exercising its authority, the appellate body may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part or modify the original order, requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose the appellate body has the same authority as the original reviewing authority. D. Decision on Appeal The appellate body shall review the application, the staff report and meeting minutes, conduct a Hearing in accordance with established procedures and state law, and take final action on the appeal. It shall require a concurring vote of a majority of the appellate body's members to overturn a decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness. Section 3.15 Variance and Special Exception 3.15.040 Criteria for Special Exception Review If authorized by this Code, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant a Special Exception from the requirements of the certain provisions of this Unified Development Code, if the Special Exception is not contrary to the public interest and the spirit of this Code is preserved and substantial justice done. No Special Exception shall be granted unless the ZBA finds the specific criteria identified in this Code are met. The only Special Exceptions that may be granted by the Board are for the following: • Time Extension for an Abandoned Nonconforming Use, pursuant to Section 14.01.060.B.7 • Expansion of Nonconforming Use, pursuant to Section 14.02.050 • Right to Continue Nonconforming Use after destruction or damage, pursuant to Section 14.02.060.A • Abandonment of a Nonconforming Structure Determination, pursuant to Section 14.04.050 Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 57 of 516 A - 30 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments • Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure, pursuant to Sections 14.04.080.B & C • Abandonment of a Nonconforming Site, pursuant to Section 14.05.050 • A setback exception, pursuant to Section 14.05.050.D • Expansion of a Nonconforming Site, pursuant to Sections 14.05.080.B & C Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 58 of 516 A - 31 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 4 Zoning Districts Section 4.04 Zoning District Purpose Statements 4.04.040 Mixed -Use Zoning Districts A. Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) The Mixed Use Downtown District (MU-DT) is intended to provide a location for a mix of land uses including general commercial and retail activities, office as well as Single-family and Multi- family in the downtown area. Developments in the MU-DT District are typically smaller in size and scope although there may be occasionally heavy traffic. The Mixed Use Downtown District is only appropriate in the traditional downtown area of Georgetown. Properties in MU-DT shall meet the design requirements of the Downtown Overlay District, and Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. • For Uses allowed in the MU-DT District, see Chapter 5 • For Lot and Dimensional Standards, see Section 7.03 • For Building and Site Design Standards, see Sections 7.04 and 7.05 • For Downtown Overlay District Design Standards, see Section 4.08 • See also the Downtown Master Plan in the Comprehensive Plan • See also the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, referenced in Section 1.14 4.04.050 Overlay Zoning Districts A. Special Area Plan Overlay District (SP) B. Historic Overlay Districts The City of Georgetown recognizes that as a matter of public policy the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historical and cultural importance and significance is necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public. Historic Overlay Districts are created to: • Protect and enhance the landmarks and districts which represent distinctive elements of Georgetown's historic, architectural, and cultural heritage; • Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past; • Protect and enhance Georgetown's attractiveness to visitors and the suIport and stimulus to the economy thereby provided; • Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the city that is sensitive to its historic resources; • Promote economic prosperity and welfare of the community by encouraging the most appropriate use of historic properties within the city; and • Encourage stabilization, restoration, and improvements of such properties and their values by offering incentives for rehabilitation and preservation. 1. Downtown Overlay District (D) The Downtown Overlay District is intended to protect the aesthetic and visual character of the Town Square and downtown Georgetown through the establishment of two distinct Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 59 of 516 A - 32 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments zones, designated as Area 1 (Town Square Historic District) and Area 2 (remainder of the Downtown Overlay District). , emeept ordinary maintenance and repair-, shall be r-eviewed in aeeer-danee with the adepted G2. Old Town Overlay District (OT) The Old Town Overlay District is intended to preserve and protect historic structures, maintain a residential appearance along South Austin and University Avenues, and maintain the integrity of the historic character in the area commonly referred to as Old Town. D3. Designated Historic Over -lay District (H) The Designated Historic Overla-y-District (Wis intended to preserve areas, structures, and landmarks of historical or cultural significance. Each designated district lmay have specific standards unique to the district,although developments in an Hister-ie Qver-lay ReviewC Ia. Designated Historic: Pist,.icC Town Square Designated Historic District H-TS M. Historic Landmark Desianation (HL) The purpose of the Historic Landmark Designation is to protect, preserve and enhance buildings or structures of historical, architectural or cultural importance or value to the City of Georgetown. * For Specific Standards of the Historic Overlay Districts, see Section 4.08 C_Courthouse View Protection Overlay District (CVP) FD. Gateway Overlay District (G) LZxistincl Sections 4.OSf 4.09f and 4.10 removed and replaced by new Section 4.08 as follo ws;1 Section 4.08 Historic Overlay Districts 4.08.010 Designation of a Historic Overlay District A. A Historic Overlay District may be established over any base zoning district within the city limits and may be established over more than one base zoning district. B. Creation or expansion of a Historic Overlay District requires approval by the City Council, following the procedures for a Zoning Map Amendment in Section 3.06. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 60 of 516 A - 33 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments C. Consideration of Standards for a Designated Historic District The following shall be considered when developing standards for a Designated Historic District: 1. The findings adopted by the City Council for a specific Designated Historic District shall define the scope of the City's interest in protecting the historic resource and shall provide the guidelines to be used, along with the applicable regulations, in considering whether to grant or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. 2. HARC may develop and the City Council may approve supplemental guidelines as it may deem necessary to implement the regulations of a particular Designated Historic District or the findings applicable to the designation of a particular Designated Historic District. Such guidelines may include, but are not limited to, the following. a. Charts or samples of acceptable materials for siding, foundations, roofs, or other parts of buildings; b. Illustrations of appropriate architectural details; c. Numerical specifications of appropriate rhythms or proportions; d. Specifications of appropriate relationships to streets, sidewalks, other structures, and buildings; e. Illustrations of appropriate porch treatments or entrances; or f. Illustrations of appropriate signage or street furniture. 4.08.020 Historic Overlay Districts Established The Historic Overlay Districts are established as follows. Each Historic Overlay District includes all the land within the boundary of the District shown on the Official Zoning Map. A. Downtown Overlay District The Downtown Overlay District was established by the City Council as part of adoption of Ordinance No. 2001-48 on August 28, 2001 and expanded with the adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-86, adopted on October 28, 2014. The district is divided into two distinct zones, designated as Area 1 and Area 2. The Downtown Overlay District is generally bounded by the river to the north, the lots fronting the south side of University Avenue to the south, Martin Luther King, jr., Street to the west, and Myrtle Street to the east. The Downtown Overlay District abuts, but does not include, the Old Town Overlay District. The precise boundaries are depicted on the map incorporated below. (Insert updated mapl This map is available for viewing at the Planning Department office or as a downloadable map at htti):Hmai)s.georgetown.org. B. Old Town Overlay District The Old Town Overlav District was established by the Citv Council as Dart of adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-22 on April 13, 2004. The Old Town Overlay District is generally bounded on the north by 2nd Street; on the east by Holly Street, the railroad tracks, University Avenue, and Hutto Road; on the south by 17th, 18th, and 19th Streets; and on the west by the properties on the western side of Austin Avenue and the boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District. The Old Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 61 of 516 A - 34 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Town Overlay District abuts, but does not include the Downtown Overlay District. The Precise boundaries are depicted on the map incorporated below. (Insert updated mapl This map is available for viewing at the Planning Department office or as a downloadable map at http://maps.georgetown.org. C. Designated Historic Districts Designation of a Historic District shall be established and governed in accordance with this Code. This subsection contains all designated Historic Districts under this Code. Designated Historic Districts are as follows: 1. Town Square Historic District The City Council designated the Town Square Historic District by the adoption of Ordinance No. 2001-48, the confines of which are defined as follows: All lots in Blocks 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 51, and 52 of the City of Georgetown, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof of record and which lots are all of those properties on the nine blocks surrounding and including the property that may commonly be referred to as the Public Square or Court House Square of the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas. The precise boundaries are depicted on the map incorporated below. [Insert mapl This map is available for viewing at the Planning Department office or as a downloadable map at httr)://mai)s.georgetown.org. D. Historic Landmark Designation Designation of a Historic Landmark shall be established and governed in accordance with this Code. Buildings or structures to be protected, preserved, restored and enhanced as a historic resource and in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the City of Georgetown may be designated as a Historic Landmark by ordinance of the City Council. Upon designation of a building or structure as a Historic Landmark, the City Council shall cause this designation to be recorded in the official public record of real property of Williamson County and the City of Georgetown official's zoning map. All zoning maps shall reflect historic landmarks by inclusion of the words "Historic Landmark" (HL)as a prefix to its use designation in accordance with this Code. 4.08.030 Certificate of Appropriateness Required All new buildings and changes to existing buildings located in a Historic Overlay District or designated as a Historic Landmark are subject to the Certificate of Appropriateness provisions of Section 3.13 of this Code. Any activity requiring review of a Certificate of Appropriateness Per Section 3.13 of this Code will be subject to the Design Guidelines adopted by the City of Georgetown. 4.08.040 Applicability of Historic Overlay District Standards A. Each designated Historic Overlay District may have unique standards that are described in the adopting ordinance for that District. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 62 of 516 A - 35 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments B. The development and design standards contained within this Section are intended to supplement any development and design standards of an underlying base zoning district. The standards of the underlying base zoning district, as well as those of any other applicable overlay district, shall remain in effect unless superseded by specific standards of the applicable Historic Overlay District. C. In the event of a conflict between the development regulations of the underlying zoning district and the provisions of this Section, the provisions of this Section shall apply. D. Any regulations for a specific Historic Overlay District shall apply to all properties or structures wholly contained within that District and to those portions of any property or District located within the District. E. All uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning districts shall continue to be permitted or conditionally permitted, respectively, unless otherwise specified in the specific standard for the overlay district. HARC shall not have the authority to approve the specific use of a site. 4.08.050 General Guidelines Applicable to All Historic Overlay Districts A. The historic character of a building or structure should be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a building or structure should be avoided. B. Each building or structure should be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other structures, should not be undertaken. C. Most buildings or structures change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right should be retained and preserved. D. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a building or structure should be preserved. F. Deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature should match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. E. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials should not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, should be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. F. Significant archeological resources affected by a project should be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures should be undertaken. G. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction should not destroy historic materials that characterize the building or structure. The new work should be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the building or structure and its environment. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 63 of 516 A - 36 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments H. New additions and adjacent or related new construction should be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4.08.060 Demolition by Neglect A. An owner of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or located in a Historic Overlay District, or Person with interest in the real property, shall not allow such structure to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in deterioration which would, in the judgment of the Historic Preservation Officer and the Building Official, produce a detrimental effect upon the life and character of the structure itself. B. The Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer of the City of Georgetown shall determine the "serious state of disrepair" in accordance with the most current form of the International Property Maintenance Code. Examples of such deterioration include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Deterioration of walls or other vertical supports; 2. Deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members; 3. Deterioration of exterior chimneys; 4. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior stucco or mortar; S. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof or foundations, including broken windows or doors; 6. Deterioration of exterior walls, doors, windows, or other means of interior access, so as to create a danger of trespassing; 7. Deterioration of plumbing and electrical systems affecting the exterior of the structure; or S. A hazardous condition resulting from the deterioration of any exterior feature, which might indicate that demolition is necessary for the public safety. C. A property owner, or person with interest in the real property, who is in violation of this Section shall be subject to enforcement measures under Section 15.02.030 of this Code. D. Should compliance with this Section require more than ordinary maintenance and repair, the provisions of Section 3.13, Certificate of Appropriateness, shall be applicable. 4.08.070 Standards Specific to the Downtown Overlay District This Section contains specific development and design standards applicable to properties located in the Downtown Overlay District of the City of Georgetown. A. Building Height 1. Building height in the Downtown Overlay District shall not exceed 40 feet, unless a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by HARC in accordance with the Procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. 2. Buildings located along the portion of Austin Avenue that lies within the boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District shall be at least two usable stories in height with an overall building height of not less than 20 feet, subject to compliance with the Courthouse View Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 64 of 516 A - 37 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Protection Overlay District of Section 4.10. However, HARC may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. B. Setbacks Building setbacks adjacent to public rights -of -way in the Downtown Overlay District shall generally be assumed to be zero (o) feet or "built to" the right-of-way line. Such setbacks shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis in accordance with the adopted Design Guidelines. C. Parking There shall be no off-street parking requirement in Area 1 of the Downtown Overlay District, except as required by Section 5.04.020.M.2 of this Code. In Area 2 of the Downtown Overlay District, the parking standards of Table 9.02.030.A shall apply. Alternative parking plans, as described in Section 9.02.060 of this Code, may be considered. D. Signs The sign standards shall be those contained within the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. In the event that no standards exist, the standards in this Code shall apply, and maY be modified in order to more accurately reflect the express language or the intent of the Design Guidelines in regard to signs. 4.08.080 Standards Specific to the Old Town Overlay District This Section contains specific development and design standards applicable to properties located in the Old Town Overlay District of the City of Georgetown. A. Parking The parking standards of Table 9.02.030.A shall apply. Alternative parking plans, as described in Section 9.02.060 of this Code, may be considered. B. Signs The sign standards contained within the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines shall apply. In the event that no standards exist, the standards of this Code shall apply and may be modified in order to more accurately reflect the express language or the intent of the Design Guidelines with regard to signs. C. Building Height 1. Buildings within the Old Town Overlay District shall not exceed 30 feet in height. However, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow utilization of the height limitation of the underlying zoning district. 2. Maximum building height at the prescribed setback of the underlying base zoning district shall not exceed 15 feet. For each additional 3 feet of setback from the property line, the building may increase in height by 5 feet. However, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow building heights in excess of this requirement. D. Setbacks Setbacks shall be that of the underlying base zoning district. However, for residential structures in the Old Town Overlay District, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved in Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 65 of 516 A - 38 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code to allow a residential structure to encroach into a required setback. E. Floor -to -area Ratio The floor -to -area -ratio (FAR) within the Old Town Overlay District shall not exceed 0.45, unless a Certificate of Appropriateness is a1212roved in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code. 4.08.090 Standards Specific to Designated Historic Districts A. Town Square Designated Historic District The Town Square Historic District shall follow the standards set forth for the Downtown Overlay District. 4.08.100 Standards Specific to Historic Landmark Designation A. Design, alterations, additions and maintenance of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark shall be in keeping with a1212licable guidelines of the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines as adol2ted by the City Council. B. Buildings, structures or sites designated as a Historic Landmark shall follow the standards set forth of the applicable underlying and overlay zoning districts. Section 4.1409 Mixed Use District Section 4.1210 Courthouse View Protection Overlay District Section 4.1311 Gateway Overlay District Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 66 of 516 A - 39 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 6 Residential & Agriculture Zoning Districts: Lot, Dimensional & Design Standards Section 6.05 Dimensional Interpretations and Exceptions 6.05.020 Setbacks B. Setback Reductions and Exceptions 1. On lots with approved rear access, the minimum front setback may be reduced to 15 feet. 2. On lots with an approved private rear access easement, rear setbacks shall be measured from the nearest boundary of the easement. For all other lots, rear setbacks shall be measured from the rear property line. 3. A minimum side setback of 10 feet shall be provided along all side lot lines that parallel a public street, except as follows: a. The side setback shall be 25 feet when adjacent to a roadway classified in this Code as a freeway or the frontage road of a freeway. b. The side setback shall be 20 feet for a garage or carport taking access from a side street. (See Section 6.06.010) 4. Where the front, side and rear setbacks reduce the buildable width of an existing corner lot to less than 40 feet, the Director is authorized to reduce the required front setback on the longer street side as much as necessary to increase the buildable width to 40 feet. In the event that the street sides of the lot are of equal length, the reduction shall be made on the side which lies on the shorter side of the block. S. When an existing setback is reduced because of a conveyance to a federal, state or local government for a public purpose and the remaining setback is at least 50% of the required minimum setback for the District in which it is located, then that remaining setback will be deemed to satisfy the minimum setback requirements of this Code. 6. Properties in the Old Town Overlay District may request a Certificate of Appropriateness for setback exception in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code. aEkRoivledged by the City or- created by a plat r-eeefded prior- to May . / may request a setback pur-suant to Section Section 6.06 Accessory Structures and Amenity Areas 6.06.010 Accessory Structures, Garages and Carports The requirements of this Section apply to the AG, Agriculture District and all Residential Districts, except as specified. A. Accessory structures and buildings shall meet the dimensional standards of the base zoning district, except as specified in this Section. However, properties in the Old Town Overlay District may request a Certificate of Appropriateness for setback exception in accordance with Section 3.13 of this Code. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 67 of 516 A -40 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments B. The accessory structure shall only be located on a lot with a principal structure, unless two adjacent lots have common ownership, in which case the structures may be located on different lots. In such instance, the accessory structure shall be located in the rear yard as determined by the lot with the principal structure on it. C. The square footage of an accessory structure shall not exceed 25% of the square footage of the principal structure. For the purposes of this calculation, the square footage of a garage shall not be considered part of the principal structure. D. Accessory structures measuring 8 feet or less in height are allowed in the setbacks in the rear yard up to 3 feet from the property line, but may not extend into any P.U.E. Properties in the Old E. Garages and carports, whether attached or detached from the principal structure, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the public street from which the associated driveway takes access or a minimum of 10 feet when taking access from a public alley. F. No more than 30% of the rear yard may be covered with accessory buildings or structures. All impervious cover requirements in Section 11.02 shall be met. G. Accessory dwelling units located in accessory structures in the AG, RE, RL, and RS Districts are allowed subject to the limitations provided for in Section 5.02.020.B or within a Housing Diversity Development without limitations (as detailed in Section 6.07.020). Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 68 of 516 A - 41 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 8 Tree Preservation, Landscaping and Fencing Section 8.02 Tree Preservation and Protection 8.02.050 Tree Preservation Incentives and Priorities B. Tree Preservation Priorities 1. Heritage Trees The City values its Heritage Trees and, therefore, Heritage Tree protection may be considered for priority over conflicting UDC development requirements, including, but not limited to, setbacks, lot design standards, building heights, sidewalks, lighting, signage, parking design and numbers, drainage criteria, connectivity, driveway separation and utility extension and location. If there is a conflict between Heritage Tree protection and other provisions of this Code, the applicant may request an alternative standard or design, provided that public health and safety shall be maintained with all proposed designs. After consultation with the Urban Forester, an alternative standard or design that gives priority to Heritage Tree protection may be approved by the Director for administrative applications or the Planning and Zoning Commission and the u;s+ r-ic and n « i.,itectur-,i n ; - Commission -for applications under their approval authority. Appeal of a Heritage Tree Protection Priority decision by any of the approval authorities may be taken to the City Council. This appeal is required within 30 days of the approval authority's action. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 69 of 516 A - 42 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 9 Off -Street Parking and Loading Section 9.02 Parking Requirements 9.02.030 Off -Street Parking Requirements A. Off -Street Parking Requirements Table The following Table lists minimum off-street parking requirements by land use category. Table 9.02.030.A: Off -Street Parking Requirements* Use Category Specific Use General Requirement Residential Uses Multi -family - Senior 1 per dwelling unit + additional 5% of total spaces for visitor use 1.5 per 1-bedroom unit Household Living Multi -family 2 per 2-bedroom unit 2.5 per 3-bedroom unit + additional 5% of total spaces for visitor use All other household dwellings 2 per dwelling unit Nursing Home/Hospice/ Assisted 1 per bedroom Group Living Living All other Group Living 1 per bedroom Civic Uses Family Home Day Care 2 per home Group Day Care 6 per home Educational and Day Commercial Day Care 1 per 400 sq ft GFA Care Facilities Elementary or Middle Schools 1.5 per classroom + 1 per 2.5 seats capacity for auditoriums and flexible space All other Educational Facilities 10 per classroom + 1 per 2.5 seats capacity for auditoriums and flexible space Government and Government/Post Office 1 per 250 sq ft GFA + 1 per fleet vehicle Community Facilities All other Government/ Community 1 per 250 sq ft GFA + 1 per fleet vehicle Facilities Medical and Hospitals 1 per 2 patient beds Institutional Facilities All other Institutions 1 per 250 sq ft GFA Golf Courses and Country Clubs 3 per hole + 1.5 per 250 sq ft GFA of clubhouse and other structures including pools and tennis courts Parks and Open Areas Neighborhood Amenity Center 1 per 300 sq ft GFA + 1 additional for every 300 sq ft GFA over 1800 sq ft GFA including pools All other Parks and Open Spaces Determined by Director Places of Worship Religious Assembly 1 per 100 sq ft GFA of sanctuary, classrooms, flexible seating areas Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 70 of 516 A - 43 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Use Category Specific Use General Requirement Commercial Uses Commercial Centers less than 10,000 sq ft including all Mixed -Use Retail Commercial Uses (except Self- 1 per 150 sq ft GFA Center* (optional) Storage, Agriculture or Landscape Supply, Funeral, Repair and Commercial Sales and Service) Car Wash 1 per 200 sq ft GFA (does not include self-service facility) + 2 spaces Automotive Sales and Services All other Automotive Sales and 1 per 400 sq ft GFA (indoor only) + 1 additional per Services (except Fuel) 1000 sq ft GFA of outdoor lot, storage or repair bay area Bed and Breakfast/Inn 1 per guest room + 2 additional spaces Overnight All other Overnight 1 per guest room + 1 per 250 sq ft GFA of Accommodation Accommodations office/conference space All Restaurants/Bar/Brewery/ 1 per 100 sq ft of designated seating area/ Food and Beverage Winery entertainment area + 4 additional spaces Establishments Food Catering Services 1 per 400 sq ft GFA Theaters and Stadiums 1 per 250 sq ft GFA + 1 additional per 500 sq ft GFA Entertainment and up to 50,000 sq ft GFA Recreation All other Entertainment and 1 per 400 sq ft GFA + 1 additional per 4 capacity Recreation seating Home Health Care 1 per 400 sq ft GFA Health Services All other Health Services 1 per 200 sq ft GFA Professional and Professional Office 1 per 300 sq ft GFA Business Offices All other Offices and Services 1 per 400 sq ft GFA Funeral Home 1 per 150 sq ft GFA Self Storage (all) 1 per 300 sq ft GFA office space Small Engine Repair 1 per 400 sq ft GFA Consumer Retail Sales and Services Farmers Market, Agricultural and 1 per 400 sq ft GFA +1 additional per 2,500 sq ft indoor Landscape Supply Sales and outdoor storage or staging area 1 per 250 sq ft GFA for first 20,000 sq ft GFA, 1 per All other Consumer Retail 500 sq ft GFA from 20,000 sq ft GFA up to 100,000 sq ft GFA Commercial Sales 1 per 300 sq ft GFA of office/showroom area + 1 and Service All Commercial Sales and Service additional per 2,500 sq ft indoor and outdoor storage or staging area All Other Uses All Transportation Terminal or 1 per 300 sq ft GFA of office; 1 per 400 sq ft GFA of Transportation, Dispatch Facilities terminal area + additional spaces as determined by the Utilities and Director Communication Major Utilities 1 per 500 sq ft GFA - minimum of 2 Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 71 of 516 A - 44 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Use Category Specific Use General Requirement Industrial Manufacturing and Warehousing Uses Batch Plant/Oil Refinery/ Resource Extraction/Waste 1 per 300 sq ft GFA of office/showroom area + 1 additional per 2,500 sq ft indoor and outdoor storage area All other Industrial Manufacturing and Warehousing 1 per 500sq ft GFA of indoor facility + 1 additional per 2,500 sq ft indoor and outdoor storage area Agriculture Farm Stand 2 per stand Kennel 1 per 300 sq ft GFA of office Downtown Overlay District Downtown Overlay District Retail buildings greater than 1 per 1,500 sq ft GFA No off-street parking requirement 20,000 square feet in Area 1 All other uses in Area 1 Residential Uses in Area 2 See the Household Living parking requirements of this table Applies enly +o ne^,elon,,,en+ in ll�g^.^ 1 per 500 sq ft GFA r aall .^ed- NA-e ti-al Agwpd Residential I Ises droll he g is+eRt With the Area 2 gf+he ng^.,n+g^.,n .,erla^, QUA mpg+ coo Cer.+ion W fer larger h, ildings in Area 1 of+he requirements for Residental I Ices (above) neyin+even Overlay nis+rig+Non- Residential Uses in Area 2t *The required number of parking spaces for uses not listed in the above Table will be determined by the Director. Alternative Parking Plans may be requested in accordance with Section 9.02.050. tNo parking required for outdoor seating areas where a primary indoor restaurant is present. 9.02.040 Rules for Computing Requirements 9.02.050 Alternative Parking Plans 9.02.060 Alternative Parking Plans in the Downtewn a Historic Overlay District A. General. Within any Historic Overlay District of the r,r,T^,r+r,w Over -lay Dist ,ie the Historic and Architectural Review r•,.,,,mission Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, shall be authorized to approve alternatives to providing the number of off-street parking spaces required in accordance with this Section. B. Procedure. Alternative Parking Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the u: ste,,: ^ and n .ehiteEt .ai Review r'o,,,,,,issiRr Historic Preservation Officer, or designee following the procedures of the Administrative Exception process established in Section 3.16 of this Code. C. Recording of Approved Plans. Where an Alternative Parking Plan requires use of property other than the subject property, an attested copy of an approved Alternative Parking Plan must be recorded with the County Clerk on forms made available in the Planning and Pevelopment Department. An Alternative Parking Plan may be amended by following the same procedure required for the original approval. The applicant shall provide proof of recording prior to approval of the Certificate of Occupancy. D. On -Street Parking. The Hiss r-ie and A -ehite t ,ai Review r'r,,,,,,.,issior Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, may approve counting on -street parking spaces to satisfy the requirements for off-street parking. Such on -street parking shall be located on public right-of-way immediately Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 72 of 516 A - 45 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments abutting the subject property and shall be reviewed by the Development Engineer for compliance with City's standards for use of rights -of -way. E. Off -Site Parking. The H..,ter-ie and Ar-ehiteetur-al Review Commission Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, may approve the location of required off-street parking spaces on a separate lot from the lot on which the principal use is located if the off -site parking complies with all of the following standards. 1. Ineligible Activities. Off -site parking may not be used to satisfy the off-street parking standards for residential uses (except for guest parking), restaurants (except in the Downtown Overlay District), convenience stores, or other convenience -oriented uses. Required parking spaces reserved for persons with disabilities may not be located off -site. 2. Location. No off -site parking space may be located more than 900 feet from the primary entrance of the use served (measured along the shortest legal pedestrian route) unless remote parking shuttle service is provided. Off -site parking spaces may not be separated from the use served by a street right-of-way with a width of more than 80 feet, unless a grade -separated pedestrian walkway is provided or other traffic control or remote parking shuttle service is provided. 3. Zoning Classification. Off -site parking areas require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than required for the use served. 4. Agreement for Off -Site Parking. In the event that an off -site parking area is not under the same ownership as the principal use served, a written agreement between the record owners will be required. The agreement must be for a specified time, and guarantee the use of the off -site parking area for a minimum of five years. An attested copy of the agreement between the owners of record must be submitted to the Hiss .,,; , and Ar-ehiteetur-al Review Commission -Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, for recording in form established by the City Attorney. Recording of the agreement must take place before issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy for any use to be served by the off -site parking area. An off -site parking agreement may be terminated only if all required off-street parking spaces will be provided. No use shall be continued if the parking is removed unless substitute parking facilities are provided, and the Hiss r-ie and Ar-ehiteetur-al n vieW C,.,,.,,.,;.,SiO Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, shall be notified at least 60 days prior to the termination of a lease for off- site parking. F. Shared Parking. The Historic and Ar-chitectur-al n,,.,iew Commission Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, may approve shared parking facilities for developments or uses with different operating hours or different peak business periods if the shared parking complies with all of the following standards. 1. Location. Shared parking spaces must be located within 600 feet of the primary entrance of all uses served, unless remote parking shuttle bus service is provided. 2. Zoning Classification. Shared parking areas require the same or a more intensive zoning classification than required for the use served. 3. Shared Parking Study. Those wishing to use shared parking as a means of satisfying off- street parking requirements must submit a shared parking analysis to the City that clearly demonstrates the feasibility of shared parking. The study must be provided in a form Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 73 of 516 A - 46 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments established by the City and made available to the public. It must address, at a minimum, the size and type of the proposed development, the composition of tenants, the anticipated rate of parking turnover, and the anticipated peak parking and traffic loads for all uses that will be sharing off-street parking spaces. 4. Agreement for Shared Parking. A shared parking plan will be enforced through written agreement among all owners of record. An attested copy of the agreement between the owners of record must be submitted to the City for recording in a form established by the City Attorney. Recording of the agreement must take place before issuance of a Building Permit for any use to be served by the off -site parking area. A shared parking agreement may be terminated only if all required off-street parking spaces will be provided. G. Fee -In Lieu of Parking. The Hiss r-ie and n,.ehit,,, tur-a n vieW CE)ffi ,.,isSie Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, may approve the acceptance of a fee -in -lieu of required parking in extreme cases where none of the alternatives above, alone or in combination, provide for the requisite number of spaces. Such fee shall be based on the cost of land acquisition, construction (including landscaping and lighting), and the estimated cost of maintenance for a period of ten years. Such fee shall be placed in a dedicated fund to provide parking solutions in the affected portion of the Downtown area or other affected project area where the project is not within the Downtown. H. Other Eligible Alternatives. The Tomistor ^ and Ar-chiteetur-al Review (*,mis,^ Historic Preservation Officer, or designee, may approve any other alternative to providing off-street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed plan will function equally well in protecting surrounding neighborhoods, maintaining traffic circulation patterns, and promoting quality urban design than would strict compliance with otherwise applicable off-street parking standards. Such alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the use of tandem parking spaces. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 74 of 516 A - 47 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 15 Enforcement Section 15.02 Compliance Required 15.02.030 Demolition by Neglect A. Upon identification of any property in Possible violation of Section 4.08.060 of this Code, the Building Official shall notify the property owner or person with interest in the real property, of the possible violation. Such notification shall be in writing and be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notification shall state the nature of the possible violation with sufficient specificity to enable the owner or person with an interest in the real property to bring the property into compliance with this section. The notification shall also state that the owner or person with an interest in the real property shall have 90 days to bring the property into compliance with this Code. B. The Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer will work with the property owner to develop a rehabilitation plan. Upon completion of the 90-day grace period, the Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer will reinspect the property to determine compliance with this Code. Should the property owner or person with an interest in the real property fail to bring the property into compliance with the 90-day grace period, the City shall seek enforcement of this Code under Section 15.03 of this Code and any applicable provisions of the Georgetown Municipal Code. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 75 of 516 A - 48 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Chapter 16 Definitions Section 16.02 Definitions Alteration. Anv exterior change or modification in the architectural appearance and design, other than cosmetic or decorative, or in supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders; or a complete rebuilding of the roof or the exterior walls. Alteration also includes the removal, stripping or concealing of any significant exterior architectural feature that is integral to the historic character of a building or structure that is designated as a local Historic Landmark or contributing to the Historic District. Alteration does not include modifications that aualifv as "Ordinance Maintenance and Repair" as this term is defined in this Code. Roofs,in an elevation view of the building. inEluding mansard foofs, having a slope of greatef than 65 degrmees shall be eensidermed parmt of a wall surmfaee fef the purmposes of this ei:dinanee. (See form ii ROE)f" Certificate of Design Complianee Appropriateness (GD4QCoA). A certificate documenting approval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) or the Historic Preservation Officer H( PO)to construct, reconstruct, alter, restore, remove, relocate, or demolish any e)Eter building or structure that is designated as a Historic Landmark or located in a Historic Overlay District, including specific site features ' elements, -such as signage, and fencesiandseaping within the Old Town and Powntown Over -lay Pistr-iets or- any ether- established Demolition. The eampleteintentional destruction, razing, dismantling or removal in whole or in part of a building or structure; perimeter-_ walls; ; or any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of sites, surfaces, utilities or other improvements. Demolition by Neglect. Demolition of a building that is in a serious state of disrepair and deterioration due to lack of proper maintenance, and for which certain measures must be taken in order to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. A Council -adopted ordinance that provides guidance and approval criteria for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, along with the Historic Preservation Officer, when reviewing design compliance and proper preservation practices for proposed projects in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Overlay districts. Historic Architectural Features. Architectural features that are unique to the design, stvle and period of the historic structure. Historic Districte, designated. Any site, District, or area, building, of strtiettire of historical, archeological, or cultural importance or value which the City Council determines by action shall be protected, preserved, or enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people. Historic Landmark. A building, structure or site of historical, architectural, or cultural importance or value to the City of Georgetown that has been designated as a "landmark" by ordinance of the City Council and that is to be protected, preserved, restored, and enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 76 of 516 A - 49 of 50 EXHIBIT A - Proposed UDC Amendments Historic Preservation Officer (HPO). A person designated to review development applications in the r,,,wnt w and Old Town a Historic Overlay Districts. The HPO presents findings and recommendations to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and any other duties granted Eby this Code. Historic Structure. A building or structure that is aLyears or more, and b) associated with significant people or events, or c, conveys a character of building and design found during the City's period of significance. Historic structure also includes a building that has been designated as a local Historic Landmark, or that is contributing to the historic overlay district. Historic Structure, contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that supports the district's historical significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings identified as low, medium and high priority structures in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered contributing Historic Structures for purposes of this Code. For the purpose of demolition only, buildings or structures listed in this survey and that are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic structures. Historic Structure, non-contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that does not support the district's historic significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings that are not identified in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered non-contributing historic structures for purposes of this Code. Reconstruction. Rehabilitation or replacement of a building or structure which eithere-has been damaged, altered, or removed, or axis proposed to be altered or removed. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The standards established by the Secretary of the Interior for providing guidance on the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of historic properties. Street Facing Fagade. The building facade or wall that is parallel to a street lot line. Reseur-ees Survey of Geer-geteivi+, Texas by Har-dN-, Heek & Meer-e, 1984 as amended fr-E)m time to time r—_ "Ordinary " as that term is defined in this Code; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 77 of 516 A - 50 of 50 EXHIBIT B - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 05311 H -N A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, RECOMMENDING INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ("UDC") RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT AFFECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND/OR ARE LISTED ON THE LIST OF PRIORITY STRUCTURE ("HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY"); MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on March 11, 2003, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, adopted a set of comprehensive development regulations known as the UDC via Ordinance No. 2003-16, which codified various zoning and subdivision standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a posted Workshop on May 13, 2014, to review the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's policies and procedures within the City of Georgetown; and WHEREAS, the City Council voiced concerns regarding regulations and procedures that affect development on properties located in a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Resource Survey, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's powers and duties, property rights, and the incentives allotted for historic preservation in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a comprehensive review and modification of the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey is needed to create a balance between land use regulations and historic preservation; and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Unified Development Code Advisory Committee on November 12, 2013, to review proposed or requested amendments to the UDC other than executive amendments, which are those amendments that are nondiscretionary, mandatory, or legislative revisions to address state statutes or case laws, ratify published directors determinations, incorporate recently approved Council ordinances, process City Council designated emergency items, or address revisions otherwise determined necessary by legal counsel; RESOLUTION NO. O 5 PAGE 1 OF 2 Page 78 of 516 B - 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B - Resolution 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 Chapter 3 of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan relative to Land Use. SECTION 2: City Council hereby designates amendments to the UDC relative to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey as an emergency item. SECTION 3: This resolution shall become effective from and after its passage. PASSED and APPROVED thisAday of J 2014. Dale Ross, Mayor ATTEST: J Jed, /ica Brettle, City Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 0 50-7 H —1 V PAGE 2 OF 2 Page 79 of 516 B - 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments Chapter 2 Review 2.01.020 Review Authority Allow staff review for signs and small projects Authority Include a chart identifying Review Authority (Powers and Duties) of HPO, HARC and Subcommittees Demolition Subcommittee - Appointed by HARC; Must include Building Official, HARC member, and a Structural Engineer, Historic Preservationist or Architect 2.02 Administrative Planning Director acts as the Historic Include the HPO as an administrative official Officials Preservation Officer (Designation, Powers and Duties, etc.) Clarify that the Planning Direc for is the HPO or may be design ted by the Planning Director 2.03.010.A. Heritage Tree HARC is final authority to allow site Transfer to Planning Director (consistent with site plan 3 Protection alterations to accommodate Heritage Trees review) Chapter 3 Applications 3.01.020 Applicability of Include a Historic Landmark designation process (similar and Permits Procedures to Historic District designation) Change Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) term to Certificate of Appropriateness (consistency with state and national standards 3.03.010.D Posted Notice All CDCs (to include Administrative CDCs) Remove posted notice (and public hearing require public notification requirements) for Administrative CDCs - Only require public notification for CDCs reviewed by HARC 3.03.020 Required Public HARC CDCs and Historic District Require public hearing for Historic Landmark Hearing designations require public hearing designations (similar to Historic District designations) 3.06.020 Review Process May be initiated by applicant or Include recommendation from the HARC in the event (Zoning Map recommendation from City Council, of a Historic District or Historic Landmark designation Amendment) Planning and Zoning Commission or Director Requires recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission 3.13.010 Applicability CDC required for any development of Clarify Applicability Section - Clearly delineate types of property in a historic district (with certain CDC required and when required exceptions) Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 80 of 516 C- 1 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments CDCs required only for reconstruction, alterations, changes, removal, relocation, demolition of an existing structure, new construction (structure) and signage - Remove any requirements for site alterations or site features Revise and move Database of Priority Structures (Subsection F) to new HPO subsection in Ch. 2 Clarify Removal vs Relocation (term) of a structure - Provide consistency throughout document Exclude demolition of a structure that is not designated (or eligible to be designated) a Historic Landmark, or that is non-contributing to the Historic district 3.13.010.E Any building or structure on the List of Move Section 3.13.010.D.1 (demolition) to Priority Structures Applicability subsection to clarify applicability of structures in Historic Districts Clarify "List of Priority Structures" - not be all-inclusive. Different types of review depending on the structure (contributing vs non-contributing structures) Define building and structures - Structures within a Historic District and individually identified as Historic Landmarks. Contributing vs Non -Contributing. Clearly identify structures that are exempt from CDC for Demolition requirement (i.e. non-contributing structures) Identify structures that require review by Demolition Subcommittee and approval by HARC vs approval by HPO 3.13.010.0 No building permit issued unless Clarify that there are permits eligible for administrative application reviewed by HARC (staff) review - only applicable when scope of work re uires a iproval by the HARC 3.13.010.D CDC for Demolition Applicability - Building or structure within Demolition subsection - Remove from Applicability any Historic Overlay District or on List of Section (create own (new) subsection); Restructure to Priority Structures be consistent with other processes identified in UDC (applicability, review process, criteria for approval, etc.) Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 81 of 516 C - 2 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments Does not supersede Dangerous Building Incorporate CLG delay period requirements (HARC Ordinance consideration immediately following end of 60-day delav period) Delay Period varies per level of priority Move and clarify applicability portion to the (denied CDCs) Applicability Section (see above) Demolition and permit delay period due to Clarify relationship with Dangerous Building Ordinance work completed with no CDC Remove CDC requirement if structure is a dangerous building and necessary for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare as determined by the Ruilding C)fficial Justification (criteria to initiate demolition request) - Loss of Significance or Unreasonable Economic Hardship Move delay period to beginning of subsection. Remove delay period requirement if CDC is denied. Clarify delay periods - purpose, longevity, actions that can (and should) occurred during delay period, outcome; consistency with CLG demolition delay period. Move Demolition by Neglect regulations to Demolition subsection (process) Notification Requirements - Include mail notices for demolition requests 3.13.020 Review Process Include review process for Administrative CDCs, and clarify review process for HARC approved CDCs, to include CDCs for Demolition (own subsections) 3.13.020.E Major Projects Define major projects as those exceeding 50% of the value of the structure Clearly define what are considered minor and major projects - Include chart table 3.13.020.D Application for Justification Statement - one or more may Relocate section to new demolition subsection Demolition or be applicable Relocation Application requirements - Vary per Revise economically viable use to economically feasible justification; optional (TBD by Demolition to (renovate, relocate, etc.) Subcommittee) Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 82 of 516 C- 3 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments Revise application requirements to be consistent for all demolition requests Remove agreement requirements Clarify requirements for demolition vs relocation; Relocation within same, different and outside Historic District Clarify difference between Subsections 1 and 4 for Relocation Remove "Other Evidence Requested" (Subsection 5) Make subsections 3 and 6 part of applicability requirements Move Subsection 7 to Applicability Section Revise reference to subcommittee - Make Demolition Subcommittee a (review) recommending body. Subcommittee makes recommendation to HARC 3.13.020.F.1 Administrative Clarify - Signs, UDC required site and structural features, Review demo of non -historic structures, alternative parking plans Clearly identify scope of work that required Administrative CDCs 3.13.020.F. Minor Projects Paint, exterior projects not requiring a building permit 2 Subcommittee 3.13.020.G Economic Review Review financial portions of applications of Look at other CDC applications that may require Panel no economically viable use of the property review of this subcommittee - Purpose of Subcommittee? Look at designating the subcommittee at the same time as other subcommittees (if needed) Streamline the process of the Economic Review Panel Remove if not needed 3.13.040 Supplemental Consider 3 criteria related to uniqueness of Clarify and revise approval criteria - Include Criteria - Demolition structure, condition of structure, and Ch. 15 supplemental criteria for Contributing Structures and or Relocation status; and make applicable findings (as Historic Landmarks Approval determined by justification statement) Establish clear and consistent approval criteria/findings lApproval criteria for demolition vs relocation Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 83 of 516 C - 4 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments 3.13.050 Criteria for Delayed Applicant must address criteria prior to Move to Delay period Section (or vice versa). Place all Demolitions or going back to HARC for approval delay period requirements under one section Removal Revise delay period requirements - Remove references to requirements that were needed to deem application complete; Make requirements consistent with purpose of delav period 365-delay period due to demolition by neglect may defeat purpose as these buildings may have an adverse impact on the subject property and area. Also is in conflict with 90-day delay period to bring property into rmmnlianre_ Delay period only applicable to historic properties (contributing structures in historic district or identified as individual landmarks 3.13.070 After approval of a Applicant must complete the following: Make post -approval requirements part of the technical Demolition or review of a request. Tasks may be accomplished as the Relocation case is under review. Clarify requirements vs recommendations Some requirements may be conditional approval by HARC 3.13.070.A For Demolition: Clarify; provide clear guidelines of the salvage strategy plan. Salvage strategy only applicable to structures with Permanent record of a significant structure prior to demolition national registration, contributing structures, and historic landmarks. Removal of all salvageable building Remove salvage strategy plan for buildings to be materials - Prepare a salvage strategy relocated - unless portion of building will be demolished Clear structure quickly and thoroughly Plant site and maintain until reused 3.13.070.E For Relocation (Removal): Clarify what happens if assessment of structural condition determines that the structure cannot be moved - Make part of technical review Provide guidelines on how a building proposed to be Document site conditions prior to removal relocated will be protected Prepare salvage strategy for reusable Time limit for when building must be relocated materials Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 84 of 516 C- 5 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments Assess structural condition prior to moving structure Protect building from weather damage and vandalism 3.13.110 Appeals Clarify ----- Chapter 4 Zoning Clarify that Ch. 4 is only related to the specific Districts development standards that apply to a zoning district - processes and application requirements are outlined in Ch. 3 Remove all references to applications and processes 4.08.010.0 Review Authority Clarify administrative reviews allowed Remove from Ch. 4 and include in Ch. 2 (Review Authority) CDC Required Exempt City projects in the ROW from HARC review, require site plan review based upon UDC and Design Guidelines Remove from Ch. 4 and include in Ch. 3 (Applications and Permits 4.08.010.F Demolition by No property owner shall permit the Move to new Demolition section in Ch. 3 (process) Neglect property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in deterioration 4.08.020 UDC/Guidelines Clarify role of guidelines/UDC Conflict 4.09.020.E Applicability Clarify Staff review in Ch. 3 - Remove review processes from Ch. 4 4.09.020.D Land Use HARC shall not have the authority to Clarify to "HARC shall not have the authority to approve the specific use of a site. approve or disapprove the specific use of a site." 4.09.020.F BO and HPO determine "serious state of Revise 90-day period to include CDC, building permit, disrepair" and construction periods to bring property into com liance. 4.09.040 Setback ZBA grants setback modification, HARC Combine review authority to make it easier for the Modifications approves construction applicant 4.10.010E Historic Overlay Secretary of Interior standards Change language to match Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Current language paraphrases and combines several in to one - Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 85 of 516 C - 6 of 7 EXHIBIT C - Summary outline of proposed changes to the UDC dated October 21, 2014 Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Chapter Section General Topic Current Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended Amendments 4.10.010.G Property owner given 90 days to bring Conflict with 365-delay period to bring property into property into compliance. Failure to compliance (compliance may include demolition of comply will result in enforcement structure) proceedings under Ch. 15.40 Remove requirement for CDC if enforcement is conducted under Ch. 15.40 of City Code Provide different CDC requirements if it is only to address code violations Chapter 8 Tree 8.02.050.B. Site alterations to HARC is final authority to allow site Transfer to Planning Director (consistent with site plan Preservation, 1 protect Heritage alterations to accommodate Heritage Trees review) Landscaping and Fencing Trees Chapter 9 Off -Street 9.02.060 Alternative Parking HARC reviews Alternative Parking Plans in Change approval to Planning Director Parking and Plans in the Downtown, while Director reviews Loading Downtown Overlay District throughout the city Chapter 16 Definitions 16.02 Definitions Revise and clarify definition of Demolition Include definitions for Historic Landmark, and contributing and non-contributing structures Printed on Oct. 21, 2014 Page 86 of 516 C- 7 of 7 EXHIBIT D - Proposed UDC Changes Brief Overview EXHIBIT D Proposed UDC Changes Brief Overview Renaming: Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) terminology was changed to Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) to be consistent with state and national standards. Historic Status: Historic status of a structure is proposed to be divided into contributing versus non-contributing historic structures to a district, which would influence applicable requirements. The upcoming new Historic Resource Survey will clarify this status. Because of this, one of the proposed changes include the review of historic structures in all Historic Overlay Districts consistently, thus eliminating the need to distinguish application review processes between the Old Town and Downtown Overlay Districts. Additionally, a new designation, Historic Landmark, has been created that would include local buildings, structures or sites, designated via ordinance, that are considered of historical, architectural, or cultural importance to the City within the its jurisdiction. The upcoming new Historic Resource Survey will help identify buildings and structures that may be eligible for local Historic Landmark designation. Nonetheless, interested property owners may initiate the process for Historic Landmark designation following the effective date of this amendment, should it be approved. Notification requirements have been incorporated into the Historic Landmark designation process whereby property owners would become apprised of the historic status of their property and would have opportunities to comment at public hearings. A Historic Landmark Designation would be in addition to a contributing structure status, but would not be restricted to those structures within a historic overlay. Approval Authority: Approval authority has been broken down for different types of potential situations (project/scope of work) and building statuses (contributing vs. non-contributing historic structure, and Historic Landmarks), and clarified utilizing a chart in the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness section of the UDC (Section 3.13). As directed by the City Council, final approval authority has been revised to increase applications that could receive administrative approval through the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), which mainly consist of the review of certain improvements or modifications under clear guidelines and standards established in the adopted UDC and Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, thus eliminating the need for interpretation or further consideration by a commission or board. However, the HPO reserves the option to send an application to the HARC if it is determined that the commission's review is necessary due to non -consistency with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. In this event, the case will be scheduled at the next available HARC meeting for review and approval following public notification. The section also clarifies that site features, land uses, and certain elements are not subject to CoA review or approval. Generally, administrative review would include minor alterations to street facing facades, new additions to a street facing fagade of a non-contributing structure (provided all applicable zoning standards are met), exterior paint color, fences along a street lot line or within a street yard, individual signage (excluding master sign plans), certain partial demolitions, and renewal of expired CoAs. HARC review would include construction of a new building (excluding residential in the Old Town Overlay District), additions and certain alterations to Historic Landmarks and contributing historic structures, certain improvements that are not in keeping with the standards/guidelines, demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure, and master sign plans. Page 87of516 D-1of2 EXHIBIT D - Proposed UDC Changes Brief Overview EXHIBIT L outlines a comparison of the applicable approval authority under the current provisions versus the approval authority under the proposed revisions. Public Notification: The proposed amendment also includes the elimination of public notification for applications subject to administrative review and approval (applications subject to HARC review will still require public notification). Applications subject to administrative review and approval will be reviewed in accordance with adopted standards and guidelines applicable to the proposed scope of work. No deviation from the adopted standards may be allowed, unless that deviation is approved following the proper process. Applications that do not meet the adopted guidelines and applicable standards will be subject to review by the HARC. Outside of the UDC, staff is looking at administrative processes to communicate to the HARC and public the outcome of Administrative CoAs, such as providing a report to the HARC at their regularly scheduled meeting. Demolition: The process and approval criteria for relocation, removal, or demolition of a historic structure has been simplified, restructured, and clarified. Requirements have been differentiated based on structure status, such as Historic Landmark, contributing historic structures, non-contributing historic structures, or dangerous structures. In addition, it clarifies what is considered to be removal of a feature versus actual demolition, and establishes a threshold for minor demolitions or relocations that may be reviewed administratively. Penalties applicable to demolitions without prior HARC approval have been refined. Moreover, the Demolition Subcommittee is proposed to be formalized as a three member committee consisting of at least one HARC member, the Building Official, and a structural engineer, architect, or historic preservationist, that would provide a technical review and recommendation to the full HARC following a site visit to the subject structure. Should a HARC member meet more than one of these requirements, additional HARC members may be appointed to the Demolition Subcommittee. General: Overall, the applicable sections of Chapters 3 and 4 have been reorganized for better clarity and improved use. The historic overlay districts identified in Chapter 4 have been grouped together under one heading. The reorganization has also provided for clarification of the administrative and HARC review processes. In addition, based on public feedback, the floor -to -area ratio (FAR) threshold for the Old Town Overlay District was reduced from .65 to .45. Interim Provisions: Since the proposed amendments rely heavily on a new Historic Resources Survey, which does not yet exist, interim provisions were outlined to temporarily protect the city's historic resources. These provisions establish that any structure listed on the existing 1984 and 2207 Historic Resource Surveys that are within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure. Also, any structure listed on the surveys that is not within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure for the purposes of demolition. Page 88of516 D-2of2 EXHIBIT E - Project Timeline Exhibit E Project Timeline ❖ May 13, 2014 City Council held a workshop to review and discuss the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey, the HARC's powers and duties, property rights, and the incentives allotted for historic preservation in the City. The City Council found that a comprehensive review and modification of these development standards, rules and procedures was needed to create a balance between land use regulations and historic preservation. ❖ May 27, 2014 City Council adopted Resolution 052714-N directing staff to conduct a comprehensive review to determine possible amendments to the HARC process, the Unified Development Code (UDC) and other city regulations to ensure a continued balance between historic preservation and land use regulations. ❖ October 23, 2104 Staff presented the proposed list of UDC amendments to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) for review at the October 23, 2014 HARC Workshop. The presentation included the list of proposed amendments and a proposed timeline for the changes. ❖ October 28, 2014 Staff presented the proposed list of UDC amendments to the City Council for review at the October 28, 2014 City Council Policy Workshop. The presentation included the list of proposed amendments and a proposed timeline for the changes. In addition, it outlined the process for adoption of the proposed amendments, including presentations to the HARC and UDC Advisory Committee. ❖ November 4, 2014 Staff presented the proposed list of UDC amendments to the UDC Advisory Committee for review at the November 4, 2014 UDC Advisory Committee Meeting. The presentation included the list of proposed amendments and a proposed timeline for the changes. ❖ November 10, 2014 List of proposed UDC amendments posted online for review and feedback. Survey made available online to promote and facilitate the submittal of comments. ❖ January 15, 2015 Draft of proposed UDC amendments posted online for public review and feedback. ❖ January 22, 2015 Open Stakeholder Meeting on the proposed UDC amendments. ❖ January 28, 2015 Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 89 of 516 E -1 of 2 EXHIBIT E - Project Timeline Update of the proposed UDC amendments was presented to Downtown related boards and commissions. ❖ January 30, 2015 Revised draft of proposed UDC amendments posted online for public review and feedback. ❖ February 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, Public Hearing held and Recommendation to City Council. ❖ February 5, 2015 City staff was available at a Q&A Session on the proposed UDC amendments, hosted by the Georgetown Heritage Society. ❖ February 10, 2015 City Council meeting, Public Hearing held and City staff presented First Reading of the Ordinance for proposed changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey. ❖ February 26, 2015 Workshop with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) on the proposed UDC amendments ❖ March 12, 2015 Workshop with property and business owners and other interested members of the public ❖ March 24, 2015 City Council Workshop to discuss the proposed amendments to the UDC, to include the outcome and comments received at the previous two public workshops with the affected stakeholders. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 90 of 516 E - 2 of 2 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 1 Clarify definition of the Downtown and Old Ch. 1; Sec. 1.14 Included Town Design Guidelines 2 HARC should also render advice and guidance Ch. 2; Sec. 2.03.010.C.2 Included on properties designated as a Historic Landmark 3 Public Notification should be required for Ch. 3; Sec. 3.03 Not included - It is recommended that all Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness administrative applications be reviewed in a (CoA) consistent manner. 4 Required findings section should be subject to Ch. 3; Sec. 3.06.06 and Sec. Included - Required findings has been meeting the Approval Criteria for the 3.06.07 incorporated in the Criteria for Approval designation of a Historic Overlay District or 5 Criterion no. 6 of the approval criteria for Ch. 3; Sec. 3.06.060.A Included - Criterion has been removed. designating a Historic Overlay District should not be included 6 Clarify required findings for designating a Ch. 3; Sec. 3.06.060.13 Included Historic Overlay District 7 National Register criteria should be used for Ch. 3; Sec. 3.06.070 Included - Criteria for the designation of local designating Historic Landmarks Historic Landmarks includes criteria from the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 8 The amount of review that would apply to non- Ch 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - Applicability of review process has historic structures should not be all-inclusive been clarified for historic and non -historic structures. 9 Non -street facing fagade additions to a Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not included - Currently, the UDC does not contributing historic structure should be require review for new additions that are not reviewed by the HARC visible from a street. However, due to the importance of contributing historic structures, it is recommended that these additions be reviewed at the staff level to ensure the addition is in keeping with applicable guidelines and standards. 10 New additions to non-contributing historic Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - New additions that do not comply structures that are inconsistent with the historic with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay overlay district standards should be reviewed by District require review and approval by the the HARC HARC. 11 Awnings and canopies for Historic Landmarks Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included should be reviewed by the HARC 12 New awnings and canopies for contributing Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included historic structures should be reviewed by the HARC 13 New awnings and canopies for non-contributing Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included historic structures should be reviewed by the HPO Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 91 of 516 F - 1 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 14 Porches, patios or decks for a contributing Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - Applicable only to street facing historic structure should be reviewed by the facades. HARC 15 New porches, patios or decks for a non- Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - New porches, patios or decks of a contributing structure should be reviewed as street facing fagade of a non-contributing these may impact the character of the district structure is proposed to be reviewed by the HPO. Applicable only to street facing facades. 16 CoA requirement for awnings/canopies, paint, Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 and Sec. Part Included - New awnings or canopies, paint, and attached exterior lighting to a residential 3.13.010.E and lighting attached to a single-family or two - structure in the Old Town Overlay District family residential structure in the Old Town or should not be required Downtown overlay districts will not require review of a CoA, with the exception of those structured designated as a Historic Landmark. 17 Exclude CoA requirement to replacements, Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Part Included (explanation) - Due to the alterations and modifications to residential importance of contributing historic structures, it structures in the Old Town Overlay District is recommended that certain modifications or alterations to the street facing fagade of a contributing historic structure or Historic Landmark be subject to review. This does not include alterations made to non-contributing historic structures or non -street facing facades. Ordinary maintenance and repair does not require a CoA. 18 Replacing historic architectural features with a Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included non -historic architectural feature should be reviewed by the HARC 19 Replacing roof materials with different roof Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Part Included - HARC review for Historic materials should be reviewed by the HARC for Landmarks; HPO review for contributing historic Historic Landmarks and contributing historic structures. structures 20 Modifications to exterior steps and stairways of Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Net Included This type of Med-iFi^atieR ;- a contributing historic structure should be _id'^.r^dto be ^ that be FAiRGF pFejeet Fnay reviewed by the HARC Included 21 Modifications to exterior steps and stairways Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not included - This type of modification is using in -kind materials of a non-contributing considered to be a minor project that should not historic structure should be reviewed by the be reviewed. 22 Paint removal from a historic and significant Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is architectural feature should be reviewed by the considered to be a minor project that may be HARC reviewed administratively. 23 New paint on unpainted historic and other Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is significant architectural features should be considered to be a minor project that may be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 92 of 516 F - 2 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 24 Changes in color to awning fabric that are Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is inconsistent with the district and landmark considered to be a minor project that may be characteristics should be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. HPO has the ability to for Historic Landmarks refer the application to HARC if application does not meet the Design Guidelines standards. 25 Exterior lighting that is attached to a building Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is designated as a Historic Landmark should be considered to be a minor project that may be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. 26 Removing residential awnings and canopies of a Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - Requirement was clarified to include Historic Landmark should be reviewed by the both residential and non-residential awnings HARC 27 Removal of awnings and canopies from a Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included contributing historic structure should be reviewed by the HARC 28 Removing inappropriate (non -historic) exterior Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is architectural features should be reviewed by considered to be a minor project that may be the HARC reviewed administratively. 29 Demolition of non -historic additions, and Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is attached carports, porches, patios or decks that considered to be a minor project that may be are made of non -historic materials to a Historic reviewed administratively. Landmark or contributing historic structure should be reviewed by the HARC 30 Reopening enclosed porches, patios or decks Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is should be reviewed by the HARC considered to be a minor project that may be reviewed administratively. 31 Demolition of less than 30% of the square Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is footage of a contributing historic structure considered to be a minor project that may be should be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. See comment #33. 32 Demolition of 15% or more of the square Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included footage of a Historic Landmark or a contributing historic structure should be reviewed by the IHARC 33 Demolition of 30% of more of the square Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - Based on the majority of the footage of a Historic Landmark or a contributing comments received, 30% appears to be too high historic structure should be reviewed by the of a number when it comes to demolition of a HARC as previously proposed historic structure, as this may greatly impact its historic significance and the City's historic resources. Thus, the number was reduced to 15% as recommended. See comment #33. 34 Demolition of any percentage of a Historic Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Part Included - Demolitions of small percentages Landmark or contributing historic structure of a structure are considered to be minor should be reviewed by the HARC projects that may be reviewed administratively. See comment #33. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 93 of 516 F - 3 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 35 Demolition or removal of any feature and of any Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - The items that do not require percentage (of a non-contributing historic review in this specific section are related to non - structure) should be reviewed at a minimum by contributing historic structures, which are the HPO. There should not be an item under structures that do not support the district's "Removal, Demolition or Relocation" that does historical significance. Because of this, there is not trigger a review. no loss in the historic significance of the district should these items be removed or demolished. It is important to note that any new construction, addition and certain modifications would be reviewed by the HARC or HPO, as applicable, to ensure that the character of the district is preserved. 36 Demolition of non-contributing historic Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - Adopted standards are only structures located within a National Register applicable to local Historic Overlay Districts District should be reviewed by the HARC or HPO within the City's jurisdiction. and require public notification 37 Relocation of a building or structure on the Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Part Included - HARC review for relocation same lot or Historic Overlay District should be within the same district; HPO review for reviewed by the HARC relocation within the same lot. 38 Relocation of building to ETJ and County should Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Included - Table was revised to clarify relocation be allowed in lieu of demolition outside of a historic overlay district (to inside and outside City'sjurisdiction). 39 Signage in all Historic Overlay Districts (and Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is National Register Districts) should be reviewed considered to be a minor project that may be by the HARC reviewed administratively. 40 New fences, railings or walls consistent with the Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of improvement is overlay district's characteristics and guidelines considered to be a minor project that may be should be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. 41 Removal of a chainlink, plywood or vinyl fence Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - This type of modification is to be replaced with wood, wrought iron or considered to be a minor project that may be masonry fence should be reviewed by the HARC reviewed administratively. 42 Fences for residential properties in the Old Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 and Sec. Part Included - Fences play a major role in the Town Overlay District should be exempt from 3.13.010.13 character and historic significance of the district. the CoA process. However, if it must be Because of this, all fences including residential reviewed, fences for contributing and non- fences (as established in the current regulations) contributing historic structures should be are proposed to be reviewed by the HPO reviewed by the HPO, and for Historic (regardless of the historic significance of the Landmarks by the HARC structure). Only fences that are inconsistent with the adopted standards would require approval by the HARC. 43 New residential construction (infill) and Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.010.13 Not Included - Residential infill construction in additions in the Old Town Overlay District the Old Town Overlay District will be reviewed in should not be exempt from the CoA review the future through a separate process. process Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 94 of 516 F - 4 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 44 Exterior paint color (new, change and removal) Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.010.13.5 Included - All single-family and two-family should be exempt for residential properties in residential structures (in the Old Town and the Old Town Overlay District Downtown Overlay Districts) are exempt from the CoA process for exterior paint. 45 Demolition of a Historic Landmark that is Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.010.B.6 Not Included - Additional language was included considered a dangerous structure or where to require the coordination with the HPO and demolition is necessary due to safety concerns property owner to identify salvageable materials should not be exempt from CoA process and the proper documentation of the structure prior to demolition. 46 Timeline should be assigned for Final Action of Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.020.A.4.a Part Included - Timeline for administrative an Administrative CoA review processes are established in the UDC Development Manual. The Manual will be revised to reflect that a decision on an Administrative CoA will take approximately 10 working days after deeming the application complete. 47 Criteria for Approval for a CoA (HPO and HARC Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.020.13 and Sec. Included - Proposed design must be in keeping Approval) should include compliance with the 3.13.030.E with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Secretary of the Interior's Standards the Treatment of Historic Properties. 48 Criteria for Approval should include consistency Ch.3; Sec. 3.13.020.B.4 Included with the Historic Overlay District 49 Criteria for Approval should read that the design Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.020.B.4 Included is "compatible" with the Historic Overlay District 50 Allow HARC to request clarification or additional Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.A.2.b Not Included - This is not part of the Application information upon review of the application in Completeness review process as this is an advance of the meeting administrative review that consists solely in determining that the minimum required materials were submitted with the application. 51 A recommendation by the HPO to HARC should Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.A.3.c Included - HPO's report will include a be required recommendation for final action on items requiring HARC final action. 52 Criterion No. 8 appears to be unnecessary due Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.B.8 Included - Criteria for Approval has been to the remaining criteria for approval of a CoA simplified. by the HARC 53 "Site" from Criterion No. 8 should not be Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.B.8.a Included - See comment 38 above. omitted from the effect a proposed change may have upon the general character of the district 54 Criterion No. C.1.b should refer to compatibility Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.C.1.b Included - See comment #50 with the historic character of the District Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 95 of 516 F - 5 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 55 Concern with Criterion No. 1 for Approval for Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.F.1 Included - Criterion has been clarified to state the relocation, removal or demolition of a that only circumstances that are unique to the Historic Landmark or contributing historic building proposed to be relocated or structure demolished may be considered when reviewing the request. 56 Concern with Criterion No. 2 for Approval for Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.F.2 Included - Criterion has been removed the relocation, removal or demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure 57 Approval Criteria should include a finding that Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.F.2 Not Included - Finding may be too subjective "A structure should never be demolished as a and open to interpretation, particularly as there matter of convenience." is no clear definition of "convenience." 58 Criteria for Approval for demolition based on Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.030.F.3.a Not Included - Process is only applicable to Loss of Significance should not be the burden of significant historic structures. Structures that the applicant are not considered to be historically significant would not be reviewed through the CoA process. 59 Clarify review process for buildings or structures Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.040 Included that are relocated, removed or demolished without approval of a CoA 60 Appeal process - Include recommendation from Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.080 Not Included - Standard process requires HARC to CC appellate body to consider same request, documentation and supporting information as decision making body, in addition to meeting minutes. All motions must include findings/reason for final decision. 61 Historic Landmark designation (status) should Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.020.D Included be recorded at the County Clerk's Office 62 General Guidelines for Historic Overlay Districts Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.050 Not Included - Adopted Guidelines are only should also apply to National Historic Register applicable to Historic Overlay Districts within the Districts City's jurisdiction. 63 General Guidelines for all Historic Overlay Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.050 Part Included - See Criteria for Approval in Sec. Districts should include compliance with the 3.13 Secretary of the Interior's Standards 64 Designated Historic Districts should continue to Ch. 4; Sec. 4.04.050.13 Not Included - Designated Historic Districts is a use the adjective "Overlay" type of Historic Overlay District. Including the word "Overlay" may cause confusion in applicable standards that are unique and specific to a Designated Historic District and that may not apply to other Historic Overlay Districts. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 96 of 516 F - 6 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 65 Concern with the designation process for a Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.050.D Not Included - Process to designate Historic Historic Landmark (no timeline for Landmarks must be adopted and in effect prior implementation) to initiating designation process. By including this Section in the Code, the City or interested property owner may initiate the process to designate a building, structure or site a local Historic Landmark. 66 Demolition by Neglect should include Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.060.A Included - Requirement was clarified to include contributing and non-contributing historic all buildings in a Historic Overlay District and/or structures to a Historic Overlay District designated as a Historic Landmark. 67 Floor -to -Area -Ratio (FAR) for buildings within Ch. 4; Sec. 4.08.080.E Included - FAR has been reduced to 0.45 the Old Town Overlay District should be 0.45 68 Alternative Parking Plans in the Downtown and Ch. 9; Sec. 9.02.060 Not Included - Proposed change is to process all Old Town overlay districts should be reviewed Alternative Parking Plans in a consistent by the HARC manner. The purpose of this Plan is to allow the use of other existing parking facilities when required parking may not be provided on site. 69 Clarification is needed on the term "upon Ch. 15; Sec. 15.02.030.A Not Included - All cases will be identified and identification" for Demolition by Neglect reviewed through existing code enforcement processes. 70 Definition of Alterations should not omit Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Not Included - Cosmetic and decorative features cosmetic or decorative features are not considered to be structural, permanent features. 71 Certificate of Design Compliance should not Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Not Included - As the term implies, change to Certificate of Appropriateness Appropriateness is used to identify compatibility with the character of the historic district or landmark, as well as design guidelines, which were adopted to guide improvements and preservation. 72 Clarify definition of "Demolition by Neglect" Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included - Definition now includes outcome due to negligence. 73 Definition of "Historic Landmark" should include Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included site (i.e. cemeteries) 74 Add a definition for "Historic Overlay District" to Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Not Included - All zoning districts, to include the distinguish from the National Register Historic Historic Overlay District, are defined in Chapter District 4 of the UDC. 75 Add a definition for "National Register Historic Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Not Included - The definitions chapter of the District" UDC defines words, terms and phrases contained within the UDC, which does not include the title National Register Historic Districts. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 97 of 516 F - 7 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 76 Low priority structures should be included in the Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included - Definition now includes low, medium definition of "Historic Structure, contributing" and high priority structures. 77 Definition of "Historic Structure, contributing" Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included and "Historic Structure, non-contributing" should be revised to include both the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resource Surveys 78 Clarify definition on "Historic Structure; non- Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included - Definition has been expanded to contributing" clarify that non-contributing historic structures include structures in a Historic Overlay District but not listed in the Historic Resource Survey. 79 Add a definition for "Minor Project" and "Major Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Not Included - The proposed amendment does Project" not define projects as "minor" or "major", but rather lists each potential project that may require a CoA. 80 Definition of "Street Facing Facade" should Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included include all street lot lines 81 Clarify definition of "Street Facing Facade" to be Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included - Street facing fagade is defined as a a wall or elevation parallel to or visible from a building wall/elevation parallel to a street lot street lot line line to eliminate interpretation of what is "visible." Other (General) Comments 82 Applicability of CoA and review process should Ch. 3; Sec. 3.13.010 Not Included - The proposed amendment differ between the Old Town and Downtown eliminates the distinction between residential Overlay Districts as commercial and residential and non-residential properties, save for a few properties should be treated differently minor exceptions as specified in the proposed amendment, as the purpose of these standards is to protect and preserve the City's historic resources. Because of this, the applicability and review process was shifted to be determined by the type and level of historic significance of the structure (regardless of the use). 83 Projects (Scope of Work) that may be subjective Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 Not Included - The review authority for each (i.e. roof materials and exterior paint color) scope of work was determined based on the should be reviewed by the HARC level of review and type of project, and all activities must comply with the applicable standards adopted by the City. City staff will look at administrative steps and policy decisions to reduce the level of subjectivity in the review (i.e. detailed checklists, report to HARC on submitted administrative CoAs). Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 98 of 516 F - 8 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 84 Demolition process should apply to buildings Ch. 3; Tbl. 3.13.010 and Sec. Not Included - One of the objectives of the and structures that may be eligible to be 3.13.030.E proposed amendment is to provide and increase designated as a Historic Landmark. This would the notification of historic properties within the allow City staff to review a demolition request City's jurisdiction to ensure that property to determine if the structure proposed to be owners are aware they own or are in the demolished is eligible to be designated as a process of acquiring a historic property that is Historic Landmark and thus give the City the subject to additional standards and review. Staff opportunity to preserve a historic resource. If recommends postponing this recommendation so, staff can initiate the process for the to be reviewed further at a future date and designation. Should it be determined that the through the standard UDC amendment process. structure should be designated, the structure may be preserved. To the contrary, if it is determined that the structure should not be designated, the structure may then be demolished. Including this provision in the process will strengthen the City's goal of historic preservation. 85 Review process between adoption of UDC Ch. 16; Sec. 16.02 Included - Definitions revised to clarify amendments and new/revised Historic Resource applicability during transition period. Current Survey structures listed in the Survey will be subject to CoA review. 86 Require (Pre -Application) Conceptual Review for Not Included - Part of HARC's duties include Infill Construction and major alterations or rendering guidance, upon request by the restoration property owner, on new construction or alterations. This will remain an option to all interested stakeholders. Process to request guidance may be established administratively through the Development Manual applications. 87 Review of a change in use from residential to Not Included - All review pertaining to the use non-residential should remain with the HARC will follow existing zoning processes. However, modifications and other necessary improvements to the building because of a change in use will be reviewed by the HPO or HARC, as applicable. 88 Balance in the responsibility of the HPO and Included - Certain modifications and HARC improvements were shifted back to HARC review due to the significant impact it may have on historic properties and in keeping within the purpose and mission of the HARC. 89 Better define the duties, roles and responsibility Included of the HARC 90 Allow more than one HARC member to be part Included - To be addressed in the City Code of the Demolition Subcommittee should they meet the Architect/Structural Engineer/Historic Preservationist criteria Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 99 of 516 F - 9 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 91 Submittal and status of administrative CoA Noted - City staff will look at administrative applications should be made available online processes and policies to update stakeholders and/or through email notification on application statuses. 92 HPO should report to the HARC administrative Noted - City staff will look at administrative CoAs that have been reviewed and final action processes and policies to keep the HARC taken informed of actions taken on Administrative 93 All National Registered properties should be Noted - City staff will look at properties that are designated as Historic Landmarks in the National Register to determine eligibility for local Historic Landmark. 94 Designation of Historic Landmarks requires Included - Designation of a Historic Landmark additional research to determined eligibility will be determined by the purpose of this district and the criteria for approval. It is important to note that designation of Historic Landmarks may not be initiated until this HL designation, including the process for designation, is established in the UDC. 95 Designation of a Historic Landmark should Not Included - Designation of a specific "zoning" require consent by the property owner district (as a Historic Landmark designation would function) may be approved by the City Council if they determine that this designation is in the best interest and benefit of the city. It is important to note that the property owner subject to the designation, as well as all property owners within a 200-ft radius, will be notified of the request and be given the opportunity to express any objections or support at each public hearing of the process. 96 Designation of a Historic Landmark should not Included - Designation of a Historic Landmark is require consent by the property owner as proposed to be similar to the designation of a currently proposed zoning district. This determination will be made based on the approval criteria specific to Historic Landmarks. 97 Tax Incentives should be provided to properties Noted - City staff is looking at tax incentives as designated as a Historic Landmark part of the City's historic preservation program. 98 Requiring a higher level of review for properties Noted - City staff will look at administrative designated as a Historic Landmark may upset processes and policies to educate property homeowners and deter interest in designating owners on the benefits of a local Historic properties a local Historic Landmark Landmark designation, as well as to aid in the preservation of these structures. 99 There must be a balance between preservation Noted - City staff will look at administrative of Historic Landmarks and property rights processes and policies to aid in the preservation of the City's historic resources while respecting property owner rights. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 100 of 516 F - 10 of 11 EXHIBIT F - Summary of Public Comments Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts Public Comments and Feedback COMMENTS RECEIVED I PROPOSED CODE SECTION ACTION 100 New construction, modification and removal of Noted - City staff will look at administrative structures listed as High Priority structures in processes and policies to preserve the historic the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resource Surveys integrity of these structures. See Comments #66 should be treated as "Historic Landmarks" for and #86. the purpose of determining level of review (review by HARC) until a new/updated Historic Resource Survey identifying structures that may be designated as local landmarks is adopted by the City. 101 Should the City find itself without a qualified Noted - As part of the CLG program, the City is HPO, all administrative CoAs should be required to have a qualified HPO on staff. forwarded to the HARC for review and approval However, should this situation occur, City will explore all options, to include forwarding these cases to the HARC. 102 No CoA should be reviewed by the HPO Not Included - The purpose of the HPO is to coordinate programs furthering historic preservation, which includes the administration of the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines for new construction, alterations, restoration and demolition. 103 Streamline the process for commercial Included - In an effort to streamline the process properties for both residential and non-residential properties, the applicability of the CoA has been determined based on the scope of work. 104 Demolition requests that are reviewed and Not Included - Demolitions that are approved approved by the HPO should require review by administratively are proposed to follow policies an oversight/review committee consisting of and procedures for administrative review. Other two HARC members and select staff members city permitting staff also currently review (Planning, Building Official, etc.) demolitions and will continue that process. 105 Concern with assigning administrative review to Noted - The adopted bylaws are to implement the HPO with no action by HARC - According to powers and duties as established by the City the Bylaws, HARC has the authority to delegate Code. Bylaws and other policies will be amended review of minor projects. to be consistent with the revised regulations. 106 Chapter 4 should include a subsection for Not Included - The UDC is only applicable to "National Register Historic Districts" local designations and districts within the City's jurisdiction. Printed on Apr. 20, 2015 Page 101 of 516 F - 11 of 11 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Chapter 3 Applications and Permits Section 3.01 General 3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures The following Table shows which review procedures, applications and permits apply in the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Table 3.01.020 Applicability of Procedures City Limits I Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Prior to Subdivision, Platting and any Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X UDC Text Amendment X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X Historic Overlay District Designation X Historic Landmark Designation X Special Use Permit X Development Agreement X X Access Point Connection Exemption X X Subdivision & Platting of Land Recording Plats X X Preliminary Plat X X Construction Plans X X Plat Vacation X X Plat Waiver X X Development Application Process Site Plan X Construction Plans X Zoning Verification Letter X Legal Lot Verification Letter X X Temporary Use Permit X Master Sign Plan X X Certificate of D86igR Compliance Appropriateness X Appeal of an Administrative Decision X X License to Encroach X X Variance X Administrative Exception X Special Exception X Stormwater Permit X X Driveway Permit X X Sign Permit X X Courthouse View Height Determination X 3.01.030 Simultaneous Submission of Related Applications A. Submission of different applications related to the same development may be made simultaneously, although consideration of applications must remain in the following sequence: Deleted language is stFiRethfouo Added language is underline Page 102 of 516 G - 1 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) I. Comprehensive Plan; 2. Zoning; 3. Subdivision and Plat; 4. Certificate of ]Design Cem have^Appropriateness; then S. Site Plan. B. Any application submitted simultaneously is subject to approval of all other related applications. Denial or disapproval of any concurrently submitted application shall stop consideration of any related applications. C. An applicant may withdraw any individual application from a group of simultaneously submitted applications. Section 3.02 Common Review Elements 3.02.010 Pre -application Conference Prior to the submission of an application required by this Code, a Pre -application Conference with the Director shall be required as follows. A. A Pre -application Conference is a meeting between a potential applicant under this Code and the Director of Planning and Development Department or a designated representative. The conference is an opportunity for an applicant to describe what application is being considered, and the Director to indicate which application is appropriate, which review body is responsible for final action, and what criteria will be used to determine whether the permit should be approved. B. There is no required format for a Pre -application Conference; it may occur in any form so long as the potential applicant receives the information described above. The applicant is responsible for completing a Pre -application Conference, and must sign a Pre -application Statement indicating the date of the Pre -application Meeting. C. A Pre -application Conference is required for the following applications: • Access Point Connection Exemption • Administrative Exception • Annexation (Voluntary) • Certificate of Design Com liarea Appropriateness • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Conservation Subdivision Site Analysis Map • Construction Plans • Courthouse View Height Determination • Development Agreement • Driveway Permit • Historic Overlay District Designation Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 103 of 516 G - 2 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) • Historic Landmark Designation • License to Encroach • Master Sign Plan • Planned Unit Development • Plat Waiver • Plat Vacation • Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) • Site Plan • Special Exception • Special Use Permit • Stormwater Permit • Subdivision Plats - All • Temporary Use Permit • Unified Development Code Text Amendment • Variance D. Pre -application Conferences may be combined when an applicant will be making simultaneous applications for the same project. E. Completion of a Pre -application Conference does not imply or assume subsequent approval of the permit or application. Section 3.03 Public Hearing and Notice 3.03.010 Provision of Public Notice A. Summary of Notice Required Notice shall be required for application review as shown in the following Table. Table 3.03.010: Summary of Notice Requirements Procedure Access Point Connection Exemption Published X Mailed X Posted X Certificate of D8F,'gR GompliaRGe Appropriateness Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition, or setback modification Development Agreement Historic Overlay District Designation X X X Historic Landmark Designation X X X Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 104 of 516 G - 3 of 28 EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Replat without Vacating (§212.0145) X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X X X Special Exception X X X Special Use Permit X X X UDC Text Amendment X Variance X X X X = Notice Required * = Notice to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20 $ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission B. Published Notice 1. A Public Notice shall be published at least once in a local newspaper of general circulation, as designated by the City Council, within the City prior to the meeting. The Notice shall contain the time and place of such Public Meeting or Hearing and a brief description of the agenda items that may be considered or reviewed. 2. A published notice shall be published at least 15 days in advance of the Public Meeting or Hearing. C. Mailed Notice 1. Generally A Notice of Public Hearing shall be sent by U.S. mail to owners of record of real property within 200 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, as determined by the most recent municipal tax roll information. The notice may be served by its deposit in the municipality, properly addressed with postage paid, in United States mail at least 15 days prior to the date set for the Public Hearing or as otherwise required by the Texas Local Government Code, as amended. 2. Special Mailed Notice Required for Certain Replats Replats containing any area or lot that, during the preceding five years, was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot or in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot, require mailed notice to all owners of lots that are part of the original subdivision and located within 200 feet of the boundary of the property to be replatted, in the same manner as prescribed in Section 3.03.010.C.1 above and in accordance with §212.015 of the Texas Local Government Code, as amended. 43. Special Mailed Notice Required for PUD Modification a. For purposes of mailed notice, the boundary of a PUD Modification shall be the boundary of any tract of land for which PUD standards or requirements are proposed to change due to the modification. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 105 of 516 G - 4 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) b. In addition to the requirements of Paragraph 1 above, mailed notice shall also be provided all owners of property within the entire PUD boundary, not otherwise notified. D. Posted Notice 1. Notice shall be posted in a format approved by the Director on the subject property, along rights -of -way contiguous to the proposed development according to the following standards: a. One sign for tracts of less than 300 feet of right-of-way frontage; b. One sign at each interval of 1,000 feet; and c. The total number of signs shall not be required to exceed a total of four signs per right- of-way. 2. Notice of application shall be posted at the project site such that it is visible from the public right-of-way, including contact information and meeting date. shall pr-ovide eentaet information and the expeeted date of deEiskffi. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for posting and maintaining the sign on a format approved by the Director, and for removing the sign within five days following the Public Hearing on the application. 4. Posted notice shall be posted not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing. E. Content of Notice Published or mailed notices shall contain at least the following specific information: 1. The general location of land that is the subject of the application, including a location map with the mailed notice only; 2. The legal description or street address; 3. The substance of the application, including the type of proposed development and the current Zoning District; 4. The time, date, and location of the Public Hearing; S. A phone number to contact the City; and 6. A statement that interested parties may appear at the Public Hearing. F. Constructive Notice Minor defects in notice shall not impair the notice or invalidate proceedings pursuant to the notice if a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with applicable notice requirements. 3.03.020 Required Public Hearing The following Table identifies the types of applications requiring a Public Hearing and the review body responsible for conducting the Hearing. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 106 of 516 G - 5 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Table 3.03.020: Summary of Required Public Hearing of Application Access Point Connection Exemption HARC Board ZoningType of Adjustment Zoning Council X Appeal of Admin. Decision X Certificate of i3 Appropriateness X* Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X Development Agreement * X Historic Overlay District Designation X X X Historic Landmark Designation X X Replat (Resubdivision) X X Rezoning (Zoning Map Amendment) X X Special Exception X Special Use Permit X X UDC Text Amendment X X Variance X X = Public Hearing Required * = Public Hearing to be determined by Development Agreement Committee per Section 3.20 $ = Only applicable to Certificate of Appropriateness applications that require consideration by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission Section 3.06 Zoning Map Amendment — Rezoning 3.06.010 Applicability For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within the territorial limits of the City, the Official Zoning Map may be amended based upon changed or changing conditions in a particular area, or in the City generally, or to rezone an area or extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or Overlay District. All amendments must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of the Section related to rezoning are adopted pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 and the City Charter. 3.06.020 Review Process A. Initiation Initiation of a map amendment may be made upon: 1. Application of a property owner or their designated agent; 2. Recommendation of the City Council; 3. Recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission; er 4. For a Historic Landmark or Historic Overlav District designation, recommendation of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission; or 5. Recommendation of the Director. Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 107 of 516 G - 6 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) B. Application and Completeness Determination The Director is responsible for checking that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary for the City Council to render an informed decision. C. Staff Review 1. The Director shall review the application, considering any applicable criteria for approval and prepare a report to the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (where applicable), and City Council. 2. The Director may establish procedures for administrative review necessary to ensure compliance with this Code and state statutes. 3. The Director may assign staff to review the application and make a report to the Director. 4. The Director's report may include a recommendation for final action. D. Historic and Architectural Review Commission DE. When a request is made for Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District designation, the Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and state law, and make a recommendation to the City Council following notice in accordance with Section 3.03. Planning & Zoning Commission Review Following notice in accordance with Section 3.03, the Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with its rules and state law and make a recommendation to the City Council. Designation of a Historic Landmark shall not require review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. F_City Council Final Action 1. The City Council shall hold a Public Hearing and may take final action on the proposed amendment. 2. The amendment shall become effective when approved by the City Council and in accordance with the City Charter. If a proposed amendment has been recommended for disapproval by the Planning & Zoning Commission er-and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (where applicablelthe amendment may not become effective except by a three -fourths vote of all members of the City Council. 3.06.030 Approval Criteria (Rezoning) The City Council shall consider the following approval criteria for zoning changes: A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action; B. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; C. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City; D. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 108 of 516 G - 7 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) E. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. 3.06.040 Approval Criteria (Planned Unit Development) In addition to the zoning change criteria above, the City Council shall consider the following specific objectives and criteria for approving the PUD. A. Specific Objectives Rezoning to and development under the PUD District will be permitted only in accordance with the following specific objectives: 1. A variety of housing types, employment opportunities, or commercial services to achieve a balanced community; 2. An orderly and creative arrangement of all land uses with respect to each other and to the entire community; 3. A planned and integrated comprehensive transportation system providing for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to include facilities such as roadways, bicycle ways, and pedestrian walkways; 4. The provisions of cultural or recreational facilities for all segments of the community; 5. The location of general building envelopes to take maximum advantage of the natural and manmade environment; and 6. The staging of development in a manner which can be accommodated by the timely provision of public utilities, facilities, and services. 3.06.050 Approval Criteria (Overlay Districts) - Reserved. 3.06.060 Approval Criteria (Historic Overlay DistrictsDesignati) A. In addition to the approval criteria for zoning changes mein Section 3.06.030, the City Council shall eensider make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for approving a Historic Overlay District is met: -1-. A. Character, interest, or value of the structures sites or area because of As -their unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the Ecityof Geor-getow-n, county, Sstate o or nation; 2-.B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the structures sites or area; -3-.C. Identification of the structures sites or area with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the city, county, state, or nation; 4D. Embodiment in multiple buildings in a c'-r���e site or area under consideration of distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship related to a uniqueness to the area, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to:; 1. Scale of buildings and structures typical of the area; 2. Architectural style of the buildings and structures; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 109 of 516 G - 8 of 28 EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 3. Architectural period of the buildings and structures; 4. Building materials typical of the area; 5. Colors and textures used in the buildings and structures typical of the area; 6. Typical relationships of buildings in the area to the street; 7. Setbacks and other ph, s�patterns of buildings in the area; S. Typical patterns of rooflines of buildings in the area; or 9. Typical patterns of porch and entrance treatments of buildings in the area; and S.E. Archaeological value in the sense that the structures sites or area la-s-have produced or can be expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of history or prehistory;; -,ate, area; EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 4. Shapes the bttildings-, of 6. Per tFeatments the , -eh and entrance of 7. Height the buildings,�and and mass E)f 8. Relative the buildings to height-, te deptl#. pr-oper-tions E)f (widgt Width 3.06.070 Approval Criteria (Historic Landmark Designation) The City Council shall make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for designating a building, structure or site within the City limits a local Historic Landmark is met: A. Character, interest, or value of the building, structure or site because of its unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, county, state or nation; B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the building, structure or site; C. Identification of the building, structure or site with a person or persons who contributed notably to the culture and development of the city, county, state, nation, or society D. Distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship that make it an established or familiar visual feature, or the related distinctiveness of a craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not limited to: 1. Architectural style of the building or structure; 2. Architectural period of the building or structure; 3. Textures and colors of materials used in the building or structure; 4. Shape of the building or structure; 5. Roofline of the building or structure; 6. Porch and entrance treatments of the building or structure; 7. Height and mass of the building or structure; or 8. Relative proportions of the building or structure (width to height, width to depth); and E. Archaeological value in the sense that the building, structure or site can be expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of history or prehistory. 3.06.080 Interim Control during Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District Consideration A. Upon deeming an application for a Historic Landmark or Historic Overlav District designation complete, Nno Building Permit may be issued by the City for alteration, construction, demolition or removal of any building or structure located within an -the area proposed for such designation. to the u;st c Pistr-iet B. This Building Permit hold period shall commence onfFem the date the application for Historic Landmark or Historic Overlay District designation is deemed complete until its final disposition by the City Council. For City initiated requests, this Building Permit hold period shall Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 111 of 516 G - 10 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) commence on the date the Resolution to initiate the request is adopted until final disposition by the City Council. C. The Building Permit hold period shall not apply to, ••� alterations, removal or demolition i-,authorized by formal action of the Building Standards Board as necessary for preservation of the public health, welfare or safety as provided for Dangerous Buildings in Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances. . Section 3.12 Master Sign Plan 3.12.010 Applicability A Master Sign Plan shall be required for all multiple -tenant buildings, Planned Unit Developments, and all multi -building or multi -occupant commercial developments before any signs for such development may be erected on the property. All owners, tenants, subtenants, and purchasers of individual units within the development shall comply with the approved Master Sign Plan. 3.12.020 Review Process A. Review of a Master Sign Plan shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 3.03.0403.03.050, save and except a Master Sign Plan for property located in a Historic Overlay District. B. Review of a Master Sign Plan for property in a Historic Overlay District shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 3.13 of this Code. 3.12.030 Criteria for Approval In addition to the general ^,am inistr-at ., review criteria in Section 3.0'�P3.03.050.D or 3.13 for property in a Historic Overlay District, the Building Official or Historic and Architectural Review Commission, as applicable, must determine the following in order to approve the Master Sign Plan: A. The plan provides that signs of a similar type and function within the development will have a consistent building material.. B. The plan provides for signs that meet the size limitations, location requirements, and other applicable requirements of this Unified Development Code:; and C. Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District shall be in keeping with the adopted design ,..,:a liRes Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelinesef the Hisser-i , Gye -lay Distr-_et 3.12.040 Responsibility for Final Action A. The Building Official is responsible for final action on Master Sign Plans, save and except Master Sign Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District. _"_ sign per- Rit shall . lse �. B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission is responsible for final action on Master Sign Plans for property located in a Historic Overlay District. C. A Sign Permit for all signs in the Master Sign Plan shall also be reauired in accordance with Section 3.18. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 112 of 516 G - 11 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 3.12.050 Expiration A Master Sign Plan shall expire 24 months after the date that the Master Sign Plan was approved unless: A. A Building Permit application has been approved or, if no Building Permit is required, a Certificate of Occupancy, or equivalent, has been issued. B. In case of projects where more than one building or phase is to be built, the applicant may submit a series of Building Permit applications. The first application must be approved within 12 months from the date Site Plan approval is granted. Each subsequent application must be submitted within 24 months from the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Official for the previous phase of the development. LExistin4 Section 3.13 removed and replaced by new Section 3.13 as follows: Section 3.13 Certificate of Appropriateness 3.13.010 AQplicability A. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City Texas Local Government Code Chapter 211 and the City Charter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required in accordance with Table 3.13.010 below. Activities that include more than one Project (Scope of Work) shall be subject to the review process and criteria for approval for each specific Project as identified in Table 3.13.010. Table: 3.13.010: Certificate of AQpropriateness Required HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required New Construction (Infill Development New building construction All Historic Overlay Districts HARC Additions To create or add to an existing street facing facade Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non -street facing fagades Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR New addition does not comply with the zoning Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure standards of the historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 113 of 516 G - 12 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Additions (continued) Awning or canopy Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* #PA HARC Non -Contributing_ Historic Structure* NR HPO Porch,, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure* NR HPO Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes Restoring historic Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * architectural features Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non- Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure * historic architectural feature Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Replacing roof materials with different roof Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * using in -kind material Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* #PA HARC Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 114 of 516 G - 13 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes (continued) Paint removal from historic and significant architectural features (back to original condition; Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * does not include repainting) Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes to paint color on previously_ painted Historic Landmark HPO surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on Contributing Historic Structure* previously_ painted surface) Non -Contributing Historic Structure* New paint on unpainted historic and other significant architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Changes in color to awning fabric Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication Historic Landmark* HPO equipment that result in no modifications to the Contributing Historic Structure* building fagade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication Historic Landmark HARC equipment that result in modifications to the Contributing Historic Structure* building facade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Removal Demolition or Relocation Awnings or canopies Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure* #PA HARC Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Exterior non -historic architectural features Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 115 of 516 G - 14 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Removal. Demolition or Relocation (continued1 Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic siding Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction of Historic Landmark HARC any historic and architectural features that is Contributing Historic Structure * integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Non -historic additions that are made of non -historic Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Attached carport, porch, patio or deck Historic Landmark HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure* Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made of non- Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * historic materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to original Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure * condition Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Street facing fagade Historic Landmark HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR 39% 15% or more of the square footage of a Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure building Non -Contributing_ Historic Structure NR Less than 30% 15% of the square footage of a Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure HPO building Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 116 of 516 G - 15 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * HPO = Historic Preservation Officer * NR = Not Required Removal. Demolition or Relocation (continued1 Relocation of a building or structure on the same lot Historic Landmark HPO Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure Relocation of a building or structure to a historic Historic Landmark HARC overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or Contributing Historic Structure structures within the same historic overlay districts) Non -Contributing Historic Structure Relocation of a building or structure outside of the Historic Landmark HARC Contributing Historic Structure historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Sgnaae Master Sign Plan All Historic Overlay Districts HARC New signage, to include new signage that is HPO consistent with an approved Master Sign Plan New signage that is inconsistent with an approved HARC Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines Changes in content or configuration (re -facing) that HPO do not involve changes in sign location, dimensions, lighting or total sign area Amending an approved Master Sign Plan HARC Fences New fence, railing or wall that is consistent with the All Historic Overlay Districtst HPO overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with HARC the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines Removal of chain, link, plywood, or vinyl fence and HPO replacing with wood, wrought iron, or masonry Miscellaneous HARC exceptions (building height and setback All Historic Overlay District HARC variations pursuant to Section 4.081 Renewal of an expired Certificate of Appropriateness All Historic Overlay Districts HPO Historic Landmark *Only applicable to a street facing fagade tOnly applicable to fences along a street lot line or located in a street yard $CLG demo delay period and Demolition Subcommittee review not applicable Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 117 of 516 G - 16 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) B. Exemptions A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required for the following; 1. Ordinary Maintenance and Repair, as this term is defined in Chanter 16 of this Code. 2. Interior construction or alterations Provided the alterations do not alter the exterior wall of the building. 3. New single-family and two-family residential development in the Old Town Overlay District provided the building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. 4. New additions to existing single-family and two-family structures provided the addition does not create or add to a street facing facade, and the addition in combination with the existing building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. S. New, modifications or removal of to existing awnings to include changes in color), canopies, exterior paint color or exterior lighting fides that is are attached to a single- family or two-family residential structure provided the alterations do not alter the exterior wall of a building designated as a Historic Landmark. 6. Demolition of a building or structure that the Building Official has declared a dangerous structure in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the City Code, as amended, or determined that demolition is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. a. Should the Building Official declare a building a dangerous structure or determine that demolition is necessary for the preservation of public health, safety and welfare, the Building Official shall coordinate with the Historic Preservation Officer and property owner to identify historic and significant architectural features that are unique to the building or structure, era or district and that may be salvaged. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall create a record of the building or structure to be demolished through archival-qualityPhoto-documentation, drawings, and other information similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey. The list of identified historic and significant architectural features to be salvaged shall also be made Part of this record. 7. Site alterations and other hardscape features provided that these do not alter a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or that is a contributing historic structure to the Historic Overlay District. C. No Building Permit shall be issued by the Building Official for any building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or that is located in a Historic Overlay District until the application for such permit has been reviewed and approved by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or the Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, and the Project, as proposed, is in compliance with all other applicable regulations of this Code. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 118 of 516 G - 17 of 28 EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 3.13.020 Certificate of Appropriateness — Administrative Approval A. Review Process 1. Initiation Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic Preservation Officer may be made upon application by the Property owner of the affected property or their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this Chapter. 2. Application Completeness a. The applicant shall submit all of the information and materials required in the UDC Development Manual as specified on the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness checklist. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary to review the Certificate of Appropriateness' conformance with applicable criteria for approval in accordance with this Code. 3. Staff Review Once a Certificate of APpropriatenesshas been initiated and the application deemed complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with any applicable criteria for approval. 4. Responsibility for Final Action a. The Historic Preservation Officer is responsible for final action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for certain projects as specified in Section 3.13.010 of this Code. b. Should the Historic Preservation Officer be unable to approve the request, the Historic Preservation Officer may forward the request to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission for review and final action at the next available meeting following public notification in accordance with Section 3.03 of this Code. B. Criteria for Approval The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the following criteria: 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Compliance with applicable design and development standards of this Code; 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; 4. -and Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; and S. The overall character of the applicable Historic Overlay District and the building or structure is preserved, and the design is eepsistei# compatible with the Historic Overlay District. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 119 of 516 G - 18 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 3.13.030 Certificate of Appropriateness — HARC Approval A. Review Process 1. Initiation Initiation of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may be made upon application by the property owner of the affected property or their authorized agent following the established application processes and requirements of this Chapter. 2. Application Completeness a. The applicant shall submit all of the information and materials required in the UDC Development Manual as specified on the applicable Certificate of Appropriateness checklist. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall determine that a complete application has been submitted with all material necessary to review the Certificate of Appropriateness' conformance with applicable criteria for approval in accordance with this Code. 3. Staff Review a. Once a Certificate of Appropriatenesshas been initiated and the application deemed complete, the Historic Preservation Officer shall review the application for consistency with any applicable criteria for approval. b. The Historic Preservation Officer shall prepare a report to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. c. The Historic Preservation Officer's report shall include a recommendation for final action. 4. Responsibility for Final Action a. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall review the application, the Historic Preservation Officer's report, conduct a hearing in accordance with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's established procedures and state law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. An application before the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall be considered approved by a majority vote of all members of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. B. Criteria for Approval The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall determine whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriatenessbased on the following criteria: 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code; 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 120 of 516 G - 19 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) 4. a+�d-Comphance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as maybe amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; S. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable Historic Overlay District; 7. The overall character of the applicable Historic Overlay District is protected; and S. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines -and character of the Historic Overlay District. C. Additional Criteria for Approval for Building Height Exceptions 1. Applicants requesting exceptions to the building height standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A must submit documentation to HARC that the following standards will be met if the requested exception to the height standards is approved: a. The proposed building or addition shall not obscure views to and from the Courthouse or overwhelm or detract from views of the Town Square Historic District; b. The proposed building or addition shall be compatible with the height, scale, massing and volume reflected in the Downtown Overlay District, and the historic character of the District; and c. The proposed building shall be an extraordinary contribution to the aesthetic and economic goals of the Downtown Master Plan. 2. The documentation required by Section 3.13.030.C.1 must include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A visual analysis that identifies: i. The extent to which the building would impact views to and from the Courthouse, and to what extent the building will be visible from four directions; and ii. How the building will relate to the context of the surrounding structures and the character of the District; and b. A summary of the conclusions of the visual analysis as to how the proposed building will impact the District, specifically the immediate surroundings. 3. HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and Del6ted language is Added language is underline Page 121 of 516 G - 20 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) e. The proposed proiect protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlav District. D. Additional Criteria for Approval of a Setback Exception 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission may grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, per Section 4.08.080.D of this Code, to modify the setback standards of the underlying base zoning district for residential properties located within the Old Town Overlay District. 2. HARC may take in consideration the following in determining whether to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a setback exception: a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; j. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; k. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; 1. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or m. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. E. Additional requirements for relocation, removal or demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure In addition to the Staff Review process established in Section 3.13.030.A, applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation, removal or demolition of a building or structure designated as a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure to the Histe e shall be subject to the following additional review: 1. Demolition Delay Period Certified Local Government (CLG) Program a. Upon deeming the application complete, requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure shall be subject to a 60-day demolition delay period. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 122 of 516 G - 21 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) shall not take action on a request for demolition until the 60-day demolition delay period is complete. b. During this 60-day delay period, the applicant shall coordinate with the Historic Preservation Officer to reach a satisfactory resolution that preserves the building or structure, or that preserves historic and significant architectural features that are unique to the building or structure, era or district. c. The Historic Preservation Officer shall coordinate with local, county and other historic organizations to explore possibilities for preserving, to include the possible relocation of the structure. d. The Historic Preservation Officer shall present the findings and resolution, if applicable, to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission with the request. 2. Demolition Subcommittee Review a. No later than the 301h day from deeming the application complete, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's Demolition Subcommittee shall complete a walk- through of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated with the Historic Preservation Officer and the applicant. b. The Demolition Subcommittee shall review the application and analyze the building or structure to determine possibility of preservation and restoration, and appropriateness for demolition or relocation. In the event of demolition, the Demolition Subcommittee shall also create a list of historic salvageable materials identified during the walk- through. c. The Demolition Subcommittee's report shall include a recommendation for final action. 3. Responsibility of Final Action a. In addition to the application and Historic Preservation Officer's report, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall review the recommendation by the Demolition Subcommittee, conduct a Hearing in accordance with the HARC's established procedures and state law, and take final action on the application within 35 days of the application Hearing unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. b. As conditions of approval, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission may require historic materials to be salvaged, archival -quality photo -documentation, and/or architectural drawings of the building or structure proposed to be demolished or relocated similar to those required by the Historic American Buildings Survey to be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer. F. Criteria for Approval for relocation, removal or demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the followingfindings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: a. Loss of Significance Deleted language is stFikethfeto Added language is underline Page 123 of 516 G - 22 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the Historic Overlay District; and ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, dualities or features which Qualified the building or structure for such designation; and iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the Historic Overlay District or the City s Historic Resources; or b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or relocated; and ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. 3. Relocation of a structure to a Historic Overlay District In the event the building or structure is proposed to be relocated to a property in a Historic Overlay District, in addition to the above, the applicant must demonstrate the following with the application: a. The architectural compatibility of the relocated building or structure with adjacent buildings according to the applicable Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC standards for new construction; and b. The proposed siting, setback and other applicable site -specific treatments according to pertinent Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC standards of the applicable Historic Overlay District; and c. Relocation will not damage existing contributing historic buildings or structures, or the character of the Historic Overlay District. 3.13.040 Relocation, removal or demolition prior to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness A. Demolition, including demolition by neglect, of a building or structure prior to approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, when required, shall be subject to an automatic hold on all permits. No permit may be granted until this period is complete and the Historic and Architectural Review Commission has granted a Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 124 of 516 G - 23 of 28 EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable. B. The Permit delay period shall be determined by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, but in no case shall it exceed 365 days. C. The Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the remaining building or structure, if applicable, shall be reviewed and final action taken by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission concurrently with the determination of the longevity of the Permit hold Period. D. During this delay period, the applicant shall Provide the following information to the Historic Preservation Officer: 1. Documentation regarding the original and existing condition of the building or structure, to include structural integrity and the extent of work necessary to stabilize the building or structure. 2. Site Development Plan (or Plot Plan) identifying proposed development on site following demolition of the building or structure. 3. List of any salvageable materials, and a Plan offering donation or sale of the remaining building or structure and any salvageable materials identified. E. In the event of demolition by neglect, the applicant shall complete any work required to stabilize and arrest further deterioration of the building or structure. 3.13.050 Certificate and Compliance Inspections A. It shall be the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Officer to issue the actual Certificate of Appropriateness following approval by the Historic Preservation Officer or the HARC, with any designated conditions, and to maintain a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness, together with the proposed plans. The Certificate shall be forwarded to the Building Official. These shall be ublic documents for all Purposes. B. Work Performed Pursuant to the issuance of a Certificate of AP�r nateness shall conform to the requirements of the Certificate. In the event that work is not in compliance, the Building Official shall issue a stop work order and/or citation as Prescribed by ordinance. 3.13.060 Limits on Resubmission No application for the same proiect shall be considered within 180 days of the reiection or disapproval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, of an application. The applicant may submit a design for an entirely new Project or a revised design that substantially responds to the reasons for denial as set forth by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission or Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable, at any time. 3.13.070 Expiration A. A Certificate of Appropriateness, except as noted below, expires if the work authorized b, the Certificate of Appropriateness is not commenced within 24 months from the date of the final action to approve the request. In the case of a Phased Project, after the initial phase is complete or a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, each subsequent Phase shall commence within 24 months of the completion or Certificate of Occupancy of the Prior Phase. The Historic Preservation Officer may extend the time commencement of work upon written request by the applicant. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 125 of 516 G - 24 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) B. A Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation, removal or demolition expires if a Permit for relocation or demolition has not been issued within 180 days or, if a permit is not required, the work authorized by the Certificate of Appropriateness is not commenced within 180 days from the date of the final decision to approve the request. The Historic Preservation Officer may extend the time for commencement of work upon written request of the applicant. 3.13.080 ADDeals A person aggrieved by a final action of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission on a Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures set forth below. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the final action. Appeals from an administratively issued Certificate of Appropriateness will be processed through the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, subject to the procedures established for new applications. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer within 30 days of the administrative action. A. Appeal Hearin The Hearing shall be set for the next available City Council or HARC meeting, subject to the provision of public notification. Notification shall be provided in the same manner as the initial Certificate of Appropriateness. B. Burden of Proof in Appeals When an appeal is considered by the appellate body, the final action by the original reviewing authority is presumed to be valid. The person filing the appeal shall present sufficient evidence and have the burden to justify a reversal of the action being appealed. C. Findings and Conclusions All findings and conclusion necessary to the appeal decision shall be based upon reliable evidence. Competent evidence (evidence admissible in a Court of Law)will be preferred whenever reasonably available, but in no case may findings be based solely upon incompetent evidence unless competent evidence is not reasonably available, the evidence in Question appears to be particularly reliable, and the matter at issue is not seriously disputed. In exercising its authority, the appellate body may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part or modify the original order, requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose the appellate body has the same authority as the original reviewing authority. D. Decision on Appeal The appellate body shall review the application, the staff report and meeting minutes, conduct a Hearing in accordance with established procedures and state law, and take final action on the appeal. It shall require a concurring vote of a majority of the appellate body's members to overturn a decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 126 of 516 G - 25 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Section 3.15 Variance and Special Exception 3.15.040 Criteria for Special Exception Review If authorized by this Code, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant a Special Exception from the requirements of the certain provisions of this Unified Development Code, if the Special Exception is not contrary to the public interest and the spirit of this Code is preserved and substantial justice done. No Special Exception shall be granted unless the ZBA finds the specific criteria identified in this Code are met. The only Special Exceptions that may be granted by the Board are for the following: • Time Extension for an Abandoned Nonconforming Use, pursuant to Section 14.01.060.B.7 • Expansion of Nonconforming Use, pursuant to Section 14.02.050 • Right to Continue Nonconforming Use after destruction or damage, pursuant to Section 14.02.060.A • Abandonment of a Nonconforming Structure Determination, pursuant to Section 14.04.050 • Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure, pursuant to Sections 14.04.080.B & C • Abandonment of a Nonconforming Site, pursuant to Section 14.05.050 • A setback exception, pursuant to Section 14.05.050.D • Expansion of a Nonconforming Site, pursuant to Sections 14.05.080.B & C Deleted language is feu Added language is underline Page 127 of 516 G - 26 of 28 EXHIBIT G -Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Chapter 16 Definitions Section 16.02 Definitions Alteration. Anv exterior change or modification in the architectural annearance and design, other than cosmetic or decorative, or in supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls or partitions, columns, beams or girders; or a complete rebuilding of the roof or the exterior walls. Alteration also includes the removal, stripping or concealing of any significant exterior architectural feature that is integral to the historic character of a building or structure that is designated as a local Historic Landmark or contributing to the Historic District. Alteration does not include modifications that qualify as "Ordinance Maintenance and Repair" as this term is defined in this Code. Roofs,in an elevation view of the building. degfees shall be eensidermed parmt of a wall surmfaee faf the purmposes E)f this ei:dinanee. (See form eE)ml " RE)ef" Certificate of Design ComplianceAppropriateness (GD4 CoA). A certificate documenting approval by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) or the Historic Preservation Officer H( PO) o construct, reconstruct, alter, restore, remove, relocate, or demolish any e* efier building or structure that is designated as a Historic Landmark or located in a Historic Overlay District, including specific site features ineluding but net lifnited te afekiteetufal elements, -such as signage; and fences Demolition. The Eomplete-intentional destruction, razing, dismantling or removal in whole or in part of a building or structure; pef metef_ walls; ; or any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of sites, surfaces, utilities or other improvements. Demolition by Neglect. Demolition of a building that is in a serious state of disrepair and deterioration due to lack of proper maintenance, and for which certain measures must be taken in order to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. A Council -adopted ordinance that provides guidance and approval criteria for the Historic and Architectural Review Commission, along with the Historic Preservation Officer, when reviewing design compliance and proper preservation practices for proposed projects in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Overlay districts. Historic Architectural Features. Architectural features that are unique to the design, style and period of the historic structure. Historic Districte, designated. Any site, District, or area, of historical, archeological, or cultural importance or value which the City Council determines by action shall be protected, preserved, or enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people. Historic Landmark. A building, structure or site of historical, architectural, or cultural importance or value to the City of Georgetown that has been designated as a "landmark" by ordinance of the City Council and that is to be protected, preserved, restored, and enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education, and welfare of the people. Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 128 of 516 G - 27 of 28 EXHIBIT G - Changes from the February 10, 2015 Proposed UDC Amendments Draft (highlighted in yellow) Historic Preservation Officer (HPO). A person designated to review development applications in the D,.r.,.,t,a.,., and Old Town a Historic Overlay Districts. The HPO presents findings and recommendations to the Historic and Architectural Review Commission and any other duties granted Eby this Code. Historic Structure. A building or structure that is aLyears or more, and b) associated with significant people or events, or c, conveys a character of building and design found during the City's period of significance. Historic structure also includes a building that has been designated as a local Historic Landmark, or that is contributing to the historic overlay district. Historic Structure, contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that supports the district's historical significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings identified as low, medium and high priority structures in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered contributing Historic Structures for purposes of this Code. For the purpose of demolition only, buildings or structures listed in this survey and that are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic structures. Historic Structure, non-contributing. A building in a designated historic overlay district that does not support the district's historic significance through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Buildings that are not identified in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey of Georgetown, Texas by Hardy, Heck & Moore, as amended, shall be considered non -contributing - historic structures for purposes of this Code. Reconstruction. Rehabilitation or replacement of a building or structure which either- �has been damaged, altered, or removed, or axis proposed to be altered or removed. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The standards established by the Secretary of the Interior for providing guidance on the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of historic properties. Street Facing Fagade. The building facade or wall that is parallel to a street lot line. "Ordinary Deleted language is Added language is underline Page 129 of 516 G - 28 of 28 EXHIBIT H - Feb 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Item C City of Georgetown, Texas Planning and Zoning February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey (Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The City Council held a workshop on May 13, 2014, to review and discuss the rules and regulations governing the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) and Historic Overlay Districts. City Council expressed concerns regarding development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey. On May 27, 2014, Council approved Resolution No. 052714-N (Exhibit D) directing staff to initiate an executive Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment, outside of the general UDC Advisory Committee process, to address those concerns. Staff provided a general overview of recommended changes to City Council at their workshop on October 28, 2014, where Council was supportive of those recommendations including increased staff review, revised demolition procedures, and creation of historic landmark designations. Staff also provided update reports to HARC and the UDC Advisory Committee on October 23, 2014, and November 4, 2014, respectively. Proposed UDC Changes (Exhibit A): Renaming — Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) terminology was changed to Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) to be consistent with state and national standards. Historic Status — Historic status of a structure is proposed to be divided into contributing versus non-contributing historic structures to a district, which would influence applicable requirements. The upcoming new Historic Resource Survey will clarify this status. Additionally, a new designation, Historic Landmark, has been created that would include buildings, structures or sites, designated via ordinance, that are considered the highest priority historic resources within the City's jurisdiction, also based on the results of the upcoming new Historic Resource Survey. Notification requirements have been incorporated into the Historic Landmark designation process whereby property owners would become apprised of the historic status of their property and would have opportunities to comment at public hearings. A Historic Landmark Designation would be in addition to a contributing structure status, but would not be restricted to those structures within a historic overlay. Approval Authority — Approval authority for different types of potential situations as well as building statuses has been broken down and clarified utilizing a chart in the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness section of the UDC (Section 3.13). Final approval authority has been revised to increase applications that could receive administrative approval through the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO). However, the HPO reserves the option to send an application to the HARC if it is felt that the commission's review is necessary due to non -consistency with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. The section also clarifies that site features, land uses, and certain Page 130 of 516 H-1 of 3 EXHIBIT H - Feb 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Item C elements are not subject to CoA review or approval. Generally, administrative review would include minor alterations to street facing facades, new additions to a street facing fagade of a non- contributing structure (provided all applicable zoning standards are met), exterior paint color, rooftop mechanical equipment, fences along a street lot line or within a street yard, individual signage (excluding master sign plans), certain partial demolitions, and renewal of expired CoAs. HARC review would include construction of a new building (excluding residential in the Old Town Overlay District), additions and certain alterations to Historic Landmarks and contributing historic structures, rooftop mechanical equipment that results in modifications to a street facing fagade, certain improvements that are not in keeping with the standards/guidelines, demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure, and master sign plans. See Exhibit B for a comparison of the applicable approval authority under the current provisions versus the approval authority under the proposed revisions. Demolition — The process and approval criteria for relocation, removal, or demolition of a historic structure has been simplified, restructured, and clarified. Requirements have been differentiated based on structure status, such as Historic Landmark, contributing historic structures, non- contributing historic structures, or dangerous structures. Penalties applicable to demolitions without prior HARC approval have been refined. Additionally, the Demolition Subcommittee is proposed to be formalized as a three member committee consisting of at least one HARC member, the Building Official, and a structural engineer, architect, or historic preservationist, that would provide a technical review and recommendation to the full HARC following a site visit to the subject structure. General — Overall, the applicable sections of Chapters 3 & 4 have been reorganized for better clarity and improved use. The historic overlay districts identified in Chapter 4 have been grouped together under one heading. The reorganization has also provided for clarification of the administrative and HARC review processes. In addition, based on public feedback, the floor -to - area ratio (FAR) threshold for the Old Town Overlay District was reduced to .45. Interim Provisions — Since the proposed amendments rely heavily on a new Historic Resources Survey, which does not yet exist, interim provisions were outlined to temporarily protect the city's historic resources. These provisions establish that any structure listed on the existing Historic Resource Survey(s) that are within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure. Also, any structure listed on the survey that is not within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure for the purposes of demolition. Public Input: City staff has worked to gather public input throughout the review and amendment process. City staff hosted a downtown business owners' focus group, designed to gather input from stakeholders that had recently been through the HARC process. Following the adoption of City Council Resolution 052714-N, staff created a public website, https://harcamendments.georgetown.org, and encouraged interested community members to sign up for email updates. The website was updated during the review process, providing additional information for the public. A comment form for public feedback was added to the website, through which staff received several comments. Staff published a draft of the proposed UDC changes on the website on January 15, 2015, and a public meeting was held on January 22, 2015, to provide the public an opportunity to discuss and provide comment on the draft language, where staff received additional comments. Staff has also received various comments from the public via email and telephone conversations. A chart (Exhibit C) has been created that lists all public comments staff has received to date and indicates whether those comments have been incorporated into the proposed UDC amended text. Page 131 of 516 H-2 of 3 EXHIBIT H - Feb 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Item C Next Steps: The proposed amendments are scheduled for public hearing and first reading of the ordinance before City Council on February loth and for second reading of the ordinance on February 24th The UDC Development Manual will be updated following the approval to reflect the amendments. In March 2015, once the amendments are effective, the Historic Landmark designation process will begin. Staff is currently working to select a consultant for the new historic resource survey, a replacement of the 1984 and 2007 historic resource surveys. The new survey is planned to begin this April and will establish the contributing versus non-contributing historic structure status, and will help to provide a basis for the designation of the historic landmarks. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Exhibit A - UDC Amendment Text Exhibit ❑ Exhibit B - Sumarry of Changes in Final Action Authority Exhibit ❑ Exhibit C - Public Comments Exhibit ❑ Exhibit D - Resolution 052714-N Exhibit Page 132 of 516 H-3 of 3 EXHIBIT I - P&Z Commission Summary of Comments 1WN:811110@1 Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 Summary of Comments and Feedback Public Comments and Feedback: A total of nine (9) stakeholders signed -up to speak on this item. The major concerns are summarized as follows: 1) The HARC is very important to the community because it works to preserve and protect the historic character of the City and its historic resources. Because of this, the HARC should remain as the the final decision making authority for certain additions, alterations, modifications, removal and demolition that are proposed to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Officer. 2) There is major concern that there will be no public notification required for Certificate of Appropriateness subject to administrative review and approval. All requests should be subject to public notification and review. 3) Major concerns were also expressed in switching approximately half of the approval authority to a single individual with no checks and balances or public notification. 4) The Certificate of Appropriateness Section does not clarify if requirements apply to structures in the Old Town or Downtown overlay districts. 5) The proposed amendment includes the designation and comprehensive review of structures designated as local Historic Landmarks. However, the City has not, at a minimum, identified any structure that may be designated as Historic Landmarks should the amendment be approved. It appears that this process will depend on an updated Historic Resource Survey, which may be completed in a year or more. 6) The proposed amendment is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property. 7) There is a general consensus that the current review process may need to be revised to ensure expediency in the overall process; however, this should not be accomplished to the detriment of the City's historic resources. The amendment, as proposed, does not protect or preserve the City's historic resources. 8) Due to the expedited review and draft of the proposed amendment, concerns were expressed relating to unintended consequences that have not been vetted yet through proper review. Additional public review of the proposed amendment is needed prior to action by any board. The document, as proposed, is not ready for adoption. Page 133 of 516 1 -1 of 2 EXHIBIT I - P&Z Commission Summary of Comments Planning and Zoning Commission Comments and Feedback: The Planning and Zoning Commission asked for further clarification and concerns on certain items, including: 1) Process for appealing a decision made by the Historic Preservation Officer. Staff's response: Any person aggrieved by the final action on a Certificate of Appropriateness may submit a request to appeal in accordance with the process established in the UDC. 2) Approval Criteria for Historic Landmarks Staff's response: Criteria are based on criteria and guidelines established by the Secretary for the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property. 3) Lack of public notification on administrative reviews and approval Staff's response: The proposed amendment includes consistent process for all applications that are reviewed and approved administratively. 4) Opportunities and feedback received by the public on the proposed amendment Staff's response: Adequate notification and opportunities were presented to the public for review and feedback, to include the creation of a website to facility submittal of comments, in accordance with the established process. Staff reviewed all comments received and incorporated the majority of the comments where appropriate. 5) Reasoning for processing this amendment in a short time frame. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns on the time allotted to the public to review and comment on the proposed text amendment and discussed about recommending the process be delayed for 90 days to allow for further public review and clarification. Staff's response: It was the direction of the City Council to have new and revised set of regulations in effect on March 1, 2015, in line with the appointment of any new members to the HARC. Page 134 of 516 1- 2 of 2 EXHIBIT J - February 10, 2015 City Council Agenda Item R Cover Sheet City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda February 10, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance amending portions of the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey -- Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator, and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The City Council held a workshop on May 13, 2014, to review and discuss the rules and regulations governing the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) and Historic Overlay Districts. City Council expressed concerns regarding development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or are listed on the Historic Resource Survey. On May 27, 2014, Council approved Resolution No. 052714-N (Exhibit D) directing staff to initiate an executive Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment, outside of the general UDC Advisory Committee process, to address those concerns. Staff provided a general overview of recommended changes to City Council at their workshop on October 28, 2014, where Council was supportive of those recommendations including increased staff review, revised demolition procedures, and creation of historic landmark designations. Staff also provided update reports to HARC and the UDC Advisory Committee on October 23, 2014, and November 4, 2014, respectively. Proposed UDC Changes (Exhibit A): Renamins: Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) terminology was changed to Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) to be consistent with state and national standards. Historic Status: Historic status of a structure is proposed to be divided into contributing versus non-contributing historic structures to a district, which would influence applicable requirements. The upcoming new Historic Resource Survey will clarify this status. Because of this, one of the proposed changes include the review of historic structures in all Historic Overlay Districts consistently, thus eliminating the need to distinguish application review processes between the Old Town and Downtown Overlay Districts. Additionally, a new designation, Historic Landmark, has been created that would include local buildings, structures or sites, designated via ordinance, that are considered the City's highest priority historic resources within the City's jurisdiction. The upcoming new Historic Resource Survey will help identify buildings and structures that may be eligible for local Historic Landmark designation. Nonetheless, interested property owners may initiate the process for Historic Landmark designation following the effective date of this amendment, should it be approved. Notification requirements have been incorporated into the Historic Landmark designation process whereby property owners would become apprised of the historic status of their property and would have opportunities to comment at public hearings. A Historic Landmark Designation would be in addition to a contributing structure status, but would not be restricted to those structures within a historic overlay. Approval Authority: Approval authority for different types of potential situations as well as building statuses has been broken down and clarified utilizing a chart in the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness section of the UDC (Section 3.13). Final approval authority has been revised to increase applications that could receive administrative approval through the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO), which mainly consist of the review of certain improvements or modifications under clear guidelines and standards established in the adopted UDC and Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, thus eliminating the need for interpretation or further consideration by a commission or board. However, the HPO reserves the option to send an application to the HARC if it is felt that the commission's review is necessary due to non -consistency with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. In this event, the case will be scheduled at the next Page 135 of 516 J -1 of 3 EXHIBIT J - February 10, 2015 City Council Agenda Item R Cover Sheet available HARC meeting for review and approval. It should be noted that additional language was included in the proposed amendment (highlighted in yellow in the attached Exhibit A) to clarify that requests forwarded to the HARC will be subject to public notification. The section also clarifies that site features, land uses, and certain elements are not subject to CoA review or approval. Generally, administrative review would include minor alterations to street facing facades, new additions to a street facing fagade of a non-contributing structure (provided all applicable zoning standards are met), exterior paint color, rooftop mechanical equipment, fences along a street lot line or within a street yard, individual signage (excluding master sign plans), certain partial demolitions, and renewal of expired CoAs. HARC review would include construction of a new building (excluding residential in the Old Town Overlay District), additions and certain alterations to Historic Landmarks and contributing historic structures, rooftop mechanical equipment that results in modifications to a street facing fagade, certain improvements that are not in keeping with the standards/guidelines, demolition of a Historic Landmark or contributing historic structure, and master sign plans. See Exhibit B for a comparison of the applicable approval authority under the current provisions versus the approval authority under the proposed revisions. Public Notification: The proposed amendment also includes the elimination of public notification for applications subject to administrative review and approval. Applications subject to administrative review and approval will be reviewed in accordance with adopted standards and guidelines applicable to the proposed scope of work. No deviation from the adopted standards may be allowed, unless that deviation is approved following the proper process. Applications that do not meet the adopted guidelines and applicable standards will be subject to review by the HARC. Demolition: The process and approval criteria for relocation, removal, or demolition of a historic structure has been simplified, restructured, and clarified. Requirements have been differentiated based on structure status, such as Historic Landmark, contributing historic structures, non-contributing historic structures, or dangerous structures. Penalties applicable to demolitions without prior HARC approval have been refined. Additionally, the Demolition Subcommittee is proposed to be formalized as a three member committee consisting of at least one HARC member, the Building Official, and a structural engineer, architect, or historic preservationist, that would provide a technical review and recommendation to the full HARC following a site visit to the subject structure. General: Overall, the applicable sections of Chapters 3 & 4 have been reorganized for better clarity and improved use. The historic overlay districts identified in Chapter 4 have been grouped together under one heading. The reorganization has also provided for clarification of the administrative and HARC review processes. In addition, based on public feedback, the floor -to -area ratio (FAR) threshold for the Old Town Overlay District was reduced to .45. Interim Provisions: Since the proposed amendments rely heavily on a new Historic Resources Survey, which does not yet exist, interim provisions were outlined to temporarily protect the city's historic resources. These provisions establish that any structure listed on the existing Historic Resource Survey(s) that are within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure. Also, any structure listed on the survey that is not within a historic district will be considered a contributing structure for the purposes of demolition. Public Input: City staff has worked to gather public input throughout the review and amendment process. City staff hosted a downtown business owners' focus group, designed to gather input from stakeholders that had recently been through the HARC process. Following the adoption of City Council Resolution 052714-N, staff created a public website, https://harcamendments.georgetown.org, and encouraged interested community members to sign up for email updates. The website was updated during the review process, providing additional information for the public. A comment form for public feedback was added to the website, through which staff received several comments. Staff published a draft of the proposed UDC changes on the website on January 15, 2015, and a public meeting was held on January 22, 2015, to provide the public an opportunity to discuss and provide comment on the draft language, where staff received additional comments. Staff has also received various comments from the public via email and telephone conversations. A chart (Exhibit C) has been created that lists all public comments staff has received to date and indicates whether those comments have been incorporated into the proposed UDC amended text. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their Page 136 of 516 J - 2 of 3 EXHIBIT J - February 10, 2015 City Council Agenda Item R Cover Sheet regularly scheduled meeting on February 3, 2015, held a public hearing on this item. A total of nine (9) stakeholders signed -up to speak on this item. Due to the concerns expressed by the public at the hearing, and the need for further public review and input, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (4- 1) of the amendment, as proposed, with a further recommendation that the City Council allow for additional time for further public review, clarification and editing of the proposed amendment. The major comments and concerns discussed at the meeting are summarized in the attached Exhibit E. Next Steps: The proposed amendments are scheduled for second reading of the ordinance on February 24th. The UDC Development Manual will be updated following the approval to reflect the amendments. In March 2015, once the amendments are effective, the Historic Landmark designation process will begin. Staff is currently working to select a consultant for the new historic resource survey, a replacement of the 1984 and 2007 historic resource surveys. The new survey is planned to begin this April and will establish the contributing versus non-contributing historic structure status, and will help to provide a basis for the designation of the historic landmarks. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, and Andreina Davilla, Project Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Exhibit A - UDC Amendment Text Exhibit B - Summary of Changes in Final Action Authority Exhibit C - Public Comments Exhibit D - Resolution 052714-N Exhibit E - Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Summary Page 137 of 516 J - 3 of 3 EXHIBIT K - March 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Item B Cover Sheet City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda March 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey -- Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: At the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting, City staff presented First Reading of the Ordinance for proposed changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey (EXHIBIT D). Following the public hearing, the City Council postponed First Reading of the Ordinance to the first meeting in April, and directed staff to conduct additional workshops with the stakeholders prior to this date. The purpose of these workshops was to give the stakeholders additional opportunity to review the proposed amendments and submit their comments to staff. City staff hosted two workshops: the first on February 26, 2015, with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC); and the second on March 12, 2015, with property and business owners and other interested members of the public (approximately 25-30 people were in attendance). The workshops were structured into four major topics of discussion based on the majority of the comments and concerns previously received. A complete list of all public comments received, to include new comments from the February 10, 2015 City Council meeting (highlighted in blue), are attached as EXHIBIT B. The four major areas of discussion at the follow-up workshops, along with the summarized comments, were (in the order as it appears in the UDC): 1) Public Notification (Chapter 3; Section 3.03) The proposed UDC amendment revises the public notification process to only apply to those applications that must be considered by the HARC. Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) will be reviewed in accordance with clear/defined standards and guidelines consistent with other administrative application processes. City staff received mixed comments on the proposed public notification process. Some of the comments stated that public notification should be required for all applications; others commented that the CoA process should not require as much notification as the UDC identifies specific activities and development that are permitted by right and thus do not need notification. Staff also received comments about making information available regarding application statuses online and/or through email notification. No changes were made to the proposed UDC amendments relating to the public notification process. However, staff can look at administrative processes to communicate to the HARC and public the outcome of Administrative CoAs, such as providing a report to the HARC at their regularly scheduled meeting. 2) Historic Landmark Designation (Chapter 3; Section 3.06.070) The proposed amendments include a new designation, Historic Landmarks, that would include local buildings, structures or sites, designated via ordinance, that are considered the City's highest priority historic resources. The majority of the comments received were in support of this new designation; however, some concerns were expressed particularly as the City has not yet identified specific structures that may be eligible for this designation. Other comments included clarification on the designation process, and what criteria will be used to determine eligibility for designation. Section 3.06.070, Criteria for Approval for a Historic Landmark designation, was revised to clarify the findings required to meet this criteria, highlighted in yellow (EXHIBIT A). No other changes were made to the proposed amendments relating to the designation of local Historic Landmarks. 3) Review Authority for Certificate of Appropriateness (Chapter 3; Table 3.13.010 and Section 3.13.010.B) Cover Memo The proposed amendments break -down the review authority based on the project (scope of work), and the Item # B Page 138 of 516 K - 1 of 3 EXHIBIT K - March 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Item B Cover Sheet type of structure (contributing vs. non-contributing historic structure, and Historic Landmarks) in order to provide clarity on the level of review required for a specific project. Comments received by the stakeholders ranged from decreasing the amount of projects that require review and approval by the HARC (more administrative review); to eliminating all Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) authority (all applications should be approved by the HARC); to requiring some level of review (whether by the HARC or HPO) for all structures regardless of its (non)historic significance. Table 3.13.010 was revised to include some projects where staff agreed that further review was needed either by the HARC or HPO to ensure that the historic significance of the structure and/or district was preserved. A summary of the proposed changes in Review Authority are outlined in EXHIBIT C. 4) Requests for Relocation, Removal or Demolition (Chapter 3; Table 3.13.010 and Section 3.13.030.E) The proposed amendments clarify the demolition process to only apply to structures that are of historic significance to the City, whether as a stand-alone structure or located within a Historic Overlay District. In addition, it clarifies what is considered to be removal of a feature versus actual demolition, and establishes a threshold for minor demolitions or relocations that may be reviewed administratively. Comments received ranged from any demolition, in whole or in part, of any structure (historic and non -historic) should be reviewed by the HARC or HPO; to the demolition or relocation process should not apply to non -historic structures; to all demolitions of a historic structure (regardless of the size) should be reviewed by the HARC. In addition, a comment was also received that the demolition review process should apply to all structures that are eligible to be designated as a Historic Landmark to provide the opportunity for additional review and determination of whether or not the structure should be designated as a local Historic Landmark, and thus preserved. Table 3.13.010 was revised to require approval by the HARC for the removal of an awning or canopy from a historic contributing structure, and to reduce the threshold of what triggers a demolition request to be reviewed by the HARC from thirty percent (30%) to fifteen percent (15%). No other changes were made to the proposed amendments relating to the relocation, removal or demolition process. Other Changes: Other minor changes to the UDC include the following: • Chapter 3, Section 3.06.060, Criteria for Approval for a Historic Overlay District, was revised to clarify the findings required to meet this criteria. • Chapter 3, Section 3.13.010.A was revised to clarify that each portion of a project (scope of work) will be subject to the review process and criteria for approval for that portion of the project. • Chapter 3, Section 3.13.020.A.4.b was revised to clarify that requests forwarded to the HARC will be subject to public notification. • Chapter 16, Section 16.02, definitions of historic structures, contributing and non-contributing, were revised to include the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resource Surveys. • Other changes included new or revised language for clarification purposes (Chapter 3). All new revisions and changes from the previous draft of proposed amendments are highlighted in yellow in the attached Revised Proposed UDC Amendment (EXHIBIT A). Next Steps: The next dates in the UDC amendment process are: • April 14, 2015 — City Council Meeting, First Reading of the Ordinance • April 28, 2015 — City Council Meeting, Second Reading of the Ordinance A summary of the Project Timeline is included as EXHIBIT E. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Laurie Brewer, Item # B Page 139 of 516 K - 2 of 3 EXHIBIT K - March 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Item B Cover Sheet Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Revised Proposed UDC Amendments Exhibit B - Updated Summary of Public Comments Exhibit C - Revised Proposed Approval Authority Comparison Table Exhibit D - February 10, 2015 City Council Agenda Item R Cover Sheet Exhibit E - Project Timeline Cover Memo Item # B Page 140 of 516 K - 3 of 3 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority COMPARISON OF APPROVAL AUTHORITY Level of Review to be determined by: Type of Structure: Historic Landmark, and Contributing and Non -Contributing Historic Structures - Review is no longer location based (Downtown vs Old Town Overlay Districts). Applicable standards for each district will still apply. - Review is no longer use based (residential vs non-residential structures), except some minor projects (UDC Section 3.13.010.13). Project/Scope of Work: Development that includes more than one type of project will be subject to the individual review by the entities specified in the list. Projects proposed to be exempt from the Certificate of Appropriateness review process include, but are not limited to: - New single and two-family residential in the Old Town Overlay District provided the building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. - New additions to existing single and two-family structures provided the addition does not create or add to a street facing fagade, and the addition in combination with the existing building is in compliance with the zoning standards of the Historic Overlay District. - New, modifications or removal of existing awnings, canopies, exterior paint color or exterior lighting that are attached to a single-family or two-family residential structure provided the alterations do not alter the exterior wall of a building designated as a Historic Landmark. - Demolition of a building or structure that the Building Official has determined necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. (ScopeProject ..Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * P• = Historic Preservation • Required New Items Change in Review New Construction (Infill Development) New building construction All Historic Overlay Districts HARC Additions Historic Landmark +HARC To create or add to an existing street Contributing Historic Structure HARC facing fagade Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure Historic Landmark +HARC Contributing Historic Structure +HPO Non -street facing fagades Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HARC New addition does not comply with the zoning standards of the historic overlay Contributing Historic Structure HARC district Non -Contributing Historic Structure HARC Page 141 of 516 L - 1 of 6 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority (ScopeProject of Work).Approval Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * •• = Historic Preservation •fficer * NR = Not Required New Items Change in Review Additions (continued) Historic Landmark +HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Awning or canopy Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure* Historic Landmark +HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Porch, patio or deck Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure* Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes Historic Landmark +HPO Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Restoring historic architectural feature Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HARC Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic architectural Contributing Historic Structure* HARC feature Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HARC Replacing roof materials with different Contributing Historic Structure HPO roof materials Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HPO Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps using in -kind Contributing Historic Structure* 0 HPO material Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HARC Modifications to exterior steps, Contributing Historic Structure* HARC stairways and ramps Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure* Page 142 of 516 L - 2 of 6 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority (ScopeProject of Work).Approval Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * • • = Historic Preservation •Required New Items Change in Review Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes (continued) Paint removal from historic and Historic Landmark +HPO significant architectural features (back Contributing Historic Structure* HPO to original condition; does not include Non -Contributing Historic NR repainting) Structure Changes to paint color on previously Historic Landmark +HPO Contributing Historic Structure* PO painted surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on previously painted Non -Contributing Historic HPO surface) Structure* Historic Landmark +HPO New paint on unpainted historic and Contributing Historic Structure* HPO other significant architectural features Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HPO Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Changes in color to awning fabric Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure* Historic Landmark +HPO Exterior lighting that is attached to the Contributing Historic Structure* 0 HPO building or structure Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure* Historic Landmark* +HPO Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in Contributing Historic Structure* HPO no modifications to the building fagade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Historic Landmark +HARC Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that result in Contributing Historic Structure* HARC modifications to the building fagade Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Page 143 of 516 L - 3 of 6 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority (ScopeProject of Work).Approval Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * P• = Historic Preservation •fficer * NR = Not Required New Items Change in Review Removal, Demolition or Relocation Historic Landmark +HARC Contributing Historic Structure* HARC Awnings or canopies Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HPO Exterior non -historic architectural features Contributing Historic Structure* 0 HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HPO Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic siding materials Contributing Historic Structure* +HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Removal, stripping, concealing, or Historic Landmark +HARC destruction of any historic and architectural features that is integral to Contributing Historic Structure* HARC the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic Structure* HPO Historic Landmark +HPO Non -historic additions that are made of non -historic materials Contributing Historic Structure 0 HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure* HARC$ Attached carport, porch, patio or deck Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark +HPO Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made of non -historic materials Contributing Historic Structure* 0 HPO Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Page 144 of 516 L - 4 of 6 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority (ScopeProject of Work).Approval Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * • • = Historic Preservation •Required New Items Change in Review Removal, Demolition or Relocation (continued) Historic Landmark +HPO Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck Contributing Historic Structure* HPO to original condition Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HARC$ Contributing Historic Structure HARC$ Street facing faSade Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HARC 15% or more of the square footage of Contributing Historic Structure HARC a building Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HARC Less than 15% of the square footage of Contributing Historic Structure +HPO a building Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark +HPO Relocation of a building or structure on Contributing Historic Structure HPO the same lot Non -Contributing Historic HPO Structure Relocation of a building or structure to Historic Landmark +HARC a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures Contributing Historic Structure HARC within the same historic overlay Non -Contributing Historic districts) Structure HARC Historic Landmark +HARC Relocation of a building or structure Contributing Historic Structure HARC outside of the historic overlay district Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Signage Master Sign Plan All Historic Overlay Districts HARC Page 145 of 516 L - 5 of 6 EXHIBIT L - Comparison of Approval Authority (ScopeProject of Work).Approval Authority HARC = Historic and Architectural Review Commission * •• = Historic Preservation •fficer * NR = Not Required New Items Change in Review Signage (continued) New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved All Historic Overlay Districts 0 HPO Master Sign Plan New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or All Historic Overlay Districts HARC applicable guidelines Changes in content or configuration (re -facing) that do not involve changes All Historic Overlay Districts HPO in sign location, dimensions, lighting or total sign area Amending an approved Master Sign All Historic Overlay Districts HARC Plan Fences New fence, railing or wall that is consistent with the overlay district's All Historic Overlay Districtst 0 HPO characteristics and applicable guidelines New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's All Historic Overlay Districtst HARC characteristics and applicable guidelines Removal of chain, link, plywood, or vinyl fence and replacing with wood, All Historic Overlay Districtst +HPO wrought iron, or masonry Miscellaneous HARC exceptions (building height and +setback variations pursuant to All Historic Overlay District +HARC Section 4.08) Renewal of an expired Certificate of All Historic Overlay Districts HPO Historic Landmark HPO Appropriateness *Only applicable to a street facing fagade tOnly applicable to fences along a street lot line or located in a street yard tCLG demo delay period and Demolition Subcommittee review not applicable Page 146 of 516 L - 6 of 6 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve an Agreement regarding Release of the Lively Tract from the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Water CCN between the City of Leander, Chisholm Trail Special Utility District, and the City of Georgetown -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director ITEM SUMMARY: On August 8, 2014, the City of Leander, the City of Georgetown, and Chisholm Trail SUD entered a settlement agreement regarding the City of Leander's protest of Georgetown's application to transfer the Chisholm Trail water CCN to Georgetown. The terms of the settlement agreement allow the City of Leander to provide retail water service within Leander's ETJ. Approximately 50.07 acres of the Lively Tract lies within the CTSUD water CCN and the Georgetown's ETJ. This agreement allows Leander to serve the entire Lively tract and pursue CCN transfer via appropriate Public Utility Commission process without objection by Georgetown and CTSUD some time in the future. As consideration for the release of the 50.07 acre tract into Leander's CCN, the agreement requires a payment of $25,000 to Chisholm Trail SUD. The payment must be made by May 31, 2015. The remaining terms of the agreement are consistent with the terms of the August 8, 2014 settlement agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Payment to be made to CTSUD, with potential transfer of fund balance to City of Georgetown upon dissolution of CTSUD in accordance with the consolidation agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director ATTACHMENTS: CCN Release Agreement FINAL CCN Release Agreement Exhibit A - Release Area CCN Release Agreement Exhibit B - Previously Released Area Page 147 of 516 AGREEMENT REGARDING RELEASE OF THE LIVELY TRACT This Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract (the "Agreement") is made and entered into to be effective on the day of , 2015 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the City of Leander ("Leander"), Chisholm Trail Special Utility District ("CTSUD"), and the City of Georgetown ("Georgetown"). CTSUD, Leander and Georgetown may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties". I. RECITALS WHEREAS, CTSUD is a conservation and reclamation district operating under Chapters 49 and 65 of the Texas Water Code and providing retail water service under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 11590 ("CTSUD's CCN") in portions of Williamson County, Bell County, and Burnet County, Texas; WHEREAS, Leander is a home rule city, a municipal corporation organized and operating in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and providing retail water service under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 10302; WHEREAS, Georgetown is a home rule city, a municipal corporation organized and operating in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and providing retail water service under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 12369; WHEREAS, CTSUD and Georgetown entered into that certain Asset Transfer and Utility System Consolidation Agreement dated October 15, 2013, as amended (as amended, the "Asset Transfer Agreement"), pursuant to which the assets and facilities of CTSUD have been transferred to Georgetown in exchange for the defeasance of CTUSD's outstanding debt and the CCN and customers of CTUSD will be transferred to Georgetown; WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Asset Transfer Agreement, Georgetown filed an application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ"), now pending with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the Public Utility Commission of Texas and any successor agency shall be referred to hereinafter as the "PUC"), requesting approval to transfer CTSUD's CCN to Georgetown (the "Application"); WHEREAS, the Parties entered a Settlement Agreement in the proceeding pending before TCEQ pertaining to the Application dated effective the 8th day of August, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreement"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Asset Transfer Agreement, CTSUD's rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement were assigned to Georgetown; Page 148 of 516 WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that, pursuant to the terns and conditions thereof, Leander may file an application to be the retail water service provider to the land defined in the Settlement Agreement as the "Leander Area", being the area located within Leander's city limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ") as shown on Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, the easternmost tract of land within the Leander Area, known locally as the "Lively Tract," lies in part within the Leander Area and in part outside of the Leander Area. The portion of the Lively Tract currently located outside the Leander Area is more particularly shown and described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes (the "Release Area"), and the portion of the Lively Tract currently located within the Leander Area is more particularly shown and described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes (the "Previously Released Area"). The term "Lively Tract" as used herein means and refers to the Release Area and the Previously Released Area, collectively; WHEREAS, the developer of the Lively Tract seeks to develop the Lively Tract and receive water service for up to 1,200 service connections; WHEREAS, as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, Georgetown and Leander have coordinated to determine which retail public utility should extend water service to the Lively Tract and have negotiated an agreement to transfer the Release Area from Georgetown's ETJ to Leander's ETJ; WHEREAS, the Parties wish to execute this Agreement to allow for Leander to be the retail water service provider to the Release Area under the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, CTUSD, Georgetown, and Leander do hereby agree as follows: II. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The Recitals, which the Parties agree are true and correct, and the definitions contained therein are incorporated herein for all purposes. 2. Release of the Lively Tract from CTSUD's CCN. CTSUD and Georgetown agree: (a) not to oppose a petition filed by the owner of the Lively Tract pursuant to Section 13.254(a-5) Water Code for decertification/expedited release of the Lively Tract from CTSUD's CCN either before or after CTSUD's CCN is transferred to Georgetown (the "Decertification Petition"); (b) not to appeal or otherwise contest the decision of the PUC, directly or indirectly, in any proceeding before PUC, any other state agency or otherwise; (c) not to seek any compensation in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in Section 3 of this Agreement; and (d) not to oppose Leander providing retail water utility service to the Lively Tract that has been removed from CTSUD's CCN; provided, however, that if the Decertification Petition includes any portion of the Release Page 149 of 516 Area and Leander has not paid or caused to be paid the $25,000 payment to CTSUD as provided in Section 3 of this Agreement, then CTSUD or Georgetown may contest the Decertification Petition, or appeal the decision of the PUC as appropriate. 3. Compensation for Release Area of the Lively Tract from CTSUD's CCN. Leander agrees to pay or cause to be paid $25,000.00 to CTSUD on or before May 31, 2015 (the "Payment Date") and before the owner or authorized agent of the Lively Tract files a Decertification Petition that includes the Release Area. CTSUD and Georgetown agree that the $25,000 payment represents full compensation for release of the Release Area from CTSUD's CCN and is adequate compensation to satisfy Section 13.254(d), Texas Water Code, and that Georgetown and CTSUD will not oppose Leander providing retail water utility service to the Release Area after such tract has been removed from CTSUD's CCN nor seek additional compensation in connection therewith. The parties agree that there will not be a transfer of any of CTSUD's or Georgetown's assets or facilities to Leander associated with the Release Area. 4. Conflict with the Asset Transfer Agreement. The Parties agree that in the event there is any conflict between the Asset Transfer Agreement and this Agreement, this Agreement will govern. Further, Georgetown and CTSUD agree that, to the extent the Asset Transfer Agreement assigns all of CTSUD's contracts to Georgetown, this Agreement is excluded from that assignment until CTSUD specifically and in writing assigns this Agreement to Georgetown. 5. Assignment. CTSUD may assign all of its rights, obligations, and liabilities under this Agreement to Georgetown at any time after CTSUD's CCN is transferred to Georgetown, regardless of the manner of transfer, without the consent of Leander. The Parties agree that upon assignment of this Agreement by CTSUD to Georgetown, CTSUD shall have no further obligations or liabilities under this Agreement; provided that CTSUD shall continue to be bound by the obligation to refrain from contesting the Decertification Petition under the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 2 and 3 after assignment of the Agreement. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, with respect to the release of the Release Area from CTSUD's CCN; provided that the Parties agree that the Settlement Agreement remains valid, binding and in Rill force and effect. 7. Binding Effect. This Agreement will extend to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective successors, and permitted assigns. 8. Conflict with Settlement Agreement. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between this Agreement and the Settlement Agreement, this Agreement will control. Page 150 of 516 9. Nullification. Either event listed below may result in nullification and voiding of this Agreement: (a) In the event the $25,000.00 payment referred to in Sections 2 and 3 of this Agreement is not made by the Payment Date, or the Decertification Petition is not filed with the PUC by August 8, 2021, this Agreement shall be considered null and void for all purposes; or (b) In the event the following agreements are not approved and executed on or before the Payment Date, then this Agreement shall become null and void for all purposes as of the Payment Date: (i) Wholesale Water Services Agreement between City of Georgetown and City of Leander; (ii) Agreement Regarding Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Release Between the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander and Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd. and Sentinel Land Company, LLC; (iii) Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement between City of Georgetown and City of Leander; (iv) Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the "Lively Tract" a/lda West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2. 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, including, without limitation, facsimile counterparts, with the same effect as if the parties had signed the same document, and all counterparts will constitute one and the same agreement. [Signature Pages Follow] Page 151 of 516 CHISHOLM TRAIL SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT NAME: TITLE: DATE: ATTEST: SECRETARY Page 152 of 516 CITY OF LEANDER BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Page 153 of 516 CITY OF GEORGETOWN BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Page 154 of 516 �haarrol Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 78°03'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88°03'44" West, a Page 155 of 516 EXHIBIT A 'RELEASE AREA" Page 1 of 4 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21027'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21°27'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21022'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20046'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21°00'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. South 21°00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. /Z// � 114 Paul L. Easley \� Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 Page 156 of 516 EXHIBIT A 'RELEASE AREA" Page 2 of 4 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S69'12'32"W 1589.92' L2 N78'03'51 "W 516.95' L3 N83'25'10"W 76.65' L4 S21'27'49"E 512.56' L5 S21'21'24"E 253.32' L6 S21'22'39"E 235.69' L7 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L8 S21'00'53"E 338.11' L9 S09'27'57"E 103.90' L10 S21'00'01 "E 141.14' L11 N83'25'10"W 395.30' L12 S88'03'44"W 163.47' L13 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L14 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L15 N21'27'49"W 1 291.87' BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON—LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) ATTACHMENTS: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • D 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O FENCE POST FOUND (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED) A CALCULATED POINT CURVE TABLE CURVEI RADIUS I DELTA I ARC I BEARING CHORD Cl 1 11456.00' 1 12'39'29" 1 2530.89' 1 N35'28'40"E 2525.75' rknarr�� PLOT DATE: 12/17/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: CWW SHEET 1 OF 2 Page 157 of 516 ' EXHIBIT A 'RELEASE AREA" Page 3 of 4 108 GREENLEAl F FiSK L) Ut�' V_ 109 J _j ...: ..; 3, 5 AS S 500' 110 GABRIELS- OVERLOOK ................ SECTION ONE (S/218) 112 01b 0 437.64 ACRES 113 1 04 (A 1 ** SECOND TRACT — — cl, DON H. I.WLY FAMILY 114 10) ............ PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Ito o"00 (9901719) z................. 115 ZL13 ............... 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) 0 50.07 ACRES APPROX. 2,180,914 SQ. FT. ETJ TRANSFER R1 IL11: 5 � AJI-J, PORT—Efi` ZIW 3 UR VE Y Ln I-i 491.95'ACRES HENRY 8. TIPPIE (570/483j L to 7" CEDAR co _j _j )14 JIF Tf Lj 0 I rrl�/Jrrw 00 V L/ D VE _j SURVEY A-53S, 20 P.O.B. 0) SOUTH FORK i 0 SAN GABRIEL RIVER .............. I ................................................... I ........................... N'_j ................................................. Ll ..... ............................................................ i .................. OU.�110/ ALKr_Z� L_ — — — — ASA AIJ, -DI-)RDJIYJ\J AVP RANCH, LTD (2011081794) S UR VE Y 121.45 ACRES 1 85 TEXAS PARKS AND I 15 R,1 I _F AES)S, RECREATION FOUNDATION 1 (2008092676) s 4 u L/ s 3 UR VE Y A _533, 5 _9 5 DRAWING NO.: 143-034- ETJ -GEORGETOWN SHEET 2 OF 2 ( I 19 mITAl Page 158 of 516 EXHIBIT A "RELEASE AREA" Page 4 of 4 �haarral Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 386.98 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 16,856,662 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED JULY 3, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 386.98 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 (right-of-way width varies), for the northeast corner hereof, being the northeast corner of said 30' strip, and being the northwest corner of a 491.95 acre tract described in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE, leaving said State Highway 29, with the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, as found fenced, occupied and used upon the ground, in part being the east line of said 30 foot strip, and in part being the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, the following twelve (12) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °44'59" East, a distance of 1251.15 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 30 foot strip, being the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, 2. South 12°17'52" West, a distance of 47.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; Page 159 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 1 of 9 Page 2 3. South 19°23'38" East, a distance of 1435.72 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°38'46" East, a distance of 385.75 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 20036'37" East, a distance of 210.67 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 20046'45" East, a distance of 651.86 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 20°59'20" East, a distance of 822.02 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 21°49'53" East, a distance of 493.25 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 9. South 21 °36'00" East, a distance of 253.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 10. South 21 °35'17" East, a distance of 184.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 11. South 21 °23'05" East, a distance of 662.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 12. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 291.87 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acre tract, with the scaled Leander/Georgetown E.T.J. line (provided to the surveyor by others), with a curve to the left, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears South 35028'40" West, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas and also being in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 206.57 acre tract described in Document No. 2013115216 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 8302610" West, a distance of 395.30 feet to a calculated point; Page 160 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 2 of 9 Page 3 2. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 96.03 feet to a calculated point for the northwest corner of said 121.45 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said 206.57 acre tract; 3. South 8800344" West, a distance of 67.44 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 75021'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being an angle point in the north line of said 206.57 acre tract and also being the southeast corner of Lot 115, Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southwest corner hereof; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of Lots 108-115, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 18033'06" West, a distance of 381.17 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for an angle point in east line of said Lot 108, being the southeast corner of a 49.404 acre tract described in Document No. 2013103448 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of said 49.404 acre tract, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 18017'49" West, a distance of 212.09 feet to a 2" metal fence post found; 2. North 20°46'27" West, a distance of 758.41 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 20°52'26" West, a distance of 600.26 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 4. North 21 °32'38" West, a distance of 344.62 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 20°28'31" West, a distance of 177.79 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 6. North 20"34'25" West, a distance of 242.27 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 21011'57" West, a distance of 271.02 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for the northeast corner of said 49.404 acre tract, being the southeast corner of Lot 24 said Gabriels-Overlook Section One; Page 161 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 3 of 9 THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the west line of Lots 7-24 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 22°52'22" West, a distance of 44.49 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 23°26'14" West, a distance of 229.07 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 19°27'56" West, a distance of 302.58 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 07°08'47" West, a distance of 459.01 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 08°55'54" West, a distance of 832.85 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. North 08°25'05" West, a distance of 789.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 08049'15" West, a distance of 328.34 feet to a 1/2" rebar found for the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said Lot 7 and also being an angle point in the south line of Lot 6, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, for the westernmost northwest corner hereof, THENCE with the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the south line of Lots 5 and 6 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, and in part being the south line of said 48.567 acre tract, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. North 85'03'10" East, a distance of 180.43 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 8500120" East, a distance of 357.83 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 82019'06" East, a distance of 113.06 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 4. North 82013'59" East, a distance of 348.44 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 5. North 83006'23" East, a distance of 1129.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with cap found near a fence corner post in the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot strip and also being the southeast corner of said 2.64 acre tract, bears North 83006'23" East, a distance of 95.70 feet, Page 162 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 4 of 9 Page 5 THENCE with the west line of said 2.64 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °33'09" West, a distance of 125.76 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 22'1119" West, a distance of 670.90 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 22044'17" West, a distance of 496.30 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set on the south right-of-way line of said State Highway 29, being the northwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, for the northernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, in part being the north line of said 2.64 acre tract, and in part being the north line said 30 foot strip, with a curve to the right, having a radius of 5679.58 feet, a delta angle of 01 °31'13", an arc length of 150.70 feet, and a chord which bears South 83°26'45" East, a distance of 150.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 386.98 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground June 18, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: None. o F 6 �1z 31 I L� .�E°o� F erF �P��F Paul L. Easley°°"� aoe voee AKEY Registered Professional Land Surveyor ... L. ..... g y $4432 eva,se �> State of Texas No.4432 o� P`o T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 SRo� Page 163 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 5 of 9 WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUD NO. 2 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 420, AND THE A.H. PORTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 490, IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT) DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719, AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744, OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • M 1/2" REBAR WITH "FOREST RPLS #1847" CAP FOUND •D 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYING" CAP FOUND • P 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND •� 1/2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND • w 1/2" REBAR WITH "WALKER 5283" CAP FOUND AM MAG NAIL FOUND A 80D NAIL FOUND �E COTTON SPINDLE FOUND O 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA ARC BEARING CHORD C1 11456.00' 12'39'29" 2530.89' 1 S35-28-40-W 2525.75' C2 5679.58' 1'31'13" 150.70' S8326'45"E 150.69' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S21'44'59"E 1251.15' L2 S12'17'52"W 47.71' L3 S19'23'38"E 1435.72' L4 S20'38'46"E 385.75' L5 I S20'36'37"E 210.67' L6 S20'46'45"E 651.86' L7 S20'59'20"E 822.02' L8 S21'49'53"E 493.25' L9 S21'36'00"E 253.35' L10 S21'35'17"E 184.35' L11 S21'23'05"E 662.69' L12 S21'27'49"E 291.87' L13 N83'25'1O"W 395.30' L14 S88'03'44"W 96.03' L15 S88'03'44"W 67.44' L16 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L17 N21'35'09"W 1226.40' L18 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L19 N18'17'49"W 212.09' L20 N20'46'27"W 758.41' L21 N20'52'26"W 600.26' L22 N21'32'38"W 344.62' L23 N20'28'31 "W 177.79' L24 N20'34'25"W 242.27' L25 N21-11'57"W 271.02' L26 N2T52'22"W 44.49' L27 N23'26'14"W 229.07' L28 N19'27'56"W 302.58' L29 NOT08'47"W 459.01' L30 N0855'54"W 832.85' Chajj-(A� LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L31 N08'25'05"W 789.61' L32 N08'49'15"W 328.34' L33 N85'03'10"E 180.43' L34 N85'01'20"E 357.83' 135 N82' 19'06"E 113.06' L36 N82' 13'59"E 348.44' L37 N83'06'23"E 1129.71' L38 N21'33'09"W 125.76' L39 N22'11'19"W 670.90' L40 N2T44'17"W 496.30' L41 N83'06'23"E 95.70' PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 1 OF 4 Page 164 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 6 of 9 GABRIELS-OVERLOOK SECTION ONE (S/218) 17 18 19 20 I �I GABRIELS-OVERLOOK 3 LAJ SECTION ONE105 O (S/218) I = W I� O 6 / � I / 5 \ 8 N C34 G � 9 -i 48.567 ACRES ERIK CHARLES MAUND 2010 TRUST (2013091022) DESCRIBED IN (908/203) rFJr rrl\Jl rr,1i F FlYK 3Jfi�Yr Y A 53, 5 386.98 ACRES I I � � 2.64 AC. J \ DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (2013063744) 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 rn J �hr�V 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) r] . H, F OR rr R SJf'VEY 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 2 OF 4 Page 165 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 7 of 9 20 21 a — 22 \ 2300 \ c� GABRIELS-OVERLOOK SECTION ONE 24 r (S/218) --------I-- ° 2" METAL NMN � J 49.404 ACRES a ROBERT C. RALEY p & CHERRY S. RALEY (2013103448) o W ,, c� cl 2" METAL MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 rRE-EN l rA rr Fl SK 3UR VEY Y YY, 5 386.98 ACRES 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 J � V J 1 = 500' Yul?VEY YYY. _90 J 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE Z (570/483) a Z � c� J O J PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 3 OF 4 Page 166 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 8 of 9 \rn12" METAL s GABRIELS- OVERLOOK 1 SECTION ONE - - - - (S/218) 112 J 113 114 z 115 W J ............ .................Sa.....� ......................... ....L1.A 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) A Sr MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 METAL 3L)RVEY r A � 3 . .:� 386.98 ACRES 1 " = 500' J SURVEY 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. I (9901719) - - G�ORG r /A I- / r / r 1 � r I I / 491.95 ACRES C� 121.45 ACRES••••... TEXAS PARKS AND " RECREATION FOUNDATION (2008092676) A/l. SR 011/vj V S UR V-PY r S-) , J J �r J1_ r' I// r HENRY BC1 . TIPPIE _ �y/JAi !/ J J F I (570/483) A-D'-)S, 420 jr-) I -----------------� - - - - l.. - ............ ............................. •• •• . I..............................80.9157 ACRES SOUTH FORK"""'f AVP RANCH, LTD SAN GABRIEL RIVER (2011081794) lsk)1 r -1 S,/ J/;� J�� r�J DATE:PLOT 14 DRAWING NO.: 43-034MUD ��L,rr PROJECT NO.: 143-034 AJ, , J:JJ T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 Nell DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 4 OF 4 Page 167 of 516 EXHIBIT B "PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AREA" Page 9 of 9 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve an Agreement between the City of Georgetown, the City of Leander, Sentinel Land Company, LLC and the Donald H. Lively Family Partnership to Release approximately 50 acres of land in Georgetown's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to the City of Leander -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: Georgetown and Leander have never had ETJ boundary agreement between the two jurisdictions. In 2007, the City of Georgetown worked with a developer to create a plan for property known as the Lively Tract, 437 acres on west 29, most of which was not in the City's ETJ. Before a deal could be approved, the City of Leander annexed territory that pushed their ETJ onto most of the Lively Tract, creating split jurisdiction on the land. The agreement presented here would clean up the boundaries and allow a residential development to be built in Leander's ETJ. A 50.07 acre portion of the 437-acre Lively Tract currently lies within the City of Georgetown's ETJ, the balance is in Leander. A new developer would like to develop the project for residential purposes and, to provide for consistency of development of the land, Leander and the developer have requested that the area within Georgetown's ETJ be released into Leander's ETJ to facilitate a proposed Municipal Utility District (MUD). The attached agreement establishes the following conditions for release of the 50.07 acre tract from Georgetown's ETJ to Leander's ETJ: Within 1,000 feet of the South San Gabriel River the following shall be met: * Development is limited to single-family, parks and other similar amenities * There shall be a dark sky requirement homes, streets, parks, etc. * A height limit of 35 feet for homes * There shall be a 150 foot buffer area north of the centerline of the South San Gabriel River where there can be no development other than trails and underground utilities. * The developer must construct a 10' wide trail along the South San Gabriel in a location approved by Georgetown . There must be a maintenance access easement granted to Georgetown for maintenance access to the trail. * There must be a collector road connection to the property to the east of the Lively tract. * Leander must include the items listed above in a development agreement with the developer (which has now been done) * The developer must pay Georgetown $100,000 for the release of the area from its ETJ The City of Leander approved the ETJ release agreement on April 16th, with the above conditions included. In addition to the ETJ agreement, Leander approved other agreements with the developer and the City of Georgetown. The City is concurrently considering two wholesale agreements and a sewer construction agreement that will allow this MUD to move forward. Recommended Motion Approval of the resolution and agreement between the parties releasing approximately 50 acres from the City of Georgetown ETJ Page 168 of 516 FINANCIAL IMPACT: $100,000, payable to the City of Georgetown upon the release of the property. SUBMITTED BY: Jordan Maddox ATTACHMENTS: Resolution for Agreement ETJ Agreement Exhibit A - Prove , Survey Exhibit B - Property Sketch Exhibit C - 50-acre release c Exhibit D - Concept Plan with Road Connection Exhibit E - Land Use Summary with Trail Location Page 169 of 516 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LEANDER, THE SENTINEL LAND COMPANY AND THE DONALD H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP REGARDING THE ETJ RELEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 50.07 ACRES TO THE CITY OF LEANDER WHEREAS, the City of Leander, Sentinel Land Company, and the Donald H. Lively Family Partnership have requested a release of territory from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown into the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Leander; and WHEREAS, such property is described and shown in the attached Exhibit 1 as approximately 50.07 acres of land owned by the Donald H. Lively Family Partnership; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown wishes to enter into an Agreement with the City of Leander and the Sentinel Land Company and Donald H. Lively Family Partnership regarding the City of Georgetown's release of the described territory in the extraterritorial jurisdiction defined in the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander have agreed to enforce certain provisions in the Agreement as a stipulation of the release of territory so as to allow a residential development to occur solely within Leander's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City of Leander approved the same agreement on April 16, 2015 with the City of Georgetown's conditions of release included in such document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby agrees to enter into the ETJ Release Agreement with the City of Leander and Sentinel Land Company and the Donald H. Lively Family Partnership attached as Exhibit 1 and authorizes the Mayor to sign on its behalf. RESOLVED this 281h day of April, 2015. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle By: Dale Ross City Secretary Mayor Resolution Number: Description: Leander Lively Date Approved: April 28, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 1 attached Page 170 of 516 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Resolution Number: Description: Leander Lively Date Approved: April 28, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 attached Page 171 of 516 Final 4.9.15 AGREEMENT REGARDING EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION RELEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND THE CITY OF LEANDER AND DONALD H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. AND SENTINEL LAND COMPANY, LLC THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS That this Agreement Regarding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Release ("Agreement") is by and between the City of Georgetown, Texas ("Georgetown"), a home -rule municipality located in Williamson County, Texas, the City of Leander, Texas ("Leander"), a home -rule municipality located in Williamson County, Texas, Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership ("Owner"), and Sentinel Land Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company ("Developer"). RECITALS Owner owns approximately 437.05 acres of land described by metes and bounds on the attached Exhibit "A" and by sketch attached as Exhibit `B" (the "Land"). The majority of the Land is located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ") of Leander, but a portion of the Land, approximately 50.07 acres in size which is described by metes and bounds shown on the sketch attached as "Exhibit C", is within the ETJ of Georgetown (the "50-Acre Tract"). Owner and Developer have requested that the 50-Acre Tract be released from the ETJ of Georgetown and, following such release, the Land will be entirely within the ETJ of Leander. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: I. Effective upon the date of approval and full execution of the Related Agreements (defined herein) and Georgetown's receipt of the ETJ Release Payment (defined herein), Georgetown hereby releases the Land from Georgetown's ETJ to Leander's ETJ, and hereby relinquishes all ETJ rights to Leander which it has or may hereinafter acquire in the 50-Acre ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 1 of 8 Page 172 of 516 Final 4.9.15 Tract, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. II. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, effective upon the date of approval and full execution of the Related Agreements (defined herein) and Georgetown's receipt of the ETJ Release Payment (defined herein) and payment of the Georgetown Expenses (defined herein) , Leander hereby accepts the 50-Acre Tract into its ETJ. With regard to development of the Land, Leander agrees that it shall enter into an agreement with the Developer ("Development Agreement") which shall run with the land and be binding on successors and assigns of Owner and Developer, and contain the following provisions, and Developer agrees that it shall comply with the following provisions: 1. Development within one thousand (1,000) feet north of the center line of the South San Gabriel River shall be limited to single-family residential, parks and open space, low -impact residential amenities such as restrooms and gazebos, and shall not include lighted sports fields or any above -ground water or wastewater utility facilities (excluding valves and other minor water or wastewater system appurtenances). 2. Dark -sky rated lighting requirement for homes, streets, amenities, and parkland shall be required within one thousand (1,000) feet north of the center line of the South San Gabriel River. 3. A height limit of thirty-five (35) feet for all homes within 1000 feet north of the center line of the South San Gabriel River shall be required. 4. There shall be a one hundred fifty (150) foot buffer area north of the center line of the South San Gabriel River consisting solely of protected open space and tree preservation areas, except that public pedestrian and/or hike and bike trails, underground utilities and any improvements specifically authorized under the Maintenance Access Easement and Trail Easement (as defined below) can be placed in the buffer area. No overhead or above -ground utility improvements shall be placed in the 150-foot buffer area (excluding valves and other minor water or wastewater system appurtenances). 5. Developer shall construct, at no cost to Georgetown or Leander, a ten (10) foot wide ADA-compliant concrete trail in compliance with Georgetown's trail specifications and standards in effect at the time of construction, which extends from the eastern boundary of the 50-Acre Tract to the western boundary of the 50- Acre Tract, or to such other point on the Land approved in writing by Leander and the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Director that allows for connection via a river crossing with Georgetown's trail on the opposite shore (the "Trail"). The parties acknowledge and agree that the river crossing may be located on the Land. ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 2 of 8 Page 173 of 516 Final 4.9.15 The specific location of the Trail shall be approved in writing in advance by Leander and the Georgetown Parks and Recreation Director and shall be generally consistent with the location shown on Exhibit "D". When required by this subsection, Developer shall cause the Trail to be dedicated to Leander, and the land for the river crossing necessary to connect the Trail to Georgetown's trail on the opposite shore to be dedicated to Georgetown, each for public use and ownership, maintenance and operation in fee simple or by easement, as Leander or Georgetown may respectively elect in their sole discretion, at no cost to Leander or Georgetown. Developer shall be required to construct the Trail (save and except the river crossing), convey the land for the Trail to Leander via deed or easement, convey the land for the river crossing to Georgetown via deed or easement, upon the earlier to occur of. a) Georgetown's written request; provided that Georgetown shall not make such request earlier that two years from the Effective Date; or b) at the time the Developer applies for approval of a final plat for the portion of the 50-Acre Tract in which the Trail is located, and approval of the final plat shall be subject to the Developer's compliance with this Section. 6. Developer shall be required to convey or dedicate to the public, at no cost to Georgetown or Leander, public right-of-way sufficient to allow for intersection of the Land's entrance road with an eighty (80) foot wide, collector -level, east -west public roadway on the so-called Tippie Tract in the approximate location shown on Exhibit " E", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. Developer shall have no obligation to secure or dedicate any public right-of-way on lands not owned by Developer. Georgetown agrees that the landscape theme for such dedicated right-of-way shall be consistent with the Land's landscape theme. 7. Leander and Developer agree that the provisions in Article III of this Agreement shall be included in the Development Agreement. Leander agrees to provide a copy of the Development Agreement to Georgetown upon approval by Leander City Council. IV. As additional consideration for Georgetown's release of the Land from its ETJ, and as a condition precedent to Georgetown's release of the 50-Acre Tract from Georgetown's ETJ, Developer must pay Georgetown the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($100,000.00) (the "ETJ Release Payment"). The ETJ Release Payment must be in the form of a check or money order made payable to the "City of Georgetown" and delivered on or before the seventh day following the execution of this Agreement and the Related Agreements to: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, City of Georgetown, 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626. V. In addition to the ETJ Release Payment required by Section IV of this Agreement, and as an additional condition precedent of Georgetown's release of the 50-Acre Tract from its ETJ and ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 3 of 8 Page 174 of 516 Final 4.9.15 approval of the Related Agreements (defined below), Owner and/or Developer agree that they shall reimburse Georgetown for all fees, costs and expenses (the "Georgetown Expenses") incurred by or on behalf of Georgetown in connection with the drafting, negotiation, implementation, and administration of this Agreement and the Related Agreements. Payment for the Georgetown Expenses shall be made by Owner/Developer by check or money order made payable to the "City of Georgetown" and delivered to the address given in Section IV of this Agreement. Payment of the Georgetown Expenses must be made within five (5) days of Georgetown's written request. VI. The "Related Agreements" are: the Off -Site Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement to be entered into between Georgetown and Developer; the Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement to be entered into between Georgetown and Leander; the Wholesale Water Services Agreement to be entered into between Georgetown and Leander; and the Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract to be entered into among Leander, Georgetown and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District. VII. The Parties agree to take such actions and execute and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effect the provisions of this Agreement. VIII. This Agreement shall become binding immediately upon the proper execution thereof by the duly authorized representatives of all Parties. In the event that the Related Agreements are not fully executed on or before June 1, 2015, then this Agreement shall become null and void for all purposes as of June 1, 2015. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit A Land — metes and bounds Exhibit B Land - sketch Exhibit C 50-Acre Tract — metes and bounds Exhibit D Trail— General location map Exhibit E Connection to Tippie Tract — Location map [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW.] ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 4 of 8 Page 175 of 516 Final 4.9.15 CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 113 East 8th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 DALE ROSS, Mayor Date: ATTEST: JESSICA BRETTLE, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: BRIDGET CHAPMAN, City Attorney ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Texas § County of Williamson § This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by Dale Ross, Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation, on behalf of the City of Georgetown, Texas. Notary Public, State of Texas ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 5 of 8 Page 176 of 516 Final 4.9.15 CITY OF LEANDER, TEXAS 200 W. Willis Leander, TX 78641 By: Christopher Fielder, Mayor Date: ATTEST: Debbie Haile, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Texas § County of Williamson§ This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by Christopher Fielder, Mayor of the City of Leander, Texas, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation, on behalf of the City of Leander, Texas. Notary Public, State of Texas ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 6 of 8 Page 177 of 516 Final 4.9.15 OWNER: DONALD H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. 6451 Hwy 29 West Georgetown, TX 78628 I0 Donald H. Lively, its General Partner 9010 Mountain Lake Circle Austin, TX 78750 Date: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Texas § County of Williamson § This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by Donald H. Lively, General Partner of Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, on behalf of Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd. Notary Public, State of Texas ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 7 of 8 Page 178 of 516 Final 4.9.15 DEVELOPER: SENTINEL LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company 9111 Jollyville Rd, Suite 212 Austin, TX 78759 Tom Rielly, Member and Director Date: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Texas § County of Travis § This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by Tom Rielly, member and director of Sentinel Land Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, on behalf of Sentinel Land Company, LLC. Notary Public, State of Texas ETJ AGREEMENT FOR LIVELY TRACT Page 8 of 8 Page 179 of 516 �haarral Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 386.98 ACRES (Tract 1 of 2) GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 16,856,662 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED JULY 3, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 386.98 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 (right-of-way width varies), for the northeast corner hereof, being the northeast corner of said 30' strip, and being the northwest corner of a 491.95 acre tract described in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE, leaving said State Highway 29, with the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, as found fenced, occupied and used upon the ground, in part being the east line of said 30 foot strip, and in part being the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, the following twelve (12) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °44'59" East, a distance of 1251.15 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 30 foot strip, being the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, 2. South 12°17'52" West, a distance of 47.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; Page 180 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 1 of 7 Page 2 3. South 19°23'38" East, a distance of 1435.72 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°38'46" East, a distance of 385.75 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 20036'37" East, a distance of 210.67 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 20046'45" East, a distance of 651.86 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 20°59'20" East, a distance of 822.02 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 21°49'53" East, a distance of 493.25 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 9. South 21 °36'00" East, a distance of 253.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 10. South 21 °35'17" East, a distance of 184.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 11. South 21 °23'05" East, a distance of 662.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 12. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 291.87 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acre tract, with the scaled Leander/Georgetown E.T.J. line (provided to the surveyor by others), with a curve to the left, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears South 35028'40" West, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas and also being in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 206.57 acre tract described in Document No. 2013115216 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 8302610" West, a distance of 395.30 feet to a calculated point; Page 181 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 2 of 7 Page 3 2. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 96.03 feet to a calculated point for the northwest corner of said 121.45 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said 206.57 acre tract; 3. South 8800344" West, a distance of 67.44 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 75021'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being an angle point in the north line of said 206.57 acre tract and also being the southeast corner of Lot 115, Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southwest corner hereof; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of Lots 108-115, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 18033'06" West, a distance of 381.17 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for an angle point in east line of said Lot 108, being the southeast corner of a 49.404 acre tract described in Document No. 2013103448 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of said 49.404 acre tract, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 18017'49" West, a distance of 212.09 feet to a 2" metal fence post found; 2. North 20°46'27" West, a distance of 758.41 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 20°52'26" West, a distance of 600.26 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 4. North 21 °32'38" West, a distance of 344.62 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 20°28'31" West, a distance of 177.79 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 6. North 20"34'25" West, a distance of 242.27 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 21011'57" West, a distance of 271.02 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for the northeast corner of said 49.404 acre tract, being the southeast corner of Lot 24 said Gabriels-Overlook Section One; Page 182 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 3 of 7 THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the west line of Lots 7-24 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 22°52'22" West, a distance of 44.49 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 23°26'14" West, a distance of 229.07 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 19°27'56" West, a distance of 302.58 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 07°08'47" West, a distance of 459.01 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 08°55'54" West, a distance of 832.85 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. North 08°25'05" West, a distance of 789.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 08049'15" West, a distance of 328.34 feet to a 1/2" rebar found for the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said Lot 7 and also being an angle point in the south line of Lot 6, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, for the westernmost northwest corner hereof, THENCE with the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the south line of Lots 5 and 6 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, and in part being the south line of said 48.567 acre tract, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. North 85'03'10" East, a distance of 180.43 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 8500120" East, a distance of 357.83 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 82019'06" East, a distance of 113.06 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 4. North 82013'59" East, a distance of 348.44 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 5. North 83006'23" East, a distance of 1129.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with cap found near a fence corner post in the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot strip and also being the southeast corner of said 2.64 acre tract, bears North 83006'23" East, a distance of 95.70 feet, Page 183 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 4 of 7 Page 5 THENCE with the west line of said 2.64 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °33'09" West, a distance of 125.76 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 22'1119" West, a distance of 670.90 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 22044'17" West, a distance of 496.30 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set on the south right-of-way line of said State Highway 29, being the northwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, for the northernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, in part being the north line of said 2.64 acre tract, and in part being the north line said 30 foot strip, with a curve to the right, having a radius of 5679.58 feet, a delta angle of 01 °31'13", an arc length of 150.70 feet, and a chord which bears South 83°26'45" East, a distance of 150.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 386.98 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground June 18, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: None. o F 6 �1z 31 I L� .�E°o� F erF �P��F Paul L. Easley°°"� aoe voee AKEY Registered Professional Land Surveyor ... L. ..... g y $4432 eva,se �> State of Texas No.4432 o� P`o T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 -vyoSURo� Page 184 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 5 of 7 �haarrol Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES (Tract 2 of 2) GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 78°03'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88°03'44" West, a Page 185 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 6 of 7 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21027'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21°27'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21022'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20046'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21°00'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. South 21°00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. /Z// � 114 Paul L. Easley \� Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 Page 186 of 516 EXHIBIT A The Land (Metes and Bounds) Page 7 of 7 CROSS CREEK RD. (60' R.O.W. WIDTH) (U/39) GRAVEL DRIVE/ ASP HALT/- I/ THIS IS A SURFACE DRAWING. BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON-LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) FOR CHAPARRAL CONTROL POINT "P627". 4" ALUMINUM DISK SET IN CONCRETE SURFACE COORDINATES: N 10204326.50 E 3094852.55 TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATES: N 10203102.12 E 3094481.22 ELEVATION = 975.02' VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 (GEOID 09) COMBINED SCALE FACTOR = 0.999880014444 (FOR SURFACE TO GRID CONVERSION) INVERSE SCALE FACTOR = 1.00012 (FOR GRID TO SURFACE CONVERSION) SCALED ABOUT 0,0 A LAND TITLE SURVEY OF 437.04 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 19, 037, 576 SQ. FT.), BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP AND ALL OF A 437.64 EXHIBIT B to Offsite Wastewater Utiility and Construction Agreement for the'Lively Tract' a/k/a ACRE TRACT, BOTH CONVEYED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED DECEMBER Wes Williamsonc County MUD No. 2 - the "Land" 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED JULY 39 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. /fg x UJ VJ Yi SCALE: 1 " = 200' GRAPHIC SCALE 200 100 0 200 LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) •P 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND • CAP 1/2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND CONTROL POINT LOCATION f?l UTILITY POLE F- GUY WIRE -ou- OVERHEAD UTILITIES TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE QT TELEPHONE UTILITY SIGN nM MAILBOX BH BIRD HOUSE -AL EDGE OF PAVEMENT -X- BARB WIRE FENCE -o- CHAIN LINK FENCE -///- WROUGHT IRON FENCE (OR AS NOTED) -//- WOOD FENCE P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE J \/ �I ��u�'��� j �I 0 z 0 of J APPROXIMATE LOCAT70N FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN x ON MAP NO. 48491CO275E o SCALED FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY FEMA DWG. DATED 091JO108 I .\ I \ 1 I I x ....................................................... 1435.72 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SURVEY LINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GATE- opon CATTLE " ' " ' ' " L2 S21'23'05"E 662.69' S21'27'49"E 804.43' S21'21'24"E S21'22'39"E L3 S21'00'53"E L slcN �, �� S20'38'46"E 385.75' S20'36'37"E S20'46'45"E 651.86' S21 49 53 E 493.25 S21 36 00 E 4 �-� GUARD 17"W 496.30' N22' 11' 19"W 670.90' L13 �`�'`•� 210.67' S20 59 20 E 822.02 L5 I N22 44 . F • N20'49'15"W 671.92') GRAVEL 253.35' x I 253.32' X 235.69' 338.11' N21 22 13"W 493.57) ( l ( DRIVE I '< X t DON H. LIVELY FAMILY P627 x w W z I PARTNERSHIP, LTD. 2.64 ACRES x GRAVEL AVP9RANCH157 CR LTD (2013063744) N N x :DRIVE GATE ` j (2011081794) ., lk) CAVE/ x I `. GRAVEL DRIVE ::::....... ATE ` x I N ..................... .......................... ........................................................................ •� -� .................................................................................................. �j FENCELLI PIPE � to p W -� �' .. x c^ CONCRETE BN. x GATE �\ o wI2 \ J // N N o I WELL X � Z O J �� J CATTLE GRAVEL I N N L �J J` r ERIK CHARLES MAUND o SEE GUARD DRIVE I CATTLE x `t ` > J J 2010 TRUST M :, �`' / \ l J J GATE GUARD o; r� oDETAIL GRAVEL GATE r�....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48.567 ACRES 2 :•. 2013091022 A DRIVE ( )SEE DESCRIBED IN x J DETAIL B CHICKEN . '. 1 S.H. 29 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT (R.O.W. WIDTH VARIES) DON H. LIVELY FAMILY GATE PARTNERSHIP, LTD. GRAVEL CONTROL S21'44'59"E 1251.15' (9901719) DRIVE BOX (S19'51'44"E 1251.70') C� S19'23'38"E .............................................................................:::::.:.::::::........................................ \J� rr J ,jR, J r\ r�JJ SURV� �� (908/203) P 00 , rW M. GATE �N �2 2 _N J n rj LOT 5 N O GABRIELS-OVERLOOK •� SECTION ONE (S/218) LOT 6 /�0 (N0 41g'! „tv 328 34, GATE 328.31') O� v LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 �r J�R\J� DILAPIDATED TRAILER N08-25'05 (NOg•S7' 8 789. 61, LOT 11 LOT 12 No8 ( p 54 "w 2. LOT 13 27'1S"8� 85' LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 7LOT 18 GABRI ELS- OVERLOOK SECTION ONE (S/218) HENRY B. TIPPIE 491.95 ACRES (570/483) o BH COOP o;! ATE m I LO CONCRETES' X� - X LO / 0 1 BH r✓ � 1� W GATE ------_`�-----=X N ��! ? GRAVEL N HOUSE 'c ✓ \ rWELL� J DRIVE x / I Mo^ I \r r��J V iZ) 32.4' 34.6' 437.04 ACRES J o I } WINDMILL APPROX. 19,037,576 SQ. FT. f z o x DON H. LIVELY FAMILY CATTLE o x ti PARTNERSHIP, LTD. GUARD o SHED 437.64 ACRES ' +GUA ..................................... . SECOND TRACT • l (9901719) GRAVEL BENCH :... X-`- / GRAVEL DRIVE r r DRIVE GRAVEL X��-X-- I ��I r� ( - ---�-- - - ... x DRIVE X c \� � /) � A N CONCRETE Q OF SURVEY LINE ;; •...................• '.`'•. GRAVEL ' � ........ �'----- • :J ..............................................::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.............. ;• ''•••.• `:`'.. DRIVE .... X ............. : X�--X ° X \ J � \ __X_:;--GATE •:. .; J EDGE OF WATER : x ON 0 0 1 4/ 7/ 4�..; GRAVEL I �� POND X DRIVE GRAVEL POND: POND x GATE \� DRIVE X f ��. GATE �'••. 121.45 ACRES "" "' ) � � �, TEXAS PARKS AND �X Q0 / RECREATION FOUNDATION EDGE OF WATER ' J ON 04/07/14 Q / (2008092676) ' \ oU � 1 � } •/ OJT / • � � � A GATE 1 BENCH \ P xo^o^°�� I`/� DRIVEL��.. •.. } CONCRETE O / rC' � 11l`1J\J GATE h ` r J ` J r \J x EDGE OF WATER .r _� GRAVEL ON 04/09/14 DRIVE t \ J POND N X x rV ti I N0�08'47" N 19'27'56"W N23'26' 14"W N20'34'25"W x , %pNE P � \ ` lNoS•4o, W 45 . • . . Og 458.92) • ' N21'32'38"W 344.62' N20'52'26"W 600.26' DRIVE N20 46 27"W 758.41 212.09 ZONE A ' GRAVEL � 8 17 49 'W Z o� A '�y 01, 302.58 229.07 242.27 / 92) (N17'59 14"W (N21 54 24"W N21 11 57"W (N20'30 45"W ' ' / E • ' 0 (N2o'4s 51 "w 758 4fi) (N 18• t 9 27"w N 1 302.52') 229.27') L1 271.02' 242.18') L9 (N2t•34 23"W 344.74) (N20 50 44"YV 600.01) 8 33 06 WF381.17' Z N21'35'09"W I1226.40" � 211.96') (N17'01 14"W 380.70) LOT 19 oU....................................................o.......................................................... o 0 0 ' (N20'05'25"W) _00 J / LOT 20--- --ou I \\ 1:011ROIC1111 1 STORY TIN APPROX. 2,703 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOOTPRINT LFli)IWA LOT 22J LOT 23 LOT 24 49.404 ACRES ROBERT C. RALEY & CHERRY S. RALEY (2013103448) CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS I DELTA I ARC BEARING CHORD C 1 1 5679.58' 1 1'31 ' 13" 1 150.70' S83-26-45"E 1 150.69' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE (RECORD) L1 S12'17'52"W 47.71' L2 S21'35'17"E 184.35' L3 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L4 S09'27'57"E 103.90' So6.46'47"E 104.60' L5 S21'00'01 "E 141:14' L6 S88'03'44"W 96.03' S89.23'32"W 96.03' L7 S88'03'44"W 67.44' S89.23'32"W 67.44') L8 S75'21'26"W 56.85' S76.41'31"W 55.80' L9 N2928'31 "W 177.79' (N20.28'11 "W 177.82') L10 N22'52'22"W 44.49' (N20'42'28"W 43.05') L11 N85'03'10"E 180.43' (N86'30'10"E 180.28') L12 N82' 19'06"E 113.06' L13 N21'33'09"W 125.76' (N20'11'15"E 124.3l') L14 N10'51'23"E 145.18' L15 N83'06'23"E 95.70' LOT 108 LOT 109 LOT 110 LOT 111 LOT 112 LOT 113 LOT 114 LOT 115 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) J r GABRI ELS -OVERLOOK APPROXIMATE LOCATION ( FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN SECTION ONE ON MAP NO. 48491CO275E / J `�� �I \r j (S/218) WILLIAMSONSCALED FROM COUNTY FEMA DWG DATED091JO108 TITLE COMMITMENT NOTE: This Survey was prepared without the benefit of a Commitment for Title, and may be subject to additional easements or restrictions not shown hereon. No additional easement research was done for the purpose of this survey. 2101011II 11�iI.ZEZ1*i 14 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: CERTIFIED TO: Don H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6451 Highway 29 West, Liberty Hill, Texas 78642 DATE OF SURVEY: April 25, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: Metes and bounds I hereby certify that a survey of the property shown hereon was actually made upon the ground under my direction and supervision on the date shown, and that to the best of my professional knowledge and belief: there are no apparent encroachments, overlapping of improvements, discrepancies, deed line conflicts, visible utility lines or roads in place, except as shown hereon, and that this property abuts or adjoins a dedicated road right-of-way or access easement, unless noted hereon. This survey was made substantially in accordance with the standards and conditions set forth for a Category 1A, Condition II, Land Title Survey, based on the Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in Texas, 2006 Revised Eleventh Edition, prepared by the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors. "Preliminary, this document shall not be recorded for any purpose and shall not be used or viewed or relied upon as a final survey document." Pursuant to Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Rule 663.18(c), 29 T.A.C. 663.18(c) this is a preliminary document, and shall not be signed or sealed. Paul L. Easley Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 4432 DETAIL A NOT TO SCALE DETAIL B NOT TO SCALE The tract shown hereon lies within Zone "X" (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain), Zone "X" shaded (special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood), Zone "A"(no base flood elevations determined) and Zone AE (base flood elevations determined), as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, as shown on map no. 48491CO275E and 48491 CO460E, dated September 26, 2008, for Williamson County, Texas and incorporated areas. If this site is not within an identified special flood hazard area, this flood statement does not imply that the property and/or the structures thereon will be free from flooding or flood damage. This flood statement shall not create liability on the part of the surveyor. EXHIBIT B - "The Land" (sketch) �haarrol Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 78°03'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88°03'44" West, a Page 188 of 516 EXHIBIT C - 50 Acre Tract (Metes and Bounds) Page 1 of 4 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21027'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21°27'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21022'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20046'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21°00'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. South 21°00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. /Z// � 114 Paul L. Easley \� Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 Page 189 of 516 EXHIBIT C - 50 Acre Tract (Metes and Bounds) Page 2 of 4 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S69'12'32"W 1589.92' L2 N78'03'51 "W 516.95' L3 N83'25'10"W 76.65' L4 S21'27'49"E 512.56' L5 S21'21'24"E 253.32' L6 S21'22'39"E 235.69' L7 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L8 S21'00'53"E 338.11' L9 S09'27'57"E 103.90' L10 S21'00'01 "E 141.14' L11 N83'25'10"W 395.30' L12 S88'03'44"W 163.47' L13 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L14 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L15 N21'27'49"W 1 291.87' BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON-LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) ATTACHMENTS: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • ID 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O FENCE POST FOUND (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED) A CALCULATED POINT CURVE TABLE CURVEI RADIUS I DELTA I ARC I BEARING CHORD Cl 1 11456.00' 1 12'39'29" 1 2530.89' 1 N35'28'40"E 2525.75' rknarr�� PLOT DATE: 12/17/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: CWW SHEET 1 OF 2 Page 190 of 516 EXHIBIT C - 50 Acre Tract (Metes and Bounds) Page 3 of 4 \ \ I I 108 �D GREENLEAl F FiSK L) Ut�' V_ 109 J _j ...: ..; 3, 5 AS S 500' 110 GABRIELS— OVERLOOK ................ SECTION ONE (S/218) 112 01b Q� 0 437.64 ACRES 113 1 04 (A 1 ** SECOND TRACT C', DON H. I.WLY FAMILY 114 10) ............ PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Ito o"00 (9901719) z................. 115 ZL13 ............... 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) 0 50.07 ACRES APPROX. 2,180,914 SQ. FT. ETJ TRANSFER R1 IL11: 5 � AJI-J, PORT—Efi` ZIW 3 UR VE Y Ln I-i 491.95'ACRES HENRY 8. TIPPIE (570/483j L U') 7" CEDAR (0 _j _j )14 JIF Tf Lj 0 I rrl�/Jrrw 00 �/Jr� j V L/ D VE _j SURVEY A-53S, 20 P.O.B. 0) SOUTH FORK i 0 SAN GABRIEL RIVER .............. I ................................................... I ........................... N'_j ................................................... Ll ..... ............................................................ i .................. OU.�110/ ALKr_Z� L_ - - - - ASA AIJ, _51-WoklyiV AVP RANCH, LTD (2011081794) S UR VE Y 121.45 ACRES 1 85 TEXAS PARKS AND I 15 R,1 I _F AES)S, RECREATION FOUNDATION 1 (2008092676) S 4 U L/ S 3 UR VE Y A _533, 5 _9 5 DRAWING NO.: 143-034— ETJ —GEORGETOWN SHEET 2 OF 2 ( I 19 mITAl Page 191 of 516 EXHIBIT C - 50 Acre Tract (Metes and Bounds) Page 4 of 4 / I I `X I o e � LIVELY TRACT LAND USE SUMMARY LUE'° TRIPS ACREAGE DENSITY UNITS REQ REQUIRED GENERATED 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 305.5 ACRES 3.8 DU.IAC. 1,160 UNITS 1,160 LUE's 11,136 TRIPS 0 MAJOR RIGHT-OF-WAY 9.7 ACRES FLOODPLAIN 18.3 ACRES 0 OPEN SPACE 103.5ACRES TOTAL 437.04 ACRES 1,160 UNITS 1,160 LUE's 11,136 TRIPS "SINGLE FAMILY =I LUE/UNIT PHASE ONE - 2015 87 ACRES PHASE TWO - 2017 57ACRES a PHASE THREE -2019 100ACRES �= 0 PHASE FOUR - 2021 33ACRES 0 PHASE FIVE - 2023 64 ACRES 0 PHASE SIX - 2025 96 ACRES 437 ACRES ��•� • PROPOSED TRAIL TIA NOTES: AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT, THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A PAYMENT TO THE CITY PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT. FEMA MAP NUMBER 48491 CO275E SCALED FROM COUNTY FEMA DWG. DATED 9/30/08 N a y p PARCEL 1 62.5 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • I 238 UNITS EFE l W o 1 d y[ 011 PARCEL 3 Pw 3 ��� 11.9 ACRES ♦ yP�N�pS`���� (311FLE UMILY RESID N IIAL �'` ;• 5 UNITS \W.Q. \�► PARCEL 4 !f �•� 26.2 ACRES o� SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 100 UNITS PAR EL 2 30.1,ACRES I _ . �'�". �;•� w I IN LE Y RESIDE IL 114 UNITS PARCEL 6 s 63.2 ACRES > AREA OF EXCESSIVE -- �y SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL m \ — — �SLOPES 240 UNITS l m4 \ PARCEL 5 23.3 ACRES �\ L SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,m 88 UNITS • a o �,�� W.Q. • � PHASE 3 � 00 00 PHASE 4 Lro n \`I� \.4 88.3 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 335 UNITS PARK FIRM ���` • ?' �� - • 1 II��� Ill����_ 1 I 16 I 0 300 611 1200 CONCEPT PLAN �— SEC Planning, LLC LIVELY TRACT North Date: April 7, 2015 Land Planning + Landscape Architecture + Community Branding DEVELOPER: Base mapping compiled from best available information. All map SENTINEL data should be considered as preliminary, in need of verification, and AU512.246.]003 STIN, TEXAS [9111 JOLLYVILLE ROAD, STE 212 subject to change. This land plan is conceptual in nature and does + l512.246.]]03 ww cplannmg.com + infoO—planning.com Page 192 of 516 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 not represent any regulatory approval. Plan is subject to change. SHEET FILE: R:\140034-SELA\Cadfiles\PLANNING\Submittals\February 2015 Concept Plan Revision 1\Concept Plan April 7 2015-access arrow.dwg EXHIBIT E - Connection to Tippie Tract (location map) k�— :_ cs l -CJ on% PARCEL 1 62.5 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 238 UNITS �' n 400cc`' cc;— - ` w-Q % i.--- PARCEL 4 0 26.2 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RESI 100 UNITS PARCEL 6 63.2 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RES 240 UNITS PARCEL 3 11.9 AGREE JE MILY RE,' UNITS LIVELY TRACT LAND USE SUMMARY ACREAGE DENSITY UNITS 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 305.5 ACRES 3.8 DU.IAC. 1,160 UNITS 0 MAJOR RIGHT-OF-WAY 9.7 ACRES PARK (INCLUDES EX. LAKES) 80.5 ACRES I� 15 % or GREATER SLOPE PARK 15.4 ACRES — 0 FLOODPLAIN PARK 18.3 ACRES EXISTING LAKES E]lIIIIIIII WATER QUALITY PONDS 7.6 ACRES TOTAL 437.04 ACRES 1,160 UNITS ®(�)O OI PROPOSED TRAIL 0 PHASE ONE -2015 87ACRES 0 PHASE TWO - 2017 57 ACRES 0 PHASE THREE -2019 100 ACRES PHASE FOUR - 2021 33ACRES PHASE FIVE - 2023 64 ACRES PHASE SIX - 2025 96ACRES 437 ACRES 1NELY TRACT PARKLAND DEDICATION WORKSHEET eiM15 R -k" ,aP P1 CIS%Sbpa ibod,4m Pa,WW PaH4W 9-1— Phs Yr.lb P ed.vd M1,m d Pac41aW ftAWW CrWbd Suapbs/Daflcll F,a Rp'& P,tapsad Yhgwwrnla 1 2M a 19.7 3.8 0 5 877ico w 7"i" ak pnwte 7 tv Cmte, 2 159 5.555 11.1 lA U 5 55,650 M Trails - 3 233 R2 37.1 4.8 5 81.55000 TrallsAa" 4 107 17 2.2 0.9 0 5 37,45000 T10WLA ke 5 195 6t 101 1.S 5 68,25000 i.ai/,rBnCNood part 6 228 6 11.7 191 5 74.80000 TrallsfR Part P Totac n60 40J93 L34.2 ISA UJ S lO6AOOA0 PARKLAND NOTE: ALL PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS WILL MEET CITY PARK & FACILITY EQUIPMENT STANDARDS AND U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCTS SAFETY COMMISSION - PUBLICATION 325 PARKLAND CALCULATIONS OPTION TWO: 1,160 / 100 x 3.50 = 40.6 AC. (# OF DWELLING UNITS) (PROPOSED PUBLIC PARK ACREAGE OR FEE IN LIEU) 1,160 X $350 = $406,000 (# OF DWELLING UNITS) (VALUE OF PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS) FEMA MAP NUMBER 48491CO275E SCALED FROM COUNTY FEMA DWG. DATED 9/30/08 PARCEL 2 30.1 ACRES FAMILY RESIDE 114 UNITS PARCEL 5 23.3 ACRES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 88 UNITS AREA OF EXCESSIVE SLOPES) PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN LEANDER ETJ PHASE 4 /1 l•� I 40 N, o Be s 6 _ ' p _z — GEORGETOWN ETJ TO BE ADDED TO �A� A� - LEANDER ETJ \ d qa0 - PARCEL 7 -2 a 88.3 ACRES e10' _ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL • ' J, 335 UNITS \-/ ` --- w.o. p �-" o lv . / PARK 00 ' o p0 00 j 1 PTENT1may. A GAREif �� z. BY 'OTHERS -r ` s lliH S PN t, a GAREYP R ��__. • VICI ITY MAP I \ I 0 111 611 1111 PARK CONCEPT PLAN �— SEC Planning, LLC LIVELY TRACT North Date: February 9, 2015 Land Planning + Landscape Architecture + Community Branding DEVELOPER: SHEET FILE: R:\140034-SELAkCadfilesXPLANNING\Submittals\Febmary2Ol5 Concept Plan Revision 1\Concept Park Plan February 92015.dwg AUSTIN, TEXAS SENTINEL Base mapping compiled from best available information. All map 9111 JOLLYVILLE ROAD, STE 212 data should be considered as preliminary, [92 cp1003 + r5,2.246.7703 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 P ry, p need of verification, and www.secplanning.com +info®secplanning.com subject to change. This land plan is conceptual in nature and does Page 193 Of 516 not represent any regulatory approval. Plan is subject to change. EXHIBIT D - Trail (General Location Map) City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to execute an Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement with Sentinel Land Company, LLC (Texas) and the West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2 for the Lively Tract -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ITEM SUMMARY: The Lively Tract is consists of over 430 acres and is proposed to develop into approximately 1,200 residential lots. The tract is contained entirely within the Leander Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (per separate agreement). Water will initially be provided through Georgetown, but ultimately, the development will be served by Leander (per separate agreement). Wholesale wastewater will be provided by the City of Georgetown (per separate agreement). This agreement is proposed to facilitate the construction of an extension of the South San Gabriel Wastewater Interceptor to provide wholesale wastewater capacity to the Lively Tract. All direct and indirect costs will be the responsibility of the developer. After a good faith effort, if the developer is ultimately unable to obtain the necessary wastewater easements, the city may be required to assist. However, again, all costs will be paid by the developer. Staff is in agreement with the proposed alignment and it matches our current Wastewater Master Plan. In addition to the Lively Tract, the proposed interceptor extension will also provide wastewater capacity to a currently under -served area along the SH 29 corridor. Downstream facilities are in place, and the city is able to accept and treat the expected flow. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the April 10, 2015 GUS Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This agreement contains no direct costs to the city. All costs of design, construction, and easement acquisition will be the responsibility of the developer. SUBMITTED BY: Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director ATTACHMENTS: SSGI Construction Agreement- FINAL 4.4 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Rxhihit n Exhibit E Page 194 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 STATE OF TEXAS § OFFSITE WASTEWATER UTILITY § CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT § FOR THE "LIVELY TRACT" § A/K/A WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO.2 The parties to this Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the "Lively Tract" a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2 (the "Agreement") are the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation (the "City"), Sentinel Land Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (the "Developer"), and, upon confirmation of its creation, West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2, a municipal utility district to be created by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") under Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code (the "District"). 12n�;+A1c WHEREAS, Developer has a contract to purchase and develop approximately 437.04 acres of land which is described by metes and bounds on Exhibit A and by sketch on Exhibit B (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, the majority of the Land is located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Leander, Developer has requested and the City has agreed to the balance of the Land being released from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City and, following such release, the Land will be entirely within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Leander. Following the transfer of all of the Land into the City of Leander's extraterritorial jurisdiction, the City of Leander intends to execute a consent and development agreement with Developer setting forth the terms, conditions and requirements relating to the operation of the District and development of the Land; and WHEREAS, the City of Leander has adopted a Consent Resolution pursuant to which the City of Leander has consented to the creation of the District on that portion of the Land located inside the City of Leander's extraterritorial jurisdiction and an application for creation of the District is pending at TCEQ; and WHEREAS, wholesale wastewater service to the City of Leander for the Land will be provided by the City pursuant to the "Wholesale Wastewater Agreement" to be entered into between Leander and the City; and SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 1 Page 195 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 WHEREAS, the City's Unified Development Code requires the extension of wastewater lines that satisfy the City's current Wastewater Master Plan (herein so called); and WHEREAS, the City's Wastewater Master Plan contemplates construction and installation of a wastewater gravity collection main of various diameters originating at the current terminus of an existing wastewater gravity interceptor located on land owned by Laredo W.O., Ltd. at the approximate location shown on Exhibit C (the "Current Terminus"), and continuing in a westerly direction parallel to and within portions of the South San Gabriel River, and is currently planned to terminate at the eastern boundary of the Land at the approximate location shown on Exhibit C (the "Final Terminus"), the entire length of said gravity main being referred to herein as the South San Gabriel Interceptor (the "SSGI"); and WHEREAS, the City has entered into agreements with others to extend the SSGI from the Current Terminus to the approximate location shown on Exhibit C (the "Interim Terminus"); and WHEREAS, Developer anticipates that it will need service from the SSGI prior to the time that others are anticipated to construct that portion of the SSGI from the Current Terminus to the Interim Terminus; therefore, this Agreement provides for the design and construction by Developer of the SSGI Extension from the Current Terminus to the Final Terminus (the "SSGI Extension"); and WHEREAS, the Developer desires to fund and construct the SSGI Extension in order to serve the Land; and WHEREAS, as of the Effective Date (defined herein), the cost of the SSGI Extension is not included in the City's capital improvements plan or wastewater impact fee; and WHEREAS, after considering the factors set forth in Section 13.10 of the City Code of Ordinances and Section 13.09 of the City Unified Development Code, the City Council finds and determines that it would be appropriate to enter into this Agreement providing for the design and construction of the SSGI Extension; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and to limit the harmful effects of substandard subdivisions; to facilitate the Developer's development of the Land and satisfy the infrastructure improvements regarding wastewater to service the Land; and to protect the City from SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 2 Page 196 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 bearing any unnecessary expense of constructing or completing utility improvements; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by and consistent with state law and the City's other ordinances, regulations and other requirements governing development of subdivisions and provision of utility services to other similarly situated wastewater customers of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants, promises, and obligations by the parties set forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: Definitions 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the meanings set forth below when used herein: a. Applicable Laws means all of the following: all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, orders, specifications, standards, and regulations pertaining and applicable to design and construction of the SSGI Extension (defined herein), including, without limitation, this Agreement, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality laws and rules for construction over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone; the City"s Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code, Construction Specifications and Standards, Drainage Criteria Manual, Building Codes, Fire Codes, Inspection Guidelines, and Development Manual; the Approved Plans (defined herein), and this Agreement. b. Approved Plans means, collectively, the plans and specifications for the SSGI Extension prepared by Engineer in accordance with the Applicable Law and approved by the City in its regulatory capacity. c. City has the meaning set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement. d. Commencement of Construction occurs, "Construction Commences" on, and/or Developer will be deemed to "Commence Construction" of the SSGI Extension at such time as the Developer has: (i) obtained all necessary permits and approvals from the City and any other governmental body having jurisdiction over the construction of the SSGI Extension to allow the construction thereof; and SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 3 Page 197 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 (ii) entered into a contract with a construction contractor which requires such contractor to construct the entirety of the SSGI Extension on or before the Completion Deadline, which construction may be done in phases to allow City approval of each phase as completed; and (iii) issued a "Notice to Proceed" to the contractor authorizing the contractor to commence and pursue all of the work necessary to complete the SSGI Extension on or before the Completion Deadline; and (iv) delivered materials and equipment to, mobilized contractors on, or otherwise started substantial site work for the SSGI Extension pursuant to the Approved Plans. e. Commencement Date means the date on which Commencement of Construction occurs, which date shall occur no later than five (5) years after the Easement Acquisition Date. f. Completion of Construction with regard to the SSGI Extension will be deemed to have occurred when: (i) construction of the SSGI Extension is substantially complete such that all pipes, lines, appurtenances, and equipment are capable of being fully operational following approval by the City; and (ii) the SSGI Extension can be used for its intended purpose and only punch list items that do not adversely affect the capability of the SSGI Extension to operate and function safely in the ordinary course of business remain to be completed, and those items can be completed within thirty (30) days or such additional time as is determined reasonably necessary to complete the work, subject to Force Majeure, and (iii) the design Engineer has certified in writing to the City that the SSGI Extension is substantially complete; and (iv) all required line testing and any other approvals and inspections applicable to the SSGI Extension has been successfully conducted and all final approvals required for operation and use have been obtained from all authorities with jurisdiction over the SSGI Extension. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 4 Page 198 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 g. Completion of Design will be deemed to have occurred when the Approved Plans for the SSGI Extension have been prepared by or on behalf of the Developer or the District in accordance with the Applicable Laws and approved by the City in its regulatory capacity. h. Completing Party means the person or entity (including the City, Developer or District) that constructs and causes completion and acceptance by the City of a segment of the SSGI up to the Final Terminus. i. Completion Notice shall have the meaning set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement. j. Completion Deadline means the date that is 365 days after the Commencement Date, but not later than August 8, 2021, which Completion Deadline shall be subject to Force Majeure. k. Current Terminus has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. 1. Customers means those persons or entities owning or using wastewater service connections located on the Land. m. Design Deadline means the date that is five (5) years after the Effective Date. n. Developer means Sentinel Land Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and its authorized assignees, including the District. o. District means West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2, a municipal utility district to be created pursuant to Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code and that certain Consent Agreement between Leander, Developer, and (upon its creation) the District. p. Easement Acquisition Date means the date that all Required Easements have been received by the City. q. Effective Date means latest of the dates that this Agreement is executed by both the City and Developer. r. Engineer means a licensed professional engineer retained by Developer or District registered to do business in the State of Texas to perform the design work for the SSGI Extension as contemplated under this Agreement. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 5 Page 199 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 s. Final Terminus has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. t. Final Terminus Easements means the Required Easements located between the Interim Terminus and the Final Terminus. u. Force Majeure means any inability on the part of either (i) Developer to perform its obligations in accordance with the terms, conditions, standards and requirements of this Agreement on account of any cause not reasonably within the control of Developer, including acts of God and inability to obtain access to the South San Gabriel River and adjacent areas due to requirements of any governmental authority or any permit granted for the construction of the SSGI; or (ii) City for whatever reason to perform its obligations in accordance with the terms, conditions, standards and requirements of this Agreement on account of any cause not reasonably within the control of City, including without limitation, and by way of example only, the following: acts of God, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial disturbances, acts of a public enemy or terrorist, orders or actions of any kind of the government of the United States, the State of Texas or any local government or political subdivision or regulatory agency or body, or any civil or military authority, insurrections, riots, terrorist act or incident, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, other weather events; arrests, restraints of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions; provided, however, that the inability to make payments contemplated by this Agreement shall never constitute an event of Force Majeure. In the event of Force Majeure, a party's obligations hereunder shall be suspended for the duration of the Force Majeure event. v. Interim Terminus has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. w. Interim Terminus Easements means the Required Easements located between the Current Terminus and the Interim Terminus. x. Land has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. y. Leander means the City of Leander, Texas. z. Maintenance Period shall have the meaning set forth in Section 12 of this Agreement. aa. Notice has the meaning set forth in Section 29 of this Agreement. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 6 Page 200 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 bb. On -Site Wastewater Facilities means the public wastewater infrastructure on the Land to be constructed by Developer or District and dedicated to Leander by separate agreement, including all internal wastewater collection lines, piping, valves, manholes, pumps, grinders, lift stations, and related facilities, equipment, and appurtenances that are necessary for the provision of retail wastewater collection services by Leander to Customers. cc. Required Easements means all easements within and outside of the Land specified in this Agreement for the placement, construction, ownership, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the SSGI Extension including, without limitation, temporary construction easements, permanent and temporary access easements from public roads, and permanent easements. The Required Easements shall consist of the Interim Terminus Easements and the Final Terminus Easements. dd.SSGI or South San Gabriel Interceptor has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. ee. SSGI Extension Easement Area means the 100-foot wide easement area depicted in the exhibit attached hereto as Exhibit "F". ff. SSGI Extension has the meaning set forth in the recitals of this Agreement. gg. Wastewater Impact Fee means a fee in effect at the time of assessment of said fee established by the City in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code to recoup costs of capital improvements to the City's wastewater utility system. hh. Wholesale Wastewater Agreement means the separate agreement to be entered into between the City and Leander pursuant to which the City shall provide wholesale wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to Leander for the Land upon completion of construction of the SSGI Extension pursuant to the terms contained therein. SSGI Extension Easements 2. Final Terminus Easements. a. Final Terminus Easements. Developer shall obtain all Final Terminus Easements at no cost to the City. All Final Terminus Easements shall be on forms substantially similar to the forms of easements attached hereto as SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 7 Page 201 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 Exhibit "D" and approved by the City Attorney. The Final Terminus Easements shall be one hundred (100) feet in width and shall encumber that portion of the SSGI Easement Area located between the Interim Terminus and the Final Terminus. b. If Developer is unable to obtain the Final Terminus Easements by September 1, 2015 after using good faith efforts to do so and after providing the City with written notice confirming its intent construct the SSGI Extension, the City shall acquire the Final Terminus Easements, using its powers of eminent domain if necessary, at Developer's sole cost and expense; subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. In connection therewith, the City agrees to use good faith efforts to acquire interim possession and use rights that allow Developer (on behalf of the City) to access the properties and proceed with construction of the SSGI Extension. Within sixty (60) business days after receipt of the written request from Developer requesting that the City acquire the Final Terminus Easements, documenting their good faith efforts to secure the Final Terminus Easements (including but not limited to offers, counteroffers, positions of the parties, valuation documentation, etc.), and confirming its intent to construct the SSGI Extension, City shall provide a preliminary written estimate to Developer of projected costs and expenses related to acquisition of the SSGI Extension Easements. Developer shall provide payment in the full amount of the written estimate to the City within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written estimate. Developer shall pay all costs and expenses incurred by the City relating to the acquisition of the Final Terminus Easements, including, without limitation, costs of negotiating easements with landowners, preparation of easement instruments and surveys, payment of a negotiated sum for purchase of an easement, and purchase or condemnation costs incurred by the City, including any litigation related thereto (including legal fees, witness costs, and court costs). In the event that the actual costs of easement acquisition exceed the original estimate, Developer shall provide payment of the additional amount within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a written request for payment from the City. In the event that the actual costs of easement acquisition are less than this sum, the City shall promptly refund the excess amount to Developer. c. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City will not authorize its employees, representatives, agents or consultants to acquire the Final Terminus Easements until the foregoing payments are received by the City SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 8 Page 202 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 in full. Failure by Developer to timely pay any invoice in full shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 3. Interim Terminus Easements. On Developer's written request, the City shall provide executed copies of the Interim Terminus Easements, if any. City agrees that the Interim Terminus Easements will be those that encumber that portion of the SSGI Extension Easement Area located between the Current Terminus and the Interim Terminus. In the event the City does not possess any of the Interim Terminus Easements as of September 1, 2015, then Developer shall secure such easements in the same manner described in Section 2 above relating to the acquisition of the Final Terminus Easements; provided, however, that Developer shall not be responsible for any costs of the City associated with condemnation or other acquisition of Interim Terminus Easements for landowners with whom the City has a prior contractual relationship obligating the landowner to convey such easement to the City before September 1, 2015. 4. City Right of Entry. To the extent that access is not reasonably available under the Required Easements, Developer hereby agrees to permit the City, its agents, employees, representatives and assigns, to enter the Land as necessary for, and limited to, inspecting the SSGI Extension. 5. Revision of Easement Area. The Parties acknowledge that unanticipated conditions encountered during construction may require installation of the SSGI Extension outside of the SSGI Extension Easement Area, and the City agrees that the terms of the Required Easements may be revised to allow for such relocation of the easement area due to such conditions, provided that revisions to the form of easement attached hereto as Exhibit "D" must be approved in advance by the City in writing. Upon final completion of construction, and prior to the City's acceptance of the SSGI Extension for ownership and maintenance, the Developer shall prepare at its sole cost and expense a final survey and metes and bounds description of the permanent and final SSGI Extension Easement Area and, after the City's approval of same, shall cause the easement to be filed in the Official Property Records of Williamson County. Design and Construction 6. SSGI Extension. At no cost to the City, Developer shall cause Engineer to complete design drawings, specifications, bid documents and design documents for the construction of the SSGI Extension in compliance with the Applicable Laws (the "SSGI Extension Plans"). The SSGI Extension shall be designed to be located in the general location depicted on the attached Exhibit "C", which general location was previously approved by the City's representatives. The City shall provide comments on the final proposed SSGI Extension Plans within twenty (20) business days after receipt thereof. If SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 9 Page 203 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 the City disapproves any element of the final SSGI Extension Plans, it shall so advise Engineer and the process shall be repeated until the SSGI Extension Plans are approved by the City. The final, City -approved SSGI Extension Plans are referred to herein as the Approved Plans. With regard to the SSGI Extension Plans, the Parties agree: a. The SSGI Extension shall be of varying diameters ranging from twenty-four (24) to fifteen (15) inches in diameter, as generally shown on Exhibit "C" and as will be finally determined during the design phase. b. Developer shall cause Completion of Design of the SSGI Extension to occur on or before the Design Deadline. c. Developer shall obtain the insurance and bonds described in Exhibit "E" and provide copies of same to the City prior to Commencement of Construction of the SSGI Extension. d. Developer shall cause Substantial Completion of Construction of the SSGI Extension to occur on or before the Completion Deadline, subject to Force Majeure. 7. Commencement of Construction; Notice; Inspections. Following City approval of the Approved Plans, and prior to Commencement of Construction, Developer shall give written notice to the City's Utility Director of its intent to Commence Construction in order to allow the City to assign an inspector for the SSGI Extension. At Developer's sole cost, the City will periodically inspect the SSGI Extension for compliance with the Approved Plans, and, upon receipt of a Completion Notice (defined below), shall conduct the final inspection. The Parties agree that the City will provide the inspections contemplated by this Section for a fee of FIFTEEN THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($15,000.00) (the "Inspection Fee"), and Developer hereby agrees to pay such fee to the City prior to, and as a condition of, acceptance by the City of the completed SSGI Extension. The City will retain copies of all inspection reports for the City's applicable records retention period, and provide them to the Developer upon request. 8. Stop Work Orders. The City shall have the right to inspect, from time to time, the construction of the SSGI Extension. If the City determines that the SSGI Extension is not being constructed in compliance with the Applicable Laws and Developer fails to correct or cause correction of the non-compliance to occur within a reasonable period of time after Notice thereof, the City shall have the right to enforce compliance and to stop new work on the SSGI Extension by the issuance of a "stop -work order" until the non-compliance is corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. Nothing in this SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 10 Page 204 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 Section shall create any liability of the City to determine whether the SSGI Extension is constructed in accordance with the Applicable Laws. Insurance and Bonds 9. Insurance and Bonds. Prior to and as a condition of Owner's, Developer's or the District's issuance of notice to proceed with construction of the SSGI Extension, Developer shall post, or cause the contractor to post, performance and payment bonds in the full amounts of the cumulative contract prices of the SSGI Extension and insurance in accordance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit "E" to this Agreement. Post Construction Matters 10. Completion Notice. Within thirty (30) days after Completion of Construction, Developer shall deliver to the City written Notice that Completion of Construction of the SSGI Extension has occurred and the improvements are ready for final inspection (the "Completion Notice") The Completion Notice must include the following items: a. One (1) complete set of construction plans certified as "as -built" by the Engineer in the format requested by the City; and b. Copies of all documents evidencing transfer or assignment of all contractor, subcontractor, consultant, and manufacturer and all other contractual rights, warranties, guarantees, assurances of performance, and maintenance bonds related to the SSGI Extension; and c. Certifications that there are no liens or other encumbrances on the SSGI Extension, including copies of lien releases in form and substance acceptable to the City; and d. A final survey and metes and bounds description of the SSGI Extension Easement Area and an executed easement for same in a form acceptable to the City and for recordation in the Official Records of Williamson County; and e. Payment of the Inspection Fee. 11. City Acceptance. Within fourteen (14) business days after the City's receipt of a Completion Notice, the City shall respond by either submitting a list of items still requiring completion or modification, or by accepting the SSGI Extension and issuing a Letter of Acceptance. Final acceptance shall not be valid unless and until the Maintenance Bond required by Section 12 of this Agreement is in place. The City's SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 11 Page 205 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 failure or delay of issuance of a Letter of Acceptance shall not constitute acceptance of the SSGI Extension. 12. Maintenance Period and Maintenance Bond. Developer hereby warrants that the SSGI Extension shall be free from defects for a period of two (2) years from the date the City accepts it for ownership, operation and maintenance (the "Maintenance Period"). Developer or the District shall correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, any defects in materials or workmanship of the SSGI Extension that occurs before and during the Maintenance Period due to any cause, other than those arising solely out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City. To secure the warranty obligations during the Maintenance Period and to satisfy their warranty obligations hereunder, Developer or District shall furnish a Maintenance Bond required by Exhibit "E" of this Agreement for the Maintenance Period. The SSGI Extension must meet the requirements of the Applicable Laws and the final, City -approved plans at the end of the Maintenance Period in order for the City to release the Maintenance Bond. Upon release of the Maintenance Bond, Developer and District shall have no further obligations or responsibility for the SSGI Extension. 13. Ownership, Operation and Maintenance of Major Wastewater Facilities. Upon completion of the SSGI Extension, Developer or District shall convey the SSGI Extension to the City for ownership, operation and maintenance, subject to: (i) Developer's right to reimbursement from the District for the cost of such facility in accordance with the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; and (ii) the reservation of a capacity interest for up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) units in the SSGI Extension for service to the Land. Developer and District acknowledge that, upon acceptance of the SSGI Extension by the City, the City will utilize the SSGI Extension as part of the City's overall wastewater utility system; however, such service will not be provided in a manner that impairs the City's ability to provide wastewater service to the Land in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement. 14. Reimbursement from Other Landowners. City acknowledges that Developer intends to enter into contracts (i) with other landowners who have previously agreed by contract with the City to construct of the SSGI Extension from the Current Terminus to the Interim Terminus, and (ii) with other landowners who own land between the Interim Terminus and the Final Terminus, and in each case pursuant to which such other landowners shall reimburse a pro rata share of the costs incurred by Developer. Such contracts are not subject to review or approval by City, nor shall City be required to ensure or enforce payment of any sums due thereunder. City acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall alter or impair Developer's right to receive reimbursement from such landowners in accordance with said agreements, and such SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 12 Page 206 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 reimbursement right shall survive conveyance of the SSGI Extension to City. City further agrees that it shall not (i) seek to recover from the City of Leander in the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement or otherwise, any portion of the SSGI Extension costs, or (ii) from third persons the costs of the SSGI Extension funded by Developer under this Agreement unless City pays to Developer the portion of the amounts so collected from said third persons that reflect the cost of the SSGI Extension. Fees 15. Plan Review Fees. Review of the Approved Plans shall be subject to payment to the City of the reasonable fees and charges applicable to the City's review of plans and specifications for infrastructure to be dedicated or conveyed to the City according to the fee schedule adopted by the City Council and in effect on the date of submittal of each set of plans and specifications. 16. Wastewater Impact Fees. a. General. The Parties agree that the City's wastewater Impact Fees shall be assessed and collected in accordance with the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement. b. Wastewater Impact Fee Credit. The Parties acknowledge that a portion of the SSGI Extension (known as "Phase C-2") is included within the City's Wastewater Impact Fee. With respect to any costs of the SSGI Extension included in the City's Wastewater Impact Fee, the following provisions shall apply: If Developer or the District designs and constructs the SSGI Extension pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and at no cost to the City, then as consideration for same, commencing after final acceptance by the City of the SSGI Extension, the City shall grant a credit against the City's wastewater Impact Fee on a per connection basis for all connections on the Land for which a final plat is recorded after the final acceptance by the City of the SSGI Extension and which is equal to the portion of the City's Wastewater impact fee associated with the portion of the SSGI Extension that is included in the City's wastewater impact fee (but not including costs associated with replacement or refurbishment), which credit may only be applied to the City's Wastewater Impact Fees payable for development within the Land. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the total amount of the wastewater Impact Fee credit granted for the SSGI Extension W shall be reduced as necessary to ensure that City does not grant wastewater Impact Fee credit to multiple parties for the same costs; (x) shall not exceed the actual design and SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 13 Page 207 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 construction cost (including permitting, land acquisition, engineering, surveying, and other costs) of the SSGI Extension; (y) shall not be given to more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) single family residential wastewater service connections on the Land; and (z) shall only be given for connections on the Land. Wastewater Service 17. Wastewater Service to the Land. Upon completion of the On -Site Wastewater Facilities and the SSGI Extension, wholesale wastewater service to Leander for the Land shall be provided through On -Site Wastewater Facilities connecting to the SSGI Extension in an amount up to but not exceeding one thousand two hundred (1,200) single family residential connections in accordance with the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement. 18. Wastewater Service to Third Parties. Developer and District acknowledge that the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement shall prohibit Leander from providing retail wastewater service under said agreement to any land other than the Land. The City further agrees that, upon the payment of the City's Wastewater Impact Fees as required by the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement, the City will guarantee service from the City's wastewater utility system for the wastewater connections within the Land for which impact fees have been paid in accordance with the Wholesale Wastewater Agreement. Breach or Default 19. Notification of Breach. If any Party commits a breach of this Agreement, the non -breaching Party shall give Notice to the breaching Party that describes the breach in reasonable detail. 20. Cure of Breach. The breaching Party shall be allowed thirty (30) days after the date of the Notice to cure any breach that can be cured by the payment of money ("Monetary Breach"). For any breach that is not a Monetary Breach, the breaching Party must commence the cure of any non -Monetary Breach specified in the Notice within thirty (30) days after the date of the Notice, and thereafter diligently pursue such cure to completion but in no event longer than ninety (90) days after the date of the Notice. 21. Wholesale Service Contingent Upon Completion of Construction. Developer acknowledges that the City shall have no obligation to provide wholesale wastewater service to the Land unless and until the SSGI Extension is completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 14 Page 208 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 22. Remedies for Breach. If the breaching Party does not cure the breach within the stated period of time, the non -breaching Party may, in its sole discretion, and without prejudice to any other right under this Agreement, seek any relief available at law or in equity. Provided, however, damages, if any, to which any non -breaching Party may be entitled shall be limited to actual damages and shall not include special or consequential damages. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, CITY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CITY'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES FOR FAILURE BY DEVELOPER TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SSGI EXTENSION BY THE COMPLETION DATE SHALL BE AS STATED IN SECTION 23 BELOW AND TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AFTER NOTICE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND CITY SHALL BE RELIEVED OF ANY AND ALL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICE TO LEANDER FOR THE LAND. 23. Limitations on Actions During Cure Period. In addition to the provisions of Section 22 of this Agreement, no bonds shall be issued by District relating to the SSGI Extension and no wastewater connections to Customers shall be made during any cure period described in Section 20 of this Agreement without the City's prior written consent and the City shall have the right to enjoin same without the necessity of showing irreparable harm or inadequate remedies at law. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, Developer may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice to City. In the event of such termination, all parties shall be without further duty or obligation to each other; provided, however, the following obligations shall survive termination: (i) Developer shall be responsible for payment of all costs and expenses that accrue under this Agreement prior to termination; (ii) Developer shall provide a copy of the plans and specifications for the SSGI Extension to City within seven (7) days after termination; and (iii) City shall refund to Developer any monies previously tendered by Developer to City for acquisition of the Final Terminus Easements that have not been spent as of the date of termination. 24. Cooperation. In the event of any third party lawsuit or other claim relating to the validity of this Agreement or any actions taken hereunder, the City, the Developer, and the District agree to cooperate in the defense of such suit or claim, and to use their respective best efforts to resolve the suit or claim without diminution in their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement. 25. Information Transfer. If Developer fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Developer shall, within seven (7) days after the date of receipt of Notice from the City, provide the City the following: SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 15 Page 209 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 (i) in electronic and hard copy form, all current design documents including but not limited to surveying files, engineering files, design calculations, temporary and permanent easements, field notes, construction easements, and access easements; and (ii) copies of any and all recorded or unrecorded easements in existence as of the date of the Notice in a form acceptable to the City; and (iii) the executed Required Easements accompanied by then existing metes and bounds descriptions and surveys. General Provisions 26. Remedies. Except as otherwise provided herein, the remedies available under this Agreement and the laws of Texas are cumulative in nature. 27. Third Party Rights. No person or entity who or which is not a party to this Agreement shall have any right of action under this Agreement. 28. No Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement will be deemed or constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor will it be deemed or constitute a continuing waiver unless expressly provided for by a written amendment to this Agreement; nor will the waiver of any default under this Agreement be deemed a waiver of any subsequent defaults of the same type. The failure at any time to enforce this Agreement or covenant by a Party or their respective heirs, successors or assigns, whether any violations thereof are known or not, shall not constitute a waiver or estoppels of the right to do so. 29. Assignability. a. The terms of this Agreement will run with the Land, and will be binding upon the Developer and its permitted assigns, and shall survive judicial or non -judicial foreclosure, for so long as it remains in effect. b. Neither the District nor the City may assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other Parties. c. Developer has the right, from time to time, to assign this Agreement, including any obligation, right, title or interest of Developer under this Agreement, to the District after the creation of the District has been confirmed at an election for that purpose. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 16 Page 210 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 d. Developer has the right, from time to time, to assign this Agreement to a non -lender person or entity ("Assignee") provided the following conditions are met: (1) Assignee is a successor owner of all or any part of the Land; (2) Assignee expressly assumes in the assignment all obligations and expressly agrees in the assignment to observe, perform, and be bound by this Agreement; and (3) a copy of the executed assignment is provided to the City within fifteen (15) days after execution (collectively, the "Assignment Conditions") with documentation evidencing compliance with the Assignment Conditions. From and after the date a copy of the executed assignment is provided to the City, and if the Assignment Conditions are each satisfied, the City agrees to look solely to Assignee for the performance of all obligations assigned to Assignee and agrees that Developer shall be released from performing the assigned obligations and from any liability that results from the Assignee's failure to perform the assigned obligations. No assignment by Developer shall release Developer from any liability that resulted from an act or omission by Developer that occurred prior to the effective date of the assignment unless Assignee accepts such liability as part of the assignment. e. Developer has the right, from time to time, to assign this Agreement, in whole but not in part, to a holder of any obligation or debt of Developer or any successor owner of all or any part of the Land or this Agreement secured by any mortgage, deed of trust, collateral assignment, security interest, lien or other encumbrance, any amendment or modification of the terms thereof, including without limitation any extension, renewal or refinancing thereof (a "Lender") without the City's prior written consent. Developer shall provide notice to the City of any Lender assignment within fifteen (15) days after execution of the assignment with a copy of the documents and instruments created and governing Lender's interests and rights. No assignment by Developer to a Lender shall release Developer from any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement. f. Developer shall maintain written records of all assignments made by Developer (including, for each Assignee and Lender, the documentation demonstrating compliance with the Assignment Conditions, and including a copy of each executed assignment) and, upon written request from any party, Assignee, or Lender shall provide a copy of such records to the requesting person or entity. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 17 Page 211 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 g. This Agreement is not intended to be binding upon, or create any encumbrance to title as to, any ultimate consumer who purchases a fully developed and improved lot within the Land, nor is it intended to confer upon such person the status of a third party beneficiary. 30. Notice. Any notice given under this Agreement ("Notice") must be in writing and may be given: (i) by depositing it in the United States mail, certified, with return receipt requested, addressed to the party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (ii) by depositing it with Federal Express or another delivery service guaranteeing "next day delivery", addressed to the party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (iii) by personally delivering it to the party, or any agent of the party listed in this Agreement. Notice will be effective when received. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties, until changed as provided below, will be as follows: City: City Manager City of Georgetown P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 With Required Copy to: City of Georgetown P. O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Attn: City Attorney Developer: Sentinel Land Company, LLC 9111 Jollyville Road, Suite 212 Austin, Texas 78759 Attn: David Nairne With Required Copy to: Sentinel Land Company LLC 4910 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Tom Rielly District: Anthony S. Corbett Freeman & Corbett 8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite B-104 Austin, Texas 78759 SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 18 Page 212 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 31. Change of Address for Notice. The parties may, from time to time, change their respective addresses listed above to any other location in the United States for the purpose of notice under this Agreement. A party's change of address shall be effective when notice of the change is provided to the other party in accordance with the provisions of Section 30, above. 32. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity of any other party, term or provision, and the rights of the parties will be construed as if the part, term or provision was never part of this Agreement. 33. Jurisdiction and Venue. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced by any party to this Agreement will be deemed to be proper only if such action is commenced in District Court of Williamson County, Texas, or the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. 34. Captions Immaterial. The numbering, order and captions or headings of the sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 35. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Exhibits contain the entire agreement between the parties and correctly sets forth the rights, duties, and obligations of each to the other as of the Effective Date. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect excepting a subsequent written modification executed by both parties. 36. Binding Agreement. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the transactions contemplated thereby have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate and governmental action of the City and the Developer. This Agreement, when duly executed and delivered by each party, constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of each party enforceable in accordance with the terms as of the Effective Date hereof. 37. Recording. The parties agree that this Agreement may be recorded in the Real Property Records of Williamson County, Texas, at the expense of the Developer. 38. Further Assurances. The City and the Developer agree to take such actions and execute and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to effect the provisions of this Agreement. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 19 Page 213 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 39. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective as of the Effective Date, and shall be effective as to the District when signed by the District as required by Section 40 of this Agreement. 40. Term. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon (i) final completion of the SSGI Extension and (ii) acceptance thereof and receipt of the maintenance bonds by the City. 41. Execution of this Agreement. Provided the District is created and conducts its organizational meeting prior to completion of construction of the SSGI Extension by Developer, the District's Board of Directors must approve this Agreement at its organizational meeting, cause this Agreement to be signed by a duly authorized representative of the District's Board, and return a fully executed, certified copy of this Agreement to the City Attorney within thirty (30) days after the date of the District's Board meeting. EXHIBIT LIST: Exhibit A Land - metes and bounds Exhibit B Land - sketch Exhibit C SSGI (showing Current Terminus, Interim Terminus; Final Terminus, diameters, etc.) Exhibit D Final Terminus Easement Forms Exhibit E Insurance and Bond Requirements [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 20 Page 214 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXECUTED by the parties on the dates indicated below: CITY: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Date: Attest: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Approved as to Form: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § Dale Ross, Mayor This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 2015, by Dale Ross, Mayor of the City of Georgetown, a Texas home rule municipal corporation, on behalf of said City. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 21 Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Page 215 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 Developer: SENTINEL LAND COMPANY, LLC By: Name: THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2015, by of Sentinel Land Company, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 22 Notary Public in and for the State of Texas Page 216 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 DISTRICT: WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2 By: Name: Title: Date: ATTEST: Name: Title: STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This instrument was acknowledged before me the day of 201, by , President of West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2, a special district formed and operating under Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code. SSGI Extension Agreement - Lively Tract Page 23 Notary Public Signature Printed Name: My Commission Expires: Page 217 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXHIBIT A LAND SKETCH 24 Page 218 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXHIBIT B LAND (PROPERTY DESCRIPTION) 25 Page 219 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXHIBIT C SSGI EXTENSION 26 Page 220 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXHIBIT D FORM OF FINAL TERMINUS EASEMENTS 27 Page 221 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 EXHIBIT E FORM SSGI EXTENSION FISCAL SECURITY 28 Page 222 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 29 Page 223 of 516 Final 4/4/2015 30 Page 224 of 516 �haarral Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 386.98 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 16,856,662 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED JULY 3, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 386.98 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 (right-of-way width varies), for the northeast corner hereof, being the northeast corner of said 30' strip, and being the northwest corner of a 491.95 acre tract described in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE, leaving said State Highway 29, with the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, as found fenced, occupied and used upon the ground, in part being the east line of said 30 foot strip, and in part being the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, the following twelve (12) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °44'59" East, a distance of 1251.15 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 30 foot strip, being the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, 2. South 12°17'52" West, a distance of 47.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; Page 225 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 13 Page 2 3. South 19023'38" East, a distance of 1435.72 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°38'46" East, a distance of 385.75 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 20036'37" East, a distance of 210.67 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 20°46'45" East, a distance of 651.86 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 20°59'20" East, a distance of 822.02 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 21°49'53" East, a distance of 493.25 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 9. South 21°36'00" East, a distance of 253.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 10.South 21°35'17" East, a distance of 184.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 11. South 21 °23'05" East, a distance of 662.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 12. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 291.87 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acre tract, with the scaled Leander/Georgetown E.T.J. line (provided to the surveyor by others), with a curve to the left, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears South 35028'40" West, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas and also being in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 206.57 acre tract described in Document No. 2013115216 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet to a calculated point, Page 226 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 13 Page 3 2. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 96.03 feet to a calculated point for the northwest corner of said 121.45 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said 206.57 acre tract; 3. South 8800344" West, a distance of 67.44 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 75021'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being an angle point in the north line of said 206.57 acre tract and also being the southeast corner of Lot 115, Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southwest corner hereof; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of Lots 108-115, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 18033'06" West, a distance of 381.17 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for an angle point in east line of said Lot 108, being the southeast corner of a 49.404 acre tract described in Document No. 2013103448 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of said 49.404 acre tract, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 18017'49" West, a distance of 212.09 feet to a 2" metal fence post found; 2. North 20°46'27" West, a distance of 758.41 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 20°52'26" West, a distance of 600.26 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 4. North 21 °32'38" West, a distance of 344.62 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 20°28'31" West, a distance of 177.79 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 6. North 20"34'25" West, a distance of 242.27 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 21011'57" West, a distance of 271.02 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for the northeast corner of said 49.404 acre tract, being the southeast corner of Lot 24 said Gabriels-Overlook Section One; Page 227 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 13 THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the west line of Lots 7-24 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 22°52'22" West, a distance of 44.49 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 23°26'14" West, a distance of 229.07 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 19°27'56" West, a distance of 302.58 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 07°08'47" West, a distance of 459.01 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 08°55'54" West, a distance of 832.85 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. North 08°25'05" West, a distance of 789.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 08049'15" West, a distance of 328.34 feet to a 1/2" rebar found for the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said Lot 7 and also being an angle point in the south line of Lot 6, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, for the westernmost northwest corner hereof, THENCE with the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the south line of Lots 5 and 6 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, and in part being the south line of said 48.567 acre tract, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. North 85'03'10" East, a distance of 180.43 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 8500120" East, a distance of 357.83 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 82019'06" East, a distance of 113.06 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 4. North 82013'59" East, a distance of 348.44 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 5. North 83006'23" East, a distance of 1129.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with cap found near a fence corner post in the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot strip and also being the southeast corner of said 2.64 acre tract, bears North 83006'23" East, a distance of 95.70 feet, Page 228 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 13 Page 5 THENCE with the west line of said 2.64 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °33'09" West, a distance of 125.76 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 22'1119" West, a distance of 670.90 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 22044'17" West, a distance of 496.30 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set on the south right-of-way line of said State Highway 29, being the northwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, for the northernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, in part being the north line of said 2.64 acre tract, and in part being the north line said 30 foot strip, with a curve to the right, having a radius of 5679.58 feet, a delta angle of 01 °31'13", an arc length of 150.70 feet, and a chord which bears South 83°26'45" East, a distance of 150.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 386.98 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground June 18, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: None. o F 6 �1z 31 I L� .�E°o� F erF �P��F Paul L. Easley°°"� aoe voee AKEY Registered Professional Land Surveyor ... L. ..... g y $4432 eva,se �> State of Texas No.4432 o� P`o T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 SRo� Page 229 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 13 WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUD NO. 2 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 420, AND THE A.H. PORTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 490, IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT) DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719, AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744, OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • M 1/2" REBAR WITH "FOREST RPLS #1847" CAP FOUND •° 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYING" CAP FOUND • P 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND •� 1/2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND • w 1/2" REBAR WITH "WALKER 5283" CAP FOUND AM MAG NAIL FOUND A 80D NAIL FOUND �E COTTON SPINDLE FOUND O 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA ARC BEARING CHORD C1 11456.00' 12'39'29" 2530.89' 1 S35-28-40-W 2525.75' C2 5679.58' 1'31'13" 150.70' S8326'45"E 150.69' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S21'44'59"E 1251.15' L2 S12'17'52"W 47.71' L3 S19'23'38"E 1435.72' L4 S20'38'46"E 385.75' L5 I S20'36'37"E 210.67' L6 S20'46'45"E 651.86' L7 S20'59'20"E 822.02' L8 S21'49'53"E 493.25' L9 S21'36'00"E 253.35' L10 S21'35'17"E 184.35' L11 S21'23'05"E 662.69' L12 S21'27'49"E 291.87' L13 N83'25'1O"W 395.30' L14 S88'03'44"W 96.03' L15 S88'03'44"W 67.44' L16 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L17 N21'35'09"W 1226.40' L18 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L19 N18'17'49"W 212.09' L20 N20'46'27"W 758.41' L21 N20'52'26"W 600.26' L22 N21'32'38"W 344.62' L23 N20'28'31 "W 177.79' L24 N20'34'25"W 242.27' L25 N21-11'57"W 271.02' L26 N2T52'22"W 44.49' L27 N23'26'14"W 229.07' L28 N19'27'56"W 302.58' L29 NOT08'47"W 459.01' L30 N0855'54"W 832.85' Chajj-(A� LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L31 N08'25'05"W 789.61' L32 N08'49'15"W 328.34' L33 N85'03'10"E 180.43' L34 N85'01'20"E 357.83' 135 N82' 19'06"E 113.06' L36 N82' 13'59"E 348.44' L37 N83'06'23"E 1129.71' L38 N21'33'09"W 125.76' L39 N22'11'19"W 670.90' L40 N2T44'17"W 496.30' L41 N83'06'23"E 95.70' PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 1 OF 4 Page 230 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 13 GABRIELS-OVERLOOK SECTION ONE (S/218) 17 18 19 20 I �I GABRIELS-OVERLOOK 3 LAJ SECTION ONE105 O (S/218) I = W I� O 6 / � I / 5 \ 8 N C34 G � 9 -i 48.567 ACRES ERIK CHARLES MAUND 2010 TRUST (2013091022) DESCRIBED IN (908/203) rFJr rrl\Jl rr,1i F FlYK 3Jfi�Yr Y A 53, 5 386.98 ACRES I I � � 2.64 AC. J \ DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (2013063744) 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 rn J �hr�V 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) r] . H, F OR rr R SJf'VEY 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 2 OF 4 Page 231 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 13 20 21 a — 22 \ 2300 \ c� GABRIELS—OVERLOOK SECTION ONE 24 r (S/218) --------I-- ° 2" METAL NMN � J 49.404 ACRES a ROBERT C. RALEY p & CHERRY S. RALEY (2013103448) o W ,, c� cl 2" METAL MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 rRE-EN l rA rr Fl SK 3UR VEY Y YY, 5 386.98 ACRES 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 J � V J 1 = 500' Yul?VEY YYY. _90 J 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE Z (570/483) a Z � c� J O J PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 3 OF 4 Page 232 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 13 \rn12" METAL s GABRIELS- OVERLOOK 1 SECTION ONE - - - - (S/218) 112 J 113 114 z 115 W J ............ .................Sa.....� ......................... ....L1.A 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) A Sr MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 METAL 3L)RVEY r A53. 5 386.98 ACRES 1 " = 500' J SURVEY 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. I (9901719) - - G�ORG r /A I- / r / r 1 � r I I / 491.95 ACRES C� 121.45 ACRES••••... TEXAS PARKS AND " RECREATION FOUNDATION (2008092676) A/l. SR 011/vj V S UR V-PY r S-) , J J �r J1_ r' I// r HENRY BC1 . TIPPIE _ �y/JAi !/ J J F I (570/483) A-D'-)S, 420 jr-) I -----------------� - - - - l.. - ............ ............................. •• •• . I..............................80.9157 ACRES SOUTH FORK"""'f AVP RANCH, LTD SAN GABRIEL RIVER (2011081794) lsk)1 r -1 S,/ J/;� J�� r�J DATE:PLOT 14 DRAWING NO.: 43-034MUD ��L,rr PROJECT NO.: 143-034 AJ, , J:JJ T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 Nell DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 4 OF 4 Page 233 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 13 �haarrol Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 78°03'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88°03'44" West, a Page 234 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 13 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21027'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21°27'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21022'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20046'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21°00'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. South 21°00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. /Z// � 114 Paul L. Easley \� Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 Page 235 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 13 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S69'12'32"W 1589.92' L2 N78'03'51 "W 516.95' L3 N83'25'10"W 76.65' L4 S21'27'49"E 512.56' L5 S21'21'24"E 253.32' L6 S21'22'39"E 235.69' L7 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L8 S21'00'53"E 338.11' L9 S09'27'57"E 103.90' L10 S21'00'01 "E 141.14' L11 N83'25'10"W 395.30' L12 S88'03'44"W 163.47' L13 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L14 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L15 N21'27'49"W 1 291.87' BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON—LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) ATTACHMENTS: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • D 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O FENCE POST FOUND (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED) A CALCULATED POINT CURVE TABLE CURVEI RADIUS I DELTA I ARC I BEARING CHORD Cl 1 11456.00' 1 12'39'29" 1 2530.89' 1 N35'28'40"E 2525.75' rknarr�� PLOT DATE: 12/17/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: CWW SHEET 1 OF 2 Page 236 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 13 108 GREENLEAl F FiSK L) Ut�' V_ 109 J _j ...: ..; 3, 5 AS S 500' 110 GABRIELS- OVERLOOK ................ SECTION ONE (S/218) 112 01b 0 437.64 ACRES 113 1 04 (A 1 ** SECOND TRACT — — cl, DON H. I.WLY FAMILY 114 10) ............ PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Ito o"00 (9901719) z................. 115 ZL13 ............... 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) 0 50.07 ACRES APPROX. 2,180,914 SQ. FT. ETJ TRANSFER R1 IL11: 5 � AJI-J, PORT—Efi` ZIW 3 UR VE Y Ln I-i 491.95'ACRES HENRY 8. TIPPIE (570/483j L u') 7" CEDAR co _j _j )14 JIF Tf Lj 0 I rrl�/Jrrw 00 �/Jr� j V L/ D VE _j SURVEY A-53S, 20 P.O.B. 0) SOUTH FORK i 0 SAN GABRIEL RIVER .............. I ................................................... I ........................... N'_j ................................................. Ll ..... ............................................................ i .................. OU.�110/ ALKr_Z� L_ — — — — ASA AIJ, -DI-)RDJIYJ\J AVP RANCH, LTD (2011081794) S UR VE Y 121.45 ACRES 1 85 TEXAS PARKS AND I 15 R,1 I _F AES)S, RECREATION FOUNDATION 1 (2008092676) s 4 u L/ s 3 UR VE Y A _533, 5 _9 5 DRAWING NO.: 143-034- ETJ -GEORGETOWN SHEET 2 OF 2 ( I 19 mITAl Page 237 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 13 CROSS CREEK RD. (60' R.O.W. WIDTH) (U/39) GRAVEL DRIVE/ ASP HALT/- I/ THIS IS A SURFACE DRAWING. BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON-LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) FOR CHAPARRAL CONTROL POINT "P627". 4" ALUMINUM DISK SET IN CONCRETE SURFACE COORDINATES: N 10204326.50 E 3094852.55 TEXAS STATE PLANE COORDINATES: N 10203102.12 E 3094481.22 ELEVATION = 975.02' VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 88 (GEOID 09) COMBINED SCALE FACTOR = 0.999880014444 (FOR SURFACE TO GRID CONVERSION) INVERSE SCALE FACTOR = 1.00012 (FOR GRID TO SURFACE CONVERSION) SCALED ABOUT 0,0 A LAND TITLE SURVEY OF 437.04 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 19, 037, 576 SQ. FT.), BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP AND ALL OF A 437.64 EXHIBIT B to Offsite Wastewater Utiility and Construction Agreement for the'Lively Tract' a/k/a ACRE TRACT, BOTH CONVEYED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED DECEMBER Wes Williamsonc County MUD No. 2 - the "Land" 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED JULY 39 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. /fg x UJ VJ Yi SCALE: 1 " = 200' GRAPHIC SCALE 200 100 0 200 LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) •P 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND • CAP 1/2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND CONTROL POINT LOCATION f?l UTILITY POLE F- GUY WIRE -ou- OVERHEAD UTILITIES TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE QT TELEPHONE UTILITY SIGN nM MAILBOX BH BIRD HOUSE -AL EDGE OF PAVEMENT -X- BARB WIRE FENCE -o- CHAIN LINK FENCE -///- WROUGHT IRON FENCE (OR AS NOTED) -//- WOOD FENCE P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE J \/ �I ��u�'��� j �I 0 z 0 of J APPROXIMATE LOCAT70N FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN x ON MAP NO. 48491CO275E o SCALED FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY FEMA DWG. DATED 091JO108 I .\ I \ 1 I I x ....................................................... 1435.72 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SURVEY LINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GATE- opon CATTLE " ' " ' ' " L2 S21'23'05"E 662.69' S21'27'49"E 804.43' S21'21'24"E S21'22'39"E L3 S21'00'53"E L slcN �, �� S20'38'46"E 385.75' S20'36'37"E S20'46'45"E 651.86' S21 49 53 E 493.25 S21 36 00 E 4 �-� GUARD 17"W 496.30' N22' 11' 19"W 670.90' L13 �`�'`•� 210.67' S20 59 20 E 822.02 L5 I N22 44 . F • N20'49'15"W 671.92') GRAVEL 253.35' x I 253.32' X 235.69' 338.11' N21 22 13"W 493.57) ( l ( DRIVE I '< X t DON H. LIVELY FAMILY P627 x w W z I PARTNERSHIP, LTD. 2.64 ACRES x GRAVEL AVP9RANCH157 CR LTD (2013063744) N N x :DRIVE GATE ` j (2011081794) ., lk) CAVE/ x I `. GRAVEL DRIVE ::::....... ATE ` x I N ..................... .......................... ........................................................................ •� -� .................................................................................................. �j FENCELLI PIPE � to p W -� �' .. x c^ CONCRETE BN. x GATE �\ o wI2 \ J // N N o I WELL X � Z O J �� J CATTLE GRAVEL I N N L �J J` r ERIK CHARLES MAUND o SEE GUARD DRIVE I CATTLE x `t ` > J J 2010 TRUST M :, �`' / \ l J J GATE GUARD o; r� oDETAIL GRAVEL GATE r�....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48.567 ACRES 2 :•. 2013091022 A DRIVE ( )SEE DESCRIBED IN x J DETAIL B CHICKEN . '. 1 S.H. 29 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT (R.O.W. WIDTH VARIES) DON H. LIVELY FAMILY GATE PARTNERSHIP, LTD. GRAVEL CONTROL S21'44'59"E 1251.15' (9901719) DRIVE BOX (S19'51'44"E 1251.70') C� S19'23'38"E .............................................................................:::::.:.::::::........................................ \J� rr J ,jR, J r\ r�JJ SURV� �� (908/203) P 00 , rW M. GATE �N �2 2 _N J n rj LOT 5 N O GABRIELS-OVERLOOK •� SECTION ONE (S/218) LOT 6 /�0 (N0 41g'! „tv 328 34, GATE 328.31') O� v LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 �r J�R\J� DILAPIDATED TRAILER N08-25'05 (NOg•S7' 8 789. 61, LOT 11 LOT 12 No8 ( p 54 "w 2. LOT 13 27'1S"8� 85' LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 7LOT 18 GABRI ELS- OVERLOOK SECTION ONE (S/218) HENRY B. TIPPIE 491.95 ACRES (570/483) o BH COOP o;! ATE m I LO CONCRETES' X� - X LO / 0 1 BH r✓ � 1� W GATE ------_`�-----=X N ��! ? GRAVEL N HOUSE 'c ✓ \ rWELL� J DRIVE x / I Mo^ I \r r��J V iZ) 32.4' 34.6' 437.04 ACRES J o I } WINDMILL APPROX. 19,037,576 SQ. FT. f z o x DON H. LIVELY FAMILY CATTLE o x ti PARTNERSHIP, LTD. GUARD o SHED 437.64 ACRES ' +GUA ..................................... . SECOND TRACT • l (9901719) GRAVEL BENCH :... X-`- / GRAVEL DRIVE r r DRIVE GRAVEL X��-X-- I ��I r� ( - ---�-- - - ... x DRIVE X c \� � /) � A N CONCRETE Q OF SURVEY LINE ;; •...................• '.`'•. GRAVEL ' � ........ �'----- • :J ..............................................::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.............. ;• ''•••.• `:`'.. DRIVE .... X ............. : X�--X ° X \ J � \ __X_:;--GATE •:. .; J EDGE OF WATER : x ON 0 0 1 4/ 7/ 4�..; GRAVEL I �� POND X DRIVE GRAVEL POND: POND x GATE \� DRIVE X f ��. GATE �'••. 121.45 ACRES "" "' ) � � �, TEXAS PARKS AND �X Q0 / RECREATION FOUNDATION EDGE OF WATER ' J ON 04/07/14 Q / (2008092676) ' \ oU � 1 � } •/ OJT / • � � � A GATE 1 BENCH \ P xo^o^°�� I`/� DRIVEL��.. •.. } CONCRETE O / rC' � 11l`1J\J GATE h ` r J ` J r \J x EDGE OF WATER .r _� GRAVEL ON 04/09/14 DRIVE t \ J POND N X x rV ti I N0�08'47" N 19'27'56"W N23'26' 14"W N20'34'25"W x , %pNE P � \ ` lNoS•4o, W 45 . • . . Og 458.92) • ' N21'32'38"W 344.62' N20'52'26"W 600.26' DRIVE N20 46 27"W 758.41 212.09 ZONE A ' GRAVEL � 8 17 49 'W Z o� A '�y 01, 302.58 229.07 242.27 / 92) (N17'59 14"W (N21 54 24"W N21 11 57"W (N20'30 45"W ' ' / E • ' 0 (N2o'4s 51 "w 758 4fi) (N 18• t 9 27"w N 1 302.52') 229.27') L1 271.02' 242.18') L9 (N2t•34 23"W 344.74) (N20 50 44"YV 600.01) 8 33 06 WF381.17' Z N21'35'09"W I1226.40" � 211.96') (N17'01 14"W 380.70) LOT 19 oU....................................................o.......................................................... o 0 0 ' (N20'05'25"W) _00 J / LOT 20--- --ou I \\ 1:011ROIC1111 1 STORY TIN APPROX. 2,703 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOOTPRINT LFlo)IWX LOT 22J LOT 23 LOT 24 49.404 ACRES ROBERT C. RALEY & CHERRY S. RALEY (2013103448) CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS I DELTA I ARC BEARING CHORD C 1 1 5679.58' 1 1'31 ' 13" 1 150.70' S83-26-45"E 1 150.69' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE (RECORD) L1 S12'17'52"W 47.71' L2 S21'35'17"E 184.35' L3 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L4 S09'27'57"E 103.90' So6.46'47"E 104.60' L5 S21'00'01 "E 141:14' L6 S88'03'44"W 96.03' S89.23'32"W 96.03' L7 S88'03'44"W 67.44' S89.23'32"W 67.44') L8 S75'21'26"W 56.85' S76.41'31"W 55.80' L9 N2928'31 "W 177.79' (N20.28'11 "W 177.82') L10 N22'52'22"W 44.49' (N20'42'28"W 43.05') L11 N85'03'10"E 180.43' (N86'30'10"E 180.28') L12 N82' 19'06"E 113.06' L13 N21'33'09"W 125.76' (N20'11'15"E 124.3l') L14 N10'51'23"E 145.18' L15 N83'06'23"E 95.70' LOT 108 LOT 109 LOT 110 LOT 111 LOT 112 LOT 113 LOT 114 LOT 115 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) J r GABRI ELS -OVERLOOK APPROXIMATE LOCATION ( FEMA FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN SECTION ONE ON MAP NO. 48491CO275E / J `�� �I \r j (S/218) WILLIAMSONSCALED FROM COUNTY FEMA DWG DATED091JO108 TITLE COMMITMENT NOTE: This Survey was prepared without the benefit of a Commitment for Title, and may be subject to additional easements or restrictions not shown hereon. No additional easement research was done for the purpose of this survey. 2101011II 11�iI.ZEZ1*i 14 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: CERTIFIED TO: Don H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6451 Highway 29 West, Liberty Hill, Texas 78642 DATE OF SURVEY: April 25, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: Metes and bounds I hereby certify that a survey of the property shown hereon was actually made upon the ground under my direction and supervision on the date shown, and that to the best of my professional knowledge and belief: there are no apparent encroachments, overlapping of improvements, discrepancies, deed line conflicts, visible utility lines or roads in place, except as shown hereon, and that this property abuts or adjoins a dedicated road right-of-way or access easement, unless noted hereon. This survey was made substantially in accordance with the standards and conditions set forth for a Category 1A, Condition II, Land Title Survey, based on the Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in Texas, 2006 Revised Eleventh Edition, prepared by the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors. "Preliminary, this document shall not be recorded for any purpose and shall not be used or viewed or relied upon as a final survey document." Pursuant to Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Rule 663.18(c), 29 T.A.C. 663.18(c) this is a preliminary document, and shall not be signed or sealed. Paul L. Easley Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 4432 DETAIL A NOT TO SCALE a DETAIL B NOT TO SCALE The tract shown hereon lies within Zone "X" (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain), Zone "X" shaded (special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood), Zone "A"(no base flood elevations determined) and Zone AE (base flood elevations determined), as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, as shown on map no. 48491CO275E and 48491 CO460E, dated September 26, 2008, for Williamson County, Texas and incorporated areas. If this site is not within an identified special flood hazard area, this flood statement does not imply that the property and/or the structures thereon will be free from flooding or flood damage. This flood statement shall not create liability on the part of the surveyor. EXHIBIT C to "Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the 'Lively Tract' a/k/a West Williamson County MUD No. 2 "- South San Gabriel Interceptor ("SSGI") Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd a/k/a WWCMUD No. 2 �qKE S/DF DR Final Terminus (manhole) n s v Z v o � /00 Y <2 '3 O WSH296 C) m N a m O Chapman 21 in, approx. 4950 ft 18 in, approx. 3200 ft 0 m 0 D ;0 O r r O Cresent Bluff -----;;; 24 in, approx. 3800 ft - 15 in, approx. 1950 ft 001 - O5 Gy PO Page 239 of 516 D Water Oak O 7 T N Current Terminus (manhole) 2,000 Feet SSGI Extension: Sizes and Alignment Existing SSGI SSGI Extension Existing SSGI Diameter (in) Parcels (2012) = = = = - 15 ® Proposed Development = = = = = 18 N '--' 21 Note: SSGI Extension and _ _ _ 24 Manhole locations approximate EXHIBIT C Page 1 of 1 WASTEWATER EASEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Agreement (this "Agreement") is made on the day of , 20_, at Georgetown, Texas, between , a , whose address is (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), and the City of Georgetown, a Texas home -rule municipal corporation, whose address is P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627, ATTN: Georgetown City Secretary (herein referred to as "Grantee"). 1. For the good and valuable consideration described in Paragraph 2 below, Grantor hereby GRANTS, SELLS and CONVEYS to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an exclusive one hundred (100)-foot wide easement and right-of-way (the "Easement") for the placement, construction, operation, repair, maintenance, replacement, upgrade, rebuilding, relocation and/or removal of utility lines and related facilities for sanitary sewer service (collectively, the "Facilities") on, over, under, and across the following described property of the Grantor, to wit: Being all that certain tract, piece or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Williamson, State of Texas, being more particularly described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A and by diagram in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes (herein sometimes referred to as the "Easement Area" or the "Property"). 2. The Easement and the rights and privileges herein conveyed, are granted for and in consideration of the sum of One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed. 3. The Easement, with its rights and privileges, shall be used only for the purpose of placing, constructing, operating, repairing, maintaining, rebuilding, replacing, upgrading, relocating, and/or removing the Facilities. 4. The duration of the Easement is perpetual. 5. Grantor and Grantor's heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns are and shall be bound to WARRANT and FOREVER DEFEND the Easement and the rights conveyed in this Agreement to Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns, against every person lawfully claiming or to claim all or any part thereof. 6. The Easement, and the rights and privileges granted by this Agreement, are EXCLUSIVE to Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns, and Grantor covenants that Grantor shall not convey any other easement, license, or conflicting right to use in any manner, the area (or any portion thereof) covered by this grant. 7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to its subject matter. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this Agreement shall be of no force and effect. Any subsequent amendment or modification must be in writing and agreed to by all parties. 8. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon Grantor, and Grantor's heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns; shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Grantee and any successors or assigns of Grantee; and shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed on this day of , 20_. Wastewater Easement Page 1 of 3 Page 240 of 516 GRANTOR: Printed Name: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the , 20, by AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO GRANTEE: Georgetown City Secretary P.O. Box 409 Georgetown, Texas 78627 Notary Public, State of Texas day of Wastewater Easement Page 241 of 516 Page 2 of 3 Consent and Subordination by Lienholder , of [address] ("Lienholder"), as the holder of [a] lien[s] on the Property subject to the Easement, consents to the above grant of an Easement, including the terms and conditions of the grant, and Lienholder subordinates its lien[s] to the rights and interests of Grantee, so that a foreclosure of the lien[s] will not extinguish the rights and interests of Grantee. [Name of Lienholder] STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the 20_, by a on b Notary Public, State of day of of ilf of said Wastewater Easement Page 242 of 516 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT E I. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SSGI EXTENSION CONTRACTOR' shall purchase and maintain insurance in the types and amounts indicated below for the duration of the Agreement (unless a longer duration is specified), which shall include items owned by or to be transferred to the City of Georgetown, Texas ("OWNER") in the care, custody and control of CONTRACTOR prior to and during the term of the Contract2 and all warranty periods. Failure to purchase and maintain the required insurance shall be grounds for Termination of the Agreement 'or Suspension of the Work by OWNER. Except for the Worker's Compensation policy, the other insurance policies required by the Agreement to be obtained by CONTRACTOR must state that OWNER, its officials, directors, employees, representatives, and volunteers are added as additional insureds with regard to operations and activities by or on behalf of the named insureds performed under contract with OWNER. The additional insured status must cover completed operations as well, and the policy covering completed work must remain in effect until the expiration of the statue of repose. 2. CONTRACTOR must complete and forward the required Certificates of Insurance to OWNER before the Agreement is executed as verification of coverage required below. CONTRACTOR shall not commence Work until the required insurance is obtained and until such insurance has been reviewed by OWNER. Approval of insurance by OWNER shall not relieve or decrease the liability of CONTRACTOR hereunder and shall not be construed to be a limitation of liability on the part of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR must also complete and forward the required Certificates of Insurance to OWNER whenever a previously identified policy period has expired as verification of continuing coverage. 3. Contractor's insurance coverage is to be written by companies licensed to do business in the State of Texas at the time the policies are issued and shall be written by companies with A.M. Best ratings of B+VII or better, except for hazardous material insurance which shall be written by companies with A.M. Best ratings of A- or better. 4. All endorsements naming the OWNER as additional insured, waivers, and notices of cancellation endorsements as well as the Certificate of Insurance shall indicate: City of Georgetown, 113 E. 81h Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626, ATTN: Contract Manager. 5. The "other" insurance clause shall not apply to the OWNER where the OWNER is an additional insured shown on any policy. It is agreed that the CONTRACTOR's insurance shall be considered primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance carried by OWNER. The CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made and/or lawsuits brought, except with respect to the limits of insurer's liability. 6. If insurance policies are not written for amounts specified below, CONTRACTOR shall carry Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance for any differences in amounts specified. If Excess Liability Insurance is provided, it shall follow the form of the primary coverage. ' CONTRACTOR means the Contractor retained by Developer or District to construct the South San Gabriel Interceptor ("SSGI") Extension. 2 CONTRACT means the contract between or among Developer and/or District as parties of the first part, and the CONTRACTOR as the party of the second part. 'Agreement means the Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction for the `Lively Tract' a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2" among City, Developer, and District. Exhibit E Page 1 of 6 Page 243 of 516 7. OWNER shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to receive certified copies of policies and endorsements thereto and may make any reasonable requests for deletion or revision or modification of particular policy terms, conditions, limitations, or exclusions except where policy provisions are established by law or regulations binding upon either of the parties hereto or the underwriter on any such policies. 8. OWNER reserves the right to review the insurance requirements set forth during the effective period of the Agreement and to make reasonable adjustments to insurance coverage, limits, and exclusions when deemed necessary and prudent by OWNER based upon changes in statutory law, court decisions, the claims history of the industry or financial condition of the insurance company as well as CONTRACTOR. 9. CONTRACTOR shall not cause any insurance to be canceled nor permit any insurance to lapse during the term of the Agreement or as required in the Agreement. 10. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for premiums, deductibles and self -insured retentions, if any, stated in policies. All deductibles or self -insured retentions shall be disclosed on the Certificate of Insurance. 11. The policies must contain the following language: "This policy shall not be cancelled, materially changed, or not renewed until after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to OWNER." In addition, CONTRACTOR shall provide OWNER thirty (30) days written notice of erosion of the aggregate limits below occurrence limits for all applicable coverages indicted within the Agreement. 12. If OWNER -owned property is being transported or stored off -Site by CONTRACTOR, then the appropriate property policy will be endorsed for transit and storage in an amount sufficient to protect OWNER's property. 13. The insurance coverages required under this contract are required minimums and are not intended to limit the responsibility or liability of CONTRACTOR. 14. Without limiting any of the other obligations or liabilities of the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR shall require each Subcontractor performing work under the Agreement, at the Subcontractor's own expense, to maintain during the term of the Agreement, the same stipulated minimum insurance including the required provisions and additional policy conditions as shown above. As an alternative, the CONTRACTOR may include its Subcontractors as additional insureds on its own coverage as prescribed under these requirements. The CONTRACTOR's certificate of insurance shall note in such event that the Subcontractors are included as additional insureds and that CONTRACTOR agrees to provide Workers' Compensation for the Subcontractors and their employees. The CONTRACTOR shall obtain and monitor the certificates of insurance from each Subcontractor in order to assure compliance with the insurance requirements. The CONTRACTOR must retain the certificates of insurance for the duration of the Agreement plus five (5) years and shall have the responsibility of enforcing these insurance requirements among its subcontractors. The OWNER shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to receive copies of these certificates. B. Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Provide coverage for all owned, non -owned and hired vehicles in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. The policy shall contain the following endorsements in favor of OWNER: Exhibit E Page 2 of 6 • Waiver of Subrogation endorsement TE 2046A; Page 244 of 516 • 30 day Notice of Cancellation endorsement TE 0202A; and • Additional Insured endorsement TE 9901 B. • Provide coverage in the following types and amounts: • A minimum combined bodily injury and property damage limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. No aggregate shall be permitted for this type of coverage. Such insurance shall include coverage for loading and unloading hazards. C. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance. Coverage shall be consistent with statutory benefits outlined in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (Section 401). CONTRACTOR shall assure compliance with this Statute by submitting two (2) copies of a standard certificate of coverage (e.g. ACCORD form) to Owner's Representative for every person providing services on the Project as acceptable proof of coverage. The required Certificate of Insurance must be presented as evidence of coverage for CONTRACTOR. Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage written by the Texas Workers Compensation Fund is acceptable to OWNER. CONTRACTOR's policy shall apply to the State of Texas and include these endorsements in favor of OWNER: • Waiver of Subrogation, form WC 420304; and • 30 day Notice of Cancellation, form WC 420601. The minimum policy limits for Employers' Liability Insurance coverage shall be the minimum amounts required to meet the statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code, Section 401.011(44), or the following, whichever is greater: • $1,000,000 bodily injury per accident, and • $1,000,000 bodily injury by disease policy limit; and • $1,000,000 bodily injury by disease each employee; and • $1,000,000 Employer's Liability. CONTRACTOR has the option to self -insure in accordance with applicable law and OWNER approval. D. Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Policy shall contain the following provisions (to the extent available): • Blanket contractual liability coverage for liability and indemnifications assumed under the Agreement and all contracts relative to this Project. Exhibit E Page 3 of 6 • Completed Operations/Products Liability until the end the statute of repose period. • Explosion, Collapse and Underground (X, C & U) coverage. • Independent Contractor's coverage. • Aggregate limits of insurance per project, endorsement CG 2503. Page 245 of 516 • OWNER listed as an additional insured, endorsement CG 2010. • 30 day notice of cancellation in favor of OWNER, endorsement CG 0205. • Waiver of Transfer of Recovery Against Others in favor of OWNER, endorsement CG 2404 fully insuring CONTRACTOR'S or Subcontractor's liability for bodily injury and property damages with a combined bodily injury (including death) and property damage minimum limit of: $1,000,000 per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate Coverage shall be on an "occurrence" basis. E. Intentionally omitted. F. Umbrella Liability Insurance. The CONTRACTOR shall obtain, pay for, and maintain umbrella liability insurance during the contract term, insuring the CONTRACTOR (or subcontractor) for an amount not less than $1,000,000 that provides coverage at least as broad and applies in excess of and follows the form of the primary liability coverages required hereunder. The policy shall provide "drop down" coverage where underlying primary insurance coverages limits are insufficient or exhausted. G. Iintentionally omitted. II. PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BOND REQUIREMENTS A. General. 1. Bonds, when required by the Agreement or by Chapter 2253 of the Texas Government Code, shall be executed on forms furnished by or acceptable to OWNER. All bonds signed by an agent must be accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority to act. 2. If the surety on any bond furnished by CONTRACTOR is declared bankrupt or becomes insolvent or its right to do business is terminated in the State of Texas or it ceases to meet the requirements of the preceding paragraph, CONTRACTOR shall within ten (10) days thereafter substitute another bond and surety, both of which must be acceptable to OWNER. 3. When Performance Bonds and/or Payment Bonds are required, each shall be issued in an amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated construction cost of the South San Gabriel Wastewater Interceptor as security for the faithful performance and/or payment of all CONTRACTOR's obligations under the Agreement. Performance Bonds and Payment Bonds shall be issued by a solvent surety company authorized to do business in the State of Texas, and shall meet any other requirements established by law or by OWNER pursuant to applicable law. Any surety duly authorized to do business in Texas may write Performance and Payment Bonds on a project without reinsurance to the limit of ten (10) percent of its capital and surplus. Such a surety must reinsure any obligations over ten (10) percent. B. Performance Bond. Exhibit E Page 4 of 6 Page 246 of 516 If the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Interceptor ("SSGI")Extension4 exceeds $100,000, CONTRACTOR shall furnish OWNER with a Performance Bond in the form set out by OWNER. The Performance Bond shall be effective for the term of the Agreement and through all warranty period(s). 2. If the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Interceptor Extension exceeds $25,000 but is less than or equal to $100,000, CONTRACTOR shall furnish OWNER with a Performance Bond in the form set out by OWNER, unless the original estimated time for completion of construction is 60 Calendar Days or less, in which case CONTRACTOR can agree to the following terms and conditions for payment in lieu of providing a Performance Bond: no money will be paid to CONTRACTOR until completion and acceptance of the Work by OWNER; CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive 95% of the estimated cost of construction of the South San Gabriel Wastewater Interceptor following Final Completion, and the remaining 5% of the Contract Amount following the one year warranty period. If the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Interceptor Extension is less than or equal to $25,000, CONTRACTOR will not be required to furnish a Performance Bond. 4. If a Performance Bond is required to be furnished, it shall extend for the two year warranty period, or longer if the warranty periods are longer. C. Payment Bond. 1. If the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Interceptor Extension exceeds $25,000, CONTRACTOR shall furnish OWNER with a Payment Bond in the form set out by OWNER. 2. If the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Wastewater Interceptor is less than or equal to $25,000, CONTRACTOR will not be required to furnish a Payment Bond; provided that no money will be paid to CONTRACTOR until completion and acceptance of the Work by OWNER. D. Power of Attorney. Each bond shall be accompanied by a valid Power of -Attorney (issued by the surety company and attached, signed and sealed with the corporate embossed seal, to the bond) authorizing the attorney in fact who signs the bond to commit the company to the terms of the bond, and stating any limit in the amount for which the attorney can issue a single bond. E. Bond Indemnification. The process of requiring and accepting bonds and making claims thereunder shall be conducted in compliance with Tex. Gov't Code, Chapter 2253. IF FOR ANY REASON A STATUTORY PAYMENT OR PERFORMANCE BOND IS NOT HONORED BY THE SURETY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FULLY INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER HARMLESS OF AND FROM ANY COSTS, LOSSES, OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES IT INCURS AS A RESULT. F. Furnishing Bond Information. OWNER shall furnish certified copies of the payment bond and the related Agreement to any qualified person seeking copies who complies with Tex. Gov't Code, §2253.026. G. Claims on Payment Bonds. Claims on payment bonds must be sent directly to the CONTRACTOR and his surety in accordance with Tex. Gov't Code § 2253.041. All Payment Bond claimants are cautioned that no lien exists on the funds unpaid to the CONTRACTOR on such Contract, and that 4 As the term "SSGI Extension" defined in the Agreement. Exhibit E Page 5 of 6 Page 247 of 516 reliance on notices sent to the OWNER may result in loss of their rights against the CONTRACTOR and/or his surety. The OWNER is not responsible in any manner to a claimant for collection of unpaid bills, and accepts no such responsibility because of any representation by any agent or employee. H. Payment Claims when Payment Bond not Required. The rights of Subcontractors regarding payment are governed by Tex. Prop. Code, §§53.231 — 53.239 when the estimated cost of constructing the South San Gabriel Interceptor Extension is less than $25,000.00. These provisions set out the requirements for filing a valid lien on funds unpaid to the CONTRACTOR as of the time of filing the claim, actions necessary to release the lien and satisfaction of such claim. I. Minimum Standards for Sureties. Sureties shall be listed on the US Department of the Treasury's Listing Approved Sureties stating companies holding Certificates of Authority as acceptable sureties on Federal Bonds and acceptable reinsuring companies (Department Circular 570). Exhibit E Page 6 of 6 Page 248 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander for service to the Lively Tract -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director ITEM SUMMARY: The proximity of Georgetown wastewater infrastructure provides an opportunity for Leander to contract with Georgetown for long term wholesale wastewater service via Georgetown's South San Gabriel Interceptor. The long term wholesale wastewater agreement provides for wholesale service to the Lively Tract. Leander will provide retail service at its wastewater service rates including billing and on -site line maintenance. Georgetown will provide service via the South San Gabriel Interceptor at its normal out of city residential rate (less an amount attributed to retail service for billing, on -site line maintenance, etc.) multiplied by the number of residential connections that exist during the billing month. The term of the agreement is for 40 years. Leander will collect Georgetown's Wastewater Impact Fee and remit monthly to Georgetown. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the April 10, 2015 GUS Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This contract involves the use of standard non-residential rate structure for revenues. Contract will result in net revenues to the Water Fund. SUBMITTED BY: Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director ATTACHMENTS: Wholesale Wastewater Agreement with Exhibits - Liver Page 249 of 516 FINAL 4.4.2015 WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICES AGREEMENT CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND CITY OF LEANDER This WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN ("Georgetown"), a home -rule city located in Williamson County, Texas, and the CITY OF LEANDER ("Leander"), a home -rule city located in Williamson County, Texas. WHEREAS, this Agreement governs the provision of wholesale wastewater services by Georgetown to Leander for approximately 437.05 acres of land described by metes and bounds on the attached Exhibit A and by sketch attached as Exhibit B (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, when developed, the Land will be in the Leander ETJ; and WHEREAS, Georgetown can provide wholesale wastewater service to Leander for the Land as provided herein, and Leander and Georgetown desire to enter into an agreement memorializing the terms and conditions under which Georgetown will provide wholesale wastewater service to Connections (defined herein) on the Land up to tine Connection Limit (defined herein), and Leander will provide retail sewer service to the Land. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Georgetown and Leander agree as follows: ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS Section 1.01 Definitions. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms and phrases used in this Agreement will have the meanings set out below: (a) "Agreement " means this Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement between Georgetown and Leander. (b) "Active Connection" means a connection for which there is an open utility account with Leander during any portion of a monthly billing period. (c) "Connection" means an Active Connection to the On -Site Wastewater Facilities (defined herein) on the Land, the cumulative number of which shall not exceed the Connection Limit (defined herein). For the purposes of this Agreement, the physical sewer connection into the On -Site Wastewater Facilities that corresponds to the number of water service connections with a 3/4" meter shall represent one (1) Connection. The number of Connections associated water service connections represented by water meters larger than %" in size shall be the same as the number of water "Service Units" calculated using Georgetown's meter equivalency standards set forth in Section 13.32.050 of Georgetown's Code of Ordinances, as said ordinance may be amended from time to time by Georgetown. Page 250 of 516 (d) "Connection Limit" means the cumulative number of Connections on the Land, which shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200). (e) "Cure Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.01(c). (f) "Customers" means those persons or entities owning or using a Connection on the Land. (g) "Deduction" means the amount subtracted from Georgetown's out -of -city residential rate, as it may be amended from time to time, that represents the portion of said rate that is attributable to Georgetown's cost of retail customer service, billing, and line maintenance. The parties agree that the initial Deduction shall be $5.80 per Connection per month. Whenever Georgetown amends its out -of -city residential rates, the Deduction shall be recalculated by Georgetown consistent with the rate study supporting the rate amendment, and a copy of the rate study shall be provided to Leander when the Deduction is recalculated. (h) "Delivery Point' means the manhole to be placed at the terminus of the SSGI Extension (defined herein) in the location on the Land generally shown on Exhibit C. (i) "Domestic Seivage " has the meaning set forth in Section 13.24.010 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, as said ordinance may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion. 0) "Effective Date" means the later of (1) June 1, 2015, or (2) the date when one or more counterparts of this Agreement, individually or taken together, bear the signatures of Georgetown and Leander. (k) "Emergency" means a sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition, exigency, or pressing necessity resulting in insufficiency of services or of facilities, and includes Force Majeure and acts of third parties that cause Georgetown to be unable to provide the services contemplated by this Agreement, as well as any blockage in a line or lift station, and/or a malfunction of the Georgetown System that could result in a spill or regulatory or permit excursion. (1) "Force Majeure " means acts of God, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial disturbances, acts of the public enemy orders of any governmental entity (other than one of the Parties) or any civil or military authority, acts, orders or delays of any regulatory authorities, with jurisdiction over the Parties, insurrections, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, washouts, droughts, arrests, restraint of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions, breakage or accidents to machinery, pipelines or canals or any other conditions that are not within the control of a Party. (m) "Georgetown System " means the SSGI Extension (defined herein) and all other wastewater facilities owned and operated by Georgetown, together with all extensions, expansions, improvements, enlargements, betterments and replacements necessary to provide the Wholesale Wastewater Services (defined herein). The Georgetown System does not include any facilities or improvements at or constituting the Delivery Point or at and on Leander's side of the Delivery Point 2 Page 251 of 516 (n) "Industrial Waste" has the meaning set forth in Section 13.24.010 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, as said ordinance may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion. (o) "Land" means approximately 437.05 acres of land, described by metes and bounds on Exhibit A and by sketch on Exhibit B. (p) "Leander System" means the On -Site Wastewater Facilities (defined herein) and all other wastewater facilities owned and operated by Leander, together with all extensions, expansions, improvements, enlargements, betterments and replacements necessary to provide the Retail Wastewater Services (defined herein). The Leander System includes the manhole at the Delivery Point, and the other facilities and improvements at the Delivery Point, but does not include any facilities or improvements on Georgetown's side of the Delivery Point. (q) "Moneta►y Cure Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.01(a) of this Agreement. (r) "Off -Site Waslera,aler Utility Construction Agreement" means the "Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the Lively 'Tract a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2," by and between Georgetown, Sentinel Land Company LLC, and West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2 pertaining to construction of the SSGI Extension (defined therein). (s) "On -Site Wasteivater Facilities" means the public wastewater infrastructure on the Land necessary to provide wastewater service to the Land to be constructed by others and dedicated to Leander, including all internal wastewater collection lines, piping, valves, manholes, pumps, grinders, lift stations, and related facilities, equipment, and appurtenances that are necessary for the provision of retail wastewater collection services by Leander to Customers on the Land. (t) "Prohibited Discharges" means and includes all waste or wastewater from the sources listed in Section 13.20.050 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion. (u) "Prohibited Wastes" means and includes the substances, materials, waters and wastes described in Section 13.24.040 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion. (v) "Rates and Charges" means the amount that is the product of the number of Active Connections multiplied by the sewer rates and charges set forth in Chapter 13.04 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances applicable to residential retail sewer customers located outside of the Georgetown city limits, as said ordinance may be amended by Georgetown from time to time in its sole discretion, minus the Deduction. For example, the initial Rates and Charges as of the Effective Date is $ 27.80 per Connection, which is the current out -of -city residential rate ($33.60) minus the current Deduction ($5.80). (w) "Related Agreements" means the "Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract" among Leander, Georgetown, and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District; the "Agreement 3 Page 252 of 516 Regarding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary Adjustment" by and between Georgetown, Leander, Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and Sentinel Land Company LLC related to the Lively Tract"; the "Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the `Lively Tract' a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2" among Georgetown, Sentinel Land Company, LLC and West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2; and the "Wholesale Water Services Agreement" between Leander and Georgetown. (x) "Retail Wasteivater Services" means the provision of wastewater collection services by Leander to Customers with residential Connections on the Land as fiirther described in Section 2.02 of this Agreement. (y) "SSGI Extension" means that portion of the South San Gabriel Interceptor ("SSGI") to be constructed and dedicated to Georgetown pursuant to the Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement consisting of a pipeline of various widths extending from the Current Terminus (as that term is defined in the Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement) and ending at the Delivery Point. (z) "TCEQ" means the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or its successor agency having jurisdiction over the matters addressed in this Agreement. (aa) "Wastevi,aler Impact Fee " means the impact fee established by Georgetown in accordance with Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code and in effect at the time of final platting for an area that includes the Land, as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion. (bb) "Wastem ater Standards" means, collectively, (1) Chapters 13.20 and 13.24 of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances, as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion; (2) all applicable TCEQ laws, rules and regulations pertaining to wastewater discharges, including but not limited to the TCEQ rules at 30 T.A.C. ch. 213 pertaining to the Edwards Aquifer in Williamson County; and (3) the applicable terns and conditions of Georgetown's wastewater treatment permits issued to Georgetown for the Georgetown System by the TCEQ, as the same may be amended from time to time. Wastewater generated from privies, dry closets, or on -site sewer systems (e.g., septic systems); discharges of Industrial Wastes that have not received prior written approval from Georgetown and been pretreated to make said discharges acceptable to Georgetown; Prohibited Wastes; Prohibited Discharges; wastewater that is corrosive, unacceptably odorous, or otherwise injurious to the Georgetown System; and any materials, substances, waste or wastewater or hauled and dumped or discharged into the Georgetown System are hereby deemed not to comply with the Wastewater Standards. (cc) "Wholesale Wasteivater Services" means the treatment by Georgetown of wastewater meeting the Wastewater Standards generated by Connections up to the Connection Limit received at the Delivery Point. 4 Page 253 of 516 Section 1.02 Captions. The captions appearing at the first of each numbered section or paragraph in this Agreement are inserted and included solely for convenience and shall never be considered or given any effect in construing this Agreement. ARTICLE 11. PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THE LAND Section 2.01 Wholesale Wastewater Services. (a) General. Georgetown agrees to provide the Wholesale Wastewater Services to Leander on the terms and conditions set forth herein. (b) Conditions Precedent. Georgetown shall have no obligation to commence or continue providing the Wholesale Wastewater Services to any portion of the Land until all of the following conditions precedent have been fully satisfied, and Georgetown will commence the provision of Wholesale Wastewater Service after all of the following occur: (1) The Related Agreements have been fully executed by all parties thereto; and (2) Construction of the SSGI Extension has been substantially completed and accepted by Georgetown for operation and maintenance; and (3) Construction of the On -Site Wastewater Facilities has been substantially completed and accepted by Leander for operation and maintenance for the portion of the Land to be provided with Wholesale Wastewater Services; and (4) A final plat has been recorded in the Official Records of Williamson County for the portion of the Land to be provided with the Wholesale Wastewater Services and Leander has provided Georgetown with a recorded copy of said plat(s); and (5) A wastewater connect permit or similar permit has been issued by Leander for the Connection. (c) Georgetown System. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Georgetown will be responsible for operating and maintaining the Georgetown System in good working order; and for making all needed replacements, additions, and improvements as required for the operation of the Georgetown System. (d) Limits on Wholesale Wastewater Services. After the expiration of a Cure Period or a Monetary Cure Period (as applicable), Georgetown shall have no obligation to provide the Wholesale Wastewater Services in excess of the Connection Limit, to unapproved nonresidential Connections, when the Wastewater Standards are not met at the Delivery Point, in excess of Connections for which Wastewater Impact Fees have been paid, or any other time that Leander is in default of this Agreement. (e) Georgetown shall not permit other retail or wholesale customers except Leander to deliver wastewater to the Delivery Point. 5 Page 254 of 516 Section 2.02 Retail Wastewater Services. (a) General. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Leander will provide the Retail Wastewater Services and Georgetown agrees that Leander will be the retail wastewater service provider to the Land. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Georgetown will not object to or oppose the inclusion of the Land in Leander's certificate of convenience and necessity. (b) Limits. Leander agrees that it shall not authorize, approve, make or allow Connections in excess of the Connection Limit; unapproved nonresidential Connections on the Land; on -site sewer facilities (e.g., septic systems) on the Land; or delivery of wastewater to the Delivery Point that is not in compliance with the Wastewater Standards. Georgetown and Leander acknowledge that an amenity center is proposed to be constructed on the Land; Georgetown agrees that an appropriately -sized Connection for such amenity center shall not be prohibited as long as the Connection Limit is not exceeded and the Wastewater Standards are met. Leander further agrees that noncompliance with this Section after expiration of a Cure Period shall be a material default of this Agreement. (c) Delivery to Delivery Point. Leander shall be solely responsible for conveying wastewater from the Connections to the Delivery Point. (d) Leander System. Leander will be responsible for operating and maintaining the Leander System in good working order; for making all needed replacements, additions and improvements as required for the operation of the Leander System; for ensuring that wastewater delivered to the Delivery Point is in compliance with the Wastewater Standards; for performing all inspections; for reading meters, billing and collecting from all Customers on the Land; and for performing all other usual and customary services and administrative functions associated with retail wastewater utility systems. Leander shall be solely responsible for applying Ieander's ordinances, standards and specifications to the design, construction, and acceptance for operation and maintenance of the Leander System and installation of the Connections. Without limitation on generality of the foregoing, Leander shall construct, operate and maintain the Leander System in compliance with the requirements of the regulations at 30 T.A.C. ch. 213, as the same may be amended from time to time. (e) Construction and Inspection Requirements for Connections. The physical connection of each service line to the Leander System shall be the responsibility of Leander and will not be left to the discretion of a plumber or contractor unless the plumber or contractor is under the direct supervision of or the work is inspected by Leander's authorized representative. Leander will maintain strict supervision and maintenance the Leander System so prevent connections such as roof drains, air conditioning condensate, or any other connections that allow surface drainage to enter the Leander System and then be discharged into the Georgetown System. Leander will inspect all Connections to the Leander System. (f) Georgetown as Exclusive Provider. Leander agrees that Georgetown shall be the exclusive provider of the Wholesale Wastewater Services and that no other person or entity shall be allowed to provide same; provided that Georgetown is not in default of this Agreement. 6 Page 255 of 516 Section 2.03 Title to and Responsibility for Wastewater and Effluent (a) Title. Subject to Section 2.05 of this Agreement, title to wastewater collected, transported and treated under this Agreement shall be with Leander through the Delivery Point. After the Delivery Point, title to the wastewater shall pass to Georgetown. (b) Rights to Treated Effluent. Leander agrees that it shall never have or claim any interest in or right to treated effluent or reclaimed/reuse water generated from Connections on the Land, and shall never use or sell such water, regardless of the source of the water. Section 2.04 Cooperation During Emergency. Leander will cooperate with Georgetown during periods of Emergency, replacement of facilities, or required maintenance. If necessary, upon prior notice, Leander will discontinue use of, cycle, test, inspect, or otherwise operate and maintain the Leander System at its expense in a manner that reasonably determined by Georgetown to be necessary for the safe and efficient completion of repairs or replacement of facilities, the restoration of service, and the protection of the public, health, safety and welfare. Section 2.05 Liability for Wastewater. Liability for damages to third persons arising from the reception, transportation, delivery and disposal of wastewater under this Agreement shall remain with Leander on its side of and up to and including the Delivery Point. With the exception of wastewater that does not meet the Wastewater Standards, liability to third persons arising from and responsibility for the reception, transportation, delivery and disposal of wastewater will pass to Georgetown after passing through the Delivery Point. Leander shall remain responsible for all wastewater that it delivers to Georgetown that does not meet the Wastewater Standards prior to and/or at the Delivery Point. ARTICLE III. WASTEWATER QUALITY Section 3.01 Condition of Wastewater Delivered. Leander agrees to use diligent efforts to operate and maintain the Leander System so as to ensure that the wastewater delivered to the Georgetown System shall meet the Wastewater Standards. Section 3.02 Establishment and Enforcement of Wastewater Standards. Leander acknowledges that Georgetown may establish and amend fiom time to tirne the Wastewater Standards and other ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Georgetown System relating to wastewater quality, including but not limited to Prohibited Wastes, Prohibited Discharges, Industrial Wastes, pretreatment, monitoring, measures, and other requirements pertaining to wastewater discharged into the Georgetown System. Georgetown shall give Leander at least forty-five (45) days prior written notice of any amendments to such Wastewater Standards and other ordinances, rules and regulations before such amendments become effective as to Leander; provided however, that failure of Georgetown to provide prior notice to Leander of any such amendments shall not affect the applicability of such amendments to Leander that were approved by the Georgetown City Council at an open meeting. Leander shall require Customers desiring to discharge wastewater into the Georgetown System to comply with the Wastewater Standards. Failure of Leander to comply with the terms and conditions of this Section after the expiration of a Cure Period shall constitute a material default of this Agreement. Page 256 of 516 Section 3.03 Preapproval of Industrial Waste or Prohibited Discharges. Leander shall not cause, suffer or allow discharges of Industrial Waste or Prohibited Discharges into the Georgetown System without the prior written consent of Georgetown, which consent may be withheld by Georgetown in its sole discretion, Leander shall submit all plans for projects involving Industrial Waste or Prohibited Discharges to Georgetown for approval before the connection is made. Georgetown will determine, in its sole discretion, whether Leander's codes and standards will adequately provide for pretreatment of the Industrial Waste or Prohibited Discharge. If not, Leander shall be prohibited from making the connection or allowing discharge into the Georgetown System. Georgetown agrees that, for the purpose of this Section, Leander's codes and ordinances will be sufficient if they are at least as stringent as the Wastewater Standards. Section 3.04 Leander Enforcement of Wastewater Standards. Upon Georgetown's request, Leander shall seek injunctive or other appropriate relief to prohibit discharge of wastewater lrom the Land that does not meet the Wastewater Standards into the Georgetown System, or wastewater from the Land that will otherwise damage the Georgetown System, pass through the Georgetown System without adequate pretreatment, interfere with Georgetown's treatment system, interfere with Georgetown's compliance with its TCEQ permits, or otherwise pose an imminent danger to public health, or if a specific Customer is not making sufficient progress toward implementing an approved pretreatment system. Section 3.05 Reimbursement. Leander will reimburse Georgetown for any reasonable legal, engineering or other consultant expense, and any administrative, civil or criminal fines or penalties that Georgetown incurs to the extent due to the quality of wastewater that it receives at the Delivery Point from the Land that does not meet the Wastewater Standards, or the receipt of wastewater in excess of the Connection Limit. Section 3.06 Sampling and Testing. Leander agrees that Georgetown shall have the right, at its option and expense, to sample wastewater discharges within the Leander System. Leander will make necessary arrangements for and provide assistance to Georgetown in obtaining lawful access to sampling points within the Leander Systern. Leander agrees that its rules will provide that any of its individual Customers found to be in violation of the Wastewater Standards or Leander's ordinances and regulations pertaining to the Leander System or who refuse access for the purpose of sampling, may be disconnected fi•om the Leander System, subject to compliance with applicable legal requirements of the TCEQ. ARTICLE IV. WASTEWATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES Section 4.01 Wholesale Wastewater Rates and Charges. (a) Rates and Charges. The monthly wholesale wastewater rate shall be the Rates and Charges (defined herein), as may be adjusted from time to time by Georgetown in its sole discretion; provided that Georgetown shall give Leander at least sixty (60) days' prior written notice of any increases in the Rates and Charges before such adjustments becorne effective as to Leander. Leander shall pay the Rates and Charges in the time and manner described in this Section. For each billing period, Georgetown will forward to Leander a detailed statement of the 8 Page 257 of 516 Rates and Charges due for that billing period that enables Leander to determine how the Rates and Charges shown on the invoice were calculated. Leander shall not be charged Rates and Charges until after the first Connection is made to the Leander System. Leander shall give Georgetown prompt written notice when the first Connection has been made. Leander agrees to pay the Rates and Charges shown on each invoice, plus any amounts due under Section 4.01(c) of this Agreement, by check or bank wire no later than the date that is thinly (30) days after the date of the invoice (the "Due Date") in order not to be considered delinquent; provided that Leander may dispute a bill as set forth in Section 4.01(b) of this Agreement and payment of an invoice in full shall not constitute a waiver of Leander's right to dispute said invoice. Payment of the Rates and Charges made by check must be received on or before the Due Date at the following address: City of Georgetown Attn: Utility Billing Department 300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Leander shall request wiring instructions from Georgetown prior to remitting payments of the Rates and Charges by bank wire. (b) Billing Disputes. If Leander at any time disputes the amount to be paid by it to Georgetown, Leander shall nevertheless promptly make the disputed payment or payments, but Leander shall have the right to seek a judicial determination whether the rates charged by Georgetown are in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If it is subsequently determined by agreement or court decision that the disputed amount paid by Leander should have been less or more, Georgetown shall promptly revise the amount in a manner such that Leander or Georgetown shall recover the amount due. Disputed charges shall first attempt to be resolved using the procedures described in Section 6.03 of this Agreement before filing a petition with the administrative agency or court having jurisdiction. (c) Late Charges. Any amount billed to Leander that is not paid by the Due Date shall accrue an immediate ten percent (10%) penalty. Leander further agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney's fees. (d) Effect of Nonpayment. If Georgetown has not received payment from Leander of all amounts due under Section 4.01(a) and (c) of this Agreement (including any late charges and costs of collection) on or before the Due Date for the next monthly billing period immediately following the original Due Date, then Leander shall be in default of a material obligation under this Agreement. In the event of any such default, Georgetown may, in its discretion, restrict service to volumes sufficient to service only existing Connections until payment in full is made. Leander agrees that it shall not make or allow any new Connections on the Land until after it has cured the default by paying all sums due under Section 4.01(a) and (c) of this Agreement in full and confirming Georgetown's receipt and acceptance of same. (e) Monthly Report. Each calendar month, Leander shall deliver to Georgetown the number of Active Connections on the Land. Georgetown shall use the number of Connections stated in the report to calculate the Wholesale Water Rate for the billing period within which the 9 Page 258 of 516 date the report was filed. Georgetown shall have access to Leander's utility records for the Land during reasonable business hours for the purpose of verifying the number of Connections reported; provided that Georgetown maintains the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information that is confidential pursuant to Section 182.052 Texas Utility Code and that is specifically identified by Leander as confidential. Section 4.02 Wastewater Impact Fees. (a) General. Leander agrees that it shall impose and collect the Wastewater Impact Fee for each Connection on the Land. Leander shall collect such Wastewater Impact Fee at the time that the Connection is first made to the Leander System and shall pay such Wastewater Impact Fee to Georgetown monthly as provided in this Section. The Wastewater Impact Fees received during a calendar month shall be delivered to Georgetown within ten (10) days after the last day of such calendar month, together with a detailed statement showing the Customer service address and date of each Connection. All Wastewater Impact Fees, interest, and late fees will be retained by Georgetown. (b) Late Charges. Wastewater Impact Fees that are not paid when and as required by Section 4.02(a) of this Agreement shall accrue an immediate ten percent (10%) penalty. Leander further agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney's fees. (c) Effect of Nonpayment. If Georgetown has not received payment from Leander of all amounts due under Sections 4.02(a) and (b) of this Agreement when and as required thereby, then the amounts will be considered delinquent and Leander shall be in default of a material obligation under this Agreement after expiration of the Monetary Cure Period. In the event of any delinquency, Georgetown may, in its discretion, restrict service to volumes sufficient to service only existing Connections until payment in full is made. Leander agrees that it shall not make or allow any new Connections on the Land until after it has cured the default in full by paying all sums due under Sections 4.02(a) and (b) of this Agreement in full and confirming Georgetown's receipt and acceptance of same (d) Effect of Payment. Georgetown agrees to guarantee capacity in the Georgetown System in an amount equal to the number of Connections for which Wastewater Impact Fees have been paid in Rill. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as reserving capacity for Leander, or the Land in the Georgetown System prior to the payment of the Wastewater Impact Fees required by this Agreement. Section 4.03 Leander's Retail Wastewater Rates and Charges. During the term of this Agreement, Leander will fix and collect rates and charges for retail wastewater service that are, in the opinion of its governing body, sufficient, together with any other revenues available to Leander, to produce the amount necessary to operate, repair, and maintain the Leander System and to pay the Rates and Charges and Wastewater Impact Fee to Georgetown as required by this Agreement. Leander will be solely responsible for ensuring that its retail rates and charges are determined and collected in accordance with applicable law. ARTICLE V. AUTHORITY, TERM, ASSIGNMENT; REMEDIES 10 Page 259 of 516 Section 5.01 Authority. This Agreement is entered into, in pant, under the statutory authority of Section 552.001 of the Texas Local Government Code. Section 5.02 Term. The term of this Agreement will cominence on the Effective Date and continue until the date that is forty (40) years after the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier in accordance with this Agreement. In the event that the Related Agreements are not fully executed on or before Jame 1, 2015, then this Agreement shall become null and void for all purposes as of June 1, 2015. At the end of the Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for additional one-year terms, unless terminated in accordance with this Agreement. Section 5.03 Termination. In addition to the other provisions of this Agreement relating to termination, in the event that the SSGI Extension has not been substantially completed and accepted by Georgetown for operation and maintenance as of August 8, 2021, or in the event the "Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the `Lively Tract' a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2" among Georgetown, Sentinel Land Company, LLC and West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2 is terminated without completion and Georgetown's acceptance of the SSGI Extension, then Leander or Georgetown may terminate this Agreement. Section 5.04 Agreement Subiect to Applicable Law. This Agreement will be subject to all valid rules, regulations, and applicable laws of the United States of America, the State of Texas and/or any other governmental body or agency having lawful jurisdiction or any authorized representative or agency of any of them. Section 5.05 Cooperation to Assure Regulatory Compliance. Since the Parties must comply with all federal, state, and local requirements to obtain permits, grants, and assistance for system construction, studies, etc., each Party will cooperate in good faith with the other Party at all times to assure compliance with any such governmental requirements where noncompliance or non- cooperation may subject the Parties to penalties, loss of grants or other funds, or other adverse regulatory action in the performance of this Agreement. ARTICLE VI. DEFAULT; REMEDIES Section 6.01 Leander Default. (a) Monetary Defaults. In addition to the remedies provided elsewhere in this Agreement related to the failure of Leander to pay money, if Leander fails to perform any of its monetary obligations set forth in Sections 4.01(a) and (c) and Sections 4.02(a) and (b) under this Agreement, Georgetown shall also have the right, after providing Leander written notice and a fourteen (14) day opportunity to cure (the "Monetary Cure Period"), to pursue any remedy available at law or in equity, including, without limitation, the right to obtain a writ of mandamus or an injunction against Leander requiring Leander to immediately comply with its obligations under this Agreement without the necessity of showing irreparable halm or inadequate remedies at law (b) Default for Wastewater (Quality. The default procedures for delivery to the Delivery Point of wastewater that does not meet the Wastewater Standards shall be as set forth in 11 Page 260 of 516 Article III of this Agreement, and to the extent not remedied by those procedures, shall be as set forth in Section 6.01(c) of this Agreement. (c) General Default Procedures. In addition to the remedies provided elsewhere in this Agreement, in the event Leander fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, except for the obligation to pay money for which the default procedures are set forth in Section 6.01(a), Georgetown shall also have the right, after providing Leander written notice and a thirty (30) day opportunity to cure, which may be extended as provided in this Section 6.01(c), (the "Cure Period"), to pursue any remedy available at law or in equity, including, without limitation, the right to obtain a writ of mandamus or an injunction against Leander requiring Leander to immediately comply with its obligations under this Agreement, and/or commence pumping and hauling of wastewater from the Connections and cease delivery of wastewater to the Delivery Point, all without the necessity of showing irreparable harm or inadequate remedies at law, and the right to terminate this Agreement. If the default cannot be cured within the Cure Period, but Leander commences the cure within the Cure Period and diligently pursues same, Leander shall have an additional period of time, not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of the initial default notice, within which to complete the cure. The Cue Period must pass before Georgetown may initiate any remedies available to it due to Leander's breach. If Leander cures the breach to Georgetown's satisfaction, Georgetown may not initiate any such remedies. The time periods contained in this section shall not apply to sewer system overflows, and the parties agree that they each shall respond to sewer system overflows promptly following notice thereof. In addition, and notwithstanding Section 6.04 of this Agreement, if any administrative or judicial action or other legal proceeding is filed or threatened against Georgetown arising from Leander's default under or breach of this Agreement, Leander shall pay all of Georgetown's reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses (even if not recoverable by law as court costs) and administrative, civil or criminal penalties or fines incurred in that action or proceeding and all appellate proceedings only to the extent such fees, costs, expenses, penalties, or fines are due to Leander's breach of this Agreement. For the purposes of this section, the term "attorney's fees" includes, without limitation, paralegal fees, investigative fees, testifying or consulting expert fees, administrative costs, disbursements, and all other charges incurred by Georgetown and the attorneys representing Georgetown. Section 6.02 Georgetown Default. In the event a default by Georgetown shall remain uncured thirty (30) days after receipt by Georgetown of written notice from Leander of the alleged default, Leander shall have the right to pursue any remedy available at law or in equity, provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, but Georgetown commences the cure within the thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues sarne, Georgetown shall have an additional period of time, not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of the initial default notice, within which to complete the cure. The cure period and any extensions thereof must pass before Leander may initiate any remedies available to it due to Georgetown's breach. If Georgetown cures the breach to Leander's satisfaction, Leander may not initiate any such remedies. Notwithstanding anything to the contract in this Agreement, in no event shall Leander be entitled to pursue or recover on any action for damages. Such remedies that Leander may pursue include, without limitation except for the limitation on non - recovery of damages, the right to obtain a writ of mandamus or an injunction against Georgetown requiring Georgetown to comply with its obligations under this Agreement, 12 Page 261 of 516 including the obligation to provide Wholesale Wastewater Services to the Land in accordance with this Agreement, or Leander may terminate this Agreement for any such uncured default. Section 6.03 Good Faith Negotiations. The Parties agree that they will attempt to negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement prior to filing a petition with a court or administrative agency having jurisdiction, and may engage in non -binding or binding mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution methods as allowed by the laws of the State of Texas and as they may mutually agree. Section 6.04 Attorneys Fees. If either Party institutes legal proceedings to seek adjudication of an alleged default under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees from the non -prevailing Party. ARTICLE VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 7.01 Assignment. The rights and obligations of a Party under this Agreement are not assignable in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the other Party. Section 7.02 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement duly authorized by the respective governing bodies of Leander and Georgetown and executed by duly authorized representatives of each. Section 7.03 Cooperation. (a) The Parties shall cooperate with each other as reasonably and necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement, including but not limited to the execution of such further documents as may be reasonably necessary. (b) In the event of any third party lawsuit or other claim relating to the validity of this Agreement or any actions taken hereunder, the Parties agree to cooperate in the defense of such suit or claim, and to use their respective best efforts to resolve the suit or claim without diminution in their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement. Section 7.04 Notice. Any notice given under this Agreement ("Notice") must be in writing and may be given: (i) by depositing it in the United States mail, certified, with return receipt requested, addressed to the Party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (ii) by depositing it with Federal Express or another service guaranteeing "next day delivery", addressed to the Party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (iii) by personally delivering it to the Party. Notice is effective when received. For purposes of Notice, the addresses of the Parties will, until changed as provided below, be as follows: Georgetown: City of Georgetown 113 E 8`" Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attn: City Manager 13 Page 262 of 516 With Required Copy to: Leander: With Required Copy to: City of Georgetown 113 E 8"' Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Attn: City Attorney City of Leander 200 W. Willis Leander, TX 78641 Attn: City Manager Knight & Partners 223 W. Anderson Lane, Suite Al05 Austin, TX 78752 Attn: Paige Saenz The Parties may change their respective addresses to any other address within the United States of America, and may designate a different or additional person to receive Notice, by giving at least five (5) days' written Notice to the other Party. Section 7.05 Severability; Waiver. (a) If any part, teen or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity of any other Party, term or provision, and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if the part, term or provision was never part of this Agreement. (b) Any failure by a Party to insist upon strict performance by the other Party of any material provision of this Agreement will not be deerned a waiver thereof or of any other provision, and such Party may at any time thereafter insist upon strict performance of any and all of the provisions of this Agreement. Section 7.06 Applicable Law and Venue. The interpretation, performance, enforcement and validity of this Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas. All obligations of the Parties created in this Agreement are performable in Williamson County, Texas, and venue for any action arising under this Agreement will be in Williamson County, Texas. Section 7.07 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, as the same may be amended from time to time, constitute the entire agreement of the Parties. There are no other agreements or promises, oral or written, between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings or representations of the Parties concerning the subject matter. Section 7.08 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than to the Parties, any rights, benefits, or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement. 14 Page 263 of 516 Section 7.09 Duplicate Originals; Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals each of equal dignity. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, and all of which will together constitute the same instrument. Section 7.10 Records. Georgetown and Leander each agree to preserve, for a period of at least five years after this Agreement is terminated or fully performed, all books, records, test data, charts and other records and documents pertaining to this Agreement. Georgetown and Leander shall each have the right, respectively, during reasonable business hours to inspect such records and documents. Section 7.11 Exhibits, Headings, and Construction. All schedules and exhibits referred to in or attached to this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement for all purposes. The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not enlarge or limit the scope or meaning of the paragraphs. Wherever appropriate, words of the masculine gender may include the feminine or neuter, and the singular may include the plural, and vice -versa. The Parties acknowledge that each of them have been actively and equally involved in the negotiation of this Agreement. Accordingly, the rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party will not be employed in interpreting this Agreement or any exhibits hereto. This Agreement will become effective as of the Effective Date only if one or more counterparts, individually or taken together, bear the signatures of all of the Parties. Section 7.12 Force Majeure. If any Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by Force Majeure to carry out any of its obligations under this Agreement, other than an obligation to pay or provide money, then such obligations of that Party to the extent affected by such Force Majeure and to the extent that due diligence is being used to resume performance at the earliest practicable time shall be suspended during the continuance of any inability so caused to the extent provided but for no longer period. Stich cause, as far as possible, shall be remedied with all reasonable diligence. It is understood and agreed that the settlement of strikes and lockouts shall be entirely within the discretion of the affected Party, and that the above requirements that any Force Majeure shall be remedied with all reasonable dispatch shall not require the settlement of strikes and lockouts by acceding to the demand of the opposing party or parties when such settlement is unfavorable to it in the judgment of the affected Party. Section 7.13 Authority for Execution; Validity. Georgetown certifies, represents, and warrants that the execution of this Agreement is duly authorized and adopted in conformity with its City Charter and City ordinances. Leander certifies, represents, and warrants that the execution of this Agreement is duly authorized and adopted in conformity with its City Charter and City ordinances. Section 7.14 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement with respect to payment of Rates and Charges and Wastewater Impact Fees. In computing the number of days for purposes of this Agreement, all days will be counted, including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; however, if the final day of any time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the final day will be deemed to be the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 15 Page 264 of 516 Section 7.15 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement, and made a part hereof for all purposes: Exhibit A - Land — metes and bounds Exhibit B - Land - sketch Exhibit C - Delivery Point location map THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW I 16 Page 265 of 516 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below. CITY OF GEORGETOWN By: Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON Dale Ross, Mayor This instrument was acknowledged before me the day of , 20by Dale Ross, Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a home -rule city, on behalf of the city. Notary Public Signature 17 Page 266 of 516 CITY OF LEANDER, TEXAS Date: ATTEST: Debbie Haile, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON Christopher Fielder, Mayor This instrument was acknowledged before me the _ 20by Christopher Fielder, Mayor of the City of Leander, of the city. _ day of , Texas, a home -rule city, on behalf Notary Public Signature 1$ Page 267 of 516 Gha array Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 386.98 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 16,856,662 SO. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30, STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED JULY 3, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 386.98 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 (right-of-way width varies), for the northeast corner hereof, being the northeast corner of said 30' strip, and being the northwest corner of a 491.95 acre tract described in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE, leaving said State Highway 29, with the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, as found fenced, occupied and used upon the ground, in part being the east line of said 30 foot strip, and in part being the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, the following twelve (12) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °44'59" East, a distance of 1251.15 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 30 foot strip, being the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract; 2. South 12°17'52" West, a distance of 47.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; Page 268 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 13 Page 2 3. South 19°23'38" East, a distance of 1435.72 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°38'46" East, a distance of 385.75 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 20°36'37" East, a distance of 210.67 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 20°46'45" East, a distance of 651.86 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 20°59'20" East, a distance of 822.02 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 21°49'53" East, a distance of 493.25 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 9. South 21 °36'00" East, a distance of 253.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 10. South 21 °35'17" East, a distance of 184.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 11.South 21°23'05" East, a distance of 662.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 12. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 291.87 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acre tract, with the scaled Leander/Georgetown E.T.J. line (provided to the surveyor by others), with a curve to the left, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears South 35028'40" West, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas and also being in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 206.57 acre tract described in Document No. 2013115216 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet to a calculated point, Page 269 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 13 Page 3 2. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 96.03 feet to a calculated point for the northwest corner of said 121.45 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said 206.57 acre tract; 3. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 67.44 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being an angle point in the north line of said 206.57 acre tract and also being the southeast corner of Lot 115, Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southwest corner hereof, THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of Lots 108-115, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 21°35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 18°33'06" West, a distance of 381.17 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for an angle point in east line of said Lot 108, being the southeast corner of a 49.404 acre tract described in Document No. 2013103448 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of said 49.404 acre tract, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 18°17'49" West, a distance of 212.09 feet to a 2" metal fence post found; 2. North 20°46'27" West, a distance of 758.41 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 20°52'26" West, a distance of 600.26 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 4. North 21°32'38" West, a distance of 344.62 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 20°28'31" West, a distance of 177.79 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 6. North 20°34'25" West, a distance of 242.27 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 21 ° 11'57" West, a distance of 271.02 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for the northeast corner of said 49.404 acre tract, being the southeast corner of Lot 24 said Gabriels-Overlook Section One; Page 270 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 13 Page 4 THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the west line of Lots 7-24 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 22°52'22" West, a distance of 44.49 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 23'26'14" West, a distance of 229.07 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 19°27'56" West, a distance of 302.58 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 07°08'47" West, a distance of 459.01 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 08°55'54" West, a distance of 832.85 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. North 08°25'05" West, a distance of 789.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 08049'15" West, a distance of 328.34 feet to a 1/2" rebar found for the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said Lot 7 and also being an angle point in the south line of Lot 6, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, for the westernmost northwest corner hereof, THENCE with the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the south line of Lots 5 and 6 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, and in part being the south line of said 48.567 acre tract, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. North 85'03'10" East, a distance of 180.43 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 85°01'20" East, a distance of 357.83 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 82'19'06" East, a distance of 113.06 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 4. North 82'13'59" East, a distance of 348.44 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 5. North 83°06'23" East, a distance of 1129.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with cap found near a fence corner post in the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot strip and also being the southeast corner of said 2.64 acre tract, bears North 83°06'23" East, a distance of 95.70 feet, Page 271 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 13 Page 5 THENCE with the west line of said 2.64 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °33'09" West, a distance of 125.76 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 22'1119" West, a distance of 670.90 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 22044'17" West, a distance of 496.30 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set on the south right-of-way line of said State Highway 29, being the northwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, for the northernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, in part being the north line of said 2.64 acre tract, and in part being the north line said 30 foot strip, with a curve to the right, having a radius of 5679.58 feet, a delta angle of 01 °31'13", an arc length of 150.70 feet, and a chord which bears South 83°26'45" East, a distance of 150.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 386.98 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground June 18, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: None. I b�/z31 �� �E\OFF F� APf� F' °�� Paul L. Easley �� Registered Professional Land Surveyor PA�L••L.••EASLEY State of Texas No.4432 p y .0p h432 o?,o p T.X.B.P.LS. Firm No. 10124500 •• 0...4 SUR •:�� Page 272 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 13 WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUD NO. 2 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 420, AND THE A.H. PORTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 490, IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT) DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719, AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744, OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) o M 1/2" REBAR WITH "FOREST RPLS #1847" CAP FOUND •D 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYING" CAP FOUND • P 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND •CAP 1/2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND w 1/2" REBAR WITH "WALKER 5283" CAP FOUND ♦ M MAG NAIL FOUND AL 80D NAIL FOUND COTTON SPINDLE FOUND 0 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA ARC BEARING CHORD Cl 11456.00' 12'39'29" 2530.89' S35'28'40"W 2525.75' C2 5679.58' 1'31'13" 150.70' S83'26'45"E 150.69' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S21'44'59"E 1251.15' L2 S12'17'52W 47.71' L3 S19'23'38"E 1435.72' L4 S20'38'46"E 385.75' L5 I S20'36'37"E 210.67' L6 S20'46'45"E 651.86' L7 S20'59'20"E 822.02' L8 S21'49'53"E 493.25' L9 S21'36'00"E 253.35' L10 S21'35'17'E 184.35' L11 S21'23'05"E 662.69' L12 S21'27'49"E 291.87' L13 N83'25'10"W 395.30' L14 S88'03'44"W 96.03' L15 S88'03'44"W 67.44' L16 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L17 N21'35'09"W 1226.40' L18 N1833'06'W 381.17' L19 N18'17'49W 212.09' L20 N20'46'27W 758.41' L21 N20'52'26W 600.26' L22 N21'32'38W 344.62' L23 N20'28'31 "W 177.79' L24 N20'34'25W 242.27' L25 N21'11'57W 271.02' L26 N22'52'22W 44.49' L27 N23' 26' 14"W 229.07' L28 N19'27'56"W 302.58' L29 NOT08'47"W 459.01' L30 N08'55'54W 832.85' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L31 N08'25'05"W 789.61' L32 N08'49' 15"W 328.34' L33 N85'03'10"E 180.43' L34 N85'01'20"E 357.83' L35 N82'19'06"E 113.06' L36 N82'13'59"E 348.44' L37 N83'06'23"E 1129.71' L38 N21'33'09"W 125.76' L39 N22'11'19W 670.90' L40 N22'44' 17"W 496.30, L41 N83'06'23"E 95.70' PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 1 OF 4 Page 273 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 13 GABRIELS—OVERLOOK SECTION ONE (S/218) 17 18 19 20 I �I GABRIELS—OVERLOOK 3 141 SECTION ONE O (S/218) I = � � I 5 \ 9 —i 48.567 ACRES ERIK CHARLES MAUND 2010 TRUST (2013091022) DESCRIBED IN (908/203) rRY rrl\lL rr,4 rr FlYK 3URYY Y A 533, Y 386.98 ACRES r700• s, y .0kp 9 c? w\o�yJ I � � I � � 2.64 AC. J \ DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (2013063744) 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 GMT rn 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) Y . Y. FORTER YYJ VE Y A S3, 1.90 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 2 OF 4 Page 274 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 13 20 21 cy 22 \ 23 W \ c� GABRIELS—OVER LOOK SECTION ONE 24 r (S/218) --------L-- ° 2" METAL NM � N 49.404 ACRES a o; ROBERT C. RALEY p & CHERRY S. RALEY L (2013103448) o 2" METAL MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 F FJ\Jl Fri r rrl�K ,J UP VEY r J 386.98 ACRES 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 J � V J 1 = 500' J AJ-J, FORTER 1 UR VEY r BS, % JJ J 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) 3 o c� O J O J PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 3 OF 4 Page 275 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 13 \O)12" METAL s GABRIELS- OVERLOOK 1 SECTION ONE - - - - (S/218) 112 J 113 114 z -- o W 115 W J ............ .................Sa.....� ......................... ....L1.A 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) A Sr MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 METAL i r rrl\ll rEA F FJS' SURVEY r A � S, .:� 386.98 ACRES J 1 „ = 500' N A H, F JRJ -l"R SURVEY 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. I (9901719) - - - Or 0E0RG r A 491.95 ACRES C( 121.45 ACRES••••..•• TEXAS PARKS AND " RECREATION FOUNDATION (2008092676) 1�/J. - DI-) R 01ViV S UR vrrY � r S. JJ J� fA- r JHENRY B. TIPPIE l�&/j IVL J VE I (570/483) SURVr Y ASS. %12Jtj I C , I J7 -------T---------- - - - - l.. RES `-..�.. - •• •• . ..••• A 80.9157 C SOUTH FORK"""'f AVP RANCH, LTD SAN GABRIEL RIVERS (2011081794) jSRA rrl sA Ul S '5'JRVr-PLOT l DATE: 14 DRAWING NO.: 43-034MUD 43-034 A J, , J J J T B.PEL.S. FIRM ROJCT NO.: 1 NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE 4 G SHEET 4 OF 4 Page 276 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 13 Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 78°03'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83°25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88003'44" West, a Page 277 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 13 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 "35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12039'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21°27'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21022'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°46'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21 °00'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. South 21 °00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. Paul L. Easley Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 Page 278 of 516 OF �Q`�r�G ,pt"~ (n2 ........................................... O N PAUL L. EASLEY ..... . .......................... N ..... 4432 "�"YQ ,� E S 5 \ p `��� SUR [� EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 13 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S69' 12'32"W 1589.92' L2 N78'03'51 "W 516.95' L3 N83'25' 10"W 76.65' L4 S21'27'49"E 512.56' L5 I S21'21'24"E 253.32' L6 S21'22'39"E 235.69' L7 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L8 S21'00'53"E 338.11' L9 S09'27'57"E 103.90' L10 I S21'00'01 "E 141.14' L1 1 N83'25' 10"W 395.30' L12 S88'03'44"W 163.47' L13 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L14 N 18'33'06"W 381.17' L15 I N21'27'49"W 291.87' BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON-LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) ATTACHMENTS: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN LEGEND • 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) • D 1/2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND U 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O FENCE POST FOUND (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED) o CALCULATED POINT CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA I ARC BEARING CHORD Cl 1 11456.00' 12'39'29" 1 2530.89' N35'28'40"E 2525.75' OF liJ PAUL L. EASLEY »�„�.....»4432....» »». �l — (wavmrr,�l PLOT DATE: 12/17/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: CWW SHEET 1 OF 2 Page 279 of 516 v� EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 13 �I �I 108 — D It) UtJVr' I ' 109 I _j __--I A��. J 1 " = 500' 110 GABRIELS 2 OVERLOOK 1 11 SECTION ONE (S/218) 112 I g :. a 437.64 ACRES 113 a N °; SECOND TRACT — — _ — � o — — DON H. LIVELY FAMILY 114 .` PARTNERSHIP, LTD. N•-' (9901719) P C" IN 115 ( ZL13 ................... . ...-...- ..... � 1.2 �......<�z... 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (2013115216) 0 50.07 ACRES APPROX. 2,180,914 SQ. FT. ETJ TRANSFER Rio o I Zlo A JV. PORTER IIto ri r �S. 4 J J 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/48�j — i — — J J I ,7" CEDAR 1 co J6 � LLl � cc) )ARrrlJI —D/JEW J�/J'/ � jV J VE 00 _j I S UR Yr Y A _53 , r� 0- P.O.B. 0) SOUTH FORK �2.. ........................... SAN GABRIEL RIVER J 0.......... J� — ................................. ........................................ ............ . — — — A SA AJ, YR-)JAVP9RANCH, LTD L /�� �r� �/ (2011081794) J 121.45 ACRES I/ �l TEXAS PARKS AND I 1 -)�)A r A J J RECREATION FOUNDATION I / (2008092676) ( A L L/ s 3YYYY A _5 3. 5_9 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN ye Q wl SHEET 2 OF 2 /'_A 1/VJV Page 280 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 13 C ^�i A LA AT TITLE SURVEY OF 437.04 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 19.007,070 S0. FT.), BEING ALL OF A 00- STRIP AND AIL OF A 437.64 V--f MrAp.nr.14•.O.ln:�Ten'rW ACRE TRACT, BOTH CONVEYED TO DON If. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED DF.CEMDF.R wn1vM,,.ucvn M00 N.:. A,. Lwa' .. L990 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT N.YAS 0. 9901729 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY. TEAND ALL OF A 2.01 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO DON R. LIVELY FAMILY PAR NTAISHIP. LTD., IN A SPECIAJ. WARRANTY DEED DATED JULY 0, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013003744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUDLIC RECORDS OF WIWAMSON COUNTY. TLCAS. O Jf� u I... W 1 , 1e 31, vw 1'� ».. ` AIM} A, a''Fr'h14434,3,` JOG 7 U,,vLT, V ' . .....,. I � `�' ♦ 1, � wear J.Ir �:—�., �' .I '°rn "`:+: �:"•.1" �«.ax�. � ".J: ' " " J i—' ♦ 1 '�I sir; ., � _ \ I � a • L�S � .... �_-...-M �r.,.u. / It 1 • I 1 ■ � 1 r ♦ ♦ c d � lb'M dlONdlS3 1 ♦ o� � c "'- � ♦ ♦ c in � rn �.J J ♦ LLI N <n ♦ ♦ K 31 Nv, , ♦� O R HOLLOW RD / 4-a 1 • / r r _ .O / 1 i � • N ` x T • • �• > / ^, / VJ ••0 • VJ : ••�. ^> RD , AN • • W ANGNIS % ♦ V) r ♦O _ 4-0 ♦ • VS ' Opp 1 • �0 tiOb C) 1 J i Z i 0 i U � ' � c / anla / •o sntJINOIN > Nnvr i > �N0 4d Hl / 0 y1 H � tin �0 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a Temporary Wholesale Water Services Agreement between the City of Georgetown and the City of Leander for service to the Lively Tract -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director ITEM SUMMARY: Part of the CTSUD CCN settlement agreement between Leander, CTSUD, and Georgetown provided for Leander to be the retail provider of water service to the Lively Tract located within the Leander ETJ. The proximity of Georgetown water infrastructure provides an opportunity for Leander to contract with Georgetown for short term wholesale water service until permanent Leander infrastructure is available to service the tract some time in 2021. The short term wholesale water service agreement provides for wholesale service to the Lively Tract. Leander will provide retail service at its water service rates including customer meter reading, billing, and on -site line maintenance. Georgetown will provide water from its water system via a master meter at its normal out -of -city non-residential rate. The term of the agreement is until August 8, 2021, the same term as the Leander, CTSUD, and Georgetown Settlement Agreement. GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the April 10, 2015 GUS Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This contract involves the use of standard residential or non-residential rate structure for revenues. Contract will result in net revenues to the Water Fund. SUBMITTED BY: Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director ATTACHMENTS: Wholesale Water Agreement with Exhibits- Lively Page 283 of 516 Ni`WlKILaItZiIm TEMPORARY WHOLESALE WATER SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND CITY OF LEANDER This TEMPORARY WHOLESALE WATER SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF GEORGETOWN, liome rule municipality located in Williamson County, Texas ("Georgetown") and the CITY OF LEANDER, home rule municipality located in Williamson County, Texas ("Leander"). WHEREAS, this Agreement governs the provision of temporary wholesale water services by Georgetown to Leander for approximately 437.05 acres of land described by metes and bounds on the attached Exhibit A and by sketch attached as Exhibit B (the "Land"); and WHEREAS, Georgetown and Leander are parties to that certain "Settlement Agreement" in the Matter of the Application from tine City of Georgetown, Certificate of Convenience and Necessity ("CCN") No. 12369, to Acquire Facilities and Transfer and Cancel CCN No. 11590 Held by Chisholm Trail Special Utility District in Bell, Burnet, and Williamson Counties (SOAR Docket No. 582-14-3380; TCEQ Docket No. 2014-0437-UCR) (the "Settlement Agreement"), and the "Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract" (the "Release Agreement"), and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement and the Release Agreement contemplate, among other things, that Leander will file an application with the TCEQ seeking to transfer the Land into Leander's water CCN, and that in the interim Georgetown and Leander will coordinate as to who will provide water service to the Land; and WHEREAS, the Land has not yet been transferred into Leander's water CCN and Leander does not yet have the necessary capital improvements in place to provide water service to the Land; and WHEREAS, on a temporary basis Georgetown can provide a daily wholesale potable water supply up to the Connection Linnit (defined herein) and not to exceed the Annual Water Supply (defined herein) on an interim basis until the Leander Completion Date (defined herein), and Leander desires Georgetown to deliver said wholesale potable water to Leander on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of (lie mutual covenants and agreements set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Georgetown and Leander agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.01 Definitions of Terms. In addition to the terms otherwise defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terns and phrases used in this Agreement will have the meanings set forth below. Page 284 of 516 (a) "Active Connection" means a connection for which there is an open utility account with Leander during any portion of a monthly billing period. (b) "Agreement" means this Temporary Wholesale Water Services Agreement between Georgetown and Leander. (c) "Annual [Vater Supply" means potable water in an amount not to exceed 153.3 million gallons per annum to be delivered by Georgetown to Leander under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (d) "AlFWA" means the American Water Works Association. (c) "BRA" means the Brazos River Authority. (f) "BRA System Agreements" means, collectively the System Water Availability Agreements entered into by Georgetown and BRA pursuant to which Georgetown is entitled to divert water from the BRA River Basin. (g) "Conneclion" means an Active Connection to the Leander System on the Land (defined herein), the cumulative number of which shall not exceed the Connection Limit (defined herein). For the purposes of this Agreement, a 1/4" meter is equivalent to one Connection. The number of Connections associated with multifamily structures or meters larger than 3/4' in size shall be the same as the number of "Service Units" calculated using Georgetown's meter equivalency standards set forth in Section 13.32.050 of Georgetown's Code of Ordinances, as said ordinance may be amended from time to time by Georgetown. Only residential Connections shall be allowed on the Land. Non-residential Connections are prohibited on the Land; provided that Georgetown and Leander acknowledge that an amenity center is proposed to be constructed on the Land and an appropriately -sized Connection for such amenity center shall not be prohibited, as long as the Connection Limit and the Annual Water Supply amount are not exceeded. (h) "Connection Limit" means the cumulative number of Connections on the Land, which shall not exceed twelve hundred (1,200). (i) "Cure Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 8.02(c). 0) "Cusloiners" means those persons owning or using a Connection on the Land. (k) "Delivery Point" means the Master Meter, which shall be installed in the approximate location depicted on Exhibit C. (1) "Effective Dale" means the later of (1) June 1, 2015, or (2) the date when one or more counterparts of this Agreement, individually or taken together, bear the signatures of Georgetown and Leander. (m) "Emergency" means a sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; exigency; pressing necessity; or a relatively permanent condition or insufficiency of service or of facilities resulting from causes outside of the reasonable control of Georgetown. 2 Page 285 of 516 The term includes Force Majeure and acts of third parties that cause the Georgetown System to be unable to provide the Wholesale Water Services agreed to be provided herein. (u) "Force kfajew-e" means acts of God, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial disturbances, acts of the public enemy, orders of any kind of any governmental entity other than Georgetown or Leander or any civil or military authority, acts, orders or delays of any regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the Parties, insurrections, riots, acts of terrorism, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, floods, washouts, droughts, arrests, restraint of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions, breakage or accidents to machinery, pipelines or canals, or any other conditions which are not within the control of a Party. (o) "Georgetmi,n System" means the facilities owned and operated by Georgetown, together with all extensions, expansions, improvements, enlargements, betterments and replacements to provide the Wholesale Water Services including, without limitation, the Master Meter after it is installed by Leander and accepted by Georgetown. The Georgetown System does not include any improvements on Leander's side of the Delivery Point or any facilities on any other wholesale customer's side of its delivery point and, for purposes of this Agreement, does not include any facilities used by Georgetown solely to provide retail potable water service, such as retail distribution lines and related valves, pressure reducing devices, pressure boosting facilities and improvements; retail meters and taps and individual retail customer service lines. (p) "Interim Connection bafi-astrrretare" means the capital improvements on the Leander side of the Delivery Point necessary to allow Georgetown to commence providing the Wholesale Water Services to the Land. The Interim Connection hifrastructure is generally shown on Exhibit D. (q) "Land" means approximately 437.05 acres of land, described by metes and bounds on Exhibit A and by sketch on Exhibit B. (r) "Leander Completion Date" means August 8, 2021. (s) "Leander System on the Land" means the facilities owned and operated by Leander, including water transmission, distribution and delivery systems located on the Land, or that connect the Interim Connection Infrastructure to the Land, that provide water service to Leander's retail customers within the Land, together with all extensions, expansions, improvements, enlargements, betterments and replacements to provide retail water service or wholesale water service to Customers with Connections within the Land. The Leander System on the Land includes the Interim Connection Infrastructure, but does not include the Master Meter or any facilities or improvements on Georgetown's side of the Delivery Point. (t) `Leander R`aler Utility System" means the facilities owned and operated by Leander, including water transmission, distribution and delivery systems, together with all extensions, expansions, improvements, enlargements, betterments and replacements, that as of the Effective Date provide service to Leander's retail customers outside of the Land, which will, after construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure, provide water service to customers on the Land. Page 286 of 516 (u) "Master Meter" means the water meter to be placed at the Delivery Point which shall be used to measure the quantity of Annual Water Supply delivered by Georgetown to Leander for the purposes of this Agreement. (v) "Permanent Connection lgfrastructure" means the capital improvements to the Leander Water Utility System necessary to allow Georgetown to discontinue providing the Wholesale Water Services so that Leander via the Leander Water Utility System, the Permanent Connection Infrastructure, and the Leander System on the Land is the sole source of water service to the Land, and Georgetown is no longer providing Wholesale Water Services to Leander for the Land. (w) "Related Agreements" means the "Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract" among Leander, Georgetown, and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District; the "Agreement Regarding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary Adjustment" by and between Georgetown, Leander, Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and Sentinel Land Company, LLC related to the Lively Tract"; the "Offsite Wastewater Utility Construction Agreement for the `Lively Tract' a/k/a West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2" among Georgetown, Sentinel Land Company, LLC and West Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 2; and the "Wholesale Wastewater Services Agreement" between Leander and Georgetown. (x) "Retail Water Ser>ices" means the provision of water services by Leander to Customers with residential Connections on the Land as further described in Section 2.03 of this Agreement. (y) "TCEQ" means the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or its successor agency. (z) "Tf'holesale TMa er Services" means the temporary diversion or production of water, the transmission thereof to a place or places of treatment, the treatment of the water into potable form, and the transmission of the potable water to the Delivery Point by Georgetown to Leander in a quantity not to exceed the Annual Water Supply and not to exceed the Connection Limit for use by Customers with Connections on the Land under the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement. 1.02 Captions. The captions appearing at the first of each numbered section or paragraph in this Agreement are inserted and included solely for convenience and shall never be considered or given any effect in construing this Agreement. ARTICLE II PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES 2.01 Wholesale Water Services. (a) General. Georgetown agrees to provide the Wholesale Water Services to Leander on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 4 Page 287 of 516 (b) Conditions Precedent. Georgetown shall have no obligation to commence providing the Wholesale Water Services to any portion of the Land until all of the following events have occurred, and Georgetown will commence the provision of Wholesale Water Service after all of the following occur: (1) The Related Agreements are frilly executed by the parties thereto and Leander is not in default of its obligations under the "Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively 'Tract" among Leander, Georgetown, and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District; the "Agreement Regarding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary Adjustment" by and between Georgetown, Leander, Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and Sentinel Land Company, LLC, related to the Lively Tract"; or the "Settlement Agreement" in SOAH Docket No. 582- 14-3380; TCEQ Docket No. 2014-0437-UCR; and (2) The Interim Connection Infrastructure and the Master Meter have been constructed in accordance with plans approved by Georgetown and Leander has provided written notice of same to Georgetown; and (3) Construction plans for the portion of the Land to be provided with the Wholesale Water Services have been approved by Leander and Leander has provided Georgetown with a copy of the approved plans; and (4) Wastewater service is available to a residential structure before Wholesale Water Services will be provided to such residential structure and Leander has provided Georgetown with written confirmation of same. (c) Georgetown System. Georgetown shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, extending, improving and enlarging the Georgetown System, including the Master Meter after its initial installation by Leander, and keeping same in good working condition and shall promptly repair any leaks or breaks in the Georgetown System. (d) Limits on Wholesale Water Se► -vices. Georgetown shall have no obligation to provide the Wholesale Water Services in excess of the Annual Water Supply, in excess of the Connection Limit, after the Leander Completion Date, or any time that Leander is in default of this Agreement after the expiration of a Cure Period . (e) Quantity and Pressure. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Georgetown agrees to deliver potable water to Leander for the Land, up to the Connection Limit and in an amount not to exceed the Annual Water Supply, for residential Connections on the Land. Georgetown agrees that the water supply shall be delivered at a minimum delivery pressure of 35 psi as measured at the Delivery Point. (0 Quality of Water Delivered to Leander. The water delivered by Georgetown at the Delivery Point shall be potable water of a quality conforming to the requirements of any applicable federal or state laws, rules, regulations or orders, including requirements of the TCEQ applicable to water provided for human consumption and other domestic use. Each Party agrees to provide to the other Party, in a timely manner, any info►7nation or data regarding the quality of 5 Page 288 of 516 treated water provided through this Agreement as required for reporting to the TCEQ or other state and federal regulatory agencies. 2.02 Wholesale Service Commitment Not Transferable. Georgetown's agreement to provide Wholesale Water Services is solely to Leander. Leander may not assign or transfer in whole or in part the Wholesale Water Services without Georgetown's prior written approval. 2.03 Retail Watei• Services. (a) General. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Leander will provide the Retail Water Services. (b) Limits. Leander agrees that it shall not authorize, approve, make or allow Connections in excess of the Connection Limit; usage in excess of the Annual Water Supply; or nonresidential Connections on the Land; provided that Georgetown and Leander acknowledge that an amenity center is proposed to be constructed on the Land and an appropriately -sized Connection for such amenity center shall not be prohibited, as long as the Connection Limit and the Annual Water Supply amount are not exceeded. Leander further agrees that noncompliance with this Section shall be a material default of this Agreement after expiration of the Cure Period. (c) Delivery to Connections. Leander shall be solely responsible for conveying potable water from the Delivery Point to the Connections. (d) Leander System on the Land. Leander will be responsible for operating and maintaining the Leander System on the Land in good working order; for making all needed replacements, additions and improvements as required for the operation of the Leander System on the Land; for performing all inspections; for reading meters, billing and collecting from all Customers on the Land; and for performing all other usual and customary services and administrative functions associated with retail water utility systems. Leander will be solely responsible for applying Leander's ordinances, standards, and specifications to the design, construction, and acceptance for operation and maintenance of the Leander System on the Land and installation of the Connections. Leander shall be responsible for initially installing the Master Meter and for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, extending, improving and enlarging the Leander System on the Land in good working condition and shall promptly repair any leaks or breaks in the Leander System on the Land. (e) Exclusive Provider. Leander agrees that Georgetown shall be the exclusive provider of the Wholesale Water Services and that no other person or entity shall be allowed to provide same; provided that Georgetown is not in default of this Agreement. 2.04 Water Source (a) BRA System Agreements. The Parties acknowledge that the source of the Annual Water Supply is from the water secured by Georgetown in the BRA System Agreements. In the event that the amount of water supplied by BRA in the BRA System Agreements is reduced, the Annual Water Supply shall be reduced on a pro rats basis. Page 289 of 516 (b) No Rights to Water Source. Leander agrees that it shall never have or claim any interest in the Annual Water Supply, the BRA System Agreements, or any other potable or raw water owned or controlled by Georgetown, regardless of the source of the water. Leander is prohibited from selling any of the water provided to Leander under this Agreement to anyone other than those Customers having authorized Connections within the Land. 2.05 Title. Title to the water diverted, treated and transported to Leander by Georgetown under this Agreement shall remain with Georgetown at all times until it reaches the Delivery Point. At the Delivery Point, title to the water shall pass to Leander. 2.06 Rights and Responsibilities in Event of Leaks or Breaks. Leander shall be responsible for paying for all water delivered to it under this Agreement at the Delivery Point even if such water passed through the Delivery Point as a result of leaks or breaks in the Leander System on the Land. 2.07 Conservation and Drought Planning. Leander, by signing below, certifies that it has adopted and implemented a water conservation plan and a drought contingency plan in compliance with applicable TCEQ rules. 2.08 Curtailment of Service. if water service is curtailed by Georgetown to its wholesale or retail water customers due to the need to conduct maintenance operations or due to an emergency, Georgetown shall provide notice of same to Leander and Leander shall curtail retail service to the Customers on the same basis and for the same duration. Georgetown will impose such curtailments in a nondiscriminatory fashion. The Parties agree that they will not construe this Agreement to prohibit Georgetown from curtailing service completely in the event of a maintenance operation or Emergency for a reasonable period necessary to complete such maintenance operations or repairs or to respond to an Emergency. 2.09 Cooperation During Maintenance or Emergency. Leander will cooperate with Georgetown during periods of Emergency, replacement of facilities, or required maintenance. If necessary, upon prior notice, Leander will discontinue use of, cycle, test, inspect or otherwise operate and maintain the Leander System on the Land at its expense in a manner reasonably necessary for the safe and efficient completion of repairs or the replacement of facilities, the restoration of service, and the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. ARTICLE III METERING PROVISIONS 3.01 Master Meter Sizing and Installation. Leander shall be responsible for properly sizing and initially installing the Master Meter. Prior to installation of the Master Meter at the Point of Delivery, Leander shall submit the plans and specifications for the Master Meter to Georgetown for its review and approval. 3.02 Master Meter Accuracy. The Master Meter shall meet accuracy standards required by the AW WA with calibration maintained as described in Section 3.03. 3.03 Meter Calibration. 7 Page 290 of 516 (a) Annual Calibration. The Master Meter shall be calibrated each calendar year by Georgetown at Georgetown's sole cost and expense. Georgetown shall provide prior notice of each such calibration, and a representative of Leander may be present to observe each calibration. (b) Testing. In the event any question arises at any time as to the accuracy of the Master Meter, then the Master Meter shall be tested by Georgetown promptly upon demand of Leander. The expense of such tests shall be borne by Leander. (c) Corrections. If, as a result of any test, the Master Meter is found to be registering inaccurately (in excess of AWWA and manufacturer's standards for the type and size of meter), the readings of the Master Meter shall be corrected at the rate of inaccuracy for any period which is definitely known or agreed upon. If no such period is known or agreed upon, the readings of the Master Meter shall be corrected at the rate of inaccuracy for the shorter of a period extending back either sixty (60) days from the date of demand for the test or, if no demand for the test was made, sixty (60) days from the date of the test. The records of the Master Meter readings, and all payments made on the basis of such readings for the applicable period, shall be adjusted accordingly. ARTICLE IV WHOLESALE WATER RATE AND CHARGES 4.01 Wholesale Water Rates and Charges. The monthly wholesale water rate shall consist of two components: the monthly Base Charge and the monthly Volumetric Charge each as calculated as set forth in this Agreement (collectively, the "Wholesale Water Rate"), Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no other rates, fees or charges shall be owed by Leander to Georgetown for the Wholesale Water Services. The provisions of this Article IV shall survive termination of this Agreement; provided that Leander shall have no obligation to continue to pay the Wholesale Water Rate after the Permanent Connection Infrastructure is completed and Leander no longer receives Wholesale Water Services from Georgetown. 4.02 Base Charge. The monthly Base Charge component of the Wholesale Water Rate shall be calculated as follows: (a) If the Master Meter is eight (8) inches or less in size, the Base Charge shall be equal to the rate corresponding to the size of the Master Meter set forth in Section 13.04.120(B)(1) of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances ("Outside City Limits/Monthly Customer Base Charge"), as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown. (b) If the Master Meter is greater than eight (8) inches but less than or equal to twelve (12) inches in size, the Base Charge shall be calculated by using the conversion table in Section 13.32.050 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances ("Conversion of Service Units") to calculate the number of service units corresponding to the meter size, and multiplying the result by the rate corresponding to the rate for three -fourth (3/4) inch meters set forth in Section 13.04.120(B)(1) of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances ("Outside City Limits/Monthly Customer Base Charge"), as said ordinances may be amended ti•oni time to time by Georgetown. Page 291 of 516 (e) If the Master Meter is greater than twelve (12) inches in size, the Base Charge shall be calculated on the same basis as set forth in Section 4.02(b) of this Agreement using AWWA principles. 4.03 Volumetrie Charge. The monthly Volumetric Charge component of the Wholesale Water Rate shall be the rate set forth in Section 13.04.120(B)(3) of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances ("Monthly Nonresidential Customer Volumetric Charge"), which is currently $2.40 per 1,000 gallons, as the same may be amended from time to time by Georgetown. 4.04 Revisions. Georgetown may adjust the Base Charge and the Volumetric Charge from time to time in its sole discretion. Georgetown shall give Leander at least sixty (60) clays prior written notice of any increases in the Base Charge or the Volumetric Charge before such adjustments become effective as to Leander. The charges shall be established in accordance with standard AWWA principles. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, commencing on the Leander Completion Date and continuing for every day thereafter that Georgetown continues to deliver potable water to the Delivery Point, the Wholesale Water Rate shall be as set forth in Section 7.03 of this Agreement. 4.05 Leander's Retail Water Rates and Charges. During the term of this Agreement, Leander will fix and collect rates and charges for retail water service that are, in the opinion of its governing body, sufficient, together with any other revenues available to Leander, to produce the amount necessary to construct, operate, repair, and maintain the Leander System on the Land and the Leander System (including the Interim Connection Infrastructure and the Permanent Connection Infrastructure), install the Master Meter, pay the Wholesale Water Rate to Georgetown, and perform its obligations under this Agreement. Leander will be solely responsible for ensuring that its retail rates and charges are determined and collected in accordance with applicable law. 4.06 Impact Fees. The water impact fees for the Land shall be those assessed and collected by the governing body of the City of Leander. ARTICLE V BILLING AND PAYMENT 5.01 Billing Statement. Leander shall pay the Wholesale Water Rate in the time and manner described in this Section. For each billing period, Georgetown will provide to Leander a detailed statement of the Wholesale Water Rate due for that billing period calculated on the basis of readings of the Master Meter for the previous billing period that enables Leander to determine how tine Wholesale Water Rate shown on the statement was calculated, and a statement of any amounts clue under Section 5.03 of this Agreement, if applicable. Leander shall not be charged the Wholesale Water Rate until after the Leander commences receiving water through the Point of Delivery. Leander shall give Georgetown at least thirty (30) days' written notice at such time that Leander wishes Georgetown to commence Wholesale Water Service. Leander agrees to pay such rates and charges to Georgetown by check or bank -wire no later than the date that is thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice (the "Due Date") in order not to be considered delinquent; provided that Leander may dispute a bill as set forth in Section 5.02 and payment of an invoice 9 Page 292 of 516 in full shall not constitute a waiver of Leander's right to dispute said invoice. Payment made by check must be received on or before the Due Date at the following address: City of Georgetown Attn: Utility Billing Department 300-1 Itndustrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Leander shall request wiring instructions from Georgetown prior to remitting payment by bank wire. 5.02 Billing Disputes. If Leander at any time disputes the amount to be paid by it to Georgetown, Leander shall nevertheless promptly make the disputed payment or payments, but Leander shall have the right to seek a judicial determination whether the rates charged by Georgetown are in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. If it is subsequently determined by agreement or court decision that the disputed amount paid by Leander should have been less or more, Georgetown shall promptly revise the amount in a manner such that Leander or Georgetown shall recover the amount due. Disputed charges shall first attempt to be resolved using the procedures described in Section 8.02(a) or Section 8.04 of this Agreement before filing a petition with the administrative agency or court having jurisdiction. 5.03 Late Charges. Any amount billed to Leander that is not paid by the Due Date shall accrue an immediate ten percent (10%) penalty. Leander further agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney's fees. 5.04 Effect of Nonpayment. If Georgetown has not received payment from Leander of all amounts due under this Article V (including late charges and costs of collection) on or before the Due Date for the next monthly billing period immediately following the original Due Date, then Leander shall be in default of a material obligation under this Agreement. In the event of any such default, Georgetown may, in its discretion, restrict service to volumes sufficient to service only existing Connections until payment in full is made. Leander agrees that it shall not make or allow any new Connections on the Land until it has cured the default in full by paying all amounts owed tinder this Article V and confirming Georgetown's receipt and acceptance of same. ARTICLE VI REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 6.01 Agreement Subject to Applicable Law. This Agreement will be subject to all valid rules, regulations, and applicable laws of the United States of America, the State of Texas and/or any other governmental body or agency having lawful jurisdiction or any authorized representative or agency of any of them. 6.02 Cooperation to Assure Regulatoiy Compliance. Since the Parties must comply with all federal, state, and local requirements to obtain permits, grants, and assistance for system construction, studies, etc., each Party will cooperate in good faith with the other Party at all times 10 Page 293 of 516 to assure compliance with any such govern►nental requirements where noncompliance or non- cooperation may subject the Parties to penalties, loss of grants or other funds, or other adverse regulatory action in the performance of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII PERMANENT CONNECTION INFRASTRUCTURE 7.01 Request for Use of Easements. Leander may request Georgetown to consider use of any easements that Georgetown owns and controls that are located between the Leander Water Utility System and the Land to install the Permanent Connection Infrastructure. Georgetown shall promptly review such requests and advise Leander in writing whether use of such easements by Leander is acceptable to Georgetown and if so the terms and conditions of such use. 7.02 Completion of Permanent Connection Infrastructure. Not later than the Leander Completion Date, Leander shall complete, or cause completion of, construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure and shall provide Georgetown written notice that construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure is complete, Leander is able to serve the Land with potable water through the Leander System on the Land using the Permanent Connection Infrastructure and the Leander Utility System, and Georgetown can discontinue providing the Wholesale Wastewater Services (the "Notice of Completion"). Failure of Leander to complete construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure and/or to provide to Georgetown the Notice of Completion not later than the Leander Completion Deadline, shall be a material default of this Agreement. If the default remains uncured after the expiration of the Cure Period, Georgetown shall be entitled to pursue the rights and remedies allowed herein. . 7.03 Rate Adjustment After Leander Completion Date. If Leander fails to complete or cause completion of construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure on or before the Leander Completion Date, or fails to provide Georgetown the Notice of Completion on or before the Leander Completion Date, then for each day on and after the Leander Completion Date that Georgetown provides Wholesale Water Service to Leander, the Wholesale Water Rate shall be calculated as follows: (1) Monthly Base Charge — same as provided in Section 4.02 of this Agreement. (2) Monthly Volumetric Charge — the highest rate then set forth in Section 12.04.120(B)(2) of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances ("Monthly residential customer Volumetric charge, per 1,000 gallons"), as said ordinance may be amended from time to time by Georgetown. The provisions of this Section 7.03 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 7.04 Prohibition Against New Connections. If Leander fails to complete or cause completion of construction of the Permanent Connection Infrastructure of or before the Leander Completion Date, o• fails to provide Georgetown the Notice of Completion on or before the Leander Page 294 of 516 Completion Date, then Leander shall not approve or allow installation of any new Connections on the Land as of the Leander Completion Date. ARTICLE VIII TERM, TERMINATION, DEFAULT, REMEDIES 8.01 Term and Termination. (a) This Agreement shall become effective upon the Effective Date and shall continue until terminated by either Party as allowed herein. In the event that the Related Agreements are not frilly executed on or before June 1, 2015, then this Agreement shall become null and void for all purposes as of June I, 2015. (b) In the event that any agreement included in the definition of "BRA System Agreements" is terminated or expires, this Agreement shall be terminated and be of no finrther force or effect. Either Party shall use good faith efforts to give adequate prior written notice of an anticipated termination or expiration of any agreement included in the definition of "BRA System Agreements." 8.02 Leander Default. (a) Default for Delinquent Bills. The default procedure for non-payment of bills shall be as set forth in Article V of this Agreement, and, to the extent not remedied or addressed by those procedures, shall be as set forth in Section 8.02(c) of this Agreement. (b) Default for Permanent Infrastructure Connection. The default procedures for failure to complete the Permanent Infrastructure Connection on or before the Leander Completion Date shall be as set forth in Sections 7.02 through 7.04 of this Agreement. In addition, Georgetown shall have the remedies available to it as are set forth in Section 8.02(c) of this Agreement. (c) General Default Procedures. In addition to the remedies provided elsewhere in this Agreement, and except as otherwise provided in Sections 8.02(a) and (b) of this Agreement, in the event Leander fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, Georgetown shall also have the right, after providing Leander written notice and a thirty (30) day opportunity to cure, which may be extended as provided in this Section 8.02(c) (tile "Cure Period"), to pursue any remedy available at law or in equity, including but not limited to, the right to curtail or wholly discontinue providing Wholesale Water Services for any new and existing Connections and/or terminating this Agreement; the right to obtain a writ of mandamus or an injunction against Leander requiring Leander to immediately comply with its obligations under this Agreement Without the necessity of showing irreparable harm or inadequate remedies at law; and/or enjoining Leander from providing retail or wholesale Water service outside the Land. If the default cannot be cured Within the Cure Period, but Leander commences the cure Within the Cure Period and diligently pursues same, Leander shall have an additional period of time, not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days from the initial default notice, Within Which to complete the cure. The Cure Period, and any extension thereto allowed by this Section, must pass before 12 Page 295 of 516 Georgetown may initiate any remedies available to it due to such breach. If Leander cures the breach to Georgetown's satisfaction, Georgetown may not initiate any such remedies. In addition, and notwithstanding Section 8.05 of this Agreement, if any administrative or judicial action or other legal proceeding is filed or threatened against Georgetown related to or arising from Leander's default under or breach of this Agreement, Leander shall pay all of Georgetown's reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses (even if not recoverable by law as court costs), and administrative, civil or criminal penalties or fines incurred in that action or proceeding and all appellate proceedings, only to the extent such fees, costs, expenses, penalties, or fines are due to Leander's breach of this Agreement. For the purposes of this section, the term "attorney's fees" includes, without limitation, paralegal fees, investigative fees, testifying or consulting expert fees, administrative costs, disbursements, and all other charges incurred by Georgetown and the attorneys representing Georgetown. 8.03 Georgetown Default. In the event a default by Georgetown shall remain uncured thirty (30) days after receipt by Georgetown of written notice from Leander of the alleged default, Leander shall have the right to pursue any remedy available at law or in equity, provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, but Georgetown commences the cure within the thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues same, Georgetown shall have an additional period of time, not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date of the initial default notice, within which to complete the cure. The cure period, and any extension thereto allowed by this Section, must pass before Leander may initiate any remedies available to it due to such breach. If Georgetown cures the breach to Leander's satisfaction, Leander may not initiate any such remedies. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event shall Leander be entitled to pursue or recover on any action for damages. Such remedies that Leander may pursue include, without limitation except for the limitation on non -recovery of damages, the right to obtain a writ of mandamus or an injunction against Georgetown requiring Georgetown to comply with their respective obligations under this Agreement, including the obligation to provide Wholesale Water Services to the Land in accordance with this Agreement, or Leander may terminate this Agreement for any such uncured default. 8.04 Good Faith Negotiations. The Parties agree that they will attempt to negotiate in good faith to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement prior to filing a petition with a court or administrative agency having jurisdiction, and may engage in non -binding or binding mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution methods as allowed by the laws of the State of Texas and as they may mutually agree. 8.05 Attorneys' Fees. if either Party institutes legal proceedings to seek adjudication of an alleged default under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees from the non -prevailing Party. ARTICLE IX GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.01 Assignment. The rights and obligations of a Party under this Agreement are not assignable in whole or in pail without the prior written consent of the other Party. 13 Page 296 of 516 9.02 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement duly authorized by the respective governing bodies of Leander and Georgetown and executed by duly authorized representatives of each. 9.03 Cooperation. (a) The Parties shall cooperate with each other as reasonably and necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement, including but not limited to the execution of such further documents as may be reasonably necessary. (b) In the event of any third party lawsuit or other claim relating to the validity of this Agreement or any actions taken hereunder, the Parties agree to cooperate in the defense of such suit or claim, and to use their respective best efforts to resolve the suit or claim without diminution in their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement. 9.04 Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given: (i) by depositing it in the United States mail, certified, with return receipt requested, addressed to the Party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (ii) by depositing it with Federal Express or another service guaranteeing "next day delivery", addressed to the Party to be notified and with all charges prepaid; or (iii) by personally delivering it to the Party. Notice is effective when received. For purposes of Notice, the addresses of the Parties will, until changed as provided below, be as follows: City of Leander: City of Leander Attn: City Manager 200 W. Willis Leander, TX 78641 ff"ith copy to: Paige Saenz Knight & Partners 223 W. Anderson Lane, Suite A105 Austin, Texas 78752 City of Georgetown:_ City of Georgetown Attn: City Manager 113 E. 8th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 YPith copy to: City of Georgetown Attn: City Attorney 113 E. 8th Street 14 Page 297 of 516 Georgetown, Texas 78626 The Parties may change their respective addresses to any other address within the United States of America, and may designate a different or additional person to receive Notice, by giving at least five (5) days' written Notice to the other Party. 9.05 Severability; Waiver. (a) If any pant, term or provision of this Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal, invalid or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity of any other Party, term or provision, and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if the part, term or provision was never part of this Agreement. (b) Any failure by a Party to insist upon strict performance by the other Party of any material provision of this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver thereof or of any other provision, and such Party may at any time thereafter insist upon strict performance of any and all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9.06 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement will be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. All obligations of the Parties created in this Agreement are performable in Williamson County, Texas, and venue for any action arising under this Agreement will be in Williamson County, Texas. 9.07 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the "Agreement Regarding Release of the Lively Tract" among Leander, Georgetown, and Chisholm Trail Special Utility District; the "Agreement Regarding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary Adjustment" by and between Georgetown, Leander, Donald H. Lively Family Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, and Sentinel Land Company, LLC related to the Lively Tract"; or the "Settlement Agreement" in SOAH Docket No. 582-14-3380; TCEQ Docket No. 2014-0437-UCR, as the same may be amended from time to time, constitute the entire agreement of the Parties. There are no other agreements or promises, oral or written, between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement and the Related Agreements supersede any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings or representations of the Parties concerning the subject matter. 9.08 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than to the Parties, any rights, benefits, or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement. 9.09 Duplicate Originals; Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals each of equal dignity. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original, and all of which will together constitute the same instrument. 9.10 Records. Georgetown and Leander each agree to preserve, for a period of at least five years after this Agreement is terminated or frilly performed, all books, records, test data, charts 15 Page 298 of 516 and other records and documents pertaining to this Agreement. Georgetown and Leander shall each have the right, respectively, during reasonable business howl to inspect such records and documents. 9.11 Exhibits, Headings, and Construction. All schedules and exhibits referred to in or attached to this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement for all purposes. The paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not enlarge or limit the scope or meaning of the paragraphs. Wherever appropriate, words of the masculine gender may include the feminine or neuter, and the singular may include the plural, and vice -versa. The Parties acknowledge that each of them have been actively and equally involved in the negotiation of this Agreement. Accordingly, the rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party will not be employed in interpreting this Agreement or any exhibits hereto. This Agreement will become effective as of the Effective Date only if one or more counterparts, individually or taken together, bear the signatures of all of the Parties. 9.12 State Approval; Compliance with TCEQ Rules. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, it is the intention of the Parties that this Agreement filly comply with the requirements of the TCEQ applicable to public drinking water systems which receive water through a sole -source water supply contract. The Parties each agree to provide any information which may be requested by the other Party in order to respond to any inquiries or reports required by the TCEQ. If, at any time, it is determined that this Agreement does not comply with all applicable TCEQ requirements, the Parties agree to amend this Agreement in order to effect such compliance. 9.13 Force Majeure. If any Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by Force Majeure to carry out any of its obligations under this Agreement, other than an obligation to pay or provide money, then such obligations of that Party to the extent affected by such Force Majeure and to the extent that due diligence is being used to resume performance at the earliest practicable time shall be suspended during the continuance of any inability so caused to the extent provided but for no longer period. Such cause, as far as possible, shall be remedied with all reasonable diligence. It is understood and agreed that the settlement of strikes and lockouts shall be entirely within the discretion of the affected Party, and that the above requirements that any Force Majeure shall be remedied with all reasonable dispatch shall not require the settlement of strikes and lockouts by acceding to the demand of the opposing Party or Parties when such settlement is unfavorable to it in the judgment of the affected Party. 9.14 Authority, of Parties Executing Agreement, Validity. Georgetown certifies, represents, and warrants that the execution of this Agreement is duly authorized and adopted in conformity with its City Charter and City ordinances. Leander certifies, represents, and warrants that the execution of this Agreement is duly authorized and adopted in conformity with its City Charter and City ordinances. 9.15 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to Leander's obligation to substantially complete the Permanent Connection Infrastructure before the Leander Completion Date. In computing the number of days for purposes of this Agreement, all days will be counted, including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; however, if the final day of an), time period 16 Page 299 of 516 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the final day will be deemed to be the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 9.16 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to and incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes: Exhibit A- Metes and Bounds Description of the Land Exhibit B- Sketch of the Land Exhibit C- Map Showing Delivery Point Exhibit D - interim Connection infrastructure CITY OF GEORGETOWN Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § Dale Ross, Mayor This instrument was acknowledged before me the day of , 20_, by Dale Ross, Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a home -rule city, on behalf of the city. Notary Public Signature 17 Page 300 of 516 ATTEST: Debbie Haile, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON CITY OF LEANDER, TEXAS Date: Christopher• Fielder, Mayor This instrument was acknowledged before me the 20_, by Christopher Fielder, Mayor of the City of Leander, of the city. 18 _ day of , Texas, a home -rule city, on behalf Notary Public Signature Page 301 of 516 CONSENT BY CHISHOLM TRAIL SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT: Chisholm Trail Special Utility District has no obligations under this Agreement and is not a party hereto. Chisholm Trail Special Utility District is executing this Agreement solely for purposes of evidencing its consent to the provision of the retail water service by Leander to and within the Land. DISTRICT SECRETARY CHISI-IOLM TRAIL SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: 19 Page 302 of 516 Exhibit "A" Land — Metes and Bounds 20 Page 303 of 516 Chaff Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 386.98 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 16,856,662 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON 1-I. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED JULY 3, 2013 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO, 2013063744 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 386.98 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29 (right-of-way width varies), for the northeast corner hereof, being the northeast corner of said 30' strip, and being the northwest corner of a 491.95 acre tract described in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE, leaving said State Highway 29, with the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, as found fenced, occupied and used upon the ground, in part being the east line of said 30 foot strip, and in part being the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, the following twelve (12) courses and distances: 1. South 21 °44'59" East, a distance of 1251.15 feet to a 112" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 30 foot strip, being the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract; 2. South 12°17'52" West, a distance of 47.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 13 Page 304 of 516 Page 2 3. South 19°23'38" East, a distance of 1435.72 feet to a 1/2" rebar- with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20°38'46" East, a distance of 385.75 feet to a 112" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 20°36'37" East, a distance of 210.67 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 20°46'45" East, a distance of 651.86 feet to a calculated point; 7. South 20°59'20" East, a distance of 822.02 feet to a calculated point; 8. South 21°49'53" East, a distance of 493.25 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 9. South 21 °36'00" East, a distance of 253.35 feet to a 112" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 10. South 21 °35'17" East, a distance of 184.35 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 11. South 21 °23'05" East, a distance of 662.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 12. South 21 °27'49" East, a distance of 291.87 feet to a calculated point; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acre tract, with the scaled Leander/Georgetown E.T.J. line (provided to the surveyor by others), with a curve to the left, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears South 35°28'40" West, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas and also being in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 206.57 acre tract described in Document No. 2013115216 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 83'25'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet to a calculated point; EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 13 Page 305 of 516 Page 3 2. South 88003'44" West, a distance of 96.03 feet to a calculated point for the northwest corner of said 121.45 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said 206.57 acre tract; 3. South 88°03'44" West, a distance of 67.44 feet to a calculated point; 4. South 75°21'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet to a calculated point for the southwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being an angle point in the north line of said 206.57 acre tract and also being the southeast corner of Lot 115, Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of record in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southwest corner hereof; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of Lots 108-115, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 18°33'06" West, a distance of 381.17 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for an angle point in east line of said Lot 108, being the southeast corner of a 49.404 acre tract described in Document No. 2013103448 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the east line of said 49.404 acre tract, the following seven (7) courses and distances: North 18°17'49" West, a distance of 212.09 feet to a 2" metal fence post found; 2. North 20°46'27" West, a distance of 758.41 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 20°52'26" West, a distance of 600.26 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 4. North 21 °32'38" West, a distance of 344.62 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 20°28'31" West, a distance of 177.79 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 6. North 20°34'25" West, a distance of 242.27 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 21011'57" West, a distance of 271.02 feet to a 2" metal fence post found for the northeast corner of said 49.404 acre tract, being the southeast corner of Lot 24 said Gabriels-Overlook Section One; EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 13 Page 306 of 516 Page 4 THENCE with the west line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the west line of Lots 7-24 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, the following seven (7) courses and distances: 1. North 22°52'22" West, a distance of 44.49 feet to a 112" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 23°26'14" West, a distance of 229.07 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 3. North 19°27'56" West, a distance of 302.58 feet to a calculated point; 4. North 07°08'47" West, a distance of 459.01 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 5. North 08°55'54" West, a distance of 832.85 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. North 08°25'05" West, a distance of 789.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 7. North 08°49'15" West, a distance of 328.34 feet to a 1/2" rebar found for the northwest corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being the northeast corner of said Lot 7 and also being an angle point in the south line of Lot 6, said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, for the westernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the south line of Lots 5 and 6 of said Gabriels-Overlook Section One, and in part being the south line of said 48.567 acre tract, the following five (5) courses and distances: 1. North 85'03'10" East, a distance of 180.43 feet to a 1/2" rebar found; 2. North 85°01'20" East, a distance of 357.83 feet to a 112" rebar found; 3. North 82°19'06" East, a distance of 113.06 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 4. North 82°13'59" East, a distance of 348.44 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Pate Surveyors" cap found; 5. North 83°06'23" East, a distance of 1129.71 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with cap found near a fence corner post in the north line of said 437.64 acre tract, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot strip and also being the southeast corner of said 2.64 acre tract, bears North 83°06'23" East, a distance of 95.70 feet; EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 13 Page 307 of 516 Page 5 THENCE with the west line of said 2.64 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 21 °33'09" West, a distance of 125.76 feet to a calculated point; 2. North 22'11'19" West, a distance of 670.90 feet to a calculated point; 3. North 22°44'17" West, a distance of 496.30 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set on the south right-of-way line of said State Highway 29, being the northwest corner of said 2.64 acre tract, for the northernmost northwest corner hereof; THENCE with the south right-of-way line of State Highway 29, in part being the north line of said 2.64 acre tract, and in part being the north line said 30 foot strip, with a curve to the right, having a radius of 5679.58 feet, a delta angle of 01'31'13", an arc length of 150.70 feet, and a chord which bears South 83°26'45" East, a distance of 150.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 386.98 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground June 18, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: None. i l L. Easleyistered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 E,.OF' T CAUL L, .UHEY L 4432 �,lss s�, zSUR Page 308 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 13 WEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUD NO. 2 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION OF 386.98 ACRES IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 420, AND THE A.H. PORTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 490, IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF A 30' STRIP (FIRST TRACT) AND A PORTION OF 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT) DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719, AND ALL OF A 2.64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO DON. H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. IN DOCUMENT NO. 2013063744, OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LEGEND O 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) O u 1/2" REBAR WITH "FOREST RPLS #1847" CAP FOUND 00 1/2- REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYING" CAP FOUND OP 1/2" REBAR WITH "PATE SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND ©CAP 1 /2" REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE CAP FOUND ® W 1 /2" REBAR WITH -WALKER 5283" CAP FOUND �u MAG NAIL FOUND 0 SOD NAIL FOUND COTTON SPINDLE FOUND OO 2" METAL FENCE POST FOUND P.O.B. POINT -OF -BEGINNING R.O.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) RECORD INFORMATION CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA I ARC BEARING CHORD Cl 11456.00' 12'39'29" 2530.89' S35-23.40-W 2525.75' C2 5679.58' 1'31'13" 1 150.70' S83-26-45"E 1 150.69' Page 309 of 516 LINE TABLE LINE I BEARING DISTANCE L1 S21'44'59'E 1251.15' L2 S12*17'52W 47.71' L3 S19'23'38"E 1435.72' L4 S2(738'46" E 385.75' L5 S20'36'37"E 210.67' L6 S2(746'45"E 651.86' L7 S20-59.20"E 822.02' L 8 S21'49'53 E 493.25' L9 S21'36'00"E 253.35' L10 S21'35'17'E 184.35' L11 S21'23'05"E 662.69' L12 S21'27'49E 291.87' 1_13 NSa 25'10"W 395.30' L14 S88'03'44W 96.03' L15 S88'03'44W 67.44' L16 S75'21'26W 56.85' L17 N21'35'09' W 1226.40' L18 N18'33'06"W 381.17' L19 N18'17'49W 212.09' L20 N20'46'27 W 758.41' L21 N2(752'26W 60026' L22 N21'32'38"W 344.62' L23 N20'28'31'W 177.79' L24 N20'34'25W I 242.27' L25 N21'11'57W 271.02' L26 N2252'22W 44.49' L27 N23'26'14-W 229.07' L28 N19'27'56"W 302.58' L29 NO708'47"W 459.01' L30 N08-55.54-W 832.85' LINE TABLE LINE BEARING I DISTANCE L31 N08*25'05"W 789.61' L32 N08'49'15W 328.34' L33 N85'0.31O'E 180.43' L34 N85'01'20'E 357.83' L35 N82'19'06'E 113.06' L36 N82'13'59"E I 348.44' L37 N83'06'23"E 1129.71' L38 N21'33'09"W 125.76' L39 N2.Z11'19W 670.90' L40 N22'44'17W 496.30' L41 N8706'23"E 95.70' PLOT DATE 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.LS. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 1 OF 4 EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 13 I " = 500' I �I GABRIELS—OVERLOOK ry SECTION ONE O (S/218) I� La 5 $ a 3 C34 L 9 —f 10 GABRI ELS—OVERLOOK SECTION ONE 11 (S/218) 12M 17 18 19 20 48.567 ACRES ERIK CHARLES MAUND 2010 TRUST (201309102-2) DESCRIBED IN (908/203) G�F rrJ3K 3 JF-) Vr Y A. BS'S. 5 386.98 ACRES 2.64 AC. I J DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (2013063744) 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3 I arra Ghat rn 30' STRIP FIRST TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) 3J�JVr Y 491.95 ACRES HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) PLOT DATE 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 2 OF 4 EXHIBIT A Page 310 of 516 Page 7 of 13 20 21 22 23 cc GABRIELS—OVERLOOK SECTION ONE 124 (S/218) --------L— 2" METAL l to -q- cl M 49.404 ACRES N ROBERT C. RALEY o & CHERRY S. RALEY (2013103448) o 2' METAL O cl MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 2 386.98 ACRES 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 Page 311 of 516 LO V —i 1 " = 500' �URV Y ASS. r/JJ J 491.95 ACRES > HENRY B. TIPPIE (570/483) Q ct c� 00 J O J O J PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034—MUD PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO_ 10124500 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 3 OF 4 EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 13 J2* METAL GABRIELS- OVERLOOK 1 SECTION ONE - - - - (S/218) 112 n J 113 114 115 cr � W ............5�.....� 206.57 ACRES CITY OF GEORGETOWN (20131 15216) A 3r MATCH UNE SEE SHEET 3 METAL (" J r r \ A FisK 1) _I V Y r /� JriLJd '� . J 386.98 ACRES 1 " = 500' @ N A . H, � OR f'r R 5URVr,Y J 437.64 ACRES SECOND TRACT DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. (9901719) - - I ORG� r G� r-) A � L/ 491.95 ACRES 121.45 ACRES-.,_ TEXAS PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION (2008092676) A///.�c JRO-110V 3✓R-)V J Jr JA r V. �LI/ r J I HENRY B. TIPPIE �1 l l�/JT4 j\I . L 0 , E I (570/483) SURVEY r4J3. r � � J� -------r---------- - - - - ......... ................... ................................... I 80.9157 ACRES SOUTr! FORfC "'( AVP RANCH, LTD SAN GABRIEL RIVED (2011081794) I is R111 r I S14 UL E3 ;/��V y PLOT DATE: 06/24/2014 JJ t DRAWING NO.: 143-034-MUD 34 �l 5 r PROJECT NO.: 1 NO. 101 r 53,J. J:�J T.B.P_L.S. FIRM N0. 10124500 00 DRAWN BY: PLE SHEET 4 OF 4 EXHIBIT A Page 312 of 516 Page 9 of 13 Ghrr Professional Land Surveying, Inc. Surveying and Mapping 50.07 ACRES GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 5, BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420 WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS Office: 512-443-1724 Fax: 512-389-0943 3500 McCall Lane Austin, Texas 78744 A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SAID 50.07 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set for the southeast corner of said 437.64 acre tract, being in the west line of a 491.95 acre tract described in a deed conveyed to Henry B. Tippie, recorded in Volume 570, Page 483 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas, and also being an angle point in the north line of an 80.9157 acre tract described in a deed to AVP Ranch, Ltd., recorded in Document No. 2011081794 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, for the southeast corner hereof; THENCE South 69°12'32" West, with the south line of said 437.64 acre tract, in part being the north line of said 80.9157 acre tract, and in part being the north line of a 121.45 acre tract described in in a deed to Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, recorded in Document No. 2008092676 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, a distance of 1589.92 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set in the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River; THENCE with the centerline of the south fork of the San Gabriel River, continuing with the south line of said 437.64 acre bract, being the north line of said 121.45 acre tract, the following two (2) courses and distances: North 78003'51" West, a distance of 516.95 feet to a 112" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. North 83025'10" West, a distance of 76.65 feet to a calculated point, from which a 1/2" rebar found at an angle point in the west line of said 437,64 acre tract, being in the east line of Lot 110 of Gabriels-Overlook Section One, a subdivision of recorded in Cabinet S, Slide 218 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, bears North 83025'10" West, a distance of 395.30 feet, South 88003'44" West, a EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 13 Page 313 of 516 Page 2 distance of 163.47 feet, South 75021'26" West, a distance of 56.85 feet and North 21 °35'09" West, a distance of 1226.40 feet; THENCE crossing said 437.64 acres with a curve to the right, having a radius of 11456.00 feet, a delta angle of 12°39'29", an arc length of 2530.89 feet, and a chord which bears North 35°28'40" East, a distance of 2525.75 feet to a calculated point in the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set bears North 21027'49" West, a distance of 291.87 feet; THENCE with the east line of said 437.64 acre tract, being the west line of said 491.95 acre tract, the following six (6) courses and distances: 1. South 21027'49" East, a distance of 512.56 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 2. South 21°21'24" East, a distance of 253.32 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 3. South 21°22'39" East, a distance of 235.69 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 4. South 20046'39" East, a distance of 134.61 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 5. South 21000'53" East, a distance of 338.11 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set; 6. South 09027'57" East, a distance of 103.90 feet to a 1/2" rebar with "Chaparral" cap set 7. Solrth 21"00'01" East, a distance of 141.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 50.07 acres of land, more or less. Surveyed on the ground April 25, 2014. Bearing basis: The Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Central Zone, based on GPS solutions from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) On-line Positioning User Service (OPUS). Attachments: Drawing 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN. Paul L. Easley PAUL„ L GASL E` .........�l Registered Professional Land Surveyor � 4432a State of Texas No.4432 T.X.B.P.L.S. Firm No. 10124500 SUR EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 13 Page 314 of 516 108 \\ I GRErN r��F rjsfl< 0 1 W r r� �J rr J 2 O r�.rl. �Jl� 1 -� S VF'Y'Y � i � VD-1 Q �J�lJ 109 A ILO ri5�, 1.90 1" = 500' J 110 �lo� GABRIELS- 3 i 2 OVERLOOK 111 O SECTION ONE - - - - lot v CD J 491.95 ACRES ZD (S/218) 112 ��� �0� HENRY B. TIPPIE O I CO ^ `` 570 483 - - N 437.64 ACRES 0 - _113 N SECOND TRACT- - DON H. L vELY FAMILY LO 114 l o o..• `•...... PARTNERSHIP, LTD. J _ I Z.._..•.. (9901719) ` 50.07 ACRES I APPROX. 2,180,914 SQ. FT. o CEDAR � 1 z 115 I L13 ETJ TRANSFER I.......00 A/l,41\l/ J V E JRVr � rl)S. fr 0 P.O.B. 206.57 ACRES I "" •.. SOUTH FORK CITY OF 1 ... _SAN GABRIEL RIVER �� ............................................................._..... GEORGETOWN- - -...................................... I.................................................I.................. (2013115216) I / .............. Irl-...I........... - - r�Sr� ��/J, �FIJJ����J I 80.9157 ACRES-_----- AVP RANCH, LTD :J 1 / f-`J 1 / I (2011081794) f/ 121.45 ACRES 1 r TEXAS PARKS AND lam} r A J 3, 35 RECREATION FOUNDATION 1 (2008092676) I 31/1 J/ 3 A - 53 S. 5_9 DRAWING NO.: 143-034-ETJ-GEORGETOWN wl SHEET 2 OF 2 Q �l�na� Page 315 of 516 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 13 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION OF 50.07 ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 2,180,914 SQ. FT.), IN THE GREENLEAF FISK SURVEY ASBSTRACT NO. 5, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE BARTHOLEMEW MANLOVE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 420, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PORTION OF A 437.64 ACRE TRACT (SECOND TRACT), DESCRIBED IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD., DATED DECEMBER 29, 1998 AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 9901719 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S69'12'32"W 1589.92' L2 N78'03'51 "W 516.95' 1_3 N83'25' 10"W 76.65' L4 S21'27'49"E 512.56' L5 S21*21'24"E 253.32' L6 S21.22'39"E 235.69' L7 S20'46'39"E 134.61' L8 S21'00'53"E 338.11' L9 S09'27'57"E 103.90' L10 S21'00'01 "E 141.14' L1 1 N83'25' 10"W 395.30' L12 S88'03'44"W 163.47' L13 S75'21'26"W 56.85' L14 N 18'33'06"W 381.17' L15 N21'27'49"W 291.87' BEARING BASIS: THE TEXAS COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (NAD83), CENTRAL ZONE, BASED ON GPS SOLUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) ON—LINE POSITIONING USER SERVICE (OPUS) ATTACHMENTS: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION 143-034—ETJ—GEORGETOWN I FGFmn 0 1/2" REBAR FOUND (OR AS NOTED) ® D 1 /2" REBAR WITH "DIAMOND SURVEYORS" CAP FOUND O 1/2" REBAR WITH "CHAPARRAL" CAP SET O FENCE POST FOUND (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED) A CALCULATED POINT CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA ARC BEARING CHORD Cl 1 11456.00' 12-39'29" 1 2530.89' N35-28'40"E 2525.75' OF erF PAUL L. EASLEY 4432 92O.o s s �l /,s0/_,10 PLOT DATE: 12/17/2014 DRAWING NO.: 143-034— ETJ —GEORGETOWN PROJECT NO.: 143-034 T.B.P.L.S. FIRM NO. 10124500 DRAWN BY: CWW SHEET 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT A Page 316 of 516 Page 12 of 13 Exhibit "B" Land — Sketch 21 Page 317 of 516 A LAND TITLE SURVEY OF 437.Od ACRE; (APPROXIMATELY 10.097,G76 SQ. FT.), BEING ALL OP A DO' MIP AND ALI, OF A 4.17.04 IX111""11l.•cw.iin h'..bw.in.t'e,uq,nJ an_n„n_Apnnn.n, L+uwLw.y Tn.+'.N. . t ,.+Aye ACRE TRACT, BOTH CONVEYED TO DON H. LIVELY FAMILY PARTNl:RNITIP. LTD., IN A VLCIAL WNULV.\•TY DEED DATED DECEMBER w,•w,nu„w+,. c�nn Mi:u v,.: n. t.n,l• .,y A, 190D A.\D RECORDED IN DOCL•MP,NT NO. DD01710 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF WILIIAMSON COUNTY. TM.4 AND ALL OF A C.Od ACRE TKA CONVEYED TO DON II. LIVELY FAMILY PART,TMUIP. LTD., IN A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED DATED JULY 0, 2013 ^ T •� AND RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. COI:RIO]7N OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS 0/ WILCIAMSON COUNTY. TEXAS. J' Ll 110 _ l � z � w,n •. ,n,,. — .ten � sw_rt ww wr+n m> u,w ..wn _— � — _vro 2 .u.r anr.n r,u _ — _ T,n•.— Q�,.�.,,1��ip- I ice, A pdr , ems+%�'s_� i.n .w.*uy�.rr � it w�v,.r—'i h/ , ♦ l Exhibit "C" Delivery Point 22 Page 319 of 516 0 / 0 tr / u p C_ r o o u, .ItJM d10Nd1S3 LL 0) E w N AC dl13j . � o / a R HOLLOW RD r a a -a / a � N 0 / a / y 6 � � 4 0 4 r 4• 1 � e 1 LR1 �y tdh W P�GH�SRO � a g 4 3 rf dp v J � ooa a / 0 ` , O�°, 1 ea b0y0ly 0 2 � a a > r e / e J � s + i z � O w / ` � c Once snVINOIN Z, r NOvr - N?gp b7 / m F- �iy _yin ,6ti fo Exhibit "D" Interim Connection Infrastructure The Interim Connection Infrastructure shall consist of the construction of a twelve -inch (12") water transmission line that will connect to Georgetown's existing 24-inch water transmission line adjacent to the Land along Highway 29, together with a meter vault, meter and all related appurtenances. 23 Page 321 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve the Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $88,500.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Under Task Order BGE-11-001, the City contracted with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to produce an updated Project Schematic, Preliminary Engineering Design to the 30% level of effort, including Rights -of -Way Documents, for the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project from Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard and Final Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the portion from Quail Valley Drive to South of La Conterra Drive. Discussions with the City of Round Rock and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have resulted in a partnering effort with direction from both agencies to complete the Final PS&E for the entire length; this change was included in the First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001. Relocations of City - owned utilities were determined to be eligible for reimbursement by TxDOT were included in the Second Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001. Design modifications and items negotiated during rights -of -way acquisition we included in the Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001. Subsequent to the completion of the project design, and somewhat as 1) a result of the development of an apartment complex along the roadway; 2) the closing of the Rabbit Hill School and 3) the adoption of the Overall Transportation Plan (which includes a new collector level roadway being added as a future intersection with FM 1460), it has been determined inclusion of this intersection, in conjunction with the location of the driveway for the apartments is in the long-term best interest of the City. The design work will require realignment the horizontal and vertical geometrics of the proposed FM 1460 and coordination with adjacent land owners regarding access and environmental impacts. The costs of this additional design efforts is $88,500.00 and these revisions will result in the issuance of Change Order No. 2 for the project. Attached is the Proposed Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $88,500.00. GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the April 10, 2015, GTAB Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the work effort required for these modifications, concurs with the man-hours required and recommends approval of the proposed Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $88,500.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for the City of Georgetown's portion is available from the 2008 Roadway Improvement Bond Program as approved by the voters. The Financial Worksheet is attached. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Page 322 of 516 ATTACHMENTS: 4th Amendment - Financial Worksheet Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 Page 323 of 516 CIP - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: FM 1460 1CC 3/30/2015 4th Amendment Engineering (PS&E) Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval EGP 3/30/15 Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval La'Ke4/20/15 TOTAL BUDGET 2,500,000.00 Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting 350,500.00 88,500.00 439,000.00 18% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 350,500.00 88,500.00 439,000.00 ULNLKAL LLUULK ALA;UUN I NUMI3tK 120-9-0880-90-088 FM 1460 Approved uy rsuaget 2,500,000.00 Total Budget 1 2,500,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 1 2,500,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 2,300,207.00 88,500.00 2,388,707.00 96% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 2,300,207.00 1 88,500.00 1 2,388,707.00 Comments: Page 324 of 516 EXHIBIT K, consisting of 10 pages, referred to in and part of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition dated March 13, 2015. Fourth Amendment to Task Order No. BGE-11-001 Specific Project Data: A. Title: FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Proiect (Quail Valley Drive to University Blvd.) B. Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) to include an intersection at FM 1460 and Driveway #3. Proiect will include review and update of Environmental Document to include design changes. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: 11CC D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 120-9-0880-90-088 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-715-MSA 2. Nature of Amendment ✓ Additional Services to be performed by Engineer ✓ Modifications to Services of Engineer ✓ Modifications to Payment to Engineer ✓ Modifications to Time(s) for rendering Services 3. Description of Modifications A. Engineer shall perform the following Additional Services: • See attached Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services B. The Scope of Services currently authorized to be performed by Engineer in accordance with the Task Order and previous Amendments, if any, is modified as follows: • To include services as described in Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services C. For the Additional Services or the modifications to Services set forth above, Owner shall pay Engineer the following additional or modified compensation: • Shown in Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule Georgetown — Revised 3.11 Page 1 of 3 Attachment 1(Modifications) to Exhibit K — Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 325 of 516 Category of Services Compensation Method Basic Services A. Lump Sum (Additional Preliminary Engineering, and Development of an Additional 100% Plans) TOTAL COMPENSATION.• Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services $88, 500.00 $88, 500.00 D. The schedule for rendering Services is modified as follows:, is modified as follows: • Shown in Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule 4. Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services Exhibit "C" — Project Schedule Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule Terms and Conditions: Owner and Engineer hereby agree to modify the above -referenced Task Order as set forth in this Amendment. All provisions of the Agreement and the Task Order not modified by this or previous Amendments remain in effect. The Effective Date of this Task Order Amendment is OWNER: City of Georgetown Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Georgetown — Revised 3.11 2015. ENGINEER: Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. By: JiP.� Name: Wesley t. Jase , P.E. Title: Director, Transportation Systems Engineer License or Firm's Certificate No. State of: Date: 03,30 /101 S F-1046 Texas APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator Page 2 of 3 Attachment 1 (Modifications) to Exhibit K — Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 326 of 516 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § CORPORATE § ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this _ 0 ay of Y_( 0_x LA,, . , 2015, Wesley E. Jasek personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] Notary Public My Commission Expires: .SAY "k LAURA K BALLIS My Commission Expires September 26, 2016 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 Page 3 of 3 Attachment 1 (Modifications) to Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 327 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #4 Services to be Provided by the Engineer EXHIBIT A Schedule of Engineer's Services SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (Function Code 120) (Cox McLain & BGE) Revise the supplemental environmental assessment to include the intersection at FM 1460 and Driveway #3. Hold meetings with affected property owners (approximately 5 meetings). Create exhibits to facilitate meetings and to include in the supplemental environmental assessment document. Coordinate with TxDOT and respond to FHWA and agency review comments. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Function Code 145) (BGE) Attend and document additional design and review meetings with the City and TxDOT. Attend meetings with land owners at the request of the City and TxDOT. Coordinate with subconsultant. ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS (Function Code 160) (BGE) Update appropriate sheets to incorporate the proposed intersection at Driveway #3 including revising profile, alignment and edge of pavement. Update typical sections, horizontal alignment data sheets, plan and profile sheets, intersection layout sheets, removal sheets and design cross -sections. DRAINAGE (Function Code 161) (BGE) Review and revise ditch design and calculations. Provide parallel drainage design for new intersection. Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) Update water quality calculations with new impervious cover from addition of proposed intersection at Driveway #3. Update the WPAP as required with revised calculations and descriptions. Submit updated WPAP to TCEQ and respond to comments as needed. The use of structural best management practices (BMPs) is not anticipated and not included in this scope of services. The required design of structural BMPs would be considered additional services. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SW3P) Update the SW3P, to conform to the revised Traffic Control Plan. Submit revised SW3P sheets as part of WPAP to TCEQ. SIGNING, MARKINGS, ILLUMINATION AND SIGNALIZATION (Function Code 162) (BGE) Signing and Pavement Markings Update Signing and Pavement Markings to incorporate the proposed intersection at Driveway #3. Update summary of small signs and sign details for changes due to addition of proposed intersection at Driveway #3. Signal Warrant Attend a meeting with the TxDOT and the City of Georgetown to discuss the data collection efforts and the possible installation of a traffic signal at the intersection at Driveway #3. Conduct a field review of the proposed intersection location, obtain photographs and prepare an future Page 328 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #4 Services to be Provided by the Engineer conditions diagram. Manually record weekday AM and PM Peak period turning movement counts (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) at the following intersections: 1. FM 1460 and Driveway #3 Obtain crash records for the study location from the City, County and/or TxDOT for the most recent thirty-six (36) month period, analyze the data and prepare a summary of the crashes. Review the Georgetown travel demand model and determine the future traffic projections at this intersection and develop opening year projections. Following the guidelines published in the latest edition of the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, perform (i) a traffic signal warrant analysis based on existing conditions and (ii) a traffic signal warrant analysis based on projected volumes for intersection opening year. Prepare and submit three (3) copies of the signal warrant technical memorandum to the City of Georgetown and TxDOT for review and comment. The memo will summarize the findings of the traffic counts, field investigation and warrant analysis at this location. Included within the report will be an existing and future condition diagram, field photographs and traffic count data (existing and projected). Respond to comments received from both the City and TxDOT and submit two (2) final copies to each the City of Georgetown and TxDOT. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN (Function Code 163) (BGE) Traffic Control Plans Update Traffic Control plan sheets for addition of proposed intersection at Driveway #3. Update Construction Sequence Narrative. Cost Estimate, General Notes and Specifications Update cost estimate and summary sheets. Review and update General Notes to include additional applicable notes. Update construction time estimate. Page 329 of 516 Exhibit "C" FM 1460 Project 1361d101NOV11 104AUG15 I -34d Preliminary Engineering Notice to Proceed 0 01NOV11 31 OCT11 -31d 0 CITY Kickoff Meeting id 01NOV11 01NOV11 -31d 0 ALL Perform Survey 28d 01NOV11 28NOV11 1299d 0 INLAND Collect Geotech Data 42d 01NOV11 12DEC11 1285d 0 TERRACON Collect SUE data 56d 01NOV11 27DEC11 1271d 0 HALFF Utilitv Coordination 227d 01NOV11 13SEP12 720d 0 HALFF Collect ROW Data and update Riqht of Way Map 50d 01NOV11 20DEC11 1277d 0 INLAND Establish design criteria and goals id 02NOV11 02NOV11 -31d 0 BGE/TXD/CG Review existing data and plans 10d 03NOV11 12NOV11 -31d 0 ALL Schematic Re-evaluation 15d 03NOV11 23NOV11 -23d 0 BGE Pre p are Design Summary Report 10d I 24NOV11 103DEC11 I -32di 0 BGE PS&E p Early start point V Early finish point � Early bar ♦ Late finish point Total float bar Progress bar Summary bar ♦ Progress point ♦ Critical point • Summary point ♦ Start milestone point ♦ Finish milestone point Page 330 of 516 Project ce to Proceed off Meeting Perform Survey Collect Geotech Collect SUE dat: 3V Utility Coordinat Collect ROW Dal iisilipblish design criteria and goals 4ftiew existing data and plans matic Re-evaluation are Design Summary Report LiW*n Construction Documents V Environmental R are Preliminary Roadway Plan Sheets Prepare Hydrolo Prepare Concep ♦ Prepare Prelimir are Preliminary Signal Layouts • Prepare Prelimir i *-Pftare Preliminary Estimate ♦-Submit 30% Plans to TxDOT —*16M Plan Review by TxDOT/City are 60% Roadway Plans V Prepare 60% Dra L' V Prepare 60% TCI FM 1460 L'- Prepare 60%Sto -V-V�,�are 60%Sign/PM/Signal Plans I ► 11I v Prepare 60% Hik V-"are 60% Estimate ♦-Stomit 60% Plans to TxDOT = Plan Review by TxDOT/City — -' /bare 90% Roadway Plan ' 3F Prepare 90% Dra ►r^ _ ��'- 3F Prepare 90%TC 3F Prepare 90% Sto -V-P�,[ are 90%Sign/PM/Signal Plans I ►��' 3F Prepare 90% Hik Prepare 90% Util mare 90% Estimate *knit 90% Plans to TxDOT ---I" Plan Review by TxDOT/City �I mare 100 % Roadway Plans Prepare 100% Prepare 100%T ►^ Prepare Project Prepare 100% St 3PAIpare 100%Sign/PM/Signal Plans Prepare 100% Hil Prepare 100% Ut 3 PAMiare 100% Estimate (final) ♦emit 100% Plans to TxDOT -V-4=6 Plan Review by TxDOT District �' [yrporate 100% Review Comments �\ ew Requests for Info Revised Constructs Submit Revised Data date 01NOV11 Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc Finish date 04AUG15 01NOV11 I Nnmhar/Varsinn Page number 1A I FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule FOURTH AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER BGE-11-001 FC DESCRIPTION BGE BGE Hours Cox McLain TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES $ - 0 $ - $ - FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL $ 10,316.00 74 $ 15,012.06 $ 25,328.06 FC 130 ROW $ 1,866.00 17 $ - $ 1,866.00 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY $ - 0 $ - FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS $ 23,716.00 216 $ 23,716.00 FC 161 DRAINAGE $ 7,972.00 74 $ 7,972.00 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION $ 10,096.00 84 $ 10,096.00 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY $ 14,424.00 118 $ 14,424.00 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION (16 MON $ 4,200.00 28 $ 4,200.00 FC 170 STRUCTURES $ - 0 $ - DIRECT EXPENSES $ 897.94 $ 897.94 $ 73,487.94 1 611 Is 15,012.06 $ 88,500.00 Page 331 of 516 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule COST SUMMARY -BGE Fourth Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 SR. PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL 12 0 46 0 16 0 0 74 FC 130 ROW 0 0 5 0 12 0 0 17 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 14 0 28 70 104 0 0 216 FC 161 DRAINAGE 0 0 18 46 10 0 0 74 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION 12 0 16 44 12 0 0 84 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY 10 20 8 58 22 0 0 118 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION 16 MONTHS 8 0 16 4 0 0 0 28 FC170 STRUCTURES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL HOURS 56 20 137 222 176 0 0 611 MANHOUR RATES $ 200.00 $ 174.00 $ 138.00 $ 98.00 $ 98.00 $ 87.00 $ 69.00 $ 118.81 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS $ 11,200.00 $ 3,480.00 $ 18,906.00 $ 21,756.00 $ 17,248.00 $ $ $ 72,590.00 EXPENSE COST $ 897.94 TOTAL LABOR AND EXPENSE COSTS TOTAL $ 73,487.94 MANHOUR ESTIMATE - BGE FC DESCRIPTION # OF SHTS SR. PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 1 0 SUBTOTALI 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL 1 Cox McLain Environmental Coordination N/A 0 2 Subconsultant Coordination 4 4 8 3 Create Exhibits for MAPOs N/A 4 8 12 4 Coordinate w/TxDOT for Re -Evaluation N/A 4 12 16 3 Create Exhibits for Environmental Document 6 8 14 6 Perform QC/QA on Environmental Re-Evalulation document N/A 8 8 7 to TxDOT, FHWA and Agency Review comments N/A 4 12 16 _Respond SUBTOTALI 0 12 1 0 1 46 1 0 16 1 0 1 0 1 74 FC 130 ROW 1 BGE - Create ROW Exhibits for Land Owners 5 12 17 SUBTOTALI 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 12 1 0 1 0 1 17 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 1 1 N/A 0 SUBTOTALI 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 1 Geometric Design Revise, Profile, Alignment & EDP for added intersection N/A 2 8 24 8 42 2 Typical Sections New intersection 1 2 4 12 16 34 3 Alignment Data Sheets New intersection 1 2 2 6 10 4 Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets New intersection 2 4 8 16 20 48 5 Intersection Layouts at Driveway #u 1 2 4 12 16 34 6 Removal Layouts at Driveway #3 2 2 2 6 6 16 7 Roadway Cross Sections at Driveway #3 N/A 32 32 SUBTOTALI 7 14 0 28 70 104 0 0 216 FC 161 DRAINAGE 1 Ditch Calculations New intersection N/A 2 6 8 2 Parallel drainage design N/A 2 6 4 12 3 Update Water Quality calculations N/A 4 12 16 4 Update Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) N/A 8 16 24 5 Update Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans SW3P N/A 2 6 6 14 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 18 46 10 0 0 74 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION Addition of Intersection at Driveway #3 1 Update Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts 2 2 6 6 16 2 Update Summary of Small Signs Tabulation 1 2 6 4 13 3 Review/Update Sign Details 1 2 2 5 Signal Warrant 5 Meeting with TxDOT and COG 2 2 4 6 Site Inspection 2 2 4 7 Data Collection/Analysis 4 4 8 Accident Analysis 1 4 5 9 Signal Warrant Study 1 4 6 11 10 Traffic Study 2 8 12 22 Page 332 of 516 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule FC DESCRIPTION # OF SHTS SR. PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT I ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL SUBTOTALI 0 1 12 0 1 16 1 44 1 12 0 1 0 1 84 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY 1 Construction Sequence Narrative 2 4 4 10 2 Update TCP Phasing Overview 2 4 12 4 22 3 Check TCP Typical Sections 2 4 12 4 22 4 TCP Phasing Overview fourphases) 2 4 8 4 18 5 Update TCP Layouts 2 4 12 4 22 6 Update Summary of Quantities Sheets 2 6 8 7 Update Cost Estimate N/A 2 6 8 8 Update General Notes N/A 1 1 9 Update Specifications N/A 1 1 10 Review & Update Standard Drawings 1 2 3 11 Update ConstructionTime Estimate N/A 1 2 3 SUBTOTAL 0 10 20 8 58 22 0 0 118 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT I COORDINATION 16 MONTHS 1 Attend and document additional design & review meetings N/A 4 4 4 12 2 Attend meetings with Land Owners N/A 4 8 12 3 Coordinate additional work with sub -consultants Hal N/A 4 4 SUBTOTALI 0 1 8 1 0 1 16 4 0 0 0 28 FC 170 STRUCTURES 1 0 SUBTOTALI 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 DIRECT EXPENSES ITEM UNIT RATE QUANT TOTAL Mileage MILE $ 0.55 250 $ 137.50 Delivery EA $ 25.00 3 $ 75.00 Copies 1tx17 EA $ 0.20 150 $ 30.00 Copies 8.5x11 EA $ 0.10 50 $ 5.00 Data Collection (Signal Warrant -Traffic Count EA $ 600.00 1 $ 600.00 Miscellaneous EA $ 50.44 1 $ 50.44 $ 897.94 Page 333 of 516 FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule (Cox McLain) COST SUMMARY - COX McLAIN FC 120 - ENVIRONMENTAL LABOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Sr. Env. Scientist II Sr. Env. Scientist I Env. Prof. II Env. Prof. I Env. Staff II Env. Staff I Env. Tech II Env. Tech 1 Totals Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1 Project Management and Communications 2 Supplemental EAUpdate/Comment Response 8 32 0 16 0 0 0 6 0 42 0 32 0 24 0 10 8 162 Total Labor Hours 40 16 0 6 42 32 24 10 170 Billing Rate $138.00 $120.75 $100.63 $86.25 $71.88 $63.25 $51.75 $44.56 Total Labor Cost $5,520 $1,932 $0 $518 $3,019 $2,024 $1,242 $446 $14,700.06 EXPENSES Unit Quantity Rate Total Overnight Delivery Report Reproduction Letter 1 $12.00 Each 20 $15.00 $12 $300 TOTAL Nonlabor Expenses $312 TOTAL COST - CMEC 1 $15,012.06 Page 334 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CPY-15-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction plans, specifications and estimate for the Mays Street Extension from Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road in the amount of $464,330.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: In November 2014, the GTEC Board approved a budget amendment in the amount of $10,638,371.60 authorizing a project to extend Mays Street from Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road. The City engaged the firm of CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, to develop the alignment, preliminary engineering plans and rights -of -way documents for the project. The attached Task Order CPY-15-001 proposes provide professional engineering services to complete final plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) ready for construction in an amount of $464,330.00. Staff has reviewed and concurs with the Scope of Services and Man Hours (fee) required for this work. GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTEC Board for Council approval at the April 15, 2015, GTEC Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order CPY-15-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the final engineering design for construction plans, specifications and estimate for the Mays Street Extension from Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road in the amount of $464,330.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for the Project is available in the amended FY 2014-2015 GTEC budget. The financial analysis worksheet is attached. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Financial Analysis Worksheet Proposed Task Order CPY-15-001 with Attachments Page 335 of 516 GTEC - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: Mays Street Extension Final PS&E 5RI 4/7/2015 Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval La'Ke 4/7/15 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 10,638,371.60 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting (CPY-15-001) 464,330.00 464,330.00 4% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 464,330.00 464,330.00 Approved (atNtKAL LtU(atK AC:C:UUN I NUM11:31--K C:Y tfuaget 400-9-0980-90-060 Mays Street Extension 1 10,638,371.60 Total Budget 1 10,638,371.60 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 10,638,371.60 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 196,000.00 464,330.00 660,330.00 6% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 196,000.00 1 464,330.00 1 660,330.00 Comments: Page 336 of 516 TASK ORDER Task Order Task Order No. CPY-15-001, consisting of 35 pages. In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and CP & Y, Inc. ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition, dated November 20, 2013, ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: Specific Project Data A. Title: Mays Street Extension B. Description: Extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the design for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: 5RI D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 400-9-0980-90-060 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2013-722-MSA 2. Services of Engineer See the attached Scope of Services for a detailed description of services to be provided to Owner by Engineer. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: • Provide timely review comments to plan reviews and project scope changes. • Estimated third -parry fees for this project are listed below, and are included in the compensation amount detailed in Section 5. The City shall be responsible for any permitting and third -party review fees not listed below. o TCEQ WPAP Permit 4. Times for Rendering Services Phase Design Phase Bidding Phase Construction Phase Completion Date 1011115 11/9/15 1/31/17 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form TASK ORDER 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Final Design Lump Sum $430,365.00 (See Attached Fee Proposal) Bidding and Construction Standard Hourly Rate $33, 965.00 Phase (See Attached Fee Proposal) TOTAL COMPENSATION: $464,330.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: A. Prime consultant is CP&Y, Inc. B. Subconsultants include: • The Wallace Group • CORSAIR • SWCA 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None. 8. Attachments: A. Project Location Map. B. Scope of Services C. Owners Responsibilities D. Fee Proposal 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective November 20, 2013. Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form TASK ORDER Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is OWNER: City of Georgetown Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON , 2015. ENGINEER: CP&Y, i By: Name: Jk (J.J.) R`dohms, P.E. Title: C 1 Operating Officer Engineer License or Firm's Certificate No. F-1741 State of. Texas Date: L1 1 )� � �)-U\Z:�— APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator § CORPORATE § ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day of V�'(rti'L l , 2015, James (J.J.) Roohms personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification e the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] RM CHOCH Stets d Texas wne`''res ota Public , 2015 v ommission Expires: Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 —Task Order Form Pa2eaA69 df1516 TASK ORDER Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative For Task Order: Designated Representative For Task Order: Name: Bill Dryden, P.E. Name: Anthony Serda, RE Title: Transportation Engineer Title: P.E., Department Manager Address: P.O. Box 409 Address: 13809 Research Boulevard Georgetown, TX 78627 Suite 300 Austin, TX 78750 E-Mail: Bill.DrydenAgeorgetown.org E-Mail: aserda(a cpyi.com Phone: (512) 930-8096 Phone: (512) 241-2228 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Fax: (512) 349-0727 Georgetown — Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1— Task Order Form oA V Williamson County Project a s o DR m WHITNEY W Project Limit Project Limit &S%20K(N � 0 r GR Z v\E yv rn �R\OGE DR � Q �O v �rG t--A S AO HICK X DR 0 0.25 0.5 N Miles Mays Street Extension Project Location Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road Page 341 of 516 EXHIBIT B City of Georgetown Mays Street Extension Project Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road SCOPE OF SERVICES The Project will extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road in Georgetown. This scope of work consists of preparing the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the preferred alignment determined during the schematic phase. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will be included as shown in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Traffic signal layouts detailing the planned locations for signal and illumination appurtenances will be developed, as well as details for interim improvements to be constructed under this contract. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 mile. Design services for this project will be performed in accordance with the latest available City of Georgetown manuals, guidelines and standards. Where City standards do not exist, appropriate City of Round Rock, TxDOT and/or AASHTO guidelines may be followed. The project shall consist of a 4- lane divided arterial with a raised median, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drainage facilities, water quality, street lighting, traffic signal planning with interim appurtenances and public water / wastewater utility adjustments. The Engineer shall provide the necessary engineering and technical services for the completion of public involvement, permitting including TCEQ, surveying and mapping, identification of utility conflicts, coordination with utility companies, preparation of PS&E, bid phase services and construction phase services. The final major deliverable for this phase will be detailed PS&E suitable for bidding and construction. Agency abbreviations are as follows: City of Georgetown (City), City of Round Rock (CoRR), Williamson County (County), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Texas Department of Transportation Environmental Division (TxDOT-ENV), Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Texas Historical Commission (THC), National Register of Historical Places (NRHP), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The tasks and products are more fully described in the following TASK OUTLINE. TASK OUTLINE I. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES A. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT Exhibit B Refine geometric layout determined during the preliminary engineering phase based on an updated typical section of 112-ft of ROW within the City and 100-ft within CoRR. 2. Update project schematic plots for the project corridor. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 1 of 16 Page 342 of 516 II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The Engineer will perform the necessary public involvement and lead the public open house process. A. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Prepare displays and exhibits for one (1) public meeting. Utilize digital orthophotography obtained from aerial photogrammetry and show alignment alternatives. 2. Prepare one (1) Public Meeting notice for publishing in local papers to notify the public in advance of the established date. Notice will be published 30 days and 10 days prior to the meeting. The Engineer will not be responsible for costs associated with publishing the Public Meeting notice in the local paper. 3. Help conduct one (1) public meeting by setting up the facility, providing personnel to attend and support the open house and meeting and assisting in the technical presentation. 4. Prepare a bound report for the public meeting to include legal notices, photographs of displays and set-ups, handouts distributed at the meeting, attendance sheets, comment sheets, comment cards, letters sent and received, public meeting summary and summary of comments. (3 hard copies and 3 electronic copies each) 5. Support the City and their representative with graphic files, information and updates to aide in their extended public involvement efforts. It is anticipated that the City will be responsible if a project website, newsletter or additional public outreach is required. If additional public involvement is required, such as individual meetings with landowners or a Public Hearing, it will need to be done under a supplemental agreement with an additional scope of work and budget. B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (provided by SWCA) Environmental Reports will be in accordance with 43 Texas Administrative Code JAC) 2.40-2.51, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 771, the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A and Highway Design Operations and Procedures Manual, Part II-B. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) will be prepared for the proposed project. Due to lack of right -of -entry of the Novak Property prior to the ownership change, SWCA was unable to gain access to the property to complete their cultural resources. All work will be completed in accordance with Task Order No. 1. SWCA will conduct an intensive archaeological survey of the 0.27-mile-long segment of the area of potential effects (APE) where ROE had not been previously granted. The field survey will consist of a SWCA archaeologist walking the 0.27-mile segment of previously unsurveyed APE. The survey will be of sufficient intensity to determine the nature, extent, and, if possible, potential significance of any cultural resources located within the proposed project area. Subsurface explorations will be accomplished through shovel testing only and will meet all Texas Historical Commission (THC) survey standards. The placement and quantity of these excavations will depend on the level of disturbance within the proposed project boundary and the nature of the soils, geology, and topography. Exhibit B CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 2of16 Page 343 of 516 Exhibit B If an archaeological site is encountered in the proposed project area during the investigations, it will be explored as much as possible with consideration to land access constraints. All discovered cultural resources sites will be assessed in regards to potential significance so that recommendations can be made for proper management. Additional subsurface investigations will be conducted per THC standards at any discovered sites to define horizontal and vertical boundaries. Appropriate State of Texas Archeological Site Data Forms will be filled out for each site discovered during the investigations. A detailed plan map of each site will be produced and locations will be plotted on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps and relevant project maps. SWCA is proposing a non - collection survey. Artifacts will be tabulated, analyzed, and documented in the field, but not collected. Temporally diagnostic artifacts will be described in detail and photographed in the field. Only especially rare artifacts or discoveries will be collected. This policy will reduce or eliminate curation costs once the fieldwork is concluded. Following the completion of the 0.27-mile intensive survey, SWCA will integrate the results of that survey into the existing cultural resources draft report for the Mays Street Extension Project. Draft copies of the updated report will be submitted to the client for review and comment. Once comments are received, any appropriate edits will be made and a final draft report will be submitted to the THC for review and comment. Once the draft report has been reviewed and accepted by the THC, one copy of the final report will be submitted to the THC and ten copies be sent to various designated libraries around the state, in fulfillment of the permit requirement. SWCA will conduct a TCEQ Geologic Assessment and Karst Survey for the proposed project. The pedestrian survey will be conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 50 feet apart and will cover the entire length of the project. All potential karst features, including depressions, holes and animal burrows will be carefully examined for evidence of subsurface extent. A Geologic Assessment report will be prepared as per the "Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Transition Zones" as written by the TCEQ. This report is intended for inclusion in the Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). In order to comply with US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) karst due -diligence requirements and to provide the data required for participation in the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (WCRHCP), the pedestrian survey will cover the footprint of the proposed project plus 345- feet where right of entry is available. All features identified will be investigated for their potential to be associated with karst invertebrate habitat and for their potential significance to habitat for the Georgetown and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders. Methods will consist primarily of reconnaissance excavation with hand tools and will conform to current USFWS requirements. This scope does not include major excavation activities, cave mapping or endangered karst invertebrate presence/absence surveys which may be required if significant karst features are located. These services are not included at this time and a review of geological data indicates that the project area has a low probability of containing significant features. Results of the karst survey will be incorporated into the previously prepared report addressing threatened and endangered species for submittal to USFWS and/or the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF). A Licensed Professional Geoscientist will also seal the threatened and endangered species survey report to include with WCRHCP participation documents and a Geologic Assessment report to be submitted to the TCEQ with the WPAP. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 3of16 Page 344 of 516 III. SURVEYING SERVICES A. DESIGN SERVICES — (provided by Wallace Group) Additional survey is required based on the selected alignment in relation to the original survey limits as well as needed topographic information for the selected water quality pond location south of the roadway. 1. The Surveyor shall generate, recover and/or verify existing horizontal and vertical project primary control at the site, if any, and reconcile the control to known existing intersecting projects. 2. The Surveyor shall establish or densify additional secondary control as needed for the project to collect data along the length of the project. 3. The Surveyor shall, at their discretion, use 5/8" iron rods with distinguishing caps, cotton spindles (paved areas) or other durable entities for the project control as applicable. 4. The Surveyor shall perform differential leveling through the project control (primary and secondary) to establish or extend vertical control for the project. 5. The project limits for surveying shall be an approx. 112' x 2,200' strip across the Novak Westinghouse Tract and the New Westinghouse Tract, an approx. 225' x 1,250' strip along the west line of the New Westinghouse Tract and an approx. 50' x 600' strip along the east line of the Novak Westinghouse Tract. 6. The Surveyor shall perform a topographic/design survey not less than 50 ft. outside the project limits. The topographic/design survey includes, but is not necessarily limited to: roadway, ditches, major grade breaks, culverts, culvert types and sizes, metal beam guard fence, fences, driveways, mailboxes, traffic and other signs, mailbox turnouts, striping and visible above ground utilities. 7. The Surveyor shall survey drainage structures within limits. 8. The Surveyor shall process the collected information into a 1 foot contour DTM file utilizing Geopak V8i. 9. The Surveyor shall locate trees that 12 inches in diameter and larger and note the size, species and canopy area. 10. Set and mark the proposed Project Centerline, (without grades), at every 100 ft. station and at PIs, PTs and PCs prior to construction (1 time construction staking). 11. Provide information for Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheets for inclusion in the PS&E plans, showing location of survey control points for contractor's use. Sheets are to be signed by a RLPS. 12. All horizontal and vertical control shall be established so as to provide reasonable assurance the control will survive construction actitivities. B. EASEMENT EXHIBITS & LEGALS — (provided by Wallace Group) Exhibit B 1. The Surveyor shall prepare and provide two (2) easement exhibit plats and legal descriptions for acquiring permanent utility easements and temporary construction easements. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 4of16 Page 345 of 516 C. DELIVERABLES — (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall provide: (a) 2D MicroStation V8 planimetric file. (b) 3D MicroStation V8 DTM file including break -lines and 1 foot contours. (c) Geopak V8i DTM (tin) file. (d) ASCII point file. D. ASSUMPTIONS — (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall notify the client prior to performing the work if: (a) The work is delayed due to weather or other circumstances beyond the Surveyor's direct control. E. SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING SURVEY — Exhibit B The project consists of providing Quality Level (QL)-B on the existing underground utilities. QL-D and QL-C services are inclusive with the QL-B product. The scope of these services is defined as follows: 1. Definitions: (a) Quality Service Level D (QL-D) — This level of service is inclusive of QL-B and consists of collecting existing utility record information (as -built) from utility purveyors, municipalities, counties and other agency suppliers within the area of investigation. (b) Quality Service Level C (QL-C) —This level of service is inclusive of QL-B and consists of surveying and obtaining accurate horizontal position of visible utility surface features associated with the project area to be designated by the Engineer. (c) Quality Service Level B (QL-B Designating Services) — Designate is to indicate, by marking with paint, the presence and approximate horizontal location of subsurface utilities using geophysical prospecting techniques, including, without limitations, electromagnetic, sonic and acoustical techniques. (d) Quality Service Level A (QL-A Locating (Test Hole) Services) — Locating services is to locate the accurate horizontal and vertical position of subsurface utilities by excavating a test hole using vacuum excavation techniques and equipment that is non-destructive to utilities. 2. The Engineer will develop a contact list of the affected utility owners in the project corridor. 3. The Engineer will contact each utility company and meet individually with them to review their assumed utility locations developed from the SUE process. 4. The Engineer will prepare scroll plots indicating researched utility locations to provide to utility companies / owners for their review and comment. 5. The Engineer will not be responsible for any omission of utility information that is not obtainable via electromagnetic, sonic or acoustical designating services. Non-metallic piping, inactive electric and/or communication lines may or may not be found by electromagnetic, sonic or acoustical designating practices. The Engineer (or his subconsultants) do not warrant and/or guarantee that all existing utilities will be found. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 5of16 Page 346 of 516 6. Coordinate and review subconsultant work activities and submittals. 7. Quality Level A subsurface utilities are not included in this scope and if necessary will be developed under a supplemental agreement. F. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS- (provided by CORSAIR) 1. Soil Borings — Geotechnical Engineering (a) Perform up to four (4) borings at locations specified by the Engineer. (i) It is anticipated four (4) retaining wall borings near Westinghouse Road will be needed. Walls are expected to be 12-ft in height and standard MSE walls. Retaining wall borings (approximately 30 feet in soil or 5 feet in rock) will be used to investigate subsurface stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. 2. Laboratory testing will be performed to determine the soil's plasticity and strength characteristics, including: (a) Unified Soil Classification System (b) Atterberg Limits Tests (c) Sieve Analysis (d) Moisture Content (e) Unconfined Compressive Strength (f) UU Triaxial Tests 3. The Engineer will coordinate with locator service to determine existing utility locations. G. MSE Retaining wall Design Memo 1. A geotechnical design memo consisting of location of borings performed and boring logs along with a memo report with analyses for global and external stability results will be provided. IV. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATE The engineer will develop and submit Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) plans at levels consistent with and required for City 30%, 60%, 90% and final 100% plans. A. DATA COLLECTION Exhibit B 1. Coordinate with the City, CoRR, County and TxDOT to obtain pertinent project information. Meet periodically with project stakeholders to gather information and provide updated project information. 2. Perform field investigations of the project. These investigations will include site visits to the project site and adjacent area to gather pertinent information relating to the corridor. Field investigations will also be performed to review individual property locations and the impacts of the alignment to that property. 3. Develop a photo inventory of the project site for reference in project meetings, discussions with stakeholders and discussions with developers, etc., during the project development. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 6of16 Page 347 of 516 4. Gather and review information from the City, CoRR, County and TxDOT including existing plans, project files, existing geometric conditions, existing typical sections, existing drainage facilities, existing bridge and culvert data and traffic data. 5. Gather and review related existing and draft studies, including feasibility, route, traffic signal, corridor and MIS/Environmental studies in the project vicinity. Meet with City personnel to discuss future plans potentially impacting the project. 6. Gather and review information from the Developers including existing plans, project files, existing geometric conditions, existing typical sections, existing drainage facilities, existing bridge and culvert data and traffic data. B. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Exhibit B I. Data Collection The Engineer will collect and review the existing hydrologic and hydraulic analyses including FEMA Flood insurance maps, existing models and corresponding studies relating to the project from FEMA and the City. The Engineer will conduct field investigations to observe existing channel characteristics and bridge/culvert structures. The Engineer will assess channel and overbank roughness values using field notes and photographs. 2. Hydrology and Exterior Drainage Area Maps If existing hydrologic models cannot be found in the FEMA library or from City records, then the Engineer will define drainage area boundaries and characteristics and existing conditions hydrology for the cross -culvert. Peak runoff will be computed in accordance with the City of Georgetown's Drainage Criteria Manual. 3. Hydraulics The Engineer will analyze existing and proposed conditions hydraulics within the project limits using HY-8 and Geopak Drainage. The Engineer will summarize the relative impacts to computed water surface elevations between existing and proposed conditions. The Engineer will design the proposed improvements such that there will be no significant impacts to adjacent properties. Bridge modeling and analysis is not included in this scope. 4. Hydraulic Data Sheets The Engineer will prepare culvert hydraulic data sheets. 5. Hydraulic Report The Engineer will prepare preliminary and final hydraulic reports summarizing the methodology used in the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. Results will be tabulated and presented. 6. Preparation of Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and/or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) applications or submittals are not included in this work authorization. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 7of16 Page 348 of 516 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND UTILITY COORDINATION 1. Right of Way (a) The Engineer will determine and provide the limits of the proposed ROW to the Surveyor for preparation of Right -of -Way plans for the water quality/detention pond. 2. Utility Adjustments The Engineer will utilize subsurface utility data throughout the design process. A good faith effort will be made to accommodate existing utility locations. Utility conflicts will be identified during the design process to allow for relocation. The Engineer will coordinate with utility providers on necessary relocations. The Engineer shall include the existing utility information in the plans. (a) Identify utility conflicts. The Engineer will provide plan and profiles, culvert layouts, cross sections and other sheets as required to utility providers to assist them in any relocation efforts. (b) The Engineer will be present for one (1) utility relocation meeting. D. ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS Exhibit B 1. Miscellaneous Plans (a) A project title sheet will be prepared as required for the construction plans. (b) A detailed index of sheets will be prepared that shows each sheets location in the plan set, as well as its corresponding sheet number. This index will be updated throughout the submittal process to allow for easier reference during the review process. (c) Project layout sheets will be prepared at a scale of I"=200' that clearly indicates the limits of the entire project. (d) Benchmark layout sheets will be completed at a scale of I"=200' that clearly indicate the benchmark locations and associated control information. These sheets will later be sealed by a RPLS for submittal. 2. Roadway Plans & Geometry (a) All plan sheets shall be prepared in an I I" x 17" format; normal scale shall be 1"=50 ft. horizontal and 1"=4 ft. vertical, unless otherwise stated herein. (b) Existing typical sections will be completed depicting the existing conditions of the project roadway. (c) Proposed typical sections will be completed depicting the improvements to Mays Street, Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road. The proposed typical sections are intended to show the general cross -sectional configuration of the roadway in logical sections and will be prepared to the appropriate level of detail and limits to convey that general information. (d) A horizontal alignment data sheet will be prepared depicting the horizontal geometric information for the project roadways to be included in the construction plan set. (e) Mays Street plan and profile sheets shall be completed depicting the proposed construction. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 8of16 Page 349 of 516 (f) Supplemental grading sheets will be prepared at a scale of 1"=50' for areas of the project that require additional grading information for construction or review purposes. (g) The Engineer shall provide plan sheets of removals at a scale of 1"=100'. Removal sheets shall clearly identify the disposition of roadway appurtenances. Description of removal items, including material, shall be included. 3. Grading and Details (a) Design cross sections will be completed at 50-foot stations and other locations as necessary for the determination of cut and fill quantities. These sections will also be used to further refine the design vertical geometry. Cut and fill quantities determined from the design cross sections will be shown on the plan/profile sheets. Cross sections will not be developed as a deliverable for phased TCP. (b) The Engineer shall complete intersection layouts for two (2) intersections. The intersection layouts will include the design of the pavement and drainage layouts, as needed, as well as other pertinent details not discernable elsewhere in the plans. (c) Driveway details will be prepared for each driveway along the project corridor. When possible these driveways will be defined in a tabular format. Non -typical driveways may require special details. (d) The Engineer will develop driveway profiles as required for the project. These profiles will be developed to show driveway tie -back slopes, as well as limits for the contractor's information. (e) Miscellaneous roadway detail sheets will be developed for the project. The sheets will depict details required that are not defined in standard detail sheets. City (or CoRR) standards will be used for the project development. E. DRAINAGE DESIGN Exhibit B 1. Storm Sewer Design (a) Exterior drainage area maps will be finalized at a scale reasonable to fit drainage areas on an 11x17 plan sheet. These maps will depict drainage area boundaries and flow direction arrows. Each area will be identified with a unique number to be used to find run-off information from the calculation sheets. (b) Interior drainage area maps will be finalized at a scale of 1"=100'. These maps will depict drainage area boundaries and flow direction arrows. Each area will be identified and cross-referenced to the calculation sheets. (c) Run-off to each inlet and inlet hydraulic information will be calculated in accordance with City of Georgetown Drainage Criteria Manual and shown on the run-off and inlet computation sheets in an approved format. (d) Storm sewers will be analyzed and computations will be prepared for the storm sewer design using approved design software. (e) Drainage plan and profile sheets will be completed depicting locations of inlets, manholes, storm sewers, culverts, utilities, channel improvements and ditch locations and flowlines as required. These sheets will be prepared at a scale of 1"=50'. Storm sewer profiles will be prepared at a scale of 1"=50' H and 1"=4' V. Storm sewer profiles will show pipe size and type, slope, existing and proposed ground lines above the pipe, pertinent hydraulic information and locations and sizes of inlets and junctions. (f) Lateral profile sheets will be developed for the project storm sewer systems. These sheets will be developed at a scale of 1 "=50' H and 1 "=4' V. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 9of16 Page 350 of 516 Exhibit B (g) The Engineer will prepare a tabular ditch layout schedule that depicts pertinent information about the roadside ditch geometry and design. This table will include station, offset, flow line elevation, ditch lining material, as well as ditch bottom width. The tables will be shown on the drainage plan sheets. (h) The Engineer shall provide drainage design details for "non-standard" drainage structures in instances where they are not covered by City (or CoRR) standard details cannot be utilized. The Engineer shall use City (or CoRR) standard details where practical. (i) The Engineer will identify areas within the construction of the storm sewer and culvert construction that will require trench protection or special shoring. 2. Culverts — (provided by CP&Y, Inc) (a) Culvert layout sheets will be developed for the five (5) culverts not covered by storm sewer plan and profiles. These sheets will be developed at a scale of 1"=50' H and 1"=4' V. Approximate Culvert Stations are: (i) Sta. 113+50, 129+50, 134+00, 142+50, 160+00 3. Water Quality and Detention (a) Water Quality — TCEQ Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) (i) Obtain and review available data on the existing and proposed roadway design and site geology, including engineering plans. An initial field visit will be conducted in order to inspect the site and identify and evaluate potential locations for water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). Pollutant Removal Calculations and Design of Water Quality BMPs. Coordinate with private developers for potential combined facilities. (ii) Engineer will perform the required total suspended solids (TSS) pollutant load calculations and choose the effective permanent BMPs for water quality treatment — a sand filter is assumed for the selected BMP. Best Management Practices will be designed according to the TCEQ's technical guidance manual Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules — Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (RG-348, July 2005) and addenda. (iii)Prepare WPAP Document and Coordination with TCEQ. This task includes the completion of the WPAP application forms for submittal to TCEQ (iv)Conduct a pre -submittal consultation meeting with TCEQ. (b) Storm Water Detention (i) The Engineer will calculate the increase in peak discharge and runoff volume associated with the proposed improvements in accordance with the City of Georgetown Drainage Criteria Manual. (ii) The Engineer will determine the incoming splitter box required dimensions for flow diversion between the sand filter and detention pond. (iii)The Engineer will determine the required outlet structure for the detention pond to regulate the storm water runoff so the proposed runoff does not exceed the existing runoff peak discharges. (c) Plan Development (i) Develop a Pond Layout at a scale suitable to show the entire facility on one (1) sheet. It is anticipated this sheet will be developed at a scale of 1"=50' H. The pond layout shall show the overall dimensions of the pond, grading details, location of hydraulic structures, section cut lines, access locations, hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the pond CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 10 of 16 Page 351 of 516 (ii) Develop appropriate Sand Filter Details. Details to include sand bed structure/profile, chamber divider details and cross section (iii)Develop structural details for the incoming splitter box. (iv)Develop structural details for the single outlet structure. 4. SW3P and Erosion Control (a) Erosion control plans will be prepared for the length of project. Temporary storm water management devices will be needed to minimize the sediment runoff during construction of this project. The anticipated design components to be utilized on this project are silt fence, sand bags, rock filter dams, sediment traps and construction exits. One temporary erosion control plan depicting the entire project will be developed with notes that indicate that the contractor is responsible for phasing the devices along with the construction sequencing. Permanent erosion control measures will be included on these sheets as well. (b) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) will be prepared for this job in accordance with TCEQ regulations. (c) Erosion control details will be prepared for any related items that are not covered by City of Austin standard details. F. SIGNING, MARKINGS AND SIGNALIZATION Exhibit B 1. Signing and Pavement Markings (a) Signing and Pavement marking layouts will be prepared at a scale of 1"=100'. Road signs and markings will be shown all on the same plan sheet. Any additional sheets for signing/pavement markings will be included in a future supplemental agreement. These layouts will depict striping and delineator type and location, as well as MBGF location, lengths and end treatments. Each sign will have a corresponding number for cross-reference to the sign summaries. (b) Pavement marking details will be prepared for non-standard conditions. (c) Detail sheets for small signs will be prepared for non-standard signs. This sheet is intended to show the overall dimensions of the signs by determining letter size and spacing. Details will not be to scale. 2. Signalization — Traffic signal design and plans will be prepared and consist of developing a preliminary design for the installation of mast arm signal at the intersections of Mays Street and Westinghouse Road and Mays Street and Teravista Parkway/Bass Pro Drive for the accommodation of signals to be designed and installed at a future date. Design to accommodate the proposed intersection improvements. (a) The preliminary signal plans will be prepared at a scale of 1 "=40' and will indicate existing conditions, existing utilities and proposed roadway improvements. Plans will include location of signal pole foundations, conduit and ground boxes to be done under this work authorization. (b) The Engineer will coordinate with the City in identifying future power source and conduit runs. (c) In the event that additional signals are warranted by the City, the design and plan production for those facilities will be addressed through a supplemental agreement to this work authorization. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 11 of 16 Page 352 of 516 G. MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY Exhibit B Retaining Walls (a) The Engineer will investigate each wall location and determine what the most suitable wall type is for each application. The anticipated wall type is MSE. (b) The Engineer will provide a location plan of all walls at a scale of 1"=100'. The intent is to show the location of all walls in plan including the wall designation and beginning and ending stations. (c) The Engineer shall prepare retaining wall layouts at a max scale of 1"=50'. The layouts will show plan and profile views of the retaining wall. It is assumed that two (2) retaining walls will be necessary for the project. (d) Non-proprietary wall designs (i.e., Tie -back, soil nailed, drill shaft) are not included in this scope of work. 2. Traffic Control Plan (a) Traffic control typical sections will be prepared for each stage of the construction sequence to clearly delineate the position of the existing traffic with respect to the proposed construction. Temporary traffic barriers and pavement markings will also be shown and dimensioned, as needed. (b) The Engineer will prepare 1 "=400' plan layouts of all advance warning signs for the intersections of Mays Street at Teravista Parkway/Bass Pro Drive and Mays Street at Westinghouse Road. (c) A detailed narrative for the sequence of construction and traffic control general notes will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and incorporation into the plans. The narrative will include a phase -by -phase, step-by-step written account of the proposed activities throughout the construction process. This is intended to be a narrative account of the activities shown in the traffic control plan layouts. (d) Detailed traffic control plans will be prepared at a scale of 1"=100'. These plans will be developed based on the City's approval of the conceptual plans developed at the schematic design level. This plan will describe the maintenance of traffic and sequence of work for each phase of the proposed construction. Detour alignments, location of work areas, temporary paving, temporary shoring, signing, barricades and other details will be required to describe the traffic control plan. The Engineer will be required to ensure that proper drainage can be maintained during each phase of construction. (e) Traffic control details will be developed for items not covered by City of Georgetown standard details. (f) An Engineer's opinion of construction schedule will be computed in order to determine an approximate duration for each of the phases of construction. The schedule will be prepared using Microsoft Project. 3. Illumination (a) The Engineer will design continuous and safety lighting along the project corridor. The lighting will be shown on illumination layouts. (b) The Engineer shall provide electrical circuit plans and details for the roadway lighting systems within the project limits. (c) The Engineer will coordinate with the City in identifying power sources, conduit runs and will show them on the project plans. The Engineer shall identify CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 12 of 16 Page 353 of 516 Exhibit B potential overhead utility conflicts and coordinate with the State and the utility company to help resolve the conflicts. 4. Quantities Quantities will be tabulated for each of the following and as necessary to bid this project: (a) Traffic Control (per each phase) (b) Earthwork (c) Roadway (d) Retaining Walls (e) Removal (f) Drainage/Water Quality (g) Culverts (h) Small / Large Signs (i) Pavement Markings 0) Signals (k) Illumination (1) Utilities (m)Erosion Control and SW3P 5. Summary Sheets Quantities that are calculated will be tabulated on individual summary sheets for inclusion in the construction plan set: (a) Traffic Control (per each phase) (b) Earthwork (c) Roadway (d) Retaining Walls (e) Removal (f) Drainage/Water Quality (g) Culverts (h) Small / Large Signs (i) Pavement Markings 0) Signals (k) Illumination (1) Utilities 6. Erosion Control and SW3P Standards, Specifications and Estimate (a) The Engineer shall utilize City (or CoRR) standards for the project as appropriate. Standards that require modification will be corrected and sealed by the Engineer. All other standards will have their title blocks filled out with the applicable project data and printed for inclusion in the final plan set. (b) A tabulation of applicable specifications, special specifications and special provisions will be prepared for submission with the final PS&E package. (c) The Engineer will review general notes provided by the City for applicability to the project. The Engineer will mark-up a set and return it to the City for their inclusion in the final plan set. The Engineer will work with the City to complete the basis of estimate prior to beginning quantity calculations. (d) An opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared at the 30%, 90% and prior to final PS&E submittal and supplied to the City in Microsoft Excel format. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 13 of 16 Page 354 of 516 (e) Opinion of probable cost will be broken out for the sections of roadway in the City and CoRR (f) Opinion of probable cost will also be broken out for each bridge class structure. 7. Bid Documents (a) The Engineer will prepare contract bid documents and proposals and make them available in electronic format (PDF) as well as hard copy for the City's use. V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1. Create and submit monthly invoices suitable for payment by the City. 2. Prepare monthly progress reports for submission with the monthly invoices to provide a written account of the progress made to date on the project. 3. Meet formally at once a month with the City to review project progress. 4. Prepare project meeting summaries for applicable meetings during the project development process. 5. Meet with property owners, stakeholders, the City, CoRR, County and TxDOT staff as required through the project development process. 6. Establish and attend periodic progress meetings (approximately every two months) with other agencies, including TxDOT, as necessary. 7. The Engineer will have internal meetings with the consultant design team every two weeks for the length of the project. It is assumed that these meetings will include key personnel from each discipline and will be required to discuss and resolve project issues. 8. The Engineer shall prepare and execute contracts with sub -consultants, monitor sub - consultants activities (staff and schedule), complete monthly reports and review and recommend approval of sub -consultant invoices. 9. The Engineer will review and coordinate work of sub -consultants to ensure quality products are delivered to the County. The Engineer will also be responsible for the consistency and coordination between plans developed by each sub -consultant on the design team. 10. The Engineer shall formally close out the project and perform a documented archive process. VI. BID AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES A. BID PHASE SERVICES Exhibit B 1. The Engineer will coordinate with the City, CoRR, County and TxDOT in all aspects of the Bid Package including but not limited to answering prospective bidder questions and preparing addenda as necessary. 2. The Engineer will attend one pre -bid meeting. 3. The Engineer will assist the City at contract bid opening. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 14 of 16 Page 355 of 516 4. The Engineer will tabulate the bids, research low bidder and make a recommendation of award to the City. B. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES l . Create and submit monthly invoices suitable for payment by the City. 2. The Engineer shall attend the pre -construction meeting. 3. The Engineer shall attend up to six (6) construction meetings as requested by the City. 4. The Engineer shall provide Construction Support Services at the written request of the City project manager. The written request shall include a description of the work requested, a mutually agreed upon time limit, a mutually agreed upon level of effort, a defined deliverable and any special instructions for coordination and submittal. These services shall include, but are not limited to the following: • Responding to requests for information (RFIs) • Providing redesign as directed by the City for Change orders and documentation • Other project related tasks in support of the City during construction The Engineer shall provide minor redesign as requested by the City project manager. In the event that revisions are requested and the work is considered to be additional to that set forth on the original contract or scopes of work, the Engineer shall prepare a budget and a schedule for the additional work requested. The Engineer shall not commence work on a task prior to receiving written approval by the City. 5. Review the Application for Payment and supporting documentation submitted by the Contractor, recommended to the Owner the amount that the Contractor is to be paid on monthly estimates as required by the Construction Contract. A fourteen (14) month construction schedule is assumed. Such recommendation for payment to the Contractor shall not be a representation that the Engineer: (a) has made exhaustive or continuous on -site observations to check the quality or quantity of the Contractor's work, (b) has reviewed construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (c) has reviewed copies of invoices received from subcontractors, material suppliers or other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment, (d) has ascertained how or for what purpose the Contractor has used monies previously paid by the Owner or (e) has determined that title to any of the Contractor's work has passed to the Owner free and clear of any liens, claims, security interests or encumbrances. 6. Upon notice from the Contractor that the Contractor's work is ready for its intended use, conduct, in company with the Owner's representative and the Contractor, an inspection to determine if the work is substantially complete. If the Owner and the Engineer consider the work substantially complete, issue a certificate of substantial completion containing a list of required tasks for the Contractor to complete prior to issuance of certificate of final completion. Conduct a final inspection together with the Owner and the Contractor to determine if the work has reached final completion so that the Engineer may recommend final payment to the Contractor. If appropriate, make recommendations to the Owner for final payment to the Contractor. Exhibit B CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 15 of 16 Page 356 of 516 Exhibit B 7. Provide shop drawing review. The shop drawing submittals will be limited to those specifically called for in the construction contract documents (plans, standard specifications, special provisions to the standard specifications and special specifications). Such reviews will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 8. An engineer's concurrence letter and 22"04" record drawings (one Mylar copy and a digital copy on CD) will be submitted to the Public Works Department. The Engineer and Contractor shall verify that all final revisions and changes have been made to the Mylar and digital copy prior to City submittal. Record construction drawings shall be provided to the City in digital format as AutoCAD ". dwg" files, MicroStation "Agn" files or ESRI ".shp" files as well as PDF ".pdf' on CD. The set of Record Drawings, which are stamped by the Engineer, shall be the sole documents relied upon by the Owner as a reflection of the condition of the project location after completion of the construction activities. CP&Y, Inc. 4/2/2015 16 of 16 Page 357 of 516 EXHIBIT C OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES Mays Street Extension Project Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road City Provided Information or Work: The City shall provide the following services or perform the following work: A. Provide any existing data the Owner has on file concerning the Project, if available. B. Provide any available as -built plans for the existing detention pond, overhead and underground utility lines and other appurtenances within the project limits, if available. C. Assist the Engineer, as necessary, in obtaining any required data and information from the State, County, neighboring cities, developers and/or other franchise utility companies. D. Give prompt written notice to Engineer whenever the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope or timing of Engineer's services. E. Meet on an as needed basis to answer questions, provide guidance and offer comment. Any documents or information related to the Work/Services provided by the City to the Professional, including, without limitation, engineering studies, maps, reports, filed data, notes, plans, diagrams, sketches, or maps (the "Information") is and shall remain the property of the City, and Professional shall have no ownership or other interest in same. The Professional shall deliver to the City, if requested, a written itemized receipt for the Information, and shall be responsible for its safe keeping and shall return it to the City, upon request, in as good condition as when received, normal wear and tear excepted. TASK ORDER Page 358 of 516 4/2/2015 Attachment C - Owners Responsibilities.docx Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Task Description Total Cost TOTAL LABOR COSTS I. Route Design Schematic Layout Development $ 5,196.00 1. Route Design Subtotal $ 5,196.00 II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public Involvement $ 4,781.00 11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Subtotal $ 4,781.00 III. Social, Economic and Enviornmental Studies Cultural Resources SWCA $ 2,690.00 111U-11/. Social, Economic and Enviornmentai Studies Subtotal $ 2,690.00 IV. Surveying Services Design Survey The Wallace Group $ 6,400.00 Geotechnical Borings Corsair $ 11,590.00 IV. Surveying Services Subtotal $ 17,990.00 V. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE Data Collection $ 8,599.00 Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis $ 19,664.00 Right of way and Utility Coordination $ 6,665.00 Roadway Design Controls $ 101,685.00 Drainage Design $ 122,380.00 Signing, Markings and Si nalization $ 19,800.00 Miscellaneous Roadway $ 86,045.00 V. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE Subtotal $ 364,838.00 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management (8 months) $ 27,370.00 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subtotal $ 27,370.00 VI. Bid and Construction Phase Services Bid Phase $ 4,650.00 Construction Phase $ 29,315.00 VI. Bid and Construction Phase Services Subtotal $ 33,965.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES $ 451,634.00 CP&Y EXPENSES $ 7,500.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 464,330.00 SUMMARY of Cost breakdown by Firm CP&Y The Wallace Group Corsair SWCA $ 443,650.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 11,590.00 $ 2,690.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx SUMMARY Page 359 of 516 Page 1 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist Senior Environ S ecialist CADD Operator Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $128.00 $100.00 L Route Design A Schematic Layout Development Al Refine geometric layout for typical section changes 2 1 2 8 1 - 1 161 8 1 1 - 1 2 - 4 27 $ 3,195.00 A2 Update schematic layout 1 17 $ 2,001.00 OTAL 44 $ 5,196.00 HOURS SUB -TOTALS 3 1 2 1 8 24 1 1 2 4 44 $ 5,196.00 SUBTOTAL $ 675.00 1 $ 320.00 1 $ 960.00 $ 2,400.00 1 $ 185.00 1 $ 256.00 $ 400.00 1 $5,196.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx I. Route Design Page 360 of 516 Page 2 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist Senior Environ S ecialist GIS Specialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $128.00 $72.00 11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A Public Involvement Al Prepare displays for one 1public meeting 1 - 2 6 - 4 13 $ 1,353.00 A2 Prepare 1 public meeting notice - 1 - - 4 - 5 $ 672.00 A3 Help staff and conduct one 1public meeting 4 4 4 - 2 14 $ 2,084.00 A4 Prepare bound report of public meeting notes - - - 4 - 4 $ 512.00 A5 Support the City with additional information for public meeting - 1 - - - - 1 $ 160.00 II. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT- SUBTOTAL 37 $ 4,781.00 HOURS SUB -TOTALS �7 SUBTOTAL 1 51 6 1 21 10 1 01 8 61 37 $ 4,781.00 $ 1,125.00 1 $ 960.00 1 $ 240.00 $ 1,000.00 1 $ $ 1,024.00 $ 432.001 1 $4,781.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx II. Public Involvement Page 361 of 516 Page 3 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist Senior Environ Specialist GIS Specialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $128.00 $72.00 Ill. Social, Economic and Enviornmental Studies A Cultural Resources Al Provided by SWCA III. Social, Economic and Enviornmental Studies- SUBTOTAL HOURS SUB -TOTALS SUBTOTAL $ 1 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx III. Social ENV Page 362 of 516 Page 4 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description AL Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist Senior Environ Specialist GIS Specialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $128.00 $72.00 IV. Surveyinp Services A Design Services Al Provided by The Wallace Group $ Easemetn Exhibits & Le als $ Al Provided b The Wallace Grou $ GeotechnicalInvestigations $ Al Provided by CORSAIR LF IV. Surve in Services- SUBTOTAL - - - - - $ 0 $ HOURS SUB -TOTALS SUBTOTAL 1 01 0 1 01 0 1 01 0 01 0$ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $0.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx IV. Surveying Services Page 363 of 516 Page 5 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist CADD Operator Senior Environ S ecialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 1 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $100.00 $128.00 V. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE A Data Collection Al Coordinate with Cit /Count/TxDOT 4 - - 4 $ 900.00 A2 Site visits of project corridor and surrounding areas - 4 8 12 $ 1,440.00 A3 Develop photo inventory of project site for coordination - - 2 2 $ 200.00 A4 Gather and review existing information from the City 1 4 4 9 $ 1,265.00 A5 Gather and review existing information from the TxDOT - - - - - - $ - A6 Gather and review existing information from the Developers 8 2 6 12 2 3 33 $ 4,794.00 60 $ 8,599.00 B Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis B1 Collect and review existing FEMA models - 1 1 - 2 $ 285.00 B2 Define Drainage Areas 2 4 8 2 4 20 $ 2,482.00 B3 Finalize existing and proposed conditions for Culvert Crossings 4 24 40 4 - - 72 $ 8,260.00 B4 Prepare culvert hydraulic data sheets - 2 1 4 12 - 2 4 24 $ 2,712.00 B5 Finalize hydraulic reports 1 2 1 12 32 4 - - 51 $ 5,925.00 169 $ 19,664.00 Right of way and Utility Coordination C1 Right of Wa - - - - - a Provide limits of proposed ROW and/or easements 1 2 8 1 12 $ 1,445.00 C2 Utilities - - - - a Identify utility conflicts 4 8 16 4 32 $ 4,180.00 b Attend one (1) Utility Coordination Meeting - 4 4 - 8 $ 1,040.00 52 $ 6,665.00 D Roadway Design Controls D1 Miscellaneous Plans - - - - a Title Sheet 1 1 2 4 8$ 945.00 b Index of Sheets 1 1 4 4 10 $ 1,145.00 c Project Layout 1"=200' 2 5 8 4 19 $ 2,250.00 d Benchmark Layout 1"=200' 2 2 12 8 24 $ 2,690.00 D2 Roadway Plans & Geometry - - - $ - a Existing Typical Sections - 2 12 16 30 $ 3,040.00 b Proposed Typical Sections 2 8 32 18 60 $ 6,410.00 c Horizontal Data Sheet 2 - 4 8 2 16 $ 1,930.00 d Plan & Profile Sheets 1"=50' Hand 1"=4' V 8 16 48 180 48 300 $ 32,920.00 e Supplemental Grading Sheets 1"=50' 2 8 12 40 - 62 $ 7,170.00 f Removal Sheets 1"=100' - 4 4 12 4 24 $ 2,720.00 D3 Grading and Details - - - - $ - a 50-ft cross sections 4 12 40 120 - 176 $ 19,620.00 b Intersection layouts 2 locations 1"=40' 2 4 24 40 12 82 $ 9,170.00 c Driveway Details - 2 4 12 6 24 $ 2,600.00 d Driveway Profiles 1 2 4 16 - 23 $ 2,625.00 e Miscellaneous roadway details 2 4 8 32 12 58 $ 6,450.00 916 $ 101,685.00 E Drainage Design E1 Storm Sewer Design - - - - a Exterior Drainage Areas 1 2 - 20 2 - 25 $ 2,915.00 b Interior Drainage Areas 2 - 12 60 - 16 90 $ 9,490.00 c Run-off Calculations 1 2 8 40 - 51 $ 5,505.00 d Analyze Storm Sewer Systems 1 4 8 48 - 61 $ 6,625.00 e Drainage Plan & Profile 1"=50' H and 1"=4' V 2 12 16 48 12 90 $ 10,290.00 At-t;;rhfnWwPlrl?rqlJJvA Ylry 2 4 6 32 12 56 $ 6,210.00 V. PS&E Page 364 of 516 Page 6 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist CADD Operator Senior Environ Specialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $100.00 $128.00 Tabular Ditch Tables - 1 - 6 1 8 $ 860.00 h Drainage Details for non-standard structures 2 4 12 24 - 42 $ 4,930.00 i Identify trench excavation protection locations - 1 4 8 2 15 $ 1,640.00 E2 Culverts - - - - $ - a Culvert Layout sheets 1"=40' H and 1"=10' V 5 Crossings) 1 4 12 80 16 113 $ 11,905.00 E3 Water Quality & Detention - - - $ - a Water Quality - - - - i Obtain and review existing BMP data. Cooridnate with developer 1 8 4 10 - 23 $ 2,985.00 ii Calculate TSS requirements 1 2 12 24 1 40 $ 4,570.00 iii Prepare WPAP documents for submittal 2 4 8 32 - 46 $ 5,250.00 iv Conduct re -submittal meeting with TCEQ 4 - - 4 - 8 $ 1,300.00 b Storm Water Detention - - $ - i Calculate increase in peak discharges 1 4 - 16 4 25 $ 3,205.00 ii Calculate/determines iltter box dimensions 1 2 12 24 2 41 $ 4,755.00 iii Calculate/determine outlet structure dimensions 2 2 16 36 4 60 $ 7,030.00 c Plan Development - - - - $ - i Pond Layout sheet 1"=40' H and 1"=10' V 1 4 12 30 2 8 57 $ 6,475.00 ii Sand Filter details - - 4 16 - 8 28 $ 2,880.00 iii Structural details - s litter box 1 2 8 24 12 47 $ 5,105.00 iv Structural details - outlet structure 1 2 8 24 12 47 $ 5,105.00 E4 SW3P and Erosion Control - - - $ - a Develop final erosion control plans 4 8 24 60 96 $ 11,060.00 b Develop SW3P plan 2 2 16 20 $ 2,290.00 1,089 $ 122,380.00 F Signing, Markings and Signalization F1 Site visits of project corridor and surrounding areas - - - - a Signing & Pavement marking layouts 1"=100' 4 6 12 48 12 82 $ 9,300.00 b Pavement Marking Details 2 4 - 8 - 14 $ 1,890.00 c Detail sheets for small signs 2 - 4 10 2 18 $ 2,130.00 F2 Si nalization - - - - - a Preliminary Signal Layout 8 36 16 60 $ 6,480.00 174 $ 19,800.00 G Miscellaneous Roadway G1 Retaining Walls - - - - a Investigate wall locations and determine wall type 2 6 2 - 10 $ 1,610.00 b Retaining Wall Location Ma - 1 - 8 4 13 $ 1,360.00 c Retaining Wall Plan and Profile 1"=50' H 1"=10' V 2 4 8 40 16 70 $ 7,650.00 G2 Traffic Control Plan - - - - a TCP Typicals 1 1 - 8 10 $ 1,185.00 b TCP Advanced Warning Layouts 1"=400' - 2 6 8 $ 920.00 c TCP Narrative for Sequence of Construction 1 6 - - 7 $ 1,185.00 d TCP Plans Sheets 1"=100' - 2 4 8 14 $ 1,600.00 e TCP Details - Non Standard - 1 - 2 3 $ 360.00 f TCP Construction Schedule Developed 2 8 4 - 14 $ 2,210.00 G3 Illumination - - - - $ - a Continuous Lighting Layouts 8 8 12 60 24 112 $ 12,920.00 b Electrical Circuit Plans and Details - 4 4 16 4 28 $ 3,120.00 c Utility Coordination, Power Source Coordination 4 - - - - 4 $ 900.00 G4 Quantities - $ - a Traffic Control - - 2 4 6 $ 640.00 b Earthwork 2 2 2 12 18 $ 2,210.00 c Roadway 1 2 4 16 23 $ 2,625.00 1 4 12 17 $ 1,840.00 V. PS&E Page 365 of 516 Page 7 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Chief Hydrologist CADD Operator Senior Environ Specialist Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $185.00 $100.00 $128.00 e Removal - - 2 10 12 $ 1,240.00 f Drainage 2 2 4 24 32 $ 3,650.00 Culverts - 1 4 10 15 $ 1,640.00 h Signs - 1 2 10 13 $ 1,400.00 i Pavement Markings 1 2 4 10 17 $ 2,025.00 Signals 1 2 2 8 13 $ 1,585.00 k Illumination - 1 4 12 17 $ 1,840.00 1 Utilities - - $ - m Erosion Control and SW3P 2 4 10 16 $ 1,800.00 G5 Summary Sheets - - - $ - a Traffic Control 1 2 3 $ 425.00 b Earthwork - - 2 2 $ 200.00 c Roadway 1 1 2 4$ 585.00 d Retaining Walls - 1 2 3 $ 360.00 e Removal - - 2 2 $ 200.00 f Drainage 1 1 2 4$ 585.00 Culverts - 1 2 3 $ 360.00 h Signs - - 2 2 $ 200.00 i Pavement Markings 1 - 2 3$ 425.00 Signals - 1 2 3 $ 360.00 k Illumination 1 1 2 4$ 585.00 1 Utilities - - 2 2 $ 200.00 m Erosion Control and SW3P 2 2 $ 200.00 G6 Standards, Specifications and Estimate - - - $ - a Download, Prepare and Modify Standards 1 2 16 19 $ 2,145.00 b Specifications 4 24 8 36 $ 5,540.00 c General Notes 4 16 4 24 $ 3,860.00 d Preliminary Cost Estimate and item price identification 8 12 - 16 36 $ 5,320.00 G7 Prepare contract bid documents and proposals 4 8 20 24 - 56 $ 6,980.00 V. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE- SUBTOTAL HOURS SUB -TOTALS SUBTOTAL 1 142 1 303 1 511 1 1,843 1 28 1 322 1 11 700 3,160 $ 86,045.00 $ 364,838.00 1 $ 31,950.00 1 $ 48,480.00 1 $ 61,320.00 1 $ 184,300.00 1 $ 5,180.00 1 $ 32,200.00 1 $ 1,408.00 $364,838.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx V. PS&E Page 366 of 516 Page 8 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Lump Sum Basis Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Admin / Clerical Environ Manager Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $185.00 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A Project Management (8 months) Al Create and submit monthly invoices 4 - - 8 12 $ 1,540.00 A2 Prepare monthly progress reports 4 4 - - 8 $ 1,540.00 A3 Meet with City twice a month 12 - 12 - 24 $ 4,140.00 A4 Prepare project meeting summaries 4 12 - 16 $ 2,340.00 A5 Meet with property owners, stakeholders, and City 12 - 12 - 24 $ 4,140.00 A6 Meet with other Stakeholders every 2 months 8 8 - - - 16 $ 3,080.00 A7 Internal Design Team Meetings 12 12 10 10 - 44 $ 6,820.00 A8 Monitor and Review Sub -consultant invoices 4 - - - 2 6 $ 1,060.00 A9 Coordinate and Review Sub -consultant work products 4 2 - - 6 $ 1,220.00 A10 Project Closeout 2 - 6 - 4 - 12 $ 1,490.00 ANAGEMENT-SUBTOT 168 $ 27,370.00 HOURS SUB -TOTALS SUBTOTAL 66 26 52 10 14 0 168 $ 27,370.00 1 $ 14,850.00 $ 4,160.00 1 $ 6,240.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,120.00 $ $ 27,370.An Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx V. Project Management Page 367 of 516 Page 9 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Admin / Clerical Environ Manager Total Labor Hours Total Direct Labor Costs $225.00 $160.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $185.00 Vl. Bid and Construction Phase Services A Bid Phase Al Coordinate with City during Bid Package 4 - 6 5 - 15 $ 2,120.00 A2 Attend pre -bid meeting 3 3 - - - 6 $ 1,155.00 A3 Assist City at contract bid opening 2 - - 1 - 3 $ 550.00 A4 Tabulate bids, research low bidder, make recommendation 1 - 6 - 7 $ 825.00 31 $ 4,650.00 B Construction Phase B1 Create and submit monthly invoices (14 months) 4 - - 10 14 $ 1,700.00 B2 Prepare for and attend pre -construction meeting 4 - - 2 - 6 $ 1,100.00 B3 Attend up to 6 construction meetings 8 24 - - - 32 $ 5,640.00 B4 Respond to RFI's, make updates as agreed 8 12 - 40 - 60 $ 7,720.00 B5 Review Contractor Pay Applications (14 months) 7 28 - - - 35 $ 6,055.00 B6 Conduct final site visit for substanial completion 6 4 - 2 - 12 $ 2,190.00 B7 Provide shop drawing review 1 2 - 12 - 15 $ 1,745.00 B8 Develop as-builts 1 4 - 40 - - 45 $ 4,865.00 VI. Bid and Construction Phase Services- SUBTOTAL 205 1 $ 29,315.00 HOURS SUB -TOTALS SUBTOTAL 1 49 1 77 1 61 108 1 101 01 250 $ 35,665.00 1 $ 11,025.00 1 $ 12,320.00 1 $ 720.00 1 $ 10,800.00 1 $ 800.00 $ 1 J$ 35,665.00 Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx VI. Bid and Construction Phase Page 368 of 516 Page 10 of 11 Attachment D - CP&Y, INC. Mays Street Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Expense Item in &��& Unit Unit Cost A Amount Total Cost CADD Plotting sf $ 1.50 136 $ 204.00 M lar Plots 22x34 As-Builts If $ 6.00 0 $ Digital Ortho Plotting If $ 2.00 50 $ 100.00 11" X 17" M lar sheet $ 1.00 $ - 8 1/2" X 11" B/W Paper Copies sheet $ 0.10 50 $ 5.00 11" X 17" BAN Paper Copies sheet $ 0.15 2,250 $ 337.50 8 1/2" X 11" Color Paper Copies sheet $ 1.00 20 $ 20.00 11" X 17" Color Paper Copies sheet $ 1.80 20 $ 36.00 Fax Copies sheet $ 0.10 $ - Film and Development roll $ 8.00 $ - 4 X 6 Digital Color Prints picture $ 0.50 $ - Oversized Digital Color Prints picture $ 50.00 $ - Standard Postage letter $ 0.44 24 $ 10.56 Express Mail Standard each $ 15.00 4 $ 60.00 Express Mail Oversized each $ 30.00 $ - Deliveries each $ 25.00 4 $ 100.00 Airfare each $ 200.00 $ - Rental Car day $ 80.00 $ Lodging day $ 85.00 $ - Meals day $ 36.00 $ - Mileage mile $ 0.550 100 $ 55.00 GPS Rental day $ 80.000 $ - HazMat Database Search each $ 250.000 $ - TCEQ WPAP Fee each $ 6,500.000 1 $ 6,500.00 Miscellaneous Project Related Expenses NA at cost NA $ 71.94 SUBTOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES Attachment D- Fee Proposal-DRAFT.xlsx EXPENSES Page 369 of 516 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT D - The Wallace Group Mays Street Extension Project - Surveying A. Additional Design Services -Survey Approx. 112' x 2,200' strip across Novak Tract & New Westinghouse Tract, Survey approx. 225' x 1,250' strip along west line of New Westinghouse Tract, Survey approx. 50' x 600' strip along east line of Novak Tract. Lump Sum Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Fee Topo/Cross-Sections at 100' intervals and pick up all grade breaks, locate trees 12" or greater, and locate all visible utilities & improvements Field 20 125 2500 Process & Check Field Data Sury Tech 2 85 170 Draft & Contour Data Sury Tech 8 85 680 PM/QC RPLS 4 130 520 $3,870 $3,900 B. Easement Exhibits & Legal Descriptions Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Prepare individual easement exhibit plats and legal descriptions for use in acquiring permanent utility easements and temporary construction easements. We will prepare two (2) easement instruments at $1,250/each $2,500 Total $2,500 Total Contract $6,400 Page 370 of 516 Attachment D Cost Estimate-Geotechnical Services Mays Street Extension Project Teravista to Westinghouse Georgetown, Texas Lump Sum Fee 1. Soil Borings No. Cost Total Retaining Walls 4 $ 540.00 $ 2,160.00 Mob 2 $ 325.00 $ 650.00 Sub. Tot. $ 2,810.00 2. Laboratory Testings No. Cost Total Atters 8 $ 70.00 $ 560.00 -200 8 $ 30.00 $ 240.00 Unconfined Compressive Strength 4 $ 65.00 $ 260.00 UU Triax Compression 1 2 $ 1,250.00 $ 2,500.00 Sub Tot. $ 3,560.00 4. Engineering Hours Billing Rate Total Principal Engineer 4 $ 150.00 $ 600.00 Sr. Engineer 20 $ 105.00 $ 2,100.00 EIT 28 $ 90.00 $ 2,520.00 Sub. Total $ 5,220.00 Total $ 11,590.00 Attachment D - Fee Proposal - CORSAIR.xlsx Geotechnical Services Page 1of1 Page 371 of 516 Attachment D Cost Estimate-SWCA Mays Street Extension Project Teravista to Westinghouse Georgetown, Texas Task I — Cultural Resources Survey $ 870.00 Task II — Cultural Resources Report $ 830.00 Task III —Karst Survey and Reporting $ 990.00 TOTAL COST $ 2,690.00 Attachment D - Fee Proposal - SWCA.docx Page 1 of 1 Page 372 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTAB and GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve the Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $350,500.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director ITEM SUMMARY: Under Task Order BGE-11-001, the City contracted with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to produce an updated Project Schematic, Preliminary Engineering Design to the 30% level of effort, including Rights -of -Way Documents, for the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project from Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard and Final Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the portion from Quail Valley Drive to South of La Conterra Drive. Discussions with the City of Round Rock and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have resulted in a partnering effort with direction from both agencies to complete the Final PS&E for the entire length; this change was included in the First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001. Further, relocations of City -owned utilities were determined to be eligible for reimbursement by TxDOT were included in the Second Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001. During the design of the project, the hydraulic analyses determined that two significant modifications were required in the drainage design — an additional barrel would be required for the West Fork of Smith Branch and the culvert intended for Smith Branch would actually require upsizing to a bridge. The Engineer has completed the design of the project with these modifications. Also, during acquisition of rights -of -way, several modifications were required as a result of those negotiations (additional driveways and additional widths of proposed driveways). Last, additional development along the corridor has required modifications in the design for adequate accommodations. The costs of this additional design efforts is $350,500.00 and some of the revisions will result in the issuance of Change Order No. 1 for the project. Attached is the Proposed Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11- 001 with Brown & Gay Engineers related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $350,500.00. BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB & GTEC Boards for Council approval at their April 2015 Board meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the work effort required for these modifications, concurs with the man-hours required and recommends approval of the Proposed Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of $350,500.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding is available from the 2008 Roadway Improvement Bond Program, as approved by the voters, and GTEC FM 1460 ROW and Utility Relocations surplus funds. The Financial Worksheet is attached. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer Page 373 of 516 ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 3 - Financial Worksheet Proposed 3rd Amendment to BGE-11-001 Page 374 of 516 CIP - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet PROJECT No. DATE: PROJECT NAME: FM 1460 1CC 3/30/2015 3rd Amendment Engineering (PS&E) Division/Department: Transportation Services Director Approval EGP 3/30/15 Prepared By: Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Finance Approval La'Ke4/20/15 TOTAL BUDGET 4,000,000.00 Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B) (A + B) Budget Consulting 350,500.00 350,500.00 9% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 350,500.00 350,500.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 120-9-0880-90-088 FM 1460 2,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 400-9-0980-90-061 FM 1460 Widening Total Budget 1 4,000,000.001 350,5060-0 Bond Funding GTEC Funding TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 4,000,000.00 (includes all previous yrs.) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 2,388,707.00 350,500.00 2,739,207.00 68% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 2,388,707.00 1 350,500.00 1 2,739,207.00 Comments: Page 375 of 516 EXHIBIT K, consisting of 15 pages, referred to in and part of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. ("Engineer") for Professional Services — Task Order Edition dated March 13, 2015. Third Amendment to Task Order No. BGE-11-001 1. Specific Project Data: A. Title: FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Blvd.) B. Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the realignment of FM 1460 at SE Inner Loop, the design and hydraulic/scour analyses of proposed bridges at Smith Branch, and additional temporary and permanent signals at the Westinghouse Road intersection. Project will include revisions to proposed Right -of - Way Map and previously approved Environmental Document. Project will include additional survey and geotechnical exploration to accommodate additional design. Project will include an intersection analysis at FM 1460 and High Tech Drive. Project will include combining North and South packages into a single construction plan set. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: 1CC D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 120-9-0880-90-088 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2011-715-MSA 2. Nature of Amendment ✓ Additional Services to be performed by Engineer ✓ Modifications to Services of Engineer ✓ Modifications to Payment to Engineer Description of Modifications A. Engineer shall perform the following Additional Services: • See attached Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services B. The Scope of Services currently authorized to be performed by Engineer in accordance with the Task Order and previous Amendments, if any, is modified as follows: • To include services as described in Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services C. For the Additional Services or the modifications to Services set forth above, Owner shall pay Engineer the following additional or modified compensation: • Shown in Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule Georgetown — Revised 3.11 Page 1 of3 Attachment 1 (Modifications) to Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 376 of 516 Category of Services Basic Services (Additional Preliminary Engineering, and Development of Additional 100% Plans) 4. Attachments: Compensation Method A. Lump Sum Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services $350, 500.00 TOTAL COMPENSATION. • $350,500.00 Exhibit "A" — Schedule of Engineer's Services Exhibit "D" — Estimated Fee Schedule Terms and Conditions: Owner and Engineer hereby agree to modify the above -referenced Task Order as set forth in this Amendment. All provisions of the Agreement and the Task Order not modified by this or previous Amendments remain in effect. The Effective Date of this Task Order Amendment is OWNER: City of Georgetown Name: Dale Ross Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown Date: ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary 2015. ENGINEER: Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. By: IL Name: Wesley 4. Jase , P.E. Title: Director, Transportation Systems Engineer License or Finn's Certificate No. State of. Date: 03130 ho K F-1046 Texas APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM "P" APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator Georgetown — Revised 3.11 Page 2 of 3 Attachment 1(Modifications) to Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 377 of 516 STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON § CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this 3d );, day of YY1Gl1�(�,� , 2015, Wesley E. Jasek personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] �tMYn� LAURA KD2016 My Commis September Georgetown — Revised 3.11 Notary Public My Commission Expires: Page 3 of 3 Attachment 1 (Modifications) to Exhibit K—Amendment to Task Order EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services —Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Page 378 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer EXHIBIT A Schedule of Engineer's Services ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES (Function Code 110) (Terracon & BGE) Perform three borings, one on each abutment of the proposed bridge location and one along the stream bank immediately downstream (north) of the proposed bridge. Bridge borings will be taken to an estimated depth of fifty-five feet. The stream bank boring will be taken to an estimated depth of 20 feet. Obtain Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) blow counts every five vertical feet for the two bridge borings. Provide continuous sampling in the upper ten feet of the shallow stream bank bore and at every five feet for the remainder of the depth. Perform laboratory testing to classify soil strata, evaluate plasticity and shrink/swell potential, evaluate the compressive strength and determine D50 grain size. Prepare bore logs in WINCORE format and develop a boring location plan. Provide recommendations for bridge foundations, including allowable bearing pressures, depths and associated settlement. Prepare Geotechnical Report and submit WINCORE file. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES and PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (Function Code 120) (Cox McLain & BGE) Revise the supplemental environmental assessment to include the proposed realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop and the impacts to the previously approved right-of-way footprint. Hold meetings with affected property owners (approximately 4 meetings). Create exhibits to facilitate meetings and to include in the supplemental environmental assessment document. Coordinate with TxDOT and respond to FHWA and agency review comments. RIGHT OF WAY DATA (Function Code 130) (Inland Geodetics & BGE) Adjust Right -Of -Way Mapping and acquisition documents to accommodate the realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop. Submit for review and approval. Create revised ROW exhibits. Coordinate with City staff and the City's attorney/appraiser to provide exhibits during acquisition process. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Function Code 145) (BGE) Attend and document additional alternatives analysis, design, and review meetings with the City and TxDOT. Attend meetings with adjacent property owners as requested by the City and/or TxDOT. Coordinate with Subconsultants. FIELD SURVEYING (Function Code 150) (Inland Geodetics) Provide additional topographic and right-of-way survey required by the realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop and recent development along the project corridor. Provide horizontal and vertical ties to bridge boring locations. Update topographic survey file and create a new 3D file. ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS (Function Code 160) (BGE) Develop alternative analysis for proposed realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop. Develop preliminary alignments, profiles, and associated cross sections for each alternative. Page 379 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer For the preferred alternative, revise designs, details, and appropriate plan sheets to incorporate the proposed realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop including proposed horizontal alignment, vertical profile, edge of pavement, typical sections, horizontal alignment data sheets, plan and profile sheets, removal sheets, and design cross -sections. Revise base maps and appropriate plan sheets to implement combining the North and South plan sets into a single construction plan set. Revise the Intersection Layout for the Westinghouse Road intersection to incorporate the new traffic signal. DRAINAGE (Function Code 161) (BGE) Hydraulic Analysis/Design at Smith Branch and West Fork Smith Branch Obtain the current FEMA Effective Model of Smith Branch and West Fork Smith Branch. Develop the Revised Effective Model by converting the Effective hydraulic model from WSP-2 to HEC- RAS. Calibrate the HEC-RAS model, as necessary, to produce results consistent with the HEC-2 model and as indicated on the FIRM. Utilize the Revised Effective Model to develop the Existing Conditions Model by incorporating site - specific channel cross sections obtained from the current survey files. Ensure adequate channel cross sections are added to properly model the contraction and expansion zones associated with the existing structure. Determine design year frequency based on the existing conditions analysis. Develop channel and bridge cross sections to reflect the proposed condition alternatives. Analyze impacts of the various alternatives to the design year and 100-year WSELs. Design a proposed roadway and bridge configuration that provides for no adverse impact to the 100-year WSEL. Develop a Proposed Conditions Model for the preferred alternative. Develop a FEMA coordination letter describing the proposed improvements and the results of the hydraulic analysis. (Assume that a CLOMR/LOMR will not be required and that coordination with FEMA will be informal.) Develop a Grading Layout, as necessary, for proposed channel grading in the vicinity of the proposed bridges at Smith Branch. Revise the hydraulic analysis and associated plan sheets, incorporating the comments received from the review of the 60% submittal. Resubmit to the City and TxDOT for approval. Complete final Hydraulic Data and Drainage Area Map sheets. Incorporate comments received from the review of the 60%, 90% and 100% submittals. Scour Analysis Conduct a scour analysis for the proposed bridge structures in accordance with the Texas Secondary Evaluation and Analysis for Scour (TSEAS, 1993). Develop a plan sheet summarizing the results of the scour analysis, including a section view of the proposed bridge configuration that delineates the limits of potential scour. Hydraulic Report Develop the Hydraulic Report, documenting the results of the hydrologic studies, hydraulic analyses and designs for Smith Branch and West Fork Smith Branch. Include the Hydraulic Data and Drainage Area Page 380 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer Map sheets, the Bridge Layout sheet, and the Scour Envelope sheet in the report. Submit four (4) copies to the City and TxDOT for review and approval. SIGNING, MARKINGS, ILLUMINATION, AND SIGNALIZATION (Function Code 162) (BGE) Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts Revise the Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts to accommodate the realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop and the new traffic signal at the Westinghouse Road intersection. Revise the Small Sign Summary to accommodate the new traffic signal at the Westinghouse Road intersection. Intersection Analysis / Signal Warrant Attend a meeting with the City and TxDOT to discuss the data collection efforts and the possible installation of a traffic signal at the proposed intersection of FM 1460 and High Tech Drive. Conduct a field review of the proposed intersection location, obtain photographs, and prepare a future conditions diagram. At the intersection of FM 1460 and High Tech Drive, perform manual AM and PM peak period turning movement counts (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Perform 24-hour machine counts at the following locations: 1. Quail Valley Drive westbound approach to FM 1460 2. High Tech Drive westbound approach to FM 1460 3. FM 1460 southbound approach to High Tech Drive 4. FM 1460 northbound approach to High Tech Drive 5. FM 1460 southbound to Rabbit Hollow Lane 6. FM 1460 northbound to Rabbit Hollow Lane 7. Rabbit Hollow Lane eastbound approach to FM 1460 Obtain crash records for the study location from the County for the most recent thirty-six (36) month period, analyze the data and prepare a summary of the crashes. Review the current Georgetown Travel Demand Model and determine the future traffic projections for the intersection of FM 1460 and High Tech Drive and develop opening year projections. Following the guidelines published in the latest edition of the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, perform: 1. Signal warrant analysis based on existing conditions, 2. Signal warrant analysis based on projected volumes for opening year. Prepare and submit three (3) copies of the signal warrant Technical Memorandum to the City and TxDOT for review and comment. The memo will summarize the findings of the traffic counts, field investigation, and warrant analysis for the proposed intersection of FM 1460 and High Tech Drive. Additionally, the memo will address anticipated future impacts based on the data contained within the current Georgetown Travel Demand Model. Included within the Technical Memorandum will be an existing and future condition diagram, field photographs, and traffic count data (existing and projected). Page 381 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer Temporary Traffic Signal Plans Prepare detailed plans for the temporary installation of a traffic signal at the Westinghouse Road intersection for two construction phases. The following plan sheets will be prepared: • Temporary Traffic Signal Quantity Summary Sheet. • General Notes for Temporary Traffic Signal Installation. • Existing Signal Layouts (one per construction phase), showing the existing signal demolition plan, equipment to be salvaged/re-used and the proposed intersection geometry for the applicable construction phase. • Proposed Temporary Signal Layouts (one per construction phase), showing the proposed signal poles, controller cabinet, vehicle signals, vehicle detection devices, intersection illumination, conduit, ground boxes, electrical service and signal pole chart. • Signal Phasing and Wiring Diagrams, showing the conduits and cables chart, cable termination chart, electrical service specifications, phasing diagram, orientation diagram, and miscellaneous cable charts. • Traffic Signal Elevations Sheets, showing elevation drawings for each signal pole with the location of signal heads, signs and detection devices. • Traffic Signal Installation Details, showing miscellaneous installation details for timber pole installation. Permanent Traffic Signal Plans Prepare detailed traffic signal plans for the permanent installation at the realigned S.E. Inner Loop intersection and the Westinghouse Road intersection. The following plan sheets will be prepared: • Traffic Signal Quantity Summary Sheets. • General Notes for Traffic Signal Installations. • Existing Signal Layouts, showing any existing signal demolition plans, equipment to be salvaged/re-used, and the proposed ultimate geometry for the intersections. • Proposed Traffic Signal Layouts, showing the proposed signal poles, controller cabinet, vehicle and pedestrian signals, vehicle detection devices, intersection illumination, signal communications, conduit, ground boxes, electrical service and signal pole chart. • Signal Phasing and Wiring Diagrams, showing the conduits and cables chart, cable termination chart, electrical service specifications, phasing diagram, orientation diagram, miscellaneous cable charts, and street name sign designs. • Traffic Signal Elevations Sheets, showing elevation drawings for each signal pole with the location of signal heads, signs and detection devices. • Traffic Signal Striping Sheets, showing the proposed crosswalk and stop line locations in relation to the proposed ADA ramps. • Traffic Signal Advance Warning Device Layout, showing the locations and types of proposed advance warning signs and/or solar powered flashing beacon assemblies. • Traffic Signal Installation Details, showing miscellaneous installation details for vehicle detection, signal communications, pedestrian signals and pushbuttons. • Traffic Signal Support Structure standards, showing the types and sizes of the proposed poles, mast arms, and illumination arms. • Traffic Signal Pole Foundation standards, showing the size, type and depth of the foundation for each signal pole and pedestrian pole. Page 382 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer Miscellaneous traffic signal standards, including mast arm damping plates, luminaire support structures and fitting assemblies, controller cabinet foundations, electrical services, roadway illumination and traffic control for traffic signal installation. Illumination Plans Develop an Illumination Layout for the following intersections: • Quail Valley Drive • High Tech Drive • Existing FM 1460 • CR 166 • La Conterra Boulevard • Midnight Lane • Coach Light Drive • Terravista Club Drive/CR 186 • Asbury park Drive Prepare circuit wiring diagrams, showing the luminaires, electrical conductors, length of runs, and service pole assemblies for each intersection. Integrate existing illumination within the project limits into the proposed design, where feasible. Coordinate with the City and TxDOT for the types of illumination poles and mast arms to be proposed for use on the project. Calculate illumination quantities and prepare an Illumination Summary Sheet. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN (Function Code 163) (BGE) Traffic Control Plans Revise Traffic Control Plan and Construction Sequence Narrative sheets to accommodate the realignment of FM 1460 at S.E. Inner Loop, the new traffic signal at the Westinghouse Road intersection, and combining the North and South PS&E packages into a single construction plan set. Develop a horizontal alignment, vertical profile, and cross sections for the new temporary connection required to accommodate combining the North and South PS&E packages into a single construction plan set. Calculate revised TCP quantities and update TCP summaries accordingly. Cost Estimate, General Notes and Specifications Revise Construction Cost Estimate to include all proposed modifications. Review and revise General Notes, as necessary, to incorporate notes associated with additional bid items. Review and revise Special Specifications and Special Provisions to accommodate additional bid items. Combine/revise all Summary Sheets. Review and update Standard Sheets. Revise Construction Time Estimate. Page 383 of 516 FM 1460 City of Georgetown From Quail Valley Dr to University Blvd Task Order Amendment #3 Services to be Provided by the Engineer BRIDGE DESIGN (Function Code 170) (BGE) Bridge Layout Sheets Develop Bridge Layout sheets for FM 1460 at the proposed crossings of Smith Branch. Prepare the layouts in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Bridge Detailing Manual Check List, and the Bride Project Development Manual. Utilize TxDOT standard bridge superstructure and substructure designs and details to the fullest extent possible. Bridge Design and Detailing Develop bridge designs and details necessary to supplement the applicable TxDOT bridge standards. Calculate bent/beam geometry and bearing seat elevations. Create Bent and Beam Report/Bearing Seat Elevations Sheet. Determine drilled shaft lengths using the TxDOT Table for Setting Lengths of Drilled Shafts or the WINCORE program. Assume unsupported combined column and drilled shaft length will not exceed TxDOT standard bridge plan design. Calculate bridge quantities and column heights. Provide bridge quantities and bearing seat elevations on Bridge Estimate and Quantities Sheet. Page 384 of 516 FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule TASK ORDER BGE-11-001 AMENDMENT #2 FC DESCRIPTION SEEK7 Terra -con Cox McLain TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES $ 3,320.00 24 $ 9,165.50 $ 12,485.50 FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL $ 10,316.00 74 $ 12,266.42 $ 22,582.42 FC 130 ROW $ 8,404.00 72 $ 3,484.00 $ 11,888.00 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY $ - 0 $ 13,140.00 $ 13,140.00 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS $ 35,784.00 328 $ 35,784.00 FC 161 DRAINAGE $ 65,588.00 456 $ 65,588.00 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION $ 71,156.00 579 $ 71,156.00 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY $ 48,024.00 392 $ 48,024.00 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION $ 18,184.00 122 $ 18,184.00 FC 170 STRUCTURES $ 50,056.00 354 $ 50,056.00 DIRECT EXPENSES $ 1,612.08 $ 1,612.08 $ 312,444.08 2,401.00 9,165.50 16,624.00 12,266.42 $ 350,500.00 Page 385 of 516 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule COST SUMMARY -BGE Third Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 SR. PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 4 0 14 0 6 0 0 24 FC 120 ENVIRONMENTAL 12 0 46 0 16 0 0 74 FC 130 ROW 10 0 14 0 40 0 8 72 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 20 0 62 24 142 80 0 328 FC 161 DRAINAGE 32 142 174 8 96 0 4 456 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION 39 31 202 38 269 0 0 579 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY 28 70 38 112 136 8 0 392 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION 30 8 64 20 0 0 0 122 FC 170 STRUCTURES 32 120 80 48 54 20 0 354 TOTAL HOURS 207 371 694 250 759 108 12 2401 MANHOUR RATES $ 200.00 $ 174.00 $ 138.00 1 $ 98.00 1 $ 98.00 1 $ 87.00 1 $ 69.00 $ 129.46 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS $ 41,400.00 $ 64,554.00 $ 95,772.00 $ 24,500.00 $ 74,382.00 $ 9,396.00 $ 828.00 $ 310,832.00 EXPENSE COST $ 1,612.08 TOTAL LABOR AND EXPENSE COSTS TOTAL $ 312,444.08 MANHOUR ESTIMATE - BGE FC DESCRIPTION #OF SHTS SR.PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL FC 110 ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES 1 2 Terracon Geotechnical Investigations Coordination Subconsultant Coordination N/A N/A 4 4 0 8 3 DevelopSorIn Wincore Plan Sheets N/A 2 6 8 4 Perform QC/QA on Geotechnical Report N/A 8 8 SUBTOTAL 0 4 0 14 0 6 0 0 24 FC120 ENVIRONMENTAL 1 jCox McLain Environmental Coordination N/A 0 2 Subconsultant Coordination N/A 4 4 8 3 Create Exhibits for MAPOs N/A 4 8 12 4 Coordinate w/TxDOT for Re -Evaluation N/A 4 12 16 5 Create Exhibits for Environmental Document N/A 6 8 14 6 Perform QC/QA on Environmental Re-Evalulation document N/A 8 8 7 Respond to TxDOT, FHWA and Agency Review comments N/A 4 12 16 SUBTOTAL 0 12 0 46 0 16 0 0 74 FC 130 ROW 1 2 Subconsultant Coordination N/A 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 8 3 Coordinate w/TxDOT 4 4 8 4 Create ROW Exhibits for Land Owners 1 40 8 48 4 Perform QC/QA on revised ROW Mapping 2 6 1 1 1 8 SUBTOTAL 0 10 0 14 0 40 0 8 72 FC 150 FIELD SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMMERTRY 1 1 N/A 0 SUBTOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 FC 160 ROADWAY DESIGN CONTROLS 1 lGeometric Design (Develop Alts.,Revise Align & EDP for S.E. Inner Loop shift, 8 16 24 16 64 2 T ical Sections Update for S.E. Inner Loop & combine N & S plan sets 4 8 16 8 36 3 Alignment Data Sheets (Update S.E. Inner Loop) 2 6 8 4 Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets (any showing int with S.E. Inner Loop] 8 4 16 24 52 5 Roadway Plan & Profile Sheets (combine N & S sections) 4 4 8 16 32 6 Intersection Layouts at S.E. Inner Loop) 4 8 8 16 36 7 Removal Layouts (Int at S.E. Inner Loop & combine north & south plan sets) 4 8 16 28 8 GEOPAK Roadway Model Update at S.E. Inner Loop) N/A 4 16 20 9 Roadway Cross Sections (Update for S.E. Inner Loop shift) 4 8 40 52 SUBTOTAL 0 20 0 62 24 142 80 0 328 FC 161 DRAINAGE Hydraulic Analysis at Smith Branch and West Fork at Smith Branch 1 Develop Revised Effective Model by converting WSP-2 to HEC-RAS 4 48 16 68 2 Develop Existing Conditions Model 4 8 36 12 60 3 Develop Proposed Condition Model 4 8 24 12 48 4 Design a brdgelroadway profile to have no im act to the 100 yrWSEL 4 32 8 44 5 Develop a FEMA coordination letter 4 8 2 14 6 Grading layout for proposed channel grading 16 8 16 40 7 Revise Hydraulic analysis and associated plan sheets 2 16 8 8 12 46 8 Update Hydraulic data and Drainage area map sheets 8 12 20 9 Perform Scour Analysis 1 4 32 8 12 56 10 Develop Scour Analysis Sheet 1 2 6 6 12 26 11 Update Hydraulic Report i 4 8 20 2 34 SUBTOTALI 0 32 142 174 8 96 0 4 456 FC 162 SIGNING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNALIZATION Revisions for S.E. Inner Loop shift, signal at Westinghouse & combine N&S plan set 1 Update Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts 1 2 6 16 16 40 2 Update Summary of Small Signs Tabulation 2 6 4 12 3 Update/Create Intersection Layouts 2 6 8 16 32 Intersection Analysis I Signal Warrant 4 Meeting with TxDOT and COG 2 2 Page 386 of 516 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule FC DESCRIPTION #OF SHTS SR.PROJECT MANAGER SENIOR ENGINEER PROJECT ENGINEER EIT SENIOR TECH ENGR TECH CLERICAL TOTAL 5 Site Inspection 1 4 5 6 Data Collection/Analysis 4 4 7 Accident Analysis 1 3 4 8 Signal Warrant Study 2 6 8 9 Traffic Study 4 12 5 21 Temporary Traffic Signal Plans for FM 1460 at Westinghouse Rd (2 Layouts) 10 Traffic Signal Quantity Summary 6 2 8 11 General Notes for Traffic Signal Installation 1 4 2 7 12 Existing Si nal Layouts 8 16 24 13 Proposed Temporary Traffic Signal layouts 2 12 16 30 14 Signal Pha Ing and Wiring Diagrams 1 10 12 23 15 Traffic Signal Elevations Sheet 1 6 12 19 16 Traffic Signal Installation Details 1 6 10 17 Traffic Signal Plans for FM 1460 at Westinghouse & BE Inner Loop 17 ITraffic Signal Quantity Summary 6 2 8 18 General Notes for Traffic Signal Installation 1 4 2 7 19 Existing Signal Layouts 8 16 24 20 Proposed Traffic Signal layouts 2 12 16 30 21 Signal Phasing and Wiring Diagrams 1 10 12 23 22 Traffic Signal Elevations Sheet 1 6 12 19 23 Traffic Signal Striping Sheets 4 6 10 24 Advance Warning Device Layouts 1 8 6 15 25 Traffic Signal Installation Details 1 6 10 17 26 Signal Pole Foundation Sheet 2 8 6 16 Illumination layouts at Intersections(Safety Li htin 9Intersections 27 Develop Illumination Layouts 4 24 40 68 28 Prepare Circuit Wiring Diagrams, Elec Conductors, Run Lengths, Service Pole Assemblies 6 24 24 54 29 Illumination Quantity Summary Sheel 2 16 8 6 32 SUBTOTALI 0 39 31 202 38 269 0 0 579 FC 163 MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY 1 Construction Sequence Narrative 2 8 4 14 2 Update TCP Phasing Overview General 2 8 16 24 50 3 Revise TCP Typical Sections S.E. Inner Loop shift & overlap of N & Splans) 2 8 12 16 38 4 TCP Phasing Overview (four phases) 4 12 16 24 56 5 TCP La outs Shift at S.E. Inner Loop & Signal at Westinghouse) 2 8 12 16 38 6 TCP Layouts (Combine N & S Plan sets) 2 8 12 16 38 7 Update & Combine Summary of Quantities Sheets 4 8 4 16 8 Temporary Connector P&P and Cross Sections 2 8 16 24 8 58 9 Update Cost Estimate N/A 12 16 28 10 Update General Notes N/A 8 16 24 11 Update Specifications N/A 2 8 10 12 Review & Update Standard Drawings 2 8 10 13 Update ConstructionTime Estimate N/A 2 6 4 12 SUBTOTAL 0 28 70 38 112 136 8 0 392 FC 145 GENERAL MANAGEMENT / COORDINATION 1 Attend and Document additional design & review meetings N/A 16 8 16 4 44 2 Attend meetings with Land Owners N/A 6 32 16 54 3 Coordinate additional work with sub -consultants (KPA & Halff N/A 8 16 24 SUBTOTALI 0 1 30 S 1 64 1 20 1 0 0 0 122 FC 170 STRUCTURES 1 Develop Bridge Layouts for FM 1460 over Smith Branch 8 8 24 16 24 20 100 2 Calculations for Bridge design (beam/bent geometry & bearing seat elevations; 8 48 40 8 104 3 Create Bent & Beam Report/BearingReport/Bearing seat elevation sheet 4 16 8 24 52 4 lCalculate Bridge quantities and column heights 4 24 16 6 50 5 IDetermine drilled shaft lengths 8 24 16 48 SUBTOTAL 0 32 120 80 48 54 20 0 354 DIRECT EXPENSES ITEM UNIT RATE QUANT TOTAL Mileage MILE $ 0.55 400 $ 220.00 Delivery EA $ 25.00 3 $ 75.00 Copies 11x17 EA $ 0.20 250 $ 50.00 Copies 8.5x11) EA $ 0.10 300 $ 30.00 Data Collection (Signal Warrant -Traffic Count EA $ 1,225.00 1 $ 1,225.00 Miscellaneous EA $ 12.08 1 $ 12.08 $ 1,612.08 Page 387 of 516 FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule (Inland Geodetics) FILE RET-K-11 AM CORSOLIDATIOR SITE VISITS FOR CHANGES SHEEN����� "'%O%%%%%%%%%/�'%%%%%%%%%%%/// • • '%O%%%%%%%%%% PRIMARY CONTROL INSTALLATION UTILITY NOTIFICATION/TRACK REDUCE FIELD DATA TO APPEND TOPO REIMBURSEABLE SERVICES Page 388 of 516 FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule COST SUMMARY - TERRACON FC 110 - ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES SERVICE UNIT COST ESTIMATED UNITS ESTIMATED TOTAL Field Program Drill Rig Mobilization, local (within 50-mile radius), each $ 300.00 1 $ 300.00 Traffic Control, per day $ 750.00 1 $ 750.00 Drill Crew Hourly Rate for standby/clean-up, per hour $ 225.00 1 $ 225.00 Soil Test Boring, per foot (0 to 55 feet) $ 14.00 130 $ 1,820.00 TxDOT Cone, each $ 30.00 26 $ 780.00 Rock Coring, hard formation, per foot (0 to 55 feet) $ 20.00 130 $ 2,600.00 Field Geologist, P.G., per hour $ 70.00 4 $ 280.00 Vehicle Charge, per day $ 40.00 1 $ 40.00 Subtotal -Field Program $ 6,795.00 Laboratory Testing Atterberg Limits, each $ 50.00 3 $ 150.00 Moisture Content, each $ 8.00 6 $ 48.00 Absorption Swell Test, each $ 100.00 3 $ 300.00 Unconfined Compression Test (soil), each $ 30.00 3 $ 90.00 Unconfined Compression Test (rock), each $ 35.00 3 $ 105.00 Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve, each $ 40.00 3 $ 120.00 Soil -Lime Relationship, PI series (0, 6, 8, 10%) $ 200.00 1 $ 200.00 Soil -Lime Relationship, pH series (0, 6, 8, 10%) $ 100.00 1 $ 100.00 TEX-114-E, each $ 150.00 1 $ 150.00 CBR, each $ 200.00 1 $ 200.00 Chloride & Sulfate Content (TEX-620-J), each $ 75.00 3 $ 225.00 Subtotal -Lab Testing $ 1,688.00 Engineering & Report Preparation Senior Principal, P.E., per hour $ 170.00 1 $ 170.00 Principal, Geotechnical Engineer, P.E., per hour $ 140.00 1 $ 140.00 Project Geotechnical Engineer, per hour $ 105.00 3 $ 315.00 Draftsman, per hour $ 70.00 0.5 $ 35.00 Clerical/Administrative Staff, per hour $ 45.00 0.5 $ 22.50 Subtotal-Engr & Report Prep $ 682.50 Total Estimated Cost using Unit Rates 1 $ 9,165.50 Page 389 of 516 FM 1460 EXHIBIT D - Estimated Fee Schedule (Cox McLain) COST SUMMARY - COX McLAIN FC 120 - ENVIRONMENTAL LABOR Sr. Env. Sr. Env. Env. Env. Env. Env. Env. Env. Totals Scientist II Scientist I Prof. II Prof. I Staff II Staff I Tech II Tech I ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours General Project Management and Communications 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 Project Description 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Purpose and Need 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Alternatives Analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 4.1 Land Use Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 Social and Economic Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 Traffic and Circulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 Noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 Cultural Resources- Historic Structures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coordination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Survey Field Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Historic Resources Survey Report 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEPA Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 Cultural Resources -Archeology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Records Search and THC coord. Letter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 percent Pedestrian Survey and 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coordination (none required) 4.8 Water Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 Biological Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.10.1 Endangered Species Habitat Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.11 Hazardous Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.12 Parklands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.13 Construction Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.14 Preparation of Information for EPIC Sheets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.15 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 GIS/Graphics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Supplemental EAUpdatelComment Response 24 8 0 2 40 32 24 12 142 7 Prepare WPAP submittal (with B&G) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Preconstruction Notification to USACE (Assume 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCNs required) 9 Prepare WilCo RHCP Application (assume none) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Prepare Section 4(f)/6(f) Statements (assume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 none required) 11 Public Involvement Activities (assume none) 11.1 Prepare for and Attend Public Meeting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.2 Prepare for and Attend Public Hearing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.3 Prepare Public Hearing Summary and Analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Labor Hours 30 8 0 2 40 32 24 12 148 Billing Rate $138.00 $120.75 $100.63 $86.25 $71.88 $63.25 $51.75 $44.56 Total Labor Cost $4,140 $966 $0 $173 $2,875 $2,024 $1,242 1 $535 $11,954.42 EXPENSES Unit Quantity Rate Total Subconsultant--Historic Resources Survey Invoice 0 $0.00 $0 Subconsultant--Geologic Assessment (Jim Sansom, P.G.) Invoice 0 $2,500.00 $0 Subconsultant--Other Invoice 0 $0.00 $0 HazMat Database Search (TelAll) at cost 0 $300.00 $0 Mileage Miles 0 $0.550 $0 Hotel (Taxes/fees not included) Day 0 $85.00 $0 Per Diem Day 0 $36.00 $0 Overnight Delivery Letter 1 $12.00 $12 Misc. Field Supplies LS 0 $150.00 $0 Aerial photography/Mapping Materials LS 0 $100.00 $0 Film Process and Development 36 Exp. 0 $20.00 $0 Backhoe Rental Day 0 $750.00 $0 Newspaper publication Day 0 $750.00 $0 Court reporter fee Hour 0 $150.00 $0 Report Reproduction Each 20 $15.00 $300 TOTAL Nonlabor Expenses $312.00 TOTAL COST - CMEC 1 $12,266.42 Page 390 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action on the development agreement with 500 South Austin Avenue LLP - Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Andreina Davila, Project Coordinator and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: The City and Developer entered into a development agreement in 2005 to facilitate the redevelopment of the site at 500 South Austin Avenue. This included the relocation of the Monument Cafe restaurant; the construction of a new retail/office building fronting Austin Ave; the redevelopment and expansion of the specialty food/retail store (Market Building); and the construction of the associated required parking spaces ("Project"). There were four amendments through 2011 to address changes in development conditions. Final development of the site is required by March 31, 2015. A total of $948,361.00 of GTEC funds were reimbursed to the developer based upon actual costs of public infrastructure improvements (streets and parking). The improvements were constructed by the Developer within the guidelines of the City's Downtown Design Guidelines and the City's Downtown Master Plan. The City has performed under the conditions of the agreement through reimbursement of infrastructure, as well as fee waivers (with approximately $68,953.00 spent and $8,772.00 remaining of the $77,725.00 authorized in the agreement). The City also purchased the County's parking lot directly North of the site and dedicated 100 parking spots for 30 years to the Monument, in order to satisfy its parking requirements. The market value of 100 parking spaces in downtown for the next 20 years is $480,000.00 ($240.00/space/year = $24,000.00/year x 20 years (through 2035)). Market value of 100 parking spaces provided for the past 10 years is $240,000.00. In addition, the City, at its cost, provided underground utilities and free use of regional stormwater detention to support the project. City also constructed the pedestrian crossing signal on Austin Avenue in 2013. The Developer has not constructed and does not plan to construct, the office/retail, the expansion of the specialty office/retail or the onsite parking that were components of the agreement. The current agreement (as amended) provides for a "clawback" payment from the Developer of 20% of the total GTEC reimbursement, or approximately $189,672.00 (reduced from the 100% cost reimbursement obligation should the Developer fail to complete the construction of the Project as indicated in the 2005 original agreement). The 20% clawback is effective if the Project is not constructed by March 31, 2015. The Developer has requested that the development agreement be amended to eliminate the requirement to construct and future improvements on the subject property, and that the clawback provision be eliminated based upon their economic impact to the City. In addition, the Developer requests that the City continue to provide the 100 parking spaces on the site to the north of the remaining 30-year period (sunset date September 30, 2035). Options for GTEC to consider: 1. Recommend that the Council amend the agreement as requested. This would excuse future development obligations and/or repayment of the clawback. 2. Recommend that Council deny the change to the agreement as requested. This would not excuse future development obligations and/or repayment of the clawback. City parking commitment and remaining fee waivers would be terminated. 3. Other options as deemed appropriate by GTEC and Council. A History of Agreements is Provided for Reference Following is a summary of the terms of the original Development Agreement and the four subsequent Page 391 of 516 amendments. Original Development Agreement - August 9, 2005 . Developer Obligations - Construct 2 New Buildings - retail fronting Austin Avenue; office building fronting Rock - Redevelop 2 Existing Buildings - parking area - 79 spaces (38 street, 41 site) - Construct Public Improvements - Landscape and Maintain - Begin construction of Phase 1 by May 31, 2006 and related Public Improvements - complete in 3 years - Begin construction of Phase 2 by May 31, 2007 and related Public Improvements - complete in 3 years - Default -- clawback for all funding • City Obligations - GTEC reimbursement of cost of Public Improvements - not to exceed $506,000 - fee waivers -- up to $109,481 total (only for listed fees but may "reallocate") - provide parking -- 100 spaces for 30 years - provide underground utilities - provide free use of regional stormwater detention First Amendment - October 9, 2007 . Project Scope modified - Phase 1 requires Restaurant only -- no Retail - Phase 2 includes remainder • Project Schedule modified - Begin construction by March 31, 2006 to be reimbursed for Public Improvements - Phase 1 construction complete by March 21, 2009 - Extended Phase 2 completion from May 31, 2010 to March 31, 2012 • Clawback modified to Phases Second Amendment - June 10, 2008 • Project Scope modified - Parking moved to Phase 3 • Project Schedule modified - Accelerated completion of Phase 2 Public Improvements to August 31, 2009 - Phase 3 completed by March 31, 2015 • Project Funding modified - Add $227,000 to GTEC funding (for same Public Improvements) - total not to exceed $733,000 Third Amendment - August 27, 2009 Page 392 of 516 • Project Scope modified - 1 New Building fronting Austin Avenue - Redevelop and expand 2 Existing Buildings - Monument Cafe (complete) and food/retail . Project Schedule modified - Extended Phase 2 completion - Complete construction of 1 Building of Phase 2 and Phase 2 Public Improvements by August 31, 2012 - Complete construction of last Building of Phase 2 by March 31, 2015 - Parking moved to Phase 2 Fourth Amendment - February 14, 2011 . Project Scope - Remaining obligations - new building (retail/office) fronting Austin Avenue; parking - Crosswalks transferred from the Tamiro Plaza Project • City - agrees to pedestrian crossing signal by June 2013 • Project Schedule modified - Public Improvements completed by August 31, 2011 (modified clawback) • Project Funding modified - Add $199,607 to GTEC funding (for the same Public Improvements) - total not to exceed $948,361 - Transfer GTEC funds from Tamiro Plaza for crosswalks - $15,754 - Clawback modified - 20% of total amount of Cost Reimbursement actually reimbursed to Developer GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation from GTEC was to terminate the agreement for default - not amend. The clawback was reduced from 20% ($189,672) to $68,953. That amount was based on the development fee waivers Monument received from the City for its business in the development process. The GTEC Board did not think it was equitable to require payment of the full clawback amount based on the value of public improvements that were actually made and reimbursed. They did believe some clawback should be paid for nonperformance and suggested payment of the reduced amount in full in 30-45 days. This item was unanimously recommended by the GTEC Board for Council approval at the April 15, 2015, GTEC Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Executive Session Item; Financial Impact to be Determined. SUBMITTED BY: Shirley J. Rinn on behalf of Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Page 393 of 516 Correspondence from Rusty Winkstern dated December 30, 2014. Page 394 of 516 500 S. Austin Avenue, LP P.O. Box 1757 Georgetown, Texas 78627 December 30, 2014 Mr. Jim Briggs, Acting City Manager and Acting General Manager of GTEC City of Georgetown P.O. Box Georgetown, Texas 78627 Re: Development Agreement between City of Georgetown ("City") and 500 S. Austin Avenue, LP ("500SAA") dated August 9, 2005, as amended on October 9, 2007, June 10, 2008, August 27, 2009, and February 22, 2011 (collectively referred to as "Development Agreement") Dear Mr. Briggs: First, I'd like to say how much we love being in business in Georgetown. Next month will be the Monument CaWs 20th anniversary, and it has been a real privilege to grow our business in a city that is committed to preserving the things that make it special as it grows - from the City's urban design and historic district standards to the economic development programs that promote preservation, redevelopment, and job generation in Georgetown's historic center - Georgetown promotes and enables quality growth that is consistent with the community's character, and that sort of forward -thinking approach is all too rare in government. We are grateful to be in business here. I've mentioned the ordinances and economic development programs that we appreciate, but the most important factor in our willingness to do business here and in our success has been the cooperation and support of the Council and the city's professional staff. Throughout the organization, whenever we have run into a problem, there has always been a creative and can -do approach by the staff and Council - the City has truly been our partner in the growth and success of the Monument Cafe, Monument Market, and El Monumento, and we have made sure that whatever infrastructure investments the City has made to facilitate our projects have been leveraged many times by our private investments in our businesses. The net result has been lots of good stable jobs, lots of sales tax, lots of property taxes, lots of utility revenue, and lots of new visitors to the downtown historic district. Having said all of that, we have run into a problem that could endanger both our current operations and our future expansion plans, and we are hoping that you can once again work with us to arrive at an equitable solution that benefits the City and our employees and customers. Page 395 of 516 Mr. Jim Briggs December 30, 2014 Page 2 As you are aware, the above -referenced Development Agreement was originally negotiated between the City and 500SAA to facilitate the acquisition and redevelopment of the former Draeger Ford showroom and garage that had been sitting vacant for some time and had been acquired by Williamson County for use as County storage and offices. Neither the City nor we thought that non-taxable County ownership and use of the block was consistent specifically with the Downtown Master Plan and more generally not a desirable use on such a prominent block so close to the Square. 500SAA agreed to buy the Draeger block from the County to keep it in taxable use and to relocate the Monument Cafe to the site and to construct new office and retail structures on the balance of the block. 500SAA asked the City to (1) upgrade the streets around the block to the City's new urban design standard to facilitate the redevelopment (accelerating public improvements that were already in the City's capital improvement plans) and (2) to purchase from the County the adjacent 400 block of Austin Avenue for public to serve the Square and the Monument Cafe and for future public -private redevelopment. The City asked 500SAA to construct the public improvements surrounding the Draeger block and then be reimbursed by the City rather than the City constructing the public improvements. Working from preliminary drawings and using the City's records of existing underground utilities, 500SAA's engineer provided estimates of the cost of the public improvements and those figures were incorporated in the August 9, 2005 Development Agreement. Due to financing and permitting delays, we weren't able to begin construction of the project until mid-2007, though of course construction prices continued to increase in the interim from the original 2005 estimates. Once we did start construction, we faced a series of increases in scope of work, unexpected/unknowable additions, and expensive delays, e.g.: -due to the City's decision that we should completely re -construct rather than just re -surface 5th Street, we encountered original cast iron and clay water and wastewater lines under the street that needed to be replaced -the City required us to replace an existing 8" waterline with a 12" waterline -the City required us to replace a section and upgrade an existing wastewater line and manhole on Rock Street -we located an existing Atmos gas line on Austin Avenue and 5th Street that was less than 12" deep - the City required Atmos to replace this line which resulted in a 90 day construction delay for us -the City required us to add 4" conduit from the transformer on 5th Street for power and pull boxes at both 5th and 61h Street for future signalization Page 396 of 516 Mr. Jim Briggs December 30, 2014 Page 3 -construction prices increased substantially between exhausting funds in 2008 on Rock Street and asking for additional funding in 2011 to complete 6th Street -the City required us to contract with an engineering firm to design the Austin Avenue intersections at Sth and 61h Street. When we came back to the City in 2011 to ask for funds to complete the project, we explained that (a) all of the funds that had been reimbursed, other than fee waivers, went to improvements in the public ROW that were already in the City's capital improvement plan; and (b) none of the funds went to our business or to private improvements on our property; and (c) the budget shortfalls all related to increases in scope that the City either asked for or required once unknowable conditions became apparent during construction - in other words, the shortfall was not the result of our inefficiency or incompetence but rather due to conditions and unbudgeted additional work that neither we nor our engineer could have reasonably anticipated when we originally budgeted the project. The Council approved the additional requested funds to complete the 6th Street improvements but inserted a 20% "clawback" in the Fourth Amendment providing that SOOSAA would repay the City 20% of all funds reimbursed if we had not completed our proposed on -site improvements by March 1, 2015. We felt that we had no choice at that time but to accept the Fourth Amendment to get the street work completed and hope that economic conditions in the Georgetown market would support construction of the additional improvements by 2015. In fact, while SOOSAA invested well over $S million in the Monument Cafe, Market, and Biergarten improvements, and despite having spent substantial sums on design of several alternate projects (office, retail, multi -family, and mixed -use) for the site, the market for new space in downtown Georgetown is still very shallow and extremely price sensitive. We own several development sites in the downtown district and would like nothing better than to construct buildings on them and convert them to income -producing properties, but the fact is that what little tenant demand there is for the downtown area will not pay the rental rates that are necessary to support new construction. We hope and believe that as the Georgetown real estate market matures this situation will correct itself, but the timing of this correction is anyone's guess, and in the meantime we cannot afford to build new structures and lease them to tenants at less than our cost. Having noted all that, the City has received a very good return on its public improvement investment in our area. In addition to getting the streets and sidewalks improved to meet the new urban design standard, we developed a business on the (formerly vacant and tax-exempt) property that brings well over SOO,000 people a year to the site - by our best estimate, half of these visitors are not Page 397 of 516 Mr. Jim Briggs December 30, 2014 Page 4 from Georgetown. Our customer base benefits all of downtown Georgetown and brings shoppers from all over Texas to the Square. Additionally, we employ approximately 300 people in our combined operations with a combined annual payroll of almost $4 million. We pay over $600,000 in sales tax (of which the city and its related entities receive $120,000), we pay over $150,000 in utility charges, and we pay over $60,000 in property tax (on a block that was previously tax-exempt and slated to remain so in perpetuity) If we are faced with reimbursing the City almost $200,000 (for public improvements that were outside of our agreed and budgeted scope and that we constructed at the City's direction and for the public benefit) our restaurant operations - both current operations and future expansion plans - will be severely impacted and we may be faced with a closure of part or all of our existing operations. Obviously the effects on the Square and all of downtown of a closure of any of our businesses would be negative and substantial. We think it far more productive and equitable for the City and its taxpayers, and for our businesses and our employees, for the City to absorb the cost of these public improvements as its responsibility to maintain and improve the public ROW to facilitate redevelopment of historic downtown Georgetown. To summarize and recap: 1. There was originally no "clawback" provision in the Development Agreement; 2. The "clawback" provision was inserted due to our request for additional funding from the City to cover additional costs over which we had no control and that were the result of unbudgeted work requested by the City; 3. ALL of the increased costs beyond the original estimate were due to increases in scope required by the City and/or unforeseeable defects that the City required us to correct during construction; 4. All the public money advanced by the City under the development Agreement was spent on public improvements in the public street ROW - none of the money was spent on our private property or in our private business; S. We have invested over $5 million of private funds on the 500 S. Austin Avenue block (and over $10 million on both restaurant properties); we employ over 300 people and generate an annual payroll over $4 million in addition to generating $600,000 in sales tax, $150,000 in utility charges, and $60,000 in property tax. 6. Paying the City the approximately $200,000 "clawback" will cripple our existing businesses and cause us to have to cancel current expansion Page 398 of 516 Mr. Jim Briggs December 30, 2014 Page 5 plans and future redevelopment plans on our two other downtown properties. As I stated at the beginning of this unfortunately (but I believe necessarily) long letter, we are grateful to be in business in Georgetown, and we hope to continue and expand our operations for many years to come. We know Georgetown has done great things for our business, and we sincerely believe our business is very good for Georgetown. In order to make sure that we are able to continue, we hereby respectfully request that the City amend the Development Agreement to delete the requirement for additional on -site improvements (other than existing improvements) prior to March 1, 2015 and to eliminate the "clawback" provision in recognition of our economic performance to date. Please contact me if you have any questions or if there is additional information we can provide to assist with your consideration of this request. Sincerely, 500 S. Austin Menue,;K/P and Monument Cafe Group, LLC By: tRus"inkstern Its: Manager Page 399 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.16 of the Code of Ordinances relating to Compensation or Expense Reimbursement for the Mayor and Councilmembers -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: At their April 14, 2015 meeting, the City Council approved the Compensation Committee recommendation to increase the monthly salary for the Mayor to $1,100 and the City Council to $800. Please see attached for the Compensation Ordinance and the final report from the Council Compensation Committee. FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: 2015 Council Compensation Ordinance 2015 Council Compensation Ordinance- Exhibit A Page 400 of 516 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS ("CITY") AMENDING CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO COMPENSATION OR EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS; MAKING SUCH OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 2.15 of the City Charter provides for the appointment of a committee to review at least every two years the salaries of the Mayor and Council members and to make recommendations regarding those salaries; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, pursuant to Section 2.15 of the City Charter, the Mayor appointed a compensation committee to review the current compensation ordinance and make recommendations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Compensation Committee met on February 23, 2015, March 2, 2015 and March 23, 2015; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Compensation Committee presented its report to the City Council on April 14, 2015 attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, the City Council voted to enact the 2015 Compensation Committee's recommendations; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT Section 1. The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Section 2. Chapter 2.16 of the Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Chapter 2.16 Compensation of Officers Sec. 2.16.010 Compensation (A) The Mayor shall receive compensation of $1,100 per month. (B) The Mayor Pro Tern shall receive compensation of $800 per month. Page 401 of 516 (C) The Council members shall receive compensation of $800 per month. Sec. 2.16.020 Reserved Section 3. 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 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING on the day of , 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING on the day of , 2015. ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Dale Ross, Mayor Page 402 of 516 EXHIBIT "A" Council Compensation Report to the Georgetown Mayor and City Council April 2015 The Council Compensation Committee was appointed by Mayor Ross and charged (Section 2.15 Home Rule Charter) with: 1. Reviewing the salaries of the Mayor and Council members. 2. Making a recommendation regarding those salaries. The committee is composed of Patty Eason and Jerry Hammerlun serving as Co -Chairs and Tom Swift, David Giese, Steve Johnston, Kathy Krause and Ki Browning. The Council Compensation Committee held three meetings (Minutes attached). The focus of those meetings was: • February 23, 2015 — Reviewed the history of compensation for the Mayor and Council in Georgetown in the last ten years with a focus on the Compensation Committee recommendations since April 2010 and examined comparative compensation data for other cities in the area. There was substantial discussion on the reality of the typical commitment needed to serve on the Georgetown City Council and as Mayor. Committee members shared diverse opinions on balancing the reality of the commitment with the concept of public service and the thought that people should serve based on a sense of responsibility to the community. The discussion to end the first meeting focused on the need for Georgetown to continue at attract qualified, committed, passionate people to serve who represent all sectors of our diverse community. • March 2, 2015 — The committee members shared their thoughts and reflections on the information that had been shared at the February 23rd meeting. There was considerable discussion of the "cost" of serving and the various personal expenses incurred in the performance of Mayor/Council duties and the feasibility of utilizing an expense report to document those costs. Consensus of the group was that an expenses report approach would be unwieldy and unnecessary. Committee members were very interested in a compensation approach used in Garland that is a combination of a base rate plus an additional amount for specific meetings attended. The City Secretary and the Committee Co -Chairs agreed to develop a list of meetings that would be considered for reimbursement if Georgetown were to follow a Garland -type approach. • March 23, 2015 — The City Secretary shared a report that included significant data on the topic of a "per -meeting" reimbursement program and the challenges connected with such an approach. (Copy of report attached) The key challenge of this approach was the approval of which meetings/activities would be reimbursed and the administrative reality of the process. After discussion of the challenges connected with such an approach the Committee decided to focus on a lump sum amount approach and the Committee members offered their thoughts on what that amount should be. Amounts suggested by the Committee ranged from nothing ($0.00) to $1,500 for Council members and $2,500 for the Mayor. After much discussion the Committee approved (6-1) recommending compensation of a lump sum amount of $800 for Council members and $1,100 for the Mayor. Page 403 of 516 As Co -Chairs of the Committee we appreciate the thoughtful and thorough work of the Committee members and the City Secretary. Attracting fully committed and passionate people to run for the Georgetown City Council is critical to the future success of this community. The entire Committee appreciated the opportunity to serve the City of Georgetown. Most of all we appreciate the current Mayor and Council members for their commitment to Georgetown. Compensation Committee Co -Chairs: Patty Eason Jerry Hammerlun Page 404 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Second Reading of an Ordinance formally adopting the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the 2015/16 annual budget and to guide financial operations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: This item is to adopt the proposed changes to the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for the upcoming budge. The proposed amendments were discussed and reviewed by the General Government and Finance Advisory Board, and include the following as notated by page number from the red -line draft included with the agenda item. • Page 8 — Codifies the utility standardized "cost of service" methodologies for establishing the City's utility rates, including Water, Wastewater, Electric and Stormwater Drainage. o These methodologies were adopted by the GUS Board as the basis for the current City utility rates. This addition only codifies that action for future rate analysis. • Page 9 — A major portion of the City's General Fund Revenue is internal cost recovery. This amendment clarifies the "Internal Cost Recovery Fees" as a revenue source. o No other changes were made to this section other than adding this title to the paragraph. • Page 10— A new section on "Long-term Liability Reserves" has been added and includes the Cemetery Reserve. o GGAF will continue to review long-term commitments and other under funded liabilities for future additions • Page 13 — Updated the chart that summarizes the procurement approval requirements to mirror state law, and clarified that all purchases must be approved according to preapproved limits within each department and as directed and approved by the City Manager. • Page 28 — A note was added to cross reference the use of excess minimum reserves to "Section IV. L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances". • Page 28— Language regarding aged receivables has been deleted in order to be compliant with "Red Flag Rules" for customer account management. In addition, references to fiscal year 2014/15 have been updated and designated amounts have been left blank. These amounts will be included once they have been determined and will be included in the final document that is included in the 2015/16 adopted budget. As mentioned, this item was reviewed with GGAF in detail at its March 25, 2015 meeting, and will be presented and discussed at the April 14, 2015 Council workshop. ATTACHMENTS Redline copy of Proposed 2015-16 Fiscal and Budgetary Policy as amended by GGAG from the March 25th meeting. Proposed Ordinance with a copy of the Policy as Exhibit A FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Page 405 of 516 Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A GGAF Redline Page 406 of 516 ORDINANCE NUMBER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TX FORMALY ADOPTING THE FISCAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council developed a Fiscal and Budgetary Policy and was adopted by City Council action in 2001; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy has been reviewed and adopted each year since 2001 by such Council action; and WHEREAS, this Policy is used to guide the City's financial operations; and WHEREAS, the City's Annual Budget is prepared in accordance with this policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved the amended Fiscal and Budgetary Policy for 2015/16; and WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed this Policy to be in effect: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance complies with the Vision Statement of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 2. The City Council approves the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy as illustrated in Exhibit A. SECTION 3. In the event any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, provision sentence or part of this ordinance or the application of same to any person or circumstance shall for any reason be adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance which shall be given full force and effect. SECTION 4: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. Ordinance Number: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: Page 1 of 2 Page 407 of 516 PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 14t" day of April, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 28t" day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapmen, City Attorney Ordinance Number: Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Amendment Date Approved: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 Page 408 of 516 Exhibit A City of Georgetown Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Approved April 14, 2015 I. PURPOSE The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning, accountability, full disclosure and communication. The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to enable the City and its related component units, including the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) to achieve and maintain a long-term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day-to-day planning and operations of the City's financial affairs. Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting and financial reporting, internal controls, both operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, investment and asset management, debt management and forecasting. This is done in order to: A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation; B. Provide precedents for future policy -makers and financial managers on common financial goals and strategies; C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and D. Demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local Government Code and other legal mandates. These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process. II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include: Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as well as, solid waste management. Special Revenue Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally restricted for specified purposes. The City City of Georgetown Fiscal and Budgetary Policy DRAFT General Government & Finance (GGAF) Recommendations included GGAF Review March 25, 2015 City Council Review April 14, 2015 I. PURPOSE The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning, accountability, full disclosure and communication. The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to enable the City and its related component units, including the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) to achieve and maintain a long-term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day-to-day planning and operations of the City's financial affairs. Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting and financial reporting, internal controls, both operating and capital budgeting, revenue management, investment and asset management, debt management and forecasting. This is done in order to: A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation; B. Provide precedents for future policy -makers and financial managers on common financial goals and strategies; C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and D. Demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local Government Code and other legal mandates. These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process. II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include: Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as well as, solid waste management. Special Revenue Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally restricted for specified purposes. The City currently budgets SRF Funds and includes Tourism, Parkland Dedication, Library Donations, Animal Services Donations, and Street Maintenance Sales Tax. Debt Service Fund is used to account for the payment of general long-term debt principal and interest. Capital Project Funds are used to account for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities other than those financed by enterprise activities. Proprietary Funds: Internal Service Funds account for good or services provided by one internal department to another. The City uses this system to recognize cost for fleet replacement and maintenance, facility maintenance,a-nd computer replacement and maintenance and employee health insurance costs. Enterprise Funds include the City's "business like" activities including all the utility funds and the airport. Basis of Accounting and Basis of Budgeting The City's accounts and budgets for all Governmental Funds using the modified accrual basis of accounting. This basis means that revenue is recognized in the accounting period in which it becomes available and measurable, while expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred. Because the appropriated budget is used as the basis for control and comparison of budgeted and actual amounts, the basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting. Exceptions to the modified accrual basis of accounting include: • Encumbrances, which are treated as expenditures in the year they are encumbered, not when expended. • Grants, which are considered revenue when awarded, not received. Principal and interest on long-term debt, which are recognized when paid. General government funds include the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service fund and general capital project funds. Proprietary Funds, which include the enterprise and internal service funds are accounted and budgeted using the full -accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when they are earned and measurable, while expenses are recognized when they are incurred regardless of timing or related cash flows. The basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting except for principal payments on long-term debt and capital outlay which are treated as budgeted expenses. Exceptions include: • Depreciation which is not budgeted Non -budgeted accruals such as compensated absences III. FUND BALANCE POLICIES The City's Fund Balance is the accumulated difference between assets and liabilities within governmental funds, and it allows the City to meet its contractual obligations, fund disaster or emergency costs, provide cash flow for timing purposes and fund non -recurring expenses appropriated by City Council. This policy establishes limitations on the purposes for which Fund Balances can be used in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 54. The City's Fund Balance will report up to five components: A. Non -spendable Fund Balance — includes inherently non -spendable assets that will never convert to cash, as well as, assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current financial period. Assets included in this category are prepaid items, inventory and non -financial assets held for resale. B. Restricted Fund Balance — represents the portion of fund balance that is subject to legal restrictions, such as grants or hotel/motel tax and bond proceeds. C. Committed Fund Balance — describes the portion of fund balance that is constrained by limitations that the City Council has imposed upon itself, and remains binding unless the City Council removes the limitation. D. Assigned Fund Balance — is that portion of fund balance that reflects the City's intended use of the resource and is established in a less formal method by the City for that designated purpose. E. Unassigned Fund Balance — represents funds that cannot be property classified in one of the other four categories. IV. OPERATING BUDGET Budgeting is an essential element of the financial planning, control and evaluation process of municipal government. The "operating budget" is the City's annual financial operating plan. The annual budget includes all of the operating departments of the general fund, proprietary funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds, and capital improvement funds of the City. A. Comprehensive Plan — The 2030 Plan is written from a perspective of some twenty years into the future. It expresses what we envision and desire our community to be in the year 2030, and it reflects on all that we have accomplished since we launched the revision of our Comprehensive Plan in 2006. The Plan utilizes a Vision Statement to guide the desired outcomes for the community. B. Council Vision — The Council has further defined the City's Comprehensive Plan by defining its vision to become the City of Excellence. This vision is to be accomplished through five (5) focus areas. These focus areas become the City's strategic goals through development and implementation of defined Business Plans for each focus area. 1. Economic Development 2. Signature Destination 3. Public Safety 4. Transportation 5. Utility Services C. Five -Year City of Excellence Business Plan — A "dashboard" plan will be developed that links the 2030 Plan with the City Council's City of Excellence vision and five focus areas (strategic goals) that further the implementation of the Vision. From those strategic goals an implementation plan for each of the 5 focus areas will be created. 1. A Five -Year Financial Forecast will be created and updated annually that will identify potential tax impacts, rate adjustments and other factors that will impede the implementation of the City of Excellence Business Plan. 2. Year -One of this Business Plan is the basis for the Annual Budget. D. Preparation — The Charter (Section 6.02) requires "a proposed budget prepared by the City Manager and submitted to the City Council at least thirty days prior to the end of the fiscal year. The budget shall be adopted not later than the twenty-seventh day of the last month of the fiscal year. No budget will be adopted or appropriations made unless the total estimated revenues, income and funds available shall be equal to or in excess of such budget or appropriations, except otherwise provided". Therefore, the budget will be presented to the City Council no later than the 1 s` day of August to provide the City Council time to adopt the budget in the required time frame. Proposed Budget — A proposed budget shall be prepared by the City Manager with participation of all of the City's Division Directors within the provision of the Charter and the 2030 Plan and the City of Excellence Vision. a. The budget shall include four basic segments for review and evaluation: • Revenues • Personnel Costs • Operations and Maintenance • Capital and other non -project costs b. The budget review process will include City Council participation in the development of each segment and allow for citizen participation in the process, and will allow for sufficient time to address policy and fiscal issues by the City Council. c. A copy of the proposed budget will be filed with the City Secretary when it is submitted to the City Council. A copy will also be available at the Georgetown Public Library for citizen review. 2. Adoption — Upon finalization of the budget appropriations, the City Council will hold a public hearing, and subsequently adopt by Ordinance the final budget as amended. The budget will be effective for the fiscal year beginning October 1 t The Annual Budget document will be submitted annually to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. E. Balanced Budget — The goal of the City is to adopt and maintain a balanced operating budget using sustainable funding sources that are expected to continue to be available in subsequent fiscal years. Excess balances in operating funds from previous fiscal years shall remain in the fund in which they were appropriated until either such excess balances are proposed and adopted pursuant to Section IV. D. of the th+sthis policy; until they are used to reduce outstanding debt obligations of the City; or both. The Charter (Section 6.04) requires that an operating deficit created in any fiscal year shall be paid off and discharged during the following year. In practice, deficit has been interpreted to mean City funds as a whole. The City Council may choose from time to time to allow individual funds to have a negative balance as long as Operating Reserve requirements for the City as a whole are maintained. F. Planning — The budget process will be coordinated so that major policy issues are identified prior to the budget approval date. This will allow City Council adequate time for consideration of appropriate decisions and analysis of financial impacts. G. Reporting — Summary financial reports will be presented to the City Council quarterly. These reports will be in a format appropriate to enable the City Council to understand the overall budget and financial status. H. Control and Accountability — Each Division Director, appointed by the City Manager, will be responsible for the administration of his/her departmental budget. This includes accomplishing the Goals and Objectives adopted as part of the budget and monitoring each department budget for compliance with spending limitations. Division Directors may transfer funds up to $20,000 within the operations and maintenance or capital line items within a departmental budget category without additional approval. All transfers within the Personnel line items require approval of the Chief Financial Officer and City Manager. All other transfers of appropriation or budget amendments require either City Council or City Manager approval as outlined in Section IV.I and Section V1.B.4. Budget Amendments — The Charter (Section 6.04) provides a method to amend for budget amendments and emergency appropriations. The City Council may authorize with a majority plus one vote, an emergency expenditure as an amendment to the original budget. This may be done in cases of grave public necessity to meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that was not known at the time the budget was adopted. In practice, this has been interpreted to include revenue -related expenses within the enterprise funds and timing differences on capital improvement projects. The following criteria will be used in evaluation of budget amendments: • Is the request necessary? • Why was the item not budgeted in the normal budget process? • Why can't a transfer be done within the Division to remedy the condition? The Chief Financial Officer must certify availability of revenues or funding sources prior to adoption. V The City will amend the budget at year end, if needed, for revenue based expenditures that exceeded budgeted amounts due to increased revenue and recognize any grant funded expenditures for grants received after the budget was adopted or last amended. The City will also amend the budget if necessary as part of the nnod Year Review pfGGesc for any capital project timing adjustments from prior year, as well as, any other known adjustments needed and approved at that time. J. Contingency Appropriations — The budget may include contingency appropriations within designated operating department budgets. These funds are used to offset expenditures for unexpected maintenance or other unanticipated expenses that might occur during the year. Currently, the City maintains contingency appropriations for insurance deductibles, unexpected legal expenses and equipment repairs. K. Council Discretionary Account — The budget may contain appropriated funds to be used at the discretion of the City Council. Actual expenditure of these funds is specifically approved by the City Council on an item by item basis. The Council Discretionary Account for 2014102015/4s16 is $10,000 included in the General Fund. L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances - Within 90 days after fiscal year end, staff will report the projected general fund balance to Council. In the event that unexpected, unbudgeted amounts are determined to be available in the General Fund after year end, these funds may be used for any of the following purposes, as approved by the City Council: 1. to fund capital projects; 2. to fund equipment purchases in lieu of issuing debt; 3. to reduce outstanding city debt, including bonded indebtedness and unfunded pension liabilities; 4. to fund contingent liabilities such as the benefit payout reserve, cemetery trust fund, and similar obligations of the city; 5. to take other steps to reduce property tax rates or mitigate any future increases; 6. to hold those funds in reserve for future commitments or contingencies that may be pending, and/or 7. to fund an economic uncertainty reserve of up to three (3) percent of annual General Fund operating expenditures. REVENUE MANAGEMENT A. Characteristics — The City will strive for the following optimum characteristics in its revenue system: Simplicity — The City, where possible and without sacrificing accuracy, will strive to keep the revenue system simple in order to reduce compliance costs for the taxpayer or service recipient. 2. Certainty — A knowledge and understanding of revenue sources increases the reliability of the revenue system. The City will understand its revenue sources and enact consistent collection policies to provide assurances that the revenue base will materialize according to budget. 3. Equity — The City shall make every effort to maintain equity in its revenue system; i.e., the City should seek to minimize or eliminate all forms of subsidization between entities, funds, services, utilities, and customer classes, and ensure an on -going return on investment for the City. a. The City will make every effort to recognize the benefit that City tax payers contribute to City programs and services. b. The annual Parks and Recreation residential membership rates are established at 75% of non-residential rates plus or minus 10% at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director in keeping with the targeted market cost recovery. 4. Revenue Adequacy — The City should require there be a balance in the revenue system; i.e., the revenue base will have the characteristics of fairness and neutrality as it applies to cost of service, willingness to pay, and ability to pay. Overall Operational Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation for the Recreation and Tennis Centers is targeted to be between 50 — 60%, with some variance in individual programs. 5. Realistic and Conservative Estimates - Revenues will be estimated realistically, and conservatively, taking into account the volatile nature of various revenue streams. 6. Administration — The benefits of a revenue source should exceed the cost of levying and collecting that revenue. 7. Diversification and Stability — A diversified revenue system with a stable source of income shall be maintained. This will help avoid instabilities in two particular revenue sources due to factors such as fluctuations in the economy and variations in the weather. B. Other Considerations — The following considerations and issues will guide the City in its revenue policies concerning specific sources of funds: 1. Cost/Benefit of Incentives for Economic Development — The City will use due caution in the analysis of any incentives that are used to encourage development. A cost/benefit (fiscal impact) analysis will be performed as part of the evaluation. 2. Non -Recurring Revenues — One-time or non -recurring revenues should not be used to finance current ongoing operations. 3. Sustainable Revenues — "Sustainable" means revenue that is consistently available year after year, and includes revenues realized subsequent to adopted projections. 4. Property Tax Revenues — All real and business personal property located within the City will be valued at 100% of the fair market value for any given year based on the current appraisal supplied by the Williamson Central Appraisal District. Conservative budgeted revenue estimates result in a projected ninety-eight percent (98%) budgeted collection rate for current ad valorem taxes. Two percent (2%) of the current ad valorem taxes will be projected as the budget for delinquent ad valorem tax collection. For budgeting purposes, the City will forecast the proposed property tax rate using the effective maintenance & operations (M&O) rate plus the interest & sinking (I&S) rate needed to fund tax supported debt service. Increases to the M&O rate will be deliberated and determined by the City Council. Proposed tax revenue will be budgeted at a 98% collection rate. 5. Interest Income — Interest earned from investments will be distributed to the funds in accordance with the equity balance of the fund from which the monies were provided to be invested. 6. User -Based Fees and Service Charges — For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct or indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible. The City will review fees and charges no less than once every two years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage for the cost of services. The City Council will determine how much of the cost of a service should be recovered by fees and charges. 7. Enterprise Fund Rates — The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to generate revenues required to fully cover operating expenses, meet the legal requirements of all applicable bond covenants, and provide for an adequate level of working capital. Utility rates will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. A rate study will be conducted every 3 years to review rate methodology and ensure revenues will meet future needs. All utility rates will be based on standardized "cost of service" methodoloaies. Water Rates will recognize the at least 75% of the "fixed" cost of service, including debt payments and ROI costs, within the monthly "base charge" determined by meter size. "Volumetric charge" will recognize the balance of fixed costs not included in the base rate, plus all variable costs associated with Drocurina and treatina water. Wastewater Rates are "flat and equal" for all residential customers based on the cost of providing services. Commercial customer rates are varied depending on size and specifications of each commercial customer. • Electric Rates include 100% of fixed costs within the base rate, with all variable costs included in the kWh rate. • Stormwater Drainage Fees are based a mathematical calculation based on impervious cover and aDDlied in compliance with State Law. A restricted Power Contract Credit Reserve has been established to provide financial assurances to the City's wholesale power contract providers as fiscal surety against any potential risk on the City's behalf and will be maintained as "restricted" fund balance on the City's financial statements. A Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Account has been established in the Electric Fund to offset and mitigate potential impacts to customer rates due to increased fuel costs or other external factors that may negatively impact Electric Rates. The Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) may provide funding for: • Deferring or minimizing the rate impact of future cost increases • Costs associated with providing additional power supply • Filling contractual obligations • Balancing of annual power costs RSR funds will be monitored monthly to ensure the electric rate is being managed per the Policy. Increases to RSR are made through the Power Cost Adjustment rate as determined by the fund, at the recommendation of the General Manager for Utilities. 8. Internal Cost Recovery Fees - Additionally, enterprise activity rates will include transfers to and receive credits from other funds as follows: a. General and Administrative Charges — Administrative costs should be charged to all funds for services of general overhead, such as administration, finance, customer billing, legal and other costs as appropriate. These charges will be determined through an indirect cost allocation following accepted practices and procedures and reviewed annually by the City's external auditors. b. Payment for Return on Investment — The intent of this transfer is to provide a benefit to the citizens for the ownership of the various utility operations they own. For all utilities except for Electric: • In -Lieu -of -Franchise -Fee. This transfer, currently 3% of operating revenues generated inside the City, is consistent with the franchise rates charged to investor owned utilities franchised to operate within the City. Return on Investment. The return on investment (ROI) transfer for In - City utility customers is currently calculated at 7% of operating revenues for all utilities. ROI for water and sewer customers outside the City is 10% of operating revenues.. There is no ROI calculated on solid waste revenues. The Franchise and Return on Investment for the Electric Utility is based on kWh sold. For customers inside the City, a $0.0102 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 3% and 7% paid by other utility customers, will be included in the cost per kWh. For customers outside the City, a $0.007253 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 7% ROI paid by utilities, will be included in the cost. 9. Intergovernmental Revenues — All potential grants will be examined for matching requirements and must be approved by the City Council prior to making application of the grant. It must be clearly understood that operational requirements (on -going costs) set up as a result of a grant program could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the program have been completed. 10. Revenue Monitoring — Revenues as they are received will be regularly compared to budgeted revenues and variances will be investigated, and any abnormalities will be included in the quarterly report to the City Council. VI. LONG-TERM LIABILITY RESERVES The City of Georgetown recognizes certain long-term unfunded commitments and contingencies that will require substantial funding at some point in the future. The City is committed to addressing these commitments in a fiscally prudent method by acknowledging their future financial impacts and developing strategies and designated reserve funds to mitiaate those future impacts. 1. Cemetery Reserve will be established for the purpose of funding continued maintenance for City owned cemetery properties VI.VII. EXPENDITURE POLICIES A. Appropriations — The point of budget control is at the department level budget for all funds. The Charter (Section 6.03) provides that any transfer of appropriation between funds must be approved by the City Council and that the City Manager, without City Council approval, is authorized to transfer appropriations among departments, within the same operational division and fund. The City Manager may also authorize transfer of salary adjustment monies between funds that are budgeted in a citywide account. B. Personnel Costs — Costs related to salaries and benefits are budgeted at 100% total costs, assuming open positions are filled throughout the fiscal year. New positions that are added during the budget process may have staggered hire dates with appropriate costs reflected in the budget. Vacancy Factor — General Fund appropriations will include a vacancy factor equal to 1 % of total General Fund salaries and related benefits to offset salary savings within the budget. The vacancy factor will be budgeted as a negative expense within the General Government Department of the General Fund. For 2014/152015/16 the Vacancy Factor equals $ This factor will be reduced throughout the year as vacant positions are recognized within the department budget. 2. Benefit Payout Reserve - The City will establish a benefit payout reserve equal to 15% of the accrued benefit liability for employees who are currently meet eligible to retirement. Only terminating employee benefit expenses may be paid from this reserve. This reserve shall be funded as an offset to the vacancy factor. For ` 014/;5-2015/16$ is budgeted for this reserve. 3. Position Control — The annual budget includes a set number of positions within departments when approved and adopted by City Council. Additional positions 10 cannot be added without approval of the City Council. The City Manager may approve the transfer of authorized positions between departments if funds are available within the department. 4. Use of Excess Salary Savings — Departmental savings generated due to open positions or other salary line item savings cannot be spent by the department unless previously approved by the City Manager and validated by Finance as "excess funds". C. Special Purpose Funding — In order to support community assistance programs, the City designates specific funding for special purposes, including Social Services, Children's Programs, and Public Art. The City reserves the ability to cap this special purpose funding when necessitated by budget contingency or compliance issues, such as revenue shortfalls, or other reasons as determined by City Council. Strategic Partnerships for Community Services. — The City of Georgetown values partnerships with organizations that are committed to addressing our communities greatest public challenges and has identified key priorities in the following areas: • Public Safety • Transportation • Housing • Parks & Recreation • Veteran Services, and • Safety Net The City has targeted funding for these programs to be $5.00 per capita, which may be adjusted to offset the effects of general inflation based upon CPI. If previous funding levels are higher than the targeted amount, and to avoid significant reductions in levels of funding, the City Council shall seek to attain this target chiefly through population growth. These funds will be allocated and paid according to the City Council's guidelines for such programs. The funding level for ''0'�5 2015/16 is $400,049 for these type of initiatives and is the same as in the previous year. 2. Public Art Funding - The City will annually allocate funding for Public Art on a year to year basis depending on the availability of funds in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the City Manager. Funding priority will be given to projects that include a matching donation, including contributions from local organizations and sponsors. Any unspent funds will accumulate and be reallocated in the following budget year. Disbursement of these funds will be determined by the City Council at the recommendation of the City's Arts & Culture Advisory Board. Every effort will be made to include public art funding in future City facilities whose primary purpose is for public use. These projects will include a reasonable allowance for public art that fits the scope and purpose of the building so long that it does not negatively impact the project cost beyond the original budget. In the event there is cost savings in the construction of City Facilities, the City Council may consider utilizing that savings on the purchase of public art for the facility. Is D. Purchasing — The City will maintain and regularly review a written Purchasing Policy. All City purchases of goods or services will be made in accordance with the City's current Purchasing Policy and with State law. 12 The following shows a summary of approval requirements for purchases. Dollar Limits: Procurements: Requirements: Under Under the small purchase No competitive bids and City credit $3,000 limit cards may be used. $3,000 Within informal bid limit A minimum of three informal up to competitive bids required unless $50,000 exempted: HUB requirements apply in accordance with state law. $50,000 In excess of the informal bid Formal solicitations, which includes and above limit public notices, required unless exempted. Advisory board review and recommendation may be required. Council approval required. In addition to the above, all purchases must be approved accordingly to preapproved limits within each department as directed and approved by the City Manager. E. Contracts and Change Orders - Contracts and related change orders must follow the City Purchasing Policies and State Law. In accordance with State Law, change orders are limited to 25% of the total contract amount. Change orders greater than $50,000 require the same advisory board review and Council approvals as the original contracts. F. Prompt Payment — All invoices approved for payment by the proper City authorities shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of goods or services or invoice date, whichever is later in accordance with State law. The City will take advantage of all purchase discounts, when possible. G. Risk Management — The City will pursue every opportunity to provide for the Public's and City employees' safety and to manage its risks. The goal shall be to minimize the risk of loss of resources through liability claims with an emphasis on safety programs. 13 H. Retirement Benefits — Proposals to revise benefits administered and provided by the Texas Municipal Retirement System shall include a written description, and, detailed and summary numerical assessments of the changes that would result from the proposed benefit revision. 1. The numerical assessments shall include the following: a. The estimated change to the TMRS contribution rate that would result from the proposed change in benefits, expressed as a percentage of employee pay and as an annual dollar amount to the General Fund and to each City fund. b. The estimated change to the City's unfunded pension liability, expressed as a dollar amount. c. The estimated change to the City's actuarial funding ratio. 2. The description and numerical assessments must be provided to the City Council at least 72 hours prior to consideration and approval, and must be read aloud to the Council prior to Council consideration. 3. The estimated changes to the City's contribution rate and the unfunded pension liability presented pursuant to the section must be based on information provided by the TMRS actuary or by professional actuary authorized by the TMRS to provide such information. 4. Proposals to revise TMRS benefits must be voted on individually as part of the City Council's legislative agenda. 5. The City has established 80% as the minimum funding goal for the City's unfunded pension liability. The City's funded pension liability is 81.3% as of December 31, 2013, as disclosed by TMRS. The City's ultimate goal is 100%, but will be achieved reasonably over time. 6. The City may elect to make an annual 1-time payment prior to further fund the City's unfunded pension liability. Such payment will be approved and authorized by the City Council prior to December 31 in order to be recognized in the following year's TMRS employer contribution rate calculation. 7. Retirement Cost -of -Living Adjustment a) Within 60 days of when the TMRS annual funding update becomes available each year, staff will review and prepare a summary of costs and options for potential cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) for City of Georgetown retirees. b) Consistent with state statutes governing the Texas Municipal Retirement System, the city may provide an automatic COLA for members of the TMRS who are retired from the City of Georgetown and receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the TMRS. c) The city council may adjust the COLA provided to city retirees based upon the funding level of the city's pension plan, as calculated by the TMRS, as follows: 14 When the funding level of the city's pension plan is The COLA should be Less than 70.0% Zero 70.0% to 79.9% 0.3% of CPI 80.0% to 89.9% 0.5% of CPI 90.0% and greater 0.7% of CPI d) Adjustments made pursuant to subsection b. should reflect the effect of the prospective change in the COLA on the funding level of the city's pension plan. VL.VIII. BUDGET CONTINGENCY PLAN This policy is designed to establish general guidelines for managing revenue shortfalls resulting from local and national economic downturns that adversely affect the City's revenue streams. A. Immediate Action - Once a budgetary shortfall is projected, the City Manager will take the necessary actions to offset any revenue shortfall with a reduction in current expenses. The City Manager may: • Freeze all new hire and vacant positions except those deemed to be a necessity. • Review all planned capital expenditures. • Delay all "non -essential" spending or equipment replacement purchases. The City Manager shall report in a timely manner to the City Council the projected shortfall and the actions taken to resolve it. B. Further Action -. If the actions identified in subsection A are insufficient to offset the projected revenue deficit for the current fiscal year, the City Council may approve the following actions, in the order listed: 1. Apply unspent, unobligated surplus funds from prior fiscal years to fund one-time costs in the current fiscal year budget. 2. Notwithstanding Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy, authorize a reduction in the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, pursuant to Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy, from 90 to 75 days. 3. Direct other reductions in services, including workforce reductions. C. Replenish Fund Balance - As soon as practicable, without placing undue strain on city services, the City Council shall increase the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, up to the 90-day amount required in Section XIV.A.2.b. of this policy. 15 VIWIX. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET The City's goal is to maintain City facilities and infrastructure in order to provide excellent services to the customers within the community, meet growth related needs, and comply with all state and federal regulations. A. Preparation — The City annually updates and adopts a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule as part of the operating budget adoption process. The plan is reviewed and adjusted annually as needed, and year one is adopted as the current year capital budget. The capital budget will include all capital projects, capital resources, and estimated operational impacts. • Needed capital improvements are identified through system models, repair and maintenance records and growth demands. • Economic development projects that have capital infrastructure needs must be reviewed and approved for funding by the City no later than March 1 to be included in the annual CIP process. Any economic development project approved for funding after March 1 will be included in the following year CIP process unless otherwise authorized by City Council. • A team approach will be used to prioritize CIP projects, whereby City staff from all operational areas provide input and ideas relating to each project and its effect on operations. • Citizen involvement and participation will be solicited in formulating the capital budget through neighborhood meetings, public hearings and other forums. • Capital infrastructure necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Annexation Plan will be identified separately within the CIP plan, so that funding alternatives can be developed if needed. Prior to Council adoption, the following Advisory Boards will review the Capital Projects budget: Georgetown Georgetown General Government Utility Systems Transportation and Finance Parks Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory (GUS) (GTAB) (GGAF) Board Electric Streets Facilities Parks and Water Stormwater Drainage Other General Recreation Wastewater Airport Government Capital B. Control — All capital project expenditures must be appropriated in the capital budget. Availability of resources must be identified and then reviewed by the Finance Division before any CIP contract is presented to the City Council for approval. Prior to presentation to Council, the following Advisory Boards will review: In Georgetown Utility Georgetown General Government Systems Transportation and Finance Advisory Board Advisory Board Advisory Board (GUS) (GTAB) (GGAF) All utility contracts and All Transportation, All General Government other utility expenses Stormwater Drainage and non -routine contracts and greater than $50,000 Airport expenditures and expenditures greater than contracts greater than $50,000 $50,000 C. Financing Programs — Where applicable, assessments, impact fees, pro rata charges, or other fees should be used to fund capital projects which have a primary benefit to specific identifiable property owners. Recognizing that long-term debt is usually a more expensive financing method, alternative -financing sources will be explored before debt is issued. When debt is issued, it will be used to acquire major assets with expected lives equal or exceeding the average life of the debt issue. Short-term financing including Capital Leasing and other tax -supported obligations can be used to fund vehicles, computers and other operating equipment provided the impact to the tax rate is minimal. Caution should be used in replacing assets with short-term, tax -supported obligations due to the repetitive nature of the replacements. The total amount of I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate dedicated to fund short-term debt for equipment replacement will not exceed $0.04. DQ . CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT The City recognizes that deferred maintenance increases future capital costs. Therefore, a portion of all individual funds with infrastructure should be budgeted each year to maintain the quality within each system. A. Infrastructure Maintenance - On -going maintenance and major repair costs are included as capital expense within the departmental operating budgets. These costs are generally considered system repairs and are not capitalized for accounting purposes. They include such items as park and recreation facility repairs, street seal coat, water line repairs and other general system maintenance. B. Modified Approach - Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement # 34 provides for an alternative approach to depreciation for measuring the value of infrastructure assets and the related costs incurred to maintain their service life at a locally established minimum standard. The City has elected to implement this modified approach in maintaining their non -enterprise fund infrastructure assets. In order to adopt this alternative method, the City has implemented an asset management system that determines if the minimum standards are being maintained. This measurement system will be updated at least 17 every 3 years. The City has elected to use this alternative method for reporting its street infrastructure assets. The City uses the CarteGraph PavementView Pavement Management Information System to track the condition levels of each of the street sections. The condition of the pavement is based on the following factors: • Type of Distress • Amount of Distress • Severity of Distress • Deduct Values (function of first three) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a measurement scale is based upon a condition index ranging from zero for a failed pavement to 100 for pavement with perfect condition. The condition index is used to classify pavement in the following conditions: PCI Rating 100 — 85 Good 85 — 45 Fair 45 — 0 Poor The City's administrative policy is to achieve an average PCI level of 85. An 85 PCI is considered maintaining the streets in a "good" condition. Staff will prepare a street maintenance budget that meets this target for Council's consideration during the budget process. The PCI level as of 2014 87.30. C. Internal Service Funds Capital Maintenance & Replacement) — The City currently utilizes internal service funds to maintain and replace existing assets. Assessments are made to the using funds for the use of equipment currently in use and to be purchased during the year. In this way, suitable funds are available for the purchase of operational assets without the issuance of debt. A. Fleet Maintenance and Replacement - The City has a major investment in its fleet of cars, trucks, tractors, and other equipment. The City will anticipate replacing existing equipment, as necessary and will establish charges that are assigned to the using departments to account for the cost of that replacement. Vehicle maintenance is also allocated in this manner. B. Technology — It is the policy of the City to plan and fund the maintenance and replacement of its computer network and other technology systems. The City currently uses a four-year replacement cycle for all desktop computers. A reserve will be established within the ISF for replacement of major systems and will be funded over time through excess revenues within the Fund. Funding for major systems assumes that 50% of the replacement cost will be debt funded. C. Facilities Maintenance — The City has established an on -going maintenance program, which includes major repairs, equipment, as well as contracts for maintaining City facilities. The City has anticipated a useful life of such m equipment and established a means of charging those costs to the various departments in order to recognize the City's continuing costs of maintaining its facilities. Determination for facility repairs is based on useful life of the various elements of each facility. A proportional cost for each element is expensed within the budget for capital replacement. An additional unscheduled repair reserve equal to 10% value of annual internal service funding is also budgeted. The estimate reserve for''0�15 2015/16 equals $ D. Departmental Capital Maintenance & Replacement — The City also utilizes department capital maintenance and replacement schedules for specialized assets and equipment necessary to provide services. Parks and Recreation - As part of the City's on -going maintenance program, the City also recognizes the need to regularly maintain and replace grounds, equipment and facilities that are part of the City's Parks and Recreation system. Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be maintained for these items including, but not limited to, playground equipment, buildings, sport courts, trees and grounds, and restroom facilities. The City's goal is to provide level on- going funding to ensure safe, well -maintained facilities for its citizens. 2. Public Safety Equipment — As part of the City's on -going maintenance program, the City also recognizes the need to regularly maintain and replace specialized equipment in Police and Fire. Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be maintained for these items including but not limited to for Fire: SCBA's and other firefighting equipment and protective gear; and for Police: bullet proof vests, armaments and other tactical equipment. The City's goal is to provide level on -going funding to ensure proper protection for employees and citizens. E. Surplus Property 1. From time to time it is necessary to dispose of certain vehicles or equipment that have been procured with City funds and used in City services. Individual surplus property items with expected sales value in excess of $10,000 must be approved by the City Council prior to disposition. 2. City staff will maintain reports and records of all surplus property dispositions in accordance with good internal controls. A report of all disposed items in excess of $1,000 will be included with the quarterly financial reports provided to City Council. �XI. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING A. Accounting — The City is solely responsible for the recording and reporting of its financial affairs, both internally and externally. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible for establishing the structure for the City's Chart of Accounts and for assuring that procedures are in place to properly record financial transactions and report the City's financial position. B. General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) — The City may establish a subcommittee consisting of (3) City Council members and (2) citizens 19 that may meet monthly to provide additional oversight to the City's Finance operations. This subcommittee will also review general government items that are not reviewed by another City advisory board before being presented to City Council. The City's CFO will be the liaison for this subcommittee. C. Audit of Accounts — In accordance with the Charter, an independent audit of the City accounts will be performed every year. The auditor is retained by and is accountable directly to the City Council. The auditing firm will serve for up to 5 years, at which time, the City will re -bid these services and changing firms if deemed necessary by GGAF and City Council. D. External Reporting — Upon completion and acceptance of the annual audit by the City's auditors, the City shall prepare a written Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which shall be presented to the City Council within 180 calendar days of the City's fiscal year end. The CAFR shall be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and shall be presented annually to the Government Finance Officer Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. E. Internal Reporting — The Finance Department will prepare internal financial reports, sufficient to plan, monitor and control the City's financial affairs. ASSET MANAGEMENT A. Cash Management and Investments — The City Council has formally approved a separate Investment Policy for the City of Georgetown that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA), Section 2256 of the Texas Local Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the City Council and applies to all financial assets held by the City and applies to all entities (component units) included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and/or managed by the City Statement of Cash Management Philosophy - The City shall maintain a comprehensive cash management program to include the effective collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt deposit of receipts to the City's depository, the payment of obligations, and the prudent investment of idle funds in accordance with this policy. 2. Objectives — The City's investment program will be conducted as to accomplish the following listed in priority order: • Safety of the principal invested • Liquidity and availability of cash to pay obligations when due • Ensure public trust through responsible actions as custodians of public funds. • Maximize earnings (yield) to the greatest extent possible consistent with the City's investment policy. 3. Safekeeping and Custody — Investments may only be purchased through brokers/dealers who meet the criteria detailed in the investment policy, which also addresses internal controls related to investments. 20 4. Standard of Care and Reporting — Investment will be made with judgment and care, always considering the safety of principal to be invested and the probable income to be derived. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the overall management of the City's investment program and ensures all investments are made in compliance with the investment policy. An investment report, providing both summary and detailed information, will be presented to the City Council quarterly. 5. Authorized Investments — The City can currently invest in the following: • Certificates of Deposit • U.S. Treasury and Agency securities • Investment Pools that meet the requirements of the PFIA • No-load Money Market Mutual Funds • Fully collateralized Repurchase Agreements • Obligations of Municipal Issuers in Texas rated not less than A or its equivalent. • Other investments as approved by City Council and not prohibited by law B. Fixed Assets — These assets will be reasonably safeguarded and properly accounted for, and prudently insured. 1. Capitalization Criteria - For purposes of budgeting and accounting classification, the following criteria must be capitalized: • The asset owned by the City. • The expected useful life of the asset must be longer than one year, or extend the life of an identifiable existing asset by more than one year. • The original cost of the asset must be at least $5,000. • The asset must be tangible. • On -going repairs and general maintenance are not capitalized. 2. New Purchases — All costs associated with bringing the asset into working order will be capitalized as part of the asset cost. This will include startup costs, engineering or consultant type fees as part of the asset cost once the decision or commitment to purchase the asset is made. The cost of land acquired should include all related costs associated with its purchase. 3. Improvements and Replacement — Improvements will be capitalized when they extend the original life of an asset or when they make the asset more valuable than it was originally. The replacement of assets components will normally be expensed unless they are a significant nature and meet all the capitalization criteria. 4. Contributed Capital - Infrastructure assets received from developers or as a result of annexation will be recorded as equity contributions when they are received. 5. Distributions Systems - All costs associated with public domain assets, such as streets and utility distribution lines will be capitalized in accordance with the 21 capitalization policy. Costs should include engineering, construction and other related costs including right of way acquisition. 6. Reporting and Inventory — The Finance Division will maintain the permanent records of the City's fixed assets, including description, cost, department of responsibility, date of acquisition, depreciation and expected useful life. Periodically, random sampling at the department level will be performed to inventory fixed assets assigned to that department. Responsibility for safeguarding the City's fixed assets lies with the department supervisor or manager whose department has been assigned the asset. XII. DEBT MANAGEMENT The City of Georgetown recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities is to provide services to the community. Using debt financing to meet the capital needs of the community must be evaluated according to efficiency and equity. Efficiency must be evaluated to determine the highest rate of return for a given investment of resources. Equity is resolved by determining who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In meeting demand for additional services, the City will strive to balance the needs between debt financing and "pay as you go" methods. The City realizes that failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued economic viability, but also realizes that too much debt may have detrimental effects on the City's long-range financial condition. The City will issue debt only for the purpose of acquiring or constructing capital assets for the general benefit of its citizens and to allow it to fulfill its various purposes as a city. A Debt Condition Update report will be provided annually. A. Usage of Debt - Long-term debt financing will be considered for non -continuous capital improvements of which future citizens will be benefited. Alternatives for financing will be explored prior to debt issuance and include, but not limited to: • Grants • Use of Reserve Funds • Use of Current Revenues • Contributions from developers and others • Leases • Impact Fees When the City utilizes long-term financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by conservatively projecting revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt. It will not finance the improvement over a period greater than the useful life of the improvement and it will determine that the cost benefit of the improvement, including interest costs, is positive to the community. The City may utilize the benefits of short-term debt financing to purchasing operating equipment provided the debt doesn't extend past the useful life of the asset and the potential impact to the tax rate is within policy guidelines. The I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate cannot exceed $0.04 for short-term debt (3-10 years). 22 Types of Debt — 1. General Obligation Bonds (GO's) — General obligation bonds must be authorized by a vote of the citizens of Georgetown. They are used only to fund capital assets of the general government and are not to be used to fund operating needs of the City. The City's ad valorem taxing authority backs general obligation bonds. Conditions for issuance of general obligation debt include: When the project will have a significant impact on the tax rate; When the project may be controversial even through it is routine in nature; or When the project falls outside the normal bounds of projects the City has typically done. For debt programs that include multiple projects that will be issued over multiple years at the discretion of the City Council, the City may approve a Contract with the Voters to manage future property tax rate impacts. The Contract with the Voters will be included in educational information for all applicable GO Bond elections, and will include a maximum annual tax rate increase and a cumulative total per bond authorization maximum tax rate increase. The City will include these impacts in its annual Debt Condition report. The City Council will carefully manage the unissued GO Bond authorization through annual review of related projects to ensure full disclosure on future timing of projects included in the bond package. Timing of authorized projects and related bond issuance will be included in the Annual Budget and published on the City's website. Any changes to this schedule require specific Council authorization. 2. Revenue Bonds — Revenue bonds will be issued to provide for the capital needs of any activities where the capital requirements are necessary for the continuation or expansion of a service. The improved activity shall produce a revenue stream to fund the debt service requirements of the necessary improvement to provide service expansion. The average life of the obligation should not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the bond issue, and will generally be limited to no more than twenty (20) years, An exception can be made for plant expansions or related system expansions whose useful life is in excess of 30 years. A cost benefit analysis will be done to fully disclose the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years. 3. Certificates of Obligation, Contract Obligations (CO's) — Certificates of obligation or contract obligations may be used to fund capital requirements that are not otherwise funded by general obligation or revenue bonds. Debt service for CO's may be either from general revenues (tax -supported) or supported by a specific revenue stream(s) or a combination of both. Typically, the City may issue CO's when the following conditions are met: • When the proposed debt will have minimal impact on future effective property tax rates; 23 When the projects to be funded are within the normal bounds of city capital requirements, such as for roads, parks, various infrastructure and City facilities and equipment; and • When the average life of the obligation does not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the issue. Certificates of obligation will be the least preferred method of financing and will be used with prudent care and judgment by the City Council. Every effort will be made to ensure public participation in decisions relating to debt financing. 4. Self-supporting General Obligation Debt — Refers to certificates of obligation issued for a specific purpose and repaid through dedicated revenues other than ad valorem taxes. The annual debt requirements are not included in the property tax calculation. Both the Airport and Stormwater Drainage funds will issue this type of debt, In addition, the Electric and Water Services Funds can utilize this method of funding non -system capital assets. The City also issues debt on behalf of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) whom then pledges 4B sales tax revenue for the repayment of that debt. 5. Internal borrowing between City funds — The City can authorize use of existing long-term reserves as "loans" between funds. The borrowing fund will repay the loan at a rate consistent with current market conditions. The loan will be repaid within ten (10) years. The loan will be considered an investment of working capital reserves by the lending fund. 6. Other Short-term borrowing - The City may authorize the issuance of Public Property Finance Contractual Obligations (PPFCO) which is short-term obligations for the acquisition of personal public property, such as equipment. PPFCOs are payable from either ad valorem taxes or another dedicated revenue stream. Each issuance will be assessed to ensure cost effectiveness and the repayment schedule will not exceed the useful life of the asset. Multiple equipment acquisitions can be grouped in a single PPFCO issue in order to develop economies of scale. B. Method of Sale — The City will use a competitive bidding process in the sale of bonds unless conditions in the bond market or the nature of the issue warrant a negotiated bid. In such situations, the City will publicly present the reasons for the negotiated sale. The City will rely on the recommendation of the financial advisor in the selection of the underwriter or direct purchaser. The financial advisor must meet all licensing requirements and comply with all MSRB regulations. The City's financial advisor will not act as the underwriter on any City bond issue. C. Disclosure — Full disclosure of operating costs along with capital costs will be made to the bond rating agencies and other users of financial information. The City staff, with assistance of the financial advisor and bond counsel, will prepare the necessary materials for presentation to the rating agencies and will aid in the production of the Preliminary Official Statements. The City will take responsibility for the accuracy of all financial information released. D. Federal Requirements — The City will maintain written procedures to follow post issuance compliance rules, arbitrage rebate and other Federal requirements. 24 • Post issuance tax compliance rules will include records retention, arbitrage rebate, use of proceeds, and Continuing disclosure requirements under SEC Rule 15c2-12, MSRB standards, or as may be required by bond covenants or related agreements. E. Debt Structuring — The City will issue bonds with an average life of twenty (20) years or less, not to exceed the useful life of the asset acquired. The structure should approximate level debt service unless operational matters dictate otherwise. Market factors, such as the effects of tax-exempt designations, the cost of early redemption options and the like, will be given consideration during the structuring of long term debt instruments. Exceptions to the 20 year average life include debt issues for major system expansions, such as water, sewer or electric plants, in which case the City may issue debt greater than 20 years since the average life of the asset exceeds 30 years. A cost benefit analysis indicating the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years will be completed. F. Debt Coverage Ratio — Refers to the number of times the current combined debt service requirements or payments would be covered by the current operating revenues net of on -going operating expenses of the City's combined utilities (Electric, Water, and Wastewater). The City will maintain a minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.5 times for these utilities as a whole. The bond ordinances allow the City to forego a debt reserve fund for its utility debt if the coverage is maintained at 1.35 times or better. Debt coverage for `'0�15 2015/16 is budgeted at times coverage. A coverage ratio of 1.5 times will also be required for all funds issuing self-supporting debt. H. Bond Reimbursement Resolutions — The City may utilize bond reimbursements as a tool to manage its debt issues, due to arbitrage requirements and project timing. In so doing, the City uses its capital reserve "cash" to delay bond issues until such time when issuance is favorable and beneficial to the City. The City Council may authorize a bond reimbursement resolution for General Capital projects that have a direct impact on the City's ad valorem tax rate when the bonds will be issued within the term of the existing City Council. In the event of unexpected circumstances that delay the timing of projects, or market conditions that prohibit financially sound debt issuance, the approved project can be postponed and considered by a future council until circumstantial issues can be resolved. The City Council may also authorize revenue bond reimbursements for approved utility and other self-supporting capital projects within legislative limits. Currently revenue bonds must be issued within 18 months after an eligible bond funded project is begun. The total outstanding bond reimbursements may not exceed the total amount of the City's reserve funds. XIII. OTHER FUNDING ALTERNATIVES: When at all possible, the City will research alternative funding opportunities prior to issuing debt or increasing user -related fees. 25 A. Grants - All potential grants will be examined for any matching requirements and the source of those requirements identified. A grant funding worksheet, reviewed by Finance, that clearly identifies funding sources, outcomes and other relevant information will be presented and approved by the City Council prior to any grant application being submitted. It must be clearly understood that any resulting operation requirements of the grant could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the project have been terminated. The City Council must authorize acceptance of any grant funding. B. Use of Reserve Funds - The City may authorize the use of reserve funds to potentially delay or eliminate a proposed bond issue. This may occur due to higher than anticipated fund balances in prior years, thus eliminating or reducing the need for debt proceeds, or postpone a bond issue until market conditions are more beneficial or timing of the related capital improvements does not correspond with the planned bond issue. Reserve funds used in this manner are replenished upon issuance of the proposed debt. C. Developer Contributions - The City will require developers who negatively impact the City's utility capital plans offset those impacts. These policies are further defined within the City's utility line extension policy and other development regulations. D. Leases - The City may authorize the use of lease financing for certain operating equipment when it is determined that the cost benefit of such an arrangement is advantageous to the City. E. Impact Fees - The City will impose impact fees as allowable under state law for both water and wastewater services. These fees will be calculated in accordance with statute and reviewed at least every three years. All fees collected will fund projects identified within the Fee study and as required by state laws. XIV. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESERVES, AND STABILITY RATIOS The City of Georgetown will maintain budgeted minimum reserves in the ending working capital/fund balances to provide a secure, healthy financial base for the City in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency, allow stability of City operations should revenues fall short of budgeted projections and provide available resources to implement budgeted expenditures without regard to actual timing of cash flows into the City. A. Operational Coverage - The City's goal is to maintain operations coverage of 1.0 (one), such that operating revenues will at least equal or exceed current operating expenditures. Deferrals, short-term loans, or one-time sources will be avoided as budget balancing techniques. Reserves will be used only for emergencies or non- recurring expenditures, except when balances can be reduced because their levels exceed guideline minimums as stated below. Operating Reserves - The City will maintain reserves at a minimum of seventy- five (75) days (20.83%) of net budgeted operating expenditures. Net budgeted operating expenditure is defined as total budgeted expenditures less interfund transfers and charges, general debt service (tax supported), direct cost for purchased power and payments from third party grant monies. Total reserves for 204/15-2015/16 are $ million. The amount of these funds are allocated within the following operating funds and using the following guidelines to maintain 26 the fund balance, working capital and retained earnings (reserves) of the various operating funds at levels sufficient to protect the City's creditworthiness, as well as, its financial position from unforeseeable emergencies. 2. General Fund — The fund balance reserve in the General Fund should equal ninety (90) days or 25% of annual budgeted General Fund operating expenditures. ''^�5 2015/16 reserves are $ million and are allocated as follows: a. Base Level Reserve — will equal sixty (60) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures which will be designated for emergency use only. b. Budget Stabilization Reserve — will equal thirty (30) days of current year budgeted operating expenditures and will be designated to protect the City against short term operating deficits. The funds will be available for the following purposes: i. Defer short term tax increases ii. Cover revenue shortfalls iii. Fund unanticipated expenditures If the Budget Stabilization Reserve is depleted during the fiscal year, the balance must return to the 30 day requirement within the following year's adopted budget. 3. Tourism Fund — A minimum sixty days (60) or 16.67% of operating expenditures will be reserved within the fund balance. These funds are designated to be used to offset any potential revenue shortfall that occurs during the fiscal year and should be replenished in the following fiscal year's budget. 4. Water Services Fund — Working capital reserves in should be 25% or ninety (90) days of operating expenses, net debt service and long-term water contract costs. These reserves are designated to be used to offset potential revenue shortfalls or fund unexpected or emergency expenses that occur during the fiscal year. These reserves should be replenished in the following budget cycle. 5. Stormwater Drainage Fund Othep FURGI — $250,000 for unforeseen emergencies or other potential revenue shortfalls. 6. Electric Fund — The remaining balance to meet the citywide requirement of seventy-five (75) days of reserve funds will be maintained within this fund. It can be used for unforeseen emergencies and expenditures. The Rate Stabilization Account and the Power Contract Credit Reserve are not included in this Contingency Reserve. 27 For all other non -enterprise funds, the fund balance is an indication of the balance of each particular fund at a specific time. The ultimate goal of each such fund is to have expended the fund balance at the conclusion of the activity for which the fund was established. Reserve requirements will be calculated as part of the annual budget process and any additional required funds to be added to the reserve balances will be appropriated within the budget. Funds in excess of the minimum reserves within each fund may be expended for City purposes at the will of the City Council once it has been determined that use of the excess will not endanger reserve requirements in future years. This action requires an amendment to the City's Annual Budget and is outlined in Section !V L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances . B. Liabilities and Receivables - Procedures will be followed to maximize discounts and reduce penalties offered by creditors. Current liabilities will be paid within 30 days of receiving the invoice. Accounts Receivable procedures will target collection for a maximum of 30 days of service. ReGeivables aging past can days will be son+ to a ^^"eGtiGR ---R " The Chief Financial Officer is authorized to write-off non - collectible, non -utility accounts that are delinquent for more than 180 days, and utility accounts delinquent more than 180 days, provided proper delinquency procedures have been followed, and include this information in the annual report to the City Council. C. Capital Project Funds — Every effort will be made for all monies within the Capital Project Funds to be expended in a timely manner preferably within thirty-six (36) months of receipt. The fund balance will be invested and income generated will offset increases in construction costs or other costs associated with the project. Capital project funds are intended to be expended totally, with any unexpected excess to be transferred to the Debt Service fund to service project -related debt service. D. General Debt Service Funds — Revenues within this fund are stable, based on property tax revenues. Balances are maintained to meet contingencies and to make certain that the next year's debt service payments may be met in a timely manner. Fund balance should not fall below 45 days annual debt service requirements, in accordance with IRS guidelines. E. Investment of Reserve Funds — The reserve funds will be invested in accordance with the City's investment policy. Existing non -cash investment would be exempt through retirement of the investment. 28 F. Ratios/Trend Analysis - Ratios and significant balances will be incorporated into both the mid -year and annual reports to the City Council. This information will provide users with meaningful data to identify major trends of the City's financial condition through analytical procedures. The following ratios/balances will be used as key financial indicators: • Fund Balance/Equity: FB/E • Working Capital: CA - CL • Current Ratio: CA/CL • Quick Ratio: Liquid CA/CL • Debt/Assessed AV Taxes D/AV • Debt Ratio: CL +LTL/TA • Enterprise Oper Coverage: OR/OE Assets - liabilities AL (Acceptable level) minimum reserve requirement Current assets less current liabilities AL minimum reserve requirement Current assets divided by current liabilities AL > 1.00 "Liquid" current assets divided by current liabilities AL > 1.00 Debt divided by assessed Ad Valorem value AL<5 Current liabilities plus long-term liabilities divided by total assets AL<1 Operating rev divided by operating expense AL > 1.25 • Times Coverage Ratio: Operating revenue less operating expense divided by annual debt service (OR-OE)/DSV AL > 1.5 The City will be to develop minimum/maximum levels for the above ratios/balances through analyzing of City historical trends and future projections. These ratios will also be compared to other similar or regional municipalities for further analysis. 29 XV. INTERNAL CONTROLS A. Written Procedures — Wherever possible, written procedures will be established and maintained by the Chief Financial Officer for all functions involving cash handling and/or accounting throughout the City. These procedures will embrace the general concepts of fiscal responsibility set forth in this policy statement. B. Internal Audit Program - An internal audit program will be maintained by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure compliance with City policies and procedures and to prevent the potential for fraud. Departmental Audits — departmental processes will be reviewed to ensure dual control of City assets and identify the opportunity for fraud potential, as well as, to ensure that departmental internal procedures are documented and updated as needed. 2. Employees or Transaction Review - P�—pogFams- Programs to be audited include Petty Cash, City Credit Card accounts, time entry, and travel. All discrepancies will be identified, and the employee's Division Director will be notified. The City Manager will also be notified depending on the seriousness of the infraction. 3. Results of all internal audits will be provided to City Council on a quarterly basis. C. Division Directors Responsibility — Each division Director is responsible for ensuring that good internal controls are followed throughout their department, that all Finance Division directives are implemented and that all independent auditor internal control recommendations are addressed. Departments will develop and periodically update written internal control procedures. XVI. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION Realizing the importance and contribution of employee's in achieving and maintaining the City of Excellence, the City's goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees who provide excellent, friendly services to our community in an effective and efficient manner. A. Adequate Staffing — Staffing levels will be adequate for the fiscal functions of the City to operate effectively. Workload allocation alternatives will be explored before adding additional staff. B. Competitive Compensation — In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City is implementing a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Policy to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: Cost of Living Adjustment - (COLA) — To protect City employees from the effects of general inflation, every odd numbered year, the City may fund a COLA adjustment for all regular employees not included in a defined pay plan. The COLA will be based on a three-year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern cities pertinent to Georgetown's population. 30 2. Pay Scale Review — To ensure the City's pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, every even numbered Year, the City will review its pay plan for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City's pay scale. 3. Pay for Performance — Each year the City will fund pay adjustments to aid in retaining quality employees while recognizing increased job experience and rewarding quality performance. Adjustments are based on the previous year's annual performance evaluation. The percentage adjustments are determined by the employee's position within their pay grade, including merit adjustments for productivity and quality performance during the previous fiscal year. In addition, the City may also choose to fund a one-time on performance that exceeds expectations during the review period. C. Self -Insurance Program — The City is committed to providing quality healthcare insurance that offers the most flexibility in health benefits and options to its employees. In order to provide the most cost effective solution, the City has determined that establishing a self -funded health insurance plan offers the greatest opportunity to mitigate future cost increases while offering quality health care services to its employees. The City has established a mechanism to manage the accounts and payments associated with this program. Per GASB Statement No. 66, such funding should be accounted for as a Special ReveR a an Internal Service Fund (SR-FISF). Employee Health Insurance SRFISF- includes premium contributions from employees and budgeted health insurance contributions included in the City's annual budget process. Self -Insurance Reserve will be included and maintained within the Employee Self -Insurance Internal Service Fund to provide stabilization for employee health insurance premiums. The amount of the reserve will be determined bV the actuarially determined "maximum" amount risk related to the potential claims to the plan in one year. Initially, the reserve is targeted to be $1,000,000 bV fiscal year 2017/18. 2. Employee Premiums — Annual premiums will be recommended to City Council through a collaborative process between the City's Employee Benefit Committee and external consultants using historical data and other analytic analysis. 31 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2014/15 Annual Budget due to increased operation and capital costs, including the addition of six (6) new positions for the Emergency Response Program -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: On March 24, 2015, City Council directed staff to move forward with the full implementation of the new Emergency Response Service (EMS) Program to begin full service in October 2015. This program expansion requires the addition of six (6) new paramedics, as well as, the purchase and equipping of two (2) additional TRVs. All costs associated with this program are accounted for within the Fire Program Special Revenue Fund. This SFR will carry a negative fund balance, funded through internal borrowings, and repaid with program savings over the next 5 years. In addition, the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) recommended offsetting up to 40% this deficit with one-time excess General Funds from YE 2014. This transfer from the General Fund to the Fire SRF will backstop the negative fund balance and will be repaid through the Program over the next 5 years. Also, increased costs associated with the replacement and hiring of a new City Manager also require additional budgetary appropriation within the City Manager's departmental budget, as well as within the Human Resources Budget for recruitment of both the City Manager and 16 new paramedics, at approximately $1,250 each. These costs are funded with unappropriated General Fund revenues related to the Water Services - Western District (Return on Investment (ROI) revenues) that were not previously recognized in the 2014/15 Annual Budget. None of the above items were known at the time the 2014/15 budget was adopted. This budget amendment addresses the legal and financial appropriation needed to accommodate these changes. The detailed distribution of the amendment is included in the attachments to the ordinance as Exhibit A. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Charter requires that a majority plus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. The City charter allows for budget amendments in emergency situations and when the issues and needs were unknown at the time the budget was adopted. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A - 2014/15 Year End Adjustment Amendment FINANCIAL IMPACT: In total, this budget amendment increases TOTAL APPROPRIATION by $1,482,000. Funding for this budget amendment is primarily from the General Fund (either Excess YE2014 funds or unallocated and unrecognized ROI revenue related to the acquisition of the Western District). Additionally, the increase in EMS costs will increase the ending SFR deficit. This deficit is in -line with the financial analysis of the EMS Program presented to City Council on March 24, 2015. To further backstop the EMS Program, GGAF recommended allocating up to 40% of the deficit from the previous year excess General Fund. By transferring these funds, the potential financial risk is reduced, with the intent that the General Fund will be repaid once the program is operational. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff Page 441 of 516 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A Page 442 of 516 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014/15 ANNUAL BUDGET DUE TO INCREASED OPERATIONAL AND CAPITAL COSTS, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF SIX (6) NEW POSITIONS FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City has expanded its planned Emergency Response Services (EMS) Program; and WHEREAS, such expansion requires adding six additional staff positions necessary to fully implement the program; and WHEREAS, the EMS program expansion necessitates additional capital expenses and other operating costs, including recruitment costs; and WHEREAS, additional costs were incurred to recruit and hire a new City Manager; and WHEREAS, these expenditures will be funded with excess revenues or through internal borrowing, as allowed by the City's Fiscal and Budgetary Policy; and WHEREAS, the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) recommended funding up to 40% of the estimated September 30, 2015 EMS Program Shortfall from unallocated General Funds; and WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year 2014/15 Annual Budget was approved; and WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Budget by a Council majority plus one in such situations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: �qFrTIONI 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. .qFr..TinN 9 The amendment to the 2014/15 Annual Budget of the revenues of the City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2014, and ending Ordinance Number: Description: EMS Budget Amendment Date Approved: April 28, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Page 443 of 516 September 30, 2015. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 3. The total of $1,482,000 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and internal transfers between funds as included in Exhibit "A". 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. This ordinance complies with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan. SECTION 5. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas. PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 14`h day of April, 2015. PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 28'h day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jessica Brettle City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman City Attorney Ordinance Number: Description: EMS Budget Amendment Date Approved: April 28, 2015 THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: By: Dale Ross Mayor Page 2 of 2 Page 444 of 516 EXHIBIT A 2014/15 Annual Budget Amendment General Fund Revenues/Sources: Fund Balance (709,000) Expenditures - Transfer Out -|SF-Reon/itpn7entCosts 57.000 TranoferOut-SRF-EMSPnogoa/n 450.000 City Manager 202000 Excess revenue over expenditures Joint Services Fund Revenues/Sources: Transfer In - General Fund $ (57,000) Expenditures Recruitment costs 57000 Excess revenue over expenditures 0 Special Revenue Fund - Fire -Based Paramedic m Revenues/Sources: Transfer|n-Genena|Fumj (450'000) Fund Balance - Due from City-wide Reserves (266,000) Expenoes-onreotbmino Peramedic8e|ahes/Benefits (6 positions -July hire date) 125.000 Equipment and related expense 131'000 Capital (2TRV+Equipment) 460000 Total Budget Amendment - Increase in Appropriation 1,482,000 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution in support of national action on the misuse of antibiotics -- Rachael Jonrowe, District 6 Councilmember ITEM SUMMARY: In order to address the growing threat of antibiotic -resistant infections, which currently infect approximately 2 million Americans every year including members of our own community, a Southwestern University student organization, Students for Environmental Activism and Knowledge (SEAK), has requested that the City approve a Resolution to raise awareness about the misuse of antibiotics, specifically non -therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock agriculture. This Resolution also authorizes the City to contact state and federal Representatives and Senators to call for a ban on the use of non -therapeutic antibiotics on livestock by signing on to the Protection of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)/Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA). FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Rachael Jonrowe, District 6 Councilmember and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Resolution - non -therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock Antibiotics Presentation Page 446 of 516 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS REGARDING OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF NONTHERAPEUTIC ANTIBIOTICS ON LIVESTOCK WHEREAS, eighty percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States are used in livestock production; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that most of those antibiotics are used irresponsibly; and WHEREAS, low doses of antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock for growth promotion and disease prevention to compensate for crowded, unsanitary conditions, in a practice known as "nontherapeutic use"; and WHEREAS, "nontherapeutic use" creates ideal conditions for the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria; and WHEREAS, antibiotic resistant bacteria on livestock operations are known to spread to retail meat, farmers and farmworkers, and rural environments; and WHEREAS, antibiotic resistance in pathogens due to nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock production has been a public health concern since the 1960s; and WHEREAS, antibiotic resistant bacteria have been the cause of several foodborne illness outbreaks including a 2011 outbreak of antibiotic resistant Salmonella in ground turkey that sickened 136 people, hospitalized 37, and killed one and lead to the third largest meat recall in the USDA's records and a 2013 outbreak of antibiotic resistant Salmonella in chicken that sickened 416 people and hospitalized 162; WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that at least two million Americans suffer from antibiotic resistant bacterial infections each year and twenty-three thousand Americans die from those infections; and WHEREAS, the medical and social costs of antibiotic -resistance infections in just one hospital for one year have been estimated to be between $13 million and $18 million; and Resolution No. Nontherapeutic Livestock Antibiotics Date of Approval: Page 1 of 2 Page 447 of 516 WHEREAS, the federal government has limited nontherapeutic uses of two classes of antibiotics, but otherwise largely relied on voluntary guidance to attempt to reduce overuse of antibiotics in livestock production, despite regular acknowledgements that nontherapeutic use and the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria poses a significant public health threat; and 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. SECTION 2. The City of Georgetown supports a statewide and national ban on nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics in livestock production. SECTION 3. The City of Georgetown supports the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)/Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA). SECTION 4. The City of Georgetown will send a letter to the Texas State Representatives, Texas State Senators, Texas Congressional Representatives and Texas U.S. Senators calling for a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock agriculture and for them to co-sponsor the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA)/Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA). RESOLVED on this day of ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Resolution No. Nontherapeutic Livestock Antibiotics Date of Approval: 2015. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Dale Ross, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Page 448 of 516 ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE 101 How Antibiotic Misuse on Factory Farms Threatens American Families SAVE ANTIBIOTICS FOR MEDICINE, NOT FACTORY FARMS Sam Guess, Georgetown volunteer, Food & Water Watch Contact: guesss@southwestern.edu, (337) 257-1035 foodawater watch www.foodandwaterwatch.org Page 449 of 516 Antibiotic Use in the U.S. 20% Agriculture 80% Human Medicine The Food and Drug Administration, 2011 Page 450 of 516 The science is clear • Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report, fall 2013. — Over two million people per year suffer from antibiotic -resistant infections, and at least 23,000 people die from them — "Simply using antibiotics creates resistance. These drugs should only be used to treat infections:' - CDC Page 451 of 516 Who else thinks it's a problem? • American Medical Association • American Academy of Pediatrics • Infectious Disease Society of America • American Public Health Association • World Health Organization And the list goes on... "The inappropriate use of antibiotics in animal agriculture can cause critical antibiotic drugs to become ineffective in humans due to the development of resistance"—Americ n,lMedical Association How Antibiotic Misuse On Factory Farms Can Make You Sick FEED 1* Consumers encounter AR bacteria O Factory farms use feed that's pre mixed ©whi l le handling raw meat and eating with antibiotics to promote faster animaundercooked meat. growth and prevent nfections. AR bacteria in livestock can sp•ead to farmers, farmworkers, meat plant workers and the general population. 0000 ! o ' '• 41 Plh o . r V VVV V 4 t t 4) Giving low doses of antibiotics to groups of arimaIs overextended time periods fuels the development of artibictic-resistant (AR) bacteria. • x x • The dlgostm Low do —of AR bactana AR bactar.a A. tract enubwtics 611 s r and .here rc-Un- many better.. same bact,ia. reproduce. Beres with other pasvng along bacteria through the —stance 'hon—tal gene genes. transkr" VVV VVV VVV (�. vVVVv vv'v vVVV v`�VV vyV IIV . •V VVVVV VV �VV� VVV �V.Vv VVV' V VV VVV VVV VVV. VVV VVV VV.VV VV. VV � VVv VVrk , rt i Mom' AB antibiotics Q sumeptible bacteria x load wscapuble bacteria SGO res:tans bacteria Waste is stored in lagoons and usec as fertilizer. AR bacteria in the waste continue to reproduce and share genes with other bacteria in soil, streams, ponds and groundwater, creating "reservoirs of resistance." .00 AR oacteral infections have become increasingy common. Doctors are concerned that some antibiotics no longer work to treat sick people. V Page 453 of 516 70% 60% Percent 50 samples 40% with AR 30 bacteria 20% 10% 0% AR E. coli in 2010 NARMS Retail Meat Samples Ground Chicken Pork Chops Ground Turkey Breasts Beef Source - FDA national antimicrobial resistance monitoring system http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSystem/UCM 312360. pdf Page 454 of 516 12% 10% Percent 8 /o samples with AR 6% bacteria 4% 2% 0% AR Salmonella in 2010 NARMS Retail Meat Samples Ground Turkey Chicken Breasts Source - FDA national antimicrobial resistance monitoring system http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/NationalAntimicrobialResistanceMonitoringSy stem/UCM312360.pdf Page 455 of 516 Too little, too late from FDA • In late 2013, FDA released guidelines for drug companies to attempt to limit some uses of antibiotics in factory farming. — The guidelines only apply to growth promotion uses of antibiotics. — Factory farms will still use most of those drugs in the same way, feeding daily low doses to prevent disease in filthy, crowded living conditions. Page 456 of 516 So why haven't we fixed this? • Lack of public awareness • Government bureaucracy backlogs progress Powerful opposition from special interests Page 457 of 516 What We Can Do To Help • Legislation has been introduced in Congress to ban the misuse of antibiotics on factory farms. —The Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA) in the Senate, S. 1256 —The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) in the House, H.R. 1150 Page 458 of 516 Proven Success in the EU • The European Union banned the use of all antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006 • Results: — Antibiotic -resistant bacteria has since declined in livestock, meat and people in the EU. — Denmark, the second country to implement such a ban, has seen substantial growth in its pork industry, growing more pigs with lower antibiotic use per pig. • The real economic threat is the cost of antibiotic - resistant infections that are harder to treat. Page 459 of 516 51 Cites Passed Resolutions in 2014 • St Paul, MN • Seattle, WA • Chicago, IL • Madison, WI • Boone, NC • San Francisco, CA OR ID N1! �CA Page 460 of 516 • Cleveland, OH • Pittsburg, PA • Alexandria, VA • Providence, RI • Cambridge, MA O WY N E t� L aD United States UT MCI' OK AR T', AL 4L = _ Mexico LA Gulf Gt Mexico And over 1,200 Georgetown area residents have signed our petition! Please support, sponsor, and approve this resolution to commit Georgetown to a healthier food system that keeps our medicine working. Page 461 of 516 About • This presentation was put together by Food & Water Watch. • Food & Water Watch is a leading consumer advocacy group based out of Washington, D.C., with 16 field offices across the country. We work to ensure that the food and water we consume is safe and sustainable, that corporations are held accountable, and that our government works to protect the public, not special interest profits. • Our goal is to educate the public about an increasingly urgent public health threat antibiotic -resistant bacteria being bred on factory farms. foodawater watch www.foodandwaterwatch.org Page 462 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Project Update and Status regarding American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Downtown Facilities, Downtown Parking, Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property; 2015/16 Annual Budget Update; 2015 Bond Issue Update; EMS Transition Update; Planning Department Annual Report; Council Project Log, and Project Updates for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB), and Possible Direction to staff -- Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss these projects as a collective. The City Council has also indicated that they would like to receive more information and have discussion regarding the following specific items: • American with Disabilities Act (ADA) • Downtown Facilities • Downtown Parking - MLK/8th Street Surface Parking - Street Study and Design for Additional Parking Facility Downtown • Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property • 2015 Bond Issue Update • 2015/16 Annual Budget Update • EMS Transition Update ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Updates as noted above 2. Council Project Log 3. GEDCO Project Update 4. GTEC Project Report and Status Update 5. GTAB Project Update 6. Planning Department Annual Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is a Project Update Item SUBMITTED BY: Shirley Rinn for Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager ATTACHMENTS: ADA Update to Council Downtown Facilities Downtown Parkin Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Page 463 of 516 2015 Bond Issue 2015-16 budget update EMS Council Project Loi4 GEDCO Project Log GTEC Project Status GTEC Project Reports GTAB Project Updates Planning Annual Report Page 464 of 516 AGEORG�ETQWN XAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Project Sponsor/Manager: Dave Hall, Building Official Nathaniel Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Date of Report Project Scope Statement: In conformance with the ADA Transition Plan 4-28-15 approved by City Council in March of 2014 and the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan, a feasibility study is being conducted to analyze, evaluate, and prioritize all public access for sidewalks, City programming and facilities. Once the Feasibility Study is completed, it will be presented to the ADA Advisory Board for review and recommendation to Council. City Staff will work with the ADA Advisory Board to develop an ADA Webpage as an effective and meaningful resource for City Residents with Disabilities along with any required City ordinances needed to ensure ADA compliance. Key Accomplishments: • A full facility (buildings) audit has been completed as of November, 2014. • The self -assessment for Parks and Recreation has been completed as of March 10, 2015. • Sidewalk Master Plan findings are complete. The Plan was adopted March 10, 2015. • On February 24, 2015 the Task Force voted to recommend to City Council to adopt a Sidewalk Accessibility Ordinance for downtown. Council adopted the Ordinance March 10, 2015. Upcoming Tasks: • Staff has received preliminary comments on the current Georgetown ADA Transition Plan from Altura Solutions, L.P. Staff and is currently working on revisions to the plan. • Staff has been working on a proposed schedule of implementation and prioritization of the facilities and downtown sidewalks audit from the intent of the Transition Plan. • A full report is expected to be brought to the City Council sometime in May 2015. • The first public meeting of the ADA Advisory Board was held on March 31st. Issues: • Staff will be working on the creation and funding of a budget line item for ADA related programs and services with each division. Page 465 of 516 Downtown Facilities April 28, 2015 Project Scope Redeveloping and relocating downtown city facilities to a central campus (see photos) Purpose To ensure highest and best use of existing city buildings. To leverage and capitalize on proximity and economies of scale as city staff is relocated and centralized. To return some of existing inventory to tax rolls. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Element Status Redesign GCAT for Key Accomplishment Municipal Court (510 W. • Feasibility studies completed by Winter & Co. and Ron Hobbs Architects 9tn Street) • Short-listed architects who submitted SOQs for project • Secured buy -in for 8,500 square foot expansion to accommodate dais and courtroom Upcoming Tasks • Finalizing RFP to issue to selected architect • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies court's needs for foreseeable future • Involving Judge in design Challenges • Determining whether or not court room will be shared space • Developing multi -purpose space that can accommodate teen court, as well as AN for public meetings • Project management and Construction Manager at -risk Rehabilitate Old Library as Key Accomplishment new City Hall (808 Martin • Secured funding from Council for design and construction Luther King Street) • Securing architect (same as GCAT Redesign) Upcoming Tasks • Developing scope of work to ensure project satisfies City Hall's needs for foreseeable future • Developing programming and city staff to be relocated Challenges • Timing the sale of current City Hall to fund construction 101 E. 7tn Street Key Accomplishment • Approval to move Municipal Court to GCAT • Secured direction to retain 101 E. Th Street Upcoming Tasks Page 466 of 516 • Developing business plan for CVB to fully utilize building Challenges • Managing potential retail incubator space • Relocating DGA Festival Area Key Accomplishment • Reviewed concept with City Council • Master Signage Plan in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library o Including Red Poppy Cafe canopy in RFQ for GCAT and Old Library Upcoming Tasks • Secure Council funding for festival area in FY 2015/2016 Challenges • Determine scope, which tentatively includes: o Festival Street o Park and Play Area o Plaza o Amphitheater o Tensile Structures • Secure buy -in from downtown stakeholders to move some special events to festival area • Ensuring continuity of design throughout development • Focused and professional programming of festival area Old Power and Light Key Accomplishment Building (809 Martin • Discussion at GGAF on use of building Luther King Street) • Completed environmental assessment • Police department vacated building • Secured approval to move staff on a temporary basis to building Upcoming Tasks • Completing deferred maintenance and moving staff Challenges • Funding for rehabilitation o Potential to sell historic tax credits when building is rehabilitated • Determining long-term programming and use 113 E. 81h Street (current Key Accomplishment City Hall) and 103 W. 7th • Secured preliminary buy -in to sell 113 E. 8th Street and 103 W. 71h Street to Street (current CVB) fund downtown west project Upcoming Tasks • Developing economic development projects for 113 and 103 Challenges • Avoiding pitfalls generally seen when municipalities sell buildings • Allowing sufficient time to market building to cash fund improvements. Page 467 of 516 Downtown Parking April 28, 2015 Project Scope Addressing concerns regarding parking in the downtown overlay district. Purpose To ensure sufficient parking downtown to support continued economic vitality in and around the downtown overlay district. Staff Contact Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ■ hVISITORS CENTER HIM MW TO A MO51 Q i le 1�.TOW IN 1E%AS E } E yTMn �FP PP \ • P0.E RY � PA KINGID ®r, IN --- THREE HOUR ZONE _ - O PROPOSED ADDED., Element Status Surface Lot at Martin Key Accomplishment Luther King Drive and 81h • Finalized interlocal agreement to use County's property for 10-years Street • Completed demolition of metal structures • Finalized Parking lot design (149 spots) • Secured Bids - $338,836.95 Upcoming Tasks • Complete construction after Red Poppy (GGAF in April, Council in May) Challenges • Business owner fatigue with public works projects downtown o Rolled 10" and 11" Street improvements to 16/17 • Lighting and landscaping budget for new lot • Ensuring enough funds are available to complete lot Downtown Parking Study Key Accomplishment • Completed stakeholder survey, with 561 responses • Completed two site visits with consultant and one public meeting Upcoming Tasks • Third site visit during Red Poppy • Funding to improve existing parking inventory • Update to Council in June Challenges • Determining timing and need to parking structure • Coordinating parking study with on -going Downtown West discussions, sidewalk master plan, and ADA task force • Highlighting public parking that is currently available and creating awareness of available parking spots (over 1400 downtown) and enforcing 3-hour parking zone Expanding 3-Hour Parking Key Accomplishment • New ordinance and signage in place Upcoming Tasks • Improved marketing and wayfinding for existing parking Challenges • Ensurin sufficient enforcement for 3-hour zone Page 468 of 516 ARGGEo ETOVVN t_\AS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Lease Agreements related to City -Owned Property Project Sponsor/Manager: Bridget Chapman, City Attorney, Shirley Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Compilation of Lease Agreements and terms April 28, 2015 related to City -Owned Property Key Accomplishments: • Copies of Lease Agreements provided to the City Council. • Summary Report regarding Lease Terms for each Lease Agreement provided to the City Council, including WCAD valuation of land and improvements. • Summary Report of other In -Kind Services provided to non -profits by the City of Georgetown provided to the City Council. Upcoming Tasks: • Complete and update survey with regional and like -sized cities regarding their policies related to leasing city -owned property and social service funding • Determination of Fair Market Leasehold Values • Report to Council Issues: • Long -Term Leases on City -Owned Property, including some on dedicated Parkland. Page 469 of 516 AGEORG�ETQWN XAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT 2015 BOND ISSUE UPDATE Project Sponsor/Manager: Micki Rundell, CFO Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Issuance of the 2015 City of Georgetown Bond Program April 28, 2015 Key Accomplishments: Specialized Public Finance (SPFI) has begun work on the offering documents CO Notice Resolution presented to Council on March 24 for action Upcoming Tasks: Rating Agency Presentation • Preparation of the "Rating Agency Book" • Determine schedule for on -site meeting with S&P analysts scheduled for May 6 • Sale of bonds scheduled for May 14, 2015 Issues: In order to ensure that the City meets with the primary Rating Analyst for the Revenue Bonds (Ted Chapman), the City had to reschedule the planned ratings presentation until May 6 • S&P will be coming to Georgetown to meet with City officials and review the on -site accomplishments of the City • This will be the first time in over 10 years the analysts have come to Georgetown for a site visit Due to this timing adjustment, the bond sale will be postponed until May 14, which still meets the timing requirements of the City's Fiscal & Budgetary Policy. • The Policy requires that the existing City Council not only approves the projects, but also authorizes the debt. • May 14 is the last meeting of the sitting City Council. Page 470 of 516 GE 0RGETOWN TEXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT 2015/16 ANNUAL BUDGET UPDATE Project Sponsor/Manager: Jim Briggs, Interim City Manager Micki Rundell, CFO Date of Report Project Scope Statement: Presentation and Adoption of the 2015116 Annual April 28, 2015 Budget Key Accomplishments: CIP budgets are underway Internal Service Fund managers meeting with departments during March with ISF Funds completed by April 15 Upcoming Tasks: Base budgets and service level requests will be sent to Department Managers the first week of April Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Review is planned for GGAF on March 25 Other workshop planning is underway Issues: Due to the CTSUD court date, the dates for balancing the budget are being revised. Workbooks will be provided to City Council no later than Friday, July 10 • Awaiting final sales tax and other revenues on July 8 to determine final excess funds from 2014/15 • July 14 Council workshop will introduce the budget issues, new requests and answer questions so that Council can be ready to make budgetary decisions on July 16 & 17. • July 16 and July 17 — Council will "balance" budget with new programs/request and other 1-time funding needs allocating any excess funds • July 28 — Council validates the balanced budget and sets the tax rate for 2015/16 Page 471 of 516 AGEO ETOWN EXAS PROJECT STATUS REPORT Project Manager/Sponsor: John Sullivan, Fire Chief Date of Report: Project Scope Statement: April 21, 2015 Paramedic Program Key Accomplishments: • Clear Council Direction was provided — thank you • 8 paramedics successfully completed academy on 3/27 • 8 additional students slated to complete academy on 5/29 • New TRV costs will be approx. $40k cheaper/unit. This is attributed to the help from San Antonio Fire Department — they provided us with two ambulances, at a nominal cost, that we are remounting onto a new chassis. • Obtained Continuing Education license from the State • AMR and Acadian have signed a mutual aid agreement with GFD • EMS training equipment has been ordered • TRV's have been stocked and will be ready for inspection by the State • HIPPA privacy training has been completed by all GFD members • Emergency medical dispatch training and CPR training for dispatchers • Technology improvements — for patient care reporting Upcoming Tasks: • Submit provider license application to the State (Apr/May) • Site audit by State to review compliance with statutory requirements (May/Jun) • Recruitment process/hire process for 6 additional Paramedics (May —Sep) • DEA License for controlled drugs and CLIA waiver for field labs (blood samples) • Amend fee schedule and coordinate billing with 3rd party vendor (May —Jul) • Deploy Station Alerting Software to improve dispatch efficiencies (May/Jun) • Develop and clinical affiliation agreements to improve training capabilities (May) • Certification classes for paramedics (May — Sep) - Advanced Cardiac Life Support - Pediatric Advanced Life Support - Geriatric Emergency Medical Services - Pre -hospital Trauma Life Support - Tactical Combat Casualty Care • EMS Franchise Ordinance - First Reading May 12 - Second Reading May 26 - Request for proposals/qualifications —June - Council awards franchise license(s) —July - EMS Franchise Ordinance Issues: • ESD Board was approached by County to make decision on who would provide ambulance transport. GFD is submitting EMS application to cover City and ETJ so that it reduces confusion and/or delays in receiving an ambulance. • Social media posts have created some angst among the GFD members. They have been encouraged to stay silent and not engage in a "blog or virtual" debate. Page 472 of 516 CITY OF GEORGETOWN COUNCIL PROJECT LOG Date Date Project Assigned Assignee Status Completed Staff is reviewing possible amendments to Downtown Design Guidelines and UDC to address review of residential infill in the Historic District and will bring recommendations back to Council. Staff presented at Council Workshop on October 8, 2013 and received feedback on how to proceed. City Council received an updated proposal at Council Workshop on August 26, 2014 and Laurie Brewer; Matt directed staf to move forward with the proposed changes to the UDC, following the established UDC Amendment process. In Residential Infill Review Process -Historic District 24-Jul-12 Synatschk process with regular updates to Council. Active The City Council voted to approve a Resolution Adopting the ADA Transition Plan recommended by the ADA Task Force on March 25, 2014. Per the Recommendations in the Resolution, (1) an ADA Advisory Board is to be created; (2) a Feasibility Study is to be conducted to analyze, evaluate, prioritize and budget potential projects through the City CIP and Budget.Currently, a Registered ADA Accessiblity firm is surveying the downtown sidewalk portion of the Study. This should be complete by July 11th and DRAFT findings should be completed by July 25th. Once the Feasibility Study is completed, it will be presented to the ADA Task Force for review and recommendations made to the City Council. It is anticipated that these findings and the recommendations will come to the City Council for its consideration on April 28, 2015. (3) The Data is also to be collected and organized in such a way to be included in the City's Asset Management System or other database to organize project date, including inspections and construction. (4) City Staff will work with the ADA Task Force/Advisory Committee to ADA Transition Plan Dave Hall develop the ADA Webpage as an effective and meaningul resource for City Residents with Disabilities. Active Staff is working to compile the information requested; Citicorp is disputing their WCAD valuation for the last three (3) years, the business operations in their building need to be confirmed in order to accurately calculate sales tax generation, and there are Provide City Council and GEDCO with an analysis of some utility billing issues with the displays having incorrect reads compared to the physical meter that are being addressed. Citi Group's total impact from beginning to now based Once these issues have been resolved, staff will be in a better position to analyze the impact that Citicorp generates in terms of on all of the streams of revenue they have generated. revenue. Mark Thomas, Chris 16-Jun-14 Foster, Paul Diaz Active Staff provided an update at the May 27, 2014 City Council Workshop. Staff is currently drafting and reviewing the ordinance for Jennifer Bills, Dave a Residential Rental Registration Program that will be presented to the City Council at a future workshop. This program could be Rental Inspections Hall implemented with the new CIS System depending if the Council is in support of the proposed program. Active Housing Advisory Board Workforce/Multifamily Housing locations and incentives —The Board last presented to the City council on November 26, 2013. Another update will be provided at the City Council Workshop on August 26, 2014. The board is proposing a Workforce Housing Locations map to guide workforce housing developers to suitable locations spread out through the city and school district. They are also proposing an incentive program that would offer site development density bonuses and fee waivers for eligible workforce housing units. This item will be discussed with the Housing Advisory Board and then to the Mulit-Family Housing Jennifer Bills Council on February 24, 2015. Active Council Projects that have been completed have been archived to a different report. This report is available upon request. Page 473 of 516 GEDCO PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT February 16, 2015 Approved by Project Project Description Council Funded Monitoring Compliance Closed Approved and $1.3 Million Grant for wastewater infrastructure disbursed in April completed; Monitoring Citigroup 2008. 12/12/2006 Funded April 2008 Compliance No Provided a $300,000 grant for job creation and retention and capital investment based on new 50,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility at Georgetown South Commercial Park. Amending Performance Agreement to extend the construction completion date to May 2010. Extension was approved by GEDCO on January 25, 2010 and the Partially Funded. First City Council on January 26, 2010. Construction of Facility completed 9/25/2007and Annual payment made Yes. Final compliance Airborn II May 2010. Yes. 1/26/2010 February 2011 date is 12/31/2014. No Provided grant to assist with the work and future plans of Radix BioSolutions at the TLCC. Agreement approved by GEDCO on February 9, 2010 and Council approved the Agreement at its March Yes, Final compliance Radix BioSolutions, Ltd. 9, 2010 Meeting. 3/9/2010 Funded May 13, 2010 date is March 2018 No Provided a grant not to exceed $387,000 for Qualified Expenditures for future site improvements at 205 East University Avenue, Georgetown, Texas. Loan Agreement and Promissory Note have not been executed. Agreement approved by GEDCO on June 23, 2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its June 28, 2011 Funded November and Yes, Final Compliance Lone Star Circle of Care Meeting. 6/28/2011 December 2011 Date is July 28, 2016 No. Provide a grant not to exceed $447,000 for Qualified Expenditures for the lease/purchase and future site improvements at 101 E. 7th Street and 614 Main Street for the operation of a winery on the Downtown Square in Georgetown Agreement approved by GEDCO on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its August 23, 2011 Meeting. Fourth Amended Performance Agreement, Lease Agreement, and Promissory Note was approved by GEDCO on August 20, 2012 and by the City Council on August 28, 2012. TIRZ Yes, Final Compliance is Grape Creek Agreement for $60,000 approved by City Council on 9-11-12. 8/23/2011 Funded March 2018. No Provide a grant not to exceed $70,000 for Qualified Expenditures described as equipment for wine production and an agreement to maintain and operate the existing winery in Georgetown. Agreement approved by GEDCO on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the Yes, Final Compliance Georgetown Winery Agreement at its August 23, 2011 Meeting. 8/23/2011 Funded Date is June 30, 2016 No Page 474 of 516 GEDCO PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT February 16, 2015 Approved by Project Project Description Council Funded Monitoring Compliance Closed Provide a grant not to exceed $92,000 for Qualified Expenditures described as an ICP Spectrometer to be purchased by TLCC to be leased to Dufusion under the terms of the Performance Agreement. Qualified Expenditure to remain the Property of GEDCO unless transferred to DiFusion per the terms of the Performance Agreement.Agreement approved by GEDCO on October 17, 2011 and November 21, 2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its December 13, 2011 Meeting. Performance Agreement and Lease Agreement have not been executed. The GEDCO Board approved additional requirements for the Performance Agreement on May 21, Yes, Final Compliance DiFusiion Technologies 2012. Approved by Council on July 10, 2012. 7/10/2012 Funded Date is July 31, 2015 No Texas Life Sciences Collaboration Center Provide a grant of $150,000 for the maintenance of the TLCC. Yes. Final Compliance (3) Performance Agreement approved by GEDCO on 10/17/14. 11/11/2014 Funded Dec. 2014 October 31, 2015 No. Provide a grant not to exceed $4.5 Million for Public Infrastructure Yes.Construction Improvements. Approved by the GEDCO Board on November 18, Deadline is September The Rivery at Summit Conference Center 2013. Approved by the City Council on December 10, 2013. 12/10/2013 Not Funded 30, 2015. No. Provide a grant of $69,000 for the retention of jobs and retaining its headquarters at the TLCC. Approved by the City Council on December 10, 2013 and approved by the GEDCO Board on Yes. Final Compliance Molecular Templates, Inc. December 16, 2013. 12/10/2013 Funded $69K Jan 2015 December 31, 2014 Yes. Provide a grant of $67,500 for job creation related to expansion of manufacturing facilities. Approved by the City Council on February Yes. Final Compliance TASUS Texas Corporation 25, 2014 and approved by the GEDCO Board on February 17, 2014 2/25/2014 Not Funded May 31, 2017 No. Provide a grant of $320,000 for job creation related to the relocation of the corporate offices to Georgetown. Approved by City Council Yes. Final Compliance Radiation Detection Corporation and GEDCO on July 23, 2013. 7/23/2013 Not Funded December 31, 2021 No Page 475 of 516 GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT April 2015 11 Proiect to Date Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP Project Update On Schedule/ Project Project No. Or Behind Budget Cost tAv;ailableNo. Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,00 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB #14A 5QW Design — 90 % complete; final 10 % On Schedule 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 Wood Road) (construction contract documents and WCCF environmental permitting fees required at time Unchanged of actual construction.) Construction — Pending 2105 Bond funding Other Issues — Fencing has been deleted from project. Staff is completing a task order amendment to pay for that work performed by Engineer prior to it being deleted from project. ROW has been acquired. Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243) #146 5QC Engineer has completed the project PS&E, less On Schedule 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 construction contract documents and environmental permitting required at time of actual Unchanged construction. Weir Trust property - Condemnation pending. Guy/Knight property —Acquisition complete. Wolf property —Acquisition complete. Other Issues —Several re -design items pending due to ROW negotiations and changes to adjacent development; final task order Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer has presented the Preliminary In -process 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 Engineering Report and has begun final PS&E design efforts. Unchanged Engineer is developing ROW strip map and NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway) #QQ 5QY Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel In -process 613,822 613,822 at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Unchanged ROW -1460 #EEa 5RB Construction scheduled to begin in Spring On Schedule 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 #EEb 2015. #EEc Utility relocations - ongoing. As of October 16th, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM Rivery Boulevard 5RM Survey has begun; Engineer expects have On Schedule documents available to begin appraisals this month. Snead Drive 5QZ PS&E is complete; On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 Agreement has been reached for the property Unchanged need to install a water quality pond; paperwork Pending. Mays Street Extension 5RI Engineering has submitted the proposed On Schedule 196,000 196,000 alignment and is working on the 30 % PS&E. Unchanged IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,0000 650,000 Current Economic Development Projects I Project L:\Global\CIP Agenda Form\GTEC Status Reporh2015\GTEC - Project Status - 2015-03.xlsx Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Page 476 of 516 Page 1 of 1 Project to Date Project Bud et I Project Cost Available 1,137,500� 1,137,500 000 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Projected Cost Available 000 283,350 0 283,350 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 571,178 479,588 91,590 382,822 382,822� 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 825,100 87,000 738,100 196,000 196,0000 650,000 0 650,000 Current Year Budget 13114 Current Year Current Year Current Year Budget Cost I Available 1,137,500 0 1,137, 500 000 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 3/30/2015 FM 1460 (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive) Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc Rights -of -Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM 1460 Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Drive). Purpose To have all ROWs cleared and utilities prior to TxDOT letting the project foe construction. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. H U W ooW I 0 Z1Q UJ 0 m 2 U. .%`,may a Ln 2 -� 8 _ �0 P o yLD �a �Z/a 1 , V J 2F?� wm 0uv,Ow H� Zo O .� *0 Z 0rL-a o0 w w Va ED -A J F- U } w wtA o o60� V) W C-?: a �Z oo� Z W = 0 Z Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 16r'', the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Section: North South Acquired: 34 8 Pending: 0 - Condemnation: 2 - Total: 36 8 Utility Relocations Ongoing Construction Bid opened August 2014 Construction scheduled to commence Spring 2015. Other Issues AFA amendment pending reallocating authorized funding for [City] relocation work. Two known change orders pending — first is due to items from ROW negotiations; second is due to proposed intersection redesign. Page 477 of 516 Mays Street Extension (Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to Westinghouse Road) Project No. 5RI TIP No. None April 2015 Project Description Extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road at Rabbit Hill Road. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. Purpose To complete the schematic design, define rights -of -way requirements and complete 30% design. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer CP&Y, Inc. N IH31 NIH3SFWY 'IH35FR SlH3SSB fir/ I _ _ y� f EDP S jH 35 NB JK1vtiR5�s�oPKSHLG BEGIN PROJECT xo` G oA KmOMTOR p0 P R �m p opRr END PROJECT Q �� PpeeP � F55PLJV ENGADINAP S� ?AIRWAY PATH LDV£PD C - Z M - Fib GREFN VISTA PL vp S ERD p TERAVISTA PKWY E.PD0.* Pax KCEIyTPPLPLVD m� DNP�S O w GLFp94P z 20 0 0.25 0.5 p a 2c r o Ita_I LN alc9_ Miles MAYS STREET Element Status / Issues Design Engineering has submitted the proposed alignment and is working on the 30% PS&E. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Will match City of Round Rock standard of 100 ft. within RR's City Limits; City of Georgetown standard of 112 ft. within our City Limits. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues None. Page 478 of 516 NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway Drive) Project No. 5QX TIP No. QQ April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and construct a portion of an IH-35 NB Frontage Road from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard Bridge of a proposed NB FR which would ultimately extend to Lakeway Drive. Purpose To relieve congestion in the Williams Drive/Austin Avenue intersection by providing a NB alternate, interim route to FM 971 and Georgetown High School. This project is the only remaining portion of IH 35 in Central Texas without a frontage road existing, under construction or being designed. Project Manager Bill Dryden Engineer Klotz Associates low Al . --REMOVE EXISTINZ% 1ENTRANCE RAMP iW A fie` Aft .31 Element Status / Issues Design Staff and Engineer has met with TxDOT personnel at both the local Area Office and District Environmental Division. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way None identified Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Staff is working with TxDOT to develop the AFAs required to complete the project Page 479 of 516 Rivery Boulevard Extension (Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive) Project No. 511M TIP No. None April 2015 Project Description Develop the Rights -of -Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in anticipation of future funding availability. Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Design surveying complete. Surveyor working on ROW map and individual parcel documents. Environmental/ Archeology TBD Rights of Way Surveyor working on ROW map and individual parcel documents. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues TBD Page 480 of 516 Snead Drive Project (SE Inner Loop to Airborn Circle) Project No. 5QZ TIP No. None April 2015 Project Description Develop Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the widening of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way, including appurtenant waste water improvements. Purpose This project has been identified as GTEC eligible project and will provide necessary infrastructure for ongoing economic development in the area. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Steger Bizzell S �H 35 /ye - Roadway Widening O Proposed WW Lines I a --- _ under roadway SAUST/N ' Proposed WW Lines I ,�u E outside of roadway �Q Existing WW Jines 4� City Limits O O 02 i O0 5 0 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way Agreement has been reached for the property needed to install a water quality pond; paperwork pending. Utility Relocations Utility relocations either complete or are part of the construction contract. Construction Currently being bid; bid opening April 27f Construction contract will be on the GTEC Agenda in May Other Issues None Page 481 of 516 Southwest Bypass Project (SH 29 to RM 2243) Project No. 5QC TIP No. 14b April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to SH 29 and Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the construction of approximately 1.3 miles of 2-lane interim roadway with bridges from Leander Road to its intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (TIP Project No. 14A. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and GTEC TIP. This project, in coordination with Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension, will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH 35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR Engineering, Inc. PROPOSED I L.o.Dd ��sn� ass Element Status / Issues Design PS&E complete, less construction documents and environmental permitting. Environmental/ Draft Report detailing the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has Archeological been completed and submitted to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation for determination of issues to be mitigated. Rights of Way Weir Trust property - Condemnation pending; Guy/Knight property - Acquisition complete; Wolf property - Acquisition complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction TBD Other Issues Several re -design items pending due to ROW negotiations and changes to adjacent development. Page 482 of 516 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension Project (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) Project No. 5QV TIP No.14a April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design Schematic and Plans Specifications & Estimate for the construction of a roadway from Southwest Bypass (TIP Project # 14B) to DB Wood Road south of SH 29. The project is planned as a major arterial. Purpose This project is identified as needed in the OTP and the TIP. This project, in coordination with Southwest Bypass (#14B), will provide access from Leander Road to DB Wood Road south of SH 29, allowing alternate access from southwest to west areas of the City, relieving the increasing traffic demand along the IH-35 corridor. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Engineering, Inc. �1i'1'I.wMM!•�. III ®�•'� ������ Element Status / Issues Design Design 90% complete; final 10% (construction contract documents and WCCF environmental permitting fees required at time of actual construction.) Environmental/ Archeological Final report concerning the environmental, geotechnical and historical issues has been submitted for review. Rights of Way Complete. Utility Relocations None identified at this time. Construction Pending 2015 bond funding Other Issues Fencing has been deleted from project. Staff is completing a task order amendment to pay for that work performed by Engineer prior to it being deleted from project. Page 483 of 516 Austin Avenue - Bridge Evaluations (North and South San Gabriel Rivers) Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Evaluate the repairs necessary to restore full structural capacity to the Austin Avenue bridges over the North and South San Gabriel Rivers. The process will involve several phases - I) determination of testing needed, II) structural testing, analyses and evaluation of test data to determine/recommend corrective measures and a project budget, III) develop construction plans, specifications and contract documents, estimates of probable construction costs and, last, IV) construction administration. Purpose To extend the structural life of the two bridge and provide long-term vehicular capacity and pedestrian safety along Austin Avenue. Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP Element Status / Issues Design Staff met with Engineer and discussed potential courses of action. There are four basic paths to consider: Do Nothing. Short Term Temporary Fix. Medium Term Fix. Replace Structure. Engineer has developed 2 potential conceptual alignments for the proposed reconstruction of the bridge. Surveying TBD Environmental TBD during Phase II Rights of Way Prop. ROW from 3rd Street to N. of 2nd; Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow Street. Utility Reloc'ns TBD (future) Construction TBD Other Issues Candidate project for May 2015 Bond Program election; Project submitted for CAMPO funding; Project eligible for TxDOT Off -System Bridge Replacement Program. Page 484 of 516 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project Madella Hillard Center to MLK Blvd. Project No. None TIP No. None April 2015 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for sidewalk improvements around the Madella Hilliard Center and continuing along the north side of 8th street to MLK Boulevard. Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Steger Bizzell A A lit I A iTREET Y � r � , Z p' W. 8TH STRE !� C #44 v _ 6J fit It �� ., � , # 1. i. Element Status / Issues Design Complete. Environmental/ Archeological Complete. Rights of Way N/A Utility Relocations N/A Construction Ongoing; approximately 95% complete. Contractor is addressing items from the walk-through and performing final clean-up and revegetation. Other Issues None. Page 485 of 516 FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No.1BZ TIP No. QQ1 April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street. Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of 135 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to SH 130. Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. L� Element Status / Issues Design Preliminary Engineering complete; Engineer working on 60% design submittal Environmental/ Archeological 10/2015 Rights of Way Complete Utility Relocations TBD Construction 10/2016 Other Issues Working with TxDOT to develop an Advance Funding Agreement for plans review and construction administration. Page 486 of 516 FM 1460 Quail Valley Drive to University Drive Project No. 5RB TIP No. EEa, EEb & EEc April 2015 Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update to existing Schematic, Right -of -Way Map and Environmental Document and completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway. Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW, effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on -the -shelf PS&E for TxDOT letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding. Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 0 2 L1. F- = > H IL �p z0 0 oJ �d, �rL—IX Z a oo o Zi— w o w m a ' `ry 0 i r\ LU �0 QQ / y� O ,°c o W Za z--° Ln AL _ r z o J Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way As of October 1611,, the City has obtained Possession and Use Agreements or have closings planned for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Acquired: 34 Pending: 0 Condemnation: 2 Total: 36 Utility Relocations Ongoing. Construction Bid opened August 2014 Construction scheduled to commence Spring 2015. Other Issues Two task order amendments pending and the respective contractor. change orders for Page 487 of 516 Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit April 2015 Purpose The purpose of the City of Georgetown Sidewalk Study and Public Facility Access Audit is to inventory existing public infrastructure within the City of Georgetown City Limits, identify design and compliance deficiencies, evaluate future program requirements, and develop a long term implementation plan. Project Nat Waggoner, PMP® Manager Engineer HDR, Inc. Task Initiation - Completed Planning - Completed Execution - See below ask Name Start ADA Reporting Criteria for Sidewalk Analysis May-14 Jun-14 ✓ Comprehensive Review of Existing Studies, Reports Self -Assessment Survey of Downtown District Data Collection and Field Inventory Plans, and May-14 Jun-14 City Facilities Survey Sidewalk Implementation Plan and Project Prioritization Parks and Amenities Survey Government and Public Stakeholder Meetings Public Meetings and Hearings ADA Transition Plan Update to Council Project Close Out Activities 10 Yr. Recommended Implementation Strategy May-14 Jul-14 ✓ Jun-14 Aug-14 Jul-14 Sep-14 May-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Feb-14 ✓ May-14 Jan-15 ✓ Periodic Mar-15 thru Targeting May-15 Ongoing Targeting Apr-15 Ongoing Funding Needed Priority 1 Projects $10.2 M Operations and Maintenance $5 M Replacement and Retirement (Recommended in 2025) $8 M Outside Fundin Pursui Staff is working to submit SWMP identified projects to meet the CAMPO calls for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Applications are submitted in late June of this year. Staff met with TxDOT 3/30 to discuss sidewalk projects, program calls and their support. Implementation of Priority 1 projects and budget requests for operations and maintenance will involve boards and commissions, including GTAB. At the 1st Reading on February 24th, Councilmember Hesser asked staff to further investigate ownership and maintenance policies for sidewalks. Staff is coordinating with the Planning Department for possible inclusion in the UDC amendment process and is looking for guidance from GTAB as to inclusion in as a regular agendaA88 of 516 Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No.1CA Project No.14c April 2015 Unchanged Project Description Develop a Design Schematic for the Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration and Construction Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2-lane roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. The portion from Leander Road to the east property line of Texas Crushed Stone is a GTAB Project; from the east line to the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35 is being funded by GTEC. Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Project Manager Williamson County City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer HDR, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Engineer is in preliminary engineering and schematic design phase of the facility. Alignment has been presented to staff and management. Surveying City stall met with the Surveyor to resolve a conflict in the proposed ROW to be acquired from Texas Crushed Stone. Environmental/ TBD by preliminary engineering phase. Archeological Rights of Way Conceptually established by the Industrial Agreement; will be refined through the schematic design phase. Negotiations ongoing for the remainder of the ROW Utility Relocations TBD (future) Construction This project included in the Williamson County 2013 Bond Program to construct 2 lanes of the ultimate roadway. Other Issues None Page 489 of 516 Transit Study as Requested by City Council Project No. None Project No. None April 2015 Unchanged Project Council Motion: Discussion and possible direction to the City of Georgetown's Transportation Description Advisory Board (GTAB) to conduct an analysis and make a recommendation to the City Council no later than June 24, 2014 ,regarding the City's potential future participation in State and Regional Transportation Organizations including the benefits, conditions, and justification which would prompt the City's participation in Project Connect, Lone Star Rail and any other relevant State and Regional Transportation Organizations that the City should be involved with -- Steve Fought, Councilmember, District 4 Amended Motion: 1. The City Manager to determine what time and effort staff have available to conduct this type of study over the next year. If it is not in the Transportation Division, Planning Department, Finance Department and/or City Manager's Office work program, as outlined in the current draft budget, can it be adequately staffed to complete this level of work over the next year? 2. Is the challenge to research Federal, State and Regional transportation organizations or is it transit programs? This direction to staff is assuming it is transit programs. 3. Narrow the specific analysis to programs that are actually authorized to receive Federal formula and discretionary funding programs found within the current Federal Transit Administration. However, that would narrow the field down to three agencies or programs. Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail and the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Transportation. CARTS is only a contractor to Capital Metro and provides certain 5310 transit opportunities to persons outside of the Capital Metro Service Area in our jurisdiction. CAMPO, Project Connect, Project Connect North and My35 are simply planning programs that include staff from Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, and TxDOT and representatives from local governments. 4. The analysis should be based on how those planning programs will lead to funding through the project delivery agencies. (Fought amended to include financial risk and benefits to the City) 5. The Council should provide the Board and staff specifics on what type of economic analysis data will lead to an ultimate decision by the City Council. 6. Finally, some people 'can't see what the final project would look like' or 'can't see what a Transit Oriented Development would look like.' Years ago, when the City was looking at transportation options and creating a TOD ordinance, there was a field trip to perform some on the ground research. Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and staff (GTAB was not in existence at the time) went and stayed at a TOD to see for themselves. We should have at least one field trip during this study. Since it has been about 8 years or so since that first and only field trip, it should be extremely informative to do it again and see what a TOD looks like today and how the project has performed over the years. Vote on the original motion as amended: Approved (6-1) (Hesser opposed) Project Ed Polasek, AICP Manager Engineer TBD Project Status Workplan Under Development Page 490 of 516 Transportation Services Operations CIP Maintenance April 2015 Project Description 2014-2015 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays, Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects. Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of 85%. Project Manager Mark Miller Engineer/Engineers KPA, Steger Bizzell, Halff Assoc. Task Status / Issues 2nd Street (KPA) 2nd St. to College St. plans are complete. Advertising, bidding and Engineering construction will coincide with Parks and Recreation VFW Field reconstruction project in approximately June / July minimizing disruption to baseball season and to residents. 91h Street (KPA) (Patin Construction) Austin to Rock portion 98% completed. Electric (Main to Rock) conduit is in place. Patin Construction is currently working on the area from Austin Ave. to Main and will work until the 22nd of April at which time we have asked for them to de -mob from the site and make the area passable and usable, if they are not complete, for the Poppy fest. If additional work remains they will return after the weekend of 4-25. The work remaining in the project is projected to be complete in May. With the stop work request that was issued the contractor the contract time will run through mid -June. Chip Seal 2015 proposed to be bid April 1st and brought to April 101h GTAB with construction complete by August 301h. Fog Seal 2015 Fog sealing will be completed in-house. In-house engineering is being provided for specified streets. Engineering under way and fog sealing will be completed prior to mid -June or as temperature allow. Temperatures much above 80 degrees slows dry time. HIPR/overlay 2015 proposed HIPR Overlays Proposed to be bid on April 1st and brought to April 101h GTAB with construction complete by October 1st. Pavement KPA Engineering: pavement evaluation/scoring and update of 5 year Evaluation (Complete) Page 491 of 516 M EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS r i �j J), 0 A .eview 9 Prepared by City of Georgetown Planning Department February 16, 2015 Nresentatinn Conte r, I L EORGETOWN RANKS SEVENTH ON FASTEST -GROWING CITY LIST May 23rd, 2014 by Keit ThP r7Prlsns rPrinrt-1 this wPPk that CPnrgPtnwn is among fhP fasfPst-growing rif — in fhP country. According to a news release from the U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday, Georgetown ranks number seven on a list of the fastest -growing medium-sized cities in the U.S. "San Marcos, Cedar Park and+ Georgetown —each near Austin —ranked among the 10 fastest -growing cities with populations Pj I • + srµ ®µ. of 50,000 or more during the year ending July 1, 2013," according to the Census news release. Georgetown's growth rate was 4.5 percent from u r S J July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013, resulting in a 2013 - population of 54,898 residents. Georgetown's ,d 2010 census population was 47,400. (Photo - credit: Rudy Ximenez) Housing starts have continued at a steady pace in Georgetown with 690 new home permits issued in 2013. Growth in Georgetown shows no signs of slowing down. Housing communities in all areas of the city continue to add new residences, including developments such as Water Oak, Sun City Texas, The Brownstone at the Summit, and La Conterra. Other neighborhoods such as Wolf Ranch —a Hillwood Communities development with more than 2,000 residences —are in the planning stages. Why is Georgetown growing so fast? One reason is Georgetown's location in the Austin metropolitan area, which has been the fastest -growing metro region in the nation for the past four years. The Austin metro continues to add jobs as well as retirees at a rapid pace. Other reasons for Georgetown's growth include the historic downtown area and Courthouse Square, parks and trails, dining and entertainment options, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and one of the lowest property tax rates in Texas. To find out more about moving to or living in Georgetown, go to livehere.georgetown.orc. Page 493 of 516 Presentation Highlights • Through the approval of Development Agreements and Municipal Utility Districts approved in 2014, 3 new residential subdivisions were created. The approvals result in approximately 18,000 new residents for the City of Georgetown. 0 Combined City nearly 8^ ^^^ EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS and ETJ population reached Presentation Highlights • Total submitted development applications have increased approximately 10% every year over the last 2 years. • The number of recorded residential lots (as a result of new subdivisions) increased from 763 in 2013 to 1,365 in 2014. • Construction of 946 new multi -family units began in 2014. CST 1148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,00r' F 45,000 40,000 City and ETJ Population 74,253.00 71,443.00 50,445 49,206 77,135.00 52,351 2012 2013 2014 --*—City Population --*—City and ETJ Population I!' -0OW+94■ 78, 368.00 53,975 2015 Page 498 of 516 Public Outreach EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Board Commission Number of Meetings in 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Zoning Board of Adjustment 2 UDC Committee 4 Housing Advisory Board 11 Historic and Architectural Review Commission (incl. subcommittees and workshops) 30 Total Meetinas 70 r Page 500 of 516 Development Review EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Total Development Applications Submitted 2012 - 2014 1 L!%[ \J Development Requests 2012 - Za Ell 70 .II 50 40 30 20 10 C Rezoning Requests 70 61 Site Plans Certificate of Preliminary Plats Final Plats Development Municpal Utility Design and Agreement District Requests Compliance Requests ❑ 2012 2013 2014 Page 503 of 516 Land Use and Zoning 2014 Snapshot EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS 2030 Comprehensive Plan Mining 5% Parks, Rec, Open Sp Institutional— 15% 2% Employment Center 4% Rural & Low Residential 47% Moderate Density Res. High Density Res. 15% 1% Page 505 of 516 Dning U Multif 29 Duplex, Townhouse <1% Adopted Zoning Public Facilities Industrial_ RP 1w_ Single Family 43% Agricultural 41% Page 506 of 516 Development Highlights • Sheraton Hotel (221 room hotel and conference center with a parking garage) - construction and site plans approved. • Sun City was approved for 2600 new residential units and 60+ acres of commercial development. EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Development Highlights • Wolf Ranch was approved for 2200 new res. units (including multi -family) and 130 acres of commercial development through the use of a Development Agreement and Municipal Utility District. • Woodhull Ranch was approved for 1600 new res. units (including multi -family) and 66 acres of commercial development through the use of a Development Agreement and Municipal Utility District. EST.1848 G EORGETOWN 0; of 516 TEXAS ' Development Highlights • Retirement Homes/ Assisted Living/ Elder Care Facilities: — 4 new facilities started construction in 2014 — New facilities create approximately 530 beds GE 0 RG E" TEX M. W MrMAU reTeffi7i: 6.09%011W a 4 Georgetown is one of \ the only cities in the Austin area that allows multifamily development to occur in commercial districts, Planning Director Andrew Spurgln said. With the city's current zoning, muMfamlly development is a permitted use in about 11 percent of the city, he said. 0.66%other residential Sauce: Cry of Geirfji M ft DWehred City looks to gain control over multifamily housing Ifficials: Zoning changes needed to direct grow By "That makes it har iiii,,11Wcitylto City staff tion to City Council at its April 8 Out of four apartment com- meeting to initiate changes to the plexes under construction or in ciWs zoning code related to mul- the planning process, only two are tifamily development& zoned for multifamily, and about For years multifamily housing half of the existing apartment developments have been allowed complexes are located within a to occur in three different city commercial zoning, she said. zonings: multifamily, C-1 local "One of the problems we commercial and C-3 general pointed out is if someone comes commercial. to [council] with a nice picture 'No other [areal city has zoning ordrawingofacommercial proj- that open, Georgetown Housing ect and says this is what they are Coordinator Jennifer Bills said. See MUBtlarnity 131 Page 510 of 516 0- - r i T@Ti T ra Do 'quest • CommuniTY Gn,nee> m Regularry updated coupons Q IM Impaotdeals.com Aility Districts and Find u5 0n FaceWk Impactnews.comfgeo-facebook NEWSPAPER Fellow us on Twitter LOCAL. USEFUL. EVERYONE GETS IT.® Ulmpactrtews_geo Q Fevelopment r-'FORGErOWN EDITIONVolume 7, Issue 91 April I May 7, 2014 'greements continueCouncil begins wading through _ •consistentMUD decisions I' I a-'ind from2013 Deve op unicipal City of Georgetown grew utility districts in citys ETJ rn City of Round Rock a City of Liberty Hill • 2014 By BOM wMe The to the city of Georgetown X City of Leander 1 proximity and its amenities as well as the natural beauty ¢ Williamson County MUD No.12 (Rancho Siena) of the South San Gabriel River basin along r West Williamson County MUD No. 1(Oaks at San Gabriel)' Hwy. 29 has made the area attractive to real w Williamson County MUD No.15 (Teravista)` estate developers, city officials have said. As the area continues to grow, several a. 0 Williamson County MUD No. 25 (Water Oak at San Gabriel)' developers have approached the city to d Highlands at Mayfield Ranch MUD request creating municipal utility districts, or MUDS, to help fund infrastructure including arkside at Mayfield Ranch MUD water lines and roadways, Georgetown Chief Financial Officer Micki Rundell said. "We've got several [MILD agreements] that are in the process right now;" Rundell said. `Hwy. 29 is kind of our [MUD] corridor. It City Council tabled the resolution to pay their own way, meet [the city's] standards looks like it will end upbdngprimarkMUDs° allow the creation of the MUD from the and then eventually they will be able to be City Council heard a request at its March 25 meeting to allow time for the devel- annexed in[to the city[; said Steve Robinson, Development Trends • Concerns regarding connectivity between existing and proposed subdivisions were voiced frequently this year. • Multi -family entitlement requests and construction starts were significantly more than years past. • Residential subdivision requests largely -consisted of 1 acre lots. EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS 21 Staff Profile EST.11148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS Planning Department Team 2014 Andrew Spurgin, Director Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Karen Frost, Administrative Assistant Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner Carla Benton, Planner Stephanie McNickle, Planning Technician Tammy Glanville, Planning Technician Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator* Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner* *Provides vital support to department but directly reports to other depts. CST 1148 G EORGETOWN TEXAS City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Page 515 of 516 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Development Agreement with 500 South Austin Ave., LLP - Meet and Confer Update - Albertson's Property - Status of Pending Litigation Matters Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Interim City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined SUBMITTED BY: Page 516 of 516