HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 11.27.2018 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 27 , 20 18
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on No vember 27, 2018 at 2:30 PM at Co uncil Chambers - 101
East 7th Street
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Prese ntation and discussion of the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Reports for the City o f Ge orgetown, Georgetown Transpo rtation Enhancement
Corpo ratio n (GTEC), and the Geo rge to wn Eco nomic Development Corpo ratio n (GEDCO) for the
quarter ended September 30, 201 8 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
B Prese ntation and discussion of the FY2 01 8 Year-End Budget Amendment -- P aul Diaz, Budget
Manager
C Prese ntation and discussion of the pro posed creation of the Wolf Lakes Tax Increment
Re investment Zone (TIRZ) -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manage r
D Prese ntation and discussion of the Solid Waste Master Plan Projec t -- Octavio Garza, Public
Works Director and Teresa Chapman, Enviro nmental Conservation Pro gram Co ordinator
E Prese ntation and discussion regarding Fire Department Staffing -- Jo hn Sullivan, Fire Chief
F Prese ntation and discussion on outre ach effo rts for the Certificate o f Appropriateness
deve lo pment process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
G Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
-Ho neywell Settlement
Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s
City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
- City Secretary
Se c . 55 1.0 86 : Certai n P ubl i c P ow e r Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve Matte r s
- Quarterly Electric Update FY18 Q4 and FY19 Q1 -- Jim Briggs, Ge ne ral Manager of Utilities
Page 1 of 213
and Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2018, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which include s the Investment Reports for the City
of Georgetown, Ge orgetown Transportation Enhanc e ment Co rporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic
Development Co rporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Quarterly Financial Report to Counc il is attached. An e xe c utive summary is included to highlight variances with
regards to the re venues and expenditures, as we ll as an o verview of the investment portfolio as of September 30, 2 01 8.
The Financial Report also includes schedules for the major funds, a summary of grants, capital pro jects, and the List of
Long-term Unfunde d Liabilities.
The investment activity and strategies described in the investment report are in co mpliance with the City’s Investme nt
P olicy and state law. This repo rt meets the quarterly reporting re quirements mandated by the Public Funds Investme nt
Act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
P aul Diaz, Budget Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
4th Quarter R ep o rt
4th Quarter P res entation
Page 3 of 213
Q4 2018
F®ÄÄ®½ RÖÊÙã Ä IÄòÝãÃÄã RÖÊÙã
FÊÙ QçÙãÙ EÄ SÖãÃÙ χτ, φτυό
Page 4 of 213
FINANCIAL REPORT AND INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended September 30, 2018
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1-5
General Fund Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 6
Electric Fund Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 7
Water Services Fund Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 8
Joint Services Fund Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 9
Council Discretionary Fund Schedule .......................................................................................................... 10
Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund Schedule ............................................................................................. 11
Paramedic Fund Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 12
Airport Fund Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 13
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund Schedule .................................................... 14
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund Schedule ............................................................. 15
Quarterly Investment Report - City ........................................................................................................ 16-36
Quarterly Investment Report - GTEC ...................................................................................................... 37-43
Quarterly Investment Report - GEDCO ................................................................................................... 44-50
Grant Applications ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Capital Improvement Projects ................................................................................................................ 52-54
Long-term Commitments and Other Unfunded Liabilities ..................................................................... 55-57
Page 5 of 213
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2018
I. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Please note this quarterly report includes unaudited figures. Currently, City staff along with our audit partners, are in
the process of completing the year-end close out and the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report (CAFR). It is
anticipated the CAFR process will be completed within the next few months and all numbers finalized. The numbers
presented in this report are unaudited, preliminary, and subject to change.
GENERAL FUND REVENUES:
General Fund revenues total $62.8 million, or 0.3% higher
than budget and 0.79% less than projections.
The sales tax collections through September total $14.8
million, or 1.75% higher than budget and 0.59% higher than
projections. Growth in our core sectors of retail, food, and
information are positively impacted by population growth.
Property tax revenues are typically received during the first
two quarters of the fiscal year, with the majority of the taxes
being received in December and January. The amount of
revenue is based on the assessed value and is estimated
using the County Assessor’s data. Any deviations from
estimates in this revenue stream are typically related to new
construction and delinquency payments. Property tax
revenue for the fourth quarter of FY2018 is up 5.9%, or
$739,714 from the fourth quarter of FY2017. Property tax
revenue will end the year within four tenths of a percent of
the budget.
The City collects franchise fees for electric, natural gas,
cable, and non-cellular telephone services. Through the
fourth quarter, franchise fee revenues total $5.3 million in
2018, an increase of 14.1% from the fourth quarter of 2017.
Franchise fees collections occur on a quarterly basis. The
variance from projection was 0.11%.
The City also collects a 3% franchise fee and a 7% return on
investment (ROI) fee from City owned utilities. Through the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year, the City has collected $8.6
million ROI, an increase of 6.1% over this time last year. The
ROI variance from projection is 1.71%.
Sanitation services revenues are up 20.6% from the fourth quarter of FY2017. This increase is due to the growth in
the customer base and the implementation of new rates. The variance of actual to projection is -1.25%.
Development related revenue totals $2.9 million, or 103.8% of budget through the fourth quarter.
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Building Permits
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
$1,400,000
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Sales Tax
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1Page 6 of 213
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
General Fund expenditures for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018 are at 98.9% of budget. Total salaries and benefit
expenditures through the fourth quarter total $35.0 million. Other operational costs total $25.3 million, or 97.1% of
budget.
Vacancy Savings: Personnel projections are initially made in March, and refined over a two-month process. By May,
the final projections on personnel are solidified. Several departments have experienced vacancies after the final
projections were made and thus had notable variances from actual to projection. These departments include
Planning, Public Works, Garey Park, and Code Enforcement. Rec Programs department also saw significant savings
in part time personnel cost for swimming pools.
Administration Services Division (Administrative Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social Service Funding)
expenditures for the fourth quarter total $2.5 million, which represents 94.5% of budget. Year-to-date expenditures
for the Community Services (Parks and Rec., Library, and Communications) and Finance Division (Municipal Court)
total $11.2 million or 96.0% of budget. The Georgetown Utility System Division (Environmental Services, Inspections,
Public Works, and Streets) expenditures through the fourth quarter total $10.8 million or 95.6% of budget. Year-to-
date expenditures for Public Safety total $29.0 million, which represents 99.2% of budget. Overall, General Fund
expenditures are within budget and the fund can cover the 90-day Contingency Reserve and the Economic Stability
Reserve.
The Police Division (Police Admin, Police Operations, Animal Services, and Code Enforcement) is over budget by
$46,201 or 0.18% of total appropriation. The overage in budget is due to special event patrol costs at Blue Hole
throughout the summer. Staff will propose a year-end amendment for Police from savings in the Fire Division. The
total appropriation level of the General Fund budget will remain the same.
UTILITY FUNDS:
Electric sales revenue through the fourth quarter of FY2018 totals $69.2 million, up 2.3% compared to budget. The
increase is due to growth in the customer base and the impact of the power cost adjustment. Total operating
revenues ended FY2018 at $73.6 million, or $1.4 million more than budgeted.
Electric expenditures exceed budget due to higher than projected purchase power costs. The net of purchased power
and congestion revenue rights (CRRs) exceed budget by $11.6 million. Due to the overage in purchased power, the
fund will require a year-end budget amendment. The fund is anticipated to end FY2018 will a fund balance of $1.97
million, a variance to projection of $6.84 million.
Water revenue is up 9.5% while wastewater revenue is up 1.4% compared to last year. The increases are due to
growth in the system and impact fees. Impact fee revenue came in $5.45 million higher than projections. System fee
revenues (water and wastewater fees) finished the year at $40.7 million.
Water expenses total $50.83 million. Non-operational expenses total $18.3 million. These non-operational expenses
are capital improvement projects that normally span multiple years. A CIP Rollforward Budget amendment to
reauthorize these projects for spending in FY2019 is planned in December.
OTHER MAJOR FUNDS:
Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is $1.2 million for the fiscal year, an increase of 1.3% from the prior year due to the
Sheraton Hotel. Airport revenue is up 3.1% from the prior year, and includes fuel sales and lease revenue. The Airport
fund will end FY2018 with $1.06 million of fund balance.
2Page 7 of 213
II. INVESTMENTS
The investment activity and strategies described in this report comply with the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA),
the City’s investment policy, and generally accepted accounting principles. Activity for the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2018 includes the maturing of financial institution deposits (CDs), reinvestment of CD’s, & investing of bond
proceeds in CD’s and Treasury Bills. Interest rates for money market accounts and CD’s have continued to increase
due to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increasing the rate by .25% in September 2018. The City will
continue soliciting for the best rates to improve both diversity and yield, while keeping in mind safety and liquidity.
The Investment Reports for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, and the supporting schedules are attached.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C., has prepared the attached investment reports. A component of our investment
advisory services contract includes Valley View preparing the quarterly investment reports on behalf of the City. A
summary of the investment balances at September 30, 2018, compared to the prior quarter, is shown below for the
City, as well as Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and Georgetown Economic
Development Corporation (GEDCO).
CITY Book Value GTEC GEDCO
6/30/18 9/30/18 6/30/18 9/30/18 6/30/18 9/30/18
Total cash and investments
$203,105,508 $180,045,674 $20,607,520 $18,517,065 $6,651,120 $6,942,552
Average Yield 1.83% 2.07% 1.90% 1.98% 1.92% 2.04%
The City’s strategy continues to be matching maturities with cash flow needs, while focusing on the investment
policy’s long-range goals. The City’s investment strategy is to “ladder” or stagger maturities, thus minimizing erratic
interest rate fluctuations. As interest rates have risen, the City is also managing yield on bond proceeds for arbitrage
purposes.
City portfolio balances have increased in the last few years due to the increase in contingency reserves, interest rate
increases, and debt proceeds issued for future capital improvement projects. The City’s investment portfolio includes
bank deposits, local government investment pool balances, money market accounts, financial institution deposits
(CD’s), and Treasury Bills. All of these investments carry insurance or an implied backing from the Federal
Government. The collateral on all City investments are monitored monthly to ensure the financial institutions carry
minimum collateral of 102% of market value of the City’s investments.
The City made a decision to diversify investments during this quarter. A T-bill was purchased in August with bond
proceeds, as well as various CD’s. The City has a safekeeping relationship with BBVA Compass to manage security
purchases. The investment officers, with the direction of Valley View, will work with approved brokers for purchases.
All securities held by financial institutions as collateral on behalf of the City have been reviewed and met PFIA-
minimum rating criteria.
The City has worked closely with the City’s depository bank to find an average daily balance that is best to receive
the highest yield on the account. These balances earn credit against the fees charged by the bank versus earning
interest on these balances. During this fiscal year, we have made $32,336.87 in excess of the fees. The City has
looked at various options to maximize our best yield versus investment and the decision to change the depository
collateral from securities to a letter of credit has increased our Earnings Credit Rate to .45 (plus 10 basis points). The
excess earning allowance over fees has continued to increase over the last several months. The City will continue to
verify depository yield versus investment yield to achieve the best outcome.
3Page 8 of 213
The City's investment program is conducted to accomplish the objectives of safety, liquidity, public trust, and yield.
Each aspect is considered when making decisions regarding investments.
III. CAPITAL PROJECTS
The projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consist of infrastructure and related construction and do not
include small capital items such as furniture, equipment, and vehicle maintenance. Maintenance-type projects are
not capitalized as a fixed asset and are usually cash funded. Therefore, these projects are operational in nature and
are in the departmental operating budget. A year-to-date budget status for each of the approved projects is included
in the quarterly report.
PARKS
San Gabriel Park Improvements: Phase one of San Gabriel Park is complete. A contract with Prime Construction was
approved by City Council on May 22, 2018 for the construction of phase two. Construction is expected to be
completed by June 2019. Phase two includes entry monuments, roadway and parking improvements, four medium
size picnic and barbecue pavilions, a large multi-use pavilion, 10 small picnic pavilions, trails and trail heads, two
children’s play areas, restoration of two existing springs, one new small restroom building, lighting for two existing
volleyball courts, one lighted basketball court, directional and interpretive signage, open spaces and landscaping. In
addition, the trail extension from San Gabriel Park to the park at Katy Crossing will also be constructed.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Construction on several sidewalk improvement projects throughout the city began in May 2017. This was the first
round of sidewalk improvement projects identified in the adopted Sidewalk Master Plan and was funded in part by
a road bond approved by voters in May 2015. Work on the initially designed portion is complete and the next
downtown sidewalk project is currently being designed.
Old Town North East Sidewalks: Staff is finalizing design and have TCEQ WPAP approval. One easement has been
signed and staff is working to finalize the remaining six. Staff will begin to advertise and bid as soon as the
remaining easements are obtained.
Austin Ave Sidewalks (Hwy. 29 to Leander Rd): Staff begin advertising this project starting October 14th and will
open bid on October 30th 2018.
Downtown West: The City of Georgetown broke ground in November 2017 to start the renovation of two City
buildings that will be part of a civic campus for City government offices. The new civic campus will include a City Hall
and Council Chamber/Municipal Court Building as well as the existing Georgetown Public Library that opened in 2007,
the Historic Light and Water Works office building, and a public parking lot on Eighth Street. The $13 million project
is funded by proceeds from the sale of City buildings, municipal bonds, and fee revenues. Construction is scheduled
to be complete by the end of the year. City Hall is completely dry and even finishes have begun. Council and Court
buildings are close behind City Hall.
ELECTRIC
New development continues to exceed expectations in the fourth quarter with additional residential, multifamily,
and business projects in progress. Projects under construction include Holt Caterpillar, Ewald Kubota, Hillwood
Section 2, Downtown West, Carroll at Rivery Ranch, Mansions II, and Woodsprings Hotel.
WATER
The Berry Creek Interceptor design is 90% complete and the easement acquisition is in progress. Berry Creek
Interceptor phase 4, 5, and 6 will be approximately 15,000 linear feet of 36-inch wastewater from the existing lift
station at Sun City to the Berry Creek lift station. Construction is estimated to start in November 2018.
4Page 9 of 213
The Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion will take the existing plant from 1.5 million gallons to 3
million gallons of treatment capacity. The Pecan Branch wastewater treatment plant construction started in July 2017
and is scheduled for completion in July 2019.
The Shell Road and CR 255 water main designs are complete and easement acquisitions are in progress. This project
will be approximately 44,500 LF of 30—inch waterline from Daniels Mountain Water storage tank to Braun Water
storage tank. Construction is estimated to start in December 2019.
5Page 10 of 213
APRROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 12,405,718 12,405,718 12,405,718 - -
Revenue
Administrative Charges 2,087,555 172,287 2,075,819 2,087,555 (11,736) -0.56%
All Other Revenue 4,076,192 327,588 3,976,989 4,187,026 (210,037) -5.02%
Development and Permit Fees 2,758,500 303,627 2,863,551 3,102,150 (238,599) -7.69%
Franchise Fees 5,213,863 489,120 5,306,460 5,300,544 5,916 0.11%
Garey Park 225,000 23,344 102,451 225,000 (122,549) -54.47%
Parks and Rec Fees 2,339,220 148,999 2,375,730 2,437,500 (61,770) -2.53%
Property Tax 13,400,000 961,586 13,344,564 13,400,000 (55,436) -0.41%
ROI 8,417,635 1,250,873 8,618,437 8,473,681 144,756 1.71%
Sales Tax 14,575,000 3,806,931 14,830,820 14,743,750 87,070 0.59%
Sanitation Revenue 8,974,500 973,014 8,762,764 8,873,500 (110,736) -1.25%
Transfer In 547,200 218,750 547,200 472,200 75,000 15.88%
Revenue Total 62,614,665 8,676,119 62,804,784 63,302,906 (498,122) -0.79%
Expense
Administrative Services 1,590,089 132,360 1,558,913 1,557,444 (1,469) -0.09%
Animal Services 875,831 63,717 834,646 828,681 (5,965) -0.72%
Arts & Culture 80,900 5,752 55,327 80,931 25,604 31.64%
City Council 175,087 12,559 174,286 173,230 (1,056) -0.61%
City Secretary 848,463 120,554 736,060 727,349 (8,711) -1.20%
Code Enforcement 415,749 27,792 359,903 390,366 30,463 7.80%
Communications 410,137 42,398 404,654 389,324 (15,330) -3.94%
Environmental Services 7,623,412 1,617,962 7,882,463 7,715,241 (167,222) -2.17%
Fire Emergency Services 11,139,592 1,398,738 10,819,809 10,956,430 136,621 1.25%
Fire Support Services 2,648,858 202,248 2,701,554 2,680,268 (21,286) -0.79%
Garey Park 621,557 123,567 452,220 517,820 65,600 12.67%
General Gov't Contracts 3,253,786 288,510 4,015,619 3,742,660 (272,959) -7.29%
Inspections 1,231,441 100,341 1,159,540 1,160,914 1,374 0.12%
Library 2,574,935 208,324 2,574,140 2,525,656 (48,484) -1.92%
Municipal Court 632,929 55,292 613,192 614,394 1,202 0.20%
Parks 2,578,108 235,018 2,568,396 2,580,317 11,921 0.46%
Parks Admin 607,229 56,225 607,919 609,666 1,747 0.29%
Planning 1,664,911 235,453 1,626,304 1,534,488 (91,816) -5.98%
Police Admin 2,234,502 191,573 2,266,242 2,220,396 (45,846) -2.06%
Police Operations 11,959,871 890,826 12,071,368 12,043,704 (27,664) -0.23%
Public Works 1,241,845 104,423 938,338 1,138,228 199,890 17.56%
Rec Programs 1,338,038 107,518 1,167,587 1,318,687 151,100 11.46%
Recreation 2,527,496 220,446 2,504,403 2,491,467 (12,936) -0.52%
Streets 4,657,416 744,645 3,710,832 4,535,851 825,019 18.19%
Tennis Center 435,014 43,225 400,300 427,705 27,405 6.41%
Transfer Out 1,928,103 3,739 1,928,101 1,928,103 2 0.00%
Expense Total 65,295,298 7,233,205 64,132,116 64,889,319 757,204 1.17%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (2,680,633) 1,442,914 (1,327,331) (1,586,413) 259,082 -16.33%
AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 9,725,085 11,078,387 10,819,305 259,082 2.39%
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
General Fund
6
Page 11 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 6,758,275 6,758,275 6,758,275 - 0.00%
Operating Revenue
Electric Revenue 67,595,139 9,323,738 69,170,340 69,416,907 (246,567) -0.36%
Interest 48,318 13,646 79,733 47,632 32,100 67.39%
Other Revenue 4,569,955 547,762 4,354,058 5,017,865 (663,808) -13.23%
Operating Revenue Total 72,213,412 9,885,146 73,604,130 74,482,405 (878,275) -1.18%
Operating Expenditures
CRR Credits (2,000,000) (3,707,789) (9,975,855) (7,000,000) 2,975,855 -42.51%
Georgetown Utility Systems 18,465,971 1,965,833 18,248,400 18,433,826 185,426 1.01%
Purchased Power 44,000,000 10,250,969 63,633,139 52,000,000 (11,633,139) -22.37%
Transfer Out-Interfund Transfers 92,600 - 92,600 92,600 - 0.00%
Transfer Out-ROI 5,493,707 608,194 5,344,952 5,235,000 (109,952) -2.10%
Operating Expenditures Total 66,052,278 9,117,207 77,343,236 68,761,426 (8,581,810) -12.48%
Total Net Operations 6,161,134 767,939 (3,739,105) 5,720,979 (9,460,085) -165.36%
Non-Operating Revenue
Bond Proceeds 6,537,000 - 6,727,776 6,537,000 190,776 2.92%
Transfers in 540,981 - 540,981 540,981 - 0.00%
Non-Operating Revenue Total 7,077,981 - 7,268,757 7,077,981 190,776 2.70%
Non-Operating Expenditures
CIP 9,880,487 1,246,933 3,907,079 6,508,565 2,601,486 39.97%
Interest Expense 1,697,769 (197) 1,259,120 1,259,116 (4) 0.00%
Debt Issuance Cost 15,000 - 190,776 15,000 (175,776) -1171.84%
Debt Service 2,539,258 - 2,960,260 2,959,731 (529) -0.02%
Non-Operating Expenditures Total 14,132,514 1,246,736 8,317,235 10,742,412 2,425,177 22.58%
Total Net Non-Operations (7,054,533) (1,246,736) (1,048,478) (3,664,431) 2,615,953 71.39%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (893,399) (478,796) (4,787,584) 2,056,548 (6,844,132) -332.80%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 5,864,876 1,970,691 8,814,823 (6,844,132) -77.64%
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 5,125,000.00 5,125,000.00
Electric Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
7
Page 12 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 74,958,152 74,958,152 74,958,152 - 0.00%
Operating Revenue
Capital Recovery Fee 6,672,500 1,608,530 17,875,414 12,416,521 5,458,893 43.96%
Interest 192,385 141,163 1,329,526 794,596 534,930 67.32%
Irrigation Utility Revenue 225,000 83,989 367,206 214,891 152,315 70.88%
Other Revenue 2,176,250 411,064 6,693,908 3,851,044 2,842,864 73.82%
Raw Water Revenue 178,500 31,935 139,468 141,089 (1,621) -1.15%
Transfer In, Debt 116,613 116,613 116,613 116,613 - 0.00%
Wastewater Utility Revenue 10,850,000 973,093 10,761,484 11,007,305 (245,821) -2.23%
Water Utility Revenue 27,748,195 3,472,682 29,553,572 28,756,997 796,575 2.77%
Operating Revenue Total 48,159,443 6,839,069 66,837,191 57,299,056 9,538,134 16.65%
Operating Expenditures
Irrigation 204,300 40,452 173,014 205,000 31,986 15.60%
Transfer Out, Fleet/Joint Service 62,000 - 62,000 62,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, General 425,000 218,750 425,000 425,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, ROI 2,686,505 276,503 2,711,029 2,993,788 282,759 9.44%
Transfer Out, Utilities 540,981 - 540,981 540,981 - 0.00%
Wastewater Distribution 613,000 465,047 1,017,634 592,810 (424,824) -71.66%
Wastewater Plant Management 2,437,025 244,435 2,349,674 2,412,396 62,722 2.60%
Water Administration 18,602,018 1,774,374 18,685,656 18,313,695 (371,961) -2.03%
Water Distribution 2,273,300 236,478 2,094,643 2,194,442 99,799 4.55%
Water Operations 3,769,545 301,917 3,884,906 3,682,263 (202,643) -5.50%
Water Plant Management 2,548,726 276,079 2,372,061 2,319,630 (52,431) -2.26%
Operating Expenditures Total 34,162,400 3,834,035 34,316,598 33,742,005 (574,593) -1.70%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 13,997,043 3,005,035 32,520,593 23,557,051 8,963,541 38.05%
Non-Operating Revenue
Bond Proceeds - - - - - 0.00%
Non-Operating Revenue Total - - - - - 0.00%
Non-Operating Expenditures
CIP 65,090,414 2,607,807 11,822,061 65,500,836 53,678,775 81.95%
Debt Service 5,344,535 - 6,496,981 5,344,535 (1,152,446) -21.56%
Non-Operating Expenditures Total 70,434,949 2,607,807 18,319,042 70,845,371 52,526,329 74.14%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERATIONS (70,434,949) (2,607,807) (18,319,042) (70,845,371) 52,526,329 74.14%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (56,437,906) 397,228 14,201,551 (47,288,320) 61,489,870 130.03%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 18,520,246 89,159,703 27,669,832 61,489,870 222.23%
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 6,000,000 6,000,000
Water Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
8
Page 13 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 711,548 711,548 711,548 - -
Revenue
Gedco Admin/Contract Fee 221,328 18,444 221,328 221,328 - 0.00%
Gtec Admin/Contract Fee 166,882 13,907 166,884 166,882 2 0.00%
Interest 10,000 2,457 21,913 15,000 6,913 46.09%
Other 26,774 (38,440) 314,409 257,469 56,940 22.12%
Service Fees - Airport 131,785 10,982 131,784 131,785 (1) 0.00%
Service Fees - Conservation 100,350 8,363 100,356 100,356 - 0.00%
Service Fees - Electric 4,233,598 352,800 4,233,600 4,233,598 2 0.00%
Service Fees - General 3,345,567 278,797 3,345,564 3,345,567 (3) 0.00%
Service Fees - Stormwater 938,969 78,247 938,964 938,969 (5) 0.00%
Service Fees - Water 7,248,183 604,015 7,248,180 7,248,183 (3) 0.00%
Transfer In 5,000 - - - - 0.00%
Transfers In 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 - 0.00%
VPID Admin/Contract Fee 8,966 747 8,964 8,966 (2) -0.02%
Revenue Total 16,632,402 1,330,319 16,806,946 16,743,103 63,843 0.38%
Expense
Accounting 947,423 76,464 928,146 944,432 16,286 1.72%
City Wide Hr 415,400 36,554 252,875 283,765 30,890 10.89%
Conservation 982,774 101,803 644,131 718,059 73,928 10.30%
Customer Care 4,054,593 383,012 4,009,096 4,015,638 6,542 0.16%
Economic Development 596,092 60,675 574,367 576,201 1,834 0.32%
Engineering 2,143,112 203,925 1,863,545 1,926,432 62,887 3.26%
Engineering Support 1,069,289 137,711 938,541 1,002,015 63,474 6.33%
Finance Administration 1,115,967 119,753 1,088,296 1,116,361 28,065 2.51%
Gus Administration 1,469,912 157,538 1,420,843 1,457,786 36,943 2.53%
Human Resources 949,739 83,764 905,705 905,323 (382) -0.04%
In-House Legal 1,033,277 94,068 1,035,694 1,007,640 (28,054) -2.78%
Insurance & Legal 780,000 33,820 699,933 775,000 75,067 9.69%
Joint Svcs Con 569,000 37,087 808,504 985,825 177,321 17.99%
Purchasing 740,589 76,407 654,874 734,602 79,728 10.85%
Transfer Out 67,800 - 67,800 67,800 - 0.00%
Expense Total 16,934,967 1,602,581 15,892,350 16,516,879 624,529 3.78%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (302,565) (272,262) 914,596 226,224 688,372 304%
AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 408,983 1,626,144 937,772 688,372 73%
Joint Services Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-end Projection: Sep FY2018
9
Page 14 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 285,808 285,808 285,808 - 0.00%
Revenue
Interest 2,000 1,728 15,527 9,000 6,527 72.52%
Transfer In, General Fund 1,188,580 - 1,188,580 1,188,580 - 0.00%
Revenue Total 1,190,580 1,728 1,204,107 1,197,580 6,527 0.55%
Expense
Transfer Out, GCP 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, General Fund 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, Joint Services 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 - 0.00%
Expense Total 250,000 - 250,000 250,000 - 0.00%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 940,580 1,728 954,107 947,580 6,527 0.69%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,226,388 1,239,915 1,233,388 6,527 0.53%
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
Council Discretionary Fund
10
Page 15 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 690,201 839,544 839,544 - 0%
Revenue
Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax Revenues 1,200,000 75,732 1,207,512 1,325,000 (117,488) -8.87%
Interest 1,500 1,706 12,920 7,000 5,920 84.57%
Other 12,000 3,573 20,431 18,515 1,916 10.35%
Poppy Festival 109,400 21 129,507 135,451 (5,944) -4.39%
Revenue Total 1,322,900 81,032 1,370,370 1,485,966 (115,596) -7.78%
Expense
Operations 551,381 55,117 469,338 549,739 80,401 14.63%
Personnel 361,237 28,552 354,092 357,176 3,084 0.86%
Poppy Festival 136,200 87 126,031 136,200 10,169 7.47%
Transfer to Facilities 49,565 4,130 49,560 49,565 5 0.01%
Transfer to Fleet 5,090 424 5,088 5,090 2 0.04%
Transfer to General Fund 10,200 - 10,200 10,200 - 0.00%
Transfer to Information Technology 24,806 2,067 24,804 24,806 2 0.01%
Expense Total 1,138,479 90,377 1,039,113 1,132,776 93,663 8.27%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 184,421 (9,345) 331,257 353,190 (21,933) -6.21%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 874,622 1,170,801 1,192,734 (21,933) -1.84%
Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
11
Page 16 of 213
APRROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (501,205) (656,180) (656,180) - -
Revenue
TASPP Revenue 128,000 137,867 137,867 128,000 9,867 7.71%
EMS Revenue 2,617,762 193,800 2,447,532 2,486,307 (38,775) -1.56%
Franchise Fees 20,000 - 4,000 20,000 (16,000) -80.00%
Transfer In 44,870 3,739 44,868 44,870 (2) 0.00%
Revenue Total 2,810,632 335,406 2,634,267 2,679,177 (44,910) -1.68%
Expense
Personnel 1,788,522 (206,208) 1,788,522 1,788,522 - 0.00%
O&M 636,212 38,016 617,759 590,395 (27,364) -4.63%
Expense Total 2,424,734 (168,192) 2,406,281 2,378,917 (27,364) -1.15%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 385,898 503,598 227,986 300,260 (72,274) -0.53%
AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE (115,307) (428,194) (355,920) (72,274) 20.31%
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
Paramedic Fund
12
Page 17 of 213
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR YO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 809,939 809,939 809,939 - 0.00%
Operating Revenue
Fuel and Terminal Sales 2,794,919 185,594 2,553,536 2,596,789 (43,253) -1.67%
Interest and Other 65,600 2,395 45,973 83,454 (37,480) -44.91%
Leases and Rentals 882,484 70,636 833,519 846,901 (13,382) -1.58%
Operating Revenue Total 3,743,003 258,626 3,433,029 3,527,144 (94,115) -2.67%
Operating Expenditures
Debt Service 125,850 - 124,298 124,256 (42) -0.03%
Operations-Fuel 2,296,250 73,927 2,200,637 2,110,929 (89,708) -4.25%
Operations-Non Fuel 667,504 34,512 619,014 630,509 11,495 1.82%
Personnel 375,920 23,366 351,641 369,597 17,955 4.86%
Transfers Out 53,500 - 53,500 53,500 - 0.00%
Operating Expenditures Total 3,519,024 131,805 3,349,090 3,288,791 (60,299) -1.83%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 223,979 126,821 83,939 238,353 (154,414) -64.78%
Non-Operating Revenue
Bond Proceeds 150,000 - 145,000 150,000 (5,000) -3.33%
Other Revenue 45,701 - 45,701 0.00%
Grants 35,000 7,857 640,367 42,578 597,789 1403.99%
Non-Operating Revenue Total 185,000 7,857 831,068 192,578 638,490 331.55%
Non-Operating Expenditures
Airport Master Plan - - 38,025 144 (37,881) -26306.14%
Airport Ramp 15,000 4,223 5,644 15,000 9,356 62.37%
Edge Lighting 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000 100.00%
Hangar Upgrades 33,000 3,945 23,641 31,289 7,649 24.44%
Pavement Upgrades 40,000 - 20,260 40,000 19,741 49.35%
Runway Rehab 516,500 - - - - 0.00%
Wildfire Management 25,500 2,250 15,150 25,500 10,350 40.59%
Other Expense - - 559,286 257 (559,030) -217521.40%
Non-Operating Expenditure Total 780,000 10,418 662,005 262,189 (399,815) -152.49%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERATIONS (595,000) (2,561) 169,063 (69,611) 238,675 342.87%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS (371,021) 124,260 253,001 168,742 84,260 49.93%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 438,918 1,062,941 978,681 84,260 8.61%
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 213,158 213,158
Airport Operations Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
13
Page 18 of 213
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 18,241,681 18,241,681 18,241,681 - 0.00%
Operating Revenue
Sales Tax 6,575,000 1,725,700 6,813,700 6,775,000 38,700 0.57%
PID Assessments 553,201 500,000 553,201 553,201 - 0.00%
Interest 127,000 22,414 306,483 284,069 22,414 7.89%
Operating Revenue Total 7,255,201 2,248,114 7,673,384 7,612,270 61,114 0.80%
Operating Expenditure
Administrative Support 364,814 30,276 363,312 364,114 802 0.22%
Operating Expenditure Total 364,814 30,276 363,312 364,114 802 0.22%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 6,890,387 2,217,838 7,310,072 7,248,156 61,916 0.85%
Non-Operating Revenue
Other Grant Revenue - - 11,222 11,222 - -
Non-Operating Revenue Total - - 11,222 11,222 - -
Non-Operating Expenditure
Pecan Center Dr to Airport Rd (FY15)5,390,290 873,046 2,945,254 2,945,254 - 0.00%
Rivery TIA Improvements 1,016,790 162,085 657,294 1,016,790 359,496 35.36%
FM 971 / Fontana 66,431 53,969 3,329 66,431 63,102 94.99%
Rivery-Extension Williams Dr to NW Blvd (FY16)767,678 20,196 37,043 767,678 730,635 95.17%
IH 35 / HWY29 Intersection 650,000 22,006 43,347 650,000 606,653 93.33%
SW Bypass 2243 to IH35 333,962 - 205,765 205,818 53 0.03%
FM1460 Widening 501,260 1,727 477 100,000 99,523 99.52%
Wolf Ranch Pkwy Extension 283,350 - - - - 0.00%
Mays St 3,252,729 3,600 254,724 1,000,000 745,276 74.53%
Tamiro Improvements 410,000 - - - - 0.00%
SE Inner Loop Widening (Rock Ride ROW)900,000 - - 900,000 900,000 100.00%
Debt Service 3,330,135 - 3,337,462 3,337,462 - 0.00%
Non-Operating Expenditure Total 18,546,375 1,136,629 7,484,694 10,989,433 3,504,739 31.89%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERATIONS (18,546,375) (1,136,629) (7,473,471) (10,978,210) 3,504,739 31.92%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (11,655,988) 1,081,209 (163,399) (3,730,054) 3,566,655 95.62%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 6,585,693 18,078,282 14,511,627 3,566,655 24.58%
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 3,293,750 3,293,750
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection September 2018
14
Page 19 of 213
APPROVED
BUDGET
CURRENT
PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
FAV(UNFAV)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 5,902,863 6,051,152 6,051,152 148,289 2.45%
OPERATING REVENUES
Interest 25,400 11,543 103,233 103,200 33 0.03%
Lease Revenue (Grape Creek)24,000 - 40,000 40,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 61,100 - 60,991 61,000 (9) -0.01%
Sales Tax 1,643,750 431,425 1,703,425 1,693,750 9,675 0.57%
Sale of Property 128,090 128,090 128,090 (0) 0.00%
OPERATING REVENUES Total 1,754,250 571,058 2,035,739 2,026,040 9,699 0.48%
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Debt Service 212,569 - 212,688 212,569 (119) -0.06%
Interest Expense 26,128 26,128 26,128 26,128 - 0.00%
Joint Services Allocation 221,328 18,444 221,328 221,328 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Expense 11,108 - 10,991 11,040 49 0.44%
Principal Reduction 90,485 90,485 90,485 90,485 - 0.00%
Promotional & Marketing Program 81,000 7,625 76,942 81,000 4,058 5.01%
Special Services 57,500 10,000 55,647 57,500 1,853 3.22%
Supplies 300 - - - - 0.00%
Travel & Training 1,500 - - 500 500 100.00%
OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 701,918 152,682 694,209 700,550 6,341 0.91%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 1,052,332 418,376 1,341,530 1,325,490 16,040 1.21%
NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Catalyst 36,000 - 18,839 18,839 - 0.00%
DisperSol 60,000 - 40,000 40,000 - 0.00%
Economic Development Projects -Undetermined 6,308,518 - - 150,000 150,000 100.00%
Texas Life Sciences 139,740 - 139,740 139,740 - 0.00%
NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 6,544,258 - 198,579 348,579 150,000 43.03%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERATIONS (6,544,258) - (198,579) (348,579) (150,000) 43.03%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (5,491,926) 418,376 1,142,951 976,911 (133,960) -13.71%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 410,938 7,194,103 7,028,063 (133,959) -1.91%
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 410,938 423,438
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund
Preliminary Actuals to Year-End Projection: Sep FY2018
Page 20 of 213
CITY
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
September 30, 2018
Prepared by
Valley View Conulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the City of Georgetown is in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act and the
Investment Policy and Strategies.
________________________________________________________________________
Elaine Wilson Leigh Wallace
Controller Finance Director
___________________________________
Karrie Pursley
Treasurer
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the
accuracy or completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View
Consulting, L.L.C. from sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these
levels are not necessarily reflective of current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance
formulas, are not representative of total return yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
16Page 21 of 213
FYE Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value
Demand Accounts 0.38% 13,874,086$ 13,874,086$ 0.34% 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$
NOW/MMA 1.43% 45,875,729 45,875,729 2.33% 10,191,154 10,191,154
Pools 1.04% 61,661,393 61,661,393 2.00% 48,966,731 48,966,731
CDs/Securities 1.25% 36,808,988 36,808,988 2.28% 108,457,058 108,455,269
Totals 158,220,196$ 158,220,196$ 180,045,674$180,043,885$
Fourth Quarter-End Yield 1.14%2.07%
Avera ge Quarter-End Yields (1):
2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Fiscal Year
Georgetown-City 0.88%1.70%
Rolling Three Month Treasury 0.75%1.69%
Rolling Six Month Treasury 0.78%1.73%
TexPool 0.74%1.62%
Fiscal YTD Interest Earnings 1,173,255$ 2,825,430$
(1) Average Quarterly Yield calculated using quarter-end report average yield and adjusted book value.
September 30, 2017
Annual Comparison of Portfolio Performance
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.17Page 22 of 213
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield
Demand Accounts 12,781,524$ 12,781,524 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$ 0.34%
NOW/MMA 33,133,252 33,133,252 10,191,154 10,191,154 2.33%
Pools 90,496,141 90,496,141 48,966,731 48,966,731 2.00%
CDs/Securities 66,694,591 66,694,591 108,457,058 108,455,269 2.28%
Totals 203,105,508$ 203,105,508$ 180,045,674$ 180,043,885$
Quarter End Average Yield (1) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 2.07%Total Portfolio 1.70%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 2.08%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 1.69%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 2.15%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 1.73%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 1.62%
Bank Fees Offset
14,327$
Interest income provided in separate report. 54,061$
June 30, 2018
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account for advisory
fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or
account for advisory fees.
Quarterly Bank Fees Offset
Year-to-date Bank Fees Offset
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
18Page 23 of 213
Economic Overview 9/30/2018
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increased the Fed Funds target range to 2.00% - 2.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-2.18%). Additional range increases are still projected for
Dec 2018 and 2019. Gradual FRB portfolio reduction continues by limiting reinvestment of maturing holdings. Second Quarter grew 4.2% (final estimate). Employment/ Unemployment continues to
strong levels. WTI Crude oil increased above +/-$70. The Stock Markets reached new highs. Consumer Confidence is strong. Personal Income is improving. The flattening yield curve may or
may not impact long range FOMC actions.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250 S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 Treasury Yield Curves
September 30, 2017 June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.19Page 24 of 213
City - Investment Holdings
Coupon/ Maturity Settlement Face Amount/ Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day) Yield
JPMorgan Chase Cash (3)0.34% 10/01/18 09/30/18 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$ 1.00 12,430,730$ 1 0.34%
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 09/30/18 3,099,266 3,099,266 1.00 3,099,266 1 2.11%
NexBank MMA 2.43% 10/01/18 09/30/18 7,091,889 7,091,889 1.00 7,091,889 1 2.43%
TexPool AAAm 2.00% 10/01/18 09/30/18 6,057,311 6,057,311 1.00 6,057,311 1 2.00%
TexSTAR AAAm 2.00% 10/01/18 09/30/18 42,909,420 42,909,420 1.00 42,909,420 1 2.00%
Southside Bank CD 1.60% 11/06/18 11/06/17 4,048,060 4,048,060 100.00 4,048,060 37 1.60%
Southside Bank CD 1.60% 11/19/18 11/17/17 3,116,384 3,116,384 100.00 3,116,384 50 1.60%
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.50% 01/03/19 01/03/17 3,075,855 3,075,855 100.00 3,075,855 95 1.50%
Green Bank CD 2.07% 02/01/19 02/21/18 7,072,039 7,072,039 100.00 7,072,039 124 2.07%
Southside Bank CD 2.32% 02/04/19 08/02/18 3,700,000 3,700,000 100.00 3,700,000 127 2.32%
East West Bank CD 2.48% 02/06/19 08/06/18 7,930,115 7,930,115 100.00 7,930,115 129 2.48%
T-Bill Aaa/AA+0.00% 02/07/19 08/09/18 9,000,000 8,929,150 99.19 8,927,361 130 2.24%
Wallis State Bank CD 2.07% 02/15/19 02/16/18 6,061,748 6,061,748 100.00 6,061,748 138 2.07%
R Bank CD 1.50% 02/21/19 02/21/17 6,135,231 6,135,231 100.00 6,135,231 144 1.50%
Independent Bank CD 1.60% 03/01/19 05/09/17 1,530,291 1,530,291 100.00 1,530,291 152 1.60%
LegacyTexas Bank CD 2.25% 03/09/19 03/09/18 5,117,832 5,117,832 100.00 5,117,832 160 2.25%
East West Bank CD 2.10% 04/01/19 02/26/18 5,062,814 5,062,814 100.00 5,062,814 183 2.10%
Lubbock National Bank CD 2.32% 04/13/19 04/13/18 5,048,814 5,048,814 100.00 5,048,814 195 2.32%
BTH Bank CD 2.52% 06/01/19 06/11/18 3,522,278 3,522,278 100.00 3,522,278 244 2.52%
East West Bank CD 2.15% 06/03/19 02/26/18 3,038,592 3,038,592 100.00 3,038,592 246 2.15%
East West Bank CD 2.20% 08/01/19 02/26/18 3,039,495 3,039,495 100.00 3,039,495 305 2.20%
BTH Bank CD 2.58% 08/03/19 08/03/18 3,006,574 3,006,574 100.00 3,006,574 307 2.58%
Independent Bank CD 2.75% 08/03/19 08/03/18 18,000,000 18,000,000 100.00 18,000,000 307 2.75%
East West Bank CD 2.70% 08/13/19 08/13/18 6,021,787 6,021,787 100.00 6,021,787 317 2.70%
Independent Bank CD 2.88% 02/03/20 08/03/18 5,000,000 5,000,000 100.00 5,000,000 491 2.88%
180,116,524$ 180,045,674$ 180,043,885$123 2.07%
(1) (2)
September 30, 2018
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment ad visory fees are not
considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(3) Earnings Credit - The City's depository accounts provide an earnings credit on balances which is used to offset bank fees.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.20Page 25 of 213
0–6 Months
71%
6–12 Months
26%
12–18 Months
3%
Current Quarter Maturities
$0
$25,000,000
$50,000,000
$75,000,000
$100,000,000
$125,000,000
$150,000,000
$175,000,000
$200,000,000
$225,000,000
12/31/17 03/31/18 06/30/18 09/30/18
Portfolio Balances
Money Market
Local Depository
TexSTAR
TexPool
Certificate of Deposit
US Treasury
166174166
102
69
90
73 75
109104
123
156163
97108
87
51
67
49 41
91
73
61 54
99
70.5
123
0
50
100
150
200
#
o
f
D
a
y
s
Weighted Average to Maturity
JPMorgan Chase
7%Southside
Bank
6%LegacyTexas
Bank
3%
Green Bank
6%
NexBank
4%
TexPool
3%
TexSTAR
24%Independent
Bank
14%
Wallis State Bank
3%
East West Bank
14%
Rbank
3%
Lubbock National
Bank
4%
T-Bill
5%
BTH Bank
4%
Portfolio Holdings by Issuer
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.21Page 26 of 213
City - Book Value Comparison
Coupon/ Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/ Sales/Adjust/ Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
JPMorgan Chase Cash 0.34% 10/01/18 12,781,524$ 12,781,524$ –$ (350,794)$ 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 3,082,851 3,082,851 16,415 3,099,266 3,099,266
NexBank MMA 2.43% 10/01/18 30,050,401 30,050,401 (22,958,512) 7,091,889 7,091,889
TexPool 2.00% 10/01/18 10,844,851 10,844,851 (4,787,539) 6,057,311 6,057,311
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 79,651,290 79,651,290 (36,741,870) 42,909,420 42,909,420
Southside Bank CD 1.25%08/01/18 5,062,794 5,062,794 (5,062,794)– –
East West Bank CD 1.97%08/13/18 6,040,615 6,040,615 (6,040,615)– –
Southside Bank CD 1.60%11/06/18 4,031,800 4,031,800 16,260 4,048,060 4,048,060
Southside Bank CD 1.60%11/19/18 3,103,867 3,103,867 12,518 3,116,384 3,116,384
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.50%01/03/19 3,064,255 3,064,255 11,600 3,075,855 3,075,855
Green Bank CD 2.07%02/01/19 7,035,332 7,035,332 36,707 7,072,039 7,072,039
Southside Bank CD 2.32%02/04/19 – – 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
East West Bank CD 2.48%02/06/19 – – 7,930,115 7,930,115 7,930,115
T-Bill 0.00%02/07/19 – – 8,929,150 9,000,000 8,929,150
Wallis State Bank CD 2.07%02/15/19 6,030,284 6,030,284 31,463 6,061,748 6,061,748
R Bank CD 1.50%02/21/19 6,112,233 6,112,233 22,998 6,135,231 6,135,231
Independent Bank CD 1.60%03/01/19 1,524,144 1,524,144 6,147 1,530,291 1,530,291
LegacyTexas Bank CD 2.25%03/09/19 5,088,917 5,088,917 28,915 5,117,832 5,117,832
East West Bank CD 2.10%04/01/19 5,036,087 5,036,087 26,727 5,062,814 5,062,814
Lubbock National Bank CD 2.32%04/13/19 5,019,405 5,019,405 29,409 5,048,814 5,048,814
BTH Bank CD 2.52%06/01/19 3,500,000 3,500,000 22,278 3,522,278 3,522,278
East West Bank CD 2.15%06/03/19 3,022,170 3,022,170 16,422 3,038,592 3,038,592
East West Bank CD 2.20%08/01/19 3,022,687 3,022,687 16,807 3,039,495 3,039,495
BTH Bank CD 2.58%08/03/19 – – 3,006,574 3,006,574 3,006,574
Independent Bank CD 2.75%08/03/19 – – 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
East West Bank CD 2.70%08/13/19 – – 6,021,787 6,021,787 6,021,787
Independent Bank CD 2.88%02/03/20 – – 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
TOTAL 203,105,508$ 203,105,508$ 52,882,290$ (75,942,125)$ 180,116,524$ 180,045,674$
June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.22Page 27 of 213
City - Market Value Comparison
Coupon/ Maturity Face Amount/ Qtr to Qtr Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Market Value Change Par Value Market Value
JPMorgan Chase Cash 0.34% 10/01/18 12,781,524$ 12,781,524$ (350,794)$ 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 3,082,851 3,082,851 16,415 3,099,266 3,099,266
NexBank MMA 2.43% 10/01/18 30,050,401 30,050,401 (22,958,512) 7,091,889 7,091,889
TexPool 2.00% 10/01/18 10,844,851 10,844,851 (4,787,539) 6,057,311 6,057,311
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 79,651,290 79,651,290 (36,741,870) 42,909,420 42,909,420
Southside Bank CD 1.25% 08/01/18 5,062,794 5,062,794 (5,062,794) – –
East West Bank CD 1.97% 08/13/18 6,040,615 6,040,615 (6,040,615) – –
Southside Bank CD 1.60% 11/06/18 4,031,800 4,031,800 16,260 4,048,060 4,048,060
Southside Bank CD 1.60% 11/19/18 3,103,867 3,103,867 12,518 3,116,384 3,116,384
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.50% 01/03/19 3,064,255 3,064,255 11,600 3,075,855 3,075,855
Green Bank CD 2.07% 02/01/19 7,035,332 7,035,332 36,707 7,072,039 7,072,039
Southside Bank CD 2.32% 02/04/19 – – 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
East West Bank CD 2.48% 02/06/19 – – 7,930,115 7,930,115 7,930,115
T-Bill 0.00% 02/07/19 – – 8,927,361 9,000,000 8,927,361
Wallis State Bank CD 2.07% 02/15/19 6,030,284 6,030,284 31,463 6,061,748 6,061,748
R Bank CD 1.50% 02/21/19 6,112,233 6,112,233 22,998 6,135,231 6,135,231
Independent Bank CD 1.60% 03/01/19 1,524,144 1,524,144 6,147 1,530,291 1,530,291
LegacyTexas Bank CD 2.25% 03/09/19 5,088,917 5,088,917 28,915 5,117,832 5,117,832
East West Bank CD 2.10% 04/01/19 5,036,087 5,036,087 26,727 5,062,814 5,062,814
Lubbock National Bank CD 2.32% 04/13/19 5,019,405 5,019,405 29,409 5,048,814 5,048,814
BTH Bank CD 2.52% 06/01/19 3,500,000 3,500,000 22,278 3,522,278 3,522,278
East West Bank CD 2.15% 06/03/19 3,022,170 3,022,170 16,422 3,038,592 3,038,592
East West Bank CD 2.20% 08/01/19 3,022,687 3,022,687 16,807 3,039,495 3,039,495
BTH Bank CD 2.58% 08/03/19 – – 3,006,574 3,006,574 3,006,574
Independent Bank CD 2.75% 08/03/19 – – 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
East West Bank CD 2.70% 08/13/19 – – 6,021,787 6,021,787 6,021,787
Independent Bank CD 2.88% 02/03/20 – – 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
TOTAL 203,105,508$ 203,105,508$ (23,061,623)$ 180,116,524$ 180,043,885$
September 30, 2018June 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.23Page 28 of 213
City - Allocation
Investment Total Consolidated
2013 GO-
Parks/Public
Safety
2014 CO-
Downtown
Parks
2014
Revenue
Electric
2014 Revenue
Water WW Debt Service Utility Debt
Service
JPMorgan Chase Cash 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
Green Bank MMA 3,099,266 3,099,266
NexBank MMA 7,091,889 7,091,889
TexPool 6,057,311 6,057,311
TexSTAR 42,909,420 13,056,649 173,200 69,487 74,447 3,418,947 3,142,075
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18 4,048,060 4,048,060
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18 3,116,384 3,116,384
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19 3,075,855 3,075,855
Green Bank CD 02/01/19 7,072,039
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19 3,700,000
East West Bank CD 02/06/19 7,930,115
T-Bill 02/07/19 8,929,150
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19 6,061,748 6,061,748
R Bank CD 02/21/19 6,135,231 6,135,231
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19 1,530,291 1,530,291
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19 5,117,832 5,117,832
East West Bank CD 04/01/19 5,062,814 5,062,814
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19 5,048,814 5,048,814
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19 3,522,278 3,522,278
East West Bank CD 06/03/19 3,038,592 3,038,592
East West Bank CD 08/01/19 3,039,495 3,039,495
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19 3,006,574
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19 18,000,000
East West Bank CD 08/13/19 6,021,787 6,021,787
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20 5,000,000
Totals 180,045,674$ 96,555,025$ 173,200$ 69,487$ 74,447$ 3,418,947$ 3,142,075$ –$
Book Value
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
24Page 29 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Book Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2015 CO-
Airport
2015 CO-
Parks/Streets/
Vehicles
2015 CO-
Stormwater
2015 CO-
Water
2015 GO-
Roads
2015A GO-
Parks
2015 Revenue
Water WW
2016 CO-
Rivery TIRZ
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
187,698 721,203 14,099 1,233,250 1,248,025 4,232
1,000,000
3,000,000 500,000
–$ 187,698$ 721,203$ 14,099$ 4,233,250$ –$ 2,748,025$ 4,232$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
25Page 30 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Book Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2016 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2016 GO-
Roads
2016 Revenue
Water/WW
Garey Park
Donation
2017 CO
Facilities/ Public
Safety/
Equipment
2017 GO-
Parks
2017 GO-
Sidewalks
2017 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
178,188 828,145 1,246,928 566,337 1,311,037 663,702 1,411,546 917,417
700,000
200,762
992,029
4,000,000
178,188$ 1,528,145$ 6,238,956$ 566,337$ 1,311,037$ 663,702$ 1,612,308$ 917,417$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
26Page 31 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Book Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2017 Revenue
Water WW
2018 CO-
Airport
2018 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2018 GO-
Parks
2018 GO-
Roads
2018 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
1,878,475 151,062 1,546,017 818,432 5,515,093 2,533,728
7,072,039
3,000,000
1,706,481 6,022,872
5,953,064 1,984,057
3,006,574
3,300,000 1,000,000 8,700,000
1,000,000 500,000
17,910,152$ 151,062$ 8,846,017$ 4,024,913$ 20,237,966$ 4,517,786$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
27Page 32 of 213
City - Allocation
Investment Total Consolidated
2013 GO-
Parks/Public
Safety
2014 CO-
Downtown
Parks
2014
Revenue
Electric
2014 Revenue
Water WW Debt Service Utility Debt
Service
JPMorgan Chase Cash 12,430,730$ 12,430,730$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
Green Bank MMA 3,099,266 3,099,266
NexBank MMA 7,091,889 7,091,889
TexPool 6,057,311 6,057,311
TexSTAR 42,909,420 13,056,649 173,200 69,487 74,446.76 3,418,947 3,142,075
Southside Bank CD 43410 4,048,060 4,048,060
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18 3,116,384 3,116,384
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19 3,075,855 3,075,855
Green Bank CD 02/01/19 7,072,039
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19 3,700,000
East West Bank CD 02/06/19 7,930,115
T-Bill 02/07/19 8,927,361
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19 6,061,748 6,061,747.60
R Bank CD 02/21/19 6,135,231 6,135,231
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19 1,530,291 1,530,291
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19 5,117,832 5,117,832
East West Bank CD 04/01/19 5,062,814 5,062,814
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19 5,048,814 5,048,814
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19 3,522,278 3,522,278
East West Bank CD 06/03/19 3,038,592 3,038,592
East West Bank CD 08/01/19 3,039,495 3,039,495
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19 3,006,574
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19 18,000,000
East West Bank CD 08/13/19 6,021,787 6,021,787
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20 5,000,000
Totals 180,043,885$ 96,555,025$ 173,200$ 69,487$ 74,446.76 3,418,947$ 3,142,075$ -$
Market Value
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
28Page 33 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 43410
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Market Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2015 CO-
Airport
2015 CO-
Parks/Streets/
Vehicles
2015 CO-
Stormwater
2015 CO-
Water
2015 GO-
Roads
2015A GO-
Parks
2015 Revenue
Water WW
2016 CO-
Rivery TIRZ
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
187,698 721,203 14,099 1,233,250 1,248,025 4,232
1,000,000
3,000,000 500,000
-$ 187,698$ 721,203$ 14,099$ 4,233,250$ -$2,748,025$ 4,232$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
29Page 34 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 43410
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Market Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2016 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2016 GO-
Roads
2016 Revenue
Water/WW
Garey Park
Donation
2017 CO
Facilities/ Public
Safety/
Equipment
2017 GO-
Parks
2017 GO-
Sidewalks
2017 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
178,188 828,145 1,246,928 566,337 1311037.25 663702.28 1411545.98 917416.75
700,000
200,761.91
991,830
4,000,000
178,188$ 1,528,145$ 6,238,757$ 566,337$ 1311037.25 663702.28 1612307.89 917416.75
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
30Page 35 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 43410
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Southside Bank CD 02/04/19
East West Bank CD 02/06/19
T-Bill 02/07/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
BTH Bank CD 08/03/19
Independent Bank CD 08/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/13/19
Independent Bank CD 02/03/20
Totals
Market Value
September 30, 2018
(Continued)
2017 Revenue
Water WW
2018 CO-
Airport
2018 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2018 GO-
Parks
2018 GO-
Roads
2018 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
1,878,475 151,062 1,546,017 818,432 5,515,093 2,533,728
7,072,038.86
3,000,000
1,706,481 6,022,872
5,951,872 1,983,660
3,006,574
3,300,000 1,000,000 8,700,000
1,000,000 500,000
17,908,959$ 151,062$ 8,846,017$ 4,024,913$ 20,237,966$ 4,517,388$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
31Page 36 of 213
City - Allocation
Investment Total Consolidated
2013 GO-
Parks/Public
Safety
2014 CO-
Downtown
Parks
2014
Revenue
Electric
2014 Revenue
Water WW Debt Service Utility Debt
Service
JPMorgan Chase Cash 12,781,524$ 12,781,524$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
Green Bank MMA 3,082,851 3,082,851
NexBank MMA 30,050,401 7,045,667
TexPool 10,844,851 10,844,851
TexSTAR 79,651,290 3,167,096 200,498 69,148 593,415 3,522,652 13,643,977 68,982
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18 5,062,794 5,062,794
East West Bank CD 08/13/18 6,040,615 6,040,615
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18 4,031,800 4,031,800
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18 3,103,867 3,103,867
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19 3,064,255 3,064,255
Green Bank CD 02/01/19 7,035,332
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19 6,030,284 6,030,284
R Bank CD 02/21/19 6,112,233 6,112,233
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19 1,524,144 1,524,144
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19 5,088,917 5,088,917
East West Bank CD 04/01/19 5,036,087 5,036,087
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19 5,019,405 5,019,405
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19 3,500,000 3,500,000
East West Bank CD 06/03/19 3,022,170 3,022,170
East West Bank CD 08/01/19 3,022,687 3,022,687
Totals 203,105,508$ 96,581,248$ 200,498$ 69,148$ 593,415$ 3,522,652$ 13,643,977$ 68,982$
June 30, 2018
Book and Market Value
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
32Page 37 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
East West Bank CD 08/13/18
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
Totals
June 30, 2018
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
2015 CO-
Airport
2015 CO-
Parks/Streets/
Vehicles
2015 CO-
Stormwater
2015 CO-
Water
2015 GO-
Roads
2015A GO-
Parks
2015 Revenue
Water WW
2016 CO-
Rivery TIRZ
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
30,192 186,784 1,247,826 14,031 4,222,694 21,389 2,874,156 4,211
30,192$ 186,784$ 1,247,826$ 14,031$ 4,222,694$ 21,389$ 2,874,156$ 4,211$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
33Page 38 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
East West Bank CD 08/13/18
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
Totals
June 30, 2018
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
2016 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2016 GO-
Roads
2016 Revenue
Water/WW
Garey Park
Donation
2017 CO
Facilities/ Public
Safety/
Equipment
2017 GO-
Parks
2017 GO-
Sidewalks
2017 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
2,234,070 2,048,949 4,079,035 772,675 1,604,160 1,268,062
190,170 83,190 4,171,222 2,926,840 396,613 50,108 58,646 50,256
190,170$ 2,317,260$ 6,220,171$ 2,926,840$ 4,475,647$ 822,783$ 1,662,806$ 1,318,317$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
34Page 39 of 213
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
East West Bank CD 08/13/18
Southside Bank CD 11/06/18
Southside Bank CD 11/19/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
Green Bank CD 02/01/19
Wallis State Bank CD 02/15/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/19
East West Bank CD 04/01/19
Lubbock National Bank CD 04/13/19
BTH Bank CD 06/01/19
East West Bank CD 06/03/19
East West Bank CD 08/01/19
Totals
June 30, 2018
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
2017 Revenue
Water WW
2018 CO-
Airport
2018 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2018 GO-
Parks
2018 GO-
Roads
2018 Revenue
Electric
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
10,997,784
1,020,033 150,326 10,855,264 4,008,705 20,421,014 5,401,853
7,035,332
19,053,150$ 150,326$ 10,855,264$ 4,008,705$ 20,421,014$ 5,401,853$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
35Page 40 of 213
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
City of Georgetown Historical Yields
Georgetown
TexPool
Rolling 3 mo T-Bill
Rolling 6 mo T-Bill
Rolling 12 mo T-Bill
36Page 41 of 213
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC)
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
September 30, 2018
Prepared by
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) is in compliance with
the Texas Public Funds Investment Act and the Investment Policy and Strategies.
____________________
Leigh Wallace Elaine Wilson
Controller Finance Director
Karrie Pursley
Treasurer
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the
accuracy or completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View Consulting,
L.L.C. from sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these levels are not
necessarily reflective of current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance formulas, are
not representative of total return yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
37Page 42 of 213
FYE Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value
Pools/MMAs 1.22% 14,966,954$ 14,966,954$ 2.02% 13,392,125$ 13,392,125$
Certificates of Deposit 1.59% 3,075,647 3,075,647 1.87% 5,124,940 5,124,940
Totals 18,042,602$ 18,042,602$ 18,517,065$ 18,517,065$
Fourth Quarter-End Yield 1.28%1.98%
Average Quarter-End Yields (1):
2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Fiscal Year
GTEC 0.96%1.72%
Rolling Three Month Treasury 0.75%1.69%
Rolling Six Month Treasury 0.78%1.73%
TexPool 0.74%1.62%
(1) Average Quarterly Yield calculated using quarter-end report average yield and adjusted book value.
Annual Comparison of Portfolio Performance
September 30, 2017 September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.38Page 43 of 213
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield
Pools/MMAs 17,495,079$ 17,495,079$ 13,392,125$ 13,392,125$ 2.02%
CDs/Securities 3,112,442 3,112,442 5,124,940 5,124,940 1.87%
Totals 20,607,520$ 20,607,520$ 18,517,065$ 18,517,065$
Quarter End Average Yield (1) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 1.98%Total Portfolio 1.72%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 2.08%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 1.69%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 2.15%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 1.73%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 1.62%
Interest data provided in separate report.
June 30, 2018
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account
for advisory fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return
analysis or account for advisory fees.
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
39Page 44 of 213
Economic Overview 9/30/2018
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increased the Fed Funds target range to 2.00% - 2.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-2.18%). Additional range increases are still projected for
Dec 2018 and 2019. Gradual FRB portfolio reduction continues by limiting reinvestment of maturing holdings. Second Quarter grew 4.2% (final estimate). Employment/ Unemployment continues to
strong levels. WTI Crude oil increased above +/-$70. The Stock Markets reached new highs. Consumer Confidence is strong. Personal Income is improving. The flattening yield curve may or
may not impact long range FOMC actions.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250 S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 Treasury Yield Curves
September 30, 2017 June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.40Page 45 of 213
Investment Holdings
Coupon/Maturity Settlement Face Amount/Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day)Yield
TexPool AAAm 2.00% 10/01/18 09/30/18 4,957,437$ 4,957,437$ 1.00 4,957,437$ 1 2.00%
TexSTAR AAAm 2.00% 10/01/18 09/30/18 5,841,626 5,841,626 1.00 5,841,626 1 2.00%
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 09/30/18 2,593,062 2,593,062 1.00 2,593,062 1 2.11%
Southside Bank CD 2.32% 02/04/19 08/02/18 2,000,000 2,000,000 100.00 2,000,000 127 2.32%
R Bank CD 1.59% 09/22/19 08/22/17 3,124,940 3,124,940 100.00 3,124,940 357 1.59%
18,517,065$ 18,517,065$ 18,517,065$ 75 1.98%
(1) (2)
September 30, 2018
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment advisory fees are not
considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.41Page 46 of 213
Pools/MMAs
72%
CDs/Securities
28%
GTEC PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/30/18
GTEC PORTFOLIO BALANCES
CD
TexPool
TexSTAR
Money Market
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
42Page 47 of 213
Book Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/Sales/Adjust/Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
TexPool 2.00% 10/01/18 6,360,394$ 6,360,394$ –$ (1,402,957)$ 4,957,437$ 4,957,437$
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 3,651,993 3,651,993 2,189,633 5,841,626 5,841,626
NexBank MMA 2.00% 10/01/18 4,903,364 4,903,364 (4,903,364)– –
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 2,579,327 2,579,327 13,735 2,593,062 2,593,062
Southside Bank CD 2.32% 02/04/19 – – 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
R Bank CD 1.59% 09/22/19 3,112,442 3,112,442 12,498 3,124,940 3,124,940
TOTAL 20,607,520$ 20,607,520$ 4,215,866$ (6,306,321)$ 18,517,065$ 18,517,065$
Market Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Qtr to Qtr Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Market Value Change Par Value Market Value
TexPool 2.00% 10/01/18 6,360,394$ 6,360,394$ (1,402,957)$ 4,957,437$ 4,957,437$
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 3,651,993 3,651,993 2,189,633 5,841,626 5,841,626
NexBank MMA 2.00% 10/01/18 4,903,364 4,903,364 (4,903,364)- -
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 2,579,327 2,579,327 13,735 2,593,062 2,593,062
Southside Bank CD 2.32% 02/04/19 – – 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
R Bank CD 1.59% 09/22/19 3,112,442 3,112,442 12,498 3,124,940 3,124,940
TOTAL 20,607,520$ 20,607,520$ (2,090,455)$ 18,517,065$ 18,517,065$
June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.43Page 48 of 213
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO)
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
September 30, 2018
Prepared by
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) is in compliance with the
Texas Public Funds Investment Act and the Investment Policy and Strategies.
________________________________________________________________________
Elaine Wilson Leigh Wallace
Controller Finance Director
___________________________________
Karrie Pursley
Treasurer
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the accuracy or
completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View Consulting, L.L.C. from
sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these levels are not necessarily reflective
of current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance formulas, are not representative of total
return yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
44Page 49 of 213
Annual Comparison of Portfolio Performance
FYE Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value
Demand Accounts 1.21% 2,020,468$ 2,020,468$ 2.11% 2,055,009$ 2,055,009$
Pools 1.03% 4,060,879 4,060,879 2.01% 4,887,543 4,887,543
Totals 6,081,347$ 6,081,347$ 6,942,552$ 6,942,552$
Fourth Quarter-End Yield 1.09%2.04%
Avera ge Quarter-End Yields (1):
2017 Fiscal Year 2018 Fiscal Year
GEDCO 0.84%1.67%
Rolling Three Month Treasury 0.75%1.69%
Rolling Six Month Treasury 0.78%1.73%
TexPool 0.74%1.62%
(1) Average Quarterly Yield calculated using quarter-end report average yield and adjusted book value.
September 30, 2017 September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.45Page 50 of 213
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value Ave. Yield
MMA 2,035,359$ 2,035,359$ 2,055,009$ 2,055,009$ 2.11%
Pools 4,304,284 4,304,284 4,887,543 4,887,543 2.01%
6,339,643$ 6,339,643$ 6,942,552$ 6,942,552$
Quarter End Average Yield (1) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 2.04%Total Portfolio 1.67%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 2.08%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 1.69%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 2.15%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 1.73%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 1.62%
Interest income provided in separate report.
June 30, 2018
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account for
advisory fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return
analysis or account for advisory fees.
September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
46Page 51 of 213
Economic Overview 9/30/2018
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increased the Fed Funds target range to 2.00% - 2.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-2.18%). Additional range increases are still projected for
Dec 2018 and 2019. Gradual FRB portfolio reduction continues by limiting reinvestment of maturing holdings. Second Quarter grew 4.2% (final estimate). Employment/ Unemployment continues to
strong levels. WTI Crude oil increased above +/-$70. The Stock Markets reached new highs. Consumer Confidence is strong. Personal Income is improving. The flattening yield curve may or
may not impact long range FOMC actions.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250 S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50 Treasury Yield Curves
September 30, 2017 June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.47Page 52 of 213
Investment Holdings
Coupon/Maturity Settlement Face Amount/Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day)Yield
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 09/30/18 2,055,009$ 2,055,009$ 1.00 2,055,009$ 1 2.11%
TexasDAILY AAAm 2.03% 10/01/18 09/30/18 2,055,816 2,055,816 1.00 2,055,816 1 2.03%
TexSTAR AAAm 2.00% 10/01/18 09/30/18 2,831,728 2,831,728 1.00 2,831,728 1 2.00%
6,942,552$ 6,942,552$ 6,942,552$ 1 2.04%
(1) (2)
September 30, 2018
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment advisory fees
are not considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.48Page 53 of 213
MMA
30%
Pools
70%
GEDCO PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
12/31/17 03/31/18 06/30/18 09/30/18
GEDCO PORTFOLIO BALANCES
TexasDAILY
TexSTAR
Money Market
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
49Page 54 of 213
Book Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/Sales/Adjust/Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 2,044,122$ 2,044,122$ 10,887$ –$ 2,055,009$ 2,055,009$
TexasDAILY 2.03% 10/01/18 2,045,519 2,045,519 10,297 2,055,816 2,055,816
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 2,561,480 2,561,480 270,248 2,831,728 2,831,728
TOTAL 6,651,120$ 6,651,120$ 291,432$ –$ 6,942,552$ 6,942,552$
Market Value Comparison Qtr to Qtr
Change
Green Bank MMA 2.11% 10/01/18 2,044,122$ 2,044,122$ 10,887$ 2,055,009$ 2,055,009$
TexasDAILY 2.03% 10/01/18 2,045,519 2,045,519 10,297 2,055,816 2,055,816
TexSTAR 2.00% 10/01/18 2,561,480 2,561,480 270,248 2,831,728 2,831,728
TOTAL 6,651,120$ 6,651,120$ 291,432$ 6,942,552$ 6,942,552$
June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
June 30, 2018 September 30, 2018
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.50Page 55 of 213
Department Federal Grantor Pass-Through Agency Identifying Number COG Name/Purpose YTD Expenditures YTD Revenue Recognized
Airport Federal Aviation
Administration
Texas Department of
Transportation-Aviation
1514GRGTN Construct Parallel Taxiway and
Fuel Farm
621,143.96 559,029.56
Airport N/A Texas Department of
Transportation-Aviation
M1814GEOR RAMP Grant - Routine Airport
Maintenance Program
87,156.88 43,578.44
Airport Federal Aviation
Administration
Texas Department of
Transportation-Aviation
16MPGRGTN Airport Master Plan Update 50,628.00 45,565.20
Airport Federal Aviation
Administration
Texas Department of
Transportation-Aviation
1814GRGTN Runway 18/36 Rehabilitation 516,500.00 -
Airport Federal Aviation
Administration
Texas Department of
Transportation-Aviation
17WAGEORG Wildlife Hazard Assessment - -
Fire Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Texas Division Emergency
Management - Public Safety
LPDM-PJ-06-TX-2008-011 Prehazard Mitigation - Sirens 15,166.71 11,375.03
Fire US Department of Homeland
Security
Texas Division Emergency
Management - Public Safety
18TX-EMPG-1421 EMPG Salaries (Berg, Shell
and Gilliam)
151,727.58 29,024.39
Fire US Department of Homeland
Security
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
EMW-2017-FH-00496 SAFER - -
Fire N/A Texas Department Emergency
Management - Public Safety
TIFMAS - Llano Fire 31,142.28 31,142.28
Fire N/A Texas Department Emergency
Management - Public Safety
TIFMAS - Mallard Fire 25,496.67 25,496.67
Fire N/A Texas Department Emergency
Management - Public Safety
TIFMAS - Fort Davis 7,615.65 7,615.65
Gus - Electric N/A Bloomberg Philanthropies 2017 Mayors Challenge 30,830.60 100,000.00
Library Institute of Museum & Library
Services
Texas State Library & Archives
Commission
LS-00-18-0044-18 TSL Resource Coordinator -
3rd year (Patrick Lloyd)
5,454.72 5,454.72
Library Institute of Museum & Library
Services
Texas State Library & Archives
Commission
LS-00-17-0044-17 TSL Resource Coordinator -
2nd year (Patrick Lloyd)
64,061.76 62,494.75
Planning US Department of Housing &
Urban Development
Williamson County 322P Georgetown CDBG 6th & Scenic Sidewalk 130,664.00 114,919.90
Police Bureau of Justice Assistance N/A KXPIIIA Bullet Proof Vests - Supply
Police with new vests
11,098.48 5,549.24
Public Works Dept. of Transportation
/Federal Highway
Texas Department of
Transportation
CSJ-0914-05-187 Highway Planning &
Construction (Austin Ave
594,891.14 -
Division Grantor Status
Fire Texas Department of Public
Safety - TDEM
Urban Search and Rescue
(US&R)
Council Approved MOU April
10th.
Gus - Electric Department of Energy (DOE)Battery Storage Project Under DOE Review
Parks Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD)
Recreation Trails Environmental Review
Process
Planning Williamson County (CDBG)Sidewalks and Ramps along
17th St
Council Approved Feb 27th.
App submitted Apr 4th.
Funding approved Jun 26th.
Reviewed By:
Date: 10/29/18
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Grant/Federal Funding Report
as of September 30 2018
COG Name/Purpose
Active
Applications Pending Award
51
Page 56 of 213
Row Labels FY2018 Budget Year to Date (W/Encum) Remaining Balance
AIRPORT OPERATIONS
600-9-0636-52-144 TAXIWAY EDGE LIGHTING 150,000 - 150,000
AIRPORT OPERATIONS Total 150,000 - 150,000
CDBG GRANTS
215-9-0880-90-001 SCENIC DR SIDEWALKS 140,902 123,891 17,012
CDBG GRANTS Total 140,902 123,891 17,012
DOWNTOWN TIRZ
293-9-0602-90-002 DOWNTOWN PARKING - 70,298 (70,298)
DOWNTOWN TIRZ Total - 70,298 (70,298)
ELECTRIC SERVICES
610-9-0580-90-047 AUSTIN AVE SIDEWALKS 100,000 - 100,000
610-9-0580-90-139 17TH STREET REHAB 50,000 - 50,000
610-9-0580-90-140 7TH ST REHAB 200,000 925 199,075
610-9-0580-90-141 DOWNTOWN OH REHAB 700,000 - 700,000
610-9-0580-90-142 DOWNTOWN WEST 950,000 821,539 128,461
610-9-0580-90-143 SHELL ROAD FEEDERS 370,000 8,152 361,848
610-9-0580-90-144 SIDEWALK POLE RELOCATION 50,000 49 49,951
610-9-0580-90-146 SOUTHWEST BYPASS FEEDER 800,000 10,802 789,198
610-9-0580-90-147 WEST 10TH STREET REHAB 98,000 - 98,000
610-9-0580-90-148 WEST 11TH STREET REHAB 200,000 366 199,634
610-9-0580-90-255 DOWNTOWN URD CONVERSION 200,000 - 200,000
610-9-0580-90-256 GEO. EAST T2 VOLTAGE CHANG 50,000 26,243 23,757
610-9-0580-90-257 KATHI LN URD CONVERSION 180,000 180,794 (794)
610-9-0580-90-260 DB WOOD_SH29 INTERSECTION 150,000 4,555 145,445
610-9-0580-90-261 FM 971 RELOCATION 200,000 - 200,000
610-9-0580-90-262 INNER LOOP WIDENING 200,000 - 200,000
610-9-0580-90-263 LEANDER RD_IH35 INTERSECTI 10,000 - 10,000
610-9-0580-90-264 NORTHWEST BLVD WIDENING 100,000 25,962 74,038
610-9-0580-90-265 RABBIT HILL ROAD WIDENING 500,000 2,453 497,547
610-9-0580-90-266 RIVERY EXTENSION 200,000 77,731 122,269
610-9-0580-90-267 UNIVERSITY_MAYS WIDENING 154,000 - 154,000
610-9-0580-90-268 WILLIAMS DR_IH35 INTERSECT 10,000 - 10,000
610-9-0580-90-300 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEM - 3,739 (3,739)
610-9-0580-90-310 POWER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS 80,000 63,142 16,858
610-9-0580-90-320 SECTIONALIZATION IMPROVEME 200,000 - 200,000
610-9-0580-90-331 POLE INSPECTIONS 100,000 - 100,000
610-9-0580-90-410 NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 3,000,000 2,067,411 932,589
610-9-0580-90-430 STREET LIGHTING 88,000 7,455 80,545
610-9-0580-90-500 CONSULTANT ENGINEERING 150,000 177,036 (27,036)
610-9-0580-90-701 FIBER OPTIC 245,000 115,063 129,937
610-9-0580-90-702 FIBER TO SIGNAL LIGHTS 50,000 4,663 45,337
610-9-0580-91-105 CIS SYSTEM 308,565 308,565 -
610-9-0585-90-021 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 186,922 434 186,488
ELECTRIC SERVICES Total 9,880,487 3,907,079 5,973,408
GATEWAY TIRZ
295-9-0602-90-001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 140,000 - 140,000
GATEWAY TIRZ Total 140,000 - 140,000
GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
120-9-0280-90-022 RIVER TRAIL EXPANSION - 26,473 (26,473)
120-9-0280-90-039 RADIO REPLACEMENT, PARKS 64,333 (64,333) 128,666
120-9-0280-90-045 SAN GABRIEL PARK IMPROVEME 3,795,205 2,960,917 834,288
120-9-0280-90-046 GAREY PARK 912,359 881,870 30,489
120-9-0280-90-047 SIDEWALKS 716,514 37,738 678,777
120-9-0280-90-051 LIBRARY CANOPY 155,000 - 155,000
120-9-0280-90-053 GRACE HERITAGE REHAB - 24,891 (24,891)
120-9-0280-90-054 HISTORIC DISTRICT STREET S - 1,800 (1,800)
120-9-0280-90-059 ADA FACILITIES 326,345 38,705 287,640
120-9-0280-90-060 ADA PARKS 173,137 10,372 162,765
120-9-0280-90-061 ELECTRIC PROJECTS 89,920 - 89,920
120-9-0280-90-065 AQUATIC STUDY - - -
120-9-0280-90-066 KATY CROSSING TRAIL 700,000 700,000 -
120-9-0380-90-054 DTOWN MASTER PLAN - 51 (51)
52
Capital Improvement Projects
Page 57 of 213
Row Labels FY2018 Budget Year to Date (W/Encum) Remaining Balance
120-9-0380-90-080 DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE - 6,979 (6,979)
120-9-0380-90-156 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 88,343 69,012 19,331
120-9-0380-90-159 FIRE STATION 7 2,300,000 2,078,400 221,601
120-9-0380-90-160 EOC SIREN SYSTEM 21,798 15,167 6,631
120-9-0380-90-163 FIRE STATION 6 ESD 300,000 275 299,725
120-9-0380-90-166 DATA CENTER- PSOTC 100,676 - 100,676
120-9-0380-90-168 TRANSFER STATION/LANDFILL 11,337 - 11,337
120-9-0380-90-169 ERP PROJECT 4,950,000 33,616 4,916,384
120-9-0380-90-170 ANIMAL SVCS_LAND AND FACIL 100,000 21,266 78,734
120-9-0381-91-022 RADIO REPLACEMENT 500,000 - 500,000
120-9-0480-90-003 RADIO REPLACEMENTS, FIRE - (209,183) 209,183
120-9-0680-90-008 MUNICIPAL COURT/CVB REDESI 175,000 - 175,000
120-9-0680-90-009 FORMER PD RENOVATION - - -
120-9-0680-90-012 DOWNTOWN WEST 13,446,797 12,964,966 481,831
120-9-0680-90-013 DOWNTOWN WEST SIGNAGE 125,000 - 125,000
120-9-0680-90-014 DOWNTOWN PARKING EXPANSION 250,000 - 250,000
120-9-0780-90-039 RADIO REPLACEMENT, POLICE - (214,462) 214,462
120-9-0880-90-054 AUSTIN AVENUE BRIDGE 88,132 - 88,132
120-9-0880-90-086 SW BYPASS LEANDER TO I35 - - -
120-9-0880-90-087 FM 971 3,900,000 - 3,900,000
120-9-0880-90-088 FM 1460 2,529,985 - 2,529,985
120-9-0880-90-091 SW BYPASS/WOLF RANCH PKWY 2,324,866 602,986 1,721,880
120-9-0880-90-092 SOUTHEAST INNER LOOP - 4,109 (4,109)
120-9-0880-90-093 ACCESS RTW TO GOVERNMENT S - 35,265 (35,265)
120-9-0880-90-104 SIGNAL AT SHELL/VERDE VIST 240,006 237,161 2,845
120-9-0880-90-105 NORTHWEST BLVD BRIDGE 10,500,000 152,200 10,347,800
120-9-0880-90-106 LEANDER RD_RIVER RIDGE_SW 1,550,000 - 1,550,000
120-9-0880-90-107 ROCK ST-6TH TO 9TH ST 23,000 - 23,000
120-9-0880-90-108 RIVERY EXTENSION 4,500,000 4,540,188 (40,188)
120-9-0880-90-109 SE INNER LOOP ROCKRIDE IMP 675,000 560,000 115,000
120-9-0880-90-110 ESTRELLA CROSSING - 3,750 (3,750)
120-9-0880-91-001 10TH ST (MAIN-ROCK)94,000 - 94,000
120-9-0880-91-002 11TH ST. (MAIN-ROCK)151,000 - 151,000
120-9-0880-91-003 8TH ST. (CHURCH-MYRTLE)11,922 - 11,922
120-9-0880-91-004 8TH ST. (MLK-ROCK)11,922 - 11,922
120-9-0880-91-005 AUSTIN AVE. (9TH-UNIVERSIT 178,000 - 178,000
120-9-0880-91-006 AUSTIN AVE. (SH29-FM2243)300,000 122 299,878
120-9-0880-91-007 CHURCH ST. (8TH-9TH)11,922 - 11,922
120-9-0880-91-008 OLD TOWN NORTHEAST 756,037 8,138 747,899
120-9-0880-91-009 PH 1 SIGNAL & CURB RAMP IM 309,103 266 308,837
120-9-0880-91-010 DTOWN SIDEWALK PROJECTS - 51,229 (51,229)
GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Total 57,456,659 25,579,931 31,876,728
GTEC
400-9-0980-90-022 SH 29 TO RM2243 SW BYPASS - 354 (354)
400-9-0980-90-024 SW BYPASS-2243 TO IH35 333,962 205,411 128,551
400-9-0980-90-036 ECO DEVO PROJECTS 1,643,750 - 1,643,750
400-9-0980-90-043 SE INNER LOOP WIDENING 900,000 - 900,000
400-9-0980-90-044 FM 971/ FONTANA (NW BRIDGE 66,431 3,329 63,102
400-9-0980-90-047 WOLF RANCH PKWY EXTENSION 283,350 - 283,350
400-9-0980-90-049 NB FRONT RD (2338 TO LAKEW - - -
400-9-0980-90-059 IH 35/ HWY 29 INTERSECTION 650,000 43,347 606,653
400-9-0980-90-060 MAYS STREET/ RABBIT HILL R 3,252,729 254,724 2,998,005
400-9-0980-90-061 FM1460 WIDENING 501,260 477 500,783
400-9-0980-90-062 RIVERY EXT (WILLIAMS DR-N 767,678 37,043 730,635
400-9-0980-90-063 PECAN CENTER DR./ AIRPORT 5,390,290 2,945,254 2,445,036
400-9-0980-90-064 RIVERY TIA IMPROVEMENTS 1,016,790 633,908 382,882
400-9-0980-90-065 TAMIRO IMPROVEMENTS 410,000 - 410,000
GTEC Total 15,216,240 4,123,847 11,092,393
PARKLAND DEDICATION
229-9-0280-90-014 FOUNDER'S PARK - 21,209 (21,209)
PARKLAND DEDICATION Total - 21,209 (21,209)
STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
640-9-0880-90-005 CURB & GUTTER 962,150 434,646 527,504
640-9-0880-90-069 STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE 224,000 227,940 (3,940)
53
Page 58 of 213
Row Labels FY2018 Budget Year to Date (W/Encum) Remaining Balance
640-9-0880-90-076 REGIONAL FLOOD STUDY - 52,085 (52,085)
640-9-0880-90-078 18TH AND HUTTO DRAINAGE 77,977 - 77,977
640-9-0880-90-079 2ND AND ROCK POND 13,876 1,080 12,796
640-9-0880-90-080 SERENADA CULVERT IMPROVEME 176,000 119,610 56,390
640-9-0880-90-081 VILLAGE PID INLET 75,000 - 75,000
640-9-0880-90-082 18TH_HUTTO DRAINAGE STUDY 50,000 - 50,000
STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT Total 1,579,003 835,361 743,642
STREET TAX SRF
203-9-0880-90-071 STREET MAINTENANCE 5,376,356 3,101,583 2,274,773
203-9-0880-90-072 PAVEMENT SEALING - - -
203-9-0880-90-075 ASPHALT RECYCLING - 48 (48)
STREET TAX SRF Total 5,376,356 3,101,631 2,274,725
TCF GRANTS
804-9-0602-90-001 ADMINISTRATION - 1,498 (1,498)
804-9-0602-90-005 TCF LOAN PAYMENTS - 21,121 (21,121)
TCF GRANTS Total - 22,619 (22,619)
WATER SERVICES
660-9-0580-90-049 SOUTHLAKE WTP 950,260 - 950,260
660-9-0580-90-071 TANK REHAB PROJECTS 399,958 466,727 (66,769)
660-9-0580-90-072 CEDAR BREAKS EST 9,333 9,333 (0)
660-9-0580-90-076 DB WOOD/ PASTOR 24 DEDICAT 2,490,667 305,000 2,185,667
660-9-0580-90-097 SUN CITY ELEVATED STORAGE 3,224,047 3,225,793 (1,746)
660-9-0580-90-125 SHELL ROAD WATER LINE 6,039,578 5,928 6,033,651
660-9-0580-90-146 LWTP- DEWATERING FACILITY - 89,823 (89,823)
660-9-0580-90-155 WATER- STREET REHAB 330,000 - 330,000
660-9-0580-90-156 WESTSIDE FACILITY - - -
660-9-0580-90-158 RABBIT HILL EST - 0 (0)
660-9-0580-90-166 LEANDER INTERCONNECT 225,000 - 225,000
660-9-0580-90-167 WEST LOOP (H-1A)2,119,000 - 2,119,000
660-9-0580-90-168 LWTP RAW WATER INTAKE REHA 790,411 792,092 (1,681)
660-9-0580-90-170 CR 255 (WD14-2)2,980,000 804,041 2,175,959
660-9-0580-90-171 DOMEL PS IMPROVEMENTS 1,805,692 392,022 1,413,670
660-9-0580-90-172 PUMPS & STORAGE - 356,877 (356,877)
660-9-0580-90-175 BRAUN EST 4,750,000 399,269 4,350,731
660-9-0580-90-176 MISC. LINE UPGRADES 250,000 - 250,000
660-9-0580-90-177 PARK WTP CLEARWELL 170,000 - 170,000
660-9-0580-90-178 S. LAKE WTP 2018 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
660-9-0580-90-179 SW BYPASS WATER H24-1 500,000 - 500,000
660-9-0580-90-180 TANK REHABILITATION 480,000 - 480,000
660-9-0580-90-200 WATER MAINS 3,842,303 1,633,978 2,208,325
660-9-0580-91-105 CIS SYSTEM 5,178 (202,486) 207,664
660-9-0581-90-037 EDWARDS AQUIFER TESTING - 149,000 (149,000)
660-9-0581-90-051 PECAN BRANCH PH 2 - 58,663 (58,663)
660-9-0581-90-153 STONEHEDGE LS & FM - - -
660-9-0581-90-154 WESTINGHOUSE LS & FM 1,207,067 29,739 1,177,328
660-9-0581-90-160 BERRY CREEK INTER. (BC- 4-8,328,900 8,607 8,320,293
660-9-0581-90-162 BERRY CREEK INTER. (BCI-3)12,000,000 1,650,085 10,349,915
660-9-0581-90-163 SAN GABRIEL BELT PRESS 2,207,000 306,068 1,900,932
660-9-0581-90-164 PARK LIFT STATION & FORCE 3,585,740 - 3,585,740
660-9-0581-90-165 BERRY CREEK INTER BCI-3 1,000,000 4,199 995,801
660-9-0581-90-166 EARZ 1,000,000 1,038,858 (38,858)
660-9-0581-90-167 SAN GABRIEL INTER SGI-2 2,500,000 - 2,500,000
660-9-0581-90-200 WW INTERCEPTORS - 34,977 (34,977)
660-9-0581-90-220 LIFT STATION UPGRADE 900,280 - 900,280
WATER SERVICES Total 65,090,414 11,558,593 53,531,821
Grand Total 155,030,061 49,344,458 105,685,603
54
Page 59 of 213
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 6/30/18 Status Updates - 9/30/18
Cemetery Special Revenue
Fund
Currently cemetery operations are self-funded through plot
sales of approximately $50K per year. The cemetery is
managed through Parks Administration. In 2015, Council
elected to reserve $75,000 annually for future costs
associated with maintaining the property. The General Fund
has made this transfer in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
The columbarium construction bid of $121,432 was approved by City
Council on February 27th. The niche units had a substantially long
lead time for fabrication but are complete. The notice to proceed
for construction of the columbarium is scheduled for the week of
7/23. Construction is expected to take 60 days. The $75,000
perpetual reserve transfer from the General Fund is included in the
FY2019 Proposed Budget.
The columbarium construction bid of $121,432 was approved by City
Council on February 27th. The notice to proceed for construction of
the columbarium was completed in late July. Construction is
currently underway and is expected to be completed in December.
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued
Liability (UAAL)
Recognizes the outstanding liability for the City’s employee
retirement plan through TMRS. The City contributes
monthly to fund the UAAL, based on an annual percentage
of payroll. Actual % of payroll costs is recognized within each
fund. The UAAL is provided by TMRS and lags one year.
No change, updated once annually in December. The 2017 unfunded
valuation was $22 million. The funded ratio is 84.3%, which is
considered healthy.
No change, updated once annually.
Other Post Employee Benefits
(OPEB)
While the City has no obligation to offer additional retiree
benefits, retirees are eligible to participate in the City’s
health insurance program. That ability represents a subsidy
that impacts health insurance costs to the City. Retirees pay
their monthly premiums to the ISF who in turn processes
their health insurance claims.
GASB requires updates every other year. Until the review is
conducted again in 2018, the estimate is $1,148,194, an increase of
$175,618 over the prior year.
The 2018 biannual review of years 2017 and 2016 was completed by
contracted auditors GRS. The Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) issued a new statement number 75 (GASB 75) that
required all entities to update the OPEB calculation. The main
change in the methodology is reducing the discount rate in the
calculation. The prior discount rate was 4%, the new discount rate is
3.31%. This has the effect of increasing the liability. Georgetown’s
new OPEB liability is $2,182,012, or 5.4% of covered payroll. This
change in liability is recorded as a prior period adjustment on the
balance sheet.
Compensated Absence
Future costs associated with benefits such as vacation, and
sick leave for City employees. Compensated Absence is
accrued annually to each proprietary fund type on a GAAP
basis and accounted for on the balance sheet of each fund.
For governmental funds (and for budgetary basis), the
expense is recognized when due and payable.
The midyear budget amendment has appropriated the full $222,000
reserve to the General Fund for 4 Police department retirements.
The Benefit Payout Reserve is funded at $252,000 in the FY2019
Proposed Budget.
This is calculated during the year-end audit.
Electric Fund Rate Stabilization
Reserve
Intended to mitigate potential rate impacts due to increased
fuel costs or other external factors. The RSR is maintained
within the Electric Fund and is budgeted to be $5.5M in
FY2018.
The 2018 cost of service rate study recommends a minimum cash
balance of $17 million for various purposes. Staff presented new
reserve policies for the Electric Fund to GGAF and Council in June.
The FY 2019 Propsoed Budget includes funding for the 90 day
operational reserve, and partial funding for the non-operating
reserve for debt and capital. The remaining amount will be funded
as the cost of service rate is implemented. The Rate Stabilization
Reserve, up to 10% of Purchased Power costs, will be built over the
next few years.
Purchased Power costs exceeded budget in FY2018, the third year in
a row. The expense is a result of the City selling excess generation
into a depressed wholesale market. Additionally, the utility
experienced changes in the congestion market due to revised ERCOT
rules and the switch from a gas contract to a solar contract. A year-
end budget amendment will be necessary to authorize the expense.
The additional expense will cause a delay in building fund balance
for the non-operational reserve.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Long-term Commitments, Reservations, and Other Unfunded Liabilities
September 30, 2018
55
Page 60 of 213
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 6/30/18 Status Updates - 9/30/18
Airport Maintenance
Fund on-going maintenance of the Airport grounds, runways
and taxi ways. Terminal and Tower included in Facilities ISF.
An Airport Master Plan was developed to address long term
capital maintenance project prioritization.
The Airport Fund has a positive ending balance and is able to fund
capital projects going forward as well as support a contingency
reserve. The parallel taxiway and fuel storage facility are complete.
The current Airport Master Plan effort has produced a draft Final
Plan moving forward for consideration by the City. The Wildlife
Hazard Assessment has begun and should be completed late 2018.
The Airport is working with TxDOT Aviation to begin the design and
eventual construction of a rehabilitation of the airport main runway.
Staff recommends removing this item from the unfunded liabilities
list.
The Airport Fund started FY 2019 with a positive ending balance.
The Airport Master Plan was completed and adopted. The Wildlife
Hazard Assessment is in progress and expected to be complete late
2018. The Texas Transportation Commission approved
rehabilitation of Runway 18-36 pavement, including grooving the
new pavement, overlay of additional shoulder pavement, and
installation of lighting infrastructure in preparation for future
lighting projects.
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Compliance Needs
As facilities are built or repurposed, meeting ADA
compliance will be included in Project Costs. Funding for
program expansion will be needed (General Fund sources).
The City has an adopted policy, as required by Federal Law,
that it will make reasonable accommodations and
modifications to ensure that people with disabilities have an
equal opportunity to enjoy its programs, services, and
activities. The City does not maintain a reserve for these
modifications.
The City is continuing the work on the CIP ADA projects.
The City completed an ADA self-assessment for all public
facilities in 2015. This resulted in Capital Improvement Plans
for City Facilities, Parks and Sidewalks. FY 2018 CIP projects
included $185,564 in Public Facilities and $153,504 in Parks.
Scheduled sidewalk improvements totaled over $2.18 million,
which is completing design with implementation in FY 2019.
The City is continuing the work to include ADA access in all
new CIP projects.
Sidewalk Maintenance
Currently, new sidewalks are built as development occurs.
Repairs are funded as needed or if funding is available,
when major roads are repaired. Useful life of a sidewalk is
estimated at 40 to 50 years. The largest revenue source
comes from the City’s General Fund, but there has been
some debt funding as well.
Scenic CDBG sidewalk is complete. All punch list and TDLR items are
complete. The only remaining item is vegetation in a few areas of
the project. Old Town NE is in process. All 7 easements are being
finalized. An additional area for the sidewalk has been added to the
scope of work along 7th from Maple to Smith Creek Rd. WPAP has
been submitted to TCEQ for approval.
Old Town NE Sidewalk – WPAP approval has been received from
TCEQ. Design is 95% completed. One owner has signed the
easement, two other owners are ready to sign easement and it is
being scheduled. Four easements remain and are being worked on.
Austin Ave Sidewalks (Leander to Hwy 29) – Currently advertised.
Bid opening is set for 10-30-18.
Park Equipment Maintenance
& Replacement
Over the past 5 years, funding for Park Maintenance and
Replacement has increased. $200K transfer from General
Fund included in FY2018 budget. Staff has listed all assets &
developed replacement schedule funded by the General
Fund, soon to be on EAM.
Renovations to Meadow’s Park are nearing completion and the
Williams Drive Pool filters have been installed. Village Pool and the
outdoor Recreation Center Pool will be re-plastered after the 2018
pool season.
All FY2018 projects have been completed including Meadow’s Park,
Williams Drive Pool filters and pool plaster at Village Pool and the
outdoor Recreation Center Pool. FY2019 projects include
renovations to Kelley Park, Recreation Center outdoor pool water
feature repairs, and filter replacements at Village Pool and the
indoor Recreation Center Pool.
56
Page 61 of 213
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates - 6/30/18 Status Updates - 9/30/18
Emergency Medical Service
Special Revenue Fund
2014/15 Annual Budget assumed EMS Program to be
operationally active by June 2015 with revenues to offset
operating and capital costs. Operating deficit would be
funded internally until capital costs were recovered in 5
years.
As of June 30, 2018 EMS revenue collections are $1.84 million, which
is slightly under budget for FY2018. Year-end revenue is projected
to come in at $2.48 million, budget is $2.61 million. The shortfall in
revenue is primarily driven by vacancies that have kept EMS from
being able to activate the peak unit in FY2019. Staff continues to
monitor operational expenses monthly. EMS revenue is projected
to be $2.56 million in FY2019. The fund continues to improve it's
position as collection rate and demands for service grow. Since Fire
and EMS are an integrated system, staff is recommending to move
the EMS fund into the General Fund in FY2019. The General Fund
will be able to cover the 90-day contingency requirement currently
not being covered in EMS.
By the end of FY2018, the City had received 94% of budgeted
revenues. As part of a December budget amendment to bring on a
peak unit staffing, it was anticipated the department would be able
to run more transports and thus increase the revenue. However,
due to hiring issues, the peak unit was not able to run causing the
transport revenues to come in slightly under budget. The City
received nearly 10,000 more than budgeted in TASPP, Medicare
reimburse revenue. During the budget process in the summer, staff
projected EMS transport revenues to total $2.67 M. Actual transport
revenues total $2.64 M, a variance of 1%.
Radio Equipment Replacement
Communication system consisting of 500 on-body and in-
vehicle radios for Police, Fire, parks and utilities.
Replacement radios are compatible with newer technology.
Year three of the four-year radio replacement program is funded in
FY 2019 Proposed Budget.
Due to turnover in the Emergency Management Coordinator
position, the 2018 radio purchase will roll forward to 2019 in the
December budget ammendment. The Fire Department is working to
order the 2018 and 2019 phase of the radio replacement program.
Street Maintenance
The City funds street maintenance in the General Fund,
supplemented by a 1/8th Street Sales Tax special revenue
fund. In 2017 and 2018, the Council and GTAB reviewed
various methods for enhanced street maintenance and
costs. Direction from Council is to use high performance
surface seals and pavement wearing courses and begin
programmatically addressing the street network's deferred
maintenance backlog, creating a need for approximately $2
million more per year for street maintenance.
Street Maintenance budget totals $4.3M in the FY2019 Proposed
Budget. This is a similar funding level to recent years. Other major
items in the General Fund budget did not allow for a significant
increase. Staff continue to explore funding sources.
Street Maintenance is currently coordinating with Systems
Engineering and evaluating the 2018 Pavement Condition Survey
results to prioritize local roads for bidding of FY 2019 Pavement
Maintenance Treatments.
57
Page 62 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
4th Quarter Report -Preliminary
Page 63 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Preliminary Report
•Please note this quarterly report includes
unaudited figures.
•Currently completing the year-end close out
and the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report
(CAFR).
•The numbers presented in this report are
unaudited, preliminary, and subject to change.
Page 64 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
General Fund Revenues
•Overall revenues total $62.8 million.
•Budgeted revenues total $62.6 million. (Variance to
budget of 0.30%)
•Projected revenues total $63.3 million. (Variance to
projection of 0.79%)
•Property Tax collections up 5.6% compared to the same
period last year. (Variance to projection -0.41%)
•Parks/Rec fees total $2.3 million (variance to projection
-2.53%)
•ROI totals $8.7 million (variance to projection +1.71%)
Page 65 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Sales Tax
Fiscal Actual Projected Variance Variance %
FY2015 20,984,850 21,000,000 (15,150) -0.07%
FY2016 23,437,496 22,900,000 537,496 2.35%
FY2017 25,102,936 25,300,000 (197,064) -0.78%
FY2018 27,254,787 27,100,000 154,787 0.57%
Total 96,780,070 96,300,000 480,070 0.50%
Page 66 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
General Fund Expenditures
•General Fund expenditures total $64.1 million.
(variance to projection of 1.17%).
•Vacancy Savings:
–Personnel projections are initially made in March,
and refined over a two-month process.
–Planning, Public Works, Garey Park, and Code
Enforcement.
–Rec Programs department also saw significant
savings in part time personnel cost for swimming
pools.
Page 67 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
General Fund
•Administration Services Division (Administrative
Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social
Service Funding) expenditures for the fourth
quarter total $2.5 million, which represents 94.5%
of budget.
•Year-to-date expenditures for the Community
Services (Parks and Rec., Library, and
Communications) and Finance Division (Municipal
Court) total $11.2 million or 96.0% of budget.
Page 68 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
General Fund
•The Georgetown Utility System Division
(Environmental Services, Inspections, Public
Works, and Streets) expenditures through the
fourth quarter total $10.8 million or 95.6% of
budget.
•Year-to -date expenditures for Public Safety
total $29.0 million, which represents 99.2% of
budget.
Page 69 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Police Division
•The Police Division (Police Admin, Police
Operations, Animal Services, and Code
Enforcement) is over budget by $46,201 or
0.18% of total appropriation for added patrol
at Blue Hole throughout the summer.
•Staff proposes a year-end amendment for
Police from savings in the Fire Division. The
total appropriation level of the General Fund
budget will remain the same.
Page 70 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Utility Funds
•Electric sales revenue through the fourth quarter of
FY2018 totals $69.2 million, up 2.3% compared to
budget.
•The increase is due to growth in the customer base
and the impact of the power cost adjustment. Total
operating revenues ended FY2018 at $73.6 million, or
$1.4 million more than budgeted.
Page 71 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Utility Funds
•Electric expenditures exceed budget due to
higher than projected purchase power costs.
•Due to the overage in purchased power, the
fund will require a year-end budget
amendment.
•The fund is anticipated to end FY2018 with a
fund balance of $1.97 million, a variance to
projection of $6.84 million.
Page 72 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Utility Funds
•Water revenue is up 9.5% while wastewater revenue
is up 1.4% compared to last year. The increases are
due to growth in the system and impact fees.
•Impact fee revenue came in $5.4 million higher than
projection. System fee revenues (water and
wastewater fees) finished the year at $40.7 million.
Page 73 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Utility Funds
•Water expenses total $50.83 million. Non-
operational expenses total $18.3 million.
•These non-operational expenses are capital
improvement projects that normally span
multiple years.
•A CIP Rollforward Budget amendment to
reauthorize these projects for spending in
FY2019 is planned in December.
Page 74 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
CVB and Airport
•Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is $1.2 million
for the fiscal year, an increase of 1.3% from the
prior year due to the Sheraton Hotel.
•Airport revenue is up 3.1% from the prior year,
and includes fuel sales and lease revenue.
–Ending fund balance of $1,062,941
Page 75 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Investment Report
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/30/2018
Total Cash and Investments 165,885,663 173,516,846 203,105,508 180,045,674
Average Yield 1.30%1.60%1.83%2.07%
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/30/2018
Total Cash and Investments 19,053,403 19,387,468 20,607,520 18,517,065
Average Yield 1.39%1.62%1.90%1.98%
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/30/2018
Total Cash and Investments 6,157,417 6,339,643 6,651,120 6,942,552
Average Yield 1.23%1.49%1.92%2.04%
City
GEDCO
GTEC
Page 76 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Summary
•Strong revenues across the major funds.
–General, Water, Electric, CVB, and Airport
•Expenses are tracking closely to budget.
–General fund and electric fund will need a year end
budget amendment.
•Investments are seeing higher interest rates
relative to the beginning of the calendar year.
Page 77 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Page 78 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the FY2018 Year-End Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item corre spo nds with the amendment on the legislative session.
Each year staff e stimate year-end projections compared to the annual budget. The follo wing summarizes the budget
changes by fund and department required to comply with the City Charter. Detailed informatio n is included in the attached
Exhibit A.
Electric Fund
• Electric expe nditures exceed budget due to highe r than projected purchase power c osts. The net of purchased powe r and
CRRs exceed budget by $11 .6 million.
Rivery TIRZ
• The debt servic e re quirement transfer is $816 highe r than budgeted due to handling fees. Staff is recommending using
available fund balance to co ver the higher than anticipated expenses.
P olice Abandon Vehicles
• The Police Abandon Vehicle fund overspent budget by $1 ,24 5 for the towing contract. Staff is recommending using
available fund balance to co ver the higher than budge ted expense.
P EG Fees Fund
• Staff is recommending two adjustments to this fund. First, recognize additional reve nue earned in the fiscal year of
$61,820. The seco nd adjustment is to increase appro priations by $5,987 for the purc hases o f equipment relating to
GTV/Communications.
Debt Service Fund
• In the fall of 2 01 7, o n the advice of the City's financ ial adviso r and the approval of Council, the City refinanced seve ral
GO and CO bonds. The refinance bonds saved the City over 1.3 million dollars. The pro posed budget amendment seeks to
recognize both the new bond proceeds and the costs of the refinancing debt.
Council Fund
• The proposed amendment is to transfer funds from the Council fund to the General Capital Pro jects Fund to partially
fund the City Ce nter pro ject (new City Hall and Council Chambers/ Muni Court). This action is in lieu of selling the
Visitors Center building.
General Capital Pro jects
• The proposed amendment is to transfer funds from the Council fund to the General Capital Pro ject to partial fund the
City Center proje c t (new City Hall and Council Chambers/ Muni Court). There is no adjustment to the expenses. Staff is
recommending to reduce the budgeted revenue fro m the sale o f the buildings by $1 ,10 8,2 00 and increase the transfer in
from the Counc il fund by the same amount.
General Fund
• There are two propo sed amendments in the General Fund. First, a transfer from the Ge neral Fund to the FEMA spe c ial
revenue fund for an uncollectable accounts receivable. The second amendment is a transfer fro m Fire to Police to co ver
overages in the division related to Blue Hole patro l o vertime.
FEMA Special Re venue Fund
• For the past few ye ars, the accounting staff has been in talks with FEMA relating to a reimbursement from FY2015.
Essentially, the re has been an uncollected receivable sitting o n the books of Fund 2 61 – FEMA SRF as staff has been
working with FEMA. FEMA has made their final de c isio n and the $42,708 receivable bo oked years ago will not occur.
Therefore, to close this fund and clear the accounts re ceivable, a transfer of $42,7 08 from the General Fund is needed.
Page 79 of 213
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
P aul Diaz, Budget Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Bud get Amendment Presentatio n
Page 80 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Year End Budget Amendment
Page 81 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Electric Fund
•Electric purchase power expenditures exceed
budget due to the City’s long position in the
current energy market.
•The net of purchased power and CRRs exceed
budget by $11.6 million.
•The fund is anticipated to end FY2018 with a
fund balance of $1.97 million, a variance to
projection of $6.84 million.
Page 82 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Debt Service Fund
•In the fall of 2017, on the advice of the City's
financial advisor and the approval of Council,
the City refinanced several GO and CO bonds.
The refinance bonds saved the City over $1.3
million dollars.
•The proposed budget amendment seeks to
recognize both the new bond proceeds and
the costs of the refinancing debt.
Page 83 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Council and GCP Funds
•The proposed amendment is to transfer funds
from the Council fund to the General Capital
Project to partial fund the City Center project.
There is no adjustment to the expenses.
•Staff is recommending to reduce the budgeted
revenue from the sale of the buildings by
$1,108,200 and increase the transfer in from
the Council fund by the same amount.
Page 84 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Other Amendments
•Rivery TIRZ handling fees of $816.
•Police Abandon Vehicle fund amendment for
$1,245 for towing contract.
•PEG Fees: Recognize additional revenue to offset
AV related overage of $5,987.
•Police Division overage of $42,708 for Blue Hole
OT.
•FEMA Special Revenue Fund: FEMA has made
their final decision and a reimbursement of
$42,708 receivable booked years ago will not
occur.
Page 85 of 213
FY2018 Annual Budget
Page 86 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the proposed creatio n of the Wolf Lakes Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) --
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Wolf Lakes T IRZ C reation P res entation
Page 87 of 213
Wolf Lakes –Proposed
Creation of a Tax Increment
Reinvestment Zone
•May 22, 2018
•Executive Session
November 27, 2018
City Council Workshop
Page 88 of 213
Purpose:
•To provide information to inform the Council’s
consideration of a TIF/TIRZ to support TIF revenue
to be contributed toward public improvements.
–The purpose of the Zone is to provide economic and
qualitative benefits by facilitating a program of public
improvements that provide for the development of a
mixed-use development with business/corporate
offices, retail, entertainment, and enhanced quality of
life features for residents.
Page 89 of 213
The Project: Location
•NW corner of IH35 and its intersection with University
Avenue (SH29), bounded by Wolf Ranch Parkway to the
west and the River Hills subdivision to the north.
Page 90 of 213
The Project: Summary
•A guiding principle of the development is to “design a
pedestrian-oriented village to de-emphasize vehicular
traffic and expansive parking lots.”
–Wolf Lakes implements this principle through providing open
spaces for the pedestrian to use as well as a trail system that
extends across the property.
•Open spaces include a plaza square, pocket parks, playgrounds, open-
air pavilion, and lakes.
•Additionally, the trail system will connect into the Wolf Ranch Trail as
well as future connections to the South Fork Trail and North Fork Trail.
Page 91 of 213
The Project: Vision
•164 acre Neo Retroistic Village
–NeoRetroism is the advancement of a philosophy which advocates the re-
creation of old world characteristics in modern-day development
environments. Its focus aims to strengthen the belief that building villages
creates stronger communities
–Diverse, live-work-play mixed use development
–European village design/architecture theme
•Class A office space –corporate users
•Gathering space/lake
•Traditional retail and office
City of GeorgetownPage 92 of 213
The Project: Vision
•The synergistic value of the village live-work-play is anticipated
to be dramatically higher than traditional development.
–The scale of the development, as well as the vision for the
planned unit development requires a significant investment in
infrastructure that does not meet current market returns for
developers.
–The cost of supporting public infrastructure has created a situation
where the property would not develop without tax increment
financing or other incentives.
–The structure of the tax increment is through a reimbursement
basis, therefore placing the risk of the financing development
costs and the risk of valuation fluctuations on the developers.
City of GeorgetownPage 93 of 213
What is TIF Financing?
•Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool local governments
may use to finance public improvements within defined
areas that have unique challenges or opportunities for
economic development.
–A municipality may make an area eligible for tax increment financing by
designating a reinvestment zone (TIRZ).
–Taxes on the appraised value of the zone in the year the zone was
designated (the “base” year) continue flowing to the general funds of taxing
units, but, for participating government units, all or part of the increased tax
revenue due to greater real property values in TIF zone flows to a tax
increment financing fund (“TIF or TIRZ”) for a specified maximum term of
years.
•Page 94 of 213
Why TIF for Wolf Lakes?
•Additional assessed valuation vs. traditional
development
–Density
–Work, Live, Play
•Corporate Offices
Page 95 of 213
Why TIF for Wolf Lakes?
•Strong corporate use opportunities
–Retail will support office and residential
•Mixed use provides additional sustainability
•PUD provides higher level of development standards
•Additional tax base generated due to design and
density than through standard development
–Developer estimates $1.7B versus $460M traditional –value
at year 2050
•TIF provides framework for performance based
reimbursement
Page 96 of 213
Assessed Value Estimates Traditional
Development vs Wolf Lakes PUD
City of Georgetown
255,402,325
305,402,325
363,930,096
401,245,954
$460,102,228.00
$96,156,057
$417,328,279
$1,371,375,674
$1,514,109,556
$1,705,133,280
0
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
1,600,000,000
1,800,000,000
2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2050
Current Land Value Traditional Dev PUDPage 97 of 213
Incentive Framework
•City provides tax increment financing (TIF/TIRZ) structure
•Developer reimbursed for actual costs for public
infrastructure and interest/carrying costs
–$102M infrastructure
–$8M interest/carrying costs –Actual costs are higher
•Reimbursement based –payment based upon generation
of additional value
•No reimbursement to be made until $150,000 s/f/ of
commercial is permitted
City of GeorgetownPage 98 of 213
Impacts•Property values (TIRZ)
–Improvements, business/personal/inventory,
•Other revenue (in addition to TIRZ)
–Hotel occupancy tax; sales tax
•Market study by Capital Market Research (Heimsath)
–Validated retail/residential and absorption
–Supported corporate use; agreed catalyst project opportunity
City of GeorgetownPage 99 of 213
Financial Summary
•Costs of $102M
•Carrying Costs (interest) $8M
•Admin Costs $1M
•Estimated new property value
–$1.1B –10 year buildout (developer projections)
–Traditional development $460M (developer estimate)
–Density and higher use provides additional opportunity
–More revenue for transportation improvements in area
City of GeorgetownPage 100 of 213
Summary –Property Taxes/TIF
•Financials-TIF reimbursements
–City TIF = estimated $110M over 30 years (70%)
–County TIF = estimated $19M over 20 years (50%)
•County’s capped at $30M for road and drainage only
•Financial –City revenue
City of GeorgetownPage 101 of 213
TIRZ Framework:
•Reimbursement (cash flow no debt) for infrastructure
•City 70% increment for 30 years –estimated contribution of
•County 50% of increment for 20 years on O&M portion only
–Cap of $30M for road and drainage projects
•Base year of 2018
•No reimbursement to be made until 150K of commercial is
permitted
•If number of multi-family units changes in PUD, city will seek re-
approval by Williamson County before any disbursement of TIF
Funds
Page 102 of 213
TIRZ Framework:
•The City Council will appoint the seven member board of Directors
for the TIRZ to include:
–Mayor
–Councilmember District 2
–City Manager
–City Planning Director
–Chair of the City’s 4A Board, Georgetown Economic Development corporation
–Two representatives to be named by Williamson County.
•
Page 103 of 213
PUD and TIF Project Schedule
City Council Executive Session briefing November 13
Deadline for public hearing notice for TIRZ in Sun for 11/18 November 14
Public Hearing notice in Sunday Sun November 18
City Council –Workshop –public overview of project plan
PUD 1st reading November 27
TIRZ 1st reading
City Council –PUD 2nd reading December 11
TIRZ 2nd reading
County participation agreement
NO Infrastructure reimbursement agreement/development agreement
Will come later
Williamson County –Inter-local participation agreement approval December 18
City of GeorgetownPage 104 of 213
QUESTIONS?
Page 105 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the Solid Waste Master Plan Project -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director and Teresa
Chapman, Enviro nmental Co nservation Program Co ordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City o f Georgetown permitted a landfill in 1974 that was subse quently closed in 1990 when transfer o f solid waste
operations began. The City’s Solid Waste Master Plan is being undertaken to develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste
Master P lan to meet demand in future years. The ultimate goal o f the Master P lan is to provide systematic guidelines for
the provision of solid waste services to the City of Georgetown. The Master Plan is intended to be a proactive docume nt
which identifie s and then plans fo r future ne e ds well in advanc e . This is done to ensure that solid waste operational ne e ds
are planned and funded in advance to experiencing de trimental effects and to keep up with po pulation growth.
The disc ussio n today is to pro vide an update on the progress of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan, including
elements o f the plan such as feedback fro m downtown stake holders and o ption moving forward and an update on the
Transfer Station Pro ject.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P res entation
Page 106 of 213
Comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan
November 27, 2018
Page 107 of 213
Comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan
Winter
–Goals & Objectives
–Studies & Trends
–Planning Area
Characteristics
Summer Budget Process
–Infrastructure (Transfer
Station) & CSWMP Update
September
–Transfer Station
–Downtown
October
–Single Family Residential
–Multifamily Residential
–Commercial & Institutional
–Public Spaces & Special Events
–Municipal Operations & Policies
–Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW)
Today
–Downtown Stakeholder Feedback
–Summary of the CSWMP
–Update on Transfer Station
2Page 108 of 213
Direction needed from City Council
2
•Preferred Downtown service strategy and
selection of funding option for further review
•Guidance on completion of the CSWMP
Page 109 of 213
4
Downtown Stakeholder Engagement
Summary
•Business and property owners were provided
opportunities for feedback on Downtown challenges,
service needs, and solid waste management options.
March 21, 2018
Two focus groups were convened to improve
understanding of solid waste and recycling service
needs and identify challenges.
October 30 &
November 5, 2018
Two workshops were hosted to explain options and
receive feedback regarding four preliminary options
developed for future downtown services.
•Staff also conducted one-on-one outreach at various
times and with various business and property owners.
Page 110 of 213
5
Current Downtown Conditions
•Multiple challenges exist that are likely to become more
pronounced and more difficult to resolve as growth continues
o Limited access and space
Placement of dumpsters on private property is not guaranteed
Limited City-owned property options for shared containers
o Aesthetics and public health
Scattered litter, container overflow… unsightly and attract pests
Illegal and improper dumping in and around dumpsters
Containers on sidewalks & parking spaces are unsightly and
obstructive
o Service charges
Current pricing is inequitable and irregular among customers
New, volume-based rate structure is required for equity
•There is a need to beautify Downtown for health, safety,
aesthetics and to promote commerce
Page 111 of 213
Downtown Service Options & Costs
1. CARTS & SHARED DUMPSTERS 2. SHARED DUMPSTERS
3. SHARED COMPACTORS 4. CONCIERGE SERVICE
ANNUAL COST
$300,000
ANNUAL COST
$276,000
ANNUAL COST
$274,000
ANNUAL COST
Current: $120,000
Future: $150,000
•Current system
•Development of new rate structure
•No impact on operational challenges
•Removes carts on sidewalks and streets
•Allows for 3-stream system in future
•More dumpster locations are challenging…
leasing/purchasing of private property
•No impact on overflow, litter illegal
dumping
•Removes carts & dumpsters on
sidewalks, streets, parking spaces
•Allows for 3-stream system in future
•Siting of 2-3 compactors is challenging
•Customers must transport material offsite
•Minimal impact on overflow, litter, illegal
dumping
•All containers removed, space constraints
eliminated
•Prevents illegal dumping and overflow
•Allows for 3-stream system immediately
•Convenient for businesses
•Requires close coordination between
businesses & City
•Most viable for
future growth
Page 112 of 213
7
Summary of Downtown Stakeholder
Feedback on Service Options & Costs
•Continuation of current system is the least preferred option
•Businesses expressed desire for improved aesthetics and
cleanliness over current system
•Majority of businesses preferred concierge service,
understanding that costs would likely increase
•Concern about the impact of increased costs to businesses
Page 113 of 213
8
Funding Options
•Concierge is the preferred option
•Concern over doubling of current cost and affordability
•Downtown is a destination enjoyed by all
•Blended funded strategy
•Downtown businesses
•Other funding sources
Page 114 of 213
Guiding Principles of CSWMP
9
Develop innovative MSW management methods
Services must be convenient and price-competitive
1
Enhance aesthetics and services for the Downtown
Square and City Parks
2
3
Evaluate alternatives to landfill disposal4
Page 115 of 213
10
Next Steps for CSWMP Adoption
January 2019 City Council Update on Downtown
February 2019 P&Z Commission –presentation
March 2019 P&Z Commission –approval of CSWMP
April 2019 City Council –first public hearing
May 2019 City Council –second public hearing
Page 116 of 213
11
Thank You!
Direction needed from City Council
•Preferred Downtown service strategy and
selection of funding option(s) for further review
•Guidance of completing the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Master Plan
Page 117 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n regarding Fire Departme nt Staffing -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ITEM SUMMARY:
The FY1 9 Budge t included fire department po sitions for the staffing o f Statio n 7, a FLS position and po sitions to address
overtime and ho ldo ver issues.
Staff will provide a presentation to Council that will include:
1. Staffing/hiring update o n positions and needs.
2. New funding via the SAFER Grant.
3. Ratification o f a new cost-sharing model with ESD8.
4. Strength of Fo rc e (SOF) Amendment.
5. Assignment Ordinance Amendment.
6. Proposed Budge t Amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Update only. Info rmation included in presentation.
SUBMITTED BY:
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
GF D Staffing Update 11.27.2018 Pres entatio n
Page 118 of 213
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
Fire/Medical Staffing Update
City Council –November 27, 2018
Page 119 of 213
A.FY19 Adopted Budget included:
1. Fire Inspector Position
2. Authorization to hire three (3) overstaff positions
3. These positions authorized for Oct 1 start date
Background
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
B.FY19 adopted budget also included July start/hire date
for Station 7 staff –11 staff
C.Summer hire list was fully utilized and the three overstaff
positions did not occur.
Page 120 of 213
Overstaff Purpose
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
The strategy to overstaff three positions is to:
•Allow for anticipated attrition/retirement of
incumbents based upon recent history
•Allow for potential attrition of candidates
during academy/training process
•Allow us to evaluate overtime and call back
demand as we activate Station 7
Page 121 of 213
Funding Changes
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
In late September and October, the City
secured two additional funding sources for fire
department staffing:
•Staffing for Adequate & Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant
•ESD Cost-sharing Agreement
Page 122 of 213
SAFER
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
SAFER Grant was approved by Council on
September 25, 2018
•Position must be hired by Feb ‘19
•Allows for hiring of twelve (12) firefighters
•$2.8M grant ($1.7M Federal and $1.1M City)
•Four-year term with reimbursement of
firefighter salary:
•Year 1 –75% Federal and 25% City
•Year 2 –75%Federal and 25% City
•Year 3 –35% Federal and 65% City
•Year 4 –100% City
Page 123 of 213
ESD Cost Sharing Agreement
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
In mid-September the ESD and City ratified a new
cost-sharing agreement for the provision of
emergency services in the ESD.
•Cost sharing yields approx. $1.2M in
unbudgeted revenue for FY19
•Future fiscal years have cost share of approx.
20% ESD and 80% City
•City will finance Fire Station #6 with an
estimated debt service of $350k annually
starting in FY20
Page 124 of 213
Position Assessment
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
City staff evaluated current Fire Dept. demands
and recommend consideration of the following:
•Hire personnel for Station 7 in January vs July
•Hire three (3) for overstaff positions
•Hire one (1) training position
•Hire one (1) logistics worker
Page 125 of 213
Overstaff Positions
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
Rational for piloting an overstaff program:
•Allow us to fill vacancies due to attrition during
the fiscal year
•Review impact to OT budget and holdover
•Prepared for impact of a new candidate not
graduating academy or first-year probation
Page 126 of 213
Training Position
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
Rational for training position:
•Training Division has one person manage the
growing professional development needs
•Department growth and need for training
•Addition of 30 new members within 12-months
(some positions are due to retirement)
•Previously requested in budget submitals
Page 127 of 213
Logistics Worker Position
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
Rational for logistics position:
•Increased demand for fire and EMS supplies
•Civilian to manage program rather than OT
•Improved asset management
•Previously requested in budget submittals
Page 128 of 213
Cost Analysis
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
•Training Position ($132K)
•Year 1-Salary, benefits, vehicle ($50K)
•Logistics Worker ($112K)
•Year 1-Salary, benefits, vehicle ($50K)
•Overstaff Positions ($240K)
•Year 1-Salary, benefits,
•January vs July Hire for Station 7 ($527K)
•Total increased cost in FY19: ($1,011,000)
•Total increased funding in FY19: $1,784,000
•Remaining Balance: $773,000
(reserve for capital)
Page 129 of 213
Next Steps
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
•Budget amendment to recognize revenue
and costs on December 11th
•Strength of Force Change (SOF) to reflect new
positions and ranks. This will result in the hiring
of twelve (12) new positions on November 27th
•Assignment Ordinance Amendment to reflect
re-organizational structure to support growth
on November 27th
•Job offers to candidates and begin training
academies in late-January ‘19
Page 130 of 213
Questions/Comments
GEORGETOWNFIRE/MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE -PROFESSIONAL -RESPONSIVE
Page 131 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n on outreach efforts for the Certificate of Appropriatene ss development process -- Sofia
Nelson, Planning Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
Purpose of P rese ntati o n:
The purpose of this presentation is as follows:
To present findings o f public outreach efforts.
Confirm go als fo r measuring success for historic preservation in Georgetown, Texas.
Identify short, medium, and long term o pportunities fo r impro vement to education, regulations, process and
policy.
Presentati on Outl i ne:
Part 1: Re c ap o f 20 18 City Council conve rsations on historic preservation.
Part 2: Re vie w o f public engagement results
Part 3: Confirm go als for historic preservatio n
Part 4: Ide ntify oppo rtunities for improveme nt
Feedback Requeste d:
Based on historic pre servatio n goals identified at 10/23/18 City Council worksho p and public input are there
specific c hanges and alterations to the UDC or Design Guidelines City Council would like implemented.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
wo rksho p pres entation
S ummary of s urvey res ults
Memo fro m c ons ultant hired to fac litate foc us gro ups
Page 132 of 213
Certificate of Appropriateness
Public Input Process
November 27, 2018
Page 133 of 213
Outreach Team
•Communications
Department
Jackson Daly
Keith Hutchison
Beth Wade
•Planning Department
Karen Frost
Madison Thomas
Andreina Davila-
Quintero
Nat Waggoner
Page 134 of 213
Purpose of Presentation
•Present findings of public outreach efforts
•Confirm goals for measuring success for historic
preservation in Georgetown, Texas
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy
Page 135 of 213
Feedback Requested
•Based on goals and public input, are there
specific changes and alterations to the UDC or
Design Guidelines City Council would like
implemented?
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy
Page 136 of 213
Presentation Agenda
•Cases
•Workshops
•Outreach
Direction
•Information Requested
Part 1
Recap 2018 Discussions
•Outreach Impact Report
•Confirm Themes
Part 2
Public Engagement
Feedback
Themes
•Overarching
goals
•Downtown Development Goals
Part 3
Reconfirm Goals
•Themes
•Possible Next Steps
•Opportunities
for
improvement
Part 4
Action Plan
Page 137 of 213
Part 1:
Recap of 2018 Discussions on
Historic Preservation
Page 138 of 213
Jan. 2018:
Appeal on
HARC action
on a CoA for
204 E. 8th
Street
Feb. 2018:
Workshop on
UDC
revisions for
COA
approvals
Aug. 2018:
•Appeal on
HARC action on
CoA for 511 S.
Main St.
•City Council
requests
changes to CoA
review authority
•Workshop on
COA process
outreach efforts
Sept. 21,
2018:Public
comment on
demolition of a
medium
structure
priority
Oct. 23, 2018: Review
of Past and Current
Historic Preservation
Policy
2018
Historic
Preservation
Conversations
Part 1Page 139 of 213
Appeal Cases
204 E. 8th St.
511 S. Main St.
Located in Downtown
Overlay District-Area
2
Key Points of
Appeals:
Massing and
scale of property
in the transition
zone
Part 1Page 140 of 213
Outreach
Themes
•Process Experience & Cost
•Education
•Value of Historic Preservation
Stakeholders
•Development Professionals
•Property Owners
•Business Owners
•Georgetown Citizens
•Current & Past HARC Commissioners
•Current and Past COA applicants
Methods for
Engagement
•Survey
•Focus Groups
•Public Meeting
•Office Hours
Outreach Direction Provided
Part 1Page 141 of 213
Information Requested
•Development Process
•Historic District Boundaries
Part 1Page 142 of 213
Development Process
Part 1Page 143 of 213
COA Application Submittal
Completeness Review
Technical Reviews
HARC DeterminationStaff Determination
Pre-Application
Meeting (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
HARC Conceptual
Review (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
Certification of Appropriateness
Application Process
Part 1Page 144 of 213
After technical review is
complete, and all proposed
changes meet the Downtown
Design Guidelines and Unified
Development Code Criteria:
•HPO Approval Memo
is issued immediately
Administrative
Determination
If proposed changes do not
meet the Downtown Design
Guidelines:
•Proposed changes can
be appealed to HARC
HARC Determination
After technical review is
complete, a project is scheduled
for the next HARC Meeting. At
the meeting HARC can:
•Find all criteria is met, approve
project
•Find all criteria is not met, add
conditions or delay to next
meeting so the applicant may
address comments
•Find all criteria is not met, deny
project
Applicant can appeal to City
Council
Part 1Page 145 of 213
HARC Scheduling
HARC Meetings occur once a month.
•Steps required for scheduling a case for a HARC
hearing
•21 Days Prior: Technical Review Due
•17 Days Prior: Signs & Letters ready and posted
•15 Days Prior: Staff Reports Due
•10 Days Prior: Project put in Novus
•6 Days Prior: Agenda Posted
Part 1Page 146 of 213
Historic District Boundaries
Part 1Page 147 of 213
District
Boundaries
•Courthouse
Historic District
(1977)
•Courthouse
National Historic
District expanded
(1986)
Part 1Page 148 of 213
District
Boundaries
•Downtown
Overlay District
Part 1Page 149 of 213
District
Boundaries
•Old Town Overlay
District
Part 1Page 150 of 213
District
Boundaries
•University-Elm
Street National
Register Districts
Part 1Page 151 of 213
District
Boundaries
•National Register
Districts
•Belford Historic
District (1986)
Part 1Page 152 of 213
District
Boundaries
•National Register
Districts
•Olive Street Historic
(2013)
Part 1Page 153 of 213
Part 2:
Public Engagement
Page 154 of 213
Outreach Methods
Surveys (4)
Property Owners on the
Historic Resource Survey
and/or within a Historic
District
Applicants who have
submitted a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA)
Community-at-large
Past HARC Commissioners
•Office Hours
•Focus Groups
•Public Meeting
Part 2Page 155 of 213
Outreach
Impact Surveys
•4 unique surveys
•667 Respondents
Office Hours
•5 participants
Focus Groups
•4 groups
•20 participants
Public
Meeting
•46 attendees Page 156 of 213
Highlights of Community
Surveys
Part 2Page 157 of 213
Survey of Property Owners within a District or on the Resources Survey
•Survey Dates: 9/22/2018-10/7/2018
•465 Responses
•25 Questions
Survey of HARC Applicants
•Survey Dates: 10/8/2018-10/19/2018
•29 Responses
•29 Questions
Survey of HARC Commissioners (Past & Current)
•Survey Dates: 10/12/2018-10/23/2018
•11 Responses
•27 Questions
Community Survey of Historic Properties & Districts
•Survey Dates: 10/17/2018-10/24/2018
•202 Responses
•25 Questions Part 2
1
2
3
4
Page 158 of 213
Survey No. 1
Property Owners designated on the
Historic Resource Survey and/or
within a Historic District
Part 2
…11%
…35%
…54%
…38%…62%
Page 159 of 213
Who Responded?
89.46%
2.15%
9.46%
6.45%
4.95%
Residential property
owner
Residential property
tenant
Commercial property
owner
Commercial property
tenant (business
owner or manager)
Other (please
specify)
Part 2Page 160 of 213
Survey Findings -Property Owners
•85% of respondents find value in owning property on
the HRS or in the historic overlay district.
•97% of respondents understand there is additional
oversight for historic properties.
•61% of respondents own a property on the HRS.
•72% of respondents have not taken a project through
HARC.
Part 2Page 161 of 213
Survey Findings-Property Owners
•82% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of new construction in the overlay.
•50% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight over the demolition of structures on the Historic
Resources Survey that are OUTSIDE a historic district.
•74% feel that the city’s overview of properties on the HRS
add value.
•General responses indicate HARC should review High
and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 162 of 213
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 97.01%74.73%39.40%
Non-street facing facades 82.80%57.35%21.51%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 89.87%63.07%23.53%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 90.63%68.88%26.89%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic
architectural feature 95.29%73.96%31.30%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 85.96%60.70%23.51%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.37%63.79%22.92%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that
results in modifications to the building facade 90.63%67.81%26.56%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 96.98%76.65%40.11%
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 88.54%64.97%29.94%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51%Page 163 of 213
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74%77.84%35.51%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total
square footage of the existing structure 90.19%67.09%28.48%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay
district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within
the same historic overlay districts)95.97%72.33%40.63%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay
district 87.32%64.49%31.88%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 93.64%75.76%44.55%
Signage 94.79%76.07%52.76%
Part 2Page 164 of 213
Survey No. 2
Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) Applicants, 2015 -present
Part 2Page 165 of 213
COA Cases 2015 -present
Part 2
43
16
27
45
17
28
41
20 21
58
31
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total COA's HARC Cases Administrative COA's
Certificate of Appropriateness Cases
2015 2016 2017 2018
Page 166 of 213
Who Responded?
41.38%
41.38%
10.34%
27.59%
6.90%
Chart Title
Residential property owner
Commercial property owner
Commercial property tenant
(business owner or
manager)
Development Professional
(i.e. Engineer, Architect,
Contractor)
Other (please specify)
Page 167 of 213
Survey Findings-Applicants
•57% of respondents find value in properties in the
Historic Resource Survey or historic district.
•78% of respondents understood the additional
oversight for historic properties in Georgetown prior to
beginning their project(s).
•40% of respondents identified the Guidelines were
not easy to understand or apply.
•61% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds
value to the properties.
Part 2Page 168 of 213
88%92%
55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Development
Professionals
Commercial Property
Owner
Residential Property
Owner
Types of applicants
Did you understand the additional
oversight for historic properties in
Georgetown prior to beginning your
project(s)?
38%33%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Development
Professionals
Commercial
Property Owner
Residential Property
Owner
Types of applicants
Do you think the guidelines governing what
can and cannot be done on historic
properties are clear and easily applied?
Agree
Survey Findings:
Applicants
Part 2Page 169 of 213
Survey Findings: Applicants
38%
50%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Development Prof.Commercial Property Owner Residential Property Owner
Types of applicants
Was the development process fair?
Part 2Page 170 of 213
Survey Findings: Applicants
•32% of respondents had a positive perception
of HARC
•39% of respondents identified all decisions by
HARC should have final approval by City
Council.
•53% identified HARC should NOT have
oversight of new construction in the overlay.
Part 2Page 171 of 213
Survey Findings: Applicants
•61% feel HARC should not have oversight of
HRS properties outside of the districts.
•General responses indicate HARC should review
High and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 172 of 213
Survey of COA Applicants:
Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes
in a historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 95.65%65.22%30.43%
Non-street facing facades 93.33%26.67%6.67%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 94.12%47.06%17.65%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 95.00%30.00%10.00%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic
architectural feature 100.00%50.00%9.09%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 90.91%36.36%18.18%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 93.33%33.33%13.33%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment
that results in modifications to the building facade 95.24%52.38%4.76%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 100.00%50.00%13.64%
Part 2
Page 173 of 213
Survey of COA Applicants:
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 93.33%33.33%13.33%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 90.48%52.38%33.33%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total
square footage of the existing structure 92.86%50.00%21.43%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay
district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within
the same historic overlay districts)94.12%58.82%35.29%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic
overlay district 92.31%30.77%15.38%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines 100.00%64.29%35.71%
Signage 94.12%41.18%17.65%
Page 174 of 213
Survey No. 3
Community Wide Survey
Part 2Page 175 of 213
Who Responded?
•164 Responses
•92% of respondents were residential
property owners in the City of Georgetown
•86% of respondents do not own a property
on the HRS
•93% of respondents have not taken a
project through the HARC process
Part 2Page 176 of 213
Survey Findings: Community Wide
•78% of respondents indicated Downtown or Old Town
area had an impact on their decision to live or work
in Georgetown.
•62% of respondents feel city’s efforts to oversee
development in Old Town & Downtown Overlay
Districts are effective.
•86% of respondents find value in the city having a role
in preserving historic buildings.
•90% of respondents understand there is additional
oversight for historic properties
Part 2Page 177 of 213
Survey Findings: Community Wide
•73% of respondents have a positive perception of
HARC.
•80% of respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of new construction in the overlay districts.
•41% or respondents identified HARC should have
oversight of demolition of structures on the HRS
outside the overlay.
•71% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS adds
value to the properties.
Part 2Page 178 of 213
High Priority
Structures
Medium Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 96.30%75.00%36.11%
Non-street facing facades 76.19%64.29%22.62%
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 85.42%72.92%29.17%
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 92.93%67.68%24.24%
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-
historic architectural feature 96.12%72.82%33.98%
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 83.13%71.08%25.30%
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.30%64.89%22.34%
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that
results in modifications to the building facade 87.64%68.54%25.84%
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district 95.19%75.96%39.42%
Community Survey of Historic Properties & Districts:
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
Part 2
Page 179 of 213
High Priority
Structures
Medium
Priority
Structures
Low Priority
Structures
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 85.71%71.43%29.67%
Demolition of a street-facing facade 93.27%71.15%37.50%
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in
the total square footage of the existing structure 90.11%70.33%30.77%
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic
overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or
structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.00%73.00%38.00%
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the
historic overlay district 80.52%77.92%35.06%
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with
the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable
guidelines 92.93%73.74%43.43%
Signage 90.91%76.77%48.48%
Community Survey of Historic Properties &
Districts:
Q. Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
Part 2Page 180 of 213
Survey No. 4
HARC Commissioners
2015 to Present
Part 2Page 181 of 213
Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners
•9 Responses
•77% of respondents indicated they believe Guidelines
governing what can and cannot be done on historic properties
are clear and easily applied.
•100% of respondents had a positive experience serving on
HARC.
•100% feel that city oversight of the properties on the
Resources Survey adds value.
•44% of respondents identified the training provided was
adequate.
•88% of respondents identified staff provides adequate
information prior to the meeting.
Part 2Page 182 of 213
Survey Findings: HARC Commissioners
•100% of respondents indicated HARC should have
oversight over all new construction in a Historic
Overlay District.
•55% of respondents indicated HARC should have
oversight of demolitions outside of a Historic Overlay
District.
•General responses indicate HARC should review
High and Medium priority structures.
Part 2Page 183 of 213
Focus Groups and Individual
Interviews
Part 2Page 184 of 213
Summary of Outreach
•Focus Groups:
•Architecture and Design professionals (3
participants )
•Residential applicants (8 participants)
•Commercial applicants (4 participants)
•Real Estate professionals (6 participants )
Part 2Page 185 of 213
Summary of Outreach
•Office Hours/Individual Interviews:
•4 community members requested a one-on-
one session. These members included the
following:
•1 past HARC Commissioner
•1 representative from Preservation Georgetown
•2 interested citizens and residents of Old Town
Part 2Page 186 of 213
Summary of Feedback:
•The COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown. It protects property values and separates
Georgetown from other suburbs in the area.
•The process is too expensive, too lengthy, and
generally unclear.
•The COA process encourages demolition by neglect
and this should be addressed, whether via a grant
program or more flexible regulations.
Part 2Page 187 of 213
Summary of Feedback:
•There is room for improvement in the education of
HARC members and citizens.
•Low-priority properties should not be subject to
HARC review or should be subject to less stringent
guidelines.
Part 2Page 188 of 213
Feedback Themes
COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown.
Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on
their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
Low Priority structures should receive less
review.
COA development process should be examined for
expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria.
Part 2Page 189 of 213
Part 3:
Reconfirm Goals for Historic
Preservation
Page 190 of 213
•Purpose
•To establish application and review procedures, public notice and hearing procedures, and review criteria for the processing of applications for COAs
•Purpose.
•A basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic resources and new construction.
•Purpose
•Documents historic resources within the community
•Purpose
•Sets vision for Downtown
•Goals for land use, public improvements, urban design, and public spaces
Downtown
Master Plan
Historic
Resources Survey
UDC
Design Guidelines/ Secretary of Interior
Standards
Part 3
Page 191 of 213
Overarching Goals -Confirmed at
10/23 meeting
Preservation
Rehabilitation
Compatibility
Character
•Encourage preservation of
historic structures
•Guide/ Promote maintenance
and rehab of distinctive key
character defining features
•Seek compatibility with the
character of the existing area
as new infill development is
considered
•Character of historic
structures is encouraged to
be maintained as they are
adapted to new uses.
Part 3Page 192 of 213
Overarching goals for Downtown
Development
Compatibility
Pedestrian
Friendly
Environment
•Maintain traditional
mass, size, and
form.
•Sidewalk and
amenities for
comfortable walking
experience.
•Building placement
and scale
Part 3Page 193 of 213
Part 4:
Identify next steps for
implementing goals for
Historic Preservation
Page 194 of 213
Feedback Themes
COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown.
Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their
decision to live or work in Georgetown.
Low Priority structures should receive less review.
COA development process should be examined for
expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria.
Part 4Page 195 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Education Regulation Process Policy
Part 4Page 196 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan
•Timeframe: January 2019
Execute HARC Commissioner Training Plan
•Timeframe: continuous
Prepare annual public education seminar/outreach
•Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation Month
Part 4
Education
Strategy
1
Strategy
2
Strategy
3
Page 197 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation
& Process
Public Outreach Feedback:
Length of Development
Process/ Low Priority
structures should receive
less review
Implementation Timeframe:
3 to 6 month time frame
Change:
No Review of Low Priority Structures inside Old Town Downtown
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact: 468 resources out of 1,033 in Old Town would not go through COA review process
Change: Staff only review of Low Priority Structures inside Old
Town Downtown
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact:Removes 20+ days from
permitting process.
Change:
Use of In-kind materials rather than requiring
restoration of original architectural features coupled with Option 2.
Implementation:
UDC Amendment and Design Guidelines
Amendment
Impact:Removes 20+ days from permitting process with added flexibly in use of materials
Strategy
4
Option 1
Strategy
4
Option 2
Strategy 4
Option 3
Page 198 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation
& Process
Public Outreach Feedback:
HARC review of demolitions
shall be limited to properties
within a Historic Overlay
District.
Implementation Timeframe:
3 to 6 month time frame
Change:
No review of historic resources outside a Historic Overlay District
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact:643 resources would no longer require review
Change: HARC review of only
High Priority resources outside a
Historic District without 60 day
waiting period
Implementation: UDC Amendment
Impact: 616 resources would no
longer require reviewChange:
Retain HARC review for High Priority
structures, staff only review for Medium Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60 day waiting
period
Implementation:
UDC Amendment
Impact:Removes the 60 day waiting
period.
Strategy 5
Option 1
Strategy 5
Option 2
Strategy
5
Option 3
Page 199 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Regulation &
Process
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Public Outreach Feedback:
COA Development
Process takes too long
and process is
inconsistent
Strategy:Update HARC
meeting calendar to meet 2X a
month
Implementation:March 2019
Strategy:Establishing
annual review of Historic
Resources Survey
Implementation:Resolution
to City Council
Strategy:Work with City Legal
Department to review for any
conflicting language between
Design Guidelines and UDC
Regulations
Implementation:3 to 6 months
Strategy
6
Strategy
7
Strategy
8
Page 200 of 213
Opportunities for Improvement
Part 4
Policy
Strategy
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Public Outreach Feedback:
Downtown or Old Town
area had an impact on
their decision to live or
work in Georgetown
Strategy: Utilize local
landmark process to focus on
preservation efforts on highest
priority community resources
Implementation: 1 to 2 year
time frame
Strategy: Review Design
Guidelines for Downtown
Overlay Area 2 for consistency
with Downtown Master Plan
Implementation:6 to 10 month
time frame. Result in update of
UDC and Design Guidelines
Strategy: Prepare Historic Preservation
Element of 2030 Plan as called for in City Charter to allow for more long term goal setting approach to historic preservation.
Implementation: 2 to 3 year time frame. Coinciding with the update of the Downtown Master Plan.
Strategy
9
Strategy
10
Strategy
11
Page 201 of 213
Feedback Requested
•Based on goals and public input, are there
specific changes and alterations to the UDC or
Design Guidelines City Council would like
implemented?
•Identify short, medium, and long term
opportunities for improvements to education,
regulations, process, and policy.
Page 202 of 213
Summary of Survey Results
I. Community Wide Survey of Properties & District
Who Responded?
164 Responses
o 92% of respondents were residential property owners
o 86% of respondents do not own a property on the HRS
o 93% of respondents have not taken a project through the HARC process
General Findings.
78% of respondents indicated downtown or old town area had an impact on their
decision to live or work in Georgetown
62% of respondents feel city’s efforts to oversee development in Old Town & Downtown
Overlay Districts are effective.
86% of respondents find value in the city having a role in preserving historic buildings.
90% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties
Survey findings as it relates to HARC.
73% of respondents have a positive perception of HARC.
Survey findings as it relates to regulations.
80% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the
overlay districts
41% or respondents identified HARC should have oversight of demolition of structures
on the HRS outside the overlay
71% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS add value to the properties
Specific HARC oversight responses included below. General responses indicate HARC
should review High and Medium priority structures.
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? (Check all that apply)
Total
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 96.30% 104 75.00% 81 36.11% 39 108
Non-street facing facades 76.19% 64 64.29% 54 22.62% 19 84
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 85.42% 82 72.92% 70 29.17% 28 96
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 92.93% 92 67.68% 67 24.24% 24 99
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature96.12% 99 72.82% 75 33.98% 35 103
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 83.13% 69 71.08% 59 25.30% 21 83
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.30% 83 64.89% 61 22.34% 21 94
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade87.64% 78 68.54% 61 25.84% 23 89
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district95.19% 99 75.96% 79 39.42% 41 104
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 85.71% 78 71.43% 65 29.67% 27 91
Demolition of a street-facing facade 93.27% 97 71.15% 74 37.50% 39 104
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure90.11% 82 70.33% 64 30.77% 28 91
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.00% 95 73.00% 73 38.00% 38 100
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district80.52% 62 77.92% 60 35.06% 27 77
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines92.93% 92 73.74% 73 43.43% 43 99
Signage 90.91% 90 76.77% 76 48.48% 48 99
Answered 108
Skipped 56
High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures
Page 203 of 213
II. Survey of Property Owners within a Historic District or on the Historic Resource Survey
(HRS).
Who Responded?
465 Responses
o 90% of respondents were residential property owner
o 61% of respondents own a property on the HRS
o 72% of respondents have not taken a project through HARC
General Findings.
85% of respondents find value in owning property on the HRS or in the historic overlay.
97% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties
Survey findings as it relates to HARC.
77% of respondents had a positive perception of HARC
Survey findings as it relates to regulations.
82% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the overlay
50% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight over the demolition of structures on
the historic resources survey that are OUTSIDE a historic district.
74% feel that the city’s overview of properties on the HRS add value.
Specific HARC oversight responses included below. General responses indicate HARC
should review High and Medium priority structures.
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? (Check all that apply)
Total
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 97.01% 357 74.73% 275 39.40% 145 368
Non-street facing facades 82.80% 231 57.35% 160 21.51% 60 279
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 89.87% 275 63.07% 193 23.53% 72 306
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 90.63% 300 68.88% 228 26.89% 89 331
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature95.29% 344 73.96% 267 31.30% 113 361
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 85.96% 245 60.70% 173 23.51% 67 285
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 88.37% 266 63.79% 192 22.92% 69 301
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade90.63% 290 67.81% 217 26.56% 85 320
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district96.98% 353 76.65% 279 40.11% 146 364
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 88.54% 278 64.97% 204 29.94% 94 314
Demolition of a street-facing facade 95.74% 337 77.84%274 35.51% 125 352
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure90.19% 285 67.09% 212 28.48% 90 316
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)95.97% 333 72.33% 251 40.63% 141 347
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district87.32% 241 64.49% 178 31.88% 88 276
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines93.64% 309 75.76% 250 44.55% 147 330
Signage 94.79% 309 76.07% 248 52.76% 172 326
Answered 377
Skipped 88
High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures
Page 204 of 213
III. Survey of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Applicants 2015 to present
Who Responded?
29 Responses
o 80% of respondents were property owners
General Findings.
57% of respondents find value in properties in the historic resource survey or historic district
78% of respondents understand the additional oversight for historic properties in Georgetown
prior to beginning their project(s)
40% of respondents identified the guidelines were not easy to understand or apply
61% feel that the city’s overview of the HRS add value to the properties
Survey findings as it relates to HARC and the development process.
32% of respondents had a positive perception of HARC
46% of respondents had a positive experience working through the development process.
46% of respondents identified the development process was fair.
Survey findings as it relates to regulations.
39% of respondents identified all decisions by HARC should have final approval by City Council.
53% identified HARC should not have oversight of new construction in the overlay.
61% feel HARC should not have oversights of HRS properties outside of the districts
Specific HARC oversight responses included below. General responses indicate HARC
should review High and Medium priority structures.
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? (Check all that apply)
Total
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 95.65% 22 65.22% 15 30.43% 7 23
Non-street facing facades 93.33% 14 26.67% 4 6.67% 1 15
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 94.12% 16 47.06% 8 17.65% 3 17
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 95.00% 19 30.00% 6 10.00% 2 20
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature100.00% 22 50.00% 11 9.09% 2 22
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 90.91% 10 36.36% 4 18.18% 2 11
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 93.33% 14 33.33% 5 13.33% 2 15
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade95.24% 20 52.38% 11 4.76% 1 21
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district100.00% 22 50.00% 11 13.64% 3 22
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 93.33% 14 33.33% 5 13.33% 2 15
Demolition of a street-facing facade 90.48% 19 52.38% 11 33.33% 7 21
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure92.86% 13 50.00% 7 21.43% 3 14
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)94.12% 16 58.82% 10 35.29% 6 17
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district92.31% 12 30.77% 4 15.38% 2 13
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines100.00% 14 64.29% 9 35.71% 5 14
Signage 94.12% 16 41.18% 7 17.65% 3 17
Answered 23
Skipped 6
High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures
Page 205 of 213
IV. Survey of HARC Commissioners 2015 to Present.
Who Responded?
9 Responses
General Findings.
77% of respondents indicated they believe guidelines governing what can and cannot be done
on historic properties are clear and easily applied.
100% of respondents had a positive experience serving on HARC
100% feel that city oversight of the properties on the resource survey adds value
44% of respondents identified the training provided was adequate
88% of respondents identified staff provides adequate information prior to the meeting.
Survey findings as it relates to regulations.
100% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight over all new construction in
a historic overlay district.
55% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight of demolitions outside of a
historic overlay district.
Specific HARC oversight responses included below. General responses indicate HARC
should review High and Medium priority structures.
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a historic district, based on a structures' significance? (Check all that apply)
Total
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade 100.00% 9 100.00% 9 44.44% 4 9
Non-street facing facades 100.00% 6 50.00% 3 0.00% 0 6
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies 100.00% 7 85.71% 6 0.00% 0 7
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks 100.00% 9 77.78% 7 22.22% 2 9
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-historic architectural feature100.00% 9 77.78% 7 44.44% 4 9
Replacing roof materials with different roof materials 100.00% 7 85.71% 6 14.29% 1 7
Modifications to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps 100.00% 8 62.50% 5 12.50% 1 8
Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication equipment that results in modifications to the building facade100.00% 8 75.00% 6 25.00% 2 8
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural features that is integral to the historic character of the building or structure, or historic overlay district100.00% 9 88.89% 8 55.56% 5 9
Demolition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck 100.00% 8 75.00% 6 37.50% 3 8
Demolition of a street-facing facade 100.00% 9 100.00%9 55.56% 5 9
Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the total square footage of the existing structure100.00% 8 87.50% 7 37.50% 3 8
Relocation of a building or structure to a historic overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or structures within the same historic overlay districts)100.00% 8 75.00% 6 37.50% 3 8
Relocation of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay district100.00% 6 50.00% 3 0.00% 0 6
New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district’s characteristics and applicable guidelines100.00% 7 85.71% 6 42.86% 3 7
Signage 100.00% 7 71.43% 5 14.29% 1 7
Answered 9
Skipped 0
High Priority Structures Medium Priority Structures Low Priority Structures
Page 206 of 213
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, City of Georgetown (GOG)
FROM: Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC)
DATE: November 20, 2018
RE: Certificate of Appropriateness Process Outreach and Analysis Services for the City of
Georgetown: Key Findings and Summary of Results
Project Background and Methodology
CMEC was retained by the COG to solicit feedback from local citizens, developers, and other
stakeholders about the certificate of appropriateness process and their experience with the Planning
Department with regard to historic preservation. The feedback was gathered through a series of focus
groups and open office hours on October 24-25, 2018.
CMEC conducted focus groups with members of the community recruited by the City. The focus groups
were divided into four categories: architecture and design professionals (n=3), residential applicants
(n=8), commercial applicants (n=4), and real estate professionals n=(6). CMEC prepared a series of
targeted questions for each focus group session based on discussion with the COG. The focus groups
were moderated by Senior Historian Emily Reed and transcribed by Staff Historian Kelsey Riddle, both of
CMEC.
The office hours, which were arranged by the COG, allowed interested citizens to share their views on
the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC)
process with Ms. Reed and Ms. Riddle of CMEC. Four interviewees attended, including a past HARC
commissioner, a representative from Preservation Georgetown, and interested citizens and residents of
Old Town. These interview sessions, which were held in advance of the focus groups, allowed CMEC to
optimize the questions for the focus group sessions and to hear input from additional members of the
community.
As part of this initiative, the COG also administered quantitative surveys to members of the community.
Respondents included HARC applicants, current HARC Commissioners, owners of property in the historic
resources survey area or in a historic district, and general community members. The COG provided the
results of these surveys to CMEC to supplement the focus group and interview findings.
The purpose of this document is to report the key findings and summary of the focus group sessions and
to identify instances where sentiments heard in the focus groups are supported by office hour
interviews and the survey data. Sessions with CMEC historians were confidential and focus group
members are not identified by name.
Key Findings
The following list represents the most commonly heard and strongly expressed ideas and sentiments
from the focus groups and interviews.
Page 207 of 213
2
• The COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. It protects property values and
distinguishes Georgetown from other suburbs in the area. Developers, designers, homeowners,
and real estate agents all agree that downtown and Old Town are worth preserving, and that a
COA/HARC review process is the best way to do it.
• The process is too expensive, too lengthy, and generally unclear.
• There is room for improvement in the education of HARC members and citizens.
• Community members are not supportive of City Council’s proposal and do not believe it would
benefit the city.
• The current city planning staff are providing an overall improved experience. Madison was
brought up several times in all meetings as an example of someone who provides clear answers,
communicates well, and doesn’t make applicants fear the process. Participants indicated that
the process had been improved since her hiring. Sophia, Nat, and Karen were also
complimented by applicants. Major frustrations are with the process, not the quality of the city
staff.
• Low-priority properties should not be subject to HARC review or should be subject to less
stringent guidelines.
• The COA process encourages demolition by neglect and this should be addressed, whether via a
grant program or more flexible regulations.
Summary of Results
Value of Historic Preservation in Georgetown
• Members of the focus groups generally have pride in Georgetown’s historic resources.
Georgetown’s historic character makes it “an actual, livable town… different from a place like
Pflugerville or Round Rock.”
• Overall, participants were supportive of historic preservation efforts in the community and there
was a general agreement that owning property in a historic overlay area comes with
responsibilities. Almost everyone wants a review process in some form. Very few people
expressed concerns about property rights.
o This sentiment is supported by the November 2018 survey of Georgetown residents,
where 78% of community members agreed that the Downtown/Old Town area
impacted their decision to live/work in Georgetown, 85% of respondents who own
property in the historic core find value in owning property there, and 87% of community
members agree/strongly agree that there is value in the City having a role in preserving
historic buildings.
The COA Process
• Though 92% of the community survey respondents understand that there is additional oversight
for historic properties in Georgetown, the triggers for a COA were not always well understood
by focus group attendees. This was especially true for the residential applicant and real estate
professional groups.
• Participants were divided on their opinions regarding whether the community was aware of the
additional review requirements for properties in overlays.
o Participants were supportive of initiatives to educate the community about the
regulations, including adding a disclosure to real estate transactions.
Page 208 of 213
3
• There was general agreement among all groups that the current COA process encourages
demolition by neglect. Several of the residential applicants focus group members had personal
experience with this; because they could not afford the expensive treatments required by HARC
(wood siding, wood windows, etc.), they were much more likely to let their properties fall into
disrepair. Similarly, 18% of the survey respondents who own property in the City’s historic core
have deferred a project because of the additional oversight. Some of the commercial applicants
told stories of fellow developers who used demolition by neglect as a strategy to convince the
city to allow them to tear down historic properties.
o It is important to note that no one in any of the focus groups expressed that extremely
incompatible materials, such as vinyl windows and siding, be allowed for historic
properties (particularly of medium or high priority). There was unanimous agreement
that some standards were crucial for the maintenance of Downtown and Old Town’s
historic character. However, members of all groups expressed a very high level of
frustration with HARC’s resistance to Hardie board siding and visually compatible
windows. This sentiment was echoed during office hours, when more than one
interviewee brought up Hardie board as an example of HARC not being flexible enough.
o In office hours, interviewees expressed frustration that this lack of flexibility constitutes
an “unfunded mandate” and that it is an undue burden to homeowners. Three
interviewees brought up Preservation Georgetown’s grant program as an example of
something that could help mitigate this problem. Both interviewees and focus group
members expressed that they would like to see the city help fund Preservation
Georgetown’s grant program and that they felt Preservation Georgetown was a
qualified body to distribute these funds.
• Similarly, financial incentives could encourage landmark designations and offset the higher costs
of maintenance for high priority properties.
• There was a sense of frustration among all groups that low priority properties were subject to
the same review and design standards as medium and high priority properties. Several different
reasons were offered for this frustration: that requiring homeowners with low-priority
properties to spend money to make their homes livable was “inhumane,” that bogging down
HARC with low-priority properties was making the process slower for everyone, that requiring
full HARC review for low-priority properties discouraged small business owners from purchasing
these properties, and that this potential review discouraged buyers from purchasing low-priority
homes in the area.
o However, there was full support for strict design guidelines to be applied for high
priority properties.
• Several participants mentioned the challenge of “transition zones” and suggested developing
specific criteria that considers the special circumstances in these areas and provides clear
guidance
City Staff and the Application Process
• There was unanimous support for more clarity in the application process. This need is reinforced
by the results of the survey. Only 29% of people who have been through the HARC process felt
the guidelines governing what can and cannot be done to historic properties are clear and
defined.
o Common suggestions for improvements included providing a checklist that explicitly lists
each portion of the application, providing clear examples of design guideline
Page 209 of 213
4
compliance, and providing a flowchart that tells new applicants what to expect from the
process. Frisco and McKinney were suggested as examples of cities that have published
helpful materials that the COG could emulate.
• There was strong support from most groups (particularly residential applicants and real estate
professionals) for educational materials and training sessions for people interested in the HARC
process.
o Some people expressed that they would like to see informational materials easily
accessible online.
o During our office hours, interviewees expressed complaints that applicants did not turn
in adequately completed materials, and that a checklist or application standard could
prevent this.
• Focus group members were nearly unanimously positive about the current planning staff.
Madison was named several times in each group as someone who “understands the process,”
“has a good bedside manner,” and is someone to whom you can “ask a question and get an
answer.” Someone who has been through the COA process multiple times commented that the
process is “much smoother” with Madison.
o Many complaints related to COG staff were about previous planning staff or about the
process itself. Some applicants believe that the amount of comments currently required
from Madison gives her too much of a workload.
o There were some comments that current staff sometimes applied the criteria differently
or made conflicting evaluations (differing reviews from one planner to another).
• We heard from almost every group that the pre-application meeting (particularly with past staff
members) gave applicants the idea that their proposed projects had serious flaws; however,
applicants found that the formal HARC meeting was not as daunting as expected and the
projects were approved.
• Conversely, one person stated that the COA process leading up to HARC was too lenient, and
inappropriately allowed proposals that are not in compliance to reach HARC. This allowed
developers to skirt the rules and put the onus on HARC to reject the proposals.
• Several participants expressed frustration over discrepancies between the UDC and design
guidelines, which led to inconsistencies in approvals. (Specifically, sections 7 & 13 were
mentioned.)
HARC in General
• We heard nearly unanimous agreement that HARC review is generally positive for the
community. Members in all focus groups expressed that HARC helps protect property values and
helps protect Georgetown’s unique charm. Despite the support for the role of HARC, only 32%
of survey respondents who have been through the HARC process have a very positive/positive
perception of HARC, indicating there is room for improvement.
• There is a lack of understanding about the inner workings of HARC. Only a few people in all
focus groups understood the structure, appointment method, and jurisdiction of HARC. While a
list of board members and general information about the board’s purpose is available online,
there is a lack of available information about the qualifications of the HARC board and the board
appointment process.
• One idea presented was to leverage Preservation Georgetown contacts to identify qualified
candidates and encourage them to apply for HARC membership.
Page 210 of 213
5
• Some Design Professionals and Commercial Applicant focus group members had experienced
instances in which the HARC board did not seem to understand and/or adhere to the purpose or
jurisdiction of the board and they were frustrated by this. These attendees were frequent HARC
applicants and generally understood the COA/HARC process. Examples included HARC members
using language that reflected their personal opinion rather than established design guidelines (“I
don’t like this color,” “I’m not a fan of that style,” etc.) and HARC members using meeting time
to discuss items that were not the responsibility of HARC (parking, sidewalks, and other topics).
This sentiment echoes the results of the survey of HARC applicants where 57% of respondents
said the HARC commissioners reviewed their project professionally and 21% said their project
was not reviewed professionally.
• Many focus group members had conflicting opinions about the subjectivity of HARC—some
members expressed that they simultaneously thought that HARC was too subjective and not
subjective enough. Often, these focus group members wished that HARC could employ more
“common sense,” although they did not have concrete ways that this idea could be applied.
Many people expressed that they would not be as concerned with the subjectivity of HARC if
they believed that HARC were well-qualified to be making design decisions.
• Several people suggested that city staff should hold mandatory training sessions for HARC that
provide education about the design guidelines and how to apply them.
• There was near-unanimous agreement that the HARC process takes too long. The most common
suggestion to address this problem was to increase the frequency of HARC meetings to two per
month. This would allow applicants to get answers sooner, or return sooner (rather than
needing a more frequent meeting to better distribute caseload). Commercial and residential
applicants were financially burdened by the drawn-out HARC process. Architects and designers
were frustrated that the long process reflected badly on their practices.
o Members in the architect and designer group and in the real estate professionals group
said they would like to see the reinstatement of a “sunset clause” that was tied to a
certain number of days for review opportunity.
o One person suggested splitting up reviews for high-priority and low-priority properties
into two different processes so low-priority property owners could get through the
process more quickly.
• Commercial and residential applicants both expressed that they were surprised by how “easy”
HARC meetings were compared to the application process. They felt as though city staff gave
them a generally negative outlook on their project, but that their projects usually got approved
by HARC in the end despite not making all the changes recommended by staff.
• Though HARC Commissioners did not attend focus groups, they were surveyed by the COG.
CMEC identified areas in which the Commissioners beliefs were consistent with focus group and
interview attendees, and other areas where they were different. Commissioners generally had a
much more favorable impression of HARC than did members of the community. They were also
much more likely to believe that the guidelines governing what can and cannot be done on
historic properties are clear and easily applied (78% of Commissioners strongly agree/agree
versus 29% of HARC applicants). Like previous HARC applicants, there is some disagreement
among Commissioners about whether the current board reviews projects professionally.
Respondents also acknowledged the need for more adequate Commissioner training.
Page 211 of 213
6
City Council Approval Proposal
• There was unanimous disapproval for the recent proposal from City Council that would require
all COAs to be subject to City Council approval. Focus group members described the proposal as
“idiotic,” and “politically motivated.”
• They objected to this proposal because:
o It appeared to provide financial benefit to a few, select members of the community;
o City Council is already too busy to hear HARC cases;
o City Council members do not have the specific expertise to evaluate HARC cases; and
o The proposal is not needed because there is already an appeals process in place.
• These negative feelings toward the proposal are supported by the survey of Georgetown
residents; in the survey, those who live in the historic core are more likely to say that City
Council should not have final approval of HARC decisions.
Conclusion
Overall, the citizens of Georgetown value their historic resources and the COA/HARC process. However,
there is room for improvement in the areas of communication, organization, and education. Citizens are
willing to work with the city in order to improve the process that protects the resources they care about.
Page 212 of 213
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
November 27, 2018
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
-Honeywell Se ttlement
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Secretary
Sec. 551.086: Ce r tai n P ubl i c Power Uti l i ti es: Co mpeti ti ve Matters
- Quarterly Electric Update FY18 Q4 and FY19 Q1 -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities and Mike Babin, De puty
General Manage r of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 213 of 213