HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 07.26.2016Notice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
J uly 26 , 20 16
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on July 2 6, 2 016 at 6:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th
St., Geo rge to wn, Texas
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.
Re gular Se ssion
(This Regular Sessio n may, at any time, be re cessed to convene an Executive Se ssio n for any purpose
authorize d by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Code 551.)
A Cal l to Order
Invocati o n
P l e dg e of Al l egi ance
Co mments from the Mayor
- Re d P oppy Festival Awards from the Texas Festival & Events Asso c iation
Ci ty Co unci l Regi onal Board Re po r ts
Announcements
- Summer Fan Drive
- Music on the Square Summer Co nc e rts
- Sunset Mo vie at Fire Station 5
- Founders P ark Open House
Ac ti on fro m Executi ve Sessi on
Statutory Conse nt Age nda
The Statuto ry Co nsent Agenda includes no n-c ontroversial and routine items that may be acted upon with
one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted
upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B Consideration and possible action to appro ve the mi nutes of the Wo rksho p and Regular Meeting
held on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 and the Special Workshop Meeting held July 13 , 2016 -- Shelley
No wling, City Secretary
Page 1 of 247
C Consideration and possible action to appoi nt Counci l member Anna Eby to the Capi tal Area
Co unci l of G overnments (CAP COG ) Cl ean Ai r Coal i ti on -- Mayo r Dale Ro ss
D Consideration and possible action to authorize an application for a Capi tal Area Counci l of
G o ve rnments (CAPCOG ) FY 20 16 /1 7 Reg i onal Ai r Qual i ty G rant for addi ti onal sol ar
pow e red trash and recycl i ng compactors -- Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
E Consideration and possible action to appro ve a Resolution authorizing the vacati on and
abandonment of a 0.037-acre portio n of an existing 10-foot P ubl i c Uti l i ty Easement out of
Lot 3 , B l ock A, Park Meadow Secti o n Tw o , a subdivision of reco rd in Cabinet F, Slide 387,
Plat Reco rds of Williamson County, Te xas, and to authorize the Mayor to execute a quitclaim
deed -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Co ordinator
F F orw arded from G eorgetow n Uti l i ty Systems Advi sory B oard (G US):
Consideration and possible action to appro ve a bid award to mul ti pl e bi dders fo r Water and
Wastew ater Treatment Pl ant che mi cal s, at unit costs for a perio d of up to 5 years – Glenn W.
Disho ng, Utility Director
G F orw arded from G eorgetow n Uti l i ty Systems Advi sory B oard (G US):
Consideration and possible action to appro ve a bid award to Sheri dan Envi ro nmental for sl udge
and bi o-sol i ds transport and di spo sal servi ces, at unit costs for a pe rio d of up to 5 years -
Gle nn W. Dishong, Utility Directo r
H F orw arded from the G eorgetow n Transpo rtati on Advi sory Board (G TAB ):
Consideration and possible action to award the annual bi d for G rade #4 and #5 chi p seal trap
ro c k o rdered and delivered on an as needed basis to Vul can Constr ucti o n Materi al s LLC of
San Antonio Tx. in the estimated amo unt o f $1 26,603.00 -- Edward G. P olasek, AICP,
Transpo rtation Services Director
Le gislative Re gular Age nda
I Consideration and possible action to ado pt the proposed 2017 prope r ty tax rate on a future
age nda and to set dates for tw o publ i c heari ngs -- Leigh Wallace , Finance Director
J F orw arded from the Conventi o n & Vi si tors B ureau B oard
Consideration and possible action to appro ve a contract for sponso r shi p o f The Daytri pper
w i th Chet G arner, a Georgetown based business, in the amount of $60 ,00 0.0 0 -- Cari Miller,
To urism Manager
K P ubl i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezone approximately 2.3 acres in the
Lewis J. Dyches Survey, located at 4 Si erra Way Street, from the Agriculture (AG) District to
the Industrial (IN) District -- Sofia Nelso n, CNU-A, P lanning Director (acti o n requi red)
L Se c ond Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezo ne 6 7.864 acres of the William Addiso n Survey located
at 8 01 Carl so n Cove from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Re side ntial Single-Family (RS)
District -- So fia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director (acti on requi red)
M Se c ond Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezo ne approximately 13.788 ac r e s o f the Joseph
Thompso n Survey located at 3300 F M 22 43 on the north side of FM 22 43 (Leander Road),
between County Road 176 and Weir Ranch Ro ad from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Re sidential Estate (RE) District -- Sofia Nelso n, CNU-A, Planning Director (acti on requi red)
N Se c ond Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezo ne approximately 13.24 acres in the Jo seph Fish
Survey, lo cated at 4700 Wi l l i ams Dr i ve, from the Local Commercial (C-1 ) and Office (OF)
Districts to 9 .99 acres of the High De nsity Multifamily (MF-2) District and 3 .25 6 acres of the
Lo w Density Multifamily (MF-1) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (acti on
requi red)
Proje ct Update s
O Pro ject updates and status reports regarding current and future transportatio n and traffic project;
street, sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and othe r public safety projects;
eco nomic development projects; city facility projects;downtown proje c ts including parking
enhancements,city lease agreements, and possible direction to city staff -- David Morgan, City
Manager
Page 2 of 247
Blue Hole Response
Public Wishing to Addre ss Council
On a subje c t that is posted on this agenda: Ple ase fill out a speaker registratio n form which can be found
on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item
on whic h you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start
of the me e ting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council conside rs that item.
On a subje c t no t po sted on the agenda: P e rso ns may add an item to a future City Co uncil agenda by
contac ting the City Secretary no later than noo n on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with
the subje c t matter o f the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be
reache d at 51 2/93 0-3651.
P - At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
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.
Q Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
- Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
- Public Safety Operations and Training Facility - ADG Settlement
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Real Property
- City Lease Agreements
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 Manager Evaluation
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 _________________, 2016, 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 3 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Cal l to Order
Invocati on
Pl edge of Al l e gi anc e
Comments fro m the Mayo r
- Red Poppy Fe stival Awards from the Texas Festival & Events Association
Ci ty Counci l Re gi o nal Bo ard Reports
Announcements
- Summer Fan Drive
- Music on the Square Summer Concerts
- Sunset Movie at Fire Statio n 5
- Founders Park Open Ho use
Acti on from Executi ve Sessi on
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 4 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the mi nutes o f the Workshop and Re gular Meeting held on Tuesday, July
12, 2016 and the Spe cial Workshop Meeting held July 13 , 20 16 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Regular Meeting Minutes 7.12.2016
Works hop Meeting Minutes 7.12.2016
S p ecial Meeting Works hop Minutes 7.13.2016
Page 5 of 247
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E.
7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s
Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were present.
Regular Session
(This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by
the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- National Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation
- National Breastfeeding Month Proclamation
City Council Regional Board Reports
Announcements
- Summer Fan Drive
- Music on the Square Summer Concerts
- Sunset Movie at Fire Station 5
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to authorize the proposed settlement of Stephanie Hoskins Brown v. City of
Georgetown, Texas et al, Cause No. 13-1178-C277 on the terms discussed in Executive Session and to
authorize the Mayor to sign a Settlement Agreement consistent with those terms.
Approved: 7-0
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single
vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as
part of the Regular Agenda.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
C. Forwarded from the Georgetown Village Public Improvement District Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve landscaping services in the roundabout areas of Georgetown
Village to Integrated Environment for a total of $88,622.44 -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
D. Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the contract renewal for licensed electrician services to
Mercury Electric Company of Liberty Hill, TX for an estimated annual amount of $150,000.00 -- Trish Long,
Facilities Superintendent
E. Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Minutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Page 6 of 247
Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase and installation of artificial turf from Paragon
Sports Constructors (PCS) in an amount not to exceed $137,500.00 to be installed at the Public Safety
Operations & Training Center -- Wayne F. Nero, Chief of Police
F. Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution giving Michel Sorrell, Controller, the approval to
conduct business with various banking institutions and to appoint her as a “Representative of the Depositor” --
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
G. Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Environmental Systems Research Institute
(ESRI) to provide geographic information systems (GIS) software to the City of Georgetown for a total of
$115,111.50 over three years -- Greg Berglund, Assistant IT Director
H. Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Design/Build contract (cost of the work plus design-builder’s
fee) with a guaranteed maximum price agreement with G. Creek Construction of Austin, Texas for the
Restoration of Grace Heritage Center -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager
Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve the Statutory Consent Agenda in its entirety.
Approved: 7-0
Legislative Regular Agenda
I. Consideration and possible action to support Faith in Action's Application and authorize Mayor Dale Ross to
sign a letter of support for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5310 Grant Funding for FY17 to the Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) -- Nat W aggoner, Transportation Analyst, AICP, PMP
Nat Waggoner, the City’s Transportation Analyst, provided information to the Council regarding the application
from Faith in Action for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5310 Grant Funding. He explained their need for a
letter of support from the City to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Vicki Orcutt, the
Director of Faith in Action, joined the discussion. She further explained the Letter of Support. She said that this
type of funding for organizations like Faith in Action exceeds what can done as a City. Faith is Action will be
seeking monies for further grant funds. Orcutt explained how cities need to partner with non-profits in these type
of credits. She clarified that local municipalities can request these funds and that through the City support, Faith
in Action could secure over $100,000 in additional funding.
Orcutt said 5,500 rides were provided to seniors in Georgetown in 2015. She explained that the need is there
and Faith in Action would like to expand hours of operation with this funding. Orcutt said they would be able to
have full time operations instead of the current part time operations. Faith in Action has provided rides in
Georgetown for over 15 years.
Waggoner read the caption.
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve Item I.
Fought thanked Orcutt and Waggoner and said this is exactly the type of thing the City should be supporting. He
added that it fits the needs of the seniors in the City perfectly and is a proven success.
Jonrowe thanked Orcutt and asked her to clarify what is meant by 508 clients and how that would change with
this funding. Orcutt said Faith in Action would be able to continue to enroll clients and continue to seek
volunteers. Jonrowe asked about the process. Orcutt said that the client is given a brief screening. The client
must be 65 or older and reside in Georgetown or the ETJ. She explained the criteria regarding individuals
needing to reside in their own home. Individuals in assisted or independent living facilities would have access to
the transportation provided by those facilities. Faith in Action fills the gap of those who need transportation.
Orcutt said clients are also screened for mobility. She explained that mobility is an issue to ensure safety and so
it is required that the Individual can get in and out of a vehicle. Jonrowe asked how many drivers work with Faith
in Action. Orcutt said there are currently 50 drivers. She explained that drivers fill out an application and are
subjected to a background and criminal record check. Drivers are screened for their driving records and are
required to provide character witnesses.
Approved: 7-0
J. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 67.864 acres of the William Addison Survey,
located at 801 Carlson Cove, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Single-Family (RS) District --
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (action required)
Page 7 of 247
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director spoke on the rezoning request. She provided a map and described the
property. Nelson showed and described two access points and said the developer is working on getting a third
access point. Nelson showed the zoning map and the future land use map.
Nelson explained Residential Single Family Zoning (RS)
• Intended for medium density residential single family with minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet
• Development Standards include a minimum lot size of 5,500 sq. ft., minimum lot width 45 ft., maximum height
35 ft., front setback 20 ft., side setback 5, rear setback 10 and maximum IC 45%
Nelson discussed the criteria for rezoning and said all criteria were consistent with policy for this project. Nelson
said that both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval. She then read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the public hearing at 6.27 pm.
Ercel Brashear spoke representing the property owners. He explained that the owners no longer wished to farm
and will be selling a portion of their property. Brashear said that the owners had selected a good quality developer
and are pleased with the staff recommendation.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 6.30 PM
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve Item J.
Approved: 7-0
K. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 13.788 acres of the Joseph Thompson Survey
located at 3300 FM 2243 on the north side of FM 2243 (Leander Road), between County Road 176 and Weir
Ranch Road from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Estate (RE) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A,
Planning Director (action required)
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director, spoke on the rezoning request. She showed the location map and
described the property. She explained that the property is near the western boundary of the City, some of the
property within the City, but most of the property is in the ETJ. Nelson said the portion inside City limits is
approximately 13 acres.
Nelson explained the Residential Estate zoning (RE).
• Intended for low density single family residential
• Development Standards include a minimum lot size of 1 acre, minimum lot width 100 ft., maximum height 35
ft., front setback 25 ft., side setback 10, rear setback 20 and maximum IC 40%
Nelson discussed the criteria for rezoning and all criteria were consistent with policy. Nelson said that both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval. She then read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 6.31 PM. No persons were signed up to speak on the item and the
Public Hearing was closed at 6.31 PM.
Nelson read the caption.
Motion by Brainard, second by Gipson to approve Item K.
Approved: 7-0
L. Forwarded from the Housing Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of Support for 4% Housing Tax Credits and a Two
Times Resolution for the renovation of the Oaks at Georgetown Apartments, located at 550 22nd Street --
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Jennifer Bills, the City’s Housing Coordinator, spoke on the request for support for 4% housing tax credits and a
two times resolution for the renovation of the already existing apartments, the Oaks at Georgetown, located at
550 22nd Street. Bills provided a brief presentation. She explained that this was a non-competitive process.
Bills explained that the applicant is required to obtain the 2x resolution for support and will need this in order to
provide the renovations. Bills said that this has no impact on the City Budget.
Bills spoke on the property background. The property was built in 1997 with housing tax credits and was the first
HTC new construction project in Georgetown. The original builder and owner, Highridge Costa Housing
Partners, will continue to own and manage the property after the renovations.
Bills provided Site Information and Site Pictures
• 10,532 acres
• 192 total units – 48 one bed/one bath, 64 two bed/two bath and 80 three bed/two bath
Page 8 of 247
• Onsite management
Bills said the improvements planned would include appliances, water heaters and new heating and air
conditioning. She then showed the Scope of the Work:
• $15,000 per unit
• New energy efficient appliance
• Energy-star hot water heaters
• Energy-star insulation products and windows
• Water-efficient irrigation
• Bicycle parking for residents
• American with Disabilities site improvements
Mayor Ross called on Mr. Walt Doering, who had signed up to speak on Item L. Doering asked the Council for
their support in preserving a deserving rental property. He spoke on the quality of life for the residents of the
property.
Councilmember Fought said the City must support this request. He said the Housing already exists and must be
maintained.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Gipson to approve Item L.
Approved: 7-0
M. Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Special Use Permit to allow a multifamily development in the Local
Commercial (C-1) District on a 7.366 acre site being Lot 2 of Wesleyan at Estrella subdivision, located at 4121
Williams Drive -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (action required)
Councilmember Gipson recused himself from Item M and filed a Conflict of Interest form with the City Secretary.
Sofia Nelson, the City’s Planning Director, spoke on the request for a Special Use Permit in the Wesleyan at
Estrella subdivision. She provided a location map, zoning map and future land use map for the property. She also
provided a conceptual site layout. Nelson said the Special Use permit request was to build 108 multifamily units
on a platted 7 acre property.
Nelson displayed the Special Use Permit Approval Criteria:
Page 9 of 247
Nelson next displayed the Residential Use Limitations in C-1:
Nelson said that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval and read the caption.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to approve Item M.
Fought proposed a motion to delay the item for further staff clarification. Motion died for lack of a second.
Approved: 5-1 (Fought opposed, Gipson recused)
N. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution supporting the Williamson County and Cities Health
District in processing requests for a variance from the Texas Food Establishment Rules pertaining to live
animals in food establishments to give food establishment owners the option to allow dogs in outdoor dining
areas -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator
Andreina Davila-Quintero, a Project Coordinator for the City, spoke on a request for a variance from the Williamson
County and Cities Health District to allow the City of Georgetown food establishment owners to have the option to
allow dogs in their outdoor dining areas. She explained that the Council had directed staff to draft the resolution.
Davila-Quintero said the variance is initiated by food establishment owners and reviewed and monitored by the
Health District. She described the restrictions and prohibited uses and then read the caption.
Motion by Brainard, second by Eby to approve Item N.
Brainard said this is not about dogs, but about freedom for restaurant owners and freedom of customers to eat or
not eat at a restaurant of their choice.
Mayor Ross called on Mr. Jeff Barrett, who had signed up to speak on Item N. Mr. Barrett encouraged Council to
approve. He explained that there is a potential revenue loss because of the lack of dog friendly restaurants in
Georgetown. Barrett said there is an increasing amount of dogs in Georgetown at festivals and events. Barrett
said it is about choice and restaurant owners and customers should have a choice.
Page 10 of 247
Gipson said he is struggling with this. He explained that he is a dog lover but does not want a dog next to him at
a restaurant. He agrees with the freedom of choice, but pointed out the many great parks in Georgetown open to
animals.
Fought said he agrees and does not want to be blindsided by dog at a restaurant. Fought said it is not safe and
clean. Fought added that restaurant owners would feel that they would need to comply.
Hesser said he agrees and, although he loves dogs, he does not think you should push your dog on others.
Brainard said it would not happen that someone would be blindsided by a dog. He explained that there would be
signage and each person would have the choice to choose a restaurant for dining.
Failed: 3-4 (Hesser, Fought, Gipson, Gonzalez opposed)
O. Discussion and possible action to address recent crowd-related issues at Blue Hole Park -- Rachael Jonrowe,
Councilmember District 6
Councilmember Jonrowe spoke on traffic issues at Blue Hole Park and provided images of the congestion. She
showed pictures she had taken of the Blue Hole parking and crowding. She explained that very large crowds
started last summer after the record rainfall. She said she has observed trash everywhere, including dirty diapers,
cigarette butts and broken bottles. Jonrowe expressed concern for fires with people grilling food beneath trees.
She said there is a problem with tents, floating coolers and crowded sidewalks and walkways.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to ask staff to address the overcrowding at Blue Hole, including but not
limited to, working with county representatives and staff to plan and implement parking signage, as soon as
possible, to encourage off-hours use of the county parking garage; explore the feasibility of possible No Parking
Areas along Scenic Drive and enforcing no parking areas already in existence in order to address visibility
issues; to approve the creation of at least two, highly visible signs at either end of Blue Hole Park, which clearly
states Park Rules; to approve funding for more permanent trash cans; to consider implementing Park Rules
related to glass containers, alcohol, smoking, grilling on person grills, the erection of personal tents and shelters,
dogs on leashes at all times and any other rules that might be suggested; to instruct staff to work on an
education and enforcement campaign to ensure compliance with any existing or new rules.
Persons signed up to speak on Item O included J.J. Parker, Steve Koran, Kim Volk and Paulette Taylor.
Comments and Concerns voiced included:
Blue Hole is a gem of the City
For those who work and play in Georgetown, this is wonderful
Need for increased trash collection and signage
People should be able to use tents
Should encourage shade structures
People get along and have a great time at Blue Hole
Place getting trashed out
Cars parked illegally
No tents or barbeques should be allowed on the sidewalk
Should not allow cigarettes
Should have more of a police presence
Heartwarming watching people enjoy Blue Hole
Should be more trash receptacles
Dogs should be allowed to be free without leashes
Need to be more lenient
Blue Hole was the only swimming hole for blacks in the 1960s
Nice to see a lot of people
Crowd impact is hard on Sunday church
People cannot get out of driveway because of trash or barbecues
Parking solutions have not been followed
Permits for people residing in homes
Fourth Street is a particular problem
Justice Building jurors cannot find parking
Justice Building needs more signage.
Need to be considerate of neighborhood
Mayor Ross suggested that the City Manager, David Morgan, should take this issue as an operations matter to
be handled and resolved by staff.
Morgan said this is a good problem to have. Blue Hole is a great spot in Georgetown. Georgetown is happy to
be a Destination location. Morgan said that a number of nuisance issues have been identified and are being
worked on. Morgan said the police presence will increase with both visible police as well as undercover officers.
Morgan explained that staff is working on the resolution of the proper number of trash receptacles. Morgan
Page 11 of 247
agrees that there can and should be more improvement. He said he has spoken to Williamson County
Commissioner Covey regarding better signage to the parking garage. Morgan said he will instruct staff to look at
making unique rules. He said tents and barbeques will be a challenge and staff will need Council direction in
these matters.
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser, to postpone the original motion and second by Jonrowe and Eby,
respectively, and allow City Manager, Morgan and staff the opportunity to improve on the mentioned issues with
Blue Hole Park and come back with recommendations to the City Council.
Approved: 7-0
Project Updates
P. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk,
and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic development projects;
city facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements and possible direction to city staff --
David Morgan, City Manager
Mayor Ross asked City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to share. Morgan answered that
he did not at this time.
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish
to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Council considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the
City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the
topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651.
Q. - At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
R. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the
City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins/Brown Update and Possible Action
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Solar RFP
Adjournment
Motion by Hesser, second by Fought to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 7.05 PM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________
Date
____________________________ __________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary
Page 12 of 247
Minutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 2:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E.
7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s
Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance with the exception of
Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1 and Ty Gipson, Councilmember, District 5. Eby arrived at 2:05 PM and
Gipson arrived at 2.20 PM.
Policy Development/Review Workshop – Call to order at 2:00 PM
A. Workshop overview, discussion and possible action regarding the FY2017 City of Georgetown Budget and
Tax Rate -- David Morgan, City Manager
David Morgan began the budget overview. He explained the process in which the budget will be presented
and showed a Power Point presentation starting with the General Fund. The budget workshop overview will
be continued the following day from 2pm to 5 pm. Morgan said final adoption of the budget is planned for
September 13, 2016. He said the budget presentation involved many staff members working as a team.
Morgan said this year brought many fresh faces which bring new ideas and bright minds, as well as
challenges because of unfamiliarity with the process. Morgan said he was very grateful for the outstanding
budget process team and recognized staff members Leigh Wallace, Paul Diaz, Laurie Brewer, Jim Briggs,
Nathan Parras, Jonathan Sandoval, Jacob Brachman, Michel Sorrel, Kara McSwiggin, Debbie Mitchell,
Tristan Whitmire, LaMar Kemp, Kris Jolly, Jack Daly, Becky Huff, Shirley Rinn, Danella Elliott and Michael
Weisner and Chris Foster from Utilities.
Morgan explained that the presentation today would begin with the General Fund, followed by Special
Revenue Funds. Morgan said the budget presentation would continue the following day.
Mayor Ross said the workshop is the time for the Council to ask questions. He emphasized that the process
does not work well if questions are asked much later. He explained that it is necessary to make a list of
concerns that can be noted and dealt with along the way. Morgan agreed that it is important to get
information from Council to staff as early as possible in order to make necessary adjustments. He added that
staff is greatly appreciative of feedback.
Morgan showed the budget process as described in the City Charter.
Page 13 of 247
He next described the budget process to date:
Morgan explained that the proposed budget is a work in progress. He said that staff continues to review
revenue estimates and expenditure requests. He explained that it is important for the Council to see the
elements that bring the budget together and that is why it is presented at this time through the workshop
meetings. Morgan said a proposed budget is getting close to completion but cannot be finally proposed until
the City receives the tax rolls from the Williamson County Appraisal District, expected to be received on July
20, 2016.
Morgan displayed and explained Georgetown’s Budgeted Funds and the fund system of accounting.
Page 14 of 247
Morgan Showed the Agenda for July 12, 2016 and July 13, 2016:
He next showed and spoke on the Budget Theme
Morgan said that much of the budget is a response to the issues of growth. Morgan said the growth rate is at
7.8% and is not anticipated to slow down anytime soon. He then showed the Development Pipeline Map.
Page 15 of 247
Morgan spoke next on the Built Environment - Residential
Morgan spoke on Development Requests from 2012 through 2015
Areas of Focus were presented by Morgan:
• Assuring Quality Growth
• Continued Increase in Maintenance of Existing Assets
• Implement Voter Approved Bond Projects and Limit Tax Rate Impact
• Award Winning Downtown and Parks – Maintain Quality of Life and Small Town Charm
• Plan for Next Phases of Growth
Morgan said it was important to be responsive to the established Council Goals when proposing the budget:
Page 16 of 247
Morgan spoke next on the Proposed Budget Impact – Council Goals
Page 17 of 247
Morgan spoke on the importance of continuing key initiatives.
Page 18 of 247
Morgan began the presentation of the General Fund. He started with the General Fund FY2016 Projections.
Sales Tax Revenue was shown next.
Morgan displayed and discussed the Year End 2016 General Fund.
Page 19 of 247
Morgan spoke on where the money comes from and goes to in a general fund. He said that one can look
back over a 5 year period of time. He explained that 2/3 of Georgetown’s sales tax is related to consumption.
Property Tax Revenue for FY 2017 was shown next by Morgan.
Page 20 of 247
A graph of Sales Tax Revenue was shown by Morgan.
Morgan explained that accurate figures are not yet available because $387 million dollars in property value is
still under protest. He said that the City is projecting being able to come in with the same or a lower tax rate.
Sales tax revenues are projected to be in a positive light said Morgan, adding that the over trend the City is
seeing is part of the growth process.
Morgan next displayed and spoke on the Utility Return on Investment (ROI) and Other Revenue.
Operating Budget Highlights were shown next.
Page 21 of 247
Morgan explained that they are requesting a reorganization of management and departments. He displayed
an updated organization chart and showed departments and responsibilities under each of the Assistant City
Managers: Jim Briggs, Wayne Reed and Laurie Brewer.
Page 22 of 247
Page 23 of 247
Page 24 of 247
Morgan explained that he would now go back to the Operating Budget Highlights and speak on hitting the
possible question marks in the budget. He said Lone Star Rail has been put into the budget as a placeholder,
even without Council making the decision to continue as members. He explained that it needed to be
considered when forming a budget, but a check would not be written until Council has reviewed and approved
it.
Morgan also discussed Transit funding. He said staff had received Council direction to move forward with
fixed route systems and that Council had directed staff to also move forward looking at voucher systems.
Morgan said the City needs to budget for the possibilities even though decisions have not been made yet. He
explained that there will be additional discussion during the August 9, 2016 meetings.
Morgan provided a General Fund Chart of Proposed New Personnel.
Page 25 of 247
Morgan provided a list of One Time Study Requests.
A List of the Council Discretionary Fund was shown next.
Page 26 of 247
General Capital Projects were displayed next.
Page 27 of 247
Debt discussion followed. Spring 2017 Debt Issue was displayed.
Page 28 of 247
Special Revenue Funds was the next topic presented by Morgan. Operating SRFs were shown.
The Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund was displayed and explained by Morgan.
The Main Street Fund was shown and explained next.
Page 29 of 247
Morgan said that the Paramedic Fund would be discussed later in the presentation and went on to display
and discuss the Electric Fund FY 2017.
Morgan spoke on the Key Initiatives of the Electric Fund. He explained that Georgetown is doing well in that
more power is being generated than used.
Page 30 of 247
Water Services Funds for FY 2016 and FY 2017 were shown next.
Page 31 of 247
Page 32 of 247
Airport Fund was next. Diaz said it was good news in that the fund had a positive ending and plans put into
place for airport fund improvement have been working.
Page 33 of 247
The Stormwater fund was displayed next.
Internal Service Funds were next in the presentation.
Page 34 of 247
Morgan spoke on the Self Insurance fund and explained how lucky the City of Georgetown is to be positioned
so well. It is highly unusual.
Page 35 of 247
Morgan displayed the Budget Schedule and the Public Outreach and Education that is planned.
City Manager, David Morgan, announced that the General Fund would be presented.
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, started the presentation. She described sections of the budget
workbooks that had been delivered to the Councilmembers and spoke on additions that had been given to
them at this meeting. Brewer spoke on Truth in Taxation, Employee Compensation, Long Term Liability and
the City’s proposed new positions. She spoke on narrative information in the workbooks and described the
page on multi-year summaries. Brewer said a reorganization of departments is being proposed. She
explained that some departments have been consolidated or renamed. Brewer explained that Downtown
Service would now be named Administrative Services, for example. She touched on the reorganization of
duties and departments under each of the Assistant City Managers.
Brewer said the FY2016 is projected to end up 1% higher than projected, while 2016 expenditures are
projected to be 1% below budget. She said that this would leave a fund balance of $1.5 million for one time
uses and the Council discretionary fund.
Paul Diaz, the City’s Budget Manager, provided a General Fund Overview. He explained that there are four
areas of revenue – Property Tax Revenue, Sales Tax Revenue, ROI Revenue and All Other Revenue. Diaz
provided a 5 year trend graph of property tax revenue.
Page 36 of 247
Diaz explained that Property Tax Revenue is 22% of all revenue. He said that the City would receive the final
figure of valuation on July 20, 2016
Councilmember Hesser asked Diaz, after protest, how much money is retained. Diaz said usually a 60%
estimate is used as retention. Morgan said the figure is actual to whatever is negotiated. Morgan said there
is a significant increase in protests this year - $1.5 billion dollars in protest. Hesser said he is concerned
about possible bubbles in values. Morgan said anyone should protest if they do not feel the value is correct.
Gonzalez said most are below the actual value.
Diaz went on to provide an image of the Sales Tax Revenue. He said it accounts for 23% of the revenue
funds and is also the most volatile. Diaz said that Georgetown seems to be insulated and immune to the
crash other cities have been feeling. He explained that the City of Georgetown conservative estimate of 2.5%
was indeed conservative. The City is now predicting an estimate of 4.4%, tied to growth. Diaz said all trends
have been remarkably consistent over the past five years.
Diaz next spoke on Return on Investment.
Page 37 of 247
Other Revenues were shown next.
Councilmember Brainard asked Diaz to let Council know the difference in rate for building materials. Diaz
said the difference is 10% instead of 8% last year.
Laurie Brewer, the Assistant City Manager, spoke next regarding expenditures. She explained the
projections reflecting where the City would end up. She discussed recommendations for consideration by the
Council. She spoke on the Planning Department update. Brewer also explained the change in methodology
for Information Technology expense and how the expense would be allocated to the department of use.
Brewer spoke regarding parks administration and library enhancements. She explained that the position at
Garey Park would begin in July and there would be an additional $25,000.00 in mowing expense.
Gonzalez asked Brewer about the FY2017 base changes and FY 2017 projections and where the change
come in? Brewer said totals are totaling the line items. Brewer used the library section for explanation.
Gonzalez said the numbers are not working for him. Morgan said they have included the 2% merit raises in
the base. Brewer said the $50K change shown represent the new coordinator position. Brewer explained
that “changes” is anything new and “base” is anything already loaded. Service level additions are under
changes said Morgan.
Ross asked about salary increases. He asked if they were effective September 1st. Brewer said they would
be effective in February after the review process. Ross asked if any vacancy factors were used. Brewer said
1.5% was used. She said a total of $578,000.00 was used across the general fund for the vacancy factor.
Brewer said this tracts consistently with other years.
Brewer explained the overall steps of the Fire Department, the meet and confer amounts, the addition of
three firefighters and the paramedic program. Brewer spoke on the Inspections Department. She explained
the reorganization again in the Downtown Services and Management Services Departments, now to be
named Administrative Services. She explained that there is a request of $100,000.00 for the organizational
changes and transfers.
Hesser asked about the Public Works position. Brewer explained the proposed position and change in the
structure. She explained the salaries for City Manager, Assistant City managers and the City Secretary
Page 38 of 247
Department request for $55K for records preservation of historic records. Brewer said there would be a
slight decrease in the Communication Department because of the Webmaster moving to Information
Technology. Brewer spoke on the $20K request for branding and identifying and establishing branding and
guidelines.
Brewer went on to speak on the Police Department budget. She said that Animal Services and Code
Enforcement only have minor changes. Gonzalez asked why there was $730,000.00 in the base. Brewer
explained that it is the reflection of the change in allocation of use of information technology. Police and Fire
are very large users of information technology.
Gonzalez asked if same amount continues forever and if it is actually studied. He said some years could
perhaps be more, or perhaps be less. Brewer said it has been discussed at length with Department Heads
and Directors. Morgan added that if there are savings at the end, they would be realized as savings instead
of holding on for the next year.
Mayor Ross asked if actual the difference in 2015 overtime and decreased overtime in 2016 was because of
being better staffed and therefore eliminating some of the need for overtime. Mayor Ross asked if things
have been titled differently. Chief Nero and Morgan said they are more staffed and trends have been
addressed to manage overtime. Nero said there is no civilian overtime in the 2017 figures.
Brewer went on to speak regarding transportation. She mentioned transit cost increases and said more
Council discussion is necessary.
Brewer spoke on the Public Works Director, a foreman position with a vehicle and an expense of $25,000.00
in right of way maintenance.
Morgan spoke next regarding the budget. He told Council that they could look at the suggestions of what is
funded and not funded in their workbooks. He asked Council to bring forward any questions or concerns that
they may have.
Gonzales would like to see a percentage in change displayed in future budget workbooks. Paul Diaz said he
could accommodate the request by the following day’s workshop.
Jonrowe asked about comparisons of revenues and expenses. She said she would like to see which are
related to which and would like to know when numbers are related. Brewer said this was a great idea and
staff could group them in the future. Brewer explained that the new financial system that the City is looking at
will be able to easily establish the relationship.
Brainard asked what authority staff has to move monies around from one account to another. Brewer monies
could be moved within a fund and within a division, with the approval of the City Manager. She explained that
all budget transfers must be approved by the City Manager. Brewer us an example of office supplies can be
printing costs. If one goes over but is closely related to other, it would be permissible. Brainard said this was
approving a lump sum budget with City Council approval. Brewer said moving streets money to parks would
not be able to happen without Council approval. Mayor Ross added that anything over $50,000.00 would
always come back to Council.
Brainard asked about the TMRS fund going up or down. Wallace said it had increased by 12.6%. He then
asked about the Williamson County Health District expense. Wallace said there is no increase proposed at
this time.
Gonzalez asked about unfunded liabilities and where it is found in this budget. He said he wants to know
how each category is being addressed. Brewer said updates and amounts would be discussed. Wallace
pointed out that the reference was at the back of the workbooks. The chart shows all unfunded liabilities.
Jonrowe asked about the Downtown Tiers. Brewer said these would be discussed later, after the July 20th
valuation figures. Jonrowe asked about a Bike Master Plan. Morgan said staff was managing studies as they
can manage at the time. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan update and the Williams Drive Study will
fall into how to supplement and plan. Jonrowe asked about reaching out to the citizens with a possible
committee.
Chief Sullivan spoke on emergency services. He explained that the Georgetown Fire Department provides
service for the City and the ETJ, which is 134 square miles. Sullivan said the growth factors predict taking
care of 100,000 people in the next 2 years.
Sullivan provided an Overview Presentation.
Page 39 of 247
Sullivan went on to explain and discuss the budget request of $238,000.00.
Sullivan explained the 3 -24 hour shift. He said that one fire fighter is actually a request for 3, to cover all
shifts. Sullivan explained the leave costs. He explained that this is a more cost effective way than paying
overtime, which would be necessary if not funded. Sullivan said this would also improve moral.
Sullivan than provided a Timeline and History chart of the GFD.
Page 40 of 247
Call Activity was shown next.
Sullivan provided the Call Demands of July 12, 2016, the day of this meeting. He said there has been an
incredible increase in serious calls.
Page 41 of 247
Sullivan provided an image of a Staffing Plan for Deployment, including 2011/2012 deployment, Traditional
Deployment and Flexible Deployment and spoke on Strength of Force.
Page 42 of 247
A chart showing response time and comparisons from 2011 through 2016 was shown next.
Sullivan then provided the New Costs with the proposed Personnel.
Page 43 of 247
Sullivan spoke on response time and improvement in response time, currently averaging 5 minutes and 30
seconds. He then spoke on the EMS billing service and said the City should expect $175,000.00 to be
coming in monthly, which equals $450.00 per run.
Sullivan showed Revenue Projections.
He then showed EMS Collections and spoke on billing and Medicare.
Page 44 of 247
Sullivan compared EMS incidents and Medicare Incidents.
Sullivan next discussed patient age.
Page 45 of 247
Sullivan said that patient age is an anomaly in Georgetown with the majority of transfers in the group of 70
and older. He said that Medicare represents 60% of the transports.
Sullivan discussed expense projections and reimbursement models.
Page 46 of 247
Sullivan gave examples of how the citizens need to feel that they are served with caring hearts. He shared
moving examples of rescues and life-saving events. Sullivan showed the Budget Request for the Fire
Department.
Morgan said the plan would be to improve the delay from event to payment. He explained that, in this first
year, they must close the books for the fiscal year. Morgan explained how this would only happen this first
year of the program. Morgan said the Department would calculate and place adjustments for the delay in
billing at the end of November. Morgan recommends two months so that this one time they can close the
books. After this time, Gonzalez added, things would work into consistency. Sullivan mentioned the tangible
values of this department, sitting on shelves, which are not just expended monies.
Mayor Ross asked about the pattern of collections and if Chief sees any changes down the road. Sullivan
said they could go higher but he wanted to remain conservative in projections. Morgan said they would be
getting better because of improvements in efficiency. Ross said Public Safety is far more important than the
monies. Jonrowe agreed and spoke on the transfers by ambulance. She said providing first responder
services is about the service not the money.
Morgan said they are proposing on demand. The proposal is to hire 3 paramedics, who will work a 40 hour
work week and go through the academy to become a firefighter. Overtime will not need to be paid for peak
demand, explained Morgan.
Mayor Ross mentioned that if $175,000 is collected monthly, it would be $2.1 million a year. He said this
would contribute to a positive cash flow soon.
Page 47 of 247
Gonzalez pointed out that the Georgetown Fire Department would have needed to hire because of growth,
even without the EMS. He said the cost would have been absorbed regardless.
Fought said he is very pleased with how the program is going. Fought asked to make sure to emphasize one
vehicle dispatched at a time without people’s lives at risk. Fought is concerned about staffing EMS. He is
pleased that it is the City’s own decision and they do not have to check with or rely on others. Fought
thanked Sullivan.
Sullivan said the goal of the Georgetown Fire Department is to have Georgetown be the safest place in
America to have a heart attack. He said they are happy to reunite families. Sullivan said he has the best job
in the world. Sullivan thanked Council for their support.
Eby asked about pro forma and what the 5% is based on. Diaz said it was based on overall growth
projections and elderly care facilities going in. Diaz said it reflects transport forecasts from actual numbers.
He said the accounting method is cash based but at 60 days instead of 120. Brewer said this is a similar
accounting treatment to how the City figures sales tax. Eby asked about the overtime issue and if the City
could use franchisees. Sullivan said the City does rely on franchise partners when running thin.
Morgan said the presentation would move to street maintenance next.
Jim Briggs said staff is working on a model that will challenge assumptions that have been made in the past.
Briggs said he wants to take a step backward. He would like to bring in expertise in the matters, strategies
and plans toward reliable street maintenance. Councilmember Fought said it is time for a relook. He said the
City can do better. Morgan said the changes will be actively shown in the proposed budget on July 26th.
Briggs said the budget would also connect to the capital improvement projects.
Briggs spoke on current practices. He spoke on changes in management, policies and projects. He
explained the results continue to be less than optimal. Briggs said methods, standards and goals need
improvement. He explained that organizational changes are being worked on in the effort for improvement.
Briggs spoke on the City’s maintenance assets. He spoke on the modified or depreciation approach. Briggs
said the modified approach was selected 15 years ago and is performance based, which the depreciation
approach would not allow. Briggs said the voters were asked for a quarter percent street maintenance fund.
Briggs said this is providing $120,000.00 per year in revenue and $800,000.00 comes out of tax revenues.
He explained that it is much more difficult to predict quality today. Briggs said materials and processes need
to be revisited before moving forward.
Fought said he applauds the effort and wants to separate the accounting standard and the maintenance
standard.
Morgan said the budget presentation would wrap up for the day with Capital Improvement Projects and Debt.
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, spoke on the Energy Services Fund, Sidewalk Master Plan, Parks
Department, Garey Park, San Gabriel Park, ADA, Facilities Projects, Downtown West (to be brought to
Council soon), Fire Station 6, Phase 2 of Grace Heritage Center, Red Poppy Café Canopy, Lighting and Tree
Mitigation, and a possible partnership with ESD.
Brewer spoke next on the Proposed Debt, tax supported debt. She mentioned Garey Park and the 2 year
plan, Phase 2 of San Gabriel Park and the Sidewalk Plan. Brewer noted the detailed debt schedules
provided in the Council Workbooks.
Brewer spoke on the self-supported debt project from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC). She said that the utility debt would be discussed in more detail at the meeting the
following day.
Jonrowe asked about the signature gateways. Brewer said discussion on this will take place in the
Downtown Master Plan presentation and the discussion would include proposed funding through the TIRZ.
The gateways would include entry point treatments. Jonrowe asked about sign maintenance. Morgan said it
is in the plans. Morgan said enhanced promotion is also being looked at. Council has had discussions on
gateways. Morgan said recommendations will be brought to Council soon and staff will appreciate the
feedback.
Jonrowe asked about the historic park funds. Brewer said this represents the HEB project on HWY 29.
Brewer explained the agenda for the following day:
Enterprise Fund
Page 48 of 247
Electric
Water
Wastewater
Airport
Stormwater
Mayor Ross recessed the Workshop Meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and
Section 551.086 at 4.59 PM.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
B. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins Update and Possible Action
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Solar RFP
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the Workshop meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6.00 PM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________
Date
____________________________ __________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary
Page 49 of 247
Minutes of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101
E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s
Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:29 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance with the exception of
Councilmember John Hesser, District 3, Councilmember Ty Gipson, District 5 and Councilmember Rachael
Jonrowe, District 6. Councilmember Jonrowe joined the meeting at 2.45 PM
Regular Session
(This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by
the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order – A Special Meeting of the City Council
Budget Workshop Continued from July 12th: Workshop overview, discussion and possible action regarding the
FY2017 City of Georgetown Budget and Tax Rate -- David S. Morgan, City Manager
City Manager, David Morgan, opened the continuation of the budget presentation from the previous day. He
explained the discussion items of the day. Morgan said staff would be getting clarification to Council on building
materials and providing detail of the funds with detailed expenses and revenues and their relationships. Brewer
began the presentation.
Mayor Ross asked the Council to remember that now is the time to ask questions or voice concerns regarding the
budget. It is helpful to staff to hear the concerns as soon as possible to allow time for adjustments, he explained.
Brewer began the presentation with Special Revenue Funds. She reminded the Council that the Paramedic Fund
and Street Maintenance fund were presented the previous day. Brewer said special revenue funds represent
funds restricted for specific purpose, based on state law or local designations.
Brewer spoke on CVB revenues from the 7% local hotel occupancy tax for hotel stays. She said that FY 2016
will end up better than projected and staff is projecting a 31`% increase of revenues in FY2017 with the additions
of the Hampton and the Sheraton. She spoke on the expenditures of $1.05 million related to enhanced
advertising and conference recruiting funds and a fiscal impact study of the arts in Georgetown to provide
information to continue to promote the arts. Brewer spoke on the expense of the CVB’s move to the current
Council Chamber when City Hall moves to Downtown West.
Brewer spoke on the Council Discretionary Fund. She explained that this comes from Council’s dedication of
setting surplus aside, ending excess fund balances. Brewer said approximately $185,000.00 remains from
FY2015. It is estimated that $750,000.00 will be able to be transferred in FY2017 for an ending balance of
$935,000.00.
Brewer spoke next on the Main Street Fund accounts for downtown façade and annual seed monies. She next
spoke on the GEDCO and GTEC budgets and said that sales tax has been budgeted at a 4.5% increase for both.
Brewer spoke on the expenditures planned. She said that the budget also accounts for any economic
development agreements that are in play at this time. She said there is a responsibility to Tasus for $6,000 and
Dispersol for $60,000.00. Morgan added that they are expecting a future request from TLCC and a placeholder
of $100,000.00 has been added to the budget and is included in the GEDCO budget. Brewer said the GTEC
figure is for roads and transportation projects that are related to economic development. Brewer spoke on
TXDOT reimbursements, the Mays Street project and the Rivery extension.
Page 50 of 247
Morgan said the Airport Road project is at Airport Road and Lakeway. He said there is a transportation need
there, as well as the importance for economic development in that area. Morgan said the right of way would be
ripe and ready to go for economic development expansion. He said the project was included in the FY2016
budget.
Brewer spoke on the library and cemetery funds. She spoke on court funds for municipal court fines. Brewer
explained that these must be spent for specific purposes. At this time, the funds are slotted to be used toward the
benefit of new Council Chambers.
Brainard asked about the Rivery Road project. Briggs said the right of way acquisition is coming to a close.
Briggs said there have been some complexities with the purchase of individual properties. He also mentioned
that GISD has a large piece of property within the project. Briggs said the right of ways should be completed
within a couple of months and construction should start in one year to 14 months. Brainard asked if this was on
schedule. Briggs confirmed.
Mayor Ross reminded everyone that the Convention Center is opening this month. Brainard asked if the delay in
the Rivery project was because of lack of resources. Briggs said the delay is more because of possession and
condemnation of people’s properties. He explained that the City has to wait until the property is completely
vacated in order to have access. Brainard asked if GISD is a condemnation property. Briggs said it should be a
clear acquisition process with proper pay. Morgan said he is already working with GISD and explained how the
needs of the school district and the City align. He explained that the City will make transportation improvements
in an agreement for the property. Morgan said there will be several benefits for both the City and GISD.
Mayor Ross asked about timelines. Briggs said construction would take another 2.5 to 3 years.
Jonrowe asked about the Main Street Fund and the façade program. She said there seems to be a lot of
volatility or fluctuation. Brewer said this is because it is based on actual grant requests from owners. Mayor Ross
asked how much money was requested in façade grants in 2017. $150,000 will be available said Brewer.
Brewer said the requirements are that the building is within the downtown overlay district and the improvements
must be to the outside of the building. Brewer said up to $500 in sign grants are also available, restricted to
commercial buildings.
Jim Briggs, the City’s General Manager of Utilities began a presentation on Utilities.
Briggs began with the electric fund. He provided a map of the 2016-17 Capital Improvement Projects for Electric
and spoke on these projects. Briggs said the power supply costs have been 35 to 38 million for the last two
years. He explained that as load increased, so did the power supply. Briggs said the City is now seeing an 8%
growth in the utility each year, which is an abnormally high growth for a utility in Texas. He said the City must be
able to meet the demand of the growth. Briggs spoke on several contracts for electricity and a contract for a gas
project. He spoke on the wind farm contracts and a solar farm contact and its benefits to the City. Briggs
explained that these contracts will allow the City to know what the price is and ensure that the cost stays relatively
low as we continue to grow.
Briggs went on to say that 60% of the electric service territory is a direct competition and the City must compete
for customers. He added that in the last 15 to 20 years, the City has acquired 99% + of the customers in that
area. He explained that reliability and service cost is important and retail can only take place within the City
boundaries, other than at its own facilities. Briggs explained that the City serves both Scott & White and the
Outlet Mall. He said that a Capital Improvement Project is looking for infrastructure for additional service. Briggs
described the Shell Road growth and the energy needs there. He described the need for improvements and
upgrades in the Serenada area. Briggs spoke on a number of projects with streets, transportation and the
Downtown West project and the additional load. Briggs explained that some will convert from overhead to
underground utilities. He went on to explain the need for a secondary circuit for the Scott & White hospital
expansion. Briggs explained that the SW Bypass will allow for more extension of services.
Jonrowe asked if the City was still participating in the pilot program for battery storage. Briggs confirmed and said
the storage facility was constructed at Rabbit Hill. Briggs added that the City is looking at other options, possibly
internally evaluating battery operation and how it might fit into the equation of renewable energy.
Mayor Ross recognized Briggs and his staff for the 100% Green award they recently received in Dallas.
Briggs spoke next on the water and wastewater fund and provided a slide and explanations.
Page 51 of 247
Page 52 of 247
Jonrowe asked about the difference of residential water cost and commercial water cost. She said she noticed
that other cities seem to have adopted the philosophy of charging less for commercial water.
Mayor Ross explained said Council gave direction that commercial needs to pay more than residential. Briggs
said the City does not currently have a demand rate for commercial. He said staff has been analyzing the data
and working on recommendations. Briggs said there is a concern because commercial generally impacts
restaurants and other small businesses. He explained that staff is looking into taking a look at increasing irrigation
rates for commercial, but not the cost of doing business. Briggs said he will come back to Council with
recommendations. This issue will be going to the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board right after the
budget and the process will be discussed prior to that, Briggs explained.
Brainard asked why water costs are lower than other cities and asked if Georgetown was collecting enough.
Briggs said yes because of the way the city maintains and manages its systems.
Page 53 of 247
Briggs provided slides and spoke on Wastewater Services next.
Briggs showed a map of the 2016-17 Capital Improvement Projects for Wastewater. He explained that the area
will not optimally develop unless certain services are provided. Briggs said timing is important with the expansion
of necessary facilities and putting off expansion of less helpful projects. He explained that it has a big impact.
Page 54 of 247
Mayor Ross said it is important to point out that this utility fund is not part of the general fund and this $45 million
project does not impact tax payers of Georgetown. Ross asked about the Berry Creek project. Briggs said it
would start this year and take 2 years for completion.
Briggs said the City has not increased rates since 2007. He said it was indicated last year that an increase would
need to be looked at. Briggs explained that $1.50 is the proposed increase to handle the upcoming CIP expense.
Jonrowe asked about possible rate increases. Briggs said at the conclusion of the presentation, there would be a
discussion.
A Public Works Presentation was provided next. Briggs explained how stormwater and streets were connected
and discussed the creation of a new Public Works Department.
• Public Works manages operations/planning, maintenance, and repairs City streets, sidewalks, drainage
facilities, right of ways and airport functions.
• Additional responsibilities include traffic control, emergency response, special events, regional planning
and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC)
• Funding for the street maintenance program comes from the General Fund and the Street Maintenance
Sales Tax (reapproved in November 2014)
• Funding for certain capital improvements comes from tax supported bonds (May 2015 )
Briggs spoke on the Public Works Street Rehabilitation Projects.
• 6th Street and 7th Street – Between Walnut and Holly, Downtown Overlay District, $275,000.00
• 17th Street – Complete construction (Austin Ave. to Church St.); Point repair, regrading and overlay
(Austin Ave. to Railroad Ave.); $75,000.00 design (FY17); $550,000.00 construction (FY18)
• West 11th Street – Complete construction (Main St. to Rock St.); In conjunction with Sidewalk Bond
Project; $416,000.00
• West 10th Street – Pavement rehab in conjunction with Sidewalk project on south side; $90,000.00.
Briggs spoke on Street Maintenance.
Page 55 of 247
• Sealant – On hold until completion of overall review of maintenance practices; $100,000.00; Subdivisions
of Churchill Farms, The Meadows, Pinnacle, La Conterra and Riata Trail; Streets – Cooperative Way,
Snead Drive, Rock, Bridge, Scenic, Gabriel View and County Club.
• Hot-In Place Recycling – $819,000.00 – On hold until completion of overall review of maintenance
practices; Cutler process; Single pass, hot in place asphalt recycler; Whispering Wind, Park Ln.,
Shannon Ln., Janis Dr., San Gabriel Overlook, Sunshine, Meadowbrook, Oakland Dr., Ridge Oak, Live
Oak and Spanish Oak
• Surface Sealer - $1,200,000.00 - On hold until completion of overall review of maintenance practices;
Dan Mood Trail, Honey Suckle Cove, Sunflower, Night Hawk Way, Yucca Cove, Wild Rose Way, Hill
Country Dr., Six Flags Dr., High Trail Dr., Blacksmith, Lone Star Way, Berry Creek (SH 195-Oak Tree),
Airport Rd. (IH25-Cavu)
• Point Repair and Overlay - $300,000.00; Thin overlay mix – 1” new asphalt; Inner Loop (south of SH 29);
Rockride Ln. (south of SE 1)
Briggs spoke on Sidewalks next, and showed a slide depicting the cost at $2,179,000.00.
• Projects funded from the May 2015 Bond Election
• Projects for FY17 include: Pedestrian signals and curb ramps at existing intersections- $500K – Williams
Drive Corridor and Austin Ave.; Old Town Northeast (University-SH 29) - $960K; Austin Ave. (9th-
University) - $178K; Austin Ave. (SH 29-FM2243) - $70K (design only); 8th Street (Rock-MKL) - $84K; 8th
Street (Church-Myrtle) - $37K; 10th Street (Main-Rock) - $94K; 11th Street (Main-Rock) - $151K; Church
Street (8th-9th) - $105K
Briggs displayed and discussed Public Works Stormwater Services next.
• Curb and Gutter Replacements: $500,000.00 annually; Replace deteriorating stand up curbs with new
curb and gutter; Proposed for FY17 = Cottonwood, Willow, Parker, Judy, Golden Oaks, 16th & 17th
Streets, Holly, 6th Street and Walnut
• Infrastructure Improvements - $200,000.00: Rehab and repair above and beyond the normal
maintenance.
• Drainage Improvement Projects: 18th & Hutto - $100,000.00 design only, Identify potential solutions to
flooding between 15th and 19th streets, west of Hutto Road, Construction FY18-19; 2nd & Rock Pond -
$50,000.00 design only, Reconstruction poorly functioning water quality pond, Construction FY 18/19;
Serenada Culvert - $50,000.00 design only, repair and upsize culverts at multiple crossing, construction
FY 18-19; Village PID Inlet - $75,000.00 design and construction, alley and inlet repairs
Briggs spoke regarding the Public Works Airport plans. He explained that the Airport Project has been pushed
out until 2019
• Runway Rehab: FY19; $516,000.00; Main Runway (18/36); 4” overlay; 90 TxDOT/10 Airport
• Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Mitigation Plan: $12,500.00, FAA Recommendation, 90 TxDOT/10
Airport
Paul Diaz spoke on the airport fund. He explained how it is designed to be a self-supporting fund. Diaz said that,
in past years, expenditures were more than revenues. Diaz said through the efforts of the Georgetown
Transportation Advisory Board and City staff making necessary changes, the airport has now become more
efficient. Leases and fuel charges were adjusted and collected in a more-timely manner. Diaz said many
departments have worked together to accomplish the efficiency. He said, just two years ago, there was no
system in place and best processes and practices were not being followed. Diaz spoke on how the budget also
helped with airport funds. Other competitors in the market are now surveyed monthly. Diaz said the airport is
now consistent with fuel. Diaz spoke on grant revenue through TXDOT. He again emphasized how the efforts
and studies have resulted in positive changes. The airport is now market competitive in hangar rates. Fuel
margins have increased in a positive way, explained Diaz. Diaz said all changes have been approached in a very
public manner. Several meetings were held with airport tenants and interest groups and GTAB has been very
present.
Diaz went on to explain that the revenue project is 30% less than budget because of the price of oil and how this
offsets both revenue and expenditure sides. He spoke on expenditures in 2016 and said that revenues will
increase if oil prices increase. Diaz then spoke on expenditures in 2017. He said the cost of fuel is projected to
increase by $600,000.00. Diaz said the anticipated fund will show $122,000.00 to a positive balance. He
explained that this is two or three years ahead of projections. The Airport is building the fund balance.
Brainard thanked the staff for the 180 degree turn around at the airport and thanked Russ Volk, the Airport
Manager.
Jonrowe asked for the level of confidence on the price of fuel going back. Diaz said it is a very volatile market,
but the margin is a fixed portion – base charge and type of fuel.
Page 56 of 247
Mayor Ross asked if there was any general fund support at the airport. Diaz confirmed. Gonzalez asked if there
was a waiting list for leases. Diaz said there is not a waiting list, but they are 100% occupied. Gonzalez asked if
future CIPs are in this budget. Diaz said not now because they are currently in a holding pattern. He explained
that vacated leases will need rehabilitation in the future and funds will be requested in future budgets.
The Internal Services Fund was discussed next. Leigh Wallace explained that these are funds that provide direct
services to other departments in the City – Facilities, Fleet, Information Technology and a handful of
administrative groups within the Joint Services Fund.
Wallace spoke on the facilities maintenance fund and explained how it is lower, if the airport position is funded
because facilities personnel will be needed less at the airport. Wallace explained the Facilities Fund expenditures
and the inclusion of the replacement of HVAC at the Recreation Center.
Wallace spoke next on the Fleet Fund. She explained the ongoing inventory of all vehicles and equipment. She
explained how charges are distributed to the using departments. Wallace explained how there are replacement
costs over time and spoke specifically regarding the replacement of police vehicles. Wallace said the new
vehicles proposed to be purchased would include a vehicle for the fiber technician and the replacement of a VAC
truck in the stormwater department. Ross asked if replacement is determined by mileage or age of a vehicle.
Wallace said there are several factors. Stan Hohman, the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor, said both age and
mileage are considered. He explained that many times, after a certain amount of years, manufacturers stop
making parts, and vehicles become unrepairable. Hohman said, generally speaking, a vehicle is replaced at 12-
13 years old and/or 160,000 to 180,000 miles.
Brainard asked if Crown Vics were police cars. Hohman confirmed and said they would be replacing 2008 and
2011 models. Morgan said these are shown in the Council Budget Workbooks under CIP Projects and under
debt service on page 130. He explained how a $1.9 million short term debt sale in the spring would be used.
Gonzalez asked if there is an expected return for replaced vehicles. Hohman said not likely, but that the City will
be moving forward with less hold back vehicles. He said sometimes vehicles have been held too long, when they
could be sold off at auction.
Ross asked about the purchase of public safety vehicles. Morgan said other than the $1.9 million in short term
debt, the rest of the purchase will be paid for with cash. Morgan said $3.39 million is the full replacement cost.
Ross said that would leave $1.4 million to be cash funded.
Gonzalez asked if sale funds go into the vehicle maintenance fund. Wallace said sale funds would go to the
Vehicle Fleet ISF Fund.
Information Technology was discussed next. Wallace said the Information Technology Department and the
Finance Department have supported the change in methodology in charges and costs broken out to specific
departments. She explained the advantage of recovering true costs. Wallace said the largest impact to the
general service fund would be the Customer Care Department.
Wallace reviewed the 3.5 positions requested for the Information Technology Department for Fire Support, Police
Support and a Communications position.
Wallace spoke on the Disaster Recovery Cloud Based Service requested. She explained that cloud based
service will save a considerable amount of money for the City. Morgan said disaster recovery has been a
discussion with the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF). Morgan said this would protect
the City in the event of a disaster. He explained that the programs would be looked at on a pilot basis and then
expanded if it works well.
Wallace next explained the Joint Services Fund. She said it is a smattering of administrative services and
recovers costs with allocation models. She explained that the fund has carried a significant balance from
previous years. Wallace said this type of fund is not meant to build a balance. This year staff will apply a credit
for 2016 and 2017, reducing fund balances since there is no need to accumulate. Wallace spoke on the
highlights of budget requests in this area which included the request for tuition assistance, internal audits,
inspection services supervisors, and the customer care increase coming from the Information Technology shift.
Morgan explained the credit purpose and use. The City would then phase in the full impact of the new model over
several years said Wallace – with a full recovery in 3 years.
Ross asked who came up with the change in methodology. Wallace said many staff members have worked
together through discussion but the largest part has been Paul Diaz, the City’s Budget Manager. Diaz said
complexity was removed, leaving better efficiency, but staying consistent with the past.
Page 57 of 247
Wallace went on to speak on the Self-insurance Fund. The City moved to this model of health insurance
coverage in 2015, explained Wallace, with a goal to be a healthy fund in a few years. She said the fund has done
much better and proceeded much faster than projected. Wallace explained that the claims and charges
expected were lower. Morgan said the City is in a very rare position and there will be no need to increase City or
employee contributions in 2017. He explained that the fund will continue to be watched very closely, as it could
change drastically, quickly. It will be managed closely. Ross asked what is done with the money and where it is
invested. Morgan said the investment policy is less than 1%. Laurie Brewer, the Assistant city Manager, said the
best rates are in CDs right now. She said interest earnings might increase in the future. Morgan said the low
interest rates do make amazing interest rates on bond sales.
Morgan said the presentation was wrapping up and all funds had been discussed. He said staff will be working
on follow-up and will provide answers to any requests from Council by the end of the week. Morgan said the
official proposed budget would be presented at the workshop meeting on July 26th. He said the budget hearings
would be on August 9th and August 16th. First and Second Readings will be August 23rd and September 13th.
Morgan said he and staff will continue improving the budget process and thanked the many staff members that
contributed.
Jonrowe thanked Morgan for a successful process.
Jonrowe asked what it would cost for closed captioning for council meetings. Morgan said this is being looked at
through the ADA project and Council could make decisions regarding these matters.
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 4.25 PM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _____________________________
Date
____________________________ __________________________
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary
Page 58 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appoi nt Counci l member Anna Eby to the Capi tal Area Counci l of
G overnments (CAPCOG ) Cl ean Ai r Coal i ti o n -- Mayo r Dale Ross
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Mayor Dale Ro ss - BH
Page 59 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to authorize an application for a Capi tal Area Co unc i l of G overnments (CAP COG )
FY 2016/17 Reg i onal Ai r Qual i ty G rant for addi ti o nal sol ar pow ered trash and r e cycl i ng compactors -- Mike
Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this CAPCOG grant process is to suppo rt the goals of the regional Ozone Advance Program (OAP) Ac tion
P lan. Funding for these grants is being pro vide d from the state’s “near-attainment grant” program to areas that have air
pollution le vels that are attaining, but clo se to e xc eeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ground-level ozo ne .
ITEM STATUS:
Environmental Services’ go als for the FY 20 16 /1 7 continue to focus on the delivery of c onsistent, reliable, and safe
collection of solid waste and recyclable materials while promoting the importanc e of a reduce, reuse, and re c yc le
philosophy, and the benefits o f such practices. Grant mo ney, if awarde d, wo uld allow fo r the purchase and installation of
multiple additio nal solar po wered Big Belly trash and recycling machines to be placed o n the three remaining corners of
the Downtown Square as well as many of our City park facilities such as San Jose, Rivery, Blue Hole, and San Gabrie l
P arks.
Currently, there are seventeen Big Be lly receptacle s located throughout the City; the so lar powered trash co ntainers have
a co mpac ting unit that enables 15 0 gallons o f garbage to be collected before having to be e mptied. Utilizing Big Belly
machines allows for the co lle c tion of three time s the amo unt of volume of material as regular trash receptacles ave rage
50 gallons in size. The Big Belly recycling unit is also so lar po wered but non-compacting due to the voluminous nature of
recyclables; the solar panel on the recycling receptacle powers the computer and senso rs which fe e d data to an online
dashboard. Data is used to report o n collection efficiency as well as the volume of recycling and trash co llected. Through
this grant we can reduce the amo unt of tail-pipe emissions pro duced from staff traveling to check trash can levels, as well
as quantify the reductio n of methane and CO2 thro ugh the intro duction of recycling and the diversion of material from the
landfill. This pro posal is backed by the City of Geo rge to wn Parks and Recreation De partment.
The applic atio n fo r this program is available by CAPCOG now and closes August 19, 20 16 . The funds are being made
available through the Capital Area Council of Governments under the direction of the Texas Commission of
Environmental Quality.
STAF F RECOMMENDATION :
Direct staff to proceed and submit an application fo r CAP COG funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial impac t o nly o ccurs upon execution of any grant mo nies being awarded. City Co uncil will have the ability to
either approve or deny the grant, as awarded, by e xe c ution o f the grant documents or refusal to do so. Although matc hing
funds are not require d to receive funding, they are strongly considered when determining an applicant’s commitment to
the program.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan Fengel, B.S., Environmental Services Coordinator/Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Regional Air Quality Grant Solic itatio n 7_8_2016
Page 60 of 247
PGA 582-16-60851-01, Amendment 1
Task 7.2, Deliverable 7.2.2
Page 1 of 12
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grants
Request for Applications
July 8 , 2016
PREPARED UNDER A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The preparation of this document was financed through grants from the State of Texas through the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The content, findings, opinions, and conclusions are the
work of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent findings, opinions, or concl usions of the TCEQ.
Page 61 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 2 of 12
1. General
The Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) is announcing the availability of regional air quality
grant funding for 2016 and 2017. The purpose of this funding is to support the goals of the regional
Ozone Advance Program (OAP) Action Plan. These goals are the following:
1. Remain in attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb);
2. Continue reducing the region’s 8-hour O3 design value to avoid being designated nonattainment
for a new ozone NAAQS;
3. Put the region in the best possible position to bring the area into attainment of an O3 standard
expeditiously if it does violate an ozone standard or gets designated nonattainment;
4. Reduce the exposure of vulnerable populations to air pollution when the region experiences
high O3 levels; and
5. Minimize the costs to the region of any potential future nonattainment designation.
There is $210,500 in funding available for 2016/2017 projects under the Regional Air Quality Grant.
Funding for these grants is being provided from the state’s “near-nonattainment grant” program to
areas that have air pollution levels that are attaining, but close to exceeding the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The funding was authorized under Rider 7 to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ’s) appropriations for the 2016-2017 biennium, and
are being provided by CAPCOG. Grant activities will take place between November 2016 and September
2017.
2. Timeline
Projects funded under these grants would be expected to be implemented between November 1, 2016,
and September 30, 2017. The following table shows the anticipated milestones for this grant program.
Table 1. Regional Air Quality Grant Timeline
Milestone Date(s)
Request for Proposals Issued Early July, 2016
Grant Writing Workshop Tues., July 26, 2016
Proposals Due to CAPCOG Fri., August 19, 2016
Proposal Review Committee Meets September 1–21, 2016
Executive Committee Approval of Grants Wed., October 12, 2016
Target Date for Execution of Grant Agreements Mon., October 31, 2016
FY 2017 Q1 Report Due to CAPCOG from Recipients Wed., December 14, 2016
FY 2017 Q2 Report Due to CAPCOG from Recipients Tue., March 14, 2017
FY 2017 Q3 Report Due to CAPCOG from Recipients Wed., June 14, 2017
FY 2017 Q4 Report Due to CAPCOG from Recipients Thu., September 14, 2017
Final Report due to CAPCOG from Recipients Fri., October 13, 2017
Page 62 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 3 of 12
1st Post-Grant Report Due Tue., January 18, 2018
2nd Post-Grant Report Due Fri. April 13, 2018
3rd Post-Grant Report Due Fri. July 13, 2018
4th Post-Grant Report Due Fri. October 12, 2018
3. How to Apply
Grant application forms are available from CAPCOG and can be obtained from the CAPCOG website, via
email, or the CAPCOG offices. A separate application form must be submitted for each individual project
proposed. In completing your application, read the instructions carefully. You will need to be concise,
and provide a sufficient level of detail to facilitate informed consideration of your proposed project.
Matthew Holderread, the grants coordinator at CAPCOG is available to assist interested parties during
the application process and may be contacted from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday at
mholderread@capcog.org or (512) 916-6185.
Return your completed application to mholderread@capcog.org by 5:00 pm, August 19, 2016.
4. Eligible Recipients
Except for state and federal agencies, any organization which is a member of the Central Texas Clean Air
Coalition (CAC) may apply for a grant. Organizations can join the CAC as either a general, or supporting
member depending on the type of organization, and the organizations level of commitment. All CAC
members make a commitment to participate in the Ozone Advanced Program (OAP) Action Plan. CAC
members may submit more than one application if they have multiple projects that support the goals of
the OAP Action Plan.
OAP participants as of June 30, 2016, include these organizations:
1. Bastrop County;
2. Caldwell County;
3. Hays County;
4. Travis County;
5. Williamson County;
6. City of Austin;
7. City of Bastrop;
8. City of Bee Caves;
9. City of Buda;
10. City of Cedar Park;
11. City of Elgin;
12. City of Georgetown;
13. City of Hutto;
14. City of Lakeway;
15. City of Leander;
Page 63 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 4 of 12
16. City of Lockhart;
17. City of Luling;
18. City of Pflugerville;
19. City of Round Rock;
20. City of San Marcos;
21. City of Sunset Valley;
22. Capital Area Planning Organization (CAMPO);
23. Capital Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (CapMetro);
24. Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA);
25. CLEAN AIR Force of Central Texas (CAF);
26. Lone Star Clean Fuels Alliance (LSCFA);
27. Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA);
28. Texas Lehigh Cement Company; and
29. Texas Nursery and Landscaping Association.
If any organization is willing to make a formal commitment to join the CAC prior to the closing date for
grant applications would also be considered eligible to apply. Any such organization would need to be
approved to join at the August 10, 2016, CAC meeting in order to be eligible to apply directly , and would
need to provide an official, signed resolution or letter to CAPCOG stating the organization’s desire to join
the CAC no later than Monday, August 1, 2016, in order to be considered for approval at this meeting.
Organizations that are not CAC general members or supporting members may partner with a CAC
general member or supporting member to make a grant application. The CAC member must be the lead
applicant and any organization partnering with the CAC member must have a formal subgrant
agreement with the CAC member. The CAC member must identify its role in supervising the subgrant
recipient’s activities as part of the grant application.
5. Geographic Restrictions
Activities funded under this grant program should be based primarily within Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays,
Travis, and Williamson Counties.
6. Eligible Activities
Activities eligible to be funded under these grants will include:
1. Activities that reduce the O3-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) or volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in the Austin-Round Rock MSA;
a. Example 1: solar panels, which reduce emissions from power plants;
b. Example 2: financial incentives for employees to carpool/vanpool;
c. Example 3: financial incentives for special events or construction firms to rent/use Tier 4
non-road equipment;
Page 64 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 5 of 12
2. Activities that shift ozone-forming emissions to periods less likely to contribute to high O3 in the
Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA);
a. Example 1: energy storage systems that would reduce the need to dispatch high-
emission peaker power plants in the middle of high O3 days;
b. Example 2: financial incentives to construction and landscaping firms to reschedule work
when TCEQ declares an O3 Action Day for the region;
3. Activities that assist in the tracking and reporting of activities that generate NOX or VOC or
activities that reduce NOX or VOC emissions in the Austin-Round Rock MSA;
a. Example 1: fleet management software that enables real-time tracking of engine idling,
vehicle speeds, routes, etc.;
b. Example 2: incentives to commuters to report/track their commuting patterns/habits;
c. Example 3: “smart meters” or sub-metering systems that would enable more fine-scale
data collection of electricity, natural gas, or water consumption;
4. Activities that assist in providing alerts or information to populations sensitive to O3 pollution;
a. Example 1: giving personal ozone monitoring devices to schools, senior centers,
hospitals, etc.; and
b. Example 2: production of outreach and education materials targeted at sensitive
populations helping them understand the air quality index (AQI).
7. Basis for Funding
Funds will be distributed on a reimbursement basis and only costs incurred during the grant period will
be eligible for reimbursement. Any grant funds awarded under this program that are not spent by
September 30, 2017, will be returned to CAPCOG. While no match or in-kind contribution is required for
a project to receive funding, a grant application’s commitment of its own resources will be considered in
scoring the projects for selection.
8. Grant Proposal Selection
Applications will be scored and ranked by a Review Committee consisting of members appointed by the
CAC. The committee will hold a scoring meeting in September that will be open to the public. Each
eligible applicant will be required to make a brief presentation on their application, and committee
members will score the application immediately following the presentation. The highest and lowest
scores for each application shall be thrown out and the average of the remaining scores will determine
the application’s overall score. Committee members will not be able to score applications submitted by
their own organization.
Applications will be reviewed and scored based on the following criteria:
1. To what extent does the proposal reduce the exposure of sensitive populations in the Austin-
Round Rock MSA to peak ozone levels? (50 points)
a. Will this project change habits or the way people perceive air quality concerns?
Page 65 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 6 of 12
b. Does the proposal reduce NOX emissions on high ozone days? If so, how much is the
estimated reduction?
c. Does the proposal reduce VOC emissions on high ozone days (VOC emissions reductions
are about 30 times less effective at reducing ozone than NOX emissions reductions on a
ppb/tpd basis)? If so, how much is the estimated reduction?
d. Is the timing of NOX or VOC emissions changed so that the emissions are less likely to
add to peak ozone concentrations? If so, how?
e. Would the proposal help sensitive populations (children, seniors, adults with asthma)
avoid exposure to high levels of air pollution when they do occur in the region?
f. How likely would the organization be to move forward with the proposal if it does not
receive any or all of the funding it requests?
2. Feasibility and Logistical Considerations (30 points)
a. Is this project “scalable” (i.e., could the scope of the project be easily adjusted based on
the availability of funds?)
b. Are all of the major steps or tasks involved in the proposed project clearly presented
and adequately described?
c. Are responsible entities and personnel for accomplishing each step or task identified?
d. Does the organization and personnel involved have a good track record for
managing/carrying out similar types of work?
e. How likely is it that the organization will successfully implement the proposal if awarded
the grant?
f. To what extent does the proposal create an administrative burden for CAPCOG in order
to supervise the work?
3. Co-benefits of proposed project (20 points):
a. To what extent has the applicant demonstrated an ability and intent to sustain the
program beyond the term of the grant?
b. To what extent does the project serve other regional goals (reduction in traffic
congestion, energy conservation, water conservation, etc.)?
c. To what extent does this project provide an innovative or unique solution or create
conditions that can enable activities that will advance the goals of the OAP Action Plan?
d. To what extent does this project provide a benefit for the whole region rather than just
one jurisdiction or community?
Final award of funds is subject to CAPCOG Executive Committee approval, scheduled for October 12,
2016. Each proposal’s score, ranking, and funding requested will be presented in rank order with the
expectation that projects will be funded down the list until all monies have been obligated. Any
remaining monies will be offered successively to the next ranked applicant until completely obligated.
Page 66 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 7 of 12
9. Grant Agreements
Grant recipients will be required to enter into standard legal Grant Agreements with CAPCOG, to ensure
that the approved work program of the project is followed. Among other provisions, the Grant
Agreements will include the following:
Grant funding will be provided on a reimbursement basis once a quarter, and all requests for
reimbursement must be handled through CAPCOG.
Grant recipients must agree to complete the reporting and monitoring requirements described
below, including allowing CAPCOG and TCEQ staff to perform on-site visits to monitor the progress
of the project.
10.Reporting and Grant Monitoring
During the grant period, each grant recipient will be required to submit a quarterly report to CAPCOG
within 10 business days of the end of a state fiscal quarter. The relevant state fiscal quarters for these
grants are the following:
State FY 2017 Q1: September 1, 2016 – November 30, 2016;
State FY 2017 Q2: December 1, 2016 – February 28, 2017;
State FY 2017 Q3: March 1, 2017 – May 31, 2017; and
State FY 2017 Q4: June 1, 2017 – August 31, 2017.
The grant recipient will also be required to submit a final report within 10 business days of the end of
the grant period (September 30, 2017).
Grant recipients will need to continue providing reports once a quarter for a period of 1 year after the
end of the grant program within 10 business days of the end of each of the following periods:
CAPCOG FY 2018 Q1: October 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017;
CAPCOG FY 2018 Q2: January 1, 2018 – March 31, 2018;
CAPCOG FY 2019 Q3: April 1, 2018 – June 30, 2018; and
CAPCOG FY 2018 Q4: July 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018.
Reports will document the progress and completion of project tasks and provide data on the results of
the project. The data to be reported will correspond to data required for the OAP Annual Report and
with the expectation of each project to demonstrate that the project is achieving the goals described in
the application. If the project includes equipment the grant recipient will be required to provide any
data available on the equipment’s usage once installed. If equipment-specific data are not available, the
grant recipient will be required to submit a record of electricity consumption or fuel usage for 12
months prior to installation at the meter associated with the equipment and will be required to submit
this data for each reporting period after the installation of the equipment and provide an accounting for
the relative share of electricity or fuel that the grant-funded equipment is estimated to account for the
records submitted during the reporting period.
Page 67 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 8 of 12
CAPCOG’s Grant Coordinator will conduct at least one site visit during the grant period to ensure that
data is being collected and reported properly and that procedures and policies are being followed. If
issues are identified during a monitoring visit, CAPCOG personnel will work with grant recipients to
develop solutions and get the project back on the right track. If equipment is purchased, CAPCOG will
verify installation through at least one site visit during the grant period.
11.Changes to Projects after Award
Any changes to projects after grant award would need to be approved by the Review Committee and
codified in an amended grant agreement with CAPCOG. Reimbursement amounts may be changed
based on the changes and availability of funding.
12.Applicable Statutes and Regulations
The conduct of projects funded under this program shall be in accordance with all applicable state and
local statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. The main governing standards, include, but are not be
limited to, the following:
Chapter 14 of the TCEQ Regulations (30 TAC Chapter 14);
The FY 2016-2017 near-nonattainment Grant Agreement between CAPCOG and TCEQ (582-16-
60181);
CAPCOG’s FY 2016-2017 near-nonattainment grant Proposal for Grant Activities (582-16-60851-01,
Amendment 1);
Uniform Grant Management Standards, Comptroller of Public Account, adopted June, 2004
(“UGMS”).
13.Expense Categories
Each grant application must include a budget with expense categories that correspond to those listed in
UGMS:
1. Personnel/Salaries. Wages and salaries to pay for direct staff time required to perform under the
grant. If the applicant proposed wage and salary expenses, it should identify applicable pay rates
and the number of hours anticipated for this project.
2. Fringe Benefits. Fringe benefits for personnel directly performing work under this grant that are
provided by the organization beyond wages and salaries required may be authorized in
accordance with UGMS.
3. Travel. Travel expenses directly related to the conduct of the funded program may be authorized in
accordance with UGMS and the terms of CAPCOG’s grant agreement with TCEQ.
4. Supplies. Expenses for supplies necessary for the conduct of the funded project include non-
construction related costs for goods and materials having a unit acquisition cost (including freight) of
less than $5,000. Such expenditures must generally relate to the routine purchase of office supplies
(paper, pencils, and staplers) or other goods which are consumed in a relatively short period of time,
in the regular performance of the general activities of the proposed project.
Page 68 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 9 of 12
5. Equipment. Equipment necessary and appropriate for the proposed project may be authorized in
accordance with UGMS and the terms of CAPCOG’s grant agreement with TCEQ. Expenses included
under the Equipment expense category should be for non-construction related, tangible, personal
property having a unit acquisition cost of $5,000 or more (including freight and set up costs) with an
estimated useful life of over one year. Any equipment that will be used for other projects or
activities, in addition to the funded project, may only be funded at an amount reflecting the
appropriate percentage of time that the equipment will be directly used for the funded project. The
special conditions and requirements set forth in the grant Contract (relating to Title to and
Management of Equipment and Constructed Facilities), also apply to equipment purchased with
pass-through grant funding. CAPCOG must explicitly approve the purchase of equipment prior to the
grant recipient placing an order for the equipment under this grant in order to be reimbursed.
6. Construction. Appropriate construction costs may be authorized. Expenses budgeted under this
category should be for costs related to the enhancement or building of permanent facilities. No
construction costs may be incurred by a pass-through grant recipient unless the construction details
are approved in advance by CAPCOG. Appropriate costs that may be included are:
The cost of planning the project;
The cost of materials and labor connected to the construction project;
The cost of equipment attached to the permanent structure; and
Any subcontracts, including contracts for services, performed as part of the construction.
7. Contractual Expenses. Professional services or appropriate tasks provided by a firm or individual
who is not employed by the pass-through grant recipient for conducting the funded project may be
authorized for subcontracting by the funds recipient. Applicable laws and regulations concerning
bidding and contracting for services must be followed .
8. Other Expenses. Other expenses, not falling under the main expense categories may be included, if
connected with the tasks and activities of the proposed project. The restrictions set f orth in the
UGMS and the main Grant Agreement between CAPCOG and TCEQ apply. CAPCOG must ensure that
expenses budgeted under this "Other" category are itemized by the grant recipient, and are fully
considered and evaluated by CAPCOG. Some expenses that may be appropriate include:
Postage/delivery
Telephone/FAX
Utilities
Printing/reproduction
Advertising/public notices
Signs
Training
Office space
Basic office furnishings
Computer Hardware (under $5,000 and not listed under the Equipment category)
Computer Software
9. Indirect. Indirect costs may be funded, if applicable to the project, in accordance with the UGMS.
If the project includes funding from any other source, that source and the share of each budget category
that the applicant is seeking from this grant must be clearly identified in the application.
Page 69 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 10 of 12
14.Types of Expenses That May Be Appropriate
Both operational expenses and administrative expenses are allowable as direct costs. All direct costs to
this grant must be identified specifically with the grant objective and directly related to at least one of
the five goals of the OAP Action Plan. All expenses claimed for reimbursement under this grant must
meet the terms of allowability in accordance with UGMS.
Page 70 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 11 of 12
Table 2. Examples of Direct and Administration Expenses
Goals Supported Examples of Direct Expenses Examples of Administration
Expenses
Stay in attainment (goal 1),
continue reducing the
region’s ozone design value
(goal 2), put region in best
position to come back into
attainment (goal 3),
Minimize costs of any future
nonattainment designation
(goal 5)
Transit passes
Financial incentives for
carpooling/vanpooling
Payments for a parking cash-
out program
A contract for an
“emergency ride home”
service for people who take
alternative commutes;
Staff time (and associated
fringe benefits) spent
conducting outreach to
encourage employees to use
alternative means of
commuting;
Equipment that will reduce
emissions;
Equipment that enables
improved activity
monitoring;
Labor costs for installing the
equipment;
Labor costs for
operating/maintaining the
equipment;
Any consumable supplies
directly needed for the
continued
operation/maintenance of
the equipment
Work involved in procuring
goods or services;
Processing invoices;
Writing grant reports
required as a part of this
grant;
Supervision of personnel or
contractors performing
direct work on the project
Reduce exposure of
vulnerable populations (goal
4)
Personal/compact air quality
monitoring devices
Outreach material designed
to promote awareness of the
Air Quality Index (AQI)
Salary and fringe benefits
associated with staff time
and mileage required to do
presentations to groups that
work with sensitive
populations
Work involved in procuring
goods or services;
Processing invoices;
Writing grant reports
required as a part of this
grant;
Supervision of personnel or
contractors performing
direct work on the project
Page 71 of 247
CAPCOG Regional Air Quality Grant RFA, July 8, 2016
Page 12 of 12
15.Questions
For any questions on this Request for Assistance, please direct them to CAPCOG’s Grants Coordinator
Matthew Holderread at mholderread@capcog.org or (512) 916-6185. CAPCOG will maintain a
“Response to Questions” document while this RFA is open and will post the responses online at
www.capcog.org/airquality.
Page 72 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appro ve a Resolution authorizing the vacati on and abandonment of a 0.037-acre
portion of an existing 1 0-foot P ubl i c Uti l i ty Easement out of Lot 3, B l ock A, P ark Meadow Secti on Tw o , a
subdivision of reco rd in Cabinet F, Slide 387, P lat Reco rds of Williamson County, Te xas, and to authorize the Mayo r to
execute a quitclaim deed -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City has received a request for the abandonment of a 0.03 7-acre portio n of an existing 10’ P ublic Utility Easeme nt
that bisects the subject property, which is lo cated at the west co rne r of Dawn Drive and P ark Me ado w Boulevard. The
property is currently used as parking, but is propo sed for development for comme rc ial use. The easement is situated in
such a way as to impede construction o f buildings on the property. There are no utilities curre ntly within the easeme nt
area, and other Public Utility Easements e xist along the outer bounds o f the lot. The pro posed resolution will authorize
the abandonme nt o f the Public Utility Easement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Travis Baird
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Res o lutio n P ac kage
Page 73 of 247
Page 74 of 247
Page 75 of 247
Page 76 of 247
Page 77 of 247
Page 78 of 247
Page 79 of 247
Page 80 of 247
Page 81 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m G eorg etow n Uti l i ty Systems Advi so ry B oard (G US):
Consideration and possible action to approve a bid award to mul ti pl e bi dders for Water and Wastew ater Treatme nt
Pl ant chemi cal s, at unit co sts for a period of up to 5 years – Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Directo r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this bid is to provide water and waste water treatment chemicals as part of the plant operations insourc ing.
Thirteen (13) bids were re c e ived. Lo west bid items were reviewed for compliance with the specifications and reference
checks were perfo rmed. The term of contract: Fo r o ne (1 ) year and may be renewed for four (4) one-year periods upon
review and approval by the City.
STAF F RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends award o f the bids to the low bidder fo r each item per attachment summary.
B OARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimo usly approved fo r reco mmendatio n to Co unc il by the GUS Board at their meeting held o n July 8,
2016.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total annual cost is the projected cost of chemicals upon historical treatment process vo lume. Funds for this
additional expe nditure are available in the water waste water treatment budget.
Fund - Chemicals Annual Budge t
660-5-0529-51-1 49 $586,570.00
660-5-0531-51-1 49 $135,000.00
SUBMITTED BY:
Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Recommendatio n Memo
S o licitation Summary Breakout
Bid Review S ummary
Page 82 of 247
Page 1 of 2
Solicitation Award Recommendation
To: David Thomison, Water Services Manager, GUS
Mike Welch, Plant Operations Superintendent, GUS
From: Deborah Knutson, CPPB – Senior Buyer, Purchasing
Date: June 28, 2016
Re: Recommendation for Solicitation # 201638 – Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
SUMMARY:
Due to the City’s Water Services Department resuming management of the water and wastewater treatment
facilities, it was determined that a solicitation was needed to obtain bids for water and wastewater treatment
chemicals. The solicitation was posted on the City’s Ion Wave bid system and 73 Vendors were invited to bid as
well as three (3) HUB vendors from the State of Texas’ CMBL. Thirteen (13) bids were received. Lowest bid
items were reviewed for compliance with the specifications and reference checks were performed. The term of
contract: Initial term shall begin on date of award and remain in full force for one (1) year and may be renewed
for four (4) one-year periods upon review and approval by the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of bids it is recommended that the following be awarded:
Lake Georgetown Surface Water Treatment Plant:
o Line Item # 1 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): FSTI, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.51/gallon
o Line Item # 2 (Aqualum 3004): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 5.9066/gallon
o Line Item # 3 (Aluminum Sulfate 48%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.5741/gallon
o Line Item # 4 (Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.8583/gallon
o Line Item # 5 (Sodium Permanganate 40%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 959.3321/drum
o Line Item # 6 (CLARIFLOC C-9545): Polydyne, Inc. - Unit Price $ 400.95/drum
Park Water Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 7 (Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.8583/gallon
o Line Item # 8 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): FSTI, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.51/gallon
o Line Item # 9 (Aluminum Sulfate 48%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.5741/gallon
South Side Water Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 10 (Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.8583/gallon
o Line Item # 11 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): FSTI, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.51/gallon
Page 83 of 247
Page 2 of 2
Domel Ground Water Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 12 (Chlorine Gas): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 98.00/cylinder
o Line Item # 13 (Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 1.9115/gallon
Dove Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 14 (CLARIFLOC C-6266): Polydyne, Inc. - Unit Price $ 400.95/drum
Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 15 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. – Unit Price $ 1.07/gallon
o Line Item # 16 (Aluminum Sulfate 48%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.5741/gallon
o Line Item # 17 (CLARIFLOC C-6286): Polydyne, Inc. - Unit Price $ 400.95/drum
San Gabriel Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 18 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): FSTI, Inc. - Unit Price $ 0.51/gallon
o Line Item # 19 (Sodium Bisulfite): NAPCO Chemical Company - Unit Price $ 1.90/gallon
Cimarron Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 20 (Sodium Hypochlorite 1.5%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 1.07/gallon
Berry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Line Item # 21 (Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 1.07/gallon
Stonewall Pump Station
o Line Item # 22 (Chlorine Gas): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 98.00/cylinder
Pastor Pump Station
o Line Item # 23 (Chlorine Gas): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 98.00/cylinder
Hoover Pump Station
o Line Item # 24 (Chlorine Gas): Brenntag Southwest, Inc. - Unit Price $ 98.00/cylinder
* Notes:
Line Item # 2 – Low Bidder (Chameleon) did not supply enough information to show chemical bid is equivalent
to chemical required in specifications; second lowest Bidder (Brenntag Southwest, Inc.) recommended.
Line Item # 5 – Low Bidder (Univar) bid incorrect chemical; second lowest Bidder (Shannon Chemical) bid a
FOB as Exton, PA, Leaving the City with liability of delivery; Third lowest Bidder (Brenntag Southwest, Inc.)
recommended.
Line Item # 13 – Low Bidder (Chemtrade) did not want to accept an award of only one line item; Second lowest
Bidder (Chameleon) did not want to accept an award of only one line item; Third lowest Bidder (Brenntag
Southwest, Inc.) recommended.
Line Item # 15 – Low Bidder (NAPCO) did not want to accept an award of this line item; second lowest Bidder
(Brenntag Southwest, Inc.) recommended.
Page 84 of 247
ITB No./Name: 201638 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
Solicitation Summary - Breakout
Lake Georgetown Surface WTP
1.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%214,615 $ 0.51 (FSTI) $ 109,453.65
$ 0.619
(Brenntag)132,846.69$
$ 0.7233
(DPC)155,231.03$
$ 0.76
(NAPCO)
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
2.Aqualum 3004
(Or approved equivalent) 7,000
$ 5.73
(Chameleon) (*
See # 4 below) $ 40,110.00
$ 5.9066
(Brenntag)41,346.20$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Equivalent Name:CI8840 Aqualum 3004
3.Aluminum Sulfate 48%152,736
$ 0.5741
(Brenntag) $ 87,685.74
$ 0.64
(Chameleon)97,751.04$
$ 0.6997
(Chemtrade)106,869.38$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
4.Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%32,829
$ 0.8583
(Brenntag) $ 28,177.13
$ 1.04
(Chameleon)34,142.16$
$ 1.207
(Chemtrade)39,624.60$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
5.Sodium Permanganate 40%
64
$ 666.875
(Univar)
(* See # 2 below) $ 42,680.00
$ 957.43
(Shannon) (See
# 3 below) 61,275.52$
$ 959.3321
(Brenntag)61,397.25$
$ 993.85 /
44.25 gal drum
(DPC)
$ 1,015.06
(Chemrite)
No Other
Bids
6.CLARIFLOC C-9545
(Or approved equivalent)12
$ 400.95
(Polydyne) $ 4,811.40
$ 572.04
(Sterling)6,864.48$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Equivalent Name:Clarifloc C-9545 Zetag 8848FS
Park WTP
7.Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%12,500
$ 0.8583
(Brenntag) $ 10,728.75
$ 1.04
(Chameleon)13,000.00$
$ 1.207
(Chemtrade)15,087.50$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
8.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%52,254 $ 0.51 (FSTI) $ 26,649.54
$ 0.619
(Brenntag)32,345.23$
$ 0.7233
(DPC)37,795.32$
$ 0.76
(NAPCO)
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
9.Aluminum Sulfate 48%4,811
$ 0.5741
(Brenntag) $ 2,762.00
$ 0.64
(Chameleon)3,079.04$
$ 0.6997
(Chemtrade)3,366.26$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
South Side WTP
10.Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%23,308
$ 0.8583
(Brenntag) $ 20,005.26
$ 1.04
(Chameleon)24,240.32$
$ 1.207
(Chemtrade)28,132.76$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
11.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%28,401 $ 0.51 (FSTI) $ 14,484.51
$ 0.619
(Brenntag)17,580.22$
$ 0.7233
(DPC)20,542.44$
$ 0.76
(NAPCO)
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Domel Ground WTP
12.Chlorine Gas 168
$ 98
(Brenntag) $ 164.64 $ 115 (DPC)19,320.00$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
13.Liquid Ammonia Sulfate 10%
6,000
$ 1.207
(Chemtrade) (See
# 5 below) $ 7,242.00
$ 1.25
(Chameleon)
(See # 4 below) 7,500.00$
$ 1.9115
(Brenntag)11,469.00$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Dove Springs WWTP
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: May 18, 2016 @ 2:00
Item
#Description
Est.
Annual
Qty
Estimated
Extended
Price
2nd Lowest
Price (Vendor) Estimated
Extended Price
3rd Lowest
Price
(Vendor)
Estimated
Extended Price
4th Lowest
(Vendor)
Lowest Price
(Vendor)
5th Lowest
(Vendor)
6th
Lowest
(Vendor)
1
Page 85 of 247
ITB No./Name: 201638 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
Solicitation Summary - Breakout
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: May 18, 2016 @ 2:00
Item
#Description
Est.
Annual
Qty
Estimated
Extended
Price
2nd Lowest
Price (Vendor) Estimated
Extended Price
3rd Lowest
Price
(Vendor)
Estimated
Extended Price
4th Lowest
(Vendor)
Lowest Price
(Vendor)
5th Lowest
(Vendor)
6th
Lowest
(Vendor)
14.CLARIFLOC C-6266
(Or approved equivalent)12
$ 400.95
(Polydyne) $ 4,811.40
$ 572.04
(Sterling)6,864.48$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Equivalent Name:Clarifloc C-6266 Zetag 8848FS
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Pecan Branch WWTP
15.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%1,226
$ 0.76 (NAPCO)
(See # 6 below) $ 931.76
$ 1.07
(Brenntag)1,311.82$ $ 1.27 (FSTI)1,557.02$
$ 1.44
(Commercial)
$ 1.7
(Univar)
$ 2.25
(DPC)
16.Aluminum Sulfate 48%37,407
$ 0.5741
(Brenntag) $ 21,475.36
$ 0.64
(Chameleon)23,940.48$
$ 0.6997
(Chemtrade)26,173.68$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
17.CLARIFLOC C-6286
(Or approved equivalent)24
$ 400.95
(Polydyne) $ 9,622.80
$ 572.04
(Sterling)13,728.96$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Equivalent Name:Clarifloc C-6286 Zetag 8848FS
San Gabriel WWTP
18.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%48,535 $ 0.51 (FSTI) $ 24,752.85
$ 0.619
(Brenntag)30,043.17$
$ 0.7233
(DPC)35,105.37$
$ 0.76
(NAPCO)
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
19.Sodium Bisulfite 6,450 $ 1.9 (NAPCO) $ 12,255.00
$ 2.09
(Commercial)13,480.50$ $ 2.59 (Univar)16,705.50$ $ 6 (PVS)
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Cimarron Hills WWTP
20.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%2,953
$ 1.07
(Brenntag) $ 3,159.71 $ 1.27 (FSTI)3,750.31$
$ 1.44
(Commercial)4,252.32$ $ 1.7 (Univar)
$ 2.25
(DPC)
No Other
Bids
Berry Creek WWTP
21.Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%8,535
$ 1.07
(Brenntag) $ 9,132.45 $ 1.27 (FSTI)10,839.45$
$ 1.44
(Commercial)12,290.40$ $ 1.7 (Univar)
$ 2.25
(DPC)
No Other
Bids
Stonewall Pump Station
22.Chlorine Gas 60
$ 98
(Brenntag) $ 5,880.00 $ 115 (DPC)6,900.00$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Pastor Pump Station
23.Chlorine Gas 60
$ 98
(Brenntag) $ 5,880.00 $ 115 (DPC)6,900.00$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
Hoover Pump Station
24.Chlorine Gas 48
$ 98
(Brenntag) $ 4,704.00 $ 115 (DPC)5,520.00$ No Other Bids -$ No Other Bids
No Other
Bids
No Other
Bids
2
Page 86 of 247
ITB No./Name: 201638 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
Solicitation Summary - Breakout
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: May 18, 2016 @ 2:00
Item
#Description
Est.
Annual
Qty
Estimated
Extended
Price
2nd Lowest
Price (Vendor) Estimated
Extended Price
3rd Lowest
Price
(Vendor)
Estimated
Extended Price
4th Lowest
(Vendor)
Lowest Price
(Vendor)
5th Lowest
(Vendor)
6th
Lowest
(Vendor)
Pmt.
Terms:FOB:Responsive Delivery in days
Emergency -
delivery cost
Net 30 Destination Yes 1 - 3 days $ -
Net 30 Georgetown, TX Yes 2- 3 days $ -
Net 30 Georgetown, TX Yes Not provided $ -
Net 30 Destination Yes 3 days $ -
Net 30 Destination Yes 2 days $ -
Net 30 Destination Yes 2 - 4 days $ -
Net 30 Delivered Yes 2 - 3 days $ 125.00
Net 30 Exton, PA Yes 7 - 10 days $ 500.00
Net 30 Destination Yes 2 - 10 days $ -
Net 30 Destination Yes 2 days $ -
Net 30 Destination Yes 2 - 3 days yes
Net 30 Georgetown, TX Yes 7 - 10 days yes if before 2
days
Net 30 Not provided Yes 3 - 5 days N/A
BID NOTES:
1. Kemira Water - No bid
2. Univar USA - DISQUALIFIED - Chemical Bid does not meet specifications.
3. Shannon Chemical - DISQUALIIFED - Liability Issue (FOB: Exton, PA).
5. Chemtrade Chemicals - (Line item # 13) Did not accept award of only one line item.
6. NAPCO Chemical Company - (Line item # 15) Did not want to accept this line item, only Line # 20.
7. Invitations sent to 77 Vendors
8. 6.67% Georgetown vendors
9. Sent to three (3) HUB vendors
10. Initial term one (1) year starts on Date of Agreement.
11. Renewals - four (4) additional 1 year renewals
12. Chemicals were reviewed by: [David Thomison & Water Services Manager/Water Services]
13. Bid Reviews done by: [David Thomison, Water Services Manager, GUS-Water Services; Richard Vicera, CH2M]
14. Detailed notes on evaluation worksheets in file
Chameleon Industries
Vendor
FSTI
Brenntag
Polydyne
NAPCO
Sterling Water
PVS Mini Bulk
4. Chameleon - (Line item # 2) DISQUALIFIED - Did not provide sufficient information to show equivalent. / (Line item # 13)
- Did not accept award of only one line item.
Chemtrade
Univar USA
Shannon Chemical
DPC Industries
Commercial Chemical
Chemrite
3
Page 87 of 247
ITB No./Name: 201638 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: May 18, 2016 @ 2:00
Bid Review Summary
Evaluation Category
Description Max Pts.FSTI Brenntag Polydyne NAPCO Chameleon
Industries Chemtrade Univar USA Shannon
Chemical
Pricing
(See Summary)50 50 50 50 50
Business History
and Experience as
per Bid Information
Form
(Attachment B)
30 30 30 30 30
Business References
as per Reference
Sheet (Attachment C)
20 20 19.7 20 20
100 100 99.7 100 100
Bid Review Team Members:
David Thomison
Richard Vicera
Reference Checks:
Deborah Knutson
Not Evaluated/Reviewed - (Low Bids reviewed first)
DISQUALIFIED
(Bid does not
meet specs)
DISQUALIFIED
(Liability issue
FOB: Exton,
PA)
DPC Industries
Commercial Chemical
Chemrite
Sterling Water
PVS Minibulk
DISQUALIFIED -
(Line item # 2 -
not enough info.
provided to show
equivalent) /
(Line Item # 13 -
did not want to
accept award of
only one line
item.)
Vendor did not
want to accept
award of only one
line item.
Page 88 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m G eorg etow n Uti l i ty Systems Advi so ry B oard (G US):
Consideration and possible action to approve a bid award to Sheri dan Envi ronmental for sl udge and bi o-sol i ds
transport and di sposal servi ces, at unit costs fo r a period o f up to 5 years - Glenn W. Disho ng, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The purpose of this bid is to provide sludge and bio-solids transport for disposal as part of the water waste water plant
operations insourc ing. The bid #201644 was reviewed June 21 , 2016 for compliance with the specifications and
reference chec ks were performed. The term o f co ntract: For one (1) year and may be rene wed for four (4) one -ye ar
periods upon review and approval by the City.
B OARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimo usly approved fo r reco mmendatio n to Co unc il by the GUS Board at their meeting held o n July 8,
2016.
STAF F RECOMMENDATIONS:
Upon review of bids it is recommended that the follo wing c ontract agreeme nt for sludge handling and dispo sal se rvic e s
be awarded to:
Sheri dan Envi ro nmental , LLC
o Li ne Item # 1 (Li qui d Sl udge Transportati on) – Uni t Pri ce $ 280.00 per l oad
o Li ne Item # 2 (B i o-sol i ds Transportati on and Di spo sal ) – Uni t P ri ce $ 30.50 per yard
o Li ne Item # 3 (B i o-sol i ds Transportati on and Di spo sal ) – Uni t P ri ce $ 48.50 per yard
o Li ne Item # 4 (Pro vi si o n of Bi o-sol i ds Storag e Contai ners) – Uni t Pri ce $ 0 .00 per mo nth
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total actual annual cost is the pro jected cost of sludge handling and disposal base d on historical treatment process
volume. Cost o f the sludge transport and disposal will be funded from the water and wastewater plant operations budget.
Name Fund Annual Budget
Water Sludge Disposal 660-5-0529-5 1-6 10 $ 9 1, 500.00
Wastewater Sludge Disposal 660-5-0531-51-6 10 $5 51,000.00
Combined Total Budget $6 42 ,500.00
SUBMITTED BY:
Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P ricing Bid Tab
Evaluation Wo rks heet
S o licitation Summary
Referenc es Chec ks
Recommendtio n Memo
Page 89 of 247
ITB No.: 201644
ITB Name: Sludge Hauling Services
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: June 21, 2016 @ 2:00 PM (CST)
Pricing Bid Tabulation
1. Liquid Sludge
Transportation 618 280.00$ 173,040.00$
2. Biosolids
Transportation &
Disposal (Price per Yard)10,380 30.50$ 316,590.00$
3. Biolosids
Transportation &
Disposal (Price per Ton)2,715 48.50$ 131,677.50$
4. Provision of Biosolids
Storage Containers 10 -$ -$
TOTAL $ 621,307.50
ITEM#
Annual
Estimated
Quantity
Sheridan Environmental, LLC
Unit Price Extended Price
TERMS Net 30
FOB N/A
Addendum 1
FOR REFERENCE ONLY - This document summarizes proposals received and some key pieces of information
which may be located with a brief examination of the proposals, and is not intended to replace a complete
detailed evaluation of each proposal.Page 90 of 247
ITB No.: 201644
ITB Name: Sludge Hauling Services
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: June 21, 2016 @ 2:00 PM (CST)
Evaluation Worksheet
Evaluation Category
Description
Max
Pts.Vendor # 1
Pricing as per Bid
Form
(Attachment A)
50
Total Price:621,307.50$
Business History and
Experience as per Bid
Information Form
(Attachment B)
30 30
Business References
as per Reference
Sheet (Attachment C)
20 20
100 100
Reviewed for compliance:
David Thomison
Reference Checks:
Deborah Knutson
Checklist
Copy of Bid Document (page 1)
Addendum No. 1 Acknowledgement
Completed Bid Form (Revised)
Completed Bidder's Information Form
Completed Reference Sheet
1 original / 3 copies
Copy of Licenses/Certificates/permits
Copy of Spill Plan
Subcontractor info (if applicable)
Co-Op Contract Info?N/A
W-9, 1295, Ins. (Upon award)N/A
HUB?No
Georgetown Vendor?No
50
Page 91 of 247
ITB No.: 201644
ITB Name: Sludge Hauling Services
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: June 21, 2016 @ 2:00 PM (CST)
Solicitation Summary
ITEM#Sheridan Environmental, LLC
TOTAL PRICE
(per annual estimated
quantities)
621,307.50$
TERMS Net 30
FOB N/A
Addendum 1
Recommended Best Value:
Sheridan Environmental, LLC
Total Points 100
Rating 1
Bid Notes:
BID NOTES:
1. Invitations sent to 247 Vendors
2. 3.64 % Georgetown vendors (9)
3. 17.81% HUB vendors (44)
4. Sent to zero (0) State of Texas CMBL HUB Vendors - None in Williamson County
5. Initial term - one (1) year starting on date of Agreement.
6. Renewals - four (4) additional one (1) year renewals
7. Bid reviewed by David Thomison, Water Services Manager, GUS-Water Services
8. Detailed notes on evaluation worksheets in file
Page 92 of 247
ITB No.: 201644
ITB Name: Sludge Hauling Services
Division: GUS - Water Services
Opening Date: June 21, 2016 @ 2:00 PM (CST)
Reference Checks Summary - Past Performances
Reference Criteria Max Points
Responsiveness to the City:4
Submitted references similar with
similar scope/organizations Yes Yes
Submitted correct # of references with
all contact info.Yes Yes
General:4
Number of years doing buisness with
Vendor 5 yrs 5 yrs
Vendor in Good Standing Yes Yes
Quality of Product:4
Products in compliance with
requirements Yes Yes
Quality of Services 4
Ability to meet scheduled deadlines Yes Yes
Accurate & Timely invoicing Yes Yes
Customer Service 4
Proactive behavior with entity
(followup & keeping customer
informed)Yes Yes
Flexibility (Were Emergency orders
placed, and how handled)
Flexible /
No ER
orders
Flexible /
No ER
orders
Total Points:20
Sheridan Environmental,
LLC
Sheridan's Subcontractor:
Wastewater Transport
Services, LLC
4 4
4 4
20 20
20
4 4
4 4
4 4
Page 93 of 247
Page 1 of 1
Solicitation Award Recommendation
To: David Thomison, Water Services Manager, GUS
Mike Welch, Plant Operations Superintendent, GUS
From: Deborah Knutson, CPPB – Senior Buyer, Purchasing
Date: June 23, 2016
Re: Recommendation for Solicitation # 201644 – Sludge Hauling Services
SUMMARY:
Due to the City’s Water Services Department resuming management of the water and wastewater treatment
facilities, it was determined that a solicitation was needed to obtain bids for sludge and biosolids transport and
disposal. The solicitation was posted on the City’s Ion Wave bid system and 247 Vendors were invited to bid.
There were no HUB vendors from the State of Texas’ CMBL site for Williamson County. One (1) bid was
received. The bid was reviewed for compliance with the specifications and reference checks were performed.
The term of contract: Initial term shall begin on date of award and remain in full force for one (1) year and may
be renewed for four (4) one-year periods upon review and approval by the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of bids it is recommended that the following be awarded:
Sheridan Environmental, LLC
o Line Item # 1 (Liquid Sludge Transportation) – Unit Price $ 280.00 per load
o Line Item # 2 (Biosolids Transportation and Disposal) – Unit Price $ 30.50 per yard
o Line Item # 3 (Biosolids Transportation and Disposal) – Unit Price $ 48.50 per yard
o Line Item # 4 (Provision of Biosolids Storage Containers) – Unit Price $ 0.00 per month
Page 94 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the G eo rgetown Transportati on Advi sory Board (G TAB):
Consideration and possible action to award the annual bi d f o r G rade #4 and #5 chi p se al trap rock ordered and
delivered o n an as needed basis to Vul can Constr ucti o n Materi al s LLC of San Antonio Tx. in the e stimated amount of
$126,603.00 -- Edward G. P olasek, AICP, Transpo rtation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were re c e ive d for bid ite m “201643 ” on June 7 th, 20 14 to provide the City with Grade #s 4 and 5 Type B per TxDOT
specification 300 Surface Course trap rock. Numero us companies were notified of the bid with o ne business
responding. Trap sto ne is only available in a few locations within the State. This aggre gate is used for in-house two co urse
chip seals treatme nts identified in the annual Stre e t Maintenance Capital Improveme nt Pro gram.
G TAB B OARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Counc il approval at the July 08, 2016 GTAB Bo ard
meeting.
STAF F RECOMMENDATION:
The aggregate per ton price is slightly lower than last year. Staff favors the re c ommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this purchase will come from account number 10 0-5 -0846-52-806 “rehabilitation”
SUBMITTED BY:
Jana Kern on behalf o f Mark Miller
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
street lo cations
S treet Names
Page 95 of 247
WA
L
N
U
T
ST
S
M
I
T
H
B
R
A
N
C
H
B
L
V
D
T
R
AILSENDDR
ASH
S
T
O
LI
V
E
S
T
R A B B I T H O L L O W L N
C A P R O C K P L
E 1 8 T H S T
R
I
F
L
E
B
E
N
D
D
R
PLE A S A N T V A L L E Y D R
P
L
A
T
E
A
U
T
R
L
E 1 9 T H S T
L
A
U
R
E
L
ST
E 16 T H S T
EL
M
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
R A I N T R E E
D R
E 3 R D S T
PI
NE
ST
C A N D L E R I D G E T R L
E 4 T H S T
E 2 0 T H S T
E 5 T H S T
JAN
L
N
V
I
N
E
S
T
PAIG
E
ST
E 2 ND S T
C
AROLCT
W
IL
B
A
R
G
E
R
P
T
P
I
R
A
T
E
C
V
E22 N DST W
I
N
C
H
E
S
T
ERDR
L
E
E
D
S
C
A
S
T
L
E
W
A
L
K
WILCOWAY
C O T T O N T A I L
L N
E 8 T H S T
PERKIN S P L
M O T T E YSTA
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
L
M O U L I N S L N
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T H
A
V
E
N
L
N
K
A
T
Y
L
N
ER U T ER
S
V
I
L
L
E
D
R
E17THST
F
M
1
4
6
0
E15T HST
E 7 T H S T
Q U AIL
V A LLEY
DR
H
U
TTORD
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
H I G H
T E C HDR
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
E 2 1 S T S T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
M
I
T
H
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
SE
INNER
LOOP
SAM HOUSTON AVE
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
2016 Chip Seal Program
!!I
0 1,000 2,0 00500Fe et
Cit y of Geo rge tow n
Leg en d
2016 Chip Seal
Georgetown City Limit s
Page 96 of 247
Page 97 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to adopt the pro po sed 20 17 property tax rate on a future agenda and to set dates fo r
two publ i c heari ngs -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
State law requires that all taxing jurisdictions participate in the process of Truth-In-Taxatio n. When a proposed prope rty
tax rate exceeds the lower of 100 percent of the e ffe c tive rate or the rollback rate, the Council must adopt a maximum
proposed tax rate that it will consider. State law requires that the vote to adopt a pro pose d maximum rate must be a roll
call vote, indicating any absences from the dais. Eve n tho ugh the Council votes to c onsider a proposed tax rate above the
effective rate, the Council may, as a result of delibe ratio ns, adopt a tax rate at or below the rate stated in the published
notices.
The Effective Rate is $0.39364. The Rollback Rate is $0.42739. The proposed tax rate fo r FY20 17 of $0.42400 is
greater than the Effe ctive Rate. Therefore, the City Council will publish notices and hold two public hearings.
There are two mo tions belo w. The first is to set the maximum property tax rate and the date when the Council will vote on
the adopted pro pe rty tax rate used in funding the City’s Annual Budget.
The second mo tion below is to set two public hearing dates o n the property tax rate .
The language inc luded in both motions is require d by State law.
CITY MANAG ER’S P ROP OSED RATE:
(1) Vote to set the maxi mum property tax r ate of $0.42400 cents per $10 0 val uati on, equal i ng $0.196 66
cents for Mai ntenance and Operati on and $0.2 27 34 cents for Debt Servi ce, and adopt the tax rate as an
acti on i tem at the August 23, 2016 Counc i l meeti ng to be hel d at 6 p.m. at Ci ty Co unci l Chambers, at the
northeast co rner o f Seventh and Mai n Streets, G eorgetow n, TX.
AND
(2) Set the date for 2 publ i c heari ngs on the property tax rate, as requi r e d by l aw, to be hel d on Tuesday,
August 9 at 6 :00 p.m. and on Tuesday, Aug ust 16 at 6:00 p.m. at Ci ty Co unc i l Chambers, at the northeast
corner o f Se venth and Mai n Streets, Ge org e tow n, TX.
This is a record vo te, meaning the voting record fo r this item will be published with the required notices. This item only
sets the item to be vo ted o n and does not commit Council to adopting the proposed rate .
COMMENTS:
The Williamson Ce ntral Appraisal District (WCAD) c ertified the tax roll on July 2 0, 2 01 6.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director - kj
Page 98 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Forwarded fro m the Co nventi on & Vi si tors B ureau B oard
Consideration and possible action to approve a contr act for sponsorshi p of The Daytri pper w i th Chet G arner, a
Georgetown based business, in the amount of $60 ,00 0.0 0 -- Cari Miller, Tourism Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Daytripper is a Texas travel show starring Chet Garner. The Daytripper has be e n a Geo rgetown based business since
2012 and is loc ate d in Do wntown Georgetown.
P artnering with The Daytripper will further strengthen Georgetown’s image as a Texas to urist destination and
compliments the CVB’s current advertising and public relations missio n to attrac t leisure and business travelers to
Georgetown to experience and enjoy our history, c ulture, and attractions.
Sponsorship of The Daytripper combines a far-re aching te levisio n presence, social media collaboration, online
advertising, and personality into one package. This is o ne way to gain immediate brand recognition and goodwill ac ross
numerous fronts. By sponsoring The Daytripper, Georgetown will re c e ive a prese nce in eve ry market in Te xas (and
beyond). Sponsorship of The Daytripper is limited to six partners and Georgetown will be the exclusive Central Texas
CVB sponsor.
The Daytripper is broadcast on all 12 PBS stations in Texas and reaches 95 % o f Texas homes. The show is also broadc ast
in 22 additional states.
Below are the benefits Georgetown will receive by partnering with The Daytripper.
Broadcast - Two 1 0-second spots built-in to all 1 3 episodes which will air and rerun multiple times. During 2 01 5
“The Daytripp er” aired a total of 3,264 time s (3,2 64 airings) x (2 spots per airing ) = 6,528 total spots.
On-line & PBS App Spo ts - Two 10 seco nd spots in all 13 episodes with unlimited o n-demand viewing. Durin g
2015 “Th e Daytripp er” was streamed 76 ,39 1 times.
The Daytripper Website – Georgetown Logo and Hyperlink to VisitGeorgetown.c om on e very page of The
Daytrippe r website. During 2015, “The Da y trip per.co m”received 799,30 7 u niqu e pa geviews.
The Daytripper Newsletter- Georgetown Logo and Hyperlink to VisitGeorgetown.com in The Daytripper Monthly
Newslette r. 1 0,4 00 + subscribers, 33% op e n rate
On-line Pro mo tion - Opportunities to promote visiting Georgetown on Daytripper blog, website, and social media.
Three Appe arances and Hosting by Chet Garne r.
Eight Daytripper t-shirts.
This item was appro ved unanimously at Conventio n & Visito rs Bureau Board meeting on June 10 .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the CVB Operating Expense budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
Cari Miller, To urism Manager - BH
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Daytrip p er Contrac t
Page 99 of 247
Underwriter Agreement – Season Eight “The Daytripper” 1
THE DAYTRIPPER SEASON 8
UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT
This Underwriting Agreement dated, ______________, is made by and between:
(a) Hogaboom Road, Inc. (“Hogaboom”), with offices located at 711 S. Main St.,
Georgetown, TX 78626 and
(b) Georgetown Convention and Visitor’s Bureau of the City of Georgetown
(“Underwriter”), with offices located at 103 W. 7th St., Georgetown, TX 78627.
1. Purpose: Hogaboom is currently producing Season Eight of “The Daytripper”, a
Texas travel show to be aired on PBS stations and streamed online. Underwriter
desires to underwrite the broadcast of Season Eight.
2. Season Eight: Season Eight of “The Daytripper” will consist of thirteen episodes.
Each episode will be approximately 26 minutes and 46 seconds (26:46) in length
and will be broadcast at a time to be determined by the stations and shall be
rebroadcast at the stations’ discretion.
3. Underwriting Benefits: Underwriter will receive the following benefits:
a. Promotional Spot: Underwriter will receive a 10-second underwriting
credit (the “Credit”) appearing before and after each television broadcast
and online stream of any episode from Season Eight of “The Daytripper”
during the term of this Agreement. Underwriter’s Credit will appear in no
particular order with the other underwriters. To produce the Credit,
Underwriter shall provide to Hogaboom a high quality digital copy of
Underwriter’s logo and/or high definition video footage along with its
preferred language. Underwriter and Hogaboom will then mutually
determine the content and form of the Credit, subject to PBS approval.
b. Interactive: Underwriter will be receive: (1) logo and hyperlink on every
page of The Daytripper’s website at “thedaytripper.com; (2) promotion of
products and/or services on The Daytripper’s website in a mutually
agreeable fashion; and (3) partnership promotion through social media
channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube).
c. Personal Appearances: Underwriter will receive three personal
appearances from “The Daytripper” host Chet Garner at mutually
agreeable dates and locations. Travel and expenses will be covered by and
paid separately by Underwriter.
d. Print and Press Materials: Underwriter will be recognized as a sponsor in
all print materials and/or press materials relating to Season Eight, if any,
distributed during the term of this Agreement.
Page 100 of 247
Underwriter Agreement – Season Eight “The Daytripper” 2
e. T-shirt: Underwriter will receive logo placement on Season Eight T-shirt.
f. Exclusivity: Underwriter shall be the exclusive underwriter for the
broadcast of Season Eight of “The Daytripper” in the category of
destination marketing organizations in Central Texas and the Texas Hill
Country.
4. Payment: In consideration for the Underwriting Benefits, Underwriter shall pay
Hogaboom a total of $60,000 (sixty thousand dollars) payable upon mutually
agreeable terms.
5. Term: The "Term" of this Agreement shall be from the signing of this Agreement
until September 30, 2017 with benefits for Underwriter commencing around
October 1, 2016. Each party shall have the right to terminate earlier based on a
material breach by the other party that is not cured appropriately under the
circumstance.
6. Approval: Each party shall have prior approval over any use of its name and
marks by the other party. Such prior approval does not extend to the use of
Underwriter’s logo or credit on the internet due to the quickly changing nature of
this medium. However, Underwriter will have the right the object to the use of its
name and/or marks at any time and the parties’ will quickly resolve any issues.
All aspects of Underwriter’s sponsorship of “The Daytripper”, including the
Credit, shall be in accordance with PBS guidelines and policies and FCC rules
and regulations in force at the time of broadcast.
7. Ownership: Hogaboom, and/or its affiliates, shall own all rights to “The
Daytripper” program, trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property.
Underwriter shall retain all rights to Underwriter’s trademarks and intellectual
property used in connection with “The Daytripper” program.
8. Miscellaneous: Each party represents and warrants that any materials it furnishes
for use by the other party do not infringe or violate the rights of any third party.
To the extent allowed under State law, each party shall indemnify the other from
any damages due to a third party claim arising out of a breach of this Agreement.
All notices and requests for approval under this Agreement shall be sent to the
other party via mail or email with an actual acknowledgement of receipt by the
recipient. In the event that production or broadcast of the Program is delayed or
canceled by reason of an act of God or other “force majeure” beyond Hogaboom's
control, Hogaboom shall work with the stations to arrange for broadcast
distribution as soon as practicable, but such shall not constitute a breach. The
persons signing this Agreement warrant that they have the authority to do so and
are voluntarily entering into this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the
entire agreement between the Parties and if a term is not in this document it is not
part of the parties’ agreement. Changes to this Agreement may be made only in
writing and signed by both parties. This Agreement shall be construed by Texas
law.
Page 101 of 247
Underwriter Agreement – Season Eight “The Daytripper” 3
(Continued from previous page)
ACCEPTED AND AGREED
Hogaboom Road, Inc.
Signature:___________________________
Name:______________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:_______________________________
City of Georgetown
Signature:____________________________
Name:_______________________________
Title:________________________________
Date:________________________________
Page 102 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Publ i c Heari ng and Fi rst Readi ng of an Ordinanc e to rezone approximately 2.3 ac r e s in the Lewis J. Dyches Survey,
located at 4 Si erra Way Street, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-
A, Planning Dire c to r (acti on requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The applicant has re quested to rezone the developed 2 .3 ac re lot from Agriculture (AG) District, assigned at time of
annexation in 2 00 8, to Industrial (IN) District in o rde r to make the existing use of the pro perty conforming.
Publ i c Comment:
To date, no written public co mments have been received.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff recommends appro val o f the request to rezo ne the 2 .3 acre lot to the IN Distric t.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At the ir July 5th, 2016 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commissio n unanimously recommended to the City Council
approval (4-0) to re zo ne the 2.3 acres to the IN distric t. Commissioners Pitts, Bargaine r and Rankin were absent.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No studies have be e n completed at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carolyn Horne r, AICP, and So fia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Attachment 1 - Lo catio n Map
Attachment 2 - F uture Land Us e Map
Attachment 3 - Zo ning Map
Attachment 4 - IN Dis tric t Uses and Standard s
Ordinanc e
Exhib it A
Exhib it B
Page 103 of 247
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 1 of 6
Report Date: July 1, 2016
File No: REZ‐2016‐019
Project Planner: Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Hache Investments Building
Location: 4 Sierra Way
Total Acreage: 2.3 acres
Legal Description: Georgetown Technology Park Lot
4
Existing Use: Manufacturing
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: Industrial (IN)
Future Land Use: Community Commercial and
Employment Center
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone the subject property from the Agriculture (AG) District
to the Industrial (IN) District. The property was annexed in 2008 and assigned the default AG
District. The requested rezoning would place the existing uses into the proper zoning district
and correct their legal non‐conforming status. No new construction is proposed at this time.
Site Information
Location:
The subject property is located on the east side of the northbound IH‐35 frontage road
between Blue Springs Boulevard and Fox Drive. See Exhibit 1.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject property, which is within the Georgetown Technology Park subdivision, is
generally flat with no physical features. All lots currently gain access from Sierra Way, a cul‐
de‐sac from the interstate frontage road.
Inner Loop
Sierra Way
Page 104 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 2 of 6
Surrounding Properties:
The subject property is in the platted Georgetown Technology Park, otherwise known as an
‘industrial or business park’, despite the various zoning designations within it. Surrounding
this subdivision is largely undeveloped parcels awaiting development. To the south is a mix
of vacant land and several higher‐intensity commercial type uses on the frontage road. The
area to the east is comprised of very large properties in the City’s ETJ, and are vacant or used
as rural residential. North of Sierra Way are two mobile/manufactured home sales businesses.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North AG, Agriculture Community Commercial,
Employment Center Commercial Use
South AG, Agriculture Community Commercial,
Employment Center Industrial Use
East AG, Agriculture Employment Center Vacant/Industrial
West AG, Agriculture /
IN, Industrial Community Commercial Industrial Use
Page 105 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 3 of 6
Property History
The subject property is part of the Georgetown Technology Park Subdivision, platted in 1992.
The property was annexed into the City on December 9, 2008 (Annexation Ordinance 2008‐
083) as part of a large involuntary annexation that totaled 69 acres out of the F.A. Hudson and
L.J. Dyches Surveys and portions of the B&T Subdivision and Georgetown Technology Park
Subdivision.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located within a future land use transition area of Employment Center
and Community Commercial. The Community Commercial designation is intended for areas
that accommodate retail, professional offices, and service oriented business activities that
serve more than one residential neighborhood. The Employment Center designation is for
tracts of undeveloped land located at strategic locations, which are designated for well
planned, large scale employment and business activities. The existing development is much
more a “business” park than an “industrial” park, hosting mostly indoor and ‘clean’ industrial
type uses. The subject property is developed with professional office uses.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A (Developed, Redeveloping), which is
the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically
provided, and where the bulk of the City’s growth should be guided over the near term.
Utilities
Electric, water and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that
Page 106 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 4 of 6
there is adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer
participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Transportation
The subject property has 245 feet of street frontage on Sierra Way and approximately 345 feet
of frontage on Courtney Drive. Sierra Way is a cul‐de‐sac street only accessible from the
north‐bound IH‐35 frontage road, just south of the Exit 259 North‐bound ramp. Courtney
Drive diverts off of Sierra Way to the south, and will likely connect to a large undeveloped
parcel to the south that is currently in the City’s ETJ. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not
deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, as the site is largely developed, and no new
development has been proposed following this rezoning. Should any new development be
proposed in the future, and a site plan is submitted, trip generation will be reviewed at that
time, possibly triggering the need for a TIA.
Proposed Zoning District
The IN District is intended to provide a location for manufacturing and industrial activities
that may generate some nuisances. Traffic generation often includes heavy vehicles, making
access to an arterial or freeway necessary. Unless separated by a major roadway, the district is
not appropriate adjacent to any residential areas. Typical uses would include contractor
services, manufacturing and warehousing operations, and materials and natural resource
processing. General (Professional) office uses are permitted by right in this district. See
Exhibit 4 for a full list of uses.
Staff Analysis
Located within a future land use transition area, the properties located along Sierra Way most
closely reflect the goals of the Employment Center land use designation. Given the existing
type of development and the incongruity with the base Agriculture zoning, the proposed
district is appropriate and supportive of the City’s larger goals for job creation that these two
categories encompass.
Specifically, Goal 1, Policies and Actions 1.A, states “Encourage a balanced mix of residential,
commercial, and employment uses at varying densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition
from urban to suburban to rural development.” The rezoning will allow compatible uses
consistent with the development patterns in the area.
Page 107 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 5 of 6
UDC Section 3.06.030 establishes the following criteria for zoning changes:
The application is complete and the
information contained within the application is
sufficient and correct enough to allow
adequate review and final action
An application must provide the necessary
information to review and make a knowledgeable
decision in order for staff to schedule an
application for consideration by P&Z and City
Council. This application was reviewed by staff
and deemed to be complete.
The zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change is consistent with the
Future Land Use of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The zoning change promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City
The zoning change request promotes health, safety
and general welfare of the City because it supports
orderly development by placing zoning districts in
the appropriate location.
The zoning change is compatible with the
present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding zoning districts, specifically those
located to the north and south of the site.
The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses
permitted by the District that would be applied
by the proposed amendment.
The uses allowed in the RS District are appropriate
at this location given the majority of the existing
land uses surrounding the property are single
family residential.
Findings:
Based on the information presented, staff has made the following findings:
1. The Industrial District is the appropriate non‐residential district for an existing
industrial/business park. Most of the other lots on Sierra Way that have been annexed;
most have been rezoned to the Industrial District, and therefore this rezoning request will
be consistent with the surrounding area in terms of the types of uses that will be
established.
2. The property is located on a cul‐de‐sac, with access from the northbound Interstate 35
frontage road. The surrounding uses are non‐residential, with limited traffic onto the
frontage road.
3. The subject property is developed with a building and uses that would be permissible in
the proposed district, alleviating legal non‐conforming status of the existing uses.
4. The rezoning request will help rectify incongruous zoning district situations as seen in this
subdivision.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request rezoning based on the above‐mentioned findings.
Page 108 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
REZ‐2016‐019 Hache Investments Building‐AG to IN Page 6 of 6
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius
of the subject property and within City jurisdiction (6 notices mailed) were notified of the
rezoning application, a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper and a sign was posted on‐site.
To date, staff has received zero phone calls, and zero written or verbal comments in support
or against the applicant’s rezoning proposal.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – Industrial District Standards & Uses
Page 109 of 247
§¨¦35
Leander R d
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
S E I n n e r L o o p
SamHoustonAve
")1460
Tera vi s t a X i n g
Teravista C l u b D r
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
R
a
b
b
it
H
I
l
l
R
d
REZ-2016-019Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 110 of 247
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
S E I N N E R L O O P
BLUE S P R I N G SBLVD
§¨¦35
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2
REZ-2016 -019
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Em ployment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼½¾Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity Lim itsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 111 of 247
S E I N N E R L O O P
BLUE S P R I N G SBLVD
§¨¦35
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-019Exhibit #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼½¾MiPage 112 of 247
Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 30 feet with a fence and
Side Setback = 10 feet plantings adjacent to AG, RE, RL,
Side Setback to Residential = 25 feet RS, TF, MH, TH, MF‐1, or MF‐2
Rear Setback = 10 feet districts
Rear Setback to Residential = 35 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Emergency Services Station Business/Trade School Correctional Facility
Government/Post Office Animal Shelter Hospital
Naure Presreve/Community Garden Neighborhood Public Park Psychiatric Hospital
Food Catering Services Kennel Substance Abuse Clinic
Athletic Facility, Indoor/Outdoor Self‐Storage, Outdoor Cemetery, Columbaria, Mausoleum,
Driving Range Heliport or Memorial Park
Medical Complex Wireless Transmission Facility (>40') Sexually Oriented Business
General Office Seasonal Product Sales Major Event Entertainment
Integrated Office Center Farmer's market, Temporary Indoor Firing Range
Data Center Mobile/Outdoor Food Vendor Fuel Sales
Artisan Studio/Gallery Business Offices, Temporary Car Wash
Small Engine Repair Concrete Products, Temporary Airport
Self‐Storage, Indoor Construction Field Office Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Commercial Document Storage Construction Staging, Off‐site Resource Extraction
Event Catering/Equipment Rental Parking Lot, Temporary Oil Refinery/Distribution
Furniture Repair/Upholstery Waste Related Uses
Heavy Equipment Sales/Repair Wrecking, Scrap, Salvage yard
Pest Control/Janitorial Services
Office/Showroom
Wholesale Showrooms
Stone/Dirt/Mulch Sales Yards
Manufactured Housing Sales
Car Sales/Rental/Leasing Facility
Car Parts/Accessories Sales, Outdoor
Car Repair/Service, Limited
Bus Barn
Parking Lot, Off‐site/Commercial
Park‐n‐Ride Facility
Private Transport Service
Dispatch Facility
Rail or Transit Yard Allowed by Right con't
Transit Passenger Terminal
Utilities (Minor, Intermediate, Major) Truck Terminal
Contractor Services, Limited/General Lumber Yard
Movie Production Dry Cleaning/Laundry Plant
Printing/Publishing Asphalt/Concrete Batch Plant
Office/Warehouse Recycling Collection Center
Manufacturing, Processing and Meat Market
Assembly, Limited/General Taxidermist
Warehouse/Distribution, Limited/General
INDUSTRIAL (IN) DISTRICT
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 113 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Lot 4, Georgetown Technology Park, from AG to IN Case File Number: REZ-2016-019
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone approximately 2.3 acres,
located in the Lewis J. Dyches Survey, platted as Lot 4 of the Georgetown
Technology Park subdivision, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Industrial (IN) District, also known as Hache Investments Building;
repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability
clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property (ʺThe Propertyʺ):
Lot 4 of the Georgetown Technology Park subdivision, as recorded in Document
Number 1992011352 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas,
hereinafter referred to as ʺThe Propertyʺ; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on July 5, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on July 26, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the Agriculture District (AG) to the Industrial District (IN), in
accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description) and
incorporated herein by reference.
Page 114 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Lot 4, Georgetown Technology Park, from AG to IN Case File Number: REZ-2016-019
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 26th day of July, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 9th day of August, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 115 of 247
§¨¦35
Leander R d
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
S E I n n e r L o o p
SamHoustonAve
")1460
Tera vi s t a X i n g
Teravista C l u b D r
W e s ti n g h o u s e R d
R
a
b
b
it
H
I
l
l
R
d
REZ-2016-019Exhibit #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
Le ge ndSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 116 of 247
Page 117 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Second Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezone 67.8 64 acres o f the William Addison Surve y lo cated at 801 Carl son Cove
from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Reside ntial Single-Family (RS) District -- So fia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director (acti on r e qui red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The applicant has requested to rezone the site from the Agric ulture (AG) District to the Residential Single -Family (RS)
District. The requested rezoning would provide the property owners permitted uses allo wed by the RS District.
Publ i c Comment:
To date, staff has received a to tal of seven phone calls fro m ne ighbo ring property o wners and pro spective ho me buye rs
requesting general informatio n about the rezo ning application. Staff received one e mail in support of the requested RS
District. Staff has also received one email and one letter in oppositio n to rezoning the pro perty fo r reside ntial purpose s.
Staff received an additional three le tters in oppositio n to the rezoning request after the last City Council meeting on July
12, 2016.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezo ne the 6 7.8 64 acre tract to the RS District.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At their June 21 , 2016 meeting, the Planning and Zo ning Commission recommended to the City Council approval (4 -0)
to rezone the 67 .86 4 acres to the RS District. Co mmissioners P itts, Bargainer, and Rankin were absent.
Ci ty Counci l Fi rst Readi ng Acti on:
At their July 12 , 20 16 meeting, the City Council voted unanimously (7-0) to appro ve the request to rezone the 67 .86 4
acres to the RS District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No studies have be e n completed at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Juan Enriquez, Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Attachment 1 - Lo catio n Map
Attachment 2 - F uture Land Us e Map
Attachment 3 - Zo ning Map
Attachment 4 - R S Dis trict Development Stand ard s and P ermitted Land Us es
P ublic Co mment Letters
Ordinanc e
Exhib it A - Loc ation Map
Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion
Page 118 of 247
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Carlson Tract Rezoning Page 1 of 4
Report Date: June 16, 2016
File No: REZ-2016-017
Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Carlson Tract REZ
Project Address: 801 Carlson Cove
Total Acreage: 67.864 acres
Legal Description: 67.864 acres of the William Addison Survey
Applicant: Peter Verdicchio, RLA, LEED AP, ASLA
Property Owner(s): Durwood & Beverly Thompson
Contact: Peter Verdicchio, RLA, LEED AP, ASLA
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone the site from the Agriculture (AG) District to the
Residential Single-Family (RS) District. The requested rezoning would provide the property
owners with permitted uses allowed by the RS District.
Site Information
Location:
The subject site is located east of SE Inner Loop and west of SH 130, immediately south of
Churchill Farms neighborhood at the terminus of Reinhardt Boulevard and Autumn Trail.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject site is 67.864 acres in size and is generally flat with no identifiable features on the
tract. Currently, the site has access through Carlson Cove to Rockride Lane. There are no heritage
trees located on-site.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North RS Moderate Density Residential Single-Family Residences
South RS Mixed Use Community Single-Family Residences
East AG Mixed Use Community/Institutional Single-Family Residences/Undeveloped
Land
West PF Mixed Use Community Undeveloped Williamson County Land
Property History
The 67.864 acre property was annexed into the City on November 28, 2006 by Ordinance No.
2006-123. At the time of annexation into the City, the default AG District was assigned. The
property is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Page 119 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Carlson Tract Rezoning Page 2 of 4
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for this subject site is Mixed Use Community. The Mixed Use
Community category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for larger scale,
creatively planned communities, where a mix of residential types and densities are
complemented by supporting retail and small to medium scale office development. This category
also encourages more compact, sustainable development patterns that reduce auto trips, increase
connectivity and encourage walking and use of transit.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1B (Developing). Tier 1B areas are presently
in the City limits in areas that are generally under-served by infrastructure and where such
service and facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the City once Tier 1A
approaches buildout over the next ten years.
Transportation
The site’s primary inbound and outbound access is currently through Carlson Cove (private
drive) via Rockride Lane. Trip generation will be reviewed with the subdivision application,
possibly triggering the need for a TIA at that time.
Utilities
Water and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. Electric service is provided by the
City of Georgetown and ONCOR. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve this
property either by existing capacity or developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested Residential Single-Family (RS) zoning on this property. The RS
District is intended for areas of medium density with a minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet. The
RS District contains standards for development that maintain single-family neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Analysis
As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adoption process, the land use element of the plan
identified a number of land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action
statements are the most relevant to this request:
The subject property is located within the Future Land Use category of Mixed Use Community
that encourages a mixture of uses. In this case, the proposal is to build single family residences
which would function as an extension of the established Churchill Farms residential
neighborhood to the north and Saddlecreek neighborhood to the south. The SE Inner Loop
Page 120 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Carlson Tract Rezoning Page 3 of 4
corridor is an area that includes employment centers and government related centers. The
proposed rezone will contribute to the well balanced mix of uses in the area.
• Goal 4: “Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g. stable
neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas).
o The policies listed under this goal include “minimize impacts of encroachment by
incompatible land uses.” The property will fill in an area anticipated to be developed
for single-family uses and provide an extension of single-family residences located
to the north, east and south of the site. The rezoning will also allow compatible
uses consistent with the development patterns in the area.
The proposed rezoning to RS, along with the associated development standards, directly helps to
implement the above goals of providing compatible land uses. As development patterns
continue to extend in the southeast portion of the City, the need for a balanced mix of uses is
necessary in order to achieve a balanced and compatible community.
UDC Section 3.06.030 establishes the following criteria for zoning changes:
The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is sufficient
and correct enough to allow adequate review
and final action
An application must provide the necessary
information to review and make a knowledgeable
decision in order for staff to schedule an application
for consideration by P&Z and City Council. This
application was reviewed by staff and deemed to be
complete.
The zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change is consistent with the
Future Land Use of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The zoning change promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City
The zoning change request promotes health, safety
and general welfare of the City because it supports
orderly development by placing zoning districts in
the appropriate location.
The zoning change is compatible with the
present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding zoning districts, specifically those
located to the north and south of the site.
The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses
permitted by the District that would be applied
by the proposed amendment.
The uses allowed in the RS District are appropriate
at this location given the majority of the existing
land uses surrounding the property are single family
residential.
Page 121 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Carlson Tract Rezoning Page 4 of 4
Findings
Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings:
1. The Future Land Use category of Mixed Use Community supports the RS District at this
location since this category is intended for large tracts of undeveloped open land where
residential uses will complement the future non-residential development anticipated along
SE Inner Loop.
2. The requested zoning at this site meets the intent of the RS District as the property will
provide moderate density single-family residences. The RS District contains standards for
development that maintain single-family neighborhood characteristics similar to the
Churchill Farms and planned Saddlecreek neighborhoods to the north and south.
3. The uses allowed in the RS District are appropriate at this location given the majority of the
surrounding properties that are east of SE Inner Loop are single-family residences.
4. There is currently sufficient capacity within the City utilities to accommodate the potential
development resulting from the proposed rezoning from the AG to RS District at this
location.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request based on the above-mentioned findings.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application
(62 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun
Newspaper (June 5, 2016) and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received a total of
seven (7) phone calls from neighboring property owners and prospective home buyers
requesting general information about the rezoning application. Staff received one email from an
affected property owner in support of the requested RS District.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – RS District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses
Page 122 of 247
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Willia
msDr
W University Ave E University Ave
NAustinAve
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
NE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
SE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
W olfRanchPkw y
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
¬«29¬«130
¬«130
SE Inner Lo
o
p
SamHoustonAve
South
w
est
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
")1460
S
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
")971
EMorro w St
N
orth
w
estBlvd
")1460
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
§¨¦35
(R iver/Stream)
REZ-2016-017
Attachment #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1 1.5Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 123 of 247
S
O
U
THW
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
¬«130
SE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
E UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Attachment #2
REZ-2016-017
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼½¾Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 124 of 247
S
O
U
THW
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
SO
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
¬«130
SE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
E UNIVERSITY
A
V
E
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-017
Attachment #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼½¾MiPage 125 of 247
Minimum Lot Size = 5,500 square feet Front Setback = 20 feet Bufferyard = 10 feet with plantings
Minimum Lot Width = 45 feet Side Setback = 6 feet when non‐residential develops
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Rear Setback = 10 feet adjacent to residential
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Group Home (<7 residents)Church (with columbarium)Accessory Dwelling Unit
Single‐family Detached Day Care (family home)Activity Center (youth/senior)
Utilities (Minor)Golf Course Bed and Breakfast (with events)
Home Based Business Cemetary/Columbaria/Mausoleum
Nature Preserve/Community Garden Community Center
Neighborhood Amenity Center Day Care (Group)
Park (Neighborhood)Emergency Services Station
School (Elementary)General Office
Single‐family Attached Halfway House
Utilities (Intermediate)Hospice Facility
Wireless Transmission Facility (<41') Rooming/Boarding House
School (Middle)
Residential Single‐Family (RS) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Attachment #4
Page 126 of 247
1
Juan Enriquez
From:David Morse <dmorse2112@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 06, 2016 10:19 AM
To:Juan Enriquez
Subject:Re: Project Case # REZ-2016-017
OK, great, in that case:
I am fully supportive of rezoning this land from agriculture to residential single-family.
If this request is approved by the city council on July 12, do you have any idea how long it will take before
homes will start to be built on this land?
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org> wrote:
FYI – You can submit any comments back to me through email. You don’t have to send it through the mail if you don’t
want to.
From: David Morse [mailto:dmorse2112@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 9:03 AM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Re: Project Case # REZ‐2016‐017
Thank you sir!
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org> wrote:
Hello David,
As requested, attached is the notice of public hearing for the above‐mentioned rezoning case for your reference.
‐Juan Enriquez
Page 127 of 247
2
From: David Morse [mailto:dmorse2112@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:26 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>; Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: RE: Project Case # REZ‐2016‐017
Planning department / Mr. Enriquez,
I received the "CITY OF GEORGETOWN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING" form regarding REZ-2016-
017 in the mail.
Unfortunately, it has some water damage, so I was wondering if I could get another copy (Word or PDF
preferably) of the "Comments from Neighboring Property Owners" form? It's page 3 from the mailed
notice.
Thanks,
David
Property Owner, 400 Belmont Dr, Georgetown TX
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 128 of 247
Page 129 of 247
Page 130 of 247
Page 131 of 247
Page 132 of 247
Page 133 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Rezone 67.864 acres of the William Addison Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-017
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part
of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 67.864 acres out of the William Addison Survey
from the AG (Agriculture) District to the RS (Residential Single-Family) District also
known as Carlson Tract; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including
a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
67.864 acres of the William Addison Survey, as recorded in Document Number
2016005382 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter
referred to as "The Property"; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 21, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on July 12, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the AG District (Agriculture) to the RS District (Residential
Single Family), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal
Description) and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Page 134 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Rezone 67.864 acres of the William Addison Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-017
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 12th day of July, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 26th day of July, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 135 of 247
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
Willia
msDr
W University Ave E University Ave
NAustinAve
Southw este
r
n
B
l
v
d
E U n i v e r s it y A v e
NE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
SE
I
n
n
e
r
L
o
o
p
NColleg e StRiveryBlvd
N
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
W olfRanchPkw y
S a m H o u s t o n Ave
¬«29¬«130
¬«130
SE Inner Lo
o
p
SamHoustonAve
South
w
est
e
r
n
B
l
v
d
")1460
S
A
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
")971
EMorro w St
N
orth
w
estBlvd
")1460
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
§¨¦35
(R iver/Stream)
REZ-2016-017
Exhibit A
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1 1.5Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 136 of 247
Exhibit B - Legal Description
Page 137 of 247
Page 138 of 247
Page 139 of 247
Page 140 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Second Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezone approximately 13 .788 acres of the Jose ph Tho mpson Survey located at
3300 FM 2243 on the north side of FM 2243 (Le ander Road), between County Ro ad 1 76 and Weir Ranch Road fro m the
Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Estate (RE) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director (acti o n
requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The applicant has re quested to rezone the 1 3.788 ac re site from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Residential Estate
(RE) District. The total site is approximately 78 -acres in size but the majority of the property is located within the ETJ.
The 64 acres in the ETJ are not being rezoned since there are no zoning regulations in that area. Ho wever, if the 13 .78 8
acres within the City limits are approved, the entire 7 8 acres will be platted with the same subdivision application. The
requested rezoning would provide the property owners with permitted uses allowed by the RE Distric t similar in use to
other residential pro perties in the surrounding are a.
Publ i c Comment:
To date, staff has no t received any written or verbal co mments in support or against the rezo ning request.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezo ne the 1 3.7 88 acre tract to the RE District.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At their June 21 , 2016 meeting, the Planning and Zo ning Commission recommended to the City Council approval (4 -0)
to rezone the 13 .78 8 acres to the RE District. Commissio ners Pitts, Bargainer, and Rankin were absent.
Ci ty Counci l Fi rst Readi ng Acti on:
At their July 12 , 20 16 meeting, the City Council voted unanimously (7-0) to appr o ve the request to rezone the 13 .78 8
acres to the RE District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No studies have be e n completed at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Juan Enriquez, Planner, and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Attachment 1 - Lo catio n Map
Attachment 2 - F uture Land Us e Map
Attachment 3 - Zo ning Map
Attachment 4 - R E Dis trict Development Stand ard s and P ermitted Land Us es
Ordinanc e
Exhib it A - Loc ation Map
Exhib it B - Legal Des c rip tion
Page 141 of 247
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Lost Quarry Subdivision Rezoning Page 1 of 4
Report Date: June 16, 2016
File No: REZ-2016-018
Project Planner: Juan Enriquez, Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Lost Quarry Subdivision REZ
Project Address: 3300 FM 2243 (Leander Road)
Total Acreage: 13.788 acres
Legal Description: 13.788 acres of the Joseph Thompson Survey
Applicant: Dan Jackson
Property Owner: Vale Building Group, LLC
Contact: Dan Jackson
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone the 13.788 acre site from the Agriculture (AG) District to
the Residential Estate (RE) District. The total site is approximately 78-acres in size but the
majority of the property is located within the ETJ. The 64 acres in the ETJ are not being rezoned
since there are no zoning regulations in that area. However, if the 13.788 acres within the City
limits are approved, the entire 78 acres will be platted with the same subdivision application. The
requested rezoning would provide the property owners with permitted uses allowed by the RE
District similar in use to other residential properties in the surrounding area.
Site Information
Location:
The subject site is located on the north side of FM 2243 (Leander Road), between County Road
176 and Weir Ranch Road in the southwestern portion of the City.
Physical Characteristics:
The subject site is an irregularly shaped 13.788 portion of a larger tract totaling approximately 78
acres. The site is generally flat with trees and various shrubs throughout the tract. A tree survey
will be required upon Preliminary Plat submittal to identify any protected or heritage trees. The
Page 142 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Lost Quarry Subdivision Rezoning Page 2 of 4
property has approximately 500 feet of street frontage with primary inbound and outbound
access along Leander Road.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North No zoning. ETJ. Low Density Residential Undeveloped Land
South No zoning. ETJ. Mining Undeveloped Land
East Agriculture Low Density Residential Undeveloped Land
West Agriculture Low Density Residential Undeveloped Land
Property History
The 13.788 acre property was annexed into the City on December 23, 2005 by Ordinance No.
2005-101. At the time of annexation into the City, the default AG District was assigned. The
property is currently vacant and undeveloped.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for this site is Low Density Residential. The Low Density
Residential category is described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as predominantly single-family
neighborhoods than can be accommodated at a density between 1.1 and 3 dwelling units per
gross acre.
Growth Tier:
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1B (Developing). Tier 1B areas are presently
in the City limits in areas that are generally under-served by infrastructure and where such
service and facilities will likely be needed to meet the growth needs of the City once Tier 1A
approaches buildout over the next ten years.
Transportation
The site’s primary inbound and outbound access is on FM 2243 (Leander Road). Trip generation
will be reviewed with the subdivision application, possibly triggering the need for a TIA at that
time.
Utilities
Water is served by the City of Georgetown. Electric service is provided by PEC and sanitary
sewer requirements will be handled by On-Site Septic Facilities (OSSF). It is anticipated that
there is adequate water capacity at this time to serve this property either by existing capacity or
developer participation in upgrades to infrastructure.
Proposed Zoning District
The applicant has requested Residential Estate (RE) zoning on this property. The RE District is
intended for areas of very low density single-family residential uses. The District has a minimum
Page 143 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Lost Quarry Subdivision Rezoning Page 3 of 4
lot size of 1-acre in order to retain a rural character and is appropriate where topography or lack
of public utilities and services may necessitate low density.
Staff Analysis
As part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan adoption process, the land use element identified a
number of land use goals, policies and actions. The following goals and action statements are the
most relevant to this request:
The subject property is located within the Future Land Use category of Low Density Residential
that encourages single-family residences at 1.1 to 3 dwelling units per gross acre. In this case, the
zoning district requested is the RE District, which allows minimum 1-acre lots. The proposed
rezone will contribute to the rural character of the area and serve as a gradual transition from
rural, to suburban and urban going eastbound toward the City center.
• Goal 4: “Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g. stable
neighborhoods, economically sound commercial and employment areas).
o The policies listed under this goal include “minimize impacts of encroachment by
incompatible land uses.” The property will fill in an area anticipated to be developed
for single-family uses and provide an extension of single-family development
along FM 2243. The rezoning will also allow compatible uses consistent with the
development patterns in the area.
UDC Section 3.06.030 establishes the following criteria for zoning changes:
The application is complete and the information
contained within the application is sufficient
and correct enough to allow adequate review
and final action
An application must provide the necessary
information to review and make a knowledgeable
decision in order for staff to schedule an application
for consideration by P&Z and City Council. This
application was reviewed by staff and deemed to be
complete.
The zoning change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed zoning change is consistent with the
Future Land Use of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The zoning change promotes the health, safety
or general welfare of the City and the safe
orderly, and healthful development of the City
The zoning change request promotes health, safety
and general welfare of the City because it supports
orderly development by placing zoning districts in
the appropriate location.
The zoning change is compatible with the
present zoning and conforming uses of nearby
property and with the character of the
neighborhood
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
surrounding zoning districts and rural single family
development patterns.
The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses
permitted by the District that would be applied
by the proposed amendment.
The uses allowed in the RE District are appropriate
at this location given the majority of the existing
land uses surrounding the property are single family
Page 144 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Lost Quarry Subdivision Rezoning Page 4 of 4
homes on large rural residential lots.
Findings
Based on all the information presented, staff has made the following findings:
1. The Future Land Use category of Low Density Residential supports the RE District at this
location since this category is intended to establish predominantly single family
neighborhoods that can be accommodated at a density between 1.1 and 3 dwelling units per
acre. The RE District has a minimum lot size of 1-acre, promotes rural character, and is
appropriate where public utilities are limited such as this site.
2. The requested zoning at this site meets the intent of the RE District as the property will
provide low density single-family residences. The intent of the RE District is to develop
single family residences that will maintain rural single-family neighborhood characteristics
similar to the surrounding development.
3. The uses and development standards of the RE District are appropriate at this location
given the surrounding properties are primarily rural 1-acre and larger lots with single-
family residences.
4. There is sufficient water capacity at this time to accommodate the proposed rezoning from
AG to RE District at this location.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request based on the above-mentioned findings.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application
(3 notices mailed), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper
(June 5, 2016) and signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has not received any written or verbal
comments in support or against the rezoning request.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Location Map
Attachment 2 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3 – Zoning Map
Attachment 4 – RE District Development Standards and Permitted Land Uses
Page 145 of 247
W University A
v
e
¬«29
Leander Rd
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
L e a n d e r R d
Leander R d
¬«29¬«29 W University Ave W
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Wa
te
r
O
akPkwy
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
e
d
a
r
H
o
l
l
o
w
R
d
(R iv e r /Str e a m )
REZ-2016-018
Attachment #1
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1 1.5Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 146 of 247
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Attachment #2
REZ-2016-018
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼½¾Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 147 of 247
RM 2243
C R 1 7 6
LEANDER RD
W
E
I
R
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-018
Attachment #3
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼½¾MiPage 148 of 247
District Size-min. acreage = 1 Side Setback = 10 feet Bufferyard = 10 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Rear Setback = 20 feet when non-residential develops
Accessory Building Height = 25 feet Front Setback = 25 feet adjacent to residential
Lot width = 100 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP)
Single-Family, Detached Home Based Business Accessory Dwelling Unit
Group Home (6 residents or less)Elementary School Hospice Facility
Minor Utility Services Family Home, Daycare Halfway House
Religious Assembly Facilities Middle School
Religious Assembly Facilities with
Columbarium Group Daycare
Nature Preserve or Community
Garden Activity Center, Youth or Senior
Neighborhood Amenity, Activity
or Recreation Center Emergency Service Station
Neighborhood Public Park Bed and Breakfast
Golf Course Bed and Breakfast with Events
Intermediate Utility Services
Wireless Transmission Facility 40
feet or Less
Residential Estate (RE) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 149 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Rezone 13.788 acres of the Joseph Thompson Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-018
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part
of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 13.788 acres out of the Joseph Thompson Survey
from the AG (Agriculture) District to the RE (Residential Estate) District also known
as Lost Quarry Subdivision; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions;
including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
13.788 acres of the Joseph Thompson Survey, as recorded in Document Number
2008085977 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter
referred to as "The Property"; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 21, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on July 12, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the AG District (Agriculture) to the RE District (Residential
Estate), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal
Description) and incorporated herein by reference.
Page 150 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Rezone 13.788 acres of the Joseph Thompson Survey Case File Number: REZ-2016-018
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A-B Attached
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 12th day of July, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 26th day of July, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 151 of 247
W University A
v
e
¬«29
Leander Rd
§¨¦35
§¨¦35
L e a n d e r Rd
Leander R d
¬«29¬«29 W University Ave W
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
Wa
te
r
O
akPkwy
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
e
d
a
r
H
o
l
l
o
w
R
d
(R iv e r /Str e a m )
REZ-2016-018
Exhibit A
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1 1.5Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 152 of 247
Exhibit B - Legal Description
Page 153 of 247
Page 154 of 247
Page 155 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Second Readi ng of an Ordinance to rezone approximately 13 .24 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey, located at 4700
Wi l l i ams Dri ve , from the Local Commercial (C-1 ) and Office (OF) Districts to 9.9 9 acres o f the High Density
Multifamily (MF-2 ) District and 3.256 acres of the Lo w Density Multifamily (MF-1 ) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A,
P lanning Director (acti o n requi red)
ITEM SUMMARY:
B ackground:
The applicant has requeste d to rezone the subject property from the Office (OF) and Local Co mmercial (C-1 ) Districts to
3.256 acres o f the Lo w Density Multifamily (MF-1) District and 9.99 0 acres of the High Density Multifamily (MF-2)
District. An approximately thre e-acre portion of the tract at the ‘hard corner ’ o f Woo dlake and Williams Drive is no t
subject to this rezoning request and will remain zoned Lo cal Commercial District.
Publ i c Comment:
To date, thirty-four (34 ) written public comme nts have been received; 19 in oppo sition and 1 5 in favo r of the request.
One ve rbal comment (pho ne) was received by staff, o pposed to the request. At the P&Z public hearing, three spoke in
favor, while o ne spoke in opposition, citing concerns about increased traffic, the proper use of the subje ct property, and
where multifamily uses should lo c ate. At the City Co uncil meeting, seve ral people spoke in favor of the rezoning, c iting
the need for senior affordable ho using and the benefits o f a similar development built by the applicant; one person spoke
in opposition, citing traffic and use concerns.
Staff Recommendati o n:
Staff recommends denial o f the requested rezoning.
Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ssi on Recommendati o n:
At their June 7th, 20 16 meeting, the P lanning and Zoning Commissio n unanimously recommended appro val to the City
Council (6-0) to rezone 13.24 acres fro m the Local Commercial (C-1) and Office (OF) Districts to 9.9 9 acres of the
High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District and 3.25 6 acres o f the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District.
Ci ty Counci l Fi rst Readi ng Acti on :
At their June 28 th, 2 01 6 meeting, the City Council voted 4-2 to approve the re que st to rezone 13.24 acres from the
Local Commercial (C-1) and Office (OF) Districts to 9.99 acres of the High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District and
3.256 acres of the Lo w Density Multifamily (MF-1 ) District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None studied at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Se nio r P lanner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S taff Report
Attachment 1 - F uture Land Us e
Attachment 2 - Exis ting Zo ning
Attachment 3 - P ro p o s ed Zo ning Districts
Attachment 4 - Offic e Dis tric t Standards/Us es
Attachment 5 - Lo cal Commerc ial Dis tric t S tand ard s /Us es
Attachment 6 - Lo w Dens ity Multifamily Dis tric t S tand ard s /Us es
Page 156 of 247
Attachment 7 - High Density Multifamily Dis tric t Standards/Uses
P ublic Co mment - P art 1
P ublic Co mment - P art 2
Ordinanc e - S ec ond Read ing
Ordinanc e Exhibit A - Loc ation Map
Ordinanc e Exhibit B - Legal Desc rip tion
Page 157 of 247
Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 1 of 8
Report Date: June 1, 2016
File No: REZ‐2016‐010
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Merritt Heritage
Senior Village
Project Address: 4700 Williams Drive
Location: Southeast Corner of Woodlake
Drive and Williams Drive
Total Acreage: 13.24 acres
Legal Description: 13.24 acres out of the Joseph Fish
Survey
Applicant: Blake Rue
Property Owner: Andice Development Company
Contact: Blake Rue
Existing Use: Undeveloped Land
Existing Zoning: Office (OF), 14.97 ac. / Local Commercial (C‐1), 19.20 ac. (See Exhibits 4 & 5)
Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multifamily (MF‐1) District – 3.256 acres (See Exhibit 6)
High Density Multifamily (MF‐2) District – 9.990 acres (See Exhibit 7)
Future Land Use: Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC)
Growth Tier: Tier 1A (Developed/Redeveloping Growth Area)
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested to rezone the subject property from the Office (OF) and Local
Commercial (C‐1) Districts to 3.256 acres of the Low Density Multifamily (MF‐1) District and
9.990 acres of the High Density Multifamily (MF‐2) District. An approximately three‐acre
portion of the tract not subject to this rezoning request and will remain zoned Local Commercial
District.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located on the south side of Williams Drive, between Cedar Lake Boulevard and
Woodlake Drive, approximately one‐quarter mile west of the Shell/DB Woods intersection with
Williams Drive. The location is in front of the neighborhood known as Terraces of Woodlake
(subdivided as Woodlake, Phases 3 and 4), which contains about 160 homes.
Physical Characteristics:
The property has approximately 450 feet of frontage on Williams Drive, and is an “L”‐shaped
tract. There is a stand of trees on the southern end that runs the width of the property, and
Page 158 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 2 of 8
several dumping mounds of rock and other refuse. Nearest Williams Drive, the land is cleared.
A tree survey has not yet been submitted, and thus the number of Protected or Heritage trees is
unknown. It is generally flat and devoid of any discernible natural features. The property is
bounded by three roadways, with Woodlake Drive and Cedar Lake Boulevard classified as
Residential Collectors, and Willliams Drive being a Major Arterial.
Surrounding Properties:
Location Zoning Districts Future Land Use Existing Use
North Local Commercial (C‐1) and
Agriculture (AG)
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center
Undeveloped, Office,
Commercial
South Residential Single‐Family (RS) Low Density Residential Single‐family residential
East Local Commercial (C‐1) and
Office (OF)
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center Undeveloped land
West Local Commercial (C‐1) Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center
Undeveloped land, day‐
care center
Property History
This property was formerly a part of a 34‐acre contiguous tract bounded by the Woodlake
residences and Wildwood, Woodlake, and Williams Drives. Cedar Lake Boulevard was
extended in 2015 to Williams Drive, bisecting the tract into two halves, with this property the
western half.
A one‐thousand foot wide swath centered on Williams Drive (then FM 2338) was annexed by the
City in 1995, laying the foundation for the growth of the City westward. That annexation
covered most, but not all, of this subject property. The remainder, and all the property that
became the Woodlake subdivision, was subsequently annexed in 2001.
Page 159 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 3 of 8
The initial zoning of the property (post‐annexation) was completed in two parts, and included
the entire 34‐acre original tract.
Ordinance 2001‐78 rezoned a 7.431 ac portion – the area of this property nearest the
Terraces of Woodlake neighborhood (see Exhibit 3) ‐ from Agriculture (AG) to a district
known as Office and Service Uses (RM‐3). With the adoption of the Unified Development
Code in 2003, RM‐3 became the Office (OF) District.
Ordinance 2002‐04 rezoned the remainder of this subject property from Agriculture (AG)
to Local Commercial (C‐1).
In 2013, the property was again rezoned, enlarging the Office (OF) District to 14.97 acres and
reducing the Local Commercial (C‐1) District to 19.20 acres. Attachments 4 and 5 provide
information on the development standards and permitted uses within the existing Districts.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use:
The 2030 Future Land Use category for this site is Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUNC). The
category extends along both sides of Williams Drive from Rivery Boulevard to just past this
property, a length of three and a half (3.5) miles. The 2030 Plan describes the MUNC category as
applying to “smaller areas of mixed commercial use adjacent to or within existing and new residential
neighborhoods…”. As with the other mixed use categories, the goal is to create a diversity of
integrated uses oriented in a pedestrian friendly manner that encrourages less vehicular trips.
These neighborhood‐serving mixed use areas abut roadway corridors or are often located at key
intersections that proivde limited retail goods and services to a local customer base. Appropriate
uses in these areas might include small grocery or corner stores, coffee shops, personal services
such as beauty or barber shops, as well as small professional offices and upper‐story apartments.
Stand‐alone multifamily development may be considered appropriate within this category,
depending on the mix of adjacent uses and integration with the overall area.
The overall intent of the MUNC land use category is to identify certain areas of the City that
would support localized personal services and retail locations for neighborhood goods and
services, rather than large commercial development and high‐traffic generating uses, which are
more appropriate in nodes of the Community or Regional Commercial categories. Just southeast
of this property is land designated for Community Commercial, one of three commercial
intersection nodes between this location and Interstate 35; See Attachement 1.
Growth Tier:
All areas of the City and ETJ are assigned a Growth Tier policy category that identifies where to
stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth over a period of the next two decades or
more. These Tiers dictate where the delivery of municipal services may be focused, and thus,
Page 160 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 4 of 8
where growth is desired to occur. This property is Tier 1A, described as:
Tier 1A designates areas within the current city limits where some infrastructure systems are
in place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where
consolidation of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years through
the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Transportation
The subject site is bound by two Residential Collector roadways, and a Major Arterial (Williams
Drive). The Woodlake Drive intersection with Williams has been signalized for several years,
and is currently a three‐way intersection. When Verde Vista (a Collector level roadway on the
City’s Overall Transportation Plan) is extended over to Williams Drive from it’s current
terminus, it will form the fourth leg of the intersection.
Cedar Lake Boulevard was recently extended from the Woodlake subdivision out to Williams
Drive, creating another access opportunity for the property. Currently this is a full access
intersection, yet ultimately Williams Drive will contain a median division, thus limiting Cedar
Lake to right‐in/right‐out turning movements.
Development of the subject property will determine where driveways are located, through the
Site Development Plan review process. Woodlake Drive and Cedar Lake Boulevard are spaced
approximately 1,150 feet apart, which could possibly allow for another driveway onto Williams
Drive that meets the current 425‐foot spacing for roadways with 50 mile‐per‐hour posted speed
limits. The two adjacent Collector roadways would provide additional driveway access options.
A Traffic Impact Analysis may be required with the submittal of a Site Development Review
application to further analyze traffic impact, depending on the number of multifamily units that
are proposed.
Utilities
The developer will be responsible for studying the existing utility infrastructure that are below
Utility Master Plan sizes (12” lines or smaller”) prior to the next stages of the development
process (subdivision platting). During the 2013 rezoning process, the then‐applicant received
positive information regarding the ability of the City to provide water and wastewater for a level
of development anticipated within Office and Local Commercial Districts. Utility Evaluations
are snap‐shots in time, and are non‐binding. That being said, it is anticipated that there is
adequate capacity to serve this property either by existing capacity or developer participation in
upgrades to infrastructure.
Proposed Zoning Districts
The Low‐Density (MF‐1) and High‐Density (MF‐2) Multifamily Districts accommodate
multifamily residential development; either detached (one or two units per structure) or attached
Page 161 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 5 of 8
(multiple units per structure). MF‐1 allows both uses, while MF‐2 allows only attached dwelling
units. The MF‐2 district allows for a density of up to 24 dwelling units per acre, while the MF‐1
district is limited to 14 units per acre. Both districts may serve as transition districts between
residential neighborhoods and more intense uses and should have access to major thoroughfares
without routing traffic through lower density residential areas. Below is an excerpt from
Attachment 3, which is the applicant’s proposed zoning districts.
The table below compares the major development standards for each proposed district under the
Unified Development Code.
Sections 6.03.080 and 6.03.090:
MF‐1 MF‐2
Maximum dwellings per Acre 14 24
Maximum dwelings per Structure 12 24
Maximum building height 35’ 45’
Minimum front/street building setback 20’ 25’
Minimum side building setback (to Residential District) 10’ (20’) 15’ (30’)
Minimum rear building setback (to Residential District) 10’ (20’) 15’ (30’)
Common Amenity and/or Recreation Areas Yes Yes
Parkland Dedication or fees‐in‐lieu Yes Yes
Bufferyards (adjacent AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, TH, MH Districts) Yes Yes
Gateway, streetyard, parking lot landscaping as applicable Yes Yes
Page 162 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 6 of 8
Staff Analysis
The subject property is located within the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center future land use
designation. The proposed MF‐1 and MF‐2 districts are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, specifically the future land use category, and therefore can be considered without a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, in full review of the 2030 Plan, including the goals
and policies, staff has determined the proposed zoning districts do not best implement the
community’s long‐range plans, as detailed in the Plan.
One of the overarching themes of the 2030 Plan is a reduction in automobile trips through
development that serves both residential and commercial uses. Ideally, the Plan promotes
development that is compact with denser dwelling units intermixed with commercial retail and
services, and even employment where possible. While true mixed use development cannot be
implemented at all locations across the city, the proximity of the services to residential uses is
key in promoting walkability and localizing personal services to reduce congestion along major
thoroughfares such as Williams Drive.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan encourages a balanced mix of land uses through protection of
commercial properties:
Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at varying densities
and intensities, to reflect a gradual transition from urban to suburban to rural development.
Reserve and rezone land ideally suited for long‐term commercial and employment uses and prevent
its use for residential subdivisions.
Residential development in the western part of the city and the ETJ continues to expand at a
rapid pace. To date, non‐residential commercial and retail development that would provide
services to these residents has not yet filled in the gaps. Over the last few years, developments
and land zoned for development in this in this quadrant of the city have largely been residential
in nature, including assisted living facilities and senior housing. These developments serve a
need in the community, but do not further the goal of having sales‐tax and employment‐
generating investment in strategic locations. The City’s goal of bringing commercial
development to within proximity of residential will be realized by having available land for that
type of use.
Currently, retail and commercial zoning districts make up just over 9% of the land area of the
city limits. The 2030 Future Land Use Plan aims for more like 17% of commercial and mixed‐use
area within the city limits. As the surrounding area becomes more residential with the explosion
of Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) and continued strong growth in the estate lot market (ETJ
one‐acre plus lots served by septic systems), prime locations for retail/service uses will become
more scarce and valuable. To that end, the City Council has recently embarked on a major
review of retail opportunities within the community by hiring Catalyst Development out of
Dallas. This study, paired with the Williams Drive Study currently underway, will help identify
Page 163 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 7 of 8
and create an action plan for remaining commercial development along this and other key
corridors in town.
The 2030 Plan supports multifamily development in various future land use categories,
particularly if multifamily is a component of mixed use development and/or develops as part of
a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project. Although the specific category of ‘High Density
Residential’ is the most appropriate for the use, every category from Regional Commercial (most
intense) to Moderate Density Residential can potentially be appropriate for multifamily
development. The driving factor is the appropriateness considering the site location, adjacent
land uses, and accommodation of infrastructure.
General Findings:
Staff has reviewed the requested rezoning application and, based on the information presented,
staff offers the following findings:
1. The intent of the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center category in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan is to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses, which may include stand alone
high density residential development as part of a mix of uses. The proposed districts would
remove the possibility of this property serving the existing and future residents with
services and retail options as they would be an independent, stand alone residential project
with no commercial component.
2. The current zoning more than adequately fulfills the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
category from a straight zoning district perspective. City Council has twice approved
Office and Local Commercial zoning districts on this property, in concert with the Future
Land Use map and Comprehensive Plan. The property, and the entire 34‐acre parent tract,
was purposefully set aside in front of a single‐family subdivision for non‐residential uses in
order to serve that neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the general vicinity. The
subject property is suitable for this purpose due to its excellent access via two signalized
intersections with Williams Drive and connection to a future roadway that provides access
to Georgetown Village and Shell Road.
3. Rezoning this property from commercial and office to multifamily will not improve or take
steps to advance solutions to the challenge of transportation/ traffic problems along
Williams Drive, as acreage that could have provided services to residents in the area will
simply add more residents that will need to travel Williams Drive to seek retail services.
4. The siting of a multifamily development on a commercial corridor fronting a Major Arterial
does not appear to be harmonious with the stated intent of the Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center. The proposed use of a stand‐alone multifamily development at this particular location,
removing the potential benefit of service and retail uses, builds upon an imbalance in the
overall land use mix of the corridor.
Page 164 of 247
Planning Department Staff Report
Merritt Heritage Rezoning – C‐1/OF to MF‐1 and MF‐2 Page 8 of 8
5. Development under the existing zoning would make this property a destination point for
residents already within the Williams Drive corridor (and western Georgetown). Rezoning
to enable a multifamily use would invert the traffic impacts, making the property the
beginning point of trips (to other destination points).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request based on the above‐mentioned findings.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200‐foot radius of
the subject property and within City jurisdiction were notified of the rezoning application (34
notices mailed); a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the Sun Newspaper
on May 22, 2016; and multiple signs were posted on the property. To date, one verbal comment
against the applicant’s proposal has been received by staff.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Future Land Use Map
Attachment 2 – Zoning Map
Attachment 3 – Proposed Zoning District Exhibit
Attachment 4 – Office District Standards & Uses
Attachment 5 – Local Commercial District Standards & Uses
Attachment 6 – High Density Multifamily District Standards & Uses
Attachment 7 – Low Density Multifamily District Standards & Uses
Page 165 of 247
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
SH
E
L
L
R
D
SH
E
L
L
R
D
DEL W E B B B L V D
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
D B
W
O
O
D
R
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation PlanA
Attachment #1
REZ-2016-010
Legend
Thoroughfare
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Employment Center
Low Density Residential
Mining
Mixed Use Community
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
Moderate Density Residential
Open Space
Specialty Mixed Use Area
Ag / Rural Residential
Existing Collector
Existing Freeway
Existing Major Arterial
Existing Minor Arterial
Existing Ramp
Proposed Collector
Proposed Freeway
Propsed Frontage Road
Proposed Major Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Proposed Railroad
High Density Residential
0 ¼½¾Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 166 of 247
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
SH
E
L
L
R
D
SH
E
L
L
R
D
DEL W E B B B L V D
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
D B
W
O
O
D
R
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
Zoning InformationREZ-2016-010A
Attachment #2
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
¯
0 ¼½¾MiPage 167 of 247
Page 168 of 247
Page 169 of 247
Page 170 of 247
Page 171 of 247
Page 172 of 247
Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
(0 feet for build‐to/downtown) adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
Side Setback = 10 feet TH, MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts
Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet
Rear Setback = 10 feet
Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Diagnostic Center Restaurant, General Hotel, Boutique
Home Health Care Services Data Center Medical Complex
Medical Office/Clinic Upper‐story Residential Surgery Center
Dental Office/Clinic Home‐Based Business Integrated Office Center
General Office Business/Trade School
Personal Services Day Care (Group/Commercial)
Dry Cleaning Service, Drop‐off Only Church
Printing/Mailing/Copy Services Church w/ Columbarium
Banking/Financial Services Public Park, Neighborhood
Commercial Document Storage Heliport
Emergency Services Station Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Government/Postal Office Seasonal Product Sales
Library/Museum Farmer's Market, Temporary
Social Service Facility Business Offices, Temporary
Nature Preserve/Community Garden Concrete Products, Temporary
Parking Lot, Off‐Site Construction Field Office
Parking Lot, Commercial Construction Staging, Off‐site
Park‐n‐Ride Facility Parking Lot, Temporary
Utilities (Minor, Intermediate, Major)
OFFICE (OF) DISTRICT
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 173 of 247
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Size = .5 FAR (0 feet for build‐to/downtown) adjacent to AG, RE, RL, RS, TF, MH,
(only applies to those uses Side Setback = 10 feet MF‐1, or MF‐2 districts
marked with * below) Side Setback to Residential = 15 feet
Rear Setback = 0 feet
Rear Setback to Residential = 25 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Agricultural Sales* Activity Center (youth/senior) Event Facility
Artisan Studio/Gallery* Bar/Tavern/Pub Meat Market
Assisted Living Bed and Breakfast (with events) Multifamily Attached
Automotive Parts Sales (indoor)* Business/Trade School Personal Services Restricted
Banking/Financial Services* Car Wash Private Transport Dispatch Facility
Blood/Plasma Center* Church (with columbarium) Student Housing
Consumer Repair* College/University
Dry Cleaning Service* Commercial Recreation
Emergency Services Station Community Center
Farmer's Market* Dance Hall/Night Club
Fitness Center* Day Care (group/commercial)
Food Catering Services* Fuel Sales
Funeral Home* Live Music/Entertainment
General Retail* Micro Brewery/Winery
General Office* Neighborhood Amenity Center
Government/Postal Office Park (neighborhood/regional)
Group Home (7+ residents) Pest Control/Janitorial Services
Home Health Care Services* Self‐Storage (indoor only)
Hospital School (Elementary, Middle, High)
Hotel/Inn (excluding extended stay) Theater (movie/live)
Integrated Office Center* Upper‐story Residential
Landscape/Garden Sales* Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
Laundromat*
Library/Museum
Medical Diagnostic Center*
Medical Office/Clinic/Complex*
Membership Club/Lodge*
Nature Preserve/Community Garden
Nursing/Convalescent/Hospice
Parking Lot (commercial/park‐n‐ride)
Personal Services*
Printing/Mailing/Copying Services*
Restaurant (general/drive‐through)*
Rooming/Boarding House
Social Service Facility
Surgery/Post Surgery Recovery*
Urgent Care Facility*
Utilities (Minor/Intermediate/Major)
Veterinary Clinic (indoor only)*
Local Commercial (C‐1) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 174 of 247
Maximum Density = 14 units/acre Front Setback = 20 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Height = 35 feet Side Setback = 10 feet adjacent to RE, RL, RS,TF, or MH
Maximum Units per Building = 12 Side Setback to Residential = 20 feet districts; 10 feet with plantings
Rear Setback = 10 feet adjacent to residences in AG
Rear Setback to Residential = 20 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Group Home (7‐15 residents) Church (with columbarium) Activity Center (youth/senior)
Multifamily Attached Day Care (family/group/commercial) Assisted Living
Multifamily Detached Golf Course Bed and Breakfast (with events)
Rooming/Boarding House Nature Preserve/Community Garden Emergency Services Station
Utilities (Minor) Neighborhood Amenity Center Group Home (16+ residents)
Park (Neighborhood) Halfway House
School (Elementary) Nursing/Convalescent Home
Utilities (Intermediate) Orphanage
Wireless Transmission Facility (<41') School (Middle)
Student Housing
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Low Density Multifamily (MF‐1) District
District Development Standards
Page 175 of 247
Maximum Density = 24 units/acre Front Setback = 25 feet Bufferyard = 15 feet with plantings
Maximum Building Height = 45 feet Side Setback = 15 feet adjacent to RE, RL, RS,TF, or MH
Maximum Units per Building = 24 Side Setback to Residential = 30 feet districts; 10 feet with plantings
Rear Setback = 15 feet adjacent to residences in AG
Rear Setback to Residential = 30 feet
Allowed by Right Subject to Limitations Special Use Permit (SUP) Required
Assisted Living Church (with columbarium) Activity Center (youth/senior)
Group Home (7‐15 residents) Day Care (family/group/commercial) Bed and Breakfast (with events)
Multifamily Attached Golf Course Emergency Services Station
Nursing/Convalescent Home Nature Preserve/Community Garden Group Home (16+ residents)
Orphanage Neighborhood Amenity Center Halfway House
Rooming/Boarding House Park (Neighborhood) School (Middle)
Utilities (Minor) School (Elementary) Student Housing
Utilities (Intermediate)
Wireless Transmission Facility (<41')
High Density Multifamily (MF‐2) District
District Development Standards
Specific Uses Allowed within the District
Page 176 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 8:53 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A little late -
Karen
From:TheHollands[mailto:txhollands@suddenlink.net]
Sent:Monday,June27,20166:56AM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Subject:NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARING
Comments From Neighboring Property Owners
You are being notified as a requirement of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances. You are invited to
express your views or concerns regarding the – described petition by returning this comment form and/or by
attending one or both of the scheduled public hearings on the matter.
Project Name: 4700 Williams Dr.-Merritt Heritage
Project Case Number: REZ-2016-010 P&Z Date: June 7, 2016 Case Manager: Mike Elabarger
Name of Respondent: __Marie and Lawrence Holland_________________________
Please print name)
Signature of Respondent: _Marie Holland Lawrence Holland___________________
(Signature required for protest)
Address of Respondent: __107 Lynn Cove, Georgetown, TX 78633______________
(Address required for protest)
I am in FAVOR: ______________________ I OBJECT: ______X_________________
Additional Comments: The City of Georgetown already has more of this type of housing compared to
all the surrounding cities. We don’t need any more please.
________________________________________________________________________________
Page 177 of 247
2
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Written comments may be sent to City of Georgetown Planning Department, P. O. Box 1458
Georgetown, Texas 78627. Emailed comments may be sent to planning@georgetown.org. Any such
comments may be presented to the Commission.
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 178 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 9:00 AM
To:Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Cc:Sofia Nelson
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Shelley says we can send these to her and she will add to the Council email that they receive before the
meeting.
Karen
From:don.bell68[mailto:don.bell68@verizon.net]
Sent:Monday,June27,20168:44AM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Subject:CommentsonLiveOakand/orMerrittHeritageProposals
We seniors in Sun City worked hard and saved our money to move here.
Why should you city council people choose to place affordable housing RIGHT ACROSS THE ROAD from
our homes?
Is this so you can feel better about yourselves?
That is liberal think that
prevails in Travis Co.
Maybe you want to lower my property values or
bring some crime into Sun City? Texas is a big place...these folks could be placed elsewhere. How about next
door to where you live?
Don G. Bell don.bell68@verizon.net
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 179 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 10:07 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez; Sofia Nelson
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage LIHTC Proposals
Shelley,itlookslikeCouncilmayalreadyhavethisone.
Karen
ͲͲͲͲͲOriginalMessageͲͲͲͲͲ
From:JulKamen[mailto:jkamen3@suddenlink.net]
Sent:Monday,June27,20169:47AM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Cc:District4<district4@georgetown.org>;District2<district2@georgetown.org>;District7<district7@georgetown.org>;
District5<district5@georgetown.org>;District3<district3@georgetown.org>;District1<district1@georgetown.org>;
District6<district6@georgetown.org>
Subject:CommentsonLiveOakand/orMerrittHeritageLIHTCProposals
IfGeorgetownalreadyhasalmost3Xthestateaverage,itisabundantlyclearwehavealreadyfulfilledourresponsibility
toprovideaffordablehousing.
Butevenmoreimportantly,thisvoteonTuesdayrepresentstherighttoretaincontroloverourowncommunityandit's
development,vs.invitinggovernmentcontrolandregulationintheformofTDHCA.Texaslawgivesusthatrightto
choose.Let'schoosewisely.
JustgoogleGalveston,TXͲͲanislandintheGulfand1hr.fromthe4thlargestcityinthecountryͲͲwhichbyallaccounts
shouldbethriving.Insteadtheysuccumbedtothelureoffederaldollars,withTDHCAandHUDstringsattached,
providingLIHTChousingandallthepublichousinginthecounty.Thecitycannowbarelyretainit'spopulationdespite
allthegovernmentsubsidies.
Iurgecounciltorejectall3affordablehousingdevelopmentsunderthesecircumstances.Donotinvitemore
governmentcontrol,disguisedasassistance,intoourcity.
Thankyou,
JuliaKamen
ResidentofDistrict4
FormerresidentofGalveston,TX
Page 180 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 11:16 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger; Jennifer Bills
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Karen
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Peggy Holloway [mailto:peggybholloway@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:16 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Folks, just want to relay my thoughts that Steve Fought has the correct and smart ideas for 3 types of housing: senior,
workforce, and low‐very low. The needs are all different and should be recognized and accepted. I sincerely hope you
understand this because it will cause trouble "down the road" if not implemented. I live in Sun City and am concerned
about these groups of people being treated fairly, and after 31/2 years here from Dallas, I believe that Georgetown
cares.
Peggy Holloway
Sent from my iPad
Page 181 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 11:40 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Karen
From: Caren Walker [mailto:carenewalker@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:40 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
I am opposed to these two projects.
Caren Walker
113 Old Blue Mountain
Georgetown, TX 78633
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 182 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 2:31 PM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Karen
From: Lee Schuch [mailto:lee.schuch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 2:17 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Gentlemen:
I am writing to express my view that ALL of the proposed low rent housing projects be denied. Georgetown
does not need any more of these projects as many communities around our city have far fewer such
projects. What the city council has done to our formerly wonderful, nice community is a complete disgrace and
takes no consideration into the myriad of issues that are being created. Traffic will continue to be a disaster,
water will be a huge concern and the increasing crime rate (especially due to these low income projects) will be
a black eye on our community. Enough is enough, vote against ALL of these proposed projects.
--
With gratitude,
Lee
The choices we make show the true character of our nature.
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 183 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Monday, June 27, 2016 10:52 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
MorecomingͲ
Karen
ͲͲͲͲͲOriginalMessageͲͲͲͲͲ
From:wlsoula2[mailto:wlsoula2@aol.com]
Sent:Monday,June27,201610:24AM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Cc:District4<district4@georgetown.org>
Subject:CommentsonLiveOakand/orMerrittHeritageProposals
InbothinstancestheexistingzoningontheparcelsisLocalCommercial(CͲ1).
Hasanythoughtorconsiderationbeengiventothelowerincometheseparcelswillgenerateifdevelopedas
apartments?Iamsuretherealestatetaxeswillbelowerandtherewillalsobethelossofsalestax.Inacommunity
growingasquicklyasGeorgetown,itishighlylikelythesepropertieswillbedevelopedcommerciallyinthenearfuture
andwouldenhancethecity'sincome.Thisenhancementtothecity'sincomewouldassistincontrollingtherealestate
taxburdenonthesinglefamilyhomeowner
Itisassumedthattheoriginalzoningwasdeterminedinconcertwithanoveralllanduseplan.Doestheoveralllanduse
planincludesufficientexistingmultiͲfamilylocations?Willchangestotheoveralllanduseplanresultinnegative
impactstotheplan?Isitnecessarytoentertainachangeorcouldthedeveloperhavesecuredaproperlyzonedparcel
ofproperty?
Itseemsthatthereareconstantrequestforrezoningandspecialusepermits.Perhapsthecityneedstoreassessits
overalllanduseplantobetterdetermineandcontrolitsgrowthpatterns.
BillSoula
103MustangIslandTrail
Georgetown,TX.78633
Page 184 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:14 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Karen Frost
Subject:FW: Making Georgetown livable
FYI – Email in support for both tax credit projects going to City Council tonight.
From: Emily Northrop [mailto:northrop@southwestern.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:53 PM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Making Georgetown livable
Dear Mr. Enriquez,
I am concerned about the availability of affordable housing in
Georgetown.
Please support the special use permit for Live Oak. People who
work in Georgetown and contribute to our community deserve
homes that they can afford.
Also, please rezone the property for Merritt Heritage. Many seniors
need housing that is affordable.
Thank you,
Emily Northrop
Emily Northrop
Southwestern University
Economics, Anthropocene
SHIFT happens!
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 185 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:19 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
FYI
From: Larry J. Hilliard [mailto:lj_hilliard@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:59 PM
To: Sofia Nelson <Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>; Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Cc: District1 <district1@georgetown.org>; District2 <district2@georgetown.org>; District3 <district3@georgetown.org>;
District4 <district4@georgetown.org>; District5 <district5@georgetown.org>; District6 <district6@georgetown.org>;
District7 <district7@georgetown.org>; Mayor <mayor@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
Dear Ms. Nelson and Mr. Enriquez:
My wife and I are residents of Sun City and we support the proposals for affordable housing for employees,
millennials and senior citizens in Georgetown. It is unthinkable that anyone, especially a city council person,
would oppose providing affordable housing for those people who make Georgetown "tick" on a daily
basis. People who work in Georgetown should be able to afford to live in Georgetown ~ and so should our
young people and senior citizens.
We ask you to support the special use permit for Live Oak. Many of our workers are cost-burdened, having to
pay more than 40% or 50% of their income for housing costs and transportation. Without them, our businesses
can not blossom, our city cannot maintain its quality of life and the prosperity of our local economy suffers.
We ask you to rezone the property for Merritt Heritage. No other city in Texas has as huge a senior population
as we ~ and it continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. With the addition of another 2,500 homes in Sun
City, it will keep growing larger. Today, our senior population consists of many aged seniors. They find it
difficult to live here as their retirement savings have shrunk due to loss of a spouse, or severe illness. Their
fiscal resources are no longer sufficient to cover their housing costs, including maintenance. And they can't find
affordable housing to remain here. These seniors pay taxes also ~ either directly or through their rents. Others
contribute volunteer labor to sustain our quality of life. Now it's time for us to care about them. And that's true
of our workers, too.
Our elected officials seem to have no problem supporting luxury condos for senior citizens (Seven Strand
Luxury Senior Living at the entrance to Sun City) but they don't want "those other people" to have decent
housing that they can afford. This must not stand!
Thank you for supporting decent housing for all citizens of Georgetown.
Larry and Patricia Hilliard
Sun City Texas
Page 186 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:20 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
FYI
From: Mark Skrabacz [mailto:markskrabacz@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:28 PM
To: Sofia Nelson <Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>; Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
Dear Sofia and Juan,
I imagine you are receiving a few CON emails about these worthy projects. Here's my PRO, and I represent
many from San Gabriel UU Fellowship.
I request that you support the Special Use Permit for Live Oak. Many of our workers are cost‐burdened,
paying more than 40 or 50% for housing costs and transportation. Without them, our businesses cannot thrive
to ensure the prosperity of our local economy, and to maintain Georgetown's quality of life. We need to
support affordable housing for our workers!
Please rezone the property for Merritt Heritage. No other city in Texas has as large a senior population as
Georgetown With the addition of 2.429 homes in Sun City, it will keep growing. Yet our senior population is
aging. They will find it difficult to continue to live here as their retirement savings shrink due to loss of a
spouse, a fragile economy, or severe illness. When their fiscal resources are no longer sufficient to cover their
housing costs, including maintenance, they'll need to find affordable housing to remain here.
These seniors stabilize our economy. Many contribute volunteer labor to sustain our quality of life. Now it's
time for us to care about them.
Please let me know how I can support you.
Gratefully,
Mark
Mark Skrabacz, Minister, San Gabriel UU Fellowship - A Welcoming Congregation, Phone 512-688-5069 Physical Address:
1322 E University Ave, Georgetown, TX 78626 Mailing Address: 4500 Williams Dr. Ste. 212 #245, Georgetown, TX
78633 Residence: 1215 Haven Lane #102, Georgetown, TX 78626 . land 512-819-1608 cell 830-928-3722
Page 187 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:20 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support of affordable housing
FYI
From: Marchelia Hart [mailto:cheehart@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:34 PM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support of affordable housing
Dear Mr. Enriquez,
I am writing this letter to ask you to support the Special Use Permit for
Live Oak and the rezoning of property for Merritt Heritage. We must do
everything in our power to support our community and I see this as a
positive move forward. I live in the Woods of Fountainwood Subdivision
off of Jim Hogg Road and I think affordable housing is greatly needed in
our community of Georgetown. I am not troubled in the least that I will
have new neighbors where I currently live. I am definitely for it! Thank
you for reading and considering my request.
Chee Hart
130 Roberts Circle
Georgetown, TX 78633
512‐627‐9132
Peace & Blessings,
Chee
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 188 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:29 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Proposed Low Income developments
Karen
From: John Spahr [mailto:spahrvfw@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:36 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Cc: District4 <district4@georgetown.org>
Subject: Proposed Low Income developments
I am strongly opposed to any development that will have an adverse effect on the traffic flow on
Williams Drive. There are already several large developments under construction along Williams Dr.
and adding more will simply make the problem greater. The increase in traffic on Williams Drive has
already reached too high a level and yet the city seems bound and determined to add more
developments and more traffic. While I don't know the reason for the rampant approval of
developments (other than to increase the tax base at the expense of the people already here), I can
only say, "Enough is Enough".
Surely, there are other areas in the city that are far more suited for these developments if indeed we
are being forced to take them.
Sincerely
John T. Spahr
116 Trail of the Flowers
Georgetown, TX 78633
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 189 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:30 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: City Council Meeting 6/28, agenda items M & N
From: Edwin [mailto:edroark1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:05 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: City Council Meeting 6/28, agenda items M & N
Greetings to members of the Georgetown City Council,
I am opposed to the multi‐family developments being considered in agenda items M & N and petition the Council to
deny these request.
We live in the Serenada subdivision near these proposed developments firmly believe that these proposed
developments will have a negative impact for our neighborhood and area.
I believe there are locations within the County and City that can benefit from the construction of these facilities. The
developer and City need to work together to find those areas.
Thanks for your consideration.
Edwin Roark
Roark Properties, Inc
Edwin Roark, President/Broker
512‐705‐5501
3910 Sequoia Trail West
Georgetown, TX 78628
OF 512‐363‐5249
FX 866‐323‐8968
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 190 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:33 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
From: Russ Lanning [mailto:russ.lanning@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:57 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Cc: District4 <district4@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
I wish for it to be known that I am totally opposed to any expansion of our low income housing in
Georgetown. It is time for neighboring communities to bear their fair share of the burden in
supporting this concept. I cannot understand how the city could possibly put low income housing
along the growth corridor of Georgetown. Do you not realize that there are significant negatives
associated with this plan? Increased crime, sight blight, and a drop in property values all around
the area. Who would want to invest in a business, buy a home, or work in the vicinity of a low
income project?
The Williams Drive corridor has experienced an expansion of Senior Care and Assisted Care
Housing over the past couple of years. Would it not make sense to continue this expansion with
affordable senior housing to supplement the significant growth of the senior population in
Georgetown. The afore mentioned negatives would not be associated with a project that provides
affordable housing for seniors since there would not likely be increased crime or sight blight
imposed upon the community.
Sincerely,
Russell and Karen Lanning
101 Briar Patch Cove
Georgetown
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 191 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:18 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
From: Stephanie Blanck [mailto:sablanck@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:18 AM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>; Sofia Nelson <Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>
Cc: District5 <district5@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support for Live Oak and Merritt Heritage
Dear Sofia and Juan:
I am writing in support of the Special Use Permit for Live Oak. Many of our workers are cost-
burdened paying more than 40 or 50% for housing costs and transportation. Without them, our
businesses cannot blossom, our City cannot maintain its quality of life nor ensure the prosperity of our
local economy.
I also ask you to encourage the council to rezone the property for Merritt Heritage. No other city in
Texas has as huge a senior population as we. With the addition of 2.429 homes in Sun City, it will
keep growing larger. Today, our senior population consists of many aged seniors. They find it difficult
to live here as their retirement savings have shrunk due to loss of a spouse, or severe illness.Their
fiscal resources are no longer sufficient to cover their housing costs, including maintenance. And they
can't find affordable housing to remain here.
These seniors stabilized our economy. Others contributed volunteer labor to sustain our quality of
life. Now it's time for us to care about them. And that's true of our workers, too. This community has
changed a lot since I moved here in 1980. We attracted the seniors to come live here, now let's
support them. We need the service industry, teachers, public safety employees - now lets find them
affordable housing so they can live where they work. Let's not become an elite community.
Thank you for listening,
Stephanie Blanck
206 Jaydee Terrace, 78628
Stephanie Blanck
“You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.” Carl Jung
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 192 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:06 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support for Affordable Housing in Georgetown
FYI
From: Rev. Ron Trimmer [mailto:pastor@hopegeorgetown.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing in Georgetown
Dear Juan Enriquez, Planner,
Please accept this letter as support for the building of safe, decent, affordable housing in
Georgetown. Specifically, we support the granting of special use building permits for Live Oak to build
housing at 4121 Williams Dr. and Merritt Heritage to build at 4700 Williams Dr.
Hope United is an open and affirming congregation in Georgetown, which offers the freedom to explore the
questions of life, share the love of Christ, grow in faith, and work for peace and justice. We recognize that
housing can play a vital role in that exploration, sharing, and growth and are supportive of efforts to provide
working families with quality housing options, bringing them closer to the peace and justice we seek. Many of
our workers are cost-burdened paying more than 40 or 50% for housing costs and transportation. Without them,
our businesses can not blossom, our City maintain its quality of life nor ensure the prosperity of our local
economy.
Blessings and Peace,
Rev. Ron Trimmer
‐‐‐
Blessings and Peace,
Rev. Ron Trimmer
Hope United ‐ Georgetown, Texas
512.876.9097 pastor@HopeGeorgetown.org
www.HopeGeorgetown.org
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 193 of 247
Page 194 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:42 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Attachments:LowIncomeAffordableHousing.pdf
From: Steven Ritzwoller [mailto:sritzcpa@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:31 AM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
I am opposed to the affordable housing being discussed for Georgetown and have attached
comments as a neighboring property owner.
Steven Ritzwoller
512 591-7717
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 195 of 247
Page 196 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:52 AM
To:Shelley Nowling
Cc:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
Shelley, this will be the last one I send to you to forward to Council due to the time of the day. After this I will
just continue to send it to Sofia and the planners.
Karen
From:PattiCakeMun@aol.com[mailto:PattiCakeMun@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,June28,201611:37AM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Subject:CommentsonLiveOakand/orMerrittHeritageProposals
IT APPEARS THAT THE THREE LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS ARE ALL ON WILLIAMS DRIVE AND ALL
WITHIN A FAIRLY NEAR DISTANCE TO EACH OTHER. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT GEORGETOWN ALREADY HAS
MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THIS TYPE HOUSING. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT DUE TO THE ALREADY
HEAVY TRAFFIC ON WILLIAMS DRIVE, THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE PROJECTS SHOULD BE SCATTERED TO
THE EAST OR NORTH OF GEORGETOWN.
PATTI MUNSON
140 CAMP DR.
SUN CITY
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 197 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:06 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Live Oak & Merritt Heritage Complexes
From: Maggie Castillo [mailto:maggiecast@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:35 AM
To: Sofia Nelson <Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>; Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Live Oak & Merritt Heritage Complexes
To Sofia Nelson & Juan Enriquez,
Please support the Special Use Permit for Live Oak Complex for affordable housing for
workers/millenials. Our city benefits greatly from their services & skills, without them our city
cannot maintain its current quality of life.
Also, please support the rezoning of the Merritt Heritage for affordable housing for seniors
with diminished incomes. As you know, Georgetown has a huge senior population which is on
fixed income, many of which are elderly widows. Affordable housing is much needed for this
population.
Thank you, Maggie Castillo
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 198 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:12 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Support for affordable housing possibilities in Georgetown
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Susan Wukasch [mailto:sewtoo@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Support for affordable housing possibilities in Georgetown
Mr. Enríquez,
I urge you to support the special Use permit for Live Oak apartments, 4121 Williams Drive, and the rezoning requesting
to enable the development of the Merritt Heritage complex at 4700 Williams Drive.
I attended the P & Z meeting a few weeks ago and heard the staff presentations recommending against these
developments, but I urge you to reconsider and support these developments as necessary to begin to correct the
terrible inadequacy of affordable housing in Georgetown. Hardly a day goes by without my hearing someone bemoan
the fact that housing is too expensive here for teachers, service workers, police, firemen, and people on fixed incomes in
Georgetown. Refusing to allow affordably priced housing to be integrated into areas in which the dollars these
individuals do have will contribute to the commercial life of the area, while providing close‐in housing for many of the
workers needed to service the large senior populations of Sun City and the many facilities that provide care for disabled
seniors in that very area, seems very short‐sighted to me. Please support the changes/exceptions needed by these
developers to make these small islands of affordable housing available to those of us who need less expensive housing.
It is the right thing to do.
Thank you,
Susan Wukasch
Page 199 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:21 PM
To:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Affordable housing
From: Suzanne H [mailto:shaselfeld@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:14 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Affordable housing
I approve senior affordable housing, disapprove regular workforce affordable housing.
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 200 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:45 PM
To:Sofia Nelson; Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
From: joe.scavella@suddenlink.net [mailto:joe.scavella@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:44 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DOROTHY: OUR FAMILY IS NOT AGREEABLE ABOUT HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON ANY PART OF
WILLIAMS DRIVE. WE OBJECT.
JOSEPH J. SCAVELLA
255 TRAIL OF THE FLOWERS
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 201 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Darlene Duncan <dduncan@veriteesolutions.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:27 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:Re: The Need for Senior Housing in Georgetown.
Merritt Heritage!
Darlene Duncan
San Gabriel Senior Village
Operation Manager
2101 Railroad St.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512-864-9475p / 512-864-9498f
dduncan@veriteesolutions.com
From: Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Darlene Duncan
Cc: Juan Enriquez
Subject: RE: The Need for Senior Housing in Georgetown.
Thank you. Staff is tabulating the many public comments we have received today and yesterday on 2 applications being
presented to City Council this evening. Can you please clarify which application, or both, you wish to register your
comment to:
SUP‐2016‐002 – known as Live Oak
REZ‐2016‐010 – known as Merritt Heritage
Thank you, your comment will be routed to the appropriate City staff to be conveyed to City Council, as well as the
applicant for the particular application.
Mike
From: Darlene Duncan [mailto:dduncan@veriteesolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:36 PM
To: Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org>
Subject: The Need for Senior Housing in Georgetown.
I manage SGSV here in Georgetown. One of the hard's thing I have to do daily is tell seniors and their families
that I can only place them on a wait list. An those that their income a 50% or 30% I cant even help due to I
have no 50% set aside here and the 30% wait list is closed. I am very passionate about my seniors and when
Page 202 of 247
2
they try and refer their friends, we can on add to the list. The desperation I here in their families voices and
then they as me what can I suggest. Event the Housing Authority wait list is closed currently. Senior Living is
much needed in Georgetown Texas! Please and Thank you,
Darlene Duncan
San Gabriel Senior Village
Operation Manager
2101 Railroad St.
Georgetown, Texas 78626
512-864-9475p / 512-864-9498f
dduncan@veriteesolutions.com
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 203 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Cheryl Dorothy <cjdotusa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:21 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:Affordable Housing
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of San Gabriel Senior Village for the last 8 years and I truly believe that the need for Affordable
Housing especially in the 55 and over category is really needed here in Georgetown. When I moved to Texas 8
yrs ago there was only 2 apartment complexes in Georgetown for senior citizens and right now there are STILL
only 2 apartment complexes. I believe there is a greater need now, than there was then. I realize that Sun City
is expanding, however, there are a lot of seniors who can't afford, nor do they want all the responsibilities of
home ownership. Since Georgetown is the number one spot for retirees in the nation, I think it is the
responsibility of the City Council to help grow places to live and prosper for seniors. I understand that Merritt
properties is asking to build another apartment complex in Georgetown. If it is as good as ours, I think we not
only need it but should welcome it.
Thank you for your support.
Cheryl Dorothy
Senior Citizen of Georgetown Texas.
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 204 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Carroll <mycalexa@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 5:42 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:Re: Affordable housing for seniors!!
Merritt Heritage first choice. Or both applications, generally. Need is there regardless of the
builder. But I support the builder/owner of San Gabriel Senior Village in Georgetown as well as
his other properties. I viewed the one he owns in Buda, Texas, south of Austin.
Thank you.
“We work in the dark to save the light.” Ezio Auditore – (Assassin’s Creed - the movie) ~~~~~
“In this dark, when we all talk at once, some of us must learn to whistle.” ~ Walt Kelly (Pogo)
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org> wrote:
Thank you. Staff is tabulating the many public comments we have received today and yesterday on 2 applications
being presented to City Council this evening. Can you please clarify which application, or both, you wish to register
your comment to:
SUP‐2016‐002 – known as Live Oak
REZ‐2016‐010 – known as Merritt Heritage
Thank you, your comment will be routed to the appropriate City staff to be conveyed to City Council, as well as the
applicant for the particular application.
Mike
Page 205 of 247
2
From: Carroll [mailto:mycalexa@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org>
Subject: Affordable housing for seniors!!
With restrictions and red tape in Austin government, it seems to be up to the
surrounding communities to offer affordable housing for seniors. Not everyone
arrives at this last leg in their life well prepared for the crimping that's been
done as federal government continues to tweak the formulas and shuffle the monies
meant to assist in retirement.
I was born in 1943, a forerunner in the mass of baby boomers coming after me. We
all know the huge issue of national debt and unresolved financial issues in this
country, plus uncertainty of polarized leadership. Since neither Congress nor the
administration has seen fit to deal directly with the issues of retirement - or the
huge demand looming in the near future - the cry for affordable housing is already
reaching epic volume.
Circumstances unforeseen brought me to this affordable place in Georgetown as I
all be fled the high flying expense of Austin living. I am beginning my third year
here. Manageable, affordable expense of day-to-day living is a God-send to me and
my neighbors. I make my nest here in comfort and safety, and in agreeable
surroundings and community. Who knew 20 years ago I would have such a safety net
when times have become so unpredictable with a future that is no longer certain.
As we look to changing circumstances and lessening value of our contributions, I see
my group growing substantially over time. It is an asset to smaller communities to
provide affordability and reap the financial and social reward of this contributing
group of retired citizens who shop, participate, vote and value places such as
Georgetown. The need is great and will not let up. Today is the time to build and plan
because the future in this country may become as uncertain as what seniors face
today. We don't have to look far to see what a lack of planning in lieu of endless
Page 206 of 247
3
discussion can do in the long run. Being aware is a step toward resolving what is
surely coming throughout our country. Best for everyone, government and
citizens, to be ahead of the wave, in my opinion.
Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Carroll Alexander (San Gabriel Senior Village
- Georgetown)
“We work in the dark to save the light.” Ezio Auditore – (Assassin’s Creed - the movie) ~~~~~
“In this dark, when we all talk at once, some of us must learn to whistle.” ~ Walt Kelly (Pogo)
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 207 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Cheryl Dorothy <cjdotusa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:26 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:Affordable Housing
Dear Sir,
I am a resident of San Gabriel Senior Village for the last 3 years and I truly believe that the need for Affordable
Housing especially in the 55 and over category is really needed here in Georgetown. When I moved to Texas 3
yrs ago there was only 2 apartment complexes in Georgetown for senior citizens and right now there are STILL
only 2 apartment complexes. I believe there is a greater need now, than there was then. I realize that Sun City
is expanding, however, there are a lot of seniors who can't afford, nor do they want all the responsibilities of
home ownership. Since Georgetown is the number one spot for retirees in the nation, I think it is the
responsibility of the City Council to help grow places to live and prosper for seniors. I understand that Merritt
properties is asking to build another apartment complex in Georgetown. If it is as good as ours, I think we not
only need it but should welcome it.
Thank you for your support.
Ramona Forfia
Senior Citizen of Georgetown Texas.
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 208 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Sharon Crockett <scrockett60@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6:15 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:Re: Affordable Housing
Merritt Heritage
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you. Staff is tabulating the many public comments we have received today and yesterday on 2 applications
being presented to City Council this evening. Can you please clarify which application, or both, you wish to register your
comment to:
>
> * SUP‐2016‐002 ‐ known as Live Oak
> * REZ‐2016‐010 ‐ known as Merritt Heritage
>
> Thank you, your comment will be routed to the appropriate City staff to be conveyed to City Council, as well as the
applicant for the particular application.
>
> Mike
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Sharon Crockett [mailto:scrockett60@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:08 PM
> To: Mike Elabarger <mike.elabarger@georgetown.org>
> Subject: Affordable Housing
>
> This is to let you know that more affordable housing is needed in Georgetown. I live at San Gabriel Senior Village and I
know that there is a long waiting list. I have checked other properties and the samething there
>
> Sent from my iPad
Page 209 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:35 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: support for Special Use Permit for Live Oak
FYIͲTheykeepcoming.
From:EdHillis[mailto:edhillis@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,June28,20165:56PM
To:SofiaNelson<Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>;JuanEnriquez<Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject:supportforSpecialUsePermitforLiveOak
Georgetown friends,
Please support the Special Use Permit for Live Oak.
Many of our workers are cost-burdened paying more than 40 or 50% for housing costs and
transportation. Without them, our businesses can not blossom, our City maintain its quality of life nor ensure
the prosperity of our local economy.
Please rezone the property for Merritt Heritage.
No other city in Texas has as huge a senior population as we. With the addition of 2.429 homes in Sun City, it
will keep growing larger. Today, our senior population consists of many aged seniors. They find it difficult to
live here as their retirement savings have shrunk due to loss of a spouse, or severe illness. Their fiscal
resources are no longer sufficient to cover their housing costs, including maintenance. And they can't find
affordable housing to remain here.
These seniors stabilized our economy. Others contributed volunteer labor to sustain our quality of life. Now
it's time for us to care about them. And that's true of our workers, too.
I am mostly quoting Walt Doering here, but I hope you will read my message as sincere as I agree deeply with
his sentiments.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed Hillis
Country Club Road
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 210 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:42 AM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Housing in Georgetown
FYI
From: Peggy Ogden‐Howe [mailto:peggy.ogdenhowe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:05 PM
To: Juan Enriquez <Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject: Housing in Georgetown
My husband and I moved here ;more than 4 years ago. I urge you to
support the Special Use Permit for Live Oak. Georgetown needs to
provide housing for a range of financial situations for families who work
here. It would be unjust to expect those who have jobs here to drive
distances to Georgetown, at considerable cost to them and loss of
discretionary income after paying for their transportation.
In addition, I urge you to support the rezoning of the property for
Merritt Heritage. As a senior citizen who is living in our last single-family
dwelling, I want options in my latter years. Senior citizens have added
arts, culture, and service to Georgetown to make it a great and attractive
community. We must not turn our backs on them when they need a
different place to call home. Thank you.
May you be blessed with joyous peace! Peggy Ogden-Howe
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 211 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Juan Enriquez
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:46 PM
To:Mike Elabarger
Subject:FW: Housing for Seniors
FYI–Theykeepcomingeventhoughtheygotapprovedlastnight.
From:ArthurCannon[mailto:arthur.cannon@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday,June29,201610:05AM
To:SofiaNelson<Sofia.Nelson@georgetown.org>;JuanEnriquez<Juan.Enriquez@georgetown.org>
Subject:HousingforSeniors
I am very much for the housing proposed for both Live Oaks low-income apartments and Merritt
HeritageseniorhousingfortheelderlywithlowͲincome.
IlivenearWilliamsDriveinHeritageOaks.Iknowthesetwoprojectswouldhelpthosepeople
withthemostneeds.
Art Cannon
Tel:512 591-7736
Mobile: 617 840-2513
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 212 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Thursday, June 30, 2016 8:45 AM
To:Mike Elabarger; Juan Enriquez
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
From: Don Bowen [mailto:donbowen@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:29 PM
To: WEB_Planning <planning@georgetown.org>
Subject: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
I have carefully reviewed the material provided by Steve Fought concerning proposed low-income housing on Williams
Drive, (Thank you, Mr. Fought). I note that Merritt Heritage is designated low income senior housing and the other two
projects are apparently not yet designated.
I have absolutely no issue with the provision of low income senior housing along that stretch of Williams Drive. Indeed I
believe it is a good location, considering the concentration of existing senior facilities close by. The nearby locations of
medical emergency personnel on D.B. Wood and Sun City Boulevard also support this location.
I am also fine with low income workforce housing, especially if it is indeed oriented toward city workers and their
families. The people that serve the community deserve our support.
I am much less enthusiastic about locating general low-income housing along this section of Williams Drive. I am
painfully aware of the tendency of subsidized low income housing to drift toward tenements and slums, and, unfortunately,
the all-too-common increase in crime around such locations. I question if this section of Williams Drive is an appropriate
location, given its current concentration of senior facilities and single-family homes. I fear an erosion of the currently low
level of property crime, especially within Sun City and other senior facilities.
Perhaps it would be better for assisted low-income housing to be placed in an area that already has a lower income
working population.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Don Bowen
106 Monument Hill Trail
Sun City
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 213 of 247
1
Mike Elabarger
From:Karen Frost
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:56 PM
To:Juan Enriquez; Mike Elabarger
Cc:Sofia Nelson
Subject:FW: Comments on Live Oak and/or Merritt Heritage Proposals
I think you have to start another pile of these. I will forward all the emails I receive, but I know that I am not
getting them all.
Karen
From:WJEDJE1@aol.com[mailto:WJEDJE1@aol.com]
Sent:Wednesday,June29,20164:47PM
To:WEB_Planning<planning@georgetown.org>
Subject:CommentsonLiveOakand/orMerrittHeritageProposals
Dear Sirs, I Georgetown has two to three times some of our near by cities, Why in the World would Georgetown be
selected to build these low income projects.
There are over 13 to 14000 people living in Sun City, and it is already very congested on Williams Drive. Isn't it a bit
insane to build more here, and make the traffic even worse?
Walter Emmert
143 Old Chisholm Trail
Georgetown Texas
Click here to report this email as spam.
Page 214 of 247
Page 215 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: 13.24 ac. J. Fish Srvy – OF/C-1 to MF-1/MF-2 Case File Number: __REZ-2016-010__
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A&B Attached
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone 13.24 acres in the Joseph
Fish Survey from the Office (OF) District and Local Commercial (C-1)
District to 9.99 acres of the High Density Multifamily (MF-2) District and
3.256 acres of the Low Density Multifamily (MF-1) District, to be known as
Merritt Heritage; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions;
including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the
Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District
classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
13.24 acres of the Joseph Fish Survey(s), being a portion of 118.34 acres recorded in
Document Number 1996036558 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County,
Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property"; and
Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law
and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the
Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on June 7, 2016, held the
required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the requested rezoning of the Property; and
Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on June 28, 2016, held an additional public
hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified
Development Code.
Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the
Property is hereby amended from the Office District (OF) and Local Commercial District (C-1)
to 9.99 acres of the High Density Multifamily District (MF-2) and 3.256 acres of the Low Density
Multifamily District (MF-1), in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and
Exhibit B (Legal Description) and incorporated herein by reference.
Page 216 of 247
Ordinance Number: ___________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: 13.24 ac. J. Fish Srvy – OF/C-1 to MF-1/MF-2 Case File Number: __REZ-2016-010__
Date Approved: __________________ Exhibits A&B Attached
Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in
conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect.
Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be
severable.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law
and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown.
APPROVED on First Reading on the 28th day of June, 2016.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 26th day of July, 2016.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST:
______________________ _________________________
Dale Ross Shelley Nowling
Mayor City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Charlie McNabb
City Attorney
Page 217 of 247
D e l W e b b Blv d
WilliamsDr
WilliamsDr
Lake w ay Dr
D
B
W
o
o
d
R
d
Booty'sCrossingRd
Shell
Rd
ShellRd
Jim H o g g R d
Seren a da Dr
Lake w ay Dr
N L a k e w o o d s D r
S e d r o T rl
")2338
REZ-2016-010Exhibit A
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Location Map
0 0.5 1Mi
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Page 218 of 247
Page 219 of 247
Page 220 of 247
Page 221 of 247
Page 222 of 247
Page 223 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
P roject updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk, and
other infrastructure pro jects; police, fire and other public safety pro jects; econo mic development projects; city facility
projects;downtown projects including parking enhanceme nts,c ity lease agreements, and possible direction to city staff --
David Morgan, City Manager
Blue Ho le Re spo nse
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City Council has requested regular updates regarding the status of projects, as well as the ability to discuss the se
projects as a collective.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This is an Council Update Item.
SUBMITTED BY:
Shirley J. Rinn o n be half of David S. Morgan, City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
GEDCO Projec t Update
GTEC Projec t Up d ate
GTEC Projec t P ro gres s Status
GTAB Pro jec t Updates
Page 224 of 247
Name Description
Approved by
Council Funded Monitoring Compliance
Citigroup
$1.3 Million Grant for wastewater infrastructure disbursed in April
2008. 12/12/2006 Funded April 2008
Yes, Final compliance
date is Dec. 2018
Radix BioSolutions, Ltd.
Provided grant to assist with the work and future plans of Radix
BioSolutions at the TLCC. Agreement approved by GEDCO on
February 9, 2010 and Council approved the Agreement at its March
9, 2010 Meeting. Radix paid back $47K on 3/15/15. Radix paid
back $50K 3/10/16.3/9/2010 Funded May 13, 2010
Yes, Final compliance
date is March 2018
Lone Star Circle of Care
Provided a grant not to exceed $387,000 for Qualified Expenditures
for future site improvements at 205 East University Avenue,
Georgetown, Texas. Loan Agreement and Promissory Note have
not been executed. Agreement approved by GEDCO on June 23,
2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its June 28, 2011
Meeting. 6/28/2011
Funded November and
December 2011
Yes, Final Compliance
Date is July 28, 2016
Grape Creek
Provide a grant not to exceed $447,000 for Qualified Expenditures
for the lease/purchase and future site improvements at 101 E. 7th
Street and 614 Main Street for the operation of a winery on the
Downtown Square in Georgetown Agreement approved by GEDCO
on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the Agreement at its August
23, 2011 Meeting. Fourth Amended Performance Agreement, Lease
Agreement, and Promissory Note was approved by GEDCO on
August 20, 2012 and by the City Council on August 28, 2012. TIRZ
Agreement for $60,000 approved by City Council on 9-11-12. 8/23/2011 Funded
Yes, Final Compliance is
March 2018.
Georgetown Winery
Provide a grant not to exceed $70,000 for Qualified Expenditures
described as equipment for wine production and an agreement to
maintain and operate the existing winery in Georgetown. Agreement
approved by GEDCO on July 25, 2011 and Council approved the
Agreement at its August 23, 2011 Meeting. 8/23/2011 Funded
Yes, Final Compliance
Date is June 30, 2016
DiFusion Technologies (2)
Provide an extension of time for Difusion to retain unlimited access
to the ICP Spectrometor (equipment) under a lease agreement with
the TLCC for a year. At the end of the Agreement, Difusion will
purchase the Spectometor from GEDCO for $112,000.00.
Agreement Approved by GEDCO on December 21, 2015 and
Council on January 12, 2016.1/12/2016 No funding involved
Yes, Final Compliance
September 30, 2017
GEDCO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
May 16, 2016
Page 225 of 247
Name Description
Approved by
Council Funded Monitoring Compliance
GEDCO PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
May 16, 2016
Georgetown Indpendent School District
Provided a grant not to exceed $200,560 for the purchase of
qualified expenditures related to the equipment for the Engineering
Program and Laboratories at Georgetown and East View High
Schools. GISD will offer the MSSC Certifications, implement a Job
Placement Program, provide and annual report and annual tour of
the facilities to the GEDCO Board. Agreement was approved by
GEDCO on September 17, 2012 and the City Council on September
25, 2012. The GEDCO Board approved the GISD request to amend
the Performance Agreement to allow the purchase different
equipment than outlined in the original agreement on November 18,
2013. 9/25/2012 Partially Funded.
Yes. Final Compliance
based on funding
available.
Texas Life Sciences Collaboration Center
(4)
Provide a grant of $100,000 for the maintenance of the TLCC.
Performance Agreement approved by GEDCO on 12/21/15. New
one-year agreement.1/12/2016 Funded February 2016
Yes. Final Compliance
October 31, 2016
The Rivery at Summit Conference Center
Provide a grant not to exceed $4.5 Million for Public Infrastructure
Improvements. Approved by the GEDCO Board on November 18,
2013. Approved by the City Council on December 10, 2013. 12/10/2013 Not Funded
Yes.Construction
Deadline is
June 30, 2016.
TASUS Texas Corporation
Provide a grant of $67,500 for job creation related to expansion of
manufacturing facilities. Approved by the City Council on February
25, 2014 and approved by the GEDCO Board on February 17, 2014 2/25/2014 Not Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
May 31, 2017
Radiation Detection Corporation
Provide a grant of $320,000 for job creation related to the relocation
of the corporate offices to Georgetown. Approved by City Council
and GEDCO on July 23, 2013. 7/23/2013 Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
December 31, 2021
DisperSol
Provide a grant of $250,000 for job creation related to expansion of
manufacturing facilities. Approved by the GEDCO Board on August
18, 2014. Company earned $50K (= 10 eligible positions at
$10/job). Check delivered 4/17/15 to company. Company earned
$20K for creation of 4 net new jobs @ $5K/job incentive. Check
delivered 5/9/16 10/16/2014 Partially Funded
Yes. Final Compliance
February 15, 2019
Page 226 of 247
Closed
No
No
No.
No
No
No
Page 227 of 247
Closed
No
No.
No.
No.
No
No.
Page 228 of 247
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete.
Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0
Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete.
Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB
Wood Road)
#14A 5QW Project Complete.
Complete 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350
Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Project Complete.
Complete 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320
Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer is coordinating design with the design for
Rivery Boulevard in moving towards construction
PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work
between these two projects.
Engineer is developing alternatives for storm water
outfall.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY
2019.
In-process
Unchanged
1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590
NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY We have been informed by TxDOT that it will be
doing the Schematic, Environmental, etc., and
PS&E for the NB Frontage Road as part of its
proposed Williams Drive Bridge project.
The City project is on indefinite hold but we
will be coordinating with TxDOT on its design
project.
Indefinite Hold
Unchabged
613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0
ROW - 1460 #EEa
#EEb
#EEc
5RB Under Construction.
Tentatively scheduled to be complete Spring
2018 (TxDOT is administering construction)
Utility relocations - ongoing.
Two Utility companies (Atmos Energy and
Seminole Pipeline) have subnitted invoices for
completed relocations for reimbursement.
As of October 16th, the City has obtained PUAs or
have closings completed or planned for all the
remaining FM 1460 parcels.
Remaining parcel – pending closing
documents.
Under
Construction
Unchanged
11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643
TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete.
Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0
FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete.
Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0
Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete.
Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000
Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer has submitted 75% plans for City review.
Appraisals complete. Offers have been made
to all 22 parcels. Closed on 6 parcels; 3
pending contract execution or final closing
preparation.
Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid FY
2018.
On Schedule
Unchanged
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
July 2016
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-07.xlsx Page 1 of 2 7/13/2016Page 229 of 247
Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP
No.
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Projected
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT
July 2016
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
Snead Drive 5QZ Project is Substantially Complete (roadway is
fully open to traffic; contractor
working on punch‐list and final clean up.) Final
WalkThru scheduled 7/28/16,
awaiting grass to be established.
Substantially
Complete
825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100
Mays Street Extension 5RI Design is Complete
ROW acquisition on‐going (3 of 6 parcels
acquired)
Project advertised June 12th and 19th;
Bids to be opened June 30th;
GTEC – July 20th;
Council – August 9th;
Anticipated NTP – Late‐August
Anticipated completion Summer 2017
In Process 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0
IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000
Current Economic Development Projects Project
Type
Project
No.
Update On Schedule/
Or Behind
Project
Budget
Project
Cost
Available Current Year
Budget
Current Year
Cost
Current Year
Available
100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo
Project
5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0
Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives
and preliminary cost estimates.
On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0
Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500
16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503
Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14)
L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-07.xlsx Page 2 of 2 7/13/2016Page 230 of 247
FM 1460
(Quail Valley Drive to University Drive)
Project No. 5RB TIP No. BO & CD
Rights‐of‐Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation
July 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Acquisition of ROW and relocation of utilities for the FM 1460 Project (Quail Valley
Drive to University Drive).
Purpose To have all ROWs cleared and utilities prior to TxDOT letting the project for
construction.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP, and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way
One (1) remaining parcel – pending closing
documents.
Section: North South
Acquired: 35 8
Pending: 1 ‐
Condemnation: 0 ‐
Total: 36 8
Utility Relocations Ongoing
Two Utility companies have submitted invoices for reimbursement – Atmos Energy
and Seminole Pipeline
Construction Under Construction.
Tentatively scheduled to be complete Spring 2018.
Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.
Page 231 of 247
Mays Street Extension
(Teravista Parkway in Round Rock to the intersection with Westinghouse Road)
Project No. 5RI TIP No. CK
July 2016
Project Description Extend Mays Street northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection
with Westinghouse Road at Rabbit Hill Road. The widening along Westinghouse
Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional
turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals
and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the
anticipated alignment is approximately 1.2 miles.
Purpose To develop final PS&E and complete construction of the project.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer CP&Y, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way ROW acquisition – on‐going Total Parcels: 6
Acquired: 4
Pending: 2
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Project advertised June 12th and 19th;
Bids to be opened June 30th;
GTEC – July 20th;
Council – August 9th;
Anticipated NTP – Late‐August
Anticipated completion Summer 2017
Other Issues
Page 232 of 247
NB Frontage Road
(SS 158 to Lakeway Drive)
Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF
July 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Design and construct a portion of an IH‐35 NB Frontage Road from Williams Drive
to Northwest Boulevard Bridge of a proposed NB FR which would ultimately
extend to Lakeway Drive.
Purpose To relieve congestion in the Williams Drive/Austin Avenue intersection by
providing a NB alternate, interim route to FM 971 and Georgetown High School.
This project is the only remaining portion of IH 35 in Central Texas without a
frontage road existing, under construction or being designed.
Project Manager Bill Dryden
Engineer Klotz Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design We have been informed by TxDOT that it will be doing the Schematic,
Environmental, etc., and PS&E for the NB Frontage Road as part of its proposed
Williams Drive Bridge project.
The City project is on indefinite hold but we will continue coordination with
TxDOT on its design of the project.
Environmental/
Archeology
TBD – By TxDOT
Rights of Way None identified
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues None at this time.
Page 233 of 247
Northwest Boulevard Overpass
(Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue)
Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF
July 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with
Austin Avenue and FM 971.
Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive
intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to
Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer is coordinating design with the design for Rivery Boulevard in moving
towards construction PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work between
these two projects.
Engineer has developed alternatives for stormwater outfall northward from NW
Blvd.
Environmental/
Archeological
Concurrent with preliminary engineering and schematic design.
Rights of Way ROW Documents are being finalized. Part of the ROW for this project is being
required to complete the Rivery Boulevard Extension project.
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Tentatively scheduled to begin mid‐FY 2019.
Other Issues Paper work has been submitted to TxDOT to create an AFA for design and
environmental reviews of the bridge over I 35.
Page 234 of 247
Rivery Boulevard Extension
(Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive)
Project No. 5RM TIP No. AD
July 2016
Project
Description
Develop the Rights‐of‐Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues
and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of
Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in
anticipation of future funding availability.
Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the
Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future
Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the
Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf
Ranch Parkway.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates
Element Status / Issues
Design Engineer has submitted 75% plans for City’s review.
Environmental/
Archeology
Complete
Rights of Way Appraisals complete. Offers have been made to all 22
parcels. Closed on 6 parcels; 3 pending contract
execution or final closing preparation.
Total Parcels: 22
Appraised: 22
Offers: 22
Acquired: 6
Closing pending: 3
Condemnation: 0
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction Tentatively scheduled to begin mid‐FY 2018.
Other Issues TBD
Page 235 of 247
Snead Drive Project
(SE Inner Loop to Airborn Circle)
Project No. 5QZ TIP No. BM
July 2016
Project Description Develop Construction Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the widening
of Snead Drive from S.E. Inner Loop to 600 feet north of Cooperative Way,
including appurtenant waste water improvements.
Purpose This project has been identified as GTEC eligible project and will provide
necessary infrastructure for ongoing economic development in the area.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations Complete
Construction Project is Substantially Complete (roadway is fully open to traffic; contractor
working on punch‐list and final clean up.) Final WalkThru scheduled 7/28/16,
awaiting grass to be established.
Other Issues None
Page 236 of 247
Austin Avenue Bridges Project
(North and South San Gabriel Bridges)
Project No. TBD TIP Project No. N/A
July 2016
Project
Description
Develop 30% plans for improvements along Austin Ave. between 3rd Street and Morrow
Street. The project involves several phases and requires participation and support from
various stakeholders and interested citizens, community businesses, professional
consultants, State and regional transportation partners City Staff and Council.
Schedule Phase Activity Completion
1 Public involvement and alternative analyses, evaluating
alternatives for feasibility and costs, etc.Mid 2016
2 Develop geometric layouts and preliminary construction
estimates for two alternatives Mid 2016
3 Selection of alternative by Council End 2016
4 Develop schematic and 30% plans.Mid 2017
Proj. Mgrs Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP®, Ed Polasek, AICP; Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP
Element Status/Issues
Public
Involvement
2nd Public Meeting was held June 28, 2016 at the San Gabriel Community Center
Walking tour – 4:30 to 5:30, Public Meeting from 6:00‐8:00
Design Forensic testing completed.
Steel coupon testing 0/30. Results expected by 10/16.
Surveying Complete
Environmental 4f and Study Scope documents drafted, Meeting 6/13 with TxDOT
Rights of Way Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow; Additional ROW may be required 3rd to N.
of 2nd.
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues Reports from independent engineering firms completed and will be
distributed the week of 7/4/16.
Page 237 of 247
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
MLK/3rd Street (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
July 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for
sidewalk improvements along MLK/ and 3rd streets from Scenic Drive to Austin
Avenue.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps along the route.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way N/A
Utility Relocations N/A
Construction Under Construction; approximately 75% complete.
Other Issues None
Page 238 of 247
CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project
University Avenue (SH 29) (I 35 to Hart St.)
Project No. None TIP No. None
July 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for
sidewalk improvements along University Avenue (SH 29) from I 35 to Hart Street.
Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Steger Bizzell
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
N/A
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations None identified
Construction NTP – 2nd week of July; expected completion
Other Issues Multiple Use Agreement has been received from TxDOT, signed by the Mayor
and returned for final execution by TxDOT.
Page 239 of 247
FM 971 at Austin Avenue
Realignment Intersection Improvements
Project No. 1BZ TIP No. AG
July 2016
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.
Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed
Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from
the west side of I 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel
Park and a more direct route to SH 130.
Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Preliminary Engineering complete;
Engineer’s work for the 60% design submittal is on hold pending discussion and
recommendation from GTAB for alignment.
Environmental/
Archeological
TBD
Rights of Way Complete
Utility Relocations TBD
Construction TBD
Other Issues On hold pending resolution of discussions on a potential alternative alignment.
Page 240 of 247
FM 1460
Quail Valley Drive to University Drive
Project No. 5RB TIP No. BO & CD
July 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening and reconstruction of FM 1460. Project will include review and update
to existing Schematic, Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and
completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway.
Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW,
effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT
letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding.
Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way 1 remaining parcel of original 36 – pending closing documents.
Utility Relocations Ongoing
Construction Construction is on‐going
Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.
Page 241 of 247
Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive
Intersection and Signalization Improvements
Project No. 1DE TIP No. None
July 2106
Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the
widening of Jim Hogg at the intersection of Williams Drive, inclusive of installation
of a traffic signal.
Purpose To provide a widened 3‐lane section with signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg and
Williams Drive. The proposed improvements will provide improved access for the
residents and the employees of the new City Service Center to Williams Drive.
Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Design Complete
Environmental/
Archeological
Complete
Rights of Way Existing
Utility Relocations Complete
Construction Construction is substantially complete.
All driveways placed, road paved and striped; traffic signal in flash mode 06/27
and full operation mode 07/06; NB Hogg all lanes open; SB Hogg needs some
dress‐up; expect to have all lanes open Wednesday 6/29.
Walk‐thru to be scheduled during the week of 07/05‐08.
Other Issues None
Page 242 of 247
Southwest Bypass Project
(RM 2243 to IH 35)
Project No. 1CA Project No. BK
July 2016
Unchanged
Project Description Develop PS&E for Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the
ultimate configuration for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane
roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner
Loop underpass at IH 35.
Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road
(RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.
Project Manager Williamson County
City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer HDR, Inc.
Element Status / Issues
Williamson County
Project Status
(from WilCo’s status
report)
Southwest Bypass Driveways – Award of the construction contract was approved
at 3/8/16 Commissioners Court Meeting. Five (5) bids were received on 2/24/16, with
the apparent low bidder being Smith Contracting with a bid of $289,981.90. NTP is
anticipated to be issued 5/2/16 with Time Charges beginning on 5/12/16. A
Preconstruction meeting was held 4/15/16.
Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) – A meeting with HDR to discuss the WA
Supplemental and project status was held on 3/9/16. A meeting with TxDOT and the
City of Georgetown to discuss the turn lanes on RM 2243 was held on 3/9/16. A
meeting with the City of Georgetown and County staff was held on 2/26/16 to
discuss project status. A 30% PS&E Submittal for the Southwest Bypass Phase 1 was
received on 2/23/16 and is under review. A GEC Constructability review meeting
was held on 3/3/16. An ILA with the City of Georgetown was approved by
Commissioners Court on 2/23/16. Comments were issued 2/18/16 on a 60% PS&E
submittal for turn lanes on RM 2243 at Southwest Bypass.
Rights of Way Complete for the parcels east of the Texas Crushed Stone properties.
Other Issues City and WilCo completing the Interlocal Agreement for the Project.
Page 243 of 247
Transit Development Plan
(Fixed Route Bus)
July 2016
Project
Description
The purpose of this study is to develop a local transit plan for the City of Georgetown that
serves transit needs of the citizens within the city limits and connect to existing and future
regional transit options to form a regional transit network that would improve mobility,
improve the region’s environmental and economic sustainability and slow the increase of
congestion on roadways.
Schedule Phase Activity Completion
1 Initiation Fall 2014
2 Public Involvement, Existing Conditions, Recommendations Spring 2015
3 Initial Report Completed Summer 2015
4 Boards and Commissions Review, Council May 2016
5 Consideration by Council August 16, 2016
Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP®; Bill Dryden, P.E.
Engineer AECOM, Capital Metro
Element Status/Issues
Public
Involvement
2 Public Meetings
Public Intercept Survey, Online Survey, GYAB Survey, Multiple Stakeholder Interviews
More than 20 presentations
Design Revisions underway based on changed conditions
Next Step(s) Council consideration of TDP Adoption and FY17 Budget Inclusion
Page 244 of 247
Transportation Services Operations
CIP Maintenance
July 2016
Project Description 2016‐2017 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays,
Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects.
Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of
85%.
Project Manager Mark Miller
Engineer/Engineers KPA, LP
Task Status / Issues
Chip Seal Contractor has indicated his intention to move into Georgetown on July 25th
and work through August. PMM (polymer modified masterseal) with chip
seal contract.
HIPR/Overlay Preconstruction was held on June 16th. Tree trimming July 5th to the 12th.
Notice to proceed will be July 18th. Contractor to pave Maple Street between
July 26th and August 11th. Southwestern preference 26‐29. Sun City provided
a calendar of events in the area of the amenity center in July and August to
help determine the best times to cross driveways with the moving operation.
Curb and Gutter
Engineering 2016
Plans should be complete in July. Advertising in August and bring to
GTAB for recommendation in September.
Page 245 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
- At the time of po sting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 246 of 247
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Regula r Meeting
July 26, 2016
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
- P ublic Safety Ope ratio ns and Training Facility - ADG Settlement
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Real P ro perty
- City Lease Agre e ments
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Atto rney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration o f the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Evaluatio n
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - BH
Page 247 of 247