HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 05.24.2016 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
M ay 2 4, 2 0 1 6
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on May 2 4, 2 016 at 3:00 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, least four (4 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652
or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users ro ute through Relay Texas at
711.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Prese ntation and discussion of the pro posed Transit Development P lan -- Nat Waggoner,
Transpo rtation Analyst, PMP®
B Discussion and possible direction on the 20 16 Work P lan for the Ho using Advisory Board --
Je nnifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinato r
C Ove rview and discussion regarding the use o f an In-City Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the
pro posed Homestead Developme nt -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
D 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
- Ho skins Update
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Real Property
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parc e l 3 , 14 07 Williams Drive)
- Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parc e l 1 , 15 99 Williams Drive)
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
- Fire Meet & Confer
- Appro val o f appointment of Assistant City Attorney
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
Page 1 of 202
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 2 of 202
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 24, 2016
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the proposed Transit Development Plan -- Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, PMP ®
ITEM SUMMARY:
In November 20 14 , the City of Georgetown and Capital Metro e ntered into an agreement to complete a Transit
Development P lan (TDP), as required by Capital Me tro ’s Service Expansion Policy.
The Transit Deve lo pment P lan (TDP) provides a framework for the de velopment o f a fixed ro ute bus system that serve s
transit needs within the city limits and connects to existing and future regional transit o ptions.
In February 20 16 , City staff presented City Council with a range of transit service options; seeking feedback on the
service parameters prese nted and guidance from City Council on which transit service option best meets the nee ds o f the
Community. City Council directed staff to continue to explo re fixed route bus which inc ludes:
A strategic frame wo rk for public-private partnerships,
A paratransit component,
A final recommendation o n the number of fixed ro utes,
A recommendatio n of perfo rmance measures,
Revised financial and service plans,
Timeline for implementation, performance review and repo rting
STAF F RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a four ro ute bus and co mplimentary paratransit program thro ugh partnership with the Geo rgeto wn He alth
Foundation with implementation in FY17.
SP ECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
n/a
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Financial considerations are included in the City's Overall FY 2017 Budget and will be revised o r confirmed base on
direction from Council:
FY 1 7 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
$ 247,7 77 $2 67 ,85 9 $271,398 $ 291,93 9
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP ®
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
S ystem Map Up d ate
Georgetown C ity C o uncil T DP Revis io ns
Georgetown F inancial Plan 5.18.2016
Georgetown Key Perf Meas ures Fixed Ro ute
Page 3 of 202
Page 4 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Georgetown Transit
Development Plan Update
Georgetown City Council
May 24, 2016
Page 5 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•Recap of 2/9 Discussion
•City Council Guidance
•Strategic Partnerships Framework
•Georgetown Health Foundation Agreement Summary
•Updates to the Plan
•Financial Plan
•Blended Service Financial Plan
•Performance Measures
•Service Plan
•Work Plan FY16 and FY17
Agenda
Page 6 of 202
Transit Development Plan
2015 Transit Development
Plan
Reject Plan
Recommendation
Amend Plan
Cap Metro Board Review
Cap Metro Administered
Federal Funded
Capital Metro
Administered
Demand Response
Amend Plan Georgetown Administered
Demand Response
Voucher System New Plan
No FTA $
Accept Plan
Recommendation
Fixed Route Bus System
in 2017
Implement Full Plan
Implement Partial Plan
Where We Left Off $208K
Local
Funds
$396K
$20K
$20K
TBD
$436K
$220K
Page 7 of 202
Transit Development Plan
1.Pursue Fixed Route Bus Plan
2.Explore Strategic Partnerships
3.Develop Strategic Plan to Support Those Partnerships
4.Revise Routing, Service Hours, Financial Plan
5.Recommend Performance Measures
City Council Guidance from 2/9
Page 8 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•The Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF) initiated a
needs assessment in April 2015
•Findings from the focus groups and surveys
suggested public transportation as the most critical
need
•Georgetown Health Foundation is a grantor of
assistance to Faith in Action for their transportation
program and;
•GHF has committed to a year grant for fixed route bus
up to $200K
Pursue Strategic Partnerships
Page 9 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•The Foundation will contribute up to $200,000 to the
City on an annual basis to support the 2017-2020
Georgetown Public Transportation Services Plan
•CoG to provide 4 fixed routes within 1 year of adoption
by Council
•CoG handles contracting and service delivery with
CapMetro
•Forming of a Steering Committee (CoG, GHF,
CARTS, Capital Metro, others) to help guide service
2017-2020
Agreement with
Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF)
Page 10 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Strategies and Partnerships to Support Fixed-Route
ImplementationGeorgetown Transit Working Group
-Provides technical support for transit in Georgetown
-Supports strategic partners & mobility strategies
Georgetown
Health Foundation
Partnership in
funding transit to
support the Health
Foundation
Strategic Plan and
the city’s TDP
goals
Local Office of
Mobility
Management
Partnership with
Faith in Action and
Georgetown
Library to
coordinate transit
and non-profit
transportation
CoG Transportation
Services
Fiscal agent,
Transit webpage
as a transportation
information
clearinghouse for
the city
Regional Office of
Mobility
Management
Assist with
coordination of
Georgetown fixed-
route with other
regional providers
Senior Try Transit
Program
Program to assist
seniors with
learning to ride the
bus and to help
transition to fixed-
route
Page 11 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•Routing
–Adjusted routing on Blue and Orange routes to
improve timing
–Added Recreation Center loop to Blue line
•Service Standards to better reflect the service at
implementation
•Updated Financial Plan to reflect changes to routes and to
incorporate the Georgetown Health Foundation funding
Updated Plan
Page 12 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Changes to Financial Plan Assumptions
•3% Cost escalation applied to operating costs
•Fare Box Revenue increases from 6% (FY17) to 10% (FY19)
•Capital costs now incorporate labor and install
Capital Costs
Item Unit Cost*Number of
Proposed Units Total Cost
Flag Stop Signs/Poles $250 90 $22,500
Bench $800 10 $8,000
Shelters $7,500 4 $30,000
Concrete Bench Pad $2,500 6 $15,000
Concrete Shelter Pad $2,900 4 $11,600
*Unit costs are approximate including labor and install in FY15 dollars.
Costs may vary as a result of condition, quantity, or special agreement
Page 13 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Financial Plan
Expenses
•Loaded capital costs
•Increased PT M-Sat
•Build from 6% FBR
•Cut spans to 12 hrs. M-F and 10 hrs. Sat.
•Blended FY17 Demand Response
Revenues
•No 5307 Carry-over
•Serenada Funds
•Health Foundation
•Advertising Revenue
Page 14 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Financial Plan
Georgetown Financial Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Expenses FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Operating Total 405,759$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
Capital Expenses FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Total Capital and Operating Expense 447,370$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
Revenue FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 Operating (60% LM)162,304$ 251,098$ 251,098$ 251,098$
5307 Capital (20% LM)33,289$ -$ -$ -$
Serenada Subdivision 14,285$ 14,285$ 14,285$ 14,285$
Georgetown Health Foundation (Available Oct 1 each year)200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Advertising ($1,000 per month of FR service * 2 vehicles)4,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$
Local Funding 247,777$ 267,859$ 271,398$ 291,939$
Total Revenue 447,370$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
*No assumptions have been made regarding the need for planning funds or local contributions towards planning. This
represents the amount of Georgetown 5307 funding remaining in each fiscal year after capital and operating assumptions
are met.
Page 15 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Service Transition FY 17
•Demand Response replaced with new service by mid FY17
•10 months of Demand Response (Oct-Aug)
•2 months fixed-route & paratransit (Aug –Sep)
•$50,000 in capital programed for FY16
•Remaining capital improvements in early FY17
•Proportional Health Foundation and advertising revenue
Page 16 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•Four route system with complementary paratransit
•Limited timed transfer at new Transfer Center located
on 8th Street across from library
•Routes operate every 60 minutes
•Hours of service
–6:45am to 6:45pm M-F
–8:00am to 6:00pm Sat
–Pairing routes
•Orange and green
•Blue and purple
•Implementation Recommendation–August 2017
–Soft launch before school begins
Service Plan
Page 17 of 202
Transit Development Plan
14
Transit Plan
•Route 1 Orange –service to
high density housing off Quail
Valley to Southwestern
University and downtown
•Route 2 Green –service from
downtown to HEB, Wolf Ranch
and Rivery area (paired with
Route 1)
•Route 3 Purple –service from
downtown to Stonehaven
Apartments, St. Davids Hospital
and southwest Georgetown
•Route 4 Blue –service through
downtown on Austin Avenue to
rec center and west on Williams
(paired with Route 3)
•Paratransit –demand
response service within city
limits for seniors (65 yrs+) and
persons with disabilities (ADA)Page 18 of 202
Transit Development Plan
•Performance measures used to assess the four fixed routes
•Routes will be reviewed individually and as a system every
six months per FTA
Service Standards
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Passengers per Revenue Hour 6 8 10
Farebox Recovery 6%8%10%
Cost per Passenger $12 $9 $7
Cost per Revenue Hour $75 $77 $79
On-Time Performance 95%95%95%
Total Annual Riders (per route)10,000 14,000 17,000Page 19 of 202
Transit Development Plan
FY16 Work Plan
Schedule Objective(s)Deliverable
1.REFINE TRANSIT SYSTEM THROUGH INTEGRATED PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT
2.BEGIN CAPITAL ACQUISITION
Summer 2016 1.Continue Demand Response
2.Develop Work Plan for FY 17
3.Begin Capital Acquisition
4.Create ILA for Operations in FY17
1.Steering Committee formed
2.FY 17 Work Plan
3.ILA for FY 17 Service
Fall 2016 1.Outreach and Marketing Initiated
2.Refine Service
1.Marketing Campaign Adopted
2.Council Workshop Nov 2016
Page 20 of 202
Transit Development Plan
FY17 Work Plan
Schedule Objective(s)Deliverable
1.FINALIZE CAPITAL ACQUISITION
2.FINALIZE SERVICE PARAMETERS
3.OUTREACH
4.BEGIN SERVICE
Spring 2017 1.Continue Demand Response
2.Stakeholder Education
1.Public Outreach forums
2.Update to Council
3rd Quarter 2017 1.Begin Service 1.Update to Council
4th Qtr 2017 1.Review Performance Measures 1.Update to Council
Page 21 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Next Steps
Direct staff to:
•Finalize an agreement with the Georgetown
Health Foundation (GHF)
•Present the final TDP and Agreement to Council
at the June 28, 2016 regular session
Page 22 of 202
Transit Development Plan
Questions and Guidance
Nat Waggoner
Transportation Analyst
(512) 930-8171
Page 23 of 202
Georgetown Financial Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020
Operating Plan Vehicles Daily Hrs.Service Date
Annual Rev. Hrs.
FY 17
Annual Rev. Hrs.
FY 18
Annual Rev. Hrs.
FY 19
Annual Rev. Hrs.
FY 20
Fixed Route - Weekday 2 24 8/1/2017 1,004 6,024 6,024 6,024
Fixed Route - Saturday 2 20 8/1/2017 183 1,100 1,100 1,100
Paratransit - Weekday 1 12 8/1/2017 502 3,012 3,012 3,012
Paratransit - Saturday 1 10 8/1/2017 92 550 550 550
Demand Response (Oct16-Aug17)Phase out 4,333 0 0 0
System/Fleet Total 4 6,114 10,686 10,686 10,686
Operating Expenses FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Cost/Rev. Hr. Fixed Route 75$ 77$ 79$ 81$
Cost/Rev. Hr. Demand Response 69$
Annual Operating Cost for proposed service 431,658$ 823,089$ 845,313$ 868,136$
Fare Recovery (Variable from 6-10%)(25,899)$ (65,847)$ (84,531)$ (86,814)$
Operating Total 405,759$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
Capital Expenses $FY 15 Est. FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Cutaway vehicles provided through contract -$
Stop Amenities (FY15 Estimated Cost)87,100$
FY 17 Capital (50,000 programed in FY 16)41,611$
Total Capital and Operating Expense 447,370$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
Revenue FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
5307 Operating (60% LM)162,304$ 251,098$ 251,098$ 251,098$
5307 Capital (20% LM)33,289$ -$ -$ -$
Serenada Subdivision 14,285$ 14,285$ 14,285$ 14,285$
Georgetown Health Foundation (Available Oct 1 each year)200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Advertising ($1,000 per month of FR service * 2 vehicles)4,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$
Local Funding 247,777$ 267,859$ 271,398$ 291,939$
Total Revenue 447,370$ 757,242$ 760,781$ 781,322$
*No assumptions have been made regarding the need for planning funds or local contributions towards planning. This represents the amount of Georgetown
5307 funding remaining in each fiscal year after capital and operating assumptions are met.
Page 24 of 202
1
City of Georgetown
Fixed-Route Transit
Performance Goals
and
Measures
Page 25 of 202
2
I. Transit Goals and Objectives
Transit system performance must be measured based on goals and standards that reflect the
operating environment and values of the community it serves. The goals and objectives for transit
service in Georgetown were established in the 2015 Georgetown Transit Development Plan. The
goals and objectives reflect the needs heard from the community, a review of existing conditions,
and an analysis of the type of transit service that would meet the community’s needs. Below are
the four goals developed through this process.
Goal 1: Provide a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation option for
residents and visitors of Georgetown.
Objective: Improve service efficiency and reliability for existing service by meeting or
exceeding established standards of performance.
• Strategy: Identify key performance indicators specific to Georgetown;
establish standards for these indicators that correlate with effective service
delivery.
• Strategy: Establish a schedule for service evaluation and follow-up
remedial actions.
• Strategy: Improve productivity in the service area.
Goal 2: Adequately address the mobility needs of Georgetown residents.
Objective: Improve access to employment, healthcare, shopping, and recreation.
• Strategy: Identify locations of employment, healthcare, shopping and
recreation locations.
• Strategy: Define delivery times for employment, healthcare, shopping and
recreation locations.
• Strategy: Refine routing to provide more direct access to some of the major
destinations in the city, within existing resources based on location and
delivery time review.
Goal 3: Maximize resource utilization and operational efficiency with respect to system
administration and operations.
Objective: Maintain capital assets (vehicles and maintenance materials) in State of Good
Repair.
• Strategy: Develop objective standards for measuring conditions of capital
assets.
• Strategy: Establish performance measures for capital assets.
• Strategy: Develop policies and standards for replacement and
rehabilitation of capital assets.
Goal 4: Develop a local system that operates effectively in the short-term, continues to
develop an audience for regional transit options in the mid-term, and will connect the local
community to the region in the long-term.
Page 26 of 202
3
Objective: Provide access to activity centers today with an understanding of where future
regional transit infrastructure is proposed to be located.
• Strategy: Submit regional transit projects to the CAMPO Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP).
• Strategy: Develop dedicated funding sources for local transit system.
• Strategy: Promote Project Connect North through city website and biennial
Citizen Survey. Coordinate public awareness of Project Connect through
public meetings and open houses.
II. Performance Measures
Performance measures are developed to address standards of service effectiveness, cost
effectiveness, and cost efficiency. These standards will be used to guide service evaluations, set
standards for future service changes, ensure compliance with federal requirements for the city of
Georgetown, and ensure that the city’s transit goals are being met.
The standards used to measure performance of the Georgetown system are a sub-set of the
measures that all federally funded transit agencies are required to provide the National Transit
Database (NTD). The NTD was established by Congress to be the Nation’s primary source for
information and statistics on the transit systems of the United States. Recipients of grants from
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under the Urbanized Area Formula Program (§5307) are
required by statute to submit data to the NTD.
There are several measures that are used for NTD reporting; however, some measures are more
helpful in determining success of a route or system. Six measures have been selected to monitor
the Georgetown fixed-route service. They are based on the selected measures that peer transit
agencies use to monitor transit systems and include:
1. Passengers per revenue hour (service effectiveness/productivity)
2. Fare recovery ratio (cost effectiveness)
3. Cost per passenger (cost effectiveness)
4. Cost per revenue hour (cost efficiency)
5. On-Time Performance (service effectiveness)
6. Total Annual Ridership (service effectiveness/productivity)
The six performance measures will be considered in relationship to each other, as success of a
system is based on a number of factors, as shown below. The measures will be reported by route
and by the system as a whole. Additionally, the measures should be reported to Georgetown City
Council at least yearly in order to assist City Council in making decisions about the routes and
the system.
Page 27 of 202
4
Performance Standards and Common Elements
III. Descriptions of Key Performance Measures and Goals for Years One, Two and Three
Below is a description of the performance measures and goals that will be used to assess
Georgetown’s four core bus routes. Routes one and two are paired, so the goals should be
shown in combination for both routes. Routes three and four are also paired, so the goals are
paired as well.
1. PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR
Passengers per revenue hour is a key productivity measurement that works as an effective
tool for future service planning. Improving ridership is often the goal of planning bus service,
however it is just as important to plan for additional ridership with a “right sized” route or
system. Passengers per revenue hour is calculated by dividing the total number of
passengers by the total number of revenue service hours. It provides a data point for
monitoring ridership as it relates to total bus hours operated.
Passenger Per Revenue Hour Goals
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2 6 8 10
Routes 3 & 4 6 8 10
Performance
Cost
UsageService
Service Effectiveness
Page 28 of 202
5
2. FARE RECOVERY RATIO
Fare recovery is the fraction of operating expenses that are met by the fares paid by
passengers. Fare recovery is calculated by dividing fare revenue by operating costs.
Fare Recovery Goals
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2 6% 8% 10%
Routes 3 & 4 6% 8% 10%
3. COST PER PASSENGER
Cost per passenger is designed to track the cost effectiveness for the system as it relates
to ridership over time. Cost per passenger is calculated by dividing the total operating
expenses by total passengers (unlinked trips) to calculate the cost for each passenger on
the service. Cost per passenger does not include fare recovery.
Cost Per Passenger Goals
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2 $12 $9 $7
Routes 3 & 4 $12 $9 $7
4. COST PER REVENUE HOUR
Cost per revenue hour is considered a cost efficency measure, focusing on how well an
agency uses resources to deliver services, irrespective of usage. Cost per revenue hour is
calculated by dividing total operating expenses by revenue hours. Revenue hours
represent the hours that vehicles are available for public use. Cost per revenue hour does
not include fare recovery.
Cost Per Revenue Hour Goals
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2 $75 $77 $79
Routes 3 & 4 $75 $77 $79
Page 29 of 202
6
5. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE
Schedule adherence or on-time performance refers to the level of success of the bus
remaining on the published schedule. On time performance is expressed as a percentage,
with a higher percentage meaning more vehicles are on time. The level of on time
performance is an important measure of the effectiveness of the system.
On-Time Performance Goals
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2 95% 95% 95%
Routes 3 & 4 95% 95% 95%
6. TOTAL ANNUAL RIDERS
Total annual ridership is the actual number of passengers served by the transit routes. The
data items are reported as the number of yearly unlinked passenger trips. Unlinked
passenger trips are defined as the number of passengers who board public transportation
vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many
vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Route 1 10,000 14,000 17,000
Route 2 10,000
14,000
17,000
Route 3 10,000
14,000
17,000
Route 4 10,000
14,000
17,000
Total 40,000 56,000 68,000
Observations/Comments
Page 30 of 202
7
Attachment A
Draft Yearly Performance Measure Report
1. PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2 6 8 10
Routes 3 & 4 6 8 10
Actual
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2
Routes 3 & 4
Observations/Comments
2. FARE RECOVERY RATIO
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2 6% 8% 10%
Routes 3 & 4 6% 8% 10%
Actual
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2
Routes 3 & 4
Page 31 of 202
8
Observations/Comments
3. COST PER PASSENGER
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2 $12 $9 $7
Routes 3 & 4 $12 $9 $7
Actual
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2
Routes 3 & 4
Observations/Comments
4. COST PER REVENUE HOUR
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2 $75 $77 $79
Routes 3 & 4 $75 $77 $79
Actual
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2
Routes 3 & 4
Page 32 of 202
9
Observations/Comments
5. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Routes 1 & 2 95% 95% 95%
Routes 3 & 4 95% 95% 95%
Actual
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Routes 1 & 2
Routes 3 & 4
Observations/Comments
6. TOTAL ANNUAL RIDERS
Goal
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Route 1 10,000 14,000 17,000
Route 2 10,000
14,000
17,000
Route 3 10,000
14,000
17,000
Route 4 10,000
14,000
17,000
Total 40,000 56,000 68,000
Page 33 of 202
10
Actual
FY 18 FY 19 FY 20
Route 1
Route 2
Route 3
Route 4
Total
Observations/Comments
7. SUMMARY
Observations/Comments on overall system performance:
Observations/Comments on unmet goals:
Next Steps:
Page 34 of 202
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 24, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction on the 2016 Wo rk P lan for the Housing Advisory Bo ard -- Jennifer C. Bills, Housing
Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Housing Advisory Board provides City Council with recommendations o n affordable housing policy and projects. In
this presentatio n, staff will present a 2016 Work Plan pro posal and ask for input and directio n from Council.
2016 Work Plan pro posal items:
1. Revise Ho using Tax Credit resolution pro c e ss
2. Update Ho using Element
3. Feasibility o f Housing Tools study
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Ho using Co ordinator
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Ho using Advis o ry Bo ard 2016 Proposed Work P lan Presentatio n
Page 35 of 202
Housing Advisory Board
and Workforce Housing
2016 Work Plan
Page 36 of 202
Presentation Goals
• Review the Housing Advisory Board’s
purpose per the by-laws.
• Develop a 2016 work plan for the board.
2
Page 37 of 202
Board's Purpose (By-laws)
1. Ensuring the City has affordable housing for residents
at all income levels.
2. Providing long-term housing research and
recommendations through the Housing Element.
3. Making recommendations on affordable housing
developments.
3
Page 38 of 202
Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
• Adopted on August 12, 2012 as
part of the 2030 Plan.
• Identified a need for 1,069 new
Workforce housing units by
2017.
• Will need to be reviewed in
2017/2018, per five year review
Comp Plan requirements.
4
Page 39 of 202
Housing Element High Priority Policy
Recommendations #1
1. Develop a program through which workforce
housing developers can receive incentives to
provide new units.
– Workforce Housing Standards (UDC)
• Approved March 8, 2016
– Established review process for Housing Tax
Credits
• January 2014
5
Page 40 of 202
Housing Element High Priority Policy
Recommendations #2
• Determine suitable multifamily zoning
locations with sufficient services and land
use compatibility for an appropriate mix of
housing types within the city.
– Draft Workforce Multifamily Locations Study
• Last revised January 2014.
6
Page 41 of 202
7
Page 42 of 202
Accomplishments since 2012
• Gateway Northwest Apts. (2015)
– 177 Workforce Multifamily Units
• Received review/inspection fee waivers and HTCs (Policy #1)
• Consistent with Draft Workforce Multifamily Locations Study
(Policy #2)
81617 Northwest Boulevard
Gateway Northwest Apartments
Page 43 of 202
Accomplishments since 2012
• Improved and retained affordable units
– San Gabriel Apts. (1100 Leander Road) 136 units
– Georgetown Square (206 Royal Drive) 55 units
– Northwest Apts. (1623 Northwest) 24 units
91100 Leander Road
San Gabriel Apartments
Page 44 of 202
2016 Work Plan Proposal
1. Revise Housing Tax Credit resolution process
2. Update Housing Element
3. Feasibility of Housing Tools
10
Page 45 of 202
2016 Work Plan Proposal
1. Revise Housing Tax Credit resolution process
– Establish deadline for the Competitive applications
– Require public/neighborhood outreach
– Application criteria:
• Multifamily Entitlements: Future Land Use Zoning
– Funding: Existing staff and resources
– Timeline:
• Summer 2016 start
• City Council approval September 2016
• In place October 2016 before new funding cycle
11
Page 46 of 202
2016 Work Plan Proposal
2. Update Housing Element
– New demographic information
– Calculate updated housing deficit
– Update Workforce Multifamily Locations Study
– Public input
– Funding: Reallocate $24,000 in current budget
– Timeline:
• Winter 2016 Start
• Present to Council Summer 2017
12
Page 47 of 202
2016 Work Plan
3. Feasibility of Housing Tools
– Provide analysis on strategies already in use nationally
and in Texas.
– Funding: New request $35,000-$45,000
– Timeline:
• Spring 2017 start, study complete Fall 2017
13
• Examples:
• Housing Trust Fund
• Community Land Trust
• Local bond issue
• Requirements for workforce
housing with special development
approvals (i.e. MUDs, PIDs, PUDs,
TIRZ).Windridge Village
Page 48 of 202
Questions
14
1617 Northwest Boulevard
Gateway Northwest Apartments
Page 49 of 202
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 24, 2016
SUBJECT:
Overview and disc ussio n regarding the use of an In-City Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Homeste ad
Development -- So fia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Dire cto r
ITEM SUMMARY:
Summary of Request:
Trio Development LLC, (“Trio”) is currently negotiating the purchase of approximate ly 3 40 .5 acres of property located
west of Interstate Highway 35 , east of Airport Ro ad and south of Be rry Creek Drive. The Land is lo cated within the City
limits of Georgetown. Trio intends to develop the Land as a mixed-use development including approximately 90 3
residential dwe llings, appro ximately 31 acres of co mmercial/retail/office developme nt, 9 8 acres of amenity facilities and
open space, as well as a potential 13 acre school site.
Appl i cant Ci ted Re aso ns fo r Requesti ng a MUD:
"Due to today’s booming econo mic co nditio ns, the costs of developing a mixed use community measuring up to the
standards of potential home buyers and the City outweigh the financial benefits. Therefo re, Trio has recently entered into
discussions with City Staff regarding the creation of an “In-City” municipal utility district to be named Williamson
County Municipal Utility District No. 35 to encompass the Land and designed to reimburse a portio n of the costs of
applicable utility fac ilities, roads and park/recreational facilities allowed by the District."
In consi derati on of the creati on of the Di stri c t, Tri o i s proposi ng to:
1) Fund the co nstruction of the District’s pro rata share o f a 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor generally from the District’s
connection point to the Pecan Branch Wastewate r Tre atment P lant (the “Major WW Impro vement”)
2) Fund the District’s pro rata share of costs related to easeme nts and rights-of-way necessary to construct the Major
WW Improveme nt; such pro rata cost to be reimbursed at a later date;
3) De dicate appro ximately nine and o ne-half ac re s of pro perty to the City to be used as a 6 0’ right-of-way in relation to
the City’s propo sed impro vements to Airport Road;
4) Fund the design and co nstruction of an approximate 1.5 mile four-lane major collector road bisecting the Distric t
including two entrances o ff Airport Road and medians. In addition, Trio will fund a proportionate share of the three o ffsite
traffic lights as de fined by the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) see Section III G – Traffic Study;
5) Adopt enhanced architectural features o ver and abo ve City re quirements including masonry finishes on at least 80 % of
all home fronts and sides visible from adjacent streets, and 10 0% on the first floor of all homes;
6) Explore with the City any park and/or recreational facilities that co uld enhanc e the City’s existing o r future planned
park amenities; and finally
7) Fund the cost o f all City legal fees up to $30,00 0 incurred by the City in the creation o f the District.
Requested Fee dbac k from the Counci l :
Is the use o f an In-City MUD suitable in the propo sed location?
If there is a desire to proceed with the MUD pro c e ss, are there specific eleme nts or fo cus areas you would like
staff to ne gotiate?
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Proposed Fi nanc i al Terms
Maximum Amo unt o f Bonds to be Issued – $4 5,1 75 ,00 0
Maximum Maturity o f Bonds – 25 years fro m date o f issuance
Facilitie s Bo nds may be issued to finance: Water, Wastewater, Sto rm Drainage, Roads, Recreational Facilities, and
Refunding Bonds
District Only Tax Rate (Projected) - $0.516
City Tax Rate - $0 .43 4
Total maximum tax rate, City and District - $0 .95
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 50 of 202
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Interim MUD Polic y
MUD Sub mittal Reques t
MUD Term S heet S ubmitted 5.10.16
Co nc ep t Plan
Page 51 of 202
Page 52 of 202
Page 53 of 202
Page 54 of 202
Page 55 of 202
Page 56 of 202
Page 57 of 202
Page 58 of 202
Page 59 of 202
Page 60 of 202
Page 61 of 202
Page 62 of 202
Page 63 of 202
Page 64 of 202
Page 65 of 202
Page 66 of 202
Page 67 of 202
Page 68 of 202
Page 69 of 202
Page 70 of 202
Page 71 of 202
Request for Approval for Creation
of
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
presented to
City of Georgetown, Texas
by
Gary L. Newman, President
Trio Development
7811 Ranch Road 2338
Georgetown, Texas 78633
(512) 751-3337
gnewman@trio-dev.com
Page 72 of 202
Table of Contents
Section I – Forms………………………………………………………… Page 3
Section II – Letter of Intent………………………………………………. Page 9
Section III – Term Sheet…………………………………………………. Page 15
Section VI – Evaluation of Compliance with Georgetown Interim MUD
Policy..................................................................................... Page 19
Section V – Application…………………….............................................. Page 29
Petition………………………………………………………………... Page 30
Metes and Bounds…………………………………………………….. Page 33
Description of Land…………………………………………………... Page 38
Water Supply Contract………………….............................................. Page 40
Wastewater Supply Contract…………………………………………. Page 41
Drainage Study, Preliminary Road Study, Preliminary Costs
Estimates, Master Development Plan………………………………… Page 42
Preliminary Engineering Report……………………………………… Page 43
Fire Fighting and Law Enforcement………………………………….. Page 68
Estimated Build-Out Schedule……………………………………….. Page 69
Estimated Bonded Debt, Debt Service Requirements and Tax Rate…. Page 70
District Boundary Map and Vicinity Map……………………………. Page 80
Traffic Study/TIA…………………………………………………….. Page 81
Miscellaneous – Draft Letter to County and Time Line for Creation... Page 121
- 2 -
Page 73 of 202
Section I
Forms
- 3 -
Page 74 of 202
Section II
Letter of Intent
- 9 -
Page 75 of 202
Letter of Intent
and
Evaluation of Compliance with City of Georgetown Interim MUD Policy
Adopted September 23, 2014
Trio Development LLC, (“Trio”) is currently negotiating the purchase of approximately 340.5
acres of property (the “Land”) located generally two miles north of the central business district of
the City of Georgetown (the “City” or “Georgetown”) and situated west of Interstate Highway 35,
east of Airport Road and south of Berry Creek Drive. The Land is located within the City limits
of Georgetown.
Trio intends to develop the Land as a mixed-use development including approximately 903
residential dwellings, approximately 31 acres of commercial/retail/office development, 98 acres
of amenity facilities and open space, as well as a potential 13 acre school site.
Due to today’s booming economic conditions, the costs of developing a mixed use community
measuring up to the standards of potential home buyers and the City outweigh the financial
benefits. Therefore, Trio has recently entered into discussions with City Staff regarding the
creation of an “In-City” municipal utility district to be named Williamson County Municipal
Utility District No. 35 (the “District”) to encompass the Land and designed to reimburse a portion
of the costs of applicable utility facilities, roads and park/recreational facilities allowed by the
District.
Trio is prepared to invest just over $60,000,000 in infrastructure within the City limits in
development of the Land as described above.
Trio is a single purpose entity created to develop the Land. However, Gary Newman, President of
Trio has extensive development experience in the Georgetown area as a Pulte Division President,
Mr. Newman managed all aspects of the 7,500-home development of Sun City from 2001 to 2007
and is currently involved in the development of Pearson Place at Avery Ranch, Northwoods at
Avery Ranch and Somerset Hills, all of which are located in Central Texas.
In consideration of the creation of the District, Trio is committed to:
1)Fund the construction of the District’s pro rata share of a 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor
generally from the District’s connection point to the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment
Plant (the “Major WW Improvement”) as shown in the illustration below;
2)Fund the District’s pro rata share of costs related to easements and rights-of-way necessary
to construct the Major WW Improvement; such pro rata cost to be reimbursed at a later
date;
- 10 -
Page 76 of 202
3) Dedicate approximately nine and one-half acres of property to the City to be used as a 60’
right-of-way in relation the City’s proposed improvements to Airport Road;
4)Fund the design and construction of an approximate 1.5 mile four-lane major collector road
bisecting the District including two entrances off Airport Road and medians. In addition,
Trio will fund a proportionate share of the three offsite traffic lights as defined by the
Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) see Section III G – Traffic Study;
5)Adopt enhanced architectural features over and above City requirements including
masonry finishes on at least 80% of all home fronts and sides visible from adjacent streets,
and 100% on the first floor of all homes;
6)Explore with the City any park and/or recreational facilities that could enhance the City’s
existing or future planned park amenities; and finally
7)Fund the cost of all City legal fees up to $5,000 incurred by the City in the creation of the
District.
The following information is Trio’s evaluation of how its current development plan compares to
the:
•City’s existing UDC Section 13.10 including the City’s statements of purposes for
creating a MUD,
•Policies applicable to all MUD requests and
•Examples of the “Unique Factors” justifying (MUD) creation.
- 11 -
Page 77 of 202
Any questions regarding this information should be directed to:
Gary L. Newman
Trio Development LLC
7811 Ranch Road 2338
Georgetown, Texas 78633
(512) 751-3337
gnewman@trio-dev.com
Trio believes this proposal is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but acknowledges
that an application to amend the 2030 Comprehensive plan will accompany the final application
should there be a discrepancy.
Existing Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 13.10 provides the following statements
of purposes for creation a MUD. The standards established in this section are intended to carry
out the following purposes:
Section 13.10.030
1.If applicable, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria
for annexation set out in the City’s projected ultimate city limit boundary (shown
with red line in map below).
The boundaries of the District are outlined in black on the map below clearly
illustrating that the area within the District is located within the City limits.
- 12 -
Page 78 of 202
2.Whether the City will provide water and/or wastewater services to the land within
the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence construction of
facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and substantially complete
such construction within 4 1/2 years after submittal of the petition pursuant to the
City’s policies on the extension of utility services.
The District is located within the City limits of Georgetown and will receive retail water
and wastewater services as well as electric power service from the City. The
construction of the Major WW Improvement will accelerate the City’s existing
schedule for construction of this facility, thereby allowing the City to:
1)take the Berry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant offline earlier than expected and
2)increase the City’s wastewater capacity in the area of the District and thereby allow
for the addition of more wastewater customers to the City’s system.
POLICY 2: Provide examples of “unique factors justifying (MUD) creation” to guide
determinations made under Section 13.10.030.
The following information includes two factors which Trio believes unique to other subdivisions
developed within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Enhanced Growth/Development
Creation of the District will assure the City of a quality mixed-use development immediately north
of the City’s central business, which is expected to spur the development of commercial/retail
development on the City’s northwest side.
1)Expansion of City Regional Wastewater Facilities and Extension of City’s Planned
Major Thoroughfares
A)Wastewater Facilities
1)Trio has committed to City Staff that it is willing to partner with the City in the
construction of an approximate 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor beginning at the
District’s connection point (See “Preliminary Wastewater Plan” on page 2) and
ending at the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant (the “Major WW
Improvement”). The Major WW Improvement is included in the City’s 5-Year
Capital Improvement Plan, and will provide wastewater collection and conveyance
not only to the District, but to a significant number of existing and future City
wastewater connections.
Under the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the
“Commission”), which has on-going regulatory oversight of the District, a district
may only finance utility facilities necessary to serve improvements within its
boundaries. Therefore Trio has committed to advancing funds on behalf of the
District to fund the pro rata share of the cost the Major WW Improvement equal to
12” wastewater interceptor.
- 13 -
Page 79 of 202
The City Staff has agreed to contribute the cost of oversizing the interceptor to a
42” diameter in order to meet the needs of the City’s wastewater needs in this area
per the WW Master Plan. The City has agreed to create an escrow account for this
project from which the City’s pro rata share of the oversizing to a 42” diameter line
can be drawn down. The construction of this Major WW Improvement will also
allow the City to take the existing Berry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant off-
line.
2)Additionally, Trio has agreed to obtain all easements and rights-of-way along the
route of the Major WW Improvement. The pro rata share of the easements will be
determined by necessary costs of upsizing funded by the project and the City’s
Escrow Account, respectively.
The estimated cost of the District’s pro rata share of the Major WW
Improvement $2,500,000.
According to City Staff, these wastewater improvements are included in the City’s
Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
Thusly, the City will benefit from additional development within the area earlier than
expected due to Trio’s agreement to pay for the facilities during construction, which
are expected to commence in mid-2017.
2)Enhanced Architectural Features
Trio agrees to adopt enhanced architectural features over and above City requirements
including masonry finishes on at least 80% of all home fronts and sides visible from adjacent
streets, and 100% on the first floor of all homes.
3)Low Impact Development, Water Conservation, Protection of Trees and Existing
Natural Resources, Green Building and Parks/Recreation
Trio intends to develop the Land as the mixed-use development of The Homestead on
Berry Creek. The primary focus of the development team is to preserve and protect the
natural resources of the Land including water conservation and tree preservation. Trio’s
focus on low impact development and green infrastructure will serve to preserve rainfall,
storm runoff and reduce the dependency on potable water use in irrigation systems.
4)Payment of City Legal Fees incurred related to Consent and Development
Agreement(s)
Trio agrees to pay to the City the sum of up to $5,000 in payment of legal fees expected to
be incurred by the City related to all documents necessary for the City to approve the
creation of the District.
- 14 -
Page 80 of 202
Section III
Term Sheet
- 15 -
Page 81 of 202
Term Sheet
related to the
Creation of
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
The following terms related to the creation of Williamson County Municipal Utility District No.
35 (the “District”) has been agreed to by the City of Georgetown (the “City” or “Georgetown”)
Staff and Trio Development, the developer of the land within the boundaries of the District (the
“Developer”).
The Developer is requesting that the City Council approve the creation of the District based upon
Staff’s recommendation and agreement with all of the following terms:
Name and Type of District
The District will be named Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35 and will be
created as an “In-City” MUD as a political subdivision with all of the powers granted to municipal
utility districts approved for creation by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the
“Commission”) and will be located within the City limits of the City.
District Authority/Oversight/Purpose
The District will operate pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution and
Chapters 49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code, as amended.
The District will be subject to the continuing supervision of the Commission.
The purpose for creation of the District shall include all rights granted by statute and approved by
the Commission, and without limiting the foregoing: providing, operating, and maintaining
facilities to control storm water, distribute potable water, and to collect and treat wastewater (the
“Utility Facilities”) and the construction of roads and park facilities. The District, upon creation
by the Commission and voter approval of bonds payable from ad valorem taxes, may issue
unlimited tax bonds to construct or acquire the Utility Facilities, as well as the construction of
roads and park facilities.
The maximum tax rate for the District, including the City tax rate, will not exceed $0.95/$100 of
assessed value.
Benefits to the City
Enhanced Growth/Development
Creation of the District will assure the City of a quality single-family development, which is
expected to spur the development of commercial/retail development on the City’s northeast side.
- 16 -
Page 82 of 202
Enhanced Architectural Features
Developer agrees to establish design guidelines including masonry finishes on at least 80% of all
home fronts and sides visible from adjacent streets, and 100% on the first floor of all homes.
Expansion of City Regional Wastewater Facilities and Extension of City’s Planned Major
Thoroughfares
Wastewater Facilities
The Developer, has agreed to partner with the City in advancing the District’s pro rata share of the
funds for the construction of an approximate 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor to serve development
not only within District but additional areas within the City. Under Commission rules, a district
may fund only its pro-rata share of utility facilities necessary to provide utility service within the
boundaries of that district. In the case of this Wastewater Improvement, the District’s needs are
expected to be met by a 12” interceptor.
Construction of this facility is included in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and will
allow for the existing Berry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to be taken off-line and will
provide the collection and conveyance of wastewater to be delivered to the Pecan Branch
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
According to City Staff, these wastewater improvements are included in the City’s 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan and Developer will be reimbursed an amount of money equal to the Impact
Fees charged related to the costs of the interceptor, gravity line costs included in the Impact Fee.
Developer agrees to expend all efforts to obtain easements and rights-of-way necessary for the
construction of the wastewater improvements and will be reimbursed the cost of easements at a
later date. The City agrees to assist Developer in obtaining easements after all reasonable efforts
have been expended and Developer has been unsuccessful in obtaining easements on properties
not owned by the Developer.
The City will provide all wastewater service to the development.
Airport Road Improvements
Trio has also agreed to dedicate approximately 9.5 acres of land to the City in relation to the City’s
proposed improvements to Airport Road.
Construction of Major Collector Road
Trio agrees to design and construct an approximate 1.5 mile four-lane with median collector road
expected to bisect the District and have two entrances off Airport Road.
- 17 -
Page 83 of 202
Payment of City Legal Fees incurred related to Consent and Development Agreement(s)
Developer agrees to pay to the City the sum of up to $5,000 in payment of legal fees expected to
be incurred by the City related to all documents necessary for the City to approve the creation of
the District.
Park Facilities
Trio’s current land plan includes 94.3 acres of parkland, Open Spaces, and preserve areas,
including floodplain acreage, designed to include a cohesive network of parks, civic greens,
community gardens, dog parks, water quality areas and trail corridors. The Open Space and trail
system combined with the sidewalk network will be critical in establishing a walkable community
connecting to the hike and bike trail system within the area and potentially all the way to downtown
Georgetown.
Gas Utility
Trio’s development plan potentially includes the extension of a natural gas line from Northwest
Boulevard to Airport Road as an advantage to the economic development per the Comprehensive
Plan.
Water Supply Capacity
Georgetown agrees to provide retail water supply to the District customers and acknowledges that
the City has sufficient water capacity, within the existing City water mains along Airport Road, to
serve the District at ultimate development.
Electric Utility
Georgetown agrees to provide three phase electric service to the District to the boundary of the
District.
Easements
Trio has stated its willingness to dedicate additional acreage to the City which could be used as
easements and/or right-of-way along the approximate 5,000 foot route of the 42-inch wastewater
interceptor located to the north.
- 18 -
Page 84 of 202
Section IV
Evaluation of Compliance with
Georgetown Interim MUD Policy
- 19 -
Page 85 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require applications to submit the following:In section F of the application, please find a detailed
i. A detailed projected pro-forma with assumptions of different tax projected pro forma including an average home value
rates and homes at various price points;of $320,000.
ii. A marketing study completed within the previous six months of Meyers Research is currently preparing a Market Study
the date of the petition;which is expected to be completed by late April, 2016.
Based on the approval of Staff, the application is
expected to be submitted and the Market Study
will be provided upon completion.
iii. A clear and understandable comparing MUD financed development According to Trio, the development is not economically
to non-MUD financed development should also be included feasible without the benefits of a municipal utility district.
including projections of municipal property tax generation;
iv. A copy of the petitioner's financial statement and detailed Please see page 21 of the Application entitled "Developer
description of the petitioner's experience with MUD's;Financial Statement."
v. Documentation that all lien holders consent to the formation of the Please see the Petition for Consent to Creaton included in
proposed MUD.the application.
b.To streamline processing of MUD petitions, allow staff to defer With the exception of the Market Study, see ii above,
comprehensive review & consideration of applications until a complete the application is complete.
application and all supporting materials are submitted.
c.Increase the application fee to a sum to allow for adequate cost recovery The stated application fee of $3,050 provided by Staff
and that is commensurate with staffing and workload impacts necessary was paid at the time of submittal of the Application.
for evaluating MUD petitions and drafting MUD Consent Agreements
and any related agreements.
Item
Policy 3: Submit information with the MUD creation petition that would allow the staff to perform the level City Council has
directed during consideration of several recent MUD petitions.
- 20 -
Page 86 of 202
Response Compliance
Trio and its consultants have been meeting with
members of Planning, Finance, Parks, Transportation
and Legal departments and wholly expects that each of
these representatives will be reviewing and commenting
on this Application.
Policy 4: Agree to a cross-departmental "MUD Review Team" comprised, at a minimum, of members of the planning
department, utility department, finance department, parks department, public safety departments, and legal departments
Item
- 21 -
Page 87 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require MUD to provide facilities to enhance public services and Creation of the District will allow the design and
optimize locations of service delivery.construction of an approximate 3.4 mile wastewater
interceptor jointly financed by the District and the City.
The construction of the interceptor will not only
provide wastewater treatment capacity to the District,
but will enable the City to take the Berry Creek Waste-
water Treatment Plant off-line and will provide waste-
water treatment capacity to existing and future wastewater
customers of the City.This project is included in the City's
5-year Plan and will greatly reduce the timeline currently
anticipated by City Staff.
b.Require donation of land to City or ESD (as applicable) for a new fire Developer has agreed to pay a $650/connection SIP Fee
station or other public safety facility as determined by the City.to the City to be used for Fire Protection.
c.If the City provides fire protection services to the MUD, require payment See b. above
of Fire SIP fee (or similar fee) to fund fire station construction and
operations.
d.Require roadway design to enhance access and reduce response times to Trio's current development plan includes the design and
existing developed properties located outside of the MUD.construction of an approximate 1.5 mile collector road
expected to bisect the District and including two entrances
off Airport Road and four lanes with a median.
e.If located outside of the City Limits, then the MUD Consent Agreement The Land is located within the City Limits of Georgetown
may, at the City's discretion, include an interlocal agreement ("ILA") and will receive City of Georgetown fire, police and
to contract with the City of Georgetown for fire, police and solid waste solid waste services.
services on terms applicable to the City.
f.Require adequate street lighting for vehicle and pedestrian safety.Developer has agreed to install street lighting
in a manner to promote public safety.
g.An ETJ MUD shall provide a maintenance program approved by the The Land is located within the City Limits of Georgetown.
City's Transportation Department that is consistent with City standards
and shall be include appropriate consultation with the County Engineer.
Policy 5: Address provision of public services, and address pubic safety matters in the Consent Agreement
Item
- 22 -
Page 88 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require all utility facilities that service the MUD to be consistent with Trio is w orking closely with City Staff to design and
the Utilities Master Plan construct all utility facilities to be in compliancee with
the Utilities Master Plan.
b.Require the MUD the City to be the water, sewer, and electric provider The Land is located within the City Limits of
unless the area is within another entity's certificated service area, or the Georgetown and will receive City water, sewer and
City chooses not to require those services to be required by the City. electric power.
c.Require the cost to relocate any existing utility infrastructure to be borne No relocations of utility infrastructure are required.
by the developer and/or MUD, not the City.
d.Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site improvements to only those Trio has agreed that the District, if approved for
circumstances where the necessity for the improvements is so great that creation by the City, will fund its pro rata share of an
limited CIP funds are appropriate for overall system wide improvements approximate 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor currently
that benefit multiple properties (i.e., regional improvements that the City included in the City's 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan.
can afford to participate in).
e.Address water and wastewater rates. Generally, rates for in-city MUD The Land is located within the City Limits of
customers should be the same as the rates for other in-City customers, Georgetown, and therefore water and wastewater rates
and the rates for ETJ MUD customers should be the same as for other charged to the District residents are expected to be the
out of City customers same as rates charged to other City customers.
f.Require specific water conservation techniques that will be used to Since the Land is within the City Limits, all customers will be subject
minimize demand levels including xeriscaping, low impact development to the City's water conservation techniques. Additionally,
("LID"), rainwater harvesting, grey water reuse and other strategies Trio's focus will be on low impact development ("LID) and
in consultation with GUS.infrastructure designed to preserve rainfall, storm runoff,
and reduce the dependency on potable water in irrigation
systems. Trio projects that its LID practices will conserve
natural areas, minimize the impact on hydrology, maintain runoff
rate and duration, better manage and control evaporation and
pollution.
g.Require all MUDs and their residents, whether in the City or in the ETJ,As and In-City MUD, all residents within the District will
to comply with City of Georgetown water conservation and drought be required to comply the City's water conservation and
contingency plan-related ordinances.drought contingency plan-related ordinances.
h.For all MUDs, require impact fees to be assessed at the time of final plat Developer agrees to pay impact fees no later than the
approval (Note: impact fees are eligible for reimbursement by the MUD).time of building permit issuance.
For ETJ MUDs, require payment of impact fees at the same time the plat
is approved. For in-City MUDs, require payment of impact fees no later
than the time of building permit issuance. However, utility capacity
reservation shall not occur until impact fees are paid.
i.Address rates, treatment capacity, utility and other easements necessary According to Staff, the City's existing water capacity is sufficient
for City services, capacity for dwelling units, gallons per day usage for to serve the District at ultimate build-out. Additionally, the
water and wastewater, water, wastewater and electric infrastructure, construction of the 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor will provide
permitting and design, and fiscal surety. sufficient wastewater service to the District at ultimate development.
Policy 6: Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the Consent Agreement.
Item
- 23 -
Page 89 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require a maximum bond issuance amount and schedule so that an The Land is located within the City Limits. Therefore
opportune time for annexation can be calculated.annexation is not a matter of concern.
b.For an in-City MUD, limit debt issuance to "hard costs" associated with The proposed reimbursements include only the "hard
on and off-site water and wastewater, and possibly, depending on the costs" associated with on and off-site water and
financial analysis, for roads. An ETJ MUD may also issue debt for the wastewater as well as the hard costs of the major
hard costs of parks and trails facilities that will be open to the general collector road within the District.
public. Debt shall not be issued for "soft costs" such as design and
engineering work, landscaping, signage, maintenance nor private
amenities.
c.To the extent possible, debt should be structured to retire nonresidential The District is located within the City Limits.
lands first so they can be annexed, if an ETJ MUD. Where multiple Therefore, future annexation is not applicable.
MUDs are established for a large project, nonresidential lands should
be included in the first MUD created.
d.Require all City property and land to be exempted from all MUD taxes,Agreed.
assessments, charge, fees and fines of any kind.
e.A table summarizing the overlapping tax rate of all existing taxing entities See Section F of Application. Combined total
(city, county, school district, MUD, ESD, etc.) and the proposed MUD District and Overlapping Tax Rate is expected to be
tax, demonstrating the total anticipated tax rate over the life of the MUD.$2.817529 per $100 assessed valuation
2015
Entity Tax Rate
City of Georgetown 0.434000$
Williamson County 0.441529
Williamson Co FM/RD 0.040000
Georgetown ISD 1.398000
2.313529$
District 0.504000
2.817529$
Policy 7: Specify the amount of debt intended to be issues, the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule, and include
those financial provisions in the Consent Agreement.
Item
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions
Subtotal
Total
- 24 -
Page 90 of 202
Response Compliance
a.A date certain for annexation of the District shall be established in its The District will be an "In-City" MUD. Therefore
creation documents. Upon reaching that certain date, the City retains the future annexation is not an issue.
right to extend the annexation date or deny the annexation. The date of
annexation set with the District creation shall be indicated in a disclosure
statement to buyers of all properties within the District. Buyers shall be
provided with the District's pro-forma in an easy-to-read, understandable
format that explains to the buyer that they are buying into an obligated
property and are made aware that the taxes and assessments are not
imposed by the City of Georgetown and were the choice of the Developer.
b.Allow the City to set rates for water and/or sewer services for land that is The District will be an "In-City" MUD. Therefore
in the MUD at the time of annexation that are different from the rates future annexation is not an issue.
charged to other areas of the City consistent with the provisions of
Section 54.016(h) of the Water Code to compensate city for assumption
of MUD debt.
c.This section shall apply to a District created as an ETJ MUD that is The District will be an "In-City" MUD. Therefore
annexed into the city limits. At the City's option, a "limited district" may future annexation is not an issue.
be continued in existence after annexation to maintain amenities or
services beyond what the City typically provides for neighborhoods
similarly situated. In such cases an ETJ MUD shall enter into a SPA
stating conditions on which MUD will be converted to a limited district
that will continue to exist following full purpose annexation. Concurrently
with the MUD's confirmation election, the MUD shall hold election on
proposition to levy an O&M tax per Section 49.107 of the Water Code to
provide funds to operate the limited district following full purpose
annexation by the City; the MUD shall have no right to issue bonds until
proposition to levy an O&M tax is approved.
Policy 8: Address future municipal annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ.
Item
- 25 -
Page 91 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Prohibit all age-restricted development; provided, however, that Approximately 40% of the projected 903 residential units are expected to
one section or phase of a development may be considered for be marketed to individuals over 65.
age-restricted development of not does not exceed 10% of the net
developable land area and 10% of the total housing units
within the MUD
b.Prohibit certain other land uses such as Correctional Facility;No Correctional Facility, Personal Services Restricted as defined in
Personal Services Restricted as defined the Unified Development the Unified Development Code, Chapter 16, of Title 7 of the
Code, Chapter 16, of Title 7 of the Georgetown City Code of Georgetown City Code of Ordinances, and others as determined by
Ordinances, and others as determined by City Council.City Council are included in the existing Land Plan.
c.Require at least 20% of overall net developable land area to used The current land plan includes 44.3 acres of mixed-use development
commercial, office, industrial or related employment (nonresidential) which equates to 17.625% of the net developable acreage of 251.4
uses, unless located in a Low Density Residential in the City's acres.
Future Land Use Plan in which case a neighborhood-serving
commercial site shall be included.
d.Require at least 30% of the proposed land use area to be used for See c. above.
commercial/retail uses and to be developed within the first 5 years
of the first building permit within the MUD.
i.All efforts should be made to exclude this commercial/retail land Trio is agreeable to the execution of a Strategic Partnership
area from the MUD in favor of full-purpose annexation, or Agreement related to the City's collection of sales tax revenues from
Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) should be required allowing the area within the District. The Land is already included in the
the City to collect sales taxes from the area.City limits, therfore the levy and collection of sales tax revenues is lawful.
ii.The Strategic Partnership Agreement should provide that the City See d.i. above.
is entitled to receive up to 100% of the sales taxes collected, and
that none of those taxes should be shared with the MUD unless
special circumstances exist.
iii.City should retain site plan review to current City standards for uses Agreed
other than one- and two-family residential uses.
e. Require workforce housing to be provided through a homebuyers club No workforce housing is provided The Homestead at Berry Creek
that includes programs such as down payment assistance, preferred project will include a variety of housing types and housing price
sales pricing, subsidized insurance premiums, ongoing financial points.
counseling and homeowner maintenance training. The homebuyers club
shall be open to all current City of Georgetown, Williamson County or
Georgetown Independent School District employees at the time of
closing on a property. A report shall be furnished annually to the City's
Housing Coordinator outlining the workforce housing actions under-
taken with the minimum programs being those identified above.
f.Require public school location(s) to be provided, if desired by the Trio is in the process of discussing a future school site within the
applicable School District. Location(s) of school sites should in a District with Georgetown Independent School District. The current
central, walkable location within a residential neighborhood away from a school site encompassing 13 acres may need to be relocated due to
collector or arterial roadway identified in the Overall Transportation the future airport site and related buffer zones created thereby.
Plan (OTP)
g. Require a land use plan to be attached to the Consent Agreement, and Agreed
require major amendments to a MUD land use plan shall require
review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council.
h.Require gross impervious cover to be kept below the maximums Impervious cover will be maintained below the maximum allowed
allowed by the UDC.by the UDC.
i.Require tree preservation to exceed minimum UDC Standards. Where Trio commissioned a Tree Survey which identified Heritage
a site contains little existing tree coverage, require at least two trees of Trees located within the District. Trio is committed to exceeding
3" caliper or greater on every single family lot and provide park and the minimum UDC Standards related to tree preservation. As
open space areas to increase gross tree canopy coverage upon tree evidence of that effort, Trio has included 94.3 acres of open space and
maturity.greenbelts in its current land plan which equals to over 37.5% of the net
developable acreage.
The Tree Survey has to be updated due to an isue with Multi-Trunk
calculations, but we have met with the City's Arborist on the update.
j.Require compliance with all water quality and water conservation/drought Agreed
restriction ordinances with no adverse impacts to the watershed including
a preliminary plan indicating existing facilities, proposed facilities and any
improvements planned in the occupied site, spring and stream protection
zones established by the December 20, 2013 water quality ordinance.
k.Require protection and conservation of features unique to site such as Trio's LID practices intended to be used in the process of
clusters trees, archaeological sites, springs, the natural floodplain, developing the Land includes all of the protections and conservation
recharge and karst features and historic farm and ranch complexes. of natural resources.
l.Require higher standards for architectural design. For example, homes Trio agrees to including enhanced architectural features of homes
with front porches at minimum 8 foot depth, 3-sides stone, stone veneer over and above that currently required by the City including masonry
or brick masonry, variation in floor plans, and embellished architectural finishes on at least 80% of all home fronts and sides of homes
treatment and masonry facades on homes facing street intersection visible from adjacent street and 100% masonry finishes on the first
corners or major streets.floor of all homes.
m.Require submittal and City Council approval of a pattern book with a Upon approval of the creation of the District, Trio intends to
visual representation of the architectural styles of buildings including purchase the Land, and commence construction of the development
cornice lines, roof profiles, finish materials, windows and ornamentation. including the sale of lots to homebuilders. At the point lot sales
contracts are executed, Trio agrees to submit a pattern book to
City Council for its approval prior to construction of homes.
n.Require landscaping along any roadways identified in the Overall Trio is aware of the Ctiy's updated landscape ordinance and hopes
Transportation Plan commensurate to that required for Scenic/Natural to exceed the current irrigation requirements by preserving on site
Gateways as identified in the Unified Development Section 4.13.water, native plants, trees, habitat, topsoil and species.
o.Require Signage consistent with UDC provisions.Agreed
p.Require innovative or non-conventional subdivision design, such as Trio has determined that the conservation of water and natural
conservation subdivision design, housing diversity, vertical mixed use, resources are the primary focus of the development team. Trio's
and/or traditional neighborhood development (TND).practices are designed to promote conservation as well as diversity.
Policy 9: Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and and development standards, and address the land use provisions
in the Consent Agreement of related agreement
Item
- 26 -
Page 92 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require a park or series of parks open to the general public withAt present, the land plan includes 94.3 acres of park-
the MUD in the size and location approved by the Parks and land, open spaces and preserve areas. Additionally,
Recreation Board.Trio is d iscussing potential opportunities to
connect its trail system with the City's trails as well as
a trail that could one day connect the District to
downtown Georgetown.
b.Require installations and maintenance of park facilities Agreed
improvements.
c.Require maintenance access to be provided.
i Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent Trio plans to include extensive trails enabling its residents
uses such as schools.quick access to to local and regional parks via
footpaths and bike lanes. See a. above.
ii.Require regional trail network to be a minimum of 10 feet Agreed.
in width.
iii.Require usable trailheads with off-street parking and ADA Agreed.
compliant trails.
iv.Require financial contributions to regional park facilities See a. above
such as Westside Park or Garey Park (depending on
location of the MUD).
v.Prohibit roads through parkland in a manner that subtracts Agreed
from net usable park land.
vi.Require provision of security and maintenance program.Agreed
vii.Require protection and perpetuation of unique features on a One of Trio's main development focuses is to
particular site that should be maintained as open space preserve and protect the natural resources of the
whether for environmental, conservation or scenic views. Land. There are historic features existing on the Land,
upon which Trio intends to preserve and utilize as
educational sites.
Policy 10: Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements (not just meet UDC standards or less
than UDC standards), and address parkland provisions in the Consent Agreement:
Item
- 27 -
Page 93 of 202
Response Compliance
a.Require completion of a Traffic Analysis (TIA) and The Traffic Analysis (TIA)
construction and/or funding of both on- and off-has been prepared by
site improvements identified in the TIA, HDR E ngineering and is currently
including roadways identified in the City's Overall being updated for the current
Transportation Plan (OTP).lotting plan.
b.Require dedication of right-of-way, inclusion of Trio plans to donate 9.5 acres of land
bike lanes, sidewalks, and aesthetically pleasing to the City necessary for easements/
streetscapes consistent with the OTP.rights-of-way for Airport Road
improvements. Additionally, Trio is
willing to dedicate additional acreage
to the City as easments depending on the
actual route of the wastewater interceptor.
c.Require residential subdivisions to be designed with The land plan has been designed
increased connectivity, reduced cul-de-sacs, short with increased connectivity,
block lengths, additional stub outs to neighbors reduced cul-de-sacs, short block
except where developed as a conservation subdivision lengths, and additional stub outs to
pursuant to Chapter 11 of UDC.neighbors. See Exhibit D.
d.Require creative stormwater management and water Trio's early examination of the Land
quality solutions to be provided as low impact has shown that management of
development ("LID") to minimize any downstream stormwater runoff could supply
impacts.a significant portion of all irrigation
demand.through the capture of
stormwater runoff at feasible locations
and storage of that water in ponds.
Policy 11: Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the
Consent Agreement:
Item
- 28 -
Page 94 of 202
Section V
Application
- 29 -
Page 95 of 202
Petition to Create
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO THE
CREATION OF A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS:
The undersigned (herein the “Petitioner”), holder of title to land within the territory
hereinafter described by metes and bounds, and acting pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 49 and
54, Texas Water Code, respectfully requests the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, for
its written consent to the inclusion of land in, and the creation of, a conservation and reclamation
district under Chapters 49 and 54, Texas Water Code and would respectfully show the following:
I.
The name of the proposed District shall be WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 35 or some similar name as required or permitted by law (the “District”).
II.
The land shall be included within the District by creation and organization of the District as
provided above. The District shall exist under the terms and provisions of Article XVI, Section 59 of
the Constitution of Texas, and Chapters 49 and 54, Texas Water Code.
III.
The District will contain approximately 340.5 acres of land, more or less, situated in
Williamson County, Texas. The land proposed to be included within the District is generally
described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and is located within the corporate limits of the City of
Georgetown, Texas. All of the territory proposed to be included may properly be included in the
District.
IV.
The undersigned is the owner of and holds title to all of the lands within the proposed District
as indicated by the tax rolls of Williamson County, Texas.
- 30 -
Page 96 of 202
V.
By execution below, Petitioner certifies that there are no lienholders on any of the lands
proposed to be included within the District.
VI.
The general nature of the work to be done by the District at the present time is the design,
construction, acquisition, maintenance and operation of a waterworks and sanitary sewer system for
domestic purposes; the design, construction, acquisition, maintenance and operation of works,
improvements, facilities, plants, equipment and appliances helpful or necessary to provide adequate
drainage for the District and to control, abate and amend local stormwaters or other harmful excesses
of waters; the construction, acquisition, operation or maintenance of roadways including storm
drainage, bridges for roadways, and other improvements in aid of these roadways; the provision of
and construction, acquisition, maintenance and operation of parks and recreational facilities; and the
construction, acquisition, improvement, maintenance and operation of such other and additional
facilities, systems, plants and enterprises as may be consonant with the purposes for which the District
is created.
VII.
There is, for the following reasons, a necessity for the above-described work, services and
improvements: The area proposed to be within the District will experience substantial and sustained
residential and commercial growth. There is not now available within the area, which will be
developed as a single-family residential and commercial subdivision, an adequate waterworks system,
sanitary sewer system, drainage and storm sewer system, or road improvements, nor are there park
and recreational facilities. The health and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the area and
of territories adjacent thereto require the construction, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of an
adequate waterworks system, sanitary sewer system, and drainage and storm sewer system, roadway
system, and park and recreational facilities. A public necessity therefore exists for the organization,
extension, improvement, maintenance, and operation of such waterworks system, sanitary sewer
system, and drainage and storm sewer system, road improvements, and park and recreational facilities
so as to promote the purity and sanitary condition of the State's waters and the public health and
welfare of the community.
VIII.
A preliminary investigation has been instituted to determine the cost of the project, and it is
now estimated by the Petitioner, from such information as it has at this time, that the ultimate costs of
the development contemplated will be approximately $45,175,000. The project will be financed by
the issuance of bonds by the District.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this request be heard and that your Honorable
Body duly pass and approve an ordinance or resolution granting the consent to the creation of the
District and authorizing the inclusion of the land described herein within the District.
- 31 -
Page 97 of 202
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this ____ day of _____________, 2016.
PETITIONER:
THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, LTD., a Texas limited
partnership
By: Three Forks Management, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company, its general partner
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ______ day of _______________,
2016, by ___________________, ______________ of Three Forks Management, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company, as general partner of Three Forks Partnership, Ltd., a Texas limited
partnership, on behalf of said limited partnership.
(Seal and Expiration) ____________________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
- 32 -
Page 98 of 202
Exhibit “A”
Metes and Bounds
- 33 -
Page 99 of 202
Laurn1dlce§i g1r11 §ce1r-··vioe§t ll Jnl!c.
1220 McNeil Road
Suite 200
Round Rock, Texas 78681
Firm Registration No. 10001800
512-238-7901 office
512-238-7902 fax
EXHIBIT" II
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
BEING 340.523 ACRES OF LAND, SURVEYED BY LANDESIGN SERVICES, INC., OUT
OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 13, THE WILLIAM ROBE RTS
SU RVEY ABSTRACT NO. 524, AND THE JOHN BERRY SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 51
IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 370.893
ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, L TO.,
RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (O.P.R.W.C.T.); AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" in the existing
east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-0-W varies) and the west line of said 370.893
acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" for the
northwest corner of a called 9.30 acre tract described in deed to Glynn D. Buie and Dora
Dean Buie recorded in Document No. 2005003918 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. bears South
25°48'38" West, a distance of 108.43 feet;
THENCE along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road and the west line of said
370.893 acre tract the following ten (10) courses;
1.North 25 °48'38" East a distance of 71.52 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 25 °48'38" East a distance of 397.93 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
3.North 23°14'38" East a distance of 517.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.North 23°40'38'' East a distance of 490.92 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.North 23°03'38" East a distance of 386.41 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
6.North 24 °02'3811 East a distance of 398.89 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
7.North 16 °40'38" East a distance of 354.86 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
- 34 -
Page 100 of 202
8.North 08°27'22" West a distance of 132.38 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" being the south corner of a called 1.457 acre
tract described in deed to County Judge Don Wilson in Volume 1502, Page 785 of
the O.P.R.W.C.T.;
9.North 11 °10'05" East a distance of 205.36 feet to a TxDot Type I Monument;
10.North 02°13'59'1 West a distance of 580.81 feet to a calculated point in the existing
east right-of-way line of Airport Road, being the northwest corner of said 370.893
acre tract and the southwest corner of a remainder of a called 371.05 acre tract
described in deed to Joe L. Lykes recorded in Document No. 19932320 of the
O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE along the south tine of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the no,ih line of
said 370.893 acre tract the following five (5) courses;
1.North 86°13'38" East a distance of 73.46 feet to a calculated point;
2.North 80°43'38" East a distance of 483.11 feet to a calculated point;
3.North 68°02'37" East a distance of 410.81 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.North 73°57'56" East a distance of 383.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.South 75°08'48" East a distance of 580.95 feet to a calculated point being a
southeasterly corner of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract, an angle point in the
north line of said 370.893 acre tract and the southwest corner of a remainder of
a called 72.67 acre tract described in deed to John Bishop Estate recorded in
Volume 160, Page 171 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas;
THENCE North 78°58'12" East along the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and the
south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract a distance of 61.36 feet to a calculated
point being the southeast corner of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract, an angle point
in the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and a southwesterly corner of said
remainder of 371.05 acre tract;
THENCE along the south line of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the north line
of said 370.893 acre tract the following two (2) calls;
1.North 75°59'1211 East a distance of 111.60 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 64°58'48" East a distance of 365.81 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 31 °24'48" East along the south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre
tract, the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, and the west line of a called 51.99 acre
tract described in deed to LBJ Properties, LLC, recorded in Document No.
2004066950 of the O.P.R.W.C.T., a distance of 317.39 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said 51.99
acre tract the following nine (9) courses;
- 35 -
Page 101 of 202
1.South 04 °14 118 11 East a distance of 612.47 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 09°43124 11 West a distance of 373.22 feet to a calculated point;
3.South 36 °46 112 11 West a distance of 223.80 feet to a calculated point;
4.South 06 °30'12" West a distance of 229.62 feet to a calculated point;
5.South 28 °31'48" East a distance of 220.90 feet to a calculated point;
6.South 01 °28'1211 West a distance of 205.62 feet to a calculated point;
7.South 32 °26'12" West a distance of 189.19 feet to a calculated point;
8.South 03 °13148" East a distance of 198.94 feet to a calculated point;
9.South 06°10'12" West a distance of 260.12 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 07°09'12" West along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the
west line of said 51.99 acre tract, and the west line of a called Tract I described in
deed to Dean A & Martha Edwards recorded in Document No. 1995040790 of the
O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 159.68 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 10°16'4811 East along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the west
line of said Tract I and the north line of a called 32.3441 acre tract described in deed
to Williamson County recorded in Document No. 2011066293 of the 0.P.R.W.C.T. a
distance of 381.82 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the north line of said
32.3411 acre tract the following six (6) courses;
1.South 36°4411211 West a distance of 35.53 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 32°11 '48 11 East a distance of 578.93 feet to a calculated point;
3.South 53°45 114" West a distance of 62.02 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.South 61°28'05" West a distance of 61.39 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.North 26°55'59" West a distance of 563.70 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
6.South 67 °21'58 11 West a distance of 523.88 feet to a fence post;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said
32.3411 acre tract the following two (2) courses;
1.South 21 °15'36" East a distance of 764.94 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.South 21 °20'5011 East a distance of 235.05 feet to a fence post being the
southeast corner of said 370.893 acre tract, an angle point in the west line of
said 32.3411 acre tract and the northeast corner of a called 92.98 acre tract
- 36 -
Page 102 of 202
described as "Second Tract,'' in deed to George Woods Taylor recorded in Document No. 1997013945 of the O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE South 68°451 5011 West with the north line of said 92.98 acre tract and the south line of said 370.893 acre tract a distance of 2089.80 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" at the northwest corner of said 92.98 acre tract, an angle point in the south line of said 370.893 acre tract and the northwest corner of a called 64.84 acre tract described as "First Tract" in deed to George Woods Taylor in Document No. 1997013945 ofthe O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE South 62°01'0911 West along the south line of said 370.893 acre tract, the north line of said 64.84 acre tract, the north line of a called 4.66 acre tract described in deed to Gail Rossen in Volume 969, Page 56 of the 0.P.R.W.C.T. and the north line of a called 30.02 acre tract described in deed to Thomas J. & Gertrude E. Rossen in Volume 512, Page 450 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 2881.63 feet to a 1/2" rebar found in the existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road, the southwest corner of the 370.893 acre tract and the northeast corner of a said 30.02 acre tract;
THENCE along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-0-W varies), and the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the following two (2) courses:
1.North 18 °46'06" East a distance of 889.06 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 23°20'08" East a distance of 866.81 feet to a calculated point from which a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "RPLS 5784" bears North 58 °41'11" West a distance of 0.64 feet;
THENCE crossing through said 370.893 acre tract the following three (3) calls;
1.North 85°50'34" East a distance of 1695.26 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 08°53'28" West a distance of 1247.16 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
3.North 80°24'55" West a distance of 851.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
This parcel contains 340.523 acres of land out of the David Wright Survey, Abstract No.
13, the William Roberts Survey Abstract No. 524, and the John Berry Survey Abstract No. 51 in Wiltiamson County, Texas. Description prepared from an on-the-ground survey. All bearings are based on the Texas Central Zone 4203 State Plane, derived from VRS co94in ates provided by the Texas Cooperative Network reference stations.
(t; �) P. ,1� 3/iv,Lv ··-�� David R. Hartman Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 5264
Job Number:
Attachments:
- 37 -
Page 103 of 202
Description of Proposed Land
Trio Development is currently negotiating the purchase of some 340.5 acres of land (the “Land”)
located within the City limits and situated approximately two miles northwest of the Georgetown’s
central business district west of Interstate Highway 35. The Land has served as a Family Ranch
for over 30 years, and prior to that was farmed for crops. Throughout that time, the area has been
maintained in a natural state and contains numerous heritage trees, dense growth groves and an
incredible amount of hardwoods along Berry Creek.
Property within the Land is currently undeveloped with a mix of gently sloping farmland with
gentle grades and wooded steep slopes along Berry Creek. The District drains toward Berry Creek.
Utilizing the benefits of the District, Trio intends to develop the property as The Homestead on
Berry Creek, a mixed use development to include a variety of residential units, amenity centers,
potential school site, and open space. See Land Use Chart below.
The development team has determined that the conservation of water and natural resources will be
the priority of The Homestead with the focus on low impact development (“LID”) and green
infrastructure to preserve rainfall, storm runoff, and reduction of dependency on potable water in
irrigation systems. In addition, Trio hopes to exceed the City’s recently updated landscape
ordinance by including native plants, trees, habitat, topsoil and species in its landscaping plan.
This plan also will be designed around tree conservation.
Trio hopes to incorporate a minimum three star Austin Energy Green Building program. This
innovative style of homebuilding is focused on the conservation of water, energy and indoor
environmental quality. In fact, Trio’s environmental efforts touch every aspect of the development
including home construction to the use of rainwater through the storage and usage of storm water
runoff for irrigation purposes.
The conservation of natural resources is also included in Trio’s efforts to construct a cohesive
network of open spaces, including parks, civic green, community gardens, dog parks, water quality
areas and an extensive trail system establishing a walkable, inviting community connecting to hike
and bike trails potentially all the way to downtown Georgetown.
Type Development Acreage Units
Residential
Townhome Product 25.70 257
Cluster Product 26.20 157
52' X 120' Product 316
62' X 120' Product 130
72' X 120'43
173.10 903
Mixed U se 31.30
Amenity Centers 3.70
School 13.00
Major ROW 25.10
Open Space 30.30
Floopplain 64.00
Total 340.50 903
Land Use Chart
- 38 -
Page 104 of 202
The potential introduction of natural gas to the development will be made possible by Trio’s
commitment to extend a 1.9 mile long natural gas line from the intersection of Northwest
Boulevard and Lakeway Drive to the southwest corner of the proposed project.
Trio is also committed to establishing a higher level of architectural control than currently required
by the City. See “Enhanced Architectural Features” on page 2.
- 39 -
Page 105 of 202
A1. Water Supply Contract
The District will receive potable from the City in an amount to serve the District at ultimate
development. According to City Staff, there is sufficient water capacity within its existing
waterlines along Airport Road to serve the District. The District and City Staff are currently
working a Water Supply Contract.
- 40 -
Page 106 of 202
A2. Wastewater Treatment Contract
Wastewater treatment to serve the development within the District will be provided by the City
pursuant to Wastewater Treatment Contract currently being developed by the Developer and the
City Staff.
According to the City, the construction of the approximate 3.4 mile wastewater interceptor and
gravity line previously described as the Major WW Improvement will enable the City to provide
sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the District at ultimate development.
Trio has agreed to “partner” to construct the needed wastewater interceptor, which may be
upsized to 42” capacity from the 12” capacity needed for the District. The cost of the
construction of the interceptor and the cost of the easements will be funded on a proportional
basis. At the time of construction, the City has agreed to “escrow” the necessary funds for their
proportional share of these costs. An agreement will need to be written on this cost sharing and
how to treat impact fees in the District.
- 41 -
Page 107 of 202
A3. Drainage Study
A4. Preliminary Road Study
A.Preliminary Costs Estimates
B.Master Development Plan
All of the above information is included in the attached Preliminary Engineering Report for the
District prepared March 15, 2016 by Jones-Heroy & Associates, Inc., 1900 East Howard Lane,
Building A, Suite 6, Pflugerville, Texas 78660, (512) 989-2200.
- 42 -
Page 108 of 202
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 35
BY
JONES-HEROY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TBPE REGISTRATION # F-006320
1900 EAST HOWARD LANE
BUILDING A, SUITE 6
PFLUGERVILLE, TX 78660
MARCH 2016
Draft released for review only under authority of Ken Heroy, P.E., TX License #85479
- 43 -
Page 109 of 202
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................4
SECTION 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................5
SECTION 3 --- PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................7
SECTION 4 –- FIRE PROTECTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ................................8
SECTION 5 –- BUILD OUT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS .................................9
SECTION 6 — COST SUMMARY .......................................................................................10
SECTION 7 — FINANCIAL INFORMATION ....................................................................14
- 44 -
Page 110 of 202
LIST OF TABLES
1. Projected Land Use
2. Build-out Schedule and Population Projections
3. Estimated Total Water, Wastewater & Drainage Costs & Bond Issue Requirement
4. Estimated Total Recreational Improvements Cost & Bond Issue Requirement
5. Estimated Total Road Improvement Costs & Bond Issue Requirement
6. Projected Development and Assessed Value (AV)
7. Overlapping Tax Rates
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. District Boundary Map and Metes and Bounds Description
3. Land Use Map & Roadway Network Layout
4. Preliminary Plans
(A) Preliminary Water Plan
(B) Preliminary Wastewater Plan
(C) Preliminary Storm Sewer / Drainage Plan
- 45 -
Page 111 of 202
SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary engineering study to determine the
engineering and economic feasibility of creating the proposed Williamson County Municipal
Utility District No. 35 (“District”). The purpose of this study is to present economic and
engineering data for use by the City of Georgetown (“City”) in considering the District’s
creation.
The scope of this report provides evidence that the projects which will be undertaken by the
proposed District are feasible, practicable, necessary, and benefit all of the land to be
included in the District. The projects, which include a water distribution system, wastewater
collection system, storm drainage system, recreational facilities, and road improvements, are
required to ensure orderly development of the land and for the protection of public health and
safety. This information provides justification for the creation of the District.
- 46 -
Page 112 of 202
SECTION 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location and Access
The proposed District consists of approximately 340.5 acres located within the City limits
approximately two miles north of the central business district, west of I-35, and east of
Airport Road.
Access to the District will be from Airport Road. See the attached vicinity map (Exhibit 1).
A boundary map and a metes and bounds description (Exhibit 2) are also attached.
Existing Area, Conditions and Topography
The District is currently undeveloped with a mix of gently sloping farmland with gentle
grades and wooded steep slopes along the edges of the Berry Creek floodplain. The District
drains toward the northeast into Berry Creek.
There are no existing public roads within the proposed District’s boundaries.
Preliminary Drainage Study
The 340.5 acres of the proposed District are primarily located on a plateau west of Berry
Creek. The highest point is approximately 770 feet above mean sea level in the southwestern
portion of the tract. The eastern and northern edges of the proposed District contain
approximately 64 acres of FEMA floodplain with elevations at the lowest point of
approximately 670 feet above mean sea level in the southeastern portion of the tract.
The natural drainage basins should be preserved, however much of the northern portion of
the District will need to be filled to provide adequate drainage. A preliminary hydraulic
analysis of the site indicates a number of acres outside the FEMA mapped floodplain is
inundated during 100-year storm events.
The project will be designed to the City of Georgetown and TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Rules
standards and will include curb and guttered streets, curb inlets, underground storm sewer
pipes, and water quality ponds. Stormwater will be routed through stormwater quality ponds
or other similar features prior to entering tributaries or Berry Creek. The storm water
collection system will be designed to mitigate and control discharges into Berry Creek so that
the storm water flows will not create erosion problems.
Preliminary Traffic Study
Access is from Airport Road which borders the District’s western boundary. There will be
two main entrances with major collector roads from these entrances that lead to the heart of
the District. A network of minor collector roads and local streets will provide access to all
areas within the District.
- 47 -
Page 113 of 202
A preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. and is
being updated for the current lotting plan. The preliminary results appear to indicate that the
roads as currently designed will be adequate for the proposed traffic demand generated by the
proposed development. An updated TIA will be provided when available.
Land Use Plan
Exhibit 3 shows the planned land use. The proposed development consists of a combination
of single family residences of varying lot sizes, townhomes, commercial/mix use, park/open
space, and a potential school site.
The projected land use for the proposed District at full development will include
approximately 1,058 LUEs as shown in Table No. 1:
Table No. 1
Projected Land Use
Land Use Acres Units/Lots LUEs
Townhome 25.7 257 180
Cluster Residential 26.2 157 157
Single-Family 121.2 489 489
Commercial 31.3 3 200
School 13.0 1 30
Amenity & Open
Space 34.0 2 2
Floodplain 64.0 0 0
Major ROW 25.1 0 0
Totals 205.4 909 1,058
- 48 -
Page 114 of 202
SECTION 3 - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Water Supply and Distribution System
The District will receive water service from the City. Impact fees will be paid for each unit
upon connection to the City’s water system. The District will connect to an existing 12-inch
water line in Airport Road. The City will provide sufficient flow and pressure to serve the
projected development.
The proposed water distribution system will consist of a network of arterial and
interconnecting loop mains. The design of the water supply and distribution system will be
based on a projection of the water demand conditions based on service connections, and the
pressure at which it must be supplied. The proposed system design will meet or exceed the
minimum standards established by the City and TCEQ.
The proposed internal water distribution system will provide water service to all the lots
shown in the preliminary water plan in Exhibit 4(A). A cost summary for the proposed water
distribution system is included in Table No. 3. The proposed water distribution system is
adequate for the land uses and development plan described above.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
The District is located within the wastewater service area of the City. Retail wastewater service
will be provided by the City. The City owns and operates existing wastewater treatment plant
facilities planned to serve the ultimate build-out demands of the District. The City will charge
impact fees to the District for connection to the City’s wastewater system.
Wastewater will be collected in a gravity collection system within the District and will then
convey flow to the proposed Berry Creek offsite gravity interceptor. The Berry Creek
interceptor will be oversized to a 42-inch line to serve development upstream of the District
and will connect to the City’s Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Facility (Wastewater
Permit No. WQ 0010489005). The District’s internal wastewater collection system will be
designed to meet or exceed the minimum City and TCEQ requirements for the land uses and
development plan described above.
The proposed internal wastewater collection system will provide wastewater service to all the
lots shown in the preliminary sewer plan in Exhibit 4(B). A cost summary for the proposed
wastewater collection system is included in Table No. 3. The proposed wastewater
collection system is adequate for the land uses and development plan described above.
Storm Sewer and Drainage System
Storm water runoff within the District will be collected in curb and gutter streets into flumes
or inlets which will convey the flows via underground culverts or overland. Storm water
from the proposed storm sewer system will typically pass through water quality ponds before
- 49 -
Page 115 of 202
discharging into Berry Creek. Design of the storm sewer system will be based on
requirements of the City and TCEQ. The proposed District is located in the recharge zone of
the Edwards Aquifer; therefore, construction activities will be required to comply with the
TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Rules.
The proposed storm sewer and drainage system will provide storm water drainage for all the
lots shown in the preliminary drainage plan in Exhibit 4(C). A cost summary for the
proposed storm drainage system is included in Table No. 3. The proposed storm drainage
system will be adequate for the land uses and development plan described above.
Recreational Improvements
Proposed recreational improvements that will be funded by the District with bonds include
neighborhood parks and hiking trails, including the District’s portion of the Berry Creek
Regional Trail.
A conceptual layout of the proposed recreational improvements is included in the land use
plan in Exhibit 3. A cost summary for the proposed recreational improvements is included
in Table No. 4.
Road Improvements
The District will have two entrances main entrances off Airport Road. A third connection
will be made in the future on the south side of the District when the City constructs proposed
“Roadway E” and Aviator Drive. The District will fund the entrances and the collector roads
as depicted on the land use plan in Exhibit 3. The developer will construct a network of
major collector roads, minor collector roads, and local streets to provide access to the areas
of the District depending on land use. A cost summary for the proposed road improvements
is included in Table No. 5.
SECTION 4 – FIRE PROTECTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Fire Protection
The City will provide fire protection and other emergency services.
Law Enforcement
The City will also be responsible for law enforcement within the District.
- 50 -
Page 116 of 202
SECTION 5 – BUILD OUT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
There are no existing residents in the proposed District at present. Projections of future
population are shown in Table No. 2. At build-out, it is projected that there will be 903
single family residences. Based on 3.0 persons per residence, the estimated population at
build-out will be 2,709. The build-out schedule is shown in Table No. 2 below. Build-out is
expected to take approximately 7 years.
Table No. 2
Build-out Schedule and Population Projections
Year Residential
Units Added
Cumulative
Residences
Added
Population
2017 25 25 75
2018 80 105 315
2019 125 230 690
2020 170 400 1,200
2021 200 600 1,800
2022 200 800 2,400
2023 103 903 2,709
Total 903 903 2,709
- 51 -
Page 117 of 202
SECTION 6 — COST SUMMARY
Cost summaries of the estimated costs of the proposed District facilities at 100%
reimbursement are given in Tables No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5.
Table No. 3
Estimated Total Water, Wastewater & Drainage Cost & Bond Issue Requirement
District Share District Share
CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total 100%
A. Developer Contribution Items
1. Drainage $ 6,999,516 $ 6,999,516
2. Water Distribution System $ 3,537,637 $ 3,537,637
3. Wastewater Collection System $ 3,615,964 $ 3,615,964
4. Erosion & Miscellaneous $ 954,954 $ 954,954
5. Contingencies (15%) of Items 1-4 $ 2,266,211 $ 2,266,211
Total Developer Contribution Items $ 17,374,282 $ 17,374,282
B. District Items
1. Wastewater Impact Fees $ 2,475,522 $ 2,475,522 (1)
2. Water Impact Fees $ 4,244,814 $ 4,244,814 (2)
3. Off Site Wastewater Improvements $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
4. Contingencies (15% of Items 1-3) $ 1,383,050 $ 1,383,050
5. Land - Pond Sites and Offsite Easements $ 855,000 $ 855,000
Total District Items $ 11,458,386 $ 11,458,386
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 28,832,668 $ 28,832,668
NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A. Legal Fees (3%) $ 1,156,200
B. Fiscal Agent Fees (2.5%) $ 963,500
C. Interest Costs
1. Capitalized Interest (2 yrs. @ 4.25%) $ 3,275,900
2. Developer Interest (2 yrs. @ 4.25% on
Const. Cost) $ 2,450,777
D. Bond Discount (3%) $ 1,156,200
E. Bond Application Report Costs $ 160,000
F.Issuance Costs $ 119,865
G. TCEQ Fee (0.25% BIR) $ 96,350
- 52 -
Page 118 of 202
H. Attorney General Fee (0.1% BIR) $ 38,540
I. Creation Costs $ 90,000
J. Operations Costs $ 200,000
TOTAL NON-CONSTRUCTION
COSTS $ 9,707,332
TOTAL BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENT $ 38,540,000
Notes:
(1) Based on $2,997 per LUE for the residential LUEs only.
(1) Based on $5,139 per LUE for the residential LUEs only.
Table No. 4
Estimated Total Recreational Improvements Cost & Bond Issue Requirement
District Share
CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total 100%
A. Developer Contribution Items None $-
B.District Items
1. Berry Creek Regional Trail $ 350,000 $ 350,000
2. Subdivison Trails $ 220,000 $ 220,000
3. Historical / Cultural Preservation $ 325,000 $ 325,000
4.Contingencies (15%) of items 1 -3 $ 134,250 $ 134,250
Total District Items $ 1,029,250 $ 1,029,250
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,029,250 $ 1,029,250
NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A.Legal Fees (3%) $ 43,050
B. Fiscal Agent Fees (2.5%) $ 35,875
C. Interest Costs
1. Capitalized Interest (2 yr. @ 4.25%) $ 121,975
2. Developer Interest (2 yrs. @ 4.25% on Const. Cost) $ 87,486
D. Underwriter's Discount (3.0%) $ 43,050
E. Bond Application Report Costs $ 40,000
F. Issuance Costs $ 29,291
G. TCEQ Fee (0.25% BIR) $ 3,588
H. Attorney General Fee (0.1% BIR) $ 1,435
TOTAL NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 405,750
TOTAL BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENT $ 1,435,000
- 53 -
Page 119 of 202
Table No. 5
Estimated Total Road Improvements Cost & Bond Issue Requirement
District Share
CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total 100%
1. Collector Roads $ 2,777,373 $ 2,777,373
2. Contingency (15%) on Item 1 $ 416,606 $ 416,606
3. Land Costs $ 753,000 $ 753,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,946,979 $ 3,946,979
NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A. Legal Fees (3%) $ 156,000
B. Fiscal Agent Fees (2.5%) $ 130,000
C. Interest Costs
1. Capitalized Interest (2 yrs. @ 4.25%) $ 442,000
2. Developer Interest (2 yrs. @ 4.25% on Const. Cost) $ 335,493
D. Underwriter's Discount (3.0%) $ 156,000
E. Issuance Costs $ 28,328
F. Attorney General Fee (0.1% BIR) $ 5,200
TOTAL NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,253,021
TOTAL BOND ISSUE REQUIREMENT $ 5,200,000
Explanation of Tables
The projected construction cost estimates contained in Tables No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 are
based on estimated construction costs in the area. Developer interest is based on the
developer advancing construction funds approximately 24 months before each bond sale
throughout the life of the project.
The projected construction costs included in the tables represent the total amount of
construction costs necessary to complete development of the land plus costs associated with
the sale of the bonds. The total bond issue requirement for water, wastewater and drainage,
recreational, and roads is $45,175,000. However, due to limitations on the District’s
- 54 -
Page 120 of 202
projected assessed valuation and tax rate, the District is expected to only be able to issue
approximately $25,885,000. See separate Finance Plan from the District’s financial advisor,
Public Finance Group.
Projected Tax Rate
The total bond issue requirement for water, wastewater and drainage ($38,540,000),
recreational ($1,435,000), and roads ($5,200,000) is $45,175,000 as shown in Tables No. 3,
No. 4, and No. 5.
Revenue to retire the bonds will be generated by ad valorem taxes. The projected assessed
value of all property within the District at full development is $323,660,000 as shown on
Table No. 6. Public Finance Group, LLC has developed a financial plan which includes the
issuance of seven series of bonds to finance these costs assuming a 100% reimbursement
scenario. The term for the proposed bonds will be 25 years.
Table No. 6
Projected Development and Assessed Value (AV)
Type of House
Number of Units/
Sq. Ft.
Average
AV Total AV
Single Family 903 $ 320,000 $ 288,960,000
Commercial 347,000 $100 $ 34,700,000
Totals $ 323,660,000
Assuming projected home values and build-out schedule, and the ability of the District to
issue the full bond issue requirement of $45,175,000 spread over the several series of bonds,
a debt service tax rate of up to $0.9359 per $100 of assessed value is sufficient to retire the
bonds. The tax rate calculations assume the bonds will be sold at an interest rate of 4.25%
with a tax collection rate that varies between 90% and 100%.
The proposed District will have the ability to levy an operation and maintenance tax for its
ultimate operation expenses. Since the City will provide water and wastewater service for the
District, the operation and maintenance tax is estimated to be $0.0500, resulting in a total tax
rate of $0.9859 per $100 of assessed value.
- 55 -
Page 121 of 202
SECTION 7 — ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The overall tax rate for property in the District is a combination of Williamson County,
Georgetown ISD, the City of Georgetown, and the proposed District tax rates. The following
table summarizes the 2015 tax rates on land in the proposed District.
Table No. 7
Overlapping Tax Rates
Taxing Entity Projected
Overlapping Tax Rate
Williamson County MUD No. 35 (District) $ 0.9859
Williamson County $ 0.4815
City of Georgetown $ 0.4340
Georgetown ISD $ 1.39800
Total Projected Tax $ 3.2994
- 56 -
Page 122 of 202
Exhibit 1 – Vicinity Map
- 57 -
Page 123 of 202
Exhibit 2 – Boundary Map and Metes and Bounds
- 58 -
Page 124 of 202
Laurn1dlce§i g1r11 §ce1r-··vioe§t ll Jnl!c.
1220 McNeil Road
Suite 200
Round Rock, Texas 78681
Firm Registration No. 10001800
512-238-7901 office
512-238-7902 fax
EXHIBIT" II
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
BEING 340.523 ACRES OF LAND, SURVEYED BY LANDESIGN SERVICES, INC., OUT
OF THE DAVID WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 13, THE WILLIAM ROBE RTS
SU RVEY ABSTRACT NO. 524, AND THE JOHN BERRY SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 51
IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 370.893
ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THREE FORKS PARTNERSHIP, L TO.,
RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2005003918 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS
OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS (O.P.R.W.C.T.); AND BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING at a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" in the existing
east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-0-W varies) and the west line of said 370.893
acre tract, from which a 1/2" rebar found with plastic cap stamped "RPLS 5784" for the
northwest corner of a called 9.30 acre tract described in deed to Glynn D. Buie and Dora
Dean Buie recorded in Document No. 2005003918 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. bears South
25°48'38" West, a distance of 108.43 feet;
THENCE along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road and the west line of said
370.893 acre tract the following ten (10) courses;
1.North 25 °48'38" East a distance of 71.52 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 25 °48'38" East a distance of 397.93 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
3.North 23°14'38" East a distance of 517.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.North 23°40'38'' East a distance of 490.92 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.North 23°03'38" East a distance of 386.41 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
6.North 24 °02'3811 East a distance of 398.89 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
7.North 16 °40'38" East a distance of 354.86 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants";
- 59 -
Page 125 of 202
8.North 08°27'22" West a distance of 132.38 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic
cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" being the south corner of a called 1.457 acre
tract described in deed to County Judge Don Wilson in Volume 1502, Page 785 of
the O.P.R.W.C.T.;
9.North 11 °10'05" East a distance of 205.36 feet to a TxDot Type I Monument;
10.North 02°13'59'1 West a distance of 580.81 feet to a calculated point in the existing
east right-of-way line of Airport Road, being the northwest corner of said 370.893
acre tract and the southwest corner of a remainder of a called 371.05 acre tract
described in deed to Joe L. Lykes recorded in Document No. 19932320 of the
O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE along the south tine of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the no,ih line of
said 370.893 acre tract the following five (5) courses;
1.North 86°13'38" East a distance of 73.46 feet to a calculated point;
2.North 80°43'38" East a distance of 483.11 feet to a calculated point;
3.North 68°02'37" East a distance of 410.81 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.North 73°57'56" East a distance of 383.18 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.South 75°08'48" East a distance of 580.95 feet to a calculated point being a
southeasterly corner of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract, an angle point in the
north line of said 370.893 acre tract and the southwest corner of a remainder of
a called 72.67 acre tract described in deed to John Bishop Estate recorded in
Volume 160, Page 171 of the Deed Records of Williamson County, Texas;
THENCE North 78°58'12" East along the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and the
south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract a distance of 61.36 feet to a calculated
point being the southeast corner of said remainder of 72.67 acre tract, an angle point
in the north line of said 370.893 acre tract and a southwesterly corner of said
remainder of 371.05 acre tract;
THENCE along the south line of said remainder of 371.05 acre tract and the north line
of said 370.893 acre tract the following two (2) calls;
1.North 75°59'1211 East a distance of 111.60 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 64°58'48" East a distance of 365.81 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 31 °24'48" East along the south line of said remainder of 72.67 acre
tract, the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, and the west line of a called 51.99 acre
tract described in deed to LBJ Properties, LLC, recorded in Document No.
2004066950 of the O.P.R.W.C.T., a distance of 317.39 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said 51.99
acre tract the following nine (9) courses;
- 60 -
Page 126 of 202
1.South 04 °14 118 11 East a distance of 612.47 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 09°43124 11 West a distance of 373.22 feet to a calculated point;
3.South 36 °46 112 11 West a distance of 223.80 feet to a calculated point;
4.South 06 °30'12" West a distance of 229.62 feet to a calculated point;
5.South 28 °31'48" East a distance of 220.90 feet to a calculated point;
6.South 01 °28'1211 West a distance of 205.62 feet to a calculated point;
7.South 32 °26'12" West a distance of 189.19 feet to a calculated point;
8.South 03 °13148" East a distance of 198.94 feet to a calculated point;
9.South 06°10'12" West a distance of 260.12 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 07°09'12" West along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the
west line of said 51.99 acre tract, and the west line of a called Tract I described in
deed to Dean A & Martha Edwards recorded in Document No. 1995040790 of the
O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 159.68 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE South 10°16'4811 East along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the west
line of said Tract I and the north line of a called 32.3441 acre tract described in deed
to Williamson County recorded in Document No. 2011066293 of the 0.P.R.W.C.T. a
distance of 381.82 feet to a calculated point;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the north line of said
32.3411 acre tract the following six (6) courses;
1.South 36°4411211 West a distance of 35.53 feet to a calculated point;
2.South 32°11 '48 11 East a distance of 578.93 feet to a calculated point;
3.South 53°45 114" West a distance of 62.02 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
4.South 61°28'05" West a distance of 61.39 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
5.North 26°55'59" West a distance of 563.70 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
6.South 67 °21'58 11 West a distance of 523.88 feet to a fence post;
THENCE along the east line of said 370.893 acre tract and the west line of said
32.3411 acre tract the following two (2) courses;
1.South 21 °15'36" East a distance of 764.94 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.South 21 °20'5011 East a distance of 235.05 feet to a fence post being the
southeast corner of said 370.893 acre tract, an angle point in the west line of
said 32.3411 acre tract and the northeast corner of a called 92.98 acre tract
- 61 -
Page 127 of 202
described as "Second Tract,'' in deed to George Woods Taylor recorded in Document No. 1997013945 of the O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE South 68°451 5011 West with the north line of said 92.98 acre tract and the south line of said 370.893 acre tract a distance of 2089.80 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found with plastic cap stamped "Stanley Consultants" at the northwest corner of said 92.98 acre tract, an angle point in the south line of said 370.893 acre tract and the northwest corner of a called 64.84 acre tract described as "First Tract" in deed to George Woods Taylor in Document No. 1997013945 ofthe O.P.R.W.C.T.;
THENCE South 62°01'0911 West along the south line of said 370.893 acre tract, the north line of said 64.84 acre tract, the north line of a called 4.66 acre tract described in deed to Gail Rossen in Volume 969, Page 56 of the 0.P.R.W.C.T. and the north line of a called 30.02 acre tract described in deed to Thomas J. & Gertrude E. Rossen in Volume 512, Page 450 of the O.P.R.W.C.T. a distance of 2881.63 feet to a 1/2" rebar found in the existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road, the southwest corner of the 370.893 acre tract and the northeast corner of a said 30.02 acre tract;
THENCE along said existing east right-of-way line of Airport Road (R-0-W varies), and the east line of said 370.893 acre tract, the following two (2) courses:
1.North 18 °46'06" East a distance of 889.06 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 23°20'08" East a distance of 866.81 feet to a calculated point from which a 1/2" iron rod found with cap marked "RPLS 5784" bears North 58 °41'11" West a distance of 0.64 feet;
THENCE crossing through said 370.893 acre tract the following three (3) calls;
1.North 85°50'34" East a distance of 1695.26 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
2.North 08°53'28" West a distance of 1247.16 feet to a 1/2" iron rod found;
3.North 80°24'55" West a distance of 851.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
This parcel contains 340.523 acres of land out of the David Wright Survey, Abstract No.
13, the William Roberts Survey Abstract No. 524, and the John Berry Survey Abstract No. 51 in Wiltiamson County, Texas. Description prepared from an on-the-ground survey. All bearings are based on the Texas Central Zone 4203 State Plane, derived from VRS co94in ates provided by the Texas Cooperative Network reference stations.
(t; �) P. ,1� 3/iv,Lv ··-�� David R. Hartman Date Registered Professional Land Surveyor State of Texas No. 5264
Job Number:
Attachments:
- 62 -
Page 128 of 202
Exhibit 3 – Land Use Map & Roadway Network Layout
- 63 -
Page 129 of 202
Exhibit 4A – Preliminary Water Plan
- 64 -
Page 130 of 202
Exhibit 4B – Preliminary Wastewater Plan
- 65 -
Page 131 of 202
- 66 -
Page 132 of 202
Exhibit 4C – Preliminary Drainage Plan
- 67 -
Page 133 of 202
D. Firefighting and Law Enforcement
Firefighting
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35 will receive fire protection from the City of
Georgetown, Texas.
Law Enforcement
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35 will receive law enforcement services from
the City of Georgetown, Texas.
- 68 -
Page 134 of 202
E.Estimated Build Out Schedule
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
Attached please find an estimated build out schedule related to the development of single family
lots and construction of single family homes thereon, as well as proposed multifamily
development.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 228 0 0 228
Total Lots Developed 100 150 150 200 228 0 0 903
Homes Constructed 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 30 70 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 55 95 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 125 75 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 125 103 0 228
Total Units Constructed 80 125 170 200 200 103 0 903
Commercial/Retail Development
Commercial/Retail - 50,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 22,000 347,000
Commercial Acreage 4.51 9.02 9.02 6.77 1.98 31.3
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Land Development Schedule
Lots to be Developed
- 69 -
Page 135 of 202
F. Estimated Bonded Debt, Debt Service Requirements
and Tax Rate
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
Estimated Bonded Indebtedness $39,160,000
Estimated Debt Service Requirements $44,059,063
Highest Projected Ultimate Assessed Valuation $323,660,000
Please see attached pages for further description of above information.
- 70 -
Page 136 of 202
Land Use Estimated Construction Costs
Developer Contribution Items
Type of Development Acreage #Lots/Sq. Ft.Water Distribution 3,537,637$
Single Family 121.20 903 Wastewater Collection 3,615,964
Cluster Homes 26.20 - Drainage 6,999,516
Townhomes 25.70 - Erosion & Miscellaneous 954,954
Commercial/Retail 31.30 347,000 Contingencies (15%)2,266,211
Amenity Center 3.70 - Subtotal Developer Contribution Items 17,374,282$
District Items
Elementary School 13.00 - Wastewater Impact Fees ($2,997/LUE)2,475,522$
Open Space 30.30 - Water Impact Fee ($5,139/LUE)4,244,814
ROWs and Easements 25.10 - Offsite Wastewater Improvements 2,500,000
Undevelopable 64.00 - Contingencies (15%)1,383,050
Total 340.50 Land - Pond Sites and Offsite Easements 855,000
Total District Items 11,458,386$
Total Construction Costs 28,832,668$
Roads 3,946,979$
Recreational Facilities 1,029,250$
Creation and Organizational Costs 90,000
33,898,897$
Projected Assessed Valuation
Number of
Acreage House Lot Total Lots Value
Section 1 10.07 256,000$ 64,000$ 320,000$ 75 24,000,000$
Section 2 13.42 256,000 64,000 320,000 100 32,000,000
Section 3 20.13 256,000 64,000 320,000 150 48,000,000
Section 4 20.13 256,000 64,000 320,000 150 48,000,000
Section 5 26.84 256,000 64,000 320,000 200 64,000,000
Section 6 30.60 256,000 64,000 320,000 228 72,960,000
Total 121.20 903 288,960,000$
Type Dev
288,960,000$ Single Family
34,700,000 Commercial/Retail (347,000 square feet at $100/sq ft)
323,660,000$
Bond Issues
Bond Issue Developer
Year Size Reimbursement
2018 2,675,000$ 2,132,738$
2019 3,600,000 2,904,900
2020 4,875,000 3,958,188
2021 7,350,000 6,004,775
2022 7,385,000 6,138,728
39,160,000$ 21,139,328$
Taxes
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Debt Service -$ 0.2885$ 0.3536$ 0.4220$ 0.4974$
Maintenance & Operation 0.5105 0.2220 0.1569 0.0885 0.0131
City of Georgetown 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395
Total 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$
2022 2023 2024
Debt Service 0.5040$ 0.5040$ 0.5040$
Maintenance & Operation 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065
City of Georgetown 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395
Total 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$
In-City MUD
Projected Ultimate Assessed Value
Public Finance Group has prepared the following analysis utilizing the Developer's existing Land Plan as well as estimated costs, values and lot absorptions as provided by the Developer,
and Public Finance Group makes no assurances that the property within the District will be developed in the manner herein described.
Total Estimated Construction Costs
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Finance Plan
March 15, 2016
Executive Summary
- 71 -
Page 137 of 202
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 228 0 0 228
Total Lots Developed 100 150 150 200 228 0 0 903
Homes Constructed 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 30 70 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 55 95 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 125 75 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 125 103 0 228
Total Units Constructed 80 125 170 200 200 103 0 903
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Land Development Schedule
Lots to be Developed
- 72 -
Page 138 of 202
Projected 2017 Assessed Valuation 152.50 @ $15,000 /acre 2,287,500$
Cumulative
25 houses Plus:25 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 6,400,000$
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
25 25 6,400,000
75 lots Plus:75 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 4,800,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
0 Bond Issuance Expenses 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
75 75 4,800,000
0 Plus:0 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft -
10.07 Less:10.07 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (150,997)
0.00 Less:0.00 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Commercial -
Projected 2018 Assessed Valuation 13,336,503$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:50 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 12,800,000$
30 30 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 7,680,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
105 80 20,480,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 100 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 6,400,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
175 100 6,400,000
0 Plus:0 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft -
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Projection of Ultimate Assessed Valuation
- 73 -
Page 139 of 202
23.49 Less:13.42 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (201,329)
0.00 Less:0.00 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Commercial -
Projected 2019 Assessed Valuation 40,015,174$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 -$
100 70 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 17,920,000
55 55 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 14,080,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
230 125 32,000,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
150 150 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 9,600,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
325 150 9,600,000
50000 Plus:50,000 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft 5,000,000
43.62 Less:20.13 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (301,993)
4.51 Less:4.51 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Multi-Family (67,651)
Projected 2020 Assessed Valuation 86,245,530$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 -$
100 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 -
150 95 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 24,320,000
75 75 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 19,200,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
400 170 43,520,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
150 150 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 9,600,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
475 150 9,600,000
150000 Plus:100,000 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft 10,000,000
- 74 -
Page 140 of 202
63.75 Less:20.13 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (301,993)
13.53 Less:9.02 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Commercial (135,303)
Projected 2021 Assessed Valuation 148,928,234$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 -$
100 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 -
150 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 -
150 75 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 19,200,000
125 125 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 32,000,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
600 200 51,200,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
200 200 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 12,800,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
675 200 12,800,000
250,000 Plus:100,000 Commercial @ 100 /Unit 10,000,000
90.60 Less:26.84 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (402,658)
22.55 Less:9.02 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Commercial (135,303)
Projected 2022 Assessed Valuation 222,390,273$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 -$
100 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 -
150 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 -
150 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 -
200 75 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 19,200,000
125 125 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 32,000,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
800 200 51,200,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
200 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
228 228 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 14,592,000
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
903 228 14,592,000
325,000 Plus:75000 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft 7,500,000
121.20 Less:30.60 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family (459,030)
- 75 -
Page 141 of 202
29.32 Less:6.77 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Commercial (101,477)
Projected 2023 Assessed Valuation 295,121,767$
Cumulative
75 houses Plus:0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 1 -$
100 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 2 -
150 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 3 -
150 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 4 -
200 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 5 -
228 103 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 6 26,368,000
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 7 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 8 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 9 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 10 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 11 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 12 -
0 0 Houses @ 256,000 /House Section 13 -
903 103 26,368,000
75 lots Plus:0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 1 -
100 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 2 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 3 -
150 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 4 -
200 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 5 -
228 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 6 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 7 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 8 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 9 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 10 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 11 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 12 -
0 0 Lots @ 64,000 /Lot Section 13 -
903 0 -
347,000 Plus:22000 Commercial @ 100 /Sq Ft 2,200,000
121.20 Less:0.00 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Single Family -
31.30 Less:1.98 Acres @ 15,000 /Acre Multi-Family (29,767)
Projected 2024 Assessed Valuation 323,660,000$
- 76 -
Page 142 of 202
Estimated
Construction Costs Costs 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Total Construction Costs (including
Developer Interest)36,780,303$ 2,042,738$ 2,904,900$ 3,958,188$ 6,004,775$ 6,138,728$ 21,049,328$
Non-Construction Costs
Legal Fees (3.00%)80,250$ 108,000$ 146,250$ 220,500$ 221,550$ 776,550$
Financial Advisory Fees (2.50%)66,875 90,000 121,875 183,750 184,625 647,125
Capitalized Interest (2 years @ 4.25%)227,375 306,000 414,375 624,750 516,950 2,089,450
Bond Discount (3.00%)80,250 108,000 146,250 220,500 221,550 776,550
TCEQ Issuance Fee (0.25%)6,688 9,000 12,188 18,375 18,463 64,713
Creation Costs/Operating Expenses 90,000 - - - - 90,000
Bond Issuance Expenses 38,150 30,500 31,000 30,000 35,750 165,400
Attorney General Fee (0.10%)2,675 3,600 4,875 7,350 7,385 25,885
Contingency - - - - - -
Bond Application Report Costs 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 200,000
Total Non-Construction Costs 632,263$ 695,100$ 916,813$ 1,345,225$ 1,246,273$ 4,835,673$
Total Bond Issue Requirement 2,675,000$ 3,600,000$ 4,875,000$ 7,350,000$ 7,385,000$ 25,885,000$
13,336,503$ 40,015,174$ 86,245,530$ 148,928,234$ 222,390,273$
1-Jul 26,675,839 - 63,130,352 - 117,586,882 185,659,254 258,756,020
2,675,000$ 6,275,000$ 11,150,000$ 18,500,000$ 25,885,000$
20.06%15.68%12.93%12.42%11.64%
1-Jul 10.03%9.94%9.48%9.96%10.00%
% of Cumulative Debt to Assessed Valuation
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Summary of Costs
Projected Assessed Valuation
Cumulative Debt Outstanding
- 77 -
Page 143 of 202
9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 9/30/2021 9/30/2022 9/30/2023 9/30/2024
Revenues
Property Tax 11,678$ 29,607$ 62,784$ 76,327$ 19,510$ 14,455$ 19,183$
Connection Fees 64,000 100,000 136,000 160,000 160,000 82,400 -
Interest 325 696 1,242 2,461 4,046 5,053 5,222
Miscellaneous - 100 100 100 100 100 100
Developer Contribution 35,000 -
Total Revenues 111,003$ 130,403$ 200,126$ 238,888$ 183,656$ 102,008$ 24,505$
Expenditures
Audit Fees 9,500$ 9,500$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,500$ 10,500$ 11,000$
Electricity 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448
Legal Fees 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185 23,881 24,597
Bookkeeping Fees 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299
Engineering Fees 7,725 7,957 8,195 8,441 8,695 8,955 9,224
Director Fees 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 7,379
Tax appraisal/collection Fees 773 796 820 844 869 896 922
Other Consulting Fees 515 530 546 563 580 597 615
Repairs and Maintenance 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159 1,194 1,230
Insurance 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845
Miscellaneous 258 265 273 281 290 299 307
Total Expenditures 73,875$ 75,806$ 78,295$ 80,344$ 82,955$ 85,128$ 87,867$
Bond Issuance Expenses
Net Revenues 37,128$ 54,597$ 121,831$ 158,544$ 100,701$ 16,880$ (63,362)$
General Fund Balance, Beginning of Yr 32,500$ 69,628$ 124,225$ 246,055$ 404,599$ 505,300$ 522,180$
Developer Reimbursement from General Fund
Transfer In/Out
General Fund Balance, End of Yr 69,628$ 124,225$ 246,055$ 404,599$ 505,300$ 522,180$ 458,818$
Six month reserve amount 36,938$ 37,903$ 39,148$ 40,172$ 41,477$ 42,564$ 43,934$
Projected Assessed Valuation (b)13,336,503$ 40,015,174$ 86,245,530$ 148,928,234$ 222,390,273$ 295,121,767$ 323,660,000$
Estimated M & O Tax Revenues (c)29,607$ 62,784$ 76,327$ 19,510$ 14,455$ 19,183$ 21,038$
PROJECTED TOTAL TAX RATE-
Debt Service 0.2885$ 0.3536$ 0.4220$ 0.4974$ 0.5040$ 0.5040$ 0.5040$
Maintenance & Operation 0.2220 0.1569 0.0885 0.0131 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065
City of Georgetown 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395 0.4395
Total Projected Tax Rate 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$ 0.9500$
(a) Based on 3% annual increase in expenses; Interest Income calculated at 1.00%.
(c) Based upon calculated maintenance & operation tax rate at 100% tax collection rate.
(b) Based upon growth as provided by the developer in the land plan.
Estimated(a)
PROJECTION OF INCOME AND EXPENSE - GENERAL FUND
Williamson County MUD No. 35
- 78 -
Page 144 of 202
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Projection of Income and Expenses
Growth
$2,675,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2018 $7,350,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2021
$3,600,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2019 $7,385,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2022
$4,875,000 Unlimited Tax Bonds, Series 2020
prepared by Public Finance Group
Projected Tax Rate Tax Investment Total Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Cumulative Percentage
Assessed Per Collections Income Available Series 2018 Series 2019 Series 2020 Series 2021 Series 2022 Total Debt Fund of Subsequent
Year Valuation $100 A.V.@ 100%@ 1.00%for Debt @ 4.25%@ 4.25%@ 4.25%@ 4.25%@ 3.50%Debt Balance Year's Debt
2017 2,287,500 -
227,375$ (a)
2018 13,336,503$ 0.2885$ -$ 2,274$ 229,649$ -$ -$ 535,649 (b)471.16%
2019 40,015,174 0.3536 38,476 5,356 579,481 113,688 -$ 113,688 880,169 (c)330.04%
2020 86,245,530 0.4220 141,494 8,802 1,030,464 113,688 153,000 -$ 266,688 1,388,526 (d)185.41%
2021 148,928,234 0.4974 363,956 13,885 1,766,368 183,688 243,000 322,188 -$ 748,875 1,534,443 (e) 124.29%
2022 222,390,273 0.5040 740,769 15,344 2,290,556 185,713 244,175 322,300 482,375 -$ 1,234,563 1,055,994 70.94%
2023 295,121,767 0.5040 1,120,847 10,560 2,187,401 182,525 240,138 322,200 480,150 263,475 1,488,488 698,913 46.80%
2024 323,660,000 0.5040 1,487,414 6,989 2,193,316 184,338 241,100 321,888 482,713 263,300 1,493,338 699,979 46.75%
2025 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 7,000 2,338,225 185,938 241,850 321,363 484,850 263,125 1,497,125 841,100 56.27%
2026 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 8,411 2,480,757 187,325 242,388 320,625 481,563 262,950 1,494,850 985,907 66.09%
2027 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 9,859 2,627,013 183,500 242,713 319,675 483,063 262,775 1,491,725 1,135,288 76.05%
2028 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 11,353 2,777,887 184,675 242,825 318,513 484,138 262,600 1,492,750 1,285,137 85.81%
2029 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 12,851 2,929,235 185,638 242,725 322,138 484,788 262,425 1,497,713 1,431,522 95.66%
2030 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 14,315 3,077,084 186,388 242,413 320,338 485,013 262,250 1,496,400 1,580,684 105.80%
2031 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 15,807 3,227,737 186,925 241,888 318,325 484,813 262,075 1,494,025 1,733,712 116.31%
2032 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 17,337 3,382,295 182,250 241,150 321,100 484,188 261,900 1,490,588 1,891,708 127.29%
2033 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 18,917 3,541,871 182,575 240,200 318,450 483,138 261,725 1,486,088 2,055,784 137.92%
2034 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 20,558 3,707,588 182,688 244,038 320,588 481,663 261,550 1,490,525 2,217,063 148.95%
2035 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 22,171 3,870,480 182,588 242,450 317,300 484,763 261,375 1,488,475 2,382,005 160.39%
2036 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 23,820 4,037,072 182,275 240,650 318,800 482,225 261,200 1,485,150 2,551,922 170.63%
2037 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 25,519 4,208,687 186,750 243,638 319,875 484,263 261,025 1,495,550 2,713,137 182.21%
2038 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 27,131 4,371,515 185,800 241,200 320,525 480,663 260,850 1,489,038 2,882,478 193.29%
2039 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 28,825 4,542,549 184,638 243,550 320,750 481,638 260,675 1,491,250 3,051,299 205.23%
2040 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 30,513 4,713,058 183,263 240,475 320,550 481,975 260,500 1,486,763 3,226,296 216.42%
2041 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 32,263 4,889,805 186,675 242,188 319,925 481,675 260,325 1,490,788 3,399,017 228.44%
2042 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 33,990 5,064,254 184,663 243,475 318,875 480,738 260,150 1,487,900 3,576,354 240.30%
2043 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 35,764 5,243,364 182,438 244,338 317,400 484,163 259,975 1,488,313 3,755,052 288.45%
2044 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 37,551 5,423,848 - 239,775 320,500 481,738 259,800 1,301,813 4,122,036 121.37%
2045 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 41,220 5,794,503 - - 317,963 483,675 2,594,625 3,396,263 2,398,240 77.80%
2046 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 23,982 4,053,469 - - - 484,763 2,597,725 3,082,488 970,981 37.38%
2047 323,660,000 0.5040 1,631,246 9,710 2,611,938 - - - - 2,597,850 2,597,850 14,088
41,411,623$ 572,078$ 4,470,625$ 5,965,338$ 8,002,150$ 12,074,725$ 13,546,225$ 44,059,063$
(a) Capitalized Interest (2yrs @ 4.25%) included in Series 2018 bond proceeds 227,375$
(b) Includes Capitalized Interest (2yrs @ 4.25%) from Series 2019 bond proceeds 306,000$
(c) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 4.25%) from Series 2020 bond proceeds 414,375$
(d) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 4.25%) from Series 2021 bond proceeds 624,750$
(e) Includes Capitalized Interest (2 yrs @ 3.50%) from Series 2022 bond proceeds 516,950$
- 79 -
Page 145 of 202
G. District Boundary and Vicinity Map
Please see Preliminary Engineering Report Exhibits 1 and 2
- 80 -
Page 146 of 202
H. Traffic Study
Please see Page 5 of the Preliminary Traffic Study and the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis.
- 81 -
Page 147 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Georgetown, Texas
December 9, 2015
- 82 -
Page 148 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Georgetown, Texas
December 9, 2015
Prepared for
Trio Development, LLC
Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Texas P.E. Firm Registration No. F-754
504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1175
Austin, Texas 78701 USA
Telephone 512 904-3700
Facsimile 512 904-3773
Website: hdrinc.com
- 83 -
Page 149 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1
Site and Access Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 1
Existing Thoroughfare System ...................................................................................................................... 1
Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2015 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 8
2025 Forecasted Conditions (with and without) Site Generated Traffic ........................................... 14
Background Traffic .................................................................................................................. 14
Site Generated Traffic ............................................................................................................. 14
Analysis Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 16
Directional Distribution ............................................................................................................ 16
Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................................... 17
2035 Forecasted Conditions (with and without) Site Generated Traffic ........................................... 21
Internal Roadway Capacity ............................................................................................................... 27
Roadway and Driveway Analysis ...................................................................................................... 29
Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 33
References .................................................................................................................................................. 35
Tables
Table 1. Signalized Intersection: Level of Service Measurement and Qualitative Descriptions ................... 7
Table 2. Unsignalized Intersection: Level of Service Measurement ............................................................. 8
Table 3. Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation ................................................... 14
Table 4. Forecasted Overall Directional Distribution of Site Oriented Traffic ............................................. 17
Table 5. Two-Lane Roadways LOS vs Daily Volumes ............................................................................... 27
Table 6. Urban Street Analysis for 2025 Forecasted Traffic Conditions ..................................................... 31
Table 7. Urban Street Analysis for 2035 Forecasted Traffic Conditions ..................................................... 32
Table 8. Intersection Level of Service and Delay (sec/veh) ........................................................................ 33
Table 9. Estimated Pro-Rata Cost .............................................................................................................. 34
Figures
Figure 1. Area Location Map ......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. 2015 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. 2025 Forecasted Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5. 2025 Site Plus Forecasted Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 20
Figure 6. 2035 Forecasted Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 7. 2035 Site Plus Forecasted Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 26
Figure 8. Internal Roadway Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 28
- 84 -
Page 150 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
This page is intentionally left blank.
- 85 -
Page 151 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Introduction
HDR Engineering, Inc. has been retained by Trio Development, LLC to perform a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Homestead development located east of Airport
Road, between Berry Creek Drive and Aviation Drive, in Georgetown, Texas, as shown
in Figure 1. The development is proposed to consist of the following land uses:
•600 dwelling units of single-family detached housing
•200 dwelling units of residential condominium/townhouse
There are commercial tracts as part of this property; however, there are no plans at this
time for their development. A TIA addendum will be completed, prior to approval of
development of the commercial property. The property is currently vacant and
development of the residential land uses is expected to be complete by 2025.
Site and Access Characteristics
Access to the development will be provided via four (4) proposed full access roadways
on Airport Road, as shown in Figure 2. An additional access point to the south of the
development is proposed upon construction of the Aviation Drive Extension. This access
point will only be assumed under 10 years after buildout traffic condition.
Existing Thoroughfare System
As indicated on the area location map and the conceptual site plan (Figures 1 and 2), the
project is located east of Airport Road, between Berry Creek Drive and Aviation Drive in
Georgetown, Texas. The interrelationship of these roadways and others in the study
area is shown in Figure 1. Average daily traffic estimates for these roadways were
obtained from Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Statewide Planning Maps
(Ref. 1) and counts conducted by HDR. The CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan
(Ref. 2) and the I-35 Capital Area Improvement Program (Mobility 35) (Ref. 3) catalog
the classifications of these major roadways and document proposed improvements. To
adequately describe these roadways, a further characterization is provided for each.
IH 35
The CAMPO Plan classifies IH 35 as a six lane highway in the vicinity of our study area.
According to the TXDOT traffic counts, the 2013 daily traffic volumes on IH 35, north of
SH 130 and south of Lakeway Drive are 88,200 and 73,100 vehicles per day (vpd),
respectively.
- 86 -
Page 152 of 202
- 87 -
Page 153 of 202
- 88 -
Page 154 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
SH 195
CAMPO classifies SH 195 as a four-lane divided major arterial west of IH 35. According
to the TXDOT traffic counts, the 2013 daily traffic volumes on SH 195, west of IH 35 is
16,200 vpd.
Lakeway Drive
CAMPO classifies Lakeway Drive as a six-lane divided minor arterial west of IH 35 that
transitions to a two-lane undivided major arterial west of Airport Road. 24-Hour traffic
data collected as part of this study indicates approximately 9,500 vpd on Lakeway Drive,
west of IH 35.
Berry Creek Drive
CAMPO classifies Berry Creek Drive as a two-lane undivided major arterial between
Airport Road and IH 35. 24-Hour traffic data collected as part of this study indicates
approximately 5,100 vpd on Berry Creek Drive, west of IH 35.
Airport Road
CAMPO classifies Airport Road as a two-lane undivided major arterial between Berry
Creek Drive and IH 35. 24-Hour traffic data collected as part of this study indicates
approximately 2,400 vpd on Airport Road, south of Berry Creek Drive. According to
CAMPO, the City of Georgetown is sponsoring the widening of Airport Road to a four-
lane divided arterial, from Berry Creek to IH 35, which is to be let by 2025.
Northwest Boulevard
Northwest Boulevard is a two-lane undivided local collector north and south of Lakeway
Drive. Based on a review of peak hour traffic counts conducted by HDR, 4,600 vpd are
estimated on Northwest Boulevard, north of Lakeway Drive. According to CAMPO, the
City of Georgetown is sponsoring the construction of a bridge over IH 35 on Northwest
Boulevard, which is to be let by 2018.
Indian Mound Road
Indian Mound Road is a two-lane local street west of Airport Road. Based on a review of
peak hour traffic counts conducted by HDR, 500 vpd are estimated on Indian Mound
Road, west of Airport Road.
Brangus Road
Brangus Road is a two-lane local street west of Airport Road. Based on a review of peak
hour traffic counts conducted by HDR, 400 vpd are estimated on Brangus Road, west of
Airport Road.
- 89 -
Page 155 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Vortac Lane
Vortac Lane is a two-lane local street west of Airport Road. Based on a review of peak
hour traffic counts conducted by HDR, 800 vpd are estimated on Vortac Lane, west of
Airport Road.
Aviation Drive
Aviation Drive is a two-lane local street east of Airport Road. Based on a review of peak
hour traffic counts conducted by HDR, 100 vpd are estimated on Aviation Drive, east of
Airport Road. According to discussions with the City of Georgetown, there are plans for
extending Aviation Drive to align with the existing box interchange of IH 35 and SH 130.
Details for when this will be constructed are not known at this time.
According to the Mobility 35 project, there are several roadway improvements along IH
35 in our study area. These improvements are listed below and were assumed to be
completed by other under 2035 forecasted traffic conditions.
IH 35 and SH 195
o Construction of direct connects from southbound SH 195 to southbound
IH 35 and from northbound IH 35 to northbound SH 195.
o Construction of an additional southbound through lane.
o Construction of an additional northbound through lane.
IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop
o Widening of the internal section of the interchange to six lanes with a left-
turn bay.
o Construction of a one-way northbound frontage road west of Austin
Avenue.
SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
o Installation of a traffic signal.
o Construction of a southbound right-turn lane on SH 195.
o Construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on SH 195.
o Construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Berry Creek Drive.
- 90 -
Page 156 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Traffic Analysis
In order to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed development, three (3) time periods
and five (5) travel conditions were evaluated:
•2015 Existing Conditions
•2025 Forecasted Conditions (without site traffic)
•2025 Site Plus Forecasted Traffic Conditions
•2035 Forecasted Conditions (without site traffic)
•2035 Site Plus Forecasted Traffic Conditions
Intersections in the vicinity of the site are considered the locations of principal concern
because they are the locations of highest traffic conflict and delay. The standard used to
evaluate traffic conditions at intersections is level of service (LOS), which is a qualitative
measure of the effect of a number of factors such as speed, volume of traffic, geometric
features, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience,
and operating cost.
Two types of intersections to be evaluated are signalized and unsignalized, which use
different criteria for assessment of operating levels. The analysis procedures are
described in the following sections.
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of delay, which is a direct and/or indirect
measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The
levels of service have been established based on driver acceptability of various delays.
The delay for each approach lane group is calculated based on a number of factors
including lane geometrics, percentage of trucks, peak hour factor, number of lanes,
signal progression, volume, signal green time to total cycle time ratio, roadway grades,
parking conditions, and pedestrian flows.
Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also complex. The
City of Georgetown considers overall intersection levels of service A to C to be
acceptable, while overall LOS of D to F is unacceptable.
Table 1 summarizes the levels of service that are appropriate for different levels of
average control delay, and a qualitative description for each. The 2010 HCM uses the
criteria of average control delay. Average control delay includes initial deceleration,
delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay (Ref. 6).
- 91 -
Page 157 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Table 1. Signalized Intersection: Level of Service
Measurement and Qualitative Descriptions
Level of
Service
Control Delay
Per Vehicle (sec)
Qualitative
Description
A < 10 Good progression and short cycle
lengths
B > 10 and < 20
Good progression or short cycle
lengths, more vehicle stops
C > 20 and < 35
Fair progression and/or longer
cycle lengths, some cycle failures
D > 35 and < 55
Congestion becomes noticeable,
high volume to capacity ratio
E > 55 and < 80
Limit of acceptable delay, poor
progression, long cycles, and/or
high volume
F > 80
Unacceptable to drivers, volume
greater than capacity
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service
Unsignalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of average control delay and, in some
cases, v/c ratio. Control delay is that portion of total delay attributed to traffic control
measures, either traffic signals or stop signs. Control delay includes initial deceleration
delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.
For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the analysis method assumes that major street
through traffic is not affected by minor street flows. Major street left-turning traffic and
the traffic on the minor approaches will be affected by opposing movements. Stop or
yield signs are used to assign the right-of-way to the major street. This designation
forces drivers on the controlled street to judgmentally select gaps in the major street flow
through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. Thus, the capacity of the
controlled legs is based upon two factors:
•The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream.
•Driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers.
The LOS procedure computes a capacity for each movement based upon the critical
time gap required to complete the maneuver and the volume of traffic that is opposing
the movement. The average control delay for any particular movement is calculated as a
function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation (v/c ratio). The
degree of saturation is defined as the volume for a movement, expressed as an hourly
flow rate, divided by the capacity of the movement, expressed as an hourly flow rate.
With the 2010 HCM methodology, overall intersection LOS is best quantified based on
minor street movement average control delay. The 2010 HCM methodology adjusts
individual movement delay to account for a degree of saturation (v/c ratio) that is greater
than 1.0. Those movements are assigned an LOS of F, regardless of the average
control delay. Engineering judgment must be used to determine which minor street
- 92 -
Page 158 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
movement controls for overall intersection LOS, and whether unacceptable LOS on
minor street movements appropriately reflects unacceptable LOS for the overall
intersection.
Table 2 shows the relationship between the average control delay and the LOS. The
LOS range for unsignalized intersections is different than that for signalized intersections.
This difference is due to the fact that drivers expect different levels of performance from
different kinds of transportation facilities. Unsignalized intersections carry less traffic
volume than signalized intersections and delays at unsignalized intersections are
variable. For these reasons, control delay would be less for an unsignalized intersection
than for a signalized intersection. The overall approach LOS is computed as a weighted
average of the vehicle delay for each movement; therefore, an approach may have an
overall LOS C or D and have individual movements, which are LOS E or F.
Analysis was performed using the simulation program "Synchro 8.0" by Trafficware (Ref.
7), which is based on the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual.
Table 2. Unsignalized
Intersection: Level of Service
Measurement
Level of
Service
Control Delay
Per Vehicle (sec)
A < 10
B > 10 and < 15
C > 15 and < 25
D > 25 and < 35
E > 35 and < 50
F > 50
2015 Existing Conditions
The analysis of existing traffic requires the collection of data on the major roadways and
intersections. Traffic counts for the following intersections were collected on October 6,
2015, while schools were in session:
•IH 35 and SH 195 (two intersections)
•IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop (two intersections)
•SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive (two intersections)
•Airport Road/Briarcrest Drive and Berry Creek Drive
•Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
•Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive
•Airport Road and Aviation Drive
- 93 -
Page 159 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Traffic counts for the following intersections were collected on October 29, 2015, while
schools were in session:
•Airport Road and Indian Mound Road
•Airport Road and Brangus Road
•Airport Road and Vortac Lane
Signalized Intersections
The following intersections within the study area are signalized:
•IH 35 and SH 195 (two intersections)
•IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop (two intersections)
2015 existing turning movement counts are presented in Figure 3. A brief description of
each intersection follows:
IH 35 and SH 195
The southbound approach on IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road provides one left-
turn/through shared lane and one channelized yield-controlled right-turn lane. The
eastbound approach of SH 195 provides two through lanes and two right-turn lanes,
while the westbound approach provides one left-turn/through shared lane and one
through lane.
The northbound approach of IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road provides one left-turn
lane, one left-turn/through shared lane, and one through lane. The eastbound approach
of SH 195 provides two left-turn lanes.
The interchange operates at LOS A under 2015 existing traffic conditions during both the
AM and PM peak periods. Assuming the same intersection geometry, the interchange
will continue to operate at LOS A under 2025 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions
during both the AM and PM peak periods.
IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop
The southbound approach on IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road provides one left-turn
lane, one through lane, and one channelized free-flowing right-turn lane. The eastbound
approach of Lakeway Drive provides three through lanes and one right-turn lane, while
the westbound approach provides one left-turn lane and two through lanes.
The northbound approach of IH 35 Northbound Frontage Road provides one left-turn
lane, one through lane, and one through/right-turn shared lane. The eastbound
approach of Lakeway Drive provides one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
through/channelized right-turn shared lane, while the westbound approach of NE Inner
Loop provides one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
The interchange operates at LOS D and C under 2015 existing traffic conditions during
the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Assuming the same intersection geometry,
the interchange will operate at LOS C and D under 2025 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The improvement in
- 94 -
Page 160 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
operation during the AM peak period is due to the rerouting of trips caused by the
gradual installment of roadway improvements by Mobility 35.
Unsignalized Intersections
The following intersections within the study area are unsignalized:
•SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
•Airport Road/Briarcrest Drive and Berry Creek Drive
•Airport Road and Indian Mound Road
•Airport Road and Brangus Road
•Airport Road and Vortac Lane
•Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
•Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive
•Thornton Road and Oltorf Street
2015 existing turning movement counts are shown in Figure 3. For the purpose of this
report, both the overall intersection delay and the individual approach with the highest
delay will be discussed, unless the intersection is an all-way stop controlled (AWSC). A
brief description of the intersections follows:
SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
For the southbound intersection, the eastbound and westbound approaches of Berry
Creek Drive comprise the stop-controlled approaches. The southbound approach on SH
195 provides one left-turn/through shared lane and one through/right-turn shared lane.
The eastbound approach of Berry Creek Drive provides one through/right-turn shared
lane, while the westbound approach provides one left-turn/through shared lane. The
intersection operates at LOS C and D under 2015 existing traffic conditions during the
AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The highest delay minor street approach (EB for
AM and WB for PM) operates at LOS F during both peak periods. Assuming the same
intersection geometry, the intersection will operate at LOS F under 2025 forecasted
(without site) traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the
highest delay minor street (EB for AM and WB for PM) will continue to operate at LOS F
during both peak periods.
For the northbound T-intersection, the eastbound approach of Berry Creek Drive
comprises the stop controlled approach. The northbound approach of SH 195 provides
one left-turn lane and two through lanes. The eastbound approach of Berry Creek Drive
provides one left-turn lane. The intersection operates at LOS A under 2015 existing
traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. The highest delay minor
street approach (EB) operates at LOS C and D during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively. Assuming the same intersection geometry, the intersection will continue to
operate at LOS A under 2025 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during both the
AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street (EB) will operate at LOS
C and F during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 95 -
Page 161 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Airport Road/Briarcrest Drive and Berry Creek Drive
All approaches of this intersection are stop controlled and provide one left-
turn/through/right-turn shared lane. The overall intersection operates at LOS A under
2015 existing traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. Assuming the
same geometry, the intersection will operate at LOS B under 2025 forecasted (without
site) traffic conditions during both peak periods.
Airport Road and Indian Mound Road
All approaches of this T-intersection provide one left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane.
The eastbound approach of Indian Mound Road comprises the stop-controlled approach.
The overall intersection operates at LOS A under 2015 existing traffic conditions during
both the AM and PM peak periods. The highest delay minor street approach (EB)
operates at LOS B and A during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Assuming
the same geometry, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2025
forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while
the highest delay minor street approach (EB) will operate at LOS B during both peak
periods.
Airport Road and Brangus Road
All approaches of this T-intersection provide one left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane.
The eastbound approach of Brangus Road comprises the stop-controlled approach. The
overall intersection operates at LOS A under 2015 existing traffic conditions during both
the AM and PM peak periods. The highest delay minor street approach (EB) operates at
LOS B and A during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Assuming the same
geometry, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2025 forecasted
(without site) traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the
highest delay minor street approach (EB) will operate at LOS B during both peak periods.
Airport Road and Vortac Lane
All approaches of this T-intersection provide one left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane.
The eastbound approach of Vortac Lane comprises the stop-controlled approach. The
overall intersection operates at LOS A under 2015 existing traffic conditions during both
the AM and PM peak periods. The highest delay minor street approach (EB) operates at
LOS B and A during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Assuming the same
geometry, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2025 forecasted
(without site) traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the
highest delay minor street approach (EB) will operate at LOS B during both peak periods.
Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
The northbound and southbound approaches of Airport Road provide one left-
turn/through/right-turn shared lane. The eastbound approach of Lakeway Drive provides
one left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane, while the westbound approach provides one
left-turn/through shared lane and one channelized yield-controlled right-turn lane. All
approaches of this intersection are stop controlled. The overall intersection operates at
LOS C under 2015 existing traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods.
- 96 -
Page 162 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Assuming the same geometry, the intersection will operate at LOS E under 2025
forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods.
Northwest Boulevard and Lakeway Drive
The northbound and southbound approaches of Northwest Boulevard provide one left-
turn/through/right-turn shared lane. The eastbound approach of Lakeway Drive provides
one left-turn/through shared lane and one right-turn lane, while the westbound approach
provides one left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane. All approaches of this intersection
are stop controlled. The overall intersection operates at LOS C and B under 2015
existing traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Assuming
the same geometry, the intersection will operate at LOS F and D under 2025 forecasted
(without site) traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 97 -
Page 163 of 202
- 98 -
Page 164 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
2025 Forecasted Conditions (with and without) Site
Generated Traffic
The proposed Homestead development is anticipated to be completed in 2025. This
time frame was used to assess the major roadway effects and to facilitate the evaluation
of potential improvements. The forecasted traffic was projected using available
information. This process was facilitated by using trends established by prior data for the
major roadways and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Background Traffic
2035 traffic volumes from Alliance, as part of the Mobility 35 project, were used to
estimate the 2025 traffic volumes on IH 35. For the rest of the project network, a three
(3) percent traffic growth rate was assumed based on TxDOT historical and projected
daily traffic counts in the project area. It should be noted that the Mobility 35 future
projections assume the full construction of the Homestead development; however, the
details of the land uses assumed by Mobility 35 are not known. Therefore, to be
conservative, no reductions were applied to the Mobility 35 future traffic volumes.
Per the City of Georgetown, there was no background projects assumed for this study.
2025 forecasted traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Site Generated Traffic
Determining the site generated traffic, or the traffic that will be generated due to the
development of the proposed project, was a major element of this analysis. Unadjusted
total trips per day, as well as the peak hour traffic associated with the project, were
estimated using recommendations and data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual
(Ref. 8).
The proposed project will generate approximately 6,636 unadjusted daily trips upon
build-out. Table 3 provides a detailed summary of traffic production, which is directly
related to the assumed land use plan.
Table 3. Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation
Land Use Size
24-Hour
Two Way
Volume
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Enter Exit
Single-Family Detached
Housing
600 DU 5,460 107 322 332 195
Residential
Condominium/Townhouse
200 DU 1,176 15 75 71 35
Total 6,636 122 397 403 230
- 99 -
Page 165 of 202
- 100 -
Page 166 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Analysis Assumptions
The traffic impact analysis process involves both the use of primary data and engineering
judgment on transferable parameters. Specifically, engineering judgment is required for
estimation of background traffic growth, pass-by capture, internal capture, and transit
reductions, all of which are further described in the following paragraphs.
Pass-By Capture
Studies have shown that retail land uses will capture between twenty and sixty percent of
their traffic as pass-by trips, depending upon their size. It is well documented that many
other land uses also experience significant pass-by trip capture, such as drive-in banks
and restaurants. The amount of trip reduction that each tract may attribute to the pass
by phenomenon will depend directly on the type of land use that is developed. No pass-
by trip reduction was assumed for this project.
Internal Capture
Once the total build-out of proposed land uses occurs, there will be some interaction
between the uses within this development. Internal capture is accounted for in two ways.
First, to account for internal capture among similar retail land uses in adjacent areas, the
sizes may be combined during the trip generation process. Because the equations used
in trip generation estimations are logarithmic, the number of trips generated by a site
does not increase in direct proportion to an increase in the square footage of a
development. By combining retail projects in close proximity to each other, a lower
number of trips will be estimated, thereby taking into account the internal capture factor.
The second way to account for internal capture is to reduce the expected number of trips
directly by some percentage, which reflects expected multipurpose trip-making among
different types of land uses, which are in close proximity. As with pass-by trip reductions,
internal capture depends on the type and quantity of land uses. No internal capture trip
reduction was assumed for this project.
Transit Trips
The provision of transit service to an area may reduce the expected number of trips by
providing a mode of travel alternative to the private automobile. No transit trip reductions
were assumed for this project.
Based on the assumption that there will be no trip reductions, the total and peak hour
trips per day will not require adjustment.
Directional Distribution
The next step involved distribution of the site generated trips to appropriate geographic
directions and logical connecting roadways. The major thoroughfares that have a direct
bearing on the accessibility of the project have been previously identified. Traffic counts
conducted during previous studies in the area provided the basis for the overall
directional distribution of traffic approaching and departing the project site, as
summarized in Table 4.
- 101 -
Page 167 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Table 4. Forecasted Overall
Directional Distribution of Site
Oriented Traffic
Direction/
Roadway
% Overall
Distribution
North IH 35 10
South IH 35 40
West SH 195 30
East NE Inner Loop 15
South Austin Avenue 5
Total 100
Given the total site generated traffic and the directional distribution by approach, the next
step in the process is to assign the traffic destined to and from the project to the most
likely travel paths. This step was performed by investigating a number of alternative
travel patterns, as well as ingress/egress points along the project boundaries. Primary
consideration was given to the traffic flow and safety of the major roadways.
Intersection Analysis
The total 2025 traffic demand will be the sum of traffic generated by the proposed project
and changes in existing traffic. 2025 site plus forecasted traffic volumes are shown in
Figure 5. Brief descriptions of the intersections follow.
IH 35 and SH 195
This interchange will operate at LOS A under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions
during both the AM and PM peak periods. The Mobility 35 project has improvements
planned for this interchange, but are not anticipated to be implemented by 2025. These
improvements will be assumed under 10 years after buildout conditions. Site traffic
comprises approximately 2.1 and 2.7 percent of total traffic at the intersection during the
AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop
This interchange will operate at LOS C and D under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The Mobility 35 project has
improvements planned for this interchange, but are not anticipated to be implemented by
2025. These improvements will be assumed under 10 years after buildout conditions.
Site traffic comprises approximately 8.7 and 11.3 percent of total traffic at the intersection
during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 102 -
Page 168 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
This interchange will operate at LOS E and B under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, assuming the installation of
traffic signals. Traffic signals should be installed when warrants are met in the field. The
Mobility 35 project has additional improvements planned for this interchange, but are not
anticipated to be implemented by 2025. These improvements will be assumed under 10
years after buildout conditions. Site traffic comprises approximately 6.9 and 8.8 percent
of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road/Briarcrest Drive and Berry Creek Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS C under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions
during both the AM and PM peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this
intersection as part of this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 25.2 and 29.5
percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively.
Airport Road and Indian Mound Road/Roadway A
The westbound approach of Roadway A is proposed to align with the existing Indian
Mound Road, and shall be constructed as a stop-controlled approach to provide one
inbound and one outbound lane. This intersection will operate at LOS A under 2025 site
plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. The highest
delay minor street approach (EB) will operate at LOS C and B during the AM and PM
peak periods, respectively. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as
part of this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 29.8 and 39.4 percent of total
traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road and Brangus Road/Roadway C
The westbound approach of Roadway C is proposed to align with the existing Brangus
Road, and shall be constructed as a stop-controlled approach to provide one inbound
and two outbound lanes (separate right-turn lane). This intersection will operate at LOS
A under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak
periods. The highest delay minor street approach (WB for AM and EB for PM) will
operate at LOS C during both peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this
intersection as part of this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 37.8 and 46.8
percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively.
Airport Road and Vortac Lane/Roadway D
The westbound approach of Roadway D is proposed to align with the existing Vortac
Lane, and shall be constructed as a stop-controlled approach to provide one inbound
and two outbound lanes (separate right-turn lane). This intersection will operate at LOS
A under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak
periods. The highest delay minor street approach (WB) will operate at LOS D during
both peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as part of
this project. Site traffic comprises approximately30.9 and 39.1 percent of total traffic at
the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 103 -
Page 169 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS C under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions
during both the AM and PM peak periods, assuming the installation of a traffic signal.
Traffic signal should be installed when warrants are met in the field. Site traffic
comprises approximately 15.9 and 18.7 percent of total traffic at the intersection during
the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Northwestern Boulevard and Lakeway Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS F and D under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. No improvements are
recommended at this intersection as part of this project as site traffic comprises zero
percent of total traffic at the intersection during both the AM and PM peak periods. This
assumption of site traffic not accessing this intersection was based on the observation
that this intersection is only serving existing residential traffic, and that the proposed
residential traffic generated by this development will not traverse through this
intersection.
Airport Road and Roadway B
The westbound approach of Roadway B shall be constructed as a stop-controlled
approach to provide one inbound and one outbound lane. This intersection will operate
at LOS A under 2025 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM
peak periods. The highest delay minor street approach (WB) will operate at LOS C and
B during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 104 -
Page 170 of 202
- 105 -
Page 171 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
2035 Forecasted Conditions (with and without) Site
Generated Traffic
Per the City of Georgetown requirements, the 2035 traffic conditions were also analyzed.
The Mobility 35 improvements along IH 35 were assumed to be complete under the 2035
forecasted traffic conditions. As previously discussed, 2035 traffic volumes from
Alliance, as part of the Mobility 35 project, were used to estimate the 2035 traffic
volumes on IH 35. For the rest of the project network, a three (3) percent traffic growth
rate was assumed. It should be noted that the Mobility 35 future projections assume the
full construction of the Homestead development; however, the details of the land uses
assumed by Mobility 35 are not known. Therefore, to be conservative, no reductions
were applied to the Mobility 35 future traffic volumes. The Aviation Drive extension to IH
35 was assumed under this condition; consequently, the following intersections were
also analyzed:
1. Airport Road and Aviation Drive
2. Roadway E and Aviation Drive
3. IH 35 and Aviation Drive (two intersections)
2035 forecasted (with and without site) traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6 and 7. Brief
descriptions of the intersections follow.
IH 35 and SH 195
The following improvements were assumed to be constructed by Mobility 35 under this
traffic conditions:
Construction of direct connects from southbound SH 195 to southbound IH 35
and from northbound IH 35 to northbound SH 195.
Construction of an additional southbound through lane.
Construction of an additional northbound through lane.
This interchange will operate at LOS B under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. The interchange will continue to
operate at LOS B under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM
and PM peak periods. No additional improvements are recommended as part of this
project. Site traffic comprises approximately 1.3 and 1.6 percent of total traffic at the
intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
IH 35 and Lakeway Drive/NE Inner Loop
The following improvements were assumed to be constructed by Mobility 35 under this
traffic conditions:
Widening of the internal section of the interchange to six lanes with a left-turn
bay.
Construction of a one-way northbound frontage road west of Austin Avenue.
This interchange will operate at LOS C under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. The interchange will continue to
- 106 -
Page 172 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
operate at LOS C under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM
and PM peak periods. No additional improvements are recommended as part of this
project. Site traffic comprises approximately 5.4 and 6.7 percent of total traffic at the
intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
The following improvements were assumed to be constructed by Mobility 35 under this
traffic conditions:
Construction of a southbound right-turn lane on SH 195.
Construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on SH 195.
Construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Berry Creek Drive.
This interchange will operate at LOS F and A under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The interchange will
continue to operate at LOS F and A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions
during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, assuming signal timing optimization.
Site traffic comprises approximately 5.2 and 6.9 percent of total traffic at the intersection
during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road/Briarcrest Drive and Berry Creek Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS C and B under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. The intersection will
operate at LOS C under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM
and PM peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as part of
this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 19.0 and 22.1 percent of total traffic at
the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road and Indian Mound Road/Roadway A
This intersection will operate at LOS A under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street
approach (EB) will operate at LOS C and B during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively. This intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2035 site plus
forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest
delay minor street approach (EB) will operate at LOS D and C during the AM and PM
peak periods, respectively. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as
part of this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 22.9 and 30.7 percent of total
traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road and Brangus Road/Roadway C
This intersection will operate at LOS A under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street
approach (EB) will operate at LOS B during both peak periods. This intersection will
continue to operate at LOS A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during
both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street approach (EB)
- 107 -
Page 173 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
will operate at LOS C during both peak periods. No improvements are recommended at
this intersection as part of this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 26.6 and
34.0 percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively.
Airport Road and Vortac Lane/Roadway D
This intersection will operate at LOS A under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street
approach (EB) will operate at LOS B during both peak periods. This intersection will
continue to operate at LOS A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during
both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street approach (WB)
will operate at LOS E and D during both peak periods. No improvements are
recommended at this intersection as part of this project. Site traffic comprises
approximately 26.6 and 34.0 percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and
PM peak periods, respectively.
Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS B and F under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. This intersection will
operate at LOS C and F under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during the AM
and PM peak periods, assuming signal timing optimization. Site traffic comprises
approximately 9.3 and 11.9 percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and
PM peak periods, respectively.
Northwestern Boulevard and Lakeway Drive
This intersection will operate at LOS F under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods. This intersection will continue to
operate at LOS F under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM
and PM peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as part of
this project as site traffic comprises zero percent of total traffic at the intersection during
both the AM and PM peak periods. As previously discussed, the assumption of site
traffic not accessing this intersection was based on the observation that this intersection
is only serving existing residential traffic, and that the proposed residential traffic
generated by this development will not traverse through this intersection.
Airport Road and Roadway B
This intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street
approach (WB) will operate at LOS C during both peak periods. No improvements are
recommended at this intersection as part of this project.
Airport Road and Aviation Drive
The northbound approach of Airport Road provides one through/right-turn shared lane,
while the southbound approach provides one left-turn/through shared lane. The
- 108 -
Page 174 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
westbound approach of Aviation Drive comprises the stop controlled approach of this
intersection, and provides on left-turn/through/right-turn shared lane. This intersection
will operate at LOS A under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during both
the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street approach (WB) will
operate at LOS C and B during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. This
intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during both the AM and PM peak periods, while the highest delay minor street
approach (WB) will operate at LOS D and C during the AM and PM peak periods,
respectively. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as part of this
project. Site traffic comprises approximately 19.4 and 24.5 percent of total traffic at the
intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
Roadway E and Aviation Drive
The southbound approach of Roadway E shall be constructed as a stop-controlled
approach to provide one inbound and one outbound lane. This intersection will operate
at LOS A under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during both the AM and PM
peak periods. The highest delay minor street approach (SB) will operate at LOS B
during both peak periods. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as
part of this project.
IH 35 and Aviation Drive/SH 130
The Aviation Drive extension will align with the existing box interchange of IH 35 and SH
130. All intersections of this box interchange are all-way stop controlled. For the
purpose of this report, only the intersections along the IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road
will be analyzed. At the northern intersection, the westbound approach of SH 130
provides one left-turn lane and one left-turn/through shared lane, while the southbound
approach of IH 35 Frontage Road provides one through lane and one through/right-turn
shared lane. This intersection will operate at LOS E and B under 2035 forecasted
(without site) traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. This
intersection will operate at LOS E and C under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic
conditions during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. No improvements are
recommended at this intersection as part of this project. Site traffic comprises
approximately 1.8 and 9.2 percent of total traffic at the intersection during the AM and
PM peak periods, respectively.
At the southern intersection, the eastbound approach of Aviation Drive provides one left-
turn/through shared lane, while the southbound approach of IH 35 Frontage Road
provides one left-turn/through shared lane and one through lane. This intersection will
operate at LOS E and B under 2035 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during the
AM and PM peak periods, respectively. This intersection will continue to operate at LOS
E and B under 2035 site plus forecasted traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak
periods, respectively. No improvements are recommended at this intersection as part of
this project. Site traffic comprises approximately 4.0 and 6.5 percent of total traffic at the
intersection during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
- 109 -
Page 175 of 202
- 110 -
Page 176 of 202
- 111 -
Page 177 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Internal Roadway Analysis
Roadway analyses were also performed for the proposed internal roadways for this
development based on criteria in the 2010 HCM. This analysis is intended to provide an
estimate of the LOS for proposed urban street facilities. Table 5 provides generalized
daily service volumes in relation to LOS for two-lane urban street facilities.
Table 5. Two-Lane Roadways LOS vs. Daily
Volumes
LOS
Average Daily Traffic (vehs/day)
Posted Speed = 30 mi/h Posted Speed = 45 mi/h
C 4,800 8,500
D > 4,800 and 12,700 > 8,500 and 15,400
E > 12,700 and 16,400 > 15,400 and 16,400
F > 16,400 > 16,400
It should be noted that the information in Table 5 is for planning use and should be used
as a tool to identify the overall performance of a large number of urban streets within a
network, as a first pass to determine where problems might arise or improvements might
be needed. Internal roadways were analyzed under final buildout traffic conditions.
Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of internal roadways is shown in Figure 8.
Volumes discussed below are solely related to site traffic, so as to identify the site’s
impact on the roadway and determine corresponding roadway sizing needs.
Roadway A
The highest forecasted daily traffic of Roadway A will be 760 vehicles per day (vpd), east
of Airport Road. Roadway A will operate at LOS C for a two-lane roadway with a speed
limit of 30 mph. The Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC) (Ref. 7) would
classify Roadway A as a Residential Local Street.
Roadway B
The highest forecasted daily traffic of Roadway B will be 1,460 vpd, east of Airport Road;
however, this value reduces to 580 vpd after the second internal intersection
(approximately 500 feet away). Roadway B will operate at LOS C for a two-lane
roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph. The Georgetown UDC would classify the section
of Roadway B between Airport Road and the second internal intersections as a
Residential Collector. The rest of Roadway B would be classified as a Residential Local
Street.
Roadway C
Upon buildout of the development in the year 2025, the highest forecasted daily traffic of
Roadway C will be 2,740 vpd, east of Airport Road; however, this value reduces to 1,920
vpd under 2035 traffic conditions due to construction of the future Roadway E on Aviation
- 112 -
Page 178 of 202
- 113 -
Page 179 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Drive. Under both 2025 and 2035 traffic conditions, the number of daily trips on
Roadway C reduces to 690 vpd after the third internal intersection (approximately 750
feet away). Roadway C will operate at LOS C for a two-lane roadway with a speed limit
of 30 mph. The Georgetown UDC would classify the section of Roadway C between
Airport Road and the third internal intersection as a Residential Collector. The rest of
Roadway C would be classified as a Residential Local Street.
Roadway D
Although this report only analyzes the impact of residential site traffic, there are
preliminary plans for commercial development along Roadway D, between Airport Road
and Roadway E. Therefore, analysis of Roadway D will be split into two sections.
The first section is between Airport Road and Roadway E. Upon buildout of the
development in the year 2025, the highest forecasted daily traffic of Roadway D will be
1,380 vpd, east of Airport Road; however, this value reduces to 800 vpd under 2035
traffic conditions due to construction of the future Roadway E on Aviation Drive. Under
both 2025 and 2035 traffic conditions, the number of daily trips on Roadway D will
operate at LOS C for a two-lane roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph. Based on the
future commercial development proposed along this section, the Georgetown UDC would
classify this section Roadway D as a Major Collector.
The second section is between Roadway E and Roadway B. Upon buildout of the
development in the year 2025, the highest forecasted daily traffic of Roadway D will be
1,370 vpd, south of Roadway C; however, this value reduces to 1,220 vpd under 2035
traffic conditions due to construction of the future Roadway E on Aviation Drive. Under
both 2025 and 2035 traffic conditions, the number of daily trips on Roadway D will
operate at LOS C for a two-lane roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph. The Georgetown
UDC would classify this section of Roadway D as a Residential Collector.
Roadway E
The highest forecasted daily traffic of Roadway E will be 1,400 vehicles per day (vpd),
north of Aviation Drive. Roadway E will operate at LOS C for a two-lane roadway with a
speed limit of 30 mph. Based on the future commercial development proposed along
this Roadway, the Georgetown UDC would classify Roadway E as a Major Collector.
Roadway and Driveway Analysis
The 2010 HCM provides methodologies for estimating existing roadway and urban street
operating LOS. Roadway LOS is expressed in terms of comparing expected speed-flow
and density-flow relationships. Urban street LOS is expressed as a function of travel
speed and free-flow speed. Roadway and urban street LOS are characterized by four
performance measures:
Density of the traffic lane (passenger cars per mile per lane)
Speed of the traffic (miles per hour)
Volume to capacity ratio of the travel lane
Percent time spent following
- 114 -
Page 180 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Each of these measures affects the overall roadway or urban street operating level of
service. The City of Georgetown considers overall operating LOS A to C to be
acceptable, while an overall LOS of D to F is unacceptable, in terms of the roadway
capacity.
Based on the criteria given in the HCM, the first step in the analysis of the roadway
network was to categorize the roadways within one mile of the development for analysis
purposes. Based on their operating characteristics, all roadways in the project network
were assumed to operate as urban street facilities.
Urban street facilities are roadways that experience interrupted flow. Stop signs, traffic
signals, and/or roundabout intersections located within two mile intervals along the
roadway effectively meter the flow of traffic on the roadway. For this reason, urban street
facilities experience level of service differently than rural two-lane and multilane highway
facilities. In order to quantify the factors related to urban street levels of service on these
facilities, intersection analysis was performed for major intersections within the study
area, using Synchro 9.0, which is based on the methodology specified in the HCM.
Operational LOS was then calculated based on the results of the intersection analysis
and the expected operation of the roadway links between control points. The LOS of
each urban street was determined based on a ratio of calculated travel speed to
expected free-flow speed. However, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, any
roadway facility which has a through movement volume-to-capacity ratio of 1 or greater
at any system intersection is automatically considered to be LOS F.
In order to determine the roadway level of service under 2025 traffic conditions, a
comparison between the base free flow speed and travel speed was made. It should be
noted that these calculations are based on traffic volumes assumed to occur during the
peak period for each roadway, not on daily traffic volumes. It is more appropriate to
evaluate a roadway based on its peak hour volume rather than the 24-hour volume,
since peak hour volumes provide a better indication of the operating conditions of the
roadway. Peak hour flows were determined based on existing traffic counts collected
during the study. The future peak hour volumes are a result of background traffic growth
and the addition of site traffic. Table 6 summarizes peak hour roadway analysis results
for year 2025.
- 115 -
Page 181 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Table 6. Urban Street Analysis for 2025 Forecasted Traffic Conditions
Location
2025 Forecasted
Peak Hour
2025 Site + Forecasted
Peak Hour
Direction
Travel
Speed
(mph)
LOS* Direction
Travel
Speed
(mph)
LOS*
Berry Creek Drive. Between Airport
Rd. and SH 195
EB 3.7 F EB 13.6 F
WB 38.3 B WB 33.8 B
Airport Road. Between Indian Mound
Rd. and Brangus Rd.
SB 41.9 A SB 38.7 A
NB 40.6 A NB 39.8 A
Lakeway Drive. Between Airport Rd.
and IH 35
EB 17.9 E EB 17.2 E
WB 12.4 F WB 20.2 D
* LOS is reported for lowest performing peak period (either AM or PM peak)
This analysis assumed the following improvements under 2025 site plus forecasted
traffic conditions:
Installation of a traffic signals at the intersection of SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway
Drive
Based on these results, the study area roadways are minimally impacted by site traffic;
therefore, no additional recommendations are provided. The following is a further
characterization of the impact on roadways:
Berry Creek Drive, between Airport Road and SH 195 will operate at LOS F under
2025 forecasted traffic conditions along the eastbound direction. This roadway will
continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of site traffic; however, the travel
speed is expected to increase given the recommended intersection improvements.
Lakeway Drive, between Airport Road and IH 35 will operate at LOS E under 2025
forecasted traffic conditions along the eastbound direction. This roadway will
continue to operate at LOS E with the addition of site traffic.
Lakeway Drive, between Airport Road and IH 35 will operate at LOS F under 2025
forecasted traffic conditions along the westbound direction. This roadway will
operate at LOS D with the addition of site traffic due to the recommended intersection
improvements.
All other roadways are operating at an acceptable LOS.
The Mobility 35 improvements along IH 35 were assumed under 2035 forecasted traffic
conditions. Table 7 summarizes peak hour roadway analysis results for year 2035.
- 116 -
Page 182 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Table 7. Urban Street Analysis for 2035 Forecasted Traffic Conditions
Location
2035 Forecasted
Peak Hour
2035 Site + Forecasted
Peak Hour
Direction
Travel
Speed
(mph)
LOS* Direction
Travel
Speed
(mph)
LOS*
Berry Creek Drive. Between Airport
Rd. and SH 195
EB 29.0 C EB 23.1 C
WB 36.8 B WB 30.0 C
Airport Road. Between Indian Mound
Rd. and Brangus Rd.
SB 41.3 A SB 39.2 A
NB 39.8 A NB 38.8 A
Lakeway Drive. Between Airport Rd.
and IH 35
EB 17.4 E EB 15.9 E
WB 19.4 D WB 21.5 D
* LOS is reported for lowest performing peak period (either AM or PM peak)
This analysis assumed the following improvements under 2035 site plus forecasted
traffic conditions:
Signal timing optimization at the intersection of IH 35 and Lakeway Drive
Signal timing optimization at the intersection of SH 195 and Berry Creek Drive
Construction of a northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Airport Road
and Berry Creek Drive
Signal timing optimization at the intersection of Airport Road and Lakeway Drive
Based on these results, the study area roadways are minimally impacted by site traffic;
therefore, no additional recommendations are provided. The following is a further
characterization of the impact on roadways:
Lakeway Drive, between Airport Road and IH 35 will operate at LOS E under 2035
forecasted traffic conditions along the eastbound direction. This roadway will
continue to operate at LOS E with the addition of site traffic.
Lakeway Drive, between Airport Road and IH 35 will operate at LOS D under 2035
forecasted traffic conditions along the westbound direction. This roadway will
continue to operate at LOS D with the addition of site traffic.
All other roadways are operating at an acceptable LOS.
Driveway Analysis
According to the City of Georgetown’s UDC, all site driveways (previously described as
Roadways A through E in this report) satisfy the driveway spacing requirements. All
turning movements into the project site are operating at acceptable LOS; therefore, no
turn lanes are recommended as part of this project.
- 117 -
Page 183 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Summary and Recommendations
Intersection LOS and delay results for 2015 existing, 2025 forecasted (with and without
site), and 2035 forecasted (with and without site) traffic conditions are presented in Table
8. 2025 and 2035 site plus forecasted levels of service assume all improvements
recommended and identified as part of this TIA.
Table 8. Intersection Level of Service and Delay (sec/veh)
Intersection
2015
Existing
2025
Forecasted
2025 Site +
Forecasted
2035
Forecasted
2035 Site +
Forecasted
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Overall intersection LOS is reported for all intersections.
IH 35 and SH 195 A
(3.0)
A
(3.7)
A
(5.2)
A
(5.8)
A
(5.7)
A
(6.2)
B
(16.5)
B
(18.2)
B
(17.9)
B
(19.3)
IH 35 and Lakeway
Drive/NE Inner Loop
D
(39.3)
C
(34.7)
C
(34.9)
D
(36.8)
C
(34.8)
D
(52.2)
C
(33.9)
C
(34.0)
C
(34.9)
C
(33.5)
SB SH 195 and Berry
Creek Drive*
C
(18.7)
D
(31.8)
F
(++)
F
(171.8) E
(55.7)
B
(11.8)
F
(86.6)
A
(9.4)
F
(86.1)
A
(9.7) NB SH 195 and Berry
Creek Drive*
A
(1.5)
A
(2.4)
A
(2.2)
A
(6.3)
Airport Road/Briarcrest
Drive and Berry Creek
Drive
A
(9.3)
A
(8.9)
B
(11.3)
B
(10.3)
C
(19.1)
C
(15.3)
C
(18.2)
B
(14.1)
C
(15.6)
C
(22.6)
Airport Road and Indian
Mound Road/Roadway A
A
(0.8)
A
(0.8)
A
(0.9)
A
(0.8)
A
(1.8)
A
(1.5)
A
(1.0)
A
(0.9)
A
(2.5)
A
(1.5)
Airport Road and Brangus
Road/ Roadway C
A
(0.6)
A
(0.8)
A
(0.7)
A
(0.8)
A
(3.8)
A
(3.5)
A
(0.8)
A
(0.9)
A
(3.1)
A
(2.8)
Airport Road and Vortac
Lane/Driveway D
A
(1.7)
A
(1.5)
A
(1.9)
A
(1.6)
A
(4.7)
A
(2.6)
A
(2.3)
A
(1.8)
A
(4.3)
A
(2.4)
Airport Road and Lakeway
Drive**
C
(17.1)
C
(20.1)
E
(47.8)
E
(48.6)
C
(25.0)
C
(30.5)
B
(15.0)
F
(117.8)
C
(27.4)
F
(82.5)
Northwest Boulevard and
Lakeway Drive
C
(17.7)
B
(14.0)
F
(52.6)
D
(33.0)
F
(52.6)
D
(33.0)
F
(66.0)
F
(53.4)
F
(66.0)
F
(53.4)
Airport Road and Driveway
B - - - - A
(1.9)
A
(1.4) - - A
(1.9)
A
(1.3)
Airport Road and Aviation
Drive - - - - - - A
(4.1)
A
(4.3)
A
(3.5)
A
(4.2)
Driveway E and Aviation
Drive - - - - - - - - A
(2.5)
A
(1.2)
IH 35 and WB Aviation
Drive/SH 130 - - - - - - E
(40.4)
B
(14.8)
E
(40.6)
C
(19.1)
IH 35 and EB Aviation
Drive/SH 130 - - - - - - E
(43.1)
B
(11.1)
E
(44.0)
B
(11.4)
*Based 2000 HCM
- 118 -
Page 184 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
Table 9 shows the estimated costs for the recommended improvements discussed in this
report along with the estimation of the developer’s pro-rata share of these costs. The pro-
rata share for each recommended improvement is calculated based on the percent of site
traffic for the applicable movement, approach, or overall intersection (e.g., overall percentage
is used for a signal, movement percentage is used for a turn lane, etc.). The estimated costs
will be discussed with the City to determine if adjustments will be required.
Table 9. Estimated Pro-Rata Cost
Year Intersection Recommended
Improvement
Estimated
Cost
Pro-Rata
Share*
Portion
of Cost
for Site
2025
SH 195 and Berry Creek
Drive
Install traffic
signal for diamond
interchange
$350,000 7.9%
(AM&PM) $27,650
Airport Road and Lakeway
Drive
Install traffic
signal $285,000 17.3%
(AM&PM) $49,305
2025 Total $76,955
2035
IH 35 and Lakeway Drive Signal timing
optimization $3,500 6.0% $210
SH 195 and Berry Creek
Drive
Signal timing
optimization $3,500 6.1% $214
Airport Road and Berry
Creek Drive
Construct NB
right-turn lane $100,000 57.8% $57,800
Airport Road and Lakeway
Drive
Signal timing
optimization $3,500 10.6% $371
2035 Total $58,595
Overall Total $135,550
*Based on the peak period when the recommendation was triggered
Internal Roadways
As previously discussed, internal roadway design should be coordinated with the City
keeping the following criteria in mind based on the combination of anticipated volume
and roadway function:
Roadway A – Residential Local Street
Roadway B – Residential Collector, between Airport Road and second internal
intersection. Residential Local Street, east of the second internal intersection.
Roadway C – Residential Collector, between Airport Road and third internal
intersection. Residential Local Street, east of the third internal intersection.
Roadway D – Major Collector, between Airport Road and Roadway E.
Residential Collector, between Roadway E and Roadway B.
Roadway E – Major Collector
- 119 -
Page 185 of 202
Traffic Impact Analysis
Homestead
References
1. Texas Department of Transportation
2013 TxDOT Statewide Planning Map, Austin, Texas
2. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
2015 CAMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, Travis County
3. Texas Department of Transportation
2015 I-35 Capital Area Improvement Program (Mobility35), Williamson County
4. Transportation Research Board
2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C.
5. Trafficware Ltd
2015 Synchro 9, Sugar Land, Texas
6. Institute of Transportation Engineers
2012 Trip Generation Manual, An Informational Report, 9th Edition, Washington D.C.
7.Institute of Transportation Engineers
2012 Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice, Washington D.C.
8. City of Georgetown
2014 Unified Development Code, Georgetown, Texas
- 120 -
Page 186 of 202
I. Miscellaneous
Enclosed please find the following information:
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
1) Draft letter addressed to Williamson County providing notice of creation of an In-City
MUD.
2) Projected Timeline related to Creation of Williamson County Municipal Utility District
No. 35.
- 121 -
Page 187 of 202
FREEMAN & CORBETT
PHONE (512) 451-6689 8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite B-104 FAX (512) 453-0865
Austin, Texas 78759
March ___, 2016
Via Certified Mail;
Return Receipt Requested
Williamson County Judge Dan A. Gattis and Commissioners
701 Main Street, Suite 101
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Re: Proposed Creation of Municipal Utility District
Dear Judge Gattis and Commissioners:
We are writing in order to notify you that Three Forks Development, Ltd. (“Owner”),
which owns approximately 340.5 acres of land located within the corporate limits of the City of
Georgetown (“City”), is submitting a request to the City for consent to creation of a municipal
utility district (“District”).
The City’s ordinances require that we provide proof of notice to the Commissioners Court
as to certain information regarding the proposed District. The purpose of this letter is to provide
the Commissioners Court with the information.
The name of the proposed District is Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35.
The District would contain approximately 340.5 acres of real property. Attached as Exhibit “A”
are maps showing the general location of the proposed District. We have also attached a build-out
schedule as Exhibit “B”. The estimated current population is zero.
Please let us know if you desire any additional information regarding the proposed District.
Sincerely,
Anthony S. Corbett
Ronald J. Freeman Anthony S. Corbett
rfreeman@freemanandcorbett.com tcorbett@freemanandcorbett.com
- 122 -
Page 188 of 202
Exhibit “A”
Map Depicting Location of District
Ronald J. Freeman Anthony S. Corbett
rfreeman@freemanandcorbett.com tcorbett@freemanandcorbett.com
- 123 -
Page 189 of 202
- 124 -
Page 190 of 202
Exhibit “B”
Build-Out Schedule
Ronald J. Freeman Anthony S. Corbett
rfreeman@freemanandcorbett.com tcorbett@freemanandcorbett.com
- 125 -
Page 191 of 202
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 228 0 0 228
Total Lots Developed 100 150 150 200 228 0 0 903
Homes Constructed 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Section 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Section 2 30 70 0 0 0 0 0 100
Section 3 0 55 95 0 0 0 0 150
Section 4 0 0 75 75 0 0 0 150
Section 5 0 0 0 125 75 0 0 200
Section 6 0 0 0 0 125 103 0 228
Total Units Constructed 80 125 170 200 200 103 0 903
Commercial/Retail - 50,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 22,000 347,000
Commercial Acreage 4.51 9.02 9.02 6.77 1.98 31.3
Williamson County MUD No. 35
Land Development Schedule
Lots to be Developed
- 126 -
Page 192 of 202
Time Line for Creation
of
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
requested by
Trio Development
Date Task
March 22, 2016 File petition with the City of Georgetown and notice to Williamson
County.
April 12, 2016 City Council agrees to the terms of creation of Williamson County
Municipal Utility District No. 35 (the “District”).
May 10, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission approves Concept Plan.
May 12, 2016 Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board to discuss parks and
recreational plan.
May 13, 2016 GUS Board approves wastewater service plan related to District.
June 21, 2016 City of Georgetown grants consent to creation of the District and
approves resolution accepting the petition for creation.
June 22, 2016 Developer’s engineer files application for creation with TCEQ.
January 1, 2017 TCEQ approves application for creation and issues order creating the
MUD.
February 19, 2017 Last day to hold organizational meeting of MUD within boundaries of
the MUD to call confirmation, bond, tax and director election.
May 6, 2017 Election Date.
- 127 -
Page 193 of 202
Draft
5.10.16
Term Sheet
related to the
Creation of
Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
The following terms related to the creation of Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35
(the “District”) also known as The Homestead on Berry Creek have been agreed to by the City of
Georgetown (the “City” or “Georgetown”) Staff and Trio Development, the developer of the land
within the boundaries of the District (the “Developer” or “Trio”).
The Developer is requesting that the City Council approve the creation of the District based upon
Staff’s recommendation and agreement with all of the following terms:
Name and Type of District
The District will be named Williamson County Municipal Utility District No. 35 and will be created
as a political subdivision with all of the powers granted to municipal utility districts approved for
creation by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “Commission”) and will be located
within the City limits of Georgetown. The District will be created as an “In-City” MUD.
District Authority/Oversight/Purpose
The District will operate pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution and Chapters
49 and 54 of the Texas Water Code, as amended.
The District will be subject to the continuing supervision of the Commission.
The purpose for creation of the District shall include all rights granted by statute and approved by the
Commission, and without limiting the foregoing: providing, operating, and maintaining facilities to
control storm water, distribute potable water, and to collect and treat wastewater (the “Utility
Facilities”) and the construction of roads and park facilities. The District, upon creation by the
Commission and voter approval of bonds payable from ad valorem taxes, may issue unlimited tax
bonds to construct or acquire the Utility Facilities, as well as the construction of roads and park
facilities.
Page 194 of 202
Benefits to the City
Enhanced Growth/Development
Creation of the District will assure the City of a quality mixed-use development within the City limits,
which is expected to spur the development of commercial/retail/office development just north of
downtown Georgetown, which would increase the City’s sales tax collections. Additionally, the
additional projected taxable appraised value associated with the development of the District is
anticipated to bring approximately $1,404,684 ($323,660,000 in projected taxable value at ultimate
build-out times the City’s current tax rate of $0.434) in additional yearly tax revenue to the City.
Enhanced Architectural Features
Trio agrees to adopt enhanced architectural features over and above the City’s current Unified
Development Code requirements including masonry finishes. The first floor of the houses are to be
100% masonry veneer construction and the front façade of the second floor of all houses are to be
100 % masonry veneer construction. All house are to have at least an aggregate amount of 70%
masonry veneer, exclusive of areas over roof not supported by masonry veneer below, roofs, eaves,
dormers, soffits, windows, doors, gables, garage doors, decorative trim, and trimwork.
Low Impact Development, Water Conservation, Protection of Trees and Existing Natural
Resources, Green Building and Parks/Recreation
Trio intends to develop the land within the District as the mixed-used development of The Homestead
on Berry Creek. The primary focus of the development team is to preserve and protect the natural
resources of the Land including water conservation and tree preservation. Trio’s focus on low impact
development and green infrastructure will serve to preserve rainfall, storm runoff and red uce the
dependency on potable water use in irrigation systems.
Expansion of City Regional Wastewater Facilities and Extension of City’s Planned Major
Thoroughfares
Wastewater Facilities
The Developer, has agreed to partner with the City in advancing a share of the funds for the
construction of an approximate 4-mile wastewater interceptor to serve development not only within
District, but additional areas within the City. Under Commission rules regarding oversizing, a district
may fund only its pro-rata share of utility facilities necessary to provide utility service within the
boundaries of that district. In the case of this Wastewater Improvement, the District’s needs are
expected to be met by a 12” interceptor.
Construction of this facility is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and provides the City
with a variety of options related to wastewater treatment in the area, and allows the collection and
conveyance of wastewater to be delivered to the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Page 195 of 202
According to City Staff, these wastewater improvements are included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan. Therefore, according to Texas Local Government Code Sections 395.001(4) and
395.019(2), the Developer will be reimbursed (or credited impact fees) an amount of money equal to
the total dollar amount contributed by Trio for the wastewater improvements.
Developer agrees to
expend all efforts to
obtain easements and
rights-of-way
necessary for the
construction of the
wastewater
improvements and will
be reimbursed the cost
of easements at a later
date. The City agrees
to assist the Developer
in obtaining easements
after all reasonable
efforts have been
expended and the
Developer has been
unsuccessful in obtaining easements on properties not owned by the Developer.
The City will provide all wastewater service to the development.
Trio and the City’s Utility Department are in the process of finalizing the Utility Term Sheet relate d
to the design and construction of the approximate 4-mile wastewater interceptor. A “draft” version
of the Utility Term Sheet is attached at the end of this document for your reference.
Airport Road Improvements
Trio has agreed to dedicate approximately 9.5 acres of land to the City in relation to the City's proposed
improvements to the Airport Road. A draft Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed by HDR,
which indicates that signalization at three intersections will need to be upgraded, and The Homestead
will pay the prorated share of those signals. Trio will also provide deceleration lanes and possibly left
turn lanes for the entry roadways.
Construction of Major Collector Road
Trio agrees to design and construct an approximate 1.5 mile four-lane with median collector road
expected to bisect the District and have two entrances off Airport Road.
Projected Timeline related to Construction of Wastewater Interceptor
5/6/17 Election Date – District Created; District Bonds Voted
6/3/17 End of 30-day Protest Period Related to District Creation
6/5/17 Advertisement of Bids for Construction of Wastewater Interceptor
7/6/17 Receipt of Competitive Bids for Wastewater Interceptor
7/20/17 Award of Bid
8/10/17 Pre-Construction Meeting
8/17/17 Construction of Section 1 of the WW Interceptor Commences
~6 mths Construction Period
2/15/18 Wastewater Treatment Capacity Available to District
Page 196 of 202
Payment of City Legal Fees incurred related to Consent and Development Agreement(s)
Developer agrees to pay to the City the sum of up to $30,000 for payment of legal fees incurred by
the City related to all documents necessary for the City to approve the creation of the District.
Park Facilities
Trio’s current land plan includes 94.3 acres of parkland, Open Spaces, and preserve areas, including
floodplain acreage, designed to include a cohesive network of parks, civic greens, community gardens,
dog parks, water quality areas and trail corridors. The Open Space and trail system combined with
the sidewalk network will be critical in establishing a walkable community connecting to the hike and
bike trail system within the area and potentially all the way to downtown Georgetown.
Gas Utility
Trio’s development plan potentially includes the extension of a natural gas line from Northwest
Boulevard to Airport Road as an advantage to the economic development per the Comprehensive
Plan.
Water Supply Capacity
Georgetown agrees to provide retail water supply to the District customers and acknowledges that the
City has sufficient water capacity, within the existing City water mains along Airport Road, to serve
the District at ultimate development.
Electric Utility
Georgetown agrees to provide three phase electric service to the District to the boundary of the
District.
Easements
As part of the cost share agreement for the Interceptor from The Homestead on Berry Creek to the
Pecan Branch Waste Water Treatment Plant, Trio will fund its proportionate share of the easements
required along this route. Trio has agreed to dedicate, at no cost to the City, additional acreage which
could be used as easements and/or right-of-way along the approximate 5,320 foot route of the 36-
inch wastewater interceptor from the District’s interceptor connection point through the northern
portion of the District.
Page 197 of 202
Financial
Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued – $45,175,000
Maximum Maturity of Bonds – 25 years from date of issuance
Facilities Bonds May be Issued to Finance – Water, Wastewater, Storm Drainage, Roads,
Recreational Facilities, and Refunding Bonds
District Only Tax Rate (Projected) - $0.516
City Tax Rate - $0.434
Total Maximum Tax Rate City and District - $0.95
Refunding Bond Criteria – Net present value savings of 3% or greater; Final maturity of refunding
bonds cannot exceed final maturity of bonds being refunded.
Page 198 of 202
Williamson Co. MUD No. 35
Draft Utility Term Sheet
Trio Development (Trio) is negotiating the purchase of Three Forks Ranch to be developed as an
approximate 340.5 acre Mixed Use Development to be named The Homestead on Berry Creek (the
“Homestead”). The Homestead will include single family, townhomes, cottage condominium, and due
to its proximity to the Georgetown Airport it will also include commercial/retail and office space, as
well as significant open space and amenity center. The Homestead is located within the City limits of
the City of Georgetown (the “City” or “Georgetown”) and is requesting Water and Wastewater
services from the City. Trio has submitted an application dated March 18, 2016 to the City requesting
the approval of an In-City MUD with road powers to be known as Williamson County Municipal
Utility District No. 35 (the “District”) for the purpose of reimbursing Trio for a portion of the utility
costs necessary to serve the District. Trio has informed the City that MUD financing is essential to
making the project feasible.
1) City will make retail water service available within the District in a quantity not to exceed 1,485
LUEs as necessary to serve development within the District as it progresses. Service will be
furnished from the City’s existing 12-inch water transmission line located adjacent to the
District’s boundary. The City will verify the capacity in the existing 12-inch main to meet
ultimate fire flow and domestic demands. Trio shall not be required to fund any increase in
capacity to water line.
2) With respect to wastewater collection and treatment, significant offsite utility facilities will need
to be constructed to collect and transport the Homestead’s wastewater to the City’s existing
Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant (see attachment “A”). These are the key elements of
this agreement:
i. The new off-site wastewater interceptor will extend 4.12 miles from Airport Road to
the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), generally following the Berry
Creek alignment, see Exhibit “A”.
ii. The Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor (Wastewater Interceptor) is listed on the
City’s CIP plans and generally follows the same alignment from the Homestead
wastewater line to the Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore,
considering wastewater conveyance for the ultimate needs of the District can be
accomplished with the capacity of a 12-inch wastewater line, the City has agreed to
fund:
a. The City’s proportionate share of capacity in the wastewater interceptor. The
City cost participation for the upsize of the Wastewater Interceptor will be
limited to the portion of the line between the District’s connection point and
the Pecan Branch WWTP. This portion of the interceptor project shall be
referred to as “Section 1”.
b. One hundred percent of the construction cost of the Wastewater Interceptor
from Airport Road to the District’s connection point. This portion of the
Wastewater Interceptor project shall be referred to as “Section 2”.
Page 199 of 202
c. The cost participation and reimbursement amounts are based on the
Engineer’s Estimate found in Exhibit ‘B” and summarized in the following
table:
Cost Participation
Trio’s
Participation
City’s
Participation Total
A. Construction Costs $2,357,598 $7,774,026 $10,131,624
B. Easement Costs 1,409,587 3,524,213 4,933,800
C. Design Costs 235,760 777,403 1,013,163
D. Inspection, Testing, and
Project Management Costs 94,304 310,961 405,265
E. Tree Mitigation Costs 97,195 397,355 494,550
Totals $4,194,444 $12,783,958 $16,978,402
iii. Trio has also agreed to obtain all easements and rights-of-way. The District will
reimburse Trio the easement costs for Section 1 of the Interceptor based on the cost
participation table found in Exhibit B. The City has agreed to be a partner in the
process of the easement acquisition, offering help with the easement acquisition
negotiations with property owners, leading the process with property condemnations,
and funding their proportionate share of the easement costs based on increased width
required for larger diameter interceptor.
iv. For Section 2 of the Wastewater Interceptor, Trio has agreed to dedicate, at no cost
to the City, the required easement for the interceptor across Homestead property.
v. Trio and the City will fund their proportionate share of the design costs associated
with Section 1 of the Wastewater Interceptor. The City will fund 100% of the design
costs associated with Section 2 of the Wastewater Interceptor. A professional engineer
company will be hired by the developer to serve as the civil design engineer for this
public-private partnership.
vi. Trio will be responsible for the bidding process and construction management which
will be overseen by both the Trio/District and City Staff. Therefore, Trio shall
administer all pay requests during the construction period of the WW Improvement.
Trio may receive a project management fee from the City to oversee the construction.
vii. The City shall fund its proportionate share, based on attached engineer’s estimate, of
the Inspection, Testing, and Project Management costs for Section 1 of the
Wastewater Interceptor. The City shall fund 100% of the Inspection, Testing, and
Project Management costs for Section 2 of the interceptor.
viii. The City will cause its pro-rata share of the funds to design, obtain easements, and
construct the Wastewater Interceptor project into an escrow account upon finalizing
the wastewater agreement. The District (or Trio acting on behalf of the District
pending approval) shall be allowed to draw upon said escrow account throughout the
duration of the project.
3) The City will provide three phase electric service to the District at the boundary of the District.
Page 200 of 202
8140
8141
9422
9421
9420
9419
9418
9417
9416
9415 9414
9413
9412
9411
9410
9409
9408
9407
9406
9405
9404
9403
9402
9401
9400
9399
9398 9397
9396
9395
9394
9393
93929391
9390
9389
9388
93879386
9385
93849383
9382
9381
9380
9379
9378
9377
9376
9375
9374
9373
93729371
9370 9369
9368
9367
93669365
9364
9363
9362
9361
9360
9359
9358
9357
9356
9355
9354
9353
9352
93519350
9349
93489347
9346
9345
9344
9343
93429341
9340
9339
9338
9337
9336
9335
9334
93339332
9331
9330
9329
9328
9327
9325
9324
9323
9321
9320
9319
9318
9317 9316
9315
9314
9313
9312
9311
9310
9309
9308
9307
9306
9305
9304 9303
93029301
9300
9299
92989297
9296
9295
9294
9293
9292
92919290
9289
9288
9287
9286
9285
9284 9283
9282
9281
9280
92799278
9277
9276
9275 9274
9273
9272 9271
9270
9269
9268
9267
9200
9266
9265
9264
9263
9207
9206
9205
9204
9203
9202
9201
9199
9198
9197
9196
9195 9194
9193
9192
9191
9190
9189
9188
9187
9186
9185
9184
9183
9182
9172
9171
9170
9169
9168
9167
91559154
9153
9152
9151
9150
9111
9262
92619260
9259
9258
9257
9256
9255
9254
9253
9252
9251
9250
9249 9248
9247
9246
9245
9244
9243
9242
9241
9240 9239
9238
9237
9236
9235
9234
9233
9232
92319230
9229
9228
92279226
9225
9224 9223
9222
9221
9220
9219
9218
9217
9216
9215
9214
92139212
9211 9210
9209
9208
9181
9180
9179
9178
9177
9176
9175
9174
9173
9166
9165
9164
9163
9160
9159
9158
9157
9156
9129
9127
9126
9125
9124
9123
9162
9149
9148
9147
9146
9145
9144
91439142
9141
9140
9139
9138
9137
9136
9135
9134
9133
9132
9131
9130
9122
9121 9120
9119
9118
9117 9116
9115
9114
9113
9112
9102
9101
9100
9089
9088
9087
9086
9161
9110
9109
9108
9107
9106
9105
91049103
9099
9098
9097
9096
9095
9094
90939092
9091
9090
9085
9084
9083
9082
9081
9047
9046
9080
9079
9078
9077
9076
9075
9074
9073
9072
90719070
9069 9068
9067
9066
9065
9064
90639062
90619060
9059
9058
9057
9056
9055
9054
9053
9052
9051
9050
9049
9048
9045
9044
9043
9042
90419040
9039
9038
9037
90369035
9034
9033 9032
89488947
8946
8945
8944
8943
8942 8941
8940
8939
8938
8937
8936
8935
8934
9000
9031
9030
9029
9028
9027
9026
9025
9024
9023
902290219020
90199018
90179016
9015
9014
9013
9012
9011
90109009
9008
9007
9006
9005
9004
9003
90029001
8999
8998
8997
8996
89958994
8993
8992
89918990
8989
8988
8987
8986
89858984
8983 8982
8981
8980
8979
8978 8977
8976 8975
8974
8973
8972
8971
8970
896989688967
8966
8965
8964
8963
8962 8961
8960 8959
8958 8957
8956
8955 8954
8953
8952
89518950
8949
8932
8931
8930
8929
8928
8927
8926
8925
8924
8923
8922
8921
8920
8919
8918
8917
8916
89158914
8913
8912891189108909
8908
15596
8907
8906 8905
8904
8903
8902
8901
8900
8899 8898
8897
8896
8895
8894
8893
8892
88918890
8889
8888
8887
88868885
8884
8883
8882 8881
8880
8879
8878
8877
8876
8875
8874
8873
8872 8871
8870
8869
8868
8867
8866
8865
8864
8863
8862
8861
8860
8859
8858
8857
88568855
8854
8853
8852
8851
8850
8849
8848
8847
8846
8845
88448843
8842
8841
8840 8839
8838
88378836
8835 8834
8833
8832
8831
88308829
8828
8827
8826
8825
88248823
8822
8821
8820
8819
8818
8817
8816
8815
8814
8813
88128811
8810
8791
8790
8789
8761
8809
8808
8807
8806
8805
8804
8803
8802 8801
8800
8799
8798 8797
8796
87958794
8793
8792
8788
87878786
8785
8784
8783
8782
8781
8780
87798778
8777
8776
8775
8774 8773 8772
8771
8770
8769
8768
8767
8766
8765
8764
8763
8762
8760
8759
8758
8757
8756
8755
8754
875387528751
8750
8749
8748
87478746
8745
8744
87438742
8741
8740
8739
8738
8737
8736
8735
8734
8733
87328731
8730
8729
8728
87278726
8725
8724
8723
8722
8692
8721
8720
8719
8718
8717
8716
8715
8714
8713
8712
8711
8710
8709
8708
8707
8706
8705
8704
8703
8702
8701
8700
8699
8698
8697
8696 8695
8694
8693
8691
8690
8689
8688
8687
8686
8685
8684
8683
8682
8681
8680
8679
8678
8677
8676
8675
8674 8673
8672
8671
8670
8669
8668
8667
8666
8665 8664
8663
8662
8661
86608659
8658
8657 8656
8655
8654
8653
8652
8651
8650
8649
8648
8647
8646
8645
8644
86438642
8641
8640
8639
86388637
8636
8635
8634863386328631
8630
8629
86288627
8626
8625
8624
8623 8622
8621862086198618
8617
8616
8615
8614
8613 8612
86118610
86098608
8607
8606
8605
8604
8603
8602
8601
86008599
8598
8597
8596
8595
8594
8593 8592
8591
8590
8589
8588
8587
8586
8585
8584858385828581
8580
8579
8578 85778576
8575
8574
8573
8572
8571
8570
8569
8568
8567
8566 8565
8564
8563
8562
8561
85608559
8558
8557
8556
8555
8554 8553
8552
8551
8550
8549
8548
8547 8546
8545
8544
8543
8542
8541
8540
8539
8538
8537
8536
8535
8534
8533
8532
85318530
8529
8528 8527
8526
8525
8524
8523 8522
8521 8520
8519
8518
851785168515
85148513
8512
8511
8510
8509
8508
8507
8506
8505
8504
8503
850285018500
8499
8498
8497
8496
8495
8494
8493
8492
8491
8490
8469
8468
8467
8466
8465
8464
8463
8462 8461
8460
8459
8458
8457
8456
8455
8454
8453
8452 8451
8450
8449
8448
8447
8446
8445
8444 8443
8442
8441 8440
8439
8438
8437
8436 8435
8434
8433
8432
8431
8430
8429
8428
8427
8426
8425
8424
8423
8422
8421 84208419
8418
8417
8416
8415
8414
8413
8412
8411
8410
8409
8408
8407
8406
8405
8404
8403
8402
8401
84008399
8398
8397
83968395
8394
8393
8392
8388
8387
8386
8385
8384
8383
8382
83818375
8374
83738370
83698489
84888487
8486
8485
8484
8483
8482
8481
8480
84798478
8477
847684758474
8473
8472
8471
8470
8391
8390
8389
8380
8372
8371
8368
8367
8366
8365
836483638362
8361 8360
8168
8376
8379
8378
8377
8143
8142
81398138 8137
8136
81358134
8133
8132
8131
8130
8129
8128
81278126
8125
8123
8335
8334
8333 8332
8331
8330
8329
8328
8327
8326
8325
8324
8323
8322
8321
8320
8319
8318
8317
83168315
8314
8313
8167
8166
81658160
8159
815881578156
8149
8148
814781468145
8144
8108
8106
8105
8359
8358
8357
8356
8355
83548353 8352
8351
8350
8349
8348
8342
8341
8340
83398338
8337
8336
8312
8311
8310
8309 8308
8307
8306
8290
8289
8288
82878286
8232
8231
8230
8229
82288227
82268225
8164
8163
8162
8161
8155
8154
8153
81528150
8234
8305
8303 8298
8297
8296
82958294
8293
8292
8291
8250
8249
8248
8247
8246
8245
8242
8241
8240
8239
8238
8237
8235
8233
82248223
8222
8347
8346
8345
8344
8343
8304
83028301
8300
8299
8285
82848283
8282
8281
8280
8279
8278
8277 8276
82758274
8273
8272
8271
8270
8269
8268
8267 8266
8265
8264
8263
8262
8261
8260
8259 8258
8257
8256
8255
8254
82538252
8251
8244
8243
8236
8221
8220
8219
8218
8217
8151
8116 8115 8114
8113
8112
8111
8110
8109
8216
8215
8214
8213
8212
8211
8210
8209
8208 82078206
8205
82048203
8202
8201
8200
8199
8198
8197
8196 8195
8194 8193
8192
8191
8190 8189
8188
8187
8186
8185
8184
8183
8182
8181
81808179
8178
8177
8176
8175
8174 8173
8172
8171
81708169
8124
8122
8121
8120
8118
8104
8103
8102
8101
8100
80998098
8097
8095
8094
8088
8087
8083
8082
8078
8077
8076
8075
8074
8073
8072
8071
8010
8117
8107
80868085
8084
8070
8069
8068
8067 8066
8065
8064
8063
8062
8061 8060
8059
8058
8057
8056
8055
805480538052
8051
805080498048
8047
8046
8045 8044
8043
8042
8041
80408039
80388037
8036
8035 8034
8033
80328031 8030
8029
8028
8027
8026
8025 8024
8023
8022
8021
80208019
80188017
8016
8015
80098008
8007
80068005
8004
80038002
8001
8119
8096
80938092
8091 8090
8089
8081
8080
8079
801480138012
8011
8000
871301
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62 62
62 62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62 62
62
62
62
6262
62
62
62
6262
62
62
62
62
62
626262
62 62 62 62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62 62
62
6262
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62 62 62 62
62
62
62 62
62
62
62
62
62
62626262
62
62
62
62
72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
72
72
72
7272
72
72
72
727272
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
52 52 52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52 52 52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
5252525252525252
5252525252525252
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52 52 52 52 52
52
52
52 52 52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
5252
5252
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52525252525252
52
52 52 52 52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52 52 52 52
52
52 52
52
52
5252
52
52525252
52
525252
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
5252525252
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52 52
52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
52
52
52 52
52
52
52
52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
* Open space includes detention/water quality, parks,
greenbelts, enhanced lakes, easements and buffers
340.5 AC.TOTAL
AMENITY CENTERS 3.7 AC.
MAJOR ROW
OPEN SPACE*
25.1 AC.
30.3 AC.
903 UNITS
MIXED USE 31.3 AC.
52' x 120' Product 316 units
903 units
UNITS
Sub-Total:
RESIDENTIAL ACRES DENSITY
173.1 AC.
Cluster Product 157 units26.2 AC.6.0 du/ac
TRAILS, TYP.
62' x 120' Product 130 units
72' x 120' Product 43 units
Townhome Product 257 units25.7 AC.10.0 du/ac
SCHOOL 13.0 AC.
FLOODPLAIN 64.0 AC.
LAND USE SUMMARY
Date: December 29, 2015
Scale: 1" = 600'
North
Q:\130003-TRIO\Cadfiles\PLANNING\Lotting\Concept A Lotting.dwg
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
HOMESTEAD
LOTTING A
12006000300
SEC Planning, LLC
t 512.246.7003 f 512.246.7703
www.secplanning.com info@secplanning.com
Land Planning Landscape Architecture Community Branding
AUSTIN, TEXAS Base mapping compiled from best available information. All map
data should be considered as preliminary, in need of verification, and
subject to change.This land plan is conceptual in nature and does
not represent any regulatory approval.Plan is subject to change.
++
+
+
Page 201 of 202
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
May 24, 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
- Hoskins Update
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Real P ro perty
- Rivery Blvd Exte nsion Pro ject (P arcel 3, 1407 Williams Drive)
- Rivery Blvd Exte nsion Pro ject (P arcel 1, 1599 Williams Drive)
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
- Fire Meet & Co nfe r
- Approval of appo intment of Assistant City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - BH
Page 202 of 202