HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 08.22.2017 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 2 2, 2 0 1 7
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on August 2 2, 2017 at 3:00 PM at Council Chambers - 101
East 7th Street
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Discussion o f the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for
the City o f Georgetown, Georgeto wn Transpo rtation Enhancement Corpo ratio n (GTEC), and the
Geo rgeto wn Economic Developme nt Corpo ration (GEDCO) for the quarter ended June 30, 2017.
– Le igh Wallace, Finance Director
B Discussion and possible direction to staff o n Street Network Connectivity P olicies -- Sofia
Nelso n, P lanning Director.
C Consideration and possible directio n regarding a presentation on the Target Industry and
Workfo rce Analysis by Avalanche Consulting -- Michaela Dollar, Director o f Economic
Deve lo pment
D Update o n the 2016 Historic Reso urc e Survey -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r
E Update and discussion regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amended and
Re stated Consent Agreement (First Amendment) and the Amended and Restated Development
Agre ement (Second Amendment) -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
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.
F 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
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati on abo ut Real P roperty
- Parcel 1 5 (1 603 Northwest Boule vard) Rivery Boulevard Extension Pro ject
- We ir Pro perty (NL of 2243/Leande r Ro ad West of Riverview Drive ), So uthwest Bypass Project
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
Page 1 of 257
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2017, 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 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Discussion of the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Re ports fo r the City of Georgetown,
Georgetown Transpo rtation Enhancement Corporatio n (GTEC), and the Georgetown Eco nomic Development Corpo ratio n
(GEDCO) for the quarter ended June 30, 2017. – Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Quarterly Financial Report to Counc il is attached. An e xe c utive summary is included to highlight variances with
regards to the revenues and expenditures, and an ove rview of the investme nt portfolio as o f June 30, 2 01 7. The Financ ial
Report co mpares year to date re venues and e xpe nses to budget, as well as to the same period in the prior year for all
major funds.
The FY 2017 spring debt sale pro ceeds are reflected in this re port. Major variances in the General Fund compared to the
same perio d last year are related to a full year impact of Me e t and Confer Agreement fo r public safety, mid-year budge t
amendments approved in February, and the increase of IT allocations. Staff continue to monitor all funds to meet ye ar-end
projections. Are as o f co ncern noted during presentation of the propose d budget include overtime in Fire and EMS, and
the Electric Fund purchased po wer and CIP costs. Investme nt activity for the quarter is primarily the maturity and
purchasing of Ce rtificates of Deposits, and the depo sit o f bond proceeds into a favorable money market account.
Valley View, L.L.C., has prepared the attached investment reports. The investment activity and strategies described in the
investment repo rt are in co mpliance with the City’s Investment Policy and state law. This report meets the quarte rly
reporting requireme nts mandated by the Public Funds Investment Act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
3rd Quarter F inanc ial Report
Page 3 of 257
Q3 2017
F®ÄÄ®½ RÖÊÙã Ä IÄòÝãÃÄã RÖÊÙã
FÊÙ QçÙãÙ EÄ June χ0, φτυϋ
Page 4 of 257
FINANCIAL REPORT AND INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2017
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1-5
General Fund Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 6
Electric Fund Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 7
Water & Rural Water Fund Schedule ............................................................................................................ 8
Joint Services Fund Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 9
Council Discretionary Fund Schedule .......................................................................................................... 10
Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund Schedule ............................................................................................. 11
Paramedic Fund Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 12
Airport Fund Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 13
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund Schedule .................................................... 14
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund Schedule ............................................................. 15
Quarterly Investment Report - City ........................................................................................................ 16-31
Quarterly Investment Report - GTEC ...................................................................................................... 32-37
Quarterly Investment Report - GEDCO ................................................................................................... 38-43
Grant Applications ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Capital Improvement Projects ................................................................................................................ 45-50
Long-term Commitments and Other Unfunded Liabilities ..................................................................... 51-53
Page 5 of 257
F FY2017 Quarterly Report
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Number of Building Permits
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: MyPermitNow
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2017
I. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
GENERAL FUND REVENUES:
General Fund revenues collected for the third quarter of fiscal year 2017 are stronger than the prior year with an
8.7% increase. The total revenue collected year to date (YTD) for the General Fund is $41.0 million.
Sales tax revenues continue to be higher than
projected. General Fund sales tax revenues
for the third quarter of fiscal year 2017 are
6.5% ahead of the third quarter of fiscal year
2016. The sales tax collections through June
totaled $7.5 million, or 57.7% of budget. The
growth in sales tax is primarily driven by
increases in our core sectors of retail trade,
food, and information, which are positively
impacted by population growth.
Property tax revenues are typically received
during the first two quarters of the fiscal
year, with the majority of the taxes being
received in December and January. The
amount of revenue is based on the assessed
value and is estimated using the County Assessor’s data. Any deviations from estimates in this revenue stream are
typically related to new construction and delinquency rates. Property tax revenues for the third quarter of 2017
are up 5.8%, or $0.6 million, from the third quarter of 2016. Our collection rate as of June 2017 is 92.8% compared
to 94.0% last June.
The City collects a 4 – 5% franchise fee on
electric, natural gas, cable, and non-
cellular telephone revenues provided by
entities other than the City. The City has
collected $3.2 million through the third
quarter of 2017, which is a 1.4% increase
from the third quarter of 2016. Franchise
fees are typically collected on a quarterly
basis and the timing of payments can
vary. The City also collects a 3% franchise
fee and a 7% return on investment (ROI)
fee from City owned utilities, which
totaled $5.3 million through the third
quarter of the fiscal year. Franchise fee
and ROI collections are up 1.7% over this
time last year.
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
$1,300,000
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Sales Tax Revenue
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public
1Page 6 of 257
F FY2017 Quarterly Report
Environmental services revenues are up 12.9% from the third quarter of 2016. This increase is related to the
growth in the customer base.
Development related revenue is up 27.4% over the prior year. Year to date development applications are up 58%
from last year.
Overall, General Fund primary revenues were strong in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017 and are higher than the
prior year.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
General Fund operating expenditures for the third quarter of fiscal year 2017 are 10.7% higher than the same
period the prior year due to a full year impact of Meet and Confer Agreement for public safety, mid-year budget
amendments approved in February, and the increase of IT allocations. Each Division is on pace compared to
budget for the third quarter.
Total salaries and benefit expenditures through the third quarter were $23.2 million or 70% of budget. An
additional $16.5 million, or 89% of budget, was spent on operations. Overall, personnel costs are higher than third
quarter 2016 due to the merit and market increases that went into effect February 2017.
Administration Services includes City Manager’s Office, City Council, City Secretary and social service funding. Total
expenditures for the third quarter were $1.6 million or 70.5% of budget.
Community Services and Finance provides resources for developing downtown, as well as resources for Parks and
Recreation, Library, Communications and Municipal Court. Year to date expenditures are $7.3 million or 70.4% of
budget.
The Georgetown Utility System Division includes Environmental Services, Inspections, Public Works and Streets.
Environmental Services manages the contract for solid waste collections. Total expenditures through the third
quarter were $6.8 million or 73.1% of budget.
Total expenditures for Public Safety through the third quarter are 71.8% of budget for a total of $19.4 million. City
management, finance and fire staff continue to monitor Fire and EMS overtime every two weeks. The Fire
Department is expected to exceed budget due to overtime expenses to cover vacancies and leave. The 3 float
positions added in 2017 helped slow the increase in overtime compared to prior years.
Overall General Fund expenditures are within budget and projection. General Fund expenditures are projected to
be slightly lower than revenue, leading to a minor increase in fund balance. The fund balance is projected to be
$11.1 million, covering the 90-day contingency reserve and the Economic Uncertainty Reserve.
UTILITY FUNDS:
Electric revenue through the third quarter of 2017 is up 13.7% compared to the prior year’s third quarter. Other
revenues are up 48.4% from the prior year due to the City collecting reimbursements from developers related to
new infrastructure.
Total water revenue is up from the prior year by 28.5%, which is largely due to an increase in impact fees for new
development in the Western District and customer growth.
2Page 7 of 257
F FY2017 Quarterly Report
Total wastewater revenue is up 47.7% for fiscal year 2017 compared to last year. The increase is largely due to
impact fees for new development in the Western District, customer growth, and the approved wastewater fee
increase.
Utility revenues are impacted significantly by growth and weather conditions. The improved economic conditions
and housing market continue to positively impact growth-related revenues. Staff will monitor these trends over
the upcoming months as summer weather patterns will be a key factor for water and electric sales.
Electric expenditures are likely to exceed budget in Purchased Power as a result of selling excess generation into a
depressed energy market. Capital Improvement Program expenditures also are projected to exceed budget due to
the increase in projects to accommodate new growth.
Water operations expenditures are on target for the year. We continue to monitor savings from bringing plant
operations in-house. Water capital expenditures are picking up pace in the third quarter; however, a CIP roll
forward amendment is likely due to the timing and capacity of large projects.
OTHER MAJOR FUNDS:
Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is $787,234 year to date, an increase of 38.0% from the prior year due to the
Sheraton Hotel. Poppy Fest expenditures did not exceed the mid-year budget amendment. Airport revenue is up
21.7% from the prior year, due to fuel sales and leases. Airport expenditures are on pace for the year.
II.INVESTMENTS
The investment activity and strategies described in this report are in compliance with the Public Funds Investment
Act (PFIA), City’s investment policy, and generally accepted accounting principles. Activity for the third quarter of
fiscal year 2017 includes the maturing of financial institution deposits (CD’s), the purchase of new CD’s, and
transfers to favorable money market accounts. Interest rates for money market accounts increased in March 2017.
The Investment Reports for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 and the supporting schedules are attached. Valley
View Consulting, L.L.C., has prepared the attached investment reports. A component of our investment advisory
services contract includes Valley View preparing the quarterly investment reports on behalf of the City. A summary
of the investment balances at June 30, 2017 compared to the prior quarter is shown below for the City as well as
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) and Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO).
CITY GTEC GEDCO
3/31/17 6/30/17 3/31/17 6/30/17 3/31/17 6/30/17
Total cash and investments $137,713,551 $179,846,228 $16,206,262 $20,170,749 $5,510,756 $5,740,384
Average Yield 0.75% 1.06% 0.82% 1.12% 0.72% 0.98%
The City’s strategy continues to be matching maturities with cash flow needs, while focusing on the investment
policy’s long-range goals. The City’s investment strategy is to “ladder” or stagger maturities, thus minimizing erratic
interest rate fluctuations.
City portfolio balances have increased in the last few years in direct correlation to the increase in contingency
reserves and debt proceeds issued for future capital improvement projects. The City’s investment portfolio
3Page 8 of 257
F FY2017 Quarterly Report
includes bank deposits, local government investment pool balances, money market accounts and financial
institution deposits. All of these investments carry insurance or an implied backing from the Federal Government.
The collateral on all City investments is monitored at least monthly to ensure the financial institutions carry
minimum collateral of 102% of market value of the City’s investments.
Currently the City does not own any securities due to the market conditions for these types of investments. Once
the City begins purchasing securities, the investment officers will obtain from a reliable source the current credit
rating for each held investment that has a PFIA-required minimum rating. All securities held by financial institutions
as collateral on behalf of the City were reviewed and met PFIA-minimum rating criteria.
The City has used a banking fee reduction strategy by retaining higher daily balances at the City’s depository bank.
These balances earn credit against the fees charged by the bank versus earning interest on these balances. Current
analysis shows a higher return on investments that will cover bank fees and provide additional yield. The City will
continue to verify depository yield versus investment yield to achieve the best outcome.
The City's investment program is conducted to accomplish the objectives of safety, liquidity, public trust, and yield.
It is also the objective of the City to diversify its investments to eliminate the risk of loss resulting from over
concentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific class of investments. It is the intent of
the City to invest its funds to maturity.
III.CAPITAL PROJECTS
The projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consist of infrastructure and related construction and do
not include small capital items such as furniture, equipment, and vehicle maintenance.
Maintenance-type projects are not capitalized as a fixed asset and are usually cash funded. Therefore, they are
considered operational in nature and are included in the departmental operating budget.
A year-to-date budget status for each of the approved projects is included in the quarterly report, including the
following:
PARKS
San Gabriel Park Improvements: A master plan for improvements to San Gabriel Park was completed in 2015. The
master plan proposed the improvements be completed in phases due to the high usage and the many events that
take place in the park. The groundbreaking for Phase 1 construction was held on March 24th. Weststar
Construction in Georgetown is the general contractor. Construction is expected to be completed in early 2018.
Phase 1 improvements include spring restoration, pavilions, road realignment, play areas, restrooms, signage and
parking. Austin based RVi is currently designing San Gabriel Park Phase II which is expected to start construction in
Spring 2018.
Garey Park: In 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Garey announced they would donate their 525 acre ranch and $5 million to
the City of Georgetown for a public park. In 2008, the citizens passed a parks bond with $10 million dedicated for
the construction of Garey Park. A master plan was completed in 2006 that set the stage for how the park would be
developed. The ground breaking for Garey Park was held on March 31st. Construction is expected to take 12
months with a spring 2018 completion. Project elements include a playground, splash pad, dog park, equestrian
arena, gate house, event area including Garey House and hiking and equestrian trails.
4Page 9 of 257
F FY2017 Quarterly Report
Public Works
Southwest Bypass: Construction is approximately 75% complete project-wide. The South San Gabriel bridge beam
set is complete along with 90% of the deck panels. The beam set is complete on the second bridge south of the
river. Base course has been installed on the south side of the bridges and the first course of asphalt installed.
Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension: The base course installation is underway on Wolf Ranch Parkway and the utility
crossings for the Hillwood subdivision are complete. The first course of asphalt north of the river is scheduled for
July 28th and 29th.
Sidewalk Improvements: Construction on several sidewalk improvement projects throughout the city began May 1.
This is the first round of sidewalk improvement projects identified in the adopted Sidewalk Master Plan and funded
in part by the road bond approved by voters in May 2015. Projects include American’s With Disabilities Act
compliance and accessibility improvements throughout downtown and citywide. Construction will be completed in
phases, and the entire project is expected to be completed in late November. Sidewalk improvements include: Del
Webb Boulevard and Whispering Wind Drive, Williams Drive and Woodlake Drive, Williams Drive and Wildwood
Drive, Williams Drive and Shell Road, Williams Drive and Lakeway Drive, Williams Drive and River Bend Drive, Austin
Avenue and Morrow Street, Austin Avenue from Morrow Street to Williams Drive, Eighth and Rock streets, Eighth
Street from Church to Myrtle streets and Sidewalks in Founders’ Park. The City began construction May 1 on the
sidewalk along the southbound Interstate 35 frontage road from Leander Road to Hwy. 29. The project is expected
to be completed Nov. 1. The project was a council priority and is being funded through certificate of obligation
bonds.
ELECTRIC
New development continues to exceed expectations in the second quarter with additional residential, multifamily,
and business projects in progress.
WATER
The Berry Creek Interceptor design is 90% complete and the easement acquisition is in progress. Construction
should start in November 2017.
The Stonehedge and Westinghouse lift station project bid went to the Board and Council in November.
Construction started in January 2017 and is scheduled for completion in September 2017.
The Pecan Branch wastewater treatment plant bid opening was on March 28th with construction starting in July
2017.
The Shell Road and CR 255 water main designs are complete and easement acquisitions are in progress.
Construction is estimated to start November 2017.
The Domel water treatment plant design is complete. Construction is estimated to start in July 2017.
GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECT RECONCILIATION
Staff have begun reconciling capital projects funded with general obligation bonds. Leftover funding from
completed projects may be used for similar projects. This information will be useful in planning the 2018 spring
debt sale. A summary is provided in the Capital Improvement section of this report.
5Page 10 of 257
APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB) YEAR-END PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 10,893,558 10,990,128 96,570 0.89%
Revenue
Property Tax 12,475,000 36,398 11,573,562 12,475,000 - 0.00%
Sales Tax 13,059,541 947,832 7,531,849 13,702,850 643,309 4.93%
Sanitation Revenue 7,181,300 615,527 5,400,706 7,422,500 241,200 3.36%
ROI 8,070,041 684,335 5,382,700 8,034,360 (35,681) -0.44%
Franchise Fees 5,142,035 252,456 3,216,148 5,141,726 (309) -0.01%
Development and Permit Fees 2,307,991 378,929 1,980,068 2,622,600 314,609 13.63%
Parks and Rec Fees 2,190,746 247,220 1,856,055 2,270,030 79,284 3.62%
Administrative Charges 1,886,221 313,892 1,424,970 1,886,221 - 0.00%
All Other Revenue 3,556,378 488,979 2,704,294 3,902,237 345,859 9.73%
Transfer In 1,612,200 68,750 1,393,450 1,612,200 - 0.00%
Revenue Total 57,481,453 4,034,318 42,463,802 59,069,724 1,588,271 2.76%
Expense
Administrative Services 1,585,029 156,830 1,116,297 1,532,873 (52,156) -3.29%
Animal Services 918,594 80,566 627,268 885,071 (33,523) -3.65%
Arts & Culture 74,385 2,197 51,531 71,371 (3,014) -4.05%
City Council 127,644 13,208 88,318 122,721 (4,923) -3.86%
City Secretary 662,422 71,286 481,578 635,942 (26,480) -4.00%
Code Enforcement 407,773 33,805 243,853 373,865 (33,908) -8.32%
D&CS Admin - - - - - 0.00%
Environmental Services 5,879,717 1,042,665 4,613,453 6,155,717 276,000 4.69%
Fire Emergency Services 10,046,095 984,939 7,208,534 10,033,514 (12,581) -0.13%
Fire Support Services 2,418,984 239,939 1,912,079 2,545,422 126,438 5.23%
General Gov't Contracts 3,353,753 281,365 3,078,938 3,665,391 311,638 9.29%
Inspections 1,167,339 99,708 731,563 1,101,709 (65,630) -5.62%
Library 2,419,829 230,351 1,804,356 2,383,698 (36,131) -1.49%
Municipal Court 564,620 55,133 406,814 561,544 (3,076) -0.54%
Parks 2,312,359 237,007 1,645,269 2,302,926 (9,433) -0.41%
Parks Admin 484,592 46,254 365,839 487,592 3,000 0.62%
Planning 1,349,832 78,146 731,029 1,181,571 (168,261) -12.47%
Police Admin 2,105,056 186,307 1,568,248 2,078,365 (26,691) -1.27%
Police Operations 11,176,291 1,183,068 7,858,092 10,898,503 (277,788) -2.49%
Public Communications 387,333 37,388 258,655 377,417 (9,916) -2.56%
Public Works 701,748 84,611 585,367 679,110 (22,638) -3.23%
Rec Programs 1,439,699 175,814 848,338 1,488,564 48,865 3.39%
Recreation 2,422,487 228,423 1,758,204 2,386,714 (35,773) -1.48%
Streets 4,056,498 233,038 1,848,710 4,017,630 (38,868) -0.96%
Tennis Center 431,262 45,783 309,065 435,790 4,528 1.05%
Transfer Out 2,501,378 14,696 2,321,926 2,501,375 (3) 0.00%
Expense Total 58,994,718 5,842,527 42,463,324 58,904,395 (90,323) -0.15%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS (1,513,265) (1,808,209) 478 165,329 1,678,593 -111%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 9,380,294 11,155,457 1,775,163 19%
General Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
6Page 11 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET
CURRENT
PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 6,436,145 6,196,297 (239,848) -3.73%
Operating Revenue
Electric Revenue 65,898,216 5,840,693 43,748,456 66,306,239 408,024 0.62%
Interest 18,100 8,739 23,931 48,000 29,900 165.19%
Other Revenue 3,820,000 194,162 2,831,711 3,838,465 18,465 0.48%
Operating Revenue Total 69,736,316 6,043,594 46,604,098 70,192,704 456,388 0.65%
Operating Expenditures
CRR Credits (1,500,000) (817,824) (4,798,697) (4,798,697) (3,298,697) 219.91%
Georgetown Utility Systems 16,900,435 1,606,525 12,130,986 16,275,019 (625,415) -3.70%
Purchased Power 38,000,000 5,216,839 33,457,740 44,000,000 6,000,000 15.79%
Transfer Out-Fleet 71,500 - 71,500 71,500 - 0.00%
Transfer Out-ROI 5,234,145 428,017 3,522,307 5,200,000 (34,145) -0.65%
Transfer Out-SRF 60,000 - 60,000 60,000 - 0.00%
Operating Expenditures Total 58,766,080 6,433,557 44,443,836 60,807,822 2,041,743 3.47%
Total Net Operations 10,970,236 (389,964) 2,160,262 9,384,882 (1,585,354) -2.82%
Non-Operating Revenue
Bond Premium - 760,725 760,725 760,725 760,725 0.00%
Bond Proceeds 7,025,000 694,765 7,194,765 6,264,275 (760,725) -10.83%
Non-Operating Revenue Total 7,025,000 1,455,490 7,955,490 7,025,000 - 0.00%
Non-Operating Expenditures
CIP 6,956,000 143,906 6,503,109 6,503,109 (452,891) -6.51%
Debt Issuance Cost 15,000 57,875 607,027 1,010,142 995,142 6634.28%
Debt Service 3,464,271 (1,950) 331 2,467,660 (996,611) -28.77%
Non-Operating Expenditures Total 10,435,271 199,832 7,110,467 9,980,911 (454,360) -4.35%
Total Net Non-Operations (3,410,271) 1,255,658 845,023 (2,955,911) 454,360 -13.32%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,559,965 865,695 3,005,285 6,428,971 (1,130,994) -14.96%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 13,996,110 12,625,268 (1,370,842) -9.79%
Electric Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
7Page 12 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 24,911,799 54,428,066 29,516,267 118.48%
Operating Revenue
Water Utility Revenue 26,700,000 2,250,550 17,835,512 27,086,343 386,343 1.45%
Other Revenue 3,747,088 752,122 3,861,769 3,861,771 114,683 3.06%
Interest 199,975 48,710 271,317 331,317 131,342 65.68%
Raw Water Revenue 178,500 14,310 107,794 174,429 (4,071) -2.28%
Capital Recovery Fee 4,767,300 898,320 9,791,083 9,791,083 5,023,783 105.38%
Irrigation Utility Revenue 225,000 22,535 107,648 174,515 (50,485) -22.44%
Transfer In, Debt 115,839 - - 115,839 - 0.00%
Wastewater Utility Revenue 10,733,475 888,395 7,821,612 10,541,459 (192,016) -1.79%
Operating Revenue Total 46,667,177 4,874,941 39,796,735 52,076,756 5,409,580 11.59%
Operating Expenditures
Irrigation 204,672 8,653 155,366 192,172 (12,500) -6.11%
Transfer Out, Fleet/Joint Service 290,750 17,396 238,564 290,750 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, General 425,000 68,750 206,250 275,000 (150,000) -35.29%
Transfer Out, ROI 2,604,339 235,985 1,708,814 2,605,536 1,197 0.05%
Wastewater Distribution 737,700 48,207 360,659 631,381 (106,319) -14.41%
Wastewater Plant Management 2,670,507 200,740 2,246,953 2,335,887 (334,620) -12.53%
Water Administration 16,600,932 1,174,091 12,830,622 16,052,822 (548,110) -3.30%
Water Distribution 2,209,230 316,004 1,717,451 2,248,780 39,550 1.79%
Water Operations 3,714,279 372,509 2,568,482 3,509,434 (204,845) -5.52%
Water Plant Management 2,779,631 301,718 1,908,822 2,559,251 (220,380) -7.93%
Operating Expenditures Total 32,237,040 2,744,053 23,941,983 30,701,013 (1,536,027) -4.76%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 14,430,137 2,130,889 15,854,752 21,375,743 6,945,607 48.13%
Non-Operating Revenue
Bond Premium - 1,710,759 1,710,759 1,710,759 1,710,759 0.00%
Bond Proceeds 20,000,000 1,760,235 20,720,235 20,720,235 720,235 3.60%
Special Improvement Fees 205,000 - - - (205,000) -100.00%
Non-Operating Revenue Total 20,205,000 3,470,994 22,430,994 22,430,994 2,225,994 11.02%
Non-Operating Expenditures
CIP 90 73,799,005 336,653 15,968,106 71,486,957 (2,312,048) -3.13%
CIP 91 1,161,948 37,991 1,156,770 1,161,948 - 0.00%
Debt Service 5,182,487 349,875 1,414,828 5,182,487 - 0.00%
Non-Operating Expenditures Total 80,143,440 724,519 18,539,703 77,831,392 (2,312,048) -2.88%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERATIONS (59,938,440) 2,746,475 3,891,291 (55,400,398) 4,538,042 -7.57%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (45,508,303) 4,877,364 19,746,043 (34,024,654) 11,483,649 -25.23%
ENDING FUND BALANCE (20,596,504) 20,403,412 40,999,916 -199.06%
Water Services Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
8
Page 13 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 749,366 343,362 (406,004) -54.18%
Revenue
SERVICE FEES - GENERAL 2,988,741 249,062 2,241,558 2,988,741 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - AIRPORT 117,729 9,811 88,299 117,729 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - ELECTRIC 3,782,058 315,172 2,836,548 3,782,058 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - STORMWATER 838,822 69,902 629,118 838,822 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - WASTEWATER 1,957,252 163,104 1,467,936 1,957,252 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - WATER 3,517,167 293,097 2,637,873 3,517,167 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - CONSERVATION 89,647 7,471 67,239 89,647 - 0.00%
SERVICE FEES - RURAL WATER 1,000,700 83,392 750,528 1,000,700 - 0.00%
GTEC ADMIN/CONTRACT FEE 149,083 12,424 111,816 149,083 - 0.00%
GEDCO ADMIN/CONTRACT FEE 197,722 16,477 148,293 197,722 - 0.00%
VPID ADMIN/CONTRACT FEE 13,279 1,107 9,962 13,279 - 0.00%
INTEREST 9,000 685 3,240 9,000 - 0.00%
OTHER 29,000 4,400 71,774 85,214 56,214 193.84%
TRANSFERS IN 582,140 27,938 498,325 582,137 (3) 0.00%
Revenue Total 15,272,341 1,254,042 11,562,509 15,328,552 56,211 0.37%
Expense
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 900,293 53,881 633,733 889,379 (10,914) -1.21%
ACCOUNTING 855,700 80,463 554,850 790,114 (65,586) -7.66%
PURCHASING 737,185 70,680 482,258 711,332 (25,853) -3.51%
CUSTOMER CARE 3,544,585 347,767 2,645,859 3,401,387 (143,198) -4.04%
JOINT SVCS CON 935,232 77,426 597,158 990,400 55,168 5.90%
GUS ADMINISTRATION 1,392,815 140,192 1,035,537 1,414,575 21,760 1.56%
ENGINEERING 2,049,288 187,259 1,221,354 1,845,466 (203,821) -9.95%
CONSERVATION 1,047,322 78,644 387,196 680,355 (366,967) -35.04%
ENGINEERING SUPPORT 1,239,024 105,860 683,488 1,098,298 (140,726) -11.36%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 427,990 47,757 306,530 406,838 (21,152) -4.94%
MAIN STREET 157,537 8,541 81,095 153,810 (3,727) -2.37%
INSURANCE & LEGAL 705,000 9,377 564,643 705,000 - 0.00%
HUMAN RESOURCES 806,051 91,393 592,446 789,562 (16,490) -2.05%
CITY WIDE HR 119,756 30,764 245,222 403,620 283,864 237.04%
IN-HOUSE LEGAL 1,072,128 93,275 633,328 1,045,124 (27,004) -2.52%
TRANSFER TO FLEET 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 0.00%
Expense Total 16,014,907 1,423,281 10,689,696 15,350,260 (664,647) -4.15%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS (742,566) (169,238) 872,813 (21,709) (764,275) 102.92%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 6,800 321,653 314,854 4630.27%
Joint Services Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
9Page 14 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET
CURRENT
PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 185,045 185,694 649 0.35%
Revenue
Interest - 113 2,013 2,000 2,000 0.00%
Transfer In, General Fund 1,734,779 - 1,734,779 1,734,779 - 0.00%
Revenue Total 1,734,779 113 1,736,792 1,736,779 2,000 0.12%
Expense
Transfer Out, GCP 270,000 - 270,000 270,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, General Fund 1,177,000 - 1,177,000 1,177,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, ISF 80,000 - 80,000 80,000 - 0.00%
Transfer Out, Joint Services 95,000 - 95,000 95,000 - 0.00%
Expense Total 1,622,000 - 1,622,000 1,622,000 - 0.00%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 112,779 113 114,792 114,779 2,000 1.77%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 297,824 300,473 2,649 0.89%
Council Discretionary Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
10Page 15 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALALNCE 578,306 483,707 (94,599) -16.36%
Revenue
Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax Revenues 1,260,000 105,048 787,234 1,150,000 (110,000) -8.73%
Interest 1,500 229 1,802 1,500 - 0.00%
Other 8,000 1,685 14,418 13,102 5,102 63.78%
Poppy Festival 150,000 260 111,125 111,215 (38,785) -25.86%
Revenue Total 1,419,500 107,222 914,579 1,275,817 (143,683) -10.12%
Expense
Operations 498,506 34,666 378,826 497,778 (728) -0.15%
Personnel 359,570 37,053 249,906 353,009 (6,561) -1.82%
Poppy Festival 128,700 996 107,089 108,710 (19,990) -15.53%
Transfer to Facilities 51,535 4,295 38,655 51,535 - 0.00%
Transfer to Fleet 5,655 471 4,239 5,655 - 0.00%
Transfer to General Fund 10,200 - 10,200 10,200 - 0.00%
Transfer to Information Technology 42,436 3,536 31,824 42,436 - 0.00%
Expense Total 1,096,602 81,018 820,739 1,069,323 (27,279) -2.49%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 322,898 26,204 93,840 206,494 (116,404) -36.05%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 901,204 690,201 (211,003) -23%
Contingency 180,263 175,779
Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
11Page 16 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR END
VARIANCE
%YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (853,003) (909,490) (56,487) 6.62%
Revenue
EMS Revenue 2,135,250 214,667 1,415,312 2,400,646 265,396 12.43%
Franchise Fees 20,000 - - 20,000 - 0.00%
Transfer In 49,846 4,154 37,386 49,846 - 0.00%
All Other Revenue - - 4,800 4,800 4,800 0.00%
Revenue Total 2,205,096 218,821 1,457,498 2,475,292 270,196 12.25%
Expense
Personnel 1,585,854 218,782 1,502,056 1,545,706 (40,148) -2.53%
O&M 492,579 24,941 404,167 516,501 23,922 4.86%
Expense Total 2,078,433 243,723 1,906,222 2,062,207 (16,226) -0.78%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE
OVER TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 126,663 (24,902) (448,724) 413,085 286,422 226%
ENDING FUND BALANCE (726,340) (496,406) 229,935 32%
Paramedic Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
12Page 17 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET
CURRENT
PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/Encumb)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 43,849 311,251 267,402 609.82%
Revenues
Operating Revenue
Fuel and Terminal Sales 2,720,928 205,191 1,845,278 2,561,492 (159,436) -5.86%
Leases and Rentals 767,990 77,584 619,974 872,054 104,064 13.55%
Interest and Other 66,075 2,635 33,874 50,554 (15,521) -23.49%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 3,554,993 285,411 2,499,126 3,484,100 (70,893) -1.99%
Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Personnel 388,781 41,084 236,981 358,048 (30,733) -7.90%
Operations-Fuel 2,296,928 141,235 2,201,128 2,200,414 (96,514) -4.20%
Operations-Non Fuel 657,086 59,109 535,164 666,386 9,300 1.42%
Transfers Out 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 0.00%
Airport Master Plan - - - - - 0.00%
Debt Service 143,768 - 20,462 143,768 - 0.00%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 3,511,563 266,428 3,018,735 3,393,616 (117,947) -3.36%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 43,430 18,983 (519,610) 90,484 47,054 108.35%
Revenues
Non-Operating Revenue
Grants 35,000 - 50,000 50,000 15,000 42.86%
TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUES 35,000 - 50,000 50,000 15,000 42.86%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 35,000 - 50,000 50,000 15,000 42.86%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS 78,430 18,983 (469,610) 140,484 62,054 79.12%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 122,279 451,735 329,456 269.43%
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
Airport Operations Fund
13Page 18 of 257
APPROVED
BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/Encumb)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 11,022,877 11,022,877 - 0%
Operating Revenue
Sales Tax 5,875,000 451,264 3,501,294 6,325,000 450,000 8%
PID Assessments 553,201 - - 553,201 - 0%
Interest 50,000 16,745 118,621 127,000 77,000 50%
Interlocal Agreement 2,905,356 972,542 1,945,084 1,945,084 (960,272) -33%
Miscellaneous - - 7,539 7,539 7,539 0%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 9,383,557 1,440,551 5,572,538 8,957,824 (425,733) 25%
Operating Expenditure
Administrative Support 330,895 27,503 247,111 330,895 - -
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 330,895 27,503 247,111 330,895 - -
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 9,052,662 1,413,049 5,325,427 8,626,929 (425,733) -5%
Non-Operating Revenue
Debt Proceeds 6,000,000 - 5,750,000 6,000,000 - 0%
Other Grant Revenue 450,000 - 61,764 61,763 (388,237) -86%
Other Revenue - 26,590 369,010 342,419 342,419 0%
TxDot Refund - - 223,873 223,873 223,873 0%
TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUE 6,450,000 26,590 6,404,647 6,628,055 178,055 -86%
Non-Operating Expenditure
Available for Projects TBD 1,468,750 - - - (1,468,750) -100%
Debt Service 3,414,754 82,540 698,335 3,414,754 - 0%
FM 971 / Fontana 91,590 - - 91,590 - 0%
FM1460 Widening 650,000 - 148,333 650,000 - 0%
IH 35 / HWY29 Intersection 650,000 - - 650,000 - 0%
Mays St 3,500,000 488,097 274,367 3,500,000 - 0%
NB Frontage 2338 to Lakeway - - - - - 0%
Pecan Center Dr to Airport Rd (FY15)6,000,000 23,874 609,710 1,850,000 (4,150,000) -69%
Rivery TIA Improvements 1,157,121 61,578 138,330 1,157,121 - 0%
Rivery-Extension Williams Dr to NW Blvd (FY16)4,000,000 283,161 2,213,141 4,000,000 - 0%
SH 29 to RM 2243 SW Bypass - 4,130 6,062 - - 0%
SW Bypass 2243 to IH35 354,920 20 20,957 354,920 - 0%
SW Inner Loop 29 to SW Bypass - - 8 - - 0%
Williams Drive Gateway - - - - - 0%
Wolf Ranch Pkwy Extension 283,350 - - 283,350 - 0%
TOTAL NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURE 21,570,485 943,400 4,109,242 15,951,735 (5,618,750) -169%
TOTAL NET NON-OPERTAIONS (15,120,485) (916,810) 2,295,405 (696,750) 5,796,805 -38%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS (6,067,823) 496,239 7,620,832 7,930,179 1,862,356 -31%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 4,955,054 10,326,127 5,371,073 1.08
RESERVED ENDING BALANCE 1,619,550 1,619,550
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
14Page 19 of 257
APPROVED BUDGET CURRENT PERIOD
YEAR TO DATE
(W/ENCUMB)
YEAR-END
PROJECTION
YEAR-END
VARIANCE
% YEAR-END
VARIANCE
BEGINNING FUND BALALNCE 5,015,684 5,068,518 52,834 1.05%
Revenue
OPERATING REVENUES
Sales Tax 1,468,750 112,816 875,323 1,581,250 112,500 7.66%
Interest 10,400 4,384 29,018 34,171 23,771 228.57%
Miscellaneous Revenue 60,321 - 60,302 60,321 - 0.00%
Lease Revenue (Grape Creek)48,000 4,000 40,000 48,000 - 0.00%
OPERATING REVENUES TOTAL 1,587,471 121,200 1,004,643 1,723,742 136,271 8.58%
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Joint Services Allocation 197,722 16,477 148,293 197,722 - 0.00%
Supplies 300 53 193 300 - 0.00%
Special Services 7,500 - 33 7,500 - 0.00%
Travel & Training 1,500 - - 1,500 - 0.00%
Promotional & Marketing Program 81,000 7,185 63,190 81,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Expense 10,321 - 10,302 10,302 (19) -0.18%
OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 298,343 23,715 222,011 298,324 (19) -0.01%
TOTAL NET OPERATIONS 1,289,128 97,485 782,632 1,425,418 136,290 0.11
NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Avalanche Consulting, Inc 100,000 30,650 100,000 100,000 - 0.00%
Bond Issuance Costs - - (114) (114) (114) 0.00%
Catalyst 24,000 9,053 14,427 23,000 (1,000) -4.17%
Debt Service 115,839 - 66,679 115,839 - 0.00%
DisperSol 60,000 - 10,000 60,000 - 0.00%
Economic Development Projects -Undetermined 5,200,322 - - - (5,200,322) -100.00%
Interest Expense 111,463 - - 111,463 - 0.00%
Principal Reduction 100,000 - - 100,000 - 0.00%
Radix 50,000 - - - (50,000) -100.00%
Rentschler Brewing LLC 70,000 - 70,000 70,000 - 0.00%
Tasus 6,000 - - - (6,000) -100.00%
Texas Life Sciences 100,000 - - - (100,000) -100.00%
NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURES Total 5,937,624 39,703 260,992 580,188 (5,357,436) -90.23%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF TOTAL REVENUE OVER TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS (4,648,496) 57,782 521,641 845,230 5,493,726 -118.18%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 367,188 5,913,748 5,546,560 1510.55%
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation Fund
Year End Projection to Approved as of June 2017
15Page 20 of 257
CITY
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2017
Prepared by
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the City of Georgetown is in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act and the
Investment Policy and Strategies.
___________________________________ _____________________________________
Elaine Wilson Leigh Wallace
Controller Finance Director
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the accuracy or
completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View Consulting, L.L.C. from
sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these levels are not necessarily reflective of
current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance formulas, are not representative of total return
yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
16Page 21 of 257
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value
Demand Accounts 0.33% 16,807,804$ 16,807,804 12,301,336$ 12,301,336$
NOW/MMA 1.38% 7,372,724 7,372,724 50,730,044 50,730,044
Pools 0.86% 69,279,895 69,279,895 68,494,027 68,494,027
CDs/Securities 1.18% 44,253,128 44,253,128 48,320,821 48,320,821
Totals 137,713,551$ 137,713,551$ 179,846,228$ 179,846,228$
Quarter End Average Yield (1)Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 1.06%Total Portfolio 0.79%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.91%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.65%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.88%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.68%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 0.65%
11,731$
Interest income provided in separate report.36,388$
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account for advisory fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or
account for advisory fees.
Quarterly Bank Fees Offset
Year-to-date Bank Fees Offset
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 1.17Page 22 of 257
Economic Overview 6/30/2017
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised the Fed Funds target range to 1.00% - 1.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-1.16%) at the June FOMC meeting. The market is not
confident additional increases will occur during 2017. The Fed anticipates gradually reducing its government bond holdings. Third revision 1st Quarter 2017 GDP was a increased to 1.4%. June
Non-Farm Payroll increased 222k, with +47k adjustment to Apr/May. Other US data remained volatile with some negative numbers. The Stock Markets remain high. Monitoring estimated balances
and needs will determine laddering opportunities.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 Treasury Yield Curves
June 30, 2016 March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 2.18Page 23 of 257
City - Investment Holdings
Coupon/ Maturity Settlement Face Amount/ Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day) Yield
JPMorgan Chase Cash (3)0.33% 07/01/17 06/30/17 12,301,336$ 12,301,336$ 1.00 12,301,336$ 1 0.33%
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 06/30/17 6,464,728 6,464,728 1.00 6,464,728 1 1.20%
NexBank MMA 1.41% 07/01/17 06/30/17 44,265,316 44,265,316 1.00 44,265,316 1 1.41%
TexPool AAAm 0.88% 07/01/17 06/30/17 4,564,988 4,564,988 1.00 4,564,988 1 0.88%
TexSTAR AAAm 0.86% 07/01/17 06/30/17 63,929,038 63,929,038 1.00 63,929,038 1 0.86%
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 05/23/16 3,031,068 3,031,068 100.00 3,031,068 3 0.95%
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 05/23/16 2,525,890 2,525,890 100.00 2,525,890 3 0.95%
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 05/23/16 3,031,068 3,031,068 100.00 3,031,068 3 0.95%
LegacyTexas Bank CD 0.95% 08/18/17 06/23/16 3,039,206 3,039,206 100.00 3,039,206 49 0.95%
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.00% 10/02/17 05/23/16 2,021,808 2,021,808 100.00 2,021,808 94 1.00%
Green Bank CD 0.81% 11/03/17 11/03/16 1,527,205 1,527,205 100.00 1,527,205 126 0.81%
Southside Bank CD 0.92% 11/17/17 11/18/16 3,065,231 3,065,231 100.00 3,065,231 140 0.92%
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.20% 02/23/18 02/23/17 6,023,706 6,023,706 100.00 6,023,706 238 1.20%
LegacyTexas Bank CD 1.20% 03/09/18 03/09/17 5,015,139 5,015,139 100.00 5,015,139 252 1.20%
Southside Bank CD 1.22% 06/01/18 05/09/17 3,500,000 3,500,000 100.00 3,500,000 336 1.22%
Southside Bank CD 1.25% 08/01/18 05/09/17 5,000,000 5,000,000 100.00 5,000,000 397 1.25%
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.50% 01/03/19 01/03/17 3,018,663 3,018,663 100.00 3,018,663 552 1.50%
R Bank CD 1.50% 02/21/19 02/21/17 6,021,838 6,021,838 100.00 6,021,838 601 1.50%
Independent Bank CD 1.60% 03/01/19 05/09/17 1,500,000 1,500,000 100.00 1,500,000 609 1.60%
179,846,228$ 179,846,228$ 179,846,228$731.06%
(1) (2)
June 30, 2017
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment ad visory fees are not
considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(3) Earnings Credit - The City's depository accounts provide an earnings credit on balances which is used to offset bank fees.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 3.19Page 24 of 257
0–6 Months
91%
6–12 Months
9%
Current Quarter Maturities
$0
$25,000,000
$50,000,000
$75,000,000
$100,000,000
$125,000,000
$150,000,000
$175,000,000
09/30/16 12/31/16 3/31/2017 06/30/17
Portfolio Balances
Money Market
Local Depository
TexSTAR
TexPool
Certificate of Deposit
166174166
102
69
90
73 75
109104
123
156163
97
108
87
51
67
49 41
91
73
0
50
100
150
200
#
o
f
D
a
y
s
Weighted Average to Maturity
JPMorgan Chase
7%
Southside
Bank
6%
Green Bank
4%
NexBank
25%
TexPool
3%
TexSTAR
36%
Independent
Bank
1%
Rbank
3%
LegacyTexas
Bank
4%
Lubbock National
Bank
11%
Portfolio Holdings by Issuer
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 4.20Page 25 of 257
City - Book and Market Value Comparison
Coupon/ Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/ Sales/Adjust/ Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
JPMorgan Chase Cash 0.33% 07/01/17 16,807,804$ 16,807,804$ –$ (4,506,468)$ 12,301,336$ 12,301,336$
Southside Bank MMA 0.00% 07/01/17 924,511 924,511 (924,511) – –
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 6,448,213 6,448,213 16,515 6,464,728 6,464,728
NexBank MMA 1.41% 07/01/17 – – 44,265,316 44,265,316 44,265,316
TexPool 0.88% 07/01/17 10,964,107 10,964,107 (6,399,119) 4,564,988 4,564,988
TexSTAR 0.86% 07/01/17 58,315,788 58,315,788 5,613,250 63,929,038 63,929,038
LegacyTexas Bank CD 0.83%04/13/17 2,013,869 2,013,869 (2,013,869)– –
LegacyTexas Bank CD 0.83%04/13/17 4,027,738 4,027,738 (4,027,738)– –
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95%07/03/17 3,023,822 3,023,822 7,246 3,031,068 3,031,068
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95%07/03/17 2,519,851 2,519,851 6,039 2,525,890 2,525,890
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95%07/03/17 3,023,822 3,023,822 7,246 3,031,068 3,031,068
LegacyTexas Bank CD 0.95%08/18/17 3,031,940 3,031,940 7,266 3,039,206 3,039,206
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.00%10/02/17 2,016,720 2,016,720 5,088 2,021,808 2,021,808
Green Bank CD 0.81%11/03/17 1,524,195 1,524,195 3,010 1,527,205 1,527,205
Southside Bank CD 0.92%11/17/17 3,058,370 3,058,370 6,861 3,065,231 3,065,231
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.20%02/23/18 6,005,523 6,005,523 18,183 6,023,706 6,023,706
LegacyTexas Bank CD 1.20%03/09/18 5,000,000 5,000,000 15,139 5,015,139 5,015,139
Southside Bank CD 1.22%06/01/18 – – 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
Southside Bank CD 1.25%08/01/18 – – 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.50%01/03/19 3,007,278 3,007,278 11,384 3,018,663 3,018,663
R Bank CD 1.50%02/21/19 6,000,000 6,000,000 21,838 6,021,838 6,021,838
Independent Bank CD 1.60%03/01/19 – – 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
TOTAL 137,713,551$ 137,713,551$ 60,004,381$ (17,871,704)$ 179,846,228$ 179,846,228$
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 5.21Page 26 of 257
City - Allocation
Investment Total Consolidated
2013 GO-
Parks/Public
Safety
2014 CO-
Downtown
Parks
2014 GO
2014
Revenue
Electric
2014 Revenue
Water WW Debt Service
JPMorgan Chase Cash 12,301,336$ 12,301,336$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
Southside Bank MMA – –
Green Bank MMA 6,464,728 6,464,728
NexBank MMA 44,265,316 926,481
TexPool 4,564,988 4,564,988
TexSTAR 63,929,038 5,541,666 1,485,804 199,816 200 651,969 4,322,489 13,065,714
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 3,031,068 3,031,068
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 2,525,890
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 3,031,068
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17 3,039,206 3,039,206
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17 2,021,808
Green Bank CD 11/03/17 1,527,205 1,527,205
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17 3,065,231 3,065,231
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18 6,023,706 6,023,706
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18 5,015,139 5,015,139
Southside Bank CD 06/01/18 3,500,000 3,500,000
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18 5,000,000 5,000,000
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19 3,018,663 3,018,663
R Bank CD 02/21/19 6,021,838 6,021,838
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19 1,500,000 1,500,000
Totals 179,846,228$ 70,541,254$ 1,485,804$ 199,816$ 200$ 651,969$ 4,322,489$ 13,065,714$
Book and Market Value
June 30, 2017
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 6.22Page 27 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Southside Bank CD 06/01/18
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
Totals
Book and Market Value
June 30, 2017
(Continued)
Police
Restricted
Seizure
Utility Debt
Service
2015 CO-
Airport
2015 CO-
Parks/Streets/
Vehicles
2015 CO-
Stormwater
2015 CO-Tax
Facilities
2015 CO-
Water
2015 GO-
Roads
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
1,398 68,088 29,801 1,297,780 1,428,195 136 13,849 4,182,993
1,398$ 68,088$ 29,801$ 1,297,780$ 1,428,195$ 136$ 13,849$ 4,182,993$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 7.23Page 28 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Southside Bank CD 06/01/18
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
Totals
Book and Market Value
June 30, 2017
(Continued)
2015A GO-
Roads
2015A GO-
Parks
2015 Revenue
Electric
2015 Revenue
Water WW
2016 CO-
Rivery TIRZ
2016 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2016 GO
Bonds
2016 GO-
Parks
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
73,883 1,714,195 1,410,458 4,767,331 4,156 2,086,907 3,020,720
3,031,068
2,021,808
73,883$ 1,714,195$ 1,410,458$ 4,767,331$ 4,156$ 2,086,907$ 5,052,876$ 3,020,720$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 8.24Page 29 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Southside Bank CD 06/01/18
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
Totals
Book and Market Value
June 30, 2017
(Continued)
2016 GO-
Roads
2016 Revenue
Electric
2016 Revenue
Water/WW
Garey Park
Donation
2017 CO
Facilities/ Public
Safety/
Equipment
2017 GO-
Parks
2017 GO-
Sidewalks
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
4,037,035 2,018,518 5,501,222 5,476,217 2,625,583
522,417 1,805,872 3,142,638 5,030,803 3,621,973 1,041,656 13,723
2,525,890
4,559,452$ 1,805,872$ 7,687,045$ 5,030,803$ 9,123,195$ 6,517,873$ 2,639,307$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 9.25Page 30 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
NexBank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Southside Bank CD 06/01/18
Southside Bank CD 08/01/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Independent Bank CD 03/01/19
Totals
Book and Market Value
June 30, 2017
(Continued)
2017 Revenue
Electric
2017 Revenue
Water WW
–$ –$
5,926,317 17,753,944
1,111,389 2,271,019
7,037,706$ 20,024,963$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 10.26Page 31 of 257
City - Allocation
Investment Total Consolidated
2013 GO-
Parks/Public
Safety
2014 CO-
Downtown
Parks
2014 GO
2014
Revenue
Electric
2014 Revenue
Water WW Debt Service
JPMorgan Chase Cash 16,807,804$ 16,807,804$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
Southside Bank MMA 924,511 924,511
Green Bank MMA 6,448,213 6,448,213
TexPool 10,964,107 10,964,107
TexSTAR 58,315,788 2,884,136 2,084,294 212,849 299,827 650,708 4,795,116 12,621,007
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17 2,013,869
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17 4,027,738
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 3,023,822 3,023,822
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 2,519,851
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17 3,023,822
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17 3,031,940 3,031,940
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17 2,016,720
Green Bank CD 11/03/17 1,524,195 1,524,195
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17 3,058,370 3,058,370
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18 6,005,523 6,005,523
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18 5,000,000 5,000,000
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19 3,007,278 3,007,278
R Bank CD 02/21/19 6,000,000 6,000,000
Totals 137,713,551$ 68,679,899$ 2,084,294$ 212,849$ 299,827$ 650,708$ 4,795,116$ 12,621,007$
March 31, 2017
Book and Market Value
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 11.27Page 32 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Totals
March 31, 2017
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
Police
Restricted
Seizure
Utility Debt
Service
2015 CO-
Airport
2015 CO-
Parks/Streets/
Vehicles
2015 CO-
Stormwater
2015 CO-Tax
Facilities
2015 CO-
Water
2015 GO-
Roads
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
1,395 67,956 29,743 1,310,027 1,425,433 136 13,822 4,320,198
1,395$ 67,956$ 29,743$ 1,310,027$ 1,425,433$ 136$ 13,822$ 4,320,198$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 12.28Page 33 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Totals
March 31, 2017
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
2015A GO-
Roads
2015A GO-
Parks
2015 Revenue
Electric
2015 Revenue
Water WW
2016 CO-
Rivery TIRZ
2016 CO-
Streets/
Facilities/
Equip
2016 GO
Bonds
2016 GO-
Parks
–$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$ –$
2,306,586 1,710,880 1,477,674 5,391,599 4,148 2,599,464 3,014,879
4,027,738
3,023,822
2,016,720
2,306,586$ 1,710,880$ 1,477,674$ 5,391,599$ 4,148$ 2,599,464$ 9,068,279$ 3,014,879$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 13.29Page 34 of 257
City - Allocation
JPMorgan Chase Cash
Southside Bank MMA
Green Bank MMA
TexPool
TexSTAR
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 04/13/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 07/03/17
LegacyTexas Bank CD 08/18/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 10/02/17
Green Bank CD 11/03/17
Southside Bank CD 11/17/17
Lubbock National Bank CD 02/23/18
LegacyTexas Bank CD 03/09/18
Lubbock National Bank CD 01/03/19
R Bank CD 02/21/19
Totals
March 31, 2017
Book and Market Value
(Continued)
2016 GO-
Roads
2016 Revenue
Electric
2016 Revenue
Water/WW
Garey Park
Donation
–$ –$ –$ –$
1,014,037 1,802,380 3,256,418 5,021,075
2,013,869
2,519,851
1,014,037$ 1,802,380$ 7,790,139$ 5,021,075$
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 14.30Page 35 of 257
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
City of Georgetown Historical Yields
Georgetown
TexPool
Rolling 3 mo T-Bill
Rolling 6 mo T-Bill
Rolling 12 mo T-Bill
Page 15.31Page 36 of 257
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC)
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2017
Prepared by
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) is in compliance with
the Texas Public Funds Investment Act and the Investment Policy and Strategies.
________________________________ ________________________________________
Elaine Wilson Leigh Wallace
Controller Finance Director
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the
accuracy or completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View Consulting,
L.L.C. from sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these levels are not
necessarily reflective of current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance formulas, are
not representative of total return yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
32Page 37 of 257
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value
Pools/MMAs 1.18% 9,112,353$ 9,112,353$ 13,059,068$ 13,059,068$
CDs/Securities 0.99% 7,093,908 7,093,908 7,111,682 7,111,682
Totals 16,206,262$ 16,206,262$ 20,170,749$ 20,170,749$
Quarter End Average Yield (1)Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 1.12%Total Portfolio 0.86%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.91%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.65%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.88%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.68%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 0.65%
Interest data provided in separate report.
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account for advisory
fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or
account for advisory fees.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 1.33Page 38 of 257
Economic Overview 6/30/2017
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised the Fed Funds target range to 1.00% - 1.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-1.16%) at the June FOMC meeting. The market is not
confident additional increases will occur during 2017. The Fed anticipates gradually reducing its government bond holdings. Third revision 1st Quarter 2017 GDP was a increased to 1.4%. June
Non-Farm Payroll increased 222k, with +47k adjustment to Apr/May. Other US data remained volatile with some negative numbers. The Stock Markets remain high. Monitoring estimated balances
and needs will determine laddering opportunities.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 Treasury Yield Curves
June 30, 2016 March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 2.34Page 39 of 257
Investment Holdings
Coupon/Maturity Settlement Face Amount/Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day)Yield
TexPool AAAm 0.88% 07/01/17 06/30/17 1,792,830$ 1,792,830$ 1.00 1,792,830$ 1 0.88%
TexSTAR AAAm 0.86% 07/01/17 06/30/17 2,723,112 2,723,112 1.00 2,723,112 1 0.86%
NexBank MMA 1.41% 07/01/17 06/30/17 6,001,333 6,001,333 1.00 6,001,333 1 1.41%
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 06/30/17 2,541,792 2,541,792 1.00 2,541,792 1 1.20%
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 05/23/16 4,041,424 4,041,424 100.00 4,041,424 3 0.95%
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.05% 08/18/17 08/18/16 3,070,257 3,070,257 100.00 3,070,257 49 1.05%
20,170,749$ 20,170,749$ 20,170,749$ 9 1.12%
(1) (2)
June 30, 2017
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment advisory fees are not
considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 3.35Page 40 of 257
Pools/MMAs
65%
CDs/Securities
35%
GTEC PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
9/30/16 12/31/16 3/31/2017 6/30/17
GTEC PORTFOLIO BALANCES
CD
TexPool
TexSTAR
Money Market
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 4.36Page 41 of 257
Book Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/Sales/Adjust/Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
TexPool 0.88% 07/01/17 1,220,346$ 1,220,346$ 572,484$ –$ 1,792,830$ 1,792,830$
TexSTAR 0.86% 07/01/17 5,356,707 5,356,707 (2,633,595) 2,723,112 2,723,112
NexBank MMA 1.41% 07/01/17 – – 6,001,333 6,001,333 6,001,333
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 2,535,300 2,535,300 6,492 2,541,792 2,541,792
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 4,031,762 4,031,762 9,662 4,041,424 4,041,424
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.05% 08/18/17 3,062,146 3,062,146 8,111 3,070,257 3,070,257
TOTAL 16,206,262$ 16,206,262$ 6,598,082$ (2,633,595)$ 20,170,749$ 20,170,749$
Market Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Qtr to Qtr Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Market Value Change Par Value Market Value
TexPool 0.88% 07/01/17 1,220,346$ 1,220,346$ 572,484$ 1,792,830$ 1,792,830$
TexSTAR 0.86% 07/01/17 5,356,707 5,356,707 (2,633,595) 2,723,112 2,723,112
NexBank MMA 1.41% 07/01/17 – – 6,001,333 6,001,333 6,001,333
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 2,535,300 2,535,300 6,492 2,541,792 2,541,792
Lubbock National Bank CD 0.95% 07/03/17 4,031,762 4,031,762 9,662 4,041,424 4,041,424
Lubbock National Bank CD 1.05% 08/18/17 3,062,146 3,062,146 8,111 3,070,257 3,070,257
TOTAL 16,206,262$ 16,206,262$ 3,964,488$ 20,170,749$ 20,170,749$
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 5.37Page 42 of 257
Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO)
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2017
Prepared by
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
The investment portfolio of the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) is in compliance with the
Texas Public Funds Investment Act and the Investment Policy and Strategies.
___________________________________ _____________________________________
Elaine Wilson Leigh Wallace
Controller Finance Director
Disclaimer: These reports were compiled using information provided by the City. No procedures were performed to test the accuracy or
completeness of this information. The market values included in these reports were obtained by Valley View Consulting, L.L.C. from
sources believed to be accurate and represent proprietary valuation. Due to market fluctuations these levels are not necessarily reflective
of current liquidation values. Yield calculations are not determined using standard performance formulas, are not representative of total
return yields and do not account for investment advisor fees.
38Page 43 of 257
Summary
Quarter End Results by Investment Category:
Asset Type Ave. Yield Book Value Market Value Book Value Market Value
MMA 1.20% 2,009,222$ 2,009,222$ 2,014,368$ 2,014,368$
Pools 0.86% 3,501,534 3,501,534 3,726,016 3,726,016
5,510,756$ 5,510,756$ 5,740,384$ 5,740,384$
Quarter End Average Yield (1)Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yield (2)
Total Portfolio 0.98%Total Portfolio 0.75%
Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.91%Rolling Three Mo. Treas. Yield 0.65%
Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.88%Rolling Six Mo. Treas. Yield 0.68%
Quarterly TexPool Yield 0.65%
Interest income provided in separate report.
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
(1) Average Yield calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or account for advisory
fees.
(2) Fiscal Year-to-Date Average Yields calculated using quarter end report yields and adjusted book values and does not reflect a total return analysis or
account for advisory fees.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 1.39Page 44 of 257
Economic Overview 6/30/2017
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised the Fed Funds target range to 1.00% - 1.25% (Effective Fed Funds are trading +/-1.16%) at the June FOMC meeting. The market is not
confident additional increases will occur during 2017. The Fed anticipates gradually reducing its government bond holdings. Third revision 1st Quarter 2017 GDP was a increased to 1.4%. June
Non-Farm Payroll increased 222k, with +47k adjustment to Apr/May. Other US data remained volatile with some negative numbers. The Stock Markets remain high. Monitoring estimated balances
and needs will determine laddering opportunities.
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
S&P 500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since Nov 2015
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00 Treasury Yield Curves
June 30, 2016 March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50 US Treasury Historical Yields - Since 2006
Six Month T-Bill Two Year T-Note Ten Year T-Note
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 2.40Page 45 of 257
Investment Holdings
Coupon/Maturity Settlement Face Amount/Book Market Market Life
Description Ratings Discount Date Date Par Value Value Price Value (Day)Yield
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 06/30/17 2,014,368$ 2,014,368$ 1.00 2,014,368$ 1 1.20%
TexasDAILY AAAm 0.85% 07/01/17 06/30/17 2,018,771 2,018,771 1.00 2,018,771 1 0.85%
TexSTAR AAAm 0.86% 07/01/17 06/30/17 1,707,245 1,707,245 1.00 1,707,245 1 0.86%
5,740,384$ 5,740,384$ 5,740,384$ 1 0.98%
(1) (2)
June 30, 2017
(1) Weighted average life - For purposes of calculating weighted average life, bank accounts, pools and money market funds are assumed to have an one day maturity.
(2) Weighted average yield to maturity - The weighted average yield to maturity is based on adjusted book value, realized and unrealized gains/losses and investment advisory fees
are not considered. The yield for the reporting month is used for bank accounts, pools, and money market funds.
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 3.41Page 46 of 257
MMA
35%
Pools
65%
GEDCO PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
09/30/16 12/31/16 03/31/17 06/30/17
GEDCO PORTFOLIO BALANCES
TexasDAILY
TexSTAR
Money Market
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.
Page 4.42Page 47 of 257
Book Value Comparison
Coupon/Maturity Face Amount/Purchases/Sales/Adjust/Face Amount/
Description Discount Date Par Value Book Value Adjustments Call/Maturity Par Value Book Value
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 2,009,222$ 2,009,222$ 5,146$ –$ 2,014,368$ 2,014,368$
TexasDAILY 0.85% 07/01/17 2,014,825 2,014,825 3,947 2,018,771 2,018,771
TexSTAR 0.86% 07/01/17 1,486,709 1,486,709 220,536 1,707,245 1,707,245
TOTAL 5,510,756$ 5,510,756$ 229,629$ –$ 5,740,384$ 5,740,384$
Market Value Comparison Qtr to Qtr
Change
Green Bank MMA 1.20% 07/01/17 2,009,222$ 2,009,222$ 5,146$ 2,014,368$ 2,014,368$
TexasDAILY 0.85% 07/01/17 2,014,825 2,014,825 3,947 2,018,771 2,018,771
TexSTAR 0.86% 07/01/17 1,486,709 1,486,709 220,536 1,707,245 1,707,245
TOTAL 5,510,756$ 5,510,756$ 229,629$ 5,740,384$ 5,740,384$
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
March 31, 2017 June 30, 2017
Valley View Consulting, L.L.C.Page 5.43Page 48 of 257
Grant Description Grantor Grant Amount Match Status
Fire
Fire Extinguisher Training System Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation 10,332$ -$ Received
Staffing for Adequate Fire Emergency
Response (SAFER)Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)1,600,000$ 1,100,000$ Application not submitted
Emergency Management Performance
grant Office of Emergency Management 114,144$ 230,330$ Received
Library
Community Resources Coordinator Texas State Library & Archives Commission 75,000$ -$ Received
Family Place Libraries Texas State Library & Archives Commission 6,000$ -$ Received
Parks
Recreation Trails Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 200,000$ 40,000$ Funding Approved
Transportation
Transit program Georgetown Health Foundation 200,000$ -$ Funding Approved
2,205,476$ 1,370,330$
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
GRANT APPLICATIONS
as of June 30, 2017
Page 49 of 257
Capital Improvement Projects
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 20172016/17 Year to Date Year to Date
Project Budget Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
General Government CIP
Public Safety & Facilities
6CR Public Safety Facility ‐ 181,358 (166,279) (15,079) [a]
6EW Transfer Station / Landfill 290,518 85,591 158,590 46,337
7AD Communications ‐ 11,951 (11,951) ‐
9BE Preventative Maintenance 27,395 54,245 (48,648) 21,798
223 Fire Station 6 ESD 300,000 ‐ ‐ 300,000
224 ERP Project 250,000 ‐ ‐ 250,000
225 Radio Replacements, Fire 217,834 ‐ 217,834 ‐
228 Radio Replacements, Police 217,834 ‐ 217,834 ‐
Public Safety & Facilities Subtotal 1,303,580 333,145 367,379 603,056
Parks CIP
1DX SH29 To Leander Rd SW 1,477,853 383,299 377,437 717,117
6CP San Gabriel Park Improvements 3,307,600 732,515 2,374,373 200,712
6DD New Village Parks ‐ 13,425 (13,425) ‐
6DE SG Bank Stabilization ‐ 2,910 (2,910) ‐
6DM VFW Park 30,353 823,853 (775,561) (17,939) [a]
6DO Garey Park 13,500,000 2,267,859 10,281,995 950,146
6ES ADA Facilities 295,278 6,372 9,060 279,845
6ET ADA Parks 368,242 170,349 29,877 168,017
9AW CDBG-MLK/3rd St ‐ 7,284 (6,809) (475) [a]
6DB McMaster Park ‐ 13,879 (13,879) ‐
6EH Village Park 43,891 43,891 ‐ ‐
6EI Founder's Park 70,000 ‐ ‐ 70,000
218 River Trail Expansion 100,000 ‐ ‐ 100,000
219 Radio Replacement Parks 64,333 ‐ 64,333 ‐
220 Library Canopy 77,500 ‐ ‐ 77,500
221 Grace Heritage Rehab 286,762 ‐ ‐ 286,762
222 Aquatics Study 40,000 ‐ ‐ 40,000
Parks CIP Subtotal 19,661,812 4,465,635 12,324,491 2,871,686
Downtown & Community Service
46P Sheraton @ The Summit ‐ 2,372,644 ‐ (2,372,644) [a]
6EJ Parking Facility Study / Design ‐ 35,297 (35,297) ‐
6EK Former PD Renovation ‐ 144 (144) ‐
6EM Downtown West 12,423,883 344,456 (344,456) 12,423,883
6EY Downtown Electrical Projects 185,000 49,306 ‐ 135,694
9BE Preventative Maintenance ‐ ‐ 8,289 (8,289) [a]
226 Downtown Festival Area 460,000 ‐ ‐ 460,000
227 Municipal Court / CVB Redesign 230,000 ‐ ‐ 230,000
Downtown & Community Service Subtotal 13,298,883 2,801,847 (371,608) 10,868,644
Total General Government CIP 34,264,275$ 7,600,627$ 12,320,263$ 14,343,386$
NOTES:
[a] Individual projects may go over budget as long as total expenditures
for all CIP projects are within the department's total budget.
45Page 50 of 257
Capital Improvement Projects
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 20172016/17 Year to Date Year to Date
Project Budget Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
Transportation Services CIP
Streets / Transportation
1BZ 971 @ Austin Ave.‐ 101,614 (101,614) ‐
1CC FM 1460 1,019,140 455,504 (22,287) 585,923
1CE Street Maintenance 924,259 31,780 100,180 792,299
1CJ Austin Avenue Sidewalks 70,000 21,650 48,370 (20) [a]
1CN Sealant 100,000 1,233 (1,233) 100,000
1CS DB Wood Bridge ‐ 22,739 (29,424) 6,685
1CU Cutler Process 1,055,000 130,628 22,312 902,060
1DI SW Bypass / WR Parkway 2,324,930 9,368,807 (9,368,742) 2,324,866
1DK Southeast Inner Loop ‐ 1,209,453 1,813 (1,211,265) [a]
1DL Austin Avenue Bridge 278,463 174,740 15,591 88,132
1DN Acces Rtw to Gov Srv ‐ 138,852 (45,314) (93,538) [a]
1DO Austin Avenue at 5th St Light ‐10,129 (39,458) 29,329
1DP 8th St Church to Myrtle ‐29,501 (29,417) (84) [a]
1DR PH 1 Signal and Curb Ramps 500,000 43,790 (38,990) 495,200
1DX SH29 to Leander Rd SW 1,477,853 383,339 377,437 717,077
1EB City Wide Sidewalks 1,864,398 295,250 638,288 930,860
1ED Signal @ Shell/Verde Vista 50,000 ‐ 9,993 40,007
5AL Curb & Gutter 623,000 756,571 (756,571) 623,000
9AU University Sidewalks ‐ 75,526 (75,526) ‐
213 Street Overlay 300,000 ‐ ‐ 300,000
214 Chip and Seal 1,200,000 ‐ ‐ 1,200,000
Streets / Transportation Subtotal 11,787,043 13,251,105 (9,294,593) 7,830,531
Stormwater
5AL Curb and Gutter 500,000 182,025 (160,175) 478,150
5AW Regional Flood Study 617,929 352,691 281,956 (16,718) [a]
208 Stormwater Infrastructure 200,000 160,175 (160,175) 200,000
209 18th and Hutto Drainage 100,000 ‐ ‐ 100,000
210 2nd and Rock Pond 50,000 ‐ ‐ 50,000
211 Serenada Culvert Improvement 50,000 ‐ ‐ 50,000
212 Village PID Inlet 75,000 ‐ ‐ 75,000
Stormwater Subtotal 1,592,929 694,891 (38,394) 936,432
Airport
6VA Airport Master Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Airport Subtotal ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Transportation Services CIP 13,379,972$ 13,945,996$ (9,332,987)$ 8,766,963$
NOTES:
[a] Individual projects may go over budget as long as total expenditures
for all CIP projects are within the department's total budget.
46Page 51 of 257
Capital Improvement Projects
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 20172016/17 Year to Date Year to Date
Project Budget Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
Water Services CIP
Wastewater Line Upgrades:
2BB Wastewater Master Plan Update ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3BZ Wastewater - Street Rehab 136,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 136,000$
3CJ Berry Creek Interceptor 20,328,900 64,952 (64,952) 20,328,900
5QZ Snead Drive ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2BV Tin Barn / 17th & Austin Ave.‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
2CJ Meter Issue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
3CO Wolf Lakes Offsite WW 969,100 ‐ 49,350 919,750
6CR Public Safety Facility ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Wastewater Line Upgrades Subtotal 21,434,000 64,952 (15,602) 21,384,650
WW Edwards Aquifer Compliance:
3CK EARZ 2014-15 19,470 45,273 (25,803) ‐
3CL EARZ 2015-2016 669,205 324,426 344,779 ‐
3CM EARZ 2016-17 811,325 222,401 128,450 460,475
WW Edwards Aquifer Compliance Subtotal 1,500,000 592,100 447,426 460,475
WW Lift stations & Force Mains
3CD Stonehedge LS & FM 27,572 6,270 (6,270) 27,572
3CE Westinghouse LS & FM 3,448,258 577,218 1,547,653 1,323,387
3CN Park LS & FM 3,982,000 121,450 274,810 3,585,740
207 San Gabriel Belt Press 2,207,000 ‐ ‐ 2,207,000
3CI Austin Custom Molds LS Decommission ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
WW Lift stations & Force Mains Subtotal 9,664,830 704,938 1,816,193 7,143,699
WW Treatment Plant
3CA Pecan Branch WWTP 11,125,009 181,657 10,924,312 19,040
WW Treatment Plant Subtotal 11,125,009 181,657 10,924,312 19,040
Water CIP
1DE Williams Dr. @ Jim Hogg Rd ‐ 524 (524) ‐
2BW Westside Facility ‐ 335,504 (46,135) (289,369) [a]
2BZ West Loop (H-1B) Ph. 1 4,158,187 ‐ 310,750 3,847,437
2CE Rabbit Hill EST ‐ 644,732 (644,732) ‐
2CH Cedar Breaks EST ‐ 1,715,854 (1,715,809) (45) [a]
2CI Shell Road Water Line 6,078,793 4,400 (4,400) 6,078,793
2CJ Meter Issue ‐ 187,428 ‐ (187,428) [a]
2CK Daniels Mountain GST ‐ 11,103 (8,536) (2,567) [a]
2CL Park WTP Pump Station ‐ 1,630 (1,630) ‐
2CO Majestic Oaks Water Line ‐ (50,000) ‐ 50,000
2CP Sun City 1.5MG Est 3,050,000 170,000 130,000 2,750,000
2CQ Water Tank Rehab 480,000 5,000 75,000 400,000
2CR Sunny Slope Water Lines ‐ 20,000 ‐ (20,000) [a]
2CS WD Interim Water Master Plan ‐ 28,106 7,026 (35,132) [a]
51I CIS System 1,161,948 597,439 549,509 15,000
2JE CR 255 WD 14-2 3,000,000 ‐ 20,000 2,980,000
2JF Domel Improvements 4,500,000 46 56,794 4,443,160
200 Southlake WTP 1,000,000 ‐ ‐ 1,000,000
201 Water - Street Rehabilitation 330,000 ‐ ‐ 330,000
202 Leander Interconnect 575,000 ‐ ‐ 575,000
203 West Loop (H-1A)2,119,000 ‐ ‐ 2,119,000
204 LWTP Raw Water Intake Rehab 600,000 ‐ ‐ 600,000
205 Sequoia Ground Storage Tank 2,500,000 ‐ ‐ 2,500,000
206 Pumps and Storage 1,684,186 ‐ ‐ 1,684,186
Water CIP Subtotal 31,237,114 3,671,766 (1,272,687) 28,838,035
Rural Water CIP
2CN PRV Improv SH129 & CR245 ‐ 339 (338) (1) [a]
2CO Majestic Oaks Water Lines ‐ 223,494 (223,493) (1) [a]
2JE CR 255 (WD 14-2)‐ 92,500 (92,500) ‐
2JF Domel Improvements ‐ 127,925 (127,925) ‐
Rural Water CIP Subtotal ‐ 444,258 (444,256) (2)
AMI/CIS‐Water
2CG Asset Management ‐ 15,602 (5,781) (9,822) [a]
Water/AMI/CIS Subtotal ‐ 15,602 (5,781) (9,822)
Total Water Services CIP 74,960,953$ 5,675,271$ 11,449,606$ 57,836,076$
NOTES:
[a] Individual projects may go over budget as long as total expenditures
for all CIP projects are within the department's total budget.
47Page 52 of 257
Capital Improvement Projects
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2017
2016/17 Year to Date Year to Date
Project Budget Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
GTEC CIP
5QC Southwest Bypass ‐ 6,294 ‐ (6,294) [a]
5QY NB Frontage Rd 2338 to Lakeway ‐ 440 (440) ‐
5QX Northwest Boulevard Bridge 91,590 54,655 (54,655) 91,590
5RI Mays Street (S. Georgetown TIRZ)3,500,000 5,446,201 (5,172,356) 3,226,155
5RM Rivery Ext (Williams Dr. - Nwest Blvd.)4,000,000 2,205,581 (19,141) 1,813,560
5RN Pecan Center Dr. / Airport Rd.6,000,000 423,866 185,844 5,390,290
5RO Southwest Bypass - Laubach 354,920 21,282 ‐ 333,638
5RP Rivery TIA Improvements 1,157,121 159,938 (21,607) 1,018,791
5RQ Rabbit Hill Road Improvements ‐ 331,680 (331,680) ‐
1CI Williams Dr. Widening ‐ 26,674 ‐ (26,674) [a]
1CC FM 1460 Roadway Improvement 650,000 67,904 80,429 501,667
215 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension 283,350 ‐ ‐ 283,350
216 IH 35 / Hwy 29 Intersection 650,000 ‐ ‐ 650,000
Total GTEC CIP 18,155,731$ 8,744,514$ (5,333,607)$ 14,744,824$
Notes:
[a] Individual projects may go over budget as long as total expenditures
for all CIP projects are within the department's total budget.
48Page 53 of 257
Capital Improvement Projects
For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2017
2016/17 Year to Date Year to Date
Budget Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
Electric CIP
9-0580-90-139 17th Street Rehab 50,000.00 ‐ ‐ 50,000
9-0580-90-140 7th Street Rehab 200,000.00 ‐ ‐ 200,000
9-0580-90-141 Downtown OH Rehab 500,000.00 ‐ ‐ 500,000
9-0580-90-142 Downtown West 970,000.00 ‐ ‐ 970,000
9-0580-90-143 Shell Road Feeders 450,000.00 ‐ ‐ 450,000
9-0580-90-144 Pole Relocation 50,000.00 ‐ 3,626.00 46,374
9-0580-90-145 Sidewalks South College 50,000.00 ‐ 59,009.20 (9,009) [a]
9-0580-90-146 Southwest Bypass Feeder 300,000.00 ‐ ‐ 300,000
9-0580-90-147 West 10th Street Rehab 98,000.00 ‐ ‐ 98,000
9-0580-90-148 West 11th Street Rehab 200,000.00 ‐ ‐ 200,000
9-0580-90-300 Electrical System Improvement ‐ 1,097,013.14 (203,102.86) (893,910) [a]
9-0580-90-310 Power Quality Improvements 80,000.00 13,494.03 ‐ 66,506
9-0580-90-320 Sectionalization Improvements 50,000.00 ‐ ‐ 50,000
9-0580-90-330 Pole Improvements ‐ 4,442.05 ‐ (4,442) [a]
9-0580-90-331 Pole Inspections 50,000.00 ‐ ‐ 50,000
9-0580-90-350 Relocation Projects Reimbursements ‐ 40,055.93 ‐ (40,056) [a]
9-0580-90-410 New Development Projects 1,200,000.00 2,555,439.06 713,147.07 (2,068,586) [a]
9-0580-90-420 Reimbursements New Development ‐ 37,445.00 ‐ (37,445) [a]
9-0580-90-430 Street Lighting 88,000.00 8,054.91 ‐ 79,945
9-0580-90-500 Consultant Engineering 150,000.00 77,757.91 ‐ 72,242
9-0580-90-510 System Mapping Support ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Electric CIP Subtotal 4,486,000 3,833,702 572,679 79,619
T&D
9-0585-90-003 Electric Substations ‐ 17,742.59 (15,973.75) (1,769) [a]
9-0585-90-021 Communication Equipment 295,000.00 167,964.77 60,558.89 66,476
T&D Subtotal 295,000 185,707 44,585 64,708
CIS
9-0580-91-105 CIS system 2,175,000.00 239,121.68 1,627,312.97 308,565
CIS Subtotal 2,175,000 239,122 1,627,313 308,565
Total Electric CIP 6,956,000$ 4,258,531$ 2,244,578$ 452,891$
NOTES:
[a] Individual projects may go over budget as long as total expenditures
for all CIP projects are within the department's total budget.
49Page 54 of 257
City of Georgetown
Project Update
As of June 30, 2017
Projects with GO Bond Funds Remaining
Parks Projects Net Proceeds
Interest
Allocated to
Project Spent to Date
Amount
Remaining for
Project Status
Westside Park - design (GO 2013)50,000.00 24,230.60 25,769.40 Complete*
SG Bank Stabilization (GO 2013)500,000.00 480,665.91 19,334.09 In Progess
McMaster Park (GO 2013)112,000.00 83,126.19 28,873.81 Complete*
Historic Park (GO 2013)500,000.00 242,229.00 257,771.00 Reallocated**
San Gabriel Park (GO 2013)257,771.00 0.00 257,771.00 In Progess
San Gabriel Park Rehabilitation (GO 2015A)1,785,000.00 250,217.84 1,534,782.16 In Progess
Garey Park (GO 2016)3,002,864.93 1,856,419.86 1,146,445.07 In Progess
Garey Park (GO 2017)5,500,000.00 0.00 5,500,000.00 In Progess
San Gabriel Park (GO 2017)1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 In Progess
Total Parks Bond Funding Remaining 12,707,635.93 2,936,889.40 9,770,746.53
Transportation Projects Net Proceeds
Interest
Allocated to
Project Spent to Date
Amount
Remaining for
Project Status
FM 1460 (GO 2014)4,756,578.65 10,313.31 4,766,691.64 200.32 Complete*
FM 1460 (GO 2015)4,295,484.08 154,698.12 4,140,785.96 In Progess
Southwest Bypass (GO 2015A)10,000,000.00 9,982,147.49 17,852.51 In Progess
Southwest Bypass (GO 2016)10,009,549.77 1,015,375.93 8,994,173.84 In Progess
Total Transportation Bond Funding Remaining 29,061,612.50 10,313.31 15,918,913.18 13,153,012.63
*Completed projects with funds remaining are available to be reallocated by Council to other similar projects in the future.
**The remaining funds for Historic Park were reallocated to San Gabriel Park in the February 2017 Budget Amendment approved by Council.
50
Page 55 of 257
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates ‐ 3/31/17 Status Updates ‐ 6/30/17
Cemetery Special Revenue
Fund
Currently cemetery operations are self‐funded through plot
sales of approximately $50K per year. The cemetery is
managed through Parks Administration. In 2015, Council
elected to reserve $75,000 annually for future costs
associated with maintaining the property. The General
Fund has made this transfer in 2016 and 2017.
$75,000 annual transfer will be included in FY 2018 proposed
budget.
Columbarium is in design stage. With the rebid and
consolidation of the citywide mowing contract, maintenance
costs have increased beyond revenue from plot and niche sales
and will slow the growth of the perpetual reserve. Staff and
Council should discuss the long‐term plan for the perpetual
reserve and maintenance of the cemeteries.
Unfunded Actuarial Accrued
Liability (UAAL)
Recognizes the outstanding liability for the City’s employee
retirement plan through TMRS. The City contributes
monthly to fund the UAAL, based on an annual percentage
of payroll. Actual % of payroll costs is recognized within
each fund. The UAAL is provided by TMRS and lags one
year.
As of 12/30/15, the UAAL was $20.9M and is considered 82.2%
funded. The City will amortize any UAAL over a period not to
exceed the amortization period used by the TMRS actuary. The
City may amortize its UAAL more quickly by making contributions
to TMRS in excess of the rate specified by TMRS. The 2017 TMRS
contribution rate is 12.56%.
As of 12/30/16, the UAAL was $22M and is considered 83%
funded. The 2018 TMRS contribution rate is 12.41%.
Other Post Employee Benefits
(OPEB)
While the City has no obligation to offer additional retiree
benefits, retirees are eligible to participate in the City’s
health insurance program. That ability represents a subsidy
that impacts health insurance costs to the City. Retirees pay
their monthly premiums to the ISF who in turn processes
their health insurance claims.
This is an actuarial calculation based on current and future
employees on future City health insurance costs, and has
numerous and complex factors in its calculation. Retirees pay
their own premiums, and thus the liability is considered “pay as
you go”. With additional employees being added, potential
future retiree impacts increase. The 2016 current net OPEB
liability is $972,576 which is an increase of $185,876 over the
prior year.
No change, updated once annually.
Compensated Absence
Future costs associated with benefits such as vacation, and
sick leave for City employees. Compensated Absence is
accrued annually to each proprietary fund type on a GAAP
basis and accounted for on the balance sheet of each fund.
For governmental funds (and for budgetary basis), the
expense is recognized when due and payable.
The FY 2017 mid‐year budget amendment will appropriate an
additional $222,000 from the Council Discretionary Fund to the
General Fund to establish the Benefit Payout Reserve. When
combined with the $30,000 currently budgeted, the 15% liability
policy is fully funded for the year.
No change, fully funded in FY 2018 budget. In FY 2017 these
funds were used for two long‐tenured payouts in Police and
Fire.
Rate Stabilization Reserve
Intended to mitigate potential rate impacts due to
increased fuel costs or other external factors. The RSR is
maintained within the Electric Fund and is projected to be
$4.5M in FY2017. Potentially, a similar reserve could be
developed for the Water Fund.
The Electric Fund experienced higher than usual purchased
power costs in FY 2016. Staff and Council took action to amend
the FY 2016 budget and FY 2017 budget to maintain $4,775,000
in cash reserves for Contingency. Cash reserves for Rate
Stabilization will need to be built back up. The Electric Fund will
procure a new rate study in FY 2018 to determine a new rate
stabilization target.
In the FY 2018 budget the rate stabilization reserve increased by
$1 million to $5.5 million. The rate study is funded in the
budget.
June 30, 2017
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Long-term Commitments, Reservations, and Other Unfunded Liabilities
51Page 56 of 257
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates ‐ 3/31/17 Status Updates ‐ 6/30/17
Airport Maintenance
Fund on‐going maintenance of the Airport grounds,
runways and taxi ways. Terminal and Tower included in
Facilities ISF. An Airport Master Plan was developed to
address long term capital maintenance project
prioritization.
2017 funded projects include repairing pavement, replacing
lights, and sealing doors and roofs in hangars, rehabbing
taxiways and improving signage. The airport master plan is still
being developed, and staff continue to look for grant
opportunities for funding.
The FY2018 proposed budget includes the establishment of 75
days of expenditure contingency reserve. The Airport Fund
continues to have gradual increase in fund balance which is on
pace to exceed original FY2017 budget predictions. The current
Airport Improvement Project which includes the new parallel
taxiway and fuel storage facility will continue well into FY2018.
The current Airport Master Plan effort is scheduled to wrap up
sometime in FY2018.
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Compliance Needs
As facilities are built or repurposed, meeting ADA
compliance will be included in Project Costs. Funding for
program expansion will be needed (General Fund sources).
The City has an adopted policy, as required by Federal Law,
that it will make reasonable accommodations and
modifications to ensure that people with disabilities have
an equal opportunity to enjoy its programs, services, and
activities. The City does not maintain a reserve for these
modifications.
The City amended and adopted the FY2016 Transition Plan on
1/10/2017. This quarter the City completed renovations to the
Parks Administration building, providing accessible routes into
the City facility which is also a public voting facility.
In the third quarter the City began improvements including curb
ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian‐actuated signal infrastructure
(“ped heads”), and sidewalk extensions/reconstructions. ADA
and Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation compliant
sidewalks and ramps identified in the 2015 Sidewalk Master Plan
are underway, including 7 crossings of Williams Drive, 3
downtown sidewalks and the Austin Avenue/Morrow Street
crosswalk.
Sidewalk Maintenance
Currently, new sidewalks are built as development occurs.
Repairs are funded as needed or if funding is available,
when major roads are repaired. Useful life of a sidewalk is
estimated at 40 to 50 years. The largest revenue source
comes from the City’s General Fund. Annual funding for
sidewalk construction and maintenance is approximately
$75,000.
Construction on several sidewalk improvement projects
throughout the city began in the spring. The entire project is
expected to be completed in late November.
Sidewalk improvements include:
• Del Webb Boulevard and Whispering Wind Drive
• Williams Drive and Woodlake Drive
• Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive
• Williams Drive and Shell Road
• Williams Drive and Lakeway Drive
• Williams Drive and River Bend Drive
• Austin Avenue and Morrow Street
• Austin Avenue from Morrow Street to Williams Drive
• Eighth and Rock streets
• Eighth Street from Church to Myrtle streets
• Sidewalks in Founders’ Park
• Sidewalk along southbound Interstate 35 frontage road from
Leander Road to Hwy. 29.
Funding for sidewalks in the FY2018 budget is $576,000. Nearly
completed current year projects include: Del Webb Boulevard
and Whispering Wind Drive, Williams Drive and Woodlake Drive,
Williams Drive and Wildwood Drive, Williams Drive and Shell
Road, Williams Drive and Lakeway Drive, Williams Drive and
River Bend Drive, and Austin Avenue and Morrow Street. Austin
Avenue from Morrow Street to Myrtle will start in September
2017. Eighth and Rock streets – Currently working this site
installing Sidewalk, parking spaces, drainage and installing Trees.
Completion around 8‐15‐2017. Eighth Street from Church to
Myrtle streets – Will start work at this site around 8‐15‐2017.
Sidewalks in Founders’ Park‐ Projected start date around 9‐11‐
2017. Sidewalk along southbound Interstate 35 frontage road
from Leander Road to Hwy. 29. ‐ Sidewalk is in, Handrails are
being made.
Park Equipment Maintenance
& Replacement
Over the past 5 years, funding for Park Maintenance and
Replacement has increased. $200K transfer from General
Fund included in FY2018 budget. Staff has listed all assets
& developed replacement schedule funded by the General
Fund, soon to be on EAM.
The outdoor pool slide replacement at the recreation center has
been moved to 2018 since it was repaired. All other projects are
on schedule.
Park pavilion renovations at San Jose Park, Chautauqua Park,
and Katy Crossing Park are scheduled to be completed by the
end of September. Additionally, several deteriorating park signs
are scheduled for replacement in the next few months.
52Page 57 of 257
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Financial Impact/Notes Status Updates ‐ 3/31/17 Status Updates ‐ 6/30/17
Emergency Medical Service
Special Revenue Fund
2014/15 Annual Budget assumed EMS Program to be
operationally active by June 2015 with revenues to offset
operating and capital costs. Operating deficit would be
funded internally until capital costs were recovered in 5
years. FY2017 budget includes 3 FF/Paramedics to mitigate
overtime for the 4th TRV, and half of a position to monitor
the revenue collection contract.
As of April 30, 2017, EMS revenue collections are about $1
million, which is ahead of the budget projections. Year‐end
revenue is estimated to be $2.4 million, budget is $2.2 million.
Staff continue to monitor overtime and medical supply expenses
monthly.
As of June 30, 2017, EMS revenue collections are about $1.4
million, which is ahead of the budget projections. Year‐end
revenue is estimated to be $2.47 million, budget is $2.2 million.
Staff continue to monitor overtime and medical supply expenses
monthly. EMS revenue is projected to increase to 2.5 million in
FY2018. The fund continues to improve its position as collection
rate and demands for service grow. The EMS fund is expected
to significantly draw down initial start‐up costs in FY2018.
Major Technology
Replacement (IT Internal
Service Fund)
CIS billing to be replaced in 2016, funded by utility funds.
Enterprise Resource Planning System (Finance and HR)
selection consultant funding included in the FY2017 budget.
Funding for acquisition of the new Enterprise Resource
Planning system(s) will be considered in the FY 2018 budget
process.
FY 2018 is year two of IT's revamped cost allocation model
based on actual usage of staff, hardware, and software
resources. The FY 2017 mid year budget amendment includes
$250,000 of one‐time money from the Council Discretionary
fund that will be set aside for the ERP project in FY 2018. Staff
are exploring funding methods of the ERP, including short‐term
debt, cash, and the IT allocation.
The FY2018 IT allocation model includes $500K of cash funding
for the annual subscription fees for the new ERP system. This is
an estimate until staff select an actual vendor. The model also
includes $300K of increases to existing software contracts. These
large increases are reflected through the many funds
throughout the City. Passing through these costs is necessary to
keep the fund balance from decreasing.
Radio Equipment Replacement
Communication system consisting of 500 on‐body and in‐
vehicle radios for Police, Fire, and GUS. Replacement radios
are compatible with newer technology.
Current model no longer supported in 2018. Staff proposed 3
year replacement schedule for FY2017‐2019, $500K per year.
Phase I approved in FY2017 and led by new Emergency
Management Coordinator. Projected year 4 costs are additional
$250,000.
Year two of the radio program is funded in the FY2018 budget.
53Page 58 of 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction to staff on Stre e t Netwo rk Connectivity Policie s -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director.
ITEM SUMMARY:
This presentation is a follo w-up to recent Unified Development Code updates and discussio ns on stre e t ne twork
connectivity. This discussion will focus o n the impo rtance o f a conne c ted stre et ne twork as Geo rgeto wn grows and the
public costs of a disco nnected system.
Staff will present the fo llowing:
1) The purpose o f c onnectivity standards.
2) Review challenges that have been voiced conc e rning co nnectivity.
3) Review curre nt co de requirements and policie s regarding co nnectivity.
Requested Feedbac k from City Council:
1) Are there other challenges surrounding connec tivity that need studying?
2) What additional research and work is needed at this time?
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Co nnectivity P res entation
Page 59 of 257
Connectivity
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
Page 60 of 257
Purpose of Workshop
Staff Presentation
1.Purpose of connectivity standards -illustrate
community costs and consequences of un -
connected networks.
2.Understand issues voiced concerning connectivity
3.Overview of existing codes and policies
Requested Feedback from City Council
1.Are there other issues surrounding
connectivity that need studying?
2.What additional research and work is
needed at this time? Page 61 of 257
Regional and Local Connectivity
Local Street
Lo
c
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
Page 62 of 257
Interconnected Networks
Page 63 of 257
Disjointed Networks:
City of GeorgetownPage 64 of 257
Evolution of Connectivity in
Georgetown
Traditional Grid
Downtown/ Old Town
Longer Blocks/ Curvilinear
Streets Downtown
Limited Connections
between subdivisions
Page 65 of 257
Good example of Connectivity
Page 66 of 257
Good Examples of Connectivity
As Developed
Page 67 of 257
Alternative path should
connection not be made
Page 68 of 257
Missed Opportunities to
establish connectivity
Page 69 of 257
Missed Opportunities to
establish connectivity
Represent missed
opportunities for connectionsPage 70 of 257
Lessons Learned from Williams
Drive
Page 71 of 257
•Safety concerns when adding more
volume to a street
•Neighborhood character concern when
different types of residential
neighborhoods connect to each other.
•Adequacy of roadway design when rural
and suburban neighborhoods connect to
each other.
Issues voiced concerning
connectivity
Page 72 of 257
Recent Examples
Page 73 of 257
Davidson Ranch
15
Summercrest
Subdivision
University
Park
Highcrest
Meadow
Kelly’s Kids Horse
Stables
Page 74 of 257
Summercrest
University Park
Highcrest
Meadow
Stubs to Future
Development
Davidson Ranch
Page 75 of 257
Fountainwood Subdivision
Development Driven
Connection
Connection exist
today
Page 76 of 257
Woodland Park/ Sun City
connection
City of GeorgetownPage 77 of 257
Recent updates to connectivity
standards
Page 78 of 257
Connectivity
Specify
road
connection
types
Provide for
alternative
connections
for long
blocks and
cul-de-sacs
Focus on
intersection
spacing
instead of
block
length.
Address
concerns of
cul-de-sacs
being turned
into through
streets
Page 79 of 257
Requested Feedback from
City Council
1.Are there other issues
surrounding connectivity that
need studying?
2.Do you think additional
research and work is needed at
this time?
Page 80 of 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible direction regarding a prese ntation on the Target Industry and Wo rkforce Analysis by Avalanche
Consulting -- Michaela Dollar, Director of Econo mic Development
ITEM SUMMARY:
At its March 28 , 20 17 meeting, Council approved the consulting agreement between GEDCO and Avalanche Consulting to
conduct a Target Industry and Workforce Analysis. Avalanche has completed the Analysis and will present their findings
to City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Michaela Dollar, Directo r of Economic Developme nt
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
wo rkforc e
TIA
Page 81 of 257
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
WORKFORCE ANALYSIS
AUGUST 18, 2017
avalanche
Page 82 of 257
About the City of Georgetown
Economic Development Target Industry
& Workforce Analysis
In April 2017, the City of Georgetown initiated the development of an Economic Development Target Industry & Workforce Analysis
aimed at diversifying the local economy, increasing business investment throughout the city, and fully leveraging hometown talent.
Through a competitive bidding process, the City of Georgetown retained Avalanche Consulting, a national economic development
consultancy based in Austin, TX, to facilitate the preparation of the Economic Development Target Industry & Workforce Analysis.
Georgetown residents and businesses were invited to share their perspectives and vision for the community through a series of
individual interviews and focus groups.
Once complete, the Economic Development Target Industry&WorkforceAnalysiswillhavetwoprimaryphases:
Phase 1: Workforce Analysis
The Economic Development Target Industry & Workforce Analysis begins with an exploration of Georgetown's competitive position.
The study team examined a range of local assets and quantitative metrics to better understand the city’s evolving economy and
population. In addition to data analysis, the study team conducted multiple focus groups and interviews. All input is then distilled into
a concise SWOT summary outlining the community’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Phase 2: Target Cluster Analysis
This second phase of the Economic Development Target Industry & Workforce Analysis includes the target clusters and niche sector
recommendations of the consulting team. By targeting specific industry clusters, the City of Georgetown can more strategically invest
in those factors such as infrastructure or workforce training programs necessary to spur job creation within the community. Target
cluster identification blends industry location quotient analysis with a review of data trends, SWOT evaluation, and city priorities.
Page 83 of 257
2
About this Document
The following Workforce Analysis provides an in-depth evaluation of Georgetown’s economic performance and demographic
Dynamics. Specifically, the assessment examines a simple question. How successful is Georgetown in the pursuit of job, talent, and
overall civic prosperity?
Economic and demographic information on Georgetown is benchmarked against the Austin metropolitan area, Texas and US averages
to provide greater context to the city’s performance across a wide range of metrics. The benchmarking analysis also includes a focus
on Georgetown’s labor shed as determined by prevailing commuting patterns.
The Workforce Analysis also includes a workforce profile on Georgetown detailing and emerging drivers of job creation within the
city. The Workforce Profile includes a consideration of employment by both industry occupation, employment growth, and relative
employment concentration. The workforce profile also includes an examination of average wages by industry and occupation for
workers employed within Georgetown as well as benchmark geographies.
The Workforce Analysis concludes with a SWOT analysis that provides a brief overview of the city’s strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. The SWOT analysis is based on quantitative economic and demographic information collected during the
project as well as qualitative information gathered during numerous focus group discussions, one-on-one interviews conducted with
Georgetown residents, community leaders, and business owners.
Ultimately, the findings of the Workforce Analysis will help identify those industries that are best positioned to thrive within the
community. These industries will be detailed in the next phase of the project, the Target Industry Analysis.
Page 84 of 257
3
Key Takeaways
Labor
Shed
Identification
Economic
Dynamics
There is relatively little overlap between those who live in Georgetown and those who work
in Georgetown.
Approximately 75% of all Georgetown residents active in the workforce are employed
outside of the city. At the same time, approximately 75% of all jobs within the city are
filled by workers who reside outside of Georgetown.
Georgetown's labor shed extends far beyond the city’s formal boundaries. The city’s labor
shed extends from Austin to Temple alongside interstate 35 and encompasses more than
700,000 relatively young and well-educated workers.
Georgetown continues to enjoy strong employment gains. Between 2011 and 2016, the
number of jobs within the city rose by more than 20%, virtually identical to the regional
average. During this same period, total US job growth was less than 10%.
Employment within Georgetown is largely composed of locally-serving industries such as
Construction and Trade & Transportation.
Georgetown’s economy is becoming more balanced and diversified. Over the past five
years, some of the fastest growing industries in the city have included Manufacturing,
Professional & Business Services, and Financial Activities.
Page 85 of 257
4
Key Takeaways
Workforce
Profiles
Georgetown remains one of the fastest growing cities in the US. The city’s population has
doubled in the past 15 years.
Georgetown has an above average share of older residents. Half of all Georgetown
residents are at least 47 years old and more than a quarter of the city’s residents are age
65 and older. This contributes to low labor force participation among Georgetown
residents.
Georgetown is highly educated. Nearly 45% of Georgetown residents possess a bachelor’s
degree or higher level of educational attainment.
In recent years, Georgetown’s employment gains have been bolstered by growth across
virtually every occupational cluster. This dynamic is projected to continue through 2021.
In the years ahead, employment growth will be primarily driven by a handful of industries.
According to current projections, five clusters will account for 75% of all new jobs –
Healthcare, Retail, Electronics,Entertainment, and Construction.
Wages for most occupations are higher in Georgetown’s Southern Labor shed than in
Georgetown. In turn, wages in Georgetown are typically higher than in the city’s Northern
Labor Shed.
Demographic
Dynamics
Page 86 of 257
Table of Contents
Identifying the flow of workers into and out
of Georgetown is critical to understanding
the community’s economic role in the broader
region.
Prevailing economic dynamics operating
within Georgetown will ultimately help
determine target industries that are best
suited to the community.
Georgetown’s current and future labor force
will heavily depend on the community’s
demographic characteristics.
LABOR SHED IDENTIFICATION ECONOMIC DYNAMICS DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS
PAGEPAGE
12
PAGEPAGE
6
PAGEPAGE
26
5
Past and projected employment growth
trends within Georgetown will inform the
community’s current and future workforce
needs.
The SWOT Analysis summarizes
Georgetown’s strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats across a variety of
workforce areas.
WORKFORCE PROFILES SWOT ANALYSIS
PAGEPAGE
40
PAGEPAGE
56
Page 87 of 257
01
Labor Shed Identification
The Labor Shed Identification highlights existing commuting patterns
within Georgetown. The analysis examines the number of workers within
Georgetown, the number of Georgetown residents employed outside of
the community, and the number of non-residents that commute into
Georgetown for work.
6Page 88 of 257
Georgetown is located in one of the fastest
growing regions of the one of the fastest
growing states in the US.
About the Region WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown is located approximately 25 minutes due north of downtown Austin and bisected by
Interstate 35. With nearly 64,000 residents, as of 2016 Georgetown is the 4
th largest city in the Austin
metropolitan region.
Georgetown grew extraordinarily fast over the past 15 years - with the population more than doubling.
In 2016, The US Census Bureau reported that Georgetown was the fastest growing city in the US with a
population of 50,000 or more.
7
GEORGETOWN
ROUND ROCK
AUSTIN
TEMPLE
Page 89 of 257
Commuting patterns play several important
roles in a region’s economy. Regions that can
draw from the available talents and skill sets
present outside of their communities can
significantly increase their available
workforce.
Commuting Patterns WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Very few Georgetown residents both live and work in the city.
Approximately 75% of all employed Georgetown residents work in another city. At the same time,
approximately 75% of all jobs within Georgetown are filled by individuals living somewhere else.
These patterns are not unusual for a traditionally small town but now high-growth city located within a
major metropolitan area. Large commuter shares add to increased traffic concerns. They also can
indicate a lack of resiliency in the local economy, with residents dependent on jobs located outside of the
community and businesses reliant on workers who live elsewhere.
8
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
COMMUTER INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS
2014
5,275
Individuals who live and
work in Georgetown
Individuals who live in
Georgetown but work
outside of the city16,32515,600Individuals employed in
Georgetown who live outside
of the city
Page 90 of 257
Commuting patterns play several important
roles in a region’s economy. Regions that can
draw from the available talents and skill sets
present outside of their communities can
significantly increase their available
workforce.
Commuting Patterns WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown residents work for employers throughout Central Texas.
The top destinations for out-commuting residents are Austin, Round Rock, and Cedar Park. A smaller
number of Georgetown residents commute to cities such as Hutto, Pflugerville, and even Temple.
9
GEORGETOWN
AUSTIN
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
COMMUTER INFLOW/OUTFLOW ANALYSIS
2014
TEMPLE
Page 91 of 257
Georgetown Labor Shed
Georgetown’s Labor Shed extends from Austin to Temple alongside interstate 35. Georgetown’s Labor
Shed shows that local employers can draw from a pool of workers much bigger than the city itself – the
Labor Shed encompasses more than 700,000 workers.
Georgetown’s Labor Shed is composed largely of young professionals, with more than a third of workers
between the ages of 25 and 44. The Labor Shed is also very well educated – more than 40% of
individuals living in the Labor Shed possess a bachelor’s degree or higher level of educational
attainment. Both the Economic Dynamics and Demographic Dynamics sections provide comparisons of the
City of Georgetown to its broader Labor Shed, the Austin Metro, Texas, and the US.
10
GEORGETOWN
AUSTIN
TEMPLE
The economy of a community is not
contained by political boundaries. Every
community draws workers from outside its
borders and sends residents to jobs in other
locations. To fully understand a community’s
available labor force, one must examine the
entire labor market from which the
community draws.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Page 92 of 257
The economy of a community is not
contained by political boundaries. Every
community draws workers from outside its
borders and sends residents to jobs in other
locations. To fully understand a community’s
available labor force, one must examine the
entire labor market from which the
community draws.
Two Labor Sheds WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Because the Labor Shed is so large, it can be effectively seen as two distinctly different, but overlapping
labor sheds.
The Southern Labor shed extends from Georgetown to Southern Austin. The Northern Labor Shed draws
from as far away as Temple.
These two labor sheds form distinct pools of talent from which Georgetown employers can draw. The
characteristics of these labor sheds are discussed in more detail in the Workforce Profiles section of this
report.
11
GEORGETOWN
AUSTIN
TEMPLE
Page 93 of 257
02
Economic Dynamics
Over the past decade, the City of Georgetown has experienced
significant economic growth. Traditionally,Georgetown was a rural
bedroom community. The city is still cherished for its small town feel, but
in recent years the number of primary jobs has grown rapidly. The
following metrics place Georgetown’s economic performance in a broader
context and underscore areas in which the community is moving in a
positive direction.
12Page 94 of 257
Employment growth is a primary indicator of
a community’s overall economic health.
Strong job creation relative to benchmark
communities can indicate a more competitive
business climate and the presence of
supportive resources.
Employment Growth WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSISOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSI
CITY OF GEOGETOWN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2006 – 2016
20.7%
19.2%
20.0%
12.6%
8.8%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin MSA
Texas
USA
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
2011 – 2016
Over the past five years, Georgetown has seen rapid job growth. Between 2011 and 2016, overall
employment grew 21% to reach 28,000 jobs. This rate of growth was faster than the surrounding Labor
Shed and Austin metro.
During this period, job growth in Georgetown was more than 50% greater than Texas and more than
twice the US average.
13
19.6K
21.7K 22.1K 21.3K 21.2K
23.1K 23.9K 25.2K 25.7K
27.2K 27.9K
Page 95 of 257
Low unemployment suggest that the residents
are able to secure employment. Especially
low unemployment, however, may also
indicate a potential workforce shortage.
Higher unemployment may also indicate that
a larger portion of residents are actively
seeking jobs.
Unemployment WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown USA
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
2006 – 2016
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
3.9%
3.2%
4.7%
4.1%
Georgetown
Austin MSA
Texas
USA
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
MAY 2017
Georgetown’s unemployment rate has remained less than the US average every single month of the past
decade.
For the first time, in 2017 Georgetown’s unemployment rate was within a half of a percentage point of
the US average. Georgetown’s unemployment rate currently stands at 3.9%, slightly higher than the
Austin metropolitan average but less than the statewide and US averages.
14Page 96 of 257
Resilient economies employ residents in a
diverse mix of industries. A diverse industry
base allows communities to better weather
economic downturns that affect one industry
more than others. A diverse economy also
provides jobs with different educational and
experience requirements that help sustain all
residents.
Industry Diversity (US Benchmark)WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
2016
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY
2011 – 2016
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSISOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSI
* Other services includes various service industries such as automotive repaid, personal services such as dry
cleaning, and non-profit organizations.
Employment by industry within Georgetown varies slightly from the US average. Georgetown is home to
a higher proportion of Construction, Manufacturing and Trade & Transportation employment relative to
the US average. These three industries represent approximately 45% of total employment within
Georgetown compared to just 32% nationally. Georgetown has smaller proportions in Information,
Financial Activities, and Professional & Business Services.
Over the past 5 years, almost all industries in Georgetown grew more rapidly than the US. Employment
in Georgetown’s Manufacturing and Professional & Business Services sectors each grew by more than
60%. Employment in Financial Activities and Education & Health Services increased by more than 40%.
15
3%
11%
11%
16%
9%
4%
1%
26%
11%
8%
2%Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Svcs.
Education & Health Svcs.
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*
2%
20%
46%
61%
44%
39%
-5%
64%
37%
22%Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Svcs.
Education & Health Svcs.
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*200%+
- US Average
Page 97 of 257
Resilient economies employ residents in a
diverse mix of industries. A diverse industry
base allows communities to better weather
economic downturns that affect one industry
more than others. A diverse economy also
provides jobs with different educational and
experience requirements that help sustain all
residents.
Industry Diversity (Austin Metro Benchmark)WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
2016
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY
2011 – 2016
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSISOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSI
* Other services includes various service industries such as automotive repaid, personal services such as dry
cleaning, and non-profit organizations.
In some ways, Georgetown’s economy more closely reflects the US as a whole rather than Central Texas.
Georgetown’s high concentration of manufacturing employment, for example, is even more striking
against the backdrop of the Austin metro. Manufacturing represents nearly 11% of jobs in Georgetown
but less than 6% of jobs within the broader region. Conversely, Financial Activities comprise just 9% of
jobs within Georgetown, less than the US average of 12%. In the Austin metro, Financial Activities
represent more than 16% of all jobs.
16
3%
11%
11%
16%
9%
4%
1%
26%
11%
8%
2%Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Svcs.
Education & Health Svcs.
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*
2%
20%
46%
61%
44%
39%
-5%
64%
37%
22%Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Svcs.
Education & Health Svcs.
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*200%+
- Austin Metro Average
Page 98 of 257
Industry Salaries WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
CITY OF GEORGETOWN AVERAGE SALARY BY INDUSTRY
2016
64%
95%
129%
127%
60%
69%
71%
80%
83%
76%
103%
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professonal & Business Svcs
Education & Health Svcs
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*
CITY OF GEORGETOWN SHARE OF US AVERAGE SALARY BY INDUSTRY
2016
$76,777
$65,254
$103,587
$64,940
$69,422
$71,720
$64,742
$46,225
$21,285
$59,320
$39,066
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professonal & Business Svcs
Education & Health Svcs
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other*
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSISOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSI
* Other services includes various service industries such as automotive repaid, personal services such as dry
cleaning, and non-profit organizations.
The average salary for a worker employed within Georgetown is approximately $60,000, slightly less
than the US average of $65,000. Average wages by industries vary widely in Georgetown.
At more than $100,000, the average Manufacturing salary in Georgetown is nearly 30% higher than
the US average. At nearly $65,000, the average Trade & Transportation salary in Georgetown is more
than 25% higher than the US average. Average salaries for most other industries, however, are 20% to
40% lower relative to the US average. This includes high-wage, high skill industries such as Information
($69,000 versus $115,000) as well as industries characterized by lower skill, lower wage occupations
such as Leisure & Hospitality ($22,000 versus $26,000).
Examining salaries by industry helps reveal
which local industries are more competitive
for workers or where workers show higher
productivity. Above-average salaries may
also indicate high demand for those workers
in a community. The presence of high-salary
industries is also a sign of positive wealth
creation in a community.
17Page 99 of 257
Entrepreneurial Activity WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
MICRO BUSINESSES (<10 EMPLOYEES) AS % OF ALL BUSINESSES
2014
CHANGE IN % SHARE IN MICRO BUSINESSES (<10 EMPLOYEES)
2009-2014
More than 73% of businesses within Georgetown have less than 10 employees (micro businesses) – the
same as the US average but slightly higher than the statewide and regional averages.
Between 2009 and 2014, the number of businesses in Georgetown with less than 10 employees grew
10%. Growth of micro businesses in Georgetown outpaced the US and Texas averages, but local gains
trailed the averages of both the Austin region and the Labor Shed.
Businesses that have fewer than ten
employees are the heart of the national
economy. While few create big job gains all
at once and many often fail, positive growth
of small businesses reflects a thriving
economy and the presence of an ecosystem
that encourages entrepreneurship.
18
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
10.0%
14.3%
16.0%
6.5%
1.2%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
73.3%
70.1%
71.6%
70.3%
73.1%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 100 of 257
Employment/Population Balance WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
NUMBER OF JOBS PER 10 RESIDENTS,
2014
CITY OF GEORGETOWN NUMBER OF JOBS PER 10 RESIDENTS
2010 – 2015
Georgetown holds 4.3 jobs for every 10 residents.
Notably, this balance between jobs and people is the same as the regional average.
This ratio has declined since 2010 – meaning that despite rapid job growth in recent years, the number
of residents in Georgetown has grown faster than jobs.
Without accelerated job growth locally, the balance between jobs and people in Georgetown will likely
continue to fall.
Within Texas, communities with a significant
imbalance between employment and
population often feature relatively high
property tax rates due to limited commercial
and industrial development. Residents in such
communities may endure long commutes.
19
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
4.3
4.6
4.2
4.3
Georgetown
Austin
Texas
US
4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6
4.4 4.3
Page 101 of 257
Commute Times WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME (MINUTES),
2014
% OF WORKERS THAT COMMUTE MORE THAN 60 MINUTES,
2014
The average worker living in Georgetown spends nearly 26 minutes each way commuting to and from
work.
This is the same average commute time as the US average and similar to the Texas and Austin regional
averages.
Notably, workers residing in Georgetown’s Labor Shed have a slightly shorter commute.
Commuting patterns play several important
roles in a region’s economy. Regions that can
draw from the available talents and skill sets
present outside of their communities can
significantly increase their available
workforce.
20
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAUSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU
25.9
24.2
26.2
25.6
25.9
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
8.1%
5.7%
7.1%
7.6%
8.5%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 102 of 257
Net Commuters by Age WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
NET INFLOW OF WORKERS INTO CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY AGE, 2014
NET INFLOW OF WORKERS INTO CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY EARNINGS, 2014
Georgetown tends to import younger, lower-wage workers and export older, higher wage workers. This
reflects
On a net basis, the number of workers age 29 and younger employed by Georgetown companies is less
than the number of working residents in the same age range. Conversely, the number of employed
Georgetown residents age 30 and older exceeds the number of jobs within the city filled by workers
age 30 and older. Similarly, there are far more Georgetown residents that earn at least $40,000
annually than actual jobs within Georgetown that pay at least $40,000 a year.
The flow of workers within a community often
reflects a disconnect between the skills of
residents and locally available employment
opportunities. For example, highly skilled
residents in bedroom communities are
typically employed in neighboring
jurisdictions.
21
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
247
1,017
-1,993
$15K a Year or Less Annually
$15K to $40K Annually
$40K+ Annually
296
-530
-495
Age 29 or younger
Age 30 to 54
Age 55 or older
Page 103 of 257
Net Worker Flow by Industry WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
NET INFLOW OF WORKERS INTO CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY INDUSTRY COMPOSITION, 2014
CHANGE IN NET INFLOW OF WORKERS INTO CITY OF GEORGETOWN
BY INDUSTRY COMPOSITION, 2009 - 2014
Georgetown exports workers across most industries. For example, there are approximately 1,200 more
Georgetown residents employed in Professional & Business Services positions than Professional & Business
Services jobs within the city. A similar, if less pronounced, dynamic exists in Construction, Manufacturing,
Trade & Transportation, Information, and Financial Activities.
Conversely, on a net basis Georgetown imports workers in Education & Health Services, Leisure &
Hospitality, and Government. Between 2009 and 2014, there were several shifts in worker movement.
Growth in Manufacturing, Trade & Transportation, and Professional & Business Services within
Georgetown has helped the city’s employment base become more balanced.
22
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
-260
-445
-211
-239
-179
-325
-1,196
892
125
1,078
31
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professonal & Business Svcs
Education & Health Svcs
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other
-72
-52
383
1,022
52
82
181
66
127
-47
130
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade & Transportation
Information
Financial Activities
Professonal & Business Svcs
Education & Health Svcs
Leisure & Hospitality
Government
Other
The flow of workers within a community often
reflects a disconnect between the skills of
residents and locally available employment
opportunities. For example, highly skilled
residents in bedroom communities are
typically employed in neighboring
jurisdictions.
Page 104 of 257
Resident Worker & Employment Balance WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
RATIO OF GEORGETOWN RESIDENTS EMPLOYED IN SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS
TO NUMBER OF JOBS AVAILABLE WITHIN THE CITY, 2017
Georgetown has more residents employed in every occupational category than jobs in the city.As
residents, the city has a surplus of workers across every major occupational group.
The city is home to more than twice as many workers employed in Protective Services (firefighters, police
officers, etc.) than actual jobs in Protective Services. The ratio of Science and Legal resident workers to
jobs is nearly 2 to 1. Georgetown is home to more than 50% more workers in Arts & Entertainment and
Healthcare Practitioners than jobs. There are also significant surpluses of Business & Finance, Education,
Computer & Math, and Office & Administration workers living within Georgetown.
23
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / EMSI
The flow of workers within a community often
reflects a disconnect between the skills of
residents and locally available employment
opportunities. For example, highly skilled
residents in bedroom communities are
typically employed in neighboring
jurisdictions.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Page 105 of 257
Wealth creation is an important goal of
economic development and a strong
measure of a community’s economic health.
When residents of a community have high
household incomes they are able to reinvest
locally – purchasing goods and services that
spur additional economic growth.
Median Household Income WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
$60.9K $61.6K $63.K $63.4K $62.2K $63.0K
CITY OF GEORGETOWN MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
2010 – 2015
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
2015
Georgetown is a relatively affluent community. At $63,000, median household income in Georgetown is
$10,000 higher than the US average. Median household income is also approximately $4,000 greater
than for the Austin metropolitan region as a whole.
Over the past five years, median household income in Georgetown grew 4%, an increase of $2,000.
24
$63.0K
$63.9K
$59.6K
$51.6K
$53.0K
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin MSA
Texas
USA
Page 106 of 257
Varying home prices within a region provide
housing choice to workers within a region.
Communities are often able to attract
workers from adjacent areas with lower
housing prices (and wages).
Home Values WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
MEDIAN HOME VALUE
2011 – 2015
Comparable housing values for Georgetown and its broader labor sheds are only available from the US
Census Bureau. Estimated values are based on a 5-year moving average and are available through
2015. While home prices in Central Texas have continued to increase in subsequent years, underlying
price dynamics within the region remain constant. At $210,000, median home values in Georgetown are
virtually identical to that of the broader region. Home prices in Georgetown’s Northern Labor Shed are
substantially lower. In 2015, median home values in Georgetown’s Northern Labor Shed were less than
$145,500. Additionally, home prices in the North Shed are also increasing at a slower pace than in
either Georgetown or the Austin metro.
25
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TexasNorthern Labor Shed
US
Southern Labor Shed
Austin MSAGEORGETOWN
Page 107 of 257
Poverty levels indicate whether residents
have incomes and access to jobs that allow
them to prosper and support their families.
High poverty levels often reflect limited job
opportunities in a community and put heavy
demands on social services.
Poverty Levels WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
9.5% 9.5% 9.1% 9.1% 10.2% 8.0%
13.8%14.3%14.9%15.4%15.6%15.5%
Georgtown US
SHARE OF POPULATION IN POVERTY
2010 – 2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACSSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
SHARE OF POPULATION IN POVERTY
2015
Poverty in Georgetown is significantly less than the regional, statewide, and US averages.
In 2015, only 8% of Georgetown’s population lived in poverty – a share that has steadily declined
during the past five years. The poverty rates for both Georgetown’s Labor Shed and the Austin
metropolitan region are approximately 14%. Nationally, more than 15% of the population lives in
poverty. The figure is even higher in Texas – more than 17% of residents statewide live in poverty.
26
8.0%
14.6%
14.2%
17.3%
15.5%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin MSA
Texas
USA
Page 108 of 257
01
Employment in Georgetown
has increased substantially
during the past 5 years.
Between 2011 and 2016, total
employment in Georgetown increased
at a faster pace than the regional,
statewide, and national averages.
Currently, Georgetown's unemployment
rate is just 3.9%, less than the
national average but slightly higher
than the regional average.
02
Locally serving industries
represent a disproportionately
large share of employment in
Georgetown.
Industries such as Construction and Trade
& Transportation that address local needs
represent a relatively large share of
employment within Georgetown while
other industries such as Information and
Professional & Business Services are less
present. One notable exception is
Manufacturing. The export-oriented
industry comprises a higher share of
employment in Georgetown relative to the
US average.
03
Georgetown’s fastest
growing industries reflect
the emergence of a more
balanced local economy.
Between 2011 and 2016, the fastest
growing industries in Georgetown
included Manufacturing, Professional &
Business Services, and Financial
Activities. These industries are not only
more export-oriented, but they are also
characterized by many high-skill, high
wage occupations.
Economic Dynamics
Key Takeaways
27Page 109 of 257
03
Demographic Dynamics
A community's demographic composition ultimately determines its
workforce composition. Is it growing? Is it highly educated? Is it
continuously adding to its talent reservoir by attracting and producing
skilled workers? The answers to these questions will help determine the
community’s ability to support a thriving and expanding economy. The
following section compares Georgetown’s demographic dynamics to
those of the broader labor shed, the entire Austin metropolitan region,
Texas, and the US.
28Page 110 of 257
Population growth is one of the base
indicators of overall economic prosperity in
a community. A growing population shows
that a community has assets and job
opportunities that retain younger residents
and attract new workers. A growing
population also reassures businesses that
they will have workers and new customers
available in the future.
Population Growth WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown has experienced unprecedented population growth over the past 15 years.
Since 2000, the city’s population has more than doubled. Today, Georgetown is home to approximately
64,000 residents. The city continues to post significant population gains. Between 2010 and 2015,
Georgetown’s population increased by 34% – twice the rate of Austin, one of the fastest growing
regions in the nation. Over this period, the Texas population increased less than 10% and the US
population increased by only 4%.
34%
17%
9%
4%
Georgetown
Austin
Texas
US
POPULATION GROWTH
2010 – 2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU POPULATION ESTIMATESSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU POPULATION ESTIMATES
28K 31K
35K
39K
43K
47K
53K
59K
64K
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
CITY OF GEORGETOWN POPULATION
2000 – 2015
29Page 111 of 257
The age distribution of a population can
help better understand where to prioritize
community investments.
Age distribution helps understand gaps in
workforce availability and identify
populations that may have distinct needs –
such as children and the elderly.
Age Distribution WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SHARE OF POPULATION BY AGE
2015
6%
8%
12%
14%
13%
14%
10%11%
13%13%
16%
13%
9%
11%11%
7%
9%
12%
75 +65 to 7455 to 6445 to 5435 to 4425 to 3418 to 2410 to 17< 10
US Georgetown
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
Georgetown’s population is older than the US average. Nearly 29% of Georgetown residents are age
65 and older – more than twice the US average. As a result, Georgetown has a smaller proportion of
residents relative to the US average across virtually all other age groups.
Notably, Young Professionals (residents between 25 and 44 years old) – a critical component of the
workforce – comprise 27% of the national population but only 22% of Georgetown residents.
Individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 comprise 10% of the US population but less than 7% of
Georgetown’s population – despite the presence of Southwestern University.
30Page 112 of 257
Benchmark Age WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
MEDIAN AGE
2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
% OF YOUNG PROFESSIONALS (RESIDENTS AGE 25-44)
2015
The relative age of Georgetown’s population stands in contrast to the relative youth of the Austin region.
The median age in the Austin region is less than 34 years – four years younger than the US median. In
Georgetown, the median age is 47 years. Young professionals represent fewer than 22% of
Georgetown’s population – well below the regional average. Approximately one-third of the population
in both Austin and Georgetown’s labor force are between the ages of 25 and 44.
31
Young Professionals (residents aged 25 to
44 years old) represent a critical segment of
a local workforce for companies seeking to
hire new workers with the latest skills and
knowledge. Recruiting and retaining
residents in this age cohort helps ensure a
region can supply a growing labor force for
companies.
22%
34%
33%
28%
27%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
47.0
33.7
33.6
34.1
37.6
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 113 of 257
The modern economy is increasingly
knowledge-intensive. New jobs often require
education beyond a high-school diploma –
ranging from a certificate to a master’s
degree. Due to this growing reliance on
skilled workers, many businesses expand in
and choose new locations based on the
presence of a well-educated population.
Educational Attainment WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SHARE OF 25 YEARS+ POPULATION
W/ A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER, 2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
SHARE OF 25 YEARS+ POPULATION
W/ AN ASSOCIATE DEGREE, 2015
Georgetown is a highly educated community – with 44% of residents age 25 and older possessing a
bachelor’s degree or higher level of educational attainment.
The share of Georgetown residents with a bachelor's degree or higher is nearly 50% greater than the
US average and exceeds that of the Austin region – one of the most educated metropolitan areas in the
country.
Nearly 8% of Georgetown residents possess an Associate’s degree – slightly lower than the US average
but higher than the regional and statewide averages.
32
7.7%
7.1%
6.5%
6.7%
8.1%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
44.0%
40.6%
41.7%
27.6%
29.8%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 114 of 257
In communities with a large retired
population, overall levels of educational
attainment may not reflect the attributes of
the local workforce.
Educational Attainment by Age WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
Nationally, younger generations are more likely to posses a bachelor’s degree or higher education. This
trend holds true for the Austin region, Texas, and Georgetown’s labor shed – with younger residents
holding more degrees.
In the City of Georgetown, the most well-educated residents are those age 45 and older. Georgetown
residents between the ages of 25 and 44 are less likely to be college graduates than their counterparts
in the broader labor shed or Austin region (though their education levels exceed the US and Texas).
33
SHARE OF POPULATION W/ A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER BY AGE GROUP, 2015
24%
29%
33%33%
24%
28%30%28%
37%
41%
45%43%
36%
40%
44%42%
49%
45%
39%
34%
65 years and over:45 to 64 years:35 to 44 years:25 to 34 years:
US Texas Austin Labor Shed Georgetown
Page 115 of 257
The modern economy is increasingly
knowledge-intensive. New jobs often require
education beyond a high-school diploma –
ranging from a certificate to a master’s
degree. Due to this growing reliance on
skilled workers, many businesses expand in
and choose new locations based on the
presence of a well-educated population.
Education Breakdown WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
FIELD OF BACHELOR'S DEGREE FOR FIRST MAJOR OF RESIDENTS WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE, 2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
4.5%
6.0%
3.4%
4.9%
8.2%
7.5%
0.7%
9.2%
19.7%
12.8%
4.6%
5.2%
4.1%
3.9%
5.4%
4.3%
4.8%
4.2%
5.5%
5.7%
7.6%
0.3%
9.0%
17.3%
18.0%
3.5%
6.3%
4.0%
4.0%
5.3%
Computers, Mathematics, and Statistics
Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences
Physical and Related Sciences
Psychology
Social Sciences
Engineering
Multidisciplinary Studies
Science and Engineering Related Fields
Business
Education
Literature and Languages
Liberal Arts and History
Visual and Performing Arts
Communications
Other
US Georgetown
Science &
Engineering
Business
Arts &
Humanities
The distribution of bachelor’s degrees among Georgetown residents is similar to the US average.
Nearly 33% of Georgetown residents with a bachelor’s degree studied a Science & Engineering field.
Nationally, the figure is 35%.
Georgetown residents are more likely to possess an Education degree than their US counterparts (18%
versus 13%) and slightly less likely to possess a Social Science or Business degree.
Education
34Page 116 of 257
Communities with high levels of talent
production and attraction are significantly
better positioned to capture high-skill, high
wage job growth compared to communities
with more limited talent production and
attraction.
Talent Production & Attraction WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
NET INFLUX OF INDIVIDUALS WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE
OR HIGHER LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
INTO CITY OF GEORGETOWN
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
POST-SECONDARY DEGREES AWARDED BY
CITY OF GEORGETOWN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Georgetown is both attracting and producing talent. Since 2012, on a net basis Georgetown has
annually attracted at least 500 individuals with a college degree.
Southwest University annually awards approximately 300 degrees to graduating students in
Georgetown. Georgetown Independent School District (ISD) is in the Austin Community College (ACC)
service area but not an ACC district. ACC provides programing throughout Georgetown ISD but does not
offer any specific degree programs in Georgetown.
35
299314
338
280
308
20152014201320122011
564
505
530551
2015201420132012
Page 117 of 257
The demographic characteristics of migrants
into a community helps determine the extent
to which new residents contribute the area’s
workforce. A community’s population may
grow much faster than its workforce, for
example, due to an influx of families with
small children.
Workforce Attraction WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
MIGRATION OF INDIVIDUALS FROM ANOTHER COUNTY, STATE, OR ABROAD BY AGE
2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS ACS
Older individuals represent a disproportionate share of migrants moving into Georgetown from other
communities.
In 2015, nearly 24% of all residents who moved into Georgetown from another county in Texas, outside
the state, or abroad were age 65 and older.
For context, less than 5% of migrants into the broader Austin region were age 65 and older.
13.8%
18.4%
17.5%
20.7%
18.3%
18.1%
22.1%
23.7%
21.4%
23.9%
26.5%
42.4%
40.9%
37.4%
35.9%
18.2%
12.7%
13.5%
15.4%
15.6%
23.4%
4.4%
4.3%
5.1%
6.4%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
1 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+
30Page 118 of 257
The modern economy is increasingly
knowledge-intensive. New jobs often require
education beyond a high-school diploma –
ranging from a certificate to a master’s
degree. Due to this growing reliance on
skilled workers, many businesses expand in
and choose new locations based on the
presence of a well-educated population.
School Performance WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
4-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES
AMONG ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT WITHIN AUSTIN METRO, 2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
Georgetown ISD has high graduation rates – and most students perform well on the statewide
standardized test (STAAR). Georgetown ISD has a 95% graduation rate – compared to 89% on
average in Texas. This sits right in the middle of Central Texas school districts.
Of Georgetown ISD students who take the STAAR test, 74% receive a satisfactory score across all
subject matters – statewide only 28% of students meet the satisfactory threshold. Georgetown students
again perform at the average level for Central Texas school districts.
37
95.0%
Georgetown ISD
% OF STUDENTS WITH SATSIFACTORY ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
SCORES ACROSS ALL SUBJECTS ON STAAR TEST
AMONG ALL SCHOOL DISTRICT WITHIN AUSTIN METRO, 2015
74.0%
Georgetown ISD
Texas Avg. 89.0%
Texas Avg.
28.0%
Page 119 of 257
Racially and ethnically diverse regions often
grow more quickly than their less diverse
counterparts.
Diversity WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown is less ethnically diverse than the rest of Central Texas and the overall state. Georgetown is
also becoming less diverse in recent years. Nearly 75% of Georgetown residents are White, Non-
Hispanic. In the Georgetown Labor Shed 53% of residents are White, Non-Hispanic.
Between 2010 and 2015, White, Non-Hispanic residents as a share of Georgetown’s population
increased from 72% to 74%. During this same period, White Non-Hispanic residents as a share of the
overall population declined in the Austin metropolitan region, Texas, and the US.
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC RESIDENTS AS % OF TOTAL
2010
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAUSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC RESIDENTS AS % OF TOTAL,
2015
38
74.0%
51.8%
53.6%
43.8%
62.3%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
72.1%
52.7%
54.7%
45.3%
63.7%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 120 of 257
15,110
6,232
4,2284,0783,576
1,475
3,5403,271
1,247
1,025
1,2322,0952,331
955
2,9262,781
65 years and older55 to 64 years45 to 54 years35 to 44 years25 to 34 years20 to 24 years10 to 19 yearsUnder 9 years
POPULATION BY AGE
2015
Population by Age and Race WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU
Georgetown’s younger residents are more ethnically diverse than older residents.
White Non-Hispanic individuals represent 55% of Georgetown residents under the age of 20. In
contrast, White Non-Hispanic individuals comprise more than 90% of Georgetown residents age 65 and
older.
Georgetown’s racial and ethnic composition suggest that the city is likely to become more diverse in the
years ahead despite recent trends in the opposite direction.
White, Non-Hispanic Non-White and/or Hispanic
The age distribution of a population by
racial and ethnic groups may reveal the
possibility of significant demographic
changes in the years ahead.
39Page 121 of 257
Labor Force Participation WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Georgetown has a relatively low rate of labor force participation. Fewer than half of Georgetown
residents age 16 and older are currently working or unemployed.
The remaining half of Georgetown’s population age 16 and older is not currently looking for work. This
is likely due to the large retired population in the city.
In the Austin region, the labor force participation rate exceeds 70%. The labor force participation rate
of Texas and the US is 65% and 64% respectively.
Communities with low rates of labor
participation feature a smaller available
workforce than overall population figures
mightsuggest.Atthesametime,such
communities do not need to create as many
jobs to maintain a balance between
population and employment.
40
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE,
2015
SOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAUSOURCE: AVALANCHE CONSULTING / US CENSUS BUREAU
EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO,
2015
46.3%
65.4%
65.8%
59.8%
58.0%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
49.5%
71.1%
70.2%
64.7%
63.7%
Georgetown
Labor Shed
Austin
Texas
US
Page 122 of 257
01
Most net migration into
Georgetown is among
working-age individuals.
Although Georgetown is widely
known as an attractive destination
for retirees from outside the region,
on a net basis the majority of
individuals moving into the city are
between the ages of 18 and 64.
02
Educational attainment levels
among Georgetown’s
population exceed the
statewide and US averages
across all age groups.
While older Georgetown residents have
the highest rates of college educational
attainment, all age groups contribute to
the city’s talent base. College
educational attainment levels among
Georgetown residents between the ages
of 25 and 64 exceed the Texas and US
averages.
03
Georgetown is likely to
become more racially and
ethnically diverse over the
next decade.
While White, Non-Hispanic individuals
represent more than 90% of Georgetown
residents age 65 and older, the figure is
just 55% among Georgetown residents
under the age of 20.
Demographic Dynamics
Takeaways
41Page 123 of 257
04
Workforce Profiles
The following section provides more granular information about
Georgetown’s prevailing industry and occupational composition. Profiles
are included for Georgetown’s Northern and Southern Labor Sheds. The
profiles highlight recent employment trends, including employment
growth, employment by industry and occupational cluster, and the
relative concentration of each industry and occupational cluster
compared to the US average. Industry clusters with high growth
projections and/or those heavily concentrated in Georgetown are likely
to drive future workforce needs.
42Page 124 of 257
18
NEGATIVE GROWTH POSITIVE GROWTH
HIGH CONCENTRATION
LOW CONCENTRATION
TOP RIGHT – STRONG & ADVANCING
Contains clusters that are more concentrated in the region and
are growing. These clusters are strengths that help a
community stand apart from the competition. Small, high
growth clusters can be expected to become increasingly
dominant over time.
BOTTOM RIGHT – WEAK BUT ADVANCING
Contains clusters that are under-represented in the region
but are growing (often quickly). If growth trends continue,
these clusters will eventually move into the top-right
quadrant. Clusters in this quadrant are considered
“emerging” strengths for the region.
TOP LEFT – STRONG & DECLINING
Contains clusters that are more concentrated in the region but
are declining (negative employment growth). These clusters
may fall into the lower quadrant as job losses eventually
produce a decline in concentration.
BOTTOM LEFT – WEAK & DECLINING
Contains clusters that are under-represented in the region
(low concentration) and are also losing jobs. Clusters in this
quadrant may indicate a gap in the workforce pipeline if
local industries anticipate a future need. In general, clusters in
this quadrant reveal a lack of competitiveness.
Location Quotients
Location Quotients, also called “LQs”, represent the relative concentration or density of a specific occupation cluster in the region compared to theUS
average for that occupation cluster. A 1.5 LQ indicates that the region has 50% more concentration on a per capita basis than the US, which is a sign of
relative local strength in that occupation cluster. Note that LQ is a relative measure: a high concentration in one cluster means that others will have lower LQs.
Each bubble chart illustrates:
The growth of each occupational cluster along the horizontal axis
The LQ of each occupational cluster along the vertical axis
The size of each bubble indicates the number of employees within the occupation
Page 125 of 257
City of Georgetown – Industry Cluster Past Performance
44
GEORGETOWN MAJOR INDUSTRY CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
Creative
Content
Mining & Logging
[24%, 10.6 LQ]
Healthcare
Automotive
Construction
Finance
Professional
Services
Software/IT
Back Office
Transportation
Metalworking
Entertainment
Retail
Education
Government
Materials
Industrial
Machinery
[-34%, 4.0 LQ]
Electronics
[86%, 3.4 LQ]
Research
[299%, 1.2 LQ]
*Clusters with employment of 150 of more are displayed
Virtually every industry cluster in Georgetown grew between 2011 and 2016. Only Industrial Machinery and Materials lost jobs during this period; all other.
The largest and most concentrated industry clusters in Georgetown relative to the US average are primarily locally serving. This includes clusters such as
Construction, Retail, Entertainment, and Healthcare. Georgetown is also home to several smaller but relatively concentrated sectors that serve non-local
markets. These clusters include Mining & Logging, Electronics, and Research.
Several high-skill, high wage industry clusters remain less concentrated in Georgetown compared to the US average, including Creative Content, Finance,
Software/IT, and Professional Services. Local employment in all four of these industry clusters increased by at least 30% over the past 5 years.
Page 126 of 257
Northern Labor Shed – Industry Cluster Past Performance
45
GEORGETOWN’S NORTHERN LABOR SHED MAJOR INDUSTRY CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
Creative Content
Research
[131%, 0.4 LQ]
Healthcare Construction
FinanceProfessional
Services
Software/IT
Back OfficeTransportation
Metalworking
Entertainment
Retail
Education
Government Materials
Industrial
Machinery
[-28%, 1.,4 LQ]
Electronics
[86%, 0.9 LQ]
Telecom
[-50%, 1.1 LQ]
*Clusters with employment of 2,500 of more are displayed
Like the City of Georgetown, the Northern Labor Shed is characterized by strong growth across most industry clusters. In many ways, the industrial
composition of the Northern Labor Shed mirrors that of Georgetown.
The economy is dominated by larger, relatively concentrated, locally serving industries such as Construction, Health Care, and Retail. Like Georgetown, both
the Electronics and Research sectors are expanding employment rapidly.
Notably, higher-skill, higher-wage industry clusters such as Creative Content and Software/IT are experiencing more modest growth in the Northern Labor
Shed compared to Georgetown. In fact, Professional Services employment actually declined in the Northern Labor Shed between 2011 and 2016.
Page 127 of 257
Southern Labor Shed – Industry Cluster Past Performance
46
GEORGETOWN’S SOUTHERN LABOR SHED MAJOR INDUSTRY CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
Creative Content
Research
Healthcare
ConstructionFinance
Professional
Services
Back
Office
Transportation Energy
Entertainment
Retail
Education
Government
Electronics
[14%, 2.4 LQ]
Non-Profits
Telecom
Biomedical
*Clusters with employment of 750 of more are displayed
Agribusiness
Industrial
Machinery
Software/IT
[84%, 2.5 LQ]
MaterialsMetalworking
Georgetown’s Southern Labor Shed is more than five times larger than its Northern Labor Shed in terms of jobs. The Southern Labor Shed includes a
significant portion of the Austin metropolitan region and its industry composition is very different from Georgetown.
Between 2011 and 2016, all clusters except Government grew. Software/IT is both the fastest growing and most relatively concentrated industry cluster
within the Southern Labor Shed. Other relatively concentrated industry clusters include Electronics, Industrial Machinery, Professional Services, Creative
Content, Entertainment, and Finance.
While Retail and Healthcare are two of the largest industry clusters within the Southern Labor Shed, they are slightly less concentrated compared to the US
average. The Southern Labor Shed is also home to several small but high-growth clusters such as Materials, Energy, and Agribusiness.
Page 128 of 257
City of Georgetown – Industry Cluster Projected Growth
47
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER,
2016-2021
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
Employment in Georgetown is projected to grow by more than 15% through 2021 – an increase of approximately 4,350 jobs.
Five industry clusters alone are projected to account for 75% of all new jobs – Healthcare, Retail, Electronics, Entertainment, and Construction. Healthcare
alone is projected to fuel more than 20% of all job growth within Georgetown through 2021. All five of these clusters are expected to post double-digit
employment gains during the next five years.
Other leading sources of job growth include Finance, Research, Back Office, and Professional Services. Collectively, these three industry clusters are projected
to fuel one out of every five jobs created in Georgetown during the next five years. On a net new job basis, the growth in all other private sector industry
clusters is expected to be relatively modest.
Page 129 of 257
Northern Labor Shed – Industry Cluster Projected Growth
48
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN NORTHERN LABOR SHED PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER,
2016-2021
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
Projected job growth in Georgetown’s Northern Labor Shed will largely mirror that of Georgetown. Healthcare, Retail, Construction, Entertainment,and
Finance are projected to propel more than 70% of all employment gains within the Northern Labor Shed through 2021.
Together, Electronics, Education, and Back Office job growth is anticipated to fuel less than 15% of job growth within the Northern Labor Shed. Employment
in Government is expected to account for more than 11% of all job growth. The collective employment gains of all other industry clusters is expected to be
relatively limited.
Page 130 of 257
Southern Labor Shed – Industry Cluster Projected Growth
49
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN SOUTHERN LABOR SHED PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER,
2016-2021
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
In many ways, projected growth for the Southern Labor Shed is similar to that of Georgetown. There are, however, several notable exceptions, and
employment growth within the Southern Labor Shed is expected to be fueled by a greater variety of industry clusters.
Similar to both Georgetown and the Northern Labor Shed, the Entertainment, Healthcare, and Retail clusters are projected to lead job growth. Together,
these three industry clusters are expected to account for 45% of all new jobs within the Southern Labor Shed through 2021.
Notably, the Software/IT cluster is projected to create more than 11% of all new jobs in the Southern Labor Shed during this period. No other industry cluster
is expected to enjoy a greater rate of growth. Construction, Back Office, and Finance are projected to drive more than 20% of Southern Labor Shed
employment growth during this period. Research and Professional Services are expected to make significant contributions to job growth as well
Page 131 of 257
City of Georgetown – Occupation Cluster Past Performance
50
GEORGETOWN MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
Engineering
Construction
Mechanics
Legal
Medical
Finance
Computer
Education
Sales &
Marketing
Design
ProductionLogistics
Social
Services
Personal
Services
Hospitality
*Clusters with employment of 100 of more are displayed
BusinessBack
Office
Communications
Every major occupational cluster experienced employment growth in Georgetown between 2011 and 2016. All but four clusters posted double-digit gains
during this period.
The two fastest growing clusters were Medical and Legal occupations. Both occupational clusters grew by more than 50% over the past five years.
Employment in the Construction, Computer, Engineering, Hospitality, and Finance clusters all increased by at least 25%.
Notably, Computer occupations are Georgetown’s most concentrated occupational cluster. On a per capita basis, Georgetown is home to 80% more
Computer positions relative to the US average. Employment in Georgetown’s Construction cluster is 50% more concentrated relative to the US average.Other
concentrated occupational clusters include Personal Services and Communications.
Page 132 of 257
Northern Labor Shed – Occupation Cluster Past Performance
51
GEORGETOWN’S NORTHERN LABOR SHED MAJOR INDUSTRY CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING*Clusters with employment of 200 of more are displayed
Engineering
Construction
[53%, 1.3 LQ]
Computer
Medical
Communications
Sales &
Marketing
Production
Plant Operations
Legal
Education
Personal
Services
Business
Social
Services
Finance
Logistics
Hospitality
Mechanics
Design
Back Office
While the industry composition of Georgetown’s Northern Labor Shed is similar to that of Georgetown itself, the two geographies differ more significantly in
their respective occupational compositions. Employment in the Northern Labor Shed increased across virtually all major industry clusters, though the rate of
growth was typically more modest. Between 2011 and 2016, the two fastest growing occupational clusters within the Northern Labor Shed included
Construction and Finance. Employment in Construction and Finance increased by 53% and 22%, respectively. Other fast growing occupational clusters
included Medical, Hospitality, and Logistics.
The Northern Labor Shed features four occupational clusters that are more concentrated locally relative to the national average – Medical, Hospitality,
Personal Services, Mechanics, and Education. Over the past five years, Social Services was the only occupational cluster to experience a decline in
employment within the Northern Labor Shed.
Page 133 of 257
52
GEORGETOWN’S SOUTHERN LABOR SHED MAJOR INDUSTRY CLUSTERS*, 2016
0
1
2
3
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Strong,
Declining
Strong, Growing
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
Q
U
O
T
I
E
N
T
,
2
0
1
6
LOCAL GROWTH, 2011 - 2016
Weak,
Declining Weak, Growing
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING*Clusters with employment of 1,500 of more are displayed
Southern Labor Shed – Occupation Cluster Past Performance
Education Engineering
Social Service
Production Logistics
Legal
Sales &
Marketing
Back
Office
Medical
Mechanics
Communications
Business
Hospitality
Computer
Construction
Personal
Services
Finance
Design
Performance
Georgetown’s Southern Labor Shed is growing faster than its Northern Labor Shed, though not as fast as Georgetown itself. The Southern Labor Shed also
features several significant employment differences from both Georgetown and the Southern Labor Shed. Most notably, Computer occupations are the
fastest growing and most concentrated cluster within the Southern Labor Shed. Employment in this cluster increased by more than 35% between 2011 and
2016. On a per capita basis, the Southern Labor Shed is also home to more than twice as many Computer positions compared to the US average.
Other high growth clusters in the Southern Labor Shed include Construction, Design, and Performance. Employment in all three clusters increased by more than
30% during the past five years. Four other clusters posted employment gains of at least 20% during this period – Communications, Finance, Business, and
Medical. The Communications cluster is also the second most concentrated cluster within the Southern Labor Shed. Other relatively concentrated clusters
include Back Office, Sales & Marketing, Legal, and Engineering.
Page 134 of 257
City of Georgetown – Occupation Cluster Projected Growth
53
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER*,
2016-2021
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
0
200
400
600
800
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
*Clusters with projected employment growth of 20 of more are displayed
As noted earlier in this report, total employment in Georgetown is projected to increase by 4,350 between 2016 and 2021. Nearly one in every three of
these jobs are projected to be either Medical or Hospitality occupations. The Back Office and Personal Services clusters are expected to be responsible for
another 25% of all expected job growth within Georgetown during this period. Four other clusters are expected to post job gains of at least 200 positions
through 2021 – Computer, Construction, Education, and Logistics.
Collectively, the Production and Mechanics clusters are projected to create more than 300 jobs. Several higher skill, higher wage clusters are expected to
experience more modest growth on an absolute basis within Georgetown during the next five years. These clusters include Finance, Business, Engineering,
Legal, and Architecture. Though job creation in these clusters is expected to be limited on a net new job basis, all are projected to post double-digit
employment gains during the next five years.
Page 135 of 257
Northern Labor Shed - Occupation Cluster Projected Growth
54
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN NORTHERN LABOR SHED PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER*,
2016-2021
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
*Clusters with projected employment growth of 30 of more are displayed
Occupational growth trends for Georgetown’s Northern Labor Shed closely mirror those of Georgetown. The four occupational clusters expected to
experience high levels of growth are identical for both geographies – Medical, Hospitality, Back Office, and Personal Services. Collectively, these four
occupational clusters are projected to generate nearly 55% of all new jobs within the Northern Labor Shed between 2016 and 2021.
Three other clusters are expected to create more than 1,000 jobs each during the next five years – Construction, Logistics, and Education. Together, these
three clusters are projected to account for nearly 25% of all new jobs in the Northern Labor Shed during the next five years. The Financial, Computer,
Mechanics, and Business clusters are each expected to create between 500 and 600 jobs during this period. On a net basis, job growth in all other
occupational clusters within the Northern Labor Shed are projected to be relatively modest.
Page 136 of 257
Southern Labor Shed – Occupation Cluster Projected Growth
55
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
GEORGETOWN SOUTHERN LABOR SHED PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRY CLUSTER*,
2016-2021
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Numeric Increase Percentage Increase
*Clusters with projected employment growth of 100 of more are displayed
The occupational clusters projected to experience the greatest growth in the Southern Labor Shed differ slightly from those of Georgetown and its Northern
Labor Shed. While Medical occupations are expected to post the greatest increases on a net basis in both Georgetown and the Northern Labor Shed,
employment gains in the Southern Labor Shed are projected to be led by the Hospitality and Back Office clusters. Together, these two clusters are expected
to account for approximately one in every three new jobs created in the Southern Labor Shed between 2016 and 2021.
Employment growth in the Medical, Personal Services, and Computer clusters is also expected to be substantial. Collectively, these three clusters will account
for an anticipated 30% of all new jobs during this period. Other leading sources of employment growth are expected to include Logistics, Business, Finance,
Construction, and Education.
Page 137 of 257
Occupational Wage Comparison
56
SOURCE: EMSI / AVALANCHE CONSULTING
WAGES BY OCCUPATIONAL CLUSTER*
2016
*Clusters with employment of 100 in Georgetown of more are displayed
Sales & Marketing
Business
Computer
Legal
Engineering
Financial
Education
Social Service
Medical
Mechanics
Back Office
Personal Services
Construction
Production
Logistics
Hospitality
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
Georgetown
Northern Labor Shed
Southern Labor Shed
Wages for most occupations are higher in the Southern Labor shed than in Georgetown. In turn, wages in Georgetown are typically higher than in the
Northern Labor Shed. Still, there are several notable exceptions to these trends. Average hourly wages for the Sales & Marketing, Computer, Engineering,
and Production clusters in Georgetown exceed those of both labor sheds. In several instances, the wage premium in Georgetown is significant.
Sales & Marketing workers in Georgetown, for example, earn nearly 15% more on average than workers in the Southern Labor Shed and 25% more than
workers in the Northern Labor Shed. Conversely, average hourly wages for the Education, Social Service, Medical, Construction, and Logistics clusters in
Georgetown trail both labor sheds. Again, the differences can be significant. The average hourly wage for a Medical worker in Georgetown, for example,is
25% less than for such workers in the Southern Labor Shed.
Page 138 of 257
01
Virtually all employment
and occupational clusters in
Georgetown and its labor
sheds are projected to post
employment gains through
2021.
Total employment within Georgetown is
projected to increase approximately
16% between 2016 and 2021, a net
gain of approximately 4,350 jobs.
Expected job gains will include
virtually every industry and
occupational cluster.
02
Employment growth within
Georgetown is expected to be
dominated by a handful of
industrial and occupational
clusters.
While most of Georgetown's industry and
occupational clusters are projected to
enjoy growth during the next five years,
the gains will be disproportionately
driven by healthcare and consumer
spending. Healthcare alone is expected to
account for 20% of all jobs in
Georgetown through 2021.
03
While wages in
Georgetown’s Southern
Labor Shed are generally
higher than in Georgetown
itself, there are several
notable exceptions.
Average hourly wages in Georgetown
are approximately 10% less than in
the Southern Labor Shed. For clusters
such as Sales & Marketing, Computer,
Engineering, and Production, however,
average wages in Georgetown are
higher than in either the Southern or
Northern Labor Shed.
Workforce Profiles
Key Takeaways
57Page 139 of 257
05
SWOT Analysis
The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis
on the following pages summarizes Georgetown’s competitive position in
four categories – Economic Trends, Education & Workforce,,
Infrastructure, and Quality of Life. The conclusions in this section are
drawn from data findings in this report and stories shared by
Georgetown stakeholders through interviews and focus groups. They also
draw from the consulting team’s national perspective and expertise.
58Page 140 of 257
Economic Trends
59
OPPORTUNITIES
Historically, Georgetown has not been viewed by outsiders as a place to
do business. As Austin and the inner ring of communities in the metropolitan
area become highly developed, more and more business and residents are
looking for opportunities further out from the core. Combined with new
leadership and a commitment to support economic development,
Georgetown is poised to create many new primary jobs.
STRENGTHS
Georgetown’s employment base continued to experience significant growth.
Between 2011 and 2016, the rate of job growth in Georgetown has been
more than 50% higher than the Texas average and more than twice the US
average.
In recent years, the City of Georgetown has become more supportive of
business and residential growth.
Several residents noted that local political leaders are very accessible.
Georgetown is a “get things done” type of community. Alongside a
surprisingly large manufacturing cluster for such an attractive community,
Georgetown also has an emerging “Maker” culture.
THREATS
Despite growth, Georgetown still has a relatively low share of non-service,
primary jobs, and many higher-paid residents actually work outside of the
city. In order to sustain growth and maintain a diverse tax base into the
future, the city must continue to focus on industry diversification and
primary job creation.
The comparative difference between the national unemployment rate and
Georgetown’s unemployment rate has recently narrowed. 2017
represented the first time in a decade that the city’s unemployment rate
was within a half of a percentage point of the US average – possibly
indicating a slowing of growth.
WEAKNESSES
In the past, Georgetown was often viewed as a difficult place to do
business. Although conditions have changed, these impressions take time to
change.
Employment in Georgetown is disproportionately reliant on locally serving
industries such as construction, retail, and related service sectors.
Average wages for some industries in Georgetown are less than the
national average as well as the city’s broader labor shed. This dynamic
may make it more difficult for local employers to recruit workers from
outside the city.
Under current employment projections, employment gains will be
disproportionately concentrated in a handful of clusters.
Page 141 of 257
Education & Workforce
60
OPPORTUNITIES
A new bus system in Georgetown may make it easier to hire lower wage
workers residing outside the city. Several employers in the service industries
cited the lack of transit options as an obstacle to hiring workers.
Southwestern University is currently working with donors to fund more
internships and develop more relationships with employers in the city.
Georgetown ISD has faced many challenges in shifting from a primarily
rural district to one of the fastest growing in the state. They have made
significant gains in STEM education, CTE programming, and overall
outcomes. Through partnerships with local employers and organizations,
their story can be better told to internal and external audiences.
Georgetown typically imports younger, lower-skill workers and exports
older, professional workers. As a result, new and existing professional
companies located in Georgetown have access to a surplus of talent.
STRENGTHS
Georgetown is a very educated community – 44% of Georgetown
residents age 25 and older possess a bachelor’s degree or higher level of
educational attainment.
Through the Labor Shed, Georgetown employers are able to draw workers
from a pool of 700,000 workers.
Employers generally reported that finding workers with trade skills was
fairly easy. Employers have also been very successful recruiting workers
from outside the region to live in Georgetown.
Georgetown is home to a large veteran population. The city’s proximity to
Fort Hood likely contributes to an additional influx of veterans.
Employers cited relatively low turnover among professional staff.
THREATS
Many employers – particularly in retail, restaurants, and other service
sectors – will face continued and growing hiring challenges if affordability
and transportation issues are not addressed. Challenges hiring service
workers will put upward pressure on wages and make operating in
Georgetown more difficult.
If Georgetown’s population growth continues to be heavily concentrated
among retirees, the city will continue to have relatively low workforce
participation and smaller overall labor force gains.
While high school graduation rates and test scores in Georgetown ISD
exceed the Texas averages, they trail those of many other school districts
within the Austin region.
WEAKNESSES
Employers report significant challenges hiring and retaining lower-income
workers – many of whom cannot afford to live in Georgetown. Most of
these local jobs are filled by non-residents.
There is a common perception that Georgetown ISD is performing less well
than neighboring districts.
Georgetown does not have a higher education presence other than
Southwestern University. Although there is no ACC district in Georgetown,
the city is in the ACC service area, which can create challenges to working
with other technical training providers.
On a proportional basis, Georgetown is home to a much smaller young
professional population relative to the rest of the region. Man of the better
educated residents are actually retired.
Page 142 of 257
Infrastructure
61
OPPORTUNITIES
Despite significant population growth, Georgetown has plenty of land
available for further residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Georgetown’s municipal airport is already home to a flight training facility
and has additional land ripe for development.
Southwestern University possesses an abundance of land that may be
suitable for additional development.
New investments at Longhorn Junction are preparing that area of town for
rapid office, commercial, and other growth in coming years.
STRENGTHS
Georgetown is making investments in infrastructure. There is currently
$200 million in planned infrastructure citywide.
Georgetown’s proximity to interstate 35 and SH 130 provide the city with
strong connections to the rest of Central Texas and the nation
Georgetown’s commitment to renewable energy is attractive to many
businesses and provides a sustainable source of power into the future.
Georgetown Municipal Airport is an important economic development asset
for the city – supporting flights for executives, corporations, and general
aviation activity.
THREATS
Rapid population growth has increased traffic congestion throughout
Georgetown. If traffic concerns are not addressed within the community, it
will affect the city’s small town appeal.
If zoning for commercial and industrial land is not preserved in
undeveloped areas, rapid residential growth could potentially erode some
of these properties and prevent future primary job expansion in the city.
Lack of public transportation options inside Georgetown and connecting to
the broader region will continue to create challenges for hiring lower-
income workers – many of whom lack a personal vehicle. It also creates
internal challenges for students, lower-income residents, and some elderly
residents who face mobility challenges.
WEAKNESSES
The City has been chasing growth with infrastructure improvements. As a
result, many residents note increased traffic due to new population. Many
areas desirable for commercial and industrial growth currently lack water
and wastewater infrastructure.
Residents and business owners repeatedly complained about congestion
and overall urban design of Williams Drive.
Several residents and business owners noted that internet service is not
reliable everywhere in the city.
Some areas of the city are not pedestrian friendly.
Page 143 of 257
Quality of Place
62
OPPORTUNITIES
Georgetown has made significant investments in its park system and other
recreational amenities. While Georgetown’s rich recreational offerings are
widely loved by residents, its not clear that outsiders are aware of such
amenities.
Although Georgetown’s downtown is already home to several restaurants
and retail outlets, there remain opportunities for additional establishments.
Many residents would like to see more businesses with consistent and later
hours.
STRENGTHS
Employers widely reported the ease of recruiting outside talent to
Georgetown due in part to the city’s reputation and attractive quality of
life.
Existing residents have highly positive views of the community. As one
resident observed, Georgetown has the perfect mix of history, industry,
and livability.
Georgetown has a large, vibrant arts community and unique downtown.
Georgetown is a highly multi-generational and engaged community – with
an active volunteer population of all ages.
The trail and park systems in the city are excellent and celebrated by
residents. Overall Georgetown is a naturally beautiful and physically
attractive city.
THREATS
Some employers experience difficulty recruiting younger workers to the
areas, as other communities in Central Texas feature more amenities aimed
at young professionals.
Home prices continue to rise, forcing many workers to live in neighboring
communities that offer more affordable housing.
Residents remain divided on the area’s growth, with newcomers and young
people generally more receptive to further expansion. Growth is occurring
and inevitable at this point – residents and leaders must work to shape this
growth.
Rapid population growth may make it more difficult for Georgetown to
retain its small town charm.
WEAKNESSES
Housing affordability was brought up as a top concern by residents
throughout stakeholder input. Many also expressed a need for more
diverse housing types to attract and retain younger residents – including
more walkable, dense urban living options.
Residents repeatedly expressed a desire for more retail and restaurants.
During focus groups with the community, many residents discussed the need
for additional healthcare facilities to serve local population needs.
Page 144 of 257
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
TARGET INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
AUGUST 18, 2017
avalanche
Page 145 of 257
About the City of Georgetown
Economic Development Target Industry
& Workforce Analysis
In April 2017,the City of Georgetown initiated the development of an Economic Development Target Industry &Workforce Analysis
aimed at diversifying the local economy,increasing business investment throughout the city,and fully leveraging hometown talent.
Through a competitive bidding process,the City of Georgetown retained Avalanche Consulting,a national economic development
consultancy based in Austin,TX,to facilitate the preparation of the Economic Development Target Industry &Workforce Analysis.
Georgetown residents and businesses were invited to share their perspectives and vision for the community through an online survey
and a series of individual interviews and focus groups.
Once complete,the Economic Development Target Industry &Workforce Analysis will have two primary phases:
Phase 1:Workforce Analysis
The Economic Development Target Industry &Workforce Analysis begins with an exploration of Georgetown's competitive position.
The study team examined a range of local assets and quantitative metrics to better understand the city’s evolving economy and
population.In addition to data analysis,the study team conducted multiple focus groups and interviews.All input is then distilled into
a concise SWOT summary outlining the community’s strengths,weaknesses,opportunities,and threats.
Phase 2:Target Industry Analysis
This second phase of the Economic Development Target Industry &Workforce Analysis includes the target industries and niche sector
recommendations of the consulting team’s.By targeting specific industry clusters,the City of Georgetown can more strategically invest
in those factors such as infrastructure or workforce training programs necessary to spur job creation within the community.Target
industry identification blends industry location quotient analysis with a review of data trends,SWOT evaluation,and city priorities.
Page 146 of 257
2
Why Target?
Identifying target industries is an important part of effective economic development.No community can be all things to all
businesses.Instead the most successful communities identify their key competitive strengths and focus their economic development
activities on those industry industries that best match those strengths.
Targeting specific industries is not only about attracting new businesses to a community.It is about understanding and addressing the
needs of existing businesses;it is about fostering an environment that encourages new businesses to form locally;and it is about
aligning activities in pursuit of a shared vision for the entire community.
Focusing on target industries also does not mean that other businesses are ignored.Economic development activities are aimed at
improving the overall economy in Georgetown for all businesses.Investments and programs designed for target industries should
benefit all sectors of the local economy.
The following Target Industry Analysis provides a list of recommended target industries for the City of Georgetown and an
explanation of how each of these industries and their niche sectors were identified.
This analysis also includes profiles of each target industry.These profiles include a general description of each industry,their economic
trends,and related locational requirements –such as workforce,infrastructure,and regulatory needs.Each industry profile also
includes descriptions of specialized niched sectors that present strong opportunities for growth in Georgetown.The profiles conclude
with a sample of sales messages that describe a business case for growing each industry in Georgetown.
This report is a resource for leadership,economic development partners,and citizens.It should help everyone better understand the
business opportunities that exist in Georgetown and provide a platform on which to develop strategies to grow these industries.
Page 147 of 257
Table of Contents
The Target Industry Profiles provide greater
detail about each industry,their location
needs,and the opportunity they present for
Georgetown.
TARGET INDUSTRY PROFILES
PAGE
26
The Target Industry Analysis begins with a
discussion on how industries were evaluated.
The section then includes a series of
recommendations on specific target
industries and niche sectors for the City of
Georgetown.
TARGET INDUSTRY
RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE
4
Page 148 of 257
01
Target Industry
Recommendations
This section of the report describes the criteria used to evaluate
potential industries and recommends specific target industries and niche
sectors for the City of Georgetown.
4Page 149 of 257
5
Target Industry Identification
Selecting targets is an iterative process –using quantitative and qualitative information to identify targets that offer the greatest
opportunities for a community based on local assets,needs,and desires.
The consulting team asked four primary questions to filter potential industries:
1.Is the industry growing and projected to grow within Georgetown,the Austin Metro,Texas,and the US?
Communities should focus their economic development efforts on industries that offer the highest return on investment.Investing in
industries that are declining or likely to decline in the future is typically a poor use of resources.
2.Does the industry already have a presence in Georgetown?
Industries with an existing presence in Georgetown may reflect local competitive advantages.Concentrated industries may also offer
strong opportunities for expansion,recruitment,and startup growth with continued support.
3.Does the industry match Georgetown’s assets?
The Workforce Analysis and this Target Industry Analysis report identify numerous competitive assets and opportunities in Georgetown.
Potential target industries were evaluated based on their compatibility with these assets.
4.Does the industry align with Georgetown’s goals and vision?
Industries were evaluated based on their ability to support the goals and values identified in conversations,focus groups,and interviews
with Georgetown leadership,stakeholders,and City staff.
Page 150 of 257
6
Competitive Strengths & Opportunities
Georgetown has numerous strengths and opportunities that make it a competitive location to grow and attract businesses.Some of the
primary assets and strengths considered when selecting target industries include:
•Historically,Georgetown was often viewed as a bedroom and retirement community,but in recent years,the city has seen rapid
job growth in conjunction with population growth.As central Austin and the inner ring of metropolitan area communities become
highly developed,Georgetown is increasingly viewed as an attractive and affordable location for a range of industries.
•Retired residents of Georgetown are highly active in the community and regularly volunteer their time and skills.This large
population is highly educated and many have retired from successful business careers.They can offer tremendous benefit to local
companies and entrepreneurs as part-time employees,advisors,and mentors.
•Local elected leaders and City staff are proactively supportive of growing new businesses in the city.
•Georgetown has a relatively large manufacturing sector for a community of its size.Alongside this employment base,the city
also has a surprisingly strong Maker culture that encourages experimentation and development in skilled manufacturing.
•Georgetown is home to a wealth of talent.Residents are highly educated –with 44%holding a bachelor’s degree or higher –
but a majority (75%)of working residents commute out of the city to their jobs each day.Many of these residents would prefer
not to commute and present a large pool of potential workers for businesses located in the city.
•In addition to out-commuting residents,employers in Georgetown are able to draw from a labor force of 700,000 workers
spread across the city’s North and South labor sheds.Each labor shed has unique characteristics –including high concentrations of
Medical and Construction occupations in the North and a high concentration of Computer occupations in the South.
•Georgetown is home to a large veteran population,and the North labor shed encompasses Fort Hood.
•Georgetown offers a high quality of life,and employers report high success recruiting workers from outside the region to live in
the city.Employers generally reported that finding skilled trade workers was relatively easy,but some worry that rising cost of
living and traffic congestion are making it harder to find low-skill workers.
•Education is a major strength in Georgetown.Southwestern University is located in the city,and an Austin Community College
campus is located in Round Rock .The East Williamson County Higher Education Center has campuses in Hutto and Taylor.The
Georgetown Independent School District has also made significant gains in STEM education and Career &Technical Education
(CTE)programs in recent years.
•Georgetown’s commitment to renewable energy resources is attractive to many businesses –especially in clean energy.Page 151 of 257
7
Georgetown Target Industry Recommendations
Based on the analysis conducted through this selection process,Avalanche recommends three target industries and nine niche sectors
for the City of Georgetown.Research &Development is an additional target that underlies all three industries.
The profiles in the following section provide additional detail about each target and why they make sense for Georgetown.
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
Advanced
Manufacturing
Life Sciences
Professional
Services
Aerospace & Aviation
Clean Energy Technology
Electronics & Component Manufacturing
Creative Design
Engineering Services
Software & Information Technology
Healthcare Services
Medical Technology
Pharmaceuticals
TARGET INDUSTRY NICHE SECTORS
Page 152 of 257
8
Target Industry Alignment
Economic development activities are supported by more than the City of Georgetown.It is important to consider how each target
industry fits into regional and statewide programs.
Georgetown is part of Opportunity Austin,an economic development initiative representing the multi-county and multi-city Austin
metropolitan region.Georgetown is also supported by Team Texas and the Texas Governor’s Office of Economic Development and
Tourism .These groups have identified statewide target industries and created programs to support their growth.
Not every statewide or regional target aligns with those of Georgetown,but each local target should fit into the broader
framework.By aligning targets,the City of Georgetown will be able to leverage marketing,education,financial,and other
supportive resources provided by the state and region.
Local economic development efforts must also highlight the opportunities that make Georgetown unique within the Austin region and
within Texas .When a target industry business is considering expanding or relocating in Texas or Austin,Georgetown should be top
of mind as a potential location.
GEORGETOWN TARGET OPPORTUNITY AUSTIN TARGET TEXAS TARGET
Advanced Manufacturing
Advanced Manufacturing Advanced Technology & Manufacturing
Clean Energy & Power Technology Energy
Space Technology Aerospace, Aviation,& Defense
Life Sciences Life Sciences Biotechnology & Life Sciences
Professional Services Creative & Digital Media Technology Information & Computer Technology
Page 153 of 257
02
Target Industry Profiles
The profiles on the following pages provide greater detail about each of
Georgetown’s target industries and their niche sectors.Each profiles includes
an overview of the industry –describing its activities,business location
factors,and recent employment trends.The profiles then highlight global
forces that may impact each industry’s future.The consulting team also shares
local sales messages that demonstrate Georgetown’s appeal to each target
industry.Each profile concludes with a discussion of the availability of
workforce supporting each industry in Georgetown’s North and South Labor
Sheds.
These profiles are meant to serve as a reference to the City of Georgetown,
its partner organizations,city residents,and local businesses.The profiles
should arm the community with information to help make more informed
decisions about strategic programs and investments.
9Page 154 of 257
10
Advanced Manufacturing
Source: Moman Architecture
Advanced
Manufacturing
Aerospace & Aviation
Clean Energy Technology
Electronics & Component Manufacturing
Page 155 of 257
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Advanced Manufacturing involves the transformation of raw
materials into component pieces and finished products using complex
machinery and sophisticated production processes.Despite the
national media’s focus on the decline of US manufacturing,its
employment has increased every year since 2010 and currently
employs more than 3.6 million Americans.
Modern Advanced Manufacturing is distinguished by its reliance on
advanced technology and a skilled labor force.Many Advanced
Manufacturing occupations require specialized training to operate
complex machinery.As a result,Advanced Manufacturing operations
often seek locations with a strong technical college or other training
systems.High demand for these skilled workers often supports
relatively high wages in this industry.
Advanced Manufacturing operations typically require plentiful,
affordable energy supplies.Advanced Manufacturing subsectors
may also require sizable natural gas,water,and wastewater
capacity.Proximity to an interstate is preferable to help facilitate
delivery of both raw materials and finished products.Available rail
access may also be a consideration.
Advanced Manufacturing jobs are already highly concentrated in
Georgetown –with 2,000 jobs and an LQ of 2.76 –more than
double the concentration in Austin.Advanced Manufacturing jobs
are also growing more rapidly in Georgetown and forecast to
continue rapid growth into the near future.11
Advanced Manufacturing
3,598,100
285,900
32,200
2,000
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
EMPLOYMENT, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
1.00
0.95
1.34
2.76
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
LOCATION QUOTIENT, 2016
7%
10%
87%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
0%
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2011 –2016
Page 156 of 257
GLOBAL FORCES
Manufacturing employment in the US declined for three decades as
companies moved operations abroad to secure cheaper labor.In
recent years,however,US Manufacturing has enjoyed a
resurgence as domestic production becomes more globally
competitive.Increased automation and the continued adoption of
robotics have helped make US manufacturers more productive.
Rising foreign labor costs have increased the cost competitiveness
of US workers,and declining commodity prices,including domestic
energy prices,have lowered the cost of US production and
transportation.
While automation makes US manufacturers more competitive,it is
also changing the nature of manufacturing work –eliminating the
need for some positions,creating others,and requiring overall
greater training of workers.
While increased productivity has helped the US maintain its position
as the world’s second-largest producer of manufactured goods,a
rise in the sense of nationalism in the US and other countries has
raised the specter of a trade war that would threaten domestic
manufacturing.Additionally,possible renegotiations of trade
agreements such as NAFTA would could have significant impacts on
US manufacturing.
12
Advanced Manufacturing
$84,600
$96,100
$121,300
$108,100
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
AVERAGE SALARY, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
1%
0%
6%
30%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING FORECAST
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2016 –2021
Page 157 of 257
NICHE SECTORS
Aerospace &Aviation
Aerospace and Aviation includes companies involved in the design,manufacture,and operation of various forms of aircraft and their
components.Whereas Aviation-related aircraft operate within the Earth’s atmosphere,Aerospace-related aircraft typically extend
beyond the Earth’s atmosphere and into space.Both industries have experienced growth in recent years with private space
exploration driving an expansion of the the Aerospace sector and increased demand for international air travel fueling new aircraft
production.The emerging Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)market,expected to double during the next 10 years,represents another
major growth area.
Maintenance,Repair,and Overhaul (MRO)operations are another important segment of this sector.These services are performed by
the airlines themselves or independent contractors in centralized,regional facilities.With numerous airlines competing for space at
busy major airports,many are looking for MRO locations outside larger metropolitan areas where they can conduct these activities
at lower costs.
Clean Energy Technology
Clean Energy Technology covers operations focused on the development and manufacturing of products and processes to reduce
carbon output.These technologies are most often utilized in transportation,energy production and transmission,and energy efficiency.
The rise of Clean Energy Technology has been primarily driven by emission standards and other regulations,fluctuating energy costs,
changes in consumer attitudes,and an influx of R&D.The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)projects that employment in
clean energy will triple worldwide to 24 million by 2030.
Companies involved in Clean Energy Technology seek locations with an established technology industry,a strong research university,
and existing energy expertise.
13
Advanced Manufacturing
Page 158 of 257
Electronics &Component Manufacturing
Electronics &Component Manufacturing includes the manufacture,design,development,assembly,and servicing of electronics and
components featuring integrated circuits.According to a 2016 analysis by IBISWorld,the global consumer electronics manufacturing
industry was valued at $286 billion.The industry is divided into four key segments:government products,industrial products,consumer
products and electronics components.Companies in this industry must invest substantial resources into research and development to
constantly improve parts,products,and the processes to improve them,specifically to keep up with the demand for new technologies
and green/energy efficient products.Key areas of future growth include:automotive,mobile devices,healthcare,communications,and
data processing.
Important site location considerations for companies in the Electronics &Component Manufacturing sector include a highly-skilled
workforce,energy availability and affordability,and proximity to interstate.
14
Advanced Manufacturing
Page 159 of 257
LOCAL SALES MESSAGES
•Georgetown is already home to a highly-concentrated and rapidly growing Advanced Manufacturing industry.The success of
existing businesses highlights Georgetown’s competitive position.
•Alongside manufacturing employers,Georgetown is a ”Get Things Done”community.Many adults and youth in Georgetown
embrace a “Maker”culture focused on innovative manufacturing and design.
•Georgetown benefits from a logistically strong geographic location –with easy access to Interstate 35,State Highway 130,and
rail service from both Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads.
•There is plentiful commercial and industrial land available for development in Georgetown,and the City continues to plan for the
future and make infrastructure investments necessary to accommodate growth.
•Georgetown Municipal Airport is an important asset for the city –supporting flights for executives,corporations,and general
aviation activity.The airport has surrounding land available for development and already supports a flight training school
•In partnership with the airport and others,the Georgetown ISD recently completed a program where students designed and built
an actual airplane,which was flown before graduation.
•The City of Georgetown’s commitment to renewable energy is attractive to many businesses for a variety of reasons –including
cultural fits,co-branding opportunities,and cost assurances.The renewable energy commitment will ensure a sustainable source of
electricity into the future.
•Advanced Manufacturers in Georgetown can draw from an available labor force of over 30,000 workers in supportive
occupations across both labor sheds.
•Georgetown is home to a large veteran population,and employers draw workers from as far north as Fort Hood –helping
capture existing military and other skilled trade workers.
•Existing employers generally have good success finding skilled trade workers locally and recruiting workers from outside the
region.Additionally,Austin Community College,East Williamson County Higher Education Center,the University of Texas,Texas
State University,Texas State Technical College,and other regional institutions offer training programs in a wide range of skills
required in this industry.
•Georgetown is part of the Austin Metro –one of the most innovative regions in the world,with a host of companies and institutions
conducting cutting edge research and development in clean energy technology and other manufacturing sectors.15
Advanced Manufacturing
Page 160 of 257
GEORGETOWN WORKFORCE
Georgetown has access to a large Advanced Manufacturing workforce,with 6,000 individuals in supportive occupations in the North
Labor Shed and nearly 28,000 workers in the South Labor Shed.The largest occupational categories of workers available are Other
Production Occupations (which include a mix of operators,inspectors,and other miscellaneous positions),Assemblers &Fabricators,
and Metal Workers &Plastic Workers .
16
Advanced Manufacturing
474
668
691
1,053
1,645
1,785
2,102
4,691
6,490
8,135
GEORGETOWN SOUTH LABOR SHED –2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
100
127
210
326
328
360
366
1,159
1,556
1,558
GEORGETOWN NORTH LABOR SHED –2016
$52.72
$14.05
$19.09
$11.18
$12.28
$11.30
$27.53
$14.05
$14.80
$16.48
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Metal & Plastic Workers
Other Production Occs.
Assemblers & Fabricators
Supervisors of Workers
Textile & Furnish. Workers
Woodworkers
Food Processing Workers
Plant & System Operators
Printing Workers
Air Transp. Workers
Other Production Occs.
Assemblers & Fabricators
Metal & Plastic Workers
Textile & Furnish. Workers
Supervisors of Workers
Food Processing Workers
Printing Workers
Woodworkers
Plant & System Operators
Air Transp. Workers $40.66
$24.42
$13.34
$16.58
$13.11
$29.98
$10.73
$17.17
$15.40
$16.13
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Page 161 of 257
17
Life Sciences
Life Sciences
Healthcare Services
Medical Technology
Pharmaceuticals
Page 162 of 257
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
The Life Sciences industry covers a range of technology,products,
and services meant to enhance the biological functions of animals,
crops,and humans.This includes production,processing,and sales of
crops and livestock agricultural products.It also covers the provision
of medical care in hospitals,outpatient care,dental work,urgent
care,elderly care,and veterinary offices–as well as the
development and manufacture of products that promote human and
animal health.Population growth,demographic change,
technological innovation,global markets,and consumer preferences
are all driving gains in this industry.
The location of Life Sciences operations is usually driven by the size
and dynamics of local populations and the presence of research
facilities in specialty fields.Hospitals and outpatient operations
provide healthcare services to the residents of a community and
often cluster in hubs to serve a broader region.Serving a larger,
regional population allows industries to develop specialized care
facilities.Pharmaceuticals,medical technology,and other related
operations tend to cluster in centers that also feature a university
research facility.The Life Sciences require significant education and
training for their workers,including medical doctors,nurses,
therapists,and technicians.
Life Sciences are currently less concentrated in Georgetown than the
national average –with an LQ of 0.87 –but more than the Austin
Metro.In recent years,Life Sciences jobs have grown more rapidly
in Georgetown and are expected to continue that trend.18
Life Sciences
9,337,500
747,200
99,100
1,500
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
LIFE SCIENCES
EMPLOYMENT, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
1.00
0.93
0.75
0.87
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
LIFE SCIENCES
LOCATION QUOTIENT, 2016
9%
12%
23%
35%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
LIFE SCIENCES
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2011 –2016
Page 163 of 257
GLOBAL FORCES
A variety of factors are contributing to the growth of the Life
Sciences industry.The aging US population continues to create new
demands for healthcare services.New medical devices,therapies,
and pharmaceuticals increase both the demand and costs of
healthcare.Ongoing changes to insurance and regulation add
further complexity to an exceedingly intricate marketplace.
Rising costs are directly changing the Healthcare Services sectors –
increasing the number of hospital system mergers,as they seek to
reduce costs through consolidation.The drive for cost reduction is
also leading to new emphases in the delivery of healthcare service.
More doctors are prioritizing patient outcomes and focusing on
behavioral,lifestyle,and wellness strategies.These in turn push
growth in wellness products.
Technology is also a primary global driver in this cluster.Mobile
devices and software are allowing doctors to reduce costs by
providing distance treatment.The capture,consolidation,and
analysis of patient data and human genetic and biological
information is leading to more personalized and effective
treatments and medicines.
Growth in the Life Sciences industry is unlikely to slow in the years
ahead.Strong demand in this industry far exceeds any concerns
related to cost structure and pricing or changes in regulatory
compliance.19
Life Sciences
$54,800
$50,000
$59,400
$45,400
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
LIFE SCIENCES
AVERAGE SALARY, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
13%
18%
21%
27%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
LIFE SCIENCES FORECAST
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2016 –2021
Page 164 of 257
NICHE SECTORS
Healthcare Services
Healthcare Services covers the hospital systems,home healthcare,diagnostics laboratories,independent physician offices,and other
ambulatory healthcare services that serve a community or region.Regional healthcare service providers can offer specialty treatment
centers unavailable in smaller communities.The sector is largely driven by population dynamics and benefits from strong educational
support.
Medical Technology
Medical Technology includes the development and design of products used to monitor,diagnose,and treat a wide array of medical
conditions and diseases.Advancements in the sector provide improved health outcomes and cost savings through earlier and more
accurate diagnosis,less invasive treatment options,and reduced hospital stays and rehabilitation times.Products include everything
from smartwatches to home diagnostics to 3D printed biological material.
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals are medicines designed and manufactured to treat human diseases and other ailments.The development of
pharmaceuticals relies heavily on specialized research –often performed through partnerships between universities and private
businesses.Production of pharmaceuticals relies heavily on chemical manufacturing skills and processes.Pharmaceuticals and new
medicines receive the highest amount of R&D expenditures of any sector in the US.
20
Life Sciences
Page 165 of 257
LOCAL SALES MESSAGES
•Georgetown is already home to a small but rapidly growing Life Sciences industry –including private companies in
pharmaceuticals and other biotechnology areas.
•Georgetown features two world class hospital systems with an additional facility just outside the city limits –St.David’s
Georgetown Hospital and the Georgetown Scott &White Clinic.The Seton Medical Center Williamson County and Scott &White
Hospital are also located in close proximity to Georgetown.
•The hospital systems offer an extensive suite of general and specialized services.
•Scott &White recently opened a cancer research facility in nearby Round Rock.
•The Georgetown Health Foundation is dedicated to supporting the healthcare system in Georgetown and owns extensive land that
could be developed into an expanded medical district.
•Georgetown is well-located geographically –nearby to the University of Texas,Texas A&M,and other cutting-edge Life Sciences
research and education institutions.There are numerous institutions across the Austin Metro focused on innovation and technological
development in this industry.
•As the geographic core of Austin becomes more expensive,many entrepreneurs are seeking more affordable,high-quality
locations with access to talented workers in the area.Georgetown is a perfect fit for these growing ventures.
•Georgetown’s rapidly growing overall population and large retired community create high demand for healthcare services in the
area.The local population also provides opportunities for development and testing of new products and services in this industry.
•Austin Community College,East Williamson County Higher Education Center,and other regional educational institutions provide
extensive training in Life Sciences fields.The new University of Texas Medical School in Austin will also be a tremendous resource
for the regional Life Sciences industry.
21
Life Sciences
Page 166 of 257
GEORGETOWN WORKFORCE
Life Sciences employers in Georgetown can drawn from an abundant pool of workers in both labor sheds.The North Labor Shed
includes over 16,000 Life Sciences workers,and the South Labor Shed covers nearly 58,000 similar workers.The largest category of
workers is Health Diagnosing &Treating Practitioners –which include doctors,nurses,surgeons,pharmacists,therapists,and many
more.The North Labor Shed in particular has a high concentration of all these occupations.
22
Life Sciences
694
815
1,916
1,920
7,725
7,773
14,201
22,729
GEORGETOWN SOUTH LABOR SHED –2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
122
172
186
224
1,660
2,678
4,123
6,855
GEORGETOWN NORTH LABOR SHED –2016
$36.34
$23.22
$29.33
$23.11
$15.36
$10.87
$20.98
$42.52
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Health Diagnosing & Treating
Practitioners
Health Technologists &
Technicians
Nursing, Psychiatric, & Home
Health Aides
Other Healthcare Support
Other Healthcare Practitioners
Life Scientists
Occupational & Physical
Therapists
Physical Scientists $24.21
$29.10
$34.16
$32.40
$12.05
$17.13
$21.80
$47.59Health Diagnosing & Treating
Practitioners
Health Technologists &
Technicians
Other Healthcare Support
Nursing, Psychiatric, & Home
Health Aides
Life Scientists
Physical Scientists
Other Healthcare Practitioners
Occupational & Physical
Therapists
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Page 167 of 257
23
Professional Services
Source: Tour Texas
Professional
Services
Creative Design
Engineering Services
Software & Information Technology
Page 168 of 257
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Professional Services includes a wide range of skilled services that
often support other industries –from accounting and engineering to
creative design and software development.With a heavy focus on
the research and development of new products,systems,and
software,Professional Services are often a source of innovation.
Professional Services is also one of the largest industries in the US,
with 9.3 million workers.
Professional Services operations have minimal infrastructure
requirements.Office space and high-speed internet are usually the
basic requirements for a firm to operate.Instead,talent availability
is more important.If they are to thrive,Professional Services firms
must be able to attract and retain talent.Quality of life is another
critical location factor,as it facilitates the ability of Professional
Services firms to recruit and retain the best talent.As a result,
Professional Services firms often cluster in larger,centralized
locations with plenty of amenities and in cities with universities that
can provide a continuous supply of new workers with the latest skills.
With 1,400 employees,Professional Services is less concentrated in
Georgetown than the overall Austin Metro –with a local LQ of 0.73
compared to 1.59 regionally.The industry is rapidly becoming more
concentrated in Georgetown –growing 66%over the past five
years and projected to grow another 28%over the next five.
24
Professional Services
9,337,500
747,200
99,100
1,400
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
EMPLOYMENT, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
1.00
0.96
1.59
0.73
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
LOCATION QUOTIENT, 2016
16%
23%
47%
66%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2011 –2016
Page 169 of 257
GLOBAL FORCES
Professional Services is currently one of the most dynamic industries
worldwide.This industry thrives in areas where there is a strong
private sector supported by government with stable regulatory
environments,strong intellectual property protections,and a reliable
judicial system.For such reasons,the US continues to be the most
desirable location for Professional Services firms.
The rise of cloud computing,combined with a continued increase in
the number of devices capable of producing data,has propelled an
explosion in information worldwide;according to an estimate from
IBM,90%of all information ever created has been produced in just
the past two years.Numerous subsectors have risen up in the
Software &Information Technology field to find new ways of using
this data to improve efficiencies in markets and better deliver a
wide range of services to customers.
Continued development of artificial intelligence (AI)could
potentially impact the Professional Services industry as once
complex tasks become simplified and automated.Already we have
seen the introduction of IBM’s Watson in cancer research,tax
preparation and aircraft maintenance.The impacts of AI on this and
other industries remain unknown,but even if it eliminates some jobs,
it has the potential to create new opportunities in programming and
applications.
25
Professional Services
$95,800
$90,600
$94,500
$69,600
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AVERAGE SALARY, 2016
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
10%
15%
22%
28%
US
TX
Austin MSA
Georgetown
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FORECAST
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2016 –2021
Page 170 of 257
NICHE SECTORS
Creative Design
Creative Design covers individuals and businesses that offer contracted design services in a number of specialty areas,including
graphic design,interior design,and industrial design.Design services are used in everything from film and technology to
manufacturing and architecture.The most basic form of design includes the preparation of graphics and images for websites,
marketing materials,logos,and signage,along with numerous other business needs.The more technical side focuses more on design
for physical space,objects and processes including building interiors,user interfaces,industrial systems,and consumer product design.
The Creative Design sector,like all Professional Services,is driven by availability of skilled talent.
Engineering Services
Engineering Services encompass professional businesses that provide contracted applied engineering services in a range of fields,
including structural,mechanical,industrial,electrical,and other engineering fields.These engineering experts are critical to
constructing,upgrading,and maintaining complex modern manufacturing facilities and machinery,designing buildings,and supporting
a range of physical activities.Engineering businesses tend to cluster in proximity to their primary clients –manufacturers,builders,and
utilities.This sector hires employees with advanced degrees –at a minimum bachelor’s degree holders and often master’s.As a result,
engineering firms frequently choose locations with a high quality of life to aid employee retention and attraction.
Software &Information Technology
Software &IT includes organizations and individuals in software design and publishing,custom computer programming,computer
systems design,and data processing facilities management.Data storage and utilization and cyber security are some of the major
growth areas for this sector as the amount and sensitivity of data online increases exponentially.Software and IT is a very
enterprising sector with small and medium-sized firms representing almost 99%of the industry.
26
Professional Services
Page 171 of 257
LOCAL SALES MESSAGES
•Georgetown is part of the Austin Metro –one of the most dynamic centers of Professional Services in the country.Although
Professional Services jobs are currently less concentrated in Georgetown,the industry is growing more rapidly locally than the
entire region,state,or nation.
•Georgetown is a highly attractive place to live,and employers widely report that recruiting outside talent to Georgetown is an
easy task.Given the industry’s emphasis on talent availability and quality of place,Georgetown provides a competitive location
to recruiting and retain skilled workers.
•Georgetown is already home to many individuals employed in Professional Services who currently work for employers located
outside of the city.Employers opening,expanding,or relocating to Georgetown can potentially draw from this wealth of existing
local talent –in addition to a pool of more than 75,000 workers to the South.
•Georgetown is already home to a large share of professionals who work from home or small startups.
•The City continues to make strategic investments in infrastructure and quality of life assets that make Georgetown an attractive
place to live.The city benefits from a large,vibrant arts community;a unique downtown;extensive,high-quality parks and trails;
and an overall attractive built and natural environment.
•In addition to the Georgetown Municipal Airport,the city has relatively easy access to Austin Bergstrom International Airport –
both of which are positive assets for business travelers and executives in Professional Services.
•Current residents of Georgetown hold very positive views of their community.As one resident observed,Georgetown has the
perfect mix of history,industry,and livability.The city is also multi-generational and engaged –with an active volunteer
population across ages –an attractive feature to many professionals.
27
Professional Services
Page 172 of 257
GEORGETOWN WORKFORCE
Professional Services supportive workers are much more concentrated in the Georgetown South Labor Shed than the North.The South
Labor Shed has over 75,000 workers in occupations that support Professional Services,while the North Labor Shed has slightly under
5,000.Across both labor sheds,the largest category of Professional Services workers available to employers in Georgetown are
Software Developers &Programmers and Engineers.
28
Professional Services
494
1,433
1,830
3,744
7,375
7,531
9,421
10,188
11,958
21,533
GEORGETOWN SOUTH LABOR SHED
Source: EMSI / Avalanche Consulting
32
109
277
366
387
405
610
733
769
1,022
GEORGETOWN NORTH LABOR SHED –2016
$41.94
$30.14
$37.26
$41.14
$17.64
$40.53
$27.90
$25.15
$48.12
$46.02
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Engineers
Software Developers
Computer Specialists
Drafters / Eng. Techs.
Database & System Admin.
Art & Design Workers
Computer & Info. Analysts
Misc. Computer Occs.
Architects, Surveyors, Carts.
Computer & Info Research Sci.
Software Developers
Engineers
Computer & Info. Analysts
Computer Specialists
Drafters / Eng. Techs.
Database & System Admin.
Art & Design Workers
Architects, Surveyors, Carts.
Misc. Computer Occs.
Computer & Info Research Sci.$47.25
$40.93
$33.66
$25.25
$45.82
$29.67
$25.76
$41.23
$49.54
$45.79
INDUSTRY SUPPORTIVE WORKERS AVERAGE HOURLY $
Page 173 of 257
Research &Development (R&D)involves targeted efforts to innovate,introduce,and improve a product or process.Companies invest
in R&D to maintain their competitiveness,to develop new products,or to identify new markets or uses for existing products.As the US
economy has become increasingly knowledge based,the number of R&D jobs has continued to increase.During the past 15 years,
private R&D employment has increased three times faster than the US average for all industries.
R&D expenditures by US businesses currently exceed $340 billion annually.Such spending is disproportionately concentrated in a
handful of industries and locations.Just two industries –Manufacturing and Software/IT –account for more than 80%of domestic
R&D expenditures.Additionally,half of all R&D spending in the US is absorbed by five states,including Texas .
Manufacturing R&D is focused primarily on the improvement or development of systems,machines,processes,and/or products.
Manufacturing accounts for more than two-thirds of R&D expenditures in the US,dominated by the Chemical and Computer/Electronic
Products sectors.
Research and Development is a sustaining factor in the Life Science industry with activities spanning from drug development and
delivery to the application of bio-tech research.Pharmaceuticals alone represent 16%of all US R&D expenditures.
Software and IT dominate the Professional Services industry with more than $63 billion in annual R&D expenditures.Primary
activities include product development and application.
29
Research & Development
Page 174 of 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update on the 2 01 6 Historic Resource Survey -- So fia Nelson, Planning Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Cox-McLain Environmental Co nsulting, Inc. (CMEC) was retained by the City of Georgetown in Decembe r 2015 to
conduct a Historic Reso urces Survey. This wo rk inc luded (1) an update of the 1984 and 2007 surveys, and (2) a ne w
survey of reso urc e s co nstructed in 1974 or earlier. The new survey was conducte d within an area roughly bounded by
Interstate 35 to the west, State Highway 130 to the e ast, the City limits to the south, and Farm-to-Market Ro ad 971 to the
north. The new survey, which was completed in 2 01 6, do cumented a total of 1,676 re so urces.
Summary of P r i ori ty Categ ori zati on
Category Count Per c e nt
High 191 11%
Medium 588 35%
Low 897 54%
Total 1,676 100 %
CMEC also cate gorized the resources within the City’s two historic overlays as co ntributing or non-contributing. All High
and Medium priority properties within the overlays are co nsidered contributing re so urces. Low priority historic -age
resources, non-historic age resources, and vacant lo ts are co nsidered non-contributing resources.
The report de scribes the historic co ntext of the city, methods that were used to document the re so urces, results of the
survey, including an o verview o f the surveyed resources, the most common architectural styles and forms, preservation
priorities, and demolitions since the pre vious survey. Although the scope of the survey was primarily limite d to
documentation and categorization of resources, the consultants made re c ommendations in regards to future rese arch,
documentation, and designation opportunities.
The Appendices with the data sets are available on the Historic Resources Survey we bpage:
https://historic .ge orgetown.org/introduction/histo ric-resource-survey/. Or directly at:
https://records.geo rgeto wn.o rg/weblink/browse.aspx?dbid=0
A Survey map sample will be shown at the meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Works hop pres entatio n
2016 Histo ric R es o urc es S urvey DRAFT Report
Page 175 of 257
City of Georgetown 2016
Historic Resources Survey
August 22, 2017
City Council Workshop
Page 176 of 257
Presentation Overview
•Recap of May City
Council Workshop
•2016 Survey
–Resources
Surveyed
–Methodology
–Results
•Recommendations
•Next Steps
Page 177 of 257
Recap of last May workshop
•Reviewed Who,
What, and How’s of a
Resource Survey
•Reviewed Project
status
Page 178 of 257
Types of Resources Surveyed
Page 179 of 257
Types of Resources Surveyed
Page 180 of 257
Types of Resources Surveyed
•Commercial
•Other uses: churches, schools, agriculture,
municipal, etc.
Page 181 of 257
CATEGORIES OF PRIORITY
Page 182 of 257
High Priority
•Contribute significantly to
local history/broader
historical patterns
•May be good examples of
architecture, engineering,
or crafted design
•Retain a high degree of
integrity
Page 183 of 257
Medium
•Add to an area’s character
and contribute moderately
to our understanding of local
history/broader historical
patterns
•Typical examples of a style
or form
•Somewhat modified
Page 184 of 257
Low
•Not associated with a
trend in history,
significant architectural
style, building form, or
construction method
•And/or significantly
altered
Page 185 of 257
Categories: 2016 Survey
Summary of Categorization for Historic-Age
Properties
Category Count Percent
High 191 11%
Medium 589 35%
Low 897 53%
Total 1,677 100%
Page 186 of 257
Categories
Medium
Low
Page 187 of 257
Categories
57
upgraded
179
downgraded
Page 188 of 257
Categories
•49: low to
medium
•3: low to high
•5: medium to
high
57
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
Page 189 of 257
Categories
17
9
d
o
w
n
g
r
a
d
e
d
165: medium to
low
14: high to medium
Page 190 of 257
Category Change Examples
2007 survey: medium priority 2016 survey: low priority
Page 191 of 257
Category Change Examples
2007 survey: low priority 2016 survey: medium priority
Page 192 of 257
Demolitions
o 2007 survey identified 163 resources
that had been demolished between 1984
and 2007
o 65 resources demolished between 2007
and 2016
Page 193 of 257
Recommendations
•Consider boundary expansions of
National Register Historic Districts
•Change definitions for contributing
and non-contributing structures
Page 194 of 257
Williamson County Courthouse Historic District
(1977)
Olive
Street
Historic
District
(2013)
University
Ave-Elm
Street
Historic
District
(1979)
Belford
Historic
District
(1986)
Page 195 of 257
Public Input & Outreach
Sessions
Page 196 of 257
Next Steps
Page 197 of 257
2016 Historic Resources Survey
City of Georgetown, Texas
DRAFT Report
Submitted August 2017
Prepared by:
8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78737
Page 198 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and Prior Surveys ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 2016 Survey ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 3
2 HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Early Settlement and City Founding (1848–1900) ........................................................................ 4
2.2 Early Twentieth-Century Development (1900–1945) ................................................................... 7
2.3 Mid-Century Development (1945–1965) ...................................................................................... 7
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation ........................................................................................................ 9
3.1.2 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.3 Post-Field Processing .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................. 12
4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Overview of Surveyed Resources ................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Architectural Styles and Forms ................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Bungalow................................................................................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Minimal Traditional ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2.3 Ranch ....................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Preservation Priority ................................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Demolitions ................................................................................................................................. 17
5 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 NRHP Districts and Boundary Expansions ................................................................................... 18
5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts................................................................................................. 18
5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts ..................................................................................................... 19
5.2 High-Priority Properties and Contributing Resources in NRHP Districts .................................... 20
5.3 Local Landmarks and Resources Individually Eligible for the NRHP ........................................... 21
5.4 Future Survey .............................................................................................................................. 23
Page 199 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
iii
5.5 Further Research/ Opportunities ................................................................................................ 23
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources .................................................................................................. 15
Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization .............................................................................................. 17
Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources ............................................................................................. 17
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps
Appendix B: Inventory Table
Appendix C: Inventory Forms
Appendix D: Materials from Mobile Workshop
Page 200 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc. (CMEC) was retained by the City of Georgetown in
December 2015 to conduct a Historic Resources Survey. This work included (1) an update of the
1984 and 2007 surveys, and (2) a new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier. The
new survey was conducted within an area roughly bounded by Interstate 35 to the west, State
Highway 130 to the east, the City limits to the south, and Farm-to-Market Road 971 to the
north (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The new survey, which was completed in 2016,
documented a total of 1,676 resources.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR SURVEYS
The City of Georgetown has partnered with the Texas Historical Commission (THC) on the Main
Street and Certified Local Government (CLG) Programs. The City has also established two
historic zoning overlays: the Downtown Overlay District, created in 1975, and the Old Town
Overlay District, created in 2004. As a CLG member, the City undertakes regular historic
resources surveys to systematically identify and document historic-age buildings, structures,
objects, and districts. The survey inventory is used by the City’s Planning Department to make
informed decisions that support new growth and development while maintaining Georgetown’s
heritage and character.
The City of Georgetown’s first historic resources survey was conducted by Hardy Heck Moore,
Inc. (HHM) in 1984 and included 902 resources constructed prior to 1935. Most resources were
located within the city limits near downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods ; however, a
small number were located outside the city limits within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Each resource was photographed; documented using the THC’s Historic Resources Survey Form;
and assigned a priority of High, Medium, or Low.
In 2007, HHM was retained to conduct the City’s second historic resources survey (HHM 2010).
As part of this survey, all resources documented during the 1984 survey were re-documented,
and all non-residential resources built before 1961 within the then -city limits were
documented. Additionally, Hardy Heck Moore documented representative examples of
domestic resources in subdivisions platted between 1935 and 1965. This sampling approach
was selected because of the large number of residential resources constructed between 1935
and 1965 and because of time and budget constraints. If a subdivision platted after 1935
appeared to have potential eligibility as a historic district, the entire subdivision was
documented (e.g., the Nolen Addition). In the 2007 survey, all resources were documented at
the reconnaissance level except for properties categorized as High priority in 2007, which were
documented with a more detailed form approximating the THC’s Historic Resources Survey
Form. In addition to the 902 resources from the 1984 survey that were resurveyed, 665
resources were surveyed for the first time, for a total of 1,574 resources. Many of the resources
Page 201 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
2
documented in 1984 were found to have been demolished; in these cases, HHM documented
the replacement building or vacant lot.
All previously surveyed and newly surveyed resources were assigned a priority of High,
Medium, or Low, based on the resource’s age; architectural integrity; architectural style, form,
or construction method; or association with patterns in history.
1.2 2016 SURVEY
1.2.1 Survey
CMEC was retained to update the 1984 and 2007 surveys and to conduct a new survey of all
resources constructed in 1974 or earlier located within the survey boundary, an area
encompassing approximately 3,300 parcels (Figure 1 in Appendix A). A High, Medium, or Low
priority was assigned to each resource using the same definitions used in the 2007 survey (see
Section 3.2). The year 1974 was selected as the survey cut-off date, and resources built in 1974
or earlier are, for the purposes of this survey, considered “historic-age.” Per the National Park
Service, resources must be 50 years old or older to be eligible for listing on the NRHP; however,
properties of exceptional importance that are less than 50 years old may be eligible. Generally,
historic resources surveys include resources that are at least 40 to 50 years old. The year 1974
was selected as the cut-off date for the 2016 survey because high-resolution aerial images of
Georgetown are available from this year, and comparison of the historic aerial images with
current aerial images allowed CMEC to determine whether resources are historic-age.
For the 1984 and 2007 survey update, the level of documentation each resource received in the
2016 survey depended on its location within a City overlay, its previous level of documentation,
and whether its priority changed. These varying levels and circumstances of documentation
were established by the City in the request for proposals for the 2016 survey.
• If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984
or 2007 survey AND the priority did not change in 2016, then it was only re-
photographed (hereafter referred to as “Photo Only” properties).
• If a resource was previously documented with a THC survey form during either the 1984
or 2007 survey AND the priority changed in 2016, then it was documented with a THC
form (hereafter referred to as “THC Changing Priority” properties). The exception to this
was when the priority changed on a utilitarian secondary building.
• If a resource was within either of the City’s overlays and was not previously documented
with a THC form, it was documented with a THC form in 2016 (hereafter referred to as
“THC Form” properties).
• Resources that had been demolished since they were last surveyed were noted and are
reported separately in Section 4.4. No inventory form was created for these resources.
Page 202 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
3
• For the new survey of resources constructed in 1974 or earlier and that are located
outside the overlays, each historic-age resource within the survey area was documented
at the reconnaissance level (hereafter referred to as “Reconnaissance” properties).
Specifically, one or more photographs were provided of the street-facing façade; the
resource type, style, plan, construction date, and geographic location were recorded;
and a preservation priority was assigned. Ancillary buildings were recorded separately
only if they were notable in terms of size, style, or age. A more detailed description of
the 2016 survey methodology is provided in the Methodology section.
1.2.2 Public Involvement
The City of Georgetown hosted a kick-off meeting for the project in February 2016. Members of
the public were notified, as well as the City’s Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(HARC). CMEC historians presented the goals and proposed methodology for the survey and
invited public input. An email address was established for the project so that members of the
public could submit stories, photographs, and other information.
In April of 2016, the City of Georgetown hosted a mobile workshop to educa te members of the
public about the process of documenting historic resources. The workshop was organized and
staffed by historians from CMEC and was structured as a “classroom” learning session followed
by a field session. Attendees learned how to complete the THC’s survey form and received tips
on spotting alterations and taking digital photographs. After the classroom session, the group
worked together to document a small area in Georgetown. The workshop was intended to
provide the community with valuable skills as well as to promote historic preservation and a
deeper understanding of the importance of local surveys. Materials from the workshop are
included as Appendix D.
Following the review of the draft inventory forms by the City Planning Department, the forms
were posted to the City’s website for review in July 2017. The owners of every property
documented in the survey were mailed letters, which stated their property’s priority; provided
instructions for accessing the forms online; and included an inv itation to the public meeting on
July 13, 2017. On this date, the City hosted a series of meetings. CMEC historians were available
for half-hour appointments during the day to meet one-on-one with members of the public.
Those who made appointments brought in historic photographs and books, shared the history
of their properties, asked questions about the survey and the implications of designation, and
provided more precise information about construction dates and alterations. In the evening,
CMEC historians presented the findings of the survey to the public in Georgetown City Council
chambers. Members of the planning department staff and CMEC historians were available to
answer questions from attendees. The PowerPoint presentation was posted to the City’s
website and shared with local stakeholders. In the weeks following the presentation, members
of the public continued to contact the City and CMEC with additional questions and
information. The public input has been incorporated into this report and the attached forms.
Page 203 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
4
2 HISTORIC CONTEXT
2.1 EARLY SETTLEMENT AND CITY FOUNDING (1848–1900)
The area that is now Williamson County was originally the western part of Milam County, which
was an expansive region with a distant county seat. Wanting a more centralized governm ent, a
group of settlers successfully lobbied the Texas Legislature for a new county separate from
Milam County. Williamson County, named after Robert Williamson, an early political leader and
judge, was established March 13, 1848. At the time, the area had an Anglo population of
approximately 250 settlers who relied primarily on subsistence farming (Odintz 2016; Texas
Historical Commission c. 2000). Williamson County’s first officials were tasked with selecting a
location for the county seat within five miles of the county’s geographic center (Texas Historical
Commission c. 2000). The site was selected after George Glasscock offered to donate 173 acres
for the new city if it was named in his honor (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela
2013).
Georgetown, as it was called, was well-situated on high land at the confluence of the San
Gabriel River’s three branches, with fertile Blackland Prairie to the east that was ideal for
farming, and grasslands to the west that were suitable for ranching (Texas Histo rical
Commission c. 2000; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). It was platted as a 52-
block grid with a public square in the southeastern quadrant. Narrow lots surrounded the
square, creating a commercial center, beyond which lay residential lots (Texas Historical
Commission c. 2000). This design, named the Shelbyville Square, was replicated widely across
the state of Texas because of its simplicity and effectiveness in creating a central focus for the
community (Veselka 2000). On July 4, 1848, just four months after the county was established,
Georgetown’s first lots were sold (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
The population of the city in 1850 was estimated at 2 00 people, and growth was slow for the
next two decades (Texas Almanac c. 2000). Most early buildings were log construction and
temporary in nature, including the first courthouse, which was a one -room building erected in
1849 one block east of the town square (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Williams and
Landon 1976). Supported by the local agricultural and livestock industries, more permanent
commercial buildings constructed of locally sourced limestone began to replace log buildings.
The first such building was a new courthouse, erected in 1857 on the square (Texas Historica l
Commission c. 2000). Though solidly vernacular in design and construction, with its central
location in the square and sturdy walls, the building was nonetheless a symbol of the county’s
stability and potential (Scarbrough 1973). The city’s only early ex pansion occurred in 1854 with
the Glasscock Addition, a residential area located south and east of the original 52 -block grid
(Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Twenty-nine resources dating to the nineteenth century
are extant in this neighborhood.
Page 204 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
5
It its early years, Georgetown’s economy was heavily based in agriculture, with farmers
primarily growing wheat and corn on small farms on the fertile land to the south and east of the
city. Commercial activity centered on the courthouse square, and business es were largely
service-based and reliant on the activity from the courthouse. There were few industrial or
manufacturing businesses at the time (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
The Civil War and Reconstruction years stifled Georgetown’s growth and development, but the
1870s were a turning point for the city (HHM 2010). This change is largely attributed to two
events. The first was the establishment of Southwestern University in 1873, one of the first
institutes of higher education in the region. The university, along with county affairs, proved to
be one of Georgetown’s most stable economic drivers. The second major event from this
period was the arrival of the railroad in Georgetown (HHM 2010).
Williamson County’s first railroad opened in 1876 in the southern part of the county; residents
of Georgetown watched as the communities along the line (e.g. Taylor) boomed while those
communities that were bypassed vanished (Scarbrough 1973). In response, Georgetown’s
leaders quickly organized to establish and finance the construction of the Georgetown Railroad,
which would connect the city to the International and Great Northern Railroad in Round Rock.
Completed in 1878, the route, which is no longer extant in its original location, terminated just
southwest of the business district. The arrival of the railroad improved living conditions and
transformed the economy and appearance of the city (Scarbrough 1973).
With improved access to transportation, Williamson County’s farmers were able to buy farm
machinery and ship crops to larger markets. They began growing cotton, which was a more
lucrative product than corn and wheat. Soon, cotton gins and processing plants sprang up
throughout the county, including Georgetown, and Williamson County was the top cotton
producer in Texas by the 1890s (Scarbrough 1973; Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela
2013).
As the county’s cotton industry was developing, so too was its cattle industry (Scarbrough
1973). Many cattle trails crossed Williamson County and fed into la rger trails like the Chisholm
Trail, Western Trail, Dodge City Trail, and Shawnee Trail (Scarbrough 1973). Several routes
passed through Georgetown, including one that ran directly down Brushy Street (now Austin
Avenue). Herds of cattle passed the courthouse and commercial district, with cattlemen
frequently stopping to purchase supplies (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
Moving north, herds crossed the San Gabriel River just west of the current Austin Avenue
bridges (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
As a result of the strong economic growth, the population of Georgetown increased rapidly in
the 1870s, from an estimated 320 people in 1870 to 1,354 in 1880. This pace continued into the
twentieth century, and by 1900, the population was 2,790 (Texas Almanac c. 2000). A flurry of
development activity accompanied this growth.
Page 205 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
6
A new, architect-designed, Italianate-style courthouse was erected in 1878, replacing the
vernacular building from 1857. Hitching posts and sidewalks were installed around the square
in 1881, and these improvements, coupled with the new courthouse’s size, height,
ornamentation, and siting, transformed the appearance of the square (Scarbrough 1973).
Commercial building owners soon began updating and replacing their properties as well. A
review of the city’s early Sanborn maps shows that most of the commercial district’s buildings
were still one-story and wood frame in 1885, though a small number of two -story stone
buildings had been erected by this time (Sanbo rn Map & Publishing Co. 1885). When the next
Sanborn map was published nine years later, the square would have been markedly different in
appearance, as nearly all the frame buildings had been replaced with two-story stone buildings
(Sanborn-Perris Map Co. 1894). Because a greater variety of goods were available via the
railroad, these new buildings were accentuated with materials and embellishments popular
during the time; the buildings were given high-style Italianate and Queen Anne designs
intended to lure customers inside (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000; Francaviglia 1996). In
addition to the specialty stores and service industries that lined Georgetown’s square, notable
commercial developments of the late-nineteenth century included new planing mills; a brick
and lime kiln; several factories, including an ice factory; and limestone quarries (Georgetown
Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013).
Residential building activity also increased, and between 1870 and 1910, 13 new residential
additions tripled the size of Georgetown (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The river
provided a barrier to the north and west, so the city grew south and east, and the town square,
which was originally sited in the southeastern quadrant of the city, had become more
centralized (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Many of Georgetown’s most recognizable
and significant commercial and residential buildings date to the period of growth from the
1870s to 1900. Charles S. Belford, a local contractor and lumberman, got his start during this
period, and he quickly gained a reputation for constructing quality buildings in a variety of
popular styles. He would become one of the city’s most prolific early builders, and many of his
buildings are extant today, including a concentration in the Belford National Register Historic
District. C. S. Griffith operated a competing lumber company in town, established in 1894; the
rivalry between the two firms has been credited with elevating the level of craftsmanship of
Georgetown homes (Moore and Hardy 1984). Griffith is believed to have constructed homes at
1002 Ash Street, 1009 Elm Street, and 1216 Main Street (Moore and Hardy 1984). As
Georgetown grew into the twentieth century, a consequence of its building activity was that
many farms that were once on the outskirts of town became enveloped by development and
were often destroyed (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
In all, 151 surveyed resources were constructed prior to 1900 and represent Georgetown’s
earliest patterns of development. The oldest documented resource is the c. 1860 Johnson
Farmstead, a stone I-house on Westinghouse Road, outside of the historic core of the city. The
majority of the pre-1900 resources were constructed in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century.
Page 206 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
7
2.2 EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1900–1945)
Georgetown’s economy stalled at the turn of the century, in part because other communities in
eastern Williamson County along the main railroad routes had established a firm hold on the
cotton industry (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). As Georgetown’s cotton economy
diminished, the population declined slightly between 1910 and 1920 (Texas Almanac c. 2000).
Agriculture was, nonetheless, still an important industry, and it, along with retail businesses,
education, and county government, continued to sustain Georgetown’s economy. Several
notable buildings were constructed in the early 1900s, including Southwestern University’s
Administration Building and Mood Hall and several local school buildings, including a 1923 high
school by Austin-based architects the Page Brothers (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000).
Most prominent, however, was the erection of the county’s final courthouse, a domed, Beaux
Arts style building completed in 1911 by the Page Brothers. The building replaced the 1878
courthouse and was situated in the center of the courthouse square within a parklike setting.
As the population grew and the city expanded, there was an increased need and demand for
improved infrastructure (Georgetown Heritage Society and Valenzuela 2013). The first major
improvement occurred in 1892 when iron bridges were erected over the North and South Forks
of the San Gabriel River (Scarbrough 1973). Prior to the construction of these bridges, people
crossed the water by climbing down the banks and walking across log bridges or logs spanning
the width of the river (Scarbrough 1973). City and county roads continued to be rather primitive
and unpaved into the 1930s, when road improvements were financed by the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) program (Scarbrough 2008). After this point, Brushy Street (later
renamed Austin Avenue), which was located along the Meridian Highway/U .S. 81, saw an
increase in automobile-oriented development, including filling stations, restaurants, and motor
courts (HHM 2010; Moore et al. 2016). This street became a primary route through downtown.
By 1940, the population of Georgetown was 3,682 and the county’s population was 41,698.
Most people continued to reside in the eastern portion of the county in the communities along
the railroad (Texas Almanac c. 2000; Odintz 2016). Georgetown and its neighbor, Round Rock,
were small, rural hamlets in comparison (Scarbrough 2008). There are approximately 775
resources documented in the survey dating from 1900 to 1945.
2.3 MID-CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1945–1965)
Georgetown’s economy picked back up again in the years following World War II, though at a
steadier pace than in earlier decades (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). The county was still
heavily agricultural; however, cotton farming was declining as a result of over -production, soil
depletion, and a boll weevil infestation (Odintz 2016). Agricultural interests diversified as
farmers began growing sorghum and wheat and raising poultry. Traditional livestock rearing
was still common (Odintz 2016). The city’s economy was further supported by Southwestern
University, which embarked on a significant expansion effort in the post -war years, in part to
meet demand from returning soldiers utilizing the GI Bill (HHM 2010). The city also grew in size
Page 207 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
8
in the post-war years, as 14 new subdivisions were added, featuring modern planning principles
with wide streets, uniform setbacks, separation of residential and non-residential uses, and
consistent architectural design. Single-family residences were typically built in the Ranch style
and advertised as having the latest in modern conveniences and design (HHM 2010). Some
neighborhoods were more modest with small lot sizes and Minimal Ranch houses, and others ,
such as Country Club Estates, the Nolen Addition, and East Lynn Additions, were built with
spacious lots and homes.
Despite the post-war development activity, Georgetown was still a small community of 5,218
people in 1960, and the surrounding area continued to be heavily agricultural (Scarbrough
2008; Texas Almanac c. 2000). Two major infrastructure projects would change this, resulting in
a period of explosive growth and development that continues into present day. The first was
the opening of I-35 just west of Georgetown’s business district in 1965. This meant that, for the
first time, downtown Georgetown was no longer situated on a preeminent north -south artery.
Development activity quickly shifted toward the interchanges of the new highway and away
from Austin Avenue and U.S. 81. This was intensified in the following years, when plans were
made to construct a dam over the San Gabriel River to prevent flooding and secure a water
supply for the cities of Georgetown and Round Rock (Scarbrough 2008). The dam, completed in
1979, created Lake Georgetown, a reservoir west of I-35. The surrounding ranch land was
quickly tapped by investors for the development of new subdivisions, who marketed the idyllic
setting with easy access to I-35 and Austin, which, without today’s traffic, was just a short 25-
minute commute. In the years leading up to the dam’s completion, approximately 4,000 acres
just west of I-35 changed hands from ranchers to developers (Scarbrough 2008). Georgetown
and Round Rock, which is also along I-35 to the south, were suddenly popular bedroom
communities. For the first time in its history, the population of Williamson County was shifting
west.
Georgetown’s historic commercial district and Austin Avenue’s automobile-oriented businesses
suffered from the new competition to the west and the improved access to all Austin had to
offer. Storefronts were often shuttered but, remarkably, very few buildings were destroyed
(HHM 2010). The exception to this occurred in the “Ridge,” a predominantly low-income,
minority neighborhood located in the area roughly bounded by 19th Street to the south, the
historic business district to the east, and the San Gabriel River’s South Branch to the west and
north (The Williamson County Sun 1967a). Here, the city initiated a federally fun ded, 152-acre
urban renewal effort, coined the “South San Gabriel Urban Renewal Project,” intended to clear
and rehabilitate sub-standard housing, redevelop the area for residential purposes, improve
streets and utilities, and develop parks and recreation areas (The Williamson County Sun
1967b). The result was widespread demolition and relocation of the Ridge community starting
in the late 1960s (Texas Historical Commission c. 2000). Though a number of new buildings
were erected and streets and infrastructu re improved, many projects never came to fruition, as
evidenced by the number of block-sized parking lots that fill the space today. A related project
documented in the 2007 and 2016 surveys is the Stonehaven Apartments development,
Page 208 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
9
operated by the Georgetown Housing Authority. This housing development was built with the
goal of housing residents who were displaced by urban renewal (Williamson County Sun 1970).
Residential, commercial, and industrial growth continued at a rapid pace after 1960 and into
the 1970s and 1980s (Scarbrough 2010). Starting in 1982, Georgetown embarked on another
transformative urban planning and economic development initiative. This time, through
participation in the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program, the goal was
to preserve and revitalize the city’s historic downtown, which sat shuttered and dilapidated,
but largely intact (McKnight 2002). The city’s financial institutions offered low-interest loans to
rehabilitate the district’s Victorian buildings, and within two years more than half the
commercial district had undergone restoration projects. Infrastructure improvements followed,
and soon businesses began filling the storefronts (McKnight 2002). In 2005 and 2006, the
courthouse underwent a significant restoration, bringing it back in appearance to its original
design (Texas Historical Commission c. 2006). Today, Georgetown’s square is once again a lively
commercial center with a distinct sense of history.
Georgetown’s population grew from 5,218 people in 1960, prior to the construction of I-35 and
the dam, to 9,468 by 1980, and explosive growth continued into the twenty-first century as the
Austin metro region expanded to the north (Texas Almanac c. 2000). With a population of
63,716 in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that Georgetown was the fastest growing
city in the country with a population of 50,000 or more (United States Census Bureau 2016).
There are approximately 604 resources dating from the 1945 to 1965 time period documented
in the survey. These properties are primarily residential resources, most commonly executed in
the Ranch and Minimal Traditional style/form.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The following section describes the methodology used for field survey and property
evaluations. Field survey methods included preparations before conducting survey work, on-
the-ground fieldwork activities, and post-field processing.
3.1.1 Pre-Fieldwork Preparation
3.1.1.1 Previous Survey Data Review and Analysis
CMEC was provided with a copy of the 1984 and 2007 surveys. For the 1984 survey, CMEC
scanned in copies of the paper survey forms as well as the photograph negatives. The scanned
PDF forms were optimized using text-recognition software to make the documents searchable.
From the 2007 survey, CMEC was provided with a copy of the survey report (including inventory
forms), a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet summarizing the results of the survey, and GIS data
points. CMEC mapped the location of the surveyed resources from 2007 and joined each
Page 209 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
10
surveyed property to parcel-based Williamson County Appraisal District data. The location of
resources surveyed in 2007 was corrected when necessary.
3.1.1.2 Aerial Imagery Review
Next, CMEC obtained a high-resolution aerial image from 1974, the cut-off year for the survey.
By comparing the 1974 image to current aerial photograph y as well as examining select
properties using Google StreetView, CMEC attempted to determine whether the same
building(s) present today were present in 1974, indicating a historic -age resource. For
properties where tree cover obscured development, or there were other uncertainties, the
resource was flagged for review in the field.
3.1.1.3 Categorization and Field Map Creation
A CMEC identification number (ID) was assigned to every previously surveyed parcel and all
parcels within the survey area. CMEC historians completed an analysis for every parcel in the
survey boundary to determine:
• Whether the resource had been surveyed before;
• Whether the resource was historic age (some properties proved to have been
erroneously categorized as historic age in a previous survey);
• The level of documentation from previous surveys (THC form or not); and
• Whether the resource was located in either of the local overlay districts.
Based on this information, each property was assigned to one of three levels of documentation
1) a new photograph, 2) a Reconnaissance-level documentation form, or 3) a THC-level
documentation form. The field maps were keyed appropriately based on the needed
documentation type for each property. Resources outside of the 2016 survey boundary that
had been recorded in previous surveys were documented in 2016 with photograph updates
only, unless the property was changing priority (in which case the resource was documented
with a THC form).
3.1.1.4 Tablet Form Design
Before conducting fieldwork, CMEC and teaming partner SWCA created a custom tablet-based
data collection form that included fields from the THC form. This form was loaded on to tablets
for field data collection.
3.1.2 Field Survey
A team of professionals from CMEC and SWCA, led by Principal Investigators Emily Reed and
Heather Goodson, conducted the field survey. Fieldwork for the resources within the survey
area was conducted in the spring and summer of 2016, and fieldwork for the resources outside
the survey area was conducted in November 2016 and January 2017.
Page 210 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
11
At least one photograph of each resource’s street-facing façade was taken, except when limited
by right-of-entry or obscuring vegetation. When visible from the right-of-way, outbuildings
(garages, shed, etc.) were also photographed. Photographs taken with the tablets were
automatically linked to the resource’s record.
The amount of data collected in the field for each resource varied depending on whether it was
a THC Form, Reconnaissance, or Photo Only property. For THC Form properties, structural and
material information was recorded, as well as property type, use, style, plan, and any visible
alterations to the exterior. For Reconnaissance properties, type, style, and plan were
documented. For Photo Only resources, no additional data was collected in the field; if a review
of the photographs indicated that recent alterations might warrant a change in priority, and
therefore THC Form documentation, the resource was revisited.
Secondary buildings were documented in the 2016 survey with a separate inventory form if
they were previously documented in a separate record on the 1984 or 2007 surveys . For all
newly surveyed parcels, secondary buildings were documented separately only if they were
more substantial buildings, such as a carriage house, barn, or a stylized detached garage, for
example. A commonplace detached garage or shed would be photographed when visible from
the right-of-way, and the photo was included in the record of the primary building. When a
parcel included more than one resource and each resource was documented with an individual
inventory form, an alphabetical character was appended to the CMEC ID. For example, the main
house and freestanding carriage house on parcel number 55555 would be designated as
55555A, and 55555B, respectively.
Parcels flagged for further review based on the aerial imagery analysis were evaluated in the
field. Parcels that appeared to be vacant lots or to contain post-1974 development were noted
as such and were not photo-documented. Notes were also made regarding information
obtained from neighbors and members of the public encountered during the survey, including
construction dates for buildings and neighborhood history.
3.1.3 Post-Field Processing
After fieldwork was complete, a qualified architectural historian reviewed the collected data for
each record for accuracy and completeness, and one or more photographs was selected for
each resource. Historical information was added to records where relevant. For resources being
recorded with a THC Form, a brief architectural description was written during the post -field
processing period.
To determine the existence of alterations, historians primarily relied on professional judgment,
as well as Google Street View, Google Earth imagery, and comparison to previous survey photos
and descriptions. For year built dates, Sanborn maps, online building improvement data from
the Williamson Central Appraisal District, and notes from previous surveys were used to
supplement professional judgment.
Page 211 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
12
In consideration of integrity and historical associations, each resource was assigned a 2016
survey priority of High, Medium, or Low (based on the definitions outlined in Section 3.2). For
resources that did not clearly fall into one category, h istorians discussed the priority with each
other and, where needed, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer. For resources that were
previously surveyed, the 2007 and 1984 survey IDs and priorities were inserted into the 2016
survey form for reference. The source of this data was an Excel spreadsheet from the 2007
survey, which was provided to CMEC by the City of Georgetown .
To provide a more complete record for Photo Only properties, which were only to be
documented with a photograph and a preservation priority in 2016, CMEC inserted 2007 survey
data into the 2016 record, including the plan, style, and year built. The 2007 year built data was
reviewed for accuracy and updated where applicable.
Draft survey records were prepared for review by Georgetown’s Historic Preservation Officer,
and, later, for public review. Owners of surveyed resources were notified of the survey via mail
and invited to discuss the findings in a series of meetings on July 13, 2017. During these
meetings, members of the public had the opportunity to provide additional information about
surveyed properties. Records were updated to reflect any new information, and the
information was confirmed via research where possible.
3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The 1984 and 2007 survey assigned High, Medium, and Low priorities to each property. No
documentation was identified defining these categories for the 1984 survey. The definitions of
these categories included in the 2007 survey (and repeated in the scope for the 2016 survey)
are provided below.
LOW
Properties categorized as LOW are neither individually eligible for listing in the
NRHP nor potentially contributing resources within a historic district. Resources
of historic age were considered LOW priority if they could not be associated with
a significant architectural style, building form, construction method, or trend in
local history. Also, resources of historic age that had been severely altered to the
extent that their architectural and historic associations were no longer
understandable, or that new alterations overwhelmed the visual interpretation of
the original or historic appearance, were assigned a LOW priority.
MEDIUM
Resources assigned a MEDIUM preservation priority do not possess sufficient
architectural or historical significance to be individually eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, they would likely be a
contributing resource if located within a historic district that is eligible for the
NRHP. MEDIUM priority properties are valuable resources that add to the area's
overall character and contribute moderately to an understanding of local history or
broader historical patterns. Some MEDIUM priority resources are typical
Page 212 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
13
examples of common building forms or architectural styles from the late-
nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, such as the folk Victorian- style
L-plan house or the Craftsman bungalow. The category of MEDIUM priority may
also encompass significant properties that have experienced deterioration or have
undergone moderate alterations that detract from their integrity.
HIGH
HIGH priority properties are either eligible for listing in the NRHP or designation
as Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), or have previously been listed
in the NRHP or are designated as an RTHL. These resources are good examples
of architecture, engineering, or crafted design. They retain a high degree of their
original contextual and architectural integrity and, if altered, changes are in
keeping with original design, scale, and workmanship. These properties contribute
significantly to local history or broader historical patterns and are considered to be
the most significant resources within the city. Some properties in the HIGH
category are notable because they represent noteworthy examples of a common
local building form, architectural style, or plan type that exhibits particularly
exceptional craftsmanship or design qualities. Others are among the city's oldest
properties and may be missing certain architectural element and/or have been
subject to a moderate amount of changes; nonetheless, because of their age, they
are still significant within a local context. A number of properties with HIGH
ratings remain as excellent examples of relatively rare vernacular/folk
architectural forms that represent Georgetown's early development.
In accordance with the Request for Proposals issued by the City of Georgetown for the current
project and the agreed-upon scope, CMEC also utilized the same priority definitions for the
2016 survey. CMEC historians considered both significance and integrity when assigning the
preservation category. A priority justification statement was also provided for every resource
on the inventory form (for example “lacks integrity,” or “lacks integrity and significance”).
For properties that had been previously surveyed, CMEC considered whether the previous
preservation priority should be changed. Changes in priority in 2016 were primarily attributed
to alterations made since the time of the 2007 survey that had diminished the integrity of the
structure. Some properties were also upgraded in priority based on a reconsideration of
significance allowed by almost a decade of perspective since the prior survey. For example,
several Ranch style resources were upgraded from Low priority in 2007 to Medium priority in
2016 if the resources retained integrity and contributed to the character of the neighborhood.
CMEC also noted that the practice of the 2007 surveyors seemed to have been to assign the
same preservation priority to all resources on a parcel when more than one resource was
present. This resulted in garage buildings being assigned a High priority if the garage was on the
same parcel as a High priority residence. In collaboration with the City of Georgetown Historic
Preservation Officer, CMEC historians proposed providing individualized preservation priorities
Page 213 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
14
for each resource on a property. As a result, several previously surveyed ancillary buildings
changed priority based on the individualized approach.
CMEC also categorized the resources within the City’s two historic overlays as contributing or
non-contributing. All High and Medium priority properties within the overlays are considered
contributing resources. Low priority historic-age resources, non-historic age resources, and
vacant lots are considered non-contributing resources.
4 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
The following section discusses the results of the survey, including an overview of the surveyed
resources, the most common architectural styles and forms, preservation priorities, and
demolitions since the previous survey. An inventory table of all surveyed resources is included
in Appendix B, and individual inventory forms for resources are provided in Appendix C.
4.1 OVERVIEW OF SURVEYED RESOURCES
In total, 1,676 resources were documented during the 2016 survey and assigned a preservation
priority. This includes 1,660 buildings, 13 structures, 2 objects, and 1 site. Most buildings are
single-family homes or commercial buildings. Other building types include educational,
municipal, religious, agricultural, and municipal. Documented structures include bridges, dams,
a water tower, etc.; objects include a statue and a memorial; and the site is an archeological
ruin.
Within the survey area, 1,762 parcels were not documented because they do not have historic-
age resources or are vacant lots. Additionally, 144 resources that were documented in 2007 as
not historic age were not documented in the 2016 survey. CMEC historians surmised that these
resources were documented in 2007 because a resource had been documented in that location
during the 1984 survey but was no longer extant in 2007. These resources were coded as
“NH07” properties in the 2016 survey and were not photographed or assigned a prio rity
because they are not historic age. Forty-five resources that were documented during the 2007
survey with a historic-age year-built date were determined by CMEC historians to be not
historic-age (built in 1975 or later). These resources, which are coded “Photo Only (E07),” were
documented as Photo Only properties at the request of the City, but were not assigned a
preservation priority because they are not historic age.
Fifteen historic-age resources were not recorded because they are not visible from the right-of-
way or are too obscured by foliage to evaluate; 9 of these had been documented previously.
Additionally, 6 previously surveyed cemeteries were re-photographed in 2016 but not assigned
priorities because no historic-age buildings or structures are present.
Page 214 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
15
Finally, as further described in Section 4.4, 66 previously documented resources have been
demolished since they were last surveyed. An additional 14 resources documented during the
previous surveys either did not have accurate geographic data and could not be located, or the
resources were believed to have been demolished, but demolition could not be confirmed from
aerial photographs. These resources are listed as “Possible demolitions” in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Surveyed Resources
Category Count
Priority Assigned 1,676
Buildings 1,660
Structures 13
Objects 2
Site 1
Priority Not Assigned 2,052
Not historic-age / vacant parcels 1,762
Previously surveyed, acknowledged in 2007 as not historic-age 144
Previously surveyed, but determined in 2016 to be not historic-age 45
Not visible from right-of-way 15
Cemeteries 6
Demolitions 66
Possible demolitions 14
4.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND FORMS
This section pertains to residential buildings, as the vast majority of the recorded resources
were single-family homes. Each historic-age property in the district was categorized based on
form and style, using the categories provided on the THC form. The THC Historic Resources
Survey Manual was utilized, as well as the following sources: Common Houses in America’s
Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley (Jakle et al. 1989) and A Field Guide
to American Houses (McAlester 2015). The most common forms and types observed in the
district are described below.
4.2.1 Bungalow
The term “bungalow” has been used to
describe small, single or one-and-a-half
story dwellings with moderately irregular
floorplans, overhanging eaves, and
prominent porches. Bungalows may have
front-gabled, side-gabled, cross-gabled,
or hipped roofs and almost always have
either full or partial width porches. The
Craftsman style is often applied to this
form; characteristic features of this style
include decorative beams or braces A front-gabled Craftsman Bungalow on Ash Street
Page 215 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
16
under gables, exposed rafter tails, battered columns and piers for porch supports, and gr ouped
windows.
The bungalow was the dominant form for houses built in the US between the turn of the
twentieth century and the 1920s. This form was popularized in Southern California and may
have originated in India in the nineteenth century. The bungalow appeared in Georgetown after
World War I and remained a popular style into the 1950s. In all, 76 bungalow-plan buildings
were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.2.2 Minimal Traditional
The “Minimal Traditional” house form
was developed beginning in the mid-
1930s as a response to changes in the
housing market due to the Great
Depression. The Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) was established
in 1934 and provided low-interest
mortgages. In order to protect their
investment, the FHA provided
guidelines for effective house designs.
The efficient designs also meant that
these houses could be constructed
rapidly to meet demand from returning World War II veterans. Minimal Traditional houses are
characterized by their compact form and minimal architectural detailing. Identifying features
include a low or moderately pitched roof, one-story height, and eaves with little or no
overhang. In all, 100 Minimal Traditional residences were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.2.3 Ranch
Following World War II, the
Ranch form became popular
nationwide. The Ranch form
was developed in Southern
California in the mid-1930s
and was one of the small
house types built under FHA
financing guidelines in the
1940s (McAlester 2015). As
the FHA guidelines became
more flexible after World War
II, the Ranch gained increasing popularity. It is characterized by a horizontal one -story shape
and low-pitched roof, with the front entry typically located off -center. A garage is often
attached to the main façade. Many different types and sizes of wind ows are found on Ranch
Ranch house on E. 6th Street
Minimal Traditional house on Hutto Rd
Page 216 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
17
houses, including windows manufactured in standard sizes using production methods
developed during the war. Entries are almost always recessed, either into the front façade or
under a porch. Porch supports, if present, are often simple wood posts or wrought iron. Early
smaller examples of the Ranch form may be referred to as Minimal Ranch and generally lack a
broad overhanging roof and other elaborations (Jakle 1989; McAlester 2015). In all, 441 Ranch
style buildings were documented during the 2016 survey.
4.3 PRESERVATION PRIORITY
The City of Georgetown requested that the documented resources be categorized as High,
Medium, or Low priority, as defined in Section 3.2. Table 2 below summarizes the
recommended categorization of historic-age resources.
Over 200 resources documented during the 2016 survey had a priority change since the last
time they were surveyed. As noted in Section 3.2, in most instances a resource was
downgraded because of recent alterations to the exterior. In other cases, the resource was
upgraded in priority because of a better understanding of the history or significance of a
building, or because a building had been restored since the last survey.
4.4 DEMOLITIONS
The 2007 survey identified 163 resources that had been demolished between 1984 and 2007.
The 2016 survey identified 66 resources that had been demolished between 2007 and 2016.
Table 3: Summary of Demolished Resources
2007 Preservation Priority Count Percent
High 2 3%
Medium 29 44%
Low 32 48%
Not Assigned 3 5%
Total 66 100%
Table 2: Summary of Priority Categorization
Category Count Percent
High 191 11%
Medium 588 35%
Low 897 54%
Total 1,676 100%
Page 217 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
18
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the scope of this survey was primarily limited to documentation and categorization of
resources, future research, documentation, and designation opportunities abound.
5.1 NRHP DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS
5.1.1 Expansion of Current Districts
Consider a boundary expansion of the currently NRHP-listed University Avenue—Elm Street
Historic District.
The City of Georgetown has four National Register Historic Districts: Williamson County
Courthouse Historic District, University Avenue—Elm Street Historic District, Belford Historic
District, and Olive Street Historic District. With the exception of Olive Street, which was listed in
2013, all of the districts were listed in the 1970s and 1980s. In the decades since their listing,
the properties within the districts have been modified, and the settings around the districts
have changed. Additional properties have also become historic-age, potentially justifying an
expanded period of significance and/or boundary.
CMEC historians reviewed the current NRHP boundaries, as well as the properties in the vicinity
of these districts that are currently outside of the NHRP boundaries. CMEC also reviewed the
recommendations in the survey report for the 2007 survey by HHM. In the areas surrounding
the Williamson County Courthouse, Belford, and Olive Street Districts, CMEC did not observe
significant concentrations of intact, historic-age resources to justify an expansion of these
districts.
The University Avenue—Elm Street District, however, appears to have potential for a boundary
increase, as was also noted following the 2007 survey. At the time it was listed (1979), the
district was centered around five high-style residences built between 1889 and 1900 with
Queen Anne, Eastlake, and Georgian Revival styles. The district includes properties on Myrtle
Street that are currently considered non-contributing. The Booty-McAden House was destroyed
by fire in 2006 and was reconstructed in 2009. Although this resource may no longer be
considered contributing to the district, the other contributing resources retain integrity. A
review of the surrounding area indicated that there are several High and Medium priority
properties in the blocks to the southeast that date to the early twentieth century. The Medium
priority properties on Myrtle Street within the current district that are currently categorized as
non-contributing to the NRHP district should also be re-evaluated for potential contributing
status. The area of the potential boundary increase is depicted o n Figure 2, although additional
research would be required to confirm the boundary and contributing/non-contributing
resources. The area of proposed expansion is smaller than that recommended following the
2007 survey, based on professional evaluation of the integrity and cohesiveness of the
surrounding architectural fabric.
Page 218 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
19
5.1.2 Additional Eligible Districts
Consider listing the Blue Hole Recreation Area in the NRHP
The study area was also evaluated for the potential for additional NRHP eligible districts,
including those areas recommended for further study by the 2007 survey. Although CMEC
historians did not find that any of those areas (Forest Street or Nolen Addition) were potentially
eligible for the NRHP (primarily due to alterations and infill development), the Blue Hole
recreation area is recommended as eligible for the NRHP.
Two swimming areas have been created by the two dams in the San Gabriel River at Blue Hole
Park (Resources 123615B and 123615C). Resource 123615B is known as the “Imhoff Dam,”
which is approximately five feet tall and constructed of concrete. The smaller, downstream dam
(Resource 123615C) is known as the “Kiddie Dam” and is also constructed of concrete. Local
history credits Louis P. Imhoff with the construction of Resource 123615B in the 1930s. The
Kiddie Dam is believed to have been constructed contemporaneously with or slightly later than
the Imhoff Dam. Research did not identify further details about the specific association of the
dam with Mr. Imhoff, but the connection is noted in oral history interviews on record with the
Williamson County Historical Commission: “Old Mr. Imhoff, who had a machine shop a block
from that, was the instigator of damming up the Gabriel” (Hoffman 2017). The Imhoff Dam is
noted as having been constructed in 1932 in Donna Scarbrough Josey’s book Georgetown: Then
and Now (2014). A 1933 article in the Georgetown Megaphone (a newspaper published by
Southwestern University students) corroborates this date; the article describes the Imhoff Dam
as having been constructed during the previous summer (Georgetown Megaphone 1933).
No alterations to the dams were observed or identified in research. Information from City of
Georgetown staff indicated that the south bank of the San Gabriel River in the Blue Hole Park
area near the Austin Avenue bridge was modified following a flood in 2007. The flood resulted
in the deposit of a large volume of gravel along the banks of the river. The City graded the area
and added Portland cement to stabilize the bank on the south side of the river. A pedestrian
low-water crossing was constructed shortly thereafter, c. 2008. Although the appearan ce of the
riverfront has been modified by improvements in the past decade, research did not indicate
that either of the dams have been altered, and the swimming hole area still conveys the same
sense of place as it has since the 1930s.
Documentation from the City of Georgetown’s Parks Department regarding the date of the
official dedication of the land as Blue Hole Park was not immediately available, but the results
of newspaper searches indicate that it likely became a city park in the late 1970s. A 1975 article
noted that a park in the Blue Hole area was being considered under the auspices of the
Georgetown Urban Renewal Agency (The Williamson County Sun 1975). A 1977 article noted
the efforts of a group of teenagers to clean up the area “in order to crea te a city park” (The
Williamson County Sun 1977). Independent of its official status as a designated city park, the
“Blue Hole” has been a swimming hole and gathering place for Georgetown residents for over
one hundred years, even pre-dating the 1930s dams that more explicitly defined the area. The
Page 219 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
20
Blue Hole is referred to by name in newspaper articles dating to as early as 1896, when it was
noted as the place of several baptisms (The Williamson County Sun 1896). Additional clippings
from 1898 and 1906 also noted baptisms in the Blue Hole (The Williamson County Sun 1898,
1906). An article in the Georgetown Megaphone from 1915 described the spot as a place where
“the stream becomes both wide and deep and forms what is known as the ‘Blue Hole,’ where
the waters seem as clear and sparkling as any artesian pool.” The 1915 article mentions the
gathering of scores of men engaging in rope swinging and diving. Oral history subjects recalled
that swimming across the river in the location of the Blue Hole was viewed as a rite of passage.
“A boy was accepted when he could swim across Blue Hole and swim back without stopping”
(Hoffman 2017). The identity of the city of Georgetown is closely linked with the San Gabriel
River, and it enjoys widespread renown for the Blue Ho le swimming and recreation area. The
recreational area surrounding the “Blue Hole” is therefore recommended as eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Recreation for its role as a popular recreation area in
Georgetown for over 100 years.
The proposed boundary for this property is shown in Figure 3. The City has indicated that they
do not have right-of-way/parkland delineation documents, and the Williamson County
Appraisal District parcel that encompasses the Blue Hole area is extremely large. Therefore,
CMEC historians have recommended the following NRHP boundary. On the west, the boundary
includes the treeline that comprises the western extent of the viewshed from users of the Blue
Hole area. To the north and south, the boundary includes the banks of the river and a buffer of
trees that serve to screen the swimming and recreational area from other land uses. On the
south side of the river, the boundary includes the current primary public access point to the
recreation area via Rock Street. On the east, the proposed boundary is the centerline of the
bridge carrying Austin Avenue over the south fork of the river. The bridge is a defining feature
of the viewshed from the Blue Hole looking east. The bridge also appears to serve as the
boundary between Blue Hole Park and Veterans of Foreign Wars Park; as noted above, the City
has not identified boundary lines for the parks in this area.
5.2 HIGH-PRIORITY PROPERTIES AND CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES IN NRHP DISTRICTS
The review standards currently in place for the overlays should also apply to high-priority
properties and contributing properties within existing and future NRHP districts.
Currently, Georgetown City Code calls for review of alterations and demolitions within the two
local historic overlay districts. Outside of the overlays, only demolitions are subject to review. In
the 2016 survey, 27 High-priority properties were documented in the area outside of the
overlays. There also appears to be at least one instance of a contributing property to an NRHP
district that is outside the overlays (1708 Olive Street). Future NRHP districts may be outside of
the local overlays entirely. Rather than expanding the boundaries of the overlays, CMEC
recommends that proposed alterations to High-priority properties and contributing properties
Page 220 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
21
within existing and future NRHP districts also be subject to review, regardless of their location
within an overlay.
The recommendation regarding contributing resources in NRHP districts could be accomplished
by revising the definition of “contributing” structures in the code. This proposed revision would
also formalize the recommendation that only High- and Medium-priority properties within the
overlays be considered contributing resources. Additionally, the code should be revised to use
more general language, such as “historic resources” rather than “historic buildings,” to be
inclusive of all types of historic resources, and “the currently adopted survey” rather that citing
specific surveys, thus obviating the need for code edits each time the survey is updated. A
potential code revision is suggested below.
5.3 LOCAL LANDMARKS AND RESOURCES INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP
Establish the City’s first local landmarks and create program/process for future designations ,
and pursue NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated.
Although the City of Georgetown’s code provides a definition of local landmarks, none have
been designated as such to date. The definition of a landmark according to City code is as
follows:
“The City Council shall make the findings that one or more of the following criteria for
designating a building, structure or site within the City limits a local Historic Landmark
is met:
A. Character, interest, or value of the building, structure or site because of its
unique role in the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City,
County, State or Nation;
B. Occurrence of a notable historical event at the building, structure or site;
Page 221 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
22
C. Identification of the building, structure o r site with a person or persons who
contributed notably to the culture and development of the City, County, State,
Nation, or society;
D. Distinctive elements of architectural design, detail material, or craftsmanship that
make it an established or familia r visual feature, or the related distinctiveness of a
craftsman, master builder or architect, or a style or innovation, including but not
limited to:
1. Architectural style of the building or structure;
2. Architectural period of the building or structure;
3. Textures and colors of materials used in the building or structure;
4. Shape of the building or structure;
5. Roofline of the building or structure;
6. Porch and entrance treatments of the building or structure;
7. Height and mass of the building or structure; or
8. Relative proportions of the building or structure (width to height, width to
depth); and
E. Archaeological value in the sense that the building, structure or site can be
expected to yield, based on physical evidence, information affecting knowledge of
history or pr ehistory.”
CMEC historians believe that all properties identified as High priority in the 2016 survey would
meet the landmark criteria. CMEC recommends contacting the owners of each High priority
property to determine whether the owner is interested in landmark designation. The City
Council could then nominate a group of properties at once to become the first designated local
landmarks. The City of Galveston has recently completed a grouped landmarking process, for
properties designed by Nicholas Clayton, which could serve as a model for this process.
In order to facilitate future designation of additional local landmarks, the City should establish a
procedure and/or application process, including the potential for initiation of the designation
process by citizens. The City should publish clear instructions regarding the materials required
to process an application for a Landmark (statement of significance, photographs, maps, etc.)
and provide support from the Historic Preservation Office. To incentivize Lan dmark designation,
the city should consider tax abatements, grants, and access to materials conservation
resources.
In addition to listing High priority resources as local landmarks, CMEC recommends pursuing
individual NRHP listing for High priority resources that are not already NRHP designated. For
example, the Stonehaven Apartments (Survey IDs 126009, 123478, 123483, and 126083), which
were designed to provide affordable and attractive housing to those displaced by Georgetown’s
urban renewal efforts in the 1960s, were upgraded from a Low to a High priority since the last
survey. Resources like Stonehaven are now regularly recognized for their association with post-
war historical trends. By listing Stonehaven and other High priority resources that do not
currently have NRHP designation, the City can ensure that the documentation of Georgetown’s
history at the national level is robust and continues to evolve.
Page 222 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
23
5.4 FUTURE SURVEY
Plan for survey updates every 10 years; add areas of the city/ETJ that have not been previously
surveyed.
The City of Georgetown has demonstrated a commitment to historic preservation during the
past several decades. The City should plan to continue to update the historic resources survey
at least every ten years in order to ensure t hat the survey provides an accurate record of the
city’s resources and serves as a useful tool for City planners.
A large portion of the City and its ETJ have never been surveyed. There are mid-century
neighborhoods west of I-35 along Williams Dive that have not been documented in full but
have potential for significance. The 1984 survey evaluated a small number of agricultural
properties in the ETJ. CMEC historians observed many more historic-age agricultural properties
outside of the survey boundary that have never been evaluated. These agricultural areas are
under threat of encroaching development and should be documented before they are lost.
5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH/ OPPORTUNITIES
Finally, CMEC recommends the creation of a repository for local architectural history. This could
take the form of a web-based “wiki” application with a map, where participants can add stories,
dates, and photographs to records linked to parcels in the city. Alternately, this information
could be stored at the Williamson Museum, or at the public library.
Page 223 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
24
REFERENCES
Francaviglia, Richard V.
1996 Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town America.
University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Georgetown Heritage Society and S. Elizabeth Valenzuela
2013 Olive Street Historic District National Register Nomination. Electronic document,
https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/13000615/13000615.pdf, accessed February 8,
2017.
Georgetown Megaphone
1915 Swimming for Students. 7 May. Georgetown, Texas.
1933 Professor Added. 24 February. Georgetown, Texas.
Hardy Heck & Moore (HHM)
1984 Historic Resource Survey of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas.
2010 Final Report: Historic Resources Survey, City of Georgetown, Texas. Austin, Texas.
Hoffman, Billie
2017 Interview by Theresa Wineinger, Williamson County Historical Commission,
Electronic document, http://www.williamson-county-historical-
commission.org/San_Gabriel_river_Blue_Hole_williamson_county.htm
Jakle, John A., Robert W. Bastian, and Douglas K. Meyer
1989 Common Houses in America’s Small Towns: The Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi
Valley. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Josey, Donna Scarbrough
2014 Georgetown: Then and Now. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
McKnight, Kim
2002 Texas Main Street Program: 20 Years of Achievement. Electronic document,
http://www.mainstreet.org/main-street/main-street-news/2002/01/texas-main-street-
program.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/, accessed February 7, 2017.
Moore, David, Martha Freedman, and Tara Dudley
2016 The Meridian Highway in Texas. Prepared for the Texas Historical Commission.
Austin, Texas.
Page 224 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
25
Moore, David and Daniel Hardy
1984 The Historic Resources of Georgetown, Texas (Partial Inventory of Architectural
and Historic Properties) National Register nomination.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NRHP/Text/64000843.pdf
Odintz, Mark
2016 Williamson County. Handbook of Texas Online. Electronic document,
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcw11 , accessed February 7, 2017.
Sanborn Map & Publishing Co.
1885 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1889 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1905 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1910 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
1916 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1925 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1925 Sanborn Map, Corrected 1940: Georgetown, TX. New York
Sanborn-Perris Map Co.
1894 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York.
1900 Sanborn Map: Georgetown, TX. New York
Scarbrough, Clara Stearns
1973 Land of Good Water: A Williamson County, Texas, History. Williamson County Sun
Publication, Georgetown, Texas.
2010 Handbook of Texas Online, "Georgetown, TX (Williamson County)." Electronic
document, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hfg03 , accessed
January 31, 2017.
Scarbrough, Linda
2008 Road, River, and Ol’ Boy Politics: A Texas County’s Path from Farm to Supersuburb.
Texas State Historical Association, Austin, Texas.
Texas Almanac
c. 2000 Texas Almanac: City Population History from 1850–2000. Electronic document,
https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/images/CityPopHist%20web.pdf, accessed
February 7, 2017.
Page 225 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
26
Texas Historical Commission
c. 2000 Untitled report describing the history of Georgetown. Electronic document,
http://www.georgetown-texas.org/THC_Georgetown_Texas.pdf, accessed February 7,
2017.
c. 2006 Williamson County Courthouse – Georgetown. Electronic document,
http://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-historic-courthouse-
preservation/restored-courthouses/williamson, accessed February 7, 2017.
United States Census Bureau
2016 “Five of the Nation’s Eleven Fastest-Growing Cities are in Texas.” Press Release.
Electronic document, http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-81.html,
accessed February 7, 2017.
Veselka, Robert E.
2000 The Courthouse Square in Texas. The University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
Williams, J. R., and Marie D. Landon
1976 Williamson County Courthouse Historic District National Register Nomination.
Electronic document, https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/NR/pdfs/77001480/77001480.pdf,
accessed February 8, 2017.
The Williamson County Sun [Georgetown, Texas]
1896 “Short announcement about baptisms.” 10 December. Georgetown, Texas.
1898 “Announcements.” 17 February. Georgetown, Texas.
1906 “Short announcement about baptism.” 16 August. Georgetown, Texas.
1967a “Urban Renewal – Its Prospects & Possibilities in Georgetown.’ 12 January.
Georgetown, Texas.
1967b “$2.19 Million Grant for Renewal Project OKed.’ 2 February. Georgetown, Texas.
1970 “$516,913.00 Loan to Build 30 More Stonehaven Units.”
1975 “Supporters tour proposed park.” July 20. Georgetown, Texas.
1977 “1977 Review.” December 29. Georgetown, Texas.
Page 226 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX A: MAPS
Page 227 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX B: INVENTORY TABLE
Page 228 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY FORMS
Page 229 of 257
Cox|McLain Environmental Consulting, Inc.
APPENDIX D: MATERIALS FROM MOBILE WORKSHOP
Page 230 of 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Update and discussion regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amended and Restated Consent Agreeme nt
(First Amendment) and the Amended and Restated Develo pment Agreement (Second Amendment) -- Wayne Reed,
Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
In January of this year, City Council approved a memorandum o f understanding (MOU) with Laredo Water Oak, LTD,
(a.k.a. LWO and Original Developer) and WRR Interest, LLC, (a.k.a. WRR and Buye r) concerning the Water Oak
Subdivision (see Attachment 2 ). LWO’s request for new amendme nts to the current c onsent and develo pment agree ments
is intended to both revise existing and add new pro visions to the agreements, and to assign, allocate, and distribute the
existing and new rights and responsibilities among the multiple developers (Original De veloper, LWO’s affiliates, and
Buyer). After several months o f working through the existing agreements, all parties have neared consensus on the major
points to be included in the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Co nsent Agreement and the Se c ond
Amendment to the Ame nded and Restated Developme nt Agreement (collectively, the “Agreements”. Based upon
Council’s feedbac k, staff will bring the Agreeme nts fo rward as soon as possible once all parties have agreed to the final
form for consideration o f approval.
Background
The City previo usly consented to the fo rmation of Municipal Utility Districts (MUD) for Water Oak in 2007, following
original agreements for a co nservatio n subdivisio n and off-site utilities approved in No vember 2006. Over the past
decade, multiple amendments have been made to the original consent and deve lo pment agreements to accommodate
changing market conditions and development needs. In 20 12 , after the economic downturn, the original MUD agree ments
were amended and restated to scale back the project from approximately 1,707 acres to roughly 1 ,35 4 acres o f land,
reduce the number MUDs allowe d, and to c onvert the in-city MUDs to out-o f-c ity MUDs. The off-site utility agreeme nt
was also updated to specify which off-site utility impro vements had already been constructed and which remained to be
constructed o n what timeline. To date only o ne district has been created (Williamson County MUD #2 5). Williamson
County MUD 2 5 is currently comprised of two separate, unconnected areas – one north of the river and the other south of
the river. No bonds have been issued to date.
In June 20 16 , LWO, Ltd., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In Oc to ber 2 01 6, the bankruptcy co urt appro ved the sale of
approximately 1,0 60 acres of land (out of the 1,3 54 ) to WRR Interests, LLC. The land slated to be so ld is all of the land
in the Water Oak Subdivision situated south of the South San Gabriel River and extending to RM 2243 (see Attachment 1
showing “Water Oak South”). Should the two parties close on the deal, LWO and ABG Water Oak P artners, Ltd., (ABG)
will own the undeveloped land located north of the South San Gabriel River (Water Oak North), and a single-purpo se
entity to be created by WRR will o wn all o f the unde veloped land so uth of the South San Gabriel River (Water Oak
South).
The Water Oak Subdivision started building homes in Water Oak No rth in 2013. Over the past four years, there have been
more than 150 homes built in the subdivision. The maximum number o f lots in Water Oak North upon build-out is 54 8
according to the Concept Plan. Water Oak South will add up to another 2,7 20 single-family lots fo r a grand to tal of 3 ,26 8
residential units. It may take until 2 02 8 or lo nger to fully build-out the entire residential areas in the Water Oak
Subdivision.
Amendments
The scope o f the current amendments to the Water Oak Agreements was initially framed by the MOU. The MOU was
intended to outline certain general parameters to aid the parties in (1) negotiating and drafting revisions to the Amended
and Restated (A&R) Development Agreement; (2 ) nego tiating and drafting revisions to the A&R Co nsent Agreement, and
(3) negotiating and drafting one or more assignment and assumptio n agreement(s), pursuant to which the rights and
obligations of the Original Developer that pertain to Water Oak South wo uld be assigned to and assumed by a Buyer. The
MOU was no t intended to be exhaustive in the terms or conditio ns to be nego tiated or amended in the agreements, but
rather a framework. The MOU identified the following list o f ite ms that served as the initial framework fo r the
Page 231 of 257
negotiations (se e Attachment 2):
Bond Terms (maximum bond maturity and e xtend issuance date limits)
Parks and Trails (construct a 10 foot wide regional trail along the South San Gabriel River)
Updated Deve lo pment Standards (fire code , street design, and connectivity standards)
Easeme nts (finalize, execute and record utility access easements)
In additio n, the MOU obligated Laredo WO and WRR as jointly and severally respo nsible fo r reimbursing the City fo r all
professional fe e s and costs, such as legal fees and costs fo r financial c onsultants, for work on the amendments. To date,
the City has incurred in excess o f $60,000 in expenses and has not been reimbursed. While WRR has stated it wo uld pay
its fair share, Lare do WO has info rmed the City that it cannot make payme nt until the close on Water Oak So uth, because
the pro perty is in bankruptcy. The City staff decided it was better to comple te the nego tiatio ns in good faith rather than to
execute the right to sto p work until payment in full is made. Howe ver, staff recognizes that the City Co de require s
payment in full of these fees prior to ado ption of these Agreements; therefore, if the fees remain unpaid on the date that
the Co uncil co nsiders these Agreements fo r final approval, the mo tion and re so lutio n approving the Agre e ments must
provide that the Agreements are not effective (i.e., will not be signe d by the Mayor) unless and until the fees are paid in
full.
The major ame ndments being proposed at this time are as fo llows (some of these points are still under discussion):
Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Devel opment Agreement Concerni ng the Water Oak
Subdi vi si on (“Se c ond Amendment”)
· Conditions P recedent (Second Amendment will not take effect unless and until the follo wing are met)
o The City receives the following documents:
Certificate of existe nc e fo r the newly created Buyer/Assignee entity to be created
by WRR (which will be the entity signing the Agreeme nts);
Assignment and Assumptions Agreements between WRR and the Buyer entity
assigning WRR’s rights and obligations under the Agre e ments;
Financing commitments and agreements pertaining to the Buyer for the acquisition
and development of Water Oak So uth demonstrating Buye r ’s ability to perform per
the terms of the Agre e ments; and
Buyer/Assignee’s certific ate of authority to execute the Assignment and Assumption
Agreements and to perfo rm o bligations of WRR under the Agreements
NOTE: It is proposed that WRR shall have the right, if necessary, to extend the 30
day period for delivery of items listed above for an additional 30 days by delive ry of
a notice to the City 5 days prior to the expiration of the initial 30 day period.
NOTE: It is propo sed that if all of the above have not been delivered to the City
within 6 0 days follo wing the execution o f the Seco nd Amendme nt and the First
Amendment, the City shall have the right to terminate the Agreements
o The closing of the acquisitio n o f Water Oak South by the Buye r entity shall occur no later than 12 0
days follo wing the execution of the Agreements.
NOTE: It is proposed that if the closing of Water Oak So uth do e s no t occur
within the 120 days, the Agreements shall automatic ally terminate
o Payment by LWO and WRR to the City of all professional fees and costs (e.g., outside counse l,
financial consultants, etc.) at time of c lo sing o n Water Oak So uth. Onl y after payment i s rec e i ve d
w o ul d the Mayor be authori zed to si gn the Agreements.
· Division o f Responsibilities (in general)
o Water Oak North – Laredo WO, Ltd and ABG Water Oak Partners Ltd
o Water Oak South – WRR or a ne w Buyer entity
· Concept P lan
o Amends the Concept Plan
Land Uses remain constant: a) 3,2 68 single-family units; 17.5 acres of
commercial; two 2 .5 acre fire station sites; and one elementary school site of
12 acres
Page 232 of 257
Updated phasing o f residential and c ommercial development base d upon actual
and projected growth
Allocation o f Commercial SUEs (wastewater) between Water Oak No rth and
Water Oak South
Allocation o f Parkland and Open Spac e across Water Oak North and Water Oak
South
o Mino r and major amendments pro cesses updated
· Fire Code and Fire Stations
o Updates actions needed to achie ve co mpliance with City’s fire co de
o Lo cks in purchase of 2.50 acre tract on Water Oak North and adjac e nt to SH 29 by the City for fire
statio n purposes at $5.00/square fo ot
o Confirms that second 2.50 acre tract on Water Oak South and adjac ent to RM 2 24 3 will be do nated to
the City for fire station purposes at no co st to the City
· Platting
o Recognizes the status of several preliminary and final plats (re c orded, expired, under review, or
e xtended)
o Extends the Preliminary P lat for Water Oak South Section 1 for two years versus six months allo wed
by UDC. The preliminary plat will be valid until July 21, 2019
· Roadway Standards
o Adds new cross section to the me nu of approved roadway standards (ne w cro ss section is consiste nt
with current City standards)
o Adds language permitting changes in curvature of Water Oak Bo ulevard if required to me e t
Williamson County’s roadway de sign standards (all roads are in the ETJ)
· Bridge
o Retains schedule to initiate constructio n and achieve substantial completion in current developme nt
agreement as follows:
Issuance of Notice to Proceed for Commencement of Construction – no later
than the date that is thirty (3 0) calendar days after the date that the 500th
building permit (adding any pe rmits issued in Water Oak North and Wate r Oak
South) is issued by the City
Substantial Completion – no later than the date that is 24 mo nths after the date
of issuance of the No tice to P roceed
o Allocates responsibility to WRR o r Buyer entity for constructio n
o Explains how City will reimburse WRR or Buyer entity for actual Bridge co nstruction co sts from the
Master Development Fee funds and from any Bridge Contribution P ayment, and from no other so urc e s,
up to the total amount of the actual Bridge co nstruction costs
o Addresses initial calculatio n and subsequent adjustme nts to the Bridge Fiscal Security amount to
factor in sums in Master Develo pment Fee account and any Bridge Contributio n P ayment received by the
City
· Water Oak Parkway
o Establishes deadlines for constructio n:
Water Oak Parkway o n Water Oak North (SH 29 to rive r) – deadline is when
Bridge is complete d
Water Oak P arkway o n Water Oak South (river to FM 22 43 (Leander Ro ad)) –
deadline fo r construction o f the entire c ross section is upon the earlie r of date
specified in TIA (to be performed later) or January 1, 2 02 9
Alternatively, two lanes of Wate r Oak P arkway (one in eac h directio n) on Water
Oak South shall be constructed on or before the date that building permits have
been issued for 1,9 04 (70 %) lots in Water Oak So uth
· Regional Trail
o Establishes trail standards consistent with City’s current standards
o Establishes deadline for constructio n (substantial co mpletion) by or befo re the first to occur of (x)
substantial c ompletio n of the Bridge, o r (y) the date that is eight (8) months after receipt o f notice fro m
Page 233 of 257
the City’s P arks Director stating that co nstruc tion of the Regional Trail must be co mmenced (the
“Regional Trail De adline”), pro vided that the City agre e s that no such notice will be sent prio r to
September 1 , 20 19 . CCD shall notify the City’s Parks Director at least 12 0 days prior to
c ommencement of construction o f the Regio nal Trail.
o Addresses short term and long term maintenance requirements
· Allowed Uses
o Allo ws up to 4 fuel pumps at a gas station in the comme rc ial area in a linear distribution pattern on
one tract in Water Oak North
· Impact Fe e s
o Extends right to pay lo cked in the City’s impact fee amounts ($3,324.00 for water, and $2,6 83 .00 for
wastewater) based upon an existing Georgetown water agreement for future residential developme nt,
while re c ognizing Wate r Oak North, Sections 1, 2, and 3 are paying either $4,700 or $5 ,13 9 water
impact fees, because these subdivisions were serviced by the former Chisho lm Trail Special Utility
District and LWO entered into agreements containing these fees.
· Other allo c atio ns
o Allo cates water, wastewater, and o pen space/programmed open space/preserved open space/parkland
de dication, between Water Oak North and Water Oak South.
· Assignme nt
o Allo ws assignment of rights and o bligatio ns (as detailed in the agreement) fro m LWO to ABG Water
Oak Partne rs Ltd and WRR, but does not require posting of fiscal se c urity to guarantee developme nt
obligations. Instead, requires pro of o f financing from WRR or Buye r e ntity as condition precedent.
Fi rst Amendment to the Amended and Restated Consent Agreement
· Conditions P recedent (First Amendment will not take effect unless and until the follo wing are met)
o Same as in Second Amendme nt to the Amended and Restated De velopment Agreement
· Assignme nt
o Allo ws assignment of rights and o bligatio ns (as detailed in the agreement) fro m LWO to ABG Water
Oak Partners Ltd and WRR
· Bonds
o Allows maximum bond maturity o f 25 years (an increase from the c urrent 1 5 years)
o Requires EACH individual distric t to issue its bonds within 15 years after the date that individual
district first issues bonds;
o Limits the late st Bond issuance date for any district to be within twenty (20) years after the date of
first issuance of Bonds by any distric t. This means if a district was to issue bonds in January of 20 18, no
individual Water Oak MUD could issue bo nds after January 2038
· Master Deve lo pment Fee
o Explains how this fee will be calculate d and paid to the City out o f net bond reimburse ments to e ach
De veloper from the proce e ds of the issuance of bonds by the any district at the rate of 1 0% of all ne t
bond reimbursements received by any o f the Developers
· Water and Wastewater Service
o States that the City is the exclusive provider and that the de velopers and the MUD cannot provide
re tail or wholesale water or waste water service.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The existing Water Oak MUD has the following financial terms with maximum amount and maximum maturity of bo nds
being modified by these amendments:
Maxi mum Amount o f Bo nds to be Issued: increasing it from approx. $66.5M to appro x. $11 3M
Maxi mum Maturi ty o f Bo nds: 25 years from date o f issuance
Faci l i ti es B onds may be Issued to Fi nanc e : Water, Wastewater, Sto rm Drainage, Roads, Bridge, Recreational
Facilities, and Refunding Bo nds
Page 234 of 257
Di stri ct Onl y Tax Rate (Maxi mum): $0.9 2 per $100 in Assessed Value (inclusive o f both the debt service portion and
the O&M portio n)
SUBMITTED BY:
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Draft Concep t Plan
Water Oak MOU
Page 235 of 257
0’300’600’150’450’
August 15, 2017
Note: Concept plan based on October 14, 2013 layout. Concept plan is subject to change to meet floodplain,
water quality, roadway re-alignments, buffers & setback, and other engineering related requirements.
*The information shown is based on the best information available and is subject to change without notice.
**Plan subject to change based on market conditions.
***Concept Plan is subject to Flood Plain Reclamation.
Concept Plan
This Concept Plan may need to be changed over time due to market conditions or
other Iactors, and the 'eYeloper may reTuest amendments. 0inor 0odi¿cations
may be approYed administratiYely by the 3lanning 'irector, and 0ajor 0odi¿cations
must be approved by City Council.
Streets are generally depicted here and are subject to change. Block lengths,
connectivity rations, and street designs will meet the standards of the UDC, in effect
as of June 1, 2011, and Development Agreement during platting. The total number
of connections shall not be reduced from the total number of connections shown on
this Concept Plan.
NOTE:
1. Timing of construction of Water Oak Parkway is addressed
in Section 2.8(e) of the SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE WATER OAK
SUBDIVISION.
2. Responsibility to construct Parkway B, including portion
between Sections C7 and C8, is the responsibility of the
Developer and must be built in accordance with a TIA
approved by the City.
C2
C2
C1
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
A1
A3
B7
B6
B1
B2
B2
B2
C9
C11
C10
C8
B4
B4
B3
B5
B6
A5 A6
A4
A2
R a n c h R o a d 2 2 4 3
R a n c h R o a d 2 2 4 3
State highway 29
W a t e r O a k P a r k W a y
FutuRe
School Site
12.05 acresamenity
Site
amenity
Site
amenity
Site
FutuRe
Retail/
commeRcial
FutuRe
Retail/commeRcial
Fully-Developed
Floodplain
Water Oak
Pakway Bridge
FEMA
Floodplain
Potential FutuRe
FiRe Station Site
Parkway Roadway
Connection
Parkway Roadway
Connection
Boulevard
Roadway
Connection
Boulevard
Roadway
Connection
Parkway
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Boulevard
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Boulevard
Roadway
Connection
Residential
Roadway
Connection
Par
k
w
a
y
P
r
a
iri
e
O
a
ks Drive
Leaning O a k L a n e
Approximate Residential Lots and SUE’s
Approximate Commercial SUE’s
2013
Water Oak North
10 Acre Retail Commercial 100
30
80
10
10
2 Acre Retail Commercial
5.5 Acre Retail Commercial
2.5 Acre Fire Station
2.5 Acre Fire Station
Water Oak South
2014 20202016 20222018 Total20152021201720232024202520262019
Legend
+/- 360 acres
Parkland Dedication
Civic Use
Commercial Use
Environmental Feature
Open Space Acreage
Community Trail
Boulevard Street
Project Boundary
Preserved and Programmed
Open Space
Water Oak North :
Water Oak North :
Water Oak North :
Water Oak South :
Water Oak South :
Water Oak South :
24” Water Transmission Line
Improved Concrete
Park Trails
Phase Boundary
Total Open Space :
+/- 63 acres
+/- 297 acres
+/- 65 acres
+/- 15 acres
+/- 80 acres
+/- 232 acres
+/- 48 acres
+/- 280 acres
A1
79
79 0 83 56 310 460 470 500 320 280 360 190 150 240 3,498
A2
83
A3
56
A4
130
B1
180
A6
120
B2
190
C1
150
A5
80
B3
180
C2
210
B4
180
C3
90
COMM
230
B5
160
C4
160
B6
140
C5
140
B7
180
C6,C7
180
C8,C9
190
C10
150
C11
240
A
548
B
1,210
C
1,510
COMM
230
Page 236 of 257
Page 237 of 257
Page 238 of 257
Page 239 of 257
Page 240 of 257
Page 241 of 257
Page 242 of 257
Page 243 of 257
Page 244 of 257
Page 245 of 257
Page 246 of 257
Page 247 of 257
Page 248 of 257
Page 249 of 257
Page 250 of 257
Page 251 of 257
Page 252 of 257
Page 253 of 257
Page 254 of 257
Page 255 of 257
Page 256 of 257
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
August 22, 2017
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending o r co ntemplated litigation and other matters o n which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o n about Real Proper ty
- P arcel 15 (160 3 No rthwest Boulevard) Rivery Boule vard Extension P roject
- Weir Property (NL of 2 24 3/Leander Road West of Riverview Drive), Southwest Bypass P roject
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Sec re tary and Municipal Judge: Consideratio n of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 257 of 257