Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 03.11.2014
Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas MARCH 11, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on MARCH 11, 2014 at 6:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Compensation Committee Appointments City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - May 10, 2014 General Election - Civil Service Commission Vacancy - Burn Ban Action from Executive Session Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Statutory Consent Agenda The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 – Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the renewal of printer and Multi-Function Printer (MFP) maintenance contracts through TLC Office Systems for $66,960.96 -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager E Forwarded from General Government and Finance Adviory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to authorize payment of transaction fees to Tyler Technologies for online web account management and payment processing in the amount of $84,500 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer F Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the independent audit of all accounts of the City reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Lisa Haines, Controller G Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to renew the contract with Dataprose as the City's vendor for utility bill printing and mailing services and approve funding at an annual cost of $220,000 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Mick Rundell, Chief Financial Officer H Notification of appointments to the 2014/2015 Georgetown Housing Authority – Mayor George Garver I Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Ethics Commission -- Mayor George Garver Legislative Regular Agenda J Direction to staff to proceed with negotiations of a potential special financing district to facilitate development for a certain ~300 acre property located in Southeast Georgetown adjacent to Sam Houston Avenue -- Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer K Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing proceeding with the issuance of obligations for the City's capital improvement programs and further directing the publication of Notice of Intention to Issue City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Utility System Limited Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2014 and other matters related thereto -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer L Forward from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. CPY-14-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to develop the schematic and 30% construction plans and preliminary estimate for the extension of Rabbit Hill Road from Westinghouse Road southward to its intersection with Oakmont Drive/Teravista Parkway in the amount of $196,000.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Edward G. Polasek, AICP Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer. M Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a rezoning of 4.10 acres, being Lot 1, G. B. F. Subdivision, from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District, located at 302 Serenada Dr. at the east corner of Serenada Dr. and Northwest Blvd -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) N Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 22.02 acres out of the N. Porter Survey and the Crestview Addition, Crestview Baptist Church, Gabriel Heights, Longhorn Crossing, and Williams Addition subdivisions, to remove the Williams Drive (F.M. 2338) Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP-WM”), on the properties generally located on Williams Dr between Shannon Lane and Power Road, within City Council District 2, more specifically on the properties located at 211 W Central Dr, 307 Shannon Ln, 504 Power Rd, 1629 Rivery Blvd, and 1599 through 2404 Williams Dr, save and except 2403 Williams Dr. REZ-2013- 015 -- Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) O Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution pertaining to the cancellation of the May 10, 2014 General Election for City Council District 2 and District 6 – Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. P Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures - Compensation Committee Appointments City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - May 10, 2014 General Election - Civil Service Commission Vacancy - Burn Ban Action from Executive Session ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 – Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: February 25, 2014 DRAFT Workshop Minutes February 25, 2014 DRAFT City Council Minutes Cover Memo Item # C Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 25, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop – Call to order at 2:00 PM Mayor called the meeting to order at 2:02PM. Fought, Brainard absent. A Public Safety Annual Operations Update – Wayne Nero, Police Chief and John Sullivan, Fire Chief With a Powerpoint Presentation, Nero provided an update of the Police Department Operations. He provided the Council with the hiring demographics from April 2010 to the present. He said at least 66% of the interest is coming from the internet. He added since 2010, they have hired 21 officers, 81% male and 19% female. He provided Council with the 2013 year in review statistics for traffic stops, emergency 911 calls for service, UCR Part 1 Crimes (Crimes Against Persons), burglary of vehicles, motor vehicle accidents, code enforcement and animal control calls and volunteers. He spoke about the training that was in place for fiscal year 2012/2013. He spoke about how the City hosts training sessions for more outside officers than those inside of the city. He said there were 95 students from out of state last year. He said the state requires that the minimum training is 40 hours over two years and noted the national average is 40 hours annually. He said the department tries to look at whether or not the training affects the department’s service delivery. He said the annual average response time for priority 1 calls is between seven to thirty minutes. He spoke about how the training has no statistical impact on service delivery. He spoke about how training affects an officer’s safety and provided a sample of the in service training they are doing with the officers. He spoke about their 2011-2013 active shooter training and said they put all of the officers through a level 1 training course. He said they have done fire training that goes with that as well. He said the department is working on how to get medical onto a scene immediately. He described the department’s collaboration with GISD. He reviewed the city’s current fire arms training and how they have improved in the past two years. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Sullivan provided an update to the Council regarding the fire department. He provided the council with a map of the service territory. He showed Council a map of the response history and how the greatest increase in the number of responses occurred between 2012 and 2013. He showed Council a pie chart showing that 15% of the calls occur outside of the city limits. He spoke about the deployment analysis and total response time and what goes into estimating that time. He said they are proposing different response goals for the City and he spoke about the times for both urban and suburban areas. He said their goal is to be there in 11 minutes or less, 90% of the time. He showed Council a current chart of the department’s response capability. He showed Council the demand projections until 2030. He described the many accomplishments of the department over the past year and spoke about the fire based immunization program they implemented. He spoke about the fire department audit. He said, last year, they also did some visioning sessions for the future of the Fire Department. He said they developed a mission statement, vision statement, value statement and motto. Brainard arrived at the dais. He said, last year, the City received a service recognition award. He said station #2 and Public Safety Operations Training Center had their ground breaking as well. He spoke about “Safe-T” program. He said they were involved with St. David’s on a disaster drill. He continued to speak about the accomplishments of the department. There was much discussion. B Presentation and Discussion on Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) MS4 Phase II General Permit and related activities – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer With a Powerpoint Presentation, Polasek provided Council with an updated of the Phase II Small MS4 Permit Application. He said they are here today to provide the Council with the permit application. He introduced Curtis Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # C Beitel and Cris Parker from HDR, who are the principal employees on this project. Beitel provided Council with the definition of the various terminology used throughout this process. He spoke about the several types of storm water permits, construction general permits, Small MS4 general permits and multi-sector general permits. He spoke about the small MS4 permit requirements and how they are only applicable to the Census Urbanized Area. He said Georgetown is now part of the Austin urbanized area and the City will need to apply for a permit. He said Georgetown fits until the level 3 MS4 category for populations between 40,000 and 100,000. He continued to review the small MS4 permit requirements. He provided the Council with a description of each of the minimum control measures including public education, outreach and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment, pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations, industrial stormwater sources and authorization for construction activities where the small MS4 is the site operator (optional). He spoke about how they must set up measurable goals for each BMP. He said they make sure to coordinate with existing programs and he spoke about the current development process for the program. He said they will review the current storm water program and ordinance, existing water quality data and city facilities. He described the application process for the Council. Brandenburg spoke about the purpose of this presentation and what it means moving forward. He said the salamander was listed as threatened and not endangered and he said the City needs to look at what happens now. He said more discussion will take place to see how the City should move forward. He said it is an issue of clarity. Commissioner Covey thanked the Council and said there are probably more questions than answers at this juncture. She said she appreciates and applauds the Council for stepping up and approving the salamander ordinance. She said it was a disappointment to have the salamander listed and added she is not here to educate the Council on a 4D rule because she does not know how they will work. She described the rule and the process as she understands it so far. She asked the Council to hold off on making decisions about this until they gather more information on what this means. She spoke about what would happen if they rescinded all actions and listed the salamander as endangered. She said she recommends that this not happen. She asked Council to forward her their questions and concerns ahead of her meeting with the representatives. Eason said she is in favor of Council working with the Commissioner. Brainard thanked the Commissioner for the work she has put into this. Jonrowe asked about the effect of this on any future permits for property that may be close to the salamanders. Mayor asked and Commissioner said she needs the comments and questions this week prior to her meeting with the representatives. Mayor asked and Polasek said they would take the water quality measures for the salamander and incorporate them into the City’s 5 year plan. There was much discussion. C Overview of the City’s current outstanding and proposed debt obligations -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer With a Powerpoint Presentation, Rundell reviewed the different types of debt including General Obligation (GO) and Certificates of Obligation (CO) bonds. She described self-supporting CO debt and how the city gets interest savings by issuing CO debt rather than revenue. She said there are other types of self-supported debt including limited tax notes and certificates of participation. She described those types of debt to the Council. She said, currently, the City has $102,337,359 tax supported debt outstanding. She spoke about the voter approved bonds that are included in that amount, as well as the related projects being funded by those bonds. She showed Council a pie chart of the general debt capacity and she spoke about the GO/CO debt outstanding. She showed the Council a graph of the historical GO/CO debt. She showed Council a graph of the total water service debt compared to water service assets. She spoke about the current city debt conditions as well as the City’s bond ratings. She said the rating agencies review financial and management conditions and determine the city’s “credit worthiness.” She spoke about the city’s current bond rating and said, with Moody’s it is A2 General Obligation and Revenue and AA+ on GO and AA on Revenue with Standard and Poors. She said part of the reason why the City does not have a AAA rating is because the city has its own electric utility. She spoke about the population growth in the City of Georgetown and how there has been an uptick in the past couple of years. She showed Council a graph of the city assets net of related debt as well as a graph of the debt to assessed valuation comparison. She spoke about the “Albertson’s” proceeds, described the history of that building and how the city sold the building in December 2013 for $3,550,000 net bonds (principal) outstanding. She provided Council with some options for the use of the Albertson’s proceeds. She said the options are to use proceeds for renovation of city facilities for public use or defease bonds including interest payable until next call date (2019). She said the staff recommendation is to repurpose the bond proceeds into the City’s facility plan. She described the upcoming debt issue and the 2013 budgeted CO bond, both tax supported and self-supporting. Rundell spoke about potential 2014 general obligation bonds. She said there are also some proposed 2014 revenue bonds planned. She described the next steps in this process. Gonzalez asked and Rundell spoke about the parks projects included in the proposed bonds. Hammerlun asked and Rundell spoke about what was accomplished using the 2004 bonds. Hammerlun asked about when and how Council will have the opportunity to decide how to repurpose the proceeds from the sale of the Albertson’s Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # C building. Hesser said he is concerned about the impact of CTSUD on this process. Rundell said CTSUD will have no effect on the tax rate. Brainard asked and Rundell said she can provide the Council with the amortization schedule. Brainard addressed the revenue debt historical chart. He asked if this chart could also imply the city is not keeping up with its capital needs. There were many questions and much discussion. Brainard asked and Rundlel said the Council will need to make a decision rather quickly on the Albertson’s proceeds. Eason said she always appreciates the presentation and says she is always learning. Gonzalez said we do need to set aside some time to talk about repurposing of the funds from the Albertson’s. Brandenburg said there are two workshops coming up that will address this issue. D Presentation on Tourism Market Research Study Results -- Darren Drewitz, Mind Ecology, Cari Miller, Tourism Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Brewer introduced Darren Drewitz who will provide the information about the tourism study results. She introduced the staff and board members at the meeting who have helped with this study. She described the CVB priority focus area. She said, back in 2011, the IF Marketing study gave staff guidance to develop a core them and the square was recognized as the most important tourism asset. She spoke about how they came up with the “Most Beautiful Town Square in Texas” slogan. She showed Council the mind maps that led to this core asset. She spoke about the tourism study and why it was taking place. She said CVB needed analysis of market data to ensure advertising dollars were being used effectively. She said data was collected from local hotels, bed and breakfasts, attractions, retailers, the Visitors Center and the Art Center. She said they contracted with Mind Ecology to identify and define Georgetown current markets and clarify the most effective advertising mediums for these markets. Drewitz reviewed the tourism results for the City Council. He described what they were tasked to do. He said their first key finding is to discover the top three prospective visitors. He said those visitors, or personas, include successful mid-lifers, accumulating families and traditional matures. He said the second key finding is that two- thirds of the city’s visitors live within 50 miles. He said traditional matures are the group that are most likely to visit Georgetown. He spoke about the three groups and the definition of those people. He spoke about how defining these groups helps the city decide how to market and reach those groups. He described how they came up with marketing recommendations for all of the visitors to the city. He said a recommendation is to continue to rely on internet marketing and email marketing, social media and buying “likes.” He spoke about their recommendations for how to speak to the top three personas visiting Georgetown. Eason said it looks like a thorough report and it seems in sync with what they have been seeing themselves. She said she is glad to see there is some data that we can use to fine tune the message to the particular groups. Brainard said he does not do Facebook or Twitter but he noted those are very powerful tools the City can use to market tourism. Drewitz said Facebook is ten years old and Twitter is 8 years old and he said there is no new media. He said Facebook serves as a conversation that can lead to sales and conversion. Hammerlun thanked him for the study and said he would like to see how the CVB uses these results moving forward. Brewer spoke about how the convention center will change who is coming to Georgetown. Hammerlun asked about the Commissions and Boards and how they will be engaged in this process. Jonrowe spoke about how this is going to be a fluid process because Georgetown is a fast growing community. Gonzalez said we need to make sure that the City over-delivers on reputation and under promises. There was much discussion and Brewer spoke about how video is the media of choice. Brewer said the City is still putting together information regarding how much the city is spending on marketing. There was a lot of discussion about how the City attracts visitors and tourists as well as its marketing and advertising strategy. E Discussion and possible direction related to the strategic goals defined at the City Council Visioning Session on February 8, 2014 -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager Brandenburg said there is an attachment to this item shows a summary of what was discussed at the last visioning session. He said he spent a good part of a day talking about a vision for the City. He spoke about how he compiled the information gathered that day and put together a list of strategic goals for each of the five areas. He said he wanted to make sure he encompassed everything that was talked about. He said, at the next visioning session, they will lay out the timelines and costs for each of these goals. Jonrowe and Eason spoke about the importance of addressing how this will shift the city’s priorities. Hammerlun said he thinks staff is right on track and have captured what was discussed at the meeting. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Section 551.071 and 551.086 of the Local Government Code – 5:00PM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned – 5:59PM Executive Session Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # C In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. F Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Intermountain claim - MUD #19 Mediated Settlement Sec 551.086: Competitive Matters - LCRA vs. City of Georgetown and CTSUD Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of ____________, 2014, at _________, and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ______________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # C Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 25, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary’s Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.) A Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Comments from the Mayor - Welcome and Meeting Procedures City Council Regional Board Reports City Manager Comments - May 10, 2014 Elections for Mayor, District 2 Councilmember and District 6 Councilmember - Warrant Roundup - Civil Service Commission Vacancy Action from Executive Session Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve the settlement of TCEQ Docket No. 2013- 1597- MWD, in regard to the application by Williamson County MUD No. 19 for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Permit No. WQ0015000001 on the terms presented in Executive Session, and to authorize the Mayor to execute a Mediated Settlement Agreement, and to execute a letter withdrawing the City’s contested public hearing request. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve the settlement of claims against Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc. and Halff Associates, Inc. arising out of the 2013 Street Rehabilitation Project on the terms presented in Executive Session and to authorize the Mayor to execute a Settlement Agreement. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Public Wishing to Address Council On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651. B - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda Statutory Consent Agenda Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # C The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine that may be acted upon with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda. C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 – Jessica Brettle, City Secretary D Consideration and possible action to authorize Specialized Public Finance, Inc. (SPFI) to proceed with the preparation of the required bond offering documents for the upcoming April 2014 bond issues -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer E Discussion and possible action regarding amending the 2013/14 GEDCO Budget for projects -- Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer F Consideration and possible action to appoint new members to the City‘s 2014/2015 Boards and Commissions -- Mayor George Garver G Consideration and possible action to appoint Boards and Commissions Chair Persons – Mayor George Garver H Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to Task Order CDM-12-003 to CDM Smith of Austin, Texas in the amount of $85,746.00 for water and wastewater master plan updates -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineer Director I Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a purchase of playground equipment from GameTime through the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance for Phase 2 of the Creative Playscape in the amount of $292,331 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager J Forwarded from the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO): Consideration and possible action to approve a Performance Agreement between GEDCO and TASUS Texas Corporation in an amount not to exceed $67,500 -- Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve the consent agenda, with the exception of item I, which was pulled to the Regular Agenda by Brainard. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Legislative Regular Agenda I Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to approve a purchase of playground equipment from GameTime through the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance for Phase 2 of the Creative Playscape in the amount of $292,331 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager This item was pulled to the Regular Agenda by Brainard. Brainard asked and Garrett said the City is getting a great value for what it is purchasing. Brainard asked and Garrett provided Council with a status of the project and said they are in the bid process but are still on schedule. Gonzalez asked and Garrett said the representatives from game time will be supervising the installation of the equipment. She spoke about the terms of the warranty of the equipment. Hammerlun asked and Garrett said the project should be right on target in terms of money. She added staff has alternatives for this project. She said those options will be brought to Council on March 24. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Brainard to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) K Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 22.02 acres out of the N. Porter Survey and the Crestview Addition, Crestview Baptist Church, Gabriel Heights, Longhorn Crossing, and Williams Addition subdivisions, to remove the Williams Drive (F.M. 2338) Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP-WM”), on the properties generally located on Williams Dr between Shannon Ln and Power Rd, within City Council District 2, more specifically on the properties located at 211 W Central Dr, 307 Shannon Ln, 504 Power Rd, 1629 Rivery Blvd, and 1599 through 2404 Williams Dr, save and except 2403 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # C Williams Dr. REZ-2013-015 -- Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Davila-Quintero said this is a City initiated request to remove the Williams Drive Overlay District from this area. She described the area involved in this request. She said it consists of 31 properties that are surrounded by non- residential uses. She said the development standards have been in effect since its adoption in 1986 and added the conditions and development patterns in the area have changed. She said this corridor has become of the city’s major corridor. She said staff has found the development standards of the overlay district are not cohesive with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted removing the district will promote other uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She said any future development will be governed under the most current development standards. She spoke about the neighborhood meetings that have occurred and the feedback staff received on this proposed change. She said staff recommends approval of this request. She read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve. Public Hearing was opened at 6:21PM No persons were present to speak. Public Hearing was closed at 6:21PM Vote on motion: Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) L Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Consideration and possible action to award a construction contract to Patin Construction, LLC of Taylor, Texas, for renovations to San Jose and Chautauqua Parks in the amount of $148,185 -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Garrett described the item and said this is to award a construction contract to Patin Construction for renovations to San Gabriel and Chautauqua Parks. She said the renovations will bring each park into compliance with current ADA accessibility requirements. She described the bid process. She said these two projects were bid together for economies of scale due to the similarities of items and projects in each park. She listed the projects planned for each park. She noted construction is scheduled to begin in March and the project is within the budgeted amount. She said the Parks board unanimously approved this item. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hammerlun to approve. Jonrowe asked and Garrett said the San Jose parking project also includes the handicap parking. She asked and Garrett said they put up notification signs in both parks about the improvements. Garret said staff will also be doing door hangers in the immediate area. Jonrowe said she is glad that staff is keeping those people in the loop. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) M Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Discussion and direction to staff regarding the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) for the Georgetown South development area as discussed at the February 11th Council workshop -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director Rundell said this item is a follow up from a Workshop that was presented at the last Council meeting on February 11. She said it is 603 acres in Georgetown’s southern gateway. She said development is coming north from Round Rock and new infrastructure is needed if development is going to occur in this area. She said staff is asking to create this TIRZ and start on the public process. She noted the TIRZ is required to fund some of the infrastructure necessary. She is asking for confirmation of direction to staff to move forward with this process. Speaker, Erin Welch, asked if there are going to be any anticipated development constraints in the TIRZ areas and whether or not there will be grandfathering for existing properties. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) N Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order KPA-14-004 with Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates, LP or Georgetown, Texas in the amount of $331,220.00 for design services for the 2014 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # C Wright described the item and the processes that will be used for these maintenance and rehabilitation projects. He said those projects will be broken up into separate bids. He said this item included all of the projects included in this year’s street maintenance plan. He noted a list of the streets to be designed have been provided to the Council. Motion by Hesser, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) O Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve a contract to Techline Construction Inc. of Austin, Texas, for labor associated with various electric system overhead construction and maintenance, as well as occasional underground and emergency services, in the estimated amount of $750,000.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Wright spoke about how the current staff cannot do all of the electric labor in house. He noted the City typically contracts out with an electric labor provider. He said last year’s labor provider decided they did not want to renew their contract. He said staff spoke to the City’s materials provider, Techline, and said they have are a labor provider as well. He said the total estimated contract is for $750,000, which represents the maximum amount for the remainder of the year that could be used. He said this is just a labor contract and the material is already procured. Motion by Brainard, second by Gonzalez to approve. Brainard asked and Wright described what the City will be receiving from this contract. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) P Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order MS 14-002 with M&S Engineering, Inc. of Spring Branch, Texas, for design, construction support, and project management services for modifications to the existing Rivery and Georgetown East Substations in the amount of $382,800 -- Jimmy Sikes/T&D Services Manager, Glenn W. Dishong/Utility Director Sikes described the item and said this item is a continuation of maintaining the ability to serve new customers in the electric system. He described the projects included in this task order. He said staff recommends approval of the item. Motion by Hesser, second by Gonzalez to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Q Second Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning of River Hills, Section One, Block A, Lots 18 (Npt) and 19, from Local Commercial (C-1) District and Residential Single-family (RS) District to Office (OF) District, located at 101 River Hills Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Spurgin described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) R Second Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning in the Joseph Thompson Survey of 5.787 acres, being 4.558 acres from Agriculture (AG) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District to Residential Single-family (RS) District and 1.229 acres from Agriculture (AG) District and Residential Single-family (RS) District to Local Commercial (C-1) District, located on the north side of FM 2243 approximately 1000 feet southwest of the intersection of Riverview Drive and FM 2243 -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Spurgin described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hammerlun to approve. Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # C S Second Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning of 29.079 acres in the William Roberts Survey, from Agriculture (AG) District to Planned Unit Development with a Residential Single-family (RS) base District, to be known as The Arbors at Georgetown Village, located on Shell Road north of the Sycamore Drive intersection -- Carla Benton, Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) Spurgin described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading. Speakers William Kettlewell, Jill Fussell and Rebecca English expressed their concerns with this request and how it will affect the speed and traffic in the area. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve. Brainard asked and Spurgin said the goal is to have the light activated this summer prior to the school year. Brainard said he agrees that the speed in this area needs to be addressed and the light needs to be installed as soon as possible. He noted he would hate to see a kid injured due to the traffic in the area. Hammerlun said he would like to make absolutely certain that the signal is accomplished by August. He said the speed limit is significant and needs to be addressed. He said he is convinced that this additional connection to Shell Road will provide safety improvements. Jonrowe said the Council has worked to establish a better communication system with GISD so these issues will not happen again. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) T Consideration and possible action regarding the Council’s policy relating to long-term water supply, water demand and water management strategies - - Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities With a Powerpoint Presentation, Briggs provided Council with several water management strategies. He said, on May 1st, the City must submit its plan to the regulatory authority. He said, this evening, staff seeks input and direction on the City’s Water Supply Management Policy. He showed the Council the Texas Water Development Board Water Conservation Plan requirements. Briggs spoke about the concerns he received from Council member Fought. He spoke about the need to continue to reduce water loss goals. He showed the Council the water loss goals in 2009, 2013 and 2018. He described other elements of the 2009 water conservation plan elements and listed the passive conservation elements and active elements. He provided the Council with various plan options for landscape, comparing the options in the current UDC, in CTSUD, and the proposed plan. He showed Council the plan options for irrigation. He said one thing the city is looking for is what conservation should look like in Georgetown. He reviewed the typical water plan elements. He said the goals are water loss and gallons per capita. Jonrowe asked and Briggs said the gallon usage comes down because of the climate conditions and not because of any structure the city puts into place. He said people don’t tend to conserve and they tend to just fit their water usage into their budget. Briggs spoke about the passive conservation elements including putting education programs in place as well as incentive-based retrofits. He spoke about dong residential landscape audits. He described the active conservation elements including usage restrictions, construction/landscape requirements, enforcement and rate structure. He said they plan to have strategic partnerships. He said the objectives of these partnerships are to have influence over future water supply, a seat at the table in future state policy and legislation, participation in influence over and results from R&D and expertise in conservation program design. He said their key target partners are BRA, Texas Water Board and Texas A&M Agrilife. Briggs said he met with the Austin Homebuilders Association last week and did a presentation on the merger with CTSUD. He said he saw a report from an engineer that used to be with TCEQ and added they are working on a model ordinance with the builders. He said builders realize if they do not reduce the amount of consumption on a residential home, there will not be enough water to serve the level of development people want to serve. He said builders will have an economic impact that they cannot plat lots to be able to build homes. He said the TCEQ has been charged to come up with a model ordinance for one day per week irrigation. He said, when homebuilders are doing their own Ordinance, it is sending a strong message that this is a serious issue. Speaker, Bob Sobotik, spoke about water conservation in Georgetown and the mixed messages they get from Council. He said the City needs to revamp how they educate the public on this issue. Briggs said the City will be bringing back a plan and ordinance on this issue. He said tonight was posted for action if Council wanted to specify an action for direction on how to move forward. He said he wants to make sure staff is moving in the right direction so staff can bring that plan back and meet the intent of the Council. There was much discussion. Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to bring back a list of specific policy actions that this council can take, with their associated costs financial and otherwise that the Council can vote on. Hesser added a friendly amendment to also look at what happens when water becomes a finite product. Brainard accepted the friendly amendment. Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # C Gonzalez said this issue needs to be addressed because 75% of water usage in Georgetown is irrigation. He noted the long term solution is cutting down irrigation and what actions the city can take to reduce that usage. He said, the sooner the city can incorporate regulations into the development code, the better. Brandenburg said it is time to stop kicking the can down the road because we have been talking about this for over three years. Jonrowe said she agrees whole heartedly with Brandenburg. She said we need to do what is effective and not just what feels good. She said she is also in favor of having a special meeting, if necessary. Hammerlun asked about the timeline and Briggs said the City needs to have the plan filed with the state by May 1. Briggs said the City will be seeing something in March. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Fought absent) Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Intermountain claim - MUD #19 Mediated Settlement Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters - LCRA vs. City of Georgetown and CTSUD Adjournment – Meeting adjourned by 7:33PM Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of ____________, 2014, at _________, and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ______________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the renewal of printer and Multi-Function Printer (MFP) maintenance contracts through TLC Office Systems for $66,960.96 -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager ITEM SUMMARY: Staff requests renewal of merged maintenance contracts for network printers and Multi-Function Printer devices for a period of one year. Originally printer and MFP maintenance contracts were separated between IT and Facilities. IT is now handling both maintenance contracts and merging them into a single contract. This reduces administrative resources required to manage and maintain two separate contracts. TLC Office Systems is a Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This renewal was budgeted as part of the FY 2014 budget process. Expenses will be recorded in account 570- 5-0641-51-341. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: TLC Quote Cover Memo Item # D Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # D Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # D Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # D Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # D Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # D City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Forwarded from General Government and Finance Adviory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to authorize payment of transaction fees to Tyler Technologies for online web account management and payment processing in the amount of $84,500 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: Insite is the City's online account management and payment processing application that allows customers to manage their utility and municipal court accounts via our website. Real time account data provides customers with instant access to accurate billing and account information that is automatically integrated with our existing Incode Customer Information System (CIS) software. Customers have the ability to access and pay their bill online 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, giving them the ability to manage their account on their own schedule. Benefits to the City include increased collection rates, improved productivity, and increased efficiency through integrated automation with our existing software. Customer Care processes approximately 26,800 total payments per month and web payments account for 15% of the total processed. We received approximately 4,000 payments per month through the website in 2013, up from about 3,700 per month the prior year. With the inclusion of the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD) customers, the number will increase by 1,000 per month based on their payment history. A basis of 5,000 payments per month will be used for the calculation. The above cost includes web publishing fees, customer inquiry fees, and transaction fees, broken down in the schedule below: Web Publishing / Municipal Court $ 900 Customer Inquiry / Municipal Court $ 900 Web Publishing / Customer Care $ 600 Customer Inquiry / Customer Care $ 9,600 Transaction Fees / Customer Care $ 60,000 (4,000/month X 12 X $1.25) Transaction Fees / CTSUD $ 12,500 (1,000/month X 10 X $1.25) ========================================================== $ 84,500 The Web Publishing fees and the Customer Inquiry fees are a fixed annual cost. The transaction fees are $1.25 each and based on the number of payments taken through the website. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total cost for this service is $84,500. The portion allocated to Customer Care is $72,000 and equates to 0.5% of the total online utility revenue collected through the website in 2013. It is funded in the 2013-2014 Customer Care budget line item #540-5-0338-51-340 in the Joint Services Fund. The CTSUD portion of $12,500 will be reimbursed by CTSUD. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff Cover Memo Item # E City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to approve the independent audit of all accounts of the City reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Lisa Haines, Controller ITEM SUMMARY: Staff presented the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2013 during the GGAF meeting on March 7, 2014. An overview of the financials results, accounting issue and document were reviewed with the committee. Also at that meeting, Jerry McMillon, CPA, with CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, reported on the independent audit of all accounts of the City as contained in the CAFR. The results of the auditors' examination in compliance with the testing for grant proceeds, as well as their testing on fraud and risk assessment, were presented and presented and discussed during the meeting. The GGAF committee recommends approval of this item. COMMENTS: The auditors rendered a "clean" opinion on the City's financial statements. In other words, they were able during their audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the basic financial statements are free of material misstatements. No material weaknesses in internal control were noted. The CAFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association for consideration for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City of Georgetown has received this award for the last twenty-six consecutive years. We believe our current report continues to conform to the program's requirements FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The audit expense for this report was $49,500 and was included in the Finance & Administration division's adopted budget for 2013/14. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: CAFR Part 1 of 3 CAFR Part 2 of 3 CAFR Part 3 of 3 Cover Memo Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 33 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 34 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 35 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 36 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 37 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 38 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 39 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 40 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 41 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 42 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 43 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 44 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 45 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 46 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 47 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 48 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 49 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 50 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 51 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 52 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 53 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 54 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 55 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 56 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 57 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 58 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 59 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 60 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 1 \nPage 61 of 61 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 32 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 33 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 34 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 35 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 36 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 37 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 38 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 39 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 40 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 41 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 42 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 43 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 44 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 45 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 46 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 47 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 48 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 49 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 50 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 51 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 52 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 53 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 54 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 55 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 56 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 57 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 58 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 59 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 60 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 61 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 62 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 63 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 64 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 65 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 66 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 67 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 68 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 69 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 70 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 71 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 72 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 73 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 74 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 75 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 76 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 77 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 78 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 79 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 80 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 81 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 82 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 83 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 84 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 85 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 86 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 87 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 88 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 89 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 90 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 91 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 92 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 93 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 94 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 95 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 96 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 97 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 2 \nPage 98 of 98 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 19 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 20 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 21 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 22 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 23 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 24 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 25 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 26 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 27 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 28 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 29 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 30 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 31 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 32 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 33 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 34 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 35 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 36 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 37 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 38 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 39 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 40 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 41 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 42 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 43 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 44 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 45 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 46 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 47 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 48 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 49 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 50 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 51 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 52 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 53 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 54 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 55 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 56 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 57 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 58 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 59 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 60 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 61 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 62 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 63 of 64 Item # F Attachment number 3 \nPage 64 of 64 Item # F City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF): Consideration and possible action to renew the contract with Dataprose as the City's vendor for utility bill printing and mailing services and approve funding at an annual cost of $220,000 -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Mick Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: The City has traditionally used an inter-local agreement with the City of Plano to benefit from volume pricing and their Request for Proposal (RFP) process to award the utility bill printing and mailing service contract. The City has had much success with the City of Plano's vendor, Dataprose, and would like to continue utilizing their services. The City of Plano was able to secure a lower contract price due to their monthly volume which exceeds 100,000 bills per month. Plano's new contract is effective February 2014 and the City is eligible for the new rates. The rates secured by Plano are less than the rates the City could secure on their own without incurring the cost of preparing and releasing a RFP. Individually, the City of Georgetown processes and mails 28,000 – 30,000 bills (including late notices) per month. With the inclusion of the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD) customers, the number will increase to between 36,000 – 38,000 bills (including late notices) per month. Our goal is to continue to provide and market an email option for customer bill presentment. This option was released in June 2012 and has grown to include 3,100 participants or 11% of our customer base. This option allows us to mitigate the rising cost of postage by eliminating the postage for that segment of the customer base. FINANCIAL IMPACT: With the new City of Plano pricing, we will pay around $0.50 per bill which is a decrease from last year's cost of $0.53 per bill. The printing and insertion costs will average $0.10 and the postage costs will average $0.40. Eighty percent (80%) of the estimated annual contract cost of $220,000 is related to postage expense and equates to $176,000. The total cost for bill printing and insertion is $44,000. The total appropriation requested for this year is $220,000 and is calculated as follows: Customer Care: (30,000 (bills/month) x .50 (rate) x 12 (months)) = $180,000 CTSUD: ( 8,000 (bills/month) x .50 (rate) x 10 (months)) = $ 40,000 This Customer Care expense of $180,000 is funded in the 2013-2014 Customer Care budget, under Contracts and Leases GL#540-5-0321-51-310 in the Joint Services Fund. The CTSUD portion of $40,000 will be reimbursed by CTSUD. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff Cover Memo Item # G City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Notification of appointments to the 2014/2015 Georgetown Housing Authority – Mayor George Garver ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Housing Authority Appointees Cover Memo Item # H Board & Commission Appointments 2014 BOARD/COMMISSION NEW/REAPPOINTED MEMBERS HOUSING AUTHORITY John Gavernik Raymond Poisson Larry Raper Tim Todd Tillie Pope Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # H City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Ethics Commission -- Mayor George Garver ITEM SUMMARY: The Georgetown City Code states: Sec. 2.20.040 Ethics Commission. A. Creation of Ethics Commission. 1. This Chapter creates an Ethics Commission that consists of eight members, all of whom must reside within the corporate limits of the City. Each member of the City Council may nominate a citizens from his or her district to serve on the Commission, and the Mayor may nominate one citizen from the City at large. Nominations must be confirmed by a vote of the City Council. The Districts whose members have terms ending this year are as follows: District 1 District 3 District 6 District 7 Mayor The Mayor and each Council member from those particular districts were asked to nominate a person to serve on the Ethics Commission for the 2014-2016 term. Their recommendations for approval by the Council are: District 1 - Reappoint Chris Harrison for a second term District 3 - Reappoint Travis Vanderpool for a second term District 6 - Appoint Paula Chaney as a new member District 7 - Reappoint Michael Holan for a second term Mayor - Appoint Deborah Thomas as a new member FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Cover Memo Item # I City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Direction to staff to proceed with negotiations of a potential special financing district to facilitate development for a certain ~300 acre property located in Southeast Georgetown adjacent to Sam Houston Avenue -- Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: Background: In anticipation of future development resulting from completion of the SH-130 tollway the Georgetown City Council annexed land along the SH-130 corridor during 2006 in order to extend land use controls over this area, such as zoning and permitting. In 2008 the City Council adopted the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan that established a vision for an "Employment Center" land use designation along the SE1 corridor (a.k.a.Sam Houston Avenue) and along the SH-130 corridor roughly between the Dove Springs Treatment Plant and Westinghouse Road. The Employment Center category is intended as deliberate blend of commercial and industrial uses that anchor a locus of major employers and contribute to the economic development of Georgetown. The Employment Center category authorizes a degree of multi-family development supportive of major employers, similar to the La Frontera development in Round Rock or the Tech Ridge development in North Austin. The Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) participated to fund construction of Sam Houston Avenue in anticipation of facilitating this Southeast Georgetown Employee Center. Since the time of annexation there has been little interest in developing the land in the Southeast Employment Center, for any type of land use. Much of this area is served by Jonah water and Oncor electric and does not have existing wastewater infrastructure. Issue: Recently city staff was approached by a potential developer with plans for a certain 300 acre property located in the Southeast Employment Center known as "Woodhull." This developer has indicated an intent to carry out a primarily single-family residential development that retains only a small amount of land for future commercial and multi-family development. The developer has proposed creation of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) to assist with financing the debt for the project's infrastructure. A MUD could potentially assist the City with construction of a wastewater line of approximately one-quarter 1/4 mile of length with appropriate oversizing that could serve this development as well as several additional properties in the southeast sector that could develop once off-site wastewater infrastructure is established. Since this location is Oncor Electric and Jonah Water, there would be little direct benefit to Georgetown Utility Systems. Existing criteria in the Unified Development Code (UDC) for evaluating a request for MUD contemplates a location outside the City Limits. This criteria gives City Council the option to either annex and serve the property with water and wastewater within 4 1/2 years. As this location is already in the City and within the ultimate wastewater servie boundary, this criteria seemingly would make this location ineligible for a MUD. To allow City Council the opportunity to go beyond existing UDC provisions, additional direction to staff from Council is requested. Staff has identified avenues for the proposed 300 acre development to proceed however before the project proceeds into more technical levels of study and review, staff and the developer mutually decided it was appropriate to obtain direction from City Council on the merits of the proposal. Two main issues should be given consideration: 1. Is a proposal that is primarily residential land use desirable in an area designated by current City planning policies for Employment Center land use? 2. Is disannexing property from the city limits an acceptable means to facilitate development in this location due to the stagnant situation that exists? Cover Memo Item # J Staff is generally unsupportive of disannexing land from the corporate limits of the City purely to enable development entitlements yielding special privelges not available to other properties similarly situated. Also, City Council should beware of the financial advantage that may accrue for this property by this action may cause neighboring properties to claim that they are unable to fairly compete in the market if they are not also allowed to disannex to obtain a MUD. In essence this is a precedent that Council should consider if there are ramifications beyond the scope of the current proposal. Staff will support a unique one-time request at this particular location if City Council determines that the extraordinary measures outlined above are necessary to attract new development to the underdeveloped southeast quadrant of Georgetown. Next Steps: If requested by City Council to proceed, staff will negotiate with the developer and property owner to seek the maximum of benefits to the greater Georgetown community including: 1. Off-site road and utility improvements; 2. Sales tax collection; 3. A parks or series of park to be reviewed and accepted by the Parks & Recreation Board; 4. Retention of a developable strip of Employment Center land uses along the frontage of Sam Houston Avenue and the eastern extent closer to SH-130 including a potential Municipal Management District (MMD); and 5. Thoughtful neighborhood design that exceed UDC minimum standards with consideration to housing diversity, street layout, community amenities and relationship to adjacent public school sites. 6. Request transfer from Oncor and Jonah into the City's utility service area. Potential future actions by City Council that would facilitate this development, and the proposed MUD, may include Comprehensive Plan amendment and an agreement with the property owner to disannex the land from full purpose jurisdiction in order to establish a special financing district, such as a MUD. City consent to a special financing district allows the City opportunity to control land uses and densities consistent with the scheme when annexed in 2006 and potentially collect sales taxes, while keeping residential land outside of the City Limits as long as there is outstanding debt held by the District. During the life of the District, it could contract for city services such as fire, police and park access which would help residents feel like that they are a part of the greater Georgetown community. Upon retirement of District's debt the City could reannex the land for full purposes. Alternatives: City Council could retain this 300 acres within the City Limits and consider the following actions - either individually or in combination: 1. Direct staff to continue to seek out the Employment Center land uses established in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and explore funding opportunities through GEDCo, GTEC and/or a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ). 2. Direct staff to work with the developer on the timing and sizing of off-site wastewater and accelerate the current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for this location, to open us this property and several others to development. 3. Explore avenues to allow an in-city MUD, Public Improvement District (PID), TIRZ - or combination fo these tools - that would not require disannexation of this property from the City. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Commission considered this item on March 4, 2013 and after considerable discussion and debate recommended that City Council direct staff to proceed with negotiations for a special financing district to facilitate develoment at this location in a 4-3 vote. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Policy direction only. Future Council actions related to this development may have financial impacts that will be referenced when those items are brought forward. SUBMITTED BY: Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ATTACHMENTS: 2030 Comp Plan map Cover Memo Item # J Cover Memo Item # J 2030 Comprehensive Plan Southeast Georgetown Sector Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # J City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing proceeding with the issuance of obligations for the City's capital improvement programs and further directing the publication of Notice of Intention to Issue City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Utility System Limited Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2014 and other matters related thereto -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer ITEM SUMMARY: This resolution authorizes the City to proceed with the 2014 Certificate of Obligation bond issue. The final amount of the bonds, including estimated issuance costs consist of: $1,835,000 Tax-supported Certificates of Obligation for Sidewalks, Parking Lot improvements & Park improvements $ 465,000 Self-supporting Certificates of Obligation for Stormwater Drainage Fund related costs associated with the Smith Branch remediation project State law requires special notice be made when issuing certificates of obligation. Therefore, this resolution also authorizes publication of these notices for an amount not to exceed $2,300,000, including issuance costs. This publication will be made in the Williamson County Sun for two consecutive weeks, with the first publication at least 30 days prior to the issuance of the bonds. *The actual amount of the bonds issued can be LESS than the Notice of Intent but can't be greater than the $2.3M included in the resolution without republishing and starting the process again. COMMENTS: The bond ordinance and related sale are planned for the April 22, 2014 Council agenda, after actual interest rates are determined. State law requires only one reading for bond ordinances, due to interest rates not being known until the date of sale. The City will receive the bond proceeds in mid-May. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The debt service impact for the tax-support bonds is estimated to be less than $0.002 to the 2014 tax rate. The actual impact will be determined in July 2014, once the 2014 Assessed Property Valuation is certified and the 2014 Tax Rate is set. Debt service for the Stormwater Drainage bonds will be funded through the Stormwater Drainage fees that were amended last year. SUBMITTED BY: Becky Huff ATTACHMENTS: Bond Resolution Notice of Intent Proposed CO Debt 2014 Cover Memo Item # K GTOWN\CO\2014: Notice Res RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO THE STATE OF TEXAS ' CITY OF GEORGETOWN ' COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON ' WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Georgetown, Texas (the "City") has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to proceed with the issuance of certificates of obligation ("Certificates") to implement certain of the City=s capital improvement programs; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City finds that the payment in whole or in part of contractual obligations incurred or to be incurred for the purposes set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Contractual Obligations") would be beneficial to the inhabitants of the City and are needed to perform essential City functions; and WHEREAS, the Council has deemed it advisable to give notice of intention to issue the Certificates in a maximum principal amount not to exceed $2,300,000 pursuant to the provisions of the Certificate of Obligation Act of 1971, Section 271.041 et seq., Local Government Code (the "Act") for the purpose of financing the Contractual Obligations; and WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Certificates, the City is required under the Act to publish notice of its intention to issue the Certificates in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, the notice stating: (i) the time and place tentatively set for the passage of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Certificates, (ii) the maximum amount and purpose of the Certificates to be authorized, and (iii) the manner in which the Certificates will be paid; and WHEREAS, the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place and purpose of the meeting was given, all as required by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a form of the Notice of Intention to issue the Certificates, the form and substance of which is hereby adopted and approved. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # K GTOWN\CO\2014: Notice Res 2. Bond Counsel to the City shall cause the notice to be published in substantially the form attached hereto, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, for two consecutive weeks, the date of the first publication to be at least 30 days prior to the time set for the final passage of the ordinance authorizing issuance of the Certificates as shown in the notice. 3. The City Council hereby finds that the issuance of the Certificates complies with the Vision Statement of the City of Georgetown. 4. The Chief Financial Officer, financial advisor and bond counsel to the City are authorized to proceed with preparing the necessary bond and offering documents to effectuate the sale of the Certificates including making application to appropriate rating agencies and bond insurers, if applicable. 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. The Mayor and City Secretary are hereby authorized and directed to execute the certificate to which this Resolution is attached on behalf of the City, and the Mayor, City Secretary and City Manager are further authorized to do any and all things proper and necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution. _____________ Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # K GTOWN\CO\2014: Notice Res RESOLVED this 11th day of March, 2014. ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS __________________________________ ___________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George Garver, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # K GTOWN\CO\2014: Notice Res EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTENTION REGARDING CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, to issue one or more series of interest bearing certificates of obligation of the City entitled "City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation," for the purpose of paying contractual obligations incurred or to be incurred by the City for: (1) constructing, improving, extending, expanding and upgrading City sidewalks, including purchasing any necessary right-of-way and equipment; (2) constructing, improving and equipping downtown parking facilities, including a parking lot at the intersection of 8th Street and Martin Luther King Street; (3) constructing, improving, upgrading and equipping City parks, including River Ridge Pool and Chautauqua Park; (4) constructing, improving, extending, expanding and upgrading the City's storm water drainage facilities, including purchasing homes in flood areas as part of the City's storm water control improvement program; and (5) professional services including fiscal, engineering, architectural and legal fees and other such costs incurred in connection therewith including the costs of issuing the Certificates. The City Council tentatively proposes to consider for first and final reading at a meeting to commence at 6 o'clock, p.m., on the 22nd day of April, 2014 at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, TX, 78626, the passage of an ordinance authorizing such Certificates of Obligation which ordinance shall be entitled "ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 2014; LEVYING AN AD VALOREM TAX AND THE PLEDGE OF CERTAIN REVENUES IN SUPPORT OF THE CERTIFICATES; APPROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A PAYING AGENT/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES; AND AUTHORIZING OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES." The maximum amount of Certificates of Obligation that may be authorized for such purpose is $2,300,000. The City Council presently proposes to provide for the payment of such Certificates of Obligation from the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes in the City as provided by law and from the surplus revenues of the City's utility system in an amount not to exceed $10,000, being the combined waterworks, sewer and electric system, remaining after payment of all operation and maintenance expenses thereof, and all debt service, reserve and other requirements in connection with all of the City's revenue bonds or other obligations (now or hereafter outstanding) which are payable from all or any part of the net revenues of the City's utility system. CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # K LAW OFFICES M c CALL, PARKHURST & HORTON L.L.P. 717 NORTH HARWOOD SUITE 900 DALLAS, TEXAS 75201-6587 TELEPHONE: 214 754-9200 FACSIMILE: 214 754-9250 600 CONGRESS AVENUE SUITE 1800 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-3248 TELEPHONE: 512 478-3805 FACSIMILE: 512 472-0871 700 N. ST. MARY'S STREET SUITE 1525 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3503 TELEPHONE: 210 225-2800 FACSIMILE: 210 225-2984 MEMORANDUM TO: Micki Rundell FROM: C. D. Polumbo RE: Combination Tax and Utility System Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2014 DATE: March 4, 2014 Below we have set forth the proposed agenda language for the meeting on March 11, 2014 in connection with the below-mentioned resolution: Consideration and action with respect to "Resolution Authorizing the Publication of Notice of Intention to Issue City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation; and Other Matters Related Thereto." Attached is a draft of the Resolution. Please let me know if you have any questions or requested changes. Please pay particular attention to the not-to-exceed dollar amount in case that needs to change as well as the project description. I would suggest we make sure to leave the dollar amount off the agenda posting just in case or clearly note it is preliminary, subject to change. cc: Garry Kimball Danella Elliott Jessica Brettle Bridget Chapman Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # K Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # K City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Forward from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC): Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. CPY-14-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to develop the schematic and 30% construction plans and preliminary estimate for the extension of Rabbit Hill Road from Westinghouse Road southward to its intersection with Oakmont Drive/Teravista Parkway in the amount of $196,000.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Edward G. Polasek, AICP Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer. ITEM SUMMARY: With increased development in the ETJ between Georgetown and Round Rock, a need has developed for a connection northward from Oakmont Drive in Round Rock to Westinghouse Road. Based upon the City's Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) the logical connection in Georgetown is at the intersection of Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road. When constructed this project will connect the City of Georgetown to the Bass Pro Shop in Round Rock, and will possibly be renamed a common name from downtown Round Rock to the SE Inner Loop in Georgetown. Attached is the Proposed Task Order CPY-14-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to develop the schematic and 30% construction plans and preliminary estimate for the extension of Rabbit Hill Road from Westinghouse Road southward to its intersection with Oakmont Drive/Teravista Parkway in the amount of $196,000.00. Funding for final design and construction will come from the City of Georgetown/GTEC and possibly a TIRZ created in the Westinghouse Road area for the portion of the roadway in our ETJ. The City of Round Rock will fund construction efforts in their ETJ/City Limits. GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This item was unanimously recommended by the GTEC Board for Council approval at the February 19, 2014, GTEC Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Task Order CPY-14-001 with CP&Y, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services to develop the schematic and 30% construction plans and preliminary estimate for the extension of Rabbit Hill Road from Westinghouse Road southward to its intersection with Teravista Parkway in the amount of $196,000. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attached is the project GTEC Budgetary Worksheet. Funding for this project will originate from the City of Round Rock, which by interlocal agreement will provide funding for this project by rebating the City of Georgetown/GTEC money spent in the development of the FM 1460 project. A revenue account has been established to spend those rebated funds on this project. SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden/Ed Polasek (jr) ATTACHMENTS: Budget Task Order CPY 14-001 Cover Memo Item # L PROJECT No.DATE: PROJECT NAME:2/12/2014 Division/Department:Director Approval Prepared By:Finance Approval La'Ke TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 200,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting (CPY-14-001)196,000.00 196,000.00 98% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 196,000.00 196,000.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 400-9-0980-90-044 200,000.00 Total Budget 200,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 200,000.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 0.00 196,000.00 196,000.00 98% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 196,000.00 196,000.00 Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer Transportation Services GTEC - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Comments: Rabbit Hill Road Extension Rabbit Hill Rd Ext'n Engineering (Schematic) Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # L TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 4 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and CP&Y, Inc. (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated November 20, 2013 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project B. Description: Extend Rabbit Hill Road northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: 5RI D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: 400-9-0980-90-060 E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: 3401715 ______ F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2013-722-MSA 2. Services of Engineer See the attached Scope of Services for a detailed description of services to be provided to Owner by Engineer. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: • Provide timely review comments to plan reviews and project scope changes. • Estimated third-party fees for this project are listed below, and are included in the compensation amount detailed in Section 5. The City shall be responsible for any permitting and third-party review fees not listed below. o None 4. Times for Rendering Services Engineer shall perform the work stated above according to the schedule below. All times are from the date Notice to Proceed from Owner, or the previous phase, as appropriate. Phase Completion Date Design Phase Six (6) Months Bidding Phase N/A Construction Phase N/A Task Order No. CPY-14-001, consisting of 31 pages. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 31 Item # L TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as shown below. Fees listed for each category are approximations, and only the sum of all fees shall be the "Not to Exceed Amount". Category of Services Compensation Method Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Preliminary Design Related Services Lump Sum (See Attached Fee Proposal) ALL PHASES $196,000.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: A. Prime consultant is CP&Y, Inc. B Subconsulants include: • CORSAIR • SWCA • The Wallace Group 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None. 8. Attachments: A. Project Location Map. B. Scope of Services C. Owners Responsibilities D. Fee Proposal 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement dated November 20, 2013. Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 31 Item # L TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 3 of 4 Terms and Conditions: Execution of this Task Order by Owner and Engineer shall make it subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified above), which Agreement is incorporated by this reference. Engineer is authorized to begin performance upon its receipt of a copy of this Task Order signed by Owner. The Effective Date of this Task Order is , 2013. OWNER: City of Georgetown ENGINEER: CP&Y, Inc. By: By: Name: George G. Garver Name: James J. (J.J.) Roohms, P.E. Title: Mayor, City of Georgetown Title: Chief Operating Officer Engineer License or Firm’s Certificate No. F-1741 State of: Texas Date: Date: ATTEST: ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY BY CITY ATTORNEY AND BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 2011, AGENDA ITEM “P” APPROVED AS TO FORM VERIFIED: ________________________________________ Vickie Graff, CPPO, CTPM Contract Coordinator STATE OF TEXAS } CORPORATE COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON } ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this day of , 2013, James (J.J.) Roohms personally appeared before me and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification to be the person who signed this document in my presence. [SEAL] ________________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:____________________ Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 31 Item # L TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative For Task Order: Designated Representative For Task Order: Name: Bill Dryden Name: Justin Word Title: Transportation Engineer Title: P.E., Vice President Address: P.O. Box 409 Address: 13809 Research Boulevard Suite 300 Georgetown, TX 78627 Austin, TX 78750 E-Mail: Bill.Dryden@gerogetown.org E-Mail: jword@cpyi.com Phone: (512) 930-8096 Phone: (512) 349-0700 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Fax: (512) 349-0727 Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 31 Item # L §¨¦35 Project Limit Projec t Limit C h a n d l e r B r a n c h U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D TERAVIST A P K W Y OAKMONTDR K E L L E Y D R T E R A V IS T A CLU B D R O R I O N S T C E N T E R B R O O K P L S U N R I S E R D HILL R I D G E D R TERRA ST GREATVIEW DR C L E A R V I E W D R HE W L ETTLOOP CERVINIA DR G R E E N V I S T A P L WOO D M E S A D R H A LEYSWAY W INDING CREEKPL P A R K C E N T R A L B L V D C O M M E R C E B L V D HIDDENVI E W PL E N G A D I N A P A S S QUICKSILVERST BENTWOO D P L JULIANAS WAY M ES Q UITE H O LL O W PLHIDDENBROOKLN BENT WOOD CT GATEWAY DR P A G E W H I T N E Y P K W Y HICKOX DR FLAT STONE CT BR O O K VIE W CT O A K M O N T D R C R 1 1 1 R A B B I T H I L L R D W E S T I N G H O U S E R D Georgetown Railroad Geo rget ow n Ra il roa d 0 0.50.25 MilesE Da te: 1/6/ 2014 A T T A C H M E N T A Rabb it Hill Road Project Locat ionTeravista Par kway to Westinghou se Road Se rvice L aye r Credits: Sources: E sri, USGS, N OA A §¨¦35 £¤79 ¬«29 £¤183 ¬«95¬«195 ¬«29 Projec t Location WilliamsonCounty Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 1 of 14 EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF SERVICES Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road The Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project will extend Oakmont Drive northward from Teravista Parkway to the existing intersection with Westinghouse Road. This project consists of determining the feasibility of the new alignment roadway through the parcels located between the project ends. The precise configuration of the roadway will be determined during this schematic phase of the project in coordination with the City of Georgetown. The widening along Westinghouse Road and Rabbit Hill Road will also be included in the schematic for additional turning lanes to/from Westinghouse Road. Preliminary layouts for future signals and roadway illumination will also be included. The project length along the anticipated alignment is approximately 1.0 miles. The Engineer shall provide the necessary engineering and technical services for the completion of environmental studies, surveying and mapping, schematic development, and preliminary water quality analysis and treatment options. Design services related to the design and plan production for this project will be performed in accordance with the latest available City of Georgetown manuals, guidelines, and standards available. Where City standards do not exist, TxDOT and/or AASHTO guidelines will be followed. The final deliverable for this phase will be a scroll plot of the schematic – 30% design. This project will be developed utilizing MicroStation V8i and Bentley Geopak V8i. Agency abbreviations are as follows: City of Georgetown (City) , Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Texas Department of Transportation Environmental Division (TxDOT-ENV), Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Texas Historical Commission (THC), National Register of Historical Places (NRHP), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)). The tasks and products are more fully described in the following TASK OUTLINE. Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 2 of 14 TASK OUTLINE I. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES A. DATA COLLECTION (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Perform field investigations of the project. These investigations will include site visits to the project site and adjacent area to gather pertinent information relating to the corridor. Field investigations will also be performed to review individual property locations and the impacts of the alignment to that property. 2. Develop a photo inventory of the project site for reference in project meetings, discussions with stakeholders and discussions with developers, etc. during the project development. 3. Gather and review information from the City including existing Oakmont Drive, Teravista Parkway and Westinghouse plans, project files, existing geometric conditions, existing typical sections, existing drainage facilities, culvert data and traffic data. Gather and review related existing and draft studies from the City, including feasibility, route, traffic signal, corridor, MIS/Environmental and Value Engineering studies in the project vicinity. Gather and review information from various planning documents such as the CAMPO 2035 plan, Texas Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Plan and the City master street/road plans impacting the project. 4. Obtain FEMA Flood insurance maps and corresponding studies relating to the project corridor. B. ALIGNMENT STUDY (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Develop two (2) alternative geometric configurations for Rabbit Hill Road within the project limits to satisfy the project goals of the City. 2. Develop Engineer’s opinion of probable cost for the two (2) project configurations. A cost estimate will be developed for one (1) alternative to determine a cost per mile basis to apply to the other alternative. 3. Produce two (2) exhibits depicting the above geometric configurations to a detail level sufficient for City review. Prepare conceptual cost estimates for these configurations. 4. Conduct three (3) meetings with the City to coordinate the desired and/or required improvements and obtain concurrence for the project location and final design configuration of the project. C. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS (provided by CORSAIR.) 1. Soil Borings – Geotechnical Engineering (a) Perform six (6) borings spaced at approximately 1,000 feet apart along the final alignment to perform a final pavement design. (b) If expansive soils are encountered (PVR > 2”) and a lime stabilized subgrade option is desired, additional borings may be needed to comply with pavement design requirements. Drill these borings to a minimum depth of ten (10) feet to map geology and collect PI information if soils are expansive for PVR calculation. Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 3 of 14 (c) No bridge or retaining wall borings are anticipated to be needed at this time but can be performed under a supplemental agreement upon request. The borings will be used to investigate subsurface stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. 2. Laboratory testing will be performed to determine the soil’s plasticity and strength characteristics, including: (a) NRCS Soil Classification (b) Atterberg Limits Tests (c) Sieve Analysis (d) Soluble Sulfate Content (e) Moisture Content (f) Unconfined Compressive Strength (g) Eades and Grim (ASTM D6276) pH/lime series 3. The Engineer will coordinate with locator service to determine existing utility locations. 4. The Engineer will prepare a pavement design report that will present recommendations for the design of the roadway pavement sections. The pavement design will follow the criteria and guidelines in TxDOT’s Pavement Design Guide and AASHTO’s Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. The pavement design report will include: (a) Site vicinity and geology map. (b) Generalized subsurface conditions, as well as groundwater conditions encountered during drilling operations. (c) Pavement thickness design for the proposed roadway. Flexible pavement design will be analyzed using the FPS program. Rigid pavement design is not anticipated. (d) Traffic data (ESAL’s) will be provided by the City D. SCHEMATIC LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Further develop the roadway design criteria established in the route alternative stage for the project to be discussed, revised and approved by the City. This set of criteria will then be complied and documented into a design criteria spreadsheet. 2. Prepare calculated horizontal geometrics for the project roadways. 3. Prepare calculated vertical geometrics for the project roadways. 4. Develop existing and proposed typical sections for inclusion on project schematics. 5. Develop preliminary cross sections at 100’ intervals along Rabbit Hill Road. These cross sections will be for estimation of cut and fill quantities, as well as determining retaining wall locations and heights. 6. Determine retaining wall limits for the project roadways. 7. Determine preliminary continuous lighting locations. 8. Develop preliminary signal design at Westinghouse intersection including location of poles, mast arms, signal heads, controller, ground boxes, and conduit runs under the pavement. 9. Develop pavement edges for the selected configuration. 10. Finalize Engineer’s opinion of probable cost for the selected configuration Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 4 of 14 11. Prepare project schematic plots for the project corridor. Plots will include required elements suitable for submission to the City. The roll plot will not exceed 10’ in length with a 1”=100’ horizontal scale and 1”=10’ vertical scale. Depict the following on the schematic plot: (a) The horizontal alignments will show bearings in the tangent sections and curve data including delta angles, PI stations, tangent lengths, length of curve, and radii. The plan views will show the centerline, edge of pavement, striping, lane widths, shoulder widths, cross slopes, superelevations with transitions, direction of traffic flow, and layouts for speed change lanes. (b) The vertical alignment will show existing and proposed elevations at 100-foot intervals, vertical curve VPI stations, curve lengths, superelevation rates and transitions, design speeds, and "K" values. (c) The existing apparent ROW limits and proposed ROW limits for selected configuration. (d) Anticipated retaining wall locations (if any). (e) Proposed striping and lane numbers. Small signs will not be developed at the schematic phase. (f) Current and projected traffic volumes as developed by the traffic data collection and analysis task. (g) Existing utility locations in plan emphasizing those which are in conflict with the proposed construction. Proposed utilities will not be shown. (h) Significant drainage structures (existing and proposed) as determined by Hydrologic and Hydraulic report. 12. Final Deliverable items (a) Two (2) paper copy of schematic plot for selected alignment (b) PDF version of schematic plots in electronic format (CD/DVD) (c) Probable cost of construction estimate (d) All (*.dgn) files – Mapping, utilities, design files, cross sections, schematic plot, (e) Geopak files - (*.dat), (*.gpk), (*.tin), (*.prj) files, etc. (f) Hydraulic models – files used from any software used for analysis and design for the storm sewer, water quality and detention design, such as HY8, Geopak Drainage, HEC- RAS/HMS E. TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION (provided by the City.) 1. Traffic data will be provided by the City. F. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Preliminary Drainage Report (a) Perform preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis/design to determine location and sizes of major drainage structures. This will include determining the existing detention pond storage capacity and outflow structures and outflow discharges. The analysis will determine if this pond can be retrofitted for future use or if additional detention ponds will be needed. (b) Prepare a preliminary drainage report summarizing the findings of the above analysis. (c) Determine if any proposed drainage easements are required to adequately drain the proposed facility. Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 5 of 14 2. Storm Water Detention (a) The Engineer will calculate the increase in peak discharge and runoff volume associated with the proposed improvements for the 5-year storm events in accordance with the Georgetown Drainage Design Manual. (b) Determine preliminary sizing of a detention facility based on increase of peak discharges, if required. G. WATER QUALITY (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Preliminary Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP) Preparation (a) Project Setup and Data Review Engineer will obtain and review available data on the existing and proposed roadway design and site geology, including engineering plans and geologic reports. An initial field visit will be conducted in order to inspect the site and identify and evaluate potential locations for water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). The geologic assessment will be performed by SWCA Environmental Consultants. The existing detention pond will be analyzed to determine if it is currently being used as a water quality BMP and if retrofitting it is possible. (b) Pollutant Removal Calculations and Design of Water Quality BMPs Engineer will calculate the required total suspended solids (TSS) pollutant load and recommend suitable permanent BMPs for water quality treatment. The use of non- structural, vegetative water quality BMPs, such as grassy swales, which can be utilized within the ROW will be evaluated as the preferred treatment approach. If non-structural BMP’s prove to be inadequate, structural BMP’s such as sand filters will be preliminarily evaluated and recommendations provided. Recommended Best Management Practices will be in accordance with the TCEQ’s technical guidance manual Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules – Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (RG-348, July 2005) and addenda. The preliminary location of temporary erosion and sedimentation controls designed to prevent discharges of polluted runoff from the project site during construction will be evaluated to determine overall feasibility and ensure compliance with TCEQ Edwards Aquifer requirements. For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed the detailed layout, configuration and design of temporary controls, including an erosion and sedimentation control plan, will be included by supplemental agreement at a later date. Preliminary options will be discussed with the City prior to proceeding with the final development of a water quality BMP. Only one (1) final water quality BMP option will be developed with the final schematic. (c) Preliminary Grading and Layout Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 6 of 14 Engineer will perform preliminary siting for structural BMP’s such as sediment filtration ponds to determine proper geographic locations and overall footprint requirements for the purposes of ROW preservation. This work will include the analysis of the existing pond for potential expansion and the siting for 1 additional location based on TSS removal requirements and project constraints. Detailed final design is not included under this work authorization. (d) The final deliverable will be a preliminary technical memorandum stating the water quality assumptions, BMP’s analyzed and recommendations for water quality treatment needed related to the proposed roadway project. A WPAP submittal package will not be completed or submitted to TCEQ under this work authorization. (e) For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed the proposed facilities will not serve regional or adjacent development treatment or detention and that extensive coordination efforts in this regard will be handled by supplemental agreement. II. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Environmental Reports will be in accordance with 43 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 2.40-2.51, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 771, the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, and Highway Design Operations and Procedures Manual, Part II-B. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) will be prepared for the proposed project. A. RIGHT-OF-ENTRY SERVICES (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Perform property ownership research utilizing the Williamson County Appraisal District records (Tax Maps and Ownership Records) and compile a list (Excel Spreadsheet) of landowners for distribution of right of entry letters. Obtain “right-of-entry” by signed letter from the owner of each of the subject properties. Also, contact property owners in advance of field surveys or to address specific property owner concerns about the work to be performed or being performed. This scope anticipates that the City will handle problems regarding landowners that refuse to grant right-of-entry or are otherwise hostile with respect to the completion of this scope of services. Record and report results of mailings for future action. Landowner contacts will be recorded and provided to the Client. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. OBTAIN EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS DATA Perform a desktop review of environmental constraints of the proposed study area. Constraints to be identified include: (a) Cemeteries (b) Parks (c) Soils (d) Properties on the National Register of Historic Places (e) Archeological sites (f) Hazardous material sites Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 7 of 14 (g) Data from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Natural Diversity Database (h) United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Critical Habitat Mapper (i) National Wetland Inventory Data (j) Floodplains (k) National Hydrography Dataset (l) Land Uses identified through aerial photo interpretation 2. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) Conduct a field reconnaissance of the study area to verify and update the information identified through the desktop review. 3. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS MAP (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) Prepare a preliminary environmental constraints map of the study area on digital orthophotography using GIS. The map shall include information from the desktop review and additional data obtained from the field reconnaissance. 4. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) A technical memorandum describing environmental constraints within the study area will be prepared. The technical memorandum will include the above-mentioned items and the environmental constraints map will be included as an appendix. This information shall be provided to the project design team to assist in the development of alignment alternatives. 5. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) Evaluate up to three (3) alignment alternatives developed by the design team based on environmental, engineering, and cost constraints. 6. COORDINATION MEETINGS (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) Environmental staff shall participate in up to two coordination meetings. 7. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OR AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (provided by SWCA) The investigations proposed below (Tasks I through V) are designed to comply with the Antiquities Code of Texas and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), namely the identification of any prehistoric or historic cultural resources which may be affected by the project that may be eligible for designation to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or as State Antiquities Landmark (SAL). Additionally, they are designed to comply with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Edwards Aquifer Protection Program and the Endangered Species Act (Tasks V and VI). (a) Cultural Resources Background Records Search An SWCA archaeologist will perform a review of records at the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory and the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to identify previously recorded surveys or cultural resources within a 1-mile study area of the Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project. An archaeologist will also review historical maps, aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil survey maps, and geologic maps to identify potential for unrecorded archaeological sites to be present within the area of potential effects (APE) of the project. Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 8 of 14 Additionally, an SWCA archaeologist will search the Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (Atlas) online database for any previously recorded surveys and historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located in or near the project area. In addition to identifying previously recorded archaeological sites, the Atlas review will include the following types of information: NRHP properties, SALs, Official Texas Historical Markers (OTHMs), Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), cemeteries, and local neighborhood surveys. Other critical factors that will be examined include the level of previous disturbances from residential and commercial development, types of soils, and archaeological potential. This background research will provide site and geographic information that will be critical to the discovery and interpretation of cultural resources within the project area. The results of that search will be integrated into a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document section for archaeology and also an Antiquities Permit application to conduct further field studies. (b) Antiquities Permit Application An SWCA archaeologist will prepare a research design as part of an Antiquities Permit application to conduct the field studies required under Section 106 of the NHPA and the Antiquities Code of Texas. Working with the City, SWCA’s Principal Investigator will prepare the permit application and submit to the THC, the permitting and reviewing agency. (c) Archaeological Survey Once an Antiquities Permit has been obtained, SWCA will conduct an archaeological field survey of the APE. For the purposes of this proposal, several assumptions have been made regarding the fieldwork (see below). The field survey will consist of a team of two SWCA archaeologists walking the proposed project area. The survey will be of sufficient intensity to determine the nature, extent, and, if possible, potential significance of any cultural resources located within the proposed project area. Subsurface explorations will be accomplished through shovel testing only. The placement and quantity of these excavations will depend on the level of disturbance within the proposed project boundary and the nature of the soils, geology, and topography. If an archaeological site is encountered in the proposed project area during the investigations, it will be explored as much as possible with consideration to land access constraints. Any discovered sites will be assessed in regards to potential significance so that recommendations can be made for proper management (avoidance, non-avoidance, or further work). Additional subsurface investigations will be conducted per THC standards at any discovered sites to define horizontal and vertical boundaries. Appropriate State of Texas Archeological Site Data Forms will be filled out for each site discovered during the investigations. A detailed plan map of each site will be produced and locations will be plotted on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- minute topographic maps and relevant project maps. Shovel tests will be excavated in 20-centimeter arbitrary levels to 1 meter in depth, or to culturally sterile deposits, whichever comes first. The matrix will be screened through ¼-inch mesh. The location of each shovel test will be plotted using a sub-meter accurate Global Positioning Systems receiver, and each test will be recorded on appropriate project field forms. Areas with previously recorded sites or other cultural resources revealed in the archival Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 9 of 14 research will require additional shovel testing to explore the nature of the cultural deposits. Conversely, heavily disturbed and modified areas in the proposed corridor will not be shovel tested. THC survey standards call for 16 shovel tests per mile of a 100-foot-wide linear project area. If sites are encountered, a minimum of six shovel tests will be excavated per site. Shovel tests will be excavated to the depth of project impacts. SWCA is proposing a non-collection survey. Artifacts will be tabulated, analyzed, and documented in the field, but not collected. Temporally diagnostic artifacts will be described in detail and photographed in the field. Only especially rare artifacts or discoveries will be collected. This policy will reduce or eliminate curation costs once the fieldwork is concluded. Assumptions/Considerations • The client will provide SWCA with project maps and aerials prior to the beginning of fieldwork. • SWCA assumes that an individual Antiquities Permit must be obtained for the project area. • SWCA assumes that the client or its subcontractors will provide access and landowner coordination through the course of the project. • Shovel testing will be conducted per THC standards. • SWCA assumes that up to two archaeological sites will be identified during the survey. If additional sites are encountered, SWCA will consult with the client to negotiate a change order. • Backhoe trenching is not included in this cost proposal. The survey will determine if the project area contains the potential for deeply buried cultural deposits that would require backhoe trenching. If the survey finds that mechanical excavations are required to assess deeply buried cultural deposits, SWCA will consult with the client and submit a change order for the additional work. • Any reroutes resulting from the identification of significant cultural resources or changes in engineering design plans, which subsequently will require additional fieldwork, are not part of this cost proposal. (d) Cultural Resources Report Preparation Once reviews and fieldwork have been completed, SWCA will prepare a draft report of the investigations. The archaeological report will conform to THC, NHPA, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Council of Texas Archeologists reporting standards. It will document the general nature of the project area, the methodology used in the investigations, the presence and condition of any previously recorded sites revealed in the records review, the general nature and extent of cultural resources encountered during the archaeological survey, recommendations on the need for further work, and the potential significance of the cultural resources in regards to future development and NRHP/SAL status. Draft copies of the report will be submitted to the client for review and comment. Once this has been accomplished, any appropriate edits will be made and a final draft report will be submitted to the THC for review and comment. Once the draft report has been reviewed and Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 10 of 14 accepted by the THC, one copy of the final report will be submitted to the THC and ten copies be sent to various designated libraries around the state, in fulfillment of the permit requirement. The results of the field studies will also be integrated into the appropriate NEPA document sections. (e) Geologic Assessment and Karst Survey SWCA will conduct a TCEQ Geologic Assessment and Karst Survey for the proposed project. The pedestrian survey will be conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 50 feet apart and will cover the entire length of the project and locations of proposed water quality structures. All potential karst features, including depressions, holes, and animal burrows will be carefully examined for evidence of subsurface extent. A Geologic Assessment report will be prepared as per the “Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Transition Zones” as written by the TCEQ. This report is intended for inclusion in the Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). In order to comply with US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) karst due-diligence requirements and to provide the data required for participation in the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (WCRHCP), the pedestrian survey will cover the footprint of the proposed project plus 345-feet where right of entry is available. The survey and additional investigations will be conducted by SWCA personnel holding a 10(a)(1)(b) scientific permit from the USFWS for conducting all levels of karst investigation. All features identified will be investigated for their potential to be associated with karst invertebrate habitat and for their potential significance to habitat for the Georgetown and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders. Methods will consist primarily of reconnaissance excavation with hand tools and will conform to current USFWS requirements. This scope does not include major excavation activities, cave mapping, or endangered karst invertebrate presence/absence surveys which may be required if significant karst features are located. These services are not included at this time and a cursory review of geological data indicates that the project area has a low probability of containing significant features. A karst survey will be produced for submittal to USFWS and/or the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF). A Registered Professional Geoscientist will also seal a karst survey report to include with WRHCP participation documents and a Geologic Assessment report to be submitted to the TCEQ with the WPAP. (f) Habitat Assessment and Impacts Analysis Report and Meetings A Habitat Assessment Report summarizing the findings of the state and federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate plant and animal species habitat, including the karst survey, shall be submitted to the City for its records. The report will include a literature review for known karst invertebrate and salamander habitat in the project area and an analysis of potential impacts to threatened and endangered species and to designated critical habitat. The impacts analysis will include a conceptual hydrologic model of the local portion of the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer relating the project and its potential effects to known and potential contaminant pathways to salamander-occupied caves and springs. Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 11 of 14 Current and historic locations for the Georgetown and Jollyville Plateau salamanders occur within 5 miles of the proposed project. Presence/absence surveys, Section 7 or 10 consultation, and coordination with the USFWS and the WCCF are not included in this scope of work if habitat for federally listed species is identified. A supplemental agreement with an additional scope of work and budget will be needed if these activities are required. Under this task SWCA personnel will attend meetings during the permitting process with the clients, TxDOT, USFWS, and the WCCF upon request. III. SURVEYING SERVICES A. PROJECT CONTROL SERVICES (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor will attempt to recover and utilize City of Georgetown and/or City of Round Rock NAD-83/93 (HARN) NAVD 88 datum, Texas State Plane Coordinate System, Texas Central Zone primary control monuments for this project unless requested to use another source of datum. In the case that the control has been destroyed the Client will be notified immediately. This scope and fee do not include effort to re-establish destroyed control. A Global Positioning System (GPS) and conventional land surveying methods will be used to establish additional project control if needed. These methods will also be used to perform the various tasks of this project. B. DESIGN SERVICES (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall generate, recover, and/or verify existing horizontal and vertical project primary control at the site, if any, and reconcile the control to known existing intersecting projects. 2. The Surveyor shall establish or densify additional secondary control as needed for the project to collect data along the length of the project. 3. The Surveyor shall, at their discretion, use 5/8“ iron rods with distinguishing caps, cotton spindles (paved areas) or other durable entities for the project control as applicable. 4. The Surveyor shall perform differential leveling through the project control (primary and secondary) to establish or extend vertical control for the project. 5. The project limits for surveying shall be along the expected path of Rabbit Hill Road from the existing Teravista Parkway/Oakmont Drive intersection to the proposed Westinghouse Road/Rabbit Hill Road intersection. The survey width along the Rabbit Hill Road corridor will be approximately 200-ft wide. The survey shall extend 1/8-mile east and west along Westinghouse and North up Rabbit Hill Road from the proposed tie-in location for the proposed widening for the turn lanes. The survey width along Westinghouse and Rabbit Hill Road will extend from ROW to ROW. The intersection with Teravista Parkway will also be surveyed past each radius curb return. 6. The Surveyor shall perform a topographic/design survey within the project limits. The topographic/design survey includes, but is not necessarily limited to: roadway, ditches, major grade breaks, culverts, culvert types and sizes, metal beam guard fence, fences, driveways, mailboxes, traffic and other signs, mailbox turnouts, striping, and visible above ground utilities. Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 12 of 14 7. In addition to the survey limits defined above, the surveyor shall survey ground shots and above ground utilities along the other two (2) alternative alignments. 8. The Surveyor shall survey drainage structures within the limits defined above. There is an existing detention pond within the limits that will be surveyed, including the outlet structures necessary to recreate hydraulic models. 9. In addition, the Surveyor shall survey the edge of pavement, grade breaks, and existing signs from 1/8-mile east and west along Teravista Parkway and Westinghouse Road. 10. The Surveyor shall survey side streets within the project limits to a distance of 100’ from the proposed alignment or far enough to establish drainage. 11. The Surveyor shall survey driveways within the project limits to a distance of 20’ from the proposed alignment or far enough to establish drainage. 12. The Surveyor shall provide digital photograph of each end of each cross road drainage structure located within the project limits. 13. The Surveyor shall process the collected information into a 1 foot contour DTM file utilizing Geopak V8i. 14. The Surveyor shall locate right-of-way monumentation and other evidence to reestablish the existing right-of-way lines for Teravista Parkway, Westinghouse and parcel boundaries within the limits of survey. This is not to be construed as boundary surveying at this time nor is it considered taxable for the purposes intended at this time. 15. The Surveyor shall set project control (N, E, Elev.) in such manner to reasonably assure the control will survive construction. C. TREE SERVICES (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall locate trees that 12 inches in diameter and larger, and note the size, species and canopy area. D. GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor will stake prior to boring and locate after boring six (6) geotechnical locations. The Engineer is to provide the locations for the borings. E. DELIVERABLES (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall provide: (a) 2D MicroStation V8i planimetric file. (b) 3D MicroStation V8i DTM file including break-lines and 1 foot contours. (c) Geopak V8i DTM (tin) file. (d) ASCII point file. (e) Two CD-ROM containing the specified files. (f) PDF file of each Surveyor’s project field book. (g) Spreadsheet of landowners for right-of-entry letters Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 13 of 14 F. ASSUMPTIONS (provided by Wallace Group) 1. The Surveyor shall notify the client prior to performing the work if: (a) Sufficient right-of-way monumentation cannot be found to re-establish the existing alignments and associated right-of-way lines along the project corridor. (b) Traffic Control cannot be managed by the Surveyor’s personnel. (c) The work is delayed due to weather or other circumstances beyond the Surveyor’s direct control. (d) Existing Project Control cannot be recovered or verified. G. UTILITIES (provided by The Wallace Group) 1. Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) (a) The project limits are approximately 1.0 miles along a new alignment. (b) The project consists of providing Quality Level (QL)-B on the existing underground utilities. QL-D and QL-C services are inclusive with the QL-B product. (c) Provide QL-B services for the various utilities noted on the site visit for preparing this scope of services with associated fees. The various utilities noted are: water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, telephone communications (cable and fiber optic) and electrical. This scope of services is based upon the effort to provide SUE services for these utility systems. (d) Utility services from the main utility to the right-of–way to service a lot or structure are not included within this scope of service nor the estimated utility linear footage previously shown. (e) Identify and map the existing utility facilities located on existing utility poles within the project limits. The facilities company name and contact information will be provided as part of the deliverables. (f) Definitions: (i) Quality Service Level D (QL-D) – This level of service is inclusive of QL-B and consists of collecting existing utility record information (as-built) from utility purveyors, municipalities, counties and other agency suppliers within the area of investigation. Contact the TxDOT Permit Office to obtain available records of any utility crossing IH 35 within the project limits. (ii) Quality Service Level C (QL-C) –This level of service is inclusive of QL-B and consists of surveying and obtaining accurate horizontal position of visible utility surface features associated with the project area to be designated by the Engineer. (iii) Quality Service Level B (QL-B Designating Services) – Designate is to indicate, by marking with paint, the presence and approximate horizontal location of subsurface utilities using geophysical prospecting techniques, including, without limitations, electromagnetic, sonic, and acoustical techniques. (iv) Quality Service Level A (QL-A Locating (Test Hole) Services) – Locating services is to locate the accurate horizontal and vertical position of subsurface utilities by excavating a test hole using vacuum excavation techniques and equipment that is non-destructive to utilities. 2. The Engineer will develop a contact list of the affected utility owners in the project corridor. Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 31 Item # L 2/12/2014 14 of 14 3. The Engineer will contact each utility company and meet individually with them to review their assumed utility locations developed from the SUE process. 4. The Engineer will prepare scroll plots indicating researched utility locations to provide to utility companies / owners for their review and comment. 5. The Engineer (or his subconsultants) will not be responsible for any omission of utility information that is not obtainable via electromagnetic, sonic, or acoustical designating services. Non-metallic piping, inactive electric and/or communication lines may or may not be found by electromagnetic, sonic or acoustical designating practices. The Engineer (or his subconsultants) do not warrant and/or guarantee that all existing utilities will be found. IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (provided by CP&Y, Inc.) 1. Create and submit monthly invoices suitable for payment by the City. 2. Prepare monthly progress reports for submission with the monthly invoices to provide a written account of the progress made to date on the project. 3. Meet formally once a month with the City to review project progress. 4. Prepare project meeting summaries for applicable meetings during the project development process. 5. Meet with property owners, stakeholders, and the City staff as required through the project development process. 6. The Engineer will have internal meetings with the consultant design team every two weeks for the length of the project. It is assumed that these meetings will include key personnel from each discipline and will be required to discuss and resolve project issues. 7. The Engineer shall prepare and execute contracts with sub-consultants, monitor sub- consultants activities (staff and schedule), complete monthly reports and review and recommend approval of sub-consultant invoices. 8. Coordinate and review subconsultant work activities and submittals. The Engineer will review and coordinate work of sub-consultants to ensure quality products are delivered to the City. The Engineer will also be responsible for the consistency and coordination between plans developed by each sub-consultant on the design team. 9. The Engineer shall formally close out the project and perform a documented archive process. Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 31 Item # L TASK ORDER 2/12/2014 Attachment C - Owners Responsibilities.docx EXHIBIT C OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITIES Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road City Provided Information or Work: The City shall provide the following services or perform the following work: A. Provide any existing data the Owner has on file concerning the Project, if available. B. Provide any available as-built plans for the existing detention pond, overhead and underground utility lines and other appurtenances within the project limits, if available. C. Provide applicable City checklists to be used during the design process for use by the Engineer. D. Provide any available environmental information such as project development documents, environmental assessments or impacts, schematics, typical sections, public records, etc known in the area. E. Provide available existing right of way plans for the proposed project location F. Provide traffic data and ESAL values for use in the pavement design. G. Assist the Engineer, as necessary, in obtaining any required data and information from the State, County, neighboring cities and/or other franchise utility companies. H. Give prompt written notice to Engineer whenever the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope or timing of Engineer’s services. I. Meet on an as needed basis to answer questions, provide guidance and offer comment. J. Review, approve and update Project Design Criteria. K. Provide the Engineer with timely reviews and decisions to enable the Engineer to maintain the project schedule as approved by the City. Any documents or information related to the Work/Services provided by the City to the Professional, including, without limitation, engineering studies, maps, reports, filed data, notes, plans, diagrams, sketches, or maps (the “Information”) is and shall remain the property of the City, and Professional shall have no ownership or other interest in same. The Professional shall deliver to the City, if requested, a written itemized receipt for the Information, and shall be responsible for its safe keeping and shall return it to the City, upon request, in as good condition as when received, normal wear and tear excepted. Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx SUMMARY Page 1 of 7 Attachment D Task Description TOTAL LABOR COSTS I. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES Data Collection CP&Y 5,484.00$ Alignment Study CP&Y 12,707.00$ Geotechnical Services; Pavement Design CORSAIR 9,735.00$ Schematic Development CP&Y 40,740.00$ Hydrology & Hydraulics CP&Y 12,528.00$ Water Quality CP&Y 7,020.00$ I. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES Subtotal 88,214.00$ II. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Environmental Studies CP&Y 20,502.00$ Geologic Assessment; Karst Survey; Archeology SWCA Environmental Consultants 20,000.00$ II. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Subtotal 40,502.00$ III. SURVEYING SERVICES Ground Survey; Project Controls; SUE The Wallace Group 45,175.00$ III. SURVEYING SERVICES Subtotal 45,175.00$ IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CP&Y 19,698.00$ IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subtotal 19,698.00$ SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 193,589.00$ CP&Y EXPENSES CP&Y 2,411.00$ GRAND TOTAL 196,000.00$ SUMMARY of Cost breakdown by Firm CP&Y 121,090.00$ CORSAIR 9,735.00$ SWCA Environmental Consultants 20,000.00$ The Wallace Group 45,175.00$ Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Total Cost Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx I. Route and Design Studies Page 2 of 7 Attachment D Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description $165.00 $160.00 $125.00 $96.00 $185.00 $128.00 I. ROUTE AND DESIGN STUDIES A Data Collection A1 Site visits of project corridor and surrounding areas 4 8 8 4 - - 24 3,324.00$ A2 Develop photo inventory of project site for coordination - - - 4 - - 4 384.00$ A3 Gather and review existing information from the City 2 - 4 6 - - 12 1,406.00$ A4 Obtain FEMA maps and studies - - - - 2 - 2 370.00$ 42 5,484.00$ B Alignment Study B1 Develop two (2) alternative geometric configurations 2 4 8 16 2 - 32 3,876.00$ B2 Develop two (2) engineer's opinion of probable cost 1 2 - 8 - - 11 1,253.00$ B3 Produce two (2) exhibits depicting alternatives for review 1 2 8 16 - 2 29 3,277.00$ B4 Conduct three (3) meetings with the City 9 9 - 9 - 4 31 4,301.00$ 103 12,707.00$ C Geotechnical Investigations C1 Services to be provided by COSAIR - - - - - - -$ C2 Services to be provided by COSAIR - - - - - - -$ C3 Services to be provided by COSAIR - - - - - - -$ C4 Services to be provided by COSAIR - - - - - - -$ 0 -$ D Schematic Development D1 Develop roadway design criteria and compile spreadsheet 1 1 - 4 - - 6 709.00$ D2 Calculated horizontal geometrics for project roadways 1 2 4 16 - - 23 2,521.00$ D3 Calculated vertical geometrics for project roadways 1 2 4 16 - - 23 2,521.00$ D4 Develop existing and proposed typical sections 1 2 4 16 - - 23 2,521.00$ D5 Develop Project Layout cross sections at 100' intervals 2 8 20 40 - - 70 7,950.00$ D6 Determine retaining wall limits 2 4 8 12 - - 26 3,122.00$ D7 Determine preliminary illumination layout - 2 4 16 - - 22 2,356.00$ D8 Develop preliminary signal at Westinghouse - 2 6 12 - - 20 2,222.00$ D9 Develop proposed pavement edges 2 6 24 40 - - 72 8,130.00$ D10 Finalize engineer's opinion of probable cost 2 4 - 8 - - 14 1,738.00$ D11 Prepare Project Layout plots of corridor 2 8 12 40 - - 62 6,950.00$ 361 40,740.00$ Total Direct Labor Costs Total Labor Hours Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Senior Environ Specialist Chief Hydrologist Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx I. Route and Design Studies Page 3 of 7 Attachment D Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description $165.00 $160.00 $125.00 $96.00 $185.00 $128.00 Total Direct Labor Costs Total Labor Hours Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T. Senior Environ Specialist Chief Hydrologist E Traffic Data Collection, Analysis and Review E1 Data provided by the City - - - - - - -$ 0 -$ F Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis F1 Preliminary Drainage Tech Memo - 4 12 30 2 - 48 5,390.00$ F2 Storm water Detention 4 - 12 48 2 - 66 7,138.00$ 114 12,528.00$ G Water Quality G1a Data Review - - 2 6 - - 8 826.00$ G1b Determine preliminary water quality options - - 2 12 - - 14 1,402.00$ G1c Preliminary Grading and Layout 2 4 6 32 - - 44 4,792.00$ 66 7,020.00$ I. - SUBTOTALS HOURS SUB-TOTALS 39 74 148 411 8 6 686 78,479.00$ SUBTOTAL 6,435.00$ 11,840.00$ 18,500.00$ 39,456.00$ 1,480.00$ 768.00$ $78,479.00 Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx II. Social, Eco, Enviro, Public Page 4 of 7 Attachment D Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description $185.00 $128.00 $93.00 $99.00 $96.00 $72.00 $70.00 II. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A RIGHT-OF-ENTRY SERVICES A1 Perform property ownership research. Obtain right-of-entry letters.1 - 6 - 2 8 2 19 1,651.00$ 19 1,651.00$ B ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS B1 Obtain, review, and organize existing environmental constraints data.1 - 6 - 6 16 - 29 2,471.00$ B2 Conduct field reconnaissance to verify prelim environmental constraints map 4 - 10 8 8 4 - 34 3,518.00$ B3 Prepare a preliminary environmental constraints map using GIS 2 - 4 4 2 16 - 28 2,482.00$ B4 Prepare technical memorandum describing environmental constraints 2 4 16 4 8 8 - 42 4,110.00$ B5 Prepare preliminary evaluation of alignment alternatives 2 4 12 4 8 12 - 42 4,026.00$ B6 Attend up to two Coordination Meetings 6 - 6 - 6 - - 18 2,244.00$ B7 Services to be provided by SWCA - - - - - - - -$ 193 18,851.00$ II. - SUBTOTALS HOURS SUB-TOTALS 18 8 60 20 40 64 2 212 20,502.00$ SUBTOTAL 3,330.00$ 1,024.00$ 5,580.00$ 1,980.00$ 3,840.00$ 4,608.00$ 140.00$ $20,502.00 Environ Specialist Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Environ Manager Senior Environ Specialist Senior Architectural Historian Biologist Admin / Clerical Total Labor HoursGIS Specialist Total Direct Labor Costs Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx III. Surveying Services Page 5 of 7 Attachment D Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description $165.00 $160.00 $125.00 $96.00 $70.00 III. SURVEYING SERVICES A PROJECT CONTROL SERVICES A1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ B DESIGN SERVICES B1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B2 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B3 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B4 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B5 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B6 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B7 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B8 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B9 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B10 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - B11 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - B12 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B13 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ B14 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ C TREE SERVICES C1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ D GEOTECHNICAL LOCATIONS D1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ E DELIVERABLES E1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ F ASSUMPTIONS F1 Services to be provided by the Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ G UTILITIES G1 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ G2 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ G3 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ G4 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ G5 Services to be provided by The Wallace Group - - - - - -$ 0 -$ III. - SUBTOTALS HOURS SUB-TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ SUBTOTAL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0.00 Total Direct Labor Costs Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown No. of Sheets Project Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer Admin / Clerical Total Labor HoursE.I.T. Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx IV. Project Management Page 6 of 7 Attachment D Fee Schedule/Budget for CP&Y, Inc. Task Description $165.00 $160.00 $125.00 $96.00 $70.00 $185.00 IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A Project Management (6 months) A1 Create and submit monthly invoices 3 - - - 6 - 9 915.00$ A2 Prepare monthly progress reports 3 2 - - - - 5 815.00$ A3 Meet with City once a month 12 12 - - - - 24 3,900.00$ A4 Prepare project meeting summaries 2 6 - - - - 8 1,290.00$ A5 Meet with property owners, stakeholders, and City 12 12 - - - - 24 3,900.00$ A6 Internal Design Team Meetings 6 6 8 8 - 6 34 4,828.00$ A7 Monitor and Review Sub-consultant invoices 3 - - - 3 2 8 1,075.00$ A8 Coordinate and Review Sub-consultant work products 6 2 - - - 3 11 1,865.00$ A9 Project Closeout 2 - 4 - 4 - 10 1,110.00$ 133 19,698.00$ IV.- SUBTOTALS HOURS SUB-TOTALS 49 40 12 8 13 11 133 19,698.00$ SUBTOTAL 8,085.00$ 6,400.00$ 1,500.00$ 768.00$ 910.00$ 2,035.00$ 19,698.00$ Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Project Manager Total Labor Hours Admin / Clerical Environ Manager Senior Engineer Design Engineer E.I.T.Total Direct Labor Costs Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal.xlsx EXPENSES Page 7 of 7 Attachment D CADD Plotting sf 1.50$ 1,000 1,500.00$ Mylar Plots lf 6.00$ -$ Digital Ortho Plotting lf 2.00$ 50 100.00$ 11" X 17" Mylar sheet 1.00$ -$ 8 1/2" X 11" B/W Paper Copies sheet 0.10$ 200 20.00$ 11" X 17" B/W Paper Copies sheet 0.15$ 50 7.50$ 8 1/2" X 11" Color Paper Copies sheet 1.00$ 20 20.00$ 11" X 17" Color Paper Copies sheet 1.80$ 20 36.00$ Fax Copies sheet 0.10$ -$ Film and Development roll 8.00$ -$ 4 X 6 Digital Color Prints picture 0.50$ -$ Oversized Digital Color Prints picture 50.00$ -$ Standard Postage letter 0.44$ 10 4.40$ Express Mail (Standard)each 15.00$ 4 60.00$ Express Mail (Oversized)each 30.00$ -$ Deliveries each 25.00$ -$ Airfare each 200.00$ -$ Rental Car day 80.00$ -$ Lodging day 85.00$ -$ Meals day 36.00$ -$ Mileage mile 0.550$ 100 55.00$ GPS Rental day 80.000$ 1 80.00$ HazMat Database Search each 250.000$ 1 250.00$ -$ Miscellaneous Project Related Expenses NA at cost NA 278.10$ SUBTOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 2,411.00$ Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse City of Georgetown Expense Item Unit Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal - CORSAIR.xlsx Geotechnical Services Page 1 of 1 Lump Sum Fee 1. Soil Borings No.Cost Total Pavement 9 150.00$ 1,350.00$ Mob 1 325.00$ 325.00$ Sub. Tot.1,675.00$ 2. Laboratory Testings No.Cost Total Atters 18 70.00$ 1,260.00$ -200 18 30.00$ 540.00$ Sulfates 9 85.00$ 765.00$ Resilent Modulus Testing 2 460.00$ 920.00$ Soil Moisture Density relationship TXE 114-E 2 110.00$ 220.00$ Optimum Lime/Cement Content pH TXE 121 2 220.00$ 440.00$ UU Triax Compression 9 35.00$ 315.00$ Sub Tot.4,460.00$ 4. Engineering Hours Billing Rate Total Principal Engineer 4 150.00$ 600.00$ Sr. Engineer 20 105.00$ 2,100.00$ EIT 10 90.00$ 900.00$ Sub. Total 3,600.00$ Total 9,735.00$ Cost Estimate-Geotechnical Services Rabbit Hill Road Extension Teravista to Westinghouse Georgetown, Texas Attachment D Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal - SWCA.docx Page 1 of 1 Attachment D Cost Estimate-SWCA Rabbit Hill Road Extension Project Teravista to Westinghouse Georgetown, Texas Task I – Cultural Resources Background Records Search $ 600.00 Task II – Antiquities Permit Application $ 1,000.00 Task III – Archaeological Survey $ 1,900.00 Task IV – Cultural Resources Report Production $ 4,000.00 Task V – Geologic Assessment and Karst Survey $ 5,000.00 Task VI – Habitat Assessment and Impacts Analysis Report and Meetings $ 7,500.00 TOTAL COST $ 20,000.00 Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal - Wallace Group.xlsx Survey & SUE Page 1 of 2 Lump Sum Fee A. Right-Of-Entry Services Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Research Landowners Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ Compile Spreadsheet & Prepare Letters Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ QC Data & Letters Prior to Mailing Out RPLS 1 130$ 130$ Distribute Letters Via Mail and/or In Person Surv Tech 3 85$ 255$ Record Landowner Response/Comments Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ Final QC of Landowner Response & Provide to Client RPLS 1 130$ 130$ Subtotal 11 $1,025 Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Research Right-of-Way's (R.O.W.)Surv Tech 6 85$ 510$ Build Deed Sketch of all Properties & R.O.W.'s Surv Tech 8 85$ 680$ QC/PM RPLS 2 130$ 260$ Recover & Verify Existing Horz. & Vert. Control Field 5 125$ 625$ Check Field Data Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ QC/PM RPLS 1 130$ 130$ Set & Tie Secondary Horz. Control Field 5 125$ 625$ Process & Check Field Data Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ Set 4 Benchmarks Field 2 125$ 250$ Run 3-Wire Vertical Control over Benchmarks & Horz. Control Field 10 125$ 1,250$ Process & Check Field Data Surv Tech 2 85$ 170$ QC/PM RPLS 1 130$ 130$ Recon & Tie Property Corners and R.O.W. Markers Field 15 125$ 1,875$ Analyze/Resolution of ties to Property Corners and R.O.W. markers Surv Tech 8 85$ 680$ QC/PM RPLS 4 130$ 520$ Topo/Cross-Sections at 100' intervals and pick up all grade breaks for a minimum of 100' either side of centerline plus detail detention pond located on east side of proposed alignment and being approx. 1000' north of Teravista Pkwy.Field 90 125$ 11,250$ Field Supervision RPLS 8 130$ 1,040$ Process & Check Topo/Cross-Section field data Surv Tech 8 85$ 680$ Draft/Contour Topo/Cross-Section field data Surv Tech 60 85$ 5,100$ QA/QC Topo/Cross-Section data and drawings RPLS 12 130$ 1,560$ Field Walk Topo/Cross-Section data to QC drawings Surv Tech 12 85$ 1,020$ Subtotal 263 $28,695 Attachment D B. Design Services - Approx. 1 mile of Oakmont Dr. extension + 1/8 mile east & west along Westinghouse and north up Rabbit Hill Rd + Terravista Intersection Cost Estimate-Surveying & SUE Oakmont Drive Extension Project Teravista to Westinghouse Georgetown, Texas Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 31 Item # L Attachment D - Fee Proposal - Wallace Group.xlsx Survey & SUE Page 2 of 2 C. Tree Services & Boring Locations Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Locate, measure & tag trees that are 12 inches in diameter and larger. Also stake prior to boring and locate after boring approx. 6 geotechnical locations. Field 15 125$ 1,875$ Prep. for field crew & Drafting Surv Tech 4 85$ 340$ Field Supervision & QC RPLS 2 130$ 260$ Subtotal 21 $2,475 D. Utilities - Perform Level B, C & D tasks for Visible & Underground Utilities Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Research & perform Level B, C & D tasks for the underground utilities SUE Tech 12 90$ 1,080$ Obtain Measure Downs & Hard Elevations on San. Sew. MH.s, etc.Field 4 125$ 500$ Verify and add measure downs and hard elevations to drawing along with visible & underground utility information.Surv Tech 8 85$ 680$ QC & Supervision RPLS 4 130$ 520$ Subtotal 28 $2,780 E. Deliverables Task Staff Type Hrs Rate Total Provide Microstation files, Geopak file, Ascii point file, Two CD-ROM, PDF file of Surveyor's field book and Spreadsheet of Landowners for Right-of-Entry Letters, and requested photographs of drainage structures.Surv Tech 8 85$ 680$ Final QC & Supervision RPLS 4 130$ 520$ Subtotal 12 $1,200 Total Hours 335 F. Parcel Plats & Legal Descriptions Task Staff Type No.Rate Total Prepare individual parcel plats and legal descriptions for use in acquiring right-of-way which includes setting newly calculated boundary corners. We will prepare up to six (6) Right-of-Way instruments at $1,500/each 6 1,500$ 9,000$ Subtotal $9,000 Total 45,175$ Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 31 Item # L City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a rezoning of 4.10 acres, being Lot 1, G. B. F. Subdivision, from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District, located at 302 Serenada Dr. at the east corner of Serenada Dr. and Northwest Blvd -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The applicant has requested rezoning from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District to allow for a charter school to occupy the existing building. The site is currently occupied by Grace Bible Church who wishes to sell the property to Priority Charter School. The charter school will provide education services to a mix of age groups, including elementary, middle school, and high school students. Public Comments: No comments were received as of the writing of the staff report. Only the applicant spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 4th. Special Considerations: None Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) of the request to the City Council after a Public Hearing on February 4, 2014. Recommended Motion: Approval of the rezoning of Lot 1, G. B. F. Subdivision, from Residential Single- Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District, located at 302 Serenada Dr. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The required application fee has been paid. SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map Ordinance Cover Memo Item # M Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Rezoning Page 1 of 4 Report Date: February 26, 2014 File No: REZ-2014-001 Project Planner: Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner Item Description Public Hearing and possible action on a rezoning of 4.10 acres, being Lot 1, G. B. F. Subdivision, from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District, located at 302 Serenada Dr. at the east corner of Serenada Dr. and Northwest Blvd. Item Details Project Name: Grace Bible Church Rezoning Location: 302 Serenada Drive (See Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 4.10 acres Legal Description: 4.10 acres being Lot 1 of the G. B. F. Subdivision Applicant: Gary Cocanougher, ERA Colonial Real Estate Property Owner: Grace Bible Church Existing Use: Church Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) Proposed Zoning: Public Facilities (PF) Future Land Use: Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Growth Tier: Tier 1A Overview of Applicant’s Request The applicant has requested rezoning from the Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District to allow for a charter school to occupy the existing 8,288 square foot building. The site is currently occupied by Grace Bible Church who wishes to sell the property to Priority Charter School, which is currently leasing space from Heritage Baptist Church in Georgetown. The charter school will provide education services to a mix of age groups, including elementary, middle school, and high school students. Grace Academy, a K-12 private school, operated at this location from 2002-2008. UDC changes in 2010 removed high schools as a permitted use in the RS district and added a Special Use Permit requirement for middle schools in the RS district. Since the private school has been removed for some time now, the inclusion of high school and middle school students is no longer grandfathered and therefore necessitates the rezoning to the PF district. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # M Planning Department Staff Report G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Rezoning Page 2 of 4 Site Information Location: This property is located at the east corner of the intersection of Serenada Drive and Northwest Boulevard (See Exhibit 1) Physical Characteristics: The relatively flat property is currently developed with a church facility. Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties include vacant residentially zoned properties in the city limits and residential home sites (Serenada subdivision) in the ETJ across Serenada Drive from the subject site. The City’s tennis center and airport are nearby. (See Exhibit 4) Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North ETJ Low Density Residential Serenada subdivision; residential South Residential Single- Family (RS) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center undeveloped East Residential Single- Family (RS) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center undeveloped West ETJ Low Density Residential Serenada subdivision; residential (See Exhibits 2 and 3) Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # M Planning Department Staff Report G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Rezoning Page 3 of 4 Property History The City Council annexed the subject property in November of 1986 (Ordinance #86-56). The default zoning for annexation at that time was residential. A Final Plat for the G. B. F. Subdivision was recorded on July 9th, 1987, and a site plan (detailed development plan) for the church development was approved on April 4th, 1987. 2030 Plan Conformance The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, which may include non-commercial uses such as churches, schools, or small parks. The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 1A, which is the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are in place, or can be economically provided, and where the bulk of the City’s growth should be guided over the near term. Proposed Zoning District The Public Facilities (PF) District is intended to provide a location for government and other public or quasi-public facility operations, including schools, hospitals, government offices, churches and other related uses. Some uses allowed in this District might generate heavy traffic volumes and high-intensity operations. The PF District shall contain uses that are allowed in both residential and non-residential districts and is subject to non-residential design and landscaping standards for compatibility. Utilities The City of Georgetown provides water, wastewater, and electric services at this location. Transportation The site is located at the intersection of a minor arterial (Serenada Drive) and a collector (Northwest Boulevard). Access to the existing facility is provided via Serenada Drive. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning. Future Application(s) A Certificate of Occupancy will be required for the change of use. Building permits will be required if any interior alterations are needed to accommodate the proposed use as a school. Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # M Planning Department Staff Report G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Rezoning Page 4 of 4 Staff Analysis Staff Recommendation and Basis: This application proposes a rezoning from Residential Single-Family (RS) District to Public Facilities (PF) District. Staff is supportive of the proposed request for rezoning based on the following: 1. The request is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Use Category, which supports both the existing church use and the proposed school use. 2. The surrounding area is either developed with large lot residential properties (located in the ETJ) and governmental uses or is undeveloped. Nearby uses include the City’s tennis center, the Georgetown Airport, and further down Northwest Boulevard, Benold Middle School and Frost Elementary School. 3. The transportation network supports the proposed rezoning as the property is located at the intersection of a minor arterial road and a collector road. Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments None Public Comments One notice was sent out to an owner of property (two tracts) within the city limits and within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on February 16th, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no public comment has been received. Special Considerations None Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2013) Meetings Schedule March 4, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission March 11, 2014 – City Council First Reading March 25, 2014– City Council Second Reading Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # M Ordinance Number: ___________________ Description: G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Page 1 of 2 Date Approved: ______ ______ _____ Exhibits A&B Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-001 ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the Official Zoning Map to rezone G. B. F. Subdivision Lot 1 from the Residential Single‐Family (RS) District to the Public Facility (PF) District; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date. Whereas, an application has been made to the City for the purpose of amending the Official Zoning Map, adopted on the 12th day of June, 2012, for the specific Zoning District classification of the following described real property (ʺThe Propertyʺ): Lot 1 of the G. B. F. Subdivision, as recorded in Cabinet I, Slides 298‐299, of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as ʺThe Propertyʺ; and Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and Whereas, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s Unified Development Code through newspaper publication, signs posted on the Property, and mailed notice to nearby property owners; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on March 4, 2014, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the Property; and Whereas, the City Council, at a meeting on March 11, 2014, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the Property. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, that: Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Unified Development Code. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 4 Item # M Ordinance Number: ___________________ Description: G. B. F. Subdivision, Lot 1 Page 2 of 2 Date Approved: ______ ______ _____ Exhibits A&B Attached Case File Number: REZ-2014-001 Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, as well as the Zoning District classification(s) for the Property is hereby amended from the Residential Single‐Family (RS) District to the Public Facility (PF) District, in accordance with the attached Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Legal Description) and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. Section 4. If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading on the 11th day of March, 2014. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading on the 25th day of March, 2014. THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: ATTEST: ______________________ _________________________ Jessica Brettle George Garver City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Bridget Chapman City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 4 Item # M C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITYOF GEORGETOWN Georgetown ETJ Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J S E R E N A D A D R L U N A T R L B E L L O C I R E S E Q U O I A T R L E E S P A R A D A D R R O B L E G R A N D E C I R G R A N A D A D R N O R T H W E S T B LV D REZ-2014-001 REZ-2014-001 Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Willia m s Dr §¨¦35 L a k e w a y A ir p o rt R d Site City Limits Street Site ³ SerenadaDr N o r t h w e s t B l v d Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 4 Item # M CITY OF GEO RGETO W N REZ-2014-001 S I N U S O D R SERENADA DR L U N A T R L B E L L O C I R R O B L E G R A N D E C I R E E S P A R A D A D R E S E Q U O I A T R L G R A N A D A D R NO RT H W E ST B LV D 0 500 1,000Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJREZ-2014-001Zoning Information Exhibit #3 N o r t h w e s t B l v d B o oty'sCrossingRd WilliamsDr Lake w ay Dr ³ City Limits Street Site Site Se r enad a Dr Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 4 Item # M C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N CITYOF GEORGETOWN Georgetown ETJ Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J S E R E N A D A D R L U N A T R L B E L L O C I R E S E Q U O I A T R L E E S P A R A D A D R R O B L E G R A N D E C I R G R A N A D A D R N O R T H W E S T B LV D REZ-2014-001 REZ-2014-001 Exhibit #1 Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Willia m s Dr §¨¦35 L a k e w a y A ir p o rt R d Site City Limits Street Site ³ SerenadaDr N o r t h w e s t B l v d Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # M C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N Georgetown ETJ G e o r g e t o w n E T J Georgetown ETJ G R A N A D A D R S E R E N A D A D R E E S P A R A D A D R R O B L E G R A N D E C I R NORTHWEST BLVD E S E Q U O I A T R L REZ-2014-001 0 500 1,000Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2014-001 Legend Thoroughfare Future Land Use Institutional Regional Commercial Community Commercial Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential Williams Dr Lake way Dr W illia ms Dr N o r t h w e s t B l v d Booty's CrossingRd Se r e nad a Dr Site³ City Limits Street Site Existing Collector Existing Freeway Existing Major Arterial Existing Minor Arterial Existing Ramp Proposed Collector Proposed Freeway Propsed Frontage Road Proposed Major Arterial Proposed Minor Arterial Proposed Railroad Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # M CITY OF GEO RGETO W N REZ-2014-001 S I N U S O D R SERENADA DR L U N A T R L B E L L O C I R R O B L E G R A N D E C I R E E S P A R A D A D R E S E Q U O I A T R L G R A N A D A D R NO RT H W E ST B LV D 0 500 1,000Feet Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJREZ-2014-001Zoning Information Exhibit #3 N o r t h w e s t B l v d B o oty'sCrossingRd WilliamsDr Lake w ay Dr ³ City Limits Street Site Site Se r enad a Dr Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # M REZ-2014-001SERE N A D A D R SINUSO DR E S E Q U O I A T R L BELLO CIR L U N A T R L ROBLE GRA N D E C I R E ESPARADA DR G R A N A D A D R NO R T H W E S T B L V D LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ 0 500 1,000Feet Exhibit #4REZ-2014-001 B o o t y 's C r o s sing Rd W illia m s Dr Lakew ay Dr S ere n ad a Dr Nort h w e s t B l v d Site City Limits Street Site ³ Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # M City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 22.02 acres out of the N. Porter Survey and the Crestview Addition, Crestview Baptist Church, Gabriel Heights, Longhorn Crossing, and Williams Addition subdivisions, to remove the Williams Drive (F.M. 2338) Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP-WM”), on the properties generally located on Williams Dr between Shannon Lane and Power Road, within City Council District 2, more specifically on the properties located at 211 W Central Dr, 307 Shannon Ln, 504 Power Rd, 1629 Rivery Blvd, and 1599 through 2404 Williams Dr, save and except 2403 Williams Dr. REZ-2013-015 -- Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Coordinator, and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director (action required) ITEM SUMMARY: Background: The area subject to this request is located on Williams Dr. between the intersections of Shannon Ln. and Power Rd. (Exhibit 1). Portions of the subject area were annexed in 1964, 1969 and 1974. It consists of thirty-one (31) properties that were originally developed as single-family residential, the majority of which have been redeveloped as civic, office and other limited non-residential uses while maintaining a single- family residential appearance and scale as dictated by the SP-WM overlay district. It is surrounded by office, retail and other commercial uses to the north and south along Williams Dr, and office and single-family residential uses to the east and west. In accordance with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the subject area has a Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center and Special Area Mixed-Use Future Land Use (“FLU”) designations (Exhibit 2). These FLU designations promote the development of a mix of uses, including office, retail, personal services, civic and residential uses, subject to the requirements of the UDC. The subject area is also located within Growth Tier 1A, which is the area where the bulk of the City's growth should be guided to in the short term (first 10 years). Additionally, Williams Dr. is classified as a major arterial as it carries large volume of through traffic from the west side of the City to Interstate Highway 35 and the Downtown area. The development standards that govern the subject area have been in effect since the adoption of the previous Residential Office (“RO”) zoning district in 1986. In March 2003, with the adoption of the Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP”), the previous RO zoning district converted into the SP-WM overlay district to continue protecting the residential character of the properties on Williams Dr. within the subject area. However, since the adoption of these development standards, Williams Dr. has transitioned into one of the City's major commercial corridors. The existing conditions and current base zoning districts along Williams Dr. have significantly changed from the intent of the RO and subsequent SP-WM zoning districts in the past twenty-eight (28) years, rendering the SP-WM overlay district unviable for the subject area and inconsistent with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Because of this, the City Council approved Resolution No. 092413-0 on September 24, 2013, directing staff to initiate a zoning map amendment to remove the SP-WM overlay zoning district. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds that the proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria of UDC Section 3.06.030, and thus recommends APPROVAL of the request. In particular, staff finds that: Removal of the SP-WM overlay district will promote the (re)development of the area with other residential and non-residential uses that are conducive to the area and consistent with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, subject to all applicable requirements of the UDC; The proposed amendment is part of an orderly and logical development pattern that will allow the existing commercial development pattern to continue along this portion of Williams Dr. Future development on these properties will fall under the most current development standards and therefore unlikely to resemble the previous generation of strip commercial development experienced along Cover Memo Item # N much of Williams Dr; and Removal of the SP-WM overlay district will not create adverse impacts to the area as the existing uses and base zoning districts that will remain are compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning districts on Williams Drive and adjacent residential area. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended APPROVAL (5-0) of the request to the City Council after a Public Hearing on February 4, 2014. Public Comments: On December 5, 2013, City staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to provide information to the affected property owners and surrounding residents on the existing zoning districts and regulations that affect the subject area. A total of twenty-five (25) business and property owners, residents, and city officials attended the meeting. Several issues were discussed including existing and proposed regulations, transportation, permitted uses, and potential impact to property values and taxes. Notwithstanding the range and mix of feedback on the removal of the overlay district, it appears that the majority of the owners that will be affected by this rezoning understand the need for change to accommodate future sound development along this major corridor. The property owners that are located within the existing overlay district ultimately carry the burden of complying with the regulations established in 1986, and therefore must be given due consideration. Public notices were mailed to the thirty-one (31) properties subject to this rezoning request, and fifty-nine (59) properties located within two hundred (200) feet of the subject area. Additionally, public notice was posted in the Williamson County Sun newspaper on January 19, 2014. At the time of this report, City staff received two (2) written responses in favor, and one (1) in opposition of the request (Exhibit 5). City Council Public Hearing and First Reading: First Reading of the Ordinance was held at the February 25, 2014 City Council meeting. A public hearing was opened and closed with no speakers. City Council voted APPROVAL (6-0) of the request. Recommended Motion: Approval of Second Reading of an Ordinance for a Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 22.02 acres to remove the Williams Drive (F.M. 2338) Special Area Plan Overlay District (SP-WM) on the properties generally located on Williams Drive between Shannon Lane and Power Road, located within City Council District 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The standard rezoning fee will be absorbed through the City's Management Services Division. SUBMITTED BY: Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: P&Z Commission Staff Report Ordinance Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2 Future Land Use Plan Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Exhibit 4 Aerial Map Exhibit 5 Public Comments P&Z Commission February 4, 2014 Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Item # N Georgetown Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 1 of 6 Report Date: February 4, 2014 File No: REZ-2013-015 Project Planner: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator Item Details Project Name: Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District (SP-WM) Rezoning Location: Williams Drive, between the intersections of Shannon Lane and Power Road (Exhibit 1) Total Acreage: 22.02 Acres Legal Description: A portion of Lot 1, Lots 2 through 9, Block 2, Crestview Addition Unit 1, a portion of Lot 2, Lots 1 and 7, Block 3, and Lot 1, Block 4, Crestview Addition Unit 2, a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Crestview Baptist Church Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, Gabriel Heights, a portion of Lot 1, Longhorn Crossing, Lots 1 through 10, Block 1, Williams Addition, a portion of Lot 1A, Block 2, Williams Addition, and a portion (approximately 2.28 acres) of the N. Porter Survey. Applicant: City of Georgetown (Resolution No. 092413-0) Property Owner: Multiple Contact: Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator Existing Use: Single-Family Residential, Office, Fire Station, Church and Vacant Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS), Office (OF) and Planned Unit Development General Commercial (PUD C-3), Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District (SP-WM) and Scenic Natural Gateway Overlay District Proposed Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS), Office (OF) and Planned Unit Development General Commercial (PUD C-3), Scenic Natural Gateway Overlay District Future Land Use: Special Area Mixed Use and Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center Growth Tier: Tier 1A (Short Term Growth Area – 10 Years) Case History: City Council issued a resolution on September 24, 2013, directing staff to initiate a zoning map amendment to remove the Williams Drive (F.M. 2338) Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP-WM”). A neighborhood public meeting was conducted on December 5, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Commission was briefed on this request on September 3, 2013, and January 21, 2014. Overview of Applicant’s Request The subject property consists of thirty-one (31) lots ranging from single-family residential to office and limited nonresidential uses. Since the adoption of the Residential Office (“RO”) zoning district in 1986, the conditions of Williams Drive have evolved transitioning the area into one of the City’s major commercial corridors. The current zoning districts and uses within the subject area deters from the intent of the RO zoning district and subsequent SP-WM overlay district adopted in 2003, rendering this overlay district unviable for the area. Because of this, the City Council initiated a Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # N Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 2 of 6 zoning map amendment (Resolution No. 092413-0) to remove the SP-WM overlay zoning district, and encourage redevelopment along this corridor consistent with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Site Information Property History: The subject property comprises of thirty-one (31) lots located on Williams Drive, west of Interstate Highway 35, between the intersections of Shannon Lane and Power Road (Exhibit 1). Portions of the subject area were annexed in 1964, 1969 and 1974. In August 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 86-28, creating the RO zoning district to allow an orderly transition of land use from single-family residential to low intensity office on properties along Williams Drive, west of Interstate Highway 35 and east of Power Road, while maintaining a predominantly residential property appearance and building scale. In March 2003, the City Council adopted a set of comprehensive development regulations known as the Unified Development Code (“UDC”) via Ordinance No. 2003-16, which renamed and established new zoning districts. The City’s UDC created the Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP”) to provide use and development standards that would allow the gradual transition of primarily residential areas to mixed-use while protecting the built environment. The previous RO zoning district converted into the SP-WM overlay district to continue protecting the residential character of the properties on Williams Drive between Shannon Lane and Power Road. The subject area was primarily developed as single-family residential; however, the majority of these properties have been redeveloped as civic, office and other related uses. The increase of commercial development along Williams Drive has transitioned the area into one of the City’s major commercial corridors, while still maintaining a single-family residential appearance only within the subject area. Because of this, affected property owners have experienced challenges (re)developing their properties. Land Use and Zoning: The subject property consists of small developable lots with an average lot area of approximately 35,330 square feet (0.8 acres). Existing structures ressemble single-family residential homes in appearance and scale as dictated by the SP-WM overlay district standards. To date, approximately three (3) properties remain as single-family residential; the remaining properties have been converted or developed with non-residential uses. Heritage and protected trees exist within the area (Exhibit 4). The neighboring properties have been developed as residential and non-residential lots, to include single-family residential, office, service and commercial uses, as more specifically noted in the table below (Exhibits 3 and 4): Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use North Local Commercial (C-1) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Commercial, retail and service Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # N Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 3 of 6 Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use East Local Commercial (C-1), Office (OF) and Residential Single-Family (RS) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center and Special Area Mixed-Use Office, single-family residential South Local Commercial (C-1) Special Area Mixed-Use Commercial, office, bank West Local Commercial (C-1), Office (OF), Planned Unit Development General Commercial (PUD C-3), and Residential Single-Family (RS) Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Single-family residential, art gallery, church, office Overlay and Special Districts: The subject area is located within the SP-WM and Scenic Natural Gateway overlay districts. The purpose of the SP-WM overlay district is to allow the gradual transition of primarily residential areas to light office while maintaining a predominantly residential property appearance and building scale. The purpose of the Scenic Natural Gateway Overlay District is to reflect the natural characteristics of the land by integrating them into the landscape design of the property. Proposed Zoning District This request, should it be approved, will remove the SP-WM overlay district; current base and other overlay districts within the subject area will continue to remain in effect as determined by the Official Zoning Map. The properties subject to this rezoning may be (re)developed to the standards and permitted uses of the current base zoning districts of each property in accordance with the UDC. In the case of non-residential zoning districts, current development standards include landscaping and tree preservation, appropriate building setbacks and buffer yards, smaller signage, and building standards that require masonry, articulation and other quality development standards. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use: In accordance with the City’s Future Land Use (“FLU”) Plan, the subject area has Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center and Special Area Mixed-Use FLU designations (Exhibit 2). The Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center FLU encompasses the majority of the subject area due to its location along a major corridor and transportation route that connects the City’s western area to the Downtown area, and close proximity to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. This FLU designation accommodates mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail, personal service and other uses on the ground floor, and offices or residential units above. Uses in these areas may include a corner store, small grocery, coffee shops, personal services, small professional offices, civic uses, small parks and residential. The Special Area Mixed Use FLU encompasses the most eastern end of the subject area due to its Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # N Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 4 of 6 close proximity to Interstate Highway 35. This FLU designation accommodates large-scale mixed- use developments that are mostly commercial and near intense regional commercial uses. The integration of a variety of complementary uses, such as retail, offices, entertainment activities and high density residential, is encouraged within this designation. Removal of the SP-WM zoning district will allow the development of other office, personal services, commercial and residential uses consistent with the FLU designations of the area, as determined by the base zoning districts and in accordance with the UDC. Growth Tier: The area subject to this rezoning request is located within Growth Tier 1A, which is that portion of the City where infrastructure systems are in place or can be economically provided, and where the bulk of the City’s growth should be guided to short term. At the time the subject area is redeveloped, Utility Evaluations may be required to determine capacity and potential public improvements to serve the project. Utilities The properties subject to this rezoning are located within the City’s electric, water and wastewater services area. Removal of the overlay district will not require improvements to the existing lines or an increase in the level of service. Further development of these properties and potential utility improvements will be governed by the type of land use; proposed size, scale and timing of the development; and development standards applicable at the time they are redeveloped. Transportation The properties subject to this rezoning are located on Williams Drive, which serves as the main access to the majority of the properties within the subject area. Williams Drive is classified as a Major Arterial in the City’s Overall Transportation Plan (“OTP”) as it carries large volume of through traffic from the west side of the City to Interstate Highway 35 and the Downtown area (Exhibit 2). Currently, Williams Drive is a 5-lane road [two (2) lanes each way with a center turning lane], and has a minimum right-of-way of 80 feet within the subject area boundary. In accordance with the Street Classification Standards of the UDC, major arterials require a 135- foot minimum right-of-way, and are designed to have up to six (6) lanes with a median. The OTP recommends the widening of Williams Drive in its Long Term Improvement Program (2020 to 2030 and beyond). Additionally, there are a number of improvements planned for the area, such as the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard, and the extension of Northwest Boulevard across Interstate Highway 35. The extention of Rivery Boulevard and Northwest Boulevard will provide alternate routes for through traffic from the west, alleviating through traffic along this portion of Williams Drive. Interdepartmental, Governmental and Agency Comments On September 3, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission was briefed on this City initiated rezoning case. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed and supported staff in this initiative due to the development changes Williams Drive has undergone in the previous twenty-seven (27) years, its inapplicability to existing conditions, and inconsistency with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. A second briefing to the Planning and Zoning Commission was completed Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # N Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 5 of 6 on January 21, 2014; no additional comments or concerns were expressed to City staff. Recommendation Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. In accordance with UDC Section 3.06.030, the City Council shall consider the approval criteria below for zoning changes. A. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is sufficient and correct enough to allow adequate review and final action; On September 24, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 092413-0 directing staff to initiate a zoning map amendment to remove the SP-WM overlay zoning district. This rezoning case was initiated due to the existing conditions and current base zoning districts along Williams Drive, which have significantly changed from the intent of the RO and subsequent SP-WM zoning districts. The changes in use and development pattern along Williams Drive have rendered the SP-WM overlay district unviable for the subject area. B. The zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; The SP-WM zoning district requires development along this stretch of Williams Drive to reflect single- family residential structures in appearance and scale, while limiting uses to light office and single-family residential only. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a mix of complimentary uses, including limited retail, personal service, office, civic, and single- to multi-family residential uses. Removal of this overlay district will promote the (re)development of the area consistent with all elements of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan subject to all applicable requirements as determined by the Official Zoning Map and outlined in the UDC. C. The zoning change promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City; The SP-WM zoning district extends approximately half a mile along Williams Drive between Shannon Lane and Power Road. Because of this, properties to the west and east of the subject area have been developed with a wide range of commercial uses that is inconsistent with the development pattern within the subject area. The amendment is part of an orderly and logical development pattern and will not cause any negative effects. Removal of the SP-WM overlay district will ensure that the existing commercial development pattern continues along this portion of Williams Drive. Future development on these properties will fall under the most current development standards such as the commercial design requirements, landscaping and tree preservation and sign limitations, and therefore unlikely to resemble the previous generation of strip commercial development experienced along much of Williams Drive. D. The zoning change is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood; and The subject area is currently developed with professional office, civic and residential buildings. Additionally, the existing base zoning districts will remain in effect as no other changes are being proposed as part of this request. Removal of the SP-WM overlay district will not create adverse impacts to the area as the existing uses and base zoning districts are compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning districts of the remaining properties along the Williams Drive corridor and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # N Planning Department Staff Report Williams Drive Special Area Plan Overlay District Rezoning Page 6 of 6 E. The property to be rezoned is suitable for uses permitted by the District that would be applied by the proposed amendment. As previously stated, the subject area is developed with professional office, civic and residential buildings, and will continue to remain the same after this amendment should it be approved. Removal of the SP-WM zoning district will allow additional office, personal service, civic, commercial and residential uses as determined by the UDC that are conducive to the area. Public Comments On December 5, 2013, City staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to provide information to the affected property owners and surrounding residents on the existing zoning districts and regulations that affect the subject area. A total of twenty-five (25) business and property owners, residents, and city officials attended the meeting. Several issues were discussed including existing and proposed regulations, transportation, permitted uses, and potential impact to property values and taxes. Adjoining residents expressed concerns to the proposed changes due to the existing single-family properties that abut the overlay district. Property and business owners within the subject area inquired on how the new regulations will affect the existing conditions of their properties, particularly in the event the properties are redeveloped. Notwithstanding the range and mix of feedback on the removal of the overlay district, it appears that the majority of the owners that will be affected by this rezoning understand the need for change to accommodate future sound development along this major corridor. The property owners that are located within the existing overlay district ultimately carry the burden of complying with the regulations established in 1986 and therefore must be given due consideration. In addition, public notices were mailed to the thirty-one (31) properties subject to this rezoning request, and fifty-nine (59) properties located within two hundred (200) feet from the subject area. Public notice was posted in the Williamson County Sun newspaper on January 19, 2014. At the time of this report, City staff received one (1) written response in favor of the request. Attachments Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Map Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map Meetings Schedule February 4, 2014 – Planning and Zoning Commission February 25, 2014 – City Council First Reading (pending) March 11, 2014 – City Council Second Reading (pending) Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # N ORDINANCE NO.: PAGE 1 OF 5 WILLIAMS DRIVE SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP-WM) DATE APPROVED: CASE FILE NUMBER: REZ-2013-015 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING APPROXIMATELY 22.02 ACRES OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REMOVE THE WILLIAMS DRIVE (F.M. 2338) SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (“SP-WM”) ON THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON WILLIAMS DRIVE BETWEEN SHANNON LANE AND POWER ROAD, WITHIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 2; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1986, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 86-28, creating the Residential Office (“RO”) zoning district to allow an orderly transition of land use from single-family residential to low intensity office on properties along the Williams Drive corridor, west of Interstate Highway 35 and east of Power Road, while maintaining a predominantly residential property appearance and building scale; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2003, the City Council adopted a set of comprehensive development regulations known as the Unified Development Code (“UDC”) via Ordinance No. 2003-16, which renamed and established new zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City’s UDC created the Special Area Plan Overlay District (“SP”) to provide use and development standards that would allow the gradual transition of primarily residential areas to mixed-use while protecting the built environment; and WHEREAS, the previous RO zoning district converted into the Williams Drive Special Plan Area Overlay District (“SP-WM”) to continue protecting the residential character of the properties on Williams Drive between Shannon Lane and Power Road; and WHEREAS, Williams Drive, west of Interstate Highway 35, has been developed with primarily non-residential uses ranging from low intensity neighborhood commercial and office uses to intense general commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the current base zoning districts and existing conditions along Williams Drive have significantly changed from the intent of the RO and subsequent SP-WM zoning districts, rendering this overlay district unviable for the subject area; and Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # N ORDINANCE NO.: PAGE 2 OF 5 WILLIAMS DRIVE SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP-WM) DATE APPROVED: CASE FILE NUMBER: REZ-2013-015 WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 092413-0 directing staff to initiate a Zoning Map Amendment to remove the SP-WM zoning district; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2013, the City conducted a Neighborhood Meeting with the affected and surrounding property owners to provide information on the existing zoning districts and regulations that affect the subject area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its recommendation or report; and WHEREAS, public notice of such hearing was accomplished in accordance with State Law and the City’s UDC through newspaper publication, signs posted on the area subject to this rezoning, and mailed notice to affected and nearby property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a meeting on February 4, 2014, held the required public hearing and submitted a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the requested rezoning of the subject area; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at a meeting on February 25, 2014, held an additional public hearing prior to taking action on the requested rezoning of the subject area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1: The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance implements the vision, goals, and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any other policies or provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City’s UDC. SECTION 2: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by removing the SP-WM zoning district on approximately 22.02 acres on the properties generally located on Williams Drive between the intersections of Shannon Lane and Power Road as shown in the attached EXHIBIT “A” (Location Map), and as more specifically described below: Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # N ORDINANCE NO.: PAGE 3 OF 5 WILLIAMS DRIVE SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP-WM) DATE APPROVED: CASE FILE NUMBER: REZ-2013-015 All of: SITE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WCAD PROPERTY ID 1601 WILLIAMS DR AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR., ACRES .80 R040325 2402 WILLIAMS DR AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR., TRACT 86, ACRES 0.42 R040415 1629 RIVERY BLVD CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 1(N/PT), ACRES .39 R041901 1604 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 2, ACRES .3615 R041903 1606 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 3 R041904 1608 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 4 R041905 1610 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 5 R041906 1612 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 6 R041907 1614 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 7 R041908 1616 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 8 R041900 1618 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 9 R041909 2002 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 2, BLOCK 3, LOT 1, 2(PT), ACRES 0.425 R041919 2004 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 2, BLOCK 3, LOT 7 R041925 2202 WILLIAMS DR CRESTVIEW ADDITION UNIT 2, BLOCK 4, LOT 1, ACRES .28 R041930 1599 WILLIAMS DR GABRIEL HEIGHTS, BLOCK 2, LOT 8 R042334 307 SHANNON LN GABRIEL HEIGHTS, BLOCK 2, LOT 9 R042335 2404 WILLIAMS DR PORTER, N. SUR., ACRES .23 R040319 1627 WILLIAMS DR S5011 - Williams Addition, BLOCK 1, Lot 9, ACRES 0.3615 R048341 1801 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION UNIT 2 DAWN ST EXT (UNRECORDED), AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR, ACRES .35 R048415 1703 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION UNIT 2 DAWN ST EXT (UNRECORDED), AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR, ACRES .482 R048426 1611 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 R048333 1613 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 2 R048334 1615 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 3, ACRES .40 R048335 1617 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 4 R048336 1619 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 5, ACRES .37, (HS) R048337 1621 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 6 R048338 And a portion of: SITE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WCAD PROPERTY ID 202 W CENTRAL DR S10286 - WILLIAMS ADDITION (BLK 2 LTS 1-4 REPLAT), BLOCK 2, Lot 1A, ACRES 1.75 R516825 1629 WILLIAMS DR S5011 - Williams Addition, BLOCK 1, Lot 10, & AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR., TRACT 89 (CENTER WILLIAMS ADDN), ACRES 0.7225 R040418 2300 WILLIAMS DR S9556 - CRESTVIEW BAPTIST CHURCH SUB, BLOCK 1, Lot 1, ACRES 8.2 R493535 1633 WILLIAMS DR S9765 - LONGHORN CROSSING, Lot 1, ACRES 1.305 R498676 1625 WILLIAMS DR WILLIAMS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 7-8 & AW0497 PORTER, N. SUR., ACRES 3.29 R048340 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # N ORDINANCE NO.: PAGE 4 OF 5 WILLIAMS DRIVE SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP-WM) DATE APPROVED: CASE FILE NUMBER: REZ-2013-015 SECTION 3: All ordinances and resolutions, or parts of ordinances and resolutions, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed, and are no longer of any force and effect. SECTION 4: If any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or application thereof, of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of state law and the City Charter of the City of Georgetown. APPROVED on First Reading this day of , 2014. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading this day of , 2014. George G. Garver, Mayor ATTEST: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________________ Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # N ORDINANCE NO.: PAGE 5 OF 5 WILLIAMS DRIVE SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP-WM) DATE APPROVED: CASE FILE NUMBER: REZ-2013-015 Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # N (R i v e r /S t r e a m ) D A W NDR GOLDEN O A K S D R C O U N T R Y C L U B R D WILLIA MS DR R A N C H R D WJ A NIS D R PARK LN OAK LN E CENTRAL DR S H A N N O N L N PO W ER RD J U D Y D R C O T T O N W O O D D R MESQUITEL N M E S Q UIT E L N PARK W A Y S T OAK LN RIVERY BLVD W C E N T R AL DR O A K L N TERRY LN REZ-2013-015Exhibit #1 Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only 0 500 1,000Feet ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Rive r y B lvd Willia m s Dr §¨¦35 §¨¦35 N Austin Ave E Morrow St Site City Lim its Street Site ³ REZ-2013-015 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # N (Rive r / Str e a m ) G e org eto w n E TJ G A R D E N M E A D O W D R HINTZRD W O L F R A N C H P K W Y W IL LIA M S D R GOLDEN VISTA DR GOLDEN O A K S D R R A N C H R D SIH35FWYNB WESTWOODLN HERSHEYA V E WVAL LEYST WSPR I N G ST DA W N DR SIH35NB DUN M AN DR GARDEN VILLA DR RYAN LN P A R K M E A D O W B L V D NIH35SB S H A N N O N LN GARDEN VILLA CIR O A K LN THORNTONLN ENTR 261ANB C O T T O N W O O D D R NORTHWESTBLV D WILLI A MS D R M ESQUITELN E CENTRAL DRRIVERBENDDR M E S Q UIT E L N E JANIS DR TANGLEWOODDR P A R K W A Y S T COTTON W OOD DR W I L L O W L N OAK LN FONTANA DR N AUSTIN AVE WILLIAM S D R M O R RIS D R MCCOY LN C E D A R D R CLAY ST W C E N T R AL DR N IH 35 FWY SB O A K L N SIH35FWYSB EXIT 261 S B WOODLAWNAVE R I V E R Y B LVD RIVERYBLVD HIGHKNOL L LN RIV E R SID E D R P A R K L N PARKLN W JANIS DR A D A MSST P A R K E RCIR N O R T H W O O D D R WILLIAM S DRTNNB TERRYLN 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Exhibit #2REZ-2013-015 Legend Thoroughfare EC EF EMA EMIA ERF PC PF PFR PMIA Future Land Use Institutional Regional Com mercial Community Com mercial Employment Center HIgh Density Residential Low Density Residential Mining Mixed Use Com munity Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Moderate Density Residential Open Space Specialty Mixed Use Area Ag / Rural Residential PMA PR Williams Dr §¨¦35 Lakeway Dr W illia ms Dr N o r t h w e s t B l v d Booty's CrossingRd Site ³City Lim its Street Site REZ-2013-015 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # N CITYOF GEORGETOWN (River/S t r e a m ) GOLDEN OAKS DR HERSHEYAVE W VALLEY ST RYAN LNPARKERDR HIG HKN OLL LN W SPRING ST T H O R N T O N C V GARDEN VILLA CIR THORNTONLN RIV E R SID E D R N MA I N S T TANGLEWOOD DR DUN M AN DR W JANIS DR PO W ER RD W I L L O W L N FONTANA DR HINTZ RD A D A M S S T N AUSTIN AVE M O R RIS D R MCCOY LN P A R K E R C I R P A R K M E A D O W B L V D JUDY DR C E D A R D R GARDEN VILLA DR R A N C H R D S IH 35 NB CLAY ST COTTON W OOD DR RIVER BEND DR WOODLAWN AVE SHANNON LN S IH 35 SB P A R K W A Y S T MESQUITE LN W C E N T R AL D R NORTHWESTBLVD C O U N T R Y C L U B R D N O R T H W O O D D R W ILLIA M S D R E CENTRAL DR W ILLIA M S D R O A K L N DAWN DR ENTR 261 NB S IH 35 FWY NB N IH 35 SB N IH 35 FWY SB P A R K L N WESTWOOD LN E JANIS DR ENTR 261A NB S IH 35 FWY SB ENTR 263 SB EXIT 261 SB TERRY LN W O L F R A N C H P K W Y RIVERY BLVD N IH 35 FWY NB 0 1,000 2,000Feet Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ REZ-2013-015Zoning Information Exhibit #3 N o r t h w e s t B l v d B o oty'sCrossingRd Willia m s Dr Lakew ay Dr RiveryBlvd §¨¦35 N Austin Ave ³City Limits Street Site Site REZ-2013-015 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # N WILLIA M S D R R A N C H R D PARK LN S H A N N O N L N E JANIS DR DAWN DR E CENTRAL DR G O L D E N O A K S D R PO W ER RD COTTON W OOD DR M E S Q UIT E L N J U D Y D R W JANIS DR PARKWAY ST RIVERY BLVD W C E N T R AL D R C O U N T R Y C L U B R D WESTWOOD LN O A K L N TERRY LN LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only ¯ 0 500 1,000Feet Exhibit #4REZ-2013-015 Booty 's C ro ss ing Rd W illia m s Dr Lakew ay Dr §¨¦35 Site City Lim its Street Site ³ REZ-2013-015 Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # N Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # N Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # N Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # N Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # N Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # N City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution pertaining to the cancellation of the May 10, 2014 General Election for City Council District 2 and District 6 – Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ITEM SUMMARY: Please see attached for the Resolution cancelling the election as well as the Certificate of Unopposed Candidate for Districts 2 and 6. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Brettle, City Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Cancelling May 10, 2014 Election for Districts 2 and 6 Certificate of Unopposed Candidate- District 2 Certificate of Unopposed Candidate- District 6 Cover Memo Item # O RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS PERTAINING TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE MAY 10, 2014 ELECTION FOR DISTRICT 2 AND DISTRICT 6 WHEREAS, The City Council ordered elections for the Mayor and Council Districts 2 and 6 for May 10, 2014 per Resolution No.012814-G, and WHEREAS, The City has received certificates that there are unopposed candidates for the District 2 and 6 elections as denoted in Exhibits “A” and “B”. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City of Georgetown as follows: Section One: The facts and opinions in the preamble are true and correct. Section Two: The election for District 2 and 6 is herein canceled with the Mayor being authorized to sign the Orders of Cancellation in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibits “C” and “D” and the Orders shall be posted as required by law. Section Three: This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption. APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS HELD ON THE _______ DAY OF ____________ 2014. _____________________________ Mayor George Garver ATTEST: __________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Bridget Chapman, City Attorney Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 9 Item # O EXHIBIT “A” Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 9 Item # O CERTIFICATE OF UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES FOR CITY OF GEORGETOWN CERTIFICACIÓN DE CANDIDATOS ÚNICOS PARA CIUDAD DE GEORGETOWN To: Presiding Officer of Governing Body, City of Georgetown Al: Presidente de la entidad gobernate As to the authority responsible for having the official ballot prepared, I hereby certify that the following candidate is unopposed for election to office for the election scheduled to be held on May 10, 2014. Como autoridad a cargo de la preparacion de la boleta de votación official, por la presente certifico que el siguiente candidato es candidato único para elección para un cargo en la elección que se llevará a cabo el May 10, 2014. List office and name of candidate: Lista de cargo y nombre del candidato Office(s) Cargo(s) Candidate(s) Candidato(s) Council member, District 2 Keith Brainard ________________________________ Signature (Firma) _________________________________ Printed name (Nombre en letra de molde) ________________________________ Title (Puesto) ________________________________ Date of signing (Fecha de firma) (Seal) (sello) Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 9 Item # O EXHIBIT “B” Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 9 Item # O CERTIFICATE OF UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES FOR CITY OF GEORGETOWN CERTIFICACIÓN DE CANDIDATOS ÚNICOS PARA CIUDAD DE GEORGETOWN To: Presiding Officer of Governing Body, City of Georgetown Al: Presidente de la entidad gobernate As to the authority responsible for having the official ballot prepared, I hereby certify that the following candidate is unopposed for election to office for the election scheduled to be held on May 10, 2014. Como autoridad a cargo de la preparacion de la boleta de votación official, por la presente certifico que el siguiente candidato es candidato único para elección para un cargo en la elección que se llevará a cabo el May 10, 2014. List office and name of candidate: Lista de cargo y nombre del candidato Office(s) Cargo(s) Candidate(s) Candidato(s) Council member, District 6 Rachael Jonrowe ________________________________ Signature (Firma) _________________________________ Printed name (Nombre en letra de molde) ________________________________ Title (Puesto) ________________________________ Date of signing (Fecha de firma) (Seal) (sello) Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 9 Item # O EXHIBIT “C” Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 9 Item # O ORDER OF CANCELLATION (DISTRICT 2) ORDEN DE CANCELACIÓN The City Council of City of Georgetown hereby cancels the District 2 election scheduled to be held on May 10, 2014 in accordance with Section 2.053(a) of the Texas Election Code. The following candidate has been certified as unopposed and is hereby elected as follows: El City Council of City of Georgetown por la presente cancela la elección que, de lo contrario, se hubiera celebrado el May 10, 2014 de conformidad, con la Sección 2.053(a) del Código de Elecciones de Texas, el siguiente candidato ha sido certificado como candidate único y por la presente quedan elegidos como se haya indicado a continuación. Candidate (Candidato) Office Sought (Cargo al que presenta candidatura) Keith Brainard Council member, District 2 A copy of this order will be posted on Election Day at each polling place that would have been used in the election. El Día de las Elecciones se exhibirá una copia de esta orden en todas las mesas electorales que se hubieran utilizado en la elección. _______________________________ Mayor (Alcalde) _______________________________ City Secretary (Secretario) _______________________________ Date of adoption (Fecha de adopción) (Seal) (sello) Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 9 Item # O EXHIBIT “D” Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 9 Item # O ORDER OF CANCELLATION (DISTRICT 6) ORDEN DE CANCELACIÓN The City Council of City of Georgetown hereby cancels the District 6 election scheduled to be held on May 10, 2014 in accordance with Section 2.053(a) of the Texas Election Code. The following candidate has been certified as unopposed and is hereby elected as follows: El City Council of City of Georgetown por la presente cancela la elección que, de lo contrario, se hubiera celebrado el May 10, 2014 de conformidad, con la Sección 2.053(a) del Código de Elecciones de Texas, el siguiente candidato ha sido certificado como candidate único y por la presente quedan elegidos como se haya indicado a continuación. Candidate (Candidato) Office Sought (Cargo al que presenta candidatura) Rachael Jonrowe Council member, District 6 A copy of this order will be posted on Election Day at each polling place that would have been used in the election. El Día de las Elecciones se exhibirá una copia de esta orden en todas las mesas electorales que se hubieran utilizado en la elección. _______________________________ Mayor (Alcalde) _______________________________ City Secretary (Secretario) _______________________________ Date of adoption (Fecha de adopción) (Seal) (sello) Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 9 Item # O Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # O City of Georgetown, Texas March 11, 2014 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Cover Memo Item # P