HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.24.2012Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
JANUARY 24, 2012
The Georgetown City Council will meet on JANUARY 24, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. at 101 East 7th Street,
Georgetown, Texas 78626
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
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
- CAMPO
- Lone Star Rail District
City Manager Comments
- Georgetown Youth Advisory Board Presentation
- CAFR Award
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 - Ann Bell, President of the Hill Country Book Festival at Georgetown, regarding a grant from the
Arts and Culture Board
- Gale Webb regarding grant funds given to the Heritage Society by the Arts and Culture Board
- Linda Scarbrough, of the Georgetown Symphony Society, regarding a grant from the Arts and
Culture Board
- Mickie Ross, of the Williamson Museum, regarding a grant from the Arts and Culture Board
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 Council
meeting held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of surplus cardio equipment to be
offered for trade in value on solicitation for a new cardio lease -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director
E Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing staff to conduct business
with Comerica Bank, N.A., Viewpoint Bank, N.A., TexPool Participant Services, Prosperity
Bank, RBank Texas, and Southside Bank and to appoint “Representatives of the Depositor” --
Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Lorie Lankford, Controller
F Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution adopting a salary adjustment for the
Municipal Court Associate Judge position -- Cathy Leloux, Court Administator and Susan Morgan,
Finance Director
G Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Second Amendment to Professional Services
Contract with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (dated March 14, 1995) related to the Southeast
Arterial One (Southwestern Blvd to Maple St.) in the amount of $32,500.00 -- Edward G. Polasek,
AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer
H Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a two year bid for Crack sealant with an annual bid in
the estimated amount of $59,500.00 to Sealmaster of Houston, Texas -- Mark Miller, Transportation
Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
I Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. HZI-12-001 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc.,
of Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the Safe Routes to School
Project in the amount of $60,000.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
J Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing the City's participation
(estimated at $42,500.00) in the Texas Department of Transportation's Grant Project
#1214GRGTN to make improvements at the Georgetown Municipal Airport to comply with
current Federal Aviation Administration safety standards -- Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager; Terri
Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator and Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director
K Consideration and possible action to appoint Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director, as a "member"
and Cynthia Nguyen, Administrative Assistant, and Lance Trdy, Firefighter, as "alternates" on
the Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan Oversight Committee -- Kevin Russell, Director
of Human Resources and Civil Service
Legislative Regular Agenda
L Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 0.126 acres of the Glasscock Addition,
Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt) from Multifamily (MF) District to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-
DT) District, located at 415 W. 10th Street -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and Elizabeth
Cook, Community Development Director(action required)
M Presentation, discussion, and direction to staff on possible code amendments and other activities
related to furthering Urban Farming -- Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
N Discussion and possible action to allow projects that went through the UDC process and had site
plan and development plan approval prior to the downturn of the economy to be grand-fathered
in and allowed to begin development without having to restart the process -- Pat Berryman,
Councilmember District 5
O Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution revising the City’s investment policy --
Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
P Consideration and possible action to accept the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department National
Recreation Trails matching grant in the amount of $200,000.00 and authorize the City Manager to
execute the agreement -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Q Consideration and possible action to select an architect for the design of the San Gabriel River
Trail Extension project -- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief
Financial Officer
R Consideration and possible action to appoint a selection committee for the purpose of evaluating and
recommending a Construction Manager-at-Risk for The Public Safety Operations and Training
Facility -- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
S Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract with Lower Colorado River
Authority (“LCRA”) for the purchase of electric distribution and transmission materials for FY
2011/2012 from vendor award contract for the LCRA Electric Material Acquisition Program in the
estimated amount of $1,750,000.00 -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager and Glenn W. Dishong,
Utility Director
T Consideration and possible recommendation to renew contracts for Tree Trimming and Vegetation
Management Bid to National Tree Expert Company, Inc. of Burnet, Texas, in the estimated
amount of $230,000.00 -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager and Glenn W. Dishong, Utility
Director
U Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. SBE-12-002 with Steger Bizzell of
Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the 2011-2012 CIP Street and
Drainage Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $209,691.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director; Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller,
Transportation Services Manager
V First Readingof an Ordinance renaming Southfork Road to “J.M. Page Road”; renaming a portion
of County Road 110 to “Rockride Lane”; renaming a portion of County Road 104 to “Patriot
Way”; renaming a portion of County Road 104 to “Bell Gin Road”; naming the roadway under
construction referred to as SE1 to “Sam Houston Avenue” -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director (action required)
W Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2010/11 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget)
due to conditions that resulted in year end budget variances; appropriating the various amounts
thereof; and repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Lorie Lankford,
Controller, Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action
required)
X Second Readingof an Ordinance Rezoning 2.54 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey from the
Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2300 North Austin Avenue -
- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director(action
required)
Y Second Readingof an Ordinance Rezoning 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from the Agriculture
(AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District, located at the terminus of Acker Road
and Caprock Canyon Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community
Development Director (action required)
Z Second Reading of an Ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapter 2.20 of the Code of
Ordinances relating to "Ethics" -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required)
AA Consideration and possible action to approve an Amendment to the Real Estate Sales Contract
between the City and GEDCO related to the repair costs for the floor at the 101 W. 7th Street
property -- Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
BB Consideration and possible action to appoint a Charter Review Committee -- Mayor George Garver
CC Discussion and direction to the Charter Review Committee regarding possible Charter
Amendments -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
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.
DD Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated
litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but
not limited to this week's agenda item
- Update on Rivery Conference Center
- Williams Drive Mediation
EE Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Secretary Annual Performance Evaluation
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 _________________, 2012, 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
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
City Council Regional Board Reports
- CAMPO
- Lone Star Rail District
City Manager Comments
- Georgetown Youth Advisory Board Presentation
- CAFR Award
Action from Executive Session
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
- Ann Bell, President of the Hill Country Book Festival at Georgetown, regarding a grant from the Arts and
Culture Board
- Gale Webb regarding grant funds given to the Heritage Society by the Arts and Culture Board
- Linda Scarbrough, of the Georgetown Symphony Society, regarding a grant from the Arts and Culture
Board
- Mickie Ross, of the Williamson Museum, regarding a grant from the Arts and Culture Board
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting
held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see attached for the draft minutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
January 10, 2012 DRAFT Workshop Minutes
January 10, 2012 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes
Cover Memo
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Pat Berryman, Tommy
Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
Bill Sattler
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, Acting City
Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Elizabeth Cook,
Community Development Director
Minutes
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 04:00 PM
A Discussion and possible action on a 2012 Charter Election and Charter Amendments -- Paul E. Brandenburg,
City Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:03 P.M.
Brandenburg said the last Charter Election was held in 2003 and the work on that began in 2001. He spoke
about the process that occurred prior to that Charter Election. He said, since that time, there have been talk of
possible charter amendments but noted the City can not have a Charter Election more than every two years. He
spoke about a meeting that was held in the past year and noted there was a motion made to move forward with
studying the charter and for staff to bring a list of charter amendments to Council this month. He referred the
Council to the list of proposed charter amendments provided to them in the packet. He started describing the
items on the list for the City Council. He said legal and staff has looked over this list as well. Eason asked and
Brandenburg said he would like to review the list and then have Council discuss the ones they are interested in.
He continued to review the proposed charter amendments for the Council. He said the second attachment has a
calendar of deadlines and dates to remember for a November 2012 Charter Election. He said, if Council wants to
appoint a Charter Review Committee, they should have their review done by this summer.
Mayor referred to the first proposed amendment, Section 2.01, and asked if this is a suggestion or for Council's
review. Brandenburg said this is just for a review of the issue. Mayor said this amendment would deal with the
question of term limits. Eason said, currently, we do not have term limits. She said she does not support going
forward with term limits for the City Council because each election serves as a term limits. She said she thinks
the citizens are the ones who would be the body to determine term limits for any elected official. Hellmann said
he likes term limits and noted it is good to allow more people to sit up here and do the job. Meigs said he does
not have a strong feeling one way or other on this issue. He said voluntary term limits are probably a good idea.
Berryman said she is not adverse to the idea of term limits. She noted it would be good to limit it to three terms
instead of just two terms. She said nine years is more than enough for someone to serve on this board. She
spoke about why she feels more than three terms would be detrimental and problematic. Jonrowe said in her
experience, constituents start talking about term limits when they are unhappy with the person who is currently in
office. She said the whole point of having elections is you are implicitly establishing the parameters for term
limits. She said she does not think this needs to be in the charter and added it should be determined by the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 3 Pages
voters. Gonzalez said he is positive on term limits and noted it helps people not become complacent in what
they're doing. He said three terms should be sufficient. He spoke about career politicians losing sight of what
they do because they have served for a long period of time. Mayor reviewed the opinion of each one of the
Council members on the first proposed amendment. Meigs asked what the task before Council is today. Meigs
said he would encourage a citizen advisory group to look into all of these issues.
Berryman asked and Brandenburg said the Council does not need to send this to a committee if they do not want
to do so. Brandenburg noted, if Council sends anything to the committee, it needs to be a list and not just a
review of the full Charter. Berryman said putting the amendments on the ballot is sending it to the citizens.
Eason disagreed and said sending this to a citizen's committee will allow for outside citizens to have full review of
the Charter before they go to the electrorate. She said she does not think the Council will do a good enough job
of researching all of the amendments. Meigs said he would like for a committee to look into particular issues such
as if a Council member has ever served more than three terms. Jonrowe said she would feel more comfortable
giving this a lot more attention and research. Mayor asked if it is the intent of the Council to appoint a committee
to review the charter amendments.
Motion by Meigs, second by Eason to pass these proposed items to a Charter Review Committee for further
study and review.
Berryman said she disagrees with that. She said, at the beginning of this process, Council turned this over to
staff to recommend items for proposed amendments. Berryman noted it is not like these amendments are a
surprise because some of these items were amendments brought up in the past. She said these items have
been vetted by staff and noted, if we send this to a citizens committee, it will be put to a group with an agenda or
special interests. She said this should go to the voters and then let the voters decide. Gonzalez agreed with
Berryman and said it would be a good idea for this to be put out to the greatest amount of citizen's possible for
their vote. Gonzalez agreed and said this would eliminate the special interest. Jonrowe said one of the reasons
Council members get elected is so Council can make some of these hard decisions for the public. She said part
of our duty is to use our common sense to determine which issues need to move forward. She said she does not
think it is outside the realm of duties to determine which items need more thought. She noted in Georgetown
there are twenty-one boards and commissions, so it's obvious the Council values the public's opinion. Mayor
asked and Chapman said the items on the Charter Election would be brought forward to Council as an Ordinance
before being placed on the ballot. She said there is not a special public hearing required but noted people can
speak to the item like any other item on the agenda. Meigs said he sees this list as just a starting point for the
whole process. He said he takes exception to the comments made about the citizens bringing agendas to the
table and that it might be a waste of time. He said the City Charter is worth the extra time and worth a citizens
committee. Hellmann said he likes the idea of a committee but noted he is worried about the timing of using a
citizen's committee for these amendments. Hellmann said he agrees with Jonrowe that Council will have the final
vote on whether or not amendments go on the ballot. Mayor said Council is at liberty to give any charge they
would like to the committee. Chapman said the amendment to the General Election moving the election to
November must go forward in a Charter Election and noted the question is what should go along with that issue
on the ballot with knowledge that we can only do this type of election every two years. There was much
discussion about the deadlines. Mayor asked and Chapman confirmed it is necessary to set a deadline for the
committee and noted the amendment list needs to be set by July. Eason said she is hearing this list is just
suggestions from staff but noted there has still been no full research done on these items. Eason spoke about
issues that need to be discussed more fully by the City Council such as putting the City Secretary and City
Attorney under the direct reporting of the City Manager. Eason said there are some things in this list that need
much more research by the Council at the very least and noted she always welcomes the help of a citizen's
committee as well.
Meigs amended his motion to say the committee shall begin its work as soon as possible and finish by June 1,
2012. Brandenburg said, if the motion passes, the City Manager could have names for the committee by the
second meeting in January. He noted this would allow the committee to begin work in February. Mayor asked if
this would be a sufficient enough timeline for the Council. Chapman said she thinks that would be fine. Gonzalez
said once the Council does have the recommendations, it could take some time to review them. He noted the
Council is going to need enough time on the dais as well time for the committee. He said June is not enough time
for the Council to review the recommendations prior to passing an Ordinance. Eason agreed with the
amendment. Brandenburg said the key is for the committee to know that they are going to have to meet multiple
times a month before in order to meet the June or July deadline. Berryman said she objects to that many
meetings for the committee to attend. She said she thinks this needs to be at least a two year discussion. She
spoke about how staff are the people who know the most about what needs to be changed. Berryman spoke
about how the committee is going to open pandora's box. Berryman said it is not fair to expect a group to meet
every week. Eason said the Council sets the charge and added they can control what is sent to the committee for
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 3 Pages
review. Mayor said the issue may be resolved based upon how Council votes on this issue. Hellmann asked if
this schedule would give Council enough time to properly discuss this issue and word everything for the
Ordinance. Brandenburg said Council can set special meetings as well as normal meetings in order to review this
issue sufficiently. Hellmann said he thinks this is a sufficient time frame as long as Council can set the
parameters. Eason said she would like confirmation that staff has fully reviewed each one of these items and
then is recommending these as changes to the Charter. Brandenburg reviewed again the different suggestions
and who came up with each of them. He said not all of the suggestions are from staff and noted there are about
four or five of them that are major policy decisions that need to be made by Council and were brought up last
year.
Vote on the motion as amended: Approved 4-2 (Berryman, Gonzalez opposed) (Sattler absent)
Mayor asked how the Council would like to go about appointing members to the committee.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe that the committee be composed of one appointee from each district as
well as allowing staff to assist on recommended amendments they may have brought forward.
Mayor asked that each Council submit a member for the next meeting. Gonzalez said if the Council is to have a
committee, it should have the members and the attorney with no staff involvement. Chapman suggested that the
staff member who brought a particular item have access to the committee so that he or she can explained the
rationale behind the change. Gonzalez said he has no problems with that. Meigs said he has a concern on
where the committee will get answers if there is no staff person present to provide them. Brandenburg said, in the
past, the City Attorney has served as liaison as well as a bridge between the committee and staff. Hellmann
asked when Council is going to determine the final list that will go to the committee. Berryman said this is a
priority because Council is on a timeline. Berryman added there is validity in allowing the staff member who
brought an issue up be available to explain it to the committee. Eason said her suggestion is to move this whole
list to the committee for further review.
Jonrowe made a amendment to specify that the mayor be able to appoint a member to the committee as well.
Meigs accepted this amendment.
Vote on the motion as amended: Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
Mayor suggested there be a discussion at the next Workshop to confirm the list of items the Council wishes the
committee to address. Brandenburg said this has been out there for several months. Chapman agreed and said
this is the complete list from staff.
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.074 of the Local Government
Code -- 5:07 PM
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:16 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 06:16 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 9 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Pat Berryman, Tommy
Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
Bill Sattler
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City
Secretary; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director;
Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager; Cari Miller, Tourism Manager; Terry Jones, Support Services
Manager; Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager; Carla Benton, Planner II; Kathy Ragsdale,
Environmental and Conservation Services Director; Jimmy Sikes, T&D Services Manager; Glenn
Dishong, Utility Director; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Edward Polasek, Transportation Services
Director; Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
Minutes
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM
(Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
A Call to Order -- Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:19 PM
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
- Boards and Commissions Applications
- Protocol for Review of Board and Commission Applications
City Council Regional Board Reports
- CAMPO
Mayor said CAMPO met last evening and confirmed the action taken previously. He said they are looking
forward to the effort of bringing the project to fruition.
- Lone Star Rail District
Eason said the district conducted very successful meetings just before the Christmas holiday with senior
management at Union Pacific to discuss joint operations on the existing UP railroad, and enviornmental study of
the proposed freight bypass route. She said there was a positive article in the Statesman regarding the progress
that LSRD has made over the last year with UP negotiations/MOU/joint planning activity, and a Statesman
Editorial Board opinion that the Lone Start project needs to happen, to offer people a transportation alternative in
the region.
City Manager Comments
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 9 Pages
- Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday
- Trash Pickup
- City Elections
- Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter
Brandenburg spoke about the Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter and introduced Jackie Carey to the
audience. Carey introduced Laura Hopgood-Oster and Shawn Gunnin, officers of the Friends of the Animal
Shelter. She spoke about how they established the Friends group to take over the fundraising to the shelter. She
said they will be presenting the first check for the money the raised for the shelter. Oster thanked the Council
and said they just completed their first year of fundraising and added they had a wonderful year and would like to
thank the citizens and sponsors who have helped them. She presented the Animal Shelter and Jackie Carey
with a check for $15,000. Oster said they raised almost $27,000 and added they are saving a contingency of
$10,000 and they hope to raise at least $25,000 or more each year. Carey said they are using this money for
retractable shades for the stray side of the kennel as well as new lights in the surgery room.
- Celebration Church and the Austin Disaster Relief Efforts
Brandenburg introduced representatives from Celebration Church and the Austin Distaster Relief Efforts. They
thanked the City for allowing them to use the old Albertson's building to store donations for victims of the fires this
summer. The representatives said they appreciate everything the City was able to do for this effort. They
presented the City Council with a plaque in appreciation for their help.
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Eason, second by Meigs to give the City Manager the authority to negotiate repair cost allocation with
the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation relating to the Real Estate Sales Contract for the property
located at 101 W. 7th Street. Approved 6-0 (Sattler 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 - Daniel Anstee regarding an update from the Georgetown Boys and Girls Club
Anstee expressed his thanks for the Council's support and gave a brief update on the past year. He said in 2011,
their membership finished at 629 children served. He said currently, after school, they are running at about
100-120 children per day. He said they are able to get the kids there with the help of their 14 passenger shuttle
bus. He said it is busy in the summertime and there are several days where they are over 200 kids. He spoke
about their demographics. He said 17% of their children have a family income above $40,000 a year. He spoke
about the programs they offer including topics on drug and alcohol resistance and better nutrition. He spoke
about how they were able to take the children to the library as well as neighborhood pools. He said they continue
to operate a food pantry as well. He said, looking into 2012, they have some things they are excited about
including a musical program. He said they are looking to rebuild their garden as well. He said their big goal is to
open a facility on the west side of the highway. He said they are proud to offer these services for only $10 a year.
He noted all of this would not be possible without Council's and the public's support.
- Judy Ommen regarding a report from Georgetown Art Works on the Arts and Culture award
Ommen said they are a community based non-profit organization in Georgetown. She said they seek to develop
a center of the Arts in the downtown district. She said it is her goal to foster art initiatives in central Texas such
as educational public programs for the community and artists and to build awareness and importance of the civil
impact of the arts. She said, in 2010, they received a grant of $3,000 toward their main event, Art Hop. She
spoke about the event. She said, in addition, Art Works invited artists to build mobiles to hang from the ceiling of
the library. She thanked Council and noted they appreciate their support for their endeavors.
- Daniel Leo regarding sewage rates
Leo said he lives in 300 Dove Hollow Trail and he believes he is a responsible citizen of Georgetown. He said his
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 9 Pages
recent utility bill from Georgetown has charges of $29 for sewer and $25 for water. He said he was told by the
Georgetown utility people that they charge everyone $29.25 for the sewage no matter how much water is used.
He said the total cost of sewage to the City of Georgetown is based on the total amount of water that must be
treated coming out of the home. He said if he does not use as much water, he noted he would assume his part
of the total cost would be less. He spoke about how he thinks this problem could be solved.
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting held on
Tuesday, December 13, 2011-- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to approve a two-year Interlocal Contract For Licensing SCPDC Software
with the Capital Area Council of Government (CAPCOG) for an amount not to exceed $30,000 per year for a
licensing agreement to allow the City of Georgetown to utilize the South Central Planning and Development
Commission’s (SCPDC) project tracking software systems -- Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development
Director
F Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the annual payment for the operation of the county wide radio
communications system to Williamson County in the amount of $99,750.00 -- Terry Jones, Support Services
Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
G Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of a backup power generator to be disposed of
using online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville,Texas -- Trina
Bickford, Purchasing Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
H Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Second Amendment to Professional Services Contract
with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (dated March 14, 1995) related to the Southeast Arterial One
(Southwestern Blvd to Maple St.) in the amount of $32,500.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director/ Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer
This item has been pulled from the agenda by staff.
I Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution appointing members and alternates to the
Georgetown Village Public Improvement District No. 1 Advisory Board-- Bridget Chapman, Acting City
Attorney
Motion Eason, second by Meigs to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items E and H. Approved
6-0 (Sattler absent)
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
J Georgetown Citizen Academy Graduation Ceremony -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg described the Georgetown Citizen Academy and what services the program provides to the
community. He noted so far they have had 136 graduates from the program. He read the names of the most
recent Academy graduates and Mayor Garver presented those graduates with their diplomas.
E Forwarded from the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve an allocation of $2,000.00 in Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) funds
to the Georgetown High School Soccer Booster Club for help in the cost of promoting and facilitating the
Men’s 17th and Women’s 12th Annual Governor’s Cup Tournament -- Cari Miller, Tourism Manager
Pulled to the Regular Agenda by Councilmember Rachael Jonrowe.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Motion by Meigs, second Hellmann to approve the allocation.
Jonrowe said she is wondering about the process an organization goes through in order to request this money.
Miller said last year was the first time they provided the Booster Club with HOT funds. She said they approached
them and asked for money. She added they are one of the best events and they bring in a lot of people who stay
in the local hotels. Brandenburg asked and Miller said they do have to fill out an application. Jonrowe asked and
Miler said the Jack Frost Invitational Tournament, Soccer Booster Club and the Fury basketball league all receive
HOT tax monies. Jonrowe asked if they have not done a study to see if there are other organizations that might
qualify but are not aware of these opportunity. Miller said the application is online on the City's website. She said
there are specific requirements to meet in order to get the money. Brandenburg said he can work with
Hutchinson to send out a release regarding HOT tax opportunities. Jonrowe asked and Miller said they have
$20,000 of HOT tax funds each year. Jonrowe asked and Miller said not all of that money has been used over
the past few years. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
K Update on plans to promote continued residential growth and stay competitive in the recovering economy
-- Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager
With a Powerpoint presentation, Brewer presented Council with a brief reports on staff's efforts to promote growth
within the city limits. She said the good news is there are early indications that we are in the midst of a slow
recovery. She said the building permits are 25% higher than this time last year. She said, in the planning area,
she said we are also holding steady. She said they are looking at continual residential growth because rooftops
drive retail expansion, the number of employable adults can be a factor for industrial recruitment, the city's
building industry is a major contributor to the local economy as an employer and a sales tax generator. She
noted, as they were looking at the various levels of housing they are promoting, she said they are missing out on
the mid-range priced housing for young families. She said a lot of that housing is going to Cedar Park and
Leander. She said they held a builders meeting to address this market and had a meeting and invited them to
talk to the City about the issues they are encountering that may prevent them from building in the area. She said
the issues they brought forwarded are the appraisal process changes, credit market issues, there is limited land
for small development at 10-20 acres, the profitability margin has decreased as well as franchise agreement for
construction rolloffs. She said impact fees are always a concern to builders. She said they also mentioned any
new environmental mandate bring costs to the construction. She said they brought up the enforcement of the tree
ordinance and how it is a concern. She noted there an undercurrent of people that may not want Georgetown to
grow. She said some of the good things they said is they appreciate staff availability, quality of construction in
Georgetown, the cost per square foot is lower than Austin, the turnaround time on inspections is good and the
fact that Georgetown did not inact the road fees. She said some of the ideas they had were to modify existing
certified builders program, market Georgetown and remind people that we're open for business, a bus tour for
realtors and more advertising for home builders. She said another idea that was brought up is down payment
assistance on lower priced homes. She said Google should pull up Georgetown in Austin home searches. She
said staff met and determined some actions they need to be taken to make sure they implement and keep going.
She said staff would like to set up a developer meeting to get ideas from them as well. She said it would be good
to crate a map of neighborhoods indicating where the home builders are constructing new homes. She said this
is something that has been requested at the visitor's center and will be provided at the chamber and at the City
festivals. She said staff would like to evaluate the down payment assistance and closing assistance (grant)
programs. She said she would also like to develop a "livinggeorgetown" website with links to builders. She said
staff has also considered targeting areas for development and provide infrastructure up front and provide a
mechanism to recover cost through a PID (Public Improvement District). She said, of course, they would like to
promote Georgetown as a great place to live. She said staff is going to have a booth at the Austin Home and
Garden Show and they have also considered a Builder's Showcase. She spoke about some additional efforts
including monthly breakfasts with the City manager for the development/building community, My Permit Program,
limiting the enforcement of the bandit sign ordinance and holding a Georgetown development class. Jonrowe
asked and Brewer described bandit signs.
Eason said she is pleased that this effort is going forward. Hellmann agreed and said he is pleased with this
effort as well. He said hopefully this is the first step helping people to see that we are not only open for business,
but are going out to get it. He said we have all of the pieces of the puzzle need to be a world class city and
added he thinks people will realize this. Meigs thanked Brewer for her work and said it is a good proactive first
step. Berryman said appreciates what staff is going to provide outreach to this development community and said
that community is really key to the future of the City. She said it is good that City staff and the development
community are going to start working on a better relationship. She said the development breakfast is a fabulous
idea. She said anything we can do to make ourselves more competitive is to the betterment of the entire citizenry
of Georgetown. Jonrowe thanked Brewer for their thought and effort put into this plan. She said the words
affordable housing have gotten a bad wrap in some circles. She said this is what she is talking about when she
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 5 of 9 Pages
speaks of affordable housing. Gonzalez said he is very pleased to see a program like this. Gonzalez asked and
Brewer said they are looking for a development between $150,000 and $200,000. Gonzalez said the more
successful the program becomes, the higher the price of homes will become. He noted the City will need to make
sure the lower priced homes are not out-priced. He said it is all about finding that balance. There was much
discussion.
L Discussion and possible action regarding the Unified Development Code, Chapter 10 requirements for
Temporary Real Estate and home builder Open House Signs, adopted November 23, 2010 -- Paul E.
Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg described this item and said the recommendation of staff is to, given the fragile state of the
economy, look at the postponement of the enforcement of the bandit sign ordinance. He said his
recommendation is to postpone this until at least October.
Motion by Hellman, second by Berryman to postpone the enforcement of the Ordinance until October 2012.
Berryman amended the motion to postpone for one year. Hellmann approved the amendment.
Gonzalez said, while he is in favor of an extension, they need to keep in mind that the original ordinance was put
in place for a reason. He said there needs to be time limits. Jonrowe suggested the Council just postpone
through the summer to see if there are any issues throughout the busy season. Berryman asked and
Brandenburg said they have received complaints from some realtors whose signs have been over run by others
such as garage sale and advertisements.
Motion by Eason, second by Gonzalez to amend and postpone for 9 months through the fiscal year until
October 2012. Berryman spoke about why she thinks it is best to postpone the enforcement until next January.
Vote on the motion to amend: Approved 4-2 (Hellmann, Berryman opposed) (Sattler absent)
Vote on the original motion as amended: 6-0 (Sattler absent)
M Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning of 2.54 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey
from the Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2300 North Austin Avenue --
Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director (action required)
Benton said this request is to take this area from a more intense use of Industrial to a C-3 General Commercial
District. She said the applicant has five lease buildings on this property and added he has had problems leasing
them. She said he is asking to change this to a less intense zoning district. She said the property is a
non-conforming property. She said the commercial district of C-3 allows for retail and office and some limited
automotive uses. She said the zoning district of C-3 is appropriated along major thoroughfares. She described
the area effected by this zoning change. She said this would simply move the district boundary for the C-3 one
property to the north and incorporate this into an existing C-2 District. She described the developments in the
current district. She said the future land use designation for this area is a community commercial. She said the
change to a general commercial leans more toward what the future land use would be. She said it is staff's
recommendation to approve this and there were no speakers at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Benton read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter.
Public Hearing was opened 7:38 PM
No persons were present to speak.
Public Hearing was closed 7:38 PM
Motion by Hellmann, Gonzalez to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
N Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for a Rezoning of 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey
from the Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District, located at the terminus of Acker
Road and Caprock Canyon Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development
Director (action required)
Benton described the area and added it is one of the properties currently being annexed. She said the applicant
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 6 of 9 Pages
is asking for a zoning of single family residential and will be making application for a preliminary plat. She said
this is the continuation of the building of Heritage Oaks. She said their recommendation for approval is based on
appropriate access and compatibility with surrounding uses.
Public Hearing was opened at 7:41 PM
No persons were present to speak.
Public Hearing was closed at 7:41 PM
Benton read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter.
Motion by Berryman, Meigs to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0 (Sattler approved)
O Consideration and possible action to approve the FY 2010 - 2011 CPI Adjustment to Texas Disposal System’s
(TDS) Labor Costs, as provided in Section 15.05 of the existing contract between the City of Georgetown and
TDS -- Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager
Ragsdale described the item and said this is an item that the City addresses each year. She noted the solid
waste contract does have a provision for an adjustment to the labor costs. She described this for the Council.
She said, this year, the change is $82,027.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the adjustment.
Berryman asked and Ragsdale said this was originally put in as a rate stabilization. She said they keep it within
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) so that it is not an unreasonable request. Mayor asked and Ragsdale confirmed
this is linked to the consumer price index. Berryman asked and Ragsdale said this will help to provide their
employees with a limit of 3.2% raise. Hellmann asked and Ragsdale said this is adjusted every year but it is not
brought to Council every time depending on the dollar amount.
Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
P Consideration and possible action to approve the FY 2010 - 2011 Fuel Adjustment, as provided in Section
15.04 of the existing contract between the City of Georgetown and Texas Disposal Systems (TDS) -- Kathy
Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Ragsdale said the City allows TDS to purchase fuel at our fuel station at wholesale costs and then the City
adjusts that cost to the actual contract costs. She said the adjustment this year was a little over $67,000. She
said there were some adjustments that were not made last year, which is included in this adjustment.
Motion by Eason, second by Hellmann to approve the adjustment.
Eason asked and Ragsdale said this is being paid to TDS this year. Berryman asked about the contract amount
and Briggs said it's $259K.
Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
Q Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve the contract for the 2011 Glasscock Substation Transformer
Addition - Above Grade Construction Bid 201205 to Lambda Construction I, Ltd., of New Braunfels, TX in the
amount of $648,200.00 -- Jimmy Sikes, T&D Services Manager and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director
Sikes said this was part of the 2010-2011 Capital Improvement Plan. He said back in 2010, they started a project
to increase the city's capacities and reliabilities by adding transformers. He said it is adding another transformer
which is larger and will add capacity. He said it is kind of like building a substation from scratch but adding it on
existing property. He said this project was publicly advertised in November. He said the lowest bidder had taken
some exceptions to our liabilities, so staff had to move to the next bidder, Lambda Construction of New
Braunfels.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to approve the contract.
Mayor asked and Sikes said this substation is shared between Georgetown and Pedernales. He said this is the
third transformer on the property but noted it was built to hold four. Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Sattler
absent)
R Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the selection of a design build team to provide services for the
design and construction of Fire Station 2 -- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief
Financial Officer
Jones spoke about the history of this project. He said, in the past few months, staff and Broaddus and Assoiates
met to determine request for qualifications for the project. He said they received 11 responses and Council
appointed appointed a subcommittee to evaluate and read the applicants. He said they narrowed the group
down to 5 groups. He noted request for proposals were sent to the smaller group. He spoke about the scoring
tabulation for the RFP process and that is in Council's back-up material. He said the selection team is
recommending the selection of the design build team of CHASCO Contracting and KA Hickman Architects for a
fee of $162,700. He spoke about why the committee chose this team.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the selection of a design build team. Approved 6-0 (Sattler
absent)
S First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2010/11 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) due to
conditions that resulted in year end budget variances; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and repealing
all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Lorie Lankford, Controller; Susan Morgan, Finance
Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required)
Lankford said this is a budget cleanup amendment for the 2010/2011 budget that ended in September. She said
they have items in the general fund, special revenue fund and the airport fund. She briefly described some of the
amendments for the Council. Lankford read only the caption of the Ordinance after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to approve the Ordinance on first reading.
Gonzalez asked and Lankford said this adds to the entire appropriation for 2011. She said the large majority of
this is the city's pass through grant to the County for the widening of Williams Drive. She noted the City does not
budget ahead of time for that because it was unclear how much the County would complete in each stage.
Gonzalez asked and Lankford said you can not fall short because that is grant funded. She noted the City is
given the money and then that money is given right back to the vendor. There was much discussion.
Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
T First Reading of an Ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapter 2.20 of the Code of Ordinances relating
to “Ethics” -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required)
Brettle described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the
requirements of the City Charter.
Motion by Meigs, Hellmann to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
U Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 10.304 acres, more or
less, in the Joseph Fish Survey and William Roberts Survey, located at the intersection of Shell Road and
Bellaire Drive -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development
Director (action required)
Maddox described the item and read the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Berryman, second by Jonrowe to approve Ordinance 2012-01. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
V Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation into the city limits of 0.33 acres, more or less,
in the Clement Stubblefield Survey, located near the intersection of Wolf Ranch Parkway and West
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 8 of 9 Pages
University Ave -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development
Director (action required)
Maddox described the item and read only the caption of the ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to approve Ordinance 2012-02. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
W Second Reading of an Ordinance concerning the proposed amendments to the Stormwater Utility and
Drainage Fee, amending Chapter 13.28 entitled "Drainage Utility" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Georgetown -- Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director (action required)
Polasek described the item and amendments and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to approve Ordinance 2012-03. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
X Second Reading of an Ordinance adding Chapter 1.10 relating to culpable mental states to the City of
Georgetown Code of Ordinances -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney (action required)
Chapman described the item and read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to approve Ordinance 2012-04.
Jonrowe asked and Chapman described the change more fully. She said any time a person is prosecuted for a
criminal offence involving a fine over $500, the person must have an intentional element in order to be fined in
court.
Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
Y Second Reading of an Ordinance assigning previously annexed area to the City Council Districts 5 and 1
pursuant to the redistricting plan adopted by the City Council -- Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney (action
required)
Chapman described the Ordinance and read only the caption after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to approve Ordinance 2012-05. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
Z Consideration and possible action to approve an Amendment of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with
Michael T. Novick Living Trust Dated August 22, 1990 for the sale of the former Albertson's Building,
described as Lot 1, Block B Foster Square, according to map or plat thereof recorded in Cabinet N, Slide 47, of
the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas-- Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director and Bridget
Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Chapman described the amendment for the Council.
Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to not approve this item. Approved 6-0 (Sattler absent)
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 08:10 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 9 of 9 Pages
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of surplus cardio equipment to be
offered for trade in value on solicitation for a new cardio lease -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and
Recreation Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The attached list of surplus equipment has been deemed of no further use by Georgetown Parks and
Recreation Department. Staff recommendation is to declare these items surplus and authorize staff to trade in
the equipment on a new cardio lease.
The equipment to be traded in includes treadmills, elliptical trainers, recumbent bikes and AMT’s. Most of
this cardio equipment is from a cardio lease/purchase done in January 2009. The other equipment is cardio
equipment that the City of Georgetown has owned for over 10 years.
The City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances states, in section 4.28 Disposition of Excess Property, that the
City Council may declare any City property to be excess, as recommended by the City Manager. The
ordinance states that the City Council shall determine the method of disposal of any surplus property. Staff
recommends that these items be offered as trade in value on a new cardio lease. A new cardio lease will be
competitively solicited in February.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff anticipates the trade in value towards the new lease to be approximately $13,400.00. This value will be
applied towards a new three year lease.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Cardio Equipment Surplus LIst
Cover Memo
Item # D
Weight Room
ITEM QTY SERIAL NUMBER CONDITION AGE Trade in Value
3 years
$350-$500
$1,000-$1,500
each
$750-$1,000
each
$250-$350
each
$500-$750
$200-$350
$500.00
$500.00
10 years
3 years
6 years
3 years
10 years
10 years
3 years
3 years
1
1
IKD04Q0087, 00XBK22040061
A952J280008
NNI26Q0027
00006417
00006418
Expresso-S2R-
Recumbent Bike
Expresso-S2U-Upright
Bike
7
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
Needs new hard drive
computer to work.
Recently replaced monitor,
internal parts.
Precor C954iE
Treadmill
Precor C954 Treadmill
Precor 956 Treadmill
Precor AMT 100iE
Precor C546iE EFX
Precor 546 EFX
Precor C846iE
Recumbent Bike
Precor C842
Recumbent Bike
Working
Condition,00XBK2204006-
Good condition
Working condition-pedals
need replacement
All in working condition, belts
worn.
Working condition, high miles,
belts worn.
Working condition, belt worn.
Working condition
Cardio Equipment Surplus List
ADEYJ30080067, ADEYJ30080062,
ADEYL04080001, ADEYK12080026,
ADEYJ30080068, ADEYL04080002,
ADEYL10080010
A927A14090045, A927A13090033,A927A14090049
AJMEL02080053, AJMEK06080038,
AJMEL02080043
AZAH17R0036, ZAH11R0010
AGJYA31070057
Working condition
$700-$1000
each
$350-$500
each
3 years
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
D
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing staff to conduct business with
Comerica Bank, N.A., Viewpoint Bank, N.A., TexPool Participant Services, Prosperity Bank, RBank
Texas, and Southside Bank and to appoint “Representatives of the Depositor” -- Susan Morgan, Finance
Director and Lorie Lankford, Controller
ITEM SUMMARY:
This resolution authorizes the following employees to be Representatives of the Depositor and each are
hereby authorized to open accounts, to issue letters of instruction, and to take all other actions deemed
necessary or appropriate for the purpose of conducting non-primary bank depository services. Any action
taken will be in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy.
Micki Rundell Chief Financial Officer
Susan Morgan Finance Director
Lorie Lankford Controller
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A & B
Cover Memo
Item # E
Resolution Number:________________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Non-depository Banking Resolution
Date Approved: January 24, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS TO AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVES TO
CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH COMERICA BANK, N.A., VIEWPOINT BANK,
N.A., TEXPOOL PARTICIPANT SERVICES, PROSPERITY BANK, RBANK
TEXAS, AND SOUTHSIDE BANK
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown (the “Depositor”) is a local government of the State of
Texas and is hereby empowered to conduct business with Comerica Bank, N.A., ViewPoint
Bank, N.A., TexPool Participants Services, Prosperity Bank, RBank Texas and Southside Bank
for non-primary bank depository services;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
SECTION ONE. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution 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.
SECTION TWO. The individuals, whose names appear below, are Representatives of the
Depositor and are each hereby authorized to open accounts, to issue letters of instruction, and
to take all other actions deemed necessary or appropriate for the purpose of conducting non-
primary bank depository services.
Authorized Representatives are listed below:
Name: Title:
Micki Rundell Chief Financial Officer
Susan Morgan Finance Director
Lorie Lankford Controller
SECTION THREE. An Authorized Representative of the Depositor may be added or deleted
by a written instrument signed by at least 1 of the named Authorized Representatives.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # E
Resolution Number:________________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Non-depository Banking Resolution
Date Approved: January 24, 2012
SECTION FOUR. This Resolution and its authorization shall continue in full force and
effect until amended or revoked by the Depositor, and until Comerica Bank, N.A. receives a
copy of any such amendment or revocation.
SECTION FIVE. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this Resolution and the City Secretary to
attest.
SECTION SIX. Exhibit A and B have been provided for ViewPoint Bank and TexPool to meet
those banks individual requirements.
SECTION SEVEN. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 24th day of January, 2012.
ATTEST: CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
______________________________ By: _____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
E
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
E
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution adopting a salary adjustment for the Municipal
Court Associate Judge position -- Cathy Leloux, Court Administator and Susan Morgan, Finance Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown has made several cost saving measures throughout the organization for the Annual
Budget for 2011/12. Due to a decrease in cases filed, the number of cases on the court dockets has also
declined. We are requesting a salary adjustment for the Municipal Court Associate Judge position. Per the
City’s Charter, Council must approve the compensation. The City’s Presiding Municipal Court Judge
negotiated an hourly rate of $65.00 with an amount not to exceed $5,000.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Associate Judge position was salaried at $27,000.00 per year. This adjustment from salary to an hourly
rate resulted in a salary savings of $22,000.00.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Cover Memo
Item # F
Resolution No. _________
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\27BE5147-8154-49C0-983E-
3B325F7A4D94\PDFConvert.6095.1.Resolution_Associate_Judge_Comp_(clean_BC).doc
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ADOPTING A REVISION TO THE
COMPENSATION FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT ASSOCIATE JUDGE
POSITION.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.08 of the City Charter, the City Council shall appoint a
qualified person to act in the Judge of the Municipal Court’s place if the Judge is temporarily
unable to act for any reason; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.08 of the City Charter further provides that the City Council shall
set the compensation for the Associate Judge appointed pursuant to Section 5.08; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Annual Budget for 2011/2012, which included
cost savings of approximately $22,000.00 by reducing the Municipal Court Associate Judge
compensation to an hourly rate of $65.00;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby sets the compensation
of the Municipal Court Associate Judge at an hourly rate of $65.00 not to exceed $5,000.00 a
year.
RESOLVED this ______ day of January, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
By: ______________________________ By: _______________________________
Jessica Brettle George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ______________________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # F
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Second Amendment to Professional Services Contract
with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (dated March 14, 1995) related to the Southeast Arterial One
(Southwestern Blvd to Maple St.) in the amount of $32,500.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director and Bill Dryden, Transportation Engineer
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City contracted with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates Engineering, Inc. (KPA), for professional
engineering services to Southeast Arterial One (SE-1) (Southwestern Boulevard to Maple) which work was
to be done according to the terms and conditions of the original Professional Services Contract (the Contract)
dated March 14, 1995. There is a need to revise the Contract to have the engineer provide lead inspection
during the placement of the final base course and Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (HMAC) for the
SE-1 Project in accordance with the City of Georgetown’s Specifications for Hot Mix Asphaltic
Concrete. Technical advice and opinion will be provided to the City and the contractor during the placement
of asphalt to insure acceptable ride quality.
Attached is the Proposed Second Amendment to the Professional Services Contract with Kasberg,
Patrick & Associates, LP, (dated March 14, 1995) relatedto the Southeast Arterial One (Southwestern Blvd
to Maple St.) in the amount of $32,500.
GTEC BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GTEC Board recommendation will be given at the dias
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Second Amendment to Professional Services Contract with
Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP, (dated March 14, 1995) related to the Southeast Arterial One
(Southwestern Blvd to Maple St.) in the amount of $32,500.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Attached is a spreadsheet of the Overall Project Budget to Complete Construction. The Item “E” includes the
budgeted amount of $200,000 for “Outside Inspection.” This proposed amendment costs for specialized
inspection utilizes $32,500 of that amount.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, Bill Dryden
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed 2nd Amend KPA SE1
SE 1 Overall Budget
Cover Memo
Item # G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
G
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
G
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a two year bid for Crack sealant with an annual bid in the
estimated amount of $59,500.00 to Sealmaster of Houston, Texas -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bids were received in November to provide the City of Georgetown with crack sealant used for sealing
cracks in City streets and arterials. The crack sealing process is a vital part of street maintenance and is
necessary to lessen the amount of moisture penetrating the asphalt and sub base. This is a two year bid for an
estimated annual quantity of 100,000 pounds at .595 per pound totaling $59,500.00 per year with two
additional one year period options. The Street department used this product in 2011 with very favorable
results. Numerous companies were notified of the bid.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 13, 2012
GTAB Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends award of the two-year bid to Sealmaster of Houston, Texas in the estimated annual
amount of $59,500.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in the Streets Capital budget:
FUND - 100-5-0846-52-806 Rehabilitation
ACTUAL - Est. $59,500.00
BUDGET - $873,000.00
AVAIL. BUDGET BAL. $698,656.00
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Miller/Edward G. Polasek
ATTACHMENTS:
Crack Seal Bid#201206
Cover Memo
Item # H
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
H
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. HZI-12-001 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc., of
Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the Safe Routes to School Project in the
amount of $60,000.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer
ITEM SUMMARY:
By Resolution No. 111009-E, Council authorized the Mayor to submit a grant application to the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for a Safe Routes to School Project. The grant application was
approved in the total reimbursable amount of $499,280.00 for engineering, environmental, construction and
construction contingencies. An Advance Funding Agreement with TxDOT was approved by Council on
April 22, 2011.
Staff received Statements of Qualifications from Espey Consultants, Inc., of Austin, Huitt-Zollars, Inc.,
of Austin and Steger Bizzell of Georgetown. Subsequent to evaluations, the firm of Huitt-Zollars, Inc., was
selected as the best qualified firm to provide professional services for the development of construction
documents for the Safe Routes to School Project.
Attached is the proposed Task Order, HZI-12-001 with Huitt Zollars, Inc., to provide professional
services related to the Safe Routes to School Project from the Churchill Farms subdivision to Mitchell
Elementary School in the amount of $60,000.00.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January 13, 2012
GTAB Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Task Order No. HZI-12-001 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc., of
Austin, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the Safe Routes to School Project in the
amount of $60,000.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The project is fully reimbursable through the AFA with TxDOT. Attached is the project CIP – Street and
Drainage Rehabilitation Project – Budgetary Worksheet.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek/Bill Dryden/Mark Miller
ATTACHMENTS:
Budget Wroksheet
Task Order HZI 12-001 Part 1
Task Order HZI 12-001 Part 2
Cover Memo
Item # I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
I
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing the City's participation (estimated
at $42,500.00) in the Texas Department of Transportation's Grant Project #1214GRGTN to make
improvements at the Georgetown Municipal Airport to comply with current Federal Aviation
Administration safety standards -- Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager; Terri Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate
Services Coordinator and Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
On October 17, 2011, the City was notified by the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”) that in
order to move forward with its grant program to provide safety improvements to the Georgetown Municipal
Airport certain documents and actions are necessary on behalf of the City.
All necessary documents have been provided to TxDOT with the exception of a Council resolution
authorizing the City’s participation in its proposed grant project #1214GRGTN, the purpose of which is to
bring the airports runways up to current Federal Aviation Administration safety standards. The estimated cost
of the City’s participation in the program is $42,500.00, which is 10% of TxDOT’s estimated overall costs
per the attached scope (Exhibit “A” to the proposed resolution) provided by TxDOT.
This item is scheduled for view by the Airport Advisory Board (“AAB”) on January 23, 2012. However, the
agenda deadlines for the January 23rd AAB meeting and January 24th Council meetings overlapped, so the
item is being submitted prior to recommendation by the AAB. Staff recommends approval of this item and
anticipates that it will be recommended by the AAB. However, its final decision will be reported to Council
at the January 24th meeting.
Upon approval of this resolution, an agreement will be drawn by TxDOT evidencing the parties' desire to
participate in the project, which agreement will be submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission
("TTC") for its approval. Upon TTC approval, TxDOT will proceed with the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Airport Fund to provide the City's estimated share of $42,500.00.
SUBMITTED BY:
Terri Glasby Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution authorizing TxDOT Airport Grant Project #1214GRGTN
Cover Memo
Item # J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
J
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
J
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appoint Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director, as a "member"
and Cynthia Nguyen, Administrative Assistant, and Lance Trdy, Firefighter, as "alternates" on the
Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan Oversight Committee -- Kevin Russell, Director of Human
Resources and Civil Service
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan is an IRC §457(b) governmental deferred compensation plan
that is being created pursuant to Section 609.102(c) of the Texas Government Code and Chapter 791 of the
Texas Government Code. The Plan is being established in order to provide a better value to the
employees/participants of the Plan for each Participating Employer than the Participating Employer could
achieve on its own.
Pursuant to Section 609.106 of the Texas Government Code, the Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan
Oversight Committee (“Committee”) is created to oversee and manage all activities of the Plan. The
Committee is a fiduciary to the Plan and is compelled to act exclusively in the best interests of the Plan’s
participants and beneficiaries and to the Participating Employers of the Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Russell, Director of Human Resources & Civil Service
Cover Memo
Item # K
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearingand First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 0.126 acres of the Glasscock Addition, Block
5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt) from Multifamily (MF) District to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) District,
located at 415 W. 10th Street -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to rezone 0.126 acres of Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt)
from Multifamily (MF) District to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) District. The applicant's stated
intention is to remove the current deteriorated house and construct a new single-family residential structure
on the lot. The single-family residential use is classified as a legal, nonconforming use for this property
considering it is not otherwise permitted within the Multifamily District. The Multifamily District typically
supports townhouse and small-scale apartment development along with larger group living developments
such as group homes and boarding houses. Due to the size of the 5,500 square foot lot, developments such as
this are not feasible and the applicant is requesting a change of zoning to support the intended development.
Public Comment:
At the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission meeting on January 3, 2012, there were no public speakers
regarding this application. Staff has received one written comment in favor of the rezone to MU-DT.
Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On January 3, 2012, the Commission, with a vote of 7-0, recommended approval to the City Council of the
rezoning from MF to MU-DT for 415 W. 10th Street. Minutes of this meeting have been attached to this
report as Exhibit 9.
Special Consideration:
Attached in this packet is a conceptual site plan (See Exhibit 7) that is not binding and is subject to change
pending Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) review. It is included here to present
possible future site conditions the applicant wishes to utilize upon development of the property to support the
residential single-family use.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the first reading of the Ordinance rezoning 415 W. 10th Street from MF District to MU-DT
District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No study was required.
SUBMITTED BY:
Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Exhibit 1 - Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 - Field Notes
Cover Memo
Item # L
Exhibit 6 - Applicant's Request Materials
Exhibit 7 - Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 8 - Public Comment
Exhibit 9 - January 3 P&Z Draft Minutes
Draft Ordinance
Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map
Ordinance Exhibit B - Field Notes & Legal Description
Cover Memo
Item # L
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 1 of 7
Report Date: December 27, 2011
File No: REZ‐2011‐024
Project Planner: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Casa Ramos
Project Address: 415 W. 10th Street
Location: Northeast corner of MLK and 10th Streets
Total Acreage: 0.126 acres
Legal Description: Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt) of Block 5 in Glasscock Addition
Applicant/Agent: David L. Voelter, Voelter Associates Inc.
Property Owner: Susie Ramos
Existing Use: Residential
Existing Zoning: Multifamily (MF)
Proposed Zoning: Mixed‐Use Downtown (MU‐DT)
Future Land Use: Specialty Mixed‐Use
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a change of zoning from MF, Multifamily District to MU‐
DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown District. The intent is to remove the current house and
construct a new single‐family residential structure on the lot.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 2 of 7
The applicant states the owner proposes to remove the existing historic residence that
has deteriorated to a point beyond practical rehabilitation and construct a new single‐
family residential structure. The single‐family residential use is classified as a legal, non
conforming use for this property considering it is not otherwise permitted within the
Multifamily District. The Multifamily District typically supports townhouse and small‐
scale apartment development along with larger group living developments such as
group homes and boarding houses, but due to the size of the 5,500 square foot lot,
developments such as this are not feasible. By removing the current residential
structure, the applicant would not be able to reconstruct a single‐family residence due
to the zoning district. Because of this, a rezone to Mixed‐Use Downtown (MUDT) is
requested to allow for construction of a residential single‐family structure.
In October 2011, the applicant approached the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission’s (HARC) Demolition Subcommittee for discussion on removing the
historic house. The house is classified as a Medium‐Priority Historic Structure in
Georgetown’s Historic Resources Survey and requires approval from HARC for its
removal. Action and formal recommendation was not given at that meeting but the
applicant feels comfortable enough to move forward with the redevelopment of the lot
which starts with a rezone of the property to allow for future development.
Mentioned in the applicant’s letter of request, they feel the small historic house has
deteriorated beyond a point of repair and that a new structure is in order. It will be up
to HARC to determine whether or not removal of the structure is appropriate and what
goes in its place. The current Multifamily District hinders any redevelopment of the
property and a Mixed‐Use Downtown District would allow the owner to move forward
with her intentions of putting a new residential‐single family house on the lot.
The applicant is aware that upon redevelopment of the property, any changes to the
site, including removal of the current house, will require approval from HARC. Unified
Development Code (UDC) Section 3.13.B.2 states that a Certificate of Design
Compliance is required for development, both residential and commercial, in the
Downtown Overlay District. This ensures the site will remain compatible with other
Downtown development.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 3 of 7
Site Information
Location:
The property is located at the northeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Street and W.
10th Street (See Exhibit 1). The site is currently situated between Texas Land Bank to the
north and a private residence to the east with The Flower Box across MLK Jr. Street to
the west and a private residence across W. 10th Street to the south.
Physical Characteristics:
The lot, located in the Downtown Overlay District, is currently developed with a single
primary structure and detached accessory garage at its northwest corner and a pull‐in
gravel parking area along MLK. The historic house is located at the east‐central side of the
L‐shape lot and enchroaches into the side (east) setback (See Exhibit 4).
All future development will require compliance with current development standards in
respect to Georgetown’s Design Guidelines as well as the UDC and other Ordinance
regulations. This will ensure preservation of either the historic structure or the appropriate
residential appearance of the property from MLK and W. 10th Streets. These details will be
reviewed and approved by staff and HARC upon site and design submittal.
Surrounding Properties:
Zoning Map (Detailed in Exhibit 3)
The subject property is in an area with a mix of residential and commercial, typical for the
Downtown Overlay District. The land bank to the north and flower shop to the west are
intended to serve both residents and visitors without creating a high volume of circulating
traffic or a hinderance to nearby residences.
The surrounding zoning, existing uses and future land uses include:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 4 of 7
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use
Downtown Specialty Mixed‐Use Commercial
‐Texas Land Bank‐
South RS, Residential
Single‐Family
Moderate Density
Residential Private Residence
East MF, Multifamily Specialty Mixed‐Use Private Residence
West C‐3, High‐Intensity
Commercial
Moderate Density
Residential
Commercial
‐The Flower Box‐
Property History
The subject property is located within the Downtown Overlay District. The historic L‐
Style frame house located on the lot was built in the early 1900’s and is considered a
Medium‐Priority Historic Structure in Georgetown’s Historic Resources Survey. The
exact age and historic classification of the detached garage is unknown at this time but
any demolition on the property would require review and approval from HARC.
The property was given the MF, Multifamily District zoning classification with the
adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2003. Prior to this, it was zoned R‐M2,
Residential Dense Multi‐Family.
2030 Plan Conformance
Future Land Use Map (Detailed in Exhibit 2)
Staff has analyzed the proposed rezoning and taken into consideration the 2030 Future
Land Use Plan. This site is included in the Specialty Mixed‐Use category on the 2030
Future Land Use Map. This land use accommodates large‐scale mixed‐use
developments but can also apply to Downtown Georgetown, reflecting its role as a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 5 of 7
regional destination for services, cultural, and civic functions. This emphasizes the
urban character and the mix and intensity of uses uniquely suited to this center of
activity, both residential and commercial. The designation is intended to permit a true
mix of uses with unique development standards tailored to the character of the area,
such as the downtown area. As promoted by the Downtown Master Plan, the intent is
to move the downtown area towards becoming a center of activity during the daytime
and nighttime as well as on the weekend by promoting a mix of commercial,
entertainment, residential, and civic uses. Creative forms of housing are encouraged,
such as attached homes, lofts, and live‐work units. To protect the historic character of
downtown, the Land Use Element recommends maintaining the maximum building
height in this district, while allowing maximum residential densities to be controlled by
the building height, setback, landscape, impervious coverage, and other regulatory
limitations. Non‐residential uses supported within this category include schools,
churches, retail, office buildings, restaurants and parks. Due to the location within the
Downtown Overlay District and the intended use, the rezoning complies with the
intents of the Specialty Mixed‐Use land use category in the 2030 Plan and would
support further development of the property, including small‐scale non‐residential use.
Proposed Zoning District
The MU‐DT zoning district is intended to provide a location for a mix of land uses
including general commercial and retail activities, office, as well as single‐family and
multifamily residential in the downtown area. Developments in the MU‐DT District are
typically smaller in size and scope, although there may be occasionally heavy traffic.
This District is only appropriate in the traditional downtown area of Georgetown, such
as this property.
The intended use for the subject property is single‐family residential but the requested
zoning district could support small scale commercial and retail uses commonly seen in
the Downtown Overlay. Other uses that would be permitted within a MU‐DT zoning
district include eating establishments, bed and breakfasts, and service‐oriented business
such as barber shops, seamstress, tailor, shoe repair and dry cleaning pick‐up.
Utilities
Wastewater, water and electric are served by the City of Georgetown. Any future
upgrades to the property required for a non‐residential use will be reviewed by staff at
time of site plan.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 6 of 7
Transportation
The site has a single, direct access point to Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, a collector
street in the Overall Transportation Plan. The intended use, and any future non‐
residential uses, could be supported by this street. Any additional access points onto
the property would require approval from both staff and HARC before being
constructed.
Future Application(s)
With the approval of an MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown District, the property would
still require approval from HARC for any future development, including the removal of
the historic house and future site development. Once again, UDC Section 3.13.B.2 states
that a Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) is required for development in the
Downtown Overlay District, both residential and commercial. HARC approval will be
required before any development on site can commence.
Although a site plan is not required for residential single‐family development, HARC
will still need to approve the site layout because it is considered development within
the Downtown Overlay District. Any future non‐residential development on the site
will require site plan approval in addition to HARC approval to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding historic neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
Staff Recommendation and Basis:
Staff supports the zoning change from MF to MU‐DT. This support is based on the
proposal’s consistency with the 2030 Plan and Land Use Element, as well as its
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As stated in the 2030 Plan, the
Specialty Mixed‐Use land use category may support both residential and non‐
residential uses. Detailed above, the subject property is surrounded by a mix of uses
ranging from retail to residential. These are all uses supported in the Mixed‐Use
Downtown District. Many nearby properties have been converted from residential to
non‐residential and are being used for small‐scale office and personal service uses.
Most of those properties have maintained the residential appearance as required by the
Design Guidelines. The applicant wishes to maintain the residential use on the
property but to construct a new house. Even if HARC were to not approve the
demolition of the deteriorating historic house and it were to remain on site, the property
could still legally be used as residential within the MU‐DT District. The future of the
existing house has no direct affect on the requested zoning district.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # L
Planning & Development Staff Report
415 W. 10th Street Rezoning Page 7 of 7
Additionally, the subject property is zoned a district that supports larger residential
developments such as small apartments, townhomes, group homes and boarding
houses. The 5,500 square foot lot cannot adequately support such residential
developments. A rezone to MU‐DT would allow the applicant to construct a single‐
family residence, appropriate to the lot, while allowing for future non‐residential
development of the site, common for Downtown.
Special Consideration:
Attached in this packet is a conceptual site plan (See Exhibit 7) that is not binding and is
subject to change pending HARC’s approval. It is included here to present possible
future site conditions the applicant wishes to utilize upon development of the property
to support the residential single‐family use.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
N/A
Public Comments
A total of 14 notices were sent out to the property owners within 200 feet of the
proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on December 18,
2011. At the time of this report, one public comment has been received at the Planning
& Development office. That comment has been attached to this report as Exhibit 8.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Field Notes
Exhibit 6 – Applicant’s Request Materials (1 page)
Exhibit 7 – Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 8 – Public Comment(s)
Exhibit 9 – January 3, 2012 Draft P&Z Minutes
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # L
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0T H ST
W 1 1 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
MARTIN
L
U
T
H
E
R
KIN
G
J
R
S
T
W
E
S
T
ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
24
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-024
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0TH ST
W 1 1 T H S T
MARTIN
L
U
T
H
E
R
KIN
G
J
R
S
T
W
E
S
T
ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
24
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Community Com mercial
Ag / Rural Residential
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
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2011-024
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
W 11 T H S T
M
A
R
TIN
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 1 0 T H S T
W 9 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
24
C-1 LocalCommercial
C-3 GeneralCommercial
M F M u l t i f a m i l y
MU-DT
Mixed Use
Downtown
M U -D TMixed U s eDowntown
MU-DT
Mixed Use
Downtown
MU-DTMixed UseDowntown
MU-DTMixed UseDowntown
OF Office
OF Office
OF Office
OF Office
OF Office
RS Residential
Single-Family
RS ResidentialSingle-Family
RS ResidentialSingle-Family RS Residential
Single-Family
RS ResidentialSingle-Family
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
REZ-2011-024 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
W 9 T H S T
W 1 0TH ST
W 11T H ST
M
A
R
TIN
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
ST
W
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
24
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-024
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
8
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
L
EXHIBIT 9 – JANUARY 3 P&Z DRAFT MINUTES
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Draft Minutes
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the
Commission and will be available at the Planning & Development Office, located at 300
Industrial Avenue. You may also visit the City of Georgetown web site at www.georgetown.org
and review the staff report on the proposed application no later than the Saturday prior to the
Planning and Zoning meeting described above.
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Vice‐chair; Annette Montgomery,
Secretary; Gene Facey, Pat Armour, Sally Pell and John Horne
Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin absent and Roland Peña and Robert Massad
5. Public Hearing and possible action on a rezoning of 0.126 acres at Glasscock Addition,
Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt) from Multifamily (MF) District to Mixed‐Use
Downtown (MU‐DT) District, located at 415 W. 10th Street. REZ‐2011‐024 (Robbie
Wyler)
Staff report by Robbie Wyler. The applicant has requested to rezone the 0.126 ‐ acre lot
at the northeast corner of MLK and 10th Streets from MF to MU‐DT, with the intention
of redeveloping the property into a single‐family residence.
David Voelter representing the applicant briefly explained the applicant’s request and
stated he will be glad to answer questions.
Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing was
closed.
Motion by Montgomery to recommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning for
415 W. 10th Street from MF, Multifamily District, to MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown
District. Second by Pell. Approved. (7‐0)
Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # L
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from MF to MU-DT
Date Approved: February 14, 2012
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the
Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th day of April, 2002 in accordance with the Unified
Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th of March, 2003, to change 0.126 acres
in the Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), from MF, Multifamily to
MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown, located at 415 W. 10th Street, as recorded in Document
Number 2008007501 of the Official Records of Williamson County, repealing conflicting
ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective
date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the purpose of changing the
Zoning District Classification of the following described real property (ʺThe Propertyʺ):
0.126 acres in the Glasscock Addition, Block 5, Lots 5 (w/pt) & 6 (sw/pt), as recorded in
Document Number 2008007501 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas,
hereinafter referred to as ʺThe Propertyʺ;
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration in a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15) days
for the first day of such publication; and
Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for the
meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two
hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than fifteen
(15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on January 3, 2012
recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described property from MF,
Multifamily District to MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown District subject to the following Conditions:
No special conditions were addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attachment number 11 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # L
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from MF to MU-DT
Date Approved: February 14, 2012
Page 2 of 3
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 following Visions/Goals/Policies and Actions of the Georgetown 2030
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Plan:
Policies and Actions: 1.A. Encourage a balanced mix of residential, commercial
and employment uses at varying densities and intensities, to reflect a gradual
transition from urban to suburban to rural development.
Policies and Actions: 1A.1. Adjust zoning provisions to provide greater flexibility
for mixed‐uses, multiple housing types, compact development, and redevelopment.
Policies and Actions: 2.D. Continue to promote diversification and strengthening of
downtown Georgetown and its in‐town historic neighborhoods
and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the Property shall
be and the same is hereby changed from MF, Multifamily to MU‐DT, Mixed‐Use Downtown in
accordance with Ordinance Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is
hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, subject to the following
conditions:
No special conditions were addressed by the City Council.
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 and be in full force and effect on the date of final
adoption by City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 24th Day of January, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 14th Day of February, 2012.
Attachment number 11 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # L
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from MF to MU-DT
Date Approved: February 14, 2012
Page 3 of 3
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ _________________________
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 11 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
It
e
m
#
L
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Presentation, discussion, and direction to staff on possible code amendments and other activities related
to furthering Urban Farming -- Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
On June 14, 2011, the City Council directed staff to research and make recommendations on modernizing
City ordinances regarding urban farming. To help gauge the community interest in urban farming, staff
scheduled a public meeting. Attached for the Council’s information is the advertisement placed in the Sun
notifying the public of the meeting. The upcoming meeting was announced during a Council meeting, and
staff and others tried to spread the word about the meeting, including placing fliers at the Library and Rec.
Center, as well as some local farm/landscaping related businesses. In addition, the UDC Task Force e-mail
list was notified of the meeting.
On September 15, 2011, Councilmember Jonrowe facilitated the public discussion to judge the public
interest in urban farming. Attached for Council’s information is the meeting agenda. Attendance was
approximately 70, not including staff.
A questionnaire was handed out at the meeting to help gauge the attendees’ interest in a variety of urban
farming related topics: growing produce, keeping animals, beekeeping, etc. Approximately 50 questionnaires
were returned, and the responses were tallied on the attached questionnaire for your information.
Generally, the primary focus and discussion was on whether the City’s existing regulations that limit the
keeping of animals (primarily chickens) should be revised to allow more opportunities to have these animals
in a residential neighborhood. Currently, the regulations require setbacks from homes and public buildings
such that most residential lots could not meet these requirements. There were very divergent opinions on
chickens and their appropriateness in a residential neighborhood.
Beekeeping was also discussed at some length, again with differing opinions.
Another topic of discussion was water usage and the availability of water for gardening and lawns.
Gardening was discussed in general, but the City’s regulations do not limit growing of fruits and vegetables
except for height limits in sight visibility triangles and that the plants should be maintained such that they do
not trigger the tall weeds and grass restrictions. There was some limited discussion regarding produce sales
directly from a home, which is currently not permitted on a drop by basis. So, a farm stand would not be
allowed, but arrangements could be made to schedule an appointment to buy produce or it could be sold at an
approved off-site location. In agriculturally zoned property farm stands are allowed.
After the meeting, several of the attendees indicated they wanted the dialog about urban farming to continue
and thought this first meeting was beneficial. However, most of these folks also were interested in the
keeping of chickens and possibly other animals as well.
Based on the questionnaire responses/comments, there are differences in opinions and levels of interest in a
variety of topics; however, there does seem to be definite interest in further education on most of the
topics. If the Council desires to go forward with any of the “urban farming” regulation changes that might be
needed, they may want to consider whether the City should facilitate or work with other groups or agencies
to provide education programs on any or all of the various topics listed. For example, the AgriLife Extension
Service, the Master Gardener Association, and similar groups may offer educational programs available to
the public.
Council Consideration
Cover Memo
Item # M
Some of the key items for the Council to consider:
Possible Changes to the Code of Ordinances:
Allowing chickens and other productive animals/insects in residential neighborhoods with
limitations.
Allowing drop by sales of produce, eggs, honey, etc at residential homes/properties.
Make it easy to convert HOA open space areas to community gardens
Adding more gardening areas in our City parks.
Whether the City should sponsor/host an urban farming educational series, and how should the City
participate.
The Council may wish to schedule the urban farming item for a workshop to discuss the items noted above,
or to make no changes at this time. Staff is seeking Council’s level of interest in continuing the discussions
on urban farming, particularly the idea of changing our existing regulations limiting the keeping of chickens
and other small farm-type animals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact has been studied.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Questionnaire Summary
Meeting Agenda
Meeting Advertisement
Cover Memo
Item # M
Open House on
Urban Farming
City of Georgetown
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 6 p.m.
Hewlett Room, Georgetown Public Library
402 W. 8th Street
The City Council would like to gauge the community’s interest in Urban
Farming and related topics, including the items listed below. This first meeting is
to introduce the topics and discuss the level of interest. Depending on the
outcome of the first meeting and the City Council’s direction, there may be
follow‐up meetings for more in‐depth discussion and study.
Chickens and other fowl on residential lots
Small livestock, such as rabbits, goats, and/or sheep on residential lots
Beekeeping on residential lots
Growing fruits and vegetables on your residential lot and the ability to sell
excess produce
Neighborhood gardens on property owned by homeowners associations
Using City‐owned land for community garden plots
Increasing use of the Heritage Garden on Hutto Road
Costs of watering home gardens
Rain water collection systems
Composting
You are invited to the open house to meet with City staff and discuss these
topics. The City Council may consider amendments to the City’s regulations and
policies. So bring your ideas and thoughts to help with the discussion. If you
need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance at (512)
930‐2545.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
Open House on Urban Farming
Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 6 p.m.
Hewlett Room, Georgetown Public Library
402 W. 8th Street
Introduction by Rachael Jonrowe, City Council Member District 6
What is Urban Farming?
Components of Urban Gardening Under Consideration
Gardening
Raising fruits and vegetables on your residential lot
The City does not restrict the growing of fruits and vegetables, except that they cannot create a
nuisance, such as being not being maintained, so that tall weeds and grass become a problem. In
addition, they cannot be planted in the “visibility triangle” at street intersections, so as to create a
traffic hazard.
Community Gardens / Neighborhood Gardens
The City does not restrict the use of HOA property for growing produce. This is a matter for
individual neighborhoods. Make sure that you find out your specific HOA regulations.
Heritage Gardens
The City provides the property for the Heritage Garden on Hutto Road, but other City property is not
available at this time.
Raising Small Livestock, Fowl, Etc.
Keeping Rabbits, Goats, Sheep on Residential Lots
The keeping of livestock is only permitted on property zoned Agriculture. For other residential
properties, there is a 200 foot separation required from residential structures and a 500 foot separation
required from other buildings occupied by the public. Pigs are not allowed. Individual neighborhoods
may have restrictions beyond the City’s regulations.
Keeping Chicken and other Fowl on Residential Lots
Today, the City’s regulations limit the keeping of chickens to properties zoned Agriculture. For other
residential properties, there is a 200 foot separation required from residential structures and a 500 foot
separation required from other buildings occupied by the public. Individual neighborhoods may have
restrictions beyond the City’s regulations
Beekeeping on residential lots
The City does not address beekeeping in its regulations. Individual neighborhoods may have
restrictions beyond the City’s regulations.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # M
Associated Activities
Irrigation of Gardens: Costs and Restrictions
The cost of water for the irrigation of gardens or water for livestock must be taken into consideration,
at regular residential rates, including the conservation stepped rates during the summer and watering
restrictions during drought conditions.
Rain barrels for water collection / storage
The City does not regulate rain barrel usage, except that they cannot be located within the required
building setbacks, unless than are less than 8 feet in height and in the case they may encroach into the
setback but remain at least 3 feet from the property line.
Composting / Mulching
The City does allow composting and mulching on individual lots, but there are restrictions to avoid
health and safety issues or becoming a nuisance.
Selling your excess to the public
Produce
The City does limit retail sales from your home to only those associated with a Home-Based Business
and by appointment only – there are no “drop by” sales allowed. Farmers markets have limitations
either as temporary uses or permanent structures, and they are not allowed in residential zoning
districts.
Eggs and Meat Products
Specific restrictions by Health Department included in attachments
Questionnaire
We would like to learn more about your interest in Urban Farming and the associated topics. Please
indicate you areas of interest by filling out the attached questionnaire. Additional comments and
information can be provided in the COMMENT section on the reverse side of the questionnaire.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # M
City of Georgetown Urban Farming Questionnaire
We would like to learn more about your interest in Urban Farming and related topics. Indicate your areas of interest by filling
out the survey below. Please provide your name and email address to receive notification of future meetings & information.
Printed Name E-Mail Address
Type of Home (circle below) Do you live in the city limits?
Single family home
in neighborhood
40
Single-family home
on acreage
7
Apartment
1
Duplex
1
Other (please explain):
Yes
20
No
8
Don’t know
1
Would you like to raise, keep or
grow any of the following at your
home? Why?
Chickens
(eggs)
(meat)
Ducks
(eggs)
(meat)
Geese
(eggs)
(meat)
Rabbits
(wool)
(meat)
Goats
(wool)
(milk)
(meat)
Sheep
(wool)
(meat)
Bees
(honey) Vegetable Fruit Other:
(explain)
For personal household
consumption 31 3 3 4 3/milk 4 17 39 28
Potbelly pigs,
llamas, turkeys,
fish (tilapia)
Sale of product to the public
(eggs, honey, etc)
8 1 1 milk cheese 8 9 7 Eggs/1
Composting 13 2 1 2 1 1 17 10 Grass
clippings/4
Participation in 4-H or FFA or other
organization
2 1 1 1 1 1
I am against my neighbors keeping
the following: 8 12 13 8 12 12 7
Where would you like to have a
garden? (circle all that apply) My own home - 44 A neighborhood garden-17 A community garden-16 The Heritage Gardens-13
Do you have a neighborhood HOA? No-31 Yes-19 Yes, but not active-4 I don’t know if I have an HOA.
Would you be willing to pay to use
a plot in a public garden? No-24 Yes-21 Do you use compost in your garden? No-15 Yes-31
Are you familiar with the Heritage
Gardens? No-22 Yes-25 Do you or have you ever had a garden
plot at the Heritage Gardens? No-40 Yes-4
Do you have an automatic irrigation
system installed at your home? No-29 Yes-20 Do you have Rain Barrels for water
collection? No-33 Yes-16
Are you interested in the City providing areas to take compostable material to be recycled? No-6 Yes-38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
M
Continued on back
I want to learn more about…
(Check all that apply)
Heritage
Gardens 11 Raising Fruits &
Vegetables 23 Raising Small
Livestock 10 Raising Fowl 20 Rain Water
Collection 29
Regulations or restrictions for
selling homegrown eggs, meat,
produce, honey, etc. to the
public.
14
Community
Gardens 12 Raised Gardening
Beds 22 Animal Sheltering 7 Chicken Coops 19 Drip Irrigation 18
Urban Farming 18 Pests & Insects 13 Diseases of
Small Livestock 8 Diseases of Fowl 18 Composting 22
Please provide us with any comments you may have:
I am a Master Gardener Intern 2011, New to Texas – from Zone 5 Missouri; Change rule on height of lawn grass to allow native grasses and flowers; Restriction
on size of lot ratio to amount of animals; Clean coops only requires a flake of hay once a week; Limit numbers of animals based on square footage of open land
(without structures) and type/ breed; Set-back regulations for pen/ shelter from property line on all sides; Visual site line limits
None now. Let’s see how meeting goes. Gardenville Composting, 2 – 4 free classes per year.
I absolutely do not care if my neighbors keep any of the above mentioned items, if there are sand, smell, noise, abuse, health regulations AND enforcement. I
wouldn’t even mind roosters, but I’d probably be lynched if I confessed this out loud.
Interested in compostable materials as long as you don’t take my right to make and recycle my own material into compost. Provide education to public about
making animals safe and clean, how to build chicken coops and clean them, more ways to capture and conserve water, harvest from your air conditioning, ways
to build gardens that use less water, hugelkolter (sp?), wicking beds, aquaponics, vertical growth, how to make compost – vermiculture. Resource: Vajra Azaya
is a non-profit in Georgetown that can provide education on these things. P.S. I got a “notice” tonight for my BACKYARD? I have a pile of branches I am about
to mulch and I have gathered materials for community gardens in Bastrop that I’m going to be delivering to them. That is TOO restrictive if in my back yard –
just saying.
Georgetown Farmers Market Association – call for contact info – 864-3828.
I have a rainwater collection system now, but it needs rain! I’m willing to share my experiences. The city could stimulate rainwater collection by: 1. Develop
plans for houses, 2. Offer workshops, 3. Offer rebates on supplies.
So glad for this meeting. Please bear in mind H2O restrictions are necessary, not optional. For future meetings, ensure city, county, community experts are on-
hand. Include foresting issues at all future related meetings.
I am an organic vegetable gardener and have been all my gardening life. Chickens are easy to raise if you just have a few, relative to the size of your coop.
Communitychickens.com – great website for all kinds of questions about fowl and a great forum with all questions answered. Georgetown could purchase rain
barrels and sell them at cost or reduced rate to the residents and encourage rain water collections. Educate all of us about water usage and how collection of
rain water is so much better for your vegetables.
I’m for raising a few chickens for eggs in a controlled way. I’m for learning of more H2O conservation, i.e. modern cisterns and rain barrels. I’m interested in
more freedom to sell garden produce in neighborhood. I’m interested in community gardens. What is Heritage Gardens? Don’t know anything about it.
Wow! Who knew there would be such an argument regarding chickens? We live just outside the city limits, and I love my chickens. We do need to be more
sustainable as a community. It would be great if the city council encouraged use of native grasses instead of St. Augustine. I have a well and am very
conservative about water. Please restrict water use. (Look up Lake Mead for info about a lake running dry.) We who work, cannot attend 2:00 meetings! My
mother-in-law lives in Dallas and has a very small backyard, she has 4 chickens. It is great; there is no smell, or filth. No one knows she has chickens. I thought
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
M
people had more common sense than what I saw tonight. Thank goodness the beekeeper and CSA men were here. Thank you for having the meeting.
Keeping a limited number of hens (≤ 5) would not be a nuisance as long as there is no rooster. I would ask that the city remove the restriction on chickens and
other fowl to property zoned agricultural, but continue the restriction that they not be a nuisance.
Of particular concern is the impact of urban farming (of animals). On property value of properties in just a position w/ those who urban farm.
I am most concerned that if the restrictions are lifted, I might have to see and hear some neighbor slaughtering any animal or foul. We need to omit allowing
such uncommon and unpleasant events.
I know people who have chickens (laying hens only). When we visit we never know they are there. There is no odor or noise. The eggs are wonderful!! They
have 2 small goats also.
I have had chickens in the past. They are not noisy like a dog can be. They are friendly and clean. They don’t have an odor that people can smell them. They
become great pets. If you take proper hygiene care of them the odor is not a problem. No roosters & limit the quantity of chickens.
I understand its against city ordinance to compost pet droppings. However most pet stores sell compostable cat liter. There’s very little odor with pine based
products. I don’t see why not.
I also agree with allowing grey water use. I live on the San Gabriel & there are already ducks on the river. I might like to raise some for eggs.
This was a very interesting and informative forum – would like more chances to see what my neighbors have to say. Thanks.
I am against urban farming because of the health and safety issues. The smell and the lowering of my property values. I have 3 house in old town and I
certainly would not allow my tenants to do urban gardening or farming.
Vegetable gardens are wonderful. Neighborhoods with deed restrictions should prevail requiring gardens not to be visible from the street. The idea of urban
farming of small animals seems cruel to the animals and raises health concerns to me and my neighbors. Control of excrement, disease and noise are concerns
in addition to the cruelty of confining and introducing animals into neighborhoods with house that close together. Congratulations for encouraging gardening,
composting, and rainwater collection. A change in code allowing farm animals within the current 200 ft, should only be made with a city wide vote by our tax-
paying citizens.
I strongly oppose a change in the current 200 ft restrictions for small animals. My concerns are: a major change in neighborhood’s environment; health
concerns (fecal matter); noise concerns
Once concern is providing area for poultry compost if: a) contains disease, b) where would the dead foul go? c) who would regulate the chicken for disease, ie
bird flu?
Why aren’t rooftops & windowsills used more for garden purposes would there be weight limits on building preventing this? How much grey water is & will be
used for this urban farming? I’m for urban farming just w/ restrictions!
We should allow citizens to be more self-reliant to grow their own food, raise their own food, supplement their incomes, retain rainwater, enrich their gardens
w/compost – these things seem self-evident. Just regulate it to be sure neighbors are happy w.r.t. smell/ sound/health issues. Thanks for this meeting!
www.backyardchickens.com website on raising chickens, geese, ducks, etc.
I believe the weather & economy will negatively affect food products both in terms of availability & cost. Creation of home gardens (like victory gardens) of the
ability to sell excess produce will be a good method to deal with such a problem. In addition, the nutritional value of such produce will be healthy & good for
us.
I cannot stress this enough – We DO NOT want livestock or bees kept/raised in our neighborhood, Georgetown Village! We have some residents showing
interest in these activities, which is very concerning. We have extremely small lots with houses very close together, which would encroach on our neighbors
quality of life, peace, etc. Even more importantly, we have development covenants, conditions & restrictions, enforced by Alliance Property Management,
which expressly prohibit the livestock activities this plan is proposing. These, to my understanding, supersede, or further restrict city regulation & policies. We
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
M
have a substantial investment in our property & moved specifically due to the existence of the CCR’s and the restrictions & maintenance of this neighborhood.
There will be a serious problem on several levels if this is allowed to take place in Georgetown Village. (I’m sure other area such as Berry Creek, Woods of
Fountainwood, Woodland Park, etc. would feel the same.) If we wanted to move somewhere where our neighbors were allowed to have goats, chickens etc. in
their backyards, we would have bought a house in a different area! – or in the country! It is concerning that your advertisement of this proposed plan &
possible amendments to the city’s regulations & policies do not mention what would happen in area with CCR’s, HOA’s, etc. Please address how these
neighborhood restrictions (more strict than city ordinances) would be addressed. We aren’t even allowed according to our CCR’s to have more than four pets
(which are limited to dogs & cats!) It is unfathomable that one day our next door neighbor can have geese, sheep or chickens in their backyard! Please make a
statement to the public regarding adhering to their neighborhood’s existing rules & regulations. This program should not be allowed to superceed these. Our
property values have fallen enough in recent years already. We don’t need anything else to further negatively impact them. Thank you – James & Krista
Olszewski
Having a garden is fine, but chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, goats, sheep in a city residential neighborhoods, living next door to me would be, probably stinky,
loud, just a bad idea. I am totally against farm animals being kept in city limits.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
M
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action to allow projects that went through the UDC process and had site plan
and development plan approval prior to the downturn of the economy to be grand-fathered in and
allowed to begin development without having to restart the process -- Pat Berryman, Councilmember District
5
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Pat Berryman, Councilmember District 5
Cover Memo
Item # N
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution revising the City’s investment policy -- Susan
Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
State public funds investment law requires that the City review its investment policy annually. Minor
updates and revisions needed after law changes from 82nd Texas Legislative session in 2011 are
recommended.
COMMENTS:
The City last reviewed this policy in December 2010. The City’s approved broker/dealer list is provided as
Attachment “A” of the current City Investment Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This policy guides the investment of all City funds and impacts the investment earnings.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Investment Policy Final
Cover Memo
Item # O
Resolution Number: ___________________________ Page 1 of 1
Description: Investment Policy
Date Approved: January 24, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, AMENDING THE EXISTING CITY OF GEORGETOWN INVESTMENT
POLICY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 24, 2012.
WHEREAS, the goal of the City of Georgetown is to implement an investment policy that
utilizes all current municipal investment practices, while ensuring the safety and availability of all
funds entrusted to the City in compliance with state federal, state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown has reviewed the investment
policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown wishes to amend its Investment
Policy (as last amended December 14, 2010); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution 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 enactment of this ordinance is not
inconsistent or in conflict with any 2030 Plan Policies.
SECTION 2. The Investment Policy attached as Exhibit “A” is hereby adopted by the City
Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this 24th day of January 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 1
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
INVESTMENT POLICY
As amended January 24, 2012
SECTION 1: SCOPE & OBJECTIVES
1.1 SCOPE
This Investment Policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Georgetown, Texas, which
includes the City of Georgetown Economic Development Corporation and the Georgetown
Transportation Enhancement Corporation, held in all funds.
1.2 STATEMENT OF CASH MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
The City will maintain a comprehensive cash management program to include the effective
collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt deposit of receipts to the City's bank accounts,
the payment of obligations to comply with State law and in accord with vendor invoices, and the
prudent investment of idle funds in accord with this Policy.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The City's investment program will be conducted to accomplish the following objectives, listed in
priority order:
1. Safety. The City will give priority to the preservation and safety of the principal
invested. Investments will be made in a manner that will mitigate credit risk and
interest rate risk.
2. Liquidity. The City will maintain the availability of sufficient cash to pay
obligations of the City when they are due.
3. Public Trust. Investment Officers shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of
the public trust. Investment Officers shall avoid transactions that might impair
public confidence in the City’s ability to govern effectively.
4 Yield. The City will invest idle cash in a manner that will maximize earnings to
the greatest extent possible, consistent with State and local laws and the
objectives of safety and liquidity listed above.
It is also the objective of the City to diversify its investments to eliminate the risk of loss resulting
from over concentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific class of
investments. It is the intent of the City to invest its funds to maturity.
SECTION 2: STANDARD OF CARE
2.1 PRUDENCE
Investments will be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, that
persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own
affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital
and the probable income to be derived. The City Council recognizes that in maintaining a
diversified portfolio occasional measured losses due to market volatility are inevitable and must
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 2
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
be considered within the context of the overall portfolio's investment return, provided that
adequate diversification has been implemented.
In determining whether an Investment Officer has exercised prudence with respect to an
investment decision, the determination shall be made taking into consideration:
A. The investment of all funds, or funds under the City’s control, over which the Officer had
responsibility rather than a consideration as to the prudence of a single investment.
B. Whether the investment decision was consistent with the written Investment Policy of the
City.
The Investment Officer, acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due
diligence, shall not be held personally responsible for a specific security's adverse credit risk or
market price changes, provided that these deviations are reported immediately to the City
Manager and/or the Council and that appropriate action is taken to control adverse
developments.
2.2 ETHICS & CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Investment Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or
which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Investment Officers and
employees will comply with all disclosure and reporting requirements of Section 2256.005 (I) of
the Texas Government Code.
2.3 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The Chief Financial Officer, Finance Director and Controller are the City's Investment Officers.
The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for overall management of the City's investment
program and may direct the other Investment Officers in their duties. Accordingly, the
Investment Officers are responsible for day-to-day administration of the investment program and
for the duties listed below:
1. Maintain current information as to available cash balances in City accounts, and
as to the amount of idle cash available for investment;
2. Make investments and maintain written procedures for the operation and internal
control of the investment program consistent with this Policy;
3. Ensure that all investments are adequately secured; and
4. Attend training as required by Section 2256.008 (a) of the Texas Government
Code and ensure that any staff executing transactions covered by this Policy
attend the required training. The investment training shall be attended not less
than once in a two-year period that begins on the first day of the City’s fiscal year
and consists of the two consecutive fiscal years after that date and receive not
less than 10 hours of instruction relating to investment responsibilities under this
Policy. The training must be sponsored by:
Texas Municipal League
Government Finance Officers Association of Texas (GFOAT)
Government Finance Officers Association of US and Canada
Government Treasurers Organization of Texas (GTOT)
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 3
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
University of North Texas
Texas Tech University Center for Professional Development
Unless authorized by State or local laws as provided above, no person may deposit, withdraw,
transfer or manage in any other manner the funds of the City.
SECTION 3: INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
3.1 OPERATING FUNDS
Operating Funds are defined as cash and investments used for day to day operations that do
not fall into one of the other categories. Operating funds will be invested in a manner suitable
for funds requiring a high degree of liquidity. Investments of Operating Funds shall be limited to
a weighted average maturity no greater than one year, and all investment instruments must
meet credit and safety criteria as required by the Public Funds Investment Act and this Policy.
Involuntary liquidation of Operating Fund investments is unlikely due to their short term nature.
However, should a liquidation of investments prior to maturity be necessary, their short term
nature will make material losses unlikely. Operating Fund investments will be diverse and may
include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and
money market mutual funds. Investment of Operating Funds will be structured to attain the
highest possible yield given the liquidity and safety requirements.
3.2 CONTINGENCY RESERVES (or operating reserves)
Contingency Reserves are the minimum fund balance/working capital requirements as defined
by Council in the Annual Operating Plan. Contingency Reserve balances may be used to cover
any cash operating shortfalls due to the timing of bond issues, revenue receipts, etc.
Investments of these funds may exceed 24 months with prior approval of the City Manager if
short term cash flow needs are not evident. Any one investment may not exceed 36 months in
maturity length. The weighted average maturity for these funds may not exceed 24 months.
Involuntary liquidation of Contingency Reserve investments is unlikely due to their nature.
However, should a liquidation of investments prior to maturity be necessary, the comparatively
longer term nature of some of the investments could result in material losses depending on
financial and economic conditions. Contingency Reserve investments will be diverse and may
include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and
money market mutual funds. Investment of Contingency Reserves will be structured to attain
the highest possible yield given the liquidity and safety requirements.
3.3 DEBT
3.3.1 Reserves. Debt reserves are defined as bond reserve funds required to be set
aside in accordance with bond covenants. The City’s bond covenants do not require the
City to maintain any reserve funds. Therefore, the City’s investments are not adversely
affected by any reserve requirement conditions.
3.3.2 Interest & Sinking (or debt service funds). Interest and sinking funds are
defined as those funds accumulated to meet periodic payments required by bond and
note maturity schedules. The investment maturities are limited by pertinent debt service
requirements and tax laws limiting accumulation and earnings for such funds.
Involuntary liquidation of investments is highly unlikely due to the nature of these funds.
Interest and sinking fund investments will be diverse and may include financial institution
deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual
funds.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 4
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
3.4 BOND PROCEEDS (capital improvement funds)
Bond proceed funds are defined as those funds received from the sales of City bonds or notes
and not otherwise set aside for debt service or reserve purposes. These funds typically include
money to fund infrastructure construction or other large projects. The investment maturities are
limited by pertinent project draw requirements and tax laws governing earnings for such funds,
but may not have a weighted average maturity in excess of one year, with no single security
greater than 24 months, unless a flexible repurchase agreement is used in accordance with
Section 4.1.5 of this Policy. Involuntary liquidation of investment is highly unlikely. Bond
proceed investments will be diverse and may include financial institution deposits, U.S.
treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual funds.
SECTION 4: AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
4.1 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS
City funds may be invested in the following instruments:
4.1.1 Financial Institution Deposits. Certificates of Deposit and other evidences of deposit at
a financial institution that, a) has its main office or a branch office in Texas and is guaranteed or
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or its successor, b) is secured by
obligations in a manner and amount provided by law for deposits of the City, or c) is executed
through a depository institution or approved broker that has its main office or a branch office in
Texas that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act. All financial institution
deposits in excess of the FDIC insured amount must be collateralized as described by Section
5.5 COLLATERALIZATION.
4.1.2 U.S. Treasuries and Agencies. Obligations of the United States of America, its agencies
and instrumentalities.
4.1.3 Investment Pools. Investment pools that meet the following criteria:
a. An investment pool must provide an offering circular or other similar disclosure
instruments and provide monthly and transaction reporting as required by
Section 2256.016 of the Texas Government Code.
b. Investment in a new pool will require the approval of the City Council.
c. A public funds investment pool created to function as a money market mutual
fund must (1) mark its portfolio to market daily, (2) include in its investment
objectives the maintenance of a stable net asset value of $1 for each share and
(3) be continuously rated no lower than AAAm or at an equivalent rating by at
least one nationally recognized rating service.
4.1.4. Money Market Mutual Funds. No-load money market mutual funds if the fund:
a. Is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission;
b. Marks its portfolio to market daily;
c. Includes in its investment objectives the maintenance of a stable net asset value of $1
for each share;
d. Is continuously rated no lower than AAA or at an equivalent rating by at least one
nationally recognized rating service.
4.1.5. Repurchase Agreements. Fully collateralized repurchase agreements that:
a. Have a defined termination date;
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 5
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
b. Are secured by cash or obligations as allowed by the Public Funds Investment
Act and this Policy;
c. Require independent third party safekeeping of all securities prior to the release
of any funds;
d. Are placed through a primary dealer or financial institution doing business in this
State; and
e. Do not create a reverse repurchase agreement by the City.
f. Construction, capital improvement and bond proceed funds may utilize a flexible
repurchase agreement, or similar agreement, that allows expenditure-related
withdrawal of funds, without penalty, with an average life and termination date
limitation based on the anticipated draw schedule.
4.1.6. Other Investments. Other investments as approved by the City Council and not
prohibited by law.
Investment securities purchased prior to this Policy’s revision, that do not meet the revised
requirements of this Policy, are not required to be liquidated. The City shall monitor each
security’s status to determine whether it is in the best interest of the City to hold or liquidate the
security.
4.2 CREDIT RATING REVIEW AND EFFECT OF LOSS OF REQUIRED RATING
Not less than quarterly, the Investment Officers will obtain from a reliable source the current
credit rating for each held investment that has a PFIA-required minimum rating. Any Authorized
Investment that requires a minimum rating and does not qualify at any time during the period, is
considered to not have the minimum rating. The City shall take all prudent measures that are
consistent with this Policy to liquidate an investment that does not have the minimum rating.
4.3 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
All authorized investments outlined above must meet the requirements of the Public Funds
Investment Act, Section 2256 of the Texas Government Code. No investment may be made in
any instrument except as provided above.
4.4 CASH ON HAND
Cash resources required for the immediate needs of the City and not otherwise available for
longer term investment will be placed in account(s) at the City's Depository/ Depositories. Such
account(s) will earn interest at the highest rate(s) provided in the respective depository
contract(s).
4.5 LENGTH OF INVESTMENTS
The following general constraints will apply. Maturities exceeding 36 months will require
authorization by the City Manager, with no single maturity greater than 60 months. Maturities
will be staggered to avoid undue concentration of assets in a specific maturity sector and
maturities selected will provide for stability of income and reasonable liquidity.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 6
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
SECTION 5: SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
5.1 AUTHORIZED BROKER/DEALERS
Authorized investments may be purchased only through brokers/dealers who are licensed and
in good standing with the Texas Department of Securities, the Securities Exchange
Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or other applicable self-regulatory
organization. The Investment Officers will maintain a list of broker/dealers who are authorized
to provide investment services. The list is approved and included in Attachment “A” of this
Policy.
Before engaging in investment transactions with a financial institution, broker/dealer, Investment
Pool, or Money Market Mutual Fund, the Investment Officers will have received from said firm a
signed Certification Form. This form will attest that the individual responsible for the City’s
account with that firm has received and reviewed the City’s Investment Policy and that the firm
has implemented reasonable procedures and controls in an effort to preclude imprudent
activities arising out of investment transactions conducted between the City and the firm. The
letter must be signed by a qualified representative as defined by Section 2256.002, of the Texas
Government Code.
“Qualified Representative” means a person who holds a position with a business organization
who is authorized to act on behalf of the business organization and who is one of the following:
(1) a business organization doing business that is regulated by or registered with a securities
commission, a person who is registered under the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority;
(2) for a state or federal bank, a savings bank or state or federal credit union, a member of the
loan committee for the bank or branch of the bank or a person authorized by corporate
resolution to act on behalf of and bind the banking institution;
(3) for an investment pool, the person authorized by the elected official or board with authority to
administer the activities of the investment pool to sign the written instrument on behalf of the
investment pool, or
(4) for an investment management firm registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or,
if not subject of registration under the Act, registered with the State Securities Board, a person
who is an officer or principal of the investment management firm.
5.2 AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Certificates of Deposit and other evidences of deposit may be purchased at qualified City
Depositories and other financial institutions. Qualifications will be determined by the Investment
Officers. The City must have a written agreement with the Depository and other financial
institutions, and that depository and other financial institutions must meet all State Laws for
deposit of public funds. The City's main operating Depository/Depositories will be selected as
provided by law and the City’s purchasing procedure.
5.3 INTERNAL CONTROLS
All investment transactions will be documented by the Investment Officers. The Investment
Officers may make investments orally, but will follow promptly with a written confirmation to the
financial institution or broker/ dealer, with a copy of such confirmation retained in the City's files.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 7
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
On investments, the Investment Officers will solicit competitive quotes. Where appropriate, at
least two (2) quotations will be solicited for each such investment made.
Market value of the portfolio and each investment will be monitored at least quarterly through
industry standard publications/sources for market data such as, but not limited to, The Wall
Street Journal. Market value may also be determined through the City’s investment software
application, which uses industry standard publications/sources for its market data.
5.4 SAFEKEEPING
All securities purchased by the City under this Policy must be designated as assets of the City,
must be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis, and must be protected through
the use of a third-party custody/safekeeping agent. The City will enter into a formal agreement
with an institution of such size and expertise as is necessary to provide the services needed to
protect and secure the investment assets of the City.
5.5 COLLATERALIZATION
To the extent not insured by federal agencies that secure deposits, City funds (including
financial institution deposits and C.D.’s) must be collateralized or enhanced in compliance with
the Texas Public Funds Collateral Act and pertinent federal banking regulations. The City
reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to accept or reject any form of insurance or
collateralization pledged towards depository deposits. Institutions serving as a depository will
be required to sign a Depository/Collateral Agreement with the City. The collateralized deposit
portion of the Agreement shall define the City’s rights to the collateral in case of default,
bankruptcy, or closing and shall establish a perfected security interest in compliance with
Federal and State regulations, including:
· The agreement must be in writing;
· The agreement has to be executed by the Depository and the City contemporaneously
with the acquisition of the asset;
· The agreement must be approved by the Board of Directors or designated committee of
the Depository and a copy of the meeting minutes must be delivered to the City; and
· The agreement must be part of the Depository’s “official record” continuously since its
execution.
Securities pledged as collateral must be retained in an independent third party bank in the City’s
name. The City will be provided the original safekeeping receipt on each pledged security. With
the exception of the Federal Reserve Bank, the City, financial institution, and the safekeeping
bank(s) will operate in accordance with a master safekeeping agreement signed by each of the
parties. The contract and/or agreement governing the collateral pledge must be approved by
the financial institution’s board of directors, loan committee, or other designated committee and
documented as approved in the minutes of the meeting. The City's Investment Officers must
approve in writing the release of collateral prior to its removal from the safekeeping account in
accordance with the terms of depository agreement.
The financial institution(s) with which the City invests and/or maintains deposits will require the
custodian to provide monthly a listing of the collateral pledged to the City marked to current
market prices. The listing will include total pledged securities itemized by name, CUSIP, type
and description of the security; safekeeping receipt number; par value; current market value;
maturity date, if available; and Moody's or Standard & Poor's rating, if available.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 8
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
SECTION 6: REPORTING
6.1 QUARTERLY REPORTING
The Investment Officers shall prepare and submit to the Council a quarterly report on
investment transactions for all funds covered by this Policy. The report will be prepared in
compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act. The report will cover the investment position
of the City at the end of the each fiscal quarter. The contents will include at a minimum:
1. Beginning and ending market value of the portfolio;
2. Beginning and ending market value and book value, maturity date, type of
funds, interest coupon, accrued interest and yield for each separate
security; and
3. A statement as to the compliance with this Policy and State law.
6.2 ANNUAL REPORTING
Within 90 days following the end of the fiscal year, the Investment Officers will present to the
City Council a comprehensive annual report on the investment program and investment activity.
In addition to the information required for quarterly reporting, the annual report will include a
review of the activities and return for the twelve months, suggest Policy revisions and
improvements that might enhance the investment program, and include an investment plan for
the ensuing fiscal year.
6.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
In order to evaluate portfolio performance of funds subject to this Policy, the City establishes
“weighted average yield to maturity” as the standard portfolio performance measurement. The
portfolio’s performance will be compared against appropriately competitive and reasonable
benchmarks, including money market mutual funds or investment pools of similar make-up and
maturities.
6.4 COMPLIANCE
The quarterly reports shall be formally reviewed and a compliance audit of management
controls and adherence to this Policy as it relates to the City’s investments and investing activity
will be performed on an annual basis in conjunction with the City’s annual financial audit. The
results shall be reported to the City Council.
SECTION 7: POLICY REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS
This Investment Policy will be reviewed by the City Council on at least an annual basis as
required by the Public Funds Investment Act and make amendments as necessary. The
Council will review the Policy as part of the annual investment report presented by staff.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 9
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\25392B01-F326-47B9-9D84-
3695009B7B77\PDFConvert.6131.1.Investment_Policy_2012_01.24.12_FINAL.docx
CITY OF GEORGETOWN INVESTMENT POLICY
Attachment “A”
Approved Broker/Dealer List
Bank of America/Merrill Lynch
UBS Paine Webber, Inc.
Duncan Williams
Rice Financial
Morgan Keegan
JPMorgan Chase Securities
Coastal Securities
These broker/dealers meet the City’s Investment Policy requirements.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # O
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to accept the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department National
Recreation Trails matching grant in the amount of $200,000.00 and authorize the City Manager to
execute the agreement -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgetown was awarded a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department National Recreation Trails
matching grant in May 2011. The grant is for a trail expansion that will extend the trail from Blue Hole Park
along Scenic Drive toward Carver Elementary on 17th Street. Staff is requesting that the City Manager be
authorized to execute the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this $200,000 matching grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department were approved in the
2011/2012 budget in account #120-9-0280-90-022. These funds are part of the $1 million issued from the
2008 Voter Approved Bonds for hike and bike trail expansion.
SUBMITTED BY:
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Trail Agreement
Cover Memo
Item # P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
P
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to select an architect for the design of the San Gabriel River Trail
Extension project -- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
In September Council approved the appointment of a selection committee for the purpose of reviewing
architectural qualifications and making a recommendation to City Council for a firm to design the San
Gabriel River Trail Extension. That committee includes Councilmember Gonzalez, John Hesser, Mark
Shepherd and Kimberly Garrett.
Request for qualifications were solicited and sixteen architectural/engineering firms submitted their
qualifications for review. The committee reviewed and scored each qualification statement and developed a
short list of the most qualified firms to interview. Those firms were Baker Aicklen, Halff & Assoicates,
Bost/Steger Bizzell and RVI. The selection committee is unanimously recommending that Baker Aicklen be
selected as the architect/engineer for this project based on their experience with river trails and their
knowledge of the project and existing trail system.
In addition to performing previous work with the City of Georgetown, We checked references for work they
performed in Cedar Park, Round Rock and Hutto and all were pleased with their work.
COMMENTS:
This item was reviewed and approved by the Parks Board at their January 12 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
A fee proposal and contract will be brought forward at the next City Council meeting for approval
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Architect Evaluation
Cover Memo
Item # Q
Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Totals
1 2 3 4
Garcia Design 79 69 73 77 298
Garret-Ihnen 54 32 64 65 215
BWM Group 60 71 84 82 297
Halff 88 79 86 74 327
Bury & Partners 72 63 84 66 285
KGA 62 54 82 68 266
RVI 80 70 91 80 321
CFZ Group 68 60 80 64 272
Ten Eyck 41 36 72 64 213
SEC Planning 69 55 94 64 282
DFL Group 57 54 76 66 253
Bost/Steger & Bizzzel 84 58 82 83 307
Baker Aicklen 81 74 81 78 314
Clark Fuller 48 38 70 63 219
Studio 8 67 45 70 63 245
AMEC 68 53 90 65 276
Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator
1 2 3 4
Baker Aicklen Baker Aicklen Baker Aicklen Baker Aicklen
Bost/Steger Halff RVI Halff
Halff RVI Halff RVI
RVI Bost/Steger Bost/Steger Bost Steger
San Gabriel River Trail Extension
Results based on Requests for Qualifications
Ranking of Design Firms after Interviews
Architectural Services Evaluation
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # Q
Garcia Design Garret-Ihnen BWM Group Halff Bury & Partners KGA RVI CFZ Group Ten Eyck SEC Planning DFL Group Steger & Bizzzel Baker Aicklen Clark Fuller Studio 8
Experience of architect team 12 pts. 11 9 8 12 9 8 11 11 9 8 10 11 10 9 9
Possess professional license 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Experience designing
river trails 20pts 14 12 12 17 15 9 16 14 10 12 10 15 14 9 12
Work completed locally 15 pts. 8 8 9 14 6 7 8 9 5 7 12 12 12 8 5
Project affiliations 2 pts. 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2
Credentials of local consultant
personnel 5pts 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 4
Local familiarity 4 pts. 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 1 5 4 4 4 2 3
Present workload 5 pts. 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 1 3 3 5 4 3 4
Cost/budget adherence on
past projects 10 pts. 9 0 8 9 9 8 9 6 0 6 0 8 8 1 7
Schedule adherence on past
projects 10pts 9 0 0 7 8 8 8 5 0 8 0 9 9 1 8
Evidence of design excellence 10 pts. 8 7 8 8 7 6 9 5 8 8 7 7 8 5 7
Number of professionals and
other staff assigned to project 5pts 4 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 3 4
Total 120pts 79 54 60 88 72 62 80 68 41 69 57 84 81 48 67
River Trail Extension Architect Evaluation
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
Q
AMEC
10
2
11
7
2
4
2
3
8
7
8
4
68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
Q
Garcia Design Garret-Ihnen BWM Group Halff Bury & Partners KGA RVI CFZ Group Ten Eyck SEC Planning DFL Group Steger & Bizzzel Baker Aicklen Clark Fuller Studio 8
Experience of architect team 12 pts. 9 8 10 10 8 8 10 10 8 5 8 8 10 8 8
Possess professional license 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
Experience designing
river trails 20pts 13 5 14 16 13 10 16 15 5 13 12 10 16 3 8
Work completed locally 15 pts. 10 3 10 10 8 5 8 5 2 10 10 9 8 0 2
Project affiliations 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0
Credentials of local consultant
personnel 5pts 3 0 3 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 3 4 4 0 0
Local familiarity 4 pts. 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 4 3 0 1
Present workload 5 pts. 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3
Cost/budget adherence on
past projects 10 pts. 8 1 7 9 7 3 8 8 2 5 4 5 7 7 7
Schedule adherence on past
projects 10pts 8 1 6 8 7 5 8 8 2 5 4 5 7 7 7
Evidence of design excellence 10 pts. 5 1 8 8 7 7 6 0 5 6 2 0 8 0 2
Number of professionals and
other staff assigned to project 5pts 4 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 5 4 5 5
Total 120pts 69 32 71 79 63 54 70 60 36 55 54 58 74 38 45
River Trail Extension Architect Evaluation
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
Q
AMEC
8
2
12
2
2
0
1
3
8
8
2
5
53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
Q
Garcia Design Garret-Ihnen BWM Group Halff Bury & Partners KGA RVI CFZ Group Ten Eyck SEC Planning DFL Group Steger & Bizzzel Baker Aicklen Clark Fuller Studio 8 AMEC
Experience of architect team 12 pts. 10 10 11 12 11 11 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 10 10 11
Possess professional license 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Experience designing
river trails 20pts 15 13 18 18 19 20 20 18 12 20 12 14 14 14 16 19
Work completed locally 15 pts. 10 8 14 14 14 10 14 9 9 15 9 15 12 8 6 13
Project affiliations 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
Credentials of local consultant
personnel 5pts 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Local familiarity 4 pts. 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 3
Present workload 5 pts. 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Cost/budget adherence on
past projects 10 pts. 7 5 8 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 7 7 6 6 6 8
Schedule adherence on past
projects 10pts 7 6 6 8 6 8 8 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 7 9
Evidence of design excellence 10 pts. 7 7 7 8 7 8 7 9 9 8 8 6 9 6 6 9
Number of professionals and
other staff assigned to project 5pts 3 3 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4
Total 120pts 73 64 84 86 84 87 91 80 72 94 76 82 81 70 70 90
River Trail Extension Architect Evaluation
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
Q
Garcia Design Garret-Ihnen BWM Group Halff Bury & Partners KGA RVI CFZ Group Ten Eyck SEC Planning DFL Group Steger & Bizzzel Baker Aicklen Clark Fuller Studio 8 AMEC
Experience of architect team 12 pts. 10 6 10 10 6 8 10 6 6 6 6 10 10 6 6 8
Possess professional license 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Experience designing
river trails 20pts 10 6 10 10 6 6 10 6 6 6 10 12 10 6 6 6
Work completed locally 15 pts. 10 7 12 7 7 8 12 6 6 6 10 10 8 4 4 4
Project affiliations 2 pts. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Credentials of local consultant
personnel 5pts 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 3 3
Local familiarity 4 pts. 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 2 2 2
Present workload 5 pts. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Cost/budget adherence on
past projects 10 pts. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Schedule adherence on past
projects 10pts 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Evidence of design excellence 10 pts. 8 8 10 8 8 7 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8
Number of professionals and
other staff assigned to project 5pts 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Total 120pts 77 65 82 74 66 68 80 64 64 64 76 83 78 63 63 65
River Trail Extension Architect Evaluation
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # Q
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appoint a selection committee for the purpose of evaluating and
recommending a Construction Manager-at-Risk for The Public Safety Operations and Training Facility
-- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
In August the City Council authorized staff to utilize the Construction Manager-at-Risk method of
construction for the Public Safety Operations and Training Facility. We are ready to solicit for the
qualifications for the CM-at-Risk and would like to have a selection committee in place to review those
qualifications. Mayor Garver is recommending that Councilmember Jonrowe, Councilmember Gonzalez, Joe
Pondron, Chief Nero, Chief Fite and Terry Jones be appointed to the Public Safety Construction Manager-at-
Risk selection committee.
The committee will be bringing a recommendation to Council on this item in March.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # R
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the contract with Lower Colorado River
Authority (“LCRA”) for the purchase of electric distribution and transmission materials for FY
2011/2012 from vendor award contract for the LCRA Electric Material Acquisition Program in the estimated
amount of $1,750,000.00 -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager and Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
ITEM SUMMARY:
Approval of this agreement will allow the City of Georgetown to continue the periodic purchases of electric
distribution and transmission material directly from the vendor awarded the Electric Material Acquisition
Services Contract by LCRA. By using this agreement, the City will be able to take advantage of lower prices
and stock availability to do volume purchasing.
Materials purchased through this agreement are items not included on any bids formally issued and
awarded by the City. Items are purchased on an as needed basis and are stocked in the City warehouse to be
used by the Electric Department for new service installations and maintenance of the electric system. The
total of this bid was based on an estimated quantity from the previous year.
According to Texas Local Government Code 271.102 (c), the City satisfies any state laws requiring
the local government to seek competitive bids for the purchase of the goods and services when purchasing
under Subchapter F. Cooperative Purchasing Program. The Texas Local Government Code 271.101 states
that a municipality may participate in a local agreement with a special district.
This is a continuation of the previous agreement for FY 2010-2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of this agreement with LCRA for the periodic purchase of Electric
Distribution materials from the vendor awarded the Electric Material Acquisition Services Contract by
LCRA.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:
GUS Board did not meet in January due to lack of quorum available. Item needed to move forward to
Council on staff recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this additional expenditure are available in the Electric Operations Capital Improvement and
Operations Budget’s:
Maintenance Distribution System
Fund – 610-5-0523-51-530
Actual -- $200,000.00
Budget -- $447,075.00
Avail Budget-- $415,941.74
Cover Memo
Item # S
Developer Projects
Fund – 610-5-0523-52-905
Actual -- $350,000.00
Budget -- $640,000.00
Avail Budget-- $640,000.00
System Improvement
Fund – 610-9-0580-90-300
Actual -- $700,000.00
Budget -- $1,280,000.00
Avail Budget-- $1,280,000.00
System Expansion
Fund – 610-9-0580-90-400
Actual -- $500,000.00
Budget -- $960,000.00
Avail Budget-- $960,000.00
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager / Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ATTACHMENTS:
LCRA Materials Acquisition Program
Cover Memo
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # S
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # S
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation to renew contracts for Tree Trimming and Vegetation
Management Bid to National Tree Expert Company, Inc. of Burnet, Texas, in the estimated amount of
$230,000.00 -- Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager and Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
ITEM SUMMARY:
This first renewal of the Tree Trimming and Vegetation Management is an annual contract as provided for in
the agreement. Contracts were enacted on March 22, 2011 resultant of bid # 201119. National Tree has
performed well over the past year with tree trimming services across the City’s Electric System. The term for
this contract renewal will end September 30, 2012 and subsequent renewals will follow the City’s fiscal year
October 1st – September 30th. The main services include scheduled trimming of existing main and lateral
lines to a planned 5 year trim cycle. Services also include tree trimming, canopy trimming, dead tree
removals adjacent to street ROW and in parks and removal of trees for extensions and upgrades to existing
facilities. The contractor will bill for labor services rendered based upon labor units and hourly time and
equipment billing as outlined with this agreement in an amount not to exceed $230,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommendation is to renew these agreements as presented to National Tree Expert Company, Inc.
of Burnet, Texas.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:
GUS Board did not meet in January due to lack of quorum available. Item needed to move forward to
Council on staff recommendation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for this expenditure are budgeted in the Electric Operations, Parks and Transportation Budgets:
ROW Maintenance
Fund – 610-5-0523-51-511
Actual -- $200,000.00
Budget -- $200,000.00
Avail Budget -- $200,000.00
Contracts and Leases
Fund – 255-5-0211-51-310
Actual -- $20,000.00
Budget -- Varies
Avail Budget -- $44,967.00
Unscheduled Street Maintenance
Fund – 100-5-0846-52-911
Cover Memo
Item # T
Actual -- $10,000.00
Budget -- $100,000.00
Avail Budget -- $92,219.93
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul Elkins, Energy Services Manager / Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
Cover Memo
Item # T
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order No. SBE-12-002 with Steger Bizzell of
Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the 2011-2012 CIP Street and
Drainage Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $209,691.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director; Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Services
Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Professional Engineering services are required for the 2011-2012 Street and Drainage Rehabilitation
Projects. Steger and Bizzell has successfully completed a variety of similar types of projects throughout
Central Texas in the past and is currently working on a task order approved in May for the 2011 Street and
Drainage projects. Due to the late start on the engineering, the completion of the 2010-2011 projects will lag
into 2012. Since the construction of the 2011 projects will not begin until Spring, staff is recommending
approval of a separate task order for engineering services related to the 2011-2012 preventative maintenance
projects. Adding the quantities to the current projects will put the needed maintenance projects back on the
normal schedule of performing the Engineering in the Winter and the construction being performed in the
late Spring, Summer and Fall.
The proposed maintenance and rehabilitation work for the streets has been identified in the pavement
condition surveys. These streets have been recommended for maintenance in the 2011-2012 CIP. The Scope
of Services is included within the Task Order, with the breakout of design team, man-hour calculations and
project schedule attached to the Task Order. In this task order, Steger Bizzell shall provide engineering
services for roadway rehabilitation/reconstruction; mill and overlay; hot in-place asphalt replacement and
pavement surface rejuvenation. The engineering work for this task order will be added to and bid on each
corresponding portion in the 2011 task order. The additions will be as follows: an estimated additional
$353,475 in curb and gutter plus an additional $427,736 in Rehabilitation for a total of $781,211 will be
added to and bid in the rehabilitation category. An estimated $686,636 additional work is to be added to the
microsurface category. An additional $207,634 will be engineered and bid with the rejuvenation portion. An
additional $525,572 will be engineered and added to the HIPR portion. The estimated total construction cost
for the additional work is $2,201,053. The listing of these projects is shown as an attachment to the proposed
Task Order.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the January
13, 2012 GTAB Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Task Order No. SBE-12-002 with Steger Bizzell of
Georgetown, Texas, for professional engineering services related to the 2011-2012 Street and Drainage
Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $206,691.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Attached is the project CIP – Street and Drainage Rehabilitation Project – Budgetary Worksheet.
SUBMITTED BY:
edward G. Polasek/Bill Dryden/Mark Miller
ATTACHMENTS:
2011-2012 Street Rehab Budget Worksheet
Task Order SBE 12-002 part 1
Task Order SBE 12-002 Part 2 Cover Memo
Item # U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
U
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
First Readingof an Ordinance renaming Southfork Road to “J.M. Page Road”; renaming a portion of
County Road 110 to “Rockride Lane”; renaming a portion of County Road 104 to “Patriot Way”;
renaming a portion of County Road 104 to “Bell Gin Road”; naming the roadway under construction
referred to as SE1 to “Sam Houston Avenue” -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services
Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Street renaming occurs under two scenarios in the City of Georgetown. The first is by petition of the
property owners, which is the case of Southfork Road. The second is when the City annexes, takes over
maintenance, or builds extensions to portions of County Roads or State Highways that make the name of
those facilities inconsistent with the City's Street Naming Policy, which is the case with County Road 104,
County Road 110 and SE 1.
J.M. Page Road
Southfork Drive includes the recently reconstructed access and public road from the southbound IH-35
frontage road to the Page House and Speedy Stop (which also fronts Leander Road). A petition was received
from Les and Jane Best to rename the road to "J.M. Page Road", which had support from the other two
property owners with access to the road. The City's Facilities, Public Park Lands and Public Streets Naming
Committee meet on December 2, 2011, to receive public comment and make a recommendation on the street
renaming. The Committee unanimously recommended approval, upon completion of the 30 day public
comment period. The public comment period concluded in early January with no additional comments
received.
Rockride Lane
County Road 110 was annexed in 2008. It was not renamed at that time, because it did not connect to or
continue a named City street. With the Construction of SE 1, it will become entirely in the City from the SE
Inner Loop to SE 1, and the named designation of County Road is inconsistent with the City’s Street Naming
Policy. Following that Policy, a ballot was sent to the property owners which contained the names “Cotton
Gin,” “Balcones,” and “William Travis.” A majority of the property owners petitioned for a new ballot with
the name “Rockride Road” added to the list. “Rockride Road” won to vote for the second ballot. The Ride on
Center for Kids is located on “Rockride Road.”
Bell Gin
County Road 104 was annexed in 2008. It was not renamed at that time because it did not connect to or
continue a named City street. With the Construction of SE 1, it will be two separate and distinct streets that
do not connect and intersect SE 1 at different locations. The portion to the South of SE 1 is the old County
Road which connected the City of Georgetown to the old Bell Gin located near the intersection of CR 104
and CR 110. Following the Street Naming Policy, a ballot was sent to the property owners along the road
with the names “Bell Gin,” “Pine Tree,” and “Ponderosa” as possible names. Bell Gin had the majority of
first place votes.
Patriot Way
This is the northern portion of County Road 104, which runs from SE 1, under SH 130 to SH 29, in front of
the new Georgetown Eastview High School. Following the Street naming Policy, a ballot was sent to the
property owners along the road with the names “Brinklum,” “Redhawk,” “Raven,” and “Wild Land.” A
majority of the property owners petitioned for a new ballot with the name “Patriot Way.” “Patriot Way”
narrowly had the most first name preferences in the second ballot.
Sam Houston Avenue
SE 1, is under construction at this time. While it is part of the future SH 29 Bypass, it is not a state raodway
at this time, and therefore must be named. Staff is recommending Sam Houston Avenue, naming this
important roadway after one of leaders of the establishment of the State of Texas, and our only President as a
sovereign nation.
Cover Memo
Item # V
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Ballot CR 110/Rockride
CR 110/Rockride Area Map
JM Page/Southfork Area Map
Ballot Bell Gin Road
Ballot Patriot Way
Bell Gin Area Map
Patriot Way Area Map
Ordinance Street Renaming
Cover Memo
Item # V
L E A N D E R R D
O A K L A N D
D R
W
O
O
D
M
O
N
T
D
R
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
R I D G E O A K D R
L
U
T
H
E
R
D
R
E
N
T
R 260 S
B
L I V E O A K D R
SP A NIS H
O A K CIR
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
E
N
T
R
2
6
1
S
B
1 inch = 200 feet
Speed y StopFood Stores, LLC
Leander Rd, LLC(Steve Turner)
Les & Jane Best(Th e Page H ouse)
Georgetown A pts, LTD.
Exhibit #1
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
Cotton Gin Balcones William Travis
3 3 1 27 total
1 3 2
1 2 3
1 3 3
1 2 3
2 3 1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 3 2
2 1 3
1 3 2
15 27 26
Second Vote
Cotton Gin Balcones William TravisRockride
1 3 4 2
4 4 4 1
2 3 4 1
4 4 4 1
1 4 2 3
1 3 4 2
4 4 4 1
4 4 4 1 Called in
4 4 1 4
2 1 3 4
3 2 4 1
4 3 1 2
4 4 4 1
4 4 4 1
1 2 3 4
4 1 4 4
2 4 3 1
1 3 2 4
1 4 2 3
1 3 2 4
2 4 3 1
1 3 4 2
1 3 4 2
56 74 74 50
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
Z E N I T H
R D
C
R
1
1
0
O
L
D
P
E
A
K
R
D
P I N N A C L E D R
G R E E N S L O P E L N
E R I D G E
L I N E
B L V D
C
A
R
O
L C
T
B R O A D
P E A K R D
JAN LN
C
R
1
0
4
C A R L S O N C V
A
V
A
L
A
N
C
H
E
A
V
E
P
R
E
C
I
P
I
C
E
W
A
Y
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
E
L
L
G
I
N
R
D
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
SE INNER LOOP
C R 1 1 1
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
1 inch = 1,250 feet
P
r
o
p
s
e
d
R
o
c
k
r
i
d
e
L
n
Exhibit #1
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
Bell Gin Pine Tree Ponderosa
1 3 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 3 3
3 2 1
1 3 3
1 3 2
3 2 1
2 3 1
3 1 2
3 3 3
1 3 2
3 2 1
24 32 28
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
M A D I S O N
D R
B
R
I
A
N
C
I
R
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
C
I
R
M
E
L
I
S
S
A
C
I
R
C R 1 0 5
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
T
R
I
O
T
W
A
Y
M A T T H E W L N
C
R
1
0
4
C R 1 1 0
SAM HOUSTON AVE
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
E
L
L
G
I
N
R
D
1 inch = 500 feet
P
r
o
p
s
e
d
B
e
ll
G
i
n
R
d
Exhibit #1
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
Brinklum Redhawk Raven Wild Land
4 2 3 1
4 1 2 3
4 1 2 3
3 1 2 4
4 3 2 1
2 3 1 4
3 1 2 4
4 1 3 2
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
4 2 1 3
4 2 1 3
4 1 2 3
4 2 1 3
4 1 2 3
3 2 1 4
1 2 3 4
54 29 34 53
Second vote
Brinklum Redhawk Raven Wild Land Patriot
5 2 1 3 4
3 1 2 4 5
3 2 1 4 5
5 2 4 3 1
5 1 2 4 3
3 5 4 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 2 1 3 4
5 3 4 2 1
1 3 4 5 2
1 3 4 5 2
3 5 1 4 2
5 1 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 1
5 5 5 5 1
4 2 3 5 1
5 2 3 1 4
5 3 4 1 2
1 5 5 5 5
74 56 61 68 50
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
W
H
I
T
E
E
A
G
L
E
P
A
S
S
A
L
Y
S
O
N
L
N
R O C K
D O V E L N
B
R
O
O
K
M
E
A
D
O
W
C
V
E SH 29
C R 1 0 4
J A C O B S
W A Y
L
E
S
A
L
N
E A G L E
T R A C E D R
I N D I A N
M E A D O W D R
B
E
R
R
Y
L
N
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
R
D
O L I V I A
C T
M
O
N
T
A
L
V
O
L
N
C
O
V
E
Y
L
N
CR 104
C R 1 0 5
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
T
H
U
N
D
E
R
B
I
R
D
L
N
P V R 9 1 0
S
H
1
3
0
S
B
R O N A L D R D
R O C K N E Y R D
S H A R O N L N
F
L
I
N
T
R
O
C
K
D
R
SH 130 TOLL SB
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
EXI
T
41
5 N
B
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
E
L
L
G
I
N
R
D
C
R
1
0
3
W
I
N
D
Y
H
I
L
L
R
D
PROPOSED
PATRIOT
WAY
E
A
S
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
SH 130 TOLL NB
E
X
I
T
4
1
5
S
B
E
N
T
R
4
1
5
S
B
EXIT 417 NB
SAM HOUSTON AVE
ENTR 417 NB
ENTR 417 SB
E
N
T
R
4
1
5
N
B
EXIT 417 SB
LAWHON LN
1 inch = 1,250 feet
Propsed Patriot Way
Exhibit #1
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
Street Renaming Ordinance: January 2012 Ordinance No. ________
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, RENAMING SOUTHFORK ROAD TO “J.M. PAGE ROAD”;
RENAMING A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 110 TO “ROCKRIDE LANE”;
RENAMING A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 104 TO “PATRIOT WAY”;
RENAMING A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 104 TO “BELL GIN ROAD”;
NAMING THE ROADWAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION REFERRED TO AS SE1
TO “SAM HOUSTON AVENUE” REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Whereas, on January 24, 2006, the City adopted an ordinance establishing a uniform
addressing and street naming policy for the City; and
Whereas, on November 14, 2006, the City adopted a resolution creating the Policy for
Naming City Facilities, Public Park Lands and Public Streets; and
Whereas, on December 2, 2011, the City appointed Street and Facility Naming Committee
recommended approved on a citizen request to rename Southfork Road to J.M. Page Road,
following procedures outlined in the Policy for Naming City Facilities, Public Park Lands and Public
Streets; and
Whereas, due to annexation of areas that include portions of County Road 104 Right of Way
and County Road 110 Right of Way the continued use of the name “County Road” on the annexed
portion is inconsistent with the City’s street naming policy;
Whereas, due to the City of Georgetown sponsored construction of a roadway connecting
the SE Inner Loop and State Highway 130, which is not named in platting or any other officially
recorded documents;
Whereas, due to the City of Georgetown sponsored construction of a roadway connecting
the SE Inner Loop and State Highway 130, County Road 104 will be divided into two non-contiguous
roadways;
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Georgetown finds that it is in the public’s best
interest to resolve these inconsistencies by assigning names to the subject streets in a manner
consistent with the City’s street naming policy.
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 following Vision Statements, Goals and Policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 3: Provide a development framework for the fringe that guides sound, sustainable patterns of
land use, limits sprawl, protects community character, demonstrates sound stewardship of the
environment, and provides for efficient provision of public services and facilities as the city
expands.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # V
Street Renaming Ordinance: January 2012 Ordinance No. ________
Page 2 of 2
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with
any other 2030 Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements, Goals and Policies..
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Georgetown hereby:
a. Renames “Southfork Road” to “J.M. Page Road” for the entire length of the roadway;
b. Renames a portion of “County Road 110” to “Rockride Lane” from the Intersection of the
SE Inner Loop south to the current City Limits;
c. Rename a portion of “County Road 104” to “Patriot Way” from State Highway 29 East
south to the intersection of Sam Houston Avenue (SE 1 construction project);
d. Rename a portion of “County Road 104” to “Bell Gin Road” from Sam Houston Avenue
(SE 1 construction project) south to the current City Limits;
e. Name the roadway under construction referred to as SE1 to “Sam Houston Avenue”.
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 and be in full force and effect in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 24th day of January, 2011.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 14th day of February, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
____________________________ ____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary By: George Garver, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # V
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2010/11 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) due to
conditions that resulted in year end budget variances; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and
repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Lorie Lankford, Controller, Susan
Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
THIS ITEM IS FOR THE 2010/11 BUDGET (PRIOR YEAR) - Traditionally, the City has to adopt a "clean
up" budget amendment for its previous fiscal year once that year has ended. The impact of these amendments
are already included in the YE Fund Balances and are necessary to meet legislative requirements and for
compliance issues related to the year end 10/11 audit. The amendments include costs for operations, grants
and capital expenditures that were previously unknown at the time the 2011/12 budget was adopted or
last amended.
The General Fund requires a budget amendment for additional expenditures. The Community Services
Division had higher than budgeted program expenditures with corresponding revenues to off-set the
increase. Environmental Services had higher operating expenditures with revenues to offset the
increase. Transportation Services and Transfer Out require a fund balance budget amendment related to
capital improvements and STEP grant.
The Library Special Revenue Fund had additional expenditures related to the purchase of the Bookmobile
funded with donations from Friends of the Library. The City received grant funding for public safety
expenditures related to FEMA funded expenditures and the STEP overtime grant for Police. Police purchased
equipment with forfeited seized funds therefore requiring a budget amendment. The Downtown TIRZ Fund
requires a budget amendment related to a downtown parking garage study. The Tourism Fund had higher
operational expenditures than budgeted but with increased revenues to fund the amendment. The
Conservation Fund had increased grant related expenditures with grant revenues to fund the increase. The
City is a pass-through grantor for Williamson County for the capital costs related to the widening of
Williams Drive from TxDOT.
The Airport Fund requires a budget amendment due to the purchase of fuel, funded with revenues to offset
the expense.
Fleet Management Fund requires a budget amendment due to the purchase of Electric equipment that is
funded with a transfer from the Electric Fund.
All of the above were not known at the time the 2010/11 budget was adopted, or when any other 2010/11
budget amendment was presented to Council. This budget amendment addresses the legal and financial
appropriation needed to accommodate these changes:
General Fund $ 361,874
-Transportation Expenditures - $182,200
-STEP Grant Transfer out Expenditures - $13,474
-Environmental Services Expenditures - $80,000
-Community Services Program Expenditures - $86,200
Special Revenue Funds $ 3,419,332
-Tourism Fund - $6,700
-Library Fund (Bookmobile) - $128,730
-Fire Billing Fund - $83,900
-Conservation Fund - $101,300
-Downtown TIRZ Fund - $9,950
-Police Fund - $33,000
-Police STEP Grant Fund - $36,310
-Transportation SRF – Williamson County Grant Pass-through - $3,019,442
Cover Memo
Item # W
Fleet Management Fund $ 67,000
-Electric Equipment Purchase
Airport Fund $ 938,000
-Fuel Expenses
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The City Charter requires that a majority plus one must approve an amendment to the approved budget. The
City charter allows for budget amendments in emergency situations and when the issues and needs were
unknown at the time the budget was adopted.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
THIS IS A PRIOR YEAR AMENDMENT AND HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE 2011/12 YEAR
END AUDIT AND/FUND BALANCES.
The net increase in total budgeted expenditures for 2010/11 for the City of Georgetown is $4,786,206. The
increase is funded through increased program revenues, grants, fuel sales and fund balance.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
2010-2011 YE BA Exhibit
Cover Memo
Item # W
Budget Amendment No. 3
Page 1 of 3
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A16576C1-046E-476A-B577-
2EBC33920D5E\PDFConvert.6098.1.11_YEBA_FINAL-Ordinance.doc
ORDINANCE NO. __________________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010/11 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN
ELEMENT (BUDGET) DUE TO CONDITIONS THAT RESULTED IN YEAR END
BUDGET VARIANCES; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS
THEREOF; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the City had increased expenditures related to Transportation Services,
Environmental Services, Public Safety and Community Services which resulted in an increase
of cost in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, increased expenditures related to the following Special Revenue Funds;
Tourism, Library, Fire Billing, Downtown TIRZ, Conservation, Police and Transportation for
pass-through grant to Williamson County; and
WHEREAS, existing additional revenues are proposed to be used for the purchase of
Electric equipment in the Fleet Management Fund; and
WHEREAS, additional expenses related to fuel purchases in the Airport Fund with revenues
to offset; and
WHEREAS, these circumstances have resulted in higher than anticipated expenses; and
WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal year
2010/11 budget was approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for changes in the Annual Operating Plan by a Council
majority plus one in emergency situations;
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.
SECTION 2.
The amendment to the 2010/11 Annual Operating Plan Element (Budget) of the revenues of the
City of Georgetown and expenses of conducting the affairs thereof, is in all things adopted and
approved as an addition to the previously approved budget of the current revenues and expenses
as well as fixed charges against said City for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2010, and ending
September 30, 2011. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated
by reference herein.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # W
Budget Amendment No. 3
Page 2 of 3
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A16576C1-046E-476A-B577-
2EBC33920D5E\PDFConvert.6098.1.11_YEBA_FINAL-Ordinance.doc
SECTION 3.
The total of $4,786,206 is hereby appropriated for payments of expenditures and payments of
the funds and included in the Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 4
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. This ordinance complies
with the vision statement of the Georgetown 2030 Plan.
SECTION 5.
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 6.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary to attest. This
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption of its second and final reading by the City Council
of the City of Georgetown, Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 10th day of January, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 24th day of January, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ ______________________
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # W
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\13229686-01AF-49AC-BCB4-768D3F94F10A\[PDFConvert.6099.1.2010-2011_YE_BA-Exhibit.xlsx]A
General Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (195,674)
Community Services Program Revenue (86,200)
Environmental Services Revenue (80,000)
Expenditures
Transportation Expenditures 182,200
STEP Grant Expenditures - Transfer Out 13,474
Environmental Services Expenditures 80,000
Community Services Program Expenditures 86,200
Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0
Special Revenue Funds
Revenues/Sources:
Donations/Grants/Revenues $ (3,419,332)
Expenditures
Tourism Fund 6,700
Library Fund Donation (Bookmobile)128,730
Fire Billing Fund Grant & Equipment 83,900
Conservation Fund Grant 101,300
Downtown TIRZ 9,950
Police Fund Equipment 33,000
Police STEP Grant Expenditures 36,310
Transportation SRF/Williamson County Grant Pass-through 3,019,442
Excess revenue over expenditures $ 0
Fleet Management Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Revenues - Transfer In Electric $ (67,000)
Expenses
Electric equipment 67,000
Excess revenue over expenses $ 0
Airport Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Revenues - Fuel $ (938,000)
Expenses
Fuel expenses 938,000
Excess revenue over expenses $ 0
Total Budget Amendment 4,786,206
EXHIBIT A
Annual Operating Plan Element (Budget) Amendment
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # W
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Second Readingof an Ordinance Rezoning 2.54 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey from the Industrial (IN)
District to General Commercial (C-3) District, located at 2300 North Austin Avenue -- Carla Benton,
Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:The applicant has requested a rezoning from Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial
(C-3) District. Their intent is to provide more commercial options for the lease of existing buildings on their
site. See the attached Staff Report for additional information.
Public Comments:At the Planning and Zoning meeting of December 6, 2011 there were no speakers.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:The Public Hearing was opened at the December 6,
2011 Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 7-0.
City Council Public Hearing and First Reading: On January 10, 2012 at the regular meeting this request
was approved by vote of 6-0. There were no speakers for this item.
Special Considerations:None
Recommended Motion:Approval of the Second Reading of an Ordinance for rezoning from Industrial (IN)
District to General Commercial (C-3) District for 2.54 acres in the A. Flores Survey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Carla Benton
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Location Map #1
Future Land Use Map #2
Zoning Map #3
Aerial Map #4
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
Ordinance Exhibit A
Ordinance Exhibit B
Cover Memo
Item # X
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Flores Survey, 2.54 ac., Rezoning Page 1 of 4
Daniel Tract
Report Date: November 21, 2011
File No: REZ-2011-022
Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner II
Item Details
Project Name: Daniel Tract
Location: 2300 N. Austin Avenue (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 2.54 acres
Legal Description: 2.54 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey
Applicant: Ben Daniel
Property Owner: Ben Daniel
Contact: Ben Daniel
Existing Use: Five commercial buildings for lease
Existing Zoning: Industrial (IN)
Proposed Zoning: General Commercial (C-3)
Future Land Use: Community Commercial
Growth Tier: Tier 1A
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a rezoning from Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial
(C-3) District. Their intention is to provide more commercial options for the lease of existing
buildings on their site.
Site Information
Location:
The 2.54 acres is located on North Austin Avenue, south of the intersection with David Ferretti
Drive.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently developed with five buildings for lease for a total of approximately
8,600 square feet of tenant space plus a 7,200 square foot shed that has been used for
manufacturing and storage.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # X
Planning & Development Staff Report
Flores Survey, 2.54 ac., Rezoning Page 2 of 4
Daniel Tract
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North Industrial Community
Commercial
Multi-tenant strip center and
automotive shop
South C-3 Community
Commercial
Multi-tenant strip center and
muffler shop
East Public Facility Institutional GISD High School
West Industrial Community
Commercial
Self Storage, Daycare and
residence
See Exhibits 2 and 3
Property History
The tract is a nonconforming where the owner has attempted to continue the use of existing
structures within the Industrial District category. The applicant has had difficulty with leasing
the site for only industrial uses. He has requested the rezoning to allow the buildings to have
a zoning district more compatible with the type of structures that are for lease.
To assist in the potential leasing of the property, the applicant requested an Alternative
Parking Plan for the entire site to be allowed to provide a shared parking plan. The plan
provided for 46 parking spaces and enabled a safer parking arrangement by redesigning the
head-in parking along Austin Avenue to parallel parking. The Alternative Parking Plan was
approved by the Division Director on May 20, 2011.
2030 Plan Conformance
The proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of
Community Commercial. “Commercial areas are those where the predominant activities
involve the production, distribution and or sale of goods and services. These areas strengthen
the city’s commercial base and create employment opportunities for the community and
should maximize compatibility of standards of these uses with adjacent land uses.” The
Community Commercial designation is typically foreseen as including neighborhood serving
commercial uses as well as larger retail uses and including office and service oriented
businesses.
The proposed rezoning will provide for compatibility with commercial uses in this area that
include retail, commercial lease space, and automotive uses that are all allowed within the
proposed General Commercial (C-3) District. The Community Commercial land use is
generally a considered a moderate to lower density commercial land use, but may include
mid-box and shopping centers. The proposed change from an Industrial District to a General
Commercial (C-3) District is viewed as a progressive step toward turning this tract into a
more compatible area for the future.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # X
Planning & Development Staff Report
Flores Survey, 2.54 ac., Rezoning Page 3 of 4
Daniel Tract
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 1A. Tier 1A 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 over the near term.
Proposed Zoning District
The C-3 District is intended to provide a location for general commercial and retail activities
that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be larger in scale and generate
substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only appropriate along major arterials and
freeways. Typically uses may include emergency services, restaurants and drive-thru
restaurants, medical facilities, offices, retail, personal services, banking, consumer and small
engine repair, funeral home, veterinary clinic, automotive parts and repair (limited), and other
related uses. A C-3 District is required to be a minimum of 5 acres and this application is able
to meet that requirement by becoming a part of an existing C-3 District to the south.
Utilities
Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. Because the rezoning is
from Industrial (IN) District to Commercial (C-3) District, the utility demand should be
significantly reduced. The current site has not had problems with capacity as used today;
however, changes in use will be considered individually.
Transportation
The site is located on a major arterial with secondary access from David Ferretti Drive. A
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning as
determined by the City of Georgetown Development Engineer.
Future Application(s)
At a minium, the following applications would be required:
· Certificate of Occupancy for all new leases.
Staff Analysis
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning to the C-3 District for the following reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Community Commercial supports commercial
uses.
2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area – The site is located in an
industrial district with existing commercial and industrial uses. The C-3 District to the
south contains compatible commercial uses and extends the C-3 District thereby
meeting the minimum 5-acre requirement; and
3. The proposed C-3 District is reducing the intensity of the zoning for this property,
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # X
Planning & Development Staff Report
Flores Survey, 2.54 ac., Rezoning Page 4 of 4
Daniel Tract
which will be more compatible with the overall area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed project as the site would provide for appropriate access
from an arterial level roadway, is compatible with surrounding uses, the 2030 Future Land
Use Plan, and the intent of the C-3 District.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 12 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 20, 2011. No public
comments were received at the time of this report.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2011)
Meetings Schedule
December 6, 2011 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 10, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending)
January 24, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # X
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
PARQUE VI S T A D R P A R Q U E V I S T A D R
PA R Q U E C T
P A R Q U E C V
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
N AUSTIN AVE
DAVID FERRETTI DR
N IH 35 FWY NB
PARKVIEW DR
GOLDEN OAKS RD
EXIT 264 NB
S H A D Y H O LLO
W
D
R
B E N C H M A R K S T
C R 1 5 1
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 FWY SB
P E C A N V I S T A L N
F
R
E
D
D
I
E
D
R
AIRPORT RD
O L D A I R P O R T R D
OL
D AIRPORT
RD
REZ-2
011-0
22
0 800 1,600Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-022
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # X
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
GARDEN VIEW DR
N AUSTIN AVE
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
DAVID FERRETTI DR
N IH 35 SB
EXIT 262 SB
GOLDEN O A K S RD
N IH 35 FWY NB
C R 1 5 1
EXIT 264 NB
SHADY H O L L O W D R
N IH 35 FWY SB
P E C A N V I S T A L N
AIRPORT RD
O L D A I R P O R T R D
OL
D AIRPORT
RD
REZ-2
011-0
22
0 800 1,600Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Community Com mercial
Ag / Rural Residential
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
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2011-022
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # X
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
E.T.J.
PARQUE V I S T A D R P A R Q U E V I S T A D R
M E D A S T
PA R Q U E C T
P A R Q U E C V
N AUSTIN AVE
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
DAVID FERRETTI DR
AIRPORT RD
PARKVIEW DR
N IH 35 FWY NB
GOLDEN OAKS RD
EXIT 264 NB
S H A D Y H O LL
O
W
D
R
B E N C H M A R K S T
C R 1 5 1
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 FWY SB
P E C A N V I S T A L N
F
R
E
D
D
I
E
D
R
O L D A I R P O R T R D
OL
D AIRPORT
RD
REZ-2
011-0
22
A
G
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AG Agriculture
C-1 LocalCommercial
C-1 Local
Commercial
C -1 L o c a l
C o m m e r c i a l
C -1 L o c a l
C o m m e r c i a l
C-3 General
Commercial
C -3 G e n e r a l
C o m m e r c i a l
IN Industrial
IN Industrial
RS ResidentialSingle-Family
R S R e s i d e n ti a l
S i n g l e -F a m ily
R
S
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
il
y
RS Residential
Single-Family
RS Residential
Single-Family
RS Residential
Single-Family
RS ResidentialSingle-Family
T
F
T
w
o
F
a
m
ily
AG Agriculture
R S R e s i d e n t i a l
S i n g l e -F a m il y
PF Public
Facility
0 800 1,600Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
REZ-2011-022 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # X
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
E.T.J.
PARQUE VI S T A D R P A R Q U E V I S T A D R
M E D A S T
PARKVIEW DR
PA R Q U E C T
P A R Q U E C V
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
N AUSTIN AVE
DAVID FERRETTI DR
N IH 35 FWY NB
EXIT 264 NB
GOLDEN OAKS RD
S H A D Y H O LL
O
W
D
R
B E N C H M A R K S T
C R 1 5 1
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 FWY SB
P E C A N V I S T A L N
AIRPORT RD
F
R
E
D
D
I
E
D
R
O L D A I R P O R T R D
OL
D AIRPORT
RD
REZ-2
011-0
22
0 800 1,600Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-022
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # X
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, Gene
Facey, Pat Armour, Sally Pell and John Horne
Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin, Roland Peña and Robert Massad
Commissioner(s) Absent: none
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: none
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton,
Planner; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Long Range; Valerie Kreger, Principal
Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and
Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Regular Agenda
5. Public Hearing and possible action on an Ordinance rezoning 2.54 acres in the Antonio
Flores Survey, from I, Industrial District to C-3, General Commercial District located at
2300 North Austin Avenue. REZ-2011-022 (Carla Benton)
Staff report by Carla Benton. The applicant has requested a rezoning from Industrial
(IN) District to General Commercial (C-3) District. Their intention is to provide
more commercial options for the lease of existing buildings on their site.
The C-3 District is intended to provide a location for general commercial and retail
activities that serve the entire community and its visitors. Uses may be larger in
scale and generate substantial traffic, making the C-3 District only appropriate along
major arterials and freeways. Typically uses may include emergency services,
restaurants and drive-thru restaurants, medical facilities, offices, retail, personal
services, banking, consumer and small engine repair, funeral home, veterinary
clinic, automotive parts and repair (limited), and other related uses. A C-3 District is
required to be a minimum of 5 acres and this application is able to meet that
requirement by becoming a part of an existing C-3 District to the south.
Certificates of Occupancy will be required for all new leases.
Staff is supportive of the proposed project as the site would provide for appropriate
access from an arterial level roadway, is compatible with surrounding uses, the 2030
Future Land Use Plan, and the intent of the C-3 District.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # X
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak.
Ben Daniel, 2300 N. Austin Ave. stated he hopes the Commission will approve his
application and will be glad to answer questions.
Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial (C-3) District for 2.54
acres in the A. Flores Survey located at 2300 N. Austin Ave. Second by
Commissioner Armour. Approved. (7-0)
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # X
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending
part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th Day of April 2002 in accordance
with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th Day of March
2003, to rezone 2.54 acres in the Antonio Flores Survey from Industrial (IN)
District to General Commercial (C-3) District, as recorded in the Deed Reference,
Volume 2462, Page 946 and Document Number in 2003085211 of the Official
Public Records of Williamson County, Texas; repealing conflicting ordinances
and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective
date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the Purpose of changing
the Zoning District Classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
2.54 acres in the A. Flores Survey from Industrial (IN) District to General
Commercial (C-3) District, as recorded in Volume 2462, Page 946 and Document
Number in 2003085211 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County,
Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The Property";
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15)
days for the first day of such publication; and
Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for
the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two
hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on December 6,
2011, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described
property from Industrial (IN) District to General Commercial (C-3) District; and
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
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # X
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the overall vision, goals and policies of the Georgetown 2030
Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is consistent with
the policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning
District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed Industrial (IN) District to
General Commercial (C-3) District, in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B
(Field Notes) and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council of the
City of Georgetown, Texas.
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 and be in full force and effect on the date of
final adoption by City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 10th day of January, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 24th day of January, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ _________________________
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # X
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
PARQUE VI S T A D R P A R Q U E V I S T A D R
PARQ
U
E
C
T
P ARQ U E C V
P
E
C
A
N
V
I
S
T
A
C
V
N A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
DAVID FERRETTI DR
N IH
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
PARKVIEW DR
GOLDEN OAKS RD
EXIT 264 NB
S H A D Y H O LLO
W
D
R
BENCHMA
R
K
S
T
CR 151
N IH 35 SB
N IH
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
PECAN VIS
T
A
L
N
F
R
E
D
D
I
E
D
R
AI
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
O L D A I R P O R T R D
OL
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
RE
Z
-
2
0
1
1
-
0
2
2
0 800 1,600Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit A
REZ-2011-022
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
X
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Second Readingof an Ordinance Rezoning 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from the Agriculture (AG)
District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District, located at the terminus of Acker Road and Caprock
Canyon Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:The applicant has requested to rezone the property from Agriculture (AG) District to
Residential Single-Family (RS) District. Their intention is to continue the development of Heritage Oaks
residential subdivision to accommodate approximately 30 single-family residential lots.
Public Comments:At the Planning and Zoning meeting of December 6, 2011 there were no speakers.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:The Public Hearing was opened at the December 6,
2011 Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 7-0.
City Council Public Hearing and First Reading: On January 10, 2012 at the regular meeting this request
was approved by vote of 6-0. There were no speakers for this item.
Special Considerations:None
Recommended Motion:Approval of the Second Reading of an Ordinance for rezoning from Agriculture
(AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District for of 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Carla Benton
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Location Map #1
Future Land Use Map #2
Zoning Map #3
Aerial Map #4
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
Ordinance Exhibit A
Ordinance Exhibit B
Cover Memo
Item # Y
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Villas at Heritage Oaks, Rezoning Page 1 of 4
Report Date: November 21, 2011
File No: REZ-2011-020
Project Planner: Carla Benton, Planner II
Item Details
Project Name: Villas at Heritage Oaks
Location: Acker Road and Caprock Canyon Drive (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 9.48 acres
Legal Description: 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey
Applicant: Paul Linehan, Land Strategies, Inc.
Property Owner: Jimmy Jacobs
Contact: Paul Linehan
Existing Use: Undeveloped land
Existing Zoning: Agriculture (AG)
Proposed Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) District
Future Land Use: Low/Moderate Residential
Growth Tier: Tier 2
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The applicant has requested a rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-
Family (RS) District. Their intention is to continue the development of Heritage Oaks
residential subdivision to accommodate approximately 30 single-family residential lots.
Site Information
Location:
The 9.48 acres is located at the terminus of Acker Road and Caprock Canyon Drive.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is currently undeveloped land with numerous trees. Although no Heritage Trees
have been identified, a survey will be provided and the platting will be designed to provide
appropriate protection for any Heritage Trees identified at that time.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties include:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # Y
Planning & Development Staff Report
Villas at Heritage Oaks, Rezoning Page 2 of 4
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North ETJ Low Density
Residential Gabriel Estates residential
South ETJ Moderate Density
Residential Undeveloped land
East Residential Single-
Family
Moderate Density
Residential Heritage Oaks residential
West Agriculture
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Center
Existing site with multiple
non-residential structures
See Exhibits 2 and 3
Property History
The tract is an undeveloped parcel that is currently in the annexation process and the base
zoning district at the conclusion of annexation will be Agriculture (AG) District.
2030 Plan Conformance
The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the 2030 Plan land use designation of Low and
Moderate Density Residential. The typical ratio of development is from 1.1 to 3 units per
gross acres for Low Density Residential and from 3 to 6 units for Moderate Density
Residential. The proposed development anticipates an overall ratio of approximately 3 units
per gross acre. The proposed level of development will provide for compatibility with
residential uses in this area that includes Heritage Oaks subdivision and Gabriel Estates.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 2. Tier 2 lies outside the
city limits, but within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). This area likely will be
needed to serve the city’s growth needs over the next 10-20 years.
Proposed Zoning District
The RS District is intended to provide a location for medium density with a minimum lot size
of 5,500 square feet. The RS District contains standards for development that maintain single-
family neighborhood characteristics and incorporates associated amenities. The District may
be located within proximity of neighborhood-friendly commercial and public services and
protected from incompatible uses.
Utilities
Electric, water, and wastewater are served by the City of Georgetown. It is anticipated that
there is adequate capacity to serve this property.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # Y
Planning & Development Staff Report
Villas at Heritage Oaks, Rezoning Page 3 of 4
Transportation
The site is located on at the terminus of Acker Road and Caprock Canyon Drive. A Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning as determined by
the City of Georgetown Development Engineer.
Future Application(s)
The following applications will be required:
· Preliminary Plat application to Planning and Zoning Commission
· Final Plat application by administrative process; and
· Building permits
Staff Analysis
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning to the C-3 District for the following reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Low/Moderate Density Residential supports the
proposed development of approximately 30 residential lots on 9.48 acres being
approximately 3 residences per gross acre that falls between the Low and Moderate
Density Residential ratio.
2. The existing zoning situation of the surrounding area – The property to the east is the
existing Heritage Oaks development and is zoned for residential development; the
area to the north is in the ETJ with a residential use. The Agriculture District to the
west fronts on Williams Drive and with potential development of a more commercial
nature; and the property to the south is undeveloped land.
3. The proposed RS District is a continuation of the intensity of the residential area to the
east and is within the scope of the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is located on local streets providing connectivity to existing neighborhood
development. Additionally, the platting process may provide opportunity to extend
connectivity to future roadway systems in the area that enhance the future roadway
plan for the overall area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed project as the site would provide for appropriate access to
local street networks, is compatible with surrounding uses, the 2030 Future Land Use Plan,
and the intent of the RS District.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 21 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 20, 2011. No public
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # Y
Planning & Development Staff Report
Villas at Heritage Oaks, Rezoning Page 4 of 4
comments were received at the time of this report.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map (2011)
Meetings Schedule
December 6, 2011 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 10, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending)
January 24, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # Y
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETO
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETO
W
N
E.T.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.J.
WILLIAMS
DR
M
O
RELAND DR
SC
H
O
OL DV
T
E
R
I
C
T
WOODLAKE DR
P A L O D U R O C A N Y O N T R L
SU N DAY
SC H O OL DR
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
C A P R O C K C A NYON TRL
S E D R O T R L
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
P E N N Y L N
R I VE RWA L K T R L
S
P
R
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
P E N N Y L N
L O S T M A P L E S TRL
VERDE VISTA
P E N N Y L N
B I G B E N D T R L
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
REZ-2 011-0 20
0 640 1,280Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-020
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Y
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W NCITY O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T.J.
CITY OF
GEORGET
OWN E.T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.
J
.
WILD
W
O
O
D D
R
S E D R O T R L
M
O
RELA
ND DR
T
E
R
I
C
T
P A L O D U R O C A N Y O N T R L
WOODLAKE DR
SU ND AY
SC H O OL DR
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
WOODSTOCK DR
CEDAR LA K E
BLVD
C A P R O C K CANYON
TRL
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
SCHO
OL DV
L O S T M A P L E S T R L
P E N N Y L N
VERDE VISTA
CLIFFWOOD DR
P E N N Y L N
WIL D W O O D D R
P E N N Y L N
WILLIA
M
S DR
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
B I G B E N D T R L
REZ-2 011-0 20
0 640 1,280Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Legend
Thoroughfare
EC
EF
EMA
EMIA
ERF
PC
PF
PFR
PMA
PMIA
PR
Future Land Use
Institutional
Regional Com mercial
Community Com mercial
Ag / Rural Residential
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
Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan
Exhibit #2REZ-2011-020
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Y
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY
OF
GEORGETO
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.
J
.
M
O
RELA
ND DR
S E D R O T R L
T
E
R
I
C
T
P A L O D U R O C A N Y O N T R L
WOODLAKE DR
WILD
W
O
O
D D
R
SU N DAY
SC H O OL DR
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
CEDAR LA K E
BLVD
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
WOODSTOCK DR
C A P R O C K C A N Y O N T R L
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
SCHO
OL DV
L O S T M A P L E S T R L
P E N N Y L N
CLIFFWOOD DR
VERDE VISTA
P E N N Y L N
WIL D W O O D D R
P E N N Y L N
WILLIA
M
S DR
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
B I G B E N D T R L
REZ-2 011-0 20
AG Agriculture
AG Agriculture
A
G
A
g
ric
u
lt
u
r
e
C-1 L
ocal
C
o
m
m
ercialC-1 Local
Commercial
C-1 Local
Commercial
C-3 General
Commercial
CN Neighborhood
Com
mercial
MF Multifamily
O
F Office
O F Office
RS Residential
Single-FamilyRS Residential
Single-Family
RS Residential
Single-Family
R S R e s i d e n t i a l
S i n g l e -F a m il y
R S R esid ential
Sin gle-F a mily
RS Residential
Single-Family
0 640 1,280Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
REZ-2011-020 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Y
CI T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F G E O R G E T O W N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETO
W
N E.T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.J.
M
O
RELAND DR
T
E
R
I
C
T
P A L O D U R O C A N Y O N T R L
OLDE
OAK DR
WOODLAKE DR
SU N DAY
SC H O OL DR
C A P R O C K C A N Y O N T R L
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
VERDE VISTA
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
WOOD S T OCK
D
R
SCH
O
OL
DV
S E D R O T R L
P E N N Y L N
WILLIAMS
DR
B I G B E N D T R L
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
P E N N Y L N
P E N N Y L N
REZ-2 011-0 20
0 640 1,280Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-020
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Y
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Ercel Brashear, Chair; Porter Cochran, Annette Montgomery, Gene
Facey, Pat Armour, Sally Pell and John Horne
Commissioners in Training: Scott Rankin, Roland Peña and Robert Massad
Commissioner(s) Absent: none
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: none
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton,
Planner; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner Long Range; Valerie Kreger, Principal
Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and
Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
6. Public Hearing and possible action on an Ordinance rezoning 9.48 acres in the Joseph
Fish Survey, from AG, Agriculture District to RS, Residential Single Family District
located at the terminus of Acker Road and Caprock Canyon Drive. REZ-2011-020
(Carla Benton) Staff report by Carla Benton. The applicant has requested a rezoning
from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District. Their
intention is to continue the development of Heritage Oaks residential subdivision to
accommodate approximately 30 single-family residential lots. The 9.48 acres is located
at the terminus of Acker Road and Caprock Canyon Drive.
The property is currently undeveloped land with numerous trees. Although no
Heritage Trees have been identified, a survey will be provided and the platting will
be designed to provide appropriate protection for any Heritage Trees identified at
that time.
Staff is supportive of the proposed project as the site would provide for appropriate
access to local street networks, is compatible with surrounding uses, the 2030 Future
Land Use Plan, and the intent of the RS District.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak.
Jim Vonner from Land Strategies stated the application will follow the low density
development guidelines and offered to answer any questions.
Chair Brashear Opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # Y
for the 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish survey located at the terminus of Acker Road
and Caprock Canyon Drive. Second by Commissioner Pell. Approved. (7-0)
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # Y
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending
part of the Zoning District Map adopted on the 4th Day of April 2002 in accordance
with the Unified Development Code passed and adopted on the 11th Day of March
2003, to rezone 9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from Agriculture (AG) District
to Residential Single-Family (RS) District, as recorded in Deed Reference,
Document Number 2006070080 of the Official Public Records of Williamson
County, Texas; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a
severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
Whereas, an application has been made to the City Council for the Purpose of changing
the Zoning District Classification of the following described real property ("The Property"):
9.48 acres in the Joseph Fish Survey from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential
Single-Family (RS) District, as recorded in Deed Reference, Document Number
2006070080 of the Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas,
hereinafter referred to as "The Property";
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change in the Base Ordinance to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration at a public hearing and for its
recommendation or report; and
Whereas, notice of such hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City; which stated the time and place of hearing, which time was not earlier than fifteen (15)
days for the first day of such publication; and
Whereas, written notice was given not less than fifteen (15) days before the date set for
the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission to all the owners of the lots within two
hundred feet of the property, as required by law; and
Whereas, the applicant for such zoning change placed on the property such sign(s) as
required by law for advertising the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, not less than
fifteen (15) days before the date set for such hearing; and
Whereas, the City Planning and Zoning Commission in a meeting held on December 6,
2011, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described
property from Agriculture (AG) District to Residential Single-Family (RS) District; and
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
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # Y
Ordinance implements the overall vision, goals and policies of the Georgetown 2030
Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is consistent with
the policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Base Ordinance and the Zoning Map of the City, as well as the Zoning
District for the Property shall be and the same is hereby changed Agriculture (AG) District to
Residential Single-Family (RS) District in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit
B (Field Notes) and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted by the City Council of
the City of Georgetown, Texas.
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 and be in full force and effect on the date of
final adoption by City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the 10th day of January, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 24th day of January, 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
______________________ _________________________
Jessica Brettle By: George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # Y
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
CITY OF
GEORGETO
W
N
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETO
W
N
E.T.J.
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T
.J.
WILLIAMS
DR
M
O
RELAND DR
SC
H
O
OL DV
T
E
R
I
C
T
WOO
D
L
A
K
E
D
R
P A L O D U R O C A N Y O N T R L
SU N DAY
SC H O OL DR
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
C A P R O C K C A NYON TRL
SEDRO TR
L
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
PENNY LN
R I VE RWA L K T R L
S
P
R
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
L
N
PENNY LN
L O S T M A P L E S TRL
VERDE VISTA
PENNY LN
B I G B E N D T R L
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
REZ-2011-020
0 640 1,280Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit A
REZ-2011-020
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
Y
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of an Ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapter 2.20 of the Code of Ordinances
relating to "Ethics" -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
On November 22, 2011, the City Council unanimously approved the following changes to the Ethics
Ordinance:
Section 2.20.70
That under Complaint Process, Subsection A, Number 3 the language be changed to read “The
complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the information contained in the
complaint is true and correct andthat the complainant has good reason to believe and does
believe that the facts alleged constitute a violation of this Chapter.”
Section 2.20.080
That language be added to the end of the Hearing Process, Section B, Number 2 as follows:
“Failure to comply with these requests becomes part of the material to be considered by the
Commission in making this determination”
Please see attached for the Ethics Ordinance incorporating these changes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
2012 Ethics Ordinance
Cover Memo
Item # Z
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS (“CITY”) AMENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2.20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO “ETHICS” INCLUDING CHANGES
TO THE COMPLAINT PROCESS; CHANGES TO THE HEARING
PROCESS; MAKING FORMATTING CHANGES; PROVIDING A
CONFLICTS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in 2004 the City Council of the City of Georgetown adopted an
Ethics Ordinance, which was codified as Chapter 2.20 of the City Code of Ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2008, the City Council directed that the members of the
City’s Ethics Commission work with staff and discuss with interested parties any
revisions to the City’s Ethics Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009 and August 20, 2010, the City Council adopted
amendments to the Ethics Ordinance reflecting recommended revisions from the Ethics
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Ethics Commission reviewed the Ethics Ordinance, as well as
the By-laws of the Ethics Commission and the Hearing Procedures, at its meetings on
April 4, 2011 and May 18, 2011 and recommended certain revisions to these
documents; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, the Ethics Commission presented its
recommendations for amendments to the Ethics Ordinance and Hearing Procedures to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the suggested revisions to the Ethics
Ordinance and Hearing Procedures.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1: Existing Chapter 2.20 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Georgetown is hereby amended to provide as follows.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 15
Item # Z
CHAPTER 2.20 ETHICS
2.20.010. DECLARATION OF POLICY
A. It is the policy of the City that the proper operation of democratic
government requires City Officials to be independent, impartial, and
responsible; and that no City Official permit any interest, financial or
otherwise, direct or indirect, or engagement in any business,
transaction, or professional activity to conflict with the proper
discharge of duties in the public interest; that governmental
decisions and policies be made in the proper channels of the
governmental structure; that public office not be used for illegal or
improper personal gain; and that City Officials shall at all times
strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partisanship.
The City Council shall be maintained as a nonpartisan body.
B. This Chapter has four purposes:
1. to establish high ethical standards in official conduct by City
Officials;
2. to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all
City Officials ;
3. to require disclosure by City Officials of private financial or
other interests in matters affecting the City; and
4. to provide discipline for those who violate this Chapter.
C. The City recognizes that City Officials are also members of society
and, therefore, cannot and should not be without any personal and
economic interest in the decisions and policies of government; that
City Officials retain their rights as citizens to interests of a personal
or economic nature and their rights to publicly express their views
on matters of general public interest. It is not the intent of this
Chapter to diminish the rights of City Officials as citizens of the
community.
D. The provisions of this Chapter do not apply to political contributions,
loans, expenditures, reports, or regulation of political campaigns or
to the conduct of candidates in campaigns.
E. This Chapter defines two types of conflicts of interest and treats
them differently. A “Substantial Financial Interest” follows Section
171.002 of the Texas Local Government Code, and the provisions
applicable to local Public Officials who have a “Substantial
Financial Interest” are set forth in Chapter 171 of the Texas Local
Government Code. This Chapter is intended to go beyond the
requirements of Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code
by addressing “Substantial Economic Interests.” An Substantial
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 15
Item # Z
Economic Interest is more comprehensive than a “Substantial
Financial Interest” and covers various kinds of economic benefits
that might accrue to a City Official that are not included in the
Texas statute.
2.20.020. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Chapter the following definitions apply.
A. Business Entity means a sole proprietorship, partnership, firm,
corporation, holding company, joint-stock company, receivership,
trust, or any other entity recognized by law.
B. City Official means the Mayor, every member of the City Council,
the City Manager, the City Secretary, the City Attorney, and all
members of any commission, committee, or board appointed by the
City Council.
C. Confidential Information means any information that a City Official
would be privy to because of the official’s position but otherwise is
not available to the public under the provisions of the Texas Public
Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code ch. 552).
D. Economic Benefit means any money, Property, contract rights,
sale, lease, option, credit, loan, discount, service, or other tangible
or intangible thing of value, whether similar or dissimilar to those
enumerated.
E. Family Member means the spouse of the City Official or any person
related to the Official or Official’s spouse in the First or Second
Degree of Consanguinity or Affinity as specified by Exhibit “A”.
F. Gift means a favor, hospitality, or Economic Benefit other than
compensation but which does not include campaign contributions
reported as required by state law, gifts received from a relative if
given on account of kinship, or any value received by will, intestate
succession, or as a distribution from an inter vivos or testamentary
trust
G. Income means Economic Benefit received.
H. Property means real estate, personal items, equipment, goods,
crops, livestock, or an equitable right to income from real estate,
personal items, equipment, goods, crops, or livestock.
I. First and Second Degree of Consanguinity or Affinity is defined in
Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein for all
purposes.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 15
Item # Z
J. Source of Income means any business entity, employment,
investment, or activity which earned or produced income, including
salary, fees, interest, dividends, royalties, or rents, which has been
paid to or for the credit of a City Official, or Family Member or which
would be taxable to said City Official, or Family Member under the
United States Internal Revenue Code, as amended, even though
not actually paid or credited.
K. Substantial Economic Interest may take several forms. It may be
established by a legal or equitable interest in Property, which
includes but is not limited to the interest of a stockholder, co-owner,
or beneficiary. Substantial Economic Interest may also be
established by a fiduciary obligation to Property, which includes, but
is not limited to, the interest of a trustee or executor. Substantial
Economic Interest may also be established by a contractual right in
Property.
A City Official and/or Family Member has a Substantial Economic
Interest if the City Official and/or Family member has a legal or
equitable interest, fiduciary obligation, or contractual right in
Property that is more than minimal or insignificant and would be
recognized by reasonable persons to have weight in deciding a
case or an issue.
Service by a City Official as an officer, director, advisor, or
otherwise active participant in an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization does not create a Substantial
Economic Interest in the Property of that organization. Ownership
of an interest in a mutual or common investment fund that holds
securities or other assets is not a Substantial Economic Interest in
the securities or other assets unless the City Official participates in
the management of the fund. A City Official does not have a
Substantial Economic Interest in a matter if the economic impact on
the City Official is indistinguishable from the impact on the public or
on the particular group affected by the matter.
L. Substantial Financial Interest means:
(1) An interest is a Business Entity if:
(a) a City Official or Family Member owns:
(i) ten percent (10%) or more of voting stock or
shares of the business entity; or
(ii) $15,000 or more of the fair market value of
the Business Entity; or
(b) a City Official or Family Member receives funds from
the Business Entity, customer or client that are ten percent (10%)
or more of the person's gross income for the previous year (e.g.
receives funds from an employer, customer, or client);
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 15
Item # Z
or
(2) An interest in real Property, if a City Official or Family
Member has a legal or equitable interest in the Property with a fair
market value of $2,500 or more. .
2.20.030. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
A. General Provisions
1. No City Official may disclose any Confidential Information
gained through the official’s position concerning Property,
operations, policies, or affairs of the City, for gain or
advantage in a Substantial Economic Interest or a
Substantial Financial Interest of the City Official or the
persons identified in Section 2.20.030.C.2.b. of the Conflicts
of Interest section of this Chapter.
2. No City Official may use the official’s position or City-owned
facilities, equipment, supplies, or resources of the City for
gain in a Substantial Economic Interest or a Substantial
Financial Interest of the City Official, for a political campaign
of the Official, or for any of the persons identified in Section
2.20.030 C.2.b. of the Conflicts of Interest section of this
Chapter.
3. Except as specifically authorized by City ordinance, no City
Official may appear before the body of which the official is a
member to represent the City Official or any person identified
in Section 2.20.030.C.2.b. of the Conflicts of Interest section
of this Chapter. The City Official may designate and be
represented by a person of the official’s choice in any such
matter.
4. No City Official may act as surety for any person or Business
Entity that has a contract with the City, or as a surety on any
bond required by the City for a City Official.
5. These General Provisions do not prohibit a City Official from
representing the City Official’s interest in the City Official’s
owner-occupied homestead before any City body, except the
body of which the official is a member.
B. Gifts
No City Official may solicit or accept any Gift that is offered or given
with the intention of influencing the judgment or discretion of such
official; or given in consideration of the favorable exercise of the
official's judgment or discretion in the past.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 15
Item # Z
C. Conflict of Interest
1. Substantial Financial Interest
No City Official may vote on or participate in any decision-
making process on a matter if the official has a Substantial
Financial Interest in the outcome of the matter under
consideration.
2. Substantial Economic Interest
a. No City Official may vote on or participate in any
decision-making process on a matter if the official has
a Substantial Economic Interest in the outcome of the
matter under consideration.
b. To avoid the appearance and risk of impropriety, a
City Official may not take any official action that the
official knows is likely to affect the Substantial
Economic Interests of:
i. the City Official’s Family Member (See Exhibit
“A”);
ii. a Business Entity for which the City Official
serves as an officer or director or serves in any
policy-making position;
iii. a person or Business Entity from whom, within
the past twelve months, the City Official or the
official’s spouse, directly or indirectly, has
solicited, received and not rejected, or
accepted an offer of employment; or
iv a person or Business Entity from whom, within
the past twelve months, the City Official or the
official’s spouse, directly or indirectly, is
engaged in negotiations pertaining to business
opportunities.
D. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AND RECUSAL
1. A City Official who has a Substantial Economic Interest in
the outcome of the matter under consideration shall disclose
that the official has a Substantial Economic Interest and shall
recuse himself/herself from discussion of and voting on the
matter. The City Official shall also promptly file an affidavit
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 15
Item # Z
with the City Secretary disclosing the nature and extent of
the conflict, and the affidavit shall be included in the official
minutes of the body.
2. A City Official having a Substantial Financial Interest in the
outcome of a matter under consideration shall disclose that
the official has a Substantial Financial Interest and recuse
himself/herself immediately from voting and from the
discussion of the matter. The City Official shall also promptly
file an affidavit with the City Secretary disclosing the nature
and extent of the conflict, and the affidavit shall be included
in the official minutes of the body.
2.20.040. ETHICS COMMISSION
A. Creation of Ethics Commission
1. This ordinance creates an Ethics Commission that consists
of eight (8) members, all of whom must reside within the
corporate limits of the City. Each member of the City
Council may nominate a citizen 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.
2. A vote to reject a nominee requires a super-majority.
Members of the Commission may not hold or be a candidate
for any City elected or appointed office at the time of their
service on the Commission.
B. Terms of Service
1. Except as provided below, members of the Commission
shall serve two-year terms. No member may serve more
than two consecutive terms.
2. The terms of the initial Commission members shall begin on
the day that is one day after the date that the City Council
approves the appointment of the first eight (8) commission
members. The terms of the initial eight Commission
members shall be staggered by members drawing lots at the
first Commission meeting such that four (4) members serve
until March 1 of the calendar year that is one year following
the calendar year that the Commission members were
initially appointed, and four (4) members shall serve until
March 1 of the calendar year that is two years following the
calendar year that the Commission members were initially
appointed. Thereafter, all terms shall be for two (2) years.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 15
Item # Z
3. The second and subsequent appointments of members to
the Commission shall be staggered and shall be for terms of
two (2) years.
C. Commission Vacancies
1. All vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms.
2. Members hold office until their successors have been
appointed and continue to hold office after a successor has
been appointed for the limited purpose of disposing of all
complaints unresolved during that member's term.
3. No member may participate in a decision regarding a
complaint for which hearings have commenced prior to his or
her appointment.
D. Removal of Commission Members
In addition to the City Council's powers of removal, members of the
Commission may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council
for cause.
E. Officers
1. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson, Vice-
chairperson, and Secretary at its annual meeting.
2. The Vice-chairperson shall conduct meetings in the absence
of the Chairperson or in the event of a vacancy in that
position.
3. The officers serve one-year terms.
F. Quorum
Five (5) or more members of the Commission constitute a quorum,
but no action of the Commission shall be of any force or effect
unless it is adopted by the favorable vote of five (5) or more
members.
G. Meetings
1. The Commission shall meet when necessary to carry out its
responsibilities, but in any event the Commission shall hold
an annual meeting during March to elect officers and review
this Chapter.
2. The Chairperson or three members may call a meeting
provided that reasonable notice is given to each member.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 15
Item # Z
Notice of all Commission meetings shall be posted pursuant
to the Texas Open Meetings Act.
2.20.050. ROLE OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION
A. The Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over ethics complaints
involving City Officials.
B. The Ethics Commission shall have the authority to review and
investigate complaints filed in accordance with this Chapter and
issue a written finding of the Commission's determination when
appropriate.
C. Service on the Ethics Commission does not preclude a member
from filing a complaint with the Commission. The Commission
member filing the complaint must recuse himself/herself from the
Commission procedure.
D. The Ethics Commission makes recommendations to the City
Council regarding revisions and changes to this Chapter.
E. The Ethics Commission may seek any necessary assistance from
the City Council and City Manager regarding financial support
needed to carry out the Commission's duties.
F. If warranted, independent legal counsel, a C.P.A., or other
professional advisors may be utilized to advise and assist the
Commission and take part in hearings.
2.20.060. ROLE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
A. The City Attorney serves as legal counsel to the Ethics
Commission. When complaints are filed relating to the Mayor, City
Council members, City Manager, City Attorney, or other City Official
on a matter in which the City Attorney has served as Ethics
Advisor, independent legal counsel may be utilized to advise the
Commission and take part in its proceedings.
B. The City Attorney serves as Ethics Advisor to City Officials. As
Ethics Advisor, the City Attorney is available to respond
confidentially to inquiries relating to the Ethics Ordinance (this
Chapter) and may render advisory opinions on potential conflicts of
interest or violation of this section at the request of a City Official.
The advisory opinion in any subsequent charges concerning the
matter may be used as a defense to an alleged violation of this
section unless material facts were omitted or misstated by the
person requesting the opinion.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 15
Item # Z
C. If a complainant alleges a violation by the City Attorney, the
complaint must be filed with the City Secretary, with a copy to the
Mayor and the City Manager.
2.20.070. COMPLAINT PROCESS
A. Filing
1. Any person who believes that there has been a violation of
this Chapter may file a sworn complaint. A complaint
alleging a violation of this Chapter must meet the
requirements of Section 2.20.070.A.2 and must be filed with
the City Secretary.
2. Required Contents of a Complaint. An ethics complaint must
be in writing and under oath and must set forth in simple,
concise, and direct statements the following:
a. the name of the complainant;
b. the street or mailing address and the telephone
number of the complainant;
c. the name of the person who allegedly committed the
violation;
d. the position or title of the person who allegedly
committed the violation;
e. the nature of the alleged violation, including, if
possible, the specific rule or provision of this Chapter
alleged to have been violated;
f. a statement of the facts constituting the alleged
violation and the dates on which or period of time in
which the alleged violation occurred; and must
contain the following:
i. documents or other material available to the
complainant relevant to the allegation;
ii. a list of all documents or other material
relevant to the allegation and available to the
complainant, but that are not in the possession
of the complainant, including the location of the
documents; if known; and
iii. a list of all documents or other material
relevant to the allegation, but unavailable to the
complainant, including the location of the
documents, if known.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 15
Item # Z
g. If the complaint is based on information and belief, the
complaint shall state the source and basis of the
information and belief.
3. The complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit
stating that the information contained in the complaint
is true and correct and that the complainant has good
reason to believe and does believe that the facts alleged
constitute a violation of this Chapter.
4. Upon request, the City Secretary shall provide information to
persons about the requirements of a complaint and the
process for filing a complaint.
B. Confidentiality and Ex Parte Communications
1. No City Official may reveal information relating to the filing or
processing of a complaint except as required for the
performance of official duties.
2. All documents relating to a pending complaint are
confidential, unless they are required to be disclosed under
the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code Ch. 552).
3. After a complaint has been filed, and during the
consideration of a complaint by the Commission, a member
of the Commission may not communicate directly or
indirectly with any party or person about any issue of fact or
law regarding the complaint, except at a meeting of the
Commission. This provision does not prevent a member of
the Commission to consult with the City Attorney regarding
procedure and legal issues.
C. Notification
1. A copy of a complaint which meets the requirements of this
section shall be promptly forwarded by the City Secretary to
the City Attorney, the Ethics Commission, and to the person
charged in the complaint.
2. The person alleged in the complaint to have violated this
Chapter shall be provided with a copy of the Ethics
Ordinance (this Chapter) and informed that:
a. within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the complaint, a
sworn response must be filed with the City Secretary;
b. failure to file a response does not preclude the City
Attorney from processing the complaint;
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 15
Item # Z
c. a copy of any response to a complaint must be
provided by the City Secretary to the complainant,
who may within seven (7) days respond by sworn
writing filed with the City Secretary, who shall provide
a copy of the sworn writing to the person charged in
the Complaint. Copies of all responses shall also be
provided by the City Secretary to the Ethics
Commission.
3. City Officials have a duty to cooperate with the City
Secretary, the City Attorney, and the Ethics Commission in
any proceeding under this Chapter. .
2.20.080. HEARING PROCESS
A. Preliminary Hearing
1. As soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than
sixty (60) days after receiving a complaint, the Commission
shall conduct a Preliminary Hearing. The purpose of the
Preliminary Hearing is to determine whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this Chapter
has occurred.
2. The complainant and the City Official named in the complaint
have the right of representation by counsel.
3. Statements at a Preliminary Hearing shall be under oath, but
there shall be no cross examination or requests for persons
or evidence issued for the hearing.
4. The person filing a complaint shall state the alleged violation
and describe in narrative form the testimony and other
evidence which are presented to prove the alleged violation
as stated in the written complaint.
5. The City Official named in the complaint shall have the
opportunity to respond but is not required to attend or make
any statement. The official may describe in narrative form
the testimony and other evidence presented to disprove the
alleged violation. If the official agrees that a violation has
occurred, the Commission may consider the appropriate
sanction.
6. Only members of the Commission may question the
complainant, the independent counsel for the Commission,
or the City Official named in the complaint.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 15
Item # Z
7. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing one of the
following actions shall be taken:
a. If the Commission does not determine that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this
Chapter has occurred, the complaint shall be
dismissed.
b. If the Commission determines that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this
Chapter has occurred, it shall schedule a final
hearing.
c. If the City Official has agreed that a violation has
occurred, the Commission may proceed to determine
the appropriate sanction.
B. Final Hearing
1. A final hearing shall be held as expeditiously as possible
following the determination by the Commission that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of this section
has occurred, but in no event shall it be held more than thirty
(30) days after said determination. The Commission may
grant two (2) postponements, not to exceed fifteen (15) days
each, upon the request of the City Official named in the
complaint.
2. If a complaint proceeds to a final hearing, the Commission
may request witnesses to attend and testify, administer
oaths and affirmations, take evidence and request the
production of books, papers, records, or other evidence
needed for the performance of the Commission’s duties or
exercise of its powers, including its powers of investigation.
Failure to comply with these requests becomes part of
the material to be considered by the Commission in
making this determination.
3. The issue at a final hearing is whether a violation of this
Chapter has occurred. The Commission shall make its
determination based on the evidence in the record. All
witnesses shall make their statements under oath. If the
Commission determines that a violation has occurred, it shall
state its findings in writing, identify the particular provision(s)
of this Chapter which have been violated, and within five (5)
working days deliver a copy of the findings to the
complainant, the person named in the complaint, and the
City Secretary. The City Secretary shall deliver a copy of the
findings to the City Council.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 15
Item # Z
2.20.090. SANCTIONS AND VIOLATIONS
A. If the Commission determines that a violation of this Chapter has
occurred, it shall consider appropriate sanctions. The Commission may
receive additional testimony or statements before considering sanctions,
but is not required to do so.
B. If the Commission determines that a violation has occurred, it may
impose the following sanctions.
1. A letter of notification is an appropriate sanction when the
violation is clearly unintentional. The letter of notification
shall advise the official of any steps to be taken to avoid
future violations.
2. A letter of admonition is the appropriate sanction when the
Commission finds the violation is minor.
3. A letter of reprimand is the appropriate sanction when the
Commission finds a serious violation has been committed.
4. A letter of censure is the appropriate sanction when the
Commission finds that a serious violation has occurred or
more than one serious violation or repeated serious
violations of this Chapter have been committed.
C. Copies of all sanction letters issued by the Commission under this
section shall be sent to the City Council.
D. In addition, when the seriousness of the violation warrants, the
Commission may recommend to the City Council the suspension or
removal from office of any official serving in a Council-appointed
position.
E. Except with regard to violations of Chapter 171 of the Texas Local
Government Code, a violation by any City Official as designated herein
of one or more of the provisions of this Chapter shall not be deemed to
be a Class C misdemeanor under the laws of the State of Texas.
2.20.0100. DISTRIBUTION AND PROOF OF COMPLIANCE
A. The City Secretary shall make available to each new City Official
designated in this chapter, a copy of the text of this Chapter 2.20;
Chapter 171 of the Texas Local Government Code pertaining to
conflicts of interest; the Texas Open Meetings Act (Tex. Gov. Code
ch. 551); and the Texas Public Information Act (Tex. Gov. Code ch.
552) (collectively referred to in this section as the “Ethics Statutes”).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 15
Item # Z
B. The City Attorney shall conduct one or more annual seminars
devoted to educating City Officials on the meaning and legal
significance of the Ethics Statutes.
C. Each City Official shall file with the City Secretary a signed affidavit
in which the City Official acknowledges the existence of the Ethics
Statutes.
SECTION 3: All ordinances, parts of ordinances, or resolutions in conflict herewith are
expressly repealed.
SECTION 4: The invalidity of any section or provision of this ordinance shall not
invalidate other sections or provisions thereof.
SECTION 5: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City
Secretary to attest. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect
in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Georgetown.
READ and APPROVED on first reading this the _____________ day of
___________________, 2012.
READ, APPROVED and ADOPTED on second reading this the _________ day of
________________________________ 2012.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
______________________________
George G. Garver, Mayor
City of Georgetown, Texas
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 15
Item # Z
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve an Amendment to the Real Estate Sales Contract between
the City and GEDCO related to the repair costs for the floor at the 101 W. 7th Street property -- Mark
Thomas, Economic Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The attached Amendment to the Real Estate Sales Contract between the City and GEDCO is being amended
to accommodate needed floor repairs to the property.
ATTACHMENT
1. First Amendment to Real Estate Sales Contract
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The amount allocated for the repair of the floor (engineering and construction) is $78,000.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
First Amendment to the Real Estate Sales Contract between the City and GEDCO-101 W. 7th
Street
Cover Memo
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 11
Item # AA
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 11
Item # AA
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appoint a Charter Review Committee -- Mayor George Garver
ITEM SUMMARY:
The recommended appointments to the City Charter Review Committee are as follows:
Mayor- Bob Brent
District 1- Bob Smith
District 2- Scott Stribling
District 3- Joe Pondrum
District 4- Rufus Barnes
District 5- Milton Rister
District 6- Colin Berr
District 7- Ray Sanchez
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Mayor George Garver
Cover Memo
Item # BB
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Discussion and direction to the Charter Review Committee regarding possible Charter Amendments --
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager and Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # CC
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending litigation that has been filed against the City or contemplated litigation
and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including but not limited to
this week's agenda item
- Update on Rivery Conference Center
- Williams Drive Mediation
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # DD
City of Georgetown, Texas
January 24, 2012
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Secretary Annual Performance Evaluation
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # EE