HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.28.2012Notice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
The Georgetown City Council will meet on FEBRUARY 28, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. at Council Chambers - 101
East 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
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
- May 12, 2012 City Election
- The Georgetown Swirl
- The Heart & Stroke Healthy City Recognition Program Award
- Boys and Girls Club "Helping Hand" 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 - As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the
agenda.
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that may be acted upon with one
single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon
individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
C Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council
meeting held on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to authorize Specialized Public Finance, Inc. (SPFI) to proceed
with the preparation of the required bond offering documents for the upcoming April 2012 bond
issues -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
E Consideration and possible action to approve the independent audit of all accounts of the City
reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2011 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director; and Lorie
Lankford, Controller
F Consideration and possible action to approve the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes
the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the
quarter ended December 30, 2011 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance
Director; and Lorie Lankford, Controller
G Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the 4th Amendment to the development agreement
with Campbell-Georgetown #1 Limited Partnership as part of the Shell Road Public Improvement
District extending the repayment terms by 24 months and to allow the seller to adjust the payment
schedule on the current unpaid PID assessment -- Lorie Lankford, Controller and Micki Rundell, Chief
Financial Officer
H Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve award of blanket order for landscaping services in the
public areas of Georgetown Village to We Mow It for approximately $90,000.00 for a period not to
exceed five years (one year original term with four one-year renewals) -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing
Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
I Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of various City vehicles, a mower and
a tire machine 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
J Consideration and possible action to accept a Training Grant for $5100.00 from the Texas Forest
Service -- Robert Fite, Fire Chief
K Consideration and possible action to accept the summary of 2011 Racial Profiling Report as
mandated by the State Legislature -- Roland Waits, Asst. Chief of Police
L Consideration and possible action to approve the Collateral Assignment of Leasehold Interest for
Second Lien to assign B & G Aviation, LLC's leasehold interest to City National Bank of Taylor --
Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
M Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Texas Housing
Foundation to apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Program for the
construction of 180 units to be known as Gateway Northwest, located at 501 Janis Drive -- Jennifer
C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development
Director
N Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Palladium (USA)
International, Inc. to apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Programs for the
construction of 82 units to be known as Kiron at Mesquite Lane, located at 2805 Mesquite Lane --
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community
Development Director
O Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Georgetown Senior, Ltd.
to apply for Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 120 units to be known as Georgetown
Senior, located at 410 Shell Road -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and
Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
Legislative Regular Agenda
P Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the future land use designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to High-Density
Residential (HDR) and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey,
located on CR 111 west of FM 1460, also known as Mayes Tract -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and
Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required)
Q Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District, located
on CR 111 west of FM 1460, also known as the Mayes Tract -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and
Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required)
R Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit Amendment to allow an 18-month
extension for Williams Addition, Unit 1, Block 2, Lots 1,2,3 and 4, located at 202, 204, 210 West
Central Drive and 1603 Williams Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director (action required)
S Public Hearingand possible action on the 2ndamendment to the Somerset Hills Development
Agreement, removing from the agreement 33.54 acres located near the intersection of CR 245 and the
future extension of Ronald Reagan Blvd -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth
A. Cook, Community Development Director(action required)
T Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 0.57 acres of the Lost Addition, Block
68 (pt) from Residential Single-Family (RS) & Office (OF) Districts to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-
DT) District, located at 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District
Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required)
U Consideration and possible direction to staff to submit an application to Williamson County to
request FY 2012-13 Community Development Block Grant funding --Jennifer C. Bills, AICP,
LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
V Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for the Texas Transportation
Commission to re-designate a segment of RM 2338 as State Spur 158 from the IH 35 South Bound
Frontage Road to Austin Avenue/State Spur 158 -- Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services
Director
W Discussion and possible action regarding requests from Johnny B. Gantt to sublease portions of the
Gantt Aviation Building to Aero Centex dba Chartwell Properties, L.P. and GTU Turbine, LLC dba
Georgetown Turbine Services -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager;
and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
X Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock,
Texas, for the development of Plans, Specifications and Estimate and the process for the
acquisition of Rights-of-Way related to the FM 1460 Improvements Project between Quail Valley
Drive and University Boulevard in the amount of $356,500.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP,
Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
Y Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve the First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001
withBrown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM
1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount
of $673,000.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer
Z Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CDM-12-003 with CDM Smith, Inc., of
Austin, Texas, for professional services related to Water and Wastewater System Master Plan
Update in the amount of $112,340.00 -- David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer and Glenn W. Dishong,
Utility Director
AA Forwarded from the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO):
Consideration and possible action to approve the First Amended Agreement by and between GCV
Enterprises, LLC dba Grape Creek Vineyards and the Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO), the related Lease Agreement and Promissory Note -- Bridget Chapman,
Acting City Attorney and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
BB First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2011/12 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget)
due to conditions that resulted in excess fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2010/11 due to the
timing of capital projects and other expenditures; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and
repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial
Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director; and Lorie Lankford, Controller (action required)
CC Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown providing for the
abandonment by quitclaim deed of a portion of unimproved, unopened and unnamed public
street right-of-way in the vicinity of East 18th & Pine Streets; providing for the terms and conditions
of such abandonment; calling a public hearing; providing a conflict and severability clause and
establishing an effective date -- David Munk, Utility Engineer and Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director
(action required)
DD Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution ordering a General Election for Election
of the City Council Members for Districts 1 and 5 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary and Bridget
Chapman, Acting City Attorney
EE Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Ethics Commission -- Mayor George
Garver
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.
FF 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
GG Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property
- Discussion and deliberation concerning proposed real estate purchase of a 17 acre tract along the
South San Gabriel River on Hwy 29 for parkland
- Discussion and deliberation concerning proposed real estate purchase of an approximately 12.05 acre
tract at Inner Loop/FM 1460
HH Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Attorney 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
February 28, 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
- May 12, 2012 City Election
- The Georgetown Swirl
- The Heart & Stroke Healthy City Recognition Program Award
- Boys and Girls Club "Helping Hand" Award
Action from Executive Session
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
- As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than what was posted on the agenda.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Council meeting
held on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see attached for draft minutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
DRAFT February 14, 2012 Workshop Minutes
DRAFT February 14, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
Cover Memo
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Draft
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, February 14, 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, Bill Sattler, Pat
Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Troy Hellmann,
Rachael Jonrowe
Council Absent:
All Council Present.
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary;
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City
Manager; Ed Polasek Transportation Services Director; Chris Foster, Chief Financial Analyst
Minutes
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 04:00 PM
A Discussion and possible direction to staff concerning options for Transit Funding related to the 2010 Census
Urban Area Designation -- Ed Polasek, Transportation Services Director; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
and Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager
Berryman absent.
Polasek said this item went before the GTAB Board on Friday. He introduced Meredith Highsmith of TTI to the
City Council. He said the Council knows TXDOT was well aware that there were changes to the census urban
areas with the 2010 census. He noted in 2000, several communities were caught off guard by losing their rural
status and rural transit funding. He said they hired TTI to do studies of the 2010 census to determine which
areas could be going urban. He said in November, they came to Council with a presentation from TTI that we will
no longer be rural or have any CARTS funding. He said at the conclusion of the November presentation, they
were told to come back with some steps with options on the future of transit funding in Georgetown. He said
CARTS is willing to work with the City in the creation of an urban and rural district to help provide transit service
to the community. He said the presentation is based on a white paper brought from Meredith at TTI. Mayor
asked and Polasek agreed the break point for being designation as urban is 50,000. Polasek spoke about how
other populations will be added to the City limits to make us over 50,000 as an urban area. He said urban areas
do not take into account jurisdictions.
Meredith Highsmith said she is in the transit mobility program at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). She
said the City Council should have a copy of the white paper in front of them. She said, throughout parts of the
paper, the white paper goes through a lot of detail. She reviewed the items for discussion. She spoke about how
the white paper is organized including a review of possible scenarios for Georgetown, Transportation Plans for
the City and the County, federal and state funds for transit, peer city examples, transit governance and the next
steps. She provided Council a background of how we got here. She said CARTS is the current transit provider in
Georgetown. She noted the CARTS Georgetown station opened in 2010 and offers weekday service and rural
transportation and out of area regional connections. She provided Council with a high level overview of the
funding for transit. She said Georgetown is part of CARTS rural transit district. She said funding will change for
the City after the urban are designation is finalized. She spoke of the timeline and said the population data was
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 5 Pages
released in April 2011. She said, in August 2011, the census released the urban area criteria. She said in
February 2012, GTAB voted to recommend the creation of a Rural Urban Transit District in conjunction with
CARTS. She said in March the urbanized areas will be announced and in May 2012, a decision will be needed
for the Georgetown FY 2013 Budget. She said changes to the funding allocations will occur in September. She
spoke about the scenarios for the 2010 census. She said scenario one would be to become a small urban area,
which is the most likely scenario. She said scenario two is to make us a part of a large urban area, linked by a
jump to the Austin Urbanized Area of closer than 2.5 miles. She showed a map of the urbanized areas for Austin
and Georgetown. She explained why it is most likely that Georgetown will be considered a small urban area.
She spoke of the impact of the census on transit funding.
Berryman arrived at the dais.
She said, if Georgetown is to be considered small urban, CARTS can no longer provide their rural services. She
said the City Council could decline federal and state funds in which case the service by CARTS will be terminated
in September. She noted the Council could elect to contract with CARTS to continue the services the City is
currently receiving. She spoke of the estimated 5307 federal funding available in scenario one. She said the
funds are based on the population and population density. She said the Georgetown urbanized area is eligible for
$750,000 based on the 2010 population estimate. She said Georgetown could be a recipient for the Texas
Transit Funding for Urban Areas. She said the state funds formula is based on needs and performance and she
said those funds can be used to match federal funds. She said Georgetown will be eligible for $203,000 based
on projected Texas Transit funding formula. She provided a visual of both of those funding scenarios. She said
based on their analysis, they project that scenario one is the most likely of the two to occur. She spoke of the
decisions that need to be made by the Council. She said the Council could decide to have no service and
decline the federal and state urban funds for public transportation, could have city administered transportation
service or a district administered services by having an interlocal agreement with CARTS. She reviewed the
GTAB recommendation to the Council and said it is to create a rural-urban transit district and have the city and
CARTS work toward implementation of a fixed route transit system in the city. She described the implementation
program for the Council. She spoke about the public transportation plan for the City of Georgetown. She said the
goal of the plan is to develop a transit system internal to Georgetown. She spoke about the overall purpose of the
plan. She spoke about how this plan was created in 2008. She said the plan wants to connect customers with
local businesses and employment. She showed Council a map that depicts the fixed route transit network from
the 2008 plan, running Monday through Friday. She showed the Council an example of a five year Financial Plan
in the Georgetown urbanized area based on the assumption the City would partner with CARTS through an
interlocal agreement. She said CARTS will be recognized as the designated recipient for the state and federal
funding. She noted the transit service would continue status quo in 2013 and 2014. She said planning for
additional services would take place in 2014. She spoke about the possible expansion of the transit program. She
continued to speak about the five year financial plan to continue transit services in Georgetown. She highlighted
the Georgetown local match amount over the next five years. She spoke of the next steps in this process. She
said they will be following the census announcements made in March 2012, present information for Council
consideration, have a decision by May 31, 2012 and a final plan for the 2013 budget.
Mayor asked what would happen if the City was attached to the Austin urban area district. Highsmith said the
City would be able to create a rural area district with CARTS but they would have to work with CapMetro and
CAMPO to secure federal funding. She said the downside is that there would not be a state funding mechanism.
She said in that scenario, it would be a more complex process. Eason said she would like to clarify that, under
scenario, the City would have to request funding and will have less control. Hellmann asked what it would cost to
keep what we currently have and Highsmith said it would be $300,000. He said if the City has an agreement with
CARTS, we can increase service for less cost. Highsmith agreed. Meigs asked and Highsmith said, by the end
of May, the Council needs to give the permission to staff on whether or not to become and small urban area
district. Meigs asked and Highsmith said they should hear about the designation next month. Sattler said and
Highsmith agreed that there is no cost to Georgetown in 2013, and in 2014 it would be mostly capital purchases.
Sattler asked and Highsmith said that would be for the expanded routes. Rundell said what the City has before
them is an opportunity to provide service we don't normally have. Rundell said, by partnering with CARTS, the
City would be able to delay the costs and provide the transit the City currently has before expanding the services
in the out years. She noted this is by far the best cost scenario for the City. There were many questions on the
funding. Berryman asked and Highsmith said the ridership for the fares were based on the projections for the six
routes from the plan in 2008. Berryman said she would like to have some data on the ridership. She spoke about
the estimated federal numbers and questioned the reliability of the availability of those funds. Highsmith said, up
until this point, federal funding has remained steady. Berryman said the City is biting off a big chunk and going
off speculation that there will be funding available to help this continue. She noted, in the current mood of the
country, the City should really be thinking about this. She wants to know what the projections are for the
ridership in Austin. Berryman asked to have some documentation on how Round Rock is handling this situation
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 5 Pages
as well. Polasek said Round Rock is part of the large urban area. He said they are eligible for negotiations with
CapMetro for the large urban capital funding. Mayor asked and Highsmith said the City's participation with
CARTS will truly be a partnership and the City can change the participation in the partnership at the next census
designation or any time until then. Jonrowe thanked Highsmith for all of her hard work. She asked and Highsmith
confirmed that the funding streams have been stable for the past few decades. Jonrowe spoke about how this
can only help the economic outlook for the City. She asked and Polasek said the vote from GTAB was
unanimous. Gonzalez said becoming a small urban area makes sense, taking advantage of the federal and state
monies. He spoke about maintaining what we currently have without expanding will cost nothing and noted the
expansion of services would increase the costs. Gonzalez asked and Rundell said the City will not have to pay
anything for the first two years, but the City will have to pay in the out years. Gonzalez said he wants to make
sure whatever agreements we get into will allow us to get out if we need without penalty. Rundell said the City will
ensure that we are protected and provisions like that will be included in the Interlocal Agreement. Polasek spoke
about the costs in the first year and noted CARTS will be eating the administrative cost the first year. There was
much discussion about the costs of continuing the service. Rundell said she thinks it is going to be year to year to
determine whether or not the City would like to continue to provide transit with the funding that is available.
Gonzalez said the more service we can provide, the better, but noted he hates to get someone an expanded
service and then have to take that service away. Highsmith said there are some example interlocal agreements
included in the white paper as well. Sattler asked and Highsmith said the fares are based on the estimates
provided by CARTS according to the ridership. Jonrowe asked and Highsmith said this would be a partnership
with CARTS and City will have input on every aspect of the service including the stops and the trucks. Hellmann
asked and Highsmith said if the federal funding stops, then transit systems around the country would have to
cease. Hellmann spoke about the possibility of linking with Austin at the next Census. Mayor asked and
Highsmith spoke about TTI and what function she serves within that organization. Berryman said she is being
devil's advocate but noted there is not a guarantee that this will continue. She spoke about how this will
eventually become a taxing unit for the City because the federal government may start cutting funds to these
transit programs. She noted this is a real serious commitment. Mayor asked and Polasek said staff is asking for
action to continue to work with CARTS for options in the future after the designation is made. He noted staff
would prefer to have direction to work on an interlocal agreement to work with CARTS as a small urban area
transit district.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to move forward with the GTAB recommendation and have staff work on
the idea of exploring the creation of a rural urban transit district and an interlocal agreement with CARTS.
Meigs said there is no commitment here. Polasek said the commitment would come if an interlocal agreement is
approved by Council at a future meeting. There was much discussion regarding what motion GTAB approved.
Substitute motion by Sattler, second by Gonzalez to direct staff to continue the discussion on a rural urban
transit district.
Meigs asked and Brandenburg said the substitute motion will not give staff enough to work with on this issue.
There was much discussion regarding an appropriate motion. Berryman asked and Highsmith said the City could
look into services other than CARTS but noted it would be a greater administrative burden to the City. Sattler said
he wants to continue with this discussion but he does not want to commit to the creation of an urban rural transit
district. He said he would like for staff to continue investigating but not to create a district at this time. Highsmith
said staff is just looking for approval to move forward with investigating the possibility of a rural urban transit
district until the area designations are released. There was much discussion.
Vote on substitute motion: Approved 7-0
B Update on the City’s Sales Tax revenue profile including historical information as well as sales tax revenue
projections -- Chris Foster, Chief Financial Analyst and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
With a Powerpoint Presentation, Rundell provided Council with a presentation on the City's sales tax. She said
because dollars are tight, the City wants to make sure we are reflecting what is going on in the sales tax market.
She turned the presentation over to Chris Foster, the City's financial analyst. Foster showed Council a graph
showing the sales tax by economic category in fiscal year 2010 to 2011. He said retail and accommodation and
food have done well and has been a steady growth for years. He said the service industry was down. He said the
agriculture/mining and manufacturing is up 45% compared to all of 2010. He said, overall, the city is up 1.5%
from last year. He showed Council a graph showing the sales tax coming out of Wolf Ranch shopping center. He
said the better the housing market, the better the sales will be. He showed Council another graph showing every
single economic segment in Georgetown. He said they factor in unemployment and inflation into sales tax
projections as well as using the projections in things like the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He said the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 5 Pages
regional CPI is up quite a bit. He spoke about inflation estimates going forward. Mayor asked and Foster said the
City's model focuses more on the supply side than the demand area. Gonzalez asked and Foster said bond
rates for the City will not be going anywhere. Gonzalez said that is something we need to keep budgeting. He
said anything we can bond out now, the better. He said at the end of this year, there could be some sort of rate
hike. Foster said that is a possibility. Hellmann asked and Foster said the 2.4% deficit is comparing the sales tax
this year from last year. He said he predicts the City will pick up some sales tax from the building sector and
could be back to even.
C Council Goal Setting with City Manager -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Mayor described the item and said Brandenburg has prepared a list of goals for Council to consider based on his
recent performance evaluation. Brandenburg reviewed the proposed goals including to develop multi-year
budgets and financial planning as part of the annual budget process, create innovative programs and initiatives to
stimulate residential and commercial development throughout the community, develop a greater relationship with
the building and development community, evaluate and make necessary changes to the Development Services
Division, continue to plan and implement elements of the Downtown Master Plan, oversee the plan for the
implementation of the new public safety facility, review the city's compensation plan, performance review system
and job audit process and make necessary recommendations and changes. He spoke about his other goals
including continue proactive Transportation Planning with the design, engineering, funding and construction for
Lakeway Boulevard and other priority transportation projects,work with the City Council on long term water
strategies and policies to ensure protection of this finite resource, pursue electrical contract negotiations and
future energy contracts and review and update the overall facility plan for the city.
Gonzalez said he is supportive of all of the issues that are on the list. He asked how the Council would be able to
measure success of some of the items on this list. He said he would like to be able to have a way to measure the
success of each goal. He spoke about looking at realistic things to add to the budget as needed. He noted
everything can't be a cut. He noted he would like to at least have both sides for consideration. He said he would
like to see a firmer three year budget and a five year budget with greater generalities. Jonrowe said this is a
good list of the major goals. She added she knows the City Manager has a list of smaller goals he deals with on a
regular basis. She noted she thinks this is a good list and could come up with some slight tweaks over time.
Jonrowe asked and Brandenburg said he can come back with a new list after any suggestions are made at the
meeting tonight. Jonrowe said Gonzalez has a good point about establishing benchmarks for each goal. She
said she is excited about having a multi-year budget. She spoke about the citizen survey and the importance of
structuring the budget so that it reflects what the people say. She said there should be a connection between
those two things. She spoke of the downtown master plan and noted it does not seem like there is a group or
entity that is looking at the big picture of the plan. Berryman said this is a nice list that covers all of the hot button
issues that would have come up in discussion. She noted her concern is that there are no measurable ways to
achieve these goals. She said she would like to add a need for better communication. She said she thinks this is
something the City Manager needs to look at. She noted she thinks the City Manager is largely the face of the
City. She said she believes that there needs to be some way to measure the creation of innovative programs and
initiatives to stimulate residential and commercial development. She noted the City Manager needs to look hard
at the UDC and see how that needs to be adjusted to achieve some of these goals. She spoke about how the
UDC is an impediment to some of the goals. She said the City Manager has had some great ideas on the facility
plan. She noted she appreciates the efforts he has made this year. Sattler said it is a very good list. He said the
only thing missing is a discussion about communications and getting information out to Council members and
staff and to the public. He said he would like to see that fine tuned a bit. Meigs said this is a good big picture list
and added he wants to congratulate the City Manager for being proactive in setting up the monthly meetings with
the builders and developers. He said multi-year budgets are a good tool but noted he questions how firm future
year budgets should be. Hellmann said he thinks it is a great list as well. He said he has a suggestion regarding
measurability. He noted he would like to see the City Manager create a plan that over the next 5 years, the City
add a billion dollars in asset valuation so that the bond rating can improve. He said that is just a suggestion on
how these goals could be measured. Eason said these goals are what they were supposed to be, which is
general and large umbrellas for gaols. She said, under each of these goals, Brandenburg already has his list of of
objectives and ways to reach those goals. She said the Council receives regular reports from the City Manager
regarding updates on these goals. She said a lot of things mentioned up here are things that can be dealt with
only by vote of the City Council. She said we can not hamper the City Manager with the results of those. She
spoke about the regular review of the UDC. She said, in terms of this is terms of the overall umbrella of goals,
this is what we asked for and this is what he has given the Council. She said breaking down and going over the
objectives with him might should be something that is done at a later time. She said this is comprehensive and
she looks forward to working with Brandenburg further on these.
Mayor reviewed the items that were discussed by Council. Mayor said almost every item on this list requires
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Council's participation in assisting and working with staff. Brandenburg said he will add communication to the
third point and to come up with a goal regarding the UDC since there is already a process that has been
developed. He said he will meet with specific Council members to gain clarification on some of their suggestions.
He said, while these are the City Manager goals, they are the City goals as well. Mayor spoke about long term
budget planning and its effectiveness. Brandenburg said the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC) puts together their budget in five year increments, but only adopts it one year at a time.
Motion by Meigs, second by Berryman to adjourn -- 5:50 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 05:50 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5
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, February 14, 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, Bill Sattler, Pat
Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe,
Troy Hellmann
Council Absent:
All Council Present.
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary;
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer, Deputy City
Manager; Ed Polasek Transportation Services 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 6:12 PM
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
- Mayor presented an Eagle Scout with a pin from the City.
City Council Regional Board Reports
- CAMPO
Garver said CAMPO met last night and heard a fine presentation from TXDOT on the possibility of rapid rail
between downtown Austin and downtown Houston. He said there is more discussion going on about rail than
what we have seen in a long time.
- Lone Star Rail District
Eason said the Rail District staff conducted a coordination meeting with two of Union Pacific's highest ranking
government and public relations people on the freight bypass route. She noted they are headed to Omaha for
meetings with Union Pacific to finalize the three conceptual freight bypass alignments that will go into
environmental analysis, and also to discuss joint operations on the current Union Pacific line (future LSTAR line).
City Manager Comments
Action from Executive Session
There was no action out of Executive Session.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 9 Pages
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 - Wally Brown regarding the community gardens at First United Methodist Church and related water issues
Brown said what he has discovered looking at community gardens and trying to feed the hungry is harder than
working at the hospital. He said he realizes there are some things the Council can not do. He said when he spoke
with Jonrowe about putting a community garden in, he realized it is a lot more work than he originally thought. He
said they are is need of some funding. He said the reason he is here is to thank the council. He said it takes a
lot of time to spend time here and listen to what is going on in the community. He said he has found this is a
great community to live in. He spoke about how there are a lot of people in the community who are wanting to
step forward and work on community gardens. He thanked Council for what they do. Mayor asked and
Brandenburg said there have been ongoing discussions between Brown and staff.
- Mark Allen regarding the reliability of the official city zoning map
Allen said he is not attacking the guy who drew the map and noted they have a good hand in him. He noted he
needs help and it is so tough doing business. He said these people came to them from the map and the zoning of
C-3. He said he is pleading to have the zoning that it on the map. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said there has
been a lot of correspondence between the staff and the correspondent. He noted he will share with Council the
other documents staff has on this subject and then, at that time, decide if an agenda item is necessary.
- Terry Irion regarding the reliability of the official city zoning map
Irion said he is here representing Rivery Partners Limited, which is the owner of four lots in Rivery Park Phase
Two. He noted they have some of their land open to an apartment group who would like to build here in
Georgetown. He said the original buyer said this is where they wanted to be by looking at the official zoning map
of the City and seeing that the property was zoned C-3, which permits apartment use. He noted, however, the
staff said they can not have apartments on that particular property. He said he has been trying to get this issue
resolved with staff for the past two months. He noted he had been told that the applicant must file a rezoning
application. He described the handouts provided to the Council. He said the City's zoning map is either official or
it's not. He urged Council to ask staff to take another look at this. He noted he would like to have an item on the
agenda to determine the exact zoning on this property.
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, January 24, 2012 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
D Consideration and possible action to permit the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Public Library to
apply for a grant, not to exceed $75,000, from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. The
grant, which would run from September 2012 through August 2013, is to fund a second year of salary and
benefits ($56,250) for a full time Community Outreach Librarian plus $18,750 for books for the library’s
bookmobile -- Eric P. Lashley, Library Director
E Consideration and possible action to authorize application for a Training Grant for $8925.00 from the Texas
Forest Service -- Robert Fite, Fire Chief
F Discussion and possible action regarding amending the 2011/12 Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation (GTEC) Budget for projects with remaining funding and approval from 2010/11 -- Lorie Lankford,
Controller; Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 9 Pages
G Discussion and possible action regarding amending the 2011/12 Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO) Budget for projects with remaining funds and approval from 2010/11 -- Lorie Lankford,
Controller; Susan Morgan, Finance Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
H Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of two chip spreaders 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
I Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to authorize payment of transaction fees to Tyler Technologies for online
web payment processing in the amount of $64,500 -- Leticia Zavala,, Utility Office Manager and Micki Rundell,
Chief Financial Officer
J Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution of support for Highland Property Group LLC to
apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Programs for the rehabilitation of the San Gabriel
Apartments, located at 1100 Leander Road -- Jennifer C Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and
Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Approved 7-0
Legislative Regular Agenda
Council will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
K Consideration and possible action to appoint new members to the City's 2012/2013 Boards and Commissions
-- Mayor George Garver
Mayor spoke about the Boards and Commissions recruitment process and how it functions. He said there was a
public meeting where four members of the council joined the Mayor to review the list and gather recommended
appointments to bring to the Council. He said it seems each year, the number of applications received are
greater. He said, when allowed, the subcommittee has also recommended a Chair appointment for each of the
committees.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve the 2012/2013 Boards and Commissions appointments.
L Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance providing for the abandonment by quitclaim deed of a
portion of unimproved, unopened and unnamed public street right-of-way in the vicinity of East 18th & Pine
Streets -- David Munk, Utility Engineer and Glenn Dishong, Utility Director (action required)
Munk described the item and the location of the right of way. He said staff recommends this Ordinance because
it will promote development in the area. He said the applicant is also proposing to dedicate a comparable
amount of right of way back to the City. He said the zoning is in place for single family residential.
Munk read only the caption of the Ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City
Charter.
Public Hearing was opened at 6:40 PM
No persons were present to speak.
Public Hearing was closed at 6:40 PM
Motion by Hellmann, second by Meigs to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Approved 7-0
M Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution to extend the expiration deadline of certain
development related applications, including Site Plans, Construction Plans, Preliminary Plats, and
Stormwater Permits -- Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
Cook reviewed the proposal Berryman brought to the Council at the last meeting regarding grandfathering
development applications. She said staff has proposed an amnesty resolution which would work in two parts,
that any application approved after January 1, 2007 but expired could be resubmitted for review and noted, if it is
the same application, they have get an automatic extension to what is normal for a new project. She said the
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 9 Pages
City has some anticipated UDC amendments at the second meeting in March related to this issue. She said she
would like to give pending applications an automatic extension to May 1 so they can take advantage of some of
these proposed UDC amendments. She said they anticipate that there may be as many as 71 applications that
can come in.
Motion by Berryman, second by Gonzalez to approve the Resolution.
Berryman thanked the staff for their work and asked that staff also notify the applicants that this option is
available. Jonrowe asked and Cook confirmed this Resolution does not apply to the residential applications.
Jonrowe asked and Cook said the direction staff received was for site plans, which is only for commercial
developemnt. Jonrowe said she would definitely be interested in getting some data on having this amnesty for
individual homeowners as well. Berryman asked and Cook said this not only address site plans but also
subdivision plats, construction plans and stormwater permits.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
Jonrowe asked and Chapman suggested that Jonrowe and Cook talk about this and bring it back as a separate
item on a later agenda.
N Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution suspending the effective date for ninety (90) days
in connection with the rate increase filing of ATMOS Energy Corporation on or about January 31, 2012 -- Jim
Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Briggs described the Resolution and said ATMOS filed a statement of intent to increase gas rates by $49 million
system wide. He said Georgetown is a part of a group called the ATM cities, a group of served by the groups
across the State. He noted, as proposed by ATMOS, the fixed customer charges would increase for each
customer class while charges based on consumption would be reduced. He said this is a little odd in the rate
making arena. He said enclosed in the agenda item, Council can see the proposed increase. He said Council
has three options which is to approve, deny or suspend the increase. He said the suspension option has been
recommended by the attorney and the suspension has been included in the action of the resolution.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the Resolution. Approved 7-0
O Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with Chisholm Trail Special Utility
District (CTSUD) for a Feasibility Study related to the consolidation of activities/operations between the
City of Georgetown and CTSUD -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Briggs said on December 15, 2011, CTSUD voted to investigate the dissolution and transfer of their system to
the City of Georgetown including a proposed expenditure matching of $100,000 for a feasibility study. He said
since that time, the City has been working on an interlocal that staff thought would be back in Council a month
ago. He said it was delayed by about a month. He said CTSUD and the City would share in the cost of the study
and it would go on for approximately six months. He said there is a project team assigned to work on this and
noted some of the effort has already begun. He said he has received a lot of calls on this issue regarding what is
going to happen. He noted he does not know until a feasibility study is done. He said water supply and
development is a long term plan. He noted it is not a short term spin to make a profit and it is critical to the
development of any community. He spoke about what the costs would be if the system goes to the private
sector. He said this is a huge task to take for the next six months. He said the goal is to do the study and bring it
back to the Council by June 12. He reviewed the process of putting together the Interlocal Agreement.
Motion by Hellmann, second by Jonrowe to approve the Interlocal Agreement.
Sattler asked and Briggs said staff is proposing this will go to the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board in
May prior to it coming to the City Council. Sattler asked and Briggs said staff will not be identifying the exact
water supplies but noted they will discuss that issue. He said they will talk about how water supplies can be
maintained in a period of time until which additional water supplies can be acquired. He said they have had
discussions with BRA and what their system permit will be. He said staff has looked under every rock and that is
going take time.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
P Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Chisholm Trail
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Special Utility District (CTSUD) regarding the provision of wholesale water service to the Shady Oaks
Subdivision -- Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Dishong described the item and said staff is also looking at providing wholesale water service to the Shady Oaks
subdivision. He said Shady Oaks wanted to reduce the demand on their existing water supply and enhance fire
protection. He said this would provide water to the subdivision on a wholesale service and CTSUD will still be
providing the residents with that water.
Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to approve the Resolution.
Sattler asked and Dishong said the price to the current customer is the retail price and the wholesale price
anticipates bulk delivery and economies of scale. He said the wholesale cost is a lower cost. Sattler asked and
Dishong said as a wholesale buyer and a business that is going to resell the water, they would be getting a better
price than a retail customer. Sattler asked why we would sell our water to an outside vendor cheaper than the
retail price. Dishong said this is just the cost of treating the water and delivering it to a bulk meter. He said the
City does not do any maintenance to the water. Sattler asked and Briggs spoke about how this issue could
compare to solid waste services. There was much discussion. Gonzalez asked how this helps their capacity and
Briggs said their capacity is limited by their distribution system. Berryman asked and Briggs confirmed this is a
temporary arrangement. Dishong said this contract is good until the end of this calendar year. Hellmann asked
and Dishong said the feasibility study and this wholesale service are executed simultaneously, but they are not
intertwined. He said the goal is to get that subdivision water for the next irrigation season. Berryman asked and
Briggs said this is to buy time for the negotiations. Briggs said it will allow Shady Oaks to mirror us a lot better
than what they were able to do before.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
Q Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order #WRM-12-001 with Water Resources Management,
LLC of Austin, Texas, related to the potential integration and consolidation of the Chisholm Trail Special
Utility District into the operation of the City of Georgetown Utility System, in the amount of $106,650.00 --
Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Mayor asked and Briggs said this is the actual firm that will undertake the endeavor with CTSUD.He said we
have used them in a past and they are in the Austin area. He said they just completed doing this in the Southeast
Travis County are. He said they will work in coordination with HDR Engineering and Tony Bagwell to take a look
at impact fees and other financial analysis. He said staff will also be working with Carol Polumbo and Gary
Kimball on this as well relative to the bonding issues. He said the effort of the combined entities is around
$184,739. He noted this is under the $200,000 budget. He called Council's attention to page 1 and 2 of the
proposal for feasibility. He noted the proposal gives a schedule for consideration. He said, as we go through to
do the evaluation, there is a minor conclusion, a write up and executive committee recommendation under each
functional area. He said he thinks it is concise, well prepared and noted he was pleased with the work that has
been done so far. He said, once the City gets this completed, they will be billing CTSUD for their portion of the
agreement.
Motion by Berryman, second by Meigs to approve the task order.
Berryman thanked Briggs and his staff for their hard work providing consistent water service to the entire City.
She said it gives her great confidence. Briggs said this task order is with a team that has done this multiple times
in the past. Sattler said and Briggs noted our portion of the cost is $100,000 maximum. Sattler asked and Briggs
said he will keep track of staff's time spent on the project.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
X Second 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)
Wyler described the item and said, currently, the property is zoned MF, which inhibits future development other
than an apartment complex or town homes. He said the applicant wishes to go to mixed use downtown. He read
only the caption of the ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Berryman, second by Jonrowe to approve Ordinance 2012-10. Approved 7-0
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 6 of 9 Pages
R Forwarded by the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the First Amendment to Task Order KAI-10-001 with Klotz
Associates, Inc., (dated January 12, 2010) related to the Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35 Project
(Washam Drive to Austin Avenue) in the amount of $231,000.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation
Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
Polasek said this item has been in the GTEC TIP for two and a half years and it is to fund the preliminary design
of the northbound frontage road. He said, with the environmental approvals complete, TXDOT has asked for the
City to proceed. He said, in looking at the purposed of the NW Boulevard Bridge, the City thought a frontage
road would be ideal to alleviate traffic in that area.
Motion by Meigs, second by Hellmann to approve the first amendment
Sattler asked and Polasek said the initial contract was for the NW Blvd Bridge preliminary design and schematics
and the total cost of that was about $362,000 for the schematics and alternatives of the bridge structure. Sattler
asked and Polasek said this amendment is just to add the frontage road. Polasek said the City can not finalize
the bridge design without knowing what the frontage road is supposed to look like. Sattler asked and Polasek
said the estimate for the bridge is close to $7.5 million. Berryman said she has been reading this thing and is
trying to understand what staff is talking about. Berryman asked and Polasek explained where the access road is
going to be built.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
S Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Presentation and direction to staff regarding the possible allocation of Fiscal Year 2011 Excess Funds from
the City’s General Fund for various projects to be included in a future 2011/12 Annual Budget amendment --
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Rundell said the excess funds in the budget are $920,971. She said these are the funds greater than what were
projected for the 2011/12 budget. She said most of this excess relates to the return on investment from the
utilities. She said, per the City policy, those excess funds must be used for one time projects. She said the
money can not be used for ongoing operational costs. She said if not allocated, it will be the basis for the 2013
budget for that fiscal year. She said the staff recommendations include allocating funds to the the Bellaire
Improvements, unspent funds for Arts and Culture, Christmas lights on the square, city facility renovation
reserve, builders/developers incentive program, employee compensation study and an employee bonus program.
She said the remaining balance of $85,111 will remain in the fund for one time projects or other expenses. She
spoke of the next steps in this process which is to determine the final allocations, amend the 2011/12 annual
budget and move forward with allocated projects and award the employee bonuses in March.
Motion by Meigs, second by Eason to approve the allocation of funds.
Jonrowe asked and Rundell said we usually have between $200,000 and $300,000 in excess funds but this
year's excess was abnormally large due to the utilities. She said the City sold a lot of water and did not anticipate
the drought being as severe as it was. Jonrowe asked and Rundell said it is staff's goal to never have less than
what is budgeted. Jonrowe said her concern is that the City made a lot of cuts and, now that the City has this
money, it is not going back to things that were cut but to new projects. She asked why the excess funds do not go
back to what was cut. Brandenburg said a lot of things that were cut were ongoing programs and this money
should be used for one time funds. Berryman said what Jonrowe is talking about Social Services Fund, which is
a set amount out of the budget each year. She said that is separate from what Rundell is talking about. Jonrowe
said her concern is that there are excess funds for one projects but she does not want to get into the habit of
cutting things and then reallocating the funds to other projects. Jonrowe said the list of projects is good but noted
there are other things that need to be done as well. Gonzalez said one of the things with the excess funds is that
it is impossible to predict what you are going to have at the end of the year. Gonzalez said, if we are going to
have this money, we are going to need to look at the things that are going to cost the City money unexpectedly.
He said he would like to see a larger amount to meet those unexpected costs. Gonzalez asked if we can use the
money to renovate and start fixing buildings that we own and be proactive with those structures. Rundell said
what this money is for is the case when the City has to relocate someone from one building to another. Sattler
asked and Rundell said we are funded at about 82-83% in TMRS. She said TMRS is one of the most well
funded plans in the nation and add our unfunded liability is where the City wants it to be from a targeted
perspective. Sattler asked and Rundell said the City can use the funds to buy down next year's tax rate as well.
Hellmann asked and Rundell said the estimated loss for next year is much lower than $1 million. Rundell said
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Council will see the preliminary numbers for next year's budget as early as May. Eason said she is wondering
about the Christmas lights. She noted, if we pulled this from the list, it would not preclude Council adding it back
in at a future time. She said her amendment would be to take that $30,000 off the list. She said that is the one
item on here she would like to see postponed. Eason said she agrees with Rachel regarding cutting the budget
and now there is a large excess.
Motion by Eason, second by Jonrowe to amend the original motion to remove the $30,000 amount for the
Christmas lights from the list.
Mayor asked and the Council weighed in on the issue of the Christmas lights. Hellmann and Meigs said it is
important to keep the Christmas lights on the list. Berryman said she supports it and added it creates an
environment that supports the downtown merchants. Jonrowe said she is on the fence on this one. Mayor asked
and Rundell said GGAF reviewed and approved this. Rundell said the Council would need to amend the policy in
order to change the social service funding. Gonzalez said he agrees with keeping the Christmas lights in the
budget. Brandenburg spoke about how the staff came up with the items on this list. He said another priority is
employee compensation and the fact that they are not receiving an pay increase.
Eason withdrew her amendment.
Berryman said she has come concerns and said much of them are coming from the utility. She said there will be
expenses incurred as well as profits incurred with the agreement with CTSUD. She noted all of this is on the
backs of the rate payers. She said she is troubled they are setting aside monies for things that most cities would
not set aside money for. She said she is afraid that, this summer, staff will come back and say the City is broke
again. Sattler said one of the things he is concerned about is that we could be paying bonuses when the
residents could be paying higher taxes. He said the rest of the expenditures are great but he has a problem with
providing employees with bonuses. Meigs asked and Rundell estimated about 150 out of 500 employees would
receive bonuses. Meigs said 15% of this money to our best employees is well worth it.
Vote on the original motion: Approved 5-2 (Berryman, Sattler opposed)
Berryman said she wants it on the record that she did not vote against the motion for the same reason Sattler
voted against the motion.
T Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the award of contract for a compensation study to Public Sector
Personnel Consultants in the amount of $50,000 -- Laurie Brewer, Deputy City Manager and Kevin Russell
Director of Human Resources
Brewer said Council has heard reference to a classification and compensation study. She said the cost is
$50,000 and would come from the money discussed in the previous item. She explained why it is good to do a
classification and compensation study. She gave a background on this issue and said the previous study was
done in 200/2002. She said from that study, they created a classification tool that is used by the HR department
to maintain the system. She said the maintenance is done through a job audit process. She said the City issued
cost of living adjustments to pay grades. She said their benefits are reviewed annually. She spoke about the
compression issues that occur when new employees come in at the same level as someone who has been at the
City for many years. She said in October 2011, the GGAF asked staff to review compensation as well as benefits.
She explained the process of choosing a consultant for the Council. She spoke about the next steps of this
process. She said staff would like this to be approved quickly. She said staff plans to have a complete report in
April and present the finding to Council in May or June. She said they would like to include recommendations for
implementation as well.
Motion by Meigs, second by Jonrowe to approve. Approved 7-0
U Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to renew the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) annual
maintenance contract with HVAC Masters in the estimated annual amount of $120,000.00 --Terry Jones,
Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Rundell reviewed the item and said this is a request to increase the appropriation to the vendor to $120,000
mainly due to unknown services and unknown expenses that were incurred after the original contract date of
2009. She said this would extend the contract until 2013.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 8 of 9 Pages
Motion by Eason, second by Meigs to approve the renewal .
Mayor asked and Rundell said this does not relate to the units at the old library because those would be
renovation costs. Berryman asked and Rundell said the City is renting temporary air conditioning units for the
Old Library for temporary tenants. Berryman spoke about she disagrees with paying for HVAC for the library.
Sattler asked and Rundell said this cost is for the maintenance for all of the City buildings.
Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
V Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the selection of an architect for the design of the Public
Safety facility -- Terry Jones, Support Services Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Rundell spoke about the committee that was appointed to make a recommendation for an architect for the design
of the new public safety complex. She said 23 bids were received and she said the architect will be using local
vendors in portions of this project. Nero said a selection committee was formed and they narrowed 23
submission down to four. He listed the four vendors they interviewed. He said, after that process, the
unanimously approved Architect Design Group and KA Hickman. He said the total amounts to $1,983,084.
Motion by Meigs, second by Gonzalez to approve the selection.
Sattler asked and Nero confirmed the fee for the total design of the project. Jonrowe said when she was on the
committee for one of the fire stations, she learned just how involved this process is. She said there is a reason
why there is not a lot of discussion on the dais and that is because the committee has met many times to discuss
this issue. She said she has the ultimate confidence that this was discussed and looked at bit by bit. She said
this is the biggest project that Georgetown has ever had. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0
W Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to renew the contract with Dataprose/CSG Systems, Inc. as the City’s
vendor for utility bill printing and mailing services and approve funding at a cost of $190,400 for the year --
Leticia Zavala, Utility Office Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Zavala said this is the final renewal of the original contract for the City's bill print vendor. She said the City is
currently under an interlocal agreement with the City of Plano that allows economies of scale. She said the city
partners with them through the interlocal to bring rates down. She said they are going to ask for an additional
$5,000 in the contract that will allow the city to present bills electronically.
Motion by Berryman, second by Hellmann to approve the renewal. Approved 7-0
Y Second Reading of an Ordinance renaming Southfork Road to “J.M. Page Lane”; 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)
Polasek read only the caption of the Ordinance on second reading.
Motion by Berryman, second by Hellmann to approve Ordinance 2012-11. Approved 7-0
Z Consideration and possible direction to staff to identify and prepare the procedures for adding two citizen
members to the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation beginning with the 2013 appointment
process -- Mayor George Garver
Mayor noted the Council subcommittee said they wanted an item on the agenda to discuss expanding the board
from 5 people to 7 members.
Berryman said she thinks it is a good idea to have citizen members however, she is not certain they need three
Council members on the Board. She said Mayor should look at Council's participation on the Boards and
perhaps revamp that process. She said the way it works now is that the Council members inherit Board positions
when they are elected. Mayor said he concurs with Berryman's judgement. He said, after the May election, he
would like to put up all of the committee council appointments to determine how they should put the council
members in each of those positions. Mayor spoke about the pros and cons of keeping Council members on a
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # C
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 9 of 9 Pages
Board for a while versus switching the membership each term. Berryman spoke about the Council members who
are serving on both of the Economic Development Boards. She said that is way too much for one Council
member to carry. Eason said there was also consideration made to the idea of dismantling the economic
development advisory board because the had not met once last year. She said she happens to agree with the
idea of reducing the number of City Council members on each Board. She noted she also wanted to clarify that
the composition of each Board is set by the City Council as a whole and not by just a couple of Council members.
Motion by Berryman, second by Eason to approve the item.
Gonzalez said it never hurts to have increased participation on these boards, but every decision made by every
board will come back to Council either way for final approval. He noted if a Council member has the disposition
to serve on five boards, he does not see where that can go wrong. Approved 7-0
AA Consideration and possible action to add two citizen members to the General Government and Finance
Subcommittee beginning with the 2013 appointment process -- Mayor George Garver
Mayor described the item to the City Council.
Motion Hellmann, second by Jonrowe to approve the item. Approved 7-0
BB Discussion and possible action to nominate a candidate to fill a vacancy on the Williamson Central
Appraisal District -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Brandenburg described the item and no nominations were brought forward by the City Council. No action was
taken.
Meeting adjourned -- 8:36 PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 08:36 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________________________________
Mayor George Garver City Secretary Jessica Brettle
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to authorize Specialized Public Finance, Inc. (SPFI) to proceed with
the preparation of the required bond offering documents for the upcoming April 2012 bond issues --
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
This action officially begins the April 2012 bond issuance process by authorizing the City’s financial advisor
(SPFI) to begin work on the Official Statements needed for the bonds. This item does not authorize the
bond issue or determine the final amount of total bonds issued. The 2011/12 Annual Budget included
debt funding for certain capital improvements.
TAX
SUPPORTED BONDS: Estimated Tax Impact**
General Obligation Bonds – 2011 Public Safety Authorization
25 Year Bonds
Design and preliminary engineering $2,500,000 0.0051
Certificates of Obligation
5 to 10 Year Bonds
Fire Truck – replacement (10 year) 550,000 0.0021
Public Safety Vehicle replacement (5 year amortization) 1,000,000 0.0067
TOTAL TAX SUPPORTED CO BONDS 4,050,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROCEEDS (Net of Issuance Costs) $4,050,000
COMMENTS:
Final amounts may be increased or decreased due to timing of various Capital Improvement Projects or other
market related conditions The “not to exceed amount” for the Certificates of Obligation will be included in
the CO notice/action that will be presented to City Council on March 14. The total face value of the bond
issue will increase to include issuance costs. The total of the General Obligation Bonds may also be
adjusted. Market conditions may warrant the consideration to issue more of the Public Safety Facility bonds
which could result in significant savings will structuring the debt to have a predetermined impact to future
tax rates. An analysis of this option will also be presented to the Council for consideration at that time. This
item was reviewed and approved at the February 13, 2012 General Government and Finance Committee.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Debt service for the tax-supported bonds is estimated to have a total impact on the 2013 tax rate of $0.0139,
of which $0.0051 would be for voter approved debt, and is the based on the 2011 tax base.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Preliminary Bond Timeline
Cover Memo
Item # D
123 1234567 12345
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31
March April May
City of Georgetown, Texas
Timetable for Issuance of
Bond Issue(s), Series 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 Financial Advisor receives financial information from
the City for use in preparation of draft offering
documents.
Friday, March 9, 2012 Preliminary Official Statement (POS) is electronically
distributed by FA for comments.
Not later than:
Tuesday, March 13, 2012* The City Council considers a resolution directing
publication of the notice of intent to issue debt, if
required (only applicable if C/O’s are being issued).
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 POS comments returned to FA.
Friday, March 23, 2012 Bond rating application(s) made.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 Meeting with S&P in Dallas.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 POS electronically posted using I-Deal.
Thursday, April 19, 2012 Bond rating(s) assigned.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012* Bond Sale. Bonds are priced and Series 2012 issue(s)
are awarded by City Council.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Closing. Series 2012 issue(s) are delivered and proceeds
distributed in accordance with Closing Instructions.
* Requires Official Council Meeting.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # D
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the independent audit of all accounts of the City reported in
the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011 -- Micki
Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director; and Lorie Lankford, Controller
ITEM SUMMARY:
Jerry McMillon with CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, reported on the independent
audit of all accounts of the City as contained in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011 during the workshop on February 28, 2012.
The results of the auditors' examination in compliance with the testing for grant proceeds, as well as their
testing on fraud and risk assessment, were also presented during workshop.
COMMENTS:
The auditors rendered a "clean" opinion on the City's financial statements. In other words, they were able
during their audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the basic financial statements are free of material
misstatements.
No material weaknesses in internal control were noted.
The CAFR was reviewed in detail by the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF) at their
February 8, 2012 meeting.
The CAFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association for consideration for the
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City of Georgetown has received this
award for the last twenty-three consecutive years. We believe our current report continues to conform to the
program's requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # E
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the City’s Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation
(GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended
December 30, 2011 -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director; and Lorie
Lankford, Controller
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Quarterly Financial and Investment Report to Council are attached. An executive summary is included
to highlight variances with regards to the revenues and an overview of the investment portfolio as of
September 30, 2011. The Financial Report shows a comparison of current YTD revenues compared to the
prior year through the 1st quarter of the fiscal year on all major funds.
Activity for the quarter primarily related to the reinvestment of maturing securities and diversification of the
portfolio.
Information regarding the capital improvement projects, grants, bids, and legal and consultant summaries are
also included.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION:
The investment activity and strategies described in the investment report are in compliance with the City’s
Investment Policy and state law. This report meets the quarterly reporting requirements mandated by the
Public Funds Investment Act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Quarterly Financial Report
Cover Memo
Item # F
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
0
It
e
m
#
F
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
0
It
e
m
#
F
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
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
8
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
9
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
0
o
f
3
0
It
e
m
#
F
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve the 4th Amendment to the development agreement with
Campbell-Georgetown #1 Limited Partnership as part of the Shell Road Public Improvement District
extending the repayment terms by 24 months and to allow the seller to adjust the payment schedule on the
current unpaid PID assessment -- Lorie Lankford, Controller and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
The recommended modifications to the agreement are:
1. To extend the repayment terms an additional 24 months on the last portion of the Shell Road Public
Improvement District from February 24, 2013 to February 24, 2015.
2. To allow the seller, at the time of closing, to convey property on either the north or south side of the
proposed Verde Vista/Shell Road intersection and pay one half the then current unpaid PID assessment
concurrent with the sales of the property.
The Shell Road PID was created in 1997 to fund the realignment of Shell Road and Williams Drive. The
assessment was created in 2000. The PID was the financing mechanism by the City as a pass through for
funding of the project that was constructed by Williamson County.
The original project costs were funded and constructed by Williamson County, since the properties were in
the County not the City at the time of the agreement. A total assessment of $832,000 was levied against the
property owners, with payment to be made within 7 years after the completion of the project. The 3rd
amendment to this agreement extended the time 24 months. The last payment of approximately $397,384.62
is due February 2013. Interest rates were established at 7% from the date that the Shell Road realignment was
completed. The assessment lien has been assigned to Williamson County.
Once payments are received, the City forwards them to the County. The City has no financial interest in this
agreement, and only acts as the conduit for the project. To date, all properties except for one (Campbell-
Georgetown #1 Limited Partnership) have paid their assessments. This resolution extends the payment period
24 months at the request of the landowner. The developer is also requesting a modification to the payment
schedule on the remaining assessment on the property known as Campbell Tract 3. If the property is not sold
as one tract of land, the developer will pay one half of the current unpaid PID assessment at the time of
closing on the sale. The remainder will be paid as the rest of the property is sold, with a final payment date
no later than February 24, 2015.
The agreement will require the approval of Williamson County. Staff recommends approving the extension
and adjustment of payment schedule at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Fourth Amendment to Development Agreement
Cover Memo
Item # G
Development Agreement Page 1 of 4
Description: 4th Amendment Shell Rd PID Agreement
Date Approved: February 28, 2012
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS )
)
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into this
the 28th day of February, 2012 by and between CAMPBELL-GEORGETOWN #1 LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership (Owner) and the CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, a Texas home rule municipal corporation (the City).
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property in Williamson County, Texas (the
Property) which is located in the City: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code, and Ordinance
No. 2001-51, the City authorized the creation of the Shell Road Public Improvement District (the
“District”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2001-51, the District levied assessments on all
properties within the District to partially repay the costs to re-align Shell Road ( the “Shell Road
Realignment”); and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997 Owner and the City entered into a Development
Agreement (the “Agreement”) to define the Owner’s (and its successors and assigns) responsibility
with respect to the realignment of the Shell Road Realignment; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 16, 2001, the Mayor of the City of Georgetown executed the
First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # G
Development Agreement Page 2 of 4
Description: 4th Amendment Shell Rd PID Agreement
Date Approved: February 28, 2012
WHEREAS, on or about March 27, 2003, the Mayor of the City of Georgetown executed the
Second Amendment to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on or about February 25, 2011, the Mayor of the City of Georgetown executed
the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the assessment lien has been assigned to Williamson County; and
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Owner desire to enter into an additional amendment to
the Development Agreement as follows:
1. Owner acknowledges that the Shell Road Alignment is complete, and the revision
provisions in the deed conveying right-of-way to the City for the Shell Road Realignment are hereby
withdrawn.
2. Ordinance No. 2001-51 imposed an assessment (“Assessment”) against the Property
with interest accruing at the rate of seven (7%) compounding annually. To date, a total sum of at
least $397,384.62, including compounded interest, is currently assessed against the Property of the
Owner (the “Current Assessment”).
3. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2001-51, the Current Assessment against the property is
due and owing as of February 25, 2011.
4. The City hereby agrees to extend the payment of the Current Assessment from
February 24, 2013 until February 24, 2015, at which time the then Current Assessment will be due
and owing, with interest to continue to accrue at seven percent compounded annually from the date
that the Shell Road Realignment was completed until the Full Assessment is paid.
5. The City hereby agrees to change the payment terms of the agreement from the full
amount of assessment including interest being due when any portion of the property is platted or sold
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # G
Development Agreement Page 3 of 4
Description: 4th Amendment Shell Rd PID Agreement
Date Approved: February 28, 2012
to one half of the assessment being due when the first portion of the remaining property is sold and
the remainder of the assessment being due when the property is sold. The developer is responsible
for the assessment including on any portion of the property that is not platted or sold by February 24,
2015.
6. The assessment lien against the Property, and all other provisions as stated in
Ordinance No. 2001-51, shall remain in full force and affect.
7. This Fourth Amendment is subject to the approval of Williamson County, of which
has been assigned the assessment lien.
CAMPBELL/GEORGETOWN #1 LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
a Texas limited partnership
By: CCD Partnership Management, LLC,
General Partner
By: _______________________________________
Lester V. Baum, Manager
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS,
a Texas home rule municipal corporation
By:
George Garver, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # G
Development Agreement Page 4 of 4
Description: 4th Amendment Shell Rd PID Agreement
Date Approved: February 28, 2012
Approved:
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
By: _______________________________
STATE OF TEXAS )
) PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of , 2012 by
Lester V. Baum, a person known to me, in his capacity as Manager of CCD Partnership
Management, LLC, the General Partner for Campbell/Georgetown #1 Limited Partnership, a Texas
limited partnership, on behalf of said partnership.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS )
) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of__________, 2012 by
George Garver, a person known to me, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Georgetown, Texas, a
Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, on behalf of said municipality.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS )
) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of ___________, 2012 by
Judge Gattis, a person known to me, in his capacity as the County Judge of the City of Williamson
County, Texas, , on behalf of said County.
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # G
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the General Government and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to approve award of blanket order for landscaping services in the
public areas of Georgetown Village to We Mow It for approximately $90,000.00 for a period not to
exceed five years (one year original term with four one-year renewals) -- Trina Bickford, Purchasing
Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
ITEM SUMMARY:
Currently the City handles several administrative functions for the Georgetown Village Public Improvement
District (PID), including the bidding process for selection of a landscaping firm to provide services to various
public areas in Georgetown Village. In conjunction with the PID representatives, this requirement was bid
out competitively, and the responses evaluated by three members of the PID board. The landscaping firm
representing the best value is We Mow It. The City will process award of the contract if approved, and will
process all payments on behalf of the PID.
The Invitation to Bid was forwarded to bidders on the City’s bid list as well as bidders on the state’s bid
list. Additionally, the bid was posted on the City’s web site and the state’s Electronic State Business
Daily. Thirteen responses were received and evaluated by a committee composed of PID Board members
using the advertised best value criteria. We Mow It scored the highest, and was recommended for award. The
PID Board has been apprised of the bidding process and the evaluation process. The pricing is within the
PID’s budget.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Me Mow It will bill for monthly scheduled services and services provided on an as needed basis – payment
will be made from account # 234-5-0211-51-310, which is funded by property assessments paid by the PID
residents and the developer to fund upgraded parks facilities within Georgetown Village. There is no net
financial impact to the City.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Summary Score Sheet
Cover Memo
Item # H
Summary Evaluation worksheet for RFP 201210 - Landscaping Services for Georgetown Village PID:
Vendor:Sunterra We Mow It Valleycrest
Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2
Criteria:Points: Score:
Pricing 50 47 45 42 43 40 50 50 50
The lowest bidder on required (not optional) items receives
the maximum points and other bids are compared against
the low bidder for scoring.
Notes:
Business History & Experience 50 points total
Landscape Maintenance 25 23 18 23.5 25 20 22.875 18 16
Based on responses from references - ability to meet
deadlines and quality of work
Irrigation Maintenance 25 23 18 23.5 25 20 22.875 18 16
Based on responses from references - ability to meet
deadlines and quality of work
Notes:
Totals:100 93 81 89.0 93 80 95.75 86 82
Average score:87.66667 89.58333 86.66667
Additional notes:
Eval 1: Harrington
Eval 2: Fussell
Eval 3: Welch
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
#
H
Ranchers Landscaping Countryside Red & White ABC WE Canady Heart of Texas Landscape
Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1
50 47 45 46 35 35 45 35 35 45 33 30 38 30 25 38 25
21 15 20 24.9 20 23 23.25 20 23 23 18 12 21.5 15 15 16.33 15
21 15 20 24.9 20 23 23.25 20 23 23 18 12 21.5 15 15 16.33 15
92 77 85 95.8 75 81 91.5 75 81 91 69 54 81 60 55 70.66 55
85.93333 82.5 82.33333 41 61.88667 69.16667
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
#
H
Heart of Texas Landscape Intl Bldg Service
Eval 2 Eval 3 Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3
15 40 40 0
24 24.75 5 0
24 24.75 5 0
63 89.5 50 0
25
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
#
H
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the declaration of various City vehicles, a mower and a tire
machine 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
ITEM SUMMARY:
Various vehicles and equipment (detailed on attachment) have been deemed of no further use by all City
departments. Staff recommendation is to declare these items surplus and authorize staff to dispose of through
online auctioneering services of Gaston and Sheehan Auctioneers, Inc. of Pflugerville, Texas.
The vehicles (various cars, trucks and specialized vehicles) were previously in service for the City and are
currently in various states of disrepair, have excessive mileage and/or have been replaced by more efficient
models. Additionally, equipment including a mower, trailers, and a tire machine has been deemed of no
further use by all City departments as each is inoperable and several years old, making repairs
impracticable. The vehicles and equipment were previously in use by various departments including the
Police Department, Water/Wastewater Department, Vehicle Service Center and Facilities, and vary in age
from 7 to over 20 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 sold through online auction firm currently under contract with the City.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Gaston & Sheehan will retain 7.5 percent of the proceeds from this auction, the rate Gaston & Sheehan has
imposed for the past few years with no increase. Staff anticipates the income from this auction to be
approximately $35000. Revenue received from the sale of the vehicles and equipment will be deposited in
the Vehicle Service Fund, account # 520-4-0001-44-361 and the Abandoned Vehicles Fund, account #273-4-
0701-44-235.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
List of City owned surplus vehicles and equipment
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
List of abandoned vehicles
Cover Memo
Item # I
Unit Number Miles/Hours VIN Defects
864-11 03 Crown Vic Police Car 78160 2FAFP71W03X167925 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
864-12 03 Crown Vic Police Car 79525 2FAHP71W85X139690 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
864-19 03 Crown Vic Police Car 68385 2FAFP71W93X167924 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
864-30 03 Crown Vic Police Car 51209 2FAFP71W13X167920 Blown Head Gasket, holes
864-41 05 Crown Vic Police Car 74616 2FAHP71W15X139689 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
864-44 05 Crown Vic Police Car 63108 2FAHP71W75X139681 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
864-54 05 Crown Vic Police Car 67604 2FAHP71WX5X139688 Holes in trunk, roof and paint peeling
106-03 02 F-250 Pickup 97612 1FTNX20F22EC58253 AC Condenser bad, needs brake job
106-16 01 F-250 Pickup 122226 3FTNX20F31MA47006
106-30 98 F-150 Pickup 100682 1FTZF1724WKB42402 Freeze plugs leaking
110-10 98 GMC 3500 Sewer Cleaner 27324 1GDKC34F6W057658
120-10 97 F-150 Pickup 119256 1FTDF1723YKD01709
204-08 98 Crown Vic Light blue car 838007 2FALP71W0VX140102
266-02 01 F-250 Animal Control Truck 116255 1FDNF20F81EC09488 Drivers door damaged, no window
439-07 99 Crown Vic Black car 59764 2FAFP71WXXX156484 Uses oil
439-15 00 F-150 (736-36)Pickup 78651 1FTPF17L0YKA84601
439-17 98 Taurus Car 79057 1FAFP52U6W259426 Leaking heater core
439-18 01 F-250 (108-10)Utility Truck 133067 1FDNF20F61EC09148
736-16 02 Ranger Small Pickup 100223 1FTYR44U42PB05017 Freeze plugs leaking
736-43 93 GMC 3500 Small Dump Truck 74005 1GDHC34KPE557869
105-01 94 John Deere Backhoe 9467 T0310DA801543
106-93 94 TSE Wire Trailer 1T9S0212RS268363
736-22 Model 16LA Flat Bed Trailer 17XFL1628M1910428
Old Cranes (3)Pallet
Golf Cart 666147 Frame rusted out
Golf Cart 1011910
Golf Cart 1397594
Golf Cart 1435242 Burned valves
736-51 Encore Mower Mower 249 43051 Intake Manifold broken
Old Tire Machine COATS 40-40S
Description
Auction Items 2011-12
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
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
Abandoned Vehicles:
1990 Acura
1994 Buick
1998 Olds
1996 Cadillac
1994 Plymouth Van
2000 Mitsubishi
2000 Buick
2002 Suzuki
1984 Chevy Truck
1990 Ford
2003 Snowbear Trailer
1993 Toyota
1993 Ford
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # I
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to accept a Training Grant for $5100.00 from the Texas Forest Service -
- Robert Fite, Fire Chief
ITEM SUMMARY:
For the past several years Georgetown Fire Department has applied and accepted training grants from the
Texas Commission on Fire Protection to send firefighters to the Annual Municipal Fire School located in
College Station. These grants have been moved out from the Texas Commission on Fire Protection and
placed under the control of the Texas Forest Service. If awarded this grant, the Georgetown Fire Department
would be able to conduct a training class for the S 130 and S190- Basic Wild land Fire Fighting for 15
students.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The original grant request was $8925. The State will reimburse for actual cost and the grant award will be
$5100 which does reflect the actual cost.
SUBMITTED BY:
Robert Fite , Fire Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Acceptance
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
5
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
5
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
5
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
4
o
f
5
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
5
o
f
5
It
e
m
#
J
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to accept the summary of 2011 Racial Profiling Report as mandated by
the State Legislature -- Roland Waits, Asst. Chief of Police
ITEM SUMMARY:
As mandated by the State Legislature, the Assistant Chief of Police will be presenting information on public
contact data contained in the Racial Profiling Report for Georgetown, Texas.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Roland Waits, Asst. Chief of Police
ATTACHMENTS:
RPR Analysis 2011
Cover Memo
Item # K
GEORGETOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
2011
RACIAL PROFILING ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY:
Lieutenant Cory J. Tchida
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 41
Item # K
2
Introduction
Since the year 2001, the Georgetown Police Department, along with all other Texas law
enforcement agencies, has collected data regarding stops of motor vehicles and
pedestrians in order to analyze whether or not the agency has engaged in racial profiling
contrary to Texas law. That data and analysis has been codified into a written report
which is presented annually to the Georgetown City Council for review and possible
discussion.
Legislative changes to the laws governing the collection and reporting of racial profiling
data are worthy of note. Since September of 2009, the law no longer requires collection
of data regarding pedestrian contacts and is now limited to motor vehicle stops. The law
also now requires that in addition to the annual report required to the Georgetown City
Council, the data collected must also be submitted to the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE).
This particular report is an analysis of the Georgetown Police Department’s policies,
training, and statistical information on racial profiling for the year 2011. This report
complies with Article 2.132 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
The report is divided into relevant sections. The first section covers the applicable
statutes and laws governing racial profiling to set forth the framework in which data is
collected, analyzed, and reported. The second section covers the Georgetown Police
Department’s policy as it relates to racial profiling. The third section addresses the
training of Georgetown Police Department officers on topics relating to racial profiling
and cultural diversity. The fourth section concerns itself with the Georgetown Police
Department’s public education measures to ensure that the public is aware of our
commitment to not engage in racial profiling and what to do if they feel that they have
been a victim of racial profiling. The final section of the report contains the data collected
for year 2011 and an analysis of that data.
Racial Profiling Statutes and Laws
The applicable laws regarding the prohibition of racial profiling, collection of data,
reporting, and training for peace officers is contained in the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Texas Occupations Code. Those laws, with their most recent
amendments, have been set forth below in their entirety.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 41
Item # K
3
Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 3.05. RACIAL PROFILING.
In this code, "racial profiling" means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an
individual's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or
on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED.
A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.132. LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In this article:
(1) "Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the state, or of a county,
municipality, or other political subdivision of the state, that employs peace officers who
make motor vehicle stops in the routine performance of the officers' official duties.
(2) "Motor vehicle stop" means an occasion in which a peace officer stops a motor
vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance.
(3) "Race or ethnicity" means of a particular descent, including Caucasian, African,
Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Middle Eastern descent.
(b) Each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt a detailed written policy on
racial profiling. The policy must:
(1) clearly define acts constituting racial profiling;
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 41
Item # K
4
(2) strictly prohibit peace officers employed by the agency from engaging in racial
profiling;
(3) implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with the agency if
the individual believes that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial
profiling with respect to the individual;
(4) provide public education relating to the agency's complaint process;
(5) require appropriate corrective action to be taken against a peace officer employed by
the agency who, after an investigation, is shown to have engaged in racial profiling in
violation of the agency's policy adopted under this article;
(6) require collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is
issued and to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to:
(A) the race or ethnicity of the individual detained;
(B) whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the individual detained
consented to the search; and
(C) whether the peace officer knew the race or ethnicity of the individual detained before
detaining that individual; and
(7) require the chief administrator of the agency, regardless of whether the administrator
is elected, employed, or appointed, to submit an annual report of the information
collected under Subdivision (6) to:
(A) the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; and
(B) the governing body of each county or municipality served by the agency, if the
agency is an agency of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 41
Item # K
5
(c) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not
constitute prima facie evidence of racial profiling.
(d) On adoption of a policy under Subsection (b), a law enforcement agency shall
examine the feasibility of installing video camera and transmitter-activated equipment in
each agency law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used to make motor vehicle stops
and transmitter-activated equipment in each agency law enforcement motorcycle
regularly used to make motor vehicle stops. If a law enforcement agency installs video or
audio equipment as provided by this subsection, the policy adopted by the agency under
Subsection (b) must include standards for reviewing video and audio documentation.
(e) A report required under Subsection (b)(7) may not include identifying information
about a peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is
stopped or arrested by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the collection of
information as required by a policy under Subsection (b)(6).
(f) On the commencement of an investigation by a law enforcement agency of a
complaint described by Subsection (b)(3) in which a video or audio recording of the
occurrence on which the complaint is based was made, the agency shall promptly provide
a copy of the recording to the peace officer who is the subject of the complaint on written
request by the officer.
(g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and
Education that the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to
submit a report required under Subsection (b)(7), the commission shall begin disciplinary
procedures against the chief administrator.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 41
Item # K
6
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 25, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.133. REPORTS REQUIRED FOR MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS.
(a) In this article, "race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or
ordinance shall report to the law enforcement agency that employs the officer information
relating to the stop, including:
(1) a physical description of any person operating the motor vehicle who is detained as a
result of the stop, including:
(A) the person's gender; and
(B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by the person or, if the person does not state
the person's race or ethnicity, as determined by the officer to the best of the officer's
ability;
(2) the initial reason for the stop;
(3) whether the officer conducted a search as a result of the stop and, if so, whether the
person detained consented to the search;
(4) whether any contraband or other evidence was discovered in the course of the search
and a description of the contraband or evidence;
(5) the reason for the search, including whether:
(A) any contraband or other evidence was in plain view;
(B) any probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to perform the search; or
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 41
Item # K
7
(C) the search was performed as a result of the towing of the motor vehicle or the arrest
of any person in the motor vehicle;
(6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of the stop or the search, including a
statement of whether the arrest was based on a violation of the Penal Code, a violation of
a traffic law or ordinance, or an outstanding warrant and a statement of the offense
charged;
(7) the street address or approximate location of the stop; and
(8) whether the officer issued a written warning or a citation as a result of the stop.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 26, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.134. COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED.
(a) In this article:
(1) "Motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(2) "Race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(b) A law enforcement agency shall compile and analyze the information contained in
each report received by the agency under Article 2.133. Not later than March 1 of each
year, each law enforcement agency shall submit a report containing the incident-based
data compiled during the previous calendar year to the Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education and, if the law enforcement agency is a local law
enforcement agency, to the governing body of each county or municipality served by the
agency.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 41
Item # K
8
(c) A report required under Subsection (b) must be submitted by the chief administrator
of the law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected,
employed, or appointed, and must include:
(1) a comparative analysis of the information compiled under Article 2.133 to:
(A) evaluate and compare the number of motor vehicle stops, within the applicable
jurisdiction, of persons who are recognized as racial or ethnic minorities and persons who
are not recognized as racial or ethnic minorities; and
(B) examine the disposition of motor vehicle stops made by officers employed by the
agency, categorized according to the race or ethnicity of the affected persons, as
appropriate, including any searches resulting from stops within the applicable
jurisdiction; and
(2) information relating to each complaint filed with the agency alleging that a peace
officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling.
(d) A report required under Subsection (b) may not include identifying information about
a peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or
arrested by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the reporting of information
required under Article 2.133(b)(1).
(e) The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, in
accordance with Section 1701.162, Occupations Code, shall develop guidelines for
compiling and reporting information as required by this article.
(f) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not
constitute prima facie evidence of racial profiling.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 41
Item # K
9
(g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and
Education that the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to
submit a report required under Subsection (b), the commission shall begin disciplinary
procedures against the chief administrator.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 27, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.135. PARTIAL EXEMPTION FOR AGENCIES USING VIDEO AND AUDIO
EQUIPMENT.
(a) A peace officer is exempt from the reporting requirement under Article 2.133 and the
chief administrator of a law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator
is elected, employed, or appointed, is exempt from the compilation, analysis, and
reporting requirements under Article 2.134 if:
(1) during the calendar year preceding the date that a report under Article 2.134 is
required to be submitted:
(A) each law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used by an officer employed by the
agency to make motor vehicle stops is equipped with video camera and transmitter-
activated equipment and each law enforcement motorcycle regularly used to make motor
vehicle stops is equipped with transmitter-activated equipment; and
(B) each motor vehicle stop made by an officer employed by the agency that is capable
of being recorded by video and audio or audio equipment, as appropriate, is recorded by
using the equipment; or
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 41
Item # K
10
(2) the governing body of the county or municipality served by the law enforcement
agency, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency, certifies to the Department of
Public Safety, not later than the date specified by rule by the department, that the law
enforcement agency needs funds or video and audio equipment for the purpose of
installing video and audio equipment as described by Subsection (a)(1)(A) and the
agency does not receive from the state funds or video and audio equipment sufficient, as
determined by the department, for the agency to accomplish that purpose.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a law enforcement agency that is
exempt from the requirements under Article 2.134 shall retain the video and audio or
audio documentation of each motor vehicle stop for at least 90 days after the date of the
stop. If a complaint is filed with the law enforcement agency alleging that a peace officer
employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to a motor vehicle
stop, the agency shall retain the video and audio or audio record of the stop until final
disposition of the complaint.
(c) This article does not affect the collection or reporting requirements under Article
2.132.
(d) In this article, "motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 28, eff. September 1, 2009.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 41
Item # K
11
Art. 2.136. LIABILITY.
A peace officer is not liable for damages arising from an act relating to the collection or
reporting of information as required by Article 2.133 or under a policy adopted under
Article 2.132.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.137. PROVISION OF FUNDING OR EQUIPMENT.
(a) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules for providing funds or video and
audio equipment to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of installing video and
audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), including specifying criteria to
prioritize funding or equipment provided to law enforcement agencies. The criteria may
include consideration of tax effort, financial hardship, available revenue, and budget
surpluses. The criteria must give priority to:
(1) law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers whose primary duty is traffic
enforcement;
(2) smaller jurisdictions; and
(3) municipal and county law enforcement agencies.
(b) The Department of Public Safety shall collaborate with an institution of higher
education to identify law enforcement agencies that need funds or video and audio
equipment for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by
Article 2.135(a)(1)(A). The collaboration may include the use of a survey to assist in
developing criteria to prioritize funding or equipment provided to law enforcement
agencies.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 41
Item # K
12
(c) To receive funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of
installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the
governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement
agency serving the county or municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public
Safety that the law enforcement agency needs funds or video and audio equipment for
that purpose.
(d) On receipt of funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of
installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the
governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement
agency serving the county or municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public
Safety that the law enforcement agency has installed video and audio equipment as
described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A) and is using the equipment as required by Article
2.135(a)(1).
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.138. RULES.
The Department of Public Safety may adopt rules to implement Articles 2.131-2.137.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.1385. CIVIL PENALTY.
(a) If the chief administrator of a local law enforcement agency intentionally fails to
submit the incident-based data as required by Article 2.134, the agency is liable to the
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 41
Item # K
13
state for a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 for each violation. The attorney general
may sue to collect a civil penalty under this subsection.
(b) From money appropriated to the agency for the administration of the agency, the
executive director of a state law enforcement agency that intentionally fails to submit the
incident-based data as required by Article 2.134 shall remit to the comptroller the amount
of $1,000 for each violation.
(c) Money collected under this article shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit
of the general revenue fund.
Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 29, eff. September 1, 2009.
Occupations Code
Sec. 1701.253. SCHOOL CURRICULUM.
(a) The commission shall establish minimum curriculum requirements for preparatory
and advanced courses and programs for schools subject to approval under Section
1701.251(c)(1).
(b) In establishing requirements under this section, the commission shall require courses
and programs to provide training in:
(1) the investigation and documentation of cases that involve:
(A) child abuse or neglect;
(B) family violence; and
(C) sexual assault;
(2) issues concerning sex offender characteristics; and
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 41
Item # K
14
(3) crime victims' rights under Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Chapter 57,
Family Code, and the duty of law enforcement agencies to ensure that a victim is
afforded those rights.
(c) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall establish a
statewide comprehensive education and training program on civil rights, racial
sensitivity, and cultural diversity for persons licensed under this chapter.
(d) Training in documentation of cases required by Subsection (b) shall include
instruction in:
(1) making a written account of the extent of injuries sustained by the victim of an
alleged offense;
(2) recording by photograph or videotape the area in which an alleged offense occurred
and the victim's injuries; and
(3) recognizing and recording a victim's statement that may be admissible as evidence in
a proceeding concerning the matter about which the statement was made.
(e) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements relating to the vehicle and traffic
laws of this state, the commission shall require an education and training program on
laws relating to the operation of motorcycles and to the wearing of protective headgear by
motorcycle operators and passengers. In addition, the commission shall require
education and training on motorcycle operator profiling awareness and sensitivity
training.
(f) Training for officers and recruits in investigation of cases required by Subsection
(b)(1)(B) shall include instruction in preventing dual arrest whenever possible and
conducting a thorough investigation to determine which person is the predominant
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 41
Item # K
15
aggressor when allegations of family violence from two or more opposing persons are
received arising from the same incident.
(g) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall establish a
statewide comprehensive education and training program on asset forfeiture under
Chapter 59, Code of Criminal Procedure, for officers licensed under this chapter. An
officer shall complete a program established under this subsection not later than the
second anniversary of the date the officer is licensed under this chapter or the date the
officer applies for an intermediate proficiency certificate, whichever date is earlier.
(h) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall establish a
statewide comprehensive education and training program on racial profiling for officers
licensed under this chapter. An officer shall complete a program established under this
subsection not later than the second anniversary of the date the officer is licensed under
this chapter or the date the officer applies for an intermediate proficiency certificate,
whichever date is earlier.
(i) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall establish a
statewide comprehensive education and training program on identity theft under Section
32.51, Penal Code, for officers licensed under this chapter. An officer shall complete a
program established under this subsection not later than the second anniversary of the
date the officer is licensed under this chapter or the date the officer applies for an
intermediate proficiency certificate, whichever date is earlier.
(j) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall require an
officer to complete a statewide education and training program on de-escalation and crisis
intervention techniques to facilitate interaction with persons with mental
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 41
Item # K
16
impairments. An officer shall complete the program not later than the second anniversary
of the date the officer is licensed under this chapter or the date the officer applies for an
intermediate proficiency certificate, whichever date is earlier. An officer may not satisfy
the requirements of this section or Section 1701.402(g) by taking an online course on de-
escalation and crisis intervention techniques to facilitate interaction with persons with
mental impairments.
(k) As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall establish a
statewide comprehensive education and training program for officers licensed under this
chapter that covers the laws of this state and of the United States pertaining to peace
officers.
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 657, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 897, Sec. 1, eff. Sept.
1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 929, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg.,
ch. 947, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1034, Sec. 14, eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1276, Sec. 14.007, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 1326, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 393, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 12, eff. September 1, 2009.
Sec. 1701.352. CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
(a) The commission shall recognize, prepare, or administer continuing education
programs for officers and county jailers.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 41
Item # K
17
(b) The commission shall require a state, county, special district, or municipal agency
that appoints or employs peace officers to provide each peace officer with a training
program at least once every 48 months that is approved by the commission and consists
of:
(1) topics selected by the agency; and
(2) for an officer holding only a basic proficiency certificate, not more than 20 hours of
education and training that contain curricula incorporating the learning objectives
developed by the commission regarding:
(A) civil rights, racial sensitivity, and cultural diversity;
(B) de-escalation and crisis intervention techniques to facilitate interaction with persons
with mental impairments; and
(C) unless determined by the agency head to be inconsistent with the officer's assigned
duties:
(i) the recognition and documentation of cases that involve child abuse or neglect, family
violence, and sexual assault; and
(ii) issues concerning sex offender characteristics.
(c) A course provided under Subsection (b) may use instructional materials developed by
the agency or its trainers or by entities having training agreements with the commission
in addition to materials included in curricula developed by the commission.
(d) A peace officer appointed to the officer's first supervisory position must receive in-
service training on supervision as part of the course provided for the officer under
Subsection (b) during the 24-month period after the date of that appointment.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 41
Item # K
18
(e) The commission may require a state, county, special district, or municipal agency
that appoints or employs a reserve law enforcement officer, county jailer, or public
security officer to provide each of those persons with education and training in civil
rights, racial sensitivity, and cultural diversity at least once every 48 months.
(f) Training in documentation of cases required by Subsection (b) shall include
instruction in:
(1) making a written account of the extent of injuries sustained by the victim of an
alleged offense;
(2) recording by photograph or videotape the area in which an alleged offense occurred
and the victim's injuries; and
(3) recognizing and recording a victim's statement that may be admissible as evidence in
a proceeding concerning the matter about which the statement was made.
(g) The training and education program on de-escalation and crisis intervention
techniques to facilitate interaction with persons with mental impairments under
Subsection (b)(2)(B) may not be provided as an online course. The commission shall:
(1) determine best practices for interacting with persons with mental impairments, in
consultation with the Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas;
and
(2) review the education and training program under Subsection (b)(2)(B) at least once
every 24 months.
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 1157, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 41
Item # K
19
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 16, eff. September 1, 2009.
Sec. 1701.402. PROFICIENCY CERTIFICATES.
(a) The commission shall issue certificates that recognize proficiency based on law
enforcement training, education, and experience. For this purpose the commission shall
use the employment records of the employing agency.
(b) As a requirement for a basic proficiency certificate, the commission shall require
completion of local courses or programs of instruction on federal and state statutes that
relate to employment issues affecting peace officers and county jailers, including:
(1) civil service;
(2) compensation, including overtime compensation, and vacation time;
(3) personnel files and other employee records;
(4) management-employee relations in law enforcement organizations;
(5) work-related injuries;
(6) complaints and investigations of employee misconduct; and
(7) disciplinary actions and the appeal of disciplinary actions.
(c) An employing agency is responsible for providing the training required by this
section.
(d) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate, an officer must complete
an education and training program on asset forfeiture established by the commission
under Section 1701.253(g).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 41
Item # K
20
(e) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate, an officer must complete
an education and training program on racial profiling established by the commission
under Section 1701.253(h).
(f) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate, an officer must complete
an education and training program on identity theft established by the commission under
Section 1701.253(i).
(g) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate or an advanced
proficiency certificate, an officer must complete the education and training program
described by Section 1701.253 regarding de-escalation and crisis intervention techniques
to facilitate interaction with persons with mental impairments.
Text of subsection as added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1002, Sec. 6
(h) As a requirement for an intermediate or advanced proficiency certificate issued by
the commission on or after January 1, 2011, an officer must complete the basic education
and training program on the trafficking of persons described by Section 1701.258(a).
Text of subsection as added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 17
(h) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate, an officer must complete
an education and training program on investigative topics established by the commission
under Section 1701.253(b).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 41
Item # K
21
(i) As a requirement for an intermediate proficiency certificate, an officer must complete
an education and training program on civil rights, racial sensitivity, and cultural diversity
established by the commission under Section 1701.253(c).
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 929, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 5, eff. Sept.
1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1276, Sec. 14.008, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 1326, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 393, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1002, Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 17, eff. September 1, 2009.
Georgetown Police Department Policy on Racial Profiling
Article 2.132 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that each law
enforcement agency have a detailed written policy in regard to the topic of racial
profiling. That policy must define racial profiling, prohibit the act of racial profiling,
implement a complaint process, provide for public education, require corrective action if
racial profiling occurs, require collection of data, and require the submission of an annual
report.
The policy issued by the Georgetown Police Department in August of 2002 fully
complies with Article 2.132. The policy is currently being revised to reflect the
legislative change no longer requiring data collection on pedestrian stops and the manner
in which data is collected. At the time the policy was created, data was collected via the
use of Scantron sheets which were subsequently scanned into a database established for
the express purpose of collecting racial profiling data. Data is now collected via use of
the OSSI mobile computer and records management system.
The policy is set forth below in its entirety.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 41
Item # K
22
General Order G07.00
G07.01 PURPOSE
To reaffirm the Georgetown Police Department commitment to unbiased policing, to
clarify the circumstances in which officers can consider race/ethnicity when making law
enforcement decisions, and to reinforce procedures that serve to assure the public that we
are providing service and enforcing laws in an equitable way.
G07.02 DEFINITIONS
“Pedestrian Stop” – An interaction between a Georgetown peace officer and an individual
who is being detained for the purpose of a criminal investigation in which the individual
is not under arrest.
“Race or Ethnicity” – Of a particular descent, including Caucasian, African, Hispanic,
Asian, Middle Eastern or Native American descent.
“Racial Profiling/Racially Biased Policing” – A law enforcement initiated action based
on an individual’s race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual’s
behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal
activity.
G07.03 POLICY
General Statement
Members of the Georgetown Police Department shall not engage in racially biased
policing.
Policing Impartially
Investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests, searches, and property seizures by officers
will be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause in accordance with
the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Officers must be able to articulate
specific facts and circumstances that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for
investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests, nonconsensual searches, and property
seizures.
Except as provided below, officers shall not consider race/ethnicity in establishing either
reasonable suspicion, probable cause or as a motivating factor in law enforcement
decisions. Similarly, except as provided below, officers shall not consider race/ethnicity
in deciding to initiate even those non-consensual encounters that do not amount to legal
detentions or to request consent to search.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 41
Item # K
23
Officers may take into account the reported race or ethnicity of a specific suspect or
suspects based on trustworthy, locally relevant information that links a person or persons
of a specific race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful incident(s). Race/ethnicity can never
be used as the sole basis for probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Preventing Perceptions of Biased Policing
In an effort to prevent inappropriate perceptions of biased law enforcement, each officer
shall do the following when conducting pedestrian and vehicle stops:
- Be courteous and professional
- Introduce him or herself to the citizen (providing name and agency affiliation), and state
the reason for the stop as soon as practical, unless doing so would compromise officer
or public safety. In vehicle stops, the officer shall provide this information before
asking the driver for their license and proof of financial responsibility.
- Ensure that the detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action for the
known or suspected offense and that the citizen understands the purpose of reasonable
delays.
- Answer an questions the citizen may have, including options for traffic citation
disposition, if relevant.
- Provide name and badge number when requested in writing or on a business card.
- Apologize and/or explain if he or she determines that the reasonable suspicion was
unfounded (e.g., after an investigatory stop).
G07.04 PROCEDURES
Complaints
Individuals believing that members of the Georgetown Police Department have violated
this policy may file a complaint in accordance with our complaint process.
In instances where members of the Georgetown Police Department are alleged to have
violated this general order, the member will be provided an audio or video recording of
the alleged violation, upon their written request if such a recording was made.
Members found to have violated this general order are subject to appropriate corrective
action and/or disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Education
Members of the public shall be educated about the complaint process via information
contained in department sanctioned brochures, the City of Georgetown web site and
periodic use of the print media.
Officers of the Georgetown Police Department shall be trained on this policy and law
relating to racial profiling by attendance at State of Texas mandated training on the topic.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 41
Item # K
24
Reporting
In accordance with State of Texas law, the Georgetown Police Department will collect
the follow the following tier 1 information related to traffic stops in which a citation was
issued or an arrest made:
- The race or ethnicity of the individual detained; and
- Whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the person detained consented to
the search.
In accordance with State of Texas law, the Georgetown Police Department will collect
the following tier 2 information in all cases where an officer stops a motor vehicle for an
alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or who stops a pedestrian for any
suspected offense:
- The gender of each person detained as a result of the stop
- The race or ethnicity of each person detained as a result of the stop
- The traffic law or ordinance alleged to have been violated or the suspected offense
- Whether a search was conducted as a result of the stop and, if so, whether the person
detained consented to the search
- Whether any contraband was discovered in the course of the search and the type of
contraband discovered
- Whether probable cause to search existed and the facts supporting that probable cause
- Whether an arrest was made as a result of the stop or search to include the offense
charged
- The street or approximate location of the stop
- Whether a warning or citation was issued including a description of the warning or
statement of violations charged
The information collected above will be reported on an annual basis to the members of
the Georgetown City Council. The data collected shall not constitute prima facie
evidence of racially biased policing.
The report to the Georgetown City Council may not include identifying information
about any peace officer or about any individual stopped by a peace officer beyond what is
stated above.
To accomplish the reporting requirements, officers shall fill out a “Traffic/Pedestrian
Stop Contact Sheet” in each case required by law.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 41
Item # K
25
Georgetown Police Department Training and Education on Racial
Profiling
The Texas Occupations Code requires that all peace officers in the State of Texas receive
a course of instruction on the topic of racial profiling. According to Section 1701.253 this
training is to be received either before the second anniversary of licensure or application
for the intermediate proficiency certificate, whichever date is earlier.
The Texas Occupations Code further requires that all peace officers receive training on
racial diversity and cultural sensitivity.
As of the date of the presentation of this report, all officers of the Georgetown Police
Department are in compliance with all training mandates. All future new hires will be
provided these trainings during their initial departmental orientation phase.
Georgetown Police Department Complaint Process and Public
Education on Racial Profiling
During the year of 2011, no complaints of racial profiling were received by the
Georgetown Police Department.
Pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Georgetown Police Department
policy, the Department does provide public education on the act of racial profiling, the
department’s stance on the practice, and how to file a racial profiling complaint. In the
age of the Internet, the primary method for delivering this information is the City of
Georgetown Police Department website. The information listed below can be found at
http://pd.georgetown.org/divisions/administration/racial-profiling/ :
Racial Profiling
Racial Profiling occurs when law enforcement officers, in their official capacity,
considers a person’s race, ethnicity, or skin color as a basis for enforcement. The ‘Texas
Code of Criminal Procedures Art. 3.05 Racial Profiling’ defines racial profiling as:
“In this code, racial profiling means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an
individual’s race, ethnicity or national origin rather than on the individual’s behavior or
on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.”
Art. 2.131 of the Texas Criminal Code of Procedures states that “A peace officer may not
engage in racial profiling.”
Georgetown Police Departments’ View of Racial Profiling
Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 41
Item # K
26
The mission statement of the Georgetown Police Department is “To protect and serve the
community of Georgetown’s quest for a peaceful and safe existence, free from fear, with
democratic values applied equally to all with a commitment to excellence by providing
the highest level of integrity, professionalism, and customer service to enhance the
quality of life of our community.”
Based on our values, the Georgetown Police Department does not condone Racial
Profiling or any type of Racially Biased Policing. If you feel you have been a victim of
Racial Profiling or Racially Biased Policing, contact our Professional Standards Division
at (512) 930-2588.
Filing a Complaint
The following information has been disseminated to the public as part of an educational
campaign aimed at informing community members of the complaint process relevant to
violations of the Texas Racial Profiling Law.
Understanding the Process
Once an individual has filed a complaint regarding racial profiling, he/she should expect
the following process to commence:
The Interview
A police supervisor or an investigator from the department’s Professional Standards
Division will interview the individual filing the complaint. The officer will ask the
alleged victim questions about what happened. It is possible that the officer may be able
to explain the officer(s) actions to your satisfaction.
Usually, the alleged victim will be interviewed at the Police Department’s Main Building.
It is possible that he/she may be videotaped during the interview.
The individual filing the complaint may bring a lawyer, family member or friend to the
interview.
The interviewer will ask the individual filing a complaint for the names of witnesses and
other police officers that may know facts about the complaint. A police photographer
may take pictures of any injuries that the alleged victim think are related to the complaint.
The Investigation
After the interview, the Georgetown Police Department will investigate the alleged
misconduct. Investigators will talk to witnesses and visit the site of the incident.
- The investigators will consist of supervisors/investigators assigned to the Professional
Standards Division.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 41
Item # K
27
- All officers will be interviewed and witnesses whom the alleged victim has named will
be contacted and interviewed, if they agree.
- The alleged victim will receive a letter regarding the progress of the investigation.
Although it is impossible to estimate how long the investigation will take, the alleged
victim will receive periodic reports on its status.
- A report will then be prepared.
The Review Process
Once the investigation is completed the report goes to the affected employees Bureau
Commander who makes recommendations based on the findings of the investigation and
input from the employee’s immediate supervisor.
The investigation, findings, and recommendations will then be sent to the Professional
Standards Division for review to ensure accuracy and fairness.
The Chief of Police will then receive the investigative report and findings to review and
approve or disapprove the final recommendations.
The Findings
The results of your complaint are called “findings”. There are four possible findings: o
Sustained – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable
conclusion that the alleged misconduct occurred.
- Unfounded – It is found that the reported misconduct did not occur or did not occur as
alleged.
- Exonerated – The incident occurred, but was lawful and proper.
- Not Sustained – A determination that the facts presented are insufficient to clearly prove
or disprove the allegations. The inquiry into this allegation is inactivated pending
development pending development of further information.
The Professional Standards Division will inform the alleged victim through an official
letter of the final decision.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 41
Item # K
28
Data Analysis
Before contemplating a review of the data and attempting to analyze said data, some
important caveats must be mentioned. Given the nature of the data collection required by
law, it is nearly impossible to make an easy determination that racial profiling has
occurred or not occurred within the Georgetown Police Department. The law dictates that
law enforcement agencies in Texas compile aggregate level data. Using aggregate level
data to make inferences regarding racial profiling by individual officers is not
methodologically sound. This error is referred to as the “ecological fallacy”. The fallacy
assumes that individual members of a group have the average characteristics of the group.
The law currently does not require the presentation of individual officer data in the
annual report and actually prohibits the naming of individual officers. It should be noted
that this does not affect the ability of the Georgetown Police Department to review
individual officer data if the need arises.
A proper analysis is further hampered by the census treatment of Hispanics versus the
racial profiling law’s treatment of Hispanics. The 2010 census properly separates race
and ethnicity as two distinct categories. An individual can be of Hispanic ethnicity but
belong to different races such as white or black. The racial profiling law does not
differentiate between race and ethnicity and has Hispanics classified as if they are a
distinct race. Officers are required to make subjective determinations regarding
someone’s race and ethnicity. The State of Texas does not provide this information
objectively within the driver’s license and identification card system.
Selecting an appropriate population base rate measure is also problematic. One of the
most common choices used by law enforcement agencies is the data compiled by the
United States Census Bureau. In addition to the race versus ethnicity problem stated
above, as each year passes, the census data becomes less and less reliable due to
population fluctuations. Last year’s data relied on population base rates that were ten
years old from the 2000 census.
Choosing which census data to use presents challenges for analysis. Part of the data
collected involves whether or not the person stopped was a resident of the City of
Georgetown. Beyond knowing that, only speculation is possible. If the answer is no, it is
not known if the person is a resident of Williamson County, Texas, another state, or even
another country. The City of Georgetown is bisected by IH 35 which runs from Mexico
to Duluth, Minnesota. Approximately 22% of the Georgetown Police Department’s
17,100 stops occurred on IH 35 leaving non-resident origin open to many possibilities.
Understanding the caveats listed above is crucial to fully understanding the data
presented and its limitations.
Table 1 listed below details the racial/ethnic and gender breakdown of the sworn
members of the Georgetown Police Department.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 41
Item # K
29
Demographics of Georgetown Police Sworn Personnel
Male % Female % Total Total %
White 55 77.46% 8 11.27% 63 88.73%
African-
American 1 1.41% 0 0.00% 1 1.41%
Hispanic 7 9.86% 0 0.00% 7 9.86%
Total 63 88.46% 8 11.27% 71 100%
Table 1
As is evident from the table, the sworn personnel of the Georgetown Police Department
are currently predominantly white and predominantly male. Diversity in hiring has been a
priority of the Department but historically, the Department has had to compete with
larger agencies and agencies that offer higher pay who have also been actively recruiting
qualified minority candidates and qualified female applicants.
In 2009, the racial profiling law was amended to require the collection of data about
whether or not the officer knew the race/ethnicity of the driver before making the stop.
This question addresses the issue of pre-stop racial profiling. As can be seen from the two
tables below, in over 95% of all contacts, the officer was not aware of the race/ethnicity
prior to making the stop. This average holds true across all races/ethnicities.
This is supported by the fact that many violations are moving violations where, due to
distance, the decision to stop is made long before an officer is able to identify the driver.
There are also a significant number of stops that occur at night where in many cases the
officer cannot see the driver until the officer has contacted the driver at the window.
Based on the data collected, there is no evidence of pre-stop racial profiling in the
Georgetown Police Department.
Was Race/Ethnicity Known Prior to Stop? (Total)
Yes % No %
801 4.68% 16,299 95.32%
Table 2a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 41
Item # K
30
Was Race/Ethnicity Known Prior to Stop? (By Race/Ethnicity)
Yes % No %
White 664 4.72% 13,405 95.28%
African-
American 37 3.64% 979 96.36%
Hispanic 91 5.53% 1,555 94.47%
Asian 4 1.97% 199 98.03%
Native American 0 0.00% 19 100.00%
Middle Eastern 0 0.00% 13 100.00%
Other 5 3.73% 129 96.27%
Table 2b
Knew Race/Ethnicity
Y
5%
N
95%
Y
N
Chart 2
In reviewing 2010 census data for the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and the
State of Texas, males and females were equally represented. As can be seen from table 3a
and table 3b, males were stopped at a greater frequency than females across all
races/ethnicities.
Gender (Total)
Male % Female %
9,957 58% 7,143 42%
Table 3a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 41
Item # K
31
Gender (By Race/Ethnicity)
Male % Female %
White 8,039 57% 6,030 43%
African-
American 627 62% 389 38%
Hispanic 1,083 66% 563 34%
Asian 111 55% 92 45%
Native American 11 58% 8 42%
Middle Eastern 7 54% 6 46%
Other 79 59% 55 41%
Table 3b
Table 4 details the highest order of aggregate data for contacts by race/ethnicity of the
Georgetown Police Department in 2011. This includes all types of contacts such as stops
of motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and even golf carts. Even though it is no longer
legally required to collect data on anything other than a motor vehicle stop, all records in
the racial profiling system were included for completeness and transparency purposes.
The table includes residents and non-residents alike.
Stops by Race
N %
White 14,069 82.28%
African-
American 1,016 5.94%
Hispanic 1,646 9.63%
Asian 203 1.19%
Native American 19 0.11%
Middle Eastern 13 0.08%
Other 134 0.78%
Table 4
Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 41
Item # K
32
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1
Stops by Race/Ethnicity
W
B
H
A
I
ME
O
Chart 4
Table 5 takes the data in Table 4 and begins to break it down by stop type and
race/ethnicity. As is evident, the vast majority of all stops involve motor vehicles.
Stop Type (By Race/Ethnicity)
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
Go
l
f
c
a
r
t
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 13,871 99% 59 >1% 85 >1% 8 >1% 18 >1% 28 >1%
African-
American 987 97% 20 2% 4 >1% 0 >1% 2 >1% 3 >1%
Hispanic 1,605 98% 22 1% 6 >1% 0 0% 9 >1% 4 >1%
Asian 203 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Native
American 19 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 13 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 130 97% 1 1% 3 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Table 5
Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 41
Item # K
33
Table 6 shows the breakdown of stops of Georgetown residents versus non-residents. As
was explained earlier, with the data collected, it is not currently possible to determine the
residency status of non-residents other than to state that they are not residents of
Georgetown. As can be seen from Table 6 and Table 7a, the stops of Georgetown
residents are consistent with their racial/ethnic proportion in the community. Even the
stops of non-residents are not inconsistent with the racial/ethnic proportions found in the
population of Williamson County (Table 7b) and the State of Texas (Table 7c).
Resident of Georgetown? (By Race/Ethnicity)
Y Percentage N Percentage
White 7556 84.47% 6513 79.87%
African-
American 339 3.79% 677 8.30%
Hispanic 912 10.20% 734 9.00%
Asian 63 0.70% 140 1.72%
Native American 9 0.10% 10 0.12%
Middle Eastern 6 0.07% 7 0.09%
Other 60 0.67% 74 0.91%
Table 6
Census 2010 Population by Ethnicity (Georgetown)
N %
Hispanic or Latino 10,317 21.77%
Non Hispanic or Latino 37,083 78.23%
Census 2010 Population by Race (Georgetown)
N %
White 40,866 86.22%
African American 1,746 3.69%
Asian 488 1.03%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 270 0.57%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander 40 0.07%
Other 2,935 6.19%
Identified by two or more 1,055 2.23%
Table 7a
Attachment number 1 \nPage 33 of 41
Item # K
34
Census 2010 Population by Ethnicity (Williamson County)
N %
Hispanic or Latino 98,034 23.19%
Non Hispanic or Latino 324,645 76.81%
Census 2010 Population by Race (Williamson County)
N %
White 330,191 78.12%
African American 26,196 6.20%
Asian 20,433 4.83%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 2,629 0.62%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander 413 0.10%
Other 29,336 6.94%
Identified by two or more 13,481 3.19%
Table 7b
Census 2010 Population by Ethnicity (Texas)
N %
Hispanic or Latino 9,460,921 37.62%
Non Hispanic or Latino 15,684,640 62.38%
Census 2010 Population by Race (Texas)
N %
White 17,701,552 70.40%
African American 2,979,598 11.85%
Asian 964,596 3.84%
American Indian and Alaska
Native 170,972 0.68%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander 21,656 0.08%
Other 2,628,186 10.45%
Identified by two or more 679,001 2.70%
Table 7c
Table 8a and Table 8b detail the reasons why persons were stopped and contacted by
officers of the Georgetown Police Department. These particular tables must be viewed in
the context of Table 2a where it was stated that in 95% of the stops, the officer did not
know the race/ethnicity of the driver. This is corroborated by Table 8a where the majority
of stop reasons are for moving violations such as speeding, stop sign and red light
violations, fail to signal violations, and others where it is not likely that the officer saw
the driver before seeing the violation. In future reports, speeding will be detailed as its
own stop reason since it makes up the majority of moving violations.
Since Table 2a must be considered in context with Table 8a and Table 8b, nothing can
logically be inferred from the data presented. The percentages presented are fairly equal
across all racial/ethnic boundaries. Hispanics appear to have a higher rate of equipment
violation stops compared to other race/ethnicities but it is not prudent to infer anything
based on the reasons stated above.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 34 of 41
Item # K
35
Stop Reasons (Transportation Code)
Mo
v
i
n
g
No
n
-
M
o
v
i
n
g
MV
I
/
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Sa
f
e
t
y
B
e
l
t
/
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
e
a
t
N % N % N % N % N %
White 9,616 68% 129 1% 2,150 15% 1,959 14% 106 1%
African-
American 683 67% 8 1% 134 13% 164 16% 3 >1%
Hispanic 936 57% 20 1% 195 12% 425 26% 19 1%
Asian 151 74% 1 >1% 27 13% 23 11% 0 0%
Native
American 16 84% 0 0% 1 5% 2 11% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 9 69% 0 0% 0 0% 4 31% 0 0%
Other 84 63% 3 2% 14 10% 29 22% 2 1%
Table 8a
Stops Reasons (Non-Transportation Code)
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ca
l
l
s
f
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
–
S
u
s
p
/
V
e
h
D
e
s
c
Pe
n
a
l
C
o
d
e
N % N % N % N %
White 70 1% 42 >1% 42 >1% 8 >1%
African-
American 14 1% 4 >1% 10 1% 2 >1%
Hispanic 28 2% 18 1% 12 1% 1 >1%
Asian 1 >1% 0 0% 1 >1% 0 0%
Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle Eastern 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1%
Table 8b
Attachment number 1 \nPage 35 of 41
Item # K
36
Table 9 details the dispositions of all stops by the Georgetown Police Department. The
majority of stops are cleared with a warning. African-American and Hispanics were
arrested in greater percentages than Whites but that must be viewed in context with Table
10 which details the reasons for arrests. Both African-American and Hispanics showed a
greater percentage of warrant arrests. Warrant arrests would generally be considered non-
discretionary and therefore a mandatory arrest by the officer.
Citations were issued in roughly the same amounts across all races/ethnicities. Table 11
details the charges for the citations. The majority of Whites and African-American were
cited for moving violations. Hispanics were cited at significantly higher rates than Whites
and African-Americans in the category of insurance violations and non-moving
violations. This is likely due to the presence of non-resident aliens who are operating
vehicles without insurance and/or valid driver’s licenses. Beginning in 2012, license
violations will be separated out from non-moving violations to better track this particular
trend.
Stop Dispositions
Ar
r
e
s
t
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
r
e
s
t
&
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
Wa
r
n
i
n
g
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
e
l
d
Co
n
t
a
c
t
Re
p
o
r
t
N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 164 1% 4,063 29% 18 >1% 9,638 69% 176 1% 5 >1% 5 >1%
African-
American 31 3% 310 31% 5 >1% 638 63% 32 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Hispanic 66 4% 419 25% 10 >1% 1,085 66% 64 4% 0 0% 2 >1%
Asian 0 0% 63 31% 0 0% 134 66% 6 3% 0 0% 0 0%
Native
American 1 5% 4 21% 0 0% 14 74% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 0 0% 5 38% 0 0% 8 62% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 2 1% 38 28% 0 0% 94 70% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Table 9
Attachment number 1 \nPage 36 of 41
Item # K
37
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
WBHA IMEO
Stop Dispositions
ARREST
CITATION
WARNING
Arrest Charges
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
DW
L
I
DW
I
Dr
u
g
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
s
d
e
m
e
a
n
o
r
Fe
l
o
n
y
MV
I
/
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
No
n
-
M
o
v
i
n
g
Mo
v
i
n
g
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 62 34% 46 25% 51 28% 34 19% 16 9% 2 1% 4 2% 2 1% 0 0% 1 >1%
African-
American 20 56% 9 25% 2 6% 4 11% 1 3% 2 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Hispanic 29 38% 11 14% 26 34% 7 9% 13 17% 2 3% 5 7% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0%
Asian 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Native
American 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%
Table 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 37 of 41
Item # K
38
Table 11
In addition to pre-stop profiling concerns, much of the racial profiling debate has
revolved around the topic of searching. Searches are broken down between non-
discretionary searches and discretionary searches. Non-discretionary searches are those
searches where the circumstances dictate that an officer shall or should conduct a search.
Searching someone after arresting them and before placing them in a secure facility such
as a jail is an example of a mandatory type search. Seeing obvious contraband or smelling
obvious contraband, marijuana for example, is another example where a search should be
conducted.
Table 12a details the non-discretionary searches for the Georgetown Police Department
for the year 2011. The percentages next to the number represents the percentage of the
time that particular search yielded contraband. For example, there were 9 searches of
Whites based on a plain view search and contraband was located in 100% of those
searches.
Citation Charges (Numbers and Percentages)
Mo
v
i
n
g
MV
I
/
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
No
n
-
M
o
v
i
n
g
DW
L
I
Sa
f
e
t
y
B
e
l
t
/
S
a
f
e
t
y
Se
a
t
Mi
s
d
e
m
e
a
n
o
r
Ci
t
y
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Dr
u
g
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 2910 71% 828 20% 281 7% 166 4% 138 3% 78 2% 28 1% 12 >1% 2 >1% 2 >1%
African-
American 231 73% 36 11% 28 9% 20 6% 24 8% 1 >1% 1 >1% 0 0% 1 >1% 0 0%
Hispanic 184 43% 50 12% 66 15% 93 22% 68 16% 17 4% 28 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Asian 52 83% 7 11% 2 3% 2 3% 2 3% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Native
American 4 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 26 68% 6 16% 0 0% 3 8% 5 13% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Attachment number 1 \nPage 38 of 41
Item # K
39
Non-Discretionary Searches (Numbers and Percentages)
In
c
i
d
e
n
t
t
o
A
r
r
e
s
t
Do
g
A
l
e
r
t
Od
o
r
Pl
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
C
a
u
s
e
Re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
Su
s
p
i
c
i
o
n
To
w
/
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
To
t
a
l
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 96 15% 3 100% 32 59% 9 100% 14 79% 0 n/a 8 38% 162 36%
African-
American 22 5% 0 n/a 5 60% 3 100% 5 60% 1 100% 0 n/a 36 31%
Hispanic 45 29% 0 n/a 4 50% 8 100% 4 50% 1 0% 0 n/a 62 40%
Asian 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a
Native
American 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a
Middle
Eastern 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a
Other 1 0% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 1 0%
Table 12a
The primary discretionary search and the one that generates the most debate is the
consent search. This is a search where the officer, using their knowledge, experience, and
intuition, has a set of facts and circumstances that do not rise to the level of reasonable
suspicion or probable cause but give the officer enough suspicion that contraband may be
present where the officer feels compelled to ask for consent to search a vehicle or person.
Consent searches are often used in drug interdiction stops where drivers and passengers
are giving defined verbal and physical cues that can be indicative of smuggling. It should
be noted that there are no valid or accepted indicators that rely on race or ethnicity.
Narcotics, money, human smuggling is a criminal activity that crosses all racial/ethnic,
socio-economic, and gender boundaries.
Table 12b details the consent searches of the Georgetown Police Department for the year
2011. Of the 17,100 profiling data records collected in 2011, only 1% of those resulted in
a consent search. Whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics were searched at rates
ranging from a low of 0.95% for Whites to a high of 3.10% for Hispanics.
It has been argued that a more important statistic than the overall percentage searched is
what is called the hit rate percentage. The hit rate percentage is the percentage of consent
searches in which some form of illegal contraband was located. Table 12b shows that the
hit rate percentages of Whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics are all within four
percentage points of the mean.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 39 of 41
Item # K
40
Based on the aggregate level data presented, there is no indication of search based racial
profiling in the Georgetown Police Department.
Discretionary Searches (Consent)
N Contraband
Located
Percentage
Searched
Hit Rate
Percentage
White 133 28 0.95% 21%
African-
American 16 4 1.57% 25%
Hispanic 51 9 3.10% 18%
Asian 1 0 0.49% 0%
Native American 1 0 5.26% 0%
Middle Eastern 0 0 0.00% 0%
Other 2 0 1.49% 0%
Table 12b
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
% SEARCHED % HR
Consent Searches
W
B
H
A
I
ME
O
Chart 12
Attachment number 1 \nPage 40 of 41
Item # K
41
Table 12c lists the types of illegal contraband found during non-discretionary and
discretionary searches by the Georgetown Police Department. White and African-
Americans show that marijuana is the most prevalent item found while alcohol was most
prevalent for Hispanics.
Contraband Located (Numbers and Percentages)
Al
c
o
h
o
l
Al
l
O
t
h
e
r
D
r
u
g
s
Co
c
a
i
n
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
c
y
Ma
r
i
j
u
a
n
a
Me
t
h
a
m
p
h
e
t
a
m
i
n
e
Ot
h
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
a
b
a
n
d
St
o
l
e
n
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
We
a
p
o
n
s
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
White 26 30% 5 6% 3 3% 1 1% 48 55% 5 6% 15 17% 0 0% 4 5%
African-
American 2 13% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 66% 0 0% 2 13% 1 7% 0 0%
Hispanic 22 65% 0 0% 2 6% 0 0% 7 21% 0 0% 7 21% 0 0% 0 0%
Asian 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Native
American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Middle
Eastern 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Table 12c
Attachment number 1 \nPage 41 of 41
Item # K
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the Collateral Assignment of Leasehold Interest for Second
Lien to assign B & G Aviation, LLC's leasehold interest to City National Bank of Taylor -- Sarah Hinton,
Airport Manager and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is a Collateral Assignment of the Land Lease with B&G Aviation, LLC to City National Bank of
Taylor. This is the second Collateral Assignment of this lease interest and has been requested to finance the
construction of improvements on the airport property covered by the Lease with B&G Aviation, LLC.
Board Recommendation:
At the February 20, 2012 Airport Advisory Board meeting, the Board voted 6-0 (1-absent) unanimously to
recommend that Council approve the Collateral Assignment of Leasehold Interest for Second Lien to assign
B&G Aviation, LLC's leasehold interest to City National Bank of Taylor.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
B&G Collateral Assignment of Leasehold Interest
Cover Memo
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 19
Item # L
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 19
Item # L
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Texas Housing Foundation to
apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Program for the construction of 180 units to
be known as Gateway Northwest, located at 501 Janis Drive -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP,
Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached report for details.
The Housing Advisory Board reviewed the request at their regular meeting on February 15, 2012. The board
voted 5-0 (Tim Todd and Brad Curlee abstaining due to conflict of interest) to forward the request to City
Council with the recommendation for approval of the resolution for both the Housing Tax Credit and HOME
Partnership Programs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City from this resolution.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Gateway Northwest Staff Report
Exhibit 1-Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit 2--Area Apartments
Exhibit 3--HTC and HOME Resolution
Exhibit 4--Project information from THF
Exhibit 5--Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit 6--THF Resume
Cover Memo
Item # M
Georgetown Planning and Development Department
Housing Advisory Board
Gateway Northwest Apartments Resolution of Support Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: February 15, 2012 Item: 2
Project Planner: Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Report Date: February 10, 2012
Item Description
Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution of support for Texas Housing
Foundation to apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Program for
the construction of 180 units to be known as Gateway Northwest, located at 501 Janis
Drive.
Staff Recommended Motion
Forward the resolution of support to City Council with a recommendation of support.
Item Details
Project Name: Gateway Northwest Apartments
Project Address: 501 Janis Drive, 1605 Northwest Boulevard (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 9 acres
Legal Description: 9 acres of the Porter Survey
Applicant: Mark Mayfield, Texas Housing Foundation
Property Owner: Georgetown Housing Authority, David Wolf
Tax Exempt: Yes
Applicant’s Request
The Texas Housing Foundation is requesting a resolution of support from the
Georgetown City Council to apply for the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) and HOME
Partnership Program through the Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA) to construct a new apartment complex with 180 units.
The Texas Housing Foundation currently has a Cooperation Agreement approved on
October 21, 2010 with City to operate as a housing authority with the city for this
project. A Tax Credit and HOME Program Resolution was previously approved on
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # M
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Gateway Northwest Apartments Resolution of Support Page 2 of 4
November 10, 2010. Due to TDHCA rules, the THF needs a resolution dated within the
year for the current application process.
Financing
The applicant is seeking to secure financing of 4% Housing Tax Credits or Private
Activity Bonds through TDHCA. Projects seeking credits are scored using the criteria
set by TDHCA in a non-competitive process. This is a new construction project on a
greenfield lot.
The City of Georgetown, when compared to other cities of similar size throughout
Texas, has two times the average number of tax credit units, comparatively. This is not
a market measure, but simply a statistical comparison. Due to the two times rule, any
new application within Georgetown is required to secure a Resolution of Support in
order to apply. (see Exhibit 5 for program information).
The second program is the HOME Partnership Program. HOME funds are allocated to
state by the federal government. Cities and counties of a certain size can apply to be
Participating Jurisdictions and get funds directly allocated. The remaining funds for
non-participating jurisdictions are allocated to TDHCA, which administers the funds on
a first-come basis to applicable projects. Georgetown and Williamson County are not
participating jurisdictions. This project may compete with others in the area as the funds
are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and might not be available for future
projects within the funding cycle.
Site Information
The site has never been developed and is vacant. The property currently takes access
from Northwest Boulevard. With the development, Washam Drive and Garden Villa
Drive will both be extended. It is currently zoned RS, Single Family and C-1 PUD, Local
Commercial with a Planned Unit Development Overlay which was specifically
designed for the previously planned multifamily development that was not built
(Exhibit 1). The property owner has an application in with the Planning Department to
rezone the property to MF PUD, Multifamily with a Planned Unit Development
Overlay.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # M
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Gateway Northwest Apartments Resolution of Support Page 3 of 4
Adjacent property conditions:
Zoning District Current Use
Northeast RS, Single Family
Residential
Vacant
Southeast C-1, Local Commercial Vacant
Northwest RS, Single Family; MF,
Multifamily
Residential, Apartment
Southwest C-3, General Commercial Retail, Light Industrial,
Office
Proximity to other Multifamily and Affordable Developments
Within a one-mile radius, there are nine multifamily apartment developments. (Exhibit 2)
Development Address Units
Income
Restricted Program
Mariposa at Georgetown 121 River Bend Drive 201 Yes Senior-HTC
Cypress Creek
Apartments 120 River Bend Drive 180 Yes HTC
Westwood Townhomes 200 River Bend Drive 110 No
Northwest Apartments 1622-1623 Northwest Blvd 24 Yes HTC
Cedar Ridge Condos 1500 Northwest Blvd 60 Yes
Farmers Home
Administration
Shady Oaks Apartments 500 Janis Drive 60 Yes Section 8, HTC
Apple Creek 302 Apple Creek Drive 176 No
Georgetown Square
Apartments 202 Royal Drive 60 Yes
Section 8,
Section 236
Parkview Place 2111 N. Austin Avenue 176 Yes HOME
Affordability
The units will be available to households in the following income brackets:
1.7% will be Market Rate Units
93.3% to Families with Household Income at or Below 60% AMI ($41,040/fam. of three)
5% to Families with Household Income at or Below 30% AMI ($20,520/fam. of three)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # M
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Gateway Northwest Apartments Resolution of Support Page 4 of 4
The expected rental rates are:
Number of Units Type Income Eligibility Rent
9 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 30% of Median $357
30 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 60% of Median $625-$725
1 1 Bedroom/1 Bath Market Rate $800
83 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 60% of Median $755-$775
1 2 Bedroom/2 Bath Market Rate $900
55 3 Bedroom/2 Bath 60% of Median $865
1 3 Bedroom/2 Bath Market Rate $1000
Financial Impact to the City
There will be no monetary or in kind contribution from the City.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit 2 – Location of Multifamily Developments
Exhibit 3 – Resolution
Exhibit 4 – Gateway Northwest Information from the Texas Housing Foundation
Exhibit 5—Preliminary Site Plan
Exhibit 6—Texas Housing Foundation resume
Exhibit 7 – TDHCA Housing Tax Credit FAQ
Submitted By
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # M
CI T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN E.T.J.
G O L D E N O A KS DR
W JANIS DR
DAWN DR
GARDEN VILLA DR
RYAN LN
SHANNON LN
GOLDEN VISTA DR
W
J
A
NIS D
R
CLAY ST
WESTWOOD LN
GARDEN
VILLA CIR
THORNTON LN
E CENTRAL DR
E JANIS DR
TANGLEWOOD DR
WESTWOOD LN
DAWN DR
NORTHWEST BLVD
SILVERLEAF DR
TERRY
LN
E CENTRAL DR
WASHAM DR
E JANIS DR
GARDEN
VIEW DR
ROYAL DR
E CENTRAL DRGARDEN M E A D O W D R
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
A
P
P
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
ENTR 263 SB
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
N IH 35 FWY SB
P
A
R
K L
N
TERRY LN
0 620 1,240
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Gateway Northwest
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Agriculture
Business Park
Local C ommercial
General C ommercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Industrial
Multifamily
Manufactured Housing
Mixed Use-Dow ntow n
Office
Public F acility
Single Family R esidential
Tw o Family
Tow nhouse
PU D Overlay
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
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
(R ive
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
)
C R 1 5 1
VIL
L
A
G
E DR
NE INNER LOOP
WIL
LIA
M
S
D
R
S IH 35 FWY NB
RIVERY BLVD
N
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
F M 9 7 1
GARDEN
VILLA DR
GARDEN
VIEW DR
RYAN
LN
AIRPO
RT RD
GOLDEN
VISTA DR
OLD MILL RD
B R E N D O N L E E L N
HEDGE W O O D D R
E 3 R D S T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
S IH 35 SB
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M
D
R
B
U
FFALO
S
P
R
IN
G
S
T
RL
E MORR O W S T
ENTR
261A
NB
N AUSTIN AVE
E 3 R D S T
E VA L L E Y S T
E 2 N D ST
LAKEWAY D R
E CENTRAL DR
M
ESQ
UITE LN
PARKER DR
G O L D E N OAK
S
DR
P A R K W A Y S TJUDY D R
OAK LN E JANIS DR
W 2 N D S T
R I O V I S T A D R
M O R RIS
D R
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
CREE K D R
E
JANIS D
R
R
O
C
K
Y
H
O
L
L
O
W
T
R
L
W
HISPER OAKS L N
J
U
D
Y
DR
BOB
W
HITE
LN
C E D A R
D R
P A TTI DR
E CENTRAL DR
GOLD E N OAKS RD
KIM BERLY ST R I V E R B E N D
D R
CLAY ST
COTTON
W
OOD DR
RIVER BEND DR
G
A
N
N
ST
P
RIM
R
O
S
E
T
R
L
T I F F A N Y L N
N IH 35 SB
SHA N NON LN
O
AK LN
THOR N W O O D
R D
P A R K W AY
ST
J
O
H
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
D
R
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
B
R
O
K
E
N
S
P
O
K
E
T
R
L
EXIT 264 SB
ALGERITA D R
NORTH
W
E
S
T BLVD
DA
W
N DR
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R G A R D E N M E A D O W D R
BEN C H M A RK ST
D
A
W
N
DR M E D A S T
O
A
K L
N
L
O
N
E
S
O
ME T
R
L
RIVER HAVEN DRA
P
P
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
DAWN DR
SER E N A D A DR
E MORROW
ST
P A R K W A Y S T
COUN T R Y C L U B R D
EXIT 261 SB
RO
Y
A
L DR
E
M O R R O W ST
N IH 35 FWY NB
RIVERY BLVD
EXIT 265 NB
N IH
35 FWY SB
ENTR 261 NB
ENTR
263 SB
WOLF RANCH PKWY
EXIT 264 NB
T H O M A S C T
EXIT 262 SB
S M I T H C R E E K R D
N IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FW Y SB
E 3
R
D ST
WILLIAMS DR
P E C A N
V I S T A L N
N
AUSTIN
AVE
PARK
LN
PARK LNPARKER C I R
N O RT H W O O D DR
R IV E R Y
D R IV E W A Y
GOLDEN
OAKS DR
N C O LL E G E S T
E M O R R O W ST
T E RRY LNTERRY LN
RIVERY BLVD
F
R
E
DDI E D R
B LUE HOLE P ARK RD
CANYON
R
D
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
L O W E R PARK RD
OL
D AIRP
OR
T RD
S H A D Y H O L L O W D R
0 2,300 4,600
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Gateway Northwest
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 2: Area Apartments
Mariposa
Cypress Creek
Westwood Townhomes
Shady Oaks
Northwest Apartments
Cedar Ridge Condos
Georgetown Square
Apple Creek
Parkview Place
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
Resolution Number: ____________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Gateway Northwest Apartments Tax Credit & HOME Resolution
Date Approved: 2/28/2012
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas approving a
Housing Tax Credit and HOME Investment Partnership Program proposal
with THF Gateway Northwest, Ltd, for the development to be known as
Gateway Northwest Apartments located at 501 Janis Drive; and declaring an
effective date
Whereas, THF Gateway Northwest, Ltd. intends to submit an application to the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2012 Housing Tax Credits or
Private Activity Bonds and HOME Investment Partnership Program funds for Gateway
Northwest; and
Whereas, pursuant to §50.8(2)(A), Texas Administrative Code, we acknowledge that the City of
Georgetown has more than twice the state average of units per capita supported by Housing
Tax Credits or Private Activity Bonds;
Whereas, §50.9(b)(5), Texas Administrative Code, which gives Housing Tax Credit points for
the commitment of development funding by the Unit of General Local Government, states that
the TDHCA HOME Program funds will not qualify for points in this category “unless a
resolution is submitted with the application from the Governing Body of the Unit of General
Local Government authorizing that the Applicant act on behalf of the Unit of General Local
Government in applying for HOME Program funds from TDHCA for the particular
application"; therefore
Be it resolved that:
The City of Georgetown hereby supports the proposed Gateway Northwest, including its
efforts to receive funding under the 2012 Housing Tax Credit and HOME Investment
Partnership Programs, because there is a need for affordable housing in Georgetown. The City
of Georgetown has voted specifically to approve the construction of the Development and to
authorize an allocation of Housing Tax Credits for the Development, and appoints THF
Gateway Northwest, Ltd. to act on its behalf in applying for TDHCA HOME funds for Gateway
Northwest.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # M
Resolution Number: ____________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Gateway Northwest Apartments Tax Credit & HOME Resolution
Date Approved: 2/28/2012
Adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown on the 28th day of
February 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Jessica Brettle George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # M
Basic Information for Housing Tax Credit or HOME Partnership Program
Resolution of Support Requests
Location map of property – Please see attached.
Do you have site control or owner's consent to apply for tax credits on this site? - Yes
Number of units and different apartment floor plans – 180 units total; 2 and 3 story
walk-up buildings with 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units. See attached site plan.
Breakdown of rental rates – See breakdown below
Income restrictions – See breakdown below
Number of Units Type Income Eligibility Rent
9 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 30% of Median $357
30 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 60% of Median $625-$725
1 1 Bedroom/1 Bath Market Rate $800
83 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 60% of Median $755-$775
1 2 Bedroom/2 Bath Market Rate $900
55 3 Bedroom/2 Bath 60% of Median $865
1 3 Bedroom/2 Bath Market Rate $1000
Amenities provided – In Units: washer/dryer hook ups, storage, balcony/patio, mini-
blinds, vaulted ceilings, overhead fans, full energy star appliance package, green
features. Community Amenities: playground, clubhouse, pool, fitness center, business
center, laundry room, barbeque grills
Background of the development company and management company – Please see
attached resume for Texas Housing Foundation.
History of other projects and complexes managed. Texas Housing Foundation (THF) has
been managing properties for over 30 years. Currently, THF operates (or has in
development) 12 properties, totaling 802 units. For more information, please see
overview on website: http://www.txhf.org/properties_overview.php
Funding sources and breakdown of cost of the development – The development will be
financed with a HUD insured loan from PNC, tax exempt bonds, 4% tax credits, and state
HOME funds. The breakdown is as follows:
HUD Insured Loan/Tax Exempt Bond $12,241,000
Tax Credits $ 5,624,566
HOME Funds $ 2,000,000
Developer’s Note $ 334,942
Total Development Costs $20,200,508
Will the site be tax exempt after development? - yes
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # M
TEXAS HOUSING FOUNDATION
A Texas Regional Public Housing Authority
Mission Provide opportunities for lower income residents of the State of Texas to live in decent
and safe housing that they can afford located in communities of which they can be
proud.
Creation The Texas Housing Foundation was created in 2006 to provide the tool to create,
develop, administer, manage, and provide services to affordable housing projects
through its related business entities and for its residents and the communities in which
they are located. Through 2010, over $80MM financed to develop over 900 units.
Vision We envision communities in which families and individuals, senior citizens and children,
independent and interdependent citizens, live and grow in homes and neighborhoods
that are comfortable and valuable. We have developed and/or manage 1000+ units of
affordable housing.
Brand Raising the Standard of Living
Leadership THF is governed by a 3-member board of directors appointed by the County
Commissioners of each participating county. Currently Blanco, Burnet and Llano
Counties participate within the organizational structure of the Texas Housing Foundation.
Goals CREATE OPPORTUNITIES
Single-family and multifamily residences that meet the needs
of lower income residents for decent and affordable housing.
CREATE VALUE
Residential properties that are assets
to our residents and our neighborhoods.
CREATE QUALITY
Residents are customers who have choices.
Their satisfaction is our business.
Attitude Care for our customers.
Exceed others’ expectations.
Challenge the commonplaces.
Beat the benchmarks.
Surpass our standards.
Achievements,
Properties Managed
1995 Developed 24 3BR duplex units in Marble Falls with a commercial bank
loan, HOME, and AHP financing.
1997 – 2001 Built 24 3BR homes in an infill subdivision in Marble Falls with a HOME
interim construction fund and private mortgages.
1998 Developed 54 townhouses with local bank tax-exempt financing
2000 Co-developed 76-unit senior apartments in Kingsland with LIHTC.
2001 Co-developed 48-unit seniors project in Fredericksburg with LIHTC and
TDHCA Housing Trust Fund financing.
2003 Co-developed 76-unit seniors project in Marble Falls with LIHTC.
2004 Co-developed 124-unit family project in Marble Falls with PAB+LIHTC
2004 Co-developed 76-unit family project in Kingsland with LIHTC
2005 Co-developed 44-unit seniors project in Fredericksburg with LIHTC
2008 Co-developed 28-unit family project in Johnson City with HOME
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
Co-developed 76-unit family project in Liberty Hill with LIHTC
Co-developed 64-unit family project in Llano with LIHTC/HOME
Co-developed 112-unit family project in Waco with LIHTC/HOME
Acquired 64-unit family project in San Marcos developed with LIHTC
Co-developing 80-unit family project in Marble Falls with LIHTC/HOME
Co-developing 64-unit family project in Canadian with LIHTC/HOME
Co-developing 18-unit Phase II family project in Johnson City w/ HOME
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # M
TEXAS HOUSING FOUNDATION
A Texas Regional Public Housing Authority
Community
Resource Centers of
Texas, Inc.
THF currently operates and fully underwrites a one-stop social service outreach serving
Burnet County with 29 participating non-profit and state agencies all housed under one
roof. Construction is now complete with additional new Community Resource Centers in
Llano and Williamson Counties.
Affiliated Businesses THF also collaborates with other municipalities, foundations, service providers and
through joint ventures with private developers to develop, finance, and manage
affordable housing projects.
Contact Mark A. Mayfield, President and Chief Executive Officer
Texas Housing Foundation
1110 Broadway, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Tel (830) 693-4521 Fax (830) 693-5128 Email mmayfield@txhf.org
www.txhf.org
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # M
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Palladium (USA) International,
Inc. to apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Programs for the construction of 82
units to be known as Kiron at Mesquite Lane, located at 2805 Mesquite Lane -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP,
LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached report for details.
The Housing Advisory Board reviewed the request at their regular meeting on February 15, 2012. The board
voted 7-0 to forward the request to City Council with the recommendation for approval of the resolution for
both the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership Programs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City from this resolution.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1--Kiron Location and Zoning map
Exhibit 2--Area Apartments
Exhibit 3--Resolution
Exhibit 4--Kiron at Mesquite Info
Exhibit 5--Palladium Company Info
Exhibit 6--TDHCA HTC pre-application log
Exhibit 7--TDHCA Tax Credit Program info
Kiron at Mesquite Staff Report
Cover Memo
Item # N
Georgetown Planning and Development Department
Housing Advisory Board
Kiron at Mesquite Lane Apartments Resolution of Support Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: February 15, 2012 Item: 3
Project Planner: Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Report Date: February 9, 2012
Item Description
Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution of support for Palladium
(USA) International, Inc. to apply for the Housing Tax Credit and HOME Partnership
Programs for the construction of 82 units to be known as Kiron at Mesquite Lane,
located at 2805 Mesquite Lane.
Staff Recommended Motion
Forward the resolution of support to City Council with a recommendation.
Item Details
Project Name: Kiron at Mesquite Lane
Project Address: 2805 Mesquite Lane (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 3.235 acres
Legal Description: Walden Addition, 3.235 acres
Applicant: Thomas Huth, Palladium (USA) International, Inc.
Property Owner: Parker & Associates, Georgetown, TX
Tax Exempt: No
Applicant’s Request
Palladium (USA) International, Inc. is requesting a resolution of support from the
Georgetown City Council to apply for the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) and HOME
Partnership Programs through the Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA) to construct a new apartment complex with 82 units.
Financing
The applicant is seeking to secure financing through two different programs. The first is
the 9% Housing Tax Credits through TDHCA. Projects seeking credits are scored using
the criteria set by TDHCA in this competitive process. This project is a new
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # N
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Kiron at Mesquite Lane Apartments Resolution of Support Page 2 of 3
construction project on a greenfield lot. They will be competing for the 9% credits
against the application for Georgetown Senior, but not the San Gabriel Apartment
renovation. For the competition region (Williamson and Travis Counties), 15 different
developments have pre-applied to TDHCA for the program, competing for $3.08
million. At most, two of the projects will be funded. (Exhibit 6)
The City of Georgetown, when compared to other cities of similar size throughout
Texas, has two times the average number of tax credit units, comparatively. This is not
a market measure, but simply a statistical comparison. Due to the two times rule, any
new application within Georgetown is required to secure a Resolution of Support in
order to apply. (see Exhibit 5 for program information).
The second program is the HOME Partnership Program. HOME funds are allocated by
state by the federal government. Cities and counties of a certain size can apply to be
Participating Jurisdictions and get funds directly allocated. The remaining funds for
non-participating jurisdictions are allocated to TDHCA, which administers the funds on
a first-come basis to applicable projects. Georgetown and Williamson County are not
participating jurisdictions. This project may compete with others in the area as the funds
are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and might not be available for future
projects within the funding cycle.
Site Information
The site has never been developed and is vacant. The property takes sole access off of
Mesquite Lane. It is zoned C-1, Local Commercial, which allows multifamily
development by right (Exhibit 1).
Adjacent property conditions:
Zoning District Current Use
Northeast C-1, Local Commercial Funeral Home
Southeast C-1, Local Commercial Offices
Northwest C-3, General Commercial Retail Sales, Storage
Southwest RS, Single Family
Residential; TF, Two Family
Church, Residential
Proximity to other Multifamily and Affordable Developments
Within a one-mile radius, there are six multifamily developments. (Exhibit 2)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # N
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Kiron at Mesquite Lane Apartments Resolution of Support Page 3 of 3
Development Address Units
Income
Restricted Program
Mariposa at Georgetown 121 River Bend Drive 201 Yes Senior-HTC
Cypress Creek
Apartments 120 River Bend Drive 180 Yes HTC
Westwood Townhomes 200 River Bend Drive 110 No
Northwest Apartments 1622-1623 Northwest Blvd 24 Yes HTC
Cedar Ridge Condos 1500 Northwest Blvd. 60 Yes
Farmers Home
Administration
Shady Oaks Apartments 500 Janis Drive 60 Yes Section 8, HTC
Affordability
The units will be available to households in the following income brackets:
46% to Families with Household Income at or Below 60% AMI ($41,040/family of three)
41% to Families with Household Income at or Below 50% AMI ($34,200/family of three)
12% to Families with Household Income at or Below 30% AMI ($20,520/family of three)
The expected rental rates are (depending on income bracket and unit type)
16 – 1 bedroom units - $337-765
45 – 2 Bedroom Units - $395-908
21 – 3 Bedroom Units - $447-1039
Financial Impact to the City
There may be a possible request for $3,200, which is an item for possible points on the
application.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit 2 – Location of Multifamily Developments
Exhibit 3 – Resolution
Exhibit 4 – Kiron at Mesquite Information from Palladium (USA) Inc.
Exhibit 5—Company Information on Palladium (USA) Inc.
Exhibit 6—TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Pre-Application Log for Region 7
Exhibit 7 – TDHCA Housing Tax Credit FAQ
Submitted By
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # N
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
TO
W
N
(
R
i
v
e
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
)
(River/Stream)
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T.
J
.
BOOTYS CROSSING RD
W O L F R A N C H P K W Y
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
R A N C H R D
W
EST
W
O
O
D LN
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
BLVD
CROSSLAND DR
PARK LN
WAGON WHEEL TRL
DA
W
N DR
HAGEN CT
P A R K
M E A D O W B L V D
SPRING
VALLEY RD
S O U T H C R O S S R D
C E D A R
D R
E CENTRAL DR
O
AK LN
M O R S E C V
P A T TI D R
QUAIL LN
P
A
R
KER
DR
P
O
W
E
R
CIR
M
ESQ
UITE LN
MESQUITE LNPOWER RD
L A K E W AY D R
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
DUN M AN DR
R I V E R B E N D D R
HARM O NY LN
PO W ER RD
P A R K W A Y ST
H A RDWOOD
G R O VES BLVD
COTTON
W
OOD DR
STACEY LN
OAK LN
P
A
R
K
E
R
DRJOHN THOM A S D R
M O R RIS D R
S H A N NON LNG
A
B
RIEL VIE
W
D
R
SUNSET DR
F
A
W
N LN
WOODLA
N
D
RD
R
O
C
K
Y
H
O
L
L
O
W
T
R
L
WHISPER OAKS LN
RIVE RY B L V D
BOB W
HITE LN
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
P
RINGS
T
R
L
P ATTI DR
KIM BERLY ST
P
RIM
R
O
S
E
T
R
L
L
O
N
ESOME
T
R
L
W C E N TRAL DR
B
R
O
K
E
N
S
P
O
K
E
T
R
L
T I F F A N Y L N
OAK RIDGE CIR
O
A
K L
N
RIV
E
R RD
PA R K W AY S T
A S H W O O D LN
RIVERY BLVD
C O U N T R Y C L U B R D
MELIS
S
A CT
W
JANIS DR
RIVERY BLVD
PARK E R C I R
N O R T H W O O D DR
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
G A BRIEL VI E W DR
GABRIEL VIEW
D
R
BRAND
Y
L
N
ADDIE LN
HIGHVIE
W
R
D
RIDGECREST
R
D
RIDGEC
R
E
S
T
R
D
TERRY LN
W OLF RD
0 1,400 2,800
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Kiron at Mesquite
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Zon ing Districts
Ag ricult ure
Bu siness Park
Loca l Commercial
Gene ral Commercial
Ne ighb orh ood Commercial
Indu stria l
Multif amily
Manu fact ured Housing
Mixed Use-Downtown
Office
Pu blic F acility
Sin gle F amily Residential
Two F amily
Townho use
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # N
CI T Y O F G E O R G E T O W NCITY 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
(
R
iv
e
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
)
(Rive r /S t r e a m)
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
E.T.J.
CITY OF
G
E
O
RGETO
W
N E.T.J.
BOOTYS CROSSING RD
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
R A N C H R D
W
EST
W
O
OD LN
E 3 R D S T
E 2 ND ST
HED G E W O O D DR
W M O R R O W S T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
S IH 35 SB
N IH 35 SB
S IH 35 NB
S
M
A
I
N S
T
P
A
R
K
ER
DR
WAGON WHEEL
TRL
ENTR
261A
NB
M
ESQ
UITE LN
N
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 3 RD ST
N
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
CACTUS TRL
LAKEWAY D R
S
P
RIN G W OO
D
L
N
E CENTRAL DR
PARKER DR
R I V E R B E N D DR
PO W ER RD
P A R KWAY S T
W VA L L E Y S T
COUNTRY RD
O
A
K
C
R
E
S
T
L
N
S
U
NSET DR
OAK LN
PAR
K
E
R
DR
NORTHCROSS RD
SPRING
VALLEY RD
SHEPHERD RD
STARVIEW DR
MELISSA CT
CREE K D R
S
K
YLIN
E
R
D
BOB
W
HITE LN
S K Y L I N E
S P U R
WHITESTONE DR
W EST
ST
P A TTI DR
CLAY ST
SERE N A D A DR
P
RIM
R
O
S
E
T
R
L
SHA N NON LN
B RIA R W O O D
D R
THOR N W O O D
R D
V
E
R
N
A
S
P
U
R
RIVERY
D
RIVEWAY
B
R
O
K
E
N
S
P
O
K
E
T
R
L
CRO SSLAND DR
T I F F A N Y L N
OAK
RIDGE CIR
G A R D E N M E A D O W DR
O
A
K L
N
L
O
N
E
S
O
M E T
R
L
GRASSLAND LN
HIGHV
IE
W
RD
P A R K W A Y S T
AS H W O OD LN
ALGERITA D R
SKIN N ER L N
EXIT 261 SB
T H O M A S C T
O AK
CRE S T LN
RIVERY BLVD
R
I
V
E
R
RD
W
O
O
D
LAND R
D
COUN T R Y C L U B R D
ENTR 261 NB
WOLF RANCH PKWY
N IH 35 FWY NB
G O L DEN O A KS RD
E S T R E L L A X I N G
S IH 35 FWY SB
N AUSTIN AVE
R
O
CKY
H
O
L
L
O
W
T
R
L
P
E
C
A
N
L
N
JUDY D R
R
IVERY
B
L
V
D
PARK
LN
PARK LN
PARKE R C I R
WOODWA
Y DR
GA
B
RIEL VIEW D
R
BRANDY
L
N
SUTTON PL
A
D
DIE LN
RIDGECREST RD
RIVER
CHASE
BLVD
T E RRY LN
RIVERY BLVD
S
T
A
R
V
I
E
W
L
N
B LUE HOLE P ARK RD
CANYON
R
D
S H A D Y H O L L O W D R
W
O
L
F
R
D
WOLF RD
Mariposa
Cyp re ssCreek
WestwoodTownhomes
App leCreek
CedarRidgeCondos
WatersEdge
Sha dyOaks
509 CedarDrive
NorthwestApartments
San G abrielOverlook
WhisperOaks Co ndos
Weslyan atEstrella
0 2,300 4,600
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Kiron at Mesquite
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 2: Area Apartments
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # N
Resolution Number: ____________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Kiron at Mesquite Lane Tax Credit Resolution
Date Approved: 2/28/2012
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas approving a
Housing Tax Credit and HOME Investment Partnership Program proposal
with Palladium (USA) International, Inc., for the development to be known as
Kiron at Mesquite Lane located at 2805 Mesquite Land; and declaring an
effective date
Whereas, Palladium (USA) International, Inc. has proposed to construct a 82-unit multi-family
apartment complex to be known as Kiron at Mesquite Lane at 2805 Mesquite Lane in the City of
Georgetown, Williamson County, to provide for affordable rental housing within the City;
Whereas, Palladium (USA) International, Inc. intends to submit an application to the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2012 Housing Tax Credits and
HOME Investment Partnership Program for Kiron at Mesquite Lane;
Whereas, pursuant to §50.8(2)(A), Texas Administrative Code, Palladium (USA) International,
Inc. acknowledges that the City of Georgetown has more than twice the state average of units
per capita supported by Housing Tax Credits or Private Activity Bonds;
Whereas, §50.9(b)(5), Texas Administrative Code, which gives Housing Tax Credit points for
the commitment of development funding by the Unit of General Local Government, states that
the TDHCA HOME Program funds will not qualify for points in this category “unless a
resolution is submitted with the application from the Governing Body of the Unit of General
Local Government authorizing that the Applicant act on behalf of the Unit of General Local
Government in applying for HOME Program funds from TDHCA for the particular
application"; therefore
Be it therefore resolved that:
The City of Georgetown hereby approves of the proposed application for the construction of
Kiron at Mesquite Lane and has voted specifically to authorize an allocation of Housing Tax
Credits for this development and appoints Palladium (USA) International, Inc. to act on its
behalf in applying for TDHCA HOME funds for Kiron at Mesquite Lane.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # N
Resolution Number: ____________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Kiron at Mesquite Lane Tax Credit Resolution
Date Approved: 2/28/2012
Adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown on the 28th day of
February 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Jessica Brettle George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # N
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 10
Item # N
Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 10
Item # N
Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 10
Item # N
Prepared by Economic Strategic Solutions, Inc. 2/1/2012
Please note worksheets are preliminary and do not include costs/expense from applicant
HTC Unit
Designation # of Units # of
Bedrooms # of Baths Unit Size -
NRSF Total NRSF Program Rent
Limit
Tenant Pd
Util Allow.Rent/Unit Total Monthly
Rent
TC30%3 1 1.0 700 2,100 427 90 337 1,011
TC50%8 1 1.0 700 5,600 712 90 622 4,976
TC60%5 1 1.0 700 3,500 855 90 765 3,825
TC30%5 2 2.0 950 4,750 513 118 395 1,975
TC50%18 2 2.0 950 17,100 855 118 737 13,266
TC60%22 2 2.0 950 20,900 1,026 118 908 19,976
TC30%2 3 2.0 1,050 2,100 592 145 447 894
TC50%8 3 2.0 1,050 8,400 986 145 841 6,728
TC60%11 3 2.0 1,050 11,550 1,184 145 1,039 11,429
Total 82 - 76,000 64,080
Non Rental Income 7.50$ per unit/month for:
Non Rental Income 7.50$ per unit/month for:
Non Rental Income 0.00 per unit/month for:
+ TOTAL NONRENTAL INCOM $15.00 per unit/month 1,230
= POTENTIAL GROSS MONTHLY INCOME - HTC 65,310
= POTENTIAL GROSS MONTHLY INCOME - RETAIL 7,500 -$ -
- Provision for Vacancy & Collection Loss - HTC % of Potential Gross Income:7.50%(4,898)
- Provision for Vacancy & Collection Loss - Retail % of Potential Gross Income:30.00%-
= EFFECTIVE GROSS MONTHLY INCOME - HTC 60,412
= EFFECTIVE GROSS MONTHLY INCOME - RETAIL -
x 12 = EFFECTIVE GROSS ANNUAL INCOME 724,941
Kiron at Mesquite Lane
Preliminary Financial Analysis
2805 Mesquite Lane
Interior Corridors
Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 10
Item # N
Prepared by Economic Strategic Solutions, Inc. 2/1/2012
Please note worksheets are preliminary and do not include costs/expense from applicant
Development Cost Assumptions
Development Costs
per Volume 1 Tab 3 % Eligible
Eligible Basis per
Volume 1 Tab 3 Total Basis/Equity Calculation
Estimated Basis
and Equity
Land 3.2 2.33$ 350,000$ 0%-$ Total Eligible 9,211,428$
All In Construction Costs 85$ 6,460,000$ 100%6,460,000$ High Cost Area 130.00%
Indirect Construction Costs 1,411,798$ 85%1,206,798$ Total Adj Basis 11,974,856$
Developer Fee 1,201,491$ 100%1,201,491$ Applicable Fraction 7.82%
Construction Loans 867,328$ 33%288,230$ Total Qualified Basis 936,434$
Permanent Loans 80,346$ 0%-$ Applicable Percentage 100%
Soft Cost Contingency -$ 0%-$ Calculated Credits 936,434$
Other Financing Costs 117,290$ 47%54,910$ Requested Credits 748,000$
Reserves 330,784$ 0%-$ Credit Price 0.82$
Total Development Cost 10,819,036$ 9,211,428$ LP Equity 6,133,600$
NOI Calculation Supportable Loan
Annual Per Unit
GRP - HTC 768,960$ 9,378$ Net Operating Income 360,061$
GRP - Retail -$ -$ DSC Benchmark 1.15
Other Income 14,760$ 180$ Supportable Debt Service 313,097$
NET RENTAL INCOME 783,720$ 9,558$ Amort Period 40
Economic Loss - HTC 7.50%(58,779)$ (717)$ Perm Rate - Not Including MIP 5.850%
Economic Loss - Retail 30%-$ -$ Constant 0.069275219
TOTAL INCOME 724,941$ 8,841$ Supportable Loan 4,519,607$
General and Administrative 41,278$ 503$
Management Fee 5.00%36,247$ 442$
Payroll/Payroll Tax and Benefits 82,099$ 1,001$
Repairs and Maintenance 35,998$ 439$
Utilities 57,892$ 706$
Insurance 19,000$ 232$
Real Estate Taxes - HTC Value 71,865$ 876$
Replacement Reserve 20,500$ 250$
TOTAL EXPENSES 364,880$ 4,450$ 2009 TDHCA Region 7 - 3%4,167$
NET OPERATING INCOME 360,061$ 4,391$
Source and Use
Sources
Permanent Loan 4,519,607$
LP Equity 6,132,987$
Government Instrumentality 164,000$
Deferred Developer Fee 2,443$
Total Sources 10,819,036$
Uses
Land 350,000$
All in Construction Costs 6,460,000$
Indirect Construction Costs 1,411,798$
Developer Fee 1,201,491$
Construction Loans 867,328$
Permanent Loans 80,346$
Soft Cost Contingency -$
Other Financing Costs 117,290$
Reserves 330,784$
Total Uses 10,819,036$
Preliminary Financial Analysis
Kiron at Mesquite Lane
2805 Mesquite Lane
Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 10
Item # N
Prepared by Economic Strategic Solutions, Inc. 2/1/2012
Please note worksheets are preliminary and do not include costs/expense from applicant
INCOME YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 10 YEAR 15
POTENTIAL GROSS ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME $768,960 $784,339 $800,026 $816,027 $832,347 $918,978 $1,014,626
Secondary Income 14,760 15,055 15,356 15,663 15,977 17,640 19,476
POTENTIAL GROSS ANNUAL INCOME $783,720 $799,394 $815,382 $831,690 $848,324 $936,618 $1,034,102
Provision for Vacancy & Collection Loss varies 58,779 59,955 61,154 62,377 63,624 70,246 77,558
EFFECTIVE GROSS ANNUAL INCOME $724,941 $739,440 $754,229 $769,313 $784,699 $866,372 $956,544
EXPENSES
General and Administrative 41,278$ $42,516 $43,792 $45,106 $46,459 $53,858 $62,437
Management Fee 5%36,247$ 37,334 38,454 39,608 40,796 47,294 54,827
Payroll/Payroll Tax and Benefits 82,099$ 84,562 87,099 89,712 92,404 107,121 124,183
Repairs and Maintenance 35,998$ 37,078 38,190 39,336 40,516 46,969 54,450
Utilities 57,892$ 59,629 61,418 63,260 65,158 75,536 87,567
Insurance 19,000$ 19,570 20,157 20,762 21,385 24,791 28,739
Real Estate Taxes - HTC Value 71,865$ 74,021 76,242 78,529 80,885 93,768 108,703
Replacement Reserve 20,500$ 21,115 21,748 22,401 23,073 26,748 31,008
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES 364,880$ $375,826 $387,101 $398,714 $410,675 $476,085 $551,913
NET OPERATING INCOME 360,061$ $363,614 $367,128 $370,599 $374,024 $390,286 $404,631
DEBT SERVICE
First Deed of Trust Annual Loan Payment $313,097 $313,097 $313,097 $313,097 $313,097 $313,097 $313,097
Second Deed of Trust Annual Loan Payment
Third Deed of Trust Annual Loan Payment
Other Annual Required Payment:
Other Annual Required Payment:
NET CASH FLOW $46,965 $50,517 $54,031 $57,503 $60,927 $77,190 $91,534
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.25 1.29
Kiron at Mesquite Lane
30 Year Rental Housing Operating Proforma
2805 Mesquite Lane
Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 10
Item # N
Kiron at Mesquite Lane
Breakdown of Units by Type
% of LI % of Total
TC30% 12% 12% 10
TC40% 0
HOUSING TC50% 41% 41% 34
TC60% 46% 46% 38
TAX Credit HTC LI Total 82
% of LI % of Total
1 Bdrm 20% 20% 16
2 Bdrm 55% 55% 45
3 Bdrm 26% 26% 21
HTC LI Total 82
Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 10
Item # N
KIRON at Mesquite Lane
FY2012 Housing Trust Fund Income Limits
Effective Date: 12/1/2011
State of Texas
MSA County Median 2012 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person
30% Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos, TX MSA Williamson County $75,900 $15,950 $18,200 $20,500 $22,750 $24,600 $26,400 $28,250 $30,050
50% Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos, TX MSA Williamson County $75,900 $26,600 $30,400 $34,200 $37,950 $41,000 $44,050 $47,100 $50,100
60% Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos, TX MSA Williamson County $75,900 $31,920 $36,480 $41,040 $45,540 $49,200 $52,860 $56,520 $60,120
80% Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos, TX MSA Williamson County $75,900 $42,500 $48,600 $54,650 $60,700 $65,600 $70,450 $75,300 $80,150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
N
Kiron at Mesquite Lane
82 Units
Select Common and Unit Amenities
Select Common Amenities
• Gazebo with sitting area
• Community laundry room with four washer and dryer sets
• Two barbecue grill and picnic tables
• Splash pad/water feature play area
• Furnished fitness center including stationary bicycle, elliptical trainer, and treadmill or other
similar equipment
• Children's playscape equipped for 5 to 12 year olds
• Common area Wi-Fi
Select Unit Amenities
• Distinctive one, two, three and four bedroom units from 700-1050 sq. ft.
• Covered entries
• Nine foot ceilings in living room and bedrooms
• Microwave oven
• Self-cleaning or continuous cleaning oven
• Refrigerator with icemaker
• 14 SEER HVAC units
• Full size washer/dryer connections
• Balcony or patio
• Smoke alarms and sprinklers throughout
• Wired for phone, cable and Local Area Network (LAN)
• High speed Internet access available
Attachment number 5 \nPage 9 of 10
Item # N
Palladium USA International, Inc./Omnium Management Company, Inc.
HTC/Bond Management Experience by Senior Executives
December 2011
UNITS PROPERTY NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION
250 1900 Elm Dallas City of Dallas In Town Housing Program
183 Davis Building Dallas City of Dallas In Town Housing Program
240 Garden Gate Ft. Worth Ft. Worth SECTION 42
240 Garden Gate Plano Plano SECTION 42
250 Greens of Hickory Trail Dallas SECTION 42
192 Homes of Parker Commons Oaks of C Ft. Worth SECTION 42
250 Parkland Pointe Arlington SECTION 42
176 Spring Glen Ft. Worth SECTION 42
176 Spring Hill Ft. Worth SECTION 42
215 Tuscany at Wilson Creek McKinney SECTION 42
66 Villa Santa Maria Dallas SECTION 42
200 Lexington Trails Houston SECTION 42
250 Mainland Crossing Texas City SECTION 42
152 Plum Creek Townhomes Houston SECTION 42
168 Heatherwild Park Austin SECTION 42
312 Belshire Conroe BOND
The Meadows Austin SECTION 42
108 Emerald Run North Richland Hills SECTION 42
100 Telstar Dallas SECTION 42
206 Oakwood Place Dallas SECTION 42
Citywalk at Akard Dallas SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS - CONSULTING BASIS ONLY
Lone Star Gas Lofts Dallas SECTION 42 - CONSULTING BASIS ONLY
Attachment number 5 \nPage 10 of 10
Item # N
PALLADIUM GROUP G.E.I.E.
Via Crocefisso, 8 20122 Milano ITALY
www.palladium-group.com
PALLADIUM ITALIA
direzione.amm@palladiumgroup.it
www. palladium-group.it
PALLADIUM FRANCE
palfrance@palladium-group.com
www. palladium-group.fr
PALLADIUM SWITZERLAND
direzione@palladium-group.ch
www. palladium-group.ch
PALLADIUM Development DEUTSCHLAND
info@palladium-group.de
www. palladium-group.de
PALLADIUM BELGIUM
administration@palladiumgroup.be
www. palladium-group.be
PALLADIUM NEDERLAND
info@palladium-group.nl
www. palladium-group.nl
PALLADIUM USA
pusa@palladiumusa.com
www.palladiumusa.com
20
0
9
-
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
P
a
l
l
a
d
i
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
G
.
E
.
I
.
E
.
“
P
a
l
l
a
d
i
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
”
i
s
a
t
r
a
d
e
m
a
r
k
o
f
K
i
r
o
n
S
.
a
.
r
.
l
.
@
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
gr
a
p
h
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
s
t
u
d
i
o
t
o
n
i
n
o
-
w
w
w
.
s
t
u
d
i
o
t
o
n
i
n
o
.
c
o
m
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 30
Item # N
Summary
Heritage and Strategic Perspectives 2
International Activities 4
Portfolio & Projects
Major Projects 6
Mid-size Projects 8
Portfolio Development and Management 0
Services
Portfolio / Asset Management and Investment 2
Development, Technical and Marketing 4
Property Management 6
Construction and Rehabilitation 8
Organization 20
Kiron, Arts and Communications Center 22
Directory 24
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 30
Item # N
2
Palladium’s Heritage
« We build with passion and pride to withstand the test of time »
Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 30
Item # N
The Palladium Group was founded in Northern Italy during the mid-19th century, when
quality residential buildings were required to serve the urban growth generated by the
industrial revolution.
Today, Palladium is an international group, which develops and manages residential
and mixed-use projects in major urban areas in Europe and the United States, for its
account and in partnership with private and institutional investors.
This strategy is founded on a dynamic balance between innovation and tradition,
with the following key operating principles:
- Global vision combined with a respect for the culture of each country
- Focus on selected urban areas, each with a significant Group portfolio and service capability
- Creation of long-term value for the Group, its partners, clients and the ultimate end-users
of the real estate
- Implementation of the best technical and managerial practices.
and Strategic Perspectives
Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 30
Item # N
4
Projects and Services
The Palladium Group covers all facets of real estate, from urban and architectural design to the ownership, management and maintenance of single assets and portfolios. The Group also has in-house sales teams.
The projects are generally located in and around major urban areas which are managed as regional portfolios. Individual projects include new build and rehabilitation backed by a hundred years of experience.
This global capability and a feel for a distinctive “art of living” are characteristic of the Palladium projects and services. It is an assurance of responsibility and performance for the Group, its partners and clients.
International Presence and Expertise
In Europe, the Palladium Group is active in seven European countries: Italy, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The Group activities are developed with local offices, teams and partners.
In the United States, investments have been concentrated in the Southern half of the country with Dallas (Texas) as U.S. headquarters.
In the Middle East, the Group recently formed a subsidiary in Dubai to undertake residential projects with local partners.
An International Real Estate Group
Palladium Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 30
Item # N
Palladium Office Locations
Breakdown of the Group Real-Estate Portfolio by Country
Italy 40%
France 33%
Switzerland 2%
Germany 4%
Belgium 7%
The Nederlands 4%
U.S.A 10%
Dallas, USA Hyères, France Lugano, Switzerland Milano, Italy Vicenza, Italy Dubai, United Arab Emirates
London, United Kingdom Paris, France Brussels, Belgium Den Haag, The Netherlands Berlin, Germany
Attachment number 6 \nPage 6 of 30
Item # N
6
The Palladium Group seeks major development or redevelopment opportunities in its target urban markets. The Group prefers significant and complex projects including a residential component, which benefit from its diversified expertise at the design and execution stages. In addition to the design and construction of new residential buildings, the Group has a special expertise in two areas, which are a prime source of added-value for Palladium and its clients as well as residents:
- Design and construction of mixed-use “synergistic living” projects including a residential component meshed in with combinations of hotel, retail, entertainment and office areas
- Value-adding renovation and rehabilitation of residential and commercial buildings
Major Projects
Craig Ranch, Dallas, USA2 Vela, Dallas, USA Rio Dei Vetrai Hotel, Murano, Italy4 Central Park, Legnano, Italy
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS6
Attachment number 6 \nPage 7 of 30
Item # N
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS
2
4
Attachment number 6 \nPage 8 of 30
Item # N
8
The Palladium Group undertakes regularly mid-size projects (below € 50 million)
which are attractive due to :
- specific local market conditions (size, needs, “niche opportunities”, …)
- demanding design and technical expertise, for example required for the
rehabilitation of historical buildings
- portfolio management objectives, such as the enhancement of asset, yield or
risk profiles
Thanks to its local presence and broad service capability, the Group implements
these projects efficiently to maintain profit margins at an attractive level.
Mid-Size Projects
La Jourdane, Toulon, France2 Le Cap d’Or, La Seyne sur Mer, France Donatello, Brussels, Belgium4 Rhode Saint Genese, Brussels, Belgium Residenza Leonardo, Castano Primo, Italy6 Villa Le Laurier, La Seyne sur Mer, France Residenza La Fiorita, Lugano, Switzerland
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS
Attachment number 6 \nPage 9 of 30
Item # N
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS
2
4
6
Attachment number 6 \nPage 10 of 30
Item # N
0
The Palladium Group supports its leadership position by a clear understanding of the need to develop, manage and dispose of single assets within the context of regional portfolios located in selected urban areas which the Group knows well.
This strategy is made possible by the presence of a local Palladium team who can make informed, focused and disciplined decisions based on frequent communications with shareholders, partners and the local community.
It is applied in all areas where the Group is active, in its historic birthplace of Northern Italy as well as in the more recent areas of development (Dallas and Berlin since the mid-1990’s).
Portfolio Development
and Management
Villa Verona, Dallas, USA
2 Grand Treviso and Canal Side Lofts,
Dallas, USA
Weimarische Strasse, Berlin, Germany
4 Saechsische Strasse, Berlin, Germany
Methfesselstrasse, Berlin, Germany
6 Quartiere Giardino, Cesano Boscone, Italy
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS
2
Attachment number 6 \nPage 11 of 30
Item # N
PORTFOLIO AND PROJECTS
6
4
6
Attachment number 6 \nPage 12 of 30
Item # N
2
Asset Management and Investment Services
The Palladium Group manages individual assets and portfolios in the selected urban areas where it has a standing presence and expertise. Over fifty portfolio and service companies are managed by the Group in Europe and the United States in cooperation with a network of international level advisors and auditors.
The management tools used by the Group are among the best available in the market, including the systematic analysis of yields and cash-flows by building, partnership and portfolio. Debt financing, usually provided by local banks, is geared to balance the need for returns with sound risk management practices.
This expertise is made available to institutional and private investors, generally backed by equity participation from the Group to ensure consistency of objectives. Investment proposals are adapted to the strategy of each investor, including yields and risk profiles.
Luetticher Strasse, Berlin, Gemany
2 River Building, Brussels, Belgium
Castagnola, Lugano, Switzerland
4 Rue Talma, Paris, France
Park Village, Brussels, Belgium
6 Quartiere Marostica, Milano, Italy
Grand Venetian, Las Colinas, Texas,
USA (Sculptures by Egidio Costantini)
8 Avenue de l’Observatoire, Brussels, Belgium
SERVICES
2
4
Attachment number 6 \nPage 13 of 30
Item # N
SERVICES
6
8
Attachment number 6 \nPage 14 of 30
Item # N
4
Development Technical and Marketing Services
The Palladium Group’s traditional activity was the development, construction and long-term ownership of residential projects. Over the last twenty years, this expertise was extended to mixed-use assets (including residential, office, hotel and retail). All projects are conceived, designed and built using the same exacting specifications and attention to detail whether we are developing or building for ourselves or for third parties.
Teams composed of local and international specialists carry out property development and technical supervision activities. This structure provides the best performance the industry can offer and is a determining factor of success in all phases of the projects, from initial conception to commercialization of whole assets or individual units (sale or rental).
Villa Arconati, Milano, Italy
2 Villa Arconati, Milano, Italy
Villa Arconati, Milano, Italy
4 Villa Arconati, Milano, Italy
Villa Arconati, Milano, Italy
6 Duinweg, The Hague, The Netherlands
Via Crocefisso, Milano, Italy
8 Park Village, Brussels, Belgium
(L’Ange d’Icare, sculptures by Varozza)
Boulevard de la Villette, Paris, France
SERVICES
Attachment number 6 \nPage 15 of 30
Item # N
SERVICES
2
86
4
Attachment number 6 \nPage 16 of 30
Item # N
6
Property Management
Services
The Palladium Group has over a hundred years of property management experience for its own account and on behalf of third parties. As owners, the Group understands the need to optimize the timing and level of cash-flows and yields over the investment period, as well as property renovation and rehabilitation services, debt and equity placement, and partnership governance.
The services provided by the Group include the following:
- Condominium renovations, sales and management - Full property management - Expense management and audit - Technical supervision of building renovations and maintenance - Debt and equity package submittals - Partnership operations, reporting and compliance- Portfolio development and management
Willemspark, The Hague, The Netherlands
2 The Heights at Park Lane, Dallas, USA
Chateau d’Argent, Hyères, France
4 Boston House, Delft, The Netherlands
Papillon, Paris, France
6 Faubourg Poissonnière, Paris, France
SERVICES
Attachment number 6 \nPage 17 of 30
Item # N
SERVICES
2
4
6
Attachment number 6 \nPage 18 of 30
Item # N
8
Construction and
Rehabilitation
This core activity of the Palladium Group includes construction manage-ment and general contracting for new construction and rehabilitation projects.
Heavy renovation and rehabilitation of commercial and residential buildings is an area of significant expertise in the Group. It is a prime source of added-value for Palladium and its clients, as well as for future occupants.
The Palladium technical teams build to suit based on owners’ require-ments, with the ability to integrate design, cost and construction techniques. Exacting standards of performance are applied on an on-going basis throughout the design and construction process.
Pordenone, Italy 2 Dallas, USA Villaverla, Vicenza, Italy 4 Dallas, USA Villa Rinaldi, Asolo, Italy 6 Villa Beatrice d’Este, Padova, Italy Castano Primo, Italy 8 Limana (BL), Italy Pordenone, Italy0 Toulon, France Villa Tomitano, Belluno, Italy
2
4
SERVICES
Attachment number 6 \nPage 19 of 30
Item # N
6
8
0
SERVICES
Attachment number 6 \nPage 20 of 30
Item # N
20
Organization Chart
Real Estate Portfolio Entities
The Group is formed by the three entities Geplant, Anteo and Fibic, and their respective subsidiaries.
These entities own the real-estate portfolio of the Group through property-owning companies located in each country.
ORGANIZATION
GEPLANT ANTEO FIBIC
GROUP HEAD ENTITIES
REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO ENTITIES
BELGIUM
GERMANY
ITALY
THE NETHERLANDS
USA
FRANCE SWITZERLAND
The Palladium Group is organized as Attachment number 6 \nPage 21 of 30
Item # N
2
Operating Service Entities
The three entities Geplant, Anteo and Fibic also own the service companies of the Group. The service and construction activities are conducted under the following segments:
- PALLADIUM for property development, portfolio / asset management, sales and financial / administrative support
- OMNIUM for transactions and property / asset management
- SAEM-SMC, SME and CATALYST BUILDERS for technical supervision and construction in Italy, France and the United States respectively
These companies constitute an international network, which operates through its multinational teams including Group staff members and selected professionals.
ORGANIZATION
OPERATING SERVICE ENTITIES
Countries Palladium Omnium Construction
BELGIUM
FRANCE
GERMANY
ITALY
THE NETHERLANDS
SWITZERLAND
UAE (DUBAI)
UK
USA
a European Economic Interest Group.Attachment number 6 \nPage 22 of 30
Item # N
22
Kiron, Arts and
Communications
Center
The Palladium Group is also active in the arts and communications fields through Kiron, a subsidiary of the French entity Papillon.
Since its creation in the 1980’s, Kiron has been a focal point of artistic and communication creativity on the Paris scene with international ramifications in Europe and the United States. Over the years, Kiron, its partners and clients have produced several hundred books ,CD’s, DVD’s, and have co-produced television features, as well as organized numerous art exhibits, drawing in part on Kiron’s important collection of contemporary paintings.These activities are conducted within a spacious 3.000 square meters building, which also includes a live performance theater, and state-of-the-art TV recording and post-production facilities.
KIRON, ARTS AND COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
Attachment number 6 \nPage 23 of 30
Item # N
2KIRON, ARTS AND COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
Attachment number 6 \nPage 24 of 30
Item # N
24
Office Directory
PALLADIUM GROUP G.E.I.E.
Via Crocefisso 8
20122 Milano, Italy
Tel : +39 02 89620 1 Fax : +39 02 862 998
BELGIUM
Head office address
Avenue de Roodebeeklaan 89
B-1030 Brussels
PALLADIUM BELGIUM
Tel : +32 02 743 24 20 Fax : +32 02 743 24 40
administration@palladiumgroup.be
OMNIUM Real Estate Services
Tel : +32 02 743 24 24 Fax : +32 02 743 24 40
administration@omnium.be
FRANCE
Head office address
7 rue du Faubourg Poissonnière
75009 Paris
PALLADIUM FRANCE
Tel : +33 01 44 83 11 11 Fax : +33 01 44 83 11 00
palfrance@palladium-group.com
SME (Société Moderne d’Entreprises)
Tel : +33 01 44 83 11 44 Fax : +33 01 44 83 11 50
sme@palladium-group.com
OMNIUM Services Immobiliers
Tel : +33 01 44 83 11 22 Fax : +33 01 44 83 11 39
paris@osimmo.com
SOUTHERN FRANCENCE
OMNIUM Services Immobiliers
2 Chemin de la Font de l’Ange
83400 Hyères
Tel : +33 04 94 12 60 70 Fax : +33 04 94 12 60 80
hyeres@osimmo.com
HELION Services Immobiliers
32 quai Jules Guesde
83430 Saint Mandrier
Tel : +33 04 94 63 62 39 Fax : +33 04 94 63 59 78
agence.helion@osimmo.com
La Seyne-sur-Mer office
46, Vieux Chemin des Sablettes
83500 La Seyne-sur-Mer
Tel : +33 04 94 94 80 14 Fax : +33 04 94 30 13 57
agence.helion.neff@osimmo.com
KIRON
10 rue La Vacquerie
75011 Paris
Tel : +33 01 44 64 11 50 Fax : +33 01 43 73 55 10
contact@kiron-espace.com
GERMANY
Head office address
Methfesselstr. 50
10965 Berlin
PALLADIUM Development DEUTSCHLAND
Tel : +49 030 80 19 67 11 Fax : +49 030 80 19 67 13
info@palladium-group.de
OMNIUM Grundstücksverwaltung
Tel : +49 030 80 19 67 11 Fax : +49 030 80 19 67 13
info@omnium-grundstuecksverwaltung.de
ITALY
Head office address
Via Crocefisso 6/8
20122 Milano
PALLADIUM ITALIA
Tel : +39 02 89620 1 Fax : +39 02 862 998
direzione.amm@palladiumgroup.it
OMNIUM Servizi Immobiliari
Tel : +39 02 89620 1 Fax : +39 02 805 6326
locazione@omnium.it
SAEM-SMC
Tel : +39 02 89620 1 Fax : +39 02 869 2264
impresa@saem-smc.it
SAEM-SMC (Bressanvido Office)
Via San Benedetto 14/d
36050 Bressanvido (Vicenza)
Tel : +39 0444 467505 Fax : +39 0444 66 0639
THE NETHERLANDS
Head office address
Duinweg 25
2585 JV Den Haag
PALLADIUM NEDERLAND
Tel : +31 70 350 72 02 Fax : +31 70 358 47 26
info@palladium-group.nl
OMNIUM VASTGOED
Tel : +31 70 350 72 02 Fax : +31 70 358 47 26
info@palladium-group.nl
SWITZERLAND
Head office address
Riva Caccia 1E
6900 Lugano
PALLADIUM SWITZERLAND
Tel : +41 091 993 17 12 Fax : +41 091 993 17 14
direzione@palladium-group.ch
OMNIUM SWITZERLAND
Tel : +41 091 993 17 13 Fax :+41 091 993 17 14
direzione@palladium-group.ch
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
PALLADIUM DUBAI
Sheikh Zayed Road
Al-Moosa Tower II, Office 1901
PO Box 74980
Dubai,United Arab Emirates
Tel: +971 4 3326550 Fax: +971 4 3326433
UNITED KINGDOM
Head office address
30 St John’s Lane
London EC1M 4NB
PALLADIUM REAL ESTATE
Tel: +44 020 76892000 Fax: +44 020 76892001
OMNIUM MANAGEMENT
Tel: +44 020 76892000 Fax: +44 020 76892001
USA
Head office address
13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75240-6602
PALLADIUM USA
Tel: +1 972 774 4400 Fax: +1 972 774 4484
pusa@palladiumusa.com
OMNIUM Realty Services
Tel: +1 972 774 4400 Fax: +1 972 774 4484
ors@palladiumusa.com
OMNIUM Management Company
Tel: +1 972 774 4440 Fax: +1 972 774 4441
omc@palladiumusa.com
OMNIUM Marketing
Tel: +1 972 774 4440 Fax: +1 972 774 4441
om@palladiumusa.com
CATALYST BUILDERS
Tel: +1 972 774 4450 Fax: +1 972 774 4448
cb@palladiumusa.com
NOTE: Each and every company participating in the
Palladium Group G.E.I.E. described in this document is
liable exclusively for its own obligations and undertakings.
The use of the name “Palladium Group G.E.I.E” and the
trademark “ Palladium Group” by any company does not
imply any guarantee by the other companies participating
in the G.E.I.E.
Note for Stéphanie: this note in smaller letters
Attachment number 6 \nPage 25 of 30
Item # N
PALLADIUM GROUP G.E.I.E.
Via Crocefisso, 8 20122 Milano ITALY
www.palladium-group.com
PALLADIUM ITALIA
direzione.amm@palladiumgroup.it
www. palladium-group.it
PALLADIUM FRANCE
palfrance@palladium-group.com
www. palladium-group.fr
PALLADIUM SWITZERLAND
direzione@palladium-group.ch
www. palladium-group.ch
PALLADIUM Development DEUTSCHLAND
info@palladium-group.de
www. palladium-group.de
PALLADIUM BELGIUM
administration@palladiumgroup.be
www. palladium-group.be
PALLADIUM NEDERLAND
info@palladium-group.nl
www. palladium-group.nl
PALLADIUM USA
pusa@palladiumusa.com
www.palladiumusa.com
20
0
9
-
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
P
a
l
l
a
d
i
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
G
.
E
.
I
.
E
.
“
P
a
l
l
a
d
i
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
”
i
s
a
t
r
a
d
e
m
a
r
k
o
f
K
i
r
o
n
S
.
a
.
r
.
l
.
@
R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
gr
a
p
h
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
s
t
u
d
i
o
t
o
n
i
n
o
-
w
w
w
.
s
t
u
d
i
o
t
o
n
i
n
o
.
c
o
m
Attachment number 6 \nPage 26 of 30
Item # N
Attachment number 6 \nPage 27 of 30
Item # N
Attachment number 6 \nPage 28 of 30
Item # N
Attachment number 6 \nPage 29 of 30
Item # N
Attachment number 6 \nPage 30 of 30
Item # N
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Development Name Development Address Development City
Development
County De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Zi
p
C
o
d
e
Re
g
i
o
n
No
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
Se
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
At
-
R
i
s
k
S
e
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
US
D
A
S
e
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
Ru
r
a
l
/
U
r
b
a
n
Construction Type To
t
a
l
L
I
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
M
R
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
Target
Population
Credit/Funding
Request Owner Contact Second Contact To
t
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
Region 7 / Urban
12239 Songhai at West Gate 8700 West Gate Blvd.Austin Travis 78745 7 Urban New Construction 118 0 118 General $1,529,423 Miguel Medellin Cherno Njie 178
12300 Capitol Terrace 309 E. 11th Street Austin Travis 78701 7 X Urban New Construction 135 0 135 Supportive
Housing
$1,000,000 Walter Moreau Jennifer Hicks 178
12345 Merritt Legacy South of Old Quarry Road, West of S. Bagdad
Road b
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 180 60 240 General $2,000,000 Colby Denison Ina Spokas 178
12347 Merritt Estates South of Old Quarry Road, West of S. Bagdad
Road b
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 80 20 100 Elderly $1,000,000 Colby Denison Ina Spokas 177
12079 Trinity at Lakeline SEQ of Lakeline and N Lake Creek Parkway Austin Williamson 78727 7 Urban New Construction 150 0 150 General $1,712,122 Robert Ruggio Alyssa Carpenter 176
12140 Kiron at Mesquite Lane 2805 Mesquite Lane Georgetown Williamson 78628 7 Urban New Construction 82 0 82 General $750,000 Scott Johnson Sara Reidy 176
12037 Cedar Hills Apartments Approximately 12200 Walnut Park Crossing Austin Travis 78753 7 Urban New Construction 184 0 184 General $2,000,000 Rick J. Deyoe Audrey Martin 175
12090 The Huntington I35 & Fleischer Road Austin ETJ Travis 78728 7 Urban New Construction 120 12 132 Elderly $1,400,000 Mark Musemeche Ofelia Elizondo 175
12235 Songhai at Crystal Falls Northbound 183A south of Crystal Falls
Parkway
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 164 0 164 Elderly $1,988,604 Miguel Medellin Cherno Njie 175
12262 Georgetown Senior Shell Rd., North of Williams Dr.Georgetown Williamson 78627 7 X Urban New Construction 120 0 120 Elderly $1,300,429 Donald Sampley Debra Guerrero 175
12250 The Works at Pleasant Valley 835 N Pleasant Valley Road Austin Travis 78702 7 X Urban New Construction 39 0 39 General $490,209 Susan McDowell Mitch Weynand 174
12399 Cypress Creek at Lakeline Station To Be located at the Northwest Corner of
Lakeline
Austin Williamson 78717 7 Urban New Construction 199 0 199 General $2,000,000 Staurt Shaw Jeffery Spicer 174
12028 Heritage Oak Hill 8922 Manchaca Rd.Austin Travis 78748 7 Urban New Construction 96 0 96 Elderly $1,010,000 Daniel Allgeier Rob Hoskins 172
12301 Mueller Place intersection of Berkman Drive and Tom Miller
Stree
Austin Travis 78723 7 X Urban New Construction 162 18 180 General $2,000,000 Walter Moreau Jennifer Hicks 172
12315 Jeremiah Housing on Oak Springs 2711 Goodwin Avenue Austin Travis 78702 7 X Urban New Construction 20 0 20 Supportive
Housing
$400,000 Cassandra Ramirez Janine Sisak 172
Max Eligible Request $2,000,000 Amount Available Region 7 Urban 15 Total $20,580,787$3,084,518
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # N
TDHCA Question/Answer on Housing Tax Credits
Q. What are Housing Tax Credits?
A. The federal housing tax credit program is a means of directing private capital toward the
creation of affordable rental housing. Owners and investors in qualified affordable multifamily
residential developments can use the housing tax credits as a dollar‐for‐dollar reduction of
federal income tax liability. The value associated with the housing tax credits allows residences
to be leased to qualified families at below market rate rents. The Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs (TDHCA) is the only entity in the state of Texas with the authority to
allocate housing tax credits under this program. To qualify for housing tax credits, the proposed
development must involve new construction or undergo substantial rehabilitation of residential
units (at least $15,000/unit). The credit amount a development may receive depends on the total
amount of depreciable capital improvements and the funding sources available to finance the
total development cost.
Q. What must an applicant do to apply for housing tax credits?
A. Developers apply for housing tax credits through an application process administered by
TDHCA. This process is fully described in the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules (QAP) which
governs the programʹs operation. The QAP is revised annually in a process that involves public
input, Board approval and ultimately approval by the Governor. Under the competitive HTC
program, to be considered for an award of housing tax credits, an application must be
submitted to TDHCA during the annual application acceptance period as published in the QAP.
All applications must provide the required fee, application and supporting documentation as
required by the QAP.
The competition for housing tax credits is very high. Therefore, in addition to submitting an
application that meets the minimum threshold, applicants must achieve a high enough score to
be competitive to receive an award.
Tax Exempt Bond applications applying for 4% housing tax credits are submitted to the
Department once the Reservation of Allocation is issued by the Texas Bond Review Board. It is
required under Section 1372 of the Texas Government Code, for Priority 1 and 2 applications to
apply for housing tax credits. Priority 3 applications are not required to have housing tax
credits; however, most developments are not financially feasible without them.
Q. Does TDHCA have geographical preferences or specific types of developments that it
prefers?
A. Under the competitive HTC program, housing tax credits are allocated in accordance with
Section 2306.111 of the Texas Government Code, which requires that the credits be allocated on
a regional basis. There are thirteen state service regions; each of the thirteen state service regions
is further divided into Rural and Urban/Exurban areas each of which is targeted to receive a
pre‐determined amount of the housing tax credits for each year. The amount per area is based
on a regional allocation formula which is generated, with public input, by the Housing
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 1 of 6
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 6
Item # N
Resource Center of TDHCA. Upon finalization of the formula, the targeted allocations will be
released. Additionally, the HTC Program has several allocations and/or set‐asides which it
strives to meet: at least 10% of all credits must be awarded to Qualified Nonprofits, at least 15%
of each regionʹs credit allocation is targeted to At‐Risk Developments and at least 5% of each
regionʹs credit allocation is targeted to developments funded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Q. What evaluation criteria is used to review submitted applications?
A. It is the goal of TDHCA to encourage diversity through broad geographic allocation of
housing tax credits within the state, and to promote maximum utilization of the available
housing tax credit amount. The criteria utilized to realize this goal includes a point based
scoring system (competitive HTC only) and an evaluation of the developmentʹs:
• cost and financial feasibility;
• geographic location within the state as compared to other developments applying for
housing tax credits;
• impact on the concentration of existing housing tax credit developments and other
affordable housing developments within specific markets and sub‐markets;
• site conditions;
• development team experience; and
• consistency with the goal of awarding credits to as many different applicants as possible.
Those applications which are deemed to have a high priority based on the review criteria
(competitive HTC only) are subject to an underwriting review which evaluates the
developmentʹs projected construction costs and financial feasibility. Applications which pass
the underwriting process and are determined to have the highest priority will be presented to
TDHCAʹs Board of Directors for consideration.
For Tax Exempt Bond developments, the applications are recommended for approval to the
Departmentʹs Governing Board of Directors based on the underwriting review which evaluates
the developmentʹs projected construction costs and financial feasibility and the ability of the
application to meet the threshold and compliance requirements of the Department.
Q. How is the scoring system used to prioritize the applications? (Competitive HTC only)
A. The QAP defines a series of point based ʺSelection Criteriaʺ items. To generate a ʺSelection
Criteriaʺ score, applicants request points for those criteria items for which their development is
qualified. These scoring criteria change annually and can be reviewed in the QAP.
While it is a significant factor, an applicationʹs score is not the sole determining factor as to
whether or not it will be recommended for an award of credits. However, the score serves as
one of the primary criteria (as described in the previous section) used to assess how well an
application fulfills the programʹs goals.
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 2 of 6
Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 6
Item # N
Q. Can the public comment on a proposed tax credit development or on the development of
the QAP?
A. For the competitive HTC program, prior to the award of the credits, TDHCA will hold at
least three public hearings in metropolitan and rural areas across the state. The public is
encouraged to attend one of these scheduled hearings or to submit written comments to the
HTC Program. When submitting comments, the application under discussion should be clearly
identified by name, address, and city. Including the TDHCA application identification number
in the correspondence is also helpful. Based on the provided comment, an indication of the level
of support or opposition for an application will be included in the recommendation
documentation presented to TDHCAʹs Board of Directors.
For Tax Exempt Bond applications which utilize TDHCA as the issuer, the Department will
conduct development‐specific public hearings in the community in which the development is to
be located. The public is encouraged to attend these public hearings or submit written
comments to the Department. For tax exempt bond applications which utilize a local issuer,
interested individuals are encouraged to contact the Issuer for the public hearing information.
Public hearings are also held for the development of the QAP, which governs the
administration of the HTC Program. The public is encouraged to attend or provide written
comment. Written comment, on either a specific application or on the QAP, can be sent to:
Multifamily Finance Production, P.O. Box 13941, Austin, TX 78711‐3941 or transmitted via fax to
(512) 475‐0764 or (512) 475‐3340 or by email to Sharon.Gamble@tdhca.state.tx.us .
Q. How can local residents impact the development process?
A. Because of their significant long‐term financial investment in the development and
community, developers in most cases want to work with area citizens and be a good neighbor.
Therefore it is not uncommon for developers to make reasonable alterations to the planned
development in response to the concerns of area neighbors.
In addition to attending and commenting at public hearings on a particular development such
as this, individuals and neighborhood organizations are encouraged to work directly with the
developer to gain a better understanding of a particular development. Open community
meetings offer an opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, and have a productive
dialogue between the developer and community.
Q. What questions should residents ask of the property developer? A. Below are some
common questions that will help you gain a better understanding of the developer’s goals and
intentions regarding a proposed property:
• What other developments has the developer built and where are they are located?
• What are the developer’s long‐term goals for the property?
• How will the development fit in with the existing neighbor‐hood?
• Who is the management company and what is its track record?
• What types of supportive services will be provided to residents?
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 3 of 6
Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 of 6
Item # N
• Who are the proposed tenants and how will they be screened?
Q. What is the minimum percentage of units that must be set aside for eligible low income
tenants?
A. Each development must include a minimum percentage of units to be set aside for eligible
low income tenants. The rent charged for these units is restricted according to federal guidelines
which correspond to the householdʹs income level. While rental rates are restricted, they are not
subsidized (i.e., Section 8 housing) by the HTC Program. A low income housing development
will be eligible to apply for housing tax credits if it meets either of the following criteria:
a) Twenty percent (20%) or more of the residential units in the project are both rent restricted
and occupied by individuals whose income is fifty percent (50%) or less of Area Median Family
Income (AMFI);
b) Forty percent (40%) or more of the residential units in the project are both rent restricted and
occupied by individuals whose income is sixty percent (60%) or less of AMFI.
Housing tax credits may only be claimed for the affordable units that have been set aside for
participation under the program. Although a developer only needs to set aside a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of a projectʹs units for qualified tenants, applicants will typically set aside
between 60% and 100% of the units for scoring purposes and to claim a higher amount of
housing tax credits.
In addition to these set aside requirements, under the Bond program there are additional set‐
asides the development must meet based on the Priority that is assigned by the Texas Bond
Review Board.
Q. How are the rent limits calculated?
A. The rent limits for housing tax credit units are based on the household income level and the
number of bedrooms in the unit. These rent and income limits are generated by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development each year. HTC rent limits include an
allowance for the cost of utilities (heat, lights, air conditioning, water, sewer, oil or gas). In
projects where the owner pays all utilities, no adjustment in the HTC rent limits are needed to
determine the maximum rent that can be charged for a housing tax credit unit. In projects
where tenants pay all or a portion of their own utilities, the rent established for a housing tax
credit unit must not exceed the applicable HTC rent limit for that unit.
The Department can provide interested parties with specific rent limits for their area, or a
complete set of income and rent limits can be found on the Departmentʹs Web site. Households
will be required by the property owner to periodically document their income level so that the
owner may continue to claim the housing tax credits for their unit.
Q. How do tax credits benefit the development owner?
A. Under the federal income tax code, a credit is a dollar‐for‐dollar reduction in the income tax
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 4 of 6
Attachment number 8 \nPage 4 of 6
Item # N
liability for the investor. It is important to note that only the owners of a housing tax credit
property may utilize the benefits of the housing tax credits over time. A credit is subtracted
after the amount of tax is calculated. In this form, a credit differs from a deduction or
adjustment to income, which is then subtracted from income before the tax rate is applied and
the amount of tax is calculated.
Q. Why are developers given an incentive to develop affordable rental housing?
A. Many private developers and builders concentrate their efforts in larger metropolitan areas
and target higher income individuals and families. However, demographic studies show that
lower and moderate income individuals and families are the fastest growing segment of our
population. As the population grows, so will the need for affordable housing.
Q. How do tax credit developments compare with non‐tax credit developments?
A. Properties that receive housing tax credits must compete with nearby market developments
for tenants. The properties are safe, secure, and well maintained. They have amenities similar to
other apartment complexes, and may offer swimming pools, community centers and reception
areas. Newer developments may include daytime childcare, evening GED classes, on‐site
medical care and credit counseling. These supportive services are provided without charge to
the tenants.
Q. How do ʺlow income/affordable housingʺ units differ from ʺhousing projects?ʺ
A. Unlike most publicly‐subsidized housing which is designed to assist the elderly, disabled,
minimum wage workers or the unemployed, the housing tax credit program does not provide
tenants with governmental rent subsidies. It provides equity to build the development which
allows the developer to charge lower rents to the tenants. The programʹs rent and income levels
vary from county to county. In Houston, for example, the maximum allowable rent (which
includes a utility allowance) for a three bedroom housing tax credit apartment would be $953.
To be eligible to reside in the housing tax credit unit, a family of fourʹs annual income could not
exceed $36,660 at the time they signed the lease. In Lubbock, the maximum allowable rent for a
three‐bedroom apartment would be $783 a month. A family of fourʹs annual income could not
exceed $30,120. Tenants must pay their rents in full. Thus, the tenants are most likely working
Texans or retirees seeking an affordable place to live.
Q. Who lives in a tax credit development?
A. Typically, tenants may include: school teachers; police officers; firefighters; mechanics; single
parents who are balancing career and family while attending night school; city employees; sales
clerks; and retirees. Affordable housing and low income units are quite different from public
housing projects.
Q. Are existing developments renovated under the Housing Tax Credit Program?
A. Many of the apartments built during the boom years of the 1980ʹs which were abandoned
and boarded‐up during the stateʹs real estate bust, are today fully renovated and leased.
Hundreds of sprawling apartment complexes that had for years been both eyesores and
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 5 of 6
Attachment number 8 \nPage 5 of 6
Item # N
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 6 of 6
occasional drug refuges, now provide thousands of working Texans with quality, affordable
housing, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Q. Are tax credit properties monitored?
A. Housing tax credit benefits are lost if a development fails to meet state and federal standards
every year for each of the 15 years of the compliance period. Properties are then monitored for
an additional 15 years to maintain affordability.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 6 of 6
Item # N
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for Georgetown Senior, Ltd. to
apply for Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 120 units to be known as Georgetown Senior,
located at 410 Shell Road -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A.
Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached report for details.
The Housing Advisory Board reviewed the request at their regular meeting on February 15, 2012. The board
voted 5-0 (Tim Todd and Brad Curlee abstaining due to conflict of interest) to forward the request to City
Council with the recommendation for approval of the resolution for both the Housing Tax Credit and HOME
Partnership Programs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City from this resolution.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Georgetown Senior Staff Report
Exhibit 1--Georgetown Senior Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit 2--Area Apartments
Exhibit 3--Georgetown Senior HTC resolution
Exhibit 4--NRP Group Information
Exhibit 5a--NRP Projects one
Exhibit 5b--NRP Projects two
Exhibit 6--TDHCA HTC Pre-application Log
Exhibit 7--TDHCA HTC info
Cover Memo
Item # O
Georgetown Planning and Development Department
Housing Advisory Board
Georgetown Senior Apartments Resolution of Support Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: February 15, 2012 Item: 4
Project Planner: Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Report Date: February 10, 2012
Item Description
Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution of support for Georgetown
Senior, Ltd. to apply for Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 120 units to be
known as Georgetown Senior, located at 410 Shell Road.
Staff Recommended Motion
Forward the resolution of support to City Council with a recommendation.
Item Details
Project Name: Georgetown Senior
Project Address: 410 Shell Road (Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 11 acres
Legal Description: 11 acres of the Fish and Wright Surveys
Applicant: Beth Barker, NRP Group
Property Owner: Campbell-Georgetown #1 Ltd Partnership, Dallas, TX
Tax Exempt: No
Applicant’s Request
NRP Group is requesting a resolution of support from the Georgetown City Council to
apply for the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) through the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs (TDHCA) to construct a new senior apartment complex with 120
units.
Financing
The applicant is seeking to secure financing of 9% Housing Tax Credits through
TDHCA. Projects seeking credits are scored using the criteria set by TDHCA in this
competitive process. This project is a new construction project on a greenfield lot. They
will be competing for the 9% credits against the application for Kiron at Mesquite Lane,
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # O
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Georgetown Senior Apartments Resolution of Support Page 2 of 3
but not the San Gabriel Apartment renovation. For the competition region (Williamson
and Travis Counties), 15 different developments have pre-applied to TDHCA for the
program, competing for $3.08 million. At most, two of the projects will be funded.
(Exhibit 6)
The City of Georgetown, when compared to other cities of similar size throughout
Texas, has two times the average number of tax credit units, comparatively. This is not
a market measure, but simply a statistical comparison. Due to the two times rule, any
new application within Georgetown is required to secure a Resolution of Support in
order to apply. (see Exhibit 6 for program information).
Site Information
The site has never been developed and is vacant. The property takes access from Shell
Road. The larger site that contains the 11 acres will be required to make the connection
to the Verde Vista right-of-way to the south. It is zoned C-1, Local Commercial, and MF,
Multifamily which allows multifamily development by right (Exhibit 1). Additionally,
the zoning ordinance contains a restriction that the multifamily must be for senior (55
years or older) housing.
Adjacent property conditions:
Zoning District Current Use
Northeast RS, Single Family
Residential
Residential
Southeast Not in City Limits Residential
Northwest RS, Single Family; C-1
Local Commercial
Residential, vacant
Southwest C-1, Local Commercial Retail, vacant
Proximity to other Multifamily and Affordable Developments
Within a one-mile radius, there are no multifamily apartment developments. The Oaks
at Wildwood is located on the other side of Shell Road, but it is owner-occupied condos,
not rental apartments. (Exhibit 2)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # O
Planning & Development Department Staff Report
Georgetown Senior Apartments Resolution of Support Page 3 of 3
Affordability
The units will be available to households in the following income brackets:
50% to Families with Household Income at or Below 60% AMI ($41,040/family of three)
40% to Families with Household Income at or Below 50% AMI ($34,200/family of three)
10% to Families with Household Income at or Below 30% AMI ($20,520/family of three)
The expected rental rates are (depending on income bracket and unit type)
40 – 1 bedroom units - $266-675
80 – 2 Bedroom units - $318-800
Financial Impact to the City
There will be no monetary or in kind contribution from the City.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit 2 – Location of Multifamily Developments
Exhibit 3 – Resolution
Exhibit 4 – Georgetown Senior Information from NRP Group
Exhibit 5 a/b—Examples of NRP Group developments
Exhibit 6—TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Pre-Application Log for Region 7
Exhibit 7 – TDHCA Housing Tax Credit FAQ
Submitted By
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # O
CI 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
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C ITY OF G E O RGETOWN
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T.J.
CITY OF G E O R GETOWN E.T.J.
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
S
P
RIN G WOO
D
L
N
M E S A D R
LA PALOMA
ELMW O O D
DR FAIRMONT DR
B I R C H D R
S
O
N
O
R
A
T
R
C
E
VERDE VIS
T
A
W
O
O
D
S
TO
CK
D
R
MADRID DR
SHELL RD
WOODLAKE DR
WIL
D
W
O
O
D
DR
T
E
X
A
S
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
J
A
Y
D
E
E
T
E
R
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
R O S E D ALE BLVDIN
DIA
N
L
O
D
G
E
ST
MORAL PASS
DAI
S
Y
PATH
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
WOOD S TO
C
K DR
W S E Q U O I A S P U R
SYCAMORE ST
A
Z
U
L
C
T
ROSEBUD LN
COUNTRY RD
B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G RD
E
E S P A R A D A D R
HA
N
O VER
CT
E S E Q U O I A SPUR
VAL
VERDE
DR
MES A SP U R
M
ALAGA DR
P E N N Y L N
LOST CEDARS
D E L W EBB BLVD
LI
A
T
R
I
S
L
N
WI N E CUP W A Y
S E R E N A D A DR
BELLAIRE DR
CHE STN
U
T CT
P E N N Y L N
C L E A R S P R I N G R D
RUSTLE CV
W
E
SPARADA DR
MANZANITA
DR
P E N N Y L N
OAK
RIDGE CIR
L A S P LUMA S D R
MA
D
RONE
D
R
S
A
B
I
N
E
D
R
B L A ZIN G STAR
DR
VERDE VISTA
WILLIAMS DR
MIRAMAR DR
LUC I N D A TER
W IL D W O O D D R
WILLIA
MS
DR
SEVILLA DR
E S T R E L L A X I N G
D B WOOD
RD
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
TRAIL OF THE FLOWERS
WESTBURY
L
N
R
O
C
K
Y
H
O
LL
O
W
T
RL
WESTBURY LN
T
A
S
C
ATE
ST
M
ADRID
D
R
R
O
W
AN
DR
LANTA N A D R
H
I
D
D
E
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
L
T
U
R
T
L
E
BND
W
SEQUOIA
T
R
L
CEDAR EL M L N
S E D R O T R L
H
ICKORY LN
B
R
A
Z
O
S
D
R
B
L
U
E
H
A
W
D
R
TORTOIS E L N
SUTTON PLLAKE OV E R LOOK R D
L
O
G
A
N
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
O
LD E O A K
D R
0 2,300 4,600
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Georgetown Senior
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Zon ing Districts
Ag ricult ure
Bu siness Park
Loca l Commercial
Gene ral Commercial
Ne ighb orh ood Commercial
Indu stria l
Multif amily
Manu fact ured Housing
Mixed Use-Downtown
Office
Pu blic F acility
Sin gle F amily Residential
Two F amily
Townho use
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # O
CI 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
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N
C ITY OF G E O RGETOWN
CITY OF
GEORGETOWN
CITY
OF
GEORGETOWN
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T.J.
CITY OF G E O R GETOWN E.T.J.
C I T Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E .T .J.
S
P
RIN G WOO
D
L
N
M E S A D R
LA PALOMA
ELMW O O D
DR FAIRMONT DR
B I R C H D R
S
O
N
O
R
A
T
R
C
E
VERDE VIS
T
A
W
O
O
D
S
TO
CK
D
R
MADRID DR
SHELL RD
WOODLAKE DR
WIL
D
W
O
O
D
DR
T
E
X
A
S
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
J
A
Y
D
E
E
T
E
R
F
O
R
T
D
A
V
I
S
S
T
R O S E D ALE BLVDIN
DIA
N
L
O
D
G
E
ST
MORAL PASS
DAI
S
Y
PATH
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
WOOD S TO
C
K DR
W S E Q U O I A S P U R
SYCAMORE ST
A
Z
U
L
C
T
ROSEBUD LN
COUNTRY RD
B O O T Y S C R O S S I N G RD
E
E S P A R A D A D R
HA
N
O VER
CT
E S E Q U O I A SPUR
VAL
VERDE
DR
MES A SP U R
M
ALAGA DR
P E N N Y L N
LOST CEDARS
D E L W EBB BLVD
LI
A
T
R
I
S
L
N
WI N E CUP W A Y
S E R E N A D A DR
BELLAIRE DR
CHE STN
U
T CT
P E N N Y L N
C L E A R S P R I N G R D
RUSTLE CV
W
E
SPARADA DR
MANZANITA
DR
P E N N Y L N
OAK
RIDGE CIR
L A S P LUMA S D R
MA
D
RONE
D
R
S
A
B
I
N
E
D
R
B L A ZIN G STAR
DR
VERDE VISTA
WILLIAMS DR
MIRAMAR DR
LUC I N D A TER
W IL D W O O D D R
WILLIA
MS
DR
SEVILLA DR
E S T R E L L A X I N G
D B WOOD
RD
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
TRAIL OF THE FLOWERS
WESTBURY
L
N
R
O
C
K
Y
H
O
LL
O
W
T
RL
WESTBURY LN
T
A
S
C
ATE
ST
M
ADRID
D
R
R
O
W
AN
DR
LANTA N A D R
H
I
D
D
E
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
L
T
U
R
T
L
E
BND
W
SEQUOIA
T
R
L
CEDAR EL M L N
S E D R O T R L
H
ICKORY LN
B
R
A
Z
O
S
D
R
B
L
U
E
H
A
W
D
R
TORTOIS E L N
SUTTON PLLAKE OV E R LOOK R D
L
O
G
A
N
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
O
LD E O A K
D R
0 2,300 4,600
Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
¯
Georgetown Senior
Leg en dSiteParce lsCity L imitsGeorgetown ETJ
Exhibit 2: Area Apartments
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # O
Resolution Number: ____________ Page 1 of 1
Description: Georgetown Senior Tax Credit Resolution
Date Approved: 2/28/2012
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas approving a
Housing Tax Credit proposal with Georgetown Senior Ltd., for the
development to be known as Georgetown Senior, located at 410 Shell Road;
and declaring an effective date
Whereas, Georgetown Senior Ltd. has proposed to construct a 120-unit senior multi-
family apartment complex to be known as Georgetown Senior at 410 Shell Road in the
City of Georgetown, Williamson County, to provide for affordable senior rental housing
within the City;
Whereas, Georgetown Senior, Ltd. intends to submit an application to the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) for 2012 Housing Tax
Credits for Georgetown Senior;
Whereas, pursuant to §50.8(2)(A), Texas Administrative Code, Georgetown Senior, Ltd.
acknowledges that the City of Georgetown has more than twice the state average of
units per capita supported by Housing Tax Credits or Private Activity Bonds;
Be it therefore resolved that:
The City of Georgetown hereby approves of the proposed application for the
construction of Georgetown Senior and has voted specifically to authorize an allocation
of Housing Tax Credits for this development.
Adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Georgetown on the 28th day of
February 2012.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
Jessica Brettle George Garver
City Secretary Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bridget Chapman
Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
1
8
It
e
m
#
O
• Development
• Construction
• Property Management
• Partner of Choice
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
• Honesty, integrity and ethical behavior are the foundation of every business activity.
• We work for a common purpose, so teamwork is essential in our every day functions, guided by
helpfulness and friendliness toward our peers.
• Every person has his or her own unique qualities and expertise; therefore, we treat everyone
professionally and with respect.
• Just as each of us demands exceptional achievement organizationally, we expect high performance
from each other.
• Commitment to our mission and our perseverance will enable us to become the partner of choice
to our employees, residents, subcontractors, suppliers, associates and fi nancial community.
• Each one of us has the responsibility to be open and approachable to every other person involved
in any business transaction.
• We strive to make our work environment enjoyable so that each of us can put our best efforts
forward.
• We are a professional organization, and as such, will present ourselves in that fashion in every
internal and external business activity.
The NRP Group Core Values Statement
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Multi-Family Housing
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Tarragona
With its choice location, fi rst-rate design, and great amenities, Costa
Tarragona is becoming the neighborhood of choice in north Corpus
Christi. This new nieghborhood of fun and functional 1, 2, and 3-bedroom
apartment homes boasts exceptional living at affordable rents, plus
every comfort you could ever want for everyday living. Costa Tarragona
is conveniently located adjacent to IH-37 for easy access to all of greater
Coprus Christi’s work and play destinations
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 2240 North Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA), City of Corpus Christi, Corpus
Christi Housing Finance Corporation, Alamo
Architects, Centerline Capital Group, Leopard Street
Corridor Association
Year Built: 2006
Number of units: 250 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground and Tot Lot
Children’s Activity Room
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Encino Pointe
Encino Pointe marks NRP’s fi rst foray into San Marcos, Texas.
The property is located on the northeastern edge of town, only
minutes from Interstate 35 and downtown San Marcos. It provides
a much-needed and preferred affordable housing alternative for
area workers, including those from the city’s largest employers:
Texas State University, Prime Outlets San Marcos, Tanger Factory
Outlet Center and San Marcos CISD.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 1800 Post Road, San Marcos TX
Development Partners: Bank of America, Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs (TDHCA), Capital Area Housing
Finance Corp., Oak Grove Capital, Freddie Mac,
Alamo Architects
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 252 (30% AMI, 60% AMI)
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community room
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Two playgrounds
Picnic area with barbecue grills
Pool with sundeck
Full perimeter fencing and controlled access
Onsite laundry facility
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Valencia
With its choice location, fi rst-rate design, and great amenities, Costa
Valencia is becoming the neighborhood of choice in southwest San
Antonio. This new neighborhood of fun and functional 1, 2, and 3-bedroom
apartment homes boasts exceptional living at affordable rents, plus
every comfort you could ever want for everyday living. Costa Valencia is
conveniently located adjacent to US-90 for easy access to all of greater
San Antonio’s work and play destinations.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 6303 Highway 90 West, San Antonio TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA), Alamo Architects, Centerline Capital
Group
Year Built: 2007
Number of units: 230 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground and Tot Lot
Picnic area with gas grills
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Biscaya
Costa Biscaya ... exceptional designs, exceptional style, exceptional living ... and
all at reasonable rent! This property features a gated entrance, custom designed
pool, business center and library, elegant clubhouse, tot lot and playground,
24-hour fi tness center, activity center, and a dog walk and play area. Minutes
to BAMC, Fort Sam Houston and the Riverwalk, the property is on the VIA
busline. Inside the huge one, two or three bedroom apartment homes is a
ceramic tile entry and bath, designer kitchen, washer and dryer connections,
oval soaking tub, ceiling fans, walk-in closets, built-in computer desk, and high
speed internet access. Garages are also available.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 5100 Eisenhauer, San Antonio TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA), City of San Antonio, American
Agape Foundation, Inc., Mucasey & Associates,
CharterMac, Related Capital
Year Built: 2005
Number of units: 250 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Laundry facility
Social Services
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Cadiz
At Costa Cadiz, the 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments are spacious and well
designed with lots of extras, like abundant closet space, ceiling fans, soaking tub
and a fully equipped kitchen. The community is packed with the best features
including a fantastic clubhouse with 24-hour fi tness facility and business center
with internet access, dog walk and play area, tot lot and playground, and a
custom designed pool with large sundeck.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 2819 So. W.W. White Road, San Antonio TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA), City of San Antonio, American
Agape Foundation, Inc., Mucasey & Associates,
MMA Financial
Year Built: 2005
Number of units: 172 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2,& 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Social Services
Laundry facility
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Mirada
Costa Mirada Apartment Homes provide exceptional, affordable living
experience for those wanting more. Residents can greet neighbors
from your own porch or balcony, check e-mail in the business center,
work out in the state-of-the-art fi tness center, or enjoy activities in
the Community Room...every convenience is at the fi ngertips of Costa
Mirada’s residents.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 9323 Somerset Road, San Antontio TX 78211
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2007
Number of units: 212 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments and townhomes
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Two playgrounds
Children’s Activity Room
Picnic area with grills
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Merced Housing Texas, Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs, City of San Antonio, MMA
Financial, Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Almadena
Costa Almadena is a new community on the Southeast side of San Antonio
with affordable living, desirable amenities and a great location. The
property offers an array of features and amenities in addition of social
services and activities designed to bring residents together and develop
a sense of community. Costa Almadena is redefi ning the idea of home.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 6222 S. New Braunfels, San Antonio TX 78223
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2007
Number of units: 176 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments and townhomes
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Children’s Activity Room
Picnic area with grills
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Bexar County, Community Housing Resource Partners,
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs,
City of San Antonio, Centerline Capital Group, Alamo
Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
San Juan Square
Located in central San Antonio, San Juan Square is leading the rebirth
of the old and established urban neighborhood through high-quality,
attractive affordable housing. With a total of four phases planned, San
Juan Square brings features, amenities and spacious designs not commonly
available to area residents, making it the most desirable place to live
around.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 1938 S. Zarzamora, San Antonio TX 78207
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2007
Number of units: 143 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
San Antonio Housing Authority, Merced Housing
Texas, Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs, City of San Antonio, MMA Financial, Stearns
Bank, Alamo Architects, CHR Partners
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
San Juan Square 2
In this second phase of four in the rebirth of a central San Antonio
neighborhood, San Juan Square 2 is located only blocks from the fi rst
phase, but with a different, more traditional architectural design.
Residents enjoy the location near both Interstate 35 and Route 90, as well
as its close proximity to downtown San Antonio.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 2404 S. Calaveras, San Antonio TX 78207
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2009
Number of units: 144 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments, 4-bedroom townhomes
Amenities: Clubhouse with lounge area and kitchen
Fitness center
Computer center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
San Antonio Housing Authority, San Antonio Housing
Facility Corporation, Texas Department of Housing
& Community Affairs (TDHCA), The Redstone
Companies, Capital One, Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
2
5
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
The Alhambra Senior Apartment Homes
The Alhambra Senior Apartment Homes was the fi rst of its kind in San Antonio to
bring a warm, friendly atmosphere complimented by distinctive one- and two-bedroom
affordable apartments exclusively for those 55 and better. Spacious fl oor plans,
beautiful landscaping within a courtyard design, and full-scale social programs and
regular activities make The Alhambra a community of choice for seniors.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC, San Antonio Housing Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 7130 New Laredo Highway, San Antonio TX 78211
Development Partners: San Antonio Housing Authority, Merced Housing Texas, Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs, City of San
Antonio, MMA Financial, Stearns Bank, Alamo Architects
Year Built: 2008
Number of units: 140 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1 & 2-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with community and craft rooms
Business center with high speed internet access
Fitness center
Swimming pool
Elevators
Planned activities and social services
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
The Mirabella Senior Apartment Homes
The Mirabella offers a perfect fi t for San Antonio’s seniors, promoting
an active social life with resident activities and close proximity to
shopping. This 172-unit all-encompassing affordable rental community
provides one- and two-bedroom garden style apartment homes
available to those 55 years old and older. Plus The Mirabella received
certifi cation from Build San Antonio Green for its use of solar panel
technology to reduce utilities costs for our residents.
Developer: The NRP Group LLC, San Antonio Housing
Authority
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 1955 Bandera Road, San Antonio TX
Development Partners: San Antonio Housing Authority, Texas Department
of Housing and Community Affairs, Bexar County,
City of San Antonio, Las Varas Public Facility Corp,
City Public Service, Boston Capital, US Bank, Alamo
Architects
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 172 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1 & 2-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with community and activities rooms
Green design elements
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Swimming pool
Grills and picnic tables
Horsehoe pit
Elevators
Planned activities and social events
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Esmeralda
Built from a solid partnership between Texas Housing Federation
and The NRP Group, Costa Esmeralda provides a breath of fresh
air in affordable apartment living in Waco, a city with a population
of over 120,000. Situated on the southeast part of Waco, Costa
Esmeralda is located in an area that provides quick, easy access to
businesses and services such as the library, restaurants, churches,
schools and retail.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC/Texas Housing Foundation
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: Texas Housing Foundation
Address: 1516 Gurley Lane, Waco TX
Development Partners: Texas Housing Foundation, Alamo Architects,
Garnett-AEGON, Stearns Bank
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 112
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community room
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Picnic area with barbecue grills
Pool with sundeck
Full perimeter fencing and controlled access
Onsite laundry facility
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
PPointe
Apartment Homes
Tierra
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Tierra Pointe
Bringing a unique housing opportunity to the residents of Karnes
County in Texas, Tierra Pointe sits on the south end of the town,
a short distance from Karnes City High School and downtown.
Spacious apartment homes accentuated with attractive features
and a broad property amenities package offer gracious living in
this rural area.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management
Address: 1226 S. Highway 123, Karnes City TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs,
Merced Housing Texas, Alamo Architects, Stearns
Bank, Lancaster Pollard
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 80 (30% AMI, 50% AMI, 60% AMI and Market Rate)
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community room
Fitness center
Computer center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Onsite laundry facility
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Rialto
Costa Rialto has brought progressive affordable living into north Houston.
With its choice location at N. Sam Houston Tollway/Beltway 8, fi rst-rate
design and great amenities, this community has become a shining beacon
as the fi rst multifamily affordable housing property in Houston for The
NRP Group. Spacious fl oorplans with sought-after features make Costa
Rialto a neighborhood of choice.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 5015 Aldine Bender Road, Houston TX 77032
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2008
Number of units: 216 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community Room
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Picnic area with grills
Children’s activity center and free programs
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Centerline Capital, Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs, Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Mariposa
Costa Mariposa is the company’s fi rst in Texas City, located 37 miles
southeast of downtown Houston, and close to Galveston. Location
and accessibility is the key at Costa Mariposa - the community is
actually minutes north of LaMarque and west of downtown Texas
City, as well as within a quick 5 minute drive of Interstate-45. The
property is across the street from H2U at Mainland Medical Center
and within 4 miles of major retailers HEB, Walmart, Kroger and
Mall of the Mainland. These factors make the area rich for outreach
activities to the target LIHTC market.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 7555 Medical Center Drive, Texas City TX
Development Partners: Bank of America, Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs (TDHCA), UPCDC Texas Inc.,
Oak Grove Capital, Freddie Mac, Alamo Architects
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 252 (30% AMI, 60% AMI)
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Two playgrounds
Picnic area with gas grills
Horseshoe pit
Pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Onsite laundry facility
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
oos ta ta VC
Apartment Homes
izcayaizcaya
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Vizcaya
Only minutes from Willowbrook Mall, and 13 miles from Geroge H.W.
Bush Intercontinental Airport, Costa Vizcaya serves the affordable
market on the northeast side of Houston. Boasting a classic design,
exceptional features and amenities, Costa Vizcaya blends seemlessly in
with neighboring conventional multifamily housing.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 12020 N. Gessner Road, Houston TX 77064
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2008
Number of units: 252 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community Room
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Picnic area with grills
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs,
City of Houston, Washington Mutual, Column Financial,
Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Commons of Grace Senior Apartment Homes
At Commons of Grace, residents have the best of all worlds with world-class, spacious
apartments and amenities to make life easy. Each apartment features a fully-equipped
kitchn and washer and dryer connections, while the community boasts great amenities
and social services and activities that encourage friendships and a sense of community.
Reserved for those 55 and better, Commons of Grace gives its residents a sense of
home.
Developer: The NRP Group LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 9110 Tidwell, Houston TX 77078
Development Partners: G.C. Community Development Corporation, Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs, City of Houston, CitiBank,
Column Financial, BGO Architects
Year Built: 2008
Number of units: 108 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1 & 2-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with multi-purpose room
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Media room
Swimming pool
Elevators
Planned activities and social events
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Costa Verde
Go to the beach, go to work, or go shopping ... everything is close to
Costa Verde! Located in Clute, Texas, just minutes to the Gulf of Mexico,
Costa Verde brings affordable living with style to Brazoria County
with spacious fl oorplans, exceptional apartment features, and property
amenities that every resident can enjoy.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 101 Verde Drive, Clute TX 77531
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2008
Number of units: 188 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments and townhomes
Amenities: Clubhouse
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Northside Redevelopment Center (NRC), Centerline
Capital, Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs, Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
T heGibraltar
Senior Apartment Homes
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
The Gibraltar Senior Apartment Homes
Adjacent to Costa Verde and situated within a quiet wooded area of Clute,
The Gibraltar offers area seniors superior living in a close-knit community.
Residents enjoy getting to know their neighbors with a variety of social
services and resident events offered by management, while benefi tting from
such amenities as a pool, fi tness center, and computer center with high speed
internet access to stay in touch with friends and family. The Gibraltar offers the
best of spaciousness, comfort and affordability to those 55 and better.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 201Verde Drive, Clute TX 77531
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs, City of Clute, JP Morgan Chase, Alamo
Architects
Year Built: 2009
Number of units: 48 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1 & 2-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Activity Center
Business center with high speed internet access
Fitness center
Swimming pool
Barbecue grills and picnic tables
Planned activities and social services
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Casa Brazoria
The dream of Home Ownership is alive and well. Every American has imag-
ined it, but bringing those images into reality can be a challenge for many. The
NRP Group knows these challenges and has helped thousands of people work
towards homeownership. The lease-purchase program at Casa Brazoria is sim-
ple: after 15 years, the current resident of the single-family home will have the
opportunity to purchase the residence.
Developer: The NRP Group LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 1218 Old Angleton Road, Clute TX
Development Partners: Brazoria County, RDL architects, Northside
Redevelopment Center, Sterling Bank
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 36 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 4-bedroom single-family homes
Amenities: Playground
Community grills and picnic tables
Close to shopping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Crestshire Village
Less than 10 miles from downtown Dallas and adjacent to Mequite,
Crestshire Village provides both spacious garden-style apartment homes
and townhomes with attached garages, each with a fully-equipped
kitchen, ceiling fans and full-size washer & dryer connections. The
property amenities help make residents feel right at home from the
moment they move in.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC, The M. Group, The Thomas
RPDC Company
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 2300 N. St. Augustine Road, Dallas TX
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2011
Number of units: 74 Tax Credit
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments and townhomes
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community Room
Fitness center
Computer center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Picnic area with grills
Controlled access
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs,
Bank of America, Alamo Architects, Hudson Housing
Capital
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Woodmont
Perfectly located just minutes from Interstates 35W and 20, Woodmont
Apartment Homes in Fort Worth, Texas, boasts quiet suburban-like
affordable living, yet is only four miles south of downtown. The 1, 2, 3, and
4-bedroom apartment homes come with a fully-equipped kitchen, while
the community offers residents a vast array of amenities.
Developers: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 1021 Oak Grove Road, Fort Worth TX
Development Partners:
Year Built: 2010
Number of units: 252 Tax Credit and HOME units
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, 3 & 4-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Clubhouse with Community Room
Fitness center
Computer center with high speed internet access
Playground
Swimming pool with sundeck
Picnic area with grills
Controlled access and full perimeter fencing
Professional landscaping
Onsite laundry facility
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs,
Fort Worth Housing Authority, City of Fort Worth,
Wind Terrace Inc., Bank of America, Freddie Mac,
Alamo Architects
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
The Reserve at Las Brisas
Situated in the rolling hills that join Los Colinas and Irving, The Reserve at Las
Brisas Apartment Homes stands out in the area as the community of choice
with its spacious setting, remarkable amenities and convenient location. The
Reserve has everything our residents need for every day living right at their
front door, like two activity centers, two pools and playgrounds, beautifully
landscaped grounds with mature-growth shade trees, and a picnic area perfect
for get-togethers with family and friends. Inside each apartment, no detail has
been spared. Residents enjoy an oval garden tub, high ceilings, ceiling fans,
large kitchen with all appliances, and plenty of closets and storage space.
Developer: NRP Holdings LLC
Construction: NRP Contractors LLC
Property Manager: NRP Management LLC
Address: 4323 North Shore Drive, Irving TX
Development Partners: Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs (TDHCA), Dallas Housing Authority,
Womack + Hampton Architects, L.L.C., Stearns Bank,
Paramount Financial
Year Built: 2002, 2006
Number of units: 441 (144 Tax Credit/297 Market Rate)
Unit Make-up: 1, 2, & 3-bedroom garden apartments
Amenities: Two Clubhouses/Activity Centers
Fitness center
Business center with high speed internet access
Two playgrounds
Picnic area with gas grills
Two swimming pools with sundeck
Controlled access
Garages
Professional landscaping
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
8
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
9
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
0
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Claiborne HomesClaiborne Homes
Beechgrove HomesBeechgrove Homes
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
2
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
5309 Transportation Blvd Cleveland OH 44125 p. 216.475.8900 f. 216.475.9300
111 Soledad, Suite 1220 San Antonio TX 78205 p. 210.487.7878 f. 210.487.7880
8117 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas TX 75225 p. 214.706.9215 f. 214.706.9216
420 W. Roosevelt Phoenix AZ 85003 p. 602.412.5733 f. 602.584.2560
8450 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 100 Raleigh NC 27615 p. 919.244.0444 f. 919.844.5599
8774 Grinnell Street Detroit MI 48213 p. 216.475.8900 f. 216.475.9300
Ohio
Texas
Texas
Arizona
North Carolina
Michigan
The NRP Group LLC www.nrpgroup.com
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
7
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
3
o
f
3
3
It
e
m
#
O
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
m
b
e
r
Development Name Development Address Development City
Development
County De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Zi
p
C
o
d
e
Re
g
i
o
n
No
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
Se
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
At
-
R
i
s
k
S
e
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
US
D
A
S
e
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
Ru
r
a
l
/
U
r
b
a
n
Construction Type To
t
a
l
L
I
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
M
R
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
Target
Population
Credit/Funding
Request Owner Contact Second Contact To
t
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
Region 7 / Urban
12239 Songhai at West Gate 8700 West Gate Blvd.Austin Travis 78745 7 Urban New Construction 118 0 118 General $1,529,423 Miguel Medellin Cherno Njie 178
12300 Capitol Terrace 309 E. 11th Street Austin Travis 78701 7 X Urban New Construction 135 0 135 Supportive
Housing
$1,000,000 Walter Moreau Jennifer Hicks 178
12345 Merritt Legacy South of Old Quarry Road, West of S. Bagdad
Road b
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 180 60 240 General $2,000,000 Colby Denison Ina Spokas 178
12347 Merritt Estates South of Old Quarry Road, West of S. Bagdad
Road b
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 80 20 100 Elderly $1,000,000 Colby Denison Ina Spokas 177
12079 Trinity at Lakeline SEQ of Lakeline and N Lake Creek Parkway Austin Williamson 78727 7 Urban New Construction 150 0 150 General $1,712,122 Robert Ruggio Alyssa Carpenter 176
12140 Kiron at Mesquite Lane 2805 Mesquite Lane Georgetown Williamson 78628 7 Urban New Construction 82 0 82 General $750,000 Scott Johnson Sara Reidy 176
12037 Cedar Hills Apartments Approximately 12200 Walnut Park Crossing Austin Travis 78753 7 Urban New Construction 184 0 184 General $2,000,000 Rick J. Deyoe Audrey Martin 175
12090 The Huntington I35 & Fleischer Road Austin ETJ Travis 78728 7 Urban New Construction 120 12 132 Elderly $1,400,000 Mark Musemeche Ofelia Elizondo 175
12235 Songhai at Crystal Falls Northbound 183A south of Crystal Falls
Parkway
Leander Williamson 78641 7 Urban New Construction 164 0 164 Elderly $1,988,604 Miguel Medellin Cherno Njie 175
12262 Georgetown Senior Shell Rd., North of Williams Dr.Georgetown Williamson 78627 7 X Urban New Construction 120 0 120 Elderly $1,300,429 Donald Sampley Debra Guerrero 175
12250 The Works at Pleasant Valley 835 N Pleasant Valley Road Austin Travis 78702 7 X Urban New Construction 39 0 39 General $490,209 Susan McDowell Mitch Weynand 174
12399 Cypress Creek at Lakeline Station To Be located at the Northwest Corner of
Lakeline
Austin Williamson 78717 7 Urban New Construction 199 0 199 General $2,000,000 Staurt Shaw Jeffery Spicer 174
12028 Heritage Oak Hill 8922 Manchaca Rd.Austin Travis 78748 7 Urban New Construction 96 0 96 Elderly $1,010,000 Daniel Allgeier Rob Hoskins 172
12301 Mueller Place intersection of Berkman Drive and Tom Miller
Stree
Austin Travis 78723 7 X Urban New Construction 162 18 180 General $2,000,000 Walter Moreau Jennifer Hicks 172
12315 Jeremiah Housing on Oak Springs 2711 Goodwin Avenue Austin Travis 78702 7 X Urban New Construction 20 0 20 Supportive
Housing
$400,000 Cassandra Ramirez Janine Sisak 172
Max Eligible Request $2,000,000 Amount Available Region 7 Urban 15 Total $20,580,787$3,084,518
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # O
TDHCA Question/Answer on Housing Tax Credits
Q. What are Housing Tax Credits?
A. The federal housing tax credit program is a means of directing private capital toward the
creation of affordable rental housing. Owners and investors in qualified affordable multifamily
residential developments can use the housing tax credits as a dollar‐for‐dollar reduction of
federal income tax liability. The value associated with the housing tax credits allows residences
to be leased to qualified families at below market rate rents. The Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs (TDHCA) is the only entity in the state of Texas with the authority to
allocate housing tax credits under this program. To qualify for housing tax credits, the proposed
development must involve new construction or undergo substantial rehabilitation of residential
units (at least $15,000/unit). The credit amount a development may receive depends on the total
amount of depreciable capital improvements and the funding sources available to finance the
total development cost.
Q. What must an applicant do to apply for housing tax credits?
A. Developers apply for housing tax credits through an application process administered by
TDHCA. This process is fully described in the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules (QAP) which
governs the programʹs operation. The QAP is revised annually in a process that involves public
input, Board approval and ultimately approval by the Governor. Under the competitive HTC
program, to be considered for an award of housing tax credits, an application must be
submitted to TDHCA during the annual application acceptance period as published in the QAP.
All applications must provide the required fee, application and supporting documentation as
required by the QAP.
The competition for housing tax credits is very high. Therefore, in addition to submitting an
application that meets the minimum threshold, applicants must achieve a high enough score to
be competitive to receive an award.
Tax Exempt Bond applications applying for 4% housing tax credits are submitted to the
Department once the Reservation of Allocation is issued by the Texas Bond Review Board. It is
required under Section 1372 of the Texas Government Code, for Priority 1 and 2 applications to
apply for housing tax credits. Priority 3 applications are not required to have housing tax
credits; however, most developments are not financially feasible without them.
Q. Does TDHCA have geographical preferences or specific types of developments that it
prefers?
A. Under the competitive HTC program, housing tax credits are allocated in accordance with
Section 2306.111 of the Texas Government Code, which requires that the credits be allocated on
a regional basis. There are thirteen state service regions; each of the thirteen state service regions
is further divided into Rural and Urban/Exurban areas each of which is targeted to receive a
pre‐determined amount of the housing tax credits for each year. The amount per area is based
on a regional allocation formula which is generated, with public input, by the Housing
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 1 of 6
Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 6
Item # O
Resource Center of TDHCA. Upon finalization of the formula, the targeted allocations will be
released. Additionally, the HTC Program has several allocations and/or set‐asides which it
strives to meet: at least 10% of all credits must be awarded to Qualified Nonprofits, at least 15%
of each regionʹs credit allocation is targeted to At‐Risk Developments and at least 5% of each
regionʹs credit allocation is targeted to developments funded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Q. What evaluation criteria is used to review submitted applications?
A. It is the goal of TDHCA to encourage diversity through broad geographic allocation of
housing tax credits within the state, and to promote maximum utilization of the available
housing tax credit amount. The criteria utilized to realize this goal includes a point based
scoring system (competitive HTC only) and an evaluation of the developmentʹs:
• cost and financial feasibility;
• geographic location within the state as compared to other developments applying for
housing tax credits;
• impact on the concentration of existing housing tax credit developments and other
affordable housing developments within specific markets and sub‐markets;
• site conditions;
• development team experience; and
• consistency with the goal of awarding credits to as many different applicants as possible.
Those applications which are deemed to have a high priority based on the review criteria
(competitive HTC only) are subject to an underwriting review which evaluates the
developmentʹs projected construction costs and financial feasibility. Applications which pass
the underwriting process and are determined to have the highest priority will be presented to
TDHCAʹs Board of Directors for consideration.
For Tax Exempt Bond developments, the applications are recommended for approval to the
Departmentʹs Governing Board of Directors based on the underwriting review which evaluates
the developmentʹs projected construction costs and financial feasibility and the ability of the
application to meet the threshold and compliance requirements of the Department.
Q. How is the scoring system used to prioritize the applications? (Competitive HTC only)
A. The QAP defines a series of point based ʺSelection Criteriaʺ items. To generate a ʺSelection
Criteriaʺ score, applicants request points for those criteria items for which their development is
qualified. These scoring criteria change annually and can be reviewed in the QAP.
While it is a significant factor, an applicationʹs score is not the sole determining factor as to
whether or not it will be recommended for an award of credits. However, the score serves as
one of the primary criteria (as described in the previous section) used to assess how well an
application fulfills the programʹs goals.
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 2 of 6
Attachment number 9 \nPage 2 of 6
Item # O
Q. Can the public comment on a proposed tax credit development or on the development of
the QAP?
A. For the competitive HTC program, prior to the award of the credits, TDHCA will hold at
least three public hearings in metropolitan and rural areas across the state. The public is
encouraged to attend one of these scheduled hearings or to submit written comments to the
HTC Program. When submitting comments, the application under discussion should be clearly
identified by name, address, and city. Including the TDHCA application identification number
in the correspondence is also helpful. Based on the provided comment, an indication of the level
of support or opposition for an application will be included in the recommendation
documentation presented to TDHCAʹs Board of Directors.
For Tax Exempt Bond applications which utilize TDHCA as the issuer, the Department will
conduct development‐specific public hearings in the community in which the development is to
be located. The public is encouraged to attend these public hearings or submit written
comments to the Department. For tax exempt bond applications which utilize a local issuer,
interested individuals are encouraged to contact the Issuer for the public hearing information.
Public hearings are also held for the development of the QAP, which governs the
administration of the HTC Program. The public is encouraged to attend or provide written
comment. Written comment, on either a specific application or on the QAP, can be sent to:
Multifamily Finance Production, P.O. Box 13941, Austin, TX 78711‐3941 or transmitted via fax to
(512) 475‐0764 or (512) 475‐3340 or by email to Sharon.Gamble@tdhca.state.tx.us .
Q. How can local residents impact the development process?
A. Because of their significant long‐term financial investment in the development and
community, developers in most cases want to work with area citizens and be a good neighbor.
Therefore it is not uncommon for developers to make reasonable alterations to the planned
development in response to the concerns of area neighbors.
In addition to attending and commenting at public hearings on a particular development such
as this, individuals and neighborhood organizations are encouraged to work directly with the
developer to gain a better understanding of a particular development. Open community
meetings offer an opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, and have a productive
dialogue between the developer and community.
Q. What questions should residents ask of the property developer? A. Below are some
common questions that will help you gain a better understanding of the developer’s goals and
intentions regarding a proposed property:
• What other developments has the developer built and where are they are located?
• What are the developer’s long‐term goals for the property?
• How will the development fit in with the existing neighbor‐hood?
• Who is the management company and what is its track record?
• What types of supportive services will be provided to residents?
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 3 of 6
Attachment number 9 \nPage 3 of 6
Item # O
• Who are the proposed tenants and how will they be screened?
Q. What is the minimum percentage of units that must be set aside for eligible low income
tenants?
A. Each development must include a minimum percentage of units to be set aside for eligible
low income tenants. The rent charged for these units is restricted according to federal guidelines
which correspond to the householdʹs income level. While rental rates are restricted, they are not
subsidized (i.e., Section 8 housing) by the HTC Program. A low income housing development
will be eligible to apply for housing tax credits if it meets either of the following criteria:
a) Twenty percent (20%) or more of the residential units in the project are both rent restricted
and occupied by individuals whose income is fifty percent (50%) or less of Area Median Family
Income (AMFI);
b) Forty percent (40%) or more of the residential units in the project are both rent restricted and
occupied by individuals whose income is sixty percent (60%) or less of AMFI.
Housing tax credits may only be claimed for the affordable units that have been set aside for
participation under the program. Although a developer only needs to set aside a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of a projectʹs units for qualified tenants, applicants will typically set aside
between 60% and 100% of the units for scoring purposes and to claim a higher amount of
housing tax credits.
In addition to these set aside requirements, under the Bond program there are additional set‐
asides the development must meet based on the Priority that is assigned by the Texas Bond
Review Board.
Q. How are the rent limits calculated?
A. The rent limits for housing tax credit units are based on the household income level and the
number of bedrooms in the unit. These rent and income limits are generated by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development each year. HTC rent limits include an
allowance for the cost of utilities (heat, lights, air conditioning, water, sewer, oil or gas). In
projects where the owner pays all utilities, no adjustment in the HTC rent limits are needed to
determine the maximum rent that can be charged for a housing tax credit unit. In projects
where tenants pay all or a portion of their own utilities, the rent established for a housing tax
credit unit must not exceed the applicable HTC rent limit for that unit.
The Department can provide interested parties with specific rent limits for their area, or a
complete set of income and rent limits can be found on the Departmentʹs Web site. Households
will be required by the property owner to periodically document their income level so that the
owner may continue to claim the housing tax credits for their unit.
Q. How do tax credits benefit the development owner?
A. Under the federal income tax code, a credit is a dollar‐for‐dollar reduction in the income tax
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 4 of 6
Attachment number 9 \nPage 4 of 6
Item # O
liability for the investor. It is important to note that only the owners of a housing tax credit
property may utilize the benefits of the housing tax credits over time. A credit is subtracted
after the amount of tax is calculated. In this form, a credit differs from a deduction or
adjustment to income, which is then subtracted from income before the tax rate is applied and
the amount of tax is calculated.
Q. Why are developers given an incentive to develop affordable rental housing?
A. Many private developers and builders concentrate their efforts in larger metropolitan areas
and target higher income individuals and families. However, demographic studies show that
lower and moderate income individuals and families are the fastest growing segment of our
population. As the population grows, so will the need for affordable housing.
Q. How do tax credit developments compare with non‐tax credit developments?
A. Properties that receive housing tax credits must compete with nearby market developments
for tenants. The properties are safe, secure, and well maintained. They have amenities similar to
other apartment complexes, and may offer swimming pools, community centers and reception
areas. Newer developments may include daytime childcare, evening GED classes, on‐site
medical care and credit counseling. These supportive services are provided without charge to
the tenants.
Q. How do ʺlow income/affordable housingʺ units differ from ʺhousing projects?ʺ
A. Unlike most publicly‐subsidized housing which is designed to assist the elderly, disabled,
minimum wage workers or the unemployed, the housing tax credit program does not provide
tenants with governmental rent subsidies. It provides equity to build the development which
allows the developer to charge lower rents to the tenants. The programʹs rent and income levels
vary from county to county. In Houston, for example, the maximum allowable rent (which
includes a utility allowance) for a three bedroom housing tax credit apartment would be $953.
To be eligible to reside in the housing tax credit unit, a family of fourʹs annual income could not
exceed $36,660 at the time they signed the lease. In Lubbock, the maximum allowable rent for a
three‐bedroom apartment would be $783 a month. A family of fourʹs annual income could not
exceed $30,120. Tenants must pay their rents in full. Thus, the tenants are most likely working
Texans or retirees seeking an affordable place to live.
Q. Who lives in a tax credit development?
A. Typically, tenants may include: school teachers; police officers; firefighters; mechanics; single
parents who are balancing career and family while attending night school; city employees; sales
clerks; and retirees. Affordable housing and low income units are quite different from public
housing projects.
Q. Are existing developments renovated under the Housing Tax Credit Program?
A. Many of the apartments built during the boom years of the 1980ʹs which were abandoned
and boarded‐up during the stateʹs real estate bust, are today fully renovated and leased.
Hundreds of sprawling apartment complexes that had for years been both eyesores and
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 5 of 6
Attachment number 9 \nPage 5 of 6
Item # O
TDHCA Housing Tax Credit Program FAQs 6 of 6
occasional drug refuges, now provide thousands of working Texans with quality, affordable
housing, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Q. Are tax credit properties monitored?
A. Housing tax credit benefits are lost if a development fails to meet state and federal standards
every year for each of the 15 years of the compliance period. Properties are then monitored for
an additional 15 years to maintain affordability.
Attachment number 9 \nPage 6 of 6
Item # O
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
future land use designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to High-Density Residential (HDR) and
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, located on CR 111 west of FM
1460, also known as Mayes Tract -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook, Community
Development Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
Following annexation into the City effective December 31, 2011, the applicant has requested to change the
future land use designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN)
and High-Density Residential (HDR). In a separate and companion request, the applicant is also seeking to
rezone the property to the Multifamily (MF) and Local Commercial (C-1) Districts, which would fulfill the
proposed land use categories. See the attached staff report for more information.
Public Comment:
To date, there have no public comments submitted in writing specific to this application. However, there has
been considerable public comment, both in writing and at the Planning and Zoning Commission public
hearing/meetings, regarding the associated rezoning application; see the agenda item for REZ-2011-021.
Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing:
On January 3, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a vote of 7-0, recommended approval to the
City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the
property from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to 18.75 acres Mixed Use Neighborhood Center and 40.46
acres High Density Residential. Draft minutes of this meeting have been attached to this item as Exhibit 6.
Special Consideration:
Should the City Council elect to approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, an affirmative vote by at
least five (5) members of Council is required.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use
designation from Mixed Use Community to 18.75 acres of Mixed Use Neighbhorhood Center and 40.46
acres of High Density Residential.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact has been studied.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Planner III 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 - Applicant Proposed Future Land Use Categories
Exhibit 6 - P&Z Minutes-01-03-12
Cover Memo
Item # P
Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map
Ordinance Exhibit B - Legal Description
Ordinance
Cover Memo
Item # P
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 1 of 10
Report Date: December 22, 2011
File No: CPA‐2011‐003
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Planner III
Item Details
Project Name: Mayes Tract
Location: South side of CR 111 (aka Westinghouse Road), 1.5 mile east of IH‐35
(See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 59.2 acres (per Applicant Survey)
Legal Description: 59.21 acres in the Low Survey
Applicants: Paul Linehan
Property Owner: Stagliano and K&H Investments
Contact: Paul Linehan, Land Strategies, Inc. / 512‐328‐6050
Existing Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: Agricultural (AG) (per annexation effective January 1, 2012)
Proposed Zoning: Multifamily (MF) District and– approximately 40 acres
Local Commercial (C‐1) – approximately 19 acres
Existing
Future Land Use: Mixed Use Community (MUC)
Proposed Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) – 18+ acres / 30%
Future Land Use: High Density Residential (HDR) ‐ 40+ acres / 70%
Growth Tier: Tier 2 (Intermediate Growth Area)
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The property was annexed into the City, as part of Annexation Area 8, on December 13,
2011 (effective December 31, 2011) via a City‐initiated annexation process. With this action,
the property was assigned the zoning district of Agricultural (AG) per Section 4.03.010 of
the Unified Development Code (UDC). The property currently has a future land use
designation of Mixed Use Community (MUC).
Now within the City limits, and zoned, the applicant has requested to change future land
A very small portion of the northeast corner of the property appears as Moderate Density Residential on the
City’s GIS maps; this is a mapping anomaly, due to the future land use categories not being parcel
specific, and purposefully general in their location. The subject property is considered to be solely the
MUC designation as noted throughout this report.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
use designation, via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) application request, to the
Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High‐Density Residential (HDR) categories,
to support their accompanying application to rezone to the Local Commercial (C‐1) and
Multifamily (MF) Districts, which they feel will fulfill these land use designations.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located on the south side of CR 111 (known as Westinghouse Road inside
the City limits), approximately 1.5 miles east of the northbound IH‐35 frontage road, and
almost ½ mile west of FM 1460. It is in an area of the City (actually, primarily
Extraterritorial Jurisdication, or ETJ) recently coined the Southeast Development Zone
(SEDZ), comprising the areas south of the Southeast Inner Loop, north of the Round Rock
ETJ boundary (which is almost exclusively the master‐planned Teravista Municipal Utility
District, or MUD), and between IH‐35 and FM 1460.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is generally a rectangular shape, sloping southward from Westinghouse
Road. The northern two‐thirds or so are largely cleared, but some significant vegetation
exists in the center and southern boundary area. A series of three ponds run north to south
down the center as well; their origin is unknown. See Graphic (1) below, and Exhibit 4.
Graphic (1) – 59+ Acres Mayes Tract
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
Surrounding Properties:
The property is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped tracts. A section of the
Teravista residential development is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary,
where a long cul‐de‐sac street (Monterosa Lane) runs much of the length of this common
boundary. See the chart below, Graphic (1) above, and Exhibit 4 – Aerial map.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North ETJ (no zoning) Moderate Density Residential Vacant
South City of Round Rock City of Round Rock Residential
East ETJ (no zoning) Moderate Density Residential Vacant
West ETJ (no zoning) Mixed Use Community Vacant
Property History
The property was annexed on December 13, 2011 (effective December 31, 2011 per
Annexation Ordinance 2011‐55) as part of a 227‐acre area in a large City‐wide annexation
process, and given the zoning of AG, Agriculture. There is no record of any land use
applications being submitted on this property, which has never been developed, and it is
unclear how recently it may have been farmed or grazed.
Utilities
All areas of the City and ETJ are placed within a Growth Tier policy category that identifies
where to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth over a period of the next two
decades or more. These Tiers dictate where the delivery of municipal services may be
focused, and thus, where growth is desired to occur:
Tier 1A designates areas within the current city limits where some infrastructure systems are in
place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where
consolidation of the city’s development pattern is encouraged over the next 10 years through the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Tier 1B designates areas within the present city limits that were recently annexed or subject to
development agreements, which are presently underserved by infrastructure. Tier 1B will require
the provision of public facilities to meet the city’s growth needs as Tier 1A approaches build‐out,
over the next 10 years.
Tier 2 designates areas within the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are
anticipated beyond the next 10 years and where premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient
development is discouraged by the City.
Tier 3 designates areas within the ETJ where growth, annexation, and the extension of public
facilities are anticipated beyond 20 years, and premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient
development is discouraged by the City.
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
* The City can change the Growth Tier designation through the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process only during the Annual Update cycle.
Being a Tier 2 designee, this property currently has no direct provision of major utilities
(though a 16” water line does run along the north side of CR 111), but it will be in the City
of Georgetown service areas for water and wastewater. The extension of sanitary sewer
(wastewater) appears to be the most significant extension necessary, and will be the
primary enabler of development for this property and the entire area referred to as SEDZ
(see SEDZ section further in this report) in the future.
The applicant has submitted a Utility Evaluation application to the Georgetown Utility
Systems (GUS) regarding water and wastewater service availability, with the basis of
future development being 600 multifamily residential units and 19 acres of commercial
development. The findings were:
The property is within the City’s certified water and wastewater service areas.
Water – no comment was made, indicating there is sufficient supply to serve, by the
16” water line running on the north side of CR 111.
Wastewater ‐ the estimated demands of proposed development indicated by the
applicant would exceed that planned for the property by approximately 40%. The
nearest extent of the system is the terminus of an 18” interceptor line just south of
the Southeast Inner Loop road (currently serving the Citicorp data center).
However, it was determined that the increased intensity of this proposed rezoning
could be sustained by the City system ‘downstream’ from this current terminus. At
this time, the applicant would be solely responsible for construction of an
interceptor line extension of between 12” and 15” northward from this property to
the existing terminus, approximately 1.3 miles away.
All final details and guarantees of capacity would be determined during the Final
Plat approval processes, with capacity reservation occurring upon Impact Fee
payment.
Transportation
The property has approximately 1800 feet of road frontage, and three current curb cuts, on
CR 111 (Westinghouse Road), which underwent a massive widening (4 lane plus turn
lanes) and improvement project in 2010. Proximity to IH‐35 to the west and FM 1460
(which has near‐term plans for major expansion in Georgetown, to match the
improvements done to the south in Round Rock) give it favorable vehicular access. Future
development to the west of this tract may provide it inter‐parcel types of connections.
Planned road extensions in this area include Rabbit Hill Road continuing southward
through the Bourn property, connecting with Oakmont Road, and Blue Ridge Drive
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
continuing southward through the Windmill Hill tract to Westinghouse Road.
Unfortunately, connectivity to the Teravista neighborhood is likely precluded, as no
connections exist to the south, or appear to have been created to the east.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, but
the requirement will likely be triggered at some point with future applications.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Currently, the subject property is designated with the Mixed Use Community (MUC)
future land use category; see Exhibit 2. The applicant seeks to designate approximately
70% of the site – 40.5 acres, essentially the southern two‐thirds – as High Density
Residential (HDR) and the remainder, 30% or 18.75 acres, as Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center (MUN); see Exhibit 5.
Per the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center category:
Applies to smaller areas of mixed commercial use within existing and new
neighborhoods.
These areas are primarily proposed adjacent to, or as part of, larger residential
neighborhoods.
Neighborhood‐serving mixed‐use areas abut roadway corridors or are located at
key intersections.
They often function as gateways into the neighborhoods they serve.
These compact and often “walk‐to” centers provide limited retail goods and services
to a local customer base, while having minimal impact on the surrounding
residential uses.
They accommodate (but do not require) mixed‐use buildings with neighborhood‐
serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor, and offices or residential
units above.
They may also include stand‐alone high density residential development.
Uses in these areas might include a corner store, small grocery, coffee shops, hair
salons, dry cleaners and other personal services, as well as small professional offices
and upper story apartments.
They may also include non‐commercial uses such as churches, schools, or small
parks.
In new neighborhoods, in particular, the exact size, location, and design of these
areas should be subject to a more specific approval process, to ensure an appropriate
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
fit with the surrounding residential pattern.
Graphic (1) – Existing Future Land Use ‐ Westinghouse Rd. Corridor / Round Rock Border
Per the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the High‐Density Residential category:
Is to provide for residential uses at a minimum density of 6.1 dwelling units per
gross acre.
Accomodates duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, apartments, condominiums, life care
and other forms of multi‐family housing types.
Is ideally suited near major activity and employment centers and in areas suitable
for future transit service.
May also support complementary non‐residential uses along arterial roadways.
Zoning Districts
As noted, upon the recent annexation, the property has been zoned Agricultural (AG), and
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
the applicant is also seeking to rezone the property to the following:
Local Commercial (C‐1) (approx. 40.5 acres, 70%)
MultiFamily (MF) (approx. 19 acres, 30%)
See the Staff Report for REZ‐2011‐021; staff is supportive of that rezoning, as those districts
implement the proposed – and staff supported – future land use designations in this report.
Future Application(s)
If the applicant, or other future property owner, should seek to develop the property, the
following applications would at a minimum be required:
Subdivision Plats;
Site and Construction plans;
Building permits for construction, and;
Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and analyzed this application (and the accompanying rezoning) from the
following points‐of‐view in order to get to a position of support for the application:
Southeast Development Zone (SEDZ) study
As mentioned above, the subject property is within a study area of the future utility
provision and build‐out possibilities for the southern extent of the City. In general, this
largely vacant and undeveloped area – referred to as the Southeast Development Zone
(SEDZ) – is being studied as a primary future employment area over the next 20+ years.
The initial idea was to develop a plan to serve the large development area in the southeast
quadrant of the City (which includes this site) with utilities in the near future. This plan
would include policy guidance for annexations, special taxing districts, pro‐active rezoning
of land, road and utility improvements, etc. It was anticipated that, at the very least, it
would provide a timetable for infrastructure improvements that would occur quicker than
the current Growth Tier 2 designation would allow.
Through the 2011 involuntary annexation process, a large number of the properties went
under agreements with the City that will preclude their annexation in the near term.
Because of this large reduction in the amount of the study area that could be annexed
during this timeframe, the feasibility of capital investment and the possible large‐scale shift
in Capital Facilities priorities and growth strategy for this area is being reconsidered.
Rather than the City being a major participant in the facilitation of infrastructure to this
area, it appears it will fall primarily upon the private development field to spur growth
throughout the SEDZ area in the near‐term.
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 7 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
The City will continue to explore options and assist developers in expediting infrastructure
deemed necessary for economic development in this area.
Land Use Categories
These future land use changes, and the accompanying zoning district requests, being
proposed for this property are an increase in intensity, but are in keeping with recent
approvals by City Council on the Westinghouse Road corridor:
Future Land Use Zoning
From: To: From: To:
Windmill
Hill
94 acres
High
Density
Residential
72 ac. Employment Center
22 ac. High Density Resid.
94 acres PUD
(administered as
Multifamily)
56 ac. Business Park
16 ac. Local Commercial
22 ac. Multifamily
Bourn
183
acres
Employment
Center
145 ac. Employment Center
38 ac. High Density Resid.
183
acres
Agricultural
99 ac. Business Park
45 ac. Local Commercial
38 ac. Multifamily
In general, these approvals increased the amount of Employment Center land use (and thus
the possible amount of appropriately zoned land, of which the Business Park district is the
most direct fit) and redistributed – but still reduced ‐ the amount of High Density
Residential (via Multifamily zoning). What was newly introduced was a focus of mid‐level
commercial zoning along the Westinghouse corridor.
While the trend of these changes seem positive in fulfilling the City’s desire to make the
SEDZ area largely employment‐based, the incremental addition of high density residential
to each large property acts to “chip away” at the amount of available land for high‐quality
and income producing industries and office development that requires large tracts of land.
The City understands the trend and desirability of multi‐use developments that offer the
’24 / 7 live‐work‐shop‐play’ aspect. However, in a community with a tax‐base vastly
dominated by residential property, protecting this prime strategic area for job creation (at
least, within the scope of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan) is of utmost importance.
Georgetown has grown and developed largely in a single‐use pattern, and it can be argued
that that pattern should be changed, when possible, as recently evidenced. Turning over
even more land to residential, though, as part of a mixed‐use pattern, erases land that
ultimately could fulfill a prime City objective – lessening the tax burden on existing
residents. Such aspects must also be taken into consideration when looking at land use
and zoning change proposals.
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 8 of 10
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 9 of 10
Utilities
The City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans are based on the anticipated land uses and
land use densities planned for in the Future Land Use and Growth Tier Plans. Thus,
applicant‐driven amendments to one or both of these requires that the City amend these
utility plans, with the associated capital improvement costs (and their budget implications)
requiring close scrutiny, deliberation, and review by Staff, Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z), and the City Council.
Because of the property’s current Tier 2 designation, improvements or development on this
property related to water/wastewater utilities will likely be solely at the cost of the
developer. Should the City decide to make this a Tier 1 development area, then utility
improvements for this area would likely be placed in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program and the City would review development applications based on this possible
change.
Economic Development
The SEDZ area is one of the key locations for economic development (ie, non‐residential,
employment‐creating and sustaining land uses) in the City’s near‐term future
(approximately the next 20 years, or to the extent of the 2030 Plan). Because of this, there is
the possibility that the City’s 4‐A and 4‐B Economic Boards may determine that some
necessary infrastructure improvements for the SEDZ area are eligible for financial
reimbursements. These incentives, however, are limited to developments that create full‐
time, permanent jobs 1 , and other eligible kinds of economic development. Multifamily
housing, resulting from the proposed HDR land use (and accompanying Multifamily
zoning district) would thus not be eligible. The applicant was made aware of this fact, but
has chosen to continue proposing a residential component. In addition, other uses allowed
by‐right in the C‐1 zoning district also might not be eligible for economic development
incentives.
Findings for Approval
The proposed amendment – from Mixed Use Community to approximately 30% Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center and 70% High Density Residential – can be supported by Staff for
the following reasons:
1. Recent Approvals – It is in keeping with the trend of recently approved future land
use changes approved by City Council, which have reduced by 34 acres the amount
of High Density Residential and increased the amount of Employment Center by 34
1 - As opposed to temporary construction-related jobs, followed by part-time or lower benefit service/retail.
positions typical of commercial development.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 10
Item # P
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 10 of 10
acres, while introducing 61 acres of medium‐density commercial uses (as translated
by the C‐1 zoning district).
2. Non‐binding – Because ultimate development is not ensured with any
Compehensive Plan Amendment (or Rezoning), there is general support of
residential as a component of the new mixed‐use model of development, even
though the amount recently approved and proposed here is more than envisioned
by the City at this time.
3. Synergy – Should this property develop as sought, it may ultimately work to bolster
the SEDZ area as a live‐work‐play multifunctional activity center, should the bulk of
this area ultimately maintain the Employment Center future land use designation
and be translated through zoning into high‐quality jobs.
Special Considerations
Comprehensive Plan Amendments considered outside of the Annual Update cycle must be
approved by a super‐majority vote of the City Council, per the requirements of the City
Charter and 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
Public Comments
A total of 22 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on December 18, 2011. Two
property owner comments (both from Teravista residents) have been received to date,
opposing the application.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Applicant Proposed Future Land Use Categories
Meetings Schedule
January 3, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission
January 24, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending)
February 14, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 10
Item # P
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
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.
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 .
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.
C
AMPUS
V
ILLAGE
DR
B
A
R
C
H
E
T
T
A
D
R
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
S
IH
35
NB
R
A
D
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
RIDGEBEND DR
T E R A VISTA P
K
W
Y
WESTERN L
A
K
E
D
R
S A T E L L I T E V I E W
UNIV E R S I T Y B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
HID
DEN VIE W P L
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
S IH 35 FWY NB A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
MEA
D
O
W
BLUFF
W
AY
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
WIN D BER RY
PATHPARKVISTA
TRL W E S T V A L L E Y P L
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LNHIDDE
N S P R I N G S P A TH
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
T E R A V I S T A
P K W Y
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
SIERR A W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
SUNNY TRAIL DR
BL U E SPRIN G S B L V D
T E R A V ISTA PKWY
F O X D R
PEBBLESTO
N
E
T
R
L
C
O
LLEGE
P
A
RK
DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
L O O K O U T RD
G
M I D N I G H T L N
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FWY SB C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
W I N D I N G CREE K PL
HILLR I D G E D R
BENT WOO D P L GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
A
N
D
E
RIN
G
V I N E
T
R
L
C
LE
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
FM
1
4
6
0
F
M
1
4
6
0
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HERITAGE
W
E
L
L
L
N
HEWLE TT LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
G
R
E
E
N
T
REE
DR
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 2,400 4,800Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
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
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
E
.
T
.J.
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.
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.CITY O F
GEORGETO W N E .T .J .
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
N
IH
3
5 F
R
S
C
E
N
I
C
LAKE DR
S A T E L L I T E V I E WUNIVERSITY B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
M
E
A
D
O
W
V
I
S
T
A
L
N
G
R
A
N
D
E
M
E
S
A
DR
GREYLEAF PATH
A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
P
L
A
C
I
D
C
R
E
E
K
WA Y
PAR K VISTA
TRL
S IH 35 FR
F
L
I
N
T
W
O
O
D
L
N
G REEN V I S TA CT
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LN
N
IH
3
5 F
R
TER R A
S T
W E S T I N G H O U S E R D
GATEWAY DR
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
F
M
1
4
6
0
W O O D
M E S A CT
M I D N I G H T
L N
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
BENT
WOOD
CT
S I E R R A
W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
T E R A V I S TA PKWYTERAVISTA PKWYN
I
H
3
5
F
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
F O X D R
S
IH
35
SB
L O O K O U T RD
G
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
YSERVICE
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
ENTR
259
NB
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
N
I
H
35
FW
Y
N
IH
3
5 F
WY
C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
S
IH
35
FWY
NB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
NB
HILL R I D G E D R
GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
C
L
E
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HEWLET T LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S
IH
35
NB
S
IH
35
FWY
SB
S
I
H
3
5
F
WY SB
0 2,400 4,800Feet
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 #2
SubjectTract
REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
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
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 E .T .J .
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.
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.
C
I
T
Y
O
F
G
E
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
E
.
T.J.
CITY O F
GEORGETO W N E .T .J .
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
FAIRM
EAD
O
W
DR
N
IH
3
5 F
R HIL L R I D G E D R
WOODVISTA P L
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
HID
DEN VIE W P L
G
R
A
N
D
E
M
E
S
A
DR
A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
WEST
M
E
ADOW T R L
PA R K V ISTA
TRL
S
IH
35
FR
HIDDEN S
P
RINGS P A T H
N
IH
3
5 F
R
W E S T I N G H O U S E R D
GATEWAY DR
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
M I D N I G H T
L N
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
F
M
1
4
6
0
S I E R R A
W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
SCENIC LAKE DR
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
EXIT 256 SB
O
A
K
M
O
NT
DR
S
IH
3
5
FW
Y
F O X D R
H I L L V U E R D
L O O K O U T RD
G
S E R V I C E
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
ENTR
259
NB
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
N
IH
3
5 F
WY
C R 1 6 6
C
ERVI
N
I
A
DR
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S
IH
35
NB
W I N D I N G CREE K PL
BENT WOO D P L GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLU B DR
C
LE
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
HIDD E N BROOK L N
B L U E S P R ING S B LVD
GREENSIDE
D
R
N
IH
35
F
R
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
S
IH
35
SB
S
IH
35
FWY
NB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
HEWLE T T LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
B L U E S PRI N G S BLVD
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y SB
S
IH
35
FWY
SB
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
A G A g ric u lt u r e
B P B u si n e s s
P a r k
C-3
General
Commercial
C -3 G e n e r a l
C o m m e r c i a l
C
-
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C -3 G e n e r a l
C o m m e r c i a l
I
N
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
I
N
I
n
d
u
s
tri
a
l
IN Industrial
I N I n d u s t r i a lIN Industrial
O F O ffic e
R S R e si d e n ti a l
S i n g l e -F a m ily
M
F
M
u
ltif
a
m
ily
B
P
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
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
B P B u si n e s s
P a r k
M F M u lti-F a m ilyC-1 L ocal
C o m m ercial
0 2,400 4,800Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
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
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.
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 .
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.
C
AMPUS
V
ILLAGE
DR
B
A
R
C
H
E
T
T
A
D
R
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
S
IH
35
NB
R
A
D
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
RIDGEBEND DR
T E R A VISTA P
K
W
Y
WESTERN L
A
K
E
D
R
S A T E L L I T E V I E W
UNIV E R S I T Y B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
HID
DEN VIE W P L
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
S IH 35 FWY NB A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
MEA
D
O
W
BLUFF
W
AY
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
WIN D BER RY
PATHPARKVISTA
TRL W E S T V A L L E Y P L
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LNHIDDE
N S P R I N G S P A TH
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
T E R A V I S T A
P K W Y
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
SIERR A W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
SUNNY TRAIL DR
BL U E SPRIN G S B L V D
T E R A V ISTA PKWY
F O X D R
PEBBLESTO
N
E
T
R
L
C
O
LLEGE
P
A
RK
DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
L O O K O U T RD
G
M I D N I G H T L N
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FWY SB C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
W I N D I N G CREE K PL
HILLR I D G E D R
BENT WOO D P L GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
A
N
D
E
RIN
G
V I N E
T
R
L
C
LE
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
FM
1
4
6
0
F
M
1
4
6
0
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HERITAGE
W
E
L
L
L
N
HEWLE TT LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
G
R
E
E
N
T
REE
DR
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 2,400 4,800Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
N17°19
'
2
3
"
W
672.49
'
S7
9
°
4
8
'
1
6
"
W
49
.
9
5
'
S
8
0
°
0
2
'
1
9
"
W
1
8
1
1
.
4
4
S 19°4
5
'
2
2
"
E
3
9
9
.
9
6
S 19°3
8
'
2
4
"
E
4
8
8
.
9
5
S19°14
'
4
1
"
E
6
9
2
.
3
3
N
1
7
°
3
4
'
2
4
"
W
88
.
2
1
N
7
1
°
3
9
'
4
6
"
E
7
6
5
.
4
8
N 30
°
3
1
'
5
3
"
W
172.
5
7
N 20
°
5
7
'
1
0
"
E
276.
2
1
S 5
0
°
2
7
'
4
2
"
E
438
.
8
9
N
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
E
6
1
7
.
6
7
N 19°1
4
'
4
1
"
W
5
2
0
.
0
4
N
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
E
50
.
0
0
C
R
1
1
1
/
W
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
R
o
a
d
D=
0
3
°
4
8
'
0
6
"
R=
5
0
5
5
.
0
6
L=
3
3
5
.
4
2
Ta
n
=
1
6
7
.
7
7
C=
3
3
5
.
3
5
N7
1
°
5
7
'
4
7
"
E
N 17°34
'
2
4
"
W
363.29
N
7
3
°
5
2
'
4
9
"
E
1
4
6
.
0
6
N 18°11
'
2
3
"
W
156.93
N
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
E
1
2
6
0
.
4
6
Ma
y
e
s
5
9
a
c
.
T
r
a
c
t
N
La
n
d
U
s
e
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
40
.
4
6
a
c
.
18
.
7
5
a
c
.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 1 of 6
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday January 3, 2012 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:
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Carla Benton, Planner; Valerie Kreger, Planner; Mike Ellagarger, Planner; Robie
Wyler, Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker
form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker
will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3)
minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session. There was not an Executive Session.
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the December 6, 2011, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Horne to approve the consent agenda including the Minutes of the
December 6, 2011 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Second by Commissioner
Facey. Approved (7-0)
Regular Agenda
3. Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
future land use designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to High-Density Residential
(HDR) and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, located
on CR 111 west of FM 1460. CPA-2011-003 (Mike Elabarger)
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 6
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 2 of 6
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a rezoning of 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District,
located on CR 111 west of FM 1460. REZ-2011-021 (Mike Elabarger)
Staff reports for item #3 and #4 were requested, for presentation purposes to be combined.
Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The property was annexed into the City, effective December
31, 2011. At the time of annexation, the property was zoned Agricultural (AG) District. The
applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from its existing Mixed
Use Community (MUC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High‐Density
Residential (HDR). Additionally, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from
Agricultural (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF) Districts.
The re-zoning of the property and approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendments are but the first two steps needing completion prior to the actual
development of the property. Prior to any development activity occurring on the property,
any future property owner, would need to process and receive approval of :
Necessary Subdivision Plats;
Site Development Permit Application, including stormwater drainage permits
Construction plans;
Building permits for construction; and
Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants.
The proposed amendment – from Mixed Use Community to approximately 30% Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center and 70% High Density Residential – is supported by Staff for the
following reasons:
1. Recent Approvals - Recently approved future land use changes approved by City
Council in the immediate area, supporting a broader mix of High Density Residential, C-
1 Commercial zoning and increased Employment Center designation along
Westinghouse Road.
2. Non-binding - Because ultimate development is not assured with any Rezoning (or
Compehensive Plan Amendment), there is general support for the inclusion of higher
density residential uses as a component of the new mixed-use model of development.
3. Synergy – Should this property develop as proposed by the applicant, it may ultimately
work to bolster the Southeast Development Zone area as a live-work-play
multifunctional activity center, provided that enough land in the corridor retain the
Employment Center future land use designation necessary to produce the employment
activity necessary to anchor the proposed residential densities.
4. Appropriate Zoning District – The MF and C-1, in their respective locations, would
fulfill the Future Land Use designations being sought by the applicant (High Density
Residential and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, respectively) in CPA-2011-003.
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 6
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 3 of 6
Though done in the past, the City no longer approves “conditional” rezonings , and
therefore, cannot limit the use of the property to a single defined activity , presented by an
applicant. Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the requested districts
(MF and C-1) when evaluating a rezoning request.
5. Utility Impacts: The City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans are based on the
anticipated land uses and land use densities as stipulated in the Future Land Use and
Growth Tier Plans. Applicant-driven amendments may require that the City amend these
master utility plans, triggering necessary changes to the projected long-term capital
improvement costs. Any proposed changes and the financial implications on the City’s
budget require close scrutiny, deliberation, and review by Staff, Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z), and the City Council. This property falls within the Tier 2 designation;
any infrastructure improvements necessary to facilitate the development of this property –
specifically related to water/wastewater improvements – will likely be built solely at the
cost of the developer. Should the City, at some point in the future, decide to assign this area
a Tier 1 designation, then the cost of utility infrastructure improvements for this area would
likely be shifted to the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
The proposed Southeast Development Zone, which includes this property, is intended to be
one of the key locations inside the City reserved for economically oriented development (ie,
non-residential) land uses in the City’s 2030 Plan. To facilitate the growth of employment
type development inside the Southeast Development Zoned, there is the possibility that the
City’s 4-A and 4-B Economic Boards may determine that some developer funded
infrastructure improvements for the Southeast Development Zone area are eligible for some
level of financial reimbursements. Tradionally, these type of financial incentives are limited
to developments that create full-time, permanent jobs 1, and other eligible kinds of economic
development. Multifamily housing, resulting from the proposed HDR land use (and
accompanying Multifamily zoning district) would thus not be eligible for infrastructure
reimbursements. The applicant is aware of this fact and has chosen to seek a residential
zoning component for the property. However, other uses allowed by-right in the C-1
zoning district may or may not be eligible for future infrastructure reimbursement
incentives.
The Local Commercial District, C-1, is intended to provide areas for commercial and retail
activities that primarily serve residential areas, with pedestrian access to the nearby
residential areas, but location should be along major and minor thoroughfares and
corridors, and not on residential streets or collectors. Typical uses would include
townhouse/multifamily dwellings and group living situations, institutional uses,
restaurants, hotels, and retail sales. In order of intensity, the C-1 District is the middle of the
three Commercial districts (between CN, Neighborhood Commercial and C-3, General
Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 6
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 4 of 6
Commercial).
The Multifamily District, MF, is intended for Multifamily residential development, such as
apartments, townhouses, and associated uses. This District is appropriate in areas
designated on the Future Land Use Plan for higher density and mixed-use and may be
located along major thoroughfares, and adjacent to both Residential and Non-Residential
Districts.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak.
Erin Welch, Land Strategies gave a presentation including aerials showing a heavily tree area
and ponds, which shall serve as a 150-250 foot buffer to the Teravista neighborhood. Ms.
Welch cites the City’s approval last year of similar requests for the nearby Windmill Hill and
Bourne projects and feels C1 Commercial and MF Multi-family is an equally good
classification for this property.
Ms. Welch stated she was open to questions.
Commissioners asked if the buffered area addressed by the applicant can be zoned as AG
Agriculture. Staff stated that without a request from the applicant requesting AG zoning along
the south and east perimeter of the property, the Commission does not have the authority to
place a “condition” on the Rezoning of the property. The buffered area would have to be
zoned as open space, but only if the applicant requests the property to be zoned as open space.
Staff stated that given the language of the public notice requirements already posted, any
deviation from the applicant’s request not generated by the applicant would need to be
reposted. Staff did agree the applicant could postpone tonight’s decision and adjust the zoned
area and include field notes showing the buffer area to be voted on during the next meeting.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing.
Dawn Dillard, 4627 Monterosa stated she is here representing the Teravista neighborhood and
has a signed petition from 64 neighbors who oppose to the proposed development. Ms.
Dillard also stated they are not only concerned with the buffer, but also the noise, traffic, crime
and the likelihood that apartments being built on the property would inevitably lead to the
devaluing of the adjoining Teravista properties.
Mike Newton, 4625 Monterosa thanked the Commissioners for taking the time to listen to their
concerns. He stated the map that is being shown by Ms. Welch is two years old and would feel
better if a more current picture showing current homes on the lots. He also stated he opposes
apartments being built in the development. He appreciates progress and understands
Georgetown is looking for what serves their citizens. Mr. Newton stated he would like some
guarantee there will not be access to his neighborhood. He is concerned with apartments
Attachment number 7 \nPage 4 of 6
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 5 of 6
being close to his neighborhood that renters are able to look down into the home owner’s
property in Teravista.
Janet Litten, 1902 Colony Glen Lane, explained other expansion being made by Teravista and
is concerned with school children crossing a busy street. She would also like to see a buffer
added.
Chair Brashear closed public hearing
Erin Welch, Land Strategies explained that apartments are not the only development allowed
in a multi-family zoning.
Staff stated State codes require notifications be mailed to Georgetown residents who currently
live 200 feet from the adjacent property. Staff extended the notification list to include Teravista
which is generated from the Williamson Central Appraisal District records.
Staff was asked and answered that the existence of the petition submitted by the residents
would change the number of votes needed to approve the application to a majority plus one, if
the petition was signed by residents within the city limits. Given the neighbors are not
residents of the City, a simple majority is required to approve the application.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from Mixed Use
Community (MUC) to High‐Density Residential (HDR) and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
(MUN). Second by Commissioner Armour Approved (7-0)
Discussion was held by the Commission regarding the rezoning request and allowing the
applicant time to revise, amend and send the request back to Staff.
The applicant then requested the rezoning application be postponed to the February 7, 2012
Planning and Zoning Meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to table the Rezoning for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey,
from Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C -1)
District until the February 7, 2012 Planning and Zoning meeting. Second by Commissioner
Pell. Approved. (7-0)
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)
Attachment number 7 \nPage 5 of 6
Item # P
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 3, 2012 Page 6 of 6
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 Commissioner 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 Commissioner Horne. Approved. (7-0)
6. Update on the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) Meetings. (Annette
Montgomery) There was not a meeting.
7. Questions or comments from Commissioners-in-Training about the actions and matters
considered on this agenda. Questions were asked and addressed by Chair Brashear.
8. Reminder of the February 7, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
9. Adjourn 7:06pm
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Ercel Brashear, Chair Annette Montgomery, Secretary
Attachment number 7 \nPage 6 of 6
Item # P
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.
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.
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
RIDGEBEND DR
SCENIC LAKE DR
FAIR
M
EADO
W DR
V
I
S
T
A
V
E
R
D
E
P
A
T
H W E S T V A L L E Y
P L
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
GREYLEAF PATH
W
O
O
D
H
A
V
E
N
TRL
SUNNY TRAIL DR
P A RKVISTA
TRL
K E M P W O O D L O O P
WOODLEDGE PL
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
WESTMEADOW
TR
L
MO
N
TE R O SA
L
O OP
C O U R M AYEUR C T
PEBBLESTONE TRL
C A N Y O N S A G E P A T H
C OLONY G
L
E
N
L
N
S
A
NSONE DR
GREATVIEW
DR
CERVINIA DR
S
C
E
N
I
C
L
A
K
E
D
R
M O N T E R O S A L N
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
ANDER
I
N
G
V I N E T R L
GREENSIDE DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
FM 1460
K
E
M
P
W
OOD
L
O
O
P
SANSONE D RSANSONE DR
SUNNY
M
EADO WS LOOP
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 1,250 2,500Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
CPA-2011-003
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
P
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
9
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
4
It
e
m
#
P
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, amending part of the
Future Land Use Plan, adopted on the 20th Day of February 2008, from Mixed Use Community
(MUC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High-Density Residential (HDR) for
59.21 acres of the B.C. Low Survey; 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 Future Land Use Plan designation on the following described real property ("The Property"):
59.21 acres of the B.C. Low Survey, as recorded in Document Number 2010055273 of the
Official Public Records of Williamson County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "The
Property";
Whereas, the City Council has submitted the proposed change to the Comprehensive
Plan 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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 Future Land Use Plan Amendment.
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 overall vision, goals and policies of the Georgetown 2030
Comprehensive Plan and further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent
or in conflict with any other policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Future Land Use Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby changed
in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and Exhibit B (Land Use Changes) and
Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # P
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 28th day of February, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 13th day of March, 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 10 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # P
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District, located on CR
111 west of FM 1460, also known as the Mayes Tract -- Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook,
Community Development Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
Following annexation into the City effective December 31, 2011, the applicant has requested to rezone the
property from the default Agriculture (AG) zoning to the Multifamily (MF) and Local Commercial (C-1)
Districts. In a separate and companion application, the applicant is also seeking to change the future land use
designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High-
Density Residential (HDR), which would support these two proposed Districts.
Public Comment:
To date, there has been considerable public comment submitted by residents of the Teravista neighborhood
that borders the property. Approximately eight (8) different residents of Teravista have submitted written
correspondence in opposition of the application; 7 were residents of Monterosa Lane and Courmayeur Court
in the City of Round Rock's ETJ, and 1 was a resident of Summit Hill Drive, which is in the City of
Georgetown ETJ.
See the section below for comments made at the Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings.Planning &
Zoning Commission Review/Recommendation:
January 3, 2012
On January 3, 2012, following the applicant's request for postponement, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 7-0 to table action on this rezoning, to their February 7, 2012 meeting.
Staff gave a presentation to the Commission, followed by a presentation by the applicant's representative.
Discussion ensued regarding leaving a strip of the existing Agricultural (AG) District adjacent Teravista as a
form of buffering to those residents. During the public hearing portion of the agenda item, three residents of
Teravista spoke in opposition of the application (2 from Monterosa Lane in the City of Round Rock ETJ, and
1 from Colony Glen Lane in the City of Georgetown ETJ), citing concerns over crime/safety, noise, traffic,
and decreased property values resulting from apartment buildings, should they be built.
Following the public hearing, discussion occurred between the Commission, staff, and the applicant's
representative on several items: the legal requirements for notification of surrounding property owners
(*Though not required by State law, 20 distinct property owners - derived from the then most current
property owner information provided by the Williamson County Assessment District - in the City of Round
Rock ETJ received notification letters as a courtesy.); the legal validity and ramifications of a citizen petition
as it would apply to a rezoning decision by City Council; and the options available to commit the non-
development distance buffer mentioned by the applicant's representative and the public speakers.
Following this discussion, the applicant's representative made the postponement request, which was granted
and noted in the motion by the Commission.
February 7, 2012
On February 7, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a vote of 6-1 (Commissioner Pell
opposed), recommended to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Agricultural (AG) to Multifamily
(MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District as requested.
The application was brought back to the Commission for consideration and action, with the public hearing
portion having been held at the January 3rd meeting. Staff gave a brief overview of the application and what
occurred at the previous meeting. The applicant made a brief statement, detailing why no changes were
Cover Memo
Item # Q
ultimately made to the application, and what occurred in a meeting with the concerned Teravista residents the
week prior. Following this, the Chair granted a group of Teravista residents their request to make a
presentation to the Commission (which they'd requested in advance). Additionally, three other persons were
permitted to make public statements (1 was a City of Georgetown resident, 1 was a City of Georgetown ETJ
resident, and 1 was a City of Round Rock ETJ resident) - one in support, two in opposition.
Following this, discussion ensued amongst the Commission and staff as to how the public's requests could be
enforced upon the applicant. Staff explained the approval criteria regarding Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Plat submissions, which would be the next stage toward development, as well as (subsequent to
platting) the Site and Construction Plan and Building Permit plan submissions that would be reviewed
administratively - all of which must be approved if they meet minimum regulations and this type of review
does not provide a process for public input or increasing the requirements beyond the minimum regulations.
The Commission discussed amongst themselves the inability to add conditions or requirements to the
rezoning request, and that their options were to either approve or deny the request for the desired zoning
districts; they ultimately voted as noted above.
Draft Minutes of the January 3 and February 7 meetings are attached to this report as Exhibits 5 & 6,
respectively.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Rezoning request from Agricultural (AG) District to 40.46
acres of Multifamily (MF) District and 18.75 acres of Local Commercial (C-1) District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact was studied.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mike Elabarger, Planner III and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Exhibit 1 - Location Map
Exhibit 2 - Future Land Use Map
Exhibit 4 - Aerial Map
Exhibit 6 - P and Z Minutes - January 3, 2012
Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map
Ordinance Exhibit B - Legal Description
Ordinance
Exhibit 7 - P and Z Minutes - February 7, 2012
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map
Exhibit 5 - App. Proposed Zoning Districts
Cover Memo
Item # Q
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 1 of 9
Report Date: January 31, 2011
File No: REZ-2011-021
Project Planner: Mike Elabarger, Planner III
Item Details
Project Name: Mayes Tract
Location: South side of CR 111 (aka Westinghouse Road), 1.5 mile east of IH-35
(See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 59.2 acres (per Applicant Survey)
Legal Description: 59.21 acres in the Low Survey
Applicants: Paul Linehan
Property Owner: Stagliano and K&H Investments
Contact: Paul Linehan, Land Strategies, Inc. / 512-328-6050
Existing Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: Agricultural (AG) (per annexation effective January 1, 2012)
Proposed Zoning: Multifamily (MF) District and– approximately 40 acres
Local Commercial (C-1) – approximately 19 acres
Existing
Future Land Use: Mixed Use Community (MUC)
Proposed
Future Land Use: Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) – 18+ acres / 30%
High Density Residential (HDR) – 40+ acres / 70%
Growth Tier: Tier 2 (Intermediate Growth Area)
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The property was annexed into the City, as part of Annexation Area 8, on December 13, 2011
(effective December 31, 2011) via a City-initiated annexation process. With this action, the
property was assigned the zoning district of Agricultural (AG) per Section 4.03.010 of the
Unified Development Code (UDC). The property currently has a future land use designation
of Mixed Use Community (MUC).
Now within the City limits, and zoned, the applicant has requested to rezone to the Local
Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF) Districts, which they feel will fulfill their
A very small portion of the northeast corner of the property appears as Moderate Density Residential on the
City’s GIS maps; this is a mapping anomaly, due to the future land use categories not being parcel specific,
and purposefully general in their location. The subject property is considered to be solely the MUC
designation as noted throughout this report.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 2 of 9
accompanying Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) application request to change the
future land use designation to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High-Density
Residential (HDR), respectively.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located on the south side of CR 111 (known as Westinghouse Road inside the
City Limits), approximately 1.5 miles east of the northbound IH-35 frontage road, and almost
½ mile west of FM 1460. It is in an area of the City (actually, primarily Extraterritorial
Jurisdication, or ETJ) recently coined the Southeast Development Zone (SEDZ), comprising
the areas south of the Southeast Inner Loop, north of the Round Rock ETJ boundary (which is
almost exclusively the master-planned Teravista Municipal Utility District, or MUD), and
between IH-35 and FM 1460.
Physical Characteristics:
The property is generally a rectangular shape, sloping southward from Westinghouse Road.
The northern two-thirds or so are largely cleared, but some significant vegetation exists in the
center and southern boundary area. A series of three ponds run north to south down t he
center as well; their origin is unknown. A drainage depression runs east/west near the
southern boundary, and discharges into the golf course to the south. See Graphic (1) below,
and Exhibit 4.
Graphic (1) – 59+ Acres Mayes Tract
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 3 of 9
Surrounding Properties:
The property is surrounded on all four sides by the Teravista development. To the west is a
16-acre vacant parcel that is planned for light industrial uses undeveloped tracts. A section of
the Teravista residential development is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary,
where a long cul-de-sac street (Monterosa Lane) runs much of the length of this common
boundary. See the chart below, Graphic (1) above, and Exhibit 4 – Aerial map.
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North N/A – Georgetown ETJ Moderate Density Residential Vacant
South N/A - Teravista MUD N/A (City of Round Rock ETJ) Residential
East N/A – Georgetown ETJ Moderate Density Residential Vacant
West Agricultural (AG) Mixed Use Community Vacant
Property History
The property was annexed on December 13, 2011 (effective December 31, 2011 per Annexation
Ordinance 2011-55) as part of a City-wide annexation process, and given the zoning of AG,
Agricultural. There is no record of any land use applications being submitted on this
property, which has never been developed, and it is unclear how recently it may have been
farmed or grazed.
Utilities
All areas of the City and ETJ are placed within a Growth Tier policy category that identifies
where to stage contiguous, compact, and incremental growth over a period of the next two
decades or more. These Tiers dictate where the delivery of municipal services may be
focused, and thus, where growth is desired to occur:
Tier 1A designates areas within the current city limits where some infrastructure systems are in
place, can be economically provided and/or will be proactively extended, and where consolidation
of the city’s development pattern is encour aged over the next 10 years through the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Tier 1B designates areas within the present city limits that were recently annexed or subject to
development agreements, which are presently underserved by infrastructure. Tier 1B will require
the provision of public facilities to meet the city’s growth needs as Tier 1A approaches build -out,
over the next 10 years.
Tier 2 designates areas within the ETJ where growth and the provision of public facilities are
anticipated beyond the next 10 years and where premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient
development is discouraged by the City.
Tier 3 designates areas within the ETJ where growth, annexation, and the extension of public
facilities are anticipated beyond 20 years, and premature, fragmented, leapfrog, or inefficient
development is discouraged by the City.
* The City can change the Growth Tier designation through the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process only during the Annual Update cycle.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 4 of 9
Being a Tier 2 designee, this property currently has no direct provision of major utilities
(though a 16” water line does run along the north side of CR 111), but it will be in the City of
Georgetown service areas for water and wastewater . The extension of sanitary sewer
(wastewater) appears to be the most significant extension necessary, and will be the primary
enabler of development for this property and the entire SEDZ area in the future.
The applicant applied for, and received, a Utility Evaluation from the Georgetown Utility
Systems (GUS) regarding water and wastewater service availability, with the basis of future
development being 600 multifamily residential units and 19 acres of commercial development.
The findings were:
The property is within the City’s certified water and wastewater service areas.
Water – no comment was made, indicating there is sufficient supply to serve, by the
16” water line running on the north side of CR 111.
Wastewater - the estimated demands of proposed development indicated by the
applicant would exceed that planned for the property by approximately 40%. The
nearest extent of the system is the terminus of an 18” interceptor line just south of the
Southeast Inner Loop road (currently serving the Citicorp data center). However, it
was determined that the increased intensity of this proposed rezoning could be
sustained by the City system ‘downstream’ from this current terminus. At this time,
the applicant would be solely responsible for construction of an interceptor line
extension of between 12” and 15” northward from this property to the existing
terminus, approximately 1.3 miles away.
All final details and guarantees of capacity would be determined during the Final Plat
approval processes, with capacity reservation occurring upon Impact Fee payment.
Transportation
The property has approximately 1800 feet of road frontage, and three current curb cuts, on CR
111 (Westinghouse Road), which underwent a widening (4 lane plus turn lanes) and
improvement project in 2010. Proximity to IH-35 to the west and FM 1460 (which has near-
term plans for major expansion in Georgetown, to match the improvements done to the south
in Round Rock) give it favorable vehicular access. Future development to the west of this
tract may provide it inter-parcel types of connections. Planned road extensions in this area
include Rabbit Hill Road continuing southward through the Bourn property, connecting with
Oakmont Road, and Blue Ridge Drive continuing southward through the Windmill Hill tract
to Westinghouse Road. Unfortunately, connectivity to the Teravista development is likely
precluded, as no connections exist to the south, or appear to have been created to the east.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary for review of this rezoning, but the
requirement will likely be triggered at some point with future applications.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 5 of 9
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Currently, the subject property is designated with the Mixed Use Community (MUC) future
land use category; see Exhibit 2. Should the accompanying Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA-2011-003) be approved, and the future land use designations be changed to Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center (18.75 acres, or 30%) and High Density Residential (40.5 acres, or 70%),
then the proposed zoning districts of Local Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF) would
support those categories, respectively.
As noted under the Utility section, the 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation is Tier 2
(Intermediate Growth Area), which is the portion of the City where infrastructure systems are
not intended for improvement within the next ten years. Only the City can change this
designation during an annual update process.
Zoning District
Currently, the property is zoned Agricultural (AG), the default zoning given a property upon
annexation. The two proposed districts are described as such in the Unified Development
Code (UDC):
The Local Commercial District, C-1, is intended to provide areas for commercial and retail
activities that primarily serve residential areas, with pedestrian access to the nearby
residential areas, but location should be along major and minor thoroughfares and
corridors, and not on residential streets or collectors. Typical uses would include
townhouse/multifamily dwellings and group living situations, institutional uses,
restaurants, hotels, and retail sales. In order of intensity, the C-1 District is the middle of
the three Commercial districts (CN, Neighborhood Commercial and C-3, General
Commercial).
The Multifamily District, MF, is intended for Multifamily residential development, such
as apartments, townhouses, and associated uses. This District is appropriate in areas
designated on the Future Land Use Plan for higher density and mixed -use and may be
located along major thoroughfares, and adjacent to both Residential and Non-Residential
Districts.
Future Application(s)
If the applicant, or other future property owner, should seek to develop the property, the
following applications would at a minimum be required:
Subdivision Plats;
Site and Construction plans;
Building permits for construction; and
Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 6 of 9
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff reviewed and analyzed this application (and the accompanying rezoning) from the
following points-of-view in order to get to a position of support for the application:
Southeast Development Zone (SEDZ) study
As mentioned above, the subject property is within a study area of the future utility provision
and build-out possibilities for the southern extent of the City. In general, this largely vacant
and undeveloped area – referred to as the Southeast Development Zone (SEDZ) – is being
studied as a primary future employment area over the next 20+ years. The initial idea was to
develop a plan to serve the large development area in the southeast quadrant of the City
(which includes this site) with utilities in the near future. This plan would include policy
guidance for annexations, special taxing districts, pro-active rezoning of land, road and utility
improvements, etc. It was anticipated that, at the very least, it would provide a timetable for
infrastructure improvements that would occur quicker than the current Growth Tier 2
designation would allow.
Through the 2011 involuntary annexation process, a large number of the properties went
under agreements with the City that will preclude their annexation in the near term. Because
of this large reduction in the amount of the study area that could be annexed during this
timeframe, the feasibility of capital investment and the possible large-scale shift in Capital
Facilities priorities and growth strategy for this area is being reconsidered. Rather than the
City being a major participant in the facilitation of infrastructure to this area, it appears it will
fall primarily upon the private development field to spur growth throughout the SEDZ area in
the near-term.
The City will continue to explore options and assist developers in expediting infrastructure
deemed necessary for economic development in this area.
Land Use Categories
These zoning district requests, and the accompanying future land use changes, being
proposed for this property are an increase in intensity, but are in keeping with recent
approvals by City Council on the Westinghouse Road corridor:
Future Land Use Zoning
From: To: From: To:
Windmill
Hill
94 acres
High
Density
Residential
72 ac. Employment Center
22 ac. High Density Resid.
94 acres PUD
(administered as
Multifamily)
56 ac. Business Park
16 ac. Local Commercial
22 ac. Multifamily
Bourn
183
acres
Employment
Center
145 ac. Employment Center
38 ac. High Density Resid.
183
acres
Agricultural
99 ac. Business Park
45 ac. Local Commercial
38 ac. Multifamily
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 7 of 9
In general, these approvals increased the amount of Employment Center land use (and thus
the possible amount of appropriately zoned land, of which the Business Park district is the
most direct fit) and redistributed – but still reduced - the amount of High Density Residential
(via Multifamily zoning). What was newly introduced was a focus of mid-level commercial
zoning along the Westinghouse corridor.
While the trend of these changes seem positive in fulfilling the City’s desire to make the SEDZ
area largely employment-based, the incremental addition of high density residential to each
large property acts to “chip away” at the amount of available land for high-quality and
income producing industries and office development that requires large tracts of land. The
City understands the trend and desirability of multi-use developments that offer the ’24 / 7
live-work-shop-play’ aspect. However, in a community with a tax-base vastly dominated by
residences, protecting the last best area for job creation (at least, within the scope of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan) is of utmost importance.
Georgetown has grown and developed largely in a single-use pattern, and it can be argued
that that pattern should be changed, when possible, as recently evidenced. Zoning more land
residentially, as part of a mixed-use pattern, erases land that ultimately could fulfill a prime
City objective – lessening the tax burden on existing residents. Such aspects must also be
taken into consideration when looking at land use and zoning change proposals.
Utilities
The City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans are based on the anticipated land uses and
land use densities planned for in the Future Land Use and Growth Tier Plans. Thus,
applicant-driven amendments to one or both of these requires that the City amend these
utility plans, with the associated capital improvement costs (and their budget implications)
requiring close scrutiny, deliberation, and review by Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission
(P&Z), and the City Council.
Because of the property’s current Tier 2 designation, improvements or development on this
property related to water/wastewater utilities will likely be solely at the cost of the developer.
Should the City decide to make this a Tier 1 development area, then utility improvements for
this area would likely be placed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the City
would review development applications based on this possible change.
Economic Development
The SEDZ area is one of the key locations for economic development (ie, non-residential,
employment-creating and sustaining land uses) in the City’s near-term future (approximately
the next 20 years, or to the extent of the 2030 Plan). Because of this, there is the possibility that
the City’s 4-A and 4-B Economic Boards may determine that some necessary infrastructure
improvements for the SEDZ area are eligible for financial reimbursements. These incentives,
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 8 of 9
however, are limited to developments that create full-time, permanent jobs 1, and other
eligible kinds of economic development. Multifamily housing, resulting from the proposed
HDR land use (and accompanying Multifamily zoning district) would thus not be eligible.
The applicant was made aware of this fact, but has chosen to continue proposing a residential
component. In addition, other uses allowed by-right in the C-1 zoning district also might not
be eligible for economic development incentives.
Findings for Approval
The proposed amendment – from Mixed Use Community to approximately 30% Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center and 70% High Density Residential – can be supported by Staff for the
following reasons:
1. Recent Approvals - It is in keeping with the trend of recently approved future land use
changes approved by City Council, which have reduced by 34 acres the amount of
High Density Residential and increased the amount of Employment Center by 34
acres, while introducing 61 acres of medium-density commercial uses (as translated by
the C-1 zoning district).
2. Non-binding - Because ultimate development is not ensured with any Rezoning (or
Compehensive Plan Amendment), there is general support of residential as a
component of the new mixed-use model of development, even though the amount
recently approved and proposed here is more than envisioned by the City at this time.
3. Synergy – Should this property develop as sought, it may ultimately work to bolster
the SEDZ area as a live-work-play multifunctional activity center, should the bulk of
this area ultimately maintain zoning district(s) that fulfill the Employment Center
future land use designation and produce high-quality jobs.
4. Appropriate Zoning District – The MF and C-1, in their respective locations, would
fulfill the Future Land Use designations being sought by the applicant (High Density
Residential and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, respectively) in CPA-2011-003.
Though done in the past, the City no longer considers or approves “conditional” rezonings of
properties, and therefore, cannot rezone the property for any specific use(s), or concept plan,
presented by an applicant. Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the
requested districts (MF and C-1) when evaluating a rezoning request as well as all site
development possibilities.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None
1 - As opposed to temporary construction-related jobs, followed by part-time or lower benefit service/retail. positions
typical of commercial development.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # Q
Planning & Development Staff Report
Mayes Tract Rezoning Page 9 of 9
Public Comments
Prior to both the January 3rd and February 7th P&Z meetings, a total of 22 notice letters (for 43
separate properties) were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
rezoning. The City utilizes the most recent property owner data provided to it by the
Williamson County Assessment District to generate this list. Of the noticed properties, 1 was
the property owner of this subject application (Stagliano Vincent & Peggy & K&H
Investments); 13 were listed as being owned by NNP-Teravista LP; 9 were Lennar Homes of
Texas Land & Construction Ltd.; 2 were RH of Texas Limited Partnership ; and 1 was
Castlerock Communities LP. The remaining 17 were individual residences on Monterosa
Lane and Courmayeur Court to the south of this property in Teravista.
Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on December 18, 2011 for the January 3rd
meeting, and on January 22nd, 2012 for the February 7th meeting. Eleven (11) written
comments, representing eight (8) properties (all from Teravista residents on Monterosa Lane
and Courmayeur Court) have been received to date, all opposing the application.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Future Land Use / Overall Transportation Plan Map
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 – Aerial Map
Exhibit 5 – Applicant’s Proposed Zoning District Survey
Exhibit 6 – Applicant Email, January 12, 2012
Exhibit 7 – P&Z Public Hearing Minutes
Meetings Schedule
January 3, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission (continuation)
February 28, 2012 – City Council First Reading (pending)
March 13, 2012 – City Council Second Reading (pending)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # Q
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
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.
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 .
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.
C
AMPUS
V
ILLAGE
DR
B
A
R
C
H
E
T
T
A
D
R
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
S
IH
35
NB
R
A
D
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
RIDGEBEND DR
T E R A VISTA P
K
W
Y
WESTERN L
A
K
E
D
R
S A T E L L I T E V I E W
UNIV E R S I T Y B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
HID
DEN VIE W P L
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
S IH 35 FWY NB A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
MEA
D
O
W
BLUFF
W
AY
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
WIN D BER RY
PATHPARKVISTA
TRL W E S T V A L L E Y P L
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LNHIDDE
N S P R I N G S P A TH
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
T E R A V I S T A
P K W Y
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
SIERR A W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
SUNNY TRAIL DR
BL U E SPRIN G S B L V D
T E R A V ISTA PKWY
F O X D R
PEBBLESTO
N
E
T
R
L
C
O
LLEGE
P
A
RK
DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
L O O K O U T RD
G
M I D N I G H T L N
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FWY SB C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
W I N D I N G CREE K PL
HILLR I D G E D R
BENT WOO D P L GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
A
N
D
E
RIN
G
V I N E
T
R
L
C
LE
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
FM
1
4
6
0
F
M
1
4
6
0
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HERITAGE
W
E
L
L
L
N
HEWLE TT LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
G
R
E
E
N
T
REE
DR
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 2,400 4,800Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #1REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
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
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
E
.
T
.J.
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.
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.CITY O F
GEORGETO W N E .T .J .
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
N
IH
3
5 F
R
S
C
E
N
I
C
LAKE DR
S A T E L L I T E V I E WUNIVERSITY B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
M
E
A
D
O
W
V
I
S
T
A
L
N
G
R
A
N
D
E
M
E
S
A
DR
GREYLEAF PATH
A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
P
L
A
C
I
D
C
R
E
E
K
WA Y
PAR K VISTA
TRL
S IH 35 FR
F
L
I
N
T
W
O
O
D
L
N
G REEN V I S TA CT
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LN
N
IH
3
5 F
R
TER R A
S T
W E S T I N G H O U S E R D
GATEWAY DR
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
F
M
1
4
6
0
W O O D
M E S A CT
M I D N I G H T
L N
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
BENT
WOOD
CT
S I E R R A
W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
T E R A V I S TA PKWYTERAVISTA PKWYN
I
H
3
5
F
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
F O X D R
S
IH
35
SB
L O O K O U T RD
G
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
YSERVICE
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
ENTR
259
NB
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
N
I
H
35
FW
Y
N
IH
3
5 F
WY
C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
S
IH
35
FWY
NB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
NB
HILL R I D G E D R
GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
C
L
E
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HEWLET T LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S
IH
35
NB
S
IH
35
FWY
SB
S
I
H
3
5
F
WY SB
0 2,400 4,800Feet
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 #2
SubjectTract
REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n
E T J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G
e
o
r
g
e
t
o
w
n
E
T
J
G e o r g e t o w n E T J
C R 1 1 1
TERAVISTAPKWY
BENT
WOOD PL
RIDGEBEND DR
GREATVIEW DR
BLUE
STON
E
LN
WOODVISTAPL
L
O
S
T
L
E
D
G
E
P
A
T
H
M O NTER O SA LN
M
E
A
D
O
W
V
I
S
T
A
L
N
F
M
1
4
6
0
HID DEN
B R O O K LN
W
O
O
D
H
A
V
E
N
T
R
L
C H E S T N U T
M E A D O W S
B N D
L A C O N T E R R A
B L V D
S
U
N
N
Y
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
L
O
O
P
WESTMEADOWTRL
QUIET
WATER
PASS
W E S T V A L L E Y
P L
C
O
U
R
T
N
E
Y
D
R
WOODLEDGE PL
P
L
A
C
I
D
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
OUTCR OP
PATH
WANDERING
VINE TRL
F O R KRIDGEPATH
GREENVISTA CT
BLUFFSIDE
LN
HIDDENSPRINGSPATH
OL DRAVINE CT
C O M M E R C E
B L V D
A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
T E R A VIS T A C L U B D R
A U T U M N
R U N L N
FAIRMEADOW DR
D R E S D E N C V
HID
D
E
N
VIE
W
C
T
BENT
WOOD CT
L
O
N
E
T
R
E
E
P
A
T
H
GREENSIDE DR
CRESTWOODLN
SCENIC
LAKE DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
C R 1 1 1
SUNNYTRAIL DR
WIN
D
B
E
R
R
Y C
T
C A N Y O N
S A G E P A T H
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
COLONY
GLEN LN
G R E E N S I D E
T R L
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
P
A
R
K
D
R
OA
K
M
O
NT
DR
S A T E L L I T E
V I E W
T E R A VIS T A C L U B D R
WINDING
CREEK PL
PEBBLESTONE
TRL
GRAND
VISTA
CIR
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
C R 1 1 1
RIDGEFIELD
LOOP
CERVINIA DR
PARKVISTA
TRL
L O O K O U T
R D G
M I D N I G H T L N
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
FAIRWAY PATH
KE
M
P
W
O
O
D
LO
O
P
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 6 6
SANSONE DR
0 2,100 4,200Feet
Coordinate System: Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only ¯
REZ-2011-021/CPA-2011-003
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
REZ-2011-021CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
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
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.
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 .
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
.
CIT Y O F
G E O R G E T O W N E.T.J.
C
AMPUS
V
ILLAGE
DR
B
A
R
C
H
E
T
T
A
D
R
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
S
IH
35
NB
R
A
D
C
L
I
F
F
L
N
RIDGEBEND DR
T E R A VISTA P
K
W
Y
WESTERN L
A
K
E
D
R
S A T E L L I T E V I E W
UNIV E R S I T Y B L V D
WOODVISTA P L
A O S T A L N
HID
DEN VIE W P L
O
R
I
O
N
S
T
S IH 35 FWY NB A
N
I
M
A
S
D
R
MEA
D
O
W
BLUFF
W
AY
S
A
N
D
Y
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
WIN D BER RY
PATHPARKVISTA
TRL W E S T V A L L E Y P L
B
L
U
FFSIDE
LNHIDDE
N S P R I N G S P A TH
V
A
L
L
E
C
I
T
O
D
R
M
A
N
C
O
S
D
R
T E R A V I S T A
P K W Y
C E N T E R B R O O K P L
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
H
I
D
D
E
N
V
I
E
W
C
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
B
O
N
N
I
E
L
N
SIERR A W A Y S T
CREST WOOD LN
C R 1 1 1
C
L
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
L
N
SUNNY TRAIL DR
BL U E SPRIN G S B L V D
T E R A V ISTA PKWY
F O X D R
PEBBLESTO
N
E
T
R
L
C
O
LLEGE
P
A
RK
DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
L O O K O U T RD
G
M I D N I G H T L N
P
A
R
K
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
C R 1 1 1
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FWY SB C R 1 6 6
C
ERV
I
N
I
A
DR
W I N D I N G CREE K PL
HILLR I D G E D R
BENT WOO D P L GREATVIEW
DR
MONTE R O S A L N
TERAVISTA CLUB DR
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
A
N
D
E
RIN
G
V I N E
T
R
L
C
LE
A
R
M
E
A
D
O
W
PL
FM
1
4
6
0
F
M
1
4
6
0
HIDD E N BROOK L N
GREENSIDE
D
R
OAKMONT
DR
OAKMONT
DR
G
R
AND V I S T A CI
R
HERITAGE
W
E
L
L
L
N
HEWLE TT LOOP
FAIRWAY
PATH
G
R
E
E
N
T
REE
DR
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 2,400 4,800Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4REZ-2011-021/ CPA-2011-003
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
N17°19
'
2
3
"
W
672.49'
156.93
'
N 18°11
'
2
3
"
W
S
7
9
°
4
8
'
1
6
"
W
4
9
.
9
5
'
S
8
0
°
0
2
'
1
9
"
W
1
8
1
1
.
4
4
S 19°4
5
'
2
2
"
E
3
9
9
.
9
6
S 19°3
8
'
2
4
"
E
4
8
8
.
9
5
S19°14
'
4
1
"
E
692.33
'
N
7
0
°
0
3
'
4
4
"
E
1
3
1
0
.
4
6
D=
0
3
°
4
8
'
0
6
"
Ta
n
=
1
6
7
.
7
7
C=
3
3
5
.
3
5
S 19°1
4
'
4
1
"
E
520.04
N
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
E
8
4
7
.
3
5
S
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
W
50
.
0
0
S
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
W
6
1
7
.
6
7
N 5
0
°
2
7
'
4
2
"
W
438
.
8
9
N 20°7
'
5
3
"
W
141.94
N
1
7
°
3
4
'
2
4
"
W
88
.
2
1
N
7
1
°
3
9
'
4
6
"
E
7
6
5
.
4
8
N 30
°
3
1
'
5
3
"
W
172.
5
7
N 2
0
°
5
7
'
1
0
"
E
276.
2
1
R=
5
0
5
5
.
0
6
L=
3
3
5
.
4
2
N7
1
°
5
7
'
4
7
"
E
N 17°34
'
2
4
"
W
363.29
N
7
3
°
5
2
'
4
9
"
E
1
4
6
.
0
6
N
7
0
°
3
'
4
4
"
E
4
1
3
.
1
1
C
R
1
1
1
/
W
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
R
o
a
d
Ma
y
e
s
5
9
a
c
.
T
r
a
c
t
-
T
r
a
c
t
3
(
4
0
.
4
6
a
c
.
)
N
ZO
N
I
N
G
MF
C-
1
C-
1
40
.
4
6
a
c
.
9.
6
4
a
c
.
9.
1
1
a
c
.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 2, 2012 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday January 3, 2012 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:
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Carla Benton, Planner; Valerie Kreger, Planner; Mike Ellagarger, Planner; Robie
Wyler, Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker
form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker
will be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3)
minutes, unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session. There was not an Executive Session.
Consent Agenda
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the December 6, 2011, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Horne to approve the consent agenda including the Minutes of the
December 6, 2011 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Second by Commissioner
Facey. Approved (7-0)
Regular Agenda
3. Public Hearing and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future
land use designation from Mixed Use Community (MUC) to High-Density Residential (HDR)
and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, located on CR
111 west of FM 1460. CPA-2011-003 (Mike Elabarger)
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 5
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 2, 2012 Page 2 of 5
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a rezoning of 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District,
located on CR 111 west of FM 1460. REZ-2011-021 (Mike Elabarger)
Staff report for item #3 and #4 were combined.
Staff report by Mike Elabarger. The property was annexed into the City, effective December
31, 2011. At the time of annexation, the property was zoned Agricultural (AG) District. The
applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from its existing Mixed Use
Community (MUC) to Mixed Use Neighborhood Center (MUN) and High‐Density Residential
(HDR). Additionally, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Agricultural
(AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF) Districts.
The re-zoning of the property and approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendments are but the first two steps needing completion prior to the actual development of
the property. Prior to any development activity occurring on the property, any future
property owner, would need to process and receive approval of :
Necessary Subdivision Plats;
Site Development Permit Application, including stormwater drainage permits
Construction plans;
Building permits for construction; and
Certificate of Occupancy for any new structures and tenants.
The proposed amendment – from Mixed Use Community to approximately 30% Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center and 70% High Density Residential – is supported by Staff for the
following reasons:
1. Recent Approvals - Recently approved future land use changes approved by City Council
in the immediate area, supporting a broader mix of High Density Residential, C-1
Commercial zoning and increased Employment Center designation along Westinghouse
Road.
2. Non-binding - Because ultimate development is not assured with any Rezoning (or
Compehensive Plan Amendment), there is general support for the inclusion of higher
density residential uses as a component of the new mixed-use model of development.
3. Synergy – Should this property develop as proposed by the applicant, it may ultimately
work to bolster the Southeast Development Zone area as a live-work-play multifunctional
activity center, provided that enough land in the corridor retain the Employment Center
future land use designation necessary to produce the employment activity necessary to
anchor the proposed residential densities.
4. Appropriate Zoning District – The MF and C-1, in their respective locations, would fulfill
the Future Land Use designations being sought by the applicant (High Density Residential
and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center, respectively) in CPA-2011-003.
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 5
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 2, 2012 Page 3 of 5
Though done in the past, the City no longer approves “conditional” rezonings , and therefore,
cannot limit the use of the property to a single defined activity , presented by an applicant.
Staff must consider the impact of all the permitted uses in the requested districts (MF and C -1)
when evaluating a rezoning request.
5. Utility Impacts: The City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans are based on the
anticipated land uses and land use densities as stipulated in the Future Land Use and Growth
Tier Plans. Applicant-driven amendments may require that the City amend these master
utility plans, triggering necessary changes to the projected long-term capital improvement
costs. Any proposed changes and the financial implications on the City’s budget require close
scrutiny, deliberation, and review by Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), and the
City Council. This property falls within the Tier 2 designation; any infrastructure
improvements necessary to facilitate the development of this property – specifically related to
water/wastewater improvements – will likely be built solely at the cost of the developer.
Should the City, at some point in the future, decide to assign this area a Tier 1 designation,
then the cost of utility infrastructure improvements for this area would likely be shifted to the
City’s Capital Improvement Program.
The proposed Southeast Development Zone, which includes this property, is intended to be
one of the key locations inside the City reserved for economically oriented development (ie,
non-residential) land uses in the City’s 2030 Plan. To facilitate the growth of employment type
development inside the Southeast Development Zoned, there is the possibility that the City’s
4-A and 4-B Economic Boards may determine that some developer funded infrastructure
improvements for the Southeast Development Zone area are eligible for some level of financial
reimbursements. Tradionally, these type of financial incentives are limited to developments
that create full-time, permanent jobs 1, and other eligible kinds of economic development.
Multifamily housing, resulting from the proposed HDR land use (and accompanying
Multifamily zoning district) would thus not be eligible for infrastructure reimbursements. The
applicant is aware of this fact and has chosen to seek a residential zoning component for the
property. However, other uses allowed by-right in the C-1 zoning district may or may not be
eligible for future infrastructure reimbursement incentives.
The Local Commercial District, C-1, is intended to provide areas for commercial and retail
activities that primarily serve residential areas, with pedestrian access to the nearby residential
areas, but location should be along major and minor thoroughfares and corridors, and not on
residential streets or collectors. Typical uses would include townhouse/multifamily dwellings
and group living situations, institutional uses, restaurants, hotels, and retail sales. In order of
intensity, the C-1 District is the middle of the three Commercial districts (CN, Neighborhood
Commercial and C-3, General Commercial).
The Multifamily District, MF, is intended for Multifamily residential development, such as
Attachment number 7 \nPage 3 of 5
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 2, 2012 Page 4 of 5
apartments, townhouses, and associated uses. This District is appropriate in areas designated
on the Future Land Use Plan for higher density and mixed -use and may be located along
major thoroughfares, and adjacent to both Residential and Non-Residential Districts.
Chair Brashear invited the applicant to speak.
Erin Welch, Land Strategies gave a presentation including aerials showing a heavily tree area and
ponds, which shall serve as a 100-200 foot buffer to the Teravista neighborhood. Ms. Welch cites
the City’s approval last year of similar requests for the nearby Windmill Hill and Bourne Tracts
and feels C1 Commercial and MF Multi-family is an equally good classification for this property.
Ms. Welch stated she was open to questions.
Commissioners asked if the buffered area addressed by the applicant can be zoned as AG
Agriculture. Staff stated that without a request from the applicant requesting AG zoning along
the south and east perimeter of the property, the Commission does not have the authority to
place a “condition” on the Rezoning of the property. The buffered area would have to be zoned
as open space, but only if the applicant requests the property to be zoned as open space.
Staff stated that given the language of the public notice requirements already posted, any
deviation from the applicant’s request not generated by the applicant would need to be reposted.
Staff did agree the applicant could postpone tonight’s decision and adjust the zoned area and
include field notes showing the buffer area to be voted on during the next meeting.
Chair Brashear opened the Public Hearing.
Dawn Dillard, 4627 Monterosa stated she is here representing the Teravista neighborhood and
has a signed petition from 64 neighbors who oppose to the proposed development. Ms. Dillard
also stated they are not only concerned with the buffer, but also the noise, traffic, crime and the
likelihood that apartments being built on the property would inevitably lead to the devaluing of
the adjoining Teravista properties.
Mike Newton, 4625 Monterosa thanked the Commissioners for taking the time to listen to their
concerns. He stated the map that is being shown by Ms. Welch is two years old and would feel
better if a more current picture showing current homes on the lots. He also stated he opposes
apartments being built in the development. He appreciates progress and understands
Georgetown is looking for what serves their citizens. Mr. Newton stated he would like some
guarantee there will not be access to his neighborhood. He is concerned with apartments being
close to his neighborhood that renters are able to look down into the home owner’s property in
Teravista.
Attachment number 7 \nPage 4 of 5
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / January 2, 2012 Page 5 of 5
Janet Litten, 1902 Colony Glen Lane, explained other expansion being made by Teravista and is
concerned with school children crossing a busy street. She would also like to see a buffer added.
Chair Brashear closed public hearing
Erin Welch, Land Strategies explained that apartments are not the only development allowed in a
multi-family zoning.
Staff stated state codes require notifications be mailed to Georgetown residents who currently live
200 feet from the adjacent property. Staff extended the notification list to include Teravista which
is generated from the Williamson Central Appraisal District records.
Staff was asked and answered that the existence of the petition submitted by the residents would
change the number of votes needed to approve the application to a majority plus one, if the
petition was signed by residents within the city limits. Given the neighbors are not residents of
the City, a simple majority is required to approve the application.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from Mixed Use
Community (MUC) to High‐Density Residential (HDR) and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center
(MUN). Second by Commissioner Armour Approved (7-0)
The applicant then requested the rezoning application be postponed to the February 7, 2012
Planning and Zoning Meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to table the Rezoning for 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District
until the February 7, 2012 Planning and Zoning meeting. Second by Commissioner Pell.
Approved. (7-0)
5. Adjourn 7:06pm
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Ercel Brashear, Chair Annette Montgomery, Secretary
Attachment number 7 \nPage 5 of 5
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / February 7, 2012 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 7 2012 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:
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton, Planner; Valerie Kreger,
Principal Planner; Mike Elabarger, Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Bridget Chapman, Acting City
Attorney and Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to
the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise
agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session
Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act
on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any
item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it
individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of
an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the
report, unless otherwise noted.
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the January 3, 2012, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to approve the consent agenda including the Minutes of the
January 7, 2012 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Second by Commissioner
Armour. Approved (7-0)
Regular Agenda
3. Consideration and Possible Action on a rezoning of 59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from
Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local Commercial (C-1) District,
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # Q
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / February 7, 2012 Page 2 of 5
located on CR 111 west of FM 1460. REZ-2011-021 (Mike Elabarger) (Public Hearing held
during the January 3, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting)
Staff report by Mike Elabarger. Staff reviewed actions taken during the January Planning and
Zoning meeting. Staff stated the applicant requested to postpone action on the application by
the Commission during the January 3rd P&Z meeting in order to investigate making changes;
ultimately, the applicant opted not to make any changes to the property application.
Mike Newton, 4625 Monterosa, Round Rock, thanked the Commissioners for giving the
neighborhood a chance to speak again and voice their opposition to this application. Mr.
Newton gave a power point presentation showing several views of the property looking into
Teravista that are not heavily tree area as the applicant indicated. He described the Teravista
neighborhood as an excellent place to live and feels the development will increase crime, traffic
and de-value the Teravista neighborhood. Mr. Newton compared this property concerns with
the development of apartments that are located on the south side of Teravista. Mr. Newton
explained the Teravista neighbors experience more noise, more traffic and the apartment
residents trespass to Teravista and enjoy the amenities without any of the responsibilities.
Brian Ortago, 125 Cedar Elm, lives in Georgetown and supports this development. Mr Ortega
feels this development is important for Georgetown and will help out the tax base.
Barbara Ferrell, 1910 Summit Hill Drive presented a petition in opposed to the proposed
development. Ms. Ferrell stated the Round Rock residences are very afraid of the outcome of
this development and feels adding apartments to this development will be harmful to the
neighbors of Teravista. Ms. Ferrell asked the Commissioners to please consider the negative
impact this will have on Teravista.
Staff explained the notification process for the Preliminary Plat application and invited citizens
to contact the Planning and Development office for information on applications. Staff also
explained state requirements and the approval process.
Erin Welch, Land Strategies representing the applicant stated the owner has stated he will be
glad to add a 150 foot designated buffer line on the Preliminary Plat application.
Chair Brashear stated he appreciates the owner’s willingness to add a buffer line to the project.
However, if the owner sells the property to another developer, the 150 feet designated buffer
line cannot be enforced.
Erin Welch stated the proposed buffered area is a drainage area and would be costly to develop.
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney stated there could be a legal contract/agreement
proposed between the owner and the Teravista neighbors.
Motion by Commissioner Facey to recommend to the City Council approval of the Rezoning for
59.21 acres in the Low Survey, from Agricultural (AG) District to Multifamily (MF) District and Local
Commercial (C-1) District. Second by Commissioner Cochran. Approved. (6-1)Commissioner Pell
Opposed.
Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # Q
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-_____
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 11 th Day of March 2003, to rezone 59.21 acres
of the B.C. Low Survey, from the Agriculture District (AG) to Local Commercial (C-1) and
Multi-family (MF); 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"):
59.21 acres of the B.C. Low Survey, as recorded in Document Number 2010055273 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 zoning district
classification 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 February 7,
2012, recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described
property from the Agriculture District (AG) to Local Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF).
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas ,
that:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
Ordinance implements the vision and policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
further finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict with any
other policies of the Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan .
Attachment number 9 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # Q
Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City, as well as the Zoning District for the
Property shall be and the same is hereby changed from the Agriculture District (AG) to Local
Commercial (C-1) and Multifamily (MF), in accordance with Exhibit A (Location Map) and
Exhibit B (Legal Description) 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 28th day of February, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 13th day of March, 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 9 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # Q
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.
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.
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
RIDGEBEND DR
SCENIC LAKE DR
FAIR
M
EADO
W DR
V
I
S
T
A
V
E
R
D
E
P
A
T
H W E S T V A L L E Y
P L
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
GREYLEAF PATH
W
O
O
D
H
A
V
E
N
TRL
SUNNY TRAIL DR
P A RKVISTA
TRL
K E M P W O O D L O O P
WOODLEDGE PL
TERAVISTA CLU B D R
WESTMEADOW
TR
L
MO
N
TE R O SA
L
O OP
C O U R M AYEUR C T
PEBBLESTONE TRL
C A N Y O N S A G E P A T H
C OLONY G
L
E
N
L
N
S
A
NSONE DR
GREATVIEW
DR
CERVINIA DR
S
C
E
N
I
C
L
A
K
E
D
R
M O N T E R O S A L N
S
U
M
M
I
T
H
I
L
L
D
R
W
ANDER
I
N
G
V I N E T R L
GREENSIDE DR
F
M
1
4
6
0
FM 1460
K
E
M
P
W
OOD
L
O
O
P
SANSONE D RSANSONE DR
SUNNY
M
EADO WS LOOP
REZ-2 011-0 21CPA-2011-003
0 1,250 2,500Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
CPA-2011-003
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Attachment number 10 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Q
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit Amendment to allow an 18-month extension
for Williams Addition, Unit 1, Block 2, Lots 1,2,3 and 4, located at 202, 204, 210 West Central Drive and
1603 Williams Drive -- Carla Benton, Planner II and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director
(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit (SUP) Amendment to allow an 18-month extension of the
previously approved SUP for the City of Georgetown, Fire Station #2. The SUP was issued on March 22,
2011 to allow for the replacement of the old Fire Station and two residences with a new Fire Department
facility designed to incorporate more current standards. The project is proceeding, but will not be able to
meet the application deadline for building permits within 12 months of approval.
Public Comments:
No additional comments have been received. At the Planning and Zoning meeting of February 7, 2012 there
were no speakers.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Public Hearing was opened at the February 7, 2012 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.
Special Considerations:
None
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the Special Use Permit Amendment to allow an 18-month extension for Williams Addition,
Unit 1, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Carla Benton, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Location Map
Conceptual Site Plan
Aerial Map
P&Z Minutes
Cover Memo
Item # R
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
SUP - Fire Station #2 Page 1 of 4
Report Date: January 23, 2012
File No: SUP-2012-001
Project Planner: Carla Benton
Item Details
Project Name: City of Georgetown, Fire Station #2
Project Address: 202, 204, 210 West Central Drive and 1603 Williams Drive
Location: The intersection of West Central Drive and Williams Drive
Total Acreage: Approximately 1.77 acres
Legal Description: Williams Addition, Unit I, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
Applicant: City of Georgetown
Property Owner: City of Georgetown
Contact: Terry Jones, Construction Manager, Support Services
Existing Use: Two Residential lots and a Fire Station, located on two lots
Existing Zoning: RS, Residential Single-Family, and Williams Drive Special Area
Plan (SAP) Overlay District
Total Area: Approximately 77,259 square feet
Overview of Applicant’s Request
The Fire Station #2 project is proceeding, but will not be able to meet the March 22, 2012
application deadline for building permit submission.
Therefore, the applicant has requested a Special Use Permit (SUP) Amendment to allow
an 18 month extension of the previously approved SUP for the City of Georgetown, Fire
Station #2. The SUP was issued on March 22, 2011 to allow for the replacement of the
old Fire Station and two residences with a new Fire Department facility designed to
incorporate more current standards.
The attached Conceptual Plan reflects the approved redevelopment of the site and with
access from both West Central Drive and Williams Drive. The complete Site Plan
application will be required to meet the requirements of the Special Area Plan (SAP)
Overlay District and the UDC.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # R
Planning & Development Staff Report
SUP - Fire Station #2 Page 2 of 4
Site Information
Location:
The existing Fire Station #2 is located on Lots 3 and 4 along with the existing Water
Tower. The proposed redesign required the removal of two residences, located on Lots
1 and 2 on Williams Drive, to provide the needed area to accommodate the new station
design.
Physical Characteristics
Of the ten trees located on the four lots, only two trees were removed. The site has been
designed to facilitate the best possible preservation of the existing trees.
Surrounding Properties:
The properties surrounding the redevelopment are single-family residential to the east
and southeast with the properties along Williams Drive, also within the SAP Overlay
District, developed as non-residential uses, such as real estate and professional offices.
Property History
On March 22, 2011, the City Council approved the Special Use Permit to allow for the
redevelopment of four lots for the City of Georgetown, Fire Station #2 in accordance
with the Unified Development Code (UDC), Use Table 5.03.010, Emergency Services
Stations that allows the use in the RS District with the approval of a Special Use Permit
from City Council. The Special Use Permits expires after 12 months unless a Building
Permit application is received.
The Special Area Plan (SAP) Overlay District, a zoning overlay district, was established
in 1986 in order to provide an orderly transition of land use from residential uses to
more non-residential uses. This overlay district created residential standards for non-
residential uses to ensure the appearance remained consistent with the residential
atmosphere of the neighborhood at that time and to mitigate for adverse impacts of this
transition on the remaining residential uses. This district originally spanned the area
from IH 35 to Power Road. Upon adoption of the UDC ordinance in 2003, the district
was reduced to the area between Shannon Lane and Power Road.
Aside from this application, there are 30 lots remaining in the District with 22 having
converted to non-residential uses, four remaining residential uses, four apparently
unoccupied structures or vacant lots.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # R
Planning & Development Staff Report
SUP - Fire Station #2 Page 3 of 4
2030 Plan Conformance
Staff had analyzed the proposed use and taken into consideration the 2030 Future Land
Use Plan. This property is included in the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center land use
category. The Land Use Plan states that the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center category
applies to smaller areas of mixed commercial use in existing and new neighborhoods.
Utilities
Wastewater, water, and electric will be served by the City of Georgetown.
Transportation
The combination of the four lots by platting will create a corner lot, located in the
general area of Rivery Blvd, Williams Drive and West Central Drive, providing greater
access for emergency response in all directions.
The sites contained five driveway cuts that will be reduced to two driveways with the
redevelopment of the site. The proposed access to Williams Drive will be only for
exiting emergency vehicles and moves the emergency response to a Major Arterial
from the existing residential collector level road. The existing driveways do not meet
current separation standards, but the new driveway will provide greater separation and
meet current standards for driveway separation.
Access for the Fire Station will be determined with the Site Plan application and
approved by the City of Georgetown Development Engineer. The applicant is required
to provide parking spaces to meet the standards of the UDC for the SAP Overlay
District.
Future Application(s)
The completion of the process will require applications for platting, Site Plan, Building
Plans, and a Certificate of Occupancy. The plat will be approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Site Plan, Building Plans, and Certificate of Occupancy
applications will be reviewed and approved by staff administratively. This will ensure
that all exterior and interior conditions are current and meet all City rules and
regulations.
Staff Analysis
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # R
Planning & Development Staff Report
SUP - Fire Station #2 Page 4 of 4
The current facility provides a service to the neighborhood and general area of town for
emergency services. The proposed redevelopment will update the facilities to meet the
needs of the increasing population of Georgetown.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommendations approval of the request for an 18-month extension of the Special
Use Permit to facilitate the completion of this project.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
None.
Public Comments
A total of 25 notices were sent out to the property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 13, 2012. There
have been no written comments received as of the writing of this report.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 3 – Aerial
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # R
W
IL
LI
A
M
S D
R
W C E N T R A L D R
O
A
K L
N
R I V E R Y B L V D
W
J
A
N
IS
D
R
S H A N N O N L N
PARK LN
R I V E R Y B L V D
I
Co ord inate Sys tem: Texas S tat e P lane/C entral Zo ne/N AD 83 /US Feet
Cart ograp hic Data Fo r Genera l P lanning P urpo ses Onl y
0 120 240
Fee t
Legend
Si teParksParce lsCity L im itsGeorgetow n E T J
Willia ms Addition Unit 1 , Block 2 , Lot s 1, 2, 3 , 4
Exhibit 1 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # R
25' RADIUS
RELOCATE EXISTING
MANHOLE
25' RADIUS
20
0
'
C
U
R
B
C
U
T
25' RADIUS
25' RADIUS
30'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10'-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING FENCE
6' SIDEWALK
6' SIDEWALK
6' SIDEWALK
25' RADIUS
27'-
6
"
R
.
O
.
W
.
30
'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
I
V
E
WEST
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
PROPOSED
7,000 s.f. - 8,000 s.f.
FIRE STATION
EXISTING
WATER
TOWER
STAFF PARKING (19)
OF
ZONING
RS
ZONING
RS
ZONING
RS
ZONING
SITE LEGEND/DATA
ONE-WAY FIRE APPARATUS DIRECTION
LAND AREA:1.74 ACRES (75,885 S.F.)
MH
S
3
3
°
2
8
'
3
7
"
E
1
1
2
.
4
1
'
S
3
3
°
4
4
'
5
9
"
E
1
4
4
.
0
9
'
N 4
1
°
1
3
'
0
9
"
E
145
.
2
1
'
S 4
1
°
1
9
'
1
6
"
W
119
.
5
5
'
S 4
1
°
1
9
'
1
6
"
W
117
.
8
7
'
S
3
6
°
5
8
'
1
9
"
E
1
6
1
.
0
4
'
N 56
°
2
0
'
0
0
"
E
140.
0
4
'
N 56
°
2
0
'
O
O
"
E
115.
0
4
'
N 54
°
2
1
'
O
O
"
E
105
.
0
3
'
February 2011
Fire Station #2
City of GeorgetownBRINKLEY SARGENT ARCHITECTS
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # R
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
R
Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda / February 7, 2012 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Draft Minutes
Tuesday, February 7 2012 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:
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent:
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director, Carla Benton, Planner; Valerie Kreger,
Planner; David Munk, City Engineer; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney and Stephanie McNickle,
Recording Secretary.
Chair Brashear called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Brashear stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker form to
the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes, unless otherwise
agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session
Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may act
on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that any
item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act upon it
individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of
an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation described in the
report, unless otherwise noted.
2. Consideration of the Minutes of the January 3, 2012, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Facey 2nd by Armour Approved (7-0)
Regular Agenda
4. Public Hearing and possible action on a Special Use Permit Amendment to allow an 18-
month extension for Williams Addition, Unit 1, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, located at 202, 204,
and 210 Central Avenue and 1603 Williams Drive. SUP-2012-001 (Carla Benton)
Applicant requested an 18-month extension of the 2011 approved SUP.
Open Public Hearing and closed. No speaker. Motion by Cochran, 2nd by Pell, Approved (7-0)
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # R
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearingand possible action on the 2ndamendment to the Somerset Hills Development Agreement,
removing from the agreement 33.54 acres located near the intersection of CR 245 and the future extension of
Ronald Reagan Blvd -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community
Development Director(action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
In 2008, the City approved an amendment to the Somerset Hills (aka Cowan Springs) Development
Agreement, adding approximately 324 acres known as the Myra Young Tract. This amendment, besides the
addition of the new acreage, made adjustments to the planned project’s location and distribution of land uses,
utilities, and timing considerations. The Young tract, while part of the development plan of Somerset Hills,
was not included in the City’s water or electric utility service areas, as was the rest of the land.
Since 2008, most of the Myra Young tract has returned to the Young family through an owner-financing
foreclosure situation. The proposed amendment would remove a portion of the remainder of the Myra Young
Tract from the Somerset Hills agreement and allow it to develop in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The
Young family has a buyer who wishes to develop the 33+ acres as low-density residential, which could not
be accomplished under the land development plan and other provisions of the agreement.
Planning and Zoning Recommendation:
At their February 7, 2012, regular meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend the
amendment to City Council. The only noteworthy discussion regarded the County's Road District for Ronald
Reagan Blvd and the effect of this action on the reimbursement of that project. Commissioner Covey was in
attendance and spoke briefly about how the development of property in the area would pay back the County
over time by a special taxing district. The City is not a part of the road district and the removal of this
property does not remove the current or future property owner(s) from their inclusion in the district. So,
acting on this amendment has no direct bearing on the County's ability to recoup their investment in Ronald
Reagan Blvd. The property owners are aware of their responsibilities with the District.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Land Use Plan from 2007
2nd Amendment Document
Staff Report
Cover Memo
Item # S
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
Somerset Hills 2nd Amendment to Development Agreement Amendment Page 1 of 4
Report Date: January 27, 2012
File No: DA-2011-003
Project Planner: Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner
Item Details
Project Name: Somerset Hills
Location: CR 245/Ronald Reagan Blvd extension (See Exhibit 1)
Total Acreage: 33.54 acres
Legal Description: 33.54 acres
Applicant: Michelle Dube
Property Owner: Myra Young
Existing Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: NA – Located in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
Proposed Zoning: NA – Will remain in ETJ
Future Land Use: Mixed-Use Community
Growth Tier: Tier 1B
Applicant’s Request
In 2007, this property was added to the Somerset Hills development agreement, to be
developed as part of a master-planned community. The property came back to the
previous owner through a foreclosure situation and they now seek to remove the 33
acres from the agreement so they can sell the land to a new buyer. The 33 acres would
simply be detached from the agreement and all entitlements and requirements
attributed to it will be removed (see Tracts A and B on Exhibit 3). There is a larger
request by the property owners to consider remove approximately 200 additional acres
from the agreement. City staff and the owners are in discussions regarding the braoder
impacts of that possibility.
Site Information
Location:
The 33.54 acres is located on CR 245, just north of the under-construction extension of
Ronald Reagan Blvd (aka Parmer Lane).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # S
Planning & Development Staff Report
Somerset Hills 2nd Amendment to Development Agreement Page 2 of 4
Physical Characteristics:
The 33-acre piece is relatively flat with limited tree cover.
Surrounding Properties:
The surrounding properties are all located in the ETJ with the exception of a 10-foot
strip along CR 245. Most of these properties are currently either undeveloped, large
acreage with a rural residence, or estate residential lots, identified on the Future Land
Use Map as Rural Residential.
Property History
In 2006, the City approved a comprehensive plan amendment and development
agreement for what was known as the Northern Lands, property that was once part of
the Sun City development. That project was first known as Cowan Springs and was
later renamed Somerset Hills. The 33-acre piece of property proposed from removal
was not part of that original acreage; it was added in 2008. The amended Future Land
Use Plan designation and the Agreement’s development plan assigned both multi-
family and mixed use land uses to the area that included the 33 acres (see exhibit 2).
There have been no other applications or approvals for this particular piece of land.
Proposed Development Agreement Amendment
The reason for the proposed amendment is to reconfigure the land boundaries and total
acreage of Somerset Hills by removing 33+ acres. The result of this action would have
very little effect on the remainder of the Somerset Hills project, as the current
developers will carry on without changes. The owners of the 33 acres, however, will be
free from any entitlements and encumbrances of the agreement and will be allowed to
develop as they choose.
Development changes to the property as a result of its removal:
· ETJ as opposed to City of Georgetown
· Annexation not required
· Any land uses allowed
· Septic instead of sewer
· Likely low-density as opposed to likely higher-density
2030 Plan Conformance
The proposed amendment is being interpreted by staff as not inconsistent with the 2030
Plan Future Land Use Plan designation of Mixed Use Community because of its
relatively small size and probable lower-intensity development. The buyer of the 33
acres is proposing 1-acre residential lots. Any larger change to the Somerset Hills
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # S
Planning & Development Staff Report
Somerset Hills 2nd Amendment to Development Agreement Page 3 of 4
development plan, such as removal of more property from the agreement, would likely
trigger a Future Land Use amendment.
The 2030 Plan Growth Tier Map designation for this project is Tier 1B. Tier 1B
comprises portions of the city or ETJ that were recently annexed or subject to
development agreements, where growth and the provision of public facilities are
anticipated within the next 10 years.
Utilities
The City of Georgetown serves electric, water, and wastewater to all of the Somerset
Hills development, except for the 324 acres once known as the Myra Young property. It
is likely that the City of Georgetown would serve wastewater to the property if it were
to develop under the agreement and, thus, at a higher density urban development. The
result of the removal of the 33 acres is that it will likely develop with septic systems.
The remainder of the Myra Young could still be connected to the Georgetown sewer
system and that is one of the issues that staff and all of the property owners are
discussing in regards to a future amendment releasing the remaining acreage.
Transportation
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not deemed necessary at this time. The 33 acres has
adequate access to CR 245 and may eventually have access to Ronald Reagan,
depending on how the remainder of the Young property is configured in the future.
Future Application(s)
The following applications are required in order to proceed with development:
· Preliminary Plat
· Construction Plan
· Final Plat
Staff Analysis
Staff Recommendation and Basis:
Staff is supportive of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement for the
following reasons:
1. The Future Land Use designation of Mixed Use Community supports the
anticipated residential development.
2. The owners of the property joined the Somerset Agreement as part of a land sale
that ultimately did not come to full fruition. Now that the prior owners have the
land again, it is difficult to assume that they will develop the land in conjunction
with another project that has a different vision.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # S
Planning & Development Staff Report
Somerset Hills 2nd Amendment to Development Agreement Page 4 of 4
3. The City of Georgetown did not serve utilities to this site and has no legal right
to serve electric or water, so removing the acreage does not have a great effect on
the provision of utilities.
4. The size of the property proposed for removal is small enough as to not have a
large impact on the development in the area.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
The property is under a Road Impact District with Williamson County for Ronald
Reagan Boulevard. This means that County has a special tax levy planned for the
development along the boundaries of the roadway, including this land. Land Uses and
development decisions made by the City of Georgetown have no bearing on the road
district and its reimbursement implications for the County. It is a matter that the
property owners will discuss, as necessary, with the County.
Public Comments
A total of 5 notices were sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
amendment. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 22nd, 2012.
One written public comment was received, in support of the amendment.
Proposed Meetings Schedule
February 7, 2012 – Planning and Zoning Commission
February 28, 2012 – City Council (tentative)
Attachments
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Land Use Plan adopted in 2007
Exhibit 3 – Property proposed for removal
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # S
C
R
2
4
5
RONALD W REAGAN BLVD
H E I D E R O S A R U N
C
R
2
4
5
±0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Exhibit 1 - Location MapSomerset Hills 2nd Amend. - 33 acres
Legend
Streets
ETJ O utline
City LimitsParcelsSite
33 a cres
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # S
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # S
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
§
§
§
SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT for
SOMERSET HILLS (formerly known as COWAN
SPRINGS
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
This Second Amendment to Development Agreement Regarding Annexation and Development
of Somerset Hills (this “Amendment”) is between the City of Georgetown, Texas (the “City”),
a home-rule city located in Williamson County, Texas and Somerset Hills, Ltd. (“Developer”),
a Texas limited partnership; Myra Young and Circle-BY Partners; and John W. Branton.
WHEREAS, Developer and the City have previously entered into that certain Development
Agreement Regarding Annexation and Development of Cowan Springs, dated May 31, 2006 (the
“Agreement”) concerning that certain real property more particularly described in the
Agreement and located within in the extra-territorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) of the City;
WHEREAS, Developer and the City have previously entered into a First Amendment, dated
March 11, 2008, which included the addition of 317.51 acres of property also known as the
“Myra Young Tract”;
WHEREAS, after the First Amendment was completed, parts of the Myra Young Tract were
returned to the original owners through a foreclosure process;
WHEREAS, 33.54 acres of the Myra Young Tract was subsequently transferred to John W.
Branton (“the Branton Tract”);
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer do not desire to see the Agreement defaulted or voided
due to any actions taken prior to or as a result of this Amendment.
WHEREAS, John W. Branton has submitted an application to the City of Georgetown seeking
approval for release of the Branton Tract from the Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Developer, Myra Young and Circle-BY Partners have signed the application
for this Amendment, concurring with the proposal to remove the Branton Tract from the
Agreement;
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer agree that no other changes to utilities, land uses, or
other entitlements to the remaining lands in this Agreement are directly affected by removing the
Branton Tract from the Agreement;
WHEREAS, this Amendment is entered into under the statutory authority of Section 212.172 of
the Texas Local Government Code (“TLGC”).
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # S
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and
the Developer agree as follows:
1. The Branton Tract is hereby released from the terms and conditions of the Development
Agreement.
2. The Development Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect and unchanged with
respect to the remaining property.
DATED TO BE EFFECTIVE ON the 28th day of February, 2012.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Property to be Removed (Survey of 33.54 acres)
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
Signature pages and Exhibits follow.)
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # S
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS,
a Texas home rule municipality
By:
George G. Garver, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
By:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
_____________________, 2012, by George G. Garver, a person known to me, in his capacity as
Mayor of the City of Georgetown, a Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation, on behalf of the
City of Georgetown.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # S
Somerset Hills, Ltd.
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:___________________________
STATE OF _____________ §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF ____________ §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
_____________________, 2012, by ______________________, as ________________ of
________________________, on behalf of said ________________.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # S
Myra Young and Circle-BY Partners
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:___________________________
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF _______ §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
_____________________, 2012, by ____________________, as ________________ of
________________________, on behalf of said ________________.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # S
John W. Branton
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:___________________________
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF _______ §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the _____ day of
_____________________, 2012, by ____________________, as ________________ of
________________________, on behalf of said ________________.
__________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # S
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
7
It
e
m
#
S
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning 0.57 acres of the Lost Addition, Block 68
(pt) from Residential Single-Family (RS) & Office (OF) Districts to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT)
District, located at 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street -- Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner and
Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
Background:
The applicant has requested to rezone 0.57 acres of Lost Addition, Block 68 (pt) from Residential Single-
Family (RS) & Office (OF) Districts to Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-DT) District. The applicant's stated
intention is to develop the lot into a small eating establishment. The current RS and OF split zoning districts
do not allow for the proposed small restaurant or a similar use. Both a legal lot and zoning verification were
completed by the City in December 2010 to confirm the split zoning and legal status of the lot. With its
current zoning classification, the property would have to be rezoned to a uniform zoning district prior to any
redevelopment of the site other than the existing parking lot. For consistency with the Future Land Use
designation and surrounding neighborhood, the owner proposes to rezone to MU-DT. Neither the RS or OF
Districts permit the proposed restaurant use.
Public Comment:
At the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission meeting on February 7, 2012, there were no public speakers
regarding this application. Staff has received one written comment in favor of the rezoning.
Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On February 7, 2012, the Commission, with a vote of 7-0, recommended approval to the City Council of the
rezoning from RS & OF to MU-DT for 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. 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) and staff review. It is included here to
present possible future site conditions the applicant wishes to utilize upon development of the property.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the first reading of the Ordinance rezoning 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street from RS & OF
Districts 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 # T
Exhibit 6 - Applicant's Request Materials
Exhibit 7 - Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 8 - Public Comment
Exhibit 9 - February 7 P&Z Draft Minutes
Draft Ordinance
Ordinance Exhibit A - Location Map
Ordinance Exhibit B - Legal Description & Field Notes
Cover Memo
Item # T
Georgetown Planning and Development Department Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 1 of 7
Report Date: February 3, 2012
File No: REZ-2011-025
Project Planner: Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner
Item Details
Project Name: 1105 MLK Rezone
Project Address: 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
Location: Northeast corner of MLK and University Avenue
Total Acreage: 0.57 acres
Legal Description: Block 68 (pt) of Lost Addition
Applicant/Agent: Roberto Garcia, ASCA, Garcia Design, Inc.
Property Owner: Dr. Richard Schram, DBA Sterling Trust
Existing Use: Parking Lot
Existing Zoning: Residential Single-Family (RS) & OF, Office
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 RS, Residential Single-Family &
OF, Office Districts to MU-DT, Mixed-Use Downtown District. The intent is to develop
the property as an eating establishment or similar use allowed under MU-DT.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 2 of 7
The current RS and OF split zoning districts do not allow for the proposed small
restaurant or similar use. Both a legal lot and zoning verification were completed by
the City in December, 2010 to confirm the split zoning and legal status of the lot. With
this zoning classification, the property would have to be rezoned to a uniform zoning
district prior to any redevelopment of the site other than a parking lot. For consistency
with the Future Land Use designation and surrounding neighborhood, the owner
proposes to rezone to MU-DT. Neither the RS or OF Districts permit the proposed
restaurant use.
Mentioned in the applicant’s letter of request, they feel the rezone is consistent with the
Future Land Use designation and surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is aware
that upon redevelopment of the property, any changes to the site will require approval
from the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (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, especially along University Avenue.
The current RS and OF split zoning hinders any redevelopment of the property and a
Mixed-Use Downtown District would allow the owner to move forward with
redevelopment of the lot.
Site Information
Location:
The property is located at the northeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Street and
University Avenue (See Exhibit 1). The site is currently situated to the west of a private
residence (north portion of the property) and an office building (south portion of the
property) with Austin Telco Credit Union and the USDA office located to the west,
across MLK Street. University Avenue runs along the south portion of the property
with a private residence located to the south.
Physical Characteristics:
The lot, located in the Downtown Overlay District, is currently being used as a parking lot
capable of holding upwards of 50 vehicles. There are two entrances to the parking lot. One
just to the north of University Avenue and another on the north side of the property, along
11th Street. The property is approximitely 95% impervious as currently developed. (See
Exhibit 4).
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 3 of 7
All future development will require compliance with current development standards in
respect to Georgetown’s Design Guidelines as well as the UDC and other regulations. This
will ensure visual consistancy in relation to surrounding properties in the Downtown
Overlay District, especially along University Avenue. 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 small office to the east and credit union 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:
Location Zoning Future Land Use Existing Use
North RS, Residential Single-
Family
Moderate Density
Residential Private Residence
South RS, Residential
Single-Family
Moderate Density
Residential Private Residence
East
RS, Residential Single-
Family & MU-DT,
Mixed-Use Downtown
Moderate Density
Residential &
Specialty Mixed-Use
Private Residence &
Office Building
West C-1, Local Commercial Moderate Density
Residential
Austin Telco Credit
Union & USDA office
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 4 of 7
Property History
The subject property is located within the Downtown Overlay District. The property
was originally given the initial zoning district classification of RS, which was the
standard district assigned to properties. In 1982, per zoning ordinance 82-22, the
northern 0.276 acres was rezoned from RS to RM3, Residential Office & Service. The
RM3 district was later renamed OF, Office by Ordinance 2003-16, adopted on March 11,
2003 when the City of Georgetown adopted its current Unified Development Code,
which abandoned the RM3 zoning district and changed all RM3 properties to OF,
Office. No City or County documentation could be found detailing the construction of
the parking lot.
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
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
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 5 of 7
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.
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 small scale eating establishment, but the
requested zoning district could also support small scale commercial and retail uses
commonly seen in the Downtown Overlay, especially along University Avenue. Other
uses that would be permitted within a MU-DT zoning district include residential, 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.
Transportation
The site currently has two direct access points. One on Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
and the other on 11th Street, both collector streets in the Overall Transportation Plan.
The intended use could be supported by these streets. Any additional access points or
even alterations to the existing ones onto the property would require approval from
both staff and HARC before being constructed.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 6 of 7
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. 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.
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 RS & OF 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 office 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. Although not in the Downtown Overlay District, a large-scale retail
strip center can be found just to the west of the property along University Avenue. The
applicant wishes to construct a building and the site appropriate in appearance to the
surrounding properties, more specifically the properties to the east and south which are
also in the Downtown Overlay District.
Additionally, the subject property is zoned in a manner that deters future development
other than a parking lot, a use that is grandfathered and would otherwise not be
permitting with this type of zoning layout. Based on previous discussions between staff
and the application, the lot could adequately support a small-scale restaurant or office
building with on-site parking and still be consistent with the Downtown Design
Guidelines. A rezone to MU-DT would allow such development.
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
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # T
Planning & Development Staff Report
1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street Rezoning Page 7 of 7
future site conditions the applicant wishes to utilize upon development of the property
to support the intended use.
Inter Departmental, Governmental and Agency Comments
N/A
Public Comments
A total of 26 notices were sent out to the property owners within 200 feet of the
proposed rezoning. Public notice was posted in the Sun newspaper on January 22, 2012.
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)
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # T
H
A
R
T
S
T
W 1 0TH ST
W U N IV E R S IT Y AV E
W 11T H ST
W 1 3 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
IN
L
U
TH
ER
K
I
N
G
JR
ST
W
E
S
T
ST
T
I
M
B
E
R
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
25
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-2011-025
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
W 1 0TH ST
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
TM
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W
E
ST
ST
W 11 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T
W 1 0 T H S T
T
I
M
B
E
R
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
ST
W 1 0TH ST
W 11T H ST
REZ-2
011-0
25
0 160 320
Feet
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-2011-025
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
W 1 0TH ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
W 11 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
W
E
S
T
ST
H
A
R
T
S
T T
I
M
B
E
R
S
T
W 1 0TH ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 11T H ST
REZ-2
011-0
25
C-1 LocalCommercial
C-1 LocalCommercial
C-3 General
Commercial
C-3 GeneralCommercial
C-3 GeneralCommercial
MF Multifamily
MF Multifamily
M U -D TMixed U s eDowntown
MU-DT
Mixed Use
Downtown
OF Office
O
F
O
f
f
i
c
e
OF Office
OF Office
OF Office
OF Office
RS ResidentialSingle-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 i l y
RS ResidentialSingle-Family
R S R e s i d e n t i a l
S i n g l e -F a m i l y
RS Residential
Single-Family
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
REZ-2011-025 LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
Zoning Information
Exhibit #3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
W 1 0TH ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
W 11 T H S T
W 1 0 T H S T
H
A
R
T
S
T T
I
M
B
E
R
S
T
W
E
S
T
ST
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 1 0TH ST
W 11T H ST
REZ-2
011-0
25
0 160 320Feet
Co ordinate System : Texas State Plane/Central Zone/NAD 83/US FeetCartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJExhibit #4
REZ-2011-025
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
T
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
6
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
T
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
#
T
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
#
T
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
#
T
EXHIBIT 9 – FEBRUARY 7 P&Z DRAFT MINUTES
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Draft Minutes
Tuesday, February 7, 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 and Roland Peña and Robert Massad
5. Public Hearing and possible action on a rezoning of 0.57 acres at Lost Addition, Block
68 (pt) from Residential Single-Family (RS) & Office (OF) Districts to Mixed-Use
Downtown (MU-DT) District, located at 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. REZ-2011-
025 (Robbie Wyler)
Staff report by Robbie Wyler. The applicant has requested to rezone the 0.57 - acre lot at
the northeast corner of MLK and University Avenue from RS & OF to MU-DT, with the
intention of redeveloping the property into a small eating establishment.
Roberto Garcia 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 # T
REZ-2011-025_DRAFT ORDINANCE
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from RS & OF to MU-DT
Date Approved: March 13, 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 0.57 acres in the
Lost Addition, Block 68 (pt), from RS, Residential Single-Family & OF, Office to MU-DT,
Mixed-Use Downtown, located at 1105 Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, as recorded in
Document Number 2010023361 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 ("The Property"):
0.57 acres in the Lost Addition, Block 68 (pt), as recorded in Document Number 2010023367
of the Official 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 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 February 7, 2012
recommended approval of the requested zoning change for the above described property from RS,
Residential Single-Family & OF, Office Districts 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 # T
REZ-2011-025_DRAFT ORDINANCE
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from RS & OF to MU-DT
Date Approved: March 13, 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 RS, Residential Single-Family & OF, Office 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 28th Day of February, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 13th Day of March, 2012.
Attachment number 11 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # T
REZ-2011-025_DRAFT ORDINANCE
Ordinance Number:___________
Description: Rezone from RS & OF to MU-DT
Date Approved: March 13, 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 # T
H
A
R
T
S
T
W 1 0TH ST
W U N IV E R S IT Y AV E
W 11T H ST
W 1 3 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
M
A
R
T
IN
L
U
TH
ER
K
I
N
G
JR
ST
W
E
S
T
ST
T
I
M
B
E
R
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
REZ-2
011-0
25
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-2011-025
Attachment number 12 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # T
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
2
It
e
m
#
T
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
2
It
e
m
#
T
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible direction to staff to submit an application to Williamson County to request FY
2012-13 Community Development Block Grant funding --Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing
Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A--Potential Eligible Project areas
Exhibit B--2012 Program Guidelines
Exhibit C--2012 Project Locations
2012 CDBG Staff Report
Cover Memo
Item # U
2012 Community Development Block Grants Page 1 of 4
February 28, 2012
Agenda Item Cover Sheet
Subject: Consideration and possible direction to staff to submit an application to
Williamson County to request FY 2012-13 Community Development Block Grant funding.
Background:
Williamson County was awarded Entitlement County Status by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2003. As such, the County applies for and
administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to participating cities
and county. The City of Georgetown currently participates in the County’s program. The
City can become an Entitlement City once the population is over 50,000 and completes a
Consolidated Plan. The population determination is made by HUD using Census data and
can happen between the Decennial Census counts. As an Entitlement City, the City would
be required to set the program priorities (as allowed by the program) and handle all
administration of the funds. Other organizations in Georgetown that have applied through
the County would apply for the funds the City receives.
All CDBG funds must be used for projects that meet at least one of the following HUD
national objectives:
· “Benefit low to moderate-income persons (below 80% Area Median Income).
Abused children, elderly persons, battered spouses, homeless persons, adults
meeting Bureau of Census’ definition of severely disabled persons, illiterate
adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers qualify as Limited
Clientele.”
· “Eliminate slums and/or blight.”
· “Meet an urgent community development need as in disaster relief.”
Additionally, the funds must be used in census tracts where there is a significant portion of
the households that make 80% of Area Median Income or less (Exhibit A). Starting this
year, applications will need to use the American Communities Survey (ACS) which is
gathered every three years. Data for the new Census tracts will not be available until June
at the earliest, so the above referenced map identifies the areas that qualified in the past. If
the new tracts do not qualify, either the project will be ineligible or staff will have to do a
door to door survey to qualify a smaller subarea that the project will serve. Due to this
information lag, the County staff will recommend projects for approval, with some backup
projects added in the event that the recommended projects are not eligible.
The Williamson County CDBG program replaced the 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan with the
2009-2014 Consolidated Plan. This new Plan redefined some of the priorities from the
previous Consolidated Plan. Funding for non-housing community development proposals
that eliminate threats to public health and safety is still a high priority with in the Plan.
This includes infrastructure improvements such as neighborhood facilities, drainage
improvements, and sidewalks. However, the Plan has changed in that it now prioritizes
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # U
2012 Community Development Block Grants Page 2 of 4
February 28, 2012
projects that expand the supply or will improve the condition of housing affordable to
lower income households. Infrastructure projects that work in conjunction with projects
that supply affordable housing will score better (Exhibit B).
Over the last seven years, the City of Georgetown has received the following amounts for
the projects listed below:
2005 $85,000 Leander/Railroad Street and Utility Improvements (in
conjunction with Habitat for Humanity’s Old Mill
Village Development)
2006 $50,000 Continuation of Leander Street drainage
2007 $250,000 and street improvements
2008 $179,595 Completion of Leander and 22nd Street drainage and
street improvements (Completed March 2009), expanded
original scope to add sidewalks and drainage
improvements on 22nd Street (Completed August 2010).
$120,000 Sidewalk from Austin Avenue to Quail Valley Drive
on FM 1460 (Completed May 2011)
2008 Total $299,595
2009 $64,590 Sidewalk from West University Avenue to 17th Street
on the west side of Scenic Drive. (in process)
2010 $392,370 Sidewalks on portions of Scenic, 18th, Maple and Holly
Streets (Exhibit C) (in process)
$50,000 Sewer and Water Connections for income qualified
households (in process)
$16,000 Funds for the Good Neighbor Program (in process)
2010 Total $458,370
2011 $69,180 Sidewalks for the Madella Hillard Center and along 8th
Street (in process)
Item Request
Applications for the October 2012 budget cycle are due March 6th. The County made the
application available on February 6th. This year we are seeking funds for several projects
outlined below. Each project has different options and funding levels that can be
approved.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # U
2012 Community Development Block Grants Page 3 of 4
February 28, 2012
Fire Protection installation
The neighborhood east of Austin Avenue including Morrow and Spring Streets (Exhibit C)
has few fire hydrants and no water lines that are adequate for the addition of new
hydrants. The Systems Engineering Department is looking at a project for FY2013 that
would install 8 and 12 inch water lines with fire hydrants to provide fire protection for the
neighborhood. The entire project will cost around $1.1 million. With our application, we
will ask for $400,000.
Camp and Recreation Center scholarships
The Parks and Recreation Department holds summer and holiday camps for children of
different ages and this year will begin incorporating special needs services. Depending on
the camps, fees can range anywhere from $75 to $150 per week. We will apply for funds to
defray the cost of the programs to eligible households. Similarly, some families cannot
afford a Recreation Center membership. A youth recreation center membership is $73
annually for residents of Georgetown. Eligible households can apply for free or reduced
cost memberships based on income requirements.
Up to 15% of the total allocation for Williamson County can be used for Social Service
funding, under which this would fall. Based on the usage of the camp programs and past
County allocations of social service funding we are requesting $50,000.
Parks Improvements
San Jose Park (1707 San Jose Street) and Chautauqua Park (602 Rucker Street) are both
older parks with aging amenities. Both currently include restrooms that have reached the
end of their useful life and need to be replaced. The need in San Jose Park is more
immediate and will take priority in the request. The total request for both parks is
$200,000.
Sidewalk Routes
These projects will fill gaps in sidewalk routes in already developed areas and increase
pedestrian safety for high priority routes. The sidewalk projects are listed in the order of
priority for funding.
1. Sidewalks along University Avenue from I-35 to Austin Avenue on both the
north and south sides. (Exhibit C)
· Total estimated project cost: $125,080
There are two major gaps on the south side of University that have no sidewalk.
We will also look at areas that have 3 or 4 foot wide sidewalks that do not meet
current sidewalk standards.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # U
2012 Community Development Block Grants Page 4 of 4
February 28, 2012
2. Sidewalk along Austin Avenue from Williams Drive to Morrow Street on both
the east and west sides. (Exhibit C)
· Total estimated project cost: $105,070
This route has some existing sidewalks but they are not consistent on either side
of the road. This project would complete the routes on both sides.
3. Total estimated project cost: Sidewalks along Riverbend Drive from Williams
Drive to Northwest Boulevard.
· Total estimated project cost: $84,040
This route has some existing sidewalks but they are not consistent on either side
of the road. This project would complete the routes on both sides.
The total estimated costs of all three priorities: $314,200
The total request for all applications is $964,200. This will not all be funded but will
provide for options if some areas of the city do not fall in eligible Census Tracts.
Financial Impact: For this round of funding, the Williamson County Commissioners
Court revised their approval process to allow cities to include engineering costs in the
grant request. Many smaller cities do not have any in house engineering staff and cannot
oversee any part of the projects. We can apply for the engineering funds, but they may
not be approved.
If these allocations are recommended, the City may need to budget the engineering
funds for the 2012-13 fiscal year. The maximum estimated cost to the City could be
$71,010. The engineering amount will be used as matching funds which will increase
the project approval score.
Otherwise, all grant matching will be provided with funds already budgeted for the
respective programs and in staff time and resources.
Recommendation: Approval to submit applications for the projects described in this
report.
Attachments: Exhibit A—Potential CDBG eligible areas; Exhibit B—2012 CDBG Program
Guidelines and Priorities; Exhibit C—CDBG Sidewalk Projects Areas 2012
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # U
72%61%
58%
84%48%
C
R
1
5
2
IH 35
F M 9 7 1
CR 104
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
C
R
1
4
0
E S H 2 9
SHELL RD
WILLIAMS DR
S
H
1
3
0
N AUSTIN AVE
W S H 2 9
NE INNER LOOP
S A N A L O M A D R
L A K E W A Y D R C R 1 5 1
C R 1 5 0
E U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
AIRPORT RD
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
N
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
SE INNER LOOP
N
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
CR 110
WOLF
RANCH PKWY
17TH ST M
A
P
L
E
S
T
L
U
N
A
T
R
L
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
W U N IV E R S IT Y AV E
RIVERY BLVD
FM 1460
L O G A N R A N C H R D
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
E MORROW ST
SH 195
L E A N D E R R D SH 130
WILLIAMS DR
F M 9 7 1
S
H 13
0
F M 971
AIRPORT RD
F M 9 7 1CR 1 5 2
N IH 35 SB
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
N
B
W
ILLIA
M
S D
R N IH 35 FWY SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
C
R
1
0
4
C
R
1
4
0
S IH 35 SB
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
S H E L L R D
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
C
R
1
0
3
SH 130 SB
NE INNER LOOP
N AUSTIN AVE
S
H
1
3
0
N
BW UNIVERSITY AVE
LAKEWAY DR
S IH 35 FWY NB
C R 1 5 1
WOLF RD
SE R E N A D A D R
A
S
H
S
T
P
IN
E
S
T
B
E
R
R
Y
L
N
G R O V E L N
DAW
N DR
N IH 35 NB
E
A
S
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
C H A M P I O N S D R C R 1 6 2
S E D R O T R L
MALAGA DR
S
K
Y
LIN
E R
D
M E S A D RM
A
D
R
I
D
D
R
PARK LN
B R A N G U S R D
CAVU RD M
A
R
K
E
T ST
R
U
S
K
L
N
PA
RK
ER D
R
R
I
V
E
R
C
H
A
S
E
B
L
V
D
CEDAR BREAKS RD
E SH 29
SEVILLA DR
WE
S
T
S
T
S I E R R A D R
C A R L S O N C V
L O V I E L N
WINDY HILL RD
D E E R T R L
SHEPHERD RD
WILD W O O D D R
R A N C H R D
SP
RIN
G VALLEY R
D
MES
QUITE LN
E S E Q U O I A T R L
WESTWOOD LN
S
A
B
I
N
E
D
R
A
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
L
ADDIE LN
FO
R
EST ST
O A K C R E S T L N
M
I
L
L
E
R
H
I
L
L
R
D
TURT
LE B
ND
C
A
S
S
I
D
Y
D
R
R I D G E O A K D R
RIV
E
R R
D
K
A
T
Y
L
N
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
V
D
E
R
B
Y
L
N
R
O
W
A
N
D
R
S
O
N
O
R
A
T
R
C
E
TOLEDO TRL
M E D A S T
V
I
N
E
S
T
MIRAMAR DR
WOODLAKE DR
R
A
I
N
D
A
N
C
E
D
R
B I G D R
C
L
A
R
I
S
L
N
T
H
U
N
D
E
R
B
A
Y
D
R
VINCA DR
H A L M A R C V
CDBG El ig ib leTract, Bl o ck G rou p
Tr act 20 1 01 , BG 2
Tr act 20 1 02 , BG 3Tract 21 4 .0 1, BG 1
Tr act 21 4 .0 2, BG 1Tract 21 4 .0 2, BG 2
Tr act 21 4 .0 2, BG 3
Tr act 21 4 .0 2, BG 4Tract 21 4 .0 3, BG 2
Exhibit ACommunity Dev elop men t Blo ck Grant Eligible A reas & Percentage of Low-Moderate Income
±
Cartographic D ata For General Planning Purposes Only
February 5 , 2010
1 i nch = 4 ,000 feet
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
59%
47%
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # U
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM GUIDELINES and PRIORITIES
FUNDING FOR FY2012 (OCT. 1, 2012 – SEPT. 30, 2013)
Williamson County was awarded Entitlement County status by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
in August 2003. The County applied for and received funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. Funds are intended to primarily benefit low- to moderate-income persons in Williamson County. This area is
comprised of the unincorporated area of the County and the incorporated cities that have joined the urban County designation.
These cities include Cedar Park, Georgetown, Granger, Jarrell, Leander, Liberty Hill, Taylor, Thrall and Weir.
HUD will begin using American Community Survey 3-5 year data beginning with the 2012 funding cycle. This data is expected
to be available June or July 2012 and will be used in determining the eligibility of projects. All projects requesting Williamson
County CDBG funds will be reviewed for funding. However, the proposed funding amounts are not guaranteed until final
verification of project eligibility is determined based on the new American Community Survey data.
The following information is designed to provide you with a better understanding of activities which can be funded through the
Williamson County CDBG program.
Please contact Sally Bardwell, Williamson County Grants Coordinator, for assistance.
512-943-3757
sbardwell@wilco.org
Applications must be received by 5pm on March 6, 2012.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
PROJECTS MUST BE DESIGNED TO MEET AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES:
Benefit low to moderate income persons, households (see income guidelines below), or areas. Abused
children, elderly persons, battered spouses, homeless persons, adults meeting Bureau of Census’ definition of
severely disabled persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers qualify as
Limited Clientele and presumed low to moderate income.
Eliminate slums and/or blight.
Meet an urgent community development need as in disaster relief.
FUNDING PRIORITIES AND GUIDELINES
High priorities are those activities that will be considered for funding with CDBG funds durin g the five-year
period of 2009 through 2013 prior to medium and low priorities.
Medium priorities are those activities that will be considered for funding with CDBG funds during the five -
year period of 2009 through 2013 following the consideration of high priorities.
Low priorities are those activities that will NOT be funded with CDBG funds by the County during the five -
year period of 2009 through 2013; however, the County will consider providing certifications of consistency
and supporting applications submitted by other entities for non-County funds.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 5
Item # U
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
WILLIAMSON COUNTY WILL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES TO PRIORITIZE THE USE
OF CDBG FUNDS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS:
Fund non-housing community development proposals that eliminate a threat to public h ealth and safety. An
example of this type of activity might involve the extension of a water line to an area served by lower income
households whose private wells have been contaminated.
Fund activities that expand the supply and/or improve the condition of housing affordable to lower income
households, especially when these projects are undertaken in conjunction with public infrastructure
improvements. Housing production allows for units to be added to the market under the assumption that
they will provide long-term assistance. Carrying out infrastructure improvements (such as sidewalk, curb,
drainage, water, sewer and/or street improvements) in the immediate vicinity of new housing production will
capitalize on the housing investment and add value to a larger residential area.
Fund public facility proposals that benefit lower income households and persons, and persons with special
needs.
Fund projects that provide housing and supportive public services to lower income households and persons,
as well as persons with special needs. (15% of the County’s CDBG allocation can be used for public
services).
Fund activities that revitalize residential neighborhoods and stabilize business districts that are located
within walking distance of residential neighborhoods.
Fund projects that leverage other public and private resources.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 5
Item # U
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
THE FOLLOWING CHARTS REFLECT THE COUNTY’S PRIORITIES FOR
CDBG FUNDING FOR 2009-2013.
HOUSING NEEDS
Extremely Low Income (0% up to 30% of MFI)
2009-2013 Funding Priority
Re
n
t
e
r
s
Elderly Low
Small Related Low
Large Related Low
All Other Low
Ow
n
e
r
s
Elderly High
Small Related High
Large Related High
All Other High
Very Low Income (30% up to 50% of MFI)
2009-2013 Funding Priority
Re
n
t
e
r
s
Elderly Low
Small Related Low
Large Related Low
All Other Low
Ow
n
e
r
s
Elderly High
Small Related High
Large Related High
All Other High
Low Income (50% up to 80% of MFI)
2009-2013 Funding Priority
Re
n
t
e
r
s
Elderly Low
Small Related Low
Large Related Low
All Other Low
Ow
n
e
r
s
Elderly High
Small Related High
Large Related High
All Other High
HOMELESS NEEDS
Fa
m
i
l
i
e
s
Housing Type 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Emergency Shelters High
Transitional Housing Medium
Permanent Supportive Housing Medium
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
Housing Type 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Emergency Shelters Medium
Transitional Housing Low
Permanent Supportive Housing Low
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 5
Item # U
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS
Special Needs Population 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
s
Persons w/ Mental Illness Medium
Developmentally Disabled Medium
Physically Disabled Medium
Alcohol/Other Addiction Medium
Frail Elderly Low
Persons w/ HIV/AIDS Low
Public Housing Residents Low
Su
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ne
e
d
s
Special Needs Population 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Frail Elderly High
Persons w/ Mental Illness High
Developmentally Disabled High
Physically Disabled High
Alcohol/Other Addiction High
Public Housing Residents High
Persons w/ HIV/AIDS Low
NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Public Facilities and Improvements 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Neighborhood Facilities High
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements High
Flood Drain Improvements High
Water/Sewer Improvements High
Street Improvements High
Sidewalks High
Homeless Facilities Medium
Youth Centers Medium
Child Care Centers Medium
Health Facilities Medium
Abused and Neglected Children Facilities Medium
Handicapped Centers Low
Parks, Recreational Facilities Low
Parking Facilities Low
Tree Planting Low
Fire Stations/Equipment Low
Asbestos Removal Low
Facilities for AIDS Patients Low
Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs Low
Economic Development 2009-2013 Funding Priority
Commercial/Industrial Rehabilitation Medium
Commercial/Industrial New Construction Low
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 5
Item # U
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
SELECTION GUIDELINES
1. The project must meet one or more of the three national objectives.
2. The project must be a Consolidated Plan Priority activity.
3. The project or segment of a phased project must be ready to begin when funds become available on or after
October 1, 2012 and be completed within one year or a reasonable amount of time.
4. When required, leveraged funds must be available at start of project.
5. Documentation of income eligibility and other demographic information is required.
6. The project sponsor must be able to meet all Williamson County requirements for insurance coverage.
FY 2012 Income Limits Summary
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX MSA
FY 2012
Income
Limit
Area
Median
Income
FY 2012
Income
Limit
Category
1
Person
2
Person
3
Person
4
Person
5
Person
6
Person
7
Person
8
Person
Austin-
Round
Rock-San
Marcos,
TX MSA
$75,900
Very Low
(50%)
Income
Limits
$26,600 $30,400 $34,200 $37,950 $41,000 $44,050 $47,100 $50,100
Extremely
Low (30%)
Income
Limits
$15,950 $18,200 $20,500 $22,750 $24,600 $26,400 $28,250 $30,050
Low (80%)
Income
Limits
$42,500 $48,600 $54,650 $60,700 $65,600 $70,450 $75,300 $80,150
The Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX MSA contains the following areas: Bastrop County, TX ; Caldwell County, TX ; Hays County, TX ; Travis
County, TX ; and Williamson County, TX .
POVERTY INCOME DEFINITIONS
0-30% of Medium Income Extremely Low Income
31-50% of Medium Income Very Low Income
51-80% of Medium Income Low Income
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 5
Item # U
Chautauqua Park
San Jose Park
Fire Protection Improvements
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 FW Y SB
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S IH 35 NB
A
S
H
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T PIN
E
ST
S
A
U
S
TIN
AVE
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E U N IV ER SIT Y AV E
E 1 5TH S T
E 7 T H S T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
R
O
C
K
S
T
E 1 3 T H S T
RAILROAD AVE
H
O
L
LY
S
T
L E A N D E R R D
S
M
YRT
LE
S
T
J
A
N
L
N
Q U A IL V A L L E Y D R
E 5 T H S T
E 4 T H S T
W
E
S
T
S
T
E 2 N D S T
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
S M I T H C R E E K R D
E 6 T H S T
N COLLEGE ST
W U N I V E R S I T Y AVE
W 1 7T H S T
W 8 T H S T
W 1 0T H ST
N
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
OL
I
V
E
S
T
EXIT 261 NB
WOLF RANCH PKWY
W 4 T H S T
A
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
T
R
L
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 11 T H S T
WA
LN
U
T
S
T
W 2 2 N D S T
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
W 1 8 T H S T
PERKINS PL
W 2 1 S T S T
ENTR 262 SB
K
A
T
Y
L
N
E 2 1ST S T
EXIT 260 SB
ENTR 261 NB
E 1 9 T H S T
E 11 T H S T
E 1 0T H S T
E 1 8 T H S TH
A
RT
S
T
H
O
W
R
Y
D
R
EXIT 261 SB
RIVER HILLS DR
INDUST RIAL AVE
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
V
IN
E
S
T
W
L
W
A
L
D
E
N
D
R
E 1 4TH ST
EXIT 261A NB
D RIV E W AY
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
FINCH LN
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
DLIVE O A K D R
T
E
X
S
T
A
R
D
R
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
L
O
U
I
S
E
S
T
E 8 T H S T
H
A
V
E
N
L
N
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
S
T
PAI
GE ST
E 2 0 T H S T
C
R
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
L
NW 24TH ST
N O A K H O L L O W R D
L
O
N
D
O
N
L
NTASUS WAY
SO ULE DR
VIVION LN
W 1 3 T H S T
RIVERY DRIVEWAY E 3 R D S T
W 9TH ST
BLUE HOLE PARK RD
S
I
M
O
N
R
D
J
A
M
E
S
S
T
E 1 7TH S T
W 2 N D S T
E 9 T H S T
M C C O Y P L
C
A
R
O
L C
T
J
M
P
A
G
E
L
N
GREENBRANCH DR
M C K E N Z I E D R
W 2 N D S T
E 9 TH S T
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
W 9 T H S T
V
I
N
E
S
T
E 2 1 S T S T
E 8 TH S T
Community Development Block Grant Projects A reas
±
Cartographic Data For General Planning Purposes Only
February 21, 2012
1 inch = 1,400 feet
0 370 740 1,110 1,480185Feet
Type 2008 CDBG
2009 CDBG
2012 Application
Hospital Portion
Existing Sidewalks
2011 CDBG2010 CDBG
Exhibit C
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # U
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of support for the Texas Transportation
Commission to re-designate a segment of RM 2338 as State Spur 158 from the IH 35 South Bound
Frontage Road to Austin Avenue/State Spur 158 -- Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Texas Department of Transpotation has requested the City of Georgetown pass a resolution which will
support the Texas Transportation Commission action to re-designate a portion of FM 2338 to State Spur
158. The re-designation area is the small segment of RM 2338 from the IH 35 Southbound frontage road to
Austin Avenue/State Spur 158. Two segments were created when Williamson County and the City of
Georgetown accepted the portion of Williams Drive from the southbound frontage road to FM 3405 from the
State Highway System.
The re-designation does not mean the City will have any additional maintenance responsibility, nor will it
affect businesses, as they all have Williams Drive or Austin Avenue addresses. It is simply changing the the
roadway inventory name to one consitent with the State Highway inventory used by TxDOT.
The non-contiguous portion of RM 2338 from FM 3405 to the northwest will remain the same.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transporation Services Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A
Cover Memo
Item # V
Resolution Number: _______________
Re-Designation of RM 2338 to State Spur 158
February 28, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Supporting the Re-designation of a Non-Continuous Segment of RM 2338
to State Spur 158 from the Interstate 35 Southbound Frontage Road to
Austin Avenue.
Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission, by Minute Order 111544 approved
September 25, 2008, removed s Segment of RM 2338, beginning at the IH-35 southbound
frontage road and ending at FM 3405, from the State Highway System and
Whereas, the removal of that segment of RM 2338 created two non-contiguous
segments of RM 2338 on the State Highway System; and
Whereas, the segment from the Interstate 35 southbound frontage road to Austin
Avenue may be re-designated as part of State Spur 158 by the Texas Transportation
Commission; and
Whereas, the re-designation of the roadway on the State Highway System will not affect
Williamson County/City of Georgetown 911 addressing and street naming policies applied to
this segment named “Williams Drive.”
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS:
Section 1, the City of Georgetown supports the decision of the Texas Department of
Transportation to re-designate the segment of FM 2338 to State Spur 158 as shown in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28th day of February, 2012.
ATTEST:
_______ __ _
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary George G. Garver, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # V
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
#
V
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action regarding requests from Johnny B. Gantt to sublease portions of the
Gantt Aviation Building to Aero Centex dba Chartwell Properties, L.P. and GTU Turbine, LLC dba
Georgetown Turbine Services -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager;
and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
Requests were made from Johnny B. Gantt to sublease portions of the Gantt Aviation Building to Aero
Centex dba Chartwell Properties, L.P. and GTU Turbine, LLC dba Georgetown Turbine Service.
Board Recommendation:
At the February 20, 2012 Airport Advisory Board meeting, the Board voted 5-1 (1-absent) to not approve
the requests from Johnny B. Gantt to sublease portions of the Gantt Aviation Building to Aero Centex dba
Chartwell Properties, L.P. and GTU Turbine, LLC dba Georgetown Turbine Service.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Sarah Hinton, Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Correspondence fm Johnny B. Gantt - 013112
Memorandum of Sublease Aero Centex
Correspondence fm Johnny B. Gantt 020612
Memorandum of Sublease GTU Turbine
Gantt Agreement - Section V(f) 1977
Cover Memo
Item # W
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
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
2
It
e
m
#
W
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
5
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
It
e
m
#
W
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock,
Texas, for the development of Plans, Specifications and Estimate and the process for the acquisition of
Rights-of-Way related to the FM 1460 Improvements Project between Quail Valley Drive and University
Boulevard in the amount of $356,500.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and
Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer
ITEM SUMMARY:
Under Task Order BGE-11-001, the City contracted with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for
professional engineering services to produce an updated Project Schematic, Preliminary Engineering Design
to the 30% level of effort, including Rights-of-Way (ROW) documents, for the FM 1460 Roadway
Improvements Project from Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard and Final Construction Plans,
Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for the portion from Quail Valley Drive to South of La Conterra Drive
in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
Discussions with the City of Round Rock and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have
resulted in a partnering effort with direction from both agencies to complete the Final PS&E for the entire
length. The City has agreed to be the lead partner and the City of Round Rock has agreed to fund the
additional costs for developing the additional PS&E under a separate Interlocal Agreement (ILA) from
Westinghouse Road to University Boulevard. By completing the Final PS&E for the entire project, the City
of Round Rock and City of Georgetown have received a commitment from TxDOT to work to secure 90/10
ROW and utility relocation dollars for the entire project. This will result in having TxDOT construction
plans, with cleared ROW and utilities, ready for bid in FY 2014.
The attached ILA provides that the City of Round Rock will provide funding to complete the Final PS&E for
the section of FM 1460 from Westinghouse Road to University Boulevard. PS&E for the FM 1460
improvements will be designed in accordance with TxDOT criteria and standards. In the near future, the
City of Georgetown will acquire all ROW on behalf of TxDOT in accordance with its property acquisition
regulations and a separate ILA will be developed with the City of Round Rock for their participation for
property in their ETJ.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the February 10,
2012 GTAB Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend City Council approval of the Proposed Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
TxDOT has developed with it’s partner agencies the attached Funding Matrix which show the distribution of
existing committed funds and bonds sold by the City. By completing this work now, we are aligning the
region to receive approximately $15 million dollars in TxDOT ROW and utility relocation assistance over
the next two years, and shaving 3 to 5 years off of project development.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek/Bill Dryden
ATTACHMENTS:
FM 1460 FUND MATRIX
FM 1460 LINE DIAGRAM
DRAFT ILA W/ROUND ROCK PART 1
DRAFT ILA W/ROUND ROCK PART 2 Cover Memo
Item # X
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
#
X
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
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
0
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
4
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
X
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve the First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001
withBrown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, (dated October 25, 2011) related to the FM 1460
Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount of
$673,000.00 -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Bill Dryden, P.E.,
Transportation Engineer
ITEM SUMMARY:
Under Task Order BGE-11-001, the City contracted with Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for
professional engineering services to produce an updated Project Schematic, Preliminary Engineering Design
to the 30% level of effort, including Rights-of-Way Documents, for the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements
Project from Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard and Final Construction Plans, Specifications and
Estimate (PS&E) for the portion from Quail Valley Drive to South of La Conterra Drive.
Discussions with the City of Round Rock and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have
resulted in a partnering effort with direction from both agencies to complete the Final PS&E for the entire
length. The City has agreed to be the lead partner and the City of Round Rock has agreed to fund the
additional costs for developing the additional PS&E under a separate Interlocal Agreement (ILA) from
Westinghouse Road to University Boulevard. However, this agreed upon additional work left a short gap in
completing FM 1460. The City of Georgetown has agreed to fund the additional costs of this “gap” section,
thus having completed PS&E for the full length of FM 1460 from Quail Valley Drive to University
Boulevard.
The costs of this additional work is $673,000.00, with the City of Round Rock funding $356,500.00 of the
additional costs; the City of Georgetown funding the balance of $316,500.00. Upon completion of the PS&E
from Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard will have two “shovel ready” projects for construction by
mid-year 2014. Based upon this anticipated date, the cities of Georgetown and Round Rock, along with
TxDOT and Williamson County, are collectively seeking the funding to be able to construct this remaining
portion of FM 1460.
Attached is the Proposed First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown & Gay Engineers related
to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to University Boulevard) in the amount
of $673,000.00.
GTAB BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GTAB Board for Council approval at the February 10,
2012 GTAB Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Proposed First Amendment to Task Order BGE-11-001 with Brown &
Gay Engineers, Inc., related to the FM 1460 Roadway Improvements Project (Quail Valley Drive to
University Boulevard) in the amount of $673,000.00, contingent upon separate approval of the Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Round Rock.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funding for the City of Georgetown’s portion is available from the Roadway Improvement Bond Program as
approved by the voters in November 2008. Funding for the City of Round Rock’s portion is in accordance
with the terms of the Interlocal Agreement between the respective cities.
SUBMITTED BY:
Edward G. Polasek, Bill Dryden
Cover Memo
Item # Y
ATTACHMENTS:
task order BGE 11-001 part 1
task order BGE 11-001 part 2
task order BGE 11-001 part 3
Cover Memo
Item # Y
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
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
2
It
e
m
#
Y
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
#
Y
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
#
Y
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
#
Y
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
#
Y
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
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
3
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
6
It
e
m
#
Y
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CDM-12-003 with CDM Smith, Inc., of Austin,
Texas, for professional services related to Water and Wastewater System Master Plan Update in the
amount of $112,340.00 -- David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer and Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This Task Order is for the necessary and timely update to the Master Plans for the water distribution system
and the wastewater collection system. Both utility Master Plans were last completed in December
2008. Typically, “best practice” is to update each plan every three years. This update was delayed one
additional year due the slower development trends and delayed utility improvements into out years. Each
Master Plan and subsequent engineering model update will incorporate all new lines and connections into
each system. Any operational improvements and completed capital improvement projects will be updated to
each system, also.
One purpose of each Master Plan update is to properly assess existing conditions and predict future
conditions based upon changes to each system. Each Master Plan is the foundation upon which the utility
yearly Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is planned and Impact Fee is calculated. A well-defined and
scheduled implementation of the planned CIP will be developed for the water and wastewater systems. The
utility is a responsible steward of the current and future water supply needs of the city and community. As
part of gauging the effects of water conservation efforts, water consumption by customer class will be
evaluated and compared to historic water utilization numbers.
Through its process to select providers of professional services, the City has selected CDM Smith, Inc. of
Austin, Texas as the most qualified firm to provide engineering service for updating the Master Plans. Since
the early 1990’s, CDM Smith has successfully developed and updated the Master Plans of the water and
wastewater systems, for the City of Georgetown.
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:
This item was unanimously recommended by the GUS Board for Council approval at the February 10, 2012
GUS Board meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval for Task Order CDM-12-003 in the amount of $112,340.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
See attached CIP - Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet
SUBMITTED BY:
David Munk, P.E., Utility Engineer/Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
ATTACHMENTS:
CDM-12-003 W WW Master Plan Budget Form
Task Order CDM-12-003
Cover Memo
Item # Z
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
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
2
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
8
It
e
m
#
Z
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Forwarded from the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO):
Consideration and possible action to approve the First Amended Agreement by and between GCV
Enterprises, LLC dba Grape Creek Vineyards and the Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO), the related Lease Agreement and Promissory Note -- Bridget Chapman, Acting
City Attorney and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City Council approved the Agreement between GEDCO and Grape Creek Vineyards and the related
Real Estate Sales Contract on August 23, 2011. Thereafter, the City Council approved a First Amended Real
Estate Sales Contract incorporating a provision for the cost and expense for repair and/or reconstruction of
the wood floor system at the 101 W. 7th Street location, and also extending the deadline to close on the real
estate transaction until January 31, 2012. The closing date took place on January 27, 2012.
The Agreement that was approved by the City Council incorporated a timeline based upon the original
closing date. Accordingly, the Agreement between GEDCO and Grape Creek Vineyards and related Lease
Agreement and Promissory Note Agreement need to be amended to adjust the timeline based upon the actual
closing date.
The Georgetown Economic Development Corporation considered this item at its Meeting on February 28,
2012.
ATTACHMENT
1. First Amended Agreement
2. Lease Agreement
3. Promissory Note
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Bridget Chapman, City Attorney and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Grape Creek Agreement, Lease Agreement and Promissory Note
Cover Memo
Item # AA
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
2
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
3
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
4
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
5
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
6
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
7
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
8
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
9
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
0
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
1
o
f
6
1
It
e
m
#
A
A
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
First Reading of an Ordinance amending the 2011/12 Annual Operating Plan Element (budget) due to
conditions that resulted in excess fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2010/11 due to the timing of capital
projects and other expenditures; appropriating the various amounts thereof; and repealing all ordinances or
parts of ordinances in conflict therewith -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance
Director; and Lorie Lankford, Controller (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
On February 14, 2012 the Council discussed and approved the use of excess fund balance from the General
Fund at the end of 2010/11 totaling $835,860. The items approved are included in this budget amendment.
The bonus program is included in this amendment for a total of $420,000. The total is split $140,000 each to
the General Fund, Electric Fund and Water Fund.
The other items included in this budget amendment are to account for the timing of capital projects and other
expenditures that were originally expected to be completed or under way at the end of fiscal year
2010/2011. The funds for these items need to be rolled forward to the fiscal year 2011/12 budget.
All of the above were not known at the time the 2011/12 budget was adopted. This budget amendment
addresses the legal and financial appropriation needed to accommodate these changes. The detailed
distribution of the amendment is included in the attachment to the ordinance labeled Exhibit A.
General Fund $ 835,860
General Capital Project Fund $ 16,118,454
Special Revenue Funds $ 2,838,976
Fleet Management Fund $ 6,700
Information Technology Fund $ 36,500
Stormwater Fund $ 1,240,240
Electric Fund $ 1,031,712
Water Services Fund $ 271,800
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:
The net increase in total budgeted expenditures for 2011/12 for the City of Georgetown is $22,380,242. The
increase is funded through excess fund balances at the end of fiscal year 2010/11 and bond fund balances
issued in previous years. The proposed budget amendment does not reduce the originally projected fund
balance available for the 2012/13 budget cycle
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Exhibit A
Cover Memo
Item # BB
Ordinance Number:____________ Page 1 of 2
Description: Roll-forward Budget Amendment
Date Approved: March 13, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. __________________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2011/12 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN
ELEMENT (BUDGET) DUE TO CONDITIONS THAT RESULTED IN
EXCESS FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 DUE
TO THE TIMING OF CAPITAL PROJECTS AND OTHER EXPENDITURES;
APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS THEREOF; AND
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, certain capital improvement and other planned projects budgeted in FY
2010/11 were not completed in FY 2010/11; and
WHEREAS, these certain capital improvements and other planned projects need
funds and related budget appropriations to be rolled forward into FY 2011/12; and
WHEREAS, the General Fund, Electric Fund and Water Fund had fund balance in
excess of amounts projected at the time of the FY 2011/12 budget adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown wishes to use those excess
funds for one-time expenditures in FY 2011/12; and
WHEREAS, the changes were unknown and unforeseeable at the time the fiscal
year 2011/12 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 2011/12 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,
2011, and ending September 30, 2012. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit
“A”, and incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION 3.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # BB
Ordinance Number:____________ Page 2 of 2
Description: Roll-forward Budget Amendment
Date Approved: March 13, 2012
The total of $22,380,242 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 28th day of February, 2012.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the 13th day of March, 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 # BB
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\85E8A2CF-198C-445D-8764-2B2E44DCFA25\[PDFConvert.6306.1.2012_BA_Rollforward_Exhibit.xlsx]A
General Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (835,860)
Expenditures
Bellaire/Shell Road intersection improvements 508,100
Unspent funds for Arts & Culture (roll forward from prior year) 22,760
Christmas light on the Square 30,000
City Facility Renovation reserve 50,000
Builders/Development incentive program 25,000
Employee compensation study 60,000
Employee bonus program 140,000
Transfer Emergency Management from Police (3,000)
Transfer Emergency Management to Fire 3,000
Transfer Fire Inspection Position from Comm Devel (34,253)
Transfer Fire Inspection Position to Fire 34,253
Excess revenue over expenditures $0
General Capital Projects
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance (Bond Funds)$ (16,118,454)
Expenditures
River Trail Expansion 939,903
Fire Station 5 Construction 2,049,240
Remodel Fire Station 2 1,510,819
Madella Hilliard Improvements 130,000
Park Improvements 1,429,103
Public Safety Training Facility 2,100,000
SE 1 - Maple to Southwest Blvd 393,400
SE1/130 Connection 3,870,969
Southwest Bypass Leander to IH 35 962,216
FM 971 232,804
FM 1460 2,500,000
Excess revenue over expenditures $0
Special Revenue Funds
Revenues/Sources:
Street Maintenance Tax $ (2,203,936)
Tourism Hotel Occupancy Tax (42,900)
CDBG Grants (592,140)
Expenditures
Street Maintenance 2,203,936
Tourism Promotional projects 42,900
Scenic Drive Sidewalks 64,590
Emergency Utility Bill Assistance 16,000
FY11 Sidewalk Project 392,370
Sewer and Water Connects 50,000
Madellia Hilliard and Library Sidewalks 69,180
Excess revenue over expenditures $0
EXHIBIT A
Annual Operating Plan Element (Budget) Amendment
Ordinance Number:_______
Description: Roll-forward BA
Date Approved: March 13, 2012 1
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # BB
Fleet Management Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (6,700)
Expenses
Fleet Operations 6,700
Excess revenue over expenses $0
Information Technology
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (36,500)
Expenses
Userful Workstation replacement 36,500
Excess revenue over expenses $0
Stormwater Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (1,240,240)
Expenses
Stormwater Improvements 1,240,240
Excess revenue over expenses $0
Electric Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (1,031,712)
Expenses
Employee bonus program 140,000
AMI System 891,712
Excess revenue over expenses $0
Water Fund
Revenues/Sources:
Fund Balance $ (271,800)
Expenses
Employee bonus program 140,000
Water/Wastewater Masterplan Updates 131,800
Excess revenue over expenses $0
Total Budget Amendment 22,380,242
Ordinance Number:_______
Description: Roll-forward BA
Date Approved: March 13, 2012 2
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # BB
C:\Program Files\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\85E8A2CF-198C-445D-8764-2B2E44DCFA25\[PDFConvert.6306.1.2012_BA_Rollforward_Exhibit.xlsx]A
Ordinance Number:_______
Description: Roll-forward BA
Date Approved: March 13, 2012 3
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # BB
Ordinance Number:_______
Description: Roll-forward BA
Date Approved: March 13, 2012 4
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # BB
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown providing for the
abandonment by quitclaim deed of a portion of unimproved, unopened and unnamed public street
right-of-way in the vicinity of East 18th & Pine Streets; providing for the terms and conditions of such
abandonment; calling a public hearing; providing a conflict and severability clause and establishing an
effective date -- David Munk, Utility Engineer and Glenn Dishong, Utilities Director (action required)
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City received an application for the abandonment of a 0.1045-acre parcel of unimproved, platted street
right-of-way consisting of two 20’ strips of right-of-way perpendicular to one another and located in the
vicinity of East 18th Street and Pine Street, for purposes of facilitating the applicant’s proposed residential
development to be known as “Pine Street Subdivision” as shown on the attached proposed preliminary plat
thereof. Development of the proposed subdivision will require the dedication of additional right-of-way, as
well as various easements, as shown thereon. Accordingly, staff has reviewed the application and related
information and recommends the abandonment and vacation of the right-of-way, subject to dedication to the
City of all easements and additional right-of-way described on the proposed Preliminary Plat of Pine Street
Subdivision (copy attached) in a form satisfactory to the City, at its sole discretion, prior to the execution and
recordation of a quitclaim deed abandoning such right-of-way. Staff further recommends that in order to
promote development of this area of the City, the subject right-of-way be abandoned without compensation
therefor, as the applicant is proposing to dedicate a comparable amount of new right-of-way by its proposed
plat.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Reservation of easements and dedication of additional right-of-way shown on attached proposed preliminary
plat to be completed prior to abandonment of subject right-of-way.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Terri Glasby Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Cover Memo
Item # CC
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
1
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
4
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
6
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
7
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
8
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
1
\
n
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
9
It
e
m
#
C
C
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution ordering a General Election for Election of the
City Council Members for Districts 1 and 5 -- Jessica Brettle, City Secretary and Bridget Chapman,
Acting City Attorney
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see attached for the Resolution and all exhibits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary and Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Calling an Election for May 12, 2012
EXHIBIT D- Elections Services Agreement 2009
EXHIBIT E- Joint Election Agreement with Williamson County
EXHIBIT A- City Council District 1 Boundaries
EXHIBIT B- City Council District 5 Boundaries
EXHIBIT C- Boundaries of all City Council Districts
Cover Memo
Item # DD
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, ORDERING A GENERAL
ELECTION FOR ELECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS FOR COUNCIL DISTRICTS 1 AND 5 TO BE HELD
ON MAY 12, 2012, ORDERING A RUN-OFF ELECTION, IF
NECESSARY, AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
SAID ELECTIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council is composed of a Mayor and seven Council
Members per Article II of the City Charter and
WHEREAS, the Mayor is elected at large and the Council members are elected
from single-member districts and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council members serve three year terms
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council members are composed of the following
individuals with terms as delineated as follows:
OFFICE DATE THAT TERM EXPIRES
MAYOR GARVER MAY 2014
DISTRICT 1 COUNCIL MEMBER EASON MAY 2012
DISTRICT 2 COUNCIL MEMBER HELLMANN MAY 2014
DISTRICT 3 COUNCIL MEMBER MEIGS MAY 2013
DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL MEMBER SATTLER MAY 2013
DISTRICT 5 COUNCIL MEMBER BERRYMAN MAY 2012
DISTRICT 6 COUNCIL MEMBER JONROWE MAY 2014
DISTRICT 7 COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALEZ MAY 2013
WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Texas and the Charter of the City of
Georgetown, Texas provide that on Saturday, May 12, 2012, there shall be a General
Election at which shall be elected the following officials for this City:
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 8
Item # DD
Two (2) Members of the Georgetown City Council: one Councilmember from
each of Districts 1 and 5; and
WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Texas and the Charter of the City of
Georgetown, Texas further provide that the Election Code of the State of Texas is
applicable to said election, and in order to comply with said Code, a Resolution should
be passed establishing the procedure to be followed in said election and designating the
voting places for said election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1. VERIFICATION OF FACTS
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 2. CANDIDATES
This general election shall be held to elect the Council members for City of Georgetown
Single-Member Districts 1 and 5. The boundaries for Single-Member Districts 1 and 5
have been updated to include newly annexed lands. Maps showing the updated
boundaries of Districts 1 and 5 are attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B”. An updated
map of the entire area within the city limits (showing the boundaries of all of the council
districts) is attached hereto as Exhibit “C“. These maps are hereby adopted as the
Official Council District Maps and shall determine the qualification of the candidates to
serve and shall govern the qualification of the voters to vote in said election.
SECTION 3. CANDIDATE APPLICATION DEADLINE
AND ORDER OF NAMES ON BALLOT
All candidates for the election to be held on the second Saturday in May, 2012, for the
Council members for Districts 1 and shall file their applications with the City Secretary
at the City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas, on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 5, 2012. The City Secretary’s Office will be available to receive applications on
Monday, February 4, 2012.
The order in which the names of the candidates are to be printed on the ballot shall be
determined by a drawing held by the City Secretary on Wednesday, March 14, 2012, at
4:00 p.m. in the Main Floor Foyer at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 8
Item # DD
SECTION 4. POSSIBLE RUN-OFF ELECTION
As provided in the City Charter, in the event that no candidate can be declared the
winner in any or all of the individual races to be conducted in the General Election, a
runoff election shall be held not earlier than 20 days nor later than 45 days after the date
of the Final Canvass of the May 12, 2012 Election. If necessary, the possible period for
the Run-Off Election is between June 4, 2012 and July 9, 2012.
In such Runoff Election, the two candidates who received, in the preceding election, the
highest number of votes for each office to which no one was elected, shall be voted on
again, and the candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast for each such office
in the Runoff Election shall be elected to such office.
SECTION 5. OPTICAL SCAN BALLOTS
Voting shall be conducted with optical scan ballots prepared in conformity with the
Texas Election Code, and there shall be at least one disabled-access voting device, such
as a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machine at each polling place.
SECTION 6. CONDUCT OF ELECTION
Pursuant to Subchapter D of Chapter 31 of the Texas Election Code, the City Council is
further ordering that this General Election and possible Runoff Election be conducted
under the terms and conditions of a Contract for Election Services between the City of
Georgetown and Williamson County, the form of which is attached to this Resolution
and labeled as Exhibit “D”. Chapter 31, Subchapter D of the Texas Election Code
provides that a city may contract with the County Elections Officer for election services
if the city is located in whole or in part in the county. In addition, this will be a joint
election conducted with other entities that will also hold an election on May 12, 2012
pursuant to the Joint Election Agreement, the form of which is attached hereto and
labeled as Exhibit “E”.
The Joint Election Agreement also provides that the estimate for billing purposes will be
based on the number of precincts utilized in the election. Nevertheless, for final billing
purposes, it will be based on registered voters.
As authorized by Chapter 31, Subchapter D of the Texas Election Code, the Georgetown
City Council hereby appoints the Williamson County Elections Administrator, Rick L.
Barron, II, 301 Inner Loop, Suite 104, Georgetown, Texas 78626, as the election officer for
the purpose of conducting the May 12, 2012 General Election. This appointment
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 8
Item # DD
includes services as Early Voting Clerk for the Election, Counting Station Manager,
Presiding Judge of the Central Counting Station, and Tabulation Supervisor.
In addition and in accordance with Chapter 66 and Chapter 31 of the Texas Election
Code, the City Council hereby appoints Williamson County Elections Administrator,
Rick L. Barron, II, as agent for the Custodian of Records (“Agent”) for the May 12, 2012
General Election for the purpose of preserving voted ballots and other election records
as required by the Texas Election Code.
SECTION 7. EARLY VOTING
Early Voting by Personal Appearance shall take place at the locations and times
delineated by the Williamson County Election Administrator per the Joint Election
Agreement beginning on the 12th day preceding the date of the election, which is
Monday, April 30, 2012, and ending on the fourth day before Election Day, which is
Tuesday, May 8, 2012.
In the event of a Runoff Election, Early Voting by Personal Appearance shall take place
at the locations and times delineated by the Williamson County Elections Administrator
per the Joint Election Agreement beginning on the 12th day preceding the date of the
runoff election and ending on the fourth day before the date of the runoff election.
However, Early Voting locations will be closed on Memorial Day.
If the Elections Administrator plans to change any of the polling locations or the dates
and times, he shall timely notify the City of Georgetown so that the appropriate Justice
Department Submission can be made by the City Attorney and the City Council can be
made aware thereof and be given the opportunity to comment thereon.
SECTION 8. ELECTION DAY VOTING
Election Day Voting shall take place from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the locations
delineated by the Williamson County Election Administrator per the Joint Election
Agreement. If the Elections Administrator plans to change any of the polling locations or
the times, he shall timely notify the City of Georgetown so that the appropriate Justice
Department Submission can be made by the City Attorney and the City Council can be
made aware thereof and be given the opportunity to comment thereon
In the event of a Runoff Election, the Georgetown Election Day voting locations will be
as delineated by the Williamson County Elections Administrator per the Joint Election
Agreement and voting shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. If the Elections
Administrator plans to change any of the polling locations or times, he shall timely
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 8
Item # DD
notify the City of Georgetown so that the appropriate Justice Department Submission
can be made by the City Attorney and the City Council can be made aware thereof and
be given the opportunity to comment thereon.
SECTION 9. ELECTION INFORMATION
TO BE PROVIDED IN SPANISH
The Mayor and all other election officers appointed by the City Council as being
responsible for the preparation of notices, instructions, orders, ballots, and other written
material pertaining to the General Election shall cause each such document to be
translated into and furnished to voters in both the English language and the Spanish
language in order to aid and assist voters speaking Spanish as a primary or an
alternative language to properly participate in the election process. In addition, the
Mayor and other responsible election officers are hereby authorized and directed to
make available to the voters having the need of an individual capable of acting as a
translator and speaking both English and Spanish languages who will assist Spanish
speaking voters in understanding and participating in the election process.
SECTION 10. CANVASSING OF RETURNS; DECLARING RESULTS
The Williamson County Elections Administrator, as Georgetown’s designated election
officer, shall provide the written return of the Election results to the City of Georgetown
in accordance with the Texas Election Code. The City Council shall canvass the returns
on a date and time set by the Mayor between the dates of May 15, 2012 and May 23, 2012
and declare the results of the General Election in accordance with the Texas Election
Code Section 67.003(b), which provides that for elections held on the uniform election
date in May, the following provisions apply:
(b) For an election held on the uniform election date in May, the local
canvass must occur not later than the 11th day after Election Day and not
earlier than:
(1) the third day after election day;
(2) the date on which the early voting ballot board has verified and
counted all provisional ballots, if a provisional ballot has been cast in the
election; or
(3) the date on which all timely received ballots cast from addresses
outside of the United States are counted, if a ballot to be voted by mail in
the election was provided to a person outside of the United States.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 8
Item # DD
SECTION 11. NOTICE OF ELECTION
Notice of the General Election shall be published one time in the English and Spanish
languages, in a newspaper published within Georgetown’s territory at least 10 days and
no more than 30 days before the General Election and as otherwise may be required by
the Texas Election Code. Notice of the General Election shall also be posted on the
bulletin board used by the City Council to post notices of its City Council meetings no
later than the 21st day before the General Election.
SECTION 12. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE
The Mayor of the City of Georgetown is authorized to execute and the City Secretary is
authorized to attest to the Order on behalf of the City Council; and the Mayor is further
authorized to do all other things legal and necessary in connection with the holding and
consummation of the General Election which includes the giving of and the publication
of the Notice of Election to be in a form as to be approved by the City Attorney.
SECTION 13. PREAMBLE TRUE AND CORRECT
The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found to
be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof, as
if copied verbatim.
SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 8
Item # DD
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28 day of February, 2012 by the City Council of the City
of Georgetown.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN: Attest:
___________________________ _____________________________________
By: George G. Garver, Mayor Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 8
Item # DD
Exhibit List:
Exhibit A Boundaries of Council District 1
Exhibit B Boundaries of Council District 5
Exhibit C Boundaries of all Council Districts
Exhibit D Election Services Agreement
Exhibit E Joint Election Agreement
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 8
Item # DD
104
166
116
111
111
110
1460
1460
1460
35
I
H
3
5
C
R
1
1
2
E 2 1S T ST
IH 35
OAKMONT
DR
I
H
3
5
TE R A V I S T A P K W Y
F
M
1
4
6
0
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
C R 1 6 6
RAILROAD AVE
C
R
1
1
6
S
H
1
3
0
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
S M
A
I
N
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E U NI V E R S I T Y A V E
C R 1 1 1
S AUSTIN AVE
W UNIVERSITY AVE
C
R
1
1
0
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
L E A N D E R R D
BL U E S P RING
S
B L
V
D
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
I
H
3
5
TE R A V I STA CLUB D R
IH 35
66
22 77
11
11
Soil ConservationService Site10a Reservoir
Soil ConservationService Site10b Reservoir
Soil ConservationService Site16 Reservoir
SE
INNER
LOOP
C R 1 1 1
C R 1 1 1
S E I N N E R L O O P
T E R A VISTA P K WYCENTE R B R O O K P L
E 7 T H ST W
A
LN
U
T
S
T
H
U
T
T
O
RD
L E A N D E R R D
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
LL
SB
N
A
W
G
R
I
M
E
S
B
L
V
D
HART
ST
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
E 1 8 T H S T
N
A
W
G
R
I
M
E
S
B
L
V
D
W 8 T H S T
F
M
1
4
6
0
E
LM S
T
E 1 9 T H S T
INNW
O
O
D
DR
Q U A IL VA L L EY D R
M
O
NTER O S A L N
P
I
N
E
ST
S AUSTIN AVE
ROCK
ST
SCENIC
L
AKE
D
R
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
W UNIV ERSIT Y AVE
C
R
1
1
0
B E L M O N T D R
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
C
R
1
1
0
J
A
N
L
N
V
I
N
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
S
IH
35
SB
W 18TH S T
R
I
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
D
R
S MA
IN ST
M E M O R I A L DR
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 2 1 S T S TS
I
H
3
5
S
B
SOU
T
H
RI D
G
E
C
I
R
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
K
E
L
L
E
Y
D
R
S
N
E
AD
DR
S
H
1
3
0
S
B
S
AUSTIN
AVE
W UNIVERSITY AVE
T E RAVISTA CLU B D R
S A M H O U S T O N A V E
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
FM 1460
R
I
D
GEWOOD D R
SE INNER LOOP
W 2 2ND ST
F
M
1
4
6
0
S
O
UTHW
E
S
TERN BLVD
R
A
B
B
I
T
H
I
L
L
R
D
W
O
L
F
R
D
S
I
H
3
5
FWY
NB
C R 1 8 6
E
N
T
R
2
6
1
S
B
SAM HOUSTON AVE
WEIR RANCH RD
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
C R 1 6 6
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
BLVD
S
H
1
3
0
N
BPERKINS PL
S CO
LLEG
E
ST
A
S
H
B
E
R
R
Y
TRL
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
E 8 T H ST
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
L UTHER
DR
BLU E S P R I N G S BLVD
C
R
1
0
4
SU S A N A D R
C A R L S O N C V
S
IH
35
NB
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S
IH
35
FWY
SB
S IH 35 SB
Chandler Branch
W
est Fork
Smith Branch
S m ith B ra n ch
M c N u tt Creek
S o u t h F o r k S a n G abriel River
City of GeorgetownCity Council District 1
Legend
Council Districts
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
Major Road
Street
Proposed Street
Existing Street
City Limits
River/Stream
Water Body
January 1, 2012
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # DD
143
147
151
152
234
262
150
971
972
2338
195
130
35
C R 1 5 1
IH 35
C R 1 4 3
IH 35
C H I
C H I D R
S
H
1
3
0
C R 1 4 2
S U N CITY B L V D
B
E
R
R
Y
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
S
H
1
3
0
SAN A LOMA DR
S ER E N A D A DR
S T A N D R E W S D R
C R 1 4 7
F M 9 7 2
B O O T YS CROSSING RD
C
R
2
6
2
RR 2338
C R 1 5 0
N L A K E W O O D S D R
N AUSTIN AVE
F M 9 7 1
N
E
I
N
N
E
R LOOP
N
O
RTH
WES
T
B
LVD
SH 195
S H E L L RD
WILLIA
M
S
D
R
IH 35
C R 152
C
R
1
5
2
IH
35
SH
195
L
U
N
A
T
R
L
CR 234
S L A K E W O ODS DR
WHIS
P
E
R
I
NG
WI
N
D
D
R
D B WOOD
RD
44
6633
55
22
77
LakeGeorgetown
C
R
2
6
2
S
U
N
CIT
Y
B
LVD
SUN CITY
B
L
V
D
SU
N
C
I
T
Y
BLV D
SUN CITY
BLV
D
COO L S P RING
WAY
CO O L S PRING WAY
DEL W E B B B LVD
CAMP DR
P E DERN
A
L
E
S
F
A
L
L
S
DR
RED
POP P Y TRL
E SE
Q
U
OI
A
T
R
L
LA Q
U
I
N
T
A
DR
WESTWOO
D
LN
BO N HA
M
LOOP
C AVU R D
S I E R R A DR
HED GE W O O D DR
N
IH
35 NB
T BD
S H E L L R D
N
ORTHW
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
L
I
Z
L
N
TBD
B E RRY CREEK D R
SCISSOR T AIL
T
R
L
N
IH
35
SB
N
IH
35 NB
D
A
W
N
DR
S
H
E
L
L
S
P
U
R
N
IH
35 NB
D
A
WS
O
N T R L
WILD
WOOD DR
F M 9 7 2
C H A M P I O N S D R
PARKE
R
D
R N AUSTIN AVE
TB D
PARK LNPOWER RD
LA K E W A Y D R
WILLIAMS DR
W S E Q U O I A S P U R
N
O
RTHWES
T
B
L
VD
O
A
K CR ES T L N
L O V I E L N
OAK BR A N C H D R
M
ADRID DR
AIRPORT RD
F M 971
O AK T
R
E
E
DR
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
BRIAR
C
RES
T
DR
MALA
G
A DR
C R 1 9 6
C R 1 4 3
S U N C I T Y B L V D
N L A K E W O O D S D R
B U E N A V I S
T
A
D
R
G O L DEN O A K S R D
N
IH
35 NB
SIN U S O D R
B A S TIA N
L
N
S
H 1
9
5
W
B
SUN
S
ET
R D G
L A K E WAY
D
R
P E N N Y L N
RI
D
GECREST
R
D
SAN A LOM A D R
N
IH
35
NB
S
A
B
I
N
E
DR
T E N O A K S D
R
C R 1 5 1
RM 2338
ALGERITA D R
G RA
N
A
D
A
D
R
DE L W EBB B L VD
B O N N E T L N
M E S A D R
F
O
U
N
T
A
INW O O D D R
N
IH
35 FWY SB
CR 1 5 2
C R 1 4 2P
V
R
9
1
4
S
H
1
3
0 S
B
WILLIAMS DR
P
R
I
V
A
TE D V
SEVILLA
DR
C R 1 4 7
P
V
R
9
1
6
N IH 35 NB
SH 195
TON
KOW A TRL
EST R E L L A X I N G
C R 1 4 7
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
N
IH
35
SB
MARKET ST
S H E L L S T O N E T R L
N IH 35 SB
CROCKET GARDEN S R D
N IH 35 FWY NB
C R 1 5 0
LAKEW A Y D R
N
IH
35 FWY
NB
M O NA
R
CH TR
L
SUN
CITY
B
L
V
D
A
R
M
S
TRONG DR
T
E
X
A
S
DR
CR 234
T
R
AIL OF THE FLOW E R S W E S TBURY
L
N
AIRPORT RD
TBD
W
E
STBURY LN
C R 1 5 2
LO G A N R A N C H RD
L
O
G
A
N R A N C H R D
W SEQ
U
OIA T
R
L
SALADO
CRE E K LN
TB D
S E D R O T R L
D
B
WOOD
RD
D
O
V
E
H
O
L
L
O
W
TRL
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
S L A K E W O ODS DR
ADDIE L
N
ROBERTS CIR
D E L W EBB BLVD
D E E R TRL
C
E
DAR BREAKS RD
A
L
L
E
N
CIR
R U SS E L L PARK R D
B R A N G U S R D
S H A D Y H OLL O W D R
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
S
H
1
3
0 T
O
L
L
N
B
Pecan
B
r
anch
Berry Creek
Berry Creek
C o w a n Creek
N
o
rth
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
briel River
Dry
B
erry
Creek
City of GeorgetownCity Council District 5
Legend
River/Stream
Majo r Road
Street
Street
Proposed Street
Existing Street
City Limits
Water Body
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
January 1, 2012
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # DD
151
264
105
167
249
121
108
153
261
107
142
141
148
149
155
107
234
194
111
248
269
147
111
267 106
103
289
143
105
270
140
176
245
152
262
258
104 100
150
110
1460
971
1105
972
2338
3405
2243
195
130
130
130
29
29
I
H
3
5
IH 3 5
J
I
M
H
O
G
G
R
D
E 7 T H
S T
SNEAD
D
R
IH
3
5
CR
255
SUN CITY
BLVD
S
U
N
CIT
Y
B
L
V
D
I
H
3
5
SUN
CITY
BLVD
AIRPORT RD
IH
35
CR 100
IH
35
C
R
1
5
2
CR 1 5 4
JIM HOGG
DR IH 35
S
U
N
C
IT
Y
B
L
V
D
IH 35
U
S
1
8
3
SERENADA DR
IH 35
IH 35
IH 35
CR 268
S
H
E
L
L
S
P
U
R
IH 35
U
S
1
8
3
A
RIVERY
BLVD
C R 1 3 0
S
H 1
3
0
SH 130
IH 35
ESCALERA PKWY
S U N C I T Y
B L V D
IH 35
IH 35
S
H
1
3
0
SH
195
CR 120
SH 130
C H U R C H I L L
F A R M S D R
C R 271
S
H
1
3
0
S T A N D R E W S
D R
C R 1 8 9
L
U
N
A
T
R
L
I
H
3
5
C R 1 6 6 C R 1 0 5
R
O
N
A
L
D
W
R
E
A
G
A
N
B
L
V
D
C R 1 5 3
D E L W E B B
B L V D
S
H
1
3
0
BOOTYS CROSSING RD
BERRY CREEK DR
C R 1 1 8
C
R
1
1
6
C R 1 5 1
CR 152
C R 1 1 2
C
R
2
66
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
R
O
N
A
L
D
W
R
E
A
G
A
N
B
L
V
D
IH
35
S
H
1
3
0
IH
35
RIV E R
B E N D D R
C
R
1
2
0
C R 124
F
M
1
1
0
5
C
R
1
2
0
F
M
1
4
6
0
C R 17 7
N COLLEGE ST
SH 130
C R 1 5 3
Q U AIL
V A LL E Y D R
S
H
1
3
0
C R 31
7
IH
35
IH 35
C
R
2
6
1
S
H
1
3
0
IH
35
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
CR
268
US 183A
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
L
V
D
S
C
R
2
8
9
C R 1 0 7
IH 35
C
R
1
4
2
WHISPERING
WIND
DR
S
H
1
3
0
C
R
1
1
8
C
R
1
4
1
S
H
1
3
0
I
H
3
5
PEDERNALES FALLS DR
C R 1 4 8
IH
35
C R 1 4 9
S
H
1
3
0
C R 1 5 5
C R 1 0 7
WOLF RANCH
PKWY
CR
234
IH
35
C R 1 9 4
TER AVISTA
CLU B D R
IH
35
C R 1 1 1
CR 24
8
IH
35
C R 2 6 9
C R 1 4 7
C R 1 1 1
CR
267
C R 106
C R 1 0 3
C R O S S
C R E E K L N
CR
2
8
9
C R 1 4 3
C R 1 0 5
F
M
1
4
6
0
C
R
2
7
0
C
R
175
F M 971
C
R
1
4
0
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
C
R
O
S
S
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
C R 176
C
R
2
4
5
S
AUSTIN
AVE
C R 1 5 2C
R
262
W U N I V E RSITY A V E
E S H 2 9
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
LOOP
CR 258
R O N A L D W
R E A G A N B L V D
CR 104
E U N I V E R S I T Y
A V E
C
R
1
0
0
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
S E INNER
L O OP
S H E L L R D
R
O
N
A
L
D
W
R
E
A
G
A
N
B
LV
D
F M 9 7 1
U N I V E R S I T Y B L V D
SH 195
C R 1 5 0
F
M
1
1
0
5
C
R
1
1
0
F M 9 7 2
RR 2338
L E A N D E R R D
WILLIAMS DR
F M 3405
R R 2 2 4 3
W SH 29
44
66
33
55
22
77
1111Soil ConservationService Site10a Reservoir
LakeGeorgetown
Soil ConservationService Site5 Reservoir Soil ConservationService Site10b Reservoir
M i d d l e F o r k S a n
G a b r i e l R i v e r
Ranger
Branch
Berry
Creek
S
owes
B
ranch
Berry Creek
D
r
y
B
e
r
r
y
C
r
e
e
k
S m it h
B r a n c h
P e c a n
B r a n c h
Brushy Creek
S o u t h F o r k S a n
G a b riel R iv e r
East Fork
Ranger Branch
McNutt Creek
Chandler Branch
S
m
alley
Branch
Mason
Creek
Weir
B
ranch
West Fork
Smith
Branch
B
e
r
r
y
C
reek
Opossu
m
Creek
M i d d l e Fork San G a b riel River
M
c
N
u
tt
C
r
e
e
k
Cottonwood Creek
San Gabriel
River
C o w a n C r e e k
North Fork San
Gabriel River North Fork San
Gabriel River
North Fork San
Gabriel River
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
S
a
n
G
a
b
r
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
North Fork San
Gabriel River
J
e
n
n
i
n
g
s
B
r
a
n
c
h
N o r t h F ork San G a b r i e l River
City of GeorgetownCity Council Districts
Legend
River/Stream
Major Road
Proposed Street
Existing Street
City Limits
Water Body
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
January 1, 2012
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 8 of 9
Item # DD
Attachment number 5 \nPage 9 of 9
Item # DD
JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT
(WILLIAMSON COUNTY PARTICIPATING ENTITIES)
WHEREAS, the undersigned political subdivisions, collectively referred to
hereinafter as the “Participating Entities”, will each hold an election on May 12, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, each of the Participating Entities (i) is located partially or entirely
within Williamson County, Texas (the “County”), and (ii) shares an election precinct
with at least one other Participating Entity; and
WHEREAS, the County has contracted or is contracting with each Participating
Entity to conduct and provide election services for such Participating Entity’s May 12,
2012 election; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities all desire to enter into a joint election
agreement for the purpose of sharing election equipment, costs, election officials, and
sharing precinct polling locations, and election ballots where appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities desire to define and establish some
specific details of this agreement, if applicable, and attach those details hereto in
ATTACHMENT A.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Participating Entities agree as follows:
I. Scope of Joint Election Agreement
The Participating Entities enter this Joint Election Agreement (“Agreement”) for
the conduct of the elections to be held on May 12, 2012.
II. Appoint Election Officer
The Participating Entities appoint Rick Barron, Williamson County Elections
Administrator, to serve as the Election Officer for each Participating Entity in order to
perform and supervise the duties and responsibilities of the Election Officer for the May
12, 2012 election.
III. Early Voting and Election Day
Election-day voting shall be held in common precincts where appropriate at the
dates, times, and locations recommended by the Election Officer and authorized and
ordered by the governing body of each Participating Entity.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 4
Item # DD
IV. Miscellaneous Provisions
1. This Agreement becomes effective upon execution by all Participating
Entities. The obligations of the Agreement will continue as to each Participating Entity
until each Participating Entity has made full payment of its share of election costs under
this Agreement and other agreements related to May 12, 2012 election.
2. Notice under this Agreement must be in writing and may be affected by
personal delivery or by certified mail to the Participating Entities at the addresses set
forth on the signature pages hereto.
3. This Agreement may not be amended or modified except in writing
executed by each Participating Entity.
4. The obligations under this Agreement are performable in Williamson
County, Texas.
5. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in
Williamson County, Texas. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and the United States of America.
6. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement; and the
Participating Entities shall perform their obligations under this Agreement as expressed
in the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
* * *
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 4
Item # DD
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the dates set forth below to
be effective the ___ day of ___________, 2012.
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
By: ______________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
COUNTERPART SIGNATURE
JOINT ELECTION AGREEMENT
(WILLIAMSON COUNTY ENTITIES)
By: ______________________________________
Name: ____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 4
Item # DD
ATTACHMENT “A”
For 2012, the City will have an Election for Council members Districts 1 and 5. The
estimate for billing purposes will be based on the number of precincts in both districts.
Nevertheless, for final billing purposes, it will be based on registered voters. This
provision supersedes any conflicting provisions in the Contract for Election Services
between the City of Georgetown and the Elections Administrator of Williamson County.
Concurred: _____________________________
Rick Barron
Elections Administrator
Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 4
Item # DD
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Ethics Commission -- Mayor George Garver
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Georgetown City Code states:
Sec. 2.20.040. Ethics Commission.
A. Creation of Ethics Commission.
1. This Chapter creates an Ethics Commission that consists of eight members, all of whom must reside
within the corporate limits of the City. Each member of the City Council may nominate a 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.
The Districts whose members have terms ending this year are as follows:
Mayor's Nominee
District 1
District 3
District 6
District 7
Each Councilmember from those particular districts were asked to nominate a person to serve on the Ethics
Commission for the 2012-2014 term.
Their recommendations for approval by the Council are:
Mayor's Nominee- Reappoint Ron Garland for a second term
District 1- Reappoint Leonard Van Gendt for a second term
District 3- Appoint Travis Vanderpool
District 6- Appoint Chris Harrison
District 7- Appoint Michael Holan
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # EE
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 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
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # FF
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property
- Discussion and deliberation concerning proposed real estate purchase of a 17 acre tract along the South San
Gabriel River on Hwy 29 for parkland
- Discussion and deliberation concerning proposed real estate purchase of an approximately 12.05 acre tract
at Inner Loop/FM 1460
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # GG
City of Georgetown, Texas
February 28, 2012
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Attorney Annual Performance Evaluation
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # HH