Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.14.2010 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Danny Meigs, Bill All Council Present Sattler, Pat Berryman, Dale Ross, Tommy Gonzalez Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Mark Sokolow, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Glenn Dishong, Utility Director; Thomas R. Benz, Systems Engineering Director, Edward G. Polasek, Transportation Services Director; Jordan Maddox, Interim Principal Planner; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer A Presentation by the Georgetown Housing Authority Board regarding the status of a pending Cooperative Agreement with the Texas Housing Foundation -- Larry Raper, Georgetown Housing Authority Board Gonzalez and Ross off the dais. Mayor described the item and introduced Larry Raper to the City Council. Raper said he is the Chair of the Georgetown Housing Authority and noted he has been in that position since February. He spoke of how the Authority owns property in the gateway northwest area and, in the past, planned to build a housing complex in that location. He said they were not able to get that project off of the ground due to many issues. He said they had the opportunity for the Texas Housing Foundation, which is the regional Housing Authority, to come and take a look at the property. He said they were well impressed with the property and how it's laid out and what the function of that would become. He said the mission of the Housing Authority is to provide the citizens of Georgetown with affordable and accessible housing. He noted the Texas Housing Foundation's Executive Director is Mark Mayfield and noted Mayfield came to the Authority and reviewed plans for a possible project in that spot. He said they showed the Foundation what has been done in terms of utilities in the area. He said Mayfield was impressed and verbally said the Housing Foundation would be interested in doing this. He noted the agreement is only good for one project. He added it would relieve the Authority of $6,600 a month in mortgage payments. He said the Authority would also not have to put this out to bid if they work with the Foundation because it will be used for the same type of programs that were originally applied for. He said the original money came from Ernest Lincoln. He spoke about how Lincoln used to be able to invest money from managing HUD properties. He said, now, all money they receive from managing HUD properties must go back into the properties. He said affordable housing is on a different platform than low income housing. He noted someone who makes up to $59,000 and around $40,000 would be able to live in an affordable housing complex. He said that wage area is way above entry level state and public employees. He said he would like for Council to consider this when it comes back for review at the October 12th meeting. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 5 Pages Mayor asked and Raper explained the many points that the agreement will cover. Mayor asked and Raper said, at this point, the City would not be asked to put any money into the project. He said the resolution would allow the Foundation to take over this project. Sansing said there was a question about the income level of the people who would live in the units and how it would affect the school system in terms of free and reduced lunches. Raper added the salary requirements of the residents that would live in the development would put their children above the low cost lunch wage levels. Sansing asked and Raper said the Housing Authority went through an audit and finished up about 4 months ago. Raper said, in the audit, they did not find any evidence of fraud or abuse of government funds. He noted the money was spent properly, but it was not well accounted for. Sansing said in the past he was in support of this due to the drainage issue in the area. Sansing asked and Raper said he can not guarantee that the drainage problems in the area will be solved, but noted they do have an engineering plan to address those issues. Sansing said he will support the project if a plan to correct the drainage is incorporated into it. Sattler asked and Raper said the Authority used the Housing and Urban Development database and other government databases to gather the information needed to determine whether or not the City needs affordable housing. Eason said she is pleased that this issue has found a way to be resolved in a way that will be a win win situation for everyone. She noted she appreciates the hard work the Authority has done to come out from under a huge amount of debt and to find a way for a commendable project to move forward. Berryman asked and Raper said the Housing Authority has paid HUD $51,000. Berryman asked and Raper said the $130,000 amount is no longer disputed. He added that issue has been solved and noted they are down to receipts at this time. Mayor said, at the October 12th meeting, Mr. Mayfield of the Texas Housing Foundation will be present to make a brief presentation and answer questions from Council. Mayor asked and Raper confirmed that Housing Foundation does not intend to change anything from the original plans that were approved. Berryman asked and Raper said there were 188 units in Sierra Ridge. Raper broke down the number of one, two and three bedroom units in the plan. Mayor asked and Raper said the plans can be made available to the Council as well. Brandenburg said he wants to make sure everything is consistent with what was in the plans previously. B Presentation and discussion regarding the Utility Impact Fee Review Committee Report -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director Briggs summarized items B & C and the information that will be covered. He said, on the regular agenda related to the the utility impact fee work, there is an action item to call a public hearing to gather comments related to the changes in the fees. Dishong summarized the item and spoke about impact fees for water and waste water. He said, every three to five years, the City is required to update the existing assumptions that are the foundation of the impact fees. He said, as part of the process, the City looks at the land uses, existing capacity in the system, anticipated growth of the community and the capital projects required to meet that growth over a ten year period. He said, in the past the City has used two firms to study and calculate the maximum fees. Dishong introduced Tony Bagwell, of HDR Engineering, to review the process and present the final results of the study. With a Powerpoint presentation, Bagwell said HDR and CDM compiled the various technical inputs into the calculation of the fee. He said the purpose of the briefing is to present the results of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and their recommendations to Council. He said they are advisory recommendations. He said this will request Council to set a date for mandatory public hearing. Bagwell gave a background on the water and waste water fees within the City. He said the fees were last updated in October of 2005. He noted the combined water and waste water fee per living unit equivalent is $5,205, which would apply to a standard residential connection meter. He noted there was also updated work in 2009, but it was not continued by Council because of the economic conditions at the time. He defined impact fees and said they are a one time, up front payment that is levied on new or expanded development for its capital cost being placed on the utility system. He said the intent of impact fees is to help mitigate rate impacts due to growth. He spoke about the history of impact fees in the state. He said the real underlying issue concerning impact fees and rates is "who pays for utility capacity related to growth?" He said, if there are no impact fees, the rate payers carry all of the costs. He said the goal is to make sure the infrastructure is there when needed. Bagwell spoke about putting together the City's fees and noted it is a component process. He said they produced the fees to allow the City to use this as a credit tool. He said the result of the state mandated process produces a maximum fee amount. He noted the Council can elect to set the fees at that maximum amount or less. He spoke about the process they went through to determine the maximum fee calculation. He said the advisory committee was charged to verify that the land use basis underlying the CIP and the CIP itself have been reasonably identified and they verified that the maximum water and waste water fees were reasonably correct. He said they were also charged to recommend a new fee level to be considered by Council. He reviewed the advisory committee recommendations, including that the water and waste water fee outside of the South Fork San Gabriel river basin be lowered. He noted the maximum fee calculated by the committee is lower than the current fee for waste water service outside of the basin. He said that maximum should be set at $1,694 City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 5 Pages per service unit. He said the committee recommended unanimously that the other fees in the City be set at the maximum rate. He noted the City has two sets of waste water fees, separated into the South and Middle Fork basin. He showed Council the change in fee levels from the council adopted rate in 2005 and the proposed rates in 2009 as well as the current year, 2010. He noted, outside of the south and middle fork basins, the combined fee for a standard water and waste water residential connection is $5,205. He noted the new calculation of the maximum fee is $6,408. He said that involves a reduction of the waste water fee. He continued to describe the increased maximum fee amounts throughout the City. He showed Council a chart of comparable fees for other cities in the surrounding areas. He noted the new maximum fees would rank Georgetown as second in the area and the south and middle fork basin fees would put Georgetown in the highest ranking for the area. He said three cities on the chart are underway for updating their fees. He spoke about the next steps in this process including a call for a public hearing and public notice. He noted they are suggesting the public hearing to be held on October 26th. Meigs asked and Bagwell explained why the fees are higher in the middle and south San Gabriel river basins. Bagwell said this is not a new distinction and added the cost of services in those areas is higher because of the rocky conditions, Edwards Aquifer zone, the lack of service and the difficulty in obtaining waste water flows to the plant. Dishong said, at the time, a developer came in and built the south San Gabriel interceptor that represents nearly 100% of the cost differential between that area fee and the global fee for the City. He said the only way to get reimbursements to that to developer would be to segregate the costs for that area. He noted there are agreements in place to take fees from the south fork basin and reimburse the developer for the interceptor. Sansing asked and Bagwell said the fees are a base unit fee. Bagwell added both commercial and residential developments pay the same per service unit. He noted commercial would pay more because they require more service units. Berryman said if Council approved these fees, it seems it would make it costly to develop or do business in the City. Mayor asked at what point do these fees inhibit quality growth. Dishong said he would not be able to answer that question and added this fee sets the true cost of infrastructure per service unit. Berryman asked and Dishong said, if the City undercharges, there is a greater rate impact on citizens. Brandenburg said, if growth has stagnated, then there may not be a need for an increase. He added if there is growth in the future, then an increase may be needed at that time. Brandenburg said it may be prudent to wait until growth starts to raise the fees. Dishong noted the maximum and the calculations are in need of adoption but it is up to the Council to set the price. Sattler asked and Bagwell said all the current plotted lots have their fees locked in. Dishong said the fee is a weighted average of the existing capacity. Berryman said it seems to her that, if this section imposes fees, it would be hard to have affordable housing in the area. Berryman said it seems that if the City starts racking up fees, there is going to be bigger housing developed in the area. Briggs said that could be assumption but it is hard to say whether or not it would be true. He said, even though you wouldn't go to the maximum fee, those homeowners will pay any difference in their monthly rate. He noted everyone will share in the cost of growth in one way or another. Berryman asked to see what the impact on the taxpayers would be if the rate was lowered. Briggs said they could do that at the public hearing. Rundell said the south fork rates have been used to reimburse the developers for the infrastructure. She added if the south fork rates are adjusted, then the current development agreements in that area would have to be adjusted. Mayor asked and Bagwell said the fees are so much higher than surrounding areas because Georgetown has been updating their fees regularly while other communities have not updated their maximums in a long while. Bagwell added that, once these fees become effective, it takes about a year or so before they are actually paid. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said this item and the next item are both on the regular agenda to set a public hearing to review these issues. There was much discussion. C Presentation and discussion regarding the status of the Road Impact Fee Committee process -- Thomas R. Benz, P.E. Systems Engineering Director and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Polasek, spoke about the road impact fee program and the source of funds for road impact fees. He said these fees came about out of an action from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) for the City to study ways to fund transportation improvements. He spoke about how the City can currently fund transportation project, including GTEC funds, quarter -cent sales tax for maintenance and a bond program through the City's general fund. He said the actions out of the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Commission were to recommend the bond proposal and to start to look at a road impact fee program. He spoke about how the road impact fees are different from water and waste water fees. He said the City can only implement the road impact fee in the City limits. He said the Council authorized the City to do this road impact fee study with a mid year budget amendment in 2007. He noted Council had to approve the road impact fee service areas and a road impact fee committee had to be formed. He spoke about the membership of that committee. He said this will be a two step process. He said there will have to be two public hearings and two levels of approval. He noted the first step is the land use and capital improvements program and the second step is the policy discussion and how and when the Council would like to implement the rate. He said City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 5 Pages the technical documents which are included in the draft report represents the City's ten year growth projection and the CIP necessary to maintain the current level of service on streets. He said the first public hearing on October 26th will be on this report. He said, if Council chooses to adopt this as drafted, they will move forward with the impact fee committee. He noted Council can also amend and reject the document and process in the public hearing. He noted the second step would be to draft the Ordinance implementing the road impact fee. He added the committee will then recommend to Council the policy and the fees to charge for certain service areas. He noted the committee will also recommend when to implement the fee as well. He described the road impact fee process for the cities of New Braunfels and Cedar Park. He said there will be a rate discussion at the second hearing if the draft plan and report is approved at the first hearing. He said staff is asking Council to set the public hearing at the regular Council meeting. Berryman asked and Polasek explained how this is different from the water and waste water fees. Sattler asked and Polasek said the Ordinance would obligate the development community, but not the current or future Councils, to pay a fee. Polasek said the full report will be presented at the public hearing. Mayor asked and Polasek said, as soon as the Council approves the public hearing date, the documentation will be available online for review. D Consideration and possible direction to staff regarding the City's Voluntary Annexation Policy and Annexation Priorities -- Paul Brandenburg, City Manager and Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Interim Principal Planner Brandenburg reviewed the item and noted the question is what the city wants to be and how it should look when it grows up. He said staff has talked with the Planning and Zoning Commission on where the City is growing and how it should grow in the future. He said, in 2003/2004, the City framed the area around the City in order to determine the growth area. He spoke about the concerns that were prevalent at that time. He spoke about how the annexation plan came together back in 2004 and noted, back in 2006, the City annexed over 13,000 acres of land. He said, now the City is having to pay for some of the utilities of the land that was annexed in 2006. He said staff would like to have guidance from Council as to whether or not they should revise how they handle both voluntary and involuntary annexations. With a Powerpoint presentation, Maddox gave Council an annexation overview. He said annexation powers are derived from the State Legislature and the 1999 Annexation Plan that was approved. Councilmember Ross arrived at the dais. He said in 2007 the law required all cities to offer a development agreement to properties with agriculture or or wildlife exemptions. He said service plans are required for all annexations, voluntary or involuntary. He said a lot of the 2006 annexations have produced costs to begin to provide service. He showed Council a chart of the annexation history and said the City area size has dramatically increased since 2005 and added half of the annexations were voluntary and half were involuntary. He noted, at this time, there are 17,000 acres in the City's "bank" that can be annexed in the future. He showed Council a map demonstrating the annexation history from 2005-2010. He spoke about the boundaries for the City and added the only area where there is truly no boundary is between Georgetown and Florence. He added Leander is also a gray area since it is stili pretty far away. Maddox reviewed the 2005 annexation policy which was created as a result of discussions in 2002 and 2003. He spoke about the many things that the policy established. He said the policy has been used extensively for involuntary annexation procedures. He showed Council an updated annexation priority map. He said staff would like to work with Council in updating the map to define the priority areas for the City. He reviewed the questions for consideration. He asked if it is imperative that everyone be annexed, he asked about the City's main concerns/reasons for initiating and accepting annexations and how much of a burden the City would be willing to shift to taxpayers for annexations. Eason asked about how this relates to environmental concerns. She said she has been in support of annexations in the past because of the fact that the City is over the Edward Acquifer and that the water and utility in the annexed area will be maintained and managed by the City. Maddox said the City has control over the water on land that has not be annexed as well. He noted there are many avenues to protect the land outside of the City limits. Maddox gave an example of actions that have been taken regarding environmental concerns of the land outside of the City limits. He noted the long standing policy of the Council is, when voluntary annexations are presented to the City, they are accepted as newly annexed land and residents as members of the City. Councilmember Gonzalez arrived at the dais. Maddox spoke about the financial impact model for annexations. He said an option for Council is to take on a new study of the priority map that was studied back in 2004 and determine what areas would be considered high, medium and low priority growth areas. He continued with other questions including how aggressive the City should be in moving forward with involuntary annexation procedures. He summarized the direction from staff, including reinforcing 2005 policy provisions, develop a clear strategy for the next 5-10 years, re-evaluate the annexation advantages/disadvantages, use the annexation team and update priority map rankings and areas. He said there is a tight window for being able to study voluntary annexations when they come in and added it would be good to have a clear process and policy in place. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 5 Pages Brandenburg said that Council could probably address all of the staff recommendations tonight. Mayor asked and Maddox said there are certain requirements in the development code that apply to everyone in the ETJ and then additional requirements are applied to people within the City limits. Ross said it would be good to have some kind of standardized scoring grid for each annexation that comes in. Mayor asked and Brandenburg explained what staff asks from Council at this meeting. Brandenburg said he would like to move forward so that, within the next 30 and 60 days, staff can come back to have a more hands on work session to work on items identified at this meeting. Gonzalez asked and Brandenburg said the Inner Space Caverns is under a separate law and other annexations are coming through in the Capital Improvement Plan at this time. Gonzalez said he would like to have a list of the properties that need to be serviced with utilities and what the costs of those would be. Sansing said he thinks the current Council is doing a disservice to future Councils by not annexing the donut holes in the City, regardless of the cost and recommendations from staff. Mayor asked and Brandenburg said it is inferred that there is a consensus tonight to move forward as recommended. Council recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.072-- 4:50 p.m. Returned to open session and adjourned -- 6:05 p.m. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 5 Pages The meeting was adjourned at 06:05 PM. A ty Secretary e Brettl-