Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.24.2013 CC-WMinutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, September 24, 2013 The 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, Rachael Jonrowe, Jerry Hammerlun, Gonzalez absent. Steve Fought, John Hesser Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Jim Briggs, General Manager for Utilities; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director; Wayne Nero, Police Chief; John Sullivan, Fire Chief; T A Discussion of City's Long -Range Annexation Policy -- Jordan Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director Meeting called to order at 2:07PM Gonzalez absent. Brandenburg described the objective of today's meeting. He spoke about why annexation is a very important thing to address. He spoke about the last time the Council discussed annexation and the method that was used at that time. He said last year around this time, the Council had its first visioning session and workshop in order to determine the long term goals and objectives for the City. He said one of the concerns of the Council was growing its tax base. He said annexation, visioning and the City of Excellence are all inter -twined and will work together in growing that tax base. He said, today, they are not looking for a map to be completed by Council. He said staff is just asking for direction from Council on how to proceed with an annexation plan and strategy for the future. He introduced the consultant, Ben Luckens, who continued the discussion on annexation. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Luckens outlined the goals of the Workshop for the Council. He said there are four parts to the Workshop which are City of Excellence context, ETJ/Annexation presentation, a population allocation exercise and discussion of the next steps in the process. He described the definition of Extra -Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and said it is a buffer extending outwards from the city limits. He noted the ETJ is determined by population and said the most important thing about the ETJ is it is the City's planning jurisdiction.He said the ETJ lines are set up according to agreements with nearby cities. He continued to speak about why the ETJ is important. He said cities can't annex into each other's ETJ, cities enforce subdivision and infrastructure standards in the ETJ, planning and managing your future growth area and the ETJ is the ultimate city boundary.Fought asked and Hesser agreed that the City needs to work on bringing in the "donut holes." Lucans spoke about the cost of doing that and how the city would need to upgrade those areas' utilities. He defined annexation and said it is the process by which a city extends its city limits and municipal services, ordinances including land use regulations, voting privileges and taxing authorities. He said annexation is important because it captures the increment of new growth. He continued to speak about why annexation is important and said it affects revenue, regulatory authority, service efficiencies, provide City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 53 of 351 Pages services to un served and under -served areas and free -rider issues. He described some of the barriers to annexation. He said one is jurisdictional, which includes other cities, MUDs and other special districts. He said the other is physical: contiguity and topographic. He added the third barrier is regarding service requirements and he described that for Council. He said an annexation service contract is an enforceable contract. He added a requirement is that it is comparable to the levels of service in similar parts of the city. He said another requirement is that there should be no reduction of the level of existing services. He noted it is important to realize the city is also required to provide water and wastewater service at the existing level of demand within 4.5 years. He described the municipal annexation plan (MAP) process for the Council and said it is about a 3 year process. He described the process in detail including notices, hearings, negotiation of consent agreements and the follow through of the negotiations. He said the City would then have 4.5 years to do related capital improvements. He said the entire process takes about 7.5 years. He described what would be included in map -exempt areas. He described the Sec 43.035 annexation/development agreements in detail. He spoke about Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) and he defined them for the Council. He described MUD's impact on annexation. He spoke about strategic partnership agreements (SPAs) and said it is an agreement between the MUD board and the city. He said an annexation date can be included in the SPA. He described the alternatives to annexations. He said one is a robust water/wastewater utility to be able to extend services. He said the city could provide incentives on the front end. He said the city can also have a very narrow and focused Public Improvement District. He described what the City needs to have in order to cope with MUD proposals. He spoke about ETJ and annexation planning and said it is a continuous process; adaptable and opportunistic. He said it is driven by Council vision and goals. He added the annexation plan is linked to the comprehensive plan, the City of Excellence vision, the Capital Improvement Plan and department master plans. He listed the typical goals of annexation planning. He said there are four components to annexation planning including ETJ Management Policies and Organization. He outlined the staff annexation planning process and said it is a planning process and not a plan. He said there is an unlimited time horizon, it includes all possible annexation areas, it is updated annually and it will be a GIS data base used for decision making. He outlined the six year council annexation plan. He said it is similar in format to the 2005 annexation plan and does not include voluntary annexations. He spoke about the annual annexation program and said it implements the six year plan. Fought asked why the City would disannex. Luckens said you would do that only if the City cannot provide the service or needs to do so for political reasons. There were some questions and discussion. Meeting recessed at 3:05PM Meeting resumed at 3:10PM Luckens described the annexation population allocation exercise for the Council. The Council split into two groups and worked on their annexation maps. After the exercise was completed, Luckens asked each group to describe where they placed the population chips and why. Fought said they put no dots east of 35 and east of 130 as their group did not see any population increases occurring in those areas in the near future. Jonrowe said the picture would be different if she did this according to what she wanted to happen instead of what will actually happen. The representative from the other group, Hammerlun said, after their discussions, his group would like to have a financial feasibility assessment of getting rid of the donut holes. He said they do have chips east of 35. Eason said for both the infill and the issue of MUDs, there can be some liability for Georgetown because of its position over the Edwards Aquifer. Eason added she would prefer to have some better political control over MUDs. Hesser spoke about the idea dispersing multifamily development around the city and to consider only more high end rentals. Hesser said he sees a big issue with the financing of annexation and he would like to see more information on that. Spurgin said staff took some pictures of the maps and added he will roll up the maps and take them back to their offices. Luckens said the most important thing to take out of this exercise is to see where the Council would like to see growth. Eason spoke about the possibility of transit oriented development. She said people are moving toward those kind of nodes. She said she feels it is premature at this time to put something physical in those areas, but added it is something to consider for the future. Fought said he would like to have a workshop focused on issues such as MUDs and PIDs. Luckens described the next steps in the process. There were many questions about the future of the process and the issue of addressing the donut holes. Hammerlun said he would like to see a definitive presentation for the master plan for utility infrastructure. Hammerlun said he would also like to hear a larger discussion of CTSUD and how it will affect the departments and annexation as well. Hesser said his issue is how to afford this. Eason said her concern is related to all of the transportation issues and how it coincides with annexation. She noted we have to consider the age of our population. Jonrowe spoke about the "donut holes" of the city limits asked if the County would like the City to annex these property. She asked if we have spoken with them about helping us with that process. Briggs said the only things that have been done in the past with the County is to complete the initial construction of of a project and then have the County complete it. He siad that has been their level of participation. Hammerlun asked and Brandenburg confirmed the goal is to move toward having a map. Mayor asked and Brandenburg confirmed staff has received enough information to proceed. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.086 and 551.087 of the Local Government City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 54 of 351 Pages Code -- 4:OOPM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:OOPM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:00 PM. Approve A s Mayor Georg ary r City ecretary J ssica Brettle City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 55 of 351 Pages