Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.11.2014 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 11, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7a' St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (5 12) 93 0-3 652 or City Hall at 113 East 8`h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:00 PM A Presentation and discussion on transportation road projects requiring bond funding -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Eason, Jonrowe and Mayor Garver absent. Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order at 2:01 PM Polasek spoke about the current roadway needs in the City. With a Powerpoint Presentation, he reviewed the potential 2014 city road bond referendum. He provided Council with a history of road and transportation funding in the city. He spoke about the 2008 road bond authorization and how voters approved $46 million for projects. He noted the specific project list included FM1460 and 971. He said, to date, they have issued $10.8 million of those funds for projects and he listed those projects for Council. He said they will be issuing additional bonds for construction of FM1460 and 971 intersection improvements. Jonrowe arrived at the dais He said they are looking at doing a 2014 bond referendum and wanted to gather Council direction before moving forward. He said a needs analysis was reviewed by GTAB in January 2014. He added the potential project inclusion in the bond totals more than $150 million. He said they reviewed project categories including city commitments, high priority, signalization/intersection improvements, sidewalks and other needed projects. He said the current city commitment to build is $26 million to build the Northwest Blvd Bridge and Southwest Bypass. He noted the high priority projects are to improve congestion and mobility, including the IH35 frontage road northbound, the Rivery extension to Northwest Blvd and Leander Road Bridge at 1-35 widening. He said all of the high priority projects have economic development related impacts and opportunities. He spoke about the proposed TBD signalization, intersection and maintenance improvements in the proposed bond package, totaling $10 million. He said some of the other needs to be addressed in the proposed bond include Airport Road, DB Wood Rd expansion/bridge repairs and Shell Road expansion. He reviewed the 2014 road bond plan and said they would like to present it to the voters at the November 2014 election. He said it will include a 15 to 20 year implementation plan. He described the possible tax impacts and said it is determined by timing. He said it also depends on the growth in the tax base. Eason arrived at the dais. He said the $150 million program may not be viable and noted there is a staff alternative to include only the City of Excellence critical projects and he described the projects in that alternative. He said that total bond package for the alternative plan would be $72million. He noted the next steps will be to determine if and when bond propositions should be presented to voters. Fought asked and Polasek said there is $30 million in the queue from the 2008 bond. Rundell said that amount is authorized but not issued. Fought asked and Rundell said you cannot repurpose those bonds. Hammerlun asked and Rundell said that authorization to issue never goes away. She said the city could, through policy, announce that the city will not issue that $30 million amount. Hammerlun asked the construction cost of 195 to Berry Creek and whether the authorization is still enough. Polasek said it is enough and remains authorized. Hammerlun spoke about intersection improvements and TIA contributions. Hammerlun asked if the city has gone out to an expanded citizens committee to help with the endorsement of this type of effort. Briggs said the city has done that in the past and added the public process would need to be done by August in time to call the election. He said the city can only provide the facts and the citizen committee could be more of an advocacy group. Hammerlun said we might want to consider expanding the citizen's input on this process. There was much discussion of involving the public in the process. Hammerlun asked and Polasek spoke about the other transportation issues on the ballot. Fought asked about the current tax rate, and the worst case scenario for a tax increase if all of the proposed bonds were issued. Gonzalez said it is important for citizens to know this is the city getting ahead of the game. He spoke about looking at the 2008 road bonds and approving a policy that states some will not be issued. Gonzalez asked and Polasek said staff is looking for feedback on how to proceed. He noted they will take the information to the boards and then come back to Council for final discussion. Brandenburg said another issue is timing and whether or not it would be a good idea to have this issue on the November ballot. Jonrowe asked a few question and said she likes the staff recommendation, as it is a good compromise. Jonrowe spoke about the importance of having sidewalk projects in the bond package. There was much discussion about this. Rundell said, if one of these projects cannot be done for one issue or another, the funds can be used for another project. She said the amounts are not included and the city has the flexibility to move money between projects as long as those projects are on the list. Hammerlun said he appreciates how the City manages debt and that it does not race out there to sell bonds just because they have been authorized. He said he appreciates that they only take the issues out if the need is great. He said he also appreciates the work GTAB did on reviewing this proposal. He said he believes if we are going to the polls, we need to enlarge citizen's participation. He said the city is going to need some allies from an advocacy stand point. He noted he has a strong belief that local initiatives are better communicated on a May ballot than a November ballot. Fought agreed with much of what Hammerlun mentioned and he spoke about his opinion on these projects and said sidewalks and ADA are different issues to him and should not be included in the bond package. He said he has a hard time understanding what each of these projects is and he would like to look at the purpose each of them serve. He said he is going to look for safety and economic development when analyzing the list of projects. He said he favors the lower number. Hesser said he would like to see a list of projects priorities as well as how the City should prioritize them. Brainard asked if we had all of the money we wish we had, could we start on all the projects. Polasek said half of the projects would be ready to go between 3-5 years from now. Brainard said he agrees that sidewalks should not be included in this list. Eason said she liked what Hammerlun was saying and noted all of these options should be brought to a larger citizens group and they may come up with a different list of projects for Council to consider. Eason asked and Polasek said, if sidewalks are taken off of the list, it would have to be a separate ballot item. Gonzalez spoke about targeting May 2015 for the election date. Eason said she also supports the May election. She said she supports the idea of emphasizes the safety issue and economic development when formulating and prioritizing the project list. Gonzalez expressed some ideas on how to prioritize the projects. Brandenburg spoke about why it is a good idea to wait until the May 2015 election. There was some discussion of how the bond project list has been formulated in the past. B Presentation on potential Special Financing & Development Districts in the South San Gabriel basin area -- Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer With a Powerpoint Presentation, Spurgin reviewed the discussion of this issue at the November 12 Workshop. He said they are here today to talk about some issues in the south San Gabriel River Basin, specifically. He said projects in this area are time sensitive situations due to market demand for residential lots. He said staff is also getting requests for amendments to projects that already have entitlements. He said the city needs to identify city funded projects for a bond issue as well as timing of fire stations in that area. He noted the basin area started to take off after the creation of the waste water interceptor. He said the economic downturn stalled this but noted it is finally starting to pick up. He said economic recovery has resulted in renewed interest in the basin. He said developers are telling their staff that they can no longer be in a position to fund large infrastructure costs in that area. He said this is also considered competitive matter with surrounding areas. He said these development projects are located outside of the City but they have interest in developing within the basin. He said this provides opportunities to fund some of the city of excellence projects. He said this will create residential rooftops that lead to shoppers in the Georgetown area. He showed Council a map of the basin. He spoke about the various South San Gabriel Basin (SSG) challenges, including transportation and infrastructure. He said one alternative to address these issues is to create a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for this area. He continued to list related issues and mentioned funding issues for Garey Park and environmental issues in the area. Rundell reviewed the needs for the City Council. She said the transportation projects include SW Bypass and Jug Handle to Hwy29, Water Oak Parkway from 2243/1-eander Road to Highway 29. She said there needs to be more publicly accessible parkland as well as environmental controls. She said one of the City's biggest concerns is public facilities. She noted fire protection in that area has always been a concern. She said their recommendation is to direct staff to proceed with MUD negotiations for properties located outside of the city limits in SSG Basin. She said there are several properties staff has been dealing with directly that can bring economic development to the area. She said in the negotiations, the City will do its best to protect best interests of City, address basin needs and ensure manageable tax burden to future MUD residents. She reviewed the standard conditions for districts, which is to include strategic partnership agreement, limit conditions on MUD bond terms, require city permitting and inspections and a master development fee. She reviewed the future considerations for this issue including revisions to Water Oak Development and the opportunity for the creation of a "Master MUD". There was much discussion about the details that go into the creation of a MUD in this area. She reviewed the next steps of this process. She noted the goal is to bring forward a special district policy as well as an annexation policy for approval. Brainard asked about the largest piece of infrastructure in the city's boundaries or ETJ that has been paid for by a MUD. Rundell said that will be the South San Gabriel interceptor that goes down the river. She said it is almost $15 million and the developer is paying for it. Spurgin said they have seen some of the developers picking up the share of these costs. Briggs said, while it is true the interceptor was paid for by the development, there was an agreement based on growth. He said the developer indicated that this would blow right open but the city contended that that would be more moderate and there would be more risk for the city to pay for this project. He said the arrangement was the developer can put this in and will get reimbursed by the city over time from impact fees. Hesser asked and Rundell spoke about the difference between a MUD and a PID. Hesser asked that staff prepare a spreadsheet explaining the different between MUDs and PIDs. Eason expressed her opinions of MUDS and said MUD used to be a "four letter word" and she is blown away by how things have evolved and how things have changed. She said people have chosen to live in MUDs because they do not want to be paying City taxes. Gonzalez said, over the next 10-15 years, the city will not be able to have enough funds to keep up with the infrastructure needed to match growth. He said MUDs will become a very important factor moving forward. Rundell said she has received the direction she needs to move forward. C Tourism Study Results — Cad Miller, Tourism Manager and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager This item was pulled from the agenda by staff. D Home Repair Program Update — Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Bills provided Council with an update of the Home Repair Program. Se said the program began as a City program in 2008. She said funds had previously been managed by non -profits and they relied solely on volunteer labor. She said, to be eligible for the program, the applicant must own and occupy the home. She said the applicant must also have a total household income not to exceed 80% of Area Median Income before taxes ($60,300 for a family of four). She said once the basic requirements are met, staff inspects the home to determine repair priorities. She said, based on the severity of repairs and funds available, staff determines if the repairs can be conducted. She said, lately, they have been working more with volunteers including the Community Restore Program. She provided Council with a description of some of the repairs that have been done in the past. She described the revisions they are looking at to the program including to allow larger projects to be eligible (greater than $10,000). She said addressing larger repairs will allow the program to be more proactive in approaching homes that may become cases of demolition due to neglect and lead to code information which could be costly in staff time, legal fees and city -initiated demolition. She said they would also like to add a two year minimum for residency in a house before being able to apply for the program. Fought said he supports the program and he noted he also supports the recommendation about the two year residency. He said he would rather staff use a term other than "median income." He said the term "poverty line" seems to address need more than area median income. He said he would really like to see a way for residents to pay it back or live in the home for at least ten years. He noted he thinks this is good policy. Hesser asked if the City expects to get the money back. He said he does think the City should receive some funds in return. He spoke about the idea of putting a lien on a house if they owe the City money. Eason provided a brief history lesson on this program and why it was originally established. She said this was established to address people to get out of a dire situation. She said some of these people would be homeless without the home they have. She asked and Bills said the process of review of the repairs has been brought in house. Eason said the program has been incredible in being able to help people with these issues. Jonrowe said she likes this program but noted she does not want the city to get into the business of savings houses that are badly in disrepair. She said the City should set a max amount for the repairs. She said she does not think the efficiency program related repairs should not be paid back. Hammerlun said doing more projects at a smaller cost has a greater community impact that three large scale projects. He said he is in favor of more with less dollars. He noted he wants to see as many people as possible benefit from this program. Gonzalez spoke about imposing a resale lien so that the sale of one of the homes will result in money coming back to the City. Brainard asked if the demands for the program exceed the dollars available. Bills said it has in years past. He asked and Bills said there is no dollar limit on the project and said the most they have paid was $11,000. She said, generally, they do not spend more than $6,000- $8,000. Brainard asked and Bills said the city has turned down projects at least 10 times for various issues. Hesser said he is not disappointed with the program but there needs to be tighter controls on the program to assist Bills in making appropriate decisions in some of these situations. There as much discussion. E Overview of Georgetown South TIRZ Economic Development -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Mark Thomas, Economic Development Director With a Powerpoint Presentation, Thomas sad they have been working on this for a while to look for opportunities to develop in South Georgetown around Westinghouse Road. He said staff has been looking into creating a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) in this area. Rundell provided the Council with an overview of the project and showed Council a map of the proposed areas for the TIRZ. She spoke about why they would like to create a TIRZ and said it will provide funds to increase economic growth in this area. She noted there are infrastructure needs in this area of town and those needs could be addressed with these funds. She reviewed the proposed projects for that area. She spoke about how the plan would work and noted the City would create the TIRZ district, Phase 1 initial infrastructure improvements would begin, the development would then occur, valuation occurs and tax revenue is generated which will go into a special fund and debt service payments will be paid from TIRZ revenue when available. She spoke about the potential development opportunities in the proposed Georgetown South TIRZ. She said, for the project pro -forma, the estimated increase in valuation within the zone can be as high as $700million by 2020. She said the property tax and potential annual sales tax revenue. She said there is a lot of opportunity for job creation and expansion. She said this could be an area where someone could live, work and play. She said there is an opportunity for Williamson County to participate in this TIRZ. She spoke about how that would work. She said if the County participates, it would more easily fund road projects in that area. She listed those proposed projects. She spoke about the next steps in this process and said staff is working on a feasibility review process, which is underway. She said they will finalize preliminary plans now through the end of March. There will be a public hearing on April 22 along with the first reading of the TIRZ ordinances. Thomas spoke about the economic development aspect of this proposal. He said the outlet mall and IKEA is just south of the area. He said the development in the area is stopping right up to Georgetown's property line. He said we have retail coming right up to our front door without having the infrastructure in place to compete for those projects. He described the tracts located in the proposed TIRZ area and showed Council a map of the area. Rundell said this particular presentation was seen at the GTAB meeting. Hammerlun asked and Rundell said the County has not participated in other TIRZs in Georgetown but noted they have with other communities. Brandenburg said Commissioner Covey is interested in this and noted they would like to get rid of Westinghouse and give it to us. Brainard asked about asking Round Rock to help with the road. Polasek said they are pursuing that option. He said Round Rock has agreed to help in the cost of the design. Brainard asked and Rundell said that GISD is not able to participate in a TIRZ from a state law stand point. There was much discussion. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sec. 551.071 & 551.074 of the Local Government Code -- 4:21 PM Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Intermountain claim - Tex -Con claim Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - Legal Department Adjournment — Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned — 6:OOPM Certificate of Posting I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2014, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary j,ztn,f-w,"L George Gary r, Mayor "V Attut: City Secretary