HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.23.2016 CC-RNotice of Minutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:00 PM at the Council Chambers at 101
E. 7`' 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 (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8"
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance.
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
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Welcome and Meeting Procedures
- Boy Scouts Proclamation
- Proclamation for David McKee
- Proclamation Video of Patricia Steuerwald
- Paramedic and Firefighter Recognitions from Chief Sullivan
City Council Regional Board Reports
Ross asked if there were any Regional Reports from Councilmembers.
Jonrowe, Gipson and Ross answered that there was nothing to share at this time, but all are expecting more to
report after next month's meetings.
Announcements
- May 7, 2016 General Election Information
- Georgetown Swirl
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Brainard to approve the purchase of real property for the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project from Leslie David
Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo, Angie San Miguel, and Joseph M. Hertsenberg and Debby L. Hertsenberg, and
the payment of relocation and/or business re-establishment benefits and actual moving expenses in accordance
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, on the terms discussed
in Executive Session. Second by Gonzalez.
Approved: 7-0
Mayor Ross announced that item AJ had been pulled from the agenda by request of the applicant.
Mayor Ross spoke to the audience about meeting procedure and the importance of courtesy and respect for
others during City Council meetings.
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.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, February 9, 2016 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
C. Consideration and possible action to enter into separate Interlocal Agreements with Burnet County,
Williamson County, and the cities of Bertram, Burnet, Leander, and Liberty Hill for participation in a flood
protection planning study of the North and South Forks of the San Gabriel River -- Wesley Wright, P.E.,
Systems Engineering Director
D. Consideration and possible action to accept 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 31, 2015 -- Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Lisa Haines, Controller
E. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing proceeding with the issuance of
obligations for the City's capital improvement programs and further directing the publication of Notice of
Intention to Issue City of Georgetown, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation,
Series 2016, authorizing the preparation of offering documents by Specialized Public Finance, Inc. and other
matters related thereto -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
F. Consideration and possible action to approve a License to Encroach for Glasscock's Addition, Block 20, Lot 1
and a portion of Lot 2, located at 1002 South Elm Street, for a retaining wall to encroach seven feet into the
10th Street public right-of-way, and for a retaining wall to encroach two feet into the Elm Street public right-
of-way -- Carolyn Horner, AICP, Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
G. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution confirming the appointment of Glenn Mautner to a
second term on the Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission -- David Morgan, City
Manager
H. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution confirming the appointment of James Montgomery
to a fourth term on the Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission -- David Morgan, City
Manager
I. Consideration and possible action to appoint Marion Goforth to the Housing Advisory Board to fill a vacancy –
Mayor Dale Ross
J. Consideration and possible action to appoint Randy Hachtel to the Housing Advisory Board to fill a vacancy –
Mayor Dale Ross
K. Consideration and possible action to approve the recommendation of the appointment of Brian Ortego to the
Georgetown Village Public Improvement District No. 1 Advisory Board, as recommended by the Board –
Mayor Dale Ross
L. Consideration and possible action to amend the Interlocal Agreement for the Fire Marshal and Fire Code
Enforcement Services between the City of Georgetown, Texas and Williamson County Emergency Services
District No. 8 (ESD8) to include the Board of Appeal process -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
M. Consideration and possible action to approve the 2015 Racial Profiling Report as mandated by the State
Legislature -- Wayne F. Nero, Chief of Police
N. Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Round Rock to share
funding for the May Street Extension from Bass Pro Drive/Teravista Parkway to Westinghouse Road in the
amount of $10,974,930.00 (City of Georgetown – $7,873,574.25; City of Round Rock – $2,905,355.75) – Bill
Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Edward G. Polasek, AICP Transportation Services Director
O. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Contract to Westar Construction, Inc., of
Georgetown, Texas, for the construction of the CDBG – 3rd Street Sidewalk Improvements Project in the
amount of $106,154.00 -- Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
P. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a Participation Agreement with the Williamson County
Conservation Foundation in conjunction with the Southwest Bypass -Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension
Project in the amount of $317,950.00 — Bill Dryden, P.E., Transportation Engineer and Jim Briggs, General
Manager of Utilities
Q. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Materials Testing Contract to Terracon
Consultants, Inc., of Austin, Texas, for the materials testing and bridge construction inspection services
for the Southwest Bypass -Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension Project in the amount of $353,820.00 -- Wesley
Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
R. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award an annual Asphalt patching contract to Guerra Underground of
Austin, TX. to make asphalt patches on City streets and parking areas on an as needed basis in an amount
not to exceed $275,000.00 -- Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager
of Utilities
S. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Airport Project Participation Agreement for TxDOT CSJ no.
16MPGRGTN, Airport Master Plan Update with a project cost estimate of $200,000.00 of which the City cost
share is estimated at $20,000.00 -- Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
Item S was pulled to regular agenda by Councilmember Fought.
T. Forwarded from the Library Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to authorize staff to apply for a Texas State Library and Archives
Commission Special Projects Grant for a Community Resources Coordinator position -- Eric P. Lashley,
Library Services Director
U. Forwarded from the Arts & Culture Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to amend the operating agreement with Georgetown Art Works to expand
services to the second floor of the Georgetown Art Center — Eric P. Lashley, Library Services Director
V. Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve a construction contract with Smith Contracting of Austin, TX in
the amount of $1,286,674.80 for renovations to VFW Park -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
W. Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve a Buyboard contract with Musco Lighting, LLC of Oskaloosa,
Iowa in the amount of $218,500 for athletic field lights at VFW Park — Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation
Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
X. Consideration and possible action to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Georgetown and
Williamson County regarding the Southwest Bypass Project — David Morgan, City Manager and Jim Briggs,
General Manager of Utilities
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item S which was
pulled to the Legislative Regular agenda.
Approved: 7-0
Legislative Re- Agenda
S. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to approve the Airport Project Participation Agreement for TxDOT CSJ no.
16MPGRGTN, Airport Master Plan Update with a project cost estimate of $200,000.00 of which the City cost
share is estimated at $20,000.00 -- Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities
Item S was pulled to the Legislative Regular Agenda from the Consent Agenda by Councilmember Fought
because a person or persons had signed up to speak on the Item.
Russ Volk, the City's Airport Manager, introduced the item and provided a brief explanation.
Persons who signed up to speak on Item S included John Milford and Carl Norris.
Mr. Carl Norris spoke on Item S. (Attached to approved minutes)
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve Item S.
Approved: 7-0
Y. Forwarded from the Housing Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to approve 1) a Resolution of support or no objection and 2) a Resolution
acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average per capita amount of Housing Tax
Credit units, for Cypress Creek Georgetown Village LP to apply for Housing Tax Credits for the construction
of 220 units to be known as the Cypress Creek Apartment Homes at Georgetown Village, located on the east
side of Shell Road, north of Sycamore Street -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator, and
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer Bills, the City's Housing Coordinator, spoke on the item. She explained that the two tax credit proposals
on the agenda belong to the same developer. She spoke on the Cypress Creek development and explained that
even though the site is in the ETJ, it is in the Georgetown Village Concept Plan. She communicated to Council
the reasons that the proposals are being brought to Council at a later date than the other 3 tax credit proposals.
Bills then spoke on the Mariposa Senior Living Development and showed maps of the property locations.
Bills went on to recap the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit program. She explained the competitive process and
affordability criteria.
Fought asked what AMI would be for a family of 4. Bills answered that it would be $76,800. She explained that
this would mean that half of the people in Georgetown earn more and half of the people in Georgetown earn less.
Bills communicated the criteria of the application process and shared that both Travis and Williamson Counties
were in the same award region. She then said that 5 of the original 15 applications for tax credit developments
have dropped out and 4 have been approved in Austin.
Bills recapped the approvals of 3 tax credits developments at the last City Council meeting. She went on to
explain that Georgetown already has more than twice as many facilities as other communities and the 2x
resolution is necessary for approval of these projects. She then explained the resolution of support.
Bills told the Council that staff does not recommend approval, but the Housing Advisory Board did recommend
approval. Bills said the reason for staff rejection is traffic issues at the proposed sites.
Persons signed up to speak on item Y included: James Baker, Brian Ortego, Marshall Friedman, Joel Russeau,
Charles Baker, Pat Allison, Susan Narvaiz, Shara Thomas, Camy Reynolds, Alex Hayes, Bill Weber, John
Joseph, Dave Hackbarth, Emily Protine, Casey Bump, Stuart Shaw and Madison Smith.
Comments and Concerns Voiced Included:
Developer and member of community for 10 years on Riverbend Drive
Great locations will be closer to the HEB grocery store
Will be keeping the trees
Partner with local churches
Perfect Access to 195 — great arterials
Seniors are not working
Showed map of where the developments would be located
Non age restricted community
Both communities pay school tax, while only one has children
Serves teachers and firefighters
Georgetown Chamber is supporting the development
Provided a public notification to Council Members
Could not get on agenda early because of extensive outreach
Opened communities in the areas for visits
Community meeting held at Village Elementary School
Showed pictures of a family already living in a tax credit community
Gave a testimonial of a resident family of a Bonner Carrington community
53% of apartment dwellers have 0 friends
Cares Team hosts opportunities for residents to have social interaction and events
Offers hope to apartment livers
Mayor Ross called for a break at 7.00 PM
Meeting resumed at 7.03 PM
Showed Georgetown Village Concept Plan Map
Read paragraph about annexation of land from the Concept Plan
City agrees to accept annexation in the Concept Plan
This land use would be supported
Great apartment developer
Diverse families in Georgetown Village
Less than '/2 the density it could be
A city is made by the individuals who live in it
There is a need for affordable housing
One mile radius per capita income is $38,091
Average household size is 2.6
Household by income — 25% or slightly greater are in need of affordable housing
Cypress Creek resident shocked to find she could live there
Community is beautiful and well kept
Cypress Creek has established themselves in the Community
Community resident with 2 children is able to sustain and be productive
Similar community in San Marcus has been hugely successful
Bond issue approved for traffic on Williams Drive
More stops lights and delays
Takes 25 or 30 minutes to get across town
Council is causing traffic congestion
Discouraging commerce and encouraging residents to go other places
Thanks to Council for their service
Council's job to protect and improve the quality of life for Georgetown residents
Improving traffic on Williams Drive was supposed to be in the Road Bond
Promises have not been kept
80% of problems come from 20% of the people
Already have example of Cypress Creek or Mariposa community for 10 years
Values have not gone down
Crime has not gone up
2 Georgetowns — one no one talks about — 2 Georgetowns include exclusive and Inclusive
Because you make more money does not mean you are a better person
Need to be an inclusive loving community
Tax credit units will increase by 40%
Staff recommended not to approve
Proposal outside the city limits will require annexation and zoning and land use authorization
City has far more of these units than other areas
This project is better than other uses
Will serve a lot of people
The developer does not build and move on
Bills came up for questions from the Council
Jonrowe asked Bills to verify if the PUD was approved for 36 units per acre. Bills said it is actually a concept plan
but that is correct and it will need to go through the Planning Department for rezoning. Jonrowe asked why staff
rejected the project because of sidewalks and asked if it would be different if it was a non -subsidized project. Bills
said it would have the same requirements. Jonrowe said that the sidewalk situation should be added to the future
discussion on sidewalk plans. Jonrowe stated that multi -family housing was initially included in the Georgetown
Village Concept Plan.
Gipson asked if this project would have to go to the County for further approval. Bills said it would and would also
garner more points by going to Marsha Farney, the Texas State representative.
Mr. Shaw, the developer for the project, came up to answer questions from Council. Gipson asked why all
developers are looking at the west side of town, where traffic is already a problem. Bills said scoring criteria gets
more points for high opportunity areas. Shaw said scoring criteria pushes developers to the West. He said that
there are 3 or 4 communities in the East, but a developer could not score properly with an east development
today.
Brainard asked Shaw about the fewer units on this site. The density allowed for 36 units per acre and the
developer is proposing 15 units per acre. Shaw said that his existing Georgetown development is only 12 units
per acre. Shaw said he likes to deliver a superior product. Brainard thanked Shaw. Brainard said another
developer could build something with higher density. Bills explained that it would have to be annexed and
rezoned.
Bills said it is likely that one tax credit community will be approved by the State and possibly one more, from the 5
applicants in Georgetown.
Eby asked Bills to flush out her concerns. Eby said she does not want to treat different developers in different
ways and asked for further clarification of why staff is not recommending the proposal. Bills said that when the
Housing Advisory Board reviewed possible affordable housing sites, the sites on Williams Drive fit the criteria
better than sites having retail right next to single family residential with long range plans. Bills said another
concern is that Phase 2 of the Sidewalk Plan is more than 10 years out and sidewalks will remain a problem for
some time to come. Bills explained that the Housing Advisory Board voted to support the proposals because the
developer has already been in town for 10 years. Eby asked if the ETJ location creates further problems. Bills
answered that it would include further steps but not considered problems.
Ross commented that any building is good for 30 years, typically. He explained that it does not make sense to
assume that nothing will be built there in time. Ross said that Council will need to undertake this mission.
Gipson thanked Bills and staff for the further education on tax credit housing.
Gonzalez thanked Stuart Shaw for his educational efforts also.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Brainard to approve Item Y.
Jonrowe thanked staff and Bonner Carrington for the community education and outreach. She spoke on the
residents of Stonehaven and how they also deserve respect. She would like to see the City and citizens carry this
spirit forward.
Fought said he will vote against these proposals. He said that he acknowledges the need and wants affordable
housing but Council needs to develop a reasonable policy. Fought said the cart is currently before the horse. He
said that the City already has almost 3 times as many of these communities as other cities. Fought discussed
how Police Officers and Firefights are not served by these communities because they make more than the criteria
states. Fought said that other projects in other cities have failed miserably. He does agree, however, that the
developer staying on is attractive. Fought suggested that Council needs to talk and think this through.
Ross reminded Council that the Housing Advisory Board had come to Council with a plan. Ross reminded Council
that comments from the dais included conversation regarding the need for a private sector deal. Ross explained
that this is not unique to Georgetown. Affordable housing is a problem everywhere.
Vote:
Failed: 4-3 (Fought, Hesser. Gipson and Gonzalez Opposed)
Mayor called a break at 8.05 PM
Meeting resumed at 8:16 PM
Z. Forwarded from the Housing Advisory Board:
Consideration and possible action to recommend approval 1) a Resolution of support or no objection and 2) a
Resolution acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average per capita amount of
Housing Tax Credit units, for Georgetown Village Senior Residential LP to apply for Housing Tax Credits for
the construction of 180 units to be known as the Mariposa Apartment Homes at Georgetown Village, located on
the east side of Shell Road, north of Sycamore Street -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing
Coordinator and Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
Bills spoke on the item and described the Mariposa property of 180 units of senior units.
Persons signed up to speak on item Z included: Jill Fussell, Robert Hall, Alex Hayes, Stuart Shaw, Casey Bump,
Emily Protene, Dave Hackbarth, John Joseph, Bill Weber, Camy Reynolds, Shara Thomas, Susan Narvaiz,
Madison Smith and Pat Allison.
Because most comments and concerns had already been voiced in Item Y, some speakers chose not to require
Council's time to say the same thing again. Those who did speak included Shaw, Fussell, Ortego and Friedman.
Comments and Concerns Voiced Included:
Traffic problem has been solved
Seniors do not travel during high traffic times
Pleaded to Council to approve
Already in the Community
Active adults 55 plus
Track record excellent
Longtime friends and partners
Inaccurate to say adding traffic
Residents will pay taxes but have no children in the schools
Can stay in Georgetown Village and move to a different type of housing when older
Need service people to help with yard and cleaning
Seniors need this type of development
Another piece of senior living needed in Georgetown
Design and location are perfect
Horse behind the cart
Get process in line first
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Brainard to approve Item Z.
Gipson said he has an obligation to his constituents in District 5. He explained that he has been very involved and
that many people support the project but that an overwhelming number of the people in District 5 oppose it.
Vote:
Failed: 4-3 (Gonzalez, Gipson, Hesser, Fought opposed)
AA. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to amend the Wolf Ranch Hillwood Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District (Ordinance 2014-102), including 754.22 acres in the Perry, Thompson, Donagan,
Pulsifer and Stubblefield Surveys generally located at West University Avenue and Wolf Ranch Parkway, to
amend the High Density Multifamily (MF -2) District development standards -- Mike Elabarger, Senior Planner
Nelson described the item, showed maps of the area, clarified the amendments and showed PUD amendment
revisions. Nelson explained the requested amendments and showed the proposed revisions. Nelson showed the
impact of the changes. She spoke on the length standard and masonry requirements. Nelson advised that the
applicant was present if the Council had any questions.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 8.32 PM.
Brian Ortego spoke. Ortego said that Hillwood has educated the community over the past couple of years.
Ortego mentioned the approval of the Georgetown Village Development 18 years ago and discussed the
importance of Master Planned Communities. Ortego called Georgetown Village a well planned community, but
more mom and pop than Hillwood. Ortego went on to say that business owners have a hard time getting
employees and he fully supports Hillwood.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 8.35 PM.
Brainard asked if it is correct that the density of this project will not change but the request is to have more
flexibility in how it is built and arranged. Nelson confirmed.
Motion by Brainard, second by Gonzalez to approve Item AA.
Approved: 7-0
AB. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a Rezoning from (AG) District to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District with a base zoning of Residential Single-family (RS) for 207.147 acres of land in the
Addison Survey, located at 2750 County Road 110 -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (action required)
Nelson explained the zoning request and showed a future land use map. She spoke on transportation and a
minor arterial road way and collector road way. Nelson showed the roadway design and the concept plan. She
explained that the property would have up to 775 single family homes and a private amenity center. Nelson
showed UDC requirements and lots sizes and the request is for less than the current minimum lot size. She said
that a masonry standard has been added which will include 85% of the exterior. The UDC does not have this
standard, explained Nelson, so the developer has gone above and beyond. Nelson then spoke on parking in the
development and added space. She then discussed driveway provisions. Nelson said that staff is neutral on the
request.
Gonzalez asked about the requirement for 125 ft. apart. Nelson said this is because of the residential collectors
and funneling traffic from a small road to a large road. Nelson also mentioned that the Planning & Zoning
Commission had approved the applicant request for 50 feet apart.
Nelson defined a collector street and explained the pervious cover request and requirements. She spoke on the
parkland and open space and said the applicant is proposing trails and an amenity center that will be private to
the subdivision. Nelson said that the Homeowners Associations would maintain the parkland. The Planning &
Zoning Commission approved the project with the following conditions: applicant should have a minimum reserve
of right of way and minimum improvements; TIA is required as part of the PUD and the MUD request. Applicant
wants to delay TIA until first start project. Another condition would be a maximum of 30 residential lots to face
onto the collector street with driveway spacing of 50 feet, measured from the center of the driveway.
Nelson said that the applicant and property owner and developer were present for questions. Nelson read the
caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 8.45 PM.
Persons signed up to speak on item AB included: Kristopher Kasper, David Nairne, Ross Rost and Mark Baker.
Mark Baker spoke first and said he was happy to explain the provisions. He described the internal loop road with
the proposed lots. Baker said to view it as an internal roadway and that there would only be a hand full of lots
facing that road. Baker said the other variations are due to the smaller lot sizes. He said to incorporate smaller
lot sizes and still meet pervious cover requirements was a challenge. They would want to have both single story
and 2 story homes.
Brainard asked about the square feet of the houses. Baker said the smallest is 1400 to 1500 square feet.
Brainard asked if the City development code is out of touch with the market. Nelson said smaller lots do not
necessarily mean less nice houses. Nelson agreed that impervious cover requirements might need to be
reconsidered. Brainard asked if small driveways would make one car need to park on the street. Nelson said the
minimum garage space required will provide the ability to store a car in the garage.
Nelson said that staff included approval criteria in the UDC. When examined, the staff determined that 5 of the 11
criteria were inconsistent and others did not meet the standards. Staff would give approval with conditions if
Council wanted to proceed.
Comments and Concerns Voice included:
Lived in Georgetown for 67 years.
Spoke on streets in the proposed development.
Project is a disaster.
Concentration is way too great.
Travels Hwy 110 frequently.
No water studies. No traffic studies. Inadequate information.
Road is landlocked on three sides.
Suggests do not approve.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve item AB with the conditions given by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Hesser asked Nelson to explain the road situation. Nelson explained the minor arterial and showed where it
would go. At the time of a PUD, the developer must acquire the right of way.
Eby asked Nelson what changes could be made in order for staff to support the project. Nelson said the criteria of
a PUD is uniqueness and the UDC cannot be responsible to get you where you need to go. Nelson said that with
this type of residential development, mixed use or uniqueness are not there. Nelson told Eby that the developer
does not want to proceed with that type of development at this time.
Vote:
Approved: 5-2 (Brainard, Eby opposed)
AC. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 1.227 acres of the Wright Survey located at 4124
Williams Drive, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Local Commercial (C-1) District. -- Juan Enriquez,
Planner
Nelson described the property on Williams Drive and the rezoning request. She said that there is a two story
residential structure on the site and it had been given a default designation of agricultural. Nelson showed the
future land use map. She said that the mixed use nature does support a rezoning request. Planning & Zoning
unanimously approved the request. Nelson read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing 9.06 PM. No persons requested to speak.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing 9.06 PM.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Gonzales to approve Item AC.
Approved: 7-0
AD. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 1.66 acres of land being Lot 5 of the Georgetown
Technology Park subdivision located at 2 Sierra Way from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Industrial (IN)
District. -- Juan Enriquez, Planner
Nelson described the item and said that the property is surrounded by other industrial properties. She then
showed the zoning map and explained that an Industrial nature is more prominent in the area than residential.
Nelson said that the Planning & Zoning Commission had approved the request. Nelson read caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 9.08 PM. No persons requested to speak.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing closed 9.08 PM.
Motion by Brainard, second by Gonzalez to approve Item AD.
Approved: 7-0
AE. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Rezone 17.81 acres of the L.J. Dyches Survey, located at
1000 FM 1460, from the Agriculture (AG) District to the Low Density Multifamily (MF -1) District -- Juan Enriquez,
Planner
Nelson described the rezoning request and showed a location map. She then showed a zoning map. She
explained that this was up for second reading at this meeting. Nelson showed future land use designation and
said that the applicant wants a designation of multifamily. Nelson showed notable development standards in MF -
1 District.
Nelson explained that the property is encumbered by the 100 year floodplain. Nelson added that the staff and
Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval for the portion of property outside of the flood plain and that
this would increase the density. Nelson read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public hearing 9.13 PM.
Persons signed up to speak on Item AE included: Tracy LaFane, Rosalind Pearce, Cheryl Schneider, Quint
Schneider, Gayle Marie Lineman and Robert Smith.
Concerns and comments voice included:
Supports staff recommendation after getting more information.
Person can do what want with own land unless it harms neighbors.
This will be developed. This designation fits in well with properties around it.
Wall has been installed to stop water that has been a problem.
Now the wall will be removed.
Road connection problems have been explained well.
Developer will go beyond minimum on buffering also.
Against proposal – premature
Wants to speak to Jimmy Jacobs
When changes to MF1, developer can do what he wants
Traffic a concern
Height a problem for privacy and safety
Drainage is an issue
Pleasant Valley subdivision will suffer
Community does not have enough information
Allow builder to give more information prior to approval
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9.20 PM.
Brainard asked for development standards for MF -1 District. Nelson listed the standards. Brainard asked about
1460 being closed off. Nelson confirmed and described how High Tech Drive would handle the travel for this
small portion of road.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve Item AE.
Approved: 6-1 (Brainard opposed)
AF. Forwarded from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance adopting Chapter 8.40 of the Code of Ordinances relating to
establishing minimum standards of care for youth recreation providing a severability clause, repealing
conflicting ordinances and resolutions and establishing an effective date -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation
Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager (action required)
Kimberly Garrett spoke on the standards of care item and explained that an ordinance was first adopted in 2015,
but must be adopted annually. Garrett said there are no changes to the ordinance from last year. She said that
the Parks & Recreation Board had approved. Garrett read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing 9.25 PM. No persons were signed up to speak.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 9.25 PM.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Hesser to approve Item AF.
Approved: 7-0
AG. Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a Construction Contract to Jordan Foster Construction, LLC, of
Pflugerville, Texas, for the construction of the Southwest Bypass -Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension Project in
the amount of $18,322,089.58 — Wesley Wright, P.E, Systems Engineering Director and Jim Briggs, General
Manager of Utilities
Polasek explained the item. He said that the Road Bond Election in 2015 provides for the project. Polasek said
that there had been 8 bids and this was the lowest bidder. Polasek said that the Georgetown Transportation
Advisory Board (GTAB) had recommended approval unanimously.
Motion by Brainard, second by Hesser to approve Item AG.
Brainard commented that the bid came in at $3 million dollars less than expected and asked about timelines for
the project. Polasek said it will start in mid-April and have 24 months of construction. Brainard asked if this was a
significant and critical transportation piece for Georgetown. Polasek said it has been in the works for 25 years.
Approved: 7-0
AH. Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation of various additions to the Williams Drive right-
of-way as conveyed to the City from Williamson County, from DB Wood through the Jim Hogg intersection -
- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson spoke on the annexation and read the caption.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve Item AH.
Approved: 7-0
Al. Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation of 207.147 acres in the Addison Survey, located
at 2750 County Road 110 -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
Nelson spoke on the annexation. She said that this is the Kasper Tract of 207 acres. She then read the caption.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser to approve item Al.
Approved: 7-0
AJ. Second Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation of 10.058 acres in the Francis Hudson Survey,
located at 555 Rabbit Hill Road -- Jordan J. Maddox, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A,
Planning Director
Item AJ has been pulled from the agenda at the applicant's request.
AK. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning Lots 1 & 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, located at 224 E. 8t"
Street and known as The Union on Eighth, from the Mixed -Use Downtown (MUDT) District with conditions to the
Mixed -Use Downtown (MUDT) District (without conditions) -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia
Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson explained the item and read the caption
Persons signed up to speak on Item AK included Lawrence Romero, Ann Seaman, Linda Johnson, Michael
Walton, Larry Olson, Ross Hunter, Pam Mitchell and Bob Phipps
Concerns and comments voiced included:
Area is too tight
Future owners could operate a microbrewery
In Georgetown oldest residential neighborhood
Support growth and glad downtown is doing well
Let neighbors be allowed to contribute to discussion on what can go here
Do not remove special conditions of protection
Trusts fewer owners would be considerate
Showed picture of Georgetown of the past
Located 50 feet from bedrooms
Commercial use should be reviewed with neighbors
There is no HOA in downtown.
If approved, there would be no requirement to bring to the City Council
No longer would have protection promised by City Council
Public policy is masking as something simpler
Corner is transitional
Define these special uses better
Preserve what predecessors have provided
This has contributed to this business
No hurry — should take time for serious study
Property appraisal reductions have occurred for two adjacent properties to the business
Council and planning department need to become accountable
Pro development becomes anti resident
This business is not negatively affecting the neighborhood
Event center is successful
Owner does not want to continue the parking issues
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve Item AK.
Jonrowe asked Nelson if the special use permit would allow for further uses. Nelson said the permit would be
established for this use only. If it became a new owner, the permit would no longer apply. Jonrowe said she was
involved from the beginning in this project. Jonrowe said that the neighbors have been asked to compromise a lot
and the neighbors have accepted it and learned to live with it. Jonrowe is concerned that this would make them
have to compromise every night, instead of primarily just weekend nights. Jonrowe will not vote for approval.
Nelson noted that the item will need a super majority vote because more than 20% of neighbors within 200 feet
had voiced opposition.
Eby said there is a misconception of mixed use. She would like all to realize that mixed use would still have to
come back to the Council. Nelson read the uses that could go with Council approval. Eby said she will vote in
favor of the rezone and that the historic conditions do not protect the neighborhood. She said that there are still
protections with the mixed use zoning and that Council will still always have further oversight.
Jonrowe asked about the language determining friendly or unfriendly. Nelson said there is a list of permitted uses
and a list of not permitted uses. Jonrowe said there is a difference from predominately weekend use and weekly
use.
Vote:
Approved: 6-1 (Jonrowe opposed)
AL. Second Reading of an Ordinance for an amendment to a Special Use Permit at 224 E. 8th Street, being Lots 1
& 2, Block 9, of the Glasscock Addition, for an event facility known as The Union on Eighth in the Mixed -Use
Downtown (MUDT) District -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson spoke on the item and provided a presentation on the special use permit and showed a map. Nelson
recapped a prior meeting where the City Council had agreed to the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommendations with the exception of parking on Myrtle Street. The owner was required to place signage along
the street and instruct patrons not to park on Myrtle Street or the adjacent area. Nelson said that another
clarification was requested for conditions 17 and 19 for shared parking to be in place for larger events. Nelson
explained that staff would like to make the recommendation that valet parking is required for events of 75 or more
patrons and remove the shared parking agreement. Nelson said that the applicant was present for questions.
Nelson read the caption.
Persons signed up to speak on item AL included: Larry Olson, Ross Hunter, Lawrence Romero, Linda Johnson,
J.C. Johnson, Pam Mitchell and Ann Seaman.
Comments and Concerns Voiced Included:
Special use permit needs to be enforceable
Neighborhood met with Bohls yesterday
SUP represents a lot of hard work and thought
Unsightly trailer on property
Need clarity on property line
Owner allowed as security guard is a problem
Must define enforceable and consequences
One business must comply with noise ordinance, while another is not held accountable
Neighbors need noise decibel level restrictions
Primary entrance should be on the Eighth Street side.
Can't use Myrtle Street as the primary entrance
If Myrtle is used, noise would be even closer
Primary guest entry should be treated different than a vendor entry
Parking a major problem
Safety a major problem
Doors need to be closed when music is playing
Listened on weekends and does not think it is a problem
600 Degrees and Eats on 81' had more noise
It was not a neighbor who harassed the guests
Applicants truck and trailer were blocking the driveway — could not find security —had to walk 94 year old dad in
street
Neighbors have had threats and harassment
Thumping base is a problem
Accusations were false but the person accused had to obtain an attorney
Served with a criminal trespass warning
Union on 81' is not like any other business — event facility
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve Item AL including staff recommendations.
Motion by Jonrowe to amend the motion to include language for noise decibels.
Motion by Jonrowe to amend Item Number 5 to read as follows:
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the making of noise to exceed 63 decibels during the daytime or 56
decibels during the night time when measured from the South and East property lines and 70 decibels during the
daytime and 63 decibels during the night time when measured from the North and West property lines.
Eby said this was already included in staff recommendations. Jonrowe said that the measurements taken at the
property lines had not been identified.
Second by Eby. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, confirmed that the amended motion would not need a super
majority vote to pass.
Amended Motion to include the definition of the property line:
Vote:
Approved: 7-0
Motion by Jonrowe to amend the motion for Item Number 6 to read as follows:
Any electronic music source or amplification shall be located entirely within the building. For events conducted
within the ceremony area no electric amplification shall be permitted except for a spokesperson using a portable
speaker system and for chamber music during the ceremony only. Second by Eby.
Failed 5-2: (Gonzalez, Hesser, Brainard, Gipson, Fought opposed)
Eby said that the applicant would not be opposed to the language and asked if that would change the vote. The
applicant, Justin Bohls, spoke. Bohls first thanked Eby for arranging the neighborhood meeting. He then said that
he does not understand the opposition because he too is in favor of the noise decibel restrictions and has not
been in violation.
Motion by Fought to reconsider the prior vote regarding the amplification restrictions. Second by Brainard.
Vote on the reconsidered amended motion:
Approved: 7-0
Motion by Jonrowe to amend item 10 to read as follows:
A minimum of 1 licensed or certified security officer from an established private security company shall be
required at any event where alcohol is to be served at an event that exceeds 50 guests, with 2 required at an
event that exceeds 100 guests.
Eby said she is not in favor of the language saying a private security facility because that would exclude a police
officer from the City of Georgetown. She would not want to restrict off duty officers from being hired for events.
Motion died for lack of a second motion.
Jonrowe motioned to amend the amended motion to include language for a peace officer.
Motion by Jonrowe to require a minimum of 1 licensed certified security officer from an established private security
company or a peace officer shall be required at any event where alcohol is to be served at an event that exceeds
50 guests, with 2 required at an event that exceeds 100 guests. Second by Eby.
Amended motion to include a peace officer:
Vote:
Failed: 2-5 (Brainard, Hesser, Fought, Gipson, Gonzalez opposed)
Motion by Jonrowe to amend Number 11 to include language that inside strobe lighting shall not be visible from
outside the building and to establish a timeline for how long the owner of the property intends to come into
compliance.
Motion died for lack of a second motion.
Motion by Jonrowe for an amendment to Number 16 to read as follows:
Owner shall add in all rental contracts that event guests are asked not to park on Myrtle Street or surrounding
residential streets out of respect for our residential neighbors and to place a sign on the property corner during all
events with the statement described earlier by staff.
Motion dies for lack of second motion.
Motion by Jonrowe to amend the motion to include the removal of the conceptual site layout to disallow the trailer
on the property.
Motion died for lack of a second motion.
Original Motion:
Vote:
Approved: 6-1 (Jonrowe opposed)
Super Majority Vote does pass
AM. Discussion and possible direction to staff to prepare for Council consideration a Resolution indicating to the
Williamson County and Cities Health District that the Georgetown City Council would not object to permitting
restaurant owners in the City to allow pets in outdoor dining areas — Keith Brainard, Councilmember District 2
Brainard spoke about seeking guidance from Council regarding notifying Williamson County and Cities Health
District that the City of Georgetown would allow restaurant owners to make decisions about permitting pets in
their outdoor eating areas. Brainard asked Council to direct staff to come up with recommendations and
language.
Jeff Barrett asked Council to consider approving this. He said that he wants to dine at his favorite restaurants with
his pets. He said that the restaurant owners he has spoken to would be in favor of this.
Gipson wanted clarity that the restaurant owners would have the choice.
Motion by Brainard, second by Eby to approve Item AM.
Jonrowe asked if the County allows this or if it needs to be up to the cities. Andreina Davila rose to speak. She
explained that the rules prohibiting pets are from the Texas Food Establishment Rules. She explained that a
restaurant owner could apply for a variance, if the City lets the Health District know that they are not opposed.
Davila explained that a Resolution would give direction to the Health District on the process of variances.
Brainard told Davila that he is grateful for her research. He explained that the rules allow all live animals but the
City could approve criteria that would work out what would be allowed. Brainard explained it could be crafted as
wished.
Approved: 4-3 (Fought, Hesser Gonzalez opposed)
AN. Consideration and possible action to provide direction to staff to evaluate and develop recommendations for
signage in Georgetown declaring the City of Georgetown as the First Purple Heart City in Texas — Mayor Dale
Ross
Ross said Aaron Cabrera and Jonrowe worked on this. Jonrowe agreed and said art should also be incorporated
into the New City Hall for another element of marketing and promotion.
Ross asked staff to brain storm and bring recommendations to Council for signage and promotion.
No Council objections were provided. Vote not needed.
AO. Consideration and possible action to provide direction to staff to evaluate and develop recommendations for
signage in Georgetown declaring the City of Georgetown as a Renewable Energy City — Mayor Dale Ross
No Council objections were provided. Vote not needed.
Project Updates
AP. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street, sidewalk,
and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic development projects; city
facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements and possible direction to city staff --
David Morgan, City Manager
Morgan provided an update on the Austin Ave. bridges and said that the scope would continue to be clarified.
Morgan said that there have been no specific final determinations of options. He said that the scope of review is
meant to help the Council. Morgan said that there would be one meeting this week with adjacent property owners
and that more engineering firms are being sought to review matters since it is such an important project. Morgan
said the majority of the money will be in design work and additional engineers. Morgan explained that when
Council has made decisions of direction, it will be important for the City to get into a position to obtain grant
funding. Morgan finished by saying that no money will be spent on design work until it is brought back to Council.
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 512/930-365 1.
AQ. - Russell Putnam wishes to address the Council regarding Title 10, Vehicle Safety and Traffic, and Golf Cart
travel.
Putnam spoke. He said he is a volunteer for soccer field maintenance. He mentioned that in 2009 it was
mandated that golf cart use can only be in master planned communities. He is asking Council for an ordinance
change for the use of golf carts to sport facilities.
Ross asked how far Mr. Putnam lives from the facility. Putnam said he lives within 1.2 miles of the soccer facility.
Fought said the concern is the difference in allowed speeds and what vehicles actually can do. Golf cart
communities are restricted to 35 miles per hour, explained Fought.
Gonzalez said this is not an agenda item. Assistant Chief Cory Tchida will look into the matter. Morgan said
Putnam has done a good job communicating with the Police Department and the City will continue to look into
this. Morgan said it is not a recommendation at this time.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eby to adjourn the meeting.
Adjourned 10.50 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.
AR. 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
- PEC/PUC Hearing
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- Forwarded from the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of real property, the payment of relocation benefits, and the
subsequent payment of actual reasonable and customary moving expenses in compliance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, in connection with the Rivery Blvd. Extension Project —Terri
Glasby Calhoun, Real Estate Services Coordinator, Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
1. Parcel 2, Leslie David Romo and Sue Lynn Cole Romo, 307 Shannon Ln
2. Parcel 8, Angie San Miguel, 1612 Park Ln
3. Parcel 9, Joseph M. Hertsenberg and Debby L. Hertsenberg, 1610 Park Ln
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Evaluation Process
Adjournment
Adjourned at 10:50 PM
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 31SI16
Date
I
Dale Ross, Mayor
Attest: City nary
STATEMENT TO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016
ITEM "S"- GEORGETOWN AIPORT MASTER PLAN
Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of city council, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My wife and I reside at 4400 Luna Trail. I am a member of the
Airport Concerned Citizen (ACC). This is the 52" statement before the council and/or GTAB by
ACC since January 14, 2014. These statements have been for our continuing pursuit of our
public participation rights and federal agency compliance provided by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for use of federal funds for our local airport.
My comments regarding Item "S" on this agenda preserve and retain the comments made before
this council on October 28, 2014 for the resolution that approved the city cost share for this 90%
federal funded plan of $50,000 to enable the plan's total cost to rise to $500,000 without the
public's knowledge or approval and without formal City and TxDOT procedural action. Our
statement on that previous agenda contained serious concerns and five specific recommendations
for the plan's implementation. For your easy reference, a copy of that ACC statement is attached
to the text of these remarks.
The purpose of the recommendations is to ensure that this new plan will not be conducted in
secret from the public as was the current 2005 master plan from which originated over $19
Million of the total $31 Million over the past 37 years of airport federal funding for planning,
design, and implementation of airport projects and Programs. I say "secret" because no public
hearings and meetings were provided with prior press legal notices or information articles nor
city public information notices with utility bill mail outs or other city PIO information actions
during the development of the current master plan. The plan was a collaborative effort between
the city and TxDOT. The city paid for and conducted development of the text and TxDOT
provided 90% federal funding for the Airport Layout Plan essential for federal funding of
identified projects. However, the plan did not present or evaluate all practicable alternatives and
no environmental review was conducted as part of the planning as directed by FAA guidelines.
The public was never informed of the plan's development process, purpose, content, justification
for proposed projects identified and proposed use of federal funds for their implementation.
Even the final public hearing for the plan's adoption and approval was conducted as a routine
agenda item along with property zoning and land issue items with no advance public information
from any press or city public information source. The final approval hearing lasted a total of two
minutes with no public information shared on the proposed actions that were to be generated by
that approval. Due to important developments regarding implemented and pending federal
funded actions for projects identified in the current master plan, an additional 6" request is
added to the previous five recommendations.
No allocation of federal funds by any agency is exempt from NEPA. Should the city, using federal
funds, desire to implement long-term planning involving a significant public health and safety
hazard which is the subject of significant public controversy including potential elevated lead
levels in children due to leaded aviation fuel and entails significant adverse direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared ahead of
completing any such plan. Such an EIS is not only logical and appropriate; it is consistent with
the NEPA and CEQ and FAA regulations for implementation of NEPA for all federal actions
(funding and/or permitting).
In addition, any legitimate master planning effort, particularly one using federal funds, must
include a complete evaluation of All practicable alternatives with consideration given to their
social, economic, and environmental impacts as called for by FAA guidance for use of federal
funds in planning. Furthermore, any and all projects whether singular in nature or intended as
multiple -project Programs identified by such a master plan will obviously be pieces of a program
and not a simple listing of stand alone projects as they are developed together as part of an
overall airport development program. And, given such program of project elements will be
intended for maintenance and expanded aviation operations forecast through the intended
planning period, specific program elements cannot legitimately be cherry -picked or segmented
out in order to exempt them later from NEPA environmental review. Therefore, it is only logical
that the master planning effort dealing with a public health and safety hazard be fully addressed
through preparation of an EIS in order for the projects developed to be eligible for federal
funding assistance.
Mr. Mayor, I welcome any comments.
STATEMENT TO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014
ITEM "K"- GEORGETOWN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Good evening Mayor, member of city council, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My wife and I reside at 4400 Luna Trail. I am a member of the Airport
Concerned Citizens (ACC) and appear before you tonight for comments related to Item "K" of
this evening's agenda.
This item, when approved, will obligate the city to fund its 10% share for a $500,000 Airport
Master Plan update to our current master plan prepared in 2005 by GRW-Willis. $500,000 — one
half million dollars of public funds. Let that sink in. That's over five (5) times the cost of the
current plan that cost $87,198. $500,000 to allow the TxDOT Aviation Division to handle all
essential planning of the plan which will determine the development needs of our airport for the
next 20 years of aviation service growth. Our current master plan was contracted to identify
those needs from the year 2004 to 2024. The ACC expects this one to extend those needs to the
year 2044. No one is foolish enough to believe that our city staff alone has the expertise and data
to sufficiently identify those needs for the next 20 years.
At this time, no one of city staff or TxDOT has advised the members of this city council or any of
the general public what is to be studied by the selected consultant. The GTAB has no clue what is
to be studied nor what implementation recommendations are to be requested of the consultant.
No clue. You don't know. The general public does not know. But you will pass this item and
commit your citizens to it. Even though what is to be studied, that is, the Scope of Work that the
consultant will be contracted to study, will be the basis for the qualifications of the final selected
consultant. Only then, after the Scope of Work is determined, will the selection criteria be
established in a ranked order of importance on that scope and be used by the committee this
resolution will create for its determination of the most qualified consultant.
The ACC has five (5) recommendations the city council should make mandatory within its
motion for approval of this agenda item. This study and its development projects proposed for
future federal grants will have permanent long term impacts on our entire community. Our
recommendations include:
1. Require the Scope of Work for this plan be discussed and resolved in an open workshop forum
of the GTAB. An open workshop whereby members of the general public without gagging
restrictions may freely engage city staff and TxDOT for determination of a final description of
work for the study.
2. As said before, at $500,000 this grant authorization is five (5) times the amount of the 2005
plan. This sum is ample to include in the Scope of Work a study y the consultant of how an
alternate out of cLq Williamson County Regional Airport can be made a reality. For the past 12
years our city leaders have been held mental captives of a bogus, nonsense study that a relocated
site was not possible. That study was based on a nonsense concept of closing the airport and then
searching for an alternate site. No responsible citizen or local or federal official would agree to
this theme. However, using the highest land use retail sales value of the airport property with its
long term permanent ad valorum and sales taxes as financial collateral, site acquisition and
transfer to an alternate location is possible. Failure to pursue such a study now with 90% federal
funding for the study would be an unforgivable mistake.
3. Ensure that this master plan provides for public participation. Ensure that the development of
this master plan conforms to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-611 — Airport Master Plans. It is
certain that federal grants will be requested for projects identified for continued development of
the airport making conformance with this federal guideline mandatory for the study and for
grant applications. Conformance with the said FAA guidance will ensure understanding of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by both the public and city officials.
4. Use the city's current Sidewalk Master Plan and Public Facility Access Audit as a model for
managing involvement and participation of the entire community. Include taxing districts for
public involvement with the plan.
5. Provide newspaper and TV public notices for public meetings clearly stateing locations, times,
purpose, content, and proposed use of the plan. The city's use of TV and news media outlets for
public information and persuasion of its street maintenance sales tax ballot option and copious
news media notices of annual tax information is evidence that the city can and will provide public
information when it so chooses. The city has an excellent public information office. Use it for this
cause.
The city has an opportunity to work with the general public in development and use of this
Airport Master Plan update. Let's work together to avoid conflict this time.
I would look forward to comments and/or questions.
Thank you.