Loading...
MIN 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.