Loading...
MIN 02.23.2016 CC-WNotice of Minutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the 201 City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 23, 2016 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7`h 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`h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember Gipson and Councilmember Gonzalez. Councilmember Gipson arrived at 3.17 PM. Councilmember Gonzalez arrived at 3.25 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:03 PM A. Overview and discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Shadow Canyon development -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Nelson provided a presentation on the MUD request. She displayed a map of the development located along Hwy. 29. Nelson said this development will bring a lot of residential to the area. Nelson explained that the property is on 278 acres, with a proposed 591 homes from $250,000 to $600,000. Nelson said this MUD request is different from others because it already has a preliminary plat in place. She said the development is consistent and utilities are also in place. Nelson discussed how some MUDs extend utilities, but this development will not need to. Nelson added that build -out is expected in 2022. Nelson's presentation included an Overview of the Shadow Canyon Development, the Mud Request Details, Consistencies with the Interim MUD Policy and an Overview of approved MUD requests and MUD requests under review. Nelson showed that the total bond issuance for water, wastewater, drainage, recreational and roads would be $19,925,000. She went on to show and describe the tax rate effect. Nelson then presented the utility infrastructure of the development and the overall transportation plan infrastructure. Nelson then gave a policy breakdown and showed how the development is consistent with policies that some cities have adopted. She went through the MUD policy elements and explained the UDC Prerequisites in detail. Nelson showed the policy of determinations of issues for both affirmative and negative. Nelson showed the Evaluation of the MUD request. She spoke on 11 policies and which elements of the request were consistent with the policies and which would need additional review. Nelson said that there is not a strong utility component in this development to support granting a MUD. Nelson named other subdivisions with MUDs in the City of Georgetown and spoke on comparable tax rates. She showed financial terms of other MUD developments and provided comparisons with other in -city MUDS. Nelson asked the Council if they want to proceed with this consent agreement. She provide a slide on the requested feedback from Council which included the following: Is the use of an in -City MUD suitable in the proposed location? Do the identified "unique factors" justify the creation of a MUD? If there is a desire to proceed with the MUD process, are there specific elements or areas of focus that the Council would like staff to negotiate? Brainard asked Nelson to confirm that the uniqueness factors included the fact that masonry would be added where masonry is not required by the development standard, the parkland and the 1 '/2 million dollar contribution to the City. Nelson confirmed and said that the applicant was also present to confirm. Brainard asked Nelson if the development would use City electric and City water. Nelson answered that it would use City water but would not use City electricity. Hesser asked if the administration fee would be for the period of the MUD. Nelson answered that it would be a MUD bond issuance. Hesser asked if this would be a onetime payment or if it would come over time. Nelson said that this would be a better question for the applicant, but it is her understanding that it would be over time. Ross asked if the applicant would like to speak. Derek Pampe spoke. He explained that he works for Harrison Straub and that Joe Straub was not able to attend the meeting due to illness. Pampe said that the $1 '/2 million dollars would be paid from the proceeds of each bond issuance over time. Mayor Ross asked if the direction of Council was to proceed with the MUD request. Hesser asked Nelson if she would approve the MUD. Nelson said the request, per staff, does not meet the MUD Policy, even though the unique factor was understood. Fought asked what the show stopper was. Nelson said that usually the utilities are part of a MUD and that, in this case, the utilities are already in place. Morgan said the developer would be able to get additional funds by selling bonds and that the unique factor would need to get flushed out further. Morgan said the question becomes if the City should say this development is unique enough to charge the residents further fees. He explained that $19 million dollars would be put into the development and the home owners would have to pay for it. Ross asked if it is not approved, what would be the incentive for the developer to have parkland and a better product. Hesser asked Morgan if the developer might not need to borrow more money since utilities are already there. Pampe answered that it helps the developer with up -front costs, instead of waiting until later. Brainard asked how the City is worse off by not allowing the development. Morgan said it needs to be examined if it is worth requiring extra fees of the home owners and that Straub had indicated that he would move forward, if not approved, with a lesser quality development. Pampe said the MUD is a mechanism for the developer to bring a better product. Fought said the City would not be requiring home owners to pay a higher tax. The home owners would be choosing to have a better product and therefore more tax. Fought would like staff to move forward. Ross said those who benefit from living there are the ones who pay for it. Living there is their economic choice. Ross would like to move forward also. Gonzalez agreed and asked Pampe why they need the MUD. Pampe said a lower price for the land can provide a better product at a lower price to the buyers. The lots would be above the market value of these homes. Gonzalez asked if this is a way to give the profit to the developer earlier. Pampe said all of the developments along HWY 29 have used MUDs for their developments and that this developer wants to deliver a much better product. Gipson asked Morgan how many in -city MUDS the City currently has. Morgan replied that the City currently has 2'/2 MUDS - Woodhull, Hillwood and Kasper. Morgan said the development is already approved and the question is simply if they qualify for a MUD. Morgan said he understands why the developer would ask for one, but the City needs to establish governing on these policies and approvals. Morgan said some other areas have had MUD situations that are not necessarily a good thing. Gipson asked if the precedence of granting MUDS is a safety issue in the future. Morgan said the uniqueness factor of this development is that it already has a plat and a plan approved by the City. Jonrowe said we are one of the few areas that allow MUDS. Nelson said others do allow MUDS but Round Rock and Cedar Park have stopped allowing MUDS. Jonrowe said price differences should be studied. Pampe provide a presentation which showed the project history. He mentioned that the developer has already prepaid $1.6 million dollars in water impact fees. The preliminary plat was approved in 2004. Pampe showed the Current Entitlements and in -City MUD Commitments from the developer. He spoke on the benefit of less density and the quality design. Brainard asked if the current entitlements were without the MUD and asked about the tree ordinance. Pampe said the developer could take out any tree currently. Brainard noted that this is significant. Jonrowe asked about the salamander ordinance and if they had to follow. Pampe confirmed compliance with the salamander ordinance. Jonrowe asked about the multi -family housing that was in the original plan. Pampe said it is no longer a consideration and it is currently just single family housing. He said that another developer would be providing the multifamily component. Jonrowe asked why a developer would offer a master development fee. Pampe said the intent was to closely mimic other MUD arrangements. Jonrowe would like to look at this further. Ross asked if the in -city mud is not approved, if the developer could cut down all trees. Ross said he does not understand why the Council is not approving this. Jonrowe asked for the rationale in parking only on one side of the street. Pampe explained that it was a fire regulation requirement. Eby asked about the parkland. Pampe said the park trail would be dedicated to the public, not just the development. Gonzalez asked about the reasoning of this and asked if the City was trying to set precedent and not allow all MUDS. Nelson said this is different because all other MUDS have come in with a utility component. Jim Briggs said the City has a % participation on the infrastructure. Ross asked what the $1.9 million was for. Briggs said this was just the developers share Gonzalez asked if, in lieu of the utilities, the developer could be asked to have the MUD pay back the City for the utilities. Briggs explained that the provision has a 10 year life commitment from the City. Gonzalez asked what the number would be. Briggs said he would look into it and come back with a figure. McNabb, the City Attorney, was asked is there a precedential aspect. McNabb suggested being mindful of each time you differ from a policy, unless there is some distinguishable factor. Brainard said folks have failed to define the unique factor of the removal of all trees. Morgan said the City needs a clear definition on unique. Ross said staff asked Council for direction. He said that staff should proceed, but Council needs to clean up the factors and policies with specificity. Hesser asked about the 385 thousand average price of a home and if it would be different if the MUD is not approved. Pampe said the average price would be $400,000 without the MUD approval. Ross added that the density would have to be increased also. Gonzalez asked if the developer would keep trees if the MUD is approved. Pampe said they would only remove trees that would be in a road. Ross asked if Council agreed for staff to proceed and come back to Council with a workshop for more specific criteria. There were no objections. B. Discussion and Presentation on City of Georgetown Street Maintenance - Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Jim Briggs provided a presentation on Street Maintenance. He spoke first on the "Tools in the Toolbox" which includes: Pavement Preservation — Fog Seals and Chips Seals Pavement Replacement — Cutler Repaving and overlay/Warm Mix Overlay or TOM (Thin Overly Mix) Mix Pictures and examples were shown. Briggs spoke on trying to keep moisture out of the products and showed applications of Fog Seal as well as fog seal performance pictures and comparisons. He then provided a chart and explanation of the fog seal pros and cons. Briggs provided pictures of Wolf Ranch Parkway with a two course chip seal application (before and after). He showed the pavement deterioration prior to chip seal. He went on to explain the pros and cons of chip seal. Briggs spoke on the Cutler Process and cutler repaving next. He showed and explained the pros and cons of Cutler Repaving. Briggs spoke on the processes from Preservation to Replacement. He explained how pavements are scored and then assigned a PCI (Pavement Condition Index). Scores and pavement sections are reviewed and evaluated, explained Briggs. He explained how, based on the scores, preservation treatments are selected and replacement schedules are selected and implemented. Briggs showed a Pavement Preservation Graph indicating current treatment methods and treatment methods without chip seals. He spoke on the benefits and draw backs of the methods. Briggs said that without chip seal, full road replacement happens and is quite costly. Briggs then spoke on the choices of products and processes over the past 30 years. He said that Sun City is the largest development and, since it is now 20 years old, it will have the most road ways under maintenance. Briggs displayed and explained cost comparisons. Briggs showed proposed street maintenance for 2016 and then proposed street maintenance for 2017. He summarized the presentation as follows: Right tool at the right time Follow all best management practices Identify and respond to areas needing improvement Monitor and evaluate performance Insure QA/QC through on-site project management — Traffic/Speed/Public communication/Clean up Fought thanked Briggs for the presentation and noted how enlightening the street maintenance tour had been. Fought said that he had railed against chip seal, but because of all he has now learned, he knows double chip seal is better. Fought said that he has driven Wolf Ranch Parkway and is convinced that double chip seal is the way to go, except for the intersections. He spoke on fog seal and said the picture shown was a clean truck but in reality it is not like that. Fought talked about closing residential streets for 4 hours during a day and that this should not be the process. He mentioned that several streets did not dry and people drove through it. Fought said there is a large number of houses in Sun City where the product was tracked into driveways and into homes. He said he fears that the City will be spending more time cleaning up than laying it initially. Fought asked if there is a process whereby a street does not have to be closed for 4 hours. He said the City has had a big learning curve and there needs to be supervisors on the scene. Hesser asked what the backlog currently is and how long it will take to get caught up. Briggs explained the threshold of a total score is 85. He said that the City has many streets below that score that need attention and are in a complete reconstruction phase. Mark Miller spoke and said that roads with scores of 40, or less, are currently $41 million in backlog. Miller said it is important to maintain the good roads, as well, in order to avoid costs later. Briggs said Wolf Ranch Parkway and others have dealt well with heavy traffic. He added that they have not seen much difference in performance between single application and double application of chip seal. Ross asked what the game plan was for going forward. Briggs said that he and Miller will get together and discuss. He spoke briefly on a rejuvenator product. He said that it can become a little tacky and the City would need to cover the material with something. Briggs said that driveways into individual homes would need to be closed. Briggs said that the Cutler process would take all day and is unacceptable. He added that finding a solution is imperative. Fought asked if the City was going to help the citizens with the clean-up. Fought asked about drying agents possibly being added. Briggs said they will continue to investigate. Morgan said the City is moving forward with the 2016 work plan and will talk about 2017 during the budget process. Fought said he will object to any single applications and will only vote for double applications. Jonrowe said she would not rule out single application just yet, but would need more information. She asked about the roads scoring in the 40s. Briggs said these get bumped up in the process. Jonrowe asked if the percentage maybe should be changed. Briggs said it is not a false percentage and explained that the good roads begin to slip down in scoring if you keep only repairing the poor scorers. ITEM C WAS MOVED TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ITEM D. WAS PLACED NEXT D. Presentation and discussion regarding the Texas State University Citizen Survey - Paul Diaz, Budget Manager, Keith Hutchinson, Public Communications Manager and Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager This presentation was moved up in the workshop meeting and was presented prior to Item C. Paul Diaz provided the presentation and spoke on the proposed questions in the upcoming Citizen Survey. Diaz spoke on the agenda of the presentation which would review the base survey, speak on participating cities and common questions, highlight the project timeline and discuss Georgetown -specific questions. Diaz spoke on the 11 Base Focus Areas: Mobility, Public Safety, Economic Development, Growth, Quality of Life, Streets and Transportation, Quality of Services, Parks & Recreation, Service Utilization, View of Government and Government Spending. Diaz explained the Project Timeline. With Council Direction, Texas State will finalize the survey instrument in March. Survey would be implemented in April and May and in June the final product and findings will be delivered and presented to the Council. Diaz spoke on the Proposed Topics which include: Communication Citizen Perception of Safety Future Service Level expansion Quality of Life Diaz showed questions on these topics and spoke on the validation of questions. He explained that questions would be posed in two different ways in order to validate the understanding. Diaz then opened up the presentation for discussion. He said that 20 to 30 questions would be provided. Brainard said the study is very encouraging. He asked if the survey would be mailed. Diaz said it would be a combination of mailings and online completions in order to get all geographic locations and cultures. Brainard asked if online responses would count the same as mailed responses. Dr. Longoria, a professor from Texas State University, involved with the survey project, said that each respondent will have an option to complete the survey online or by mailing. He said that a key code would be provided and a one-time only response would be accepted for better control. Brainard said he would want to have a question of what the respondent likes about Georgetown. Brainard said he also wants a question to ask how the respondent feels about his tax burden. Dr. Longoria said there is a question that asks how the respondent feels about the value of services for the taxes he pays. Brainard wanted to specifically ask if the respondent feels his tax burden is too high or too low. Gonzales said it would be important to differentiate between the City, County and School taxes. Fought said a survey is an educational instrument. He agreed separating taxes was important. Fought said that staff is pressing hard to provide customer service and asked Dr. Longoria how the survey would illicit a response regarding customer service. Longoria said the respondent is asked about their most recent communication with the City and asked to rate the customer service. Jonrowe asked about the mailing and random samplings. She spoke on the college community in Georgetown, who may not be paying their own utility bills. Jonrowe wants to make sure to capture that section of the population. She wants to ensure that the City will be examining the survey to be sure they are getting healthy examples and will not "over sample". Ross thanked Diaz for the presentation. C. Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility systems Advisory Board (GUS): Presentation and discussion of Treated Water Supply and Demand Management for 2016 and beyond -- Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager, Utilities This presentation was moved to the last of the workshop meeting. Mike Babin spoke and provided the presentation on 2016 Water Supply and Demand and beyond. Babin showed the expected supply and demand for raw water and treated water. He spoke on daily peak and intra- day peak (12 midnight to 9.00 am.) Babin explained that the plant capacity is generally fine. He said that, at a 5% growth rate, the City will need to expand the total daily supply. He went on to explain the Intra -Day Water Peak and the problem of lawn watering. Babin spoke on the role of storage plants. Babin explained the symptoms of peak constraint, which include: Some storage tanks bottom out during the intra -day peak Low tank levels affect water pressure/fire-fighting capacity Plants are operated as peaking units rather that base load units Longer system recovery times, more susceptible to single points of failure Babin then showed 3 Types of Solutions Strategies including: Metrics and Performance Management Supply Side Management Demand Side Management Babin discussed each of the three strategies. He explained that better metering and better real time display is needed. He spoke on storage capacity and system configuration improvements. Brainard asked about water towers. Babin told how storage tanks hold anywhere from 1 -4 million gallons. He explained how system configuration improvement would allow better use and storage of water. Babin explained Demand Side Management (DSM). He said that there are two objectives, which are reducing aggregate consumption and flattening the daily and/or intra -day peak. Babin spoke on the tools for water DSM which include a Water Ordinance, Drought Contingency Plan Ordinance and a Mass and Direct Marketing Conservation Campaigns. Ross asked the Council if they had any questions. Brainard asked if everything the City is currently doing would also apply to Chisholm Trail. Babin confirmed that it does. Brainard asked how much water is residential use compared to non-residential. Babin said residential is 80% of the use. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and Section 551.074 at 5.00PM. 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. E. 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 Mayor Ross Adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on �J $ Date Dale Ross, Mayor 0 Attest: City Secre