Loading...
MIN 05.24.2016 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 24, 2016 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (5 12) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 811 Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM. All Councihnembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember District 2, Keith Brainard and Councihnember, District 5, Ty Gipson. Gipson arrived at 3.05 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion of proposed Transit Development Plan —Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Nat Waggoner, the City's Transportation Analyst, provided the presentation of the Transit Development Plan update to the City Council. Waggoner began with the Agenda and noted that he would lead the Council through the changes: Agenda: Recap of 2/9 Discussion City Council Guidance Pursue Strategic Partnerships Georgetown Health Foundation Agreement Summary Updated Plan Summary Financial Plan Blended Service Financial Plan Performance Measures Service Plan Work Plan FY16 and FY17 Waggoner presented a slide depicting the history of these discussions, labeled "Where We Left Off'. The City Council Guidance from 2/9/16 was shown next: 1. Pursue Fixed route Bus Plan 2. Explore Strategic Partnerships 3. Develop Strategic Plan to Support Those Partnerships 4. Revise Routing, Service Hours, Financial Plan 5. Recommend Performance Measures Waggoner spoke on the Georgetown Health Foundation. He said that they had initiated a needs assessment in April 2015. Waggoner said that the finding from the focus groups and surveys suggested public transportation as the most critical need. Waggoner explained that the Georgetown Health Foundation is a grantor of assistance to Faith in Action for their transportation program. Waggoner announced that GHF has committed to a year grant to the City for fixed route bus service up to $200,000.00. This commitment would begin in 2017 and continue annually for 4 years. The City of Georgetown would be required to provide 4 fired routes within 1 year of adoption by the Council. Waggoner explained that the City would handle contracting and service delivery with Capital Metro and this would require forming a Steering Committee of City of Georgetown, GHF, CARTS, Capital Metro and others to help guide service from 2017 through 2020. Waggoner thanked the Georgetown Health Foundation for the generous offer. He then provided an Updated Plan Summary: 1. Routing - Adjusted routing on Blue and Orange routes to improve timing - Added Recreation Center loop to the Blue Line 2. Service Standard to better reflect the service at implementation 3. Updated Financial Plan to reflect changes to routes and to incorporate the Georgetown Health Foundation funding. Waggoner provided a slide on the Changes to Financial Plan Assumptions: Changes to Financial Plan Assumptions • 3% Cost escalation applied to operating costs • Fare Box Revenue increases from 6% (FY 17) to 10% (FY 19) • Capital costs now incorporate labor and install c 'iw tofu Flag Stop Signs/Poles 5)50 90 522.500 Bench 5800 to $5.000 shelters $7.500 4 $30,000 COMEeze Bench Pad $1,500 6 515.000 Concrt• shelter Pad 52.900 4 $21.600 •Vnit[oRua a .a �n•'�alat<.lN w. -.n iYti Oalart. 24,OOD Cauv m•vraryava. w:al vanfrm,pwna:X. [. Wc<lal yry manl 5 A Financial Plan was shown next. Expenses • Loaded capital costs • Increased PT M -Sat • Build from 6% FBR • Cut spans to 12 hrs. M -F and 10 hrs. Sat. • Blended FY17 Demand Response Revenues • No 5307 Carry-over • Serenada Funds • Health Foundation • Advertising Revenue .d n;:��. Financial Plan /rgetown Financial Plan rating Total 5 405,759 5 757,242 5 760,781 5 781,322 [Capital and Operating Eaperue 5 447,370 $ 757.242 S 760,761 5 7BL322 170peratingIM skit 5 162,304 S 251,076 5 251,098 S 251058 17capital (2mc 1AA) S 33.269 S - S S - enadaSubdivision 5 14,285 5 U,29S S 14,285 S 14,285 u eta2rn Health Foundation (Available Ott. l each Vear) 5 200.000 S 200000.S_-.-_ 20MOM sYnitietg ($],OODpermonth offR sen•rce •2ve 5 4000 5 24,OOD 5 24000 5 24,000 al Funding s 2c7.777 - - 5 267.959 5 2n.396 S 19039 al Rerenue - S 4147,370 S 757,242 S 760.781. S 781,322 rm..• M•nmaH npvs'rg Mr nerQ/n•p'Pv.' y Jung[ a teff) rPs:npr:J+s [o.sYv Ps'vaN :lfi Ymfwrir.Px frnry fMf b„Wt [i 6fbp^MT 5307(eM.nprrnP�•+.y in <Ptfi�lCerKA OfK� NG`IMT1'j PolM,le C4fuTPlenf n{r Waggoner explained that staff would recommend para -transit throughout the City. He went on to explain that, with Council direction, it would take one year to prepare for a fixed route system. The proposed plan would begin in June of 2017 and demand response service would continue until then. Waggoner explained the funds from the Serenade Subdivision. He said that the capital outlays would be completed by FY2017. Waggoner displayed the Service Transition FY17: • Demand Response replaced with new service by mid FY17 • 10 months of Demand Response (Oct. -Aug.) • 2 months fixed -route & paratransit (Aug — Sep) • $50,000 in capital programmed for FY16 • Remaining capital improvements in early FY17 • Proportional Health Foundation and advertising revenue Waggoner then provided detailed maps of the 4 proposed routes. He said that staff has involved other community resources and other City departments and are making changes that are positive. Waggoner spoke on the City's growth and how it has affected traffic patterns. He said that routes have been corrected because of this. He explained that demographic profiles have been examined and routes have been adjusted accordingly. Waggoner presented a slide on Service Standards and what information will be measured, some of which is required to be reported to the FTA Service Standards • Performance measures used to assess the four fixed routes • Routes will be reviewed individually and as a system every six months per FTA Passengers per Revenue Hour 6 a 10 Farebox Recovery 6% 8% 10% Cost per Passenger $12 $9 $7 Cost per Revenue Hour 575 577 $79 Qn-Time Performance 95% 95% 95°%0 Total Annual Riders (per route) 10.000 14.000 17.000 Waggoner then presented the FY16 Work Plan: <ii orr.i i���•:nom FY17 Work Plan SF --,g 2017 3" Ca^er 2017 4" Qtr 2017 Cc;e::r: z�s: Celrverab:e 1. Cant+::• Demand Respon" 2. SmtenoiderEtlxaton 1. Begin Semce 1. Review Performance Pleasures 1, Pubh, Ou nsecb forums 2. Updatea Co -m 1. Update to Council 1. Update to Council Waggoner spoke on the Next Steps: Direct staff to: • Finalize an agreement with the Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF) • Present the final TDP and Agreement to Council at the June 28, 2016 regular session. Waggoner explained that If Council wants to move ahead with a fixed route plan, staff would like to move ahead with the Georgetown Health Foundation. Fought said he appreciates all the work, but is not a fan of the fixed route system. He said that fixed route busing does nothing for elderly or those with facilitation issues. Fought said he would like to see Faith in Action continued because the door to door and volunteer factor is what is best for seniors and those with mobility issues. Fought said he would like to shift Faith in Action out of social service funding and put it into a permanent budget with an increase in the funds. He said that transportation is a function of government and Faith in Action needs to be permanent. Fought spoke on measures of performance, with a monitoring group and a control group. He said that if the program is not meeting 50% of performance measures, it will need to be brought back to Council to examine. He said this would not be meant to take control away from staff, just a need to look at. Fought said he thinks the plan is excellent. Gipson congratulated Waggoner and staff on a good job. He asked for an explanation of the Serenda funding scenario. Waggoner explained that places of importance are looked at in the Census every ten years and federal transportation dollars were allocated to the Serenda area as transportation monies in Central Texas. Waggoner explained that those monies have been going to traffic feasibility studies and funding for direct response rides. If the City would now provide those studies and rides, the funds would be given to the City. Gonzalez asked how many demand response system rides are currently labeled paratransit. He said the City would have to look at possible full costs for both fixed bus routes and paratransit rides. Gonzalez questioned the estimated number of 10,000 riders per route and asked if that could be one person transferring from route to route. Waggoner said there are 2 full time buses currently running demand response calls in Georgetown and he would estimate 35% of those rides to be paratransit. Morgan said it is critical to understand the City's capacity for paratransit needs and that is why staff specifically asked to increase the paratransit numbers in this proposal, in order to reflect a similar capacity with our on demand service. Gonzalez asked if all paratransit rides are included in the costs shown. Waggoner confirmed. He explained that staff was no longer proposing sharing a bus and the City would need to accommodate the needs of the citizens. Waggoner corrected the figure of 10,000 riders to 10,000 trips. Gonzalez said the City might not be ready for a fixed route system. He asked if Lift or Uber would consider giving citizens vouchers instead. Gonzalez explained that he does not believe that the density needed for ridership is there yet. He said at $12 per person, people could have a lot of transportation in a voucher program. Jonrowe thanked Waggoner for the presentation and thanked the Georgetown Health Foundation for the generous offer. Jonrowe inquired about June 281^ as an actual public hearing date. Waggoner said staff would like to finalize an agreement with Capital Metro first. Jonrowe said students are hard to get in touch with in the summer and if the date is moved out, the City could get more of their feedback. Morgan clarified that this date is just a date to bring information back to Council and that there would still be a process to finalize all of the steps. Jonrowe said all of these workshops have been an example of good government on large important issues such as this. Eby thanked Waggoner. She said the time for this is now and she sees a great need in her district. Eby said she likes the partnership with the Health Foundation. She spoke on outreach to citizens. Eby explained that most of those needing the service are those that are the hardest to reach. She said that she wants to make sure the City has a way to reach out to those without internet or phone service. Hesser thanked Waggoner. He said that a fixed route is an outdated version of transportation. He asked if staff had looked into Uber to see if it was more reasonable. Hesser asked how many paratransit trips happen now. Waggoner said he does not know the figure at this time, but will come back to Council with an exact figure. Eby said the issue with vouchers is that the folks who need transportation do not necessarily have smart phones. They might not have the technology for Uber or Lift. Hesser said Uber might have a solution for those without the technology. Fought said he supports continuing to investigate other partnerships, such as Uber. He said Hesser's idea to ask Uber and Lift for solutions is a good one. Jonrowe warned the Council to be careful when talking about Uber and Lift as the solution to the City's transportation problems. She said with recent stories in the news, they could elect to pull out of a system at any time. Jonrowe advised using a healthy level of skepticism and to be cautious. She added that she would be much more comfortable puffing her children on a bus, than in a car with a stranger. Mayor Ross recapped what was discussed by the Council. He said that Council had agreed that staff should continue to explore options, such as Uber and Lift. Ross said June 280 is not a deadline and there will be plenty of opportunity to get the word out to the community. Ross recapped Foughfs suggestion of putting Faith in Action into the permanent transportation budget, instead of through the City's social funding program. Ross said that staff had been instructed to come back to Council with clear performance measures. Morgan asked for further clarification. He said that he had heard that prior to going forward with the fixed route bus system, staff should examine voucher possibilities, such as Uber and Lift. Ross corrected Morgan and said that fixed bus service is still going forward while exploring the other options as well. Morgan thanked Ross for the clarification. Gonzalez said he does not want to continue to invest money into things that might not be helpful. He said he wants more definites and more data to support. Ross said staff is coming back with performance measures that will address that. B. Discussion and possible direction on the 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board --Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator Jennifer Bills, the City's Housing Coordinator, provided the 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board. She spoke on the goals of working at workforce housing. She began by reviewing the pieces of the presentation which included reviewing the Housing Advisory Board's purpose, highlighting accomplishments of the board since 2012 and the direction of a 2016 Work Plan for the Housing Advisory Board. Bills reviewed the Boards Purpose (By -Laws): 1. Ensuring the City has affordable housing for residents at all income levels 2. Providing long-term housing research and recommendations through the housing element 3. Making recommendations on affordable housing developments Bills then reviewed the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan • Adopted on August 12, 2012 as part of the 2030 Plan • Identified a need for 1,069 new workforce housing units by 2017 • Need for review in 2017/2018 per five year review Comp Plan requirements Bills spoke on the housing element high priority policy: 1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to provide new units. Workforce Housing Standards (UDC) was approved March 8, 2016. An established review process for housing tax credits was established in January 2014. 2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing types within the City. (Draft Workforce Multifamily Locations Study — last revisited in January 2014). Bills provided a map of this draft. Bills then spoke on the accomplishments made since 2012: • Gateway Northwest Apartments (2015) —177 workforce multifamily units Improved and retained affordable units - San Gabriel Apartments, 1100 Leander Road, 136 units - Georgetown Square, 2016 Royal Drive, 55 units Northwest Apartments, 1623 Northwest, 24 units Bills presented a 2016 Work Plan Proposal and asked for Council feedback as she described the plan. 1. Revise Housing Tax Credit resolution process - Establish deadline for the competitive applications - Require public/neighborhood outreach - Application criteria: Multifamily entitlements, future land use, zoning - Funding: Existing staff and resources - Timeline: Summer 2016 start, City Council approval September 2016, In place October 2016 before new funding cycle 2. Update Housing Element - New demographic information - Calculate updated housing deficit - Update Workforce Multifamily Locations Study - Public input - Funding: Reallocate $24,000 in current budget - Timeline: Winter 2016 Start, Present to Council Summer 2017 3. Feasibility of Housing Tools - Provide analysis on strategies already in use nationally and in Texas: Examples: Housing Trust Fund, Community Land Trust, Local Bond Issue, Requirements for workforce housing with special development approvals (i.e. MUDs, PIDs, PUDs, TIRZ) - Funding: New request $35,000 to $45,000 - Timeline: Spring 2017 start, study complete Fall 2017 Gipson asked if Council would be given more time to examine a project, instead of a very quick tum -around for decisions. He asked if there is any way to lengthen the time to examine. Bills explained that the timelines are set by the State and that the City must follow the State schedule. She explained that the City does not get information or requests until the beginning of January and decisions must be made by March 1s'. Morgan said staff will be requiring more public input and will concentrate on getting information to the affected areas. He also said that he would want all applications to come in at the same time and staff to present all to Council at the same time. Ross reminded the Council that the application request vote is a simple vote permitting the applicant to proceed with his application for tax credits. He said that if the applicant is awarded the tax credits, they need to come back to Council. Bills explained that this is not always the case. She said they would only come to Council again if they required rezoning. Bills explained that if the property is already multifamily zoned, the applicant does not need to come back to Council, if approved for tax credits. Gonzalez said until the Council knows what the City is supposed to look like, it is impossible to vote. Ross explained that if the applicant has zoning, the predictable UDC and tax credits, they can go ahead and build. Gonzalez said they should not bring it to Council then. Jonrowe asked Morgan if staff was doing a study on the cost of service of delivery to different types of developments. Morgan answered that in the proposed budget for this summers consideration, Council would be receiving a comp plan update. Morgan said this will include a long range plan update which will address Councilmember Gonzalez's concerns about the balance of different uses across the City and a cost to serve model. Jonrowe said that would be a good time to incorporate the discussion of how Georgetown should look. Jonrowe asked about the updates to the UDC. Bills said no developers have come forward with a project. Bills said recommendations for improving the process of an application will be coming to the Council soon. Jonrowe asked about the timeline of the letters asking for tax credit. She asked if Council generally got copies of these letters from the developers. Bills said the letters are received in January. Gipson said he wants the information provided to those affected and wants staff to provide public meetings. Morgan said staff will now do that first, prior to Council notification. Gonzalez asked Bills about the calculation of the updated housing deficit. He asked about the criteria and if it was limited to city limits. Bills confirmed that the criteria is limited to Georgetown city limits. Hesser asked about single family housing not being on the slide that was shown and wanted to know if that was included. He asked for the ratio of single family and multifamily. Bills said that both are part of the housing element. Hesser asked if workforce housing was split up between single family and multifamily. Bills said the formula determined that there is a need for 889 single family workforce units and 1069 multifamily workforce units. Fought said that he applauds the study. Fought said the City needs to divide demographics and remedies into 3 parts: senior, workforce and low income housing since different populations need different things. Fought said his newsletter on this topic provoked more discussion than anything he has ever written about. Fought said with senior living, nursing and hospice should be included. He added that the City needs to pay reasonable wages in the general proximity of Georgetown. He suggests not providing housing, but stimulating the economy with the correct wages instead. He suggested that staff needs to look at that income range. Fought said there is a similar responsibility to companies the City recruits. He said if the City stimulates the wages, they will make it possible for employees to have housing. Fought said that Georgetown has a responsibility to do its fair share and that it is important to look at ourselves. Jonrowe agreed with Fought. She would like to examine wages of employees and companies recruited through economic development. Jonrowe said that low and very low income is a regional, state and national problem. She said that Georgetown has a long history of going above and beyond and that there is nothing wrong with doing more than our fair share. Ross asked if this would be included in the budget request. Morgan confirmed. Ross confirmed with Council that they are in favor of this. Fought asked about the earlier study that was rejected and wanted to know if this study would contain the 33- 35 citizen member guidance group or focus group. Bills said it would not. Ross recapped the discussions. He said Councilmember Fought said there are three components for housing: senior, workforce, low income. Ross said that Council needs to give direction on general areas in Georgetown good for these projects. Ross asked Bills at what time does Council need to provide the direction. Bills explained that this presentation is the request for that direction. Bills said if the work plan is approved, the board will work on it this year. Morgan said part of the housing element would include updating the map and updating the different layers of housing, as related to affordability. Ross said Council would want to weigh in on that. Morgan agreed and said the Housing Advisory Board would review and bring back to Council. Ross asked for the timeline. Bills said they would be working on it in conjunction with the Planning Department process and it would be brought back in early spring of 2017. Morgan said the plan will overlap with other efforts and it would be important to work on it with the comp plan update in mind so that all would align. C. Overview and discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Homestead development-- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Sofia Nelson, the City's Planning Director, presented the overview. Nelson explained that this is a MUD request for the Homestead development. Nelson listed the MUD Review Team, including the City Manager, David Morgan, Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, Systems Engineering Director, Wesley Wright, Transportation Services Director, Ed Polasek, Director of Parks and Recreation, Kimberly Garrett and City Attorneys Charlie McNabb and Skye Masson. Nelson said that the presentation would outline an overview of the Homestead Development and MUD request, how the request compared in consistency with the interim MUD policy and staff recommendations. Nelson said she would request feedback from the Council to include the following: • Does the City Council want to pursue an In -City MUD for the proposed development? • 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, focus areas, or staff recommendations you would like staff to negotiate? Nelson showed the proposed location map, the current zoning map, the 2030 plan guidance map and the proposed subdivision layout for the property. Nelson said that water and wastewater services would be provided by the City of Georgetown and electricity would be provided by PED. Commercial projections were shown: Nelson explained that commercial retail would begin in 2019 and continue through 2023. Nelson then described the open space areas, which is 94.3 acres of open space to be programmed as preserve areas, civic greens, community gardens, dog parks, water quality areas and trail corridors. Nelson spoke on the connectivity of the trails and parks in the area. Nelson discussed the Staff Recommendations for Land Use • Land development standards for the development shall be codified through PUD/Development Agreement • The Developer shall coordinate open space/trail connection to Berry Springs Park with the City Parks Department and the County • Age restricted development shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area and 10% of housing units • Require workforce housing to be provided • Require submittal of a pattern book with the consent agreement. Nelson spoke on the Financial Request: • Maximum amount of bonds to be issued - $45,175,000 • Maximum maturity of bonds — 25 years from the date of issuance • Facilities bonds may be issued to finance —water, wastewater, storm drainage, roads, recreational facilities and refunding bonds • District only tax rate - $0.516 • Fire SIP Fee - $650 per connection Staff recommendations for the financial terms were shown by Nelson: • Maximum maturity of 20 years for any one series of bonds • Limit debt issuance to "hard costs" for water, wastewater and roads • Prior to consent of a MUD the applicant shall submit a marketing study completed within the previous 6 months Ross asked the difference between 20 and 25 years, when financing. Morgan said Council adopted a policy of 25 years in the MUD policy. Nelson said they could see infrastructure improvements consumed by debt. Nelson showed a map of the utility improvements for wastewater. She then displayed a chart of the Utility Improvements through a City and Developer Partnership. Staff recommendations for utility agreement terms determined that Section 1 and 2 wastewater improvements shall be completed within 3 years of MUD approval. Nelson explained that this is so that the developer would take care of it before the City would have to. Nelson spoke next on transportation and explained that a traffic impact analysis is currently under review. Nelson said that Airport Road would be a minor arterial. She spoke on the overall transportation plan and the right of way and what the ultimate intersection would look like. Nelson said that staff has looked at the development impact on this road and design and improvements would have to take place. Nelson displayed the staff recommendations for transportation improvements: • Require the completion of a TIA and construction/funding of both on-site and off-site improvements identified in the TIA • The TIA shall study the impact of the development on Airport Road • Airport Road improvements shall be prioritized in negotiations • Require the subdivision to be designed to include increased connectivity, shorter blocks and limited cul-de-sacs Nelson spoke on the adopted Mud Policy and how this request would align with the policy. Policy Breakdown: • Part 1: General policies correlating to existing UDC provisions to ensure a complete review of all MUD proposals • Part 2: Policies used in reviewing MUD requests for a "unique factor" Nelson reviewed the MUD Policy Elements. She explained that MUDS are an appropriate tool to allow urban level density in locations supported by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, outside of the ultimate city boundary where the City may annex in the future. Nelson said they are also appropriate where the City cannot provide water and wastewater service within 4.5 years. UDC 1a If applicab'e, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria for annexation set out in the City's annexation pa'.icy and is within the City's projected ultimate Orly limit boundary 1 b whether the City will provide water and/or wastewater services to the land within the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence construction of facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and substantially complete such construction within 414r years after submittal of the petition pursuant to the City's policies on the extension of utility services. Nelson then explained if the determination on either of these two issues is affirmative, then the City Council shall not consent to the creation of the district unless the applicant demonstrates that unique factors justify its creation. She also said that if the determination on both issues is negative, then before consenting to the creation of a district, the City Council shall consider further whether the creation of the district is feasible, practicable, necessary for the provision of the proposed services and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City's consent, consistent with the other considerations in the policy. Nelson charted the evaluation of this Retain the two threshold questions under X 1 Section 13.10.030. Provide examples of 'unique factors justifying X 2 INIUD] creation' to guide determinations made under Section 13.10.030 Submit information with the MUD creation petition that would allow the staff to perform X 3 the level of review City Council has directed during consideration of several recent MUD gotihons. X 4 Agree to a cross -departmental 'MUD Reviev ,earn Address provision of puU.ic services, and address X 5 pudic safety matters In the ConsentAgreement. Address utility service issues, and include those X 6 utility service provisions in the consent agreement. Specify the amount of debt intended to be issued. the purpose of the debt, and the debt service X 7 schedule and include those financial provisions in the consent agreement. Project is In -side the 8 Address future annexation of the MUD, when city limits located in the ETJ.- Require development in a MUD to exceed X g minimum UDC land use and development standards and address the land use provisions in the consent agreement or related agreement. Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC X 10 parkland requirements and address parkland provisions in the consent agreement. Address transportation issues and include X 11 transportation provisions in the consent agreement - Nelson discussed previously approved MUDS and displayed a comparison of financial terms of In -City MUDS. Nelson then provided a recap of recommendations from staff and a recap of staffs requested feedback from the Council. Mr. Gary Newman, the developer, spoke. He provided slides on the unique features of the development. He explained that the developer would be over -contributing on water features. He showed a map of the property and said that the land owner was present in the audience. Newman described the zoning and the need to go to MF1, which operates like a condominium. He next explained the buffer. Newman showed the unit Tax Rate °; of Bond Project Name Acres Bond Limit Bond Max Llrtnt Master DevelopmentFee Proceeds Asslgnetlto Clq Amount Maturity (cents per (t.iDF)Amount for Payment of 5100 AV) t.1DF Hiavood 755 $120.000.000 30 years $0.65 n/a n1a 111 K Kasper Kaspe 301.5 530.150.000 25 years $0.54 n Na/a Shadow 278.2 $19.925.000 25 years $0.65 51.500,000 10% Canyon Homestead 340.5 S45, 175,OW 75years SO.516 r/a n/a Nelson then provided a recap of recommendations from staff and a recap of staffs requested feedback from the Council. Mr. Gary Newman, the developer, spoke. He provided slides on the unique features of the development. He explained that the developer would be over -contributing on water features. He showed a map of the property and said that the land owner was present in the audience. Newman described the zoning and the need to go to MF1, which operates like a condominium. He next explained the buffer. Newman showed the unit summary with detailed explanations and provided the financial plan, which included $33.9 million in development costs, with an additional $9 million in other costs. Newman said the developer is not asking for very much of the expense. He then showed a market study of growth patterns in Austin and Williamson County and explained why Georgetown is appealing to empty nesters. John Tatum spoke next. He described the low impact development and how the water conservation is unique. Tatum explained the water conservation systems and distributed ponds. He described the Purple Pipe Irrigation System and the water balance results storage. Tatum spoke on potable water savings and showed examples of low impact development. Tatum explained that another unique factor is the interceptor project with provides 25,000 connections and the development will only use 1,500 of these. Tatum then spoke on the Traffic Impact Analysis and the recommendations. Angie Newman spoke on the overview plan. She showed the features and landscape of the current property. Newman then provided architectural examples of projects they have developed in Austin and spoke of their awards for land development. Newman showed images of the parks and open space - 93.4 acres of open space. She described the trails and creek access and the connectivity they will provide, which will include bike lanes and special lighting. She said that the open space will promote music and art and dog parks and showed examples of community images. Mayor Ross asked Gary Newman if there is anything he wants from Council. Newman said he would like age qualified development changes to be 32% instead of 10%. He said this is because the dues have to support the amenities. He said this could be a benefit to the City in that it would free up frozen taxes of those moving. Nelson said the recommended 10% is because of the City's MUD policy. Gipson said this is a beautiful project. He asked about the roads and said he had concerns, especially in the Berry Creek area. Gipson said he also has concerns with the age restriction element. Gipson asked if a school was still in the plan and if it had been GISD approved. Newman explained that 13 acres have been set aside in the development for a future school. Morgan said he has talked to Dr. Brent and GISD is very interested. Gipson asked Morgan about MUD policy. Morgan said Council has asked to review the MUD Policy and it will be brought for discussion soon. Morgan said a utility benefit is good with MUDS and this particular development would have significance utility benefits. Gipson said roads must be looked at. Newman said the developer can do utilities or roads, but cannot do both. Jonrowe asked how many MUDs have been denied. Morgan said this is the 51' mud request since he started with the City one year ago and it would be the 4"' approved in 12 months. There are not any MUDS that have not been approved. Jonrowe asked about the "needs further review" on the staff analysis. She said that it seems like a lot. Jonrowe asked if age restrictions were part of any other MUDS. Nelson said she is not sure. Newman, the developer, said the Hillwood development did have age restriction units. Newman explained that the City will not take over the infrastructure, but rather the HOA would do this. Jonrowe said she is concerned about the number of cul—de- sacs and would like to see more connectivity. Newman spoke on the Purple Pipe Plan and how important the system is as a model project. He explained that there would be a potable meter at each house, which would help the conservation water considerably. Eby said she has concerns with MUD applications. She emphasized the importance to be consistent. Eby said it is best to be consistent with the policy and In -City MUDs are a problem. She added that this is an impressive development and she would follow staff recommendations. Eby said the City should follow policy on the age restriction homes and she would not support the 32% change to age restricted housing. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 5:10 PM under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and Section 551.074. 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. D. 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 - Hoskins Update Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 3,1407 Williams Drive) - Rivery Blvd Extension Project (Parcel 1, 1599 Williams Drive) 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 - Fire Meet & Confer Approval of appointment of Assistant City Attorney Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 6.00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on Dale Ross, Mayor Date