HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.22.2017 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:00 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 81
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 Ty Gipson, District 5. Mayor Dale Ross, Ana Eby, District 1, Valerie Nicholson, District 2, John
Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, T, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in
attendance. Gipson joined the meeting at 3.17 PM.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Discussion of 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 June 30, 2017 -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director, provided a presentation of the Quarterly Financial Report. She said she was
pleased to present the good news overview and began with the General Fund.
• Sales tax collections up 6.5% compared to same period last year
• Property tax collections at 93% for the year
■ Utility ROI up 2% compared to same period last year
• Development fees up 27% compared to same period las year
• Expenditures on track for the quarter
o Continue to monitor Fire and EMS
Wallace spoke on Major Enterprise.
• Electric
o Revenue up 14% compared to same period last year
o CIP and Purchase Power expenditures likely to exceed budget
• Water
o Revenue up 28% year over year
o Operations expenses on target; CIP expenses likely to need roll forward due to project timing and
capacity
• Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue up 38% year over year
• Airport Revenue up 21 % year over year
Wallace provided CIP Highlights
Sidewalk improvements started downtown and along Williams Drive
• Garey Park and San Gabriel Park improvements continue
• Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension began
• Electric new development projects
• Stonehedge and Westinghouse water lift stations continue
• Report includes new section reconciling old bond projects
Wallace explained that reconciliation has begun for "in progress" and "completed" bond projects. She noted that
unused funds are available to re -appropriate toward similar projects or to offset debt sale. Wallace said she
would be bringing updates to the Council prior to the 2018 debt sale.
Wallace provided a slide depicting Investment Highlights for the City, GTEC and GEDCO, consisting of bank
deposits, local government investment pools, money market accounts and certificates of deposit.
Investment Highlights
Wallace said the changes in investment balances are due to the maturity and purchase of CDs, and the receipt of
the spring debt sale proceeds in the month of May. She went on to say that the changes in interest rates are due
to improvements in the market with increases in the yield on CDs and money market accounts.
Wallace explained that the full report is very detailed and includes a list of grants, full schedules for the major
funds, full detail of investment portfolios and the list of unfunded long-term liabilities. Wallace said that the self-
insurance fund was removed from the list of liabilities since the fund is healthy and both reserves have been
funded.
B. Discussion and possible direction to staff on Street Network Connectivity Policies — Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, spoke on connectivity standards in the City. She explained that the Council has
received presentations on this annually. Nelson said it is an important topic and the intent is to look at past
presentations and conversations and understand if staff is on the right track with the connectivity concerns. She
noted that this is not the last step.
Nelson provided an explanation of the purpose of the workshop
7 Staff Presentation
1. Purpose of connectivity standards — illustrate community costs and consequences of un-
connected networks
2. Understand issues voiced concerning connectivity
3. Review of existing codes and policies
• Requested Feedback from City Council
1. Are there other issues surrounding connectivity that need to be studied?
2. What additional research and work is needed at this time?
Nelson provided graphics of Regional and Local Connectivity, Interconnected Networks, Disjointed Networks and
the Evolution of Connectivity in Georgetown.
a7V
3/11/2017
6/30/2017
Change
Taal gook Value
5137,713,55:
S 179346,228 S
42 131,677
Average Yield
075%
106%
03.1%
irm c
3/31/2017
6/30/2017
Change
Total Book Value
5 16 206.26:
5 20,170,749 5
31364,487
Average Yield
0
11A
030%
3/31/2017
6/30/2017
Change
Taal Book Value
S 5 510,756
5 5,740,394 S
129,628
Average Yield
072%
0.98'
026%
Wallace said the changes in investment balances are due to the maturity and purchase of CDs, and the receipt of
the spring debt sale proceeds in the month of May. She went on to say that the changes in interest rates are due
to improvements in the market with increases in the yield on CDs and money market accounts.
Wallace explained that the full report is very detailed and includes a list of grants, full schedules for the major
funds, full detail of investment portfolios and the list of unfunded long-term liabilities. Wallace said that the self-
insurance fund was removed from the list of liabilities since the fund is healthy and both reserves have been
funded.
B. Discussion and possible direction to staff on Street Network Connectivity Policies — Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, spoke on connectivity standards in the City. She explained that the Council has
received presentations on this annually. Nelson said it is an important topic and the intent is to look at past
presentations and conversations and understand if staff is on the right track with the connectivity concerns. She
noted that this is not the last step.
Nelson provided an explanation of the purpose of the workshop
7 Staff Presentation
1. Purpose of connectivity standards — illustrate community costs and consequences of un-
connected networks
2. Understand issues voiced concerning connectivity
3. Review of existing codes and policies
• Requested Feedback from City Council
1. Are there other issues surrounding connectivity that need to be studied?
2. What additional research and work is needed at this time?
Nelson provided graphics of Regional and Local Connectivity, Interconnected Networks, Disjointed Networks and
the Evolution of Connectivity in Georgetown.
Nelson spoke regarding the grid -like connectivity of the Downtown and the evolution to longer blocks on Williams
Drive and cul-de-sacs on Leander Drive. She provided slides showing good examples of connectivity and
alternative paths should a connection not be made.
Nelson spoke on missed opportunities to establish connectivity and lessons that have been learned from Williams
Drive.
Nelson spoke on issues voiced concerning connectivity.
• Safety concerns when adding more volume to a street
• Neighborhood character concern when different types of residential neighborhoods connect to each
other
• Adequacy of roadway design when rural and suburban neighborhoods connect to each other
Nelson provided slides depicting recent examples and described various connectivity issues. Nelson noted a
concern of more traffic when the Somercrest neighborhood was added and explained the design of a collector
street, intended to facilitate traffic in the neighborhood. She also noted lessons learned from Woodland Park and
Sun City and said the plan at the beginning of a subdivision might not be the same plan needed years later.
Davidson Ranch
Aut 0 � I � %
Davidson Ranch
Nelson went on to speak on reviewing existing codes and policies. She spoke on recent updates to connectivity
standards, TIA standards and Fire Code requirements. She explained that connectivity needs to be designed to
what is there and one size does not fit all.
Nelson asked if Council found anything that she has not captured in this presentation. She asked if there are
other issues of connectivity that need to be studied and if the Council felt that additional research and work is
needed at this time.
Councilmember Gonzalez said this has been a very helpful presentation. Gonzalez said stub outs are
misunderstood and it is a problem. He said there is a need to educate buyers that a stub out or cutout indicates
that a street will be developed there in the future. Gonzalez suggested the use of a plat map at the development
site. City Manager, David Morgan said it might make sense to put a sign at cut outs that say "future road
connection'. Mayor Ross said there is some level of responsibility on the buyer.
Councilmember Fought said he likes the work and the discussion and he believes in the education of the
information. Fought said that connectivity for Police, Fire and EMS purposes should be done at major
thoroughfares. He said he has concerns when one neighborhood is connected to another neighborhood for other
reasons. Fought said connectivity cannot be determined by the number of homes and used Sun City as a good
example of this. He said even though Sun City has 10,000 homes, it does not need more than 5 connectors.
Fought suggested getting rid of the algorithm and using common sense. He noted that connecting dissimilar
neighborhoods does not make sense. Fought spoke on safety in golf cart communities being another unique
factor.
Councilmember Hesser asked if there is anything in the UDC that requires Council to take action on traffic issues.
City Manager Morgan said major arterials are constantly evaluated, but he does not believe it is required.
General Manager of Utilities, Jim Briggs, said there is not a requirement in the UDC but that the City's
transportation systems departments help monitor problems and resolutions and look at traffic control and safety
concerns. Hesser said a connector should have been built from Jim Hogg Road and the City needs to look at
problem areas and fix them now instead of waiting until later. He asked Nelson to create a list of the problem
areas and proceed to correct the problems. Morgan said traffic management will address it. Hesser spoke on
Majestic Oak and the unique issues. He said the street traffic is exceeding capacity and yet there is nothing that
requires the Council to correct the situation. Morgan said this is the purpose of today's presentation - for the City
to create the right kind of standards for connectivity.
Councilmember Nicholson said the City is seeking the path to resolution and should pursue concrete data to
measure these issues. She suggested looking at concrete tools that are data driven. Nicholson said there is a
need for standards. City Manager Morgan said staff was asking for a traffic analyst in the budget and this is very
important to manage as the City grows.
Councilmember Gipson asked about development requirements. He explained that developers' choices at the
time of development might not work when things change later on and then the City gets stuck with the developer's
choices. Gipson added that the City must look at safety over convenience always.
Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Nelson for the presentation and said she enjoyed the evolution shown of this
project. Jonrowe said she was pleased that cars, bikes and pedestrians were all being looked at and developers
should be encouraged to extend sidewalks and path situations in addition to streets alone. Jonrowe said she
would like to see a second library on the west side and noted a possible connection to Sun City residents by golf
carts. She noted that each Councilmember has unique connectivity issues in their districts.
Mayor Ross spoke on the City of Sugarland, Texas and said it was an example of a good connectivity city.
C. Discussion and possible direction regarding a presentation on the Target Industry and Workforce Analysis by
Avalanche Consulting — Michaela Dollar
Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director, spoke on the Target Industry and Workforce Analysis
conducted by Avalanche Consulting. She said the presentation would provide information on a Workforce
Analysis, a Target Industry Analysis and the Conclusions met. Dollar said that the City Council had approved the
analysis in February of this year and the project began in March. She explained that this analysis will then help
the City to work toward a strategic plan. She explained that the City has a high level of workforce and will begin
target industry profiles and directly target specific industries.
Dollar introduced John Rees and Tony DeLisi of Avalanche Consulting who provided the presentation on the
analysis and findings.
DeLisi spoke on the project and purpose of the analysis.
• How can Georgetown leverage local talent while growing and diversifying the industry base?
• April — August 2017
■ Target Industry & Workforce Analysis
o Overview of existing business climate
o Workforce characteristics
o Target industries and rationales
DeLisi described Avalanche Consulting and what they provide.
About Nvalanche
• National economic development strategists
• Serving 100+ communities since 2405
• Headquartered in in Austin, Texas
• 50+ years of combined experience
Services
o Economic development strategies
• Customized research
o Marketing and branding services
o Organizational assessments
o HeadlightTM data portals
DeLisi spoke on the Project Process and described the 4 Phases.
Project Process
PHASE As PROJECT INITIATION
• Prolea Review wtm City Stott
• Infomrorion Review
D U I V I R A BU S: PROJRCT MIANAORMWT AOMDA
PHP`e R: WORKFORCF ANALYSIS
• Ecanomk IL Demographic Trend Analysis
• Stakeholder input
• Workforce Profile
• SWOTANALYSIS
DRLIVIRA/LRS: WORKPORCI ANALYSIS REPORT DRAFT
PHASE C: TARGET INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
Tor" lndswry Perforsnmo Erakration
• Torget snoA ry Pro ttinary Selesrlon
To" wry Profltet
WLTVRRAgMt TAROIT INDUSTRY ANALYSIS REPORT DRAB
PHASE D: PROJECT COMPLETION i PRESENTATIONS
• Review of Final Reports
• Presentodon to GEDCO
• PrewfotlontoCry Couall
DIUVIRAKM PIMAL R l P O R TS
Stakeholder Engagement was discussed. DeLisi explained that this part of the process is as important as the end
result.
• Seven focus groups covering manufacturing, business climate, leadership, workforce development,
education and more
• Interviews with community leaders, employers and educators
John Rees then provided the results portion of the presentation and began with the Workforce Analysis Report.
He explained that there is a tremendous amount of detail in the actual report, which has been condensed to be
concise for the purposes of this presentation, but that the full report is available for review.
Workforce Analysis Report
SWOT ANALYSIS
Rees described each category in detail. He noted that 75% of people living in Georgetown work elsewhere and
many employees in Georgetown live in other areas. He noted that Georgetown talent is being lost to other areas.
Labor Shed Identification
Georgetown has two overlapping labor sheds — Northern and
Southern — with distinctly different profiles.
GEORGETOWN
AA;S IN
Economic Dynamics
Georgetown is creating jobs at a rapid pace — but 75% of
jobs are filled by non-residents and 75% of working residents
commute out.
CITY OF 06ORGETOWN TOTAL IMPLOYMINT EMPLOYMINT 0,ROWT14
2006-2016 2 K 27.9K 2011 —2016
3 TA 73
217K 22 IK 21,.W 212C 2 K
Lak� Shvd
Aldinrl
USA
Rees explained that unemployment is under 3.5% currently, which is very low. He said that job creation used to
be the driving force but now drawing talent is more important. He mentioned Georgetown's rapid growth and
noted that 1 in 5 people in Georgetown was not here just 5 year ago.
Rees discussed Demographic Dynamics next.
Demographic Dynamics
Georgetown's population is growing faster than jobs, and the
city continues to have more highly -educated residents than
jobs.
POPULATION OROWTH
2010-2013
Gacirgarown
A:osfln M 11s:.,
Taxan 9'
US ® A-.
EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO.
2015
3. Caeargafpwn
Labor Shed Al.41,
Av;Ftn 6•` yy,
TRX cis 51 Sc
us
Rees explained the difference in the Northern and Southern Labor Sheds.
Workforce Profiles
The Northern and Southern Labor Sheds offer different
compositions of occupations and lifestyles.
GEORGETOWN'S NORTMMN LABOR SHED MAJOR GEORGETOWN'S SOUTNUN LABOR SHED MAJOR
MKUSTRY CLUSTERS, 2016 INDUSTRY CLUSTRS, 2016
r Sway s •. - .:
*
� .*•
1
pro
wealk >
r x- A,,,
4,OCMGiOWT14,3011 -2616
�t
oo-
LOCAL Gari? WTK TOT 1 - 2016
Rees detailed the SWOT Analysis. He said Georgetown is unique. He noted that everything is growing and
everything is expected to continue to grow. Rees provided the SWOT Analysis and explained it as a high level
snapshot of key strengths and opportunities for improvement.
SWOT Analysis
Georgetown is an
increasingly attractive
business destination within
the Austin Metro.
Key Strengths relate to:
• Pro-business attitude
•w� -mow.+...ter
• Large workforce and retiree population
• Large manufacturing sector
• Relative affordability
• Availability of land
• High quality of life
• Regional education assets
13
Mayor Ross asked how a pro-business attitude is measured. Rees said it is determined by the state and by
interviews. He explained that the state determination is because Texas is a right to work state. He noted that the
attitude has changed because of the encouragement for business in Georgetown. DeLisi explained that
Georgetown's pro-business attitude is being recognized. He said Georgetown has certainly been nationally
recognized. He explained that Georgetown is seen as a place more welcoming to business. Mayor Ross said
this can be attributed to 3 things — David Morgan, Wayne Reed and Michaela Dollar. Ross said they have
changed the culture of Georgetown, as well as the attitude.
DeLisi spoke about marrying the unique part of Georgetown to certain industries. He said it is desired to find
people and industries that match Georgetown most closely, while working on the challenges. Councilmember
Gonzalez asked if the weaknesses are listed, as well as the strengths. DeLisi said they are covered in the report.
DeLisi provided information on the Target Industry Identification and filtering questions used.
• Is the industry growing and projected to grow within Georgetown, the Austin Metro, Texas and the U.S.?
■ Does the industry already have a presence in Georgetown?
• Does the industry match Georgetown's assets?
• Does the industry align with Georgetown's goals and vision?
DeLisi spoke on Target Industry Recommendations, Target Industry Profiles and Target Industry Alignment. He
explained that other businesses would not be ignored and there is support for all business. He explained that
these shown are examples of the competitive market.
Target Industry Recommendations
TAR= WAXBM MCM SIC"M
Advanced Aerospace& Avlarbn
Clean Energy Technology
Manufacturing Electronic & Cos. nem Momfomang
Heahhcare Services
Medical Tedmobgy
pharmac"Icals
Professional Creotering ign
Se
111 Engliwering Services
Services softwore a In(ormotlon Tedowlogy
Target Industry Prof lies
RESEARCH A
DEVELOPMENT
Profiles serve as a reference for City staff, leadership,
and partner organizations.
Sections include;
• Industry overview
• Global Forces
• Niche Sectors
• Local Sales Messages
• Local Workforce
• Both labor sheds
• Number of workers & wages
Target Industry Alignment
GEORGETOWN TARGET OPPORTUNITY AUSTIN TEXAS TARGET
TARGET
DeLisi spoke on clean energy branding opportunities and the presence of advanced manufacturing and further
growth opportunities there.
Councilmember Hesser said there are no surprises and he appreciates this being brought to Council in one report.
Hesser said he would like to look at long-term concerns. He asked about physical items that would attract or
detract from business and noted a shortage of office space. DeLisi said the shortage of office space is a symptom
of the growth. He explained that in the last 10 years speculative building was non-existent, but is now starting to
pick up and acknowledged the huge need for office space in many communities. DeLisi emphasized the
importance of preserving areas for commercial property for office space and industrial purposes in this fast growth
period. Rees noted the downtown as an incredible physical asset, as well as the airport. Hesser asked what
areas around the City should be set aside as the designated areas for office space. City Manager, David Morgan,
said staff is working with developers and land owners for office development on Mays Road and Long Horn
Junction. Morgan said there is a need to be competitive and the City will need to have sites available. Morgan
noted that this study is a building block toward a strategic plan and developing the strategies.
Councilmember Nicholson noted that there would be a difference in companies that bring their employees with
their businesses and those companies that need a labor force. She asked how the labor force is measured.
DeLisi said the labor force in Georgetown is lower because of a large retirement community. He said that,
generally, there is a larger group of women than men not participating in the workforce. He also noted that the
national trend indicates the labor force has been falling because the less educated are falling out of the workforce.
DeLisi added that the lower cost of living and affordability of Central Texas is attractive.
D. Update on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, spoke on the Historic Resource Survey and provided an overview.
• Recap of May City Workshop — Reviewed Who, What and How's of a Resource Survey and the Project
Status
• 2016 Survey
o Resources Surveyed
o Methodology
o Results
• Recommendations
• Next Steps
Nelson said 1,677 resources had been documented, including buildings, structures, objects and sites. She noted
that nearly all were buildings (1,661) and most were single family homes. Nelson added that, in addition to
residential buildings, a significant number of commercial buildings and buildings with other uses, such as religious,
educational and agricultural buildings, have been documented.
Nelson explained that each resource had been photographed and recorded according to its architectural style and
materials. She noted that each resource was assigned a priority level of high, medium or low. Nelson said the
City uses this information to make informed planning decisions and know which resources to honor and protect
and which resources do not need as much attention. Nelson went on to explain the criteria for the priorities.
High Priority
• Contributes significantly to local history/broader historical pattern
• May be a good example of architecture, engineering or crafted design
• Retains a high degree of integrity
Medium Priority
• Adds to the area's character and contributes moderately to our understanding of local history/broader
historical patterns
• Typical examples of style or form
• Somewhat modified
Low Priority
• Not associated with a trend in history, significant architectural style, building form, or construction method
• And/or significantly altered
Nelson provided the numbers for the Categories in the 2016 Survey
Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age
Properties
Category
Count
Percent
High
191
11%
Medium
589
35%
Low
897
53%
Total
1,677
100%
W
IIWO
_..
Nelson spoke on category changes. She explained that 236 resources documented on the 2016 survey had a
priority change since the last time they were surveyed. Nelson explained that, in most instances, a resource was
downgraded because of alterations to the exterior. She added that, in some instances, a resource received an
upgraded priority level because there is now a better understanding of the history of the building or because a
building has been restored since the last survey.
Nelson spoke on demolitions. She explained that, when doing this type of survey, it is typical to document any
resources that had been demolished since prior surveys. Nelson said there have been 228 resources that have
been demolished since the 1984 survey, averaging just over 7 demolitions per year.
Nelson spoke on Recommendations
• Consider boundary expansions of National Register Historic Districts
• Change definitions for contributing and non-contributing structures
She provided a map of the various historic districts in Georgetown.
Nelson said that staff had conducted extensive public outreach as directed by the Council, including a
personalized letter to every property owner which identified the priority status of the structure and identified
website information and resources. The letter also provided three public outreach opportunities, including
personal staff phone conversation at the convenience of the property owner, a designated one-on-one
conversation with the consultants and a public workshop. Nelson noted that 135 people attended the public
workshop, which provided a presentation by the consultants and individual time with City staff.
Nelson said the Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) will review the recommendations this
Thursday and this will then be brought back to the Council in September.
Councilmember Fought said this is going in the right direction and he would not want preservation to fall through
the cracks. He said he believes the City should have some skin in the game when exercising unfunded
mandates. He suggested the possibility of excusing the city property tax for those making significant costly
improvements that are valuable to the City. He noted that this could only work for high valued properties because
not all can be assisted. Fought suggested 10 to 20 properties.
Mayor Ross asked how many properties were given a low level priority. Nelson said 897. Ross said this is a lot
of properties to have on the list and asked for the definition of contributing and non-contributing. Nelson said some
properties move up in priority level over time. She said it is important to review. Nelson said even though 1600
properties are on the survey list, if they are outside of an historic district, they are not required to obtain approval
for alterations to the home. Nelson said the survey is a snap shot for the community and preserves the history.
Nelson explained that resources are provided for properties outside the district. Mayor Ross said it seems like a
very large amount of properties and he is not in favor of unfunded mandates.
City Manager, David Morgan, said staff would come back to the Council in a workshop and provide an outline of
the current regulations and ask Council to make decisions for revisions as they would like.
Councilmember Jonrowe said she liked that individual property owners were given the opportunity to meet with
staff. She asked if property owners could appeal the priority designation they had been given. Nelson explained
that some home owners came to staff with historic information that reclassified their priority level. Jonrowe said
she would be in favor of changing definitions of contributing and non-contributing, because the terms sound
insulting. Jonrowe said she would like staff to look at changing the names. Mayor Ross said to consider
renaming "low" priority also, which may be insulting to some. Jonrowe said this was good information for decision
making going forward.
Mayor Ross asked if there could be a list of the most significant properties to use for economic development and
tourism purposes, explaining the significance of each. Councilmember Gonzalez said this would seem more like
a contest.
Councilmember Gipson asked about purchasing homes in historic districts and if the new homeowners are made
aware of the requirements they will come under. Nelson said it is currently realtors and street signs that relay this
information.
Councilmember Hesser asked how many of the designated properties are rental properties. Nelson said she will
be able to research and bring the number back to Council.
Councilmember Eby said she also believes there should be skin in game, as mentioned earlier, but the number of
houses could be a problem. Eby also voiced concern of possible overlap with Preservation Georgetown. Eby
said the City should be a source of information and not just a rule setter.
Morgan said this will be brought back to the Council with more information. He said he wants to put the survey on
an agenda for approval. Eby said she agreed that the issues are independent of the survey. She noted that the
discussion now would be working with the community and instructed Morgan to go ahead with placing the survey
approval on an agenda.
Councilmember Hesser said he wants the number of rentals before he would finalize an approval of the survey.
Councilmember Fought said there will be more discussion. Morgan said the survey will still be the survey and
there will not be a quick solution to making decisions on preservation. He explained that putting out the updated
survey will allow more properties to have more opportunity. Mayor Ross asked about the cost of updating the list.
Nelson was not sure but will find out and bring to Council.
Councilmember Gonzalez said this can become self-serving. He explained that one must be careful of flexibility
because it allows more encouragement for updates and the impact should be determined.
Mayor Ross asked, if the survey is approved, how it will be different two months from now. Morgan described a
situation for demolition not having to go to HARC, if designated a low priority. Ross said the cost of the program
is important and it is an ongoing cost, with 1600 properties on the list. Nelson said she could break out the list into
the homes in the historic district and those that are not. Ross asked if this will be administered annually. Nelson
said it would typically be administered every 5 to 10 years. Ross asked if there is a process to follow, if a
homeowner disagrees with their assigned priority level. Nelson said they would be able to visit with city staff and
consultants, but there is no particular process. Morgan said her received a text that the project cost was
$100,000.00 and was approved in last year's budget.
E. Update and discussion regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amended and Restated Consent
Agreement (First Amendment) and the Amended and Restated Development Agreement (Second Amendment) --
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager, provided an update on the Water Oak MUD and said he would ask the
Council for their feedback. He then provided an overview of the presentation.
■ Why are we amending agreements?
• Concept Plan
■ Water Oak North vs. South
• Amendments
o Conditions present
• Financial Impact
• Next Steps
• Feedback and Direction
Reed said that staff had been working in good faith with LWO and WRR to revise existing provisions and add new
provisions over the last 7 months. He said he believes that the parties are in agreement on 95% of the content in
the agreements, but the remaining 5% is extremely important because it allows the assignment of rights and
obligations, as detailed in the agreements, from LWO to ABG Water Oak Partners, Ltd. and WRR.
Reed provided a slide depicting the Water Oak Concept Plan. He explained that the Concept Plan captures the
allocation of wastewater, and open space and programmed space and parkland dedication between Water Oak
North and Water Oak South. He described the differences in the two.
Reed explained that the Water Oak Subdivision started building homes in Water Oak North in 2013. He said over
the past four years, there have been more than 150 homes built in the subdivision. Reed explained that the
maximum number of lots in Water Oak North upon build -out is 548, according to the Concept Plan. He added that
Water Oak South will add up to another 2,720 single-family lots for a grand total of 3,268 residential units. Reed
explained that it may take until 2028 or longer to fully build -out the entire residential areas in the Water Oak
Subdivision. Reed said Water Oak North is Laredo WO, Ltd. and ABG Water Oak Partners, Ltd. and Water Oak
South is WRR, or a new buyer entity. He explained that this amends the concept plan, although the land uses
remain constant with 3,268 single family units, 17.5 acres of commercial, 2 fire station sites and an elementary
school. Reed said there has been updated phasing of residential and commercial development based upon
actual and projected growth.
Reed described the allocation of Commercial SUEs (wastewater) between Water Oak North and Water Oak
South, the allocation of Parkland and Open Space across Water Oak North and Water Oak South, and minor and
major amendment processes that have been updated.
Reed provided information on the Development and Consent Agreement and spoke on conditions precedent and
under negotiation. Reed said typically an agreement is entered into knowing the parties can execute the
conditions of the agreement. He explained how WRR forms a paper company that then forms a following
company that has the money for execution and financial obligations. WRR does not currently have the financial
ability to carry out the agreement. The developer has the sophistication and a financial partner that will come into
this agreement at a later date but it cannot be named at this time. Councilmember Hesser asked who was in
bankruptcy. Reed said that it was LWO, the master developer. Hesser asked if any of the other developers had
ever declared bankruptcy. Reed said they are not aware of any others and WWR has a stellar record with its
other developments.
Development and Consent Agreements
Conditions Precedent (under negotiation)
• Agreement will not take effect unless and until
all actions are completed
Certificate of existence for the ne,,,;ly created Buyer�Assignee
to be created by WRR
Assignment and Assumptions Agreements between VVRR and
the Buyer entity for the acqulsition and development of Water
Oak South
V Financing commitments and agreements pertaining to the
Buyer for the accimsition and development of Water Oak South
Btjyer'Assignee's certificate of authority to execute the
Assignment and Assumption Agreements
Payment of <;ity fees
t � s []RGF�C►iti ti
7E
Development and Consent Agreements
Conditions _Precedent (under negotiation)
• WRR will have 30 days to deliver all four items
• WRR may request a one-time 30 day extension
• City will have the right to terminate Agreements if items
are not delivered within 60 days
• [Agreements are executed at this point]
• Closing on Water Oak South by the Buyer entity shall
occur no later than 120 days following the execution of
the Agreements
• Agreements shall automatically terminate if closing on
Water Oak South does riot occur within 120 days
Development Agreement
Fire Code and Fire Stations
• Updates actions needed to achieve compliance with
City's fire code
• Locks in purchase of 2.50 acre tract on Water Oak
North and adjacent to SH 29 by the City for fire station
purposes at $5.00/square foot
• Confirms that second 2.50 acre tract on Water Oak
South and adjacent to RM 2243 will be donated to the
City for fire station purposes at no cost to the City
Development Agreement
Bridge
• Retains schedule for construction and substantial
completion in current development agreement:
• Issuance of Notice to Proceed for Commencement
of Construction —thirty (30) calendar days after the
date that the 500" building permit is issued
• Substantial Completion — no later than the date that
is 24 months after the date of issuance of the
Notice to Proceed
• Allocates responsibility to WRR or Buyer entity for
construction
Development Agreement
Water Oak Parkway (under negotiation)
• Water Oak Parkway on Water Oak North (SH 29 to river)
- deadline is when Bridge is completed
• Water Oak Parkway on Water Oak South (river to FM
2243 (Leander Road)) - deadline for construction of the
entire cross section is upon the earlier of date specified
in TIA (to be performed later) or January 1. 2029
• Alternatively. two lanes of Water Oak Parkway (one in
each direction) on Water Oak South shall be constructed
on or before the date that building permits have been
issued for 1,904 (70%) lots in Water Oak South
G clr:..ci ��1,
�tti„ " v
Development Agreement
Regional Trail
• Establishes trail standards consistent with City's current
standards
• Establishes deadline for construction by or before the
first to occur of.
• substantial completion of the Bridge. or
• date that is eight (8) months after receipt of notice
from the City's Parks Director provided that the City
agrees that no such notice will be sent prior to
September 1, 2019
• CCD notifies City at least 120 days prior to
`` commencement of construction of the Regional Trail
\Ij 11}:l I x(111 \
Councilmember Fought asked if the impact fees were locked in 2 years ago. Reed said they were locked in in
2012. Mayor Ross asked, if the agreement has expired, why they will not be charged current fees. Reed
explained that the developer said throughout negotiations that is a high priority of his to keep the impact fees as
formerly agreed. Reed said contributions were made to the wastewater line by the developer that made up for
the larger impact fees as part of the negotiations.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked how long the agreement would be good for. Reed said this has not been
determined. Ross said this is important.
Reed described the bonds intention and the financial impact. Reed explained that, if the last bond is issued in
January 2038, and is for the maximum bond maturity of 25 years, the residents will pay off the last of the MUD
debt in 2063. The master development fee explains how this fee will be calculated and paid to the City out of net
bond reimbursements to each developer from the proceeds of the issuance of bonds by any district at the rate of
10% of all net bond reimbursements received by any of the developers.
Consent Agreement
Bonds
• Allows maximum bond maturity of 25 years (an
increase from the current 20 years)
• Requires EACH individual district to issue its bonds
within 15 years after the date that individual district first
issues bonds; and
• Limits the latest bond issuance date for any district to
be within twenty (20) years after the date of first
issuance of bonds by any district.
• This means if a district was to issue bonds in January
of 2018, no individual Water Oak MUD could issue
bonds after January 2038
��
Financial Impact
MUD Debt
• Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued: increasing
from approx. $66.5 million to approx. $113 million
• Maximum Maturity of Bonds: 25 years from date of
issuance
• Facilities Bonds may be Issued to Finance: Water,
Wastewater, Storm Drainage, Roads, Bridge,
Recreational Facilities, and Refunding Bonds
• District Only Tax Rate (Maximum): $0.92 per $100 in
Assessed Value (inclusive of both the debt service
oporl,'on and the O&M portion)
iLGET[l'. l
1jus
would still have the cost of the infrastructure that had been provided. McNabb added that the City would have to
take over and finish the development themselves or give the job to another developer. Gonzalez voiced
concerns about the transfer of one corporation to another. Reed said the City would not accept the agreement
until financial proof is provided and staff believes they are protecting the City through these agreements. Ross
asked if there is any risk. Reed said no more risk than any other development. City Manager, Morgan, said
bonds would not be issued until the value on the ground is proven.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and Section
551.074 at 5.10 PM.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the
City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072 Deliberation about Real Property
Parcel 15 (1603 Northwest Boulevard), Rivery Boulevard Extension Project
- Weir Property (NL of 2243/1-eander Road West of Riverview Drive), Southwest Bypass Project
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
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular Council Meeting at 6.00 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on I I1
ate