The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 11.28.2017 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, November 28, 2017 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 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 three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (5 12) 93 0-3 652 or City Hall at 113 East 81 Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Pro Tem, Anna Eby, called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Mayor Dale Ross. Anna Eby, District 1, Valerie Nicholson, District 2, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, Ty Gipson, District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Discussion of Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board recommendation of the City of Georgetown's Pavement Management Program -- Octavio A. Garza, P.E. C.P.M, Public Works Director Octavio Garza, Public Works Director, provided a presentation on the recommendations from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board for the Pavement Management Program. He began the presentation with a review of the Council's requests at the September 2017 meeting. 1. Further analysis of pavement applications 2. Application effectiveness and community impact/influence regarding loose aggregate, tracking, safety, uneven wear, multi -modal use, road noise, aesthetics, etc. 3. Field trip 4. Life expectancy 5. Costs 6. Summary of street selection process Garza provided a chart of Pavement Maintenance Application Costs and Longevity estimates in years. He explained that the figures shown in black are already being done and the figures in red represent the high performance materials seen on the San Antonio field trip. Garza described each of the processes. Pav*nWAAppisatlon Cost L00 rdy (ht) (trLsns A"$) Crack Sea" Sl 000 NA R"ortaw SJ SC-3 2-3 Pavement anal S11 700 2-3 High Perrormance Pavemant Stal It g $21.600 Onyx HAS) swoo Coarses Surface heathlaetf 525.007 6.8 DouOMCoarst Sumacs Treatrntrrl St1 OCSO 8-10 Ultra •T1rn Bonded wearing Course 5.55.000 10 12 Hot In Place Recycled Pavement IHFR $60 0W 16 phos *e RAP) Hot In Placa Racyck4 P*v me r t IH1PRI $110-000 1$ plus W 3 ov*rtsy $127.500 15 pius Ratmblil bon (Powd Repawwlth Cft $141;040 15 pe - Seal. Hm, or all a overlay) Garza spoke on 5 different scenarios of seals next and explained that the changes are highlighted in yellow. Garza explained the model analysis with the current budget and a 9% annual increase. Garza explained that the analysis considers 700 lane miles. He noted that Scenario 3 provided the best performance over a 10 year period and the PCI declines from 83 to 75. Garza explained that the PCI degrades even with an increase in budget. He said that the budget would need to double to hold the PCI steady. Garza provided a model analysis with a flat budget and explained that nova chip would have the best performance scenario over 10 years and would hold the PCI the most steady. Garza spoke on concerns with Scenario 3 voiced at the last presentation. He provided a depiction of Scenario 3 "A" and explained that defining major and minor arterials and major and minor collectors was a struggle. Garza said the single chip seal is no longer an option. He provided a map and described each type of road included. Garza provided lists of minor arterial and major collector streets in Scenario 3 as candidates for double coarse chip seal. He described the Street Selection Design Tree and explained that black represents what is already being used and yellow represents new seals to be added. P-A—m nit c'.45i'lion Inclow eco s as F.0 S. -I V*s No 6400"Im 00 nop W, f -4-M 1I -WPS-1 p4li-M F No - '>V.. � 20— 1 pi.pcft— A -go Mill .-a cy-1. y Garza said that "local road" used to mean minor and residential only, but now includes major collectors. He noted, again, that single chip seal will no longer be used. Garza described the purposes of the model and provided descriptions of the various products. The Street Selection Process was described next. • Street maintenance applications are initially selected by model based on individual street classification and PCI score (Network Level Analyses) • Candidate streets are then analyzed at the "project level" by staff and KPA Engineers (Project Level Analyses) including o Visual inspection of candidate streets o Logical grouping of nearby streets (e.g., neighborhoods) o Develop groups into program given budget constraint (Note: Applications may span multiple years' budget consideration) Garza showed a map depicting 2014 PCI Scores and conditions of city roadways, where Cutler Process will be applied this summer. Garza shared established recommendations: Continue to use: o Pavement Rejuvenation o Pavement Seals o Single Course Surface Treatments (chip seal) only in non-residential settings and in context with adjacent properties o Double Course Surface Treatments o Hot -In Place Recycling (Virgin Mix) ■ Incorporate additional applications in 2018 bid package o High performance pavement seals (e.g., Onyx, HA5) o Ultra-thin Bonded Wearing Course o Hot -In Place Recycling (with Recycled Asphalt Pavement) ■ Pavement Management o Monitor performance of new applications, including technical aspects and community support o Update model with new applications and PCI Study and report finding Summer/Fall 2018 Garza described the Next Steps: • City Council authorization to proceed developing Street Maintenance Program Bid Plans during winter 2017/18 that include Ultra -Thin Bonded Wearing Coarse, High Performance Seals (e.g., Onyx and HA5) and HIPR (with and without RAP) ■ Street Maintenance Program competitively bid Spring 2018 (City Council will approve bids) • Implement Street Maintenance Program Summer 2018 (City Council vote to proceed). Councilmember Fought said the field trip to San Antonio was one of the best he has ever been on. He said it had been a great opportunity to clarify different street processes and complimented Garza on his knowledge and expertise. Fought said he likes Scenario 3A and asked how much this scenario would increase costs and if the 9% increase estimate was an inflation rate. Garza said the 9% was established by looking back over the years, and including inflation and the'/ cent sales tax impacts. City Manager, David Morgan, said it deals with the increase needed in the street budget and inflation figures. Morgan asked Garza to show Slide 6 which describes the analysis of increases from year 1 to year 10. Morgan explained that there is a need to increase the street maintenance budget and there is the need to make a serious push in funding for street maintenance. He said the City now has some significant new tools they will be testing in the spring. Fought said he is far more concerned with the quality of the product. Morgan said the PCI is a benchmark and regardless of the scenario, funding for street maintenance needs to be increased. Morgan said staff will move forward this spring with a summer street maintenance schedule with the Council's consent. Councilmember Hesser said he encourages the use of double chip seal, where possible, to save money. He noted that Garza is a good steward of street maintenance and he would trust his decisions. Hesser asked if the City gets complaints and if there is a process for this. Morgan said most cities do not have a PCI at this level and that good staff and a good Council have been instrumental. Councilmember Nicholson said the proposed program is absolutely on tract and thanked Garza and staff. Mayor Pro Tem, Eby, noted that the Council is blessing the recommendations proposed in this presentation. B. Georgetown Fire/Medical EMS Update -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief Fire Chief, John Sullivan, provided Council with an update on the Fire and Medical EMS Program. He began the presentation with an overview. • Single vs. Dual Unit Responses • System Demand • Performance • Expense and Revenue Update • Hiring Update — Current & 4 Year Sullivan spoke on Priority Dispatch • Transitioned to ALS Engines o Single unite response to MVC's (motor vehicle collisions) and Certain Falls (lift assists) • Ambulance Response to Care Facilities o Upgrade call for high acuity and/or officer request • Evaluate patient outcomes, response times and UHU's to determine efficacy Sullivan provided slides depicting Single Unit Responses during 2016 and 2017 and a 10 Year History. He spoke on the increases in call activity and provided slides showing the demand. Single Unit Responses 35.00% 30.00'76 25.0096 20.00% 15.40`76 10.0096 5.00`}6 0.0016 2015 % if/PaDICAL 10 Year History 8OW I" um 5" 4W 3000 z00o 1000 Q 2008 7009 7010 3011 3017. 3013 2014 7Cl1 S 2116 3[111 C, 56% •' FiiiElMEii1CR1 System Demand 14" 1700i! 10" a" 4000 x000 0 51% 2011 20i2 2013 X14 1015 2016 2017 2010 2019 2020 EltA[ival =Ftevi,,ed tvwwl! System Demand — i i 0 ■ - .� i ion r�-Wpq am - - :. -JIRIPAED<A1 2016 20'7 — i k iii K -M t — 'iiZalll� ■ � i ! i 7 i i— i cue �tf r` iii — i i 0 ■ - .� i ion r�-Wpq am - - :. -JIRIPAED<A1 2016 20'7 — i iii — -- i— i i— i 4 C25 ■r3� Monthly Demand Jan Feb Mar Apr May iuo lul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec of70W UI01S 0)016 07011 Concurrent EMS Demand 35.0096 - 30.0096 25.00% 20.00% 1 S.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.{]096 . 41REAKOiCAL Ian Feb Mat Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Flog Dec 62016 ■ 2017 Sullivan spoke on transport necessity. He said most people do not realize that 70% of cardiac arrests occur between the hours of 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Sullivan described response time performance and call -to -door performance. Transport Necessity Jurt 1 r Mar Apr May lur, jul ',,ue. Sr p ()v N:-, F'tc M)k)l/ )()16 f.'W I FATOW At Response Time Performance DO 4 "):3 ,'):24 5:16 5:09 5 -%3 20 1 13 X) 14 1 )016 2C 1/ 'time Interval: [Aspolch t() Aulv(ll . . -.,, - • f) R [IMEDICAL •i . • ... �.'•FIRtIMEdiGA! Sullivan thanked the Council for additional resources which provided the ability to capture a 5 minute response time, which has been a considerable increase in efficiency. Sullivan spoke next on Station Reliability Sullivan explained that the source of medical payments is largely the government and described Medicare Payments specifically. He noted comparisons of response vs. transport. Sullivan said medical collections have been greatly improved over the last few months. Sullivan spoke on Systematic Changes. Current Changes o Include PAL's (payer of last resort) in the transport model o Direct billing follow-up on TNT o TASPP Payment for Medicaid TX @ $120K o Increased CPT to $447 (Jul -Oct) o Revised estimate upward to $2.65M for FY18 • Evaluating future options from remuneration o TASPP in FY19 estimated at >$200K o TASPP Expansion for Medicare o Direct Billing (low collection rate) o Subscription Program Sullivan provided charts of Cost Models and thanked Nathan Parras and Paul Diaz for their help with the models. . -• w .. ..' a� . •tier. lMrr aN�. • •• ••• -' .r -lar ..� .raw .. - aswe • +- -•� - ..w iYl: fY u.eue _ _ �a a..•rnd _. ___ _ �._ __ hM-.-�`_:lfi—� z 7.--_��. 1 � ____ }_ay.lf[- �Ii1}! �1r. LWY ^•!�:_ _ '_-� -.l" - 7lsiFre _ W wr. .w w. �s wiR Wi. raw wNr •. .. YtM r..... ter.. .rr • ¢a'�Y iiww k Lnin nYlN 0."rr .•r wl Wsar a.... --.~...r r.... -----a �ra•rna �aS►I�sa Jas YY Nr,an y� W -1W r Na— . -• w .. ..' a� . •tier. lMrr aN�. • •• ••• -' .r -lar ..� .raw .. - aswe • +- -•� - ..w iYl: fY u.eue _ _ �a a..•rnd _. ___ _ �._ __ hM-.-�`_:lfi—� z 7.--_��. rwa•... aw.» .. r .. •� .r.. ..r r..y �. r. a.•w •n �. X1.1 .-....••��. ... r. ra. .•. rrw Mr . r.v .. ... MM City Manager, David Morgan, described the models, needs, assumptions and expenditures. He described a negative balance becoming a positive balance by 2020 or 2021 and the analysis performed for different scenarios. Chief Sullivan showed the pros and cons for a Medic 7 in FY18 and FY19. He explained how it would help, operationally, and cost wise, if they were able to hire now instead of later. Sullivan spoke on Station Planning and provided renderings of Station 6. He thanked CIP Manager, Eric Johnson, for his oversight and noted that it is the best station that could possibly be built. IWrk:mmmmr, 11@L SIA?l N No 6 � I .Opt, SAV% 9 SAYJ J-FIPS7 FLCXJr. N,097 SF VtV FICO? AIT[1NATI? 9,A54 SF r.y.'...,. '._ SfCOK>/LOOr. ',770 SF SKC►dt F: OCR, 1,77051 101AI 9,402 5F AITFPNAI[ TOUR 1) 224 SF 11rE STAT ON No 6 _ #ICOV ►UF: Sullivan ended the presentation with a Hiring Update. Councilmember Gonzalez said the break-even point from the initial implementation of the EMS Program is not an issue. He explained that this was an investment in the safety of the City and it is certainly moving in the right direction. Gonzalez said the City would not want to jeopardize safety for Return on Investment time. He agreed that starting earlier rather than later makes sense with the current growth of Georgetown. Gonzalez said he likes the improvement of moving to one vehicle for response, when able. He noted that this will also extend the life of all of the vehicles. Councilmember Jonrowe suggested getting the Peak Demand Unit as soon as possible and said the service and care of citizens is of the most importance. Jonrowe asked that Power Point presentations always be provided in the posted agenda packets in the future, giving the Council ample time to prepare for Council meetings. She then asked if it would be possible for her to see some sample letters for collections, with the proper redactions. Sullivan said he would be happy to provide them. Councilmember Fought agreed that safety should be considered first and said the model is right. He suggested caution in the hiring process and said that a lot of Fire and EMS employees have been hired. He explained that only qualified candidates should be hired and hiring to fill numbers would be the wrong approach. Sullivan asked Fought if he was concerned that the department was lowering standards to meet quota. Sullivan explained that this would never be the case. He noted that the 5 candidates currently being considered came from an original pool of 90 applicants. Sullivan explained that they are being very selective. City Manager, David Morgan, talked about the current policy of having all EMS personnel be firefighters. He said this might have to be adjusted to make better hiring practices and opportunities. Councilmember Hesser also asked that presentations be provided in the agenda packets in order to provide time to review them earlier in order to prepare for the presentation and council meeting. Hesser asked about single unit responses. Sullivan explained the definition as one call, even though it includes multiple vehicles. Hesser asked about the Medicare payments. Sullivan described the transport bill, medical supplies and how Medicare will only pay $470 dollars of a transport that costs approximately $1,000. Hesser asked for percentages of what is being billed and what is being collected. He asked about the collection rate of the individual's portion. Sullivan said he did not have the figures with him, but would be happy to provide the information to the Council soon. Nicholson thanked Sullivan and said she also supports moving forward in FY2018. She noted that morale is important. Nicholson said the attitude, kindness and level of care provided by Georgetown responders is impressive. Mayor Pro Tem Eby recapped and said Model 1A in 2018 and 2019 is the consensus of the Council. She added this is not a for-profit program and the City must take care of the community and the responders. Morgan said this will appear as Item R, for action on the agenda later at the Regular Council meeting that evening. He said the Item would need Council's approval that evening because of timing. C. Presentation and discussion on the resolution request from Pedcor Investments for the application of 4% Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 192 units to be known as Residences at Stillwater, located at approximately the 1500 block of NE Inner Loop -- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Housing Coordinator, Susan Watkins, spoke on the Tax Credit request from Pedcor Investments. She began the presentation describing the purpose of the project and that the applicant is seeking two resolutions 1. Resolution of No Objection for an application to the State for 4% Housing Tax Credits 2. Resolution acknowledging City of Georgetown has twice the state per capita number of housing tax credit units Watkins provided the agenda for the presentation. • City HTC review process o Public notice 0 4% vs. 9% HTCs 0 Review AMI, 2x State per capita • Overview of project • Staff findings ■ HAB Recommendation Watkins explained that a Revised City HTC Review Process had been approved on September 27, 2016 and she provided a slide depicting the process. Revised City HTC Review Process approved 9/27/16 • Public Outreach (2 neighborhood meetings) — At least one public meeting 3 weeks before Council • HTC Zoning Review — Site already zoned MF — Comprehensive Plan supports MF • Deadlines and Scheduling — 6 weeks before HAB for 4% projects • Two Times Rule Information G LUE1v ETUWH a �rxws 4% vs. 9% Housing Tax Credits • 4% Housing Tax Credits — Non-competitive — Must use tax-exempt bonds — Developer can apply all year — Covers approximately 30% of development cost — Serves 60% AMI population — Resolution of No Objection CriAAG EF[7N ti ir.xni • 9% Housing Tax Credits — Competitive — Limited allocation — March 1 app, July award — Can cover roughly 70% of development cost — Serves 30% AMI population and higher — Resolution of Support or No Objection Serving 60% Area Median Income Williamson County 2017 AMI is $81,400 • 60% AMI (four person family) is $48,840 • Residences at Stillwater rents: Bedrooms Rent 1 $841 2 $1,007 3 $1,158 GEURt,ETOWN rex Formula for "Twice State Per Capita" Acknowledgement Resolution HTC Units Per Capita = Sum of LIHTC Units TX Population Est. 245,857 State of Texas = _ .00926 26.538,614 Twice State per capita = .00926 ` 2 = .0185 1,539 City of Georgetown = 56.102 = 0.0274 ActoFia h Councilmember Gonzalez asked if this applies to the facilities that have not yet been built. Watkins confirmed. Watkins provided a Comparison of Other Cities Chart for consideration. She noted that Austin, Georgetown, Salado, San Marcos and Taylor all are over the twice per capita ratio. Watkins provided a zoning map of the project. She said that the Residences at Stillwater are zoned high density multi -family and would have 192 multi -family units restricted at 60% AMI. She noted that this is the same developer of the Live Oak Apartments. Watkins spoke on the impact to GISD and said that according to the projection models, 35-60 children will live at the development. Watkins said the application has met the City's criteria of being proper zoning and public notification. She explained that the Housing Advisory Board was supportive of the project for addressing the City's housing deficit and recommends approval. Watkins explained that there would be two items on the Regular Council Meeting agenda for Council action at the meeting that evening. 1. Resolution of No Objection for application to State for 4% Housing Tax Credits 2. Resolution acknowledging City of Georgetown has twice the state per capita number of housing tax credit units Councilmember Fought thanked staff for responding to the previous questions posed. Fought said he has been outspoken about affordable housing and cautioned that making housing affordable and making affordable housing are two different things. He said it must be determined if this is low income or affordable housing. Fought said that the government provides incentives for each type of these housing projects. He noted that workforce housing requires a higher level of income and that this project is talking about low income housing. Fought said he has no problem with government programs to help this issue, but objects to where some of these are proposed to be. He said that ideally they should be near public transportation, schools, etc. He explained that this project is near a school, but falls short in other areas. Fought noted that Georgetown will be put over 3 x the regional numbers if the project is approved. He said he is fine with 2x but 3x is a huge number and regional partners should do more. He said the regional loading is going to Georgetown and asked if the Housing Advisory Board has ever recommended against one of these. City Manager, Morgan, said he is not aware that they have. Fought said the Housing Advisory Board is not at fault because they have never been given the guidance for the parameters for Georgetown. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if there is a guarantee or requirement that residents work in Georgetown. Watkins said no. Gonzalez asked if there is a guarantee or requirement that a resident already lives or works in Georgetown and, if not, Georgetown would not necessarily be helped by such a project. Long Term Planning Manager, Nat Waggoner, noted that the City's recent experience was with 9% tax credits. He said the 9% tax credit projects service the lower income brackets and the area median is the measure. He explained that the 40% would service those with higher incomes. Fought thanked Waggoner for the good clarification and said he has no problem with a revision of 60% AMI. Councilmember Nicholson said she is interested in the market as a whole, and if not this project, then what? She asked staff to speak to what the development would be if not a tax credit situation. Watkins said the property is zoned multi -family and would be a high density apartment complex by a different developer. Nicholson said this is free market and asked if this is handled differently with the rate ceiling. Watkins said the developer will be speaking on this at the evenings meeting, but that rent ceilings are in exchange for the tax credits. Nicholson said since the property is already zoned multi -family, it will be an apartment complex regardless. She said this seems to be workforce housing, which services people contributing significantly in the community. She noted that if the supply is not available, developers can raise prices, and the City would see an increased demand and not enough supply. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if there is a report of what percentage of renters are paying more than 30% for their housing. Susan said there is and she would be happy to provide the information. Jonrowe said this is an opportunity to provide for those already working in Georgetown. Councilmember Eby said she would comment at the later meeting but will be supporting the project. D. Presentation on annexation requirements and discussion on establishing an annexation strategy -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, Charlie McNabb, City Attorney, and Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, spoke on annexation and establishing an annexation strategy. She apologized to the Council that the presentation was not attached to the agenda packet. Nelson said there would be three presenters of this topic: herself, City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, and Systems Engineering Director, Wesley Wright. Nelson provided an agenda for the presentation. • Overview of Presentation • Legal Overview of Annexation Requirements for Utility Improvements • Systems Engineering Overview of Capital Improvements with Key Corridors • Recap of Annexation Requirements • Direction from the City Council Nelson said the purpose of the presentation is to gain direction from the Council on which areas they want to pursue for annexation and if there is any additional information that they would like to review. Nelson spoke on emerging areas of development and provided an aerial view of the four areas for consideration — Shell Road, City Limits to 195; 135 North of Westinghouse; Inner Loop east of 135 and west of 1460 and FM1460 south of Inner Loop and north of Westinghouse. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, provided a legal overview of annexation requirements for utility improvements. McNabb spoke on wastewater, water and full municipal services. He explained that Police and Fire Services are required to begin immediately, while water, wastewater and full municipal services can be provided over time. McNabb said the specifics are described in the Annexation Act. He noted that a City is not required to treat all areas the same. He said a rural area might have a different service plan than another area and, after annexation, the City does a unique service plan for each. Residents must be notified of the service plan and given time to voice concerns. McNabb noted that sometimes a developer of annexed property will provide a service plan during development. Councilmember Fought asked about an area without fire flow, with septic and substandard roads. McNabb said the service plan is put in when the city is able to provide the services. He said he is not entirely sure about fire flow, but will research this and get the information back to the Council. Fought said he is glad to understand that there will be time for negotiations in these matters. McNabb also noted that Council can decide not to annex an area after all. System Engineering Director, Wesley Wright, provided an overview of capital improvements within these key corridors. He began with the area that is Shell Road — City Limits to 195. Wright said this area is largely underserved right now, but that significant dollars have been approved by the Council to be put into the area, with the intention of spurring growth. He said these projects are funded and ready to go. Wright spoke next on 135 Rabbit Hill — North of Westinghouse. He said this area is currently served and the street will be widened to 4 lanes in the north. Wright spoke on Inner Loop — E 1-35 & W 1460 and FM 1460 S. of Inner Loop and N. of Westinghouse. He said these areas are served and have significant electric, with water and wastewater generally there. Nelson provided a recap of annexation requirements. She said these 4 areas will not need annexation requirements. Nelson then requested direction from the City Council. Councilmember Gonzalez said all of these areas should be pursued. He emphasized that there is also a need to look at existing development being considered and it needs to be done now. Gonzalez said he is in agreement to pursue all of those presented during this presentation. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if these are just the easy ones. City Manager, David Morgan, said these are areas that have already been anticipated for annexations and this would enable them to be assured of annexation prior to the 2020 census. Jonrowe asked if the donut holes are still to come. Morgan said if Council has specific areas they want considered they should ask staff to look into it, but there is very little time because of the deadlines. He explained that an annexation plan could not be adopted prior to the December 1 deadline. He explained that any area can be put on an annexation list, but it is difficult to determine which areas to focus on. Morgan said the new state law solidifies that there will be donut holes in the city. He noted that areas that Council wants to focus on need to be defined now. Jonrowe said the presentation was not straight shooting. Councilmember Gipson said he understands the timeline with the new annexation laws. He said he agrees to do what can be done now, rather than nothing. Morgan said certain areas with less than 100 residences can be annexed without the annexation requirements. He said staff will welcome researching any specific areas named by Council. Councilmember Fought said that he had suggested putting all possible annexations on the list initially, but since he has now done more reading, he realizes this is a can of worms. He explained that now that he understands that there is room to negotiate he would like to go slowly. He said the City does not need to be afraid of an election, and in some circumstances it might make sense. He noted that the annexation law is far more complicated and fraught with peril than originally known. Councilmember Hesser asked about the possibility of presenting staffs next four annexation choices and encouraged staff to look into this. Councilmember Nicholson said District 2 does not have much to consider, but she will look further into this. Nicholson said she does not have any areas she would need to include at this time. Councilmember Eby said it is true that Council had wanted to see the whole picture, but said it was an unrealistic request. She explained that staff has looked at the big picture and narrowed it down to the most reasonable and feasible to move forward with. Eby said it was staffs job to come to Council with the most reasonable and doable annexation requests and she appreciates staffs input and good information. Eby asked the Council if anyone disagrees with the annexation of any of the 4 areas presented. Councilmember Gonzalez suggested looking at some of the under 100 unit developments and some of the City's donut holes. He suggested putting 3, 4 or 5 more areas on the list. Eby said direction to staff would be to move forward with the 4 areas. Fought suggested that each Councilmember give their additional requests to staff to examine. Morgan spoke to this. He used the Crystal Knolls development as an example. He explained that the timelines make this impossible by filters and there are many different factors. Morgan said this will be brought back to Council with an action item on the December 12, 2017 agenda. He spoke on Indian Creek and Crystal Knolls neighborhoods as areas surrounded by city limits already. Councilmember Eby said Councilmembers will inform City Manager, David Morgan, of any annexation issues they would like to pursue. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb said there are a few annexation issues he will be discussing in Executive Session, since it is already an item on the agenda. Mayor Pro Tem, Anna Eby, recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.09 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. 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 Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property Parcel 5, Airport Road -- Travis Baird 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 Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - TLCC Update Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular Council meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on aZ Date (: ,& C�-� Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City e ry