Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.24.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 24, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East 71 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 (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8"' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross, called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1 and Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5. Mayor Ross, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Councilmember Eby joined the meeting 3.04 PM. Councilmember Gipson joined the meeting at 3:50 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion of the Solid Waste Master Plan Project and the Transfer Station Evaluation Project -- Octavio Garza, Public Works Director Public Works Director, Octavio Garza, spoke on the Solid Waste Master Plan Project and the Transportation Station Evaluation Project. Garza said that the firm of Burns McDonnell had been hired to help with these two projects. Garza said that the project managers from both projects were present. He explained that Scott Pasternak would speak on the Solid Waste Master Plan, followed by Seth Cunningham speaking on the Transportation Station Evaluation project. Scott Pasternak from Burns & McDonnell began the presentation with on overview. • Comprehensive Solid Waste Master Plan (CSWMP) Overview • Downtown Customer Focus Group Update ■ Discussion of Potential Options for Servicing Downtown Customers Pasternak spoke on the CSWMP Planning Process. Pasternak spoke next on the Downtown Customer Focus Groups and provided a map of the Downtown Overlay District and an aerial view of the Downtown Square. He said that the key objective was to improve understanding of solid waste and recycling service needs of the City's Downtown Square customers and to involve a variety of Downtown businesses. Pasternak explained that the participants would be restaurant and bar establishments, retailers, and property and building owners. Pasternak described what types of services that the downtown businesses would need. Pasternak provided discussion on potential future systems and gave descriptions for each. Pasternak spoke on the Key Input • Access & Space o Access to private property is not guaranteed and likely to be eliminated with continued growth; City -owned property needed for shared facilities; limited options • Aesthetics o Current system (carts & dumpsters) has negative aesthetics, sight and smell is unattractive for businesses • Growth o Growth of Downtown will continue, and challenges of current system will be intensified; transition to a new system will become more difficult with growth Service Charges o Support for volume -based rates; at minimum, rates need to be adjusted for equity in current system; with a new system, new rates would need to be developed Pasternak spoke on options identified through discussions: a physical and financial impacts summary, as well as an advantages and challenges summary. Physical Impact Financial Impact Carts & Shared Dumpsterls Continued prose«ce cf exist�rg -^arts and dL,- -,PSIerS Shared Dumpstem k Removal of Cart$. Optimize use of existrrtg dumpsters, potential increase in nu ntier of dump$ter3 Upoaled rale stru-cture Updated rate slroCture for ecu,ty- voluTe- for ecudy volun,.e- based based arts & Shared Dumpsters rCurrent system. no Advantages physical charges or capital m-estmert needed Unsustainable vnth continued growth. Challenges negaln'e aesthetics, dependent or private property o-,%rer w nirgress for space rr�w Shared mpsters Increased capacity for refuse and recycl,ng, improved aesthet cs Unsusta cable mth contirued growth, dependent on private property o",vrer w4irgress for space Concierge Service ♦ shard . dired haul dwnasWsor wgl du* edmpsceors sassrntucks Remo -aa of carts and :1'l. ^1rStP. `$, bi;Si.neSSr,S neer space tc set trash on property shared spa^e nccced for compactors Vorume-based rale strirCture (number of bags), potentia: capital im;estment for compa•clors Concierge Service 4 Slwt ed 4 dife * held dumpslorscr W+dW&L torrlpricrars sfrwnowdo Increased capacsty for rc',�rse and recycling• improved aesthetics customer choice, potentia! for rulure organ,cs collect or GDeratioral changes and Cap tal nvestment needed. need to identify public space for cornpactors Councilmember Fought said he was puzzled by concerns for access to private property and trash pickup. Pasternak said it becomes the spirit of cooperation, but might not always be the case because private property owners are not required to supply space for shared dumpsters. Fought asked how offenses are enforced and noted that he had never heard of this being a problem. City Manager, David Morgan, said having to allow others onto your property can be a problem and described the necessity of shared dumpsters Downtown because of the lack of space. Councilmember Hesser asked about noise levels of these types of units. Pasternak said there is compacting noise but it is not too noisy. He described the enclosures. Hesser asked how many of these are present. Pasternak said 2 or 3 units in one location. He added that one compactor could be a split version. Pasternak agreed that it is unusual and unique to have a problem with shared dumpsters. He provided the Next Steps for Downtown Planning. • Gather Feedback and Direction from Council • Conduct more in-depth analysis of options of interest • Evaluate financial impacts of each option Mayor Ross said he is interested in including composting. He said that he had seen this in Halifax, Canada and that the GISD has a composting program. Ross explained that if first graders can compost, we should be able to do the same and this may be a viable consideration. Ross noted that composting does not cost any more than recycling and asked that someone reach out for input from'the merchants on this topic. Councilmember Hesser said he had not heard anything on operating standards and that objectives must be set. Hesser said it would be helpful if he could understand what is trying to be achieved. Pasternak showed the CSWMP Planning Process slide again. He explained that the cost will be examined during the process. He said what will be achieved and the costs would both be examined. Hesser said he would like to know the expectations and which direction to go. Pasternak spoke about bringing comparisons back to the Council. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about a component for education for the citizens in reducing waste. Pasternak said public outreach programs are in the planning scenarios. Mayor Ross said Texas Disposal Systems gives lesson plans for the children in GISD and the kids learn about all of this from an early age on. Ross added that the Dell Diamond is an excellent example of composting. Ross spoke on the bins being used in Canada and said he would like to see this happen in Georgetown. City Manager, David Morgan said policy decisions are the next step to this process and the City is heading in that direction. Ross said the cost is no different for recyclables and organics, when the capacities are the same. Pasternak said they will be looking at this during this process. Pasternak said it will be part of the overall planning process. Seth Cunningham from Burns & McDonnell spoke on the transfer station and provided a Transfer Station Evaluation. • Understanding the Purpose of the Transfer Station • Overview of Existing Site and Project Background • Capacity of Existing Transfer Station • Planning Workshop • Improvements to Existing Transfer Station • Conceptual Design of New Transfer Station • Comparison of Options Cunningham provided a slide showing "Why a Transfer Station" and provided a picture of the existing site and facility. Why a Transfer Station? Materials must be direct -hauled in the collection vehicle or long hauled using transfer trailers Factors that affect financial feasibility include: — Collection cost Disposal cost Distance/travel time to landfill — Fuel costs — Annual tonnage hauled — Payload of transfer trailers vs. collection vehicles fiIkNV S&A" U EPA IW." ",Fd. �.lR,M� x u.r-i w DKGQG y4Wy Current landfills approximately 90 miles rcund-trip Background • The City has committed to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to make certain improvements at the transfer station • Improvements include covering areas where waste is exposed and better storm water management • The existing facility was originally opened in 1984 and improvement made in 2006-2009 • Prior to investing in the existing facility, the City wanted to compare that option to building a new facility at the same location Current Transfer Station Traffic 30 2C 0 Ic 0 76 �to TfXA.% Current vs 2028 Projection ■ = Cur -rent 6C ■ =.2028 Projection 4C 3C 10 0 Cunningham discussed the Impact of Operating At or Near Capacity. • Since the transfer station cannot operate over it capacity, the operations would be impacted in several ways o Collection vehicles must wait longer to unload, impacting collection routes o Collection operations would have to shift to earlier in the day or later in the day o Recycling trucks could not be unloaded during peak hours since only one material stream can be managed at time o Site becomes more congested, with less apace for self -hauler He spoke next on a Planning Workshop Planning session to review current operations and requirements for both options Participants included key staff from the City of Georgetown, Burns & McDonnell, and the current contractor Texas Disposal Systems (TDS) Key Assumptions from the Workshop o Existing Facility: Cover over tipping area, cover over self -haul drop off, improvements to paving and drainage, additional fire protection o New Facility: 3 material streams, 3 -sided building, cover over self -haul drop off, improvements to paving and drainage, additional fire protection Cunningham explained the additional improvements to the existing facility: ■ New Compactor • New paving near the self -haul area • New waterline and enhanced fire protection The Cost of Improvements to the Existing Facility were shown. Transfer Station Canopy Self -Haul Canopy New Compactor Subtotal Self -Haul Area Paving Waterline and Enhanced Fire Protection Entrance Road Pavement Total Range (+/.20 percent) $607,400 S139,000 $30,000 $776,400 $475,200 S271.400 588,700 $1,611,700 $1,343,100 — $1,934,000 Cunningham summarized existing facility improvements and provided advantages and disadvantages Cunningham showed conceptual renderings of a new facility and provided detailed descriptions. _rear %:.Ye 11au:c Conceptual Cost Estimates for a New Facility were shown, as well as the Annual Debt Service for Capital Costs. Site Work and Paving 52.845.100 Foundations 8 Concrete $423300 Pre Engineered Metal Building $794,700 Electrical. Plumbing, HVAC, Fre 5338.700 Equipment $202,400 Other $240.300 Engineering, Permitting, Construction hdgmt $654.800 Contingencies and Fees $764.600 Subtotal S6,263,900 Waterline and Enhanced Fire Protection $271.400 Self•Hau4 Area Paving $475.200 Entrance Road Pavement $88700 Total $7,099,200 Range (+!- 20 percent) $5,916.000 — $8,519.000 Cunningham summarized the advantages and disadvantages of a new facility and provided a timeline. Summary for New Facility Advantages - Provides long-term capacity - Allows the City to manage up to three material streams (refuse. recycling. organics) simultaneously - Provides more separation between self -haulers and collection vehicles - Improves aesthetics and noise containment • Disadvantages - Requires new TCEQ transfer station registration - May disrupt collection operations during construction Typical Timeline • Factors that could influence schedule: - Procurement process (design -bid -build design -build etc ) - Permitting - Weather Unexpected site conditions OWOW"24 Capacity Material Streams Safety PermilUng requirements Conceptual level cost estimate Impact to facility operations implementation schedule, Impact to collection operations (after completion) Revenue requirement impact 8-12 years 1 material stream at a time Self -haul, collection vehicles and transfer equipment operating In close proximity No TCEQ permitting required some local permitting S 1.34 - S 1 93 million Mrrmal 8-12 months None 30+ years Up to 3 material streams at terse Better separation of self - haul and collection vehicles New TCEQ transfer station registration, additnal local pemvltng $5.92 - $8.52 minion Less downtnie to process multiple material streams 24-30 months Reduce waiting terve to unload 4.5% Councilmember Gonzalez said, when looking at both options, it seems intuitive to go with the new facility. He said that cost now is better than it will be in years to come. Gonzalez suggested that instead of the 20 years of financing shown, this project could use 25 years with a minimal difference in tax cost to the citizens. Gonzalez said he wants to know the rate impact per citizen. He asked that the Council be shown different models to review. Mayor Ross asked to see the comparison slide again and asked if inflation was factored into the costs for the new facility. Cunningham said the costs shown are for now and have not been figured for later, since the decision point is now. Ross said cost inflations need to be factored in, even at this point. Ross said the Council cannot make decisions without knowing the second number. Councilmember Hesser said if the choice was to go with a new facility, the project team would need to come back to the Council with all of the requested numbers. Chris Foster, the City's Resource Management & Integration Manager, spoke on a 10 year inflation which would be estimated to be 9 to 12 million dollars. Foster said the inflation standard is currently at 3.4% per year. Gonzalez asked if the debt service rate is considered in that figure. City Manager, David Morgan, said staff would like Council's feedback and questions, but are not asking Council for decisions at this point. Morgan said that the requested numbers would be brought back to Council. Councilmember Fought asked for clarification on organic recycling. He said that he understood it to be that this is possible with a new facility and not possible with the old facility. Cunningham confirmed and explained the limitations of the components of the old facility and spoke on a significant improvement with transfer trailers in a new facility. Fought said constant dollars need to be examined and the City must add the inflated costs to the other costs, and perform an analysis of many years. Mike Babin, the City's Deputy General Manager of Utilities spoke on the options shown. He asked the Council for clear direction. He said both options had been shown with current costs that the City would incur today. He said if the City goes with the old facility improvements option, a new facility would need to be built in 8 to 12 years anyway. Babin asked if the Council is asking that the future costs of option B be added to the costs of option A, if chosen. Fought confirmed, but said he is also asking that the projects be analyzed with constant dollars. Gonzalez said the focus should be what type of new facility, as opposed to improving the old one. He said the options should compare one type of facility and its costs to another type of facility and its costs, listing the pluses and minus to consider. Gonzalez said spending 1 to 2 million now, only to spend another 12 or 14 million 8 to 10 years from now is not a smart financial move. He suggested also looking at the types of costs in construction, such as the number of dollars lost for non -usage. Morgan said this analysis needs to be done in concert with the overall master plan and the intention today was to provide and initial review for the Council. Mayor Ross asked if composting would be a big part in these plans. Morgan confirmed. Morgan said staff and the project managers will provide the comparisons of cost for a new facility. Morgan said this also needs to be tied into the solid waste master plan. Councilmember Fought said he wants to see a rate model as well. B. Presentation and discussion on the Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Parks Director, Kimberly Garrett, provided a presentation on the Parks CIP. She said she would be speaking on the current year CIP projects, the 2008 Park Bond Status Update and the Proposed Parks CIP. Garrett spoke first on the current year projects, including Founders Park, San Gabriel Park, 100F Columbarium and Garey Park. Garrett provided a picture of an updated Founders Park and said that the re -opening had been held on December 13, 2017. She noted that the City Council had approved the construction contract for the 100F Columbarium on February 27, 2018 and the estimated completion is summer of 2018. Garrett spoke next on San Gabriel Park Phase 1 and provided maps and pictures. She explained that Phase 1 included new restrooms, parking, pavilions, playground, spring restoration, road realignment, accessible routes and signage. Garrett said construction is nearing completion. Garrett described the San Gabriel Park Phase II and Trail Extension. She explained that the trail extension would be from San Gabriel Park to Katy Crossing and was possible because of a $2 million dollar grant from the Texas Parks and Wildlife. • Phase 2 Including Trail Extension o Pavilions, playground, swings, basketball court, parking, accessible routes, signage, spring restoration, restroom • Currently out to bid — due May 1 st • Parks Board recommendation on May 10th ■ City Council consideration on May 22nd • Construction scheduled to begin after July 4th Garey Park information was provided next. Garrett said that the ground breaking had been held on March 31, 2017 and the grand opening will be held on June 9, 2018. Amenities of Garey Park include a playground, splash pad, dog -park, equestrian arena, pavilions, hiking and equestrian trails, and the Garey House and Event Lawn. Garrett share pictures of the new Garey Park. Garrett reviewed the 2008 Park Bond Status • $35.5 Million Park Bond approved by voters in November of 2008 • Prior Issuances o Issued to date $22.7 Million 0 2010-2018 ■ Remaining authorization o $12.8 Million Garrett spoke on the Proposed 5 Year CIP. She noted that the first column should say 2019, not 2018. Garrett said this represents projects taken to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in April. il- MO19 Amual bu tin Proposed 5 Year CIP AOA lrc,...n Pico bony Puk Dil.oly Jnrr! EI it Fi la NeK In7u'•�5min' "Wrie J -M 1..p.7n0!1 klvr•r;Imk Parka ,Vader Plan i't-goroal Tro6 (Se.elnpm Ml San GO tXQI Pau -%(vv /r!OW 1_nmm)n,ly PIXY VFW Po Vn9 l -j AWN.,n WQ'brad. Pok wevede Rn'e'7mn Cenw TOW .s1,1,,c1 r l 750/pOGJ ]SO,GJOC.J 250,C•JOC•J 250,C•O000 7JJ,COO 0] 750,0[400 70qCOO CO 1 A MAW OO 2.K I),f■lU fyl I �}lQ�;ix i (;11 7til000O. CO I,liS/:•?iu.K1 I.tiia,l'iliii�,l I,IS13/;i01-x) co 7,1KK1,4k.1VQj 750.9moo 9,700,C0000 fXK� COO 17.splo PJ 1,300,4]0 C4 8,300,C*O C -O 18,51.1), Q CO 3,1OOAo0.00 6,100,000.00 3AOOAW.00 37540oQ00 E,730,000AO 3S,630,000.0% Garrett described the Proposed Parks CIP for FY 2019 ■ Complete Parks ADA Transition Plan • Develop dedicated parkland in Berry Creek Phase 5 • Parks Master Plan Update Regional Trail Development • Design San Gabriel Park Phase III and Demo Arena • VFW Parking Lot Addition Gonzalez spoke on the bond approved by the voters in 2008 and noted that at present, 10 years later, only 2/3 of it has been issued. Gonzalez said the City has had a lot of growth and there would be citizens who are not aware of these park bonds and that we are still issuing them. Gonzalez asked if there could be a better way to issue bonds, making a time period that they have to be used, or not to ask for so much if it cannot be used in a reasonable amount of time. Finance Director, Leigh Wallace said that staff has actually been talking to their bond council about this and received a reply in the last couple of days. Wallace said the bond council assured that this is not a concern. She mentioned that transportation bonds were also approved in 2008. Wallace spoke of factors of the economy or uncontrolled delays that come into play in these projects, sometimes in the planning phase, making the project go faster or slower. She explained that as long as the City is making the good faith effort to do the projects that were approved there is no concern from a legal perspective. Gonzalez said he is more concerned about the citizens, when tax rates increase and there is still millions of dollars in projects pending that have not yet hit the tax rate, when the next bond is approved. Ross said this would be more of a political discussion. Gonzalez agreed and noted that the City Manager would be the one who would need to look into this. Gonzalez said he will leave this for a future discussion. Garret said that the bonds passed were for Garey Park and the design of San Gabriel Park phase III, the trails and west side park development. She noted that the citizen priorities will be shown in the updated master plan. Mayor Ross asked Garrett to review the timelines for these projects again. Councilmember Nicholson asked about a Blue Park improvement plan. Garrett said the intention of Blue Park improvements came about for multiple reasons, one of which is to make the terrain more beach like. She explained that the project is now on hold, while waiting to see if the Austin Avenue Bridge Project and Blue Hole improvements could possibly be combined. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager, Chris Foster, Resource Management and Integration Manger, and Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities Jack Daly provided an update on the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge and began the presentation with the background of the project. • Council approved application in late 2017 • Over 500 cities expressed interest • 320 applications were received • 35 finalists o $100,000 o Test and Learn o Reapply in August for $1 Million to $5 Million award Daly described the Virtual Power Plant project. He spoke on power generation in the community, which would mitigate the need to purchase power. Daly noted that unneeded power could be sold to ERCOT during peak times. Daly spoke on the Ideas Camp that staff attended in Washington, DC and spoke on the Test and Learn exercises and described the process. Daly said that the next steps would include approving accepting the grant, working with Texas State University on focus group testing, refining technical specifications and reapplying in August. Councilmember Fought said he likes the program and wants to know more about independence from the grid. He noted disruptions in the grid and said that there is a lot more to this than resiliency. Fought said this has a lot of potential and advised including security. Mayor Ross said that Fort Hood has a solar farm and independency from the grid. Chris Foster said this is a traditional solar farm and acts as one huge house. Foster noted that there is no battery backup, but the energy can be used to power vehicles, etc. Councilmember Fought spoke on biological design in defense and explained that the term in biology refers to a self -healing grid. Foster said the proposed project has a much faster recovery time. Mike Babin said the grant award judges liked the term virtual power plant. D. Presentation and discussion on the proposed schematic design for Fire Station No. 7 -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager An update on the proposed schematic design for Fire Station No. 7 was provided by the City's CIP Manager, Eric Johnson. Johnson said that Fire Station No. 7 is a City of Georgetown funded project that includes construction of a Fire Station located near the intersection of Hwy 29 and Inner Loop to provide emergency services that will reduce response times and decrease demand on other stations. Johnson said that the property is under contract and the anticipated closing is within 30 days. He noted that since the property is a 6 acre property, it can be utilized for different uses, as well. Johnson explained that the driveway site had been designed to accommodate expected TXDOT road cuts. Johnson provided a Schedule for Fire Station No. 7 • Schematic Design — April 24, 2018 • Construction Documents — Summer 2018 ■ Award construction contract — Fall 2018 • Construction — 10-12 months • Completion — Fall/Winter 2019 Johnson spoke on the next steps for the project. Councilmember Hesser asked how much difference there is in the form and function of various Fire Stations. Johnson said sleeping quarters and living quarters are similar, but that the number of bays depends on numbers and types of vehicles. He described bays for ambulances, fire trucks, brush trucks and noted that Fire Station 6 will have a Wild Life truck. Fire Chief Sullivan spoke. He explained that new stations are designed by zones. He explained that there is a difference in a new station and the City's old stations, because the standard is now to build stations with zones. He said the hot zone is the garage area, and the transitional zone or warm zone, is for firefighters coming back from a call to be decontaminated. He explained that they are then able to transition into showers and then the main living quarters. Sullivan said in the new stations there are pre -identified areas to minimize cross exposure and to eliminate the spread of elements. He noted that there is a reduction of carbon monoxide in living areas, as well. Sullivan said that Fire Station 7 would have a few more firefighters than Station 6, which is further out. Councilmember Hesser said the designs should be cookie cutter and able to save money. City Manager, David Morgan, said there could be savings by building these 2 stations at the same time with the same builder. Hesser said if these are bid together, he would like staff to come back to Council with the savings. Morgan said ESD8 is paying for the construction of Fire Station 6. Morgan said staff will come back to Council with the figures of savings costs in the final design phase. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if ESD8 is participating in Station 6 and 7. Morgan said ESD8 is only participating in Station 6. Gonzalez asked if there is different apparatus at these facilities. Johnson confirmed that there will be different apparatus, different types of apparatus and different sizes of apparatus. He explained that Station 6 is a smaller station and Fire Station 7 is a full blown station and meant to handle all areas in the Fire Department. E. Presentation and discussion regarding amendments to the Crescent Bluff Subdivision's Original Consent Agreement. -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, spoke on amendments to the Crescent Bluff Subdivisions Consent Agreement. Reed said that staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on a request to make modifications to the Crescent Bluff Municipal Utility District (MUD) No. 30. He said staff would like to know if Council finds the proposed changes acceptable and if there is a desire to proceed with the proposed modifications. Reed said staff would also like to know if there are specific aspects that Council would like to negotiate further. Reed provided a map of the location. He spoke on the proposed amendments for the Land Plan. Reed described the property and project and noted that the Water Oak MUD is adjacent to this. Reed said that, overall, impervious cover remains constant at 43.2%, but there would be slight adjustments within individual phases on the east half for the first five phases. He explained that Phase 1 would decrease from 48% to 46%, while Phase 2 would increase from 48% to 49%. Reed said that Phase 4 would increase from 47% to 52% and Phase 5 would increase from 47% to 48%. He noted that impervious cover for townhouses would increase from 55% to 65%. Reed said that the addition of the 3 acre tract adds open space and the neighborhood parkland would be adjusted around the amenity center. Proposed Amendments • Temporary Fire Access Road — Accelerate construction of the temporary fire access road to provide a second access for public safety and emergency vehicles and personnel; — Developer will provide City with an easement prior to acceptance of public infrastructure for Phases 2 & I and — Remain a private improvement and maintained by the Developer or District ter, Proposed Amendments • Temporary Fire Access Road Proposed Amendments Water Oak Bridge Contribution — Obligation to contribute $1 million to the Bridge in the Water Oak development is retained, but the timing of payment is modified as follows; • Recordation of the Final Plat for all or any portion of Phases 5, 9, 10 or 11 (southern portions) of the Land Plan; or • The later of recordation of the Final Plat containing the 500th residential lot anywhere in the Water Oak Subdivision or the issuance of the 475th building permit anywhere in the Water Oak Subdivision: or • January 31, 2022 LrEORGffi WN ,E%As Proposed Amendments Water Oak Bridge Contribution — Obligation to contribute $1 million to the Bridge in the Water Oak development is retained, but the timing of payment is modified as follows; • Recordation of the Final Plat for all or any portion of Phases 5, 9, 10 or 11 (southern portions) of the Land Plan; or • The later of recordation of the Final Plat containing the 500th residential lot anywhere in the Water Oak Subdivision or the issuance of the 475th building permit anywhere in the Water Oak Subdivision: or • January 31, 2022 GtclR�ifTI�WM #28 and #29, and the Chapter 552 Agreement between WCMUD #28 and the City of Georgetown -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager, presented the proposed amendments to the Consent Agreement between Wolf Legacy and the City, regarding the Williamson County MUDs #28 and #29 and the Chapter 552 Agreement between Williamson County MUD #28 and the City. He noted that this is for the Hillwood Wolf Ranch MUD. Reed said that staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on a request to make modifications to the Wolf Ranch Hillwood Municipal Utility District (MUD) No. 28 and 29 and to the corresponding Chapter 552 Agreement. He explained that staff will need to know if Council finds the proposed changes acceptable and if they have a desire to proceed with the proposed modifications or if they have specific aspects that they would like staff to further negotiate. Reed provided a map of the Hillwood Ranch MUD #28 and #29 and spoke on the background of approvals and development. The Proposed MUD Amendments were described. Increase Maximum Bond Issuance o Raise Bond capacity from $120 million to $150 million o Cover Design and Hard Costs estimated today to be in excess of $116 million o Bond Principal estimated more than $132 million, based on the proposed PUD, estimated assessed value, and absorption schedule o Cost may rise as development builds out through 2031 (projected build -out) Reed spoke on the Proposed Financial Terms. He noted that Facilities Bonds may be issued to finance water, wastewater, storm drainage, roads, a bridge, recreational facilities and Refunding Bonds. • Bonds to be issued (maximum) - $150,000,000 (an increase of $30,000,000) • Bond maturity (maximum) — 30 years from date of issue (no change) • Bond issuance period (first to last) —10 years (no change) • District Only Tax Rate (maximum) - $0.65/$100 AV (no change) • Total Maximum Tax Rate, City and District (based upon FY2018) - $1.07 (no change) Reed explained the Chapter 552 Agreement in detail. Chapter 552 Agreement • Development Agreement established intent for City to enter into a 552 Agreement with MUD "in order partially to mitigate financial impacts on the District associated with construction of the Public Infrastructure" • MUD Consent Agreement states "the construction of public infrastructure and trails that will be conveyed to the City pursuance to the terms of the Development Agreement and the Chapter 552 Agreement." • 552 Agreement establishes reimbursement to the District equal $0.15 per $100.00 of taxable assessed value payable from collections of the City's ad valorem taxes attributable to the Property up to the maximum amount of $25,000,000 (the "Maximum Reimbursement Amount") 7G'Vt,o;Rr,;TpWN Mm Chapter 552 Agreement • Public Improvements — Wolf Ranch Parkway North and South — San Gabriel Trail — Regional Collectors • Annual Payments — First Annual Payment to occur 30 days after closing of District's first bond sale; subsequent Annual Payments on or before March 31 st 7k_ _," 1"$11.\ Reed spoke on the Proposed Chapter 552 Amendments. • Expand the Property to include the Guy Tract • Modify Public Improvements o Reflect a reduction in the scope and cost associated with regional collector roadways o Increase in the scope and cost associated with the regional trail improvements • Maximum Reimbursement Amount o No change Reed provided images of the area in discussion. He noted that the estimated cost to construct the additional 2.2 miles of the regional trail along the South San Gabriel is $3,049,024, but the estimated cost of the Public Improvements would remain unchanged at $16,357,996. Reed explained that the maximum reimbursement amount stays at $25,000,000. Council was pleased with the presentation. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.00 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. G. 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. 551:074: 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 - Project Badge - Project Access - Project Barney - Project Deliver Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _ t) 6 U Date (�I& L�-- < Dale oss, Mayor