HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.11.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at
101 East 7111 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 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. Mayor Dale Ross,
Ana Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember
District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe,
Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Mayoral Presentation and possible discussion regarding selected Roberts Rules Procedures -- Mayor Dale
Ross
Mayor Ross said that the purpose of meeting procedures is to foster an orderly debate so that the
participants' views can be heard and openly discussed. He said that Roberts Rules of Order were written for
that express purpose and are widely used by private and public organizations to conduct business during
official meetings. Mayor Ross said he thought it was important to bring up behavior during the recent
discussion about HARC and how the behavior violated some of these principals. Ross spoke on the
principal of speaking through the Chair. He said when wishing to address another member, you never go
wrong by speaking through the Chair. Ross said remarks must be courteous in language and deportment
and personalities are to be avoided. He said one should never allude to others by name or by motives. He
said the point would be to depersonalize comments made in debate. Ross provided an example of a proper
way to make a comment by addressing through the Chair. "Mr. Chairman does the member who spoke
have the cost of that proposal?" Mayor Ross went on to say that Roberts Rules of Order also makes
reference to the importance of time limits and sequencing.
Mayor Ross spoke on what his approach will be.
B. Presentation and discussion of the 2018 Citizen Survey conducted by Texas State University -- Jack Daly,
Assistant to the City Manager and Dr. Thomas Longoria, Texas State University
Assistant to the City Manager, Jack Daly, began the presentation on the 2018 Citizen Survey. He noted that
Council had approved an agreement with Texas State University to assist the City with a Citizen Survey.
Daly thanked Dr. Tom Longoria and his team for their fine work. Daly said he is grateful for the partnership
the City has had with the University for the last couple of years. He said Texas State has provided a much
higher quality product than the City has seen in the past, with better results. Daly introduced Dr. Longoria
who provided the Council with the results of the survey.
Longoria spoke on the Research Method for the survey and on Understanding the Results.
About the Survey (Research Method)
• The survey was mailed to a random sample of 2,300 households. 469 residents
completed the survey
• The response rate for the random sample survey was 20 percent. Based on the
response rate we can be 95% certain that the results for the questions reflect the
views of Georgetown households with a margin of error of +J• 4%
• In addition, a link to an open survey was also made available to the public. 873
residents completed the open survey
• This summary of results presents the findings for each of categories of questions
in a graph that presents the distribution of responses across each question
• Noteworthy findings are indicated in each section
• A common benchmark is 80% who rate the service "good" or "excellent"
• Comparison of Georgetown's 2018 results to 2016 results and put Georgetown's
ratings into context with changes overtime and comparison with similar cities (to
date, only one other city participated in 2018)
About the Survey (Understanding Results)
• The responses are best viewed as perceptions. In other words, these
results represent the perceptions of residents rather than some
objective "reality."
• Perceptions are influenced by expectations
• If a person is expecting a small town atmosphere, they are likely to perceive
traffic differently than a person with different or no specific expectations
about a small town atmosphere
• Questions that are not applicable were skipped by the respondents.
Note the number of respondents changes. This approach was used to
estimate the perceptions that were applicable or relevant to the
respondent.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked about mail surveys and if surveys are separated by those that allowed
anyone to respond and those specifically recruited. Gonzalez said he would expect different results from a
motivated respondent and a respondent who was approached randomly. Longoria agreed and said that the
results that he would be presenting are those from the random sample only, but he would be providing
interesting contrasts with the open survey.
Longoria described Respondent Characteristics.
The random and open survey match U.S. Census data closely in the cases of years living in
Georgetown and race
The random and open survey do not match U.S. Census data closely in the cases of home
ownership and age of householder
Longoria noted that those wishing to respond to a survey can typically be older residents and, again this
year, there is an overrepresentation of older residents. He said the open survey was less skewed this year,
but still skewed.
Longoria provided Demographic Comparisons.
Demographic Comparisons, cont.
■ Or
Aar rf F?•. tahnbirr
Demographic Comparisons
YEn •: l?�e� :Cir:!f �eSQ5V:1
Rar,al ♦larAgr�rrd
;. sr
Longoria explained that the same pattern was seen in the random sample and the open survey. He noted
that an over sampling of renters did not produce much difference.
A Summary of Results was shown.
Summary of Results
• 81% rate the value of city services for taxes paid as good or excellent
• 98% rate the overall duality of life in Georgetown as good or excellent
• The city met or exceeded benchmark in 82% of cases (32 of 39 indicators)
• Ratings increased in 32% of cases (8 of 25 common indicators (2016-2018))
• Street repair (+1290)
• City beautification (+8)
• A place to work (+7%)
• Emergency Preparedness (+6%)
• Ratings decreased in 4% of cases (1 of 25 common indicators (2016-2018))
• Traffic flow on major streets (-16%)
• The top three priorities volunteered by respondents are (1) traffic; (2)
infrastructure and roads; (3) manage growth
Longoria said the margin of error is 4% and results increased at the margin of error are not useable.
Respondents Characteristics and Perceptions were described in detail.
Respondent Characteristics and Perceptions
• 33 key service indicators were examined by 7 demographic categories
(random sample survey)
• There were 30 statistically significant associations out of 231 possible (13%)
• Highlights include:
• Lower income residents less satisfied with employment and housing
• Younger residents less satisfied with the city as place to work and walking for leisure
• Non-white residents less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control, and
water services
• Women are less satisfied with the city as a place to work and biking for leisure
• owners are less satisfied with traffic and parking. Renters are less satisfied with
housing opportunities
• Households that include children are less satisfied with walking for leisure
• Residents for more than 10 years are less satisfied with housing opportunities,
animal control, street repair and traffic signal timing
Longoria spoke on the methodology of linking surveys to provide a Comparison to the Open Survey. He
then provided slides showing the results of the random sample survey, describing each one at a time.
Comparison to the open Survey
As noted earlier an open survey link was made available to residents
• Respondents were asked to report their nearest Intersection,
• Respondents from outside the city limits were reformed from the analysis
• Duplicated IP Addresses were examined and If no logical reason, these responses were deleted
• Results of Open Survey
• In all but 1 of 40 cases, the respondents to the open survey rated the service or Issue lower than
respondents to the random sample
• The average percent good or excellent
• 79% (random sample}
• 73% (open suraey}
• Very large differences
• Ctual ity of neer dew1opment (58% good or eKcellent, 18% pefcent lower)
Permitting and inspections (64% good or excellent, 14% percent lower)
• Ease of biking for leisure (48% good or excellent, 12% lower)
• Value of clty serv,ces for taKet paid 01%good of ex(ellent, IN loaver)
Value of City Services for Taxes Paid
Value of City 60 54.8
Services 50
8196 of respondents
rated the value of
city services for ` 40
taxes paid as good or W
excellent L 30 26.1
c�
In 2016,78% of a 20 16.6
respondents
Indicated that the
value of city services 10
for city taxes paid 2.5
wasgood or 0
excellent
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Qua ityof (Invernment by Ievel of Government
70
SLS
Quality of
FO
Government
50
831A of respondents
raters the qr a Iity (if
;to
local government as ,
good or excellent.
.10
�l t
80% rate county
20.i
g0'•'errlrllerlt as igoi>d
:0
15 r 11 7.
14 a
or excellent.
62%o.k rate state
io
_ 12
,
l l l t
g�S�'frt lt7erlt a5 gC1Qd
or excellent
17
`H'
55'N rate the federal
`Pderal
State Governme-lt Cotlnry . itv
Goverment
government as good
Gove"rmerlt
34G) Ga;verri anent
1. 21;1
or exrellerit
-'n-3931
r Lxce'�ur)t ■ Good r r air 4 11 qtr
Quality
Percept ons of Quality of Life
of Life I n
;
Georgetown
Over 98% of
respondents rated the
C
overall quality of life in
Georgetown as good or
excellent, the same
Ila
percentage was found in
2016
81% of respondents
Indicated that
�
Georgetown was a good
u • r, .a.,..• , _-1.0 • �,• ,,:, , ., I. •• �,,
„•., ;, ., Y.
place to work. A 7%
� ,• r„
s.,-„ ;�, ;;, .,
,�,•-tr,,
increase over 2016
''`'
Perceptions of
Development
56% of residents rate
employment
opportunities as good
or excellent
69% rate housing
opportunitles as good
or excellent
84% rate the Qua l ity of
businesses and
services as good or
excellent
Traffic and
Parking
25% of respondents
rate traffic flow as
good or excellent.
In 2016, 41% rated
traffic flow as good
or excellent.
The percentage
who rated traffic
flow as poor
increased from 18%
to 29%
10
,i 4
60
50
40
30
20
]s.,
70
�
w
Quality of
Businesses and
5erv�ce
Establishments
(.gw461)
Perceptions of Development
Ernpioyment
Opportunities
tin=346)
�u u
1 7l
ir-
Housing
Opportunities
tin=3971
■ Excellent .. Goad Fair Poor
Traffic and Parking
so 46 3
40
30 zs 4
13)
V
a 20
10
2.1
o
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets (n=404)
■ Excellent Good
401
Retail Options
Jn=434J
365
162
6.6
■
Amount of Public Parking
(N=457)
Fair Poor
Councilmember Pitts asked if the traffic results would be the same in Austin or Houston, who are known for
bad congestion. Longoria said traffic is always rated poorly. Pitts wondered if Austin residents would
assess Georgetown traffic differently.
Alternative
Transportation
Modes
794E rate the ease of
wAklrg for leisure as
good or excellent
3"— rate the ease of
walking to work as goad
or eKcelleot
31N of respondents rated
the ease of blking to vmrk
as good or excellent
WA k rC and 9 k r'g
ti
Emergency Services
Emergency
$Q
Services
70
�.a
9696 of respondents rated
5o
police services as good or
0)
44
�1 ;
excellent
LP
30
11
1'l
93% of respondents rated
"1
t7 n
t,a
ilia
emergency preparedness
10
14
16.1
0
L 4'r
I .1
Police Services
Fire sevices
Emergency
(n=444)
(n=441)
Preparedness
(n=375)
11
`.a••. ii Bikin;I I
F-.4t!-i:r Rikir:a r:n
f Alt, i;r btii.ilkinV, t:n
[4W rnl VO-ilkimp. I:ir
rr•,wrin .•?al
6�liakit
':'n.�iir,.iii 4Y.1
"Vol klu 1?41
■It.ollem :,r.•ad
ral.iir a -:,or
Emergency Services
Emergency
$Q
Services
70
�.a
9696 of respondents rated
5o
police services as good or
0)
44
�1 ;
excellent
LP
30
11
20
93% of respondents rated
emergency preparedness
10
14
as good or excellent
0
1"M
Police Services
Fire sevices
Emergency
(n=444)
(n=441)
Preparedness
(n=375)
■ Excellent
Good v Fair
Poor
Municipal Courts
and Traffic
Enforcement
80% of respondents
rated traffic
enforcement as good or
excellent
92% rated municipal
courts as good or
excellent
Code
Enforcement
and Permitting
78% of respondents
rated code enforcement
as good or excellent
87% rated animal
control as good or
excellent
78% rated permitting
and inspections as good
or excellent
Municipal Courts and Traffic
Enforcement
70
60 5,►
50
= 40
� lfl A
30 , ►
a
20 ►,�
10
0 ►� _
Municipal Courts Traffic
(n=247) Enforcement(n=414)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
Code Enforcement and Permitting
70
60.2
60 55.3 54
50
c 40
32.7
a 30
22.2
20 18.1 17.715
I0.2
10 4.4 �•r Ills
0
Code Enforcement Animal Control Permitting and
(n-320) (n-352) Inspection (n=254)
t Excellent ■ Good in Fair . Poor
Streets and 70
Sidewalks 60
73% rated street
50
repair as good or
v 40
excellent, a 12%
increase since 2016
a 30
CL
72% rated street
20
lighting as good or
10
excellent
53% rated traffic
0
signal timing as
good or excellent
601
Waste Services so
94% of respondents � 4L7
rated the quality of the
garbage collection as ?� 30
Nod or excellent y
31% rated recycling as 20
good or excellent
1c
76% rated yard waste U
pickup as goad or
excellent
Streets and Sidewalks
II®
Street Repair Street Lighting
(n=460) (n=460)
■ Excellent ■ Good im Fair
Waste Services
I < j
mill
Traffic Signal
Timing (n=465)
;. Poor
52.6 st a
40 w a� a
32 R
{;a, -gage Collection Recycling (n-4' 81 Yard Write Pickup
(n-462) (n -4r}.31
■ Fxcellent w Good i� Fair • Poor
Utility Services
utility
48
�I.
Services
Recreation and
dd l
94% of respondents
4 O
38 ;u s
rated sewer services
Public Library
as good or excellent
3Q
92% of respondents
60
rated electric services
2 C
as good or excellent
so
9896 rated city water
services as good or
U
®w,.
excellent
City Mite! Services City 6ewef Services City Electric Services
or excellent
(n-461) (n-436) (n-4.31)
■ Fxrellent = Good 19 Fair Poor
Parks and Recreation and Public Library
Parks and
so
Recreation and
«�
70
Public Library
60
Y)b
95% of respondents
so
a.a i
rated city parks as good
" 40
as ,
or excellent
30
98% of respondents
20
rated the public library
10
�> >
as good or excellent
0
b " ;_�
"'
City Parks Recreation
Public Library Community
(n-437) Programs
(n=417) Events (n=367)
(n-333)
■ Excellent t Good
;K Fair ■ Poor
Services and Services and City Beautification
•
City 60
Beautification so
89% of respondents 40
rated services to youth C:
as good or excellent 30
a�
CL 20
88% of respondents
rated services to 10
seniors as good or s t . 04
excellent 0 _
92% rated city Services to Services to Youth City Beautification
beautification as good Seniors (n=368) (n=252) (n=4S2)
or excellent
■ Excellent ■ Good a Fair ■ Poor
Service Utilization
Service
40 40
35
Utilization
'
30
51% of respondents
2 j
vrsded the downtown
square often or very
20
often
a 15
32% of respondents
10
•
visited a city park
often or very often
5
3236 visited e city
o
library oftentor very
often
City Library
Recreation
Visted a City
Visited the
Visted City
19%utilizeda
(n=461)
Programs
Park (n=382)
Downtown
Website
recreation program
often or very often
(n-466)
Square
(n=454)
17% visited the city
(n-466)
website often or very
often
■ Very Often
■ Often
t�j .Sometimes
a Rarely a Never
Sources for
Source for News about Georgetown
News about
�o
Georgetown
bo
51% of respondents
.� ��
used the uty soc l
media as a source for
L 40
news lup 9% from
`y
2016)
CL 30
1 63% of respondents
20
Community
�.
finpuused
t sourer for
news olto
neve n or very
0
often
Top three sources of
City
City SOCIdl
Williamson Community G TV Ch. 10
Locdl TV
news In 20,11
Newsletter
Media
County Sun Impact (n=455)
Stations
• Conrmunrtyrmpact
(n-461)
(n7454)
(n-456) (n-456)
(n-455)
• City Newsletter
■ Very Often
■ Often v- Sometimes a Rarely ■ Never
• willramsonCounty
I L Sun
Longoria explained the large number of respondents due to social networks.
Citizen -
Initiated
Contacting
54% percent of
residents had
contact with a city
employee in the
last year
Percent of Residents Who Had
Contact with a City Employee
91% rated the ■ yes ■ %0
service the
employee provided
as good or excellent
overall
Rating City Employee Contact
3 9 4.7
15 LxCCllrnt ■ GUCd :I FJIl' r Poor
Neighborhood Safety
Neighborhood
70
Safety
6f
90% of respondents
5C
4' � ` � a r
rated nelghborhoad
;10
:n s
safety at night as goad
40
or excellent
2 30
}
89% feel safe in their
20
i Y
neighlaorhood at night
a
95% of respondents
1C
9.6
feel safe in the
ills
downtown square
10
s a 4 `)
shopping centers as
U
Neighborhood (Day;) Neighborhood Downtown Square
good or excellent
(n-470) (Night.) (n-460) (n-.397)
■ Fxcefle nt ■ Gond -4 Fair • Poor
Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
Safety i n
Recreation and
60
Shopping Areas
50
88% of respondents
40
rated safety in city parks
c
�r .
as good or excellent
C� 30
i Y
79% rated safety in
a
recreational waters as
20
1
good or excellent
ills
95% rated safety in
10
s a 4 `)
shopping centers as
U
B.) y
good or excellent
City Parks Recreational Shopping Drinking Water
81% rated the safety of
(n7314) Waters (n-234) Centers (n=445) (n-447)
city drinking water as
good or excellent
■ Fxcellent ■ Good N Fair a Poor
Tap priorities li „
(open ended)•�
Top Three Priorities -LI
1 Toffii
7 InfraStn.r[Crue and
Roads rtgr. nr., i. au- r •..,:
<r
3 Mdnd e Growth er nnl'
r-0r4r ..
Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Longoria and asked if geography had been considered in the survey.
Longoria said it had not, but could be looked at in future surveys with Council direction. Jonrowe said she
would want it included.
Mayor Ross thanked Dr. Longoria for the presentation.
C. Presentation and discussion on Water Oak MUD Agreements -- Wayne Reed, ACM
Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, spoke on the Water Oak MUD Agreements. He said he would be
speaking on potential changes to the Water Oak development including the land use plan in the south
portion, corresponding changes to the existing agreement and a new set of agreements. He said this
information is a result of the discussions between the City's development team and Hannah McGee. Blake
McGee and Jay Hannah and team were in the audience.
Reed said that staff would be seeking Council's feedback and direction on a request for the creation of a
new Municipal Utility District (MUD) for a portion of Water Oak, to negotiate a Chapter 552 agreement to
encourage annexation, and a corresponding Land Use Plan. Direction from the Council was requested.
• Does Council support the new MUD under terms presented?
• Does Council desire to continue analysis of potential annexation with corresponding 552
Agreement?
• Does Council have comments on the proposed Land Use Plan?
• Does Council wish staff to contact existing MUD #25 and initiate negotiations to amend existing
2012 Consent and Development Agreements?
Reed provided a slide depicting Why the City Would Negotiate on Water Oak. He showed the Water Oak
Concept Plan and the Parkside on the River Land Use Plan.
U cit. mi.;ier i Dtl
Why Are We Negotiating on Water Oak?
• Create new agreements that assign, allocate, and distribute the
existing and new rights and responsibilities among the multiple
developers, includinig existing MUD $425
• Laredo Water oak ([WO) filed for filed fnr Chapter 11 bankruptcy in
lune 2016
• Rankruptcy Court fnreclosc=d nn Water Oak develnprrent in May 20 18,
effecting 1,14/ acres of the 1,354 acre project
• Hanna/Magee subrnitted the successful bid to buy Water oak South
frorn bank
• Hanna/Magee Is In its due diligence period
• MOE) X25 Board has Authnn[ed Attorney to Negntlate
{ I(1K(,I I(w. h�
Water Oak Concept Plan:A
=
• Approved in 2012 +:fi
• 1,354 acres
• 3f0acres of open spice
• 3,268 SF Lots (max.)
• 17.5 acres commercial
• 2x2-5 acre fire station sites
• 12 acre school site
C1t)r Mani- 4 C1trr.
Parkside on the River Land Use Plan
frau-,-rd irrnd lr;e Pldn
Water Oak Limits 1,354
Total inside MUD 025
(nef, Tehe annexed) 5414
Potential Annexation 847
N'Ac All dLros dry_ apt r; xlrndu
drd will chanpo I' npg(< twhc-ns
and I_,ka1 are
'in,rh�rd
Reed reviewed the MUD Policy and spoke on the Basic Requirements.
MUD Policy (Approved July 2018)
Puroose
The City of Georgetown finds that the purpose of a
Municipal Utility District (MUD) is to assist in closing the
financial gap when a development is seeking to exceed
minimum City standards, provide a robust program of
amenities, and/or where substantial off-site infrastructure
improvements are required that would serve the MUD and
surrounding properties.
MUD Policy: Basic Requirements
1. Quality Development
2. Extraordinary Benefits
3. Enhance Public Service and Safety
4. City Exclusive Provider
S. Fiscally Responsible
6. Finance Plan
7. Annexation
Reed described Quality Development.
{IIokl;r Iil1aA�
gualLty Dev_eloment. The development meets or exceeds
the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design
standards of City codes
• Land Development. Developer has agreed to meet/exceed standards in UDc
(dated lune ], 2011); Developer will improve tree preservation over current
entitlement
• ComrnercialCenters. Developer plans to set aside 31 acres along RM 2243 for
future_ rornmercral
• Residential Standards. Developer has agreed to include design standards for
residential development similar to other developments with MUDs
• Tree Preservation. Developer has agreed to abide by Tree Preservation
standards identical to Hillwood's PUD standards (not required in current
Water Oak Develnpment)
• Infrastructure. Developer has agreed to meet the City's infrastructure
standards and will participate in the construction and/or funding of major
infrastructure
Reed spoke on Extraordinary Benefits that the MUD would provide.
kr1Uk4.I Ik)A.',�
it ExtraardrnaMBenerts. The development provides
extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Water Infrasiturtrlre l Inl to f11r1(i i1p t0 �4 I N011110(i tc ( �.JnStI!Ir T '))Wilt r;Ial)nvd 24"
vAlatvi frdnsnussurn int, f!iirn RN', 224 3 L? bVater Oak ENotih Oovelcgt.it to atiti;st in
acceleration �)f the construction of master planned 24' ~,Vater Transnnisslon' Ine
across Water Oak South w;th City funding a maximum of 53 Millon
Roads Deweicper/t)Mrict to design, fund, and construct exte nslcn of Water Oak
NkveV (4 lane~) frr)Iu t'It" Hdue tit RM 224 ; ds WOII as MaI01 (, ��PIf-rtn, (.1 Idr1k
• frdils I)ew(Ih.) Uer/p+st Ii T r:_i dPSIP,,n, fund, and construct rehlunal tra11 (L(Y -nY!r1ol
along South San Gabriel River and Water Oak Parkwav
• Parks/Open Space Developer agrees to provide neighborhood parks and preserve
more than 3GX) acres as open space
• TratflCSignals t to fund, design, ,anis (;:;nstr�.lit hv>> sigr)allled
Inter , v ( T!or) i)rl RNA 221 4
• Diversityof Housing. land 05e Plan (under development) provides a diversity of
housing with range cf single family lots/designs, multi family, and cluster homes
L�rur;<,r rrn.n�
;all _ Enhance Public Service and 5ai`ety. The development enhances
public services and optimizes service delivery through its
~^" design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features.
Fire Station Site. 0evelnper will dedicate a L5 acre site along RM 224 3 at tic,
cost to the City to optrmlte service delivery and response times as this area
develops.
• SIP Fee. Developer agrees to maintain Fire SIP fee of 5630 in be cnllecU=d at
time of application of building permit for each residentlal lot and
coriimer(lal lot.
Reed noted that the development promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste
and electric utilities.
• The City would continue to be the exclusive provider of all services
• The Developer/District would cover the full cost of on-site facilities internal to the development that
are necessary to serve the land, with the exception of the otherwise agreed about 24" water
transmission line and bridge
• The Developer/District will be assessed current water impact fees to address changes in costs of
operating the water system and will pay a reduced wastewater impact fee in recognition of the
developer's past contribution toward the SSGI wastewater interceptor
The Finance Plan was described next.
Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a
portion of Infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the
MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the
Issuance of bonds by the district.
• Existing MI_iD #2r, to mmain In F T3 (approx. 300 acres In Water Oak South)
• In-cityMUDs. Developer has agreed to annex' 841 acres with new MUDS:
– Maximum Amount of Bonds to be Issued: TBD
– Maximum Bond Maturity: 30years(MUDPolicy guldeis25years)
– Bond Issuance Period: 15 years )MILD Policy guide is 10 years)
– Refunding Bonds: Not later than 1511 anniversary of date of Issuance
– ReimbursementAgmt.:15years frnm Effective Date
– District Only Tax Rate(Maximum): 50.65/$100 in Assessed Value
• City staff recommends not collecting a Master Development Fee from any In
City MUD and to not collect It for any portion of MUD 425 under ownership of
the Developer and located in Water Oak South
�i111k�11�1KN�
`- Finance Plan. The developer(s) contributes financially to cover a
• portion of infrastructure expenses without reimbursement by the
MUD or the City and as reflected in conditions placed on the
Issuance of bonds by the district.
Chapter 552 Agreement. City staff supports a Chapter 552 Agreement
between the City and one or more In -city MUD to establish reimbursement
ranging from $0.15 to $0.20 per $100.QOof taxable assessed value payable
from collections of the City's ad valorem taxes attributable to Water Oak
South ranging from S25 to S32.5 Million (the "Maximum Reimbursement
Amount")
• Eligible Public Improvements. These will Include Water Oak Parkway, major
collector road, transpnrtation Improvements on RM 2243, and regional trails
Reed noted that a 552 Agreement was also used at Hillwood. He spoke on fiscal responsibility.
IL SIN st."K,"s L*7 Ke
Fiscally Responsible. The development is financially feasible,
impair the City's ability to provide municipal services,
44-3doesn't
and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of
Georgetown in the event of annexation.
• f heBridge. l Icy �rafr recommends thr, ( ,ty as,,wm? rpspov' hty for thr'
design, funding, and cnni trilctwn of flll, regional trallS)lElrtahr�n
intrastr,x t�,re. Tlit? est inim i, (I Cost i, hr, twopn S5 ,rnd n,II€ion. T1115 Mirage
wid he this only cros,wp of thr Soiah San Gahnel RWe` hr twoan tt'e
Sr.uthwwO E�ypass and Ronald Reagan Boislevard
■ 2.4" Water Transmission) ine. Givon the passage of .a slier-, tho ( ity's
approval of the nngindl W,wt (yak Agrwr?ments In 7CG6, thp C iry', Ovate,
System lwods This r71a5ter plarned line cnn,trlif ted within tho next one to twn
years. ( ity;tatf recommends tt',,e City assume tt;e re,pnnsihilityfor rhe
design, tunding, in(1 (nnstruclinn of this regional Weltef transmissinn lim,
A slide on Annexation was shown next.
-- � Crltrh��l IrrOya�
•��ill' Annexotion. The development will not Impair the City's future
annexation of the MUD or adjacent property or impose costs
6" not mutually agreed upon.
�pevelnper has agreed to annar. land not presantiy inside Mli[7 q25
Acres
1,060
1,147
847
510.&rdWIIV11W-0 1
2,720
2.025
1,324
Multi -family and
0
MF = 600 (20 DU/AC)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
cluster homes (est.)
Cluster = 650 (14 DU/AC)
.0mm-prciai (acres)
SS
it
I1
Open Space (acres)
280
315
Portion
S_hool Site I3cre>1
12
16
16
Fir? Station IMI
1
1
Not included
Reed described the Next Steps and asked Council for their Feedback and Direction
Should Council direct staff to continue negotiations, the next steps would include;
o Developer to Complete Financial Pro Forma
o City to Complete Fiscal Impact Model
o Initiate Negotiations with MUD #25
Councilmember Gonzalez asked if there is a new owner of the property. Reed said the bank is the owner.
He said Blake McGee would be purchasing the property if negotiations are favorable. Gonzalez said this
would be obligating the City to put 10 to 12 million dollars into developing the area. He said it might not be
prudent to an area that may or may not have an owner and may or may not have a development. Gonzalez
said he has concerns & reservations.
Councilmember Fought asked about the impact fee variation of 50% and why the City would do this. Jim
Briggs, General Manager of Utilities, said it is because of a prior agreement with a grandfathered provision
for prior impact fees. Briggs said fees will now be today's charges, but a credit for a previous infrastructure
of the collection line portion of the impact fee would be credited back. Briggs said they would get an impact
fee credit for the capital investment in the South Fork interceptor project that was constructed by the
development to continue west.
Fought asked about the 65 cent tax. City Manager, David Morgan, said this is just a mud tax, and would not
fluctuate with city tax rate changes. Morgan said it is similar to the Hillwood MUD, which also has a
maximum mud tax of 65 cents. Fought said he has no problem with the City taking over the bridge.
Councilmember Hesser said he is concerned with the impact of the 552 agreement on taxes. He asked to
see figures of what the budget would look like at a future presentation. Hesser said the City is giving up
property tax and he wants to know funding sources for the bridge. Morgan said residential developments or
MUDs are not being seen crossing the San Gabriel River. He said the reason for this is the cost. Morgan
noted that this is critical to the City's mobility improvements and regional requirements. He said the bridge
would help manage traffic in the community and would be similar to the Southwest Bypass. He said it is a
regional transportation improvement. Morgan explained that the 552 agreement would reimburse the
developer for adding 4 lane divided roadway instead of just 2 lanes. He explained that this will be reviewed
and brought through the full financial impact model and a report will come back to the Council.
Councilmember Hesser asked if there would be other property tax opportunities because of the bridge, such
as other developments. Morgan said yes. He said that road construction is an economic development tool
and having that regional connection would help further development. Morgan said development will happen
in the area and the City would encourage a regional connection for traffic.
Councilmember Nicholson said she is fine with moving forward with annexation. She noted that Leander
Road is still a 2 lane highway and needs to be expanded as well. She asked for coordination with the
county to address this. Morgan said this is being contemplated. He said the City is in active discussion with
TXDOT. Nicholson asked if there is a timeline. Morgan said not yet. Nicholson noted that this was her
point.
Councilmember Pitts asked about the land use. Morgan said the commercial land use has been increased.
Pitts noted concerns with the mix of land use. He said using land for residential and not for commercial will
create issues and the City will need to see higher commercial interest in the area. Pitts said there is very
little in the way of commercial and services in west Georgetown and this creates traffic issues. He said
people have to drive down Williams Drive or Hwy 29 to get to services. Pitts said using land for residential
and not providing commercial for needed services is a mistake.
Councilmember Gonzalez said traffic will continue to be a challenge. He spoke on spurring the growth
without the solutions and creating real traffic issues. He said the City needs to start looking at this now
rather than later and there must be more retail and commercial space, to avoid creating a traffic burden with
too many residential developments. He said he would want to see a requirement that the retail and
commercial space is developed first. Gonzalez said the City needs to take a pause and look further at traffic
impacts.
Reed said he will come back to Council with more information on the traffic impact and how it will be
modeled. He said staff will be coming back to Council with more information on a retail study, as well. Reed
noted that this Water Oak South development is only 5.5 acres.
Mayor Ross asked about the 552 agreement and if this means benefits for the City. Reed explained that the
concept is that the developer of a MUD is reimbursed for regional improvements that he makes. He
explained that these are extraordinary benefits because the developer pays for things that the City or County
would need to do anyway. Reed provided an example and said the development could likely exist with less
than 4 lanes of roadway, but the developer is required to provide the four lanes. Ross asked to look at how
much benefit the City gives to the developer, through discounts, compared to how much benefit the City
receives from the developer.
Mayor Ross asked about the extended bond period and why developers are given more time than the
normal life cycle of bonds. Ross asked if this was more of a risk. Reed explained that the bonds are paid
back by the resident MUD tax. City Manager, Morgan, said this is similar to the Hillwood development.
Morgan said regional connection and walking trails, required of the developer, benefit the City. Ross asked
for the financial benefit to the developer right now. Reed said there has not been a financial analysis yet.
Ross said he is referring to the cost of the bridge, the cost of infrastructure, etc. Morgan said depending on
how the 552 is structured, the infrastructure is estimated to be between 25 and 32 million dollars and the
bridge is estimated to be 5 or 6 million dollars. Ross asked what the City is getting in return for this. Reed
said the improvements include both contemplated signalized intersections, with each intersection at a million
dollars in cost. Reed said the developer is building all 4 lanes of Water Oak Parkway and all 4 lanes of the
major collector, which are regional benefits. Reed noted that Parkland will not only be dedicated but the
developer will develop the parkland, as well. The developer will also be extending the regional trail.
Ross said he will be looking forward to seeing the numbers. He asked for clarification on Councilmember
Gonzalez's statement that 500 houses would be built outside the city limits first. Reed said this is a true
statement and that the Water Oak North development would be allowed up to 548 homes and have already
built 150.
Ross asked if the City would be required to provide the infrastructure improvements first. Morgan said no.
He said, similar to Hillwood, the 552 agreement will identify the list of infrastructure projects that are
reimbursable and reimbursement does not take place until the improvements are made. Morgan said the
bridge would not be built until much later and staff would come to Council with the estimate. Ross asked
how the City is protected. Reed said he would be back with a clearer picture and accurate numbers for both
the design and the timing of the bridge. He noted that, even if Water Oak South does not develop, there is
still the need for a 24" water transmission line, regardless, and GUS would have to fund this out of the Water
Enterprise Fund.
D. Presentation, update and discussion on Downtown West Construction and Other Contracted Services,
including AudioNisual, Furniture, Fixed Seating, Security and Data Cabling -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager
CIP Manager, Eric Johnson, provided an update on many factors of the Downtown West Construction
project.
Mayor Ross congratulated Johnson on the good job he has done with the neighbors living around the
Downtown West project. He said he has heard nothing but good things from those effected. Johnson said
he is pleased and things are going very well.
Johnson provided images and aerial views of the construction, as well as completion renderings.
He said tonight's presentation would cover other contracted services including audio/visual equipment,
furniture, fixed seating in the Council Chambers, security and data cabling. Johnson provided slides for
each. He noted that everything has come in on budget and it is time to order.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked what would happen to the current furniture and systems. Johnson said it
would be auctioned off.
Johnson described the fixed seating in the Council Chambers. He noted the sloped floor and said there
would be 171 seats plus a handicapped section Johnson said, in comparison, the current room seats 100.
Johnson noted that the lobby will be much larger, as well.
Security
• City Hall
-$89,304
• Council and Court Building
-$126,570
• Total
-$215,910
CiEO;iN6W 14
Summary
o
CON TR/R L '' — ' ND TOTAL
• Overall outside contracts are within budget
Ciro GEi[7WN
TEJUS
Councilmember Nicholson asked about the cooperative agreement and if it truly makes things less costly.
Johnson said it makes the City confident that they have received the best price and the best vendor.
E. Presentation and discussion concerning Ethics -- Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye
Masson, Assistant City Attorney
Assistant to the City Manager, Jack Daly, continued the discussion regarding the City Ethics Ordinance. He
noted that this is the third recent workshop on ethics. Daly said that the Council voted to overhaul the ethics
ordinance on October 24, 2017 and appointed an Ethics Ad Hoc Committee to review and make
recommendations. The Committee provided the recommendations for Council review on June 12, 2018. At
that time, staff was instructed by Council to provide a review of the ethics ordinance by topic and compare
each to state law.
Daly showed the Topics which had already been addressed and agreed upon and provided the Council
feedback from the August 14Th and August 28th meetings.
Feedback from Aug. 14
• Gifts
— Consensus to reflect state law regarding
— Considering additional reporting requirements
for travel and lodging in excess of $2,000
A61 SOW %,
Feedback from Aug. 14
• Conflicts of Interest
— Use "financial interest" as opposed to "economic
interest"
— Exceed state threshold
— Disclose "personal interest in real property"
— Clarify "good faith" offers of employment
— Disclose all investment
• Qxcepij� is Iur mutual funds, gusts, etc.
[sf:[]RGETDW
7 EdfAi
Feedback from Aug. 28
• Removed "business negotiations"
• Resolve quorum issue with multiple
conflicts
• Family
— Define family members by name
it st uegree kpai wji► i. spouse. children
— Include domestic partners, roommates,
tenants
elatives from current and past marriages
,,R
lEl)Rl;l RAN'\
I l \\
Feedback from Aug. 28
• Ethics Commission
— Regular review of ordinance
— Review and investigate complaints
— Recommend sanctions
• Sanctions
— Letter of notification
— Reprimand
— Recommend removal
hoard or Commission
• Appointed employee
Commission would submit a recommendation of removal. Daly said this applies to a board or commission
member, elected officials, and City Council appointed employees: the City Manager, City Attorney and City
Secretary.
Daly said there is a need for further direction regarding the finding of a violation by a City Councilmember.
Daly said the proposed ethics ordinance brought to the Council stated that when the Ethics Commission
finds an egregious violation of the ethics ordinance, the Ethics Commission would recommend that the
Councilmember be recalled. It was proposed that the finding be pushed to the media.
Daly said the Assistant City Attorney had researched other cities' ordinances for this topic. Daly said it was
found that other cities have the Ethics Commission submit their finding for recall to the City Secretary or City
Clerk for distribution and publication. Daly said they have not found an example where Council accepts a
finding and takes a vote on it. He explained that it would not be a best practice to have Council voting on
Council recalls.
Councilmember Fought said he is not comfortable with the Ethics Commission recommending a recall and
would want them to say the violation is so egregious that they recommend a recall procedure.
Mayor Ross asked how the process would be carried out. Daly said a citizen or citizen group would take the
finding and act on it.
Councilmember Gonzalez said it amounts to a public suggestion. Fought agreed and reiterated that it would
not be a suggestion for recall, but rather a suggestion for a recall procedure to be started.
Councilmember Eby suggested using language to call it a finding and not a recommendation. She
explained that the Ethics Commission would make a "finding" that could make the Councilmember subject to
recall. Gonzalez said he agrees.
Mayor Ross said the City Charter is clear on the recall process. He said he has concerns with a
recommendation from an Ethics Commission but not from Council. Daly asked for clarification of the
Mayor's concern. Daly said if a Commission finds that a Councilmember has done something egregious
and provides a finding to the city clerk or city secretary, it is his understanding that this would be the end of
the Ethics Commission involvement. Daly said it would then be up to the public to do with it as they saw fit.
Morgan said the benefit would be an Ethics Commission that reviews and investigates and then provides a
finding. Assistant Attorney, Skye Masson, described the levels of sanctions and said the highest level is a
letter of censure, which is for serious or repetitive violations. She explained that the letter of censure is sent
to the Council and the City Secretary and it would become public information. Sanctions can also go above
and beyond, for elected officials, to say they would recommend a finding or consideration for recall.
Gonzalez said this is pertaining to the level of severity and the public would take over from there.
Councilmember Nicholson said it must be determined if the Ethics Commission vote needs to be unanimous
or a different level of voting. Daly said a simple majority vote of the Ethics Commission would be required to
make a finding. Nicholson instructed staff to make sure this is included in the language. Masson confirmed
that her research of other ethics commissions and ordinances showed a simple majority vote.
Daly continued the presentation with General Conduct
Daly asked about including the Governance Policy, Role of Council and Rules of Engagement in the ethics
ordinance and asked the Council for their direction in what to include in general conduct provisions.
Councilmember Fought suggested not including the rules of engagement in the codes of conduct. He said
the rules of engagement list how Councilmembers are to conduct themselves around each other and are not
based on ethics. Fought said these are separate in parts. Fought said the Ethics Commission has been
asked to be the oversight body, but how Councilmembers behave with each other is Council business and
should not be the Commission's responsibility. Fought said he feels this is a good ethics policy and it is
time to wrap it up.
Councilmember Pitts asked if the other documents, the Governance Policy, Rules of Engagement and Role
of Council, would still exist but be separate. Fought confirmed. He said they would still exist and be
reviewed and updated periodically, but not be incorporated in the ethics ordinance.
Councilmember Hesser asked to clarify that members of Council are subject to the laws and rules of the City
just as any other citizen. He said he is talking about traffic laws, planning & zoning, and anything a
Councilmember's influence could exempt them from. Hesser said he would like to see this specifically
spelled out in the ordinance. Fought noted that Councilmembers were citizens and asked why they would
be exempt.
Councilmember Eby said Councilmember Hesser is saying there should not be an expectation that a
Councilmember could act in such a way that suggest the Council is above the rules. She said this is
covered in the general conduct provisions, but said language for that would be good to include in the
ordinance. Eby said she agrees with Fought that the Council needs to draw a distinction between behavior
that might be unprofessional and behavior that is unethical. Eby said there is language in the Governance
Policy that might be useful to have in the ethics ordinance, which specifically addresses unethical behavior.
Mayor Ross said the ethics ordinance applies to board members as well, and the Code of Conduct would
only apply to the elected body.
Councilmember Gonzalez said he agrees with the separation of documents and adding the Code would
mean that Councilmembers should follow all policies and procedures as signified by the City and actually be
one step above adherence, never showing an implication that one can manipulate staff for benefit in their
behalf.
Gonzalez asked if there should be a separate workshop to address Governance on Council, such as what
Council behaviors should and shouldn't be. He spoke on Roberts Rules of Order and how one acts in
public. He said he would like to look at this separately, but not include it in the ethics ordinance. Mayor
Ross said he believes this has merit. Fought agreed and suggested a blanket statement that rules of the
staff or citizens apply to the Council.
Ross said, at this time, the Council needs to concentrate on the ethics ordinance and address the Rules of
Engagement at a different workshop.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked about Councilmembers appearing before boards and commissions for their
own interest. Masson said this would be included in the language. Daly said general conduct provisions
apply to boards and commission members, elected officials and appointed officials.
Hesser asked for a purpose statement. Eby said this can be found in the Governance Policy. Morgan
provided copies of the Governance Policy. Eby spoke about governance principals and said it would be
helpful for some of that language to be included in the ethics ordinance.
Mayor Ross recapped that code of governance and conduct will be separated from the ethics ordinance.
Daly wanted to clarify that the standards of conduct should be included but not the Role of Council, Rules of
Engagement or the Governance Policy. Daly said he had heard Council's request for a future workshop on
the Governance Policy. Ross confirmed and said these will be distinguishable documents.
Jonrowe asked if the Governance Policy is in the Charter. Daly said it was adopted in 2012 and is just a
policy.
Gonzalez said governance principles should be listed in the ordinance. Eby said she agrees and that is
what she had suggested. She said the list on slide provided should also be included.
Mayor Ross said this will now come to the Council as a first reading of the ethics ordinance
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and
Section 551.074 at 4.47 PM. He announced that Executive Session would begin in 7 minutes.
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.
F. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Hoskins -Brown Update
- 3701 West Highway 29
Sec. 551:072: Deliberation about Real Property
- Purchase -Parcel 10, Northwest Blvd
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
- City Manager Work Plan
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM to begin the Regular City Council meeting.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
Date
Attest: Czt re#ary 0