Loading...
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