The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 12.11.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, December 11, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East 7`h St., Georgetown, Texas. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember John i -lesser, District 3. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Kevin Pitts, 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. Presentation and discussion of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Goal Development Process -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Goal Development Process. She provided a handout for the Council for better viewing during the presentation. Nelson described the purpose of the workshop meeting. • Provide context for what has changed since the last goal setting process with the current Comp Plan • Familiarization of the 2008 Land Use Goals, the 2017 Vision Statement and the 2018 public input • Outline the process for reviewing goals at the joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council joint meeting on January 10, 2019 • Gain critical feedback on existing and emerging themes Nelson described the feedback she would be seeking from the Council. • Should staff integrate the themes from the new input? • Does the Council agree with the approach to amending/updating the 2008 Land Use goals and adopting new policies for each element that supports the revised Land Use goals? • Should the Steering Committee provide recommendations to the Joint Session? • Is the Joint Session the final decision authority on goal and policy setting? Nelson explained that she would speak on the following during the presentation. • What's changed since 2008? • Discussion of Council topics • Public input, visioning and goal setting • Process for updating the 2008 Land Use goals • Next steps • Direction A Chart depicting Georgetown's Population, Age, and Income was shown. Nelson noted that the source for the median income is ACS 2016, 5 year estimate. She said Georgetown's estimate for median income in 2008 had been $60,248. $64,256 1 Georgetown 759,476,3,2 ,, $75,935 1 Williamson Co. 7490,7619+32" $66,093 1 Austin -RR MSA 1,942,615 11+22",0 Nelson provided charts showing Jurisdictional Boundaries, Land Use and Zoning, Regional Employment, Rental Housing, and For Sale Housing. Nelson introduced Wendy Shabay, of Freese and Nichols, who provided the next section of the presentation regarding vision and goals. Shabay said she would need feedback from the Council on the 2008 goals, in order to provide good discussion between the Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission at their upcoming joint meeting, January 10, 2019. Shabay spoke on the goals discussed and implemented from 2016 to the present. • Low Income Housing Tax Credits — Regional Share • MUDs/PIDs — In City vs ETJ, Approval Criteria • Downtown — Transition Zones, Residential Encroachment (Preservation) • Gateways — Land Use and Development Standards • Single Family Development — Condo Regimes, Development Standards She spoke on the importance of a vision statement and how goals set will be very different. Shabay said today's presentation would brief the Council toward the January meeting with the P&Z. Shabay shared 2008 Themes and 4 goals that had been set. 2008 Themes ■ Quality of Life • Sustainable Development ■ Balanced Transportation/Efficient Mobility • Effective Governance Promote sound, sustainable, and compact development patterns with balanced land uses, a variety of housing choices and well -integrated transportation, public facilities, and open space amenities. Promote sound investment in Georgetown's older developed areas, including downtown, aging con7mcrcial ,llld indLIStl'471 areas, in -town neighborhoods, and other areas expected to experience land use change or obsolescence. Provide a development framework for the fringe that guides sound, sustainable patterns of land use, limits sprawl, protects community character, demonstrates sound stewardship of the environment, and provides for efficient provision of public services and facilities as the city expands. Maintain and strengthen viable land uses and land use patterns (e.g., stable neighborhoods, economically SOU nd commercial and Employment areas, etc.). Shabay spoke on the 2017 Vision Statement: "Georgetown: A caring community honoring our past and innovating for the future" She provided data from On the Table process and the 2018 Input Themes. Shabay said there had been great participation and great feedback from the On the Table project. 1,4 40 kwktthetAle 8410-4 comments recorded 445 r 1 Georgetown ISD students anti staff participants 0 49%U of (ity employees participated ParOdpation by ZIP Cone i Othof 25 7862639") 78633 3 k83 786 ��7 1 groups 11450 participated SUrueys 0 U R taken 0 W N *f Maintain the family-oriented, small-town feel Continue to encourage quality urban design Enhance citizen participation and engagement Focus on housing and affordability Enhance economic development opportunities �!► Maintain and expand existing parks and recreation amenities Improve and diversify the transportation network Shabay described goal setting and revisited the 2008 Comp Plan themes. She explained that there was no need to change them and the Council would still use them while building yet further. She noted that of the 4 themes, perhaps one might change. Shabay spoke on Land Use Goals. She provided Next Steps and the Feedback staff would need from the Council. • Staff and consultant team to draft revisions/ne%v material • Revieav and discuss at a Joint workshop with P&l. • January IWI1 („, (-00pm • Return to Council to confirm new goals/themes • Seek public feedback on updated goals/themes •�\. ilr IJ'M • V. .v.. .. .... �..♦. • Should we integrate the themes from the new input? • Do you agree with the approach to amending/updating the 2008 Land Use goals and adopting new policies for each Element that support the revised Lend Use goals? • Should the Steering Committee provide recommendations to Joint Session? • Is the Joint Session the final decision authority on goal and policy setting? Shabay showed the 4 goals from 2008 and asked the Council if these 4 goals should change. She asked them if there were any automatic changes, advice, or structure they would like to see. Shabay explained that a lot of policy can fit within these goals, but Council might like to change the wordiness of some. She said the intent is to get into great detail at the January joint meeting with the PBZ. Councilmember Fought said he thinks the goals are good. He said he wants to address public safety and it needs to be highlighted as an explicit high priority. Fought said the tax rate also needs to be highlighted as being the lowest in the region. He explained that fiscal responsibility and low tax rates need to be included in comprehensive goals. Mayor Ross said he wants the work the City does with other entities, such as the County, State and TXDOT to be mentioned in the Plan. Councilmember Nicholson asked about the transportation network and said this is increasingly more important. She said there is a definite strain on roads and this needs to be called out within a total and complete network. Councilmember Jonrowe said she sees differences in the 2018 themes and the 2008 goals. She explained that an emphasis on housing and affordability needs to be included, as well as parks and recreation amenities. Jonrowe said she also wants citizen engagement included. Councilmember Gonzalez said issues will come out of land use discussions, because the right mix of housing is important and there must be detailed discussions. He explained his concern that the Council may not have a say later, unless it is controlled today. Councilmember Eby said it makes sense to take 2008 goals and themes and break them out. She said it relates to development and land use mostly, but may not necessarily address the 2018 goals. Eby said it will be important to align better with the themes gotten from citizen input. Councilmember Pitts said he likes the goals that the Council has. He said he would like to add transportation, tax rate, and public safety, which are all very important to all the citizens of Georgetown, continually year after year. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the name of plan will stay the same. It was confirmed that it would remain the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Nelson thanked the Council for their input and said staff will take the direction forward. She provided a goal structure that will be used in the joint meeting with P&Z and Next Steps. Land Use Goals ------------------- ------------------ Future ---------------- Future Land Use - Land Use Policy zi - Land Use Policy -2 - land Use Policy =3 I1011sing Housing Policy a1 - Housing Policy "2 - Housing Policy =3 Transportation Parks Urban Design Health & Human Services etc. • Staff and consultant team to draft revisions/new material • Review and diSCLISS at a joint workshop with 11&Z • January 10'i (w 6:00pm • Return to Council to confirm new goals/themes • Seek public feedback on updated goals/themes Councilmember Jonrowe asked about health and human services. Nelson said these are identified in the charter and action steps will be identified. Jonrowe said this will be important and mentioned transportation to dentists and doctors. She said this must be examined going forward. B. Update and discussion regarding amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Amended and Restated Consent Agreement and the Amended and Restated Development Agreement -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, provided an update on amendments to the Water Oak Subdivision Restated Consent Agreement and Restated Development Agreement. He said he would provide a different look to the Water Oak Subdivision consistent with the City MUD Policy. Reed explained that the developer had worked with staff for several months. He introduced Jay Hanna, Blake McGee, and Amy Payne, who were in the audience. Reed spoke highly of Hanna McGee and their experience. He showed slides of current projects and noted that the firm works successfully with the Georgetown Utility Systems. Reed provided an Overview of his presentation. • Purpose of Presentation • Water Oak Concept Plan (approved in 2012) • Parkside on the River Land Use Plan (revised in November 2018) • MUD Policy Basic Requirements ■ MUD Policy Analysis of ETJ MUD Proposal • Next Steps • Feedback and Direction Reed explained what had changed with the agreement with Water Oak. He said, through the City's Fiscal Impact Model, it was discovered that the combination of providing a share back of the City's property tax to the development to offset lowering the MUD tax in an ETJ MUD, did not produce a positive net fiscal impact for the City, over the long term. The Purpose of the presentation was shown. -- ( 11 ORI.I I(]\% Purpose Staff is seeking Council's feedback and direction on a new proposal for the southern portion of the Water Oak development that will involve an amendment to the existing Water Oak Municipal Utility District (MUD) Consent Agreement and approval of a new Development Agreement. • D;;es Council support anif rd rients to the exWirag 2.012 Amended and Restated Consent Agreement? • Does Council suppnrt the major terms as presented to a new Developu1c lit Agreement covering Parkside on the River located south of, and including, the South San Gabriel River corridor? • Does Council have comments on the propos-d Land Usk, Plan? • Does Council wish staff to contact the existing MUD #25 and initiate negotiations to amend the existing 2012 Amended and Restated Cnnsertt Agreement, and if necessary the Development Agreement? Reed described the Water Oak Subdivision Consent Agreement and Development Agreement. t �I l3Kc,l IU1sh'� Water Oak Subdivision Consent Agmt. And Development Agmt. Consent Agmt. Terms • consent to Creation of an ETI MUD • Consent to change boundar ies and rreahnn Of successor district,, • (:undi[ions for future annexation Masrm Develnpment Fr'e • R(?c0gni1e5 City as;)MV10er of water, w,astew.ater, ,and ex imf3e services • Torm,; for issuance of hnndc • Est,3blishes rnax. tax rate Development Agmt. Terms • Land Uw Plan • Specifications for Roadways, including sctiedule for and design of the Bridge • Residential and Commercial Development Standards • Open Space and Trail Standards • Tree lreswvationStandards • On-site Utihty0bligatsons& 5t,andards • Off site UtilityOtApations&STdndafds • Term,, for Oty to provide retail water, wastewator, and garbage services • Irripar t Fees and Fire SIP Fees Reed provided an image of the Concept Plan for the Water Oak Subdivision. u 61084.1 to%NN�� Water Oak Concept Plan ; • Approved in 20 t) ` j 1,:354 acres r)f 1,160ac in'Nater Oak South ■ 544 acres In MUD 2-) _ + 3,268 SF Lots (max.) — 2,2701ots In lNdter Oak 5outti .. 7 17.5 acres commercial — 5 5 acres along fttvt 2243 ., • 2x2.5 acre fire station site,, �+ • 12 act e school site s'=� ■1 1l i ! _ Reed spoke on the Parkside on the River Land Use Plan. a 4 Y 4 Parkside on the River Land Use Plan • 1,146 acres • 3.34 acres of open sF>ace ■ 15 ac. located north of river ■ 3(X) acres inside MUD 25 1,965 SF lots (max.) — 51 lots IUr:ateti rlOrrlt of river • 362 Cluster Humes (12 t)()/A(-) • 326 Multi -family Units (20 DU/AC) — Potential frrr 6(101Lpnd! 066 on mixed "JSe parte11, but (tulld be commercial • I) acres commer rial — Potential for addrtronai 33 ac on mixed lv i., pdr: k -,I; 2.5 acre fire station site 1() arre school SAO Reed described the MUD Policy, the Basic Requirements, and the benefits of a MUD in detail. MUD Policy (Approved July 2018) Purp_ose 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 ra.`.�.algr i�a..l�pn-...-r• car. a.•d ^ary 3!-+!1,•; arC+: w...:a; S:�sq E.il�,!��: Oryx .y• F.;alh ai.:.]�: C•. i,p)^rn /IJn �prn. ):ern (-1OK(cI rrsbn� Quality Develo mens. The development meets or exceeds 6M the intent of the development, infrastructure, and design standards of City codes land0evelopment Uevoloper ha%oreed to rnool/exieerd standards in l_(date i lune 1, 24111. piiv add the follOvoing to [ evel0l!ment Agreement- - Residential Standards. Design Standards for residential development to ensure: minimum standard of quality and create equality wsih more recent developments with MUDS. — Commercial Centers Set aside 32 aures along R%I 2143 for future commercial COnlparerd to Only 5 S ares on i urrerit lam€d use plan; plus prOservP opportunity for more commercial in mixed use areas on additional 30 acres — Tree Preservation Abide by Tree Preservation standards identical to Wolf Ranch-Niiiwood PUD standards. This is a significant improvement compared to nunirnai Standards in Agreement • Infrastructure Developer has agreed to meet 0ty's rnfrdstruiture standards and be obligated to fund the design and construction of rna;or infrastructure. • �IIURIiF rlllY'N� ;�* r Extroordinory Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Roads Developer./Distr u:t to design, fund, and construct extension of Water Oak Pkwy (an 01P rnadwayj as well as Parkway B. [No change from 2012 Agreernentj • Trails. Developer/District to design, fund, and construct regional trail (10' wide) along South San Gabriel River and Water Oak Parkway- Current agreement requires an S' wide trail along Water Oak Parkway- • Parks/Ret, real ionalfacilit ies/ClipenSpace Developer to t.rovute neipht;orhood parks, private amenity centers, and preserve more than 3(Y.) acres as open space. ExMing Agreement does not require neighborhood parks or commitment to amenity centers. • RM 2243 rransportation Enhancements. Developer/District to fund, design, and construct two signalized intersections on Rlvi 2243 at Water Oak Parkway and ParkWay N When Warrants are •net aiC>ng'N'th detiu 4100 Of riNhtOf-way fnr malar artr�rial ani turn lane; Ihere are no 5p0rrfIc ohhgatorrs in Current agreement • Diversityof housing,. land Use Plan provides a diversity of housing with range of single-family lots/designs, multi -family, and cluster homes, while increasing commercial as described earlier. tl-urrent plan allows only single-family. �iIUR<I Ili\�A� v - L—traoirdinary Benefits. The development provides extraordinary public benefits that advance the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Wastewater (Fxistire Benefit) Th< , 1Vater (sak d!lvelo(ryient frmded $,I),81)1,151' and th!, ( :ty funded $2,b27,r i8 ori n ()artnershrp tq ext+�nd a F ( v.�astetvatar interceptor (SSC;ij west of f 35 to address growth pressures and support quality development consistent with the City's Comprehensive Pian. ■ Water Infrastructure (Existing Benefit). Developer/District to cover cost to construct r7rastar plarine!i 24" W'Iter fransrmsslon (erre from RM 2213 to Water ()ak Borth A rhango �nr,ludes. — City wolf advance fund ng to construct transmission line ahead of development to irprove availabilityof fire flow for the surrounding area, including the project, in response to strong growth along RM 2.143 and to the south. — The Developer haS atireed to bid and t.ulid the I.ne wjhrn the ( rty's availahle funds Developer may rv(tuest Terri uryernenT after laruiary 1, 2G2UThe developer has agreed to repay the City the full cost of the Transmission line up to $3,500,000 with an annual fixed payment of $500,000 over 7 years, starting with first payment rade upon acceptance of water line. �IIUR!il lu�r'\� WAEnhance Public Service and Safety- The development enhances public services and optimizes service delivery through its design, dedication of sites, connectivity, and other features. • Fire Station Site. Developer will dedicate a 2.5 acre sire along RM 2 24 3 at no cost to the City to optimize service delivery arld response times as this area develops. (No change from 2012 Agreement.) ■ SIP Fee. Developer agrees to maintain Fire SIP fee of $630 to he collected at time of application of building permit for each residential Int, multi -family unit, and commercial lot. (No change from 2012 Agreement.) – Single family (max. 1,965 DUsi................................................. $1,237,950 – Multi-family/Cluster Homes (688 -- 1,348 DUs)... $433,400 - $916,640 – Total SIP Fee from Residential (rmax)......................................... $2,154,590 – In addition, commercial tievel(Ipment to pay $630 per Int City Exclusive Provider. The development further promotes the City as the exclusive provider of water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities. • FxclusiveProvider. i he C ;ly will cortnnre to he excIij"Ive IxmvrdPr of all services water, wastewater, and solid waste. (No eh wgP frnn: 2012 Agreement.1 On site Facilities. I ho f)evelot)er/1)ijthct to cover the fiili cost of On site Fac,lities {water, wastewmer, dr;imagv, ro.id, etc...) internal to the Wrater Oak �niith rlevelnpment that are necessary to serve tthi, prolect. INo change from 2012 Agreement.) • Impact Fees. the 0oveioper/[)Istria will he assessed the existing water and wastewater impact fees listed in the current development agreement. the existing development agreement. has Iccked -mpact fePS in place at $3,321 per Service Unit for water and 52,683 per Service Unit for wastewater. IN change frnm 2€312 Agreement.] Reed spoke on the Finance Plan and Fiscal Responsibility for the MUD. �..� 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. • Bond Terms: — Estimated Maximo n Amount of Bonds to be Issued for future Districts: S 100,100,�?t,Oh,lsed upur'r deveioper'S assumptions on valuations and absorption. fibs does nut include land loo-ated wither` existing MUD #2S. — Maximum Bond Maturity: 30 years IMOD Policy guide is 25 yejrs] — Bond Issuance Period: I S years frorn the Slate of the first issuance of Bonds issued by each district ]MUD Pr)licy guiife is Il; years] — Refunding Bonds: Not sated thin 1W anniversarvof dateof issuance — ReirnbursemenlAgml.: ISyears frow Effectivetate — Di strict Only lax Rdte(Maximum):5t).c)I/SIWin As sessed VJ ILI fvtastc?r 0evelupment Fere to be apt,lied to future districts anti '0,4, reed fur MIID a1'.,, all to be applied 10 cOSt 10 cc);rstf U0 the Bf]( ge 4tFiscolly Responsible. The development is financially feasible, doesn't impair the City's ability to provide municipal services, and would not impose a financial burden on the citizens of Georgetown in the event of annexation. • Uevelopluent is lesponsible for of) site costs of '111(1 will not impose financial burden on citizens of pity of oeolpetowil. • FieSlderlllal construe tion Po sooner thart )021 an(i achieve full, buildour. by 2040. • ""riser"ll consiructior" of approxirnately 250,000square feet of buil(lirig area to begin Construction in )Ci)ti ar',d built out over IU years. Opportunity for more Commercial is preserve(t on additional, 30 acres. • Multi -family and cluster homes pray burn in 2023 and take up la 1 l years to achieve full build out. Mayor Ross asked Reed what the effective tax rate would be for the development. Reed said under $3 per $100 in the ETJ. Councilmember Gonzalez said land needs to be set aside for commercial land use, not multifamily housing. He said it is important to develop commercial property first, because without commercial development, traffic issues arise when residents are forced to travel roads to get their basic needs. Gonzalez said he wants commercial land for retail amenities, not more multi -family. He said retail development is lagging behind and there is congestion because people have to travel longer distances. Councilmember Pitts said these agreement have been negotiated well and it is a win-win for both parties. Pitts said he understands the need for an extended bond term. He said he agrees that there is not enough commercial land use set aside. City Manager, favid Morgan, said there have been discussions regarding this and there has been additional commercial property added since the development was shown at the earlier date. He said staff will keep working on this and noted that the developer has 32 acres of commercial that they are planning to develop when the market merits. Reed reminded the Council that 32 acres must be commercial and more than 30 additional acres are labeled as mixed use. He said the Hanna McGee team has set aside land and has been successful in being patient until the right time for the commercial development. He said he will bring back more information to Council and asked for their feedback and direction. Mayor Ross said residential development creates a need for commercial development and commercial needs to come at the same time as residential. City Manager Morgan said the development is positioned on Leander Road and will likely have commercial on Ronald Reagan and 135. Ross said mobility is a challenge in Georgetown. Councilmember Eby said this is an existing agreement that is being amended and Council is being asked to approve the proposed amendments, which will add commercial. Councilmember Nicholson said the City should encourage the developer to look at this as a gateway. She said this needs to be considered important and be structured to invite people into our community. Councilmember Gonzalez said he understands the rooftop philosophies, but there should be a requirement for retail amenities. He explained that there needs to be a balance or trigger for this. Councilmember Pitts said, overall, he supports the project Councilmember Eby noted that this was great use of the fiscal impact model. C. Presentation and discussion of the FY2019 CIP Roll -Forward and Operational Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Budget Manager, Paul Diaz, described the FY2019 CIP Roll -Forward and Operational Budget Amendment. He began the presentation with an Overview of the Amendment. Diaz noted that the operational changes have made the report a little more complicated this year. .�I �lili)Itt�l Overview of the Amendment • Annually in December staff brings forward a CIP Rollforward Amendment. • This amendment appropriates: — Multi-year large capital projects (roads, water treatment plants, facilities, etc), — Unused FY2018 one-time funds — Operational changes (fire and electric) • We are in a dynamic environment, and we have a complex financial ecosystem in the City. In total, 15 different funds are being amended. Diaz described each fund and proposed amendments. (i (1KC.Iiu%%N` General Fund - Operations • SAFER Grant and ESD #8 Contract — Recognize the revenue increases $1.84 M — Appropriate funds for the Station 7 staff and other new positions in Fire $918,338 • Reduce R01 revenue from Electric by $1.2 M and fully utilizing the Economic Stability Reserve • Street Maintenance one time fund of $250,000 • Bike Master Plan $41,677 W "2011 AP"V-� ewes General Capital Projects • Issue C.O.s for Fire Station #6 ($5.2 Million) Fire Driver Truck ($47 K), Fire Logistics Truck ($47 K), and Police Vehicles ($65 K) — Recognize increased bond interest revenue with new proceeds as well as updating debt issuance costs for the fund • Transfer in form IT for Workday Project contingency of $250,000 IIUKI.I IowI'� General Capital Projects • In the Community Services division: — $1,822,864 forward into FY2019 for San Gabriel Park and for ADA projects — $370,000 of existing proceeds from Garey Park • In Bond funded equipment: — $6,135,088 (ERP project, Radio Replacement, Fire Station 7) (;Iokt�I Ik)%%N� General Capital Projects In facilities: — $1,031,831 forward for Downtown West, Downtown Signage, and Parking Expansion • Road Bonds: — $18,251,515, including $10.3 M for Northwest Blvd Bridge and $3.9 M for FM970 • Sidewalks: — $2.03 M including 10th, 11th, and Austin Ave (SH29 to FM2243) til0k(J IUN A� Enterprise Funds - Operations • Electric Fund — Revenues • Recognize the full year impact of the PCA $2.46 M • Reduce bond proceeds to zero • Recognize $100,000 for the Bloomberg Grant — Expenses • Reduce transfer out to General Fund for ROI by $1.2 million • Reduce salary and benefits accounts related to three vacant positions which are not going to be filled in FY2019 =. _ %nom Enterprise Fund - Operations ■ Electric Fund — Expenses Continued • Zero out expenses related to a Pressure Digger Vehicle approved in the budget $434,050K • Reduce the transfer out to Main Street Facade Fund for Holiday Lights $60K • Zero out expenses related to radio replacement $222K • Reduce expenses related to bond issuance costs $156K � rRCLSMnu.r Vie_ Enterprise Fund — CIP • Electric Fund — Expenses Continued • Reduce total CIP to $4M • This figure represents total bond proceeds from prior issuances • New CIP Plan — $2,700,000 for New Development — $200,000for Rabbit Hill Road — 5154,000 for University Mays Widening — 5145,445 for DB Woods & SH 29 Intersection Enterprise Funds — CIP Water Fund — Reduce bond proceeds to zero and remove the debt issuance cost — Water Projects to be rolled total $23.8M — Wastewater Projects to be rolled total $29.3M — Projects including Shell Road Water Line, County Road 255, and Braun Elevated Storage Tank �11(1K1�1111UA� Enterprise Funds — CIP • Stormwater — Reduce bond proceeds and bond issuance costs — Rollforward CIP projects including 181h and Hutto, Curb and Gutter Repair, and Village PID Inlet • Airport — Rollforward CIP projects include Runway Rehab for $516K and Taxiway Edge Lighting for $150K f Y:019 A�" 9..d eS Internal Service Funds • Health Insurance Fund — Increase premium revenue and healthcare expense for the impact of new Fire staff • Fleet — Roll forward FY2018 Fire Attack Truck — Recognize transfer in revenue and expenses for the purchase of trucks for new Fire personnel • Information Technology — Roll one-time savings from FY2018 — Transfer one-time savings to Workday project for contingency pt rr *11A wi a r. Special Revenue Funds • Main Street Fagade Fund — Roll the remaining FY2018 Main Street Facade funds into FY2019 — Reduce the transfer in from Electric for the Holiday Lights as well as the corresponding expense • Tourism Fund — Increase appropriation for the Holiday Lights MIP L9 Ar -.a Soden Special Revenue Funds • GTEC — Rollforward $7.01 M in street projects which include Mays Street/Rabbit Hill Road ($1.0 M roll forward), Pecan Center Dr./Airport Road (roll forward $2.44 M), and the Southeast Inner Loop Widening (rollforward of $900,000) • Streets Sales Tax — The beginning fund balance is $2,220,866 more than projected due to savings in capital projects. Staff is proposing to appropriate the FY2018 savings in the FY2019 Budget. Special Revenue Funds • CDBG — Proposed amendment is to transfer $23,222 of project savings back to the GCP fund • Downtown TI RZ — Roll a total of $366,343 of capital improvement projects including Street light Upgrades, Grace Heritage Plaza, and Public Art Downtown Diaz provided a summary: • Dynamic changing fast -growth environment • Increase to Fire revenue brings enhanced service to the community • Maintain Electric Fund 90 day contingency policy compliance ■ Roll forward major multi-year capital projects Councilmember Gonzalez said interest rates have risen significantly and have gone from .4 to 1.5 to 2% in a calendar year. Diaz said staff has recognized this and has accounted for it appropriately. Pitts asked about bond proceeds. Diaz said the City will use $4 million for capital improvements, but no more. Councilmember Fought asked for a small addition from the Council contingency fund to give to an event called Vibrant Living with a thesis for senior's special needs. He explained that the purpose of the event is to provide people with the knowledge of where to go for resources they need. Fought said he wants people to know their available services. He explained that this applies to the whole town, not just Sun City. Named peeps involved. Have earned a lot of respect. He said it is community leaders putting this together and proposed a contribution of $5,000. Councilmember Nicholson said she is in support. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City has a history of sponsoring events. Morgan said yes, mostly with in kind or other contributions, such as Sertoma Club's 4th of July celebration and events by the Chamber of Commerce, such as the Field of Honor. Morgan said the Commission on Aging has wanted to have this event for some time now and asked the City to sponsor the event. He said Faith in Action put an excellent group together and it would be consistent with the city policies to support this. Jonrowe asked about social funding. Morgan said this is a different. Jonrowe said the City should develop a policy, rather than a Councilmember bringing their own specific events. Jonrowe said perhaps this could be a pot of money and a process. Morgan said this can be back to Council with follow up during the budget process. Mayor Ross said he would want the in kind services included when looking at this. Councilmember Gonzalez said he supports the sponsorship, but asked if there is money in the Council contingency fund. Morgan said $1.1 Million was transferred for the City Center project, in combination with the funding of the building sales. Morgan said there is currently $118,000 in the contingency fund. Morgan said the books will be closed in February and the Council will be provided a new amount to be added to the Council contingency fund. Councilmember Pitts cautioned that monies given in one year can sometimes be expected in years to follow. Fought said he believes this would be a one year request. Pitts said he is in support. Councilmember Nicholson asked about a process for the contingency fund and mentioned a previous Hospice request and the 4'h of July celebration with Sertoma. Morgan said discussion on the contingency fund can be brought up at any time because Council has the ability to amend their budget. Morgan said funds are available and undedicated right now. He noted that the books will be closed out in February and Council can discuss their policies, but this request and Sertoma cannot wait until February. Gonzalez said this is opening a new funding door, and there will be other organizations that want funding. He said there needs to be a set policy. Mayor Ross said a process must be established, and asked for discussion at first of the year. D. Update of the use agreement for Grace Heritage Center with Preservation Georgetown -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manger Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, spoke on an updated use agreement with Preservation Georgetown for the Grace Heritage Center. She said she would be asking for direction to finalize Council's agreement with Preservation Georgetown. Brewer provided background and history of the agreement and dates of previous 2019 Council Workshop session regarding the Grace Heritage Center. Brewer summarized previous Council Direction. • City staff to promote the space as a venue and for rentals • City collects revenue ■ City pays utilities, insurance, maintenance costs ■ Evaluate market and adjust fees for rentals • Honor existing commitments • Increase event fee over time • Any excess revenues will be put toward future capital maintenance • Continue to work on joint promotion of events, downtown activities and preservation Brewer described proposed Option Highlights and License Agreements in detail and summarized each Option. Option Highlights • Option 1 — City staff operate rentals — PG offices at GHC and holds regular hours for the public in exchange for limited use of GHC • Option 2 — City staff operate rentals — PG rents facility when needed at non-profit rate — Public Hours options A — City hires staff to hold regular public hours (or) B — No regular public hours — self guided tours AGw�� iltt4,� Option 1: PG license agreement • Preservation Georgetown reserves up to 24 days per year for meetings and other preservation activities for no cost - PG utilizes office space and opens center for regular visiting hours —Thursdays 9-5; Fridays 9-5 — PG hosts First Friday events at Grace to promote preservation and heritage tourism ,,,,"ll�f illWN Option 1: PG license agreement • Library rental rooms Non-profit rate — Hewlet/Friends Room 136 capacity - $10 per hour — Classroom (27 capacity) — $5 per hour • Parks rental rooms — Non-profit rates — Community Room - S15 per hour — Conference Room - $10 per hour Option 1: PG license agreement • Estimation of Value of rental based upon non profit rates M Summary: Option 1 • Value of space provided to PG • Value of office space • Value of volunteers (lower est) • Net benefit (to City) Summary — Option 2 A $1,380 $4,775 $6,155 $17285 $11,130 • City receives revenue from PG $1,380 • City pays PT staff to staff at same levels $17,285 • Net cost to City $15,905 IIURIiETI�N'N ILU� Brewer finished the presentation with an overall Summary and Next Steps. • Option 1 — Since it requires a written agreement, one has been drafted and is on the regular agenda for consideration. Action: Approve agreement on the Regular Meeting agenda • Option 2 — No agreement required, will continue to work through the transition. Action: No approval of agreement on the agenda at the regular meeting. Direction: A or B staffing option ■ Option 1 — Since it requires a written agreement, one has been drafted and is on the regular Council agenda for consideration. This will be pulled if Option 2 is recommended. • Option 2 — No agreement required, staff will continue to work through the transition Councilmember Gonzalez asked about Option 2 B and if staff would be hired or moved from other departments. Brewer said this would be looked at and a determination made about which staff members would be available. He said volunteers may or may not volunteer and asked if a volunteer could pick up the key card. Brewer confirmed that they could. Gonzalez said he is in favor of Option 2 b. Councilmember Eby thanked Brewer for the analysis. She said it is clear that Option 1 makes the most sense, with net benefit to the City, while maintaining a good relation with Preservation Georgetown and having people there. Eby said she hopes Council considers the benefit of easy access for the public. Eby said staff has done a good job with the Council direction and Option 1 shows a win-win. Councilmember Nicholson thanked Brewer for her continued hard work with this. Councilmember Pitts said he does not see how the value of volunteers is $17,000 and supports Option 2. Councilmember Jonrowe said she supports Option 1. She said there is a value to having people to tell the history of the building and converse with the public. Jonrowe said she would not want the City to lose the continued relationship with Preservation Georgetown. Mayor Ross asked Brewer to go back to slide 10 and asked how the activity in the building is enhanced with either plan. Brewer said through the rental income. Ross asked about reserve monies for repairs and maintenance. Brewer explained that all revenue would go to the City and these monies would be used for maintenance and repair. Mayor Ross said there is a gaping hole in the analysis, when the City does not know the numbers yet. Ross said the City spent a lot of money renovating this building. Councilmember Eby said regardless of PG, the City is going to operate the rentals, so the question should be whether to have PG there or not. She said rental income is not known at this time. Councilmember Gonzalez asked what the rent would be to others. Councilmember Eby said Council did not direct this to staff. Gonzalez said volunteers should not be calculated as a value. Gonzalez asked about a tour and what is included. He asked if it would be 5 or 10 minutes. Eby said this is retreading the same conversations and the focus must be to determine what to do with Preservation Georgetown — to use them in a limited capacity, or not. Gonzalez said the analysis of dollars has left out some figures. Eby said 100% of rent will go to repair and maintenance. Mayor Ross asked if Eby if she understood that PG would have office space. Brewer said the value of downtown office space was calculated. She said if Grace Heritage Center had 15 weddings per year, the City would break even. Brewer said with 20 weddings, money would be put into the fund for maintenance. Discussion took place on the 24 days in the agreement. Brewer confirmed that this would be a meeting time of 92 hours for the year, calculated to match rental rates in other city buildings (some full days). Gonzalez said office space should be offered to others as well. He said he is ok with the building open during major events. Mayor Ross asked how the measurement of the 92 hours goes to the tax payers. Brewer described the visitor count and historic tourism. Eby asked if office hours is tied to the availability of the volunteers to give tours. She asked if Council said no to the office hours, if that would mean no to the volunteers, as well. Brewer said she will verify. She said Mr. Walton, the President of Preservation Georgetown, is in the audience and will be able to verify this prior to the evening's meeting. Brewer said she believes this to be the case. Gonzalez asked if volunteers would be permitted to access the building and give tours. Brewer said they could and they would only be prohibited if a particular event was scheduled. Jonrowe said the Council needs to vote on tonight's agenda and stop moving the goal posts on this discussion. E. Presentation and discussion on the Certificate of Appropriateness development process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, provided a presentation on the Certificate of Appropriateness Development Process. She noted that the purpose of the presentation is to confirm Council direction for short, medium and long term improvements to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Development Process. Nelson said she would like to gain Council's approval on an action plan. Nelson listed the feedback she would like from the Council. ■ Did we capture your feedback from November 27, 2018? • Does Council want to proceed in making the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) a review//recommending body and Council to become the approval authority for all COAs? • Does Council agree with the outlined action plan? Nelson provided a Review of the November 27, 2018 Workshop meeting She noted Stakeholder Feedback Themes and Opportunities for Improvement. Nelson descried strategies and feedback in detail. CGAMARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown. Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown. Low Priority structures should receive less review. COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria. Opportunities for Improvement II i l I F1 L Change: :JO!o'vkeY,.3?hi3NO,; re•.•JufCos��.9if!! Histonc Gveday Liston. LMAIMUM28 UDC Amencknont Impact: °3g:3 rescVx_ esv+c -4d no !ca.ge: e rw,RCMVwwofady rw rKC4Y f*60urMouwfts >* xtcrk D&OXI wit4w fiadey lreilfnQ Period LM211LO sertswcasw DUM t3o 7�( Tt�l)t((1 fA•y5/lV �nant�'• ., .. .. .- _...- .. "4'.' r.. �: 7� ":.1. .�.] •Illi im�entatlgn, Opportunities for Improvement RPr`OC14 ^loll. f [Wr m:? w ii� hire, X :3 FIa C,IL-3I14Lr1 'rJaICis 21j'1 j tr t . Eatatrsshrg annual at dlannvaI rwviow of Astortc Resources Survey - ntahon- Resolution to City Counca I 1 L�:7ai fC;r :3,^ � Fr CICrt1P^I.at; — _ :-� F. mrrl�i,; �rtl1�'l.l ltll\"\ I111� Nelson provided a summary of Council feedback on November 27, 2018. Nelson spoke on Areas of Consensus. strategy Prepare HARC Commissioner Training Plan Outcome - Heightened awareness of Council priorities for developmentlredevelopment in historic overlay Outcome - Increased understanding and application of Downtown and Old Town Guidelines Outcome -Past case administration review, continual leaming and applying lessons learned Outcome - Transparency in HARC development, decision making Review UDC and Design Guidelines for conflicts Outcome - Reduce conflicts and clarify standards which have emerged in 2017/2018 cases Height Mass Scale Strategy 8 Nelson noted additional comments from the November 27, 2018 meeting. • Work with Preservation Georgetown to achieve common preservation goals • Consider greater Council involvement in Board/Commission selection Nelson charted the survey results. Survey of Historic Properties and Districts 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Agree 51% Neimer agree nor Sircng-r dsagree dsag-ee Survey of HARC Applicants 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% GfUR�:[ niu�� ityt� Agree Neither agree nor Cisag:ee d sagree Nelson spoke on the Next Steps. • Analysis of Council prioritized strategies (Winter 18) • Define expected outcomes • Stakeholder analysis (technical staff & stakeholders) • Draft action plan for Council to review and approve (Spring 19) Nelson showed the Council feedback she would require again. • Did we capture your feedback from November 27, 2018? • Does Council want to proceed in making the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) a review//recommending body and Council to become the approval authority for all COAs? Councilmember Fought said he wants to eliminate a misunderstanding in language and asked why unfunded mandates were not included on a slide. He said he strongly favors a money discussion at HARC. He said he wants to know how the authority to allocate monies will reside and wants it to be at HARC. Fought said they should have resources for their unfunded mandates. Councilmember Pitts said he would prefer this be handled with tax money, such as credits, but it needs more hashing out. He said he would first like to resolve the issues involved in the presentation and then get to unfunded mandates later on. Pitts said he believes Council should provide final approval for the overlay district and he would be ok with high priority properties only. Pitts said he also believes that medium properties should be allowed to use non -original materials and high priority properties should be held to higher standards than medium priority properties. Nelson asked for clarification for low priority properties. Councilmember Eby thanked Nelson for the presentation. She said, when looking at sources for money for funding unfunded mandates, she had suggested at the last meeting to possibly look into partnering with Preservation Georgetown. Eby said discussion is needed on where the funding would come from. She said she is in favor of Strategy 4, Option 2 and Strategy 5 Option 3. Eby said the main issue is what happens with HARC? She said she does not think Council is in the best position to make final decisions in these matters. Eby said the process will be made even harder if applications have to come to Council. She said the purpose of the discussion had been noted that the reason for a change would be to make it easier for people to do business with Georgetown. Eby noted that most HARC applicants are residential properties. She said she would also like discussion on super majority votes. Councilmember Fought said there is a lot to talk about. Mayor Ross said he disagrees with a lot of what was said. The Mayor said most boards make recommendations and these recommendations generally go on the consent agenda. He said he does not agree that this would make it more difficult. Mayor Ross said there needs to be a discussion about using tax credits for unfunded mandates and the City needs to have skin in the game. Ross said HARC should not be the authority on the money. Ross agreed with Eby to remove the 60 day waiting period, because an applicant can lose a contractor over delays. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Nelson. She said she believes that HARC should be the decision makers and the appeal process should come to the Council. Jonrowe said she wants public outreach to be continued. She said the City needs to give people the tools regarding restoration instead of renovations. Jonrowe said it should not be HARC deciding money issues. Mayor Ross said there would be law involved. Jonrowe said there must be transition zone language in the UDC. She noted that there needs to be more review regarding demolitions. She said some low priority properties do not have value, but she is concerned about some labeled low priority that do contribute. Jonrowe asked if the labels high, medium or low are a national standard. Nelson said these are used nationally and were used by the City's consultant. Nelson said she will follow up. Jonrowe said the language could be insulting. She said she wants HARC to weigh in on the historic survey and categories. Councilmember Gonzalez said low priority needs to be examined, because there could be more homes added each decade, making it an uncontrollable number eventually. He explained that if a homeowner wants to protest their label they should be allowed to do such with proof of the contribution. Gonzalez complimented the work of Mr. Olson, who was in the audience, and said his ways should be followed. Gonzalez said the vast majority of issues would come to a decision at HARC and, if not, they could then come to Council. He added that the body making the decision should be the body authorizing the distribution of the funds. Gonzalez said he sees both ways on demolition and will agree with the majority of Council. Councilmember Eby asked about HARC making a recommendation, which would then be put on the consent agenda. She said she does not see the value. Mayor Ross said it would be consistent with the recommendations from other boards in the City. He noted that Council would have the prerogative to pull any item from consent agenda to the legislative agenda for discussion. Ross added that this then could be decided with a simple majority vote instead of the super majority vote being discussed. City Manager, David Morgan, said there is consensus on Strategies 1 through 3 and Strategies 6 -11. He said based on the identified plan, those can be implemented. Ross asked the Council if they agreed. Council agreed unanimously, with Councilmember Hesser absent. Morgan said with clarification that Strategy 8 does include clearing up the definition of majority, which will receive a legal review on conflicts or inconsistencies, Strategy 8 will be included. Morgan said Strategies 4 and 5 do not have consensus. Morgan said Pitt's choice is Option 1 under Strategy 4. Eby is Option 2 under Strategy 4. Mayor Ross is Option 1 under Strategy 4. Morgan said he did not hear feedback from anyone else. Morgan said Council will need to vote on an ordinance and there is currently not enough consensus to write on ordinance. Gonzalez said Council should be able to give enough direction to staff on Strategy 4. He said he believed that the low priorities should be removed. Gonzalez said there would need to be something to vote on. Morgan said there was a vote taken on the action Council took related to HARC. Morgan said staff has action from Council to bring it back as an ordinance. Morgan said it is the plan to move in that direction, concluding with the discussion here. Gonzalez asked that it be brought back in the same way that the ethics ordinance was handled. He sLfggested splitting out 7 or 8 items that could be voted on individually. Pitts said that is what staff is doing now. Jonrowe said there had been consensus on the ethics ordinance before it had been brought forward for action. Morgan said he has the options on Strategy 4 as either Option 1 or Option 2 and on Strategy 5, it is Option 1 or Option 3. Gonzalez asked where the majority lies on these. Morgan said there is not a majority. He said staff will evaluate bringing forth both of the options for consideration. Mayor Ross said he has heard some consensus on certain elements of Strategies 4 and 5. Ross asked the Councilmembers. Eby said Option 2 for Strategy 4 and Option 3 for Strategy 5. Nicholson said the low, medium, high priority was an element that became a larger conversation. She said she would want Option 2 for Strategy 4 and Option 3 for Strategy 5. She asked about the allowed materials and where they can be placed. Morgan said Option 3 would be staff review of low priorities and would allow for more variation of materials. Morgan said Option 2, by itself, would be staff review but under the current guidelines. Nicholson said she would be in favor of one of those 2 but would need more guidance about the materials. Morgan said more information can be brought back if Council would like. He said option 3 would mean the design feature was preserved but not the materials used. Nelson said wood and windows would be an example and would be under staff review. Nicholson said she would be in favor of substituting certain materials — Option 3 for Strategy 4. Councilmember Fought said he would choose Option 3 for Strategy 4 and Option 2 for Strategy 5. He said Councilmember Pitts' proposal deserves a vote. Morgan said it has come to a vote. He explained that Council did vote to have HARC come forward with recommendations only. Councilmember Pitts wanted Option 1 for Strategy 4 and Option 2 for Strategy 5. Councilmember Jonrowe supports Option 2 for Strategy 4 and Option 3 for Strategy 5. Jonrowe asked for clarification on staff review. Nelson said Strategy 5, Option 2 says HARC review for demolition would be limited to the overlay district. Jonrowe said she believes all demolition should go through HARC, which would be Option 4 for Strategy 5. Councilmember Gonzalez chose Option 3 for Strategy 4 and Option 1 for Strategy 5. Eby asked about Strategy 5. She changed her choice to Option 4 for Strategy 5. Mayor Ross read the consensus and said Strategy 5 would need more discussion. He said Strategy 4, Option 3 had the most consensus. Mayor said Council will take a look at 4 and 5 next time and asked for better choices. Morgan said staff will regroup and bring it back to Council. He said Strategies 1 -3 and Strategies 6 — 11 will move forward. He said staff will recap where they understand Council to be and will bring back Strategies 4 and 5. Mayor Ross asked about the differences among Councilmembers. Nelson explained that it was the materials permitted. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, and Section 551.074 at 5:19 PM. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. 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 Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Northwest Blvd, Parcel 3 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Rivery Blvd, Parcel 15 — Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Rivery Blvd, Parcel 16 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Downtown Buildings Sales Update 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 Secretary Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on01 Date Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City S r ry