Print

Called to order at 04:00 PM
A Discussion regarding Itinerant Merchants Ordinance -- Paul E. Bradenburg, City Manager and Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney

Paul Brandenburg gave a presentation about itinerant merchants and possible options for regulating these types of vendors. He also showed the Council a map indicating areas that would be impacted if the City adopted an ordinance that would regulate itinerant merchants.

There was discussion regarding whether or not adopting this type of regulation was in fact "prohibiting" and how this ordinance would effect the Chuckwagon site in particular since the owner hasn't been able to sell the property and apparently is allowing merchants to set up on the property in order to "pay the taxes" on the property until someone buys it. There was additional discussion regarding business competition in regard to an established business in a storefront vs. a vendor that has no overhead costs, as well as the criteria for determining the areas where Itinerant Merchants would be restricted if the proposed ordinance were passed and whether or not 195/IH 35 was included in the map of allowed areas because there was some concern that area may be dangerous when I-30 opens up.

President Jake Schrum and other representatives from Southwestern University. gave a presentation to Council regarding Southwestern University’s Facilities Master Plan and proposal. They provided an overview of the University and its impact on the City of Georgetown. They also discussed their goal of having a Pedestrian Oriented Design for the Southwestern University campus and told the Council that in past Southwestern University Master Plans, Maple Street was not shown to be going through the campus. They went on to discuss in detail the University's emphasis on safety for the campus and outlined the reasons for wanting to close Maple Street, including the location where the university would like to build residential facilities in the future, which are located on the other side of Maple Street.

Jim Briggs told the Council that Southwestern University has been interested for quite some time in closing or moving Maple Street. He discussed some of the options for moving and/or closing Maple Street. The concern for completely closing Maple is the traffic flow and whether or not new roads will be utilized in its stead. Discussion whether or not the traffic would be redistributed to other neighborhood streets? He told Council that most of the traffic coming through this area moves from downtown east and that one option would include relocating Maple near the railroad track to make a safer intersection.

Ed Polasek addressed the Council regarding the history of Maple Street and discussed with Council current traffic patterns with regard to Maple Street and the proposed extension of Maple Street to Westinghouse. There was further discussion regarding future roads and how they would bear the traffic, as well as discussion about neighborhood traffic in District 7 if Maple Street closes and the use of the traffic light at the intersection of University and Maple, if Maple closes.

Council discussed the need to put this issue on an upcoming agenda to discuss closing Maple Street with options to either close it without replacing it or closing it and replacing it with an alternative route. Council requested that it be provide with copies of maps to study with options along with the impacts of Overall Transportation Plan.

There was further discussion regarding whether there would be an entrance into the Southwestern University Campus if Maple was rerouted or closed, as well as whether or not the truck entrance could be expanded and whether or not Southwestern Boulevard could be connected to 8th Street into the Campus.

Council asked that an item regarding this issue be discussed at the 2nd Meeting in March.

There was additional discussion regarding concern about a proposed Light Rail Station in the area of Railroad at 7th & Holly. Polasek told Council that the Commuter Rail and Carts Transit Center are two different things and that there was ongoing discussions regarding locations and whether or not the City would want them together or at different locations.

The Mayor gave a preamble to this discussion as follows:

“As a preamble to our discussion on annexation, I thought it necessary to discuss our collective frame of reference regarding this subject. Ten years ago, we could not envision our town expanding into all the empty spaces that surrounded us then. Now, we see MUDs being proposed in those empty spaces and we have our neighbors trying to expand their city limits and ETJ boundaries.

We have reached an agreement with Round Rock on our south and now with Leander encroaching to the west, we must reach an agreement with them as well as the jurisdictions to the east and north. Then we need to be about the business of getting an annexation plan in place that lets us be the best stewards of the land that will comprise our city limits and ETJ.

There are some common misconceptions we have been laboring under. The first that I’ve heard often quoted, it that “growth does not pay for itself”. At the recent conference on Conservation Subdivision Planning, I asked our presenter, Randall Arentt, to explain it to me, in his opinion. He said it is the open ended cost of educating children that drives this. I told him in Texas, school districts have a separate tax. He then said that municipalities ought to come out quite well if they didn’t have that cost.
I don’t feel our dialogue around annexation has taken in the long term implications of income we will receive forever from water/wastewater/electric and all forms of taxes. Our neighbors to the west clearly have their eye on this as they attempt to strip annex the major roads that come over our way. Spending capital dollars to get an ongoing stream of income seems like a timely discussion.

Have you ever wondered why we have the lowest tax rate I nearly all of Texas? Looking thru the wonderful hindsight of history, there are two things that set us apart. One has been owning our utilities and getting a rate of return on our investment and the other is a growing tax base for all of our tax rates. Having a growing base has helped keep rates low and extended the reach of our utilities. Again, this is spending money, from a capital investment perspective, one time to get a tax rate and rate of return over time.

Lastly, controlling what is done to the land, within our boundaries, should also be a central focus of the discussion, in that many of us liked what we saw regarding Conservation Subdivisions. It takes zoning to accomplish that as an object and we have to annex to zone.

This can be one of the most important discussions we ever have as Council in my time of service and its my hope the dialogue will produce a long term comprehensive plan that we can all operate under for many years to come and that it will incorporate a sense of place that is 'Sincerely Yours'. “

Brandenburg discussed the old map and current criteria for annexation of certain areas and told the Council that staff continues to look at annexation, including Models, Matrix, etc. There was discussion regarding the need to look at where the city’s borders are located and to define our "box" and by doing that then plan better for the future in order to define “how big the City is going to be” and look at the cost/benefit benefit of annexation. There was further discussion regarding development outside the City limits in its ETJ and beyond and the importance of having intergovernmental agreements with neighboring communities to determine agreed upon ETJ boundaries. There was further discussion regarding the need to be proactive instead of reactive to development. The Council went on to discuss the need to plan for development and the need to “tighten up” our borders so that City can implement zoning to determine and guide the type of growth and development that will take place in the future.

There was some additional discussion regarding the City of Leander and its recent activity with regard to annexation, as well as whether or not Parmer Lane could be a possible westerly boundary for the City of Georgetown’s ETJ. Ed Polasek then provided a presentation regarding the City of Georgetown's current ETJ boundaries compared to those of surrounding communities. The Council went on to discuss the benefit of MUDs and how development codes are important to guide growth in the community, and the need to continually study and evaluate the City’s policy’s regarding annexation and develop an articulated strategy as we move forward. They went on to discuss how annexation impacts the quality of life in the community.

Council asked that staff look at the City’s current ETJ come back recommendations about boundary agreements with neighboring communities, the impacts of involuntary annexation, as well as how future developments will impact the formation of an Emergency Service District. Council also asked that staff bring back information regarding the economic benefits of annexation and requested that staff develop a proposed “box” for Council to review and study.

Council indicated that the City needed to move forward as thoroughly and quickly as possible to preserve the City’s boundaries, especially since some neighboring communities have started to move forward in their annexation policies.

There was also some brief discussion regarding CCN boundaries as well.

- Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 101 E. 7th Street
- County Water Issues Update at the Williamson County Maintenance Facility on Thursday, February 17 at 10:00 a.m.
- Joint Workshop with the Economic Development Commission on Thursday, February 17 at 6:00 p.m. in the Georgetown Municipal Complex San Gabriel Break Room

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 that follows.

E Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney

- Pending or Threatened Litigation
- Brazos River Authority regarding Operations and Maintenance of the Stillhouse Raw Water Pipeline
- Legal Advice Regarding Agenda Items and other Matters

- Discussion and possible action regarding acquisition of property for downtown parking

- Potential abatements and incentives for prospective downtown development projects

Regular Session

Statutory Consent Agenda

Legislative Regular Agenda

Adjournment