Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 12.08.2015 Workshop Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas December 8, 2015 The Georgetown City Council will meet on December 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th 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, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation and possible discussion of the preliminary 2014/15 year-end fund balances -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Lisa Haines, Controller B Overview and Discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Kasper Development -- Sofia Nelson,CNU-A, Planning Director 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. C Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Attorney Recruitment Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Pulte 380 Agreement - Project Center Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Shelley Nowling, City Secretary Page 1 of 72 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation and possible discussion of the preliminary 2014/15 year-end fund balances -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Lisa Haines, Controller ITEM SUMMARY: A preliminary year end 2015 projected versus actual fund balance/working capital report is included. This report compares what was estimated during the budget process as year-ending balances with the actual results. The balances are preliminary and un-audited. The City’s external auditors, Weaver and Tidwell, LLP have been on-site to audit the City’s 2014/15 financial records. The final, audited financial statements will be presented to GGAF on February 24, 2016 and submitted to Council for approval on March 8, 2016. 2014/15 YE Major Fund Highlights include: General Fund: $189,429 higher than projected fund balance due to: · Expenditures less than expected, but within 1.65% of projections · Sales tax revenues were slightly higher than projections · Other revenues are lower, but within 2.26% of projections Electric Fund: $2.1 million higher than projected fund balance due to: · $4.9 million timing of CIP projects that will be rolled forward into 2015/16 · Revenues and purchased power expenses were higher · Strong development growth results in an increase to our customer base Water Services Fund: $14.3 million higher than projected fund balance due to: · $13.9 million timing of CIP projects that will be rolled forward into 2015/16 · Strong development related revenues · Full year impact of CTSUD All other variances are related either to CIP projects timing, grant project timing, other operational savings or planned and approved changes. For Special Revenue Funds, all fund balances are projected to be spent each year; therefore, the increases are as expected. Council may consider allocating balances in excess of projections for the General Fund ending fund balance. An excerpt of the Fiscal & Budgetary policy on the use of excess fund balance is provided below for reference. Section IV. Operating Budget L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances - Within 90 days after fiscal year end, staff will report the projected general fund balance to Council. In the event that unexpected, unbudgeted amounts are determined to be available in the General Fund after year end, these funds may be used for any of the following purposes, as approved by the City Council: 1. to fund capital projects; 2. to fund equipment purchases in lieu of issuing debt; 3. to reduce outstanding city debt, including bonded indebtedness and unfunded pension liabilities; 4. to fund contingent liabilities such as the benefit payout reserve, cemetery trust fund, and similar obligations of the city; 5. to take other steps to reduce property tax rates or mitigate any future increases; 6. to hold those funds in reserve for future commitments or contingencies that may be pending, and/or 7. to fund an economic uncertainty reserve of up to three (3) percent of annual General Fund operating expenditures. Budget amendments for 2014/15 & 2015/16 year-end adjustments and rolls forward of major projects will be Page 2 of 72 presented in January 2016, once all 2014/15 numbers are finalized for the CIP and other projects. ATTACHMENT Preliminary YE 2014/15 Variance Report Year End Presentation FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Lisa Haines, Controller - bh ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary Year End Variance Report Year End Variance Presentation Page 3 of 72 12/02/15 Preliminary YE 2014/15 Variance Report CITY OF GEORGETOWN 10/01/15 Beginning Fund Balances/Working Capital ACTUAL VS PROJECTED Projected YE Preliminary per Budget Actual $% 10/1/2015 10/1/2015*Variance Variance Explanation GENERAL FUND: General - Fund Balance 9,264,307 9,453,736 189,429 2.04% Revenues: General Fund - All other revenues 39,499,347 38,608,391 (890,956)-2.26%Total revenue projections within 1.75% of Actual General Fund - Sales tax 11,292,500 11,296,644 4,144 0.04%Total sales tax - 1% & 0.125% property tax relief, net of 380 agreements GF Revenues - Total 50,791,847 49,905,035 (886,812)-1.75% Expenses: Downtown & Community Services 9,736,564 9,587,277 149,287 -1.53%Salary savings & expenditures lower than projected Finance & Administration 553,198 524,318 28,880 -5.22%Salary savings & expenditures lower than projected Fire 10,660,222 10,562,677 97,545 -0.92%Salary savings & expenditures lower than projected GUS 6,395,029 6,529,027 (133,998)2.10%Sanitation contract costs higher than projections, offset by higher revenues Management Services 2,771,219 2,771,001 218 -0.01%Slight variance in expenditures; within budget Police 12,917,470 12,652,532 264,938 -2.05%Salary savings & expenditures lower than projected Transportation 4,482,429 4,106,996 375,433 -8.38%Salary savings from vacant position and timing of street projects GF Division Expenses - Total 47,516,131 46,733,828 782,303 -1.65% OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS - FUND BALANCES General Debt Service 1,493,107 1,489,193 (3,914) General Capital Projects 5,689,710 16,261,053 10,571,343 Issued 2015 COs for Sheraton Garage that was not projected; reclass WSC back to Water Fund, and timing of CIP projects SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - FBs: Note: Projections for SRF's assume total available budgeted funds to be spent by fiscal year end. Tourism Fund (unreserved)488,178 469,649 (18,529)Slight variance in revenues; and timing of expenses Street Maintenance Tax 1,890,663 1,892,494 1,831 Slight variance in revenues and expenditures Permitting 11,589 26,874 15,285 Revenues greater and expenditures lower than projections Capital Grants SRF (Sidewalks)3,104 (41,947)(30,187)Timing of projects and reimbursements Animal Services 94,890 179,739 84,849 Expenditures less than projected Library Restricted 0 51,820 51,820 Revenues greater and expenditures lower than projected Main Street Façade 53,320 67,723 14,403 Timing of Façade grant awards Parks Restricted 654,568 1,269,691 615,123 Timing of CIP and donations greater than projected Police Restricted 123,271 229,787 106,516 Expenditures less than projected; Revenues greater than projected Fire Billing SRF 0 (69,293)(69,293)Expenditures greater than projected Paramedic EMS SRF (753,396)(764,953)(11,557)Start-up costs for new EMS program; no revenues to support start-up costs Conservation SRF 583,908 850,072 266,164 Expenditures less than projected; FB to be used for WSC in 15/16 Downtown Master Plan 9,740 57,218 47,478 Timing of CIP Cemetery 279,705 331,099 51,394 Expenditures less than projected - Note that fund balance includes $175,000 of perpetual reserves Court Fees SRF 56,593 43,167 (13,426)Revenues less than projected TIRZs 210,433 255,604 45,171 Tax collections greater than projected; expenditures lower then projections Wolf Ranch PID 991,276 991,715 439 Slight variance in revenues and expenditures PEG Fee SRF - 96,439 96,439 Revenues greater and expenditures lower than projected L:\Division\finance\Share2\AGENDA\2016\Muni Agenda\05 Dec 8\01 YE Variance\Variance Report 14-15 Page 4 of 72 12/02/15 Preliminary YE 2014/15 Variance Report CITY OF GEORGETOWN 10/01/15 Beginning Fund Balances/Working Capital ACTUAL VS PROJECTED, continued Projected YE Preliminary per Budget Actual $% 10/1/2015 10/1/2015*Variance Variance Explanation INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS - FUND BALANCES Facilities Maintenance Fund 507,960 466,423 (41,537)Expenditures lower than projected Fleet Management 1,007,770 1,408,728 400,958 Timing of vehicle purchases and expenditures lower than projected Joint Services 804,116 790,354 (13,762)Revenues and expenditures lower than projected Information Services 243,397 383,058 139,661 Expenditures lower than projected Self Insurance 756,904 2,732,761 1,975,857 Medical claims lower than projected ENTERPRISE FUNDS: Airport - Fund Balance 748,167 991,666 243,499 See below Revenues: Operating 2,786,365 2,631,414 (154,951)Lower than projected fuel sales Non-Operating 886,186 905,918 19,732 RAMP grant Expenses: Operating 2,813,126 2,443,548 369,578 Lower than projected fuel sales decreased fuel expenses Non-Operating 193,468 184,328 9,140 Timing of CIP and lower debt service due to refundings Electric Services - Fund Balance 8,231,940 10,298,815 2,066,875 See below Revenues: Operating 64,598,924 65,504,994 906,070 Higher electric revenues and higher development related growth Non-Operating 5,723,000 2,447,844 (3,275,156) Smaller bond issuance Expenses: Operating 58,602,043 58,290,801 311,242 Lower than projected operating costs due in part to timing of operating capital projects. Non-Operating 14,072,699 9,947,980 4,124,719 Timing of CIP Water Services - Fund Balance 34,385,214 48,679,821 14,294,607 See below Revenues: Operating 41,284,945 46,627,448 5,342,503 Higher water revenues, higher development related growth, and transferred in WSC cash from GCP Non-Operating 8,615,858 9,922,584 1,306,726 Higher development related growth Expenses: Operating 28,365,196 28,915,280 (550,084) Higher than projected operating expenses due in part to higher water contracts due to CTSUD Non-Operating 24,801,614 16,606,152 8,195,462 Timing of CIP Stormwater Drng - Fund Balance 1,013,361 1,574,594 561,233 See below Revenues: Operating 2,574,778 2,641,494 66,716 Revenues higher than projected Non-Operating 2,390,000 2,205,000 (185,000)Grant revenue missing Expenses: Operating 2,078,038 2,041,552 36,486 Expenditures lower than projected Non-Operating 2,513,405 1,870,374 643,031 Timing of CIP L:\Division\finance\Share2\AGENDA\2016\Muni Agenda\05 Dec 8\01 YE Variance\Variance Report 14-15 Page 5 of 72 Preliminary Year End Variance Report For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2015 Page 6 of 72 Preliminary Numbers •Preliminary and unaudited • Difference between Actual & Projected Year End (YE) Fund Balance • Projections prepared in early summer – Projected YE was BEGINNING BASE Fund Balance for adopted 2015/16 Annual Budget 2 Page 7 of 72 General Fund – 9/30/15 Preliminary Fund Balance • Preliminary YE fund balance - $9.45 million – Includes: • $7.695M - Contingency reserve • $2.1M - One time funds budgeted for 2015/16 projects •Un-projected and Unallocated Excess Funds = $189K – Revenues $887K LESS than projections • Within 1.75% of projections – Division expenditures within 1.65% of projections 3 Page 8 of 72 General Fund – 9/30/15 Preliminary Fund Balance •Contingency Reserves –Set by Fiscal Policy adopted by Council •Projected & allocated in 2015/16 Annual Budget –Adopted by Council •Excess & un-allocated – To be used/guided by Fiscal Policy adopted by Council $7,695,000 $1,584,300 $189,400 $515,700 Reserve Projected for 15/16 Excess Council SRF 4 Page 9 of 72 General Fund – YE Revenues 5 Total $(887K) LESS than projected • Reduced Admin Allocations due to lower department expenses • $316K less in Property Tax Revenue – Revenue is I&S fund • $311K less in ROI Page 10 of 72 YE 2015 Sales Tax 6 Page 11 of 72 FY 2015 Sales Tax Review • Overall sales tax increased by 2.58% relative to FY2014 • Retail, Food, and Information Sectors all grew at over 5% in FY2015 • Area Reports – Wolf Ranch grew at 3% for the year – Downtown TIRZ area grew by almost 10% for the year City of Georgetown 7 Page 12 of 72 FY2016 Forecast • Sales tax budgeted to increase by 2.5% in FY2016 – Hedges against volatility of one time payments – No new retail developments in the next 12 months – General slowing of Texas’ economy/impact of oil 8 Page 13 of 72 Other General Fund Revenues • Higher: – Commercial development fees – Master development fees • Teravista – Sanitation revenues – Misc. revenues • Settlement from Sun City oil spill • Lower: – Municipal court fees 9 Page 14 of 72 General Fund - YE Expenses 10 $782K in Expenditures Savings with majority of divisions lower than projected – Police - $265K • Salary savings, lower utilities and fuel expenditures – Transportation - $375K • CIP timing & salary savings from open positions – Downtown & Comm Svcs – $149K in salary savings & lower expenditures – Fire - $98K in salary savings – Sanitation Contract - $117K more than projected Page 15 of 72 General Fund – YE Summary • Overall Fund Balance - $189,429 higher than projected – Allocate funds as directed by Council – $189,429+$515,714 (Council SRF) = $705,143 total for Council consideration • Revenues on target • Net operational savings – Minimal, overall within budget and projections – Timing of projects is primary impact 11 Page 16 of 72 Special Revenue Funds Overall higher than anticipated – Revenues being higher or expenses lower • Projections assume full expenditure of budget each year • Parks Restricted – $615K due to timing of capital projects • To be rolled forward to 2015/16 • Conservation SRF – $266K higher • Expenditures less than projected • Fund balance will be used for WSC 12 Page 17 of 72 Internal Service Funds Facilities Maintenance Fund – $42K lower than projected • Fleet Services Fund – $401K greater due to timing of vehicle purchases Information Services Fund – $140K higher due to timing of projects Joint Services Fund – $14K lower than projected, minor 13 Page 18 of 72 Debt Service Fund • $4K lower than projections – Minor change relating to refundings • Fund balance $1.49M – Exceeds required reserve of $1.41M • 45 day minimum reserve of annual debt service payment 14 Page 19 of 72 Electric Fund Electric $2.1M more than projected FB • Strong development related growth results in an increase to our customer base • Timing of CIP projects – $4.96M to be rolled forward 15 Page 20 of 72 Water Services Fund Water Services $14.3M more than projected FB – Hot/dry summer offset by customer growth & higher development related revenues – Higher operating costs – Timing of CIP – $13.9M to be rolled forward – Moved WSC and its related bond proceeds – Includes full year impact of CTSUD merger 16 Page 21 of 72 Airport & Stormwater Fund Airport $244K more than projected FB – Lower operating costs - fuel – New business & staffing plan in process – fully implemented in 2014/15 Stormwater $561K more than projected FB – Timing of CIP projects 17 Page 22 of 72 Conclusion – Overall Conditions • General Fund – positive position – Projected revenues positive • Better than original 2014/15 Budget – Expenses within budget • Utilities - customer growth continues – Current rates funding cost of services provided – Timing of CIP require “roll forwards” to 2015/16 – Expenses maintained through planning & management 18 Page 23 of 72 Next Steps 19 Page 24 of 72 YE 2015 Budget Amendments CAFR Compliance • General Fund – sanitation contract • GCP Fund – timing of CIP projects • Debt Svc Fund – recording bonds • Various SRF funds due to increased donations, revenues and grants • Utilities - timing CIP Projects and CTSUD merger First Reading – January 2016 20 Page 25 of 72 Audit & Financial Statements • External audit underway – Weaver & Tidwell, LLP • Final field work in December • Financial statements – Filed with City Secretary by January 31, 2016 • Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – Presented to GGAF and Council in February & March 2016 21 Page 26 of 72 2015/16 Budget Amendments 1. Roll forward of 2014/15 projects to CY budget – Adjust for project timing First Reading January 2016 2. Rivery Sheraton Garage First Reading – January 2016 22 Page 27 of 72 Council Special Revenue Fund 23 Page 28 of 72 General Fund Excess – Fiscal & Budgetary Policy Section IV. Operating Budget, L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances – to fund capital projects; – to fund equipment in lieu of issuing debt; – to reduce outstanding city debt or pension liability; – to fund contingent liabilities: benefit payout reserve, cemetery trust fund, and similar; 24 Page 29 of 72 General Fund Excess – Fiscal & Budgetary Policy Section IV. Operating Budget, L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances (continued) – to take other steps to reduce property tax rates or mitigate any future increases; – to hold for future commitments or contingencies, and/or – to fund an economic uncertainty reserve of up to three (3) percent of annual General Fund operating expenditures. 25 Page 30 of 72 Council Special Revenue Fund • General Fund $189,429 additional YE balance $515,714 planned YE balance $705,143 total available • Council direction on allocation 26 Page 31 of 72 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Overview and Discussion regarding the use of a Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed Kasper Development -- Sofia Nelson,CNU-A, Planning Director ITEM SUMMARY: Background: On October 27, 2015 the City Council held a workshop to discuss the Kasper Development. The presentation included an overview of the proposed development and the consistency of the development with the adopted Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) policy. The workshop was held to both brief the City Council on the development and at the request of the applicant to receive feedback from the City Council on whether an ETJ MUD is generally supported at this specific location. Requested Feedback from the Council: At the October 27th workshop the City Council requested a financial comparison of an ETJ MUD vs. an in- city MUD prior to providing direction on whether an ETJ MUD can be supported at this location. The applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council prior to proceeding with the formal MUD request and negotiations with staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The following financial impact information has been included for your review: A financial breakdown of the tax rates for standard in city development, an in-city MUD, and an ETJ MUD. The developer prepared analysis of reimbursements for an in-city MUD vs reimbursements for an ETJ MUD. Prior to taking action on a consent agreement for a municipal utility district a detailed financial impact statement will be provided for City Council review. SUBMITTED BY: Sofia Nelson,CNU-A, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Kasper Workshop Evaluation of Request utilizing Interim MUD Policy Interim MUD Policy Comparison of Developer Reimbursements Page 32 of 72 Kasper Development Request for a ETJ Municipal Utility District Page 33 of 72 Presentation Outline •Overview of proposed development •Recap of October 27th City Council workshop and direction to staff •Applicant’s Financial Analysis-In City MUD vs. ETJ MUD Page 34 of 72 Requested Feedback Feedback of support or concern for a ETJ MUD at the proposed location. Page 35 of 72 Preliminary Concept Plan Page 36 of 72 Utilities Page 37 of 72 Utilities City of GeorgetownPage 38 of 72 Debt and Tax Details •The total bond issue for water, wastewater, drainage, recreational, and roads is $26,555,000. •MUD tax rate of $0.95000 •All debt is anticipated to be paid off by 2050 Page 39 of 72 Tax Comparison Tax Entity ETJ MUD In City MUD Non MUD Development In the City Limits City of Georgetown n/a $.43400 $.43400 MUD tax rate $.95000 $.54 n/a Williamson County $.489029 $.489029 $.489029 Georgetown ISD $1.39800 $1.39800 $1.39800 ESD $.09555 n/a n/a Combined Rate $2.932579 $2.861029 $2.321029 Page 40 of 72 Evaluation of the Request Utilizing the MUD Policy Page 41 of 72 Applicant’s Financial Analysis Page 42 of 72 Applicant’s Financial Analysis ETJ MUD IN-CITY MUD Total Projected Bonded Debt $26,555,000 $12,790,000 Net Developer Reimbursement $19,554,465 $9,833,384 Page 43 of 72 Requested Feedback Feedback of support or concern for a ETJ MUD at the proposed location. Page 44 of 72 Kasper Development Applying the Interim MUD Policy Page 45 of 72 Kasper MUD Request Generally Meets Policy Does not appear to meet the policy Needs additional review Policy No. Policy X 1 Retain the two threshold questions under Section 13.10.030. The area proposed for inclusion in the district is adjacent to the city limits and is within the City’s projected ultimate city limit boundary. X 2 Provide examples of “unique factors justifying [MUD] creation” to guide determinations made under Section 13.10.030 The applicant has cited the following: masonry finishes on a portion of all home fronts and sides visible from the adjacent street; expansion of wastewater facilities; and roadway construction. Examples cited in the interim MUD policy include the following: Construction of the South San Gabriel Interceptor, Cimarron Hills wastewater Treatment Center, and the construction of the bridge and parkway extension connecting Hwy 29 and Leander Road. Page 46 of 72 Kasper MUD Request Generally Meets Policy Does not appear to meet the policy Needs additional review Policy No. Policy X 3 Submit information with the MUD creation petition that would allow the staff to perform the level of review City Council has directed during consideration of several recent MUD petitions X 4 Agree to a cross-departmental “MUD Review Team”. X 5 Address provision of public services, and address public safety matters in the Consent Agreement. X The applicant has identified police and fire protection will be served by the County. The Interim MUD policy requires districts located outside the City limits to provide the following: contract with the City for police, fire and solid waste service; payment of a fire SIP fee if the City provides fire service; and a road maintenance program. Prior to entering into detailed negotiations with staff the applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council on whether a MUD district in this location is a possibility. Page 47 of 72 Kasper MUD Request Generally Meets Policy Does not appear to meet the policy Needs additional review Policy No. Policy X 6 Address utility service issues, and include those utility service provisions in the consent agreement. The City of Georgetown will provide wastewater to the site. Water will be provided by Jonah Water Utility District and electric service will be provided by Oncor. X 7 Specify the amount of debt intended to be issued,the purpose of the debt, and the debt service schedule and include those financial provisions in the consent agreement. The maximum amount of bonds to be issued by the district is $26,555,000 over a 10 year period. Page 48 of 72 Kasper MUD Request Generally Meets Policy Does not appear to meet the policy Needs additional review Policy No. Policy X 8 Address future annexation of the MUD, when located in the ETJ. X 9 Require development in a MUD to exceed minimum UDC land use and development standards and address the land use provisions in the consent agreement or related agreement. The proposed development is a single-family home development. The Interim MUD policy requires a development seeking a MUD to utilize innovative subdivision design, a variety of uses, commit to higher architectural design, provide school sites, enhanced landscaping, commitment to workforce housing, and a commitment to prohibit age restricted homes. The development as it has been proposed has committed to prohibiting age restricted homes and will exceed the minimum UDC land development standards in the following section: masonry requirements. The subdivision as it has been proposed does not appear to meet the requirements for innovative subdivision design, workforce housing, commercial development, or a commitment to overall higher architectural design. Page 49 of 72 Kasper MUD Request Generally Meets Policy Does not appear to meet the policy Needs additional review Policy No. Policy X 10 Require development in a MUD to exceed UDC parkland requirements and address parkland provisions in the consent agreement. The developer has proposed a central greenway and trail network. Details of the proposal have not been provided. A detailed proposal requires review by the Parks Director and Parks Advisory Board. X X 11 Address transportation issues and include transportation provisions in the consent agreement. The Interim MUD policy requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),reduced use of cul-de-sacs and increased connectivity, dedication of right-of-way (ROW), aesthetically pleasing streetscapes, and low-impact development stormwater management and water quality techniques. The development as it has been proposed has included an arterial level roadway shown on the transportation master plan-this is a standard requirement of all developments. The applicant has requested to delay the preparation of a TIA and in its current proposal the subdivision has been designed to have minimal connectivity. Page 50 of 72 Page 51 of 72 Page 52 of 72 Page 53 of 72 Page 54 of 72 Page 55 of 72 Page 56 of 72 Page 57 of 72 Page 58 of 72 Page 59 of 72 Page 60 of 72 Page 61 of 72 Page 62 of 72 Page 63 of 72 Page 64 of 72 Page 65 of 72 Page 66 of 72 Page 67 of 72 Page 68 of 72 Page 69 of 72 Page 70 of 72 Page 71 of 72 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Agenda December 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Attorney Recruitment Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Pulte 380 Agreement - Project Center ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: TBD SUBMITTED BY: Page 72 of 72