The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 08.23.2022 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas August 2 3, 2 02 2 The Georgetown City Council will meet on August 23, 2022 at 2:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts Building. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease 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 808 Martin Luther King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A P resentation, discussion and possible directio n regarding revisions to the City's Code of Ordinances to refle c t suggested changes as forwarded from the Animal Shelter Advisory Board -- J ack Daly, Assistant P ublic Works Director B Overview, discussion, and direction from City Council regarding the possible creation of an Extraterritorial J urisdiction (ETJ ) Municipal Utility District (M U D) for the proposed Ragsdale Ranch Development -- Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager C P resentation and discussion regarding the Downtown Master P lan project management update -- Kim Mc Auliffe, Interim Economic Development Director D P resentation, discussion, and directio n regarding future water conservation planning efforts -- Tiffany Diaz, Regulatory and Conservation Manager E P resentation and disc ussio n regarding land use priorities fo r the Inner Lo op/Sam Houston corridor -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director Exe cutive Se ssion 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: Consul tati on w i th 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 - Litigation Update Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters - P urchased P ower Update Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty - S E Inner Loop Lease - D B Wood Right-of-Way Acquisitions Page 1 of 87 Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation, discussion and possible direction regarding revisions to the City's Code of Ordinances to reflect suggested changes as forwarded from the Animal Shelter Advisory Board -- J ack Daly, Assistant P ublic Works Director I T EM S UMMARY: This workshop is to review proposed ordinance changes regarding tile 7 of the Code of Ordinances related to Animals. These changes were reviewed at the Dec. 9, 2021, J an. 13, 2022, and Feb. 10, 2022 Animal Shelter Advisory Board meetings. The attached presentation includes a review of suggested policy changes as approved by the board. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: None at this time. S UBMI T T ED BY: J ackson Daly AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation Page 3 of 87 Proposed Changes to Animal Ordinances Aug. 23, 2022 | City Council Workshop Page 4 of 87 22 •Ordinances revised in late-2020 •In late -2021, Animal Shelter Advisory Board expressed interest in adjustments •Reviewed other cities’ ordinances •Proposed changes reviewed by the Texas Humane Legislative Network Background Page 5 of 87 33 •Review proposed changes forwarded from Animal Shelter Advisory Board •Confirm alignment with City Council •Next steps •Based on direction, will work to draft formal ordinance language •Legal review •Bring forward for adoption Agenda Page 6 of 87 Proposed Changes Page 7 of 87 55 •Clarify that an animal welfare organization is a non-profit, and not a breeder or someone who obtains compensation for sale of animals •Change “apes” to non-human primates (broader term) Definitions Page 8 of 87 66 •In addition to kennel permits, add specific breeder requirements •Like kennel permit requirements, plus •Approval of a veterinarian to breed not more than 90 days before the date of the breeding permit request •Limit female to one litter per permit term Breeder Requirements Page 9 of 87 77 •Further define abandonment •Restrict tail docking, removal of dewclaws, and ear cropping to vets •Restrict spaying/neutering to vets •Limit ownership transfer for very young animals Add additional restrictions to animal cruelty provisions Page 10 of 87 88 •Dye animals in any way that results in damage •Mutilating dead animals outside a bona fide educational use •Using too small collars to restrict growth •Euthanize in a manner not approved by AVMA or State Law Add additional restrictions to animal cruelty provisions (con’t) Page 11 of 87 99 •Add that proper care includes an environment reasonably free of pet waste Providing Care Page 12 of 87 1010 •Change ordinance to require vehicle operator to call 911 (not animal services) Reporting vehicle collision with animal Page 13 of 87 1111 •Theatrical Exhibits •Prohibit photographs with dangerous animals in exchange for money •Award •Animals cannot be a fundraising prize •Impoundment •Require scan for microchip at shelter (per State law) •Require rabies vaccination for animals at owner’s expense •Record impoundments and subsequent impoundments within a 12-month period (not 18-months)* •Beekeeping •Remove requirement for receipt *The 12-month to 18-month was an edit missed in the last round. Fees were approved for 12 months, and this section wasn’t corrected to reflect that. Other Changes Page 14 of 87 1212 •Prohibit retailers from selling dogs or cats •Can provide space to display dogs or cats from an animal welfare organization Prohibition on Commercial Sales Page 15 of 87 1313 •Prohibit prevention, inference, hinderance, etc with animal services staff discharging their duties Enforcement Page 16 of 87 1414 o Altered 1st with CL: free, 1st without: $50 2nd within one year of 1st: $60 3rd within one year of 1st: $75 4th or more within one year of 1st: $100oUnaltered 1st: $50 2nd within one year of first: $250 and mandatory s/n, refundable upon compliance 3rd within one year of first: $250 and mandatory s/n, nonrefundable 4th or more within one year of first: $500 and mandatory s/n, nonrefundableoLivestock $75 per head •Updates to annual license fees *These were approved in 2020. When the document was submitted to Municode, there was a section left off. This is just a correction for Municode on what is already approved. Fees* Page 17 of 87 Proposed Changes to Animal Ordinances Page 18 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 S UBJEC T: Overview, discussion, and direction from City Co uncil regarding the po ssible c re atio n of an Extrate rritorial J urisdiction (ETJ ) M unicipal Utility District (M UD) for the propo sed Ragsdale Ranch De velopme nt -- Nick Wo olery, Assistant City Manager I T EM S UMMARY: Staff previo usly brought this request to a Co unc il Workshop o n April 12 , 2022. Co unc il voiced c oncerns regarding the proposed de nsity, the impacts the project would have to the city’s wastewater system, and lack o f connectivity to Ronald Reagan Blvd. Co unc il directed staff to continue working with H K Real Estate thro ugh these items. Staff is prepared to update the Council o n the status of the project and seek Co unc il’s direction on whether the re is support fo r the proposed ETJ M U D. B ackground H K Real Estate owns approximately 336 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of the city’s E TJ , just south of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and north of F.M. 3405. The land is not contiguous with city limits. H K Real Estate intends to entitle the pro pe rty as a single-family development as shown in the pre sentatio n. The updated land plan has remove d the multi-family units and reduced the o verall lot c ount from 1,515 to 1,161 units, which would include a mix of single-family units that range in lot size from 50’ – 70’ and would be subject to an even higher standard of masonry than tho se of the city’s current M U Ds. HK Real Estate has increased the public parkland from appro ximately 10 acres to 17 acres, whic h will include several no n-exclusive amenities such as, a playground, sports co urts, do g park, trails, etc. The project will also include a private amenity center and just under 12 acres of additional o pen space. In addition, H K Real Estate is working with E S D No. 4 on a potential fire station site. In consideration for the amount of growth anticipated in this are a of the City, staff re c ommends that the City be responsible for the c onstructio n of the downstream improvements and require an impac t fee multiplier to be paid, which would assist in offsetting the capital co sts asso c iated with the construction of the infrastructure. H K Real Estate has agreed to pay the city’s updated impact fees, effective March 1, 2023, as well as pay the impact fee multiplier. Regarding co nnectivity to Ronald Reagan Blvd., the pro pose d alignment is include d in the attached presentation. H K Real Estate has stated they are making every effort to ac quire necessary right of way to Ronald Reagan and have confirmed alignment with County staff and Commissioner. As with all E TJ M U D requests, the consent agreement will include the payment of a Master Developer Fee, which is paid to the City at the time o f M UD bond issuance. The Master De veloper Fee is a percentage of M U D bonds issued and is used for municipal operations impacted by the development but not paid through property taxes. Should Council direct staff to move forward with this project as proposed, there would be an amendment to the Comprehensive P lan as the City’s Future Land Use P lan currently has this are a designated as rural residential, which is less than 1 unit per acre, the city’s lowest density residential future land use category. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation Page 19 of 87 Ragsdale Ranch ETJ MUD Request Presented by Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager August 23, 2022 Page 20 of 87 22 Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on whether to pursue an ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the development currently known as the Ragsdale Ranch. Previous Key Issues: •Proposed development includes dense single-family residential and multi-family, but the Future Land Use Plan for this area shows Rural Residential •Project will speed up downstream improvements to the City’s wastewater system •Connectivity to Ronald Reagan Blvd. Purpose Page 21 of 87 33 MUD Policy Purpose 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. Page 22 of 87 44 Current Service Area Ragsdale Ranch Development Page 23 of 87 55 Page 24 of 87 PROJECT HISTORY Page 25 of 87 Original Proposal RAGSDALE RANCH Original Proposal Maximum 1,600 units (425) Multi Family Units (430) 45’lots Council and Staff Comments Multi Family not desirable for area Connection to Ronald Reagan is very important Would prefer larger lot types than 45s and less density in general Need more detail on park system and improvements proposed Need more detail on architectural and street landscape criteria Page 26 of 87 OVERALL LAND USE PLAN RAGSDALE RANCHPage 27 of 87 PARKS AND TRAILS MASTERPLAN RAGSDALE RANCHPage 28 of 87 AMENITY CENTER RAGSDALE RANCH A B C A.PLAYGROUND B.CLUBHOUSE C.PICNIC AREA IN TREESD.TURF SPORTS FIELD D Page 29 of 87 PARK A RAGSDALE RANCH B A C A.PAVILION B.ZIPLINE C.TRAIL Page 30 of 87 PARK B RAGSDALE RANCH A B C A B PAVILION PICNIC AREA WORKOUT STATIONS D C Page 31 of 87 PARK C RAGSDALE RANCH A B C D SPORT COURTA B C PAVILION PLAYGROUND D TRIKE TRACK Page 32 of 87 PARK D RAGSDALE RANCH A PICNIC AREA BOCCE COURT WASHER GAME A B C B C Page 33 of 87 PARK E RAGSDALE RANCH A B C B C A ROPES COURSE NATURAL PLAY PICNIC AREA Page 34 of 87 WALL AND FENCING EXHIBIT RAGSDALE RANCHPage 35 of 87 ROADWAY LANDSCAPING RAGSDALE RANCHPage 36 of 87 PRIMARY ENTRY RAGSDALE RANCHPage 37 of 87 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Page 38 of 87 WASTEWATER RAGSDALE RANCHPage 39 of 87 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA RAGSDALE RANCHPage 40 of 87 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION RAGSDALE RANCHPage 41 of 87 CONTACT US (210) 681-2951 / info@cudeengineers.com www.cudeengineers.com Cude Engineers ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING 2323 MUD Consent Agreement MUD Debt / Tax Rate Regulation Architectural / Design Standards Transportation Improvements Public Parkland Improvements Wastewater Impact Fee Multiplier Master Developer Fee Fire Station Site HOA Requirements Page 42 of 87 2424 Staff is seeking Council’s feedback and direction on whether to pursue an ETJ Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the development currently known as the Ragsdale Ranch. Feedback requested: •Based on what Council has seen, do you support staff moving forward with MUD negotiations and a potential change to the Future Land Use Plan to facilitate this development? Feedback and Direction Page 43 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussio n regarding the Downtown M aster P lan project management update -- Kim M cAuliffe, Interim Economic Development Director I T EM S UMMARY: Council’s strategic plan included work to update the Downtown Master P lan. On April 26, 20 22 , Council provided direction to staff to initiate the update to the Downtown Master P lan in the current fiscal year. Council provided staff with direction at the May 24th, 2022 wo rksho p on the final scope of work and as the make-up of an advisory co mmittee to provide input and oversight of the process. This presentation will provide an update on the RFP process, project management roles and responsibilities, project breakdown and next steps. Attachment: P resentation F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Danella Elliott AT TAC HMENT S : Description Downtown Mas ter P lan R F P and P roject P lan P resentation Page 44 of 87 Downtown Master Plan Project Plan Update City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 Page 45 of 87 2 Council Goals -Downtown •Downtown Guiding Principle–The City will promote a positive economic environment to ensure an active and viable downtown and provide infrastructure and amenities to ensure safety, mobility and accessibility •Initiative: Update the Downtown Master Plan •Council approved initiating the update of the Downtown Master Plan during mid-year 2022 Page 46 of 87 3 Overview •Update on Request for Proposals (RFP closed on August 9, 2022) •Project Plan Management –Roles •Next Steps •Feedback from Council Page 47 of 87 Downtown Master Plan UPDATE ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES Page 48 of 87 5 Request for Proposals •Request for Proposal process is outlined in City’s administrative policies and follow state law requirements for procurement of services •Outlines the expectations for the consultant and the criteria for selecting the finalist for contracting •This process considered the following •Firm Background –10 points •Project Experience and Qualifications –35 points •Methodology and Technical Approach –35 points •Cost Proposal –20 points Page 49 of 87 6 Request for Proposals •High level scope for the project was reviewed by Council on May 22 •RPFs were due August 9 at 2:00 pm •8 RFPs were received Page 50 of 87 7 Proposals Received •Parkhill, Smith & Cooper Inc. •Design Workshop -Austin •Asakura Robinson Company •DTJ DESIGN, Inc •Mend Collaborative •Freese and Nichols •SWA Group •TBG Partners (The Broussard Group, Inc.) Page 51 of 87 Downtown Master Plan Project Management Update Page 52 of 87 9 Project Management & Advisory Role •Advisory Committee –Mayor and City Council •Role –provide policy direction on stakeholder engagement; coordination with advisory boards and other elements of the plan •The purpose of the Steering Committee is •Help guide the update of the Downtown Master Plan •Represent the community of Georgetown and encourage their participation through the stakeholder engagement. •Committee will meet regularly to go over progress •Ensure stakeholder opportunities Page 53 of 87 10 Project Management •Staff Support –Core Team •Executive/City Mgr Office Sponsors and Support –Laurie Brewer, Nick Woolery •Role –support project with CMO and Council, remove barriers, assist with resources, ensure alignment with other work in the departments •Project Manager –Kim McAuliffe –Downtown Development Manager •Role –coordinate project, assign tasks and follow up on progress, direct consulting on work, engage with the advisory committee •Technical and Planning Support –Sofia Nelson, Planning Director •Role –support project through guidance on best planning practices, UDC, design guidelines and coordination of planning resources •Staff Support –Technical Team •Public Works, Engineering, Parks, Tourism, Arts and Culture, Utilities, CMO, Library, Planning, Finance, Communications, Real Estate •Role –provide technical input to plan, review feasibility of options, ensure tasks are completed Page 54 of 87 11 Project Management •Boards and Commissions •Planning and Zoning •Role: input and guidance within commission responsibilities and oversight as well as opportunities for stakeholder engagement; recommendation for approval to Council •Boards and Commissions •Historic and Architectural Review •Main Street •Arts and Culture •Tourism •Library •Parks •Role: input and guidance within board advisory role as well as opportunities for stakeholder engagement Page 55 of 87 12 Key Stakeholders •Residents/Neighborhood Associations •Downtown Business Owners •Downtown Property Owners •Downtown Georgetown Association •Preservation Georgetown; other nonprofits •Williamson County Page 56 of 87 13 Coordinating of Planning Initiatives •Austin Avenue Bridge Design •Austin Avenue Corridor Study •Wayfinding Signage Plan •Unified Development Code Diagnostic •Event Programming Plan •Parking Study •Economic Development Strategic Plan Page 57 of 87 14 Project Breakdown Next Steps •Staff is completing the technical review to narrow down to finalists •Top firms will be requested to have presentations/interviews with Council –September 13 •Final selection and contract review September/October •Kickoff of project October •Detail project planning to be developed and presented by consultant •Potential site visits to benchmark downtowns Page 58 of 87 15 Council Feedback Page 59 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation, discussion, and direction re garding future water conservation planning efforts -- Tiffany Diaz, Regulatory and Conservation Manager I T EM S UMMARY: This workshop is to review future water conservation opportunities in potential ordinance updates, expanded rebate program, adjustments to fee structures, etc. The attached presentation includes a possible timeline and considerations for future water conservation planning. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: None at this time. S UBMI T T ED BY: R LD for TD AT TAC HMENT S : Description C ons ervation P lanning P resentation Page 60 of 87 Water Conservation Planning Page 61 of 87 2 1.Introduction –Why are we focusing so much on this topic? 2.Timeline 1.Current 2.Short –term 3.Long -term 3.Xeriscaping & Native Landscaping 4.Ordinance Review 1.Current with Drought Contingency review 2.Possible updates 3.Model fee structure 5.Conservation Funding 1.Rates & Tiers 6.Future Considerations 7.Summary 8.Feedback Agenda Page 62 of 87 3 Why are we spending so much time on this topic? Page 63 of 87 4 Conservation Update Rebate Type Number of Rebates (FY19) Amount (FY19) Number of Rebates (FY20) Amount (FY20) Number of Rebates (FY21) Amount (FY21) Number of Rebates (FY22)* Amount (FY22)* Irrigation Checkup 2,327 $174,525 580 $43,500 2,360 $177,125 1554 Smart/Weather Based Controllers 119 $16,655 42 $5,820 166 $23,829 155 Spray -to - Drip Conversion 24 $3,447 8 $1,117 41 $5,762 29 Multi-stream Nozzles Conversion 116 $16,551 28 $3,768 103 $14,603 112 Rain Barrel 5 $125 1 $25 17 $425 9 Xeriscaping 17 Total 2,591 $207,856 659 $54,231 2,687 $221,745 1,876 $257,325 * season ongoing FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22* 130 1200 1771 1915 Cases Opened * season ongoing Event Participation FY22 Red Poppy Master Gardeners Plant Sale Healthy Yards (2) Nature Fest Earth Day Sun City Nature Club Sun City NRO Sun City Water Matters Town Hall Neighborhood Leaders Round Table Page 64 of 87 55 Conservation Development Timeline Page 65 of 87 6 Xeriscaping & Low Impact Development •Increase options in HOA medians, right of ways •Possibly incentivize installation instead of turf in building process Page 66 of 87 7 •CH 13.15 –Water utility Services •Sec 13.15.040 •Schedule, variances, water wastes •Sec. 13.15.050 •Irrigation system requirements •Permitting of new installation •Information given to owner of new system •Sec. 13.15.060 •Residential Landscaping Requirements •Tree bubblers, soil depth requirement, planting list •Irrigation systems non-mandatory •Exemptions •Unaltered, natural state lot •Lot size •Sec.13.15.070 •Permitting requirements for residential landscape plan •Application/plan required information •Review of application & plan •Sec.13.15.080 •Inspection & approval of installation –completed at final building inspection •Sec.13.15.090 •Postponement of installation •Sec.15.160 –Administrative Penalties •1st violation -$60 or Conservation class •2nd violation -$75 •3rd and subsequent violations -$100 •Requirements for violation process •Appeal process •Faulty system repair •CH 13.16 –Drought Contingency Plan •Details for each phase (1, 2 ,3 ,4) •Enforcement •Variances Existing Ordinances Page 67 of 87 8 •Phase 1 –Water Conservation •Actions: •City will: •Increase efforts to inform the public on water conservation strategies. •Increase detection and repair of water leaks in the distribution system. •Suspend hydrant testing. •Prohibit all water waste. •Restrict landscape irrigation use to: •the use of automatic irrigation systems or hose-end sprinklers during the evening (7:00 p.m. to midnight) and morning hours (midnight to noon) •no landscape irrigation on Monday •Two -day irrigation schedule. •Landscape irrigation use is permitted at any time, if it is used: •By means of a hand-held hose, soaker hoses, or drip irrigation systems. •At a commercial plant nursery. •During the testing of new irrigation system installation or existing irrigation system repair •Phase 2 –Water Restrictions •Actions •Prohibit all water waste. •Suspend the use of potable water for the following City municipal operations: •vehicle washing, •street cleaning, and •landscape irrigation except by handheld hose or drip irrigation (excluding athletic fields) •Prohibit all non-essential water use except: •the addition of water to a pool or splash pad where necessary to maintain water purification system in service or to maintain structural integrity of the pool and •the washing of vehicles or boats at a commercial car wash or service station. •Restrict landscape irrigation use to: •the use of automatic irrigation systems or hose-end sprinklers during the evening (7:00 p.m. to midnight) and morning hours (midnight to noon) •no landscape irrigation on Monday •One –day irrigation schedule Drought Contingency Review Page 68 of 87 9 •Phase 3 –Water Emergency •Actions: •City will: •Increase efforts to inform the public on water conservation strategies. •Increase detection and repair of water leaks in the distribution system. •Suspend hydrant testing. •Prohibit all water waste. •Prohibit all non-essential water use. •Prohibit landscape irrigation water use. •Prohibit or limit as deemed necessary all industrial water use. •The City shall arrange for the emergency purchase of water from utilities for which there exists proper agreements for such purchase. •Phase 4 –Water System Failure •Actions: •Assess the severity of the problem and identify the actions needed and time required to resolve the problem; •Implement immediate measures to notify the public as to water system or water source failure; •Severely restrict or prohibit, as appropriate, all water system use in the affected service area; •Arrange for the emergency purchase of water from alternate sources for which there exists the proper agreements for such purchases; and •Customers will discontinue or severely restrict all use of potable water from GUS water system until notified by City that a safe and adequate water for public use is restored. Drought Contingency Review Page 69 of 87 10 •Require separate irrigation meters for commercial and multi-family •Turf installation during Peak months •If City goes into DCP Phase 2, then no turf can be installed •Three (3) consecutive days of 100° temperatures in summer, no installation until extreme weather conditions pass •Require variance to be applied for before closing or require builder notify customer of retaining variance •Builder/landscaper include education about turf, summer dormancy, etc. after new install •Irrigation Violation Process •Reduce “wait time” between violations •Rework fee structure to reflect DCP phases, commercial vs. residential, increase in fee. •Commercial & HOA inspections •Irrigation & Landscaping plan review •Conservation staff included in assisting in future? Proposals for Changes to Regulations/Enforcement Page 70 of 87 1111 Model Fee Structure Page 71 of 87 12 •Conservation Fee •Used towards expanding rebates & funding education and outreach programs •Other program funding: •Percentage of top tier rates •Ensuring irrigation violation fees are put back into the program Conservation Funding Consideration Page 72 of 87 13 •Residential Customer Rates •Commercial & Irrigation Rates Customer Rates 15,000 - 25,000 kgal 25,001 + $2.05 $3.10 $5.35 $9.40 Base Charge (3/4" meter)$27.30/ $32.85 Volumetric Charges 0 - 7 kgal 7,001 - 15,000 kgal Customer Type Meter Size Tier 1 Rate Tier 2 Rate Small Commercial <2"$2.70 $7.25 Large Commercial 2" - 8"$2.70 $7.25 Irrigation Only $4.45 $9.50 Domestic Use Summer Usage Conservation Tier Excessive Use Tier Conservation Tier Page 73 of 87 14 •Expanded rebates program •Include Commercial and Multi-family •Add other beneficial rebates •Increased education and outreach •Including builders/ developers, multi-family, etc. •Online education resources •One –day water schedule year round •Adjust to the change permanently vs. readjusting every year •Seasonal rates •Winter and summer, including tiers •Incentivizing or requiring reuse capabilities at large commercial sites •Continue working with Planning to review Development code to identify adjustments to assist in water conservation; reviewing MUD requirements for additional water conservation measures •Commercial vehicle washing facility inspections •Ensure recycling of water per design is actively being used and maintained Future Considerations Page 74 of 87 1515 Summary •Why are we focusing so much on this topic? •Timeline •Xeriscaping & Native Landscaping •Ordinance Review •Future Considerations •Conservation Funding Page 75 of 87 1616 •What additional topics should team research? •Any topics or ideas we should research further? Feedback & Questions Page 76 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop August 23, 2022 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding land use priorities for the Inner Loop/Sam Houston corridor -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director I T EM S UMMARY: P urpose of P resentati on: There is significant interest in zo ning property along the Sam Ho uston and Inner Lo op corridor (between 1460 and S H130). The purpose of this presentation is to confirm direction for land use priorities in this area. P resentati on Agenda: P art 1- Orientation to the corridor. P art 2- Overview of future land use guidance outlined in 2030 P lan P art 3- Request for feedback from City Council F eedback Requested: Are there any land use/ de velopme nt priorities you would like us to share with applicants as they proceed with zoning in this area? Do we have the right areas targeted for commercial, single family residential, and multi-family? F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: n/a S UBMI T T ED BY: Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director AT TAC HMENT S : Description Inner Loop S am Hous ton C orridor P res entation Page 77 of 87 Sam Houston/ Inner Loop Discussion on Land Use Priorities August 23, 2022 | City Council Workshop Page 78 of 87 22 Presentation Outline Orientation to the corridor Overview of future land use guidance outlined in 2030 Plan Request for feedback from City Council Page 79 of 87 33 •Are there any land use/development priorities you would like us to share with applicants as they proceed with zoning in this area? •Do we have the right areas targeted for commercial,single family residential,and multi-family? Feedback Requested Page 80 of 87 Orientation to the Sam Houston/ Inner Loop Corridor •What is developed? •What is zoned but undeveloped? •What areas are yet to be zoned? Page 81 of 87 5 Inner Loop/ Sam Houston--1460 to 130 Toll Road 130 FM 1460 Maple Street Rockride Bell Gin Page 82 of 87 6 Undeveloped Acres •Agriculture (Ag): 492.8 •SF Residential (RS):107.19 •Commercial: 83.46 Zoning Lawhon Tract Saddlecreek Pinnacle FairhavenLa Conterra 87.95 acres 139.29 acres 37.76 acres 6.71 acres 133.51 acres 14.58 acres 51.07 acres 2.66 acres Page 83 of 87 7 Application Under Review Potential Development Zoning Lawhon Tract Saddlecreek Pinnacle FairhavenLa Conterra 133 acres 51 acres 120 acres 25 acres Land Use Acres Units Low Density MF 134 1350 High Density MF 34 1062 SF Residential 87 320 Commercial 39 Business Park 23 Page 84 of 87 88 Land Use Page 85 of 87 99 •Less traditional Single-Family lot and block development is proposed, and more Low-Density Multi-family ( 1 master lot with multiple units )requests are on the rise •PUDs are being utilized as a mechanism for shaping the above low density multi-family •Proposed commercial is taking the shape of neighborhood commercial –generally 3-5 acre or less tracts Takeaways Page 86 of 87 1010 Requested Feedback •Are there any priorities you would like us to share with applicants as they proceed with zoning in this area? •Priorities for PUDs should they be used •Priorities for land use frontage along Sam Houston •Do we have the right areas targeted for commercial, single family residential, and multi-family? Page 87 of 87