City Council Agenda Page 1 January 3, 2017

NOTICE OF MEETING OF THECITY COUNCIL

OF BUDA, TX

6:30 PM - Tuesday, January 3, 2017Council Chambers121 S. Main Street

Buda, TX 78610

This notice is posted pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Notice is hereby given that a Regular City Council Meeting of the City of Buda, TX, will be held at which time the following subjects will be discussed and may be actedupon.

A. CALL TO ORDER The City Council meeting will begin at 6:30 P.M.

B. INVOCATION Matt Behrens of Cornerstone Church

C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

D. ROLL CALL

E. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, comments will be taken from the audience on non-agenda related topics for a length of time not toexceed three minutes per person. To address the City Council, please submit a Citizen’s Comment form to theCity Secretary prior to the start of the meeting. No action may be taken by the City Council during PublicComments.

F. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by onemotion. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by any Council Member onany item, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered separately.F.1. Approval of the December 20, 2016 and December 21, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes (City Secretary

Alicia Ramirez)

2016-1220 DRAFT Minutes.pdf

2016-1221 DRAFT Minutes.pdf

F.2. Adoption of an Ordinance on second reading amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Budaarticle 1.02, Boards, Commissions, Committees to create a new Article 1.02, Division 9 Main StreetAdvisory Board, providing a repealing clause, providing a severability clause, and providing an effectivedate (Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks)

20170103 Main Street Advisory Board Enabling Ordinance Staff Report.pdf

Main Street Application Map.pdf1

City Council Agenda Page 2 January 3, 2017

Ord_2016-___ Main Street advisory Board.pdf

F.3. Adoption of a Resolution on the second reading authorizing a Performance Agreement between theBuda Economic Development Corporation and GMAG Holdings (dba Chip Semiconductor) (EDC DirectorAnn Miller)

Agenda Item Report - GMAG Holdings Second Reading.pdf

GMAG city council resolution.pdf

GMAG Holdings Performance Agreement v 2.pdf

F.4. Authorization for the City Manager to execute the purchase order for the procurement of the 2016 JohnDeere 310-L Backhoe from R.D.O. Equipment, a BuyBoard member (Public Works Director Mike Beggs)

f4 Agenda_Report_10517.pdf

Investment Proposal (Quote)_636185151278099945.pdf

F.5. Approval of awarding IFB 17-002 contract to Bossier Chrysler Dodge Jeep for the purchase of three policevehicles and authorizing the City Manager to execute said contract (Police Chief Bo Kidd)

Agenda Summary - PD Vehicles.docx

G. REGULAR AGENDA

G.1. Deliberation and possible action regarding an appeal to the Sign Review Board's (Planning & ZoningCommission) decision in regard to a variance to Table 10.3 of the City of Buda Unified DevelopmentCode for an increase to the maximum allowed height of a freestanding sign in the InterstateCommercial/Offi ce-Interstate Retail (C3/R3) zoning district for the property located at 340 Old SanAntonio Road (Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks)

2017-0103 Panda Express Sign Appeal Staff Report.pdf

Appeal Letter.pdf

applicant letter and justification.pdf

Panda Express Sign Package.pdf

Panda Express Site Plan.pdf

Commission Presentation 2016-1213.pdf

G.2. Deliberation and possible action on the election of Mayor Pro-Tem for the 2017 City Council (CitySecretary Alicia Ramirez)

Mayor Pro Tem.pdf

H. EXECUTIVE SESSION

H.1. City Council may recess its Open Session and convene in Executive Closed Session.2

City Council Agenda Page 3 January 3, 2017

I. CONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION AND TAKE ACTION, IF ANY, ON MATTERS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

J. STAFF REPORT

J.1. Staff Report regarding the status and upcoming process for the Unified Development Code Re-Write(Asst. City Manager & Planning Director Chance Sparks)

20170103 Staff Report UDC Update.pdf

J.2. Update on 2014 Bond Propositions (Project Manager Ray Creswell; City Engineer John Nett; Director ofParks & Recreation Drew Wells)

2014BudaBondStaffReport_01032017.pdf

K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 2014 Bond Program, Capital Improvement Projects, Developments, Drainage Projects, Engineering Department,Finance Department, General/Special Election, Grant related Projects, Law Enforcement, Legislative Update,Library Projects, Parks & Recreation Department, Planning Department, Road Projects, Status-Future AgendaRqst, Special Projects, Tourism Projects, Transportation, Wastewater Projects, and Water Projects

L. CITY COUNCIL’S BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

M. ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

N. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

N.1. Update on Pending Items requested by City Council

Pending Items.pdf

O. ADJOURNMENT Requests for accommodations must be made 48 hours prior to the meeting. Please contact the City Secretary at(512) 312-0084, or FAX (512) 312-1889 for information or assistance. I, the undersigned authority, do herebycertify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Buda, was posted on the bulletinboard in front of Buda City Hall, which is readily accessible to the public at all times, by 5:00 pm on December 30,2016.

/s/____________________________Alicia RamirezCity Secretary 3

City Council Agenda Page 4 January 3, 2017

Council Chambers are set up to publicly broadcast meetings. You may be audio and video recorded while in this facility.

In accordance with Article III, Section 3.10, of the Official Code of the City of Buda, the minutes of this meeting consist of the preceding MinuteRecord and the Supplemental Minute Record. Details on Council meetings may be obtained from the City Secretary’s Office, or video of the entiremeeting may be downloaded from the website. (Portions of the Supplemental Minute Record video tape recording may be distorted due toequipment malfunction or other uncontrollable factors.)

The City Council may retire to executive session any time between the meeting’s opening and adjournment for the purpose of consultation withlegal counsel pursuant to Chapter 551.071 of the Texas Government Code; discussion of personnel matters pursuant to Chapter 551.074 of theTexas Government Code; deliberation regarding real property pursuant to Chapter 551.072 of the Texas Government Code; deliberation regardingeconomic development negotiations pursuant to Chapter 551.087 of the Texas Government Code; and/or deliberation regarding the deployment,or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices pursuant to Chapter 551.076 of the Texas Government Code. Action, ifany, will be taken in open session.

This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City’s legal counsel and the presence of any subject in any Executive Session portion of theagenda constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel for the governmental body and constitutesan opinion by the attorney that the items discussed therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering availableopinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda withthe intent to meet all elements necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted by all participantsin reliance on this opinion.

Attendance by Other Elected or Appointed Officials: It is anticipated that members of other governmental bodies, and/or city boards,commissions and/or committees may attend the meeting in numbers that may constitute a quorum of the body, board, commission and/orcommittee. Notice is hereby given that the meeting, to the extent required by law, is also noticed as a possible meeting of the other body, board,commission and/or committee, whose members may be in attendance, if such numbers constitute a quorum. The members of the boards,commissions and/or committees may be permitted to participate in discussions on the same items listed on the agenda, which occur at themeeting, but no action will be taken by such in attendance unless such item and action is specifically provided for on an agenda for that body,board, commission or committee subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act.

4

CITY COUNCIL MINUTE RECORD Page 1 The City of Buda, Texas Volume 135 Tuesday, December 20, 2016

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Ruge called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

City Secretary Alicia Ramirez certified a quorum with the following Council Members present:

Mayor Todd Ruge Mayor Pro Tem Wiley Hopkins Council Member Angela Kennedy Council Member David Nuckels Council Member Eileen Altmiller Council Member Bobby Lane

Kenneth Williams, City Manager

Council Member George Haehn was absent and excused from the meeting.

City Staff in attendance: Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks, City Secretary Alicia Ramirez, Chief of Police Bo Kidd, Library Director Melinda Hodges, Public Works Director Mike Beggs, Water Specialist Brian Lillibridge, Public Information Officer David Marino, and Executive Assistant Isabel Fernandez

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

RECOGNITION

In recognition of Council Member Angela Kennedy for her service to the Citizens of Buda, the City Council presented Ms. Kennedy with a plaque.

CONSENT AGENDA

APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Motion, to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented, was made by Council Member Hopkins and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

PRESENTATIONS

PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE CONTINUED FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY OF BUDA'S WATER SUPPLIES

Mayor Ruge read a Letter from Beth Stewart, Executive Director of the Texas Oral Health Coalition, into the record in support of fluoridation. Public comments were made by Citizens Tommy Poer of 101 San Marcos Street and Graham Moore of 129 Tarbox Brown Drive of Buda, who spoke in favor of fluoridation. Sam Brannon of 2600 Hunger Road of San Marcos, Coalition Organizer for San Marcos, spoke in opposition. 5

Page 2 Minutes Volume 135 December 20, 2016 Water Specialist Brian Lillibridge presented background information. A copy of the presentation is part of the permanent supplemental record.

Council Member Kennedy briefed the Council on the Water/Wastewater Committee meeting noting the pros and cons of fluoridation were discussed. She noted the Committee unanimously approved the continued fluoridation treatment.

Council Member Nuckels expressed his concerns regarding on how the information was presented when the resolution was adopted.

Motion, to indefinitely suspend the introduction of fluoridation to the City’s water supply, was made by Council Member Nuckels. The motion died for the lack of a second.

Motion, to indefinitely suspend the introduction of fluoridation to the City’s water supply in order to have the Citizens of Buda vote on the matter at the next scheduled election date, was made by Council Member Nuckels. The motion died for the lack of a second.

Motion, to table the item indefinitely, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Lane. A record vote was taken on motion. AYE: Ruge, Hopkins, Kennedy, Altmiller, and Lane. NAY: Nuckels.

REGULAR AGENDA

FIRST READING OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BUDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GMAG HOLDINGS (DBA CHIP SEMICONDUCTOR)

EDC Director Ann Miller presented background information.

Motion, to introduce the Resolution on first reading, as presented, was made by Council Member Altmiller and seconded by Council Member Kennedy. Motion carried unanimously.

POSTPONEMENT OF THE DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONSENT AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING SUNFIELD MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, REVISING EXHIBIT C LAND USE PLAN

Mayor Ruge announced the item has been postponed to a future meeting.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #2016-24 ON FIRST AND FINAL READING AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET

Finance Director June Ellis presented background information.

Motion, to consider the Ordinance on first and final reading, was made by Council Member Hopkins and Council Member Lane.

Motion, to adopt the Ordinance on first and final reading, was made by Council Member Hopkins and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR AUDITING SERVICES WITH WHITLEY PENN, LLP 6

Minutes Page 3 December 20, 2016 Volume 135

Finance Director June Ellis presented background information.

Motion, to authorize Whitely Penn, LLP to conduct the City of Buda’s auditing services as to subject to approval to form by the City Attorney, as presented, was made by Council Member Lane and seconded by Mayor Ruge. Motion carried unanimously.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #2016-25 ON FIRST AND FINAL READING GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8.03 OF THE CITY CHARTER

Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks presented background information.

Motion, to consider the ordinance on first and final reading, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion, to adopt the Ordinance on first and final reading, as presented, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Altmiller. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR THE PROVISION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES

Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks presented background information.

General discussion was held on pick up schedule, household hazardous waste and possibly handling such as a separate process.

Motion, to approve, as presented, was made by Council Member Altmiller and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BUDA ARTICLE 1.02, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE 1.02 DIVISION 9 MAIN STREET ADVISORY BOARD, PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Assistant City Manager Chance Sparks presented background information.

Motion, to introduce the Ordinance, as presented, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS, COMMITTEE, TIMELINE, AND RELATED MATTERS

City Secretary Alicia Ramirez presented background information.

Council Member Kennedy suggested the committee consider single member districts.

The consensus of the Council is to hold the election in November 2017.

Mayor Ruge requested a list of previous members.

EXECUTIVE SESSION 7

Page 4 Minutes Volume 135 December 20, 2016 Council did not convene in Executive Session.

STAFF REPORT

STAFF REPORT REGARDING PLANNED MAINTENANCE OF THE CULLEN COUNTRY SUBDIVISION SURFACE WATER IMPOUNDMENT

City Engineer John Nett presented background information.

General discussion was held on the current state of the retention facility and whether the structure could withstand another large rain event. Mr. Nett informed the Home Owner’s Association (HOA) hired a consultant to assess the structure. Based on the consultant’s professional opinion, the structure did not pose an eminent threat of failure; however there are two areas of significant repair. Mr. Nett noted the formulation of an emergency response plan would be required should a breach occur. Also, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Safety Dam Program has identified such as a jurisdictional structure and has declared it as a high hazard feature. Although a threatening term, this structure is in a special flood hazard area which affects the road downstream. TCEQ suggest moving prudently with the structure repairs, but there is no eminent threat of failure of the structure.

Matt Dringenberg with Southwest Engineers, Walter King and Vincent Lecca of Cullen Country HOA briefed the Council on the condition of the structure and mitigation plan.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

• 2014 Bond Program • Capital Improvement Projects • Developments • Drainage projects • Engineering Department • Finance Department • Grant related projects • Law Enforcement • Legislative Update

• Library projects • Parks & Recreation Department • Planning Department • Road projects • Special projects • Status on Requested Future Items • Tourism projects • Wastewater projects • Water projects

City Manager Kenneth Williams provided an update on the following:

- Well wishes to Council Member Kennedy

- New hired Assistant City Manager Micah Grau beginning on January 3, 2017

- Setting up new council member orientation with Mr. Urbanovsky

CITY COUNCIL’S BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

None.

CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8

Minutes Page 5 December 20, 2016 Volume 135

Council Member Kennedy requested staff consider household hazardous waste and possibly have the Sustainability Commission address the issue. Council Member Altmiller added staff might consider Capital Area Council of Governments Solid Waste Grant Program.

UPDATE ON PENDING ITEMS REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL

None.

ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

Canvassing of the Runoff Election on Wednesday, December 21, 2016.

Council Member Nuckels commended staff on the Trail of Lights

ADJOURNMENT

Motion, to adjourn the meeting, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS ___________________________ Todd Ruge, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Alicia Ramirez, TRMC DATE City Secretary

In accordance with Article III, Section 3.10, of the Official Code of the City of Buda, the minutes of this meeting consist of the preceding Minute Record and the Supplemental Minute Record. Details on Council meetings may be obtained from the City Secretary’s Office, or audio or video of the entire meeting may be downloaded from the website. (Portions of the Supplemental Minute Record audio or video tape recording may be distorted due to equipment malfunction or other uncontrollable factors.)

9

CITY COUNCIL MINUTE RECORD Page 431 The City of Buda, Texas Volume 135 Wednesday, December 21, 2016

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Ruge called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

City Secretary Alicia Ramirez certified a quorum with the following Council Members present:

Mayor Todd Ruge Mayor Pro Tem Wiley Hopkins Council Member Angela Kennedy Council Member David Nuckels Council Member Eileen Altmiller Council Member Bobby Lane

Kenneth Williams, City Manager

Council Member George Haehn was absent and excused from the meeting.

City Staff in attendance: City Secretary Alicia Ramirez and Public Information Officer David Marino

SPECIAL AGENDA

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #2016-R-28 CANVASSING RETURNS OF A RUNOFF ELECTION HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A CANDIDATE TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS, FOR AN ELECTION HAVING BEEN HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2016; DECLARING RESULTS OF THAT ELECTION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

City Secretary Alicia Ramirez presented background information. Mayor Ruge read the results of the election into the record.

Place 1 Absentee Early Voting

Election Day Total Percentage

John Hatch 74 242 168 484 39.03

Lee Urbanovsky 62 527 167 756 60.97 Totals 136 769 335 1,240

Mayor Ruge announced the candidate Lee Urbanovsky received a majority of the votes for the office for which he was candidate, City Council Member Place 1; therefore, has been elected.

Motion, to adopt the Resolution accepting the results of the election, as presented, was made by Council Member Lane and seconded by Council Member Hopkins. Motion carried unanimously.

10

Page 432 Minutes Volume 135 December 21, 2016 ADMINISTER OATH TO NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER AND ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION

Judge Beth Smith administered the Oath of Office to newly elected Council Member Lee Urbanovsky.

Mr. Urbanovsky recognized his supporters and special guest in the audience.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion, to adjourn the meeting, was made by Mayor Ruge and seconded by Council Member Lane. Motion carried unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.

THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS ___________________________ Todd Ruge, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Alicia Ramirez, TRMC DATE City Secretary

In accordance with Article III, Section 3.10, of the Official Code of the City of Buda, the minutes of this meeting consist of the preceding Minute Record and the Supplemental Minute Record. Details on Council meetings may be obtained from the City Secretary’s Office, or audio or video of the entire meeting may be downloaded from the website. (Portions of the Supplemental Minute Record audio or video tape recording may be distorted due to equipment malfunction or other uncontrollable factors.)

11

City Council Agenda Item Report January 3, 2017

Contact – Chance Sparks, AICP, CNU-A, Asst. City Manager & Planning Director –

512-312-5745 – csparks@ci.buda.tx.us

SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE

CITY OF BUDA ARTICLE 1.02, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE 1.02 DIVISION 9 MAIN STREET ADVISORY BOARD, PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CHANCE SPARKS)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides for the establishment of a Main Street Advisory Board, a required element for entry into the Texas Main Street Program. The ordinance shares the same organizational structure as other board & commission ordinances. Key differences include:

• Nine members, instead of the five or seven members found on other boards & commissions

• Six members be required to reside in the city limits, with remaining three members being allowed to live outside of the city limits if they own or operate a business within the city limits

Like others, the Main Street Advisory Board serves at the pleasure of City Council. The Board is charged with:

1. Advising the Main Street Program Manager on matters related to Main Street Program policy.

2. Developing strategic plans, and establishing goals and priorities for the Main Street Program, including assisting with annual reports.

3. Monitoring expenditures of program funds and assessing the effectiveness of the program.

4. Formulating proposed budgets for the program and making recommendations to the City Manager and City Council on the budgets.

5. Building support for the program. 6. Reviewing and approving designs for incentive programs. 12

7. Fundraising for the Main Street Program, or for special projects organized through Main Street, including identifying and utilizing local, state, federal and private sources including grants and contributions.

8. Sponsoring public forums on Main Street issues. 9. Developing criteria needed for the board’s activities. 10. To perform such other duties as may be assigned by the city council from time to

time. 11. At the request of the city council, the board shall prepare an annual work plan,

make a complete annual report and other required reports to the city council. The ordinance structure & make-up were based on best-practice references from the Texas Main Street Program and a review of their recommended mentor cities.

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY

Over the last 25 years, communities have taken a variety of approaches to reinvigorate their downtowns. These communities were motivated by desires to promote small business & entrepreneurialism, renewed interest in community history, a search to restore community identity & sense of place, and reprioritization of quality of life. The Main Street Program was born nationally as a technique to achieve such goals. To date, approximately 1,600 communities participate nationally in the program, a special initiative of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In Texas, the Texas Historical Commission serves as host for the state program, with 84 participating communities. The Texas Main Street Program uses the Four-Point Approach to revitalization:

• Organization/Political: Managing and sustaining the process of building a vibrant downtown. Create partnerships and structure with many groups sharing an interest in downtown health work toward agreed upon vision

• Promotion/Social: Positioning downtown in a changing marketplace. Marketing a unified, quality image of the business district as the center of activities, goods and services

• Design/Physical: Using historic preservation and adaptive reuse to create a positive user and visitor experience. Includes design activities, building rehabs, ordinances, and effective planning.

• Economic Restructuring/Economic: Creating and maintaining an environment for business growth and job creation.

Within the Four Point Approach, eight principles form the basis of the Program:

• Comprehensive: No single focus/issue can revitalize Main Street • Incremental: Baby steps before walking. Start with basic, simple activities that

demonstrate new things are happening to build support & momentum. • Self-Help: No one else will save your Main Street. Local leadership must convince

the community to support & become involved. • Partnerships: Both public & private sector has vital interest in the district and must

work together; must understand each others strengths & limitations • Identifying and Capitalizing on Existing Assets: Capitalize on what makes the

district unique and creates a sense of belonging. 13

• Quality: Shoestring budgets and “cut & paste” reinforce negative image. Concentrate on quality projects over quantity.

• Change: A carefully planned program with shift public perceptions and business practices to support and sustain the revitalization process. Changes are slow but definite.

• Implementation: Main Street must show visible results that can only come from completing projects. Frequent, visible changes are reminder that effort is succeeding.

Staff has provided the links below for Council members and members of the public to learn more about specific aspects of the Main Street Program: Texas Historic Commission Texas Main Street Program http://www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-main-street National Trust for Historic Preservation National Main Street Program http://www.preservationnation.org/main-street/ In late October, the City of Buda was notified by the Texas Historical Commission’s selection of Buda to enter the Texas Main Street Program, effective January 2017. This was following the City’s application in July 2016, prepared through the efforts of some of the downtown merchants and City Staff. This selection started the process of preparing a new Main Street Program and logistics that come with it. The two most pressing issues are the hiring of a Main Street Manager and seating a Main Street Advisory Board in January 2017. The hiring process is underway, with applications currently being accepted.

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS This enabling ordinance is typical of other enabling ordinances for the City of Buda, the only differences being the make-up of the Board and the duties (which would be different between the Boards/Commissions to avoid duplication. Key differences include:

• Nine members, instead of the five or seven members found on other boards & commissions

• Six members be required to reside in the city limits, with remaining three members being allowed to live outside of the city limits if they own or operate a business within the city limits

The Texas Main Street Program recommends the Main Street Advisory Board have 9-11 members. Most seem to have nine members. There are typically four "committees" as standard practice, with at least one member of the advisory board serving on each (Board members are not required to serve on committees, though it is encouraged). These committees, which are self-created rather than City Council created, have many other members of the community other than just board members that want to help out on a 14

particular topic area based on their interests & time available. Main Street Programs tend to have a lot of grassroots-style subcommittees. Like others, the Main Street Advisory Board serves at the pleasure of City Council. The Board is charged with:

1. Advising the Main Street Program Manager on matters related to Main Street Program policy.

2. Developing strategic plans, and establishing goals and priorities for the Main Street Program, including assisting with annual reports.

3. Monitoring expenditures of program funds and assessing the effectiveness of the program.

4. Formulating proposed budgets for the program and making recommendations to the City Manager and City Council on the budgets.

5. Building support for the program. 6. Reviewing and approving designs for incentive programs. 7. Fundraising for the Main Street Program, or for special projects organized through

Main Street, including identifying and utilizing local, state, federal and private sources including grants and contributions.

8. Sponsoring public forums on Main Street issues. 9. Developing criteria needed for the board’s activities. 10. To perform such other duties as may be assigned by the city council from time to

time. 11. At the request of the city council, the board shall prepare an annual work plan,

make a complete annual report and other required reports to the city council. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT

Entry into the Main Street Program did require a financial commitment, including the hiring of a Main Street Manager and allocation of resources for programs. Many program elements were already funded in prior years through EDC and Tourism, but are being transferred to the Main Street Program (while maintaining their source funding). The Main Street Program is included & funded within the current budget. The Texas Main Street Program, for cities under 50,000, gives pretty direct guidance for initial structuring. Mature Main Street programs often have an affiliate 501(c)3 that assists in certain ways, particularly for the fundraising aspects. This is usually to maintain an independent source of funds for certain programs that generate revenue, particularly if festivals become a significant part of their work plan due to the finances of those k efforts. A 501(c)3 does not develop immediately... it usually develops a few years after program initiation. From a relationship perspective, this is similar to how the City has a Library Commission, but there is also a 501(c)3 Friends of the Library. The Friends of the Library do fundraising efforts and make special contributions to the library for particular projects/programs. Main Street-affiliated 501(c)3's are much the same. It is likely that a support 501(c)3 develops for the Main Street Program in Buda, though it will need to do so organically and cannot be forced. Each Main Street Program tends to be unique due to the grassroots nature, and that shapes how committees, subcommittees, events and other aspects ultimately take shape. In small city programs, the Main Street Program is always administratively housed in the City.

15

Main Street Managers, with support from the Advisory Board are expected to be able to self-manage & self-pursue grants without use of a consulting grants administrator. That being said, some have utilized an external grants administrator when they have secured a more complex or particularly large grant (for example, there is a CDBG-affiliated grant available to Main Street cities for capital projects very similar to the Texas Capital Fund that might prompt use of an external grant administrator).

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION This enabling ordinance is customary of other enabling ordinances of the City pertaining to boards & commissions. Differences in make-up & structure are the result of its unique tasks & charges, though it still serves at the pleasure of City Council like any other board or commission. The Board is structured and has objectives consistent with best practices and in line with other successful area Main Street Advisory Boards. Objectives of the Board are descriptive and clear, based upon similar mentor Main Street programs. Financial impacts of the overall program are accounted for in the current budget. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form.

6. PROS AND CONS Staff has evaluated pros and cons of proceeding with the action. A summary of those pros & cons is listed below:

• PRO: A critical element for entry into the Texas Main Street Program is satisfied. • PRO: Individuals considering applying for the Board have clearer understanding of

expectations. • PRO: A Board is created to help further downtown revitalization, consistent with

adopted Plans. • CON: Creation of a new Board inevitably increases workload, but a Main Street

Manager is being hired as part of the overall program. • CON: The Board is structured differently than others, which may cause some

confusion. It appears this is a minimal issue in other cities.

7. ALTERNATIVES A number of alternatives are available given the discretionary nature of establishing a Board or Commission. Staff has identified some of the alternatives and the implications of pursuing those alternatives:

• Approve as presented – This approach aligns with prior discussions regarding the Main Street Program and best practices for the Main Street Program.

• Modify Make-Up to Require a Business Owner Within the Main Street Program Area – This would still align with best practices. Mandating a business owner within the Main Street Program Area, however, limits the pool of potential board members. Rather than establish this as a mandatory provision within the ordinance, the City Council could simply do this as a matter of practice.

16

• Modify Make-Up to Require All or Larger Amount of Members to Live in City Limits – This provision has been applied in much larger Main Street cities. Doing so in smaller program cities, however, can create issues in establishing business representation on the Board over the long-term since not all live within the city limits despite having invested in placing their business in Buda. Even larger, established programs like Georgetown, San Marcos and Seguin avoid mandating residency in the city limits, opting to instead restrict those outside the city limits unless they own/operate businesses in the city limits.

• Modify Duties of the Board – There are a number of variations possible for the

Board duties, with differential impacts. The duties listed represent common elements found in other Main Street Advisory Boards’ lists of duties. Should the City Council wish to modify, staff requests making a motion to that effect rather than tabling (see discussion of tabling, below).

• Decline to Adopt an Enabling Ordinance – This action would prevent entry into

the Texas Main Street Program, as a Main Street Advisory Board is a required element.

• Table Adoption – This action would not preempt entry into the Main Street

Program, but it could negatively affect recruitment for the Board as it might cause potential Board members to question the level of commitment by the City and limit the clarity of Board requirements/expectations.

8. RECOMMENDATION

This item is actionable at the discretion of City Council. The City Council voted to approve the ordinance on first reading at its December 20, 2016 meeting. Should City Council wish to proceed, staff recommends City Council consider approval as presented.

17

kjkj

kj

kj

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

1819

20

21

2223

24

25

SE

QU

OY

AH

ST

MA

ND

AN

ST

AR

IKA

RA

ST

ASH ST

N A

US

TIN

ST

EAST ST

N R

AIL

RO

AD

ST

ELM ST

PEACH ST

SA

US

TIN

ST

HOUSTON ST

ROSE ST

KALISPEL RD

SAN ANTONIO ST

NS

AN

MA

RC

OS

ST

CHINA ST

RE

YN

A L

N

PIN

AF

OR

E S

T LA

S C

RU

CE

S S

TLO

MA

VE

RD

E S

T BO

NIT

A V

ISTA

DR

LA

JO

LLA

ST

GA

RIS

ON

RD

SU

N B

ON

NE

T D

R

LOMA LINDA ST

PR

AIR

IE A

VE

SR

AIL

RO

AD

ST

ALLE

Y S

T

HIDATSA ST

DRVW

W L

OO

P S

T

VIA TOSCANA

CHERRY ST

E HIDATSA ST

VIA VERONA

E L

OO

P S

T

BARTONS XING

WATSON CT

VIA

MIL

AN

A

BELLA VITA PKWY

MAIN ST

RR

967

S M

AIN

ST

JACK C

HAYS T

RL

S L

OO

P 4

LIVE OAK ST

W GOFORTH ST

BLU

FF

ST

N C

ED

AR

ST

CO

LE

SP

RIN

GS

RD

S C

ED

AR

ST

OLD BLACK COLON

YRD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

2017 Main Street Application

1 inch = 400 feet

0 200 400 600 800100

Feet

´Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

(Texas Central State Plane - FIPS 4203)Units: Feet

Datum: NAD 83Created by: Chance Sparks, AICP, CNUa

July 27, 2016

The City of Buda makes no representationsor warranties regarding accuracy or

completeness of the information depicted on this map or the data from which it was produced. This map is NOT suitable for

survey purposes and does not purport to depict or establish boundaries between land owners or locations of utility infra-structure where survey data is available

and field locations have been established.

Legend

kj State Historical Marker

Downtown Buda National Register Historic District

Main Street Program Boundary (Proposed)

Union Pacific Railroad

Business Type

Drug store

auto-oriented business

department, variety or discount store

event venue

furniture/furnishing store

government offices

other retail store

other service business

public facility

residential

restaurant/bar/tavern

under renovation

vacant

warehouse

18

Page 1 of 5

ORDINANCE NO. 2016-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BUDA ARTICLE 1.02, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES TO CREATE A NEW ARTICLE 1.02 DIVISION 9 MAIN STREET ADVISORY BOARD; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, the City Council encourages all Buda Citizens to participate in their local government and seeks the most qualified candidates for appointed positions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the development and establishment of a Main Street Advisory Board to assist the City Council, other Boards and Commissions and City Staff furthers goals and objectives of the City of Buda, including goals and objectives of the Buda 2030 Comprehensive Plan and other long-range plans adopted by the City of Buda; and WHEREAS, the Texas Historical Commission has selected the City of Buda for entry into the Texas Main Street Program in January 2017; and WHEREAS, this ordinance was passed and approved at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Buda held in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act at which a quorum of the City Council Members were present and voting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. Article 1.02, Boards, Commissions and Committees, is hereby amended to add the following Division 9, Main Street Advisory Board, as follows:

Division 9. Main Street Advisory Board Sec. 1.02.___ Created; appointment of members; terms

(a) This division creates the Main Street Advisory Board (“board”) appointed by the city council. The board shall consist of nine (9) members who shall reside in the incorporated city limits or own businesses within the incorporated city limits.

19

Page 2 of 5

(b) The members of the board shall serve two-year staggered terms, with five (5) members being appointed in April of even-numbered years and four (4) members being appointed in April of odd-numbered years.

(c) On the initial board, five (5) of the members shall be appointed for one-year terms and four (4) members shall be appointed for two-year terms. Thereafter, all terms shall be two-year terms.

(e) Unless otherwise required by state law, all members serve at the pleasure of the city council and may be removed at any time with or without cause.

Sec. 1.02.___ Qualifications of members

(a) Unless otherwise determined by city council, at least six (6) of the members of this board shall reside within the corporate limits of the city, with the remaining three (3) owning or operating a business within the corporate limits of the city.

(b) If a city resident member of the board ceases to reside in the city and his or her relocation reduces the number of city resident board members below six (6), that person shall give such notice of such fact and may be deemed to have resigned from the board as of the date his or her residence changed, and the city council shall appoint a resident board member to fill the remainder of the resigning member’s term. The temporary lack of six (6) resident members created by the vacancy shall not impair the ability of the board to perform its duties nor the actions taken by the board. A quorum of the board shall be required to open meetings, conduct business and take action on any agenda items.

(c) The city council may take into consideration an applicant’s history on delinquency in payment of any city taxes, utility bills, citations, municipal court judgments and assessments and similar criteria in qualifying the applicant.

(d) Notwithstanding any city ad hoc committees or except where duplicate appointments are authorized by ordinance, city charter or by state law, a person may not serve as a member of the Main Street Advisory Board if he or she is also serving on the city council, or local government corporation.

Sec. 1.02.___ Officers; rules; meetings; quorum; record; conflict of interest

(a) The board shall have a chairperson and a vice-chairperson elected from its membership to serve for a one-year term. Officers shall be elected annually by the board. If the Board wishes to appoint an officer residing outside of the city limits, then the Board must request City Council approve such appointment.

20

Page 3 of 5

(b) The chairperson shall preside over the board and shall have the right to vote on all items before the board. The vice-chairperson shall fulfill the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson is not available for any reason.

(c) The city manager or his or her designee shall be an ex officio member of the board.

(d) The board may establish rules or bylaws as necessary for the orderly conduct of its business, subject to approval by the city council.

(e) The board shall meet at least monthly, if there is business at hand, at a time and place established by the board. Special meetings may be called by the chairperson or interim chairperson of the board, city manager or his or her designee or upon the request of any three (3) board members. All meetings of the board shall be open to the public and shall conform with the Texas Open Meetings Act, section 551 of the Government Code.

(f) A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members of the board except that when a vacancy exists, a quorum shall consist of a majority of the remaining members.

(g) The board shall keep a record, which shall be reasonably available to the public, of its resolutions, proceedings and actions.

(h) A board member shall be required to complete any state-mandated training, to include but not limited to Open Meetings Act training, within ninety (90) days after appointment. Any training expenses incurred by the member may be eligible for reimbursement by the city subject to the city’s travel and training policy.

(i) A board member having any potential conflict of interest on any policy, decision, or determination before the board shall disclose to each of the other members the nature of his potential conflict and shall abstain from voting on such policy, decision or determination. In the event that the board member recognizes a conflict or clear potential for conflict of interest, he or she shall recuse him or herself from discussion and action on the topic involving such conflict. The disclosure shall be recorded in the board’s minutes. Intentional or knowing failure to disclose a conflict of interest shall be governed under the general penalty section as set forth in section 1.01.009 of this code.

Sec. 1.02.___ Powers and duties

The board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the mayor and city council and shall have the following purposes and duties, as well as other duties as assigned by the city council, as necessary to perform the business of the board:

(1) Advising the Main Street Program Manager on matters related to Main Street Program policy.

21

Page 4 of 5

(2) Developing strategic plans, and establishing goals and priorities for the Main Street Program, including assisting with annual reports.

(3) Monitoring expenditures of program funds and assessing the effectiveness of the program.

(4) Formulating proposed budgets for the program and making recommendations to the City Manager and City Council on the budgets.

(5) Building support for the program.

(6) Reviewing and approving designs for incentive programs.

(7) Fundraising for the Main Street Program, or for special projects organized through Main Street, including identifying and utilizing local, state, federal and private sources including grants and contributions.

(8) Sponsoring public forums on Main Street issues.

(9) Developing criteria needed for the board’s activities.

(10) To perform such other duties as may be assigned by the city council from time to time.

(11) At the request of the city council, the board shall prepare an annual work plan, make a complete annual report and other required reports to the city council.

Section 3. If any clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unenforceable for any reason, such unenforceable clause or provision shall be severed from the remaining portion of the Ordinance, which shall continue to have full force and effect. Section 4. Passage. Pursuant to Section 3.11(A) of the City Charter, if the Council determines that the first reading of this ordinance is sufficient for adequate consideration by an affirmative vote of five or more members of the City Council during the first reading and the Ordinance is passed by a the affirmative vote of four or more members of the City council, this Ordinance is adopted and enacted without further readings. In the event a second reading is necessary, this Ordinance is adopted and enacted upon the affirmative vote of four or more members of the City Council upon second reading. Section 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 3.11(D) of the City Charter, this ordinance is effective upon adoption, except that every ordinance imposing any penalty, fine or forfeiture

22

Page 5 of 5

shall become effective only after having been published once in its entirety, or a caption that summarizes the purpose of the ordinance and the penalty for violating the ordinance in a newspaper designated as the official newspaper of the City. An ordinance required by the Charter to be published shall take effect when the publication requirement is satisfied. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Buda, on this the ___ day of ___________, 201__.

THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS ____________________________ Todd Ruge, Mayor

ATTEST: ____________________________ Alicia Ramirez, City Secretary

23

City Council Agenda Item Report December 20, 2016

Contact – Ann Miller, CEcD, Executive Director, Buda Economic Development

Corporation – 512.295.2022 – ann@budaedc.com

SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE SECOND READING OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BUDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND

GMAG HOLDINGS (DBA CHIP SEMICONDUCTOR).

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Buda Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors approved a Performance Agreement with

GMAG Holdings. In accordance, with Texas Local Government Code, the Buda City Council must approve a

resolution authorizing the Performance Agreement with two separate readings. GMAG Holdings (Chip

Semiconductor) is a purchaser, seller, manufacturer, and refurbishes semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY

On December 7, 2016, the Buda Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors approved a

Performance Agreement with GMAG Holdings (Chip Semiconductor) for $20,000 to be utilized to pay

permit fees to the City of Buda and to secure or make improvements to infrastructure for their facility, which

is located on South Loop 4. In according with Texas Local Government Code, the Buda City Council must

approve a resolution authorizing the Performance Agreement with two separate readings. Two reading are

required because:

Sec. 505.158. PROJECTS RELATED TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN SMALL

MUNICIPALITIES. (a) For a Type B corporation authorized to be created by a municipality with a population of

20,000 or less, "project" also includes the land, buildings, equipment, facilities, expenditures, targeted infrastructure,

and improvements found by the corporation's board of directors to promote new or expanded business development.

(b) A Type B corporation may not undertake a project authorized by this section that requires an

expenditure of more than $10,000 until the governing body of the corporation's authorizing municipality adopts a

resolution authorizing the project after giving the resolution at least two separate readings.

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The payback period for the City of Buda on the $20,000 incentive is 0.8 years. The agreement requires that

GMAG invest at least $5,000,000 in capital improvements and build approximately 45,000 SF of new industrial space within the City of Buda. GMAG must create 4 FTE jobs by December 31, 2019, with an

average wage of $16.75 an hour.

Staff reviewed the agreement and made the recommendation to the Buda EDC Board for approval. Staff

believes that the minimal investment in GMAG will return to the city 10x in additional revenue and business

development. Estimated new property tax revenue over the next 10 years to the City of Buda exceeds

$240,000. 24

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Buda will not expend any money with this Performance Agreement. The Buda EDC will expend

$20,000, which is budgeted in the FY 16-17 line item for Business Projects. Over the next 10 years, the City of

Buda is estimated to receive over $240,000 in new property tax revenue from GMAG Holdings.

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The City of Buda benefits from GMAG Holdings being in Buda and the Performance Agreement promotes

future development of the remaining acreage of their property on South Loop 4.

6. PROS AND CONS Pros: Increased Property Tax Revenue, Additional Jobs, New Industrial Facility, Potential for Additional

Development

Cons: Minimal Sales Tax Revenue Generated

7. ALTERNATIVES Other possible incentives could include a property tax rebate from the City of Buda or waiver of permit fees.

However, these alternatives were not pursued in order to maintain the maximum direct benefit to the City of

Buda.

8. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution authorizing the Performance Agreement on two separate readings.

25

______________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF BUDA PAGE 1 OF 2 RESOLUTION NO. ______

RESOLUTION NO. ___________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS, APPROVING A

PROJECT OF THE BUDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, TOWIT: A GRANT OF UP TO $20,000.00 GMAG

HOLDINGS IN CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS

ENTERPRISE IN THE CITY; ITS BRINGING FULL-TIME PRIMARY

JOBS TO THE CITY AND MAKING PARTICULAR CAPITAL

INVESTMENTS; COMPLYING WITH SECTION 505.158, TEXAS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR TWO SEPARATE

READINGS; OPEN MEETING READING AND ADOPTION, AND AN

EFFECTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, the Buda Economic Development Corporation (EDC”) is a Type B

Economic Development Corporation; and

WHEREAS, Section 505.158, Texas Local Government Code, requires that a Type B

Corporation authorized by a city with a population of 20,000 or less that approves a project

requiring an expenditure of $10,000 or more may not undertake the project until the governing

body of the city adopts a resolution authorizing the project after giving the resolution two

separate readings; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the EDC has approved a project whereby a

business known as GMAG Holdings, a Texas partnership, has agreed to establish a facility in the

City for high technology equipment and services to be located at 980 A. Loop 4, in Buda; and

WHEREAS, GMAG Holdings intends to invest at least $5,000,000.00 in the Project, and

to bring at least four (4) primary jobs to the City by December 31, 2019; and

WHEREAS, the EDC has agreed to contribute up to $20,000.00 to GMAG Holdings for

the purpose of paying permit fees to the City of Buda; and to secure or make improvements to

infrastructure for the Facility; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds the project will promote new or expanded business

enterprises in and near the City of Buda; and

WHEREAS, the action authorized by this Resolution is in furtherance of the public

interest, for the good government, peace, order, trade and commerce of the City and necessary

and proper for carrying out of the authority granted by law to the City and the EDC;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS, that:

26

______________________________________________________________________________ CITY OF BUDA PAGE 2 OF 2 RESOLUTION NO. ______

1. The City Council hereby finds that the statements set forth in the recitals of this

Resolution are true and correct, and the Council hereby incorporates such recitals as a

part of this Resolution.

2. The project approved by the Board of Directors of the BUDA EDC, being the

payment of $20,000.00 to GMAG Holdings in return for the bringing of primary jobs and

making capital investments, as described above, is hereby in all things approved and

authorized.

3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage at a second

separate reading.

4. This Resolution is read and adopted at meetings that were open to the public and notice

of the time, place and purpose of said meetings was given as required by the Open

Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.

READ AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Buda, Texas at first

reading on the _____ day of _______________, 201__.

READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Buda, Texas at second

reading on the _____ day of _____________, 201__.

CITY OF BUDA, TEXAS

_______

Todd Ruge, Mayor

ATTEST:

Alicia Ramiriez, City Secretary

[seal]

27

Page 1 of 4

Board President: ________ President, GMAG:_______

COUNTY OF HAYS §

§

STATE OF TEXAS §

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT

This Agreement entered into the _____ day of _______________, 2016, by and between the Buda

Economic Development Corporation (“BEDC”), a 4B Corporation, and GMAG Holdings (“GMAG”), a

Texas partnership.

WHEREAS, GMAG proposes to locate and establish a high technology equipment and services

facility (“the Facility”) to be located at 980 A. Loop 4, in Buda (“the Property”);

WHEREAS, GMAG’s establishment of the Facility in the City of Buda will require an

expenditure of approximately five million dollars ($5,000,000.00); and,

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Agreement whereby BEDC will provide a

cash incentive to GMAG in exchange for GMAG’s agreement to create and maintain jobs and to generate

sales tax revenue in the City of Buda; and

WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge this Agreement represents the best and final offer of

incentives to be made by BEDC to GMAG;

Now, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto

agree as follows:

I. INCENTIVES

1.01. BEDC will provide a cash incentive to GMAG in the amount of Twenty thousand dollars

($20,000.00) (“the Incentive”) to assist in its establishment of the Facility on the Property through pay-

ment of permit fees, infrastructure development, and related costs.

The Incentive will be payable to GMAG within thirty (30) days of GMAG providing satisfactory proof

of

(a) Ownership of the Property, having an effective date of no later than December 31, 2016; and

(b) A copy of the building and/or site development permit issued by the City of Buda for

construction of the Facility.

28

Page 2 of 4

Board President: ________ President, GMAG:_______

1.02. The Incentive will be used exclusively for the purpose of:

(a) Paying permit fees to the City of Buda; and

(b) To secure or make improvements to infrastructure for the Facility.

1.03. The Incentive for this Agreement has been calculated based on the development of the

Facility and other phased improvements; however, if the project greatly exceeds the job creation and sales

tax revenue generation goals provided below, GMAG may apply for additional incentives. Upon GMAG’s

application for such additional incentives, BEDC may consider and grant additional incentives at its sole

discretion.

II. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

2.01. GMAG agrees to make a Capital Investment of Five million dollars ($5,000,000.00),

consisting of improvements to the Facility by March 31, 2017. Said improvements shall consist initially

of a building of approximately 45,000 square feet, with infrastructure. GMAG may expand the facility in

the future, and infrastructure to be installed is intended to accommodate a structure up to three times as

large.

2.02. GMAG shall furnish the BEDC receipts and/or other documents which conclusively establish

expenditure of the aforesaid amount on the Capital Improvements by April 30, 2017. Either or both

deadlines may be extended by up to sixty (60) days if approved by the BEDC Board of Directors. Failure

of GMAG to comply with this section shall be a breach of this Agreement and GMAG shall be obligated

to re-pay the entire Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) Incentive within thirty (30) days of receipt of

written notice from BEDC.

III. JOB CREATION

3.01. For the purpose of this Agreement, Full-Time Equivalent Jobs are defined as jobs that

employees work a minimum of thirty (30) hours per week, or one thousand five hundred sixty (1,560)

hours per year with wages as specified in article 3.02 below.

3.02. In consideration of the incentive described above, GMAG agrees to employ individuals for

the following number of Full-time Equivalent Jobs during the term of this Agreement, the same being

created and maintained as follows:

(a) By December 31, 2017 – create two (2) Full-Time Equivalent Jobs, the average wage

being $16.75 per hour.

(b) By December 31, 2019 – create two (2) additional Full-Time Equivalent Jobs, for a

total of four (4) Full-Time Equivalent Jobs created, the average wage being $16.75

per hour;

(c) From January 1, 2020 until the end of the term of this Agreement, to maintain at least

four (4) Full-Time Equivalent Jobs, the average wage being $16.75 per hour.

3.03. GMAG shall provide an annual report to the BEDC detailing the total number of Full-Time

Equivalent Jobs created and maintained in Buda; the total payroll paid; and zip codes of the home

29

Page 3 of 4

Board President: ________ President, GMAG:_______

addresses of each of its full time employees. Such reports shall be furnished annually on or before the 31st

day of January of each year for the years 2018 through 2020.

IV. DEFAULT; REMEDIES

4.01. For any year in which GMAG defaults by failing to reach the full time employment goals,

GMAG shall re-pay a portion of the incentive to BEDC as follows, provided, however, that BEDC may,

at its sole discretion, waive the full time employment goals for any given year:

(a) If GMAG fails to create two (2) Full-Time Equivalent Jobs by December 31, 2017,

GMAG will reimburse BEDC Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each employee

less than two and/or for each employee receiving less than $16.75 per hour;

(b) If GMAG fails to create a total of four (4) Full-Time Equivalent Jobs, including the

two (2) described in subsection (a), by January 1, 2020, GMAG will reimburse BEDC

Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each employee less than four and/or for each

employee receiving less than $16.75 per hour;

4.02. The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date until March 31, 2020. In the

event that GMAG ceases operations in Buda prior to March 31, 2020, then GMAG shall re-pay the entire

$20,000.00 incentive, or balance thereof based on prior repayments.

4.04. The maximum GMAG shall ever be required to re-pay BEDC shall not exceed a total of

$20,000.00. Any payment required herein shall be paid by GMAG to BEDC within 30 days of receipt

written demand for such payment.

4.05. In the event of default by BMG, BEDC reserves all rights and remedies available under law

or equity.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

5.01. No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended by the parties to create

a partnership or joint venture between the parties.

5.02. Venue. The obligations of the parties to this Agreement are performable in Hays County,

Texas, and if legal action is necessary to enforce same, exclusive venue shall lie in Hays County, Texas.

5.03. Employment of Undocumented Workers. During the term of this Agreement the

GMAG agrees not to knowingly employ any undocumented workers and if convicted of a viola-

tion under 8 U.S.C. Section 1324a(1), GMAG shall repay any other funds received by GMAG

from the BEDC under this Agreement, plus interest at the annual interest rate of 6% from the date

of violation until paid.

Effective as of the date first written above.

30

Page 4 of 4

Board President: ________ President, GMAG:_______

Buda Economic Development Corporation GMAG Holdings

_____________________________ ____________________________

Ron Fletcher, President Mark Peterson, Partner

Attest:

________________________________

Joy Hart, Secretary

31

City Council Agenda Item Report Date January 3rd 2017

Contact – Mike Beggs, City of Buda, 512-312-2876

MBEGGS@CI.BUDA,TX.US

SUBJECT: Deliberation and possible action to authorize the City Manager to

Execute a purchase order through RDO Equipment, a BuyBoard member, for the procurement of a 310-L Backhoe.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – The Public Works Department is in need of a new backhoe to help take the stress off the current older backhoes within the fleet. The new backhoe will increase productivity and lead to shorter response times.

2. BACKGROUND / HISTORY - The cost for the 310-L Backhoe was discussed during the

budget process and was included in the recommended budget. However, it was inadvertently removed prior to the final adoption of the budget. The Council approved / amended the budget on December 20th, 2016 in the amount of $92,046.00 which will be split between the Water and Wastewater budgets. RDO submitted a proposal through the BuyBoard Cooperative Purchasing Program, which the City of Buda is a member of. Procurement through this purchasing program satisfies local and state bidding procedures.

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS - N/A 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT - Total cost of the backhoe is $92,046.00 and will be split 50/50

between the Water and Wastewater budgets.

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION - N/A

6. PROS AND CONS PROS: having a new tractor will provide dependability and faster response times during emergency call outs. It will also reduce stress on the older tractors resulting in a longer life for the older machines. CONS: not having a new dependable tractor results in delays, more breakdowns and ever-escalating maintenance costs.

7. ALTERNATIVES - Continue to add hours on the existing backhoes which will result in higher maintenance cost and less productive work.

32

8. RECOMMENDATION – Staff is asking Council for approval to allow the City Manager to execute the purchase order for the procurement of the 2016 310-L backhoe from RDO Equipment.

33

Investment Proposal (Quote)RDO Equipment Co.

16415 N IH-35Pflugerville TX, 78660

Phone: (512) 272-4141 - Fax: (512) 272-9365

Proposal for:CITY OF BUDAPO BOX 1380BUDA, TX, 786101218HAYS(512) 312-0084

Investment Proposal Date:Pricing Valid Until:

Deal Number:Customer Account#:Sales Professional:

Phone:Fax:

Email:

11/15/201612/15/2016

8608190084005

Terry Weeter(512) 272-4141

TWeeter@rdoequipment.com

CommentsEXPECT A PRICE INCREASE THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. DELIVERY IS APPROX 60 DAYS AFTER ORDER.

Equipment InformationQuantity Serial

NumberHours(approx.)

Status / Year / Make / ModelAdditional Items

Cash Price

1 TBD 0 New 2016 JOHN DEERE 310L $136,161.00

Other BUYBOARD DISCOUNT ($36,763.47)

Other RDO LOYALTY DISCOUNT ($9,000.00)

Warranty -John Deere Comprehensive - Full Machine-48 Months,4000 Hours,Deductible: 200

$0.00

1 TBD 0 New 2016 TAG MANUFACTURING 310ELWRC $765.00

1 TBD 0 New 2016 TAG MANUFACTURING 24 WR BKT $883.00

Equipment Subtotal: $92,045.53

Purchase Order TotalsBalance: $92,045.53

Tax Rate 3: (TXEG 0%) $0.00Sales Tax Total: $0.00

Sub Total: $92,045.53Cash with Order: $0.00

Balance Due: $92,045.53

D860819 Page 1 of 2

34

Equipment OptionsQty Serial Number Year / Make / Model Description

1 TBD 2016 JOHN DEERE 310L 0A60T 310L BACKHOE LOADER1065 ENGINE FT41700 JDLINK ULT W/850/1900MHZ 3YR2015 CANOPY2401 DECAL ENG W/ENG PACKET3065 AXLE MFWD W/LIMITED SLIP4781 TIRE FS19.5L-24FS12.5/80-185225 CNTRL 2 LEVER MECHANICAL ISO5400 COUPLER LESS5500 BUCKET BHO LESS6010 DIPPER STANDARD6210 DIPPER STANDARD NO AUX7035 LDR CPLR 1 LEV NO AUX W/RC7650 LDR BKT 1.3CY LG LIP BKT92"8415 COUNTERWEIGHT BUMPER8635 BATTERY SINGLE W/JUMP POST9095 MACHINE SECURITY9117 HEAD LINER CANOPY9119 FLOOR MAT CANOPY9505 GUARD FULL MFWD9515 OIL SAMPLING PORTSAT308138 48" RAIL FORKS & FRAME (NU)

1 TBD 2016 TAG MANUFACTURING310ELWRC

WAIN ROY STYLE CPLR WR STYLE COUPLER FOR 310L

1 TBD 2016 TAG MANUFACTURING 24 WRBKT

24" WR STLYE BKT 24" WR STYLE BKT FOR 310L

D860819 Page 2 of 2

35

City Council Agenda Item ReportJanuary 3, 2017

Contact – Bo Kidd, Police Chief, bkidd@ci.buda.tx.us, 512-312-1001

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AWARDING IFB 17-002 CONTRACT TO BOSSIER CHRYSLER

DODGE JEEP FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE POLICE VEHICLES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget was originally adopted by City Council on September 20, 2016. Within the Public Safety budget there was money allocated for the purchase of police vehicles. An invitation for bids was issued November 16th of 2016, and Bossier Chrysler Dodge came back with the lowest bid.

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY

The Police Department requested 2 new vehicles to be added to their fleet in the 2016-2017 budget. One vehicle was to replace an aging vehicle to be taken off line (one of the original cars purchased in 2010), and the second vehicle to accommodate new positions. Council approved the purchase of these two vehicles in the 2016-2017 budget. When staff was preparing to go out for bids, we became aware that a third vehicle would need to be added due to a vehicle being wrecked and totaled. Insurance paid the City $21,389 for the loss of this vehicle due to an accident. City staff prepared formal solicitation bids for three vehicles to obtain the best value. On December 20th, City Council approved the purchase of this vehicle with the insurance payoff along with $1,511 from police forfeiture funds (Dec 20th City Council Meeting).

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

An Invitation for Bids was issued on October 27, 2016 for three vehicles for the Police Department. Four responses were received from Caldwell Country Chevrolet, Grapevine Dodge Chrysler Jeep, LLC, Bossier Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram and Lovefield Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram. After review of all bids, it was determined that Bossier Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram offered the best value to the City of Buda.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT (Budgeted amount; budget amendment required; revenue source)

Funding is available in the following account.Funding Account FY 2017 FY 2017 Funds Amount

36

Source Number Budgeted Funds

Available Requested

General Fund 4519.560.5612 $81,389 $81,389 $67,200

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

The approval of this contract will allow the Police Department to purchase the 2 new vehicles approved in the budget and 1 new vehicle to replace the one that was totaled.

6. PROS AND CONS

Pros – Allows for competitive pricing and best value for the City.Pros – Follows State statute and requirementsCons – N/A

7. ALTERNATIVES

N/A

8. RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends award of a contract with Bossier Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram to purchase vehicles for the Police Department.

37

City Council Agenda Item Report January 3, 2017

Contact – Chance Sparks, AICP, CNU-A, Asst. City Manager & Planning Director –

512-312-5745 – csparks@ci.buda.tx.us

SUBJECT: DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN APPEAL TO THE SIGN REVIEW BOARD'S

(PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION) DECISION IN REGARD TO A VARIANCE TO TABLE 10.3 OF THE CITY OF BUDA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR AN INCREASE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A FREESTANDING SIGN IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE-INTERSTATE RETAIL (C3/R3) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 340 OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD (ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CHANCE SPARKS)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is an appeal to a sign variance request to the Sign Review Board. The Planning & Zoning Commission functions as the Sign Review Board under its enabling ordinance and the Unified Development Code. On December 13, 2016, the Commission heard a request from Panda Express to exceed the maximum sign height of 12’ for their proposed restaurant and in-line commercial shopping center located at 340 Old San Antonio Road. The subject property is “landlocked” between Walmart, Chili’s, Austin Telco, and the future Jalisco’s Restaurant. The requested sign height is 50’. The Planning and Zoning Commission, by unanimous vote, voted to deny the variance request. This indicates the Commission felt the applicant did not sufficiently satisfy the criteria. Per procedural protocol, the applicant appealed the Commission’s decision within 10 business days to City Council, prompting preparation of this agenda item. City Council action on this appeal can lead to three possible outcomes:

• Denial of the appeal (uphold the Commission action) • Modify and Approve the Variance (grant the appeal, with modifications) • Approve the Variance (grant the appeal with signage as presented)

38

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The City of Buda Planning and Zoning Commission functions as the Sign Review Board (SRB) for the purposes of considering applications for relief from sign regulations (sign variance). In considering a request, the Applicant bears the burden of proof in establishing that relief is justified. If the Applicant is not satisfied with the ruling of the SRB, he/she must file a written appeal to City Council within 10 days of the SRB’s action. Sign variances are subject to the following approval criteria, as identified in the Unified Development Code:

1. Whether the applicable regulation does not allow for reasonable use of the property

2. Whether the hardship for which the relief is sought is owing to a special condition inherent in the property itself, such as restricted area, shape, topography or physical features

3. Whether the special condition is unique to the particular property at issues, and is not generally characteristic of other parcels of land in the area

4. Whether the relief sought alters the character of, or impair the use of, adjacent properties

5. Whether the relief is sought to alleviate a self-created hardship 6. Whether the relief is sought primarily for financial reasons

Unlike a normal variance, there is no requirement to satisfy all criteria. This means the Commission had broader discrimination in reviewing, approving, or modifying the variance. This request is for the property located at 340 Old San Antonio Road. The proposed developed has two buildings, one is for a restaurant with a drive-thru; the other is a speculative multi-tenant space. The property is zoned C3/R3, Interstate Commercial/Office-Interstate Retail. This variance is for the freestanding sign, which is proposed to be shared by all tenants on the property. For location identification, aerial images appear below in the report. The subject property is “landlocked” between Walmart, Chili’s, Austin Telco, and the future Jalisco’s Restaurant. The applicant is requesting variances from UDC Table 10.3, which establishes that a freestanding sign shall not exceed 12 feet in height for a property zoned C3/R3 that is not within 200 feet of I-35. The applicant’s request is for 50 feet.

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The applicant’s written justification for the variance emphasizes the location of the lot as the driving factor for the request. The lot is located behind existing developments and off of the public right of way. Furthermore, the front lot, while still vacant, has a restaurant proposal currently undergoing review. The applicant has requested a departure from the allowed freestanding sign height limitation of 12 feet, to a height of 50 feet. The developments to the east of this property are located within 200 feet of I-35, which increases the height limitation for freestanding signs from 12 feet to 42.5 feet. The subject 39

property is located 396 feet from Interstate 35. The overlay allows for the tallest signs in the City. This request exceeds that maximum height by 7.5 feet. It appears the applicant, from materials provided at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, is attempting to achieve visibility from Interstate 35.

Evaluation of Approval Criteria 1. Whether the applicable regulation does not allow for reasonable use of the property.

The property is undeveloped, and, to staff’s knowledge, the cause of this vacancy is not due to the sign regulations. The applicant states that the lot is “interior” and “has no actual road frontage”. Staff has found that while this property is not truly landlocked, it is in fact within the “interior” of the overall development as it does not touch a public road. It does, however, have access off of a private street. A similar situation can be found west of this property at Austin Telco. Austin Telco is located within the development and along the same private street. The Austin Telco placed

40

their freestanding sign along the aforementioned private street. That being said, financial institutions are far less reliant on drive-by exposure and sign visibility compared to retail and restaurant uses, as financial institution consumers are member-based while other uses do not involve a self-selection.

2. Whether the hardship for which the relief is sought is owing to a special condition

inherent in the property itself, such as restricted area, shape, topography or physical features.

The applicant cites the lot configuration as the condition that has created the hardship. The applicant does not indicate that restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features have created a hardship for this development. Staff agrees that this lot configuration is not ideal, and would have benefited from a Master Sign Plan for the overall development. The lot configuration was created more than 10 years ago. The applicant does not mention this in their justification, but the issue with the lot configuration is that the parcel between the subject property and Old San Antonio Road will develop and create an obstruction that limits visibility of both the buildings and potential signage. This physical obstruction is made worse by the curve of the private street, which is their only street access, as it positions structures on the front parcel in a way that limits visibility from multiple angles. The combination of the proposed development, existing developments, and the curvature of the road would render a 12’ freestanding sign ineffective, except to traffic already on the private access drive. There is a gap between Chili’s and Cracker Barrel that creates an oblique line of sight for the property, though this does not correspond to actual site access.

3. Whether the special condition is unique to the particular property at issues, and is not

generally characteristic of other parcels of land in the area

The special condition stated by the applicant is that the proposed development is for two (2) buildings on one (1) lot. The choice to build two (2) buildings on a single lot was one that was made by the applicant, as the subject parcel is large enough to accommodate a quick service restaurant with a drive-thru and a separate retail building. The applicant states that the UDC only allows for one (1) freestanding sign for both buildings. This is incorrect. The C3/R3 zoning does not have a limitation for the number of freestanding signs per lot. The limitation lies in the frequency at which the freestanding signs occur, which is one (1) sign per 100 feet of street frontage. The site development plans for this development indicate that the frontage along the private street is approximately 121 feet. This distance would allow for two signs. While not recommended due to the amount of visual clutter excess signs create, the applicant does have the opportunity to add an additional freestanding sign to this property. This proposal instead consolidates all freestanding signage onto a single sign, which is preferred and will likely be required in a future UDC. Staff also notes that this is the only “landlocked” parcel with a high-traffic need in this area, which does constitute a unique special condition that is not characteristic of other parcels.

4. Whether the relief sought alters the character of, or impair the use of, adjacent

properties 41

It does not appear that the variance would alter the character or impair the use of adjacent properties. Residential uses to the west are shielded by taller hotel/lodging buildings.

5. Whether the relief is sought to alleviate a self-created hardship

The applicant repeatedly states throughout the justification that the development is unique in that it is two (2) buildings on one (1) lot, and thus a taller sign is necessary. This justification indicates that if the development were one (1) building on one (1) lot, the larger sign would not be needed. The choice to place multiple buildings on a single lot was made by the applicant as it is not a requirement. That being said, staff has observed the high likelihood of obstruction as the front parcel is developed.

6. Whether the relief is sought primarily for financial reasons

The applicant states that in order for the development to be “fiscally sound”, the visibility, from the larger sign, is “paramount”. The provided justification does not indicate that relief is sought for any reason other than that of a financial nature. It should be noted that a taller sign is more expensive.

From the staff perspective, this situation could have been avoided had the original property owner developed a Master Sign Plan for common signage along Old San Antonio Road in this area. One could argue this is still possible, but exponentially more difficult and potentially impossible due to fragmentation of property ownership and competing interests of property owners. Ideally, larger, multitenant signage would have been provided at the main access driveways along Old San Antonio in order to provide exposure for “landlocked” parcels such as this and to minimize clutter. The Commission also requested additional information regarding other signage near to the subject property. Nearly all such signage was approved & installed prior to electronic permit records, and are now in storage or destroyed. Staff was, however, able to estimate the heights of several signs based on other documentation or site visits.

42

Materials from the December 13, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission are attached to this report, including the applicant’s presentation.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT

The addition of new restaurants and retail business on an undeveloped parcel has a net increase in ad valorem and sales tax production. Staff anticipates the economic production of this property to be similar to the commercial center on Main Street containing the Century 21 offices, Papa John’s and other lessees.

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION This is only the second occurrence of a decision of the Sign Review Board being appealed to City Council. The variance criteria for a sign variance differ significantly from a conventional variance, in that there is broad discretion for the Sign Review Board (and City Council) to apply the criteria—the UDC does not explicitly state that all criteria must be met. The applicant has requested to install a 50’ tall multitenant pylon sign at 340 Old San Antonio Road, in support of a project to construct a Panda Express and a commercial strip center. The Planning & Zoning Commission, acting as the Sign Review Board, denied this variance request. The applicant then timely filed an appeal of the decision to City Council. As an appeal, the City Council’s role to evaluate the prior decision of the Sign Review Board. This can be treated as a De Novo, or rehearing, in which the City Council reviews all materials and makes its own determination. Such evaluation can lead to three possible outcomes:

• Denial of the appeal (uphold the Commission action) • Modify and Approve the Variance (grant the appeal, with modifications) • Approve the Variance (grant the appeal with signage as presented)

The implications for each possible outcome are listed below in “Alternatives.”

6. PROS AND CONS Staff has evaluated pros and cons. Since this is an appeal with multiple outcomes, the pros and cons have been consolidated with the discussion of alternatives below.

7. ALTERNATIVES

A limited number of alternatives are available to address this sign appeal. Staff has identified some of the alternatives and the implications of pursuing those alternatives:

• Deny the Appeal (uphold the Commission action) – This alternative results in the variance being denied outright. The pros and cons of this alternative include:

o Pro: This action provides support and confidence to the Planning & Zoning Commission, recognizing their due consideration of the matter. City Council is able to defer to one of its appointed bodies, which was the original intent of the Sign Review Board’s creation.

43

o Pro: This action provides strength to enforcement of sign regulations and discourages pursuit of variances; standards are established regarding the expectations of appeals of Sign Review Board decisions.

o Con: Denial of any variance may discourage applicants from pursuing potentially worthy variances.

o Con: Applicant has stated this is a critical need and may affect whether the project proceeds.

Motion Language:

I make a motion to affirm the Sign Review Board’s decision to deny the variance.

• Modify and Approve the Variance (grant the appeal, with modifications) – This

alternative results in the variance being granted, but provides for modifications to address concerns. Staff provided a list of modifications it felt, at a minimum, would be necessary had the Commission chosen to approve the variance. These included:

o Limit height to minimum necessary to achieve visibility of sign tenants based on geometric analysis using Chili’s as an obstruction, not to exceed 42.5’

o Applicant foregoes any other freestanding signage o All tenants be required to place signage on the multi-tenant sign, and will

not be charged separately except when a tenant requests to use more than equal share (Note: this provision is to prevent the issues with the Walmart Multi-tenant sign)

o Reduction in overall allowed signage on the site from 800 s.f. to 600 s.f. o Require that the sign be placed near the southeast corner of the site o Require incorporation of a stone pole wrap on the pylon and stucco/EIFS-

style framing on the sign cabinet consistent with finish appearance applied on the buildings

o Require design of internal lighting system to ensure even lighting and avoidance of hot/cold spots

The pros and cons of this alternative include:

o Pro: This action provides an alternative whereby the desires of the applicant are partially satisfied and the project can likely proceed from the applicant without further issue.

o Pro: This action, compared to outright approval of the appeal as presented, addresses several concerns staff has with granting a variance outright.

o Con: This action may encourage future sign variance requests to appeal to City Council in order to politicize the evaluation.

o Con: This action, to some degree, undermines and reduces the confidence of the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Motion Language: I make a motion to grant the appeal, subject to the following modifications to the sign variance request… (list)

44

• Approve the Variance (grant the appeal with signage as presented) – This

alternative results in the variance being granted as presented by the applicant.

The pros and cons of this alternative include: o Pro: This action provides an alternative whereby the desires of the

applicant are completely satisfied and the project can likely proceed from the applicant without further issue.

o Con: This action fails to address addresses several minimum concerns staff has with granting a variance outright.

o Con: This action may encourage future sign variance requests to appeal to City Council in order to politicize the evaluation.

o Con: This action, to some degree, undermines and reduces the confidence of the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Motion Language: I make a motion to grant the appeal as presented.

8. RECOMMENDATION

This item is actionable at the discretion of City Council. The Planning & Zoning Commission acted to deny the variance by unanimous vote at their December 13, 2016 meeting. As an appeal of a Commission’s action, staff presents this item without separate recommendation.

45

46

SIGN INDUSTRIES r (

FLORIDA I NORTH CAROLd,u\/ /¡ GEORGIA

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 1077 West Blue Heron Blvd , West Palm Beach, Flonda 33404

PHONE• (561)863.6659 / 800.772.7932 FAX (561)863.4294 www.atlasslgnindustries.us

NORTHEAST DIVISION 707 Commerce Drive Concord North Carolina 28025

PHONE (704) 788 3733 / 800.772 7932 FAX. (704) 788 3843

11/8/2016

City of Buda 100 Houston St, Ste. A Buda, TX 7861 O

Re: Panda Express - Variance for Freestanding Signage 340 Old San Antonio Road, Ste. 100 Buda, TX

Dear Ms. Johnson/Whom it May Concern,

This letters serves as a request for a variance of Chapter 1 O, Table 10.3 of the Sign Ordinance to allow additional height (50 ft. overall height) for a freestanding sign. The justification is attached as required and plans have been previously submitted to the City of Buda.

We thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present our case to you and hopefully provide our client with the branding they are seeking for their new location.

If there is an agenda that will be published, please email to the below addresses:

jenn.r@atlassignindustries.us lucas.w@atlassignindustriesnc.us

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

~ ~a~~~~~~--~- , Jenn R~~Director of Permi~Çt ~tlas Sign In nstries I The Sign of Perform~~

1077-W~t~Hèrc:m,Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33404 P 561 863 6659 fF5ôí1212449 I c 561 312 8368 J enn.R@atlassignindustries.us

THE SIGN CF PERFORMANCE

47

1. Whether the applicable regulation does not allow for reasonable use of the property; 

The sign regulations allow for a 12 ft. overall height freestanding sign which is not conducive for this 

interior lot with no actual road frontages in order to receive visibility for the new tenants. The 

ordinance prohibits the ability to utilize the property as intended as a retail development by way of 

restricting the ability to advertise the location due to height constraints, therefore diminishing the 

public visibility of retail entities therein. 

 

2. Whether the hardship for which the relief is sought is owing to a special condition inherent in 

the property itself, such as restricted area, shape, topography or physical features; 

This property is unique due to the fact that there are two (2) separate buildings on one (1) interior lot.  

This property is surrounded by developed parcels, and landscaping, therefore restricting the 

businesses to be visible from the adjacent roadways without the requested height increase. 

 

3. Whether the special condition is unique to the particular property at issues, and is not generally 

characteristic of other parcels of land in the area; 

This property is unlike other developed properties as there are two (2) buildings with multiple 

businesses on one (1) parcel.  The code allows for only one (1) freestanding sign to encompass both 

buildings and businesses. 

 

4. Whether the relief sought alters the character of, or impair, the use of, adjacent properties; 

The variances requested are the minimum necessary for these businesses to reach their fullest 

potential and ensure their success. In addition, the proposed variance will not have any negative 

impact on any of the surrounding properties and will carry out and enrich the spirit of the ordinance. 

 

5. Whether the relief is sought to alleviate a self‐created hardship; and whether the relief is sough 

primarily for financial reasons; 

The conditions of the property are not the result of the applicant, they are of the result surrounding 

parcels thus leaving the remaining land in the current state of hardship which doesn’t allow for 

adequate freestanding signage. In order to successfully utilize the 1.5 acres of land, two (2) separate 

buildings were required for maximum use of the property.  For the development to become fiscally 

sound and add to the success of the City of Buda, the visibility of the businesses is paramount.  The 

requested increase in height and square footage will not only assist the citizens and business owners, 

it will also keep the City of Buda economically stable. 

 

48

49

50

51

52

B A

NN

I S T

E R

E

NG

IN

EE

RI

NG

240

N. M

itche

ll Ro

adM

ansf

ield

, TX

7606

381

7.84

2.20

9481

7.84

2.20

95 fa

xRE

GIST

RATI

ON #

F-1

0599

(TEX

AS)

R

(@ le

ast 4

8 ho

urs

prio

r to

digg

ing)

Cal

l bef

ore

you

dig.

Kno

w w

hat'

s be

low

.

BENC

HMAR

KS

STAM

P:

ARCH

PRO

JECT

#:

CFT

PROJ

ECT

#:

DRAW

N BY

:

All id

eas,

desig

ns, a

rrang

emen

t and

plan

s ind

icated

or

repr

esen

ted by

this

draw

ing ar

e the

prop

erty

of C

FT. a

ndwe

re cr

eated

for u

se on

this

spec

ific pr

oject.

Non

e of th

ese

ideas

, des

igns,

arra

ngem

ents

or pl

ans m

ay be

used

by or

disclo

sed

to an

y per

son,

firm, o

r cor

pora

tion w

ithou

t the

writte

n per

miss

ion of

CFT

CFT

PLAZ

A

340 O

ld Sa

n Anto

nio R

d, Su

ite 20

0-20

6Bu

da, T

X. 78

610

CT67

8

1608

3-00

2

EA

SITE PLAN REVIEW

ISSU

E DA

TE:

REVI

SION

S:

CFT

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T, L

LC.

Ros

emea

d, C

alifo

rnia

1683

Wal

nut G

rove

Ave

.

9177

0

DAL

LAS

5717

Leg

acy

Driv

e, S

uite

240

Plan

o, T

exas

. 750

2497

2 49

0 72

92 V

HO

UST

ON

1111

Nor

th L

oop

Wes

t, Su

ite 8

00H

oust

on, T

exas

770

0871

3 86

9 11

03 V

1st

DEVE

LOPE

R RE

VIEW

08-0

5-16

2nd

SITE

PLA

N RE

VIEW

10-0

7-16

3rd

SITE

PLA

N RE

VIEW

COM

MENT

S 1

11-2

3-16

C-2.1

SITE

PLA

N

LEGE

ND

NOTE

S

SITE

SUM

MAR

Y TA

BLE

GENE

RAL

SITE

DAT

AZO

NING

FZ-2

LAND

USE

REST

AURA

NT W

/ DRI

VE T

HRU

LOT

AREA

62,2

47 S

.F. (

1.42

9 AC

RES)

TOTA

L BU

ILDI

NG A

REA

(SF)

RETA

IL B

UILD

ING

7,80

0 SF

PAND

A EX

PRES

S BU

ILDI

NG2,

600

SFTO

TAL

BUIL

DING

ARE

A10

,400

SF

IMPE

RVIO

US C

OVER

(%)

81.4

0%GR

EEN

SPAC

E (S

F)11

,548

SF

PARK

ING

PARK

ING

RATI

O RE

QUIR

ED1

PER

100

S.F

/ GFA

(RES

TAUR

ANT)

1 PE

R 25

0 S.

F./G

FA (R

ETAI

L)

REQU

IRED

PAR

KING

(5,3

00/1

00) =

53

(RES

TAUA

RANT

)

(5,1

00/2

50) =

20

(RET

AIL)

TOTA

L RE

QUIR

ED P

ARKI

NG73

SPA

CES

PROV

IDED

PAR

KING

73 S

PACE

S (I

NCLU

DES

4AC

CESS

IBLE

)AC

CESS

IBLE

/ VA

N AC

CESS

IBLE

REQU

IRED

4

ACCE

SSIB

LE /

VAN

ACCE

SSIB

LEPR

OVID

ED4

53

1

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express• P&Z is the Sign Review Board

• Application for relief is called a sign variance, but structured as an appeal

• Applicant bares burden of proof to establish relief is justified

• Applicant can appeal to City Council

• Criteria:

– Regulation does not allow reasonable use

– Whether hardship is owed to special condition inherent in the property itself

– Whether the special condition is unique to the particular property, and is not characteristic of other parcels in the area

– Whether relief sought alters the character of or impairs use of adjacent properties

– Whether the relief is sought to alleviate a self-created hardship

– Whether the relief is primarily financial

• Unlike normal variance, the applicant is not required to satisfy all criteria

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express• 340 Old San Antonio Road; platted in Cabela’s Section 3 (2007)

• C3/R3 Zoning

• Approximately 396’ from Interstate 35

• Lot is an interior “landlocked” commercial lot

• Requesting 50’ Multi-tenant pylon sign

54

2

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express

Cracker Barrel

Chili’sJalisco’s

(permitting)

Walmart

Logan’s

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express

• Sign Requested is 50’

tall

55

3

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express

Chili’s ~10’

Cabela’s ~50’

Walmart ~55’

Logan’s ~35’

H1 – V 16-01

Panda Express• Commission has discretion to approve, deny, or approve with modifications

• Staff believes the request likely satisfies at least one criteria.

• If Commission chooses to approve, staff suggests the following modifications:

– Limit height to minimum necessary to achieve visibility of sign tenants based on geometric analysis using Chili’s as an obstruction, not to exceed 42.5’

– Applicant foregoes any other freestanding signage

– All tenants be required to place signage on the multi-tenant sign, and will not be charged separately except when a tenant requests to use more than equal share

– Reduction in overall allowed signage on the site from 800 s.f. to 600 s.f.

– Require that the sign be placed near the southeast corner of the site

– Require incorporation of stone pole wrap on the pylon and stucco/EIFS-style framing of the sign cabinet consistent with finish appearance applied on the buildings

– Require design of internal lighting system to ensure even lighting and avoidance of hot/cold spots

56

4

Signage Variance Presentation

December 13th, 2016

This evening we are here to respectfully request approval of the variance for Panda Express Restaurant:

Allow a larger freestanding sign on the proposed property located at

340 Old San Antonio Rd, Buda, TX.

The approval of this request will allow Panda Express to succeed and help the community of Buda.

57

5

Panda Express is going to locate their new restaurant at the corner of I-35 and Old San Antonio Road.

Here they would provide jobs for approximately 50 employees in just their

restaurant alone and more in the adjacent multi-tenant building.

The restaurant and multi-tenant building will occupy the vacant space South of the existing Walmart and Northwest of the existing Cracker Barrel and is well positioned to serve the citizens of Buda.

The site is zoned C3/R3, Interstate Commercial/Office-Interstate Retail.

Code section: Table 10.3 of the City of Buda sign code.

58

6

Panda Inn began as a fine dining restaurant in 1973. Their first location was located in Pasadena, California. After the

success of Panda Inn, they opened the first Panda Express in 1983 and the new concept quickly became a pioneer in the

quick-service Chinese food market.

A Little Bit of History

The success of the first Panda Express granted them the ability to expand across the nation!

Panda Express Then and Now!

Store in Beaumont, TX

Recently Panda Express has redesigned the style of their restaurants to give a more modern, clean and sophisticated look. This change ensures that all of

their future restaurants will complement whichever community they go into.

59

7

Rendering of the proposed Buda location that shows the building colors and materials.

Panda Express currently has over 27,000 associates, 1,800 stores in 46 States and abroad!

“To deliver exceptional Asian dining experiences by building an organization where people are inspired to better their lives."

60

8

Panda Cares promotes our spirit of giving and servicing the health and

education needs of underserved children. Launched in 1999, the

company wide community involvement initiative dedicated to providing food,

funding and volunteer services to children’s organizations and disaster

relief efforts has raised $60 million for charities and causes in the US and

internationally.

Panda Express celebrates diversity by entering their “Bringing Cultures

Together” float in the Tournament of Roses Parade. It is the parade’s longest

float, and captures the Tournament Special Trophy for exceptional merit in

multiple classifications.

Panda Express Gives Back!Panda is committed to giving their time and resources to support their communities.

61

9

FACTS• This property does not touch a public road making it extremely difficult for the

public to know of their location. The allowed 12’ freestanding sign is ineffective for this property.

• The proposed ground signage is the minimum necessary to obtain optimum visibility for patrons traveling along I-35.

• Location is negatively impacted by parcel obstructions and lot/street layout.

• Signage provided by Atlas Sign Industries uses the highest quality GE illumination that illuminates evenly and efficiently, allowing for consistent glow throughout the sign, alleviating any hot-spots or speckling.

62

10

City Commission Panda Express respectfully requests the approval of the proposed signage variance as submitted.

Thank you -

In conclusion, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to develop this parcel to its fullest potential and ensure the success of this proposed restaurant and multi-tenant retail center.

63

City Council Agenda Item ReportDate: Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Agenda Item No. 2017-4-Contact: Alicia Ramirez

Subject: Considering of Deliberation and possible action on the election of Mayor Pro-Temfor the 2017 City Council (City Secretary Alicia Ramirez)

1. Background/History

2. Findings/Current Activity

3. Financial Impact

4. Action Options/Recommendation

64

City Council Agenda Item Report January 3, 2017

Contact – Alicia Ramirez, City Secretary

aramirez@ci.buda.tx.us

SUBJECT: DELIBERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO-TEM FOR THE 2017 CITY

COUNCIL

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PROVIDE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE ISSUE) Appointment of the Mayor Pro Tem.

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY (PROVIDE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ISSUE) The Charter states that the Mayor Pro Tem shall be a Council Member elected by the City

Council at the first regular City Council meeting following each regular City election. 3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The current Mayor Pro Tem is Council Member Hopkins. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT

None.

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The appointment of the Mayor Pro Tem for the 2017 City Council.

6. PROS AND CONS NONE.

7. ALTERNATIVES None – required by Charter.

8. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends electing a Mayor Pro Tem for 2015-2016.

65

City Council Agenda Item Report January 3, 2017

Contact – Chance Sparks, AICP, CNU-A, Asst. City Manager & Planning Director –

512-312-5745 – csparks@ci.buda.tx.us

SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE STATUS AND UPCOMING PROCESS FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT

CODE RE-WRITE (ASST. CITY MANAGER & PLANNING DIRECTOR CHANCE SPARKS)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff, with Freese & Nichols and the City Attorney, is nearing completion of the public review Draft Unified Development Code. Recent staff departures, coupled with a lengthier legal review than anticipated (extremely long document and other competing legal needs of the City) and subsequent case law developments, caused delays in finalizing a public review draft. The final remaining portion, anticipated for completion by December 31st, addresses the sign regulations. This topic area has experienced the most extensive legal review, as case law & municipal guidance is still developing in the wake of the Reed vs. Town of Gilbert U.S. Supreme Court cases & a number of related cases. Due to the recentness of the cases, planners as well as city attorneys across the state & nation have spent the last year developing standard methodologies to respond. Once the public review draft is received (expected 1st week of January), it will be posted online for comment. In addition, hard copies, bound in some manner, will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff will be prepared to meet individually with Commissioners, and to meet individually (thru the City Manager) with City Council to answer questions. Should the City Council wish, a staff-led workshop can be scheduled as well. Once the document has been in the possession of the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for at least 30 days, staff will bring a resolution to call the necessary joint public hearing and to establish the adoption process in a manner consistent with applicable state law. 66

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY As City Council may recall, a complete re-write of the Unified Development Code was a critical recommendation of the Buda 2030 Comprehensive Plan in order to implement the vision statement, guiding principles, goals & objectives articulated within the plan. The Buda 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2011, included a number of provisions in the City’s development ordinances requiring substantial revision. In some cases, the recommended revisions were radical departures from the current development codes. In addition, the Unified Development Code was created under much different circumstances than the current Buda:

• Buda was still a general law city, which limited its authority under state law • Buda had no in-house staff for development regulation—it relied entirely on 3rd

party vendors • Buda’s population was roughly 1/3 of its current population, estimated to be well

over 10,000 • A number of legal changes as well as advancements in modern urban planning

have taken place since its initial adoption; the lifespan of a development code is normally considered to be 10-15 years, after which a major revision or complete replacement is often required

There were also a number of significant issues within the current UDC identified as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Simply put, the current UDC does not function well, fails to promote the goals & objectives of the comprehensive plan, has a number of internal conflicts and is functionally obsolete. The City of Buda executed a contract with Freese & Nichols to provide consulting services in support of a complete revision to the Unified Development Code. They were selected through a RFQ profess in which the Planning & Zoning Commission identified the firm as a lone finalist for consideration by City Council. The Commission also serves as the advisory committee for the UDC re-write. Freese and Nichols includes a subconsultant, Design Workshop, to assist with design and form-based aspects of the UDC. The contract scope with Freese and Nichols includes a three-phase process:

• Phase 1 – Diagnostic Evaluation. Includes review of the City’s existing UDC and approval processes, resulting in the definition of problems and issues arising out of current code & practices as they relate to adopted long-range plans. This was completed in early 2015.

• Phase 2 – UDC Preparation. Includes preparation of the actual customized UDC in a document that is consistent with adopted plans, legally-defensible and streamlined. Steps in this process include developing procedures & definitions, zoning districts & zoning standards, regulating plan & form-based regulations, zoning procedures & supplemental regulations, and subdivision standards and subdivision procedures.

• Phase 3 – Review Code & Adoption. This will be the stage once the public review draft is received. It includes completion of the UDC and adoption process.

67

3. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION It is understood that this process has taken significantly longer than initially anticipated. The causes of this are many, but, fundamentally, this is a highly technical document in which the emphasis should be a good, well-vetted document rather than a speedy deliverable. Freese & Nichols is interested in completing the project expeditiously as well. To reiterate:

• Final comment language on sign regulations will be sent to Freese & Nichols by December 31st

• Receipt of a public review draft of the UDC is anticipated the first week of January • The draft will be posted online, and hard copies provided to the Planning & Zoning

Commission and City Council • The Commission and City Council will have the UDC in their possession at least 30

days prior to being asked to take any kind of action • Staff will be available to meet individually with Commissioners and City Council

members (thru the City Manager) • Should City Council wish, staff can lead a workshop on the draft UDC • City Council will be asked to pass a resolution to call the joint public hearing and

state the process of adoption • The hearing will be held, and subsequent to the hearing, adoption can take place

68

City Council Agenda Item ReportDate: Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Agenda Item No. 2016-506-Contact: John Nett

Subject: Considering of Update on 2014 Bond Propositions (Project Manager Ray Creswell;City Engineer John Nett; Director of Parks & Recreation Drew Wells)

1. Background/History

2. Findings/Current Activity

3. Financial Impact

4. Action Options/Recommendation

69

City Council Agenda Item Report January 3, 2017

Contacts – Ray Creswell, RA, rcreswell@ci.buda.tx.us, John Nett, P.E., City Engineer,

jnett@ci.buda.tx.us, and Drew Wells, dwells@ci.buda.tx.us, 512-312-0084

SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT – UPDATE ON 2014 BOND PROPOSITIONS (PROJECT MANAGER RAY CRESWELL;

CITY ENGINEER JOHN NETT; DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DREW WELLS)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is placed on the agenda to allow for the opportunity to brief the City Council and the citizens of Buda on the ongoing progress of the City’s 2014 Bond Program.

2. BACKGROUND/HISTORY

In November 2014, the citizens of Buda approved five bond propositions: • Proposition 1 – Municipal Facility ($21 Million) is a new multi-purpose building to

house a library, municipal court, city hall, community multi-purpose space and emergency-preparedness space.

• Proposition 2 – Public Safety Facility ($6.75 Million) is a new building to house the police department, and related emergency response and training facilities.

• Proposition 3 – Streets ($12.25 Million) includes priority capital improvement projects identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan and Downtown Plan.

• Proposition 4 – Drainage ($7 Million) includes flood control, flow capacity, and priority drainage capital improvement projects identified in the City’s Master Drainage Plan.

• Proposition 5 – Parks and Trails ($8 Million) includes capital improvements to City Park, new Garison Park, and various projects identified in the City Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan.

3. STAFF’S REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

Each of the bond propositions will be presented to the City Council. Key project activities will be highlighted as they relate to the overall project schedule.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT

This agenda item is for briefing purposes only. There are no proposed changes to existing fiscal obligations within the 2014 Bond Program. 70

5. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

Staff wants to ensure that the City Council and the citizens of Buda are kept informed of the progress of each of the 2014 Bond projects. Accordingly, information will be presented through many venues.

6. PROS AND CONS This standing agenda item allows for the timely exchange of information with the City Council and provides an open forum to address questions and concerns on the 2014 Bond Program.

7. ALTERNATIVES At this time, there are no proposed changes to the scope of any of the 2014 Bond projects.

8. RECOMMENDATION There are no staff recommendations at this time; the agenda item is for briefing purposes only.

71

CITY COUNCIL 

PENDING/FUTURE ITEM REQUEST

Revised:  12/30/2016, Page 1

MEETING  DATE COUNCIL MEMBER REQ# REQUESTED ITEM

12/20/2016 Altmiller  1)

Pursue & consider CAPCOG Grant Opportunity for Household 

Hazardous Waste programs

12/20/2016 Kennedy 1)

Pursue Household Hazardous Waste programs and State Building 

Commission

12/6/2016 Kennedy 1)

Budafest Organizers provide a report to Council, specifically 

regarding their financial reports, reimbursement practices, and 

how they handle such issues.

11/15/2016 Nuckels 1) Veteran’s Day and local events; possibly schedule a parade next year

11/15/2016 Haehn 1)

Conduct study on the impact of freezing property tax / exemption for 

elderly

10/18/2016 None

10/11/2016 Nuckels 1) Based on National Night Event, traffic issues on FM 2001 at Meadow Park

10/11/2016 Altmiller  1) Upcoming legislature‐ prepare agenda and aware of issues

9/6/2016 None

8/2/2016 Haehn 1)

suggest staff consider applying for the National Civic League All‐America 

City Award. 

6/7/2016 Altmiller  1)

UDC Draft, related ordinances changes and permit requirements, 

specifically relocating mobile homes in and out of the city limits

4/19/2016 Nuckels 1)

Bradfield park and flooded area; possibly use the TxDOT Historic Bridge 

Program

72