Loading...
MIN 09.13.2016 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, September 13, 2016 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. V1 St., Georgetown, Texas The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8a' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance with the exception of Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5 and Councilmember Tommy Gonzalez, District 7. Gonzalez joined the meeting at 3:30 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion of the proposed Transit Development Plan and Accompanying Financial Agreements -- Nat Waggoner, AICP. PMP, Transportation Services Analyst Nat Waggoner, the City's Transportation Services Analyst, provided the presentation and discussion for the Transit Development Plan and financial agreements. Waggoner said this would be an update of the plan and the obligations to Capital Metro. Waggoner said he would provide staff recommendations and ask the Council for direction and guidance. Waggoner spoke on the obligation with Capital Metro first. He spoke on the FY15 Interlocal Agreement for a Transit Development Plan and a scope to develop a fixed route system, with $85K of Federal 5307 and $21 K local funds. Waggoner said the work began in December 2014 and ended in June 2015. He explained that there is 12 months to consider adoption of the plan. Waggoner noted that the ILA 2016 with Cap Metro ends September 30, 2016 and an ILA 2017 would need to be executed by September 30, 2016. Waggoner provided a slide depicting Council direction in February 2016 GEO0.GRON:V n�,� LOtll Council Direction m F.n Waggoner spoke on the City Council guidance from February 9, 2016 • Pursue Fixed Route Bus Plan • Explore Strategic Partnerships • Develop Strategic Plan to Support Those Partnerships • Revise Routing, Service Hours, Financial Plan • Recommend Performance Measures Waggoner next provided the City Council Guidance from May 24, 2016 • Determine Criteria for Council Review of Performance Measures: Periodic updates to Council anytime triggers are met L 1/1 (3 of 6) of Performance measures are not met; < 50% of any 1 measure is not met) • Continue to explore voucher like system • Keep potential bus system moving forward independent of voucher exploration • Continue public input process Fought noted that the word "not' should be omitted from the language to clarify the direction. Waggoner thanked Fought for the correction. Waggoner listed the Actions taken since May 24, 2016 • Pursue Funding for Faith in Action through FTA • Revised TDP, ready for adoption • Research, evaluate feasibility of voucher system (4 TNCs surveyed, by phone and email) • Agreement with Georgetown Health Foundation Secured • Interlocal Agreement with Capital Metro drafted Waggoner provided a chart on Service Standards for performance measures and route review. G[OIRGI[TowN� I 1\11 Service Standards -Performance measures used to assess the four fixed routes -Routes will be reviewed individually and as a system every six months per FTA Passengers per Revenue Hour 6 8 10 Farebox Recovery 6% 8% 10% Cost per Passenger $12 $9 $7 Cost per Revenue Hour $75 $77 $79 On -Time Performance 95% 95% 95% Total Annual Riders (per route) 10,000 14,000 17,000 Planned Paratransit Capacity was shown next. Transit0evelo ment Plan Planned Paratransit Capacity Paratransit 0 0 3562 Demand Response 5,200 35% 0 Total Hours 5,200 1820 3562 Waggoner spoke on the Voucher Research Findings • P3 —Voucher Models exist in 3 general forms: Is'/Last Mile; Guaranteed Ride Home; Paratransit • Ridesharing appears to be a substitute for auto travel, but not baseline public transit • Ridesharing is for social, recreational transit, at night and on the weekends • Tech -enabled services (pre -condition) key to model • Paratransit market may offer the most impact, but is the hardest to administer through a ridesharing program Waggoner said he was pleased with the findings and explained the findings to the Council. He described the voucher program and new innovations that are being discussed. Waggoner spoke on a program with Capital Metro called the guaranteed ride home program. He said it is designed so that if a company does not serve the area, the company will reimburse your expense to the company used. Waggoner explained ride sharing. Mayor Ross noted that this is not a replacement for fixed route service, but if ridership is very low, vouchers would be a solution. Ross said the City has a responsibility to provide transportation. Fought said this has a lot of potential. He said he would want to approve a system to try, even if unusual, to see if it works. Waggoner noted that are emerging solutions to problems addressed previously, such as citizens without smart phones. The Voucher service providers are developing solutions. Waggoner provided a Fare Structure for Uber and Lyft and spoke on the design of the model. GraltGCT61vN� I❑\1 Fare Structure for Uber and Lyft Base Fare $1.00 $1.00 Per Minute $0.12 $0.12 Per Mile $1.00 - $1.02 Booking Fee $1.30 $1.55 (Trust And Service Feet Minimum Fare $5.30 $4.50 Maximum Fare / $200.00 Cancellation Fee $5.00 $5.00 -the lowest -cost Uber -solo or with up to three Waggoner spoke on the constraints of minimum and maximum fairs and provided a Chart showing Estimated Travel Time Geor.E;crow=_'—' Estimate Travel Time Ir>i as, �5 4 RE t4ta� 9 L _ IW10 Faet TA 6tr�MraB1 - )II Eae BIM1 Sv.eIV ][ unA - F c VIIiO4 - tll V[INn S[ 1, i16["a - 1:4MS tMN Ey>m i. iRM1S -^ EilnS 2101N ram: - e G...,� �" o,g A Voucher Availability Model was shown next 1 •. G EORGETOWN� Voucher Availability Model TEXAS Proposed Fixed Route One Way (Miles) Total Drive Time -1 Way (Minutes) Estimated 1 Way Trip Fare Based onUberAvg. Orange 2.4 12 $ 6.14 Green 3.3 9 $ 6.68 Blue 3.8 13 $ 7.60 Purple 3.9 35 $ 8.00 verage 1 3.35 12 1 $ 7.11 Local Funding $ 248,000 Voucher Administration Cost (Full Time Employee)" $ (92,378) $ 5.30 $ 7.11 $ 7.60 Available Funding Available for Vouchers $ 155,622 'FTE mst includes FICA, Workers Camp, Unemployment, Insurance, Rehmm nt %of Local Contribution of Avg. Fare 75% 100% 107% 113% Value $ 5.30 $ 7.11 $ 7.60 $ 8.00 Available Vouchers 4,133 3,081 1 2,882 2,738 Waggoner spoke on comparing the assumed costs to a fixed route plan and spoke on money remaining for a voucher program. He explained that, by comparison, the City could put 2700 vouchers into the market place. Hesser asked why the salary was removed and said we must compare apples to apples. Ross asked why the $92K was backed out. Waggoner explained that a person would need to be hired to manage the voucher program with the City. Morgan said trips were based on this years proposed budget and were only used for analysis purposes. Waggoner spoke next on the issues for further exploration. • How would we administer in a fair and equitable manner? • How do we comply with federal requirements? • How do we ensure rides are available when needed? • How do we ensure everyone in the community can access these services? • How do we protect against liabilities? • Is a voucher program designed to increase access to transit or be its substitute? Waggoner said that staff recommendation would be to proceed with further development of issues and review the potential for a pilot program in FY18. He posed the question of whether the intention should be increased access to a fixed route bus system or further exploration of a voucher program. Waggoner said that staff would be happy to explore further with Council direction. Ross said the chosen system and the backup system need to be complimentary. He explained that a bus system may work in some areas and vouchers work better in certain parts of town and not others. Ross said Council would need to know more on what this would look like. He noted that people are required to be at work at specific times, but doctor visits and grocery shopping might be more flexible. Ross said if the route system does not work in all of these scenarios, the voucher program would be better. Eby said she was skeptical at first. She complimented Waggoner on a job well done. Eby said she would support further exploration of this, but believes the voucher program needs to compliment the bus route system, not supplement it. Jonrowe said a main concern is how to gather data on who would be using what services. Jonrowe explained that the City would need to be a good steward of tax payers' dollars. She said another issue may be increasing scrutiny with TNC and their contractors. Hesser asked how many staff members it would take to manage the bus routes. Waggoner said that Cap Metro and Carts would do all of that, which is one of the advantages of a fixed route system. Hesser said there must be a salary attached to the project. Ross asked that those calculations be included in the report that will be brought back to Council. Waggoner spoke on a recommendation to pursue a grant with Faith in Action which expands service hours and capacity and the recommendation to move forward with fixed route and complimentary paratransit through the adoption of the Transportation Development Plan (TDP). The Interlocal Agreement with Capital Metro was shown next. Waggoner explained that the Board will review this at their September 26, 2016 meeting. -- G FOIIG F.10A%'N� "'A FY17 Interlocal Agreement with Capital Metro Service Cost Local Funds (60%) $ 252,973 Stop Amenities Local Funds (20%) $ 17,890 Planning Local (20%) $ 6,294 Total FY 17 Costs Total Local Funds $ 277,157 Fare recovery. 6% of 5122.889 $ (7,373) Advertising Revenue ($11VMonth/Bus) for 2 months $ 4,000) FY16 ILA Local Fund Carryover $ 17,784) FY17 Budget Request $ 248,000 Waggoner explained that if the Council was ready to move forward, he would need them to authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute an agreement with the Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF) as part of the regular meeting agenda for September 13, 2016. Waggoner said it would also be necessary to finalize and execute an ILA with Capital Metro as part of the regular meeting agenda for September 13, 2016. He noted that Council would need to direct staff to develop a voucher program for possible implementation in FY18. Fought said he was originally opposed to a fixed route bus system because of a lack of ridership. He said he has now been swayed by the work done on measurable performance standards and advice from people of respect. He said he would instruct to press ahead, with the stipulation to redo it if it is not working. Gonzalez disagreed. Gonzalez said once a voucher system is started, it would be hard to stop or get out of it, even if it was not working well. He noted that there is not enough population to support the fixed bus system. He added that para -transportation should be the focus, as it is the overwhelming need. Gonzalez said he would be concerned spending several hundred thousand dollars testing to see if these transportation solutions will work. Brainard said doing nothing is not a solution, because of the federal funding. Brainard said it is time to fish or cut bait. Waggoner explained that the City must adopt or reject the agreement with Capital Metro within 18 months. Brainard asked what would happen if the program does not hit the performance measures. Waggoner said the Capital Metro agreement is for one year with only two months of fixed route bus. Waggoner said staff would be coming back to Council in a year with performance measure reports and Council would have the opportunity to make decisions. Brainard asked if there was a trigger or mandate if the performance standards were not met. Waggoner explained that there are two triggers: come to Council at any time or if 50% of the criteria is not met, it must be brought to Council. Morgan added that updates would be provided to Council, even if all criteria is being met. The Council will always have the opportunity to guide the direction of the program, Morgan explained. He said a decision would need to be made in order to honor the agreement with Capital Metro, which is only for one year and still provides flexibility. Ross asked about the terms of the agreement. Morgan answered one year. Morgan said the plan would be to work through to get the fixed route system activated August 1, 2017. Ross asked if this is possibly, in reality, a two year plan. Morgan said yes, because it would likely mean a renewal for one additional year. Brainard warned that future Councils could vote to continue the systems even if they were not working. He explained that he wants something hard and fast in order to see if it is working. Brainard said he would fear that it would be easy for future Councils to think that so much has already been spent that they should not discontinue it. Ross said if one route was operating at 100% and another route was operating at zero, you would attain your average of 50%, which would make the target, but should not. Brainard agreed and said he expects to find that one or more of these routes would have insufficient ridership and the Council will certainly need to make future decisions. Mayor Ross said that this is where vouchers would fall into place. Gonzalez said the criteria must be established. He voiced concern that if only 50% (half) is good enough, should the criteria be made to meet 85% to 90% for success. Eby said there were two different things being discussed. She said that Brainard is talking about the City and Capital Metro. As the agreement is currently written, there is nothing written about performance measures. Brainard said he is speaking on the City's commitment to spending this money. Morgan said there is a concern if Council should attempt to commit future Councils on evaluating performance measures. Morgan explained that Brainard said he was sensitive to not binding future Councils. Morgan noted that there must be a commitment that if a system does not meet certain standards, it must be cut off. Morgan said the determination of whether a fixed route system would need to be modified or terminated would need to be more defined. He asked Council to guide future Councils with their direction. Morgan said performance measures could be expanded on. Ross said performance measures would stimulate another conversation with Council for decisions. Ross said future Councils good take it or leave it. Jonrowe said Council must be careful of binding future Councils. She said she likes the idea of being able to modify and still be able to move or eliminate routes. Morgan said the City will have under -performing routes as well as over -performing routes. This is as good as can be done. He spoke of the strong community partner by working with Cap Metro, who will guide the City toward success. He spoke on the importance of the federal dollars. Morgan explained that this is a one year commitment with the ability to renew or adjust. He said this can be flexible. Fought said performance measures have a probability of being wrong and might need to be changed also. Fought cautioned about the 50% rule and said he would say if any one criteria is not hitting, it must be brought back to Council. He said if the 50% was increased, the Council might have to review every week. Fought said he likes Councilmember Brainard's idea of looking at the management of the route. Hesser said he would like to change the perspective. He noted that the City is subsidizing a system that cannot pay for itself. This would mean it is already not a success, and costing citizens money. Hesser said this is a very poor plan and premature for our City. He said it is a better value to have someone picked up at their. front door. He explained that this is a transition and as it is worked, more will be learned. Gonzalez said he is hesitant because any program of bureaucracy can become a problem. He cautioned that the City cannot set up something that could cause them to start spending more and more money each year. He explained that it would become a huge burden on the tax base to keep running and the City could not kill the program without hurting some citizens. Gonzalez explained that this would never be a break even program. He asked what the cost is that the City should spend to provide a system for its citizens. He cautioned that this was experimenting. Gonzalez said it could be visited again when density improves. He said he does not support implementing a system, just to see if it works. Item C was presented prior to Item B. Item B directly followed Item C. C. Presentation and discussion on a Texas Department of Transportation recommended Mobility 35 Aesthetics profile for the City of Georgetown Area — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Summer Lawton, of HNTB, provided the presentation and led discussion on the TXDOT recommended Mobility 35 Aesthetics profile for the Georgetown area and began with a Mobility 35 Program Overview. Lawton noted that 1-35 is no longer number one in most traveled roads and has actually been beat out by I- 10 in Houston. She spoke on Corridor Aesthetics for Georgetown. Lawton said the purpose is to gain consensus for corridor aesthetic treatments in the Georgetown area, both generally and project specific for Williams Drive. She went on to describe the Williams Drive Schedule • Schematic -level design — in process • Design Development — Begins FaIINVlnter 2016 and Ends Spring 2019 • Construction —To Be Determined; 2021 Estimated; Currently Unfunded Lawton discussed what needs to be decided early and what could continue to be discussed further. She explained that design elements are integral to the Williams Drive infrastructure. These include bridge columns, retaining walls, bridge rails, etc. which would need a decision now. Lawton said the non -integral design features to roadway infrastructure, such as free standing signs and tree plantings, could be decided later. Lawton provided images of proposed corridor aesthetics and a scale drawing of SH130 Aesthetics, Existing Georgetown 1-35 Cross Street Aesthetics and Proposed Georgetown 135 Cross Street Aesthetics. Councilmember Brainard asked Lawton if TXDOT was preparing to put a turn -around at Westinghouse. Lawton said it is already there, on the South Side. Lawton provided more images of possible corridor aesthetics for Georgetown, such as decorative retaining wall panels, ear walls, pilaster, bent cap treatments and cross street naming. Lawton went on to describe the next steps for corridor aesthetics in Georgetown. • Council recommendation to continue implementation of the Georgetown aesthetics, generally Recommend additional design features integral to Williams Drive and future infrastructure improvements • Consider other freestanding design elements that are not integral to the infrastructure improvements Lawton noted that the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) recommended decorative retaining walls to break up the monotony of the walls and for travelers to be able to explain or describe where one is at. Mayor Ross said staff would be able to get back to the engineering firm on their suggestions. • A regionwideeffort to improve safety and - �- mobility on 79 miles of 135 in Williamson, Travis. and Hays counties 11, • 135 through the heart of Austin is the HS most .-� congested roadway In Texas • Constraints to improving 1-35 include: —Hlghiyconstrainedurbanenvironment —Need to maintain mobility during construction 1i .S7 — Need for east/west connectivity •��- — Diverse interests — Funding Mobilit 35 improves safety and mobilitywithin ` ..=cw•+••+rm•^mr existi ng constra I nts a nd se rves as pa rt of the ipNjv"" r 1 , ._ region's on-going transportation system upgrade Lawton noted that 1-35 is no longer number one in most traveled roads and has actually been beat out by I- 10 in Houston. She spoke on Corridor Aesthetics for Georgetown. Lawton said the purpose is to gain consensus for corridor aesthetic treatments in the Georgetown area, both generally and project specific for Williams Drive. She went on to describe the Williams Drive Schedule • Schematic -level design — in process • Design Development — Begins FaIINVlnter 2016 and Ends Spring 2019 • Construction —To Be Determined; 2021 Estimated; Currently Unfunded Lawton discussed what needs to be decided early and what could continue to be discussed further. She explained that design elements are integral to the Williams Drive infrastructure. These include bridge columns, retaining walls, bridge rails, etc. which would need a decision now. Lawton said the non -integral design features to roadway infrastructure, such as free standing signs and tree plantings, could be decided later. Lawton provided images of proposed corridor aesthetics and a scale drawing of SH130 Aesthetics, Existing Georgetown 1-35 Cross Street Aesthetics and Proposed Georgetown 135 Cross Street Aesthetics. Councilmember Brainard asked Lawton if TXDOT was preparing to put a turn -around at Westinghouse. Lawton said it is already there, on the South Side. Lawton provided more images of possible corridor aesthetics for Georgetown, such as decorative retaining wall panels, ear walls, pilaster, bent cap treatments and cross street naming. Lawton went on to describe the next steps for corridor aesthetics in Georgetown. • Council recommendation to continue implementation of the Georgetown aesthetics, generally Recommend additional design features integral to Williams Drive and future infrastructure improvements • Consider other freestanding design elements that are not integral to the infrastructure improvements Lawton noted that the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) recommended decorative retaining walls to break up the monotony of the walls and for travelers to be able to explain or describe where one is at. Mayor Ross said staff would be able to get back to the engineering firm on their suggestions. Brainard asked about a retainer wall minimal cost. Lawton said that special walls would cost the City up to a threshold amount. She explained that landscape improvements and long term maintenance are also costs to the City. Brainard asked who decides the bridge design. City Manager David Morgan said branding would be considered and studied by a consulting firm and then brought to the Council for decisions. He explained that the branding could be a caption to capture the spirit of Georgetown or simple images or symbols incorporated in the design to capture the branding statement. Morgan cautioned that it will be timeless and must be well thought out. Morgan said this would be brought back to the Council over the next year. Lawton then showed the timeline slide again. Dustin Elliott, an engineer with HNTB, noted that the City must move forward with the design development, but does not need the branding information yet. Hesser asked if the City has a landscape contract. Morgan said it is being worked on. Hesser said he hears a lot about the grass not being mowed. Morgan explained that certain areas are TXDOT's responsibility. Morgan said they will request funding in next year's budget to supplement the TXDOT mowing schedule. Jonrowe asked about the tum arounds on SH 29 and if those could be duplicated. Lawton explained that anything unique is an additional cost. She said any specific detail is a bigger cost. She explained that there is an aesthetic budget assigned to each project. Morgan said staff would make Council aware of the cost of the project. Ross asked about the estimated date this would come back to Council. Morgan said there will be an initial briefing by the end of the calendar year and more decisions would need to be made at the beginning of 2017. B. Presentation and discussion on a Texas Department of Transportation recommended Mobility 35 Project for the Williams Drive intersection -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director Nat Waggoner, the City's Transportation Analyst, introduced Dustin Elliott, a project engineer with HNTB, who provided the presentation on the Mobility 35 Project for the Williams Drive intersection. Elliott said that he had met with City management in July and had met with the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) recently. He noted that he would be sharing information with TXDOT next month. Elliott showed the Mobility 35 Program Overview shown by Summer Lawton, in the previous presentation. He spoke on constraints and improving safety and mobility throughout the corridor. Elliott spoke on the Mobility 35 Williamson County Implementation Plan. • Williams Drive Improvements • RM 2243 to Inner Loop Bridge & Intersection • SH 29 Intersection • RM 2243 to RM 1431 Ramp Reversals • Westinghouse Road Intersection • SH 195 at Berry Creek Drive Improvements • Future Transportation Corridor & Remaining Improvements Elliott provided a slide on the Williams Drive Timing. He explained that projects are staggered so that traffic is not impacted at the same time. Elliott said these projects will line up well. • Active coordination between TXDOT and city of Georgetown for city bond projects and Williams Drive improvements • 2015 city of Georgetown Bond Projects — FY 2018 funding for both Rivery Extension and Northwest Boulevard — FY 2018 construction start for Rivery, Extension — FY 2018 ROW acquisition for Northwest Boulevard — FY 2019 Construction start for Northwest Boulevard — 1 year to 18 months construction time for both projects • Williams Drive improvements — Funding not yet identified — Tentative let date August 2019 — Tentative construction start early 2020 • Projects will be coordinated so that Northwest Boulevard is open prior to construction closures on Williams Drive bridge Elliott spoke on the basics of diverging diamond intersections and provided a diagram. He explained the differences from RM 1431 DDI and Williams Drive DDI. Elliott said it was a tough traffic problem that needed to address quickly. He noted that traffic had increased here by 40% in 4 years. RM 1431 DDI • Maximized used of existing infrastructure • Utilized existing bridge structure • Utilized existing U -Turn structure Williams Drive DDI • Reconstruct existing facility • New bridge over 1-35 • Eliminate existing U -Turn structure • Improved entry angles to DDI Elliott provided DDI Visualization with a video showing an example of a Diverging Diamond interchange. Fought said that he does not understand how this would relieve traffic at Austin Avenue and Williams Drive. He said he sees it as detrimental to traffic and asked Elliott to explain further. Elliott showed the Williams Drive proposed improvements and said that the key is to process left turns, thus the DDI. Fought asked what would happen if the power went out. Elliott said this is handled with 4 way stops and battery backups. He said signal phasing is cut to 2 with a DDI. Elliott provided more animated views of automobile movement and DDI visualizations. He provided a map of the proposed improvements at Williams Drive and provided a depiction of DDI Pedestrian Accommodations. Elliott said there will be a southbound dedicated right turn and a High T intersection would be implemented because there is no reason to stop north bound traffic. Elliott explained that a lane would be added on the other side of the barrier. He then spoke on the east side approach, which will be 2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes. Elliott spoke on westbound traffic and said a traffic barrier is proposed. He said the benefit will be no crossing traffic and signal phases would be able to be removed. A Williams Drive Intersection Analysis was shown next. • Comparison of the DDI with a traditional intersection in year 2040 at the northbound (NB) frontage road and Williams Drive: — The overall Intersection dolayls reduced by53%IMAM Peak hour — The overall Intersection del8ylsredUWdby59%r0rPM peak )OUr — The throughput inao-zvs by 18% for AM peak hour — The throuOhput increasesby43%for PM peak hour • Comparison of the DDI with a traditional intersection in year 2040 at the southbound (SB) frontage road and Williams Drive: — The overall Intersection delay increases by 3% forAM peak how` — The Overall Intersoctlon delaylSfedi by26%lorPM peak hour — The throughput inaoosesby36% for AM peak hour — The lhrougnp it increase' by30% forPM peak hour • The nearby intersection of Williams Drive at N. Austin Avenue also benefits from the DDI implementation. The Intersection delay is reduced by 37%for AM peak hour and 43%for PM peak hour, even though the throteput increases by 16%for AM peak hour and 7%for PM peak hour, 'The Avsbn A�wE inleiswioneX MoncesWngeStondalbacks up Into the DDI incfeesingdelay. Elliott provided simulations of traditional A.M. peak hour traffic and DDI A.M. peak hour traffic. He later provided both depictions for P.M. traffic. He described how there would be fewer delays on both Austin Avenue and Williams Drive. Elliott spoke on the City extending right turns more towards Rivery. Hesser asked how an assumption is made. Elliott said no assumptions can be taken. He said the study analyses the most efficient route. Hesser cautioned that Northwest Blvd. will have an impact. Hesser said this portion will impact the future. Elliott said he does not have those specifics, but that the model has included those assumptions. Elliott said that Williams Drive would not be closed at any time during the project. He explained that it is proposed to overbuild the bridge to handle the construction and future traffic issues. He also explained that Northwest Blvd. and SH 29 would not be addressed while working on Williams Drive. Mayor Ross asked for the estimated timeline for completion. Elliott answered 18 months to 2 years. Brainard asked if any land would be condemned. Elliott said there are no condemnations but there will be small right of way take overs, specifically a small strip on the north frontage road and a small portion near McDonalds to accommodate pedestrians. Brainard asked about costs to the City. Elliott said there is no cost at this time. He explained that the only cost is in aesthetics that would be the City's decision. Brainard asked if the videos were available to the media. Elliott said that they would be. Jonrowe asked if pedestrian and road improvements happen at same time. She said it might be helpful if the pedestrian improvements could happen first. Elliott said that they happen together during the construction project and it would not be possible to have pedestrian improvements first. Hesser asked who the decision maker for the project is. Elliott answered TXDOT. He noted that these type of projects become "build something or do nothing". Elliott noted that 350 community meetings had been held, as well as City meetings. He said the options of all users must be considered. D. Presentation and discussion regarding possible revisions to the Georgetown Housing Tax Credit Resolution Support Process -- Jennifer Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator Jennifer Bills, the Housing Coordinator for the City, provided a presentation and directed discussion on possible revisions to the Georgetown Housing Tax Credit Resolution Support Process. Bills began the presentation with a review of the Housing Advisory Board Work Plan, presented to Council on May 24, 2016. • Revise Housing Tax Credit (HTC) • Update Housing Element • Feasibility of Housing Tools Bills spoke on the discussion goals. She said the goals would be to review the existing local and state HTC review process, present staff and the HAB recommended changes, and receive feedback from the City Council regarding public outreach, HTC zoning and deadlines and scheduling Bills explained the three areas of proposed changes to the City process. • Public Outreach • HTC Zoning Review • Deadlines and Scheduling Bills displayed the proposed changes of each. Public Meetings & Community Outreach • Applies to 4% and 9% new construction projects. Developer will notify residential neighborhoods within 1/2 mile of the proposed site. At least one public meeting will be held a minimum of three weeks before the City Council meeting (The HAB recommended two meetings with one three weeks before). • The City must be notified of all meetings. OGIORGE WN lum HTC Zoning Review • Option 1: Site must be zoned before HTC request. (Staff & HAB recommendation for 454) • Option 2: Site must have already submitted rezoning application (or have appropriate zoning) and received staff analysis. (HAB recommendation for 9%) • Option 3: No rezoning application, but staff must determine the FLU is appropriate for the use and Council informed when it is asked to consider resolution. Site still needing rezoning can only get 'No Objection' support from City Council. (Staff recommendation for 9%) • Option 4: Zoning request follows HTC request. (current process) 0G[ORi� WN Georgetown Application Deadlines • 9% Competitive: First Tuesday in January — December 1: Rezoning Application Due (if necessary) — January 3: HTC Resolution Applications Due — January 9: Staff Review —January 16: HAB Meeting — January 24: Hold Public Meetings — February 14: City Council meeting — March 1: TDHCA application due • 4% Non -Competitive: 6 weeks before HAB meeting 0G[ORGEfOWN B i1. Bills next presented the HTC Review Differences and described each. Bills explained that the Housing Advisory Board recommended Option 2. She said staff initially recommended Option 3 because of the cost of review. Bills explained the Georgetown application deadlines according to Option 2. Brainard complimented the colors and graphics on Bill's schematic and asked to see the slide shown previously on Council Direction. He noted that, in the past, neighborhood meetings were occurring too late for Council to be prepared or aware. He said that more time is a good thing. Bills said the proposed plan would require one meeting to be held 3 weeks ahead of the Council Meeting. Brainard asked for clarification about Option 2 and asked Bills if she would make that recommendation. Bills confirmed that she would. Hesser asked how big of an area would be included in the public outreach. Bills said it would reach everyone within a'/2 mile from the sight. Hesser said contacting Homeowners' Associations helps and the City might also consider doing advertisement and signage. Hesser asked who was the ultimate decision maker. Bills said it is the City Council. Morgan explained it would be beneficial when zoning is coordinated for Council to be briefed at the same time. Hesser asked if Council could give more favorable standings to some. Bills confirmed. She explained that Council could give full support, partial support or no support. Fought said he does not want to be restricted to no input. He added that he agrees with Option 2. He noted that the ratio to state average is important and Council needs to know how the ratio is affected. He explained that Council needs to know the impact of their vote on the parameters and then again how it changes in comparison with other Cities in the State. stimation of the new two times. Mayor Ross asked if Option 2, recommended by the Housing Advisory Board, is a confirmed choice by Council, with the addition of a second neighborhood meeting. Jonrowe asked about Option 3. Bills clarified the specifics of that option. Jonrowe asked about property already zoned for these projects. Bills said there could be no objections, if the property is properly zoned. Jonrowe said she was leaning toward Option 3. Mayor Ross recapped that Council support of Option 2 is confirmed with Option 3 in second place. Morgan said this will be on a future agenda. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074 and Section 551.086 at 5:10 PM Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Frontier Communications of Texas Settlement - Status Report Pedernales Electric Cooperative - Settlement Agreement with KDR Equities, LLC Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property - City lease agreements See. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters - Power Supply - Letter of Intent to purchase from Sustainable Holdings, Inc. Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development - Project Hop Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 6.00 PM to call the regular City Council meeting to order Approved by the Georgetown City Council on �I I a`] I a 0l ( a Date rk4 3iio�— Dale�, Mayor r-lu— Attest: City Sary