Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 05.09.2017 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 9, 2017 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. Th 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 8`h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:31 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:30 PM A. Presentation of Mid -Year Operating Budget Amendments -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Leigh Wallace, the City's Finance Director provided a presentation on the mid -year amendments to the operating budget. She explained that there were things that were not anticipated that need to be addressed. Wallace described the purpose of the budget amendments • The City Charter allows for budget amendments when circumstances were unforeseen at the time the original budget was adopted • Annual practice to update Council Discretionary Fund with final savings from the previous year Wallace said that the Council Discretionary Fund had been brought to the Council for discussion at a workshop in April. Wallace provided a chart of the Available Fund Balance. CrfOHGfTV\vp IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC Ir\A, Available Fund Balance Council SRF Beginning Balance 5185.045 Unused Fund Balance from previous year Transfer In, GF Estimated Year End 750,000 Approved /n FY 2017 Budget Transfer In, GF Lone Star Rail 46.000 Proposed Budget Amendment Transfer In, GF Final Year End 936779 Proposed Budget Amendment Total Available $1,919,824 Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the $48,000 figure for Lone Star Rail and said he believed it should be $49,500 unless the $1,500 was used for something else. Wallace confirmed that this was the rase. City Manager, David Morgan, clarified that the $1,500 was used for a regional transportation study, approved by Council. Wallace provided a chart showing the Council SRF Funding Options Council SRF Funding Options • Current year obligations • List of unfunded long-term liabilities • Fiscal and budgetary policies • Other capital equipment and one-time programs Wallace spoke on the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) and Council Recommendations. GGAF and Council Recommendations 2017 Current Obligations Ona.Uma cost Property plat obligation S 25.000 Intervention on transmission line S 80.000 study (or aquatics S 20.000 Sign settlement $ 95.000 Marketing doentman buMUVS s 30.000 Subtotal ...... $_ 250000_ Unfunded Liabilities One-time cost_ Economic Uncertainty Reserve 5 850.000 Benerd Payout Reseme(Camp Ab) 5 222.000 Subtotal _$ 872090 Recommended Other Capital Equipment or Programs Amount ERPprclect(FY18) S 250.000 Sbeet maintenance S 250.000 Subtotal S 500.000 She described current obligations, unfunded liabilities and other capital equipment or programs. Wallace noted that, if approved, this would leave $300,000 in the Council Discretionary Fund. Wallace spoke next on Critical Needs and Additional Commitments. Critical Needs • To respond to growth in community and transitions in organization • Planning Resources $142,096 — Contract employees —1.0 Assistant Director • Finance Resources $66,617 —1.0 Assistant Controller — 1.0 Treasurer • Funded by recognizing year to date sales tax Additional Commitments • Council compensation $19,600 — Funded with recognizing sales tax • Council direct report merit/market $12,542 — Funded with recognizing sales tax • 135 Sidewalk $350,000 — Debtfunded • GEDCO projects $170,000 for Renstchler and Target Industry Analysis — Funding available through GEDCO sales tax Wallace described the Revenue Neutral Projects. She spoke on cleaning up self-funded items and said it will not be necessary to come back at the end of year because these are ready now with revenue sources. Wallace provided a chart on the Budget Reductions in Electric. Budget Reductions in Electric • To improve ending fund balance • $305,018 in total savings • ROW Maintenance, Office Supplies, Travel/Training • Vacancy savings from 2 positions Next Steps, described by Wallace included: • Action items on the evening's agenda • Second readings on the May 23, 2017 agenda • Finance and Planning positions hired in June • Continue monitoring FY 2017 Budget Mayor Ross congratulated Wallace on a nice presentation. B. Historic Resource Survey — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, provided a presentation on the Historic Resource Survey. She provided a presentation outline and said this would be brought back to Council this summer for a resolution. Presentation Outline • Part 1 — Historic Resource Survey o What is it? o How is it used? o What properties are included in the survey? • Part 2 — Project Status o Project Schedule o Project Milestones - Accomplished o Project Milestones — Pending o Public Outreach Nelson described a resource survey and provided information used in a resource survey. Nelson spoke on why to have a resource survey. • City Charter requires a Comprehensive Plan, with an historic preservation element • Georgetown participates in the Certified Local Government Program, providing access to grant funds. Nelson said, ultimately, findings of the survey are just for recommendation, to be determined to be approved or not by the Council. Nelson spoke on Past Surveys and described how they are used. How Is It Used? • Used to make informed decisions on: o Review of projects in the Certificate of Appropriateness requests o Review of Demolition requests o Guides decisions on landmark status and district boundaries o Guidance for Preservation Georgetown grant program o Possible future use in Main Street Fagade grants Nelson described the Certificate of Appropriateness Nelson provided an aerial type depiction of the historic districts, a certificate of appropriateness from a HARC chart of a building and a HARC staff report wl s.rwl..,wrm-src GEW//IFJIM f YR�„w .xcnw,ao.� w!!E- RMVI !NiNn,� New street facing facade — HARC lllLE I,,+An an ------------------- VM.tat �soaY.ivJ I �,Cn I {tl.4r.i iC0 v1R j LonTp p4lN.RndvnY:9lgaiY+JY PSI deiwnOmyCe,,.n i Emma •,e Rapara W-Sn9•.fwny j �¢wt �rtfn j FeiUeMif I I FaYW Re,IOIYim/vm• 1,PAfY.R j F}hup G�ap.NrSA AR � E.mnu aw-aze �9—>ts P,vpew4Mafm Nwlaa f.F I j F I n s YR�„w .xcnw,ao.� w!!E- RMVI !NiNn,� New street facing facade — HARC lllLE I,,+An Nelson provided a handout for the Council, as well as the chart shown in the presentation for Certificate of Appropriateness. Nelson described Survey Priorities and which properties are surveyed. Survey Priorities • Priority levels, such as high, low or medium, provide additional information for review but do not change review criteria • Structures located within a district may be viewed in a larger context than individual properties outside of the districts Which Properties are surveyed • Three primary survey goals o Intensive survey of the overlay districts o Intensive survey of all properties outside the districts included on the 1984 and 2007 surveys o Reconnaissance level survey of all properties within the survey area constructed prior to 1975 Nelson provided an example of how the survey has been used at 124 E. 81^ Street, which is currently known as 600 Degrees Pizza. A 1939 picture of the building was shown, as well as a picture from 1983 and two other pictures with a final depiction of the building in 2015, and currently. Councilmember Hesser asked if the windows on this building were a HARC requirement. Nelson said that staff would make recommendations to an owner to encourage restoring original features but it would likely not be a requirement. Nelson said she will explore further and bring an answer back to Council. Councilmember Eby said she was on HARC at the time of these restorations and does not recall this as a requirement, but rather owner proposed. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the City's review process and if owners can make changes along the development project. Nelson said the City's Historic Planner is the consistent case manager. She explained that the owner would have a conceptual review with HARC and talk through the UDC criteria. Nelson added that the building and site permit would be walked through with HARC and the Historic Planner. Gonzalez asked how many inspections are scheduled and if there is a set process to monitor these things. Nelson said she understood Gonzalez's question — is there a 50% checkpoint, a 100% checkpoint, etc. Gonzalez said he would like deviations or variations stopped at the beginning of a project instead of after unapproved changes are made. Nelson confirmed that the historic preservation officer does not have a determined schedule. Gonzalez suggested that this be made to happen and said the City needs this improvement. Nelson said she will follow up with this. Mayor Ross asked if regulations create additional costs for the building owner, should there be an incentive offered. Gonzalez said intention is to point out the need to follow the permits and what has been previously approved and not make unapproved changes. Ross asked if City staff has a guideline or benchmark for an approved application to be provided within a certain amount of days. He said it is important that the applicant get permit information back, with ayes or no, within a certain amount of days. City Manager, David Morgan said staff has been working on this and a process is being developed. He noted that this has been developed in the Planning Department and is currently being developed in the Building Department. Morgan said the proposed process and guidelines will be brought to Council in the near future and staff is actively working on this. Councilmember Gipson said everything needs to be up front. He explained that when he served on HARC, there were a lot of surprises. He said that people start the work and then have no knowledge of what is expected or required. Gipson said these things need to be made clear for the builders. Nelson said education is certainly needed and the Planning Department has put through a budget request for an educational process. Gipson said training should be provided for the HARC board also. Nelson provided a slide showing Part 2 — Project Status • Survey Methodology Used • Properties Surveyed • Project Schedule • Key Findings • Public Outreach Nelson spoke on the Methodology and Approach 1. Analysis of previous survey data 2. Review of historic aerials for survey area 3. Conduct field survey 4. Perform data processing and analysis 5. Assignment of preservation priorities 6. Recommendations for local landmarks. A Reconnaissance Survey and 1975 and Older Properties Surveyed were shown next. Councilmember Hesser asked about qualifications for a property to be added to a survey. Nelson said 1975 or older properties would be reviewed. Nelson said staff relies on consultants who are historic professionals for these decisions. She said there is no particular criteria for survey takers. Nelson said there is also an invitation to whoever wishes to participate in the survey. Nelson showed the Total Number of Properties 5, F �t Councilmember Hesser asked about qualifications for a property to be added to a survey. Nelson said 1975 or older properties would be reviewed. Nelson said staff relies on consultants who are historic professionals for these decisions. She said there is no particular criteria for survey takers. Nelson said there is also an invitation to whoever wishes to participate in the survey. Nelson showed the Total Number of Properties Nelson spoke next on the Key Findings • 163 Properties changed priority from 2007 0 37 upgraded in priority • 7 medium to high • 2 low to high • 28 low to medium 0 126 Properties downgraded in priority • All medium to low Nelson spoke on the public outreach and the Historic Resource Survey Committee • Members include o HARC Representative o Preservation Georgetown Representative o Planning Director o Chief Building Official o Member of the public • How they have been used o Served as scoring committee o Provided with updates throughout the process Nelson described the Mobile Workshop and education provided spring 2016. She went on to describe upcoming outreach. • Survey results posted on website for review • Letter to all property owners • Publicworkshop • Consultant Office Hours Nelson went on to speak on the Next Steps 1. Post draft Historic Resource Survey for public review 2. Public notification 3. Public meeting and office hours 4. Submit edits to consultants 5. Final report submitted to the City staff 6. Bring final report to City Council Councilmember Fought thanked Nelson for the report. He said there are always varying views on HARC, but no one would disagree that an historic preservation effort is needed. Fought said there seems to be an over - expansive definition of what properties are historic. He asked about notification to property owners and added that some owners would not know they were on the list. Fought said that HARC has been issuing unfunded mandates. Fought said that Nelson has done a good job with cleaning up the lists and notifications. He noted that the City should have skin in the game also. He said he had suggested a 1 or 2 cent City property tax reduction for truly historic properties, but he now knows it is not worth much. Fought said he now understands that staff is working on a program for historic property owners, making significant improved value preservation, which is important to the City. Fought suggested that for truly historic properties, with a significantly improved assessment, such as $50,000, the City should excuse the additional city property tax on the increment of improved value for an increment of 10 or 20 years. Fought said historic preservation is important to all of us and the town. He said people should want to stand in line to work with HARC instead of dreading it. Councilmember Gipson said there is a concern that HARC is set up to be the bad guy. He said it is the Historic Society that hands out the grants and this needs to change. Mayor Ross asked if the number of historic properties has been compared to other city's lists. He said it seems like a very large number of historic properties, with 1500 on the list. Ross said he would like staff to examine how this compares to other cities. Ross asked if all properties were documented. Nelson confirmed. Councilmember Gonzales said sometimes old does not mean historic, but at 60 years old, the City does need to give it significance. He said there needs to be better definition of what the City wants historic to be. Councilmember Eby said the federal standard is 50 years or older, and then the property is examined. She said it is not good practice to determine a specific number of historic properties. Eby said the City needs to rely on the professionals who determine these things. She said it is the Heritage Society and others like it, that do provide grants, but HARC has a different role. She suggested that it would be helpful to explore working with Preservation Georgetown for resources and suggested getting the real estate community involved. Fought said a policy decision would need to be made. He said he would like staff to define what is important to Georgetown and come up with a smaller number of historic properties. Jonrowe thanked Nelson for the update and asked about HARC reviewing demolitions. Nelson said this is because HARC determines if a property contributes, or does not, prior to destruction. Nelson said she will research this further and report back. Nelson said this has to do with the historic overlay district as the deciding factor and that this is common practice in other cities also. Nelson said will check with the consultants. Jonrowe said the only residents in the survey were voluntarily involved. Nelson said property owners had been mailed the information. Jonrowe asked how many came. Nelson answered less than 10. Jonrowe questioned the definition of historic site. She asked if areas are looked at, other than just structures. Nelson said she will follow up and report back. Jonrowe said that the University of Texas is looking at historic minority neighborhoods and their significance and history of place and the connection that people feel there. Jonrowe said she would hope to see some of this developed in Georgetown. Mayor Ross asked how many properties had been added to the list each year. Nelson said this is generally established through federal guidelines but is ultimately up to the community. Ross asked if there is a list of the top 100 historic properties in Georgetown and how many high priority listings there are. Nelson said Georgetown currently shows 194 high priority historic properties. Nelson said she will be happy to group these for the Council. Ross asked if there is a narrative with each of these properties. Nelson said there is a field sheet on each property and she will bring a sample sheet back to the Council. Councilmember Hesser asked how many of the 194 priority properties are owned or rented. Nelson said she will report back. Hesser said there is a difference with someone living in an owned property and treating it as a special place rather than simply an old house just being rented. Gonzalez said he wants to support only properties outside the box in their historic significance and contribution. Morgan said staff will need clarifications on grants and incentives mentioned earlier and staff will look into this. C. Presentation regarding the Georgetown Economic Development Department Business Retention Expansion (BRE) program — Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director Economic Development Director, Michaela Dollar, spoke on the Economic Development Department Business Retention Expansion Program and introduced the City's BRE Program Manager, Conchita Gusman, who provided the presentation. Gusman provided a 2017 Council Presentation Schedule and said this information will be brought to the Council quarterly Gusman spoke on the City Council Strategic Goal to expand and diversify the City's tax base. She noted that a national survey said that 70%-90% of jobs come from business expansion. Gusman noted the Economic Development Department Mission Statement: "Our mission is to purposefully support a business -friendly environment where companies can and want to grow." Gusman described Business Retention & Expansion • Create and maintain a positive relationship with the business community • Gives a pulse of the local business climate • Provides a base for business recruitment Gusman noted that successful BRE programs are about relationships with your companies and NOT about filling in blanks on a questionnaire or survey. She explained that meaningful conversation and portraying the City as a resource is important businesses visited. Gusman explained that the themes they are most hearing about include workforce, facility and overall business. She noted that workforces are many times challenging. She explained that it can be difficult finding and retaining a skilled workforce. Gusman noted manufacturing businesses investing in automation and how this is being seen regionally as well as nationally. Gusman spoke on the challenge of businesses outgrowing a facility and/or parking. She explained that, overall, doing business in Georgetown is positive. Gusman described the Partners in business retention. • City departments • Chamber of Commerce • College/University & GISD • Rural Capital Arean WC Gusman said Georgetown is lucky to have such a wonderful volunteer group from the Chamber. She explained that many of the former board members have good experience with surveys and visits. Ongoing Strategies were shown next. • Strengthening business relationships • Understanding workforce • Developing strategy from interview data/themes • Leveraging reach through community partnerships Gusman spoke on the upcoming Industry Appreciation Event to be held at Mel's Lone Star Lanes on October 13, 2017 from 11 AM to 3 PM. Hesser asked if the presentation could be included in the agenda packet in the future so that Council can review and prepare ahead of the meeting. Councilmember Hesser asked about the tax reinvestment for commercial versus residential. He asked what the percentage of each would be. Morgan said this was looked at last year and it is under 20% right now for commercial. Hesser asked if this was the objective or goal. Morgan said this would be addressed in the strategic plan for economic development. He said it is one piece of the strategic plan being put together for Council's review. Economic Development Director, Michaela Dollar, said this is not a set amount yet. Hesser said staff must identify the figure and have an intention to go there. Hesser asked to see the business visit status slide and asked about the results and expansion that had been mentioned. Gusman spoke on the Rentsch Brewery and the infrastructure expansion for production capacity. She spoke on how this resulted into a GEDCO Project. Hesser asked about the requests for assistance. Gusman answered that the requests have included questions such as how to start an expansion, recycling questions, questions regarding too many cars and not enough parking and variance requests. She spoke on a visit gift and provided the Council with an example. Gipson asked if there is something we can do better. Gusman said she would appreciate it if the Council could let her know if they hear of anyone's intention to leave the City. She noted that the challenge is to get in front of the business so Council could be helpful in that way. Gusman said the Council could suggest to a business owner to set up a visit with the Economic Development Department. Michaela Dollar added that Council's participation in the upcoming target industry analysis would be very helpful. Gipson thanked the Chamber for their input. He said visits are critical. Gonzalez instructed staff to spread the word to the Council regarding a business the Economic Development Department wants to visit. Councilmember Eby asked about the workforce and partnerships with GISD. She said it would be beneficial to work with Southwestern and its graduates and that she will soon be participating in a focus group. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.086 at 4.50 PM. He announced that the Executive Session portion of the meeting would begin at 5 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. D. 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 - Hoskins/Brown Update - PEC Agreement — Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters - Electric Utility Quarterly Financial Update— Chris Foster, MPA, CGFO, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration - NRG Consent Agreement — Chris Foster, MPA, CGFO, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on J t a31 ,;L0 Date Dale oss, Mayor o Attest: City Secre ry