The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 06.27.2017 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 27, 2017 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7' 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 81 Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Councilmember Anna Eby, District 1 and Councilmember Valerie Nicholson, District 2. Mayor Dale Ross, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, Ty Gipson, District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:01 PM A. Employee Compensation, Benefits and Wellness Update -- Tadd Phillips, Human Resource Director Human Resource Director, Tadd Phillips, provided a presentation and update on employee compensation, benefits and the wellness program. He began the presentation with an Executive Summary. Executive Summary • FY2018 City Manager Proposed Budget will include Compensation & Benefits programs aligned with Fiscal & Budgetary Policy • Compensation — Market -- annual pay plan review — Merit - pay for performance for non-public safety employees — Civil Service Step — follow meet and confer agreements • Benefits — Healthy Fund Reserve — Anticipate maintaining current benefits with no additional contributions from City or employees • Wellness — Increased program participation for 7017 calendar year — Robust programming and opportunities for City Staff Phillips provided a Compensation Overview and a Chart depicting Total Rewards Strategies- .. t f f()Rl � I fllW1�. Compensation Overview Council Strategy: Attract, hire, develop & retain the best people, and compensate them for the value they create Tactics include establishing and consistently administering a competitive compensation program based on performance results Total Rewards From Wadd at Ktrk Phillips spoke on the Compensation Approach and described 3 key areas: Market, Merit and Steps. Compensation Approach fiscal& Budgetary Policy Competitive Compensation - In order to maintain a competitive pjy scale, the City has implemented a Comperitive Empfoyee Compensotlon Mnrrtter:oriceProgram toaddres5 competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: - Annual Pay Plan Review -- To ensure the City's pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, the City will review its pay plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City's competitive pay plans. (Market) - Pay for Performance - Each year the City will fund performance based pay adjustments for regular non-public safety personnel. This merit based program aids in rotaining quality Qrnployees by rewarding their performanca. Pay for Per for mance, adjustments are based on The employee's most recently completed performance evaluation. (Merit) - Public Safety Steps - Each year the City will fund anniversary step increases for public safety sworn personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design. I steps) Phillips explained the Fire & Police Meet & Confer Agreements and said that the agreements specify City comparators and pay philosophy. Phillips spoke on the FY2018 Market Summary and provided a list of market comparators FY2018 Market Summary • In 2016 - Defined Central Texas jobs vs Texas Area — Where do we recruit and lose employees? — Most positions (66% of benchmarks) compared to Central Texas — Management and specialized municipal professional positions compared to both Central Texas and Texas Area comparators ■ Industry specific comparators used selectively: — Bryan Texas Utilities, New Braunfels Utilities, CPS Energy, LCRA, College Station Market Comparators Central Texas Texas Area Austin Sugar Land Cedar Park Grapevine Leander Denton Pflugerville Flower Mound Round Rock Williamson County San Marcos New Braunfels Show Phillips said that the City of Georgetown has 246 non -civil service job titles and 112 benchmark job titles (46%). Of these positions 72% fell within market and 28% fell below market. Merit Pay was shown next. Merit Pay • Performance Evaluation tool with 5 tiers — Needs Improvement — Below Expectations — Meets Expectations — Exceeds Expectations — Excellent • One on One meetings between supervisor and employee — Mid Year Evaluation — Fiscal Year -End Evaluation • Merit based on annual evaluation rating, paid at the beginning of next calendar year Mayor Ross asked the Council if they had any questions on compensation before Phillips went on to speak on the Benefits Program. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about living wages and how many of the City employees fall below that. Jonrowe said she would be interested to look at how to be a driver of fair wages and costs. Mayor Ross asked about 72% of jobs at market and 29% below and if any of the City's jobs are above market. Phillips said there is a handful of jobs above market, but very few. Phillips began the presentation on Benefits with a Benefits History slide. l rI URIC{ Il)WA� Benefits History The largest and most volatile expense to the fund are medical and pharmacy claims. Fluctuations occur both seasonally and episodically. Reinsurance, conservative budgeting, and fund reserves are essential to a healthy program. 11 e ! V,, Nr! 1 I, n•. )011, Phillips noted the importance of Vendor Relationships and described programs to encourage and help heath care of employees move in the right direction. He spoke on the City's Self Insurance Program and provided a slide showing the Self Insurance Fund Reserve. Vendor Relationships Staff works diligently with United Health Care to identify risks and mitigate costs to the self-insurance fund. • 10°x, cif V *Irltwl % 0 + °,6°, of h4-9leal Spend Musculoskeletal :5% plrllniunl Piliw", 1.1111q.161m Beck tam. osteoartnl An 6 Jouas • Cv'.sr•vatrve Cafe. Mot, It, Apps, and per, IsIon Supper! car,!o Ili • 14% of f tembers • 45% of f\lediral %Mnd Cardiovascular Risk Crinmon condalon variance ,s higher man Debates, Cororory Artery VIN 3944'9c1)df!f idwMed pet'1 I).seese and Hypetlenslon Erxourage eerallment rmplemental•an of Beal Appeal • 10°x, cif V *Irltwl % 0 + °,6°, of h4-9leal Spend Musculoskeletal :5% plrllniunl Piliw", 1.1111q.161m Beck tam. osteoartnl An 6 Jouas • Cv'.sr•vatrve Cafe. Mot, It, Apps, and per, IsIon Supper! car,!o Ili Self Insurance Fund Reserve • Strong reserve policy and balance Fiscal Year As ofSepternbvr 30y',2016 Beginning Balance $2,129,947 Revenues $5,873,534 Expenses $5,797,454 En&gFund0alar" $2,205,987 IBNR $556,400 10% of annual expense" PrernkanStabiBtadonReserve $1,112,800 10-2096 of annual a venses• Remaining Balance $536,787 •i #-y'O * "W%- dwn SO— "$A Councilmember Gipson asked if there was good feedback from employees about the benefits program. Phillips said he receives great feedback and noted that there will be no increase in premiums, which all employees are happy about. Phillips noted that additional costs are no longer happening year to year. Mayor Ross asked Phillips about the biggest risk of being self-insured. Phillips said the biggest risk would be if the City were to experience bad claims for 6 years in a row, without a healthy reserve. He described the healthy situation of the current fund and how this mitigated risk. Phillips spoke on Employee Benefits Program Goals and provided a Current Benefits Update. Employee Benefits Program Goals 1. Maximize employee health 2. Assure competitive and current plan offerings and design 3. Maintain program affordability for City and employees 4. Facilitate employee plan navigation and consumerism S. Compliance and administration • Staff is working tactical plan built from goals &.�- — felO:91—,a 6,dk-1 Current Benefits Update • Received Rate Pass for 2018 plan year — Life Insurance & Vision - MetLife — Short Term Disability/Long Term Disability - Dearborn • Based on current and know expense trend and fund reserve status, we do not anticipate a need to increase contribution levels from City or employees next fiscal year. Phillips explained that for FY2018 planning, the Self -Insurance Fund cost will be continuously monitored and projections updated through July. He noted that specific recommendations will be developed as part of the City Manager's proposed budget. Phillips spoke on the Wellness Program successes and mentioned the 5K Event that Councilmember Eby participated in. He said this is a run/walk event at Rivery Park and many enjoy the trails and culture of wellness. He provided a slide on the Current Wellness Events. Phillips said the program is designed to give credit for time spent taking care of one's self. Current • 2 wellness sessions annually • PTO incentive • Biometric Screening/Assessment — requirement • Onsite fitness classes, lunch & learns, wellness challenges • Online platform 0 Phillips described the Wellness Program Goals and showed a slide depicting participation in the program. �lI0M.I IIA Wellness Program Goals 1. Increase Participation — Biometrics & Overall Program Participation ✓ 2. Create link between wellness program incentives and benefits — Create premium incentive for participating in the Health Risk Assessment & Biometric Screenings and for meeting biometric goals 3. Reduce administrative load of program — Create online tracking system for programs and incentives ✓ LYlU'BAnnuf &. Wellness Participation MR loll ■'�r�';�i�r �ti Vii;��,ir-! U;f iiL�Ir h:^n ■ ��r; Nltr:lu 1r lrrial'N,'. Phillips noted that participation has increased considerably, with a high level of program completion. Phillips said he is researching incentive structures and options for the 2019 plan year and will continue to work with Bravo on program design. Councilmember Fought said 6 years ago the HSA account was implemented. Fought said this is an extremely well run program. He noted that recruiting and retaining the right people is an important objective. Fought spoke on compensation and said you can evaluate success by asking if you are losing people and determining if you are getting good applicants forjob postings.. Fought thanked Phillips for running a great program. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City's benefits program includes dental and mental health coverage. Phillips confirmed that these were included benefits. Jonrowe asked about tuition reimbursement. Phillips said the program had been started this year, with roughly 14 to 15 participants so far. Phillips said the program is very tangible and exciting to the employees. Jonrowe asked if employee surveys ask about what benefits employees would like to see. Phillips spoke on the employee benefits committee and said he would add this suggestion for discussion at their next meeting. Jonrowe asked Phillips to share the feedback. Jonrowe asked about current maternity and paternity leave. Phillips said employees are permitted to use sick pay and FMLA, but there is not a specific policy. Phillips added that he will continue to look at this. H. Presentation and discussion of the CAMPO/City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study Final Plan -- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Transportation Analyst and Andreina Davila -Quintero, Project Coordinator Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst for the City, provided a presentation on the Williams Drive Final Plan. He acknowledged Andreina Davila -Quintero, the City's Project Coordinator and thanked her for the wealth of knowledge and abilities she brought to the project. Waggoner also acknowledged members of Cap Metro in the audience and thanked them for their generous contributions. Phillip Tindall, Deputy Director of CAMPO, spoke. He thanked the Council for their support in the project and allowing them to report. He explained that this is the first study completed under CAMPO's Platinum Planning program, an approach to regional transportation planning. Tindall said this planning approach forges a connection for transportation, land use and economic development. Tindall thanked staff and community leaders and stakeholders. Waggoner thanked the CAMPO staff and said the presentation will be a final check with the City Council. He provided a slide showing the contributors of the project. Contributors : CAMPO : TxDOT : Williams Drive Study Working Group : GISD Georgeto.vn Health Foundation City Council : Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board : Planning and Zoning Commission City Manager's Office : Public Works Planning : Economic Development : Finance : Systems Engineering : GIS : Community leaders and other stakeholders Waggoner provided a presentation agenda. He said he would be asking for Council direction to staff to return on July 11, 2017 for acceptance of the Study's Final Plan • Progress to Date • Study Purpose and Goals • Public Comment • Implementation Plan • Next Steps Waggoner provided a slide titled Check -Ins with GTAB and P&Z Check -Ins with GTAB and P&Z�r'►� rL L I - ✓ Study Kick -Off - 12/2015 - Scoping. Proposal review - Interlocal Agreement - Established Purpose. Goal, & Objectives ✓ Existing Conditions Assessment - 11/2016 - Primary Issues - 021,"2017 ✓ Concept Plan - 04/2017 - Design Workshop- 11.%2016 - Vision - Recommendation, ✓ Implementation Plan - 06/01 - Short to long term projects ✓ Recommendation to City Council ✓ GTAB - 06/09 ✓ P&Z - 06/20 Councilmember Fought spoke on the task of looking at this project. He explained that there was an unconstrained look at this project with no money constraints or time constraints, which was a great way to look at it, while still being realistic. Waggoner spoke next on Recommendations made from the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) and the Planning and Zoning Commission. WRecommendatio_ns GTAB - Motion by Marler, 211 by Hellman - "Accept the first four years of the plan and conditionally the rest of it with a strong recommendation to City Council that they not set year 5 and on into concrete." - 5 in favor, 3 opposed P&Z - Motion by Idarler, 2i' by Fuller - "to accept the first four year segment of this plan and pass on to the City Council a recommendation that from year 5 on that these Boards be resubmitted the data that has accumulated in those four years to see what revisions need to be made from year 5 on." - 6 in favor-, 0 opposed City Manager, David Morgan asked Wagoner to describe the perspectives of GTAB and P&Z members. Waggoner spoke on the perspectives of off-street bicycle facilities and on -street facilities. Waggoner explained the concerns with traffic congestion and timing and how the appropriateness and timing of the project had been discussed. Check -Ins with the City Council was shown next. .r" Check -Ins with City Council Study Kick -Off - 01;`2016 i. — .0c a. Existing Conditions Assessment 01,x12017 Concept Plan - 04;-'2017 J Imptemerltation Plan - 06,1 27 J Acceptance of the Withams Drive Study - 07111 Waggoner noted that the purpose of the project was to develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all modes, and integration of smart transportation and land use, community needs, and the future economic growth of Williams Drive. Waggoner explained that the goals for Williams Drive include: • Enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations • Support corridor -wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development • Protect and enhance the corridor • Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods Waggoner provided slides on what has been heard. IMWhat we have heard 'A ro.�ln rns•,xn 1..r, t% .vr.r o.+w. n trn rc. C3 M Do you g Walt? C"M I" the yak km Draw w.r r1.wM r1. rn..gM wd �wrwwdrro.r wtlhf1 ar wo-f N a«a <wrw»rm •U 4rpc.ces 3 in 5 believe the goals were met 1 in 5 believe the goals were not met 1 in 4 the goals were mostly met Andreina Davila Quintero, Project Coordinator, spoke on FYI 7/18 Action Items. She said she wanted to identify action items already in process and already funded. She explained that they have been listening to stakeholders, citizens and City Council leaders in order to improve congestion on Williams Drive. Davila Quintero noted that some actions are still pending. Action Traffic signal coordination from Austin Avenue to Jim Hogg Rd r Rivery Blvd construction NW Blvd Bridge construction r Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) upgrades at Williams Dr and Lakeway Dr, Williams Dr and Shell/DB Wood Rd, Williams Dr and Wildwood Dr, Williams Dr and Lakewood Dr, and Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd r Traffic engineering First 4 years 1 &2 - Transportation (Traffic Congestion and Operations) • Right -turn lanes on Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd • Traffic Signal Coordination • Traffic engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed and utilities) • Williams Dr & Austin Ave intersection operation improvement • Painted median pilot program ja First 4 years 1&2 - Transportation (Traffic Congestion and Operations) • Traffic Management Center • Williams Dr & 1-35 intersection improvement • Promote Go -Geo • Communication/Public Education • Stripe Northwest to include center turn lane and on -street bike lanes • Raised, planted medians in Centers Area ISFirst 4 years 3 - Barriers.to Redevelopment/Reinvestment • Update the 2030 Comprehensive Plan • Amend the Future land Use Map • Preliminary engineering (access management, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, and speedy • Review and update development standards and zoning • New connecting roadways JK 5-10 Years r Reconfigure Northwest Blvd Center islands on Northwest Blvd New roadway connections Raised, planted center medians Reconstruction of DB Wood Blvd and Shell Rd Intersection improvements between Rivery Blvd and 1-35 Grant program for signage and streestscape Install and repair sidewalk y On -street and sidepath bicycle facilities New roadway connections Raised, planted center I-nedians in the Corridor Area, west of DB Wood Blvd Install and repair sidewalks Install and repair curb ramps • Side paths along Williams Dr and Northwest Blvd A Summary Slide was provided by Davila Quintero. In summary... z � Promote Council's strategic goals to: — Create a strategy to increase mobility — Create and maintain outstanding aesthetics, and a welcoming appearance and spirit Guidance on future plans including the Comprehensive Plan update and Capital Improvement Program Provides guidance on future budget requests that would improve the Williams Drive corridor Davila Quintero asked the City Council for direction to staff in order for them to return on July 11, 2017 for acceptance of the Williams Drive Study Final Plan. Councilmember Hesser said members of GTAB have had a spirited debate regarding Williams Drive. He said there is concern that, over time, comments have not been transferred and have changed the objective. Hesser said he appreciates the staff. He noted that the emphasis should be on traffic flow and congestion. He said it is also important to concentrate on retail and commercial activity. Hesser explained that moving vehicles needs to be the priority. He said that GTAB members are not completely comfortable with the plan and would like to see the first 4 years. He noted there is still concern about bikes on this street without a bike plan. He noted the speed on 130 as much too dangerous. Hesser said a bike plan needs to be in place before putting bicycles on Williams Drive. Hesser said he wants to pull bike recommendations for the first 4 years, until the bike plan can be made and parks and streets need to have a comprehensive plan. Hesser noted the 150 curb cuts on Williams Drive, without a real solution. He said the City cannot start beautification without a plan and he would not want congestion increased because of this. Hesser said he would like to come up with solutions and suggested that staff come back to Council with the solutions. Councilmember Gonzalez said the biggest focus and financial resources need to go to congestion first, and then beautification and a bicycle plan. He said the focus for the 3 to 4 year plan needs to be on traffic congestion. Councilmember Gipson said project zoning is most critical. He thanked staff for their hard work. Gipson said there needs to be a good bike plan that is thought through well. He said zoning will be the biggest challenge because the area is somewhat land -locked there. Councilmember Jonrowe asked what lessons have been learned and said that it has been an exciting project to watch. She asked if lessons learned could be used For developing HWY 29 or Leander Rd. City Manager, Morgan, said principles learned will be informational for ail the rest of the corridors as well. He said developing corridors can be managed better initially. Morgan said it is important to understand that this project is a guideline and adoption of the next fiscal year adoptions. Morgan said it is important to remember that a bike plan is a priority and it is part of the Williams Drive Plan to do a bike master plan. He said the engineering studies specifically focus on capacity on the roadway and signal management. He noted that the City will be taking over some of TXDOT signal management, affecting immediate concerns with traffic congestion. Councilmember Jonrowe said the City needs to move forward with a bicycle plan for the entire City, not just Williams Drive. She noted that this would be a draw for younger professionals being attracted to the area. Waggoner spoke on accessible pedestrian signals, with push buttons, which accessible and audible. He said there will be 6 intersections upgraded to today's standards. Fought said the methodology of looking at the whole area will identify what needs to be studied. He said this is good work and a good broad look. Hesser said he agrees with Gipson that changes in commercial properties will bring unintended consequences. Ross asked Morgan what has been relayed by Council. Morgan said the First 4 Years of the Implementation Plan will be presented to the Council July 11, 2017, as well as a document study of the longer term plan. C. Presentation on Community Center Fees and Garay Park Operations -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Kimberly Garrett, Parks Director, provided the presentation. Before the presentation was initiated, Garrett announced that the Parks & Recreation Department had been awarded a $200,000 trail grant from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. She said that the grant would help fund a nearly half -mile concrete trail expansion from San Gabriel Park along the San Gabriel River to the Katy Crossing Subdivision. Mayor Ross congratulated Garrett and staff. Garrett provided an agenda for the presentation • Update from April 25th Council Workshop • Community Center Fees o Review of Rental Fees/Revenues/Building Expenses o Fee Increase options to reduce subsidy for operations o Provide recommendations from staff and Parks Board • Garey Park o Project Update o Key elements of the budget o Impact to 2018 budget and future budgets Garret spoke on the Community Center and provided an image of the Center. She noted that the center is 100% booked on Saturdays and the City holds a lottery drawing for rentals one year in advance. She explained that the Parks Department sometimes receives 5 or 6 applications for the same date. Garrett provided a description of the Community Center. Community Center • Event Venue • High Demand, especially Friday and Saturday — One year advance booking — General rentals — weddings and parties — Non profit rentals — fundraisers and banquets — City Department rentals • Facility Amenities — 6,000 sq. ft., seating for 400 including tables and chairs, full kitchen, no catering restrictions, PA system, wireless internet and flexible rental hours (7 am to midnight) Garrett discussed the Reviewed Expenses & Revenues and provided a chart for Proposed Fees. She said implementation would take approximately 2 years. _ _ IF107 A Ar-�"V FMi Reviewed Expenses & Revenues • Expenses- - Utilities & Internal Service Fund Janitorial, Pest Control, Fire System, table and chair replacement, general facility maintenance • Last time fees were reviewed and increased was in 2008 with the renovation • Current rates are lower in comparison to other eventvenues • Reviewed fee structure for Non -Profit & Res/N Res • Current cost recovery is 76% Proposed Fees Whole Building ( Friday & Saturday) 5600 $900 $1,200 Whole Building ( Sunday - Thursday) $500 $650 $800 & Building ( Sunday — Thursday) ' $275 5450 $550 Non Profit SOlc3 Whole Building ( friday & Saturday) $250 $400 $500 Whole Building ( Sunday - Thursday) $250 5300 $400 f4 Binding ( Sunday— Thursday) • ",3s $150 $250 'Courtyard side add $50 Non -Profit Rentals 35% Non -Resident Rentals 25% Garrett spoke about Comparable Facilities and explained why the Community Center is hard to compare because of its capacity and flexibility of use. Comparable Facilities wljc% d � �.l:r, �r ..lEi_::,f..y 1�0 -0 d f Garrett provided a comparison of other facility rental options for a Friday or Saturday rental. Other Facility Rental Options 1 . . . ■ .. . Garrett provided a slide depicting revenue and expense at the Community Center Costs Recovered FYI 7 - 76% FY18 - 87% FY19 -- 11 lin: The Parks Board and Staff Recommendations were shown • Increase fees to reduce the GF subsidy e Phase increase over 2 years • Admin time to book, check out keys, deposit collection, building conditions not captured in expense • Eliminate R/NR fee structure — highly specialized • Larger increase to general rentals than non-profit rentals Councilmember Hesser asked how many discounted weekend days are utilized. Garrett said out of 163 rentals, 13 were non-profit and the majority of non-profit rentals are on a week day. Gipson said with a waiting list for the Community Center, the City needs to move with the demand and stop pulling from the general fund. He suggested possibly increasing fees even more. Ross asked about the 24% of the general fund and what number that represents. Garrett said the utility costs average $25,000 annually. Garrett said she would like to see how the increased fees impact rentals and if there would be fewer rentals with the increased fees. She noted that this would need to be reviewed regularly. Hesser asked if building maintenance is in the general fund. Garrett said general building maintenance only. Garrett spoke on Garey Park next and provided an overview. Garey Park • Ground Breaking held on March 3151 • Construction timeline is estimated at 12 months • Anticipate opening April 151 • Initial expense in 2017 Budget • Proposed 2018 Budget impacts a partial year • Proposed 2019 Budget and beyond —Full operating expense —Full revenue potential in year 4 (FY 2021) —Phased in Capital Maintenance & Replacement She spoke on the budget process for the project and thanked the many staff members who helped in the joint effort of putting the budget together G I l 1 HG 1 1 G a rey Park • Operations and Maintenance Plan —First presented in March 2015 —Provided a good baseline for staffing, expenses and revenues —Updated and refined with construction plans and current costs • Scope Changed — No camping or amphitheater — No host house or on site supervisor 24/7 Garrett described the proposed staffing needs for Garey Park and the Operational Expenses Staff i ng ■ Staffing numbers the same at 7.5 FTE's —6FT&1.5PT • Need to maintain coverage hours at the gate house for entry 7 days a week • With paid entry, park should meet or exceed visitors expectations • Proposing a self pay kiosk during non peak hours and holidays • Continue to develop partnerships with Volunteers and Master Naturalists � j 1096 110%% n� Operational Expense • Landscape Maintenance ■ Janitorial • Contract staff for Garey House rentals • Utilities • General Maintenance & Small Tools • Uniforms, staff training, overtime • Marketing expense Garrett described the One Time Capital Expenses, as well as Capital Maintenance and Replacement L �Fl)RGI R)1vN� One Time Capital • To be purchased in FY 2018 ■ Event tables and chairs with enclosed trailer • Tractor, truck, small car, and UTV • Pressure washer and water trailer • IT equipment ■ Pay Station r .1/ 1111:11.11VA� Capital Maintenance & Replacement • Phase in funding of the Facilities ISF and the Parks SRF over 5 years. — Items beyond 1 year useful life — Fully funded by FY 2022 Proposed Park Fees and Revenue were discussed. OR(;F ro%VN� �„ Proposed Park Fees mm* Revenues • Entry Fees — Day Pass — Resident • $5/Vehicle for up to 2 people; + $2/person • $8/Equestrian Trail Day Pass — Non -Resident • $10/Vehicle for up to 2 people; + $2/person • $12/Equestrian Trail Day Pass — $35/Bus Proposed Park Fees mm* Revenues • Annual Friends of Garey Park Pass — Resident • $100/Family • + $75/ Equestrian Rider — Non -Resident • $150/Family • + $100/ Equestrian Rider — $3 off Equestrian Trail Day Pass Proposed Park Fees no* Revenues • Garey House and Event Area — $2,800 to $6,000 Pavilion Rentals — $6S to $375 depending on size & length of rental — Resident and Non Resident rates would apply • Programs — Various prices depending on program — Resident and Non Resident rates would apply Garrett provided a slide on the 2018 Budget Request Summary and Future Budget Impacts. 2018 Budget Request Summary Staffing- hire lan 1 to April 1 depending $272,851 on position Operations $146,450 Contracts $111,088 ISF ( vehicles) $18,918 Total Operating Expense for 2018 $549,307 One Time Expenses $205,000 Total Projected Revenues $225,000 Future Budget Impacts • FY19 — Full year operating expense — Phased in Revenue — Phased in SRF/ISF Description Revenue S 225,000 S 405,172 S 586,343 5 765,385 S 765,385 Expense $ 530,389 $ 884,024 $ 884,024 $ 884,024 $ 884,024 ISF/SRF Exp $ 21.859 S 105,330 $ 132,700 $ 160,071 $ 187,441 Net Revenue $ (327.248) S (584,182) S (430.381) S (278,710) S (306.081) Cost Recovery 41% 41% 58% 73% 71 %, CR w/o ISFISRF 42% 46% 66% 87% 87%. Garrett explained that these are conservative figures for revenues, and she thinks the revenues will actually be higher. She explained that cost recovery gets greater as revenues increase and grow. She noted that it will take a few years to become totally profitable, but this will be tracked and looked at yearly. Councilmember Gipson asked about events and festivals and mentioned that these could be huge revenue sources. He reminded Garret about Councilmember Nicholson's suggestion of disk golf. Gipson instructed staff to identify the money makers and tournaments that will bring in a lot of gate fees. He said that he hopes the CVB is also involved in this. Garrett said there has been much interest shown but things are hard to determine at this time. Garrett said there has been discussion to possibly partner with Williamson County regarding the disk golf. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if there is a separate CIP plan for the Garey house roof, replacement, floors, etc. Garrett brought up the future budge impact slide and explained that all of this has been accounted for. Hesser asked if guests of the person renting the Garey house are required to bay gate fees. Garrett said, most likely, those fees would be included in the house rental fee, but some of these things are still being worked through. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City would be keeping track of where visitors to the park are from. She suggested being able to coordinate this with heads in beds and encouraging people to stay in Georgetown for their outing or vacation. She spoke about visitors staying in Georgetown hotels and having a Georgetown experience. Mayor Ross noted that Garrett attends Parks conferences and seminars regularly and asked her to name some of the non-financial benefits to having such a jewel of park. Garrett said mental health and well-being will be a big benefit. She said such a place bring in people. Garrett said she has presented Garey Park at conferences and people love it. She explained that the opportunities are endless. Ross noted that an open ended park, such as this, has much revenue, more than just financial. He said this speaks to who we are as a City. Councilmember Gipson asked about food and catering. Garrett said there are discussions of possible food trucks or contracts with concessionaires. Gipson said this would be another revenue source. Councilmember Gonzalez said new development and commercial development will follow suit but not for 5 to 15 years. Gipson asked if there is a turning lane into Garey Park. Garrett and Morgan explained that there will not be a turning lane but that there is a deceleration lane. Gipson said it is tragic and dangerous there. Garrett said staff will be working with TXDOT on signage and flashing lights. D. Presentation and discussion of Austin Ave. Bridges Public Meeting #3 and Environmental Clearance Process -- Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Ed Polasek, the City's Transportation Planning Coordinator, provided a presentation and update on the Austin Avenue Bridges Meeting and Environmental Clearance Process. He provided an agenda of the presentation. • Overview of public involvement process • Overview of 3rd public meeting and public input • Update on environmental process • Review the need and purpose statement • Discussion of design alternative Polasek rovided a chart indicatin the Public Involvement Process January 2016 - Project Kickoff To conduct environmental study, public involvement, and 30% design and construction plans February 2016 — Meelings with Property Owners and Stakeholders Met with 26 property owners and stakeholders to introduce the project and collect initial input March 2016 — First Public Meeting To introduce the project and process, and collect feed back on needs, preferences, and process, 104 Attendees; 128 Surveys; 189 Additional Comments; 31 Mapped Comments June 2016 — Second Public Meeting and Walking Tour Work hop t c lett input safety and mobility considerations, and aesthetic and character elements; 58 Attendees, 1 Walking Tour Attendees; 51 Mapped Comments August 2016 — Meeting and Walking Tour with Consulting Parties Review of Section 106 and Environmental Process, and walking tour Fall 2016 - Council Workshop Review of environmental and public involvement process May 2017 — Third Public Meeting Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates on environmental and historical process; 61 Attendees; 147 comments A Project Description was also Exirz+�--R "• -stn Avenue Facility • Constructed In 1940 • four4sne undivided roadway (two lanes in each direction) • 114bot travel lanes • No center tum tone • No shoulders or offsets to pedestrian elements • Four -foot esdawalk on erther side • No designated bice lanes • Bridges are cantilevered suspended -span bndge-s D-c'ble Irr---mYw"- The study wig consider optW* to: • improve salety and mobift • Address maintenance needs oast the MW sevefai decades • Widen Imes to 12 met • Add a center tern lane or median • Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations EXISMIG Bi S3.S' OVERALL 10.75' 111 111 10.7S' kj . 1 1 t t ,. 1'RAH ING 1'NAAIMIS Polasek slLoke on the project needs and urpose. PROJECT. AND - --• KJ-- A. The bridges have severa, detenoratWgcompon@rft"dstructural deficiencies. resulting In the need for load posting and fa ! ! ng debris on and below the bridges. The bridges do not meet the currant City of Georgetown's adopted design standards induding Americans with CisabilitiesAct (ADA) requirernents and do not provideeHective connections for bicydes and pedestlans to the axis" trail network. In addition, the current roadway has n a rrow trovei }setts a nd sid a wr a I k s, and does not provide the standard levels of service for all modes of travel. PIirruncp- • Address detedoratingccrnponents and remove all load restrictions • Improve safety and mobilRy through application of current design standards • Provide safe turning movements Into and out of abutting properties that of sie ively serve existing and future traffic movtmtnts • Provide crossings that meet ADA requirarriants, art conducivefor substantlsl ped estr+an a nd bicycle traffic, and provide eflbctive oonneetionsto the existing trail network M Polasek spoke on the 12 Preliminary Alternatives. He explained that 8 scenarios were developed for the improvement to the bridges and 5 generally met the purpose and needs. He noted that there was a Public Meeting, regarding this, held in May. t. No build Ooes not meet akela, "mmo Impnu, but mux maw Foi wxd for evalaattat w M*&W by NEPA dnd S•cmn 106 7A Build on now location and convrrson mee most cr+tervs (limited rn batt' Improvements fr. NB "Hlcl to I,w" pair of tridg" on east sde Has LOnra v►pattt to AA f"Quftet ie. &Ad an new IOCati on and to vairsWn I I sca UNIN • 400A d w4bftv knoAg1ie•M!ft for Si tlafrK) to 1 • w•y pNr of Will es at rex "* M" *room to resotaoes Hwt east 0* (?N ]A Build a ww twm*e on oHut afigrwrwe %Awtt ars (,IWA on N+e ent s..dr i* acres of ROW needed and major impacts to hivorc props -e, and resorcts A Etdd anew bndige on to iso t �,e r o�v1a on west sldo 3• dares d RM madded and mala Impacts to hlstwk prop anus drd rew re•L 0. Bvpatt on alteonat" alignment and pas not moat ulwla leave braes n a monument FAyor (moat) -patts to resnrces and monuments are rrpsrtrcat S. R•ftobwtaw tr*es anitr 6A Rehabilitation arts a nC« pedestnan brdBp on past too 66. Rchabostatbn Wath a new pedestrwt brtda• an Sect Lida 7A Rehabilitxion and Aden bridgeL on east side 7Q as++eb"+eartrt artd wden bi *es on waat side S. cull redxement I]ars not nwirl to11"la tyle—p' Ytp•cts toresovices Meets some viterla Ino I-OtP4V Improvements} Swr ROW napded and tarns npacts to retourc" Mee f3 some mlterla (no - *bpmv Imprvrenrenbt some am timed data MWO Nnpam t• feLoutt•L than "a slda t W MaatL am ulteela Sane ROW needed arrd sarrye rripatts to re".Xres [Mari as 0110da Some A" needed but mere Irrrpacts W res•imes!flan east sl* (7A) Meets M criteria k-* ROW nerd& and Impacts an rvourcek recfwas fulI4(fj anaart:t V/ V/ X X X X X V/ X I Polasek spoke on the 31d Public Meetin andprovided an overview as well as details, public input and a summary. We -• -■ - - ;V Details May 11, 2017 • Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates on environmental and historical process • 61 Attendees • 147 comments received r -9 Ii■Irt :�;.. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT FROM PM#3 25 Concern for businesses/sconomk impact 23 Support for pedestrian access 23 Concern for cost of options 22 Concern for pedestrian/driver safety 19 Concern for disruptive construction and traffic control 16 Concern about transparency and public involvement 14 Concern for long term effects 12 Concern for historical preservation 8 Need more supporting data 8 Existing bridges are safe 8 Improved turning options 7 Congestion/traffic 7 Support for thoroughness of PI prooess 7 Environmental concerns 6 Aesthetic concerns 4 Downtown master plan 2 Public Transit Polasek spoke on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NATIONAL ENVIRONMEMAL -. - 1rEPA raatnw ladwr reaiviogfsgiaw hrrrds loans th.wn#owwiW eNoM d thm 9 mpa, ri ho priortofeardeoa m onUvirprt.cls Aeanpwrsaeter.kratetha.rnrrrrny,rtar.social,arW .mrwrarc eatac-M of OW Proposed Pr4Kto +t prtmagapportunion for public review aro aw amra an ftm .wluati" Agency CoordfinabWComphanoe • TwsOeoarUrwKdTnPwportaeon-AuabnDejrct EnWMnrwn1WAf MDiovan • Teoraaliutgrtar�rntnv.ror,, Locaa;r4Courtly Historic OrpMrrsawo • TOMPeft OM W OWO Dapart+rwr+t • US Fan andWitilife Serve • Twa.Comursi on Envoor ner"quality • US Amy CorpadEngrwra Environmental • Ridu d Way/ Drsplacemamts Fraodo4wo Pett and gocmatrp w ftowffm • laird UW $oo and Oakilly Mister Rwaureae • rarrntano flamrdo Nato 4a COrmwnaYlrrroacta • Ar Qualo hnpaft f lil; al Enworwrwnt • V Wands. Chaney in Tt" Pattvm • gome WYdW, and Vatlstsbon Tnafhc and Transportebon/ • Utilltlaa / EmerOervy SeMcas Tlr.atowd a Endrgrad Speeft Pedestrian and a cycl* • VoWl Aaalhet ca Corwrtrcbon tmaacls Acaonrrr�anons yysvr Qwgl, Historic Significance was discussed. HISTORIC SIGNIF. MALICE_ LI fiha Iiridge. J'ar tt IIJJarrrsan HUM r r 'h , r.. K .rxif ►wtcl+va ti�arn S��s The twoturdawwen txrabucMd r 1"o aer tlw KW" and SOL" Fab of tM San (iabrrl Rva. • OebnninW � b !icon{ m Un NatJonM Redebr d Hietunc Pncsi iNRliP1 n 1� • C000lerpreverttAurewmptetdtnaStata H�nrJry Oepartntent�utNiatRionda uMtSa�.7�wnrDp4 epan�ra00n • t;ant>twer�d•S;.ai�artr}aeapalCOrin • tr+depe WWK ataal that ptaoed tretrteen COA"a" W arms WwCanbrAmew male SUPP b • Cwt atad mwhM by rh oud rmt&dd board ftm • 1M eTtint� d OOfI�IraUOn aaa tMt R anaotad tlfa tmei�! Do Navaa sr�rrlt�a^trl Ip�r aped Md IHrrMr dadt, rr�tnth radtroed fM rwmbar d 11N supports rwdad c wMvw tpm caftw r spm llotaia I r I-aly ea of &,a&" aw mckwo: Srwar++e.a slMvewd - a Mets suepar,4o4j vw 11.01 te-heeedapan M• M.teWW,1rstra0in0 • Art Dao WA ■ap,rW emus% cco•cbe--'- Gto.<q ucw�. pus Councilmember Fought asked about the concrete bents. Polasek confirmed that bents was the correct description or term. Fought said he is a supporter of historic preservation, but most of this is not even seen. Councilmember Jonrowe said the perception of the overall bridge is historic and one would not want to change the aesthetic properties of the bridge. Fought asked if replicas could be used, since the appearance would be important. Polasek said this is being consulted with experts. Fought said using something similar instead of the real thing could be a significant cost difference. Fought asked if the grant funding is available because of the historic eligibility. City Manager, David Morgan, said yes, and that the City would need to follow the historic process to be eligible for grant funding. Councilmember Hesser asked if the style of these bridges is a stable form for bridges and still used today. An engineer for the project explained that the bridges are stable as designed, but the design is not current practice in today's engineering, because there are more economical ways to do this today. Polasek s oke on the Anticipated Schedule Activit Timeline. Teemsubm is H iaWm Resaurws 3trwyR+eport(HF9NQtDTx0CfflbrrrAw Nasaroenatweroo.rne.caaeu�ooeaooia�s.ew+oy.�E«nhcamnooa.n.oirea4�Merrorw ��'i��NY �erc«e�tpn..amocoscsmrman..enawworm�o.ms.aan+ro.ae�e.awraro.�mso•n summer2017 arorroura rrw er. on aaor�q �rwm rarouRe. TxDOT reNews HRSR Summer 2017 TxDOToorwuMConSuMngpWWcor uit;lltonrcpjrdrnQHFISF Sumaw/1e11 2017 TxDOTcootdnateswith 7exwHes6wk*CommksionforSecbon106 Fall/wirtter2017 Clearance--.xe i ao.e�emos tsitroei.o•xa7oxopaisfwAirhoo�vwSe,egoeoi Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that projects with the least adverse of as move forward as preferred aftemadves If they meet the Deed and Purpose. • Rub ecl tv than bawd vn anvirvnmpntal rwirw ri Mo t,rr,,r.� Polasek provided an Overview and Consideration for the City of Georgetown Design Guidelines. Considerp`-)ns • Context Sensitive Design • level of Service Councilmember Jonrowe asked where the dividing line is between the12 foot and 11 foot travel lane recommendations. Polasek said it is at the end of the Downtown Master Plan, which is right at the entry point of the southern bridge. Jonrowe asked if Council can decide to expand. Polasek confirmed. Polasek spoke regarding the Next Steps. ■ TXDOT review of NEPA and Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) documents, anticipate feedback fall/winter 2017 • Return to City Council to review No Build and Preferred Alternative, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 • Present No Build and Preferred Alternative at a public hearing, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 Mayor Ross asked if the options coming back to Council will have economic impacts. Polasek confirmed and said there are costs to the project and impact. Ross asked if staff has talked to downtown business owners. City Manager, David Morgan said they have been very involved in the process. Ross asked for something more structured. Ross asked if traffic impact studies would be done on each option that had been shown. Morgan confirmed. Ross asked staff to provide traffic mitigation options so that business interruption is kept to a minimum. Morgan and Polasek confirmed that this will be the case. Morgan said that each project will have 2 lanes open at all times. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Polasek. She said it is interesting that this presentation ended up on the same night as the Williams Drive review and it will be a helpful exercise for the Council to compare and contrast. Jonrowe explained that there are different priorities because of different experiences. She said the Council will need to consider Austin Avenue also. Jonrowe asked what year the City took over Austin Avenue from TXDOT. Jim Briggs said it was 2002. Jonrowe said she believed the TXDOT Plan had 5 lanes the entire length of the project. Polasek confirmed that the TXDOT plan had 5 lanes from Williams Drive to Hwy 29. Jonrowe asked about changes to traffic signal operations separate from the bridge discussions and if this could safe expense. Polasek said this can be done fairly easily in next year's signal study. Jonrowe asked who wrote the needs and purpose statement. Polasek said staff, TXDOT, engineers, and consultants all worked together — based on public input. Jonrowe asked for documents showing how this has evolved over time. She said she has noticed subtle changes that have shifted priorities. Polasek said he would provide this for the Council. Jonrowe said Council will need to see the potential financial economic impact. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.05 PM. (lvarvio�� • Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) and Unified Development Code (UDC) • lY travel lanes 001t110111 NISKI Alli MR • rive lane divided .. • level of service • Pedestrian mobility within the right of way - • Potential for context sensitive sohlt m • Downtown Master Plan • 1 el lanes • Undivided • Pedestrian mobift within the right of way • Potential for context sensitive solutions Considerp`-)ns • Context Sensitive Design • level of Service Councilmember Jonrowe asked where the dividing line is between the12 foot and 11 foot travel lane recommendations. Polasek said it is at the end of the Downtown Master Plan, which is right at the entry point of the southern bridge. Jonrowe asked if Council can decide to expand. Polasek confirmed. Polasek spoke regarding the Next Steps. ■ TXDOT review of NEPA and Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) documents, anticipate feedback fall/winter 2017 • Return to City Council to review No Build and Preferred Alternative, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 • Present No Build and Preferred Alternative at a public hearing, anticipated late 2017 to early 2018 Mayor Ross asked if the options coming back to Council will have economic impacts. Polasek confirmed and said there are costs to the project and impact. Ross asked if staff has talked to downtown business owners. City Manager, David Morgan said they have been very involved in the process. Ross asked for something more structured. Ross asked if traffic impact studies would be done on each option that had been shown. Morgan confirmed. Ross asked staff to provide traffic mitigation options so that business interruption is kept to a minimum. Morgan and Polasek confirmed that this will be the case. Morgan said that each project will have 2 lanes open at all times. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Polasek. She said it is interesting that this presentation ended up on the same night as the Williams Drive review and it will be a helpful exercise for the Council to compare and contrast. Jonrowe explained that there are different priorities because of different experiences. She said the Council will need to consider Austin Avenue also. Jonrowe asked what year the City took over Austin Avenue from TXDOT. Jim Briggs said it was 2002. Jonrowe said she believed the TXDOT Plan had 5 lanes the entire length of the project. Polasek confirmed that the TXDOT plan had 5 lanes from Williams Drive to Hwy 29. Jonrowe asked about changes to traffic signal operations separate from the bridge discussions and if this could safe expense. Polasek said this can be done fairly easily in next year's signal study. Jonrowe asked who wrote the needs and purpose statement. Polasek said staff, TXDOT, engineers, and consultants all worked together — based on public input. Jonrowe asked for documents showing how this has evolved over time. She said she has noticed subtle changes that have shifted priorities. Polasek said he would provide this for the Council. Jonrowe said Council will need to see the potential financial economic impact. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.05 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 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. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations Commercial Projects in the Following Areas • 135 and University Avenue • 135 and Southeast Inner Loop Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to open the Regular City Council meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on "l f [ an 172 Date WW Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Se tary