HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.23.2018 CC-RNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 6:00 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 three (3) 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 6:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of
Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson,
Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4,
Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance.
Regular Session
(This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose authorized by
the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Mayor
- Presentation of Police Department Awards
- Council Meeting Procedures and Guidelines
Mayor Ross said that he believed this to be an appropriate time to review with Council and the audience the
governance policies of the Georgetown City Council. He said nothing he would share this night is new or a
change. He explained that these policies were developed via the City Charter, the Governance Policy approved
by the Council on July 10, 2012, and an update of the rules of engagement developed by the Council last
November.
Ross noted that the Mayor is responsible for the integrity of the Council's process and for the dissemination of
ongoing information on Council procedures, current agenda items and meetings. Ross said that a Council
meeting is where democracy occurs in Georgetown and the Mayor will ensure all attendees are treated with
respect, courtesy and dignity at these meetings.
Ross spoke on the agenda process. He said that the agenda is finalized at 5 PM on the Tuesday before the next
Tuesday's Council meeting. Ross said that, generally, the City Manager, Mayor, City Attorney and City Secretary
conduct a final review at noon on the Tuesday before the next Tuesday, Council meeting.
Mayor Ross noted that the City Charter allows an individual Councilmember to place an item on the agenda,
provided the cover sheet, including the financial impact amount, and supporting documents, are provided to the
City Secretary no later than 5 PM on the Tuesday before the Council meeting.
Ross explained that once staff has introduced an agenda item and a motion and second have occurred, the
Mayor allows anyone who has signed up to speak on that item 3 minutes to speak, or 6 minutes if another
individual donates their 3 minutes. He said once all of the speakers have been heard, each Councilmember will
be given 3 minutes to ask questions or provide comments. He said on the second round of questions and
comments, each Councilmember will be allowed 1 minute of time.
Mayor Ross said that Councilmembers are expected to be prepared for meetings and discussion of the agenda
according to the Governance Policy. He noted that, for a more effective process, it would be helpful if Council
would provide the City Manager with any questions they may have, which may require research, by 5 PM on the
Friday before the Tuesday Council meeting. Ross explained that this is necessary in order to get answers to the
Council and provide all of the information necessary to make the best possible decisions.
Ross said when City Council is questioning the staff, each staff member is to be treated with respect, dignity and
courtesy. He added that staff will be allowed time to answer questions without being interrupted by a
Councilmember. Ross said that Councilmembers will not be allowed to make personal attacks from the dais
regarding any speakers or attendees. He said this unseemly behavior not only reflects negatively on a
Councilmember, but also reflects negatively on the City Council as an elected body.
Ross said the role of the City's Boards, Commissions and Committees is to perform the specific functions in state
statutes, City Ordinances, Resolutions, etc. Ross noted that a Councilmember, attending a meeting of a board,
commission or committee, shall not take part in the meeting, nor address the board in any manner, whether by
questions or statements. He explained that a Councilmember shall not attempt to influence the decisions of
boards, commissions or committees about their actions unless at a City Council Meeting. Ross noted that this
does not apply to a Councilmember who is participating as a duly appointed member of a board, commission or
committee.
Ross thanked the audience and said he hoped this information was helpful.
Mayor Ross shared a video of what is in store for the City of Georgetown in 2018 — A Look Ahead.
https://www.youtube-comZwatch?v=39KPC692KBY
City Council Regional Board Reports
No board reports were given.
Announcements
- Cupids Chase
Action from Executive Session
No action was taken from Executive Session.
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine that may be acted upon with one single vote.
An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and acted upon individually as part of
the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Eby asked that Item B be moved from the Statutory Consent Agenda to the Legislative Agenda
for discussion. Mayor Ross later announced later that Item K had been pulled from the agenda.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, January 9, 2018 and a Special Meetings held on January 12, 2018 -- Shelley Nowling, City
Secretary
Item B was moved to the Legislative agenda for discussion by Councilmember Eby.
C. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution ordering a General Election to be held May 5,
2018 for City Council Members for District 1 and District 5 -- Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
D. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution confirming the appointment of Luis Zamot to
the Fire Fighters and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission for a 3 year term -- Elliott Harper,
Human Resources Generalist and David Morgan, City Manager
E. Consideration and possible action to approve a new permit volume package for 2018 related to the City's
Interlocal Agreement for licensing South Central Planning and Development Commission (SCPDC) for
MyPermitNow software -- Glen Holcomb, Chief Building Official
F Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of nineteen (19) replacement ruggedized
laptops and associated vehicle docks for emergency service vehicles from Ingram Technologies LLC
for an amount of $79,695.16 -- Chris Bryce, IT Director
G. Consideration and possible action to approve an Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Westin
Technology Solutions, LLC (WTS) to allow WTS to assume the obligation of the existing consulting
services contract previously made between the City of Georgetown and Westin Engineering, Inc. -- Leticia
Zavala, Customer Care Director
H. Consideration and possible action to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Duality (TCEQ)
that Georgetown requests not to be noticed on tate pending application of Alamo Concrete Products
related to Certificate of Adjudication 12-3737 and 12-3739 -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
I. Consideration and possible action to vacate and abandon multiple public utility easements (PUEs) across
Lots A & B, Block A, Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block A, Amended Plat of Lots 1,2,3, Block A, Four -T Ranch
Section One, as recorded in Cabinet W, Lot 166 of the Plat Records of Williamson County, Texas; and to
authorize the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed --Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
J. Consideration and possible action to approve the vacation and abandonment of a 40 Foot right-of-way
easement for channel improvements across Lot 2, Dicotec Subdivision, recorded in Cabinet L. Slide
143, and being a portion of that same easement dedicated in Volume 416, Page 2 of the Official Public
Records of Williamson County, Texas; and to authorize the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed -- Travis
Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
K. Consideration and possible action on a Traffic Improvement Agreement with Cedar Breaks West --
Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
Item K was pulled from the agenda.
L. Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB):
Consideration and possible action to award a contract to Choice Builders, LLC of Temple, Texas for curb
and gutter installation at various locations in the City, in the amount of $362,684.50 -- Wesley Wright, P. E.
Systems Engineering Director
M. Forwarded from Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with Leopold, a subsidiary of Xylem, Inc., from
Zelienople, PA for the replacement of the Lake Water Treatment Plant filter number two in the
approximate amount of $138,500.00 -- Glenn W. Dishong, Utility Director
N. Forwarded from Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve the following bid award for Water and Wastewater
Treatment Plant chemical (Sodium Hypochlorite) to Brenntag Southwest, Inc. -- Glenn W. Dishong,
Utility Director
Motion by Eby, second by Fought, to approve the Statutory Consent Agenda in its entirety, with the
exception of Item B and Item K.
Approved: 6-0 (Gipson absent)
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, January 9, 2018 and a Special Meetings held on January 12. 2018 -- Shelley Nowling, City
Secretary
Councilmember Eby asked that Item B be moved from the Statutory Consent Agenda to the Legislative
Regular Agenda for discussion. She said that the word "not" had been omitted prior to the word
"comfortable" on page 34 of 35, Item R, on the drift minutes for the regular meeting on January 9, 2018.
She explained that the sentence should read that Councilmember Eby is "not comfortable" with kicking the
issue down the road.
Motion by Eby, second by Hesser, to approve the minutes with this change
Approved: 6-0 (Gipson absent)
Mayor Ross announced that Item K had been pulled from the Statutory Consent agenda.
O. Consideration and possible action to approve and ratify an Agreement for purchase with Elster Solutions
LLC to provide Energy Axis AMI water modules and related items for the Advance Metering
Infrastructure system and previous expenditures for similar purchases from Elster Solutions LLC in a
total amount not to exceed $415,000.00 -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director and Rosemary Ledesma,
Purchasing Manager
Glenn Dishong, the City's Utility Director, spoke on a possible purchase agreement with Elster Solutions for
energy axis AMI water nodules and related items needed for the Advance Metering Infrastructure System.
Dishong explained that these purchases are necessary for the warehouse storage of spare parts.
Dishong read the caption.
Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez, to approve Item O
Approved: 6-0 (Gipson absent)
P. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Georgetown amending the Code of Ordinances of the City
of Georgetown by adding Chapter 12.02 Entitled "Network Nodes in the Public Right -Of -Way," relating to
the deployment of network nodes and node support poles in the Right -Of -Way by network providers in
accordance with Texas Local Government Code Chapter 284; repealing conflicting ordinances and
resolutions; providing a severability clause; providing for publication and setting an effective date -- Glenn
W. Dishong, Utilities Director (action required)
Utilities Director, Glenn Dishong, provided a second reading description of an ordinance for Network Nodes
in the Public Right of Way. Dishong noted that, after the first reading, the design manual had been slightly
updated and included in the agenda packet, but that the ordinance had remained the same. He noted the
financial analysis that had been requested was attached to the agenda packet also.
Dishong read the caption.
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Nicholson, to approve Item P
Approved: 6-0 (Gipson absent)
Q. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning approximately 72 acres in the Low BC Survey, located at 250
Westinghouse Drive from Business Park (BP) District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District --
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director (action required)
Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the second reading of a rezoning request for a PUD at 250
Westinghouse Drive. Nelson described the property and provided a location map, a future land use
designation map and a zoning map.
Nelson showed a chart of the various zones in the PUD Development Proposal and described each and its
uses, followed by a chart of the PUD Development Proposal showing the Development Density.
Nelson said that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval unanimously.
Nelson read the caption
Motion by Nicholson, second by Eby, to approve Item Q
Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the residential properties adjacent to this property were outside of the city
limits. Nelson confirmed. Jonrowe asked Nelson to confirm that these residents were not sent notifications
of this development. Nelson confirmed and added that signage notification had been posted at the property
on Mays Street. Jonrowe asked which sections would be allowed to go up to 100 feet in height. Nelson
said the maximum height would be 80 feet, allowed for Zones C and D. Jonrowe said she likes the overall
concept of the development but has an issue with allowing that type of height without any input from the
people with houses directly adjacent. Jonrowe said she would not be supporting this at this time and going
forward she will be putting forward suggestions for how the City can expand the notification process and
make it work better for the citizens and to be able to get more community involvement, even providing better
communication to neighbors in the ETJ.
Approved: 5-1 (Jonrowe opposed, Gipson absent)
R. Second Reading of an Ordinance rezoning approximately 31.94 acres in the following subdivisions:
Brownstone at the Summit Phase 1, Brownstone at Summit Phase 2 -4, Brownstone at Summit Phase 5-6, a
portion of lot 4 block "A" lots 1,2,3,5,6 in the Rivery Park Subdivision II and Lot 2 Block "A" in the Rivery Park
Subdivision, located at 1500 Rivery Blvd to amend the Summit at Rivery Park Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director (action required)
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, spoke on the second reading of a rezoning request for 1500 Rivery Blvd,
amending the Summit at Rivery Park PUD District. She said that the applicant was seeking two types of
amendments. She said that first amendment relates to the area in Zone B and the plan would be to develop
an urban residential and retail mixed use first floor. She explained that this amendments would allow 30
units of residential on the first floor and a maximum of 90% of the building space for residential. Nelson said
the second amendment relates to signage requirements. She said the monument signs, long -proposed for
the development, are a stone structure that exceeds the 8 foot limitation previously approved for the project.
She explained that the development has matured and now would be the time to provide cohesive
architectural branding elements to the site. Nelson described one exception to the stone site elements as a
blade sign on two of the monuments for the Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center, which will need
identification on Rivery Blvd. when the Zone B Building is erected and the view of the hotel from Rivery is
blocked.
Nelson provided a location map, future land use map and zoning map. She then spoke on the Project
History.
• 1986: The project was annexed into the City limits and was part of the original Rivery Concept Plan
and was later included in the Rivery Park Development agreement executed in 2002.
• 2007: The property was rezoned from C3 to PUD
• 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2016: The PUD was amended
Nelson spoke on the Project History — PUD Components
• The PUD applies to 31.94 acres
• The PUD contains development standards for the following:
0 3 development zones (Design Standards & Allowable Uses)
o Signage
o Storm Water
o Roadway Infrastructure
0 Internal Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation
0 Site Requirements (Parking, Landscaping)
Nelson provided images of the Zones and detailed descriptions of each. She spoke on the development
request for signage and provided images.
Nelson noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the
request.
Nelson read the caption.
Motion by Nicholson, second by Eby, to approve Item R.
Approved: 6-0 (Gipson absent)
S. Second Reading of an Ordinance restricting vehicular traffic and closing the intersection of West
Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane in the Sun City Subdivision, in the City of Georgetown,
Texas — Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6 (action required)
Mayor Ross announced that Councilmember Jonrowe had emailed him earlier in the day, wanting to pull this
item. Ross said he does not have a problem with the item being pulled but since the Item has already been
voted on by Council, not an individual, Council owns the item. He said he would be fine if Council wants to
delay the decision, but that the Mayor does not feel comfortable making that decision on his own.
Jonrowe said her point of view is different. She said she had sent an email to the Mayor that afternoon
asking to pull Item S from the agenda for a variety of reasons, not least of which was to allow more time for
public input and research. Jonrowe said her reasons are actually beside the point, because she has seen
items pulled on numerous occasions by staff, applicants, developers, and other Councilmembers for
reasons that have never been questioned because it has been deemed the prerogative of the applicant to
pull their own item if they make such a request before a meeting. Jonrowe said that, today, history and
precedent have been ignored and a potentially harmful precedent has been set instead. She said that
because she was told that her request would not be honored and she would be required to do what no
applicant has been asked to do before, she is being subjected to disparate, unequal and prejudicial
treatment and so over her strenuous and heartfelt objections she will make a motion that she hopes
someone will second and that everyone will seek to vote on in the affirmative to demonstrate to the
community that the Council cares about the history of how Council meetings are conducted.
Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to pull Item S from the legislative agenda in the form of postponing it
until the February 13, 2018 meeting.
Mayor Ross said this was a good opportunity for him to comment and read the email that Jonrowe had sent
to him that afternoon, which stated that Jonrowe was informing him that she was pulling Item S. Ross read
that Jonrowe had stated that she will inform him and the City Secretary office when she is ready to post it
again in the future. Mayor Ross said that there was no explanation given of why this Item needed to be
pulled. He said that on January 2"d, at the very last minute, Councilmember Jonrowe put this item on the
January 9th agenda for a first reading of an ordinance. Ross said, on the 9'h, the agenda item was voted on
and approved by Council. He said that Council now owns the item. Mayor Ross said that when talking
about prior history, no second reading item has ever been pulled from an agenda while he has been Mayor.
He explained that items in which an applicant and city staff have agreed upon, have been pulled.
Councilmember Fought said he also believes that this item deserves to be postponed.
Amended motion by Fought, second by Hesser to postpone a vote on this until August 2018 to give the staff
time to construct and bring back policy options on the measurable conditions and procedures for closing a
road in the City. Fought said if this got a second, he would like the privilege of speaking briefly to it.
Mayor Ross noted the many people who had come to the meeting to speak on this item and said the people
deserve to be heard. Ross said that while it is important to hear people, what they have signed up to speak
about is not the motion before Council at this time, as the motion is to delay the item. Ross said not giving
the people the chance to speak would not be the way to go.
Councilmember Fought agreed and thanked everyone for engaging. Fought said the masthead to his
newsletter reads "Earnest, open, informed debate leads to good public policy." Fought said that he is
prepared to proceed with a vote but that he takes considerable exception to the way that Council got here.
He explained that this should have begun with a workshop, which would have given the Council an
opportunity to consider the question of closing a road, and to give staff guidance to develop a policy. Fought
said that there should have been time for public input and for the Councilmembers to consider those
comments. He said that there should have also been time for staff to give a considered response to
whatever questions came up. Fought said, instead, it was rushed into a first reading, with those in support
of the proposal being well prepared, and those opposed, but also impacted, being caught unaware and
therefore unprepared to participate in the discussion at the first reading.
Fought said that, in his opinion, this was a foul and not the way the Council should deal with policy issues,
the public, or each other. He said this is not the way we do business in Georgetown.
Fought said it is only at the second reading that Council is able to hear the opposition, either in person or via
email, and these new participants raised some serious questions.
Fought said he would like to highlight some of the issues.
• No firm understanding of the cost
• No accommodations made for non -conventional emergencies
• What are the spillover effects if cars are rerouted
• What would be the effect of a precedent set
• Need to do an evaluation of alternatives
Fought said, because this has been rushed, he believes Council should go back to the beginning and do it
right. He said Council should ask staff to make recommendations on the circumstances and procedures for
closing City roads and have staff present this to the Council in a workshop, as is the normal practice.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, about the amended motion to delay until
August. She asked how Council is supposed to counter or argue points made throughout the discussion, if
they are supposed to limit their conversation to the motion, at hand, of delaying the item until August. She
asked if would be out of order to discuss other points brought up. McNabb said that Council can debate the
motion to postpone, or an amendment to postpone, although it is not clear.
Councilmember Hesser said he agrees with Councilmember Fought's points. Hesser said there is not a
policy in place for closing roads and the City must have a well thought out policy and procedure. He
explained that there are unintended consequences that must be reviewed properly. Hesser said he would
like to leave the road open now until a policy is developed that can be applied evenly and fairly to any future
requests.
Jonrowe said she is not in favor of continuing to dither. She said the City needs to alleviate people's safety
concerns now and if there are policy issues that need to be put in place Council needs to provide more
guidance to staff and the public. She said things such as how a road was engineered, what type of traffic
expectations are present, congestions issues and sidewalk infrastructure need to be examined. Jonrowe
said there needs to be clear parameters, but while figuring that out, citizens have had their quality of life
severely curtailed and the City needs to take serious measures to fix that because the City created this
problem.
Fought reread his amended motion for review. Amended motion by Fought, second by Hesser to postpone
a vote on the item until August 2018 to give the staff time to develop and bring back policy to bring back
policy options on the measurable conditions and procedures for closing a road in the City.
Jonrowe said by amending in this way, and taking away her ability to pull this item, her item has been
hijacked. She said if the majority votes in favor of postponing until August, it means the process has been
circumvented, and has taken away her agenda item, and Council and staff would be choosing when it
comes back instead of that being her choice. Mayor Ross said when Council passes an item, as in the first
reading of this item, it becomes owned by Council as a whole.
Mayor Ross said democracy is better when you have the entire Council making a decision instead of the
Mayor. Jonrowe said, with that logic, Councilmember Gipson should be present. Mayor Ross said the
Council has operated consistently when people have been absent. He said people who are present get to
vote, and those that are not do not vote.
Vote taken on Councilmember Fought's amended motion.
Failed: 2-4 (Eby, Hesser, Jonrowe, Gonzalez opposed, Gipson absent)
Jonrowe read the original motion to pull Item S. Motion by Jonrowe, second by Eby to pull Item S from the
legislative agenda in the form of postponing it until the February 13, 2018 meeting.
Vote taken on the Original motion.
Failed: 2-4 (Nicholson, Hesser, Fought, Gonzales opposed)
Discussion followed about whether discussion of the item could continue without a motion. City Attorney,
McNabb, said citizen comments have previously been received by Council in two ways. Comments have
been heard after a motion has been made, as well as comments heard prior to a motion.
City Attorney, McNabb, said that since there is no motion, there would not be a reason for public comment,
and the item does not pass. He said this item only passed on first reading, so there is no action, but he
believes that it can be brought back. McNabb said there is still an item to be discussed. Councilmember
Jonrowe asked McNabb if he needed a short recess to research this.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting until 7 PM.
McNabb said he had looked up to see if the limitation on reconsideration applies to this matter, and it does
not apply when there is no action at all. He explained that if an item is not acted on tonight, it can be
brought back and put on the agenda of a future date.
Motion by Gonzales, second by Fought to deny closing Majestic Oak Lane and Apache Mountain Lane until
there is a specific policy in place that it abides by, by June 15, 2018.
Councilmember Eby said she did not understand the motion. Gonzalez said the motion was to deny closing
the road until there is a policy in place and those policies and procedures are met. He said he was giving
the staff until June 15'h to come up with the policies and procedures.
Mayor Ross said the thought would be to have a workshop when the policies and procedures are ready, for
the Council to review and approve the policy. Gonzalez confirmed. He said he did not want to wait until
August.
McNabb explained that by denying the closure, it would be voting down the closure and the item could be
postponed until June 15'h - but if it acted upon, now, then it is done.
Gonzalez corrected his motion to be to postpone until June 15th so that a policy and procedure will be in
place that all roads can be compared to and decisions can be made if they qualify or do not qualify for
closure, based on those standards.
Fought removed his second from Gonzalez's first motion
Gonzalez repeated his corrected motion. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought, to postpone, until Jane
15th, any action on this road until staff comes up with a policy and procedure that can be applied to all roads
in the City of Georgetown.
Jonrowe asked if the second reading is postponed until June 15th, if it would be permitted to be voted on by
a different Council. McNabb explained that Council is Council, and a continuing body, and would not be
thought of as a "different" Council. He said, even though members may change, the Council is the Council
and is a continuing body perpetually.
Hesser asked McNabb to describe the difference of denying the closure now instead of postponing the item
until June. McNabb said the denial would be turning down the ordinance to close the road. McNabb said the
first motion was to deny the closing, not to take no action on the closing. He explained that if you take no
action on the closing, and postpone it, then the item would be brought back June 15th and the situation
would be where it is right now. He said if the Council denies it now, it is voting against the closure of the
ordinance on the second reading and this ordinance process is ended. He said that another ordinance could
be brought back
Gonzalez said his purpose of postponement is to try to give staff the time to form a policy. Gonzalez said he
does not want to deny the citizens the right to speak, but that they will be able to weigh in when the policy is
discussed. Hesser said the people are looking for disposition of some sort and if they were to come back
after a policy is established, they will be able to get fair treatment like everyone else. Mayor Ross said the
citizens will get to weigh in on the policy.
Mayor Ross said the motion is to keep road the open until a policy is established, no later than June 15,
2018.
Failed: 2-4 (Eby, Nicholson, Hesser, Jonrowe opposed)
Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser, to deny the closing of the road, as a permanent denial with no
timeline.
Mayor Ross said the Council would now hear from the public.
Persons signed up to speak on Item S included: Peter Rauch, Frank Townsend, Cheryl Sicola, Ralph
Ameral, Dwight Rinier, Ira Grierson, Lori Kedroski, Donna Betts, Chuck Betts, Tom Giallonardo, Mary Ann
Sauls, Karen Arnold, Jaella Nauman, Richard Giddings, Ann B. Thomas, John Ryan, Carol Ryan, Jim
Wolcott, Cheryl Thompson, Robert Sauls, Terry Reider, Dave Stockwell, Jean Ann Reider, Jim Wolcott,
Thersa Wolcott, Terri Eppinger, Lynn Rollins, Tina Klingemann, Joann Stockwell, Debbie Einem, Brian Polk,
Marc Rothschild, Bernie May, John May, Scott Maul, WM Tradnzy, Irby Connery, Toni Briggs, Mike Triggs,
Allison Wolfe, Joseph Turio, Jeff Itkin, Rich Barbee, Susan Barbee, Kathy Powers, Dan Adler.
Comments and concerns voiced included:
875 Signed a Petition to keep Majestic Oaks access open
1400 homes adversely affected by the closure
Commissioner Covey wants it open
City Transportation wants it open
2 City Council members whose district is effected want it open
Georgetown PD and Williamson County Sherriff have not mentioned safety issues
Roads are meant to be built and utilized not closed
Stop, step back, take a breath and reconsider if this is unsafe
Lots of streets are busy
Make a vote on facts
Pedernales did a poll to keep it open
Jim Briggs said under the City overall transportation plan, not unsafe
Intersection deemed to be not dangerous
Most vehicles travel less than 30 miles per hour
Public streets cannot be gated
Hesser said 3 people want it open vs. 1 wanting it closed
875 want the road to be open
Many roads will want to be closed, if this gets closed
It would cost nearly $100,000 to close - not how they want tax dollars spent
This is a true and real irritant for 70 people and creates an irritant for 1400 if closed
Serve the greater good
Must recognize the decision of Council. What changed that made council reverse a decision?
Same comments were presented as before
Council needs to seek specific information from the Police Dept. and Sheriff
Decision to close a road when having so much growth is wrong.
Police Department should be THE voice
Closing a road is not insignificant
Road less safe does not mean unsafe
Our municipality needs to be fair and reasonable
Traffic is a problem on many roads
Subjective input cannot determine
This is no more dangerous than other roads
Some speakers said others had already expressed their view and they would not need to speak
In every plat and map of Apache Mountain and Majestic Oak were shown as connectors.
Can't close a road because it gets used, just make it safer
No accidents or incidents have been recorded
15,000 people might need to evacuate — eliminating an exit is more dangerous
How is it safer to funnel traffic to 245, which is twice the distance, no shoulders, speed limits or traffic lights
Dangerous precedent to set
Council is not prepared to make the best decision
This road has two development agreements that would need to be amended
To do this is a lot of work
Traffic counts and traffic reports would be needed
Maybe an environmental impact study
Intersection was planned cut and curbed
This is a public street that already exists
Closing a connection will create a private gated community
No documented accidents
Growth has created increased traffic everywhere
Has to drive 12 to 15 minutes to get out of Sun City — in emergency would be a disaster
Did anyone notice that Council reps for the area, voted against it being closed
Councilmember bringing forward does not have affected constituents
Taxpayers paying for closure and maintenance
Sun City Freeway
Once a week, or better, see the stops sign run
Safety is an issue
Almost hit twice
Definite safety issue
Need a firm policy in place that everyone understands and is published
Need a long term solution
Many roads are much busier
Daughter bitten by snake needed access out or it would have been a life or death situation
Traffic analysis needs to be done
What is the cost?
Seconds can mean life and death
One way sign could be done from Majestic to Pedernales
Communication war — text messages, email, etc.
Can't make decision on the loudest voice
Laws made for the care and safety for senior citizens
Asked Council to do the right thing
Do not listen to the bullies and protestors
David vs. Goliath situation
Buyers won't buy because of the excessive traffic
Homes on market 2 to 3 times longer
Cut through has become a political issue
Only saves one minute to get to Randalls
Editorial in Sun — Tough Thoughtful Decision — Read portions
Last week Council decision was fair
Traffic issues are ripe for pedestrian vehicle accident
Traffic continues to increase
Challenge to get the mail
Backing out of driveway can take over 2 minutes
This issue is political
Can't walk dog safely because of other neighborhoods
Leaders fear losing votes more than lives
Leaders are needed that vote for public safety
UDC code said residential street should have less than 800 cars, this has 1666
Whispering Wind and Texas Drive are collector roads not residential neighborhood streets
Apache Mountain is a residential street
UDC sanctioned capacity should be followed
Thanked 4 City Council members who restored safety at the last meeting
Provided quoted for gates and fencing
Showed City of Georgetown analysis — sliding style gate
Spoke on examples of gates and costs of such
Martin Luther King quote — one must take a position because of conscience
Traffic increased over 300%
Sun City Developers chose to ignore and council allowed
Gate installation would save the City money, bringing neighborhood 51 to safety codes
Traffic got worse when Randalls opened
Waited for 10 cars to get into her driveway
10th car stopped to let her in
GPS gives the route as the shorter route
Rocky Hollow exit only takes one more minute
Closing the 40 feet of Majestic Oak Lane will accomplish emergency access, safety
Ignoring warning signs can be disastrous — examples given
Cut through was a dotted proposed road, Pedernales was to be extended
Previous Council let Pulte get away with changing it to Majestic Oak
Goes against the published UDC code on the City website
Connector roads are built differently — straight and well- lit for heavier traffic
County road 245 is a county road and cannot be compared to this residential street
GPS mapping needs to get corrected
Taking just one minute to drive to a safer route is not too much to ask
Pulte paid for the street, not the taxpayers
Emergency vehicles can travel on 245, Rocky Hollow and Pedernales faster than the residential route
Sun City residents do not travel through Woodland Park at excessive speeds or receive DUls
Can't stop traffic
Children are not supposed to walk in the street
Was nearly hit by a car that rolled through the stop sign
Saw a near accident where a car almost hit a walker and a dog
Safety has to trump convenience
Has counted traffic counts three times, 3 hours each time
Sun City residents tried to intimidate her
Saw 225 cars in one hour and ten minutes the day that Randalls opened
Husband has had to dive into yards five different times
Politics must be put aside
Financial gain is what they want the closure for
Police Chief said 85% of the vehicles are under the speed limit
Closing roads is not a solution
Mayor Ross asked Councilmember Gonzalez to refresh his motion. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Fought,
to leave the road open permanently.
Fought asked Morgan about the 800 vs 1600 count. Morgan asked Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities,
to clarify. Briggs spoke on the UDC guidelines and the Overall Transportation Plan and how they are
utilized in a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Briggs explained that the engineering staff and consultants were
asked for clarity, because of the confusion relative to the numbers. Briggs noted that the UDC does call for
800 to 1000 vehicles per day for local streets. He said that this is a conservative level of traffic control used
for planning purposes for development. Briggs explained the overall transportation plan of the City that
models transportation network impacts and recommends improvements for the Council. He noted that the
Overall Transportation Plan that is adopted by Council, uses a standard of less than 2500 vehicles per day
for local streets. He said it prevents construction of excessive arterial road capacity or major collectors or
really wide roads. Briggs said the accepted national standard, under the National Highway Capacity
Manual, used by engineers, is less than 9000 vehicles per day on a local street before it falls below Level C.
He explained that there must be a Level C, as the minimum benchmark level, before changing a roadway or
making capacity improvements.
Fought said 800 is a planning factor, and the 1660 count does not cross a threshold that deems it to be
unsafe because of volume, and the 2500 is well below the national standard of 9,000. Fought asked Briggs
to clarify that, in Georgetown, other improvements to the road would be looked at when the 2500 benchmark
was reached, depending on the service level. Briggs said the 2500 in the Overall Transportation Plan only
looks at major collectors or arterial roads. Fought said the count of 1600 cars per day, would not, in and of
itself, deem this to be a safety factor. Briggs confirmed.
Fought asked if emergency vehicles will know the available route if the street was taken off the GPS. Briggs
said education and training for apparatus drivers would be given. Fought said this could be a problem and
there are safety and convenience issues on Moth sides. He said he is very concerned that emergency
vehicles would need to depend and training and not the usual GPS assistance.
Jonrowe asked Briggs where and how it is determined how many accidents have to happen for a road to be
considered unsafe. Briggs said it is determined by what is called warrants, which look at citations,
accidents, speed and a multiple of factors including congestion and traffic stacking. Jonrowe asked if near
misses were ever documented or considered. Briggs said only public record information would be
considered. Jonrowe asked if non-stopping at stop signs would be considered. Briggs said no, unless while
an engineer was conducting a traffic impact analysis and actually observed this. Jonrowe asked if email or
notifications from citizens are taken into consideration. Briggs said it would not be considered unless
observed by staff or the engineer. Jonrowe asked Briggs if that seemed fair to him.
Jonrowe asked how many years the connection has been open. Briggs said it was approved in the
development agreement in approximately 2005 or 2006. Jonrowe said that the City has not developed
safety standards in those four years. Briggs asked Jonrowe to elaborate on safety standards. Jonrowe
said it would be about coming up with concrete triggers that would make staff come back to Council to
reconsider safety improvements to a roadway because it meets our own local standards for unsafe
conditions. Briggs said the City uses traffic impact analysis and legally acceptable criteria such as warrants
to determine a safety risk.
Jonrowe asked about the counts. She asked about a proposal from staff that Council consider 1,000 as the
threshold at which staff would come back with a report for Council to reconsider closing that intersection.
Briggs said that when negotiating with the neighborhood, it was to be brought back to Council or be taken
care of by other measures. Jonrowe asked if any counts were below 1000. Briggs said no.
Nicholson said she is uncomfortable with this situation on many levels and feels that this happens when
Council is forced to come to a decision as reactive instead of proactive. Nicholson said the role of Council it
to be strategic. Nicholson asked Morgan how fang it would take staff to advice on policy in this matter.
Morgan said it would take at least three months for staff to be able to present options, factors and
alternatives of a the policy to the Council. He said it would likely take a few workshops for Council to be able
to adequately review and evaluate all of the material, so in total, it would be six months, because of the
complexity of this type of policy.
Nicholson said she prefers to equip and enable staff to actually bring a guiding document for the Council to
make decisions, but also clearly articulate this to the stakeholders. She said she would feel more
comfortable with amending the existing motion to the time frame that staff has now given.
Hesser said his position has always been that there are two sides and no way to make everyone happy. He
said that Council has compassion for the position this places people in. He said he prefers to leave the
street open and in six months come back with a policy and procedure.
Hesser said he would like to possibly present an amended motion to bring this to the July 10, 2018 meeting.
Gonzalez withdrew his earlier motion. Fought withdrew his second to the earlier motion.
Motion by Fought to postpone this vote, leaving the street open, until July
Hesser clarified that Fought's motion, made in response to Hesser's comment, was not what Hesser
intended. Hesser said he wanted the street to remain open with them being able to make an application
under the new policy, but not to detain the vote. Hesser then made a clarifying motion as follows:
Motion by Hesser, second by Gonzalez, that West Majestic Oaks would not be closed and would remain
open and staff is to prepare a policy for the Council to consider by July 10, 2018.
Jonrowe spoke on the precedent and legality of closing a road and asked Morgan what this will mean in a
policy and what would be the likelihood of closing the road. Morgan said staff will present various options for
the Council to review. He said if closure is an option in the criteria, decided by Council, then the closure will
be the direction of Council. He said that staff will give the Council different factors to consider and different
steps to be taken prior to making a decision. He provided the example of identifying where the traffic goes,
if a road is closed. He emphasized the importance of realizing the totality of the decisions.
Councilmember Eby asked to speak to the proposed amendment. She said it sounds like there is an
expectation to end up with a policy that would give some sort of check list and a need to check off the boxes.
She said it is important to have the policy discussion but that this particular issue is a unique situation for a
variety of reasons. Eby said she does not believe that Council needs to have a whole sale policy discussion
to make change or have a check list before dealing with this situation. She said she raised a concern
previously regarding setting precedent and if it is decided to restrict access what effect does that have. Eby
said that in this situation there are so many unique factors that it might not have an effect at all. She said
her concern is that there will be a bigger problem created by giving people a check list on how to close a
road.
Mayor Ross said there needs to be something that triggers a review if a street should be closed. Ross said
there are smart people as citizens and smart people on staff. Perhaps there is no way to completely satisfy
both parties, but there will be ways to mitigate. Ross said it is time to review and come up with a much
better process. He said the process on this has been a disaster. He said the primary roles of Council are
policy development and approving and providing oversite for the budget. Ross said that City Manager,
David Morgan, and team, does the operations management. Ross said he believes there should be policy
that can trigger a review at any time and then staff can make that decision or if it is complicated, bring it to
the City Council for final review. Ross said this can be make better and safer.
Gonzalez said having a policy will be unbiased and no one can claim preference of one neighborhood over
another. He explained that it will be fair to all and needs to be objective not subjective. He said it is
necessary to follow policy instead of perception.
Jonrowe thanked the speakers. She spoke of her family and grandparents and putting herself in position to
have compassion for how people are feeling. She noted that safety should always be a number one priority,
and is a responsibility of the Council. She said she hopes that they find a resolution for this and do right by
one another and treat each other with the respect and dignity that they all deserve. Jonrowe said she will
always talk to anyone with safety concerns.
Mayor Ross thanked the speakers and emailers. He then took the vote for the Councilmember Hesser
motion:
Motion by Hesser, second by Gonzalez, that West Majestic Oaks would not be closed and would remain
open and staff is to prepare a policy for the Council to consider by July 10, 2018.
Approved: 4-2 (Eby, Jonrowe opposed, Gipson absent)
Project Updates
T. Project updates and status reports regarding current and future transportation and traffic project; street,
sidewalk, and other infrastructure projects; police, fire and other public safety projects; economic
development projects; city facility projects; and downtown projects including parking enhancements, city
lease agreements, sanitation services, and possible direction to city staff -- David Morgan, City Manager
Mayor Ross asked City Manager, David Morgan, if he had any project updates to speak about. Morgan said
he did not at this time.
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter of the item on which you wish
to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be
called forward to speak when the Counci I considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future City Council agenda by contacting the
City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the Tuesday meeting, with the subject matter of the
topic they would like to address and their name. The City Secretary can be reached at 512/930-3651.
U. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the City Council
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.
V. 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
- Update on pending litigation styled Amanda Phillips v. City of Georgetown
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: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update — Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Legacy
Adjournment
Motion by Fought, second by Nicholson, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 9.30 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 131 I S
11 -
CA
b is, Mayor
Attest: City S ry