The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 02.27.2018 CC-WMinutes of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 27, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 3:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 71" 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 3:31 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Valerie Nicholson, District 2 and John Hesser, District 3. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Councilmember John Hesser joined the meeting at 3:34 PM. Councilmember Valerie Nicholson joined the meeting at 3:40 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:30 PM A. Presentation and discussion on development in historic Georgetown and update on the Historic Resource Survey implementation -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on development in historic Georgetown and provided an update on the Historic Resource Survey implementation. Nelson described the Purpose of the Presentation. • Provide a recap of development in historic Georgetown over the last year • Follow-up on the Historic Resource Survey recommendation to change definitions for contributing and non-contributing structures • Request direction on UDC amendments to implement recommendation Nelson recognized the Presentation Team, including Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Andreina Davilla-Quintero, Current Planning Manager; Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner and Karen Frost, Planning Specialist. The Presentation Outline was described. • Part 1 — HARC end of the year report — HARC Committee Membership and a Recap of HARC reviews • Part 2 — Recap of Historic Resource Survey • Part 3 — Current UDC requirements • Part 4 — UDC Committee Recommendation • Part 5 — Other Considerations • Part 6 — Request for Direction The Historic and Architectural Review Commission was recognized. • Lee Bain (Chair) • Shawn Hood (Vice Chair) • Justin Bohls (Secretary) • Terri Asendorf Hyde • Arthur Browner • Karl Meixsell • Lawrence Romero • Chatherine Morales (Alternate Member #1) Nelson provided a Recap of Development in Historic Georgetown and showed example renderings of projects. • 16 HARC meeting were held • 44 Certificates of Occupancy were filed in 2017 0 23 Commercial 0 16 Residential 0 5 Mixed Use Nelson provided a Recap of the Historic Resource Survey • Types of Resources Surveyed 0 Categories of Priority o Survey Recommendations She explained that anything documented in the 1984 and 2007 surveys was also surveyed in the 2016 survey. She noted that, additionally, the City established a survey boundary (outlined in red) and documented any resource within that boundary that was built in 1974 or earlier. Nelson noted that 1,677 resources were documented, including buildings, structures, objects and sites, with nearly all being buildings, and nearly all being single family homes. Nelson spoke on the Categories of Priority and provided example images of each. High Priority • Contributes significantly to local history/broader historical patterns • May be good example of architecture, engineering, or crafted design • Retains a high degree of integrity Medium Priority • Adds to an area's character and contributes moderately to our understanding of local history/broader historical patterns • Typical examples of a style of form • Somewhat modified Low Priority • Not associated with a trend in history, significant architectural style, building form, or construction method • And/or significantly altered Nelson described the categories and provided a numeric summary of the findings of the 2016 Survey. Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Old Town Outside a Category Downtown District Total Count High 164 27 191 Medium 401 187 588 Low 468 429 897 Total 1,033 643 1,676 She explained that the Historic Resource Survey recommended changing definitions for contributing and non-contributing structures. Nelson spoke next on the Current UDC Requirements, including a recap of current UDC requirements, historic significance categories and review criteria for COAs Current UDC Requirements — Determining Factors for Approval • Scope of Work • Historic Significance • UDC Approval Criteria Scope of Work Types were described by Nelson ■ Additions • Reconstruction, alterations, changes • Removal, demolition, or relocation • Signage • Fences • Building height, setback and FAR variations Nelson described Historical Significance — Contributing Resources and Non- Contributing Resources • Buildings in a historic district identified as low, medium and high priority • For the purpose of demolition only, structures listed on the resource survey and that are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic structures ■ Buildings that are not identified in the 1984 and 2007 Historic Resources Survey are considered non-contributing resources Nelson described Historic Landmark Status. • A building, structure or site of historical, architectural, or cultural importance or value to the City of Georgetown that has been designated as a 'landmark" by ordinance of the City Council and that is to be protected, preserved, restored, and enhanced in the interest of the culture, prosperity, education and welfare of the people. Nelson explained that no properties have been identified as historic landmark status yet, but would be brought to Council for this designation. A Chart was provided depicting the Project Scope, Historic Significance and the Review Authority that would be required. fR*C (Scope of ww" insirificaaoR Review r wait ■ Wtod end Amhkact -ai N -vi r r U m misdon • Hfb + iiiam Prowwaden ONfoar • MR a Ma Required Now con swxtion (blip Dmlownent) New building All Historic Overlay MARC construction Districts Additions Historic Landmark To create or add to an Contributing Historic MARC existing street facing Stricture facade Non -Contributing Historic Structure HPO Historlc Landmark MARC Contributing Historic Non -street facing HPO Structure facades Non -Contributing NR Historic Structure Councilmember Fought asked for confirmation that the City has no properties designated as an historic landmark. Nelson confirmed that the designation has not been given, as of yet. She explained that the definition was created in 2015, but Council has not yet been given any qualifying structures. Nelson said a home owner in the City can start a request for this designation. Fought mentioned the Dan Moody Trial as a possible example of things that would be of historical significance and may deserve this designation. Fought asked Nelson to provide a list of possible places for this designation to the Council. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the significance of having this designation. Nelson said it would identify for the property owner that any changes to the property would need to be reviewed by HARC. She mentioned a list of the top 25 historic structures, put together previously, as a starting point for a list to be brought to Council. Fought said if something is so important that it needs Council review, the City should have skin in the game and going back to the beginning would be wise. Mayor Ross asked if Nelson happened to know the top 5 oldest buildings in Georgetown. Nelson said she would research and bring back the information. Nelson spoke on the UDC approval criteria and process for administrative approval. 1 The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; 2 Compliance with applicable design and development standards of this Code; 3 Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable, 4 Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; and 5. The overall character of the applicable Historic Overlay District and the building or structure is preserved, and the design is compatible with the Historic Overlay District. 6 The sign is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and character of the Historic Overlay District Nelson described the review authority within a historic district. • Recommended Changes • Differences between current code and recommended changes • Review impact of recommended changes o Number of properties o Types of activities She spoke on the UDC Committee Recommended Changes within a Historic District. • Contributing o Buildings designated medium and high priority within a designated historic district • Noncontributing o Buildings designated low priority within a designated historic district Nelson noted the Current Code vs. Proposed Changes Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City is trying to align definitions with the federal guidelines for historic structures for contributing vs. non-contributing. Nelson said this was part of the recommendation from the Historic Resource Survey consultants, who asked staff to focus on the high priority structures contributing to the historic district. Nelson spoke on the Impact of the recommended change for contributing structures and non-contributing structures. Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Category Old Town Outside a Total Count Downtown District High 964 27 191 Medium 409 187 588 468 429 897 Total 1,033 643 1,676 Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age Properties Category Old Town Outside a Total Count Downtown District High 164 27 191 Medium 401 187 588 Low 468 1 429 897 Tota! 1,033 643 1,676 Nelson spoke on typical requests for change and described the review requirements for each. She explained that NR represents no review necessary and HPO represents a Historic Preservation Officer. Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes Historic Landmark Restoring historic Contributing Historic architectural features Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure Historic Landmark Replacing a historic Contributing Historic architectural feature with a Struure non -historic architectural I ct' feature Non -Contributing Historic Structure Historic Landmark I Replacing roof materials Contributing Historic th different roof materials Structure Non -Contributing Historic Structure Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes HPO NR HARC NR HARC HPO NR Paint removal from Historic Landmark historic and significant Contributing Historic HPO architectural features Structure ' (back to original condition; does not Non -Contributing Historic NR include repainting) Structure Historic Landmark New paint on unpainted Contributing Historic HPO historic and other Structure ' significant architectural features Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Rooftop HVAC, mechanical Historic Landmark or communication I Contributing Historic HARC equipment that result in # Structure ' modifications to the Non -Contributing Historic building facade Structure ' HPO Removal, Demolition or Relocation Historic Landmark HARC Historic Landmark Contributing Historic Contributing Historic Awnings or canopies Structure ' E Structure HARC Non -Contributing Historic I Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark NR Structure Contributing Historic i Structure HARC# Historic Landmark Non -Contributing Historic Structure Contributing Historic NR HPO Exterior non -historic Attached carport, porch, Contributing Historic Structure ' HPO patio or deck made of non architectural features historic materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure Non -Contributing Historic NR NR Structure Historic Landmark Exterior siding to Contributing Historic HPO unencapsulate historic Structure ' siding materials Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Removal, Demolition or Relocation Historic Landmark Non -historic additions that Contributing Historic HPO are made of non -historic E Structure materials I Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Historic Landmark Attached carport, porch, pat o or deck Contributing Historic i Structure HARC# Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR lHistoric Landmark Attached carport, porch, Contributing Historic HPO patio or deck made of non Structure ' historic materials Non -Contributing Historic Structure NR Removal, Demolition or Relocation Historic Landmark Historic Landmark Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in Reopen enclosed porch, Contributing Historic HPO patio or deck to original Structure Structure condition Non Contributing Historic he total square footage of NR Structure Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Historic Landmark Contributing Historic HARCI Street facing facade Structure Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Nelson provided a chart showing the current demolition process for all contributing structures. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the 30-45 days. Nelson explained that this designates time for staff review. Mayor Ross asked about the total time of a demolition. Nelson said the demolition subcommittee is Historic Landmark Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in Contributing Historic HARC Structure he total square footage of the existing structure Non -Contributing Historic NR Structure Nelson provided a chart showing the current demolition process for all contributing structures. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the 30-45 days. Nelson explained that this designates time for staff review. Mayor Ross asked about the total time of a demolition. Nelson said the demolition subcommittee is a subcommittee of HARC that makes a recommendation to HARC on whether a property should be demolished, and if so, staff determines if there are any preservation activities to be taken. She explained that from the demolition subcommittee to HARC there is a 60 day minimum identified within the UDC, before HARC can take action The Recommended Demolition Process in the Historic District was shown next. Nelson spoke on the UDC Recommended Changes for review authority outside of an historic district. Recommended Demolition Process - Out of District No 60 day® delay - �® Application Staff Review submitted 734t Step 3 4 Demolition HARC Subcommittee approval Differences between current code and proposed changes Current •: For the purpose of demolition only, structures listed on the resource survey and that are located outside of a historic overlay district shall be considered contributing historic structures. All demolitions require HARC approval. Proposed ❖ High •:• Demolitions will require HARC approval •:• Medium •:• Demolitions will require HPO approval ❖ Low ❖ No review required Nelson asked the Council for direction ■ Should staff proceed with the UDC amendments recommended as part of the Resource Survey? • If so, is there concurrence with UDC Committee Recommendation? o Contributing Structure: High and Medium Priority o Non -Contributing Structure: Low Priority o Tiered approval authority for demolitions outside a historic district • Are there other requirements that Council would like staff to study? Mayor Ross asked about low priority structures constituting 54% of the total and why there are so many low priorities on the list. He asked who would keep evaluating these. Nelson said the Planning Department is responsible. She noted that the recommendation from the historic resource study was to update this information every 10 years. She said if the Council would like staff to update this on a more regular basis, they would be happy to take that direction. Ross asked for confirmation that all of the low priority structures would remain on the list for another10 years. Nelson said there is a need to capture the history itself and the priority assigned affects a structure's review requirements. She noted that there would be a need to change the UDC if Council directs change. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if there are any circumstances that a house could be demolished without going through a review and approval process. Nelson said the proposed changes would not allow this, if the structure was in the Old Town, Downtown or the Overlay district, and would require HARC approval. She said if the property were a low priority structure outside of a district, then it would not require a review. Jonrowe used the projector system to show her home at 308 S. Church St. She explained that her home had been moved to a low priority designation in the last study. She said that if this home was outside of an historic district, it could be demolished, without a review. Jonrowe said she thinks the City has gone too far and that low priority structures do contribute more than thought. She said structures that do contribute to the charm of downtown and Georgetown in general, could be lost. Jonrowe said the City needs to take a little more time on demolitions and changes to front facades. She suggested getting rid of the levels of priority and focusing on contributing and non-contributing designations alone. Mayor Ross asked about fees to cities. Nelson said there is an application fee and the fee is higher if a request needs to go to HARC. Ross asked why a homeowner has to pay when the benefit is to the City. Ross said it does not make sense to burden people with cost to go through the City's process. Nelson described the costs. Ross noted that just because a building is old, does not make it historic. Councilmember Eby said it is important to go by the federal standards and what they deem historic. She explained that anything over 50 years old will go on the survey, as by federal standards, but then would be reviewed by the City's own categorizations. Nelson said these standards have been evaluated by the experts that performed the survey. Ross suggested giving the most focus to high priority structures. Nicholson asked what is involved in the HPO process, specifically staff review. Nelson said it is a 30 days process and the UDC criteria is used to review the application. Nelson said any appeals to a review go to HARC. Jonrowe said she does not believe that any low priority structure should be demolished without a review, whether in or out of the district. She said that demolition and additions or changes to the fagade should need HPO approval. Councilmember Gonzalez noted that the next survey will have even more low priority structures hit the 50 year mark and asked how this will be addressed. Nelson said she shares the same concerns and staff will need Council guidance and policy direction. Jonrowe spoke on urban renewal homes and said that if these were demolished, it would erase their history. She said she noticed mostly positive feedback on the survey, with the exception of some concerns about home renovations. Jonrowe said most people commenting were appreciative of the protections. Mayor Ross asked how many houses will be added in the next 10 years, which would include homes built between 1968 and 1978. Nelson said she does not have a figure now, but will be researching this before the next survey. Councilmember Hesser wanted to know why Councilmember Jonrowe's house had been moved to a low priority. He said that the City needs better definition of these terms and that the City should define their own terms. Hesser thanked Nelson and staff on their skill and work. He complimented the department and noted that everything has progressed and is more efficient. Hesser suggested that HARC could be put in an advisory board status, instead of a decision making board, to improve the process. He said too much time is spent at HARC meetings on issues that are really part of the UDC. Jonrowe asked that the permitting staff be trained to be more knowledgeable of historic information and policies. She explained that homeowners do not necessarily know this information and it is important that the permitting staff is informed and able to inform the homeowners correctly. Mayor Ross asked if the Council agrees that staff should proceed with the UDC amendment recommendations. He asked if there was concurrence with the committee recommendations for high and medium priority structures. No one disagreed. Ross asked if anyone disagreed with the recommendations for low priority structures. Councilmember Jonrowe said that she disagrees and does not want any demolition to happen without regulatory oversight and that changes to street facing facades should go through a review process. Councilmember Eby asked if the proposed amendments have been reviewed with HARC. Nelson said that they have not, but had gone through the UDC Committee and were recommendations from the Resource Study consultants. Eby suggested giving staff the opportunity to present this to HARC. She said their feedback would be helpful to Council. Eby said, at this time, she is not willing to say she concurs 100% with the recommendations. Ross said this is way beyond HARCs scope. He asked the Council if they had a problem getting feedback from HARC on the recommendations. All Councilmembers said they did not. Councilmember Jonrowe said she would also like HARC feedback on demolitions outside of the historic district. Nelson was instructed to bring these things to HARC and then bring their feedback to Council Ross asked the Council if there were any other requirements that they would want staff to study. Hesser asked that HARC be looked at as an advisory board in the future. Fought asked that staff look at what makes a structure truly historic. Nicholson said that the Texas Historical Commission has a state landmark resource, with about 35 designations in Georgetown, which could be a good place to start. Jonrowe asked for consensus regarding taking away HARCs authority to vote on decisions regarding the design guidelines. Hesser clarified that he would like to make HARC an advisory board to Council instead of an authority. City Manager, David Morgan, said staff could come back with information to show the Council how this would work. Jonrowe said this is a significant change and asked the City Attorney if this is something that should be brought up at a workshop. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said the issues should all be brought to action at a regular meeting. He explained that no action can be taken in a workshop meeting. Nicholson said the numbers of requests for demolition would be helpful. She said she would also like to know how many demolitions have occurred with "no review". Nicholson said she is interested to examine how much this is tasking staff. B. Presentation and discussion on the process to update the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan -- Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Nat Waggoner, the City's Long Range Planning Manager, provided an update of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He thanked Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator and the many departments that contributed to the presentation. Waggoner spoke on the purpose of the presentation. • Confirmation of 10/17 workshop recap • Provide a status update • Direction on the use of the steering committee and joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission meetings • Determine if additional information is needed for the next meeting and consideration of contract award (3/13) Waggoner described the "Custom, Tailored" elements of the Plan, with its major components and outcomes. Waggoner explained how Council Direction will be received. He described the outcomes, goals and objectives. Outcomes Goals Objectives Implementation plan Annual Report Must have a discrete list Measurable of annual projects Tied to budget Incorporation of Fiscal process Fiscal alignment Impact Model, Eco/Devo Strategic Plan, CIP, others Relatable Online, in person public meetings, got to people Public Involvement where they are. Innovative Steering Committee and Joint Session with P&Z Waggoner provided a slide on Consultant Selection — Request for proposals Consultant Selection 0064 01111PFOposal i5olicitatiorf Review 00 00 o C)e Ci 10AttxwsCETawN Interviews > Negotiations Consultant Interview Criteria • Lessons learned • Examples of innovation • Housing experience (analysis and recommendations) • Understanding of dynamic commercial/retail footprints • Experience with growth scenario development • Demonstrated implementation experience GIORGETOWti 1 [ )(AS Waggoner described the purpose of a Steering Committee and its responsibilities. Purpose o The purpose of the Steering Committee is to help guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan Responsibilities o Represent the community of Georgetown and encourage their participation throughout the Comprehensive Plan process o The Committee will meet at least monthly to provide feedback to the Planning Department and Planning Consultant. A slide of the proposed Steering Committee was shown. Joint Council and P&Z Meetings were described to meet an estimated 3-4 times throughout the comprehensive plan process to provide direction on reviewing the state of Georgetown, establishing policy, goals and direct alignment and reviewing and approving recommendations. Waggoner described the Plan Development Process He discussed the next steps. Waggoner said the consultant selection would begin on March 13, 2018. He said the Steering Committee would meet in April or May of 2018 and that the project would kick off in April or May of 2018. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about a timeline and estimated date of completion. Waggoner said the project would take 12 to 18 months from start to adoption. He noted that much of the work will take place in the first 6 months, and the rest will be the public engagement process and policy establishment. C. Presentation and discussion of the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended December 31, 2017 -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Finance Director, Leigh Wallace, provided a presentation on the City's Quarterly Financial Report. She reminded the Council that the Finance Department had presented a preliminary report in November, which is now a final report. She noted that the information will go to the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) the following day and then come back to Council again on March 131h. Wallace spoke on General Fund Revenue ■ Sales tax collections up 3.5% compared to same period last year • Property tax collections at 50% for the year • Utility ROI up 5% compared to the same period last year • Development fees down 6% compared to same period last year, with applications up She next described the General Fund Expense • Overall expenses increased over the prior year o IT allocation o Market and merit personnel increases o New personnel and programs Fire and EMS overtime trend increasing due to vacancies and leave requests Wallace described the City's Major Enterprise • Electric o Revenue up 7% compared to last year with PCA Water o Revenue up 16% year over year, mostly due to development impact fees and customer growth Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue up 17.8% year over year Airport revenue up 11 % year over year CIP Highlights were shown next • Downtown West • Garey Park and San Gabriel Park improvements continue • Southwest Bypass • Pecan Branch wastewater treatment plan • Electric relocations for road and development projects; new housing and commercial development Wallace provided some Investment Highlights and concluded the presentation. = ► (�rcrlt��InTw� Investment Highlights 9/30/2017 17!31/2017 Change Total Gook Value 5 6.081,347 $ 6,157,417 5 76,070 Average Yield 109% 1,13% 014% D. Presentation and discussion of the draft application to Williamson County for FY 2018-19 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and discussion of the City's HUD entitlement status -- Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator and Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Housing Coordinator, Susan Watkins, spoke on a possible application to Williamson County for a Community Development Block Grant and the City's HUD entitlement status. She noted that the purpose of the presentation was to provide an overview of the FY19 CDBG application and provide the next steps for the future of a CDBG program. Watkins said she would be seeking direction for the Council on their concurrence with the proposed application and direction on any additional information needed prior to considering CDBG entitlement status. Watkins provided an overview of the CDBG and provided a map of the eligible block group. ■ Entitlement communities o Non entitlement communities can be sub -recipients • Low to Moderate Income (LMI) areas o At least 47% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) CITY 9/30/2017 12/31/2017 Change Total cook Value 5158120.1% S 165885.663 5 7.665,467 Average Yield 114% 1 3C% 0.16% 1 r.TFa 9/30/2017 12/31/2017 Change Total Book Value 5 1e1042,602 5 19A53,403 5 1,010,801 Average Yield 1 2A 139% 01114 9/30/2017 17!31/2017 Change Total Gook Value 5 6.081,347 $ 6,157,417 5 76,070 Average Yield 109% 1,13% 014% D. Presentation and discussion of the draft application to Williamson County for FY 2018-19 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and discussion of the City's HUD entitlement status -- Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator and Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Housing Coordinator, Susan Watkins, spoke on a possible application to Williamson County for a Community Development Block Grant and the City's HUD entitlement status. She noted that the purpose of the presentation was to provide an overview of the FY19 CDBG application and provide the next steps for the future of a CDBG program. Watkins said she would be seeking direction for the Council on their concurrence with the proposed application and direction on any additional information needed prior to considering CDBG entitlement status. Watkins provided an overview of the CDBG and provided a map of the eligible block group. ■ Entitlement communities o Non entitlement communities can be sub -recipients • Low to Moderate Income (LMI) areas o At least 47% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) Watkins described eligible activities • Acquisition of property Housing and housing rehabilitation • Public facilities and improvements • Homeownership assistance Watkins showed the past use of funds for the City. Past use of funds • 2015 — $87,120 Sidewalk along MLK/3rd Street from Scenic to Austin - 2016 — $135,500 Scenic Drive Sidewalk <) VtORTIIIXIA?;NN CDBG Application Timeline • Feb. 2018 — Wilco application released — 02/27/18 Council Workshop — 03/13/18 Council Approval • April 4, 2018 - Application due to Wilco • May/June 2018 — Wilco project approval — June/July 2018 Council Approval • October 2018 — Funding available t, Nit t' �I7MrR�.i•A'IL a 1 �,-- Lowrvd wMr� r�rnar "PSI ■,ad�ir ' ♦C. ri +71 5 'F L six 1M140 Mork o ` : �F �ssµ7 t a �,* '`o %".' ry �� a '.7Rf al osur, �,-- Lowrvd S 5 • 1M140 Mork o ` : �. q p• sem''^' ,,.. ` iMf k.. lir.:'w rl -gNrr W � �lN hs C•AIIr! s• :1: �,* '`o %".' ry �� a '.7Rf al osur, Project 2 - 17th St • In eligible Census tract • Project cost approx. 5155-180K 17 • Near Stone Haven development • Priority 2 for Sidewalk Master plan • Connects and provides accessibility to two GoGeo stops • Provides access to public park Watkins spoke on Staff Recommendation • Submit both proposed projects o Eligible areas o Implementation of master plans o Connections to schools, parks, GoGeo stops o High pedestrian activity Watkins explained that the Williamson County agreement is a 3 year agreement that expires September 30, Status. wim+n j I N tIM 1T t4r" 9Tw V1 t,TM pI LMISO 01-k gf2u0a . _ — w it" �T. now to ' . 1 •1 1 w t+nt e l C NMTM 1S� � _ _ N1RM/T N�ITM ST: n A - 0 OpTf 006 i -awl s p51N�1 • f Watkins spoke on Staff Recommendation • Submit both proposed projects o Eligible areas o Implementation of master plans o Connections to schools, parks, GoGeo stops o High pedestrian activity Watkins explained that the Williamson County agreement is a 3 year agreement that expires September 30, Status. Watkins described the next steps. • Summer 2018 return for approval to accept FY19 funds • Return in Spring 2018 to discuss Entitlement status and Williamson County agreement o If eligible, staff will conduct a cost benefit analysis o Other concerns discussed Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Watkins for the presentation and said she is glad to see what is being considered. She asked if this would save the City bond money if the projects were approved. City Manager, Morgan, said Council can choose to move down the list or have the ability to stay with the priority one list. Jonrowe asked how much was still on the priority one list. Morgan said he will research and will send the information to Council in his weekly email. Eby asked if there is a gap year, since it takes a year to get. Morgan said staff will outline costs and bring the information back to Council and determine if it is worth moving forward as a direct recipient. Councilmember Hesser said he wants to know this information before making a commitment. Morgan said staff will come back with administrative burdens and costs. Ross asked the Council if they concur. All agreed. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and Section 551.074 at 5:00 PM. He announced that executive session would begin 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 - TMLIRP Claim Number LB72016 Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Cowan Creek Interceptor - Kylberg 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 - City Attorney Evaluation - City Secretary Update to Council Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on - Date Attest: City Sec ry