Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.28.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, August 28, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East 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 8'h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross, Ana Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:05 PM A. Presentation and discussion of a stakeholder survey regarding the Downtown Overlay District and Old Town Overlay District Guidelines -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on a stakeholder survey for the Downtown Overlay District and Old Town District Guidelines. She said the purpose of the presentation would be to discuss the preparation of a public engagement plan for the purpose of seeking feedback from a variety of stakeholders on how to improve the development process for properties within historic Georgetown. Nelson spoke on Requested Direction from the City Council. • Are there additional topics for engagement staff should seek feedback on? • Are there additional stakeholders that need to be involved in this process? • Will the identified methods for engaging stakeholders support the level of feedback desired by City Council? Goals for the Engagement Process were presented. • Gain insight and input from stakeholders on the following: o Experience seeking COA Approval o Opportunities to streamline the development process for properties subject to the COA process o Opportunities to create a more predictable set of review criteria for properties subject to the COA Process Nelson spoke on the proposed list of stakeholders. She noted that potential future applicants would be those who could be going to HARC for a COA for a future project. • City Council ■ HARC Commissioners • City Staff • Applicants o Current o Past o Potential Future Suggested Topics for Engagement were shown. Development Process o Predictability of timelines o More objective criteria for COA review Approval Criteria o Consistency in the application of the UDC and adopted Design Guidelines • Areas for Improvement Nelson spoke on Methods for Engagement • Survey of stakeholders • Focus groups • Office hours with City Staff • Public Meeting How the City will use the information was discussed next. • Staff will receive and distill the stakeholder feedback. • Prepare an executive summary for City Council to consider options to o Revise COA criteria o Changes to approval process based upon structure classification, location, type of work o Improve HARC training, application materials, etc. Nelson noted that it is staffs intention that the engagement takes place prior to the October 5th meeting to allow for evaluation by the City Council on October 23rd Nelson reiterated the direction needed from the City Council. • Are there additional topics for engagement staff should seek feedback on? • Are there additional stakeholders that need to be involved in this process? ■ Will the identified methods for engaging stakeholders support the level of feedback desire by City Council? Mayor Ross asked the Council for their feedback and addressed each Councilmember one at a time Councilmember Gonzalez suggested an ordinance or policy that someone purchasing a historic home must sign, acknowledging the requirements for renovation. Councilmember Fought said it is important to ask those who have been through HARC if they feel that they got a fair hearing. He noted the importance of responders being anonymous. Morgan and Nelson confirmed the responders would be anonymous. Fought said confidentiality is important for good implementation. Councilmember Pitts wanted to ask stakeholders if they like or agree with the valuation of their designation on the historic survey. Councilmember Eby asked about topics and said these relate to the process. Nelson said only approved criteria would be used. Eby suggested looking at historic preservation design guidelines and asking the public's opinion of the guidelines themselves. She said she would want responders asked if they think staff uses the guidelines properly to protect the homeowner. Councilmember Hesser said the word HARC is used in many ways, other than just the board, and he thinks it is important to distinguish the various uses of the word HARC. Hesser asked for the objective of the survey. Nelson said the objective would be to provide the Council with useful information from the public for consideration. Hesser said HARC, the group, has problems, but the problems need to be defined more clearly. Eby said that is the purpose of this presentation. She said the problems can be identified and receive suggestions for improvement. City Manager, David Morgan, said the goal is to better understand what stakeholders see as issues. He said their feedback will be reviewed and used for recommendations for change. Hesser said this would still not define the problems. Morgan said that is exactly what they are trying to do — define the problems and arrive at useful solutions. Councilmember Jonrowe said she had a list questions she would like to have included on the survey. She said she would provide the City Manager with the list rather than read them all at this meeting. Jonrowe's list of questions was provided: • In what year did you apply? • How would you describe your project? • Was this project your home, business, rental or other? • Overall, on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your experience with HARC? • If you hired professionals, did this make the process easier, harder or neither? • How much would you estimate you spent on professional services? • How long did the COA process take you from application to approval or denial of the COA? • Was your project approved or denied • Do you think it would have been a positive or negative addition to your HARC experience if the final step had been presenting your project to the Council and having them vote on it? ■ If you had known that you would have had to get your project through BOTH a citizen committee and the City Council, would that have made you more or less likely to make that investment? • If Council were always the final vote, would you feel more or less confident that tall project would be treated fairly and equally? • Have you brought project to HARC before 2015, and after 2015, when many decisions were moved to the administrative level, or the Historic Preservation Officer? If so, can you share the impact these changes had on the timeline of your COA? Mayor Ross noted the costs of going through HARC and how this would be difficult when receiving a denial of a project. Councilmember Gonzalez said no one would know the problems unless they had been through HARC. He said there would be no issues until one presented as an applicant. Gonzalez suggested asking stakeholders what they actually know about the UDC. He said it would be helpful to have some stakeholders put together an imaginary case to see what the process would be like, and how many changes had to be made from conceptual to the COA. Ross reiterated the problem of costs to the City and to professionals to submit. He said he would want to know figures for applicants' total costs. Ross said he believes applicants sometimes have to bend to HARC to get through the process. Morgan asked for a summarization. Nelson summarized Council's suggestions. Councilmember Hesser suggested asking stakeholders about their feeling regarding HARC acting as an HOA. He said he would also want to know what action was taken when an applicant's project was denied by HARC. Councilmember Jonrowe said asking about the HOA would solicit the wrong information, and she would want the question reworded. Hesser explained that the perception is that HARC behaves as an HOA for Downtown and Historic properties, even without that scope. Morgan suggested asking responders if they feel that HARC stays within their guidelines. Mayor Ross said one speaker at a previous meeting actually said that HARC was the HOA for Old Town. Councilmember Fought asked if property owners on the square are included as stakeholders. Nelson confirmed. Fought spoke on the General Motors case from a different era. He explained that General Motors solicited feedback, but the feedback they kept receiving did not make a difference because they had asked the wrong questions and solicited the wrong market. He explained that this would be a good example of the need to solicit stakeholders who would not buy a home in Old Town because of HARC. Councilmember Eby said that assumes there is such a group. She suggested putting the information out to the public with the opportunity to come forward. Gonzalez said Old Town is the gem of the Georgetown area. He said it is the gem to all Georgetown residents and every part of town should be included in the survey. Gonzalez explained that the Square belongs to all citizens. Councilmember Nicholson said she agrees with the broad scope. She added that there seems to be a tight time restraint and the survey will need to be aggressively publicized. Nicholson said the City's online surveys have provided good feedback. She said the office hours should be intimate and constructive. Jonrowe said she would like to see the public acknowledged as stakeholders. She said professionals who had been used in HARC projects should be part of the stakeholders list. She said she would also like to know from property owners if they had received adequate notifications. Jonrowe said she would like to hear from historians and preservationists, as well as the Texas Historic Commission. Morgan said there is a challenge to defining the stakeholder list Jonrowe provided. He said the term Preservationists is too broad. Jonrowe said staff should reach out to the original group that started HARC. Nelson said this was a group of local preservationists. Jonrowe asked to capture the comparison of value in homes designated as historic and those not. Gonzalez said he is a preservationist and asked Jonrowe how this could be defined. Jonrowe said she would define it as someone who consults regarding historic preservation. Jonrowe changed the term preservationist to professional historians. She asked if responders' professions would be asked in the survey. Morgan confirmed that there would such qualifiers in the survey. Morgan said the goal is to include present and past HARC members. He said it would become very challenging if opened to the entire community. Morgan said staff will work to capture the information discussed. Hesser said the survey will need to be more confined to those knowledgeable in what the information is trying to achieve. Hesser said architects should be on the stakeholders group, as they would understand the misgivings as well as the good of the process. Hesser suggested also including downtown renters, not just property owners. Mayor Ross asked about unfunded mandates and if there is an additional layer of requirements. He suggested taking a look at using tax dollars as credits for certain things. Nelson added this to the summarization of Council suggestions. Councilmember Eby said there seems to be 2 different important things - the process and what leads to needing the process, and asked if there could be 2 different surveys. Morgan said that is a good direction to head. Gonzalez suggested a question asking the responders if they are aware of the UDC or have ever read it. He said this would be a good qualifier. Jonrowe asked to include questions about the overall timeline for HARC projects and the time required for the various parts of the process. She said she wants the public meeting to be centrally located and held at night. Morgan said the public meeting would be scheduled at the library and held at night. B. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the City Council's Vision and Strategies -- David Morgan, City Manager and Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager, provided an update on City Council's Vision and Strategies Daly provided the Background. • Revisited Council Goals on November 1 & 2 • Confirmed o Role of Council o Rules of Engagement o Vision Statement o Council Goals Refined Council Strategies o Went from 14 to 9 strategies Confirmed narratives with each strategy o Confirmed tactics for each strategy in March A Legend for the presentation was provided. Daly provided a Graphic of Vision & Strategies. jam -,w VISION & STRATEGIES 0111IUII!46 kS140 LS M L10tt1I 01MV1 All SFIPI U1,1 Aim, #,AIiR it I14it'If RIA. - •.,'AfMOU 0111, MU flIEIM*9! Daly spoke on the each of the 9 City Council Strategies 1. Become a destination for unique experiences City Council recognizes the shifting trends related to how people spend their time and money. People are increasingly interested in "experiential entertainment". Changes in retail growth and sales tax collections reflect these trends. People want authentic and memorable experiences. Georgetown is well-positioned to promote itself as a destination city, distinct and unique from other cities in the state. 1. Become a destination for unique experiences orantov n ✓ Continue Music on the Square •: Increase opportunities to have music year round in corrunercial and public areas — Continue to pursue the festival streetibetween Fr and 91' Sheets RIver$f Fraiis Improve signage along trails promoting access to downtown the Sheraton. and trail extensions •: Approvar of ��uy i rac,t deveic dpi rent, including 2 miles of trails along river — Continue to explore a river crossing on the North San Gabriel River 1. Become a destination for unique experiences Garey Park Promote Garey House as an event venue/destination Market Garey Park to a wide variety of users due to the diversity of amenities in the park — Develop Special Events that bring new visitors to Garey Park • Retail % Encourage destination retail that takes advantage of Georgetown's unique assets downtown Negotiating sale of city -owned buildings downtown 2. Create a strategy to increase mobility i h ri6i)�i. ;P' iii ?h!?' ii SUCI E`Y ii±Mjhhc 's :JL;ldi £iC Ti 1&1 CiiAlie"ic7 fJi ;Illy , i'y:J+]tom iii ihe'—' N's �':4stor,i. The—01 Ts �;3 :7E'✓:i w't <11�C i:1 Ts de 7? xr'•iS?'s'�:.slr, taCi41l f3 In'vFjf$l?l',t=il' In VnEia.51i�, i,i Ir IMNI Iw im i nag, � ^t - l G', r n- _ j �fl t7 Ili': j-';�C, i, �- CWb Cin t�i,rr;,tiV?CC. The net- :crk 15 'ts mos', 71U�i]'+.o�S.SC 1. t; ss ;Illi "I -1V r:Un€ l continu .'S *0 iave {!'i CU$$,- , f ar tl,iC t:nc:ra C' -1 j rox� hF;$ o st,eet and tc _3dC-QUB eN I .)d the 'niiit+tei'Fincb orCgr�irn. F!ar'Ilnrnlr.•rr,, ; it.� Go;!r.ril r t:c-gni r 'hr; imrxl =aacr -of capit. i Zirng paiYn ei'S,'l i P 54Vi d h l r% the;'e•C_Jlcn lc rrcnKe t+' ir1 spore, siden `enf,iist? hCILIre Ii10re feasible, cliai7cration or nil ;ter �i lnni r t.€fc s ^t" sr�rin ^•cs?s avi6l r 1p Gewgelcwn, arepxe t;i; increased cternand on 'tie trar.sperlaG=a Ta ne'work. A�ithough a majority of ;h«. investmenl ,vii+ he on roadv.ay inrrz�st�',:cture, this aisc in, ludr•-5 coor muiti_mcdal pr.o pcts s;ach as sidewalk and bicycle ir,frastructUte. 2. Create a strategy to increase mobility :• Continue to review and update development standards to ensure good connectivity standards for vehicles and pedestrians v Neighborhood traffic management program •: Complete 2015 transportation bond e* Continue progress on future mobility planning Bike plan and sidewalk plan implementation •: Maintain relationships with key intergovernmental partners (Wilco, TXDOT. CAMPO) •: Explore innovative tools to supplement public transportation •: Lyft pilot 3. Promote greater diversity in our population and our businesses City Council recognizes that diversity across all aspects of society helps ensure better decision making. Diversity in thought leads to better outcomes. Diversity helps the City hedge against changes in the environment and economy A broad range of businesses and employers should be recruited to Georgetown. Generally. growing the commercial tax base in the City will help alleviate over reliance on residential property taxes. A diverse business sector necessitates a diverse housing stock. A variety of services. resources, and amenities should be made available to residents. including seniors, families, and young professionals. 3. Promote greater diversity in our population and our businesses :• Update the Comprehensive Plan for development •: Complete a housing analysis for a more in-depth understanding of housing needs and diversity of existing inventory •: Implement development policy that encourages mixed-use development that enhances density and accessibility to services and amenities •: Implement targeted recruitment of companies within targeted industries (professional services, life sciences. advanced manufacturing, destination retail) to aid in the diversification of industries :• Encourage speculative development and site readiness to aid in business recruitment and development •: Work to diversity workforce development and recruitment with special emphasis on young professionals and veterans. ✓ Support veteran slob fair and Georgetown Young Professionals 4. Create and maintain outstanding aesthetics and a welcoming appearance and spirit Georgetown has several key gateways leading into the City. Moreover, Georgetown serves as the northern gateway to the Austin region. As such, particular attention and resources need to be directed towards ensuring gateways are well-maintained and adhere to a high development standard. As the City progresses through the comprehensive plan update, specific focus needs to be placed on developing a more refined vision and master plan for the City's gateways. Costs associated with maintaining publically owned rights-of-way (including state- owned property) need to be appropriated and expended at a level consistent with Council's vision. 4. Create and maintain outstanding aesthetics and a welcoming appearance and spirit • Identify and Review Development Standards Complete ccmprehersrve master plan to establish vision for gatev:ays Establ sn goals for PUDs tc empnas ze aesthetics and •welcomirg appearance anc sprat. • Review Gat( -,way locations to ensure focus and priority on the cofr'e ct locations Pr=or•.lrze. gateways and estab: sh a level of senncc for litter prckup lancscap,ng beauldtcahcn. and maintenance. Review and estabbsh cleanup preontes for special events Enhance oop,r,,tunfities for public art Re'v,cv; ga/ev:a), signage w6com,ng L.•rsrlcrs to Ge•argelo.vr s mic gatcvrays -do not ,nave signage and exrstmg signage car, be enhanced Contimule and .Increase Stewardship of all I.-'ublic Rights of Way - Set ,r:et%cs for repomng to ens -ire mamrerance ,cats are mel - Eslabhsn cohesrrc standard spec lar p4ibhc Lmprcvernerts in general and at :ray-,- 1, 1'erse-ctlorts 11 e street s)gr.s, yr eet +'.ghts. mast arr s erC I 5. Annexation and MUD strategy C.t?'car°J n} in state 's'a),v and y;qm icant pnpoiation grrn`itti l'avt: f!',he nee(! for City to adopt ne°.`9 anpexat,oq s t�itegies. The conknuef: ir�41�,x of P:it-lri�:it)a: l_ til t,, Ititnat rrrJ lets is -riggennq ttie ne-eO for the Councli to, revisit :ts h nil; iF;S fir?' procedure's reitated to these types of developments, These P;vo challenges yin tandem exacerbate the need for the Carty to address its strategies, polic.ies,'and procedures re'IateC1 to irft)C)s and annexation J he (;ity'has worked extersivky ),vith developers to assist them in delivering creOve!y financed residential products to (;;enrgetovdn, As laws reiated to annexation change, the City must be Moughtful in its a,pproac_.h to permitting development in the extraterritonal jurisdic4ion that may negatively impact the City in the future. Promoting high-quality growth and equitable taxation and .senfices is a priority for the City. 5. Annexation and MUD strategy •: Annexation Strategy •: Move forward with annexation and development agreements as prioritized by Council •: MUD and PID Policy ✓ Approved updated MUD Policy — Consider new PID Policy — Amend UDC for compliance with new policies 6. Monitor, promote, and communicate a long-term water and utilities plan and strategy City Council recognizes the importance of thoughtful utility managernent_ As a purveyor of water, electricity, and wastewater services, it is imperative that the City both effectively manage and communicate plans associated with all city -owned and operated utilities. Acknowledging that the Texas electric and water markets are continually in flux and will always experience changes. solutions need to be presented to ensure the City's financial position remains strong, rates remain competitive. high -duality customer service is emphasized, and ample resources are available to serve the continually growing population in the City's service area. 6. Monitor, promote, and communicate a long-term water and utilities plan and strategy • Financial Position Remains Strong .-Quarterly financial updates to Boards & Council (ongoing) • Rates Remain Competitive: ✓ Complete Rate Studies • High Quality Customer Service Emphasis -:Improve customer communication regarding CIS features -*eOutreach events (ongoing) 6. Monitor, promote, and communicate a long-term water and utilities plan and strategy :• Ample Resources :• Continue providing Council with annual ElectncMater Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) updates (ongoing) •: Based on IRP appropriately secure resources and evaluate demands •: Incorporate key points of IRP (Why s) into utility communications • Water Conservation Improve community understanding of the relationship between Ample Water Resources- and the long term need for Water Conservation (ongoing) Complete the 2019 Conservation Plan Update :• Continue existing water conservation programs (ongoing) •3 Develop customer specific direct marketing programs 7. Expand on our reputation as a City of Innovation The City executed purchased power agreements to cover Georgetown's energy usage with 100°o renewable energy, making Georgetown one of the largest city -owned utilities to do so. This alone has helped Georgetown brand itself as an innovative city and garnered international acclaim. City Council recognizes that in an environment where taxation is limited and there is increasing regional competition for taxable value and natural resources. the City must find effective solutions and inventive methods of service delivery. Being a forward -thinking organization will allow Georgetown to elevate its profile in the region and recruit like-minded businesses and residents. 7. Expand on our reputation as a City of Innovation •e Cultivate a culture of continuous improvement :Citywide implementation of performance management program (PMP) :•Deploy GUS Business Improvement Program (BIP) citywide •: Leverage opportunities and encourage discipline to partner on innovative ideas O. -Bloomberg Philanthropies, DOE Grant, Community Resource Coordinator, Georgetown Health Foundation • Explore feasibility of developing an Innovation Road Map 8. Increase our influence with State Government The City of Georgetown and the State of Texas are partners. Increasingly, the Texas Legislature has raised concerns about city decision making, and State pre- emption of local authority continues to be a topic of interest at the State Capitol. As Georgetown continues to elevate its presence in the region and in the state, the City Council recognizes the importance of dedicating time and resources to ensure the City's interests are protected, The City must work with State officials to find common ground and shared goals. That said. there will be disagreements. However. it is important that the City work to build and maintain positive relationship with state agencies and elected officials. 8. Increase our influence with State Government :• Be deliberate and proactive in relationship building with elected officials and staff -:-Continue to work and become more involved with TML's legislative initiatives ✓ TML Policy Development — TML conference ✓ Continue work with legislative consultants •: Refine communications strategy and legislative agenda for next legislative session 9. Expand our role to develop collaborative strategies with GISD, Southwestern, and other entities To remain competitive in the region. City Council recognizes the importance of investing in opportunities for young people. A healthy educational systems is critical to ensuring a successful community- Georgetown I.S.D, and Southwestern University are integral pillars in the community and key city partners with the City. All three entities must work in concert to maximize the impact of limited resources. The City is well-positioned to provide services and opportunities for youth to further their education or career in Georgetown. The City is also fortunate to be able to partner with Southwestern University to capitalize on their thought -leadership and resources to further opportunities for college students and graduates. 9. Expand our role to develop collaborative strategies with GISD, Southwestern, and other entities v Parks - Leadership Camp (June 25 -- 28) • Youth Advisory Board - Elevate board to liaison position between G I S D and City of Georgetown - Involve YAB with youth portion of PD s CommUNITY Initiative -- Broader city involvement with Georgetown Project Collaborate with GISD and the Chamber on Manufacturers Day and Career Day for juniors and seniors 9. Expand our role to develop collaborative strategies with GISD, Southwestern, and other entities • Southwestern Interns — Centralize or coordinate internship program — Bigger City presence at SU Job Fair — Coordinate mtemship requirements to not preclude SU students • PD ❖ Continue to promote Explorer Post ✓ Youth Academy (June 11-14, June 18-21, July 9-12, July 16-19, July 23-26) •: Continue Chase -the -Chief 9. Expand our role to develop collaborative strategies with GISD, Southwestern, and other entities • FD ✓ Continue to promote Explorer Post ✓ Youth Fire Camps (June 4 — 8, June 18 -22) — Explore feasibility of fire academy at high schools • Library s• Continue to promote Library Advisory Board ✓ Continue summer youth employment program with the Georgetown Project s Continue offering youth volunteer opportunities •: Continue supporting youth programming on weekends, school holidays, and summer GUS s Continue to support sustainability efforts of G.I.S.D..and SU C. Presentation and discussion of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update --Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Long Range Planning Manager, and Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Long Range Planning Manager, Nat Waggoner, spoke on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. He said he would provide an update on the progress of the 2030 Plan and Susan Watkins would present the Public Engagement portion of the presentation. He explained that staff will need to receive Council feedback on upcoming public engagement opportunities and would be asking for support to engage the public. Waggoner spoke on previous City Council Workshops on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan October 2017 o Direction on elements and outcomes of the Plan February 2018 o Direction on the use of the Steering Committee and joint CC/P&Z meetings March 2018 Action Item o Approval of Contract with Freese and Nichols o Appointment of Steering Committee Slides on the Update Process and the Project Calendar were provided. Tecludcal AdvicorV conunitto Joint Sessioi IA Ousts. ✓ Alignment ✓ Updated Demographics ✓ Housing Element Update ❑ Gateway Development Strategies ❑ Williams Drive Subarea Plan ❑ Housing Toolkit ❑ Growth Scenarios ❑ Future Land Use Map Update ❑ Public Engagement ❑ Implementation Strategies ❑ Adoption ru 2019 us Ott f N014I R�iI1'�A1 It GI—i VIT 40"m (MAMAS (IFII:•r�- ■ PMKI Obi mowwuw kcMlt 111000f ((mnnee *Aff) 4yfl.M�(tl. j�iJnARh! Waggoner spoke on the October 2nd Public Meeting lxf. l4elnp r p1r Yrr ny u We N."I t.wl + PC Poll. k..onl I I -'Vision Statement (June) -'Public Engagement Plan (June) -'City Charter, Charter prescribed elements (June) ✓2030 Plan Elements, Alignment (July) -'Utility Buildout Information (August) ,/Housing Element purpose, industry terms (August) ✓Future Land Use Plan (August) ✓Demographics (August) ,,'Alignment • Charter prescribed elements • Contributing master plans • Development processes Waggoner said the tops for discussion interrelate. f rr.<l Ind�inn .nd N ar.lan. AaW�w• Aar• N •r 1r. ID em Yl.n my ra, -'Demographics • State of the Citv Snapshot • Cnmlpnun.lAnnuel(:n,whRaoK'-RI r hvEwi�c•11( uulpx•hrn.ic[• l'Lu1. •. �• �94i i9 F; 1,T."1 44 r.1 :SIS •.... ". �........ •...arr.•••• •��• •• •• tYW ti1� 19M ,:eq � � Za r \ 1• \' r ✓Housing Inventory & Subarea Profiles • Housing Diversity (type, lot size) • Housing Choice (square footage, price point) • Housing Stock (Market rate and subsidized) • Historic Housing Stock (2008-2018) OAffordability and Preservation Analysis — fall 2018 OGateway Studies — fall 2018 OWilliams Drive Subarea Plan — fall 2018 OGrowth Scenarios — winter 2018 OFuture Land Use Map — winter 2018/spring 2019 OHousing Tool Kit — spring/summer 2019 Waggoner introduced Susan Watkins, the City's Housing Coordinator, who provided the Public Engagement portion of the presentation. Watkins said the intention is to engage the public in a robust plan. She said the website will be equipped with updates and people would be able to request a planner to speak to their organization about general comp plan questions and public engagement. Watkins provided a screenshot of the website's "How to Get Involved" page. • 2030.t::enwtow n.nrg • Coals • t nKagement strategies • I igagement opportunities • Public meeting • Virtual participation • Meetings -to -go • SUrveys a • Idea boards • Outreach events • Recluest a Planner • Progress to date • i Steering Committee meetings • 4 Technical Advisory: meetings • 9 outreach events, over 200 participants • 7 Board and Commission presentations (3 more in SeptvrnLvr) • Peal Estate Round Table (realtors, builders, developers, and finance professionals) • Omine survey (over 950 participants) • I 'hv did YOU cho()se to live in Georgeto%%'n ? • IN`hat do you like must about living in Georgetown? • Which places do you visit must in Georgetown? • VVIlat should Georgeto%vn look like in 2030? w • Zip Code • Describe vour connection • t. ive in ( "eor%;vto%N n • Work in Georgetown • Five out,ide of the Gita- but in VVillianison CountN • Uwd to live in ( voigetown • Hope to live in Georgetown • Citvwide, l day engagement lead by the City in partnership with businesses, community leaders, neighborlh(xAs • Designed to: • Maximize participalton • Innovate in our approach to public engagement • Get folks excited participating io overall process • Easy, Simple format • Coupled %with National Night Out f on the table Georgetown NATIONAL_ req NIGH I OUT Watkins said the October 2nd date for National Night Out is an excellent way to go where the people are. Waggoner and Watkins both mentioned that they would be asking people for their help in determining the future of Georgetown. She then provided a video of how the program worked well in another city. • Request for Support • Please share the current sur\ev with friends, famill; and contitituent-, • Invite uti to a meeting to discuss the 2030 Ilan • flan an event for the 10,21 Eurblic ell 9,i9ement-011 the table • Next Steps • I'ublis tieleetink; --I -Un the'l0ble Georgeto%vn, 10h12)/i?0I8 • targeting October/ November time trame for 1oint VVorkshop with Council City Manager, David Morgan, asked the Council if they had any questions. Councilmember Nicholson said October 2nd is National Night Out. Waggoner explained that that is why they have picked this night. He explained that staff will be working with the Police Department to facilitate discussion when people are already gathered. Nicholson asked that the Councilmembers have the information they need in order to be useful at various visits throughout the night. Waggoner said staff with be at the Public Safety meeting preparing for National Night Out and will be on the Square for Friday Night Music on the Square events promoting conversation about the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. D. Presentation and discussion of the Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection and Emergency Services Between the City of Georgetown, TX and Williamson County Emergency Services District #8 -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief Mayor Ross noted the Fire Department and Police Department competitive dodge ball tournament at the Georgetown Rec Center on Saturday. Ross said the event was in honor of the Special Olympics and a lot of money had been raised. Fire Chief, John Sullivan, spoke on an agreement with Williamson County Emergency Services District #8 for Fire Protection and Emergency Services. He began with the background of the agreement. He spoke on documents that guide the department. Background :j ESD8 was created after the May 7, 2005 election (HSC 775) Fire protection and emergency services are provided to the ESD8 residents via a contract with the City of Georgetown Current contract was a 5 -year term and is due to expire on Sept 30 Current funding model is based upon actual calls for service ESD8 and Georgetown have developed a strong working relationship Sullivan showed a map of the Combined Response Territory. He said the lighter color is the City of Georgetown and the darker color is the ETJ. Sullivan said that this represents approximately 140 square miles. He said prior to 2005, the City was responding to ETJ areas without any consideration for remuneration. Sullivan explained that the City helped initiate the creation of the ESD in conjunction with the statutory elements within Health and Safety Code 775. Combined Response Territory IM �� 82 sqmi ' •" moo- 58 sqm� i• i r.ww. . . Sullivan spoke on Historical Demand Trending and Service Demand Projections Historical Demand Trending Service Demand Projections 40 :9 The Current Model for Calls for Service, its Limitations and the new Partnership Models were shown. 0.11 21725 IJ, i32 :9 The Current Model for Calls for Service, its Limitations and the new Partnership Models were shown. Current Model -- Calls for Service Current Model - Limitations o Cost modeling does not Include all costs for service delivery leg. dispatch, training, etc.) o Remuneration based upon actual call vs potential call o Does not encourage/incentivtze risk reduction programs o Results in disparate allocation of costs Partnership Model ! -✓,'Iv"ter! . � (� �..! �e�llll�r l'd�tc: SII GI ;; Vfr I :JUe�af G' S Frl�r�j�'li�'/ �rS I j Adm,q 31r 71 i0' f rc,'l.lc Sa`rty %IKr•cy { rafir.�� Sun.c'- Uve�eGu•i: }.1cJ�.el ti✓•v •a; Fralrasie•+ar �QYY VYtt+trrL t"•1l�Q!1LT ►7]ra �n1C++t F nr�gr��y Ser:�rs Sullivan discussed ESD's pay for service. He showed on the graph how in 2018 they are paying the same as they did in 2014, severely widening a gap. Sullivan said the model indicates that they are to pay for service based on the percentage of calls. He explained that even though the calls have gone up for them, the remuneration has flat lined. He explained that Georgetown is performing more service, with no more revenue coming in. Sullivan noted that there needs to be a balanced reimbursement for the cost for service. Funding Model Considerations were shown, followed by 3rd Part Analysis — ESCi Key Findings and the Key Components of the New Model. Factors o Is it equitable to the taxpayers? o Is it driven by potential outcomes/service delivery? o Does it consider actual risk, potential risk and risk reduction programs? Inter -local agreement and revised cost modeling contemplate the above factors and include administrative and overhead related costs True -up provision is included 3111 Party Analysis - ESCi Key Findings • The relatior ship between the Distr Ott and the City r, Loth positive and efts _tree, and >hou".d ser•:e as an cw.xnplr of be ;1 pru<tice, for ocher, • tier 6)Iqrt~r 1ir0.1rSh4d1 1?r11411rnrnt (0,M)l r. thr plafrrrrd pnrv.l l of firrhnrdxdl serwce; for the Ov.tmt Ruth the' Cyr tact and thr Cay , rr{ to conbr47r they lora tnm wnu iittrd partnership to woe k together to develop the best services for Usthct resident; and property owners, while rur•:xJeY'nrj the limited rc rxacr• avadabk to the U+:.tract and a deme to maom+er efficiency and avord redundancy • The City of btoi(jrto'+r, and adyatcnt arra" within Ihr Dr,trxt we rsprnrnunq cor-;istrr 1 ,.md signiticant poputationpro•nth,-nhichfl- e�pectedtocontin.ue Thr>growthwdlircreaselirejmedica& drpsrtrnrnt "-eirwire demand, challenginq the wIrncy to kcrp pxe with yowmu nerd;. Plan; for continued addition of resource, are in place and are recessary if the 6F,'MC) is to sustain+ts ablity to meet erneryrncy IC' Pon le prifor man(e objeov cs Key Components of New Model o No longer based on pure calls for service - e:; The % split of costs include Population 15% population, assessed valuation, s.f. of all Improvements, and number of Assessed Valuation 15% fire responses S.F. of Improvements 20% Number of Fire Responses 50% Each of these measurements are weighted to receive a cost allocation o Using this new funding model would Increase the ESD's participation In Fire Department costs from approximately 13% to 20% Sullivan spoke on the Costing Structure of the New Model. He then described components of the Cost Allocation Tool in detail • Support Services • Emergency Services • Dispatch Services • Capital Costs ESCIE.•,.�o47.e v.� 9..rr viCw.. ..r r.��.wrr �•-- S a:rre t iK� tw. •..�r.. tr..:r .._. . y Y r ai+ r Sullivan noted that ESD was paying 20.5% of the costs and this needs to be looked at differently. He had provided the Council with handouts of the chart for easier viewing. Sullivan spoke on Key Changes to Fire Station #6 and explained that it needs to be looked at differently. He said that initially the City was proud to recognize that ESD would be paying for Fire Station 6, but now need to look at it differently because it may be better for the City to look at their ability, as a City, to pay for the station, because of the City's bonding capacity, in order to lower the aggregated cost to taxpayers. Fire Station 46 Sullivan spoke on the benefits and fairness to both parties if ESD8 would give the City the land, have the City pay for the construction, and allowing ESD8 to use portions of the facility, which benefits their taxpayers, as well. Sullivan said the City would assume the operational costs. Sullivan said if this plays out, contractually and legally, the City would be looking at approximate costs of $350,000 in debt service over the next 20 years, making the City ahead of where they have been in the past. City Manager, David Morgan, explained that this goes to the methodology. He said the contract currently looks at operational costs, but there is a need to look at more. He explained that other factors which should be included would be dispatch, administrative costs and debt service costs for fire service. Morgan said, right now, ESD 8 does not participate in any debt service costs for fire. He said it would be fair to have them participate in these costs and the costs of equipment and fire trucks that have been debt serviced or bond funded. Morgan said during negotiations, it made sense for the City to consider assuming the responsibility of constructing the station. He said it was recognized that the City might be able to do things more efficiently through their bonding capacity. Morgan said the plan assumes about $20 million in expenses that would be split at about 80/20%. He said ESD8's share would be about $3.5 million, and they are currently paying 1.6 to 1.8 million dollars. Morgan said this creates a more level playing field. Councilmember Gonzalez spoke on the 20 year bond money and asked if 25 years might be wise on a Fire Station. Morgan said they would be looking at this with the financial advisor and bond consultant. Morgan said it is important to note that ESD8 is maxed out on property tax rate they are able to charge, which is 10 cents. He said with this model, ESD8 can use reserves that they would have used for construction of the fire station to true up and fully support the obligated contract amounts moving forward. Gonzalez said a 25 year bond might provide them a little more breathing room, as well Contract Highlights were shown. Contract Highlights o Agreement Term: 10 years o City Obllgatlons: () Equal level of service and fire code enforcement o Provide community workshop on fire preventlon o Maintain 90 -day reserve for provision of emergency services o District Obligations: o Pay city for service based upon cost allocatlon model o Charge up to max tax rate to pay for services o True -up provision for cost overage/underage o Partnership Provisions: o District and City to meet annually to discuss budget needs o Create Public Safety Commission and meet 2x per year o City to provide ESD8 use of FS6 community room at no cost Sullivan spoke on the Next Steps. Receive feedback and direction from the City Council Prepare new contract with ESD8 for City Council action on September 11th Fire Station #6 o ESD 8 transfers land to the City for Fire Station #6 o City included funding for Fire Station #6 in the Spring 2019 Debt Sale (Estimated to be $5 million) o City will begin construction in 2019 Councilmember Pitts asked City Manager, Morgan, about the CIP and if this would be offset by the additional revenue. Morgan said it would be offset by the additional revenue. Pitts said it is likely that the debt cannot go for 25 years. He said his bank would not go more than 15 years. Morgan said financial advisors have said a 20 year bond would be advised. Pitts asked if the revenue remains the same regardless of the term years. Morgan confirmed. Councilmember Gonzalez asked how this will affect Station V. Sullivan said it would not be affected at all. He added that they will be trying to bid both stations concurrently to receive lower costs. Gonzalez asked if Station 7 would benefit from ESD8. Sullivan confirmed that it would. Morgan said it is contemplated to have ESD8 participate in the debt service for Fire Station 7, as well. Mayor Ross said this appears to be fair to all. E. Presentation and discussion concerning ethics -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney Mayor Ross explained that this item might not be finished in the allotted time left. He explained that if that were the case, the meeting would be recessed to Executive Session at 5:10 Pm and the item would be resumed again at a future meeting. Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager, said that the Council had voted to overhaul the ethics ordinance on October 24, 2017. He said an Ethics Ad Hoc Committee had been appointed to review the ordinance and make recommendation for changes. The Committee presented the recommendations to Council on June 12th. Staff was asked to return with a review of the ethics ordinance by topic and compare each topic Feedback from Aug. 14 • Gifts — Consensus to reflect state law regarding — Considering additional reporting requirements for travel and lodging in excess of $2,000 Feedback from Aug. 14 • Conflicts of Interest — Use "financial interest" as opposed to "economic interest" — Exceed state threshold - $5.00[} *j ii sever is less — Disclose "personal interest in real property" — Clarify "good faith" offers of employment — Disclose all investment • Exceptions for mutual funds, trusts, etc, OGEO;2OWN Business Negotiations "Business negotiations" is vague • Removed by ad hoc committee • Comfortable with removing? Topics ✓Gifts ✓Conflicts of Interest — Financial Interest — Economic Interest 6i, 9fl, it I� VN iit�, • Disclosure Requirements • Definition of Family • Ethics Commission • Sanctions • General Conduct Councilmember Gonzalez asked Daly if this only applies when a quorum is not met. Daly confirmed. Daly spoke next on the Definition of Family. He explained that the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee had defined family members by listing them and had included domestic partners and relatives from current or past marriages. Councilmember Hesser asked how this differs from state law. Daly described the comparisons on the slide. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if the term domestic partners included roommates. Daly said it does not because it does not meet the definition of domestic partners. Gonzalez said he wanted to include roommate language in the ethics ordinance. Assistant City Attorney, Skye Masson said these were family descriptions that had been defined by the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee. Masson read the definition of domestic partner and explained that it does not capture a roommate. Gonzalez said it is important to be specific about roommates and/or a renter in your home. Councilmember Fought suggested that the definition in the U.S. Census for "household' might be what he was looking for. Morgan asked the Council if they wanted to use that definition. Council said yes. An Ethics Commission was discussed next. Daly said he needs to understand if the Council does want an Ethics Commission. Councilmember Hesser said the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee made unnecessary changes because they were asked to meet. Councilmember Jonrowe said regular Ethics Commission meetings were for housekeeping issues, unless there was specific direction from Council. Masson noted that the Ethics Commission did not make changes often. Masson said she would gather this information and bring it back to the Council. Jonrowe asked about recall. She asked if a violation would be publicized to citizens by the Commission, allowing the citizens to then move forward according to the City charter. Daly noted that the commission cannot unilaterally recall someone. Jonrowe asked if this was a recommendation from the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee. Daly confirmed. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said the recall language recommended from the Committee had been drawn from another city's ordinance. Mayor Ross asked how one would go about filing a Class 'A' misdemeanor. Masson said this would be filed through the County Attorney for prosecution and the City would not be involved. She explained that the County would trump the City. Ross asked about filing an ethics complaint. Masson said it would be filed with the City Secretary and then given to the Ethics Commission to review. The Ethics Commission would make a determination and then recommendations would then be brought to the Council. Gonzalez asked who determines a valid complaint or frivolous complaint. Masson said it would initially be determined by the Ethics Commission, but then brought to the Council. Ross asked what would happen if a frivolous complaint is filed and if there is a sanction for a frivolous complaint. Masson said she does not believe there is. Masson said she would look into it. She said it is hard to define frivolous and might be determined to be unfounded. Ross asked the difference between frivolous and unfounded. Masson said the implication of frivolous would be that someone knows it is unfounded. She said a reasonable person could think an action was a violation of an ethics ordinance, when it is not and this would simply mean the filer did not know. Councilmember Fought said all recommendations from the Ethics Commission would come to the Council or County Attorney, however, if a recall is recommended, the Council cannot do anything. Fought said it would start another process. He explained that it would be a recommendation to the public at large. Discussion followed. Gonzalez said it would be known to the public that the recommendation from the Commission was to recall, and it is a message that a person had done something significant, and the citizens would then have a choice to initiate a recall petition. Jonrowe said making such a recommendation to the public would be significant, and the Ethics commission would have to recognize it as a very egregious and intentional violation. Fought said he would agree, but this stands out as very different because the Council does not make the decision. Mayor Ross said this is one of the few cases where it would not apply citywide, but rather apply to the district of the Councilmember with the complaint. He said, because of this, he does not understand why it would be brought outside of the City charter, conceptually or theoretically to make that change. Gonzalez said violating state law is clear, whereas policy set by the Council is not punishable unless set up as a suggested penalty by the Council in an ethics ordinance. Ross said people outside of that district, per the charter, would not be able to participate or vote to recall. Councilmember Eby said the Ethics Commission performing the investigation and putting recommendations into the public realm, would not change the recall process itself. She noted that the Council would not be asked to make a recommendation. Eby explained that the information coming from the Commission and being put to the public realm definitely would have value and teeth. Councilmember Hesser said the recommendation should come back to Council for action to be taken. Gonzalez agreed and the Council would need to endorse the recommendation of the Committee or not. Gonzalez suggested that it should need to be a unanimous vote of the Commission to recommend the sanction. Councilmember Fought said Council should have language that says, "The Ethics Commission believes that this needs to be resolved at the ballot box through a recall election." He said it would be wrong to say "this needs to be resolved by recalling this member." Gonzalez said he agrees. Hesser said if a violation is egregious enough that the recommendation of the Commission is to recall, then he believes the decision should be the Council's. Gonzalez clarified and said the vote to be taken would be to endorse the recommendation or not. Hesser said he would be concerned about something going public that should not have. Mayor Ross questioned the language of notification to the media, and suggested that a recommendation from the Ethics Commission would be covered by the media anyway. Gonzalez suggested that a recommendation from the ethics board should require a super majority vote from the Committee or Commission. Discussion followed regarding the voting rights of the accused Councilmember. Council agreed that a Council vote would be simple majority and the Ethics commission vote would be super majority. Jonrowe said staff should research the legal precedent on this. Eby said she is uncomfortable if it were to come to Council to approve a recall petition of another Councilmember, as an ethics discussion would become a political discussion. She also suggested calling this a finding rather than a recommendation. Eby said the information should be forwarded to the Council, but she feels it would be inappropriate for Council to take action. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said it was not the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation that Council take action, but rather just to let the public know that a violation was egregious enough to where the public might consider it. Mayor Ross asked Daly to summarize. Daly said the Ethics Commission would issue a letter of notification or reprimand to the Council. Ross questioned whether Council would be required to vote on the validity of the Ethics Commission finding. Daly confirmed — when dealing with a Councilmember or Mayor. City Manager, David Morgan, clarified that the Council would still issue a censure reprimand. Ross clarified that this would be the case for both board members and Councilmembers. Gonzalez asked if this should be a simple majority vote, and noted that there would be one vote already assumed. Discussion followed again about the accused participating in the discussion. Gonzalez asked about the proper procedure and asked staff to research. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5:20 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. 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 - Putnam 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. 551:087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Racket - Project Tiger - Project Toms Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on I i [� Dat 4m,l"t, .� Attest: City ec etary