HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 11.27.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 2:30 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` Street for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 2:30 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the
exception of Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3 and Tommy
Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson,
Councilmember District 2, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5, and
Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6. Councilmember Gonzalez joined the meeting at 3:52 PM.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. 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) forthe quarter ended September 30, 2018 -- Paul
Diaz, Budget Manager
Budget Manager, Paul Diaz, spoke on the Quarterly Financial Report, including the Investment Reports for
GTEC and GEDCO.
Diaz noted that this is a Preliminary Report that includes unaudited figures. Staff is currently completing the
year-end close out and the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report (CAFR) and the numbers presented in
this report are unaudited, preliminary, and subject to change.
Diaz reviewed the General Fund Revenues and stated that overall revenues have totaled $62.8 million and
budgeted revenues total $62.6 million, which is a variance to the budget of 0.30%. He said that projected
revenues have totaled $63.3 million, which is a variance to the projection of 0.79% and property tax collections
are up 5.6% compared to the same period last year, which is a variance to the projection of -0.41 %. Diaz
stated that Parks and Recreation fees have totaled $2.3 million, which is a variance to the projection of -2.53%
and Return on Investment totals are $8.7 million, which is a variance to projection of +1.71 %.
Diaz then reviewed the Sales Tax figures
Diaz reviewed the General Fund Expenditures noting that the total $64.1 million, which is a variance to
projection of 1.17%. He said that the City's Vacancy Savings are based on personnel projections that are
initially made in March, and refined over a two-month process. Diaz then stated that funds were saved in
vacancies in Planning, Public Works, Garey Park, and Code Enforcement and that Recreation Programs
department also saw significant savings in part time personnel cost for swimming pools.
FY2015
20,984,850
21,000,000
(15,150)
-0.07%
FY2016
23,437,496
22,900,000
537,496
2.35%
FY2017
25,102,936
25,300,000
(197,064)
-0.78%
FY2018
27, 254, 787
27,100, 000
154,787
0.57
Diaz reviewed the General Fund Expenditures noting that the total $64.1 million, which is a variance to
projection of 1.17%. He said that the City's Vacancy Savings are based on personnel projections that are
initially made in March, and refined over a two-month process. Diaz then stated that funds were saved in
vacancies in Planning, Public Works, Garey Park, and Code Enforcement and that Recreation Programs
department also saw significant savings in part time personnel cost for swimming pools.
Diaz then reviewed the General Fund noting that the Administration Services Division, composed of
Administrative Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social Service Funding, expenditures for the fourth
quarter total $2.5 million, which represents 94.5% of budget. He then said that year-to-date expenditures for
Community Services, composed of Parks and Recreation, Library, and Communications, and the Finance
Division, which includes Municipal Court, total $11.2 million or 96.0% of budget. Diaz explained that the
Georgetown Utility System (GUS) Division, composed of Environmental Services, Inspections, Public Works,
and Streets, expenditures through the fourth quarter total $10.8 million or 95.6% of budget and that year-to-
date expenditures for Public Safety total $29.0 million, which represents 99.2% of budget.
Diaz reviewed the Police Division, composed of Police Admin, Police Operations, Animal Services, and Code
Enforcement, and noted that it is over budget by $46,206 or 0.18% of total appropriation due to added patrol
at Blue Hole throughout the summer. Staff proposes a year-end amendment for Police from savings in the
Fire Division so that the total appropriation level of the General Fund budget will remain the same.
Diaz noted that electric sales revenue through the fourth quarter of FY2018 totals $69.2 million, up 2.3%
compared to budget and the increase is due to growth in the customer base and the impact of the power cost
adjustment. He said that total operating revenues ended FY2018 at $73.6 million, or $1.4 million more than
budgeted and electric expenditures exceed budget due to higher than projected purchase power costs. Diaz
said that due to the overage in purchased power, the fund will require a year-end budget amendment. He said
that the fund is anticipated to end FY2018 with a fund balance of $1.97 million, a variance to projection of
$6.84 million.
Fought asked about the purchase power related costs and the external market and why the City didn't know
about these increased costs earlier. He also asked about the operational costs of Georgetown Utility Systems
(GUS) in relation to purchase power. Fought stated he understood that the external markets and long
positions were where the City had the most surprise in costs.
Morgan responded that Fought was right in regards to the external markets. He said that the City's
fundamental rate structure was spot on and long term contracts are where the City is subject to the volatility
of the market. Morgan also stated that the City is looking to get out of the long position by working with contract
providers and other utilities to help minimize the volatility we're currently seeing.
Fought stated that he wanted customers to understand the difference between the cost of operations and the
market. Fought then inquired about why it takes so long for the City to get finalized numbers citing a multiple
month lag time. Morgan responded that the biggest hurdle is the complexity of the process for buying and
selling energy and the rapid changes of rate for the market. He then said that the City relies on ERCOT
reports that are received six weeks after the end of month finalizations. Morgan stated the delay in receiving
information leads to a delay in staff processing the data. He said that the City is working to get the information
sooner and looking into the expertise of other cities and better technology to track changes that affect the
City's purchase power.
Fought expressed that he feels these changes are essential and asked what changes we could have made if
we knew this information earlier. Morgan responded the City probably would have negotiated measures that
are currently being looked at and that the City is looking at improving its management structure and
renegotiating contracts. He then stated that at the end of the day the City would be in the same position, just
executing the current plan a few months earlier.
Fought asked if a recovery estimate was part of the plan. Morgan responded that there was a plan in place
and staff would provide an updated fund schedule that would reflect the City's plan for getting out of the long
position. Fought asked for clarification on how that would affect our long position. Morgan said it would help
but not solve.
Fought stated that the market moved much faster than the City's information system and the City got caught
behind. He then stated that there is global energy market chaos and the City of Georgetown is not the only
entity in this position and the City will do its best to catch up. Morgan explained that there were disruptive
things that happened when the City moved into the longer contracts that effected the rates in a way not seen
at the time the projections were done. He then stated that there has been an increase in technology for making
more energy efficient homes. Morgan said that the City will have to accommodate growth.
Fought explained that the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS Board) does not look at the day
to day, nor the cash flow operations of the utilities, but instead looks at rates, policies, and infrastructure.
He then said that maybe the GUS Board should focus on the recovery period and the day to day costs of
operations for the next year or so. Fought also recommended adding another board member who has
expertise in this type of knowledge. He then stated that he wants more visibility and real time management
of costs. Morgan stated some boards do review funds, but not at the operational level. He then stated that
staff is on an aggressive plan to improve this fund.
Pitts asked about the investment policy for utility fund. Morgan asked Briggs to speak on the topic. Briggs
stated that there is an adopted risk management policy that will be updated to reflect the way forward for the
City. Pitts asked if it will flow from GUS Board to Council. Briggs stated that yes it will be approved by the
GUS Board and then sent to Council for approval.
Diaz resumed his presentation and discussed the water fund. He stated that water revenue is up 9.5% while
wastewater revenue is up 1.4% compared to last year and the increases are due to growth in the system and
impact fees. Diaz said that Impact fee revenue came in $5.4 million higher than projection and system fee
revenues (water and wastewater fees) finished the year at $40.7 million. He then stated that water expenses
total $50.83 million and non -operational expenses total $18.3 million. Diaz said that these non -operational
expenses are for capital improvement projects that normally span multiple years. And a Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) roll forward budget amendment to reauthorize these projects for spending in FY2019 is planned
in December.
Diaz reviewed the CVB and Airport funds and noted that the Sheraton has had a positive impact. He then
stated that Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue is $1.2 million for the fiscal year, an increase of 1.3% from the prior
year due to the Sheraton Hotel. Diaz said that the Airport revenue is up 3.1 % from the prior year, and includes
fuel sales and lease revenue with an ending fund balance of $1,062,941.00
Diaz then presented the Investment Report:
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/30/2018
Total Cash and Investments 165,885,663 173,516,846 203,105,508 180,045,674
Average Yield 1.30% 1.60% 1.83% 2.07%
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 6/30/2018 9/3012011
❑tal Cash and Investments 19,053,403 19,387,468 20,607,520 18,517,065
Yield 1.39% 1.62% 1.90°/a
12/31/2017 3/31/2018- 6/30/2018 9/30/2011
Total Cash and Investments 6,157,417 6,339,643 . 6,651,120 6,942,552
JAverage Yield 1.23% 1.49% 1.92% 2.010t
Diaz noted that the City works with Valley View Consulting on these figures and that the City did show a dip
in its total cash investments due to a debt service payment that was made in September.
Diaz provided a summary stating that there were strong revenues across the major funds of General, Water,
Electric, CVB, and Airport. He then stated that expenses are tracking closely to budget and that the general
fund and electric fund will need a year end budget amendment. Diaz concluded that investments are seeing
higher interest rates relative to the beginning of the calendar year.
Pitts asked if the new financial software will offer different looking fund schedules in the quarterly reports. Diaz
stated that he thought it would, but that aspect of the system has not been worked through yet. Pitts would
like to see a report with an additional column showing the percentage differential. Pitts also asked if Garey
Park is its own fund. Diaz stated that Garey Park is in the general fund but broken out as its own cost center.
B. Presentation and discussion of the FY2018 Year -End Budget Amendment — Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
Budget Manager, Paul Diaz, provided a presentation of the FY2018 budget amendments.
Diaz stated that the electric purchase power expenditures exceed budget due to the City's long position in the
current energy market and that the net of the purchased power and Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs)
credits exceed budget by $11.6 million. He then stated that the fund is anticipated to end FY2018 with a fund
balance of $1.97 million, a variance to projection of $6.84 million.
Diaz then reviewed the Debt Service Fund and noted that in the fall of 2017, on the advice of the City's financial
advisor and the approval of Council, the City refinanced several General Obligation (GO) and Certificate of
Obligation (CO) bonds and the refinance of the bonds saved the City over $1.3 million dollars. He then stated
that the proposed budget amendment seeks to recognize both the new bond proceeds and the costs of the
refinancing debt.
Diaz presented on the Council Discretionary and General Capital Projects Funds and noted that the proposed
amendment is to transfer funds from the Council fund to the General Capital Project to partially fund the City
Center project and there is no adjustment to the expenses. He then stated that staff is recommending to
reduce the budgeted revenue from the sale of the buildings by $1,108,200 and increase the transfer in from
the Council fund by the same amount.
Diaz presented on other smaller amendments as follows:
• Rivery TIRZ debt service handling fees of $816.00
• Police Abandon Vehicle fund amendment for $1,245.00 for towing contract
• Public Education Grant (PEG) Fees: Recognize additional revenue to offset AV related overage of
$5,987.00
■ Police Division overage of $46,206.00 for Blue Hole Overtime which will be covered by savings in
the Fire Department
• FEMA Special Revenue Fund: FEMA has made their final decision and a reimbursement of
$42,708.00 receivable booked years ago will not occur
The Council did not have and questions.
C. Presentation and discussion of the proposed creation of the Wolf Lakes Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone
(TIRZ) — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, spoke on a possible Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) for the
Wolf Lakes development.
Brewer began by informing the Council that the terms Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Tax Increment
Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) will be used interchangeably. She then stated that the City currently has four
different TIRZ zones: Downtown, Rivery, Williams Drive Gateway and South Georgetown and this would be
the fifth TIRZ zone. Brewer stated that the TIF/TIRZ process is outlined in Section 311 of the Local
Government Code and the funds collected are to be used for public improvements and economic development
within a geographic area, generally used for a specific development or when there are specific challenges to
developing a certain area.
Brewer reviewed the purpose of the presentation and said that this presentation will allow staff to say publicly
things that have been discussed with the developer over the past year. She then stated that while there is not
a current timeline, the property owner has partnered with a developer and is ready to begin in 2019 and would
like a baseline year for 2018. Brewer said that these figures are based on projections and are estimates at
this point and staff will work to update the project and financing plan in the next year as the project moves
forward. She then stated that the presentation will provide information to inform the Council's consideration
of a TIF/TIRZ to support TIF revenue to be contributed toward public improvements. Brewer said that the
purpose of the Zone is to provide economic and qualitative benefits by facilitating a program of public
improvements that provide for the development of a mixed-use development with business/corporate offices,
retail, entertainment, and enhanced quality of life features for residents.
Brewer described the project location as the northwest corner of IH -35 and its intersection with University
Avenue (SH29), bounded by Wolf Ranch Parkway to the west and the River Hills subdivision to the north.
She then stated that this property is considered by some developers as the most desirable undeveloped
Intersection on IH -35 in Williamson County.
Brewer informed Council that at the Regular meeting the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning ordinance
will be brought forward and discussed in more detail and the focus of this presentation will be more high level.
She then reviewed the project summary and stated that project is 5.3 million square feet of development that
will be phased over several years and include office, retail, hospitality, entertainment, outdoor amenities and
housing. Brewer said that the development creates a destination experience with high levels of amenities and
entertainment and provides a setting for unique corporate headquarters campuses that employers are
seeking, which aids in the creation of quality jobs. She then stated that citizens indicated a desire for more
quality jobs in the 2018 citizen survey.
Brewer said that a guiding principle of the development is to design a pedestrian -oriented village to de-
emphasize vehicular traffic and expansive parking lots and Wolf Lakes implements this principle through
providing open spaces to encourage pedestrian use. Brewer then stated that the project will be a 164 acre
Neo Retroistic Village and that design is an advancement of a philosophy which advocates the re-creation of
old world characteristics in modern-day development environments. Brewer said that the Class A office space
for corporate users and the traditional retail and office is highly desirable. Brewer then stated that the
synergistic value of the village is anticipated to be dramatically higher than a traditional development and the
scale of the development, requires a significant investment in infrastructure that does not meet current market
returns for developers. Brewer then stated that the cost of supporting public infrastructure has created a
situation where the property would not develop without TIF or other incentives and the structure of the tax
increment is through a reimbursement basis, therefore placing the risk of the financing development costs and
the risk of valuation fluctuations on the developers.
Brewer explained Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a tool local governments may use to finance public
improvements within defined areas and that the taxes on the appraised value of the zone in the year the zone
was designated, the base year, continue flowing to the general funds, but, the increment is what's being
discussed tonight.
Brewer explained the graph of additional assessed valuation vs. traditional development:
400,
X
F2
Base
value
of zone
nd
etained by taxing Jurisdiction
Base r it rnnwuutious oegin ana ena
year
Time
I
TIF fund
dissolves
Brewer explained why the TIF for Wolf Lakes would be beneficial. She stated that the strong corporate use
opportunities and the retail that will support office and residential, the mixed use provides additional
sustainability, and the development meets current and anticipated employment center trends. Brewer said
that the PUD provides higher level of development standards and all uses are designed to benefit each other.
She then stated that the additional tax base is generated due to design and density, rather than through
standard development and the developer estimates $1.7 billion versus $460 million traditional development of
value at year 2050.
Brewer reviewed the incentive framework and stated that the City provides the tax increment financing
(TIF/TIRZ) structure and the developer would be reimbursed for actual costs for public infrastructure and
interest and carrying costs. She then stated that staff currently estimates the costs to be $102 million for
infrastructure and the carrying costs will be up to a determined cap and not expected to be fully reimbursed.
Brewer said that the TIF is reimbursement based and payment is based upon generation of additional value
with the annual payment based on actual tax revenue generated and no debt to be issued for up front
reimbursement. She then stated that no reimbursement will be made until 150,000 square feet of commercial
use is permitted.
Brewer reviewed the impacts including property values, other revenue including hotel occupancy tax and sales
tax. She then stated that a market study was completed by Capital Market Research to validate retail and
residential absorption and supported corporate use and agreed that this is a catalyst project opportunity.
Brewer summarized the financials of the TIF reimbursements:
• City TIF = estimated $91 M over 30 years (70%)
o City's increment capped at $1001M
• County TIF = estimated $19M over 20 years (50%)
o County's capped at $30M for road and drainage only
• Total TIF reimbursement = $130M
o Cash generated through additional annual tax revenue
Brewer explained the TIRZ framework and preliminary estimates for the project stating that the reimbursement
would be cash flow with no debt and would occur when revenue is generated. She then stated that the eligible
expenses would be capped and the base year would be created as 2018.
Brewer said that the TIRZ framework is based on preliminary estimates and staff will work with the developer
to create a Preliminary TIRZ Project and Financing Plan and then update the plan and timelines as needed.
The TIRZ board will be created and staff recommends it consist of the following members per the Local
Government Code:
• Mayor
• Councilmember District 2
• City Manager
• City Planning Director
• Chair of the City's 4A Board, Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO)
• Two representatives to be named by Williamson County.
Fought spoke on the impressive scale of the project and complimented the Wolf family on their vision and staff
of their work.
Ross compliments staff for allowing a third party to validate projections and acknowledged the point of no
reimbursement until 150,000 square feet of commercial development is completed.
Jonrowe asked Brewer to give examples of what would qualify as a public improvement. Brewer noted that
the following would apply: road improvements, water lines, wastewater lines, electric, cable, and public
amenities like parks and trails. Jonrowe asked if roads utilized mainly by those living in the development
would be supported and Brewer stated that those types of roads would qualify. Jonrowe then asked if any
private amenities such as a clubhouse would be supported and Brewer clarified that something of that nature
would not be supported. Jonrowe asked for clarification about the total amount the City would reimburse.
Brewer answered that the City's total portion would be $90 million out of the grand total of $130 million in
reimbursements. Jonrowe asked if staff has estimates on the total infrastructure costs for the project. Brewer
responded that $102 million would be the cost of infrastructure of the $130 million in reimbursements, with the
remainder going toward carrying and escalation costs. Jonrowe asked about the membership of the board of
directors and if a councilmember serving on GEDCO could serve as the chair. Staff confirmed that yes, a
councilperson could be the chair of GEDCO. Jonrowe voiced her concern that if that was the case, there
would then be three Councilmembers on the Board of Directors and she didn't want too many councilmembers
on the board, nor did she want Council to worry about quorum issues. Morgan stated that all of the TIRZ
Board meetings are posted open meetings and that if Council wanted, it could be changed so that the
representative from GEDCO be someone other than the chair and a non-councilmember. Jonrowe stated that
having someone other than the GEDCO chair would be her preference.
Pitts spoke about the employment center aspect of the development and the potential for 4,500 employees.
He also stated that he liked the performance based aspect of the project and the project had his full support.
Ross asked if it was too early to discuss a potential traffic plan for the project. Morgan responded that the
project included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). He then stated that the TIA helped determine the amount of
funds to be associated with offsite road improvements. Morgan said that since the intersection is shared by
multiple entities there is already a plan in place to work with Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to
improve the intersection. He then stated that the specifics have not been selected. Morgan said that Highway
29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway are both able to allow future expansion and that the project was thought out over
several years and creates the ability to bring quality employment. He then discussed parking structures and
how they are public improvements in a mixed use environment.
D. Presentation and discussion of the Solid Waste Master Plan Project — Octavio Garza, Public Works Director
and Teresa Chapman, Environmental Conservation Program Coordinator
Garza introduced Chapman and she presented.
Environmental Conservation Program Coordinator, Teresa Chapman, spoke on a Solid Waste Master Plan
Project.
Chapman reviewed the schedule for the Comprehensive Sold Waste Master Plan. At this meeting Chapman
shared with Council the results of the Downtown Stakeholder Feedback, the summary of the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Master Plan (CSWMP), and provided a brief update on Transfer Station.
Chapman began with a brief update on the Transfer Station and said that staff had put out a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to engineering firms and has four responses that were being reviewed. She said staff
will report back to Council in the near future on the progress.
Chapman said that today staff is seeking input from Council on the preferred Downtown service strategy,
selection of funding option for further review, and guidance on completion of the CSWMP.
Chapman then reviewed the Downtown Stakeholder Engagement Summary which focuses on the nine blocks
of downtown. She then stated that on March 21, 2018 staff conducted two focus groups that were convened
to solicit input on solid waste services. Chapman said that from those workshops staff identified four options.
She then stated that on October 30 and November 5, 2018 staff held two workshops where staff provided the
four preliminary options developed for future downtown services and received feedback from business
owners. Chapman said that staff also conducted one-on-one outreach via emails, flyers, and visits at various
times and with various business and property owners.
Chapman reviewed the current downtown conditions based on business owner feedback. She then said that
staff worked with Texas Disposal Systems (TDS) to identify the categories of challenges, which are limited
access and space, aesthetics, public health, and service charges. Chapman said that services charges relate
to the City not having a rate structure or formula for calculating charges for businesses on a shared service.
Chapman presented the four options. She presented option number one as what the City currently uses and
the least expensive option, but this option does not address any of the current challenges. Chapman stated
that the current rate is $120,000.00 annually and would increase to $150,000.00 annually to cover the costs
of reimbursement for dumpsters that currently sit on private property. She then presented option number two
as a shared dumpster solution where locations in the nine blocks would be identified to house the shared
dumpsters. Chapman said that this option would remove carts on sidewalks and streets. Chapman then said
that the annual cost for this option would be $276,000.00 annually due to the need of nine locations for
dumpsters, one for each block. She then said that this would allow the business owners in each block to have
one shared space, however this option could still lead to overflow and illegal dumping issues. Chapman
reviewed option three of shared compactors which would be slightly less expensive because only three
locations would be needed instead of nine. She then explained how the containers in this option hold more
materials and would allow for composting if wanted. Chapman explained that one of the downsides to this
option is that business owners could end up traveling up to three blocks to get rid of their trash and recycling.
Chapman reviewed the fourth option which is a concierge service option. She said that this option is the most
expensive but would provide a door to door service for business owners. Chapman said that this option would
require staff to create a plan based on the business's needs.
Chapman then reviewed the summary of the downtown stakeholder feedback. She said that a continuation
of current system is the least preferred option. Chapman then stated that business owners preferred the
concierge system out of the four options presented because it best solved their issues. She then stated that
business owners did have a concern about the increase in costs for this service.
Chapman began reviewing funding options. Pitts asked how many businesses provided feedback. Chapman
responded that around 20 businesses responded. She then stated that she felt it was a good number but
would always appreciate more participation. Chapman explained that affordability was the main concern with
the possibility of their bills increasing. She said that staff would appreciate feedback from Council on
developing a strategy or coming up with alternatives and addressing possible funding sources. Ross asked
how the City could contribute to defraying the costs for merchants and asked that staff pursue that research.
Morgan said that staff had considered that option but wanted to make sure it was what Council wanted. He
also stated that no matter what change was made there would be an increase in costs.
Jonrowe asked what current rates were since they could be doubling. Chapman said that current rates range
from $30.00 per month to almost $800.00 per month. Jonrowe then asked if staff considered which one of
the options could be most easily expanded upon. Chapman responded that the concierge service was the
easiest to expand. She also said that space is limited for dumpsters and she did not feel that more dumpster
was a best use of downtown space. Jonrowe said that since the City is looking for ways to beautify its
alleyways which emphasizes how the City prizes every portion of downtown. Jonrowe then emphasized the
need to defray costs. Jonrowe asked for an explanation on the illegal dumping that happens downtown.
Chapman explained that it happens more than people realize because it's very easy to do. She then stated
that locking dumpsters comes with its own set of issues such as keeping track of keys.
Ross asked about composting being an option downtown if a concierge service is used. Chapman said yes,
that the City could then offer all three streams of service. Ross said that the City was considering making
downtown the test case. Chapman responded that yes, that is correct, and that restaurants are interested.
Ross said that he would encourage composting to be part of the conversation as well.
Fought asked about the possibility of the City funding more of event cleanup and not necessarily focusing on
monthly subsidizing. He then said that subsidizing across the board is not appealing to him. Chapman said
that subsidizing for this would be a benefit to downtown that is utilized by everyone. Fought explained that
downtown is the crown jewel of the City, but the City is moving westward and is worried about doing a blanket
subsidy for one smaller area/service base. He then emphasized his desire to subsidize event based solid
waste for downtown.
Pitts stated that he generally agrees with Councilmember Fought about subsidizing one particular area. He
then stated that downtown was built at a different time when trash was not thought of. Pitts said that he would
consider some type of subsidy. He then asked about the future pricing structure. Chapman said a service
level formula would be used and will be brought back to Council for consideration. Pitts then asked about the
logistics of the concierge service and if the people performing the pickups would be informed of the different
businesses usage and frequency of pickup. Chapman said that they would work with each individual business
to verify that needs are met.
Jonrowe asked if the projected costs included increase of volume around the holiday season. Chapman said
that staff has not gone that granular yet and they will consider that per Council input and direction.
Ross stated that downtown is a special case and that events are moving to zero waste He then emphasized
the economics based on the Square and his desire for composting.
Plan
Ross noted that deadlines indicate that this will not be completed by Red Poppy Festival. Chapman confirmed
that no, staff will not be done before Red Poppy Festival.
E. Presentation and discussion regarding Fire Department Staffing — John Sullivan, Fire Chief
Councilmember Pitts left the dais. The presentation did not begin until he returned.
Fire Chief, John Sullivan described Fire Department staffing needs.
Sullivan reviewed what was included in the FY19 Adopted Budget. He said that this budget included the Fire
Inspector Position and the authorization to hire three (3) overstaff positions for an October 1st start date.
Sullivan then said that the FY19 adopted budget also included a July start/hire date for Station 7 staff,
consisting of eleven (11) new staff positions. He informed Council that the summer hire list was fully utilized
and the three (3) overstaff positions did not occur.
Sullivan then explained that to three (3) overstaff positions will allow for anticipated attrition/retirement of
incumbents based upon recent history, allow for potential attrition of candidates during academy/training
process, and allow staff to evaluate overtime and call back demand as the City activates Station 7.
Sullivan noted that on a positive note, in late September and October, the City secured two additional funding
sources for fire department staffing: the Staffing for Adequate & Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant and
the Emergency Services District (ESD) Cost-sharing Agreement.
Sullivan then reviewed the SAFER Grant in detail. He said it was approved by Council on September 25,
2018 for positions that must be hired by February of 2019. Sullivan noted that the grant allows for the hiring
of twelve (12) firefighters and is a $2.8 million grant made up of $1.7 million in federal funds and $1.1 million
in City funds. He then said that the grant comes with a four-year term with reimbursement of firefighter salary
of 75% Federal and 25% City for the first year, 75%Federal and 25% City for the second year, 35% Federal
and 65% City for the third year, and 100% City for the fourth year.
Sullivan said that the ESD Cost Sharing Agreement was another positive for City funds. Sullivan stated that
in mid-September the ESD and City ratified a new cost-sharing agreement for the provision of emergency
services in the ESD. He then stated that the cost sharing yields approximately $1.2 million in unbudgeted
revenue for FY19 and future fiscal years have cost share of approximately 20% ESD and 80% City. Sullivan
said that the City will finance Fire Station 6 with an estimated debt service of $350,000.00 annually starting in
FY20. He said that this amount will cover the cost of the land and the cost for architectural design services.
Sullivan then stated that the City will allow the ESD to use the community room in Station 6 for up to forty-nin
(49) years. He said the City will be in charge of operations and maintenance for the station, but this funding
method will allow for faster construction.
Sullivan stated that since the City will be adding thirty (30) total positions, the Fire Department should consider
hiring three (3) for overstaff positions, hiring one (1) training position and hiring one (1) logistics worker. He
then stated said that City staff evaluated current Fire Department demands and recommends consideration
of hiring personnel for Station 7 in January vs. July. Sullivan informed the Council that current market is a
paramedic job market right now and paramedics are hard to find. He then stated that this current market is
moving staff to hire Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and train them to be paramedics. Sullivan said
that this earlier hiring timeline would allow staff to send the EMTs to training and have them complete the
training by the end of calendar year 2019 and make them ready to staff the station.
Sullivan said that the rationale for piloting an overstaff program is to allow staff to fill vacancies due to attrition,
review the impact to overtime (OT) budget, and prepare for impact of a new candidate not graduating from
the academy or completing first-year probation.
Sullivan explained the rationale for the training position is mainly department growth and need for training.
Sullivan explained the rationale for the logistics position and that the position would be a civilian to manage
programs and improve asset management.
Sullivan reviewed the cost analysis of the positions:
Cost Analysis
• Training Position ($132K)
• Year 1- Salary, benefits, vehicle ($50K)
• Logistics Worker ($112K)
• Year 1- Salary, benefits, vehicle ($50K)
• Overstaff Positions ($240K)
• Year 1- Salary, benefits,
• January vs July Hire for Station 7 ($527K)
• Total increased cost in FY 19: ($1,01 1,000)
• Total increased funding in FYI 9: 1.784,000
• Remaining Balance: $773,000
(reserve for capital)
Sullivan then reviewed the next steps which include a budget amendment to recognize revenue and costs on
December 11th, a Strength of Force Change (SOF) ordinance, Assignment Ordinance Amendment to reflect
re -organizational structure to support growth on November 27th, and job offers to candidates and begin training
academies in late January of 2019.
Gonzalez expressed his support for the staffing plan.
Ross asked if staff has completed an analysis on how overstaffing saves money in overtime. Morgan
explained that staff has done the analysis and would like to look at it in actual experience in the next year.
Morgan continued that currently staff is managing supplies in overtime with existing firefighters, which is an
expensive way to handle supplies. He then said that the volume of work is enough for a non -civil services
position. Ross asked if staff thought there will be savings. Morgan replied that yes, he did think that there will
be savings, but staff wants to see it in action.
Ross asked if this plan would lead to retention increases. Sullivan stated that he thinks it will help and cut
down on the amount of overtime. Mayor stated that he thinks the savings would be quantifiable. Sullivan
stated that it costs around $100,000.00 to train someone, so it is expensive to lose someone. Mayor agreed.
F. Presentation and discussion on outreach efforts for Certificate of Appropriateness development process --
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on the outreach efforts for the Certificate of Appropriateness
development process.
Nelson acknowledged the Outreach Team that supported the efforts and was composed of Jackson Daly,
Keith Hutchinson, Beth Wade, Karen Frost, Madison Thomas, Andreina Davila- Quintero, and Nat Waggoner
Nelson stated that the purpose of presentation was to present findings of public outreach efforts, confirm goals
for measuring success for historic preservation, and identify short, medium, and long term opportunities for
improvements to education, regulations, process, and policy.
cribed each part:
Nelson began Part 1 by reviewing the timeline of 2018 as follows:
Jan. 2018:
Appeal on HARC action on a CoA for 204 E. 8th Street
Feb. 2018:
Workshop on UDC revisions for COA approvals
Aug. 2018:
Appeal on HARC action on CoA for 511 S. Main St.
City Council requests changes to CoA review authority
Workshop on COA process outreach efforts
Sept. 21, 2018:
Public comment on demolition of a medium structure priority
Oct. 23, 2018:
Review of Past and Current Historic Preservation Policy
Nelson said that Council had requested information on the development process and historic district
boundaries. She then reviewed the development process. Nelson said that the Certificate of Appropriateness
application process may sometimes start with a Pre -Application Meeting which is optional, but highly
encouraged, followed by a COA Application Submittal, then a completeness review, followed by technical
reviews and a possible HARC Conceptual Review which is optional, but highly encouraged. She then said
that the final steps are the staff determination and HARC determination if needed. Nelson said that if the
project goes to a HARC determination, staff will always offer a similar process to the pre -application meeting
and provide a conceptual review to allow the applicant as much feedback as possible.
iination:
Nelson reviewed the HARC Public Hearing Schedule which states:
• HARC Meetings occur once a month.
o Steps required for scheduling a case for a HARC hearing:
• 21 Days Prior: Technical Review Due
17 Days Prior: Signs & Letters ready and posted
15 Days Prior: Staff Reports Due
10 Days Prior: Project put in Novus
6 Days Prior: Agenda Posted
Nelson then provided the following Historic District Boundary Map:
• Courthouse Historic District created in 1977 and expanded in 1986
• Downtown Overlay District
• Old Town Overlay District
• University — Elm Street National Register Districts
• National Register Districts - Belford Historic District created in 1986
• National Register Districts - Olive Street Historic District created in 2013
Pitts asked if the timeliness of the HARC schedule will be addressed. Nelson stated, that it would be.
Nelson then began Part 2 - Public Engagement of the presentation. She stated that the outreach methods
used by staff included four (4) surveys provided to property owners on the Historic Resource Survey and/or
within a Historic District, applicants who have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), the
Community -at -large, and past HARC Commissioners. Nelson said that in addition to the surveys staff held
office hours and worked with an outside consultant to conduct focus groups and hold public meetings. She
then said that the surveys had 667 respondents, office hours had five (5) participants, the focus groups had
twenty (20) participants and the public meetings had forty-six (46) attendees.
Nelson reviewed the highlights of Survey No. 1 given to Property Owners Designated on the Historic Resource
Survey and/or within a Historic District:
Summary of Categorization for Historic -Ache
Properties
Old Town Outside a
Category Downtown District Total Count
High
164
27
191
Medlum
401
187
588
Law
468
429
897
Total
1,033
643
1,676
Nelson reviewed the survey findings based on the responses of property owners:
• 85% of respondents find value in owning property on the Historic Resource Survey (HRS) or in the
historic overlay district.
e 97% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties.
e 61% of respondents own a property on the HRS.
e 72% of respondents have not taken a project through HARC.
• 82% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the overlay.
• 50% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight over the demolition of structures on the
Historic Resources Survey that are OUTSIDE a historic district.
e 74% feel that the city's overview of properties on the HRS add value.
• General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures.
Nelson then presented the too priorities that
feel HARC should be working on:
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes in a
historic district, based on a structures'
significance?
Am
A
F,,atimi oraddingto an existing streettacinglacnrk
97.01%
74.73%
3).44f
on-srraat faceg Ise boos
82 30%
$735%
21.51';
sowb on or demoliQ! e*" 9! w vanel0 pis
49 e71*:
in 07%
2357%
atattation ordemoslnnn or pomhex, pallos.-or deck*
au.e:t ,
d8 86*4
26.69%
eplocinga hlstonCArcitltectural ieelure With a non•hiStonC
rllltect+nalrcalure
25.29
73.96
3130
sp+u rq roof mats als + dhfferar roof matanals
$595%
40.70%
23 51%
otltbtiabona IoexMr W weeps. IIfaM1-Maye. end Ian o*
$837%
43.79't1
22 92'
oohop HVAC, mCcrianlcat of c onlmu nlcatto n equ h p meat l Mat
-sultxinmodMcatlonstothe buNdltigfacad*
90.63%
87611%
2656`.
amoval or destr uclion of any historic orarc hftctural
attrreSMal is Inlewal10 the rimloncccharacter olihe
nldhnaors(Fucnlre.nrhistoric overlay district
94.96%
76.65
40.11'.
smowtraaof an a1laChad carport, vrxett. Wdo or dect
ft&%
84:971
N 04".
emohnan of astrert-rheinevar_ane
95.74%
77.94
Should HARC have oversight over the following processes In a
historic district, based on a structures' significance?
nalmort of a street-facingfacade
nol+lion that results In the reduction or loss in the total
are footage of the existing structure
)cahvrl of a building or structure to a historic overlay
rlct (Includes relocation of buildings or structureswlthln
same historic overlay districts)
xa'je^ of a building or structure outside of the historic overlay
fence, railing or wap that Is Inconsistent with the
lay dlstrlet's charWiailslH:s and applicatxe guld6ines
Yeuan
Rgh P+10 ft Pdortty t.ow P 60"
Structum strucsres s1ruchm"
95.74% 77.84% 35 51^.
90.I IVA 6709% 2848
95.971E 72.33% 40.63'r,
8732% 6449% 31
93.64`4 75.75% 44.55%
94. TV'. 76.07• 52.76 i,
Nelson presented the results of Survey No. 2 regarding Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Applicants Cases
2015 to present:
Toca COA s
Certificate of Appropriateness Cases
==* 31
20
16 Ll
r.ARC Cases
• 2,016 2617 ■ 20"
27 28 27
21
1111
caA
Project Types by Year
35
30
25
a�
2 20
a
0 15
Z 10.
0 WIN,
Infill Renovation Demolition Signage
Project Types
N 2015 ■ 2016 J 2011 a 2018
Priority Level Projects by Year
N
0 20 17
iG 16
a 1' to !2 1 i3
to
li
� 10
0
2015 201() 201/ 2018
Year
8 High 0 Me(iun, 16 10e�J
Nelson then reviewed who responded to the Applicants Survey:
1
■ Residential property owner
M Commercial property owner
■ Commercial property tenant
(business owner or
manager)
Development Professional
(i.e. Engineer, Architect,
Contractor)
in Other (please specify)
The survey findings showed:
• 57% of respondents find value in properties in the Historic Resource Survey or historic district.
• 78% of respondents understood the additional oversight for historic properties in Georgetown prior
to beginning their project(s).
• 40% of respondents identified the Guidelines were not easy to understand or apply.
• 61 % feel that the city's overview of the HRS adds value to the properties.
Nelson the reviewed the following graphs illustrating what respondents knew about oversight on historic
Nelson then reviewed the survey findings of the applicants:
• 32% of respondents had a positive perception of HARC
• 39% of respondents identified all decisions by HARC should have final approval by City Council.
• 53% identified HARC should NOT have oversight of new construction in the overlay.
• 61 % feel HARC should not have oversight of HRS properties outside of the districts.
• General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures.
Nelson then presented the breakdown of responses to the
Creating or adding to an existing street facing facade
Non street facing facades
Installation or demolition of awnings or canopies
Installation or demolition of porches, patios, or decks
Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non -historic
archllecturat feature
Replacing root matenalswrth different root materials
hlodiricatiotts to exterior steps, stairways, and ramps
Rooftop HVAC. mechanical or c ommu ni cation equipment
that results in mondreations to the building facade
Removal or destruction of any historic or architectural
features that Is Integral to the histortc character of the
bulldfno or structure. or historic overlay dlsti Ict
itoiition of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck
iofition of a stir eel -facing facade
iohnon that results in the reduction or loss In the total
are footage of the existing structure
ycation of a building or structure to a historic overlay
nct linclu des relocation of buildings or structures within
same historic overlay districts)
)cation of a buildingor structure outside or the historic
rlaydistrict
r fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the
rlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines
of COA
KO Priority Medium Poorny
Low Pnonty
structures
Strumros
stn $
95.65",4
55.22%
30.4
93.33%
2667%
6 I:•'
94.121.4
4706%
17 6
95.Wl.
30 00%
10 C?
100.00%
50.00%
90
90.91'x:
3636%
181
93.33%
3333%
13.3
95.24% 52.38%
100,00% 50.00%
94.17'. 58.82°x, 35 29'
92,31',,. 3077% 15 38`
100.001., 64.29`.+w 35,
94.12'• 17
Nelson then reviewed Survey No. 3, the Community Wide Survey. She said that there were 164 responses:
• 92% of respondents were residential property owners in the City of Georgetown
a 86% of respondents do not own a property on the HRS
0 93% of respondents have not taken a project through the HARC process
rirdfurn
High F mm My
stnreb"s
Priority
aauean"
Low Prlorlty
strueau*s
93.33%
3333%
1333'
90.48Y
52.38".
33.33'
92.86Y
50.00`?,
2143'
94.17'. 58.82°x, 35 29'
92,31',,. 3077% 15 38`
100.001., 64.29`.+w 35,
94.12'• 17
Nelson then reviewed Survey No. 3, the Community Wide Survey. She said that there were 164 responses:
• 92% of respondents were residential property owners in the City of Georgetown
a 86% of respondents do not own a property on the HRS
0 93% of respondents have not taken a project through the HARC process
Nelson reviewed the survey findings:
• 78% of respondents indicated Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or
work in Georgetown.
• 62% of respondents feel city's efforts to oversee development in Old Town & Downtown Overlay
Districts are effective.
• 86% of respondents find value in the city having a role in preserving historic buildings.
• 90% of respondents understand there is additional oversight for historic properties
e 73% of respondents have a positive perception of HARC.
• 80% of respondents identified HARC should have oversight of new construction in the overlay
districts.
• 41 % or respondents identified HARC should have oversight of demolition of structures on the HRS
outside the overlay.
• 71 % feel that the city's overview of the HRS adds value to the properties.
Nelson reviewed the detailed responses to the
Ifni Prt ft
Vadum Pdaft
Law Priority
Struceires
Strucaues
StrucEaes
rearing or adding to an existing street facing facade
96.30'{
15.00;1
345.11
on snaet facng facades
7619%
6429%
2262
stellaton or dw-oirt,on of awnings or canopies
85 42%
7292%
2917
sratlarron or demolition of porches, panos, or decks
92.93%
6765%
2424
eplaci n g a htstonc architectural feature warn a non-
90A111,
70 33';b
30 77';
slo6carchitectulalfeature
96,Irx;
7282%
3398'
sprat n9 roof matenals with drrfesera roof matenais
$313%
7108%
2530
odrricatanstoelderorsteps st&rways and ramps
5830%
6489%
2234'
ooftoplillAC. mecharwal or communication equipmentthat
sulls •+ nwd fic~sto the bw1d+ng facade
87,64',
6854%
2584'
emoval or destruction of any histont orarchitectural
atures that is integral to the historic character of the
aitdingorstructure,orhistoriccn-erljydistrlct
95.19%
75.961Y,
39.42
Medium
High Priority
Priority
Low Priority
Structures
Structures
Structures
emoldion of an attached carport, porch, patio or deck
85.71%
71 43%
29.67'1..
amolition of a street facing facade
93.27`e
7115%
31.50%
emolition that results in the reduction or loss in
to total square footage of the existing structure
90A111,
70 33';b
30 77';
elocation of a building or structure to a historic
verlay district (includes relocation of buildings or
tfuctures within the same historic overlay districts)
95.00°,0
73.00%
38.00°4
clocatior of a ouilcirg or structure outside of the
storic oweday d str,ct
80.52".
77.92%
35.06%
ow fence, railing or viall that is inconsistent with
is overlay district's characteristics and applicable
uidelines
92.93!:
'13.74%
43.43%
ignaye — —
90.91:
76.77%
48,48%
Nelson reviewed Survey No. 4 of HARC Commissioners from 2015 to Present and reviewed the nine (9)
responses:
• 77% of respondents indicated they believe Guidelines governing what can and cannot be done on
historic properties are clear and easily applied.
• 100% of respondents had a positive experience serving on HARC.
• 100% feel that city oversight of the properties on the Resources Survey adds value.
• 44% of respondents identified the training provided was adequate.
• 88% of respondents identified staff provides adequate information prior to the meeting.
• 100% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight over all new construction in a Historic
Overlay District.
• 55% of respondents indicated HARC should have oversight of demolitions outside of a Historic
Overlay District.
• General responses indicate HARC should review High and Medium priority structures.
Nelson provided a summary of staffs outreach related to focus groups. She said that the focus groups were
broken down into four (4) groups. Nelson then stated that the architecture and design professionals group
contained three (3) participants, the residential applicants group contained eight (8) participants, the
commercial applicants group contained four (4) participants, and the real estate professionals group contained
six (6) participants.
Nelson provided a summary of the office hours and individual interviews provided by staff. She said that four
(4) community members requested a one -on- one session and these members included one (1) past HARC
Commissioner, one (1) representative from Preservation Georgetown and (2) interested citizens and residents
of Old Town. Nelson then provided a summary of the feedback provided by the participants. She said that
the participants expressed that they felt
• The COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown
• The process is too expensive, too lengthy, and generally unclear.
• The COA process encourages demolition by neglect and this should be addressed, whether via a
grant program or more flexible regulations.
• There is room for improvement in the education of HARC members and citizens.
• Low -priority properties should not be subject to HARC review or should be subject to less stringent
guidelines.
Nelson then provided the over feedback themes of the surveys as:
• COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown.
• Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
• Low Priority structures should receive less review.
• COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval
criteria.
Nelson then presented Part 3 — Reconfirm Goals for Historic Preservation. She reviewed the following that
was provided to Council at their last presentation on this topic
Purpose
Des
Purpose
Sets vision lot
Guide Mil
Documents historic
Downtown
890feawy of UDC
resources within the
decisions abouttt•
appropriate
lntefilir
community
• Goals for land use,
Standards
public notice and
public Improvements
hearing
urban design, and
procedures, and
public spaces
review criteria for
Hlstorle
the processing of
Downtown
MasterPlan
Resources
applicationsfor
Survey
COAs
Nelson then reviewed the Overarching Goals that were confirmed at October 23rd Council Meeting:
o Preservation
• Encourage preservation of historic structures
o Rehabilitation
• Guide/ Promote maintenance and rehab of distinctive key character defining features
o Compatibility
■ Seek compatibility with the character of the existing area as new infill development is
considered
o Character
■ Character of historic structures is encouraged to be maintained as they are adapted to new
uses.
o Compatibility
• Maintain traditional mass, size, and form.
o Pedestrian Friendly Environment
■ Sidewalk and amenities for comfortable walking experience.
Building placement and scale
Nelson then reviewed Part 4 — Identify next steps for implementing goals for Historic Preservation. She then
reviewed the Feedback Themes of:
• COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown.
• Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
• Low Priority structures should receive less review.
• COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval
criteria.
Des
Purpo �
Fulp4£e-
Guide Mil
• To establish
A basis for makin
890feawy of UDC
ationand
decisions abouttt•
appropriate
lntefilir
review
rProcedures,
treatment of historic
Standards
public notice and
resources and new
hearing
construction.
procedures, and
review criteria for
the processing of
applicationsfor
COAs
Nelson then reviewed the Overarching Goals that were confirmed at October 23rd Council Meeting:
o Preservation
• Encourage preservation of historic structures
o Rehabilitation
• Guide/ Promote maintenance and rehab of distinctive key character defining features
o Compatibility
■ Seek compatibility with the character of the existing area as new infill development is
considered
o Character
■ Character of historic structures is encouraged to be maintained as they are adapted to new
uses.
o Compatibility
• Maintain traditional mass, size, and form.
o Pedestrian Friendly Environment
■ Sidewalk and amenities for comfortable walking experience.
Building placement and scale
Nelson then reviewed Part 4 — Identify next steps for implementing goals for Historic Preservation. She then
reviewed the Feedback Themes of:
• COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to Georgetown.
• Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
• Low Priority structures should receive less review.
• COA development process should be examined for expense, length, and predictability in approval
criteria.
Nelson stated that staff had identified the four opportunities for improvement as education, regulation, process
Opportunities for Improvement
411101k4h$noe
Nc- e':'ie'" 'Ji hm!ovc !93�cI1L03f1J:-'.•�L�11 a
'+-listoric. C:-e.la}• D,sesci
[,',' , . ;
LmpltmgntvhQrc
Impact: ;�3 resaa•: es .raid nc• Ia:ge:
reggae re.•14r,
*,MF;Ali�i+�w1r of 0*
Te'eOlaCle ouboma
Ffislod¢ fJtetnt t rrlrlorA W dey
'Ne" poreod
UDr
r #mosc�Ei6nso�ec*9*0ldno
r."." lorvw r"LN40 low"
dF,�,fvrl f I•Si r', '�:�Y<?i: Fit: "iP P.
tmplemcnt,3tion:
Imp,rt-I^.+:rrq•�3!al4 -.Jt!tyw+G1�.'S[;
Opportunities for Improvement ( RPirme" )
a
llc2?:��C �•_3fBi t'.•:9' F. r:i?; . :art Fl
mndt^
wAtrwy Esukg"
araww or bannUM review of
Mismac Resources Sumay
Imntett'tentatw, Resoiubon
to Cey Council
vsa'`I:iIYi$.is ts?i:''�r'.v ii�r anis
�.z�r,�f�r:4ir�; flri7n,:.a�; n�nvesr
1���•._Iic31I{�n4
Mgmenlahon 3 to S monusn
LIPIr)Hr , [it
�i+�
It\Aa
Nelson then asked Council to provide feedback on identifying short, medium, and long term opportunities for
improvements to education, regulations, process, and policy. She also asked that Council provide feedback
based on goals and public input, on any specific changes and alterations to the UDC or Design Guidelines
that Council would like implemented.
Pitts supported all three (3) education strategies, he prefers strategy four (4) - option one (1). He said that he
prefers strategy five (5) - option 1 and agrees with strategy six (6). Pitts said that a time frame of one year for
strategy seven (7) may be too often and perhaps once every three years would be better. He said he agrees
with strategy eight (8), but would consider wiping the slate clean when referring to strategies eight (8) and nine
(9) and possibly create an ad hoc committee to create fresh Georgetown guidelines that are easy to
understand. Pitts said that if low priorities were removed and only medium and high priorities were left, then
there should be a lower set of guidelines for the medium priority structures vs. the high priority structures. He
said that he was in favor of strategies ten (10) and eleven (11).
Eby thanked staff said she is happy that staff is focusing on the process itself and likes the suggestions made
by staff in general. Eby asked what type of training the staff is suggesting for HARC members. Nelson said
the training would cover a little bit of everything including introducing new commissioners to guidelines,
procedures, and motion making. She then stated that staff has provided a variety of training to HARC
members this year and would expect to continue that moving forward. Eby said that she thinks parliamentary
procedures would be beneficial to HARC members. Eby suggested working with real estate professionals so
that property owners are aware of heightened requirements of these properties. Eby said that under strategy
four (4) she would not be in favor of having no review of low priority structures whatsoever but staff only review
would be appropriate and possibly using in kind materials. Eby said that strategy five (5), option three (3)
makes sense. She then said that she is very much in favor of having two (2) HARC meetings per month as it
will significantly help with time. Eby agreed that an annual or bi-annual review would be too often, but five (5)
years would be good and ten (10) might be too long. She said that strategies eight (8) and nine (9) are
composed of elements that are designed to work together and she is not in favor of wiping the slate clean.
Eby stated that strategies ten (10) and eleven (11) are good. She then said that she didn't see unfunded
mandates being addressed and if the City is going to require certain things, staff needs to address where the
funding comes from. Eby said that she would strongly encourage Council to direct staff to work with
Preservation Georgetown and see how they are willing to work with us. She also said that they are a group
we should collaborate with more because they support preservation. Eby said that she would like Council to
be more involved in the boards and commissions appointment process for HARC and other boards.
Fought said that he wanted to make sure that staff hadn't forgotten about correcting the language that says a
Council supermajority vote is needed to overturn a HARC decision. Nelson noted that staff hadn't forgotten
and will address this. Fought said that he will listen to comments of colleagues for consideration and noted
that there were two Councilmembers missing from the meeting.
Ross suggested that staff come back one more time so that the councilmembers not in attendance could
participate in the discussion as well.
Gonzalez said that he hopes the end result of this is a process that holds up for many years and only minor
changes will be needed. He said that he had no issues with the first three priorities and suggested using case
studies as examples to help people understand the process. Gonzales said that in strategy four (4) he would
like to eliminate low priority structures completely because in the upcoming years we will have thousands of
homes added to the lists. He then asked that staff consider how medium vs. high priority structures will be
evaluated and provide less restrictions for medium priority structures, than what is required of high priority
structures. Gonzalez also supported providing some funding to portions of renovations that are being required
by the City and work with Preservation Georgetown on this.
Jonrowe thanked staff and the outside consultant Cox McLain on their work. She said that she thinks this
work will lead to positive reforms and she is not opposed to the idea of possible changes. Jonrowe said that
her position on the different strategies is the same as the other historic property owner and that she and
Councilmember Eby are in accord with everything presented. She then said that she would like to capitalize
and expand the City's relationship with Preservation Georgetown and to utilize their resources. Jonrowe would
like for staff to inform low priority property owners about rehabilitating their homes to bring them up to medium
or high priority structures especially if the City is going to start to offer funding. Jonrowe would like for HARC
meetings to be recorded and archived, including video. She then said that this would allow citizens to see the
HARC meetings without attending in person. Jonrowe stated that she doesn't think that any demolition should
happen without at least staff review, whether they are in or out of the district. Jonrowe emphasized Eby's
comments about councilmembers being part of the boards and commissions appointment process.
Ross suggested that the Planning Department staff comeback to the next Workshop meeting. Nelson agreed.
Ross asked Nowling to reach out Councilmembers Nicholson and Hesser and have them review the video of
this meeting and either submit comments by next Thursday or make their comments at the next Workshop
meeting. Ross told Nelson that staff did a great job.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting at 4:55 p.m. and stated that Executive Session will start at 5:05 PM under
Section 551.071, Section 551.074, and Section 551.086.
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
- Honeywell Settlement
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 Secretary
Sec. 551:086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
Quarterly Electric Update FY18 Q4 and FY19 Q1 — Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities and Mike Babin, Deputy General
Manager of Utilities
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
K-ZL
Dale , ayor
t<Z,
Date
Attest: itySecretary