HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.12.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101
E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas
The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's
Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of
Councilmember Valerie Nicholson, District 2. Councilmember Nicholson joined the dais during the presentation of Item A. Mayor
Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, John Hesser, 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.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:05 PM
A. Presentation and discussion of the City's Debt Program -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director and Paul Diaz, Budget
Manager
Wallace presented on the City's debt program. She reviewed the debt planning process and policies. Wallace reviewed
the three main types of debt: General Obligation Bonds, Certificates of Obligation, and Revenue Bonds. She stated that
General Obligations Bonds are used for large projects, such as Garey Park, the Southwest Bypass, the Northwest Blvd
Bridge, and San Gabriel Park. Wallace continued that these are approved by the voters in an election and repaid with
property taxes over long terns. She explained that Certificates of Obligation are used for required or routine items, such
as Fire Station 6 & 7, Public Safety Vehicles, and other City facilities. Wallace stated that public notice is required. She
then said that Revenue Bonds are used for large electric and water projects and the debt is repaid with utility revenue
over life of asset. She then reviewed the City's current bond ratings and how they are an independent review of City's
management and financial condition to determine creditworthiness. Wallace said that these ratings impact the interest
rate of the bonds and the City's Standard & Poor's 2018 Ratings are AA+ for General obligation and AA for Revenue
bonds. She reviewed the Debt Coverage Ratio for revenue bonds and how it is looked by combining water and electric.
Wallace said it is based on the number of times net operating revenue can cover debt service. She added that currently,
the bond covenants are required to be 1.35 time coverage, the City policy looks to have 1.5 times coverage, and the FY19
budgeted is 3.25 times coverage.
Pitts asked a question about calculations for debt service coverage and it takes into account any excess balances or funds.
Wallace responded that no, it is only looking at revenue. Pitts asked about repayment of the bonds depending on use and
if they even consider electric and water separately. Wallace responded that they are issued together and consider together.
Wallace reviewed the current tax rate that is used to repay the general obligation and certificate of obligation debt. She
added that this year's tax rate is $0.42 which is the lowest in Williamson County and the Austin MSA region and is the
same tax rate as last year. Wallace said that the rate has hovered around $0.42 for the last several years. She stated that
the tax rate is split almost in half and used for principle and interest in the debt service fund and operations and
maintenance for the general fund. Wallace reviewed the agreement with the voters from the 2015 Transportation Bond
that the tax rate shall no increase more than 2 cents in one ,year and no more than 10 cents total. She then reviewed the
Current Tax Obligations and debt history. She added that the City is currently paying $158 million in tax supported debt
with 37% going to Streets and Transportation, 25% going to Public Safety, 23% going to Other City Facilities, and 15%
going to Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Wallace reviewed how the debt has changed over the last five years including
how it has increased overall and in general obligations and how bonds were issues in response to the 2008 and 2015
elections. She then reviewed the debt per capita and how the City's burden on taxpayers has varied of the last five years.
Wallace reviewed enterprise obligations that are currently at $105.8 million outstanding for revenue bonds and self-
supporting certificates of obligation. She reviewed the breakdown on the enterprise obligations including 35% going to
electric, 31% going to wastewater, 28% going to water, 4% going to stormwater drainage, I% going to irrigation and 1%
going to the airport. Wallace reviewed a five year look at the enterprise debt including the self -supported debt and how
it has changed. She then reviewed the utility debt per customer over the last five years including the acquisition of
Chisholm Trail Water District. Wallace then reviewed the City's increase in asset value over the last five years.
Diaz then presented on future debt. He began with the tax impact analysis that was developed in FY2016, a Five Year
Debt Model which is a tool to better understand the impacts of issuing debt. Diaz stated that the model allows for scenario
testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service
requirements and provided a visual. He then reviewed the assumptions used by staff when working on the tax impact
analysis and how small changes can have big results. Diaz stated that staff will use the current interest and sinking Tax
Rate of 22.045 cents, the current operation and maintenance Tax Rate of 19.955 cents, and use the current ratio of 52/48
for tax ceiling revenue. He added that staff considered for calculations a base growth of 4.5% in FY2020, decreasing to
3% by 2023 and a tax ceiling revenue growing at a constant 3%, which is a conservative estimate. Diaz stated that this
information is then run against the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) as illustrated here:
Debt FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Beyond 5 Years Total
200060
2005 Rood Bond 0 0 0 0 0 6,150,000 6,150,000
2008 GO Total 0 0 0 0 0 6,150,000 6,150,000
2015 GO
2015 Road Bond
5,330,000
4, �W,070
7,051,000
13,500,000
7,900,000
13,950,000
52,081,000
2015 GO Total
5,330,000
4,350,000
7,051,000
13,500,000
7,900,000
13,950,000
52,081,000
CO
Facilities
14,430,000
1,400,000
0
0
0
24,600,000
40,430,000
Finance
500,000
200,000
0
0
0
0
700,000
Fire Department
290,000
515,000
525,000
0
0
0
1,330,000
Fleet
1,768,000
3,553,200
3,395,100
2,122,500
1,905,000
13,609,100
26,352,900
Other
200,000
0
0
0
0
200,000
Parks
425,000
2,925,000
5,500,000
.250,000
1,700,000
44,850,000
55,650,000
CO Total
17,413,000
8,793,200
9,420,100
2.372,500
3,605,000
83,059,100
124,662,900
Grand Total
22,743,000
13,143,200
16,471,100
15,872,500
11,505,000
103,159,100
182,893,900
Dias said that the forecast shows no tax impact in the five year model based on assumptions mentioned. He added that
the City continues to see strong and consistent growth in our community and the Council's action during the budget
process in July is to limit capital project spending is helping by committing to CIP projects of $75 million over the 5 year
timeframe.
Wallace presented on the FY2019 proposed debt sale and what has changes in the last few months. She reviewed the tax
supported general obligation projects and how they are all related to road and sidewalk projects. Wallace reviewed the
FY2019 proposed tax supported certificates of obligation projects and the various projects covered. She added that the
main change was adding Fire Station 6 and how initially staff believed the ESD would fund the project, but the City will
now be taking on the funding of the project. Wallace also reviewed the slight increases for Fire and Police vehicles. She
then reviewed the FY2019 proposed self -supported certificate of obligation projects that are comprised of various
projects. Wallace stated that two projects decreased and one project increased. She stated that the City will not be issuing
any new utility debt in FY2019. Wallace then reviewed the bond authorization remaining with this visual:
Amount Authorized by the Voters
46,000,000 35,500,000
105,000,000
186,500,000
Year & Issue
2009
1,175,000 0
0_
1,175,000'
2010
1,365,000 0
0
1,365,000
2010A
9,435,000 2,500,000
0
11,935,000;
2012
0 0
0
0
2012A
0 0
0
05
2013
0 5,000,000
0
5,000,000
2014
4,800,000 0
0
4,800,000
2015
4,375,000 0
0
4,375,0001
2015A
1,710, 000
10, 075, 000
11, 785, 000
2016
3,000, 000
10,000, 000
13, 000, 000
' 2017
6,500,000
2,635,000
9,135,000
i2018
3,900,000 4,000,000
16,550,000
24,450,000
Total Issued
25,050,000 22,710,000
39,260,000
87,020,000
Authorization Remaining
20,950,000 12,790,000
65,740,000
99,480,000
*Includes allocated premium which counts towards the voter authorization.
a
Wallace then reviewed the main takeaways from the 2019 debt sale presentation as:
the City continues to aggressively
implement infrastructure improvements to match the voter approved projects; correlates to population
growth and voter
approved projects to improve services and quality
of life; the City continues to experience strong economic
growth; and
the economic forecast shows the City can fund the current CIP plan within the current
tax rate. She then reviewed the
next steps.
Gonzalez asked about remaining bonds from 2009 and 2010 for roads and parks, why those projects haven't been
completed, and what the process is for removing these old bonds if they are no long needed. Wallace responded that the
next Council presentation will provide more detail about the road projects. She added that the authorization never goes
away and it would up to the City to update their plans for project implementation. Wallace stated that the City Manager
has suggested shortening project timelines going forward. Gonzalez said that part of the problem is citizens don't
understand why the City is asking for more money when there are still outstand bonds for the same issues. He added that
the City needs to be able to explain what is being done with the projects in a clearer manner. Morgan responded that the
specific nature of the projects that based on the issuance of bonds leads limits what changes can be made. He added that
staff can work with the bond council on ways to clean up old outstanding bonds.
Mayor Ross asked if defeasing bonds has a costs. Morgan responded that yes, it would and staff is not looking at
defeasing issued debt, but instead cleaning up authorizations where bonds have not been issued.
Hesser stated that this information has been presented at GTEC. He added that his question is when can there be another
bond sale without raising taxes to complete currently planned projects. Morgan responded that staff can evaluate that.
Mayor Ross asked if staff was following the current state legislature and the 2.5% cap on property tax increases. Wallace
stated that staff is running scenarios and the impact it could have on the general fund. Morgan said based on the current
proposal it would definitely lead to a different budget process and prioritizing core services would be a challenge.
Gonzalez asked that in the future staff have clear ways to communicate to public what amounts are outstanding and why
B. Presentation and discussion of the 2015 Bond Program Report -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director
Wright presented on the 2008 and 2015 Road Bonds. He began by reviewing the financials of the 2008 Road Bond
which was a $46 million total package, of which $25 million in debt has been issued and $21 million is authorized, but
not issued. Wright stated that of the $25 million that has been issued, there is $8 million in cash available. He said that
the following projects have been completed: SEI/Maple/Sam Houston, DB Wood/Williams Intersection, and SH29
Bypass Routing Study. Wright then reviewed the anticipated/remaining expenditures including: FM 1460 which is
completed; FM 971 which is expected to be complete in late 2019 and is led by TxDOT and has a remaining $4 million
in bond funds; and Berry Creek Drive from Airport to 195 which does not yet have an scheduled completion date and
has a remaining $4 million in bond funds due to savings in the FM1460 project.
Gonzalez asked about the $21 million in funds that has been authorized and not issued and what its intended purpose is
for. Wright responded that most of those funds were for the FM971 project going all the way to SH130, which is not on
the horizon. He added some of those funds were also intended for FM 1460 and financial assistance for that project came
from TxDOT and GTEC which ended up saving the City money. Gonzalez clarified that most of that money was for
FM971. Wright responded that he believed over $10 million was originally allocated for that project and staff has no
intention of moving that project forward at this time. Morgan added that TxDOT was planning on being a partner on that
project. Gonzalez stated that the FM971 project still sounds viable and like something that might be needed in the future.
Wright agreed and said that the timing of the project will depend on growth and the funds will remain available.
Wright reviewed the 2015 road bond financials which was a total package of $105 million, of which $39 million has been
issued for work that is completed or under construction, with a remaining $66 million authorized, but not issued for
remaining projects. He said that the completed projects are Southwest Bypass/Wolf Ranch Parkway and various
sidewalks and the following are under construction: Rivery Blvd, Northwest Blvd, and various sidewalks.
Wright then reviewed the remaining projects that are under design: Southwest Bypass, Leander Road, Southwestern
Blvd, and Inner Loop. He added that the only project not yet to design phase is DB Wood from Hwy 29 to Oak Ridge
for widening to four lane and it will be an $18 million dollar project.
Pitts asked if the DB Wood project will also reroute the road and connect to Southwest Bypass. Wright responded that
yes it would. Pitts asked if at some point the road will deviate into a new right-of-way. Wright responded yes.
Wright continued that there are still remaining sidewalks Downtown and near SH29 and this will include intersection
improvements. He added that the Williams Dr. and Lakeway Intersection is scheduled for improvement. Wright stated
that other project slated for future design are: Stadium Dr. and NE Inner Loop; SH29 from Haven Lane to SH130; the
remainder of priority sidewalks; the remainder of intersection improvements and preliminary design for Williams, Shell,
Inner Loop, DB Wood, and IH35 southbound Frontage. He then reviewed TxDOT projects that total $11.6 million
including $7 million in funding for IH35 northbound frontage road and $4.6 million for the Leander Road Bridge Design.
Wright added that he didn't have it in writing, but TxDOT was not going to look to the City for those funds which will
lead to the City having $11.6 million in authorized but unissued debt. He then reviewed the project schedule. Wright
concluded with possible future projects that include Memorial Drive, Rock Ride, Shell Road, Inner Loop, Williams Drive,
and possible others. He stated that good rule of thumb for high level planning for future projects is to account for $1.5
million per lane -mile for new construction and 1 cent in property tax equals approximately $9 million in capital.
Pitts asked if the Council could receive the schedule that was presented. Morgan and Wright responded yes.
Gonzalez asked that the money that is set aside for design only, only be used for roads determined to be definite need
and not roads that may never come to fruition. Morgan responded that all identified roads has been considered by
Council.
C. Presentation, update and discussion on the 2018/19 Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendment Review Process --
Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson presented the item and began by asking Council for direction to staff on any additions, changes or reprioritizations
of the proposed amendments. She reviewed the annual amendment and review process. Nelson then listed the UDC
revisions that have been completed: Business Park district size, Mobile Food Vendors, and Special Purpose Districts
(MUDs). She added that staff is currently reviewing: parkland dedication requirements; historic standards and processes;
notification requirements for zoning map amendments; the number of units per building for multi -family districts; and
residential masonry standards.
Hesser asked if the City was being asked to increase or decrease the number of units per building. Nelson responded that
requests have been made to increase and provided examples of Hillwood and Whitney Crossing. Hesser asked what the
number was that is being requested. Nelson responded that there hasn't been a set number for the increase, but instead
allowing some increase if certain design standards are met. Hesser asked if that meant is was an open number. Nelson
responded yes.
Nelson continued to review the UDC revisions that currently being reviewed by staff as the Permitted Use Table and
general administrative clean-up. She added that staff has not yet started review of: sign regulations and variance process;
determination of statutory rights (vesting); and the appeals process. Nelson said that Traffic impact Analysis (TIA)
requirements are currently on hold. She reviewed the amendment review process and the tentative schedule. Nelson
stated that the Permitted Use Table is being reviewed to make sure the right uses are in the right areas and that some focal
points are: restaurants in Business Park and Industrial zoning districts; distance requirements for Bar, Tavern or Pub uses;
and office warehouses.
Nicholson asked about the timing of TIA review. Nelson responded that, while it is a priority, staff is moving forward
with the Transportation Impact Fee Study so that staff can then properly address TIA concerns. Morgan said that Systems
Engineering is working with a consultant to address TIAs and staff will report the findings. He added that any changes
Council approves will result in a UDC amendment. Nicholson asked if the study will speak to a more holistic approach
to transportation in the City beyond isolated pockets of development. Gonzalez asked if it was possible to have a TIA
that evaluates farther that just by the entrance of a property. Nicholson said that Memorial Drive is a good example.
Wright responded that current model is subject to the immediate vicinity of a development. He added that the intent of
the transportation impact fees is to take a holistic look at the City's transportation patterns and break the City up into
zone. Wright continued that if a development is in a particular zone, staff will take a look at the overall transportation
plan and the improvements expected in that area. He said that the assignments will based on those areas, which is similar
to what happens now with water and wastewater. Wright said this new method will prevent developments from needing
to do their own TIAs in the future. Gonzalez said that he understands fees, but that collecting fees doesn't prevent a
traffic issue. He added that zoning changes could lead to traffic issues not initially considered. Wright responded that if
zonings are changed then a limited TIA may be necessary. He continued with a hypothetical example of when
developments spend funds on road improvements, those funds are deducted from the total costs of impact fees for that
development. Wright stated that there are opportunities for the City to require certain improvements like there is with a
TIA, but the TIA just takes a little more time due to review. Gonzalez responded with his own hypothetical scenario of
a development surrounded by agriculture land that later is rezoned. He asked how the City should manage that type of
impact. Wright responded that TIAs are based on future zoning and proposed future land use. Morgan said that this ties
to Comp Plan update that will look at TIA and other development fees as well. Nicholson said she wants thoughtful
consideration on TIAs so we the City doesn't repeat existing traffic issues that cost the City money. Morgan responded
that staff agrees and other cities are doing transportation impact fees based on gaps caused by TIAs. He said that staff
does want to review that with Council in the future.
Nelson resumed the presentation and reviewed the proposed schedule for the Certificate of Appropriateness amendment
process: posting language for public review on February 18`h; hosting an Open House/ Office Hours on February 25`h;
UDC Advisory Committee recommendation on March 13`h; Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation on March
19`h; City Council Public Hearing and 1 st reading on March 261h; and City Council 2nd reading on April 91h. She added
that next steps include direction to staff on the UDC topics to be reviewed in the 2019 Review Cycle and the UDC
Advisory Committee and staff to continue to initiate work on topics to be amended. Nelson asked Council to provide
direction on the topics of the amendments, priorities, and the process.
Hesser asked that Special Use Permits be required for car washes and other automotive based uses. He also asked that
staff review commercial vehicles parked in the street with time limitations and specifications. Hesser noted the large
number of UDC changes to be made and asked that Council consider a moratorium on process. He added that some
items needs to be expedited due to how much they slow down development. Nelson stated that staff is currently using
the general annual amendment process. She added that there is also an executive amendment process that is separate
from the annual amendment process. Nelson said that process must show that four areas. She said the amendment must
be necessary in order to address state statutes or case laws; necessary in order to ratify a published Director interpretation;
necessary in order to incorporate recently approved Council ordinances; or addresses revisions otherwise determined
necessary by legal counsel. Nelson that there are also emergency amendments where the Council may, by super -majority
vote, determine that a potential revision to the UDC is an emergency and instruct the Director to process the revision to
be processed as an executive amendment separate from the annual review process: potential amendment is immediately
necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the City and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of
the City; Council determines that waiting for the annual UDC review process is not in the best interest of the City; and
the UDC does not provide other avenues to address the proposed revision. She stated that staff has three possible methods
for review asked if Hesser would like for there to be an additional process. Hesser responded that he wants staff to
consider methods for addressing issues that have come up where there weren't currently processes in place to address
them. He asked if staff could accumulate a list of issues to be fast tracked. Jonrowe asked if Hesser was wanting and
executive or emergency amendment to be put on future agenda for Council vote to address he carwash and parking issues
referenced. Hesser responded that there are others, but he has been faced with these in particular. He added that he
would like to see a list that Council would agree upon to get rid of backlogged issues and proceed.
Mayor Ross revisited was constitutes and executive and emergency amendment and asked Hesser why he feels the
examples provided go outside of the process currently in place. Hesser responded that he didn't know the rules and
wanted to know if there was a way to expedite certain issues that would allow staff to spend more time on bigger issues.
Pitts asked Hesser if an increase in staff ability to make things move faster would help from things delayed. Hesser
responded yes. Pitts would like for staff to consider for change is setbacks when residential is involved for projects in
ETJ. He added he would like to make them same as projects within the City limits.
Jonrowe asked if the proposed changes to the notification of UDC review process includes mailing notifications to
properties in the ETJ if they are near a development. Nelson said it did not, but staff could include it. Jonrowe asked
that it be included. Gonzalez asked if the notification area could be expanded to 300 feet from 200 feet to be more
inclusive. Nelson responded that 200 feet is state law but staff could evaluate expanding the notification area. Gonzalez
said it was something worth discussing.
Morgan asked Nelson to recap the Council's requests. Nelson responded the Council would like staff to look at the
Special Use process for carwash and automotive uses and commercial cars parked in the street. She added that this may
be a code enforcement issue, but will have staff evaluate. Morgan said that if it is not a UDC issue, then it can be reviewed
at a workshop and needed Ordinances changes put in place. Nelson continued the recap with revisions to setback in the
ETJ when project is adjacent to residential, include notifications to members of the ETJ, extend the notification buffer
from 200 to 300 feet, and identifying a fast track list and what process is most appropriate. Morgan stated that under the
current guidelines Council is allowed to identify an emergency item and use the executive or emergency amendment
processes. He added that staff can walk through the list of amendments that are currently on the table for review and
have Council identify those that are emergencies and place them on the agenda for a vote. Morgan said that staff will
send the Council a full list of amendments to be reviewed as part of a future workshop item, that could then be considered
as a Legislative Agenda item.
D. Presentation and discussion of Pedestrian Roadway Crossings -- Octavio Garza, PE, Public Works Director and Josh
Canter, PE, Public Works Traffic Engineer
Garza presented the item. He added that staff has completed its pavement management program, there are no set
standards for crosswalks and staff needs to proactively develop standards that will make the Community as safe as
possible. Garza said he is looking for Council guidance on development of design standards for various crossing types
and implementation of design standards into existing & proposed plans. He then reviewed the stop sign controlled type
on intersection as being a standard style crosswalk with two lines, stop bar 5 feet from crosswalk and no signage. Garza
reviewed the traffic signal controlled intersection that includes continental, aka piano keys, style crosswalk, a stop bar 5
feet from crosswalk, no signage and pushbutton pedestrian activated signal. He then reviewed uncontrolled intersections
that consist of no set standard that vary based on need, can use standard or continental style and typically have pedestrian
crossing signs. Garza explained the crosswalk, in -street signage, and pavement marking treatment options. He then
explained the following treatment options in detail: yield triangles, in -pavement flashers, flashing beacons, and
rectangular rapid flashing beacon. He then showed Council an example of a crosswalk in Galveston that included all the
previously mentioned features.
Gonzalez asked about the cost effectiveness of using luminescent paint versus the other options and if it is being
considered. Garza responded that he is sure it's being considered, but it is not currently part of the required state
guidelines.
Garza explained in detail the High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) option. He then reviewed the estimated costs
for all options:
• Stop Sign / Signal Controlled Intersections
o $4,800 - Standard Pavement Markings
o $14,900 - Continental Pavement Markings
o $50,000 - $275,000 - Pedestrian Scramble Crosswalk
• Uncontrolled Traffic/Pedestrian Intersections (Per Crossing)
o $5,300 - Continental Pavement Markings
o $14,000 - Flashing Beacons
o $25,000 - Blinker Signs
0 $40,000 - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
o $155,000 - HAWK Signals
Nicholson asked if the cost provided account for all four lanes of the intersection. Garza responded yes, it does.
Garza continued reviewed the factors for considering crossing treatments and depending on the factors below, crossing
treatments will be based on a low, medium, high intensity category: volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic; vehicle
speed; number of lanes; accident history; and sight distances. He then explained the different applications for stop sign
controlled intersections with low levels of pedestrians and traffic that include standard pavement markings and stop bar;
intersections with medium levels of pedestrians and traffic that include continental pavement markings and stop bar; and
intersections with high levels of pedestrians and traffic that include increase signage and the addition of flashing lights.
Garza explained the different applications for traffic controlled intersections with low levels of pedestrians and traffic
that include standard pavement markings and stop bar; medium levels of pedestrians and traffic that include continental
pavement markings and pedestrian pushbutton; and high levels of pedestrians and traffic that include continental
pavement markings, pedestrian pushbuttons and signage. He then explained the different applications for mid -block
crossings with low levels of pedestrians and traffic that include continental pavement markings and signage; medium
levels of pedestrians and traffic that include blinker signs or rectangular rapid flashing beacons, signage, in -pavement
flashers and yield triangles; and high levels of pedestrians and traffic that include the HAWK Signal. He then reviewed
the special case of Austin Avenue and the Downtown Square is a unique situation regarding traffic and pedestrian
crossings and will require its own study and explained the issues of: four lanes of traffic without protected left turns; high
pedestrian use; Austin Avenue Bridge Project; need for corridor efficiency; and recommendation of a corridor study that
considers vehicles and pedestrians.
Garza then asked the Council for feedback and direction of the development of design standards for various crossing
types; implementation of design standards into existing & proposed plans; and if staff should proceed with the Austin
Avenue Corridor Study.
Fought commented on the options in Sun City and how simple changes made a large impact in pedestrian safety. He
added that he likes the idea of focusing on the downtown area and supports the corridor study. Fought then said that he
would life staff to return to Sun City and expand on the existing work that has been done. He then asked that visibility
be a large component of the corridor study.
Jonrowe asked if staff was coming back with list of different project locations and a list of what implementations would
be appropriate. Garza responded that he could do that. Jonrowe would like projects to be prioritized based on safety.
She added that she would like to see a goal of no pedestrian/vehicle incidents. Jonrowe asked if staff was considering
overall traffic calming measures. Garza responded that the neighborhood traffic management policy and other projects
have come in to address traffic calming. Jonrowe stated that she supports an Austin Avenue corridor study.
Gonzalez stated that he would like to see a holistic plan with a policy in place based on measurements to determine
appropriate implementations and agrees with Austin Ave corridor study.
Mayor Ross asked about the impact on runners and cyclist. Garza stated yes because runners and cyclist use crosswalks
also. He added that cycling needs will be addressed in the bicycle master plan
Nicholson stated a list will be helpful and would like staff to consider the type of pedestrians and times of need.
Eby asked what section is defined as the Austin Ave corridor. Garza responded that spans from Morrow to University
with other impacts. Eby said that south of University there is a need, especially at Austin Avenue and 16" Street and
further South near Leander Road.
Hesser stated well done.
Jonrowe asked if these projects will be eligible for TIAs. Garza responded that he is not sure, but will investigate.
Council recessed into Executive Session at 4: 55 p.m.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vemon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City
Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
Property Located at Inner Loop and I-35
Rivery TIA/Rivery Turn Lanes, Parcels 5-7, acquisition of real property -- Jim Kachelmeyer, Real Estate Services Coordinator and
Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sale of Property -113 E. 8th Street -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Texas Crushed Stone
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchased Power Update -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
Project Deliver
Project Big C
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
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
Dale Ross, Mayor
02 (2(o I.ZOI°1
Date
zl�mDi4�
Attest: Cit Secretary