HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.23.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 2:30 PM at the Council Chambers,
at 510 West 9" Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
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 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay
Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:31 PM. Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale
Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought,
Councilmember District 4, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5, and Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember
District 6.
Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2 and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were
absent at the start of the meeting. Nicholson arrived at 2:33 p.m. and Gonzalez arrived at 2:47 p.m. Both
arrived during Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. Presentation, discussion and possible direction for proposed City Center public spaces, public art,
and festival area -- Eric P. Lashley, Library Director
Lashley presented the item. He explained how the Downtown Master Plan in Chapter 7 outlines a
use of this nature. Lashley reviewed the Vision and Strategic Goal of the City and how this project
will tie in. He stated that this project was reviewed by a committee of staff members and the Arts
and Culture Board, Library Board, Convention and Visitors Board, and the Main Street Advisory
Board. Lashley added the board responses were overwhelmingly positive and he will review some
of the concerns discussed with the boards. He added that Covey Landscape Architects was
constructed for the plan. Lashley stated that the presentation is not a master plan for the City
Center, it is not construction documents, and it is not a plan to move all events form the Square to
the City Center. He then reviewed the area contained in the City Center. Lashley reviewed "Low
Hanging Fruit" that include the annex building by the planning department, a possible mural on
current blank wall between City Hall and Shotgun House and the old County buildings that will
come down and become parking. He then reviewed the need to change the entrance to the Planning
Department. Lashley reviewed possibilities for sculptures in seating area of City Hall and possible
art on the back wall. He then reviewed the possibility for a farmers market that would include Wi-
Fi, lighting, fans and electricity that would convert to parking when not use. Lashley reviewed the
issue of parking and how it would be impacted. He then reviewed aerial and street level renderings
of some possible options and where they would be located in the City Center, including options
that could highlight the existing smoke stack. Lashley covered the concerns from the boards that
include restrooms, parking, shade, trash, maintenance, traffic, branding, marketing, lighting, use of
solar panels, and outdoor seating. He reviewed the next steps, as this is the beginning of
conversation, which include neighborhood outreach, meeting with the Downtown TIRZ Board,
meeting Downtown Georgetown Association and merchants, holding public meetings, possibly
developing a City Center Master Plan, and reviewing funding option and grant opportunities.
Lashley then asked for Council feedback.
Fought liked the proposal, but losing parking is always a concern, especially the handicapped spots.
Eby stated that she supports the idea and the creation of master plan and wants staff to be sure to
reach out the neighborhood to include them. Lashley responded that staff would.
Pitts stated that he is not sure how the neighbors will feel about the smoke stack being lit up at night
when they're sleeping. He then asked what the cost of a Master Plan would be. Morgan responded
that staff was not sure but would present cost during budget process. Pitts asked what the master
plan would provide. Morgan responded that it would be presented to Council for approval. Pitts
stated that he would support moving forward and getting cost estimates. He added that this a large
project that will need to be phased in.
Jonrowe stated that she thinks it is a great idea and supports a master plan and neighborhood input.
She added that sound will be an issue if those types of events are put on. Jonrowe asked that traffic
flow be considered as part of master plan.
Hesser stated that this is a matter of priorities. He added that this is a business center first, then an
entertainment area. Hesser said that parking is a concern, as are noise and lights and he would like
to see master plan and possible costs.
Nicholson stated she supports this idea.
Lashley reviewed the next steps.
Morgan stated that the next time this will be considered as part of the budget process.
B. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding the City's communications and
marketing assessment -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager
Daly introduced Cooksey representatives to review the findings and gave them praise for their
efforts. He then introduced Colby Walton and Michelle Hargis to continue the presentation.
Walton presented the findings of the assessment. He reviewed the primary assignment to assess
the City's efforts, materials, processes, procedures and resources in communication. Walton stated
that the deliverable was a report highlighting primary findings, key objectives, and recommended
prioritization of efforts. He reviewed responses showed a need to enhance overall communications,
evolve from communicating to external stakeholders to with external stakeholders, public
engagement that is not just information. Walton stated that communication is a core function of
local government. He then reviewed the process that was followed to create the report. Walton
presented the situational overview that shows rapid growth, high quality of life, large utility service
area, decentralized communications apparatus, and evolving communications expectations and
needs. He added that the communications team is small considering size and expectations of the
City. Walton reviewed the Communication Survey Results that showed a good response rate and
made note that it conducted immediately after PCA rate increase. He then reviewed the primary
takeaways including the City's communication tools and strategies.
Hargis presented key interview takeaways and peer City benchmarking results.
Walton presented the four primary objectives of. adopting a more proactive and strategic approach;
positioning the City to better anticipate and respond to crises and emerging issues; fostering a
stronger sense of community partnership and stakeholder engagement; and overall branding
consistency. He then reviewed recommendations provided in the report for the primary objectives,
recommended prioritization and next steps.
Nicholson if there would be subsequent workshops with staff regarding budget and a plan forward.
Morgan responded yes and there will be discussions during the budget process. He added that staff
sees the need for this implementation of the communications plan.
Pitts asked about reducing the number of city managed social media accounts. Walton responded
the City should reduce the number by streamlining and combining existing accounts.
Gonzalez asked if the comparison to peer cities considered factors outside of the departmental
budget. Walton responded the cities chosen has other similar characteristics that included budget
and what they did with the budget, as well as size and growth.
Fought stated that is was a good report and he really likes the idea of a voice of Georgetown. He
added that if the City had one voice of Georgetown that was the authority it would be good.
Mayor Ross asked about the assets distributed across departments and that he didn't see anything
about consolidation of those assets. Walton responded that there is some opportunity included in
report that speaks to specific personnel. Morgan stated that the opportunity is there and the assets
will be addressed in the budget process and would include a future plan.
Nicholson stated that a matrix organization like school districts use could possibly be effective
here.
Hesser asked if the City is decentralized are we considering all of the funds in other depts. Walton
responded that it is hard to say because it's different from each city.
C. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction on the recommendations of the Joint Session of the
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on Housing Policies for the 2030
Comprehensive Plan -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director and Susan Watkins, Housing
Coordinator
Nelson presented and noted that she would be assisted by both Susan Watkins and Nat Waggoner.
She stated the goal of the presentation was to get Council feedback on housing policies. Nelson
said that 2018 was a year of listening and receiving feed while moving into the Housing Study.
She said she would be asking for the Council's feedback on policies and if the process needed
improvement. Nelson reviewed housing element survey participation. She then reviewed the April
10, 2019 joint session that included the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
16 policies that were presented across four policy groups, including the policies that were prepared
in the joint session. Nelson then asked for the Council's feedback on the policies.
Pitts asked how many people were on the steering committee. Nelson responded about 15 people.
Pitts asked how attendance has been at those meetings. Nelson responded that it has slowly
dropped. Pitts asked who wrote the policies that were just presented to Council. Nelson responded
that they were drafted by staff. Pitts asked how many of those were current City policies. Nelson
responded that they were all new drafted policies that may have similarities, but are new. Pitts said
that he had spoken with five steering committee members and held a constituent meeting since the
last joint session that was attended by about 40 people. He then shared his notes form those
interactions which showed frustration with the process; that they did not like the provided policies,
need to look beyond workforce housing, need for definitions, explanation of process for execution,
and not sure if these policies will adequately work for the future makeup of Georgetown moving
towards 2030.
Gonzalez stated that many participants are asked to give feedback on things they aren't familiar
with and deciding on. He added that there is a need to build from ground up and consider what the
City is able control versus what it is unable to control.
Eby stated that she was surprised by that committee feedback and had a different sense of the
committee participation. She added that there is a want to get to actions steps that is leading to
impatience. Eby said she believes the disconnect could be in trying to focus on the policies
themselves. She added that staff has spent tremendous amount of time and effort on this.
Hesser said he agreed and felt like participants were already put in a box and didn't have enough
options. He added that the committee is not working with costs and can't subsidize all housing.
Mayor Ross stated that he agrees with Eby. He added that this process is looking at policy
standpoint and people are looking at the tactical standpoint and wanting to make detailed decisions.
Mayor Ross said that the committee need to go through entire process and details will come later.
Nelson responded that staff is working through goals and policies to support them, then
implementation. She added that policy formation is the ultimate goal, which will influence the
future land use map, writing of the Comprehensive Plan, and how cases get reviewed. Nelson said
that she has received feedback that staff can take back and use to possibly rework some things.
Jonrowe asked if the goals were created based on public feedback process. Nelson responded that
was correct. Jonrowe stated that this was built on a backbone of public feedback. Nelson responded
yes and that staff had to start somewhere with the drafts. Jonrowe stated that the information
collected was accurately portrayed in goals presented. She added that she was also eager to get to
the action phase and staff should try to consider committee feedback received.
Gonzalez asked what happens if process is completed and Council can't agree on tool, then what
happens on the policy. Nelson responded that ultimately it could be removed, but would be worked
through and other tools considered.
Pitts stated that one of the issues at the joint session was considering whether or not a policy was
achievable. He added that then a word was changed and the consultant moved on. Pitts said it was
never determined if people agreed with policy. He said he doesn't want to have hands tied because
he agrees with policy but not suggested implementation. Mayor Ross said that cost is the last thing
considered in public policy discussion and it is too premature for tactical discussion.
Mayor Ross asked if Nelson had received the feedback she needed. Nelson asked if Council would
like to send any of the presented policies back to the committee. Mayor Ross stated that Council
should let the committee do its work. Pitts said that he would like to send the whole thing back and
perform an up and down vote on each policy. Mayor Ross and Pitts discussed the process and their
views on it. Hesser, Gonzalez, and Fought all stated that they agree with Pitts.
Morgan said that staff planned to walk through the process at the next meeting and wants to make
meetings as productive as possible. He added that good attendance is critical. Mayor Ross asked
for clarification on the next steps. Morgan stated that Council would update on where staff is in
the process and make sure that there is clarification on the policy statements based on the Council
feedback
Gonzalez asked if staff can provide more information while going through the policies on what the
root of the policy was and what the policy to achieve. Nelson responded yes and that staff can let
everyone know where staff has been and where staff is going. Nelson that the next steps include
updating the land use policies, land use categories, develop and testing growth scenarios using the
Fiscal Impact Model, and modifying the Land Use Map. She added that staff is working on
Gateways and Survey #3 for community input. She added that the next steps that will take place
in May, June, and July.
D. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction on the draft application to Williamson County for
FY 2019-20 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding -- Susan Watkins, AICP,
Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented the item. She stated that the goal is prioritize projects for the grant. Watkins
then provided a CDBG Overview and reviewed the internal project selection. She reviewed the
Home Repair Program and the Sidewalk Improvement Project with access to St. David's Hospital.
Watkins then asked for Council feedback.
Nicholson stated that she agrees with staff.
Hesser asked if there were other projects on the list, and if so what were they. Watkins responded
that public sidewalk improvement was considered, but funding is now allocated so staff moved on
to consider other projects
Pitts asked Habitat for Humanity will manage the application process for home repair. Watkins
responded that yes they would. Pitts then asked if these funds could help with historic preservation.
Watkins responded that they could possibly if criteria was met. Pitts asked if funds could be
earmark for just historic homes. Nelson responded that it could be a possibility for a future
partnership, but not in this case. Pitts stated that this could help with the unfunded mandate
associated with historic preservation.
Morgan stated that this will be on next Council consent agenda on May 14"
E. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction from the Council to establish a stakeholder
committee to review downtown parking garage design -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Brewer presented the item and noted that this is a continuation of the April 9" discussion. She then
reviewed the public input process, previous Council input and direction, the desired makeup of a
stakeholder committee and the tentative timeline.
Nicholson stated that she agrees with the list stakeholders and that staff may benefit from having
someone once removed with a possible art or design background.
Eby asked what staff s thoughts were on selection process. Brewer responded that staff is seeking
that feedback from Council. Eby stated that a committee is good idea but the thought should be
broader than just appointees.
Hesser stated that stakeholders should have knowledge of the issues and whatever is required
mirrors the project objective and provide that to members.
Gonzalez stated that qualified personnel should be on the committee and is willing to open up the
application process. He added that it should be considered to pull from the whole community which
could include someone from outside to consider functionality.
Pitts stated that is Council is going to appoint members his only issue is added time to the process.
Fought stated that he is comfortable appointing someone and appointees are not required to be
within selected Council districts. He added that Council should be expeditious. Mayor Ross stated
that he agrees and that the nominations will be submitted to Council for approval. Jonrowe asked
that Council provide what qualification their appointees have. Nicholson added that appointees
need to understand the commitment to the timeline and show up to meetings.
Mayor Ross asked that Council send recommendations by Monday to the City Secretary.
F. Presentation and discussion of the 20th Annual Red Poppy Festival -- Cari Miller, Tourism
Manager
Miller presented the item. She added that the City is three days away from the 20' anniversary of
the Red Poppy Festival. Miller showed a commercial that was being run on TV and in the City
Lights movie theater. She reviewed the schedule of events. Miller then highlighted the City
Showcase that will take place on Sunday and feature City staff and vehicles. She then listed new
features this year including an expanded shuttle service, economic impact study, the continuation
of having a zero waste event, and a large video screen on Red Poppy Stage. Miller showed the Red
Poppy Festival 20`h anniversary promotional video. She then showed appreciation to Red Poppy
Festival Planning Committee.
Mayor Ross congratulated staff on a job well done.
Council adjourned into executive session at 4:42 p.m.
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.
G. 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
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Sale of Property - 103 West 71h Street -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchased Power Update
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
Adjournment
4.47,
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin Executive Session at PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
114 1 2ma
Date
a6v& C � Z4VL D"VN—
Dale floss, Mayor Attest: Cill Secretary