HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.27.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:00 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 3:01 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance.
Mayor Dale Ross; Valerie Nicholson, Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District
3; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy
Gonzalez, District 7. District 1 is vacant and Steve Fought, Council Member District 4 was absent.
Gonzalez joined the dais at 3:05 p.m.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation, update, and discussion on land use and gateway policies for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update -- Sofa Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson presented the item and recapped Council discussion and direction so far. The map below was
referred to several time throughout the presentation.
t
1I29 UWY- ALv- Cenrrai
lllia t1 DAL'a
?
$11 N Univ Ave Wr t
d
NorthAustin Aw.
5
South Austin Aw-
o
Ev
7
1°:I r 5ou t h A u�un Aw.
8
Spur 1%North Austin Ave.
9
51.124 Univ Ave. Fist
j(1
FM [eindcr Road
i I
FM 34t, i1-vark&F RC Md
12
RH 110
1.-4
FM 971 R'rvr Road
1.1
1511195
GATEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT
X _
I
i �.i u.LMa .�~.....
�•
_
Nelson described the difference between gateways and landmarks and that gateways: provide a
landmark, streetscape, or other feature entering the city, a neighborhood, a cultural district, destinations;
and can include single landmarks or corridors. She stated that corridors: are a continuous system along
a highway, street, or greenway; may also act as primary gateways into Georgetown such as Williams
Dr.; and often developed to signify a high -profile corridor or district. Nelson noted the Gateway
Overlay Districts and the 14 designated corridors as shown on the map. She added that these areas
currently require additional landscaping and design standards. Nelson also noted that the key difference
is that these are not subject to vision but are required by guidelines. She added that Council asked for
goals and policies for location, character, design, streetscape, and signage. Nelson continued that the
purpose of the Gateways is to protect and enhance the entrance corridors to the City with landscaping,
setbacks, and special design standards. She added that the City currently has limited regulations in place
to require additional landscaping standards but lacks a defined vision and purpose for each corridor.
Nelson reviewed the Downtown corridor and noted that, per the UDC, it is intended to enhance and
unify the appearance of the major roadways adjacent to, and directly leading into downtown
Georgetown and shall reflect a relatively formal, urban extension of the downtown and visually enhance
its aesthetic appearance. She added that Downtown is meant to reflect an urban, formal appearance
and asked if Council agreed with the ordered list of issues identified by the public which was: 1)
walkability; 2) streetscape; 3) Land Use; 4) Building Scale/Design; and 5) Signs.
Nicholson noted the need for directional signs and possible locations to clearly mark downtown. She
added that there are some great natural barriers to leverage.
Mayor Ross noted the Gas Light District in San Diego and its good use of indicators of location. He
added that he would like downtown and the historic district clearly marked. Mayor Ross also noted the
monument signs already in place. He added the downtown historic district should have something
dramatic noting its barriers.
Gonzalez stated that he feels that gateways and historic designations should possibly be two different
things. Nelson asked if Council would like to use both landmark and corridors for these areas.
Gonzalez responded yes.
Pitts asked if the City should put development guidelines to address the issues of walkability,
streetscape, land use, and build scale/design. Nelson responded that is could be addressed that way.
She added that Council could consider what is needed from a policy standpoint. Pitts stated that the
three areas designated as downtown are already heavily developed and some of the improvements may
be hard to achieve, but signs may help with the designations. He added that in areas of town that are
not yet developed there are more opportunities.
Jonrowe asked about signs. Nelson explained the different types of signs and their potential impact.
Jonrowe stated the need of monument types signage for the downtown area. She then asked if there
was a master plan in place for University Avenue. Nelson responded that was not. Jonrowe suggested
looking into implementing one for University Avenue.
Nicholson noted that there are opportunities to look at signage in general and consider the possibility
of sign grants.
Nelson then reviewed the Scenic Natural corridors and stated that they are intended to reflect the natural
characteristics of the land and the purpose of the design standards is to maintain the existing informal
character as they develop. She then asked Council if there was a need for scenic and natural gateways
at this point considering the development happening at the City.
Pitts questioned the designation of Scenic Natural overlay for Williams Drive, far South Austin Avenue,
and a portion of Highway 29. Nelson responded by reviewing areas on the map that indicate natural
breaks.
Mayor Ross asked why Segment 7 on the map is a corridor and not a gateway. Nelson responded the
current designations are based out of the UDC but staff is seeking guidance.
Pitts asked if a scenic natural overlay would be an area with not much development. Nelson responded
yes, that's correct. Pitts stated that the current lines should be pushed out further from when the map
was originally created and should be updated.
Nelson asked if the Council would like the Steering Committee to further refine their work on the scenic
natural overlay and define some urban corridors. Mayor Ross responded yes. Nelson asked if the
priority was correctly ranked: 1) land use; 2) streetscape; and 3) building design/scale. Nicholson
responded yes and that streetscape definitely needs to be addressed.
Nelson recapped Council feedback on scenic natural overlay areas.
Nelson then reviewed the highway corridors that are intended to positively reflect the image of the City
by enhancing development with well -designed Site Plans and landscaping while maintaining a safe and
effective interstate highway. She then reviewed the segments currently labeled by this designation and
asked Council in the priorities were in the correct order: 1) land use; 2) building scale/design; 3)
streetscape; 4) signs; and 5) walkability.
Nicholson stated that she feels the Spur 158 North Austin Avenue is in a different character than the
other roadways listed.
Nelson the reviewed the feedback requested and Council's comments.
Nelson then reviewed the Land Use Element and provided a recap of staff guidance to this point. She
then reviewed the goals guiding the land use policy how staff drafted the policies. Nelson noted that
staff revised where a solution was present and drafted new policies where solutions did not exist. She
reviewed how staff is updating categories: existing conditions and needs for update from 2008; best
practices and peer review; incorporating Economic Development strategies; and by seeking input from
P&Z, Council, and the Steering Committee. Nelson stated that staff is using the existing land use
pattern and development pipeline as considerations for scenarios. She then said that staff will also
consider including target industries and workforce including: advanced manufacturing; life sciences;
and professional services. Nelson stated that staff is asking for feedback on the following questions: Is
there a land use category you want the steering committee to focus on; Is the City Council focus for the
growth scenarios the appropriate ratio of residential to non-residential land uses and resulting net fiscal
impact; and Are there any key questions the Council wants answered through growth scenario
development?
Gonzalez stated the importance on focusing on the ratios of residential versus non-residential.
Pitts stated that the City needs to consider the right number of multi -family housing and determining
what that number is. He added that that he is concerned about using land for all residential and not
setting aside enough for other needs
Jonrowe stated that the location of residential and non-residential is important and the City should try
to keep things convenient for residents.
Ross noted that the Scenic Natural Overlay is not what he imagines. Nelson responded that there is
potential for other options. Mayor Ross stated that in respect to residential versus non-residential, it is
whatever makes sense. He added that Sun City is majority of population, but they often have to travel
down Williams Drive to get services and goods. Mayor Ross stated that businesses need to go near
residential.
Nicholson stated that she agrees with Mayor Ross' comments and asked what other communities have
done. Nelson responded that staff is looking at best practices. Nicholson stated that Council needs to
provide direction and she is seeing good progress with room to grow.
Jonrowe stated that she would like staff to explore what other communities are doing to integrate
multifamily into single family development.
Gonzalez stated that the market will drive direction of economy and the City need to promote products
that are in demand.
Mayor Ross asked Nelson to review the take-aways. Nelson responded to look at other communities,
be market sensitive, and see if there is a correct ratio of single family to multifamily housing. Morgan
thanked Council for the feedback.
Nelson provided Council the next steps for the process.
B. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the Electric Vehicle Charging Program and possible
future program options -- James Foutz, Marketing and Conservation Manager
Foutz presented the item and noted that in 2011 the City was an early adopter of the technology. He
added that there was a lack of a wide spread charging network and the Department of Energy invests
in a nationwide charging network via the Smart Charge America program and six (6) stations awarded
to Georgetown. Foutz said that the program attracts electronic vehicle drivers to utilize downtown
businesses and evaluate the potential for future revenue.
Foutz provided the 2019 Outlook and the barriers for electronic vehicle adoption that include charging
station locations, battery range and cost. He added that battery costs continue to decline, range
continues to increase, and stations no longer needed to be in close proximity, therefore the cost parity
between electronic vehicles and conventional vehicles expected in the next 10 years. Foutz reviewed
the 2019 electronic vehicle market share and noted that the market share continues to grow with
increased vehicle models and charging infrastructure and 20 models are available in the Austin area.
He added that the market share for Austin metro area is the top 15 areas among new vehicles and 3%
of vehicles bought in 2018 were electronic vehicles.
Foutz then provided a station summary noting that there are six (6) stations originally installed in the
downtown area: two (2) at the Recreation Center that were removed June 2019 due to inoperability;
two (2) at the parking lot on 9th and Main that were removed April 2019 due to inoperability; one (1)
behind the former council Chambers that was removed June 2019 due to inoperability; and one (1) at
the Library that is still active. He added that the stations have reached their end -of -life and replacement
parts are not available, and the stations will no longer allowed on the Chargepoint network as of
December 2019.
Foutz provided a recap of usage during electronic vehicle program from 2011 to 2019. He noted that
10 drivers accounted for 47% of the usage and the most used stations are at the recreation center, the
parking lot at 9th and Main, and the Library. Jonrowe asked for clarification and if the data referred to
the most used number of time or vehicles. Foutz clarified that is mean time/session.
Foutz then recapped the usage during the electronic vehicle program from 2011 to 2019. He added that
the majority of the usage was during the day with peak usage occurring around 6:OOpm and the pattern
has changed over time from weekends to weekdays.
Foutz then reviewed the program direction options. He stated that Option A is to keep things status
quo with one (1) station currently in operation. Foutz said that this station will be removed upon failure
or by December 2019, whichever comes first and the removal cost is approximately $300.00. He said
this option will let the market determine and drive the program with no City assistance.
Foutz said that Option B would have the City owning and operating the stations and that the replacement
cost will be $21,000.00 to purchase and install five (5) Level 2 Charging Stations. He added that the
annual maintenance and licensing fee will be $2,200.00 per year and will be renewable every year after
the first year. Foutz said that that the replacement cycle will be every five years and the total five-year
investment will equal $29,800.00 plus energy charges. He noted that the energy charges will be paid
by customers using stations and the City is competing with other market providers.
Foutz reviewed Option C that would be a station as a service option with $0 replacement costs. He
added that the City owns the property and the vendor owns the station. Foutz stated that existing station
locations could be utilized, and the City would contract with a third party to provide stations and service.
He said that the annual service fee would equal $7,500.00 plus energy charges with a total five-year
investment of $37,500.00 plus energy charges. Foutz continued that the energy charges would be paid
by customers using stations and the City would be partnering with vendor for technology and
maintenance and competing with other market providers.
Foutz reviewed Option D that would provide customer rebates for electronic vehicle infrastructure and
have a replacement cost and annual fees of $0.00. He added that the stations would be placed on the
customer's side of the meter with operation and maintenance would be customer's responsibility and
the City would allow rebate offerings of $4,000.00 to $9,000.00. Foutz said that market costs for Level
2 charging stations is between $4,000.00 and $9,000.00 and the City would set the rebate at a desired
recovery percentage or at full cost up to a certain level. He stated that the total 5-year investment would
depend on the number of rebates and City could set a maximum amount per year. Foutz noted that
commercial customers have expressed interest in EV chargers as an employee benefit, and to draw
business. He said that the energy costs could be paid through rebated customer's electric rate and the
City would influence the market through station placement.
Foutz then reviewed the cost summary for each option with five stations.
Pitts stated that he would prefer Option A or partnering with interested commercial clients on a case by
case basis.
Jonrowe asked if GECDO funds can used for this. Morgan responded that it has not been looked at,
but he doesn't believe they could be used. Foutz stated that funds would come out of conservation
special revenue fund.
Mayor Ross asked what model Round Rock uses at the outlet mall. Foutz responded that those are fast
charger models and the vendor identifies location.
Gonzalez stated that he would prefer private/public partnership. He added that if someone wants this
on their property, the City could allow a grant, but doesn't think the City needs to run and operate these.
Nicholson asked what else is funded out of the conservation funds. Foutz responded the energy audit.
Nicholson asked if these funds could be used differently if this is not pursued. She noted that she does
not feel that the City has enough charging stations to make an impact. Foutz responded that this is not
budgeted for next year.
Mayor Ross asked for Option C clarification and wanted to know what the City is paying $37,500.00
for. Foutz stated that it was for licensing. Morgan added that it is a lease. Mayor Ross asked how the
City would recoup the $37,500.00. Foutz responded that it would be via an energy use fees. Mayor
Ross said that he would be in favor of system that allows some recovery of funds spent and the City
can change course in future. He added that he likes option C which is a pretty minimal investment over
five years.
Jonrowe state that she agrees and that there might be downtown business owners that would like to see
charging stations but don't have ability to operate. She added that she is fine with a combination of
options C and D.
Triggs asked why there is a five-year investment. Foutz responded that it correlates to the useful life
of equipment. Triggs asked if the current equipment can't be maintained and if the City would still
have that issue with new five-year equipment. Foutz responded yes and with option B the City would
own the stations as assets and with option C the City passes it on to the provider. Triggs asked Foutz
to explain the $37,500.00 cost in more depth. Foutz responded that it would get the City out of owning
the assets and allow for the convenience of replacing stations as needed. Triggs asked what the scenario
would be if a partner comes back and says they can't fix the stations anymore. Foutz responded that it
is part of an agreement and would be a contractual obligation.
Nicholson clarified that if the cost is $1500.00 per charging stations per year. She then said that if the
City will do it she would like to see it done more significantly and in different areas. Foutz responded
that those prices were just revolved around replacing existing five stations and may change if more are
added. Gonzalez stated that if the City is contracting there will revisions for increased costs associated
with leasing. He added that any City parking spaces that have charging stations can't be used by the
rest of the public. Gonzalez stated that he would prefer to add more spaces once the City has more use.
Nicholson stated that she was thinking beyond downtown and possibly along bus routes.
Morgan said that staff would encourage Council to put limitations on these stations. He added that staff
could explore both options C and D. Mayor Ross stated that options C&D seem to be preferred by
Council and have Foutz come back to answer questions.
Morgan stated that staff will come back in September.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the
Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation
(GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ending
June 30, 2019 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
Diaz presented the Third Quarter Report and noted that all figures are consistent with the Budget
presentation on July 17th and City Manager's Proposed Budget. He added that staff has an updated
projection for Electric Fund to reflect July receipts for purchased power. Diaz then reviewed the
General Fund revenues and noted that they total $53.3 million, or 75% of budget and year to date,
revenues exceed last year's third quarter revenue by 9.3%. He added that the funds are projecting to
finish slightly higher than budget and the sales tax revenue represents 22% of revenue with revenue
through this quarter totals $9.6 million, or 60.2% of budget. Diaz said that at this stage of the fiscal
year, all four year-end regression models have the City finishing the year around 5% higher than budget.
Diaz reviewed this Sales Tax chart.
$1, 500, 000
$1,400,000
$1,300,000
$1, 200,000
$1,100,000
$�t,000,000
$900,000
$800, 000 f
$700,000
$600,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
— 2015 —2016 -2017 —2018 —2019
Diaz reviewed property tax revenue and noted that it represents 20% of revenue and for this quarter
property tax revenue totals 13.6 million or 98.4% of budget, which year to date is up 11.5%, or $1.4
million from the third quarter of FY2018 and projected slightly above budget. He stated that
development related revenue represents 5% of budget and year to date development totals $2.4 million
or 71.2% of budget. Diaz added that development revenues in FY2019 are projected to end 13% higher
than budget due to a one-time payment of Master Development fees from MUDs in FY2019 of about
$400,000.00.
Diaz said that the Fire/EMS Revenue group represents 10% of the general fund and is comprised of
ESD 8 Contract ($3.5 million), EMS transport revenue ($2.6 million), and SAFER and TASPP grants
($826,000.00) and FY2019 is projected to end less than 1% below budget due to slightly less grant
revenue being received.
Diaz said that Return on Investment (ROI) revenue represents 11% of total general fund revenues and
the year to date total $5.24 million. He added that ROI is comprised of a transfer from the Electric,
Water, and Stormwater funds. And is projected to end FY2019 at $7.27 million, or 6.4% less than
budget. Diaz noted that staff is proposing transferring only $3.825 million from the Electric Fund
instead of the full budgeted amount of $4.325 million.
Diaz reviewed the Franchise Fees Projections and stated that Franchise Fees represent 8% of the general
fund revenues and the City collects franchise fees on electric, water, cable TV, gas, telephone (land
lines), stormwater, and irrigation. He added that year to date, this revenue group totals $3.8 million and
Franchise Fees in FY2019 are projected to end 3% higher than budget.
Diaz reviewed the General Fund Park and Rec Fees and stated that Parks and Recreation revenue (4%
of revenue) totals $1.9 million through the third quarter and year to date, Parks and Rec revenues are
at 65% of budget. He added that FY2019 is projected to end at $2.7 million with a variance to budget
of $251,000.00 and the variance in primarily due to Garey Park revenue which is projected to come in
$175,000 less than budget after its first year of operations.
Diaz provided a General Fund Revenue Summary and stated that the City's two largest revenue streams,
property tax and sales tax, are projecting at or above budget and other revenue streams like EMS and
development related revenues continue to grow with population and new development. He added that
the utility related fees and revenues through the third quarter are down due to the change in billing cycle
and staff is monitoring parks and rec revenues and adjusted Garey Park revenue in the FY2020 Budget.
Pitts asked if the Council could get a workshop on Garey Park to provide an overview. No one on
Council disagreed.
Mayor Ross asked about the excess fund balance and its projections at the end of year. Diaz responded
that he will have to get back to Council. Morgan stated that $1.3 million is slated to go into contingency
and that the proposed budget will include an excess fund balance will go to cover increase in
contingency for next year. Mayor Ross asked about the projected fund balance in Council contingency
at year end. Morgan responded that staff will know that in February.
Gonzalez explained different between contingency funds and Council contingency fund.
Diaz explained the General Fund Expenses and noted overall expenditures through the third quarter
total $50.9 million, or 71.8% of budget (projected slightly below budget) and that total salaries and
benefit expenditures through the third quarter total $30.1 million. Operational costs total $20.1 million.
He added that currently through 20 of 26 payrolls is at 76.9% target and that Police overtime at Blue
Hole has slowed down. Diaz reviewed the General Fund Expenses and noted that overall, General
Fund expenditures are within budget and the fund can cover the 90-day Contingency Reserve (projected
at slightly below budget).
Diaz reviewed the Electric Fund and said that all operation revenues total $55.5 million through the
third quarter and electric sales revenue through the third quarter totals $52.4 million, or 66.3% of budget
with net operating expenses totaling $51.6 million. He added that Purchased Power expenses total
$35.4 million, or 66.7% of budget and the projected ending fund balance is $5.34 million, with $4.08
million for contingency and $1.26 million for rate stabilization reserve.
Diaz reviewed the Water Fund and noted that overall water operating revenue totals $45.6 million, or
73.5% of budget (projected higher than budget) and Development Impact Fees continue to be strong
totaling $l 1.7 million through the third quarter. He said that Water operating expenses total $28.3
million, or 66.6% of budget (projected 2% higher than budget) due to mid -year change in allocation for
Conservation. Diaz said that non -operational expenses total $29.2 million and these non -operational
expenses are capital improvement projects that normally span multiple years and will be part of the CIP
Rollforward amendment in December.
Diaz reviewed the Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund and noted that: Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue
totals $951,794 through the third quarter of FY2019, or 70.5% of budget (projected at under budget by
2%); year to date expenses in the Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund total $1.06 M, or 78.9% of budget
(projected at slightly below budget); and the fund is projected to finish FY2019 with a fund balance of
$1.4 million and able to cover the 90-day operational reserve.
Diaz reviewed the Airport Fund and said that operating revenue totals $2.37 million, which represents
61.7% of budget (projected below budget due to cost of fuel). He added that operating expenses in the
Airport fund total $3.0 million, or 85% of budget and over $624,000 of the year to date expenses is fuel
related encumbrances (projected less than budget). Diaz said that overall, the fund is expected to end
FY2019 with positive cash flow, and $1.26 million in fund balance and will be able meet all of its debt
service and contingency requirements.
He then reviewed the City's Investment Report:
Date 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 1/2/2019
Total Cash and Investments 177,790,533.00 188,114,708.00 204,976,917.00
Average Yield 2.25 2.41 2.50
GTEC
Date 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 1/2/2019
Total Cash and Investments 18,526,812 19,423,174 21,345,649.0
Average Yield 2.19 2.53 2.5
�.� GUDCQ_ --
Date 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 1/2/2019
Total Cash and Investments 7,236,643 7,551,001 7,950,908
Average Yield 2.33 2.45 2.43
Council recessed into Executive Session at 4:31 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.
D. 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
-Parcels 9 & 10, Rabbit Hill Road, Acquisition -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update
- Portfolio Management RFP
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
() I �
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on - V 2
Date
C�u
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Ci ccretary