Loading...
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