HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.14.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 2:30 PM at the Council
Chambers, at 510 West 9th 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 p.m. The following Council Members were in
attendance. Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Valerie Nicholson,
Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council
Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member
District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7.
Nicholson arrived at 2:38 p.m. during Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. Presentation and update regarding the downtown parking garage -- Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
Brewer presented the item and noted the staff that has been assisting with the project. She
noted that this is a follow up from the November 26, 2019 Council meeting. Brewer then
reviewed the Downtown Master Plan and a map showing parking options for downtown.
She then reviewed the 2015 Parking Study and its findings including. She then reviewed the
locations that were considered for the garage. Brewer reviewed the increase in downtown
assessed values, businesses in development, and new businesses that came about in 2019. She
then reviewed a map showing downtown development and public parking options.
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, presented and reviewed the UDC parking requirements for
different uses. She then reviewed alternative parking plans, how they are utilized, and a map
illustrating where alternative parking plans are used. Nelson reviewed the parking goals for
downtown and opportunities to meet those goals. She then asked Council for feedback on if
Council would like to do the following: (1) utilize the existing alternative parking plan option
to allow partial credit for proximity to public parking; (2) evaluate the required parking for
Area 2; and (3) seek opportunities to encourage (financially or regulations) new parking lots
in Area 2.
Gonzalez noted that businesses are growing, but parking has not expanded. He stated that
there should be certain amount of spaces per business to allow for accessibility. Gonzalez
suggested requirements for new developments as he only sees growth to be continuing. He
also noted that some parking spaces are counted multiple times by different businesses.
Pitts asked for clarification on the alternative parking plan using Union on Eight as an
example. Nelson explained that Union on Eight could not count the Bluebonnet parking lot
towards its total of required parking spaces. Pitts asked if Union on Eight had a parking
agreement with a nearby business. Nelson responded that the UDC allows shared parking
agreements within a certain vicinity and that the use described also has a valet component.
Pitts asked for clarification on the feedback being sought. Nelson responded that she is asking
for guidance and if this proposal is something Council wants staff to consider using as more
requests are coming in. Pitts stated that his concern is equitability. He added that businesses
that will have to have this and the City can't overcommit the Red Poppy Lot. Pitts asked how
the City will determine the equity in distribution of parking spots and if business are getting
spots, then those spots are no longer available to the public. He asked that staff later provide
more information on the equitability but supported staff pursuing all opportunities. Nelson
responded the alternative parking plan would not lead to reserved spots, but instead a credit
towards available off-street parking. Pitts noted the demand for parking spaces and how the
City is currently counting the parking spaces. Nelson stated that she would gather more
information.
Jonrowe stated that not all public parking is created equal and some parking is closer to
transition zones like residential and consider providing less credit for those spaces. She stated
in Area 2 the City should evaluate the proposed usage. Jonrowe continued that time of day
for the highest traffic of businesses should be considered. She noted that so much has changed
since original parking study the City should consider updating the study. Jonrowe asked that
staff consider where people traditionally park versus where they are willing to park.
Fought stated that every time parking is discussed, it is obvious that spots were incorrectly
counted, and the City is now short on parking. He stated that as a City we have said we will
provide parking. Fought noted his concern about handicapped parking, especially during
events and it needs to be considered. He noted that the City needs to pursue every
opportunity to provide as much parking as possible.
Triggs supported staff moving forward with opportunities.
Nicholson noted that if the City recounted the number of parking spaces staff should take an
area wide approach with Area 1. Nelson explained the existing parking setup in both Area 1
and Area 2. Nicholson stated that the City created density, but no parking.
Calixtro asked if the City has considered all the cars parked along Austin Avenue. She noted
that there are dangerous sections on Austin Avenue. She asked if in the studies, the parking
garage was considered for taking parking away from Area 1. David Morgan, City Manager,
responded that those issues are line of sight issues and are part of the overall parking plan.
He added that staff is reviewing that now on Sixth at Austin Ave and this parking study
didn't capture that scope, but visibility is part of ongoing parking management.
Brewer resumed the presentation and noted that the 2015 Parking Study noted the lack of
surface parking. She then provided the history of downtown parking from 2015 to 2018 and
partnerships that were evaluated during that period. Brewer reviewed the sale of the former
City Council Chambers and former City Hall. She also reviewed previous Council
presentations and direction in 2019 and the consensus of Council from the September 10, 2019
Council meeting that included: a garage located on the southeast corner of Sixth and Main
Streets; net increase of 150 parking spaces; consideration of including possible retail or
displays; and $5 million budget for the project. Brewer reviewed the abandonment ordinance
that was discussed on November 26, 2019 including a conceptual layout.
Fought asked if the abandonment makes the street the same consistent width. Brewer
responded yes, it will.
Brewer resumed the presentation and reviewed how the abandonment will affect the right-
of-way. She then reviewed where parking spaces will be lost and gained in the area and the
size of the spaces in the parking garage.
Fought noted that large trucks could be in parking garage and asked if the photo shows
anything unusual for size and height. Brewer responded no, the City height is higher to
accommodate handicap vans. Fought noted that handicap vehicles usually have a three-foot
area next to them for wheelchairs and the need to be ADA complaint. Brewer responded that
the City will be obligated to meet ADA requirements and is required to include seven
handicap spaces and provided details on those spaces.
Pitts asked how the City would use the garage during festivals and events. Brewer responded
that staff hasn't gotten that far yet and would be open to moving things around to make
spaces available. Morgan noted that the area could be used for sheltering in place which is a
current vulnerability.
Brewer resumed the presentation and reviewed preliminary number for the cost of utility
relocations. She added that the encroachment will reduce the right of way profile below what
is identified in the Downtown Master Plan, but most the major components will still be met.
Brewer concluded with a proposed schedule for the garage going forward and noted the City
is still about two years away from the garage being utilized.
Nicholson stated that she is concerned about increased construction costs and asked about
the costs of other options. Brewer responded that there is such a wide range of options its
hard to provide an estimate and the parking consultant has noted a 5% increase in
construction costs from 2018-2019 and provided general estimates of costs per space. She
noted the national average is $21,500 per space for a parking garage space. Nicholson noted
that there are no surface spots left and that staff will continue to provide guidance as process
moves forward. Brewer yes, staff will continue to check in with Council. She added that the
architect and project manager feel better doing estimates with concrete feedback from the
steering committee. Nicholson asked if there is a way to estimate cost of doing nothing.
Brewer responded that staff can do research and the Downtown Master Plan is based on best
services for communities. She added that staff could reach out to businesses to better
understand their needs and sales tax in downtown have increase dramatically, which is hard
to tie to parking but can measure increased activity.
Triggs asked what the $5 million estimate included. Brewer responded that the $5 million
was the project cost from a few years ago and staff is working to update that number. Triggs
stated that the $5million isn't solid and asked $180,000 for utility costs was included. Brewer
responded staff will look for other opportunities if possible, for relocation utilizes and added
that downtown utility costs run higher. Triggs asked about land acquisition costs and if a
MAI appraisal has been complete to provide information on the highest and best use for the
property. Brewer responded that staff has not and noted that the property has been in City
ownership since the late 1970s. She stated that acquisition costs should be nominal, but staff
can do an appraisal. Triggs noted that with a MAI appraisal staff will get the highest and best
use value and this property could possibly be the second most valuable piece of property the
City owns. He added that he wants to see what that property could bring and at past Council
meetings people talked about how this could be the cheapest site. Triggs continued that he
doesn't actually have enough information to determine the costs of the site and he needs more
information about the best site for garage.
Calixtro had not comments.
Jonrowe about the statistics related to how far customers were willing to walk to a business.
Brewer responded with statistics to clarify. She added that there was some overlap in the
different groups. Jonrowe noted that he questions could have been better defined. Brewer
agreed. Jonrowe asked if the City has pursued 3-hour parking at City lots. Brewer responded
that the City has not. Jonrowe stated that she would like to further explore agreements with
the County and adding lights to County lots as many are dark. Brewer responded that she
can get estimates on costs for lighting. She added that she will reach out to the County and
noted that the County may consider parameters for their ability for future redevelopment of
their lots. Jonrowe, based on the recent survey, which percentage of respondents wanted a
retail component. Brewer responded that she was not sure but will get the information.
Jonrowe stated that she remembers it being a high percentage and asked if the current location
would allow for that. Brewer noted that the design committee is working on that now.
Jonrowe stated that the ultimate design needs to be multi use. She added that housing units
are problematic for private parking requirements and wondered what it would look like to
have a publicly funded retail, public parking combination. Brewer responded that she will
bring it back to Council. Jonrowe asked if the net spaces for the proposal are based on a four
story without a retail component. Brewer responded yes. Jonrowe asked what kind of fagade
was included with the overall costs. Brewer responded that the committee is still reviewing
that component. Jonrowe asked about the current estimates. Brewer responded that she
wasn't sure, possibly a stamped fagade. Eric Johnson, Facilities Supervisor, noted that the
current quotes allow for a bring fagade. Jonrowe asked if that included the Seventh Street
fagade. Johnson responded that it includes brick on the Main and Sixth Street side adding
that there is isn't a fagade on the Seventh Street side. Jonrowe asked if part of the Seventh
Street side would be visible above existing buildings. Johnson responded that was not 100%
sure of the sight lines for Seventh Street and the garage is currently proposed to have a split
face and explained how a split face is made. Jonrowe asked what the material was. Johnson
noted that it is a cement product that can resemble limestone. Jonrowe asked if staff was
aware how many spaces could be gained at the Ninth and Main Street location. Brewer
responded that staff can provide that information to Council. Jonrowe asked if all of the
spaces behind the private buildings on Seventh Street would be lost. Johnson responded yes,
there would be no access for vehicles. Jonrowe asked if staff has spoken to property owners.
Johnson responded that one building has no owner that had not yet been contacted and staff
has spoken to the owner of the other and is agreeable.
Pitts noted the appraisal idea mentioned by Mr. Triggs and stated that a parking garage
would never be the highest and best use. He added that he feels there is no need for an
appraisal and then the City would have to do and appraisal for all City real estate. Pitts read
an email that stated: "Friends, the good news is that the bad news doesn't happen until
January 14, 2020, so we can enjoy our well-earned holidays before then.
But the bad news will happen on that date when the proposed monster 4-story parking garage
shoe -horned into Sixth & Main will come before city council. We must be there to stop this
traffic nightmare from happening, because even now there may not be enough good people
sitting on the dais to see reason and kill this scam of a project.
Is it a scam? Yes, because this site so close to the Square has never been approved with any
public involvement, and the building itself defies all design standards for downtown,
overshadowing even the Courthouse in scale, as well as creating a traffic hazard for the
pedestrians who throng this area.
To be built in defiance of the downtown master plan, and at the cost of our taxpayer monies,
this parking garage will only benefit the event center at Fifth & Main - and this fact alone
should raise every suspicion about the motives behind this project.
That event center, as many of you know from bitter experience, was brought into being by a
city council that showed nothing but contempt for the massive demonstration of popular
objection to the project.
We had to work hard to prevent the event center, and in a fair world we would have won,
but Georgetown city govemance is far from a fair world. And so we shall have to fight against
this parking garage, which seems little more than the partner -in -crime of the event center.
But this time we'll win. We have some better people on the council now, and we have more
information coming to light about the shenanigans behind this project.
I will send more information closer to the time - at least one more email, and probably two."
Pitts then asked if the parking garage is part of the City's CIP (Capital Improvement Project)
process. Brewer responded that it is. Pitts asked how many CIP projects does the City have
this fiscal year and how many had special public involvement to discuss location. Brewer
responded around 30 projects and only parks projects that require State requirement for input
and a few other projects received public input. Pitts asked if the garage falls within the typical
City standards for the CIP process. Morgan responded that this project did meet normal CIP
standards. Pitts asked if the new garage will create traffic and pedestrian hazards that don't
currently exist. Brewer responded that the current possible design has one access point,
which is the same as the current parking lot. Pitts asked if the parking garage will only benefit
the event center at Fifth and Main to Ms. Brewer's knowledge. Brewer responded no and
noted all the development going on in the area. Pitts stated that he now knows that this isn't
about a parking garage but instead an event center.
Gonzalez agreed with Pitts regarding an appraisal of the lot. He added that the garage is for
public benefit and he would consider other options if they were available. Gonzalez stated
that if something was done at Ninth and Main it would be much more expensive to the tax
payers. He added that the City has been talking about parking garages for ten years but still
has done nothing and if someone else buys that lot, their first question will be where parking
is located. Gonzalez added that keeping everything in mind, this particular garage is the first
step of many to address parking.
Triggs stated that he wanted to point out that highest and best use is to find the value of that
land. He added that he understands that a free parking garage is never going to be a highest
and best use, but important to understand the value of that land. Pitts stated that if that
strategy is taken on this lot it would have to be done on all possible lots. Triggs responded
not necessarily. Pitts stated that he contacted two different real estate brokers, and both
recommended selling the lot for around $1 million.
Susan Firth gave her time to Scott Firth.
Scott Firth, a member of Parking Garage Steering Committee, stated that he was speaking on
his own behalf tonight. He provided a presentation of a possible design of the garage and
stated that he is concerned about the possible steep angles of garage and the City needs a
location that doesn't restrict the mapping of the garage. Firth noted that the needs of the users
should be included in the discussion.
Mark Truxillo gave his time to Larry Olsen.
Larry Olsen, member of the Parking Garage Steering Committee, stated that he was not
representing the committee today. He then noted his experience in construction and provided
a presentation with possible project costs of the proposed garage. Olsen noted positive work
done by the committee his estimated increase in project costs.
Ann Seaman, lives near Sweet Lemon and has a property value interest in the project, stated
that he likes Triggs idea of getting an appraisal for the value of the land. She then noted traffic
concerns with entering and exiting the garage and that it is okay to question the location of
garage even though it is a CIP project. Seaman stated that this is not a pedestrian friendly
design and a parking garage is not the only solution to getting handicap people downtown.
John Johnson gave his time to Ross Hunter.
Ross Hunter, an old town resident, stated that the people have been in the dark about this for
the last 4 to 5 years and last time there was any public involvement was in 2015. He added
that the Council was able to get sold about this project in Executive Session over the last two
years. Hunter stated that he was author of email quoted by Mr. Pitts. He wondered why this
site was chosen and why is this location now written in stone. Hunter stated that the citizens
just now heard about this and are scrambling to get information. He noted the sale of a
building for an eventual parking garage. Hunter stated that this is a public works project. He
stated that Triggs wants to know the value and is getting shot down and the townspeople
have not been involved. Hunter stated that Jonrowe's suggestion of updating parking study
is a good one that should be considered. He noted the tight footprint of the lot and this town
needs public involvement in highest and best use of the lot.
Terry Scanlon, resident, stated that Georgetown is a special place. He added that the list of
businesses provided worked hard to be as close to downtown as possible because it is a
special area. Scanlon stated that he is concerned about how casually this location has been
considered and asked Council to pause and reconsider and anything built in the downtown
area. He noted the village feel and community spirit and stated that the parking garage is flat
and doesn't have any life or energy.
Larry Brundidge, resident, noted the cost of the building versus the cost of the lot. He stated
that it is hard to believe that there isn't an alternative in the City and if the first level is not
subterranean there no way to meet the 39 foot. Requirement. Brundidge noted a TIA policy
and the need to know the traffic impact.
Council had no additional comments.
B. Presentation and update regarding the 2020 Census and the Georgetown Complete Count
Committee -- Keith Hutchinson, Communications Manager
Hutchinson presented the item and introduced Fang Fang from the Census office in Austin.
Fang presented and provided the goal of the Census. She noted that residents will be notified
in mid -March about participation in the Census and will be provided options on how to
respond. Fang noted that Census process will start in mid -March and last through July. She
reviewed what is covered in the Census questionnaire: name; age and date of birth; sex; race
and origin; own or rent home; relationship; and phone number. Fang noted that the
questionnaire will not ask: citizenship question; Social Security Number; financial info; or as
for a donation. She then noted the steps being taken to keep data safe and what penalties
being forced upon Census takers who misuse information. Fang reviewed the uses of Census
data and how if effects Williamson County and Georgetown.
Hutchinson then reviewed the goals of the Georgetown Complete Count Committee. He
reviewed the committee representation on the committee and the role of City of Georgetown
staff. Hutchinson noted the need to count hard -to -count populations and who is covered in
those populations as those that are: hard to locate; hard to contact; hard to persuade; and hard
to interview. He reviewed hard -to -count areas in Williamson County and statistics related to
those areas.
Mayor Ross asked if the Census Bureau is responsible for finding hard to reach people in the
county. Hutchinson responded yes, but the Complete Count Committee is there to assist.
Mayor Ross asked if the organizations listed in presentation will assist with count.
Hutchinson responded yes, someone from each group will be on the committee. He also
noted the many ways that the Census information is used.
Council had no additional questions.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Implementation Plan for the 2030 Update -- Sofia
Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson presented the item and introduced Wendy Shabay from Freese and Nichols. Shabay
reviewed he work that was done up until the point in time. She asked the Council if the
proposed action plan will achieve the Council's 2030 goals and if there is additional
information needed before finalizing the actions and beginning public engagement on the
Implementation Plan. She then reviewed how to use the plan; the major strategies; regulatory
framework; decision framework, plans, programs, and partnerships; on -going action steps;
public engagement plan; and next steps.
Mayor Ross noted all the options for stakeholder feedback.
Council had no additional comments.
Mr. Brad Horner spoke on Section 551.086 of Executive Session. He stated that competition
with Suddenlink when other utilities aren't working out too well. Mr. Horner asked why
would the City want to take on utility when some City employees can't answer emails. He
added that he has addressed employees and Councilmembers publicly and privately. Mr.
Horner asked why the City would take on more responsibility when they can't handle what
they're got now.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:52 noting that Council would begin Executive
Session discussion at 4:58 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
- PEC Franchise
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation about Real Property
- Right of Way acquisition from Kids Kottage (Parcel 1), Old Airport Road Realignment Project
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update
- QSE Agreement with Garland Power and Light
- Demand Response Joint Solution Agreement with Links EP LLC
- ISDA Agreement with Mercuria Inc.
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
Mayor Ross at 4:52 p.m. recessed into Executive Session.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
Date
Dale Mayor Attest: City S6rcuary