Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 03.24.2020 CC-RNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, March 24, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 2:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 510 West 91" 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 2:30 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; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District. All Council Members present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Workshop was recessed into Executive Session at 2:31 p.m. Workshop resumed at 4:49 p.m. out of Executive Session. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:30 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) Update -- Glen Holcomb, Chief Building Official Holcomb, Chief Building presented and update on the 2015 International Building Code (ICC) and 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC). He provided a presentation overview and noted the Council direction from December 10, 2019 which was supporting staff, initiating public engagement, to gather feedback on proposed update to the International Building Code (2015 I -Codes) and National Electrical Code (2017NEC) and for staff to return, Quarter One of 2020, to share feedback, and staff recommendation on local amendments before drafting ordinance. Holcomb explained the public engagement that has been completed which included: public meetings with builders, developers, and other development professionals; notice to building permit applicants of contemplation of update to IBC and NEC; presentation(s) to Chamber Development Alliance on January 19th and February 26th, 2020; opportunity to provide comments on City's website; open house on March 6, 2020 and office hours; Building Standards Commission with a unanimous recommendation to adopt with local amendments; and through healthy discussions, recommendation to move forward. Jack Daly, Community Services Director presented and update on the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code and noted that its purpose is a model code that regulates the minimum maintenance requirements for existing buildings and is a maintenance document intended to establish minimum maintenance standards for basic equipment, light, ventilation, heating, sanitation and fire safety. He then provided background on the Code and provided visual examples of Code violation. Daly explained the differences in the current Code and the 2015 Code and that the Property Maintenance Code makes the maintenance and/or repair of an existing commercial or residential building, a legal requirement rather than an option and addresses life/safety issues typically found residential rental or commercial properties. He continued that it helps to prevent or eliminate blight situations like broken windows, dilapidated siding, and roofing issues. Council had no questions or comments and supported staff moving forward with adoption of the proposed updates. B. Presentation and discussion regarding the creation of a Bond Citizen Committee to determine a potential Mobility Bond Package -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager Weber presented and provided a background noting that the City had a 2008 and 2015 Road Bonds and that by 2022 the City of Georgetown will be substantially complete on the construction of 2008 and 2015 Road Bond projects. She added that the projects are supported by partner agencies of CAMPO, TxDOT, and Williamson County and at the February 11 Council Workshop Council directed staff to develop a proposed process for a November 2020 transportation bond. Weber noted that a team had been assembled consisting of: David Morgan, Laurie Brewer and Wayne Reed for management team/community education; Bridget Weber, project manager, committee and council communications; Robyn Densmore, committee agendas and election guidance; Wesley Wrigh,: manage consultant scope, cost estimates and project delivery; Ray Miller, analysis of project need/criteria and data to prioritize projects; Emily Kootnz, committee support; Aly Van Dyke/Keith Hutchinson, public engagement and outreach; Paul Diaz, project cost estimates/models and tax rate analysis; Leigh Wallace, financial guidance; Nathanial Waggoner, alignment with comprehensive plan; Joe Supulveda, data and mapping; and Steve McKeown, graphic design. She then explained the mobility bond purpose which is to advance Georgetown's connectivity and safety by upgrading streets, bridges, bike network, and sidewalks delivering projects consistent with community expectations to manage accelerated growth including: increased capacity of roadway network with high traffic volume; improved intersections and building sidewalks throughout Georgetown to create new connections within and among neighborhoods; and coordinating with other planned transportation work to accelerate delivery to Georgetown residents. Weber gave an overview of the guiding principles used as criteria for project selection which are: increase safety; present and future traffic volume; development growth; increase connectivity and regional mobility; affordability and leverage outside funds; support existing strategic plans; coordinate with partner agencies; and continuation of projects with multiple phases. She stated that staff recommends the creation of a 16-member Citizen Bond Committee appointed by Mayor and Council that includes two co-chairs appointed by the Mayor and two members each appointed by each member of the Council. Weber reviewed the committee charge which includes: review and vet criteria for projects; prioritize and rank staff -proposed streets and sidewalks improvement projects; review financial feasibility of proposed program; provide opportunities for community input; serve as community educators for the bond program; and to develop and submit report to the City Council of final project list for the proposed bond program. She added that staff anticipated the Committee to have two or three meetings per month estimated to be two to three hours each and those meetings will be held the first and third Thursday of the month from 6:00-7:30pm in the City Hall Community Room. Weber said that there will also be community input meetings and public education meetings that are to be determined and should be attended by the Committee. She noted the agency partners for the Bond Program will be Williamson County, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the stakeholders will be the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board, the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation, the community, homeowner and neighborhood associations, Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), the Chamber of Commerce, Georgetown Development Alliance, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and other related boards and commissions. Weber explained that public engagement will be at the center of Georgetown's bond process and staff will develop a way for every stakeholder, from the public to City Council, to partner agencies to engage in the process and provide feedback on categories of importance and this will be done with a first phase of public engagement and second phase of public education. She stated that the public engagement phase will include the following: ask public to provide input on four categories of importance and the preferred methods to improve those categories - improve safety, manage congestion, improve connections in neighborhoods, and improve quality of our streets; gauge support a potential tax rate increase through a bond package; survey the public sentiment of including other type of projects in proposed bond program; and e-newsletter sign up for bond program communications. Weber continued that the public engagement will ask residents for feedback on categories of projects and cost with two primary methods of open house and online survey where feedback from the open house and survey will be provided to the Citizen Bond Committee, and the Committee will work with City staff to evaluate potential mobility projects and make recommendations to City Council. She then explained the public education phase where once the projects, bond amount and ballot items are approved by Council, the City will conduct a campaign to educate and inform residents about the bond program and projects, and staff will share information on the bond projects through a wide variety of communication channels that will ensure that residents are informed of bond projects and cost. Weber then reviewed the Bond Program schedule with dates to be determined, which includes: public engagement activities to receive feedback about the primary focus areas and sentiment for bond debt; Council approves appointment of Citizen Bond Committee members; Citizen Bond Committee to start meeting; provide public feedback to citizen committee; ranking and prioritization and initial recommendation development; second round of public engagement activities to receive feedback about the proposed bond projects; final recommendation developed; Citizen Committee presents project recommendations and report to Council; Council adoption of finalized project list; Council calls bond election by deadline set by the Texas Secretary of State; and outreach and education to public, agency partners and stakeholders until election day. She then reviewed the anticipated costs for the program which include: an estimated $50,000 for consultant fee to develop detailed cost estimates and exhibits for each project including design, construction, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and escalation factors for cost inflation over time frame it will take to administer the bond program; $3,000 for Committee support including food, printed materials, etc.; an estimated $10,000 for public engagement costs; and an estimated $30,000 for the County fee for election management. Weber then explained that due to the recent outbreak of COVID-19, staff recommends delaying the proposed bond process and look for opportunities for a 2021 election. Calixtro had no comments. Nicholson thanked staff for the presentation and agreed with the delay. She then asked how much time staff would need to complete the process as presented. Weber responded that staff had initially prepared for the November 2020 election. Nicholson asked if the extra time would be beneficial to the process. David Morgan, City Manager responded that the minimum time staff would be need is six months, but nine to twelve months is preferred. Nicholson stated that she would support an application process for appointing members to the Citizen Committee. Weber stated that staff could facilitate that process. Triggs had no comments. Fought asked for clarification on the timeline. Morgan responded that staff is recommending holding on the process as a whole and reevaluating when to initiate the process. Fought stated that he is fine with appointed committee members sooner rather than later to allow them more time to work the process. He added that staff and Council already know where the roads need to be built and improved upon. Pitts stated that staff needs to concentrate on COVID-19 at this time and delaying makes sense. He added that the City has yet to see the full impact of this virus. Pitts stated that traffic is important, but at this time there are other concerns at this time. He added that he doesn't need an application process and is ready to appoint someone now. Fought stated that he agrees that COVID should be the main priority, but what roads are needed is already clear. Pitts responded that he didn't disagree, but bonds are approved by voters and many voters don't want to think about increasing their taxes when they are currently out of work. Fought stated that shelving the process is not recommended, but he understands the current need to make it a lower priority. Gonzalez stated that he was in favor of the postponement because citizens have other things on their mind at this point and hold backing a few months should not lead to a major impact. Jonrowe agreed with waiting to reassess based on the economic impact at that time and the City's ability to have face to face meetings. She added that she has concerns about timing and if the recovery takes longer and there are many moving pieces to consider. Mayor Ross stated that staff should bring this topic back to Council in mid -May for reconsideration. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the application process to Williamson County for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding Fiscal Year 2020-21-- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Watkins presented the item and noted that staff is seeking feedback on if the proposed projects are supported for application to Williamson County. She then provided a CDBG overview including entitlement communities and that non -entitlement communities can be sub -recipients. Watkins noted that Low to Moderate Income (LMI) areas have at least 47% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). She added that the projects must meet Williamson County goals as outlined in 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan that include: public facility and infrastructure improvements; increase access to affordable housing; decrease homelessness; public services; and affirmatively further the fair housing funding that can be spent within a year. Watkins then reviewed a map of eligible census block groups for CDBG application. She noted that in the past funds were used for the following: in 2013 $79,400 Wastewater line for Georgetown Project's NEST Homeless Teen Center and $38,000 Engineering for sidewalks along MLK/3rd and 2nd Street; in 2014 $160,000 Sidewalk along the south side of E. 2nd St. from Austin Ave. to College St.; in 2015 $87,120 Sidewalk along MLK/3rd Street from Scenic to Austin; in 2016 $135,500 Scenic Drive Sidewalk; in 2018 $206,824 17th Street Sidewalk and bus shelters; and in 2019 $75,000 Home Repair program. Watkins explained that the 2030 Plan contains housing goal and policies and a 2030 goal is to ensure access to diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels. She said that Project 1 is infrastructure support for 6-12 units on 21st St developed by Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County. Watkins added that Project 2 is a home repair program that serves eligible City homeowners with the goals of: preservation of neighborhoods; energy conservation; housing affordability by supporting homeownership and supporting homeowners with Historic requirements for rehabilitation; and building partnerships with the non-profit community. She reviewed the next steps which are a Council item for grant applications per city grant policy on April 14, 2020 and applications due to Williamson County by April 16, 2020. Watkins restated that feedback requested of if the proposed projects are supported for application to Williamson County. Calixtro supported the CDBG application and thanks staff for their work. Nicholson supported. Triggs supported. Fought supported. Pitts asked for clarification that these funds are a grant from the County. Watkins responded yes. Pitts stated that he supported the project. Jonrowe supported. Gonzalez asked about the price point for the homes in Project 1. Watkins responded that staff is currently coordinating on development of the site. She added that she did not have the exact amount but would be aimed at citizens who have incomes at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Gonzalez stated that he supported the project. D. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding the proposed City Center public spaces, public art, and festival area -- Eric Lashley, Library Director and Eric Johnson, Facilities Director Lashley presented the item an reviewed the purpose of the item and the Council Vision and Strategies. He stated that the project will fulfill the Downtown Master Plan - Chapter 7: Parks, Open Space, and Public Art by including: large plaza(s) for organized events; play space for children; passive green space to serve nearby residents; small outdoor space for modest assemblies; performance space for outdoor concerts and other cultural events; farmer's market; and public art. Lashley provided a visual map of the area, rendering over the map of area, and renderings of possible improvements. He noted that the plan is broken into two phases and provided visuals of for each project. Lashley then explained the improvements to the new Parking Lot on 81" Street and the addition of 67 more spaces; the future demolition of Blue Annex Building; adding information stands to the Shotgun House; art murals behind City Hall; and farmers market relocation proposal. He added that the farmers market is currently located next to Monument Cafe and they are seeking to relocate to new parking lot across from the library. Johnson then presented information related to two task orders with Covey Landscape Architects that will include three public meetings. He then described the first task order that is for City Center site design in the amount of $26,960 for campus unification and has special zones for a library outdoor play area, an alleyway gateway, and alleyway water feature, and an event lawn and stage for small events. Johnson stated that staff used an opinion of probable cost and a phasing diagram for implementation. He then explained the second task order that will be called City Center, Phase 1 for $28,800 and be for site one located at 8th St. and West St. Johnson noted that the task order will include design of the kiosk and site layout at Shotgun House site and construction documents. He then explained site two that is located at 9th St and Martin Luther King Jr. St. and will include a demolition plan, a schematic design for sites 2A and 2B, site design for 2B, and construction documents for 2B. Densmore read the public comment provided by Dennis Perz that stated the Wilco Farmers Market Relocation Proposal is for the new lot on 8th Street across from the library on Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. or 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Perz state that factors considered were: largest combined parking area in City Center: near library and city offices; earlier time of day means less summer heat; right side of selected area allows trucks to park behind canopies; left side of selected area requires market equipment carried in; angle of the midday sun; customer traffic able to drive around the market area or park in the westerly lot; market size easily adjusts to number of vendors — varies throughout the season; and restrooms available in the library. Perz's comments stated that issues to be resolved through the permitting process include: closing off the market area prior to set up; signage around the parking lot, inside the library, Austin Avenue, SH 29, elsewhere; coordinated communications; initial market date; permit application - transfer existing; address of parking lot for permit and insurance; and responsible city official for operations. Perz's comments stated that regarding the COVID-19 virus: farmers markets are outdoor food stores; they have the advantage of low people density with booths separated as needed; and there is a sanitizing discipline in place that has been compared with several other markets in and around Williamson County for best practices. Calixtro supported the relocation of the farmers market. She then asked how many vendors are at the farmers market, how many parking spaces will be used by the vendors, why the market is on Thursday and not the weekend, and how will the timing of the market effect workday parking. Lashley responded that Library staff met with the farmers market and Thursdays were the best time. He added that the market will take up about half of the parking spaces. Lashley then stated that the library does not feel that the market will have a negative impact on library business. Calixtro then asked about the proposed implementation date of the new location. Lashley responded that the farmers market was originally hoping for a May start date. Nicholson asked to clarify that this was the farmers market usually located by Monument Cafe. Lashley responded yes. Nicholson then asked how the move benefitted them and how it benefitted the City, especially the library. Lashley responded that the farmers market will benefit from the library's foot traffic. He added that the benefit to library is that the use fits in with master plan for the area. Nicholson stated that she supports the move and supports the possible expansion of the farmers market. She then asked for clarification on the task orders. Johnson responded task order one does cover the three sites presented. Nicholson stated that she supports that. Triggs asked if the Sun City farmers market was part of the project. Lashley noted that the same group that runs the Sun City farmers market also runs the market that wants to relocate to the library parking lot. Fought stated that he supports the farmers market but asked that handicap parking still be available. Pitts asked how the task orders are being funded. Lashley stated that TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) funds will be used. Pitts then asked for clarification on how those funds can be spent. Morgan responded that there is a broad list of projects on the TIRZ plan that can be expanded and modified. Pitts stated that he would like to hold back on funds to see they could be used to assist business related to COVID. Mayor Ross asked if these funds could be utilized by businesses related to COVID. Morgan responded that he would need to do more research. Jonrowe stated that she supports the farmers market and suggested helping to get the word out about the market. She added adding an additional time that could be more utilized by working families. Jonrowe stated that she has some hesitation about investing in the design of this project at this time as she has similar concerns related to the impact of COVID. Gonzalez asked if the farmers market is a 501-3-C. Lashley responded that he thinks so, but he's not sure. Gonzalez stated that if the market is for profit the City should consider recouping funds for the use of the parking lot. He added that he also has concerns related to COVID. Nicholson stated that according to their website, the farmers market is a 501-3-C. E. Presentation and discussion regarding the use of the Facilities Internal Services Fund (ISF) and upcoming capital maintenance expenditures, and Facilities ISF review -- Eric Johnson, Facilities Director Johnson presented the item and explained Internal Service Funds (ISF) as money used to fund some capital replacement and maintenance for non -enterprise City assets that accounts for goods and services provided by internal departments. He added that ISFs recognize the true "Cost of Service" at department level and ensures funding is available to replace & repair non -utility system assets. Johnson stated that the City has three ISFs that include: Fleet ISF for vehicle and equipment replacement; Facilities ISF for maintenance contacts and general City facility upkeep; and the Technology ISF for maintenance contracts for all technology systems. He noted that today he would only be discussing the Facilities ISF. Johnson then explained that each ISF has "Replacement Schedule" that lists assets including useful life and estimated replacement cost. He added that ISFs determine the "Lease Payment" for each asset that is accumulated for each department calculated and includes maintenance items. Johnson stated that each department has a budget line item for "ISF Lease" cost which is a separate line items for each ISF Fund and Lease Costs become "Allocations." He added that the Facility Services ISF typically includes janitorial, pest extermination, fire inspections, landscape, elevators, gates, HVAC maintenance, ice machines, irrigation, overhead doors, security systems, emergency generators, and preventative maintenance. Johnson stated that ISFs typically don't include unplanned HVAC replacement over $40,000, emergency generator replacements, building remodel or renovation, overhead door replacement, or furniture for new full-time employees. He continued that the Facilities ISF manages over 39 City facilities and more than 575,000 square feet and the following key upgrades and replacements for next year are: at the Community Center, interior paint and concrete staining; parking lot maintenance at the Animal Shelter; at the Airport, Tower window replacement; at the Library, interior painting and HVAC replacement; at Public Safety Building, interior painting; and at the Parks and Administration Building, vinyl replacement. Johnson reviewed the upcoming Capital Expenditure of the Recreation Center Natatorium HVAC Replacement costing approximately $700,00 - 800,000 for construction. He noted that this is needed because the boiler is not in operation and providing no heat, one of the two circuits is down, staff spent $68,000 in repairs in 2019, and the copper inside the unit has extensive corrosion that is pitted and starting to leak. Johnson stated that other upcoming Capital Expenditures include Fire Station No. 1 Renovation costing around $2,700,000 - $3,000,000 for construction and Fire Station No. 3 Renovation costing around $2,200,000 - $2,500,000 for construction for the separation of carcinogen areas and living areas including air locks to separate living area, work out area off bay, and gear storage off bay that would allow for the opportunity for diversity of male and female firefighters and operational efficiencies. He then reviewed the next steps which include: contract design for Rec Center Natatorium HVAC to be executed contract with Jose I. Guerra; vid Natatorium HVAC replacement project; return to GGAF and Council with bids noting that the unit has minimum 16 week lead time and installation in the September/October time frame; and Fire Station No. 1 and No. 3 through Capital Improvement Project planning in the annual budget process. Council had no additional comments or questions. Mayor Ross recessed at 6:00 p.m. for a 15 minute break before starting the Regular Meeting. 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. F. 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 - Atmos Franchise - Litigation Update - Bond Counsel - Proposed settlement in The City of Georgetown, Texas v. Christopher G. Secard, et al. Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchase Power Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Linen - Project Davy Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Attorney - City Manager Approved by the Georgetown City Council on loz—b Date Ai/ a'-t� Dale Ross, Mayan Attest: City VecreRNry