Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.23.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 23, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 510 West 9�h 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 3:00 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; 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. Council District 2 is vacant. All Council Members present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding a request for 1) a Resolution of no objection and 2) a Resolution acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average per capita amount of Housing Tax Credit units for KCG Development to apply for Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 206 units of affordable housing for families to be known as Espero Landing, and 144 affordable and market rate units for seniors to be known as Asperanza Heights, located at Sam Houston Ave. and Bell Gin Rd. -- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Watkins presented the item and explained the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit Programs that are administered by the Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs (TDHCA) and reviewed the 2020 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). She noted that the 4% Housing Tax Credits (HTC) are non-competitive, must use tax-exempt bonds, developer can apply all year, they cover approximately 30% of development cost, and generally serves 60% area median income (AMI) population but can serve 30-80% AMI. Watkins explained that the 9% Housing Tax Credits (HTC) are competitive, have limited allocation, have a March 1st application deadline, are awarded in July, can cover roughly 70% of development cost, and serves 30%- 80% AMI population. She explained the HTC Resolution Request Process which Council updated in 2016 and includes: application form; zoning verification or rezoning application number; staff approved Public Outreach Plan; draft resolutions (Two-times and Support); and a Letter of Intent with detailed information. Watkins reviewed the public outreach required which includes two public meetings, outreach to residential neighborhoods within 1/2 mile of the site, letters, signage and ads. She then reviewed the LIHTC Inventory Map. Watkins reviewed existing project that are Live Oak, Merritt Heritage, and Kaia Pointe. She then recapped the 2030 Plan Goals, Policies & Implementation Strategies which included the 2030 Plan — Housing Goal of ensuring access to diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels. Watkins then noted that Policy H.5 which includes: supporting and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households, unless the housing is substandard; supporting existing rental choices for low-income households and workforce households as identified in the housing inventory; increasing rental choices for workforce households through support of LIHTC development and providing incentives in development regulations, agreements and negotiated standards; and substandard housing is defined through coordination with Code Enforcement and Chief Building Official. She provided the following information: Goal 6: Ensure accessto diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods for residents of a I I ages, backgrounds and income levels. Policy H.5 Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard. H.S.b. Support the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments CIG $ I Planning that meet the City's defined process. Watkins reviewed the KCG Development Resolution Request with two resolutions needed per development: 1) Resolution of no objection and 2) Resolution acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average per capita amount of Housing Tax Credit. She noted that the Resolution of No Objection is required by TDHCA QAP and allows Council the following options: approve so the applicant can submit application to TDHCA; or deny and the applicant cannot submit application to TDHCA. Watkins provided the Twice State Per Capita Calculation: HTC Units Per Capita = Sum of LIHTC Units 266,524 TX Population Est. Twice State per capita = .0097 *2 = .0194 City of Georgetown = 1,731 = .027 63,062 27,419.612 .0097 Watkins noted the HTC Resolution Request Process Overview and the following steps: application was submitted (6 weeks prior to Housing Advisory Board (HAB) meeting) on May 4, 2020; the HAB review and recommendation on June 15, 2020; neighborhood meetings, two with one three weeks prior to Council action; City Council review and approval on June 23 and July 14, 2020; and Resolution of Support or No Objection for inclusion in application. She noted that the application requirements which have been received are: application from; zoning verification; public outreach plan; craft resolutions (two-times and support); and Letter of Intent with detailed information. Watkins provided a project summary which notes: 206 income restricted units for families in Espero Landing; 144 affordable and market rate units for seniors in Asperanza Heights; and tax exemption through nonprofit partnership with a Housing Finance Corporation. She the provided the Housing Subarea Profile: Figure 132. Subarea 14 Housing Profile Vacant d Analvsis Vacant acres Vacant acres outside floodplain Housing and Household Chaiactenstics Subarea 13,413 11,913 Planning Area Multi -family (%) 2 17 Renters (%) 18 22 Median household Income $72,385 $81,219 Area median income (%) 84 94 Tenure - owner 10 9 Tenure - renter 2 3 Household size Median lot size Price per sq. ft. 2.85 2.47 1.00 0.23 $143 $146 Figure 133. Subarea 14 Boundaries Watkins the provided the proposed housing mix provide by the applicant: Espero Landing: Projected Rent & Unit Mix ►� .1 :. .1 for„. 1, 1 1 80pSF 35% 71 2 2 1,OD0 SF 50% 103 3 2 1,200 SF 15%u 32 r Total 206 30°%ofAMZ 12-$484 6-$576 6-$1W 1L65% 50% of AM 22 - $839 16 - $999 12 - $1,148 24.27% 50% of A W 26 - $1,Q16 58 - $1,212 2 - $1,394 42.75% 80% of AM 11- $1,193 23 - $1,425 12 - $1,640 22.330A Note: rents shown are "Net Rents', i e actual amount paid after Utility Allowance Watkins reviewed the public outreach plan that includes: two public meetings that were virtual meetings with meeting #1 June 12th at 5:00 p.m. and meeting #2 July 10th at 5 p.m.; letters where KCG will contact residents in the 1/2 radius of the site via mail; signage with sign posted at site with meeting times and applicant contact information; and ads where KCG will engage the SaddleCreek HOA to have both meeting notices disseminated to residents via an Email Blast and via publication on the HOA Website. She stated that at Public Meeting #1, held on Friday, June 12, 2020 virtually via Zoom there were approximately 80 total participants in meeting including the developer and City staff. Watkins stated that at the Housing Advisory Board June 15, 2020 meeting held at the Georgetown Public Library 14 members of the public were present and four signed up to speak with public comment that included: residential developer communicated property would never be developed; tax exemption is not appropriate if homeowners are required to pay; and concern of proximity to affordable housing. She stated that two board members attended via the phone, with one member only in attendance for a partion of the meeting, and five board members attended in person. Watkins stated that the Board requested separate motions for each resolution type and the Board recommended Council approve two times acknowledgment resolutions and recommended to not approve the resolutions of no objection with questions regarding tax exemption and lack of information on possible non-profit partnership(s). She noted that the additional information on tax exemption included two types of non-profit partnerships that qualify for tax exemption: community non-profit for 50% tax exemption and governmental non-profit for 100% tax exemption. Watkins continued that it is typical for HTC projects to partner with non-profit. She then reviewed the following KCG's partnership with non-profit criteria, timeline for non-profit selection, and need for property tax exemption which notes: high cost of land is otherwise prohibitive of Workforce Housing development; rising costs for construction in both labor and materials; uncertainty in financial markets due to COVID-19 have resulted in higher interest rates; tax credit developments for Workforce Housing generate less income than comparable conventional/market rate apartments; in exchange for providing much needed workforce housing in Georgetown, KCG would need the full (100%) property tax exemption of all taxable entities to be financially feasible; and this is a similar structure to many other LIHTC properties in Georgetown. Watkins reviewed the type of feedback requested from Council and asked: does Council need more information from developer or staff about this request before the June 141h City Council regular meeting; and given that more information has been provided by the applicant since the June HAB meeting, would Council like the HAB to review this item in advance of the July 14th meeting. Gonzalez asked if the proposed LIHTC was approved, the units would pay no taxes to the City, but be allowed use and any existing amenities. David Morgan, City Manager, responded yes, that is correct. Gonzalez noted that there are already several multi -family units in that area of town. Jonrowe asked if the people living in the proposed units would be exempt from paying sales tax. Watkins responded that the residents would pay sales tax. Jonrowe added that by paying sales tax citizens in these units would still be contributing to the tax base. Pitts stated that he did not need additional information prior to the next Council meeting on July 141h and that he did not feel the Housing Advisory Board needs to meet again to discuss the project. He added that he does not support the project. Fought stated that he did not need any additional information. He noted that by adding this project the City would have far more than average for low-income housing tax credit properties. Fought stated that the tax burden should be fairly distributed and adding this project would cause an undue burden. He emphasized that the City does its share for tax credit projects. Triggs stated that he didn't need any additional information. Calixtro asked if homes in the ETJ receive Fire and Police amenities. Morgan responded that homes in the ETJ fall into Emergency Services District (ESD) #8 and pay for those services. He added that residents in the ETJ don't received Police assistance but are served by the County. Morgan noted that in the ETJ it is still possible to pay for City water depending on the location. Calixtro noted the need for workforce housing and that even if these projects were added the City would be behind in the needed number of workforce housing. She also noted the high cost of rent in the area and the addition of these projects would benefit the City. Calixtro then stated the need for businesses in this residential area and voiced support for the project. Mayor Ross asked Watkins to review the population data that was provided on the item coversheet for Liberty Hill. Pitts noted that the City limits of Liberty Hill is very small, and the numbers do not include the ETJ where many developments are located. Mayor Ross asked if the Liberty Hill does in fact have 21% workforce housing. Watkins responded yes, based on state data. Jonrowe asked if staff could provide where Texas ranks for subsidized housing based on other states in time for the next Council meeting. She then asked about frozen property taxes and where the City currently stands. Morgan responded that staff will work to get that information to Council. Karen Frost, Assistant City Secretary, read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order (comments appear exactly as submitted): Kellen Hall - I am against the Proposed future KCG developments Espero Landing and Asperanza Heights located at Sam Houston Ave and Bell Gin Rd. Gabriella Banks - We were excited as we purchased our first starter home here in the saddle creek neighborhood. We are also angry and saddened at the thought of our first investment can be totally destroyed by the KCG proposal of the affordable housing apartments. We had no knowledge that "affordable housing" could be built right outside our door steps. If we would have known we would have never purchased here in Georgetown. Approving the KCG development has no pros to the home owners of saddle creek and only presents it's self with cons for example: property value decreases and crime increases. I object to the KCG proposal of affordable housing. Reverend Lou Snead - As the Chair of the Housing Advisory Board, I am expressing support for the housing tax credit resolutions that will allow the KCG Development to build workforce and senior housing projects at Espero Landing and Asperanza. My support for these two projects is based on my research regarding the last three Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects that have been built in Georgetown. In speaking with the managers of the Kia Pointe, Merritt Heritage, and Live Oak developments, I learned that all of below -market apartments in these housing tax credit projects were filled within just a few months from their opening and remain in high demand with waiting lists. I also learned that these units are currently occupied by health care workers, school teachers, and retail workers that our community depends on having as employees in our institutions and for low-income seniors as well. This recent research demonstrates that there is still a high level of demand for affordable housing options in Georgetown for both workers and lower -income seniors. Neil Grobler - I would like to express my concern regarding the tax credit housing proposed by KCG Development. The master plan community of Saddle Creek has the potential to be a bright spot of growth for Georgetown on the East side of I-35. Homes in this area range from -$250K-$400K. Many home owners made the decision to call this area r "forever home" & gave since made tremendous improvements to their properties. Being a native of a large metropolitan area, Houston, there is no reason for this affordable housing complex to be placed into a stand alone suburban master plan community that has absolutely no immediate proximity to work opportunities. Transportation would be an additional logistical concern in order to provided tenants of the affordable housing with means to/from work. This proposal from KCG is ill placed, really for both parties - those who currently reside in Saddle Creek, & potential tenants of this affordable housing complex. I urge the council members to vote against this proposal with the best interest of the aforementioned parties & the City of Georgetown in mind. Thank you. Christopher Hoy - I'm asking that you not approve the proposed KCG Development for a tax - credit complex adjacent to the Saddlecreek HOA community. By approving this apartment complex, you will negatively affecting an HOA community of more than 600 homeowners presently and over 1300 as the community fills in the near future. This proposal will decrease property values and the ability to resale homes in this community as well as new home sales. This complex will be directly outside my front door.... approximately 50 feet away. We invested in our home here because of the country feel of the community and the advantages from being away from the city with an HOA community experience. If this is approved, myself and 27 other homes that share a property line with the proposed complex will loose everything we invested here for. We will never regain the equity in our homes. This proposed complex will bring more traffic to an already increasingly busy traffic issue caused by the growth of this community and the inability of the existing roads to handle the present community with the two schools within 1/2 mile of the community and another to open that is nearby. The roads surrounding are already backed up due to school traffic in the mornings and afternoons. I am in no way against reduced -rent housing for those that need it. I am against the proposed placement so close to this HOA community and the negative affects it will have on over 1300 homeowners that have invested in this Saddlecreek development. There is no commercial support nearby for this proposed community. No public transportation and no employment opportunities. We have multiple law enforcement officers in this community. Many of which have given their professional opinions from experience of an increase in crime with apartments in general, and specifically with Kaia Pointe apartments which is another complex developed by KCG. Please consider the negative effects this tax - credit complex will have on over 1300 homeowners and their investments in their homes. Thanks you for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns, and thank you for listening. I know you will do what's right and fair for both sides of this issue. Thank you again for your time, Christopher Hoy, Saddlecreek Resident. Mary Mindieta Bugg - Good afternoon, First, thank you for the opportunity to allow all residents of Georgetown to be heard by providing different options. My Husband and I moved to SaddleCreek in August 2018 when we built what we thought would be our "forever" home. We designed our home, picked our lot and imagined raising our family in the outskirts of beautiful Georgetown. We thought we were being very methodical on where we picked to live. Obviously we knew some development would be built around us and would grow some. But, when we received notification of KCG Development my heart sank. Now, I understand every family deserves housing opportunities and those with low income are no exception. But, please not in SaddleCreek area. Most of us have invested a great deal in our homes and some of us have paid in the high $300's. In my opinion and based on research this is not a good idea and I believe will lower the value of my home. Not only that but the likelihood of crime potentially could increase. Meaning these are apartments, people living there are not as invested as we homeowners. I understand KCG has specific plans and specs on what these apartments would look like and make you believe how great this will be. But, this is not going to be the case. For example, I used to live in Pflugerville in the late 90's early 2000's and the area was nice and a respectable community. Then they went and allowed "low income" housing to be built on Heatherwilde. What happened? The area went down and crime increased. This is NOT what we need in SaddleCreek. They, KCG will tell you what you want to hear because they want the exemptions and credits. They will build and move forward to their next development with no care in the long term effect. We, homeowners would be stuck with either having to sell and lose money. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Bugg Richard Glasco - Thank you Mayor and Council for this opportunity to address this workshop. I address the Council today in support of KGB"s development of Espero Landing and Asperanza Heights. As you already know, these properties will provide 144 units of affordable housing for Seniors and 206 units for workforce families. I fully expect that the objections to this development won't center on the look of the buildings or the zoning that has been in place that will still allow apartment homes to be built there, whether KGB builds them or not. No there will be left handed personal disgust, disguised as "we have x times more affordable homes than some other city", which translated just means there is a dislike for the people who might live there. some how allowing good working people to live in decent housing that gives them a break on their rent somehow is a bad thing. Workers essential or not deserve our respect. Seniors living on fixed incomes even without a pandemic deserves our respect. Let's show our citizens that we are here to address the needs of All our citizens, regardless of what some other town is or is not doing for its citizens. We're Georgetown, a loving and caring community. I respectfully ask that you make no objection to KGB's application. Richard Glasco President, Georgetown Housing Initiative Julia Hoy - Council members, I would like to ask your support in voting against the proposed Espero Landing apartment complex at the corner of Bell Gin & Sam Houston. This affordable housing complex sits inside the Southeast corner of the Saddle Creek neighborhood. My husband and I purchased our home in the neighborhood and moved in in February 2019. We purchased our home here because of the quiet, rural feel of the neighborhood. When we purchased, we were told that the land where the proposed Espero Landing will sit was to be a light commercial area, containing a small strip shopping center. We recently found out that the zoning for that area had been changed to multi -family in 2015. We were deceived by Pacesetter Homes in order to make a sale. Had we known this, we and most of our neighbors would never had purchased in this neighborhood. This proposed apartment complex sits directly across the street from my house, which is on Daisy Cutter Crossing. I am terribly afraid that the construction of the proposed complex will devalue our property, as we have neighbors who have already had three offers on their home fall through once the potential buyers learn of Espero Landing. Saddle Creek residents take great pride in the appearance & upkeep of our homes and common areas. We are concerned that the proximity of Espero Landing will create an excessive amount of trash, traffic (both cars & foot -traffic), and the potential for crime. In speaking with law enforcement and doing research on my own, I have found that affordable, tax -credit assisted apartment complexes create increases in the amount of crime in the vicinity. This is of great concern not only to me, but to the all of the residents of Saddle Creek. My final concern is the fact that KCG Development is asking for tax credits so no Williamson County property taxes would be paid. At the last board meeting, the representative from KCG stated that if this was not granted, they would be unable to afford to build the complex as they would not have the funds for the property/building cost AND property taxes. This is a disservice to the City of Georgetown and to Williamson County. This proposed complex will be increasing the number of residents who use city and county services, including the local schools with no increase in funding to those services. As homeowners, we are expected to be able to afford our building costs (mortgage) AND our property taxes. Why should KCG not be held to the same expectations? I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Ashley Hawkes - We personally find that another affordable housing project isn't needed for Georgetown as there are already plenty of others. We also feel that this location doesn't make sense to build one even if another is needed. There are no shopping needs within walking distance or within 2 miles. There isn't public transportation offered. There isn't Close access to a main freeway transit for commuters Other than a toll road with a hefty cost. If I personally needed to live in such a place I would not choose this location due to the lack of functionality it would provide to help me. We also feel that it is very wrong for the builder to be using a loop hole to "avoid paying taxes" to the community but have numerous residents using the parts of our community that our taxes pay for. The builder itself is not the one in need of a tax break and they should be required to add to our economy in that way. They told us that the residents that would reside potentially in these units would be essential employees whom themselves are paid salaries by our taxes yet they aren't willing to pay them. It's a walking contradiction. We are also concerned with the light pollution, traffic increases, crime rates increased, our home values decreased, and the eventual decline in standards in the apartment complexes. We feel that the developer is using the small portion of the units for seniors as an excuse to the city to show that they are going to be an acceptable complex to have there. If the units were 100% senior living that would be certainly plausible. Thank you for your time, and consideration. Katalin Norwood - I am OPPOSED to the projected development of affordable housing in the Saddlecreek subdivision. It has the potential to decrease our home value, increase crime, and increase traffic our streets are not designed to handle. We moved to Georgetown for the exceptional safety and hometown culture, this brings the exact opposite. If this development is suppose to bring so many "positives" why aren't the developers building this in their neighborhood to add diversity to Georgetown. Will these apartments require extensive background checks for all those that live in them, as many complexes do? In addition we have no city transportation that travels to this area of Georgetown. Lastly, we are already seeing houses go up for sale in neighborhood from the potential impact of this development. Laura Higgins - To the members, I am opposed to this development here in the Saddle Creek neighborhood. There are already several areas near us that offer rental options, Linea Stillwater is an example. My concern is also regarding the overcrowding of the elementary and middle schools that is already happening and this would only compound the matter. We do not have any city transportation near us, nor easy access to grocery stores. We currently still have limited delivery access as it is from dinning establishment. We already have 7 different home builders here in Saddle Creek. That is enough diversity for our neighborhood without additional builders coming in. We have the single families homes, along with Twinhomes options available currently. The traffic would increase dramatically and we currently already have limited access. It has already had impact on the sales in our neighborhood. Please reconsider and do not pass this request. Thank you for your time. The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client: Maria (Last Name not Recorded) - She stated that she had emailed her research to all the Council Members related to affordable housing and noted that affordable housing increases areas of low-income housing and decreases property values of market value home. She added that there is not enough accessibility in the area to support this development. There were no addition comments from Council or the public. B. Presentation and discussion on the proposed FY2021 Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation and Drainage -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director Wright presented the item and reviewed the 2021 Transportation and Drainage Capital Improvement Plan that includes improvements to the Airport, drainage, and streets. He stated that the FY2021 Airport improvements will total for a maintenance facility which was previously approved for FY2020 but paused due to Covid-19 and debt market issues. Wright added that there are several operational requests coming as part of normal base budget including wildlife management, pavement maintenance, and hangar maintenance. He then reviewed the FY2021 Drainage improvements that will total $1 million and include: curb and gutter repairs of removal and replacement of damaged curbs totaling $500,000; stormwater inventory of operational and maintenance items totaling $200,000; and drainage improvements to low water crossings totaling $300,000. Wright explained the street maintenance improvements that will total $3.5 million and include: Hot -In -Place Recycling (HIPR) done by Culter which is sales tax revenue dependent and consist of new pavement mixed with existing pavement; River Bend, Park Meadow, Lakeway, Western Trail, Wagon Wheel, Lonesome Trail, Springs Trail, Primrose Trail, Hollow Trail, Broken Spoke Trail, Whisper Oaks and Downtown from Scenic to Austin Avenue and 6th to 101h Streets; and high performance pavement seal (HPPS) which is sales tax revenue dependent and consists of curb to curb crack sealing and will be located in portions of Sun City, Quail Valley, High Tech, Old FM 1460, portions of Berry Creek and Lakeside Ranch. He also provided maps of all the areas that will be improved. Wright noted that looking forward there will be street maintenance with a PCI update likely in 2022 and staff will continue HIPR and HPPS as sales tax revenue allows. He noted that Road Bond Programs are still in effect and staff is finishing the 2008 Bond project on FM971; finishing the 2015 Bond Project on DB Wood, sidewalks, and intersections; May 2021 Election for another road bond with a committee forthcoming at the July 141" Council meeting; and the Impact Fee Committee will be restarting in August. Wright reviewed the 2015 Road Bond and noted the following progress: Southwest Bypass is complete; Rivery Blvd is complete; NW Blvd Bridge should be completed in early 2021; Leander Road is under design and being paid with CAMPO funds; Southwestern is under design and still in need of certain right-of-way; Inner Loop has completed design and bidding will take place in July; intersections will be ongoing on an annual basis; and sidewalks will be ongoing on an annual basis. He explained the 2015 Road Bond remaining projects stating: Southwest Bypass, from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH29 connection for $0.7 million design is under design with a potential partnership with Williamson County; Williams Drive and Lakeway Intersection totaling $1.4 million is under design; Leander Road from River Ridge to Southwest Bypass totaling $5.2 million out of the 2015 Road Bond is under design, acquiring right-of-way, and will consist of CAMPO and TxDOT construction; Southwestern Blvd from Raintree to Inner Loop totaling $4.2 million out of the 2015 Road Bond is under design and acquiring right-of-way; Inner Loop from Austin to 1460 totaling $1.2 million out of the 2015 Road Bond will have bidding in July 2020 and be GTEC Funded for $7.2 million; and future design and construction for FY2021 and beyond including DB Wood from SH29 to Oak Ridge totaling $18.4 million in approximately FY2021-2022 and remainder Priority 1 Sidewalks in Downtown and along SH29 totaling $3.7 million in approximately FY2021-2024. Wright then reviewed the 2015 Road Bond remaining projects that are not currently budgeted consisting of: future design only totaling $14.4 million for Stadium Dr. and NE Inner Loop ($2.1 million), SH29 for Haven Lane to SH130 ($4.1 million), remainder of intersection improvements ($3.7 million), and remainder future projects ($4.5 million) including Williams, Shell, Inner Loop, DB Wood, IH35 south bound Frontage; TxDOT Projects totaling $11.6 million for TxDOT funded going forward, IH35 north bound Frontage Road totaling $7 million; and Leander Road Bridge Design totaling$4.6 million. He noted the FY2021 Street CIP totaling $6.8 million and including: intersection improvements with signals, turn lanes, etc. at locations to be determined for $1.8 million; sidewalks as a continuation of Priority 1 ADA Master Plan in Downtown totaling $1 million; and DB Wood from SH29 to Oak Ridge for design in FY2021 totaling $4 million and construction in FY22 totaling $14.4 million. Wright reviewed the FY2021 GTEC project totaling $8.5 million for Aviation Drive from Airport Road to IH35 Service Road for 4 or 5 lanes as part of Economic Development with water system enhancements proposed. Fought asked when the next Road Bond was scheduled. Morgan responded that staff could work with Council, but the current plan was for May 2021. He added the current timeline would allow for either a November or May election. Pitts asked about the need for HPSS in Lakeside Ranch since it is a new development. Wright responded that the proposed maintenance is to extend the life of the current pavement. Pitts asked if the seal was different from repaving. Wright responded yes, the seal is very cost effective. Jonrowe, Gonzalez, Calixtro and Triggs has no questions. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed FY2021 Capital Improvement Plan for Facilities -- Eric Johnson, Facilities Director Johnson presented the item and noted that the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan for facilities includes improvements in Downtown, land acquisition, facilities for FY 2021, and a 5-year plan. He stated that in the Downtown area there is a City Center Festival/Public Space that is scheduled out as follows: $75,000 in FY2021 for Phase 1; $1,300,000 in FY2022 for Phase 2; $1,375,000 in FY2023 for Phase 3; $2,150,000 in FY2024 for Phase 4; and $500,000 in FY2025 for Phase 5. Johnson stated that land acquisition has begun for the Parks and Recreation Administrative Offices expansion. He added that for City facilities the Public Safety Operations and Training Center Phase II will costs $4,500,000 in FY2021 and include the following additions and improvements: public entry plaza; public safety building; FEMA secured parking; pubic parking; secured parking; exterior vehicle storage; training and exterior classroom; SKID pad; EVOC training area; firearm training; obstacle course; bioswale "rain garden"; fire burn tower; fire training building; fire department; secured access; central energy plant; and secondary access. Wayne Nero, Police Chief, explained the decision to add a firing range and the need to include it to properly train officers based on meetings with the Public Safety Committee. Mayor Ross asked Chief Nero to explain the importance of the facility. Nero responded that the more training officers have the better they can do their jobs. Mayor Ross asked if implement training has made the police force safer. Nero responded that the more training, the safer the officers. He noted that the City currently uses the Williamson County firing range when available. Mayor Ross about the ease of use of the County facility. Nero responded that scheduling and distance lead to not as frequent availability and easier access will allow to more and better training. Mayor Ross asked if the range was originally considered for the original building of the facility. Nero responded that it was part of the master plan and considered for Phase 2. Johnson stated that Transfer Station improvements will cost $10,000,000 in FY2021 and the Recreation Center Teen/Senior Renovation will cost $200,000 in FY2021. He then provided 81h St. Covered $150,000 Market Space Animal Services Renovation/ $6,200,000 Addition Facility Services Renovation/Expan $900,000 sion Festival Space Georgetown City $75,000 $1,300,000 $1,375,000 $2,150,000 $500,000 Center Fire Logistics $950,000 Building Fire Station No. 1 $3,750,000 Renovation Fire Station No. 3 $3,150,000 Renovation Fire Station 4- $7,000,000 Reloc. Fire Station $750,000 $6,250,000 No.8 GMC Remodel Mixed Use Parking Garage Parks and Rec $1,100,000 $9,000,000 Admin Offices Public Facilities Master Plan PSOTC Phase II $4,500,000 Public Works Relocation Purchasing/Fleet/ $1,750,000 $15,100,000 Warehouse Rec Center Teen/ $200,000 Senior Renovation $8,500,000 $12,000,000 $175,000 $4,200,000 Signature Gateway Transfer Station $10,000,000 TOTAL $14,775,000 $100,000 $7,150,000 $17,425,000 $7,150,000 $15,750,000 $41,975,000 Mayor Ross asked about the possible Fire Station 4 relocation. Johnson responded that the current Fire Station 4 is located on the Airport property and there could be more desirable locations in the future. Morgan stated that the current location for Fire Station 4 has the most accessibility issues. Johnson then reviewed the next steps and noted that all proposed projects are funded through the tax rate except the Transfer Station; the Transfer Station will be debt service funded through sanitation rates; CIP Capacity discussion will take place in July Council Meeting and projects may move around in years based on capacity. Pitts stated his support for the proposed plan. Jonrowe had no questions. Gonzalez asked if the proposed projects were being worked within the current tax structure. Morgan responded that at an upcoming Council workshop staff would walk Council through a plan to make a debt plan to support the projects. Gonzalez stated the expansion of the public safety building is needed based on the growth of the City. Neither or Calixtro or Triggs had additional questions Mayor Ross stated that the need to upgrade training facilities is need to have the best possible police force. D. Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed FY2021 Capital Improvement Plan for Parks and Recreation -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Garrett presented the items and noted that the Parks ADA Transition Plan was the only current year project moving forward and the following projects are currently deferred: San Gabriel Park Phase III design; region trail extension; neighborhood park development; Parks Master Plan; and the Tennis Center Pool demolition. She stated that the Parks ADA Transition Plan includes accessibility repairs along Randy Morrow Trail to Chandler Park with bidding taking place in late summer with construction to begin early fall. She then reviewed the design San Gabriel Park Phase III and the Regional Trail design and construction, and explained that the neighborhood park development to redevelop Heritage Community Gardens will consist of 19 acres and minimal support facilities that will bring an opportunity for lifelong learning and be located at 2100 Hutto Road in the Southeast area of Georgetown. Garrett explained that the Parks Master Plan Update was needed because the plan was last updated iir 2vv�. Sire confinn'u'cd that tirc top priorities have bccir accoiirpiishcd and the plan establishes community priorities while providing a guideline for CIP and future bond and the opportunity to leverage grants. Garrett stated that the demolition of the Tennis Center Pool was part of the 2013 Aquatic Master Plan which recommended closure due to conditions and geographic proximity to other pools. She provided the status of the 2008 Park Bond and noted that $35.5 million in Park Bond funds were approved by voters in November 2008 with prior issuances totaling $22.7 million to date from 2010 thru 2018 and a remaining authorization of $12.8 million. Garret then provided the Proposed 5 Year CIP as follows: kDA Transition Plan 1_5.4U00 150._00.0_ - Nue Hole Park improvement - - �g4„l_:'t _A +gar.: � ••ruprrlai_r; 7$Qk.[K][] 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 'arks Masrev Plan 200,CN](1 - — — �- - ?1VgW 1 Trafl.Drretonrnent 1,273,QW 1,200,000 - Southeast Community Park Weststde Park Development Westside Recreation Center Dder reef from approver! I120ZO CIP t,r� tz3U 5,250,000 /OAK) - 4,000,000 11200,000 250,000 2,400,000 8,700,000 10,500,000 10,000,000 20.500.000 2,545,000 5,650,000 1,450,000 4,250,000 250,000 53,650,000 300' DO 1,200,000 1,500,000 200,000 4,875,000 14,550,000 14,500,000 70,000 10,000,000 20.60a.00n 67,795,000J Garrett noted that the proposed Parks CIP for FY2021 will continue the Parks ADA Transition Plan and include the deferred FY2020 Projects: San Gabriel Park Phase III design; regional trail extension; neighborhood park development; Parks Master Plan; and Tennis Center Pool demolition. She stated that the continuation of the Parks ADA Transition Plan with complete accessibly on Randy Morrow Trail and begin accessibility improvements on the South San Gabriel Trail. Garrett stated that the Parks Board recommended approval of the proposed projects in the FY2021 and the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan at their June 17, 2020 meeting with a 6-0 vote with one member absent. Council Members Jonrowe, Gonzalez, Calixtro, Triggs, and Fought had not questions, Pitts asked about cost of demolishing the Tennis Center Pool and if the project was taken out to bid for repairs. Garrett responded that the responses were $400,00 to $450,000. Pitts asked about the Blue Hole Park improvements. Garrett responded that is was in conjunction with the Austin Avenue Bridges project to allow pedestrian access and have more family friendly area. She continued that the area is still heavily used. Pitts stated that he would love to see improvements to Blue Hole Park and that he would like PD to be involved related to input on the area. E. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY20 and FY21 Budget Update including Revenues, Pressure Points and Citizen Engagement Plan -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Brewer presented the item and explained revenue trends for sales tax that were previously estimated 3% below budget for-$30.67 million with new "tentative" projection is estimated at $31.75 million or at the FY20 original budget. She added that if the confidential reportibreakdown supports that this is a meaningful trend the City will also want to see May's sales tax numbers to confirm new projection. Brewer noted that revenue trends for development revenues and noted that staff is holding weekly developer calls and each week, staff is continuing to see an uptick in home sales which will impact development revenues as well as sales tax related to construction. She explained the utility revenue and noted: Electric is currently expected to meet budget forecast, service revenues through March were up $1.5 million, and April service revenues were down significantly; development related revenue over $1 million higher than original forecast; Water is currently expected to meet or slightly exceed forecast; and Impact Fees are expected to be $11.8 million higher than expected. Brewer noted that the Hotel Occupancy Tax is improving over April with a slow recovery and provided 2019 and 2020 comparisons for March 2151 — June 011: Weekly Occ (%) - Mar 21, 2020 to Jun 06, 2020 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 21-Mar 28-Mar 4-Apr 11-Apr 18-Apr 25-Apr 2-May —*—This Year 9-May 16-May 23-May 30-May Last Year 6-Jun Brewer reviewed the FY2020 Budget Contingency Plan and noted the following: staff is holding on 31 positions and will evaluate hiring certain frozen positions based on updated revenue projections; staff is pausing on projects including Downtown Parking, Parks Master Plan, Neighborhood Parks, Tennis Center Pool demolition, regional trail expansion, design of San Gabriel Park Phase 3, Citizen and Employee Engagement Surveys, and staffing and operations of Fire Station 7; and staff has cut employee training, but did retain training needed to maintain certifications. She explained the plan for preparing for FY2021 and noted the FY2021 preliminary revenue assumptions that are: sales tax is currently projecting same as for 2021 for a total of $31.75 million; development revenue is showing continued development related growth and more moderate than the beginning of FY2020; other revenue including the SAFER grant for firefighters decreases from 75% funding to 35% for the second two quarters of the year, property tax in the General Fund, and total City budget is changing from $15.3 million to $15.7 million. Brewer reviewed the property tax New Truth in Taxation 2019 Senate Bill 2/Property Tax Reform and Transparency and explained the following new terminology: de minimis rate is the rate that is equal to the sum of (A) a taxing unit's no -new - revenue maintenance and operations rate, (B) the rate that when applied to a taxing current total value, will impose an amount of taxes equal to $500,000, and (C)a taxing unit's current debt rate, which does not apply to Georgetown; and the unused increment rate which is when a taxing unit that did not use all of its revenue growth may bank that unused growth as long as the taxing unit averaged below 3.5 percent of the voter -approval rate over three years, and for the 2020 tax year, the unused increment rate is zero. She then provided the following: =W_114� o-New-Revenue Tax Rate Rv Voter -Approval Tax Rate Maiwt No -New Revenue Malnenance & Operations (M&O) Rate New 1+ De minimis Rate New Unused Increment Rate Brewer then explained the Property Tax Estimates for the FY2021 Budget and noted that the preliminary role provided by the Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD) Chief Appraiser and the new property estimate is $470 million. She explained that the amount under protest is 25% and a 3.5% in operations and maintenance rate increase is being proposed in the FY2021 plan as allowed in new state legislation. Brewer added that due to increase in existing values, does not mean an increase in the overall tax rate. She then provided the preliminary information from WCAD for Tax Year 2020 = Fiscal Year 2021, Number of Residential New Improvements, Number of Commercial New Improvements, and Change is Taxable Value from Prior Year: City of Georgetown Total Market Value (in bill ons) LU $6-00 Q � $4.00 � Q $2.00 / $0.00 z $10.86 $11.45 $10.09 $9.21 $7.77 $8.50 i V 0 201 6 ■ 2017 122018 IJ 2019 2020 TAX YEAR Number of Residential New Improvements 1,600 1 400 1,200 i ,000 800 746 701 698 600 J7O6 400 j ` 200 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 60 50 40 30 r IN 2019 Number of Commercial New Improvements 59 20 ` 1$ 10 0 2015 2020 11 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CHANGE IN TAXABLE VALUE FROM $080 91:xr,Ying Property Value P R I O R YEAR $078 $0•76 >a rsew Improrre"n1 VWj,- Ditterence to ToxaVe Value $0.71 S0 71 $0.70 from Previous Year - 1 $06 $0.61 $0.60 I F $0 $0.50 $045 $0A1 d 11 1,40 i a V $0.30 S $0.20 s t I j i $0.10 # $000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Brewer stated that there is $470 million in new property which generates additional revenue for new budget costs and new property in Tax Increment Zones (TIRZ) dedicated to improvements in the Zone. She provided the following TIRZ information: AV ARB ARB Properties General 7,203,076,531 2,243,750,636 4,149 31.1% Downto_w_n_ T 74,568,725 52,D41,619 59 69.8% Rivery 49,923,461 64,500,010 73 129.2% South Georgetown 39,182,223 188,046,688 210 479.9% Gateway 19,556,574 24,889,229 15 76.1% Wolf Lakes 5,934,827 - - 0.0•0 I 7,39Z242,341 2, 563, 228,182 4,506 *AV - Appraised Value *ARB - Appraisal Review Board Brewer explained the pressure points for the FY2021 Budget which are: implementation of Comprehensive Plan; Unified Development Code (UDC) diagnostics; TxDOT Signal Takeover; Fire Stations 6 and 7; water planning and conservation; Georgetown Convention and Visitors Bureau; and sustaining growth in development services. She explained the pressures of implementation of Comprehensive Plan which consist of a 3-pronged implementation strategy of regulatory framework, decision framework, and plans, programs and partnerships with the following projects expected in first two years: UDC diagnostic and re -write; update existing workforce development standards to identify specific opportunities to improve usability of existing program; evaluate special district policy for workforce housing opportunities; develop a plan for a gateway feature at City entrance on southbound I-35; identify potential public/private/non-profit partnership opportunities to create a dedicated housing fund; expand home repair program to workforce homeowners; and submit a budget request to complete a small area plan for the neighborhood Track -Ridge - Grasshopper Neighborhood. Brewer said the TxDOT signal takeover will consist of the following: the City currently manages and operates (owns) 21 Traffic Signals; in Spring of 2021, the population numbers from the 2020 Census should be available; the City will be required to take over the traffic signals that are currently managed and operated by TxDOT; 30 additional traffic signals which will give the City 51 total traffic signals to manage and operate; the City has initiated a contract with Iteris which is the City's traffic signal consultant who manages the City's SPM software - Signal Timing; the City will take an inventory of all the TxDOT Signals, the equipment, the life expectancy, etc.; Iteris will be assisting in the take over and negotiate with TxDOT on the City's behalf; and the City will try to get TxDOT to bring the signals that we will be taking over up to the City's standards or equipment. She then noted the benefits of taking over the signals: currently TxDOT signal crews come out of Austin District Office; the city's population gets to take advantage of having a dedicated staff that can respond more quickly to a traffic signal malfunction and/or citizen complaints; and the City can also operate these signals more efficiently during planned events such as festivals or unplanned events such as a road closure due to an incident. Brewer explained Fire Stations 6 and 7 and noted that Station 6 staffing is accomplished by moving a team from Station 5; the new staffing for Station 7 is partially funded by a SAFER grant; need to consider additional positions for full coverage of shifts; and needed evaluation of the impact of staffing Medic 5 at Station 7 such a coverage for the shifts, overtime versus new staffing, and calls/coverage response times. She noted the water planning and conservation pain points which are: water rates and capacity to serve are measured by the supply or raw water and treatment capacity through infrastructure; during a March 2020 Council presentation it was shown how planning has accelerated due to our use patterns and growth; the Master Plan indicated additional supply needed 2042, but it is now 2037 and staff is working with Brazos River Authority (BRA) to evaluate additional supply, primarily in Carrizo Wilcox aquifer zone; the Master Plan indicated major treatment at 8-10 years, but now it is within 5 years; the expansion of the Lake Water Treatment Plant totaling $30M and the construction of South Water Treatment Plant totaling $58M plus transmission lines which will include partnerships with Round Rock and Leander; and conservation is critical to reduce rate impact and timing. Brewer provided the Water Planning - Future Resources and Capacity (Current Use and Growth) chart: Water Resource Availability 1,300 C�oarnctlona/ywr r: rrx 19,909 ac f R &u ce, nae&d for 10 add7ywm 2037 • AdO LLu J �1 SWrPIY tYeeded oo' filart[fiard Contrast eprnp r u Cue n _ _ .> _v ,c ,P_ t IoW Water (ac/ft) 9lanchard Water A6rearncnt =Future Water Supplies --Average Demand -Averaga Demand w/Concarvabon Brewer noted the need for the City to sustain growth in Development Services and the need for and Planning and Engineering support, Inspections, and water system growth in the Western District. She noted that when it comes to sustaining growth in Development Services regarding Building Inspections: permit activity dipped in April due to COVID-19 impacts; permit activity increased in May and has continued in June; and the City has issued 1,200 single-family building permits during first 8 months of FY2020. Brewer reviewed the following: Weekly Sum of Applications Accepted 500 450 400 439 350 300 321 250 276 283 2� 200 244 234 250 231 249 22D 150 199 100 50 0 Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of March 16 March 23 March 30 April 6 April 13 April 20 April 27 May 4 May 11 May 18 May 25 June 1 June 8 June 15 Brewer explained sustaining growth in Development Services related to Planning and Engineering and noted the following development application activity by month: January was heavy on construction plans; February was heavier on final plats; March was heavy on resubmittals; April was heavier on final plats; and May had site plans and plats taking the lead as shown here: 2019-2020 New Applications Comparison Lfti f. F' qs ISCI /Ru<.-'.1 —RI U: y lti-.r F�YR�t il9lii �.iiG r:,_ �:CL`L W. Fl�Vl:i[ulri:%vim: t._ 2019-2020 Resubmittals Comparison Nl ,ea. LG+Ru.Am 1AIA611 arn. ram -�Jolvl�eibn,lr,.eaa-nrn �Jotmi. v��.-.m+n ucarnrJ Brewer explained the Water Systems growth and noted: impact fees represent new connections to our water system; the original FY2020 Budget included $14.25 million in impact fees with an estimated 2000-2500 new connections, the current fee being $6921 per residential unit, and per unit varies based upon plat date per the impact fee ordinance; and FY2020 updated and amended budget totals $26,050,000 with $11,800,000 in new impact fee revenue estimated, an estimated total of 3800-4000 new connections, and approximately $20 million of that has been collected to date. Brewer explained the Georgetown Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) pain points and noted that: revenues in FY2019 were $1.39 million, revenues in FY2020 are projected to be $711,000 with strong revenue through mid -March, and revenues in FY2021 are projected to be $650,000 due to slower recovery than other revenue streams; expenses continue to hold on sales and convention support position and staff will continue to promote Georgetown; and overall staff will utilize reserves to continue to promote Georgetown as a destination to reestablish revenue streams. She reviewed staff recommendations and noted that the City Manager's FY 2021 Budget strategy for tax funded Capital Improvements are: Streets totaling $6.8 million; Parks totaling $2.545 million; Facilities totaling $5.575 million; and Public Safety Vehicles and Equipment totaling $4.4 millions for a total of $19.32 million. Brewer stated that a work session on July 14, 2020 will consider a 5-year plan and related tax rate impacts based upon continued assessed valuation growth and capacity for new debt. She continued that the City Manager's FY2021 Budget strategy is to have a conservative outlook for revenues and continue to watch economic indicators to determine local conditions; fund some FY2020 projects that were paused during pandemic; have new funding included if critical to maintain levels of service; have some currently frozen positions may be filled; and Tier 1 FY2021 projects to be reviewed as economic related activity becomes more clear with the possibility of considering Tier 1 projects in the fall, when more is known about a possible second wave of COVID infections. Brewer reviewed the Public Engagement and Communication Plan noting that in addition to pressure points, staff has asked public for feedback via survey that provides education and asks for input on priorities, closes June 26, 2020, is available online and printed in English and Spanish, and on the website a posting of detailed budget information with key dates. She continued that staff will use social media and provide Facebook ads in English and Spanish and videos that are short, informal educational segments to inform citizens on city budget and encourage engagement. Brewer stated the next steps which are: budget survey through June 26, 2020; detail Budget Book delivery with detail the week of July 13, 2020; July 14, 2020 workshop on Capital Improvements; July 21st and 22, 2020 work sessions; August 11, 2020 City Manager Proposed Budget; August and September hold public hearings on tax and budget, and adoption of budget by ordinance; October 1, 2020 start new fiscal year; and in October and November review Tier 1 projects. Calixtro asked about the process for repurposing fleet vehicles. Brewer responded, yes when at all possible and vehicles are auctioned when maintenance costs are too high. Triggs asked how the largest sales taxpayers performed in April. Brewer responded that staff can share with Council and performance was strong in construction and home improvement materials. Triggs asked about a possible decline in utility revenue due to bad debt and delinquent payments. Brewer responded yes, there will be less revenue and noted the Council approved fund for utility assistance. She added that the applications for the funds have begun to decrease. Morgan added that because businesses weren't operating, the bigger impact to utility revenue was due to lack of electricity usage. He added that during the special budget workshops staff will report on updated revenues. Fought stated that he was happy the transition to new financial software didn't lead to lost data. He added that the tax revenue was surprisingly stable, and he is less worried that he was six weeks ago. Pitts agreed with Fought and asked about development revenues. Brewer responded that development fees are fixed and do not vary based on staff vacancies. Pitts asked if there is a correlation between reduced development and reduced fees collected and if that would be shown in the fund schedules. Brewer responded that if development revenues continued to go down staff would look at leaving positions vacant to match the current need. Morgan stated that for both building inspections and planning utilizing contract work could also be considered to save costs. Pitt noted that there is not currently a decrease in development. Morgan responded correct. Pitts asked if any GEDCO funds could go towards marketing funds. Brewer responded that there is approximately $100,000 in the GEDCO fund but she would need to verify what those funds could be used for. Pitts asked if the GEDCO funds could be used in place of reserves. Brewer responded that the $100,000 was used for COVID- 19 grants. Morgan stated that staff has worked with Legal to determine where funds could be used for marketing. Pitts asked about special districts for workforce housing and that he doesn't recall the discussing it in the past. Morgan responded that staff will work through that with Council in the future. Jonrowe had no questions. Gonzalez stated that he is also relieved to see the City's current financial situation. He added that he would like to approach finances for this year and next year in a very conservative manner and possibly have some mid -year meetings to discuss projects. Morgan responded that is how staff is planning to approach this year and next year. He added that many positions will remain frozen and funds cut for non -essential expenses. F. Presentation and discussion regarding COVID-19 and the City's opening of facilities and modified operations and programs -- David Morgan, City Manager Jack Daly, Community Services Director, presented the item and reviewed the latest message from the Governor related to announcing Phase III reopening and on Wednesday, June 3, 2020, the Governor announced the third phase of the State of Texas' plan to safely open the economy while containing the spread of COVID-19. He continued that under Phase III, effective immediately, all businesses in Texas will be able to operate at up to 50% capacity, with very limited exceptions and businesses that previously have been able to operate at 100% capacity may continue to do so. Daly stated that this included: youth camps, recreational sports, swimming pools, libraries, and outdoor gatherings. He noted the how the Governor addressed Hospital Capacity and on Tuesday, June 16, 2020, the Governor addressed hospital capacity in light of increasing case counts and hospitalizations. Daly continued that at the time, Texas has nearly 15,000 beds available and the Governor added that less than 10% of those who test positive go the hospital, and people under 30 are testing positive at a higher rate, possibly due to visiting bar -type settings and not following safety procedures. He stated that jails and prisons settings still have the highest positivity rate and 75% of fatalities are linked to people 65 and older, and Texans have a personal responsibility to combat the coronavirus. Daly stated that cities are not allowed to mandate masks. He then stated how the Governor addressed masks in a television interview on June 17, 2020 the Governor indicated his belief that local governments can require businesses to require customers to wear masks, and that doing so is consistent with Executive Order GA-26. Daly continued that although the Governor's order prohibits a local jurisdiction from imposing a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering, according to the Governor this prohibition only applies to regulating the behavior of individuals, not businesses. Mayor Ross asked Daly if the second point about local jurisdictions from imposing penalties for failing to wear a mask. Daly stated that a City cannot fine a citizen or not wearing a mask but can fine businesses who do not require patrons to wearing masks inside of their establishment. Mayor Ross asked if the City cannot fine an individual. Daly responded correct. Mayor Ross asked if the City could fine a business if there are individuals inside who are not wearing masks. Daly responded yes. Daly stated that in Bexar County there have been orders issued to require mask wearing. Mayor stated that distancing is the most effective prevention, but when tied with masks is even more effective. Daly responded correct and that hand washing, distancing, and mask wearing are the best non -pharmaceutical forms of intervention. Mayor Ross noted communications received by staff and Council about cities forcing citizens to wear masks and how that is not allowed. Daly responded yes, the City cannot require citizens to wear masks in public, but can choose to put orders in place to require businesses to require patrons to wear masks. Mayor Ross stated that he wanted this point to be clear for citizens. Daly noted how the Governor addressed data in a press conference on June 22, 2020, the Governor addressed COVID-19 data, citing three data points: Texas averaging 3,500 new cases a day; positivity rate is 9%; and hospitalizations averaging more than 3,200 a day. He continued that the Governor stated that these rates are increasing at an unacceptable rate and we need to get in control of this increase and must do so by: all Texans should follow the safety protocols in Open Texas guidelines: stay at home, hygiene, and wear a mask. Daly noted that appropriate authorities are increasing enforcement including: TABC, County shutting down parks, and local governments requiring masks at gatherings, etc. He then stated: surging testing in areas that may be hotspots using Texas National Guard; working with hospitals to ensure they have ability to treat COVID-19 patients; encouraging all Texans to wear a mask as this will help Texas stay open; and wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Triggs stated that businesses are likely losing out on businesses by not requiring patrons to wear masks. He added that citizens, like himself, in higher risk categories do not feel safe when others are not wearing masks. Triggs stated that many businesses would likely get more business by requiring masks. Fought stated that agrees that wearing masks is a positive business decision but does not see the City as needing to enforce mask wearing. Pitts stated that his concern of mandating mask wearing would be an additional pull on the Police for enforcement. He also asked who is as fault if a business has a patron that refuses to comply. Pitts stated that he doesn't understand some people being so opposed to wearing mask. He added that if the City does move to mandate mask wearing it should be based upon positivity rates with guidance on when the mandate will be lifted. Jonrowe stated that these are life and death decisions and the City has a responsibility to put people's health at the front. She added that asking people to wear a mask is a very low bar. Jonrowe stated that retail employees will be the first step in enforcement, but hopefully businesses have policies in place to work with their management staff to assist. She stated that as a business owner, having a mask mandate levels the playing field for businesses. Jonrowe stated that she supports a mandate. Gonzalez stated that wearing a mask should not be that big of an issue, but the City should not make it a mandate. He echoed how lack of mask wearing could lead to loss of business. Gonzalez stated that he hopes businesses will require mask. Calixtro stated that she feels a mandate could be a burden on the business owners. She stated that if done, she agrees with paraments as mentioned by Council Member Pitts. Calixtro stated that the Governors words are not helpful, and she thinks the City should initiate a mandate. Mayor Ross stated that social distancing might be more effective than mask, but they should be combined. He added he agrees with implementing parameters and asked about the current position of the County. Daly responded that the County is referring to guidance from the Governor, but not requiring mask. Mayor Ross asked if the Governor is requiring masks or sending that responsibility downward. Daly stated that the Governor has not issued a statewide mandate. Mayor Ross asked what the penalty of the mandate would be and how would it be enforced. Daly responded that Mayor Ross, Pitts, and Jonrowe provided valid points about the enforcement of an order. He continued that the businesses would enforce and then if businesses were reported to the Police then a fine could be issued. Mayor Ross stated that when orders are issued that are hard to enforce you invite disrespect for the law. He also added the concerns for businesses be held responsible for other and Police bandwidth. Jonrowe noted that when dealing with equity issues, minorities are more impacted. She added that many times minorities are front lines staff for businesses and therefore, making mask wearing even more needed. Mayor Ross noted that businesses should require mask and provide them for those that do not have them. Daly stated that he understands the consensus of the Council is to not have a mandate to require businesses to require patrons to wear masks, but to heavily encourage proper mask wearing. Mayor stated that he agrees, and the staff strategy should be the encouragement of mask wearing. Daly reviewed COVID-19 testing noting that Georgetown Fire Department has supported a testing site at Wagner Middle School since its launch and planned for it to remain open through July 17, 2020 with the WCCHD contemplating extending operations, options, and alternatives and staff has the recommendation of continuing to utilize staff resources for supporting test site over the long-term by completing 35-45 tests per day, with a 4% positive rate as of June 4th, and a 12.5% positivity rate as of June 111h. He noted that as of June 15, 2020 City vehicles are allowed up to 2 people per vehicle with face masks and daily temperature checks, which excludes public safety personnel who have separate safety protocols for vehicles. Daly reviewed advisory boards and Council Chambers noting that advisory boards began meeting June 1, 2020 by hosting meetings in the Friends Room of the Library or Council Chambers and meetings are in -person with option for advisory board members to participate through conference call. He stated that the public is welcome to attend the meetings and meeting rooms are set-up in a way that will provide social distancing between board seats and audience. Daly noted that staff is preparing to open Council Chamber in July and the updated AV will allow for both in -person and Zoom functionality and the Community Room is currently available for in -person viewing and participation. He reviewed the reopening City facilities stating that on May 18, 2020 City facilities opened to public including City Hall, Georgetown Municipal Complex, Visitors Center, Airport Terminal, Public Safety Operations, and Garey Park Gate House; on June 15, 2020 City facilities opened to public including an increase in occupancy to 50% only if there have been days with customer overflow, unlocked doors at Planning, Parks Admin, and Animal Services that are facilities were appointment only previously; on June 15, 2020 Parks and Recreation facilities Recreation Center and Tennis Center opened at 50%, pools opened at 25%, the Community Center opened at 50%, Garey House opened at 50%, and Camp Goodwater at the Recreation Center opened to 50 campers; on June 25 Parks and Recreation destination amenities are scheduled to open including the Garey Play Ranch and Splash Pads; and on July 1, 2020 Parks and Recreation Creative Playscape is tentatively set to open waiting on a few damaged tube slide replacement parts which were discovered during the installation of the poured in place surfacing. Daly noted that the 4th of July event could be hosted for fireworks via the following options: option 1, drive-in event at San Gabriel Park; option 2, close San Gabriel Park and encourage people to view from elsewhere; encourage people to stay in and around their vehicles; or option 3, to cancel. Fought stated that he supports option 2 for fireworks on the 4th of July. Pitts selected option 2 also. Jonrowe stated that she supports option 3 for the sake of safety. Calixtro asked for clarification on what a "drive-in" style would look like. Morgan responded that it would be like a drive-in movie where people stay in their vehicles with no activities in the park. He added that there is concern with people concentrating in larger groups. Calixtro asked if the fireworks were cancelled, could people set off fireworks at their homes. Morgan responded that the Fire Code would still apply, and fireworks are prohibited within the City limits. Calixtro stated that she supports option 1. Triggs stated that he supports option 3 due to other places cancelling their fireworks which could lead to even larger crowds. Gonzalez stated that he supports option 2 to provide minimum risk. Pitts stated that while it is not a current option, the City could consider closing several large parks to help prevent large gatherings. Fought stated that closing parks could get complex and option 3 of cancelling would be simplest for safety. He asked if all nearby cities have cancelled. Morgan responded that several have. Fought confirmed his decision to cancel. Mayor Ross stated that three out of the six Council Members support cancelling. He added that as much as he would hate to cancel it just brings on too much risk. Gonzalez stated that he understands the reason for cancelling, but if the mindset is to cancel because of large crowds, should the City consider cancelling other events as well and wants the City to treat other events equally. Mayor Ross stated that Council has determined to cancel the fireworks and will be making a decision about Popptoberfest. He asked about Music on the Square. Morgan responded that there is on Music on the Square at this time. He continued that Council needs to remain considerate of the increasing number of cases and other events going forward. Morgan stated that the Beer Crawl has been cancelled. Pitts noted the need to at some point discussing better parameters to handle crowds at Blue Hole. He suggested possibly not allowing the consumption of alcohol until after the pandemic is over. Pitts stated that Blue Hole continues to have issues with the gathering of crowds. Mayor Ross suggested directing staff to bring options to the next meeting regarding enforcement at Blue Hole park. Jonrowe asked about using the Council suggested parameters of 10% positivity rate to implement a mask mandate. Mayor Ross suggested guiding staff to bring that back at the next meeting. Jonrowe stated that her only concern is that in two weeks the rate could be much higher. She noted that with the City still being under an emergency declaration the Mayor and City Manager could implement an order without the rest of Council. Jonrowe stated that Council could provide guidance now on what should trigger the order. She asked if a 10% positivity rate is appropriate. Pitts agreed with 10% based on comments made by the Governor. Morgan stated that he would like a trigger and then parameters for removing the order. He stated that staff will work on that based on the 10% threshold. Mayor Ross stated that he agrees. No Council Members disagreed. Public Comment submitted via online form: Mary Miller - If people are given an option to wear a mask or not wear a mask, the majority of individuals will choose no mask. I know this because I've seen it practiced (or not practiced) in my neighborhood, town, surrounding cities, and state for the last 3 months. I encourage our city officials to think of people, first. Public health, first. Local economy, second. I realize the connection. With our proximity to so many communities that co -mingle and intersect so beautifully, I strongly urge officials and our residents to think of our part and the role we can play in the trajectory of this Global Pandemic. We are sending the message that we are impervious to the science, the data, the risks, the complications, and the death this virus can bring if given the chance. I can count hundreds of dollars we've put toward online shopping as opposed to local business over the last few months because of the loose restrictions. As for me and my family, we won't feel safe until masks are required. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 5:50 p.m. He added that Executive Session would start at 5:55 p.m. and the Regular Meeting would begin at 6:15 p.m. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. G. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchase Power Update Adjournment Approved by the Georgetown City Council on l 1 \ - 7,pCj� Date (�n,6j-t ET�—Zev" i Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Cily Sccretary