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