HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 07.14.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 2:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at
510 West 91h Street, Georgetown, TX 78626.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas
at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:34 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.
Triggs joined during Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding COVID-19 and the City's modified operations and
programs -- Jack Daly, Community Services Director
Daly began with an overview of the presentation and the introduced Derrick Neal from the
Williams County Cities and Health District (WCCHD).
Neal stated that the WCCHD is looking to follow the presidential guidance of seeing a
decrease in cases over a two -week period before opening the WCCHD. He added that until
then staff is telecommuting. Neal noted the difficulty of contract tracing due to citizens not
wanting to participate. He added that the City can help by supporting more robust testing
with faster results. Neal noted the growth of cases at an alarming rate due to the State opening
so soon. He added that communities that address the public health front tend to remain
economically solvent. Neal noted the monitoring of congregant areas like nursing homes. He
added that his one wish would be to go back to his conversation with Mayor Ross in April
and please for citizens to social distance and wear a mask.
Calixtro stated that she is receiving lots of emails about not wanting masks to get mandated
and the CDC is flip flopping on masks. She asked how does the City get people to understand
the importance and noted that people willing to go to work because they need income. Neal
responded that it's the first time he's seen anything like this politicized. He added that mask
wearing has been out since February and the CDC has not flip flopped on that, as well as
social distancing being a useful mitigating tool. Neal noted that related to contract tracing he
understands people needing to provide for their families, but the community won't be
economically viable when it's a sick community. He added that the community has to have
a testing strategy to implement and until it is implemented these challenges will remain. Neal
noted that Texas didn't even follow the guidance put out by the president and opened up
when cases were on the rise. He noted that citizens don't respect the virus and the virus will
have the final say.
Fought asked if the nursing homes were isolated. Neal responded that the Count went out
with strike teams before the first reported COVID-19 case. He noted that the risk in those
settings is introduced from the outside. Neal stated that guidance and safety plans are needed
to keep those institutions safe. He added that for nurses' aides that make smaller wages, they
don't have the luxury of social distancing. Fought asked if it was working well. Neal
responded yes and the goal is to mitigate clusters to prevent outbreaks.
Pitts stated at the beginning of the outbreak the information was minimal, but information
has beefed up. He added that this is being politicized and he doesn't want to lean on a
partisan leaning article. Pitts stated that he wants to use data provided by WCCHD and tries
to concentrate on hospitalizations and ICU beds. He referred to the confusion of numbers
provided when trying to discuss the issue with Council Members. Neal responded that the
WCCHD switched how data was tracked. He added the new method is provided clearer
data. Neal state he thinks that is where the anomaly came from. Pitts stated that is was the
June 22°d and June 291h daily report. He added that he wants to confidence when speaking
with citizens that he is being accurate. Pitts asked if Neal could clarify how hospitalizations
for COVID-19 are being count. Neal responded not sure how that is reported, but since it is
a communicable disease it is required to be reported to the WCCHD. Pitts stated that when
he view hospitalizations that should be counted as people who are there directly for COVID-
19, not individuals who are there for other issues. Neal responded that hospitals have to
report an COVID-19 case but the WCCHD cannot change how the data is reported. He added
that the WCCHD is a public organization that is trying to report transparent information.
Pitts stated that public confidence is lacking. Neal stated that the County was trending up
when the State reopened in April. Pitts stated that it's clear the State reopened too soon.
Jonrowe noted the updated dashboard being used by WCCHD and asked what Mr. Neal's
first suggestion would be when the public is reviewing the dashboard. Neal responded that
it is all important, but the hospitalization rate gives him pause. He added that he doesn't
want Texas to not be able to serve citizens and many people have to see it before they believe
it. Neal stated that once capacity is reached, the flood gates are open. He added that the
number of deaths as well, even though they are a lagging indicator. Neal noted Texas
Children's Hospital now taking on COVID-19 patients. Jonrowe asked about the impact to
mortality rate once hospitals are at capacity. Neal he will get back to Council with that
information. Jonrowe noted that the number recovered went away. Neal responded that the
estimated number of recoveries is listed. He added that WCCHD was going above and
beyond in reporting and the estimated number is likely more accurate. Jonrowe asked if
recovered just means not dead and doesn't include long term effects. Neal responded that it
refers to receiving negative test results. He added that the devastation of the disease won't
be known until the disease has run its course. Neal stated that what isn't known can be
harmful. Jonrowe noted that the Jarrell testing facility was doing mouth swabs versus nasal
and asked if one type is better than the other. Neal stated that nasal swabs are rapid test and
there is not a lot of confidence in those tests. He also noted the lowered standards for testing
based of lowered FDA regulations. Jonrowe noted her concern for children getting testing
and the possible trauma. She asked about opening schools and Neal's opinion on schools
reopening. Neal responded that there needs to be continue testing and focus on test with
quick turnaround. He added that related to school reopening, he had a robust conversation
and the County will back CDC guidelines. Jonrowe asked if the County is making any
recommendations on schools. Neal stated that two -week remission is needed, and the County
has no oversight of GISD. He added that he applauds LA for having the courage to close
down schools with an abundance of caution. Jonrowe asked Neal what keeps you awake and
is the worst -case scenario. Neal responded people not willing to take care of their neighbor
and added that caring for each other is the only way to get out of this situation. He added
that the virus will have the final say.
Gonzalez asked if there is a difference when noting ICU beds used by COVID patients versus
other patients. Neal responded that he is not sure, but he believes the County is showing
COVID only ICU beds. Gonzalez stated that everyone wants a definitive answer on how the
community is doing. He noted the tracking of hospital beds for COVID versus other issues.
Neal responded that playing with hospital bed numbers can change quickly over a few nights
and not provide a clear picture. He added that the only way to solve the issue is with mask
wearing, social distancing, and only leaving home when required. Neal stated that the data
is horrible enough and citizens already know what they should be doing to protect
themselves. He added that the data discussion has been happening since April and the
numbers are still rising. Gonzalez noted the risk with sending kids to school and that it is a
lot to deal with. He added that he is trying to find hope in what feels like a hopeless situation.
Neal responded that this disease is going to force us to care for each other and this is the first
time science and the CDC has been discredited. He added the disease will remain in effect
until there is a national testing strategy. Neal stated that this has impacted everyone, and he
will be surprised if there is a football season. Gonzalez thanked Neal for his candor and that
citizens need to help each other as much as they can. He noted the importance of needing to
wear a mask.
Mayor Ross and Council thanked Mr. Neal for his time and providing information.
Daly resumed the presentation and provided updates since June 23 Workshop: cancelled July
4 fireworks show; closed Blue Hole Park; three firefighters tested positive for COVID-19;
issued local mask order; updated mask order to align with Governor's July 2 order; updated
mask guidance to City employees; and working with WCCHD to set-up new testing site in
Georgetown. He then reviewed the local mask order that was issued on June 291h and
everyone in Georgetown age 10 and older is now required to wear a face covering while in
public, when maintaining six feet of distance isn't possible. Daly stated that staff is working
through enforcement, exemptions, and outreach. He reviewed the customer assistance
program if employment or income been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and citizens may
qualify for up to $1,500.00. Daly noted the latest from the Governor, where on on July 2, the
Governor established statewide face covering requirement, issued proclamation to limit
gatherings with few exemptions and allows for fines for individuals, but disallows law
enforcement from detaining, arresting, or confining anyone in jail for violation, and the
proclamation prohibits "outdoor' gatherings of more than 10 people without Mayoral
approval for exemptions. He noted upcoming special events and their status: POPPtoberfest:
October 23-25; Music on the Square is cancelled; Beer Crawl is cancelled; Movies in the Park
is cancelled; and all other special events in Georgetown facilitated by other organizations
must follow the Governor's guidance. Daly stated that at the current time, no outdoor
gatherings will be approved and staff is developing more robust shop small campaign(s) and
exploring expanded outdoor dining for downtown businesses. He stated that staff
recommends cancelling Popptober fest.
Fought stated that he is fine with cancelling, since it is unknown what's going to happen.
Pitts stated he agrees and noted that the State Fair is cancelled.
Jonrowe stated that she doesn't think that the City will be in a position anytime soon for this
event.
Gonzalez stated that based on lead time needed and unknows, and concerns for public safety
it is best to cancel.
Calixtro supported cancelling.
Triggs supported cancelling.
Daly asked for Council input on not approving outdoor gatherings. All Council Members
supported not approving outdoor gatherings.
Daly reviewed expanding outdoor dining options. Mayor Ross asked if Council is in favor
will staff bring the plan to council. Daly responded yes and that it will take some planning to
safely close parking spots.
Jonrowe stated that she is okay with staff pursuing and asked if the plan is only for
downtown. Daly responded that he has only had inquiry from downtown businesses.
Jonrowe asked if staff could get with the Chamber to reach out to other businesses and work
with them.
Gonzalez stated that anything that can be done to help local businesses is good if it gives
businesses more opportunity. He asked that staff look into request for outside of downtown
and he supports the plan.
Calixtro stated that she agrees with reviewing a plan.
Fought stated the concept is good and supports the plan being used outside of downtown.
Pitts stated that he supports the plan.
Daly stated that he will bring a proposal back in August. Mayor Ross asked if the proposal
will go beyond just downtown. Daly responded yes.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding small area planning for the San Jose and TRG
neighborhoods -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Nelson presented and reviewed the purpose of presentation and the outline. She stated that
the feedback requested is: Does the City Council support the process to develop a scope for a
small area plan for the TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods; Is there specific information from
the neighborhood included in the scope of each plan; and What does a successful small area
plan look like for you? Nelson reviewed the components of small area plans including
community outreach for defining success; vision to understand strengths, weakness,
opportunities, and threats; and implementation related to goals, policies, strategies, and
action plan. She noted that there types of small area plans that are: Neighborhood Plans that
cover one distinct residential neighborhood; Corridor Plans that cover a significant linear
feature such as a main street or arterial; and District Plans that include more than one
neighborhood or corridor that are experiencing common conditions and issues. Nelson noted
the common elements of a Small Area Plans selected as a result of strengths, needs, and
opportunities defined by the neighborhood: outreach and visioning; land use; housing;
community design; economic development; public facilities; community heritage;
transportation; and implementation. She provided an overview of each neighborhood and
noted that the San Jose Neighborhood is 0.06 square miles and the Track Ridge Grasshopper
(TRG) Neighborhood is 0.19 square miles. Nelson reviewed the path to partnership and noted
the following schedule: in July meet with trusted leaders in the neighborhoods; in August
listen by asking questions, being present, and showing interest as well as learning by noting
concerns, values, and vision; and in September plan by developing a partnership to co -
achieve vision and develop a plan scope, and confirm if this partnership is going to achieve
the vision. She then reviewed the feedback that is being requested by staff. Nelson noted that
if the public wants to participate or get more information, they should please contact either
Susan Watkins or Nat Waggoner and provided contact information for both.
Could then provided feedback on the following questions:
1. Does the City Council support the process to develop a scope for a small area plan for
the TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods?
2. Is there specific information from the neighborhood included in the scope of each
plan?
3. What does a successful small area plan look like for you?
Robyn Densmore, City Secretary, read public comments that were submitted via email in the
following order (comments appear exactly as submitted):
Michael Walton - Regarding the question, "What does a successful small area plan look like
for you?"
I offer the following idea:
Phase 1 - Use the boundaries provided by staff in this presentation to establish formally
recognized areas. Something similar to the Old Town Overlay District
Phase 2 - Allocate a portion of the $100k budgeted to create and install signs that provide
historical information about each area. Consider installing unique street signs, similar to but
different from those used in Old Town, in each neighborhood.
I believe both of these provide immediate recognition of the neighborhoods and serve as a
good starting point for subsequent phases.
Phase 3 - Organize discussions, held within the neighborhoods themselves, to gather input
and feedback on what the citizens of each neighborhood want to see happen. This feedback
would be incorporated into an action plan for the neighborhoods.
Phase 4 - Formalize and combine the resident input with the relevant details about what can
and cannot be done, as provided by staff. This information would be presented to the citizens
and Council for clarity, further input and ultimately approval.
Phase 5 - Implement what was developed in phase 4.
There are certain to be many different ideas and opinions about these small area plans. It is
important that the people that live in these neighborhoods are actively involved and whatever
is done reflects their input.
These plans must be developed carefully and should not be a directive placed upon the
citizens without their participation and ultimately, consent.
Thank you.
Calixtro stated that she supports the process. She noted the diversity of homes in the areas.
Calixtro stated that does not want to see what happened in East Austin happen in
Georgetown. Calixtro stated that Mr. Walton offered good ideas. She noted the need to
education the citizens in the neighborhoods to understand the process. Calixtro added that
the success of a small area plan we be based on input received from residents.
Jonrowe asked when the call will go out for contractor(s) for the project. Nelson responded
that staff will come back in September. Jonrowe asked if at that time Council would revisit
the budget. Nelson responded yes staff would propose scope for both plans along with costs
for both plans. Jonrowe asked if the plan is to put the information online in English and
Spanish. Nelson responded that staff can do that. Jonrowe asked if staff can do a mailer or
door hanger in English and Spanish. Nelson responded that staff will develop an outreach
plan that can include that. Jonrowe asked if either Susan or Nat speak Spanish. Nelson
responded no, but others on staff do. Jonrowe stated that staff may want to change their
voicemail if providing number to include message in Spanish and make sure they have quick
access to someone who speaks Spanish. Jonrowe stated that she supports the first question.
She added that she is concerned that timeline is getting longer, and redevelopment is already
happening. Jonrowe noted the need to have a thorough communication plan. She asked if
Council can put a moratorium on demolitions in the area. Nelson responded that she is not
sure. Jonrowe stated that Council should explore that possibility and noted that low priority
structures in San Jose and TRG can be demolished with little to no approval. Nelson
responded low priority structures outside of the historic district do not require approval
outside of a standard building permit. Jonrowe stated that at least during formulation of plan
she would like a moratorium. She added there should be specific information and that the
success of plan should be based on input of the neighborhood residents.
Fought stated that the outreach portion is critical. He added regarding what success look like,
for him it is to preserve character of area, but not trying to build a HOA. Fought asked related
to demolitions, how does the City handle it when someone doesn't want to comply with plan.
He then asked what the means of enforcement for the plan are and noted that zoning will
have to be well defined.
Gonzalez stated that he wants people to understand what their rights are when the plan in
implemented. He added that slowing down gentrification comes at a cost and noted the need
for some independent translators. Gonzalez stated when designating something as special
the value can increase. He added that putting an addition on a home might now not be as
easy as it was in the past.
Triggs stated that he supports the process for the scope and doesn't need any specific
information at this time. He added that a successful plan will have a lot of resident
involvement and in the end a majority of residents are happy, as is the City.
Pitts stated that the main thing is that both neighborhoods need to determine what their main
goal is, and staff needs majority of buy in from residents. He added that if the City effects the
resale of property it could also stifle value with restrictions. Pitt stated that he is not sure of
plan yet, but those are concerns and staff needs people to know benefit of what they are
getting up and down.
Mayor Ross stated that question 1 had unanimous support and noted that buy in from both
neighborhoods is essential. He added clarification that there are two separate plans and staff
needs to be able to explain the consequences good and bad. Nelson stated that the next steps
are to meet with neighborhood leaders. Mayor Ross asked when the next Council
presentation will be. Nelson responded that she is not sure. Mayor Ross asked if it would be
in September. Nelson responded the scope will be ready in September and staff will bring
the outreach plan prior to the scope.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Intersection/Sidewalk CIP -- Wesley Wright, PE,
Systems Engineering Director and Ray Miller, Director of Public Works
Wright presented the item and reviewed the proposed FY21 Capital Improvement Projects
(CIP) for sidewalks consisting of continuation of Priority 1 ADA Master Plan and downtown
for a total of $1 million; and intersection improvements consisting of signals, turn lanes, etc.
with locations to be determined and totaling $1.8 million. He then reviewed sidewalks and
noted the 2014 Sidewalk Master Plan which accounts for $100 million in total for sidewalks
and ramps with $10 million in Priority 1 projects, with 2015 Road Bond funds that account for
$1 million per year for 10 years. Wright reviewed the sidewalks projects from the 2015 Road
Bond as follows: year 1 (2016) various intersections and signal ramps; year 2 (2017)
intersections, 101h and 1111, Streets, Southbound IH35 (Highway 29 to Highway 2243; year 3
(2018) Austin Avenue from University to Leander; year 4 (2019) 7th Street, Downtown to
Southwestern University; year 5 (2020), Downtown, around the Square and New City Hall;
year 6 (2021) Downtown continued; year 7 (2022) Downtown continued; year 8 (2023)
Downtown completed; year 9 (2024) SH29 from Austin to Southwestern University; and year
10 (2025) SH29 from Austin to Southwestern University. He then reviewed a map of the
sidewalks completed in 2020 in Downtown. Wright explained the sidewalk projects looking
forward from 2020-2025 which includes completing Downtown and SH29 improvements.
Wright noted that Priority 2 sidewalks including arterials, high ped counts, and could
possibly be included in the May 2021 Road Bond Election with a 2014 cost estimate of $7.5
million and staff will update locations and the cost estimate while focusing on schools and
intersections.
Pitts noted the increase pedestrian traffic on DB Wood and asked that is be considered.
Wright responded that he has heard a lot of similar comments.
Jonrowe asked when the City will start the process of updating the Sidewalk Master Plan.
Wright responded that staff has already started the process. Jonrowe stated that she
supported updating the Plan.
Gonzalez noted the need to extend sidewalks to the high schools and applauded the work
done downtown and elsewhere.
Calixtro agreed with Gonzalez about sidewalks going to the high schools and if there was any
way to make those a priority, she would support it. Wright responded that the sidewalk on
Hwy 29 have a Priority 1 status.
Wright then reviewed signals and intersections noting that the following are currently under
design: SH29 and HEB/Wolf Crossing, Westinghouse and Scenic Lake Drive, and
Westinghouse and Blue Ridge with a developer. Wright stated that the proposed FY21
funding is expected to be $1.8 million out of the 2015 Road Bond Funds. He then explained
the evaluation criteria which consists of points assigned based on objective data as follows: 2
points each for Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Warrants; 0 to 10 points
for average daily traffic; 0 to 10 points for peak hour volume; 0 to 10 points for crashes; 0 to 5
points for speed; 0 to 10 points for pedestrian or bike use; 0 to 15 points for improvement type;
1 point each for special conditions; and 0 to 10.95 points for time spent on the list. Wright
then reviewed each criterion in depth by providing statistical data. He explained that
MUTCD Warrants are worth 2 points each and a warrant describes a threshold condition
based upon average or normal conditions that, if found to be satisfied as part of an
engineering study, shall result in analysis of other traffic conditions or factors to determine
whether a traffic control device or other improvement is justified. Wright continued that
Warrants are not a substitute for engineering judgment, and the fact that a warrant for a
particular traffic control device is met is not conclusive justification for the installation of the
device. He then providing following rankings for intersections with their scores: SE Inner
Loop at Rockride Lane with a score of 42.01; Sun City Blvd at Del Webb with a score of 29.00;
Shell Road at Verde Vista with a score of 25.08; SE Inner Loop at Maple St with a score of
20.67; Williams Drive at Estella Crossing with a score of 20.67;Northwest Blvd. at Golden
Oaks with a score of 15.33; Austin Avenue at 5th Street with a score of 15.00; University at CR
103 with a score of 14.67; Austin Ave at 1611 with a score of 11.67; Sam Houston at Maple Street
with a score of 10.67; Austin Ave at loth with a score of 6.67; and Northwest Blvd. at Golden
Oaks with a score of 3.00. Wright reviewed the proposed improvements at Williams Drive
and Serenada with striping costing $25,000 with turn lane improvements and pedestrian
actuation. He added that the project is not bond funded, but will be funded via the FY21
Operational Budget, as funds are available. Wright explained the proposed improvements at
Rockride and SE Inner Loop intersection, which has a 42.01 rating and is very busy with peak
hour school traffic with warrants met. He added that the level of service is rated B, which is
good, a traffic signal may increase delays, proposed striping and raised medians costing
$50,000, a proposed reduced speed from 55 to 40 mph, and it is not bond funded, but will be
funded with FY21 Operational Budget, as available. Wright explained the Sun City and Del
Webb intersection that received a 29.00 rating with an existing 3-way stop where everyone
stops. He continued that two signal warrants have been met, no funding is being proposed
for FY21, staff will continue to study and evaluate options, staff will pursue public
engagement and the following considerations: construct signal that will potentially add to the
overall delay; roundabout which will provide the least overall delay, but have complications
with golf carts and unfamiliarity; or do nothing and leave the intersection as -is.
Fought stated that he has spoken with several people and hears to leave as is. He added that
when he mentioned a roundabout, people weren't sure how a pedestrian would get through
there and he appreciated analysis and professional judgement of staff.
Triggs stated that he agrees with leaving as is and a roundabout would really goof things up.
He added that he agrees with staff's assessment on lights.
Pitts, Jonrowe, Gonzalez, and Calixtro agreed with Fought and Triggs and had no additional
comments.
Wright stated that he is glad to hear that staff and Council are in alignment. Wright reviewed
the Shell Road and Verde Vista intersection that received a 25.08 rating and noted that in 2018
the City constructed turn lanes, three Warrants were met as of January 2020, and staff plans
to use a proposed $600,000 bond funds for FY21. He then explained the SE Inner Loop and
Maple intersection which received a 20.67 rating and Sam Houston and Maple intersection
which received a 10.67 Rating and noted the following options: possible multi -signal Complex
which is not currently warranted; a possible roundabout which would likely be temporary
for 5 to 10 or more years; possible future flyover with freeway cross-section; and proposed
$400,000 bond funds for FY21 for design and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. Wright
reviewed the Williams Drive and Estrella Crossing intersection noting that is has a 20.67
Rating and that regarding Wesleyann at Estrella there is food separation from DB Woods and
Serenda of the existing signals and the use of proposed $600,000 Bond Funds for FY2021. He
noted that other intersections under consideration are: Northwest Blvd and Lakeway Dr. with
a score of 15.33; Austin Ave and 5th Street with a score of 15.00 that could possible need a
pedestrian flasher; University and CR103 with a score of 14.67; Austin and 16th Street with a
score of 11.67 and a recently installed pedestrian flasher; Austin and 10th Street with a score
of 6.67 and a recently installed pedestrian flasher; Northwest Blvd and Golden Oaks with a
score of 3.00; Williams and Sedro/Gatlin which is not ranked, with new mixed -use
developments; Sam Houston/SE1 and Rock Ride that is not ranked, with recent
enhancements; Austin and 5th Street with a flasher similar to loth and Austin, no signal
warrants met and $100,000 FY2021 Bond funds; 8th Street at Georgetown Library with
pedestrian flasher similar to 10th and Austin, new parking lot, proposed City -Center
enhancements, and $50,00 FY2021 Bond Funds; and GMC/Georgetown Municipal Complex
at Industrial and Leander Road/2243 with possible pedestrian flashers similar to 10th and
Austin, public/employee access, and $50,000 FY2021 Bond Funds. Wright stated the
Downtown sight distance restrictions which are: 6th Street and 9th Street at Austin Avenue;
possibly remove a few parking spots; selective landscape trimming/removal; and it is an in-
house effort, that is not Bond funded but could be part of the FY2021 operational budget. He
reviewed sidewalks that are budgeted for a total of $1 million and will continue with Priority
1 projects. Wright noted that there are $1.8 million in 2015 Road Bond funds for signals at: SE
Inner Loop and Rock Ride Improvements; Sun City and Del Webb where staff will continue
to study options and provide public engagement; Shell and Verde Vista for $600,000;
SEl/Inner Loop/Maple with a roundabout design and ROW for $400,000; Williams and
Estrella with a signal for $600,000; and flashers at Austin and 5th for $100,000, 8th at Library
for $50,000, and GMC for $50,000. He noted that staff is seek feedback from the City Council
on the sidewalk and intersection improvements to include in the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for Fiscal Year 2021, and if there is additional information the City Council needs prior
to providing direction on the proposed projects.
Pitts stated that he supports Shell/Verde Vista and Williams and Estrella. He asked if the
Rock Ride and Sam Houston intersection is in the County. Wright responded that Sam
Houston is City and the intersection is the City. Pitts noted a school that is being be located
near that intersection and asked that Rock Ride and Sam Houston be considered for future
improvements. Wright responded that staff has looked at that intersection. Ray Miller,
Director of Public Works noted that staff is looking at putting up a flashing yellow beacon.
He added right now adding a light could lead to more accidents with people trying to beat
the yellow light and coming to a sudden stop. Pitts stated that overall he supports staff
recommendations.
Jonrowe supported staff recommendations and thanked staff for the new process in place to
review needs. She asked that staff monitor the process because it is new. Jonrowe supported
the ranking of the projects, continued use of pedestrian flashers, and the need for a public
campaign explaining the flashers.
Gonzalez stated that he supports staff recommendations. He asked about the Inner Loop and
Rock Ride intersection and if staff could consider moving the project up sooner.
Calixtro stated that she agrees with Gonzalez and asked clarification questions regarding SE
Inner Loop and the location of the roundabout. David Morgan, City Manager noted that the
challenge for this intersection is three different directions diverging into one place and
roundabouts are usually most effective, instead of requiring multiple signals. Calixtro stated
that she agrees with staff.
Triggs stated that he agrees with Williams and Estrella as a priority and for pedestrians, it
was recently suggested to add a pedestrian flasher on Cool Breeze.
Fought stated that he is pleased with the analysis and agrees with staff recommendations. He
added that he is very supportive of Vista Verde and Estrella intersections.
Mayor Ross stated that Council supports the recommendations and the possibility to move
up the Rock Ride intersection.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY2021 assessed value trends, and the projected
tax impact of five year capital improvement plan -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
Wallace presented the item and reviewed the Property Tax process noting that the Assessed
Value will be certified on July 25, 2020 by Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD).
She noted that after the certification date, finance staff meets with the Williamson Count Tax
Assessor Collector's Office and verifies the Truth in Taxation form, which calculates the No
New Revenue rate and the Voter Approval rate, and it is a State requirement and must be
published in the local paper and on City and WCAD websites. Wallace the reviewed Truth
in Taxation and explained that the No New Revenue rate is the property tax rate the City
would need to charge in order to produce the same amount of property tax revenues as last
year while using the new valuations of the current year. She added that typically, property
values appreciate from year to year, and in most years, the increased value of a property
means a lower tax rate could produce the same amount of revenue. Wallace continued, that
for example, a home valued at $100,000 with a tax rate of 42 cents would produce $420 in
property tax revenue, and if in the following year, the home is valued at $105,000, the No New
Revenue rate would be 40 cents to produce the same $420 worth of revenue. She stated that
the No New Revenue rate enables the public to evaluate the relationship between taxes for
the prior year and for the current year and was previously known as the Effective Rate.
Wallace explained that the Voter Approval rate is the maximum tax rate the City can set
before requiring an election to approve the tax rate, and after adjustments for debt
calculations, the Voter Approval rate is equal to the effective rate times 3.5%, which was
previously known as the Rollback Rate. She explained the Tax Rate Calculation Variables:
rl
Existing
Assessed Value
Decrease
Voter Approval Rate
14
Decrease
Voter Approval Rate
Sales Tax
Increase
Voter Approval Rate
Debt Service
Payments
Frozen I&S
Payments
Increase
Voter Approval Rate
Increase
Voter Approval Rate
TIRZ $
it
Increase
Voter Approval Rate
New Assessed Value
-
A - controlled by City Council action
Wallace reviewed the Assessed Value Growth provided by Williamson Central Appraisal
District as follows:
a�
$Q,44
�0.5 $C
$C153
$0
$0.51�
$1
$f
$0.48 ''
$ l 3
.3
:60.S1•.,
1.3
y�•.5
5�12.
4
I
I
$5 9
$6.3
.9
4
L7 U t7
She then ex lained what has chaned since last year using un-certified values as follows:
FY2020 FY2021 EstimateVariance
Taxable Value 5,589,310,032 5,917,584,187 5.87%
Tax Ceiling Value 2,798,934,703 2,787,977,971 -0.39%
New Value 345,789,565 461,524,141 33.47%
TIRZ Value 392,282,210 480,230,032 22.429/%
Wallace reviewed what tax -supported debt is by noting that it is debt repaid with property
taxes via ether: voter approved General Obligation bonds for parks and trails, roads and
bridges, and sidewalks; or Certificate of Obligation bonds for facilities, capital equipment,
and vehicles. She explained how the model works noting that as older bond issues are fully
paid off, payments for existing debt decline, the City Council prioritizes capital projects and
new debt to pay for them, and the tax rate brings in the appropriate amount of revenue to pay
new and existing debt.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year S
■ Existing Debt 11 New Debt Revenue
Wallace explained the assumptions made by staff for years one thru five (2021 — 2025) which
were: $300 million to $175 million of growth in new value and 4 - 3% growth in existing value,
combined growth is 7 to 5% growth year over year; 3.5% growth in tax ceiling revenue; tax
rate for debt service and distribution of O&M (46.5%) and I&S (53.5%) tax ceiling to remain
constant; and interest rates at 2.8% thru 3.7%. She added that the model results, for the past
few fiscal years, have allowed the City to issue around $17 million of new tax supported debt
without raising the tax rate and projections for FY2021 through FY2025 are the capacity to
issue around $18 million of new tax supported debt without raising the tax rate. Wallace then
provided the summary or nve-year iapirai
imprvvernenr x CUJMrb k�-lr) ab rUIIUW6-
5 Year Tax Supported CIP
FY2021
IFY2022
IFY2023
IFY2024
IFY2025
Tax Supported
Facilities
42700,000
6,000,000
12,150,000
15,850,00
Fleet
3,230,000
2,781,50C
3,227,400
2,647,50C
2,484,00
Other
363,27
Parks
1,945,OOC
750,00C
6,700,OOC
4,250,00
250,00
Public Safety
805,OOC
300,00
Streets
6,800,OOC
14,600,OOC
3,000,OOC
1,000,00
fax Supported Total
17,843,270
18,431,501
18,927,400
20,047,50q
18,584,00
+3rand Total
17,843,27
18,431,50
18,927,40
20,047,50U. 18,584,001
Wallace stated the next steps which are: getting Council's feedback on the proposed CIP
projects for FY2021; staff will provide an estimate on the No New Revenue and the Voter
Approval rates at the Budget Workshops on July 21 and 22; certified tax roll on July 251"; and
FY2021 Proposed Budget presented to Council August 11th and start tax rate adoption
process.
Council had no comments or questions.
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.
E. 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
- PEC Franchise
- Net Metering
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:53 p.m. noting that Executive Session
would start at 5:05 p.m.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 2 _U —C)
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary