Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 10.13.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, October 13, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:30 PM at Teleconference 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, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:36 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. Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District was absent, and Council District 2 is vacant. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:30 PM A. Presentation and update regarding the Code Compliance Department -- Jack Daly, Community Services Director and Brad Hofmann, Chief Code Compliance Office Daly presented the item and provided the presentation overview. He then turned the presentation over to Hofmann. Hofmann provided the introduction and noted the Code Compliance Team as follows: Brad Hofmann, Chief Code Compliance Officer; Malcolm Brown, Code Compliance Officer; Eric Finn, Code Compliance Officer; Amber James, Code Compliance Officer; Mike Rosenwinkel, Code Compliance Officer; and one vacant position. He noted the department's mission statement which is to provide extraordinary customer service through education and communication, to partner with our citizens and business owners to gain compliance with local code ordinances, and to have a positive impact on the safety, appearance, and value of our community. Hofmann noted the department's 2020 highlights including rebranding, a step program based on certifications, performance, and time in position, and process mapping. He provided a 2021 preview which includes a MyPermitNow module for Code, continued process improvements, and improved reporting. Hofmann explained the approach to enforcement which is: both proactive and complaint - based; ensures equal enforcement within several blocks when notices are sent; total violations written in for 2020 totaled 1,480 which is a lower case count related to COVID-19 and reduced staffing levels in 2020, with a total number of cases sent to Court being 60 or 4% of cases; in 2019 there were a total of 3,052 with a total number of cases sent to Court being 138 or 4.5% of cases; and emphasis on education with 348 tall grass and weed complaints where 315 (90%) received notice of violation and 27 (7.75%) abated by contractor. Daly the resumed the presentation and explained what governs Code's work as: Code of Ordinances; Unified Development Code (UDC); International Property Maintenance Code with the 2015 version adopted earlier this year; common ordinance violations related to bandit signs, with more than 1,000 bandit sign violations and abatements in 2020, tall grass and weeds, trash and debris, permit violations, junk vehicle, and parking on unapproved surfaces; UDC violations with zoning violations and tree ordinance; and other Code issues related to noise, administrative warrants, and trash cans. He noted junk vehicle ordinance changes related to: aligns definitions and processes with State law which adds aircraft and watercraft to junk vehicle definition; allows for the abatement of junk vehicles if no hearing is requested 11 days after notice is received which is in alignment with other nuisance provisions which allow for abatement by city; when a hearing is requested, allows the Municipal Court to order an abatement (as opposed to just issuing a fine); removes the building standards commission as a body to host a junk vehicle hearing; and removes duplicative language regarding the municipal court hearing process. Daly provided a proposed timeline as follows: for Junk Vehicles, the first reading on October 27, 2020 and second reading on November 10, 2020; and future Ordinance for review and/or clean-up on tall grass and weeds, parking on unimproved surface to include backyard, parking of commercial vehicles, and trash cans. Calixtro what defines a junk vehicle versus someone who repairs cars. Daly responded that it is defined by law what a junked vehicle is. He added that generally it is a vehicle that is undriveable and doesn't have current registration, but there are provisions for people working on their vehicles. Daly stated that Code Officers have been trained to look for junk vehicles and know the differences. He added that is someone feels they were incorrectly given a ticket for a junk vehicle they can appeal. Calixtro noted an example in her neighborhood of someone parking a vehicle partially on the driveway and partially in the yard and asked about how it relates to parking on an approved surface. Daly responded that there are certain approved services, but parking on the yard is not an approved surface. Calixtro asked about the duration of parking on an unapproved surface, for a party as an example, and if it will lead to a violation. Daly responded that the first notice received by Code will lead to communication asking for them to move the vehicle. Triggs stated that the proposed changes seem appropriate. Fought stated that he is glad to see that Council is discussing this. He added that some HOAs are much stricter and he wants to make sure that those strict rules remain in place. Jonrowe asked about the parking of vehicles and blocking the sidewalk. Daly responded that he can get the exact language. Jonrowe noted that vehicles blocking the sidewalks is a safety issue and she would like additional information. She then asked about people's reluctance to things parked in the backyard and where it comes from. Daly responded that people are worried about the aesthetic and environmental issues. He added the goal is meet the needs without overextending. Jonrowe stated that she is torn about backyard parking and would like to discuss it in the future. Jonrowe asked about noise complaints and who responds. Daly responds that noise ordinance violations are responded to by GPD and then Code will work with people who are doing construction or have ongoing noise issues. Jonrowe asked if it was policy for Code to follow-up with the violator. Daly responds that it depends on the type of the violation. He added that GPD would respond to a party, but if there is a recurring issue Code could get involved to address noise and permitting issues. Jonrowe asked about SUP's and noise violations. Daly responded that GPD will respond and he will get more information. Jonrowe asked if it would be beneficial to have a trigger in a SUP where the SUP would be revoked after so many noise violations issues. Daly responded that is getting out of his area of expertise. Jonrowe stated that the very nature of SUPs is that they are unique and customized which could lead to difficulty in working on enforcement of noise violation issues. Skye Masson, City Attorney, noted that SUP is a zoning regulation and to remove it would be an act of rezoning. Jonrowe asked who would initiate that process. Masson responded that they City can do that at any time, but it would have to walk through the entire rezoning process. Jonrowe asked if it would be helpful to add a trigger. Masson responded that staff could look into that. Jonrowe stated that these are just discussion points she would like to look into. Mayor Ross asked if Daly would like to give any special thanks to people at the City helping. Daly thanked the Code Compliance team. Mayor Ross asked who is more popular, Code Compliance Officers or Fire Fighters. Daly replied Code obviously! B. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding the City's response to COVID-19 - - Jack Daly, Community Services Director Daly presented and provided a presentation overview and then noted the updates since previous workshop on July 14, 2020 as follows: expanded outdoor dining pilot on Labor Day weekend; opened Blue Hole with alcohol ban; pop-up testing sites in Georgetown on August 18 - 20, 2020 and September 12 -15, 2020; volunteers returned to library and animal shelter following COVID-19 protocols; challenges in Recreation Center including expanded hours for closing at regular intervals for cleaning, reduced usage, mask compliance issues, and recommend revisiting mask rules in Recreation Center; reimbursements include accepting $106,698.93 for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding this evening with the first reimbursement for period of March 1 - May 31, 2020 and seeking additional reimbursement for $56,000; and CARES funding administered by Williamson County including funds for the Airport for equipment to be purchased for $157,000 that has not yet received, and EMS CARES funding to recover lost revenue for $76,000. He reviewed the Governor's orders as follows; Executive Order 29 "Mask Mandate" issued July 2, 2020; Executive Order 30 "75% occupancy" issued September 17, 2020; Executive Order 31 "High hospitalizations" issued September 17, 2020; Executive Order 32 "Bars at 50%" issued October 7, 2020 where the County Judge must authorize to use and Williamson County opted in beginning October 14, 2020; and reissued updated local mask mandate to correspond to Governor's Order on September 22, 2020 which removes provisions within the local order that explicitly tie it to local health data, simply allow the Mayor or Council to terminate it, or allow County Judge or Governor orders to supersede it. Daly did a review of WCCHD data and gating criteria and provided charts for: Incident Rate highlighting the case count after July 2, 2020 Governor's Mask Mandate; Tests Reported; and Currently Hospitalized by ICU Status. He then provided the following charts and explanation for the phased reopening: PHASED REOPENING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC GREEN MINIMAL COMMUNITY SPREAD Flat or decline over INCIDENCE previous 14 days in TREND phase, with no K w AND rebound Cr INCIDENCE Incidence during U RATE previous 14 days stays 0 below 1.1 per 100,000 Z OR ~ POSITIVITY Testing positivity rate 0 RATE stays below 5% for previous 14 days RE - MODERATE HiGH UNCO NTROLL_:- COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD Oecllne over previous Decline over previous incidence not declining 14 days w Uni'vig , 14 days in red phase, over 14 days. or has phase, volh rio rehixind with no rebound rebounded while in phase Incidcr,ce durng Incidence during pnr vlous 14 days stays previous 14 days stays below 7 per 100,000 below 12.7 per 100,000 t esling positivity rate Testing positivity rate stays below 10% for stays below 15% for previous 14 days previous 14 days Incidence rate is above 12.7 per 200,000 Testing positivity rate is above 15% during previous 14 days The following guidelines are suggested for planning, but may be superceded by Executive Order of the Governor. Jurisdictions are encouraged to check the most recent Orders: hops:llgov.texas.govlcoronavirus-executive-orders. Vulnerable Individuals should follow the recommendations for the next -highest phase, i e .it the County is in YELLOW Phase, a vulnerable individual should follow the recommendations for ORANGE Phase, such as avoiding gatherings of live or more people.) CAPACITY Up to maximum capacity Up to maximum capacity Up to maximum capacity (CUSTOMERS, specified by Executive specified by Executive specified by Executive Remote only where Z CLIENTS Order, require distant- Order. require distanc- Order, require distanc- feasible O VISITORS) in/masks ingfmasks ing/masks uSOCIAL Avoid large gatherings Avoid gatherings of over Avoid gatherings of over Stay Home, Stay Sale t GATHERINGS of over 25 people 10 people 5 people LARGE EVENTS 000-PEOPLE - Up to 76% capacity With Up to 50% capacity with Avoid or postpone large Avoid or postpone large F SPORTSiFAIR$/ mitigation plan mitigation plan. postpone events until Yellow events until Yellow Z CONVENTIONS events where possible Moderate Phase Moderate Phase ETC-) z i Prohibit large gatherings Prohibit gatherings of Prohibit gatherings of Prohibit gatherings. i of over 25 people, over 10 people, require over 5 people. require require personal mitiga- O U PARKS AND RECREATION require re personal q p l personal wii gallon � mitigation personal miti p g Hon measures for mitigation measures for measures for measures for andividualsHamilies individualslfamilies individualsilarnilles individualstfamilies Always wear a mask: Always wear a mask Always wear a mask: Always wear a mask: . Around people who - Around another person - Around another person - Around another person may have been exposed who is not a household who is not a household who is not a household MASK or recently traveled to a colitact contact contact WEARING high-nsk area - When outsidN the horne - When outside the home - When outside the home When outside the home or your personal o"ice or your personal office or your personal office t or your personal office Around vulnerable - Around vulnerable - Around vulnerable �+ Around vulnerable uid,vidLiais individuals individuals T individuals i Maintain a minimum Mamtain a nimiiinriai Maintain a minimum Maintain a minimum Z distance of B' distance of 6' with distance of 6' with distance of 6' with O SOCIAL masks. reL:emmendNd masks: recommended masks: recommended DISTANCING 10' c;r more wherever 10' or more wherever 10' or more wherever W a masks uiinnul be tivurn masks cannot be worn masks cannot be worn HAND )Nash hands regularly with warm vriter and scat) for 20 seconds or more whenever using the bathroom HYGIENE before and after eating, and belore and afii r gatherings or public interaction Daly asked that Council revisit gatherings and city operations because the Governor's Order requires Mayor approval for outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people, with exceptions for certain businesses/activities as identified in the Governors guidelines for reopening Texas and generally, the City has not been approving outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people. He noted that the Mayor has approved Market Days as it is reviewed as retailer and provided the following recommendations going forward: for gatherings issue a proclamation requiring event organizers to follow Governor and WCCHD guidance and review plans prior to approving events; and for City operations following WCCHD guidance and will modify operations as appropriate based on phases, per city facility. Daly provided recommendations for holiday events as follows: "Virtual" Lighting of the Square event; modified Christmas Stroll with fewer vendors, no parade, no Bethlehem Village, and fewer kids activities; and disallow events that encourage extended, greater than 15 minutes, concentrated gatherings of people, for example concerts or fun runs. He noted some tentative upcoming testing: pop-up site at Community Center running from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on October 7-11, 2020 and October 14-16, 2020 and a kiosk at the parking lot north of the library from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 9-30, 2020. Calixtro for clarification on the 15-minute time limit for interactions and how that would impact an activity like Market Days. Daly responded that Markey Days is a retailer, people are wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, and washing hands, it is relatively safe. He continued that being outside has an added benefit. Mayor Ross stated that he is in favor of staff's recommendations as they indicated possible flexibility. Triggs asked how big the yellow zone is what does it encompass. Daly responded that the health district issues the criteria based on the County, so it embraces all of Williamson County. Triggs asked if the yellow zone equals Williamson County. Daly responded yes. Triggs asked about Travis County. Daly responded that they have different criteria and he's not sure. He continued that Travis County follows hospitalizations and he can get more information to the Council. Triggs asked what type of lead time staff needs for holiday events. Daly responded that it depends on type of event. He continued that for Lighting of the Square three weeks would be great, so if it could be revisited at the next Council meeting that would be great. Daly said that Christmas Stroll is more robust event and staff would need more time. Fought stated that the City should stick with County guidance and not push the limits. He continued that a virtual lighting of the Square is fine. Fought stated that the City could have the lights on for people to see, but not encourage everyone there. He also suggested dialing back Christmas Stroll as this the year to be careful. Fought stated that the Council should leave the decision for mask wearing at the Recreation Center up to staff. He continued that he is willing to try, but staff would know best. Fought added that staff has been managing this well. Pitts noted the WCCHD gating criteria and stated that he has issues with this. He continued that there are four columns, but not one for not doing anything anymore, and asked if the WCCHD is waiting for vaccine. Pitts stated that he doesn't like that it assumes we will be in some form of COVID-19 life for forever. He said that people are ready to get out of this and he does like the data as they do data dumps that skew the numbers. Pitts stated that people are wearing mask and following precautions and he doesn't want to do more than what the state requires. He continued that people can choose what to do and we shouldn't prohibit what they can do. Jonrowe stated that she is interested in data after the mask mandate was put into effect, and that it takes communities coming together to support each other and businesses. She asked if any of the Governor's items take into fact the upcoming flu season and possible impacts. Daly responded that he hasn't seen anything that speaks to flu season yet, and the Governor is watching hospitalizations. Jonrowe asked if COVID hospitalizations are at 15%. Daly responded yes. Jonrowe asked about the combination of COVID and flu hospitalizations and if they would trigger any action. Daly responded not under the current executive orders. Jonrowe stated that she likes the virtual lighting to prevent possible super spreader event and a limited stroll. She asked if the City could do ticketed event or limited attendance. Daly responded that limiting attendance would be difficult to enforce. Jonrowe asked about possible event ambassadors that monitor social distancing. Daly responded that staff can talk through that and discuss COVID mitigation plans. Jonrowe noted the possibility of increased signage opportunities to communicate expectations which makes it easier to comply. She stated that she has concerns about the Rec Center based on the nature of spread and distance it can reach where someone could possibly infect people farther than 6 feet. Jonrowe continued that when breathing heavily someone can expend more and she would hate for the City to get to the green zone, relax restrictions, and then find its way back to yellow and red zones. Mayor Ross stated that going back several months when the Governor gave the Judge an opportunity to implement mask, he joined with several other mayors to have area wide consistency. He continued that he likes Fought's ideas of being consistent. Mayor Ross stated that the City needs to divert to City staff on some of these as they are the experts, not Council, and a majority of Council is in favor of staff recommendations. Morgan stated that regarding the Lighting of the Square staff can come back and discuss what Council wants via limiting attendance or a virtual event. Mayor Ross noted that there are multiple views and the Lighting of the Square sets the tone for the season. He asked that staff please bring this back to Council. C. Presentation, update, and possible direction regarding the Downtown Cost of Service Project and enhanced services to include an ambassador or concierge program -- Ray Miller, Director Public Works, and Teresa Chapman, Environmental Services Miller presented the item and provided a presentation overview. He then gave an update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of Service Project (SWDCSP) related to notices to businesses stating that on February 26, 2020 Council directed staff to adjust billing to cover cost of service without rate increase. Miller stated that in April of 2019 the Solid Waste Master Plan was presented and because of the cost and complexity of options presented, staff recommended, and Council concurred, to address the Cost of Service pricing inequities first. He then stated that in May of 2019 the scope of work was approved with the objective to find all pricing inequities and propose method(s) for moving customers into the correct solid waste rate class and the City would need to raise revenue to $150,000 to cover cost of service, determine pricing inequities, and adjust billing to cover cost of service without a rate increase. Miller reviewed the cost of service billing process information that was given in February of 2020 and noted that cost of service per individual businesses was developed from data varied based on availability but overall included: waste audit data; business type; materials generated; hours of operation; and comparison data. He provided an update that on Friday, Oct. 2, 2020, the City mailed letters directly to 55 businesses explaining changes to their monthly solid waste rate based on 2020 waste audit data, and sixteen (16) of these businesses, had significant rate increases, and the City contact information was provided to allow business owners to meet with City staff to explain the change in rate. Miller provided an overview of ambassador and concierge service noting that: Ambassador Service is based on number of days and hours; the City can scale up or down as needed; and Weekend Ambassador is minimum service level. He provided the following: Service Blocks r JEstimated ❑umpster Est. # of Longevity Options lnclu&O Cost Removed Days Part-time 38, 39, 40, $100,000 Block 38 3 days 3 — 5 years Ambassador 51, & 52 Enhanced 38, 39, 40, $200,000 Block 38 5 days 5 — 7 years Ambassador 51, & 52 Concierge 38, 39, 40, $300,000 + Block 38, 7 days Indefinite 51, & 52 39, & 40 Miller explained the Downtown Square current service delivery with shared dumpsters and noted that the City pays for four sets of paired shared dumpsters; some blocks have their own containers and are not included in today's discussion; and businesses utilizing the shared dumpsters reimburse the City for the cost of services. He then explained the Downtown Square potential service delivery proposal which will change from shared dumpsters to an Ambassador Program or Concierge Program on 5 blocks and will be a pilot program for one year with the benefit of reduction in overflow of dumpsters and cleaner environment. Miller provided the Downtown Square current status and provided Council with a picture of overflowing dumpsters taken on Block 40 on September 7, 2020 (behind the old City Hall) at 4:00 a.m. He then provided the Downtown Square desired status by providing a picture of clean dumpsters taken on Block 40 on 9.28.2020 (behind the old City Hall) at 4:00 a.m. Miller provided information on ambassador programs in other cities as follows: Seattle, WA 1999 285 blocks Litter collection and empty receptacles Detroit, MI 2014 Biz District HWY 75 to Empty trash, Litter collection, HWY 375 to the River, pressure washing, Eyes and to JeffersonAve Ears patrol, Safety Escorts San Antonio, TX 2009 Public Improvement Litter collection, empty trash, District pressure wash, bird abatement, beautification etc. Miller provide the following mission statements for the programs as follows: Seattle's is to "ensure an inviting, safe and clean urban experience for everyone"; Detroit's is "a physically attractive downtown Detroit that is appealing to existing and new businesses, employees, residents and visitors"; and San Antonio's is "a block by block service for maintenance and hospitality." He then provided two options for the Georgetown Ambassador Program with Option 1 being the Light Ambassador Assistance and Option 2 being Enhanced Ambassador Program. Miller provided the Light Ambassador Program resources as: utilizes current contract; quick start up; add full-sized landfill/recycle enclosure on Block 39; removes dumpsters on Block 38; leaves dumpsters on Block 40; and removes sidewalk receptacles except Big Bellies. He explained the Light Ambassador Program dumpster enclosures as: removes shared dumpsters on Block 38; adds shared dumpsters to Block 39; and assists with managing discarded materials on weekends for Blocks 38, 39, 40, 50, and 51. Miller noted the Light Ambassador Program responsibilities as: on -duty Friday through Sunday for approximately 30 hours; includes Block 38, 39, 40, 51, and Block 52; keeps shared dumpsters from overflowing; sweep and pick up litter from around dumpsters; assist businesses with getting bags into dumpsters; empty receptacles on sidewalks (Big Bellies); collect litter from sidewalks and streets; report maintenance and upkeep concerns or challenges weekly; data and photograph documentation (before and after pics); and safety and security by reporting suspicious solid waste activity. He explained the Enhanced Ambassador Program resources as everything included in the Light Ambassador Program, plus: increased days/times as needed for Enhanced Ambassador; utilizes current contract; quick start up; add full-sized dumpster enclosure on Block 39; remove sidewalk receptacles except Big Bellies; and possible 5 days from Wednesday through Sunday. Miller then provided an overview of the Concierge Service and noted that: $300,000 quoted in 2018 while TDS said to expect the price to increase based on the number of blocks and/or number of businesses; first year would be a pilot to enable the City to determine actual cost per business; step program for businesses to assume full costs; would take 3 to 4 months to be operational and could start early next calendar year; and is "an individual or a company which specializes in personal assistance or other assistance services." He added that the Concierge Program removes dumpsters from Block 38 and 40, adds a small holding area for each shared services block, and actively manages discarded materials 7 days a week. Miller provide examples of the Concierge Program resources by providing photos of garbage and recycling enclosures. He provided a cost comparison of the Ambassador and Concierge programs as follows: Light 38, 39, 40, Ambassador 51, & 52 Enhanced 38, 39, 40, Ambassador 51, & 52 $100,000 Block 38 3 days $200,000 Block 38 5 days 3 — 5 years 5-7years Concierge 38, 39, 40, $300,000 + Block 38, 7 days Indefinite 51, & 52 39, & 40 Miller noted with all options the following will happened: remove dumpsters from Block 38; prepare for full concierge service; include litter collection, sweeping, emptying receptacles; and have the ability to scale up and/or down services. He noted that the City staff recommendation is as follows: move forward with a light ambassador program as a pilot program that can be fund through Downtown TIRZ for one year, up to $100,000, and an ongoing assessment throughout pilot program; after the one-year pilot, transition costs to downtown business customers over a three-year period to allow businesses to adjust to new rates; and in the long-term evaluate need to enhance ambassador services based on trash demands and consider a concierge program as needed. Miller asked for Council feedback on the follows: Does the City Council support implementing the light ambassador program as a one-year pilot; would they prefer a Light Ambassador Program that is part -rime for three days a week; and if following the first year begin three-year transfer of costs to downtown business customers. He provided the next steps and noted that if Council supports enhanced service program, the implementation will include: City staff to negotiate with TDS on Contract Amendment; inform businesses of the change; and staff will return to Council with a Contract Amendment. Calixtro asked if the City finds that the light ambassador program isn't working, how quickly can the City transition to something else. Miller responded that the City could probably do that pretty quickly, it's a matter of altering contracts with TDS. Calixtro asked if there would be more pickups during events. David Morgan, City Manager responded that the real difference would change how often ambassadors are in downtown. He continued that the pilot program would allow staff to come back to Council. Morgan said that the City may have to adjust, that's why staff is proposing as a trial. Miller noted that for special events there are always enhanced services. Triggs asked if there is money already in place for the trial. Morgan responded yes. Triggs asked what kind of feedback was received. Miller stated that businesses were notified about the increased costs and staff has received some feedback. Morgan said that the next step would be to work with downtown businesses and most concerns received were about downtown. Fought stated that it is good use of TIRZ money and staff should press ahead. Pitts asked if the plan was only for blocks listed, and others would continue as is, and then move forward for all nine blocks. Miller responded yes. Pitts stated that staff will eventually move $100,000 cost to businesses in the nine blocks. Miller responded yes. Pitts asked if all nine blocks are on the program, will TIRZ still be used. Morgan responded that will be up to Council. He continued that currently TIRZ funds are just proposed for the first year. Pitts asked if there would be a mission statement for our services. Miller responded that there is one for the department, but staff can create one for ambassador program. Pitts asked if the concierge will monitor dumpsters and call when services are needed. Miller responded that ambassadors will monitor throughout the day. He continued that people are not able to lift large bags and the concierge will assist customers. Pitts asked if they will pick-up litter as well and monitor dumpsters for illegal dumping. Miller responded correct. Pitts stated that he reached out to nine business owners and received comments. He asked about times, days and location of services. Morgan responded that the businesses still take the trash to the dumpsters. Pitts stated that some business owners asked to keep Georgetown clean. He asked if the dumpster on lot 38 was going away because it was on private property. Miller responded that is correct. Pitts provided more comments received about costs, wanting composting, and on -going discussion with no changes. He said that he was hoping to make sure that what the City is providing is what will benefit the businesses and he is happy to see forward movement. Mayor Ross noted that the City has had a lot of dialogue with downtown businesses about this and this is the byproduct of that dialogue. He continued that year would be required to verify a program because it would encompass all City events hosted throughout a year. Morgan responded yes and that's why staff is recommending a trial. He added that if three months in additional services are needed, the City can adjust. Morgan noted that this discussion has been happening for years and this proposal allows for affordability and a gradual impact to businesses. Mayor Ross stated that the City is not going to be in COVID forever and usage will increase in the future. He added that he is optimistic about having a plan. Pitts stated that he is in favor of moving forward. Jonrowe stated that she likes the staff proposal of starting with light ambassador program and wants to make sure the City is ready for enhancements. She continued that she supports the use of TIRZ funds. Pitts stated that he is in favor of moving forward with the proposal. He continued that the comments weren't negative, and perception is reality. Pitts stated that this is a great first step and will move forward as needed. Mayor Ross asked what the takeaway for staff is. Miller responded that staff will develop an education plan to talk with businesses. Morgan noted that staff will move quickly due to the upcoming holidays. D. Presentation and discussion regarding progress made on the June 23, 2020, Council direction to staff for the development of neighborhood plans for the San Jose and Track Ridge Grasshopper (TRG) neighborhoods -- Sofia, Nelson, Planning Director; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; and Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager Nelson presented and began by giving a thank you to City Council for allowing staff to learn more about key neighborhoods in our community. She then thanked the neighborhood leaders who embraced the opportunity and walked with staff through their neighborhoods. Nelson thanked the following City staff who supported the effort: Keith Hutchison, Mayra Cantu, Eric Lashley, Gloria Powers, and the City Planning team. She noted that the presentation team would also include Susan Watkins and Nat Waggoner and thanked the City's neighborhood partners. Nelson explained that the neighborhoods represent people, place, and an investment in the historic area of Georgetown. She then provided a presentation agenda and noted that staff is seeking feedback on the following: do you need additional information prior to proceeding with both small area plans; do you support the proposed scope for each neighborhood; and is this partnership going to achieve the vision for the small area plan project. Nelson explained the actions since the August 2020 City Council Workshop and provided a Dath to Dartnershin in this visual representation: _—_.------------. Confirm 1 t Plan 'AIs this partnership Learn Develop a gang to partnership to ` achieve the Listen �❑ncerr's co -achieve vision? -- vision Meet Ask questions Values 1 Develop a plan Trusted Be present Vision scope leaders Show interest Jul Aug Sept Waggoner then presented on the San Jose Neighborhood and provided history. He noted that San Jose was founded in 1947 and the original families established a grocery store and churches, to this day, a multi -generational neighborhood, and notable leaders in the neighborhood served on the City Council and within GISD, County and US. Waggoner stated that the San Jose Initial Survey has 24 surveys completed, 81 addresses visited, a 30% response rate, 11 volunteers, and 17% of the responses were in Spanish only. He then provided the following map of the San Jose area: 15th St. 18th St Quail Valley Dr. Waggoner explained the pride and concerns and noted the members of the neighbor stated that in San Jose, they are most proud of: their traditional neighborhood, because it has nice, supportive neighbors, is quite and safe; their history, because of its community leaders, businesses, and found families; and their neighborhood park and schools. He stated that the top five concerns for the neighborhood are traffic and parking, maintaining safety, new development and rehabilitation, noise, and infrastructure and City services. Waggoner then provided the following visual representation of the survey results: LIn San Jose, we want our future generations to remember... Hispanic hcritaye t- t l l t-,u i e neighborhood safety ""'lilies People ieliFpiis and holiday events He continued that in San Jose, residents feel very safe with an 8.8 out of 10 rating. Waggoner noted that some initial insights into the neighborhood are: the traditional multi -generation households, which have created a strong sense of place and history are under pressure; close proximity to Old Town and Downtown overlay districts is creating development pressure within the San Jose neighborhood; opportunity to improve access to information and city services; and opportunity to promote the cultural and historical contributions of the neighborhood for the benefit of the entire Georgetown community. He noted the San Jose Plan scope includes steps to: preserve and promote San Jose as a safe, quiet neighborhood with caring neighbors, through information sharing and intentional engagement; celebrate San Jose as a place of culture and history; support access to homes, San Jose Park and Annie Purl Elementary through improved traffic, parking and sidewalk solutions; and enable San Jose residents to stay in the neighborhood and promote compatible development and investments in rehabilitation and infrastructure. Calixtro stated that she had no questions. She continued that keeping the preservation of the founding families is important and many people in San Jose live on a fixed income. Calixtro stated that the City could and should give some education on the value of the land. She said that 25% of San Jose is still the founding families and she is proud of being from the area. Calixtro when started out San Jose was in the middle of train tracks and she wants to preserve the area. She continued that if you push people out, you erase them, and these people contributed to the City, Texas, and United States. Mayor asked for comments on the scope of proposed plan. Calixtro noted land use and that the goal moving forward is to guide and promote mixed development. She stated that she supports staff suggestions. Triggs stated that 30% seems like small participation rate. Waggoner responded that is actually a good rate of participation and staff did go door to door and left surveys behind. He continued that there is a sense of hesitancy with answering door in the time of COVID. Waggoner said that 10-15% is a good participation rate, and if plan moves forward there will be more participation. Triggs asked if the bullet points came from participation. Waggoner responded yes. Fought asked what the end product is going to be. He continued that if the end product is a general plan improving safety, architecture, and deed restrictions, that's a good start. Fought stated that if placing restrictions on the way that the property will be sold to the next owners, the City will need to be very clear and make sure that owners understand the restrictions. He stated that he understands it is the Spanish neighborhood, but staff must include all residents. Fought stated that on the larger product, he is still concerned about overall costs and the Council may have to pick one to do and then move forward. Mayor Ross asked when Council will review the total budget. Fought responded that Council agreed to $100,000. Mayor Ross asked the question of Waggoner. Waggoner responded that it will be later in the presentation. Pitts stated that this process reminds him on the 2030 Plan. He asked about the future toolkit to put these things into place. Pitts stated that the is fine with the scope, but he doesn't know enough yet to know if he will have any major objections. He stated that he's not sure about the budget aspect. Pitts noted that if this is what neighborhood wants that's good. He added that much larger participation in neighborhood needed, and if the opportunity to celebrate San Jose via bringing back Fiesta San Jose, that would be a good thing. Jonrowe stated that the introduction was moving, and she hopes this will go forward. She noted putting a lot of weight in feedback from Calixtro. Jonrowe asked if developing a menu of options to make these suggestions a reality, will be the work of a consultant. Nelson responded yes. Jonrowe asked if the consultant will work to make bullet points a reality. Waggoner responded yes. Jonrowe stated that she supports at this point going forward. Watkins presented on the TRG Neighborhood located in the historic area of Georgetown and noted: many living in this neighborhood were born and raised and have raised their own families in this neighborhood since the 1870s; the federal urban renewal effort created widespread demolition and relocation of the Ridge community starting in the late 1960s; and commercial land uses along MLK Street, county and city government campuses, and the popularity of proximity to key community destinations (parks and downtown) have transitioned a single-family neighborhood into an area that is experiencing change. She provided the results of the TRG initial survey where 91 surveys were completed, 417 addresses were visited, there was a 22% response rate, 20 volunteers, and 9% of responses were in Spanish. Watkins then provided the following map of the area: M Blue Hole l* Shotgun House University Boys & Girls Gluh Watkins provided the following ranking of neighborhood issues/concerns by importance: Protecting longtime residerrls Traffic Historic & cultural preservation of the neighborhood UpkaP of Pub9c spaces Parking Other (below) 0 1 2 3 4 5 She noted that other responses included streetlights, sidewalks, public safety, and homelessness issues. Watkins provided the following response to the question, If this plan is able to accomplish one thing, what should it be? Protect longterm residents and preseve the neighborhood Address traffic and parking issues Maintain/improve public spaces Address safety concerns Improve infrastructure (street lights, sidewalks) Other Sample responses about protecting longterm residents and preserving the neighborhood: "Keep development in same price range of neighborhood.' "Keep property taxes down.' "Protect residents, so they can stay in the homes." "Retain single-family neighborhood." Watkins noted that residents of the TRG Neighborhood had lived in the neighborhood in the following breakdown: 32% have lived there 20-30 years; 30% have lived there 10 years or fewer; 26% have lived there more than 30 years; and 12% have lived there 10-20 years. She noted that the TRG Plan scope will include steps to: protect TRG long term residents by reducing and removing challenges to staying within the neighborhood; identify and preserve the key character defining components of the neighborhood and ensuring compatible new development; improve mobility including transportation and parking, sidewalks and streetlights; maintain and promote TRG as a place of culture and history; maintain and promote TRG as a safe place to live; and maintain public spaces and infrastructure. Watkins stated that the TRG representative concerns are rapid redevelopment/commercial encroachment of neighborhood during time it takes to develop plan; legal options/restrictions for development regulation within the time period of plan; and boundaries of neighborhood with a track portion of TRG south of 29 to Leander Rd not accurately being incorporated/included. Nelson presented and provided a summary explaining that the TRG residents want to protect longtime residents and preserve the neighborhood. She continued that the TRG Plan should cost between $60,000 - $90,000 and take 6-9 months to complete. Nelson stated that staff will work to provide some possible short-term solutions. She noted that the San Jose Plan will focus on preserving the San Jose neighborhood, cost $60,000 - 90,000, and take 6-9 months to complete. Nelson noted that staff is seeking feedback on the following questions: do you need additional information prior to proceeding with both small area plans; do you support the proposed scope for each neighborhood; and is this partnership going to achieve the vision for the small area plan project. Jonrowe asked about the scope for TRG and if when talking about the big picture these are good point, and a consultant will bring in the details. The following comments were made in person via the City Hall viewing room: Chastity Hatley stated that the history of neighborhood needs to be honored like Old Town for both TRG and San Jose. She continued that she doesn't want high taxes or an HOA and wants staff to communicate and work with residents to inform them when a new development is going up. Hatley asked what the plan is to protect homeowners. She asked that Council consider expanding the boundaries of the neighborhood and change the notification distance for rezoning. Hatley asked if the money is really needed for a consultant of if the money could be better spent in neighborhood for beautification. She asked if the two main contractors can consider giving back to the community and something put in place to stop commercial in residential neighborhood. Hatley asked that the neighborhood and Council work together for a future vision that can preserve and honor the area. Paulette Taylor stated that she has spoken many times on preservation and equality, and she is watching slow encroachment. She continued that there are groups that have a connection with preservation and supports a structured plan that is cost effective and attainable. Taylor stated that she is only a voice for the voiceless who fear losing their homes. She stated that she is tempted with cash offers and the survey doesn't represent the fear and anxiety felt in the neighborhood. Taylor noted that discussions need to be had with contractors a moratorium on commercial buildings needs to be addressed. She noted the historic church that needs painting near a higher priced home. Taylor asked that the plan be a collaborative guideline so that the next generation will have a reference guide and not have to work so hard to achieve preservation. Jonrowe stated that she agrees with the scope and looks to what the consultant can do. She noted feedback that she has gotten so far such as tying in with existing efforts, expand the scope of notifications of rezoning, utilizing mailing which is still best way to reach people, possibly including the jail as decisions there impact the neighborhood, and having the boundaries for TRG should full encompass the region. Jonrowe stated that she likes idea of signage and asking about the ability to post rezones on the NextDoor app. She continued that with property tax Council should get a legal opinion on options for recognizing possible freezes for multigeneration family homes. Mayor Ross asked if Jonrowe was in favor of the planned scope for both projects. Jonrowe respond yes, both are important. Calixtro, Triggs, and Fought all approved of the scope. Pitts noted the idea on signage and asked if it could be part of the toolkit. Nelson responded that it could be part of the implementation. Pitts stated that the scope is good. Fought stated that Council committed to $100,000 and should stick to it. He stated that it is the first time to do something like this and suggested doing one first and then the other. Fought stated that he would probably do TRG first because there are some short-term solutions, and then do San Jose. He said that in taking on both at once the City won't learn as much or do as well. Fought stated that doing one at a time will save money by the City making less mistakes. Pitts asked if the funding for this is coming from Council Contingency. Nelson responded yes. Pitts asked when Council will know if there are more funds available. Morgan responded around January to February timeframe. Pitts asked where the current numbers come from. Nelson responded that staff had contacted consultants and provided the scope, and that is where the estimated cost is coming from. Pitts asked if this would be an RFP process where multiple people could respond. Nelson responded yes. Pitts stated that he's afraid is Council names a price that's what the responses will com in at. He continued that he could be okay with going up to $60,000, but he does have some concern with doing them concurrently. Pitts asked Nelson for her input on doing them concurrently. Nelson stated that she does believe that level of trust is built, and she would like to try to move forward at this time as best as possible. Pitts stated that he is fine with moving forward on both, and he feel like with the TRG neighborhood promises have been made but not kept. Mayor Ross clarified that Pitts is wanting staff to do an RFP and come back with pricing. Pitts responded having Council not setting an exact funding limit today and have staff comeback with costs. Morgan stated that this would come back to Council for action as it will be over $50,000. Jonrowe asked if one consulting group could do both for cheaper. Nelson responded that it is possible. Mayor Ross asked Jonrowe for her suggestion on costs. Jonrowe stated that she would like to pursue both and supports the plan Pitts proposed. Calixtro stated that she wants to proceed with both and noted that what might work for San Jose might not work for TRG. She continued that the cost could start at $100,00 and expand to almost $200,000. Calixtro stated that she wants to continue with both since they are unique. Mayor Ross asked if Calixtro was okay with and RFP and staff coming back to Council. Calixtro responded yes. Triggs stated that the City should get an RFP. He added that the neighborhoods are different and should be treated separately. Mayor Ross stated that the consensus of Council is to get an RFP and come back with tighter numbers. Nelson responded that staff. will come back in December Mayor Ross recessed at 5:11 p.m. noting that Executive Session will start at 5:15 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. 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 Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Riverhaven -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters Purchased Power Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development - Project LTI - Project Door - Rivery TIRZ Adjournment Approved by the Georgetown City Council on OL-ffi6eL— 1��� L 6 Date Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: C'tt ecretary