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