HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 11.10.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 3:00 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 3:00 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance:
Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve
Fought, Council Member District 4; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy
Gonzalez, Council Member District. Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5 was absent, and Council
District 2 is vacant. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was
performed.
Pitts and Gonzalez arrived during Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and update regarding Microtransit Request for Information (RFI) --Wayne Reed,
Assistant City Manager
Reed presented the item and provided a presentation overview and recap of June 9th and July
28, 2020 Presentations. He noted the Council direction from June 9, 2020 as follows: Council
gave Staff direction to look into different transportation platforms such as Microtransit or
Dynamic Ride share; pursue an RFI/RFP for microtransit/ride share; and Council also wanted
to maintain transportation services for the citizens that are currently using the transit system.
Reed then provided a recap from July 28, 2020, Microtransit/Ride Share Update as follows:
staff developed a draft RE (Request for Information); the RFI will allow the City of
Georgetown to gain information on the companies that have interest in providing
transportation services to the City; the RFI will also allow the City to see what other
transportation platforms might be available; and it will help define a scope of work for a
request for proposals after learning more about the capabilities and services available for
microtransit/ride share. He then provided the Council Direction from July 28, 2020 noting
that Council directed staff to proceed with issuing an RFl to solicit interest from companies
to provide microtransit services and the next steps included: an RFI issued on September 9,
2020; an RE closed on October 23, 2020; and staff will provide results to City Council on
November 10, 2020. Reed reviewed the Microtransit/Dynamic Ride Share RFI responses and
noted that the City received eight responses to the RFI with the results as follows:
Provider
Experience
Innovation
Performance
Experience
Micro -transit
Municipal
(At least S)
FTA
Eligible
FTA Experience
(Funding)
Seniors/Disabled
Services
Reel -Time
Data
Virtual /
Curbside Stop
App/ Call
Center
Typical
KPIs"
Various
Reports
River North Transit (V1A)
Began 2013
Yes
Yes
Sub -Recipient
Yes
Yes
Both
Bath
Yes
Yes
Laz Karp
TransLoc
Yes
Yes
Reporting Only
Yes
Yes
Curbside
Bath
Yes
Yes
Uber
2009
Yes
Yes
Reporting Only
Yes
Yes
Both
Both
Yes
Yes
Lyft
2012
Yes
Yes
Reporting Only
Yes
Yes
Both
Both
Yes
Yes
RldeCo
2014
Yes
Yes
ReportIn Only
Yes
Yes
Both
Both
Yes
Yes
MyleTech
2009
NA
NA
NA
Yes
Yes
Curbside
Both
Yes
Yes
BUS
NA
NA
NA I
Yes
Yes
NA
App
Yes
Yes
Wynne Transportation
1986
�[yr�r.•:• .
NA
NA
NA
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
** Average wait times, total number of rides, total number of driver hours, percentage of
demand met, average vehicle utilization.
Reed provided a summary of the Microtransit/Dynamic Ride Share RFI responses and noted
that: five firms have relevant experience partnering with municipalities and/or counties
providing demand -responsive transport; there is a range of experience providing services for
seniors/disabled; firms can provide real-time data on ridership and services; four firms
expressed ability to provide pick-ups at both "virtual and curbside' stops and two others
stated they provide "curbside" pick-ups; six firms can provide customers support for
scheduling rides by a call center and a mobile app; and all but one explained how they can
provide reports on metrics. He provided examples of partnerships between firms and
municipalities via transportation as follows: in the City of Arlington, on December of 2017,
the City of Arlington replaced an underutilized fixed -route bus with Via's shared -ride, on -
demand transit solution, by using a fleet of 22 custom -branded vans, the service allows riders
to travel anywhere within the service zone(s); CapMetro and the City of Austin on August
2019, we work with the City of Austin, CapMetro and the Capital Area Rural Transportation
System (CARTS) to manage a microtransit service in several suburban and rural zones, and
this service resulted from Via's microtransit pilot with CapMetro in 2017, when we replaced
an underutilized dial -a -ride service with a shared, on -demand transit service for both general
and paratransit-eligible riders; in Johnson County, Kansas in 2019, a partnership between
Johnson County, KCATA and TransLoc, a successful on -demand service was launched in
Kansas City in 2019, and in only one month, the on -demand service launched with TransLoc
had out -performed the total number of rides the previous on -demand pilot completed in an
entire year; and in Gwinnett County in September 2018, first on -demand project deployed in
the state of Georgia. Together, Gwinnett and TransLoc deployed a six-month deployment in
Snellville, and ridership for this service has grown from less than 100 trips per day upon
launch to approximately 250 trips per day two months into the pilot. Reed the explained the
possible transition from Fixed Bus Route Transit to Microtransit/Dynamic Ride Share as
follows:
Reed reviewed the Council feedback and direction that staff is seeking as follows: (1) Does
Council support maintaining fixed route bus service until a microtransit system is established
by end of FY21?; (2) Regarding microtransit service, does Council want to (a) continue to
receive Federal funds and (i) be a direct recipient or subrecipient of Federal funds (use of
private company as microtransit service); or (ii) work with Capital Metro and CARTS through
contract services (same as today); (2b) not receive Federal funds and implement a microtransit
service using local dollars?; and (3) Beyond FY21, what is the level of funding Council desires
to set aside for transit services? He added that the FY 2021 Budget is $392,301 in FTA Funding
and $619,369 in Local Match Funding totaling $1,011,670.
Fought stated the need to know the end item on funding. He continued that if the City goes
for private sector what is final budget for the City of Georgetown. Reed responded that he
has no exact answer on costs, because the parameters of the service program would have to
be defined first before being able to provide that information. Fought asked about a rough
estimate. David Morgan, City Manager responded that the City hasn't done an RFP. He
continued that the RFI shows the City who the possible vendors could be, and RideCo could
provide FY2020 services with same costs. Morgan stated that the City would need to walk
through with CapMetro on a specific service area for cost to see what could be achieve. He
added that staff is happy to go through RFP process. Fought stated that he doesn't need a
specific number, but a range would help. Morgan responded that he the believes costs of
public vs. private would be similar. He added that private sector would have to consider costs
for administering funds which is at least a full-time position. Mayor Ross asked that Fought
give his responses to the specific feedback staff is seeking. Fought stated that he is fine with
moving ahead for the service and his only concern is limit the expenditures to what the City
spent last year, a cost of $350,000. He added that he would like to maintain the fixed route
service, but he doesn't want to spend more than $350,000. Morgan asked if Fought supported
the City's use of federal funds. Fought responded yes, but Council needs more information
to make the correct decision. Morgan responded that the challenge is the number of options
before Council at the moment. Mayor Ross asked if Fought agreed with receiving federal
funding. Fought responded yes. Mayor Ross asked if Fought was fine with staff working
with CARTS. Fought responded yes. Mayor Ross asked if Fought was against item 2b
because he wanted to keep option open. Fought responded that was correct. He added that
he supported continued to work with CapMetro, because it would lower the risk. Fought
noted that he would prefer a private system, but he understands the higher level or risk
involved. Mayor Ross asked about item 3 and funding levels and if his proposed $350,000
cap is for City funding. Fought responded yes, that is for City funding and he would like to
keep the CapMetro option open because it is the lowest risk. He noted that Council pushed
staff into a corner, but he appreciated the work.
Pitts asked about the options for users to select a virtual stop and calling to have pickup at
their homes. Reed responded that those are both options. Pitts asked if it would cost a little
bit more to be picked up at your front door versus using a stop. Reed responded yes. Pitts
noted that some respondents do not have stops and only use user specified pickup locations.
Reed responded based on their responses yes. Pitts asked if the responded provided
information related to response times. Reed responded not in the RFI, but they can guarantee
a microtransit system that guarantees 15 minutes intervals. Pitts noted that costs would be
associated to service are and number of vehicles in use. He then asked who had ownership
of the assets including the vehicles and the people driving them. Reed responded that if the
City chooses a private provider, they would own the vehicles and the driver would be either
employees or private contractors. He added if the City goes with CapMetro or CARTS the
operations would be the same as the are today. Pitts is Via and CARTS are competing or if
they are one in the same. Reed responded he would have to get back to Council on that.
Morgan added that with all options the City would not own any vehicles or be in charge of
any drivers. Pitts asked who was liable for risk. Reed responded that risk lies with the
provider. Pitts asked if there was any possible way that a private provider could provide the
desired services at the same amount the City spending now without the use of federal funds.
Morgan responded that the City would not likely know that without completing a fully
competitive bidding process, but he thought it was unlikely. Reed noted that RideCo was
kind enough to so some rough sketching based on limited parameters and while using the
FY2020 budget. He added that staff at the time was not considering the need for a full-time
employee to help with the program. Mayor Ross stated that this is currently at the conceptual
level and later staff and Council will get into the nitty gritty. Pitts stated that was trying to
understand to best answer the questions being asked by staff. Pitts noted that the City needs
to maintain fixed route service for those citizens who rely on it. Reed noted that he had been
working with CapMetro recently and they discussed that CapMetro agreed that they could
make a partnership work to meet City needs for micrtransit. Pitts stated that his questions on
costs were related to the need for the City to utilize federal funds. He added that based on
conversations, having the City received federal funds seems to be a difficult process. Pitts
stated that for Item 1 he says yes, and for Item 2aii the City needs to work with a sub -recipient.
He added that he likes the idea of Via option for door to door service. Pitts stated that for
Item 3 he would like the City to keeps its current funding total at $392,301. Morgan clarified
that $392,301 in the amount of federal funding the City receives. He noted that the Council
doesn't have to have a solid answer today. Pitts stated that he would like to maintain current
funding levels.
Jonrowe stated that for Item 1 she would like to maintain fixed route until something is in
place to replace it; for Item 2a the City should continued to receive federal funds; she is not in
favor of 2b; and 3 she is in favor of increasing local match if it makes the services more
efficient.
Gonzalez stated that he is in favor of Item 1 based on FY2020 dollars. He added that if a third
party wants to add to it that's fine, but he doesn't want to spend more City dollars. Gonzalez
emphasized that the annual total should not exceed $350,000 and include all needed funds for
transitioning to a new service. Mayor Ross asked about Item 2ai. Gonzalez responded that
he would rather obtain a more efficient method and maintain federal funds if possible. He
added that he is fine to continue working with CapMetro and CARTS. Gonzalez stated that
in the end he wants to maximize services for least amount of funds.
Calixtro stated that for Item 1 she would like to continue; for Item 2aii she supports that; for
Item 2b she said yes, the City may need the help; and for Item 3 she would like to keep the
funding as is until there is a clearer picture of costs. She stated that she agrees with amount
Fought proposed. Calixtro then asked if the Georgetown Health Foundation, has an
agreement to continue to assist the project. Reed responded that they are willing to continue
to discuss the option and staff is meeting with them next week.
Triggs asked if a rider can schedule routine pickups or does everything have to be scheduled
the day the ride happens. Reed responded that riders cannot schedule weeks out everyday
at the same time, but if someone has a predictable schedule, he could look into possible
options. Triggs stated that for Item 1 he says yes; for Item 2a he would like do both; Item 2b
he can't think of a reason why the City wouldn't ask for federal funds; and for Item 3 yes, he
would like to continue that funding.
Mayor Ross stated that for Item 1 Council was all yes responses; for Item 2ai Council
answered mostly yes; and for Item 3 Council supported different amounts. He stated that
this should give staff enough information for the next presentation. Morgan stated that staff
will continue to work with CapMetro to show how far dollars can go with federal funding.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding the City of Georgetown Organizational and
Operational Excellence Office (OOE) -- Christina Richison, Business Improvement Program
(BIP) Manager, Seth Gipson, Performance Management Program (PMP) Manager, Amy
Mertink, Business Process Analyst
Richison presented and reviewed the mission and strategic goals of the city. She provided
the COE motto and the City of Georgetown Journey to Operational Excellence as follows:
City of Georgetown Journey to Operational Excellence
/Empowering Culture of • ContinuedEducatlonCandmtotit
Continuous Improvement tmprowmer►t
Buildinig
ved Performance, . A04Public Dashboards
nability, and Transparency _
roblem Solvin` g OOEAcademy, A3 Revlev4 A3and Culture Ownemhip
Performance Focused &
Accountability
Measuring Success
Operational Alignment
Vision a�'s�' rs
• Intoma! Rovlowk BudRosf Plank
Customer SefWkPct/on Surv6P
• KPt; Dete Driven Deelslom
• Strateylotioels
- Coonctrs VkWL 1ksol0n "q
Richison stated that these processes empower staff at all levels, and they have received
positive feedback from staff.
Gipson then presented and provided the following metrics:180 Lead Green Belts trained since
April 2020; 38 active A3 improvements; $300,000 potential savings identified; $9,000 in saving
actualized to date; 109 training/learning opportunities for FY2002; and increased customer
satisfaction. He then provided A3 improvement examples from the Planning and Information
Technology departments, internal dashboard examples, an explanation of business plans, and
a possible public dashboard.
Jonrowe, Gonzalez, and Triggs had no comments or questions.
Calixtro asked if this program can be used in any way to reward employees. Gipson
responded that it can be something to document in annual reviews, but there are no current
plans to tie financials to the savings documented. He added that staff is working on
expanding and seeing more hard dollar savings. David Morgan, City Manager, added that
this would be included in the annual evaluation process with part of the work going through
lean training, and evaluations are used to impact pay increases.
Fought stated that staff did a great job and added that there will be a test of this group to be
honest when a change isn't working/doesn't work. He continued that there is lots of support
when showing what is right, but the pressure will be on when things don't work.
Pitts was off the dais during this time.
Mayor Ross congratulated staff on doing work that showed measurable improvements.
C. Presentation and update regarding the Animal Services Department -- April Haughey,
Animal Services Manager and Jack Daly, Community Services Director
Daly introduced Haughey and Haughey presented the item beginning with an overview and
introduction. She presented the 2020 Highlights as follows: 94.2% Live Release Rate, 6th
consecutive year achieving "no kill'; 50.8% Adoption Rate; 24% Return to Owner Rate; 14%
increase in City License compliance; and 4,522 Animal Control Calls, accounted for 33% of
Shelter intakes. Haughey noted the kennel floor renovation and then noted the Code review
team as follows: Angela Jones, Animal Control Supervisor; April Haughey, Animal Services
Manager; Jack Daly, Community Services Director; and Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City
Attorney. She noted the desired new Code additions related to temporary petting zoos
included with theatrical exhibits where the current regulations exist only in the Unified
Development Code for land zoned as agricultural, and the proposed requirement of transition
areas for temporary petting zoos. Haughey reviewed bee keeping and noted: that it is not
currently regulated within the City Code; Animal Control received several calls regarding bee
colonies over the past year; precedence of regulation with neighboring cities and was
modeled after Round Rock; similar to the regulation of urban chickens; Langstroth-type hive
with removable frames; provided with a water source; not within 10 feet of the property line
or 50 feet from the residence of another; bee colony density determined by size of property;
and the queen from bee stock bred for gentleness and non -swarming characteristics. She
reviewed the deer feeding portion of the Code and noted that the intentional feeding of deer
is currently located in Title 8 - Health and Safety and regulated by Code Compliance and will
be moved to animal regulations under the regulation and enforcement of Animal Services
and reflects current practice of being referred to Animal Control. Haughey reviewed Animal
Services fees and kennel inspections and noted that staff is looking to remove fees from the
ordinances to align with other City departments, require annual director review, and all
changes require council approval. She added that kennel inspections are located in Ch. 7.02.-
Licenses and Permits, Sec. 7.02.020. - Kennel permit requirements are as follows: part of the
ordinance that has never been enforced; explored the idea of the removal of this ordinance;
discovered at a requested inspection the need to keep it due to lack of understanding on how
to report bites and quarantine for rabies control; and remove training and breeding from
permit requirements. Haughey noted other minor changes as follows: language cleanup and
enhanced definitions for greater clarity; specifying that an electric fence is not a recognized
means of confinement, resulting in the dog being at large; LRCA or designee offering home
quarantine; and improved alignment with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) including
impoundment at a maximum of 14 days, unless arrangements have been made with ASM,
and increased length of time for mandatory spay/neuter to 30 days with 45 days to notify
department. She noted the current status and next steps as follows: initial review with
ANSAB completed October 8, 2020; Legal is checking for alignment with State Law, the
Animal Welfare Act, and other City Ordinances and completing a language clean-up; final
review with ANSAB at the November meeting; and the first reading of the ordinance at City
Council on November 24, 2020.
Gonzalez, Calixtro, Triggs, Fought and Jonrowe were fine with staff suggestions and had
minimal comments.
Pitts was not on the dais at this time.
D. Presentation and discussion on a request for a development agreement for Canyons at HCH
Ranch -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director (15 mins)
Nelson presented and provided the overview and purpose. She noted the UDC guidance for
development agreements in determining whether to approve, approve with modifications or
disapprove a proposed Development Agreement or amendment, the City Council shall
consider the following matters: the proposed agreement promotes the health, safety or
general welfare of the City and the safe orderly, and healthful development of the City; and
the proposed agreement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Nelson provided the
Location map for the Canyons at HCH Ranch and the Comprehensive Plan guidance. She
stated that the Canyons at HCH Ranch will consist of 364.2 acres, 188 residential lots, and the
smallest lot size is one acre. Nelson then provided the proposed request terms as follows:
Standard
Annexation
Properties in the ETJ that desire or
Retain ETJ status
require fire flow service from the City of
Georgetown shall first submit a petition
for voluntary annexation
Cul-de-Sac length
20 lots or
1750'
500 feet
Sidewalks
Two 6' sidewalks along a residential
1- 6' sidewalk
Collector
Private Streets
All newly created streets shall be public
Gated private street
streets, except for local streets serving
development
non-residential Multi -lot developments
Nelson then asked for direction from City Council on the proposed terms.
Calixtro asked where the nearest school is located. Nelson responded that there are no
schools in the development and Ford Elementary is the nearest. Calixtro asked if there would
be kids walking to school. Nelson responded that she was not sure of exact number of
pedestrians, but there is no school within walking distance.
Triggs stated that he is concerned about the sidewalks as well.
Fought asked why the City would stand in the way of a gated community in the ETJ. Nelson
responded that to her knowledge this has been based on the emphasis for connectivity in City
and in ETJ. Fought stated that there are plenty of gated communities, and the bigger
discussion is if the City allows the development to stay in the ETJ. He continued that he is
fine with it staying in ETJ, and if it is gated, he has less concerns with sidewalk. Fought stated
that once the development is determined to be in the ETJ, he is fine with the rest of the terms.
Pitts stated that any time Council looks at exceptions like this there should be good reason.
He continued that this project is right next to one of the best views of Williamson County.
Pitts stated that he understands the reason for exceptions based on challenges with
developing the location and he is fine with the proposed terms.
Jonrowe asked if property will be required to have fire flow services from the City of
Georgetown. Nelson responded yes, and the project will receive fire flow services from the
City. Jonrowe asked if this exception has been given to any other applicant. Nelson
responded yes, and she could provide more details on those circumstances. Jonrowe asked
about the timing of those developments. Nelson responded that she would need to get more
details to answer question accurately. Jonrowe stated that she is hesitant to change direction
of practices of fire flow services, and if the project does need to be annexed then she would
like full sidewalks and the project not gated. She added that she supported the cul-de-sac
length, support of the sidewalks would depend on the possibility of property remaining in
the ETJ, and that she is not generally a fan of private streets.
Gonzalez asked if this property was annexed into the City for fire flow purposes, would it
hinder the project in any other ways. Nelson asked for clarification. Gonzalez asked if the
cul-de-sac, sidewalk, and private street request decisions could be made at Council if the
property was annexed. Nelson responded that if the area was annexed with no development
agreement in place, then a subdivision waiver would be required for reviewed by Planning
and Zoning. Gonzalez stated that the main question is related to fire flow and ETJ status and
he has no opinion one way or another. Nelson responded that from an annexation standpoint,
the distance from the current City limits was a major point of discussion.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:44 p.m. noting that Executive Session will
start at 5:00 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
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Riverhaven -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
IjNeAm Lm 2,-t i7y Z o _
Date
1
Attest: CitAecretary