Loading...
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