Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.26.2021 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 26, 2021 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 2:00 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 Schroeder called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance: Mayor Josh Schroeder; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Shawn Hood, Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District 7. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Calixtro joined during Item A and Gonzalez joined during Item B. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Debt Program -- Nathan Parras, Assistant Finance Director Parras presented the item and reviewed the current Tax Obligation, not including self -funded obligations, and noted that the general government Tax supported debt totaled $170 million. He then reviewed the 5-year tax supported debt, not including self -funded obligations; debt per capita, total tax supported debt per capita; enterprise obligations, with enterprise debt totaling $107 million; 5-year enterprise debt, including self -supported debt; debt per customer, outstanding debt per utility customer; and historical assets net of debt, City assets net of related debt. Parras reviewed the Tax Impact Analysis that is updated each year, with the Five -Year Debt Model that is a tool to better understand the impacts of issuing debt, allows for scenario testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service requirements, and is reviewed with Council each summer. He then showed how the model works as follows: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ■ Existing Debt ■ New Debt o, Revenue Parras reviewed the budget assumptions as follows: small changes can have big results; use current interest and sinking tax rate of 22.4818 cents; use current opearating and maintenance tax rate of 19.3182 cents; use current ratio of 54/46 for tax ceiling revenue; base assessed value growth of 7.19% in FY2022, decreasing to 3.00% by 2026; interest rate of 2.8% in FY 2021, increasing to 3.68% in year 5; and the structure of debt payments with a pay -back period and payment size that could vary. Pitts asked for explanation on the 54/46 for tax ceiling revenue and if it was a state law requirement or a goal the City tried to hit. Parras responded that it's the split of INS and OMI portions and the goal is to keep that as balanced as possible. David Morgan, City Manager added that if the split skews too far one way or another then the City would have limited ways to mak adjustments. Pitts asked of the 3% cap that recently went into effect have more cities needing more funds on the INS side. Morgan responded that it will likely be a trend and it also depends on the lifecycle of a City based on growth and other factors. Pitts asked if this ration is specifically address in the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy. Morgan responded no. Pitts stated that he likes the way it is presented. Morgan responded that the City's historical data shows the change in the ration over time due to an increase in values. Mayor Schroeder asked about the base assessed value growth and possible standards. Morgan responded that it is a conservative assumption based growth and the way growth could impact the Mobility Bond. He added that on average the City has seen 7% growth. Mayor Schroeder asked if the City was required to use 3% as the basis for determining the next budget. Morgan responded tat it is important when looking at tax impact and budgeting to consider the immediate yeats and adjusting outlying years as needed. He added that the five year outlook is a planning tool while focusing on current needs. Parras added that staff is looking at what can be supported next year while keeping the future years in mind. Parras then reviewed the 5-year tax backed CIP, and explained supporting the debt noting that: no property tax impact in the five-year model based on assumptions is mentioned, strong and consistent growth is shown in assessed values in our community; Council's action during the budget process in recent summers to limit capital project spending is helping ($18-$20 million capacity per year for the next 5 years); and does not include any assumptions related to new mobility bond election under review. He provided the Bond authorization remaining; FY 2021 proposed debt, tax supported - general obligation; FY 2021 proposed debt, tax supported - certificate of obligation; and FY 2021 proposed debt, self supported - certificate of obligation. Parras explained supporting the debt and noted that the current Stormwater and Airport rates can support the issuing of more debt in these funds, and due to continued strong sales tax collections, the GTEC debt can be supported. Parras then reviewed the FY 2021 proposed debt Electric/Water — revenue bonds. He noted that for supporting the debt the current rates for Water and Electric can support the issuing of new debt; Water rate study Phase I completed in 2020 to support infrastructure; and electric financial model and rates under review in 2021. Parras noted the following takeaways: the City continues to aggressively implement infrastructure improvements to match the voter approved projects; the debt correlates to population growth and voter approved projects to improve services and quality of life; the City continues to experience strong economic growth; and economic forecast shows the City can fund the current CIP plan within the current tax and utility rates. He reviewed the following next steps: Budget Amendment on January 121h and 261h, 2021 Council meetings to update Debt issue amounts; on February 9, 2021 Council agenda will have items to authorize financial advisors to proceed with bond sale schedule and documents and approve Notice of Intent to issue Certificates of Obligation; in March offering statements will be reviewed by staff and staff meet with bond rating agency; on the April 27, 2021 Council agenda there will be an item to approve the results of competitive sale; on May 20, 2021 closing and receive proceeds. Morgan wanted to clarify that the 54/46 ratio for INS and OMI, that portion of the presentation also included the tax ceiling revenue. He then expanded on the examptions that exist in the City. Morgan noted that the ration tries to stay similar to the tax rate ratio as well. He noted that these are importatn elements for budget development. Pitts asked about the previous bonds and what to do for future bond proposals to use tax approved funds. He noted that there are funds that haven't been used yet. Parras responded that some language leads to specific uses. Leigh Wallace, Finance Director, noted that the bond attorney will speak on this during Item D. Morgan stated that yes, the wording can be done to allow more flexibility. He added that some of the unused funds are related to projects that have been funded in other ways, the City was anticipating other funds to from outside entities, and/or the project is now a lower priority. Morgan noted that staff has done research to show Council how previous bonds have been utilized. B. Presentation and discussion regarding 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 the item and reviewed the purpose and action requested as follows: Does the City Council seek the development of one or both small area plans?; and If the City Council seeks the development of one neighborhood plan, staff seeks direction on which neighborhood we shall proceed with at this time? She reviewed the background including direction provided as follows: in June 2020 City Council directed staff to move forward on neighborhood plans for TRG and San Jose; in July 2020 City Council confirmed outreach plan for TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods to develop draft scope; and in October 2020 City Council confirmed the scope for TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods. Nelson provided the request for proposal process explaining that the RFP was released on October 23, 2022 and closed on November 16, 2020 with eight proposals submitted. She continued that neighborhood engagement was conducted by reviewing the RFP and selection process, collaborating on questions for firm interviews, and having the neighborhood listen in on interviews; and there were consultant interviews week of December 141", 2020 with four firms. Nelson provided the neighborhood needs and insights as follows: trust and good working relationship with consultant; consultant representation of neighborhood, including diversity in age, background; experience in communities of color; outside perspective is important; consultant demonstration of implementation of plans; ability to engage residents successfully in process; experience planning at the neighborhood scale; and importance to distinguish individual needs of neighborhoods. She provided the firm evaluation noting: the RFP included background, experience and qualifications, methodology and technical approach, and cost; and interviews covered relationship building, experience, approach, solutions, and public engagement. Nelson noted that staff was seeking a consultant who had experience with neighborhood planning, national award -winning plans, developing strategies for areas with development pressure and displacement, implementation, engagement in the time of COVID, and with identification and impact of market pressures and challenges; and provided a methodology for engaging residents in shaping growth, helping the neighborhood grow with guidance from legacy residents, responsiveness to equity and representation of communities of color, documentation of existing culture and history, data driven analysis on neighborhood change, recommendation for neighborhood plan steering committee, thoughtfulness in engagement in the time of COVID, and implementation focused. She noted that based on a review for cost of services the general cost of two plans equals $200,000 with a general cost savings of 5-30% to complete both plans at the same time. Nelson stated that it is staff's recommendation to proceed forward with both the TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods with a funding not to exceed $200,000, and to establish a steering committee for each of the neighborhoods at the time of contract award. Jonrowe asked about the process of forming a steering committee. Nelson responded that staff is seeking Council feedback on that and staff is suggesting it be made up of people from the impacted areas. Hood asked about the size of each steering committee. Nelson responded less than 10 people, preferably 5-8 people. Calixtro asked where the consultants were from. Nelson responded that one was from out of state; one was from the Austin/Dallas area; and one was from out of state. She added that staff felt that any of the consultants could be effective. Robyn Densmore, City Secretary, read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order (comments appear exactly as submitted): Joyce Gadison: The Honorable Josh Schroeder and members of the Georgetown City Council My name is Joyce Gadison. I have resided in the TRG Community for over 50 years. I am also an active member of Historic Wesley Chapel A.M.E. Church that has been a beacon of light for the Georgetown Community for 151 years. The TRG is a cornerstone to Georgetown. The Georgetown City Hall, Georgetown Public Library, Williamson County Justice Center and the Blue Hole are located in our neighborhood. It is worth the investment of $200,000 to allocate for this project for TRG and San Jose. The question becomes are you bold enough, do you have the courage this one time, to listen to what our community is saying? I encourage the city council to approve $200,000 for the TRG and San Jose project. Thank you. Chasity Hattley: Greetings Mayor and council members, My name is Chasity Hattley; my family has resided in the TRG neighborhood for numerous generations. Prior to that, we resided in the Andice/Florence area, more specifically Rocky Hollow. My family and I have been contributors to both the TRG area and Georgetown as a whole. I am proud and blessed to be a product of the talented TRG neighborhood! In the recent years TRG has undergone numerous changes including infill projects, which have sadly resulted in rapid gentrification. This unexpected, accelerated gentrification has added numerous burdens to my entire family! Thank you for taking the first few steps towards change for the TRG and San Jose Neighborhoods. Thank you for all you have done thus far for my community as we are grateful. I am requesting for you to continue to next step in the process of the Small Neighborhood plans and am specifically asking for the recommended budget to be approved. As a member of the neighborhood, I desire to work with a firm that has experience in gentrification, but more specifically I want the best firm for my neighborhood as it is a very unique place. I want a firm that will place the needs of TRG and San Jose at the top of their priorities opposed to just another task on their todo list. It is no secret that TRG is the new "place to be" as we are in close proximity to downtown and we house numerous amenities. Please make TRG a priority and not just another action item! Please make the bold decision to invest in a historic neighborhood, a neighborhood which has always supported the city. Overall I am requesting for you, the council, the leaders of this wonderful, beautiful, historic town to treat TRG and San Jose like Old Town! Thank you. Homerzelle Guerra: Good afternoon Mayor and City Council, My name is Homerzell Guerra. I am originally from Georgetown, but as a military child we spent a tremendous amount of time traveling. In the 1960s, we finally moved back to Georgetown. At that time, my father became involved in Urban Renewal. As you know many of the homes in TRG exist because of Urban Renewal. I am requesting for city council to approve a budget of $200,000 to provide the TRG Neighborhood with the best consulting firm. Thank you. John Ira Dixon: Hello, Hola, and Happy New Year Honorable Mayor and distinguished council members. I hope my message finds you in good health and good spirits. My name is John Dixon. A.K.A, Big John to all my friends. I'm A proud Texan, a delighted Georgetown resident and most importantly: an HONORED member of the TRG community. TRG is my village - my sanctuary - my home. It was home to my beloved ancestors. It is home to my current wonderful relatives. It will be home to our accomplished family. I have witnessed the growth of our marvelous city and simultaneously seen the evolution of the Mighty TRG and San Jose communities. Oh my what an experience it has been to be apart of this process. I'm a lucky recipient. However, with my great anticipation, there is trepidation about what the future looks like for these areas which is why I submit this letter. So, I want to urge this distinguished collective body to pursue the undertaking of the Small neighborhoods plans and approve the recommended budget. Additionally, I'd be honored to engage with a group that understands the needs and desires of the TRG and San Jose communities. I would love to work with a firm that can identify opportunities in the community and enrich and enhance our residential experience. Furthermore, I'd like to serve with a collective that can deliver long lasting meaningful change to our area. TRG and San Jose are valuable entities. Please help restore and preserve these great places. Thank you, Your friend Big John. Paulette Taylor: Honorable Mayor and City Council, My name is Paulette Taylor and for more than seven decades, I've lived in several neighborhoods of Georgetown. I am most thankful for the provision of the city staff who has worked with the TRG/San Jose Communities assisting to develop an appropriate Neighborhood Plan. A Neighborhood Plan is so vitally needed to address the inequities that have existed for many years; an unwelcomed Justice Building versus affordable housing, a tedious and stressful Urban Renewal Plan that left many in mediocre and unsubstantial homes and the demolition of too many historic buildings. Today, we face another stumbling block, with our attempts to preserve our neighborhood and avoid the continuous building of enormous structured houses that don't quite fit as a multifamily dwelling, but appear to accommodate in other manners. With your acceptance of the proposed $200,000, it reveals to others looking at Georgetown, that this Council has a conscientious heart to invest in all neighborhoods of this community. This approval moves forward to help the TRG/San Jose neighborhood be empowered by your trust and investment. Our neighborhoods are different, but take pride in the culture and knowledge of knowing our City Council will invest in us as it has the downtown and other neighborhoods of this city. My simple request is, make an invested vote to favor these proposed funds for our neighborhoods. Norma Clark: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am Norma Clark a long-time resident of the TRG Neighborhood and of Georgetown, Texas. Several residents here have deep ties to the community and have participated over the years in building, preserving and celebrating the heritage of the community and this area —whether it be through memorial associations, local festivals, cultural displays or involvements with the local educational institutions. I have seen many changes in my neighborhood; many of them have been changes that the Neighborhood has not wanted. Growing up there was never an interest in this Neighborhood by the general citizens of the town because the area flooded. Once the construction of IH-35 was finished and commercial businesses like HEB, etc. were built, things changed. There became a great deal of interest specifically in the TRG Neighborhood. Like myself, those that live here realize that this Neighborhood is the cornerstone of the community. Now, fast forward to nearly half a century later, we have more businesses, residents of the town, and visitors than ever before wanting to be here. This is due to the area's rich history, culture and proximity to the quaint downtown area and local attraction of the Blue Hole. In addition, I am one of the residents working with some of the members of the Planning and Zoning Department (that is working hard to assist us with addressing our concerns regarding the TRG Neighborhood) and we are all grateful and deeply appreciate them. The meeting today is to vote on the $200,000 for a neighborhood plan for the TRG and San Jose neighborhoods. I ask that the council vote to approve these funds for a plan that is much needed by both of Neighborhoods. It is my hope that a plan will be implemented for both Neighborhoods and there will be a written document in place to refer to for a contiguous plan when individuals, leaders, builders, and businesses come forth with applications or initiatives to build —so that the wheel will not need to be re -invented again. My concern for this Neighborhood is that long-time residents like my mother —who is 92 and has grown up in this neighborhood —will be pushed out and the history of this neighborhood lost. The large homes also cause our property taxes to rise (our 2020 taxes rose significantly). Lastly, members of the Council, in making your decision please consider our Neighborhood's concerns as a long-term situation, because that is exactly what this has been for us. We do not want to see these issues recur every year and we need and want a long term, concrete, written plan in place to shape our Neighborhoods for the future. Thank you for your time. The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client: Ron Swain addressed the Council about his concern for homeowners it he effected areas and their ability to stay in their homes. He also noted his concerns for preserving the history and the health and wellness of those that reside in the areas. Swain also asked Council to approve a budget for both plans. Jonrowe emphasized the comments that came from the community and stated that she supports the budget for plans for both neighborhoods. She also supported forming a committee. Calixtro thanks staff for their work and noted the generational element of the neighborhoods. Fought stated that he wanted to hear from the bankers on Council. Gonzalez stated that real estate in the City is developing quickly and that City should preserve historical and cultural elements. He added that he wants those living in these areas to fully understand all implications of the plans good and bad and the long-range effects of the plans. Fought stated that Gonzalez provides good advice. He added that the citizens need to understand what they are signing up for. Fought stated that he did support the funds for both plans and that he wants the residents to understand the potentially significant downstream implications of the plans. Triggs stated that based on his experiences he has concerns regarding the percentage of surveys received versus the amount of people living in the area. He added that life will go on and some possible changes could make it hard for the plans to move forward. Triggs supported funding both plans, and that he hoes the residents understand what the implementation of the plans can be. Pitts supported the funding and establishing a committee. He added that he wants to make sure there is plenty of participation from residents in the neighborhood. Pitts noted the cost of real estate in the area and added that he wants to save some of the distinct nature of the area. Hood asked if the rising property values in TRG are reflective of the rising costs in Georgetown as a whole. Nelson responded that staff is tracking that but would need to do more research before fully answering that question. Hood asked that the committee review that as part of their charge. He also noted the need to have a high level of neighborhood buy - in. Hood noted the need to preserve property rights of owners. Jonrowe noted that TRG had the second highest cost per square foot and the per capita income. She wanted that to be considered as well. Jonrowe noted that the area might want to consider the area's access to resources. Mayor Schroeder noted that Council supported moving forward with both plans at $200,000 and that Council wants to make sure that the committee is a good representation of all areas of both neighborhoods. He added that the consultants should provide advice and what determines appropriate neighborhood buy -in. Mayor Schroeder also asked that the consultants come in with ideas and ways to support neighborhoods and looks at all possibilities. C. Presentation and update regarding the funding and service levels for Capital Metro's Pickup - Micro Transit Service -- Ray Miller, Jr., Director of Public Works Miller presented the item and provided an overview and the a recap of Council direction from November 10, 2020: reviewed eight responses to an RFI for microtransit services; evaluated options for moving forward with public transportation asking does Council support maintaining fixed route bus service until a microtransit system is established by end of FY21, regarding microtransit service, does Council want to... to continue to receive Federal funds or to not receive Federal funds and implement a micro transit service using local dollars, and beyond FY21, what is the level of funding Council desires to set aside for transit services; and there was consensus to continue fixed route bus service until transition to microtransit, continue to receive federal funds and to work with Capital Metro through a contract to provide a microtransit service, and consider reducing Local Match to $350K (annually) as well as explore a higher level of funding (within FY21 budget) based on community benefits. He provided the following breakdown of funding: FY21 Budget $392,301 $619,369 $1,011,670 Reduced Budget $232,000 $350,000 $585,000 Miller then reviewed budget options and reviewed past annual budgets noting that staff evaluated side -by -side comparison of both budget options by type of service (fixed route — microtransit) keeping the following in mind: federal funding decreases in kind with a reduction in the local match, because FTA Funds require a 60/40 split; at current service levels, it is forecasted that GoGeo will use $227,000 in local funding through March and $151,000 in Federal funding; level of service; maintaining service to current users, including paratransit users; and service area. He stated that with when looking at past budgets there was a decrease in service because of COVID, and the actual local match expended was For FY20 was $430,581.00 with the 60/40 split that is approximately $288,400 in FTA funds and provided the following: Service Category FY 18 Actuals FY 19 Actuals FY 20 Actuals FY 21 Budgeted Service (Cap Metro) 822,822 844,194 963,514 1,011,670 FTA Funds 265,383 265,383 371,950 392,301 City of Georgetown 357.439 378,811 392,590 619,369 Georgetown Health 200,000 200,000 150,000 Foundation Miller then reviewed the following options at length and noted that microtransit budgets do not reflect funds for marketing: Local Match Federal Funds Annual Budget(60%u/40°/u) $619,369 $392,369 $1,011,670 7 1 sq. mi f $350,000 approx S234.000 approx. $584.000 Very limited $350,000 approx. $234,000 approx. $584,000 Reduced S5G0'000 (estimated) approx. $334.000 (eslimated) approx-$834,0ti0 6 1 sq ml Service Area Vehicles 2 buses, 1 Paratransit van 2 buses, I Paralransd van 'iex in vPhiCla' 3 Ptckup V01*1e8 Days of Operation M-F and Saturday Reduced M•F possibly reduced M-F Hours of Operations M-F 7am-7pm: Sat 8am-6pm Reduced Reduced ram -TOM l Serve existing paratransit users Yes Reduced No Yrs Large Retailer Drop Off Only nearest stop Only nearest stop Yes Yes Distance to stop Vanes — fixed bus stop locations Varies - fixed hiss slop locatrons Curb -to -Curb Curb -to -curb (up to MA mile) —Ieeeee (up to''/, mile) Start of Mictro Transft Not until FY 22' April 2021 Paratransit Service Separate Separate Served by 1 Pickup Served by 3 Pickup Vehicle vehicles Headways I Arrival ttfnes 3D45 minutes 1 hour or longer 30 minutes or longer 15 minutes Improved Rider Experience Status Quo No No Yes Shorter Trlp Times NO No Yes Yes Phone Application No No Yes Yes Provtdt Customer Rating No No Yea Wth app) Yes (with app) Call Center No for fixed bus No for fixed bus Yes Yes Yes for paratransit Yes for paratransit Miller reviewed the levels of service and noted that: currently, GoGeo has a service area of about 7 square miles along the 4-route system with approximate wait times of 30-45 minutes, and limited user reach based on distance to stops; with a proposed local match of $500,000, Cap Metro/CARTS proposes using up to three Pickup vehicles to provide the higher service level and expanded user reach; with a proposed local match of $350,000, will determine the number of Pickup vehicles to be used, there would be fewer days of service with reduced hours; service could not meet enhanced performance measures; microtransit (pickup) is an evolving platform and many suburban communities are introducing it because of the higher level of service that it provides users, including curb -to -curb service with designated stop locations in shopping centers and apartment complexes, responsive wait times (arrival) of around 15 minutes, shorter trip times, enhanced user experience (customer service), expanded user service area, and demonstrates stronger return on investment (cost per rider, trips per hour, utilization by hour, number of trips per day, etc.); GoGeo Fixed Bus Route System 7.0 square miles; microtransit service (Option 2) 6.1 square miles; microtransit service (Option 1) to be determined; and all costs are for FY 21 and FY 22 costs are still to be determined in spring of 2021. He stated that staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on the following: does Council support one of the proposed micro transit service options; if Option 2 ($500,000 local funding), does Council support the proposed service area; if Option 1 ($350,000 local funding), staff will request a response from Cap Metro if it will provide this service model; and if Council does not support either micro transit option, what is its direction regarding transit services? Fought noted the history of the program and City related funding. Morgan responded yes; the City experienced a change in funding which lead to the City funding related to the program. Fought asked what the law requires. Miller responded that there is no requirement to provide transit, but there this is FTA funding available. Morgan added that there is no requirement. Fought stated that he favors Option 1, but would his true preference is to do a public/private partnership with an Uber or Lyft type of service. He noted the need for services for the handicap. Jonrowe asked about weekend services for the micro options. Miller responded yes, but the program could be scaled up. Jonrowe asked if staff new the cost for adding the option. Miller responded not at this time. Jonrowe asked if the Option 2 included a limit to the number of trips within that budget. Miller responded that he was not sure, but CapMetro could answer that. Jonrowe noted that the City is seeking to improve efficiency. Miller noted that in other areas there has been an increase in ridership. Jonrowe asked for figures related to ridership increases. Morgan responded that the City could look at other areas and use them for comparison. Jonrowe stated that she didn't want a gap in service and her current preference is Microtransit Option 2. Gonzalez noted that the City did the GoGeo system as an experiment and the City should be aware of costs related to the program. He added that Fought's idea of a private partnership could be a good idea. Gonzalez wanted to limit the City's cost to $350,000 and preferred Option 1. Hood stated that he was leaning towards Option 1 but would consider a private partnership as suggested by Fought. Triggs stated that he preferred Option 2 as it would best enhance the service and he is skeptical of a private partnership. He added that the City should consider other funding sources. Calixtro asked if the Georgetown Health Foundation (GFH) will be involved. Miller responded not at this point. Morgan added that GFH has been included in the process and their initial grant was a three-year grant that expired last year. He added that the City has not asked the GHA for funds while the City considers its next steps. Calixtro asked about the types of pickup vehicles mentioned in Option 2. Miller responded that it is a smaller bus that is handicap accessible. Calixtro asked about the reduced hours of operation. Miller responded that it depends on the determined service area and budget. Calixtro stated that she is favorable of Option 2. Pitts asked if there were any costs not listed. Miller responded that all costs are accounted for. Morgan noted that the City should consider a budget for marketing to inform citizens for the new service. Pitts stated that if the City was going to do this the right way it could cost over $500,000 and he doesn't feel that the current service is well utilized. Miller responded that the increase in ridership tends to happen when wait times are shortened and it makes the service more convenient. Pitts asked where the additional funding would come from. Morgan responded the General Fund. Pitts stated that he struggles to see if the City is ready for public transit and prefers the option noted by Fought for private partnership. He added that he wants those who need the service to benefit from it, but he's not sure how the options presented would be favorable. Jonrowe asked if when the City did a voucher pilot program, did it include paratransit. Miller responded that it did not based on the rules for federal funding. Jonrowe asked if there were private company's that offered paratransit. Miller responded that he wasn't sure. He added that the RideCo model did partner with Yellow Cab who could access those vehicles. Miller noted that if the City doesn't accept federal funding the City would be required to take on many tasks currently handled by CapMetro. Jonrowe asked if the City could lose all federal funding if doing a private partnership. Miller responded all funding except for that related to paratransit. Mayor Schroeder noted that a majority of Council were support in Option 1 which would require a proposal from CapMetro. He asked for an explanation on why Option 1 would take longer to implement. Morgan responded that it was due to date in the contract and with Option 2 the current contract could be altered to expand services. He added that there is a significant notification period. Morgan added that staying with CapMetro would be the fastest transition to a new form of service. Mayor Schroeder asked for clarification for paratransit options with private entities. Morgan responded that staff would do that and provide Council more details on a private partnership. He added that staff would also bring more information back to Council based on question raised related to federal funding, private partnerships, and service levels. Triggs asked that Council consider the financials of private companies before partnering with them. Jonrowe noted that not all riders feel safe using private companies and Council should consider all possible risks. Julie Mazar with CapMetro addressed the Council regarding timeline for implementation, on demand services; service zones; performance measures; and ridership. Hood asked about the possibility of hybrid solutions. Morgan responded that it could be on demand service. At 4:02 p.m. Mayor Schroeder recessed for a five-minute break. Mayor Schroeder recalled the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. D. Presentation and discussion regarding a potential Mobility Bond targeting the May 2021 election date -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager and Jake Gutekunst, Kimley-Horn Weber presented the item and provided an overview and the following background: at the May 2020 Council Workshop Council directed staff to implement a bond program targeting the May 2021 election; at the July 14, 2020 Council Meeting Council approved the membership of the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee; at the September 8, 2020 Council Workshop Council provided direction to Citizen Committee to target a 5-year, $50 million bond; and at the January 12, 2021 Council Workshop Council provided direction to staff to provide scope options for top 5 projects and options for a 7-year bond term. Richard Donoghue with McCall, Parkhurst & Horton presented and explained some Bond Election issues starting with the preliminary issues: type of projects to be bonded (i.e. what projects could be on the ballot?); sizing considerations (i.e. what amounts will be voted?); and negotiation and execution of joint election agreements and/or election services agreements for election. He explained single proposition versus multiple propositions with varying purpose stating that: each proposition must be for a single specific purpose; multiple projects can be combined into one proposition but they must serve the same purpose (e.g. transportation projects, park projects or public safety); a single facility that serves multiple purposes can be in one proposition (e.g. a multi -purpose municipal building for police and city hall); and completely separate purposes cannot be combined in the same proposition (e.g. parks and a fire station cannot be in the same proposition). Donoghue provided the following additional proposition considerations: must state maximum maturity date of the bonds; proposition language may also include related improvements and equipment necessary to accomplish the specific purpose; and propositions typically provide that bonds can be issued in one or more series. Fought asked how general the language could be for the bond. Donoghue responded you have to inform the voters of what you want to do, but you don't have to list specific roadways. He added that in the past the City has used very specific language that limits the usage of funds. Fought asked if the City could list the purpose. Donoghue responded yes. Fought stated that the purpose would allow the voters to be informed while giving the City some latitude. Mayor Schroeder thanked Fought for that question as it has been asked my many on the Council. Fought stated that Council can be specific for some projects, but there are others where the Council may need more flexibility. Donoghue added that he will work to make sure the language is what the City needs. He added that there has been a change in law recently where if a proposition fails, a City cannot issue COs for that project for three years. Mayor Schroeder asked if the City uses broad language, then can it not issue funds for broad purposes. Donoghue responded that being too broad could be problematic for that reason. Donoghue explained project language versus general language in propositions noting: listing only specific streets ("City street improvements, to wit [names of streets]") which limits uses to just those street projects; "City street improvements, including [names of streets]" which preserves the ability to use interest earnings and other excess proceeds for additional street projects; restrictions after a proposition to issue bonds fails where the City may not issue COs if proposition to authorize the issuance of bonds for the same purpose failed within the last three years; and exact wording should be carefully coordinated with bond counsel. He explained the wording of the ballot and noted that: ballot language is a shortened version of the proposition; must be styled as for or against the issuance of the bonds; and a new requirement is that ballots must state: "Taxes Sufficient to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the Bonds will be Imposed." Donoghue explained the contract with voters issues noting that official actions of the City prior to the election can further limit the uses of bond proceeds. He noted Federal Tax Law considerations stating consideration of any sizing issues; review/consideration of any management contracts; and contract with rebate consultant regarding timing of construction draws and other rebate issues. Donoghue explained ethic issues and noted: officers or employees of the City are prohibited from spending City funds or using City resources (including other employees) on communications that support or oppose the bond election; the City can only prepare communications that factually describe the purpose of the bond election, and only if the communication does not advocate the passage or defeat of the bonds; violations can subject City officers and employees to significant fines and/or jail time; these prohibitions apply to any person associated with the City who has the authority to allocate City funds and resources, including elected officials, and everyone retains their First Amendment rights, but no City funds or resources can be utilized; all materials prepared by the City regarding the bond election must also be in English and Spanish; and political action committees in support of or against the bonds can be formed, but they must comply with Texas Election Code and Texas Ethics Commission requirements. Fought asked for clarification on when a Council member could or could not promote the bond. Donoghue responded that when City resources are used, then a council member should not promote a bond. He added that this goes for all members. Donoghue explained the use of existing bond proceeds and noted that proceeds of voted bonds can only be expended for the purposes that were approved by the voters and not for additional or different purposes, and all uses of bond proceeds must fit within the language of the approved bond proposition. He provided the 2008 Transportation Bond authorization and stated that $46,000,000 of bonds were approved in 2008 for only the following transportation projects: FM 971, Southeast Arterial 1, Northwest Inner Loop/DB Wood Road, FM 1460 and Berry Creek Drive and a routing study for SH 29; and any related utility relocation, sidewalks, traffic safety and operational improvements, purchase of any necessary rights -of -way, drainage and other related costs. Donoghue then reviewed the 2015 Transportation Bond authorization where $105,000,000 of bonds were approved in 2015 for only the following transportation projects: Northwest Blvd Bridge -Fontana Dr to Austin Ave, Rivery Blvd Extension -Williams Dr to Northwest Blvd, IH 35 NB Frontage Road -Williams Dr to Lakeway Bridge, Southwest Bypass -Wolf Ranch Pkwy to Leander Rd, Wolf Ranch Pkwy- DB Wood Dr to Southwest Bypass, Intersection/Capital Pool, Leander Bridge at IH 35, NE Inner Loop -Stadium Dr to FM 971, Stadium Dr (CR 151)-Austin Ave to NE Inner Loop, Southwestern Blvd-Raintree Dr to SE Inner Loop, SH 29 (Haven Lane to SH 130),Leander Rd (RM 2243)- 400ft W of SW Bypass to River Ridge, DB Wood Dr- SH 29 to Oak Ridge Dr, Southwest Bypass -Wolf Ranch Pkwy to SH29, sidewalk, safety and ADA accessibility pool and related utility relocation, sidewalk, safety and operational improvements, purchase of any necessary rights -of -way, drainage and other related costs; and preliminary engineering and rights -of -way acquisition for Williams Dr-Rivery Blvd. to Frontage Rd, IH 35 SB Frontage Road -Williams Dr to Rivery Blvd, SE Inner Loop- Southwestern Blvd to IH 35, SE Inner Loop- SH 29 to Southwestern Blvd, Shell Rd -Williams Dr to Shell Spur Rd, DB Wood Dr -Oak Ridge Dr to Lake Overlook Dr. Jake Gutekunst with Kimley Horn then presented and discussed the potential projects and bond program. He started with the project scope options as follows: Planning Level Cost Estimates -Georgetown Mobility Bond 2021 Project (Committee Ranking) Total Project Cost Reduction 1 - Rural Section Reduction 2 - One- I Side Shared Use Path Reduction 3 - No Sidewalk or Bikes M - SE Inner Loop (Ranked #I) $ 43,116,000 5 34.820,000 $ 32,061,000 5 28,496.000 C - Shell Rd (Ranked ill) $ 14,234,000 N/A $ 12,503.000 $ 9,707,000 E - Williams lRanked 1t31 $ WJ88,000 N/A N/A $ 5,394,000 A - DO Wood (Ranked #4) $ 18,895,000 N/A N/A $ 16,099,000 R - Leander (Ranked 115) $ 7,743,000 N/A $ 7,211,000 $ 6,412,000 I - NE Inner Loop (Ranked ii6) $ 18,094.000 $ 14,898,000 $ 14,499,000 $ 11.703.000 Q - SH 29 (Ranked 817) $ 22,380,000 $ 19,450,000 $ 18.119,OD0 $ 15,456,000 P - Austin Ave (Ranked XBJ $ L 1,484,000 $3.8M for Ped/Bike Bridge Only 8 - Williams (Ranked #9) $ 8.590,000 N/A N/A $ 4,196,000 L - Southwestern (Ranked #10) 5 11,496,000 $ 10,805,000 $ 10,406,000 $ 8,669,DDO N - Rockride (Not in Top 10) 5 5,776,000 N/A $ 5,403,000 $ 3,544,000 Y - SE Inner Loop (Wilco Partnership) $ 4,000,000 Fixed City Contribution Z - Westinghouse (Wiko Partnership) $ 8,200,000 Fixed City Contribution Sidewalks, Bikes, Intersections, Tech 5 7,000,000 Fixed City Contribution Total' S 183.512.OW 1 S 168,399,000 S 160,875,000 f 132,676,000 Ch e S S 15.113.000 1 S 22.637.000 S 50.836.000 Note - "N/A" means that the scope was already reduced for the consideration in the column ` Total Costs only include 3.810 for Austin Avenue ped/bike bridge Gutekunst then reviewed the following projects: #1 SE Inner Loop with the potential scope edits of reduction 1- rural section for $34.8 million, reduction 2 - shared use path on one side for $32.0 million, and reduction 3 - no pedestrian/bike for $28.5 million; #2 Shell Road with the potential scope edits of reduction 1 - not applicable as it is already rural, reduction 2 - shared use path for $12.5 million, and reduction 3 - no pedestrian/bike for $9.7 million; #3 Williams Drive Central with the potential scope edits of reduction 1 - not applicable, reduction 2 - not applicable, and reduction 3 - Remove sidewalk repairs and filling gaps for $5.4 million; #4 DB Wood with the potential scope edits of reduction 1- not applicable as it is already rural, reduction 2 - not applicable as there is already a shared use path on one side, and reduction 3 - remove shared use path on one side for $16.1 million; #5 - Leander Rd/RM2243 with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - not applicable as it is already rural, reduction 2 - shared use path for $7.2 million, and reduction 3 - No pedestrian/bike for $6.4 million; #6 - NE Inner Loop with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - rural section for $14.9 million, reduction 2 - shared use path on one side for $14.5 million, and reduction 3 - no pedestrian/bike for $11.7 million; #7 - SH 29 East with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - rural section of $19.5 million, reduction 2 - shared use path on one side for $18.1 million, and reduction 3 - No pedestrian/bike for $15.5 million; #8 - Austin Avenue Bridges with potential scope edit of pedestrian/bike bridge only for $3.8 million; #9 - Williams Drive West with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - not applicable, reduction 2 - not applicable, and reduction 3 - remove sidewalk repairs and filling gaps for $4.2 million; #10 - Southwestern Blvd with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - rural section for $10.8 million, reduction 2 - shared use path on one side for $10.4 million, and reduction 3 - no pedestrian/bike for $8.7 million; and Rockride Lane (Project N) with potential scope edits of reduction 1 - not applicable as it is already rural, reduction 2 - shared use path on one side for $5.4 million, and reduction 3 - no pedestrian/bike for $3.5 million. He noted the following projects and what they include: SE1/Sam Houston/Wilco Corridor C (Project Y) includes a two-lane section with improved shoulders; Westinghouse Road (Project Z) with full reconstruction to two lane section with improved shoulders and removal of 90 degree turns; and additional project allocations for priority 2 sidewalks costing $2.5 million, bike plan projects costing $1.5 million, intersection projects costing $1.7 million, and transportation technology costing $1.3 million. Weber then presented on Tax Rate capacity and noted that a 7-Year Bond Program assumes 7% growth in assessed valuation with a tax impact on average value home as follows: $0.02 increase - $55.60/year; $0.03 increase - $83.40/year; and $0.04 increase - $111.20/year. She noted that these figures are based on the average homestead taxable value in 2020 ($278,001) and provided the following: City of Georgetown, Texas Projected Additional Capacity (Mobility Projects) - 7 Year Summary Preliminary as of January 20, 2021 $0.02 $0.03 $0.04 20yr S 104,270.000 $ 120,000,000 $ 135,650,000 25yr 120,795.000 139,230,000 157,590,000 S 20.204,184 5 22,944.612 5 25,670.142 Assumptions: (1) Please see Capital Improvement Plan models for assuptions and details. Preliminary, subject to change. Gonzalez asked if the 7% growth increase accounted for new growth or existing assessed valuation. Morgan responded that it includes both. Gonzalez asked if it was including a 7% growth in valuation and taxation. Morgan responded it was for total valuation and included both. Weber resumed the presentation and noted that potential Bond Program at 2 cents would yield $101,572,000 and the selected projects in blue total $101.6 million (projects listed in the following chart): Planning Level Cost Estimates - Georgetown Mobility Bond 2021 Project (Committee Ranking) Total Project Cost Reduction 1 -Rural Section Reduction 2 -One - Reduction 3 - No I Side Shared Use Path Sidewalk or Bikes M - SE Inner Loop (Ranked N1) $ 43,116,000 $ 34,820,1 28,496,000 C - Shell Rd (Ranked #21 $ 14,234,000 N/A kNIA 9.707C£C E - Williams (Ranked #3) S 10.188,000 N/A A - 05 Wood (Ranked N4) N/A N/A $ 16,099,000 R - Leander (Ranked NS) N/A S 7,211.ODO S 6.412.000 1- NE Inner Loop (Ranked 06) $ 18,094.000 S 14,898,C00 $ 14,499,000 5 11,703,000 Q - SH 29 (Ranked N7) $ 22,380,000 5 19,450,CCO 5 18,119,000 5 15.456.000 P - Austin Ave (Ranked NS) $ 11,484,000 S3.8M for Ped/Bike Bridge Only B -Williams (Ranked 091 $ 8,590,000 N/A N/A $ 4,196,000 L - Southwestern (Ranked 4101 S 11,496.000 S 10,805 000 S 10,406.000 $ 8,669,000 N - Rock ride (Not in Top 10) 91 N/A $ 5,403,OW S 3.S".000 Y - SE inner Loop (Wiko Partnership) § Fixed City Con tribulion 2 - Westinghouse (Wilco Partnership) S Finked LityContribution Sidewalks, Bikes, Intersections, Tech Z Fixed City Contribution Total' $ 183,512,00Q f %8,399AN I i 160,875.000 f 132.676.000 Change $ -is 1%113AM I f 22.637.000 13 50.336.000 Note - "N/A" means that the scope was already reduced for the consideration in the column 2 Total Costs only include 3.81VI for Austin Avenue ped/bike bridge Weber explained a potential Bond Program at 3 cents would yield $117,850,000 and the selected proiects in blue total $177.9 million (proiects listed in the following chart): Planning Level Cost Estirnates - Georgetown Mobility Bond 2021 Project (Committee Ranking) Total Project Cost Reduction 1- Rural Section Reduction 2 -fine- Side Shared Use Path Reduction 3 - No Sidewalk or Bikes M • SE Inner Loop (Ranked Mil $ 43,116,000 $ 34,820,.^.EC $ 28,496,rXG C - Shell Rd (Ranked #21 14,234,CCG N/A 5 9.707,00C E - Williams (Ranked #3) $ N/A N/A $ 5,394,C00 A - OB Wood (Ranked N4) N/A N/A $ 16,099,OM R . Leander (Ranked #51 N/A $ 7,211,GCC 5 6,412,CC0 I - NE inner Loop (Ranked 06) $ '_8'C94,CC0 $ 14.898,WO $ 14,499,C04 $ 11,703,OG0 Q - SH 29 (Ranked #7) $ 22,380,000 $ 19,450,000 1 $ 18,119,CCO $ 15,456,GCC P - Austin Ave (Ranked NS) $3.8M for Ped/Bike Bridge Only B Williams (Ranked 109) $ 8,590,CCfl N/A N/A $ 4,19b,CC L - Southwestern (Ranked #101 $ 11,496,OCO $ 10,805,000 $ 10,406,CGO $ 8,669,CCC N - Rodkride (Not in Top 10) N/A $ 5,403,CG0 $ 3,544,CCC Y - SE Inner Loop (Wilco Partnership)rr.�� Fixed City Contribution Z - Westinghouse (Wilco Partnership)Fixed City Contribution Sidewalks, Bikes, Intersertfons, Tech Fixed City Contribution Totals : 183,512,000 S 1683".014 160.875,000 IS 132.676.000 Change -IS 15.113,000 22,637,000 1 i 50,836.W Note - "N/A" means that the scope was already reduced for the consideration in the column £ Total Costs only include 3.8M for Austin Avenue ped/bike bridge Weber provided the next steps adding that the election must be called by February 9, 2021 Council Meeting because the Texas Secretary of State deadline of last day to file for a place on General Election Ballot is February 12, 2021. She stated that the direction needed from Council today includes providing direction on the length and scope of bond program; final selection of roadway projects to include and final allocations for sidewalks, intersections, bicycle facilities and transportation technology. Pitts noted the intersection at Sam Houston and asked if the City has discussed cost sharing with County for that project. Morgan responded that there is funding available that could go towards that intersection. He added that there still needs to be a full review. Pitts stated that he likes the seven-year solution proposed, and the City could lower some projects if needed. He then asked if the $0.03 is the amount for each year. Morgan responded $0.03 total over the life of the bond. Pitts asked if the previous bond was $0.10 and this is a $0.03. Morgan responded that the bond would start with the $0.03 tax rate increase that's issuing the bond and then the City would be allowed it issue debt over the next seven years. Pitts stated that he liked the $117,850,000 package. Fought asked if the list includes all the obligations made to outside entities. Morgan responded yes commitments to County and GISD. Fought stated that agrees with Pitts and staff has done a great job. Hood stated that staff has done a great job and he likes the proposal. Gonzalez stated that he likes the $0.03 proposal and would support it. Jonrowe noted the Williams Drive sidewalk and asked Austin Avenue bridges options. Morgan responded that when evaluating the Austin Avenue bridges project, there has been maintenance that has been identified. He added that the pedestrian/bike bridge was suggested because the current sidewalks don't meet ADA compliance and there are issues with the current width of the bridges. Morgan added that is why staff is suggesting the whole project. Jonrowe asked if there were logistical issues with just doing the just the pedestrian/bike bridges first. Morgan responded no, and you could apply the same ideology with other projects on the list. Mayor Schroeder asked what Jonrowe would prefer. Jonrowe responded that personally she would prefer the bike/pedestrian bridge first due to traffic issues that could arise when shutting down the bridges for construction. She also wasn't sure how the voters would respond to issues related to upkeep on the bridges. Morgan stated that the upkeep of bridges is the scope, and there is concern that there are maintenance issues not yet met. Jonrowe stated that she understands the need for maintenance, but she is worried about timing. Mayor Schroeder asked for clarification on what Jonrowe would want for the project. Jonrowe clarified the $0.03 proposal minus Austin Avenue bridges but including the bike/pedestrian bridge. Triggs agreed with Jonrowe's proposal and thanked staff for their work. Mayor Schroeder asked Council to comment on Jonrowe's proposal for Austin Avenue bridges project related to the pedestrianibike bridge. Pitts stated that he has no issue with the proposal and noted that the last citizen survey noted the need for addressing the Austin Avenue Bridges. He added that there are ways for Council to address the timing and noted that not all projects will start day one of approval. Pitts then stated concerns related to when the bridges would be funded and what the appropriate timing would be. Fought stated that he could support the suggested proposal for Austin Avenue bridges. He then asked if Council could support moving funding for that project to improvements on Williams Drive. Mayor Schroeder asked for clarification on where those funds could go if moved from Austin Avenue bridges and what langue could be used. Morgan responded that language could be used to allow the City to make progress without singling out a project. Donoghue noted that what is going to the voters is the total amount and list of projects, not this level of detail. Mayor Schroeder stated that he understood Jonrowe's concerns but is also worried about getting the bridges repaired to the appropriate level. Gonzalez noted that the Austin Avenue bridges are continuing to deteriorate and the longer the wait the more the cost. He added that the timing will always be inconvenient. Gonzalez also noted that the bridges would likely not be started withing the next year. Jonrowe stated that she appreciated the compromise suggested by Mayor Schroeder. She also noted the desire to ensure that the project was done later in the bond process to allow downtown to prepare. Hood agreed with Jonrowe and the need to help downtown. He added the life safety issue related to the pedestrianibikes bridges and suggested going forward with the whole project and just delaying the start of it. Morgan responded that in 2015 priority projects were identified and regardless of the projects selected, there would need to be discussion related to timing of all projects. Mayor Schroeder asked is staff understood the direction of Council. Morgan responded that the package would include the pedestrianibike bridge only, overall list of $117.8 million is good, and the remainder of those funds not allocated for the bridges will be identified as allocations for flexibility for funding. Robyn Densmore, City Secretary, read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order (comments appear exactly as submitted): Scott Allen: Councilmember Triggs, Mayor Schroeder, and members of the City Council - I am writing to express some concerns with the recent workshop presentation regarding a possible Mobility Bond. I'm pleased to see that most respondents to the surveys supported primarily managing congestion, improving traffic light timing and improving safety - but would encourage you to look deeper at the more detailed responses that focused on improving existing streets and intersections and adding capacity to those. While I'm glad to see that the committee report placed the Williams Dr. Central project at #3 (despite it only garnering 56% support), I'm concerned that the project initiatives may have been misinterpreted (as acknowledged) and I'd hate to see continued mis-interpretations continue. I would like to point out that there are only 2 projects that are supported by prior City of Georgetown initiatives - specifically, the Williams Dr. Study (https:Htransportation.georgetown.org/williams-drive/) and the Austin Ave Bridges (https://transportation.georgetown.org/austin-avenue-bridges/). Therefore, it seems that despite the desirability of all the other projects, these projects should receive priority funding (taking into account any other separate funding they might receive) in order to be completed successfully and in alignment with citizen expectations. I want to assure you that I agree that transportation issues must be addressed to keep Georgetown a great place to live and work - and many of the proposed projects are admirable. I recognize that tradeoffs are inevitable, but the timing may not be such that we can afford them in the targeted $50M range. In fact, if you accepted the first ranked project, there would only be one of 2 other projects that could be completed within that budget. I would encourage you to consider the Williams Drive and Austin Ave Bridges as priorities - in fact, you could fit all those (#3, #4, #8, and #9) within that desired range. I trust that you will take this into account when you make your decisions regarding a Mobility Bond package. Morgan noted that due to environmental requirements, full design will be completed before any construction can start on Austin Avenue bridges. Mayor Schroeder noted the importance of those comments. Morgan added that it's been several years since the bridges were assessed and staff will work through the needed process to verify all needs are met. Fought asked about a timetable for the bond. Morgan responded that staff would do a final Workshop on February 91h and then Council will need to approve the Resolution. Pitts asked about the final date to call the election. Donoghue responded February 121h is the absolute final date. Mayor Schroeder stated that Council will finalize everything on February 9th if at all possible. E. Presentation and discussion regarding a proposed Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to the Tree Preservation and Landscaping standards specifically as it pertains to tree preservation, removal and mitigation, streetyard, gateway and parking landscape standards, and screening and water conservation requirements (UDC General Amendment No. 20-03) -- Andreina Davila -Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager, Steve McKeown, Landscape Planner, and Ethan Harwell, Senior Planner Due to time constraints, this item was not discussed and will be brought to a future Workshop. Mayor Schroeder recessed in Executive Session at 5:14 p.m. to start at 5:25 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. F. 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 - FAA Part 13 Complaint - Hines Georgetown LLC - Proposed Settlement Agreement with TCEQ related TCEQ Docket No. 2020-1321-MWD-E; Enforcement Case No.59938 - PEC Franchise Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Competitive Matters — Purchased Power Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Rivery TIRZ Update - Project Access Sec. 551.089: Deliberation Regarding Security Devices or Security Audits - Update on risk assessment related to HIPAA security and protocols Adjournment Approved by the Georgetown City Council on Josh Date ZLIn6 �1*VVLVI Attest: Cit Secretary