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