HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.09.2021 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, February 9, 2021
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 9, 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 2:01 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.
Triggs, Gonzalez and Pitts joined during Item B.
Item B was taken before Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:00 PM
B. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2020/2021 Citizen Survey -- Bridget Hinze Weber,
Assistant to the City Manager; and Dr. Thomas Longoria, Professor and Director of Center
for Research, Public Policy, and Training at Texas State University
Weber introduced the item and Dr. Longoria presented the item. He reviewed the project
timeline as follows: in September, Council direction on survey; on September 301h, Texas State
University finalizes survey instrument; in October, Texas State University mailed survey; in
November, Texas State University launched open survey link available; in December, analyze
results; in February, submission of full report and presentation of findings made to Council;
in March, focus groups; and in April, present findings from Focus Groups to Council.
Longoria provided the project background and purpose as follows: City staff reviewed past
surveys and selected common survey questions and added questions of interest to city staff
and the researchers; the project is a collaboration between the City of Georgetown and Texas
State faculty and students for educational and research purposes; the Center for Public Policy,
Research, and Training has worked with several cities in the region on their resident surveys
for over 10 years; the responses reflect perceptions at one point in time; and perceptions are
likely influenced by the context of COVID-19. He noted the survey methodology as follows:
mailed to 2,000 households in October 2020 with online and Spanish language surveys made
available; 425 surveys were completed for a response rate of 21%; based on the response rate,
we can be 95% certain that the estimates of Georgetown household views are within a margin
of error of +/- 5%; 767 residents responded to an open survey link made available November
2020; 1192 total responses from random sample and open online survey; and using the
merged data set yields a margin of error of +/- 3%. Longoria provided the respondent
characteristics of who responded and if they represent the City based on household income,
race of householder, home ownership, and over 18 age distribution. He noted that the
representativeness of the survey responses generally represents the population in terms of
income and age; renters and Hispanics households are underrepresented; however, enough
Hispanics households (62) responded so that we can generalize from this sample of Hispanic
households. Longoria noted the following results: for quality of life 90% of residents say
Georgetown is a good or excellent place to live, and 75% of residents, however, say
Georgetown is a good or fair place to find employment; for value of services for taxes paid
65% of respondents rate the value of city services for taxes paid as good or excellent, and less
than 10% rate the value of city services for taxes paid as poor; for comparisons with other
levels of government 89% of respondents rate the quality of services provided by the city as
good or excellent; and 50% of respondents rate the quality of services provided by the federal
government as good or excellent; for development respondents rate the quality of new
development at levels that approach benchmarks, and respondents rate employment, retail,
and entertainment opportunities at about half that level; for utilities over 80% of residents
rate garbage collection, recycling, and Sewer service as good or excellent, and 34% of
respondents rate city electric service as fair or poor; for streets and traffic 20% of respondents
rate traffic flow on major streets and the amount of public parking as good or excellent, and
71% of residents rate street repair as good or excellent; for emergency and protective services
97% of respondents rate fire and EMS services as good or excellent, and 91% of respondents
rate police as good or excellent; for perceptions of safety, perceptions of safety meet and
exceed benchmarks on all six indicators, and almost 25% indicate that perceived safety in their
neighborhoods at night is fair or poor; for mobility 71% rated ease of walking for leisure as
good or excellent, and 41% rated ease of biking for leisure as good or excellent; for parks and
recreation over 90% of respondents rated parks as good or excellent overall, and 88% rated
recreation programs as good or excellent; for youth and senior services 79% percent rate
senior services as good or excellent and 79% rate youth services as good or excellent; and for
the City library 94% of respondents rated the city library as good or excellent. Longoria
reviewed the utilization of public spaces, satisfaction with resident -initiated contact, media
use, and the top three volunteered priorities as follows:
7bp 3 Priorities (O en -Ended Question
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
crime., safety, police
17.1
crime, safety, police
10.8
crime, safety, police
10.6
growth management
16.5
growth management
10.4
growth management
7.6
water
7.5
electricity, electric
8.9
parks, trails, bike
7.4
bills, utilities
lanes, sidewalks,
streets, roads,
5.9
streets, roads,
6.8
economic growth,
6.6
infrastructure
infrastructure
more business, more
4.9
water
jobs
downtown square
6.5
streets, roads,
6.2
infrastructure
electricity, electric bills,
4.9
taxes, spending,
5.3
downtown square
5.8
utilities
budget
taxes, spending, budget
4.6
economic growth,
5.3
taxes, spending,
5.4
more business, more
budget
jobs
economic growth, more
2.4
parks, trails, bike
5.2
electricity, electric
5.1
business, more jobs
lanes, sidewalks,
bills, utilities
parks, trails, bike lanes,
2.3
downtown square
5
planning, zoning,
3.5
sidewalks,
smart growth
COVID
2.2
workforce housing
2.7
water
3.5
Pitts asked how the media question was worded. Longoria responded, "How do you get
news about the City?" Pitts for clarification on the results were presented. Longoria
responded that it is a self -report frequency of use. Pitts noted the use of social media by
residents and groups that are not sponsored by the City spreading information and possible
misinformation. Longoria responded that people could perceive a non -City site as City site.
Fought stated that the study is well done and he very pleased that no issues were raised that
Council hadn't already discussed. Longoria responded that there were lot of respondents,
and TSU was looking at how to make sense of the patterns. He continued that there were
more comments about making Georgetown a more inclusive community.
Jonrowe asked about focus groups. Weber responded that staff is asking for what topics
Council would like the focus groups to concentrate on. She added that the focus groups will
be meeting in March and returning to Council in April. Jonrowe responded inclusivity and
public safety.
Gonzalez stated that he would like to use the focus groups to get better definitions on things
like "quality of life, housing, and inclusivity."
Pitts stated that he would like to see the focus groups discuss growth and noted that the items
on the open-ended responses are not City functions as noted by Gonzalez. He also noted the
need to ask the least satisfied residents about their level of engagement with the City and City
functions.
Fought stated that he would like the group to explore how growth is handled.
Calixtro would like the focus groups to look at housing and housing types, as well as traffic,
which will hopefully be alleviated in the next election.
Hood stated that he would like the focus group to look at water, streets, roads, infrastructure,
growth management, and crime.
Triggs stated that he was curious about the "places to work" question and would like the
focus group to look at it. He was also curious about how many people live in Georgetown
but don't work in Georgetown.
Jonrowe asked that the focus groups also discuss Downtown. She then asked how the
makeup of the focus group would be comprised. Longoria responded that some people could
volunteer, and his goal is to have as diverse of a group as possible. He added that he looks
forward to reporting back to Council.
A. 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 introduced the item and then turned the presentation over to Gutekunst. Gutekunst
provided the background of work done to date. He then reviewed the potential Bond
Program of 3 cents for a total of $117,850,000. Gutekunst noted that the selected projects had
be highlighted in blue and total $117.9 million as follows:
Planning Level Cost Estimates
-Georgetown Mobility
Bond 2021
Project (Committee Ranking)
Total Project Cost
Reduction 1 - Rural
Section
Reduction 2 - One-
Side Shared Use Path
Reduction 3 -No
Sidewalk or Bikes
M - SE Inner Loop (Ranked #IL)
$
43.116,000
$
34,820,CCC
N/A
$
$
28,496,D00
9,707,000
C - Shell Rd (Ranked 112)
$ 14,234,000
E - Williams (Ranked #3)
N/A
N/A
$
5,394,ODD
A - DB Wood (Ranked NO
N/A
N/A
$
16,099.000
R - Leander (Ranked #5)
N/A
$ 7.211,000
$
6,412,000
I - NE Inner Loop (Ranked 06)
$
18,094,000
$
14,898,000
$ 14,499,000
$
11,703,D00
Q-SH 29 (Ranked #7)
$
22,380,000
$
19,45QDD0
$ 18,119,000
$
15,456,000
P - Austin Ave (Ranked NO)
$3.8M for Ped/Bike Bridge Only
8 - Williams (Ranked 99)
$
8.590,OW
N/A
N/A
$
4,196,000
L - Southwestern (Ranked #10)
$
11,496,000
$
10,805,COC
$ 10,406,000
$
8,669,000
N - Rkxdkride (Not in lop 10)
N/A
$ 5,403,000
$
3.544,000
Y - SE Inner Loop (Wiko Partnership)
Fixed City Contribution
Z - Westinghouse (Wilco Partnership)
Fixed City Contribution
Sidewalks, Bikes, Intersections, Tech
Fixed City Contribution
Total'
f
183,512,000
$
16IL399,000
s 16o R5,000
S
132,65,000
Change
S
-
S
15,113,000
S 22,637,000
1 S
50,836,000
Note - "N/A" means that the scope was already reduced for the consideration in the column
s Total Costs only include 3.81VI for Austin Avenue ped/bike bridge
Gutekunst noted that the Council direction needed is as follows: final scope of Austin Avenue
Bridges to include in bond program, and final allocations for sidewalks, intersections, bicycle
facilities and transportation technology. He reviewed the Austin Avenue Bridges at a total
cost of $11.5 million with $10.1 million City cost and within the limits of Second Street to
Morrow Street. Gutekunst noted that this project consists of rehabilitating the bridges on
Austin Ave and constructing a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge with the potential scope
edits of doing a pedestrian/bike bridge only for $3.8 million. He noted the current condition
of roadway bridge and added that the bridges were built in 1940 and have had no major
updates, maintenance or rehabilitation completed on the bridges since. Gutekunst reviewed
the November 2019 TxDOT Inspection which stated that the bridges rating was 5 (fair
condition), the next level down would be 4 (poor condition), and the bridges are inspected at
least every 2 years. He noted the following structural deficiencies: deterioration, resulting in
falling debris on and below the bridges, which creates safety hazards for traffic and trail users;
bridges are functionally obsolete due to their width and lack of shoulders; these
characteristics do not meet current AASHTO standards for a minor arterial roadway type;
further - or more constrained - load restrictions could be applied; and current pedestrian
bridge does not meet ADA standards and separating the pedestrian bridge will meet the ADA
requirements. Gutekunst provided the current project status and noted that there is 30%
design complete, timing of further design and construction will depend on funding, and it
will be approximately 11/z years to complete design and construction plans before construction
begins once funding is identified. He provided the construction timing noting that
consultants designed the phasing so that the pedestrian bridge should be constructed first -
prior to the roadway bridge maintenance - so that the City can keep bike and pedestrian
connectivity during the bridge rehabilitation; bike/pedestrian bridge could be done without
addressing the maintenance needs on the main lanes; and maintain one lane in each direction
through construction (except for pre -scheduled nighttime closures) to allow for continued
access to downtown. Gutekunst explained the funding noting that $11.5 million cost estimate
does not include $1,299,174 million in federal funding facilitated through CAMPO that has
been allocated for the rehabilitation of the roadway bridge; the total City funding bridge
rehabilitation and pedestrian/bike bridge is $10,184,826; and for this project, along with other
projects, staff will work to identifying partnership funding through grant opportunities. He
then reviewed additional project allocations starting with Committee recommended
allocations costing $7 Million (preliminary) and including: Priority 2 Sidewalks for $2.5
million; Bike Plan Projects for $1.5 million; Intersection Projects for $1.7 million; and
Transportation Technology for $1.3 million; adding that the Committee made these
recommendations with the intention of remaining within the $50 million bond target amount
initially provided by Council. Gutekunst reviewed the Sidewalk projects at a $2.5 million
allocation and noted that the estimated cost to complete Projects shown is $12.6 Million while
$2,500,000 will complete approximately 3 miles of 6-foot sidewalk. He noted that the Bicycle
projects at a $1.5 million allocation noting that the estimated cost to complete Projects shown
is $10.4 Million including the following: Shared Use Paths and Trails can cost up to $1.6M per
mile; on -street bike lanes with protection/separation can cost $70,000 - $200,000 per mile;
painted bike lanes without buffer cost $50,000 per mile; and wayfinding signs and dots cost
$3,000 per mile. Gutekunst noted the intersection projects at a $1.7 million allocation with the
note that the estimated cost to complete Projects shown is $5.8 million and $1,700,000 will
complete two intersections with signals costing $600,000 each and turn lanes costing $150,000
each dependent on length. He reviewed that transportation technology at $1.3 million,
adding that $1,300,000 will complete: corridor timings - $50,000 each ($100,000 per year if two
per year); and communications infrastructure and TxDOT takeover - $500,000.
Weber the presented the funding authorization and noted that the previous funding
authorization available includes 2008 Road Bond for $17,050,000, 2015 Road Bond for
$13,617,625, for a total of $30,667,625. She then reviewed the potential 2021 Bond Program
including $110,166,000 (in projects) minus $30,667,625 (previous funding authorization) for a
total of $79,498,375. Weber added that $120 million in projects would be a $.03 impact on tax
rate and provided the followine breakdown:
Planning Level Cost Estimates - Georgetown Mobility
Bond 2021
Project (Committee Ranking)
Total Project Cost
Reduction 1 - Rural
Section
Reduction 2 - One-
Side Shared Use Path
Reduction 3 - No
I Sidewalk or Bikes
M - SE Inner Loop (Ranked #1)
$
43,116,000
$
34,820,000
$
28,496,000
C - Shell Rd (Ranked #2)
$
14,234,000
N/A
$
9,707,000
E - Williams (Ranked #3)
N/A
N/A
$
5,394,000
.A - DB Wood (Ranked #4)
N/A
N/A
$
16,099,000
R - Leander (Ranked #5)
N/A
$ 7,211,000
$
6,412,000
1 - NE Inner Loop (Ranked #6)
$
18,094,000
$
14,898,000
$ 14,499,000
$
11,703,000
Q - SH 29 (Ranked #7)
P - Austin Ave (Ranked #8)
B - Williams (Ranked #9)
$
$
$
22,380,000
10,184,826
8,590,000
$
19,450,000
N/A
$ 18,119,000
N/A
$
$
15,456,000
4,196,000
L - Southwestern (Ranked #10)
$
11,496,000
$
10,805,000
$ 10,406,000
$
8,669,000
N - Rockride (Not in Top 10)
N/A
$ 5,403,000
$
3,544,000
Y - SE Inner Loop (Wilco Partnership)
Fixed City Contribution
Z -Westinghouse (Wilco Partnership)
Fixed City Contribution
Sidewalks, Bikes, Intersections, Tech
Fixed City Contribution
Total'
$
209,960,826
$
168,399,000
$ 160,875,000
$
132,676,000
Chan e
$
-
$
41,561,826
$ 49,085,826
. $
77,284.826
$ 110,166,000
General discussion among Council and staff about the amounts in the chart above and
possible bond options. Also discussion about proper wording for clarity of the voters.
Mayor Schroeder stated that Council has three questions to answer: any questions outside of
Austin Avenue bridges or allocations; do Austin Avenue bridges in full; and does Council
want to add any funds to the allocations.
Gonzalez asked that the messaging to voter not include the past bond amounts as it confuses
the message. Mayor Schroeder noted that the Resolution wording may have specific
requirements for messaging. Morgan stated that the Resolution will say $90 million and
stated that staff is working on how to best message the total impact of the bond. Gonzalez
stated that he would like to include all of the Austin Avenue Bridges and put remaining $2.7
million into sidewalks.
Hood stated that he agrees with Gonzalez and asked if any transportation technology was
any not considered to meet target bond goal. Gutekunst responded recommendation was
based on work with the Committee. Morgan stated that it was not scaled down, but continued
investments would be needed. Hood stated that he is a proponent of the $120 million and
believes the City should improve Austin Avenue Bridges. He asked if the Council should
consider any additional transportation technology.
Calixtro stated that she agrees with using leftover funds for bridges or sidewalks.
Triggs responded yes to all questions posed with Mayor Schroeder and that adding leftover
funds to sidewalks and intersections would be his preferred option. He noted the importance
of wording the message to the public.
Jonrowe stated that she supports the $90 million bond, and is fine with the Austin Avenue
rehab, but would like to prioritize doing pedestrian bike bridge first and waiting until after