The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 03.23.2021 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, March 23, 2021 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, March 23, 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; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6. Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District 7 was absent. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:00 PM A. Presentation and update regarding service levels and service delivery options for Micro - Transit Services -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Reed presented the item and asked for Council feedback and direction on the following: 1) does Council support moving forward with a rideshare program which would require an additional city employee and does not provide wheelchair accessible services; 2) if yes, does Council want us to pursue a separate paratransit service; and 3) does the Council want to pursue another service alternative? He then provided a review of the January 261" workshop. Reed explained public -private partnerships, how federal funds are used for a voucher program, the Cap Metro "Pickup" and Paratransit program; and the transition process of using federal funds from fixed bus route system to microtransit service. He then provided the following other options: move forward with a rideshare voucher system using only City funding, where an additional City employee would be needed to manage the qualification process and working with the rideshare company; pursue an additional third party alternative for paratransit service; or seek a paratransit service option with Cap Metro and CARTS. Fought noted the existing program's performance and how it has shown that the City demographics do not support a transit system. He stated that he would rather walk away. Fought has the following responses to staff's 3 questions: Question 1 no; Question 2 is not applicable; and Question 3 is generally no, but possibly provide a grant to non-profit who wants to take on the task. Pitts stated that he overall agrees with Fought. Discussion among Jonrowe, Reed, and Julie Mazur from Capital Metro related to the possibility of using a paratransit option only. Jonrowe stated that she doesn't want to pare down services. She added that she supports option two as it will be needed as the City continues to grow. Hood stated that agrees with Fought and Pitts, and fine with doing paratransit only. Triggs noted that he is very disappointed that there has be no effort to change what doesn't work, and if the City had a bus system that worked a mobility bond might not be as high of a need. He added that the work hasn't been done to find out where buses need to go, and the City will need a transit system someday due to growth. Calixtro stated that she agrees with Jonrowe and she likes the service and wishes that it could work. She provided the following answers to staff's three questions: Question 1 = yes; Question 2 = curious about costs for an additional employees that would work with CapMetro; Question 3 = the City is spending too much money on GoGeo, and she is worried about those that use the service to go to work. Mayor Schroeder noted a majority of consensus was to not move forward with rideshare but pursue paratransit services and look into options. David Morgan, City Managers, responded that staff will seek options through local non-profit and pursue what the services would look like. Mayor Schroeder asked what the City was doing prior to GoGeo and asked that staff provide that at future update. Fought asked for an update on what is required by law. Hood stated that he more of an advocate for non-profit but wants to pursue options. Jonrowe stated that she has concerns about cancelling GoGeo in a workshop meeting without voting on a regular meeting. Mayor Schroeder confirmed that staff will comeback with options for paratransit and those options would be on a regular meeting agenda for a vote. Morgan noted that it will be important for Council to take an option on current GoGeo service with action at a regular meeting. He added that the action could be to move to another service option. B. Review and discuss the City Council Visioning Session and resulting governance guidelines, strategic initiatives, and goals -- David Morgan, City Manager and Ron Cox, Ron Cox Consulting Morgan introduced the item and reviewed the areas of emphasis for the Council goals as governance, growth, housing, economic development, and downtown. He then introduced Ron Cox with Ron Cox Consulting. Cox presented and reviewed the following: the process to date; what governance is about; why members ran for Council; what attributes the members bring to Council; Mayor's leadership philosophy; and how Council will lead. Discussion between Cox and Council related to how Council handles perceived problems; access that Council members have to answers and solutions; and how Council members review items related to downtown that as it is one district but affects the City as a whole. Cox resumed his presentation and reviewed the following: how Council will communicate; Council's expectations for staff; staff's expectations of Council; governance initiatives; council vision statement; key elements of the Council vision; key elements of the Council mission; planning session SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) process; areas of emphasis; implementation plan; and next steps. Morgan reviewed the areas of emphasis starting with governance and noted the desired steps of confirming Council/City Manager roles, equipping the Council to be successful, and communication and engagement with citizens and board members. He then reviewed the area of growth and noted the desired steps of proactively plan for growth, ensure financial capacity to manage growth, develop and manage water supply sources and treatment capacity for future growth, and maintain high customer service levels. Morgan reviewed housing and the desired steps to establish an affordable housing policy, establish a multifamily housing policy that encourages mixed -use development, establish a policy determining the residential/neighborhood commercial mix in targeted areas within the City to protect commercially zoned property ensuring economic development, encourage the development of executive housing, establish strong development standards, ensure quality housing products, and establish incentives to encourage annexation and development. General discussion between the Council and staff about clarifying homeownership versus rental; possible incentives or ways to encourage certain developments; impervious cover; negative connotations associates with different terms; affordable housing; and how to note these comments in the Council goals. Morgan resumed and reviewed economic development and the desired steps to promote a viable workforce development program, promote industrial and commercial growth in targeted areas, business retention programs, promote business recruitment programs, and foster regional cooperation with area governmental partners — county, schools, and surrounding areas. He reviewed downtown and the desired steps to enhance and manage the continued development of downtown and enhance partnerships for downtown. Hood asked that the City partner with Preservation Georgetown. Morgan reviewed the implementation and next steps as: confirm the City Council Strategic Initiatives and Goals, City staff will develop specific action steps and an implementation timeline to accomplish Council's goals, the action steps will be reviewed and confirmed by City Council, and the Strategic Initiatives, Goals, and Action Steps will be reviewed with the City Council on a quarterly basis with a deeper dive at least once a year. Cox thanked Council for their participation. C. Continued from the February 9, 2021 Workshop: 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 Davila -Quintero presented the item and provided review of the February 9, 2021 workshop. She noted the Tree Preservation, Removal, Mitigation feedback noting that no changes are to proposed terms and recommended amendments with two new items for consideration: 1) Consider allowing smaller trees (smaller than six inches) to be counted as credit trees; and 2) explore the option of allowing trees planted on residential lots as on -site replacement trees. Davila -Quintero provided the amendment review process and then explained street yards, gateway and parking and that there are five specific issues relating to the street yard, gateway and parking landscape requirements with the following issues and solutions identified to be addressed: artificial turf on residential property, landscaping for auto display areas, gateway overlay district boundary, and street yard requirements for large street yards. She noted that the complete list has been included to the agenda packet and that new terms were recommended for two specific issues. Davila -Quintero then reviewed the current and proposed terms for street yard landscape requirements and thresholds and conflicts between signage, utilities and easements, and landscape requirements. She reviewed screening and water conservation noting that two specific issues relating to requirements for landscaping that may be installed on site with the following issues and solutions identified addressed: screening requirements for waste containers, and implementation of water conservation efforts for non-residential landscape. Davila -Quintero noted that the complete list has been included to the agenda packet and new terms were recommended for one specific issue. She then provided the proposed terms for water conservation efforts for non-residential development and noted the public review that was completed in January 2021. Davila - Quintero stated that public comments received were generally very positive. She noted the following considerations based on public comments received: consider allowing new trees on residential lots as on -site replacement trees; tree mitigation fee is more cost effective than planting new tree and revise mitigation fee to encourage preservation or more on -site planting; provide list of recommended trees for tight areas, parking, sidewalks, and buildings, as well as low water users (Development Manual); allow artificial turf on playscapes and recreational fields that are not always screened from the road or adjacent property; tree preservation requirements may cause issues for large industrial sites; support 3rd class of tree protection; and clarification on proposed amendments. Davila -Quintero provided the following possible next steps: Option 1 — complete current issues; Option 2 — include new issues; and Option 3 — executive amendment on new issues. She noted that staff is requesting the following feedback: City Council concurrence on proposed terms and recommendations; and for the new items/direction, two options (1) incorporate now in current amendment (delay in current process) or (2) bring back as a future amendment. Discussion between Pitts and Davila -Quintero related to the executive amendment process, artificial turf, and review by the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee. Pitts preferred Option 2. Hood agreed with Option 2. Triggs preferred Option 2. Fought preferred Option 2. Discussion between Calixtro and Davila -Quintero regarding possible savings to the City for doing this process. Calixtro preferred Option 2. Jonrowe preferred Option 2. Mayor Schroeder noted that Council had opted unanimous to move with Option 2. D. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ending December 30, 2020 -- Nathan Parras, Assistant Finance Director Parras presented the item and reviewed the first quarter background and General Fund revenue including Sales Tax, Property Tax, Planning and Development revenue, Parks and Recreation revenue, EMS revenue, Sanitation revenue, franchise fees, and return on investment. He provided the General Fund expenses including personnel and operations and the Electric Fund revenue. Pitts and Parras discussed the ease of reporting in the new financial system and changes in the General Fund from previous years to current. Parras explained the Electric sales revenue, Electric Fund net purchased power, Electric Fund purchased power, Water Fund revenue, Water Fund operating revenue, and Tourism Fund revenue. Council had no questions or comments. Mayor Schroder recessed at 4:03 p.m, for Executive Session to begin at 4:15 p.m. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update - Hughes Claim Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - GREX Water Well - Berry Creek Interceptor 1-3, Parcels 4 and 14 Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Competitive Matters — Purchased Power Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Access Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Secretary - City Attorney - Approval of appointment of Assistant City Attorney Approved by the Georgetown City Council on_ 1 t_ z6z Date I MY