HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.22.2021 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 22, 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; Amanda Parr, Council Member District 1; Shawn Hood,
Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council
Member District 4; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District 7. Kevin Pitts, Council
Member District 5; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6 were absent. A quorum of
Council Members was present in Council Chambers and a roll call was performed.
Hood joined during Item A via Zoom.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed changes to the Downtown and Old Town
Design Guidelines -- Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner
Bostick presented the item and reviewed the Council direction from 2019. She then stated the
requested feedback from Council as follows: do the proposed changes address Council's
direction and stakeholder feedback; is additional outreach or public engagement needed; and
is additional information or clarification needed for the adoption process. Bostick then
provide the completed engagement actions from Fall 2020/Winter 2021 as follows: focus
groups (10 meetings); November Tuesday Talks Webinar (199 views); HARC meeting on
October 22, 2020; Main Street Advisory Board meeting on November 13, 2020; Main Street
Breakfast Bites meeting on December 3, 2020; City Council Workshop on December 8, 2020;
virtual open house on December 16, 2020 (129 views & 104 surveys); State of the City on
January 28, 2021; and the project website (861 views) and social media presence (782 views).
She noted the following stakeholder feedback: Design Guidelines are sometimes too vague,
but flexibility is needed for creativity; better guidance for compatible additions and infill
construction; our users would benefit from more plain and clear language and better
illustrations; materials could be considered for their durability as well as their aesthetic
quality; new buildings need architectural details, especially in high -traffic areas; and signage
needs good quality materials and good design. Bostick explained the consultant analysis as
follows: organize the document to help users more quickly access the information specific to
their project; reduce repetitive information to streamline the document and reduce confusion;
more clearly separate guidelines for commercial and residential structures; provide
illustrations and guidance specific to Georgetown and to the variety of architectural styles in
Georgetown's historic districts; provide more guidance for building lighting; provide more
clear and specific guidance for sign illumination and signage for corner buildings; and
provide clear guidance for compatible site design according to the context. She reviewed the
proposed changes starting with a new format for chapters, organization and layout with a
new title, cover page, and images; chapters were reduced from 14 to 5; duplicated guidelines
were removed; and simplified navigation for guidelines by location and project type. Bostick
noted the new content for architectural style illustrations with prominent historic
architectural styles in Georgetown have been included with descriptions and illustrations;
and architectural styles that help relate approval criteria to the structures we see in our
historic overlay districts. She reviewed the new requirements for commercial infill,
residential infill and additions, demolition and relocation, and signs. Bostick stated that
engagement is expected to be completed by Spring of 2021. She then reviewed the initial
requested feed back as well as feedback on the following Council directed topic updates:
commercial infill; residential infill (new review requirement); demolition/relocation; in -kind
materials; and signage. Bostick provided the next steps as follows: HARC recommendation
on the amended Design Guidelines to City Council scheduled for June 24, 2021 regular
meeting; Council first reading and public hearing scheduled for July 13, 2021 regular meeting;
and Council second reading scheduled for July 27, 2021.
General discussion among Council and staff, including City Manager David Morgan and
Planning Director Sofia Nelson, related to overall improvement of the document; ability to
navigate the document online; use of the term "looming' and clarification of the term;
illumination styles for signs; new illumination materials; Council's desire to make
preservation easier; the limited vacancy of historic properties in downtown; transition zones
from residential to commercial and what the City will do to protect the integrity of the
residential areas; infill construction; the need to preserve the fabric of the community; how
expanding the size of historic homes will be addressed; breezeways in historic homes; overall
positive feedback of the proposed changes; and where in the document the definition of
"looming" can be found.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding a proposal from the YMCA on participation in a future
joint facility between the YMCA, GISD and the City of Georgetown -- David Morgan, City
Manager; and Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Danny Meigs, Founders Group Chairman for the Georgetown Family YMCA presented to
Council and acknowledged other board members including Mark Dietz, YMCA of Greater
Williamson County - Metro Board Member. Meigs reviewed the City's overall goal to provide
recreation, the City's growth on the west side, partnership opportunities, and core services.
He added that the Williamson County YMCA has a long history of partnering with
municipalities and ISDs including facilities in Round Rock, Cedar Park, Hutto, and Burnet.
Dietz then presented and posed the question, "What if the YMCA, GISD, and City of
Georgetown partnered to build a west side recreation/aquatic center?" He then noted land
that could be used for the project that is located near McCoy Elementary School off of Shell
Road. Dietz added that currently the planned facility on the west side mirrors many of the
same amenities as the Georgetown Rec Center and will include health and fitness areas for
adults; children/teen areas; indoor/outdoor aquatics components; and one gymnasium. He
stated that the following amenities that area offered at the current Georgetown Rec Center,
are currently not in the funding plan for the west side facility: racquetball courts, multi-
purpose rooms, indoor running/walking track, and two gymnasiums. Dietz outlined how
this partnership could come together with the following proposed projected budget: outdoor
pool costing $15 million; shared use (GISD/Public) indoor pool/lobby/locker rooms costing $6
million; YMCA dry areas costing $8 million; for a total of $29 million. He stated that the GISD
competitive outdoor pool would be an estimated construction cost of $15 million and 100%
funding responsibility of GISD bonds. Dietz noted the shared use (GISD/Public) indoor
pool/lobby/locker room would be an estimated construction costs of $6 million and funding
by 50% cost sharing with GISD contributing $3 million and YMCA contributing $3 million.
He the noted the YMCA dry areas would be an estimated construction costs of $8 million with
the YMCA responsibility being $5 million and possibly $3 million coming from the City. Dietz
then provided the identified funding sources as follows: GISD funds $18 million; YMCA
funds totaling $8 million; with a total of $26 million; and a shortfall of $3 million, unless the
project size increases to include a second gym, or other amenity not included in current plan.
He stated that the YMCA and GISD will be responsible for all operational costs related to the
center and provided reasons for the City to partner with the YMCA and GISD for the
construction of a municipal recreation/aquatics center. Dietz noted that if a City constructed
and operated a new recreation center, there are some industry standard assumptions that
apply and could be a potential total investment over 20 years costing $53 million. He noted
the potential City/YMCA/GISD partnership efficiency projections would be a total investment
over 20 years totaling $3 million, depending on amenities. Dietz noted the common questions
that come up with these partnerships as follows: isn't the YMCA a membership organization;
and can anyone utilize a municipal facility that is operated by the YMCA. He answered those
by saying that yes, the term "member" is synonymous with "annual user" which is the
terminology typically utilized in a municipal recreation center; and community members can
choose to pay an annual or a day pass fee. Dietz stated that the YMCA provides financial
assistance (scholarships) to those who wish to access the facility and utilize the programs and
services but are unable to pay due to financial hardship. He then reviewed what would need
to be done if the City wanted to participate and offered the following timeline: in June, a
presentation to City of Georgetown; in July through August, have the GISD Board determine
the bond package; and in November GISD would have a bond election and if the bond
election is successful, begin the joint pre -construction process and work on
construction/operating agreements, and if the bond fails, the YMCA and City would continue
discussions.
General discussion on the possible location of the facility located more on the SE side; the
current site being based on land already owned by GISD; successfully ability of the YMCA to
make this type of agreement work well; school bond election; how kids and other users could
be shuttled from the east side to the west side; how the possible site would be impacted by
future growth; how the current Parks Master Plan is under review; Council goals related to
being a good partner; cost savings for the City; continued information to come on the project
as things advance; flexibility of location; and Council's desire to consider a partnership for
this and continue to discuss best possible location.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the projected peak water usage, conservation efforts
and current efforts in water treatment and resource planning -- Chelsea Solomon, Water
Utility Director
Solomon presented the item and reviewed the Water planning arena including Water
resources and system capacity. She then explained the 2020 usage patterns on yearly and
peak week, the current growth by calendar year, growth areas, resource projections, treated
water capacity, and existing Water planning measures.
Discussion among Gonzalez, Solomon and Morgan regarding clawback options, South Lake
Treatment Plan as currently planned, updated growth projections, and conservation.
Solomon reviewed opportunities for the City with conservation strategies including
enforcement of wrong day and water waste ordinances, and rebates and incentives with a
total $300,000 annual rebate budget available. She then noted the Summer 2021 operations
including the Drought Contingency Plan where the City entered into Phase 1 in 2019/2020
with time of day restrictions on outdoor watering. Solomon reviewed the Aquifer Storage
and Recovery (ASR) summary and next steps including Phase 3 where the City will address
geologic uncertainties with seismic analysis costing $2,275 per mile, pilot drilling, strategic
importance of pipelines needed, testing of a well at BRA Granger, water quality analysis, and
strategy recommendations within the next 18 months. Solomon explained the groundwater
resources to Date and current CCN transfers in process.
Discussion between Mayor Schroeder and Solomon related to the BRA assessment and how
it will involve reaching out to smaller districts.
Solomon noted the following next steps: Master Plan Update to address growth with an
emphasis on resource development; expedited capital projects; how staff will continue to
work with Brazos River Authority and City of Round Rock on regional water solutions; how
staff will determine the feasibility of ASR; and the need to continue to work with Neighboring
Communities.
Schroeder stated that he was concerned with the BRA numbers, as the City is not the only
entity pursuing resources to the east. Solomon responded that she has expressed those same
concerns to the BRA.
Discussion between Parr and Solomon related to resources not currently be accessed due to
infrastructure needs.
Mayor Schroeder recessed at 3:42 p.m. for a brief break. Mayor Schroeder called the
meeting back to order at 3:49 p.m.
D. Presentation and discussion on the proposed FY22 Water and Wastewater Capital
Improvement Plan -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director
Wright presented the item beginning with Wastewater maintenance and detailed the needed
EARZ improvements totaling $2 million and lift station upgrades totaling $550,000. He
provided an overview of the Wastewater lift station and linework improvements for Wolf
Ranch Lift Station and the Interceptor Lift Station decommissioning. Wright noted the
Wastewater treatment plants improvements for a Cimarron Hills expansion and Pecan
Branch expansion. He noted the Wastewater treatment plants needed capital maintenance
for the San Gabriel WWTP and Dove Springs WWTP.
Triggs asked why the lift station is being decommissioned. Wright responded that gravity
lines are more cost effective and it is a risk and needs to be taken offline. He added that the
station has outlived its useful life but will salvage anything that is usable.
Wright reviewed the needed Water improvements that total $43,150,000 starting with
miscellaneous improvements for SCADA upgrades, system resiliency, and a
Water/Wastewater Master Plan Update. He then noted the Water linework that was needed
including Carriage Oaks transmission, CR262 waterline, Aviation Dr/I-35 connection, and
Western District line upgrades and relocates. Wright reviewed needed repairs and
improvements to Water pumps and tanks including tank rehabilitation and the Stonewall
Ranch Pump Station. He provided a review of repairs and improvements needed at Water
treatment plants including Southside Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation, South Lake Water
Treatment Plant, and South Lake Water Treatment Plant sizing.
Fought noted that the Water Board supported doing a larger project to get done sooner due
to demand, and possibly going with one contract to complete entire process. Gonzalez,
Triggs, Parr, and Hood agreed with doing the maximum the City can do at this time.
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director presented financing options for large plants, modeled debt
repayment options, and debt options compared to projected growth. She then reviewed the
preliminary projections assuming 25-year bonds and comparing customer impacts from level
to deferred options.
Gonzalez asked if the numbers accounted for growth. Wallace responded yes.
Wallace then asked for feedback from Council on the following: does Council have a
preference on the term and structure of debt for large treatment plants; does Council prefer
20 years or 25; level payments or deferred structure payments; does Council have a preference
on the range of rate impact for the median customer; fullest rate impact up front; and would
Council like to grow into the rate impact over time?
Gonzalez stated that he would like 25 years or 30 years if possible, based on the type of project.
He added that he doesn't like deferred payments as it can skew the budget, and he is good
with 30 years overall for new and existing customers. Wallace stated that 30 years is possible.
Gonzalez stated that it will cost more over life of the loan but will limit initial impact to payers.
Triggs stated that he is a proponent of match funding, and all of the options provided are
reasonable and economically prudent. He added that he agrees with the 25-year option,
whichever way is smoother to keep the same payments through term is preferred.
Fought, Parr, Hood and Mayor Schroder all agreed to a 25-year term with level payment
amounts.
E. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Statement of Qualifications (SOQs) Policy
and process -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager; and Ed O'Neal, Support Services
Manager
O'Neal presented the item and asked that Council consider providing the following feedback:
Does Council agree with the goals and recommended changes to the City's selection,
awarding, and contracting of Professional Services? He reviewed how the City addressed the
selection and awarding contracts noting that there are currently two ways the City selects and
awards contracts to firms for Professional Services related to Architecture, Engineering and
Surveying as defined by Texas Government Code 2254; request for qualifications solicitation
are always used for construction architecture; and this Presentation will focus on the pre -
qualification list for engineering, landscape architecture, and surveying. O'Neal provided
background on the State Law, specifically Texas Local Code 2254 Sub Chapter A. He noted
the background on the request for qualifications noting that the City has a request for
qualifications solicitation document used to request statements of qualifications for ten
disciplines within the practice of architecture, engineering and surveying, and this is a
continuous ongoing process to accommodate new firms wishing to do business with the City.
He then reviewed the current procedure for pre -qualified list, current contracting process,
and process and procedure challenges. O'Neal noted the goals of an improved process as
follows: satisfy the Texas state law of Professional Service by selecting the most highly
qualified firms on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications, then negotiate
fair and reasonable price; meet City Council priorities and expectations; transparency of
selection process and rankings; efficient process for department to contract with qualified and
competent firms; and fair process for business community wanting to do business with the
City. He then explained the vetting process to meet goal expectations which will include
regularly schedule request for qualifications (RFQ) versus open end RFQ score and ranking
by category, and selection for the pre -qualified list. O'Neal provided the timeline to complete
the policy as follows: on September 21, 2021 bring policy to Council for review and discussion;
establish meetings with Stakeholders to draft policy and procedure; meeting biweekly to
monthly until completion of policy and procedures; in September, bring policy to Council to
finalize; in October, have the RFQ advertised; in November have SOQs received; in
December, have the SOQs reviewed; in January have the SOQ/MSA (master service
agreement) results approved/shared by Council, which could be optional; in February have
the initial task orders negotiated with selected firms; in March have the Task Orders to
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and Council for approval; in April the design
begins on first 2021 Road Bond Projects; and establish meetings with stakeholders to draft
policy and procedure, which could be biweekly to monthly until completion of policy and
procedures. He the reiterated the needed Council feedback.
General discussion among Council and staff related to the positive transparency; approval on
the proposed timeline; if any categories needed to be added; possible cost savings; the
possibility of outsourcing any of the process, and overall positive feelings towards the
proposed process.
Mayor recessed at 4:44 p.m. for Executive Session to start at 5:00 p.m.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas
Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to
action in the regular session.
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
- Proposed settlement of PEC Franchise Notice of Violation
- HB 1925 Opinion
- Group Home Regulations Opinion
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Berry Creek Interceptor 1-3, Parcels 10 and 12 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Competitive Matters — Purchased Power Update
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Rivery TIRZ
Adjournment
Approve y the Georgetown City Council on L4 1,31 c) Q
Date
Jos , hroe ayor Attest: Ci Secretary