The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 09.28.2021 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas S eptember 2 8, 2 02 1 The Georgetown City Council will meet on September 28, 2021 at 3:00 P M at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease 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 J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. The Geor getown City C ouncil is now mee ting in pe rson. A quor um of the City C ouncil will be in atte ndanc e at the Geor getown City C ouncil Chamber s locate d at 510 West 9th Str ee t Ge orge town, TX 78626. It is possible that one or mor e Counc il me mber s may attend via video Confe re nc e using the Zoom clie nt. F ac e masks ar e e nc our aged when attending in-per son. U se of profanity, thre atening language , slander ous re mar ks or thre ats of har m ar e not allowed and will re sult in you be ing imme diately re moved fr om the mee ting. If you have questions or ne ed assistanc e, ple ase contact the City Se cr etar y’s offic e at c s@ge orge town.org or at 512-930-3651. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A P resentation and update regarding the TRG and San J ose Neighborhood P lans -- Susan Watkins, Neighborhood and Housing P rogram Manager, and Nat Waggoner, Assistant P lanning Director - Long Range B P resentation and discussion regarding potential options to assess convenience fees to customers utilizing credit cards for monthly utility bill payments -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director and Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director C P resentation and discussion regarding the revised purchasing policy for purchases of Goods and Services for $50,000.00 and under -- Edward O’Neal, Support Services Manager D P resentation and discussion regarding attendance and compensation of the Mayor and City Council -- Skye Masson, City Attorney Exe cutive Se ssion Page 1 of 120 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: Consul tati on w i th 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 Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty - Berry Creek Interceptor P hases 1-3, P arcel 14 (Saragusa) -- J im Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters - P urchased P ower Update Sec. 551.087: Del i berati on Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject Flex P ower - P roject Triangle - P roject Steel Tube Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 120 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop September 28, 2021 S UBJEC T: P resentation and update regarding the TRG and San J ose Neighborhood P lans -- Susan Watkins, Neighborhood and Housing P rogram Manager, and Nat Waggoner, Assistant P lanning Director - Long Range I T EM S UMMARY: P lanning staff will provide an update on the progress of the San J ose and TR G neighborhood plans. B ackground The San J ose and TRG Neighbo rhoo d P lans proje c t kicked off in May 2021 with the first Ste e ring Co mmittee meeting for e ach neighborho od. The project schedule and scope were reviewe d and the Steering Committees provided input on goals and methods for effective public o utreach as well as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to each neighborhood. The first community meeting for San J ose was held on J une 30th and on J uly 1st fo r the TRG Neighborhood. At this first meeting, info rmation was gathered from the community through c onsultant led activities that fo cused on the vision for the neighborhood, historic assets, transportation and housing concerns, land use and public investment priorities. In addition to each Steering Committee personally reaching out to inform neighbors, public outreach for this meeting included flyers, yard signs and social media posts in both English and Spanish. The second community meeting was held on September 1st for the San J ose Neighborhood and on September 2nd for the TR G Neighbo rhoo d. The input gathered at the first community meeting was confirmed and ac tivitie s were conducted to collect community input on a range of po ssible recommendations and solutions for the issues and concerns from the 1st community meeting. P ublic outreach for the 2nd public meeting was expanded, based on Steering Committee feedback to include post card notices of the meeting to all addresses in both neighborhoods. The full consultant summary of input from the second public meeting is available in Exhi bi t 1. Next steps AP D Urban P lanning and Management is analyzing existing conditions and input from the Steering Committee and community and drafting recommendations for the neighborho od plans. A third public meeting will be he ld in November to report out the specific recommendations for each neighborhood and gather input on priorities. Additional background is found at https://2030.georgetown.org/neighborhood-plans/. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: A contract with AP D Urban P lanning and Management for consulting services for $200,000 was approved on April 13, 2021, for the development of neighborhood plans for the TRG and San J ose neighborhoods. S UBMI T T ED BY: Susan Watkins, AIC P, Neighborhood & Housing P rogram Manager AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation Exhibit 1 - C onsultant S ummary of C ommunity Meeting 2 Page 3 of 120 SMALL AREA PLAN UPDATE TRACK RIDGE GRASSHOPPER (TRG) & SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOODS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 Page 4 of 120 PRESENTATION TEAM •Susan Watkins, Neighborhood & Housing Program Manager •Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Director –Long Range Page 5 of 120 PRESENTATION AGENDA •Progress to date •Neighborhood priorities •Next steps Page 6 of 120 FEEDBACK REQUESTED •Do the steps taken to build consensus around vision, goals and recommendations support the intent of the small area plan process? •Do you need any additional information or discussion on any of the recommendations presented as part of this presentation? Page 7 of 120 PROGRESS TO DATE Page 8 of 120 PROJECT TIMELINE Community Meetings Plan Process SC Meetings Page 9 of 120 PUBLIC OUTEACH Flyers Post Cards Social Media Homeowner 1234 Address St. Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 10 of 120 SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD PRIORITIES Page 11 of 120 •Preserve and promote San Jose as a safe, quiet neighborhood with caring neighbors, through information sharing and intentional engagement •Celebrate San Jose as a place of culture and history •Support access to homes, San Jose Park and Annie Purl Elementary through improved traffic, parking and sidewalk solutions •Enable San Jose residents to stay in the neighborhood and promote compatible development and investments in rehabilitation and infrastructure SAN JOSE PLAN SCOPE Page 12 of 120 Community Meeting 1 •Vision and goals •Hispanic culture •Enhance greenspace •History •Multi -generational property ownership •Self-sufficient •Transportation •Maple and San Jose •Concerns for safety both for residents and emergency management •Housing •Desire for low density residential •Property tax increases and deferred maintenance •Public Investment •Address flooding issues •Maintain character of neighborhood •Prioritize community eventsPage 13 of 120 Community Meeting 2 •Vision options •Goals •Recommendations for: •Historic Assets •Transportation •Land Use •Housing •Programs Page 14 of 120 VISION San Jose is a historic, multigenerational, safe neighborhood close to the Downtown Square that celebrates and protects its Hispanic heritage, residential character, and community assets like San Jose Park, San Jose Community Church and the historic altar to San Jose. Page 15 of 120 GOALS Conservation •Protection of long term-homeowners •Promoting investment in community assets in and preserve historic and cultural assets that highlight the TRG •Celebrating the community’s Hispanic history and culture Page 16 of 120 GOALS Accessibility •Supporting infrastructure that improves drainage and reduces flooding •Improving pedestrian infrastructure in the neighborhood •Increasing access to youth recreation and programs •Support traffic and parking improvements Page 17 of 120 GOALS Restoration •Providing investment in new and existing housing programs •Encouraging the development of additional greenspace •Promoting neighborhood safety and stability Page 18 of 120 HISTORIC ASSETS •San Jose Statue •Maldonado Grocery •Lopez Grocery •Unidos Club Activities •Community Activities •Important People and Events Page 19 of 120 HOUSING DESIGN Building Material •Vinyl and limestone Number of Stories •One to 1.5 floors Architectural Style •Minimal traditional •Craftsman •Ranch Garages •Attached •No garage •Carport Page 20 of 120 TRANSPORTATION Physical Improvements •Speed awareness signage •Sign relocation/tree trimming •Bulb outs/chicanes •Enhanced pedestrian crossings Education •Police enforcement •Enhanced striping •Educational signage •Neighborhood discussion Page 21 of 120 PROGRAMS Issues Identified Possible Recommendations Supported by Neighborhood History Multi -generational property ownership Self-sufficient neighborhood Heritage trail Public art that highlights the history of Hispanic culture of the neighborhood Incorporate local history into a marketing and branding campaign Incorporate neighborhood history into the naming of trails and park amenities Youth Programming Prioritize community events Programs that focus on college readiness Job training Soccer goals Outdoor recreation opportunities Page 22 of 120 PROGRAMS Issue Identified Possible Recommendations Supported by Neighborhood Housing Desire for low density residential Property tax increases and deferred maintenance Maintain character of neighborhood Homeowner rehab program Property tax assistance Homeowner education Will creation for property disposition New development regulation Neighborhood association Flooding and stormwater management Address flooding issues Increase maintenance Curb and gutter improvements Passive recreation programming in the floodplain Additional flood monitoring Page 23 of 120 PROGRAMS Issue Identified Possible Recommendations Supported by Neighborhood Greenspace and Recreation Maintain character of neighborhood Prioritize community events Sidewalks on east and west sides of San Jose Park A passive park with walking trails and benches Additional parking More gazebos at San Jose Park Community Festivals and events Urban garden with raised beds Page 24 of 120 TRG NEIGHBORHOOD PRIORITIES Page 25 of 120 TRG PLAN SCOPE •Protect TRG long term residents by reducing and removing challenges to staying within the neighborhood •Identify and preserve the key character defining components of the neighborhood and ensuring compatible new development •Improve mobility including transportation and parking, sidewalks and streetlights •Maintain and promote TRG as a place of culture and history •Maintain and promote TRG as a safe place to live •Maintain public spaces and infrastructure Page 26 of 120 Community Meeting 1 •Vision and goals •Affordability •Historic preservation of existing heritage, culture and diversity •History •Identification of historic and cultural assets •Transportation Concerns •Pedestrian safety •Scenic Dr and Railroad Ave speeding •Special Event parking and parking at Blue Hole •Housing Concerns •Property tax increases and deferred maintenance •Desire to maintain low density residential •Public Investment Priorities •Housing and resident retention •Safety •Pedestrian and biking infrastructure •Youth engagement and programmingPage 27 of 120 Community Meeting 2 •Vision options •Goals •Recommendations for: •Historic Assets •Transportation •Land Use •Housing •Programs Page 28 of 120 VISION The TRG neighborhood will be a safe, healthy and diverse multigenerational community that promotes and protects its rich and varied heritage, residential character, and cultural community assets for future generations and all citizens of Georgetown. Page 29 of 120 GOALS Community Conservation •Protection of legacy homeowners from displacement •Invest in and preserve historic and cultural assets that highlight the TRG •Create and preserve affordable housing options for sale, rental, and multi - family where appropriate development can occur •Identify and preserve key character defining building components to ensure new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood Page 30 of 120 GOALS Infrastructure •Address parking issues in the neighborhood •Improve sidewalks and pedestrian access to and through the neighborhood •Increase safety and access to and through the community by addressing traffic concerns Innovation •Bring together TRG residents, organizations, and businesses to collaborate for the betterment of their community •Enhance the development of parks and trail amenities in the neighborhood •Create solutions to support people without stable housing to uplift neighborhood safety and wellbeing. Page 31 of 120 HISTORIC ASSETS Page 32 of 120 TRANSPORTATION Physical Improvements •Enhanced pedestrian crossing •Sign relocation/tree trimming Education •Speed awareness signage •Enforcement Page 33 of 120 LAND USE & HOUSING DESIGN •Retain residential areas •Commercial uses along corridors and in southern area of neighborhood •Character defining features include mostly one story, traditional styles Page 34 of 120 PROGRAMS Issues Identified Possible Recommendations Supported by Neighborhood Housing •Housing and resident retention •Property tax increases •Deferred maintenance •Desire to maintain low density residential •Ensuring new development is cohesive with the existing fabric •Homeowner rehabilitation programs •Property tax assistance •Will creation for property disposition •Homeowner education •New development regulation •Neighborhood association Historic Preservation Preserve the historic culture of the community •Incorporate neighborhood history into the naming of trails and park amenities •Create policies/programs that link historic preservation and economic development by prioritizing the creation and preservation of minority owned businesses and jobs Page 35 of 120 PROGRAMS Issues Identified Possible Recommendations Supported by Neighborhood Mobility and Pedestrian Improvements •Traffic and speeding •Parking issues •Pedestrian and mobility safety •Traffic calming along Scenic •Street lights for areas lacking visibility •Sidewalks on residential streets Youth Programming •Support youth growth and development •Programs that focus on college readiness •Social gatherings focused on youth Greenspace •Safety •Maintain parks and greenspace •Urban garden •More lighting in parks and on trails Page 36 of 120 NEXT STEPS Page 37 of 120 NEXT STEPS •Technical work (Sept –Oct) •Transportation Existing Conditions •Vulnerability Analysis •Market Scan •Land Use and Zoning recommendations •Preservation Analysis •Stakeholder engagement (Sept –Oct) •Steering Committees (Sept –Nov) •Community Meeting #3 –November 10th & 11 th •Council update –Implementation review -December Page 38 of 120 FEEDBACK REQUESTED •Do the steps taken to build consensus around vision, goals and recommendations support the intent of the small area plan process? •Do you need any additional information or discussion on any of the recommendations presented as part of this presentation? Page 39 of 120 PMT MEETING September 12, 2021 Georgetown Small Area Plans Page 40 of 120 2 AGENDA •Community Meeting Summary •Public Meeting #2 Outline and Questions •Next Steps Page 41 of 120 3 San Jose Results Page 42 of 120 4 Community Meeting Sign-In Results Page 43 of 120 5 Community MeetingNeighborhood Vision Page 44 of 120 6 Goals Page 45 of 120 7 History Page 46 of 120 8 Transit Page 47 of 120 9 Urban Design Page 48 of 120 10 Programs Page 49 of 120 11 Programs Page 50 of 120 12 Programs Page 51 of 120 13 Community Concerns 1.San Jose remaining single family 2.Focusing just on the Hispanic Culture of the community Page 52 of 120 14 TRG Results Page 53 of 120 15 Community Meeting Results 14% 11% 5% 14% 14% 42% HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE SURVEY? Social Media Word of Mouth Mailer Yard Sign Steering Committee Member Other 78% 5% 17% IN TRG, ARE YOU A… Homeowner Renter Business Owner Other Page 54 of 120 16 Community Meeting Results The future of the TRG will continue to be a diverse and accessible community with a rich heritage, celebrated cultural assets and historic character, beautiful parks and natural amenities, and multigenerational residents and their families that live, enjoy, and thrive as part of preserved Historic Georgetown. 11 The TRG neighborhood will be a safe, healthy and diverse multigenerational community that promotes and protects it’s rich and varied heritage, residential character, and cultural community assets for future generations and all citizens of Georgetown. 20 Additioanl Responses If you do not like either vision statement, please write your own below. The future of the TRG neighborhood will continue to be diverse, safe, healthy & a multigenerational community where its cultural history of the original residents will be honored, respected & protected from developers coming in & taking advantage by building huge expensive homes that are as much as $600,000 1 VISION STATEMENT Page 55 of 120 17 GOALS GOALS Support Does Not Support Protection of legacy homeowners from displacement 29 1 Invest in and preserve historic and cultural assets that highlight the TRG 28 0 Create and preserve affordable housing options for sale, rental, and multi-family where appropriate development can occur 23 3 Identify and preserve key character defining building components to ensure new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood 24 0 Address parking issues in the neighborhood 23 0 Improve sidewalks and pedestrian access to and through the neighborhood 25 0 Increase safety and access to and through the community by addressing traffic concerns 27 0 Bring together TRG residents, organizations, and businesses to collaborate for the betterment of their community 26 0 Enhance the development of parks and trail amenities in the neighborhood 25 1 Create solutions to support people without stable housing to uplift neighborhood safety and wellbeing.24 3 Community Meeting Results Page 56 of 120 18 1.Blue Hole Park/Historic Carver School •Limited amount of people should be allowed at park at specific times. Should be required to park at parking garage not neighborhood •Carver was a segregated school & Blue Hole was always a naturally beautiful place, but it is more so now. •DON'T TEAR DOWN CARVER THAT MEANS MORE TO US THEN YOU WILL EVER KNOW, YOU DESTROYED EVERY HISTORY SCHOOL IN TOWN, SAVE CARVER!!! •Blue hole is where many black locals were baptized…I believe my great grandma attended Historic Carver •Our family enjoys this park daily 2.Chautauqua Park •Great park to visit •It is a nice quiet little park •Childhood park for me and my friends growing up 3.Madella Hilliard Community Center •Meetings are often held at the center; they do breakfast & meals on wheels. 4.GCCMA Shotgun House •A gem in our neighborhood •A small museum that house photographs, cultural artifacts, they sometimes exhibit the work of black artists •Historic museum that showcases local history 5.Boy & Girls Club/ Old Carver School/ Juneteenth Park Celebration •Before the school the park was there & the Juneteenth celebrations included a lot of the surrounding towns, there were baseball games (adult & children) men/women & children, free BBQ as well as food being sold, games (cards, dominos, cake walk, apple dunking), basketball & a dance at the end of the celebration. •DON'T TEAR DOWN CARVER THAT MEANS MORE TO US THEN YOU WILL EVER KNOW, YOU DESTROYED EVERY HISTORIC SCHOOL IN TOWN, SAVE CARVER!!! •Where Juneteenth was held…black high school during segregation…safe haven for current local youth Community Meeting Results HISTORIC ASSETS Page 57 of 120 19 6.Willie Hall Center •The meeting place of the GCCMA, they also did have tutoring & other programs for children. •Safe haven growing up, various summer camps and youth enrichment programs, tutoring 7.Stonehaven Apartments •Low-income apartments •Section off 18th Street as well as Hart •More people live in the 18th Street section, but neighborhood families live in both sections •“The Circle” 8.Other –Important People, Events, Gathering Spaces •This is more a question than a fact, was the location of the Belford Lumber company (1891-1967) physically located all or partially in the TRG neighborhood? Is so, that is a historical asset. I had heard that Timber and Forest Streets were named because of their proximity to the lumber company. •Masonic lodge. Hispanic school on w 10th. Montgomery park. •Boundaries of recognized historic areas to include TRG & San Jose neighborhoods •Used to be “RGT” in that order Community Meeting Results HISTORIC ASSETS Page 58 of 120 20 1.Macedonia Baptist Church •It's now a new building but the church is one of the historical black churches that is over 100 years old •Historic black church 2.Wesley Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church •Is the only existing historical black church that has its original structure and is also over a hundred years old •Historic black church—connected to AME’ism which is historic •152 YEARS OLD. OLDEST BLACK CHURCH •Celebrates its 152nd church anniversary. Has been a staple to the neighborhood 3.St. Paul United Methodist Church •It also has a new building building but it to is one of the historical black churches that is well over a 140 years old. •Historic black church 4.Church of the Holy Spirit •Is mainly a Hispanic church, but they have hosted other minority churches as well as let them have church there. •Historic Latino church 5.Iglesia El Buen Pastor •I don't really know anything about this church other than I think it is a Hispanic church •Historic Latino church •Historic museum that showcases local history 6.Friendly Will Missionary Baptist Church •It also has a new building and it to is a historical black church that is over a hundred years old. •Historic black church 7.Calvary Hill Baptist Church •Is another historical black church, again not in it's original building but I believe it is over a hundred years old and it is a family church. •Historic black church—great grandpa pastored there 8.Iglesia Getsemani Cladic Pentecostes Community Meeting Results HISTORIC ASSETS Page 59 of 120 21 Community Meeting Results TRANSPORTATION Page 60 of 120 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Speed Awareness Signage Traffic Control Signs Bulb Out Chicane Pinch Points Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Sign Relocation/Tree Trimming Roundabouts Transportation Physical Improvements YES NO Community Meeting Results Page 61 of 120 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 Enhanced Stripping Speed Awareness Signage Neighborhood Discussion Sign Relocation/Tree Trimming Educational Signage Police Enforcement Other - Lower Speed Limit Transportation Education Strategies YES NO Community Meeting Results Page 62 of 120 24 12 11 6 4 2 11 21 6 11 16 11 9 10 11 15 11 Community Meeting Results HOUSING Page 63 of 120 25 Community Meeting Results LAND USE 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1. Single Family Detached 2. Duplex/Townhouses 3. Dining/Entertainment 4. Health Facility/Pharmacy 5. Mixed Use (Residential + Commercial) 6. Office/Commercial What types of development do you think is appropriate for TRG Area A Area B Area C Page 64 of 120 26 Community Meeting Results PROGRAMS HOUSING STRATEGIES Homeownership Rehab Program: Examples include financial assistance for emergency repairs, and potential code violations to promote safety.These programs would focus on promoting safe structures for long-term homeowners. 24 Property Tax Assistance: These programs address any increases in property taxes to ensure homeowners can stay in their homes.19 Will Creation for Property Disposition: Connecting residents to low-cost services to create a will for property owners who do not currently have one.16 Homeowner Education: Providing education on the existing housing programs in the City of Georgetown, such as homestead exemptions, and the Home Repair Program.19 New Development: Through regulation, ensure new development is like the existing character of the neighborhood.17 Neighborhood Association: Assist in creating a TRG neighborhood association.17 Page 65 of 120 27 Community Meeting Results PROGRAMS HISTORIC PRESERVATION The design and implementation of a cultural heritage trail would provide residents and tourists with an easy-to-follow path of neighborhood landmarks.20 Incorporate local history into a marketing and branding campaign that emphasizes the area’s rich cultural heritage.12 Investment in public art that highlights the history and Hispanic culture of the neighborhood.12 Incorporate neighborhood history into the naming of trails and park amenities.19 Host exhibits in open space and parks.6 Create policies/programs that link historic preservation and economic development by prioritizing the creation and preservation of minority owned businesses and jobs.17 OTHER –Cemetery/History/i.e.Blue Hole 3 Page 66 of 120 28 Community Meeting Results PROGRAMS GREEN SPACE AND RECREATION A passive park, that connects South San Gabriel River Trail to Downtown 11 An urban garden with raised beds 14 Additional programming at Chautauqua Park 10 Community festivals and events 13 Designated parking for Blue Hole Park 10 More lighting in parks and on trails 16 Page 67 of 120 29 Community Meeting Results PROGRAMS MOBILITY & PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Shared lanes and/or protected bike lanes 10 Round-abouts at certain intersections 6 Permitted residential parking for specific areas 8 Traffic calming along Scenic Drive 17 Streetlights for areas lacking visibility 13 Sidewalks on all residential streets in TRG 18 Page 68 of 120 30 Community Meeting Results PROGRAMS YOUTH PROGRAMMING Programs that focus on college readiness 20 Job training 19 Outdoor educational opportunities 9 Social gatherings focused on youth 14 Programming for youth that ties fun activities to the history and culture of the TRG 13 Page 69 of 120 31 Community Concerns 1.TRG protecting legacy residents from displacement 2.Preserving the historic culture of the community 3.Ensuring new development is cohesive with the existing fabric 4.Pedestrian and mobility safety Page 70 of 120 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop September 28, 2021 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding potential options to assess convenience fees to customers utilizing credit cards for monthly utility bill payments -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director and Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director I T EM S UMMARY: When City customers pay various fees on a credit card, there is a corresponding expense to the City through the card program. The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Council with an overview of the history of credit card fee expenses and how they have changed over time. Staff is seeking Council’s feedback about options to pass on or absorb credit card convenience fees going forward. Amount and structure of fee programs vary across City departments. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Sharon P arker AT TAC HMENT S : Description C C F ee P resentation Page 71 of 120 Credit Card Fee Expenses Council Workshop September 28, 2021 Page 72 of 120 Agenda •Background on how credit card fee expenses have changed •Background on City’s past approach to credit card fees •Reminder on new approach for Planning/Inspection Related Fees in FY2022 Budget •Introduce options for Water Impact Fees –seek Council feedback •Introduce options for Utility Bill Related Fees –seek Council feedback •Time to renew credit card processing contract for Customer Care •Seek feedback on approach for smaller scale departments •Outline next steps Page 73 of 120 History of Credit Card Fee Expenses Citywide •Budgeted annually in the Joint Services Fund, Non-Departmental Cost Center •Traditionally allocated out to customer care •Next slides show data on Citywide total expense past few years and how it breaks down by department •Usage, and therefore expense, has increased over time Page 74 of 120 Credit Card Fee Expense History - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Credit Card Expense History ($)2013 –My Permit Now (Planning/Inspections) begins accepting credit cards 2014 -Chisholm Trail Special Utility District Acquisition 2020 –Pandemic starts Page 75 of 120 Credit Card Fees Citywide by Fund/Department ($) Credit Card Fee YTD Sept 2021 Total Revenue Collected via card Total Card Fees Fee as % of rev 100 Animal Services 54,543 1,948 3.57% Fire 27,290 1,828 6.70% Library 36,726 2,536 6.91% Municipal Court 259,776 4,492 1.33% Online 339,315 5,468 1.61% Parks 4,626,290 41,544 0.28% Planning, Inspections, Water Impact Fees 17,881,513 454,832 2.23% Police 36,422 2,023 5.55% Various 0 7,081 0.00% 100 Total 23,261,874 521,752 0.28% 201 CVB 25,444 629 2.47% 201 Total 25,444 629 2.47% 540 Customer Care 82,598,385 749,996 0.91% 540 Total 82,598,385 749,996 0.91% 600 Airport 701,962 29,010 4.13% 600 Total 701,962 29,010 4.13% 610 Electric 42,840 2,161 5.04% 610 Total 42,840 2,161 5.04% Grand Total 106,630,505 1,303,548 0.28% Page 76 of 120 Credit Card Fees Citywide by Fund/Dept (%) Animal Services 0% Fire 0% Library 0% Multiple 1% Municipal Court 1% Parks 3% Police 0% Inspections/Planning/Water Impact Fees 35% CVB 0% Customer Care 58% Airport 2% Electric 0% Page 77 of 120 Past Approach to Credit Card Fees •Absorb the cost for the customer –accepted as a cost of doing business as an organization •Current incentive for autopay with a card/bank account is waive your utility deposit at sign-up •City receives some discounts on fee expenses by card program •Generally speaking –paying by card has less “administrative cost” (staff time, paper processing, etc.) than paying by cash, check, etc., so movement toward card and auto draft is welcome moving forward •What should the City do about the increase fee expense? Page 78 of 120 New Approach for Planning/Inspection Fees •Payment of Planning and Inspections fees by credit card increased in the past few years as a result of the pandemic and overall growth in revenue in these areas •Customers can put on personal or business credit cards for rewards programs, and convenience •This fee area is not eligible for convenience fee discounts from card programs •City’s approach is to increase Planning and Permitting fees across the board by 3% to recoup the cost to the General Fund and avoid setting up the convenience fee •Current merchant fee is 2.56% •First reading of fee ordinances on tonight’s legislative agenda Page 79 of 120 Other Development Fees –Need Council Feedback •Water impact fees, parkland dedication, utility connection and other development revenues collected via My Permit Now software are legally restricted revenues –the City cannot roll the credit card expense into the fee we charge customers •Future issue –City will collect transportation impact fees in the future •Council feedback desired on other development revenues •We could continue absorbing as a cost of doing business •Could group water impact fee card expenses with the water fund and absorb through rates •We could charge a separate convenience fee when customers pay by card •We could stop accepting cards as payment for these other development fees Page 80 of 120 Surrounding Area Comparison Name Service Payments City of Round Rock Planning/Inspections Only accepts card payments up to $1,000; no convenience fee City of Hutto Planning/Inspections No convenience fee City of Cedar Park Planning/Inspections No convenience fee City of Leander Planning $2.00 convenience fee City of Leander Inspections No convenience fee (Planning and inspections departments on two different merchant systems) Page 81 of 120 Utility Billing Page 82 of 120 Utility Billing Introduction •Utility Billing receives credit card fee discounts •Utility Billing has other payment options –in person, check, auto draft bank account, one-time Echeck, one-time credit card, and auto draft credit card •Passing on fees to customers may change behavior toward autopay programs and paperless billing •City wants to encourage paperless billing to save costs on bill printing and mailing •City wants to encourage the most efficient (cost-effective) payment type –auto draft •Credit card processing vendor renewal coming up Page 83 of 120 History •Georgetown Utilities has traditionally considered credit card transaction fees a cost of doing business and recovered the costs through utility rates •Philosophy being that the fee associated with the “guaranteed” payment was less expensive than the added collection costs Page 84 of 120 Electronic Payments History •Last 3 years -electronic payments processed & Cost •14% transaction growth in FY2020 –12% in FY2021 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 (Estimated) E-Checks 79,000 95,000 106,000 Credit Cards 286,000 320,000 360,000 Total Cost $593,000 $667,000 $750,000 $50,000 $250,000 $450,000 $650,000 $850,000 $1,050,000 $1,250,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 (Estimated) E-Checks Credit Cards Total Cost Page 85 of 120 History •As a Utility, Georgetown can participate in Discounted Rate Programs offered by the large branded credit cards (Visa/Mastercard) •Each brand has their own Discount Utility Rate Program •Basically, CC brands offer interchange rates up to $1.50 for qualified transactions +a per item charge by the payment processor •Programs incentivize utilities to absorb the cost on customer’s behalf •By offering reduced interchange rates and/or assessment fees for eligible transactions –plain CC with nominal perks/reward programs -“Qualified” •Not all card types are eligible for the discounted rate, such as robust rewards program cards –“Non-Qualified” •Paymentus includes these non-qual cards in the flat rate fee as long as they do not make up more than 5% of the transactions. Page 86 of 120 Paymentus Renewal–Credit Card Vendor •Current vendor term is set to expire in December 2021 (3-year initial contract with 2 annual renewals (12/2018 –12/2023) •Paymentus partners with the utility billing system to provide seamless bill presentment, notification, and payment options to customers •Interfaces directly with the billing system to automate and streamline processes, removing manual entry of transactions •Current Paymentus Fee Structure •Credit Cards $1.95(a)per $750 transaction (max $25,000) •eChecks $0.45 per transaction •Recurring ACH/eCheck $0.07 per transaction (a)Proposed renewal included a $0.10 reduction to $1.85 Page 87 of 120 Credit Card Cost Recovery Models •Absorbed Cost Model –City pays fee •Convenience Fee Model –Customer pays fee Cost Recovery Option City Pays (CC) (per transaction) Billed Increments Maximum Payment Amount City Pays (ACH/echeck) (per transaction) City Absorbed Cost $1.85 $750 $25,000 $0.45/.07 Cost Recovery Option Customer Pays (per transaction) Billed Increments Maximum Payment Amount Customer Pays (ACH/echeck) (per transaction) Customer Fee (100%)$3.25 $250 $250 $0.45/.07 Page 88 of 120 Surrounding Area Comparison on Utility Convenience Fees •In 2020, Denton Municipal Electric removed their $4.95 convenience fee with the goal of boosting their electronic payment adoption rates. They were successful -seeing a 61% increase. Name Utility Service Payments City of Boerne Electric/Water > $3,000 –3% fee Greenville Electric Electric < $500 $2.25 $500 -$1,000 $4.50 $1,000 -$10,000 $8.00 City of Round Rock Water 2.85% (minimum $3.00) City of Cedar Park Water $2.00 New Braunfels Utility (NBU) Electric No Charge *Max payment allowed/per month $1,500) City of Taylor Water $3.00 Atmos Gas No Charge Page 89 of 120 “Ideal” Customer •Ideal Customer would: 1.“Opt-In” to Paperless billing (Saving City postage costs) 2.Initiate a recurring eCheck payment for their monthly utility bill (lowest credit card fee cost per transaction) Page 90 of 120 Ways to encourage “Ideal” customers •Incentivize paperless billings •Automatically “opt-in” new customers to paperless billings. (started initiative 9/1/21) •Paperless Billings Communication Campaign underway (July21 –Dec21) •Social Media Posts •Instructional “How -to” videos (English/Spanish) added to website •Provide a credit on annual anniversary of opting -in to paperless billing •Adding a fee for customers choosing paper bills •Contest with prizes –Partner with credit card/bank draft vendor (Paymentus) •They have done this with their other customers Page 91 of 120 Council Feedback/Direction on Utility Billing •Which model should we consider moving forward on credit card fees: •Absorbed Cost Model •Convenience Model •Feedback on steps to encourage “ideal” customers: •Incentives vs Disincentives Page 92 of 120 Next Steps Page 93 of 120 Other Departments •Other departments with credit card fees on a smaller scale: •Animal Services, Fire, Library, Court, Parks, Police, CVB, Airport, Electric permits •Many different services performed and types of customers •All on different merchant processing systems •Parks is the next largest segment of revenues/fees, and currently performing a cost recovery study •What approach should the City take for these areas? •Continue absorb into rates/fees •Or pass through to customer –would need to meet with each department to explore further and come back to Council Page 94 of 120 Next Steps •Action item on Planning and Inspections fees on tonight’s agenda •Follow through on Council feedback on: •other development fees •utility billing •Other smaller scale departments •Transition the budgeting of credit card fee expenses away from the Joint Services Fund and into each Fund/Department area for better cost of service maintenance in FY2023 Page 95 of 120 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop September 28, 2021 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding the revised purchasing policy for purchases of Goods and Services for $50,000.00 and under -- Edward O’Neal, Support Services Manager I T EM S UMMARY: The City Charter Article IV Section 6.11 Confers upon the City Manager, by the Council, general authority to contract for expenditures that do not exceed the amount required by State competitive bidding/purchasing laws. The current amount required by the state to participate in a competitive bidding is more than $50,000 of an estimated contract. The City staff is proposing to change the requirements for solicitation of quotes to meet the change of the purchasing environment for general Goods or Services due to increases in labor and material of suppliers and city staff. Reducing steps in the purchasing process will allow departments to focus on providing their services to the public. The current requirement in the fiscal and budgetary policy is to solicit three (3) quotes between $3,000 and $50,000. As the City has embraced "Lean" process review throughout our work, Finance sought ways to make the purchasing process more efficient for our customers in the departments. The proposed change would move the requirement of 3 quotes to $25,000 and $50,000. One quote would be required for less than $25,000. The General Government and Finance Advisory Board reviewed this proposal at their August 25, 2021 meeting. The board’s feedback was to change the recommendation to require 2 quotes for purchases less than $25,000 instead of one quote. We do not feel this change to the recommendation will improve efficiency for our customers in a meaningful way. Staff seeks Council's feedback on the original recommendation of one quote for less than $25,000, or an alternative level of less than $15,000 and one quote. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: . S UBMI T T ED BY: Sharon P arker AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation Page 96 of 120 Purchasing Policy Revisions to $50,000 and under policies Page 97 of 120 Purpose Establish a policy allowing the City to operate more with the “Speed of Business”! 1 Give departments more flexibility on procurements of goods and services in the department’s area of expertise! 2 Be good stewards of the taxpayer’s time and resources while dealing with the fast- changing landscape of material shortages and price escalations! 3 Page 98 of 120 Background – State Law Chapter 252 Purchasing and Contracting Authority of Municipalities •Sec. 252.021 -Before a municipality enters a contract that requires expenditure of more than $50,000, a city must: •Comply with sealed bids or proposals, use reverse auction procedure, or a method described by Chapter 2269. •Sec. 252.0215 –Competitive Bidding in relation to HUBs •Expenditure of more than $3000 but less than $50,000, shall contact at least two historically underutilized businesses on a rotating basis, based on list by State Comptroller •Sec. 252.0222 –General Exemptions •There are exemptions to this chapter including : Emergencies due to Health and Safety of residents, Professional Services and utility services Page 99 of 120 City Code of Ordinances Sec. 6.11 Purchase Procedure •The Council may, by ordinance, confer upon the City Manager authority to contract without further approval of the Council for all budgeted items not exceeding the amount required by the State’s competitive bidding/purchasing laws. •All contracts for expenditures involving more than the amounts required by the State’s competitive bidding/purchasing laws must be approved by the Council. •The Council shall develop and adopt purchasing policies to encourage and utilize local business and service providers Page 100 of 120 Mid-level Purchases Purchases that are not tied to a contract Purchased goods or services that do not exceed the amount which requires compliance with the State competitive bidding/purchasing laws. Purchases may be sole source Purchased items may have quotes from a Cooperative program Page 101 of 120 Current Policy $0 -$3000 Get One Quote – Use P-card or Requisition $3000.01 -$50,000 Search for HUBS, get two Quotes if Available, if no HUBS are available, Solicit three written quotes. Requisition must be used. Page 102 of 120 Percent of PO issued by Category Purchases $3000 or less, 70% Purchases $3000.01 to $25K, 25% Purchases $25, 000.01 to $50K, 3% Purchases greater than $50K, 2% % of POs Issued Purchases $3000 or less Purchases $3000.01 to $25K Purchases $25, 000.01 to $50K Purchases greater than $50K Page 103 of 120 Percent of dollars Purchased by category Purchases $3000 or less, 8% Purchases $3000.01 to $25K, 22% Purchases $25, 000.01 to $50K, 11% Purchases greater than $50K, 58% % of Dollars Purchases $3000 or less Purchases $3000.01 to $25K Purchases $25, 000.01 to $50K Purchases greater than $50K Page 104 of 120 Current Challenges for Departments Time consuming process Delays in repairs Increased cost of goods and services Departments are Subject matter experts and know where to go Most procurements are one-time purchases Page 105 of 120 Proposed Policy Page 106 of 120 Mid-Level Purchases – July 1 –Jun 30 2618 1021 86$2,721,234.65 $11,436,862.05 $19,854,601.29 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 $0.00 $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 Purchases $3000 or less Purchases $3000.01 to $50K Purchases greater than $50K July 2020 –July 2021 # or orders $ of orders Page 107 of 120 Recommended Policy - $25K level 2618 915 106 86$2,721,234.65 $7,642,544.71 $3,794,317.34 $19,854,601.29 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 $0.00 $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $3000 or less $3000.01 to $25K $25000.01 to $50K Greater than $50K Orders from July 2020 –July 2021 # or orders $ of orders Page 108 of 120 Summary Recommendation •By changing the thresholds, the City will be able to; •Complete projects quicker •Save City staff time to process orders •Save the city administrative cost •Save opportunity cost by allowing City staff to focus on additional city business •Staff may still elect to solicit 3 or more quote if desired Page 109 of 120 GGAF Board Feedback •GGAF recommends using a two-quote requirement for purchases up to $25,000, instead of one •Staff believes this will not meaningfully reduce the amount of administrative burden •Staff reserves the right to request multiple quotes for newer product on any purchase or participate in a formal solicitation Page 110 of 120 Alternative Recommendation - $15K level 2618 787 234 86$2,721,234.65 $5,123,924.96 $6,311,985.09 $19,854,601.29 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 $0.00 $5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $3000 or less $3000.01 - $15K $15,000.01 - $50K $50,000 plus Orders from July 2020 to July 2021 PO Count $ value Page 111 of 120 Questions or Comments? Page 112 of 120 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop September 28, 2021 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding attendance and compensation of the Mayor and City Council -- Skye Masson, City Attorney I T EM S UMMARY: The City Council has requested review of the attendance and remuneration policies related to the Mayor and Council. At the City Co unc il workshop o n August 24, 2021, City Council directed staff to bring back proposed language updates to the City Council meeting pro c e dure s to provide for a fifty percent atte ndance requirement at all City Council meetings and provide a second option also requiring attendance at boards and commissions meeting. In addition, proposed language to the compensation ordinance is included. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N/A S UBMI T T ED BY: Rachel Saucier AT TAC HMENT S : Description C ity C ouncil C ompensation and Attendanc e Page 113 of 120 City Council Attendance & Compensation Presented by Skye Masson, City Attorney September 28, 2021 Page 114 of 120 Overview •Types of City Council Meetings (Sec. 2.24.010) •Simple attendance requirement proposed language •Option 1—applies only to three types of CC meetings •Option 2—applies to Boards and Commissions meetings as well •Proposed update to compensation ordinance •Questions/Directions to Staff City of Georgetown Page 115 of 120 Types of Meetings Currently, three types of meetings defined: 1.Regular Meetings. Regular meetings will be held on the second and fourth Tuesday nights of each month. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers commencing no earlier than 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise posted. The Council may reschedule or cancel meetings in order to avoid conflicts, holidays and vacation schedules. 2.Workshop Meetings. The purpose of workshop meetings shall be for the Council to discuss or to explore matters of interest to the City without taking specific action beyond general direction to City staff. 3.Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called at any time by the City Secretary upon the request of the Mayor, the City Manager or three Councilmembers. Notice of special meetings shall be given to all members of the Council who are not absent from the City; provided, however, that any member of the Council who did not receive notice of a special meeting may, either before or after such special meeting is held, waive such notice. It shall not be necessary to give notice to a Councilmember of a special meeting held at a time when such Councilmember is absent from the City, and it shall not be necessary for such absent Councilmember to waive such notice. City of Georgetown Page 116 of 120 Option 1 Add the following to Section 2.26.010 (directly after definition of meeting types) Attendance at City Council Meetings by Council Members is integral to the success of the City and public service as a Council Member.City Council Members are required to attend a minimum of 50 percent of all City Council Meetings as those are defined in Subsection A.If a Council member is unable to attend a meeting due to a different city business obligation,the absence will be considered excused. City of Georgetown Page 117 of 120 Option 2 Add the following to Section 2.26.010 (directly after definition of meeting types) Attendance at City Council Meetings and Board and Commission meetings by Council Members is integral to the success of the City and public service as a Council Member.City Council Members are required to attend a minimum of 50 percent of all meetings of Boards and Commissions to which they are appointed and of City Council Meetings as those are defined in Subsection A.If a Council member is unable to attend a meeting due to a different city business obligation,the absence will be considered excused. City of Georgetown Page 118 of 120 Compensation Ordinance Add Subsection D below to Sec. 2.16.010. –Compensation of Officers: A. The Mayor shall receive compensation of $1,800.00 per month. B. The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive compensation of $1,400.00 per month. C. The Council members shall receive compensation of $1,400.00 per month. D. No officer shall receive compensation if during the month preceding, he or she violated the City Council attendance requirements pursuant to Section 2.26.010 of the Code of Ordinances. City of Georgetown Page 119 of 120 Direction to Staff Questions? Next Steps: 1st Reading October 12 2nd Reading October 26 City of Georgetown Page 120 of 120