HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.13.2020 WorkshopN otice of M eet ing of the
Governing B ody of the
C ity of Georgetown, Texas
O ctober 1 3 , 2 0 2 0
The G e orgetown City Council will meet on Octo ber 13, 2020 at 2:30 P M at Teleco nference
The City o f Geo rgetown is committed to c ompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A).
If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
AD A, re asonable assistance, adaptations, o r acco mmodations will be provide d upon request. P lease
contac t the City Secretary's Office, at le ast three (3) days prior to the sche duled meeting date, at (512)
930-36 52 or City Hall at 808 M artin Luthe r King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78 62 6 for additional
informatio n; TTY users route through Re lay Texas at 711.
J oin fr om a P C , M ac, i P ad, i P hone or A ndroid de vi c e , pl ease c lick this
U R L to join:
https://ge orge towntx.zoom.us/j/94838641608?
pwd=c D V pWnR O ZU o5 Q n R 4 M G V mc St0 S F NsQ T09
Webi nar I D : 948 3864 1608
P assc ode : 208349
De sc r iption: C ity C ounc il Wor kshop and R e gular M e e ting for Tue sday,
O c tobe r 13th, 2020.
O r to joi n by phone dial:
(346)248-7799 O R (253)215-8782 O R (669)900-6833 O R (301)715-8592
O R (312)626-6799 O R (929)205-6099 Toll F r ee (833)548-0276 O R
(833)548-0282 O R (877)853-5257 O R (888)475-4499
Webi nar I D : 948 3864 1608
P assc ode : 208349
Citize n c omments ar e ac ce pte d in thr ee differ ent for mats:
Submi t the fol lowing for m by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the me eting and the
City S e c r etar y wi ll re ad your c omme nts into the r e c ording during the ite m
that i s be i ng discussed –
https://r e c ords.ge orge town.or g/F or ms/A ddr essC ounc i l
You may l og onto the mee ti ng, at the l ink above , and “r aise your hand”
dur i ng the i tem. If you are unsur e i f your devic e has a mi cr ophone please
Page 1 of 94
use your home or mobile phone to dial the toll fr e e numbe r. To J oin a
Zoom M e eti ng, c lick on the li nk and join as an atte ndee . You will be aske d
to e nte r your name and e mail addre ss – this is so we c an i de nti fy you whe n
you ar e c all ed upon. A t the bottom of the we bpage of the Zoom M ee ting,
ther e is an option to R aise your H and. To speak on an i tem, si mply c lick on
that R ai se Your H and option onc e the i tem you wi sh to speak on has
opene d. When you ar e c alle d upon by the M ayor, your devic e will be
r emote ly un-mute d by the A dministrator and you may spe ak for thre e
minute s. P le ase state your name cl ear ly upon be i ng al lowed to speak.
Whe n your ti me is ove r, your de vi ce wi ll be mute d agai n.
As anothe r option, we are ope ning a ci ty confe re nc e r oom to allow publ ic
to “watc h” the vir tual me e ting on a bigge r scr ee n, and to “rai se your
hand” to spe ak from that publ ic de vi ce . This Vie wing R oom i s locate d at
City H al l, 808 M ar tin L uthe r K ing J r. S tre et, Community R oom. S ocial
Distanc ing wi ll be str ic tly e nfor ce d. F ac e masks ar e r e quir ed and will be
provi de d onsi te. U se of pr ofani ty, thre atening language, slande rous
r emar ks or thre ats of har m ar e not al lowed and wil l r esul t in you being
imme di atel y re moved fr om the me eti ng.
If you have que sti ons or ne e d assistanc e, ple ase contac t the C ity
Se cr e tar y’s offi ce at cs@ge or ge town.org or at 512-930-3651.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A P re sentatio n and update regarding the Co de Compliance Departme nt -- J ack Daly, Community
Services Director and Brad Hofmann, Chief Code Compliance Office
B P re sentatio n, discussion and possible direction regarding the City’s re spo nse to C O VID-19 --
J ac k Daly, Community Services D irector
C P re sentatio n, update, and possible dire ction regarding the Downtown Co st of Service P roject and
enhanced services to include an ambassador o r concierge program -- Ray Miller, Director P ublic
Works, and Teresa Chapman, Environmental Services
D P re sentatio n and discussion regarding progress made on the J une 23 , 20 20 , Council direction to
staff for the development of neighborho od plans for the San J ose and Track Ridge Grasshopper
(TR G) neighborhoods -- Sofia, N e lson, P lanning Director; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator;
and Nat Waggoner, Long Range P lanning Manager
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 5 51, Government Code, Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be disc ussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
E Sec. 5 51 .07 1: Consul tati on wi th Attorney
Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
- Litigation Update
- P E C Franchise
Sec. 5 51 .07 2: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty
Page 2 of 94
- Riverhaven -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 5 51 .08 6: Certai n P ubl i c P ow e r Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters
- P urchased P ower Update
Sec. 5 51 .08 7: Del i berati ons R e gardi ng Economi c Devel opment
- P roject LTI
- P roject Doo r
- Rivery TIR Z
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R o b yn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary fo r the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas , d o hereb y certify that
this No tic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet,
G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily ac ces sible to the general pub lic as required by law, on
the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained s o posted for
at leas t 72 c ontinuous ho urs p receding the s ched uled time o f said meeting.
__________________________________
R o byn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 3 of 94
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
O ctober 13, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and update regarding the Code Compliance Department -- J ack Daly, Community Services Director and
Brad Hofmann, Chief Co de Compliance Office
I T E M S UMMARY:
Staff will provide an update o n the Code Complianc e department, as well as seek City Co uncil concurrence on the
approach to enforcement and proposed ordinance changes in the future.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
J ackson Daly
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentatio n
Page 4 of 94
CODE COMPLIANCE UPDATE
October 13, 2020
Page 5 of 94
Overview
•Introduction
•2020 Accomplishments
•2021 Preview
•Approach to Enforcement
•What Governs Code’s Work?
•Discuss proposed ordinance changes
Seeking City Council concurrence on the approach to enforcement
and proposed ordinance changes in the future.
Page 6 of 94
Introductions
•Brad Hofmann, Chief Code Compliance Officer
•Malcolm Brown, Code Compliance Officer
•Eric Finn, Code Compliance Officer
•Amber James, Code Compliance Officer
•Mike Rosenwinkel, Code Compliance Officer
•[vacancy]
Page 7 of 94
Mission Statement
To provide extraordinary customer service through
education and communication, to partner with our
citizens and business owners to gain compliance
with local code ordinances, and to have a positive
impact on the safety, appearance, and value of our
community.
Page 8 of 94
2020 Highlights
•Rebranding
•Step program
•Certifications
•Performance
•Time in position
•Process mapping
Page 9 of 94
2021 Preview
•MyPermitNow Module for Code
•Continued process improvements
•Improved reporting
Page 10 of 94
•Both proactive and complaint-based
•Ensure equal enforcement within
several blocks when notices are sent
•Total violations written in:
•2020 –1,480*
•Total cases sent to Court –60
•4% of cases
•2019 –3,052
•Total cases sent to Court –138
•4.5% of cases
*Lower case count related to COVID-19 and reduced
staffing levels in 2020
Approach to Enforcement
Page 11 of 94
•Emphasis on
Education
•348 tall grass and
weed complaints
•315 (90%)
received notice of
violation
•27 (7.75%)
abated by
contractor
Approach to Enforcement
TALL WEEDS/GRASS
23%
TRASH & DEBRIS
22%
PERMIT VIOLATION
10%
JUNK VEHICLE
10%
PARKING UNAPP SUR
9%
OPEN STORAGE
7%
OBSTRUCTION
4%
UDC VIOLATION
4%
MAINTENANCE CODE
3%
NUISANCE VIOL
2%OTHER
6%
VIOLATION TYPES FOR FY2020
Page 12 of 94
•Code of Ordinances
•UDC
•International Property Maintenance
Code
•2015 version adopted earlier this
year.
•Common Ordinance Violations
•Bandit signs*
•Tall grass and weeds
•Trash & Debris
•Permit Violations
•Junk Vehicle
•Parking on Unapproved Surfaces
*Not included in pie chart on slide 7. More than 1,000 bandit sign violations and abatements in 2020.
•UDC Violations
•Zoning violations
•Tree ordinance
•Other Code Issues
•Noise
•Administrative Warrants
•Trash cans
What Governs Code’s Work?
Page 13 of 94
Ordinance Changes
•Junk Vehicle Ordinance Changes
•Aligns definitions and processes with State law
•Adds aircraft and watercraft to junk vehicle definition
•Allows for the abatement of junk vehicles if no hearing is requested 11 days after notice is received
•This is in alignment with other nuisance provisions which allow for abatement by city forces if owners are not responsive
•When a hearing is requested, allows the Municipal Court to order an abatement (as opposed to just issuing a fine)
•Removes the building standards commission as a body to host a junk vehicle hearing
•Removes duplicative language regarding the municipal court hearing process
Page 14 of 94
Proposed Timeline
•Junk Vehicles
•First reading on Oct. 27
•Second reading on Nov. 10
•Future Ordinance for Review and/or Clean-up
•Tall grass and weeds
•Parking on unimproved surface to include backyard
•Parking of commercial vehicles
•Trash cans
Page 15 of 94
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
O ctober 13, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation, disc ussio n and possible direction regarding the City’s response to C OVID-1 9 -- J ack Daly, Community
Services Direc to r
I T E M S UMMARY:
Staff will prese nt an update regarding the City's re spo nse to C OVID-19 and seek City Council concurrence on
operational changes, public gatherings, and the approach to holiday events.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
J ackson Daly
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
Draft P resentation
Page 16 of 94
COVID-19 UPDATE
October 13, 2020
Page 17 of 94
Overview
•Updates since previous workshop
•Review Governor’s Orders
•Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
•Revisit gatherings and city operations
•Holiday Events
•Upcoming Testing
Seeking City Council concurrence on operational changes,
gatherings, and approach to holiday events.
Page 18 of 94
Updates since previous workshop –July 14
•Expanded outdoor dining pilot on Labor Day weekend
•Opened Blue Hole with alcohol ban
•Pop-up testing sites in Georgetown
•Aug. 18 –20
•Sept. 12 –15
•Volunteers returned to library and animal shelter (following COVID-19 protocols)
•Challenges in Rec. Center
•Expanded hours -Closing at regular intervals for cleaning
•Reduced usage, mask compliance issues
•Recommend revisiting mask rules in Rec. Center (more later)
Page 19 of 94
Updates since previous workshop –July 14
•Reimbursements
•Accepting $106,698.93 for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding this evening
•First reimbursement for period of March 1 –May 31
•Seeking additional reimbursement for $56,000
•CARES funding administered by Williamson County
•Airport
•Equipment to be purchased
•$157,000 (not yet received)
•EMS
•CARES funding to recover lost revenue
•$76,000
Page 20 of 94
Review Governor’s Orders
•Executive Order 29 –“Mask Mandate” –July 2
•Executive Order 30 –“75% occupancy” –Sept. 17
•Executive Order 31 –“High hospitalizations” –Sept. 17
•Reissued updated local mask mandate to correspond to Governor’s Order –
Sept. 22
•Removes provisions within the local order that explicitly tie it to local health data
•Simply allow the Mayor or Council to terminate it, or
•Allow County Judge or Governor orders to supersede it.
Page 21 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
July 2 –
Governor’s
Mask
Mandate
Page 22 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
July 2 –
Governor’s
Mask
Mandate
Data
Dumps
from DSHS
Page 23 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
July 2 –
Governor’s
Mask
Mandate
Page 24 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
Page 25 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
Page 26 of 94
Review of WCCHD Data and Gating Criteria
Page 27 of 94
Revisit gatherings and city operations
•Governor’s Order Requires Mayor Approval for Outdoor Gatherings of More than 10 People, with exceptions
•Exceptions for certain businesses/activities as identified in the Governors guidelines for reopening Texas
•Generally, City has not been approving outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people
•Approved Market Days
•Reviewed as retailer
•Recommendations going forward
•Gatherings
•Issue proclamation requiring event organizers to follow Governor and WCCHD guidance
•Review plans prior to approving events
•City Operations
•Following WCCHD guidance, will modify operations as appropriate based on phases, per city facility
•For example -Relaxing masking requirements at Rec Center in green zone
Page 28 of 94
Holiday Events -Recommendation
•“Virtual” Lighting of the Square event
•Modified Christmas Stroll
•Fewer vendors
•No parade
•No Bethlehem Village
•Fewer Kids Activities
•Disallow events that encourage extended (greater than 15 minutes)
concentrated gatherings of people
•For example: Concerts, fun run
Page 29 of 94
Upcoming Testing (Tentative)
•Pop-up Site at Community Center (9 a.m. –1 p.m.)
•Oct. 7-11
•Oct. 14-16
•Kiosk at Parking Lot north of Library ( 9 a.m. –5 p.m.)
•Oct. 9 -30
Page 30 of 94
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
O ctober 13, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation, update , and po ssible direction regarding the Do wntown Cost of Service P roject and enhanced services to
include an ambassador o r concierge program -- Ray Miller, Director P ublic Works, and Teresa Chapman, Environme ntal
Services
I T E M S UMMARY:
Downtow n Co st o f Servi ce Update:
The “Cost of Service” projec t was c re ate d to de velop a method to ensure that downtown businesses are paying fo r the
solid waste service level they are receiving befo re the City implements any enhanced solid waste services. Througho ut
2019, staff completed a waste audit, generated a list of businesses using the shared dumpster system, developed a
processing and billing method, and c ompleted a service level analysis for eac h business. Staff updated City Counc il in
April 2 01 9, and again in J anuary 2 02 0. On both occasions, City Council asked staff to mo ve forward with finalizing the
Cost of Service pro ject.
Staff was ready to implement new so lid waste rates in M arch but was delayed due to C OVID 19 . Because the waste audit
data was then a year old, and because o ther businesses had opened and/or clo sed, the waste audit was redo ne in Septe mber
2020. Based upo n this updated data, a new analysis comple ted, monthly rates were adjusted based on current rates, and
letters informing businesses of new rates were se nt o n October 2, 2020.
As the new rates take effect, staff is proposing to move forward with othe r programs to assist with managing the waste
downtown. Spe c ifically, staff recommends implementing a pilot program for an Ambassador and/or a Conc ierge
Services on the city blocks that utilize shared dumpster on the downtown square . These blocks, the different enhanced
services, and funding are detailed in the prese ntation. Ray Mi l l er, Di rector P ubl i c Works & Teresa Chapman,
Envi ronmental Servi ces
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
If implemented, the F Y2 1 expe nse will vary from $1 00 ,000 to up to $300,000, for the propo sed Light Ambassador
P rogram ($10 0 K), Enhanced Ambassador P rogram ($200 K), and Concierge Service ($3 00 K). The staff
recommendatio n is to fully fund the pilot program using Do wntown TIR Z re venues for FY21 and, if successful, to
incrementally reduce the TIRZ funding over the FY22 and F Y2 3, until downtown businesse s that are benefiting are fully
funding the enhanc e d so lid waste services in FY24 .
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Teresa Chapman
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
Update C ost o f S ervice w/ Amb as s ad o r and C o nc ierge o verview
Page 31 of 94
Downtown Square Solid Waste Services
City Council October 13, 2020
Page 32 of 94
Presentation Overview
•Update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of
Service Project (SWDCSP) –Notices to Businesses
•Overview of Potential Change in Service Delivery Model for
5 Blocks –Pilot Program
•Ambassador vs. Concierge Service
•Cost Comparison
•Funding Source
•Request guidance from Council on Potential Service
Delivery Change and Funding Source
Page 33 of 94
Update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of
Service Project (SWDCSP) –Notices to Businesses
Scope of Work Approved May, 2019
Objective:Find all pricing inequities and propose method(s) for moving
customers into the correct solid waste rate class
1.Raise revenue to $150,000 to cover cost of service
2.Determine pricing inequities
3.Adjust billing to cover cost of service without a rate increase
Solid Waste Master Plan April, 2019
Because of cost and complexity of options presented, staff
recommended, and Council concurred, to address the Cost of
Service pricing inequities first.
Feb. 26, 2020 –Council directed staff to adjust billing
to cover cost of service without rate increase.
Page 34 of 94
Update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of
Service Project (SWDCSP) –Notices to Businesses
Cost of Service Billing Process (Feb. 2020 Information)
1.Cost of service per individual businesses was developed. Data
varied based on availability but overall included:
▪Waste audit data
▪Business type
▪Materials generated
▪Hours of operation
▪Comparison data
UPDATE: On Friday, Oct. 2, 2020, City mailed letters directly to 55
businesses explaining changes to their monthly solid waste rate
based on 2020 waste audit data. Sixteen (16) of these businesses,
had significant rate increases. City contact information was provided
to allow business owners to meet with City staff to explain the
change in rate.
Page 35 of 94
Overview of Ambassador and Concierge Service
Service
Options
Blocks
Included
Estimated
Cost
Dumpster
Removed
Est. # of
Days
Longevity
Part-time
Ambassador
38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$100,000 Block 38 3 days 3 –5 years
Enhanced
Ambassador
38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$200,000 Block 38 5 days 5 –7 years
Concierge 38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$300,000 + Block 38,
39, & 40
7 days Indefinite
•Ambassador Service is based on number of days and hours
•City can scale up or down as needed
•Weekend Ambassador is minimum service level
Page 36 of 94
Shared Dumpsters
City pays for four sets of
paired shared dumpsters
located on the blocks with the
stars
Blocks with X have their own
containers and are not
included in today’s discussion
Businesses utilizing the shared
dumpsters reimburse the City
for the cost of services
Downtown Square Current Service Delivery
Block 51 Block 52
Page 37 of 94
Downtown Square Potential Service Delivery
Block 52 Block 51
Proposal:
Change from Shared
Dumpsters to Ambassador
Program or Concierge
Program on 5 blocks: 38,
39, 40, 51, and 52
Pilot Program for 1 year
Benefit is reduction in
overflow of dumpsters and
cleaner environment.
Page 38 of 94
Downtown Square Current Status
Without Ambassador Service
Block 40 on 9.7.2020 (behind the old City Hall) at 4:00am
Page 39 of 94
Downtown Square Desired Status
With Ambassador Service
Block 40 on 9.28.2020 (behind the old City Hall) at 4:00am
Page 40 of 94
Ambassador Programs
Page 41 of 94
Ambassador Programs
City, State Date
Started
Area Activity
Seattle, WA 1999 285 blocks Litter collection and empty
receptacles
Detroit, MI 2014 Biz District HWY 75 to
HWY 375 to the River,
to Jefferson Ave
Empty trash, Litter collection,
pressure washing, Eyes and
Ears patrol, Safety Escorts
San Antonio, TX 2009 Public Improvement
District
Litter collection, empty trash,
pressure wash, bird
abatement, beautification etc.
Mission Statements
Seattle: “ensure an inviting, safe and clean urban experience for everyone.”
Detroit: “a physically attractive downtown Detroit that is appealing to existing and
new businesses, employees, residents and visitors.
San Antonio: “a block by block service for maintenance and hospitality. Page 42 of 94
Georgetown Ambassador Program
Option 1: Light Ambassador Assistance
Option 2: Enhanced Ambassador Program
Page 43 of 94
•Utilizes current contract; quick start up
•Add full-sized landfill/recycle enclosure on Block 39
•Removes dumpsters on Block 38; leaves dumpsters on Block 40
•Remove sidewalk receptacles except Big Bellies
Light Ambassador Program: Resources
Page 44 of 94
Block 38 Block 39
Light Ambassador Program: Dumpster Enclosure
Removes shared dumpsters on Block 38;
Adds shared dumpsters to Block 39
Assists managing discarded materials on weekends for Blocks 38, 39,
40, 50, and 51 Page 45 of 94
Light Ambassador Program: Responsibilities
•On-Duty Friday through Sunday; approximately 30 hours
•Includes Block 38, 39, 40, 51, & Block 52
•Keep shared dumpsters from overflowing
•Sweep and pick up litter from around dumpsters
•Assist businesses with getting bags into dumpsters
•Empty receptacles on sidewalks (Big Bellies)
•Collect litter from sidewalks and streets
•Report maintenance & upkeep concerns or challenges weekly
•Data and photograph documentation (before and after pics)
•Safety and security: report suspicious solid waste activity
Page 46 of 94
Enhanced Ambassador Program: Resources
•Everything included in the Light Ambassador Program, plus…
•Increased days/times as needed for Enhanced Ambassador
•Utilizes current contract; quick start up
•Add full-sized dumpster enclosure on Block 39
•Remove sidewalk receptacles except Big Bellies
•Possible 5 days –Wednesday through Sunday
Page 47 of 94
Concierge Service
Page 48 of 94
Concierge Service
Overview
•$300,000 quoted in 2018;TDS said
expect the price to increase based on
the number of blocks and/or number
of businesses
•True Concierge Service -not Based
on the Denton Model (cart service)
•First year would be a pilot to enable
the City to determine actual cost per
business;step program for
businesses to assume full costs
•Would take 3 -4 months to be
operational;could start early next
calendar year Concierge Service
“an individual or a company which
specializes in personal assistance
or other assistance services.”
Page 49 of 94
Concierge Versus Denton Service
Page 50 of 94
Concierge Program
Removes dumpsters from Block 38 & 40
Add a small holding area for each shared services block
Actively manages discarded materials 7 days a week
Block 38 Block 39
Block 40
Page 51 of 94
Concierge Program: Resources
Examples of garbage and
recycling enclosures.
Page 52 of 94
Concierge Versus Denton Service
Page 53 of 94
Service Blocks
Included
Estimated
Cost
Dumpster
Removed
# of
Days
Longevity
Light
Ambassador
38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$100,000 Block 38 3 days 3 –5 years
Enhanced
Ambassador
38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$200,000 Block 38 5 days 5 –7 years
Concierge 38, 39, 40,
51, & 52
$300,000 + Block 38,
39, & 40
7 days Indefinite
All options
•Remove dumpsters from Block 38
•Prepare for full concierge service
•Include litter collection, sweeping, emptying receptacles
•Ability to scale up and/or down
Cost Comparison:
Ambassador and Concierge
Page 54 of 94
City Staff Recommendation:
•Move forward with a light ambassador program as a pilot
program
•Fund through Downtown TIRZ for one year (Up to $100k)
•Ongoing assessment throughout pilot program
•After the one year pilot, transition costs to downtown
business customers
•Transition costs over a three year period to allow businesses
to adjust to new rates
•Long-term:
•Evaluate need to enhance ambassador services based
on trash demands
•Consider a concierge program as needed
Page 55 of 94
Council Feedback
•Does the City Council support implementing the light
ambassador program as a one year pilot?
•Light Ambassador Program
•Part-Time (3 Days/week)
•Following first year begin three year transfer of costs to
downtown business customers
Page 56 of 94
Next Steps
•If City Council supports enhanced service program, the
implementation will include:
•City staff to negotiate with TDS on Contract
Amendment
•Inform Businesses of Change
•Return to Council with Contract Amendment
Page 57 of 94
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
O ctober 13, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion re garding pro gress made on the J une 23, 2020, Council directio n to staff for the
development of neighborhood plans fo r the San J ose and Track Ridge G rassho pper (TRG) neighborho ods -- Sofia,
Nelson, P lanning Director; Susan Watkins, Housing Co ordinator; and Nat Waggoner, Lo ng Range P lanning Manage r
I T E M S UMMARY:
Staff will provide the Council an update on the o utreach and pro ject plan activities complete d with neighborho od
representatives sinc e the August 11th workshop.
Neighborhood represe ntatives partnered with city staff to surve y bo th the San J ose and Track Ridge Grasshopper (TRG)
neighborhoods to gather resident concerns and expectations for a neighbo rhoo d plan. Survey results fo r e ach
neighborhood are attached (Attachment 1 - San J ose Nei g hborhood Ini ti al Survey Resul ts and Attachment 2 -
TR G Nei ghborhoo d Ini ti al Survey Resul ts). The resident input was used to deve lo p objective statements fo r e ach
neighborhood and info rm the plan scope. The pro pose d sco pe was reviewed by the ne ighbo rhoo d leader core teams.
San J ose Neighborho od P lan Scope:
P reserve and pro mo te San J ose as a safe, quiet neighborhood with caring ne ighbo rs, through information sharing
and inte ntional engagement
Celebrate San J o se as a place of culture and history
Support ac c e ss to homes, San J ose P ark and Annie P url Elementary thro ugh improved traffic, parking and
sidewalk so lutio ns
Enable San J ose residents to stay in the neighborhood and pro mo te co mpatible develo pment and investments in
rehabilitatio n and infrastructure
TR G Neighborho od P lan Scope:
P rotect TR G lo ng term residents by reducing and removing challenges to staying within the neighborhood
Identify and preserve the key character defining co mpo nents of the neighborhood and ensuring compatible ne w
development
Improve mo bility including transportation and parking, sidewalks and streetlights
M aintain and pro mo te TR G as a place of culture and history
M aintain and pro mo te TR G as a safe plac e to live
M aintain public spaces and infrastructure
Based on preliminary discussions with planning pro fessio nals, it is estimated that a budget of $60 -90K per plan wo uld
address the outlined o bjectives with a qualified team and complete the planning activitie s below:
Engageme nt o f neighborhood
Docume nt existing co nditions
Evaluate alte rnatives
Develop a layered implementation plan
Impleme ntation o f high impact, short term reco mmendations
Staff is seeking dire ction o n:
Does Council need additional information prio r to proceeding with both small area plans?
Does Council support the proposed scope fo r each neighborhood?
Is this partnership go ing to achieve the vision fo r the small area plan project?
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
The scope of the neighborho od plans will drive the c ost to prepare both plans. P reliminary estimates identify a need for
$200,000 to complete both neighborhood plans.
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Page 58 of 94
Susan Watkins, AIC P, Ho using Coordinator
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentatio n
Attac hment 1 - S an Jo s e Neighborho o d Initial S urvey R es ults
Attac hment 2 - T R G Neighborho o d Initial S urvey R es ults
Page 59 of 94
SMALL AREA PLAN UPDATE
TRACK RIDGE GRASSHOPPER (TRG)
& SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOODS
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP: OCTOBER 13, 2020
Page 60 of 94
THANK YOU
•Thank you to City Council for allowing us to learn more
about key neighborhoods in our community.
•Thank you to neighborhood leaders who embraced the
opportunity and walked with us through their
neighborhoods.
•Thank you to city staff who supported –Keith Hutchison,
Mayra Cantu, Eric Lashley, Gloria Powers, Planning team
Page 61 of 94
PRESENTATION TEAM
•Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
•Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator
•Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
Page 62 of 94
TRG San Jose
NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERS –THANK YOU!!!
Page 63 of 94
People, Place, and Investment
Photo Credit: Community Impact News
Page 64 of 94
HISTORIC GEORGETOWN
San Jose neighborhood
TRG neighborhood
Page 65 of 94
PRESENTATION AGENDA
•Share actions since 8/11/2020 workshop
•Present key neighborhood findings and proposed work plan
scope
•Seek feedback from the City Council on next steps
Page 66 of 94
FEEDBACK REQUESTED
•Do you need additional information prior to proceeding
with both small area plans?
•Do you support the proposed scope for each
neighborhood?
•Is this partnership going to achieve the vision for the
small area plan project?
Page 67 of 94
ACTIONS SINCE AUGUST 2020
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Page 68 of 94
PATH TO PARTNERSHIP
Meet
Listen
Learn
Plan
Ask questions
Be present
Show interest
Trusted
leaders
Concerns
Values
Vision
Develop a
partnership to
co-achieve
vision
Develop a plan
scope
Is this
partnership
going to
achieve the
vision?
Jul Aug Sept Oct
Confirm
Page 69 of 94
SAN JOSE NEIGHBORHOOD
Page 70 of 94
•Founded in 1947
•Original families established a grocery
store and churches, to this day, a
multi -generational neighborhood
•Notable leaders in the neighborhood
served on the City Council and within
GISD, County and US
SAN JOSE -PEOPLE, PLACE & HISTORY
Recuerdos Mexicanos, Williamson
County Museum, 1991.Page 71 of 94
SAN JOSE INITIAL SURVEY
Surveys completed 24
Addresses visited 81
Response rate 30%
Volunteers 11
Spanish only responses 17%
Page 72 of 94
PRIDE AND CONCERNS
Page 73 of 94
SURVEY RESULTS
Page 74 of 94
•The traditional multi -generation households, which have created a
strong sense of place and history are under pressure.
•Close proximity to Old Town and Downtown overlay districts is
creating development pressure within the San Jose neighborhood.
•Opportunity to improve access to information and city services.
•Opportunity to promote the cultural and historical contributions of
the neighborhood for the benefit of the entire Georgetown
community.
INITIAL INSIGHTS
Page 75 of 94
•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 76 of 94
TRG NEIGHBORHOOD
Page 77 of 94
HISTORIC GEORGETOWN
TRG neighborhood
Page 78 of 94
•Many living in this neighborhood were born
and raised and have raised their own families
in this neighborhood since the 1870s.
•The federal urban renewal effort created
widespread demolition and relocation of the
Ridge community starting in the late 1960s.
•Commercial land uses along MLK Street,
county and city government campuses, and
the popularity of proximity to key community
destinations (parks and downtown) have
transitioned a single -family neighborhood into
an area that is experiencing change.
TRG -PEOPLE, PLACE, &HISTORY
Macedonia Baptist Church
Past and Present Day
Source: Texas Historical Commission
Page 79 of 94
TRG INITIAL SURVEY
Surveys completed 91
Addresses visited 417
Response rate 22%
Volunteers 20
Spanish only responses 9%
Page 80 of 94
RANK THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES/CONCERNS
BY IMPORTANCE
Other Responses:
Streetlights
Sidewalks
Public Safety
Homelessness issues
Page 81 of 94
IF THIS PLAN IS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ONE THING, WHAT
SHOULD IT BE?
Page 82 of 94
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE TRG NEIGHBORHOOD?
Page 83 of 94
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 84 of 94
TRG REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNS
•Rapid redevelopment/commercial
encroachment of neighborhood
during time it takes to develop plan
•Legal options/restrictions for
development regulation within the
time period of plan
•Boundaries of neighborhood
•Track portion of TRG (south of 29
to Leander Rd not accurately
incorporated/included)
Page 85 of 94
TRG
•Protect long time residents
and preserve the
neighborhood
•$60-90K
•6-9 months
•Possible short-term
solutions
San Jose
•Preserve the San Jose
neighborhood
•$60-90K
•6-9 months
SUMMARY
Page 86 of 94
FEEDBACK REQUESTED
•Do you need additional information prior to proceeding
with both small area plans?
•Do you support the proposed scope for each
neighborhood?
•Is this partnership going to achieve the vision for the
small area plan project?
Page 87 of 94
Page 88 of 94
safe.
Maintain Safety
Traffic and Parking
Maintain Safety
New Development and rehabilitation
Noise
Infrastructure and City servicesPage 89 of 94
safet y
Hispanic heritage
Page 90 of 94
Page 91 of 94
Page 92 of 94
Page 93 of 94
Page 94 of 94