HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 06.27.2017 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
June 2 7, 2 0 1 7
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on June 27 , 2017 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, 101 E.
7th Street, Georgetown, Texas
The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact
the City Se c retary's Office, at least three (3 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-
3652 o r City Hall at 113 East 8th Street fo r additional information; TTY use rs ro ute through Relay
Texas at 7 11.
REVISE D AGENDA
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Emplo yee Co mpensation, Benefits and Wellness Update -- Tadd Phillips, Human Resource
Dire c to r
B Prese ntation and discussion of the CAMP O/City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study Final Plan
-- Nathaniel Waggoner, AICP, PMP, Transportation Analyst and Andre ina Dávila-Quintero, Project
Coo rdinato r
C Prese ntation on Community Center Fe es and Garey Park Operations -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks
and Recreation Director
D Prese ntation and discussion of Austin Ave. Bridges P ublic Meeting #3 and Enviro nmental
Clearance Pro cess -- Ed Polasek, AICP,Transpo rtation Planning Coo rdinato r
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
E Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
- 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
Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati ons Reg ar di ng Economi c Devel opment Neg oti ati o ns
- Commercial P rojects in the Follo wing Areas
I35 and University Avenue
I35 and Southeast Inner Lo op
Adjournme nt
Page 1 of 115
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that
this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to
the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2017, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the
s cheduled time of s aid meeting.
__________________________________
Shelley No wling, City S ecretary
Page 2 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
Employee Compensatio n, Benefits and Wellness Update -- Tadd P hillips, Human Resource Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Human Resourc e s staff will give an overview of the City's employee compensation, benefits and wellness programs. This
is not an action ite m.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Will be included in presentation
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Co mp ensation, Benefits & Wellnes s Pres entatio n
Page 3 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Budget
Employee Compensation & Benefits/Wellness
Update
Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
Page 4 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Executive Summary
•FY2018 City Manager Proposed Budget will include Compensation & Benefits programs aligned with Fiscal & Budgetary Policy
•Compensation
–Market –annual pay plan review
–Merit -pay for performance for non-public safety employees
–Civil Service Step –follow meet and confer agreements
•Benefits
–Healthy Fund Reserve
–Anticipate maintaining current benefits with no additional contributions from City or employees
•Wellness
–Increased program participation for 2017 calendar year
–Robust programming and opportunities for City Staff
Page 5 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Compensation Overview
•Council Strategy: Attract, hire, develop & retain the best
people, and compensate them for the value they create
•Tactics include establishing and consistently administering
a competitive compensation program based on
performance results
Page 6 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Total Rewards
Page 7 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Compensation Approach
Fiscal & Budgetary Policy
•Competitive Compensation –In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City has implemented a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Program to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of:
–Annual Pay Plan Review –To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, the City will review its pay plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City’s competitive pay plans. (Market)
–Pay for Performance –Each year the City will fund performance based pay adjustments for regular non-public safety personnel. This merit-based program aids in retaining quality employees by rewarding their performance. Pay for Performance adjustments are based on the employee’s most recently completed performance evaluation. (Merit)
–Public Safety Steps –Each year the City will fund anniversary step increases for public safety sworn personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design. (Steps)
Page 8 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Fire & Police
•Fire
–Council ratified Meet & Confer Agreement on June 28, 2016
–Agreement in place July 1, 2016 –September 30, 2019
•Police
–Council ratified Meet & Confer agreement on August 9, 2016
–Agreement in place October 1, 2016 –September 30, 2019
•Agreements specify city comparators & pay philosophy
Page 9 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Market Summary
•In 2016 -Defined Central Texas jobs vs Texas Area
–Where do we recruit and lose employees?
–Most positions (66% of benchmarks) compared to
Central Texas
–Management and specialized municipal professional
positions compared to both Central Texas and Texas
Area comparators
•Industry specific comparators used selectively:
–Bryan Texas Utilities, New Braunfels Utilities, CPS
Energy, LCRA, College Station
Page 10 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Market Comparators
Central Texas
Austin
Cedar Park
Leander
Pflugerville
Round Rock
Williamson County
San Marcos
New Braunfels
Texas Area
Sugar Land
Grapevine
Denton
Flower Mound
Page 11 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Market Summary
•Non-Civil Service job titles -246
•Benchmark job titles-112 (46%)
Preliminary Results:
•Within Market: 72 %
•Below Market:28 %
Page 12 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Merit Pay
•Performance Evaluation tool with 5 tiers
–Needs Improvement
–Below Expectations
–Meets Expectations
–Exceeds Expectations
–Excellent
•One on One meetings between supervisor and
employee
–Mid Year Evaluation
–Fiscal Year-End Evaluation
•Merit based on annual evaluation rating, paid at
the beginning of next calendar year
Page 13 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Planning
•Plan to continue Competitive Employee
Compensation Maintenance Program in order
to attract and retain the best people including:
–Market
–Merit
–Steps
•Specific recommendations will be developed
as part of the City Manager’s proposed budget
Page 14 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Benefits Program
Page 15 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Benefits History
•Self-Insurance began January 1, 2014
•Plan year begins January 1, Fiscal year October 1
•Changed administrator/network from Aetna to United
HealthCare January 1, 2016
–Significant reduction in stop-loss and administrative costs
–Employee experience has been positive
•Expenses significantly under budget in Fiscal 14 & 15
–Right at budget in FY 16
Page 16 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Benefits History
•The largest and most volatile expense to the fund are medical
and pharmacy claims. Fluctuations occur both seasonally and
episodically. Reinsurance, conservative budgeting, and fund
reserves are essential to a healthy program.
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Jan Feb Mar April May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
12 months Net Claims 2016
Page 17 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Vendor Relationships
•Staff works diligently with United Health Care to identify risks
and mitigate costs to the self-insurance fund.
Page 18 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Self Insurance Fund Reserve
•Strong reserve policy and balance
Reserve
Fiscal Year As of September 30th, 2016
Beginning Balance $2,129,907
Revenues $5,873,534
Expenses $5,797,454
Ending Fund Balance $2,205,987
IBNR
10% of annual expense*
$556,400
Premium Stabilization Reserve
10-20% of annual expenses*
$1,112,800
Remaining Balance $536,787
*Annual expenses = claims, admin, and S/LPage 19 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Employee Benefits Program Goals
1.Maximize employee health
2.Assure competitive and current plan offerings
and design
3.Maintain program affordability for City and
employees
4.Facilitate employee plan navigation and
consumerism
5.Compliance and administration
•Staff is working tactical plan built from goals
Page 20 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Current Benefits Update
•Received Rate Pass for 2018 plan year
–Life Insurance & Vision -MetLife
–Short Term Disability/Long Term Disability -
Dearborn
•Based on current and know expense trend and
fund reserve status, we do not anticipate a
need to increase contribution levels from City
or employees next fiscal year.
Page 21 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Planning
•SI Fund cost will be continuously monitored
and projections update through July
•Specific recommendations will be developed
as part of the City Manager’s proposed budget
Page 22 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Wellness Program
Page 23 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Current
•2 wellness sessions annually
•PTO incentive
•Biometric Screening/Assessment –
requirement
•Onsite fitness classes, lunch & learns, wellness
challenges
•Online platform
•S.T.R.O.N.G
Page 24 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Wellness Program Goals
1. Increase Participation
–Biometrics & Overall Program Participation
2. Create link between wellness program incentives
and benefits
–Create premium incentive for participating in the
Health Risk Assessment & Biometric Screenings and for
meeting biometric goals
3. Reduce administrative load of program
–Create online tracking system for programs and
incentives
Page 25 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Page 26 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
FY2018 Planning
•Research incentive structures/options for 2019
plan year
•Continue to work with Bravo on program
design
Page 27 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Questions or Comments?
Page 28 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussion o f the CAMPO/City of Georgetown Williams Drive Study Final P lan -- Nathaniel Waggo ne r,
AICP, PMP, Transpo rtation Analyst and Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinato r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City and CAMPO partnered to develop a plan of actio n for Williams Drive to pro vide safety, efficient transportation
operations, safe accommo datio ns o f all modes of transportation, and land use reco mmendatio ns that support community
needs, future eco nomic growth and establish the corridor as a premier gateway fo r the city and region. The Williams
Drive Study final plan captures the vision o f the community fo r the corridor incorporating rec ommendations that address
the five primary issue s identified: traffic congestion, traffic o perations, barriers to redeve lo pment and reinvestme nt,
aesthetic enhancements, and pe de strian and bicycle facilities. The complete final plan is available online at
http://www.campote xas.org/wp-content/uploads/2 01 6/07 /Williams-Drive-Draft-Final-Repo rt-0 50517-2.pdf.
On May 30, 2017, the City and CAMPO hosted an Open House P ublic Meeting to present the Williams Drive Study final
plan (Exhi bi t A). The Open House was facilitate d by the P ublic Works, Planning and Co mmunications departments, and
City Manager ’s Office. The event was atte nde d by 58 people who were able to see and pro vide feedback on the
recommended proje cts and policies that may be implemented over 10 years and beyo nd.
City staff also facilitated a joint wo rksho p with the Geo rgeto wn Transpo rtation Advisory Board (GTAB) and the Planning
and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on June 1, 2017. At this jo int workshop, the Proje c t Team and Board members reviewe d:
· The Purpo se and Goals of the Study (Exhi bi t B );
· P ublic Co mment (Exhi bi t C);
· Co nc e pt plans and recommendations; and
· Implementation Plan (Exhi bi t D).
On June 9, 2017 GTAB made a motion “to accept the first four years of the plan and co nditio nally the rest o f it with a
strong recommendation to City Council that they no t set year 5 and on into concre te.” The motion passed 5-3 in favo r.
On June 20, 2 017 P& Z made a motio n “to accept the first four year segment of this plan and pass on to the City Council
a re commendation that from year 5 on that these Boards be resubmitte d the data that has accumulated in those four years
to see what revisio ns need to be made from year 5 on.” The motion passed 6-0 in favo r.
This workshop is designed for staff to share with City Co uncil progress to date, a review o f the study purpo se and goals, a
summary of public comment, and a discussion of the final implementation plan. Staff is seeking from Co uncil fee dback
on the implementatio n plan and direction to return to o n July 11th for acceptance o f the Study’s Final P lan.
Comments and re c ommendations from the public and Board members have been include d in the Study or noted to be
incorporated thro ugh the implementation of the reco mmended projects (Exhi bi t E).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time .
SUBMITTED BY:
Nathaniel Waggoner, Transportation Analyst, and Andreina Davila-Quintero, Project Co ordinator
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Exhib it A - Pub lic Meeting 4 Bo ard s 05.30.2017
Exhib it B - P urpos e, Goals & Ob jectives
Exhib it C - Pub lic Comment
Page 29 of 115
Exhib it D - Imp lementation P lan
Exhib it E - G TABand P&Z_WS _Comments _06.01.2017
Williams Drive S tud y City Counc il Works ho p P res entation 06.27.2017
Page 30 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Welcome!
Learn and ask questions about the Williams Drive
study.
Review recommendations and implementation
plans for Williams Drive.
Consider and ask questions about the
recommendations and implementation plans.
Provide feedback and comments about the
recommendations and implementation plans.
Stay involved by providing feedback.
Page 31 of 115
GOAL 1. ENHANCE MULTIMODAL MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION
OPERATIONS.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ¡ŔǫȥʋŔǫȥɭơȍǫŔŹȍơŔȥƎơlj˪ƃǫơȥʋʋɭŔlj˪ƃȶɢơɭŔʋǫȶȥɽࡳ
•¶ŹǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳMinimize delay to persons and goods movement.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Enhance connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Improve intermodal and multimodal connections.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠄࡳ Develop cost-effective improvements to the existing transportation network and
multimodal facilities.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠅࡳ Promote safety and security by improving multimodal transportation throughout
the corridor.
GOAL 2. SUPPORT CORRIDOR-WIDE AND REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ Enable and plan for context sensitive economic activity in the corridor.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳ Ensure consistency of transportation actions with economic development actions,
relevant regional and local plans, and available municipal economic development policies.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Enhance connectivity and access to major residential, industrial, commercial and
recreational sites.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Ensure equity of transportation throughout the study
area to enhance access to education, employment, housing, and recreation.
PURPOSE STATEMENT
Williams Drive is a critical gateway into the City of Georgetown. As such, it must strike a balance in providing:
- mobility through an efficient, effective and reliable transportation network;
- moving people and goods through multiple travel options
- enhancing economic development and housing options within the neighborhoods it traverses.
Proactive transportation and land use planning will assist the corridor in addressing the immediate and future mobility
issues that stem from population growth and development pressures; positioning Williams Drive as a premier gateway for
the City of Georgetown and the Capital region.
Page 32 of 115
GOAL 3. PROTECT AND ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ Minimize adverse impacts from transportation actions
and the use of transportation facilities and services to avoid or minimize disproportionately adverse
environmental, public health,
social, and economic effects, on vulnerable populations.
Objective 2. Provide a well-connected, multi-modal transportation
network to increase people’s ability to access destinations that can
ǫȥ˫ʠơȥƃơʋǠơǫɭǠơŔȍʋǠŔȥƎˁơȍȍ࢛ŹơǫȥnjɽʠƃǠŔɽǿȶŹɽǠơŔȍʋǠƃŔɭơ
services, and parks.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ Protect unique environmental resources, including
the San Gabriel Park and San Gabriel River.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ Support sustainable forms of development and the
attainment of “Quality Communities” objectives.
GOAL 4. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT THAT CREATES A VARIETY OF CONTEXT
SENSITIVE MIXED-USE SERVICES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO NEIGHBORHOODS.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠀࡳ To encourage context sensitive mixed-use, multi-modal development that will increase
travel options within existing urbanized areas and along the corridor as a means to accommodate new
population growth, reduce land consumption, preserve valuable open space, conserve ecosystem functions,
protect water quality, and improve community health.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠁࡳ To promote reinvestment in underutilized vacant properties, opportunities for context sensitive
ȟǫˉơƎ࢛ʠɽơƎơʽơȍȶɢȟơȥʋŔȥƎɢȶɽɽǫŹǫȍǫʋǫơɽljȶɭɽʠŹʠɭŹŔȥɭơʋɭȶ˪ʋɽˁǠơɭơŔɢɢɭȶɢɭǫŔʋơࡳ
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠂࡳ To encourage transit-supportive land uses and complete street principles along and
connecting to the Williams Drive corridor as part of the transportation system that makes up the built
environment.
•¶Źǿơƃʋǫʽơࠃࡳ To capitalize on existing investments in infrastructure by encouraging development in areas
ˁǠơɭơǫȥljɭŔɽʋɭʠƃʋʠɭơǫɽŹơǫȥnjʠȥƎơɭʠʋǫȍǫ˖ơƎȶɭɢȍŔȥȥơƎljȶɭơˉɢŔȥɽǫȶȥˁǫʋǠȶʠʋɽʋɭŔǫȥǫȥnj˪ɽƃŔȍŹʠƎnjơʋɽȶɭ
creating new environmental impacts.
Page 33 of 115
Outreach Efforts
BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC INPUT
October Open House
• 105 Attendees
•70 Comments
November Charrette Events
• 86 Attendees
•50 Comments
1,300 member email list 8,100 views 5,500 views 33,000 newspaper readers 400+ phone calls
March Open House
•72 Attendees
•21 Comments
May Open House
•58 Attendees
•14 Comments
Page 34 of 115
PUBLIC COMMENT
OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS
Location Area of Concern
1
Need sidewalk and bicycle path from Williams Drive to riverwalk/ Booty's Crossing Park along DB Wood Dr. Current sidewalk ends at Fire
Department Williams Drive/ DB Wood Road at Booty's Crossing Park Bike/ Ped
2 Need better lighting between Lakeway to Sun City/ Jim Hogg Road Williams Drive between Lakeway dr to Jim Hogg Built Form
3 Motel broken fence, drug raids, and dilapidated Williams Drive and Clay Street Built Form
4 Allow development here to accentuate the Rive Williams Drive, just south of Rivery Blvd. Built Form
5 Need to reserve frontage for commercial, services, office, etc. and serve needs of nearby residents of Sun City. Williams Drive near Sun City (Del Webb intersection and up) Built Form
6 West end of Williams Needs more grocery store options- why is the HEB the only grocery store in the City? West end of Williams Drive Built Form
7 Political sign board at Del Webb and Williams Drive is an eyesore Williams Drive at Del Webb Built Form
8 Need a turn lane for Rivery Rd off of Williams Drive. Williams Drive at Rivery Rd. Car
9 Traffic lights not in sync. Traffic in PM not able to turn left, causing west traffic to back up. Williams Drive and Lakeway Dr, River Bend Dr., and Rivery Blvd. Car
10 Williams Drive needs to extend past Austin Avenue and connect to North College Street, or newer plans to any newer roads Williams Drive at Austin Avenue (proposed to North College) Car
11 Need more left turning lanes from Austin Avenue onto Williams Drive Austin Avenue at Williams Drive Car
12 2008 road bond project FM 971 (between Austin and NE Inner Loop) Car
13 Recommend 6 lanes for all of Williams Drive All of Williams Drive Car
14 Light synchronization Williams Drive at Woodlake Drive Car
15 Poor vehicle flow and very crowded parking at HEB at Williams Drive and DB Wood Road- crowded every time of day (dot #33)Williams Drive and DB Wood Rd. (HEB) Car
16
Ever since the Walmart general area was built, the increase in traffic flow on Mesquite Road has increased significantly. It could be considered as a
minor artery. (dot # 34)Mesquite Road Car
17 Putting two bus stops on Dawn Dr. will add to the traffic. Dawn Dr. already has lots of traffic and for a curvy road, people travel too fast. Dawn Dr. Car
18 Upgrade the stoplight to a pole, not wire, long distance traffic signal (dot 36) Williams Drive at Serenada Dr. Car
19 Verde Vista Extension to Williams Drive Verde Vista dead end Car
20 Traffic study on light timing Williams Drive and Shell Rd/DB Wood Road Car
21
While not in the study, we use DB Wood to exit Williams and get to 35. They need 2 left turn lanes on University to make it a more attractive
option and reduce Williams Drive traffic.University Drive at DB Woods (outside study area) Car
22 Deceleration lane to enter HEB coming from Sun City/ W Williams Drive at and DB Wood Road (HEB) Car
23 Heavy traffic on NW to bus route on Dawn Drive Dawn Drive Car/Ped/Transit
24 Bus route should pick up apartments on Northwest Drive (Between Lakeway and Central) Northwest Drive between Lakeway and Central Transit
25 Wider sidewalks to cross Austin Avenue Williams Drive at Austin Avenue Ped
26 Sidewalks on Shell Road from Bowling to Overlook Shell Road from Bowling to Overlook Ped
27 Sidewalks from Merrick Apartments at Estrella to DB Wood Estrella to DB Wood Road Ped
28
Split up traffic crossing I-35 and Austin Avenue- Add a Bridge, one way each. SE bound, branch off of Cedar Drive. Swing around behind River
View Mall, cross over I-35 and connect to W. Morrow Street.Alternative Route Car
29
Split up traffic crossing I-35 and Austin Ave- NW bound goes off of Austin Avenue N. or Republic Square at Chamber Way, cross over I-35,
connect to Park Ln., then connect to Dawn Drive, to Lakeway or Wagonwheel before re-merging to Williams Dr. Alternative Route Car
30 Significant redesign for Austin Avenue, past Rivery. Need to allow better thru traffic movement. Austin Avenue- past Rivery Car
31
Additional traffic on Dawn Dr with bus service on that street. We already have a huge amount of traffic and people speeding. This is a two curve
street as it is. There are a number of children on this street and it makes it almost impossible for them to ride bicycles except on the sidewalk-
which walkers also use. Dawn Drive Car/ Transit /Bike/Ped
32 Link east Georgetown to west Georgetown with a land mass over 35 from 29 to North Loop. Fill in with buildings, parks, and pedestrian malls. From 29 to North Loop. Ped
33 I saw nothing relating to the Randall's development at the corner of Hogg Road and Williams Drive Hogg Road and Williams Drive Built form
34
The traffic on Mesquite Rd increased so much since the development of Walmart and all the other retail in the area. I feel that Mesquite can now
be considered a minor artery street. Mesquite Road Car
35 Suggest moving bus route to Northwest. Northwest Drive Transit
36 Other roads that need bike access off William's Drive are Lakeway- all the way to Austin Avenue on the other side of the interstate. Williams Drive- all roads connecting from Lakeway to Austin Ave. Bike
October 6th Open House
Williams Drive Study
Public Comments Data
Comment Sheets
Page 1 of 5Page 35 of 115
PUBLIC COMMENT
OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS
Location Area of Concern
Williams Drive Study
Public Comments Data
Comment Sheets
37
Right-hand turn from Williams Drive onto I-35 Frontage Road if you are headed east is a train wreck. Needs to be expanded for people heading
south. Williams Drive at 1-35 Frontage Road intersection Car
38
Williams Drive and N. Austin Avenue intersection is a disaster. Left turns off of Williams into the Chipotle/ Starbucks should be prohibited to
alleviate traffic back ups. Left turns into McDonalds at the same intersection should be prohibited. Williams Drive at Austin Avenue Car
39 Red light be installed at Williams Drive and CR 245 Williams Drive at CR 245 Car
40 You are probably using traffic flow data of a year ago that is flawed, as it does not include peak shopping hours at HEB (10am-12pm and 2-4pm) Williams Drive at DB Wood (HEB) Car
41 Consider over-pass at crucial intersections: Williams Drive at DB Wood and Lakeway Williams Drive at DB Wood and Lakeway Intersection Car
42 Red lights be installed at Ronald Reagan and Williams Drive Williams Drive at Ronald Reagan Car
43
Shoulders on Williams Drive- used by cyclists. When a right hand turn lane take away the shoulder, a bike-through access should be added similar
to what is occurring up and down Farmer/Ronald Reagan. Williams Drive Corridor Bike
44
If we can fix the vehicular and pedestrian issues then we can talk about bicycles but it is Texas, it is hot and the percentage of the population
impacted by bike lanes is miniscule.Williams Drive Corridor Bike/Car/Ped
45 Need to reserve road frontage for commercial, retail, offices, services, etc. to support the needs of nearby residents. Williams Drive Corridor Built Form
46 Multi-family developments in area need to be restricted. They put much more traffic on roads and commute beyond the local area. Williams Drive Corridor Built form/ Car
47
Uninterrupted turn lane down the middle of Williams Drive, giving ample opportunity for conflicting left hand turns. This should be divided by a
median.Williams Drive Corridor Car
48 Williams Drive- Add right hand turn lanes.Williams Drive Corridor Car
49 Widen Williams Drive. Add additional traffic lanes. Williams Drive Corridor Car
50 I drive from my house in old town to Embree (most of the 6-miles) on average round trip twice a day. Williams Drive Corridor Car
51
Make right hand turn lanes along the whole of Williams Drive (not just intersections. Need to stop the back up of cars when turning into
businesses.Williams Drive Corridor Car
52 Lack of sidewalk- I see little reason why the entire 6-mile strip should not have a sidewalk on both sides. Williams Drive Corridor Ped
53 Williams Drive- Add sidewalks. Williams Drive Corridor Ped
54 Plan/encourage for more and better development beyond Jim Hogg now to prevent future problems. Williams Drive- past Jim Hogg Built form
55 Future of Williams Drive- extending toward North College to Highway 29 Williams Drive to Highway 29 Car
56 As one gets closer to 35 the traffic increases. Fact. Williams Drive toward I-35 intersection Car
57 6 bike clubs/organizations in Georgetown and cycling continues to grow. We need to modernize our thinking on our roads, not one size fits all. Bike
58 New developments needed north to 195 and south to 29. Built Form
59 Consider greater employment opportunities within immediate and nearby area. Built form
60 Re-think further into the future and make alternative north/south corridors more attractive and wider to pull more traffic off Williams.Car
61 No reasonable alternative routes to downtown- there is only Williams Dr. Car
62 Consider parallel road to compliment and relieve Williams Dr road volume. Car
63 Add continuous turn lanes at major intersections. Car
64 Interconnect between business parking lots to keep cars off streets. Car
65 Very well presented, I appreciate being allowed to be part of this process.
66 Your study doesn't extend to Williams Dr and 3405 as it should.
67 Your poster presentation contains incorrect street connections.
68
Think bigger. Hold a design charrette for city planning or invited universities (Texas Tech/Houston/Arlington/UTSA/Am) I would not considering
how badly Austin turned out.
69 Living in Sun City. Areas of concern include:
70 Look to shorten distance between points of origin (home) and destination (whatever that may be).
November 12th-16th Charrette
71 Too much asphalt Car/Roadway
72 Landscaped median with designated left-turns to lots/businesses Car/Roadway
73 How to widen the road without adversely impacting commercial businesses Car/Roadway
Page 2 of 5Page 36 of 115
PUBLIC COMMENT
OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS
Location Area of Concern
Williams Drive Study
Public Comments Data
Comment Sheets
74 Have shared use pathway on one side of the street at western end Bike/Ped
75 Town Center use at Jim Hogg Land Use
76 Small standalone retail on western end Land Use
77 Small scale sub divisions on western end Land Use
78 Congested D B Wood Road/Williams Drive Car/Roadway
79 Multi-modal transit Transit
80 Town Center Walkability Pedestrian
81 Street Lighting D B Wood Road to Serenada Pedestrian/Car/Roadway
82 Congested Lakeway Car/Roadway
83 Congested Rivery Car/Roadway
84 Congested I-35 Car/Roadway
85 Congested Austin Avenue Car/Roadway
86 Mixed Use development GISD site Land Use
87 Mixed Use development I-35/Austin Avenue Land Use
88 Landscaping I-35 Interchange Car/Roadway
89 Mixed Use development at major intersections Land Use
90 Interconnectivity in road design Car/Roadway
91 Safety/access management with medians Car/Roadway
92 Interconnectivity between parcels Land Use
93 Access management away from intersections Car/Roadway
94 Shell Road connection to Williams Not safe Shell Road Car/Roadway
95 Access between properties and subivisions Car/Roadway
96 Speeding vehicles (Need slower speed in Centers Area)Lakeway Dr EB Car/Roadway
97 Walkable center Lakeway/Booty's Pedestrian
98 Better Connectivity to street grid and downtown Car/Roadway
99 Put needs near where people live (Basic services - small centers)Land Use
100 Drive traffic off corridor to use 195 and 29 Car/Roadway
101 Need Green Pockets to connect to City trail system Bike/Ped
102 No sidewalks or opportunities to cross I-35/Williams Drive Pedestrian
103 Traffic on Dawn Drive from Lakeway to Central Dr Dawn Drive Car/Roadway
104 Traffic on Mesquite Rd from River Bend to Country Club Rd Car/Roadway
105 Modify tree ordinance to save trees along road frontage Land Use
106 Bury Utilities Land Use
107 Street Lighting Car/Roadway
108 Need to fund façade improvements Land Use
109 No Roundabout on Rivery Blvd Car/Roadway
110 Include shared use path along Williams Drive Bike/Ped
111 Include sidewalks along the entirety of the corridor Pedestrian
112 Buffered bike lanes and sidewalks where appropriate Bike/Ped
113 Create buffer from sidewalks to roadway Pedestrian
114 Cycle track in centers areas Bike/Ped
115 Remove TWCTL to include medians an left-turn pockets Car/Roadway
116 Excellent options - very interested in more biking trails & lanes Bike
117 Appreciate elimination of suicide lanes Car/Roadway
118 Access management = safety Car/Roadway
119 Traffic Signal Optimization Car/Roadway
120 Density: Are the decision makers on board Land Use
Page 3 of 5Page 37 of 115
PUBLIC COMMENT
OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS
Location Area of Concern
Williams Drive Study
Public Comments Data
Comment Sheets
March 9th Open House
121 Light timing on Williams Drive is an easy and cheap fix Car
122 Seems too much work on bike paths. This is not Austin Bike
123 Sceondary route needed rom Sedro Trail Road (Charparro Estates)Sedro Trail Car
124
We have been dealing with increased traffic since Sun City was built. The City allowed Sun City to block the secondary route with homes but we
still don't have a secondary route. Please fix this problem that the City created. We have been waiting 20+ years Sun City Car
125 Well done and impressive General
126 The small hurdles will be worth the effort General
127 Looking forward to the I35/Austin Avenue final plan i35/Austin Ave Car
128 This looks great.General
129 Cost will be enormous but so will the cost of doing nothing.General
130 I know it's minor but lighting should be considered particularly with the projected increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic Lighting
131 Concerned that emphasis are not on other corridors (Austin Ave, University Ave to D.B Woods) Downtown/other areas General
132 Concerned that other priorities are for development and not the new City Hall and municipal buildings.General
133 I think the priorities are not in the right place and the study is the wrong place and places the old town on the back burner General
134 The CCTL on Williams is being eliminated. At times of high traffic there will not be an avalable passage way for emergency vehicles Car
135 Otherwise the concepts look reasonable. The parking and interconnectivity is a good approach. Potential problems could be access to buisnesses Parking/Connectivity
136 Signal control could allow for :go green: to allow thru traffic to clear roadway and not bottleneck in meregncy situations Car
137 Make Wildwood Drive entrance to 2 lanes. Left lane is required and other lane can be left, right or straight (just like Rivery Blvd) Wildwood Car
138
Nw Blvd: If proposed changes include diverting school age buses to NW Blvd, wouldn't sidewalks be vital for safety on the main thoorughfare.
Concerned that pedestrian safety at this area NW Blvd Pedestrian
139 There are lots of bikes, walkers and kids on NW Blvd from Frost School, how will this work with increased traffic NW Blvd Pedestrian/Bike
140
Lower Income housing - concern that ir is right in the middle of low density safer neighborhood on NW Blvd. Crime, crime, crime, lock doors, no
walking around at night Rivery Blvd Housing
141 School buses take 25mins to load and unload on NW Blvd at 7am sharp and 3:15pm everryday. Where is your common sense. NW Blvd Car
142 Respect North Lake deed restrictions along Williams Drive and 3405 Land Use
143 Use eminent domain to remove unsightly businesses operating in residential buildings from Lakeway Drive to I-35. Expand the roadway Land Use/ Car
144 Plan needs to include expansion of Shell Road and D. B Wood to 4-lanes, median.Car
145 Williams Drive at Austin Avenue has to be addressed Car
146 Transit/Bus stops need to have turn-out lanes Transit
147
Building of the new Randalls on Jim Hogg will trigger more development on west Williams. What are the long-term plans there? Cheaper to build
now than in 5-10 years.Land Use/Car
148 Not clear in plans include below grade storm drains, no line item for storm drains listed on boards General
149 I just moved to Georgetown from Austin. Overall a good plan General
150
The proposed Verde Vista extension runs through two large lots R039522 (14.5ac) and R039520 (9.4ac). Please do not allow this extension to be
a major cut-through road from Shell Rd to Williams Drive. It needs a low speed limit and some way to deter bikers from excessive speed an going
through each gear at max rpm like they do late at night on Williams Drive Car
151
We have a valuable asset in the current Williams Drive corridor s it has wide, smooth surfaced shoulders. Using part of the shoulders as bike
lanes will benefit the community now and in the future.Bike
152
I like the fact that the project is sectioned out into 6 component/areas as this road varies greatly on density. I can see the use of bicycles explode
with these proposed improvements for their mobility as Georgetown and Sun City I see already high usage. I love the asthestic improvements that
I see Georgetown already does a good of so far. It would be interesting to see projected demographics for Williams Drive corridor over the
timeframe and just how much traffic will increase over its current. Another item I would like to see is when/how construction would take place
while having the least impact on congesting current traffic.Car/Bike/Aesthetic
153 Pro's: Timed lights, sidewalks, trees, medians Car/Aesthestic/Ped
May 30th Open House
Page 4 of 5Page 38 of 115
PUBLIC COMMENT
OPEN HOUSES AND OTHER MEETINGS
Location Area of Concern
Williams Drive Study
Public Comments Data
Comment Sheets
154
Con's: Bike lanes - the reality is that <1% of traffic may use the lanes, that precious real estate needs to be saved for cars. Also is far too
dangerous to ride a bike on Williams, even with "protected zone". If goal is to allow less "carbon" then the space would be better served as a bus
lane.Bike/Car
155
Don't make the same mistake as other Cities have. Bike lanes sound good on paper but are better served in an urban setting not the Williams
corridor which is a main traffic artery. People will be killed/Bike/Car
Page 5 of 5Page 39 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Public Comment - Survey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6)
Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams Drive?
Meeting No. of Responses
October 6 Open House 1
November 12-16
Charrette 2
March 9 Open House 2
No 13
Meeting No. of Responses
October 6 Open House 1
November 12-16
Charrette 0
March 9 Open House 1
No 8
Meeting No. of Responses
October 6 Open House 2
November 12-16
Charrette 1
March 9 Open House 2
No 6
Go
a
l
s
? Ye
s
Go
a
l
s
? Pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
Go
a
l
s
? No
Yes
58%No
18%
Partially
24%
Do you generally concur that the goals have been
met through the concepts and recommendations
within the study?
Car
32%
Ped
4%
Bike
13%
General
19%
Land Use
23%
Transit
7%
Aesthetic
2%
Overall Comments
•50 Responses
•53 Comments
Page 40 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6)
Are there any improvements that you think could be
added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not
addressed through the Plan?
Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you
have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern
Response Comment:Open-Ended Response
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes -
November
Design
Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode
Yes
Yes No.30 years behind!General
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes No.
Yes Aesthetically pleasing with trees, plants, low signage.No.Aesthetic
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bike safety signage and restripes of busy right-hand turn lanes
on Williams Drive right now. Safety features cannot wait 0-4
years or more. Bike plan should be included in 2017-2018
budget.
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes - November
Design Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
Thank you very much for putting so much work into the
process. Bravo to the City. But now, we need to see some
progress happen. Cyclists have been waiting for almost 20
years for the City to do anything. Let's get to some low-hanging
fruit that is inexpensive.
Car/Bike
Yes No.
Yes No.
Yes No.
Yes Bike transportation is my main priority. It's nice to see
multimodal transport as a top goal Bike
Yes No.
Yes Relocate the entrance/exit from chipotle onto Williams drive
and move it to enter directly onto the entrance ramp for IH 35
Yes - November
Design Workshop Car
Yes No.
Yes
Good plan - but will it ever get done. Would be good to see
some things happen quicker than indicated, especially for
bicyclists and pedestrians.th
No. Thank you and let's make it happen! Bike/General
Yes
Yes
continue and implement additional milestone and plan checking
points with community involvement and surveys as the
progress takes place.
Yes - March
Public Open
House
Tis looks a lot better than the hap hazard development and
method currently employed.Land Use
Yes
Yes Develop not just mixed-use communities but mixed-use/mixed-
income communities along Williams Dr. No.
Now is the time to plan for more east-west bridges across I-35
and more larger roads going north-south. We're top
dependent on Williams Dr. to move folks around. We need
thse systems to make Georgetown a better place in which to
live. Also, we need to take measures to slow down growth.
Our road systems and bridges are not keeping up with our
accelerated growth.
Car/Land Use
Yes No No.NA General
Yes
Yes Spend less money.No.General
Yes
Yes
Yes No.
The study puts forth the following four overarching goals.
Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations.
Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.
Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.
Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services
that are accessible to neighborhoods.
Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and
recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary.
Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams
Drive?
Page 1 of 4Page 41 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6)
Are there any improvements that you think could be
added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not
addressed through the Plan?
Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you
have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern
Response Comment:Open-Ended Response
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes -
November
Design
Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode
The study puts forth the following four overarching goals.
Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations.
Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.
Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.
Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services
that are accessible to neighborhoods.
Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and
recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary.
Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams
Drive?
Partially
Congestion and lights west of I-35 On williams drive will
continue to be an issue. It is becoming o the same that happened
to 183 in Austin years ago as the city pushed west.
No.
Once the Randalls opens at Jim Hogg Road and Williams that
intersection is going to become a nightmare, especially for us
residents who live off Jimm Hogg Road.
Car
Partially
Partially
A bus should stop at Sun City and make stops at the grocery
stores, going on to the Wolf Ranch Shopping Center, City Lights
Theater, and back to Sun City. Many residents are no longer able
to drive.
See comment on Question #1. I was told that a test was done
for Sun City but it was decided that the route wouldn't get
enough users. I was also told that the test was done during a
time when it was raining almost every day so that the test had
skewed results due to the weather.
No.We just moved to Sun City in August and so we're a bit late in
giving our opinion.Transit/Car/General
Partially If we want to enhance bus routes, your plans need to go out to
Sun City.
The intersection at Austin Ave. and Williams Drive has not
been addressed as far as I can tell. Need to purchase the land
where the businesses are and move that intersection further
away from I35.
No.
I was unable to go to events, but did call on the phone with
ideas and comments about issues. I am glad to see there is no
mention of the "X" type of intersection at Williams and I35. I
also thought there was going to be another overpass over I35
where Northwest Blvd ends. That would relieve pressure
from inexperienced high school drivers.
Transit/Car
Partially
number one should be create, not enhance. number 2 is so full
of buzz words it doesn't mean anything. number four is a
masked sentence that really just says encourage development. a
goal should be added that says maintain traffic flow that allows
drivers to travel through corridor at posted sipped limit. no one
wants another 620.
No.Car
Partially
Partially
Partially No.
Don't see the point of sidewalks and bike lanes way out on
Williams Dr. There is not a lot of foot traffic here. Also not
sure a bike lane is necessary either. Just seems like these are
going to expensive unnecessary changes without much benefit.
Nothing against bikers or eskers but we have plenty of trails in
Georgetown. I know this is a different part of Williams but it
would make sense to tackle where it dead ends into Austin
Avenue.
Bike/Ped
Partially should include storm drains, it seems a mistake to develop and
improve without them
below ground storm drains, you cannot have a first class
project without them... big mistake to build and improve but
just depend on ditches along the road
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes - March
Public Open
House
it may be over ambitious to include six miles in the project,
maybe should reduce length to do a better job. Do from I-35
to end of existing development about at Sudsy Car Wash.
General
Partially We need a train rail in Georgetown and round rock, and no
more fast food joints or storage facilities.
A train rail, zoning restrictions on fast food places and storage
facilities. And lift the zoning restrictions on small houses and
encourage them to be built
No.Transit/Land Use
Partially No.
Page 2 of 4Page 42 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6)
Are there any improvements that you think could be
added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not
addressed through the Plan?
Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you
have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern
Response Comment:Open-Ended Response
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes -
November
Design
Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode
The study puts forth the following four overarching goals.
Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations.
Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.
Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.
Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services
that are accessible to neighborhoods.
Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and
recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary.
Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams
Drive?
Partially
In general, the plan consists of old ideas that will turn
Georgetown into another Austin. I'm not in favor of that at all.
Driving higher density ideas to a roadway that will remain a
four lane road will not alleviate traffic or improve quality of life
for those that currently live her and want to continue a small
town/city look and feel. Driving alternative routes to existing
residential area like northwest Blvd will drive people out of
their homes. You need to rethink the high density and
commercial development along Williams drive. What is wrong
with a few pockets of undeveloped land?
No.
I thought no I covered it in item 2. Commuters in Georgetown
do not ride their bikes to work. Recreational biking is best left
to parks and recreation organizations. I'm not for increasing
the density of population in the Williams drive area west of
Serenada Drive. We like our suburban/rural areas and life.
Land Use/Bike
No
Looking at the final study is the first time some communities
have seen Proposed New Sabine Drive Connections to
Williams. Not pleased at all that the map shows Sabine Drive
connecting to Williams as a cut thru to Bootys. This connection
would require drivers to drive all the way thru our
neighborhood residential streets just to get to Bootys. We are
an over 55 community with a slow 20-25 MPH speed limit and
we don't need people racing thru our development. This is not
a practical connection. In addition, we've always been told that
the area where the new connection is suggested is protected
due to caves and springs.
Bringing Williams down to 35 MPH is going the wrong way.
Williams can tolerate 40-45 easily. Extending the 35 mph even
further slows down the gridlock even more.
No.
The study is expressing the problems that too much growth is
placing on Williams Drive but the study shows that the city is
planning to increase demands by building more multi-family
units, more retail, increased demands on this already over
burdened route. The limited alternate routes are still thru
residential areas so have limited capacity for relief. And
although bike and pedestrian routes are great, they will only
have very limited elevation of the roadway. In fact, motorist
have to slow down or stop to enter driveways that pedestrian
and bike routes cross.
Car/Bike
No Widen Williams dr to 3 lanes both directions No.Widen the road Car
No It's still uncontrolled growth that just repeats and gets worst.
Slow growth until you build sustainable infrastructure while
keeping a Quailty of Life that doesn't create urban sprawl all
the way up IH 35 like a cancer. The present pattern is to
saturate one area into over congestion then repeat the same
pattern with the next city. Eventually, killing the community life
to urban cancer before moving to the next victim. Sane
Growth is being smart and sensitive to maintaining community
life not simple based on greed and over development. It makes
community life ugly and unstable. Look at the obvious mess
building all around Georgetown.
No.
It's a mess from Austin avenue to DB woods and growing
worst. Stop the growth in these over developed areas. Instead
spread out growth ares before it becomes a knot of lights and
traffic. Tell developers to move on to Jarrell.
Land Use/Car
No
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes - November
Design Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Georgetown needs to stop the expansion of residential
communities around Williams and west of Shell/DB Woods.
Williams rd will not be able to take the expansion. Georgetown
should focus the expansion efforts east of the I-35 corridor and
east of the inner loop and SH29. Growth west of I-35 and
around Williams has stressed the local populace.
Land Use
Page 3 of 4Page 43 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Public Comment - Suvey Response to Final Plan (May 2 through June 6)
Are there any improvements that you think could be
added to the Plan? Are there any goals that were not
addressed through the Plan?
Please leave us any other thoughts or comments you
have regarding the Williams Drive corridor study Area of Concern
Response Comment:Open-Ended Response
Yes - October
Public Open
House
Yes -
November
Design
Workshop
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No.Open-Ended Response2 Mode
The study puts forth the following four overarching goals.
Goal 1. Enhance multimodal movement and transportation operations.
Goal 2. Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.
Goal 3. Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.
Goal 4. Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services
that are accessible to neighborhoods.
Do you generally concur that the goals have been met through the concepts and
recommendations within the study? Please provide a comment as necessary.
Have you attended any of the public outreach events for Williams
Drive?
No
Yes - March
Public Open
House
No No.
No
Central Texas and Georgetown in particular are in hyper drive
expansion and will be for a long time to come. Cedar Park has
gotten it right, Georgetown not so. Williams Drive needs to be
seven lanes. All the thilngs about cutting down on driveways,
bringing businesses upt to the street, etc are all fine if you solve
the basic probelm first. This plan does not and I happen to think
it is actually anti-business. However, Georgetown needs to hire
the planner from Cedar Park because they understand gestting
ready for future expansion. I have been to every state in the US
and 84 countries around the world. I know this plan will saddle
Georgetown for years to come and unfortunately, the crowding
they are talking about of businesses up to the street will mean
future expansions will be impossible. This is a terrible plan.
Yes - 3 lanes each way with a turning lane. This plan will end
up killing Williams Drive.No.
I would also add that these cross walk areas on the side road
are redicullous. They have 4" upliftson the sides that are a
hazard to pedestrians, wheel chairs and mowing. The designer
of these should be shot. Go get a designer from Cedar Park
and get this thing right.
Car/Land Use/Ped
No Too much emphasis has been put on growth without enough
thought put into the effects of this growth.
The worst issue on Williams is the traffic light timing. Feom
beginning to end the flow does not fit the traffic and causes
long back ups.
No. Land Use/Car
Page 4 of 4Page 44 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 1 of 6
TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/
Committed Partners
T-01 Rivery Blvd extension from Williams Dr to Northwest Blvd (build).42 miles $ 10,500,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-02 Reconstruction and new construction of Northwest Blvd from Fondana Dr to
Austin Ave, including proposed bridge over IH 35 (build).42 miles $ 11,150,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-03 Intersection improvement at Williams Dr and IH-35 .27 miles $ 52,000,000 TxDOT My35 X TxDOT
T-04 Eastbound right-turn lane Williams Dr to SB Rivery Blvd .04 miles $ 345,959 Developer/City of Georgetown X Rivery TIA
T-05 Northbound right-turn Rivery Blvd to eastbound Williams Dr .034 miles $ 284,000 Developer/City of Georgetown X Rivery TIA
T-06 Intersection operation improvements for Austin Ave and Williams Dr .04 miles $ 500 Developer/City of Georgetown TxDOT
T-07
Preliminary Engineering analysis for access management/driveway
consolidation, intersection improvements, network connections, capacity, speed,
and utilities
7 miles $ 515,000 TIA Funds/TIRZ Fund/City General Fund
T-08 Install a painted median and center left hand turn pockets along one of the
character areas of the Williams Dr corridor (pilot program)1 mile $ 18,303 City General Fund
T-09 Traffic Signal Coordination from Austin Avenue to Jim Hogg Rd 5.8 miles $ 24,000 City General Fund X
T-10 Inventory existing traffic signal infrastructure and identify standard
operating systems/upgrades, limited implementation 5.8 miles $ 24,000 City General Fund X
T-11 Promote Go-Geo $ 5,000 City General Fund
T-12 Communication/Public Education about alternate routes, best
practices/suggestions during peak hours. $ 10,000
T-13 Work with the Post Office to relocate individual mail boxes USPS USPS
T-14 Establish Traffic Management Center (TMC) and appropriate staffing 6 miles $ 200,000 Bonds
T-15 Work with Police Department for enforcement and traffic control $ 25,000 TIA Funds, Bonds
T-16 Stripe Northwest Blvd to accommodate a 10 foot center turn lane, two 10 foot
through lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes on either side off the roadway 1.2 miles $ 304,128 Street Maintenance
T-17 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Centers
Area 1.25 miles $ 2,376,000 Bonds, GTEC, Street Maintenance
T-18
Reconfigure Northwest Blvd's 40 foot wide roadway to accommodate a 10 foot
center turn lane, two 10 foot through lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes on either
side off the roadway
1.2 miles $ 4,093,056 City General Fund
T-19 New Roadway to connect Rivery Blvd to Riverside Dr 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 TIRZ Funds
T-20 Implement a center island on Northwest Blvd at Windmill Cove N/A $ 38,016 City General Fund
T-21 Implement shared streets within the Georgetown Independent School District
site N/A N/A Developer Funds GISD
T-22 Extend Apple Creek Dr to connect to Northwest Blvd 0.10 miles $ 1,056,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-23 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Corridor
Area (Lakeway Dr to DB Wood Blvd)2.3 miles $ 4,324,320 Bonds
T-24 New construction of frontage road on northbound IH 35 from Williams Dr to
Lakeway Bridge (build)1.90 miles $ 7,000,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-25 Reconstruction of DB Wood Dr from Oak Ridge Dr To Lake Overlook Dr (Plan)1.46 miles $ 8,000,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-26 Reconstruction of Shell Rd from Williams Dr to Shell Spur Rd (Plan)2.45 miles $ 18,480,000 2015 Road Bond X
Sh
o
r
t
(
0
-
4
y
e
a
r
s
)
Mi
d
(
5
-
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
)
Page 45 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 2 of 6
T-27 Reconstruction of IH 35 SB Frontage Rd from Williams Dr To Rivery Blvd (plan).54 miles $ 4,436,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-28 Intersection improvements along Williams Dr from Rivery Blvd to IH 35 Frontage
Rd (plan).38 miles $ 1,894,000 2015 Road Bond X
T-29 New Roadway connecting Limestone Lake Dr to Williams Dr 0.5 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-30 New Roadway connecting Verde Vista Dr to Williams Dr at Woodlake Dr 0.25 miles $ 2,640,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-31 New Roadway to connect La Paloma Dr to Sabine Dr 0.50 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-32 New Roadway to connect Country Rd to Pecan Lane at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-33 New Roadway to connect Serenada Dr to Oak Crest Lane at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.50 miles $ 5,280,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-34 New Roadway to connect Lakeway Dr to River Bend Dr at Westwood Lane 0.40 miles $ 4,224,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-35 New Roadway to connect River Bend Lane to Park Lane 0.30 miles $ 3,168,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-36 New Roadway to connect Oak Lane Circle between Ranch Rd and Parkway Street 0.06 miles $ 633,600 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-37 New Roadway to connect W Janis Dr to Park Lane 0.25 miles $ 2,640,000 Developer/Bonds Developer
T-38 Install raised, planted center medians with left hand turn pockets in the Corridor
Area (DB Wood Blvd to Jim Hogg Rd)2.3 miles $ 4,324,320 Bonds
Total Costs $ 169,021,202
Lo
n
g
(
B
e
y
o
n
d
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
)
*
*
T
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
t
o
b
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
n
Page 46 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 3 of 6
BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/
Committed Partners
R-01 Update the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr
recommendations Staff Time Funded - FY2017 Budget X
R-02 Amend the FLU map to include a subarea plan for the Centers Area $ 24,500 TIRZ Funds X
R-03 Adjust the TIRZ boundary to include the entirety of the GISD site and adjacent
sites and develop TIRZ spending plan Staff Time
R-04 Engineering studies for water, wastewater, drainage/stormwater/water quality $ 200,000 City General Fund, Utility Fund
R-05 Work with GISD on potential redevelopment of catalytic site N/A GISD
R-06
Review and update the development standards applicable to properties in the
Williams Dr Centers Area, specifically regulations pertaining to block/lot
standards, landscaping, signage, and streetscape improvements
Staff Time
R-07 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Centers Area Staff Time
R-08 Adopt a MU district/SP overlay district/Rezoning for the Catalytic Site(s) Staff Time
R-09 Create a special assessment/financial district to fund these recommended public
projects Staff Time
Total Costs $ 224,500 plus Staff Time
Sh
o
r
t
(
0
-
4
y
e
a
r
s
)
Page 47 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 4 of 6
AESTHETICS ENHANCEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/
Committed Partners
A-01 Update City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Williams Dr recommendations,
specifically as it applies to gateways Staff Time Funded - FY2017 Budget X
A-02 Remove empty telephone poles on the north side of Williams Dr between Shell
Rd and La Paloma $ 500 City of Georgetown Electric Fund
A-03
Update the City's UDC relating to the Gateway Overlay district standards as
these apply to the Williams Dr Corridor. This may include new regulations
pertaining to signage, front building façade and parking in addition to
landscaping.
Staff Time
A-04 Undertake corridor wide signage and wayfinding study $ 40,000 TIRZ Funds, City General Fund
A-05 Intersection demonstration gardens at the intersection of Williams Dr and I-35 $ 5,000 TDS TDS/Wilco Master
Naturalists
A-06 Draft and adopt a grant program to incentivize or assist in signage, street
frontage landscaping and other streetscape improvements Staff Time CAMPO/TxDOT
A-07 Implement corridor wide aesthetic enhancements (landscaping, street lighting,
signage and wayfinding) $ 100,000 TIRZ Funds, GTEC, City General Fund TxDOT
Total Costs $ 145,500 plus Staff Time
Sh
o
r
t
(
0
-
4
y
e
a
r
s
)
Mi
d
(
5
-
1
0
ye
a
r
s
)
Page 48 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 5 of 6
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Timeframe No. Action Item Length Project Cost Estimate Potential Funding Source Funded/
Committed Partners
P-01 Design and construction of sidewalk along the west side of Austin Ave from
Morrow St to Williams Dr .16 miles $ 20,000 2015 Bonds X TxDOT
P-02 Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing on Williams Dr between I-35 and Rivery
Blvd 0.01 miles $ 1,000 Street Maintenance
P-03 Preliminary Engineering analysis and schematic design for bikeways along and
parallel to Williams Dr 7 miles $ 5,000 TIRZ Fund/City General Fund
P-04 Undertake a Citywide Bicycle Master Plan N/A $ 65,000 City General Fund
P-05
APS Signal Upgrades at Williams Dr and Lakeway Dr, Williams Dr and Shell/DB
Wood Rd, Williams Dr and Wildwood Dr, Williams Dr and Lakewood Dr, and
Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd
5 signals $ 250,000 2015 City Bonds X
P-06 Implement buffered bike lanes along both sides of Williams Dr between Jim
Hogg Rd and Lakeway Dr 5 miles $ 409,500 Street Maintenance
P-07 Implement an on-street bicycle lane along W Sequoia Spur from Shell Rd to Val
Verde Dr 0.7 miles $ 49,379 Street Maintenance, Parks
P-08
Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Serenada Dr between Booty's Crossing
and Northwest Blvd, continuing east along Northwest Blvd to just east of E. Janis
Dr
1.6 miles $ 112,865 Street Maintenance, Parks
P-09
Implement parallel signed bicycle routes along Park Lane between Williams Dr
and W Central Dr, along Dawn Dr between Park Lane and Western Trail, and
along Mesquite Lane between Booty's Crossing and Rivery Blvd
3.6 miles $ 215,931 City General Fund
P-10 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Williams Dr between Lakeway
Dr and Rivery Blvd, and Lakeway Dr between Williams Dr and Northwest Blvd 1 mile of sidewalk $ 316,800 City General Fund
P-11 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Whisper Oaks Dr between
Lakeway Dr and Northwest Blvd .17 mile of sidewalk $ 52,560 City General Fund
P-12 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Broken Spoke Trl between
Western Trail and Lakeway Dr .19 mile of sidewalk $ 60,000 City General Fund
P-13 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Williams Dr between Estrella
Crossing and Lakeway Dr 2 miles of sidewalk $ 633,600 City General Fund
P-14 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Shell Rd and DB Wood Rd between
Westbury Lane and Cedar Breaks Rd 3.4 miles $ 239,839 City General Fund
P-15 Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along Shell/DB Wood Rd between
Lake Overlook Rd and the city limit at approximately Westbury Lane 3 miles of sidewalk $ 950,400 City General Fund, PID Developer
P-16 Implement on-street bicycle lanes along Country Rd from Williams Dr to the
proposed sidepath at Booty's Crossing Rd 0.42 miles $ 29,627 City General Fund
P-17 Implement a sidepath on I-35 south Frontage Rd from Northwest Blvd to Rivery
Blvd 1 mile $ 2,756,160 TxDOT My35 TxDOT
P-18 Implement a sidepath from Apple Creek Dr along the north side of I-35 to the I-
35 north Frontage Rd and extending to San Gabriel Village Blvd 1 mile $ 1,378,080 TxDOT My35 TxDOT
Sh
o
r
t
(
0
-
4
y
e
a
r
s
)
Mi
d
(
5
-
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
)
Page 49 of 115
Williams Dr Study Implementation Plan
As of June 5, 2017
Page 6 of 6
P-19 Implement a sidepath along Booty's Crossing Rd between Williams Dr and DB
Wood Rd 1.9 miles $ 5,236,704 City General Fund, Future Bond Election,
Private Development
P-20 Implement a sidepath on Rivery Blvd Extended from Northwest Blvd to Williams
Dr 0.5 miles $ 1,378,080 City General Fund/ Private Development Developer
P-21
Install and repair sidewalks and curb ramps along streets surrounding
Georgetown Independent School District site including Park Lane, Shannon Lane,
and Janis Dr
2 miles of sidewalk $ 1,193,914 Site Development GISD
P-22 Implement a cycle track along both sides of Williams Dr between Rivery Blvd and
I-35 1 mile $ 2,756,160 Private Development Developer
P-23 Implement a sidepath along Williams Dr between Jim Hogg Rd and Lakeway Dr 4.3 miles $ 11,851,488 City General Fund, Future Bond Election,
Private Development Developer
P-24 Implement a sidepath along Northwest Blvd from just east of E. Janis Dr, across I-
35, to San Gabriel Park 1 mile $ 2,756,160 City General Fund, Future Bond Election,
Private Development Developer
Total Costs $ 32,718,247
Lo
n
g
(
B
e
y
o
n
d
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
)
Page 50 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Implementation Plan Short Term (0-4 years)
Page 51 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Implementation Plan Short Term (0-4 years)
Page 52 of 115
Joint GTAB and P&Z Workshop Recap
June 1, 2017
Comments Response
Provide more "slip-roads" or "backroads" between parcels - innerparcel
connectivity and shared parking facilities
This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
Provide a decel lane (right-turn only) where appropriate This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
Update traffic volumes prior to uncdertaking engineering analysis (preliminary
engineering) of the corridor
Traffic volumes, inlcuding turning movements, are included as work tasks in the
preliminary engineerning study in the first 18 months.
Evaluate turning movement exiting property when raides medians are built (i.e.
will drivers be allowed to turn left?)
This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
No new traffic signals in the Centers Area New traffic signals are not proposed in the Centers Area
Evaluate and determine the mechanism to consolidate existing driveways This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
Identify the existing curbcuts to be consolidated and preferred location for new
curbcuts
This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
New driveways must be built to current standards New projects proposed along the corridor, to include constuction of new
driveways, are subject to current UDC standards
Evaluate regional stormwater, drainage and water quality facilities, including the
location of these facilities. Revisit previous studies completed.
This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in 18-24
months following acceptance of the study
Evaluate the relation and impact to current projects under development
This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study, as well through the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan and possible UDC standards
Relationship with GISD for catalytic site
Collaboratively maximize redevelopment The City will continue to work with its partners to incentivize redevelopment of
the study area
Requirements for additional ROW or landscape improvements should not exceed
what is required today
Concept Plans have been revised to not require additional ROW or landscape
buffer from current requirements (135-ft ROW, and 25-ft landscape buffer)
Determine standards for share use paths (i.e. concrete vs. asphalt)This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
/
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
/
Re
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Primary Issue
Page 53 of 115
Comments Response
Primary Issue
Evaluate and determine appropriate location for new amenities Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study
Landscape raised medians look better Landscape raised medians are proposed in the short, median and long terms
along the corridor
Wider sidewalks - development driven?Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study
Overhead utilities - look at relocating to rear of property where appropriate Standards and requirements will be evaluated through the amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan in the first 18 months following acceptance of the Study
Main goal is to provide off-street bicycle facilities (off of Williams Drive)
The final plan identifies off-street bike facilities along Williams Drive as a long-
term project (beyond 10 years). Feasibility, phasing and standards will be
evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18 months
following acceptance of the study
Evaluate turning movements against bicycle facilities This will be evaluated with the preliminary engineering proposed in the first 18
months following acceptance of the study
Evaluate appropriate locations and treatments for bike facilities through the Bike
Study
This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first
18 months following acceptance of the study
Determine the number of bike riders to see if it warrants the cost for off-site
facilities
This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first
18 months following acceptance of the study
Determine the type of riders - recreational vs commuters. Use this information to
develop appropriate standards for bike facilities
This will be evaluated with the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan proposed in the first
18 months following acceptance of the study
Bike facilities are a lower priority than addressing congestion Bike facilities are proposed in phases in the short, mid and long terms. Priorities
of these facilities will be determined by the City Council
Fi
n
a
l
p
l
a
n
Highlight what people are going to see in the first five years To be included in the executive summary of the final plan
Overall
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Page 54 of 115
Williams Drive Study
Final Plan
City Council
June 27, 2017
Page 55 of 115
Contributors
CAMPO
TxDOT
Williams Drive Study Working
Group
GISD
Georgetown Health
Foundation
City Council
Georgetown Transportation
Advisory Board
Planning and Zoning
Commission
City Manager’s Office
Public Works
Planning
Economic Development
Finance
Systems Engineering
GIS
Page 56 of 115
Overview
Progress to Date
Study Purpose and Goals
Public Comment
Implementation Plan
Next Steps
What we ask today…
–Concurrence with the recommended Implementation
Plan
–Direction to staff to return on July 11 for acceptance
of the Study’s Final Plan
Page 57 of 115
Check-Ins with GTAB and P&Z
Study Kick-Off –12/2015
–Scoping, Proposal review
–Interlocal Agreement
–Established Purpose, Goals & Objectives
Existing Conditions Assessment -11/2016
–Primary Issues –02/2017
Concept Plan –04/2017
–Design Workshop –11/2016
–Vision
–Recommendations
Implementation Plan –06/01
–Short to long term projects
Recommendation to City Council
G TA B –06/09
P & Z –06/20
Page 58 of 115
Recommendations
GTAB
–Motion b y Marler, 2 nd by Hellman –“Accept the first four years of the plan and conditionally the rest of it with a strong recommendation to City Council that they not set year 5 and on into concrete.”
–5 in favor, 3 opposed
P&Z
–Motion by Marler, 2nd b y Fuller –“to accept the first four year segment of this plan and pass on to the City Council a recommendation that from year 5 on that these Boards be resubmitted the data that has accumulated in those four years to see what revisions need to be made from year 5 on.”
–6 i n f a v o r , 0 opposed
Page 59 of 115
Check-Ins with City Council
Study Kick-Off –01/2016
–Scoping, Proposal review
–Interlocal Agreement
–Established Purpose, Goals & Objectives
Existing Conditions Assessment -01/2017
–Primary Issues
Concept Plan –04/2017
–Design Workshop –11/2016
–Vision
–Recommendations
Implementation Plan –06/27
–Short to long term projects
Acceptance of the Williams Drive Study –07/11
Page 60 of 115
Purpose:
Develop a plan of action that will incorporate safety, efficient transportation operations, safe accommodations of all modes, and integration of smart transportation and land use, community needs, and the future economic growth of Williams Drive.
T h e goals for Williams Drive include:
Enhance multimodal movements and transportation operations
Support corridor-wide and regional sustainable growth and economic development.
Protect and enhance the corridor’s quality of life.
Encourage development that creates a variety of context sensitive mixed-use services that are accessible to neighborhoods.
Purpose and Goals
Page 61 of 115
What we have heard
Page 62 of 115
What we have heard
3 i n 5 b e l i e v e t h e
goals were met
1 i n 5 b e l i e v e t h e
goals were not met
1 i n 4 t h e g o a l s w e re
partially met
Page 63 of 115
FY 18 Budget Study Items
Traffic signal coordination from Austin Avenue to
J i m H o g g R d
Rivery Blvd construction
NW Blvd Bridge construction
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) upgrades at
Williams Dr and Lakeway Dr, W i l l i a m s Dr a n d
Shell/DB Wood Rd, Williams Dr and Wildwood Dr,
Williams Dr and Lakewood Dr, and Williams Dr a n d
Rivery Blvd
Traffic engineering
Page 64 of 115
First 4 years
1 & 2 -Traffic Congestion/Circulation and Operations
•Right-turn lanes on Williams Dr and Rivery Blvd
•Traffic Signal Coordination
•Preliminary Engineering (access management, intersection
improvements, network connections, capacity, speed and utilities)
•Williams Dr & Austin Ave intersection operation improvement
•Painted median pilot program
Page 65 of 115
First 4 years
1 & 2 -Traffic Congestion/Circulation and Operations
•Traffic Management Center
•Williams Dr & I-35 intersection improvement
•Promote Go-Geo
•Communication/Public Education
•Stripe Northwest to include center turn lane and on-street bike
lanes
•Raised, planted medians in Centers Area
Page 66 of 115
First 4 years
3 -Barriers to Redevelopment/Reinvestment
•Update the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
•Amend the Future Land Use Map
•Preliminary engineering (access management, intersection
improvements, network connections, capacity, and speed)
•Review and update development standards and zoning
•New connecting roadways
Page 67 of 115
First 4 years
4 -Aesthetic Enhancements
•Remove empty telephone poles
•Review and update development standards and zoning
•Signage and wayfinding study
•Raised, planted medians in Centers Area
•Grant program for signage and streetscape
5 -Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
•Sidewalks on west side of Austin Ave
•Install and repair curb ramps
•Bicycle Master Plan
•Remove mid-block pedestrian crossing
•Bicycle facilities
•Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) upgrades at intersections
•Install and repair sidewalks on Williams DrPage 68 of 115
Bike Facilities
Page 69 of 115
5-1 0 Ye a r s
Reconfigure Northwest Blvd
Center islands on Northwest Blvd
N e w roadway connections
Raised, planted center medians
Reconstruction of DB Wood B l v d a n d Shell Rd
Intersection improvements between Rivery B l v d
a n d I-35
Grant program for signage and streestscape
Install and repair sidewalk
On-street and sidepath bicycle facilities
Page 70 of 115
Beyond 10 years
New roadway connections
Raised, planted center medians in the Corridor
Area, west of DB Wood Blvd
Install and repair sidewalks
Install and repair curb ramps
Side paths along Williams Dr and Northwest Blvd
Page 71 of 115
What we ask today
Direction to staff to return on July 11 for acceptance of the Williams Drive Study Final Plan
–Guidance on future plans including the Comprehensive Plan update and Capital Improvement Program
–Provides guidance on future budget requests that would improve the Williams Drive corridor
–Promote Council’s strategic goals to:
•Create a strategy to increase mobility
•Create and maintain outstanding aesthetics, and a welcoming appearance and spirit
Page 72 of 115
Questions and Feedback
Thank you!
Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst
Andreina Dávila-Quintero, Project Coordinator
https://transportation.georgetown.org/williams-drive/
Page 73 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
P resentation on Co mmunity Center Fees and Garey Park Operations -- Kimberly Garre tt, P arks and Recreation Dire c to r
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
P res entation o n Community Center Fees and Garey P ark
Page 74 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Community Center Fees and
Garey Park Operations
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
Page 75 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Agenda
•Update from April 25th Council Workshop
•Community Center Fees
–Review of Rental Fees/Revenues/Building Expenses
–Fee Increase options to reduce subsidy for operations
–Provide Recommendation from Staff and Parks Board
•Garey Park
•Project Update
•Key elements of the budget
•Impact to 2018 budget and future budgets
Page 76 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Community Center
Page 77 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Community Center
•Event Venue
•High Demand, especially Friday and Saturday
–One year advance booking
–General rentals –weddings and parties
–Non profit rentals –fundraisers and banquets
–City Department rentals
•Facility Amenities
–6,000 sq. ft., seating for 400 including tables and chairs, full kitchen, no catering restrictions, PA system, wireless internet and flexible rental hours (7 am to midnight)
Page 78 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Reviewed Revenues & Expenses
•Expenses –
–Utilities & Internal Service Fund
•Janitorial, Pest Control, Fire System, table and chair
replacement, general facility maintenance
•Last time fees were reviewed and increased was
in 2008 with the renovation
•Current rates are lower in comparison to other
event venues
•Reviewed fee structure for Non-Profit & Res/N Res
•Current cost recovery is 76%
Page 79 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Proposed Fees
Rental Type Current Fee Proposed Fee
10/1/2017
Proposed Fee
10/1/2018
Whole Building ( Friday & Saturday)$600 $900 $1,200
Whole Building ( Sunday -Thursday)$500 $650 $800
½ Building ( Sunday –Thursday) *$275 $450 $550
Non Profit ( 501c3)
Whole Building ( Friday & Saturday)$250 $400 $500
Whole Building ( Sunday -Thursday)$250 $300 $400
½ Building ( Sunday –Thursday) *$125 $150 $250
*Courtyard side add $50
Non-Profit Rentals 35%
Non-Resident Rentals 25%Page 80 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Comparable Facilities
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Chamber of
Commerce
Rabb House - RR Expo Center Community Center
FY17
Community Center
FY18
Sample Friday or Saturday Rental
Rental Rate Capacity
Page 81 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Other Facility Rental Options
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Union on 8th Sun City Ballroom Pearl Snap Hall Old Settlers Association
Round Rock
Sample Friday or Saturday Rental
Rental Rate Capacity
Page 82 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Costs Recovered
$0.00
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
$60,000.00
$80,000.00
$100,000.00
$120,000.00
$140,000.00
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Projected FY18 Projected FY19 Projected
Community Center Revenue & Expenses
Revenue
Expense
FY17 –76% FY18 –87% FY19 –117%
Page 83 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Parks Board & Staff Recommendation
•Increase fees to reduce the GF subsidy
•Phase increase over 2 years
•Admin time to book, check out keys, deposit
collection/refunds, and building condition not
captured in expense
•Eliminate R/NR fee structure-highly specialized
•Larger increase to general rentals than non-
profit rentals
Page 84 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Questions?
Page 85 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Garey Park
Page 86 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Garey Park
•Ground Breaking held on March 31st
•Construction timeline is estimated at 12 months
•Anticipate opening April 1st
•Initial expense in 2017 Budget
•Proposed 2018 Budget impacts a partial year
•Proposed 2019 Budget and beyond
–Full operating expense
–Full revenue potential in year 4 (FY 2021)
–Phased in Capital Maintenance & Replacement
Page 87 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Garey Park
•Operations and Maintenance Plan
–First presented in March 2015
–Provided a good baseline for staffing, expenses and
revenues
–Updated and refined with construction plans and
current costs
•Scope Changed
–No camping or amphitheater
–No host house or on site supervisor 24/7
Page 88 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Staffing
•Staffing numbers the same at 7.5 FTE’s
–6 FT & 1.5 PT
•Need to maintain coverage hours at the gate house for entry 7 days a week
•With paid entry, park should meet or exceed visitors expectations
•Proposing a self pay kiosk during non peak hours and holidays
•Continue to develop partnerships with Volunteers and Master Naturalists
Page 89 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Operational Expense
•Landscape Maintenance
•Janitorial
•Contract staff for Garey House rentals
•Utilities
•General Maintenance & Small Tools
•Uniforms, staff training, overtime
•Marketing expense
Page 90 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
One Time Capital
•To be purchased in FY 2018
•Event tables and chairs with enclosed trailer
•Tractor, truck, small car, and UTV
•Pressure washer and water trailer
•IT equipment
•Pay Station
Page 91 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Capital Maintenance & Replacement
•Phase in funding of the Facilities ISF and the
Parks SRF over 5 years.
–Items beyond 1 year useful life
–Fully funded by FY 2022
Page 92 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Proposed Park Fees Revenues
•Entry Fees –Day Pass
–Resident
•$5/Vehicle for up to 2 people; + $2/person
•$8/Equestrian Trail Day Pass
–Non-Resident
•$10/Vehicle for up to 2 people; + $2/person
•$12/Equestrian Trail Day Pass
–$35/Bus
Page 93 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Proposed Park Fees Revenues
•Annual Friends of Garey Park Pass
–Resident
•$100/Family
•+ $75/ Equestrian Rider
–Non-Resident
•$150/Family
•+ $100/ Equestrian Rider
–$3 off Equestrian Trail Day Pass
Page 94 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Proposed Park Fees Revenues
•Garey House and Event Area
–$2,800 to $6,000
•Pavilion Rentals
–$65 to $375 depending on size & length of rental
–Resident and Non Resident rates would apply
•Programs
–Various prices depending on program
–Resident and Non Resident rates would apply
Page 95 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
2018 Budget Request Summary
Request Amount
Staffing-hire Jan 1 to April 1 depending
on position
$272,851
Operations $146,450
Contracts $111,088
ISF ( vehicles)$18,918
Total Operating Expense for 2018 $549,307
One Time Expenses $205,000
Total Projected Revenues $225,000
Page 96 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Future Budget Impacts
•FY19
–Full year operating expense
–Phased in Revenue
–Phased in SRF/ISF
Description FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Revenue 225,000$ 405,172$ 586,343$ 765,385$ 765,385$
Expense 530,389$ 884,024$ 884,024$ 884,024$ 884,024$
ISF/SRF Exp 21,859$ 105,330$ 132,700$ 160,071$ 187,441$
Net Revenue (327,248)$ (584,182)$ (430,381)$ (278,710)$ (306,081)$
Cost Recovery 41%41%58%73%71%
CR w/o ISF/SRF 42%46%66%87%87%
Page 97 of 115
FY2018 Annual Budget
Questions?
Page 98 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussion of Austin Ave. Bridges Public Meeting #3 and Enviro nmental Clearance P rocess -- Ed
P olasek, AICP,Transpo rtation Planning Coordinato r
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City of Georgeto wn, in cooperation with Texas Department of Transpo rtation (TxDOT), is studying Austin Avenue
from Valley Street to 3rd Street, including the two bridges cro ssing the North and South Forks o f the San Gabriel Rive r,
for possible transportation improvements. The bridges were constructed in 1940 and deterio rate d over time and with
increased traffic in the area.
On October 11, 20 16 , City staff provided City Council an update on project activities since Task Order appro val in
January 2016, including public meetings, required environmental processes, results of forensic testing and the upc oming
project milesto ne s. On October 25, 2016 City Council authorized amendment #2 o f Task Order A&F-16-003 for
professional services to provide engineering and suppo rt se rvic e s require d to develop preliminary design alternative s,
conduct public involvement, initiate environmental servic e s and the prepare 30% plans, specific atio ns and estimate s
(P S&E) package fo r a long term management plan fo r the Austin Avenue bridges.
Since approving the ame ndment fo r environmental servic e s and public outreach, the project team has comple ted
numerous technical reports in consultatio n with TxDOT and conducte d public meeting number three o n May 11, 2 01 7.
On June 9, 2017 staff provided GTAB an o verview o f activities to date including the re sults o f public meeting number
three and near term tasks associated with alternative s analysis and the environmental cle arance process.
This wo rksho p is designed to provide City Council an o verview of the public involvement process and results of the third
public meeting. Staff will also pro vide Counc il an update on the enviro nmental process, review the project’s purpose and
need statement and review current bridge design alternatives.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Austin Ave Brid ges Update
Page 99 of 115
Austin Avenue Bridges Project
June 27, 2017 Presentation for:
City Council
Page 100 of 115
Agenda
1.Overview of public involvement process
2.Overview of 3rd public meeting and public input
3.Update on environmental process
4.Review the need and purpose statement
5.Discussion of design alternatives
Page 101 of 115
January 2016 –Project Kickoff
To conduct environmental study, public involvement, and 30% design and construction plans
February 2016 –Meetings with Property Owners and Stakeholders
Met with 26 property owners and stakeholders to introduce the project and collect initial input
March 2016 –First Public Meeting
To introduce the project and process, and collect feed back on needs, preferences, and process; 104
Attendees; 128 Surveys; 189 Additional Comments; 31 Mapped Comments
June 2016 –Second Public Meeting and Walking Tour
Workshop to collect input on safety and mobility considerations, and aesthetic and character
elements; 58 Attendees; 15 Walking Tour Attendees; 51 Mapped Comments
August 2016 –Meeting and Walking Tour with Consulting Parties
Review of Section 106 and Environmental Process, and walking tour
Fall 2016 –Council Workshop
Review of environmental and public involvement process
May 2017 –Third Public Meeting
Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates on environmental and historical
process; 61 Attendees; 147 comments
Overview of Public Involvement Process
Page 102 of 115
Project Description
Existing Austin Avenue Facility
•Constructed in 1940
•Four-lane undivided roadway (two lanes in
each direction)
•11-foot travel lanes
•No center turn lane
•No shoulders or offsets to pedestrian elements
•Four-foot sidewalk on either side
•No designated bike lanes
•Bridges are cantilevered suspended-span bridges
Possible Improvements
The study will consider options to:
•Improve safety and mobility
•Address maintenance needs over the
next several decades
•Widen lanes to 12 feet
•Add a center turn lane or median
•Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations
Page 103 of 115
Project Need and Purpose
Need:
The bridges have several deteriorating components and structural deficiencies, resulting
in the need for load posting and falling debris on and below the bridges. The bridges do
not meet the current City of Georgetown’s adopted design standards including
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and do not provide effective
connections for bicycles and pedestrians to the existing trail network. In addition, the
current roadway has narrow travel lanes and sidewalks, and does not provide the
standard levels of service for all modes of travel.
Purpose:
•Address deteriorating components and remove all load restrictions
•Improve safety and mobility through application of current design standards
•Provide safe turning movements into and out of abutting properties that effectively
serve existing and future traffic movements
•Provide crossings that meet ADA requirements, are conducive for substantial
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and provide effective connections to the existing trail
network
Page 104 of 115
12 Preliminary Alternatives
Analysis Summary
Does it meet the need and purpose criteria?
What are the environmental impacts (human, natural, and cultural resources)?
5 Moving
forward for
evaluation
1. No build Does not meet criteria. Has no impacts, but must move forward for evaluation as
required by NEPA and Section 106
2A. Build on new location and conversion
to 1-way pair of bridges on east side
Meets most criteria (limited mobility improvements for NB traffic)
Has some impacts to all resources
2B. Build on new location and conversion
to 1-way pair of bridges on west side
Meets most criteria (limited mobility improvements for SB traffic)
More impacts to resources than east side (2A) ×
3A. Build a new bridge on offset alignment
on the east side
Meets all criteria
3+ acres of ROW needed and major impacts to historic properties and resources ×
3B. Build a new bridge on offset alignment
on west side
Meets all criteria
3+ acres of ROW needed and major impacts to historic properties and resources ×
4. Bypass on alternative alignment and
leave bridges as a monument
Does not meet criteria
Major (most) impacts to resources and monuments are impractical ×
5. Rehabilitate bridges only Does not meet criteria
Minimal impacts to resources ×
6A. Rehabilitation with a new pedestrian
bridge on east side
Meets some criteria (no mobility improvements)
Some ROW needed and some impacts to resources
6B. Rehabilitation with a new pedestrian
bridge on west side
Meets some criteria (no mobility improvements)
Some ROW needed and more impacts to resources than east side (6A) ×
7A. Rehabilitation and widen bridges
on east side
Meets all criteria
Some ROW needed and some impacts to resources
7B. Rehabilitation and widen bridges
on west side
Meets all criteria
Some ROW needed but more impacts to resources than east side (7A) ×
8. Full replacement Meets all criteria
Some ROW needed, and impacts all resources, requires full 4(f) analysis
Page 105 of 115
Overview of 3rd Public Meeting
Details
•May 11, 2017
•Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates
on environmental and historical process
•61 Attendees
•147 comments received
Page 106 of 115
Summary of Public Input from pm#3
Comments Topic or Theme
25 Concern for businesses/economic impact
23 Support for pedestrian access
23 Concern for cost of options
22 Concern for pedestrian/driver safety
19 Concern for disruptive construction and traffic control
16 Concern about transparency and public involvement
14 Concern for long term effects
12 Concern for historical preservation
8 Need more supporting data
8 Existing bridges are safe
8 Improved turning options
7 Congestion/traffic
7 Support for thoroughness of PI process
7 Environmental concerns
6 Aesthetic concerns
4 Downtown master plan
2 Public Transit
Page 107 of 115
NEPA requires federal agencies and agencies receiving federal funds to assess the environmental effects of their
proposed actions prior to making final decisions on their projects. Agencies must evaluate the environmental, social, and
economic effects of their proposed projects while providing opportunities for public review and comment on those
evaluations.
Agency Coordination/Compliance
•Texas Department of Transportation -Austin District,
Environmental Affairs Division
•Texas Historical Commission; Local and County Historic Organizations
•Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
•Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
•U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
•Right of Way / Displacements
•Land Use
•Farmland
•Air Quality Impacts
•Noise
•Utilities / Emergency Services
•Visual / Aesthetics
•Archeological Resources
•Water Quality
•Floodplains
•Soils and Geology
•Hazardous Materials
•Biological Environment -Wetlands,
Wildlife, and Vegetation
•Threatened & Endangered Species
•Construction Impacts
•Indirect Impacts
•Cumulative Impacts
•Parks and Recreational Resources
•Historic Resources
•Community Impacts
•Changes in Travel Patterns
•Traffic and Transportation /
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Accommodations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Environmental Considerations
Page 108 of 115
Historic Significance
The two bridges were constructed in 1940 over the North
and South Forks of the San Gabriel River.
•Determined eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1999
•Good representative examples of the State
Highway Department’s utilization of a
cantilevered-suspended span configuration
•Cantilevered-suspended span configuration
•Independent steel unit placed between
cantilevered arms projecting beyond the main
supports
•Connected together by riveted notched beam
seats
•The advantage of configuration was that it enabled the
bridge to have a significantly longer span and thinner
deck, which reduced the number of the supports
needed
•Noted significant features of bridges also include:
•Riveted beam seats suspending the
cantilevered span
•Metal picket railings
•Art Deco style inspired concrete bents
“Bridges for Williamson Built Recently,” Williamson County Sun, February 16, 1940. Accessed March 7, 2016. www.newspaperarchive.com
Page 109 of 115
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Process
Anticipated Schedule Activity Timeline
Team submits Historic Resources Survey Report (HRSR) to TxDOT for review
HRSR identifies properties constructed prior to 1975 within the APE and recommends whether they are National
Register eligible, if that determination was not previously made. The HRSR also analyzes the impacts the primary
alternatives may have on historically significant resources.
Late spring/early
summer 2017
TxDOT reviews HRSR Summer 2017
TxDOT conducts consulting party consultation regarding HRSR Summer/fall
2017
TxDOT coordinates with Texas Historical Commission for Section 106
Clearance (Note: If “adverse effects” cannot be avoided,additional Section 4(f) compliance required.)Fall/winter 2017
Timeline subject to change based on environmental review process.
Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that projects with the least adverse
effects move forward as preferred alternatives if they meet the Need and Purpose.
Page 110 of 115
City of Georgetown Design Guidelines
Overview
•Overall Transportation Plan (OTP) and Unified
Development Code (UDC)
•12’ travel lanes
•Five lane divided
•Level of service
•Pedestrian mobility within the right of way
•Potential for context sensitive solutions
•Downtown Master Plan
•11’ travel lanes
•Undivided
•Pedestrian mobility within the right of way
•Potential for context sensitive solutions
Considerations
•Context Sensitive Design
•Level of Service
Page 111 of 115
Next Steps
•TxDOT review of NEPA and Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) documents,
anticipate feedback Fall/Winter 2017
•Return to City Council to review No Build and Preferred Alternative, anticipated
late 2017 to early 2018
•Present No Build and Preferred Alternative at a public hearing, anticipated
late 2017 to early 2018
Timeline subject to change based on environmental review process.
Page 112 of 115
Questions/
Discussion
Page 113 of 115
Thank You!
Ed Polasek, AICP
Email: AustinAve@georgetown.org
Website: austinave@georgetown.org
Phone: (512) 930-2544
Page 114 of 115
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
June 27, 2017
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending o r co ntemplated litigation and other matters o n which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager, City Attorney, City Sec re tary and Municipal Judge: Consideratio n of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o ns Regardi ng Economi c Devel o pment Negoti ati ons
- Commercial P roje cts in the Following Areas
I35 and University Avenue
I35 and Southeast Inner Loop
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary - RD
Page 115 of 115