HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 01.08.2019 WorkshopNotice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
J anuary 8 , 2 0 1 9
The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on January 8, 2019 at 3:30 PM at the City 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.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A Update o n the Berry Creek Interc e pto r P roject - Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering
Dire c to r and Jim Briggs, General Manager o f Utilities
B Prese ntation and discussion of the Ce rtificate o f Appropriateness deve lo pment process -- Sofia
Nelso n, P lanning Director
C Discussion and direction regarding the legislative agenda for the City of Geo rgetown during the
8 6th Legislative Session -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and David Morgan, City
Manager
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.
D Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney
Advic e from attorney about pending o r contemplated litigation and othe r matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati ons about Real Pro perty
- No rthwest Blvd/FM 971 - Parcel 2 -- Travis Baird
Se c . 55 1:0 74 : Personnel Matte r s
City Manager, City Atto rney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Co nsideratio n o f the
appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal
Se c . 55 1.0 86 : Certai n P ubl i c P ow e r Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve Matte r s
- Purchase Po wer Update -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
- TrailStone Power – Potential Agreement
Adjournme nt
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
Page 1 of 107
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 _________________, 2019, 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 107
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
January 8, 2019
SUBJECT:
Update on the Be rry Creek Interceptor Project - We sley Wright, PE, Systems Engine e ring Director and Jim Briggs,
General Manage r of Utilities
ITEM SUMMARY:
This presentatio n is an update on the status of the Be rry Creek Interceptor wastewater pro ject.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Budget for the Be rry Creek Interceptor is available in the Wastewater CIP.
SUBMITTED BY:
Wright
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
Berry Creek Interc ep tor Update
Page 3 of 107
BERRY CREEK WASTEWATER
INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
January 8, 2019
Page 4 of 107
Project Team
City of Georgetown –Owner
Walker Partners –Design Consultant
SWCA –Environmental and Hydrogeology
Cambrian –Geologic Assessment and Karst
Terracon -Geotechnical
Page 5 of 107
Purpose of
Workshop is to
share project
update and
results from
appearance at
Commissioners
Court
Project Purpose
Proposed Route
Parks and Wildlife Code
Requested County
Easement
Route Changes
Page 6 of 107
Project Purpose
•Projected ultimate service to
25,000 LUEs in the basin for
existing and future customers
Find most effective solution to
provide wastewater service to
a growing area
•Environment
•Cultural Resources
•Constructability
•Maintenance
•Operability
•Permitting
•Risk Reduction
Items of consideration
BASIN
Page 7 of 107
FEASIBLE OPTION PRESENTED TO COUNTY
Gravity interceptor following Berry Creek through Berry Springs Park
Berry
Creek LS
Pecan
Branch
WWTP
RECHARGE
ZONE
BOUNDARY
Page 8 of 107
Option 2: Gravity interceptor following Berry Creek adjacent to
Berry Springs Park
Berry
Creek LS
Pecan
Branch
WWTP
RECHARGE
ZONE
BOUNDARY
Page 9 of 107
Option 3: Lift station, force main & interceptor around Berry
Springs Park
Berry
Creek LS
Pecan
Branch
WWTP
16.1 Million
Gallon/Day
Lift Station
Parallel
Existing
Interceptor
RECHARGE
ZONE
BOUNDARY
Page 10 of 107
Option 4: Wastewater treatment plant upstream from Berry
Springs Park
Berry
Creek LS
Pecan
Branch
WWTP
Circle shows the minimum area required for
land application of the treated effluent from the
Option 4 WWTP. The required amount of vacant
land is not available.
Berry
Creek
WWTP
8.1 Million
Gallon/Day
WWTP
RECHARGE
ZONE
BOUNDARY
Page 11 of 107
Option Comparison
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Electric Power
Pump Highest Risk
Electric Motor Minor Risk
Control Panel Lowest Risk
Supervisory Control
Pressure Pipe
Automatic Valve
Operator Error
Pipeline Collapse
Pipeline Blockage
Construction, Operations & Maintenance Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Land Available
Tree Removal
Park Sewer Connections Available
Maintenance Access
Inspection Access
Total Length of Construction < 10' Deep
Total Length of Construction 10'-25' Deep
Total Length of Construction 25'-40' Deep
Total Length of Construction > 40' Deep
Total Length of Tunneling
Greatest Depth
Total Estimated Cost
System Component Risk of Failure
Legend
Option 1: Gravity interceptor following Berry Creek through Berry Springs Park
Option 2: Gravity interceptor following Berry Creek adjacent to Berry Springs Park
Option 3: Lift station, force main & interceptor around Berry Springs Park
Option 4: Wastewater treatment plant upstream from Berry Springs ParkPage 12 of 107
Field Investigation Resource Map
Waters of
the U.S.
Wetlands
Springs
Seeps
Cultural
Resources
Page 13 of 107
Geologic Assessment
Review of previous geologic
studies and scientific
literature
Field investigation of creeks,
springs, faults, topography,
etc.
Geotechnical borings and
soil sample testing
Piezometer readings of
groundwater flow through
Georgetown Formation
Edwards Aquifer recharge,
flow and discharge
Page 14 of 107
Project History
1989 –Texas Water Development Board funded Wastewater Master Plan identifies need for Berry Creek Interceptor
October 1, 2016 –Fiscal Year 2017 funding for the City includes Berry Creek Interceptor
February 28, 2017 –Citizens to Address the Council
October 24, 2017 –Council Approval –Walker Partners MSA
October 24, 2017 –Council Approval –Terracon –GeoTechnical Engineering
October 24, 2017 –Council Approval –Walker Partners Engineering Design
November 14, 2017 –Initial Presentation to Wilco Commissioner’s Court
December 1, 2017 –April 30, 2018 –Right of Entry for Field Investigations
August 27, 2018 –Meeting with Commissioner Long
September 4, 2018 –Meeting with Commissioner Cook
September 4, 2018 –Meeting with Commissioner Madsen
September 5, 2018 –Meeting with Commissioner Covey
October 4, 2018 –Open House at the Parks Administration Meeting Room
November 1, 2018 –Meeting with Judge Gattis
November 16, 2018 –Site Tour with McDaniels Family at Berry Springs Park
December 4, 2018 –Commissioners approved request for a Public Hearing to be held on December 18, 2018
December 11, 2018 Commissioners Court Presentation (no action)
December 18, 2018 Public Hearing and Court Action
January 8, 2019 City Council Update Page 15 of 107
What planning is included to protect
the Edwards Aquifer and Spring
Hydrology?
Minimum 50-meter buffer from all springs to avoid
direct impacts
Construction monitoring for sensitive hydrologic
features by professional geoscientists
Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to maintain site hydrology (under drains, seep collars,
etc.)
Additional BMPs per approved TCEQ Edwards Aquifer
Protection Plan
Install pipe with leak-proof joints and water-tight
manholes
Conduct internal inspection of pipeline every 5 years
Page 16 of 107
New Proposed Alignment and Option as Result of County Action December 18, 2019
Page 17 of 107
Discussion and Next Steps
Council Discussion and Direction
Move Forward Based on Discussion
Return to GUS and Council with Revisions
Page 18 of 107
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
January 8, 2019
SUBJECT:
P resentation and discussio n of the Certificate of Appropriateness development process -- Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Purpose of P rese ntati o n
Confirm City Council direction fo r short, medium, and long term improvements to the Certific ate of Appropriateness
(CoA) Developme nt Pro cess
Feedback Requeste d
Did we capture yo ur feedback from previous wo rksho p accurately?
Confirm City Council dire c tion for improvements to the Certificate of Appro priateness (CoA) Developme nt
Process.
Seek direction o n 4 options on the review of low priority resources inside the Do wntown/Old To wn Overlay
Districts.
Seek directio n on 2 options on the use of "in-kind" materials.
Seek direction on 5 optio ns on the review of demolition requests of historic resourc e s lo c ate d o utside a histo ric
district.
Confirm dire ction o n final review of CoA's requiring HARC approval.
Presentati on Agenda
Part 1- Summary of previous City Council workshop discussions
Part 2- Review of o pportunities for improve ment
Part 3- City Council feedback and directio n on next steps
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
n/a
SUBMITTED BY:
Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
wo rksho p pres entation
Page 19 of 107
Certificate of Appropriateness
Process Improvement
January 8, 2019
Page 20 of 107
Purpose of Presentation
•Confirm City Council direction for improvements
to the Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA)
Development Process
Page 21 of 107
Feedback Requested
•Did we capture your feedback from previous workshop
accurately?
•Confirm City Council direction for improvements to the
Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development
Process
–Seek direction on 4 options on the review of low priority
resources inside the Downtown/Old Town Overlay Districts.
–Seek direction on 2 options on the use of "in-kind" materials.
–Seek direction on 5 options on the review of demolition requests
of historic resources located outside a historic district.
–Confirm direction on final review of CoA's requiring HARC
approval.
Page 22 of 107
Presentation Agenda
•Part 1:
o Summary of previous City Council workshop
discussions
•Part 2:
o Review of Strategies 4 and 5
•Part 3:
o City Council feedback and direction on next
steps
Page 23 of 107
Part 1. Summary of 2018 City
Council workshop discussions
1.Recap of 2018 CoA Process Discussions
2.Summary of Confirmed Overarching Goals
3.Recap CoA workload
4.Public Outreach Themes
5.Discussion on Opportunities for Improvement
Page 24 of 107
2018 CoA Process Discussions
•February 27, 2018:
o Workshop on Implementation of Historic Resource
Survey and recommendation by UDC Advisory
Committee on revisions for CoA process.
•August 14, 2018:
o City Council requests changes to CoA review authority.
•August 28, 2018 :
o Workshop on public engagement plan for COA
development process.
•October 23, 2018:
o Review of Past and Current Historic Preservation Policy.
Page 25 of 107
2018 CoA Process Discussions
•November 27, 2018
o Present findings of public outreach efforts.
o Confirm goals for measuring success for historic
preservation.
o Presented short, medium, and long term opportunities
for improving the COA development process.
•December 11, 2018
o Identified short term education opportunities and long
term policy improvements.
Page 26 of 107
Overarching Goals -Confirmed at
10/23 meeting
Preservation
Rehabilitation
Compatibility
Character
•Encourage preservation of
historic structures
•Guide/ Promote maintenance
and rehab of distinctive key
character defining features
•Seek compatibility with the
character of the existing area
as new infill development is
considered
•Character of historic
structures is encouraged to
be maintained as they are
adapted to new uses.
Page 27 of 107
Overarching goals for Downtown
Development
Compatibility
Pedestrian
Friendly
Environment
•Maintain traditional
mass, size, and
form.
•Sidewalk and
amenities for
comfortable walking
experience.
•Building placement
and scale
Page 28 of 107
Recap of COA workload
COA Cases 2015 -present
Part 2
43
16
27
45
17
28
41
20 21
58
31
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total COA's HARC Cases Administrative COA's
Certificate of Appropriateness Cases
2015 2016 2017 2018
Page 29 of 107
Public Outreach Feedback Themes
COA/HARC process is generally beneficial to
Georgetown.
Downtown or Old Town area had an impact on
their decision to live or work in Georgetown.
Low Priority structures should receive less
review.
COA development process should be examined for
expense, length, and predictability in approval criteria.
Part 2Page 30 of 107
Strategies that received
consensus support from the City
Council on December 11, 2018
1.Education
2.Regulation/Process
3.Policy
Page 31 of 107
Strategies for Improvement-
Education
•Strategy 1.
o Support was expressed for preparing a HARC
Commissioner Training Plan
o Timeframe for start: January 2018
•Strategy 2.
o Support was expressed for executing on a HARC
Commissioner Training Plan
o Timeframe: continuous
•Strategy 3.
o Support was expressed for preparation of an annual
public education seminar/ outreach
o Timeframe: May, to coincide with Preservation month
Page 32 of 107
Strategies for Improvement-
Regulation/ Process
•Strategy 6.
o General support for holding HARC meetings 2X a
month.
o Timeframe for implementation: March of 2019
•Strategy 7.
o General Support to update the Historic Resource
Survey every 3 to 5 years rather than every 10 years.
o Timeframe for implementation: Resolution to Council
•Strategy 8.
o Support for reviewing and removing conflicts
between UDC and Design Guidelines. Specifically,
update the UDC appeal requirement for a super
majority vote.
o Timeframe for implementation: 3 to 6 months
Page 33 of 107
Strategies for Improvement-
Policy
•Strategy 9.
o Support for reviewing design guidelines for
consistency with Downtown Master Plan.
o Timeframe: 6 to 10 months.
•Strategy 10.
o General support for utilizing the local landmark
process.
o Timeframe: 1 to 2 years.
•Strategy 11.
o General support for preparation of a Historic
Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
o Timeframe: 2 to 3 year time frame. Coinciding with update of the
DMP.Page 34 of 107
Consensus on strategies 4 and 5
have not been achieved
1.Review of low priority resources
2.Use of “in-kind” materials
3.Review process for demolitions outside
of a historic district
Page 35 of 107
Strategy 4.
Review of low priority resources.
Below options presented and discussed at 12/11 workshop.
Option 1
•No Review of
Low Priority
Structures
inside Old
Town
Downtown.
Option 2
•Staff only
review of Low
Priority
Structures
inside Old
Town
Downtown
•Utilizing
current design
standards.
Option 3
•Use of “in-kind”
materials
rather than
requiring
restoration of
original
architectural
features
coupled with
Option 2
Page 36 of 107
Strategy 5.
Review of demolitions process for
resources outside of a historic district.
Option 1
•No review of
historic
resources
outside a
Historic
Overlay
District
Option 2
•HARC
review of
only High
Priority
resources
outside a
Historic
District
without 60
day waiting
period
Option 3
•Retain HARC
review for High
Priority
structures, staff
only review for
Medium Priority
structures
outside of a
Historic
Overlay
District and
remove 60 day
waiting period
Option 4
created at meeting
•All demos on
historic
resource
survey to
retain
approval by
HARC
Below options presented and discussed at 12/11 workshop.
Page 37 of 107
Additional workshop discussion
points.
•Funding of improvements in the historic district was
generally supported but additional discussion is needed
to understand possible tools for funding.
•Removing current super-majority requirement for COA
approvals was generally supported.
•Removal of 60 day demolition for high priority resources
outside of a historic district was generally supporting
•Further review of low priority resources was discussed.
•Further breakdown of options for strategies 4 and 5 were
requested.
Page 38 of 107
Part 2. Review of Strategies 4 and 5
1.Review of Low Priority Resource Category
2.Review of options for proceeding with review of
Low Priority Resources.
3.Review of use of “In-Kind” materials.
4.Review of options for proceeding with review of
historic resources outside of a historic overlay
districts.
5.Confirm direction on on final review of CoA’s
Page 39 of 107
Strategy 4. Review of Low
Priority Resources
Page 40 of 107
Low
•Not associated
with a trend in
history, significant
architectural style,
building form, or
construction
method
•And/or significantly
altered
Page 41 of 107
Categories: 2016 Survey
Summary of Categorization for Historic -Age
Properties
Category Old Town
Downtown
Outside a
District Total Count
High 164 27 191
Medium 401 187 588
Low 468 429 897
Total 1,033 643 1,676
Page 42 of 107
Strategy 4
Overview of Options
•Option 1-
o No HARC or staff review
•Option 2-
o Staff only review of Low Priority
Resources.(Utilizing current design standards)
•Option 3-
o Identify low priority resources as non-contributing
resources.
•Option 4-
o Prioritize review of low priority resources utilizing
the National Register Districts.
Page 43 of 107
Option 1
No HARC or Staff review of Low
Priority resources
Page 44 of 107
•Number of resources
impacted:
o 468 resources out of
1,033 historic overlay
district resources
•Impact on length of
review process:
o Removal of
approximately 30-45
days in development
process.
•Impact to historic district:
o Allows for HARC and staff
to prioritize review of
higher priority resources.
o 468 low priority resources
do not receive a review for
demolition, scale & design
consistency.
Option 1 Change: No HARC or staff review of
Low Priority resources.
Page 45 of 107
•Impact to historic district:
o Setback variances for property within a historic
currently receive review by HARC. This review
prioritizes the context and compatibility of resources
rather than the ZBOA strict approval criteria of hardship
and unique circumstances. Given the size of old town
lots it will be important to preserve this review.
Option 1 Change: No HARC or staff review of
Low Priority resources.
Page 46 of 107
Option 2
Staff only review of Low Priority
Resources.
(Utilizing current design standards)
Page 47 of 107
•Number of resources
impacted:
o 468 resources out of
1,033 historic overlay
district resources
•Impact on length of
review process:
o Removal of
approximately 15-30
days in development
process.
•Impact to historic district:
o Allows for HARC to
prioritize review of higher
priority resources.
Option 2 Change: Staff only review of Low
Priority Resources.
Page 48 of 107
Improvements that would move
from HARC review to staff review.
•Additions
o To create or add to an existing street facing facade
o Awning or canopy
o Porch, patio or deck
•Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes
o Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-
historic architectural feature.
o Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps.
o Paint removal from historic and significant
architectural features (back to original condition; does
not include repainting).
Page 49 of 107
Improvements that would move
from HARC review to staff review.
•Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes
o Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication
equipment that result in modifications to the building
façade.
•Removal, Demolition or Relocation
o Awnings or canopies
o Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction of any
historic and architectural features that is integral to
the historic character of the building or structure, or
historic overlay district
o Attached carport, porch, patio or deck
Page 50 of 107
Improvements that would move
from HARC review to staff review.
•Removal, Demolition or Relocation
o Street facing facade
o Demolition that results in the reduction or loss in the
total square footage of the existing structure
o Relocation of a building or structure to a historic
overlay district (includes relocation of buildings or
structures within the same historic overlay districts)
o Relocation of a building or structure outside of the
historic overlay district
Page 51 of 107
Improvements assigned to HARC
regardless of contributing status.
•New signage that is inconsistent with an
approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines
•Master Sign Plans
•HARC exceptions (building height, setback and
FAR)
•New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent
with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
•New Building Construction-single family in old town is exempt.
Page 52 of 107
Option 3
Identify low priority resources as non-
contributing resources
Historic Resource
Survey
Recommendation
And
UDC Advisory
Committee
Recommendation
Page 53 of 107
•Number of resources impacted:
o 468 resources out of 1,033 historic overlay district
resources.
•Impact on length of review process:
o Removal of approximately 20-45 days in development
process. Remove certain improvements from staff and
HARC review.
Option 3: Identify low priority resources as non-
contributing resources;
Page 54 of 107
Improvements that would move from
HARC review to staff review.
•Additions:
–Creating or adding to an existing street facing
façade.
–Awning or canopy
–Porch, patio or a deck
•Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes:
–Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication
equipment that result in modifications to the
building facade
–Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and
ramps Page 55 of 107
Improvements that would move from
HARC review to staff review.
•Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes:
–Removal, stripping, concealing, or destruction
of any historic and architectural features that
is integral to the historic character of the
building or structure, or historic overlay district
Page 56 of 107
Improvements that would move from
HARC or staff review to no review
•Reconstruction, Alterations, Changes :
–Restoring historic architectural features
–Replacing a historic architectural feature with a non-
historic architectural feature
–Replacing roof materials with different roof materials
–Modifications to exterior steps, stairways and ramps
using in-kind material
–Paint removal from historic and significant
architectural features (back to original condition; does
not include repainting)
Page 57 of 107
Improvements that would move from
HARC or staff review to no review
Removal, Demolition or Relocation
–Awnings or canopies
–Exterior non-historic architectural features
–Exterior siding to unencapsulate historic
siding materials
–Non-historic additions that are made of non -
historic materials
–Attached carport, porch, patio or deck made
of non-historic materials
Page 58 of 107
Improvements that would move from
HARC or staff review to no review
Removal, Demolition or Relocation
-Reopen enclosed porch, patio or deck to
original condition
Page 59 of 107
Improvements currently assigned to
staff review regardless of contributing
status.
•Changes to paint color on previously painted
surfaces (includes repainting or new paint on
previously painted surface)
•Changes in color to awning fabric
•Signs that are in keeping with a master sign
plan.
Page 60 of 107
Improvements currently assigned to
staff review regardless of contributing
status.
•Exterior lighting that is attached to the building or
structure
•Rooftop HVAC, mechanical or communication
equipment that result in no modifications to the
building facade
•Relocation of a building or structure on the same
lot
Page 61 of 107
Improvements assigned to HARC
regardless of contributing status.
•Relocation of a building or structure to a historic
overlay district (includes relocation of buildings
or structures within the same historic overlay
districts).
•New signage that is inconsistent with an
approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines
Page 62 of 107
Improvements assigned to HARC
regardless of contributing status.
•HARC exceptions (building height, setback and
FAR)
•New fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent
with the overlay district's characteristics and
applicable guidelines
•New Building Construction-single family in old town is exempt
Page 63 of 107
Demolition that results in the reduction
or loss in the total square footage of the
existing structure.
•Recommended by UDC Advisory Committee
and Historic Resource Survey that all
demolitions within a historic district require
approval by HARC.
Page 64 of 107
Option 4
Prioritize review of low priority
resources.
a)Identify low priority resources outside of a
national register district as non-contributing
resources;
b)Identify low priority resources within a National
Register Districts as contributing status
resources
NEW OPTION
Page 65 of 107
Option 4
Impacted Low Priority
Resources:
o 468 resources out of the
total 1,033 historic
overlay district resources
are prioritized as low
priority.
o 65 resources out of the
468 low priority
resources are located
within a national register
district.
National Register Districts:
o Olive Street District
o Williamson County
Courthouse District
o Belford District
o University/ Elm Street
District
Page 66 of 107
Option 4
•Impact on length of review
process:
o Low Priority Resources
within a National Register
District (65): process would
remain the same.
o Low Priority Resources
outside of a National
Register District (403):
Removal of approximately
20-45 days in development
process.
•Impact to historic district:
o Allows National Register
Districts to retain highest
level of review.
•Other:
o Should City Council
proceed with work to
establish an incentive
program for historic
properties, resources
within a National
Register District held to a
higher standard may be
good starting place for
investment. Page 67 of 107
Strategy 4
Overview of Options
•Option 1-
o No HARC or staff review
•Option 2-
o Staff only review of Low Priority
Resources.(Utilizing current design standards)
•Option 3-
o Identify low priority resources as non-contributing
resources.
•Option 4-
o Prioritize review of low priority resources utilizing
the National Register Districts.
Page 68 of 107
Strategy 4a:
Allow for use of “in-kind” materials
•Option 1:
o Allow for use of “in-kind” materials for all low priority
structures.
•Option 2:
o Allow “in-kind” materials for all low priority structures
not located in a National Register District.
Page 69 of 107
Strategy 5:
Demolition Review and Approval Process for
Historic Resources located Outside of a
Historic Overlay District
Page 70 of 107
Strategy 5
Overview of Options
•Option 1:
o No review of historic resources outside of a Historic Overlay District.
•Option 2:
o HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District
without 60 day waiting period.
•Option 3: UDC advisory committee recommendation
o HARC review for High Priority structures, staff only review for Medium
Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60
day waiting period
•Option 4: Created at the last meeting
o All demos on historic resource survey to retain approval by HARC.
Resources outside of a historic district will not require a 60 demolition
hold.
•Option 5: New Option
o HARC reviews all level of resources. In order to trigger review a
resource must be identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 resource surveys.
Page 71 of 107
Current Demolition Process
Application
submitted
Demolition
Subcommittee
HARC
approval
30-45
days 60 day minimum
before HARC can
take action
Page 72 of 107
Option1
Change: No review of historic resources
outside a Historic Overlay District
Page 73 of 107
Option 1
•Number of resources impacted:
o 643 resources out of 1,676 historic resource survey
listed resources.
•Impact on length of review process :
o Removal of approximately 60 days in development
process.
•Other considerations:
o Removal of the structures (specifically the 27
identified high priority resources) would take place
without an opportunity to collect a history of the
property prior to removal.
Page 74 of 107
Option 2
Change: HARC review of only High Priority
resources outside a Historic District without 60
day waiting period
Page 75 of 107
Option 2
•Number of resources
impacted:
o 616 resources out of
1,676 historic resource
survey listed resources
would no longer require
review.
•Impact on length of
review process:
o The application would no
longer be subject to the
60 day demolition hold.
Page 76 of 107
Demolition Process-
High Priority
Out of District
Application
submitted
Demolition
Subcommittee
HARC
approval
No 60 day
delay
Step 1 Step 3 Step 4
Staff Review
Step 2
Page 77 of 107
Option 3
Change:
•HARC review for only High Priority
structures
•Staff only review for Medium Priority
structures
•Remove 60 day waiting period
UDC Advisory
Committee
Recommendation
Page 78 of 107
UDC Advisory Committee Recommended
Demolition Process –
Out of District
Application
submitted
Demolition
Subcommittee
HARC
approval
No 60 day
delay
Step 1 Step 3 Step 4
Staff Review
Step 2
Page 79 of 107
Option 4
Change: All demos on the Historic
Resource Survey to retain approval by
HARC. Resources outside of a historic
district will not require a 60 demolition
hold.
Introduce at 12/9
Workshop by
Council
Page 80 of 107
Process remains the same without
a 60 day demolition hold
Application
submitted
Demolition
Subcommittee
HARC
approval
Page 81 of 107
Option 5
Change: HARC reviews all level of resources.
In order to trigger review a resource must be
identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 resource
surveys.
New
UPDATED
Page 82 of 107
Resources 1935 and older
•Number of resources impacted:
o Approximately 138
resources out of 643 historic
resources outside of district
have been identified on all 3
surveys.
o In order to be on all three
surveys the resource must
date back to at least 1935.
•Impact on length of review
process:
o The application would no
longer be subject to the 60
day demolition hold.
Page 83 of 107
Strategy 5
Overview of Options
•Option 1:
o No review of historic resources outside of a Historic Overlay District.
•Option 2:
o HARC review of only High Priority resources outside a Historic District
without 60 day waiting period.
•Option 3: UDC advisory committee recommendation
o HARC review for High Priority structures, staff only review for Medium
Priority structures outside of a Historic Overlay District and remove 60
day waiting period
•Option 4: Created at the last meeting
o All demos on historic resource survey to retain approval by HARC.
Resources outside of a historic district will not require a 60 demolition
hold.
•Option 5: New Option
o HARC reviews all level of resources. In order to trigger review a
resource must be identified on 1984, 2007, and 2016 resource surveys.
Page 84 of 107
Confirmation of Council
Direction
Final Review of CoA’s by HARC
Page 85 of 107
COA Application Submittal
Completeness Review
Technical Reviews
HARC DeterminationStaff Determination
Pre-Application
Meeting (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
HARC Conceptual
Review (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
Current Certificate of Appropriateness
Application Process
Page 86 of 107
Recap of COA workload
COA Cases 2015 -present
Part 2
43
16
27
45
17
28
41
20 21
58
31
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total COA's HARC Cases Administrative COA's
Certificate of Appropriateness Cases
2015 2016 2017 2018
Page 87 of 107
Confirmation of previous
discussions.
•All CoA’s requiring HARC approval shall
require final approval by City Council.
•No public hearing will be required at City
Council and item shall be placed on
consent agenda.
Page 88 of 107
COA Application Submittal
Completeness Review
Technical Reviews
HARC Recommendation Staff Determination
Pre-Application
Meeting (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
HARC Conceptual
Review (Optional,
but highly
encouraged)
Certificate of Appropriateness
Application Process
City Council Final Action Page 89 of 107
Part 3:
City Council feedback and
direction on next steps
Page 90 of 107
Feedback Requested
•Did we capture your feedback from previous workshop
accurately?
•Confirm City Council direction for improvements to the
Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) Development
Process
–Seek direction on 4 options on the review of low priority
resources inside the Downtown/Old Town Overlay Districts.
–Seek direction on 2 options on the use of "in-kind" materials.
–Seek direction on 5 options on the review of demolition requests
of historic resources located outside a historic district.
–Confirm direction on final review of CoA's requiring HARC
approval.
Page 91 of 107
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
January 8, 2019
SUBJECT:
Discussion and directio n regarding the legislative agenda for the City of Georgeto wn during the 86th Legislative Session
-- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and David Morgan, City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will provide an update on the City's legislative program fo r the 86th Legislative Session.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time .
SUBMITTED BY:
Jackson Daly
ATTACHMENT S:
Description
DRAFT Pres entation
Legislative Agenda
Page 92 of 107
86th Texas Legislative Session
Update
January 8, 2019
Page 93 of 107
Elected Officials
•Charles Schwertner, Senate District 5
•Terry Wilson, House District 20
•James Talarico, House District 52
Georgetown
Page 94 of 107
House Districts
Georgetown
Page 95 of 107
Change in Membership
•No changes in statewide elected positions
•House
–New Speaker of the House
–83 R’s, 67 D’s
•2017 –95, 55
•Senate
–19 R’s, 12 D’s
•2017 –21, 10
•3/5 rule
Page 96 of 107
City of Georgetown Efforts
•Adopted Legislative
agenda in Oct. 2018
•Williamson County Day
•Chamber’s Gov’t Affairs
Committee
•Texas Municipal League
•Focused Advocacy
Page 97 of 107
Legislative Agenda
•Guide for Council and staff to promote City interests
•Establishes policy direction for general topics that could
affect the City
•Work to establish and maintain active, positive
partnerships with our elected officials
Page 98 of 107
Legislative Agenda Topics
•Preserve local home-rule control
•Oppose unfunded mandates
•Oppose revenue caps
•Support local parks funding
•Protect utility interest
Page 99 of 107
Our Home, Our Decisions
Page 100 of 107
Our Home, Our Decisions
Page 101 of 107
Next Steps
•Continue to Council provide updates
throughout the session
•On-going dialogue with elected officials
and staff
•Anticipate specific topics and initiatives
that will require Council feedback
•Share information with public on issues
impacting Georgetown
Page 102 of 107
RESOLUTION NO. a"3 I - Pi
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS, REQUESTING THE MEMBERS OF THE 86TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SUPPORT THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS, the 86th legislative session convenes on January 8, 2019, and will be
considering issues of interest and importance to the City of Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown desires to adopt a Legislative Agenda that is
consistent with the mission and vision of the City and in the best interest of the public it serves;
and
WHEREAS, local control is where local elected officials tasked with raising funds and
providing services to respond to the individual and market driven needs of the unique community
they serve; and
WHEREAS, City staff, legal counsel, and legislative consultants will work under the
direction of the City Council to affirmatively pursue the City of Georgetown's Legislative Agenda;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown's Legislative Agenda is intended to be a broad policy
statement on issues that are anticipated to be discussed during the 86th session, while additional
items will be more specifically reviewed and discussed by the City Council as necessary during
the Legislative Session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. That the City Council request the members of the 86' Legislature of Texas
actively pursue the items found in the City of Georgetown Legislative Agenda set forth in Exhibits
A" attached hereto.
RESOLVED this 231 day of October 2018.
ATTEST:
Shelley aryCitySecretreta
APPR AS T FO
Charles McNabb
Resolution No.
Description: 2019 Legislative Agenda
Date Approved: October 23, 2018
Page i of 2
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN.
Dale Ross
Mayor
Page 103 of 107
City Attorney
Resolution No. I Dab 100- l" G
Description: 2019 Legislative Agenda
Date Approved: October 23, 2018
Page 2 of
Page 104 of 107
Exhibit A
2019 Legislative Agenda
86th Texas Legislature
The City of Georgetown's Legislative Agenda establishes a policy direction for a summary of important
issues that affect the Georgetown residents, businesses, and stakeholders.
Local Control - Oppose Legislation that would:
Erode or otherwise diminish home rule authority and local control (local control: where local
elected officials are tasked with raising funds and providing services to respond to the individual
and market driven needs of the unique community they serve);
Impose limits on the city's existing economic development authority;
Restrict the ability of cities to provide economic and efficient methods of financing city
purchases and projects;
Erode annexation or zoning authority; or
Erode municipal authority over the rights-of-way or erode municipal authority to collect
reasonable compensation for the use of rights-of-way.
Taxation - Oppose Legislation that would:
Impose revenue caps in the form of adjusting provisions for the current property tax rollback; or
Reduce the appraisal growth cap established in current law.
Unfunded Mandates - Oppose Legislation that would:
Create unfunded or underfunded mandates from state and federal government which
ultimately end up costing local taxpayers.
Parks — Support Legislation that would:
Enhance the investments in all parks and open spaces
Support conservation of open space and making public lands accessible for public use by
supporting the sporting goods sales tax and the land and water conservation fund
Support water and natural resources through conservation, presentation, and the rights to
access nature, the outdoors, and recreational amenities
Enhance physical activity and improve health and wellness by utilizing parks and recreation
amenities and services
Support funding for services and programs that ensure access for all people to connect to nature
and the outdoors
Create a livable, safe, and responsible community by supporting safe recreational amenities,
pathways, and trails
Support the positive economic impacts of connecting our communities to nature and the
outdoors from the Parks and Recreation Industry
Utilities - Support Legislation that would:
Dissolve the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD) Board;
Allow continued MOU general fund transfers and return on investment; or
Preserve local control regarding Municipally Owned Utility (MOU) decision making related to
electric market participation.
Page 105 of 107
Utilities — Oppose Legislation that would:
Expand of Public Utility Commission's jurisdiction or limit MOU control related to rates or
regulations;
Change current law regarding disclosure of competitively sensitive information; or
Create required discount mandates for MOUs.
Page 106 of 107
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
January 8, 2019
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney
Advice from attorney abo ut pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o ns about Real P roperty
- Northwest Blvd/FM 97 1 - Parcel 2 -- Travis Baird
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employme nt,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.086: Ce r tai n P ubl i c Power Uti l i ti es: Co mpeti ti ve Matters
- P urchase Power Update -- Jim Briggs, General Manager o f Utilities
- TrailStone Po wer – P otential Agreement
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 107 of 107