HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.12.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101
East 7"' St., Georgetown, Texas.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's
Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8"
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 2:30 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the
exception of Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2. Mayor Ross, Councilmember Ana Eby, District 1,
Councilmember John Hesser, District 3, Councilmember Steve Fought, District 4, Councilmember Kevin Pitts,
District 5, Councilmember Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Councilmember Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in
attendance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. Presentation and discussion concerning ethics recommendations from the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee -- Tim
Smith, Chair of the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee
The Ethics Ad Hoc Committee Chair, Tim Smith, provided a presentation on the Committee's
recommendations for amendments to the City's Ethics Ordinance. He explained that the Committee was an
8 member Committee, appointed by the City Council, which consisted of the eight members of the previous
Ethics Commission. Smith introduced the members in attendance, Jerry Lawhon, Kelly McClennahan,
Camarie Perry and Paula Trietsch-Chaney.
Smith provided an agenda of the presentation.
• Scope of Work
• Brief Review of Commission's Work
• Resources & References Used
• Approach
• Review of Recommendations
• Referral to City Council for Discussion or Questions
Smith described the Committee's Scope of Work.
• Keep an Ethics Commission in place
■ Provide for workable processes that allow the work of City boards and commissions to proceed
without unnecessary delay
• Define gift amounts
• Clear and accountable
Work of the Commission was presented.
• The Ad Hoc commission convened, organized and reviewed their scope of work on November 18,
2017
■ Convened six times between November 2017 and May 2018, in meeting open to the public, to
discuss, review and decide on changes to recommend for the next Ethics Ordinance
• Reviewed the final draft Ethics Ordinance in May 2018 and voted unanimously to recommend
approval to the City Council.
Smith spoke on the references and resources that had been utilized.
• Ethics Ordinances from other similarly sized or larger municipalities
• Input and recommendations from City Council members
• The ordinance that immediately preceded the Ethics Ordinance currently in effect
• Input and counsel from the City Attorney
Smith described the Committee's Approach
• Use the pre -September 2017 Ethics Ordinance as the start point
• Retain the existing Ethics Commission and Complaint Process
• Make recommendations to the City Council to Add, Change, or Delete sections along with rationale
Smith provided slides and descriptions of each of the Committee's 10 recommendations.
Recommendation 3
- Section 2.20.020.1.
Delete this paragraph.
• With the recommended changes in the
definition of a "Family Member," this
paragraph is rendered obsolete.
�t
Recommendation 4
• Section 2.20.30.A.1. through 4.
• Replace the word "may" with the word
"shall'.
• To remove ambiguity.
�7Z17H[ij it IN ti
IE���
Recommendation 5
• Section 2.20.030.A.
• Add sub paragraphs 5 through 11
• These additions further clarify what is
considered an ethics violation, and are
taken from the The City of San Antonio
Ethics Code. Further reduces ambiguity.
G tp�Xltmx6wTH
AS
Recommendation 6
• Section 2.20.030.C.2.
• Delete the reference to "Exhibit A" in
subparagraph b.i.
• Changes in definition of Family Member
render Exhibit A obsolete.
Recommendation 7
• Section 2.20.030.C.2.
• Delete subparagraph b.iv.
• Recognizes that City Elected officials'
have careers outside of city official duties
that may require negotiations pertaining to
business opportunities. Does not remove
accountability if negotiations lead to an
ethics violation.
Recommendation 8
• Section 2.20.30.D.
• Add subparagraph 3.
• Designed to preclude Board/Commission
paralysis. In this way, potential conflicts
are above board. This does not prevent
complaints from being filed and reviewed
by the Ethic Commission.
Smith concluded the presentation. He noted that the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee refers the draft Ethics
Ordinance for the appropriate action with their unanimous recommendation for approval.
Councilmember Eby thanked the Committee for their hard work. She asked if Georgetown's ethics
ordinance was in line with other cities that had been reviewed. Smith said Georgetown had been similar to
most and was not an outlier. He explained that the Committee had looked at the ethics ordinances of 10
different cities.
Councilmember Hesser thanked Mr. Smith and the Committee for the work they put into this, but said he
was disappointed in the report and recommendations from the Committee. He said that the Council did not
get what they asked for. Hesser asked about the language "maintain as a non-partisan organization" and
asked Smith to define this for him. Smith said it would be larger political bodies influencing the Council.
Hesser asked who would monitor this and who would hold members accountable. Smith said that this part
of the ordinance had not been changed and is in the existing ordinance the same. Smith said the
Committee had not been charged with analyzing this and it would not have been in their scope. Hesser said
the Committee was not supposed to use the old ordinance to work from and the Council wanted to start with
new document. He explained that 5 Councilmembers had voted to not use that document at an earlier
meeting. Hesser added that we are a republic not a democratic government, and there is a big difference.
He said the form of government governs what is expected of a person sitting on the Council. He said that
there is a need to start over or, at the least, use the state document. Hesser noted that there are many
different ethics ordinances out there. He added that he appreciates the Committee's work and apologizes if
the Council was not clear in their direction.
Councilmember Fought said the recommended ordinance is a good product and he is in support of it. He
said he likes the recognition that Councilmembers are not full time employees. He explained that their
careers and other aspects of their lives, and the ability to act as any other citizen, is perfectly stated.
Fought said he listed 5 questions that he had for the Committee. Fought said the term "property" was well
defined throughout the document, but asked why it is capitalized some places and not others. City Attorney,
Charlie McNabb, said this was actually an error in the document and all references to "property" have been
corrected to be consistent with a capital P.
Fought said the term financial economic interest is well defined. He asked Smith if the Committee had
addressed the term substantial economic interest because the definition still seems "squishy". Smith said
that the Committee had wrestled with this term, as well, and since the term is subjective, the Committee was
not able to come up with a way to make it better.
Councilmember Pitts said the draft leaves too many things to interpretation and exposes people to the risk of
unknowingly violating this policy. Pitts suggested that Chapter 171 should have been the template instead
of the old ordinance. Pitts spoke regarding language he had issue with. He noted that the gift amount set at
$25 is too low. He said the state's is set at $50 and he feels the City's should be at least that. Pitts spoke
on travel expenses accrued by Councilmembers while promoting the City. He said when just helping with
the City and promoting the City, without any political reasons, Councilmember should be allowed to accept
the expense from the media source. Pitts spoke on professionals that could easily violate the ethics
ordinance by the nature of their business. He explained that engineers, attorneys and realtors, who do
business locally, would need to be concerned with sitting on boards and commissions. He said the City
must not limit people's opportunity to serve. Pitts spoke on possible manipulation for votes or possible
issues with recusals. He went on to speak on more ambiguity in the document. Pitts noted that there
should be a clause addressing people filing frivolous claims on City Officials, with no penalty.
Mayor Ross asked Chair Smith if the Committee had talked about frivolous complaints. Smith said the
Committee had not discussed frivolous complaints and it had not been directed as a task from Council.
Ross spoke on ethics required of him as a CPA. He said there are standards for punishment of filing
frivolous complaints in his business. Smith agreed that this has validity, but said he cannot speak for the
Commission.
Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Smith and the Ad Hoc Committee. She said that she felt the previous
ordinance was already a good one. Jonrowe said the things she remembered as Council direction for the
Committee, had been addressed by the Committee, such as family relationship, recusal and quorum issues,
and clarity of financial and economic interest. She noted the Committee's addition of standards of conduct
and definitions for such.
Councilmember Gonzalez thanked the Committee. He said his recollection was that the Committee was to
start with the state ordinance and make it stronger. He said this could have been bad instruction to the
Committee and Council may take the blame for unclear direction. He said there are things of no benefit in
the ordinance that were not changed and he has concerns about people having to preclude themselves from
participating.
Councilmember Eby said the recommendations given are not a bad product just because someone does not
personally agree. The Committee might not agree with a Councilmember's position. She said the
Committee was tasked with looking closely and in depth at ethical issues, what other cities are doing and
looking at our existing language. She said all of this started with one member of the P&Z board having to
recuse, which created a quorum issue. She said this has now been addressed. Eby said using this as a
method to lower ethical standards is not a good idea. She said she believes the Committee, after review,
felt that the old ordinances with amendments was what was best for the City. She cautioned her colleagues
to be thoughtful and careful in their considerations.
Councilmember Hesser said he is not in favor of a less restrictive policy. He said he believes that ethics
lies within himself and his standard of ethics is quite high. Hesser said this diminishes the level of ethics and
that is why he is asking for a different form. He explained that some things lend toward interpretation and
ambiguity needs to go away. Hesser said he is bothered by the personal attack and that being used as a
method to have him change his mind. He then asked Chair Smith if the $25 amount is for twelve months or
a one-time occurrence. Smith confirmed that it is a one-time occurrence. Hesser said if a citizen were to
take him to dinner one night, he would be in violation. Smith concurred and said that would be the case if he
did not pay for his own meal.
Councilmember Fought gave an example of a Councilmember giving a speech at a symposium and being
served lunch while there. The hotel and meals should not be considered gifts, but may fit in the hospitality
section of the document. Fought said, If hotel and meals are constituted gifts, it would be an ethics violation.
Fought said it needs to be made clear that covering expenses is not a gift.
Fought said he wants to see members permitted to recuse themselves for reasons other than what is sited
in the ordinance and to do so without having to openly document the rationale. He provided an example of a
person that one believes to be a crook presenting to the Council. Fought said he would still be thinking of
the person as a crook and would want to recuse himself so as not to be biased in a decision. He noted that
he would not want to have to explain his recusal.
Mayor Ross noted a speech he had given to 500 people at the Sheraton the previous day. He said he was
treated to lunch with the members at the conference. Ross asked Smith, under the proposed ordinance,
how should this be treated, since the value of the meal is greater than $25.
Smith said this is a "what -if' that he is not prepared to discuss. He said he would have to see the dollar
figure associated with that meal to comment. Smith said there is a lot more to this than a spur of the
moment answer. Smith explained that Council can change any of the recommendations that they wish.
Ross asked how the gift amount came about. Smith said the Committee felt that a limit must be set and the
federal government gift is set at $10. Ross said the state ordinance would say this type of meal would not
be considered a gift. Ross asked about reimbursement of expensed to a Councilmember speaking out of
state. Smith said it would not be a violation, because the Councilmember was not benefiting personally.
Ross asked Smith if the Committee had this conversation. Smith said they had not. Ross said
Councilmembers are citizen servants, not getting paid while away and forfeiting pay from their employers,
while away.
Councilmember Pitts said interpretation is an issue. He noted that the state ordinance is straight forward
and easy to understand. He added that policy like this would restrict qualified folks from applying because
they could potentially, unknowingly, violate the policy. Pitts said he prefers to stay with the state code.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the Committee had discussed recusals without explanation. Smith said
this had not been part of their discussion. Jonrowe said she would have strong objections to that and feels
that reasons for recusal should be required. She explained that elected officials should not be permitted to
recuse themselves on a controversial issue to avoid voting, and avoid being on the record for that. Jonrowe
spoke on the back and forth between life experience on the Council and the Committee tasked with
discussing pure ethics. She asked if the City should want an ethics ordinance reflecting the desires of
elected officials or an ethics ordinance that reflects the expectations of the citizens.
Councilmember Gonzalez spoke on the ethics of one Councilmember vs. another. He said this insinuation
is not fair and each person is entitled to an opinion. He said the Committee should have been able to make
their recommendations and not be influenced by Councilmembers. He said it has now been discovered that
certain Councilmembers put in their input and advice which takes it back to the beginning, where information
gotten is coming from elected officials influencing what was supposed to be an Ad Hoc Committee.
Gonzalez said no one Councilmember should have the ability to speak for the entire Council. The
Committee should have heard from the majority of Council, not one or two people. Gonzalez said the
process was flawed.
Fought spoke on the section of the ordinance that states that at all times the City Council should strive to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partisanship. The City Council shall be maintained as a non-
partisan body. Fought suggested language be added to reflect this in the new ordinance. He spoke on dual
elected positions and said this should absolutely not be permitted.
Councilmember Pitts asked City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, for the next steps. McNabb said it is up to the
Council to direct the staff.
Jonrowe asked McNabb about political leadership. She explained that she had contacted McNabb to ask
about the legal implications on the prohibition of dual elected positions. McNabb said a position with a party
is not considered a public office in Texas, so the issue of dual elected positions would not exist. McNabb
said there is a provision in the election code dealing with officers in political parties, which prohibits holding
that office if you also hold a federal state or county office. He said language regarding municipal offices was
specifically removed by the state a few years ago.
Fought and Gonzalez discussed individual interpretation and the importance of influence coming from the
Council as a whole. Gonzalez spoke on the impossibility of non-partisanship. He noted each individual is
always influenced by their own beliefs.
Mayor Ross asked Smith if it would be unethical if a candidate took an endorsement from a political party.
Smith said this had not been discussed and he said he did not want to comment. He said the non-partisan
language had not been changed from the old ordinance to the new recommendations.
Ross asked Smith if the Committee had received direction from individual Councilmembers instead of from
the Council as a Whole. Smith said the Committee had received input but not direction. Smith said the City
Attorney attended all of the Committee's meetings and this topic did not come up.
Ross thanked the Committee and asked Council what they would like to do. Fought said it would not be fair
to turn this back to the Ad Hoc Committee.
McNabb explained that the standard states that the people covered by the City Ordinance must follow state
law, in its current state. He said the local ordinance could be written to have the exact language that is in
the state law and then it could be augmented. Ross said the concern seems to be that this would weaken
the ordinance. He asked McNabb how to make the ordinance stronger. Ross asked if it would be a
stronger ethics ordinance if the 10 recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee were implemented.
McNabb said it is a philosophical call to suggest that it is stronger. McNabb said it would not have any
additional penalties than the state law, because a City cannot prescribe higher penalties.
Ross said this is an example of what the issue is. He said the Council looks for answers and does not get
answers. McNabb and Ross went on to discuss at length.
Gonzalez said the state law would be best, because the more language that is added, the more that is left
up to interpretation. He suggested adding the definitions of family members and provisions for travel and
meals while representing the City.
Councilmember Eby asked how many Ethics Complaints the City has received. McNabb said in his two and
a half years with the City, no complaints have been filed. Eby asked about the issue with recusals and
quorum. McNabb explained a time when the P&Z commission could not vote because of a recusal, but that
it is rare and not common.
Eby explained that any issues in the recent past have been corrected. She noted that it is impossible to write
a document with no issue of interpretation, which would rarely happen.
City Manager, David Morgan suggested a path forward. He suggested providing a comparison of state law
and the old city ordinance and allowing the Council to decide what should be included and what should not.
Ross said this is great suggestion.
Hesser spoke again on issues of conflicts of interest. Ross asked McNabb if Councilmembers have the
prerogative to recuse themselves if they do not want to vote on an issue. McNabb said the answer is no, not
without giving a reason, but it is not in the ethics ordinance, but rather in the Rules of Council, in a provision
on voting.
Gonzalez asked who accepts the reason. McNabb said the Council. Gonzalez said this should be by a vote
of the Council. Fought said he supports that if a Councilmember is present, they need to vote, but would
want to have an asterisk for reasons such as he explained earlier in the meeting.
Gonzalez spoke on possible grudges in business.
Mayor Ross said a vote on the ethics ordinance will not be at this meeting. He explained that all of the
Councilmembers are in favor of a tougher ordinance. He said he likes the idea of a comparison for Council
to review. He suggested a draft be given to each Councilmember for review and consideration, with
discussion at a future Workshop Meeting and then taking a vote.
B. Presentation and discussion concerning a Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy -- Octavio Garza, P.E.
Public Works Director, Octavio Garza, spoke on a Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy. He thanked
the City's Fire Department, Police Department, Planning Department and City Manager's staff for their
assistance and advice toward establishing a policy. Garza also thanked the Public Works personnel for their
dedication and guidance concerning neighborhoods and streets needing traffic examination. Garza thanked
the City's Transportation Planning Coordinator, Ed Polasek, for assistance in drafting a policy.
Garza noted the issues of increased speed, volume and commercial vehicles are common, especially in
high growth communities. He said that neighborhood traffic management and neighborhood traffic
management techniques, traffic calming, is the combination of physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicles use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non -motorized street users.
Garza provided an agenda of his presentation and spoke on the purpose of the presentation.
Garza described the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy
1. Speed (Quantitative)
• 85"' percentile speed must be exceeded:
For a 24 hour period the average speed must be at
least 3 mph over posted speed.
• Changes to Speed Limits are a public process.
2. Volume (Qualitative for local streets)
• Traffic Control Measures recommended per Policy.
GIORI, YRi NI
Traffic Volume Criteria
Traditional Planning Criteria is based on Level of
Service for MiRior Collectors and Arterials.
• Level of Service C for 2 lane undivided roadway is up to
8,200 average daily trips for un -signalized roadways.
• Level of Service C for a segment of street is -Stable Flow,
but most dnvers are restncted in their freedom to select
speed or change lanes "Source AASHTO2001andlTE 1992
• Traditional Planning Criteria does not provide an
adequate measure to address "volume" on local
streets.
ATGtoE7UwN
rixws
Traffic Volume Identification
• Considerations in Draft Policy:
Operational problems that could be addressed through traffic
control measures,
Special conditions concerning the neighborhood area,
including, but not limited to, the location and nature of
businesses, schools, parks, churches or other non-residential
traffic generators;
- Approved neighborhood development plans;
- Community support for the project evidencing that the project
will enhance and promote public health, safety and welfare,
and,
- Existing evidence, studies, data or reports regarding the
severity of the existing problem, if any, merit the project.
GEOR, k.t+ETOWN
R,
1
Example of Traffic Control Measures for
Speed and Volume Concerns*
■ Enforcement and education
• Speed reduction
• Roadway changes
- Rumble strips, pavement edge lines, raised
crosswalks, speed humps, etc.
• Narrowing of lanes
- Roundabouts, island narrowing, etc.
• Curb extensions
- Bulb outs, chokers, diverter/lateral shifts, etc.
• One -Way / Do Not Enter conversion
• Full closure
cr�«kr�
'W N 'Appendix A of the Policy
Application Process
First Step: Pre -submittal conference and application
(Appendix B).
Second Step: Staff review and determination of potential
mitigation measures, funding, maintenance agreement
(Appendix C), as applicable, with applicant.
Third Step: Conduct public meeting to present a
preferred alternative. Notification of the public meeting
and preferred alternative will be mailed to addresses
within 500 feet of the segment of roadway under
consideration (larger area may be necessary if primary
accesslegress route requires traversing proposed
traffic control devices).
L; Ei]R�C E7L�i1a'h
F %/l
Application Process Cont'd
Fourth Step: Survey affected property owners.
1. 50% response required.
2. Two thirds of the 50% (or greater) response must
support preferred alternative.
Fifth Step: Staff recommendation prepared for
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and City
Council.
Z?(i �1' 11 Qu�
Garza spoke on projects that staff could initiative and manage and larger projects that would need to be
considered through a CIP Project Plan and Budget. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about step 6 and how
priorities would be assigned. He explained that a project, when added to a CIP List, would affect all the
other projects already in the pipeline. City Manager, David Morgan, said Step 5 would be getting approval
from GTAB and Council, and then based on the recommended strategy or tool, staff would identify projects
and have the Council provide their direction. He said a small amount of dollars are put into the budget for
contingency purposes, and a larger project would need to wait until the next budget year and getting
approval from the Council.
Councilmember Hesser asked what consideration to was given to GPS influence. Garza said it is not
considered as part of the policy. Hesser asked about the expansion of the 500 foot area. Garza described
a travel shed and provided speed humps as an example. He described a road that may be a main access to
other parts of a neighborhood. Morgan provided an example of traffic shed in the downtown area.
Budget Considerations were provided by Garza. He said a timeline was created for orderly budget impacts.
1. Annual fund created in Public Works Division budget for projects requiring traffic engineering
analysis
2. Application process selects projects for study each year
3. GTAB recommendation and City Council approval required for mitigation measures. Mitigation
measures requiring capital improvements will be programmed in the next FY CIP.
Garza spoke on the Next steps.
• City Council Feedback and Direction
■ Public Meeting for Input into Draft Policy
• City Council Approval
■ Budget Request to Fund Program
Councilmember Jonrowe asked about the application process and who could be an applicant. Garza
explained that any resident or property owner of Georgetown could be an applicant, or an HOA might be an
applicant. Jonrowe asked who would come up with the preferred alternative. Garza said it would be a staff
determination and staff would consult with the applicant. Morgan added that, typically, there would be more
than one option available.
Morgan said, after working with the applicant, and a request moves forward to a Public Hearing, a preferred
alternative from the residents of the affected area would also be heard, which would be reported to the
Council. Garza noted that the preferred alternative must be applicable. Morgan explained that there could
be multiple meetings in Step 3 before a viable consensus on solution is reached.
Jonrowe said she likes the process and is supportive of the public involvement. She asked if this process
would be followed for the concerns on Majestic Oak. Morgan confirmed. Jonrowe asked if a traffic
management policy would address some of the legal issues that arose in earlier traffic requests in the City.
Morgan confirmed that this was looked at as part of the policy development.
Councilmember Pitts asked about affected property owners and if that refers to the 500 foot notification
process. Garza explained that an affected property owner is someone who will be affected by the preferred
alternative, such as a speed hump. He noted that those neighbors using the road as their main egress
would be notified as well as those within the 500 foot area. He described the travel shed.
Morgan said this could be a Council directive. He explained that if the Council prefers the notification area
to be 1,000 feet, instead of 500 feet, they could direct staff to change this in the policy.
Pitts inquired about neighboring jurisdictions. Garza said that the Public Works staff would be responsible
for contacting neighboring jurisdictions and obtain approvals.
Pitts spoke about the limitations on the number of requests and a two year waiting period to make the
request again. He said he was in favor of this. He asked next about the design advisory committee. Pitts
asked if an individual would be permitted to make decisions if a committee was unable to be formed. Garza
explained that the design committee is only needed if there is a financial component, such as a maintenance
agreement or other financial responsibility. Garza said he would not envision a sole individual with this type
of request. Pitts asked that the language be clarified in the policy to prohibit one individual from the ability to
make these decisions.
Councilmember Fought said this is good work and provides a checklist to follow and an order of priority for
solutions.
Councilmember Hesser said the policy is well done.
Councilmember Eby asked about non -eligibility and the two year limitation. Garza said when the policy is
implemented it would start at year zero, so that those with requests made prior to the policy would not be
limited. Eby said this was a great job.
Morgan recapped Council direction. He said that he heard that staff is heading in the right direction. He
said staff will work on clarifying language regarding the notification area and the design committee and come
back to the Council in July to provide feedback on public meetings and adopt the policy.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Mid -Year FY2018 Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budget
Manager
Budget Manager, Paul Diaz, spoke on the Mid -Year budget amendments. He said that the presentation
would be two -fold. He said he would be updating the Council regarding a transfer to the SRF and get
direction on a spending plan. Diaz said the second part of his presentation would be to preview the mid-
year budget amendment that will be brought to the Council on June 26"'.
Diaz explained that a correction had been made for the Transfer Amount
• Previously reported that $517,331 will be moved to the SRF
■ The amount did not include increases for contingency and benefit pay out in FY2018
• The correct amount is actually $188,580
Diaz noted that GGAF and Council approved the spending plan in which $300,000 would be transferred
back into the general fund for the economic stability reserve and $75,000 transferred to Joint Service fund
for a settlement. Diaz explained that $100,000 was to be placed in the General Capital Project Fund for
funding for a facilities needs assessment.
Diaz described the Original Spending Plan and Same Spending.
Original Spending Plan
• $375,000 to the General Fund for economic stability
reserve.
■ $75,000 to the Joint Service fund for a settlement.
• $100,000 to the GCP for the space needs study.
Gkdadon for Council fflf
heotncs C~ 0^1111010
W FY 2617 coding Mance
12.M.0
Fent FY 2617 rindlno Wince • OR xj
114W719
tssFY.3'r'U-In (,.MftX9,1
7,925,0.0
essFy.`01 Y:i�oArn7my
6,51M,M0
ess FY 2317 s^.ilryre ew
; ? 9;• 0.0
ns F(2i11a xcm-K Ujr ow!
I' :4C
ess FY 131 r ^enth W.,tj -r-,W a
??2,000
ess FY A I'd *XhI ppi rcw.e
MOW
ess FY 2318 wdgtk4 r3 s$r a CtRF
0:0 )XI
rss Fr :q 18 txAx1m frr6kr * CW
10'C J:0
Ms FY)318tti 7 td',+sedtAwt
YX'T0
ess Fe201?tA�dused9)tlme
A7C
�ess FY 21}18 ;fir Rd Rcowd kPS
03: f'S
ess F.r 201? !iF 8Y:1 FT^" ki e"
10151*
FY 2018 additions nmkr to CW
517.311
FY 2616 ad *ng b vdM to CSW
191.690 X8.791
Transfer Out, Joint Service
75,000
{ i f l iKt,l
I 11SsA�
Diaz noted that, since there is less monies going into the SRF than originally thought, he wanted to circle
back for Council Direction prior to the budget amendment to see if the spending plan previously approved is
still valid or if they would like to amend the spending plan. Diaz described the Spending Plan in detail and
said he would be seeking Council's direction.
If
Same Spending
Previous Plan
Plan
Recommended
Beginning Fund Bunce
285,808
28.5,808
285,808
Interest
2,000
2,000
2,000
Transfer In - General Original
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Transfer In - General Year End
517,331
188,580
188,580
Total Revenues
1,519,331
11i`Xr580
1,190,580
Transfer Out, General Fund
375,000
375,000
Transfer Out, Joint Service
75,000
75,000
75,000
Transfer Out, GCP
100,000
100,000
100,000
Total Expenses
550,000
550,000
175,ODD
,Ending Fund Balance
1255139
9278,388
1,301,30
Diaz noted that, since there is less monies going into the SRF than originally thought, he wanted to circle
back for Council Direction prior to the budget amendment to see if the spending plan previously approved is
still valid or if they would like to amend the spending plan. Diaz described the Spending Plan in detail and
said he would be seeking Council's direction.
Councilmember Gonzalez said he is in agreement with the plan, but would still transfer $75,000 to the
Uncertainty Fund and leave the $300,000 as is. He explained that this would increase the amount but
prevent a tax burden on the citizens.
Mayor Ross asked Gonzalez for clarification. Gonzalez explained that $375,000 had been budgeted to go
to the Council Uncertainty Fund. Now, instead of the $375,000, he suggests just transferring $75,000 to the
fund and leaving the $300,000 as is. Gonzalez said the $300,000 could stay in the budget to address other
needs.
Councilmember Fought said he agrees with the concept but would suggest $150,000 to the economic
stability fund, which is an important fund. Gonzalez said, after looking at the expenses coming in, and
necessary debt funding, he would like to use the $300,000 to prevent a tax burden. Gonzalez said he wants
to take care of present uncertainty, rather than a transfer to the uncertainty fund.
Diaz provided slides and descriptions of the General Fund, General Capital Projects, Utility Funds,
Transportation Funds and Other Funds.
General Fund
• Proposed Amendments:
• Move $252,000 from the benefit pay out
reserve for four retirements in Police
• Recognize additional sales tax and developed
fee revenue to offset $350,000 overage in
Fire Division from overtime.
• Increase Library revenue by $20,000 to offset
library expenses relating to public use of copiers
and equipment $20,000.
General Capital Projects
Proposed Amendments:
• Correction of Downtown West Project "pre -
roll" and reduce appropriation to correct
level.
• Recognize bond proceeds and expenses for
ERP Project ($2,000,000) Fire Station 7
($300.004)
• Recognizing revenues and expenses from an
interlocal agreement for the Inner -Loop
Rockride Payment of $675,000.
Utility Funds
• Proposed Amendments:
Water Fund to transfer out $450,000 to
electric for metering charges. Currently the
expense is only charged to the electric fund.
• Electric Fund: Receive the transfer for
metering. Recognize $100,000 in grant
revenue and expenses for the Bloomberg
Challenge project.
l{I\1k(�I 11115\�
Transportation Funds
• Proposed Amendment:
Quarter Cent Sales Tax: Use fund balance
from FY2017 savings and increase
appropriation an addition $1.51 M in
FY2018.Total expenses would be $5.47 M in
FY2018 and the $750,000 arterial reserve is
still in place.
• GTEC: Recognize fund balance of $900,000 for
ROW Acquisition. GTEC's budget for Economic
Development Projects remains fully funded.
Other Funds
• Proposed Amendments:
• Joint Service Fund: Transfer in from Council
SRF for legal settlement $75K
■ Library SRF: Recognizing revenue from the
Friends of the Library & increase expense for
books
• Airport Fund: Increase expenses by $500,000 for
City's portion of TX Dot project; Bond
reimbursement scheduled in FY2019
Other Funds
• Proposed Amendments:
• Cemetery Fund: Recognizing fund balance of
$123,625 for the completion of columbarium.
• Main Street Fagade Fund: Recognizing fund
balance from FY2017 savings, and increasing
expenses by $84,779.
• CDBG: Update sidewalk projects.
• Abandon Vehicle Fund: Recognize revenue and
increase appropriation by $3,000 for fence
around impound lot.
Diaz said the first reading of the budget amendment would be brought to the June 26, 2018 meeting and the
second reading would be brought to the July 10, 2018 meeting.
Councilmember Gonzalez recapped his instruction to move only $75,000 to the economic uncertainty fund
and keeping the rest in the council fund. Council agreed. Gonzalez said he would also like to take an
overstaff approach in the budget to eliminate the overtime issues in the Fire Department and Police
Department. Morgan said a hiring plan will be discussed in the budget workshop. He said that staff is also
working on recommendations for the recruitment process.
D. Presentation and discussion concerning GoGeo Transit Programs related to transit advertising policy and
update on GoGeo operations -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP
Transportation Planning Director, Ed Polasek, spoke on a Transit Advertising Policy for the GoGeo
operations. He began the presentation with the Program History and described the Goals of the Program.
GoGeo Program History
Transit Development Plan Goals:
Goal 1: Provide a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible
transportation option for residents and visitors of Georgetown.
Objective: Improve service efficiency and reliability for existing
service by meeting or exceeding established standards of
performance.
Goal Z Adequately address the mobility needs of Georgetown
residents.
Objective. Improve access to employment, healthcare, shopping,
and recreation.
GoGeo Program History
Transit Development Plan Goals:
Goal 3 Maximize resource utilization and operational efficiency with
respect to system administration and operations.
Objective. Maintain capital assets (vehicles and maintenance
materials) in State of Good Repair
Goal 4. Develop a local system that operates effectively in the short-
term, continues to develop an audience for regional transit options in
the mid-term, and will connect the local community to the region in the
long-term.
Objective. Provide access to activity centers today with an
understanding of where future regional transit infrastructure is
proposed to be located.
GoZeo
Why are we here?
2008 2009
II
2011
2C 12
2014
Recommends
Funds
Flsod Routra
„
•...
Census
t aDrtai
C"U cd
NO
LMmr4trea:S
Wou
M7it
Droaam
N ea
,auce
E+udgrl
.
EWnrTia
.�aa'or)r
_..,IaCon 45i
Gir,::e,l r,ti•,�
Council Direction
on 2/2016
Fcec cmr—.1bon
2lEl, frsr�l
C+•�✓1:�n.�n1 I�lI�
Accept FAw
Rev rx, nwv,Aal� n
Fed S for
Operatons
2C15 21C15 I 20'7
Comole'ad
faRSrt Council
Feaslt>.4:1 Docltuonon
StAy Transit
GoGeo
La1I h
GoGeo
a n✓rwf PL.
'3eargeeawn
tnmi�r.r . 5396K
vocal
TSD
Funds
a n✓rwf PL.
'3eargeeawn
tnmi�r.r . 5396K
F ui4 WO* e. r:
.2,,,, n 291r
S,-
TSD
4n�rw...r Ful Wan $436K
F ui4 WO* e. r:
.2,,,, n 291r
S,-
5220Kmn,
IG- e0
Polasek spoke on various aspects of Route Performance.
Polasek detailed the Budget for the GoGeo Project. He explained that the Georgetown Health Foundation
provided a $200,000 grant, covering part of the City of Georgetown FY 2018 Budget. Polasek said that the
CIP (Stop Amenities) is not being utilized until advertising revenue is obtained and a review of the routes
and stops is completed. He noted that the total budget includes Capital Metro administered revenues of
$265,383 in FTA 5307, $49,000 in fare recovery and $60,000 in advertising/fare recovery revenue. Polasek
explained that FY2019 cost per hour for CARTS will increase from $77 to $79.
Budget
(on beraised fv $200,000mlhaddeloawiperfotmrince improwmenfj based on
001wo';QN)'s with Gift
(�C , �mowac,)WN
Financials
GoGeo
ry ,�. 0'1$ buc4oe: Irw'i1(11 %,.�.� '17i.ir Ofi- d - I . ')
X.. r c -t,, E).
3,562 of Pziratr'cwslt
& Budget 1-nduded '10.,686 Hox� '(:,t thEt Ye r.
. Current bilines tot�O on pcct for 10.,150 nol.rs -;ri FY 17.
• Savings of Up'.O n
,/ Savings "rom time
V CARTS Hol days vs. Capital Metro Holidays
'/ SMUrday Par-atrjnSlt t t�e first fe,,v mon'thS
* Revenuc, Collection to date: 511,979.25
GoGeo
Budget (FY 18, projected, net)
FY 2018 Budget and FY 2019 Programmed
Advertising Revenue Update
GoGeo
• Advertising Policy: establishing rules and rates for
advertising.
• Ad Content Not Accepted.
I. False, rrusleading, or deceptive
2. Defamatory or ridicule of a person or' group of persons
3, Obsceene, pornographic, or for sexually -oriented businesse-s
4. Advocacy of la,,vlessness, violent Action, or illegal activity
5_ Promoting alcohol or tobacco products
6. Discriminatory isex, race, religion, political intolerancc'i
7. Political ads that advocate for an issue, candidate, political
fundraising, political position, or changes to public policy
Go mea
Councilmember Gonzalez asked if the revenue is split with CARTS. Polasek answered no. He explained
that the City administers the advertising program and CARTS allows it on the buses. He said the City would
choose the vendor to install the ads and the City would keep the revenue.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked if the City pays for the installation. Polasek said the advertiser would pay
for this.
Polasek spoke next on the City's Outreach and Education of the Program.
GoGeo launch video on Facebook
y
GoGeo promo video on YouTube, NexiDoor
Outreach/Education
• City staff participated in Stone Haven Public Housing
Ride-Alongs.
2 events have drawn a total of 2.0 participants in riding all 4 routes
• Developing Cedar Ridge and San Gabriel Apartments
scheduling information release for their residents.
• Route specific rack cards in development.
• Gathering input for end-users and social service agencies
for brochure updates.
• SEGCC Ambassadors offering ride-alongs to train users
about ridership/fares/destinations on routes
GoGeo
Fixed Route Feedback
Challenges with Usage
• Evaluation of Routes and Stops an annual process that has
begun.
• Survey of Riders
■ Ridership numbers by stop being collected.
• Stops with low usage:
Maple St, Morrow St, Wolf Ranch
• Stops/Facility access issues identified:
Rivery, Lone Star Circle of Care, Wolf Ranch
• Stops with issues identified:
Benches/Shelters requested because of type of trip — Rivery
(Wal-Mart), Luther/Rockmoor, and Railroad/17th
i4 tt1
Next Steps
Challenges with fare collection
• Ideas for improving fare collection -OR- waiving fees
• Improve credit card acceptance and locations where tickets can
be purchased
- CARTS/Cap Metro radio system for credit cards
- HEB Agreement with Cap Metro
Challenges with Orange Route Ridership
• Southwestern Agreement
GGZeo
Challenges with Paratransit
• Must provide paratransit service to transit service area at same
level of service and efficiency as fixed route (95%).
• On-time performance at 939,b in March, some months as low as
86%.
• Applications have continued to be approved at an average of :1.0
month.
• Growth in approved paratransit applications since program start
in September 46 to 104 approved passengers.
• Social Service Providers are requesting assistance with
paratransit application and approval for their clients,
c i wac;t r�,��. a
r[xw�
GOGeo
Challenges with Paratransit (cont.)
• Comparisons:
• San Marcos: 190 approved passengers,, 3 buses dally
• Round Rock: 120 approved passengers., 2 buses d�3i'y
• Georgetown: 104 approved passengers, 1 bus daily
C-eo
A Rideshare Voucher Pilot Program with discussed.
Uber and Lyft
o Geo Fencing
o Subsidized rides to remain In the City
o Data collection will drive future geo-fences and program recommendations
o Challenges
• Parameters for call-in for passengers without smart phones
• ADA: Still need to operate paratransit service
Polasek noted the Lyft has a draft contract for a Pilot Program to begin in June. He described the program.
• Rider pays $2 fee
• Flat rate discount of $8 to $10
• Rider pays any balance over the total
• Each user receives a limited number of rides for pilot period
• Lyft will report on usage
Councilmember Jonrowe asked about the report. Polasek said the report would include origin and
destination and time of service. He explained that Lyft was asked to provide a list of all the factors they
measure in analyzing their programs. Polasek said the City will be able to pick and choose the factors they
would like to include. City Manager, David Morgan, said the goal will be to collect as much data as possible.
He said $25,000 has been budgeted for the pilot program.
Gonzalez asked if the same organizations who promote the bus service will be asked to promote the pilot
voucher program. Morgan confirmed. Gonzalez said if one could pay the same for door to door service that
they pay for bus service, one would likely choose the voucher program.
Councilmember Jonrowe said she would like to hold off on advertising one form of transportation over
another, since this is a pilot program right now. She said Council will need pure data first and then perform
a side by side comparison. Gonzalez said the bus service is also a pilot program and it is receiving the
advertising. Morgan said the plan is to advertise both, with the goal being to increase ridership.
Mayor Ross said the goal is to get the people in need to places they need to be and when they need to be
there. He explained that the GoGeo numbers are showing that it is not very effective. Ross said he likes
this pilot program.
Councilmember Hesser said he is concerned with wasting tax payers' money. Hesser noted that the Health
Foundation could take the $150,000 that was given to the City and provide 18,000 Uber or Lyft rides at $8.
Ross said he recognizes this, but there are disabled people in Georgetown that Uber and Lyft cannot
address.
Pitts said he agrees with the Uber and Lyft voucher program. He asked about the bus system and noted the
multiple parties involved. Polasek explained the contract between Cap Metro and CARTS and the federal
and state funding that comes through Cap Metro to the City. Polasek explained that the City is required to
develop a transit plan that meets the FTA and Cap Metro planning criteria. He explained this is why there is
a fixed route with complimentary paratransit service. Pitts asked what the City gets from Cap Metro other
than grant funding. Polasek noted that Cap Metro administers the program, which is significant.
Councilmember Eby said, even though the numbers are disappointing, it would be important to understand
why people are not using the bus, before making a decision, one way or another. She said she is in favor of
the voucher program, but does not want people who need the bus system the most, to fall through the
cracks. She noted those who would not be able to use Uber or Lyft because they did not have a smart
phone.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section
551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5:05 PM.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the
City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
-Authorization of Negotiations for the Downtown Building Sale
311 East Morrow Street
- NW Blvd, Parcels 3 & 4 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
Rock/8'" Streets
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
Project Deliver
- Project Wire
Mayor Ross adjourned the workshop meeting to begin the Regular Council Meeting at 6:00 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on"Cate
U
Dale Ross, Mayor
Attest: City ZI
ary