Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.30.2011 CC-SThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Special Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Pat All Council Present Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney Minutes Regular Session (Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.) A Call to Order- SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION TO BEGIN NO EARLIER THAN 6:00 PM B Discussion and possible action regarding the redistricting process and criteria and review and discussion of potential redistricting models supplied by Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado, Acosta L.L.C. -- David Mendez, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, LLC Garver opened the meeting and noted that this special meeting is designed to continue City Councils dialogue regarding the legal responsibilities of redistricting the city to correspond to the changes over the past decade. Garver commented that this is the tenth meeting since November 2010 regarding redistricting. He said that the last meeting, two weeks ago, three maps were offered by the legal firm to assist with how to achieve the goals. Garver noted other ideas came up during the previous discussion. He noted that the purpose of the meeting tonight is to review the material with an open discussion on how to best serve the community while achieving compliance with state and federal statutes. Garver introduced Mr. Caputo. Caputo noted his GIS representative is linked in to the meeting to assist with the maps. Caputo said he will review the plans and then open up the discussion regarding each plan. Caputo introduced Plan A -Revised. He said he had a discussion with Sattler on different options for splitting Sun City than along Del Web Boulevard or along the school district lines. He said they discussed ways to make the divide along different north -south lines or along east -west boundaries. He reviewed the District 4 boundary option out of the school district boundary along the northwestern portion of Sun City and below that becomes District3. He continued that District 3 takes the southwestern corner of Sun City and the lake area. He indicated that District 2 falls along Williams Drive and a couple of District 5 blocks were added to District 2. He reviewed Plan A -Revised and noted the major elements include shifting the Sun City orientation and adjusting some northern blocks and southern blocks between Districts 2 and 5. Garver asked and Caputo responded regarding the reorientation of Sun City. Caputo noted that the new lines City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 6 Pages only change the side of the road that the boundary lines fall upon and there is not population change. Caputo noted that Sattler requested looking at different boundaries and Garver asked about the advantages of adjusting the is not lines. Caputo together. said a different he is not aware of any advantages or disadvantages orientation. to the different at the southern lines. of Sattler said some constituents asked him to evaluate alternative boundary lines. Caputo commented on the population, and in consideration of the school district boundary and county preference regarding an elections of gerrymandering and keep neighborhoods perspective, it is not possible together. to achieve a different midpoint Plan in Sun City's orientation. Garver asked and Caputo responded that Jarrell ISD is in one district. Caputo introduced Revised Plan B and Revised Plan C are the same as the original plans except for the new orientation of Sun City. Caputo introduced Plan D, but noted his firm does not really recommend this plan. He said based on Council's request, and in consideration of census geography, this map separates the Heritage Oaks neighborhood from the Georgetown Villages. He said this aligns Heritage Oaks with Sun City, and he indicated some alignment issues with this orientation. He showed the narrow lines between District 2 and District 5 with the proposed District 3 being isolated in different areas, covers a long distance, and is not compact. He said the numbers do balance, so if Council thinks this plan works for the community, it can be adopted. Caputo continued that the last phase of adjustments looked at separating Heritage Oaks and Georgetown Villages. Garver asked Council to review the plans and asked to possibly set aside any plans that do not fit welt Garver asked and Gonzalez responded that Plan D, as printed, is not compact enough and looks like Council is trying to accomplishing something specific. He said the appearance of the district looks out of place. He added that in Plan C, the continuity up north does not fit. He added that Plan A or B seem to be the best and his preference is Plan A. He continued that these two plans have the best opportunity and Plan A has the best look Garver asked and Jonrowe responded that she agrees with Gonzalez on Plan D. She said it is a stretch and hard to justify. She said her district looks the same in all the plans. She asked how long Georgetown has had seven council members, and Garver noted that the Courts instigated the change. Jonrowe continued that there could perhaps be additional council representation, and Eason clarified adding an eighth council member. Garver noted this action would require changing the City Charter and hosting an election Garver asked and Jonrowe responded about her preference of the maps. She said she would like more input from Council with their feedback in those districts. She said she would like to see more communities of interest placed together rather than a map that looks compact. Garver asked and Berryman responded that neither map changes her district much. She said Plan C and D are not acceptable. She said she is most concerned with communities of interest. She thinks this is accomplished on the east side. She added that Plan A best represents communities of interest on the west side, though she is not sure with the different Sun City orientation. She commented on Golden Oaks and River Ridge and noted their similarities with retirees, similarly priced homes, and this makes a basis for common interest with taxes, income, and added there are some families. She noted original discussions about widening Williams Drive. She said the common concern among the public along Williams Drive corridor was about future development of the roadway, traffic, allowable development, and the impact of the vacant properties. Berryman continued that over the years, many council members have had a piece of Williams Drive. She continued that there has not been an opportunity for a common voice representing Williams Drive which is a major artery through the community. She said this artery makes a community of interest since those who live and work along Williams are impacted by it She said that she has been contacted by residents from the Villages with concerns that they felt were separate from Sun City interests. Berryman concluded that Plan A is the better plan. Garver verified that Berryman is opposed to Plans C and D. Garver asked and Sattler responded about Plans C and D lacking communities of interest He said Plan B is a possibility, but it does chop up Williams Drive. He added that Williams Drive is an important area and cohesive representation would be good. Sattler noted Plan A or Plan A -Revised are his favorites. Garver asked and Meigs responded that his goal was to avoid the appearance of gerrymandering and keep neighborhoods together. He commented on Plan A and District 3 begins at the southern tip of Georgetown's city City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 6 Pages limits and jumps out to the northern tip of Georgetown. He said this is not an agreeable arrangement for him since it does not keep neighborhoods together compact. He added that is has the appearance of a gerrymandered district. He said that either Plan B or Plan B -Revised used Williams Drive as a natural border. He said he cannot support option A or A -Revised in their current form. Garver asked and Meigs responded that either Plan B or B -Revised are the preferred plans. Garver asked and Hellmann responded that he likes Plans A and B as options. Hellmann does not like Plan C or D. He agreed with Meigs that Plan B makes a better map, but he is not sure if it serves the community the best. He commented that the lake area with less population causes the map to have better lines. He added that his company sells many homes in Sun City and he travels along DB Wood. He noted that this is a natural connector for many of these neighborhoods. He said that A is the only real plan that takes the Village out of the Sun City district. He said many residents from the Village have approached him with a desire to be involved in politics He commented that either himself or Meigs would be matched with Sun City. He added that there are many interested parties who would like to get involved in politics, and he likes Plan A for this reason. He said that Districts 3 and 4 are on the same election cycle which is good to allow incumbents to finish their terms. Council discussed the election cycle. Caputo noted that Hellmann would fulfill his term and take a break for two years before he could run for District 3 or he could resign his term in District 2 and run for District 3. Hellmann said this is messier for the election cycle. Caputo noted District 1 and 5 are up for election this year. Hellmann said this is another bonus for Plan A. Garver asked and Eason commented on election laws. Eason said there are election laws that will cause the discussion to come up. She said she agrees with Meigs on not supporting Plan A. She said that population is limited around the lake making that expanse even more ridiculous in terms of Plan A's District 3 as a cohesive district. She said that is an extreme argument for District 3. She agreed with Meigs on Plan B or B -Revised. She added that Plan D would help residents in the Village and has a better connection and flow than Plan A Garver asked and Eason responded that Plan B or B -Revised would be preferable. Garver asked and Caputo responded about displacing council members in Plan A or Plan B. Caputo responded that Sattler and Meigs would be in District 3, and District 4 would not have an incumbent. He continued that Sattler would fulfill the rest of his term and then have to run in District 3 or move. He continued that the election cycle would elect a new representative for District4. Caputo said in Plan B Meigs and Hellmann would be in the same district. He said Meigs could stand for re-election and Hellmann would have to resign his District 2 seat. He continued in Plan B, Sattler lives in District 2. Garver asked about the intent of the law that no council person is removed due to the redistricting process. Caputo noted that the Charter indicates a council member is able to serve their term through completion. Garver reviewed that Plan A and Plan B are the primary plans. He asked Council if they are willing to set aside Plan C and D. Garver asked and Gonzalez responded that a focus on Plan A and B will be acceptable. Garver asked and Jonrowe responded that Plans A and B would be acceptable for further review. Garver asked and Berryman responded that Plans A and B should continue for further discussion. Garver asked and Sattler agreed to continue with Plans A and B. Garver asked and Meigs noted he would prefer focus on Plan B and C. Garver asked and Hellmann indicated Plans A and B should continue. Garver asked and Eason noted she would prefer focus on Plan B and C. Garver asked and Eason to discuss how these plans can be the most workable. Eason said she would defer to those most impacted. She said she chose Plans B or C since they bring together the communities that work together the best. She said she has never liked Plan A due to the sprawl and is a really bad plan. She noted her disappointment that no one supported D since she sees it as fixing some problems. Garver asked and Eason responded that her preference between the plans, she feels that Plan C offers the best alternative. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 6 Pages Garver asked and Hellmann responded with his preference for Plan A Hellmann continued that Plan B is not preferable. Garver asked and Meigs responded that he is reviewing the map on a logical perspective of a citizen. She said the long stretch from the northern to southern border does not make logical sense. He added that these districts should be drawn without consideration of politics or where members currently live He continued that Plan A looks to be a gerrymandered, sprawling mess. He concluded that Plan B is his preference with Plan C as his secondary choice. Garver asked Meigs if he could communicate with the attorney about the sprawl, and Meigs responded that Plan B would be his request. Garver asked and Sattler responded that he does not like Plan B since Sun City and the Village are caught up together. He said that representing both areas causes frustration since the vote out of Sun City dominates whatever happens. He said Plan B is just a little more of the same. He continued that Georgetown Village has potential to be elected, but the vote will still be dominated by Sun City since they turn out to vote. Sattler said he likes Plan A or Plan A -Revised. He said he hopes that people will come to the public hearings, and he will share all plans with the public. Garver asked Sattler about District 3 stretching along a large portion of the City. Sattler responded that it's a fact of the numbers and currently District 3 is the lowest populated district. He said the southern part of Sun City has some great folks who vote and somebody will have to be combined with this area He concluded that this gives a new opportunity to the Village. Garver asked and Berryman responded that her preference is Plan A. She commented about the input she's received over the years regarding Williams Drive with managing development and Council representation She said this artery needs a single voice to plan for the future while representing the businesses and residents. She said Meigs is in a terrible situation in the population geography, and no matter what plan is chosen, this area will be divided. She argued that the Villages will be moved out of Sun City and give single representation to Williams Drive. Berryman concluded that either Plan A or A -Revised will be the best option. Garver asked and Jonrowe responded that she is torn by seeing validity behind both plans She said she liked District 6 combining the whole downtown together to help with development issued so she understands Berryman's arguments about Williams Drive. On the other hand, she sees the map and understands Meigs' argument about a gerrymandered district, so she has not come to a final conclusion at this point. Garver asked and Gonzalez responded that upon review each map looks gerrymandered since each plan has an angle. He said District 7 spans a huge distance along 130 like Plan A does with District 3. He commented that by removing the lake in Plan A and A -Revised, the district looks a lot better especially when considering the population around the lake. He said he would defer to Plan A or A -Revised to Sun City and Sattler regarding the best option. He said these plans provide the best of all circumstances to the community. Gonzalez concluded that by solving a problem area in one part of town it can cause problems elsewhere Garver asked and Caputo responded about how Council can come to a conclusion. Caputo noted that since this is a political decision, Council has the final vote. He added that public input can be collected by sharing the various plans with the public. He said the sprawl cannot necessarily be contained due to geographical factors of the city's annexations and boundaries. Gonzalez asked about the population along the lake. Caputo noted there are 172 people in the area. Council discussed the populations and neighborhoods in the area. Gonzalez suggested looking only at neighborhoods and set aside geography for the time being. Meigs suggested it is possible to look at both geography and neighborhoods. Meigs continued that the lake is a fine contribution to District 3. He said his objection with Plan A is the vast stretch from the southern border around District 2 and all the way up to the northern border. He said he would not object to presenting both Plan A and Plan B to the public for comment Berryman asked if Council is meeting to eliminate Plans C and D while keeping Plans A and B for further consideration by the public, and Garver agreed. Caputo concurred. Motion by Berryman and second by Gonzalez to eliminate Plans C and D from the discussion and take Plans A and B to the voters for their review and input. Garver reviewed the motion, and Caputo clarified that the motion should say these will be the illustrative plans. Berryman revised her motion to indicate that Plans A and B will be the illustrative plans. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 6 Pages Meigs and Berryman asked about the revised versions. Caputo said the small changes to Plan A District 2 can be done in either Plan A or Plan A -Revised including the segment along Williams Drive and the swap between District 5 and 2. He said the Sun City shift could go either way. He said he could show Plan A with one Sun City orientation and a Plan A -Revised with the alternative Sun City orientation. Garver suggested staying with the generic Plan A and B as the original motion to be voted on. Next, he suggested looking at Plan A and B and includes revised editions for debate. Council deliberated about which options to set forth. Sattler asked and Caputo responded about the next steps in the process. Caputo said next, public hearings will need to be scheduled in July and possibly August to allow the public to share their likes and dislikes and possible suggestions to the plans. He continued that after the public hearings, the goal is for the city to adopt a plan after some options have been eliminated. Sattler asked about the time frame between the two public hearings. Caputo noted that there are a variety of options available. Garver and Caputo discussed moving street boundaries and blocks between districts and the impact on the deviation and population figures. Amended motion by Berryman to include taking Plans A, A -Revised, B, and B -Revised as the illustrative maps to the public for review and comment, and seconded by Gonzalez to accept the amended motion. Garver reviewed the revised motion and asked for further discussion. Jonrowe asked and Caputo responded about the deviation between districts She asked about cleaning up some of the districts. Hellmann asked about conferencing with the county. Caputo said Plans A, B, and C have been sent to the county. Caputo said they can comment on their preferences, and he noted some concerns about the Sun City alignment affecting election locations. He said each precinct must have an acceptable polling location. Council discussed polling location options. Hellmann asked and Caputo responded that he will follow up with the county regarding the polling places. Garver clarified that it would not be in the interest of the county or the city to have the county prescribe how to drawn the city boundaries Eason asked about the southern Sun City boundary lines. She commented on the boundary and Caputo responded that there is a creek used along the golf course. She said there is a connection, but she asked if any consideration has been given to putting the northern corner with another district She asked that, based on Plan A, could there be other options for moving portions of both the southern and northern corners of Sun City into Districts 2 and 3. Caputo noted that the populations would be difficult to allocate to different areas. Council discussed the boundaries. Garver asked for any final comments before voting on the motion, and hearing none he reviewed the revised motion. Garver said Plan C and D will be set aside. He added that Plans A and B will be moved forward for a public hearing and they will include both revised plans as components of those two plans Approved 7-0. Garver asked Council about their preferred structure for the future public hearings. He laid out a few options available. Eason noted that from her district's perspective, there is not a location suitable to hold the meeting. She said that her constituents appreciate streaming the discussions online, so her preference is to host the meetings in the Council Chambers. Caputo suggested posting a meeting as a regular meeting, and accept public comments. He added that elected officials can either be present or not, but he prefers a publicaily noticed, public meeting for everyone to attend. He added that Council is still welcome to meet within their districts. Gonzalez added that there is value to have constituents from across the city to hear each other in a general public meeting where everyone is invited. Eason said some populations are more vocal and able to communicate their perspective than others, and she asked how comments will be calculated to encompass the entire city. Gonzalez said the decision will not be an exact science, but each representative will need to take into account what is heard. Garver said Council has demonstrated an ability to listen. He said Council must take into consideration the voices of those unable to attend the meeting and not make a decision purely based on those citizens in attendance. He added that gaining as much input as possible to guide a vote is desirable. Eason said she is bringing up this issue as a way to communicate with the public that their participation is very important She said ultimately that Council's decision is based upon what they hear from the public. She concluded that the only way for Council to know what the public is thinking is for them to share their perspective Gonzalez added that there are certain Department of Justice requirements that are not possible to change and that is how the original starting points came into existence. Berryman added that education about the process provides an City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 6 Pages understanding of how these maps came up for discussion and that a huge shift will not occur in the maps Caputo said he will be happy to attend the public hearings to share the background of the process and educate the public as July on how the maps came into being. for action on redistricting. Brettle asked about how citizens can submit their comments in writing and Caputo responded that comments in writing are welcome but we need to verify residency in Georgetowr. Brettle verified by asking if a specific form should be created and Caputo concurred. Garver suggested the City publicize that written public comments are welcome with a name and address for verification and provide the public with options on how to communicate their perspective since this is a total issue for the City. He said the comments will be shared with Council. Garver suggested holding a public hearing two weeks from tonight and a second public hearing three weeks from tonight with a possible option for taking action after all public hearings have been concluded. Garver asked and Brettle said two weeks from this evening a tentative budget meeting is set up on July 14th but there should not be any conflict. Garver asked about the next regular meeting, and Brettle said August 9th. Council clarified that July 21st should be the second public hearing. Garver reviewed the dates as July 14th and July 21st as the public hearings and the next regular Council meeting will be on July 26th with an option for action on redistricting. the regular meeting on July Garver asked for a motion. Motion by Meigs, seconded by Gonzalez to hold the first public hearing on July 14th, the second public hearing on July and 21 st, and set a tentative date for Council action at the regular meeting on July 26th. Berryman asked about the first motion and asked about Caputo's suggestion of having Council present or not. Gonzalez said streaming of the public hearing will be available. Garver shared an experience on the school board where the directors participated in the hearing but in the audience instead of on the dais and the public was very receptive to that method. Berryman suggested that Caputo be the moderator. Eason said she agrees with Berryman that it is best to be in the audience to listen to the public comments. Garver clarified that the public hearings will be broadcast. Garver said as the Chair, he is not voting unless of a tie, so he offered being present as a moderator. Chapman asked about the timeline and discussed with council about different dates for the public hearings and posting deadlines. Chapman noted that only a weekend would be available for Council to consider the options between the second public hearing and the council meeting. Garver reviewed the dates for public hearings to be July 14th and July 21st. He said council will tentatively plan on taking action on July 26th and council will have the option to postpone action to the first meeting in August Approved 7-0. Garver asked for any additional comments or discussion, and hearing none asked for a motion to adjourn. C Adjourn Motion by Berryman, second by Gonzalez to adjourn. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 07:30 PM. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 6 of 6 Pages Secretary Jessica Brettle