Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.30.2007 CC-SThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Special Session on the above date with Mayor Gary Nelon presiding. Council Present. Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Keith Brainard, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman, Farley Snell, Ben Oliver Staff Present. Council Absent. All Council Present Paul Brandenburg, City Manager; Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations; Patricia E. Carls, City Attorney; Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration; Leticia Zavala, Controller; Lorie Lankford, Chief Accountant; Lisa Haines, Accountant II; Kathy Ragsdale, Utility Office Manager; Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director; Jessica Hamilton, Assistant City Secretary; Terry Jones, Support Services Construction Manager; Marsha Iwers, Purchasing Manager; David Morgan, Police Chief; Kevin Stofle, Assistant Police Chief; Anthony Lincoln, Fire Chief; Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief; Mark Miller; Transportation Services Manager; Mike Mayben, Energy Services Director; Glenn Dishong, Water Services Director; Keith Hutchinson, Public Information Officer; Kevin Russell, Human Resources Director; Mark Moore, Chief Building Inspector; Tom Benz, System Engineering Manager; Bobby Ray, Planning and Development Director; Eric Lashley, Library Director; Dave Hall, Inspection Services Director; Cari Miller, CVB Coordinator ITO o •••- Mayor Nelon called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. B Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution to accept the 2007 Tax Appraisal Roll for the City of Georgetown, as presented by Deborah Hunt, Tax Assessor -Collector -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell told the Council all legal requirements have been accomplished regarding the City's involvement with the 2007 Tax Appraisal Roll presented by the Tax Assessor -Collector. Nelon noted that the City has little influence on the Tax Assessor's Roll. Brainard asked about the discrepancy regarding the value of the frozen properties and Rundell responded that she has not been able to get an affirmation from the Tax Assessor's Office. Motion by Eason, second by Sansing to approve the 2007 Tax Appraisal Roll. Approved 7-0. C Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution ratifying the property tax increase included in the 2007/08 Annual Operating Plan and acknowledging that the 2007 tax rate will raise more revenue from property taxes than the previous year -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell explained that because the City will raise more money this year in property taxes than was raised last year, this resolution is required by State Law (HB3195). Motion by Oliver, second by Eason to approve the resolution. Approved 7-0. City Council Meeting Minutes/August 30, 2007 Page 1 of 5 Pages D First Readings 1. Consideration and possible action to approve an ordinance levying a tax rate for the City of Georgetown for the tax year 2007 -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell said the tax rate of $0.35659 per $100 valuation funds the 2007/08 Budget. She said this rate representa a 2.9% decrease from last year's rate of $0.36728. She said the tax rate of $0.35659 is composed of $0.20322 to be used for Maintenance and Operations and $0.15337 for Interest and Sinking. She read only the caption of the ordinance on first reading after satisfying the requirements of the City Charter. Snell confirmed this item sets the rate before the budget is approved, but if anything needs to be changed, the Council can always lower the rate, but can't increase the tax rate after the second reading. Motion by Snell, second by Sansing that the property taxes be increased by the adoption of a tax rate of $0.35659 of which $0.20322 will be for Maintenance and Operations and $0.15337 for Interest and Sinking. Approved 7-0. 2. Consideration and possible action to adopt an Annual Operating Plan Element of the Georgetown Century Plan (budget) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2008; adopting the Annual Amendment to the Century Plan -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell read only the caption of the ordinance on first reading after having satisfied the requirements of the City Charter She noted that information had been distributed on the dais to show the new total for the budget is $185,198,572 with the deduction of the item that was pulled from the budget last night. Nelon reiterated that the repair of the fence at the ballpark was authorized, but replacing the lights was not. He noted there were people signed up to speak regarding the Council action that was taken. He reminded Council that the only way that item can be reconsidered is for a Councilmember on the prevailing side of the motion to move that the item be reconsidered. Snell asked for clarification regarding the suspension of the rules. Nelon agreed that it would take a motion to suspend the rules, and if that were successful, then a motion to reconsider, and then a new motion concerning the lighting. Snell clarified that the motion to suspend could be made by any Councilmember, but the motion to reconsider would need to be made by a Councilmember on the prevailing side of the motion. Carls agreed and noted that the motion to suspend requires a majority plus one vote. Speaker, Michael Lucas, said he was speaking for over 600 members of the Austin Metro League, and has been playing baseball at Eagle Field for the last eight years. He said there are members of the League from Georgetown, Austin and as far away as Waco. He said he is here to to say the lights at Eagle Field are not adequate. He said he was told that his name came up at the Council Meeting, and that he had said the lights were o.k. He said lights are not o.k., saying they need to be fixed. He said he doesn't want to say they're unsafe, but the lights need to be repaired or replaced. Speaker, Todd Spears, with MUSCO Lighting, said he was asked to evaluate the current lights. He said the Texas Amateur Athletic Federation and University Interscholastic League have set standards He said the current lights at the field were tested with a light meter to measure the lumens or foot candles, and in the infield the lights measured 14 and the recommended rate is 50, and the lights in the outfield measured 12, and the recommended is 40. He distributed pictures and a chart of lumen standards. He said the lamps are good but the fixtures are old and are losing their aiming alignment; and there is obvious damage to several reflectors. He said the poles are wooden, and wood poles rot from the inside out. He said all the electrical wiring should be underground, but the electrical wiring at the ball field is above ground and does not meet the standard. Nelon asked if any Councilmembers felt inclined to revisit the issue of the lighting. Sansing confirmed with Rundell that the lighting could be put back into the budget without effecting the tax rate. Motion by Eason, second by Oliver to suspend the rules. Oliver asked if, when staff comes back with the unit pricing, there would still be time to deal with this. Rundell said it could be brought back as a budget amendment. Brainard said he is being asked to spend a large amount of money with a small amount of information. Eason said she understands is if the motion to suspend does not occur, there is no opportunity until 90 days from now to bring it back up. Vote on motion: Approved 6-1. (Sattler opposed) Nelon explained that a motion to reconsider would need to be made by a person on the prevailing side. Motion by Sansing, second by Eason to reconsider the action taken by Council to remove the lights. Berryman said she thinks it is an extraordinary amount to spend. She said she talked to three ball players, and one said there needs to be more lights in the center field, and that could be accomplished by adding some more lights. She also noted that Council had not heard about the condition of the poles until last night. Sattler said the expenses at the ball field vs the revenue is a break even amount. He calculated the improvments as a 22 -year payback. He said there are no teams from Georgetown, and he would like to know if there are any Georgetown people playing baseball. He said the City makes no money on the ball fields, and he suggested that they be taken down and made into a parking lot. He said it would be a $220,000 cost against a $9,400 revenue. He said this is a bad decision. Eason said she would like to have this reconsidered so the Council could hear from the staff about the issues associated with this item. Vote on the motion: Approved 4-3 (Berryman, Sansing and Sattler opposed) Motion by Snell, second by Eason that the item of the lights be reinstituted into the budget. Snell said there are three separate elements: City Council Meeting Minutes/August 30, 2007 Page 2 of 5 Pages poles, fixtures, and bulbs, the bulbs having recently been replaced. He asKed whether Council has sufficient information about the cost of the components. Community Services Director, Randy Morrow, was asked to address the question. Morrow asked Todd Spears to address the question about the cost of the components. Spears said the components are the poles(structures), fixtures, and the electrical wiring, not the lamps. He said the system is antiquated above -ground wiring, with old switches and old poles. Spears said the pole structure and electrical installation are the most expensive parts of the system Motion by Snell, second by Eason that the item of the lights be reinstituted into the budget. Snell said there are three separate elements: poles, fixtures, and bulbs, the bulbs having recently been replaced. He asked whether Council has sufficient information about the cost of the components. Sansing confirmed that the bulbs(lamps) couldn't be used in the new fixtures. Spears said the cost of the lamps is insignificant. Sansing said he would be interested in breaking down the project cost, and finding out if some of the expense could be saved if Georgetown Utility System (GUS) sets the poles and does the work. Snell clarified with Rundell that if the light replacement item was added back in, it could be funded at a later date. He amended his motion by suggesting to defer action on this issue for 30 days. Eason said she would second if it also included information about who is using the field and how much income is coming into Georgetown for the use of the fields. Snell said as long as that didn't complicate the return of the issue in 30 days, he would allow that as a friendly amendment. Eason agreed to second. Sansing asked and Rundell clarified that the budget could be adopted without this item and the budget could be amended in the future. Vote on the motion to defer: Approved 7-0. Motion by Brainard, second by Berryman to direct staff to prepare suggestions for consideration by the City Council to establish a methodology for establishing a deferred maintenance budget, as part of the City's annual capital budget; and to review and make recommendations regarding City maintenance services processes and staffing levels, and to report results to the City Council by March 1, 2008. He said this would establish a formula for deferred maintenance, so the Council does not have to see items like re -painting the inside and outside of buildings and resurfacing parking lots. Oliver confirmed that deferred maintenance is included in the budget in the Streets Department. He said he doesn't want to see the City get "bogged down" with various sub -pockets of deferred maintenance. Rundell said the City has somewhat of a formula, but confirmed with Brainard that this would be primarily used in facilities and would be a more specific formula. Nelon confirmed that this does not affect the 07/08 budget. Brainard said he is seeking information on a policy. Rundell said she will come back with a list of the current deferred maintenance. Vote on the motion: Approved 7-0. Motion by Brainard, second by Berryman to reduce proposed General Fund spending for salaries and related benefits by 1.25% for a vacancy factor. He said all positions are not going to be filled for the entire fiscal year so by approving a budget for 100% of the employees is knowingly approving a budget in excess of what is required. Nelon asked Rundell how this would work alongside the timing. Rundell replied that for the General Fund, personnel is approximately $20 million, most of it for public safety; so staff would need to lower the personnel costs by 20%. She said there are approximately 323 employees, so she would lower the funding by approximatelhy *$275;808 $250,000 , saying if it is not done, the overage goes into the end of the year fund balance. She said that is one of the contributing factors for money left over at the end of the year. She said in order to be spread equally among all departments, there would need to be a formula; because some departments do not tend to have vacancies. She said there really are two factors: the new positions that have not yet been filled and the filling of vacancies. She said if it's in the General Fund, she is not sure how it would work, but she would do it if Council tells her to do it. Snell said he has no problem with the end of the year surplus. He said this proposal would limit the City to not being able to replace vacancies if the limit has already been reached. Rundell said the payout for employees leaving the City is not budgeted. She said the payout has to be covered out of the salary for that position, so the position can't be filled until the payout has been made. She said she would need to include a reserve for civil service employees, and said that is not standard municipal practice. She said the Finance Division surveyed many surrounding cities, and only Pflugerville does a vacancy factor for public safety personnel only. Berryman asked and was told the overage last year related to salaries and benefits and was $441,000 for the total City. There was continued discussion. Berryman asked for a friendly amendment to budget for expenses related to departing employees. Brainard agreed. Eason asked Fire Chief Lincoln to address the issue, and he responded that the people he loses sometimes cause the Fire Department to pay time and half to keep 24-hour coverage on the street. Nelon suggested this should be put into the calculation. Oliver suggested this be prepared for next year's budget. Berryman said there has been a large overage that comes out of the taxpayer's pocket, and said she feels there will always be money shifted from another direction to fund a position; so there won't be anyone left without a position filled. She said she thinks Rundell can come up with this amount and bring it back on second reading. Snell said, for full transparency, there should be an item in the budget for "to -be -determined, one-time expenses." Sansing said he agrees with Oliver that this is too much to ask at this time. Vote on the motion: Motion fails. (Eason, Sansing, Snell and Oliver opposed) Rundell said she will look at this and bring it back for next year's budget. (*as corrected by Brainard at the Council Meeting on September 11, 2007) Motion by Brainard, second by Berryman to revise the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy regarding cost -of -living City Council Meeting Minutes/August 30, 2007 Page 3 of 5 Pages adjustments, basically to restore the language from prior to June to a straight across-the-board objective cost of living adjustment. He said the change that was made in June allowed the City Manager to add or propose dollars for other adjustments. He said he was not necessarily opposed to that, but to him a COLA is an objective across-the-board adjustment intended to hold harmless the effects of inflation on the staff, and the change that the Council made in June was not a clarification to the policy, it was a fundamental shift in what Council was allowing in the budget. He said if staff believes there are other things that ought to be done with the salaries, they ought to occur outside the COLA process, not as part of the cost of living adjustment. Nelon asked Brainard if the detail in his statement referred to a particular CPI Index and what that would be. Brainard read his statement as follows: "To protect city employees from the effects of general inflation, the City may fund an annual COLA for all regular employees not included in a defined pay plan. The COLA will be based on a three-year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern Cities pertinent to Georgetown's population." Oliver confirmed the regional reference in Brainard's motion. Snell said this is a nomenclature problem, and he would like to know why the City Manager suggested the change, saying he heard it was because the COLA was not sufficient to offset the health insurance costs. Brandenburg said that was a part of it, saying some employees would get a COLA, but their health costs would go up. He said last year the COLA was lower. He said the new language allows the City Manager to make adjustments for compression and pay issues for non-public safety employees. Motion by Snell, second by Sansing to amend that instead of COLA, change it to an annual across-the-board salary adjustment, and keep it at the discretion of the City Manager, which this year is 4.25%. Sansing said he thinks this issue needs to be brought forward next year. Eason said she agrees with Sansing and will vote against both the amendment and the original motion. Brainard said he would like to see an established cost of living adjustment and if the City Manager has other items he wants to include, let him name them, and include them. He said this would simplify the budget process and give the Council time to focus on the policy issues rather than the non -policy issues. Snell said he would like to see a dual level item in the future such as COLA and whatever else. Vote on the amendment: Amendment failed 4-3. (Eason, Sattler, Berryman and Brainard opposed) There was discussion to restate the original motion which was to reduce the amount of the COLA to 3.69% and not fund the extra items that the City Manager had proposed. There was further discussion. Motion by Sansing, second by Eason to amend to identify the COLA as COLA and the salary adjustments at the discretion of the City Manager as salary adjustments, for the sake of transparency, and restore to 4.25%. There was further discussion. Human Resources Director, Kevin Russell, added this was also used to maintain competitiveness with other cities. He said this year other cities are looking at 4.5% and the County is looking at 4.15%. Snell said he wants to make sure that the use of this money is only for a proportional distribution to each non-public safety employee and is not to be used in any other way. Russell said there are pay ranges (minimum and maximum), and this year the ranges won't move according to Council's direction. He said there is a maximum amount that will be paid to an employee, so without moving the pay ranges, an employee that is already receiving a salary at the top of his pay range (approximately less than 10 employees) would not receive a cost of living adjustment. There were more questions from the Council. Brainard stated that his proposals are not intended to reduce anyone's salary or to not be competitive, but have to do with budgetary policy and the method to budget. Vote on the amendment: Approved 6-1. (Brainard opposed) Mayor asked for a vote on the original motion as amended to identify the COLA as 3.69% and the salary adjustments (approximately $90,000) at the City Manager's discretion up to the amount of 4.25% for this budget year. There was further discussion. Vote on the motion as amended: Approved 4-3 (Snell, Eason, and Oliver opposed) There was more discussion. Brainard stated that none of this was intended to display a distrust in staff. He said he has asked a lot of questions of Rundell and Brandenburg and they have answered them in good faith and very GOnfidently. competently. (*as corrected by Brainard at the Council Meeting on September 11, 2007) Motion by Brainard, second by Berryman to revise, effective with the FY 09 budget, the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy, regarding social service spending, to read: "As part of the General Fund Budget, the city may appropriate an amount for social service funding based on the amount budgeted in the prior year, plus a factor equal to the sum of the three-year rolling average of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern Cities, pertinent to Georgetown's population, plus the three-year rolling average of the increase in the City of Georgetown's population as estimated by the Office of the Texas State Demographer. The increase in social service funding shall not exceed 10 percent in any one year. These funds will be allocated and paid according to the City Council's Guidelines for Social Service Funding." He said this restates the policy for social service funding and instead of tying it to the size of the General Fund Budget, this year being 1 %, it ties it to the prior year and grows it each year by the rate of inflation plus the rate of growth in the city's population. Mayor confirmed that he was not changing it for this year, but for the 2008-2009 Budget, and asked City Attorney Carls if that was possible. Carls and Rundell said it could be incorporated into the policy for how next year's budget is adopted. Nelon asked and Brainard responded that the total budget has grown by 13 to 15% each of the last several years and Social Service Funding has grown by the same 13 to 15% each year. He said his motion would cap the spending at 10%. Snell said he is going to oppose this partly because the Social Service Committee has an opinion on how this should be done; and he would like for the Council to hear the Subcommittee's recommendation; and since this is for a later time, he would like the Subcommittee to look into how to do the funding. Sansing said when he first came on the Council in 2002, he was convinced that the Social Service Funding was superfluous, but he has now seen this funding allows organizations in the City to provide services that the City would otherwise have to provide. He thinks this is the less expensive way to City Council Meeting Minutes/August 30, 2007 Page 4 of 5 Pages assist the citizens who need help. Vote on the motion: Denied 4-3 (Eason, Sansing, Snell and Oliver opposed) Motion by Snell, second by Oliver to approve, as proposed by the Subcommittee, that in any given year, unallocated funds in either the Social Services Fund or the Children's and Youth Fund can be allocated in the other fund, in an amount not to exceed the estimated increase for the following year in the fund receiving the transfer. He explained the reason for the motion, saying the Subcommittee found a need to increase the Youth Funding, and would have transferred it from the Social Services Fund, if allowed. Berryman asked if a Subcommittee of Councilmembers could be appointed to look into this and come up with a solution for the percentages of funding. Snell did not accept as a friendly amendment because his suggestion pertained to this year's policy. Vote on Snell's motion: Approved 7-0. Motion by Oliver, second by Sansing to approve the Operating Plan Element with the changes made. Approved 7-0. 3. Consideration and possible action to approve an ordinance amending Sec. 2.08.010 "Administrative Divisions and Departments" of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell noted that this is required by the Charter and the biggest change is the creation of the Transportation Services Division. She read only the caption on first reading. Motion by Sansing, second by Berryman to approve on first reading. Approved 6-0. (Snell off the dais) E Discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution approving the adopted 2007/08 Budget for the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell explained the purpose of the resolution. She said the GTEC Budget is $16,902,765, of which $14,178,990 is for transportation projects. Motion by Berryman, second by Sansing to approve the resolution. Approved 7-0. F Consideration and possible action to approve the proposed 2007/08 Budget for the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell explained the purpose of the resolution. She said the GEDCO Budget appropriation for 2007/08 totals $2,144,099. Motion by Snell, second by Berryman to approve the GEDCO Budget. Approved 7-0. G Consideration and possible action to approve an inter -local operating contract between the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the 2007/08 fiscal year -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration Rundell said the monthly fee is set at $4,000 to fund the administrative costs for contract management, economic development staff, and accounting and financial support. Motion by Sansing, second by Berryman to approve the inter -local operating contract. Approved 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 05:50 PM. City Council Meeting Minutes/August 30, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Pages Attest;,<'+ City Secretary Sandra Lee