HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.13.2013 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present: Council Absent:
Patty Eason, Tommy Gonzalez, John Hesser, All Council Present
Steve Fought, Jerry Hammerlun, Rachael Jonrowe
Staff Present:
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary;
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Shirley Rinn, Executive
Assitant to the City Manager; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Andrew Sprugin, Planning Director
Minutes
A Discussion and possible action regarding funding allocations for contracted social services and youth programs
for 2013/2014 budget year -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager
Mayor called the meeting to order at 2:02PM and introduced this item. He said members of the Social Service
and Youth Program organizations came and made presentations to the Council a couple of months ago. He
said it is Council's job to determine how much funding to allocate to each of the organizations. Brandenburg said
we had 16 social service funding applications and 10 youth funding. He said the amount budget for social
services programs is $378,500 and $176,200 total for youth funding. He described the packets of information
and applications that were provided to the Council. He said Council has the ability to take money out of the
different pots at their discretion. Brandenburg said there were additional applicants and additional money
requested from last year. He added the amount requested is higher than what is budgeted. Mayor asked and
Rinn said the chart given to Council indicates what was given last year and what they are requesting this year.
She said it is up to the Council to determine what the organizations will receive. There was much discussion
regarding how to proceed with this issue. Gonzalez suggested Council initially fund each organization with 95%
of what was requested. Fought said Gonzalez had a good suggestion but noted it is very mechanical. He said
he would rather see Council go through and consider each organization and what each should receive based on
what services they provide to the community. Eason spoke about why she agrees with what Fought is
suggesting. She added, over the years, it seems the guidelines have been lost. She said there are several
organizations that do not meet the guidelines set out by the City. She said the other problem is that people
expect their request is going to be approved but added it is not possible for the City to help every organization.
Fought said he was very fortunate to attend a TML conference for newly elected officials where the Mayor of
Abilene talked about building a city versus building a communtiy. He said this is about building the community
and this is extremely important. He said, sometime in the coming year, it would be good to come up with another
strategy that would focus on building the community and not just allocating resources. Hesser said he is in
agreement with Eason and Fought. He said in some ways it is missing an element of accountability. Hammerlun
said he does think there needs to be an accountability piece. He said he thinks the City needs to spend a little
time redefining the program. He added they need to set a cap on this program that needs to be communicated
to the organizations and throughout the City. He said everything on here is justified but it is not possible for the
city to fund all of the organizations at their total requested level. He said it is important to communicate that this
is not a lifetime guarantee. Jonrowe thanked Brandenburg for the minutes back to 1999 on this issue. She said
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 4 Pages
often an ad hoc committee was created in the past to delve into this issue at some length and address some of
the issues that have just been asked. She listed some of the items she feels need to be examined regarding this
process and added she agrees a committee would be beneficial. Gonzalez said he never feels good at the end
of this practice. He said the only thing they need to consider is that whatever policy is set, it needs to be done
consistently and not make exceptions for certain organizations.
Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to form a committee charged to prepare a social service and youth
funding comprehensive strategy for Council to approve ahead of the process next year. Hesser amended that it
should also include a policy and mission statement.
Brandenburg said, in the budget they are approving next year, the lump amount is available to be changed. He
said they have some flexibility here if they want to meet as an ad hoc committee prior to determining the
allocations. Eason said some people sent in lower requests than they did last year. Hammerlun said, if there
are people who do not meet the requirements, we should eliminate those from consideration. There was much
discussion regarding the guidelines that are currently put in place
Vote on the motion: Approved 6-0
Below is a summary of the recommended funding amounts and the corresponding motions, if applicable, for
each of the organizations that applied.
SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING:
Assistance League of Georgetown - $7,000
Bluebonnet Trails- $4,000
Briarwood- $15,000 (Motion by Fought, second by Hammerlun for $15,000. Approved 6-0)
CASA- $5,000 (Motion by Eason, second by Hesser to approve $5,000. Approved 6-0)
Faith in Action- $16,000 (Motion by Hesser, second by Hammerlun to approve $16,000. Approved 6-0)
Family Eldercare- $4,000 (Motion by Eason, second by Gonzalez. Approved 6-0)
Georgetown Community Center/Caring Place- $50,000
Getsemani- $5,000
Goodwill- $10,000
Habitat for Humanity- $30,000
Literacy Council- $3,500 (Motion by Fought, second by Jonrowe to approve $3,500. Approved 6-0)
Lone Star- $100,000
Samaritan Center- $0
Senior Center at Stonehaven- $12,000
Wilco Crisis Center/Hope Alliance- $40,000
WBCO- $6,000 (Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve $6,000. Approved 6-0)
YOUTH PROGRAM FUNDING:
Boys and Girls Club- $50,549 (Motion by Gonzalez, second by Eason to give $50,549 to Boys and Girls Club.
Approved 6-0)
Boy Scouts- $2,500 (Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve $2,500. Approved 5-1 (Eason opposed)
Georgetown Cultural Citizen's Memorial- $3,000
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 4 Pages
Georgetown Partners in Education- $0
Georgetown Project- $20,000 (Motion by Hesser, second by Eason to approve $25,000. Approved 6-0)
Getsemani Community Center- $5,000
Hill Country Book Festival - $0
Ride on Center for Kids- $0
WC4C (Williamson County Community Coordinated Child Care) - $7,500 (Motion by Fought, second by Hesser
to approve $7,500. Approved 4-2 (Gonzalez, Jonrowe opposed)
Williamson County Historical Museum- $4,000
Williamson Council on Alcohol and Drugs, dba LifeSteps- $0
For complete video and audio of the discussion, please visit the City of Georgetown's GN website at
hftp:ltqovernment.geor-getown.org/�gtv/
Motion by Fought, second by Hesser to approve the numbers for further discussion and final approval at the
next meeting. Approved 6-0
Meeting recessed at 3:37PM
Meeting reconvened at 3:47PM
B Update and discussion regarding the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) Advisory Committee -- Valerie
Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Andrew Spurgin, AICP, Planning Director
Spurgin reviewed the item and the history of this project. He said the UDC is a living document that was adopted
over 10 years ago. He noted it is amended on a regular basis. He reviewed the existing amendment process for
the Council and passed discussion on this issue. He said, in May 2012, there was a City Council Workshop on
the UDC amendment process and he summarized the comments and action taken at that meeting. He said
there was discussion about less frequent code amendments.He noted there was consensus at that time to
create a Council appointment committee of no more than 9-10 people with diverse background. He said there
were talks of more involvement by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the thought at that time was
to wait until the new Planning Director was on board to make these changes. He said the Planning Department
has a list of UDC stakeholders with about 600 members. He noted clearly a lot of people have taken an interest
in the UDC. He said some attendees at the recent UDC stakeholder meetings had mixed opinions on creation of
the committee. He provided Council with some of the comments that came out of those meetings. He reviewed
the City Council feedback from the recent May 28, 2013 meeting on making changes to the process and the
possible creation of a committee. He said most were supportive of committee concept. He said there was
discussion regarding cutting down on the frequency of amendments and limiting out of cycle amendments.
Spurgin reviewed the proposed process for the Council He said there would be committee and non committee
review categories. He described the process for each of those two amendment categories. He said there would
be executive amendments, where they would go to Planning and Zoning and then and City Council. He said the
general amendments would go to the UDC committee then Planning and Zoning Commission and then Council.
He said the body to review the general amendments would be the UDC Advisory Committee. He reviewed the
proposed membership of the committee, including 2 Planning and Zoning members, 1 HARC member, 3
community members, 1 chamber members and 2 technical members. He provided Council with the alternatives
to this issue if they decide not to move forward with the formation of the committee. He reviewed the process of
appointing members to the committee. He said the next steps will be to come back with an Ordinance
establishing committee and bylaws.
Gonzalez asked and Spurgin thinks this is the right step moving forward and he spoke about the benefits the
committee will bring to the process. Jonrowe said she does not have questions at this time. Hammerlun said he
would like to see fewer changes and added he likes the committee structure. He asked and Spurgin spoke
about the appointment process and said the commissions involved would nominate members. He said they
already have a long list of people who would like to participate. Fought said the City is the regulatory and the
developers are the users. He asked if it would be practical to run this concept by the developers. Spurgin said
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 4 Pages
staff has had some discussions with the development industry at the public workshop in May. He said there
have been informal conversations with the developers as well. Brandenburg said they do intend to take this
issue to his monthly developer meeting. Fought said it sounds like the right thing to do but it would be good to
put it in front of the developers first. Hesser said his issue is how the consumer will adapt to it. Hesser asked
and Spurgin said the applications would be accepted according to the normal Boards and Commissions
appointment process. Eason said she wanted to remind everyone that the task force was an idea from the
development community in the first place. She said she is pleased with the effort to streamline this process. She
asked how this is going to be less formal than having the amendments go to the planning and zoning
commission. Spurgin said, through the bylaw process, they can identify how the meetings would operate and
they could perhaps begin the meetings with an open forum. He said we certainly heard from several members of
the public that the Council meeting forum can be quite intimidating for people. He noted a more informal forum
at the committee meetings may be a better environment for these type of discussions. Mayor asked why staff
feels it necessary to have 9 members. Spurgin said the number came out of some of the past discussions on
this issue. There was much discussion regarding the makeup of the Board. Brandenburg said the next time
Council sees this will be the Ordinance and Bylaws. He added staff will speak with the user groups to gather
their thoughts on the issue.
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071 and 551.086 of the Local Government Code --
4:13PM
Approv d .
Mayor George Garver
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned — 6:18PM
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 06:18 PM.
est:
l '
Ci 7
retary Jessica Brettle