Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.08.2014 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the G'ovet-iijrtvv Bride sof the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, April 8, 20 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7`v` 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 four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy veloptttetifl) eview Workshop — Call to order at 3-00 ' A Presentation and discussion regarding the City of Georgetown's Social Services and Youth Program Funding Policy, Guidelines, and Process -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager Mayor called the meeting to order at 3:03PM Eason, Gonzalez, absent. Mayor introduced the item for Council. Brandenburg provided a brief history of this project and introduced Shirley Rinn, who gave the presentation. He spoke about why this task force was meeting. Eason arrived at the dais. Rinn introduced herself and Suzy Pukus, who spoke about the history of this subject matter and when the Council established the task force. She said the charge to the committee was to define a mission statement for the City's Social Services and Youth Program Funding Programs and application process. She introduced the Council to the members of the committee. She said the task force met eight times to develop these recommendations. Pukus said they were focused on process but wanted to be clear about the purpose. She said the task force began with a series of purpose -driven questions. She provided a list of the questions they considered. She said the questions led to research, including researching the funding programs in other communities. She spoke about how they used the National League of Cities to assist in their fact gathering. She read the mission statement from that group. Rinn said they also looked at other cities in Texas and she spoke specifically about San Marcos. She said the City of San Marcos has a Human Services Funding Advisory Board. She noted it is comprised of eight San Marcos citizens, with one non-voting member. She said the purpose of the Board is to develop and enhance human services in the community, review applications and make funding recommendations for those organizations. She said the City Council sets the funding levels and then the board reviews applicants and makes recommendation regarding allocation of those funds. She said the agencies do not provide audit documentation, but rather a quarterly status report. She said the funding is paid quarterly after those reports are received. Pukus spoke about some of the other research they did over the process, including looking at the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the SWOT analysis as well as the quality of life section of the plan. She said they felt that this funding should be an extension of the Council's goals for the community. She provided the drafted purpose statement for the Council: "The City of Georgetown values partnerships with organization that are committed to addressing our community's greatest public challenges. The Purpose of City Funding to the nonprofit sector is to cultivate and sustain partnerships with 501(c) 3 organizations that strengthen the City's key priorities in the following areas: public safety, transportation, housing, parks and recreation and safety net." She spoke about how the task force clearly defined each of those key priorities. She spoke in detail about the "safety net" priority area. She said, under this priority, the City recognizes its responsibility to support efforts to address this community's most pressing basic needs. Eason asked about the Parks and Recreation priority. She said, since the City has a general fund line, she never really thought of parks and recreation as being eligible for social service funding. Eason said the original understanding was to make sure this will narrow down the eligible groups instead of being able to fund all organizations. Eason asked and Pukus spoke about the type of organizations that could qualify for social service funding under the parks and recreation priority area. Fought said he agrees with Eason on Parks and Recreation regarding how it will fit into social service funding. He also questioned Housing and how that could fit into the priority area of "safety net." He spoke about medical and how it should be its own category. Pukus asked if medical is something the City should even be funding in general. Eason spoke about Lone Star Circle of Care and how the City has provided funding for that organization in the past. Pukus described why the safety net priority area exists. Fought said it seems if we can put Lone Star Circle of Care under safety net, we could put housing under safety net as well. Hammerlun said tying this back to the goals of the City is helpful for him. There was much discussion regarding tying this to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Pukus spoke about the recommendations for action for the 2014 Grant Cycle. She said these recommendations are intended to streamline the process, integrate objectivity, and strength accountability. She spoke about establishing an ad hoc committee to review the applications for this first year. She noted they suggest that a minimum grant threshold for each organization be $10,000. She described their recommendations for the out years, 2015-16. She said these include establishing a standing Advisory Board for 2015 and beyond, review and analysis will NOT include presentations from grant applicants, integration of new grant applications in 2015-16 process and to fund annual grants rather than multi-year grant in order to avoid committing future funding and Councils. She described some future considerations for Council as well. She described the timeline for proposed approvals and actions for fiscal year 2014-2015 as well as fiscal year 2015-2016. She continued to review the recommendations for action from the committee. Rinn reviewed the calendar for this process and provided handouts to the City Council and described those for the Council. Pukus spoke about the proposed application that can be used in 2015. Fought asked and Pukus said the City's application will change over the next two years along with the process. Fought spoke about the importance of having a standard application. Eason said it seems to her that the more categories that an organization meets will help their eligibility for funding. Pukus agreed. Eason said she likes this idea of favoring organizations that meet as many of Council's goals as possible. Brainard asked and Pearce said it is not necessarily extensions of what Council is doing, but it is what Council has identified as priorities for the future of the City. Brainard said the City is in the business of providing transportation and parks and recreation and it is something the city is already in business of addressing. He said those issues seem to be a horse of different color relative to what the city is engaged in. He noted he sees a divide between what the city is already providing and basic human needs. Eason said she does not agree with Brainard's opinion because the City is not providing transportation services to certain groups in the community. She spoke specifically about Faith in Action Caregivers. Hesser thanked everyone for their input and feedback. He described instances where the City offers services similar to what social service organizations provide. Jonrowe thanked Rinn and Pukus and the rest of the task force for their work. She said, so far, she really likes what she is seeing. She asked about the $10,000 minumum threshold and the percentage of organizations that ask for less than that. Rinn said a very small percentage asks for less than $10,000. Rinn noted they have not spoken to those organizations and what that minimum would mean to the organization. Jonrowe spoke about stepping up the minimum as the process and application changes. Jonrowe also spoke about how it is difficult for citizens to find certain organizations and said it is normally through word of mouth. Jonrowe said she likes the idea of having the parameters, including the minimum finding amount as well as a maximum amount. Jonrowe spoke about veteran services and how this needs to be clearly established as a priority. Hammerlun said he appreciates very much their alignment with the City's key priorities. He said he is also in favor of the minimum threshold for funding. He said some other details should be solidified, including the audit before funding and the timing of payments. Eason left the dais. Hammerlun asked about the makeup of the Advisory Board and Pukus said it is impossible for all of the members to be objective. She said, however, a panel of experts will really be able to help the Council. Hammerlun asked and Pukus spoke about how the number of members is flexible and determined by the Council. Hammerlun said he also agrees with removing the presentations by organizations from the process. Eason returned to the dais. Pearce spoke about the parks and recreation priority and how that would apply to this program. Mayor thanked the group and said their work has been superb. He said there needs to be an understanding of our Charter and how the Mayor is involved in the process of appointing committees. Brandenburg said Item O on the Regular Council agenda will be to move forward with these recommendations. He said the Council can provide any type of direction that would like on any of those bullet points. There was much discussion on how to move forward. Brainard asked if the committee considered how to quantify the City getting "the best bang for its buck". He spoke about how, in the past, there have been matching grants as well. There was much discussion. Council recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.087 of the Local Government Code — 4:20PM Executive Sessioii 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 - Litigation Update: Hoskins v. City of Georgetown - CTSUD Update - LCRA Update - Lake Water Treatment Plant Sec. 551.074: Personnel (Matters - City Secretary Annual Performance Evaluation - Municipal Court Judge Annual Performance Evaluation - Human Resource Director Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Wolf Ranch Project Municipal Utility District (MUD) Adjotirnment Council recessed Executive Session — 6:15PM Certificate of Posting, 1, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8"' Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the day of , 2014, at , and remained so posted for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. Jessica Brettle, City Secretary f 6 `George , ever',- Mayor A es ` City Se' retary