Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 05.13.2014 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 13, 2014 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 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 four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8'h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy Development/RevieNv Workshop — Call to oi-dei• at 2:00 PM A Overview of the City of Georgetown 2014 Assessed Value as presented by Alvin Lankford, Chief Appraiser, Williamson Central Appraisal District -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Rundell introduced the item and said this is a presentation that has been done over the past few years. She introduced Alvin Lankford, Williamson County Chief Appraiser, to the City Council. Lankford introduced himself and noted their first annual report has been provided to the City Council. He spoke about the data that is included in that report. He said they have exceeded standards for the state on the methods and assistance program. He spoke about the property value study they recently completed. He noted they had a 99% appraisal to sale at the county. He continued to review the 2013 annual report and showed the Council the wcad.org website and the services they provide via the internet. He reviewed the visitor check in process and what people go through when they visit the facility. He provided Council with 2012-2014 Queue Statistics. He said each person that comes in is provided with a customer survey. He showed Council the results of those surveys. He described the process of "change detection" for the City Council. He showed the Council their budget comparison from 2010-2014 as well as charts of how WCAD compares to other appraisal districts in the area. He said they are about middle in terms of costs. He reviewed the preliminary values in their entirety. He provided a percentage breakdown of the type of property that exists in Georgetown. He spoke about the average residential home value over the past five years and showed a chart demonstrating the change in taxable value from prior year. There was much discussion. Gonzalez asked and Lankford said the notice value is what prevails if the property value shows higher after someone protests. Brainard said his level of customer service is great. He asked and Lankford spoke about how the city participates in electing the WCAD board members. Eason said she appreciates hearing this presentation each year. The City Council thanked Lankford for his presentation and great customer service. B Presentation and discussion regarding the Customer Care Initiative and the Customer Information System (CIS) software opportunities -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Manager and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer With a Powerpoint Presentation, Babin spoke about the Customer Care Initiative and the new Customer Information System (CIS). He spoke about how the City recently replaced the Advanced Metering Infrastructure and Meter Data Management as well as the Asset management System. He said staff is now looking to replace the Customer Information System (CIS). He spoke about how CIS is a module within Incode. He reviewed how the City got to this point and touched on the industry trends for the Water Utility and the Electric Utility. He said, in terms of trends, the electric industry is busier than the water industry. He spoke about how the City is working toward the objective of becoming an "opt in" city. He described what is missing in Incode and how this new program will address some of those issues. He said one of the issues is there is no marketing and customer management in the system. He noted CIS will address these problems. Zavala spoke about when the City was looking at CIS Odyssey back in 2010 and why that project never came to fruition. She said staff is looking at what staff can do from a customer care standpoint. She said they want to work to build customer relationships, centralize calls into the call center and standardized customer communications. She said staff would also like to offer additional self -serve options and incorporated marketing and public relations into the system. She provided Council with a visual of the evolution process of the customer care initiative. She spoke about what is next and the options for the CIS Replacement Matrix. She said they are out in the market looking at CIS options. She said the next steps of the process are to provide a second workshop to Council with options and costs at the end of June, early July. She said they would like to have the contract approvals at the end of the year and start their implementation at the beginning of next year. Eason spoke about how she remembers this from 2009. She said she is ready to get on with this process and speed it up. She said we are way behind in dealing with these issues. She said we have a truly out of date system. Brainard asked if staff will be looking at options of a tier one or a tier two process. Rundell said they are looking at and will be doing an analysis of both options. She noted they will go with the solution that best addresses Georgetown's needs. Fought agreed and said this is badly needed. He noted he appreciates the emphasis on customer service. He said he appreciates the work on coming up with a business plan and addressing the cost. Hammerlun asked about the availability of tier one and tier two products and understanding their functionality and quality. Babin spoke about the products and vendors that are currently available. Hammerlun spoke about how the work staff does up front will be critical to the success of the program in the future. Jonrowe asked and Zavala spoke about how this new program will help increase efficiencies. Jonrowe said she would like to see solid figures on that. Jonrowe asked and Zavala said this could level out a pre -paid option. Gonzalez commended the department of the customer service focus and emphasis. There were many questions and much discussion. C Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) — Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Brewer reviewed the role of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) in the City of Excellence. She provided Council with a general background of HARC. She said the Historic Preservation Commission was created on August 11, 1975 and its purpose was to preserve and protect historic and cultural areas, places and buildings. She noted HARC was created by the City Council in 2001. She reviewed the membership requirements of HARC and said there are 7 commissioners and commissioners in training. She spoke about the powers and duties of HARC as well as the HARC bylaws for the Council. She said the certificates of design compliance (CDC) are required in the districts, the Town Square Historic Overlay, Downtown Overlay and Old Town. She spoke about how the CDC applies to residential development as well as multi -family and commercial. She spoke about the CDC for demolition and how it is applied. She spoke about HARC decisions and said HARC reviews the applications, staff reports and conducts hearings. She said final action on an application must take place within 45 days of the original hearing. She said HARC cannot delay a case. She said items are approved with a majority vote. She spoke about the appeals process and said final action on CDCs may be appealed to the Council if request is submitted within 30 days of HARC final action. She said they are required to set the appeal hearing for the next available city council meetings. She reviewed the burden of proof appeals and administrative review process for the Council. She spoke about the CDCs for 2013 and how they reviewed 60 and there have been 20 reviewed so far in 2014. She spoke about the number of sign applications they received last year and so far this year. She spoke about next steps and said there is a staff work plan. She said they are working on consistency on application materials, Paul Zucker is working on processes, a customer forum, reporting back to commission on completed CDCs and/or issues, proposal for residential infill guidelines and reporting to the Council and other boards. She reviewed the commission work plan. She said they are training the HARC on consistency, discussions happening on the dais as well as community outreach issues. She said some other issues are communication with other boards and Council, a self-assessment as well as additional training. She showed Council the next steps in the Commission Training Plan. There was much discussion about HARC, its purpose and duties. She said staff is asking direction regarding the staff work plan, commission work plan and the UDC process in general. Hammerlun thanked Brewer and said, he has been on the Council for two years and the two most frustrating experiences were related to HARC. He spoke about those experiences. He spoke about the power of Commissions related to power of council. He said his second frustration can from the list of priority structures and how those are treated. He said HARC needs to be more pro -active and not reactive when it comes to maintaining and preserving historic structures. Jonrowe said she thinks the work plan looks good. She said this is a great starting point and noted she thinks HARC is a vital resource for this City. She said she thinks it is actually a pretty smooth process in general but noted she is surprised HARC does not received larger crowds. Gonzalez said no item on a board agenda should supersede Council decisions. He spoke about Commissioners -In -Training. He spoke about how the members need to have a lot of information prior to being asked to make these important decisions. Fought spoke about how he has lived in other communities where the preservation societies have money. He said that's the difference between those communities and our community. He spoke about HARC needing to have a way to get money through grants or fundraising. He said he would like to examine how to restructure HARC in a manner to allow them to get funds. Hesser spoke about his concerns with how a structure gets placed on the historic priority list. He spoke about the issue with Friendly Will Baptist Church and how HARC was making suggestions that they sell the property. He said he has concerns about that. He noted he felt HARC did not deal with that issue from a human perspective. He said the City and HARC should be proactive with dealing with structures on the priority list. He noted he thinks HARC has lost its vision. He said he recommends that HARC be disbanded as it currently exists and it needs to be re -written. Brainard said the issue that has not been addressed is the constitutional right to private property. He said he also appreciates the comments from Fought about creating a funding structure. Brainard said he has heard from owners who said their properties were negatively affected by HARC. He said he thinks the process is broken and it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Eason said she agrees with Fought's comments. Eason spoke about the transition from Preservation Commission to HARC and how some of that may have been lost. We should not make citizens come to HARC. She said we should make ourselves available to property owners and help them protect the historic nature of their structures. Eason spoke about Hat Creek and how the Council saw stuff before HARC and added the process should not work that way. She spoke about revamping the goal and mission of HARC. There was much discussion. Mayor asked and Brewer confirmed she has received enough feedback to move forward with how to address HARC. Meeting recessed to Executive Session Under Sections 551.071 and 551.074 of the Local Government Code-4:23PM 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. D 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 - Lakewater Treatment Plant Contract - Eric Dunlap Claim -Wolf Ranch/Hillwood Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation - City Attorney Annual Performance Evaluation - Municipal Court Judge Performance Evaluation Adjournment — Meeting returned to Open Session at Certificate of Posting I, 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. 8t' 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 oss, Mayor Attest: Cil S cretary