Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.28.2017 CC-WNotice of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 28, 2017 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 E. 7th 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 811 Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the workshop meeting to order at 3:05 PM. Mayor Ross and all councilmembers were in attendance with the exception of Mr. Brainard. Mr. Brainard arrived at 4:43 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A Presentation and discussion regarding the Main Street Fagade and Sign Grant Program -- Taylor Kidd, Chair of the Main Street Advisory Board Taylor Kidd, Chair of the Main Street Advisory Board, addressed the council regarding the Main Street Fagade and Sign Grant Program. Mr. Kidd began his presentation by introducing himself and pointing out a few board members who are in the audience. This presentation is being given because the board is responding to a request by council to update the Main Street Fagade and Sign Grant Program from a first come first serve to a competitive program and bring ideas back to council in 90 days. Kidd gave an overview of the proposed program and reviewed the program purpose. Kidd identified the key differences between sign grants and facade grants. He stated that sign grants have a maximum value of $500 and that they are noncompetitive. The board is recommending that the sign grant not be made a competitive program. The board recommendation is to leave the sign grant program as a first -come -first -serve program. The board is recommending that the facade grant program be made into a competitive process, and asked if council supports the distinction between sign and fagade grants. Council responded by nodding affirmatively. The board is recommending that some competitive process filters be defined by using a measurable, point - based, sliding scale system with which to determine the reimbursement will be. The slide shown above shows an example of this type of system and does not display suggested amounts or point values. Points would be assigned to projects and then dollar amounts would be tied to the total number of points a project would receive. The board is still working to develop the total number of points and criteria that they would recommend to council. The boards still strongly recommends this remain a reimbursement as it allows the boards to verify that the board confirms that the applicant followed what they presented for the grant. If the applicant didn't follow the application, it could result in reduction of grant amount. It is recommended that the board wait to review and score the application until after the applicant has applied for the permit and the city has completed it's first round of review. This should not present a delay as this is a reimbursement program. The board is suggesting 3 program criteria to be using in the measurement of facade grant applications. This is not exhausted, but the board feels these are the more important criteria to use to measure projects. Kidd asked for council comments at this time Councilmember Gonzalez thanked the board for their hard work. He confirmed that the recommendation is to leave the sign grant is left as a first -come -first -serve, and what is the budget set aside for that. He continued to ask if the money provided for the sign grants is separate from the facade grant funds or if it all comes from the same pool of money. Kidd stated that it is all one pool of money and that there is not a separation in funds for signs and facades, and that the board will look at the idea of setting aside a specific amount for signs to keep a couple of large facade grants from taking up all the money. He stated that the board will consider the suggestion. Councilmember Hesser stated his concern about how objective and measureable sound very subjective. Kidd provided an example about how the board may use the point system to address an application from a restaurant and how a reduction in points could happen but may or may not affect overall grant amount. Hesser asked about points being assigned for the hours of a business. Kidd stated that he would be going over some details about defining program criteria next. Councilmember Jonrowe would like the board to consider assigning some points to businesses that meet some unmet need that has been identified in one of the city surveys. Councilmember Fought salutes the purpose of Jonrowe's suggestion but feels that slides into economic development and feels this program is meant to contribute to historic preservation. Jonrowe stated that this would go back to the defined purpose of the Main Street Advisory Board. Kidd stated that the mission statement for the board is that it is an economic development focused preservation organization so they have their hands in both sides. He will look at more details about the criteria that help define the differences between economic impact and historic preservation. Fought just wants to make sure that the board doesn't stray too far from its main purpose. Kidd continued by defining the possible economic impact criteria Councilmember Eby added that this could be a good place to add a comment about giving priority to specific uses. Councilmember Fought is ok with it as long as it doesn't dominate and dose support Jonrowe's comment. Councilmember Jonrowe feels it is worth exploring to help incentivize the business community to partner with the city to fill some of the identified gaps. Councilmember Hesser asked what the main street objective is as he is concerned that the board is drifting from historic preservation to economic development. Kidd moved on the historic preservation criteria and used the Hoffburg Stromberg building as an example of a contributing structure and would show a higher priority. He also stated that they would evaluate the rehabilitation of a building and if that would increase the historic significance of that building. Councilmember Gipson feels the board is heading in the right direction, but feels that he's at a HARC meeting. He doesn't want to get too deep in the weeds, but loves where the board is going. Kidd moved on to the third criteria, location and mentioned that on or off the square could be part of this criteria. Mayor Ross asked about what the board sees as to what encompasses Main Street. Kidd stated that this definition from council would be helpful as the city may have more interest in cultivating businesses off the square and there may be more need there. He is interested in hearing what the council see as the priority. Jonrowe is reminded of Downtown Master Plan and suggests that the Anchor vs. Non -Anchor detail from the master plan could be helpful in determining this, if ifs something that would draw people rather than something that would draw less foot traffic. Councilmember Hesser the economic development piece is equally as important as the historic preservation piece. Should the city consider giving facade grant to HARC to administer? Kidd mentioned that the Main Street Advisory Board is not governed by Code and is meant to be an advocate for the owner. It is in a unique approach to economic development and historic preservation. The historic resource survey is very clear about what is contributing vs non-contributing structure. The board is hoping to lean on city staff to provide recommendations on the applications. Councilmember Gonzalez feels it could be a more efficient use of time if one board did both as it seems that they go hand-in-hand. It seems to make sense that the city consider putting the historic preservation and economic development all together on HARC. Councilmember Eby expressed concern with Tommy's suggestion because HARC is regulatory by nature, but isn't intended to promote historic preservation like Main Street does. HARC is meant to look at requirements and the Main Street Advisory Board has a very different function, so putting these functions together to try to be more efficient might actually do the opposite. Gipson stated that HARC doesn't look at economic development. Kidd stated that the board will come up with actual criteria and point system over the next few months. The board will do a stress test by looking at past applications to see how they would have fared with the new system and will return to council in June with future recommendation. B Presentation and discussion regarding the Economic Development Program — Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director, presented a series of PowerPoint slides addressing city's Economic Development Program. Ms. Dollar began her presentation by showing council a slide that indicates that she is presenting the first of 4 updates this year and what she plans to address at each quarterly update. Dollar provided council with the economic development mission and the strategic goals being used to achieve the mission. ogram Activities and spoke about a few of the events that the department has participated in over the last year. She highlighted the Economic Development Symposium and indicated that there are plans to hold the 2nd Annual Economic Development Symposium this fall. Dollar stated that the city completed the retail strategy and began implementation. She stated that over forty targeted retail packages have been mailed out and that the department has already begun receiving feedback from these packages. The department is also working with local retailers and developers to address the difficulties in finding a spot for these retailers to go. Staff is working to enhance the Business Retention Program and will bring an update to council next quarter. Dollar addressed "Understanding the workforce", "Develop targeted recruitment efforts", and "Update marketing materials" but stating that the department recently closed a GEDCO supported RFP for a Target Industry & Workforce Analysis. She stated that this analysis will seek to understand the local workforce, assess local business climate and industry mix, develop target industries, and pinpoint any disconnect or unmet demand. We currently have demographic information about our community, but that is different than the demographics of the actual workforce. Councilmember Fought asked Dollar to identify what is meant by [oral. Dollar said that this would be defining the labor pool that Georgetown pulls from. She finds that the average commute time is roughly 30 minutes and that this pool will draw from as far south as North Austin. This study will tell us exactly where we pull from for our workforce. Dollar said that this will also asses the industries that are best suited for Georgetown and why. Dollar talked about how the Target Industry & Workforce Analysis will be used. Once it's been completed, the department will come back to council in the 31d quarter to present the findings. The department will develop industry specific industry materials, begin targeted recruitment, and develop economic development strategy that will be presented to council during 4� quarter this year. Councilmember Gipson asked when the city ran a study like this in the past. Dollar stated that the city has never completed a study like this (no workforce analysis or target industry analysis) and the most closely related study would be the retail study. C Overview of the hiring process for Paramedic/Firefighters and Strength of Force (SOF) update -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief John Sullivan, Fire Chief, addressed the council regarding the hiring process for Paramedic/Firefighters and a Strength of Force update. Chief Sullivan began his presentation by stating the purpose of tonight's presentation. Sullivan stated that this information is associated with the Strength of Force amendment on tonight's regular agenda. Phase I Hiring Process rt -r pAl „„Y.d ExbwM vMvoM Phase 2 Hiring Process •®� �'*�2. ... v.. I�eQN Gr1Nd Pwtd Im:HYi Chief Sullivan discussed the hiring process and described each step of the process. Phase 1 take roughly 3 months and Phase 2 will take about 1 month. This is as fast as any candidate can get through the complete process. r Chief Sullivan went through the numbers shown on this slide with detail about what each number means and why the numbers can very. Councilmember Gonzalez inquired about what the city might be asking that causing failing on the polygraph. Chief stated that candidates will try to cover up past misstates instead of admitting and owning up to those mistakes. Councilmember Jonrowe wanted confirmation about if there is a timeframe where things are forgiven. Chief stated that there are statutes of limitations on items like drug use, but that the candidates encouraged to be truthful. People can turn their lives around and people make mistakes, but the one thing that is non- negotiable is honesty. Jonrowe asked if polygraphs are universally used in fire departments. Chief said that, yes, Texas fire departments use the polygraph. Jonrowe asked why firefighters are put through a polygraph. Chief stated that the department doesn't rely solely on the poly. There is a pattern that is developed and the poly reveals dishonesty. Candidates must own up to their mistakes. Jonrowe asked about what the failure rates are. Chief described some of the details that are looked at from the polygraph. Jonrowe is asking for follow-up regarding the percentages of people who fail the polygraph and also asked if she would be able to take the polygraph. Councilmember Fought provided that the questions asked in a polygraph are very straight forward and not designed to trick people. Chief continued and stated that this process was very new for him when he first started at the city, but that he is now very comfortable with process. Chief can review a candidate's application process and can overrule the failure of the poly if it appears to be unfair. Jonrowe inquired about how long program been in place, the testing process, and if the fire department keep records on demographic information of candidates. Chief responded to Jonrowe's questions and stated that he would happily to go over this data with her as he has an interest in the same area. High standards have been put in place and he has found that these standards have helped to create more diversity in the workforce. Councilmember Gipson encourages that the department keeps the higher standards. These are critical positions, and the city should stick with these types of requirements. Councilmember Hesser is also in support of the standards, and is very impressed with professionalism and curtesy exhibited by the fire employees. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the current employee gap. Phase 3 Training Process I fim Accdemy ) WSAcademy 0 Taskeook Chief continued by explaining that Phase 3 is the actual Training Process. This is where candidates go through the fire academy, the EMS academy, and the 1 -year Task Book process. Chief talked about how many folks the city has on the ground and went over the details shown on the slide above. He stated that the city will be full staff again in August. He talked about how the fire department work with 3 shifts of 35 people. Chief talked about the strength of force number and how the 35 positions are used for each shift. The fire department is working with Finance, City Manager's Office, and HR on monthly basis to bring the fire department up to full strength of force. Strength of Force Chief talked about the item that will be reviewed on the regular agenda and how the department is not asking for an additional position, they are asking for a reclassification of an existing position to the Strength of Force to better utilize the position. Chief talked about the next steps for the fire department and stated that this will come before council again in April. D Update and discussion on a Texas Department of Transportation recommended Mobility 35 Project for the Williams Drive intersection -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Planning Coordinator David Morgan, City Manager, addressed council about why this item is on the agenda. He stated that council might see some of what they have already seen, but that this is meant to be a recap and provide additional important feedback. Ed Polasek, Transportation Planning Coordinator, gave little background about the item and why this has come to council today. Council will be kept informed as the public process moves along. Ed introduced all of the people in audience who are here to provide support and answer questions this evening and introduced Dustin Elliott, with HNTB. da,e{,mn,�mmnbrmHm...�.no '- mRJm ]0 I WI35in N1&envn. -BM R2e3rolnn3fLWpErdgefi im.'a MIYp fGunM1b �G '�W PNe Ms.dNUWkWMl ma: y WWJ mI ID'nimm �; RmveYbmNrpung�35 uoYee: - :1(qi�:- -bTh'a^m+kmumrremax:m -SHMMBe aakp _N[MbMroMmafuYMrKmnYMM - _. bemVeNwnmlln0' -WWm RacWrlatlm Cpmeo\6 - pgMYM44 R nelrvnglmpmemen4 \ \ • Mdeg95FlpmvugryeMnWNyMmb mrlpeq [mb�e�n¢ eM sb\m a patt d ma _� _�� .gv�smp'nemaraePMu.n slsnm Elliott provided a Mobility35 Program Overview with a recap of the project. FAtMISM1E WH�WV®tl116uItin8N NaeW Gmlecls MxttnSH 130eW qM 14 1431 -Nllll®rs Ome impmeman4 -BM R2e3rolnn3fLWpErdgefi * inmrsatim m SaH® -HM 32431oflM 10.31 \amp ierm�ub \,151 - Mm n®r W u B W e lnlersauon -SHMMBe aakp Impmemems -WWm RacWrlatlm Cpmeo\6 R nelrvnglmpmemen4 Elliott described the details related to the Implementation Plan ��e OM"me, p gm•yTe]f sb WMG[a�Vb^\rWalY taMUNe[\%.M ROL• ary M 4m{man Bx4 PtiaO - F1'YOlewmiutimmnbr ge+YBMm'pr - %'101e @M'.Mam M xonniwn Muiwwe - IN1019 GmV Whn9erlMNwN+m[gvlmN - leu lennW"a"ctlwlanlm.M NN p4eu hW Cn4lrrVwF\Mr6 - NM.y e"pweU gGwPo UemmM Rote - Frw NnErn6e\grnelpnGiKlm lrwpMse.ntrmmeemrtenn{{Litlr Ml) - ieMeNe lel Dau DzmAw A18 em can \\�' Pam pm"�a�N[e� �"�NeA PoUWere s opm qP b OruOutlur Elliott went over the details of the different projects that will affect the timing of the Williams Drive project. This included details about the various boards and dates that play into the project. He stated that the other projects slated to be happening in Georgetown should time well with the Williams Drive bridge project. Councilmember Jonrowe asked about the use of the word "should" and if that means that TxDOT would hold off on the start of the Williams Drive Bridge project if Northwest Blvd is not yet complete. Elliott stated that they would be able to start certain parts of the Williams Drive project that are not affected by the Northwest Blvd project if it is delayed. They would hold off on taking the bridge out of service completely. Morgan stated that the city is aware of the time constraints and is working to have the Northwest Blvd project completed in a way such that it will not interfere with the Williams Drive Bridge project A ift 5NSNan f m, imsleilM Su* U' naul in nosmNr MM Nu.. than Fm I`,,s own N. 1-i/W. s 4/1'1/14 W11W wCou,ayFmMtlpD'SnuMOpn Nowa 2 - 6110/14 3 3111/14 WJlia,mcnQ unbFeaMMySIuHOpx,lbws 3-IvWU 61L]D/14 .. Phe DIN Up]na-DealpvnnIX Abaapl-W15 W01. Pwe DN Doak-Gm,pYuva, Tamw,utian Mvim,yBmN - 3114/13 W1 . Dins W ttomb - 0ampetwn Pry W unol - 9/13/ 16 NOW. Piw=V .-G.p inw tk,, Fnluncemen[ P ..-M/19/w Witt ePMW9 H.41-1LWM 31aeWW NiN amN'd4enapanp40ll MNk 1w,i,q IeLL apn,ypM aunklq Y9ll The slide above shows a listing of the public meetings that have been held in relation to the Williams Drive Bridge project. This includes three sets of open houses, and update with the City Manager, a visit with the Transportation Advisory Board, a presentation to City Council, a visit with the Transportation Enhancement Corporation, an Open House, and will be starting the meetings with stakeholders this spring, and the public hearing this coming summer. Elliott provided some comparison between this intersection and the similar intersection that was recently complete near IKEA in Round rock. He stated that the Round Rock project forced the use of existing infrastructure, but here will have new bridge which will allow for better geometry. Mayor Ross asked about how to promote the diverging diamond intersection (DDI) and help educate the public. Elliott talked about the differences between the current signal set-up at Williams Drive, and the proposed design. He mentioned that there are a number of "how to drive a DDI tutorials" on web. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the issue the city faces with the dead end on Austin Avenue. Elliott addressed Gonzalei s question by moving to this slide and discussing how the bring improvements will also improve the intersection of Williams Drive and Austin Avenue. TxDOT will be using a High T intersection that will allow cars to proceed through the intersection unless there is a pedestrian. The signals will be timed to operate in tandem. Councilmember Fought stated that he is terrified to use these types of intersections and is concerned about the dead end on Austin. He is also concerned about people who will get confused; an accident waiting to happen. The design should be intuitive. He also asked about what happens if it fails? What happens if the power goes out? Where do we put a police officer to direct traffic? He also expressed some concerned about how this could affect our economic development as businesses might be turned off by this type of road design. He is leaning on engineers for a solution to make this intuitive to the driver. Mayor Ross asked about what happens when electricity goes out. Elliott stated that he has no direct experience with power outages. He said that they can look to other about those. The DDI actually reduces the potential of accidents especially with left turns. The confusion will be less than the intersection by IKEA because this will be a better design as this will start with a blank slate. He showed some of the differences between the 1431 intersection and Williams Drive where most of the confusion lies. Elliott explained how the Williams Drive intersection will be superior to the 1431 intersection. Councilmember Hesser asked about how many of configurations of the DDI have included a dead end at the end of the diamond. Elliott stated that the busy intersection next to a T intersection is very rare and they have only found four instances and the distance between the DDI and the T is much shorter than any of the others found. Hesser mentioned the DDI in St George, LIT example and stated that the difference there is that there is no turning for about a quarter mile in either direction (like McDonalds and Starbucks). Elliott stated that does pose a problem here, but that some of those things are being address. He also mentioned that access to all businesses will remain the same though the routing may change a bit. Hesser asked about the projected impact on the businesses in the affected area. Elliott said that they do not expect there to be any impact on the businesses once construction is complete. Mayor Ross asked about the battery backup situation. Elliott stated that there is the availability to install battery back-up. By the time this intersection is live, the city may have to take over this signal operation, TOOT will put in the controllers that could include batteries or solar power. • ,MrtA�[OJM HB rmn^Iege,mE VMNINpne'�'Dm�f enlw 2%Det Ne - tMgvasn¢nemr.RYAa�otlw�brYl{uk,gv - me..vewmmw>es w.w Rm ran - memoppeXo®wtnavm Revmu, • Compo,IsonW Ne DpwlNelreailxnellnafxvon n )Bx2(NDnNa xwMkavd I581M1cnNge rm4 utl N5i6Ne D,ie: -,roarmw„emmaW m�w.an,.wwvAdr - Reaeme¢nrmnyA'4Mm1w]84feav,wr - t..•wwnn®w�tr.Mw.n=a. - NeTwpWllv�gii4VMRiXaM • nu N w�n1aR¢[UOIi N WJIMmS Omeel N.NpnManuvelm4na0prm r Dol imganmRRmwn. mama+setum U!Hb,ePneOw9Rra.w weAM1our Inu, aen47141r VAIN kMUMu6XNe4m,Q�RmMiw]BFNM1 Wk 1. u¢m..wa msaxxn nawann m�nea va ava y sm ma ctt naawa'y'O'. Elliott closed with a slide that provided details about why the DDI intersection was chosen for this project. The engineers found that a traditional intersection would worsen the performance and that delays would continue to grow. He discussed the numbers relating to the amount of traffic that will be able to move through this intersection as compared to the traditional intersection the city is currently using. Gonzalez asked about the light pink details on the map. Elliott explained that they are pedestrian paths. Gonzalez mentioned that a person will have straight through access as a pedestrian but not in a vehicle. Elliott explained that a driver would need to use the intersection bypass lane under the bridge. Elliott showed several videos of the movement of vehicles through the traditional intersection that is currently in place and pointed out the back-up of traffic. He also showed videos of the anticipated traffic movement after the new intersection is in place. He mentioned that the team is still working to extend the right turn lane on to 35 from SB Williams Drive. Mayor Ross asked if the team is hoping that drivers will use Rivery Drive to get from Williams Drive to IH -35 more. Elliott clarified and showed how people will still be able to get onto IH -35 in the same fashion that they currently do. The city is just trying to make the right turn lane to enter southbound IH -35 longer to reduce back-ups in that area. Councilmember Eby thinks this is going to be fantastic. Love it! E Georgetown Independent School District (GISD) presentation, overview and update regarding the District's current, short and long term operations and facilities planning --.David Morgan, City Manager and Dr. Fred Brent, Superintendent of Georgetown.Independent School District David Morgan, City Manager, Scott Stribling, School Board President and David Biesheuvel, Director of Construction & Facilities for Georgetown Independent School District addressed the council regarding districts current, short and long term operations and facilities planning. Morgan began the presentation by introducing Scott and David, gave a brief overview of what council can expect from this presentation, and handing the podium over to them. Scott Stribling, School Board President addressed the council and began by talking about how the city is growing and opened the floor to begin conversation with the city regarding a discussion about aquatics and swim needs in our community. He indicated that the school district would like to work toward a joint study to see if partnerships will be beneficial with regards to aquatic needs. Stribling introduced David Biesheuvel. Past Student Growth �V -GISD has experienced an increase of 1,074 students over the past five years. 2012-13: 10,370 students 2016-17: 11,444 students Future Student Growth V -GISD is projected to experience an increase of 2,971 students in the next five years. 2016-17: 11,444 students 2022-23: 14,415 students Biesheuvel talked about the student growth that GISD has seen in the past 5 years, it's been about 1,000. The district is expecting to see a growth of about 3,000 in the next 5 years. He stated that the district is facing a lot of facility challenges because of increase in student count. J Long Range Facilities Plan 1 =} -Expect completion of updated plan by August 2017 -Plan to include use of existing facilities and assets -Plan to include new campus projections as compared to demographic study Biesheuvel stated that the district has started a developing a Long Range Facilities Plan, and expect to complete this plan in August 2017. This will feed discussions for future bonds. The plan will look at existing facilities and the future possible uses, location of buildings, demographics, where the developments are occurring, and what new campuses might be needed. Consideration for City PartnershipY -Commitment from 2015 Bond to explore need for swim facility -Cost of a new "stand alone" facility may be prohibitive •Propose a joint study to determine If a city ldistrict partnership for expanding Rec Center is a viable option for our growing programs Biesheuvel stated that there has been a lot of interest in an aquatic or swim center but that it would be cost prohibitive for just GISD to do alone. David Morgan, City Manager, gave some history about how this conversation began, and indicated that it would be cost prohibitive for school district to do this type of facility alone and also a bit redundant because the city already has an aquatics facility. The city could participate in partnership between the city and GISD. Staff could look at the existing Recreation Center and master plan, study the issue to see if partnership would make sense, and offer the city the opportunity to increase an existing service. Mayor Ross asked what Morgan would like to get from council. Morgan asked if council would support an RFP for a facilities review to look at our Recreation Center, the GISD and City needs, and develop a design and cost study. This would go with the assumption that a study would cost roughly $40K, a cost that would be split with GISD. Mayor Ross clarified that Morgan is asking for council to direct staff to move forward with an RFP with the understanding that it would cost $40K. Morgan clarified that this is just a time for council to indicate if they would be in support of staff moving forward with an RFP, and then staff would be in item to council for approval of an interlocal agreement. Councilmember Fought supports this idea, but that staff needs to recognize that there are huge differences between recreational facility and competitive. He asked if the study would include all the city's aquatic facilities or just the rec center. Morgan stated that it would not be an Aquatics Master Plan, it would look at current usage. Fought would ask that the group to consider if the Williams drive pool would play a role in this as well. Councilmember Gipson added that this seems to fit with some of what the council retreat discussion covered, and what the city we can attract. Councilmember Jonrowe supports moving forward with the study, but also mentioned that she would like to have more conversation between the city and GISD with regards to traffic, where development occurs. She feels that the city and the school district can better cooperate on a number of issues and she would support the idea of having more conversation about other issues that impact both entities. Biesheuvel agrees and acknowledge that city staff has been very supportive and easy to work with. He feels that more communication can happen in the future. Morgan stated that GISD is looking for future school site and has been working with the city about where the growth trajectory is on development, and utilities. Conversation between city staff and school district staff is happening on a regular basis. Councilmember Brainard arrived at 4:43 PM Councilmember Gonzalez would like to focus on economic impacts short-term and long term. The consensus of council is to spend up to $20K for study, splitting the $40K with the school district understanding that city staff will bring an interlocal agreement back to council on the regular agenda. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Sec. 551.071, Sec. 551.072, Sec. 551.074, and Sec. 551.087 at 4:45 PM. Executive Session — started at 4:55 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 - Exxon Speedy Stop Monument Sign - Texas Crushed Stone Industrial Agreement Sec. 551.072 - Deliberation Regarding Real Property - Rivery Blvd. Extension Project: Parcel 10 (1613 Park Lane), Parcel 16 (Northwest Boulevard and Fontana Dr.), Parcel 12 (601 IH -35) Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Attorney Performance Evaluation Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Juniors Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on n(--( Dale Ross, Mayor