Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.26.2017 CC-WMinutes of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, September 26, 2017 The Georgetown City Council met on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 3:00 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 three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8"' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5. Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, District 1, Valerie Nicholson, District 2, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, District 4, Rachael Jonrowe, District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 were in attendance. Councilmember Gipson joined the meeting at 3.05 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Discussion regarding the Airport Ordinance 12.32 — "Georgetown Municipal Airport Use Regulations" and Airport Minimum Standards -- Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Octavio A. Garza, P.E., C.P.M., Public Works Director Russ Volk, Airport Manager provided a presentation and discussion on Georgetown Municipal Airport Use Regulations and Airport Minimum Standards. Volk thanked City Attorney's office for their help. Volk spoke on the history of the regulations for governing at the airport. Volk described the purposes of the Airport Ordinance • Establishes rules and regulations for aeronautical activities • Intended for the safe, orderly and efficient operation of the Airport • Applies to all persons using the Airport for any reason ■ Provides legal framework for use of the Airport Volk spoke on updates to Article 1 — General Provisions • Incorporates latest guidance from Federal Aviation Administration • Establishes airport restricted access areas • Incorporates latest National and City Fire Regulations • Establishes penalties for non-compliance • Establishes regulations for fuel servicing related activities • Updates terminology • Removes duplicate language to streamline paragraphs ■ Removes unused definitions Volk next described updates to Article 2 — Airport Operations • Establishes regulations related to disabled aircraft or vehicles • Improves environmental requirements related to aircraft washing • Specifies aircraft maintenance engine run locations and RPM settings • Incorporates recommendations from the Voluntary Fly Friendly Program • Establishes guidelines for handling of disabled aircraft • Updates terminology ■ Removes duplicate language to streamline paragraphs Volk went on to speak on the Updates to Article 3 — Leasing • Sets length of lease periods • Establishes limitations related to various operational surfaces • Requires all airport tenants to comply with Minimum Standards • Establishes guidelines for use of City -Owned hangars • Establishes guidelines for services provided to an aircraft owner or lessee • Updates terminology • Removes duplicate language to streamline paragraphs Airport Minimum Standards were shown next • Establishes standards for aeronautical activities • Specifies provisions that will be included in Airport leases, licenses, permits and agreements • Applies to all person based at the Airport Volk described the updates to Section 1 — General Standards • Updates terminology with industry standards • Removes duplicate language to streamline paragraphs • Incorporates latest guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration Updates to Section 2 — Doing Business on the Airport were described. • Establishes a formal application process to include required documents • Requires all businesses to meet environmental guidelines • Establishes a City review process with acceptance or denial outcome Updates to Section 3 — Commercial Operations — were described by Volk. • Establishes minimum service levels to operate as a Fixed -Base Operator ■ Requires all fuel sold be purchased from City Fuel Storage Facility Allows FBOs to subcontract for services from other on -airport providers • Requires FBO personnel to complete fuel handling training courses • Allows City to terminate FBO operations for failure to meet minimum standards • Establishes standards for Specialized Aviation Services Operators (SASOs) • Updates terminology with industry standards • Removes duplicate language to streamline paragraphs Volk concluded the presentation with updates to Sections 4-7 and noted that a variety of topics are included. • Establishes Flying Club guidelines ■ Sets minimum insurance levels depending on the type of aviation activity • Requires all insurance policies to name the City of Georgetown as additionally insured • Implements City Building Code • Requires City permitting and inspection process • Establishes ground lease application process • Provides for removal of non -airworthy aircraft or vehicles Councilmember Fought said this is long overdue and congratulated Volk on the good job. Fought said he likes insurance policies to cover the City and asked if there was a held harmless clause. Volk asked the City Attorney to respond. McNabb said there is indemnification in all contracts but not necessarily in the ordinance. Councilmember Hesser asked about planes outside of the fly friendly regulations and if there is a penalty for violations. Volk said the fly friendly program is a voluntary program, but all pilots must obey the FAA guidelines. He explained that if a violation is confirmed from the control tower, it is brought to the federal level. Volk said thsi has never happened in Georgetown. Volk noted that it is almost impossible to avoid noise sensitive areas because of the residences around the Georgetown Airport. He noted that preferred traffic patterns are used by the control tower, but 2 dissimilar planes need to be put in 2 different traffic patterns and one must always default to the safety of the plane operator. Councilmember Hesser said he has heard of "buzzing" complaints. Volk said the airport staff tracks complaints and follows up where applicable. He explained that complaints are sometimes hard to decipher. Councilmember Gipson thanked Volk. He asked about the control tower hours and if there are cameras. Gipson asked if most of the complaints come after hours. Volk said those planes are generally on a flight plan from Austin, but if not, they are not able to be monitored. If the operator is on a flight plan, he/she will have a registration number and complaints can be followed up. Volk explained that Georgetown does not have enough traffic after 10 pm to warrant paying someone in the control tower all night for very few flights. Volk said there are no cameras because it would take an extensive camera system, which would be very costly. Volk said if he hears of someone repeatedly taking off at 4 am, he will investigate through the fixed base operators. He said most pilots are business men going to early morning meetings, but generally leave later than 4 am. Councilmember Gonzalez asked how many complaints are after hours and how many are during open hours. Volk said there are only 20 to 25 complaints annually, from an airport with 100,000 take off and landings per year. Volk noted that the flow of traffic has increased and 75-80% complaints are for noise because people are not used to traffic that has been redirected because of construction. Mayor Ross said he is in favor of the hours at the control tower. Volk said it is not allowed to restrict pilots' hours. He said if a pilot is on an approved flight plan from Austin, their flight is directed and routed and pilots must follow the directed flight plan. Mayor Ross asked about military aircraft and if they received most of the noise complaints. Volk said they see helicopters mostly and had 12 Apaches over the summer. He agrees that this aircraft is considerably louder, but they are following the rules and regulations established. Volk said the FAA standard is taken seriously. Volk noted that he is extremely proud of Georgetown and all of the recent relief efforts. Councilmember Gipson said the complaints come from a very small circle of people, less than 1%, and thanked Volk for excellent management at the Airport. B. Presentation, discussion and direction regarding permitting requirements for mobile food vendors -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson provided a presentation on food vendors and possible permitting requirements. She said she is seeking Council direction on consistency and predictability and consistency and predictability are the goal of the presentation. Nelson described the questions that will need to be answered for the operation of food trucks. • Where should they be permitted? • How long will they be allowed to stay? • When is a permit required? • When are improvements triggered? • How and when should food truck vendors meet our community standards? • Is the treatment of food truck vendors equitable with brick and mortar businesses? Nelson said there are 3 types of Food Truck Categories 1. The vendor without a fixed site 2. The accessory use 3. The primary use Nelson gave examples and descriptions of each. She explained that a vendor without a fixed site would be food trucks servicing constructions sites or neighborhoods, such as an ice cream truck. Nelson said a vendor with accessory use would be a mobile food vendor that supplements a primary brick and mortar development, such as Je Sues Coffee, Mesquite Creek and Rentsch Brewery. She explained the primary use vendor as a more permanent situation such as vendors at the Food Park or the Black Box on Church Street. She spoke on a concern for the need for bathrooms and parking at these more permanent sites. Nelson spoke on proposed standards for the mobile food vendors by type. She noted that this does not address standard requirements from the Williamson County Health Department or the City's Fire Department. Nelson said the recommendation for vendors without a fixed site would be that no city permit is required. She said the recommendation for food trucks seeking to park in City ROW, parks or parking lots would be to require a special use permit. Nelson said the recommendations for accessory use trucks, parked less than 24 hours, would be that no permitting is required, but these trucks would be permitted only in C1, C3, BP, MF, CN, P, I, and mixed use zoning districts. She noted that the recommendation would be that the truck shall be parked outside of a required parking space and outside of a required setback or buffer area. Mayor Ross asked if these recommendation are consistent with current practice. Nelson confirmed. Councilmember Hesser asked if there were term limits for special use permits. Jack Daly said that special use permits, such as those given for the Red Poppy Festival, are generally blanket event permits, such as Friday at noon through Sunday at 5 PM. Ross asked if these cost money. Daly said these permits cost $100. Nelson spoke on the recommendations for accessory use trucks that will be in use more than 24 hours. She explained that the recommendation would be to require a temporary use permit and zoning of C1, C3 or mixed- use districts. Nelson said these too would be required to park outside of a required parking space and outside of a required setback or buffer area. Nelson said the temporary use permit would need to be renewed after 90 days, up to one year of time. Councilmember Hesser asked about street parking. Nelson said parking would be off the street in private parking spaces. Mayor Ross asked if the alley behind Mesquite Creek is allowed. Nelson said yes because it is private property and there would be no regulation for less than 24 hours. Councilmember Nicholson asked if the property owner has asked for that vendor. Nelson confirmed. Councilmember Jonrowe asked for clarification that a food truck cannot park at an apartment complex. Councilmember Gonzalez said this must beat a property owner's request. Hesser asked if the cost is $100. Nelson said no, because this is a vendor there for less than 24 hours, which does not require a permit. Jonrowe asked if there is a limit of how many days per year. Nelson said this is not part of this presentation but she would be happy to look into it. Jonrowe said she could support a vendor being allowed one night per weekend, but is not sure if they should be there night after night. Jonrowe asked if a vendor could get around a time limit by moving the site temporarily. Nelson said that type of vendor would be required to move to a more permanent use, such as a food park. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if a vendor with a temporary use permit would be required to transition to a permanent situation after a year. Discussion followed. Mayor Ross said some vendors use the temporary situation as a tryout to see if the business will be successful. Nelson explained that a vendor with a temporary use permit is not required to have bathrooms, grease traps, certain utilities and things that are required when permanent. Gonzalez asked why a vendor who was successful would have to move after a year. Nelson said this could be allowable with a special use permit, if that is Council's direction, and she could bring this for their review at a future workshop meeting. City Manager, David Morgan said a solution would be to tie the permit to the property owner. Morgan said one option would be a special use that meets the regulations and complies with the zoning code. Nelson spoke on the recommendations for a primary use mobile food vendor. She explained that the recommendation would be to require a special use permit, require C1, C3 and mixed use district zoning, require full site development permits and establish a time period suggested by the UDC and the special use permit. Nelson then described the development requirements. Mayor Ross asked about the try out period and then the requirement for a plan for utilities and land. Nelson said a special use permit would allow the Council to decide on a case by case basis. Councilmember Hesser said parking is an issue and should not be omitted. He noted that parking for mobile food vendors has become an issue in other cities. He also noted that it is not fair to other restaurants in the area. Mayor Ross said other restaurants use city parking also. Morgan said parking standards would apply. Councilmember Gipson asked about appearance and how it could be regulated to prohibit an eyesore. He said he wants to keep things tasteful. Nelson said the special use permit process would keep standards for this. Nelson said staff will research what other cities are doing. Mayor Ross asked if Council would need to be in charge in what is aesthetically pleasing. Morgan said there would be landscaping standards, etc., which would be the same as a brick and mortar building. Morgan said open storage or parking on unapproved surface, for example, would not be permitted. Morgan said there will be unique situations that will need to go through a special use process. Mayor Ross asked the Council if they wanted to go further. Councilmember Eby said, since this is already being cared for through the special use process, there is no need. Jonrowe said this permit would be for one vendor on a specific property. Nelson said the recommendations for a primary use vendor at the Food Truck Park would be a special use permit, C1, C3 and mixed use district zoning, and a full site development permit with no time limit. She explained that this is the most permanent situation for mobile food vendors. Nelson provided the development requirements. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if porta pottys qualify as bathrooms. Nelson said staff is exploring this right now and will bring it back to Council. Morgan said the permitting process will allow the Council to evaluate. He added that everything in a permanent situation should be more permanent. Morgan said there is a need to stay flexible for current market demand. Ross noted that the recommendations and Council suggestions could go forward and that staff could still bring this back to Council for tweaks as often as needed. Nelson recapped the presentation and Council feedback. Ross said this was a great presentation. Nelson thanked staff. David Morgan said Nelson was being humble, and was in fact responsible for the presentation. C. Ethics Ordinance Review and Proposed Amendments -- Charlie McNabb, City Attorney City Attorney, Charlie McNabb spoke on the City's Ethics Ordinance. He noted the Ethics Orientation that had been provided at the previous workshop. McNabb said that there had been discussion regarding comparisons of the state and local ethics ordinances and that the purpose of this presentation was to clarify these differences for the City Council and discuss the standards of conduct. McNabb discussed the definition of a "City Official" in the City Ethics Code Chapter 2.20. He said a City Official is defined as the Mayor, every member of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Secretary and the City Attorney and all members of any commission, committee or board appointed by the City Council. McNabb explained two types of conflicts of interest and how they are treated differently. He first described a "substantial financial interest", which follows Section 171 of the Texas Local Government Code, which set forth the provisions applicable to local Public Officials who have a substantial financial interest. McNabb explained that "substantial economic interest" is more comprehensive than "substantial financial interest" and covers various kinds of economic benefits that might accrue for a City Official, not included in the Texas Statute. Councilmember Fought said all these words do not apply to him, but may to others, and asked for an example of economic interest compared to financial interest. McNabb said he will be showing this later in the presentation when he further defines state statutes. He said he would be showing the comparisons. Fought said he is grasping to know what the City has added and what the City would lose if they go with the state code. Discussion followed about representation. McNabb described "economic benefit" under the City's Ethics Code as any money, property, contract rights, sale, lease, option, credit, loan, discount, service, or other tangible or intangible thing of value, whether similar or dissimilar to those enumerated. He went on to describe "source of income" as any business entity, employment, investment, or activity which earned or produced income, including salary, fees, interest, dividends, royalties, or rents, which have been paid to or for the credit of a City Official, or family member, or which would be taxable to said City Official, or family member, under the United States Internal Revenue Code, as amended, even though it was not actually paid or credited. McNabb explained that "Substantial Economic Interest" in the City Ethics Code may take several forms. He said it may be established by a legal or equitable interest in property, such as a stockholder, co-owner or beneficiary. McNabb said it may also be established by a fiduciary obligation to property, or the interest of a trustee or executor, or be established by a contractual right in property. McNabb further explained that a City Official, or family member, has a substantial economic interest if they have a legal or equitable interest, fiduciary obligation or contractual right in property that is more than a minimal or insignificant and would be recognized by reasonable persons to have weight in deciding a case or an issue. McNabb spoke on disclosure of confidential information being prohibited for City Officials and the provision that no City Official may use the position or City -owned facilities or supplies for a gain in a substantial economic interest, financial interest or political campaign. McNabb went on to explain the limitations to a City Official appearing before the body of which the official is a member to represent himself or a family member. McNabb also spoke on gifts and explained that gifts cannot be solicited nor accepted. McNabb explained the substantial economic interests which are unique to the City Ordinance McNabb noted the importance of the last bullet point stating that a person or business entity from whom, within the past 12 months, the City Official or the officials spouse, directly or indirectly, has solicited, received and not rejected, or accepted an offer of employment. He said this is very vague and went on to speak on the degrees of relationships. He explained the state only regulates the first circle, while the local ordinance pertains to two circles, first and second degree. McNabb spoke on the Local Government Code Chapter 171. He explained that, in this code, a 'local public official' means a member of the governing body or another officer, whether elected, appointed, paid or unpaid, of any district (including a school district), county, municipality, precinct, central appraisal district, transit authority or district, or other local governmental entity who exercises responsibilities beyond those that are advisory in nature. McNabb listed offenses of a public official if the official knowingly does one or more of the following, classified as a Class A misdemeanor. • Violates Section 171.004 • Acts as surety for a business entity that has work, business, or a contract with the governmental entity • Acts as surety on any official bond required of an officer of the governmental entity He explained that this is the same as the state statute, with the penalty at the highest level of a misdemeanor. McNabb explained that there is no penal provision in the City ordinance and City Council would decide discipline. He said the Local Government Code has also added substantial economic interest. McNabb spoke on budget items according to the Local Government Code Chapter 171. Local Government Code Chapter 171 The governing body of a govemmental entity shall take a separate vote on any budget item specifically dedicated to a contract with a business entity in which a member of the governing body has a substantial interest. Except as provided by Section 171 004(c), the affected member may not participate in that separate vote The member may vote on a final budget ifs • the member has complied with this chapter, and • the matter in which the member is concerned has been resolved. Local Government Code Chapter 171 If a local public official is required to file and does file an affidavit under Subsection (a), the official is not required to abstain from further participation in the matter requinng the affidavit if a majonty of the members of the govemmental entity of which the official is a member is composed of persons who are likewise required to file and who do file affidavits of similar interests on the same official action [slug wld F .,,.::t L, t+:t�•I�s.. McNabb described potential problems with the City Ordinance. He spoke on Enterprise Pipeline wanting to install a pumping station, as another example. McNabb said the Planning Director had allowed the zoning request, which was then appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment by the property owners. He explained that some of the ZBA members had done business with the company within the last year, which created a situation that did not allow the ZBA to act, because after members filed "Conflict of Interest' forms, there were not enough members for a voting quorum. Council then approved the addition of alternates who were allowed to vote, when there were absences of regular members. McNabb explained that, under the state law, if a majority of the members had a conflict, they could still act. He said this has not been exclusive to one particular member. McNabb also described a situation with the Planning & Zoning Commission, which has members who are realtors, lawyers and other professions, with conflicts of interest. In one instance 6 members filed substantial economic interest. He explained that the City does not have the privilege to continue if the majority has to abstain and the city ordinance is very broad. Mayor Ross asked if a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission, who owned stock with Enterprise Pipeline would need to recuse. McNabb said the state would require a certain amount of stock and the local ordinance has exceptions for stock if purchased as part of a mutual fund, but the person could not have an economic interest. He clarified explaining the reasonable person interpretation and the vagueness of whether a reasonable person would think 5 shares to be an economic interest. Councilmember Gonzalez said one would have to guess because it is so vague. Gonzalez spoke on banking situations that he would encounter with his customers and said he would favor more room and specifics of the state statute. Councilmember Gipson asked about 5% or $5,000 and at what point a penalty is enforced. McNabb said the Ethics Commission would decide if a violation had occurred and then the City Council would decide the discipline. He said that state law still applies to all. Councilmember Fought said the difficulty in giving and getting answers means the City needs to get rid of this ordinance because it is too hard to understand. He explained that service on City Council is voluntary and many Councilmembers are business leaders in the City. Fought explained that they cannot be put at risk because of an interpretation. Fought said there needs to be an ethics standard, but state statute has been written well and has matured. He said he would like to get rid of the City ordinance and follow Texas law. He said you cannot put people's careers at risk as public servants. Councilmember Hesser said he agrees and the City needs to revisit state law. McNabb said the City's provision on gifts is good. Councilmember Jonrowe said substantial economic interest is the most controversial. She suggested adopting the Local Government Code Chapter 171. McNabb explained that Chapter 171 already applies to the City and that the City's ordinance is more strict. Jonrowe said she is in favor of the City's gift restrictions and relationships to the second degree. She said this is not unusual among other cities and keeps people mindful of those going after certain elected positions for their own benefit. Jonrowe said she is not in favor of just using state statute. Councilmember Eby noted that are actually 2 different issues. She said the first issue concerning Boards & Commissions unable to take action should be acted upon tonight. She agreed that adopting state statute for this would be fine. Eby said that she does not support a motion to start over on the City ordinance or just following the state law. She said she wants to examine all of this further. McNabb said he had looked at the minutes from when the City adopted the ordinance and found statements that voiced the desire to require more of elected officials in Georgetown than the state requires. Mayor Ross said this was done at the time of the recall election and is not a coincidence. Ross said the standard of "that of a reasonable person" is not enforceable. Ross said a Councilmember would need to be removed by a district attorney. Ross explained that the City ordinance does not have a penalty for a violation by Councilmembers and it would need to be a district attorney that recommends removal of a Councilmember. McNabb confirmed that there is no criminal penalty, just an administrative penalty. Ross said officials are voluntary and should not be put at risk. He noted that the population is so different now and many people serving on Council are business professionals who cannot be put at risk. Ross said the law needs to be predictable and measurable. Councilmember Eby said she does not disagree with issues being raised and a bigger discussion needs to be had. She said she prefers to identify problematic issues and said people, in general, are getting less and less "reasonable". She suggested that the Legal Department draft less subjective language. Eby noted that Ethics is an important issue and how it is perceived by the public is important. Mayor Ross asked if the City's ordinance has been reviewed and if the City is prepared to defend its ethics law. McNabb said he has advised on Ethics for 40 years. He said, in the end, the reasonable person standard, may be wrong. Jonrowe asked what penalties can be imposed. McNabb explained that an accumulative offense would be the lesser offense, so it is useless. He explained that the City cannot pass laws that fine people or send people to jail. Councilmember Hesser suggested bringing this item to another time. Mayor Ross asked why and said it is being discussed today. Councilmember Hesser said the transparency is the bigger issue. Councilmember Fought said the Council needs to give staff direction. Councilmember Gipson said the boards and commissions issues need to be addressed immediately. Hesser asked if there is a difference between advisory boards and decision making. McNabb said advisory board regulations apply locally but not at the state level. Councilmember Eby asked about Chapter 171 and suggested amending the ordinance to include Chapter 171 so that the Boards & Commissions would be able to act when there are multiple recusals. Mayor Ross said it is not good that an applicant cannot get their item heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission. McNabb said the request had been withdrawn by the applicant. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.017, Section 551.072, Section 551.074, Section 551.086 and Section 551.087 at 4.50 PM. 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 - Hoskins/Brown Sec.551.072: Deliberation About Real Property - 810 Rock Street — Sale of Property 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 Manager Work Plan Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters - Electric Quarterly Financial Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Rainforest Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the regular City Council meeting at 6:00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on j o i t Q I ( 7 Date J J, Dale Ross, Mayor J "A�OJ�n Attest: 6ty e retary