HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.10.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101
East Th 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 81
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross, called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of
Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2. Mayor Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, John Hesser,
Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael
Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:05 PM
A. Presentation and Discussion on the FY 2018 budget amendments to the Council Discretionary Fund --
Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
Finance Director, Leigh Wallace, spoke on the FY2018 budget amendments to the Council Discretionary
Fund and began the presentation with the Purpose and History.
Purpose and History
• Established in 2015 to capture General Fund
available ending balance and put it toward
appropriate one-time uses
• 2016 uses
• Established the Economic Stability Reserve in the General
Fund - $500,000
• Personnel impacts to reorganization - $250,000
• Grace Heritage Center Phase I Repairs - $150,000
• 2017 uses
• Increased Economic Stability Reserve in the General Fund
-$650,000
• Streets maintenance- $250,000
• Enterprise Resource Planning project - $250,000
Wallace described the Available Fund Balance and spoke on Funding Options.
; UoII Mair &j4cm
Available Fund Balance
Council SRF Beginning Balance $285.808
Unused Fund Balance from previous year
Transfer In, GF Estimated Year End 1,000,000
Approved in FY 2018 Budget
Transfer In, GF Final Year End 517,331
Proposed Budget Amendment
Hospice Study partial refund _ 2.500
Total Available $1,805,638
Im— FVMj) Am%.a &,fres
Funding Options
• Current year unplanned obligations
• List of unfunded long-term liabilities
• Fiscal and budgetary policies
• Other capital equipment and one-time
programs
Wallace spoke on the General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) Recommendations and
Other Options.
GGAF Recommendation
Available Fund balance
2018 Current Obilgatlons
Personnel settlement
Facilities efficiency study
Subtotal
1,805,639
One -thine cost Fund
$ 75.000 is
$ 100.000 GCP
$ 175,000
Reserves/Unfunded Liabilities One -tine cost Fund
Economic Stability Reserve $ 375,000 GF
Subtotal $ 375,gq
I OVGI TO%%Nc�
Other Options
Consider these iterns dui ing/after the FY2019 Budget Process
Other One -Time Equipment or
Programs
City HaIV Council Chambers Campus
Street Maintenance
Fire Stations 6 & 7 Equipment
OPEB Unfunded Obligation
Subtotal
Available Fund Balance
Total Expenses
One4kne cost Fund
GCP
GF
GCP
JS
f -
1,255,639
550,000
Wallace said that the Next Steps would include the following:
• Recommend the $550,000 for mid -year amendment in May 2018
• Other Items from Council?
• Consider a list of other options during FY2019 budget development process this summer
Councilmember Fought said he appreciates staff and GGAF. He suggested waiting to allocate any funds
until the downtown buildings are sold. He said it is important to wait to see if that works out as planned.
Councilmember Gonzalez said that was the main thought from GGAF, as well. He said waiting is the
recommendation from GGAF and their intention is always to determine the best benefit to the tax payers.
Mayor Ross asked when the sales prices of the buildings would be known. City Manager, David Morgan,
said the bids are due on May 1 s' and will be brought to Council in their May meetings.
Wallace said she would need Council approval on the recommendation for the $550,000, as proposed, so
that it could be brought back in the mid -year amendments, typically timed in May. She said anything else
can be amended at a later time.
Mayor Ross asked Wallace to return to a previous slide and then asked Gonzalez, a member of GGAF,
for the GGAF members thoughts on Other Options. Gonzalez said if there is money left over, GGAF
would like to focus on street maintenance and the new Fire Stations, to defray possible future tax burdens.
Mayor Ross noted that fire equipment would not be a one-time expense, but rather a continued expense.
B. Presentation and discussion on the Enterprise Resource Planning system selection process -- Leigh
Wallace, Finance Director
Finance Director, Leigh Wallace, spoke on the Enterprise Resource Planning System selection process.
She explained that it would be a team presentation including the following:
• a recap of the project purpose
• a summary of the vendor evaluation process
• comparison of top two vendors
• recommendation for intent to negotiate
• funding recap and next steps.
Wallace spoke on Georgetown Then and Now.
Georgetown Then and Now
• Current system was implemented 20 years ago
• Basic functionality for payroll and core
financials
• Minimal upgrades; few integrations
• Community growth eery►
• Growth in size and
complexity of organization `. f
4
Wallace provided a list of Needs Assessment Key Findings.
�Ifi1K<�I 14 �1tii�
Needs Assessment Key Findings
• Current system lacks modern ERP functionality
• No 'true' HR system/module implemented
Current limitations force use of side systems
• Lack of integration between City systems
& ERP modules
• Chart of Accounts does not meet City needs
• Limited access to real-time data
• Lack of training & system access
• Lack of user-friendly /flexible reporting
Wallace introduced the Executive Assistant to the Police Department, Cherie Vasquez, a member of
selection committee. Cherie said that she has been with the City for over 20 years and was with the City
when Incode was implemented. She explained the need for an easy to use multi -faceted system and
shared that, currently, she uses multiple spreadsheets and manual processes outside of the Incode
system in order to conduct daily business, such as police operations, overtime, budget, civil service,
probation, seniority and promotion dates. Vasquez says there is a need to track these processes and she
is forced to use shadow systems, such as excel, in order to manage. She emphasized the ease of use
with Workday and noted the end users will like the Workday product for obtaining needed information
Councilmember Gonzalez asked Vasquez if she would fully embrace and use this system. Vasquez said
absolutely.
Wallace provided a selection project timeline and spoke on the market environment and the advantages of
an integrated cloud service.
Selection Project Timeline
a r N h i
Phase 1 Phase 2
Phase 3
f RP N9ad% RFP
Fvaluation aM
A;:9 csfr[rni (lw v5dn[xn Rn!
Solochon of
vcwr da
,.heck.,d an with
and Cc.'unci!
M1 Y/luno 20, 17
AOL
:r7iT:1F_�rrrk�r�IaT:•vrt
ri;kn•`F Imp 2018
[iir�k�,r rutvn�
Market Environment
■ Most major vendors are consolidating their
product lines to meet public and private sector
needs
■ Vendors are tapering off on premise solutions and
moving products to the cloud
• Cloud vendors are likely to bid aggressively to
break into the government/mid-size organization
client market
• Most Tier 1 and 2 products will offer a fully
integrated ERP that will meet our functional
needs; pricing will vary widely
Integrated Cloud Advantages
• Cost effective
— No purchase or replacement of infrastructure
— Fewer staff needed to support system
• Operational agility - scalable with growth of
organization
• Extremely secure; Disaster recovery
• Upgrades required — can't fall behind
• No customization; highly configurable — must
incorporate best practices
• Increased collaboration among staff when
accessing same system anytime, anywhere
Wallace thanked the Vendor Evaluation Team for their participation. She explained that this was a huge
time commitment that required over 200 hours of each person.
Vendor Evaluation Team
• Leigh Wallace, Finance
• Elaine Wilson,
Accounting
• Rosemary Ledesma,
Purchasing
■ Tadd Phillips, HR
• Laura Maloy, HR
• Chris Bryce, IT
• Greg Berglund, IT
• Cherie Vasquez, Police
Administration
• Mike Stasny, GUS
Technical Services
■ Plante Moran,
Consultant
Wallace introduced Mike Riffel from Plante Moran to discuss the selection process framework. Riffel
began with the Procurement Process and described each of 3 rounds. He explained that the criteria
drove the process and was scripted as apples to apples across the vendors for fairness in evaluation.
F -,
Procurement Process
• 6 vendor responses
• Minimum qualifications
• Complete Response
• b vendors
• Evaluation of written proposals
• Vendor background
• Functional requirements
• Technical requirement5
• Implementation plan
• Costs: one-time, ongoing, 10
yr TCU
F(1RGF
Procurement Process
• 3 Vendors
• Vendor Demonstrations-
* 16 hours per vendor
• Scoring committee plus open invitation to City employees to
observe and comment
• Functionality, Technical Requirements, Implementation Plan,
Service and Support
• Written Question and Answer Pre and Post -Demo- 35+ questions
pervendor
• Written Reference Checks - 4 responses
• Site Visa Reference Checks - visited 3 cities, 1 phone call
• Costs: onetime, ongoing, 10 -yr TCO
Riffel then called on Tadd Phillips, the City's HR Director, who had conducted the due diligence phase of
the project. Phillips provided comparisons of the top two vendors, providing both similarities and
differences.
�� I� 11i:(.I I 11S•. ,>�
Top Vendor Comparison - Similarities
Sierra Cedar/ Workday
• Multi tenant cloud, highly
configurahle
• Secure and st alab4,
-)n.f'..Sy- tnm
• Highly.funct!orwi core
rn- urrernents; modr'rn
interface
• Third party needs: cashiering
• Not proposed (potential third
party): debt and investment
tracking
AST/ Oracle
• Multi tenant cioud, highly
configurahle
• Ser-nre and scaiahle
• Package of intopratecl_HR arid_
Finance systems
• FunctiondI core requsre_mertts_;
Inoder n interfd(e
• Third party needs: cashierinp,
• Not proposed (potential third
party): deht and investmorit
tracking
ir.W t,r iu����
Top Vendor Comparison — Differences
Sierra Cedar/ Workday
• Intuitive access and flow for ail
user tVpest es ----------- --
• Easy reportingteporting for all user
types
• Project experience
5�r�5;far rY�r'lerntrntaTi�:ns 16
— One system means all c`ients_on
exact same HR and Finance
cloud_prgduct
Reterenc€5 higltiy 5ati5hetl .with
Ir21pI�rTlFntaUim and hfi)(Iu[l,
esI)ec Tally re{.'pr ing
• 10 -yr total cost of ownership
S9.4 Ni
AST / Oracle
• (Jeared toward ower users
• Reportinp, recluires ddvanced
skills and additional resources
• Project experience
Swidar impit. mentations `?
S��me c.herlts on oniv HR or
Finance, or cn cremise instead
of cloud
Reference,. satisfied with
nr ler=ientat un anti r--Wduc. t
• 10 yr total cost of ownership
S /AM
Phillips compared the top two vendors, Oracle and Workday. Phillips spoke on the Workday program and
noted how much the selection team liked it. He said it is clearly the stronger product. Phillips noted that a
reporting capability is crucial and Workday had a better product for this. He said that reference checks
and site visits had been conducted, because of this being such a significant investment. He noted the
importance and need to find others and references from those using the product, within the cloud. Phillips
said it was important to check with similar entities, such as governmental agencies, and to cover all uses,
instead of just HR and finance models. He noted that the team had strong site visits and strong
recommendations from these customers. Phillips provided an overview of the costs. He noted that price
is certainly important, but a successful system must be delivered and maximized and the selection team
was unanimous with their first choice, Workday, because of the ease of use for all staff.
Information Technology Director, Chris Bryce, spoke on the rankings of each vendor. He said that both
products had been highly ranked by Gartner and provided and described graphs. Bryce said Workday
and Oracle were both leaders, but Workday leads in long term strategy and response time is increased.
_T• - (iI k)k(d It)!",
mac`
Highly Ranked Products
(+iri-n 10:1M -e Qr, 1, lo, x f- F,, -4, <<.,,�5t�r 'A'nvry 1�,•1!tiun���F.. �,>in rSy,T 2W
nrmr.' qw" Np•�
Bryce showed Why Differences Matter and explained that a single line of code is critical when doing an
upgrade to a system ten years later.
Why Differences Matter
Workday Cloud Benefits
• Original product developed in the public cloud
• Amazon web services = unlimited scalability
• Highly flexible architecture and integration
• Fully developed cloud support model
• Rapid development cycle
Why Differences Matter
Workday Business Value
" "Business value comes from changes in
business performance and improved business
outcomes." — Gartner, Inc. 2016
• Yet, 70% of ERP projects fail to derive value:
fvlust affectrvely Lurnpete ,.v tt
"Best of Breed" movement
The system does not rneet
business expe{tat!ons and is not
fully leveraged
Organizations do not achieve
consensus on the system
✓ Highly ranked and competitive
produrt in the ERP industr,,,
✓ High user approval
✓ Consensus from diverse
stakeholders
Bryce noted that there had been a 100% consensus from the selection committee for the Workday
product.
Wallace concluded the presentation with a summarization and recommendation.
� — _ �i7OKl�l njstin�
Recommendation
• GGAF approval 4-0 on March 28, 2018
• Begin contract negotiations with Sierra Cedar and
Workday
— Best overall value
— Unanimous recommendation of diverse stakeholders
— Ease of reporting and highly satisfied implementation
references distinguish this vendor
• Reserve option to negotiate with AST for Oracle
product
She noted the significance of this very diverse committee all coming to a unanimous decision. She
emphasized the differences in reporting and implementation and the importance of these things would
affect the successful outcome of the product. Wallace noted that the GGAF Board had approved the
action to authorize negotiations with Workday and the implementation firm, Sierra Cedar.
Wallace spoke on the FY2018 Budget. She reminded the Council of the budget estimate from last
summer with a range of $3 million to $5 million. She explained that 3 full time employees were added in
January and are on board and helping to prepare all of the data and processes for the conversion.
Wallace said that, with negotiations, the vendor estimates presented may change and staff would come
back with a budget amendment.
Wallace provide the next steps.
• Council approval to negotiate April 10
• Coordinate negotiation with Legal
• Bring contracts back to GGAF and Council early fall
■ Amend implementation budget to line up with negotiated contract
Councilmember Eby said this was a great team presentation. She said the recommendations make sense
and she supports them.
Councilmember Gonzalez said this was discussed at length by the General Government and Finance
Advisory Board (GGAF). He said that the key is to get end users to use the product. Gonzalez said he
will support the product decision because he feels that everyone will be on the same page and no longer
using their shadow systems.
Mayor Ross began discussion about end user habits and monitoring and training. Wallace said there will
be robust functionality and training. Ross asked if policies will be documented. Riffel said the vendor will
look at "as is" processes and a statement of work will be set up. He said that maintenance on the system
will help users with reports. Riffel explained that the end user's first point of contact will be the I.T.
Department. Ross asked if the third party support is included in the product price. Riffel confirmed.
Discussion took place on monitoring spreadsheet use and making sure there is a decline in shadow
systems and employees are using the ERP system.
Councilmember Hesser asked if the difference in workforce use is worth the difference in price. He asked
if the value in ease of use and willingness of people to adopt, ultimately makes it a better investment.
Mayor Ross said he prefers service quality and ease of adaptability for end users in reporting and
Workday seems to be more experienced.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the annual review and list of General Amendments to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) for 2018 -- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson, Planning Director, provided a review of the list of general amendments to the Unified
Development Code (UDC). She provided handouts for the Council showing the UDC General Amendment
List for ease of use during the presentation.
Nelson said the purpose of the presentation was for discussion and direction on the UDC topics to be
reviewed and amended during the 2018 annual review cycle. She said she would be seeking direction
from Council to staff on any additions, changes or reprioritization of proposed amendments for the 2018
annual review process.
Nelson provided an Item Overview
• UDC annual amendment and review process
• Categories of UDC amendments and priorities
• Process outline for 2018
• Next steps
Questions and direction to staff
Nelson spoke on the UDC Annual Review Process.
UDC Annual Review Process
Topics are
introduced by
City & pubbc
000
o° 00 00
O
0OoQo
rrxrs
P&Z reviews &
provides
recommendations
on topics and
priorities
UDCAC reviews
& provides
recommendations
on topics and
priorities
CityCouncd
vviews& approw-
list oftopics to be
� a mended I
UDC Annual Review Process
• Working General Amendments List
reviewed on an annual basis
• Topics are added, removed and repriontized
based on needs
• Previous General Amendments List was
approved in 2016
�1EURCikiOWH
T (7LA'
2015-2017 Amendments
• Major revisions included-
-Subdivision Regulations
—Parking
—Street standards and connectivity
—Water and wastewater improvements
—Consistency and clarity
AreiaAiWEx
UDC Amendments in Progress
• Mobile Food Vendors
• Historic districts standards
• Parkland dedication
• Business Park district size
Ci [t>xt;l rcnti t�
1 k 1CA1
• Definition of signs, to include exempt signs
• Permitted use table and zoning districts
• Masonry requirements for residential development
• Number of units per building for multi -family districts
• Administrative clean-up
Nelson next described Level 2 Priorities and Level 3 Priorities.
Level 2 Priorities
• Downtown Master Plan transition areas
• Special use permit approval criteria
• Screening of trash receptacles
• Gateway overlay districts
• Digital/electronic signs
Level 3 Priorities
• Green building strategies
• Residential design standards for Old Town Overlay District
• Landscaping requirements, applicability
• Landscaping requirements, water conservation efforts
• Abandonment of nonconforming situations
• Determination of legal nonconforming situations
• Masonry requirements for non-residential
• Conservation subdivision standards
• Temporary signs, banners
• Monument sign height when in landscape areas
■ Courthouse view protection overly district
Nelson provided a list of Topics to remove and described each
• Special use permit conceptual site plan requirements
• Determination of accessory uses
• Definition of "Live Music or Entertainment" uses
• Outdoor display and storage
• Screening of mechanical equipment
Nelson described Staff Recommendations
• Priority 1 Topics — review in the 2018 annual review cycle
• Priority 2 and 3 Topics — review following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update
(2019/2020)
• Topics identified as removed should be removed from the working General Amendments List
• Priority 1 topics grouped based on relativity for review and consideration
o Present grouped topics at different meetings
o Two effective dates upon adoption of proposed amendments
Nelson spoke on the UDC Amendments in Progress and the Priority 1 Groupings.
Nelson said the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee had approved the recommendations at
their February 14th meeting and that the Planning & Zoning Commission had reviewed and recommended
approval at the March 6th and April 3rd meetings.
Nelson showed the 2018 Annual Review Process
Nelson provided the Next Steps and asked Council for their questions and direction on topics, priorities
and the process.
• Direction to staff on the UDC topics to be reviewed in the 2018 Review Cycle
• City Council action on 2018 General Amendments List
• UDCAC and City Staff continue/initiate work on topics to be amended
Councilmember Eby said she was going to suggest that the first 2 priority zones be moved to priority 1,
but then realized it would be better to wait for the update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Fought said this is a lot to absorb and he is confident that it will be done well. Fought
asked that the documents be made available well ahead of time. He said he would want to review things
with people experienced in these areas and have them make recommendations or comments. Nelson
confirmed that there will be a website publication and email throughout the process. She said things will
be written in a code that is understood by the average person.
Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Nelson for the presentation. She asked Nelson about amendment
number 30 on page 5 regarding non-residential standards, listed as a priority 3 and also listed to be
reviewed in 2018. Nelson said it is likely that, as a priority 3, this would not be reviewed in 2018 and said
she will make the correction.
Jonrowe asked about clarity in the appeals process. Nelson confirmed that instruction will be written
better for ease of use and general publications will be available.
Jonrowe asked about transition zones and said it concerns her to wait on these until after the
Comprehensive Plan completion. Jonrowe asked how long this would be. Nelson said it is currently
estimated to take 16 to 18 months to complete. Jonrowe said it is ok for now, but she may need to speak
about this again later.
Mayor Ross summarized indicators from the Council. He mentioned the removable items. Ross
mentioned the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant and the possibility of placing solar panels on Georgetown
homes. He noted that if the City is awarded the $5 million award, this would be a way to change priorities.
Nelson said she will work with Jack Daly about organization.
Mayor Ross said Nelson makes things look easy. He said he likes the processes and congratulated
Nelson and her team. Nelson said she is grateful for a great team as well as other staff in the
organization.
D. Presentation and discussion on the Performance Management Program -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City
Manager
Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, provided an overview of the Performance Management Program.
Reed said he would like to share the development of Georgetown's Performance Management Program.
He noted the City Council strategy to expand the City's reputation as a City of Innovation. Reed said that
the City Council recognizes that in an environment where taxation is limited, and there is increasing
regional competition for taxable value and natural resources, the City must find effective solutions and
inventive methods of service delivery.
Reed provided a list of service areas and said that he will speak on 4. He noted that the City actually has
42 service areas. Reed noted that the Performance Management Program would be implemented
throughout all departments in the next 4 to 6 months.
Reed spoke on the PMP program in general. He explained that for a team to be effective and high
performing, it is critical for its members to understand their mission. He explained that a mission
statement should define why a team exists.
• It is a statement of purpose used to communicate the aims, goals and culture
• It should guide a team's decision-making and actions
• Inspire, unite and motivate each member of the team
Reed noted that missions are furthered by organizational values and performance indicators.
Georgetown's PMP
• Structured program that is inspired by City's Vision and
built around Service Areas' Missions, Strategic Goals,
and Performance Indicators to drive better outcomes
• Review of service areas' performance to promote rapid
and sustained improvements to achieve excellence in the
operation and management of service delivery
• Commitment to continuous process improvement and
documenting processes in service delivery
• Use of real-time data to inform decision-making
• Opportunity for employee development
s
Translating Vision and Mission into Performance
Time
7GkLoEiQ
T E 7N�Whi
Reed spoke on the Benefits from Performance Management.
• Employees gain awareness of their mission and value
• Teams learn how to better communicate their story
• Continuous process improvements raise standards, increase productivity, and remove
impediments
• Enhances employee performance and increases professionalism
• Use of real-time data helps identify trends and informs decision-making to sustain performance
• Contributes to higher customer satisfaction
• Increases transparency and accountability to the public
Reed provided examples of various service areas and their mission statements, strategic goals and
performance indicators, including the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Electric Ops Department, the
Information Technology Department and the Planning Department.
Reed provided the next steps for the Performance Management Program.
• April -June — Vetting of strategic goals and performance indicators
■ July -December — Initiate semi-annual performance review meetings
• July -August — Develop dashboard interface
• July -December — Develop customer satisfaction survey
Reed concluded the presentation and thanked the executive team, directors team, department heads and
staff members for their help with the implementation of the program.
Councilmember Fought said this is where the rubber meets the road. He said it is important to ask where
we are, where we want to be and if we are getting there and this program will be useful. Fought said it is
important in complex organizations to determine how the various parts interact. He emphasized the
importance of the timeline and said one must determine how departments work together to show more
efficiency. Fought noted the difference between a business or developer's timeline and a governmental
timeline.
Councilmember Hesser said he did not see results or expected results. Councilmember Gonzalez said a
target has been set and will then measure the result. He noted that one must first know the target and this
is how success is measured. Gonzalez said that objective goals have been placed in multiple places.
City Manager, David Morgan, said Council will be able to see all of the things measured as the program
evolves and is continually reported back to the Council. He said the program is intended to eventually be
a public dashboard, as well.
Mayor Ross said Leigh Wallace, Sofia Nelson, and Wayne Reed all gave great presentations on
complicated matters.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and
Section 551.074 at 4.49 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.
E. 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
- Texas Crushed Stone Industrial Agreement Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property
-Purchase of property, Parcel 7, Northwest Blvd -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator
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
Municipal Court Judge Evaluation
- City Manager Evaluation
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on C-� en
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor
Attest: City S creta