Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.22.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, January 22, 2019 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 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'h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, Mayor Dale Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6 and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. The Council immediately recessed into Executive Session at 3:04 PM under Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters. Council came back into the regular Policy Development/Review Workshop at 3:44 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM The Council immediately recessed into Executive Session at 3:04 PM under Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters. Council came back into the regular Policy Development/Review Workshop at 3:44 PM. A. Presentation and discussion of the Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD) operations and technology upgrades -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Diaz introduced Alvin Lankford, Chief Appraiser with WCAD. Lankford presented the City of Georgetown 2018 Value Update to Council. He showed Council website updates including the Property Owner Dashboard. Councilmember Gonzalez asked where WCAD was getting the sales information. Lankford responded that WCAD utilized sales questionnaires and MLS information that is provided by realtors. He added that there is some information that cannot be provided to the public due to the non -disclosure piece of the law. Lankford then explained the WCAD's new change detection capabilities, reviewed the WCAD Budget, population growth, accuracy of appraisals, protest levels and certified roll, how WCAD is graded, property value study, Methods and Assistance Program (MAP) for 2017, and the most important grade of customer service. He then reviewed real estate data and WCAD appraisal data for 2018. Pitts asked what the success rate for appeals is at WCAD. Lankford said it depends on what someone's definition of success is and if their definition meant getting the value the imagined their home to be or getting their value lowered at all. Pitts clarified by asking how many people get their value decreased. Lankford responded that approximately 40% of properties get a reduction and that reduction is approximately -1.5% overall on average. Mayor Ross asked about the appeal rate for commercial properties. Lankford responded that it varies per area and overall it was about 5% but did depend on the property. Pitts asked if SCAD charges a fee for time spent with customers reviewing appraisals. Lankford responded that no, WCAD did not do that. Hesser asked what happens when change is detected in the aerial photography that shows a removal or decrease in size. Lankford responded that the value is adjust accordingly whether things are added or removed. Eby asked for clarification on the value of 55% of new homes in Georgetown being less than $250,000 in value. Lankford clarified that this value was referencing new improvements and new starts. Mayor Ross asked how WCAD handles properties in historic areas where there are very few comparable properties. Lankford responded that they would look at a large area and compare sales. Mayor Ross stated that is must be difficult to address this area. Lankford responded that it is and areas that are much more homogeneous are easier to apply value. B. Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding the City's upcoming communication audit -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Daly presented and update on the Communications Audit. He stated by reviewing the background and what the City's current communication struggles are. Daly explained that the audit will assess current practices for different communication areas. He described the deliverables that include a candid assessment of communication efforts, guidance on branding and messaging, direction on measuring outcomes and success, suggestions on resource allocation and organization, and providing a framework for a strategic plan. Daly reviewed process and said that the City has selected Cooksey and provided a brief background on the firm. He then introduced Cooksey staff members Colby Walton and Michelle Hargis. Walton stated that they were excited to work with the City and gave a brief explanation of the process. Daly reviewed the proposed timeline: - January — February • Project kickoff • Conduct interviews • Review of City materials • Benchmarking of peer cities - March — April • Develop audit report • Present report to Council Daly reviewed the project outcomes including help to create a road map for a communication strategic plan, a candid review of resource allocation, and laying the groundwork to improve communications to meet change. Council had no questions at this time. C. Presentation and update to City Council on Downtown Parking Garage at 7th and Main and Downtown Parking Expansion at 8th and Martin Luther King Jr. St. and Downtown Parking Enforcement -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager and Wayne Nero, Police Chief Johnson presented on the parking expansion that will be across the street from the library. He explained that currently County buildings are there, but the City has reached an agreement with them to build a parking lot at that location. Johnson explained that the proposed parking will add an additional 67 parking spaces. He then reviewed the next steps of completing the design, demolishing the existing buildings in spring and constructing the new parking area in summer of this year. Johnson then presented on the parking garage that will be located right behind old/current City Council Chambers and provide 200 spaces which include approximately 150 additional spaces. He then stated that the exterior look of the project is very important to match the design aesthetics of downtown. Johnson showed the opportunities for art on the structure. City Manager David Morgan stated that moving forward the art treatment will be in the future. Johnson reviewed the next steps for the garage including the continuation of the design work, bidding the construction in late summer of this year and completing the garage in summer of 2020. He then reviewed the funding source as through the 2019 debt sale with 50% through TIRZ property taxes and 50% through the property tax rate. Jonrowe asked when the citizens will have an opportunity to weigh in since this will be a City owned structure. Johnson responded that the first phase is to guarantee that the project is feasible and now that it is confirmed that he project is feasible public meetings can be scheduled. Jonrowe stated that public dialogue is important for this project and strongly encouraged staff to make that a priority going forward. Eby stated that she was glad about parking garage, but is concerned about the massing and scale. She then stated that there is an example in downtown Round Rock that incorporates vegetation and proposed that something like that may be more appropriate considering the location. Hesser asked when the project goes to HARC. Johnson responded that it go later this summer when they are closer to completion with the design. Hesser asked how tall the building will be. Johnson responded that it will be four stories and falls within current standards. Hesser asked how many feet. Morgan stated that the highest point is below 44 feet. Hesser stated that he didn't want to the project to get delayed because these things aren't being considered. Morgan responded planning staff has been involved and staff has worked with design guidelines and will comply and go through HARC process. Gonzalez stated that sooner rather than later staff needs input from citizens and the City needs to be 100% upfront on the project so that there is no backtracking. Morgan responded that this is very preliminary and the structure will go through public process. He added that staff will need to keep in mind the price impact that may come with comments and staff will need to manage the cost of the project. Mayor Ross asked if the renderings adhered to design code. Johnson responded that yes they did so far. Ross continued that staff must have something to present to HARC. Pitts asked if Council would have an opportunity to review the design prior to it going to HARC. Morgan responded that staff will conduct a public meeting and get feedback and share it with Council. He continued that if there some consistency with the feedback received, staff will see how the feedback can be implemented, how it can affect the design, and any cost implications. Mayor Ross stated that Council needs to see the design once more before it goes out to HARC. Nicholson asked if the flat parking lot had any shade elements beyond the existing trees and shade could be considered. Morgan stated that right now shade is not in the scope at this time, but could be accommodated. Mayor Ross stated that a lot with no trees around it is not desired. Morgan responded that there is landscaping. Johnson added that there is vegetation and additional trees being planned for the lot. Jonrowe asked about the proposed height for the parking garage. Morgan responded no, but staff will get that answer. Jonrowe stated she was concerned about the height of the structure based on its location and that she was curious about the cost difference between a three story and a four story structure. Nero provided an update on the downtown ambassador program and parking enforcement. He stated that the program began in April of 2018 and the ambassadors are an informational resources for visitors as well as enforcers of the three hour parking ordinance. Nero reviewed the fine structure as: ls` offense is a warning; 2nd offense is a $25.00 fine; 3" offense is a $50.00 fine; and 4111+ offense(s) is a $100 fine. He added that since April of 2018 there have been a total of 1,248 citations with 843 being warnings, 221 being 2"d offenses, 100 being 3rd offenses, and 84 being 4`h or subsequent offenses. Nero said that staff has identified a few practices which are not consistent with the current ordinance, specifically to the issuance of placards and staff is currently assessing and will bring forth recommended revisions to the current ordinance. Gonzalez asked if based 2nd , 3rd, and 411 offenses is there a communication issue. Nero responded that Gonzalez proposed a great question that he doesn't have an answer to. Mayor Ross asked the cost of a 4d' offense. Nero responded $100.00. Mayor Ross asked if Nero had anything else to add. Nero responded that accreditation is almost done and should be completed around April of 2019. D. Presentation and discussion relating to the City of Georgetown Purchase Power Portfolio and Integrated Resource Place Status -- David Morgan, City Manager and Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Morgan started presentation by providing the purpose which was to provide an explanation of the current condition of the electric fund, the reasons why the City entered into its current contracts, context regarding the electric market, and an update on current actions to address the financial obligations of the fund. Briggs reviewed the 2008 Purchase Power Goals including the current policy direction on power portfolio goals: competitively priced; long term stable rates on energy; mitigate regulatory, legislative, and financial risk; and 30% renewable by 2030. He added that the 2008 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) called for 30% Renewable, 30% Coal, 30% Gas and 10% Market with the option of substituting nuclear power for Coal or Gas if available. Briggs then reviewed the contract history, which included LCRA as the primary provider of energy from 1940-2012. He added that the contract was not renew as LCRA couldn't meet purchased power goals because of an aging fleet, the new investments were expensive and there were no rate guarantees to the City. Briggs stated that in 2008 the City signed a small wind contract with AEP as a pass through deal for Southwestern University and the utility had no other sources of power at that time. He then reviewed the state of the markets in 2008 through 2012. Briggs stated that all forms of power were expensive to acquire and the City evaluated multiple options in wind, coal, and gas with every option being above electric rate targets. He added there was really nothing to contract for and the City was waiting for the market to shift. Briggs then explained the power needs based on the hours of the day. He then reviewed the process of competitive procurement of purchase power and how in 2012 the LCRA contract was terminated and the City began competitive procurement for energy. Briggs continued that the philosophical design for the utility was based on targeted peak vs. base load protection and targeted future vs. current needs. He stated that 2008 through 2012 had shown a high frequency of price spikes during peak demand. Briggs explained how in 2012 City approved Mercuria Contracts that were originally contracted with JP Morgan, and then subsequently purchased by Mercuria. He continued that these were gas based contracts and the decision was to buy 50-60% of the projected load through 2021. Briggs said that these contracts were above rate target but there were no long-term contracts available and ERCOT forecasting shortage of energy resulting in very high prices toward the end of the decade. He then reviewed the Mercuria blocks of power vs. load based on hours of the day. Briggs reviewed the state of the energy market in 2013 when the City was seeking long-term option to replace Mercuria and fill in short positions. He added that at the time all contracts were ending in 2012 and there were no contracts past that available. Briggs said that the City issued a RFP for long-term energy contracts, evaluated multiple options including wind, coal, solar, nuclear and gas, with only wind being below rate targets and the City's load was growing. He continued that in 2013 the City approved the Spinning Spur 3 contract with the decision to buy 144 megawatts of capacity through 2035. Briggs stated that initially sought 70 megawatts but one partner dropped out and the balance was picked up to 144. He said that tax credits expired with no replacement option, the contract was below rate target, and the City moved forward with full 144 megawatts to keep the contract. Briggs then reviewed the Mercuria blocks of power vs. load based on hours of the day. He then reviewed the state of the energy market in 2014 when the City was seeking long-term option to replace Mercuria and fill in short positions on peak times only. Briggs added that some elements of Mercuria were not extended past 2018 and the City issued RFP for energy contracts to better address short position during peak demand. He added that the City evaluated multiple options including wind, solar, and gas and only solar and gas matched the rate targets. Briggs then reviewed the Mercuria blocks of power vs. load based on hours of the day. He then explained how in 2015 the City approved the Buckthorn Contract. Briggs added that it was originally contracted with SunEdison and then subsequently acquired by NRG and then sold to Clearway, with the decision to buy 150 megawatts of capacity through 2043. He said the contract was at City's rate target and would knowingly put City in long position. Briggs then reviewed the Buckthorn blocks of power vs. load based on hours of the day. He then presented the Annual Peak Supply Briggs explained why the City was in a long position. He said that Georgetown's energy demand was growing rapidly, the high frequency of price spikes for peaking energy in 2008-2014, ERCOT was forecasting energy shortages past 2021 and the forecast for energy market predicted increasing prices. Briggs reviewed the state of the energy market in 2016 and how mild weather depressed power prices throughout the year. He then reviewed the state of the energy market in 2017 and how Hurricane Harvey disrupted all of ERCOT and energy prices crashed. Briggs reviewed the state of the energy market in 2018 when there was a return to normal weather patterns, normal market performance in late -May and all of June, and prices crashed as more generation turned online. He then reviewed the state of the current energy market for power and natural gas, and how market fundamentals have changed significantly since the City's contracts were originally proposed. Briggs explained the realities of the market versus the forecasts. Pitts asked about the spike in the power market in 2018 and if that would have been when the City would have wanted to sell on the market. Briggs responded that, if the City had sold then, it would have covered any shortages during 2018 and more. Pitts asked about the delay in data getting to the City. Briggs responded that the ERCOT settlement comes in 30 days after the close of the month. Pitts asked how the City could get the data needed to know when to sell. Briggs responded that the information comes in daily, in 15 minute increments, and is not the delayed data. He added that the delayed data is a settlement summary that shows the net profit. Pitts asked if there was a City staff person who monitors this data and suggests when to sell or if it was an automated process. Briggs responded that it was an automated process, but staff does monitor and shares the data with a consultant. He continued to explain how the data is brought in to the City. Morgan reviewed the volatility of the market and how it makes it difficult for staff to trust the forward market curve as a predictor. He added that there is also volatility in both the long position and short position. Morgan said that staff is working aggressively to get out of a long position. He then explained the 2016 electric fund actions that were taken to address budget variances. Morgan said that the City budget was based on market forecast and staff has changed the outlook for acquiring peak power for 2021 and later. He added that the Customer Information System (CIS) upgrade allocation changed to share cost with all utilities, the City used more debt for CIP versus cash funding, and increased transmission congesting hedging for Spinning Spur 3. Morgan explained the 2017 electric fund actions to address budget variances including: budget based on market forecasts; delayed Buckthorn to July 2018 to coincide with Mercuria peak block expiration; negotiated a price reduction on Buckthorn; reduced/deferred CIP; updated cost allocations and holding vacant positions. He added that staff also based the budget on the rate target due to recognizing inability of the industry to accurately predict future energy prices, pursued selling forward blocks of energy in non -peak months which was not successful based on market conditions, and completed an electric rate study which lead to an increased base rate and increased fees for new development. Morgan explained the 2019 electric fund actions which include: having a budget based on the rate target; taking advantage of the November natural gas price spike to sell 2019 Mercuria gas and energy into the forward market and sold gas contracts from December through March and sold power block from December through September; Initiating discussions with Spinning Spur 3 and Buckthorn on contract structure; actively soliciting proposals from other utilities and brokers on selling remaining long position; updating management strategies; and seeking alternatives for portfolio management going forward. Morgan reviewed the Electric Rate Structure: • Base Monthly Charge (100% of fixed costs) o Currently $24.80 per month (up from $20.00 in December to offset rising CIP costs due to growth) • Variable per kilowatt hour (kWh) Charge o Target for all Power and Transmission Costs including ERCOT Fees and Charges ■ $0.0629 per kWh o Power Cost Adjustment Factor (PCA) ■ $0.004 per kWh o Transmission Cost Adjustment Factor (TCA) ■ 0.0000 per kWh ■ Used when unexpected increases to transmission rates occur during a budget year o Delivery costs, fees, and charges incurred by the City • $0.0329 per kWh He stated that effective February 1st the City will adjust the PCA by $0.0135 per kwh through the end of September 2019. Morgan added that the average customer uses 949 kwhs per month, and the PCA adjustment will impact the average bill by $12.82 per month. He stated that the PCA adjustment will generate $6 million in FY19, and is needed to ensure the financial stability of the electric fund should steps to reduce our long position take longer to implement than expected. Morgan said that the City relied heavily on minimizing being in the short position and leaned too much on the side of being in the long position. He added that staff is moving forward in trying to remove the City from the long position. Hesser asked Morgan to describe cash settlement process and if the City purchased today, how does it get settled on a cash basis. Briggs explained that ERCOT tracks transactions across 30 days to know what went where and at what price. He added that ERCOT runs all needed algorithms and then distribute out a bill and all participants pay their portion. Mayor Ross stated that it was valuable presentation with good information. E. Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding the City Council's Governance Policy and Meeting Procedures -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Daly presented on the City Council's Governance Policy and Meeting Procedures. He provided the background of the Council's Governance Policy and how it outlines relationship between City Councilmembers and staff, was originally adopted in 1994 and then updated in 2012. Daly stated that meeting procedures are codified in an ordnance and explain the when, how, and who of a meeting. He reviewed the purpose for Governance Policy and how it outlines City Council's responsibilities and obligations to good governance, other City Councilmembers, staff, media and the public. Daly then reviewed the eleven parts of the Governance Policy. He stated that the guidelines state that Council shall be responsive, future -oriented, respectful, encourage communication, maintain relationships with other entities, ensure quality of life, and show stewardship and promote trust with the public. Daly stated that these points were codified in the Ethics Ordinance. He reviewed the Governance Principles which are to be loyal to citizens above all else, principle of honor and integrity, avoid gifts and appearance of impropriety, receive no personal gain, policy decisions are responsibility of Council, comply with Ethics Ordinance, and be open and transparent. Daly said that Council meetings will be reviewed later and that Councilmembers have a responsibility to be prepared and stay informed of Council decisions even when absent from meetings. He reviewed the Mayor's role as a spokesperson for Council who presides over meetings, preserves decorum, and is the mediator. Daly explained that Council has a prerogative to establish Council committees that can be subcommittees or ad-hoc committees to prepare policy, citizen advisory committees to resolve policy decisions, and boards, commissions, or committees to make recommendations. He added the Governance Policy addresses the obligation of the Council to receive education and training including a new member orientation. Daly stated that councilmembers are encouraged to attend continuing education. He said that with media relations, Council is expected to maintain professional working relationship. Daly added that the City Manager, or designee, handles administrative and operations matters and the Mayor handles policy issues. He stated that in terms of Council's relationship with staff, the Council authority is collective and not per individual, while operations and administration falls to the City Manager. Daly continued that Council provides policy direction, the is tasked with City Manager providing regular updates, including to City Secretary and City Attorney, and any communication or requests from Council should be made through City Manager. He explained the Council's relationship with City Attorney that the City Attorney is a legal advisor who represents the City, not individual councilmembers, acts at direction of Council and keeps the City Manager and City Secretary informed of requests. Daly then explained the Council's relationship with City Secretary and that the City Secretary is the official record keeper, oversees records management, coordinates ceremonial activities, oversees boards and commissions, is the liaison to the ethics commission, conducts ethics training, manages elections, and keeps the City Manager and City Attorney informed. He reviewed the Council's relationship with boards, commissions, and committees and how the boards do not supervise employees, staff assists with regulatory compliance, the chairperson is ultimately responsible, staff provides support and information, the boards, commissions, and committees advise Council on assigned topics, councilmembers should not take part in meetings or address boards if not on the board, and direction to boards must be made on the record. Fought posed three suggestions: communication with study groups that allows councilmembers to give their questions to the group prior to reviewing at Council; make it clear that the rules apply to everyone, including the Councilmembers; and stop use of the motion to reconsider and follow Robert's Rules instead. Pitts stated that he would like to see a section regarding use of social media and how information is delivered. Gonzalez stated that he agrees with Fought on making sure that all rules apply to councilmembers including the use of proper timelines. He added that that he feels it is bad policy to set out general accusations from the dais without proof. Nicholson asked if there was anything specific on councilmembers bringing items to the agenda. Daly responded that he would review that later in the presentation. Pitts asked about the consequences for violating the ethics policy and what happens when it is violated. He added that he didn't know what the punishment should be but would like for it to be considered. Jonrowe asked Fought for a hypothetical scenario for motion to reconsider so she could better understand the proposition. Fought explained the possibility of new information being brought forward during a meeting that effected a previous item, and Council having the ability to go back to a previous item, from the same meeting, and reconsider it. Jonrowe asked McNabb for clarification. McNabb explained that rules of consideration for items at a current meeting versus previous meeting. General discussion continue about possible scenarios and what the proper motions would be for them. Jonrowe said that whatever suggestions are made by Council she would like to have the City Attorney weigh in on them to verify the legality of the suggestions. Daly resumed the presentation by reviewing Council meetings and how regular and workshop meetings are held the 2nd and 4`h Tuesdays of each month at 6 p.m. He added that workshop meetings are to discuss matters with no specific action and no public comment and special meetings can be called by Mayor, City Manager, or three Councilmembers. Daly reviewed the process for placing items on an agenda. He added that Mayor, councilmember, or City Manager may place an item by 5 p.m. on Tuesday preceding the week of the meeting and the councilmember or Mayor is responsible for preparing their item with requests for support going through City Manager. Daly said that City staff submits items through City Manager. He reviewed how the agendas were assembled, sent out, and notices of meetings posted. He said that the chairperson is the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, but if both are out Council may elect temporary chair. Daly reviewed the general rules of a Council meeting: a quorum consist of four Councilmembers, plus Mayor or five Councilmembers; for attendance, Council shall notify the Mayor, City Manager, and City Secretary if unable to attend; and Call to Order is done by Mayor, Pro Tem, or City Secretary if both are absent and then Council will elect a temporary chair if needed. He explained the procedure for right to the floor of councilmembers: they will be recognized by the Chairperson; confine remarks to the subject under consideration or to be considered; no councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once on any one subject until every councilmember wishing to speak has spoken; and no councilmember shall be permitted to interrupt another. Daly reviewed the procedures for special presentations of certain topics under consideration of Council that may require detailed communication from an individual or organization are to receive prior approval from the City Manager's office by the agenda deadline. He then reviewed how citizens are handled regarding right to floor: citizens must sign up to speak in accordance with the policy of the Council; citizens shall be allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak, or six minutes with someone conceding time; persons who disrupt the meeting may be asked to leave and be removed; and a citizen may address the Council up to three times during any calendar quarter. Daly explained the Code of Conduct for Council is to: preserve order and decorum; not delay or interrupt the proceedings; treat each other with dignity, respect and civility; and if speaking out of turn Council may call to order, in which case Councilmember shall immediately refrain. He then reviewed Parliamentary Procedure and how Robert's Rules of Order shall prevail if there are procedural questions not addressed by provisions of the City Charter and/or the rules of procedure contained in this Chapter and in the event of conflict between the Charter or Code of Ordinances and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, the Charter and/or Code of Ordinances shall prevail. Daly then listed the motions that can used by Council: motion to approve; motion to adjourn; motion to recess; motion to table; motion for previous question; motion to amend; motion to withdraw and take from table. He then reviewed motion to reconsider and how once vote is done, it cannot be consider again for 90 -days and only a member who voted with prevailing side may make a motion to reconsider. Daly reviewed the voting guidelines: Mayor breaks ties; Mayor Pro Tem can vote; and there are no excuses for not voting unless there is a conflict of interest. He added that if there is a conflict the councilmember should announce that he/she is excused from voting, leaves dais, and not enter into discussion or debate on the matter. Daly stated that an appearance of impropriety shall be excused from voting and the councilmember should state publicly the reason(s) why voting would be improper. He continued that any councilmember excused from voting shall be treated as if that member was absent and an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council present and qualified to vote is necessary to repeal or approve any ordinance or take any official action in the name of the City. Daly stated that the following section will be removed per earlier direction: When considering planning, zoning and development applications, the failure of a positive motion to receive an affirmative vote by the required number of Councilmembers (majority, three-fourths vote, or supermajority) shall be deemed to be a denial of the application by the City Council, unless a subsequent positive motion is affirmatively passed during discussion of the agenda item on the day of the failed motion, or such subsequent meeting of the City Council, if the item is deferred for further consideration. He said that Council is allowed to perform a suspension of rules and parts of this chapter may be suspended by a majority plus one vote of Council. Daly stated that Council may adopt a governance policy to further this chapter. He then reviewed the next steps which are to confirm current governance policy and meeting procedures and receive direction on possible changes. Mayor Ross stated that the objective of the day was to receive the view of individual councilmembers and that this would be brought back at a later date and at another workshop. Daly stated that staff will be sure and consult with the City Attorney on proposed changes. Nicholson stated that there have been times when councilmembers have put items on the agenda and based on the controversial nature of the topic advanced and working with staff should be considered. Mayor Ross would like a conversation about two councilmembers putting an item on the agenda which guarantees a second on the item and conversation the meeting. He added that putting items on the agenda Tuesday before does not allow enough time for review by staff or Council. Jonrowe asked Mayor Ross if he suggesting that this become a requirement. Mayor Ross responded yes. Mayor Ross continued that he would also like a conversation about when the Council is in an applet board situation and having councilmembers prejudge items before considering both sides to guarantee fairness. Eby asked for clarification on the purpose of this conversation as being to put items on the table for discussion. Mayor Ross responded that was correct. He added that Council needs to revisit that councilmembers don't have rights to scold public speakers. Council recessed into executive session at 5:45 p.m 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. 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 - Foley and Ladner waiver of lienholder conflict for Northwest Blvd., Parcel 4 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 Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchase Power Update -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Gear Approved by the Georgetown City Council on © O -1 Date FC�jw /I - 1 Dale Ross, ayor At est: City ecretary