Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 07.09.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, July 9, 2019 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 510 West 9`h Street, Georgetown, TX 78626. 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 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM. Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross; Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1; Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2; Mike Triggs, Councilmember District 3; Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4; Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7. Gonzalez arrived at 3:11 p.m. during Item A. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:05 PM A. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding Housing Policies for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and process for updating the Land Use Element -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Nelson presented the item and reviewing the process and work relating to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan so far. She noted that staff is seeking feedback from Council on policies and the Land Use Element. Nelson asked Council if the policy statements accurately capture Council feedback and direction from previous workshops and direction on the update of the Land Use Element. She noted that the goals of the policies will address the three key themes of affordability, diversity, and preservation which were confirmed with City Council in February of 2019. Nelson reviewed the policy language and what the terms lead, partner, and support meant. She continued that lead means the City plays main role in enacting policy; partner mean the City partners with other organization(s) to further policy; and support means the City supports other efforts to further policy. Nelson then overviewed all of the proposed policies and the feedback from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Committee, and then asked Council for feedback on each one. Council reviewed policy C1 — Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy C2 — Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy C3 — Provide opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication. Gonzalez stated that he agrees with comments and this should be standard policy for City. Jonrowe stated that yes, this policy could apply as standard, but doesn't hurt to reiterate. Pitts stated that he agrees with both Gonzalez and Jonrowe. Fought, Triggs, Nicholson, and Eby had no comments. Council reviewed policy Al — Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless they are substandard. Gonzalez stated that he general supports this policy. Jonrowe suggested changing "they" to "the housing." Pitts asked Nelson to define substandard. Nelson noted that substandard has not been defined. Pitts stated that he didn't support this policy and noted that some affordable home types are not mentioned. He added that if the focus is affordability the reference to substandard should be removed. Jonrowe stated that she had suggested including substandard in a joint session and her intention was meant to reference existing housing that is unhealthy to the residents. Fought noted that an earlier diagram didn't include market availability. He continued that nowhere has enough affordable housing and the City should define targets and be specific. Fought praised the work done to get to this point, but more to be done. He then focused on the definitions of workforce and affordable housing and their nature to overlap. Fought said he supports workforce housing and the City has a role to encourage it. He then suggested using police and firefighters as the target buyer for workforce housing. Mayor Ross asked if uses a numeric value to follow it needs to allow for inflation. Fought responded that yes and that's why he suggested the fire and police example. Nelson responded that staff will further define what workforce housing means. Jonrowe stated that definitions can change but she doesn't want to create loopholes. She added that public was clear in the feedback and expects the City to have a role in workforce housing. Gonzalez stated that there is lot of general consent for the ideas and steering committee had a hard time sticking to correct level of review and thought. He added that a further step in definition will create policy. Gonzalez said he thinks Council may want to dive into implementation, but the process isn't there yet. Triggs stated he feels workforce and substandard should be better defined. Nicholson noted that for the sake of the policies "increase" is not defined and is less clear than "support." Eby stated that she agrees with Gonzalez and being at a policy level needs to be the current focus. Mayor Ross stated that a policy is really broad and determining funding isn't what Council should be doing now, they should be sticking to policy. Pitts stated that from a procedural standpoint, he doesn't want to agree to something and be pigeon -holed to it later. Ross said that he doesn't see why that's an issue. Pitts said if Council can't agree on the toolkit will the policy be deleted. Ross stated that the policy gets rewritten every 10 years. Nelson said that staff will continue to come to Council to show tools for each policy as things move forward and Council can address if a policy has no tools for implementation. Gonzalez said he would like Council to make the policies attainable. Ross stated that issue of attainability will be determined later. Nelson asked for clarification from Council for direction on definitions for increase, substandard, and workforce. Ross responded yes, there is a need for further discussion next time. Council reviewed policy A2 — Support rental choices for senior households. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy A3 — Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. Gonzalez stated that he was generally against this policy. Pitts stated he was also generally against. The remaining Council Members supported the policy. Council reviewed policy A4 — Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness. Gonzalez stated that he is against this policy. Pitts stated that he is also against. Jonrowe stated that she enthusiastically supported the policy. Fought and Triggs suggested removing the policy. Nicholson stated that there is a spectrum of homelessness to address and there are many nonprofits in the area. She added that it is difficult to create a policy for this issue. Eby posed a question to the Council on what about the policy was problematic. She asked if keeping the policy boarder relating to vulnerable residents and not specifying homelessness would help. Eby concluded that she likes the idea of keeping the policy broad. Ross stated that someone could be vulnerable and not homeless. He added that Council seems split on the policy, as was the committee. Fought stated that the City does a robust effort to support this portion of population in the Strategic Partnerships and would oppose eliminating this from Strategic Partnerships where it belongs. Jonrowe stated the definition of support is lowest level in these policies and can support other efforts to address this issue. Ross asked Fought for suggested language. Fought responded that he will work on it and worried about what is happening in Austin becoming an issue in Georgetown. Gonzalez stated that he understood there to be four Council Members who agreed to remove this policy. Fought stated that he is most sympathetic to school children who are vulnerable and it's the business of City to put money through the Strategic Partnership program. Eby asked if the Strategic Partnership program would be a tool of policy implementation. Fought responded that he is afraid the current version is too broad. Jonrowe asked about receiving data to education people on who makes up the homeless population for the purpose of education. Ross asked staff to, with the permission of Council, to take all the comments heard and come back with options for Council to consider. He added that if this stays under the Strategic Partnership then it needs to be noted. Ross noted that the comments were split on both Council and the Steering Committee. Nelson stated that staff would bring back options. Nicholson stated that the Council was focused on people, but the policy discusses housing choices. Council reviewed policy D1 — Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy D2 — Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. all support All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy D3 — Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown. Ross stated that this policy has definition issues. Nelson responded that this was discussion on if this policy should stay in housing or be moved to the land use portion. Gonzalez asked about the definition of "complete neighborhood" and if one property would "break" the neighborhood. He added that he would remove this policy. Ross asked if Gonzalez was asking for more specificity. Gonzalez responded yes if possible, but all areas are different. Jonrowe stated that she prefers option three of amending the policy to include components of a complete neighborhood in the statement. Pitts asked about the specific examples noted. Nelson responded that this is similar to the MUD policy or a rezone. Pitts stated he felt this policy was better place in the Land Use Policy instead of Housing Policy. Ross asked what modifications were suggested. Nelson responded none specifically suggested, but the Steering Committee suggested it be moved to the Land Use Policy. Fought noted the omission of market force in the policy. He added that planned neighborhoods are popular and if people want amenities, they will pay for them. Triggs stated that he agrees with Fought and the way the policy is written would drive up housing prices which the opposite of what Council is trying to do. Nicholson stated that she understands the Land Use discussion but would be fine with option two of moving the policy to the Land Use Policy rather than Housing Policy or option three. Eby stated she is in favor of moving to the policy to the Land Use Policy. Mayor Ross noted that the will of the Council appears to be moving the policy to another area. Council reviewed policy D4 — Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older. Gonzalez stated that he feels this is a market decision. Jonrowe stated that she supports this policy. Pitts and Fought agreed with Gonzalez. Triggs stated that he agrees with option one of keeping the policy as drafted or option two of amending the policy to reflect the priority of providing services within close proximity to improve ability to age in place. Nicholson stated she prefers option two. Eby stated that she feels the policy is fine as is. Fought stated that aging in place is important and often a service issue, not a housing issue. Ross asked staff to wordsmith and bring back to Council. Council reviewed policy P1 — Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Council reviewed policy P2 — Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas. Gonzalez stated that he doesn't want to limit property rights of individual owners. Jonrowe stated that the policy is good. Pitts said he agrees with Gonzalez. Fought stated that he would like wording to reflect that this City is not getting in the way of people selling their homes with no prohibition on sales, but on what is built. Gonzalez said that would lead to controlling sales. Fought responded as close as he can come to changing the wording, otherwise he would take it out. Gonzalez stated that the City is trying to create new neighborhoods and transitional zones. Triggs, Nicholson and Eby had no comments. Council reviewed policy P3 - Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. Gonzalez stated that he is not sure how the City would accomplish this and sees it as unattainable. Jonrowe stated that she supports the policy. Pitts asked Nelson to define a neighborhood empowerment zone. Nelson explained that a neighborhood empowerment zone is a tool some cities in Texas use where they look at affordable housing and economic development in a particular district and create a neighborhood plan. Ross asked if the thought is that as people age and retire home values and costs go up. Nelson responded that tools to allow an owner to stay in their home include the home repair program or neighborhood empowerment zones. Ross asked how the cost increase with rapid value increase if real estate taxes are not being discussed. Nelson apologized and said that she was answering based on implementation. Ross stated that real estate taxes can be addressed with different tactics. Pitts stated that he is torn on this one. He added that technical studies show an increase in value per square foot. Pitts wondered where the happy medium lies. He continued that he is okay with this one and is looking forward to tools for implementation. Nelson stated that there are variety of different tools that can be used. Fought stated that the only tool he sees is tax policy and he doesn't see why that would be in housing policy, so he doesn't support this policy. Triggs stated the policy needs to include additional detail. Nicholson stated that she is in favor of keeping the policy, but it will be difficult to implement. Eby stated that she is in favor of keeping the policy and it will be interesting toolkit discussion. Ross noted that Council is generally in favor but needs more discussion and definition. Nelson stated that policies P2 and P3 spilled into one another and staff will supply additional definitions and details. Ross asked Nelson to look at the vagueness of some of the language. Council reviewed policy P4 — Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality. All of the Council Members approved and had no comments. Nelson stated that she will bring back the land use discussion at another meeting. Mayor Ross called for break at 4:19 and stated that the Workshop will resume at 4:25 PM. C. Presentation and discussion of the year end revenue projections in the general fund, FY2020 assessed value trends, and the projected tax impact of five year capital improvement plan -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Diaz presented the item and reviewed the sales tax noting that it is the largest revenue in the General Fund at 22% of the budget and primarily driven by the retail, food, information, and manufacturing sectors, which make up about 75% of total sales tax revenue. He then provided a retail sector breakdown chart. Diaz showed a general fund sales tax chart noting the increases over the last few fiscal years. He then reviewed the sales tax projection for the General Fund and noted that in FY2019 the budget was $ 15,924,475; in FY2019 the projection was $16,734,375 which is a 5% increase; and in FY2020 the Budget will be $17,859,375 which is a 6.7% increase. Diaz noted that the increase for FY2020 is due to the continued strong growth in the core sectors and new developments like Holt Cat, Wolf Crossing, and Academy Sports + Outdoors. He continued that sanitation revenue represents 13% of total revenues and the City is projected to finish FY2019 at budget. Diaz said that the FY2020 is budgeted at $9.75 million, an increase of 3% over FY2019 projections. He stated that Return on Investment (ROI) revenue represents 11% of total general fund revenues and is comprised of a transfer from the Electric, Water, and Stormwater funds, which is projected to end FY2019 at $7.27 million, or 6.4% less than budget. Diaz said that staff is proposing transferring only $3.825 million from the Electric Fund instead of the full budgeted amount of $4.325 million. He said that moving into the FY2020 budget staff is accounting for natural growth in Water and Stormwater at a 3% increase and will continue to lower the ROI transfer in Electric for FY2020. Diaz noted that Fire and EMS revenue represents 10% of the general fund and is comprised of Emergency Services District (ESD) 8 Contract of $3.5 million, EMS transport revenue of $2.6 million, and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) and Texas Ambulance Supplemental Payment Program (TASPP) grants of $826,000. He said that FY2019 is projected to end less than 1% below budget due to slightly less grant revenue being received and FY2020 is budgeted at a 4% increase over FY2019 projections due to an increase in the ESD 8 contract and growth in the EMS system. Diaz reviewed the franchise fees projections and noted that franchise fees represent 8% of the general fund revenues and the City collects franchise fees on electric, water, cable TV, gas, telephone (land lines), stormwater, and irrigation. He added franchise fees in FY2019 are projected to end 3% higher than budget and the FY2020 budget totals $5.89 million, or an increase of 5% from FY2019 projections. Diaz reviewed the development revenue projections noting that development revenue represents 5% of the general fund revenues and development revenues in FY2019 are projected to end 13% higher than budget due to a one-time payment of Master Development fees from MUDs in FY2019 of about $400,000. He continued stating that the FY2020 budget totals $3.52 million and continues growth in permits and planning fees and after normalizing for the one-time payment, development fees overall are budgeted to increase by 5% relative to FY2019. Diaz reviewed the Parks and Recreation projections noting that they represent 4% of the general fund revenues and FY2019 is projected to end at $2.7 million, less than budget by $251,000. He added that the variance in primarily due to Garey Park revenue which is projected to come in $175,000 less than budget for the first year of operations. Diaz said that the FY2020 budget totals $2.83 million. He reviewed property tax revenue and that it represents 20% of the general fund revenues and FY2019 is projected to end at budget. Diaz then provided an overview of the Property Tax Process stating that the assessed value is certified on July 25th by Williamson County Central Appraisal District (WCAD) and after the certification date, City Staff meets with the Tax Assessor Collector's Office and verifies the Truth in Taxation form which calculates the effective rate and the rollback rate. Diaz added that there is a State requirement and the truth in taxation form must be published in the local paper. He explained that the effective rate is the rate the City would need to charge in order to produce the same amount of property tax revenues as last year while using the new valuations of the current year and typically, property values appreciate from year to year. Diaz noted that in most years, the increased value of a property means a lower tax rate could produce the same amount of revenue and that, for example, a home valued at $100,000 with a tax rate of 42 cents would produce $420 in property tax revenue. He continued that if in the following year, the home is now valued at $105,000, the effective rate would be 40 cents to produce the same $420 worth of revenue. Diaz stated that the effective rate enables the public to evaluate the relationship between taxes for the prior year and for the current year. Diaz then explained that the rollback rate is the maximum tax rate the City can set before the taxpayers can petition for an election to reduce the tax rate and after adjustments for debt calculations, the rollback rate is equal to the effective rate times 8%, or in this example 43.2 cents. He noted that, due to State legislation, this will be the last year of an 8% rate and will be 3.5% in the next year. Fought referenced Diaz's example of increase home values and asked if the home value increased to a certain extent, would the City have to hold an election. Diaz responded yes. Fought asked if the election was required if natural forces caused the increase in home value. Diaz responded yes. Morgan stated that anything over the rollback rate would require an election. Mayor Ross asked if the timeline works for an election. Morgan responded that the City would have to follow the provision for a special called election. Mayor Ross asked if a 90 notice was required to hold an election. Morgan responded that the City would have to call election in August which is part of unique provisions allowed in the new law. Ross asked if the City would have to have the budget ready before then. Morgan responded no, the budget timeline would be the same, but would have to factor in the results of the election. Fought asked what would happen if the budget failed. Morgan responded that if the budget failed the City would go back to the 3.5% roll back rate. Fought asked if the City would then have to redo the budget. Morgan responded yes, but staff will have backup plan available. Mayor Ross asked if the City can send the election bill to the State reps. Morgan responded no and the cost for the election would be included in the budget. Diaz continued the truth in taxation explanation and what the City has control over. He then reviewed a chart showing the Market Value by Segment in billions and how the market is broken up in residential, commercial, land, and multi -family values. Diaz then explained the property tax process and how beginning in late April, WCAD starts posting the Assessed Values for the City, which is open to the public. He continued that typically, protest are at their highest in late May. Diaz explained to the Council what has changed since last year using non -certified values: - Taxable Value o FY2019 = $5,434,192,282 o FY2020 = $5,652,225,161 it 4.01% increase Tax Ceiling Value o FY2019 = $2,602,161,482 o FY2020 = $2,783,483,757 ■ 6.97% increase New Value o FY2019 = %251,898,659 o FY2020 = $375,002,284 ■ 48.84% increase Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Value o FY2019 = $234,588,009 o FY2020 = $356,041,042 ■ 51.77% increase Gonzalez asked if the percentages were similar to last year. Diaz responded TIRZ experiences a 30% increase from 2018 to 2019, so it's even better than last year. Diaz explained the Tax Impact Debt Model that was created by the budget team which was developed in FY2016. He added that the Five Year Debt Model is a tool to better understand the impacts of issuing debt and allows for scenario testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service requirements. Fought asked if the addition of once cent provided $650,000 to general fund or over all. Diaz responded that is could be either or. Diaz continued by explaining how small changes can have big impacts and provided an example. He then explained what is different from last year. Diaz stated that last year there was a fiscally constrained CIP which would not have a tax rate impact needed to be sized at $75 million over five years or about $15 million a year and this year there is a fiscally constrained CIP with no tax rate impact would be $85 million over five years or about $17 million a year. Morgan then discusses how, based on constraints, staff was highlighting some projects to stay within a $17-18 million range over the next five years. He added that this approach would have no impact on the tax side over the next tew vears, riere is a list of the Project Name category Leander Road Norwood to South West Bypass) Streets r0 ects: Funding 2015 GO .0 ., 3,200,000 Southwestern Blvd. Streets 2015 GO 2,650,000 PubIicSafety Vehicles - Fire Fleet c0 2,20QODO Intersection Improvements Streets 2015 GO 1,400,000 Regional Trail Development Parks CO 1,275,000 2015 Road Bond Priori 1- Sidewalks Streets 2015 GO 1,000,000 Austin Avenue Bridges Streets CO 11000,000 Body Cam Public Safety - Police CO 844,038 Northwest Blvd Brid e - ROW Streets .2015 GO 7501000 Public Safety Vehicles - Police Fleet CO 740,200 San Gabriel Park Parks CO 500.000 Westinghouse & Scenic Lake Traffic Signal Streets .2015 GO 100,000 Cardiac Monitors Public Safe - Fire Deco 290;000 GMC Remodel Facilities CO 250,000 Neighborhood Park Development Parks CO 250,000 Public Safety Vehicles- Police New Fleet CO 246,ODD SCBA Replacement Public Safe - Fire De, CO 225,ODO Parks Master Plan Parks CO 20a ODO ADA Transition Plan Parks CO 150,000 Radio Replacement Other CO 129,0DO Tennis Center Pool Demolition Parks CO 70,000 18,039 238 Morhan noted that these nroiects are not final. Gonzalez asked about the drop in year five for projects. Morgan responded that staff kept that year low to be conservative and it will depend on what Council wants to do over the next few years. He added that there is a facilities study that recognizes needs at the Georgetown Municipal Complex (GMC) and the Animal Shelter. Gonzalez asked if staff left year five to address later. Morgan responded that staff was providing Council flexibility. Diaz stated that staff will redo the model in Februrary before the debt sale to make sure that assumptions made in the summer are still valid. He then provided the next steps which include having an estimate on the effective and the rollback rate at the Budget Workshops and having the certified tax roll on July 25th. B. Presentation and discussion regarding the function, membership and focus of the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities This item was discussed after Item C and right before Council went into Executive Session. Briggs presented and reviewed Council's action regarding the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Advisory Board. He added that existing board members have continued to serve, but soon some will need to step off of the board. Briggs reviewed the 2019 City council Activity which included: Council moved (2/26/2019) to delay decision on GUS Board membership until there was time to review the purpose and mission and determine the appropriate function of the board; reopening the application process for 60 days once final directive was established; reviewing the Schneider Report delivered in May 2019; and having the opt -in or sale discussion in June of 2019. He then reviewed the February 26, 2019 City Council meeting directive that noted: GUS is an advisory board, GUS is not an oversight board; GUS does not have the responsibility and was not structured to look at the business financials; GUS was intended to review rates, rate structure, infrastructure plans and CIP budget; Council wanted to review roles, mission and composition of members; the need to reopen the application process for 60 days to meet composition; and asking current GUS Board members to extend to provide City Council time to evaluate and discuss with the current GUS Board members. Briggs reviewed the board history which includes: being established in 2002 along with Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) to provide advice to City Council on major CIP expenses, fees, and rates; initially was composed of (2) Council Members and (5) industry specific membership; bylaws changed three times since 2002 but industry specified membership and Board size has remained unchanged; Council membership changed in 2015 to no less than (1) no more than (2) members; and typical business has been project specific CIP expense over $50,000, impact fees and rates every three years. He continued by reviewing Section 1.2 Purpose and Section 2.2 Eligibility of the GUS Board bylaws. Briggs reviewed the management assessment recommendations of: conducting a study of the installation of separate governance structure for Georgetown Utility Systems, noting that while any changes to GUS governance structure will not impact past decisions, this issue is worth considering for future management of GUS power and other electric utility management; and considering that a separate governance structure would shift the board from advisory to more direct oversight and business unit specific financial responsibility. He said that the future direction considerations should be: to focus the GUS Board to include water/wastewater and electric utilities; have environmental and stormwater shifted to other board review, such as GTAB which would be consistent with the Public Works reporting structure; have membership expertise enhanced with energy market experience; have membership in City and ETJ continue with broad Water exposure outside of the City; enhance the City's Energy Risk Management Policy with the assistance of a Risk/Energy Management Consultant; develop a Risk Management Committee that would include the review of utility business financials; and consider for the long-term a review of the pros and cons of establishing the GUS Board as an oversight body vs. an advisory body which is consistent with management assessment. Briggs reviewed a potential timeline to administer changes of July 2019 Council Workshop providing staff with input for change; July 2019 staff prepares draft ordinance for review; August 2019 new ordinance published for first reading; August 2019 first reading; September 2019 second reading and adoption; September/October 2019 recruit new members; and November 2019 select new membership. He noted that the Council feedback being requested is: confirm focus of GUS Board and if it should be water/wastewater and electric only and if there should be and addition of membership with energy market experience; confirm timeline for ordinance development and adoption; confirm board recruitment timeline; confirm future development of Risk Management Committee; and confirm long- term interest to review governance structure of the GUS Board. Fought stated that they GUS Board has done a good job with their current role and financial operations is out of their realm. He then proposed the possibility of assigning financial oversight to the General Government and Finance Board (GGAF) and adding an energy market expert into GGAF instead of GUS. Gonzalez stated that Fought's comments are worthy of consideration. He added that purchase power requires a higher level of expertise that isn't always available and Council should consider giving access to outside experts to assist in decision making. Jonrowe asked about separating water and utilities from each other and having two distinct boards. Briggs clarified if the question was to have a water board and an electric board. Jonrowe responded yes. Morgan said that decision would be up to Council. Jonrowe asked if that type of separation was appropriate. Morgan responded that it is up to Council and staff is fine with creating separate boards. He added that there is potential to move elements to other boards and stormwater is often related to transportation. Mayor Ross stated that those changes would warrant discussion. Jonrowe stated that she doesn't personally want to see new board get so focused on financials that they don't look at big picture. Morgan stated that it is important to have infrastructure planning related to the utility. Pitts noted the topic of confirm focus of GUS board. He continued that he would support separate water and electric boards and that the membership be open to anyone in our service area. Pitts said that he doesn't agree with moving things to GGAF because financials were lopsided due to one line item. He said that there is a need for industry experts. Pitts stated that the timeline need to allow for continued discussion and recommended following the next standard boards and commissions appointment cycle. He added that a risk management committee is a good idea. Triggs stated that after reading the Schneider Report and doing other research he would strongly recommend splitting board. He added that there are people in the community who are qualified to serve. Nicholson stated that she agrees with the separation of the boards and considers a risk management committee to be the highest priority. Eby stated that she agrees with Pitts on the timeline, is in favor of further discussing splitting the board, and wants the best structure that works. She added that she is not comfortable with splitting up the boards now but would like to discuss the option further. Mayor Ross state that he agrees with Eby and staff should review the comments provided by Council. He continued that there is a need for additional discussion with the pros and cons of splitting up the board. Morgan responded that staff can prepare language for ordinance changes in a general sense, since Council is open and interested in separating the board. Ross said that the appointments should be made during the usual cycle. Morgan said that staff will talk to the existing board and ask if they will be willing to continue to serve. Ross responded that he hoped they would. Briggs stated that the board is intended to provide advice to the Council no matter what structure is ultimately picked. Ross asked when Council should look for this to come back. Morgan responded sometime in the August time frame. Triggs stated that he understands the thought process for delaying but time is of the essence. He added that he would like the new board in place in time for the hiring of a new executive. Mayor Ross responded that he understood that to be the goal. Briggs said that even with staff coming on in October, the most aggressive schedule would have ordinances being passed at that time. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting at 5:15 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 - Litigation Update - Police and Fire Meet and Confer Update Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchased Power Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project C - Project Matrix 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 Approved by the Georgetown City Council on V Date Dale Ross, ayor Attest: CW Secretary