HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.13.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers,
at 510 West 9' 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 3:06 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance.
Mayor Dale Ross; Valerie Nicholson, Council Member District 2; Steve Fought, Council Member District
4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy
Gonzalez, District 7. District 1 is vacant and Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3 was absent.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and update on HB 3167 and changes required in the development process --Sofia Nelson,
CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson presented the item and thanked the staff team that had worked on this item. She noted the
feedback requested from staff as: does Council have any questions about the need for a submittal
schedule to meet the requirements of House Bill (HB) 3167; does Council support the proposed fees to
capture the additional costs associated with meeting state mandated requirements so that the General
Fund is not subsidizing the review of the development applications identified in this presentation; long-
term does Council seek to update the UDC and separate the applications by the types of requirements
that would enable applications to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate officials; and does
Council support retaining P&Z as the final review authority. Nelson reviewed HB 3167 and noted that
the bill made numerous changes to the site plan and subdivision platting approval process, and it will
require most cities to make changes to their development approval process, subdivision ordinances, and
zoning ordinance. She noted that the new legislation that becomes effective on September 1, 2019.
Nelson reviewed the types of applications that are subject to HB 3167 and said that the bill applies to
plans and plats and defines a "plan" to mean a subdivision development plan, including a subdivision
plan, subdivision construction plan, site plan, land development application, and site development plan.
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 212.001(2) and defines "plat" to include a preliminary plat, general plan,
final plat, and replat. Id. § 212.001(3). She said that this includes: Site Development Plans (SDP);
Subdivision Plats (all of them); Subdivision Variances; Construction Plans; Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIAs); Driveway Access Permits; Storm Water Permits; and Heritage Removal and Pruning Permits.
Nelson reviewed the approval timeline as mandated by HB 3167 and said that the bill requires the
municipal authority responsible for approving plats to take the following action with regard to the
"initial approval" of a plan or plat within 30 days after the date the plan or plat is filed: (1) approve, (2)
approve with conditions, or (3) disapprove with explanation. Id. § 212.009(a). She continued that the
current law defines "the municipal authority responsible for approving plats" as the municipal planning
commission or, if the city has no planning commission, the governing body of the city and also under
current law, the governing body by ordinance may require the approval of the governing body in
addition to that of the municipal planning commission. Id. § 212.006(a).
Fought asked if the there are no comments provided within 30 days the initial application is considered
approved. Nelson said that is correct. Fought asked if that condition applied to the 15 day reviews as
well. Nelson said that yes it does. Fought asked if the only way an applicant could be denied was with
a specific citation from an ordinance. Nelson responded yes that is correct. Fought asked if the current
staffing levels were high enough to meet these timelines. Nelson responded that later in the presentation
she will address an increase in fees to address staffing support and that on -call support may be utilized
to meet timelines.
Nicholson asked if the 30 days was calendar day instead of work days. Nelson responded it was
calendar days.
Pitts noted that this would have applied to 554 applications in 2018. He added that if an application is
denied then staff must directly quote the code where the application is deficient. Pitts stated that this
will lead to a huge workload for P&Z and asked if staff was going to provided P&Z an initial approval
or denial recommendation with the parts of the code cited. Nelson responded staff will include that
information in their staff reports and noted that many of the applications that now must be reviewed by
P&Z are very technical in nature. Pitts noted that P&Z will need staff s help and suggested reinstating
staff recommendations. Nelson responded that staff suggestions have been removed from zoning and
land use applications but included with others.
Jonrowe asked if the HB provided a mechanism that would allow an applicant to appeal the automatic
approval if not approved in 31 days. Charlie McNabb, City Attorney said that there is not current way
to appeal a decision of the governing body other than bringing forward a lawsuit in court and the new
law doesn't change that. Jonrowe stated that at 31 days the approval could be a de facto approval and
there is no mechanism in places to allow for an appeal. McNabb said that was correct.
Nelson resumed the presentation and the current approval process and how it differs from the
requirements of HB 3167. She said that current process is having a plat or plan submitted, completeness
check done within 5 business days, first review done in 20 work days, second review done in 15 work
days, third review done in 10 work days, and all comments are addressed, and approval is provided by
either P&Z or stays with the Planning Director for signature. Nelson noted that the following
applications are currently approved administratively and now subject to HB 3167: Site Development
Plan (SDP); Subdivision Plats (preliminary plats, combined preliminary/ final plats, and replats
currently approved by P&Z); Construction Plans; Traffic Impact Analysis (TIAs); Driveway Access
Permits; Stormwater Permit; and Heritage Tree Removal/ Pruning Permit. She then provided Council
with the numbers for different case types received by the City and noted that the change will lead to
574 application requiring P&Z approval. The breakdown of case types is as follows:
Case 'Fyp,
Construction Plans New Applications
1]ztlitt
37 66
Driveway Permit
,_
3
2
Site Development Plan
56
109 .
Storm Water Permit
Subdivisions
16
19
93
142
'Traffic Fact Analysis
5
5
0
Heritage Tree Removal* most requests for removal are made
,as part of a subdivision or site plan
21
TOTAL 231
343
Nelson provided a visual representation of the current staff process versus what is required by HB 3167:
t i FORGI ICi1VNS4
Subdivision & Site Development Process HB 3167
Current Process Completeness Review view Sworkdays�, Completeness Reprocess
4�i�
10 work days Review
Agenda Prep (Advertise, Staff
11' Review Report, Presentation)
20 work days posting
30calendar days Meetin P&Z A i
15 workdays
2" d Review *City Council Action
60 calendar days
Most applications will require more than 1 review -
When more than 1 review is necessary the
20work days 3i11 Review application will be either conditionally approved or
denied. Subsequent Reviews will be required to
have PZ action within 15 days of submittal.
advertise, staff report,
presentation, posting, All Comments Addressed " CC Action is an option to allow additional time to
and meeting Approval by PZ or Director the process,
Gonzalez asked if there is a definitive time where the City has accepted an application and the clock
starts ticking. Nelson responded that for new submittals it is the completeness check. She added that
if the application is complete the day it's turned in to the City, then the clock starts on the day it's
received by the City, not on the day that staff has a chance to review it for completeness. Gonzalez
asked about the details required by applicants when submitting and noted that he doesn't want someone
with an almost complete application to fenagle the time for review. Nelson said that staff has
continually worked on having a good checklist to benefit themselves and the applicant. She added that
staff will again review that checklist.
Nelson the reviewed the options for addressing the requirements of HB 3167. She addressed the
schedule for acceptance of applications and showed the summary of requirements of HB 3167 and
noted that over 500 new applications would require P&Z approval within the following schedule: first
submittal will need P&Z action within 30 days and subsequent resubmittals will need P&Z action
within 15 days. Nelson then showed the Council examples in a calendar format and noted the impact
on P&Z meetings.
Fought stated that he wants to prevent over working the members of P&Z. He asked if there were
provisions for the holidays when staff would be taking vacations. Nelson stated that staff is taking
measures to address the holidays.
Jonrowe asked if an applicant pulls an item does that reset the clock. Nelson responded that she wasn't
sure and noted that applicants can ask for a waiver to not be subject to the 30 day time frame. Jonrowe
then asked if the City could require an applicant to waive the 30 day time frame if they pull their own
application. McNabb responded that it the choice of the applicant to either ask for a waiver or withdraw
their application.
Pitt asked if P&Z was not able to make quorum within the new time frame could that lead to an
automatic approval of an application. Nelson responded that was correct and that quorum was going
to be very important going forward. Pitt asked about adding more alternates to P&Z. Nelson responded
that was something that could be explored. Pitts asked if under the new time frame staff would only
accept applications two days a month. Nelson responded yes, unless the applicant had agreed to a
waiver. She added that staff will have a calendar prepared. Pitts asked if the City could make either
Council or P&Z the approver on an application. McNabb responded that the workload could not be
broken up like that. Pitts then asked about the possibility of having two fee structures, one for those
who waive the 30 day fee and one for those who don't. McNabb stated that having two fee structures
was possible.
Gonzalez stated that the City needs to make it worth while for applicants to waive the 30 day time frame
and staff should evaluate the value to the applicants. McNabb stated that it would be cheaper to do
review in house but he's not sure if staff will be able to meet the demand.
Nelson then reviewed the application fees and noted the possibilities of: adopting a fee for pre -
application meetings; amending the fee for resubmittal of an application after three rounds of review;
amending application fees for site plans and subdivision plat applications to reflect the cost of review;
and amending the applications to reflect costs associated with preparing applications for P&Z
consideration for Driveway Permits, Subdivision Variances, Replats, and Heritage Tree Removal and
Pfunine Permits. She then comared the current fees versus the prmosed fees as follows:
Pre -application meeting
NO CHARGE
Resubmittal after 3'4 review $250.00
Preliminary Plats $900 + $20 per lot or acre ( whichever is greater)
Construction Plans
Subdivision Plats
Site Plan
$300 + $100 per acre/lot (whichever is greater)
$500.00
$500.00
$3500.00 + $20 per lot or acre
whichever Is greater)
G
$3500.00+$100.00 per lot or acre
whichever Is greater
Varies from: $3500.00
$300.00 to
$950 +$20.00 per acre or lot whichever Is greater
$800 + $175 per acre over 1 acre $3500.00 + $175 per acre over 1 acre
Stormwater Permits $150.00 $950.00
Tree Removal/Pruning Permits $300 If stand-alone application $400.00
Driveway Permits Varies from: $185.00 to $235.00 per driveway
$50.00 to $100 per driveway + $250.00 if TIA is
needed.
( separate Application and fee for TIA is required)
Jonrowe asked if pre -application were encouraged but not required. Nelson responded yes, that's
correct. She added that staff would continue to encourage those going forward.
Nelson reviewed the options for including City Council into approval process: Option 1, if City
Council, not P&Z, is the final authority for plans and plats, HB 3167 grants the City an additional 30
days to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application and naming City Council the final
authority would require Council action on 500+ additional items each year; and Option 2, keeping P&Z
as the final authority where mandated until the UDC can be fully examined. She then stated the long
term approach and that many of the applications combine reviews subject to HB 3167's requirements
with those that would otherwise not be. Nelson noted that separating the applications by the types of
requirements would enable applications to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate officials. She
then noted that to address customer service staff will provide an education session, an update with
Chamber Development Alliance, and updates to the website and submittal checklist. Nelson then noted
that staff needs Council direction and is requesting feedback on the following: (1) does Council have
any questions about the need for a submittal schedule to meet the requirements of HB 3167; (2) does
Council support the proposed fees to capture the additional costs associated with meeting state
mandated requirements so that the General Fund is not subsidizing the review of the development
applications identified in this presentation; (3) in the long-term does Council seek to update the UDC
and separate the applications by the types of requirements that would enable applications to be reviewed
and approved by the appropriate officials; and (4) does Council support retaining P&Z as the final
review authority.
Gonzalez stated that based on the schedule and retaining P&Z Council needs to adjust P&Z board to
allow alternates to be activated to always ensure a quorum and needs to codify that language. Mayor
noted that P&Z members are citizen servants who have other commitments. He added that he agrees
with Gonzalez's suggestions.
Jonrowe stated that she agrees that there needs to be a submittal schedule. She then asked if Council
can separate P&Z into two groups to alternate and handle different things. McNabb responded that
Council could resolve P&Z into panels, but the group would have to convene into the entire group. He
added that he's not sure how large Council can make P&Z. McNabb stated that staff will look into it.
Pitts asked if there are any cities that pay their P&Z members. He added that with the workload increase
there may be quorum issues so some form of stipend may help. McNabb responded that he doesn't
think there is anything that prohibits payment and staff will review.
Fought stated that the schedule presented seems like only way to go and he interested in the idea of
contracting out as needed. He added that developers need to have shot to give input and the City needs
to ask them.
Nicholson agrees with the proposed schedule.
Council then reviewed item (2) - does Council support the proposed fees to capture the additional costs
associated with meeting state mandated requirements so that the General Fund is not subsidizing the
review of the development applications identified in this presentation.
Jonrowe restated the idea of requiring pre -application meetings and asked if those numbers would stay
the same. Nelson responded yes, would keep those scheduled. She added that there are currently 7
slots each week and staff may reorganize if needed.
Pitts stated that he agrees with Jonrowe on pre -application meetings. He added about imposing a $500
flat application fee and how did staff create the proposed fees. Nelson responded that staff considered
who was involved in the meetings and then calculated the rate. Morgan noted that sometimes pre -
application meetings are so cheap that people are not ready. He added that staff is looking at how to
make it so applicants have some skin in the game to come prepared. Pitts stated that staff needs that
time. He then asked about the subdivision plat fee and if staffed backed into that to determine the fee.
Nelson responded yes and that staff considered the costs to hire consultant to keep up with their
workload. Pitts asked if the proposed fees are high enough to recapture everything. Nelson responded
that yes she feels they are enough. Gonzalez asked about combining the pre -application and other
meeting for one fee and note to the applicant that the pre -applicant meeting is not required but included
in costs. Nelson responded that staff can look into that. Mayor Ross stated that Council is in favor of
recovering costs. He then asked if the legislature provided information on proposed costs. Morgan
responded that was a one sided bill and the State did not seek much feedback from cities and counties.
Mayor Ross noted the impact this will have on the rising costs of living in central Texas.
Council then reviewed item (3) - in the long-term does Council seek to update the UDC and separate
the applications by the types of requirements that would enable applications to be reviewed and
approved by the appropriate officials.
Mayor Ross said that this will lead to a tremendous additional workload. He added that there are busy
times during the year and slower times and asked how staff will handle an uptick in workload. He
noted that staff is allowed vacations and then asked what happens when business goes on while staff
leaves on vacation. Morgan responded that the City will have to move forward. Mayor Ross noted the
need for consultants and then asked when Council can address the challenges with P&Z related to these
changes. Nelson responded that from bylaws standpoint, staff will bring an item to the next Council
meeting to look at the number of needed P&Z meeting and the makeup of membership. Mayor Ross
noted that this change takes effect September V. Nelson responded that's correct. Morgan stated that
staff is tracking what other cities are doing and the attorneys are working through it all. He added that
staff is trying to find best practices and to get as much done as quickly as possible.
Council then reviewed item (4) - does Council support retaining P&Z as the final review authority.
Gonzalez stated that he feels separating may provide more efficiency. Nelson provided that staff could
reevaluate how applications are grouped or separated. Fought stated that he would leave it to P&Z to
decide if they want to separate into panels. Nicholson stated that she agrees and added that she is
curious about communications to the builder community. Pitts stated that he doesn't disagree but asked
if have the 30 extra days when coming to Council benefits staff at all. Nelson responded that it's a
mixed bag and depends on the type of application. Pitts stated that he doesn't see the benefit of bringing
applications to Council.
Mayor asked Nelson to recap the feedback she received. Nelson stated that she understood that Council
supports: the schedule as shown; increasing fees; separate applications but allow P&Z input; P&Z being
final authority; communication plan to work through with customers; and staff following up on
communication in December.
Mayor Ross noted that staff did a great job.
B. Presentation and update related to water resources and potential interim sale of water resources to
Blanchard Refining Company -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director
Dishong presented and noted that Council's direction was to get two five-year contracts. He added that
he was not able to do that, but he was able to shorten the contract to ten years with options for years
seven through ten. Dishong reviewed the Brazos River Authority (BRA) System Water Contracts and
noted that they are multi -year contracts related to annual volume with a specific point of diversion and
maximum daily diversion. He said that the annual price at the "System Rate" is currently $79.00 per
acre foot and it is take or pay in nature. Dishong said that the contracts are for municipal use only and
the City may not sell to others except for municipal use and there is a conservation provision. He said
the current water supply is comprised of ground water from Edwards Wells and Domel and BRA
System Water from Lake Georgetown and Lake Stillhouse. Dishong stated that the annual cost is $3.6
million noted that one acre-ft is equal to 325,851 gallons. He then reviewed the resource utilization
forecast and noted that the current situation includes 28,000 acre-ft not in use, 10,000 acre-ft available,
and the resource will not be needed for at least ten years. Dishong said that the original request was
for 10,000 Acre-ft with a 10-year contract and a 5-year Option and the proposed contract is for 10,000
Acre-ft with a 10-year contract and a 2,500 Acre-ft "Clawback". He then provided a deal point
summary of: volume equal to 10,000 acre-ft, take or pay; price of 125% of BRA System Rate; duration
of 10 years, through August 31, 2029; and clawback of up to 2,500 acre-ft in years 9 and 10 with two
years notice and the Belton to Stillhouse pipeline complete. Dishong reviewed the pros and cons with
the pros being revenue to offset annual water supply cost of $988,000, water returns when needed based
upon growth projections, the City has done this previously with Round Rock, and the clawback of up
to 2,500 acre-ft provides risk reduction and the con that the water will not be available to GUS for the
period of the contract. He then reviewed the Council action needed at the next Council meeting to
approve amendment to BRA System Water Agreement allowing sale of water to Blanchard Refining
for industrial use and approve the contract with Blanchard Refining for sale of 10,000 acre-ft for a
period of 10 years.
Gonzalez asked if the City decides not to clawback in year seven, is the option still there for the
subsequent years. Dishong responded that it has to be at the end of year seven to allow for future water
planning.
Pitts stated that he liked this contract better than the first option and he will support it.
C. Presentation and discussion of the Georgetown Business Improvement Program (BIP) and Performance
Management Program (PMP) -- Christina Richison, Business Improvement Program Manager and Seth
Gipson, Management Analyst
Gipson presented on the PMP and noted that the PMP is an organizational program used to align
employees around a common vision, focus teams on their missions, reinforce commitments that form
the culture, and drive continuous improvements and employee development to deliver superior
performance with a focus on services, processes, and people. He added that this illustrates the strategy
and plan that was used in order to implement the PMP. Gipson noted that it begins with Council's
Vision and each service area's Mission Statement. He added that at this time last year staff was at the
beginning of measuring success, setting strategic goals and key performance indicators, and beginning
to build the structure of collecting and maintaining our performance metric data. Gipson noted that
during the past year, staff has worked together to accomplished: rolling this program out to 40 service
areas across the City; each service area has developed and approved strategic goals and KPIs; developed
consistent ways to collect and store the data; built internal dashboards; conducted our first rounds of
semi-annual meetings with the executive team; and begun to use this information to make each of our
service areas better by identifying trends within the areas. He added that staff has come a long way this
past year, and today staff is at the beginning of the transparent and accountable stage. Gipson noted
that staff will continue to build upon the foundation by refining and adding metrics, seeking new ways
to analyze data and ensure that this program provides value for each of our service areas, city leadership,
and our community, and continued to foster a culture of innovation and collaboration. He then provided
the following PMP Statistics: 40 - total service areas within the PMP; 100% - service areas have
mission, strategic goals, and KPIs; 95% - service areas presented semi-annual report to e-team; 7 -
semi-annual reports received monthly; 153 - strategic goals; and 238 - key performance indicators.
Gipson noted the program challenges of metrics being impacted by multiple departments and the
difficulty in tracking data on important measures. He continued that a great example of this is Fleet,
who was very excited to jump into the PMP, and were one of the first to complete their strategic goals
and KPIs and begin tracking their metrics. Gipson noted that there was some reluctance to measure
percentage of units with a past due inspection of 60 days or more, because it was a number that they
did not wholly control. He said that there are many internal and external factors that influence the
timeliness and quality of services and Fleet knew it was important to track this measure for safety and
efficiency. Gipson stated that through tracking this metric, the team created an awareness within
departments and management about the importance of bringing the vehicles in on time and worked
with safety coordinators from around the City for ideas of better methods to notify and schedule
upcoming inspections and within two months the percentage of units with past due inspections of more
than 60 days went from 10% to 3%, which has been maintained. He then reviewed the successes of.
cross departmental discussions; refinement of metrics; development of staff training programs; and
improved services internally and externally. Gipson stated that staff is sharing their journey with the
PMP Newsletter which had included: Airport mission statement story; stories about improvement and
refinement of metrics; and stories of how employees individually contribute to the success of the City.
He reviewed the next steps of: process improvements that will provide data to service areas to help
identify process improvements; customer satisfaction surveys that will be implemented in service areas
that have demonstrated sustained performance which is in progress; and a public facing dashboard that
implements surveys in service areas that have demonstrated sustained performance. Gipson noted the
need for process improvement that was a LICMA Recommendation of integrating the PMP and BIP
and Project Coversheet that will be a staff resource for managing development agreements. He added
that customer surveys are being used by CVB, Library, Parks and Recreation, Fleet, Finance, Upcoming
Departments, Communications, Planning, Building Inspections, and Fire. Gipson explained the public
dashboard. Gipson reviewed the PMP evolution and noted that the process has been vision inspired,
mission focused, values driven, and performance based. He added that, in summary, staff has made
really great progress with the PMP over the past year and we are incredibly excited to continue
improving and refining this program to accomplish the purpose of being an organization that vision
inspired, mission focused, values driven and performance based.
Mayor asked if staff was tracking quality also. Gipson responded yes.
Richison presented about the Business Improvement Program, aka "the BIP" and she will cover the
BIP's mission, history and three focus areas of: project management, process improvement, and
organizational change management. She noted that the BIP mission is to provide a collaborative
structure and resources for organizational development through process improvement and program
management to make the organization better and this means that the BIP works to develop skillsets and
provide opportunities to gain experience in project management and business process management
through: exposure; training; consultation; framework; structure; tools and techniques. Richison
reviewed the history of BIP: 2013-2014 Infor Enterprise Asset Management Project; 2014-2015 BIP
defined, created, & launched; 2016-2019 BIP in action; 2019 Leadership ICMA BIP assessment; and
2019-2020 BIP expanding city-wide. She stated that to date the RIP has worked on 59 projects since
inception, 151 employees have participated on a BIP project, and 100% of the 59 projects provided an
opportunity to talk about business process and concepts in project management. Richison gave
examples of project wins and noted the Customer Alert Notification Project that had James Foutz as a
Project Manager and the GUS Operations Command Center Project that had Mike Westbrook as a
Project Manager. She noted other wins and that the BIP has: improved project prioritization; identified
project interdependencies; increased communication; increased collaboration; increased problem
solving skills; and provided a mechanism for project reporting. Richison then reviewed in detail the
BIP Focus Areas of project management, process improvement, and organizational change
management. She reviewed project management and how BIP incorporates project management
methodologies, continuous improvement, and the big ideas of: problem solving; predictive project
management; and adaptive project management. Richison then reviewed process improvement and
how it involves business process improvement and/or reengineering, continuous improvement, and the
big ideas of: problem solving; business process analysis and the elimination of waste. She then
reviewed organizational change management and how it includes managing the people side of change,
continuous improvement, and the big ideas of: culture; awareness and desire; knowledge and ability;
and reinforcement. Richison said that moving forward BIP will: coordinate with the Performance
Management Program (PMP) to identify and plan for city-wide BIP projects and or process
improvement events, execute, and assess; develop staff city-wide to participate in and lead
improvement events; and facilitate a city-wide cultural transition to one of a continuous improvement
mindset. She then reviewed the BIP key words: continuous improvement; collaboration; people;
project management; business process management; organizational change management; problem
solving; and performance management.
Mayor Ross asked if any other cities our size are doing this type of stuff. Morgan responded that it is
limited but done in the City of Austin. He added that there are no others in central Texas and the City
has ICMA recognition. Mayor noted the good work.
Council recessed into Executive Session at 4:37 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.
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
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Portfolio Management RFP
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 4
Da
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City ecretary