HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 10.08.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers,
at 510 West 91h 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 3:03 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance.
Mayor Dale Ross; Valerie Nicholson, Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District
3; 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.
Nicholson arrived at 3:35 p.m. during Item B.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding the police department's small Unmanned Aircraft System
(sUAS) Program -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Police
Nero presented the item and described a drone and noted the difference between a drone and a Small
Unmanned Aircraft (sUAS). He then reviewed the program benefits that include: low cost; rapidly
deployable; active scene situational awareness; enhanced command and control; first responder safety;
fatality crash scene documentation; crime scene documentation; missing person; search and rescue;
suspect apprehension; tactical operation support; accident reconstruction; enhanced mapping; and
hazmat/fire suppression. Nero noted the programmatic roadmap including: research and site visits;
policy development; sUAS procurement; authorization to operate via the FAA Part 107 or Certificate
of Authorization; pilot selection and training; and will be operational Fall 2019. He reviewed the
program costs of $25,000.00 that uses Seized Funds and includes: 4 Tello Airframes (Trainers); 2 DJI
MAVIC AIR (Daytime); 2 MAVIC 2 Enterprise (Nighttime); controllers, batteries, and accessories;
and pilot training/certification. Nero stated that program maintenance is to be determined but the initial
cost comes at no cost to the taxpayers. He then described the capabilities of the different types of sUAS
and did a demo of their capabilities. Nero reviewed the training required that includes FAA certification
and law enforcement related training courses. He reviewed the FAA Flight Authorization that covers:
FAA Part 107 Small UAS Rule (Part 107); Certificate of Authorization (COA); and Nighttime
Ops/Flight Over Crowds. Nero reviewed the privacy concerns and the law. He noted that the following
are factors: invasion of privacy is covered by the 4th Amendment and Texas law; regulatory
requirements are covered by the FAA and State of Texas Law; technology is new and rapidly evolving;
and the PD will stay on top of the law, policy, and training. Nero reviewed the legal considerations of
the following: 4th Amendment of the US Constitution covering reasonable expectation of privacy
(RXP) test; Texas Government Code 423.002 relating to lawful image capture that requires consent
property owner, is pursuant to valid search/arrest warrant, immediate pursuit of suspect (non-
misdemeanor), crime scene documentation (non -misdemeanor) including human fatality, motor vehicle
accident, and any motor vehicle accident on State highway/Interstate; search for missing person; high
risk tactical operation or threat to human life; search & rescue (imminent danger); hazmat/fire
suppression; and public real property or persons on that property.
Jonrowe asked about the use regarding right of privacy and if the sUAS could be used for passive
monitoring. Nero responded the only time the PD can use them for passive monitoring for a public
event, but not over anyone's personal property. Jonrowe asked of the sUAS caught footage of someone
committing a crime at a public event, would that footage be admissible. Nero responded yes, it would.
He added that there is no right to privacy in a public place.
Gonzalez asked if in the PD's research they had come across any unintended and negative
consequences. Nero responded no.
Pitts asked about the frequency of use. Nero responded that he wasn't sure how to answer because they
hadn't had then in place to collect the data. He added that different times of year lead to different
incidents where they could be used. Nero continued that PD would be collecting data on all of the
usage.
Mayor Ross noted that this was just another tool for law enforcement. Nero responded correct. Mayor
Ross noted an incident that happened where this type of technology was helpful. Mayor Ross noted
the concern of privacy rights and asked about training. Nero responded that part of that type of
information staff already has and it's not much different that what staff is doing now. Mayor Ross
noted the desire to ensure that citizens' rights are protected.
Jonrowe asked if Council will be allowed to set parameters for when used, ex: Red Poppy. Nero
responded sure. David Morgan, City Manager stated that staff can bring that back to Council for
review. Ross stated that Council should review and then determine if another Workshop is needed.
Gonzalez stated that if the law is being followed and a public space is a public space and he doesn't
know what more could be done. Nero responded that staffing needs to grow or leverage technology.
Jonrowe stated that technology is wonderful and now it's down to implementation.
Nero reviewed the Texas Government Code 423.008 reporting requirements for populations over
150,000 that will be utilized and include: reporting eevery odd year; Submitted to the Governor, Lt.
Governor, and each member of legislature; retaining footage for public viewing and posted on agency
website; and the report will include the number of times used (date, time, location, incident type,
justification for use) and all PD training and operational flights (on 2 operational airframes) will be
captured via DroneSense.
Jonrowe asked if data be collected for internal use. Nero responded yes.
Nero provided a demonstration of the sUAS and their functionality.
Fought asked what happens when one fan quits. Nero responded that he's not sure.
Gonzalez asked about the length of flight time. Nero responded that the flight time is 15-30 minutes
depending on the model. Gonzalez asked if that time can be expanded. Nero responded that the aircraft
could be tethered to allow for longer recordings. Gonzalez asked about the charge time. Nero
responded multiple batteries allow for quick swapping and continued use.
Ross asked if license plate numbers are visible. Nero responded yes. Ross asked what the next steps
were. Nero responded training and implementation.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding the Ride Share 2.0 Program -- Ray Miller, Transportation
Planning Coordinator
Miller presented the item and reviewed the previous Lyft Pilot Program that included: a program budget
of $25,000.00; rider pays $2.00 base fee; flat City subsidy of $10.00; rider pays remaining balance if
exceeding City subsidy; each user receives 10 rides per month; 24 hours a day service; and promo codes
were geofenced and could only be used within the Georgetown City Limits. He then reviewed the
program statistics. Miller then reviewed the Transportation Development Plan and it's goals that
include: providing a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation option for residents and
visitors of Georgetown with the objective of improving service efficiency and reliability for existing
service by meeting or exceeding established standards of performance; adequately address the mobility
needs of Georgetown residents with the objective of improving access to employment, healthcare,
shopping, and recreation; maximizing resource utilization and operational efficiency with respect to
system administration and operations with the objective of maintaining capital assets (vehicles and
maintenance materials) in a state of good repair; and developing a local system that operates effectively
in the short-term, continues to develop an audience for regional transit options in the mid-term, and
will connect the local community to the region in the long-term with an objective of providing access
to activity centers today with an understanding of where future regional transit infrastructure is
proposed to be located. He then covered the goals for the Pilot Program which are to evaluate whether
ride share is a viable alternative/supplement to the current Go Geo program and structure the pilot
program towards the populations that would most benefit from a public transportation system. Miller
noted the program options of. continuing the previous Pilot Program where the City can provide a
Promo Code that offers a discount that would be Geofenced for the entire City; or a new proposed Pilot
Program where the City can set Promo Codes that offers a discount for trips that stop or start within a
specific area of the City, Lyft does not collect any type of demographic data, however the City does,
the City could select the areas that would be Geofenced and a discount would be applied to any trip
that starts or ends in that area and this would apply to trips that would go outside of the City limits as
long as the ride starts or ends in one of the specific area. He then reviewed a map of Median Income
in the City and noted that the City can Geofence by Census Tracts based on median income, age, etc.
Milled stated that the proposed new Lyft Pilot Program would have the following: program budget of
$50,000.00; rider pays $2.00 base fee; flat City subsidy of $10.00; rider pays remaining balance if
exceeding City subsidy; each user receives 10 rides per month; 24 hours a day service; promo codes
are Geofenced and could only be used within the low to moderate income Census tracts within the
Georgetown City Limits.
Gonzalez asked if a survey could be sent to riders. Miller responded that the City could try that. Morgan
asked for clarification and if Gonzalez was referring to those riders that use the voucher. Gonzalez
responded correct. Miller noted that Lyft will provide time of day data.
Pitts asked about marketing for the program. Miller responded that staff can utilize service agencies
and partners to get the word out. Morgan noted that the communications team will use a variety of
avenues to promote the program. Gonzalez asked that staff not only promote the program, but also the
way it works in different situations. Pitts stated that some type of effort to get word out is needed.
Miller responded that staff will work to get the information out to citizens.
Fought noted the purpose of targeting a population likely to be lower income and need transportation.
He then asked about people on fixed incomes that are not in these neighborhoods and will now be
excluded. Fought asked how will staff know that by focusing on these neighborhoods the City
effectively reaching the right population. Morgan responded that staff answered that question in the
first test run and staff actions to move the program forward. Fought stated that staff should consider
working with the Caring Place. Mayor Ross stated that he agrees with Councilman Fought.
Jonrowe stated that she would like a more refined process. She added that she has safety concerns with
Lyft and Uber and asked if Council could get a copy of the vetting process for drivers. Jonrowe also
noted her concerns related usability should the drivers go on strike.
Triggs noted his concerns about the future viability of Lyft and Uber as companies. He then asked
what the City's liability carrier thinks of the program because they don't do the same vetting that a bus
company would do. Morgan stated that staff does not have that information at this time, but will follow-
up.
Gonzalez stated that the idea of the Lyft pilot is not to see if Lyft does or doesn't work. He added that
the cost of a bus system is not reasonable for a City of this size and the City is just providing a voucher,
not running the company. Gonzalez noted that this is an opportunity to provide another option for the
citizens.
Michael Spano signed up to speak on the item and yielded his time to Larry Olson for six total minutes.
Mr. Olson informed Council of the Arlington on Demand transportation system.
Morgan asked for direction from Council and noted that the test program was put into budget. He
added that the City has one more year with the current program and another round with test program.
Morgan stated that Mr. Olson provided a lot of possible options that could be considered in the Spring.
He added that this type of program and technology was not around when the City was considering their
origination transportation plan options. Mayor Ross asked if Morgan mean the technology of
scheduling a ride and being on the road within 15 minutes. Morgan clarified that he was speaking to
the $50,000.00 currently earmarked for the program. He added that staff reach out and see if there is
an option similar to Arlington program that would fit within the budget. Mayor Ross stated that it
would serve Council well to look at this option and it would offer better vetting of drivers. He added
that the 15-minute timeframe is impressive. Morgan stated that staff will look at this program and bring
the information back in Spring. He then asked if council still wants to do test program.
Nicholson asked if one of the routes that was least used was dropped, would it free up some funding.
Miller responded that on demand is currently just for paratransit, but staff could review. Nicholson
noted that two are strong and two are not performing as well.
Fought stated that by continuing the Lyft program staff would gain more data. He added that he would
still like to hear from the City's liability insurance.
Pitts noted that the City can do geofencing for difference income tracts, but could the City allow a tiered
structure for different areas. Miller responded that staff could look at that possibility.
Mayor Ross asked if Council is in agreement with Fought. No one opposed.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Convention & Visitors Bureau Strategic Plan -- Cari Miller,
Tourism Manager
Miller introduced the item and then introduced John Wisnet from Northstar Consultants. Mr. Wisnet
presented on the Strategic Plan process. He reviewed Georgetown's Strategic Plan Principles that
include: focused on mission; true to core values; destination and agency focused; based on research;
concise; short, middle, and long-term plans. Wisnet the Georgetown Strategic Plan Process and
Research. He then reviewed the situation analysis that included noting: Georgetown's tourism product
is strong; branding is excellent and occupies a unique position related to other destinations; the
destination has a large potential market from which to attract visitors; the CVB is doing a very good
job; tourism, the CVB, and the desire to grow tourism have strong support from City leadership and
stakeholder community; and the intent of the Strategic Plan: Taking Georgetown's Tourism to the Next
Level. Wisnet then reviewed graphs on Visitor Spending in Georgetown, Tourism -Related
Employment, Tourism -Related Payroll, Total Tourism -Related Tax Collections, and Georgetown Hotel
Tax Collections that all showed an increase in spending. He recalled the Georgetown's strengths that
include: strong brand "Most Beautiful Town Square in Texas" Downtown Square (mentioned most
often by respondents); authenticity/character of architecture (particularly downtown); diversity of
retail/dining/arts in downtown; downtown walkability; free parking; "Small-town" atmosphere with
many modern amenities; excellent conference facility (Sheraton); proximity to Austin; strong support
of City leadership for tourism; strong and growing arts community and offerings/ attractive and diverse
offering of public art; attractive and convenient downtown Visitor Center staffed by knowledgeable
personnel; community is perceived as being friendly/welcoming, safe, and clean; easy access from
other areas in Texas via interstate; Southwestern University campus; partnership with "Daytripper" and
creative branding of Georgetown as a day -trip destination; parks, trails system, quality of athletic fields;
Inner Space Caverns attracts thousands of visitors; and Sun City (growing retirement community/
population. Wisnet reviewed the City's weaknesses which include: lack of knowledge in the general
market region (150-200 miles) of Georgetown as a destination; lack of knowledge on the part of
community about the work of the CVB; lack of a comprehensive long-term marketing plan; traffic
issues (as city has grown, traffic has also increased); nothing on the interstate informing drivers of
Georgetown's offerings/encouraging them to exit; hospitality training needed in visitor -contact points
other than the downtown Visitor Center; perceived lack of upscale restaurants; perceived lack of
diversity of things to do in Georgetown; limited hours of operation of downtown merchants; and Blue
Hole Park has lost some of its appeal due to overuse and the type of use. He noted the City's
opportunities which include: Georgetown becoming the hub of a tourism region/collaboration with
nearby communities; overall growth and development of Garey Park; additional development of
wineries, breweries, and driving trails connecting these attractors; development of an interstate visitor
center; development of additional hotels; attracting more conferences/meetings; attracting amateur
sporting events; improved and more attractive wayfinding around town; need more entertainment
options; increase the number of overnight visitors; development of a comprehensive marketing/sales
plan to increase visitation & overnight stay; and incorporation of the draw of the Kalahari Resort to
increase visitation to Georgetown. Wisnet reviewed Georgetown's threats which include: development
of the Kalahari water park/resort/convention facility in nearby Round Rock, TX; maintaining
Georgetown's small-town charm as the city grows commercially; Round Rock already established as
an amateur sports destination; and the growing perception by some that Georgetown is becoming
primarily a retirement community. He reviewed the different strategies and provided key actions for
each that include: Strategy 1: Vision, have a clearly defined and broadly accepted vision for the
destination and the organization; Strategy 2: Visitor Experience & Services, enhance the quality of
visitors' experience by ensuring easy access to helpful resources and easy travel throughout
Georgetown, develop, build, and operate a new state-of-the-art Visitor Center in downtown
Georgetown, have a 2-year plan and timeline for design and construction, utilize CVB staff and visitor
center best practices in the planning and design, maintain operations of the Visitor Center/CVB offices
in current location during construction, once new Visitor Center is built and occupied, dispose of the
current location in a manner determined by the City leadership; Strategy 3:
Marketing & Advertising, expand marketing and advertising programs to increase the awareness of
Georgetown as a travel destination to consumers in the City's primary feeder markets; Strategy 4: Sales,
increase the economic impact of travel in Georgetown through targeted sales activities; Strategy 5:
Public Relations & Communications, increase Georgetown's visibility and attractiveness as a travel
destination to consumers through public relations activities and earned media on all platforms, and
increase the knowledge of citizens and stakeholders regarding the Georgetown CVB's program of
work; and Strategy 6: Staffing, staff the CVB in a manner that allows it to effectively and efficiently
accomplish its program of work. Wisnet the noted the next steps that are to implement Strategy 1 and
Strategy 2.
Miller noted that staff will work on a destination mission statement and a staff mission statement. She
added that staff will also fully implement the Hospitality Training Program. Miller added that staff will
also investigate a public/private partnership to build a new visitors center.
Nicholson noted that she would like to see an update quarterly/every six months on progress made
toward plan.
Wisnet noted that a strategic plan is a moving target and he is available to staff going forward.
Fought stated that he enjoyed seeing the great income numbers.
D. Electric Risk Management Policy -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of Electric
Bethapudi presented the item and provided background and idea for the future of the Electric Risk
Manage Policy. Ramsey Cripe with Schneider Engineering then presented on the topic. He reviewed
the existing risk management policy noting that: current policy implemented and approved in 2013;
was developed to comply with ERCOT credit standards; and has the core components of identifying
City Council as primary body overseeing all risk; identifying General Manager of Utilities as primary
daily risk manager; and identifying reporting requirements by the General Manager to the City Council
regarding purchase/execution of wholesale power and natural gas hedges, CRR portfolio, positions,
risk exposure, and performance. Cripe gave an overview of the suggested changes to the policy that
included the following: Why — to manage all areas of significant risk to the GUS portfolio; What —
defines risk and how it applies to the GUS portfolio; Who — identifies which party is responsible for
risk oversight and in what way; When — evaluates long and short-term risks and portfolio valuation and
manages how those risks ought to be managed; and How — policy should exist as a broad construct
within the ordinances and more detailed strategy in a confidential internal document. He then reviewed
the policy structure related to General Policy and oversight. Cripe suggested having a proposed body
containing the Council and GUS Board with the roles and responsibilities of general fiscal review,
broad policy direction, and new group comprised of City Managers, GM of Utilities, and Finance
Director. He then reviewed the proposed policy structure related to in-depth oversight and review and
suggested a proposed body consisting of the Utility Finance Committee and a new group comprised of
City Managers, GM of Utilities, and Finance Director with the roles and responsibilities of weekly
review of activities made up of in-depth fiscal review and policy management and implementation.
Mayor Ross asked why there was not someone with healthy skepticism on that body. Cripe responded
that this group was intended to ensure compliance with City policy. Mayor Ross that he understood
but there were not any independents in that proposed group. Cripe stated that it can be considered.
Cripe continued the presentation and reviewed the policy structure related to daily management and
suggested a proposed body of the General Manager of Utilities and staff, the Energy Manager/QSE,
and third -party consultants with the roles and responsibilities of daily management of portfolio in line
with policies and directives established by oversight bodies and taking towards long term price
stabilization of the portfolio.
Pitts asked if the structure being proposed was designed for City of Georgetown specifically. Cripe
responded that it is a pretty standard utility practice. Bethapudi added that staff reviewed municipalities
with similar risk structures and it can be modified more to fit Georgetown's specific case. He stated
that staff is considering a third -party contact to verify that the policy put in place is being followed by
those in the organization.
Nicholson asked about the opportunity to schedule a committee on Tuesdays to have a member of
Council present. Bethapudi responded that the goal of the policy is provide all of the proper checks
and balances. He added that Council needs to be comfortable with the proposed policy. Mayor Ross
stated that if council is going to be ultimately held accountable, they need oversight. He added that
independence is a key quality if you want to manage something and suggested including one or two
council members at a more detailed level. Pitts asked about the Utility Finance Committee. Morgan
responded that it is being proposed to be comprised of City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Electric, and Finance Director. Mayor Ross asked where the GUS Board fits in. Morgan
responded that Council and staff still need to discuss the composition of the GUS Board. He added
that weekly financial oversight would happen. Bethapudi noted how the different review levels would
work. Gonzalez asked if there was somewhere in the policy where there would be a subject matter
export to provide information to Council. Bethapudi responded that staff can bring in a completely
separate entity to ensure that policy is being followed. Mayor Ross stated that there is a need for a
third -party subject matter expert to allow Council to be comfortable with decisions being made.
Bethapudi asked where that use should lie. Gonzalez stated that he is not intending for Council to
micromanage the policy, but he would like information updates and explanations of actions and what
the effects of those actions would be. Cripe stated that there are two things being heard: 1) make sure
that two lower bodies that report to Council report clear and concise data, and 2) the clear and concise
data needs to be verified by an independent outside party and make sure that policies are being adhered
to. He added that this should be easy to include. Mayor Ross asked that the updated policy be brought
back to Council for one more review before decision is made and final.
Cripe reviewed the proposed policy sections of Energy Management focusing on the long/short
positions within the portfolio; Basis Management focusing on financial positions relating to congestion
management; and Natural Gas Management focusing on fuel hedges relating to heat -rate based power
contracts. He noted that all of the sections will have definition(s), governance, method(s) of
measurement, and proscribed actions components. Cripe then reviewed the next steps and recapped
Council feedback.
Morgan stated that some specific policies relate to confidential information and will be reviewed in an
upcoming Executive Session.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 5:00 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.
E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney
has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Clearway
- Proposed Settlement in the City of Georgetown v. Lera Brock Hughes Trust No. 2, George J. Shia,
Co -Trustee and Forrest N. Troutman, Co -Trustee, et al
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Energy RFP
- Purchase Power
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Real Estate, Downtown Property Sale -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services
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
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on zz 1 Z6 `
Date
Dale ass, Mayor Attest: Cecretary ity