HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 05.28.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 2:35 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 2:35 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 3:24 p.m. during Item C.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:35 PM
A. Presentation and discussion of the City's 2nd Quarter Financial Report which includes the Investment
Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC),
and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended March 31,
2019 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manger
Diaz presented the item and began by explaining the Second Quarter Report Variance, which is due to
the billing software. He added that staff is working to shorten the turnaround time in reporting. Diaz
reviewed the General Fund Revenues and how they are slightly higher than budget. He added that sales
tax revenue is currently slightly higher than budget. Diaz reviewed the sales tax revenue by month. He
stated that Property Tax is projected to be at budget. Diaz reviewed the Development and EMS
Revenue and reviewed the monthly breakdown of building permits issued. He then reviewed the
General Fund Utility Related Fees and how they are projected to be at budget at this current time. Diaz
stated that items related to sanitation were also on budget. He reviewed the General Fund Park and Rec
Fees and noted that staff is monitoring a slight decreased which could be due to the implementation of
a new software that reports revenue differently than the previous software. Diaz reviewed the Garey
Park revenue totals. Nicholson asked about the budget plan and breakdown of Garey Park revenue.
Diaz responded that he will get that information. He then provided the General Fund Revenue
Summary.
Diaz then reviewed the General Fund Expenses including expenditures, salaries, benefits, and
operational costs. He noted that through half of the pay cycles, salary costs are on budget. Diaz
reviewed salaries in Police and Fire. He then reviewed the Electric Fund and noted that there is a
midyear budget amendment pending that will be explained in the next item and noted the heavy
seasonality. Diaz stated that the Water Fund overall is projected at budget. He said that the Convention
and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Fund is projected at budget and noted the seasonality. Diaz noted that the
CVB fund is expected to finish FY2019 with a fund balance of $1.3 million which will allow it to cover
a 90-day operational reserve. He concluded by reviewing the Airport Fund and noted that it is projected
at budget and the fund is budgeted to end FY2019 with $965,000 in fund balance which meets all of its
debt service and contingency requirements. Diaz presented the Investment Report for the City,
Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and Georgetown Economic
Development Corporation (GEDCO).
Pitts asked why the revenues in the Electric Fund went down in March and April. Diaz responded that
he will double check those figures and get them to Council. He added that it could be due to an accrual.
B. Presentation and discussion of the Mid -Year FY2019 Budget Amendment -- Paul Diaz, Budget
Manager
Diaz presented the item noted that a CAFR adjustment is noted. He explained that the CAFR is the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report which is used by the Accounting Department and the
Auditors. Diaz reviewed the General Fund and needed adjustments related to personnel for the City
Secretary's Office, merit adjustment and telephone expenses for the City Manager's Office, a transfer
for a Council contribution to the July Forth Event in San Gabriel Park, expenses related to the sale of
the CVB building, repayment to the Texas Department of Emergency Management to correct an error,
and funds to cover the Price Cost Adjustment (PCA) impact for multiple divisions.
Diaz reviewed the needed amendments in the Electric Fund to cover the impact of the PCA,
reimbursement from the South Georgetown Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), and expenses
related to purchase power and legal fees. He noted that the City experiences savings with Congestion
Revenue Rights (CRR) Credits and salary savings. Diaz reviewed the Electric Fund schedule including
the FY2019 Budget, the impact of the proposed budge amendment, and the FY2019 amended budget.
Diaz reviewed the GTEC Fund and funds that were supposed to go to the Southeast Inner Loop Project
will not be needed in the current year. He added that staff is proposing reducing the bond proceeds,
issuance cost, and construction costs in FY2019. Diaz reviewed the General Capital Projects Fund and
costs associated with Workday, FM1460 improvements, Austin Avenue Bridges project, and Transfer
Station project. He reviewed the Airport Fund and savings the City received due to a collaborative
project with TxDOT. Diaz reviewed the Library Special Revenue Fund and a gift proposed by the
Friends of the Library. He explained the Police Seizure and Police Abandon Vehicle funds and how
staff would like to appropriate those funds for the purchase of equipment. Diaz noted that in the Village
Public Improvement District (PID) Fund staff would like to liquidate funds that are part of a park
improvement project. He explained that, per Council direction, there will be a transfer of one-time
funds from the Council Discretionary Fund for the July 4" Event. Diaz noted the proposed transfer of
funds from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax revenue for street improvements for the Austin Avenue Bridges
project. He concluded by reviewing IT, South Georgetown TIRZ, and joint service transfers needed.
Nicholson asked Diaz to elaborate on the TxDot overruns and the City's contractual obligations for
those. Diaz responded that it was part of the CIP roll forward and due to the length of the project.
Nicholson asked if this was approved by Council but was just now showing up. Diaz yes, that is correct,
and staff will monitor.
Mayor Ross asked when staff would provide the next update. Diaz responded that it would be in late
July.
C. Presentation and discussion on Street Maintenance -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director
Wright presented the item and explained that the City owns and maintain approximately 350 lane miles
of streets. He added that the miles of street are driven and determined which will be maintained based
on the severity of wear. Wright stated that the streets are graded on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being
a brand-new street. He provided Council with a map that shows severity of wear and explained what
improvement processes are done based on wear. Wright noted that the 2019 plan does not include any
chip seal, just sealant and Hot in Place Recycling (HIPR). He reviewed the pavement conditions over
time and the City has made a commitment to maintaining streets at a rating of 85 or higher. Wright
reviewed the road maintenance contracts that were approved at the May 14, 2019 Council meeting. He
added that in June he will present Council the CIP program and it will include suggested areas of
improvement in Berry Creek, Old Town, and Sun City. Wright reviewed the Street Maintenance Fund
including where the money comes from, what it is designated for, and approximate costs of
improvements. He asked the Council to consider what they would like to use the FY2019 fund balance
to improve. Wright presented the options of repaving former chip sealed streets in Sun City and
Summercrest, repave and address some high traffic and lower Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scored
roads on Inner Loop, or expedite FY2020 maintenance plan. He then asked for Council's direction on
how they would like staff to proceed.
Pitts clarified that Wright was seek direction on how spend $1 million on road project. Wright
responded yes, that is correct. Pitts then asked why there were some recommendations with no dollar
figures attached. Wright responded that he has approximate figures for all projects. He added that
Summercrest could be done in house and the cost would be negligible. Wright stated that to repair Sun
City Blvd. would be approximately $100,000.00. Pitts asked about the costs of a full repave for Inner
Loop. Wright responded that staff could exhaust the entire $1 million on Inner Loop.
Mayor Ross noted that the map provided had no correlation between street condition and traffic volume.
Wright responded no, that information was not provided. Mayor Ross stated that traffic volume would
be helpful. Fought stated that he agrees and there is a difference between aesthetic analysis and
dynamic analysis. He added that dealing with one surface that was put down is not appropriate and
Sun City Blvd and Summercrest needs to be fixed. Fought continued that money is a big deal and it
probably doesn't make sense to divide them up. He added that he would like Council to direct staff to
fix the bad road and then use analysis to move forward. Fought said that it doesn't make any sense to
say we're not going to do chip seal type roads but have them around the City.
Nicholson noted that Riverbow also has chip seal. She then asked about the project costs for repairing
College Street and noted that so much traffic is going through San Gabriel Park. Wright responded that
College Street is part of the Five -Year Plan as part of FY2023 with an approximate cost $0.5 million.
Jonrowe noted that Inner Loop is in bad shape, but it is not part of the Five -Year Plan. She asked if it's
not repaired, will it need to be rebuilt. Wright responded that it is possible. He added that if you don't
want to move forward with repaving, it can be patched. Wright said that there is potential for an
expansion of Inner Loop and it would be a priority and it is more cost effective to maintain instead of
rebuilding.
Mayor Ross asked how far $150,000.00 gets in Old Town. Wright responded a few blocks or about a
half mile. Ross then asked about the move of funds from the Street Repair Fund to the Austin Avenue
Bridges Project. Morgan responded that it was from the arterial reserve. Mayor Ross asked for
clarification if that meant it was out of the street repair budget. Morgan responded that it was out of
the street repair budget, but there is a specific amount set aside for major arterial roads.
Eby asked for a reminder on how the Five -Year CIP was put together and what criteria was used to
selected which streets for repair. Wright responded that a van evaluates the road and assigns a score to
each roach. He continued that based on the score and image a method is recommended, either to seal
or repave. Wright said that streets are put into table and then costs are assigned by splitting the costs
between seal and repave. He added that staff wants to prevent quick drop off of street quality. Wright
noted that it is a numbers -based process. He added that Inner Loop was not on the list because the
damage shown was recent. Eby stated that she thinks Council should stick with CIP process for road
selection.
Pitts stated that he agrees with Fought, but the funds are limited and Inner Loop is in bad shape and has
high traffic volume.
Mayor Ross asked if, based on the color coding, anything above 84 is good. Wright responded yes, but
it doesn't mean a seal doesn't need to be applied. He added that overall roads are in excellent shape.
Mayor Ross stated that 76 is a good rating, and the asked what percentage of roads are rated 76 or
above. Wright responded 70-80%. He added that he will find out and bring that information with CIP
update. Wright stated that College Street, which is scheduled for FY2023, but staff can try and pull up
the repair to FY2020 if desired and move projects around. He continued that staff can address Inner
Loop with the $1 million in funds and then work on Sun City Blvd. and Summercrest. Fought asked
that chip seal is not ripped, then please apply a sealant now. Mayor Ross asked how much sealant for
Sun City Blvd. would costs. Wright responded about $100,000.00. Mayor Ross reviewed the Council
thoughts. He stated that north of FM 971 on Inner Loop is in bad shape and sealant should be applied
on Sun City Blvd. Wright noted that Summercrest was sealed last year. Gonzalez asked about the
lifespan of the sealant applied to Summercrest. Wright responded 3-7 years and after that it would need
to be either resealed or repaved. He added that spreading out a repave is good from a construction stand
point and the repaving will eliminate some of the dips in the road. Gonzalez stated that if the seal is
not going to extend the life long enough, then he would rather do full repair. He continued that he
doesn't want to keep spending money and would like a 10-15 year type repair. Wright agreed and
asked if Council would like staff to chunks out of each neighborhood and repair them over the next 5-
10 years.
Mayor Ross stated that he feels there needs to be more qualifications of each road, based on higher
volume on certain roads. Wright responded that going forward staff will start providing volume in this
analysis. Mayor Ross asked Wright to explain his current understanding of Council direction. Wright
responded moving College Street to FY2020 from FY2023, Inner Loop sections repaired, use
remaining funds to be applied to Sun City and Summercrest over several years, and apply sealant to
Sun City Blvd. soon. Nicholson asked that staff look at all remaining chip seal roads.
Jonrowe asked if higher traffic count leads to quicker road deterioration. Wright responded not
necessarily. He added that heavy load trucks do the most damage. Jonrowe asked if types of traffic
matter. Wright responded yes.
Gonzalez asked if roads with structural issues are considered first. Wright responded yes.
Mayor Ross asked if everyone had weighed in and thank Wright for his presentation.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding water resources and water resource planning -- Glenn Dishong,
Utility Director
Dishong presented the item and began by explaining that this is City is not going to run out of water.
He then reviewed water resources, system capacity and resource projections. Dishong explained that
the City of Georgetown's water resources are ground water from the Edwards Aquifer Wells and
surface water from Brazos River Authority (BRA) System Water Contracts. He reviewed the State
water planning process and that the next update will be ready in FY2021. Dishong continued that the
strategies in the 2016 Plan include conservation, reuse, reservoir construction, conjunctive use, Belton-
Stillhouse Pipeline, Brushy Creek Regional Water Plant and the BRA system operations permit. He
stated that additional resources utilized are the current efforts of City staff that are aligned with and
supplement the State Strategies. Dishong explained the system capacity projects and peak day usage.
He noted that the peak day each year is typically August 6 or 7 and last year the demand on the peak
day was 46 million gallons. He added that in contrast, during the winter, usage is only around 12-14
million gallons. Dishong stated that the City must be able to treat the peak. He then reviewed the
capital project timing and the water rate breakdown composed of base components and variable
components. Dishong provided a water rate comparison of the City compared to surround cities. He
provided council a brief overview of the current and future projects staff will implement to address
system capacity. Dishong reviewed the capital expenditure alternatives and the Conservation Plan that
was approved by Council. He showed Council the resource usage projects with the City's conservation
Plan incorporated. Dishong explained the process of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), noting that
it is already being utilized in other Texas cities. He listed the aquifer storage activities the City is
participating in and then provided a review of the overall presentation.
Pitts asked how many acre feet Lake Georgetown holds. Dishong responded 6,720 times two. Pitts
asked who had the other 6,720. Dishong responded Round Rock. Pitts asked if the City's straw deeper
than Round Rock. Dishong responded yes, it is. Pitts asked of Stillhouse Hollow Lake has sold all its
water rights. Dishong responded that all of the resources in the Brazos basin have sold their water
rights. Pitts noted that if the Lake is not at capacity, the City has that much water on paper but not in
the lake and asked about potential water loss. Dishong responded that the contracts were based on the
drought of record in the 1950s and what was available. He noted that it is a small number compared to
what the Lake can produce. Dishong added that ASR deals with containment. Pitts asked if the City
could take measure to guarantee that no one else would have rights to the ASR resources. Dishong
responded that if the City has rights to the land it has control. Pitts asked about the regional approach
to planning. Dishong responded BRA and Region G planning is taking a regional look.
Mayor Ross asked about the estimated costs of treatment plant. Dishong responded $55 million for the
first phase. Mayor Ross asked how long the construction for the first phase would take. Dishong
responded up to five years. Mayor Ross noted that impact fees could be used to fund part of the
construction and asked where the City would get the remaining funds. Dishong responded bond
issuance and rates.
E. Presentation and discussion on Downtown Parking Enforcement, Parking in Right of Way, and Electric
Scooters -- Wayne Nero, Police Chief
Nero presented the item and reviewed the proposed changes to the Downtown 3-Hour Parking Zone.
He then addressed the issue of 24/48 hour parking. Nero explained that the current City ordinance does
not cover this. He reviewed the current law TC 683.200 and proposed bringing forward an ordinance
to address the issue. Nero stated citied across the state use either 24, 48, or 72-hour limitations. Mayor
Ross ask what the preference of chief is. Nero responded that he had no preference. Mayor Ross stated
that 48 hours sounds reasonable. No one on council disagreed. Nero then reviewed dockless mobility
and the use of electric bicycles and electric scooters. He added that based on the current ordinances
electric bicycles are allowed and electric scooters are not allowed.
Gonzalez asked about the difference between bicycles and scooters. Nero responded that electric
bicycles have a motor attached. Gonzalez asked why the City would say yes to one but not the other.
Nero responded that bikes are already allowed on the street per state law. Mayor Ross asked if electric
bikes allowed on sidewalk. Nero responded no.
Fought asked about the difference between electric wheelchair versus electric scooters. Nero noted that
electric wheelchairs and electric scooters are different. Fought asked if the law makes it clear. McNabb
responded that the law in general applies to what the chief described and not wheelchairs. He added
that staff will make sure not to prohibit wheelchairs.
Gonzalez asked if the City wants anything motorized on sidewalks and what the goal of the ordinance
is. Nero responded that he was here to ask that of the Council. He noted that the current ordinance
prohibits motorized scooters on a public street, sidewalk, and trail.
Jonrowe asked about the difference between bike path and hike and bike trail. Nero responded that
hike and bike trails are in City parks and designated bike paths run along the side of the road.
Ross asked how the ordinance would affect those that are disabled. Nero responded that is does not
apply that situation and he verify to be sure.
Nicholson noted that her intent of asking this question was to address the proliferation of electric
scooters that are dropped off by companies in cities. She added that the City is prepared with what is
in place and doesn't support changing current ordinance. Nero also noted that at this time there have
been so many injuries the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has considered it an epidemic and is
currently studying the use of motorized scooters. He then provided Austin data related to injuries. Nero
stated that for the road ahead Council could do nothing, study further, or create a pilot program.
Eby stated that she supports doing nothing. Nicholson stated that she wants to keep the City pedestrian
friendly. Triggs agreed.
McNabb noted that personal mobility systems are regulated differently than electric scooters.
F. Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding the City Council's Governance Policy,
Meeting Procedures, and Ethics Review -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and Skye Masson,
Assistant City Attorney
Daly presented the Governance Policy and Meeting Procedures portions of the of the item. He reviewed
the purpose of the Governance Policy and the feedback received from Council after the January 22,
2019 presentation. Daly noted that the feedback included ensuring that rules of policy apply to
Councilmembers, which is already in Ethics Ordinance, and decorum which is partially covered in
Governance Policy. He then reviewed the Council feedback of limiting discussions on items that are
reviewed by Council in their capacity as an appellate body. Daly said that there is a portion of the
Ethics Ordinance that address Council's ability to express their opinions, but also parts that mention
Council not showing propriety. He stated that this would be a challenging provision to enforce. Fought
stated that when Council meets as an appellate body, like when ruling on Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) and Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), in those cases
responsibility should be stated clearly. He added that Council not take a stance related to an issue
before hearing all details. Fought said that writing the provision will be a challenge. Daly responded
that he will take that as direction to come back with proposed language.
Jonrowe stated that she feels this is edging into first amendment issue if the language is not done
correctly. Eby said she appreciates the intent, but it could become a slippery slope. Mayor Ross stated
that it will be difficult to put into words. Fought wants the language to specifically show when the
Council is an appellate body.
Daly reviewed the outstanding items of motion to rescind/reconsider and sanctions for violating the
governance policy. He stated that according to Roberts Rules of order, somethings are not eligible for
reconsideration like contracts and rezoning cases. Daly added that with a motion to reconsider, if a
councilmember votes on the prevailing side, they can bring back the motion after 90 days. Fought
stated that he wasn't concerned about timeframe for bringing back items. He added that Roberts Rules
has a motion to reconsider, but you have to figure out how people are going to vote if you would like
to bring back an item.
Masson asked Fought for clarification and if he would like Council to only reconsider within in the
meeting and how he would like things handled at future meetings. General discussion on the dais about
the use of rescinding versus reconsidering as a motion. Masson stated that staff will bring back
language to capture how council wants to use these motions via an amendment to the Meeting
Procedures Ordinance. McNabb noted that Council rule already allow Council to reconsider anytime
during a meeting and staff might not need much of an adjustment, except for bringing items back after
a meeting. Mayor Ross asked that the intent of Council be clear.
Daly resumed the presentation to review sanctions in the governance policy, like in the Ethics
Ordinance. He added that this would have to be added via a new set of ordinances. Jonrowe stated that
she is happy with the existing process.
Daly reviewed the protocol for placing items on the agenda and the possibility of requiring two
councilmembers to sponsor and item. He added that agenda items are due the Tuesday before the
scheduled Council meeting by 5 p.m. Mayor Ross stated that items need to be received before then to
allow time for agenda review. Daly stated that the staff deadline is the Friday before the posting of the
agenda and asked if Council would be willing to follow the same deadline. Jonrowe responded that
she is fine with moving deadline back. Fought said that Council should provide a time period to allow
staff time to prep for items. Mayor Ross said that staff should have to put it on the agenda in no less
than 45 days. Fought stated that if a topic is time urgent then be clear say something to staff.
Daly asked for direction on the number of councilmembers required to place an item on the agenda.
Jonrowe said that she liked one but will offer to be anyone's second. Pitts stated that having two
guarantees a cosponsor to allow for discussion. Nicholson said that she had seen items that go well and
then some that are controversial. She added that Council needs to make sure they work in a way that
an item will get a second. Mayor Ross stated that he likes two because it guarantees an item. Jonrowe
responded that she will second unless the offer is not reciprocated. Mayor Ross asked if Daly had the
information he needed. Daly responded that he was hearing two councilmembers for an item is
preferred. Mayor Ross asked that items be due by Friday at 5 p.m. Jonrowe is Council could consider
language that encourages co-sponsorship. Mayor Ross felt that the comment has merit. He added that
Councilmember Fought often places and item letting Council know that he would like something to be
discussed in the future. Gonzalez stated that if an item is put on the agenda but not discussed, it sends
the wrong message and that's merit for two councilmembers sponsoring an agenda item. He continued
that if the public shows up to see an item get discussed and then it doesn't get a second, it could be
frustrating for the public. Jonrowe stated that if public shows up she would hope that a councilmember
would second and item to allow for discussion. Daly stated that staff will draft language that allows
encouragement to co-sponsorship and language for requiring two sponsors on an item.
Masson the presented the ethics review. She reviewed what is not allowed in the City's Ethics
Ordinance. Masson went into detail about gifts and the rules surrounds gifts, conflicts of interest,
family and household members, and rule of necessity.
Gonzalez asked about ex -spouses under family relationships and if they should be included. Masson
responded that staff can include them. Gonzalez asked that it be a future consideration.
Pitts asked if councilmembers can abstain if there is no conflict. Masson responded that generally that
is true, but the ordinance allows for slightly broader considerations. She added that a councilmember
can abstain but must disclose why. Pitts asked about a scenario where an employer has a higher
standard that the City and if a councilmember could abstain in that scenario. Masson responded yes,
as long as the Councilmember noted why they were abstaining. Mayor Ross stated that it has been his
understand that if there is no conflict and, on the dais, a councilmember should vote one way or the
other. Masson responded yes, that is noted in the Meetings Procedures Ordinance.
Masson reviewed sanctions of the Ethics Ordinance and Conflicts of Interest as laid out in Chapter 171
of the Texas Local Government Code. She then reviewed Texas Local Government Code Chapter 176.
Fought asked if the higher courts rejected the grounds for walking quorum and if that language has that
been cleaned up. Masson responded that the language is not cleaned up, but today civil remedies still
exist.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting at 4:51 p.m. and noted that Council will begin 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.
G. 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
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchased Power Update
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Wafer
- Project Gear
- 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 _ �[A��_�` , X 19
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: C y secretary