Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.11.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 11, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2020 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 2:01 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; 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, Council Member District 7. Council Member Gonzalez arrived at 2:35 p.m. during Item B. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Debt Program -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director and Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Wallace presented the item and reviewed the City's debt planning. She noted that budget development includes the capital plan and the debt plan and the 2020 Budget included proposed debt with estimated tax impacts, for the following year, adding that staff will refine the 2020 debt plan as project timing and costs are updated. Wallace reviewed debt policies of: providing debt update annually; balancing needs of the City between pay as you go and debt financing which helps to stabilize the tax rate; exploring all funding options for a capital item; finance a capital item over its useful life with intergenerational equity; and method of sale for the debt. She then reviewed the City's different types of debt that include: General Obligation Bonds used for large projects, such as Southwestern Blvd, the Southwest Bypass, the Northwest Blvd Bridge, & San Gabriel Park which are approved by the voters and repaid with property taxes over long terms; Certificates of Obligation - Tax Backed which are used for required or routine items, such as Fire Stations, Public Safety Vehicles, and other City facilities, require public notice, are repaid with property taxes, and have a term over the life of the asset; Certificates of Obligation - Self Supporting which are used for various projects, require public notice, are repaid with revenue other than general property tax like sales tax, drainage fees, and TIRZ property taxes, and are termed over the life of the asset; Revenue Bonds which are used for large electric and water projects, repaid with utility revenue over life of asset, and Refunding Bonds which are an option when the call date is reached on any bond type and the call date is typically 10 years after a 20 year bond is sold when options are reviewed with the Bond Advisor to see if it's in the best interest of the City which is an option selected to refinance with a lower interest rate and receive a savings on the debt balance. Wallace reviewed the City's current bond ratings that are an independent review of City's management and financial condition to determine creditworthiness; impact the interest rate of the bond; and the Standard & Poor's 2019 Ratings were AA+ for general obligation and AA- for revenue bonds. She then reviewed the City's debt coverage ratio for revenue bonds that includes combined water and electric and is the number of times net operating revenue can cover debt service which is: bond covenants 1.35 times; Fiscal and Budgetary Policy 1.5 times; and FY2020 budgeted coverage is 2.93 times. Wallace then reviewed the current tax rate that is a total of 42 cents per $100 assessed valuation including interest and sinking (I&S) 22.453 cents and operations and maintenance (O&M) 19.547 cents. She noted that the City has an agreement with the voters related to the 2015 Transportation Bond which states no increase more than 10 cents total and no increase more than 2 cents in one year, adding that the City has retained the same tax rate for last 3 fiscal years. Wallace provided visual presentations of the current tax obligation not including self -funded obligations; five-year tax supported debt not including self -funded obligations; debt per capita; enterprise obligations; five-year enterprise debt including self supported debt; debt per customer; and historical assets net of debt. Wallace then turned the presentation over the Paul Diaz, Budget Manager. Diaz provided a tax impact analysis and noted that the Five -Year Debt Model is updated each year and is a tool to better understand the impacts of issuing debt. He added that it is a tool that allows for scenario testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service requirements and is reviewed with Council each summer. Diaz then provided a visual representation of how the Model works. He reviewed the assumptions of the Model which are: small changes can have big results; using the current I&S Tax Rate of 22.453 cents; using the current O&M Tax Rate of 19.547 cents; using the current Ratio of 53/47 for tax ceiling revenue; base growth of 4.5% in FY2021, decreasing to 3.25% by 2024; and the tax ceiling revenue growing at a constant 3.5%. He then provided a visual representation of the five-year tax backed CIP. Diaz the reviewed the forecast stating that no tax impact in the five-year model based on assumptions mentioned with strong and consistent growth in our community and Council's action during the budget process in recent summers to limit capital project spending is helping ($18-$20 million capacity per year for the next 5 years). Diaz then turned the presentation over to Wallace. Wallace provided visual representations for: bond authorization remaining; FY 2020 proposed debt with tax supported - general obligation; FY 2020 proposed debt with tax supported - Certificate of Obligation; and FY 2020 proposed debt with self -supported - certificate of obligation. She then covered supporting the debt and noted that the current Stormwater and Airport rates can support the issuing of more debt in these funds and due to continued strong sales tax collections, the GTEC debt can be supported. Wallace provided a visual presentation of the FY 2020 Proposed Debt for Electric/Water — Revenue Bonds and explained how the current rates for Water and Electric can support the issuing of new debt and staff will be reviewing water rates in the spring as part of Water Infrastructure Planning and development of the FY2021 Budget and Five Year CIP. She then explained the FY 2020 Refunding Option noting that 2010 Utility revenue bonds are callable with $6.5M principal remaining; estimated interest rate change from 4% to 1.6%; and estimated savings of $717,000 over 10 years depending on the actual sale in April. Wallace then provided the following takeaways: the City continues to aggressively implement infrastructure improvements to match the voter approved projects; the debt correlates to population growth and voter approved projects to improve services and quality of life; the City continues to experience strong economic growth; economic forecast shows the City can fund the current CIP plan within the current tax and utility rates; and water infrastructure decisions coming to Council this spring/summer with future rate impacts. She covered the next steps which are: February 25 Council agenda item; authorizing the Financial Advisors to proceed with bond sale schedule and documents; approving Notice of Intent to issue Certificates of Obligation; in March offering Statements reviewed by staff, staff meet with bond rating agency; April 28 Council agenda item to approve results of competitive sale; and May 215, closing and receiving proceeds. Jonrowe asked if the five-year projections include any assumptions for a road bond package. David Morgan, City Manager, responded that it does not. Jonrowe asked if there were plans to put together a road bond package. Morgan responded that the next workshop item would cover the possibility of a road bond. Pitts asked the City's debt service coverage and the rate provided. Wallace responded that the debt service coverage is for water and electric only. Council had no additional comments or questions. B. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Road Bond Programs -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director and Ray Miller, Public Works Director Wright presented the item and reviewed the 2008 Road Bond that was a $46 million total package with $25 million debt issued, $8 million cash available, and $21 million authorized, but not issued. He explained the impacts that have led to the current fund not issued. Wright reviewed the completed projects. He then reviewed the 2015 Road Bond and noted that it was a $105 million total package with $54 million debt issued and $51 million authorized, but not issued. Wright reviewed the completed projects, projects under construction, and remaining projects and provided a summary and noted that by 2022 the City of will have substantially completed projects listed in the 2008 and 2015 Road Bonds. Calixtro asked how the sidewalks projects were determined. Wright responded that the City did an inventory in 2014 and 2014 and then prioritized. He continued that priority one sidewalks are nearing completion and priority two sidewalks could be addressed with another bond program. Calixtro asked if staff considers if pedestrian traffic has increased in an area and if that would change the priority. Wright responded that staff can review and if the section is small it could be done within budget. He added that if a bond initiative is considered staff has considered reprioritizing the sidewalk. Miller took over the presentation and explained the Wilco 2019 Road Bond that where the City was selected and submitted the following projects with a proposed local match: Southwest By -Pass Extension from current terminus to SH-29 with an estimated construction cost is $5.5 million with a local match of $2.0 million; SE Inner Loop / Sam Houston Extension from current terminus of Sam Houston at Patriots Way, northeast to SH-29 with an estimated construction cost is $22.5 million with a local match of $ 4.0 million; and Westinghouse Road from FM 1460 to SH-130 with an estimated Construction Cost is $20.2 million with a local match of $8.2 million. He then reviewed CAMPO Supported Projects that include: Lakeway & Williams; Leander Road Expansion; Austin Avenue Bridges; and SH-29 & DB Woods. Miller also noted that CAMPO is working on their 2045 Regional Transportation Plan and there has been a recent call for Projects to be included in the new Regional Transportation Plan that will have a Horizon Year of 2045. He noted that the following projects were submitted: Williams Drive from Austin Avenue to Jim Hogg; NE Inner Loop from IH-35 to SH-29; SE Inner Loop from SH-29 to IH-35; Westinghouse Road from FM 1460 to SH-130; Shell Road from SH-195 to Williams; DB Woods from Williams to Cedar Breaks; and FM 971 from Gann Street to City of Georgetown Water Treatment Facility. He then reviewed TxDOT Supported Projects that include: IH-35 and Williams Drive; IH-35 & Leander Road (RM 2243); IH-35 & Westinghouse; and IH-35 & SH-29. Miller noted that looking forward to FY 2021 staff is looking at DB Wood Road; Priority 1 Sidewalks; Intersection Improvements; Aviation Drive; and Airport Road to IH35 SB Frontage Road. He reviewed intersection improvements and the criteria for selection and intersections under review that are: SE Inner loop and Rockride; Sam Houston and Rockride; Stadium Drive and NE Inner Loop; Williams and Estrella Crossing; Shell Road and Verde Vista; Austin Avenue and San Gabriel Village Blvd; and other. Pitts asked about the allowable frequency for warrant testing. Miller responded that development and traffic counts can determine the frequency. He added that staff is looking to get updated data. Pitts asked about the cost of a new traffic light for an intersection that does not currently have one. Miller responded $500,000. Pitt asked if that could be funded through approved debt. Miller responded that is option for funding, or they could be included as part of the CIP program. Pitts asked if the types of drivers in an area are considered during a warrant study. Miller responded that the drivers are not considered. Pitts asked if the study is based purely on traffic volume. Miller responded yes and pedestrian traffic. Pitts noted that constituents have reached out to him about warrant study on Shell Road at Verde Vista and at Estrella and asked that those be done as soon as possible. Miller responded that there are intersections that come up frequently and sometimes improvements to the intersection are considered before the installation of a traffic light. Fought commented on aging drivers and the use of judgement by the City when considering improvements. Miller provided a look forward and stated that the first possible future Bond Elections would be November 2020 and future projects could include: Memorial Drive; Rock Ride; Shell Road; Inner Loop; Williams Drive; and Others. He added that the financial rule of thumb is that $1.5 million per lane -mile for new construction and 1 cent collected on property tax equals approximately $9 million in capital. Miller then provided a summary. Pitts stated that roads are a concern for most citizens. He added that he would support a road bond on the November 2020 ballot and the calling of a road bond committee. Ross noted that the City has used committees before when ordering a road bond and he would support that as well as a 2020 bond election. Jonrowe asked if in the past each Council member appointed someone to the committee. Ross responded yes to provide a good cross section. Calixtro asked about future projects that were not listed. Miller responded that the projects listed were a portion of what there are in the City. Morgan stated that in addition to the Road Bond Committee staff would seek public input. He added that it is hard to project what is needed in a ten year bond program when experiencing this level of growth. Jonrowe asked about funding for Williams Drive Gateway Study. Miller responded mostly CAMPO funding. Jonrowe asked if that funding is available for other projects. Miller responded that staff could look at other calls for projects. Morgan noted that the study was a specific program through CAMPO and staff could consider putting other areas through the same process. Jonrowe stated that the City should consider those types of plans for the future. She noted neighborhood traffic studies and asked if there is funding to mitigate issue that arise through those studies. Miller responded that staff can update the Council on that. Pitts asked if there was a way through the road bond program to consider reallocation of bond funds. Miller responded that it depends on the bond language. Pitts noted the need for alternative ways to fund roads going forward. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Policy Development -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Garrett presented the item and explained that the Current Master Plan (MP) started in summer of 2007 and was adopted in early 2009. She noted that the MP was the basis for the 2008 Parks Bond Package with a 10-year planning horizon and many priorities have been accomplished. Garret reviewed the priorities and accomplishments which includes: park development of San Gabriel Park Renovations; Garey Park; and new neighborhood parks developed; land acquisition of 90 acres for a northwest community park, land on the South San Gabriel River near VFW Park, and preservation of river corridors for trails through developer agreements; improvements to existing parks with ADA and upgrades to current park design standards implemented at Old Town Park, Edwards Park, San Jose Park, Chautauqua Park, Geneva Park, Emerald Springs Park; and recreation facilities with hike and bike trail Expansions of one -mile trail extension along Scenic Dr., half mile trail extension from San Gabriel Park to Katy Crossing and splash pads at San Jose Park, Rabbit Hill Park, Downtown Art Center, and Lakeside Park, new playgrounds, Creative Playscape, neighborhood parks, picnic pavilions, new restrooms, Art in the Park Program, and worked with Arts and Culture Board to place art in San Gabriel Park and at the Recreation Center. She then reviewed the goals of a MP which are: assessment of the current system; community engagement that allows citizens to voice desires and concerns; provides a set of recommended Parks and Recreation priorities to guide staff and elected officials; and develops framework for future funding options. She noted the City's current conditions that show: tremendous growth since last master plan with a 2008 population of 47,500 and now of 74,000 which is 60% growth; 2030 Comp plan survey theme to maintain and add to existing quality Parks and Recreation; current master plan needed to apply for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) grants; and funding included in FY 2020 budget. Garret reviewed the proposed process for the new MP which will include: public input and community engagement; surveys, public meetings and workshops; evaluate current level of service; conduct demand/needs analysis; develop priorities and recommendations including cost estimates over 10 years; and checking in with Council throughout the process. She then reviewed the next steps which are: issue RFP within next 30 - 45 days; firm selection; selection committee will score proposals and interview firms; firm selected to be approved Spring 2020; Parks Board recommendation; Council approval; and estimated adoption of Summer 2021. Nicholson asked who would be on the selection committee. Garrett responded that those members have not yet been determined. Jonrowe asked if the last MP include areas where there aren't any parks facilities. Garrett responded yes, it identified areas in need. Council had no additional questions or comments. D. Presentation and discussion regarding the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Update -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Garrett presented the item and explained that cost recovery is the amount of the annual operating budgeted expense that can be offset by funding from sources other than general taxpayer investment such as property tax. She noted that a policy is important to: ensure fiscal responsibility and financial stability of programs and services; create citizen and staff awareness of all associated costs and pricing structure; and required as part of the Commission for Accreditation for Parks and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). Garrett reviewed the current Fiscal and Budgetary Policy that is addressed under Revenue Management. She continued that that equity minimizes subsidies while recognizing the benefit taxpayers contribute to City programs and services and states resident rates should be 75% of non- resident rates for membership. Garret said that revenue adequacy is the willingness and ability to pay with the target operational cost recovery being between 50-60%. She reviewed the process of creating a policy including what questions to ask including "who benefits" and "who should pay." Garrett continued that the process will involve key stakeholders and industry best practice which is a tiered approach based on who benefits. She covered what costs to include which could be direct cost such as expenses directly related to the operation of the program or service, or indirect costs such as costs incurred with or without the service provided, or capital costs. Garrett then provided a visual representation for the Benefits Model. She noted the next steps of Master Plan RFP includes an add alternate for assistance with this policy; utilizing public input/community engagement process in conjunction with master plan; and establishing draft policy for City Council review. Fought asked if the City charges fees now. Garrett responded yes. Fought asked if this process is about increasing fees. Garrett responded that it is about charging the right fees. Fought asked if the City is not charging the right fees. Morgan responded that the process is to verify the rationale for charging correct fees. Fought stated that this is essentially a fee study. Morgan responded yes. Pitts asked for clarification on the fees collected in 2019. Garrett responded that the fees are more on the recreation side and less on the parks side. Pitts asked if staff was looking mostly at the recreation side of the fees. Garrett responded that staff is looking at both sides and the current policy only focuses on recreation feed and expenses. Pitts asked for clarification of the City's current cost recovery. Garrett responded that the City is hitting 50-60% if looking at the recreation numbers only. Pitts asked what revenue is generated on the parks side. Garrett responded that Garey Park, pavilion rentals and special event fees provide revenue. Pitts asked if the community center falls under parks. Garrett responded yes. Pitts stated that separating and matching revenue to expense would be helpful going forward. Gonzalez asked if cemeteries are under parks or recreation. Garrett responded that they fall under administration. Gonzalez asked about the tracking of funding for cemeteries. Garrett responded that it has its own fund. Gonzalez stated that with Council's agreement having a future plan for the cemeteries would be helpful. Garrett responded that staff can run numbers on that. Council had no additional questions or comments. E. Presentation and review regarding the downtown parking garage project and discussion of options for further review of additional sites -- David Morgan, City Manager Morgan presented the item and provided the background on Downtown Parking and public parking changes since 2015 which include: eight spaces gained on 9th St by Grace Heritage Center due to bus stop moving; (20) Spaces lost due to Watkins building; (12) Spaces lost due to City Hall sale;138 Phase 1 Lot at 8th and MLK (County partnership); 67 Phase 2 Lot at 8th and MLK (County partnership); and 13 Blue Hole Parking (coming soon). He then noted that the lot at 6th and Main was chosen due to the sale of City buildings leading to increased intensity of use in the area; additional development in this area will increase demand for parking; a smaller garage could be funded within city's budget in the shorter term, alleviating parking pressures to delay the larger and more expensive garage; and a smaller garage proposed in FY18 for FY19 Budget. Morgan reviewed the Downtown development timeline from 2017 to current noting the parking demands and the availability of public parking in downtown was the driver for the development code reducing parking that would be required in other parts of city. He continued that for 2019 Downtown development projects 691 spaces would be required if not located in Downtown and 108 spaces added or identified through alternative plans. Morgan noted the following new businesses since 2017: Watkins building (office & restaurant); Hitch Hall; Golden Rule; 600 Market Place; Heritage Court (office & restaurant); Rock Street Lofts; Blue Corn Harvest; Wish Well; City Post (3 levels); Mango Tango; Barrel and Amps; Stromberg Hoffman (front); Lamppost Coffee; Lark and Owl Bistro/Bookstore; Wag Heaven; and 309 Coffee. He then reviewed maps that showed development in Downtown and parking analysis. Morgan reviewed next steps and opportunities. He stated that the consensus of feedback has been that additional public parking is needed; parking structures should be considered; more public input should be initiated; and other sites should be studied. Morgan stated proposed that the City will expand the scope of study and pause on 6th and Main lot while utilizing the existing consultant to expand study to review other sites based upon updated development and parking demands. He added that the consultant will establish criteria for review/evaluation and the potential criteria could include: fiscally responsible; consistent with Downtown Master Plan and design criteria; and a location where it serves the highest need of accessibility and alleviates immediate pressures short and mid-term. Morgan reviewed the proposed next steps that include: feedback on revised approach from Council; discussion with Design Committee at the meeting on February 13, 2020 and returning to Council with scope changes and contract change for consultant and a proposed public engagement process. Gonzalez stated that at this point investigating new sites should not enter the process but looking at the next site is a good idea. Michael Worden stated that he supports the City Manager's proposal for pausing on the current site. John Foliot commended the City Manager for listening to community and thinking of parking as a utility. Jim Johnson noted a letter sent by Chamber and stated that the Chamber has a goal of success and unanimously supports the parking garage at the location selected by the Council. He added that the Chamber will gladly continue to engage with business owners on the project. Anne Seaman stated that she supports the pause on the project and feels like she has been heard. She noted the transparency and that she is still impressed with the idea of an appraisal of the land. Michael Spano yielded his time to Larry Olsen. Larry Olsen thanked staff for bringing the item forward for Council consideration and strongly supports proposal of City Manager. Jonrowe asked about the useful life of a parking garage. Morgan responded that he was not sure, but most likely a 30+ year asset. Jonrowe asked if parking garages are eligible for bond packages. Morgan responded yes. Jonrowe asked what area the scope of survey would include. Morgan responded that he would like to allow study to drive locations. Jonrowe stated that she would like the following to be considered: paid parking options; trolley idea included in study; cost per space; retail incorporated and at what cost; design that meets requirements; impact to adjacent homes and businesses during and after construction; and traffic load. Pitts asked where the City was to date on the currently proposed garage location. Morgan responded that staff is working to establish design for garage the Committee will review those early concepts this Wednesday (02/12/2020) with no bidding until the fall. Pitts noted that there would no bids until HARC approval is obtained. Morgan responded correct and that HARC approval will happen early on to verify that the garage meets standards. He continued that he proposes that the project move through the conceptual phase and then pause before moving forward. Pitts asked at what point staff can stop with no additional costs incurred. Morgan responded that design elements for this location would be similar for any location and guidance from the Committee and public input will stay the same even if this location is not chosen. Pitts noted that he wants to continue as much as possible for the current location and asked about topics for future discussions. Morgan responded significant discussions related to the overlay district and noted that staff sough input from a wide variety of stakeholders involved to drive progress. Pitts noted that business owners have stated that the turnover of parking spots is important and noted the consideration for metered parking. He continued that the other lot that is suggested is the 9th and Main lot and asked if the study will consider that lot. Morgan responded that it is possible once consensus is reached and staff will be looking at ways to accomplish that in fiscally responsible way. Pitts stated that he doesn't need an appraisal but could get broker opinions and that the City should be understanding of the Tax Assessor Collector's future needs. Fought stated that he really wants to stress the need to keep the design going. He added that the current lot was appealing due to size and asked for a scalable and transportable design. Fought stated that there is no reason to delay solving the handicap parking problem and look into making temporary handicap spots during events. He added that the 611, Street lot was appealing to help solve handicap parking issue. Morgan responded that staff will look into the possibility of creating temporary handicap parking spaces. Triggs stated that he still thinks a valuation of property is needed, but would back off on asking for MAI appraisal. He added that he has contacted people asking for value and has received notice that the property could sell for anywhere from $800,000 - $1.2 million. Triggs stated that the City won't get full value due to the process for developing it. He stated that he still thinks about the need for something productive there and the possibility of a lot father out. Triggs stated that a comparison is needed and the smaller the garage the more it will costs per space. He added that this won't be the final solution and if the cost for a larger location is more overall but less per space, it is worth considering. Nicholson stated that he agrees with plan and no matter where the garage is, she would like to see budget and considering alternatives for funding including bonds. Calixtro thanked Morgan for the presentation and stated that she is still looking at 9th and Main as the ideal location. She noted the need for fiscal responsibility and that if the City owns property it should utilized so citizens understand why site was chosen. Morgan noted that this has been a heavily debated topic but there has been a lot of commonality. He continued that he is hoping to find consensus and work towards a common goal. Morgan noted that this is not his personal proposal, but staff recommendation. Mayor Ross thanked staff. He then noted the comments on lack of transparency and stated that there have been 15 total meetings on the subject. Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:11 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. F. 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 - PEC Franchise Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchase Power Update - Demand Response Joint Solutions Agreement with Links EP LLC - Mercuria ISDA Amendment Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Project Tortilla Sec. 551.089: Deliberations Regarding Security Devise or Security Audits: Closed Mtg - Update on Cyber Security and Continuity Plan -- James Davis, IT Operations Manager 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 - Municipal Court Judge Adjournment Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 5UQYIA OAA :S d L6 e 6a. I>Z_M Dale Ross, Mayor 1-- Attest: City Se etary