HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 07.28.2020 CC-WMinutes of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at
510 West St' 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 2:14 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance:
Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve
Fought, Council Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council
Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District. Council District 2 is vacant. All
Council Members present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed.
Fought joined during Item A.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:30 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding Transportation Services Platforms -- Ray Miller,
Director of Public Works
Miller presented the item and reviewed the goals of the Transit Development Plan. He then
noted the key questions from the City Council Workshop June 9, 2020 which are: Should
Georgetown continue to provide transit services?; Are the goals of the Transit Development
Plan still true?; What should be the scope of our transit system?; Serve current fixed route
population area?; Serve more limited population, such as paratransit?; Should the City
evaluate an alternate transit service?; and Should the City consider Dynamic Rideshare/Micro
Transit? Miller stated that Council gave Staff direction to look into different transportation
platforms such as Dynamic Ride share or Micro transit; pursue an RFI/RFP for ride
share/micro-transit; and Council also wanted to maintain transportation services for the
citizens that are currently using the transit system. He then provided a Ride Share/Micro
Transit Update and noted that staff has developed a draft RFI (Request for Information) and
the RFI will allow the City of Georgetown to gain information on the companies that have
interest in providing transportation services to the City. Miller continued that the RFI will
also allow the City to see what other transportation platforms might be available and will
help define a scope of work for a request for proposals after learning more about the
capabilities and services available for ride share/micro transit. He reviewed how the City
could maintain current services and based on the current contract the City could execute
another yearly contract with Capital Metro for continuation of current services. Miller stated
that the current agreement with Capital Metro Expires on September 30, 2020 and the
agreement has only been approved on a yearly basis not multiple years. He noted that the
proposed FY 2020 Budget Amount is $865,566 with FTA funding of $322,301, local match
funding of $392,590, and Georgetown Health Foundation (GHF) funding of $150,000 with the
GHF agreeing to participate for 3 years. Miller then reviewed the timeline for RFI/RFP and
noted the RFI structure which will include company history, experience, content, innovation,
performance and data; and insurance and fare structure. He then reviewed the process to
change services and noted the need to amend the Transit Development Plan to add Ride
Share/Micro Transit per the Service expansion policy approved by CAMPO and Capital
Metro Board an addendum must be completed prior to a transition in service. Miller stated
that if the City contracts with a private company, then the City will have to become the Direct
Recipient of the Federal Transit Funds (FTA 5307) and follow all FTA reporting and other
requirements and Capital Metro currently accepts the Federal Funds on our behalf and
follows all FTA reporting and other requirements. He noted a possible timeline to process to
the change if the City contracts with a private company noting that the City will: receive
Section 5307 funds directly from the FTA and becoming a Direct Recipient could take up to 9
months through FTA; be responsible for management of funds, compliance, DBE goals,
certifications, FTA coordination and local match; be subject to a Triennial Review at the
request of the FTA to ensure compliance with all FTA Direct Recipient requirements; as a
Direct Recipient COG would have to place the service in the CAMPO TIP (3-6 month process)
and also enter into an MOU with CAMPO to go over planning services (2-4 month process);
if the City contracts with a public provider (Capital Metro) then the City would not have to
become the Direct Recipient and the administrator of the FTA Funds; and a new Interlocal
Agreement would need to be executed with Cap Metro which would take 3-4 months. Miller
explained that the City of Manor Cap Metro Pickup Service operates Monday -Friday 7 a.m. -
7 p.m. and citizens can use a smart phone or a call center to book a trip, with a single ride
costing $1.25. He then noted the following draft time line:
RFl Key Events General Schedule
"Draft Time -Line"
Estimated Schedule
July 28, 2020
August 11, 2020
August 28, 2020
September 11, 2020
September 14-30, 2020
October 13, 2020
3-5 months (Depends on
CAMPO / CapMetro)
October 19, 2020
November 4, 2020
November 19, 2020
December 2020
January 12, 2020
February 5, 2021
February — March 2021
October 2021
Miller note the next steps which are based on Council's direction issue the RFI: review
responses; provide results to City Council; issue an RFP; provide results to City Council and
select a provider including possible interviews of providers, and once under contract, develop
a transition plan. He then reviewed the Council direction he was seeking, which to answer if
Council wants to proceed with a competitive process for a rideshare/micro transit program.
Calixtro asked if the City would be under another year contract. Miller responded yes for
GoGeo and paratransit services. Calixtro stated she supports staff moving forward.
Triggs stated he supported staff moving forward.
Fought stated that he is anxious about continuing for another year and he would like to get
the City out from underneath GoGeo earlier. He added that if a transition is need that's okay
but would prefer a faster timeline.
Pitts asked if it was possible to have a shorter contract with CapMetro than one year. Miller
responded that he can ask. Pitts asked if the proposed timeline will be 12 months. Miller
responded yes. Pitts asked if a shorter -term contract was possible, could the RFP be shortened
and condensed. Miller responded that the unknown is dependent upon if Council selects a
public or provide provider for services. Pitts asked about funding for the different options.
Miller responded that it depends on if the City becomes a direct recipient or not for federal
funding. He added that the FTA process would have to start as soon as the RFPs are received.
Pitts asked if the FTA funds were not received by the City, would the cost of the program
then be placed upon the City. Miller responded that is correct. Pitts asked if it was possible
for the City to not be approved to be an FTA provider. Miller stated that the didn't see any
issues with the City being approved. Pitts stated that he would also like to see the City move
off of GoGeo sooner, but he doesn't want to strand the existing riders. Miller stated that the
current contract does include an exit clause. Pitts stated that he would like to see the timeline
sped up if at all possible.
Jonrowe stated that she is fine with the staff presentation,
Gonzalez stated that GoGeo was supposed to be a test and it didn't work out how it was
expected. He added that he would like to move off of system as soon as possible.
Mayor Ross stated that it sounds like council is mixed on their feedback. David Morgan, City
Manager, stated that staff can move forward as quickly as possible with RFI and RFP, and
noted that some things out of the City's control. Mayor Ross suggested a transition sooner
rather than later and asked when staff would update Council. Morgan stated that the next
thing will be to extend the CapMetro contract. Mayor Ross asked for a timeline. Miller
responded that the contract is under legal review and he should be able to return mid -
September.
B. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the existing Distributed Renewable Electric
Generation Program -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility and Leticia
Zavala, Customer Care Director
Zavala introduced the item and provided the background of the program noting that the City
retained NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC to provide guidance on 2 specific rates, to
develop an EV Charger Rate Program and review the current Net Metering Program. She
noted that the EV Charger Rate Program was adopted at second reading on May 26,2020 and
provides for EV charging infrastructure within the City's electric territory. Zavala stated that
the Net Metering Program was reviewed with Council on May 12, 2020 and the overview of
the plan includes: rate impact analysis and identification of cross -subsidies; eliminates the
ability for energy credit to exceed the utility bill charges; and adjust the energy credit
provided to customers. She noted that the Council direction received at the meeting on May
12, 2020 was to have proposed changes to Net Energy Metering Program including changing
the ordinance language in order to make it easier to understand. Zavala stated that staff is
currently working with NewGen Strategies to simplify the ordinance language and is
reviewing the Distributive Generation (DG) agreement and related questions and customer
feedback. She reviewed the first principal questions of: Did the DG Agreement signed by
residential net metering customers preclude changes to the rate? Did the contract specify a
rate? Zavala stated that the response is that staff worked with outside legal and rate
consultants, the City Attorney's office, Customer Care and finance to review the current net
metering agreements and billing practice; and based on the review, the interconnection
agreements signed by residential net metered customers are subject to any changes adopted
by City Council on City's policies, rates, and any other conditions placed by ordinances and
the existing contract language aligns with the proposed changes of renewable energy credit
based on avoided costs. She reviewed the second principal questions that were: Is the City's
current NEM billing methodology in alignment with industry practices? Is the City's current
NEM billing methodology in compliance with the current DG agreement?
Grant Rabon with NewGen Strategies began presenting and started by explaining metering
configuration using the following graphic:
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
I ;4%
i I
I � ❑ ❑ I
k I
I Solar Panel Residenc I GEORGETOWN
t--———————— — - .rat;
�Ro
F� F�
REC Meter(Mforgi_Directional Meter
onMeasures Volumetnt and Received
purposes
only) Energy every 15 numAes
Rabon explained the typical residential load profile as follows:
Average Residential Daily Load Profile
(no DG system)
2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 its 17 18 19 29 21 22 23 24
Rabon provided a comparison of residential load with generation of a 10KW system:
Average Residential
Daily Load Pr lle
Typica 110 M PV
System In the
Summer
Rabon explained measuring volumetric and received energy at regular intervals:
Average Residential Average Residential Daily Load
Daily Load Profile Profile with a 10 IOW PV System
2 1
-1 6
Typical 10 kW PV System in
the Summer
Calixtro asked if at any point there is a way to know what the PV energy consumed is and if
that information can be sent to the customer. Rabon responded stated that the bill will
provide the needed information for the calculation.
Rabon then provided a summary and noted that every NEM customer has two meters: a
"REC" meter for informational purposes only; and a "bi-directional" meter that registers at
each interval. He noted that: customers have volumetric energy and received energy;
values/measurements are registered by the bi-directional meter are used to bill the customer;
the Utility's NEM billing methodology is reasonable, appropriate and is consistent with
common industry practices; the DG Agreement accurately describes the NEM billing method
of summing a customer's net consumed energy (Volumetric) and energy sent back to the City
(Received) over the course of a bill cycle; the City has been billing NEM customers using the
NEM billing method as described in the DG Agreement for the last 10 years; and the proposed
update to the NEM rate does not change the mechanics of how NEM customers are billed, it
merely changes the amount that Received energy is credited to better reflect "the City's
estimated avoided fuel costs" as stated in the DG Agreement and establishes a minimum bill
policy.
Calixtro asked about the effort to clarify confusing language for customers. Rabon responded
that he is working with City staff to clarify the language.
Triggs stated that he has had customers come to him and explain their bill and how they are
being shorter. He stated that he can't understand why customers feel that they are being
shorted. Triggs stated that it appears the customers are not paying fixed and then asked why
they would feel they are being shorted. Rabon responded that the customers desire a different
billing structure where they would receive all of their energy generation at the residential
energy rate. He added that his is not sure why they are unhappy with the current process.
Morgan responded noting that some customers are concerned with the billing methodology
with the assumption that the City is taking the energy generated by solar panel and netting it
at the end of the month instead of 15 minute intervals. He added that the proposed practice
will allow the City to come up with the correct rate. Triggs stated that he understands why
the City is making changes, he is just curious about the disconnect for customers.
Fought stated that the has been through this in excruciating detail by reading the contracts.
He noted the huge disconnect that needs to be fixed and that the 2012 contract was a bad
contract. Fought stated the confusing language in the contract about consumption versus
generation. He noted the need for clearer language going forward for customers. Fought
stated that those already in the system need to be grandfathered in somehow and thanked
staff and the consultant for their work to clear the issue up.
Pitts asked if the proposed change to the policy/Ordinance would still provide an incentive
for citizens to put solar panels on their homes. Rabon responded yes and noted that the cost
of panels has dropped significantly making it more affordable to invest. He added that the
suggestion should not significantly alter someone's decision to invest in solar panels.
Jonrowe asked about the ability to grandfather in existing customers and what the best
structure would be. Rabon responded that the consultant recommendations is to allow for a
six month transition period. Jonrowe noted that six months seems rather short and asked if
there was a different way. Morgan responded that there are two things at play. He added
that it is one thing to change the rate which has flexibility. Morgan noted that the City's
current agreement needs clarification but does meet all legal aspects. Jonrowe stated that she
does support a longer transition period for the existing customers.
Gonzalez state that he supports allowing existing users to step into the new program over the
course of six month to a year, but he does not want non -solar customers to be burdened with
unnecessary costs.
Mayor Ross stated that the Council does support the idea of allowing existing customers a
transition period for coming onto the new program. He then asked what Bethapudi needed
to proceed forward. Bethapudi responded that staff's recommendation is to initiate the
consultant's proposed changes to new customers straight away. He added that staff needs
Council direction on how long to allow existing customers to transition into the new program.
Morgan stated that staff would like to simplify the ordinance; adopt the consultant
recommendations on NEM Program; eliminate the ability for <$0 energy bill; and adjust the
received Energy Credit. He added that staff had initially proposed a six-month transition for
existing customers but can do longer. Fought asked for financial estimates for customers to
stay on the existing plan. Morgan responded that currently it is $117,000 per year, but if
moved to the new structure it would cost $47,000 per year. Pitts asked if the non -solar
customers bear those costs. Morgan responded yes, that's correct. Pitts asked for clarification
on the Ordinance and it's meaning. He asked if the City is trying to get more customers to
use solar panels. Bethapudi responded that residential solar has been increasing over the last
few years and it is recommended to have policies that allow for residents to have solar
installation. He added that the City is agnostic towards adoption or not adoption. Bethapudi
stated that the program should be designed in a way that it does not negatively affect the non -
solar customers and that is what staff is trying to achieve. Pitts noted that the proposed
change is must less overall in costs, but still puts some burden on non -solar customers.
Bethapudi responded that is correct. Pitts stated that if this policy is successful it has the
potential to have an exponential impact to non -solar customers. He added that he is fine
grandfathering in existing customers, but he doesn't feel the City should be paying for any
excess energy. Mayor Ross noted that when these policies were initially developed the intent
was to make sure there was always plenty of electricity for Georgetown, but clearly things
have changed. He then noted the comments about inequity and noted the various different
rates that the City provides to different types of customers. Mayor Ross suggested that staff
move forward with allowing for a one-year time frame for existing solar customers to be
grandfathered into the new system. Pitts stated that he disagrees and that a homeowner's
personal choice should not negatively impact other citizens. He did note the need to
grandfather existing customers. Mayor Ross stated this item is before Council now because
the market has changed. General discussion about how the program would effect new and
existing customers. Morgan stated that staff has not done a full rate review, but that one will
be happening in the next year. He added that this will lead to evaluation of all rate structures.
Bethapudi noted that in FY2021 there will be a full and comprehensive rate study. He added
that new customers will get $0.049 rate while grandfathered customers will the get the
existing, full retail rate for a time period determined by Council. Morgan stated that Council
will review the rate study and can then make additional changes to program if they choose.
Mayor Ross asked that Morgan recap the feedback provided by Council. Morgan stated
Council is overall comfortable moving forward with staff and consultant recommendations
and that existing customers should be grandfathered in for twelve months. He added that
Council will review the rate study in FY2021 and can made additional changes then.
Bethapudi stated that staff will bring their recommendations forward within the next few
Council meetings.
The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client:
Mark Arico yielded his time to Darrell Buck
Darrell Buck did a presentation that covered the meaning of net metering per the agreement;
showed the billing formulas per the agreement; noted significant savings for GUS with
customers that produce more than they use; and that other customers receive less credit than
entitled. He stated that the City is not using the Net Metering formulas specified by the
Agreement. Mr. Buck's time expired before his finished his presentation.
Robert Sobotik stated that he is not sure how much the agreement can be changed because it
must be a mutual agreement among all parties. He noted the need to pay out participants.
Sobotik stated that the existing program was put in under a federal grant program to
encourage solar panels. He noted claims made by previous City employees.
C. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding the CommUNITY Initiative -- Wayne Nero,
Police Chief and David Morgan City Manager
Nero presented the item and reviewed the stakeholder groups that include micro
communities, youth, businesses, seniors, media, faith based, and social services. He reviewed
the engagement strategy as it relates to relationships, problem solving, and meaningful
dialogue. Nero provided examples that include working with Citizen Police Academy,
community awareness training, Law Enforcement Field Day, Chase the Chief 5K, GISD SRO
Program, Blue Santa, Silver Shields, Drug Take Back Box, BSA Flag Box (Lobby), Field of
Honor, PTO Program VA Certified, National Night Out, Coffee with the Chief, Shattered
Dreams, PSOTC public tours, Women in Law Enforcement Night, Explorer Program, Safe
Trade Location, Junior Police Academy, and CRASE Training. He then explained the
CommUNITY Advisory Task Force which was newly formed in July 2020 and consist of 25+
members who have longstanding working relationships with a diverse group of community
leaders, and is an advisory group to the Office of the Chief regarding the CommUNITY
Initiative and provided a series of Stakeholder Summits. Nero stated that the Stakeholder
Summits are an opportunity to listen and learn with the summit pillars of building trust and
legitimacy; policy and oversight; technology and strategic communications; community
engagement and crime reduction; training and education; and officer wellness and safety. He
noted the Stakeholder Summit working framework consisting of: identifying a desired end
state of each pillar through collaboration; identifying the stakeholders involved; get
"outward" regarding those stakeholders; and brainstorming and identifying actionable ideas
that work towards the desired end state from the perspective of the various stakeholders.
Nero stated that the next steps are to: complete remaining 5 pillars with the Advisory Task
Force; develop Leadership Task Force for each of the specific 7 stakeholder groups; develop
and host Listen and Learn Summits within each of the 7 stakeholder groups; develop a
summary report containing recommendations resulting from each summit; work with staff
to develop action items from community recommendations; and dedicate staff and resources
towards working on action items. He ended with the following quote, "Let's build bridges,
not walls," Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mayor Ross noted that this has been a work in progress for several years and not a reaction
to recent events. Nero responded that is fair. He added that the PD has been working in this
framework for a while and now is a good time to take the next steps.
Jonrowe thanked Nero for the presentation and stated that she looks forward to the reports
that come out of the stakeholder work. She asked if the citizen group who is tasked with
reviewing training and education will review the current training requirements and practices.
Nero responded absolutely. Jonrowe asked who will help facilitate those conversations to
provide a professional framework for analyzing the data. Nero responded that the advisory
groups can speak to that. Jonrowe asked if there was a budget for this process. Nero
responded yes and no. He added that things that are action item oriented may be brought
forward on a future agenda for approval. Jonrowe asked specifically about the Summits.
Nero responded not at this time, but staff is working through that. Jonrowe stated that having
third parties participate may help lead to building trust and legitimacy. She then asked if the
firing range be built after input is received. Nero responded that those are two separate
issues. He added that the firing range will lead to the City becoming a contract training
provider and there is already a group that reviews that made up of community members.
Jonrowe confirmed that community members are on the board. Nero responded yes, as it
allows the City to train other entities for State credit. Jonrowe asked how suggestions made
by the citizen committees related to training would be handled. Nero responded that staff
will review all recommendations and accommodate as many as possible. Jonrowe asked
which pillar would address mental health. Nero responded training and education. Jonrowe
asked for clarification on turning the department "outward" to the stakeholders. Nero
responded that it is based on discussions that have taken place with the advisory task force
and he would be happy to share that information. Jonrowe asked if the Summits would be
recorded. Nero responded that they can be. Jonrowe ask that it be considered.
Gonzalez thanked Chief for the presentation and noted that people from outside the
community may not be the best idea as the City is attempting to build trust and legitimacy
from within. He added that the more training the better especially when dealing with the
citizens.
Calixtro stated that she no questions at this time and has expressed her personal concerns to
the Chief. She added that she looks forward to the progression of the program.
Triggs stated that the pillars are important, and he has nothing to add or remove. He thanked
Nero for his work.
Fought stated that he has nothing to add and will watch the program carefully. He added
that the key seems to be working with youth, and the PD does that well. Fought thanked
Nero.
Pitts stated that he is supportive and has no real feedback on presentation. He added that he
did a ride along and saw job in person and encourages other council members to do a ride
along when times are safer post COVID-19. Pitts continued that it is easy to watch TV, but
not the same as seeing things in person and it made him appreciate PD even more.
Mayor Ross noted the City's Texas Police Chiefs Accreditation and thanked Nero for his
efforts.
Robyn Densmore, City Secretary read public comments that were submitted via email in the
following order (comments appear exactly as submitted):
Joe Reedholm
Did not find anything in the Adobe document specifically addressing the now world-wide to
defund the police. As Chief Nero knows, there has been push back against militarization of
the police since Daryl Gates formed the first SWAT teams in LA during the 1960's.
Furthermore, the push back did not start with liberals, but with libertarians concerned with
abuse of constitutional rights. Radley Balko of the Cato Institute is particularly eloquent as he
traces the loss of community policing in his 2014 book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop --the
Militarization of America's Police Forces". There are too many issues to cover here, but I
would like to hear Chief Nero's take on why the Georgetown PD is as militarized as it is, and
what he plans to do about it.
Densmore stated that she has forwarded Mr. Reedholm's comment to the Chief so that he can
reach and make contact with him.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding FY21 Budget Development -- Tadd Phillips, Human
Resources Director and David Morgan, City Manager
Morgan presented the item noted that the purpose is to address follow-up items from the
budget workshop on July 21, 2020. He stated that he will review the July 21
recommendations, provide an employee compensation approach overview for public safety
employee market and step compensation and non-public safety market and merit
compensation, provide a revenue update, review recommended compensation and other
budgetary adjustments aligned with Council feedback, and the opportunity for additional
feedback prior to August 11, 2020 City Manager's Proposed Budget. Morgan reviewed the
financial circumstances for the FY2021 Budget and the lower revenue for FY2021 based on flat
sales tax, lower development, court and recreation revenue, and a property tax within 3.5%
cap. He noted the increased costs pressures of Fire Stations 6 and 7, and the SAFER Grant
reduction 75% to 35% funding. Morgan noted staff's strategy for a flat expenditure plan,
reduced compensation plan, and base budget cuts. He explained the targeted base budget
cuts of $726,000 in the General Fund and $220,000 in Joint Services with the cuts including
frozen positions with 6 in the General Fund, travel/training, equipment/supplies, and
maintenance items. Morgan provided a reminder from July 21, 2020 related to continued
market and step pay adjustments with market adjustments implemented for police and fire
sworn, along with step increases. He noted that Police market totals $99,000 consisting of 88
employees with 60% implementation and a 0.3% to 1.5% average increase; Fire market totals
$264,000 consisting of 138 employees with 60% implementation and a 1.7% to 2.5% average
increase; Police steps totaling $118,000 consisting of 88 employees with 2-4% average annual
step; Fire steps totaling $176,000 consisting of 138 employees with 24% average annual step;
and Non -Public Safety totaling $246,000 across all funds consisting of 44% of employees, 30%
of job titles, and an average of 2% increase. Morgan provided Council compensation
examples based on the July 21s' input:
Employee Count
Firefighter* 138
Police Officer* 88
Non -Public Safety 265
Non -Public Safety 280
Total Cost: $903,000
Market
Step/Merit
Total
@60%=2.5%
2-4%
4.5-6.5%
@60%=1.5%
2-4%
3.5-5.5%
Yes = 2%
0%
2%
No = 0%
0%
0%
*not all public safety ranks have same market or step as FF & PO, these are illustrative
examples
Phillips presented and reviewed the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy noting that City Council and
Management recognize the importance of attracting, hiring, developing, and retaining the
best people, and compensating them for the value they create. He continued that the City has
outstanding and innovative City employees who work diligently to bring the Vision of
Council to life and deliver exceptional services to our customers while exemplifying our Core
Values. Phillips stated that the following programs are subject to available funding in the
annual operating budget, starting with competitive compensation, in order to maintain a
competitive pay scale, the City has implemented a Competitive Employee Compensation
Maintenance Program to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting
compensation and the program consists of: Annual Pay Plan Review (Market) — To ensure the
City's pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, the City will review its pay
plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City's
competitive pay plans; Pay for Performance (Merit) — Each year the City will fund
performance based pay adjustments for regular non-public safety personnel. This merit -based
program aids in retaining quality employees by rewarding their performance. Pay for
Performance adjustments are based on the employee's most recently completed performance
evaluation; and Public Safety Steps (Steps)— Each year the City will fund anniversary step
increases for public safety sworn personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design. He
noted that competitive compensation is a core to the Human Resources Mission and Goals
and market reviews focus on Strategic goal 3: retain City Employees by rewarding high
performance, and assuring pay is market competitive. Phillips then reviewed the following
visual that represents total rewards to an organization:
Phillips then explained employee turnover with the following graphs:
Turnover (Annual)
10.7% 104%
10% --------._.._._.__ .._.... �_. ._
8 7% 8.0%
5%
0?:
2015 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
10
w
m
o�
0
O
a
w 5
w
0
Turnover (Monthly) - FY20
10 10
e
w
Oct Nov Dec tan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sera
Turnover (CUI-nUlative) - FY20
*Turnover 0 SHRM Target (15%) COG Target (10%)
100
W
-59 b5
o
48 5.1
a 40
E 50 30 r
� 10 17 21
r.
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Phillips then reviewed the current Police and Fire pay scales as shown:
Fire Pay Scale
10/14/2019
Classification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Firefighter
S50.80
$52835
554,914a
S56.590
S58294
S60.043
$61.844
563699
S65.610
S67.579
S69.605
$70,997
S72.417
S73,865
Fire Driver
S67.041
$68717
S70.435
S72195
$74.001
S75851
S77747
S79691
S81.683
S83725
S85,818
S87963
Fire Lieutenant
$74,505
S75,995
S77.515
S79AS
SW640
S82259
S83.904
S85.582
$87294
$89.040
$90.821
$92.637
Fire Captain
$87.937
S89.696
S91.490
$93.320
S95.186
$97.090
$99032
5101,013
S103.033
5105.094
S107.196
Battlion Chief
$98,268
$100.231
S102238
S104.283
$106.369
S108496
5110.666
S11ZB79
$115.137
Di vision Chief
5108.108
5110.286
5112464
5114.739
5117.013
5119.351
1121.754
S124.180
Assist ant Chief
5116.242
5119729
5123.321
5127...
5130.831
S134.756
Fire and Life Saietv
classification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Paramedic 11
$67041
S58.717
S7043.
$72196
574.001
$75851
$77747
S79691
561.683
58372'_
565818
58796'
Fire and Life Safety Specialist
S74.505
S75996
S77,515
S79055
S80646
S82259
S83904
S85582
587294
569 W0
59U 821
592637
De Uty Fire Marshal
587937
S69.696
S91.490
S93320
S95186
597090
S99032
S101013
5103033
51R 094
51 U7195
Fire Marshal
S9826
$100.233
$102.238
S104283
S105.369
S109495
$110666
S112879
511`137
Police Pay Scale
10/14/2019
Classification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Police Officer
55`_.550
S57,772
550.083
$61. 885
553,742
555654
$67624
$59653
$71.742
S73894
S76111
57039E
$79953
581E52
Police Ser giant
577.355
$79.289
S81,271
$81303
S85.385
S87.520
S89.708
S91.951
S94.250
S96606
Police lieutenant
$87.583
S89,335
$91,121
S92944
S94.803
S96.699
S98.633
S100.605
S102.617
$104670
Police Captain
$100.941
$102858
$104,915
S107.013
$109.154
S111.337
S113.563
S715835
$118.151
5120.514
Assistant Chief
S116,005
$119.486
S123.070
S126763
$130.566
S134482
Phillips explained the current Police and Fire market data that is analyzed by the City:
Police Officer
s.
n
60,453
$79,300
98,147
rcos
7w,,c,u,t
57.163
68,337
79.5] ]
54,387
64,524
$74,661
Su ar Land
60,341
70,897
81,453
Leander
57 096
68,838
80,579
Cedar Park
$57,960
$71,505
$85,049
New Braunfels
$54,075
$63.374
$72,673
Pflu erville
51,022
$65,2.60
$79,498
Round Rock
59,946
$72,343
$84,739
Base Pay Diff -2.5% -1.2% -0.3%
Police Officer
01
2.5%
•0
2.0%
.1
1.5%
Sergeant
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
(Lieutenant
2.1%
1.7%
1.3%
Captain
1.8%
1.5%
1.1%
Fire Fizliter
Organization
Ceorgelown
Austin
Min
1 1
$52,854
Paramedic
T'Otall
TCESD2 Pflu erville
51,193
$9,000
Cedar Park
$53,000
New Braunfels
$51,884
$3,000
Round Rock
$54,377
$6,000
Lewisville
$65,014
$1,800
Su ar Land
$54,134
$6,000
A.
Base Pay Diff
-7.5%
4.4%p
-3.81%Yo
7
Base Pay % to Market
4.2%
Fire Fighter
4.2%
3.4%
2.5%
Driver
4.1%
3.3%
2.5%
Lieutenant
2.9%
2.3%
1.7%
Captain
3.0%
2.4%
1.8%
Battalion Chief
2.9%
2.3%
1.7%
Phillips explained the Police Officer increase history and market impact noting that all market
increases for Police and Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at
100%:
32%
27%
22%
17%
12%
7%
2%
Cumulative Police Officer Increases FY 2016-2020
4
28.7%
PAI
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Cumulative—F-FYlncrease
INCREASE FOR POLICE OFFICER HIRED IN FY 2016
8.05V
,.0 0
5.9%
6.0%
4.9%
5,01%
4% ON
UP% 3.7%
1.09>
1.0%
0.0%
P V W b
7%
N
O
r !, leer increase
J• Marker
Phillips explained the Fire Fighter increase history and market impact noting that all market
increases for Police and Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at
100%:
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0•0
10.0%
4
5.0%
0.0%
8.0%
7 -0%
6.0%
5.0%
4%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Cumulative Firefighter Increases FY 2016-2020
31.8%
YO
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
—40-Mncrease—w—Cumulative
INCREASE FOR FIREFIGHTER HIRED IN FY 2016
7% 7.1%
4.7%
5.2%
N N N N N
� V p0 tC O
■ % Step incre.�ys
■ Market
F11i01ivs orovided the non-vubIic safety merit hision, as fellows -
Below Expectations
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Meets Expectations
1%
1%
Exceed Expectations)
-
Excellent
1 6.0P/o
12.0%
8.o
a.o%
0.0
Merit Increases for Exceeds, 2016-2020
13.7%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mein Pi Bible, Exceeds fCunnilarivP inueases
3.59e
3.0 %
2,5 %
2,0%
h 5P10
1.0%
0.5
0.0%
Phillips explained the non-public safety market history noting that 40% of the 280 non-public
safety job titles are benchmarked annually against comparator organizations previously
approved by Council:
Jobs Market Competitive
•% Jobs Adjusted 0% Employees Impacted
44%
40%
28% 28% 29% �30%
27%
20% 26% 26% 26%
17% 19%
16%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Phillips then reviewed the side by side history and projection for all employees while noting:
firefighter includes paramedic credential pay; projections based on historical market
increases; and non -civil supervisor with one prior market adjustment, one in future, and
exceeds expectations merit increases for all years:
ACTUAL SALARY INCREASES FY 2016 - 2023*
S Is=
S 70.000
S(_),1),-K,
Ssa.acii7
$ 3{1,oGA
Morgan resumed the presentation and explained the revised FY2021 Budget plan that will
include two police officer patrol positions, increase compensation for Fire and Police civil
service and non -civil service positions, with a funding strategy based on: an improved Tax
Roll with $374,000 in additional revenue; use of the Economic Stability Reserve/Council
Contingency for one-time uses; and finding additional cuts. He noted that staff's
recommended budgetary adjustments consisting of: use of One -Time Funding via available
balances with $1,759,446 coming form the Economic Stability Reserve (ESR) and $110,983
coming from the Council Special Revenue Fund (CSRF) for a total of $1,870,429; less One Time
Uses totaling $458,400 made up of new police staff equipment costing $192,000 and small
neighborhood plans costing $100,000; previously funded in the General Fund in the July 21,
2020 version totaling $166,400 and consisting of Fire Station equipment costing $78,400,
redistricting costing $50,000, and Mobility Bond costing $38,000; leading to an ending balance
in ESR/CSRF $1,400,000; other General Fund adjustments including an increase in Property
Tax revenue of $374,000, adding back $166,400 for projects previously funded in General fund
move to Council SRF/ESR (Equipment, Redistricting, Mobility Bond), freeze vacant library
position $75,000 and increasing costs of Police market at 80% totaling $33,000, Fire market at
80% totaling $88,000, two police officers and on -going costs totaling $162,000, 2% merit
increase for non -civil service totaling $199,000; and a remaining balance of $273,910.
Morgan provided a compensation update as follows:
Employee
Count
Market
Step/Merit
Total„
Firefighter*
138
@80%=3.4%
2-4%
5.4-7.4%
Police Officer*
88
@80%=2.0%
2-4%
4-6%
Non -Public Safety
265
Yes = 2%
2%**
4%
Non -Public Safety
280
No = 0%
2%**
2%
Total Cost
• Police/Fire Civil Service: $778,000
• Non -Civil Service: $762,000
*not all public safety ranks have some market or step as FF & PO, these are
illustrative examples
**average distribution
Morgan provided the Police Officer increase history and market impact noting that all market
increases for Police & Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at
100%:
Cumulative Police Officer Increases FY 2016-2021*
181111
33%
28;;
23%
18"f
] 3;6
845
i 4,
35.2 %
2016 201% 2018 2019 2020 2021'
(80% Market)
t Cumulative —0—FY Inuease
INCREASE FOR POLICE OFFICER HIRED IN FY 2016
80%
7%
7^
60%
4.9%
5%
5 0%
4%
3.7%
a 0%
30%
20%
1 WX
00%
o
r
o
0
0
0
• % 5t ep increase
* 80)u Market
■ Market
Morgan reviewed the Fire Fighter increase history and market impact:
Cumulative Firefighter Increases FY 2016-2021*
42.0%
37.0%
32.0'/
27.0%
22.0%
17.0°%
12.0%
7.0% 4.
2.0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--O--FY Increase t0—Curnulative
40.4%
Y.
2021'
(80%Market)
INCREASE FOR FIREFIGHTER HIRED IN FY 2016
7% 7.1%
7.0%
e.0%
5.2%
6.4%
s.o,. 4.7%
n,o�a 4%
w Sa Step increases
30/ ■S[T;5 Market
M M ar ket
2 W11
.oi0�:
0 a
O O O G G O
Morgan then reviewed the FY2021 proposed Budget Calendar as follows: August 11t" the City
Manager's proposed budget, set max tax rate, and set dates for Public Hearings; September
9th Regular Meeting hold public hearings, First Reading of the budget, First Reading of the
tax rate; and September 22^d Regular Meeting hold the 2nd reading of the budget and 2nd
reading of the tax rate.
Mayor Ross asked for clarification on the final numbers of the proposed implementation.
Morgan responded that the proposed version of the budget will allow for a cushion of about
$273,000.
Fought stated that staff did a good job. He added that he would like to see 100% for civil
service but need to consider whole picture. Fought stated that 80% is good compromise and
noted the cost of health care and its success.
Pitts stated good job incorporating feedback from the last meeting. He added that 80% is a
good compromise. Pitts stated that people have lost jobs and some that have kept jobs will
not likely see pay raises and he supports the plan.
Jonrowe stated that staff walked a fine line and she likes the proposal. She added that she
would like to see a rate increase for all employees year over year.
Gonzalez commended Morgan and staff and noted that public safety and general staff
deserve increases. He asked what the difference is between funding at 100% and 80%.
Morgan responded that the total cost is $121,000 for 100%. Gonzalez stated that doesn't want
the City to fall far behind and asked that compensation get shored up as soon as possible.
Calixtro thanked Morgan and staff for working the numbers. She noted that everyone is
working and putting their lives at risk deserves to be compensated and she supports the plan.
Triggs stated that he wanted Morgan to find more money, and he found what he could. He
then thanked Morgan for his efforts.
Mayor Ross stated that Council supports the plan as presented with the possibility to
reevaluate compensation as the economy allows. Morgan thanked Council and stated his
appreciation for all City staff.
The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client:
Cody Stout, President of the Georgetown Association of Firefighters stated that the
Association would like to see 100% but understands budgetary constraints and he appreciates
the thought that Council put into this.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:58 to start at 5:10 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.
(45 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. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Sale of Property — CTSUD building
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Zeus
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on kmI I.,Cab
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Cit , ecretary