Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 10.27.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, October 27, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 2:30 PM at Teleconference 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, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 2:30 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; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District. Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5 was absent, and Council District 2 is vacant. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:30 PM A. Presentation and update regarding Tree City USA requirements -- Kimberly Garrett, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director Garrett presented the item and reviewed points of discussion and thank staff that assisted with the presentation. She then provided the Tree City USA Introduction noting that the designation: is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters; provides structure on which the community can build its forestry program; by meeting standards, it provides systematic management of tree resources; and requires a Public Tree Care Ordinance that provides for management practices of trees in ROW and on public property and the City currently only has a new development tree ordinance. Garrett noted the program benefits include a framework for action, education, public image, citizen pride, and publicity. She continued that the program standards include: a Forestry Program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita; Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation; Tree Board or Department; and Tree Care Ordinance. Garrett stated that the Public Tree Care Ordinance provides: an opportunity to set good policy that is legally enforceable; guidance for planting, maintaining and removing trees on public property like City parks, rights of ways (Electric and Street), City Streets (vehicle clearance and blind corner), and other public property; establishes a tree board/committee and provides for responsibilities, which will designate staff from various departments such as Parks, Public Works, Electric and Code Enforcement to serve on a committee; affects multiple departments such as Parks, Streets, Electric and Code Enforcement; noted that both the Electric Department and the Parks Department have resources to manage trees in City Parks and under electric lines; noted Code Enforcement's role to notify resident of violation; and the ordinance reflects active management of trees in the right of way. She outlined the next steps of: consideration of Public Tree Care Ordinance with a First Reading on November 101h and a Second Reading on November 241h; once ordinance is adopted, apply for Tree City USA; Annual recertification; and Texas Forest Service has reviewed the draft Public Tree Care Ordinance and supports the language. Calixtro asked where this ordinance is located. Garrett responded that it was included with agenda item. Calixtro asked about electrical lines and limbs growing too close. Garrett responded that the City contracts with a firm each year to do systematic cutting. Calixtro asked who residents should contact for that. David Morgan, City Manager, responded that they should contract the Customer Care Department. Calixtro asked where it says that. Morgan responded that it is a PUC requirement, with standards set for that, and staff can follow-up. He noted that it is not part of this proposed ordinance. Triggs asked if the City already does all these things. Garrett responded yes, but the City needs an ordinance stating that it does. Triggs asked if this is codified in other areas. Morgan responded yes, but indirectly via language in streets and sidewalk ordinances. He continued that the tree care ordinance addresses obstructing signs. Triggs noted that all this is just to add the tree care ordinance. Morgan responded yes, primarily to meet requirements of a recognition program and codifying practices the City already does. He continued that this would lead to no significant increase in cost and provides clarity on issues like a dead tree that's on private property but hangs into the public right-of-way. Morgan stated that it gives better direction on how to enforce those types of things. Triggs asked if he had a diseased tree on his property and an arborist suggest removal, would he have to go to the City for a permit to remove. Garrett responded that if a tree is diseased the City would support its removal and a permit may only be required if it is a heritage tree. Mayor Ross noted that this proposed ordinance is mostly focusing on public ROW. Morgan responded correct the heritage tree ordinance is separate. Garrett added that this ordinance really focuses on trees in public areas. Mayor Ross stated that the City wouldn't be aware of private property unless informed. Morgan responded only when a tree on private property effects public ROW. Garrett added mainly when trees are hanging over and impeding signs or ROW. Fought stated that he is fine with the ordinance, but staff should run the ordinance by major homeowners' associations (HOA's) so that they know what's coming. Morgan responded that staff can do that at quarterly meetings. Fought added that this would be helpful just so the HOAs know what the City is doing. Mayor Ross asked if there are economic development incentives related to this and noted other City designations. Morgan responded that there are several recognitions the City has and added that the City has a long-time commitment to taking care of trees. Mayor Ross stated that the City is not reinventing the wheel. Morgan responded that is not the intention, but he appreciates Council feedback. Pitts stated that he has had some residents expressing concern. He continued that he understands the idea behind it. Pitts then quoted the proposed ordinance related to location, review committee, and fines, the section that addresses appeals, and that implementing this could have consequences. Morgan responded that staff can address Council concerns. He continued that there are sometimes where trees can cause damage in the public ROW and having some mechanism to address it would be beneficial. Pitts stated that he doesn't see benefit to doing this as the City already has multiple designations. Jonrowe asked about the definition of nuisance and if it would conflict with the existing tree ordinance and it was just relating to instances of danger. Garrett responded that is correct. Jonrowe stated that she needs clarifying language. She added that she is in favor overall as the this can be used to promote the City overall. Gonzalez asked if Council had a vote to pursue this program. Morgan responded that is has come up in a couple of different ways and was suggested that the City apply. He continued that is considered to be of public interest and has taken staff time. Morgan clarified that the City already meets overall requirements except for Ordinance. Gonzalez asked if a citizen suggests something is the Council obligated to pursue it. Morgan responded that staff will go back and identify where it was discussed. Gonzalez asked how many community engagement meetings have been held. Morgan responded zero. Gonzalez stated that the City is often accusing of not being transparent this could add to that. Morgan responded that staff can go through public engagement process. Gonzalez stated that he understands that the City already doing everything, and that it can help may hurt. He added that there is no real benefit to the City. Mayor Ross asked what the City would follow-up with. Garrett responded that each year the City would apply for recertification and would verify that standards are still being met. Mayor Ross stated that citizens can comment at first and second reading and that based on his notes Council supports moving forward. Garrett responded that the proposed ordinances is not the Regular agenda but would be coming forward later. Mayor Ross noted that might be better to allow staff time to address Council concerns. Robyn Densmore, City Secretary, read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order (comments appear exactly as submitted): Brian Ortego On April 28, 2015, City Manager David Morgan and City Attorney Bridget Chapman suddenly addressed City Council in a Workshop about a supposed critical issue in Georgetown Village with the Developer installing street trees and irrigation in the T-6" planting strip between sidewalk and curb in the right-of-way without a License to Encroach and the damage being done to sidewalks and possibly street curbs. This rocked the City Council and there was a call to action, but not much was made of the fact that Developers and Builders were doing exactly what the City of Georgetown approved for the Georgetown Village PUD, street design, and right-of-way. This proposed ordinance does go a bit further than current UDC in that it will require property owners to submit application for a permit to maintain improvements in the right- of-way in front of their property before pruning trees etc. and/or permit the City to mandate required or prescribed maintenance to trees or the City will perform the service and bill the property owner. It's likely that this stipulation will not be enforced like the historic tree ordinance that prohibits pruning the tree without the City Arborist permitting it or parking within the critical root zone, so why put more laws on the books that will only be selectively enforced at the discretion of the City of Georgetown? Georgetown Village is different than the rest of the City of Georgetown in that the city - controlled Georgetown Village PID has been made to assume control of the city sidewalks and street trees in the right-of-way in front of each property owner's house with the GVPID, funded solely by GVPID property owners, paying the cost of repairs and maintenance that the City of Georgetown pays for everywhere else across town. The City of Georgetown has many years worth of deffered maintenance for sidewalk repairs and tree trimming in Old Town, Downtown, and many other neighborhoods in Georgetown and likely won't perform more maintenance and force individual property owners to pay for it as a result of this new ordinance, so why pass this new tree care ordinance unless change is imminent? The big issue I have is that Public Works and the City Arborist spent a significant amount of time evaluating and identifying street trees at intersections in Georgetown Village that are now and may possibly present sight triangle obstruction in the future and recommended (ordered) their removal, but stated that no known accidents have been caused in Georgetown Village and they have no plans to study other areas of Georgetown for same issues. My question is if intersection and pedestrian safety is so important and a critical need, why isn't the City Arborist and Public Works Director having their Consultant or City Workers identify trees for removal in Downtown Georgetown, Old Town, Berry Creek, etc? Why single out Georgetown Village and ignore the dozens or hundreds of other trees presenting possibly the same obstruction to intersection sight triangles and traffic signs? If important, the City should be consistent and comprehensive in enforcing ordinances. B. Presentation and discussion regarding the City of Georgetown Intergovernmental and Legislative Program and the draft Legislative Agenda for the 87th Texas Legislature's Regular Session In 2021 -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager Weber presented the item and provided the 2020/21 Legislative Schedule as follows: November 10th bill filing for the 871h Legislature begins; January 121h, 87th Legislature convenes; the House will elect a speaker in January; in March appropriation bills are brought to the floor; March 121h is the bill filing deadline; in April bills with fiscal notes can now move; in early May the House Committee's stop passing House bills; in mid -May the Senate Committee's stop passing Senate bills; May 31s' Sine Die where Governor has until June 201h to sign or veto bills; and the Legislature can hold committee hearing in the early days of session, but per the constitution, legislators can't pass any bills during the first 60 calendar days - unless the governor declares it an emergency item or it's an emergency appropriation. She provided a Legislative Program Overview and noted that the Legislative Task Force is a new citizen stakeholder group to engage the public in the State Legislative Agenda development process and is comprised of existing, active leaders in the community using the leadership of City Boards and Commissions. Weber noted that the Task Force met for 5 meetings from August through October to provide input on the City of Georgetown 2021 State Legislative Agenda. She continued that the State Legislative Agenda serves as the foundation for the City's advocacy strategy: high-level summary of City positions adopted by City Council; includes funding needs with policy priorities; and incorporates legislative priorities of allies. Weber stated that with the 2021 State Legislative Agenda the goal is to protect City of Georgetown Interests, and the City supports legislation that benefits the City and opposes legislation detrimental to the City, including bills that: limit the City's ability to abide by the principle of self-government; mandate increased City costs; mandate decreased City revenue; limit the City's ability to advocate on behalf of the community through trade associations and consultants; and diminish the City's authority to provide for the public's health, safety, and welfare. She said that to preserve Municipal -Government Policy enactment the City supports legislation that protects the rights of elected municipal officials to enact ordinances that address the policy priorities and needs of cities' residents, businesses, and visitors. Weber noted that relating to providing Property Tax relief while preserving current sales tax revenue the City: supports legislation that provides meaningful property tax relief to owners of property in the City's jurisdiction; supports transparency regarding property tax rates, property values, and property tax income; opposes expansion of revenue, tax, or appraisal caps which limit the City's ability to raise sufficient funds to pay for critical municipal public policy services; opposes shifting the tax burden from one taxpayer to another taxpayer; supports maintaining provisions for debt financing so it can issue financial debt to pay for such expenditures as infrastructure and equipment; and supports legislation allowing for the local sourcing of sales and use taxes for internet orders. She stated that relating to protecting taxpayers' investment in public utilities and assets the City: supports legislation that ensures the City can continue to own and operate the City of Georgetown Utility Systems; opposes legislation that negatively impacts the service level, stability, or return -on -investment for its residents; supports legislation that maintains state and regional water plans and while preserving authority to continue the City of Georgetown Water Utility's current operational system within its current jurisdictional boundaries; and opposes legislation that would deny the City from being adequately compensated for the use of its rights -of -way, would erode municipal authority over the management and control of rights - of -way, or both. Weber noted that when keeping Georgetown competitive the City supports: legislation maintaining incentives that supplement local economic development strategies to fund employee recruitment and retention, and supports the continuation of Type A and Type B sales tax that can be used to pursue and retain primary employer jobs. She noted that relating to transportation funding for current and future growth the City supports legislation that would allow municipal -elected officials, municipal voters, or both to approve city funding options to pay for construction, maintenance, and repair of streets, sidewalks, and transportation authorities, and supports efforts to ensure the equitable distribution of state funding and the continued full funding of Propositions 1 and 7, as well as the extension of the Proposition 1 sunset provision. Weber stated that relating to planning and development to maintain Georgetown's unique character, the City supports legislation to maintain the municipal election officials' authority to regulate city growth and development through city land development ordinances. She continued that with annexation, the City's primary position is to support a position which would allow for pre-2017 annexation requirements; and secondary position is to support retaining requirements established in 2019 while expanding opportunities for voluntary annexation by property owners that are not contiguous to the city limits and allowing for pre-2017 annexation requirements for areas surrounded by City limits for contiguous City boundaries. Weber noted that for development process the City's primary position is to support legislation that clarifies that House Bill 3167 (86th Regular Session) only applies to changes made to an application intake process or unified -development -code -approval process while improving the opportunity to collaborate with applicants to solve problems and challenges; and the City's secondary position is to support the retention of House Bill 3167 (86th Regular Session) for only the largest of Texas cities or else allow for local control on decision making regarding an applicant's request for a waiver relating to House Bill 3167 requirements. She continued that relating to building codes and materials, the City supports legislation that repeals amendments to House Bill 2439 (86th Regular Session) which preempted cities from regulating building materials. Weber stated that for parks and recreation investment for a healthy Georgetown, the City supports legislation that enhances the investment in parks and open spaces and conserves open spaces that connect communities safely to the mental, social, and physical benefits of outdoor and recreational opportunities. She noted that with continuation of a vibrant arts and culture community, the City supports legislation that funds the arts and libraries to support a strong and vibrant City of Georgetown arts and cultural industry by: preserving the use of Municipality Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) to fund the arts; and maintaining municipality autonomy in allocation of HOT revenue. Weber said that the program next steps are: City Council Agenda item on November 10; stakeholder outreach with the 2021 State Legislative Agenda to community partners; building a digital network of community advocates; and public outreach via social media and the following webpage - https�lgeargetown.orWintergoverninental-relations. She stated that the staff feedback requested is seeking guidance on the draft 2021 State Legislative Agenda and program next steps. Triggs stated that the plan seems very logical and he supports it. Fought stated that he was impressed with the program and it was a great idea to form the committee and he appreciates the variety of issues that were covered. He continued that he supported the proposed plan of action. Pitts asked when these agendas started. David Morgan, City Manager, responded that they were started relating to the Chisolm Trail SUD. Pitts stated that the City hired a lobbying to help with that change and asked if the City uses the same lobbyist now. Morgan responded yes, because they have a general focus and knowledge of utilities. Pitts asked if the City reviews the contract or considers other lobbyist. Morgan responded that there are not many options out there and the City has not done an RFP for services. Pitts noted the Shot Clock Legislation related to planning and development and how it was a surprise to the City. He noted that the legislation led to a large change in City processes and aske how the lobbyist missed that. Morgan responded that he wouldn't say that the lobbyist missed that. He continued that the City was aware of it, but it was adopted quickly, and the City wasn't allowed to participate. Pitts responded that it was a piece of legislation with great impact to the City that affected the way the City does business. He continued that it is unfortunate that the lobbyist didn't have much effect on that, and he wants to verify that the City is using best resource possible. Morgan stated that there is a theme of certain types of legislation where impact is not sought by cities. Pitts asked how the lobbyist is being paid for and if it is a shared expense. Morgan responded that he didn't know exact amount but is split up among funding sources. Pitts stated that one thing that might be missing is that this might be the las time the City will be allowed to have taxpayer funded lobbying. Morgan responded that it is listed as a part of the program. He continued that there are more bills filed that effect cities more than any other entity and a lobbyist is a cost-effective way to track legislation and provide feedback. Pitts asked if the City did not have a lobbyist, would it require a full-time employee to keep track of legislation. Morgan responded that it is important being able to have a way to track and advocate for the City. Mayor Ross noted that the Speaker of the House stated that it just got bad for cities and it is going to get worse, and even if you're great lobbyist, you can't fight against representatives for are making it their life's work to limit cities. Jonrowe stated that she likes the document and next steps. Gonzalez stated that staff did good work and the City will keep pushing to have the voice of the City heard at the state level. Calixtro asked how many lobbyists the city has. Weber responded that the City has one firm with 4-5 staff members. Calixtro asked about the costs. Weber responded approximately $80,000 per year. Morgan responded that staff will verify, but it is an expense that was approved in budget. Calixtro asked if it was a yearly contract. Weber responded that it is a two-year contract based on the calendar of the legislature. Calixtro asked how the firm was selected. Weber responded that the City has an established history with Focused Advocacy since 2013. Mayor Ross noted that local governance is under attack and the City is doing a pretty good job considering that. C. Presentation, discussion and possible direction regarding the City's response to COVID-19 -- Jack Daly, Community Services Director Daly presented the item and provided an overview. He then reviewed the COVID-19 Gathering Policy and noted that the Governor's Order requires Mayor approval for outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people, with exceptions. Daly stated that exceptions for certain businesses/activities as identified in the Governors guidelines for reopening Texas while specifying the following: no occupancy limits for outdoor dining; wedding venues and movie theaters can operate at 75% capacity; and generally, City has not been approving outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people. He continued that, under the current Order, the City: would need to approve outdoor gatherings in a backyard; has limited all pavilion rentals (even large ones) to 10 or fewer; but many more people allowed in Community Center. Daly asked that Council revisit gatherings and the recommendations going forward are to: issue a local order that would allow outdoor gatherings of more than 10 people consistent with the Governor's guidelines; stipulate guidelines in local order (e.g. masking requirements, hand washing); if an event requires a special event permit, the event will be required to provide COVID-19 safety plan; and create enforcement provisions to address violations of COVID-19 safety plan both for event organizers and attendees. Fought asked if the gatherings of 10 more also applies to private property. Daly responded yes and those events would require Mayoral approval. Mayor Ross stated that the City hasn't done that and don't plan on doing that. Daly responded that is correct and he is suggesting cleaning up this information. Fought stated that the City should not be involved in events on private property. Pitts stated that he likes this and the clean-up. He added that the Governor's website has information for different scenarios and outlining risk. Pitts continued that if the City could include some of that language that would be great. Jonrowe asked about masking requirements outside and if they would be required if an event was crowded enough that attendees cannot maintain social distancing. Daly responded yes this would go in accordance with local mask order. Jonrowe asked about enforcement. Daly responded that the City is really focused on voluntary compliance and education. He added that the holder of the permit could be fined, but to his knowledge the City has not fined anyone yet. Daly stated that business have been good about putting signs up. Jonrowe asked if the proposed new order would only apply to special events that require a permit, or would it also apply to commercial businesses when they are utilizing their outdoor space. Daly responded that is would apply to holders of special event permits and work in tandem with the existing mask order. Jonrowe asked if staff is keeping track of information coming in for possible violations. Daly responded that he believes so and that information is being handled by PD. Jonrowe stated that she would like to see how that data tracks. She then asked if the City needs to invest funds in an advertising campaign. Daly responded that most of the time voluntary following of the mask order is going well. Gonzalez stated that likes the way the City is moving forward, and everyone has to assess their own risk level. He added that none of the events are mandatory and he would like to give people a chance to return to normalcy. Calixtro stated that she is fine with staff recommendations as long as the City is keeping people safe. Triggs stated that agrees with fellow Council members. Cari Miller, Tourism/CVB Manager presented alternatives for the Lighting of the Square and presented the following options: 1) Host typical event which is not recommended by staff; 2) "Experience the Lights" Campaign from November 27th — 29'" which will have music and food vendors around Courthouse and a virtual lighting; and 3) a strictly virtual promotion that will have coordinated marketing to promote lights during entire holiday season. Fought noted that hospitals are prepared for the next round which wills tart with flu season. He continued that Option 1 is out and Option 2 would lead to too large of a gathering. Fought stated that he agrees with Option 3 that would get the lights turned on and allow people to enjoy the square. He stated that this is the year to be prudent and safe. Pitts noted the Governor's outdoor checklist, which includes risks to individuals. He stated that many citizens would like to see the event take place as is and he would like to see Option 1 to also help the businesses. Pitts stated that the City can share the event on Facebook Live. He continued that the risks are obvious, and mitigations are clear. Pitts stated that he would like to get back to normalcy. Mayor Ross asked Pitts to clarify which option. Pitts responded a combination of Options 1 and 2. Jonrowe stated that in the past there are many people attending the lighting and the rest of the weekend is people coming and going. She continued that she is hearing from constituents something like Option 2 is preferred. Jonrowe stated that she doesn't want a super spreader event during the holiday season and the City needs to err on the side of caution. She stated that she supports Option 2. Gonzalez stated that he does think the City needs to head back to normalcy, and he supports a combination of Options 1 and 2. He continued that the event won't have the same turnout. Mayor Ross asked Gonzalez to confirm his preference. Gonzalez responded that he likes something similar to what Pitts suggested with both Option 1 and 2. Calixtro stated that she wants Option 2 and would hate for the numbers to start to increase. She continued that she agrees that people know the risk. Triggs stated that every year he has attended this event and he will not be attending this year if it is held. He added that he would like some kind of event and people should have a choice to attend. Triggs stated that he prefers Option 2 but could support Option 1. Miller continued the presentation and reviewed CVB marketing for the holidays that will include online display ads; TourTexas.com destination spotlight; Austin Monthly print and digital presence; and The Daytripper holiday activity. Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager, presented and reviewed the coordinated Downtown promotions that include a series of events to be co -marketed with the Chamber, DGA, and Downtown Businesses including: Jingle Mingle (formerly known as Ladies Night Out) on November 191h; Shop Small on November 281h; Artist Sunday on November 291n; Cyber Monday on November 301"; and Giving Tuesday on December 1s'. She added that there will be expanded Market Days on 2nd Saturday and the Stroll has been cancelled. Council had no additional comments or questions. D. Presentation and update regarding the accomplishments and next steps for the 2019 Communications and Marketing Assessment -- Aly Van Dyke, Director of Communications and Public Engagement Van Dyke presented and provided an overview and the Assessment summary background noting that the City issued a request for proposals for communications audit in 2018 and received six bids. She continued that the City hired Cooksey Communications who conducted a review of current state, interviews, peer cities, and community survey and staff presented recommendations to Council on April 23, 2019. Van Dyke reviewed the highlights including timing and the four primary objectives that lead to 19 recommendations: adopt a more proactive and strategic approach; position the City to better anticipate and respond to emerging issues; foster stronger sense of community partnership and engagement; and establish more distinctive brand voice. The then provided a progress report on the 19 recommendations and noted that those in green have had significant progress, those in orange are in progress, and those in purple are future goals as follows: 1. Rebrand and Restructure the Communications Department 2. Create and implement processes for strategic and proactive planning 3. Leverage cost-effective tools 4. Conduct a website analysis and make site adjustments based on the input 5. Develop crisis communications plans for issues and emergency events 6. Include a Communications Department member during initial discussions 7. Conduct crisis media training for staff who may serve as a City spokesperson 8. Engage an external communications consultant to assist with significant crises 9. Establish quarterly meetings with key community partners 10. Increase participation and engagement at public events 11. Leverage community partnerships to provide resources for underserved communities 12. Develop a centralized inbound communications tool for residents 13. Host a State of the City event 14. Update the City's logo guidelines 15. Create City -branded templates 16. Adopt a distinctive brand voice 17. Host a social media photo contest 18. Turn City staff, elected officials and community partners into brand ambassadors 19. Repeat the resident communications survey annually Citt,x��i ii�v,•n Van Dyke provided accomplishment highlights including: the new Communications and Public Engagement Department (CAPE); increased emphasis and content on social media; improving accessibility to City information; and staff held the first State of the City event. She then provided the City Services Guide and included a visual example in the presentation. Van Dyke reviewed the next steps which are: policy and standard operation procedures updates and creation; Communications visioning; use and refine new metrics; social media tool; and branding analysis. She then explained branding analysis and noted that the City has hired North Star as a consultant that will work for 27 weeks that starts with research and includes robust community and Council engagement. Van Dyke continued that deliverables include logo positioning and update, brand voice and narrative, style guide, and implementation matrix; and branding is something staff will use daily, strategically, and not just for communications. Mayor Ross referenced the City Services Guide and asked how it will be distributed. Van Dyke responded that it will be on the website and printed around the City of Georgetown. Mayor Ross asked about including it in the City utility bills. David Morgan, City Manager, responded that staff can look at that for residents inside the City limits. Pitts stated that communication has improved and getting out in front of issues is best. He continued that the City is communicating more often and more effectively, and he likes the City Services Map. Pitts stated that he has a council Facebook page, Jonrowe has a Facebook page, and Fought has a newsletter. He than asked what Council Members can do to continue better communication and are there ways for social media pages to be passed on from person to person. Pitts stated that it is a disservice to change communication from Council Member to Council Member. Mayor Ross asked about challenges between political messages and serving and can it be overcome. Van Dyke stated that the biggest dividing line is campaign speak versus once someone is elected. She continued that creating a district social media account is an option that can create clear lines and put handing over in the hands of staff. Pitts added that it would be nice to know laws that could affect them. Jonrowe stated that staff has made great progress and Council Member Pitts brings up an interesting idea. She continued that creating official district pages is an interesting idea and would like more information on that. Jonrowe noted that the invite function may be a potential bridge and she appreciates the inventiveness and creativity brought to this. Gonzalez stated that this is progressing nicely in improved communication and City can always improve. Calixtro stated that this was an eye opener and thanked staff for including more Spanish communications. She added that she will be following up on ways to improve communication. Triggs stated that staff has done a good job and the communication is very good. Fought stated that the important part is to communicate an issue to people and setting expectations. He noted the need for a single source for information. Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m. with Executive Session to start 4:40 p.m. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Riverhaven -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Berry Creek Interceptor, Parcels 1, 2, and 3 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services manager Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager Work Plan Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchased Power Update Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development - Project Woods - Project Wafer - Project Farm Adjournment Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _ 1_ 0 Q Date Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: C ,, Secretary