HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.08.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 3:00 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 3:00 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 3:00 PM
A. Presentation, discussion, and direction regarding updating the City's sign regulations -- Jack
Daly, Community Services Director, and Andreina Davila -Quintero, Current Planning
Manage
Daly presented the item and provided an overview and recognized the review team
consisting of Jeff Cardwell, Chief Plans Examiner; Jack Daly, Community Services Director,
Brad Hofmann, Chief Code Enforcement Officer; Andreina Davila -Quintero, Current
Planning Manager; and Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney. He added that in the case
of Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) it was determined that content -based sign ordinances are
an unconstitutional regulation of speech, for example: a City cannot have different size, height
and duration requirements for political signs than for signs providing directions to an
assembly or other event. Daly reviewed the recommendations which are to: eliminate any
separate rules for categories of signs that are defined by the content or subject matter of their
message, which means avoiding rules that have different size, height, or duration
requirements for "political" signs, "directional" signs, "real estate' signs, etc.; closely review
"exceptions" to regulations to make sure they are not content based, and eliminate such
exceptions even if they seem innocuous (e.g., exceptions for historical markers, address signs,
etc.); and adopt content neutral, "time, place, and manner" (TPM) regulations, including rules
governing the size and location of signs, the amount of time signs are displayed, and the total
number of signs allowed per mile of roadway. He reviewed the Georgetown Sign Regulations
that are covered in the Unified Development Code (UDC) in Chapt 5 - Zoning Use
Regulations, Sec. 5.04.020; Chapt. 10 - Signs Standards; Chapt. 16 - Definitions; and in the
Code of Ordinances in Sec. 12.12 - Advertising Sign and Banners, and Sec 12.16 - Signs
Adjacent to Freeways. Daly noted that content -based issues in Georgetown's Code have
references to civic uses and non -civic uses like "Governmental flags"; exemptions for real
estate signs, political signs, and HOA signs, and content -specific rules for signs in ROW,
temporary signs, and home -builder signs. He provided the staff proposed approach which
is a phased approach that address the lawsuit issues and will: consolidate sign regulations as
much as possible; preserve the home -builder sign program; disallow temporary signs in
ROW, including for special events; provide specific signage requirements based on zoning
are allowed (e.g. automobile signs) which gets tricky with SUPS that are issued based on
specific use within a zoning district; and clarify prohibitions and enforcement.
Daly noted the recommendations that staff is referring two as the Georgetown Two -Step. He
added that first, staff would like to: fix constitutional issues in current sign regulations;
administrative and legal clean-up to make current practices and interpretations clearer;
consolidate the ordinance; and provide an executive amendment process. Daly stated that
second, staff would like to: address items previously approved in the UDC general
amendment list; have a public process to discuss further additions and amendment; and
utilized the UDC Advisory Committee. He noted that recommendations have pros of
addresses lawsuit concerns, creates incentive to finish amending sign ordinance, removes
conflicts and ambiguity within the Chapter and other sections of the UDC, and simplifies the
second round redline for UDC Advisory Board and public; the cons of removing and limiting
some civic use signs, and executive amendment process where a public hearing will still be
required at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meetings; and added that
the changes will lead to no signs allowed in right-of-way and it removes prohibition on off -
premise signage. Daly noted potential topics for round two changes that are: general
amendments recommended by UDC Advisory Committee; Portable Sign definition;
temporary signs versus banners; Digital Signs; and downtown and old town design
Guidelines to be completed through the Guidelines review process. He reviewed the
proposed timeline of: September 8, 2020 City Council Workshop to discuss proposed changes
and approach; subsequently Planning and Zoning (P&Z) and then Council for first reading
of first round ordinance (tentative); October 6, 2020 P&Z recommendation; October 27, 2020
Council meeting and First Reading; November 8, 2020 Council meeting and Second Reading;
Fall/Winter have a public process for second round ordinance changes; and Winter/Spring
have a first reading of second round ordinance changes.
Mayor Ross asked if the Supreme Court ruling had a nationwide effect. Daly responded yes,
it does. Mayor Ross asked what the drop -dead date for getting these changes implemented
is. Daly responded that there is no drop -dead date, but parts of the City's sign ordinance are
now not enforceable because they are unconstitutional.
Fought noted that this is a requirement and asked about how to best communicate this
information with homeowners' associations throughout the City. Daly responded that staff
will work with the neighborhood association groups. Fought asked that staff make sure to
share with Sun City and the neighborhood associations out there.
Jonrowe had no questions or comments.
Gonzalez asked for clarification about the impact of the regulations being for context rather
than size. Daly responded that his rule of thumb is that if you have to read the sign to ensure
compliance that your ordinance is out of date.
Calixtro had no questions.
Triggs asked if this was a statewide issue. Daly responded that since it was a ruling at the
national level is applied all across the state as well.
Mayor Ross asked how political signs fell into the equation. Daly responded that on private
property there are size and time limit restrictions. He added that no political signs are
allowed in right of ways. Mayor Ross noted that the Supreme Court ruling would trump state
law. Daly responded that anything done locally would be in line with stated and federal law.
Mayor Ross noted that campaign signs can be regulated on size but not content. Daly
responded yes.
Gonzalez asked about restrictions on residential property. Daly responded that there are
dimensional restrictions. Gonzalez asked for additional clarification. Davila -Quintero
responded that the current sign regulations do have sign restrictions for both residential and
commercial, relating to size. She added that this cleanup is to address the content of the signs.
Mayor Ross asked if someone could put a 4 foot by 8 foot sign in their yard. Daly responded
that staff can provide Council size limits for temporary signage and added that the City needs
to update to allow for content neutral regulation. Mayor Ross asked if political signs fall
under same regulations as others. Daly responded yes; all signs are treated the same. Mayor
Ross asked who regulates the size. Daly responded that there are several departments
involved. Mayor Ross complimented staff on their work.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding the Transportation Impact Fee study including basics
of impact fees, land use assumptions, preliminary Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and
stakeholder engagement plan -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director
David Morgan, City Manager, introduced the item.
Jake Gutekunst with Kimley Horn presented the item and provided a presentation overview
and provided a recap of the study history with: a Council briefing on Transportation Impact
Fees 101 on November 26, 2019; First Phase Draft Report in March of 2020 that includes
growth assumptions and impact fee eligible CIP projects that went on hold due to COVID-19;
and re -started in August of 2020. He then reviewed the impact fee basics explaining that
impact fees: are a mechanism to recover infrastructure costs required to serve future
development; governed by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, established in
Texas in 1987; Water, Wastewater, Roadway, and Drainage impact fees allowed in Texas;
other states may have school district, police, fire, parks, and/or library impact fees; other
municipalities adopted include Round Rock, New Braunfels, and dozens in DFW area; and
other municipalities considering are Austin and Pflugerville. Gutekunst reviewed the process
which requires two public hearings for Land Use Assumptions (LUA) and Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) specific to the study and the second public hearing is to provide
report, ordinance, and policy. He continued that the committee will provide written
comments on these and reviewed a map of service areas discussed at November 26, 2019
Council meeting, noting that impact fees cannot be applied in the ETJ. Gutekunst reviewed
the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and noted that that the Impact Fee CIP is different
from annual CIP City prepares. He continued that the Impact Fee CIP has components that
can be paid for through an impact fee program including construction cost of capital
improvements on the CIP including roadway to thoroughfare standard, and traffic signals,
bridges, sidewalks, etc.; survey and engineering fees; land acquisition costs, including court
awards; debt service of impact fee CIP; and study/update costs. Gutekunst noted that the
following components that cannot be paid for through an impact fee program: projects not
included in the CIP; repair, operation and maintenance of existing or new facilities; upgrades
to serve existing development; and administrative costs of operating the program. He then
reviewed the Impact Fee Components for Land Use Assumptions which are: consistent with
recently updated Comprehensive Plan; establish infrastructure demands and master plans;
population and employment projections regarding aggressive versus non -aggressive growth
rates; calibrated with historical growth; and coordinating with Future Land Use. Gutekunst
The above chart is projecting 15,506 residential units of growth 2020-2030 and includes single
family and multifamily which is about 1,320 units per year of single family and 330 units per
year (1 complex) multifamily. Gutekunst reviewed the types of project starting with
roadways noting that: previously constructed with identified corridors that were previously
constructed and have excess capacity for future development to utilize; widening with
existing roadways not currently built to the ultimate class in the Transportation Master Plan
and must be completely reconstructed; access management with existing undivided
roadways identified for median construction in the existing center turn lane for access
management purposes; and new with all future roadways needed to complete the
Transportation Master Plan. He reviewed intersection projects that include: signal, either a
new signal or modification to an existing signal; roundabout, a new roundabout intersection;
turn lane, addition or extension of a turn lane; overpass, identified new grade separated
crossings in TMP; innovative, construction of an intersection improvement to be determined
after complete analysis including special high capacity intersections; and other, ITS System
Upgrades, identified by staff and was split evenly between the nine (9) service areas.
Gutekunst then provided a LUA and CIP summary stating that: total growth is highest in
Service Area A; lowest growth in Service Area B as it is more built -out; Impact Fee CIP total
cost is $602 million and includes OTP projects and some past projects with debt service still
being paid off; and a draft report was attached as backup for review prior to public hearing
to make a motion on study assumptions. He then reviewed the Stakeholder Engagement Plan
which will include the three key strategies of inform, consult, and involve. Gutekunst stated
that the plan will: ensure that inclusive and efficient consultation is undertaken throughout
the process; and identify how the project team will respond to community input and keep
them informed of decisions. He reviewed how the project team will accomplish keeping the
public informed, consulted, and involved and provided goals for each area. Gutekunst
provided a schedule.
Jonrowe stated that it was a good presentation and asked that staff please proceed.
Gonzalez had no comments or questions.
Calixtro asked how the fees are handled in the ETJ. Wright responded that the TIF can only
be applied in the City Limits and it will be business as usual in the ETJ and issues addressed
via a Traffic Impact Analysis. Calixtro noted the total cost of $602 million and asked what
past projects have been completed. Wright responded that past projects like SWBypass are
making payments after issuing debt, and the City can use TIF to pay prior debt. Gutekunst
explained how the impact CIP works.
Gonzalez asked if the City would be focusing on 971 and other projects. Wright responded
yes, when coming forward at a future meeting will have projects ready. Gonzalez supported
that process.
Triggs had no comments or questions.
Fought noted that when discussed previously by Council, only a small area was covered, and
the burden was on large developers. He asked about the purpose of this exercise. Wright
responded all those points are valid and there is a lot of opportunity for development to come
in and not pay a pro rata. He continued by pointing out some flaws in the process. Fought
just wanted to verify the purpose. Wright responded that the purpose is the same and this is
the next step.
Mayor Ross asked how it works from a process standpoint when the developer pays the
impact fee, and when does the City decide what the impact fee is. Wright responded that the
review process will result in a maximum fee being determined. He added that how much
max fee is taken on by rate payer versus developers. Wright noted that vested impact fees at
preliminary plat for those already in the development process.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the mobility bond program targeting the May 2021
election -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager and Ray Miller, Director of
Public Works
Weber presented and provided the presentation overview and background. She noted that
the Citizen Committee met on August 24, 2020 for the first meeting of the Mobility
Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee; in September through October will be ranking and
prioritization and initial recommendations developed; in November the second round of
public engagement activities to receive feedback about the proposed bond projects; in
December the Committee will develop final recommendations; and in January project
recommendations presented to Council. Weber provided a public engagement summary and
added that public engagement will be at the center of Georgetown's bond process and staff
will develop a way for every stakeholder, from the public to City Council to partner agencies,
to engage in the process and provide feedback on categories of importance. She noted that
public engagement will begin before the election is called with the first phase being July 15 -
August 15 and the second phase being in November. Weber continued that public education
will happen after election is called in February 2021 and provided resource websites. She
then reviewed the Citizen Survey that was open July 15 - August 15, 2020. Weber then
provided a high-level overview of the feedback. She noted that the top two most important
categories were to "manager congestion on high -travel roadways" and "improve traffic light
timing along roadway corridors." She also added that respondents supported a potential
property tax increase through a bond package. Weber then provided the public engagement
next steps noting that in November public engagement will be seeking feedback on
committee's selection of projects and public education will, once the projects, bond amount
and ballot items are approved by Council, the City will conduct a campaign to educate and
inform residents about the bond program and projects.
Miller presented and provided an update on the status of projects. He noted that the Leander
Road Expansion from Norwood to SW Bypass is a partnership between the City and
CAMPO/TxDOT and the City of Georgetown is to complete design and acquire ROW costing
$3.5 million; CAMPO/TxDOT to fund construction costing $5.3 million; but CAMPO/TxDOT
pulled their funding commitment for this project (and many others in the Austin District) to
support IH-35 project through Austin which is a $3.4 billion project for IH-35 from SH-45N to
SH-45S. Miller then provided a map of the project area. He noted that staff direction is
needed regarding the following options: finish design and ROW acquisition and get the
project shovel ready, without construction funding; continue to hold at 30% until construction
funding is secured; discuss potential construction funding as part of the upcoming 2021
Mobility Election; or consider the sidewalkibike path as an independent, standalone project
also as part of the 2021 Mobility Election. Miller stated that the staff recommendation is to
complete 30% schematic plans, acquire ROW, and redirect balance of project funds to other
eligible projects. He then reviewed the IH-35 and Hwy 29 project and noted: TxDOT Austin
District is preparing schematic and environmental documentation for the I-35 at SH 29 (from
Wolf Ranch Pkwy to HEB) project; TxDOT is requesting City of Georgetown participation
and an Advance Funding Agreement; staff is to meet with TxDOT representatives in
September on options and costs in order to provide timely feedback to the Mobility
Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee; and there will be a Virtual Open House September
17 - October 2, 2020. Miller reviewed Williamson County partnerships and showed a map of
the projects. He stated that the SW By -Pass Extension will provide the connection to SH-29
on the west side of IH-35, and this project was included in the Wilco 2019 Bond Program
which the City supported and agreed to participate in. Miller continued that Williamson
County is designing and will oversee construction of the project. He then provided the
following break down of estimated cost and potential City of Georgetown participation:
• City Funds the Design = $1,000,000
r City Towards Construction = $1,000,000
• Request to Wilco = $3,473,000
■ Total Project Cost = $5,473,000
• City Share 37%
• County Share 63%
Miller reviewed SW By -Pass from IH-35 to Leander Road and noted that this project has been
completed and was constructed through the Texas Crushed Stone Quarry by Williamson
County, and this section of the SW By -Pass was opened on May 26, 2020. He stated that this
section (SE Inner Loop) from IH-35 to FM 1460 is planned for reconstruction to create a 5-lane
section and will be designed and constructed by the City of Georgetown. Miller noted that
the East extension of the SW By -Pass from the existing terminus of Sam Houston east to SH-
29 and is being designed and constructed by Williamson County has part of the Wilco 2019
Bond Program. The City supported and agreed to participate in. He then reviewed the
estimated cost and potential Georgetown participation as follows:
• City funds ROW and utilities = $1,200,000 *
• City towards construction = $2,800,000 *
■ Request to Wilco = $18,737,000
• Total Project Cost = $22,537,000
■ City Share 18%
■ County Share 82%
o *Potential funding from future bond proceeds and possible land dedication from
the City of Georgetown
Miller reviewed the Westinghouse (CR 111/CR 105) from FM 1460 to SH-130 project noting
that the City supported and agreed to participate, and Williamson County is designing and
will oversee construction of the project. He then reviewed the estimated cost and potential
Georgetown participation as follows:
• City Funds ROW and Utilities = $2,400,000 *
• City Towards construction = $5,800,000 *
■ Request to Wilco = $11,996,000
• Total Project Cost = $20,196,000
• City Share 40%
• County Share 60%
o *Potential funding from future bond proceeds
Weber presented and reviewed the Tax Rate Capacity and noted that there is a 5 Year Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) Planning Process that: looks at debt retirement schedule and
assumed average annual growth rate; allows for approximately $18 million annually in debt
over the next 5 years; current 5 Year CIP includes transportation, public safety, fleet, and parks
projects; and could be redirected to support future bond efforts. She then reviewed the debt
modeling for proposed Mobility Georgetown 2021 Bond that includes: modeling is on top of
existing CIP plan; growth between 3 — 7 percent assumed average annual growth rate; tax rate
increase between 2 — 5 cents; 5-year program versus 10-year program; and that staff
recommends a 5-year bond program based on the challenge of identifying the top mobility
priorities past a 5-year outlook. She then reviewed following for a 5-Year Bond Program:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Projected Additional Capacity (Mobility Projects) - 5 Year Summary
Preliminary as of August 28, 2020
Tax Rate Ificfease 0
$0.02 $0.03 $0 04 $0.05
$ 33,250,000 $
46,245,000 $
59,205,000 $
72,040.000
38,335,000
51,555,000
64,715,000
77,740,000
43,435,000
56.865,000
70.220,000
83.485,000
Assumptions
(1) Please see Capital Improvement Plan models for assuptons and details Prehnbnary. subject to change.
Webern noted the following for a 10-Year Bond Program:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Projected Additional Capacity (Mobility Projects) -10 Year Summary
Pmhminary as of September 3. 2020
3%
5%
7%
Assumptions
$0.02 $0.03 $0 04 $0 05
$ 49.005,000 $
63,665.000 S
78,230,000 $
92.835,000
86,215.000
102,510,000
118,650,000
134, 620,000
127,750,000
145,030,000
155, 235,000
180.610,000
{ 1 I Please see Captal Improvement Plan nvdets tar assup Motu and details Preln mary subject to change.
Weber noted that staff is requesting direction on the following from Council to Citizen
Advisory Committee: length of bond, either 5 years or 10 years; and the range of proposed
bond amount while balancing property tax commitments with project needs.
Gonzalez stated that he prefers a 5-year program with a bond package under $50 million, in
the $30-50 million range.
Calixtro asked about the current rate of growth. Morgan responded 5-7% per year. Calixtro
stated that she prefers 5 years and asked if the City can do the needed improvements for $50
million. Morgan responded that this is to give preliminary guidance to provide a range. He
added that the process is to review and the next step for bond committee is to review projects.
Morgan continued that staff will provide a range to committee and staff can wait longer if
council needs more information. Mayor Ross provided perspective related to last bond and
asked what bandwidth City staff has to manage the projects. Morgan responded that if
Council wants to be aggressive, staff would have to regroup.
Triggs noted that this is very preliminary, and Council need input from committee. He added
that he agrees with Gonzalez's suggestion.
Fought stated that the future is too uncertain to take too much on and he agrees with Gonzalez
on the highest amount.
Jonrowe stated that she agrees with fellow Council Members. She added that she still
supports long range planning while sticking with smaller increments for funding. Jonrowe
stated that while looking at tax rate she wants to stay in the $.02 - $0.3 range, and $33-57
million range.
Mayor Ross recapped the Council feedback of 5 years and $30 - $50 million.
Weber noted that staff needs Council feedback on Leander Road. Morgan noted that a
funding source is no longer available through TxDOT. Mayor Ross asked if anyone
disagreed. All of Council agreed with the staff recommendation.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed changes to the Fiscal and Budgetary
Policies as part of the FY2021 budget development process -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
Wallace presented and reviewed the purpose of the presentation and noted that the policy is
reviewed annually by GGAF and Council as part of budget development process and for the
audience of internal staff, external auditors, and credit rating agencies. She the noted some
administrative changes that would clarify existing wording and formatting, remove old
language that no longer applies, and update compliance for coming fiscal year. Wallace
reviewed substantive changes and how they could change the meaning of the policy with
calculation change, definition change, or change in decision maker. She then provided
examples of past updates such as adding new reserves, updating policy to align with
opportunities in new software system, clarify goals for rate -setting and revenue recovery, and
define appropriate uses of one-time savings. Wallace provided pandemic context for the
policy with the following: Section IX. Budget Contingency Plan, in FY2020 the use of the
Budget Contingency Plan for first time in several years, and under new emergency
circumstances, broaden the wording in the plan to accommodate a wider variety of
circumstances, leave intact the actions authorized by City Manager and the Council, and
tighten up replenishment guidance when reserves are used; Section XI. Capital Maintenance
and Replacement relating to economic changes resulting in decreased revenues, FY2021
budget uses various reserves to sustain services/projects and reviewed with Council during
budget development; and Section XIV. Debt Management relating to the collapse of the
municipal debt market in March and April 2020 led City to postpone annual debt sale for
capital projects, financial Advisor recommended various options, broaden wording for
method of sale to include options other than competitive bidding, and keep wording
alternatives must be approved by Council. She then noted possible re -organization related to
Section X. Capital Improvement Program due to the Georgetown Utility Systems Board re-
organized to two separate boards to specialize in Electric Utility and Water Utility affairs with
each board will review rates, contracts, and capital infrastructure plans. Wallace noted the
updates to reserves in Section XV. Financial Conditions and Reserves with the suggestion to
add GTEC and GEDCO reserves consistent with bylaws and existing practice, remove
Downtown TIRZ debt service reserve no longer needed since Garage debt repurposed to
Waste Transfer Station, and add Cemetery reserve consistent with existing practice. She then
reviewed Special Purpose Funding in Section V. Expenditure Management, noting that in
order to support community assistance programs, the City designates specific funding for
special purposes, including Social Services, Children's Programs, and Public Art, and the City
reserves the ability to cap this special purpose funding when necessitated by budget
contingency or compliance issues, such as revenue shortfalls, or other reasons as determined
by City Council. Wallace stated that related to Strategic Partnerships for Community Service,
the City of Georgetown values partnerships with organizations that are committed to
addressing our communities' greatest public challenges and has identified key priorities in
the following areas: public safety; transportation housing; parks and recreation; veteran
services; and a safety net. She stated that the City has targeted funding for these programs to
be $5.00 per capita, which may be adjusted to offset the effects of general inflation based upon
Consumer Price Index, and if previous funding levels are higher than the targeted amount,
and to avoid significant reductions in levels of funding, the City Council shall seek to attain
this target chiefly through population growth. Wallace continued that these funds will be
allocated and paid according to the City Council's guidelines for such programs and provided
the historical spending as follows:
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY 20
Proposed FY 21
Special Purpose
Funding
Allocations
including SPCS
Grants, and In -
Kind Utility &
Maintenance
Assistance
407,943
431,649
432,561
434,938
423,466
433,564
431,557
433,780
434,377
434,588
436,105
434,588
Population
48,164
48,902
49,543
50,542
50,848
54,689
58,085
61,119
62,573
64,950
66,240
71,581
Total
Dollars Per
Capita for
Special
Purpose
Funding
$ 10.03
$ 8.83
$ 8.73
$ 8.61
$ 8.33
$ 7.93
$ 7.43
$ 7.10
$ 6.94
$ 6.69
$ 6.58
$ 6.07
Targeted
Dollars Per
Capita for
SPCS Grants
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
Wallace also provided the Special Purpose spending detail and noted that strategic
partnerships accounts for $400,049, utility assistance for Madella Hilliard and Mary Bailey
accounts for $25,256, and maintenance for Madella Hilliard accounts for $9,283 for a FY2021
total of $434,588. She then provided a summary and noted that several additions and
clarifications to the policies are proposed for FY2021 to reflect current practices as staff had
an opportunity to see policies in new light of pandemic circumstances and use of reserves as
planned during difficult economic environment and uncertainty; and the City continues to be
recognized by credit rating agencies for strong fiscal policies that emphasize flexible liquidity.
Wallace then reviewed the next steps which are to receive Council feedback and adopt
policies with the budget on September 22, 2020.
Calixtro and Triggs has no comments or questions.
Fought stated that these are good updates and he appreciated the tabulation or Strategic
Partnership funding. He added that this is a generous City and he is happy with the proposed
changes. He then asked if there is anything missing from the staff perspective. Wallace
responded not from her experience when reviewing with other cities and staff has had no
critiques from auditors or rating agencies. Fought stated that there are reserve funds coming
out of Council's ears and asked if there was any flexibility needed. He stated that Wallace
could think about it and come back if needed. Wallace responded that Council can always
adjust do more or less, it just depends on what is right for the City and finding the right
balance for the community. Fought noted that there is a lot written about underfunded
retirement funds and asked if the City was at 84%. Wallace responded that's correct. Fought
asked if that was a good position. Wallace responded that the City has what it needs to keep
a good funded ratio.
Jonrowe stated that she had no questions and really liked seeing the development of
replenishment guidance. Wallace responded that the City will have that for a few of the
funds, particularly the tourism fund.
Gonzalez thanked Wallace for incorporating the GGAF discussion related to replenishing
funds into the plan. He added that the City will always need to monitor and review the
reserves to make sure the amounts are sufficient.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:28 p.m. to start at 4:45 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.
AF. 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
- Westinghouse Right of Way
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- Approval of appointment of Assistant City Attorney
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
Purchased Power Update
Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development
- Project Dazed
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on pjc* ,6�,f 2-2 y 76Z-O _
Date
— (� "&kde�w�
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Ci Secretary