HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GUS_04.20.2004
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday ,
April 20, 2004.
Board Members Present:
Doug Smith, Robert Kostka, John Gavurnik, Patty Eason
Board Members Absent:
Kendall Young, Jack Hunnicutt, Larry Brown
Staff Present:
Paul Brandenburg, Jim Briggs, Jana Kern, Laura Wilkins, Michael Mayben, Glenn Dishong, Ed Polasek,
Mark Miller, Joe Lara, Joel Weaver, Tom Benz, Rachel Osgood, Micki Rundell, Laurie Brewer, David
Munk
OTHERS PRESENT: Kathy Heideman - EcoDevo Board, Rebecca Sellers - Williamson County Sun,
Randall Jones - Randall Jones Engineering, Jim Clarno - LCRA, Blake Magee - Blake Magee Co., Don
Rauschuber - CTSUD, Gordon Eurom - CTSUD, Don Jones - CTSUD, Marcus Couipe - CTSUD, Patty
Rodgers - CTSUD
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Meeting Called to Order at 2:02 p.m. - By Doug Smith
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the President, a Board Member, the Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal counsel for
any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are
subject to action in the Regular Session that follows
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Call to Order 2:03 p.m.
Motion by Eason, second by Gavurnik that the 2004-2005 CIP is executive session item. Approved
4-0 (Brown, Hunnicutt, and Young absent)
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 that follows.
Sec.551.086 Competitive Matters
The GUS Board will go into Executive Session under Chapter 551 of the Texas
Government Code to discuss matters or take action on a “competitive matter” of
the Energy Services Department as provided under Section 551.086.
A. Presentation and possible recommendation of the 2004/2005 Electric Capital Improvement
Projects Plan. Michael W. Mayben
DISCUSSION: Briggs explained the need for the Electric CIP to be executive session item
(competitive matter/confidential).
Mayben introduced the CIP process/format. CIP goes to Council May 24, 2004
DISCUSSION ON TAPE
EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNED AND REGULAR SESSION RECONVENED 2:24 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION: Call to Order 2:25 p.m. By Doug Smith
Action from Executive Session: (if necessary)
B. Presentation and possible recommendation of the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Projects Plan.
Jim Briggs
DISCUSSION: Briggs introduced the CIP process/format. Ties into GASB 34 better. Rundell
explained GASB 34. CIP goes to Council May 24, 2004. WATER/WASTEWATER: Dishong
explained the projects included. Question from Gavurnik - the two streets - College & Forest -
were they identified through this testing of the EARZ for compliance or is this being done
because of the of Transportation Projects. Answered by Dishong: Yes They were identified
because of Transportation. Dishong believes that these drain to the San Gabriel plant.
Focus was placed on everything running to Dove Springs for the first two years. So no these
lines have not been tested. Question from Gavurnik - Will these lines be tested or are they
not required because they are so new? Answered by Dishong: We would not be required to
test these lines but we will smoke test these lines. Briggs stated: These lines were part of SCS
Application/Organized Collection System Application they will be reviewed by TCEQ then they
will not be required to have another test on them for five years. Question from Gavurnik: Is testing
considered as a Capital or an Expense? Answered by Rundell: We only truly capitalize the
repairs we tend to show it under the CIP because it is part of a Capital program. Question from
Kostka: Does test bring up any surprises from a damage or repair standpoint? Answer by
Dishong: No real major surprises so far. Irrigation - Sun City to be on reuse water completely
when these projects are completed (50% of the demand - what we have to pump). Question from
Smith: This will be able to be handle both golf courses completely? Answered by Dishong:
When the plant goes to three million gallons a day it would. Right now the plant is only operating
at about 750,000 gallons a day and that is not enough for the golf courses. These courses will be
using about 1.6 million gallons a day to meet demand. This plant will cover about 50% of their
demand. So we will still use some well water for the other half.
TRANSPORTATION & STORMWATER: Miller explained the process used to determine the
needs and how the funds are projected to be spent.. Rundell explained the Modified
Approach of GASB 34 accounting practices. Miller explained the CIP process/format and
presented the projects. Question from Smith Is there any curbing at all on Morrow now?
Answered by Miller: There is a new piece at Austin Ave. right by Regions Bank but it does not
go down Morrow very far. Question from Smith: Are you planning on adding curbing?
Answered by Miller: Yes, I would like to put curbing about half way down, until we get to the ditch
section. Question from Gavurnik: This includes the CIP but does this also include what will be
repaired with the 1/4 cent tax? Answered by Rundell: The funding source is listed on each page,
but these projects include both regular and 1/4 cent. We also have a one page showing what
projects will be funded by the 1/4 cent tax. In closing Briggs explained why we went to this new
format of presentation and hoped that it was easier to read and understand.
ACTION: NONE
BOARD MOVED TO ITEM F AT THIS TIME
C. Discussion and inaugural briefing regarding utility services to Mayfield Ranch Subdivision.
Glenn Dishong and Jim Briggs
DISCUSSION: Briggs explained the item and history related to the issue. Dishong presented
the issues related to the item. WASTEWATER is a little different as it is sort of an "island" we
are not obligated to serve - but there are a couple of options. 1. - LCRA to be wholesale
provider, BRA to be operator - but Georgetown would be the retail provider. 2 - Developer or
we could build a facility (similar to Cimarron Hills facility) - we would be owner - BRA would be
operator also. Jim Clarno - LCRA explained LCRA's position and gave history related to the
issue. Seven separate agreements required to make this process work. LCRA is interested
in pursuing this project. Question and Answer by Briggs: What is in it for G'TOWN - Whitetail
has been requesting for 10 years access to water (they are currently on well service).
This would allow G'TOWN to address this request - plus it is in our water CCN. Would have to
be in a MUD - a MUD District would be formed. MUD's are only allowed to fund their
level/number of homes. An agreement would allow them what they want and allow us to
address Whitetail (win/win). Question by Smith: Long - Term - Does the City want to own and
operate its WWTP? Answer by Briggs: Long Term we are looking weather we own them or a
regional entity owns and operates them it is in our interest to have them owned in the public
sector.
ACTION: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Smith that staff gather options available for providing
water service and bring options back to Board at the May meeting for recommendation to
Council. Approved 4-0 (Brown, Hunnicutt, and Young absent)
D. Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting held on February 17, 2004. Laura Wilkins
DISCUSSION: NONE
ACTION: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Eason to approve the minutes. Approved 4-0
(Brown, Hunnicutt, and Young absent)
E. Review of the Construction Progress Report and timelines (including but not limited to items
listed) Joel Weaver
DISCUSSION: Weaver gave update on the projects. EARZ Phase 1 Weaver this is the rehab
portion of this contract. It is the first annual. Point repairs have been completed. There are two
facets - One is an "Insitu-Form" type rehab, the other is open cut portion. Question by Smith:
These are the results of the testing that was done? Answer by Weaver: This is the results of
the two year ago testing and the first annual contract for rehabilitation.
ACTION: NONE
F. Discussion and possible recommendation regarding options for retail wastewater providers
within the Georgetown Planning Area. Jim Briggs
DISCUSSION: Briggs introduced the item and handed out a map of the affected area.
Briggs explained the situation and options that will be coming up in the next few months
or years. Explained that Chisholm Trail is interested in serving ww to at least a portion of
the area in Western Williamson County. Rauschuber explained Chisholm's interest in
serving water/ww in western Williamson County ("organized sewer"). MUD #13- CTSUD
Board interested in regional concept - serving wastewater. Forefront - request from
MUD #12 Retail - CTSUD/LCRA for WW - , mentioned also MUD #17 and 18 for retail.
CTSUD wants to work together on this issue and not beat odds. Wants MOU between the
two entities for a regional format. Gavurnik is a member of the Board of MUD #17
- will listen to discussion - but will not participate in discussions or voting (if
vote occurs).
Rauschuber explained the phases are areas affected. CTSUD will apply for CCN
amendment (MUD #12) to about Leander to Parmer Lane. Question from Smith: Is this plan
for retail to be provided by CTSUD and wholesale to be provided by G'Town? Answered
by Rauschuber: Yes, that this their proposal. Questions by Smith: Would that apply on 17
as well? Answered by Rauschuber: It could as well. If we could follow this format.
Briggs elaborated about the possibility of adding irrigation (GTOW N) for golf course at
Cimarron Hills (short term). Long-term - use quarry on 29 - as they begin to quarry out - as
a plant site (non-discharge plant). Question by Smith: Would this plant discharge into the
river? Answered by Rauschuber: The LCRA plant has discharge to the South San Gabriel.
The Wade Cross plant doesn't,. Its and on site. Question by Smith: If it would be possible
for MUD #12 to go to the Cimarron Hills WWTP for service. Answered by Briggs: It could.
That plant could be expanded to handle it on an interim basis. Question by Kostka: If any
of this would prevent the development from getting WW service to the development?
Answered by Briggs: Explained the CCN process and some of the questions that could
come up related to the process.
ACTION: NONE
BOARD MOVED BACK TO ITEM "C" AT THIS TIME
G. Discussion and possible recommendation related to Regional Stormwater Detention.
John Gavurnik
DISCUSSION: Gavurnik explained that several developers had contacted him regarding
the status of the plan. Briggs gave status and explained that when John Aldridge left this
was one of the projects that was delayed. We will be contacting interested parties when we
begin working on it again to get input prior to finalizing. Looking at next Spring for completion
and fee implementation.
ACTION: NONE
Motion by Gavurnik, second by Smith that meeting be adjourned - Approved 4-0 (Brown, Hunnicutt,
and Young absent)
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved : Attest:
_______________________ ________________________
Board Member Name Secretary