Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GUS_08.17.2004 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, August 17, 2004 The Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , August 17, 2004. Board Members Present: John Gavurnik, Patty Eason, Robert Kostka, Larry Brown Board Members Absent: Doug Smith, Kendall Young, Jack Hunnicutt Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Laura Wilkins, Jana Kern, Joel Weaver, Micki Rundell, Mike Mayben, Glenn Dishong, Paul Brandenburg, Rachel Osgood, Joe Lara, Marsha Iwers, Laurie Brewer OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Moffitt - McCord Eng. Inc., David Patrick - Roming, Parker & Kasberg, L.L.P., Blake Magee - Blake Magee Company, Jim Clarno - LCRA, Randall Jones - Randall Jones Engineering Minutes Regular Meeting CALLED TO ORDER 2:03 BY JOHN GAVURNIK Moved to Executive Session EXECUTIVE SESSION: Call to Order Called to Order at 2:04 pm 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. Section 551.086 Competitive Matters A. Consideration of Power Supply options for calendar year 2005. Jim Briggs DISCUSSION ON TAPE B. Discussion and possible action to recommend the proposed Electric rate increases to the City Council as part of the 2004/05 Annual Operating Plan. Micki Rundell DISCUSSION ON TAPE EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNED AND REGULAR SESSION RECONVENED AT 3:02 P.M. REGULAR AGENDA Action from Executive Session - if needed Action: Motion by Eason, seconded by Brown to proceed with the Power Supply Options. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) Action: Motion by Brown, seconded by Eason to recommend the proposed Electric Rates to City Council. Board will review rates at the September 2004. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular Board Meeting held on July 22, 2004 and the Meeting held on July 27, 2004. Laura Wilkins/Jana Kern Discussion: None Action: Motion by Kostka seconded by Brown to approve minutes from both meetings. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) D. Review of the Construction Progress Report and Timelines (including but not limited to items listed). Joel Weaver Discussion: Weaver gave update on all projects Jennings Branch: Tank has been raised, all of the exterior coating is complete, interior welding to column is finished and interior coating has begun. Airport Road Rehab: Contracts is back and we have the Bonding documents. Should start getting some of the right of way prep started next week. 13th Street: Currently at Pine on 13th St. heading toward Railroad EARZ Phase 1: Finishing up the remainder of the project. Church Street should begin with in the next several weeks. This will take approximately 4 to 5 weeks to complete. When Church St. is finished this will complete this project. 2004 Overlay: Currently on Northwest Blvd - crews are replacing the curb and gutters when this is complete they will start with the overlaying of Northwest Blvd. Berry Creek WWTP: This is about 75% complete, all of the structure is up, and the equipment is on site. Action: None E. Consideration and possible recommendation for the award of the annual bid for automatic meter reading equipment to various bidders. Mike Mayben/Terry Jones Discussion: Iwers & Mayben gave an overview. Q by Gavurnik: Money will not be spent all at one time? A by Mayben: Money will be use through out the year. We keep a minium balance in the warehouse. When it gets to the Min/Max we reorder. This way we don't have any lag time. Q by Kostka: The items that were No Bid was that due to a non- request by us? A by Mayben: No. Due to specification changes, or it is sole source item from the vendo r only, and those company's are no longer able to bid on those items. Action: Motion by Gavurnik, seconded by Eason to approved award of the automatic meter reading equipment to the various bidders. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) F. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a contract amendment between the City of Georgetown and Roming, Parker & Kasberg L.L.P. for professional services related to the design of the Phase II EARZ remediation in the amount of $104,000.00 Jim Briggs/Glenn Dishong Discussion: Dishong gave an overview. This is the Westerly portion of the Dove Springs Basin - this goes all the way down to the motor mile and to the west on Leander Rd. The testing is finished. We now need engineering to do the design work for the actual repairs. Due to the deadlines by TCEQ, once you know about a defect, you have one year to repair. The report was turned in by GSW on May 1, 2004, so we trying to get a head start on getting the repair work done. All repairs must be completed by May 1, 2005. Action: Motion by Brown, seconded by Kostka to approve the contract amendment between City of Georgetown and RPK for professional services related to design of EARZ Phase II in the amount of $104,000.00. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) G. Presentation and discussion of water and wastewater service options to Highlands at Mayfield. Glenn Dishong Discussion: Dishong introduced Blake Magee - developer, Randall Jones - Randall Jones Engineering, and Jim Clarno - LCRA. Dishong: A few months ago we presented this to the board. At that time the board ask for us to look at a more options. Dishong passed out a presentation and reviewed/explained the three options. Magee's input: Discussions have been going on for about 2 yrs. We have been asked to build the whole water system, plus paying for land, and then put up capital cost plus letters of credit for the wastewater system, we can not take all of that risk. Would like to get the cost down and low as we can. We would like to make this work for everyone. The County has some concerns about the cost because they are providing the land for the treatment plant site and the irrigation pond. They would like to buy reuse water they want a competitive rate. LCRA input: Our role is to try and facilitate solution. We have not had a chance to sit down and work out numbers so everyone is comfortable with them. We would like to work with staff to fine tune a proposal. Our electric customers want to see our water/wastewater business grow, but they want to make sure that it is on the water/wastewater' s back not electric's. There is some negotiating that can be done. I feel that LCRA and The City need to sit down go through the costs get to fine tune the options, than sit down with the developer. LCRA is willing to assume some risk, but our electric customers are wanting to make sure that we minimize the electric customer. What I need to do for my financial people, is to prove to them that this project will stand on its own. Gavurnik stated that sounds to him that everyone needs to go back look at some combination of these options, create new ones, it appears that people are willing to negotiate. Rundell added that we, The City, need ask if we are willing to take this risk. Action: Staff is to go back and continue negotiations and also try to minimize the risk to The City as much as possible. Then bring it back to the board. H. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Georgetown Utility System. Jim Briggs Discussion: Briggs reviewed the changes to Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5..4 of t he GUS By-laws. One concern that came up was with Sec. 2.2. This is the Eligibility section that states members shall reside within the city limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown. Were the concern is that a member/s of this board could be in the ETJ and not have any Georgetown utilities but these members have information concerning bond analysts and rating agencies and these members who are not a utility customer are making recommendations on rates. Q by Gavurnik: Is the concern that someone like my self that lives in the ETJ would be making slated decision on rate increases because I am not going to be paying these rates? A by Briggs: Not that you would be making a slated decision, but making a decision not with the sa me level of concern as if you would be paying these rates. Rundell commented that the board does not set the rates, but recommends rates. The Boards approval/disapproval is taken in high consideration with the Council when they look at these rates. I feel that it is a stake holder issue, one of the things that agencies look at is how we manage our utilities as far as public input/public participation and the rating institutes are aware that we have this advisory board and our concern is they were to look at our By-laws there may be some questions as to the fact that we have people influencing our rates that do not have a vested interest in the rates. Several suggestions were presented to the board. Q by Brown: Are we just introducing this today or are we going to discuss this further? A by Briggs: At this point we are bring forth the administration changes. We also wanted to make the Board aware of this issue that may come up in the future. We felt that the Board needed to be aware of this. If the Boards recommendation is not to change the Eligibility at this time then there will be no change. We wanted to make sure that this concern had been brought up and discussed in case it is brought up at a future date. Gavurnik stated that if this is brought up again we can state that we as a board have discussed it and at that point if we feel we need to review again we will. Action: Motion by Eason, seconded by Brown to approve By-Laws as presented. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) I. Discussion and possible action to recommend the proposed Wastewater rate increases to the City Council as part of the 2004/05 Annual Operating Plan. Micki Rundell Discussion: Rundell presented the item. City Council wanted to phase the increase over a 2 year period at .015 per year. 04/05 is the second year. At this time we are proposing to increase the rates for our customers that have water and wastewater services with the City. We have a group looking into how to handle the customers that only have wastewater with the City. At this point we have no way of knowing who these customers or what their usage is. One of our biggest concerns is how to disconnect these customers for non -payment. Once we have a working plan for these customers we will come back to the Board with that proposal. Action: Motion by Brown, seconded by Eason to recommend the proposed Wastewater rate increases and bring to City Council as part of the 04/05 Annual Op erating Plan. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) Motion to adjourn by Brown, seconded by Kostka. Approved 4-0 (Smith, Young, Hunnicutt absent) ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m. Approved: Attest: ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Chair: Doug Smith Secretary: Jack Hunnicutt Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Chair: Doug Smith Secretary