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