Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GUS_07.15.2003 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, July 15, 2003 The Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , July 15, 2003. Board Members Present: Doug Smith, Ken Evans, Larry Brown, Stanley Bland, Kendall Young, John Gavurnik, Jack Hunnicutt Board Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Jim Briggs, Laura Wilkins, Mike Stasny, Barbara Lake, Michael Mayben, Glenn Dishong, Ed Polasek, Terri Calhoun, Mike Stasny, Joel Weaver, David Munk, Joe Lara Others Present: Kerry Russell, Legal Counsel Bob Felton – Cottonwood Creek Development David Reid – Halyard Engineering John Trent – Centex Homes John Kirby – Council Member Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes: Meeting called to order at 2:02 p.m. by Doug Smith Call to Order at 02:00 PM 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. A. Review and approval of minutes from the June 17, 2003 meeting. Jim Briggs DISCUSSION: NONE ACTION: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Young to approve the minutes. Approved 7-0 B. Review and possible recommendation of an annual bid for water and wastewater pipe and fittings. Marsha Iwers and Glenn Dishong DISCUSSION: Dishong explained the item. ACTION: Motion by Hunnicutt, second by Evans to recommend the bid. Approved 7-0 C. Review and possible recommendation of the bid for Water Meter ERT Installation. Marsha Iwers and Mike Mayben DISCUSSION: Mayben explained the item - only one bid received. Question from Evans about why we do not get more bids. Answered by Mayben that certified installer must install these units. Question from Smith if we actually save money by automatic reading. Answered by Mayben that yes we do . One meter reader for 32,000+ meters. Also we get lots of information from the readings. Briggs added that error rate is much lower than when meters were read by hand. Question from Young if we experience vandalism. Answered by Mayben not much any more – we used to have problems of damage from lawnmowers – but we have corrected most of this. ACTION: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Bland to recommend approval of this bid to Council. Approved 7-0 D. Discussion of GUS Board procedures regarding decisions that are relatively expensive and/or complicated, including Board/Staff interaction and procedures regarding information sharing. Doug Smith and Jack Hunnicutt DISCUSSION: Board would like to have more information prior to voting on complex issues. Example: Water & Wastewater Treatment Plant operations contracts. Possibly have workshop prior and workshop after the presentations. Briggs explained the events up to the May meeting. Brandenburg stated that he would like to see the Board Chair, himself and Briggs meet regarding the major issues coming up. Also allow the Council to be present for board meetings. Question from Gavurnik about if it would be appropriate for the board members to ask vendors questions. Answered by Russell that no it is not appropriate. Question from Young if it is appropriate to talk to another board member. Answered by Brandenburg that yes it is appropriate as long as no quorum – one on one is fine. Question from Hunnicutt about calling executive session to discuss certain items when they get to confidential. Answered by Briggs that yes they can – this is posted on the agenda currently. ACTION: NONE E. Review and possible recommendation of a bid for curb, gutter and sidewalk to Dayco Construction Company. Mark Miller DISCUSSION: Miller explained the item. A portion of these projects (about half on this list) are paid for by the ¼ cent sales tax collections. Miller went through the list for the ¼ cent sales tax. Question from Smith if curbs are put in where none currently exist if this counts as maintenance. Answered by Briggs that yes for ¼ cent tax. General discussion regarding the difference in the bids. ACTION: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Hunnicutt to recommend the bid from Dayco Construction. Approved 7-0 F. Discussion and possible recommendation of the Line Extension Policy. Glenn Dishong DISCUSSION: Dishong explained the item. Briggs and Dishong went into more detail on reasons that the City would be interested in participating in oversizing for future needs. City’s payment would be made at the time that the line would have been built by the City. (i.e. – install in 2002 – pay in 2004 when project would have been in the CIP to be constructed). Gavurnik asked about the clause that would allow reimbursement to the developer who oversizes (from subsequent developers). Answered by Briggs that (per Finance) this would be very burdensome from an accounting standpoint to track reimbursements. It would be possible if we put maybe a time limit on reimbursement. If no subsequent users connect within “five years” or so, then the reimbursement option goes away. Gavurnik would like to have a separate meeting with he and staff to hopefully work out something that would work that we could bring back to the board to consider/review. Gavurnik and Dishong to meet to work on this between now and the next meeting to hopefully have something completed for the September meeting for adoption. Comment from Smith that the “discretion of the City” as to whether to participate or not could be a potential problem. General discussion on how to make it “fair for everyone” and not make it look like some people got a better deal than others. Hunnicutt asked if they could get something at least 10 days prior to the next meeting to allow the Board ample time to review. Bland asked how it is determined what size to oversize to. Answered by Briggs that we run the Land Use model to determine what size would potentially be needed. ACTION: NONE G. Discussion and Review of a proposal to provide wastewater service to Williamson County MUD #12 by Georgetown Utility Systems. Jim Briggs DISCUSSION: Briggs explained the item and the associated issues that bring this item to the board. Question from Brown of what is in it for Georgetown. Answered by Briggs that potentially the Georgetown City limits will eventually include this area and we will end up with another area like Serenada. Plus it would be better for the region if wastewater is controlled rather than septic. Kerry Russell addressed the Board to provide perspective from the legal aspects. Environmental concerns and the need for a wastewater system rather than septic in an upscale development are essential. They have several options: septic, package plant, Chisholm Trail, or City of Georgetown. The City has first option under our agreement with Chisholm Trail. Chisholm would like the opportunity – but are waiting until the City decides if we want it or not. Parmer Lane will make this area explode – it is best if wastewater is planned not pieced together. The development needs to decide quickly what they will do so they can get started on the project. Evans has questions about how the City will come out in the deal. Answered by Russell that this development will pay for 100% of the costs for installation and operations. The City of Georgetown is the only entity currently that can assist and provide service to this area. This is the opportunity to prevent the Serenada type situation from occurring. Hunnicutt asked some questions related to financial impacts pertaining to Cimarron Hills. Hunnicutt stated that this is a big step for a small place – but that it does provide protection to the Aquifer – the burden will go to the staff. Various other questions related to our CCN and providing wastewater only. ACTION: NONE Update to the Board in August, 2003 H. Resolution related to the wastewater discharge permit and CCN for Liberty Hill. Jim Briggs DISCUSSION: Briggs and Russell explained the item and associated issues that bring this item to the Board. Process has gone well. City has been asked to pass a Resolution in support of this project. Russell is speaking today on this item as representative of Liberty Hill. City of Georgetown gets to approve everything on the discharge permit as we are downstream from the discharge. Liberty Hill prefers to provide wastewater for the entire area rather than involving the Alliance or other wastewater providers. ACTION: Motion by Evans, second by Brown for a resolution, in support of Liberty Hill’s Wastewater Discharge Permit and CCN, to be drafted by staff and presented to Council for approval. Approved 7-0 I. Review of the construction progress report: (including but not limited to items listed). Joel Weaver DISCUSSION: Weaver presented update to the Board on projects currently in progress. ACTION: NONE Evans thanked the members of the Board that served on the Impact Fee Review Committee. Gavurnik also thanked Briggs, Rundell and staff for their support. Next meeting there will be items in Executive Session related to LCRA electric issues. This will be a process of two or more meetings to address the issues prior to making a recommendation to the Council. Motion to Adjourn: Motion by Gavurnik, second by Young to adjourn the meeting. Approved 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Board Member Name Secretary