Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GUS_05.22.2009 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Special Session Friday, May 22, 2009 The Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board Special Session of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Friday , May 22, 2009. Board Members Present: Bill Sattler - Chair, Fred Beach - Vice Chair, Richard Lenning - Secretary, John Nett, Stephen Quinn, Temple Page Board Members Absent: Patty Eason Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook - Tom Benz - Jim Briggs - Laura Wilkins, Chris Foster - Laurie Brewer - Lorie Lankford - L'Mar Kemp - Ken Arnold - David Thomison, Rachel Osgood, Nicole Sosa, Marsha Iwers, Peggy Leatherman, Jimmy Sikes, Steve Glenn OTHERS PRESENT - Allen Woelke - CDM, William Taylor - Consultant, Lambeth Townsend - Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle & Townsend, Jerome Alder - Asutin Wood Recycling Minutes Regular Meeting Mr. Bill Sattler called the Special GUS Board meeting to order on Friday, May 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Sattler stated, for the record, that the delayed was due to Impact Fee Review Committee Meeting. Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, 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. Change arrangement of Agenda - start with Item G I. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Board meeting held on April 21, 2009. -- Jana Kern Discussion: Page 2; paragraph above Item A to come back "to" the June..... Page 4 item J "Page" stated that he drove..... Action: Motion by Nett, second by Lenning to approve with those two corrections. Approved: 6-0-1 (Patty Eason Absent) II. Discussion and possible recommendation to extend the existing brush grinding contract between the City of Georgetown and Austin Wood Recycling (AWR) of Cedar Park for routine brush grinding services at the Collection Station for one year. -- Rachel Osgood Discussion: Osgood presented the item. Last year approved first one-year extension. Austin Wood Recycling has agreed to a second one year extension. Action: Motion by Lenning that staff extend the existing brush grinding contract with Austin Wood Recycling for another year - second by Beach. Page question before the vote - this contract will save us money rather than going out for bid. Answered by Osgood - yes it will be cheaper because prices for grinding is going up - this will hold the cost at current rates. Approved: 6-0-1 (Eason Absent) III. Discussion and possible recommendation to apply for the Weatherization Aid and Sol ar Energy Assistance Program. -- Ken Arnold Discussion: Ken Arnold passed out a hand out and presented the item. We are required to implement this program. We will be given stimulus money. Cities over 35,000 in population - there is a formula that gives the amount a city will receive. In our case, we will receive $201,900. Must do this within 3 years. Our plan is designed to implement within 18 months. Question - with federal funds many times there are hooks and "gotchas" that obligate the city to do something. How many "gotchas" are in here? What are we on the hook for in the future? Answered by Arnold - has not found any "gotchas" yet although he has looked for them. Federal government has not given us the answer if there are any gotchas or not. Question - Are there any requirements on the hiring for the contract? Answered by Arnold - the purpose of stimulus money is to create jobs. There are questions in the application process that ask you to state the number and type of jobs to be creat ed. We estimated 10 jobs. These are not permanent jobs - but jobs to get us through the 18 month period. Question - once we find out what issues "gotchas" are out there, will you come back and inform the board? Answered by Arnold - yes we will. there are checks and balances in the strategic plan also. Action: Motion by Nett, seconded by Quinn That the Board recommend to Council that we apply for the Weatherization Aid and Solar Energy Assistance Program for total DOE grant funding and $1,200 per unit and $43,500 in Social Services funding. Question prior to vote: Sattler asked how will the program be administered - will we administer it? Answered by Arnold - yes we will be administering the program through Walter Koopmann's department. Question by Page prior to vote - Pilot program solar panels being installed - how does that tie in with this? Answered by Ken - pilot program was designed more for commercial - the weatherization program will be residential.. Approved: 6-0-1 (Eason Absent) IV. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve an agreement for the delivery of non- potable water between the City of Georgetown and the Sun City Texas Community Association. -- David Thomison Discussion: Thomison presented the item. During drought Edwards Aquifer is unreliable. TCEQ Requires that entities that use reclaimed water follow same guidelines as Cities. Standard agreement same as with SWU, etc. Protects City from violations. Question from Quinn about how they plan to use the water? Thomison - two ponds - are the point of delivery. Reclaimed water not delivered to any other ponds other than those used for irrigation purposes. Page asked about numbers. Can we compare what they are using now to past consumption? Page - will 395 Acre Feet cover their needs or just part of it? Thomison - we may supplement a little. Briggs - 3.5 million gallons per day per the development agreement. Page - how much potable water will it relive them from using? Briggs - none is used now (potable) they are only using non-potable (untreated). The irrigation water is supplemented with the effluent. Page - How much ground water pumping will we avoid by using effluent? Briggs - Eventually all will be effluent. Additional discussion on future effluent usage. Action: Motion by Nett, 2nd by Page?? to recommend the agreement with the Sun City Community Association. Approved: 6-0-1 (Eason Absent) V. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve a construction cost sharing agreement between the City of Georgetown and Aldea Partners for a wastewater line extension related to the Sonrisa Development in an amount not to exceed $218,162.00. -- Tom Benz Discussion: Benz presented the item. Quinn - how does this benefit the City? Answered by Brewer - allow developer to spend $218,000 and city reimburses at a later date (in the year when we would normally build the project according to our CIP). Quinn - how do we share in the cost? Answered by Benz - we will not pay more than what we have in the budget. What type of cost does the developer have to show? Answered by Brewer - that they have to submit paid invoices, etc., showing their costs. Additional discussion. Action: Motion by Page second by Nett to recommend approval of the cost sharing agreement with Aldea Partners not to exceed $218,162.00. Approved: 6-0-1 (Eason Absent) VI. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a contract to Joe Bland Construction, LP of Austin, Texas, for the construction of the Rock Street Wastewater Extension and Paving Rock Street Pedestrian Crossing. Project amount is $1,001,262.00. -- Tom Benz Discussion: Benz explained the item. Question - Quinn - why doubling on the pedestrian crossing price? Answered by Benz - Complex items crosswalk bridge for Parks and Recreation, etc. Question Lenning - Are we going to pay for the bridge or what? Answered by Benz- comes directly from bonds - not coming from utilities - Elaborated by Brewer - when bills come in those pieces will be broken out and the parks will pay for it. More explanation by Briggs. Question by Nett - is this engineers opinion of probable cost or did CDM prepare the actual costs? Benz - cannot recall exactly what the actual cost was. Nett - does it include the paving? Benz - wastewater portion around $800,000. Turnaround and pedestrian bridge significantly higher - but the total came in below engineers estimate. Additional discussion. Action: Motion by Quinn , second by Beach to recommend approval for Rock Street Wastewater Extension and Paving of Pedestrian Crossing. Approved: 6-0-1 (Eason Absent) VII. Consideration and Discussion on the formation and transition of Georgetown Utility Systems into an Independent and Autonomous Utility Board. -- Jim Briggs Discussion: Briggs gave overview of the item. Lambeth Townsend - Lloyd, Gosselink, Rochelle & Townsend provided a memorandum to Briggs on creation of the utility board and how it has been done across the state. Mr. Townsend is here to discuss with the board. Bond Attorney, Carol Polumbo sent a memo - but could not be here today. Her memo is related as to financial i mpact. She can be here at June meeting. Also Mr. Bill Taylor, retired General Manager of Kerrville Public Utility Board, is here to discuss pro's and con's of creating a public utility board. Question as to why we are doing this. Answered by Briggs - at the request of the City Council. Question - Why did the council ask the Board to consider this?. Answered by Sattler - considering taking ownership of substations and as we grow, we wanted to know if it would benefit the city by having a separate board and to see what the costs would be and any draw-backs to pursuing. Briggs - out of 72 public power systems we are the 12th largest. Question - isn't the lion's share of items on the Council Agenda currently utility related issues? Answered by Briggs - no the lion's share of the items are not utility related - but - lion's share of the expenditures of the budget are related to utilities. LAMBETH TOWNSEND: Memo and summary. Once you read the memo then read summary - it puts it in simpler format. Question was what are options? Several - but statutes give you the bounds of those options. Local Government Code in certain sections shows only as it relates to electric utilities; other sections addresses water/ww drainage - but NOT electric. others address only bond indentured statutes. Each of those groups care different requirement sand provision. Electric utility exclusively - specifies the number or trustees - Ordinance - Charter or both - describes bonds - scope other delegated authority through the ordinance or charter. Eminent domain or ability to issue bonds cannot be done by charter - but have to do that by ordinance. Bond indenture - specifies authority of the independent board - and cannot be changed while bonds are outstanding. However - it does not specifically transfer right of eminent domain to the board - those rights are retained by the municipal government. Five members - one of which must be the Mayor. Or 7 members - one of which must be the mayor. Compensation must be set for board members in bond indenture - but not more than 5% of gross receipts for a business year. Water Board - Electric Board OR COMBINED Board. But combined board is limited in its authority. Ordinance is subject to change. Need to evaluate from the bond perspective. Has given a description of how some of the cities have set up their utility. San Antonio - created an independent board through bond indentures to take over electric and gas for San Antonio, New Braunfels, Hondo, etc. Then each of tho se cities created independent boards to manage their utilities - assurance to bond holders. Water is set up differently in San Antonio. New Braunfels has a combined board (water and electric) Greenville - adopted a charter amendment first and then they adopted a master ordinance to give the powers to the board. It is electric utility only. Bryan Texas Utilities - created just for electric - by ordinance - no charter provision - city retain a lot of the power. Charter - gives citizens opportunity to vote. Question from - once you go down the path - are you locked in? Answered by Townsend - easier if done by Ordinance adoption to reverse than if done by Charter amendment. Townsend says there are systems much smaller than ours that have boards - and some larger who still do not. Townsend said - city delegates whatever it wants to - we have options - the utility manages the assets/options. Taylor - whatever you do - you are still the City of Georgetown - city employee. Question - If city kept bond and eminent domain - then by ordinance you could still set up a board to direct and assist in the day to day operations? Taylor - must be careful how you set it up - keep competition in mind. Taylor - staff/boards look at issues for the next 5 - 20 years. Council typically looks at the here and now - may be 2 years out. Briggs - how is it beneficial? as issues become larger - not just in $$ - but strategic direction - partnerships, etc. Do you look at being in an equity position - join other groups to do projects? It takes time to review and study these options. Helpful to have a group in a supporting role who knows the business and can assist you in feeling secure in making the best decision. Beach - sometimes things get bundled up and simplified for the Council and therefore the Council does not realize the level of importance of the issue they are voting on. Briggs - sometimes the discussions in making decisions gets bogged down when presenting to Council. Question Quinn - what can the Board do? Taylor - depending on how board is set up - the board decides and the decisions do not go to the Council. Briggs asked bond company what they look at for bond ratings. They told him that they look at stability of the utility - utility board - advisory board - council. The utility board allows the utility to be closely monitored - more stable. Question from Page. - if we form a board will our rating go up? Briggs answered - if we form a board our rating may not go down. Taylor elaborated. Question from Quinn - how do you keep the board appointments from being a political appointment? Answered by Townsend - you set it up how ever you want to and you can limit two year terms, to prevent long term appointments, etc. Taylor says there are several key issues that you need to address when you form the board. It will take more than one meeting to discuss all options. Ken Arnold - Greenville is different than the other cities Townsend mentioned...correct? Answered by Townsend - they are just electric - combined systems usually do their set up differently from just electric. Sattler - can sanitation be put in also - answered by Townsend if you want to - you could. Briggs - sanitation would not be as regulated as the others - but you could put it under the board also. Briggs - drainage at the current time - is under transportation - but could conceivably be included if it was set up different. Sattler - experience in this room he sees - he thinks council will look on the item with greater confidence and know i tems have been reviewed in their entirety. Briggs says - this will allow us to be more effective - provide for stability for the future - we will not all be here forever - need to have a plan in place to manage the business down the road. Briggs asked the Board to evaluate the various options and come back with suggestions for how or if to implement. Mr. Beach left the meeting at 12:20 p.m. VIII. Follow up on the discussion related to the proposed revisions to the City's development related fee structure. -- Laurie Brewer Discussion: Brewer presented the item. Previously staff was asked to come back with how fees are changing and what the changes are and what is the difference. Cook explained the examples. Various discussion. Board was in favor of getting input from developers/builders prior to making recommendation. Action: Motion by Nett second by Lenning for staff to give a recommendation to the board in July after they have a workshop with the developers/builders. Page - requested that staff make effort to include as many developers as possible - want to be certain they are well represented. Approved: 5-0-2 (Eason & Beach absent) IX. Presentation and possible recommendation of the 2009-2010 Georgetown Utility Systems Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Plan. -- Tom Benz Discussion: Benz presented the item - power point presentation. Lankford and Benz explained the CIP - the process - what things we plan to do and proposed costs. We will be going to an asset management system. Question - What is our Fiscal Year? Answered by Benz - October thru September. Question - revenue/debt for FY 08 was zero? Answered by Lankford - No water bonds for 08. Question - but for the next one you anticipate doing? Answered by Lankford - yes. Question - What is the interest that is showing? Answered by Lankford - that is the interest we earn on the bonds we issue. We earn money on the bonds we issue and it goes back into the fund. Question - do we track water main age and know if they are 10/20 years old? Answered by Benz - we are not quite there yet. That is one of our goals currently. We are tracking age on any new lines that are installed since we started GPS. We have not gone back on the older stuff yet. We do have people around that know how old some things are and can tell us. Question - do we have a plan for when to replace? 50 years? at failure, etc.? Answered by Briggs - that is one of aspects we can manage with the asset management system. We could have one of the factors be a ge or reliability of the system so we can evaluate and manage it. Additional discussion followed. Action: Motion by Nett second by Lenning that the Water CIP be forwarded to City Council for approval Approved: 5-0-2 (Eason & Beach absent) X. Discussion and possible action regarding the Project Progress Report and timelines -- Michael Hallmark/Tom Benz. Park WTP Clearwell, 4th Pump at Leander Pump Station, Escalera Elevated Water Storage Tank Rock Street WW Extension, SG3-A, SG-P1, 16” Irrigation Water Line & Irrigation Pump Station Improvements San Gabriel WWTP Wet Weather & Irrigation Water Improvements, 2006 Annexation, EARZ Phase 5. Question - Page asked if any pending ROW acquisitions we are having problems with? Benz answered that anytime you are dealing with land owners and their property there is potential for issues - but we are moving along nicely. Action: None Break at 12:53 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION XI. 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 Executive Session called to order at 1:02 p.m. - Presentation and possible recommendation of the 2009-2010 Electric Capital Improvement Projects Plan. --Tom Benz Adjourn Executive Session at 1:44 p.m. RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION @ 1:44 p.m.: XII. Action from Executive Session if necessary Action on Item "L": Motion by Lenning, 2nd by Nett to recommend to Council the 2009/2010 Electric CIP. Approved: 5-0-2 (Eason & Beach absent) XIII. Discussion and possible action related to the June 16, 2009 GUS Board Meeting. -- Jim Briggs Discussion: Briggs explained that he and Micki will not be here for the regularly scheduled GUS Board meeting - Suggested by Nett June 23rd. Action: Motion by Nett, second by Lenning - to meet June 23, 2009. Approved: 5-0-2 (Eason & Beach absent) Motion by Lenning, seconded by Nett to adjourn meeting. Approved: 5-0-2 (Eason & Beach absent) Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 01:50 PM. Approved : Attest: _______________________ ________________________ Bill Sattler - Chair Richard Lenning - Secretary