Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 03.13.2012 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Saftler, Pat All Council Present Berryman, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director; Minutes �. �- .•. - 1111 r ;• 1111 • . •- i1 A Presentation to update City Council on the new Photovoltaic Rebate Program that has been developed to incentivize the installation of solar generation on residential rooftops -- Kathy Ragsdale, Environmental and Conservation Services Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager Berryman absent. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Ragsdale spoke about the Photovoltaic (PV) Rebate Program. She said Photovoltaic is the name of the cells within the solar panel. She explained how the solar panels work and said they collect the energy from the sun and convert it to DC electricity. She said, right now, the City has two meters on each of the systems with solar panels. She explained what each of those meters do. She said they have been lucky enough to have done a practice run. She said back in 2009, the City received funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) for weatherization and the solar rebate program. She said they are using $50,000 from that money to fund the rebate program. She noted this test run is giving staff the opportunity to determine what works and what does not work. She said staff talked to those with experience with a rebate program including contractors and installers. She said staff then went back and picked the most effective programs. She said they had $50,000 in rebates to hand out and they paid $2.00 per DC Waft for the panel rating, which gave the city the ability to pay $25,000 per kilowatt hour in solar. She said there is a ceiling of a $12,000 rebate placed on each location and solar panel system. Jonrowe asked and Ragsdale said most of the solar panel sizes are fitted to what is needed in each home. She said it is not efficient to oversize the panels since the City has a ceiling for the rebates. She said these systems are set up so that it is a benefit to the City as well as the customer to have this system. She said the City would prefer that people put in systems that are big enough for their homes and no more. Jonrowe asked and Ragsdale spoke about the City's peak times. Ragsdale spoke about how solar panels help to reduce the City's energy peak. Sattler asked and Briggs said this reduces the need for the City to go out and install the system. He noted there is not a significant enough of savings as of yet. Sattler asked and Briggs said this would reduce the energy costs the city would have to pay. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 1 of 3 Pages Ragsdale spoke about the other utilities that operate in Georgetown including ONCOR and PEC. She said ONCOR has a rebate of $2.00 per DC Waft and a $20,000 ceiling. She noted PEC does not have a photovoltaic rebate program. She said Georgetown is proposing a $1.50 per DC Watt rebate with a $7,500 ceiling on the amount the City pays out. She noted the City will also use a sliding scale based upon the efficiency of the panels and their placement. She noted the users of solar panels will also be getting a federal tax credit. She explained the different tax credits to the Council. She spoke about the funding for the rebate program and said there will be an energy efficiency fee imposed of $240,000 or $1.00 on each of the energy bills. She described how a person can increase the efficiency of their panels. She spoke about the website PV Wafts, that will tell a person by geographic position the longitude, latitude and tilt for the perfect and optimum position of the panels. She provided the Council with a sample PV purchase and the pay back on a 4 kilowatt system. She said they are suggesting the City pay $.085 per 536 kWh per monthly generation. She said it would take 16 years to pay back the cost of a solar panel system. Sattler asked and Ragsdale confirmed it is possible to bank power from the panels that was not used. Ragsdale confirmed a person can use their banked energy as a credit against their bill. Ragsdale said there will always be a charge because there is a service charge on the bill. There was much discussion. Ragsdale said staff will be bringing this back to Council as an Ordinance to finalize these rates. Ragsdale spoke about the renewable energy credits, which is what the City receives when renewable energy is purchased. She said the credits are a commodity in the energy industry. Jonrowe said and Ragsdale confirmed the 16 year pay off is assuming that the energy rates would be static. Briggs said this is for the residential program and noted there are applications in the residential sector where subdivisions are not built to take advantage of the sun. He said, for energy efficiency, the City wants to be able to see trees planted. He noted, trees tend to create shade, which is not good for solar panels. He said there are a complexity of issues regarding existing development and its effect on the sun. He spoke about a future City program being considered to address this issue. Jonrowe asked Briggs said staff has had a conversation with some developers about building to allow for solar panels but added the current market is not conducive to this type of development. Mayor asked and Zavala spoke about the good neighbor fund and how it functions. Zavala said they have run ads about the good neighbor fund in the paper and the City Reporter. Zavala said the good neighbor fund is not mandatory but noted the energy conservation fee that staff is talking about now is mandatory. B Discussion regarding possible amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Chapter 3, Applications and Permits -- Valerie Kreger, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director Kreger provided the Council with a background of the UDC amendment process. She said, each year, a new list of proposed amendments is presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for consideration. She said, in 2008, the Council created the UDC Task Force that helps to draft the amendment list to consider each year. She reviewed the past round of amendments that were reviewed and approved. She said the Task Force had quite a few revisions to Chapter 3, specifically regarding subdivisions, and they decided to break this out as as stand alone round of separate set of revisions. She said staff has had three meetings with the Task Force regarding the revisions to Chapter 3. She spoke about some of the concerns of the task force including the flexibility of platting. She said there were two public workshops on this and noted the amendments were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission that were approved with one change. She reviewed the proposed amendments including extending the expiration of permits and approvals, establishment of an expiration of 180 days for applications, clarifies public notice and public hearing procedures. She said another amendment is to outline the comprehensive plan amendment process and UDC text amendment process. She said there were general updates and clean up of language and processes to reflect actual processes. She spoke specifically about the subdivision regulations and noted they have reorganized it for better flow, including grouping of all plats that are recorded with the County into a new recording plat section. She said the amendment adds a plat summary chart for quick reference. She spoke about the amendment that allows for extensions and reinstatements of all types of plats. She said the amendment also reworks the phasing plan provisions for preliminary plats. She said they also established provisions for amendments to preliminary plats. She noted the amendments creates minor and major deviations criteria where the final plat can vary from the approved preliminary plat up to a certain extent. She noted the proposed amendment also adds section for plat vacations. She said some of the other amendments were regarding site plan regulations and noted the amendments identifies criteria for site plan area of development. She said the other amendments establish criteria for site plan phasing, create a minor site plan process with lesser requirements than the standard process and allow for extensions and reinstatements of site plans. Sattler.asked about notifying Home Owners Associations of some of these changes. Kreger said the harder thing is keeping a current list of the HOAs and current contacts. Kreger said that could be a notification that could be added on for certain types of applications. Kreger said we have to make sure we have a current list. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 2 of 3 Pages Hellmann asked and Kreger described a plat vacation and said that is when you wipe out the previous plat. Brandenburg mentioned the area out by the Williams Drive overlay district. He spoke about his understanding of the boundaries of the district. He said the overlay district was put in place to preserve the single family ranch homes in the area. He said it is a very strict use that can be there. Brandenburg added, in speaking with Cook, he asked that staff to come back to Council and explain the entire UDC process as it now stands. Mayor asked and Kreger confirmed this is on the regular agenda for Council approval. C Budget Process and Calendar -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Susan Morgan, Finance Director Brandenburg spoke about the budget process and said this year's budget process will be more strategic in nature. He said staff is trying to link the City Council goals and City Manager goals and added he is having all of the divisions and directors to look at their projects and link them up to those goals. He spoke about the variables that exist now and how it will affect the budget. He said Council will start to see more strategic planning with this. With a Powerpoint Presentation, Morgan walked through how staff is envisioning the budget process. She said the budget process from the staff side started back in January. She said they are focusing on the business planning. She noted there is a new business plan framework and said there will be a five year financial planning focus. She said staff wants to make sure Council understands staff does not want to develop full budgets for each of the five years. She noted they want to have a dashboard level presentation and develop a customized internal process and Council process to meet City needs. She said the staff will spend a couple of years developing the process that is envisioned. She noted there will be two years until full deployment. She spoke about the implementation process of the new budget process and calendar. She described the proposed framework development. She spoke about using the General Government and Finance Subcommittee as a working group for financial plan and framework model review. She noted they would like to present the five year model at the July 10 workshop. She referred to the 2012/13 budget adoption calendar and spoke about how the process will function. Gonzalez said formalizing the process is a great idea but noted he hopes the City does not lose site of the normal projections staff form for each next year. Rundell said the staff will continue with each yearly budget as they normally do now. Rundell said the current budget is moving along as usual, but this is a new element to frame the out year budgets. Jonrowe spoke about the citizen survey and how she would like to see more of a tie in between the survey and the budget. She asked how the questions on the survey are devised. Rundell said the survey is conducted by a third party outside firm and noted staff will start the process in November. Sattler asked and Morgan said staff would like to present this to GGAF so they can use the GGAF committee as a sound board prior to presenting to Council. Morgan noted GGAF will not be making the final policy decisions. Rundell said staff just wants to make sure what they are presenting makes sense. Sattler asked and Rundell said it becomes less effective the larger the group becomes. Meigs said every GGAF meeting is open to the public and Council and they welcome any input. Eason said this is not unlike any other items GGAF usually sees. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.074 -- 4:10 PM Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:17 PM Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:17 PM. A oved MayorAGeorge Garver City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 3 of 3 Pages