The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 06.26.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 26, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East 711 St., Georgetown, Texas. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8` Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7. Mayor Ross, Councilmember Anna Eby, District 1, Councilmember Valerie Nicholson, District 2, Councilmember John Hesser, District 3, Councilmember Steve Fought, District 4, Councilmember Kevin Pitts, District 5, and Councilmember Rachael Jonrowe, District 6 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and update on Downtown West construction and naming process -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager Eric Johnson, the City's CIP Manager, spoke on the Downtown West Project. He began the presentation with a background of the project. • November 28, 2017 — Ground Breaking • December 14, 2017 — Notice to Proceed • January 10, 2018 — Building Permits Issues • March 13, 2019 —Latest Update Johnson provided pictures of the progress with the City Hall project. He explained that the roof is ready to go on and windows will be installed soon. Johnson said the interior walls and fire sprinklers are being installed now. Johnson said he has been pleased with all of the different trades working so well together. Johnson provided pictures of the City Council Chambers Building. He noted that the constructural steel will be completed next week. Johnson explained that the interior walls have been built inside the existing building and things are going very well. Johnson spoke about the Naming Process. He explained that Downtown West is a project name and not a location. He said a process took place for possible names with City Staff. Johnson provided the suggested naming of the buildings and campus • City Hall o City Hall ■ Council and Court Building o Municipal Court/Council Chambers ■ Light and Water Works Building o Historic Light and Water Works • Georgetown City Center 0 Campus Johnson spoke on the next steps for the projects • Continue Construction o Exterior walls to "Dry -In" the buildings o Interior Finish -out o Landscaping • Additional Contracts to Council — Late Summer o Audio Visual/Furniture/Data Cabling • Complete Construction o December 2018 • Grand Opening o Early 2019 Mayor Ross asked Johnson to announce what would happen if the project was not completed by Christmas. Johnson said that if the project is not complete, he will shave his beard. B. Presentation and discussion on the Facilities Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) -- Eric Johnson, CIP Manager CIP Manager, Eric Johnson, spoke on the Facilities Capital Improvement Plan. He noted that the presentation would include plans for the following: • Downtown ■ Facilities 2019 • Facilities — 5 Year Plan Johnson spoke on Downtown Parking Expansion plans, with $250,000 proposed for Phase I in 2018 and $350,000 proposed for Phase II in 2019. He described the property across from the library, currently holding county buildings. Johnson said Phase I would gain some parking and Phase II is expected to create many more parking spots. Johnson spoke next on a proposed Downtown Parking Garage, with approximate costs of $5,000,000, proposed to be partially funded through the TIRZ. The proposed parking garage would be behind the current Council Chambers. Johnson told of a proposed Blue Hole Parking Expansion and Sidewalk project to be completed in conjunction with the Stormwater Pond Project. Johnson provided information on the construction of Fire Station No. 7, a study to examine Remodels of Fire Station No. 1 and Fire Station No. 3, and a possible new Visitor's Center, subject to the sale of the current building. Johnson provided charts and details of the Proposed 5 Year CIP. r fTzotgAro" awpt — Proposed 5 Year CIP Animal Services Fa0i'tiesrff c,enty Study glneht7�e P,irk.d 51 l�[1,CJl.�l F�Qdn4<in & $de'Irdtk Dmvntrnvr. Parking Expansion 5350'040 Downtown PaikIru 55,0UJ.000 i��,1ra�C Festwal Space0Pu0llc Space • DTW $475,000 4,900,000 Fire Station 183 - Remodel 530,(1CA) $Z40.0('47 51,014,040 Fire Station 4-Aelo< 5,6, 300,000 Fire Station 7 $b,250,000 Fire Station 3 $6,300.000 i Fuel Station-Reloc. GMC RerT?OtlPI Mixed Use Parking Garage Public Facilities V13STer Plan P50TC Phase II Sigeature Gateway NB Visitors enter TOTAL Proposed 5 Year CIP ,auU,ulO ;C1C*I=r'PSE '-(:en('15iwiy 5150,1X.)0 $500,000 $4,400.000 $101)'Wo $12,000,000 Dependent or sa'e q/ b., d ^q $11.730.000 5850,000 $IAM000 $975,000 $9,30Q= $24,600.000 Councilmember Hesser asked about fire stations and why there is so much cost. Johnson explained that fire stations, unlike other city buildings, are 24 hour buildings and floors and cabinets are much more used. He explained that the remodels are more about maintenance than major renovations. He spoke on improvements in things such as carcinogens coming into play and the need to improve design. City Manager, David Morgan, said staff is asking for an architect to do a study that would then be brought back to the Council next year, after the survey results. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2018 Electric Rate Study, Water, Wastewater and Reuse Rate Study and Electric System Fees Study -- Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities General Manager of Utilities, Jim Briggs began the presentation. He explained that the presentation would be quite loaded with rates and fees that will impact the budget. Briggs asked the Council to recall the 2017- 18 budget which called for the City to look at rate changes. He noted that it is now time to review the information. Briggs said this budget will have impact fees on a 3 year budget and all rates will now be evaluated. He explained that this is the standard process of looking at rates. Briggs noted that, because of growth and system demands, the City needs to move forward to secure adequate financial stability. He explained that this has been vetted through the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS) and now brought to Council to prepare them with information that will be presented in the budget process in several weeks. Briggs noted that some of the fees have not changed in 20 years and there is a need for an evaluation and update. He thanked staff for a fully integrated process. Briggs also thanked the GUS Board for their thorough consideration and thanked the consultants who have been involved. Deputy General Manager of Utility Operations, Mike Babin, spoke next and said that the next three items are related to utilities and public works and there would be 3 separate presentations. Babin explained that the City's fiscal policy calls for rates to be evaluated every 3 years. He noted that Chisholm Trail rates have been held for 5 years and January 1, 2015 was the last rate change. Babin explained a power cost adjustment factor and said the City must move with market conditions, which will vary in between rate studies. Babin noted that electric rates were last updated in 1997. He said that electric and water rates are set to cover all costs of service. Babin explained the need to meet the needs of the facility and set individual class rates. Babin noted that electric utility costs have increased around 6% due to growth and that the growth rate is substantially higher now than at the last evaluation of fees and rates. He explained that power costs are not driving this proposal. Babin explained that there is no need for revenue increases for water, but staff is looking at commercial irrigation rates with tiered rates related to use. He said that wastewater has a modest rate increase needed. Chris Foster, the City's Manager of Resource Management Integration, spoke on the electric rate study. He mentioned Mark Beauchamp, the President of Utility Financial Solutions and noted that Mr. Beauchamp was sorry that he was unable to attend this meeting, but had provided handouts of his findings that Council received on the dais. Foster explained that the City's Utility is very healthy, but very cash poor because of growth. He explained that it is necessary to find the fastest way to raise cash and create a buffer. Foster provided a slide of the discussion and a Projection without a Rate Change u ti Discussion Review Electric Departments Projections • Alternative One - 6% Plan • Alternative Two - 8% Plan (GUS Board Recommended) • Alternative Three - 4.6% Plan (City Manager Budget) Rate Design Alternatives under each scenario Continue Rate Reviews every 3 years Projection without Rate Change Original pmol" aw 4n0 AsiwW0 Aaiu,w 7ff&t oil Rs. {Rwrap A%fta r I'miene0 Ohvlectea Opera9nj 09waem6 PnnectedQlh 4tumme•4e0 3019 OOti la 171 S 69A61759 SVA IZIROi S 5.3.617 S KU5213 DDD Oa 1i In S 70.616.156 IQ 81027 S.eii.2% 17.KL36 2ffif 0a LO 1M S 71121229 )L1116f0 4LU2% i;lolat D22 001 ID In S 7527106 7l)a 106 6,1!9,00 1e,91p,� 2021 Oa LSi L % s Aksm2q 7111,. 6,611.1RL L 2MIU Foster detailed each of the proposed Alternatives. He noted that the City is cash negative even though they are covering revenues. UJIFS Alternative One - Projected Rate Change Revised to indude $1.0 Million annually in Developer Contributions 7.yr GMeS" h01e11td Calx Rlaormmm*p • iiNanr� 1lnmrw{aM I•k14.i7 S 1451031 SA462% 17A6L3.99 4111246 e4.a�o�,A.. -� 19360/64 hop"" {ApVI 0101 0.00 MNaMY AOM" os"I Raft nrprOW"Veb Cowew X% "a' Cox+ Ooewrs "I",19 A =11 Dhn x.wr r — 20 T6a S 9St7A:dp ;PW ... L43 S LL16.K7 2020 00% SkAINIM 24 lal 5 """' 2021 0a 1Q7@&000149 Lal S 1JLV" 2023 2014 R8011D00 276 119 5 al}LA9e 2017 00% C9L1A00 214 152 S dasmR. 7.yr GMeS" h01e11td Calx Rlaormmm*p • iiNanr� 1lnmrw{aM I•k14.i7 S 1451031 SA462% 17A6L3.99 4111246 11.191A/6 639"43 19360/64 6.611391 10.9/5/61 4 P --- F Alternative Two —GUS Board Recommendation Revised to include $1.0 Million annually in Developer Contributions A Alternative Three — City Manager Budget Revised to include $1.0 Million annually in Developer Contributions %ed COITIar - ho7wi.d CAVul Wu out. A-d Ae�" 7rW1 44,.24d lagw 7b47I Awe irul Cmrape 26% ft. Cases Oc"'a OM. WV r•gected C4%h Amour• rxW Ywunu +wiTn..cr l•. •. Aabo fa0 I�•w�r •1L:i.9'1F 666— LLA, ]C 12 aC. f 9LS12= 221 I,��„� 164 _ ; S,i9Q637 S isS1SSi1 2020 00% 9,49.1000 772 149 ,,� s"w 17Ai 1319 2021 O o% IOUJO 0 2 JO 1 S0 VAA6 . 41 WS6 1;iD444i 2022 00% RBVID0 274 149 4{WNQ 6.393043 1✓l560lfii 2023 00% A913A00 262 1S1 'j 11 am_ 6.633391 MOS7161 A Alternative Three — City Manager Budget Revised to include $1.0 Million annually in Developer Contributions Foster spoke on Minimum Cash. He explained that this is different than current reserve policies and is proposed and suggested by the consultant. %ed COITIar - ftop ud CAO"I oW A.WA...—d 44,.24d lagw irul AM- 26.1 Pw—C.", Op.wy 00w wi NOWUd CAA 4a4.nnrnd.d Yrind Aa7.�r..nr. •1L:i.9'1F ■ArFa�O ur[am. •ul••• •>C�7JAj. AAnn.4rr CIA T013 164 _ a 22! ! 15 l LY1p.P37 —�.. F.Hi2 I 7010 00% 9A"= 721 I15 52442!6 ��7 17341 J49 2021 40% iq U000 790 iS4 413i25a i6JAtAY 2022 .4% 4403.000 7 K 1 S2 4394ai.3WAE6 2023 00% 491;m0 2-93 1 S4 4414341 14.OMAI Foster spoke on Minimum Cash. He explained that this is different than current reserve policies and is proposed and suggested by the consultant. Minimum Cash Foster noted that the City of Georgetown has been assigned the lowest risk score of any utility. He said that this proposal would pay 50% in debt payments. Foster explained that bond companies want to know that next year's payment is covered. Rate Design Alternatives were shown and described. >fJr� Rate Design Alternatives Projected Projected Nolected Percentage Percentage Percentage Clwn"nare+nten+na cess OeOrerrYtion [.0e«se Vr 121, 121% 12 fe 1214 furl- Po , Eq . 9l% 91% 01% 0 1% aim 4s}ony Kim a.se 1% 1: 114 1% Z C—nr Avco-or@er s->� .l fa% t1% 11% 11% 72.92% }1Y rt Y4Yn C,VrW rnP-an,..`rrt� NH&M. X -d. 0% 0% 10.90% Lighting 632% 8.67% 0.00% Large General Service 3.50% 4.90% 2.91% Industrial 350% 4 80% 3 SO% Large Industrial 3 SO% CY[ulfA(d pnnwv�Cssn Le.eM 350% Totals 610% 8 ' 4 56% Oyo rscon a bttins.nar.r w.0.rp+.Y.xion EaPnr S 42A7,R7 S 2104).)21 S 4161611 S 444"A S 445110 PurvvfePawrEvenx 1}x.117 1991,}12 x121229 AM..M &ZLOLI ,Worra1Rau 9r 19p119i l•f96F]f6 4f049Y6 4191976 4Y1 Im Orr.ent Portwnd pep 91ti•ce iiie yr 1l UFA 18K728 407.411 4CM963 419L 43CF %ert Ytpry CfOrW �-ProYeTerb Net d OprW RIX(MS - Frw w•[,4r�r 1, •, -, r,-. •-.Nr eb—d— MMrftmCmft AefvYeleveI2 S IMS.2a1 S V1o.30 S tL7MAM S 1LSA.MS S IL9.98 Foster noted that the City of Georgetown has been assigned the lowest risk score of any utility. He said that this proposal would pay 50% in debt payments. Foster explained that bond companies want to know that next year's payment is covered. Rate Design Alternatives were shown and described. >fJr� Rate Design Alternatives Residential Rate Alternatives were discussed next. Foster said no PCA is listed on these charges and they are related only to capital costs. He explained that there would be a proposal to lower the conservation fee Projected Projected Nolected Percentage Percentage Percentage Change Change Change Customer Class Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Residential 632% 9.02% 4 33% Small Gene ra1 6.17% 8.37% 2.21% School 3.SO% 4.79% 0.57% Municipal Water Service 72.82% 72.82% 72.92% Municipal Service 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% Lighting 632% 8.67% 0.00% Large General Service 3.50% 4.90% 2.91% Industrial 350% 4 80% 3 SO% Large Industrial 3 SO% 480% 350% Totals 610% 8 ' 4 56% Residential Rate Alternatives were discussed next. Foster said no PCA is listed on these charges and they are related only to capital costs. He explained that there would be a proposal to lower the conservation fee from $1.00 per month to 20 cents per month, until a better way of rebating the funds is determined. He explained that it is currently there is a special revenue fund collecting a fund balance. ufs- Residential Rate Alternatives Monthly 520.00 527.00 $30.00 $24.80 Charge Energy $0.09390 $0.09390 $009390 S0.09390 Charge Transmission $00019 $00019 $00019 $00019 Add. Revenue $31,822,473 $33,833,171 $34,692809 $33.201.012 From Rate % Change 6.3% 9.0% 4.3% Mayor Ross asked about the monthly charge. Foster said this is a fixed charge designed to pay for infrastructure, even if you do not use electricity that month. Foster described purchase power and how the City pays for purchase power. Ross asked about the charge that is a return to the state. Foster described the charge and said this is already programmed and dictated by the state. Councilmember Nicholson asked if there is an average impact to a Georgetown homeowner. Foster said the residential bills, under Alternative 1 would Increase by $7 per month, Alternative 2 would see an increase of $10 per month and Alternative 3 would be an increase of $4.80 per month, regardless of kilowatt hours used. Nicholson said this presentation would not work for explaining this to the public. City Manager, David Morgan, said staff is working toward Alternative 3, which would only increase residential bills by $4.80 per month, regardless of the size of the bill. Councilmember Fought said the City will need to recap this the way that the GUS Board debated this. He said it is simply that there is a need to cover capital cost by fixed fees. He explained that the GUS Board had talked about this extensively. Fought said it had been determined to be important to recover costs, and if it is found to be excessive in the future, the amounts would be refunded. Fought noted that the City has been depleting their cash balance for way too long. Foster showed and described Small Commercial Rate Designs. Small Commercial Rate Desi •�..• ::kt ! 2u au: rS:2 JKi• mss. r�,v,3 �,am:J �•'w��. He spoke next on LGS Rate Designs. Foster explained that, in the recent past, there were no users in this class, but now there are certain businesses that hit this category. Councilmember Nicholson asked how many. Foster said approximately 25 to 30 meters. City Manager, Morgan, said there is a communication plan in place for these customers. He noted that their energy charge will actually be lower, so there is not much impact. Erway charge 10 OWV $0 98870 5001630 $0008,10 TAfp m 0019 SO 9679 $00010 800019 Reverue From %43297.1 18 929 995 $8971495 18 574 84? Rafe Tr4r� 04 100019 $o00to $00010 800019 �Ourge Demand Chanp 62% 94% 22% Change bJ Monthly Mh Usage J`%) $14,061012 •�..• ::kt ! 2u au: rS:2 JKi• mss. r�,v,3 �,am:J �•'w��. He spoke next on LGS Rate Designs. Foster explained that, in the recent past, there were no users in this class, but now there are certain businesses that hit this category. Councilmember Nicholson asked how many. Foster said approximately 25 to 30 meters. City Manager, Morgan, said there is a communication plan in place for these customers. He noted that their energy charge will actually be lower, so there is not much impact. n Councilmember Pitts asked why customers are now hitting this category. Foster explained that these are newly built businesses of a certain size or small businesses who have grown into larger businesses. LGS Rate -Desi ns I ChW saw 120000 sm06 $17600 EnvgyC-W 1007110 1006163 So 06479 1OOM3 Tr4r� 04 100019 $o00to $00010 800019 Demand Chanp $045 $1100 11 t 00 51100 &%WWAMraft $13,083,667 $141417=2 $14,210.672 $14,061012 % C►�43e 35% 4 8% Change by load tactor based an Clam Average Demand n Councilmember Pitts asked why customers are now hitting this category. Foster explained that these are newly built businesses of a certain size or small businesses who have grown into larger businesses. Industrial Rate Designs were shown next. Foster said these rates will not be changing much and apply to businesses such as HEB and Walmart. CJtSin Industrial Rate Designs MOOM C11" 8=40 4 M IM =M= 11111041111 r ch" 9005440 >aOM* 80O5M 3oa61Fe IPW* 434"As nolM ,goo»» Owwwohirp $1000 31600 81600 f1600 krMar FMMP41111 OWTJ 82 V.K160 VAKIa RAM %chrh0e 35% 40% 351 Change by ead factor based an Class Average Demand %) 110% u 0% 77 ON sup h hr a aw w► rs� ora Mx- ro► Hyo! Yom• Foster spoke on Large Industrial Rate Designs for businesses such as the Datacenter and Hospitals, such a_S s_,Scott& White in Round Rock. Ufco• Large Industrial Rate Designs C?WP sem a" �Orc?" 3oae61O 3005177 30 3005177 Y=WnwMMAdj 80001! IRaO'Og IO." � Owardowpe 8750 SOX $1025 81025 Rnmx Fran PAM Ss GA 71O MOM x c3sr,p► 40% fChange by toad fartw based on t7as Average Demand j%j WA 0T acti .� rx i:• I an s.* ea. rr+ •r ..ti ..•y .w Foster provided the Next Steps. • Discussion continued with City Manager's Proposed Budget • Ordinance Readings in August • Effective January 1s' • Rates Reviewed every 3 years. Councilmember Nicholson said she is glad that this will be discussed more in future budget workshops. She said she would like to hear about the GUS Board recommendations being different from staffs. Morgan said staff would like to set up a system that allows for long term success and for the cash position to be improved. Morgan said he understands the GUS board philosophy to get the cash and be stronger quicker, while staff is wanting to have minimal impact to the customers. Mayor Ross said, philosophically, thoughts are the same, the difference only being in how quickly. Councilmember Pitts asked for the plan for the delta and the projected cash He noted that the delta increases every year and asked at what point there would be too much of a cash balance. Foster explained that the plan is to compartmentalize financial ratios so that at every year, projections can be analyzed, with the opportunity to make adjustments. He explained that, when stable, the PCA rate would be lowered. Morgan said there could be a negative PCA (the ability to apply an adjustment). He said Alternative 3 allows the City to grow, while being sensitive to costs to the rate payers. Pitts said a negative balance in utilities is not something the City should have and he understands the need for rate adjustments. He spoke on debt ratio required by the bond holders to be considered and the rating status considerations. Morgan said a $4.80 increase will be staffs recommendation, which Council can adjust during the budget process. He said this will be the recommendation in the proposed budget. He explained that changes upward could be made easily, but if a lower rate is suggested by Council, staff would have to look at how to balance the expense in the budget. Mayor Ross said it is financially prudent to have cash reserves and the City cannot come up short and then declare a rate increase, but can refund customers, if too much revenue is collected. Councilmember Hesser said projections are in the future and he cannot make a decision without history and trends of the past. He asked to see past trends during the budget process. Morgan said staff will provide this in the budget for electric, water and wastewater. Matthew Garrett, Executive Consultant with NewGen Strategies & Solutions, provided a presentation on the Georgetown Water, Wastewater and Reuse Rate Study Update. Garrett said he would be addressing Key Issues, the Fund Performance under Current and Proposed Rates, Draft Rate Adjustments and end with discussion and next steps. Key Issues were shown. • Descending Financial Performance o Rates will not keep up with costs without adjustments • Wholesale Supplier Cost Increases • Rapid Growth, Capital Projects and New Debt Service o $195 Million in Capital Project needs between FY2019 and FY2023 Garrett said one needs to ask if customers permanently changed their water consumption behavior. He explained that, going forward, the budget level of consumption to be utilized must be determined. He provided the CIP Funding Forecast for Water and Wastewater Combined. CIV Funding 51000 San 00 SS/ 70 SS2 S3 $5000 $41 00 n $4002 $4000 $7935 z $5000 I ,? $10 00 SIO 00 2011 7070 7071 _ 2072 7027 0+� $36 35 $26 39 $29 99 513.26 W03 I^'f'+R ler $14 23 $13 SS $16 Si $13.12 S16 36 Gih 51935 S0074 5046 $0.47 5431 Iobl CI► $52 33 SOX S67 00 529.35 $54 70 Garrett detailed the CIP Funding Forecast for Water and Wastewater. Garrett noted that the City needs to fund $200 million dollars in 5 years. He said a formula of a 50/50 ratio of cash to debt is generally used, but in this case it was not usable, without dramatic changes to the City's ratepayers. He said the City actually needs more debt than cash funding in next 20 years and it is reasonable to assume that those receiving benefits from the service 20 years from now, be part of the solution for costs. Councilmember Pitts said he would have a question, regarding this slide, which he will address to Wesley Wright later in the presentation. Councilmember Hesser asked Garrett to repeat what he had said about debt. Garrett said, generally, a cash and debt balance of 50/50 is used and it is wise to use less debt, when can. He said in the City's scenario, this tailored way to fund did not balance, so the plan shifted somewhat to accommodate the significant changes. City Manager, David Morgan, said that the 50/50 formula created too much impact to the ratepayers, while debt funding allows the impact to go over 20 years. Garrett added that things would level out over 10 years, and then the City would be in a position to cash fund the project. Pitts asked about impact fees, and if electric, water and wastewater are separate accounts. Morgan confirmed that these are in separate enterprise funds, which the Council will be seeing during the budget process. Garrett provided a graph of the Combined Revenue Performance and Current Rates, as well as Combined Revenue Performance with Proposed Rates. Ending Balances of Each were also shown. Seo S40 S:;S 7019 1020 2011 20)2 1013 Fiscal Year Overl Under Recovery {S} Revenues Under Current Rates —Revenue Requirement Combined Ulihly Revenue Ger lormance Under Proposed Rete: 'r['h �.i !� STRAiF6�.$A1�lif7lUi>Q!q LL, Fund Pulotn m* Under Proposed Rata d)1U .V lV H1lt S 30 00 nal MMISA mt:.I Ia U,- 0i $ia is Sit ee. 557 fU .•ilei ii r�!.r �lY tri 7f1 1n �X� S25.00 N Sr. r" �Il�.n im r„j�l I'�n `511~1 Ct IF N u )F 97 j4 R. ;ri t/ 520 00 I � S 15.00 7t $10.00 m $ 5.00 _ S ■515.001 5110,00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 7023 mon Available fund Balenco $24.66 $2a 19 $9.08 $1.81 S(s s2) 1 Contingency $6.00 $6.00 56.00 $6.00 $ X90 Day Reserve Target $8.18 58.47 58.78 $8.99 59.33 Fund Pulotn m* Under Proposed Rata Garrett explained that no immediate rate action was needed, but suggested doing so in order to avoid huge impacts later. Pitts said the 2 slides do not talk to one another. He spoke on the available fund balances shown in 2019 and 2023, if nothing is done. Pitts said he understands that there are several large projects that have been put off, but when he goes back to the CIP Funding forecast, it is using small numbers per year. He asked Garrett to explain why he is seeing only $3 million in cash spent, but $30 million on this model. Garrett said d)1U .V lV H1lt RV/ nal MMISA mt:.I Ia U,- 0i $ia is Sit ee. 557 fU .•ilei ii r�!.r �lY tri 7f1 1n �X� 4. (11 Sr. r" �Il�.n im r„j�l I'�n `511~1 Ct IF N u )F 97 j4 R. ;ri t/ Garrett explained that no immediate rate action was needed, but suggested doing so in order to avoid huge impacts later. Pitts said the 2 slides do not talk to one another. He spoke on the available fund balances shown in 2019 and 2023, if nothing is done. Pitts said he understands that there are several large projects that have been put off, but when he goes back to the CIP Funding forecast, it is using small numbers per year. He asked Garrett to explain why he is seeing only $3 million in cash spent, but $30 million on this model. Garrett said the impact fees are not included as part of the revenue. He explained that, because of regulations for impact fees, they are held separate and apart from this analysis. Chris Foster said, in the last couple of years, collection of those fees produced about $32 million in cash balance. He explained that this analysis is looking only at brand new CIP, to be part of the 5 Year CIP Plan, and not old projects that are already allocated. He explained that the $32 million is allocated to already approved projects. Morgan said this will be made clear in the budget presentations. Garrett said the Forecast has included a $6 million dollar contingency fund. Morgan added that the contingency reserves will be shown in budget process. Garrett showed Revenue and Rate -Setting Objectives. ■ Revenue sufficiency • Minimize rate shock to customers by phasing in rates and utilizing combined fund performance • Potential rate design alternatives Proposed Rate Increases were then shown and described. Garrett spoke on avoiding rate fatigue, which is when a City comes back for increases year after year. 7019 2020 2021 4022 1013 Wastewater 4.40% 12.50% 16.67% • Water - Rate increases adjust both minimum and volumetric rates across all customer classes by the % above - Proposed Rate Design changes effective FY 2019 yields an estimated 17% Increase In rate revenues • Irrigation Block Base Rare mulrlpNem • Possift offset with behavior changes Wastewater - Rate increases adjust both minimum and volumetric rates across all customer classes by the % above Garrett spoke on Water Proposed Fixed Rate Design Meter Equivalencies, Water Proposed Volumetric Rate Design for Commercial Use (less than 3"), Water Proposed Volumetric Rate Design for Commercial Use (4",6" and 8"), and Water Proposed Volumetric Rate Design for Commercial Use with Irrigation Meters. MeterSize 5/8" Current $15.50 Proposed $15.50 0.674 3/4" $23.00 $23.00 1.000 1" $38.50 $38.50 1.674 1 Y:" $76.50 $76.50 3.326 2" $122.50 $153.34 6.667 3" $245.50 $368.00 16.000 4" $383.50 $644.00 28.000 6" $766.50 $1,410.00 61.304 8" $1226.50 $2,450.00 106.522 *Residential Volumetric Rates remain unchanged' Smatl Commercial(<2" Meter) Current Proposed (FY 2019) 300,000 , , 300,001 , $6.50 LargeCommercial(2" Meter) Current Proposed (FY 2019) , 600,000 r, , 600,002 , $6.50 Large Commercial (3" Mctcr) Current Proposed (FY 2019) 0 — 900,000 pflons $2.40 $2.40 900,001 , Commercial 14' Meter) Current Proposed (FY 20191 111 11 , $6.50 Commercial(6* Meter) Current Proposed (FY 2019) r rrr rrr ,, $2.40 rrr rr , $6.50 Commercial (8" Meter) Current Proposed (FY 2019) r r►r ►rr ., $2.40 rr► rr r $6.50 Industrial" Current Proposed (FY 2019) "Potential Industrial class for one customer Commercial Irrigation Currernt Proposed (FY 20.1,9) r r.r rrr r (F ulrcnt 1P[¢posed (FY -zO1A9) O+ Garrett showed a slide for the Reuse Revenue Requirement current rates. He explained that the City cannot charge as much for this water. He noted that this water is used in Sun City for golf course irrigation, etc. Councilmember Fought explained that this water would need to be poured away, if not sold. Jim Briggs said there is also value to this water used like this, because if it is discharged into the rivers, it would impact water quality in streams and limit permit parameters. He spoke of the benefit to the land to apply the water, as is being done. Briggs said that parks and country clubs use this water, as well as Sun City. Water Proposed Volumetric Rate Design for Parks, Restaurants and Fire Hydrants was described. Garrett said there was an effort to not negatively impact restaurants. Municipal Int errupt.ible(Parks) Current Proposed (FY 2019) 1 ,IM 'Parks department has multiple agreements with commercial customers to subsidize their water use. Expected impact to Parks from commercial rate changes is $7K -$8K per year Restaurants Current Proposed(FY 2019) Fire Hydrants Current Proposed (FY 2019) Wastewater Proposed Fixed Rates and Volumetric Rates were discussed next. Garrett explained that a flat rate charged to customers is very convenient for users. Residential $30.65 $32.00 $32.00 $36.00 $36.00 $42.00 Small Commercial $30.65 $32.00 $32.00 $36.00 $36.00 $42.00 'No Volumetric rates on these customers Customer bill impacts and comparisons were spoke about in detail. Residentwl Current Water (3/4') 2019 2020 2021 2022 Fixed $46.35 $48.39 $48.39 $54.44 $54.44 $63.51 Commercial 532.00 S32.00 S36.00 S36.00 $42.00 Total $71.15 $72.50 Volumetric $2.35 $2.75 $2.75 $3.10 $3.10 $3.61 Large Fixed $82.30 $85.92 $85.92 $96.67 $96.67 $112.78 Commercial Volumetric $2.35 $2.75 $2.75 $3.10 $3.10 $3.61 High Fixed $46.35 $48.39 $48.39 $54.44 $54.44 $63.51 Strength Water (3/4') $64.50 $64.50 $64.50 $72.89 $72.89 $84.10 Commercial Volumetrlc $3.70 $4.46 $4.46 $5.02 $5.02 $5.86 Multi- Fixed $110.10 $114.95 $114.95 $129.32 $129.32 $150.87 Family Volumetric $2.35 $2.75 $2.75 $3.10 $3.10 $3.61 Evaporation Fixed $46.35 $48.39 $48.39 $54.44 $54.44 $63.51 Cooler Volumetric $2.35 $2.75 $2.75 $3.10 $3.10 $3.61 Customer bill impacts and comparisons were spoke about in detail. Residentwl Current Water (3/4') 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $52.81 $40.50 $40.50 $40.50 $45.77 $4,1.77 Wastewater 532.00 S32.00 S36.00 S36.00 $42.00 Total $71.15 $72.50 $72.50 $81.77 $81.77 $94.81 Variance($) $1.35 $9.27 $13.04 Vbriona M 1.90% - 12.79% 15.95% '10,000 Gallons Re.sidenfial Ckirrent 2019 2020 2021 2022 202.3 Water (3/4') $64.50 $64.50 $64.50 $72.89 $72.89 $84.10 Wastewater S30.65 32.00 S32.00 $36.00 $36.00 $42.00 Total $95.15 $96.50 $96.50 $108.89 $108.89 $126.10 Variance($) $1.35 - $12.39 $17.21 Variance (%) 1.42% 12.83% 15.81% '20,000 Gallons Hutto r $177.93 Awvm 31 $177.90 taylor $162.96 Lea rad et $134.47 Liberty 1011 $122.59 Temple $101.32 (rdarPark 5100.43 ,� Pllug►rville $93.80 Round Rock $88,11 Georgetown (Proposed) 40M 12.00 $12 SO Georgetown(Current) 30.65 $71.15 ■ Water a Wastewater yh < W•N.4rel k—o'.r-nrrrKlti♦4r thrnrrA 4rw.ew�r.r.rVr�A.1!.r .I rr.7l>lMf� Auotin r $423.94 Hutto 5316.73 Taylor 5274.56 Leander $212.01 Liberty Hill $190,89 Cedar Park $188.28 Temple $178.32 Pilug►rvrlle : r S163.30 Round Rock _. y 5150.01 G►orgatown64.50 ]2.00 $96,50 G►orgatown 94M 30.65 $9515 ■ Ware, r W4,ICwaicr Hl yr LkN } 14441l.,a�/1t11! AGl4�'r N Garrett ended the presentation by saying the utility is in great shape and rate impacts do not need to be dramatic. He said that the City could afford their proposed CIP project. Garrett provided the next steps. • Need to increase revenues o Seeking Council direction on rate changes to be effective January 1, 2019 • Council will review proposed rate changes as part of the proposed budget and during ordinance readings • Rates Studies continued every 3 years Mayor Ross asked if the key drivers are normal inflation and growth. He said the state restricting impact fees is a factor of constraint, causing the use of debt service to pay costs over a longer period of time. Ross asked if there are any areas in which Georgetown does not perform well in comparison to other cities in the region. Chris Foster explained that the more gallons added in, the better Georgetown compares. He explained that at 5,000 gallons, Georgetown is in the middle of the pack. Morgan said that Council will be able to provide feedback during the budget process. Mike Babin said they would move on to the last piece of the presentation which would be the Electric System Fee Study presented by Chris Foster. Babin said the fee changes are reflected in all three scenarios discussed. He said the electric fee study represents about a 1.4% increase in revenue and revenues from the electric fee study are the basis for generating Option 3. Babin said the revenue requirements in all 3 scenarios are about 6% higher than they were in the existing rates. He said it is recognized, after the study, that about 1.4% of that can be generated in fees, as opposed to rates, and hence Option 3 is recommended, showing the 6% minus the 1.4%. Chris Foster said, because fees and CIACs are not determined until engineering is complete, the process for collecting fees and CIACs is impeded. He noted that revisions by a developer can cause a need for fees and CIACs to be recalculated. Foster explained that service connection fees and CIACs were last updated in 1997. Foster provided the Purpose and Scope of the Study Purpose and Scope of Study Review the electric system is current Contribution -In -Aid of Construction (CIAC) and Connect Fee Policies and Synchronize with the new rate structure - The Current Policies were implemented in 1997 - Currently rate payers subsidize a small percentage of the growth since the City covers portions of CIAC and New Account Conned fees - Current fee calculation methodology is cumbersome and inconsistent Recommend New Process which is Designed to: - Eliminate rate payer subsidies for development CIAC and conned fees - Streamline the process In determining New Development fees by simplifying the Conned Fee and CIAC calculation methodologles • Currently takesweeks, new method K done same day for faster (incl" of protects • Discuss Special District contracts and how they impact this study He provided a chart depicting the current connect fees and spoke about the Proposed Connect Fee Methodology and Proposed Connect Fees. -A, - Current Connect Fees ResIdmU and Ca nidal Slr4e-Phase 0.200 Amps $400 200 400 Amps 1600 401 + Amps rf4rieered Cost Commerod Thiee-Ptlase 0-200Amps 51,550 200 400 Amps 12,500 401 • Amps Enq(ne EstaW-shed in 1997 to recover the cost of material for the transfornw and metering equipment. 3 Proposed Connect Fee Methodology Single -Phase Residential and Commercial Increase the connect fee 9/meter to cover the current cost of the Customer's portion of the single-phase transformer, their meter and AMI installation Put in an adder for any New Development requesting an additional Distributive Generation (DG) meter Keep the "engineered cost" for a single-phase new conned over 400 amps since this scenano is very rare. Reword to "cost" Three -Phase Commercial - Convert the conned fee from a $/meter and engineering cost to a $/square foot - Put in an adder for any New Development requesting a DG. "Cost" shown for large development due to the unknown financial impact of large DG installations. 4 Proposed Connect Fees Proposed � Wd as O. S"*ft� 401 • AIM Cali C" ►w�l�s•tlF{W�Mw�LScrri++�+n fl70 pa r.•..r� tnu- ••�.9oe rw.. vAa e.m s� 1.701 -AOM PAM 1t 17 f�so f mf•u ole si? 0�0 a.m as• tioot "im n of "M Am- alga W.m can Foster spoke of charging for a second meter, which has not been done in the past. Current CIAC Methodology, Proposed CIAC Methodology and Proposed CIAC Fees were shown. Current CIAC Methodology • Established in 1997 to recover ACTUAL COST of engineering, primary wire, and partial labor to install the primary wire • Overhead service line extension — Developer pays any cost in excess of $80,000 • Underground service line extension — Non-competitive service territory • GUS provides all required electric equipment • Developer provides civil infrastructure and pays a CIRC to GUS for the primary cable and engineering — Competitive service territory • GUS matched the competition on the CIAC 6 t , ,• Proposed CIAC Methodology • Developer continues to provide all civil infrastructure Developer is required to pay the following CIRC: - Residential Developer pays a $/lot based on the average lot width - Commercial Developer pays a S/square foot based on which square footage category they fall into New CIAC methodology is intended to average out where the Developer covers all costs of new development 7 Proposed CIAC Fees • Underground single-phase new service residential Residential subdivision New CIRC fee Lot ani Lae tin cr equal to 7W ft.W G.amat dw W S2,000 Residential Multu-family New CIRC fee ;' Door Development ori 8 Proposed CIAC Fees (Cont.) flarf., AGwv Bax• Mkw•r a�l�w,�g 1.�1'Dl.lO� F0n1 1MW 1001 1.1101 f•,IkN) $9,W) $2 20 6,001-12,000 $18,400 St. 10 12,001 50,0W 12 5, 500 10, 2t1 50,001+ $33,100 10015 Any commercial without square footage will be dealt with independently. Any redesign costs will be billed directly to the Developer. Foster discussed Special Districts, such as MUDs, PUDs, SUDS and other taxing entities. He explained that Special District contracts are stand-alone commitments where up -front costs are paid by the developer and normal CIAC and connect fees are then reimbursed back to the developer through a tax rate. Foster ended the presentation and explained that discussion and review will be part of the City Manager's proposed budget. He said ordinance readings would be in August and implemented October 1, 2018. D. Presentation and discussion on the proposed 2019 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Plans for Public Works and Georgetown Utility Systems-- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director Systems Engineering Director, Wesley Wright, spoke on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan for Public Works and Georgetown Utility Systems. He explained that there were 4 attachments in the agenda packet and he would be reviewing the GTAB information first in this presentation. Wright said that the 2019 Capital Improvement Plan includes the Airport, the 2015 Road Bond, Sidewalks, Solid Waste and Stormwater. Anticipated Airport Expenses were shown. • Rate Study - $30,000 • Pavement Maintenance - $15,000 • Street Maintenance - $35,000 • Wildlife Management - $35,000 • Hangar Maintenance $75,000 Wright mentioned the Airport Rehabilitation Plan of $500,000 with a 10% match from the City. He provided the 5 -Year CIP Plan for the Airport. Airport - 5 Year CI P AIRPORT 2019 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 11.1+10.w /7'�/I0 /. t0a0 7'`7)011 .+vms 7Y2M L.rsr.-. �.4r+�w W7+ 1(s6M 0 0 G 0 P CewwM w+++wM-n.a. P P 1A000 0 D P 7rtry '*+�s+• �.-ti�.+.y riPHr K0*0 �ii4PHi SA;rX� SfsPH� a wow rw.. h P.µVurra r.7.7.. 7 7!4000 .8000 0 7 a p..7 �a.rw.r 77,m0 70000 0 0 9 P Srr'+lrr 9,r. wiAw .wp..-w 1�M0 ]>,P56 ]�PHi 7�NP ]{AJO p 1.r1 7Mp0 120000 MAW 7Sa00 71.000 O 2015 Road Bond Projects were shown next. 2015 Road Bond • Intersection Pool • Williams & Lakeway • $1,000,000 • Corridor Study • Turn Lanes��r {` L Wright explained the dramatic difference form turn lanes. Councilmember Pitts asked if Booty Lane was the only road with these plans. Wright said there will be others as well. 2015 Road Bond • Leander Road • Norwood to SW Bypass • $2,000,000 _ .� d. -' . � r 4„Y, w - I '%01r ('I(W,I iciun� 2015 Road Bond • NB Frontage Road • $150,000 • Austin Avenue, south of Lakeway • Southeast Inner Loop • $1,200,000 • 1-35 to Southwestern Blvd • Design only • Southwestern Blvd • $1,550,000 • Expansion to 4 lanes • Design only Wright descried the 2015 Road Bond — 5 Year CIP L fYZQ19AM.W iudfts JA- 2015 Road Bond - 5 Year CI P 2015 ROAD BOND PROGRAM 2019 . 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM amwftn w2019 wasa/ Pram P9an1 rrmp lk—.r 1 t—n O! Nj:J SM 1v .:OJ a t}.CAm I]}DCAm C N e1Pa Nrraw rw 1A== SWAM SWAM Sm= SWAM IAmAm I.+.Ir i:.sJ M..-wJI.. 7J7m Am C 7.JSI ADC C SN l.pfw 1....J�iwal, Jy. 1}Inv c o a a u .}mAm 4.0 I:SA6: a v C a C a 9 a C a 7Am.= n.lr..ur tryr«r .V r..r ¢ c C 3=41SlC Sys 1Wr, P. SnIM C Q a 0 1mAm a,9mAm —a.f..r I. r, La:y 1}DC GUC v I.7.QAm 6" I.SWAM 7.9AAm a a 0 0 _ . SDC= a C rrM 1.900.a1p $AM*" 9J/1J" 13iftm0 IAMAN 13."OAW Sidewalk Projects and the 5 -Year CIP Plan for Sidewalks were shown. Sidewalks • Rock Street (6th -9th) • $250,00/0 • Old Town Southeast • $1,500,000 • Partial funding via CDBG Grant r.:�dy 1 rPajwl. • uIa r..wll +wln.l.a Sidewalks — 5 Year CIP S DEWALKS 2019 .2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM •....w Y.._ '. i11M O�xw �w`+07' �va0 fi x.741! h..., � •.... ,r, I1144" $114" 7100000 1.000000 1*"ON 0 Wright spoke on Solid Waste. • Currently updating Master Plan • Projecting o New Transfer Station o $800,000 (FY19) o $7,630,000 (FY20) • Will finalize when Master Plan is completed by the end of 2018 Stormwater Projects and the Stormwater 5 -Year CIP were show next. . u Stormwater • 181h & Hutto - $50,000 • 2nd Street WQ Pond - $450,000 • Curb and Gutter - $500,000 • Infrastructure/Operations - $200,000 • Sweeper/Vac-truck Disposal - $100,000 I..�u v a t 4 A AIC C ,r, I1144" $114" 7100000 1.000000 1*"ON 0 Wright spoke on Solid Waste. • Currently updating Master Plan • Projecting o New Transfer Station o $800,000 (FY19) o $7,630,000 (FY20) • Will finalize when Master Plan is completed by the end of 2018 Stormwater Projects and the Stormwater 5 -Year CIP were show next. . u Stormwater • 181h & Hutto - $50,000 • 2nd Street WQ Pond - $450,000 • Curb and Gutter - $500,000 • Infrastructure/Operations - $200,000 • Sweeper/Vac-truck Disposal - $100,000 -0(IIiIKC, I It) --"N11110r- Stormwater — 5 Year C1 STORMWATER 2019 - 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM �M��1Swr 1Y'U1Y IYfotl �� 1[71 MwN � •..S >ti STrI Nur +Y>.NI �xAW i_ r 0 0 t.•O asd •�a� SWAM %00)w SWAM scc4m HRAM SWAM ao,�ap� C MCAW )WAW XOAAC )WAW 300AM !�....-,r. vra�w.•+�� 2U: iHr, HCl:tl:. ?h;�Hl: 1U:14: lO:�HI; 1:ISiY1', M.s•.r.rn Y.rd LIMON) fOMAM IAMAM 1AMAM 14MAM )AMO" Wright spoke on Street Maintenance Projects. RGflintin� Street Maintenance Street Maintenance • Estimated $3,200,000 sales tax revenue • Estimated $800,000 General Fund revenue • Mix of Hot -in -Place Recycling and High Performance Pavement Seals • Final PCI study results due late summer • Design Task Order/Street Selection for FY19 anticipated this fall. Wright concluded the transportation portion of the presentation and moved to the Utilities portion of the 2019 Capital Improvement Plan, which includes water, wastewater, irrigation and electric. He said the electric portion of the presentation would be discussed in Executive Session Wright spoke on Water Projects and provided the 5 -Year CIP Plan for Water. gid. ,,. - _ +cIIOk<<iiO%% Water • DB Wood Road 24" Water $ 3,100,000 • Dedicated transmission to serve Pastor PS (Western District) • Lake WTP Intake Rehab • $13,450,000 • Additional filtration due to increased intake capacity at plant • Misc Line Upgrades $250,000 ■ As needed in the Western District • Rabbit Hill 16" Water • $1,050,000 • Feed to the new Rabbit Hill EST l i►']UkSArwud ludsrt Water • Radio Replacement $153,670 Operational needs • Daniels/Reagan 30" Water • $4,250,000 Additional transmission for the Braun 3MG EST (Western District) • Round Rock Supply Line $1,100,000 • Transmission line to supply treated water from Round Rwk along Sam Bass • South Lake WTP • $5,x,000 • Design and Permitting for new plant (T: FQ& USA(()[) iT FY2019 Alrllaf a d;et Water • Tank Rehab �480.000 Daniels Mountain 750k gal tank demo I FYZ014AMUW eud e! Water — 5 Year CIP WATIR A 26Z1C"ITAIMOROVIMEHTDROGRAM .�sn Jr4 �r.l S n .fN ♦w n P J Ww..n• �•'. ti•�. J^.-Ww 3ft lwt 1•yR� IfP 2fE IrY[RIflm 3•t lbf L>X •1♦ f� �• isM J.w. W l" 1.413aH 1.1.1. ll•N�M MVO�YM N.N M� Wright described Wastewater Projects and the 5 -Year Wastewater CIP. mol$AAPAAM e Wastewater • EA RZ • Continuation of TCEQregwrcd maintenance program • Lift Station Upgrades • $550,000 As needed for existing stations • SGWWTP Sludge Thickener $1,150,000 Complete rehab in conjunction with forthcoming belt press project -4i 11 k)P(.I I U�4 Wastewater — 5 Year CIP WASTEWATER 2019 - 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM •.n.Aww [rloro rr10// /r>tnl /rasr� r.�a» •]x•.11..... Ca..a. Gwr br .qry JXCAM 3.3 MAPC s I tA&Z J.OMAM IAMAM I0MAm rAM.OW +AMAW p le�,w..+• IF :ul r. 4 C JAMASC "WCAM LITS I.n I.Mp.b. ].CAIS IA ]]C4a7 ]AACC 3W.O t N .v N•] .r GrA.�11N '�]CJ :• 0 1]AOCMp JI }ppA® p p p .'.'e. ier.1 [•Guru. a+J p p 0 I'moom .apCA[4 6 Fr. r• J+n..w T" J7"4" IN4"4" 21J104" 1.114A" 117104" 914"A" Councilmember Fought mentioned recent failures of big pumps. He asked that it be made clear to the public that the City is not responsible for this pump, which actually came to us from the Chisholm Trail system. He wanted the public to know that Georgetown has always maintained their facilities extensively. City Manager, David Morgan, said $19 million dollars has been spent on Western District water improvements. Morgan explained that this pump was only 6 years old and was not considered at risk. The pump was supposed to have a 20 year life span. Morgan said the City will now have a spare pump, because they had to buy a new one and will be repairing the existing pump. E. Presentation and update regarding Water and Wastewater Impact Fees -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director Glenn Dishong, the City's Utility Director, provided an update on water and wastewater impact fees. He began the presentation by defining impact fees, which are another capital improvement funding source Dishong described impact fees as the average cost of capital infrastructure for a new connection, considering the cost of the existing infrastructure in the ground that is not used, and everything that will be required to be built in the next 10 years, such as tanks, plants, pumping stations and large transmission mains (the average of all the capital costs). Dishong said impact fees are paid by developers and builders. He explained that the construct of the fee and the calculations are governed by Chapter 395 of the local government code. Dishong said that past Council direction has been to review these fees every 3 years. He said that impact fees were last reviewed in 2015, so it is again time for an update. Dishong explained that a consultant from Raftelis had been hired to review and study the fees and Impact Fee Review Committee was formed, who studied impact fees extensively, also required by Chapter 395 of the local government code. Chris Foster said that staff, the GUS Board and the Impact Fee Committee recommend leaving the impact fees unchanged at the level they are currently at. Foster provided the Impact Fee Update • Impact Fee Report Complete 0 3 Committee Meetings o Includes Committee Recommendation • Presentation to GUS Board ■ Council Meeting to Set Public hearing • Public Hearing and 15' Reading of the Ordinance — August 14, 2018 Foster described an Impact Fee • A one-time, up -front payment levied on new or expanded development for some share of its capital costs being placed on the utility system • Intended to mitigate rate impacts arising from the capital cost of new development and help make growth pay for itself ■ Impact Fees in Texas are statutorily addressed in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Eligible Impact Fee Costs and Processes were shown. Eligible Impact Fee Costs • Costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the: Construction Contract price. Surveying and engineering fetes. Lend acquisition costs, including Find purchases, and Engineering and Financial Consultant Costs, • Capital Cost must be included in the 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan used in the calculation of the Impact Fee Overall Impact Fee Process • Defined in Chapter 395 of Local Government Code Specifically "legalized" water, wastewater, stornlwater and roadway impact fees • Chapter 395 Three -Step Process: Arl,lxinlum Fee Determination Fee Coordination Advisory Committee Report Public Notice and Public Hciring Fee Decision -Milking Advisory Committee Report Adoption City Council Ordlnonce Revision Foster spoke on Land Use and CIP and provided maps of the water and wastewater service areas. • Review impact fee service area and land uses and determine if any modification is required • Project utility demands for a 10 -year period • Compare to existing capacity • Identify amount and cost of existing available capacity and new facility needs (10 -year CIP) • Allocate current/future service demands to facilities Impact Fee Calculation was shown by Foster. Impact Fee Calculation • Existing and Future Debt Service Estimate the portion paid through rates • Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Calculation (as required by Chapter 395 Subtract the rate credit from the Weighted Average Capital Cost or Take the 50',, Cost Adjustment, whichever is qreater • 10 year CIP projected to be paid for through a %50/%50 split between Impact Fees and Rates Max Fee City Wide r Max Fee South Fork $11,371 Foster discussed the Impact Fee Committee's Recommendations. Committee Recommendations Citywide Impact Fee Recommendation V t ter $6,921 Wastewater 9M TOW Proposed 1 c c $101036 Total Current Fee $10,036 South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Impact Fee Recommendation mtw $6.921 Wastewater S4.348 TOWPropoaed In $1LM Total Current Fre $11,491 He provided Impact Fee Comparisons with similar cities. He said it shows Georgetown on the higher end, but this is expected with the amount of growth and development the City is experiencing. Impact Fee Comparisons Cipill4et LIN UP0164 hdop4d Irpsot FMi YAW ftmo11lf Tod ^T"1 F a ftw 36"Nac Tad k000d Inv= L *r a \ d Y 111err Wwfn w TW.h 2008 i 2800 U S 2800 NolrKod�O -er•1lA 2008 S 2096 S 180f• $ 3899 $ 2066 S 1804 S ::': 100+6 1004 YDuA 2007 1 2250 S 2000 S 4250 49remow 2013 S 3, 625 S 2128 S 5 753 ; 3 625 S 2128 S $ 753 100% 100% Ar AMO$ 2014 S 2.285 5 35% S 5791: 2215 S 3509'5 5.791 100% 100% - %-4 Rocs 2016 S 4.025 S 2099 S 6.124: 402S 5 2M 5 $124 100% 100% • . ?s�fr 2014 =. 4.361 S 2725 S 6.995: 4241 5 2.721 5 6966 100% 100% x+"dt 2017 S ON $ 2820 $ 7.129 4309 $ 2320 S 7129 100% 100% !w1^ 2014 ` 5400 S 2100 $ 7669 i 5415 $ 2184'5 7699 1004, 98% FCurn1lCyorpsso>r 2017 i 7039 S 2997 $10036 5 7099 S 2997 5'0.36 IOC* 100% 'ilMVUC'*MP M 2018 T6i0 S 7023'$ 3115'S': �Curmflcve dawsow 2017 S 7003 S 44$2 $11491 5 7039 $ 44Q $11491 10K 100% Now No Cw poo S-1- Fork 2018 TQO S 7 023 S 434 $11371 ;hist 7-a,-4 ^,%m, y;; 3314 S 7 471 S 11641 519.120 S 139 5 15525 $25493 75% Foster said the next steps would include discussion during the City Manager's proposed budget, ordinance readings in August (effective January 1s) and rates reviewed every 3 years. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074, and Section 551.086 at 5.00 PM. Executive Session 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. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Authorization of Negotiations for the Downtown Building Sale Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Electric Rates & Fees -- Glenn Dishong, Utility Director and Chris Foster, Manager - CIP Electric -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on t Q Date o ayor ohr' V�5-f'(' Attest: City cr ary