The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 08.14.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, August 14, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East Th 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 (5 12) 93 0-3 652 or City Hall at 113 East 81 Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross, Ana Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM A. Presentation and discussion of the Draft Airport Master Plan -- Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Octavio Garza, Public Works Director Airport Manager, Russ Volk, spoke on the Airport Master Plan. He explained that the plan has been unanimously recommended for adoption by the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB). Volk introduced Mr. Taylor of Coffman and Associates, a nationally recognized aviation consulting firm, who helped with the master plan project. Volk began the presentation with the Purpose of the Master Plan Study. Purpose of the Master Plan Study • Visioning plan for future development • Address local and national changes in aviation industry • 20 year prioritized list of capital projects • Identify appropriate on -airport land uses consistent with City's Future Land Use Plan • TxDOT approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP): Required for grant funding Increase public awareness • Maintain project discussions with stakeholders and TxDOT Volk provided a slide on What a Master Plan Study is not. He explained that most EIS studies (Environmental Impact Study) are done by the FAA. He noted that they are rarely done. What a Master Plan Study is not • Is not an Airport Relocation Study • Is not a Noise Compatibility Study • Is not a study to add larger aircraft capacity • Is not pre -approval of funding for projects - Additional City Council action required on all funding requests • Is not a specific development site plan - concepts only • Does not change a previous Resolution on runway length • Does not require an Environmental Impact Statement • Does not recommend any zoning changes The extensive Public Involvement Plan for the study was described. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN • 7 members selected by City Council. Review draft chapters and provide feedback to the project team. • Communicate with their constituency. • Conducted three 13) public workshops. • Ask questions of the project team. • Provide written feedback. Project•• www.georgetown.airportstudy.com • Access draft documents. • Provide written feedback. 17 . . . - __1 The Project Work Flow was show next. PROJECT WORK FLOW lY/fYi knwu+n t ttCOMMFNPi•,Wip•I V, iOM[i�r. iN�•Mi1Rl� Kl,•* Primary findings of the study were discussed and a map of the Development Locations was provided. Primary Findings • Role to remain a general aviation reliever airport catering to leisure and business aviation • Change designation from C -II to B-II/Future C -II • Plan for non -aviation revenue support in SW quadrant (Area 6) • Runway length modification (increase takeoff distance only) • Increase length of ground leases up to 50 years • Plan for restaurant/concession options • Consider airport branding/name • Plan for future aviation development - Around fire station (Area 3) - Northwest quadrant (Area S) - Redevelopment north of terminal building (Area 1) - Fill in development(Areas 2 & 4) GEORGETOWN MUNICIPAI AIRPORTA!67FR PLAN cr�r<.�+��•� l,.r L41 'C. Ll 114'4FA11910 Volk spoke on Airport Reference Codes and described a change in designation at the Georgetown Municipal Airport from C -II to B -II. He said he would speak on this in more detail later in the presentation, but the change in designation does not change what can land at the airport. Images of Airport Configurations were provided. llllp� Exhibit 2H; AIRPORT REFERENCE CODES • Change designation from existing C -II to B-II/Future C-11 • Design aircraft for this airport is best represented by light size business jets / turbo props • New design standards for this airport are those associated with B-11 •wsrrs •W1k .arr •rr a �r�r •�, � •:rw xa u .r.r.:,r.r� •Mel w[4 •r•y�y : t •wsrrs •W1k •rr a c.... til •Yri�1 _ •r.a "wl�ri •� •�rx• Fr •M r.w •�4�ri •HMR •rl iN, •MR i+ •lw lW 1.1 •irt♦� • o.r.... usq -mail . rrlr •Mf wr. •1.00 •a cuw .n •rwrer r., 8 41 or •. M, •4•IW •,Y PROPOSED CONCEPT CONCEPT Councilmember Fought asked about the change from C -II to B-11 and if that was based on approaches. Volk explained that it is based on the type of aircraft being observed. City Manager, David Morgan, said this will be discussed in more detail later in the presentation. Runway Length and Runway Protection Zones were described. Volk explained that the City does not own the land required, and if the FAA chooses to, there would be 29 homes that could be acquired. He went on to explain that with the change in designation to B -Il, the 29 homes would no longer be eligible for acquisition and only 1 home would be eligible. Volk said that when the process was first started there were 47 homes identified, which were reduced to 30 and now reduced to only one. GEORGETOWN[ :MUNWIPAI AIf2I'C R'rAIRPORT MAMR- PLAN - C ;mow Runway Length • Recommendation in 2005 Airport Master Plan • 5,500'-7,600' is recommended for a business jet at this location • Existing land use constraints limit runway length at Georgetown to 6,000', of which 5,500' would be available for takeoff and current 5,004' for landing • Recommendation is based on FAA assigned design aircraft for the airport • A 1996 City Council resolution limited runway length to 5,000' • A future City Council action would be required for any runway extension • No plan to add larger aircraft capability Runway Protection Zones • Trapezoidal area on approach to runway ends where compatible land uses are encouraged • Size of RPZ based on instrument approach minimums (1 - mile) and the Airport Reference Code (ARC) of B -II • As a B -ll designation, no homes in RPZs for RWY 18/36 • RWY 11/29 still has 1 home in RPZ • In the future, if airport reference code changes back to a C- II, then 29 homes would now be within the RPZs and ROFA for RWY 18/36 Mayor Ross asked about acquisitions Fought said an owner would need to apply to the FAA and the FAA would need to have the money to purchase the property. Volk explained that TXDOT does not have interest in home acquisition. Volk spoke on the demand for hanger space at the airport. Volk spoke on the Capital Improvement Program and provided a detailed slide. He explained that the airport designation could be put back to C -ll in the future, which might have to be considered again in an Airport Master Plan. He said the City can also refuse the designation. Volk noted that a priority sequence would be established working with TXDOT. Councilmember Hesser asked if the list is presented on a priority basis. Volk confirmed. Volk provided a geographical image of Long Term Development. Exhibit bA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .��'�IelywrrL�Yl.. " r • 1•,.r i bwll.� y1.M Ul A— •� .kY F ftwiiw FrFr •fes .. � _ INLOW.111116/►Jar. Iz- a.-.. •r�+.Y.� ��• a....r u.tiw >rrf tires tiw.rr rrww.� 1•I.Lak ll—W$ 1+1r • y�.••r. • ►` ,•. r I...f W 111116111"M own"" • ,/•'••'rM Y, r.•...'..r J. ?+r 1•.�,.• Wk 4111 4•wr . r ��rr�.r. rr•»... I.,.y..w.wr i V 11Mw .. •� i . .r.l�r�+tiw .+Y •.ry • .w.. I.vW � r � . r..r-� I.Ta�... ►.hr .ti.r.+.•a .r ..M H•A!A Iwy Ilia— 1.1 i111iF 4f;ay Iwo • tiT.�w•... � .....r •. w ..r !w w.. r-rMw ...pr .ra,.r 1. r . • -�. AM ra•f r w ~ ` r.+ .M .r 1•w wI IIy� ww. r.y. •• y,u••r • w �.I �� 1rriV "' . • M. ..• w• r+L Tw• i a.... r �M .W..rM1 Yrw�1Wr.• rw c .wa.w i. tw ,•.w y ^r�.zw. 1..^.,,.. w...�. ....... i. ...r � .r•. �r w rl.�w- I r. 1..�.. I.rr roar ��t F. al�� LR FFIM if.\� •• rr•y•r... Www1. IMw ur ��1 � �•�� +wrw� labs 4 rMr �—..•www �..� .... .� .... w ....� .. ........ -.-� Councilmember Hesser asked if the list is presented on a priority basis. Volk confirmed. Volk provided a geographical image of Long Term Development. rl+rra�rr�r �.r [w...�V a .•• r • 1•,.r Ul A— •� .kY F ftwiiw FrFr 41AG1111111m INLOW.111116/►Jar. '1. l ;F7 •y'[I '.I 1111: 1-a. CL[ SSV yr. rr� >rrf •rw�.. •�Ar•..y FF.I/Y�v.rrJ 1•I.Lak ll—W$ I. • y�.••r. • ►` ,•. r I...f W N •..ww • ,/•'••'rM Y, r.•...'..r J. ?+r 1•.�,.• 1[µ.w 4•wr . r ��rr�.r. rr•»... .rrlw I.ar •� 1 r—.�.r r.�a.w. rt+►.r w.. r � r � . r..r-� I.Ta�... ►.hr r r Ilia— Councilmember Hesser asked if the list is presented on a priority basis. Volk confirmed. Volk provided a geographical image of Long Term Development. Exhibit 60: LONGTERM DEVELOPMENT Key Takeaways: CIP was shown next. Key Takeaways: CIP • Council must approve each project and grant acceptance • Projects must be shown on the ALP to be eligible for funding • Environmental clearance required for most projects • 52 projects/ $S9 million • 20 -year list of projects • Projects can and do shift in timing every year • Funding is not guaranteed • Certain projects must be justified • Most hangar construction considered by private development Volk spoke on Existing and Future Noise Contours and described each with images. He explained that if extensions are built, noise models will change. Volk said If there becomes more noise to more properties the FAA will help, but if it is simply more traffic, noise mitigation is generally not required. FMhibrt ;F EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS +; . le Volk spoke on Key Takeaways environmentally and through the Master Plan Concept. He noted that revenue could be created by leasing for other purposes. He explained that development demand is there. Key Takeaways: Environmental • Airport currently doing a Wildlife Hazard Assessment • Airport land may be suitable habitat of various species • 65 DNL noise contour is the FAA threshold of significance - 2016: 10 homes - 2036 with extension: 30 homes - 2036 without extension: 17 homes • Funding for noise mitigation may emerge from: - Update to Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps - Environmental Assessment for an associated project (i.e., the runway extension project) Key Takeaways: Master Plan Concept • Change Airport Reference Code to B -II • Land Use - Identify non -aviation revenue support areas • Recognition of a prior master plan recommendation to enhance safety by extending Runway 18/36 225+ person hangar wait list - Development plan to meet the demand Councilmember Hesser asked about the number of those waiting for hangars. Volk said most request are T hanger requests. Volk said there is a 5 year waiting period to get onto Georgetown's list and people call daily. Volk noted that the list is realistically 60-70% valid, as people move or change their interest. Councilmember Gonzalez asked if leasing prices were set at the time a hanger becomes available. Volk said the Council approved a rate structure that is used. He noted that a rate study update will be requested in the next year's budget. Consultant Taylor thanked Volk for his fine work on the Master Plan and said he enjoyed working with Volk. Councilmember Pitts asked if input from the public made it into the plan. Volk said the team evaluated every comment and, yes, public input was incorporated. Mayor Ross said all of this has to do with safety and not expansion of the airport. Volk confirmed. Hesser asked about a good neighbor policy and if this should be added to the plan? Volk said several neighbors have come in for one on one meetings. Hesser said he wants language for this included in the Master Plan for the benefit of future councils. Volk said several neighbors whose properties butt up to the airport have told him they bought there intentionally for the proximity to the airport. Pitts asked if the map showing the reduction of the RPZ was an FAA finding. Volk said the recommendation from the Planning Committee was to leave the designation as C-11, but after their recent review, the FAA said it must be designated B -II. Pitts asked if there were any other significant changes from the FAA. Volk said they had asked for language addressing the forecasting models for the aviation forecasts, which were the biggest elements of the FAA review. He explained that just the language was changed, but the numbers did not change. Pitts thanked Volk for his extraordinary contribution at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. B. Presentation, discussion on the Austin Avenue Bridges Environmental Clearance Process and selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative -- Ed Polasek, AICP, Transportation Coordinator Transportation Coordinator, Ed Polasek spoke on the Austin Avenue Bridges Project and provided a project description and overview. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & OVERVIEW Existing Austin Avenue Facility • Constructed in 1940 • four -lane undivided roadway (two lanes in each dinetiorn) ■ 11-fm#travel lanes • No center turn lane • No shoulders or offsets to pedestrian elements • Four -foot sidewalk on either side • No designated bila lanes • Bridges arecantileveredsuspended-span bridges Possible Ir �rovementq The study will consider optinsto: • Improve safety and moblllty • Address maintenance needs over the next several decades • Wlden lanes to 12 feet • Add a center tum lane or median Improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations A%11, -:N nvFhCF_ rCi ) PW IMTWJG 111(40CA US oOvlEwAu pan' >>• n' ran• i R{-1 r'PAItiNG V RAIIANG Polasek provided information on the Public Involvement Process and described the Historic Survey Report Activity. OVERVIEW O INVkgMEN.T PROCES January 2016 - Project Kickoff To conduct environmental study, public Involvement, and 30% design and construction plans february2016 — Meetings vdtth Property Owners and Stakeholders Met with 26 property owners and stakeholders to introduce the project and coilect initial input March 2016 - first Public Meeting To introduce the project and process, and collect feed back on needs, preferences, and process; 104 Atterxtees; 128 Surveys; 189 Additional Comments; 31 Mapped Comments June 2016 -'Second Public Meeting and Walking Tour Workshop to collect Input on safety and mobility considerations, and aesthetic and character elements; S8 Attendees; 1S Walking Tour Attendees; S1 Mapped Comments August 2016 - Meeting and Walking Tour with Consulting Parties Review of Section 106 and Environmental Process, and walking tour May 2017 - Third public Meeting Presentation of preliminary and primary alternatives, updates on environmiental and historkal process; 61 Attendees; 147 Comments December 2017 - Historic Resources Survey Report Consulting Parties Meeting Meeting to discuss recommendation of the non -archeological historic property survey report prior to official comment period; 21 Attendees �JO�A41O60FTHE NATIO.NALHISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT PROCESS Tom Id r "I HisloftROO NOWServeyfA (H FINOWT40ribrraYiew rursaavLaWspnng/early ft" fes.fMit6"mr.)iznyfnot Orf+"man T""RN ffa0a"mmewo"veOWN Slimmer2017 TxDOT rev*m HRSR Summer 2017 TxDOTConduat comuningpartycomuItation regardineHRSR Summer/fall 2017 TxDOTcoordnaltswith Texas HoWricalCortxnisaionforSemon106 Winter 2018 Clearance.s.:re n ao.eF. Inas arr.p,oea,00E.a ao�uonai nonar cxro+wce e�u.eo Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) requires that projects with the least adverse effects move forward as preferred aftematives if they meet the Meed and Purpose. Polasek explained the Section 106 Evaluation. He said this is a process to study the effects to historic properties, which is a separate regulatory process than runs alongside the study of other resources through the NEPA Process. Polasek said the Historic Resources Survey Report will apply the criteria of adverse effect to the five alternatives. He noted that the HRSR document will be coordinated by the TXDOT historian with the consulting parties so that they can weigh in. Then, the TXDOT historian will coordinate the recommendations of the HRSR with the Texas Historical Commission, who must agree with the findings. Section 106 Evaluation 1. TxDOT & Texas Historical Commission Determination of Afternatives that appear to result in no adverse affects: • Option 1— No Build • Option 2A — Build new bridge to the east for one-way pair • Option 6A — Bridge Rehab with new pedestrian bridge to the east. 2. In order to complete the Process the City must select a preferred alternative to move forward. AVf,;1V F, n410i.6::. FCr; /FCT ra an y Polasek t trP wa Does,mt meet albe/a. Meaner h Poo but mon mote fm Invie fa eY�wllon e / raafrad by NIFA and saeaat L06 �/ 2A Iuild an now location and sonsri sin Meets -Mt utero (limned r.r6.4y imprp emenb for Nt3 bvttirl / to 1 way Pali of brides on east sde Has cow.o wipxts to as rasou as v m sid an now ICKAV oe and convwskn Malls rwoat CAWU (11MRSd rwobly lmpmnmanes far Si INf(tL, X to 1-w w pair of brides c n we -it smile Mwe veoK to rerotaper Vtan swat rile (1Ati X 3A Eulld AA,. brdda o� ofluA NWats as alv la on the cart sde 3• arms o1 ROW needed end major imoom to histone pope",,, and mso. es X 3686" a new butte on 00W altnmem Lkn.•wrte to an wast side 3. &a" of RCN naadad and m Woe Unpaea m hlsxnrsc prapaAlK and neolasaK X 4. byo"s on altarnatna allgnmont and Mas not moot rrlI&Ia lease br-dIl ass monument M4,*, {most} .npxtt to rex..nes and monaments arc .roretary X S. 4habluum pM}6K only Goes nm meat vitmAa X 1106,0"WarpKb b T.Olaap 6A Rehabll,tation-wt5 a^r<'r pedestron p0lee,t5 some criteria ('*mots.tty Improvements) hr'dda on watt s.da So,* ROW -"dsyd and rr,.ro n wets to rwso,acat V 6& iMsabreatmwi wath a new oedeflnrn W, some attefa (no rwotdtY ImprvrernenbP bridge on raa tb Sawa ROW naadad and mora hnpawn to raaourcK than sass slda (iA) X YARahabllltatlonaed.ldonbid®ac Mausaa(rRQ, la / o� east tlde S"r ROW needt+3 and ane newts to re -,ones v 74 Rdsabdaat on and wde" bnrtes Ill as attarta at wait stria So.r ROW rreedtd but more lmpacb to resources thin seer side (7A) X fl Gull nPptmcemenl Meets as r,iteria / Som ROW 16:, and Impatis W rvourcos, royJ,os tan f(Il anayi. V Polasek than spoke on the Selection of Preferred Alternatives. Selection of Preferred Alternative 1. Staff Recommendation is to move forward with Option 6A — Rehab with new pedestrian bridge to the east. 2. 6A, with new construction to the east, is preferred as the impacts were less when considering: • potential karst habitat, • impacts to springs, • right of way needed, • archeological resources, • historic properties (specifically the Blue Hole Park as it is eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing) and parkland. Polasek said staffs recommendation to the Council would be to proceed with Option 6A. He explained that it is still under evaluation and documentation as the preliminary preferred alternative for the NEPA process. Polasek said, with this option, the bridge would be rehabilitated and a new separate pedestrian bridge would be constructed to the east of the existing bridge. He said both sides had been evaluated for the pedestrian bridge and the east side had been preferred as the impacts were less when considering potential karst habitat, impact to springs, right of way needed, archeological resources, and historic properties. Polasek noted that Blue Hole Park is eligible for the National Register of historic Places listing and is parkland. He provided an overview of Alternative 6A. Alternative 6A overview 1. $7-$10 million, cost dependent on pedestrian bridges & trail connections, roadway approaches and ADA accommodations. ■ Rehab cost approximately $3 million+. 2. Construction duration 16-18 months. Keep lanes open during day, nightly closure for bearing replacement. 3. Estimated Service We with proper maintenance: 20-30 years for rehab, 75+ for pedestrian bridges. Polasek showed the next steps for Environmental Evaluation Moving Forward, CAMPO/Financial Status and Post Initial Environmental Evaluation. He explained that an Environmental Assessment will be prepared, if required. Polasek said it is possible that the project could be processed as a Categorial Exclusion (CE), if it does not result in significant environmental impact, which would shorten the environmental portion of the timeline. ENVIRONMENTALNEXT STEPS: Environmental Evaluation MoOng Forwarrf 1. Geologic Assessment and formal Presence/Absence surveys being performed by TOM 2. GTAB Recommendation from August 10u'. 3. Selection of a Preferred alternative and completion of Assessment allow the environmental documentation to be completed. 4. TWOT Evaluation will lead to determination of Environmental Assessment or Categorical Exclusion. • Environmental Assessment requires a Public Hearing • Categorical Exclusion does not require a Public Hearing, but we recommend a Public Meeting to share the latest information. • Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) with TOOT for Reconstruction of North and South Austin Avenue bridges is for $1,299,174 in Federal Participation in FY19. • Completing design of Selected alternative will allow City to meet schedule of August 2019 project clearance. • Alternative 6A can be split to Bridge Rehab (as described in AFA) and separate pedestrian project. Must clear timing and schedule with TxDOT/CAMPO to maintain existing Federal Funds and allow application for future funding. POST INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. Environmental Assessment/Categorical Exclusion determination. (Winter 2018/Spring 2019) 2. Budget Amendments for completing design that meets CAMPO/TxDOT deadlines. (Spring 2019) 3. Conduct Public Hearing/Meeting (T8D) 4. Address Comments and make revisions submit 30% Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) for Section 106 review. (T8D) 5. CIP Budgeting for either: • Combined Rehab and Pedestrian Bridge Projects, or • Separate Rehab/Separate Pedestrian Bridge 01. Polasek noted that the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board (GTAB) had recommended Alternative 6A as the preferred alternative. Mayor Ross said this seems to be the only practical course. Polasek said 2a would work, but not with the environmental evaluation. Ross asked about the walkways. Polasek explained the difficulties with the archeological impact with Blue Hold Park and going through Parkland. City Manager, David Morgan, said Council needs to select the preferred alternative and, based on the feedback, 6A will be placed on the next agenda for Council action. Mayor Ross said he likes that the work will be done at night and roads will be open during the day. Ross asked about times. The engineer said typically from ten/midnight to 6 am. Morgan said there are still multiple steps through the environmental processes and the City is still significantly away from construction. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked all who had participated with the thorough public process. She said she will ask about communication to the public when the time gets closer. Jonrowe said she would hope to only impact one holiday season. C Presentation, update, and discussion on the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge -- Mike Babin, Deputy GM of Utility Operations, Chris Foster, Manager of Resource Management & Integration, and Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager of Utilities, began the presentation on the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayors Challenge. Babin said the 2018 U.S. Mayors Challenge, sponsored by the Bloomberg Philanthropies, is a nationwide competition that encourages city leaders to uncover bold, inventive ideas that confront the toughest problems cities face. The Background of the Project was shown. • Council approved application in late 2017 • Over 500 cities expressed interest • 320 applications were received ■ 35 finalists were announced o Each received $100,000 o "Test & Learn" o Reapply in August for one of 5 $1 million dollar awards or 1 $5 million award Babin described the City's project for the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayor's Challenge - a Virtual Power Plant — and provided a video describing the entire project. He then listed the partners in the project and their roles. • Opus One Solutions • Texas State University • Rhyme & Reason Design • Wang Architects • S. Deatherage Law • Fractal Business Analytics • McCord Engineering Babin spoke on the Bloomberg Way and how it is an interesting program with mentoring in the process. He said that the applications were due on Monday and there would be an action item for Council approval on the evening's regular council meeting agenda. Information on Community Engagement was provided. Babin explained that the project sought direction form the following groups: • Utility Staff (8) • Friends of the Library (20) • Red Poppy Festival (546) • Sun City Water Matters Group (9) • Legal Staff (2) • Chamber of Commerce (50) • Young Professionals Group (5) Babin spoke on contributions and impact from each group. He described the methodology. Babin said the direction changed along the way with the varying input. He explained that it dramatically changed after speaking with the Friends of the Library. Babin explained that the interest in battery storage and free backup power was the catalyst and it was no longer a solar project, but principally the battery project, for facilitation. Hypothesis Testing and Refinements were discussed and Key Citizen Feedback was provided. Key Citizen Feedback ✓ Willing to host solar and batteries ✓ Trust City to perform work ✓ Prefer Utility Owned ✓ Prefer bill credit for lease payments for hosting ✓ Prefer battery outside and on side of house •:• Want Utility to offer backup power as a paid service ❖ Prefer to swap backup power for hosting •:• Order of introduction and wording of programs matters L; EciReE�471kH VPP Program: 1S' Stage • Offer #1 — Homeowner receives free backup power — Home must host both battery and solar owned by Utility • Offer #2 — Homeowner receives backup power — Homeowner pays $20/month to Utility • Offer #3 — Homeowner receives free backup power -- Home must host solar owned by the Utility VPP Program: 2nd Stage (if required) • Offer #4 — Homeowner receives a monthly utility bill credit — Home must host battery owned by Utility • Offer #5 — Homeowner receives a monthly bill credit — Home must host solar owned by the Utility LrU]RGTE�[Nf "SWN Rollout Schedule Q4-2018 - Award notification - Council Review - PM position posted - Rollout team kicked off - RFP for potential assets launched • Q1-2019 - Customer recruitment begins - Easement work begins - Civil work begun �rf�tft�.l it1N'N Ek��} Rollout Schedule Con't • Q2-2019 - Battenes and Solar installations occur - O&M team training done - Program repeats cycle of customer recruitment, civil and installation • Ever Quarter after - Review performance of assets - Report on customer feedback • Conclude pilot in December of 2021 C;ttoR i ' N Challenge Participation • Value Gained So Far - Invaluable staff training - Offsetting peak utility growth with local solar financially viable but likely to garner better returns on larger sites - Use the insights gained to inform future utility upgrades as technology changes (Distnbution Automation) - There is a market for backup power as a paid service - Consider incorporation into new developments Additional Requirements Coming - Undetermined Staff hours - Full time PM position - Definite Communications Team workload Costs/Benefits of $1 M Grant Costs • PM position beyond 3 years • FTE for communications • Unknown quantity of travel and speech time from Mayor and Executive Staff • Reporting/administration costs • About $3,000/year in O&M • Without more assets the overhead would always be more than the revenue stream Au.;E IIIN'\ Benefits • Step up in level of our Innovation Value • Media exposure • 7-9 Batteries and 10-13 Solar sites - Operational Revenues of about S50,000tyear - Allows testing of market and system operations • Helps curb peak demand • Potentially replaces Distribution Automation • Potentially extends useful life of field assets Costs/Benefits of $5M Grant Costs • PM position beyond 3 years • FTE for communications • Unknown quantity of travel and speech time from Mayor and Executive Staff • Reporting/administration costs • About $22,000/year in O&M 61 0R11MTETpwN Benefits • Step up In level of our Innovation Value • Media exposure • About 60 Batteries and 90 Solar sites - Operational Revenues of about $350 OMyear - Allows testing of market and system operations • Helps curb peak demand • Potentially replaces Distribution Automation • Potentially extends useful life of field assets Babin said only 35 cities were selected in this challenge, mostly large cities, and Georgetown is in the hunt, something remarkable. Councilmember Jonrowe asked how to decide which clusters to target. Babin said it would make sense, initially, to target areas along the feeder by the West Side Service Center and Sun City. Jonrowe asked if they would be looking at businesses, where it is important to keep lights on even in an outage. Babin said the project is residentially focused. Chris Foster, the City's Resource Management & Integration Manager, said there had been conversations with large customers and because they may have larger roof top space, they would be better economies to scale. He said it would be the same advantage for batteries and that some of these businesses have their own transformers as well. He said this has not been brought forward until the results of the Bloomberg Challenge are known, as well as the results of the West Side Service Center study. D. Presentation and discussion of the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Budget Manager, Paul Diaz spoke on the City's third Quarter Financial Report and began the presentation with the General Fund Revenues followed by the General Fund Expenditures. iymamnu# sod General Fund Revenues • Overall general fund revenue up 7.0% relative to 3rd quarter of FY2017. • Sales Tax collections total $8.3 million, or 58.1%of budget. ( ) • Property Tax collections up 5.6% compared to the same period last year. ( • Franchise fees up $578,000 or 18% compared to 3rd Quarter of FY2017 ( ) Nj_FV 40 IS Am" Budget General Fund Expenditures • Overall general fund expenditures total $44.6 million, or 74.1% of budget. Public Safety expenditures total $22.1 million, or 77.7% of the divisional budget. — The Fire Division continues to experience vacancies • Community Services (Parks and Rec., Library, and Communications) and Finance Division (Municipal Court) total $8.1 million or 70.1% of the divisional budget FY2018 AMUW ludyg 73 General Fund Expenditures • The Georgetown Utility System Division (Environmental Services, Inspections, Public Works, and Streets) expenditures through the third quarter total $7.3 million or 65% of the divisional budget. — Seasonality of road repair. • Administration Services Division (Administrative Services, City Council, City Secretary, and Social Service Funding) expenditures for the third quarter total $1.8 million, which represents 68% of the divisional budget. Utility Funds were shown next, followed by the CVB and Airport. F— — $,Y.025 Air " 5u61ae 773 Utility Funds • Electric sales revenue through the third quarter of FY2018 totals $47.8 million, up 9.3% compared to the prior year's third quarter. The increase is due to growth in the customer base and the impact of the power cost adjustment. Total operating revenues are projected to end FY2018 at $74.4 million, $2.36 million more than budget. • Water revenue is up 13.3% while wastewater revenue is up 4.7% compared to last year. The increases are due to growth in the system, consumption, and impact fees. Total operating revenues are projected to finish the year at $57.3 million. CV6 and Airport • Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue totals $1.0 million year-to-date, an increase of 13.2% from the prior year due to the Sheraton Hotel. • Airport revenue is up 1.1% from the prior year, and includes fuel sales and lease revenue. Diaz spoke on the Investment Report, which was put together by consultants. He noted the average yield and city portion of total cash and investments, and said this was because of the debt sale and it would go down with the principal payment due in August. Diaz provided a Summary. • Strong revenues across the major funds • General, Water, Electric, CVB and Airport • Expenses are tracking closely to budget • Investments are seeing higher interest rates relative to the beginning of the calendar year Councilmember Gonzalez said debt is going to get more expensive and the investment portfolio has grown. Gonzalez said there is a need to maximize yields as banking becomes more competitive. E. Presentation and discussion concerning ethics -- Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney and Jackson Daly, Assistant to the City Manager Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager, began the presentation. He explained that discussion of this matter could go longer than the time remaining, and if this happens, the presentation would be continued at the next City Council workshop meeting on August 28, 2018. Daly spoke on the background of the ethics conversation. Background • Oct. 24 — Voted to overhaul ethics ordinance • June 12 — Reviewed recommendations from ad hoc committee • Staff committed to return with a review of ethics ordinance by topic and compare to state law Cs CUIIfyEET(1WN Topics • Gifts • Definition of Family • Conflicts of Interest • Ethics Commission — Financial Interest • Sanctions — Economic Interest . General Conduct • Disclosure Requirements c,[a q�iwH Gifts Gifts are a benefit from a person or entity you know is getting something from the City or is interested in getting something from the City (purchase, contract, zoning, etc.) Exceptions include: Gifts from people with personal, professional, or business relationship independent of official status LJC[]RC,ETUWN TEXAS Gifts • State Law — Penal code • -.A rnjsdemeanor • Items more than $50 • Some exemptions for • May requires reporting A FxrU\O"N E • Council Direction — Differing opinions on gift amount — Discussion regarding exemptions for • Lodging • Conferences Councilmember Eby said she prefers $25, but will agree to the consensus of the Council. Eby asked about the rule of accepting gifts. Skye Masson, Assistant City Attorney, said state law does not define it well. She said state law allows acceptance of anything $50 or under, but this is always challenging. Councilmember Gonzalez said it becomes clear if you ask yourself if the gift was given with intent to influence a public official. He said the focus should be on intent. Masson went back to the definition of a gift shown on the slide. Councilmember Fought said it is how it is executed and said he does not accept lunch or anything from anyone. He said this will work and anything over $50 will throw up a red flag. He noted that $25 would be difficult to monitor. Transportation, lodging, and meals at conferences were discussed. Jonrowe asked what would require reporting on a campaign finance report. Masson said these type of funds are not campaign funds and would not need to be reported there. She went on to explain that if an elected official is asked to speak at an event, compensation for travel, hotel and food would be acceptable. If one is just attending a conference, it is different. Masson spoke on reporting requirements and explained that reporting is expected in cities with populations over 100,000, or if it is in the city's ordinance. Mayor Ross asked about invitations to provide introductory remarks and then receiving lunch at the event. Masson said this would fall into the category of a conference where you are providing a service as an elected official. Councilmember Gonzalez said since the City is smaller than 100,000, the City should use the previous ordinance language. City Manager, David Morgan, said the previous ordinance did not have exemptions. Gonzalez suggested adding the exemptions. Councilmember Eby said this makes sense, and the reporting requirements could be discussed. Gonzalez then suggested reporting anything over $2,000, when speaking or traveling as an elected official representing the City. Gonzalez said with flight, hotel, and meals, one would get there quick. Masson said, under state law, if speaking at a conference, reporting is not required. Councilmember Hesser asked about going to a conference as a representative of the City, but not asked to speak. Councilmember Fought spoke on the draft ordinance from the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee and read paragraph c. Fought noted that this needs to be in the language of the ordinance. Gonzalez said it relates to one's position with the City. Gonzalez added that if the exemptions are set in, as part of the position, it is already in there and there would be no reporting necessary. Mayor Ross asked Jack to repeat the will of the Council. Daly said he heard the direction from Council to have gifts mirror state law, with exemptions for conferences and speaking when representing the City in an official capacity. Councilmember Eby asked about a Councilmember as a guest at a conference, but not speaking. Fought suggested adding Paragraph C from the Ethics Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations, clarifying and resolving the issue. Daly spoke on Conflicts of Interest next. Conflicts of Interest • You should not be voting or making decisions that benefit you in your personal or professional life • Distinguishing what a personal or professional benefit is can be tough I � t 11Rl; F Tl)N' K IEY1� Conflicts of Interest • State Law — Chap. 171 -,I Interests — Chap 176 4r+nr��•r+mnnl OIRG TfX�S • Council Direction — Council members are real life people interacting in the community — Ambiguous definitions are hard to understand and enforce Financial Interest State Law - Chap 171 - Business entity interest 10% Of more of Vol" stock or shares 10% or $151C« of business e ftfy • Proceeds exceed 10% gfoss - Substantial interest in real property ^0 or grea:ef - Related by first degree G Cc3xct` yw„V N TEf[AS • Council Direction Economic Interest — Historically mirrored state law — Thresholds included in ethics ordinance • Local regulation above state law • There are some things that could be perceived as a conflict that are not necessarily tied to money or fall under the State's thresholds Gt11af:rnn%1x � f ti,. Councilmember Fought said he does not like economic interest because it is too vague and it seems a City could be governed by financial interest only. Fought said he understands, but it is too vague to put into an ordinance. Gonzalez agreed and said if someone works for a company that benefits the City, it gets hard to define, even without any individual benefit. Councilmember Eby said one aspect would be an interest in a property. Gonzalez suggested adding the word "personal' or a "personal contractual interest." Mayor Ross said personal property means desks, computers, etc. Eby said language pertaining to Council would be real property, such as a contract or a piece of land. City Manager, David Morgan, said this is already covered in financial interest language. Masson said it might not be because state law defines financial interest in real property with a fair market value of $2500. She said the old ordinance said any personal interest in real property should be disclosed. Hesser said the definition should be if one was to personally receive benefit. Involvement in Business was the next discussion. Daly said that state law says recusal is necessary for a member when over 10% of their business is involved. Councilmembers said they believe that any percentage of investment that comes before Council, at any level, should require recusal. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said one might own shares in a mutual fund, so the language needs to be more careful. Councilmember Gonzalez asked about the state law. Pitts said if a percentage is out of your control, even if it garners personal goal, it should be accepted. Masson said, in addition to a dollar threshold, there can be language about investment in mutual funds or something you have no way of knowing about. Gonzalez asked about setting a number for revenue for a business. Eby said that would be too complicated. Eby said knowledge or lack of it should be considered. Jonrowe asked if a turned down offer would come into play. Daly noted a good faith offer. Gonzalez said it would have to be a mutual agreement, or a mutually seeking offer. Mayor Ross said one could add a time frame, perhaps 6 months. Jonrowe said some offers could benefit a Councilmember even after they are no longer on the Council. Gonzalez said this would be too hard to enforce. Morgan said he agrees with the 6 month timeframe and language for a mutual offer. Discussion followed about investment in local business. Gonzalez said he buys groceries at HEB, but would not have a conflict of interest if they were to present something to the Council. Eby spoke on reasonable person language. Ross asked for the state language on this. Masson said Council could make dollar values and write exceptions. Jonrowe said 10% seems high. Eby said any investment in front of Council with any dollar amount should be recused. Councilmember Nicholson said everyone is over complicating this. Gonzalez said stick to state statute for this. Council was divided. Ross asked for a suggestion. Gonzalez suggested 5% or $5,000 whichever is smaller. Nicholson said she would still recuse herself, at any percentage or dollar value. Mayor Ross spoke on partnership returns in his CPA business. He noted that there could be twenty investors in one partnership. Discussion turned to amending language related to business negotiations. Ross said there is Council consensus to not have vague language related to business negotiations. Daly said in the previous ethics ordinance there was language about any and all business negotiations. He provided an example regarding Councilmember Gonzalez, a banker, who may have talked to someone about a loan, and whether he would need to recuse himself if that person came before Council, or would it be better to define conflicts with specific language such as the 5% or $5,000 previously mentioned. Gonzalez said the threshold should be "doing business" with that person, or in business with that person directly. He said, as a banker, this would mean you are personally handling that portfolio, not just that it is being managed at the large bank you work for. Councilmember Eby noted that a conflict is something that would influence your decisions on Council. Eby said the ordinance should define business negotiations. Mayor Ross called the meeting for lack of time remaining and said the Council would pick up the discussion at a future meeting. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.074 and Section 551.086 at 51.08 5:10 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 - Escalera Ranch Owners' Association, Inc. v Planning and Zoning Commission Members 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 - Quarterly Utility Financial Update Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting to begin the regular Council Meeting at 6:00 PM. Approved by the Georgetown City Council on $ a� j_ tg Date Dale DSS, Mayor s" �) 0 �, Attest: City Se tary