Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.25.2019 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, June 25, 2019 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 510 West 9"' Street, Georgetown, TX 78626. 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 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM. Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross; Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1; Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2; Mike Triggs, Councilmember District 3; Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4; Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, District 7. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:08 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY2020 and 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) -- Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering Director and Kimberly Garrett, Director of Parks and Recreation Garrett began the presentation by showing capital improvement projects that were started this fiscal year in the Parks Department. The current year projects include the IOOF Columbarium, the VFW Parking Lot additions, and the San Gabriel Park Phase II and Trail Extension. Funds were budgeted for neighborhood park development and Golden Bear Park in Berry Creek Section 5 was identified for the need with a playground as the highest priority in the neighbor survey. Parks staff members are working through the ADA Transition Plan with construction beginning in late summer/early fall. Fought asked about the Columbarium and the management of that service. Garrett explained the management of the facility. They have currently sold three niches, with 141 left. It is managed by Parks administrative staff, like the cemetery and has the same basic cost, with a burial plot costing the same as a niche. Fought asked about the restriction of who could purchase a spot and Garrett explained it was not restricted to residents only. Anyone can purchase a space. Garrett reported that $12.8 million is remaining in the 2008 parks bond money. And showed the proposed 5 year plan with expenses in FY 2020 being the design of San Gabriel Park Phase III; the regional trail design and construction (along Scenic Drive tying into Wolf Crossing and to Wolf Ranch under IH 35 - 3/4 mile); a Parks Master Plan Update; demolition of the Tennis Center Pool (she explained the pool is in poor shape and would be too costly to bring up to code and there are other community pools in that area); neighborhood park development and redevelopment of Heritage Community Gardens (this is a 19 acre area with opportunities for lifelong learning and other facilities); Fought expressed concern about the investment into the gardens, and the benefits are only for a narrow part of the community and is concerned about on -going costs. Jonrowe thinks it is worthwhile and should be promoted to pull in non -profits for cost savings and benefits. Morgan says staff can bring back more specific details. Gonzalez was concerned about on -going expenses of all the trails and parks and wants to look at the long-term effects of adding more parks. Nicholson appreciated the different variety of parks. Eby expressed this is a good idea and suggested contacting the Georgetown Health Foundation for possible partnering on this project. Garrett stated the Parks Board reviewed this proposal and recommends approval of the CIP budget expenditures for FY 2020. Morgan says this will be brought back for the funding discussions on July 91h as part of the budget discussions. Wright provided the GUS CIP proposals. Wright spoke to the water treatment plants and how the city is growing by 2500 connections a year, at least. He says that the Lake WTP needs to be expanded now. There is an item on tonight's agenda for design of that expansion. The expansion would cost approximately $8M. Rehabilitation of the Southside WTP is $2.25M. Several pump stations need to be expanded as well, including the Hoover pump station and Stonewall Ranch pump station. The Carriage Oaks Transmission line needs to be installed at $2M and along CR 252 at $2.6M. Southwest Bypass water line to connect to Leander Road is $1.8M and miscellaneous line work and tank rehabilitation is proposed to cost approximately $1M. Wastewater utilities need the Berry Creek Interceptor rerouted and constructed at $10M. The public private partnership is no longer in play. The Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (TCEQ mandate) is $1.5M and the lift station repair and upgrades will cost $550K, the San Gabriel Wastewater Treatment Plan Rehab is $2.5M. There is a contractual obligation to remove the Teravista lift station which is labeled as the Gatlin Creek Reimbursement and will costs $450K. The San Gabriel Interceptor is being designed and will need $2M for easement acquisition and in FY21 construction will begin, costing $32.5M. Summarized: Water projects for 2020 are projected to cost $18.6M and Wastewater projects are projected to cost $17M. Transportation CIPs were reviewed. Airport with updates and a new maintenance facility is projected to cost $880K. The 2015 Road Bond proposes $ I AM to improve Williams Drive at Booty's/Lakeway intersection. Also Leander Road from Norwood to SW Bypass will cost $3.2M with design in FY2020. Additional road bond proposals were shown, including sidewalks. Pitts confirmed that the sidewalks were an estimate of length and funding at a high level and that once the projects were chosen, the specific design and costs would be more finite. The work is being phased over many future years. Pitts also questioned the use of 2008 Bond money and the possibility of it being reallocated since it has not been used at this point. Morgan explained that each year the council chose to allocate the bonds over many years so that funding was not done in a lump sum and cost more for one year even though the work would not be conducted that year and would ultimately cause the tax rate to go up. The funding was reworked to be more accurate with the work being done. The funding must be for a specific use and the council chose to shift this beyond five years. Wright continued and reported Austin Avenue Bridges will cost an estimated $1M with additional funding by TxDOT. Wright also provided areas of street maintenance that will be programmed for next year for an estimated $3.5M. The packet includes a map of proposed repaving roads. He reported there are areas of stormwater maintenance that need to be conducted next year as well for an additional $1.15M. He explained that 21 low-water crossings will be reviewed for possible improvements which could lower risks associated with those. Council did not ask any other questions for this item. B. Presentation and discussion regarding Policy Considerations and potential future actions related to the Georgetown Utility System Electric Utility Strategic Direction -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities Briggs reviewed the background to present and restated the Council's concerns to date. Georgetown has evaluated retail competition in the past (2000 and 2003) and has evaluated its governance structure (2002 and 2008). Identified concerns about current direction include the governance structure, financial performance of the Utility, business structure of the Utility, the power supply composition, market influences and the future market and understanding all the options and strategies to be successful. He reported currently staff and the consultants are reviewing the GUS Board and evaluating the needs of that Board including oversight and decision -making options. He reviewed the Council's authority and explained that the Utilities Code, Title 2 Public Utility Regulatory Act states, "The municipal governing body... has the discretion to decide when or if the municipally owned utility will provide customer choice." And, "Municipally owned utilities may choose to participate in customer choice... by adoption of an appropriate resolution..." "... The decision to participate in customer choice by the adoption of a resolution is irrevocable." Briggs further explained the City's Home Rule Charter, Article VIII, Sec. 8.01 Powers of the City which states there shall be two Council votes, twelve months apart to call a referendum election concerning the sale of the electric utility. The City shall then hold a referendum election which must be favorably passed by a majority of the voters voting at the election. This was amended by voters in the May 1994 General elections. Pitts asked about the ability to sell the utility and Briggs confirmed it would take at least two votes at council, twelve months apart, and then a General election of the voters. Jonrowe asked about selling pieces of the utility and Charlie said possibly. Jonrowe asked for a memo regarding that. Triggs asked about the possibility of changing the charter to shorten the period of time needed to sell. Briggs and McNabb stated it would still require an election to change the charter. Briggs explained the opt -in process and what it means. He explained the consultants would be assisting in evaluating the options the city has and the effects of those choices. It is taking one entity and dividing it into three. One Utility would become the Retail Electric Provider, the Power Generating Company and the Transmission and Distribution Utility. He explained that Opting -in is "functional unbundling" of the three types of business. This would mean the remaining electric utility cannot offer competitive energy services and would require a frewall between the utility and competitive companies. By doing that the impact to the organizational structure is that some form of return on investment to the General Fund is preserved because of limited operations within an Opt -In arrangement. Council discussed how opting -in does not solve the excess power sales and competitive marketing issues. Briggs explained there is still a lot of information the city does not have in regard to making informed decisions and deciding whether to put this to an election or not. Pitts asked what happens to the outstanding utility bonds. Briggs said those would have to be cleared by the bonds commission to their satisfaction because there are investors that would need to be paid as well. The debt would have to be paid back, Briggs estimates an asset value of $120 - $130M. Triggs asked if the bonds are for both water and electric and how those co -mingled funds are separated. Briggs explained that the funds are cross -pledged. The bond language says that all revenues, water and electric, will pay for the debt. If electric cannot pay for the debt, then other funds can. Morgan says this exercise was to open a discussion for this process and that many more experts would need to be utilized for deeper discussions. He recommends council hire a consultant to assist with those discussions and provide that outside guidance. Jonrowe agrees and wants an identified plan with many opportunities for public outreach. Fought does not think he is ready for a consultant at this point but wants to establish a general idea in place and then get a new General Manager in place first to allow that person to assist with actions. He does not want to rush into any decisions. Jonrowe is concerned about the quality of the candidates if the Council does not have a plan in place first. Gonzalez wants outside expertise to give the council options with benefits and costs prior to hiring a GM. Mayor summarizes that this is a process and needs to be studied prior to making any decision and Morgan says he agrees and that this is a long-term review. He will also be working toward finding a replacement for Mr. Briggs who is retiring soon and then working through the other steps. The goal of this presentation was to explain the opt -in process and some of the complexities of that process. C. Presentation and discussion regarding Fire Department Community Risk Assessment -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief Chief Sullivan introduced Rick Fagin with the Center for Public Safety Excellence. They are a non- profit organization which provides accreditation of fire departments. There are only ten accredited departments in the State of Texas. He works with departments to apply a continuous improvement model to strive for excellence. He explained the Fire Department is responsible for trying to reduce the community risk in the city. They review hazards, threats, consequences from perilous injury or loss and the vulnerability impact. One of the core competencies that they must provide is a documented and adopted methodology for identifying, assessing, categorizing and classifying risks throughout the community. They identify the difference between outputs and outcomes and measuring the success of the department. This process of evaluation will wrap up next July 2020 and include a complete community risk assessment and then they will be giving continuous improvement based on that input. Jonrowe asked about the types of risk that would be analyzed. They will be conducting their own analysis and consider things like weather, environment, community and data that is attributing to the risk. She gave the example of narrow roads and higher traffic on those roads and asked if they would be included. He stated that his group does not get that into the details, but the individual department will look at it and whether there were any incidents and the data associated with those incidents will be studied. They will be trying to determine the root cause of incidents. He says it is a risk study for risk reduction ultimately. D. Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding Housing Policies for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and process for updating the Land Use Element -- Sofia Nelson This item was rescheduled for the next meeting due to insufficient time remaining to completely discuss. The Mayor stated the Planning Director and staff have done an incredible job with public engagement and working through the many elements of the Plan and this topic deserves more time than is remaining at this meeting. Mayor recessed to Executive Session at 5:02 p.m. 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. E. 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. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchased Power Update - Electric CIP — Wesley Wright, Director Systems Engineering Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Sale of Property — 103 West 7th Street -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager - Temporary Construction Easement, 2nd and Austin Avenue — Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager 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 Approved by the Georgetown City Council on J4,16 rv, 14 Dale Ross, Mayor /_6� Date r 0 Attest: Ci ecr r