Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 02.25.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, February 25, 2020 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 3:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 510 West 91h 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 3:31 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Valerie Nicholson, Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District. Called to order at 3:31 p.m. Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 3:30 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding the process to address "cost of service" for Downtown Solid Waste Services -- Teresa Chapman, Environmental Services and Ray Miller, Director of Public Works Chapman presented the item and reviewed the purpose of the presentation which is to: update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of Service Project (SWDCSP); request guidance on "Cost of Service" billing process; and request guidance on Solid Waste Ordinance changes to modify procedures to allow for equitable billing in Downtown. She then reviewed the timeline of the project since 2018 and noted the Solid Waste Master Plan Key Objectives of improving the understanding of solid waste and recycling service needs of the City's Downtown Square customers and involve a variety of Downtown businesses which was presentation to Council on April 24, 2018 and the Solid Waste Master Plan was adopted May 2019. Chapman covered the current challenges that include limited space and access; illegal & improper disposal; overflowing dumpsters; litter; stashes of trash; overall need for cleanliness; and equity pricing. She then reviewed the Cost of Service input from Downtown Stakeholders which included: access and space; placement of dumpsters on private property is not guaranteed and likely to be eliminated with continued growth; City -owned property needed for shared facilities; limited options; aesthetics and public health; and the current system of carts and dumpsters has negative aesthetics that is unattractive, encourages inappropriate/unauthorized use, and has the potential to attract pests; the growth of Downtown will continue, and challenges of current system will be intensified and that the transition to a new system will become more difficult with growth; and there is support for volume -based rates; at minimum, rates need to be adjusted for equity in current system; with a new system, new rates would need to be developed. Chapman reviewed the Cost of Service Options and Costs which are: 1. Carts and Shared Dumpsters a. Current system b. Development of new rate structure c. No impact on operational challenges i. Current Costs - $120,000.00 ii. Future Costs - $150,000.00 2. Shared Dumpsters a. Removes carts on sidewalks and streets b. Allows for 3-stream system in future c. More dumpster locations are challenging and the leasing/purchasing of private property d. No impact on overflow, litter illegal dumping i. Annual Costs - $276,00.00 3. Shared Compactors a. Removes carts & dumpsters on sidewalks, streets, parking spaces b. Allows for 3-stream system in future c. Siting of 2-3 compactors is challenging d. Customers transport material offsite e. Minimal impact on overflow, litter, illegal dumping i. Annual Costs - $274,000.00 4. Concierge Service a. All containers removed; space constraints eliminated b. Prevents illegal dumping and overflow c. Allows for 3-stream system d. Convenient for businesses e. Requires close coordination between businesses & City i. Annual Costs - $300,000.00 Chapman noted that the Scope of Work Approved in May of 2019 included the following objectives: find all pricing inequities and propose method(s) for moving customers into the correct solid waste rate class; raise revenue to $150,000 to cover cost of service; determine pricing inequities; and adjust billing to cover cost of service without a rate increase. She then reviewed the Cost of Service Process Development which included: Field Study - initial review was a field study to determine which blocks had challenges and which ones were appropriately managing waste; Waste Audit - determined volume of materials collected on included blocks; Property List - acquired a list of all properties with their associated "Real Numeric Property ID" (R-NPID) from WCAD; Business List - based on WCAD, Personal Numeric Business ID or P-NBID data, businesses were added and combined to each R-NPID property; and Data Analysis - each property or R-NPID was analyzed for cost of service. Chapman then reviewed the Cost of Service Initial Block Review Results. Fought noted turnover of businesses. Chapman responded that the process can be applied to any block and noted that turnover in businesses will always happen. Ross asked about clarification for some blocks. Chapman responded that some businesses have their own dumpsters and have resolved their own waste management issues. Chapman continued the presentation and noted the Cost of Service Summary Analysis that included the following findings: Block Business Action 38 Burger University Price Adjustments 40 Jaiwai Thai & Gumbos Price Adjustments 41 Blue Corn Move to shared dumpsters Price Adjustments 51 Roots & Thundercloud Subs Provide dumpster location options Price adjustments 52 600 Degrees Provide dumpster location option Price adjustments Chapman the reviewed the Cost of Service Billing Process Development which noted that: Cost of service per individual businesses was developed and data varied based on availability but overall included waste audit data, business type, materials generated, hours of operation, comparison data; and costs per business were combined to provide an overall fee to each property based on the R-NPID. She then covered the Cost of Service Billing Process Recommendation which is to have a total billed to property owner based on the following equation: $54.18 * 3 + $535.84 = $698.84. Pitts asked for clarification on the current billing process. Chapman responded that the tenants are billed. Pitts asked if staff was proposing that in the future the landowners be billed and not the tenants. Chapman responded yes, that's correct. Pitts stated that the landowners would have to pass that fee on to the tenants. Chapman responded yes and that she did received some positive feedback. Pitts wondered how many business owners were also property owners and how the change in billing would affect existing lease agreements. He added that the proposed process seems more complicated. David Morgan, City Manager noted that shared uses it is hard to get a clear picture of usage and the goal is to make things more equitable. Pitts responded that he understands the intent but is concerned about the possibility of absentee owners. Gonzalez asked about the enforcement mechanism for violations. Chapman stated that there is not one for a share dumpster system and addressing it would be part of the ordinance development. Morgan stated that currently there is no good enforcement mechanism. Gonzalez stated that accountability will be an important step. Morgan noted that the shared dumpsters will need to be controlled to prevent outsiders using them. Pitts asked how the Courthouse handles their trash. Chapman responded that they have three carts that are emptied on their collection day. Triggs stated that for enforcement he feels it would be easier to hold the landowner accountable. Gonzalez agreed. Calixtro asked the trash is measured and how the property owner would know who is emptying the most trash. Chapman provided the criteria used. Calixtro asked about sharing the information with the landowner. Chapman stated yes, they would share the information. Morgan stated that staff would create user categories that would be updated on a regular basis. Jonrowe noted benefits of having the landowners as the responsible parties for billing. She then asked if the goal today was equitability. Chapman responded that was correct. Jonrowe then asked if Council decided to move to a concierge service would they have to adjust the pricing again. Chapman responded that was correct. Morgan stated that these issues are complex and that is why staff is addressing them in stages. Jonrowe noted that the price differential in most options was minimal and are all still available. Chapman asked if Council would like staff to move forward. Council provided support for proceeding. Council had no additional comments or questions. B. Presentation and discussion regarding the creation of a video production studio in the second floor of the Georgetown Art Center -- Aly Van Dyke, Communications and Public Engagement Director; and Eric Lashley, Georgetown Public Library Director Van Dyke presented the item and provided a Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Fund overview and noted past PEG Fund Projects that include current Council Chambers, cameras, tripod, lights, video effects, slider, GoPro, and computers. She then noted the current challenger of the video production studio that are space, being shared with Teen Court, and video demands. Van Dyke then offered the proposed solution of the art studio space located on the second floor of the Georgetown Art Center. She then provided scope details, uses and partnerships, budget, and the current space. Van Dyke noted the lack of ADA accessibility to the proposed space but that it could be addressed in the future. Mayor Ross asked if Van Dyke was saying that one day there could be an elevator in that space. Van Dyke responded yes, one day there could be. Mayor Ross asked about the ability for someone in a wheelchair to access the second floor space. Van Dyke stated that the ADA constraints of the proposed new space are why some video equipment will remain in the current location in the shared Teen Court Conference Room. She also noted that the use of the second floor would be for City production and not be used as a public space. Mayor Ross asked how much vacant space was currently available in the Council and Court building. Morgan stated that there was no additional space that could be utilized as a production studio. Mayor Ross asked what has changed since we moved into the new Council Chambers. Morgan noted that the need for more video production and sharing with Teen Court has become problematic due to high demand for the space. He added that this project doesn't have to be done, but cold help address a need. Pitts asked how much the City currently has in PEG funds. Van Dyke responded $165,000.00. Pitts asked what the cost is of this request. Van Dyke responded $32,500.00. Pitts asked if this request is funded, what wouldn't get funded in its place. Van Dyke responded that the City did not currently have any large purchases planned utilizing PEG funds. Pitts asked what the last project paid for in PEG funds was. Van Dyke responded the current Council Chambers which depleted the entire balance at the time. Morgan noted that the PEG funds went into the Council Chambers and not just the onsite studio. Van Dyke noted that the cost put into the Council Chambers out of PEG funds was approximately $400,000.00. Mayor Ross asked how much an elevator would cost for the Arts Center. Van Dyke responded that she did not have that number. Mayor Ross asked that staff provide those numbers. Fought stated that anything new that the City does should have ADA considerations. Morgan responded that the building has remained in use by staff. He added that design work would be needed. Mayor Ross stated that artists have been using the area and noted that they were not City sanction events. Morgan responded yes and noted that there has been staff up there in the past. Mayor Ros stated that he agrees with Fought about ADA compliance. Gonzalez asked if there are there other options that are more ADA compliant. He added that staff can answer later when they have more information. Jonrowe noted that the City has an ADA accessibility plan. She noted that there are lots of things in old town that are not ADA compliant and the City should consider revisiting the ADA plan. Fought that the new space doesn't need an elevator if there are other options. Morgan clarified that the current space is not going away and the proposed space is additional. Jonrowe asked if the plan for second floor space would allow artist access while remaining a secure space. Van Dyke responded yes. Van Dyke continued the presentation and noted the project timeline of receiving feedback tonight, Request for Proposal (RFP) completed by the end of March, selecting a contractor by the end of April, and construction being completed by the end of Summer. Morgan noted that the cost does not require Council approval, but staff wanted to update the Council and let them know. Council had no additional questions or comments. C. Presentation and discussion regarding the Electric Line Extension Policy -- Daniel Bethapudi, Electric Utility General Manager Bethapudi presented the item and provided some background on noted that staff has been reviewing all possible cost that could be improved and/or streamlined. He then introduced the team that worked that the project that includes Scott Burnham with NewGen Strategies, Rex Woods P.E. with McCord Engineering, and Mike Westbrook and Leticia Zavala with the City of Georgetown. Bethapudi then provided the overview of the presentation. Burnham then presented and covered the three primary funding source options of rate revenue, debt issues, and line extension fees (CIAO). He added that these rates should be complementary, balanced, and aligned with City policy. Burnham noted that line extension allows growth to pay for growth and ack of certainty that growth pays for growth adds to rate pressure. He continued that leverage debt reduces rate pressure and increases equity in cost recovery; and rate revenue allows for ongoing routine maintenance, renewals and replacements, and contribution to capital. Bethapudi provided a history of electric infrastructure additions and noted that in January 2019 Sec. 13.04.095: Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAO) Policy was enacted. He then reviewed the reason for the proposed changes which include: as part of the electric utility restructuring, all cost recovery models are being evaluated; address the confusion associated with the electric infrastructure additions including process of requesting electric infrastructure additions, costs for non-standard development, and payment of the costs for infrastructure additions; opportunity to evaluate the entire "life cycle" of electric infrastructure additions; opportunity to identify City cost saving opportunities; and opportunity to simplify the City's process of electric infrastructure planning. Bethapudi reviewed the objectives of the proposed changes which are to: clearly identify the processes to evaluate and plan for electric infrastructure additions to meet new growth; streamline the electric infrastructure planning process in order to avoid confusion about costs and design; better recovery of costs associated with electric infrastructure additions; address the shortcomings of the current CIAC policy's inability to properly address different electric service requests like office building vs. parking garage, lift stations, and small cell; allow for planning for non-standard service requests like redundant feeders and special equipment and service requirements; all infrastructure costs required/attributable to the service request will be paid by the requestor and if not paid by the requestor the costs have to be recovered by the rate payers; growth pays for growth; collect the costs of electric infrastructure additions through the line extension fees upfront and leave minimal connection fees to home builder/owner; utilize improved service delivery standards based on industry best practices; utilize existing technology investments that reduce costs and increase the ease of doing business with the City; and optimize Cash Flows. He then noted the recommended Line Extension Policy Changes which are: current CIAC policy renamed Line Extension policy; Electric Utility Infrastructure Evaluation Fee; use of Residential Meter Pedestals as the Service Delivery Point on the front lot line; and revise Line Extension Policy and update Fees based on updated cost analysis. Bethapudi then explained the Electric Utility Infrastructure Evaluation Fee which includes: Electric Utility Infrastructure Engineering Evaluation Fee: $500 + engineer review fees @ $150/hour; a preliminary cost estimate shall be provided based on the electric utility evaluation; consistent with Evaluation Fees associated with Water/Waste Water infrastructure planning; the preliminary cost estimate is meant to be for informational/planning purposes only; Line Extension Fees (final cost estimate) is developed based on depth engineering based on the submitted plats and/or construction plans and Line Extension Fees will be paid in full before the "Electric Services Availability" letter is issued; the Electric Utility will not order materials or schedule construction until the developer makes full payment based on the final cost estimate where some electric material could take up to 18 weeks for delivery after payment such as three-phase pad transformers, switchgears, and concrete poles. Westbrook then presented and explained the recommended change of using of Residential Meter Pedestals as the Service Delivery Point on the front lot line with continued use of AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) meters with remote connect capability. Bethapudi then reviewed issues with the current process which includes: current Service Delivery Point is typically on the side of the house which causes significant variation in length of service, challenges in running service from the transformer to the meter on the side of the house and service installation delayed by other construction activity; the home builder/electrician has to request temporary power (T-pole) to build the home and has to wait on City crews to power up the T-pole; the home builder/electrician has to request removal of temporary power; temporary power poles are often found by our crews on the ground causing a safety issue; and with the current set up, City crews (2 linemen + equipment) have to make, an average of, 3-5 additional trips between transformer installation, T-pole installation, T-pole removal, and permanent power. He then reviewed the proposed Residential Meter Pedestal Benefits which are: with the residential meter pedestal design, the electric utility is agnostic to the type of residential service request as the service length is standardized such as lot sizes and number of lots; eliminates the need for separate temporary power as the meter pedestals have GCFI enabled temporary power option; eliminates the need for T-pole and related safety issues; consistent with local utility practices; and use of AMI meters and meter pedestals result in cost savings with fewer truck rolls, reduced design costs, and simpler installation. Westbrook then provided an overview of costs associate with the proposed changes. Pitts asked for clarification of current costs. Westbrook responded that the temporary pole is up to the developer to set and the City's costs is about $120/hour. Pitts asked if the crews are going out 3-4 times on average. Westbrook responded yes, that's the average. Rex Woods with McCord Engineering presented and review the revised Line Extension Policy and updated Fees noting: at the direction of Georgetown Electric, McCord Engineering developed new residential line extension fees based on new design standards (meter pedestal/AMI Meter), updated material and labor costs, and historical job database of City of Georgetown to come up with cost per lot recommendations; process by which McCord Engineering developed the proposed updated fees which applied all items listed on the previous slide to the following historical projects; consolidate the residential service request categories for residential underground services from 3 to 1; cost per platted lot developed for subdivisions and other residential service requests; cost per unit developed for multi- family/apartments/duplex/townhomes; in addition to cost per lot/unit, applicable additional design requirement costs shall be estimated and collected upfront and the extension and/or upgrade of three-phase electric power lines to serve new developments (commercial or residential); the relocation and/or upgrade of any existing underground or overhead electric facilities; installations that require temporary power; system protection devices necessitated by the developer/service request and/or required to meet the utility design guidelines and NESC; specialized power quality/power factor devices required by the developer/service request and/or required to meet the utility design guidelines and NESC. Gonzalez asked about the challenges of the proposed changes. Bethapudi responded that the City is now getting caught up with the rest of the industry. He added that the City wants to also provide services at a cheaper costs and better recover fees. Gonzalez asked if the City will be retrofitting. Bethapudi responded no, this is just for going forward. He added that the changes will allow to collect all needed fees upfront with simplified fees. Jonrowe asked if the City had information about how much these fees impact the decisions of developers. Bethapudi responded that the big difference from today's practices to the proposed change is the meter pedestal idea. He added that it should be easier for a home builder going forward. Jonrowe stated that she understands the efficiency but asked if the City has received feedback on the fees. Bethapudi responded that staff will reach out to the Planning Department to inform them of the changes. Bethapudi noted the other proposed changes that include: clean up changes; low income electric discount with 30% discount applies to customer charge ($24.80); nomenclature changes to rate classes; "Industrial" changes to "Commercial & Industrial (C&I)" with kW load between 500 and 2,000; and "Large Industrial" changes to "Large Commercial & Industrial (Large C&I)" with kW load exceeds 2,000. He then reviewed the proposed next steps. Council had no additional comments or questions. D. Presentation and discussion regarding the proposed Budget Calendar for the FY2021 Annual Budget and Five -Year CIP -- Paul Diaz, Budget Manager Diaz presented the item and reviewed the FY2021 Proposed Budget Calendar that contains the following dates: March 2 - CIP Kick Off; March 23 - Base Budget/Request Kick Off; April 6 - CIP Coordination Meeting; April 17 - Base Budgets are due; May 5 - Departmental meetings with City Manager; May/June - CIP Review & Special Topics Presentations with Council; July 21 and July 22 Budget Workshops which will be special meetings; August 11 - Normal Meeting: City Manager's Proposed Budget; set max tax rate, & set dates for Public Hearings; September 9 - Regular Council Meeting with public hearings, 1st reading of the budget, 1st reading of the tax rate; and September 22 Regular Council Meeting with the 2nd reading of the budget, 2nd reading of the tax rate. Council had no additional questions E. Presentation, update, and discussion on the 2018 Economic Development Strategic Plan -- Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director Dollar presented the item and provided the City's Economic Development background as a fast -paced growth residentially and commercially with prior studies: Retail Market Study (2016); Workforce Analysis (2017); and the Target Industry Analysis (2017). She added that it is time for a strategic plan that was adopted by Council in January 2018. Dollar then reviewed the community involvement and entities that participated. She then reviewed the members of the Economic Development Department and their current roles. Dollar reviewed the different strategic goals for the department starting with Strategic Goal 1 that includes: supporting existing businesses and industries; completing 83 in -person business visits with major employers, primary employers, and small businesses in Georgetown; partnering with the Georgetown Chamber to create the Georgetown Healthcare Alliance and grow the Georgetown Manufacturers Alliance; holding four Breakfast Bites meetings with record high attendance; holding the 3rd Annual Business Appreciation Lunch & Bowl event; launching the Georgetown Works social media campaign to highlight local employers; and partnering with the Georgetown Chamber and Downtown Georgetown Association to host a Small Business Saturday event that included 35 small businesses in Georgetown. She then reviewed Strategic Goal 2 which includes: enhancing targeted recruitment of identified industries; twelve economic development project wins, worth an estimated $75 million in capital investment; increasing active project activity by over 30%; utilizing the Swirl, Red Poppy Festival, and Blazin' Beer Crawl for signature prospect and broker events; and attending the international BIO trade show with the Governor's Office and THBI. Dollar reviewed Strategic Goal 3 that includes: diversifying workforce development and recruitment initiatives; partnering with the Georgetown Independent School District and Georgetown Chamber of Commerce on Manufacturers Day and the high school career fair; working to connect the Georgetown Independent School District with Georgetown's major employers and local residential realtors through the Twelve@12 program; partnering with Rural Area Capital Workforce Solutions and the Georgetown Chamber to host the second annual Veterans and Military Spouses job fair; and continued involvement in Georgetown Young Professionals and sponsored the Austin Young Chamber Lead Summit to promote Georgetown as a place to work. She then reviewed Strategic Goal 4 which includes: encouraging speculative development; approving an infrastructure incentive agreement for Sedro Crossing, the City's largest professional office development at 170,000 square feet; and continued working with large property owners to market property for investment and encourage development of "shovel -ready" sites. Dollar reviewed the aver -arching objective of the department which is to: tell their story to a broader local audience; hold the 3rd Annual Economic Development Symposium with keynote speaker Revathi Greenwood, Americas Head of Research for Cushman & Wakefield; continu to grow the Twelve@12 program by meeting with major employers, commercial developers, downtown property owners, and residential realtors; participate in Opportunity Austin recruitment trips and Wi1Co EDP trade shows including SIOR, ICSC, and BIOMEDevice; updated marketing materials including the community profile, aerial map, and retail recruitment documents; and working to maintain the "Small Town Charm" identified in the 2030 Comp Plan by awarding $70,000 in Fagade & Sign Grant funds from the Main Street Program and raised over $69,000 through annual fundraising efforts. She then reviewed what will be new in 2020 for the department which includes: Small Business Resource program in partnership with the Georgetown Chamber; semi-annual industry tours with economic development stakeholders; direct recruitment campaigns for targeted industries; creation of an executive relocation portal; Georgetown Manufacturers Workforce Grant initiative; launch all new website content; development of a quarterly economic development newsletter; and host the Wi1Co EDP inaugural site selector tour. Dollar noted the 2019 Top Project by Target Industry, the Business Retention Program, downtown development, and active projects. Fought stated that he appreciated staff's work and noted the need to continue pursuing medical industries. He added that he would like more visibility with the City's participation in medical developments. Ross asked Dollar to provide a summary of the City's participation with medical developments. Dollar responded that there are several in the works that are not public yet. Mayor Ross asked that Dollar provide the information that she could. Gonzalez asked about the progress the City is making in closing the gaps in needed business types. Dollar responded that the leakage report covers this for retail. She added that the department will work to track the other areas. Pitts provided feedback he had received from small business owners noting that a majority of workers come from small business. He added that those business owners didn't feel as appreciated as larger businesses and suggested a new business welcome package which could be done in connection with the Chamber of Commerce. Jonrowe noted that Strong Towns puts out great data and could be a potential resource. Council had no additional comments or questions. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 5:10 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. F. 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 - Litigation Update Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Purchase Power Update Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - Municipal Court Judge - City Secretary Approved by the Georgetown City Council on Rou( CN-k- I V t 2.0 C�c-> ate Wvl Dale ayor lAtwol- Attest: ftity Secretary