HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 05.12.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 2:00 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 2:00 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. All Council Members
present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed.
Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 joined the meeting at 3:02 p.m. during Item B. Valerie Nicholson,
District 2 joined the meeting at 3:24 p.m. during Item C.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding the financial impacts of COVID-19 and the City of
Georgetown's fiscal policies, budget contingency plan, revenue trends and expense
reductions -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director
Wallace presented the item and reviewed the COVID revenue received noting that staff
continue to monitor County, State and Federal opportunities for expense reimbursement and
develop strategy for applications. She stated that the CARES Act Funding from US
Department of Health and Human Services has provided funds for EMS to offset transport
revenue lost or to cover expenses related to COVID in an amount of $76,000 received in
General Fund that was accepted by Council April 28, 2020. Wallace reviewed COVID
Emergency related expenses that include: supplies, equipment, and services that have cost to
date (citywide, unaudited) $244,000 for grants to small businesses, medical and protective
supplies, cleaning and sanitizing services and equipment, communications to public, and
daycare for children of employees; personnel in the matter of value of time (citywide,
unaudited) totaling $370,000 paid out of existing salary budgets and covering emergency
operations planning, emergency operations response, and grant management, and a total
COVID cost/value to date (unaudited) of $614,000 and staff will continue reconciliation and
documentation to prepare for grant applications with an estimated reimbursable amount of
$350,000 citywide and estimated $130,000 reimbursable to the General Fund. She then
provided the revenue and expense outlook updates while noting that the pandemic is a
dynamic situation and estimates and action plans may change as the situation evolves.
Wallace reviewed revenue impacts starting with Sales Taxes noting that they are the most
volatile revenue source, data lags by two months and staff won't see April numbers until
June, and they are the largest revenue source in General and other funds for a total of $31.7
million of the budget citywide. She added that Citywide actuals for 6 months of the fiscal
year, October through March, provided a very strong starting position before the growth
trend slowing in March. Wallace then provided the following and explained the following
figures:
Year to Year Comparison
Current Year Total 16,232,540
Prior Year Total 14,316,013
Net Difference 1,916,527
% Change 13.387%
Month to Month Comparison
Current Month 2,739,362
Prior FY Month 2,690,682
Net Difference 48,680
% Change 1.81%
She then explained the initial model scenario where an early estimate shows a 1% decrease in
March, an 8% decrease in April, May and June; and a 7-10% decrease July, August, and
September. Wallace noted that these estimates are based on data from prior economic
downturns and the model indicates a loss of $750,000 Citywide in FY2020. She noted that
staff will use more scenarios that reflect pandemic context and additional model scenarios
considering: retail and food sectors make up a little over 50% of total sales tax receipts; within
the retail sector, building materials, general stores, and food stores make up the majority of
receipts; and while many businesses are reduced service or closed, general stores like big box
grocers that provide household goods are probably up. Wallace then provided a table
showing all sectors percent of total receipts:
nvicaawiiai, a��ci��nw, a��u �caauna.a� Jc� v�a.co
Wholesale Trade
Other Services
Construction
Administrative and Support
Utilities
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Mining
Other
Finance and Insurance
Health Care
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation
Transportation & Warehousing
Educational
Public Administration
re
V.VJ/V
4.57%
_ 2.82��
2.26%
1.62%
1.22%
1.20%
1.07%
0.72%
0.71%
V i.JV1V
86.15%
88.97%
91.23%
92.84%
94.06%
95.26%
96.33%
97.05%
97.75%
0.66%'
98.41%1
0.57%►
98.98%1
0.49%
99.48%
0.46% P,
99.93%1
0.05% �
99.98%
0.01%
99.99%
0.01%
100.00%�
Wallace reviewed a table showiniz retail subsectors percent of total retail:
Retail - Segments % of Segment
71
Building Material
23.51%
General Merchandise Stores
19.59%
Food and Beverage Stores
10.03%
Nonstore Retailers
9.62%
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
7.47%
Clothing and Clothing Accessories -Stores
5.66%
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
5.34%
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument
4.75%
Electronics and Appliance Stores
4.39%
Furniture Stores
3.68%
Gasoline Stations
3.15%
Health and Personal Care Stores
2.80%
100.00%
Wallace reviewed visits data from Retail Coach which provides data on store traffic visits for
March 2020 compared to March 2019 and it noted that grocers were up 10%, fast food was
down 40%, sit-down style restaurants was down 53%; and apparel was down 30%. She
explained the Sales Taxes Alternate Projections that used the four year-end model pre-COVID
trend estimates of performance and adjusted remaining months of the year noting that the
projections discounted all sectors across the board by 10% and 25% and the projections
discounted only retail and food sectors by 10% through 50%. She then provided the following
Sales Tax Proiections w/ Decrease Across the Board chart:
Months
YTD Trend
10% Decrease YTD Trend
25% Decrease YTD Trend
Oct - Mar
16,232,540
16,232,540
16,232,540
Apr
2,734,400
2,460,960
2,050,800
May
2,900,671
3,028,386
2,610,604
2,175,503
Jun
2,725,547
2,271,290
Jul
2,933,547
2,640,192
2,200,160
Aug2,.767,141
2,490,427
2,075,355
Sep
3,019 545
2,717 590
2,264,659
Total
33,616,229
31,877,861
29,270,307
Budget
31,750,000
31,750,000
127,861
0.40%
31750,000
Variance
Variance %
1,.866,229
2,479,693
5.889q
-7.81%
Wallace explained the Sales Tax Projections with Decreases in Retail and Food Only chart:
Impact Retail Food All Other Total Budget Variance Variance %
Zero Effect 15,463,466 3,361,623 14,791,141 33,616,229 31,750,000 1,866,229 5.88%
10% Effect 14,663,816 3,187,786 14,791,141 32,642,743 31,750,000 892,743 2.81%
20% Effect 13,864,166 3,013,949 14,791,141 31,669,256 31,750,000 (80,744) -0.25%
30% Effect 13,064,516 2,840,112 14,791,141 30,695,770 31,750,000 (1,054,230) -3.32%
40% Effect 12,264,867 2,666,275 14,791,141 29,722,283 31,750,000 (2,027,717) -6.39%
50% Effect 11,465,217 2,492,438 14,791,141 28,748,797 31,750,000 (3,001,203) -9.45%
She noted that the selected methodology shows a 30% decrease in retail and food scenario, a
3% decrease overall for the full year which will lead to a Citywide impact of $1,000,000, a
General Fund impact of $675,000, and stated that staff will continue to track this revenue
source closely. Wallace then provided a recap of sales tax model impacts noting that all
figures are estimates only, providing a range of scenarios. She stated that the best scenario is
if revenues come in at budget instead of over budget due to high performance first half of
year; the worst scenario is if there is an up to $3,000,000 decrease in sales tax revenue citywide;
and the reality will probably be somewhere in the middle depending on April receipts, the
ability to get businesses open again, and get unemployed back to work.
Jonrowe had no questions.
Pitts noted that the City ended 1.8% above last year for March. Wallace responded that was
correct. Pitts asked what the March budget number was for sales tax. Wallace responded
that staff sets up a model to project starting at the beginning of the year, updated when
receipts received. Pitts stated that he was curious how the performance was related to budget.
He then asked if the reimbursements include money Williamson County received from the
stimulus. Wallace responded that staff is still waiting on guidance from the County. She
added that the City is eligible for FEMA funds and will apply as soon as ready, and staff is
looking at CARES funding and will apply through County. Pitts asked if the City gets credit
for Amazon purchase made within the City of Georgetown. Paul Diaz, Budget Manager
responded that he will confirm that. Pitts noted that some businesses that stayed home
reported to him that their sales were down between 60%-90%.
Fought asked about the possible change in the way building construction sales tax was going
to be recorded. David Morgan, City Manager responded that the Comptroller's ruling on
how some cities were collecting sales tax but he doesn't believe that it impacts Georgetown.
Triggs asked if when looking at Sales Tax and top 5-10 contributors, were they trending
differently than overall. Wallace responded that the aggregate information was received last
week. Diaz stated that staff just received information and is reviewing at the moment.
Calixtro asked if there were any businesses not coming back. Wallace responded that she has
heard that Economic Development is making those notes, and yes, there will be some
permanent closure. Calixtro asked if that will impact sales tax revenue. Wallace responded
yes.
Wallace reviewed other revenue impacts starting with development revenue noting: fee
waivers for permits, alarms, GoGeo and utilities saw a $228,000 decrease; trending permits
and development fees saw a $1,300,000 increase which includes a large one-time payment for
master development fee; and a net effect of $1,000,000 increase over budget which helps offset
other revenue declines. She then noted that EMS transports showed a $383,000 decrease with
a 25% decrease in transports in March and April, 20% decrease in transports May and June,
and 10% decrease for the remainder of year. Wallace noted the Utility return on investment
(ROI) with a $225,000 decrease in Electric ROI to General Fund based on reduced revenues,
and no change to Water and Stormwater. She stated that Park programs and rentals have
seen a $1,400,000 decrease including: Garey Park entrance fees and rentals and other park and
facility rentals; prioritizing Rec Center services that are a net revenue with most Rec Center
patrons extended their memberships; assume resuming some Rec Center, camp and pool
services in June with pools being a net expense, camps being a net revenue, and the ability to
hire and train staff safely an issue; and cancelled services including camps with travel, camps
on closed school campuses, and tennis camp. Wallace reviewed the Hotel Occupancy Taxes
(HOT) noting that occupancy rates in mid -March were at 55% occupancy, down from 85%
same time prior year; end of March and Early April were at 20% occupancy, down from 85%
same time prior year; and end of April were at 25% occupancy, down 71% same time prior
year. She noted that the revenue receipts recently were down 80 to 90% compared to same
time last year and the total annual budgeted HOT revenue was $1,300,000 with new
projections based on $587,925 being received year to date, assuming a major decline for
remainder of fiscal year, and a year-end projected total of $710,000 or $590,000 under budget.
Wallace then reviewed the Budget Contingency Plan noting that staff has been reducing
expenses with following Cost Reductions Executed: hold on vacant positions with 31 full-time
equivalent positions on hold citywide and 13 pay periods remaining which would lead to a
$960,000 reduction in FY2020 citywide and a General Fund impact of $440,000, and filling
positions requires City Manager approval; hold on travel and training with FY2020 citywide
travel and training budget remaining only for licenses and certifications and professional
conferences with year-to-date expenses citywide totaling $700,000, General Fund reductions
of $280,000, and further spending requires City Manager approval. She then explained other
cost reductions that have been executed including: Citizen Survey saving $8,000; Rideshare
Pilot Phase II saving $50,000; and delaying the opening of Fire Station 7 which will have a cost
avoidance of backfill overtime. Wallace reviewed operational cost increases related to
Utilities at City facilities which are: rate increases from 2018 electric rate study that led to
municipal facilities increase and municipal water treatment and pumping increase; PCA
increase Feb of 2019; PCA increase June of 2019; corrected billing errors on meters at City
Center; and compounded increased costs in FY2020. She added that a mid -year budget
amendment necessary to cover projected increased costs in General Fund $500,000. Wallace
then reviewed the FY2020 Status Summaries by Major Fund starting with the General Fund
sum
Total Gap
Wallace then reviewed the additional operational cost reductions that include: reducing
General Fund transfers to the Parks Maintenance Fund for Capital Equipment Replacement
with $297,000 budgeted transfer and proposed cut of $97,000 due the deferred project of
replacing Rec Center outdoor pool slides, and the Cemetery Fund for Operations
Maintenance and Capital Replacement with $75,000 budgeted transfer and a proposed cut of
$50,000 which will lead to break-even in 2020 with no additional accumulation of fund
balance for perpetual reserve; Internal Service Funds transfer savings from non -essential cuts
including $170,000 from Joint Services with the General Fund share being 20%, $350,000 from
Information Technology with the General Fund share being 40%, and $240,000 from Self -
Insurance with the General Fund share being 60%; Street Maintenance deferring $400,000 of
maintenance for FY2020 which will not eliminate any approved projects; and Parks
Operations mowing adjustments where nine parks could transfer from contractor to staff
mowing for $19,000 in savings. She explained the Summary of Additional Reductions -
General Fund Impact table:
Parks SRF transfer
$97,000
Cemetery SRF transfer
$50,000
Joint Services transfer
$34,000
IT transfer
$140,000
Self -Insurance transfer
$90,000
Street Maintenance deferral
$400,000
Parks mowing in-house
$19,000
Total
$830,000
Wallace then provided a General Fund Summary noting that staff is including a $400,000
buffer to mitip-ate further updates to revenue aroiections:
i T • 1 1 I ;
Revenue 75,483,881 74,280,822 (1,203,059)
Expenses 75,373,906 74,602,258 771,648
Total Gap
Additional Reductions
New Tota I
(431,411)
830,0 10
398,589,
Wallace explained the General Fund Reserves Recap and noted that if revenues fall further,
the following reserves are available, and noted the Council Special Revenue Fund balance of
$108,000:
90 Day Contingency $11,200,000
Benefit Payout $340,000
Economic Stability $1,760,000
Wallace then solicited Council Feedback on the General Fund.
Jonrowe stated that Wallace provided good information.
Pitts stated that leaving buffer is good and asked how often the review will be happening.
Wallace responded that staff will review sale tax upon receipt and check -in with departments.
She added that there will be a quarterly report and staff will continue to bring those to Council
with focus and third and fourth quarters, as well as water and electric updates.
Fought stated that he is pleased with the analysis and use of reserves and asked about the
model for sales tax projects for next year. Wallace responded that staff will look at what
surrounding cities are using and previous economic downturns will provide some insight.
Triggs stated that there is good flexibility for now and noted that income data is going to be
very different.
Calixtro had no comments and thanked Wallace.
Wallace vrovided the Tourism Fund Summary as follows:
GJ
Revenue 11480,783 780,141 (7O0,642)
Expenses 1,440,916 11080,542 360,374
Total Gap (3401268)
She noted that staff has been conservative with HOT revenue assumptions described above
and tourism expenditures include postponed Red Poppy Festival, a hold on a vacant position,
and continued marketing to attract day trips. Wallace explained that the estimate is using
$340,000 of $1,200,000 Tourism Fund capital reserves to cover payroll and reduced operations
for FY2020 which leaves 90-day reserve of $200,000 intact.
Pitts asked if the budget for advertising was $200,000. Wallace responded that was not sure.
Diaz responded that staff was looking up the information in Workday. Pitts asked how much
was available to be cut that wasn't already cut. Wallace responded that some Red Poppy
expenses were already accounted for. Pitts stated that he was surprised by size of budget.
Diaz stated that year to date 57% of the budget had been spent.
Wallace reviewed the next steps noting that Council is on board with staff recommendations.
She noted that staff will continue their review of revenue and expenses trends and at the May
26, 202 Council Meeting staff will bring Water and Electric funds trends, 2nd Quarter
Financial Report, and mid -year budget amendment first reading.
Council had no additional comments or questions.
B. Presentation, update and discussion regarding a utility assistance program for customers
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic -- Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director and Michaela
Dollar, Economic Development Director
(30 minutes)
Zavala presented the item and gave an overview stating that Georgetown Electric and
Georgetown Water are community owned utilities which are working together to provide
customer bill assistance based on Council feedback at at the April 28, 202 Workshop which
was supportive for $1,000,00 in combined assistance and funding would not impact either
Fund operationally as sources are unanticipated income or special revenue funding. She
noted that the sources of funding are the Electric Conservation Special Revenue Fund for
$500,000 with an unappropriated balance of $977,000. Zavala added that a budget
amendment would be needed and allowable programs in the ordinance would need to be
expanded to include customer assistance programs with a first reading of the Electric rate
ordinance on tonight's agenda which includes the modification. She then explained that the
Water Fund can provide $500,000 due its unappropriated balance of $987,000 from the sale of
raw water to Blanchard, noting that the water not accessible for at least ten years due to
transmission infrastructure and a budget amendment would be needed.
Dollar explained the framework for assistance and noted the current business assistance
programs. She stated that the City and Chamber program has several lessons learned
including the difficulty in ranking applications from diverse businesses to determine need
and that is was tough on the committee when funding is depleted and deserving businesses
are turned away. Dollar explained that Williamson County announced the Wi1Co Forward
program which will provide $25,000,000 for a small business assistance grant program for
Covid-19 related impacts with grants up to $30,000 per business for businesses with a
maximum of 100 full time employees or equivalent. She also noted that there are additional
state and federal programs also in place. Dollar then noted that staff was considering if the
City Assistance Program should include non-residential customers. She noted that an across
the board credit to all non-residential customers is most equitable way to aid and the average
credit based on the City's residential/non-res split of 90/10 would mean: $14.00 credit to
electric non-residential customers; $12.50 credit to water non-residential customers; and these
credits would not provide the needed business relief. Dollar stated that the desire is to have
a more significant impact in an easy -to -administer, fair and equitable program and staff's
recommendation is to focus on residential.
Jonrowe asked if there had been increases in electric usage during COVID-19 event for
commercial users. Dollar responded that she believes that commercial usage would be down
since they would not be operating under their normal circumstances. Zavala added
commercial usage has been significantly down. Jonrowe asked if there had be a significant
increase in residential usage. Zavala responded that there has been only a slight increase and
it was much less than anticipated. Jonrowe asked if it was due to mild weather. Zavala
responded yes. Jonrowe asked if there has been an uptick year over year with residential
bills. Zavala responded yes. Jonrowe stated that she agrees with staff assessment.
Pitts stated that this is the right approach and he would like to help businesses, but there is
only so much the City can do. He added that he supports staff's recommendations.
Fought and Triggs had no questions.
Calixtro asked if staff was tracking closures. Dollar responded yes, and there have been only
three permanent closures that she knows of, which were not utility related. Calixtro asked
what resources the City is offering beyond the initial grant program. Dollar responded that
staff is tracking resources at all governmetal levels and non -monetary resources as well.
Gonzalez stated that the payroll protection fund has not been liquidated and is still an option
for some businesses. He added that he likes the program, but some businesses may be able
to utilize multiple resources.
Zavala reviewed the program framework noting that there will be two waves of funding with
the first wave starting at the end of the month of May providing $500,000 and a second wave
starting three months later in August providing $500,000 which will be to provide for
customers later in the year if situation continues into the Fall. She stated that there will 90%
funding for customers impacted that do not qualify for current low-income assistance
programs totaling $450,000. Zavala added that this will be for customers who are
unemployed and/or furloughed. She stated that there will be a 10% funding to supplement
the LIHEAP/federal low-income assistance program totaling $50,000 and that program
eligibility will be determined through a partnership with Opportunities for Williamson
Burnet Counties (WBCO/OWBC). Zavala explained the program criteria and administration
noting that the criteria will include the following: customer in the water or electric service
area; past due balance from January 2020 forward; information confirming furlough or
removal of wages must be presented; applicant cannot qualify for other low-income
assistance through WBCO programs and trying to target the customers that "fall through the
cracks" of low-income funding; funding is available on a first come first served; customers
can qualify one time in each program; and assistance provided up to a maximum of $1,000.
She then explained the administration of the program and noted the following: the City
retains the funding of $1,000,000 in house; the City will partner with WBCO/OWBC to
determine eligibility of applicants based on City criteria and it will be documented in a
contract; WBCO/OWBC will issues a voucher with the authorized amount to the customer
and customer care will accepts it as a payment; and Customer Care will reconcile the vouchers
and funding on a monthly basis. Zavala provided the next steps which are: May 12, 2020
Council Meeting (tonight) will be the first reading of the Electric rate ordinance that expands
the use of the Conservation fee funding for customer assistance; and at the May 26, 2020
Council Meeting there will be an a contract with WBCO/OWBC on the agenda for approval.
Jonrowe and Pitts had no comments.
Fought noted that the City does have some residents that don't get their electric from
Georgetown utilities and asked who helps those residents. Zavala responded that they could
qualify for federal or state funding as long as they live in Williamson County. Fought asked
who helps them with that. Zavala responded that City staff will send them to either WBCO
or the Caring Place.
Triggs and Calixtro had no questions.
C. Presentation, update and discussion regarding the recommended changes to the existing
Distributed Renewable Electric Generation/Net Metering Program -- Daniel Bethapudi,
General Manager of the Electric Utility and Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director
(30 minutes)
Bethapudi introduced the item and then turned the presentation over to Scott Burnham with
NewGen Strategies and Solutions. Burnham provided the program history and the 2006
guidance noting amendments to Electric Rate Ordinance and the availability to all residential
customers with solar or wind generation of 10 kW or less. He then explained the "method of
charge" language stating that, "If the customer uses more energy than their ... system
produces, the additional electricity consumed is billed at the standard residential rate for
service" and a customer would pay for what you use. Burnham added that "If the customer
uses less energy than the ... system produces, the excess energy that flows back into the
electric grid earns credits equal to the City's estimated avoided fuel costs" and the City buys
back excess generation at its avoided cost and the estimated avoided fuel costs is updated on
a yearly basis. He then provided a program history beginning with the 2012 expansion and
amendments to expand NEM program which included: expanding qualifying generation
technology like biomass and geothermal; adding additional qualifying customer classes like
non-residential; encouraging ownership through incentive program with Department of
Energy (DOE) Block Grant providing cash rebates of up to $7,500 for solar installations;
outlining the different incentive criteria; added definitions to "method of charge" to
Ordinance including DEL = City generated kWh that is delivered to and used at the premise,
RCVD = D-Reg generated kWh that is not used at the premise and pushed out to the grid, and
STANDARD RATE = current adopted electric rate for applicable rate class; residential
incentives with DOE grant funds for NEM rate ($/kWh) with RCVD = D-Reg generated (Net
Metering Credit) and increase to standard rate ($0.0939/kWh at that time) with the rate the
was previously set at avoided cost ($0.05251/kWh at that time); customer accounts of 50
customers in 2012 and now 334 customers in 2020; and the amendment to "method of charge"
for a billing month that states, "If a premise uses more electricity than the D-Reg system
produces ... the customer pays for the non -netted, Georgetown electric provided electricity
at the standard residential rate" with the formula (DEL — RCVD) x STANDARD RATE and
"If the premise uses less electricity than the D-Reg system produces, the customer is provided
a credit equal to the standard residential rate for every D-Reg generated kWh that flows back
to the City's electric distribution system" with the formula (DEL — RCVD) x STANDARD
RATE. Burnham then reviewed recommendations and example bills. He provided a net
metering program review explaining the financial restructuring of the electric fund and that
there was a review of policies, programs, and procedures. Burnham stated that NewGen was
retained for "Distributed Renewable Electric Generation/Net Metering" review and their
findings were the following: the Renewable Energy Credit ($/kWh) exceeds avoided energy
costs and this results in cost shifting from NEM to Non-NEM customers; there is no floor on
the credit as it reduces fixed cost recovery and allows for zero utility bill (Electric, Water,
Wastewater, and Garbage); and there has been poor compliance with the system requirements
with the 10 kW limit not being enforced. He then provided an example of the current Net
Description Unit Quantity Price Amount
Base Rate
$/Month 1
$24.80
$24.80
Volumetric Charge
$/kWh 806
$0.09580
$77.21
Power Cost Adj.
$/kWh 806
$0.02375
$19.14
Renewable Energy Received
$/kWh 271
($0.09580)
($25.96)
Subtotal Electric
$95.20
Tax (Estimated)
$1.90
Total Electric
$97.10
Burnham reviewed the proposed changes for NEM 2.0 starting with reducing "RCVD" credit
to reduce cost shift from NEM to non-NEM classes. He added that this would go from
"Standard Retail Rate" to "Market Based Energy Credit" and aligns with original intent of
avoided costs (2006). Burnham noted that the rate is calculated from avoided ERCOT hourly
pricing and transmission costs, plus system losses and is proposed to be $0.04976/kWh for
2020 and should be updated annually in January. He then explained a possible six-month
adjustment for existing NEM customers to establish a "floor" on the credit and noted: RCVD
credit cannot exceed Volumetric charge which is an acceptable practice in industry and
improves utility fixed cost recovery; NEM customers rely on distribution grid and customers
should pay for its use; the City should enforce size compliance with PV systems less than 10
kW and be limited to Residential and Small Commercial classes; and the City should simplify
the Ordinance to amend language to reflect tariff language and remove items that are not
relevant. Burnham then showed a comparison of NEM and NEM 2.0 Rate as follows:
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Amount
Base Rate
$/Month
1
$24.80
$24.80
Volumetric Charge
$/kWh
806
$0.09580
$77.21
Power Cost Adj.
$/kWh
806
$0.02375
$19.14
Renewable Energy Received
$/kWh
271
($0.09580)
($25.96)
Subtotal Electric
$95.20
Tax (Estimated)
$1.90
Total Electric
$97.10
Customer savings with current NEM: $64.16
RESIDENTIAL - AUGUST
2019
NEM 2.0 Rate
(Proposed)
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Amount
Base Rate
$/Month
1
$24.80
$24.80
Volumetric Charge
$/kWh
806
$0.09580
$77.21
Power Cost Adj.
$/kWh
806
$0.02375
$19.14
Renewable Energy Received $/kWh 271 ($0.04976) ($13.48)
Subtotal Electric
$107.67
Tax (Estimated)
$2.15
Total Electric
$109.83
Customer savings with NEM 2.0: $51.43
Change in customer savings: $12.73
Lots of general discussion amongst the Council Members, staff and Burnham related to the
complexity of the billing and the need to clearly explain to customers what the charges are
and how they work. Also, discussion related to the reason for the City to provide this
incentive.
Mayor Ross noted that there are issues with the past Ordinance and that the citizens shouldn't
be punished for the City's inability to manage supply and demand. He added that he doesn't
think a six-month transition period is fair to the current customers utilizing this system. Pitts
stated that he disagrees, and the citizens have plenty of energy and should be paying for more.
Mayor Ross responded that he understands that, but the energy market is one of the most
volatile markets out there. He then asked Bethapudi to summarize the feedback he has
received from Council. Bethapudi responded that everyone agrees to simplifying the
language, some councilmembers would like to grandfather in existing users, and there was
no opposition to changing the credit for new customers. He added that he would like further
clarification on the time for grandfathering in existing customers.
Gonzalez stated that he is fine with the six-month grandfathering, but the City should not be
buying anything at a loss.
Jonrowe stated that she remembers how different the theories were in 2012 and that the City
wanted to incentivize renewables. She added that the City should have evaluated this
previously and there is a different environment than when this was implemented with the
best of intentions and she supports a change over a longer period of time than what is being
proposed.
Pitts stated that he had already stated position.
Fought stated that the City should grandfather it with individual and not allow it to be
transferable with the home.
Triggs stated that he would be in favor with what is presented and doesn't think the rest of
the utility customers should subsidize this program.
Nicholson stated that she agrees with the consensus with clear communication and making
sure that staff assists people in understanding.
Calixtro stated that as presented with the six-month transition is fine.
Mayor Ross stated that the six-month grandfather period is way to go forward.
Zavala wanted to clarify due to the electric rate ordinance on the agenda tonight, and the
current discussion is not included in the agenda item on the Regular Council agenda. She then
reviewed the next steps with the Council Meeting tonight (May 12, 2020) having the First
Reading of the Electric rate ordinance adding an EV Fast Charger Rate as discussed at the
April 12, 2020 Workshop, expanding the use of the Conservation Fee funding for customer
assistance, and use determined by Council action. Zavala stated that at the May 26, 2020
Council Meeting there will be a Second Reading of the Electric rate ordinance as described
above and the First Reading of the Electric rate ordinance for solar specific changes and
clarifications, with the June 9, 2010 Council Meeting having the Second Reading of the Electric
rate ordinance.
Mayor Ross stated that staff has 15 slides to explain something to Council, how will staff
explain this to citizens. Bethapudi responded that this is a complex issue and an area for staff
to work on related to improved messaging. Mayor Ross asked what the next tangible steps
to improve this are. Bethapudi responded that staff needs to replace existing language with
language that is easier to understand and explain how the changes will impact the existing
customers. Mayor Ross asked if Council was voting on this tonight. Bethapudi responded
not this portion. Mayor Ross asked if there will be simplified language for the May 26, 2020
Council Meeting. Bethapudi responded yes. Mayor Ross asked when Council will see that
language prior to the meeting. Bethapudi responded with the first read but staff can do a
workshop. Mayor Ross asked if Council would like a Workshop or First Reading.
Gonzalez stated First Reading and all other Council Members agreed.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding the creation of a Bond Citizen Committee to determine
a potential Mobility Bond Package targeting May 2021 election date -- Bridget Hinze Weber,
Assistant to the City Manager
(15 minutes)
Weber provided the background noting that at the March 24, 2020 Workshop, Council
confirmed agreement on proposed process including bond purpose, committee structure,
public engagement and education and anticipated costs. She noted that Council directed staff
to postpone bond election to 2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic. Weber stated that staff is
proposing a revised schedule for the May 2021 Election with the following schedule: July 2020
provide public engagement activities to receive feedback about the primary focus areas and
sentiment for bond debt; July 14, 2020 Council approves appointment of Mobility
Georgetown 2021 Citizen Committee members; August 6, 2020 the Mobility Georgetown 2021
Citizen Committee first meeting; August 20, 2020 provide public feedback to citizen
committee; September 2020 ranking and prioritization and initial recommendations
developed; October 2020 second round of public engagement activities to receive feedback
about the proposed bond projects; November 12, 2020 final recommendation developed;
December 8, 2020 Mobility Georgetown 2020 Citizen Committee presents project
recommendations and report to Council; January 26, 2021 Council adoption of finalized
project list; February 9, Council calls bond election, as February 12, 2021 is last Day to Order
General Election or Special Election on a Measure; February 10, 2021 through May 1, 2021
outreach and education to public, agency partners and stakeholders; April 1, 2021 last day to
register to vote; April 19, 2021 through April 27, 2021 early voting period; and May 1, 2021
(Saturday) is Election Day. She then reviewed the anticipated costs noting that there is no
budget allocated for bond program in FY2020, but the following costs are expected: an
estimated $50,000 consultant fee to develop detailed cost estimates and exhibits for each
project including design, construction, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and
escalation factors for cost inflation over time frame it will take to administer the bond
program; $3,000 for committee support including food, printed materials, etc.; and estimated
$10,000 for public engagement costs; and an estimated $30,000 for the County fee for election
management. Weber then reviewed the needed Council direction and next steps. She asked
that Council confirm the revised schedule to target the May 2021 election. Weber then
reviewed the proposed schedule of: Council to appoint members to citizen advisory
committee at the July 14, 2020 Council meeting; proposed appointments to staff by June 30,
2020; consider approval of engineering support contract at the July 14, 2020 Council meeting;
staff to begin developing proposed project list; and staff to prepare for public engagement
process.
Pitts asked for clarification on the number of committee members and who Council should
send their nominations to. Weber responded that each council member would select two
members to serve and could send their nominations to her.
Council had no additional questions or comments.
E. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2020-2021 City of Georgetown Intergovernmental
Affairs Program including the creation of a Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Subcommittee and a Legislative Task Force -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City
Manager
Weber presented the item and reviewed the purpose for the subcommittee and task force that
include: advocating, coordinating and advancing the City's legislative agenda to enhance the
City's ability to govern and provide essential municipal and community services; ensuring
the city's interests are protected and enhanced through active involvement in the legislative
process and strong intergovernmental relationships; and engaging community leaders and
partners organizations to advocate for the citizens of Georgetown. She noted the key program
initiatives that will include creating a Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Subcommittee, creating a Legislative Task Force, providing outreach and engagement,
participating in the State Legislative Agenda and assisting with position papers. Weber
explained the proposed Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee as a
standing committee, a permanent committee of the City Council established to coordinate
City policies related to state and federal legislation and local ordinances composed of the
Mayor and two council members. She stated that the Subcommittee will oversee
development of state and federal legislative agendas; position on local partner ordinances;
development of position papers; policies and programs that promote interagency
cooperation; and advocating activities. Weber said that the proposed Legislative Task Force
will be a new citizen stakeholder group to engage the public in the state legislative agenda
development process comprised of existing, active leaders in the community and the
leadership of City Boards and Commissions. She added that the Legislative Task Force will
report to the Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee. Weber explained the
Legislative Task Force Role which would be to receive educational information from City
staff, industry leaders, and the City lobbyists on the 86th Legislative Session, current affairs,
and impact of legislation on City services and provide input to Subcommittee and City staff.
She added that the members of the Legislative Task Force will be communicators during the
interim to provide the broader input from the community to staff and the IG Subcommittee
and during the Legislative Session, the members will be advocates for the community. Weber
stated that the Task Force will produce a Legislative Task Force Report which will be a report
summarizing the engagement with the Legislative Task Force will be presented to the IG
Subcommittee and Council for reference while developing the 2021 State Legislative Agenda.
She then explained the plan for legislative outreach and the engagement of allies which will
include engaging various levels of City allies to build a coalition that promotes community,
regional and state priorities in a unified approach: neighborhood groups; local governmental
partners local organizations; local businesses; regional municipal allies; and regional and
statewide associations. Weber then explained the plan for the engagement of legislators
which will include the initiation of opportunities to engage with state and federal elected
officials with the following: invitations to City Council meetings where agenda items
specifically respond to legislation; invitations to for one-on-one meetings to discuss the
adopted state legislative agenda; invitations to all meeting of the Legislative Task Force;
invitations to visit City facilities or departments; and invitations to special City events. She
then explained the 20212 State Legislative Agenda and how it serves as the foundation for the
City's advocacy strategy which will include: a high-level summary of City positions adopted
by City Council; funding needs with policy priorities; incorporating legislative priorities of
allies; and being widely promoted to community and media. Weber noted that Position
Statements provide detailed data, funding implications, and background information on
major initiatives in the legislative agenda; and articulate the details of proposed, pending,
and/or existing legislation and how changes would affect the City of Georgetown services
and operations. She then reviewed the 2020/21 Program Schedule which includes: IG
Subcommittee beginning to meet in June; meetings of the Legislative Task Force in June and
July; developing the 2021 State Legislative Agenda priorities in August and September;
Legislator outreach with possible ride -a -longs, tours, and one-on-one meetings from August
through October; 2021 State Legislative Agenda presented to Council in October; and the 87th
State Legislative Session with take place from January through May of 2021. Weber then
asked for Council Direction on the concept of the Subcommittee and Legislative Task Force
and then reviewed the next steps which are to designate two Council Members to serve
alongside the Mayor on the Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee and
host an initial meeting of the Subcommittee to finalize Intergovernmental Affairs Program
and begin forming the Legislative Task Force.
Gonzalez had no comment.
Jonrowe asked how Council Members will be appointed. Morgan responded that the Mayor
will ask for interested parties and submit a recommendation. Jonrowe stated that she was
okay with that as long as there is rotation and balance in the representation. She then asked
how will staff determine the boards and commission participants. Weber responded that
board and commission chairs will be utilized. Jonrowe asked if Council can get a list of those
people. Weber responded yes. Jonrowe stated that she wants to see demographics and
balance.
Pitts, Fought, Triggs, Nicholson, and Calixtro had no additional comments.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:27 p.m. and noted that Council would
start Executive Session at 4:45 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
- HIPPA Matter
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
-Purchase of Property, 1303 Wilbarger Pt. -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
Date
7A
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: ty 5e ary