HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.25.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:00 PM at Teleconference
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, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route
through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance:
Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; 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. Council District 2 is vacant. All
Council Members present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding cost of service water rate study and related policy --
Glenn Dishong, Water Utilities Director and Matthew Garrett, NewGen Strategies and
Solutions
Dishong presented and stated that based on the City's Fiscal and Budgetary Policy a rate
study will be conducted every 3 years to review rate methodology and ensure revenues will
meet future needs. He added that all enterprise rates will be based on standardized cost of
service methodologies and conservation goals and the last rate study was in 2018. Dishong
stated that working capital reserves should be 25% or ninety (90) days of operating expenses
with net debt service and long-term water contract costs and the Bond Coverage Ratio is 1.5
times coverage of self -supported debt. He noted that for equity the City shall make every
effort to maintain equity in its revenue system; i.e., the City should seek to minimize or
eliminate all forms of subsidization between entities, funds, services, utilities, and customer
classes, and ensure an on -going return on investment for the City. Dishong said that Water
Rates recognize at least 75% of the fixed cost of service, including debt payments and return
on investment (ROI) costs, within the monthly base charge determined by meter size and
volumetric charge will recognize the balance of fixed costs not included in the base rate, plus
all variable costs associated with procuring and treating water. He continued that
Wastewater Rates are fixed for all residential customers based on the cost of providing
services, and commercial customer rates are fixed and volumetric depending on size and
specifications of each commercial customer. Dishong noted that the 2018 Water Rate Study
had key issues identified including descending financial performance with rates that will not
keep up with costs without adjustments, and wholesale supplier cost increases due to rapid
growth, capital projects and new debt service and there $195 million in Capital Project needs
between FY 2019 and FY 2023. He reviewed the 2018 Combined Revenue Performance —
Current Rates as shown here:
$60
$55
$50
0
c $45
u
$40
$35
1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Fiscal Year
— Over/Under Recovery ($) Revenues Under Current Rates —Revenue Requirement
1
Dishong reviewed the 2018 recommendations that include revenue sufficiency, minimizing
rate shock to customers by phasing rates, and potential rate design alternatives. He added
that the 2018 implementation included: no change in water rates to residential customers and
residential water rates have not changed since 2013; increased some base rates for larger
meters; established rate tiers for non-residential; and increased wastewater rates.
Matthew Garrett, NewGen Strategies and Solutions presented and reviewed the Project Team
and study resources. He stated that for the study methodology, in April 2020, the Project
Team was tasked by the City of Georgetown to conduct a comprehensive water and
wastewater utility cost of service rate study, and in simplest terms, determine cost projections
and evaluate rate sufficiency to generate necessary revenues. Garrett explained the FY 2020
Study Goals and Objectives which are: Fiscal Policy compliance; revenue sufficiency;
conservation; and equitable cost of service. He noted that the cost of a service study includes
an analysis to equitably allocate the revenue requirements to the various customer classes of
service to the utility and that cost differences exist between the types of customers served
based on facility requirements and usage characteristics. Garrett explained the following
future considerations: postponements to FY 2021 due to timing and data limitations; cash-
needs/utility basis hybrid revenue requirement approach to determine outside City rate
differential; and Wastewater Cost of Service rates specific to Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). He then reviewed the draft study results and
explained the key drivers for FY2021 and beyond: residential customer growth including
2,800 annual water accounts and 1,300 annual wastewater accounts; long-term capital needs
of approximately $192.24 million in water/wastewater capital needs for FY 2021 through FY
2025 with $97.01 million debt funded, $16.78 million cash funded, and $78.45 million impact
fee funded; and new program operations and maintenance for future costs associated with
growth. Garrett then reviewed the long-term capital funding forecast as follows:
S60.0 -
550.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2021
■ Debt $15.4 $36.3 $17.7
■ Cash $3.7 $3.0 $5.8
Impart Fees $10.8 $15.4 $14.4
Total $29.9 $54.7 $37.9
He explained the Revenue Requirement Forecast as follows:
5%O.itO
560.00
c
540.00�
L $30.00
5 J 0.00
Y
$10.00
c
2020
2021
2022
MWA%lowrtivt
510.77
$13.98
514.42
e Rodeo
50.45
I $0.46
$0.46
R41'.Plo,
531,31
! 534.44
$37.86
Tr-i.i
$42.53
$48.88
5112.73
Garrett explained the Cost of Service for Water as follows:
FY 2024
FY 202S
$13.5
$14.0
$3.2
$1.2
$28.2
$9.6
WA
$24.8
2023
2024
2025
519.74
517.61
516.29
50.42
$0.39
$0.40
$39.04
541.30
$43.76
$H9.20
$H9.3U
SWA-11
-- — — -- — I
•r
ven>Qe Volume
Qj I
a t
9 ■ — ■ ■ ■
ra m
Average Volume .5 _` Z
FcQQ
ak Mouth Demand Alaw a, E a G
Peak Dey Demand C
L� ■ 0O ■ EO ■ ■ A
tags vtalutt+e m jl �+ v > •O0
Distribution utra capacity
P II.Ont�Gar
Reserve Requirements_ illBeak Gay
Total Revenue Requirement �) custn,ner servlcc } I
Customer Meter Read'ing Equivalent Acu
I t customr, Billing
Cost classlfitatiort
-Under Recovery
- Over Recovery
Garrett explained the FY2021 cost of service: peaking ratios represent how consistently
customer classes use water with peak month demand and average month demand with a
higher peaking ratio reflects greater variability; and general guidelines of a peaking ratio
greater than 2.0 less consistent system users (ex: residential and irrigation customers) and a
peaking ratio less than 2.0 more consistent users (ex: commercial, industrial customers) as
show below.
Inside and Outside City
Residential (incl Builder)
2.081
41,450
Small Commercial
1.39
1,013
Large Commercial
1.261
274
Government
2.061
158
Irrigation
2.11
634
Total System
1.98
43,529
Garrett explained the FY2021 Cost of Service Revenue Requirement Allocation for residential
and government customer classes currently paying less than class cost of service with
residential estimated at $2.34 million or 8.3% increase in residential revenues to meet revenue
requirement in FY 2021, and government estimated at $0.06 million or 8.2% increase in
government revenues to meet revenue requirement in FY 2021 as seen below.
Inside/Outside City
Residential (incl Builder)
2.08
$ 28.22
$ 25.88
$ (2.34)
(8.3%)
Small Commercial
1.39
I
0.89
0.98
0.09
10.1%
Large Commercial
1.26
2.10
2.37
0.27
12.9°%
Government
2.06
0.74
0.68
(0.06)
(8.2%)
Irrigation
2.11
2.49
2.80
0.31
12.6%
Total System
2.98
$ 34.44
$ 32.71
$ (1.73)
(5.0%)
Garrett noted the Water Base Rates Current Rates:
518" Meter*
$15.50
$18.50
314" Meter*
23.00
27.50
1 " Meter*
38.50
46.00
1 112" Meter*
76.50
91.50
2" Meter
153.50
183.50
3" Meter
368.00
440.00
4" Meter
644.00
770.00
6" Meter
1,140.00
1,686.00
8" Meter
2,450.00
2,929.50
Garrett noted the Water Residential Volumetric Rates Current Rates adding that no
adjustments to Residential Volumetric Water rates have been made since 2014:
0-10,000 gallons
$ 1.75
10,001- 20,000 gallons
2.40
20,001- 40,000 gallons
4.00
40,001- 60,000 gallons
6.50
60,001+ gallons
8.50
Garrett explained the Water Non -Residential Volumetric Rates Current Rates as follows:
Customer..
Small Commercial
<2"
$2.40
$6.50
300.001 gallons
Large Commercial
2"
$2.40
$6.50
600,001 gallons
Large Commercial
3"
$2.40
$6.50
900,002 gallops
Large Commercial
4"
$2.40
$6.50
4M gallons
Large Commercial
6""
S2.40
S6.50
6M gallons
Large Commercial
8"
$2.40
$6.50
8M gallons
Manufacturing
<8"
$2.40
Municipal Interruptible
$2.40
Restaurant
$2,40
Evaporative Cooling
$2.40
Fire Flow
S2.40
Irrigation Only
$4.00
$8.50
500,001 gallons
Garrett explained the Wastewater Current Rates as follows:
Residential
$ 32.00
N/A
$ 36.75
N/A
(Single Family/Domestic)
Small Commercial
$ 32.00
N/A
$ 36.75
N/A
(4" Sewer Line/ 3/4" Water Meter)
Commercial
$48.40
$2.75
$5S.65
$3.15
(<6" Sewer Line)
Commercial
$85.95
$2.75
$98.85
$3.15
(>8" Sewer Line)
High Strength Commercial
$48.40
$4.50
$55.65
$5.20
(>250 80D/Food Processing)
Multi -Family Service
$114.95
$2.75
$132.20
$3.15
(>3 Residential Units per Water Meter)
Garrett explained the financial objectives as goals for combined utilities of Water and
Wastewater as overall revenue sufficient and meeting target financial policies, and that
current fiscal policies include: debt service coverage of 1.50 times; 90 days cash on hand; and
water monthly base charge fixed cost of service recovery of 75% adding that "Water Rates
will recognize at least 75% of the fixed cost of service, including debt payments and ROI costs,
within the monthly base charge determined by meter size," the policy was first adopted in
2013. He continued that the projected combined utility performance under current revenues
shows a combined utility estimated to not recover revenue required as early as FY 2021; cays
cash on hand reserves drop below 90 Days as early as FY 2023; and Water monthly base charge
revenues estimated to not recognize Water fixed cost of service as early as FY 2021:
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Wastewater $10.77
$13.98
$14.42
$19.74
$17.61
$16.29
a Reuse $0.45
$0.46
$0.46
$0.42
$0.39
$0.40
Water $31.31
$34.44
$37.86
$39.04
$41.30
$43.76
Total $42.53
$48.88
$52.73
$59.20
$59.30
$60.45
Rate Revenues $44.60 $46.06 $47.88 $49.79 $51.88 $54.01
DSC (1.50x)
3.82
3.07
2.44
2.27
2.07
Days Cash (90 Days)*
187
127
40
-24
-75
Fixed COS (75%)
71%
68%
69%
69%
68%
Garrett reviewed the current structure of the Residential Volumetric Design:
$16.00
$14-00
$6.00
E
0
$4.00
$- ,p ,.� ,p
ti ",� yCY',t[9'gLC O'yC5",t6'��
'y w ti ti ♦ 4 ti
Garrett explained the current structure of the Residential Volumetric Rate Design:
Austin
Ub" HNI
Georgetown (Current)
Pflugerville
Round Rock
- Cedar Park
Leander
$14.00
_ $12.00
e
q $10.00
$8.00
m $6.00
E =
0
$4.00 /~
$2.00
J Conservation signals
occur at lower gallonage in
comparator group -.,.
ti• '�• h 1 q �y y'ti A i'1 �A 1V .4'i ti's .11 �� St ,y3 ,y'n y'1 3n t.� b� PF y'1 �u �� y�, SM 5� hq a~ bq Vy
Georgetown (Current)
Garrett explained the Residential Volumetric Rate Design and Customer Frequency
Distribution:
0
00
s
� a,
v �
a
i I y o m m ado M1 . w. 4N w a a Q ... . v o a..
I I 1 I ' I �.� 1 1 1 E 1 a ■ ■ �.� . . . . . . • . .
— — -- — — — — --- — -- —M —� — — — — —
Cap ndhUi QM GbbbhCdt CM U4O0'0 —
OC Op PL bD a0 t�f d: M � h4 of o� 0.[ G-0 0.J 4d oC k0 0U GO d0 hp
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
.--I N M Q VI t0 M1 2 01 O� N M� VI lO P OC M O '-I N T^ V1 N P W N O •"� NT M m M lD � 0� D1 O ti N M� Q Q Q 00 (n O T
V Q Q Q 7 V T
O• O N N M 4 �/1 1p M1 W Ol O .+ N M Q V1 �p P Op 01 O +-I N M Q l!1 lD M1 DD 01 O 4 N T, Q V� lg P W 01 Ol
- � rl .� ti ti rl �1 ti + ti ry N ry ry N N ry N ry ry M M m M m m M M M M 4 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q 4 M
O
N
Consumption (Kgals)
Garrett explained the Residential Volumetric Rate Design is based on historical customer
usage characteristics and feedback from the City, and the following Residential alternatives
were determined:
0-10,000 gallons
10,001- 20,000 gallons
20,001- 40,000 gallons
40,001- 60,000 gallons
60,001+ gallons
0 - 5,000 gallons
5,001-15,000 gallons
15,001- 25,000 gallons
25,001+ gallons
Garrett provided Scenario #1 which assumes the following: adjusting revenues under current
rate design; revenue adjustments are driven by first debt payment for San Gabriel Interceptor
of $32.5 million in FY2023; water rate adjustments are applied evenly across all customer
classes, targeting fixed cost of service metric and mitigating significant Wastewater rate
increases; and wastewater rate adjustments applied evenly across all customer classes.
Scenario #1 is shown here:
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
iiiiiiii■ Wastewater $10.77 $13.98 $14.42 $19.74 $17.61 $16.29
u-m Reuse $0.45 $0.46 $0.46 $0.42 $0.39 $0.40
Water $31.31 $34.44 $37.86 $39.04 $41.30 $43.76
Total $42.53 $48.88 $52.73 $59.20 $59.30 $60.45
Rate Revenues $44.60 $48.47 $53.99 $59.20 $61.68 $64.20
DSC (1.50x)
4.20
3.91
3.47
3.25
3.01
Days Cash (90 Days)*
211
205
197
210
231
Fixed COS (75%)
75%
76%
81%
80%
79%
Water (All %)
6.45%
4.50%
4.50% - -
Wastewater (All %)
7.85%
7.85%
7.85% - -
Garrett explained Scenario #2 which includes: revised residential tier design with 25,000+
gallons; revenue adjustments driven by first debt payment for San Gabriel Interceptor of $32.5
million in FY2023; Water base rate adjustments targeting fixed cost of service metric and to
mitigate significant Wastewater rate increases; and no rate adjustments to Non -Residential
Water Volumetric Rates. Scenario #2 is shown here:
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Wastewater $10.77 $13.98 $14.42 $19.74 $17.61 $16.29
rL r Reuse $0.45 $0.46 $0.46 $0.42 $0.39 $0.40
Water $31.31 $34.41 $37.82 $39.01 $41.27 $43.73
Total $42.53 $48.85 $52.70 $59.17 $59.27 $60.42
Rate Revenues $44.60 $48.78 $54.24 $59.17 $61.67 $64.23
DSC (1.50x) 4.25 3.95 3.47 3.25 3.01
Days Cash (90 Days)* 214 211 203 216 237
Fixed COS (75%) 75% 77% 83% 82% 81%
*Excludes $10M Annual Non -Operating Contingency
Water (Base $ Only) $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 - -
Water (Volumetric) Varies - - - -
Wastewater (All %) 8.89% 8.89% 8.89% - -
Garrett explained Scenario #3 which includes: revised residential tier design of 25,000+ gallons
and non-residential volumetric water rate adjustments; revenue adjustments driven by first
debt payment for San Gabriel Interceptor of $32.5 million in FY2023; Water base rate
adjustments targeting fixed cost of service metric and to mitigate significant Wastewater rate
increases; other Water rate adjustments applied evenly across non-residential Water
volumetric rates targeting revised residential second tier rate in non-residential first tier rate
adjustment. Scenario #3 is shown here:
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Wastewater
$10.77
$13.98
$14.42
$19.74
$17.61
$16.29
Reuse
$0.45
$0.46
$0.46
$0.42
$0.39
$0.40
Water
$31.31
$34.41
$37.82
$39.01
$41.27
$43.73
Total
$42.53
$48.85
$52.69
$59.17
$59.27
$60.42
Rate Revenues $44.60 $48.91 $54.33 $59.17 $61.67 $64.22
DSC (1.50x) 4.27
Days Cash (90 Days)* 216
Fixed COS (75%) 75%
Water (Base $ Only)
Water (Volumetric)
Wastewater (All %)
3.97 3.47 3.25 3.01
212 205 217 239
77% 83% 82% 81%
$1.50 $1.50 $1.50
Varies - -
8.46% 8.46% 8.46%
Garrett provided a community rate comparison and noted that comparisons between
communities are very common but may not tell the whole story because each system is unique
in geography, age of infrastructure, capital maintenance efforts, and typical usage patterns.
He continued with regional bill comparison for a residential user bill of 5,000 gallons for
Water and Flat Sewer adding that Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based
on billed Sewer flows and 5,000 gallons in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities.
I iberty I lill
$114.Y ,
Leander
$95,70
Austin
$79.98
Phugerville
$76.85
Georpetown (H1)
$68.55
Georgetown scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are examples
Georgetown (112)
$68.10
ofpossible rate designs for discussion only
and are not proposed rates.
Georgetown (If3)
tfwk�$68.00
Georgetown (Current)
$63.75
Cedar Park
$62.33
Round Rrx:k
_ $59.64
1 Water ■ WastPwater
Garrett provided a regional bill comparison for a residential user bill of 5,000 gallons for
Water and Flat Sewer adding that Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based
on billed Sewer flows and 10,000 gallons in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities.
Austin $22,.86
1 iberty I fill $175.95
Leander $159.04
Pllugerville $ 136.35
Cedar Park $122.23
Round Rork $101.09
Geargelawn (I0) $94.60
Georgetown scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are examples
Georpetown (1f3) $9450 — of possible rate designs for discussion only
and are not proposed rates.
Georpelown (111) _ 590.80
Georpetown (Current) $84.50
f Water • Wastewater
He continued with regional bill comparison for a residential user bill of 25,000 gallons for
Water and Flat Sewer.
lluslirr 5382 ()1
Liberty Hill $2t,4,10
Leander
$208.18
Pllugerville i $190.35
Cedar Park $174.s:i
Round Rock
$136 fig
Georgetown (#2) $134.10
Georgetown (U3) $134.tx1
Georgetown (it1)
5124.80
(iporgelown (Currant) ,! $116.S0
Georgetown scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are examples
- of possible rate designs for discussion only
and are not proposed rates.
■ Water R Wastewater
Garrett showed a scenario matrix and how the
objectives are met:
Revenue Sufficiency ✓ ✓ ✓
Fiscal Policies J ✓ ✓
Conservation ✓ ✓
Equitable Cost of Service ✓
Garrett then provided a conclusion that stated in summary the current rates are insufficient
and rate increases are needed because the current residential volumetric tiered structure is
not achieving the conservation plan and some customer classes are not covering the cost of
service; and guidance for the staff and board is needed to determine which of the policy
objectives should guide rate recommendations - financial policy, rate equity, and/or
conservation plan, and what (if any) additional analysis is needed to better inform or address
Council objectives. He stated that the next steps include: Tuesday, August 25th, 2020 receive
Council feedback; Thursday, September 10th, 2020 next Water Utility Advisory Board
meeting; Tuesday, September 22nd, 2020 City Council Workshop; Tuesday, October 13th,
2020 City Council Regular Agenda; and Friday, January 1st, 2021 Water and Wastewater rates
effective.
Fought stated that he was glad to see everything in Option 2. He asked if it was possible to
have 20,000 gallons for cutoff and still maintain position, and that it depends on threshold for
last tier. Garrett and Fought discussed the possibility of changing volumetric thresholds for
residential customers. Mayor Ross asked if the Fought likes Scenario 2 but tweak the cap to
20,000. Fought responded yes.
Pitts stated that he supports Fought's comments. He stated that is was hard to pick and object
to guide rate recommendation. Morgan responded that each scenario addresses different
aspects of the policy objectives. Pitts stated that Scenario 2 is the obvious choice.
Jonrowe stated that she agrees and like Scenario 2 and incentivizing conservation efforts will
be needed going forward. She added that she would be open to changing the limit to 20,000
for Tier 3 and asked for clarification from Fought on his recommendation. Fought stated that
the increase wouldn't be dramatic until after 25,000. Jonrowe asked if Fought was proposing
fewer steps. Fought stated that 0- 5,000 would be very low; 5,001 - 15,000 would increase
slightly; 15,001 to 25,000 would increase more; and then after 25,000 there would be a
substantial increase and it could be the final tier. He added that possibly after 50,000 there
could be a "Godzilla " rate. Jonrowe stated she could support that.
Gonzalez stated that he could support Scenario 2, but he would like more information on the
tiers and noted that household size is important. Garrett responded if a family of 4 uses 120
gallons per day you are under 15,000 for the month for indoor use. Dishong added that the
average sewer usage for residential users is about 5,000 gallons. Gonzalez stated that he is
fine with Scenario 2.
Calixtro stated that she is supportive of Scenario #2.
Triggs stated that he is supportive of Scenario #2 and seems appropriate.
Discussion between Mayor Ross and Garrett related to family size, lots size, usage, data
points, and the problem with averages. Dishong stated that one of the things that is known
based on City ordinance is the max number of irrigatable lawn space. He added that 32,000
is typically as much as anyone who falls into max space should use based on one inch per
week. Mayor Ross noted that the larger a lot, the less equitable this becomes. Garrett stated
that people who use a lot of water for outdoor use it irregularly depending on the time of
year. Mayor Ross noted that it is the will of Council is to go with Scenario 2.
Morgan stated that staff will bring this back in September.
Mayor Ross asked if the timeline in the presentation is accurate. Morgan responded yes,
unless the board takes more than one meeting to review.
B. Presentation, update, and discussion regarding amendments to the Parkside on the River
Development Agreement and the Water Oak Second Amended and Restated Consent
Agreement -- Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager
Reed presented the item and stated that staff is seeking Council's feedback and direction on
a proposal to the Parkside on the River development that will involve an amendment to the
Water Oak Municipal Utility District (MUD) 2nd Amended and Restated Consent Agreement
and an amendment to the Parkside on the River Development Agreement and staff would
like answers to the following: Does Council support the addition of the 361 acres to the master
planned development with the proposed land use plan?; Does Council support amending the
existing Consent Agreement to a) add 47 acres into WCMUD #25 district boundary and b)
increase maximum number of MUDs from 3 to 4?; Does Council support allowing the fixed
impact fees to apply to the additional property with execution of a Strategic Partnership
Agreement?; and Does Council support considering modifications to Landscape and Tree
Preservation Standards? He provided an update on the development progress which
includes a 24-Inch Water Transmission Line Project that is 70% completed as of August 2020
and under budget of $3,500,000; Barton Tributary Sewer that began construction Dec. 2019
and completed August 2020; Single -Family units in Phase 1A with 151 lots and construction
on Parkside Pkwy (1/3 mile) began July 2020 and home construction to begin February 2021,
Phase 2-1 with 122 lots and engineering design complete and estimated start of construction
October 2020, ad Phase 2-2 with 61 lots and engineering design complete and estimated start
of construction December 2020; overhead Electric along RM 2243 working with PEC, ATT and
Frontier to convert overhead to underground; gas service working with Atmos to extend a
main gas line from Parkside at Mayfield Ranch; and RM 2243 road improvements, Phase I
under design from Parkside Parkway to Springtime Drive in Phase 1A and estimated
construction to begin October 2020 and completed by April 2021. Reed reviewed the Parkside
on the River Land Use Plan that was approved in October of 2019 and consist of 1,208 acres;
300 acres of open space minimum with 75 acres of public open space along the river; 700 acres
for Single -Family with a maximum of 2,500 developed units; 89 acres of Multi -Family along
Leander Rd; 50 acres of commercial minimum; 16-acre elementary school site; and fire station
site. He then reviewed the proposed August 2020 changes which include: the master
developer has 361 acres under contract;1,570 acres versus 1,208 acres total land area; 422 acres
versus 300 acres of open space with 115 versus 75 acres of public open space along the river;
925 acres versus 700 acres for Single -Family and an increase in developed units from 2,500 to
3,000; no change in Multi -Family with 89 acres remaining along Leander Road; 64 acres versus
50 acres of commercial minimum;16-acre elementary school site; and a fire station site. Reed
reviewed the South San Gabriel River Corridor and noted that when traveling the South San
Gabriel River the distance from I-35 to the east edge of Garey Park following the river corridor
is approximately 39,510 ft. or 7.5 miles. He continued that Garey Park itself has 6,925 ft. of
river frontage, more than a mile, and Parkside on the River has 5,000 ft. of river corridor
frontage, with the additional property's 5,700 ft. of river corridor frontage, Parkside on the
River will add approximately 2 miles of trail to this regional trail corridor. Reed explained
the Consent Agreement Amendment request that includes the following: consent to addition
of 47 acres to the WCMUD #25; increase maximum number of MUDs from 3 to 4; maximum
amount of bonds to be issued for future districts, which is not a change; maximum bond
maturity is 30 years, which is not a change; bond issuance period is 15 years from the date of
the first issuance of bonds issued by each district, which is not a change; refunding bonds for
not later than 10th anniversary of date of issuance, which is not a change; reimbursement
agreement for 15 years after first bond issuance date by each district, which is not a change;
and a district only tax rate of a maximum of $0.92 per $100 in assessed value, which is not a
change. He then reviewed the development agreement amendment and request related to
impact fees which are: extend impact fees (water and wastewater) rates to additional
property; not requesting an increase in City's commitment to the maximum SUES; this would
remain at 4,600; Parkside on the River Land Use Plan (approved) will likely use around 4,100
SUES out of 4,600 SUES upon full build out and this means roughly 500 SUEs would be used
on the additional property; Water and Wastewater Impact Fees (Section 9.01), in consideration
of the Former Owner's construction of the SSGI and Primary Owner's payment of the Off -site
Capacity Payment, the Impact Fees payable by Owners and End Buyers are (i) for water, the
Water Impact Fee per SUE is $3,324, and (ii) for wastewater, the Wastewater Impact Fee per
SUE is $2,683 as follows:
Parkside DA City's Current Difference
(Sec 9.01) Impact Fees
Water Impact Fee $3,324 $6,921-$3,597
Wastewater Impact Fee $2,683 $4,348-$1,665
Maximum Number(500) $3,003,500 $5,634,500-$2,631,000
Reed explained the request for Impact Fees based on the City's condition if impact fee rates
are extended to additional property: in exchange for the Parkside on the River SUEs and fixed
Wastewater Impact Fee and Water Impact Fee being extended to the additional 361 acres, the
City has requested the master developer support a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA)
between the City and Williamson County MUD No. 25 (WCMUD No. 25) and Parkside on
the River MUD No. 1 (PORMUD No. 1); each MUD will be required to approve the SPA in
advance of the City approving the SPA in accordance with State law, and this would have to
be accomplished before an amendment to the DA is effective; consent to limited purpose
annexation of the commercial land within the district to be effective when the SPA is executed
by the City; City annexes commercial land in the MUD for the limited purpose of collecting
sales and use taxes on sales consummated within the district and annexation would occur in
future upon development; and the SPA will detail that MUDs will get 20% of the City's 1%
general sales tax but none of the other types of sales and use taxes and the City will get 80%
of the City's 1% general sales and use tax, and 100% of all other sales and use taxes.
Mayor Ross asked for clarification on the sales tax benefit. Reed responded that MUDS will
get 20% of the City's 1% general sales tax but none of the other types of sales and use taxes
and the City will get 80% of the City's 1% general sales and use tax, and 100% of all other sales
and use taxes. Mayor Ross asked how the city benefits. Morgan responded that Reed was
about to review that information. He added that the project is in the ETJ which would lead
to the City getting no sales tax, but with the SPA the city would get a portion of sales tax.
Mayor Ross asked why the City wouldn't get 100% like in other parts of town. Morgan
responded because the project is in the ETJ and there is a different level of service provided
in the ETJ. Mayor Ross asked what Parkside had done to deserve the suggested rates. Morgan
responded that this was similar to what was offered to another MUD. Mayor Ross asked if
there were any other MUDs that get this. Morgan responded Parmer Ranch MUD. Pitts noted
that agreeing to these terms would lead to the City receiving some sales tax instead of none.
Morgan stated that without this agreement the City would get no sales tax. Pitts noted that
with this agreement instead of getting impact fees, the City will sales tax it would not have
gotten otherwise. Mayor Ross asked that Reed explain the benefit to the developer versus the
benefit to City of Georgetown.
Reed continued the presentation and said that City staff supports the application of the
Wastewater Impact and Water Impact Fee up to the water and wastewater utility commitment
of 4,600 SUES after satisfaction of a minimum of 10 acres of commercial land is developed
with a unified design and a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail development before the
Parkside on the River requests to use above 4,100 SUES and the remaining commercial land
remains (no request to change to residential). He provided the following information:
Cumulative Sales
Annual Sales Tax at
20 Acre Commercial
Tax at 20 years
Full Buildout
Annual Sales Tax
$13,003,200
$1,238,400
$387,000
$2,889,600
$275,200
$86,000
$5,779,200
$550,400
$172,000
$1,444,800
$137, 600
$43,000
$23,116,800
$2,201,600
$688,000
Mayor Ross asked if there would be clawback if the developer doesn't reach the projections.
Reed responded that if minimums are not met the City does not extend those fixed end rates.
Mayor Ross stated that he was referring to the sale tax numbers. Reed responded that the
City could look at projecting a minimum amount of sales tax for a retail center. Mayor Ross
stated that if the retail doesn't meet performance there should be a clawback so the City
doesn't lose. Morgan responded that the intent was to be conservative in the numbers. Mayor
Ross stated that there shouldn't be a problem meeting the numbers then. Morgan responded
that staff would have to work through what a clawback would look like. Mayor Ross stated
that the developer shouldn't be concerned with a clawback since the numbers used are
conservative. Morgan stated that he understands but staff would have to work through the
mechanism to make it effective. He added that the intent is to not extend the impact fees to
higher levels of units until these goals are met. Mayor Ross stated that he has been on Council
for a long time and Council has seen commercial that doesn't come to light. Morgan stated
that staff can review applying a threshold on the front end and applying legal mechanism for
applying a clawback.
Reed continued his presentation and reviewed the request for landscape and tree
preservation as follows:
Tree Survey of existing heritage and
Survey protected trees
• Identification of trees removed
Tree 20%of heritage trees can be
Removal removed within a tree plan without
approval from City
Tree Credit trees Definition
Credit . Size: Single trunk trees 18" and
greater but less than 26"
• Location:
• Residential streetyard
• Medians and Parkways
• Pocket parks/amenities
Credit trees may apply up to 50% of
required mitigation for tree removal
within a tree plan
A tree plan will be submitted with each
preliminary plat. This will allow tree credits to be
utilized throughout multiple sections of a plat.
• Up to 20% of trees within a preliminary plat
can be removed without approval from City.
• Additional trees require assessment from City
Arborist prior to approval.
• Trees meeting the size and location
requirements identified within a tree plan
may be utilized to mitigatefor trees
removed.
• Trees planted to meet the minimum
landscaping requirements of the UDC
cannot be utilized for credit
Example=
• 100 inches of mitigation are required for
heritagetrees removed within a tree plan.
• Within a tree plan there are 200 inches of
credit trees
50 inches maybe used to mitigate for
heritage tree removes.
Reed repeated the purpose and noted that the following are high level next steps should
Council support the proposed amendments: begin drafting amendments to the current
Consent and Development Agreements as described in presentation consistent with Council
direction; return to Council on landscape and tree preservation standards; initiate discussions
with WCMUD #25 and PRMUD #1 concerning SPA; and return to Council with agreements
for final consideration.
Pitts noted that when a homebuilder builds in the City limits the City collects a portion of the
sales tax paid for building materials and asked fi that could be included here. Reed responded
that it could be included here, but it would have to go to MUD boards first for approval.
Morgan added that from a sourcing standpoint and internet sales the rules are changing. He
added that he didn't think the developer would be opposed to that. Pitts stated that MUDs
continue to want to be amended and asked if there were any safeguards to limit the number
of amendments. Reed responded that staff has made it clear to the developer that there is no
request to reduce commercial land area. Pitts asked about possible future request to reduce
commercial land area. Morgan stated that the City can't limit future requests, but it is a fair
concern. Pitts stated that his only concern is the comingling of funds. Morgan stated that
staff can look to address those concerns.
Jonrowe asked about the term of the 20% of first penny from commercial property. Reed
responded that it is in perpetuity. Jonrowe asked if there are limitation on the use. Reed
responded yes, per law. Jonrowe asked if those funds would generally be used for
infrastructures improvement not within the City. Reed responded that is correct. Jonrowe
stated that she is not crazy about that and added that she would need to know more about
how 100% credit would work on the ground. She added that she is hesitant and worried
about trees on the property. Morgan responded that those are fair concerns. He added that
once a provision is provided for one MUD then others want that provision, and this is
something that the City has not traditionally done in the past. Jonrowe stated that she leading
to having strong hesitation.
Gonzalez stated that 100% carry over for trees because the land will not be the same
everywhere. He added that the constant changes have lasting impacts. Gonzalez said he likes
having a portion of the ETJ contributing sales tax. He added that he wants to guarantee that
the City is not losing commercial property.
Calixtro asked if while doing the amendment, is it possible to help the City mitigate concerns
related to promised timeline to protect the City's investment. Reed responded that staff will
look at adding mechanisms to put in place.
Triggs stated that he doesn't like the tree preservation credit as it could lead to barren spaces.
He added that he doesn't like sales tax in place in perpetuity.
Fought had no additional concerns to add.
Mayor Ross stated that he has multiple concerns. He added that he doesn't like the sales tax
going to MUD forever and has a more serious concerns about trees. Mayor Ross noted that if
an exception is put in the place then future projects will want the same. He then asked about
the City's benefit to allowing the changes for tree preservation. Reed responded that it is part
of the package that shows give and take. Mayor Ross noted that there are many concerns
from Council about trees, concerns about sales tax forever, and the taxes should continue after
the project is made whole. Morgan responded that staff can look at expanding the SPA
beyond the commercial itself and if the 20% should go to the MUD. Mayor Ross stated that
it seems like all projects do residential first and he would something in place to time out the
commercial development.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding an RFI for the Sanitation Contract -- Teresa Chapman,
Environmental Conservation Program Coordinator and Ray Miller, Director of Public Works
Miller presented the item noted that the purpose of the presentation is to: request direction
on preparing for a new solid waste contract that would take effect October 31, 2022 at the
conclusion of the current contract. He added that the new contract components will be a 10-
year contract which is standard in the industry and enhanced services. Miller stated that the
new solid waste contract options are to: utilize another 5-year extension; direct negotiations
with TDS; competitive RFP; and a two-step process with an RFI then based on responses move
to an RFP or direct negotiations with preferred vendor(s). He provided the existing contract
term which ends on October 31, 2022 with the existing 5-year contract started in 2017; two
additional 5-year extensions available otherwise it goes to a month to month contract;
approximately 27,000 households; and approximately 2,500 non-residential carts. Miller
provided the 2012 RFP for Solid Waste Contract background and the 2012 RFP Contract
Development included: City hired a consultant to assist with developing an RFP and solid
waste contract that was awarded and started on October 1, 2012. Cost was estimated to be
$250,000 including staff time; approximately $80,000 went to the consultant; the 2012 contract
provides a solid foundation for a new contract via direct negotiations, RFI or RFP; and three
service packets were included in the 2012 RFP covering residential service and non-residential
cart service, non-residential service with commercial dumpsters, and management of City -
owned site located at 250 W.L. Walden Drive known as the "Georgetown Transfer Station"
including maintenance of the old landfill. He added that companies could bid on individual
packet or any combination of the three and six companies bid on the RFP: Central Texas
Refuse, Al Clawson, Waste Management, Allied Waste, IESI, and Texas Disposal Systems.
Miller reviewed the 2012 RFP for Solid Waste Contract Bid Comparison and noted that TDS
was the only company to bid on all 3 packets and with the lowest residential rate:
Bid Company Residential Price
Non-residential
cart
Central Texas Refuse
$29.50
Al Clawson
N/A
Waste Management
$25.67
Allied Waste
$17.19
IESI
$24.95
Texas Disposal Systems
$13.81
Non -Residential
Transfer
Maintain
(Dumpsters)
Station
Old
Landfill
Price varies
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Price varies
No
Yes
Price varies
No
No
Price varies
No
Yes
Price varies
Yes
Yes
Miller reviewed the Solid Waste scope of services for new contract and noted the City costs
for 2018 and 2019 with street sweeping and drainage/streets totaling $79,172.10 and 2020 Call
Out Crew totaling $879.11 including calls for 29 illegal dumps, 195 animals, and nearly 1,500
litter sites.
Se rvice Packet
I Service Description
Residential Services
Landfill, Recycling, Brushy, Bulky, Other
Commercial Services
Landfill, Recycling Dumpsters
Other Services
City reduced rate, Transfer Station, &
Maintenance of old landfill
Downtown Services
Specialized services of a City approved program
which includes landfill, recycling, & future compost
Household Hazardous Waste
City approved HHW program for Tier I and II residents
Compactor Services
Provide pricing for compactors
Enhanced City Services
No additional charges for mulched brushy, Public
Works bulky, & streetsweeping
Miller reviewed the Transfer Station functions and current services, adding that staff wants
to maintain these service levels. The services include: staging area to sort landfill trash,
recycling, and some compost for residents and commercial businesses; landfill trash disposal
brings in approximately $150,000 to the City now with improved efficiencies and disposal
streams provides opportunity to increase revenue; approximately 2,000 people and
businesses use the Transfer Station each month; yellow bag -the -bag program which is unique
to Georgetown where the City hands out about 3,000 bags per year, and the yellow bags are
provided to City residents for them to place any plastic bags into and when full they place the
yellow bags in their recycling bin to be picked up curbside; primary method for multifamily
residents to recycle; free recycling drop-off for anyone; free mulch; free Christmas light
recycling; free Christmas tree recycling for real trees; Recycle/Reuse Store; and or a drop-
off/management fee, brushy/yard trimmings, appliances, landfill trash, used oil, car batteries,
tires, mattresses, sofas and other bulky items. He reviewed the sanitation contract options
which include: utilize another 5-year extension with TDS; direct negotiations with TDS to
enhance contract; competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) Process; or Request for Information
(RFI) process and then determine whether to move forward with options 1, 2, or 3. Miller
provided an options overview noting that the City could utilize another 5-year extension with
the pros of good foundational contract from 2012, provides consistent and reliable services
with our current vendor, Texas Disposal Systems, and saves costs and workload of RFI or
RFP; and the cons of items in the contract are not addressed such as the host fee, compactor
and City services and it has been 10 years since the services were competitively bid. He
continued that if the City does direct negotiations with TDS the pro are a good foundational
contract from 2012, provides consistent and reliable services with our current vendor, Texas
Disposal Systems, saves costs and workload of RFI or RFP, and would update current contract
items such as the host fee, compactor and City services; and the cons are that it has been 10
years since the services were competitively bid. Miller noted that the competitive RFP
provides the pros of providing multiple companies opportunity to bid on public contract and
explores and reviews trends and evolving opportunities in the solid waste industry as well as
innovation; and the cons are cost(s) in staff time and hiring a consultant to review and
administer, and based on 2012 data, there may be limited companies that can provide the full
range of sanitation services requested. He stated that the RFI Process has the pros of enabling
the City to explore service provider capabilities and options, explores and reviews trends and
evolving opportunities in the solid waste industry, and keeps all contracting options open;
and the con of cost of city staff time to complete the process. Miller then provided a
breakdown of the RFI versus RFP as follows:
Company History
/
`I
✓
Financial Condition
No
✓
Qualifications for Services
✓
✓
Team Qualifications
V
Priced Packets
No
✓
Trucks and Equipment
No
✓
Lead Time to Start
No
✓
Interest in complete packet
Interestin individual packets
Consultant Needed
No
Yes
Jonrowe stated that she had no questions and would prefer that staff try to negotiate directly
with TDS.
Gonzalez stated that he had no concerns and had no issues with TDS and prefers negotiating
the contract directly. He added that he is not sure how long is proper for a City to go without
proper bidding and he wants the City to receive fair deal.
Calixtro stated that she agrees with Jonrowe and has no issues of note. She added that TDS
is responsive, and their workers have a good work ethic.
Triggs stated that he knows that TDS is top notch company and has no problems. He added
that this is an industry going through a lot of consolidation and if the City went through with
a 5-year extension and a consolidation occurred, that if the City didn't like new provider, eh
would want an option to opt out.
Fought stated that TDS is great, and they assist with handicap and mobility impaired. He
added that this is a special service that makes the relationship extremely good and he
comfortable negotiating with TDS. Fought stated that if an RFP is needed that's fine.
Pitts asked if the extension was made it be extended as is. Miller responded that is correct.
Pitts asked about the household hazardous waste program. Chapman responded that staff is
currently working with City of Round Rock and working on a program to move to
Georgetown. Pitts asked if the City is doing an RFI, would it include all items currently
received and options. Chapman responded that the RFI would keep all items as options. Pitts
state that he would choose option 4 to make sure the taxpayers are getting the best option.
He added that he has not had many issues, and if they exist, they are usually resolved. Pitts
stated that there is a duty to citizens to make sure they are getting the best deal and he sees
no issue with taking a look at options. He added that his second choice is to negotiate directly
with TDS.
Mayor Ross stated that the City has spent quite a bit of money on consultant and it is the will
of Council to negotiate with TDS. He added that in his years as Mayor he hasn't gotten a
single trash call.
Rick Fraumann with TDS explained the history of TDS and their relationship with
Georgetown. He noted several technical advances that TDS has made that TDS is willing to
work with the City in which ever way the City would like.
Ross asked if he correctly captured the will of Council. Morgan responded that staff will
negotiate with TDS in good faith.
Gonzalez stated that he doesn't mind negotiating, but how do you know what to compare it
to. Chapman responded that staff has ways to compare to other cities and other factors can
also be considered. Mayor Ross noted that the City benchmarks on a regular basis. Pitts
asked if an RFI would do that as well. Morgan responded that it wouldn't be focused on rate,
it would scan all providers. Mayor Ross noted that Council can change its mind if
negotiations do not work in the City's favor.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding Charter Review Process -- Skye Masson, City Attorney
and David Morgan, City Manager
Masson presented and explained the process for amending the Charter and noted that: an
election to amend the Charter can be held no more than every two (2) years; the City Council
approves the submittal of charter amendments to the voters; voters approve or reject each
proposed amendment on a uniform election date; and in Georgetown, the usual practice has
included a charter review committee to review the charter and proposed amendments and
make recommendation to the City Council. She noted that recent Georgetown Charter
Review processes have taken place noting that in 2001, the City Council appointed a Charter
Review Committee that worked with the Council and Staff to review the Charter and make
recommendations on amendments and in May of 2003, 13 charter amendments were
approved by voters. Masson continued that in 2012 the City's Legal Department led a review
committee and after a thorough review, the Council decided not to have a Charter Election
and the work was put on hold. She explained that the 2012 Charter Review Process was based
off of Council directive and staff input with 11 Charter Review Committee meetings,
approximately 11 hours spent at Committee meetings (11 1-hour meetings), approximately 7
City Council meetings regarding the Charter Review Process, and an approximately 2-year
process in total. She explained establishing a Charter Review Committee and stated that the
Council is responsible for creating the Charter Review Committee which historically has each
Councilmember and the Mayor appointing a committee member. Masson said that other
considerations when establishing a Charter Review Committee are identifying issues for
review by Charter Committee; City staff assistance and coordination of committee; City
Attorney role in drafting amendment language; and a deadline for receiving
recommendations from Committee. She stated that when identifying Charter amendments,
then can be: Council -directed like term limits, vacancies, and correcting inconsistencies with
state law; citizen -directed; staff -directed; and consider amendments recommended in 2012.
Masson provided timeline options and noted that: Council must order the charter amendment
election at least 78 days prior to the uniform election date; for the May 1, 2021 uniform election
date would require completed process and first reading of an ordinance by January 19, 2021;
and for the November 2, 2021 uniform election date would require completed process and
first reading of an ordinance by July 27, 2021. She proposed a recommended schedule for the
November 2021 Election as follows: in Fall 2020, Legal Department and City Staff will conduct
a technical review of Charter and presentation of result of review to Council; in Late Fall 2020
the Council appointment of a Charter Review Commission and submission of amendments
for commission consideration; in Spring 2021 conduct Charter Review Commission
meetings/review of Charter; June through July 2021 City Council holds public hearings on
proposed amendments; on July 27, 2021 have the First Reading of Ordinance Calling Charter
Amendment Election; in August through September 2021 publish required notices of election;
and on November 1, 2021 hold the Charter Election. Masson asked for Council Direction on
the following questions: 1) Does the Council wish to proceed with the timeline for November
2021 Charter Amendment Election? and 2) How would the Council like to identify potential
amendments/issues for review?
Fought stated that he likes the November timeline and the idea of appointing a committee.
He did ask about ballot options and if term limits are wanted, how would that look on the
ballot. Masson responded that what goes to the voter is specific proposed language with yes
or no for adoption and the committee can recommend language. Fought noted that Council
Members likely have different opinions about appropriate term limits. He added that he
thinks staff should proceed with the November timeline and he likes going back and forth
with citizen input as this is long overdue.
Pitts stated that November 2021 is the most logical and he is interested in the 12 amendments
from 2012 that weren't approved. He added that he is still interested in Council appointed
committee and that they could start with the 2012 amendments and go from there. Pitts stated
that his only question is in the event of a runoff, if District 2 is still vacant, would Council be
waiting for appointment until after a runoff. Morgan responded that he would recommend
waiting until District 2 is elected. Pitts stated that he wasn't sure if that would condense the
timeline. Morgan stated that Masson is providing how quickly the process can go and added
that Council may get in the middle and realize that the timeline needs to go out farther. Pitts
stated that if Council does have time for District 2 representation, he would like that, and he
is okay with November and would like committee.
Jonrowe stated that she is good with November 2021 and Pitts brings up good point about
District 2 representation.
Gonzalez stated that he agrees with November 2021 and before Council elects citizens, staff
should review and have a starting base for committee to start from.
Triggs agreed with the goal of November 2021, agrees with the citizen committee, and
committee being formed after elections.
Mayor Ross stated that the consensus of Council is November 2021 and to review what has
come up before.
Fought asked if Legal can distribute a list of previous considerations. Masson responded yes
and recommends that staff comes back before appointing committee.
Calixtro stated that she agrees with what has been said.
Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 5:11 to start at 5:20 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
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Riverhaven -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
- Parkside Waterline Easement Acquisition -- Travis Baird Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development
- Project Dazed
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council onbk�f � Zc) -
6
Date
11M
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: City Secretary