HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 09.22.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, September 22, 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 3:00 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; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy
Gonzalez, Council Member District. Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5 was absent, and Council
District 2 is vacant. All Council Members were present via videoconferencing and a roll call was
performed.
Council Member Calixtro joined during Item A and Council Member Gonzalez joined during Item C.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2020 Citizen Survey -- Dr. Thomas Longoria,
Professor and Director of Center for Research, Public Policy, and Training at Texas State
University; and Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager
Weber introduced the item and then introduced Longoria.
Longoria presented the item and provided a presentation overview. He then provided a
survey overview and noted that the survey will use the following: Likert Scale survey
instrument; demographic and geographic section that is key in keeping the survey accurate;
will contain twelve Focus Areas with typically four to eight questions per Focus Areas; and
the Texas State has provided a refined instrument that reduced repeated questions and has
more opportunities for open-ended feedback. Longoria then reviewed the twelve base focus
areas that are: quality of life; service utilization; mobility; media usage; development;
perception of government; public safety; employee interaction; service quality for utilities;
perception of safety; service quality related to parks and the library; and value for taxes. He
then provided the revised project timeline as follows: in September receive Council direction
on survey; on September 30, 2020 Texas State University finalizes survey instrument; in
October Texas State University mails survey; in November Texas State University launches
open survey link available; in late November analyzation of results; in December utilize focus
groups; and in January provide a submission of full report and presentation of findings made
to Council. Longoria asked if Council would like to ask questions this year related to COVID-
19. He then noted the efforts to improve response noting: continuing to direct mail survey;
promoting online survey to entire community; analyzing results to ensure data reflects
household data; and having more robust efforts to improve renter response (e.g., customized
message on mailing envelope and focus group with renters). Longoria then asked that
Council confirm the survey questions, timeline, and efforts to improve results.
Jonrowe agreed with continuing the usual questions and adding questions related to COVID-
19. She stated that the timeline looks good and she appreciates the effort to reach renters.
Pitts asked if Longoria has any proposed COVID-19 questions. Longoria responded that the
responses to the existing questions will be influenced by COVID-19, so he proposed language
at the beginning of the questionnaire related to how people viewed things before COVID-19.
He then noted asking questions at the end of the survey related to how the City can prioritize
efforts coming out of COVID-19. Longoria did not have specific questions but said he would
work with staff to formulate them but wanted to have Council buy -in before proceeding with
CVOID-19 related questions. Pitts asked about open-ended questions. Longoria responded
that there are several. He noted that another City has received several COVID-19 related
comments in the open-ended questions and that a possible option to receive COVID-19
related feedback could be during the focus groups. Pitts asked about the possibility of adding
the open-ended question related to what the City does well and what they could improve
upon overall. He added that it might provide needed perspective. Longoria agreed.
Fought stated that he likes the question about where citizens get their information and would
like to see it stay in. He added that there should be a COVID-19 questions that is open-ended.
Fought stated that he agrees with Pitts and gets more out of the narrative that the ranking and
he would like to read the raw data. Longoria noted that the City of Buda asked what media
sources people use and which they prefer. Fought noted related asking people what they do
more and what they do less of related to COVID-19 would be helpful.
Triggs approved of the survey questions, timeline, and agreed with previous Council input.
He noted that narratives are helpful
Calixtro asked how many surveys Longoria had done with the City. Longoria responded at
least four.
B. Presentation, discussion and direction regarding water rates and the water cost of service
study -- Glenn Dishong, Water Utilities Director and Matthew Garrett, NewGen Strategies
and Solutions
Dishong introduced the item and turned the presentation over to Garrett.
Garrett presented and provided a recap and board feedback. He reviewed the projected
combined utility performance under current revenues and that the combined utility is
estimated to not recover revenue required as early as FY 2021 with days cash on hand reserves
to drop below 90 Days as early as FY 2023. Garrett added that the Water Monthly Base Charge
revenues is estimated to not recognize Water Fixed Cost of Service as early as FY 2021. He
then provided a summary introduction of discussion and presentations to date. Garrett
reviewed the feedback to date as follows: City Council on August 25, 2020 addressed
Financial Policy compliance with increasing minimum charges based on $1.50 on 3/4" meters
achieves the 75% target, equitable cost of service noting that residential revenues have the
greatest shortfall and are the primary focus this year, Conservation Plan moving the
residential top tier down to 25,000 gallons impacts fewer than 10% of customer bills, will
improve residential conservation, and is common in the market; and Board feedback on
September 10, 2020 where the Board agreed on the major Council objectives and generally
preferred the 0-7,000 gallons for Tier 1 rates. He then reviewed rate options for the residential
volumetric rate design based on historical customer usage characteristics and feedback from
the City, the following Residential alternatives were determined as follows:
0-10,000gals
$1.75
0-5,000gals
$1.80 0-7,000gals
$1.85
10,001— 20,000 gals
2.40
5,001-15,000 gals
2.70 7,001-15,000 gals
2.75
20,001— 40,000 gals
4.00
15,001— 25,000 gals
4.75 15,001— 25,000 gals
4.80
40,001— 60,000 gals
6.50
25,001+gals
8.30 25,001+gals
8.40
60,001+ gals
8.50
Garrett reviewed the residential volumetric rate design cumulative billed usage frequency
distribution as follows:
a"
0
o c-
rn "
c: rn
E
m
v o0
� o
a
1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — - — — — —
ac
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1
M •S ✓1 ll !� �. '1 O ti � Y !� CC G1 O .-+ N M O
., .. ., .-. N
-- -. •� -Y •� •� � •-• N N ry ry ry ry m m m m m m m v v v c v v � v v
Consumption (K gals)
Garrett explained Scenario 1 Revised Residential Tier Design with the First tier being 0-5,000
gallons and fourth tier being 25,000+ gallons including: revenue adjustments driven by first
debt payment for San Gabriel Interceptor ($32.5 million) in FY 2023 with wastewater increases
smoothed out over 3 years; Water base rate adjustments targeting Fixed COS metric and
volumetric adjustments to residential to achieve cost of service and conservation objectives;
and 75% tier differential between top two revised residential rate tiers. He continued by
explaining Scenario 2 Revised Residential Tier Design with the First Tier being 0-7,000 gallons
and the Fourth Tier being 25,000+ gallons including: revenue adjustments driven by first debt
payment for San Gabriel Interceptor ($32.5 million) in FY 2023 with wastewater increases
smoothed out over 3 years; Water base rate adjustments targeting Fixed COS metric and
volumetric adjustments to residential to achieve cost of service and conservation objectives;
and 75% Tier Differential between top two revised Residential rate tiers. Garrett then
provided a sample of Residential Water Charges for Range of Usage from 0-45,000 Gallons as
follows:
$295
Scenario 2
$270
$245
$220
$195
$170 Current
$145
$120
$95
$70
$45
$20
OO pe � �e �e QO" tie Ae �e $ pe ve Ae �t6 �e e e Ae �e e pp" ,Le CP'
Dp'�
Garrett provided a residential water bill comparison based on a 3/4' meter with variances that
are from the current rates as follows:
5,000 Gallons $ 31.75 $ 33.50 $ 33.75
Variance, $ $1.75 $ 2.00
Variance % 5.51 % 6.30%
15,000 Gallons $ 52.50 $ 60.50 $ 59.45
Variance, $ $ 8.00 $ 6.95
Variance % 15.24% 13.24%
25,000 Gallons $ 84.50 $108.00 $107.45
Variance, $ $ 23.50 $ 22.95
Variance % 27.81 % 27.16%
35,000 Gallons $124.50 $191.00 $191.45
Variance, $ $ 66.50 $ 66.95
Variance % 53.41 % 53.78%
Garrett then provided the community rate comparisons noting that comparisons between
communities are very common but may not tell the whole story and each system is unique in
geography, age of infrastructure, capital maintenance efforts, and typical usage patterns. He
then provided regional bill comparisons for residential user bills for water and flat sewer
noting that Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed sewer flows
and 5,000 gallons in Sewer flows is assumed for surrounding cities. Garrett provided charts
for 5,000 gallons, 25,000 gallons, and 35,000 gallons for Georgetown and the surrounding
cities of Liberty Hill, Leander, Austin, Pflugerville, Round Rock, and Cedar Park and
provided charts for each. He then provided a regional bill comparison for the residential
median user bill at 6,000 gallons and 10,200 gallons with the same assumptions and
comparisons.
Mayor Ross asked what the average use in Georgetown and if it was about 18,000 gallons.
Garrett responded that it's about 10,200 gallons across all months.
Garrett then provided the conclusion and Council feedback that is being sought. He stated
that NewGeri s proposed rate Scenario 1 (0-5k) and Scenario 2 (0-7k) both fully meet the
Board's and City Council's requested objectives of Financial Policy compliance, equitable cost
of service, and Conservation Plan. Garrett then asked what (if any) other analysis or
discussion is needed to inform the Council's future decision. He provided the next steps as
follows: tonight City Council Workshop for Discussion; Thursday, October 8, 2020 Water
Utility Advisory Board recommendation; Tuesday, October 13, 2020 City Council Regular
Agenda for possible action; Tuesday, October 27, 2020 City Council Regular Agenda for
possible action if needed; and Friday, January 1, 2021 Water and Wastewater Rates become
effective.
Pitts noted that during the first discussion the first tier was originally set at 10,000 to
accommodate a family of four. Garrett noted that previous presentation also included lot size
in the calculation. Dishong stated that the current rates with a tier at 10,000, when shaping
that tier the average sewer use was estimated to be 5,000, but the amount was doubled to
consider all possible factors. Pitts asked if the average sewage was 5,000 for a household.
Dishong said that was correct. Pitts asked what the average household occupancy is.
Dishong responded 2.8 and 1.9 in Sun City, so when put all together it's 2.5. Pitts stated that
he favors Scenario 2 when considering a household of four.
Fought stated that he is happy with either scenario and both are justifiable.
Triggs stated that he prefers Scenario 2 to Scenario 1 but would be accepting of either.
Calixtro stated that she preferred Scenario 1.
Jonrowe stated that she didn't have a large infinity for either but is slightly leaning toward
Scenario 1.
David Morgan, City Manager, stated that staff can share Council feedback with the Water
Board at their next meeting and then take the recommendation from the Water Board to bring
forward.
Calixtro asked if the 25,000 gallons was the average for a home for a year. Garrett responded
that the average was 10,200. Calixtro asked if it was doubled. Garrett said that the doubling
applies to the previous methodology for calculations but not the current one.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding Distributed Generation Interconnection and Net
Energy Metering Updates -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility
Bethapudi presented the item and provided a presentation outline. He then explained
interconnection and net -metering noting that interconnection is the process when a
customer's distributed energy system is connected to the Utility's electric grid and the process
ensures that the customer's system is safely connected to the grid without risking employee
and public safety, stability and reliability of the distribution grid. Bethapudi continued that
there is an interconnection agreement that both the parties execute. He explained that net
energy metering (net metering) is a utility rate program that credits distributed energy system
customers for the electricity they inject into the grid based on NEM rates that are part of the
electric tariff/ordinance and are subjected to change based on cost of service studies, and an
interconnection agreement is required for a customer to be eligible for a net -energy metering
program. Bethapudi explained that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) to require that state regulatory commissions, Public Utility
Commission of Texas, and non -regulated electric utilities (Municipally Owned Utilities and
Electric Coops) consider adopting net metering policies and interconnection procedures with
no federal law mandating that states or utilities adopt net metering. He stated that since Texas
began deregulating its electric industry, electric utilities now fall into two categories with
regard to net metering: integrated IOUs outside the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERGOT) with a clear regulatory obligation to interconnect and net meter, and electric
cooperatives, municipal utilities, and river authorities with no obligation to d net meter.
Bethapudi noted that while electric cooperatives(coops) and municipally owned utilities
(MOUs) are not required to offer net -metering programs under Chapter 25.211 and 25.212,
multiple coops (Pedernales Electric Coop) and MOUs (New Braunfels Utilities) offer net -
metering program as an industry best practice. He provided a review of the net energy
metering program and noted that net metering critics claim two major problems: revenue
shortfalls for utilities and subsidization among customer classes. Bethapudi stated that New
Gen Strategies was engaged March 2020 to review the NEM Program. He provided the
findings from the NEM program review that identified multiple issues with the NEM
program. Bethapudi stated that the Renewable Energy Credit ($/kWh) at $0.09580 exceeds
avoided energy costs of the industry standard and: results in cost shifting from NEM to Non-
NEM customers at approximately $118,000 per year; there is no floor on the credit which
reduces fixed cost recovery, allows for a zero utility bill (Electric, Water, Wastewater,
Garbage, and allows a potential bypass of Base Rate Charge and Power Cost Adjustment
(PCA); and there is poor compliance with the system requirements with a 10 kW limit not
being enforced. Bethapudi provided the recommended changes where are: to reduce the
Renewable Energy Credit to Market Based Energy Credit from $0.09580/kWh to
$0.04976/kWh for 2020; establish a "floor" on the Renewable Energy Credit where the credit
cannot exceed the volumetric charge; grandfather provision to help existing NEM customers
transition to the market -based credit; enforce size compliance with PV systems less than 10
kW and limited to residential and small commercial classes; and simplify Ordinance language
for clarity. He reviewed the changes adopted by Council on the First Reading of the
Ordinance as follows: grandfather existing NEM customers at the existing renewable energy
credit of $0.09580/kWh for a period of 2 years starting October 1, 2020; after the two-year
period, the renewable energy credit will be based on the market -based formula identified in
the ordinance; establish a "floor" on the Renewable Energy Credit where the credit cannot
exceed Volumetric charge; and renewable energy credit for new NEM customers set at $0.00.
Bethapudi reviewed the issues addressed with the adopted changes as follows: by moving to
a market -based rate for renewable energy received credit for the existing customers (after the
two-year period) it will help reduce cost shift from NEM to non-NEM classes, align with
original intent of avoided costs (2006), and is an acceptable practice in industry; by
establishing a "floor" on the Renewable Energy Credit it will prevent revenue losses for other
funds (Water, Wastewater, Garbage), improve utility fixed cost recovery, and eliminate the
potential bypass of Base Rate Charge and Power Cost Adjustment (PCA); and by setting the
renewable energy received credit for new customers at $0.00, technically the Net Energy
Metering program is no longer available for new customers. He reviewed the proposed NEM
Program as one that can be a strategic benefit the electric utility as a whole. Bethapudi stated
that behind the meter, customer owned PV systems can be positively leveraged to be part of
our energy portfolio, and a NEM Program can help our overall Utility as long as: the NEM
customers/installations pay their fair share of interconnection costs; prevent/avoid cost
shifting; adopt a market -based approach to renewable energy credit; and ensure that the NEM
program aligns with the overall objective of the electric utility to provide safe, reliable and
affordable electric service to all customers. He noted that the second reading of the NEM
ordinance is on today's legislative agenda.
Fought noted his support for the program including how it can be tied to national security.
Triggs stated that he would like to continue with the net metering program, but the current
setup is unfair. He noted that he didn't like that Council actions have led to some people
receiving zero benefit and he would prefer to do the new charge and continue net metering
for new customers at the new rate.
Calixtro asked for some clarification. Bethapudi stated that there is a wholesale energy
contract that will end in 2021 and buy continuing to have a net metering program that his
properly managed the City can continue to the solar resources to the City's benefit.
Gonzalez stated if the City is achieving its fixed cost, he would have no issues with net
metering. He added that the question of fairness is important. Bethapudi responded that the
current proposal will address those issues and staff is studying this program more closely
going forward.
Jonrowe stated that she agrees with Gonzalez and is fine with current proposal.
Pitts asked if there is appoint at which a having a large percent of the City's users on net
metering would be detrimental. Bethapudi responded that the City needs to stay on top of
their cost of service to prevent something like from happening. He added that a poorly
managed program could lead to that type of issue. Pitts asked how the City ensures that it
has a properly managed program. Bethapudi responded that the permitting and inspection
process is being incorporated, the utility is not losing money, and reviewing connecting
engineering studies. He continued that staff will being annual cost of service studies. Pitts
asked how the City can ensure this over time. Morgan suggested making it part of the
financial policies and using that to spell out the appropriate time frames for review.
Bethapudi noted the extensive work staff has done in the last seven months related to this
study. Pitts asked if Bethapudi thought net metering was a benefit to the City utilities.
Bethapudi responded that he did, and it will be more beneficially with the proposed changes.
Mayor Ross asked if net metering in its true form is a best practice. Bethapudi responded yes
because one or more renewables are being utilized. He added that many entities that are not
required to offer the program have still done so. Mayor Ross stated that he feels there is a
misconception that the City has a tremendous amount of surplus each and every day of the
year. Bethapudi stated that there are times in the year where the City is short, and the
contracts don't provide all our needed energy. Mayor Ross stated that in those times it would
be beneficial to have customers participating in the program. Bethapudi responded yes.
Mayor Ross asked if energy markets are volatile. Bethapudi responded yes. Mayor Ross
asked if what works today may not work in the future. Bethapudi responded yes. Mayor
Ross noted the need for the City to plan for the future. Bethapudi agreed. Mayor Ross stated
the need to not be short sighted with policies and applauded staff's work. He added that the
feedback he heard is that net metering is good when done well and monitored. Mayor Ross
echoed Morgan's suggestion of putting this into the City's financial policies to ensure annual
review. Bethapudi thanked Council
D. Presentation, discussion, and direction regarding the proposed Right-of-way Permit Program
and Regulations -- Ray Miller, Public Works Director
Miller presented and provided the presentation overview. He then covered the purpose and
need noting the ROW Permit Ordinance & Regulations will allow the City to: know who is
working in our ROW; clarify what type of work (storage, maintenance, and construction) is
appropriate to be performed in ROW; define when and how maintenance and construction
activities can occur in our collector and arterial ROWs; define when and how storage activities
may occur in our ROW; establish safe work zones; consider impacts to traffic flow (peak traffic
hours); ensure repairs to roads meet City standards to maintain quality of asset; protect newly
paved or sealed street surfaces from unplanned construction activities that would reduce
quality of new assets; and provide a formal process to approve activities in City ROW for
storage, maintenance, and construction activit5ies through a permit process. Miller then
reviewed a real -world example by noting that there is an unsafe work area on Williams Drive
with improper flagging, barricades, traffic control, and driver notification, and provided
photos. He explained the benefits to the City, citizens, commercial businesses, contractors,
etc. as follows: safe work zones for workers and for traveling public; quality repairs to
pavement surface to protect life of City's asset and minimize cost to maintain; ability to
inspect work sites and ensure safety, quality, and impact; and emergency contact and
responsiveness in case of an accident or emergency. Miller explained the basic regulations as
follows: establishes an administrator of the ROW permits and regulations to be the Public
Works Director; explains who is subject to ROW regulations and the permit process; defines
storage activities, maintenance activities, and construction activities; provides for a
prohibition on construction activities in ROW for recently resurfaced/paved streets (5 years
new/cutlered or 2 years for sealed) and provides criteria and defines process to consider
requests for exceptions by PW Director; provides an application process that has required
information with Application including sketch showing extent of work area, construction
plans when appropriate, traffic control plan, and emergency contract information; and
provide the duration of permits where maintenance permits can be issued on an annual basis
and requires annual renewal, construction activities shall effective for 120 days from issuance
at which point an entity would have to reapply; and storage activities will typically be 7 days
but can be up to 120 days and are not allowed on collector and arterial streets. He explained
when ROW Permits are not required as: new residential driveways during new home
construction; repairing or replacing existing residential driveways; and work within the ROW
related to City approved commercial site development plans and residential subdivision
development plans. Miller stated that applying can be done in person, but stall will also create
a new on-line process via a City website/portal. He then provided fee examples from the
following surrounding cities: Pflugerville, Cedar Park, San Marcos, Round Rock, and Bastrop.
Miller stated that staff's fee proposal for work in the ROW related to maintenance activities
other minor work would be $100 to $125 plus a $15 technology fee for a total of $115 to $140.
He continued that franchise utilities would be required to obtain a permit but would not have
to pay the fee, and construction activities could be a flat fee such as $400 to $500 or it could be
based on the estimated cost of construction such as 3% to 4% of the cost of construction. Miller
stated that these fees would be due to the additional time for review, permitting, inspections
and closing out the permit. He outlined the appeal process where if there is a conflict and it
cannot be resolved with the Director of Public Works or Designee, then the matter would be
forwarded to the City Manager or Designee. Miller stated that enforcement would be through
Inspections with the issuance of warning notice(s) and then an issuance of a Notice of
Violation (NOV). He then asked for Council feedback on the following questions: (1) does
Council support the creation of a ROW Permit Program; (2) does Council support the
prohibition of Construction Activity on newly constructed, milled/overlay, and sealed streets
as presented; and (3) does Council support the fee and fine schedules?
Triggs stated that he supports the permit program and supports Question 2. He added that
he has no idea what types of fee/fines for Question 3 and has trust in staff to decide.
Calixtro asked why the program didn't exist before. Miller responded to protect the citizens,
contractors and workers. He stated that it gives us a better idea of who is out there and how
we can better protect City assets. Miller stated that he's not sure why the program didn't exist
before, but it had been discussed by multiple departments. Morgan stated that this program
is well overdo. Calixtro asked about when work on streets would be prohibited. Miller
responded that the City would want to prohibit cutting into a brand-new street, but there
could exceptions as needed. Morgan stated that there will be a process for exceptions and
that process would go through staff approval. Calixtro stated that she supports all three
questions.
Gonzalez stated that he supports Question 1; Question 2 could be problematic with new
construction; and he supports Question 3 as long as appropriate.
Jonrowe stated she supports Question 1; she needs to think about it, especially in downtown
where the City has been serious about investing in streets for Question 2; and Question 3
looked good.
Pitts noted the picture of a large hole on Williams Dr. and asked if there was no oversight on
how work is completed. Miller responded yes. Pitts stated that he supports Question 1 and
needs clarity on Question 2. Miller stated that it would prevent a cut on a new street, but curb
cuts are allowed. He added that staff will review the approach for best practices. Pitts asked
for an example of work that someone would want to do to a new street. Miller responded
that if someone wants to cut entirely across the street, staff would question why that was not
done earlier and the cut would require a larger repair to keep integrity. Pitts noted his
concerns with how it would all work. Morgan stated that staff can indicate a higher standard
of repair that is required and establish that with applicants. Pitts stated that people doing this
work need predictability. He added that when it comes to the fee schedule, he is fine as long
as recovering as much of cost as possible. Pitts clarified that Question 2 is a yes but with
conditions. Morgan stated that staff will work through the specifics.
Fought stated that Question 1 and Question 3 are fine, but Question 2 is so poorly defined he
can't support it. He also noted that he doesn't love the use of the word "prohibit" for this.
Mayor Ross reviewed Council feedback as follows Question 1 is a yes; Question 2 is a yes, but
with conditions and more information needed based on the poor wording, and with a review
repairs needed; and Question 3 is a yes as reasonable.
Mayor Ross recessed the Workshop into Executive Session at 4:31 p.m. with Executive Session
starting 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.
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
- Westinghouse Right of Way
- SH-29 ROW, Hillwood
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Secretary Check -in
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchased Power Update
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on C- z v
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Ci Secretary