HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 12.08.2020 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, December 8, 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 Schroeder called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The following Council Members were
in attendance: Mayor Josh Schroder; 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.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 3:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding the creation of a Public Improvement District (PID) for
the proposed Bluffview Subdivision -- Seth Gipson Performance Management Program
(PMP) Manager
Gipson presented the item and provided an overview and purpose for the presentation. He
continued that the Bluffview Development is approximately 91 acres at FM2243 and
Southwest Bypass (northeast corner) being developed by Lamy 2243, Ltd. with 44.3 acres for
residential, 22.6 acres for multi -family, and approximately 37 acres of parkland/open space.
Gipson reviewed parts of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and highlighted the following: Goal
3: "...fiscally responsible growth..., and provides for effective provision of public services
and facilities;" Goal 6: "...diverse housing options...;" Goal 7: "Maintain high quality
infrastructure ... and community facilities;" Goal 9: "Maintain and add to the existing quality
parks and recreation;" Policy LU.10 - "Operationalized through the use of Development
Agreements and Special Purpose Districts;" and Policy LU.14 - "Use the subdivision process
to ensure access to parks, open space." He provided a PID Policy compliance evaluation for
the developer criteria and noted the following: developer thresholds of Lamy 2243, Ltd. which
was formed in 2013 and based in Austin with relevant experience in the Lake Creek Village
and Barton Creek West developments and the financial capability to agree to front costs,
receive reimbursement on completion; and this development exceeds UDC standards with
parkland dedication 37 acres and the minimum requirement is 4 acres, parkland
improvements totaling $1.15 million with a minimum requirement of $302,000, housing
diversity with two distinct zoning types with a minimum requirement of none; and
architectural standards being required with a minimum requirement of none. Gipson
provided the PID Policy compliance evaluation for enhanced parks for a total estimated cost
of $1.15 million, 37 acres of parkland/open space, and enhanced parkland improvements of:
parkland entry road; trailhead parking; Bluffview trail; and connection to regional trail. He
reviewed the PID Policy Compliance evaluation for enhanced housing diversity and noted
that there are two zoning district types, residential of 44.3 acres and multi -family of 22.6 acres
with the residential areas having three lot sizes and multi -family to not to exceed 14 units per
acre being comprised of apartments, townhomes, condominiums, etc. Gipson reviewed the
2030 Housing Element - Subarea Profiles and noted that is: provides defined areas for more
focused analysis; groups areas of similar housing characteristics, as well as evaluating U.S.
Census tract boundaries and elementary school boundaries; establishes a baseline for
understanding the existing conditions within the planning area (City + ETJ); and serves as the
basis for making policy recommendations. He then noted the Subarea 12 for Bluffview PID
as follows:
Figure 1. Subarea 12 housing Profile
Var.mt am—% 1 8,9t16
Vacant ac nM outside fhKxlplain 1 8,121
Subana I Planning Area
kuntrr% (" ) 1
Medi.m hollwhold in:umr S12a,799 1.219
Afea IIIvdi.in uuomir (' ) Ids 94
Tenure • 4nsner 1 .+ 1 4
renure - miller 2 i
Ilon1.ehold %Ire 2.46 2.47
Mediall L'I we 1.117 11,21
Price Ix-r ,.1. f 1. 149 $146
Gipson added that the Williamson Central Appraisal District for 2018 showed a median value
of $494,000 and for 2018 showed and average value of $568,000. He stated the PID Policy
compliance evaluation for enhanced architecture and noted: PID Policy requires quality
development that meets or exceeds intent of the design standards outlined in City Codes; and
Special Purpose Districts (MUDS and PlDs) traditionally require masonry standards. These
are illustrated here:
Special Purpose Districi4
Materials
% Coverage (front, street,
public parkland)
% Coverage (side & rear)
Front elevation features
Proposed I3iuffViesv PID
Brick, stone, or stucco
85%
50%
Minimum of two design
options
Materials Class I: brick, rock, or stone; Class
II: stucco, fiber cement/hardi, or
synthetic wood.
% Coverage Option 1: 50% with 2 architectural
(front & street) elements.
Option 2: 30% with 3 architectural
elements
% Coverage Will be constructed using Class II
(all other facades) masonry
Gipson reviewed the PID Policy compliance evaluation for financial requirements and noted
the following financial thresholds: PID Reimbursement sought for offsite wastewater
improvements, park access drive, Bluffview Drive and shared -use path, park improvements,
and administrative costs for professional services fees, management fees, engineering, City
fees, etc.; City policy for PID assessment S $0.55 per $100 assessed value and the project is
$0.5488 per $100 assessed value; the City policy requires a minimum assessed value to lien
ratio for PID Bonds to be 4:1 and the project is at 14.59:1; City policy requires prepayment of
assessments for multi -family rental units and the developer may be requesting a deviation;
the City policy requires a maximum PID Bond maturity of 25 years after issuance and the
project is the same with one issuance; and the City policy requires a maximum PID Bond limit
equal to actual costs (plus reserves, capitalized interest, financing costs) and the project is $6.4
million PID funded and $1,067,075 developer funded. He provided the PID Policy
compliance evaluation for a PUD and noted that the Planning Department is currently
processing the PUD for this development and the schedule for review is: December 15, 2020
Planning and Zoning Review; January 12, 2021 First Reading at City Council; January 26, 2021
Second Reading at City Council; and February or later have City Council official action on
PID formation. Gipson noted that staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on a
proposed Public Improvement District (PID) for the Bluffivew development and answers to
the following questions: Does Council support the creation of a PID for the Bluffview
development; and Does Council support the financial terms, architectural standards, and the
enhanced park, trails and open space improvements? He noted the next steps as follows: City
to review developer supplied financial feasibility study utilizing City's Bond Counsel,
Financial Advisor and Bond Underwriter; City staff and consultants to continue negotiating
and drafting needed resolutions, agreements, plans, ordinances; City Council to hold a public
hearing on PID creation and then consider resolution approving creation of PID; and Council
to adopt an ordinance levying special PID assessments and approving supporting plans and
agreements (e.g., Service and Assessment Plan, Assessment Roll, Development, Financing
and Reimbursement Agreement, and similar).
Pitts asked about the park improvements and PID portion of funded bonds and what those
bond funds would be spent on. Gipson responded that those funds would be for offsite
wastewater improvement, Bluffview drive, park access drive, share use path, and trail. Pitts
asked about the eligibility of offsite wastewater improvements for PID funds. Gipson
responded that statute does allow for those types of improvements. He continued that the
City prefers that those dollars go towards above and beyond development, but PID dollars
can be used. Pitts asked if the only above and beyond areas of the proposed development are
related to the parks. Gipson responded parks and shared use path. Pitts asked about
developer costs versus PID costs for improvements. Gipson responded that staff had received
updated financial and the develop would now be contributing just over one million. Pitts as
asked if the PID amount would go down. Gipson said it would not. Pitts noted that the
developer is asking for the PID to fund 90% of the improvements. He then asked if the
development would have ingress and egress off of Southwest Bypass. Gipson said that it will
connect via Leander Road. Pitts asked why the developer is seeking a deviation from the
multi -family assessment. Gipson responded that it would be a lot of capital upfront and that
the developer has not decided what type of multi -family will be part of the development.
Rick Rosenberg, developer, addressed the Council and noted with the developer associated
costs, the amount does not include internal improvements the developer would fund. He
continued that the deviation for multi -family, the City if the only one in the area to require a
prepayment of multi -family is not standard and would not make the project economical.
Chris Whitworth, real estate for the project, noted the main drive being installed, total costs
being included in the project would be closer to $8 million total, and cost associate with multi-
family.
Gonzalez asked what the options for multi -family were. Whitworth responded that multi-
family is feasible, but if it was removed the project would lose its density. He continued that
this project is competing with NIUDs and to be competitive they need some sort of
reimbursement district. Gonzalez asked for Plan B if multi -family is not possible. Whitworth
responded that one of the options would be condos and the project needs density.
Calixtro asked if it was possible to add more single family. Whitworth responded that it
would not be financially feasible. He continued that this need is not likely specific for this
project but is due to market. Whitworth discussed lots size and the land plan for the project.
Gonzalez asked about the ability to make part of the multi -family section used for commercial
or retail. Whitworth responded that there is an access issue that prevent it being used for
commercial or retail. Gonzalez asked that staff look into access for that area to allow for other
uses. David Morgan, City Manager, responded that the Southwest Bypass was designed to
be used with limited access points. He continued that the way the Bypass looks today is the
first phase and there are future plans.
Mayor Schroeder asked how the one-time initial assessment on multi -family effect the cost of
single-family lots. Rosenberg noted a $6.2 million total assessment with $3.5 million allocated
for multi -family. He noted that changes in the percentages of single-family and multi -family
would lead to changes in funding distributions that could negatively impact funding. Mayor
Schroder asked if there was a way to have different maximum bond maturities for the bonds
for single-family and multi -family. Gipson responded that it could be reviewed and
considered for the financing agreement. Mayor Schroeder asked that staff follow-up.
Talley Williams, with the project, noted the trail piece that would be provided in the project
to connect City trails. Gipson responded that is correct. Whitworth noted that the rendering
shows a straight line, but there is a bluff that will be navigated for trial access.
Pitts asked of the offsite water improvements would benefit others outside the PID. Gipson
responded that the improvements would be connected to the two adjoining commercial lots
on the South end of the property and owned by another entity. Pitts asked about
administrative costs. Gipson replied that administrative cost could also be applied to the
handling of bond issuances. Pitt stated that he likes the PID concept, but he did not like that
the water improvements would benefit other areas even thought they needed to be done. He
continued that if there was a way to have all parties benefitting from the water improvement
pay for it, he would prefer that. Pitts stated that he supported the architectural standards.
Fought noted the issue at hand is if this fits as a PID. He continued that it does, and he
generally supports it. Fought asked that future presentations show visuals of what the
products would look like.
Gonzalez stated that moving forward the City needs to decide about funds up front for multi-
family and how those are handled.
Gipson noted that staff will provide a clear explanation of overall benefit at a future
presentation asked if Council wanted more information about payment up front on multi-
family. Mayor Schroeder asked that staff bring forward more information. Fought stated
that Council needs to review the existing policy related to this a see why it was determined
to operate in its current state.
There were no other comments from Council or citizens.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding the City's Quarterly Financial Report, which includes
the Investment Reports for the City of Georgetown, Georgetown Transportation
Enhancement Corporation (GTEC), and the Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation (GEDCO) for the quarter ending September 30, 2020 -- Nathan Parras, Assistance
Finance Director
Parras presented the item and noted the FY2020 Financial Condition as follows: fourth quarter
report is preliminary and unaudited; all major funds are at or below budgeted expenses;
conservative forecasting has helped mitigate the impact of unforeseen pressures from
COVID-19; and that staff will evaluate overall financial conditions of funds with the City
audit complete in January and staff will look at reserve levels in major funds. He reviewed
the General Fund stating that overall revenue in the General Fund totals $79 million, or 103.6%
of budget and the year to date expenses in the General Fund total $72.12 million, or 93.4% of
budget. Parras stated that the General Fund revenues total $79 million, or 103.6% of budget
and during the Budget process, staff projected revenue to finish at $76 million. He provided
the General Fund Sales Tax and noted that: the sales tax revenue represents 23% of budgeted
revenue; through the fiscal year sales tax revenue totals $19.1 million or 107% of budget; and
staff projected this segment of revenue to finish at $17.9 million, a variance from actuals of
6.5%. Parras provided the following related to General Fund Sales Tax history:
20,000,000 19,108,465
19,000,000
18,000,000
17, 000, 000 16,581, 705
16,000,000
15'UOO,OC}0 14,827,612
14,000,000 13,595,005
13,00U.000
12,000,000
;,00uoo
1 0,000,000
Parras reviewed the Property Tax and noted: property tax represents 20% of the general fund
revenues; through the fiscal year property tax revenue totals $15.1 million or 101.1% of
budget; and property tax was projected to finish at $14.9 million, a variance from actuals of
1%. He noted Development Revenue stating that: development related revenue represents
5% of budget; through the fiscal year development revenue totals $5.5 million or 146% of
budget; and development related revenue was projected to finish at $4.5 million, a variance
from actuals of 21.82%. Parras then provided the number of Residential Building Permits as
follows:
i Ii.ry 1-•- 1.114 f'•I: Mm AP" FS, q• lun I111 A Ii' �. _F
Parras reviewed the Fire/EMS Revenue and noted that: this revenue group represents 9.4% of
the general fund; is comprised of ESD 8 Contract ($3.7 million), EMS transport revenue ($2.6
million), and SAFER & TASPP grants ($806,032); FY2020 finished at $7.4 million, or 103% of
budget; and projected $6.8 million in the Budget process, a variance of 8% with conservative
EMS projections and additional grant revenue. He reviewed the return on investment (ROI)
and noted that: revenue represents 11% of total general fund revenues; is comprised of a
transfer from the Electric, Water, and Stormwater funds; finished FY2020 at $8.5 million, or
105.5% with a cap on Electric ROI; and projected to end FY2020 at $8.1 million, a variance
from actuals of 5.51% due to higher water sales. Parras explained the franchise fees
projections noting that: Franchise Fees represent 8% of the general fund revenues; the City
collects franchise fees on electric, water, cable TV, gas, telephone (land lines), stormwater, and
irrigation; through the fiscal year franchise fee revenue totals $5.8 million or 97.4% of budget;
and it is projected this segment of revenue to finish at $5.9 million, a variance from actuals of
2.61%. He proved the General Fund Park and Rec Fees noting: Park and Rec fees represent
3.7% of the general fund revenues; through the fiscal year parks and rec fee revenue totals
$1.5 million or 55% of budget and corresponding expense reductions were also implemented
due to cancelled programming; and it is projected this segment of revenue to finish at $1.47
million, a variance from actuals of 5%. Parras provided the General Fund Revenues summary
noting: overall, revenues finished within 4.3% of projections, $3.3 higher the projected; the
two largest streams of revenue property tax and sales finished within 4% of projections; and
the development related revenue was 21.82% variance due to continued growth with
significant one-time revenue of $627,736 and an increase in residential permits and
inspections. He reviewed the General Fund expenses noting: expenses total $72.1 million, or
93.4% of budget; projected total expenses to finish at $74.5 million, a variance from actuals of
3.2%; various departments experienced significant savings on expenditures. Some savings
such as equipment are eligible to roll forward into FY2021. Staff is working to identify these
items and will bring them to Council as part of the FY2021 CIP Rollforward; Fire Division -
$581,471 in personnel and operational savings; Recreation Programs - $261,261 in operational
savings due to the impacts of COVID-19 on recreational programs; Public Works and Streets
- $441,738 of operational and capital savings from the impact of COVID-19 with many of these
items are eligible to as part of the FY2021 Roll Forward Amendment; and Police
Administration - $247,207 operational savings from utilities and fuel. He provided the
following visual:
fY2020 PY2020 %OFFY2010 FV2019 FY2019 %a!FY2019
i -il;n1 Actua6 Bud el Budget Actvals Bvd nT YTD variance % Variance
Administrative Services
Personnel Expense
2,190,818
2,106,733
96.2%
1,967,951
2,002,556
101.8%
104,177
5.2%
O rations Expense
739 24
523 515
70.8%
01827
573,246
85.3%
(49,731)
-8,7%
A dministrative Servlc as Total
2,930,742
2,630,249
89.
2,6391778
2,57$.802
97.6%
54,447
2.1%
Community Services and Finance
Personnel Expense
8,859,056
8,041,458
90.8%
7,146,124
6,983,468
97.7%
1,057,990
15.1%
Operelions Expense
5105582
5.038,941
82.5%
5 288 77
4.854,380
93.8%
184,561
3.8%
Community Services and Finance Total
14,964,633
13.0801399
87.4%
12,43SA01
11,837,848
95.2%
I,242,S51
10.5%
Development & Planning
Personnel Expense
2,446,509
2,348,105
96.0%
2,308,625
2,194,687
95.1%
153,417
7.0%
operations Expense
837.719
615,296
73.4-
714,668
412.273
573%
203,022
49.2%
Owala pment&PIanvin Total
31284,229
2,969,400
90,294
3,023,293
2,ti08M
96.2%
156,440
13.7%
Fire Services*
Personnel Expense
16,051,814
15,477,595
96.4°
15,104,380
14,516,204
96.1%
961,391
6.6%
Opera tions Expense
4049,632
3,689.892
91.1°
3,632,363
31572,437
98.4%
117,455
3.3%
Fire SorvlcesTotal
20,1OL446
29,167,497
95.4%
28,736.742
18,988,642
96.5%
1,078,845
6.0%
General Gov't Contracts
Personnel Expense
(1,200,000)
30
0.0%
(1,145,000)
-
0.0%
30
Operalions Expense
4.643 750
4,202,610
90.5%
4,575.401
4 384,232
95.8%
181621)
.4-1%
Genera IGov't Contra ctlTots 1
3,443,750
4.202."0
122.0%
3,450,401
4,384,232
127.0%
18I,592
-4.1%
Public Works and Environmental Services
Personnel Expense
1,888,823
1,536,651
81.4°
1,875,598
1,739,166
92.7%
(202,515)
-11.6%
Opera ticns Expense
11555 13
10,726 734
92.8%
10,275,620
9.772322
95.1%
954,412
9.8%
Public Works and Environmental Services
IS,444,436
12,263,384
91-291
12,152,210
11,511,487
94.7%
751,051
6.5%
Police Services
Personnel Expense
12,733,919
12,528,970
98.4°
12,502,781
12,510,831
100.1%
18,139
0.1%
Operations Expense
3,613,831
3,170,642
87.7
3 657400
3,537,461
96 7%
366,839
-10.4`39
Police UrvicasTota�l
16,347,710
15,699,612
96.0
16,160,182
15,048,312
99.3%
(349,700)
-2.2%
Expanse Total 74,510,960 70,007,172 93.9% 68,57"15 67,053,283 97.8% 2,9S5,987 4.4%
"Fire Services Division includes EMS
Parras then reviewed the following General Fund summary:
Variance
Projected Actuals Fav/(Unfav)
Balance 14,263,750 14,263,750 -
75,675,607 78,928,145 3,252,534
)erases 74,495,624 72
Balance 15,443,733 21,071,239 5,627
Contingency Reserve 11,414,340 11,414,340
Economic Stability
Reserve 1,759,446 1,759,446 -
Benefit Payout Reserve 340,OOd 340,000 -
ilable Fund Balance 1,929,947 7,557,453 5,627,506
Parras provided the General Fund Ending Balance Summary noting excess revenues or
expense savings are one-time sources of available funds; FY2021 budget was adopted with
planned uses of one-time funds; staff will update Council on final available funds in March;
and provided the following visual:
IFinal FY 2020 ending balance
21,071,239
less FY 2021 90 day contingency
12,626,752
less FY 2021 economic stability reserve
1,759,446
less FY 2021 benefit payout reserve
340,000
less FY 2021 budgeted transfer to CSRF
less FY 2021 budgeted use of balance
312,883
less FY 2021 GF Roll Forward Needs
283,729
FY 2021 additional transfer to CSRF
5,748,429
Pitts asked why general government contracts is over budget every year. Parras responded
this is where the City houses its vacancy factor so it always looks a little squirrely.
Parras explained the Electric Fund noting that overall revenue in the Electric Fund totals
$111.5 million, or 116% of budget and year to date expenses in the Electric Fund total $90
million, or 96% of budget. He provided the Electric Fund Operating Revenues noting
operating revenue in the Electric Fund totals $95 million through the fiscal year, or 105% of
budget and 6.8% over projections; Electric sales revenue, the largest component of operating
revenue, totals $86.2 million. 101% of budget and 4 % over projections; developer
contributions total $4.5 million which is $2.5 million more than projected; and other revenues,
which is comprised of penalties, fees, and the utility allocation for shared services, totals $4.5
million. Parras explained the Electric Fund Operating Expenditures noting: operating
expenses in the Electric Fund total $81.5 million through the quarter with budgeted Purchase
power expenses total $59.5 million and net of Purchase Power, Congestion Revenue Rights
(CRRs) and Sale of Renewable Energy Credits* (RECs); actual Purchase Power expenses total
$58.5 million with Purchase Power being $61.54 million, CRR being $1.85 million, and REC
sales* being $1.13 million; and actual purchase power expenses were $951,454 less than
budgeted. He added that the Electric Fund report shows REC sales under non -operating
revenues. Parras provided the Electric Fund Non -Operating Revenues noting non -operating
revenue in the Electric Fund totals $16.4 million through the fiscal year, or 105% of budget
and 7% over projections; proceeds from power transformer sale to LCRA: $9.7 million; and
bond proceeds total $5.1 million. He provided the Electric Fund Non -Operating Expenditures
noting total non -operating expenses total $8.2 million, or 88.61% of budget, CIP expense totals
$4.2 million, or 82.74% of budget with unused bond proceed revenue or CIP budget that may
roll forward; and debt service payment of $3.9 million. Parras provided the Electric Summary
as follows:
Variance
Projected Actuals Fav/(Unfav)
Fund Balance 1 6,614,742 6,614,742
104,826,619 111,547,150 6,720,531
)9 89,697.760 2,851,348
ing Fund Balance 1 18,892,253 28,464,132 9,571,879
Contingency Reserve
4,190,234 4,190,234
INon-Operating Reserve
13,402,019 13,402,019
Reserved Bond Proceeds
1,300,000 3,477.045 2,177 04ti
Available Fund Balance
- 7.394.833 7,394.833
Pitts asked if the developer related revenue was due to increased development or the change
is City policy to collect funds up front. Parras responded that it was due to the policy change.
Pitts asked if staff expected that to flatten out over time. Morgan responded yes. Pitts asked
if there was an element of that related to development increase as well. Morgan responded
yes. Pitts congratulated Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility, oh job
working with the Electric Fun.
Triggs asked what was subtracted from the proceeds of sale of equipment to get to the net
number. Parras noted that accounting had to account for the total assets minus the sale.
Triggs asked if there was debt payout associated with that too. Morgan responded no. Leigh
Wallace, Finance Director, reviewed the bond proceeds and how a portion was kept to pay
off remaining debt.
Parras reviewed the Water Fund noting that overall revenue in the fund totals $98 million, or
115.52% of budget and the year to date expenses in the Water Fund total $64.5 million, or 43%
of budget. He provided the Water Fund Operating Revenues noting: Water operating
revenue totals $88 million, or 116.5% of budget with higher than projected water sales which
has a positive impact on ROI and Franchise Fees in the General Fund; and Capital Recovery
Fees finished FY2020 7.54% higher than budget and 7.95% higher than projected. Parras
added that over the last three fiscal years, the City has seen strong growth in this revenue
stream. He provided the Water Fund Operating Expenditures noting: Water operating
expenses total $45.1 million, or 92.5% of budget; ROI ended FY2020 $815,327, or 24.71% higher
than projections; and additional operations savings in utilities, legal services, and contracts.
Parras explained the Water Fund Non -Operating Revenues noting that non -operating
revenues in the water fund total $10.1 million in FY2020 and non -operating revenues include
bond proceeds which totals $9.37 million and sale of assets which totals $735,404. He
provided the Water Fund Non -Operating Expenditures as follows: non -operating
expenditures total $19.4 million in FY2020; CIP expenditures total $13 million, or 13.54% of
budget with multi -year capital projects; early project expenditures often include preliminary
design work or engineering. Significant construction cost typically comes in the 2nd-3rd year
of a CIP project; and staff will bring the FY2021 Rollforward Amendment to Council in
January. Parras provided the following Water Fund Summary:
Variance
Projected
Actuals
Fav/jUnfav
Beginning Fund Balance
92,139,373
92,139,373
-
Revenues
88,601,436
97,999,621
9,398,185
Expenses
148,794,754
64,458,588
84,336,167
Ending Fund Balance
31,946,055
125,680,406
93,734,351
90 Day Contingency
9,480,045
9,480,045
-
Non -Operational Con,
10,000,000
10,000,000
-
Available Fund Balance
12,466,010
106,200,361
93,734,351
Parras reviewed the Water Fund and CIP noting that the FY2021 Capital Improvement Plan
includes Water and Wastewater Projects totaling $30 million, and staff will bring the FY2021
Rollforward Amendment in January with a list of FY2020 projects that need to be rolled into
FY2021. He noted that the CVB Fund had overall revenue in the fund totaling $1.1 million,
or 76.5% of budget and year to date expenses in the Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund total
$1.0 million, or 69.41% of budget. Parras explained the CVB Fund Revenue and that Hotel
Occupancy Tax total $984,751 through the 4th quarter, or 76% of budget, which exceeds
projections by 9.42%. He noted that the CVB Fund Expenditures have FY2020 expenditures
totaling $1.0 million which is 69.41% of budget, and 76.2% of projections and the fund
experienced operational savings from the cancellation of many tourism related events,
marketing, and travel, as well as the savings from one frozen staff position. Parras then
provided the following CVB Summary:
Projected
Actuals
Variance
Fav/(Unfav)
Beginning Fund Balance
1,551,889
1,551,889
-
Revenues
1,048,608
1,132,443
83,835
Expenses
1.323.580
1.008.276
315.304
ling Fund Balance
1,276,917
1,676,057 399,139
Day Contingency
273,376
273,376 -
,erved for Capital
1,203,635
1,203,635 -
iilable Fund Balance
(200,094)
199,046 399,1391
Parras explained the Airport Fund Operating Revenues noting that the Airport operating
revenue totals $3.34 million which represents 86% of budget and fuel sales are less than
budget. He added that with the depressed price on fuel, the City is selling gas at a lesser rate
than budgeted, however, the cost of the fuel is also below the budgeted amount. Parras stated
that the Airport Fund operating expenses in the Airport fund total $3.08 million, or 77% of
budget and non -operating expenses total $146,562, or 90% of budget. He provided the
following Airport Fund visual:
nning Fund Balance
=es
,nses
niz Fund Balance
Variance
Projected Actuals Fav/(Unfav)
1,259,036 1,259,036 -
3,614,100 3,343,320 (270,780)
089
90 Day Contingency I 256,021
Debt Service Reserve 143,431
231,997 422,092
370,359 151,312
256,021
lable Fund Balance 1 819,595 970,907 151,3
Parras reviewed the City's investment report that shows total cash and investments decreased
for City in 4th quarter for annual debt principal payments and interest rates declined sharply
due to COVID economic conditions. He provided the following:
CITY Book Value
6/30/20 9/30/20
$249,992,313 $240,298,554
.74% .54%
GTEC
6/30/20 9/30/20
$29,222,450 $29,285,179
.52% .17%
GEDCO
6/30/20 9/30/20
$9,347,002 $9,892,111
.55% .47%
Parras reviewed the Unfunded Liabilities List as follows: per fiscal and budgetary policies,
list included in quarterly report to Council and fourth quarter includes addition of all reserves
impacted by FY2020 projections and FY2021 budget during conservative COVID planning for
uncertainty. He noted the following next steps: acceptance of quarterly report on consent
agenda; year-end budget amendment on legislative agenda; third -party independent audit of
financial statements December through February; FY2021 Roll Forward Amendment in
January; and discussion with Council about available one-time fund balances March.
Fought applauded Parras' presentation. There were no additional comments from Council
or the public.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY2020 Year -End Budget Amendment -- Nathan
Parras, Assistance Finance Director
Parras presented the item and reviewed the Budget process noting: during the summer of
2020, staff and Council review revenues and spending, and make projections for how the
fiscal year will end; projections and adjustments continue after the mid -year budget
amendment; and for charter compliance, it is sometimes necessary to authorize
appropriations in a year-end budget amendment. He reviewed the General Debt Service
Fund noting the following: increase expense appropriation by $433,000 for debt payments;
debt payments from other funds pass through this fund; appropriation for payment in this
fund was missed by mistake; revenue was always available, and payments were made on
time; and staff updated check list to prevent future miss. Parras reviewed the Conservation
Fund noting that: due to the economic conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, Council
authorized staff in May 2020 to offer a utility bill relief program; Electric fund's expenses for
bill relief are to be reimbursed by the Conservation fund; and increase Conservation fund
transfers out to Electric by $4,200. He stated that the Court Security Fund: during the
transition from the old financial software system to the new system, accounting practices were
updated; previously, court collections contract revenues were posted as credits against
expense; currently, since go live at mid -year, revenue posts as revenue and expense posts as
expense; and a clean-up item to appropriate the contract expense of $15,000, no negative
impact to fund. Parras reviewed the Information Technology (IT) Fund and stated: to
improve financial conditions in the Electric fund, staff are executing a multi -year plan for the
Information Technology fund to buy the fiber infrastructure asset from Electric; the fiber
serves facilities and network connections citywide; increase appropriation in the IT Fund by
$600,000 to buy a segment in FY2020; and the IT fund allocation revenue charges will need to
be increased in the future to restore the capital equipment reserve. He reviewed the Electric
Fund and acknowledged new revenue from, noted a Conservation transfer in for utility bill
relief program $4,000, and the IT Fund purchase of fiber asset $600,000. Parras then reviewed
the next steps as follows: action item on tonight's agenda to approve 2020 year-end
amendment on first reading; second reading on January 12, 2021 when accounting can then
officially close the books and start the audit for 2020; and the first budget amendment of FY
2021, in January 2021 to roll forward large capital projects that span multiple years and
approve adjustments for operating expenses not known during FY2021 budget development
this past summer.
Pitts asked if the General Debt Service line item is in the budget book every year or only listed
when it has an associated amount. Wallace responded by explaining where the funds were
located in the documentation. She noted that staff has made a change to make sure this isn't
missed in the future. Pitts asked if it was in the budget workbook. Morgan responded that it
is easy to not notice the amount based on where things are located. Parras also noted the
Workday financial system and the associated cleanup.
Gonzalez thanked Parras for the budget efforts.
There were no other comments or questions from Council or the public.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding the update to the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines -- Britin Bostick, Downtown and Historic Planner and Nat Waggoner, Long Range
Planning Manager
Bostick presented the item and provided the presentation agenda and noted the requested
feedback from Council as, "Are there other stakeholders or topics that need to be included as
part of the update to the Design Guidelines?" She then provided a map of the Historic
Overlay Districts as follows:
,. Dovmlewq - ..
n,h•..' A OVetley n•• •.
tl MUM, , '
F'iielori[
it
OW Town i
r Dislrlc!
iwuti•u ....• " j
♦ 1' W::: Lil..i. n�i' ,3
w UUWERSt,Yn•/E
3.
� e
'A
Gic7luwricnvnf
HISTORIC OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
Legend
Q o—o+en.yo—,
O atl Tacna de y-Ad
9ar.�d RFr•
Ctl
Bostick reviewed the Council direction from 2019 and that there were Council directed topic
updates on the following: commercial infill; residential infill (new review requirement);
demolition/relocation; in -kind materials; and signage. She then provided the project schedule
as follows: Phase 1 in October with field work and November showing "here's what you
have" via an Analysis of Neighborhoods; Phase 2 in December with presenting and
confirming direction and January through March showing "here's what you love" via
developing design guidelines; and Phase 3 in April with a presentation of the draft and
refinement and in May showing "here's how you protect that in the future" via a completed
document. Bostick reviewed the completed public engagement as follows: focus groups;
Tuesday Talks webinars; project webpage; HARC Meeting on October 22, 2020; Main Street
Advisory Board Meeting on November 13, 2020; Main Street Breakfast Bites Meeting on
December 3, 2020; and an information video posted to social media and website on December
8, 2020. She then noted the initial insights and what staff has heard via the following
illustration:
rirr11011•e,llII i-bvr lerlr1'1lap
L�il�rr��rr.lr [!urlJJcrrbilit)lIk,irrflil,
011r rr}1111'r11r11i11t values I h r StiIwrrr
Grmllr l-liur•r'IIII•ill Hisfor'ic (,lrr nil
��� learc�riral rlllrrrllrllr�r ,,.
"George tolurt's Fro II r Porch
1;owl i11lLs11ruirrrl.% Don t paint the limeslow
Trees
t nrr11xrN1,lr�eu1l11rurrr. Good Clesigil ` inlings
Balaiwe groiot 1 &, doivlop111ew
c.rr„r,,);l'� Architecturo.l detailsi.
IRIVS lvswrrrl,plirnlur,I piocr's.N
Bostick noted the focus groups as follows: property and business owners; developers; design
professionals; contractors; non -profits; and City boards and commissions. She noted that the
topic updates include commercial infill and residential infill, which is a new review
requirement; demolition/relocation; in -kind materials; and signage. Bostick then re -stated the
question to Council of, "Are there other stakeholders or topics that need to be included as
part of the update to the Design Guidelines?"
Pitts asked if this was cleanup and to assist with parts of the policy that conflict with each
other. Bostick responded yes and that the guidelines have not been updated in eight years.
She added that staff is looking at this as and audit and edit to help make the document more
user friendly. Pitts asked about the stakeholder groups and if staff would consider reaching
out to applicants that have recently gone through the process. He also supported Bostick's
input to speak up on issues she sees.
Mayor Schroder suggested that staff get input from Sun City. Fought noted the need of
handicap accessibility of sidewalks around downtown, and if there is a way to include, he
would like for staff to do so. Bostick noted that the community as a whole cares for downtown
and she enjoys her work.
Triggs stated that he seconds what Fought says and hears the same thing. He continued that
better transportation to get to downtown is also needed.
Bostick reviewed the next steps as follows: Virtual Open House on December 16, 2020 at
3:OOpm at historic.georgetown.org; Online Survey from December 16-23, 2020
at historic. georgetown.org; Main Street Breakfast Bites Program in March 2021; Virtual/In-
Person Open House in April 2021; Annual Historic Preservation Month Letter in May 2021;
and the document presented to City Council in June 2021. Bostick provided a thank you to
the focus group, City staff, CMO, Economic Development, Communications & Public
Engagement, Facilities, Library, Arts and Culture, Visitor and Tourism, and Planning. She
noted that for more information people can reach out to staff in the following ways: visiting
www.historic.ge.orgetown.org, emailing historic@) eorgetowrz.or$,, and calling (512) 930-3581.
There were no additional comments from Council or the public.
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
- PEC Franchise
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Berry Creek Interceptor 1-3, Parcels 4 and 9-15 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services
Manager
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Competitive Matters -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Attorney Check -in
Mayor Schroeder recessed into Executive Session at 4:41 p.m. noting that Executive Session will
start at 4:55 p.m.
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on _
JOt,V-vL&l2
Date
j7A
Attest: Ci Secretary