HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.12.2021 CC-WNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 2:00 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 2:00 p.m. The following Council Members were
in attendance: Mayor Josh Schroeder; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Shawn Hood,
Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council
Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member
District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District 7. All Council Members were present
via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 2:00 PM
A. Presentation and update regarding an assessment conducted by Gartner to evaluate business
processes and gaps in the Customer Information System (CIS), and Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) and Meter Data Management (MDM) systems -- Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
Brewer introduced the item and noted the technology and changes affecting the Utility over
the last 10 years as follows: 2009 — 2013 Automated Meter Reading (AMR) Replacement
Project; 2009 Financial Information & Customer Information System Replacement which is
not completed; 2009 — 2014 Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Software; 2014 — 2019
acquisition/merger of Chisolm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD); and 2015 — 2018
Customer Information System (CIS) Replacement Project. She then provided the cost for the
projects as follows:
Project Cost
AMR Replacement Project
$10,000,000
CIS/Financial Upgrade Project
$500,000 '"Not Completed
Meter Data Management (MDM)
$300,000
Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) $1,400,000
Software
Customer Information System (CIS) $4,072,737
Replacement Project
Brewer reviewed the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and noted: complex system,
lack of internal technical knowledge, and difficulty in scaling staff resources to support a
system with a high level of support demand lead to errors after software fixes and updates
affecting billing and seamless continuity; reporting on system data is difficult and requires
specialized skill sets to create reports, impacting operational and strategic business review;
system maintenance costs were higher than estimated in original implementation; and
opportunity for major upgrade to system effective in 2023. She noted the past Council/GGAF
direction stated that in August of 2020 Council and GGAF authorized funding of $210,000 to
consult with outside experts to: evaluate current MDM and CIS system to determine cost of
ownership (staffing and financial), risk levels, expectations for the system, operating models
of Customer Care and IT, and system's functional scope; determine whether these systems
are still appropriate and utilizing the analysis to drive future strategic decisions around the
meter -to -cash technology ecosystem; and utilize the study for future strategic decisions
regarding the MDM and CIS systems. Brewer then turned the presentation over to Gartner
Consulting to provide the results from the study.
Craig Rintoul with Gartner presented the engagement background and objectives and noted
the components that are covered in the full report as follows: assessment of systems which
includes the customer information system (CIS), advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and
meter data management (MDM); commentary and insights into the advanced meter reading
system (AMR) and the asset/work management system (Infor); recommendations for the
CIS/AMI/AMR/MDM Systems; and prioritization and roadmap for the CIS/AMI/AMR/MDM
systems recommendations. He provided the project background noting: the CIS system that
the City has implemented was based on a prior Utility Strategy that was originally developed
in 2012 and updated in 2016; the Utility Strategy was influenced by the strong electric power
market that aligned to a set of goals for the City that are no longer achievable, such as
expanding its jurisdiction, customer base and associated revenues; the City's service territory
includes Georgetown itself, plus the rural Western District, which significantly increases the
geographic size, and the City is currently supported by Electric and Water AMI meters that
support two-way communication and can provide usage data on an interval basis; and the
City services the Western District (WD) for water only, and this area is running AMR meters
and its usage readings are collected once a month by drive -by. Rintoul then provided the
objectives as follows: to evaluate the CIS business processes against the current key utility
systems, and to identify gaps or areas of opportunity and explore alternative options to
improve the City's utility operations and supporting technologies. He noted that Gartner
utilized its proven IT assessment approach to assess the City systems' current state. Ritoul
continued that Gartner's approach to assess the CIS and analyze the MDM/AMI systems
involved the employment of various data gathering methods, analysis frameworks and
current research and benchmarking tools including: IT assessment activities of interviews and
discovery where interviews provided insights into the current state of systems and
applications at the City, gaps, desired capabilities and outcomes; document review where
documents and procedures review provided examples of current status of contracts,
architecture, financials and other key data points; Gartner Research that provided current
industry trends and information for benchmarking vendors against peers; Business
Capability Model that allowed Gartner to map key activities performed by the City and
mapped risks; and findings and validation where the presentation of the inputs and findings
from the CIS assessment and AMI/MDM analysis to the City to validate findings and finalize
raslrn
the inputs to the roadmap. He stated that the City's CIS/AMI/MDM solutions were assessed
against the nine (9) dimensions of Gartner's Solution Fitness Assessment Framework as
follows:
Bustlao" Fit
Degree m w tvi the appllcatlarss or products supports the Clly's
C�<
bustness capabllilies or processes from a user perspective
Information
How accurate, secure and timely information provided bylhe
Quality
applications or products are?
Future Potential
will the application support future known City (orindustry)
m
qulrements?
Reliance on U1119
To what degree is there a rellance on a Waited number of subject
L
matter experts?
R
Maint■Inabillty
How easy Is It to run and upgrade the applications or products?
"
How much effort Is required to Integrate applcatlons together?
Vendor Support
How well do the vendors support the City and are they investing In
their products for the future?
Architectural
Degree In which the technology stack is aigned to the City's
��
Allgmment
standards
Stability and
Security
Hale reliable and secure are the applications and products?
Gartner Source: G00373556 Financial what does it cost to operate the applications and products and are
they reasonable?
REfTRCTF6 FIIf 1r0BInI0N 7 Gartner.
O)O20CUNr Ilc u.Y]IId TV1u 41�IphN raLrrnC
Julio Zambrano, with Gartner then noted the key findings based on discovery and assessment
activities, Gartner identified common issues across the CIS/AMI/MDM systems which are
addressed in the recommendations as follows: 1) Solution Architecture Based on Prior
Growth Strategy where the current systems and solution architecture are based on previous
vision for the City which has since changed, and the City is now operating within a different
environment; 2) Integration Inefficiencies where integrations between systems often don't
exist or are inefficient leading to duplicate effort, manual processes and potentially unreliable
data; 3) Process Inefficiencies where processes are impacted by the complexity of the systems
and are not standardized across different departments leading to inefficient workflows; 4)
Inadequate Training and Change Management where training on new systems and change
management on systems and processes not fully implemented leading to knowledge gap
between system functionality and the City organization; and 5) System Functionality
Redundancies where various functions are managed in multiple systems or can be
consolidated into a single system leading to duplicate effort and increasing the risk of
integration complications. He then reviewed the specific concerns with the CIS system that
were found in discovery and noted: the system is not right sized for the City and is more
complex than anticipated because the CIS system was scoped based on a larger city model to
support a prior vision that is no longer the goal, and this more complex environment makes
simple configurations changes difficult to make or manage in-house; misalignment of roles
and responsibilities and resource constraint, where the transition from GUS to the current
operating model has changed how CIS support is managed, and for example, there was a gap
in business knowledge that was causing misinterpretation and impacting prioritization of
user needs that is being filled on an interim basis, diverting the FTE from typical duties;
reporting is difficult because data within UMAX is stored in data cubes and has to be highly
manipulated to generate a report, this is done using different tools creating inefficiency in
reporting; associated resources/costs required to maintain the system are higher where, due
to the size and complexity of the system, more infrastructure and staff time and therefore
budget is required to operate the system than anticipated (e.g., managed services contract and
staff spending time managing quarterly releases; insufficient investment adjusting business
processes and conducting training where business processes have not fully evolved from
those used under the previous system's operating environment and not enough training have
been provided on the new CIS system; and despite perceptions otherwise, the system is in a
stable state where the number of tickets has reduced steadily over time and the system is
relatively stable, and the complexity is primarily driven from size, lack of system automation
(test/env), inefficient integration, organizational/resource issues or a lack of system
knowledge.
Triggs asked if some of the issues where when GUS was one department or now. Rinoult
responded that these are current issues.
Zambrano explained that the discovery process also revealed specific gaps and concerns with
the AMI/AMR/MDM system as follows: the Western District is seeing the highest population
growth, but the AMR solutions are end of life and don't provide the features we get with
AMI; managing meter related work in Infor makes things more difficult, without adding any
benefit; MDM is a significant integration point between AMR/AMI/CIS, has billing rules built
in and provides useful functionality such as the ability to directly review customer usage and
could do much more; the City has limited internal resources to support and develop the
solutions, leaving us reliant on our vendors; and the City has complex integrations, yet
keeping data between systems synchronized is a major challenge and a cause of process
failures. He stated that overall, Gartner distilled specific system findings for the CIS, AMI
and MDM systems into key findings for each system. Zambrano provided the following key
system findings noting that the City wants to provide services in the most cost-effective way
and therefor needs to determine the most cost-efficient use of future capital and operating
spend: for CIS, the system is stable but costly and complex for a utility of the City's size. This
complexity requires a high level of infrastructure to support it and makes the system difficult
to maintain without vendor intervention, which drives up costs, and the CIS system must be
upgraded or replaced by October of 2023; for MDM, the system is an intricate part of the
overall architecture with business rules built into it and a key part of current integrations,
however, the vendor has previously not supported direct access to the City data and response
time to data requests is too long to be effective; can take months to get a response; and for
AMI, the system is fit for purpose and doing what is required of it, and the City AMI does not
have a historian functionality and therefore a separate MDM system is still required to
support future use cases that require historic data (e.g., water loss trend analysis). Rintoul
clarified some technical terms.
Gary Thomas with Gartner, then provided the recommendations noting that a list of
initiatives was developed based on key findings and are categorized according to the impact
segment they will have at the City. He then provided the initiatives classification categories
as follows: strategic initiatives are initiatives to support and clearly define the City's vision
and strategy for the future of the utilities, and these initiatives also serve as the foundation
for the successful implementation of mid to long-term initiatives; business initiatives are
initiatives that were identified across business units, and implementing them will enable the
business to better meet strategic goals, support growth, provide better customer care,
standardize processes, and improve productivity; technology initiatives are initiatives that
comprise the future technology solutions or direction, and these initiatives, if implemented,
will ensure alignment to the City's vision, support customer care operations and provide the
functionality desired of the systems; and each initiative has been plotted onto a roadmap
based on duration (found in the appendix) broken down by short-term (3 — 6 months), mid-
term (6 —12 months), and long term projects (12 months +) with the execution of these projects
dependent on upon availability of resource and funding. Thomas then provided key
initiatives to support the City's vision (AMI/MDM/CIS) as follows: strategic initiatives* of 1)
reimplement the CIS (enhancement or data new RFP), 2) implement AMI in the Western
District OR 3) AMR meter/module replacement in the Western District; business initiatives*
of 5) enhance hydraulic model to use MDM data 6) develop a data and analytics strategy, 9)
simplify the meter management processes, 10) enable CRM functionality in the CIS, 11)
greater leverage of MDM capabilities, and 12) gradually reduce Itineris managed services
support; and technology initiatives* of 4) enhance water loss analytics to monitor daily water
loss and identify issues sooner; 7) enable automated testing, and identify, procure and
implement a new Enterprise Integration Platform. He noted that the numbering of key
initiatives indicates prioritization, however, many initiatives can be done concurrently.
Thomas provided quick wins to support the City's vision (AMI/MDM/CIS), noting that quick
wins represent initiatives that can be done in the short-term, for the most part are low in
implementation complexity, require a lower amount of resources than key initiatives and
offer quick business value through process improvements or added functionalities. He
continued that quick wins can lay the foundation to support medium and long-term key
initiatives and provided the following: for strategic initiatives, develop a Western District
Strategy Plan and business case (which is required before implementing key initiatives 2 or
3), and review previous utility strategies; for business initiatives, enhance reporting
capabilities, address functional knowledge gaps, align CIS roles and responsibilities, manage
installation of water meters in-house, and identify an AMI management resource; and for
technology initiatives, enhance remote area connectivity, enable direct reporting from
ElectSolve, UMAX configuration replication, enhance databases and Enterprise Integration
Platform expertise, and investigate effort to streamline metering and billing exceptions.
Thomas stated that from the list of recommendations, making a decision on how the City will
move forward regarding the CIS is of critical importance due to its impact on other initiatives
in the roadmap:
CIS Decision Tree
■fillrRlshw! Comphmt soludon but
aost4nWIl riertdss parnst COM-OpTlmised,
Coerpllne eoltnlon
Assumpllon 1: Mew vow% vrdet hlnet IohelIIy wilI be mlytaled from tnfor to
C$S In all rulura scenarlos
BESMETEa USTROUTNIN
17 Cma3C—h nh asak,i'-YIrphi" a Assumpllon2-, Motor volumeswill rwrtainthoume,ofcommorclel
wrenp/merfls VdII jillow mduction should the Western OkIticI be tllve/ho
To slat to - 21 taontln before
U= support ands in 1012023
To *an 12 - 10 womhe before
UAW e11'/ert rmfs M 1G7M
Gartner
Thomas noted that likewise, a decision on how the City will proceed with the Western District
must be made before other initiatives downstream can be implemented:
Western District Strategy AMPJAI M Decision Tree
Carrrnur nrr 0.UR No longer the City'. Issue
m thhenen handorc m mw otsos mlttadoa is twmpkm
rJ�
c@I m!""
YYBe16MU)WW
Y—
c47 fiv Bvwor
412" m oxr iaaet
to t1Nreef AM?
rYeYeYRlsRiiy
BESTBKTEa DISTTBBUTNIN
IS 029,x w�. ra auto er etssta q+w"gmrnsr
{i0ldrue IO tun IxAli
Af1N Tern oonhn- 1v ar
sun W rse 0 by the vendor, but
mi[C
n ItRsttt nLYst[M
esoduler, eta nwd b. be
No
a0drrssrd_ 11-1U.
or AN Won't be reaiksrd
Yes pt to Ce11PMW
Rile a sktpre—dorvy
Under WA60
meet am of the city'. nwds
epl
Waarbttfy AN rI h—il fere[M
to that already deployed
Not time botnd
A!lltfor-P R:I4y01fsiaCO1V/
Is f!1•lvr.put poseLa as ItM1M and
Issues with AMR rnalntennrlce is
Gartner.
Thomas stated that in addition to the CIS and Western District initiatives that must be
prioritized, Gartner has identified seven (7) other initiatives to prioritize based on their impact
to the City as follows:
Recommendation
Impact ► Rationale
Thomas provided a high-level cost estimate for all initiatives is presented to help the City plan
ahead as follows:
Initiative
Estimated Cost
0
CIS rleimtplernentation
$1,2M to $2,41A
0
Implement AM In the Westem District
TBC *
0
Replace Westam District AMR metershnodules
TBC
0
Enhance wa ter loss analyttcs
$5OK to $25OK
0
Enhance hydraulic model
$5OK to $25OK
0
Develop a data and analytics strategy
$15OK 14 $25OK
0
Enable automated testing
$5OK to $15OK
0
Enterprise Integration Plagatm as a service
$100K la $20OK
0
Simplify the meter management process
$5OK to $25OK
G
Enable CRM h=tlonaliy in the CIS
$5OK to $25OK
Greaterleverage of MDM
$5OK to $25OK
GGradually
reduce INdnerls managed services support
$0
0
Quick 1Athn Initiatives
$5O0K
RE STRUED rASTFUUMN ` TBC, Costs need to lie validated through an RFR
'�! ��1.]�.aArr.s'IC ar.:'ailsanti.R 'aingilsrs�rd
will he "High„ range APAI in City Piwas — 510M
hirdlult.
Thomas also noted that the City of Georgetown approved its FY 2021 budget on 22 September
2020 totaling $396 million including: the City's 2021 budget comes in 10% lower than FY
2020's budget; the City is taking a conservative position on budgeting to account for the
impacts of COVID and may further impact FY 2022 budgeting; the water utility has been
allocated $28 million for capital projects; the wastewater utility has been allocated $2.7 million
for capital projects; and the electric utility has been allocated $5.6 million for capital projects,
$2.5 million of which is for customer growth while the remainder is for ongoing system
maintenance. He continued that the City will also require the addition of full-time resources
to fully address operational and knowledge gaps, and that the recommended initiatives had
identified an estimated need for a total of 4 additional full-time positions to fully support City
operations: the initiative to enhance database and middleware management expertise is
estimated to require the addition of one full-time employee; the initiative to enhance reporting
capabilities is estimated to require the addition of one full-time employee to support reporting
and manage reporting tools; the initiative to align CIS roles and responsibilities to ensure that
there is a resource that understands both the business processes and CIS functionality is
estimated to require the addition of one full-time employee, and this is most critical resource
gap; and the initiative to identify an AMI management resource that will be responsible for
holistic management of the AMI system is estimated to require one full-time employee.
Brewer completed the presentation and identified initiatives, classified by business value and
complexity, identify the prioritization needed to meet COG's operational requirements as
follows:
r PIvaI..Itl
Enahle EWM Im�Wm.nt.
Iuu,laMM1. . oP
In q5
4..U...Ii.w
n.411m.
Lnpi1F Ih.
m..w
m.r w.r..
Many initiatives are high in
.tl1.1 urE anle
business value and low in
complexity, fre.ating multiple
opportunities for quick
improvements and hFnefits
W IP
IV,
ngrdlwl l
0
0
0
0 Business Value
51Wn-T,.En
Mid-U m
tnq�T�mE
7tY
k"Pl W
AMI If. the
YNellefn
Et+:l1[T
WeNlah,leal
the 0s
fnHle Y 1An
Irf AnM.W.
AMA
Ir.,le.R�r�r.+r
rea.rm!.n Ir.
W!+
A4,*—
.WA I..I. W—A,4ce — —
MPM tl . Wy -
P.wYP.
0.1. wd
An.Mlu
4hd.e.
EM.V
eulamme,t
te.iiy
e W �IM�R
Brewer noted the next steps for the Short -Term High Value Tasks/Work Plan as follows: for
visioning, reestablish goals for utility technology and formalize Western District Strategy for
technology (45-60 days) with a first meeting December 2 and next meeting in February,
facilitation by Organizational and Operational Excellence team, and separate Electric and
Water sessions to focus on specific needs from support teams; to enhance Middleware (60
GI[litC
r
days), provides integration between the operating systems, and is being reviewed and
improved through staff; MDM and Outage Management Enhancements including reporting
(90 days); evaluate 365 product upgrade/Itineris (120 days), scope of work and task order to
evaluate completed, and informs decision tree to upgrade/reimplement Itineris or procure
new product; to enhance reporting (60 days/ongoing), utilize staff resources to complete
reports for utility forecasts and other needed reports; for in-house water meter installation
(240 days), develop business case with resources/costs, benefits and process map; and for
Itineris/UMAX support roles and responsibilities clarification (30 days), before hiring
additional resource, clarify roles of all, planned facilitation by independent team, and have a
hire date of mid -year.
Pitts asked if the outage management was for all utilities. Brewer responded yes; it is. Pitts
noted the recent snowstorm and noted citizen concern related to getting through to Customer
Care. He asked if better reporting of outages was planned. Brewer responded that it is. Pitts
stated that staff did a great job with the recent snowstorm response.
Mayor Schroeder thanked staff. David Morgan, City Manager responded that staff will be
reporting back to Council when different milestones are met.
There were no more comments from either Council or citizens.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding a potential Mobility Bond targeting the May 2021
election date -- Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager and Jake Gutekunst,
Kimley-Horn
Weber introduced the item and introduced Ercel Brashear with the Mobility Bond Committee.
Brashear noted the hard work of the committee on the item and the product presented to the
Council by the Committee. Chere Heintzmann, also with the Mobility Bond Committee
echoed the comments of Brashear. Mayor Schroeder thanked committee members and staff
for their hard work.
Weber provided a presentation overview and the background of the project as follows: May
2020 Council Workshop where Council directed staff to implement a bond program targeting
the May 2021 election; July 14 Council Meeting where Council approved the membership of
the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee; and the September 8 Council
Workshop where Council provided direction to Citizen Committee to target a 5-year, $50
million bond. She then noted the following regarding the citizen committee: on August 24
the first meeting of the Mobility Georgetown Citizen Advisory Committee; September -
October was the ranking/prioritization and initial recommendations developed; November -
December was the second round of public engagement activities to receive feedback about
the proposed bond projects; in December the Committee developed final recommendations;
and in January the approved project recommendations to present to Council. Weber
reviewed the Public Engagement Summary noting that there were public engagement
opportunities: before election is called with the first phase being July 15 - August 15, a Virtual
Town Hall on November 16, the second phase being November 16 - December 7, and public
education will also happen after election is called in February 2021. She then reviewed the
projects considered in Phase 2 engagement as follows: Austin Avenue Bridges, D.B. Wood
Road, Leander Road, NE Inner Loop, SE Inner Loop, SH 29 East, Shell Road, Southwestern
Blvd., Williams Drive Central, and Williams Drive West. Weber explained the phase two
engagement results noting: 4,500 Visits to Project Website from 1,500 unique visitors; 231 total
responses via both the Interactive Map and Alternative Survey;181 project -related comments;
50 "Other" comments not related to projects; and 165,000 estimated reach through social
media, advertising, website. She then provided the following breakdown:
Project Support
sm
73% 74
58%
40%
20%
0% -
b�yq �Qb `46 QaQ qQ4 �a� QQ..6 t�8 `o� eye
op
y`cP�c, a 10-1
����o y�`�r �•
Jake Gutekunst with Kimley-Horn then presented, and he started by reviewing the committee
recommended projects. He noted the project types as follows; roadway projects, generally
lane additions with some exceptions; based on Overall Transportation Plan cross sections;
include building sidewalks on both sides of roadway with exceptions noted; sidewalk —
priority 2 projects from Sidewalk Plan; Bicycle Facilities that are high Priority projects from
Bike Master Plan; intersections identified based on data; and transportation technology with
signal equipment upgrades and enhancements for coordination of signals on corridors.
Gutekunst then provided the criteria to evaluate and rank projects as follows: crash data;
current traffic volume; existing roadway capacity; roadway existing level of service with
volume to capacity ratio; projected traffic volume; future/expected development; estimated
construction time; estimated cost; 2015 Bond Committee recommendations; Bike and
Sidewalk Master Plans; and subjective considerations. He noted that the citizen advisory
committee approved a recommendation on January 4, 2021: to present the rankings of the
projects, allocations, and associated costs to Council with a statement that the need for
transportation projects in Georgetown far exceeds the targeted $50 million; and they are
concerned that a single project [SE Inner Loop] plus allocations will consume all the targeted
amount, potentially to the exclusion of other important projects. Gutekunst then provided
the Committee project ranking summary:
#1 i51 #2141 #3 l31 #4121 #5111 Total Rank
SE Inner Loop
M
10
24
9
0
2
45
1
Shell Rd (1)
C
20
8
6
8
0
42
2
Williams Dr (1)
E
25
8
3
4
0
40
3
DB Wood Rd
A
10
12
6
4
1
33
4
Leander Rd
R
10
4
6
2
4
26
S
SH 29 East (1)
Q-1
0
0
9
2
1 3
14
6
NE inner Loop (1)
1-1
0
4
3
4
2
13
7
Austin Ave Bridges
P
5
0
3
4
1
13
8
Williams Dr 2l
B
0
4
0
2
1
7
9
Southwestern Blvd
L
0
0
0
0
2
2
10
Cost Cumulative
$ 42,116,000 $ 42,116,000
$ 14,234,000 $ 56,350,000
$ 10,188,000 $ 66,538,000
$ 19,028,000 $ 85,566,000
$ 7,743,000 $ 93,309,000
$ 22,380,000 $ 115,689,000
$ 18,094,000 $ 133,783,000
$ 11,484,000 $ 145,267,000
$ 8,590,000 $ 153,857,000
$ 11,496,000 $ 165,353,000
Gutekunst provided the Committee allocation recommendations noting that in addition to
the Top 10 projects listed, allocations are proposed to be included in the bond package for the
standalone projects for sidewalks, bicycle facilities, intersections, and transportation
technology in the following amounts: $2.5 million for sidewalks; $1.5 million for bicycle
facilities; $1.7 million for intersections; $1.3 million for transportation technology; for a total
recommended allocations of $7 million. He then reviewed the project in order of committee
recommendation as follows:
1) SE Inner Loop at a cost of $42.1 million within the limits of FM 1460 to University Ave;
this project consists of widening SE Inner Loop to a 4-lane Minor Arterial with bike
lanes and sidewalks; and the Committee justification: SE Inner Loop is at capacity
today and forecasted high growth area, and this project will also help with the need
for pedestrian & bike connections.
2) Shell Road South at a cost of $14.2 million within the limits of Williams Dr to North of
Sycamore; this project consists of widening Shell Rd to a 4-lane divided Major Arterial
with open ditch drainage and sidewalks; Committee justification: Shell Road was
under consideration in the 2015 bond and is experiencing rapid growth and is near
capacity today, and this project has high public support and will help serve existing
residents and planned development along the northern end of this corridor.
3) Williams Drive Central at a cost of $10.2 million within the limits of DB Wood Rd to
Interstate 35; this project consists of installing a median with left turn lanes and
repairing and filling in sidewalk gaps; Committee justification: this is the most
congested arterial in the city and needs resources to implement past planning work
and the federally funded upcoming access management study, and the median and
turn lanes will improve both safety and flow, while also filling in and repairing critical
sidewalk gaps.
4) DB Wood at a cost of $19 million within the limits of Williams Dr to Oakridge Rd; this
project widens D.B. Wood Rd to a 4-lane Major Arterial with a shared -use path for
bikes and pedestrians on one side of the street; Committee justification: this project
will build upon the active 2015 bond project to widen DB Wood to the south from SH
29 to Oakridge Dr and complement the Shell Road project to build the western "loop"
for Georgetown by building to 4 lanes.
5) Leander Rd/RM 2243 at a cost of $7.7 million within the limits of SW Bypass to
Norwood Dr; this project consists of widening Leander Rd to a 4-lane divided Major
Arterial with open ditch drainage and sidewalks; Committee justification: this project
was a priority that lost funding from CAMPO, and inclusion would help move
forward with already underway plans and build upon active right-of-way acquisition
to get the project finished and 4 lanes to the Southwest Bypass loop.
6) NE Inner Loop at a cost of $18.1 million within the limits of IH-35 to FM 971; this
project consists of widening NE Inner Loop to a 4-lane divided Major Arterial with a
median, on -street bike lanes, and sidewalks; Committee justification: this project
would serve a heavy commercial and industrial growth zone in the City and help
build the northeastern portion of the "loop" to 4 lanes.
7) SH 29 East at a cost of $22.4 million within the limits of Haven Ln to Inner Loop; this
project consists of widening SH 29 to a 4-lane divided Major Arterial with a median,
on -street bike lanes, and sidewalks; committee justification: this is a bottleneck for the
east side of Georgetown and would also help with bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
from Southwestern University to Inner Loop.
8) Austin Avenue Bridges at a cost of $11.5 million within the limits of Second St to
Morrow St; this project consists of rehabilitating the bridges on Austin Ave and
constructing a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge; Committee justification: this project
builds upon ongoing design work and funds construction of the project. It is a primary
gateway into downtown.
9) Williams Drive West at a cost of $8.6 million within the limits of Jim Hogg Ln to DB
Wood Rd; this project consists of installing a median with left turn lanes and repairing
and filling in sidewalk gaps; Committee justification: this project will help with safety
issues from the center turn lane and extend sidewalk connectivity out to Sun City
along Williams Drive.
10) Southwestern Blvd at a cost of $11.5 million within the limits of University Ave to
Raintree Dr; this project consists of widening Southwestern Blvd to a 4-lane Minor
Arterial with a median, on -street bike lanes, and sidewalks; Committee justification:
this project builds upon the active project to widen to 4 lanes from Raintree to Inner
Loop and improves pedestrian connectivity across a floodplain.
Gutekunst noted that the Committee recommended the following: Sidewalk Projects equal
$2.5 million in allocation; Bicycle Projects equal $1.5 million in allocation; Intersection Project
equal $1.7 million in allocation; and Transportation Technology equals $1.3 million. He then
reviewed possible partnership project projects as follows: SH 29 (Project X) which could be a
TxDOT and GTEC potential project with a total estimated cost of $100 Million (preliminary)
with the City contribution being to intend to ask GTEC to fund City's portion of project within
the limits of Wolf Ranch Pkwy to HEB signal and would include a six lane section with
additional turn lanes and interchange improvements at I-35; SE Inner Loop Ext (Project Y)
Williamson County 2019 Bond Project which would have a total estimated cost of $22.5
million (preliminary) with a City contribution of $4 million (preliminary) within the limits of
Patriots Way to SH 29 and would include a two lane section with improved shoulders;
Westinghouse Road (Project Z) Williamson County 2019 Bond Project which would have a
total estimated cost of $20.2 million (preliminary) with a City contribution of $8.2 million
(preliminary) within the limits of Patriots Way to SH 29 and would include a full
reconstruction to two lane section with improved shoulders and remove 90 degree turns; and
Rockride Lane (Project N) which would have a cost of $5.8 million within the limits of SE
Inner Loop to Sam Houston Ave and include widening to three lane section with sidewalk on
both sides of roadway.
Weber resumed the presentation and then reviewed the tax rate capacity noting the Five -Year
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Planning Process as follows: look at debt retirement
schedule and assumed average annual growth rate; allows for approximately $18 million
annually in debt over the next five years; current Five -Year CIP includes transportation,
public safety, fleet, and parks projects; and could be redirected to support future bond efforts.
She then provided the Five -Year value increase:
Assessed Value
10, Y.;,N4L1GU
9.1no,on; mo
e, [�u..CC 3,Uril
?,ma �cn.mo
6 Nq Una N ,
"W' UN,Ox.
,,ox,,ric.oul
12.1%
F-11? =5"1J: E' Fed:N .QND i'2M
Weber explained the tax rate capacity including that debt modeling for proposed Mobility
Georgetown 2021 Bond is: modeling is on top of existing CIP plan; growth between 3-7
percent assumed average annual growth rate; tax rate increase between 2-5 cents; 5-year
program versus a 10-year program; and staff recommends a 5-year bond program based on
the challenge of identifying the top mobility priorities past a 5-year outlook. She then
provided the 5-year bond program:
City of Georgetown, Toxas
Projected Additional Capacity (Mobility Projects) - 5 Year Summary
Preliminary as of Augusf 28. 2020
3%
5%
7%
aasumpedns
$0.02 $0.03 $0.04 SO-05
S 33,250,000 $
46,245.000 S
59,205,000 $
72.040,000
38,335,000
51,555,000
64.715,000
77,740,000
43,435,000
56,865,000
70,220,000
83,485,000
tit Please see CaWA Imprarertknt Plan nlqdes kf assuVaonr and detai% Prel.mnnary. wlt.eu to change
Weber also provided a 10-year bond program:
City of Georgetown, Texas
Projected Additional Capacity (Mobility Projects) -10 Year Summary
Preliminary as of September 3, 2020
$0.02 $0.03 $0.04 $0.05
$ 49.005.000 $
63,665,000 S
78.230,000 $
92,835,000
86,215,000
102,510,000
118,650,000
134.620,000
127,750, 000
145,030,000
155,235,000
180,610,000
(1) Please see Capital Improvement Plan models for am pbons and details Prekninary, subject to change.
Weber reviewed the next steps as follows: election must be called by February 9, 2021 Council
Meeting; Texas Secretary of State Deadline of Last Day to File for Place on General Election
Ballot is February 12, 2021; and there will be another Council Workshop on January 26. She
noted the following direction needed from Council today: identification of other information
needed to make a final decision; reconfirm scope of bond 5-year term, $50 million; and initial
feedback on projects to be included for roadway and allocations. Weber also noted the
direction needed from Council on January 26 as follows: final selection of roadway projects
to include; and final allocations for sidewalks, intersections, bicycle facilities and
transportation technology.
Pitts asked about Shell Road and what was included in the 2015 Bond. Morgan responded
that this is to show the full cost. He added that Council could ask for above and beyond what
was already authorized in 2015. Pitts asked if that would potentially lower the cost of the
2021 Bond. Morgan responded correct, but it would not change the bonding capacity. Pitts
understood and noted that some of the cost associated with Shell could be lower because
portions of the project would already be funded. Morgan responded yes. Pitts noted the
work that went into the presentation and noted that he would like to include all projects. He
added that he would be more inclined to do a 10-year program. Pitts asked if we could slim
down any of the projects to allow more to be completed. Morgan summarized Pitts comments
and noted his desire to focus on the top five projects selected by the Committee and to clarify
projects that could be completed with partnerships. He added that it would be helpful if
Council wanted staff to consider scope changes to give clear direction on that. Morgan and
Gutekunst then provided examples.
Gonzalez thanked the Committee for their work and stated that he agrees with Pitts but
adding more projects does not mean that the City can complete those additional projects in
the time allowed. He then noted the grow the in the southeast portion of the City and how
he would like to see improvements made to Southwestern Blvd. Mayor Schroeder asked if
Gonzalez was supportive of a narrower project on SE Inner Loop if the City could incorporate
Southwestern Blvd. Gonzalez responded yes, that is accurate. He noted how the
Southwestern Blvd improvements would increase connectivity and improve flow.
Fought stated that the City should meet obligations to other entities and then work on
addressing the lack east/west corridors. He added that he is comfortable for a total cost of
$100 million over 7-10 years. Fought agreed with Gonzalez's comments and stated that he is
happy with what has been discussed.
Jonrowe stated that she had the same questions related to how many projects staff could
complete. She added that the financial outlook is less dire than before, and she would be
comfortable with a $100 million total program. Jonrowe appreciated the inclusion of
alternative transportation infrastructure. She stated that she likes the ideas of incorporating
projects that are partnerships with other entities. Jonrowe then thanked the Committee for
their work and that if the City was going to add projects to add them in the order the
committee recommended them. Mayor Schroeder asked if staff could separate out the
different types of things that could be "slimmed down" on the projects that would be helpful
to Council. Jonrowe agreed and noted the need to be aware of pedestrian safety. Mayor
Schroeder noted the desire of a completion schedule from staff. Morgan noted that if Council
sticks to the five-year program staff will not be able to complete all projects but could provide
a plan for ten years.
Fought asked if Council needed to be prepared for a Special Council meeting to finalize the
projects and meet the required deadlines. Morgan responded there may be a Special Meeting
prior to the February 911, meeting if needed.
Triggs stated that the bond scope should match what cold be completed and asked what the
payback was for the bonds. Morgan responded that it is typically a 20-year term. Triggs
asked about the life of the assets. Morgan responded that it will be much longer than 20 years
and staff will be doing preventative maintenance. He added that based on the asset a term
length of longer than 20 years could be considered. Triggs asked if based on past experience
and analysis it has been determined to not have a term of longer than 20 years. Morgan
responded that a 20-year debt is more traditional for cities, but the financial advisers can
review. Triggs stated that if a longer term won't reduce cost that much it's not worth looking
into. He added that it is likely it will be needed to expand the total cost past the original $50
million. Triggs agreed with the priority rankings of the Committee.
Calixtro stated that she agreed with having the project list being something that can
completed, and she supports and Special Meeting if needed. She also noted the need to
consider roads in the ETJ and thanked the Committee for their work.
Hood thanked the Committee for their work and stated that he would like to finish projects
where the City is committed to other entities. He added that he supports starting with the
top five ranked projects. Hood asked about a 7-year consideration for bond program and that
he would be comfortable with a $100-110 million for total cost of projects. He asked if Pitts
proposal included funding for transportation technology. Pitts responded yes it was
included. Hood asked if the pedestrian and bicycle portion of the Austin Avenue Bridges
could be separated out. Mayor Schroeder agreed.
Valerie Covey, Williamson County Commissioner for Precinct 3 addressed the Council. She
thanked the Committee for their work and appreciated Council's commitment to County
partnership projects. She noted that the County is moving forward on improvements in the
southwest area of Georgetown. Covey noted the joint City and County efforts on the
southwest bypass and added that if the center portion of the City is not well connected, the
bypass will not be utilized to its maximum potential. She noted the needed improvements in
the southwest portion of the City emphasizing the need for improvements on SE Inner Loop
near Sam Houston Ave. Covey the provided comments on other projects listed by the
Committee. Mayor Schroeder thanked Covey for her comments. Morgan agreed that the
intersection of SE Inner Loop at Sam Houston Ave. needed to be addressed and that staff
would follow up with Council.
Mayor Schroeder asked if, for sidewalks and bike paths, can the City require developers to
fulfill that need. Morgan responded that the City can require it per the development
standards and are included in the current development standards. He also noted that on
occasion the City may want to install those prior to development. Mayor Schroeder asked if
the program goes to a 7-10-year program, what is the flexibility with crafting the bond in a
way that would allow the City to address a need that arises during that time. Morgan
responded that the Committee has this question as well and staff will work to make the bond
have some flexibility if possible. Mayor Schroeder asked that staff look at the type of
flexibility is allowed. Morgan responded that it is wise to consider that as being a City with
lots of growth can change priorities.
Brashear noted that one of the challenges the Committee faced is that the 2015 Bond allowed
the City to raise the tax rate $0.002 per year, but the Council never did that. He added that
this led to less available funds for projects. Brashear noted that the Committee did struggle
with how many projects to add that could be completed. Mayor Schroeder thanked Brashear
and noted that the citizens are very aware of transportation needs. Morgan responded that
staff has the direction they need and will return on January 261" with options.
Mayor Schroeder recessed at 4:17 p.m. for five minutes before starting Item C.
Mayor Schroeder reconvened the meeting at 4:25 p.m.
C. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY2021 Roll Forward Budget Amendment for
capital improvement projects and operational amendments -- Nathan Parras, Assistant
Finance Director
Parras presented the item and reviewed the budget process noting: Council adopted the
FY2021 budget in September, and the fiscal year began October 1; each winter staff bring
forward a CIP Roll Forward amendment to cover expenses for large capital improvement
projects that span multiple years; other amendments are necessary because new information
is available since the previous summer; typically, staff bring a mid -year amendment in May,
and a year-end amendment in November; and since preliminary 4th quarter report was
positive, consider new service level requests and other enhancements. He noted the budget
amendment types as follows: Tier 1 — CIP Roll Forward which is routine; Tier 2 — Other
Operational or capital amendments which is conceptually known by staff/council but details
needed to be worked out, and workshops or legislative items approved by council since
budget adoption that need budget authority; and Tier 3 — New service level enhancements.
Parras reviewed the Tier 1 — CIP Roll Forward and provided an example by referencing the
Northwest Boulevard Bridge as follows:
Year 1-
Year 2 -
Year 3 -
Year 4 —
Design/Study
Construction
Construction
Completion
0
ii,ri
M
E
$11,250,000 $78,108 $2,721,856 $4,264,249 $4,185,787
Parras noted that the CIP Roll Forward will consist of: General Capital Projects totaling $35.5
million; Fleet totaling $1.1 million; GTEC totaling $12.5 million; Water totaling $86.3 million;
Electric totaling $1.26 million; and Stormwater totaling $223,000. He noted the approved
Operational Roll Forward as follows: General Fund totaling $96,000; CVB totaling $6,000;
Special Revenue Funds totaling $291,000; Facilities totaling $129,000; and Joint Services
totaling $69,000. Parras then reviewed the Tier 2 - Other Operational or Capital Amendments
starting with the General Fund and noting the following: in Operations there is a Garbage
Concierge Pilot program costing $100,000, Atmos reimbursement costing $8,000, Hazardous
Waste collection program costing $50,000, recycling program costing $12,000, and an increase
various utility expenses costing $9,000; and in Personnel a Heavy Equipment Operator
costing $39,000 and a Fire/EMS one-time overtime payout costing $137,000. He reviewed the
General Capital Projects Operations including a reduction in bond proceeds of $495,000 due
to lower than anticipated bids and repurpose existing debt issuance. Parras explained the
Special Revenue Funds noting the Downtown TIRZ transfer to General Fund for the Garbage
Concierge Pilot Program at $100,000, the Rivery TIRZ economic study at $5,000, and a GEDCO
transfer out to Electric for the Titan North Park project at $1 million. He provided the Internal
Service Funds noting the Fleet Fund will be used to replace two Electric Fund vehicles,
recognize prior year insurance proceeds at $179,000, recognize bond proceeds from Electric
to cover remaining replacement costs at $81,000, debt fund Electric vehicles at $372,000,
decrease Electric vehicle allocation contribution since vehicles will be debt funded at -
$396,000, and recognize insurance proceeds and replace various vehicles from hail damage.
Parras added that in Joint Services there was an increase utility expense for various
departments at $69,000. He explained the Enterprise Funds as follows: Airport has a 10%
match associated with TXDot Aviation grant and an increase in legal expenses costing
$95,000; Stormwater has an increase utility expense costing $4,700; Water has an increase
utility expense costing $12,000; and the Electric Fund having to continue to implement the
electric work plan, reduce Electric PCA revenue at $5 million, capitalize Electric engineering
and T&D salaries which will be reflected in the capital improvements total, debt fund the
electric vehicles, and increases bond proceeds which reduces the Fleet ISF. Parras reviewed
the Tier 3 - New Service Level Enhancements and Compensation changes and provided
context for new requests as follows: strong FY2020 unaudited results for major funds
including General, Electric and Water; the first three months in FY2021 saw strong sales tax,
increased development activity, growth pressures in development areas, and continued work
on planning for Electric, IT, Water as a result of work plans and results of assessments/studies;
and the FY2021 Budget was developed during pandemic with conservative revenues, reduced
expenses, prepared for potential economic shortfalls, and Council wanted to review funding
levels after fiscal year end for public safety market and employee one-time merit pay. He
reviewed the General Fund noting that sales tax conservatively increased by 4% over FY2021
Budget and the Budget is lower than FY2020 actuals, so staff will continue to review as
additional months' collections are received. Parras provided the following:
Sales Tax History
D.ar,i 3a.aart
"1C6PO
2 OM
_ 5 a Pr9
a.0 W,
M. FY201? ■ FY'201N e I:Y2019 ■ FY2020
Sale-,T;ax _Warterly�=omparirnn
'5.2 M
7.9A
K4 3„M
f�,Tl kdf
F-Y21020 ■ f ti' Cis: l
Parras reviewed Planning and Development activity and noted that Planning had $190,000 in
additional revenues, Permitting had $1,850,000 in additional revenues, and there was a one-
time master development fee of $253,000. He provided the following to show the increase in
building permits so far for FY2021:
ResIdentlaI Building Per ir!its
5 Ci
_94
ao
�n
C,
aJ Nov Dec earl Frati Mar Apr A4ay lure Jul Aug --ep
Parras stated that the Emergency Services District received additional revenue of $535,000
and will use $42,000 for maintenance expenses related to holding back fire vehicles in reserve,
and the remainder of $493,000 will be held in the Fleet fund for future vehicle
replacements/purchases. He then reviewed new positions as follows: in Planning, one Senior
Planner and one Planning Assistant; in Inspections two Building Inspectors; in Streets, two
Sign/Signal Technicians; and in Customer Care, one Business Systems Analyst. Parras noted
that there will also be a Transportation Impact Fee Analysis costing $25,000. He reviewed
Enterprise Funds and noted that in the Electric Fund staff will continue to implement Electric
fund work plan, and there will be an increase in capital budget including replacing the
Geodigitial software at $200,000 and hiring a Consultant Engineer costing $100,000. Parras
added that in the Water Fund new positions are being added for Water Administration and
one Engineer. He reviewed compensation noting that during the budget process Council
approved: 2% merit totaling $511,000; various market adjustments totaling $289,000; and Civil
Service merit/market adjustments at 80% totaling $778,000. Parras then explained that staff
had a conservative approach due to uncertain conditions, planned to review during the fall
using preliminary FY2020 data and beginning FY2021 data, and then would look at funding
Public Safety market at 100% with an impact to the General Fund of $78,000 in ongoing costs.
He continued that there could be a one-time merit pay for non -civil services employees with
a City-wide impact of $383,000 in one-time expenses with the following methodology: one-
time payment based upon 1% average salary; $650 per regular full-time employee who met
expectations in most recent performance evaluation and still employed February 1; $325 per
regular part-time employee; and that this will be paid in February with an impact to General
Fund of $157,000 and an impact to all other funds of $225,000. Parras provided a summary
for FY2021 Budget 2.0 noting: staff will continue capital improvement efforts as we cross fiscal
years; stronger than anticipated financial performance in FY2020; data through Q1 of FY2021
indicates a similar performance for sales tax and development; and eight full-time employees
to help with increase demand for essential City services. He provided the following:
FY2021
Amended
Variance
�eneral Fund
FY2021 Budget
Budget
Fav/(Unfav)
(Beginning Balance
15,443,733
15,548,923
105,190
evenues
79,132,118
82,783,309
3,651,191
Expenses
80,033,801
81,751,738
(1,717,937)
(Ending Balance
14,542,050
16,580,494
2,038,444
Contingency Reserve
12,626,752
12,626,752
-
lEconomic Stability Reserve
1,467,563
1,467,563
-
Benefit Payout Reserve
340,000
340,000
-
Avallable Fund Balance
107,735
2,146,179
2,038,444
Parras noted the next steps as follows: staff will come back to Council after the audit; the use
of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balance to fund capital projects, fund
equipment purchase, reduce outstanding City debt, fund contingent liabilities, take steps to
reduce property tax rates, hold for future commitments, and fund Economic Stability Reserve
with the Economic Stability Reserve policy which may equal up to 6% of current year
budgeted operating expenditures; and current adopted Economic Stability Reserve totals 2%
with a preliminary available fund balance equaling 4.5% of reserve policy.
Fought thanked Parras for the analysis and that Council was able to fund the civil services
positions were funded and that staff was getting additional payout.
Triggs supported the items proposed in the presentation.
Calixtro thanked staff and appreciated the payment to regular employees.
Jonrowe supported the proposals and applauded the roll forward definition that was
provided.
Gonzalez and Hood thanked staff.
Pitts asked about the new positions and if once approved tonight at regular meeting, if they
will be posted. Morgan responded that staff has already posted building inspector positions
due to the need, but yes, the others would be posted soon. Pitts stated that his only concern
is finding people to fill those positions. Morgan responded yes, that is a concern. Pitts asked
if staff was coming back in March. Morgan responded around late March and will focus on
year-end numbers.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding Charter Review Committee appointment process and
potential Charter amendments -- Skye Masson, City Attorney and David Morgan, City
Manager
Masson presented the item and explained how Council can amend the Charter noting: 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 stated that the recent Georgetown Charter
Review processes have gone as follows: in May of 2003, 13 charter amendments were
approved by voters; 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 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. Masson noted that Council is responsible for creating the Charter Review
Committee, and historically each Councilmember and the Mayor appointed a committee
member. She noted 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 the
deadline for receiving recommendations from Committee. She provided the schedule for a
November 2021 Election as follows:
Council appointment of
Charter Review Commission
andsubmissionof City Counci I holds public
amendments for commission hearings on proposed
consideration amendments
Spring 2021
Publish required notices of
election
27 July 2021 1 Nov. 2021
Jan. 2021 Jun"uly 2021 Aug. —Sep.
Charter Review Commission First Readingof Ordinance Charter Election
meetings/review of Charter Call ingCharter Amend ment
Election
Masson reviewed the City Charter Articles as follows: 1. Incorporation, Form of Government
and Powers which includes Council -Manager Government, control of Streets, annexation,
and Planning powers; 2. The Council which includes qualifications, vacancies, enacting
legislation, Boards and Commissions, and renumeration; 3. Elections which includes
regulation of elections, filing of candidates, special elections; 4. Initiative, Referendum, and
Recall which includes power of initiative and referendum, forms of petitions, and recall; 5.
Administrative Organization which includes City Manager, City Attorney, municipal, and
administrative structure; 6. Finance which includes budget, appropriations, and bonds; 7.
taxation which includes taxation powers and tax payments and tax liens; 8. Franchise and
Public Utility which includes franchise powers of the City and regulation of franchises and
rates; and 9. General Provisions which includes catch all provisions and Ethics, nepotism,
records, notice of claims.
Mayor Schroeder asked if the Ethics Ordinance is embedded into the Charter. Masson
responded that the Charter states that the City will have an Ethics Ordinance but does not
include what the Ordinance must say.
Masson then reviewed potential Charter amendments as follows: Section 2.01 Number,
Selection and Term of Office regarding term limits, which was Council recommended, to
consider 3 term limit for Mayor and Council members; clean up language on definition of
Council, which is City Attorney recommended, to clarify for purposes of voting; Section 2.02
Qualifications regarding a change in language to match State law requirements, which is City
Attorney recommended to change residence and age requirements to match state law; Section
2.03 Vacancies regarding vacancies which is Council recommended to consider a change to
allow Council to fill vacancies with less than 12 months left in term; Section 2.09 Rules of
Procedure regarding clarification on votes to pass legislation which is City Attorney
recommended to clarify whether majority of all members or majority of members present
required; Section 2.10 Procedure to Enact Legislation regarding the ordinance approval
process which is Council recommended to consider a change to requirements for second
reading or reading of caption at second reading; Section 8.03 Franchise power of the City
Council regarding the publication requirement which is staff identified and consider
removing requirement to publish full text of franchise ordinances. She then provided next
steps as follows: January 26th Meeting have the appointment of Charter Review committee
members; January 26th Meeting approve the final list of potential Charter amendments to
send to committee; and February 2021 start the Charter Review Committee meetings.
Pitts asked for clarification on the process. Masson responded that Council will provide a list
for the committee to review, but the committee is not restricted to that list. Pitts asked about
the specificity of Council recommendations. Masson responded that Council could be specific
or broad on what they wanted the committee to review. Mayor Schroeder asked if it could
be compared to the process for the Mobility Bond. Masson responded yes. Pitts noted the
quick timing needed to meet the November election. He asked if the City would haven
anything else on the November ballot. Masson responded no. Pitts then asked about the
additional cost this would be to the City. Robyn Densmore, City Secretary responded that
yes it would be an additional cost. Pitts asked if it would cost less to be on the May 2022
ballot. Densmore responded yes. Pitts stated that he would support doing this going on the
May 2022 ballot.
Hood asked why the November 2021 election was being considered. Masson responded that
it was at Council direction.
Fought asked about the list of items presented. Mayor Schroeder noted that the list of items
could be expanded upon. Fought noted that the urgency was related to vacancies that have
happened leading to people not being represented, and he would like that remedied. He did
note that cost should be considered.
Gonzalez stated that he is indifferent to when it happens, but he would like it done sooner
rather than later. He did note the tight timeline with getting committee members appointed
quickly. Fought noted the need for quality members. Gonzalez noted that this will need to
get started soon. Fought noted that he feels there are plenty of qualified people available.
Triggs stated that he had nothing to add.
Jonrowe stated that either election date is fine, but a May election might have built in
participation.
Calixtro stated that she is not opposed to either date.
Mayor Schroeder noted that Council will have to find a committee member and any other
proposed amendments.
Hood stated that he does agree with the need of filling seats but understands that the May
election could lead to better turnout.
Morgan stated that it will be significant work by the committee and the committee will check
in on the process and then determine election date. Mayor Schroeder agreed.
Mayor Schroeder recessed in Executive Session at 5:14 p.m. to open executive at 5:25 p.m. He
noted that he will be recusing himself from the following item in Executive Session: "GRR
WW Capacity Agreement"
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
- Rockride Lane Proposed WWTP
- GRR WW Capacity Agreement
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Berry Creek Interceptor 1-3, Parcels 15 and 17 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Competitive Matters — Purchased Power
Sec. 551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Bradshaw
- Rivery TIRZ Update
Sec. 551.089: Deliberation Regarding Security Devices or Security Audits
- Update on risk assessment related to HIPPA security and protocols
Adjournment
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
Josh
7iA-,Y, D.4.,��
Attest: City Se etary