Loading...
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