The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 07.28.2020 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas J uly 28 , 20 20 The Georgetown City Council will meet on J uly 28, 2020 at 2:30 P M at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease 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 J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. J oin fr om a P C, M ac , i P ad, i P hone or A ndroid devic e: P lease click this U R L to jo in: https://geor getowntx.zoom.us/s/93052343154? pwd=U 2d Q Z U J XNzdi V j V zR Xp4 Q 2 Iva G9sU T09 P assword: 408454 O r join by phone toll fre e: 877 853 5257 or 888 475 4499 or 833 548 0276 or 833 548 0282 Webinar I D: 930 5234 3154 P assc ode : 408454 Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats: Submit the following form by 2:00 p.m. on the date of the mee ting and the City S ec re tary will r ead your comme nts into the re cor ding dur ing the item that is being discussed – https://re cor ds.geor getown.or g/F or ms/Addr essCounc il You may log onto the me eting, at the link above , and “raise your hand” during the item. If you are unsure if your de vice has a mic rophone ple ase use your home or mobile phone to dial the toll fre e numbe r. To J oin a Zoom M e eting, c lick on the link and join as an atte ndee . You will be aske d to e nte r your name and email addre ss – this is so we c an ide ntify you when you ar e c alled upon. A t the bottom Page 1 of 97 of the we bpage of the Zoom M e eting, ther e is an option to Raise your H and. To spe ak on an item, simply c lick on that R aise Your H and option onc e the item you wish to spe ak on has ope ne d. When you ar e c alled upon by the M ayor, your devic e will be r emotely un-muted by the A dministrator and you may speak for thr ee minutes. P le ase state your name clear ly upon be ing allowe d to spe ak. When your time is over, your de vice will be muted again. As another option, we ar e opening a city confe re nc e r oom to allow public to “watch” the virtual mee ting on a bigge r scr ee n, and to “r aise your hand” to speak fr om that public de vice . This Vie wing Room is locate d at City H all, 808 M artin L uther K ing J r. S tre et, Community Room. S ocial Distancing will be strictly enfor ce d. F ac e masks ar e r equire d and will be provided onsite . U se of profanity, thre atening language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of harm are not allowed and will r esult in you being immediate ly r emove d from the me eting. If you have questions or ne ed assistanc e, ple ase contact the City Se cr etar y’s offic e at c s@ge orge town.org or at 512-930-3651. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A P resentation and discussion regarding Transportation Services P latforms -- Ray Miller, Director of P ublic Works B P resentation, update, and discussion regarding the existing Distributed Renewable Electric Generation P ro gram -- Danie l Bethapudi, General M anager of the Electric Utility and Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director C P resentation, updates, and discussion regarding the police department’s CommU N ITY Initiative - - Wayne Nero, Chief of P olice D P resentation and discussion regarding F Y21 Budget Development -- Tadd P hillips, Human Resources Director and David Morgan, City Manager Exe cutive Se ssion 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: Consul tati on w i th 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 - P E C Franchise Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty - Sale of P roperty – C T S U D building Sec. 551.087: Del i berati on Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject Zeus Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting Page 2 of 97 I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 3 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 28, 2020 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding Transportation Services P latforms -- Ray Miller, Director of P ublic Works I T EM S UMMARY: This update will begin with a brief recap of the directio n that the City Co unc il provided to Staff at the J une 9th City Council Wo rksho p. Council directed Staff to lo ok into different transportation platfo rms such as Dynamic Rideshare or Microtransit. Council also wanted to maintain services levels for tho se that are currently using the transit systems as the City transitions into a new transportation platform. Then the workshop discussion will cover the following topics: Ride Share / Micro Transit Services Update How do we maintain current services Timeline for R F I/RFP P rocess to change P rivate vs P ublic Feedback and Direction F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: "N A" S UBMI T T ED BY: Ray Miller AT TAC HMENT S : Description R F I S truc ture Trans portation S ervic es Page 4 of 97 STRUCTURE OF RFI Please provide the following information for the company interested in qualifying for a potential “Request for Proposal” in the upcoming transportation services contract. Information provided may be with any governmental agency (city or county). 1. Company History o Mission and Vision Statement o Years in business o Key Personnel o Background of Company o Letters of Reference 2. Experience o List experience providing transportation services to city, county, or other entity within the past 5 years (maximum 5 contracts) o Contracts must be with municipalities or entities that have a population of 40,000 or more o Explain your experience in using Federal Transit Administration Funding for a Ride Share Program o Explain your experience in meeting Federal Transit Administration requirements o Does the company have experience managing riders that have disabilities or that may be elderly? The City of Georgetown has a significant senior population 3. Innovation o Demonstrate innovative solutions provided to client and customers to address real world challenges and opportunities that have improved efficiency in service delivery, such as: o Avg Wait time o Avg trip time o Curb side stop vs Virtual stop o Mobile App vs Call Center o Real Time Information to customers 4. Performance and Data o Include Key Performance Indicators o What performance management does the company offer? o Describe data tracked, method of tracking, and information or reports provided to client including how often o Describe how performance management advance the goal(s) or vision(s) of the company? 5. Insurance and Fares o What are the minimum insurance requirements that your company carries for the services that your company provides? o What are the average fares for services? o Is there a discount for seniors and for children under the age of 17? . Page 5 of 97 RFI / RFP TIMELINE RFQ Key Events General Schedule Key Event Estimated Schedule City Council Workshop of RFI July 28, 2020 RFI Release Date Mid August 2020 Deadline for Questions on RFI Late August 2020 RFI Deadline for Submissions Mid September 2020 Review Responses Mid-Late September 14-30, 2020 City Council with recommendations and direction Mid October 2020 Should an RFP be issued RFP Issued Mid October 2020 RFP Mandatory Pre-proposal Meeting Early November 2020 RFP Open for 30 days – close Mid November 2020 Review proposals December 2020 City Council with recommendations Mid January 2021 Issue contract Early February 2021 Transition Plan to new contract February – March 2021 Transition complete October 2021 Page 6 of 97 Transportation Services Update For Georgetown City Council July 28, 2020 Page 7 of 97 Presentation Overview •Recap on direction from June 9, 2020 Workshop •Ride Share / Micro Transit Services Update •How do we maintain current services •Timeline for RFI/RFP •Process to change Private vs Public •Feedback and Direction Page 8 of 97 Goal 1:Provide a safe,reliable,efficient,and accessible transportation option for residents and visitors of Georgetown. Goal 2: Adequately address the mobility needs of Georgetown residents. Goal 3: Maximize resource utilization and operational efficiency with respect to system administration and operations. Goal 4:Develop a local system that operates effectively in the short-term,continues to develop an audience for regional transit options in the mid-term,and will connect the local community to the region in the long-term. Goals of the Transit Development Plan Page 9 of 97 Recap of June 9, 2020 Presentation Page 10 of 97 Key Questions City Council Workshop June 9, 2020 •Should Georgetown continue to provide transit services? •Are the goals of the Transit Development Plan still true? •What should be the scope of our transit system? •Serve current fixed route population area? •Serve more limited population,such as paratransit? •Should the City evaluate an alternate transit service? •Dynamic Rideshare/Micro Transit? 5Page 11 of 97 6 Recap from June 9th •Council gave Staff direction to look into different transportation platforms such as Dynamic Ride share or Micro transit. •Pursue an RFI/RFP for ride share/micro-transit •Council also wanted to maintain transportation services for the citizens that are currently using the transit system . Page 12 of 97 Ride Share / Micro Transit Update Page 13 of 97 8 Ride Share / Micro Transit Update •Staff has developed a draft RFI (Request for Information) •The RFI will allow the City of Georgetown to gain information on the companies that have interest in providing transportation services to the City. •The RFI will also allow the City to see what other transportation platforms might be available. •It will help define a scope of work for a request for proposals after learning more about the capabilities and services available for ride share. Page 14 of 97 How Do We Maintain Current Services Page 15 of 97 10 Current Contract •Execute another yearly contract with Capital Metro for continuation of current services. •Current Agreement with Capital Metro Expires on 9/30/2020.The agreement has only been approved on a yearly basis not multiple years . •$865,566-Total FY 2020 Budget Amount •322,976 –FTA Funding •392,590 –Local Match Funding •150,000 -GHF •GHF Agreed to participate for 3 years . Page 16 of 97 11 Timeline for RFI/RFP Page 17 of 97 RFI Structure •Company History •Experience •Content •Innovation •Performance &Data •Insurance and Fare Structure Page 18 of 97 13 Process to Change Page 19 of 97 Process to Change •Amend Transit Development Plan to add Ride Share / Micro Transit per the Service expansion policy approved by CAMPO and Capital Metro Board an addendum must be completed prior to a transition in service. •If the City contracts with a private company,then the City will have to become the Direct Recipient of the Federal Transit Funds (FTA 5307)and follow all FTA reporting and other requirements. •Capital Metro currently accepts the Federal Funds on our behalf and follows all FTA reporting and other requirements. Page 20 of 97 Timeline to Process to Change •If the City contracts with a private company: •Receives Section 5307 funds directly from the FTA. Becoming a Direct Recipient could take up to 9 months through FTA. •COG would be responsiblefor management of funds, compliance,DBE goals,certifications,FTA coordination and local match •The City would be subject to a Triennial Reviewat the request of the FTA to ensure compliance with all FTA Direct Recipient requirements. •As a Direct Recipient COG would have to place the service in the CAMPO TIP (3-6 month process)and also enter into an MOU with CAMPO to go over planning services (2-4 month process). Page 21 of 97 Timeline to Process to Change •If the City contracts with a public provider (Capital Metro)then the City would not have to become the Direct Recipient and the administrator of the FTA Funds. •A new Interlocal Agreement would need to be executed with Cap Metro which would take 3-4 months. •City of Manor Cap Metro Pickup Service –Operates Monday-Friday 7am-7pm.Can use a smart phone or a call center to book a trip.A single ride costs $1.25 Page 22 of 97 Timeline to Process to Change Page 23 of 97 18 RFI Key Events General Schedule “Draft Time-Line” Key Event Estimated Schedule City Council Workshop of RFI July 28, 2020 RFI Release Date Mid August 2020 Deadline for Questions on RFI Late August 2020 RFI Deadline for Submissions Mid September 2020 Review Responses Mid-Late September 2020 City Council with recommendations and direction October 2020 Should an RFP be issued RFP Issued Mid October 2020 RFP Mandatory Pre-proposal Meeting Early November 2020 RFP Open for 30 days –close Mid November 2020 Review proposals December 2020 City Council with recommendations January 2021 Issue contract Early February 2021 Transition Plan to new contract February –March 2021 Transition complete October 2021 Page 24 of 97 Next Steps Page 25 of 97 Next Steps •At Council’s direction issue the RFI. •Review responses •Provide results to City Council •Issue an RFP •Provide results to City Council.Select a provider (possible interviews). •Once under contract,develop a transition plan 20Page 26 of 97 Council Direction •Does Council want to proceed with a competitive process for a rideshare /micro transit program? 21Page 27 of 97 Questions/Comments Page 28 of 97 ONLY IF NEEDED Page 29 of 97 24 Ride Share / Microtransit RideCo •Goals of RideCo •Improve vehicle efficiency •Enhance Rider Experience •Grow Ridership •Save Money (use of same fleet) Cost of Service •$844,000 •17 sq. mi service area •Expanded hours of operation Page 30 of 97 25 Ride Share / Microtransit RideCo / Service Model •On-Demand Shared Rides •6 –minivans •Virtual Stops across 17 square miles (GoGeo –10 sq mi) •Monday to Saturday Service 6am –8pm •Fully Accessible Service •Mobile App for On-Demand Service •Call Center for those without smart phones (In advance) Page 31 of 97 26 Ride Share / Microtransit Page 32 of 97 27 Ride Share / Microtransit CapMetro / CARTS PICKUP (currently in Manor) Goals of Pickup •Increase Access •Enhance Rider Experience (shorter trip times) •Grow Ridership –scalable •Save Money (use of same fleet) Cost of Service •$844,000 •7.0 sq. mi. service area •Possible expansion of service hours Page 33 of 97 28 Ride Share / Microtransit CapMetro / Pickup (currently in Manor) •Mobile App Driven / Call Centers / Dispatch •15-minute frequency within a service zone •7.0 sq. mi. service area •Use CapMetro / CARTS Vehicles –HC Accessible •Drivers trained to assist passengers •More efficient that standard paratransit (On-Demand and not Call Ahead) •Has increased ridership in other areas Page 34 of 97 29 Ride Share / Microtransit CapMetro / Pickup (currently in Manor) •Do not need a separate paratransit service •Curb to Curb Service •Local and Established Partnerships •A scalable service Other service areas •Leander –December 2019 •East ATX, NE ATX, Walnut Creek –August 2019 •Manor –June 2019 Page 35 of 97 30Page 36 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 28, 2020 S UBJEC T: P resentation, update, and discussion regarding the existing Distributed Renewable Electric Generation P rogram -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility and Leticia Zavala, Customer Care Director I T EM S UMMARY: P resentation will pro vide an ove rvie w of existing solar program and will disc uss the mo dific atio n to the program based on recommendations by NewGen Strategies & Solutions, the City’s consultant. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N O N E S UBMI T T ED BY: Daniel Bethapudi - G M Electric Utility/Leticia Zavala-J ones - Director of Customer Care AT TAC HMENT S : Description P resentation - Net Metering R eform C ons ultant Memo - O pinion on Net Metering P rac tic es Page 37 of 97 Net Metering (NEM) Review Follow-up Leticia Zavala –Director Customer Care Daniel Bethapudi –GM Electric City Council Meeting July 28, 2020 Page 38 of 97 Agenda •Background •Council Direction –Meeting 5/12/2020 •Review of Customer Feedback/Questions •Consultant Response & Summary •Net Metering Program Review & Recommendations •Council Direction -Next Steps •Questions Page 39 of 97 Background •City retained NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC to provide guidance on 2 specific rates: 1.Develop an EV Charger Rate Program 2.Review the current Net Metering Program •EV Charger Rate Program –Adopted at 2nd reading on 5/26/20 –Provides for EV charging infrastructure within the City’s electric territory •Net Metering Program –Reviewed with Council on 5/12/2020 –Overview of Plan: •Rate impact analysis & identification of cross-subsidies •Eliminate ability for energy credit to exceed the utility bill charges •Adjust the energy credit provided to customers Page 40 of 97 Council Direction -Meeting 5/12/20 •Council Direction on Proposed changes to Net Energy Metering Program: –Change the ordinance language in order to make it easier to understand. •Staff is currently working with NewGen Strategies to simplify the ordinance language. –Review the Distributive Generation (DG) agreement and related questions and customer feedback. Page 41 of 97 Review of Customer Feedback/Questions •Principal questions: Questions #1: Did the DG Agreement signed by residential net metering customers preclude changes to the rate? Did the contract specify a rate? Question #2: Is the current billing for net metering customers consistent with the DG agreement and industry practices? Page 42 of 97 Review of Customer Feedback/Questions Question #1: Did the DG Agreement signed by residential net metering customers preclude changes to the rate? Did the contract specify a rate? Response: –The Staff worked with outside legal & rate consultants, the City Attorney’s office, Customer Care and finance to review the current net metering agreements and billing practice. –Based on the review -the interconnection agreements signed by residential net metered customers are subject to any changes adopted by City Council on City’s policies, rates, and any other conditions placed by ordinances. The existing contract language aligns with the proposed changes of renewable energy credit based on avoided costs. Page 43 of 97 Review of Customer Feedback/Questions Question #2: City staff requested NewGen Strategies & Solutions to provide an opinion on the following: 1.Is the City’s current NEM billing methodology in alignment with industry practices? 2.Is the City’s current NEM billing methodology in compliance with the current DG agreement? Page 44 of 97 DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ELECTRIC GENERATION / NET METERING REVIEW July 28, 2020 Page 45 of 97 Metering Configuration Solar Panel Residenc e REC Meter (informational purposes only) Bi-Directional Meter Measures Volumetric and Received Energy every 15 minutesPage 46 of 97 Typical Residential Load Profile -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 kW Consumed Energy Average Residential Daily Load Profile (no DG system) Page 47 of 97 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 kW Consumed Energy Customer PV System Comparison of Residential Load with Generation of a 10KW system Average Residential Daily Load Profile Typical 10 kW PV System in the SummerPage 48 of 97 Measuring VOLUMETRIC and RECEIVED Energy At Regular Intervals -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 kW Volumetric Energy PV Energy - Received PV Energy - Consumed Average Residential Daily Load Profile Typical 10 kW PV System in the Summer Average Residential Daily Load Profile with a 10 kW PV System Page 49 of 97 Summary •Every NEM customer has two meters: –a “REC” meter for informational purposes ONLY –A “bi‐directional” meters that registers at each interval •Volumetric energy AND Received energy. •Values/Measurements registered by the bi‐directional meter are used to bill the customer. •The Utility’s NEM billing methodology is reasonable, appropriate and is consistent with common industry practices. •The DG Agreement accurately describes the NEM billing method of summing a customer’s net consumed energy (Volumetric) and energy sent back to the City (Received) over the course of a bill cycle. 13Page 50 of 97 Summary •The City has been billing NEM customers using the NEM billing method as described in the DG Agreement for the last 10 years. •The proposed update to the NEM rate does not change the mechanics of how NEM customers are billed –it merely changes the amount that Received energy is credited to better reflect “the City’s estimated avoided fuel costs” as stated in the DG Agreement and establishes a minimum bill policy. 14Page 51 of 97 Net Metering Program Review & Recommendations •Reduce RECEIVED credit to lessen cost shift from NEM to non-NEM classes. –From “Standard Retail Rate” to “Market Based Energy Credit” •Aligns with original intent of avoided costs (2006) –Calculated from avoided ERCOT hourly pricing(Real Time, South Load Zone) and transmission costs, plus system losses •Current Rate : $0.09580/kWh •Proposed $0.04976/kWh for 2020 –Updated annually (January) •6-month adjustment for existing NEM customers 15Page 52 of 97 Net Metering Program Review & Recommendations •Establish a “floor” on the credit –RECEIVED credit cannot exceed VOLUMETRIC charge •Standard industry practice •Improves utility’s fixed cost recovery –NEM customers rely on distribution grid •Customers should pay for its use •Enforce size compliance –PV systems less than 10 kW –Limited to Residential / Small Commercial classes •Simplify Ordinance –Amend language to reflect tariff language –Remove items that are not relevant 16Page 53 of 97 Council Direction –Next Steps •Adopt Consultant Recommendations on NEM Program –Eliminate ability for <$0 energy bill –Adjust received Energy Credit •Effective date –New Customers –Current Customers Page 54 of 97 Questions? Page 55 of 97 Memorandum Economics | Strategy | Stakeholders | Sustainability www.newgenstrategies.net 225 Union Boulevard Suite 305 Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (720) 633-9514 To: Georgetown Electric Utility, City of Georgetown, Texas From: NewGen Strategies & Solutions Date: July 22, 2020 Re: Opinion on Net Metering Practices Introduction The City of Georgetown (City) and the Georgetown Electric Utility (Utility) have retained NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC (NewGen) to assist in the reform of its existing Net Energy Metering (NEM) rate. In May 2020 NewGen, with the assistance of City staff, proposed an update to the existing NEM rate to City Council. The proposal did not contemplate changing the current methodology used to bill NEM customers. As part of this analysis, City staff requested NewGen provide an opinion on whether: 1) the current NEM billing methodology is aligned with industry practices and 2) the current NEM billing methodology is in compliance with the City’s existing Distributed Generation (DG) agreement. How Does Net Metering Work? Net metering is the process of netting a customer’s electric consumption against the customer’s electric generation at a defined frequency (e.g., every 15‐minutes, every hour, etc.). The exact mechanics of this netting process vary from utility to utility owing to multiple factors including the metering technology employed by the utility (e.g., AMI Infrastructure bi‐directional meters) and state regulatory guidelines. Up until the advent of bi‐directional metering, the mechanics of net metering was overly simple with a customer’s meter counting up when customers used more energy than their DG system was producing and counting backwards when their DG system produced more energy than the customer was using. In this way the granularity of when the customer sent excess energy back to the utility was lost and customers only received credits if, at the end of the billing cycle, their meter read less than it had the month before. In comparison, with the availability of bi‐directional meters, the granularity of a customer’s net usage is retained. Bi‐directional meters simultaneously register two values: 1) the amount of electricity sent from the utility to the customer, if any, and 2) the amount of excess electricity generated by the customer and sent back to the utility, if any. In this way, a bi‐directional meter tracks in every interval how much electricity the customer is consuming from the utility and how much excess generated electricity the customer is sending back to the utility. Since 2010, the Utility has been using bi‐directional meters for solar customers that measure the amount of electricity sent from the utility to the customer (termed “Volumetric” energy) and the amount of excess electricity generated by the customer (beyond what the customer uses on‐site) and sent back to the Utility Page 56 of 97 Memorandum Georgetown Electric Utility July 22, 2020 Page 2 (termed “Received” energy). The bi‐directional meter registers the Volumetric and Received energy at standard 15‐minute intervals. Additionally, every NEM customer also has a REC meter which registers, for informational purposes, the total amount of electricity generated by their DG systems. No charges on the customer bill are associated with information provided by the REC meter. As an example of how the bi‐directional meter works, when a customer generates less energy than they consume the Utility provides electricity to the customer and the bi‐directional meter measures that amount of energy as the Volumetric energy. Conversely, when the customer generates more energy than they consume the excess energy (aka Received energy) is sent back to the Utility and the bi‐directional meter measures that amount of energy as the Received energy. At the end of each billing period, the Utility uses the Volumetric and Received energy measurement readings from the meter to calculate the customer’s bill. Both the previous and current month’s meter reads are shown on the customer bill. Alignment of Billing Methodology to Industry Practices Utilities across the continental United States have offered NEM tariffs for the last 20+ years. In that time the mechanics of how a customer’s electric consumption/generation is registered has evolved – especially with the availability of bi‐directional meters and the rollout of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). There is not one universally accepted method for NEM billing. The Utility’s method of registering the Volumetric and Received energy in near‐real time at every interval (i.e., every 15‐minutes) is not uncommon. Further, the Utility’s billing practice is reasonable and appropriate given the granularity of information provided from the interval reads most accurately reflects the cost to serve a NEM customer. In NewGen’s opinion the Utility’s NEM billing methodology is appropriate and aligns with industry practices. Billing Methodology as Defined in the Distributed Generation Agreement Presently, the DG Agreement states on page 21: Special Conditions 5. The customer shall be entitled to a Produced Energy Credit based upon the energy produced and delivered by the power producing facility into the City’s Electric Utility System during a specific billing period. In a billing month, if the customer uses more energy than their distributed generation system produces, the additional electricity consumed is billed at the standard residential rate for the service. If the customer uses less energy than the distributed generation system produces, the excess energy that flows back into the electric grid earns credits equal to the City’s estimated avoided fuel costs. These costs will be updated on a yearly basis. A common misconception regarding the DG Agreement language is the total energy generated by the customer’s DG system and the total energy consumed by the customer is netted only at the end of the billing period. In practice, given the metering infrastructure utilized by the Utility, the Volumetric and Received energy is measured by the meter at every interval – so the term “in a billing month” refers to the sum of the intervals as measured by the customer’s meter. When the customer “uses more energy than their distributed generation system produces” it is registered as Volumetric energy purchased from Page 57 of 97 Memorandum Georgetown Electric Utility July 22, 2020 Page 3 the Utility. When the customer “uses less energy” than their DG system produces the excess (i.e., Received) energy is sent back to the Utility. Again, these two values (Volumetric and Received) are tracked over the applicable billing period, rather than simply netting energy generated and energy consumed at the end of the billing period. NewGen confirmed that the City has been billing NEM customers using the above described convention, as defined in the DG Agreement, for the last 10 years. Summary of Billing Charges The components of a bill for the Utility’s NEM customer include the Volumetric and Received energy, which are measured by the customer’s bi‐directional meter. These meter values are used by the billing system to calculate the monthly bill. The Volumetric and Received energy terms are loosely defined as follows:  Volumetric Energy is the amount of energy delivered from the grid to the customer’s premise. The bill will include the previous and current month’s meter reads and the total volumetric kWh consumption for that month. This energy is billed at the applicable energy rate in the Utility’s tariff.  Renewable Energy‐Received is any excess energy generated from the customer’s photovoltaic system that is not consumed on‐site and is, therefore, sent to the grid. The bill will include the previous and current month’s meter reads and the total kWh excess for that month. The received energy is currently credited to the customer at the residential energy charge in the Utility’s tariff but, per the text of the DG Agreement, should be credited at “the City’s estimated avoided fuel costs”. In addition to the bi‐directional meter every NEM customer has a separate meter (termed REC meter) that registers the total amount of electricity generated from customer’s DG system (termed Renewable Energy‐Generated). The Renewable Energy‐Generated is loosely defined as follows:  Renewable Energy‐Generated is the total energy produced by the customer’s photovoltaic system for the service period on the bill, as determined by the REC meter. No charges are associated with this item and it is provided on the bill for informational purposes only. The NEM monthly bill is made up of the base charge, the charge for the Volumetric energy, and the credit for the Received energy as defined above. Conclusion In conclusion, NewGen finds that: 1. Every NEM customer has two meters: a REC meter for informational purposes that registers the total energy generated by the customer’s DG system and a bi‐directional meters that registers at each interval the Volumetric energy and the Received energy. The values registered by the bi‐directional meter are used to bill the customer. 2. The Utility’s NEM billing methodology is reasonable, appropriate and is consistent with common industry practice. Page 58 of 97 Memorandum Georgetown Electric Utility July 22, 2020 Page 4 3. The DG Agreement accurately describes the NEM billing method of summing a customer’s net consumed energy (Volumetric) and energy sent back to the City (Received) over the course of a billing cycle. 4. The City has been billing NEM customers using the NEM billing method as described in the DG Agreement for the last 10 years. 5. The proposed update to the NEM rate does not change the mechanics of how NEM customers are billed – it merely changes the amount that Received energy is credited to better reflect “the City’s estimated avoided fuel costs” as stated in the DG Agreement and establishes a minimum bill policy. Page 59 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 28, 2020 S UBJEC T: P resentation, updates, and discussion regarding the police department’s CommU N ITY Initiative -- Wayne Nero, Chief of P olice I T EM S UMMARY: Since 2 01 5 the po lice department has been wo rking within a framework in which to engage the community. The CommU N ITY Initiative is a strate gic framework for the Georgetown P olice Department’s Co mmunity Engagement P lan. The police department has identified seven major stakeho lder groups in which the department will work strategically and intentionally with in order to forge stronger relationships, meet and exceed stakeholder policing needs and expectations, and strengthen public trust and legitimacy. The seven stakeholder groups the police department will be focused on include: 1. Neighborhoods (micro-communities) 2. Youth 3. Business Community 4. Elderly 5. Churches 6. Non-governmental Organizations (Social Services) 7. Media In light of recent events, a Chief ’s CommU N ITY Advisory Task Force has been established. This task force is comprised of a very diverse group o f community leaders. This workshop will provide the c ouncil an overview of the program, discuss the on-going work with the advisory task force and outline the anticipated work ahead in the coming months. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N/A S UBMI T T ED BY: R LD on behalf of Wayne Nero AT TAC HMENT S : Description C ommUNI T Y P resentation Page 60 of 97 City Council Workshop July 28, 2020 Page 61 of 97 Stakeholder Groups Police Micro Communities Youth Businesses SeniorsMedia Faith Based Social Services To Be the Standard...Refuse Mediocrity Page 62 of 97 Engagement Strategy To Be the Standard...Refuse Mediocrity Relationships Meaningful Dialogue Problem Solving Page 63 of 97 CommUNITY Advisory Task Force •25+ Members •Longstanding working relationships with a diverse group of community leaders •Advisory group to Office of the Chief regarding the CommUNITY Initiative •Series of Stakeholder Summits (Listen & Learn) Page 64 of 97 STAKEHOLDER SUMMITS •Opportunity to Listen & Learn •Summit Pillars (FOCUS) 1.Building Trust and Legitimacy 2.Policy and Oversight 3.Technology & Strategic Communications 4.Community Engagement & Crime Reduction 5.Training & Education 6.Officer Wellness & Safety Page 65 of 97 STAKEHOLDER SUMMIT FRAMEWORK WORKING FRAMEWORK 1.Identify a desired end state of each pillar through collaboration 2.Identify the stakeholders involved 3.Get “outward” regarding those stakeholders 4.Brainstorm and identify actionable ideas that work towards the desired end state from the perspective of the various stakeholders Page 66 of 97 NEXT STEPS 1.Complete remaining 5 pillars with the Advisory Task Force 2.Develop Leadership Task Force for each of the specific 6 Pillars 3.Develop and host Listen & Learn Summits within each of the 7 stakeholder groups 4.Develop a summary report containing recommendations resulting from each summit 5.Work with staff to develop action items from community recommendations 6.Dedicate staff and resources towards working on action items Page 67 of 97 Page 68 of 97 Page 69 of 97 Page 70 of 97 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 28, 2020 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding F Y21 Budget Development -- Tadd P hillips, Human Resources Director and David Morgan, City Manager I T EM S UMMARY: The purpose of this workshop is to provide an update o n the information Co uncil re que ste d during the FY2 1 Budget Workshop on J uly 21. This includes updates on public safety market compensation, employee merit compensation, police staffing, one-time expenses and other areas where Council requested more information to develop the City’s FY21 budget. Feedback is requested from the Council to inform the City Manager ’s budget submittal for August 11. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: ... S UBMI T T ED BY: R LD on behalf of Laurie Brewer AT TAC HMENT S : Description Budget P res entation 07.28.2020 Page 71 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget FY2021 Budget Update Page 72 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Purpose –Follow-up items from Budget Workshop on July 21 •Review July 21 Recommendations •Employee Compensation Approach Overview •Public Safety Employee Market & Step Compensation •Non-Public Safety Market & Merit Compensation •Revenue Update •Recommended Compensation and other Budgetary adjustments aligned with Council feedback •Opportunity for additional feedback prior to August 11 City Manager’s Proposed Budget Page 73 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Financial Circumstances for FY21 Budget •Lower revenue for FY21 •Flat sales tax •Lower development, court and recreation revenue •Property tax within 3.5% cap •Increased costs pressures •Fire Station 6&7 •SAFER Grant reduction (75% to 35%) •Strategy: •Flat expenditure plan •Reduced compensation plan •Base budget cuts Page 74 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Targeted Base Budget Cuts •$726,000 in General Fund •$220,000 in Joint Services •Cuts include: •Frozen Positions (6 in the GF) •Travel/Training •Equipment/Supplies •Maintenance Items Page 75 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Reminder from July 21: Continue Market & Step Pay Adjustments •Market adjustments implemented for police and fire sworn, along with step increases •Police Market -$99,000 •88 employees; 60% implementation; .3% to 1.5% average increase •Fire Market -$264,000 •138 employees; 60% implementation; 1.7% to 2.5% average increase •Police Steps -$118,000 •88 employees; 2-4% average annual step •Fire Steps -$176,000 •138 employees; 2-4% average annual step •Non-Public Safety -$246,000 across all funds •44% of employees; 30% of job titles; average of 2% increasePage 76 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Compensation –July 21 Examples Employee Count Market Step/Merit Total Firefighter* 138 @60%=2.5%2-4%4.5-6.5% Police Officer* 88 @60%=1.5% 2-4%3.5-5.5% Non-Public Safety 265 Yes = 2%0%2% Non-Public Safety 280 No = 0%0%0% Total Cost: $903,000 *not all public safety ranks have same market or step as FF & PO, these are illustrative examples Page 77 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Fiscal & Budgetary Policy •City Council and Management recognize the importance of attracting, hiring, developing, and retaining the best people, and compensating them for the value they create. Our outstanding and innovative City employees work diligently to bring the Vision of Council to life and deliver exceptional services to our customers while exemplifying our Core Values. The following programs are subject to available funding in the annual operating budget. •Competitive Compensation –In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City has implemented a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Program to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: •Annual Pay Plan Review (Market)–To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, the City will review its pay plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City’s competitive pay plans. •Pay for Performance (Merit)–Each year the City will fund performance based pay adjustments for regular non-public safety personnel. This merit-based program aids in retaining quality employees by rewarding their performance. Pay for Performance adjustments are based on the employee’s most recently completed performance evaluation. •Public Safety Steps (Steps)–Each year the City will fund anniversary step increases for public safety sworn personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design. Page 78 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Core Human Resources Mission and Goals Market reviews focus on Strategic goal 3: Retain our Employees by rewarding high performance, and assuring pay is market competitive Page 79 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Total Rewards •Total rewards From World at WorkPage 80 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Employee Turnover Page 81 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Current Police & Fire Pay Scales Page 82 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Current Police & Fire Market Data Police Officer Fire Fighter Organization Min Midpoint Max Organization Min Paramedic Total Georgetown $55,550 $68,556 $81,562 Georgetown $50,803 $5,400 $56,203 Austin $60,453 $79,300 $98,147 Austin $52,854 $52,854 San Marcos $57,163 $68,337 $79,511 TCESD2 (Pflugerville)$51,193 $9,000 $60,193 Williamson County $54,387 $64,524 $74,661 Cedar Park $53,000 $53,000 Sugar Land $60,341 $70,897 $81,453 New Braunfels $51,884 $3,000 $54,884 Leander $57,096 $68,838 $80,579 Round Rock $54,377 $6,000 $60,377 Cedar Park $57,960 $71,505 $85,049 Lewisville $65,014 $1,800 $66,814 New Braunfels $54,075 $63,374 $72,673 Sugar Land $54,134 $6,000 $60,134 Pflugerville $51,022 $65,260 $79,498 Survey Pool Average $54,637 $5,160 $58,322 Round Rock $59,946 $72,343 $84,739 Base Pay Diff -7.5%4.4%-3.8% Survey Pool Average $56,938 $69,375 $81,812 Base Pay $ to Market $52,922 $5,400 $58,322 Base Pay Diff -2.5%-1.2%-0.3%Base Pay % to Market 4.2% Summary of Police Market Movement Summary of Fire Market Movement 100%Mkt 80%Mkt 60%Mkt 100%Mkt 80%Mkt 60%Mkt Police Officer 2.5%2.0%1.5%Fire Fighter 4.2%3.4%2.5% Sergeant 0.5%0.4%0.3%Driver 4.1%3.3%2.5% Lieutenant 2.1%1.7%1.3%Lieutenant 2.9%2.3%1.7% Captain 1.8%1.5%1.1%Captain 3.0%2.4%1.8% Battalion Chief 2.9%2.3%1.7% Page 83 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Police Officer Increase History & Market Impact All market increases for Police & Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at 100% Page 84 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Fire Fighter Increase History & Market Impact All market increases for Police & Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at 100% Page 85 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Non-Public Safety Merit History Rating Feb-16 Feb-17 Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Below Expectations 0%0%0%0%0% Meets Expectations 1%1%2%2%2% Exceed Expectations 2%2%3%3%3% Excellent 3%3%4%4%4% Page 86 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Non-Public Safety Market History 40 % of the 280 non-public safety job titles are benchmarked annually against comparator organizations previously approved by Council. Page 87 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Side by Side History & Projection Notes: •Firefighter includes paramedic credential pay •Projections based on historical market increases •Non Civil Supervisor with one prior market adjustment, one in future, and exceeds expectations merit increases for all years Page 88 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Revised FY21 Budget Plan •Include two police officer patrol positions •Increase compensation •Fire/Police civil service positions •Non-civil service positions •Funding Strategy: •Improved Tax Roll: $374,000 in additional revenue •Use Economic Stability Reserve/Council Contingency for one-time uses •Find additional cuts Page 89 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Recommended Budgetary Adjustments •Use of One-Time Funding (Available Balances) •Economic Stability Reserve (ESR) -$1,759,446 •Council Special Revenue Fund (CSRF) -$110,983$1,870,429 •Less Once Time Uses ($458,400) •New police staff equip –new ($192K) •Small neighborhood plans –($100K) •Previously funded in GF –7/21 version ($166,400) •Fire Station Equipment ($78.4K) •Redistricting ($50K) •Mobility Bond ($38K) •Ending Balance –ESR/CSRF $1.4M Page 90 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Recommended Budgetary Adjustments •General Fund (7/21 book)$140,510 •Increase Property Tax Revenue $374,000 •Add back -$166,400 •Projects previously funded in General fund move to Council SRF/ESR (Equipment, Redistricting, Mobility Bond) •Freeze vacant library position $75,000 •Increase Costs: •Police –80%($33,000) •Fire –80%($88,000) •Two Police officers (on-going costs)($162,000) •2% Merit Increase for non-civil service ($199,000) •($317,000) in other Funds •Remaining balance $273,910 Page 91 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Compensation –July 28 Update Employee Count Market Step/Merit Total Firefighter* 138 @80%=3.4%2-4%5.4-7.4% Police Officer* 88 @80%=2.0% 2-4%4-6% Non-Public Safety 265 Yes = 2%2%**4% Non-Public Safety 280 No = 0%2%**2% Total Cost •Police/Fire Civil Service: $778,000 •Non-Civil Service: $762,000 *not all public safety ranks have same market or step as FF & PO, these are illustrative examples **average distribution Page 92 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Police Officer Increase History & Market Impact All market increases for Police & Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at 100% Cumulative recalculation Page 93 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Fire Fighter Increase History & Market Impact All market increases for Police & Fire from FY2016 through FY2020 were recommended and funded at 100% Page 94 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget FY2021 Proposed Budget Calendar •August 11 –City Manager’s proposed budget •Aug 11: Regular Meeting; set max tax rate, & set dates for Public Hearings •Sep 9: Regular Meeting: public hearings, 1st reading of the budget, 1st reading of the tax rate •Sep. 22: Regular Meeting: 2nd reading of the budget, 2nd reading of the tax rate Page 95 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Public Outreach •Current •Draft workbook and presentation posted at finance.georgetown.org •Future -proposed Budget (8/11) posted •City website and eBook at Library; Facebook •Press release on proposed budget •Public Hearings on Budget and Tax Rate 9/9 •Adopted Budget in Brief published on website •Adopted Budget (full book) published on website/library •Budget Video on Adopted Budget on website/social media Page 96 of 97 FY2021 Annual Budget Questions? Page 97 of 97