HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 09.22.2020 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the
Governing B ody of the
C ity of Georgetown, Texas
S eptember 2 2, 2 02 0
The Georgetown City Council will meet on September 22, 2020 at 3:00 P M at Teleconference
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, ple ase clic k this
U R L to join:
https://geor getowntx.zoom.us/s/92119288480?
pwd=N H pr emY 5 Y Th Ye E lvTGlic no0c mx L U T09
Webinar I D: 921 1928 8480
P assc ode : 668390
De sc ription: City C ouncil Workshop and Re gular M e eting for Tuesday,
Se pte mber 22nd, 2020.
O r join by phone, dial(for highe r quality, dial a numbe r base d on your
c ur re nt location):
(346)248-7799 O R (253)215-8782 O R (669)900-6833 O R (929)205-6099 O R
(301)715-8592 O R (312)626-6799
TO L L F R E E (833)548-0276 O R (833)548-0282 O R (877)853-5257 O R
(888)475-4499
Webinar I D: 921 1928 8480
P assc ode : 668390
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
Submit the following form by 12:00 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 ite m
that is be ing disc usse d –
Page 1 of 121
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”
dur ing the ite m. If you ar e unsur e if your devic e has a mic rophone ple ase
use your home or mobile phone to dial the toll fr ee number. To J oin a
Zoom M ee ting, clic k on the link and join as an attende e. You will be asked
to e nte r your name and email addre ss – this is so we can identify you whe n
you are calle d upon. At the bottom of the we bpage of the Zoom M e eting,
ther e is an option to Raise your H and. To speak on an ite m, simply clic k on
that R aise Your H and option onc e the item you wish to spe ak on has
opened. Whe n you are calle d upon by the M ayor, your de vice will be
r emotely un-muted by the A dministrator and you may speak for thr ee
minute s. P lease 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 loc ated at
City H all, 808 M artin L uther K ing J r. S tre et, Community R oom. Soc ial
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 , slander ous
r emarks or thr eats of harm are not allowed and will re sult in you be ing
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 the 2020 Citizen Survey -- Dr. Thomas Longoria,
P rofessor and Director of Center for Research, P ublic P olicy, and Training at Texas State
University; and Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager
B P resentation, discussion and direction regarding water rates and the water cost of service study --
Glenn Dishong, Water Utilities Director and Matthew Garrett, NewGen Strategies and Solutions
C P resentation and discussion regarding Distributed Generation Interconnection and Net Energy
Metering Updates -- Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility
D P resentation, discussion, and direction regarding the proposed Right-of-Way P ermit P rogram and
Regulations -- Ray Miller, P ublic Works Director
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
Page 2 of 121
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.072: Del i berati ons about Real P roperty
- Westinghouse Right of Way
- S H-29 Right of Way, Hillwood
Sec. 551.074: P ersonnel Matters
- City Secretary Check-in
Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters
- P urchased P ower Update
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
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 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 22, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding the 2020 Citizen Survey -- Dr. Thomas Longoria, P rofessor and Director of
Center for Research, P ublic P olicy, and Training at Texas State University; and Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the
City Manager
I T EM S UMMARY:
P resentation and discussion regarding biennial Citizen Survey done in partnership with Texas State University.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
Total cost not to exceed $8,886.15.
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
2020 C itizen S urvey P resentation
2018 C itizen S urvey R eport
2018 O nline C itizen S urvey
Page 4 of 121
2020 RESIDENT SURVEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP: SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
Page 5 of 121
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
•Survey overview
•Revised Project timeline
•Efforts to improve response
•Focus group feedback on results
Page 6 of 121
SURVEY OVERVIEW
•Likert Scale Survey Instrument
•Demographic and Geographic Section
•Key in keeping the survey accurate.
•12 Focus Areas
•Typically 4 to 8 questions per Focus Areas
•Refined instrument
•Reduced repeated questions
•More opportunities for open-ended feedback
Page 7 of 121
FOCUS AREAS
12 Base Focus Areas:
Quality of life Service utilization
Mobility Media usage
Development Perception of government
Public safety Employee interaction
Service Quality (Utilities)Perception of safety
Service Quality (Parks/Library)Value for taxes
Page 8 of 121
REVISED PROJECT TIMELINE
•September: Council direction on survey
•September 30: Texas State University finalizes survey instrument
•October: Texas State University mails survey
•November : Texas State University launches open survey link available
•Late November: Analyze results
•December: Focus groups
•January: Submission of full report and presentation of findings made to
Council
Page 9 of 121
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE RESPONSE
•Continue direct mail survey
•Promote online survey to entire community
•Analyze results to ensure data reflects household data
•More robust efforts to improve renter response (e.g., customized
message on mailing envelope and focus group with renters)
Page 10 of 121
DISCUSSION/DIRECTION
•Confirm survey questions
•Confirm timeline
•Confirm efforts to improve results
Page 11 of 121
i
Georgetown Community Survey 2018
Final Report
Thomas Longoria, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Center for Public Policy, Research, and Training
Texas State University
Page 12 of 121
ii
Executive Summary
About the Survey
The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,300 households in May of 2018. There were 469
completed surveys. The response rate for the random sample survey was 20 percent. Based on the
response rate we can be 95% certain that the results for the questions reflect the views of Georgetown
households with a margin of error of +/- 4. In addition, a link to an open survey was also made available
to the public and 873 residents completed the survey.
The survey is generally representative of households in Georgetown when the demographics of the
survey respondents are compared to 2018 American Community Survey Data from the US Census. For
example, in 2018, and estimated 16% of occupied housing units in Georgetown have a non-white head
household according to the US Census and 17 % of the survey respondents indicated that they were
non-white. The estimated percent of residents who have lived in Georgetown 5 years or less is 47%
according to census estimates. Fifty-three percent of survey respondents indicated that they moved to
Georgetown 5 years or less. There are two notable exceptions. The estimated percentage of renter-
occupied housing in Georgetown is 27% compared to 10% of the respondents indicated that they rent.
According to the US Census, 56% of Georgetown residents are 65 years old or younger compared to 25%
of the respondents (see Figures 20 to 24). The survey results were statistically weighted to determine if
these differences influenced the findings, they did not. In addition, when survey responses were
examined by age and home ownership, few differences were found.
It is important to note that the responses reflect respondent perceptions. These perceptions should not
be mistaken for objective “reality.” Perceptions are formed in the context of expectations that people
have for the quality of public services in Georgetown. For example, waiting three minutes to get
through an intersection may be perceived to be an excessive amount of time by people expecting small
town traffic. The same three minutes may not be noticed by people expecting rush hour traffic for a
growing community in a booming metro area.
Three contrasts are presented in the report below to provide additional insights including:
• Contrast #1: Comparison to a benchmarks
• Contrast #2: Comparison to the prior survey
• Contrast #3: Comparison across demographic categories
The major findings from these contracts are included in this executive summary.
Contrast #1: Comparison to Benchmarks
Greater than 75 percent of respondents who indicate that the service is good or excellent can be said to
meet or exceed benchmark for quality provision. With a 4 percent margin of error, 76 percent is
potentially 80 percent. Based on this criterion, Georgetown met or exceeded benchmark for quality
provision in 32 of 39 service indicators (82%). Areas for improvement identified in the survey included:
(1) traffic and parking; (2) employment opportunities; (3) housing opportunities; (4) retail options. The
top three priorities volunteered by respondents in an open-ended question are: (1) traffic; (2)
infrastructure and roads; (3) manage growth.
Page 13 of 121
iii
Contrast #2: Changes Over Time
There have been some changes in the percentage of respondents who say that the city is doing a good
or excellent job. Given the margin of error, only changes greater than 4% are considered.
In 8 of 25 cases common questions in the 2016 and 2018 surveys there were improvements of more
than four percent (32%). Improvements were observed in street repair, city beautification, the city as a
place to work, and emergency preparedness.
In 1 of 25 cases, there was a decrease in the percent who rated the service area good or excellent (4%).
The percent of respondents who rated traffic flow as good or excellent decreased by 16%.
Contrast #3: Comparisons Across Demographic Characteristics
Differences in responses were examined for seven different demographic characteristics including:
income, age, race, gender, home ownership, children in the home, number of years living in
Georgetown. In general, there are few statistically significant differences in the views of Georgetown
residents when they are examined in terms of their demographic characteristics. Thirty statistically
significant differences were found out of 231 statistical tests (33 indicators * 7 demographic
characteristics). In other words, statistically significant differences were found in 13% of the possible
cases.
The full results are presented in the report below. Highlights include:
• Lower income residents were less satisfied with employment and housing
• Residents under 65 were less satisfied with the city as place to work and walking for leisure
• Non-white residents were less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control, and water
services
• Women were less satisfied with the city as a place to work and biking for leisure
• Owners were less satisfied with traffic and parking. Renters are less satisfied with housing
opportunities
• Households that include children were less satisfied with walking for leisure
• Residents for more than 10 years were less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control,
street repair and traffic signal timing
Results for Specific Items
The remainder of the report presents the frequencies for each of the indicators in the survey. The
information is presented using bar charts to illustrate the range of responses. In each bar chart, the
number of respondents in found in parenthesis next to the indicator. The percent for each response
category is placed above the bars in the bar chart. Notable findings are presented with each bar chart.
Page 14 of 121
iv
List of Figures and Tables
Page
Figure 1: Value of City Services for City Taxes Paid 1
Figure 2: Quality of Government by Level of Government 2
Figure 3: Perceptions of Overall Quality of Life in Georgetown 3
Figure 4: Perceptions of Development 4
Figure 5: Traffic and Parking 5
Figure 6: Walking and Biking 6
Figure 7: Emergency Services 7
Figure 8: Code Enforcement and Permitting 8
Figure 9: Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement 9
Figure 10: Streets and Sidewalks 10
Figure 11: Utility Services 11
Figure 12: Waste Services 12
Figure 13: Services and City Beautification 13
Figure 14: Neighborhood Safety 14
Figure 15 Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas 15
Figure 16: Service Utilization 16
Figure 17: Sources for News about Georgetown 17
Figure 18: Contact with City Employee 18
Figure 19: Rating of City Employee Contact 18
Figure 20: Years Lived in Georgetown 28
Figure 21: Racial Background 29
Figure 22: Age of Householder 30
Figure 23: Home Ownership 31
Table 1: Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018 19
Table 2: Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018, Cont. 20
Table 3: Perceptions about the Quality of Different Levels of Government 21
Table 4: Statistically Significant Differences by Income Groups 22
Table 5: Statistically Significant Differences by Age Groups 22
Table 6 Statistically Significant Differences by Racial Groups 22
Table 7: Statistically Significant Differences by Gender 23
Table 8: Statistically Significant Differences by Home Ownership 23
Table 9: Statistically Significant Differences by Children in the Home 23
Table 10: Statistically Significant Differences by Years in Georgetown 24
Table 11: Resident Perception by Survey Method 25
Table 12: Resident Perceptions by Survey Method, Cont. 26
Table 13: Survey Responses by Survey Method 27
Page 15 of 121
1
Responses to Key Indicators
Value of City Services
In 2018, 81% of respondents indicated that the value of city services for city taxes paid was excellent or
good. This represents a 3% increase compared to 78% in 2016.
26.1
54.8
16.6
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 1: Value of City Services for City Taxes Paid (n=440)
Page 16 of 121
2
Quality of Government by Level of Government
83% of respondents rated the quality of local government as good or excellent in 2018 compared to 82%
in 2016. 80% rate county government as good or excellent, 62% rate state government as good or
excellent, and 55% rate the federal government as good or excellent.
9.4 10.1
15.5
20.8
45.3
51.5
64.2 61.8
33.3
30.1
17.2 14.8
12
8.3
3.1 2.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Federal Government
(n=393)
State Government (n=396)County Government
(n=413)
City Government (n=427)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 2: Quality of Government by Level of Government
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 17 of 121
3
Quality of Life
98% of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Georgetown as good or excellent in 2018. The
same percentage (98%) indicated that overall quality of life was good or excellent in 2016. The quality
of life indicator rated the lowest was the city as a place to work. 81% of respondents indicated that the
city was an excellent or good place to work. However, this is a 7% increase in the percentage who
indicated that the city was a good or excellent place to work in 2016.
64.5
60.6
38.4
68.4
60.3
32.7 34.3
42.1
25.7
37.2
2.4 3.5
14.8
4.4 2.10.4 1.6
4.8
1.5 0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
The City as a Place to
Live (n=468)
A Place to Raise
Children (n=315)
A Place to Work
(n=271)
A Place to Retire
(n=452)
Overall Quality of Life
(468)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 3: Perceptions of Quality of Life in Georgetown
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 18 of 121
4
Perceptions of Development
84% rate the quality of businesses and services as good or excellent. 69% rate housing opportunities as
good or excellent, and 68% rate retail options as good or excellent. For these three, there were no
changes from 2016. In 2018, 56% of residents rate employment opportunities as good or excellent, a
3% increase compared to 2016 results.
19.7
10.8
15.9 18
64.4
45
52.6 50
13.9
32.3
24.4
27.2
2
12
7.1 4.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Quality of Businesses and
Service Establishments
(n=461)
Employment Opportunities
(n=346)
Housing Opportunities
(n=397)
Retail Options (n=434)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 4: Perceptions of Development
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 19 of 121
5
Traffic and Parking
25% of respondents rate traffic flow as good or excellent. In 2016, 41% rated traffic flow as good or
excellent. The percentage who rated traffic flow as poor increased from 18% to 28%
2.1
6.6
23.2
40.7
46.3
36.5
28.4
16.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Traffic Flow on Major Streets (n=404)Amount of Public Parking (N=457)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 5: Traffic and Parking
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 20 of 121
6
Alternative Transportation Modes
45% rate the availability of walking paths and trails as good or excellent. 30% of respondents rated the
ease of biking to work as good or excellent. 22% rated the ease of walking to work as good or excellent.
Note that the number of respondents for these cases is low, likely meaning that for most people walking
or biking to work is not applicable or relevant. In other words, of those who might be able or interested
in walking to work, only 22% rated the ability as good or excellent.
In 2016, 77% rated the availability of paths and walking trails as good or excellent. The decrease of
32% is likely a function of priming. After being asked about all the different walks that paths and
walking trails might be used (for recreation and to get to work), people were primed to think about
walking paths and trails and if they meet their perceived needs.
10.9
17.8
4.5
38.7
6.3
34.5
41.9
25.5
40.2
16.1
34.2
28.5 30.6
17.4
28.7
20.5
11.9
39.5
3.7
48.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Availability of Paths
and Walking Trails
(n=386)
Ease of Biking for
Leisure (n=270)
Ease of Biking for
Work (n=157)
Ease of Walking for
Leisure (n=455)
Ease of Walking for
Work (n=174)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 6: Walking and Biking
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 21 of 121
7
Emergency Services
96% of respondents rated police services as good or excellent and 97% rated fire services as good or
excellent. 93% of respondents rated emergency preparedness as good or excellent, an increase of 6%
compared to 2016.
55
68.9
41.341
28.1
51.7
3.4 2.5
5.6
0.7 0.5 1.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Police Services (n=444)Fire sevices (n=441)Emergency Preparedness (n=375)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 7: Emergency Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 22 of 121
8
Code Enforcement and Permitting
78% of respondents rated permitting and inspections as good or excellent. 87% rated animal control as
good or excellent. 78% rated code enforcement as good or excellent.
22.2
32.7
17.7
55.3 54
60.2
18.1
10.2
15
4.4 3.1
7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Code Enforcement (n=320)Animal Control (n=352)Permitting and Inspection (n=254)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 8: Code Enforcement and Permitting
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 23 of 121
9
Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement
80% of respondents rated traffic enforcement as good or excellent. 92% rated municipal courts as good
or excellent.
30.8
25.1
60.7
55.1
7.3
15.1
1.2
4.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Municipal Courts (n=247)Traffic Enforcement(n=414)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 9: Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 24 of 121
10
Streets and Sidewalks
73% rated street repair as good or excellent, a 12% increase since 2016. 72% rated street lighting as
good or excellent. 53% rated traffic signal timing as good or excellent
15.9 17.8
9.9
57.4
52.4
43.2
20.7 22.8
31
6.1 7
15.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Street Repair (n=460)Street Lighting (n=460)Traffic Signal Timing (n=465)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 10: Streets and Sidewalks
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 25 of 121
11
Utility Services
94% of respondents rated sewer services as good or excellent. 92% of respondents rated electric
services as good or excellent. 90% rated city water services as good or excellent.
38 38.8
44.3
51.2
54.8
47.8
8.9
6.2 7.4
2 0.2 0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
City Water Services (n=461)City Sewer Services (n=436)City Electric Services (n=431)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 11: Utility Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 26 of 121
12
Waste Services
94% of respondents rated the quality of the garbage collection as good or excellent. 91% rated recycling
as good or excellent. 76% rated yard waste pickup as good or excellent.
52.6 51.8
32.8
40.9 39
43.4
5.8 5.9
14.9
0.6
3.2
8.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Garbage Collection (n=462)Recycling (n=438)Yard Waste Pickup (n=403)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 12: Waste Services
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 27 of 121
13
Services and City Beautification
89% of respondents rated services to youth as good or excellent. 88% of respondents rated services to
seniors as good or excellent. 92% rated city beautification as good or excellent.
37.8
33.7
41.2
49.7
55.6
50.4
11.7
9.1 8
0.8 1.6 0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Services to Seniors (n=368)Services to Youth (n=252)City Beautification (n=452)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 13: Services and City Beautification
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 28 of 121
14
Neighborhood Safety
90% of respondents rated neighborhood safety at night as good or excellent. 89% feel safe in their
neighborhood at night. 95% of respondents feel safe in the downtown square. Note how the
percentage who rate safety as good is different across these three indicators. Respondents are less
likely to rate safety in the downtown square and in their neighborhood at night as excellent.
64
47 47.4
30
41.5
47.9
5.1
9.6
4.5
0.9 2 0.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Neighborhood (Day) (n=470)Neighborhood (Night) (n=460)Downtown Square (n=397)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 14: Neighborhood Safety
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 29 of 121
15
Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
88% of respondents rated safety in city parks as good or excellent. 79% rated safety in recreational
waters as good or excellent. 95% rated safety in shopping centers as good or excellent. 81% rated the
safety of city drinking water as good or excellent.
32.5
27.8
40.9
36.9
55.1
50.9
53.9
44.3
12.1
17.5
4.9
10.3
0.3
3.8
0.2
8.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
City Parks (n=314)Recreational Waters
(n=234)
Shopping Centers
(n=445)
Drinking Water (n=447)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 15: Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 30 of 121
16
Service Utilization
57% of respondents visited the downtown square often or very often. 32% of respondents visited a city
park often or very often. 32% visited the city library often or very often. 19% utilized a recreation
program often or very often. 17% visited the city website often or very often.
15
9.4
12.4
21.7
5.1
16.5
9.9
19.1
35
11.9
30.4
19.5
36.2
32.4
26
19.1
25.8
21.2
7.7
24.2
19.2
35.4
11.1
3.2
32.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
City Library (n=467)Recreation Programs
(n=466)
Visted a City Park
(n=382)
Visited the
Downtown Square
(n=466)
Visted City Website
(n=454)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 16: Service Utilization
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Page 31 of 121
17
Sources of News about Georgetown
20% of respondents used the city social media as a source for news. 63% of respondents used
Community Impact as source for news often or very often. In 2018, top three sources for news based on
the percentage who said they used the source very often, often, or sometimes: (1) Community Impact
(80%); (2) City Newsletter (75%); (3) Williamson County Sun (62%). In 2016, top three sources for news
based on the percentage who said they used the source more than 12 times in the past year: (1)
Williamson County Sun (42%), (2) Community Impact (30%); Local TV Stations (20%). These different
response categories may have influenced the results.
13.9
5.5
22.1
27.6
2
6.8
36.4
14.3
22.6
34.9
3.7
13
24.3
19.4 16.9 17.5
5.5
22.9
8.9
17.4 16
9.9
14.3
18.716.5
43.4
22.4
10.1
74.5
38.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
City Newsletter
(n=461)
City Social Media
(n=454)
Williamson
County Sun
(n=456)
Community
Impact (n=456)
GTV Ch. 10
(n=455)
Local TV Stations
(n=455)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 17: Sources for News about Georgetown
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Page 32 of 121
18
Resident-Initiated Contacting
54% percent of residents had contact with a city employee in the last year. 91% rated the service the
employee provided as good or excellent overall.
54.4
45.6
Figure 18: Percent of Residents Who Had
Contact with a City Employee
Yes No
54.336.4
3.9
4.7
Figure 19: Rating City Employee Contact
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Page 33 of 121
19
Table 1: Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018
Indicators 2016 2018 Change
Value of City Services for
Taxes Paid
78 81 +3
Perceptions of Overall
Quality of Life
Overall Quality of Life 98 98 0
The City as a Place to Live 98 97 -1
Life Choices and Quality
of Life
A Place to Raise Children 95 95 0
A Place to Work 74 81 +7
A Place to Retire 95 94 -1
Perceptions of
Development
Quality of New
Development
Overall Quality of
Businesses
84 84 0
Employment
Opportunities
53 56 +3
Housing Opportunities 70 69 -1
Retail Options 68
Traffic and Parking
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets
41 25 -16
Amount of Public Parking 46 47 +1
Walking and Biking
Ease of Walking for
Leisure [Availability of
walking paths in 2016]
77 79
Emergency Services
Police Services 95 96 +1
Fire/EMS Services 98 97 -1
Emergency Preparedness 87 93 +6
Municipal Courts and
Traffic Enforcement
Municipal Courts 90 92 +2
Traffic Enforcement 77 80 +3
Page 34 of 121
20
Table 2: Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Services Perceptions 2016-2018
Indicators 2016 2018 Change
Code Enforcement and
Permitting
Code Enforcement 77 78 -1
Animal Control 83 87 +5
Streets and Sidewalks
Street Repair 61 73 +12
Street Lighting 69 70 +1
Traffic Signal Timing 52 53 +1
Garbage and Sewer
Garbage Collection 92 94 +2
Recycling 91 91 0
Yard Waste Pickup 77 76 -1
Sewer Services 89 94 +5
Parks and Recreation
and Public Library
City Parks 95 95 0
Recreation Programs 91 93 +2
Public Library 96 98 +2
Services
Services to Seniors 88 88 0
Services to Youth 84 89 +5
City Beautification 84 92 +8
Page 35 of 121
21
Table 3: Perceptions of Quality of Government by Level of Government 2016-
2018
2016 2018 Change
City Government 82 83 +1
County
Government
75 80 +5
State Government 62 62 0
Federal
Government
48 55 +7
Page 36 of 121
22
Statistically Significant Differences
Income
Table 4: Statistically Significant Differences by Income
Percent Good or Excellent
Less than 75K More than 75K N Chi-Square Sig.
Traffic 33 22 406 6.18 .01
Employment
Opportunities
46 63 221 5.98 .01
Housing
Opportunities
60 77 350 11.84 .001
Traffic
Enforcement
75 86 362 7.40 .007
Yard Waste
Pickup
82 72 349 4.49 .03
Age
Table 5: Statistically Significant Differences by Age
Percent Good or Excellent
Less than 65 More than 65 N Chi-Square Sig.
Place to Work 69 83 216 5.54 .02
Walking for
Leisure
68 81 331 6.57 .01
City Drinking
Water
81 90 335 4.60 .03
Race
Table 6: Statistically Significant Differences by Race
Percent Good or Excellent
Non-White White N Chi-Square Sig.
Housing
Opportunities
58 70 397 3.81 .05
Animal Control 77 89 352 5.88 .02
City Water
Services
78 91 461 10.80 .001
Page 37 of 121
23
Gender
Table 7: Statistically Significant Differences by Gender
Percent Good or Excellent
Male Female N Chi-Square Sig.
A Place to
Work
86 75 263 5.47 .02
Traffic 19 32 454 10.7 .001
Biking for
Leisure
67 52 261 6.34 .01
Traffic Signal
Timing
48 57 451 3.91 .05
Home Ownership
Table 8: Statistically Significant Differences by Home Ownership
Percent Good or Excellent
Owner Renter N Chi-Square Sig.
Traffic 24 38 458 4.10 .04
Parking 45 66 447 6.85 .009
Housing
Opportunities
70 54 388 4.54 .03
Recycling 82 76 427 10.7 .001
Children in Home
Table 9: Statistically Significant Differences by Children in Home
Percent Good or Excellent
No Children Children N Chi-Square Sig.
Walking for
Leisure
82 65 455 10.7 .001
Street Lighting 68 80 460 3.86 .05
Page 38 of 121
24
Years in Georgetown
Table 10: Statistically Significant Differences by Years in Georgetown
Percent Good or Excellent
Less than 10
Years
More than 10
Years
N Chi-Square Sig.
Place to Retire 96 91 443 4.81 .03
Housing
Opportunities
75 61 390 9.02 .003
Police 98 94 435 5.11 .02
Traffic
Enforcement
84 76 406 4.05 .04
Code
Enforcement
84 70 313 7.96 .005
Animal Control 92 81 345 9.81 .002
Street Repair 80 65 451 11.75 .001
Traffic Signal
Timing
57 48 456 3.96 .05
Permits 85 70 247 8.29 .004
Page 39 of 121
25
Table 11: Comparison of Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions for
Open Survey and Random Sample Surveys 2018
Indicators Open Survey Random Sample Difference
Value of City Services for
Taxes Paid
71 81 +10
Perceptions of Overall
Quality of Life
Overall Quality of Life 94 98 +4
The City as a Place to Live 95 97 +2
Life Choices and Quality
of Life
A Place to Raise Children 92 95 +3
A Place to Work 74 81 +7
A Place to Retire 91 94 +3
Perceptions of
Development
Quality of New
Development
58 76 +18
Overall Quality of
Businesses
75 84 +9
Employment
Opportunities
52 56 +4
Housing Opportunities 61 69 +8
Retail Options 63 68 +5
Traffic and Parking
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets
20 25 +5
Amount of Public Parking 42 47 +5
Walking and Biking
Ease of Walking for
Leisure
69 79 +10
Walking to Work 17 22 +5
Ease of Biking for Leisure 48 60 +12
Biking to Work 24 30 +8
Emergency Services
Police Services 94 96 +2
Fire Services 98 97 -1
Ambulance/EMS
Emergency Preparedness 87 93 +6
Municipal Courts and
Traffic Enforcement
Municipal Courts 87 92 +5
Traffic Enforcement 77 80 +3
Page 40 of 121
26
Table 12: Comparison of Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Services Perceptions for
Open Survey and Random Sample 2018
Indicators Open Survey Random Sample Difference
Code Enforcement and
Permitting
Code Enforcement 71 78 +7
Animal Control 84 87 +3
Permitting and Inspection 64 78 +14
Streets and Sidewalks
Street Repair 68 73 +5
Street Lighting 68 70 +2
Traffic Signal Timing 44 53 +9
Waste Services
Garbage Collection 89 94 +5
Recycling 84 91 +7
Yard Waste Pickup 70 76 +6
Utilities
Electric Services 86 92 +6
Water Services 83 89 +6
Sewer Services 89 94 +5
Parks and Recreation
and Public Library
City Parks 92 95 +3
Recreation Programs 90 93 +3
Public Library 96 98 +2
Services
Services to Seniors 85 88 +3
Services to Youth 80 89 +9
City Beautification 86 92 +6
Page 41 of 121
27
Table 13: Comparison of Respondents by Survey Method
Random Sample
Mail
Random Sample
Online
Open Survey Chi Square Sig.
Income
Less than 75K 47 23 37 15.07 .001
More than 75K 53 77 63
Children in Home
No 83 57 66 45.93 .0001
Yes 17 43 34
Years in Georgetown
Less than 10 53 57 55 .62 .75
10 or more 47 43 45
Age
Less than 65 23 52 41 31.67 .0001
65 or more 77 48 59
Gender
Male 48 56 41 7.59 .02
Female 52 44 59
Home Ownership
Owner 90 92 90 .279 .87
Renter 10 8 10
Race
Non-White 16 18 23 8.80 .01
White 84 82 77
Page 42 of 121
28
Years Lived in Georgetown
53
47
55
4547
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Less than 5 years More than 5 years
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 20: Years Lived in Georgetown
Random Sample (n=466)Open Survey (n=852)US Census
Page 43 of 121
29
Racial Background
16
84
23
77
17
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Non-White White
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 21: Racial Background
Random Sample (n=483)Open Survey (n=922)Census
Page 44 of 121
30
Age of Householder
25
75
41
5956
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Under 65 Over 65
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 22: Age of Householder
Random Sample (n=343)Open Survey (n=724)Census
Page 45 of 121
31
Home Ownership
90
10
90
10
73
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Own Rent
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 23: Home Ownership
Random Sample (n=464)Open Survey (n=847)Census
Page 46 of 121
City of Georgetown 2018 Resident Open Survey
This survey is being conducted by Texas State University on behalf of the City of Georgetown. Your address has
been randomly selected to receive this survey. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your
responses are completely confidential and there are no risks associated with completing the survey. The data will be
stored electronically for three years. While participation is optional, your feedback is extremely important to the City
for planning and decision-making purposes.
Please contact Dr. Thomas Longoria at tl28@txstate.edu 512-245-6899 if you have any questions. If you have any
concerns about this survey, contact Dr. Denise Gobert Texas State Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chair at 512-
245-3256 or dgobert@txstate.edu or Monica Gonzales at meg201@txstate.edu
Please only complete this survey one time per household. Do NOT complete this survey if your household
received a survey in the mail.
Please click the response that best represents your opinion for each of the items below. Feel free to select
N/A if you don’t know, have no opinion or if the question does not apply.
1. In your opinion, what are your top three priorities for the City of Georgetown?
Priority #1
Priority #2
Priority #3
2. Please rate the following elements of quality of life in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
The city as a place to live
A place to raise children
A place to work
A place to retire
Overall quality of life
3. Please rate the following aspects of mobility in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Ease of walking for leisure
Ease of walking to work
Traffic flow on major streets
Amount of public parking
Ease of biking for leisure
Ease of biking to work
Page 47 of 121
4. Please rate the following characteristics of development in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Quality of new development
Overall quality of businesses
Employment opportunities
Housing Availability
Retail Options
5. Please rate the quality of each of the following protective services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Police services
Fire services and EMS services
Municipal courts
Traffic enforcement
Code enforcement
Animal control
Emergency preparedness
6. Please rate the quality of each of the following city services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Street repair
Street lighting
Garbage collection
Recycling
Yard waste pickup
Traffic signal timing
City water service
City sewer service
City electric service
Permitting & inspection services
Other comments about city services:
Page 48 of 121
7. Please rate the quality of each of the following community services in Georgetown.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
City parks
Recreation programs
Services to seniors
Services to youth
Public library
City beautification
8. In the previous 12 months, how many times have you or members of your family used the following
services?
Never 1-2 times 3- 12 times 13 - 26 times
More than 26
times
City library
Recreation centers
Visited a city park
Downtown Square
9. In the previous 12 months, how often did you receive news about the City of Georgetown from the following
sources?
Never 1-2 times 3-12 times 13 - 26 times
More than 26
times
Georgetown.org (city website)
Reporter (Utility bill newsletter)
City Social Media
Williamson Co. Sun
Community Impact
GTV Ch. 10
Local TV Sta.
Other media sources:
Back Next
Page 49 of 121
10. Overall, how would you rate the quality of services provided by each of the following levels of
government?
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
The Federal Government
The State Government
County Government
City Government
Now we would like to ask you some questions about your satisfaction with
contact with city employees.
11. Have you had any in-person, phone, email or social media contact with any employee of the City of
Georgetown within the last 12 months?
Yes No
12. If you answered yes to #12, what was your impression of the employee(s) of the City in your most recent
contact? (Please write name of the department and rate each of the characteristics below).
Department Contacted
Back Next
Page 50 of 121
12. (continued) Rate the department contacted and noted earlier using each of the following
characteristics.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
Overall impression
16. Please rate safety in the following areas throughout the City.
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
In your neighborhood (day)
In your neighborhood (after
dark)
In downtown/square
In city parks
In recreational waters (Blue
Hole, Lake Georgetown)
In shopping centers
Drinking city water
18. In Georgetown, residents pay property taxes to the City, the County, and the School District. The School
District rate accounts for 60% of total property taxes paid, the County rate accounts for 20% of total property tax
paid, while the City’s rate accounts for 20% of property taxes paid. Based on this information, do you think the
value of services you receive from the City is:
Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A
The City of Georgetown is seeking feedback from a sample of residents on the use of solar panels to
generate power for city utility customers. If you would like to be considered for a 1-2 hour long focus
group, please provide your email address in the space below.
Back Next
Page 51 of 121
Single-family home (detached)
Duplex or townhome
Apartment or condo building
Mobile home
Other
Now we would like to ask you some questions about you and your
household. Remember that your responses are completely confidential and
anonymous.
19. How many years have you lived in Georgetown?
Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years
20. Which of the following best describes the building you live in?
21. Do you own or rent?
Own Rent Other Arrangement
Back Next
Page 52 of 121
Male
Female
Other
22. What is the nearest neighborhood intersection near your home? (e.g., 1st and Main)
23. What is your gender?
24. Which of the following options best describes your age category?
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 years or older
25. Please select all that apply:
Full-tme Employee Unemployed Retired Student Part-time Employee
Back Next
Page 53 of 121
White
Black or African American
Asian, Asian Indian, Pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Other
Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 $75,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $150,000 Over $150,0001
26. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?
Yes No
27. What is your race or ethnicity?
28. What is your household income?
How do you normally get to work?
Drive alone Car pool
Public
Transportation Bicycle Walk Taxi Motorcycle
Work at
home Retired Other
Back Next
Page 54 of 121
29. How many adults (18 or older) live in your household?
30. How many children (younger than 18) live in your household?
32. Anything else you want us to know?
Thank you for participating in our survey! The City of Georgetown
values your opinions.
Back Next
Page 55 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 22, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation, discussion and direction regarding water rates and the water co st of service study -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Utilities Director and Matthew Garrett, NewGen Strategies and Solutions
I T EM S UMMARY:
The City contracted Ne wGe n Strategies and Solutions to conduct a cost of service wate r rate study. The fiscal and
budgetary policy requires a 3 year review of rates. The last water rate study was conducted in 2 01 8. The purpose of the
cost-of-service analysis is to ensure
1. Fiscal P olicy Compliance
2. Revenue Sufficiency
3. Conservation
4. Equitable Cost of Service
Equitable cost of se rvic e refers to the distribution of the revenue requirements between the various custo mer classes of
service served by the utility. The first phase of the 20 20 study was presented to the Wate r Utility Bo ard on August 13 and
then at the Council workshop on August 25. The City staff and its rate consultant, NewGen, used the feedback from both
the council and the board to develop proposed rate adjustments. These results were presented to the Water Utility Board
on September 10. Their feedback was incorporated in this updated presentation.
The consultant will be presenting rate optio ns for the Co uncil’s feedback to prepare ordinance changes for future
consideration. The current schedule is to adopt ordinances in October, with rate changes effective J anuary 1, 2021.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
N A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Mayra Cantu, Management Analyst on behalf of Glenn Dishong
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentation
Page 56 of 121
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WATER AND WASTEWATER
COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN STUDY
September 22, 2020 City Council Meeting, Georgetown, TX
Page 57 of 121
2NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
AGENDA
RECAP &
BOARD FEEDBACK
RATE OPTIONS
CONCLUSION &
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2
Page 58 of 121
RECAP & BOARD FEEDBACK
Page 59 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
PROJECTED COMBINED UTILITY PERFORMANCE
UNDER CURRENT REVENUES
•Combined utility estimated to not
recover revenue required as early as
FY 2021
•Days Cash on Hand reserves drop
below 90 Days as early as FY 2023
•Water Monthly Base Charge revenues
estimated to not recognize Water
Fixed Cost of Service as early as FY
2021
4
FY (Targets)2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
DSC (1.50x)3.82 3.07 2.44 2.27 2.07
Days Cash (90 Days)*187 127 40 -24 -75
Fixed COS (75%)71%68%69%69%68%
*Excludes $10M Annual Non-Operating Contingency
Page 60 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION
•FY 2020 Study Goals and Objectives:
•Fiscal Policy Compliance (including Revenue Sufficiency)
•Equitable Cost of Service
•Conservation
•Presentations on Draft Results and Rate Setting Options
•August 13 -Georgetown Water Utility Advisory Board
•August 25 -City Council
•September 10 -Georgetown Water Utility Advisory Board
5
Page 61 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
FEEDBACK TO DATE
•City Council on August 25
•Financial Policy Compliance
•Increasing minimum charges based on $1.50 on 3/4” meters achieves the 75% target.
•Equitable Cost of Service
•Residential revenues have the greatest shortfall and are the primary focus this year.
•Conservation Plan
•Moving the residential top tier down to 25,000 gallons impacts fewer than 10% of customer bills, will
improve residential conservation, and is common in the market.
•Board Feedback on September 10
•Agreed on Major Council Objectives Above
•Generally preferred the 0-7,000 gallons for Tier 1 rates
6
Page 62 of 121
RATE OPTIONS
Page 63 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
RESIDENTIAL VOLUMETRIC RATE DESIGN
8
Current Tiers Rates Scenario 1 Rates Scenario 2 Rates
0 –10,000 gals $1.75 0 –5,000 gals $1.80 0 –7,000 gals $1.85
10,001 –20,000 gals 2.40 5,001 –15,000 gals 2.70 7,001 –15,000 gals 2.75
20,001 –40,000 gals 4.00 15,001 –25,000 gals 4.75 15,001 –25,000 gals 4.80
40,001 –60,000 gals 6.50 25,001+ gals 8.30 25,001+ gals 8.40
60,001+ gals 8.50
•Based on historical customer usage characteristics and feedback from the City, the following
Residential alternatives were determined:
Page 64 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
RESIDENTIAL VOLUMETRIC RATE DESIGN
CUMULATIVE BILLED USAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
9
76%
Under
15,000
90%
Under
25,000
96%
Under
40,000
52%
Under
7,000
38%
Under
5,000
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
B
i
l
l
s
Page 65 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
SCENARIO 1:
REVISED RESIDENTIAL TIER DESIGN
FIRST TIER (0 –5,000 GALLONS); FOURTH TIER (25,000+ GALLONS)
10
FY (Targets)2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
DSC (1.50x)4.34 4.07 3.56 3.34 3.10
Days Cash (90 Days)*220 224 224 245 274
Fixed COS (75%)75%77%83%82%81%
Rate Adjustments 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Water (Base $ Only)$1.50 $1.50 $1.50 --
Water (Volumetric)Varies ----
Wastewater (All %)8.89%8.89%8.89%--
•Revenue adjustments driven by first debt payment
for San Gabriel Interceptor ($32.5M) in FY 2023;
wastewater increases smoothed out over 3 years.
•Water Base rate adjustments targeting Fixed COS
metric and volumetric adjustments to residential
to achieve cost of service and conservation
objectives.
•75% Tier Differential between top two revised
Residential rate tiers
*Excludes $10M Annual Non-Operating Contingency
Page 66 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
SCENARIO 2:
REVISED RESIDENTIAL TIER DESIGN
FIRST TIER (0 –7,000 GALLONS); FOURTH TIER (25,000+ GALLONS)
11
FY (Targets)2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
DSC (1.50x)4.34 4.07 3.56 3.34 3.10
Days Cash (90 Days)*220 224 224 245 274
Fixed COS (75%)75%77%83%82%81%
Rate Adjustments 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Water (Base $ Only)$1.50 $1.50 $1.50 --
Water (Volumetric)Varies ----
Wastewater (All %)8.89%8.89%8.89%--
*Excludes $10M Annual Non-Operating Contingency
•Revenue adjustments driven by first debt payment
for San Gabriel Interceptor ($32.5M) in FY 2023;
wastewater increases smoothed out over 3 years.
•Water Base rate adjustments targeting Fixed COS
metric and volumetric adjustments to residential
to achieve cost of service and conservation
objectives.
•75% Tier Differential between top two revised
Residential rate tiers
Page 67 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
SAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL WATER CHARGES
FOR RANGE OF USAGE FROM 0-45,000 GALLONS
12
To
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
C
h
a
r
g
e
s
(
$
)
Monthly Water Consumption (Gallons)
Page 68 of 121
13NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
RESIDENTIAL
WATER BILL
COMPARISON
Based on ¾” meter.
Variances are from
the current rates.
13
Current Scenario 1 Scenario 2
5,000 Gallons $ 31.75 $ 33.50 $ 33.75
Variance, $$ 1.75 $ 2.00
Variance %5.51%6.30%
15,000 Gallons $ 52.50 $ 60.50 $ 59.45
Variance, $$ 8.00 $ 6.95
Variance %15.24%13.24%
25,000 Gallons $ 84.50 $ 108.00 $ 107.45
Variance, $$ 23.50 $ 22.95
Variance %27.81%27.16%
35,000 Gallons $ 124.50 $ 191.00 $ 191.45
Variance, $$ 66.50 $ 66.95
Variance %53.41%53.78%
Page 69 of 121
14NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
COMMUNITY
RATE
COMPARISONS
•Comparisons between communities are very
common, but may not tell the whole story.
•Each system is unique in geography, age of
infrastructure, capital maintenance efforts, and
typical usage patterns.
14
Page 70 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL USER BILL (5,000 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
15
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 5,000 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 71 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL USER BILL (15,000 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
16
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 10,000 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 72 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL USER BILL (25,000 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
17
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 10,000 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 73 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL USER BILL (35,000 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
18
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 10,000 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 74 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN USER BILL (6,000 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
19
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 4,000 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 75 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
REGIONAL BILL COMPARISON
RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE USER BILL (10,200 GALS –WATER; FLAT SEWER*)
20
*Georgetown currently does not charge a variable rate based on billed Sewer flows. 6,100 gals in Sewer flows assumed for surrounding cities
Page 76 of 121
CONCLUSIONS & COUNCIL FEEDBACK
Page 77 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
CONCLUSIONS AND COUNCIL FEEDBACK
•NewGen’s proposed rate Scenario 1 (0-5k) and Scenario 2 (0-7k)
both fully meet the Board’s and City Council’s requested objectives.
•Financial Policy Compliance
•Equitable Cost of Service
•Conservation Plan
•What (if any) other analysis or discussion is needed to inform
the Council’s future decision?
22
Page 78 of 121
NEWGEN STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC
NEXT STEPS
23
Tonight
City Council
Workshop for
Discussion
Thu. 8 Oct.
2020
Water Utility
Advisory Board
Recommendation
Tue. 13 Oct.
2020
City Council
Regular Agenda
for Possible Action
Tue. 27 Oct.
2020
City Council
Regular Agenda
for Possible Action
(If Needed)
Fri. 1 Jan.
2021
Water and
Wastewater Rates
Effective
Page 79 of 121
THANK YOU! ANY QUESTIONS?
MICHAEL SOMMERDORF, SENIOR CONSULTANT
(972) 704-1655
MSOMMERDORF@NEWGENSTRATEGIES.NET
MATTHEW GARRETT, DIRECTOR
(972) 675-7699
MGARRETT@NEWGENSTRATEGIES.NET
Page 80 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 22, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion re garding Distributed Generation Interco nnection and Net Energy Metering Updates --
Daniel Bethapudi, General Manager of the Electric Utility
I T EM S UMMARY:
P resenting an overview of the Net Energy Metering changes being proposed.
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
N/A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Daniel N. Bethapudi - General Manager, Electric Utility (LJ W )
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
Distributed G eneration pres entation
Page 81 of 121
City of Georgetown
Distributed Generation
Interconnect & Net Metering
Updates
By
Daniel N Bethapudi
GM –Electric
09/22/2020
Page 82 of 121
Presentation Outline
1.Overview of Net-Metering Regulatory Requirements
2.Review of Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program at
Georgetown
3.Findings from the review
4.Recommended changes to the NEM Program
5.How does the NEM Program help the Electric Utility?
City of GeorgetownPage 83 of 121
Net-Metering Regulatory Requirements
•Is the City of Georgetown/Electric Utility required to offer
a Net Metering Program?
–The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act ( PURPA) to require that state
regulatory commissions, Public Utility Commission of
Texas, and non-regulated electric utilities
(Municipally Owned Utilities and Electric
Coops)consider adopting net metering policies and
interconnection procedures.
–No Federal law mandates that states or utilities adopt
net metering.
City of GeorgetownPage 84 of 121
Net-Metering Regulatory Requirements
Since Texas began deregulating its electric industry,
electric utilities now fall into two categories with regard to
net metering and interconnection:
1.integrated IOUs outside the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT) with a clear regulatory
obligation to interconnect and net meter, and
2.electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, and river
authorities with no obligation to interconnect and net
meter.
While electric cooperatives(coops) and municipally owned
utilities (MOUs) are not required to interconnect and offer net -
metering programs, multiple coops (Pedernales Electric Coop
)and MOUs (New Braunfels Utilities)offer net-metering program
as an industry best practice.
City of GeorgetownPage 85 of 121
Review of the Net Energy Metering Program
•Net metering critics claim two major problems:
–Revenue shortfalls for utilities
–Subsidization among customer classes
•New Gen Strategies was engaged March 2020 to review
the NEM Program.
City of GeorgetownPage 86 of 121
Findings from the NEM program review
•The review identified multiple issues with the NEM
program.
–Renewable Energy Credit ($/kWh) at $0.09580
exceeds avoided energy costs (industry standard)
•Results in cost shifting from NEM to Non-NEM customers.
Approx.$118,000/year.
–No floor on credit ($)
•Reduces fixed cost recovery
•Allows for zero utility bill (E, W, W/W, Garbage)
•Allows potential bypass of Base Rate Charge
and Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)
–Poor compliance with the system requirements
•10 kW limit not enforced 6
Page 87 of 121
Recommended Changes
•Reduce Renewable Energy Credit to Market Based
Energy Credit.
–Reduce from $0.09580/kWh to $0.04976/kWh(for
2020)
•Establish a “floor” on the Renewable Energy Credit .
–The credit cannot exceed Volumetric charge.
•Grandfather provision to help existing NEM customers
transition to the market based credit.
•Enforce size compliance
–PV systems less than 10 kW
–Limited to Residential / Small Commercial classes
•Simplify Ordinance language for clarity.
City of GeorgetownPage 88 of 121
Changes Adopted by Council on 1 st Reading
•Grandfather Existing NEM customers at the existing
renewable energy credit of $0.09580/kWh for a period of
2 years starting 10/1/2020.
–After the 2 year period, the renewable energy credit will be
based on the market based formula identified in the ordinance.
•Establish a “floor” on the Renewable Energy Credit . The
credit cannot exceed Volumetric charge.
•Renewable energy credit for new NEM customers set at
$0.00.
City of GeorgetownPage 89 of 121
Adopted Changes –Issues Addressed
By moving to a market based rate for renewable energy received
credit for the existing customers(after the 2 year period) the following
issues will be addressed:
•Helps reduce cost shift from NEM to non-NEM classes.
•Aligns with original intent of avoided costs (2006)
•Acceptable practice in industry
By establishing a “floor” on the Renewable Energy Credit the following
issues will be addressed:
•Prevents revenue losses for other funds(W,WW, Garbage)
•Improves utility fixed cost recovery.
•Eliminates the potential bypass of Base Rate Charge and
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA).
By setting the renewable energy received credit for new customers at
$0.00,the following are the outcomes:
•Technically the Net Energy Metering program is no longer
available for new customers.
City of GeorgetownPage 90 of 121
Proposed NEM Program
•NEM program can be a strategic benefit the electric
utility as a whole.
–Behind the meter, customer owned PV systems can be positively
leveraged to be part of our energy portfolio.
•A NEM Program can help our overall Utility as long as:
–Prevent/avoid cost shifting.
–Adopt a market based approach to renewable energy credit.
–Ensure that the NEM program aligns with the overall objective of
the electric utility to provide safe, reliable and affordable electric
service to all customers.
•The 2nd reading of the NEM ordinance is on
today’s legislative agenda.
City of GeorgetownPage 91 of 121
Questions?
City of GeorgetownPage 92 of 121
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
September 22, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation, discussion, and direction regarding the pro pose d Right-of-Way P ermit P rogram and Regulations -- Ray
Miller, P ublic Works Director
I T EM S UMMARY:
The purpo se o f this item is to provide an introductory overview o f a Right-o f-Way P ermit P rogram (Regulations). We
will go over the "Need or the Why"; Benefits of the pro gram to the City; so me of the basics to the program/regulations;
What would not need a permit; application process; and other items.
Why a Right-o f-Way (RO W ) P ermit Ordinance & Regulations? Currently the City of Georgetown does not have a
R O W P ermit P rogram which limits our ability to answer several questio ns from citizens, o ther de partments or other
local agencies:
Who is working in our R O W?
W hat type of work (storage, maintenance, and construction) is appropriate to be performed in R O W ?
When are maintenance and construction activities occurring in our collector and arterial R O W s?
W hen and where can storage activities occur in our R O W?
Are entities establishing safe work zones, considering impacts to peak traffic hours?
Are repairs being performed to maintain quality of roads and that meet C ity standards?
Are construction activities occurring to newly sealed and paved street surfaces that would reduce quality of
new assets?
W ho permits/approves work in the R O W? Currently no defined area of responsibility or process within
the C ity.
Benefits to the C ity, C itizens, C ommercial Businesses, C ontractors, etc..
S afe work zones for workers and for traveling public
Q uality repairs to pavement surface to protect life of C ity’s asset and minimize cost to maintain
Ability to inspect work sites and ensure safety, quality, and impact
Emergency contact and responsiveness in case of an accident or emergency
B asics to the R egulations
Establishes administrator of the R O W permits and regulations to be P W Director
Explains who is subject to R O W regulations and the permit process
Defines Storage Activities, Maintenance Activities, and Construction Activities
P rovides for a pro hibition o n c onstructio n activities in R O W for recently resurfaced/paved streets and provides
criteria and defines process to consider requests for exceptions by P W Director
Application P rocess
* Required information with Application: sketch showing extent of work area, construction plans when
appropriate, G E S C information, traffic control plan, and emergency contract information
Duration of permits.
E stablishes S tandard for Work
Allowed work hours, traffic control and variable message boards; G E S C ; daily clean-up; traffic control,
pavement cutting, backfill and compaction, and permanent patching; temporary patching; site restoration;
Requires contractors to be insured for construction and maintenance activities
P rocessing turnaround time, issuance, and effectiveness
Recognizes emergency repairs will occur and provides a special process for these instances. E xample:
Atmos Energy’s gas leak, etc….
I nspections of work performed in the R O W and acceptance process for construction activities
E stablishes warranty period for work
Page 93 of 121
W hat wouldn’t need a R O W permit
1. New R esidential Driveways
2. Repairing existing residential driveways
3. Work within the R O W related to City approved commercial and residential subdivisions and site
development plans[J K1] .
Appeal P rocess: To the C ity M anager's Office
Enforcement: Would be through inspections, warnings and a Notice of Violation process
City will work with My P ermits Now (M P N) to create an on-line portal to allow applicants to submit and process on-line
P ermit Fees to cover C ity’s expense to administer program and inspect maintenance, storage, and construction
activity sites
F I NANC I AL I MPAC T:
Establishing the RO W P ermit Module in M P N. Staff time to accept applications, review applications, issue permits,
conduct inspections and finalize/close out permits. There could also be additional staff time needed for enforcement.
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Ray Miller, J r., Director of P ublic Works
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
R O W P ermit P roc es s P resentation
Page 94 of 121
Right of Way Permits & Regulations
City Council Workshop
September 22, 2020
Presented by Ray Miller, Public Works Director
Page 95 of 121
Council Direction
•Does Council support the creation of a ROW Permit Program?
•Does Council support the prohibition of Construction Activity on
newly constructed,milled/overlay,and sealed streets as
presented?
•Does Council support the proposed fee schedules?
Page 96 of 121
Presentation Overview
•Purpose & Need of ROW Permits & Regulations
•Basic Regulations
•Exemption from ROW Permit
•Appeal process
•Enforcement –Inspections & NOV
•MPN / On-Line Portal / City Web-Site
•Questions / Direction from Council
Page 97 of 121
Purpose and Need
Page 98 of 121
Why a ROW Permit Ordinance & Regulations?
•Know who is working in our ROW
•Clarify what type of work (storage,maintenance,and
construction)is appropriate to be performed in ROW
•Define when and how maintenance and construction activities
can occur in our collector and arterial ROWs
•Define when and how storage activities may occur in our ROW
•Establish safe work zones
•Consider impacts to traffic flow (peak traffic hours)
Page 99 of 121
Why a ROW Permit Ordinance & Regulations?
•Ensure repairs to roads meet City standards to maintain
quality of asset
•Protect newly paved or sealed street surfaces from unplanned
construction activities that would reduce quality of new assets
•Formal process to approve activities in City ROW for storage,
maintenance,and construction activit5ies through a permit
process
Page 100 of 121
Real World Example
•Unsafe work area on Williams Drive
•Improper flagging, barricades, traffic control, and driver notification
Page 101 of 121
Benefits
(to City, Citizens, Commercial Businesses, Contractors, etc..)
•Safe work zones for workers and for traveling public
•Quality repairs to pavement surface to protect life of City’s
asset and minimize cost to maintain
•Ability to inspect work sites and ensure safety,quality,and
impact
•Emergency contact and responsiveness in case of an accident
or emergency
Page 102 of 121
Basic Regulations
Page 103 of 121
Basic Regulations
a)Establishes an administrator of the ROW permits and
regulations to be the PW Director.
b)Explains who is subject to ROW regulations and the permit
process.
c)Defines Storage Activities,Maintenance Activities,and
Construction Activities.
d)Provides for a prohibition on construction activities in ROW
for recently resurfaced/paved streets (5 years new/cutlered –
2 years for sealed)and provides criteria and defines process
to consider requests for exceptions by PW Director.
Page 104 of 121
Basic Regulations –Define Activities
(Storage Activities,Maintenance Activities and Construction Activities)
Storage Activities:(not allowed on collector or arterial streets –Local
Only)
Page 105 of 121
Basic Regulations –Define Activities
(Storage Activities,Maintenance Activities and Construction Activities)
Maintenance Activities:
Page 106 of 121
Basic Regulations –Define Activities
(Storage Activities,Maintenance Activities and Construction Activities)
Construction Activities (larger projects):
Page 107 of 121
Basic Regulations
e)Application Process
•Required information with Application:sketch showing
extent of work area,construction plans when appropriate,
traffic control plan,and emergency contract information
f)Duration of permits.
•Maintenance permits can be issued on an annual basis and
requires annual renewal.
•Construction activities shall effective for 120 days from
issuance at which point an Entity would have to reapply.
•Storage activities will typically be 7 days but can be up to
120 days (not allowed on collector and arterial streets).
Page 108 of 121
When are ROW Permits Not Required?
Page 109 of 121
ROW Permit not Required
•New Residential Driveways (New Home Construction).
•Repairing /Replacing existing residential driveways.
•Work within the ROW related to City approved commercial
site development plans and residential subdivision
development plans.
Page 110 of 121
Applying
•Can be done in person
•Will create new “On-Line”process
•City Web Site /Portal
Page 111 of 121
Fee Examples
Surrounding Cities:
Pflugerville
•Construction of Public Infrastructure
o $500 application fee
o Permit Fee is 3.5%of estimated construction costs
•Other work in the ROW
o $50
o $15 technology fee
Page 112 of 121
Fee Examples
Surrounding Cities:
Cedar Park
•Right of Way Use Permit
o $100
o Insurance,1-year maintenance bond*
*Not required for work performed directly by Franchise
Utility Company
Page 113 of 121
Fee Examples
Surrounding Cities:
San Marcos
•ROW Permit Application
o Filing /Application Fee –5%of project value ($55 min
/$2,200 max)
o $11 Technology Fee
Page 114 of 121
Fee Examples
Surrounding Cities:
Round Rock
•Construction of Public Infrastructure (Utility)
o $400 application fee
o Insurance and Bond
Civil enforcement.The director shall report violations to the city manager to
determine what action is deemed proper,and the city attorney is hereby authorized,
without further authorization from city council,to file suit in district court,in addition
to any criminal penalties to enjoin the violation of any provision of this article.
Page 115 of 121
Fee Examples
Surrounding Cities:
Bastrop
•Work within the ROW Permit
o $125
Page 116 of 121
Fee Proposal
•Work in the ROW –Maintenance Activities other minor work:
$100-$125 plus a $15 technology fee ($115 -$140)
•Franchise Utilities would be required to obtain a permit but
would not have to pay the fee .
•Construction Activities:Could be a flat fee such as $400-$500
or it could be based on the estimated cost of construction such
as 3%-4%of the cost of construction.This is due to the
additional time for review,permitting,inspections and closing
out the permit.
Page 117 of 121
Appeal Process
•If there is a conflict and cannot be resolved with the Director
of Public Works or Designee.
•Then matter would be forwarded to the City Manager or
Designee.
Page 118 of 121
Enforcement
•Through Inspections
•Warning notice(s)
•Issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV)
Page 119 of 121
Feedback
•Does Council support the creation of a ROW Permit Program?
•Does Council support the prohibition of Construction Activity
on newly constructed,milled/overlay,and sealed streets as
presented?
•Does Council support the fee and fine schedules?
Page 120 of 121
Questions?
Page 121 of 121