HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 02.25.2020 WorkshopN otice of M eet ing of the
Governing B ody of the
C ity of Georgetown, Texas
F ebruary 2 5 , 2 0 2 0
The G e orgetown City Council will meet on February 25, 2020 at 3:30 P M at City Council Chambers,
510 W 9th Street Georgetown, TX 786 26
The City o f Geo rgetown is committed to c ompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A).
If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
AD A, re asonable assistance, adaptations, o r acco mmodations will be provide d upon request. P lease
contac t the City Secretary's Office, at le ast three (3) days prior to the sche duled meeting date, at (512)
930-36 52 or City Hall at 808 M artin Luthe r King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78 62 6 for additional
informatio n; TTY users route through Re lay Texas at 711.
Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop -
A P re sentatio n and discussion regarding process to address “cost of se rvic e” fo r Downtown Solid
Waste Services -- Teresa Chapman, Enviro nmental Services and Ray M iller, Director of P ublic
Works
B P re sentatio n and discussion regarding creating a video production studio in the second floor of
the Geo rgeto wn Art Center -- Aly Van Dyke, Communications and P ublic Engagement Director;
and Eric Lashley, Georgetown P ublic Library Director
C P re sentatio n and discussion regarding the Electric Line Extension P olicy -- Daniel Bethapudi,
Ge ne ral M anager of the Electric Utility
D P re sentatio n and discussion regarding the pro posed Budget Calendar fo r the FY2021 Annual
Budget and Five Year C IP -- P aul Diaz, Budget M anager
E P re sentatio n, update, and discussio n on the 20 18 Economic Develo pment Strategic P lan --
Mic haela Dollar, Economic Development Director
Exe cutive Se ssion
In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 5 51, Government Code, Verno n's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be disc ussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular se ssio n.
F Sec. 5 51 .07 1: Consul tati on wi th Attorney
Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda items
- Litigation Update
Sec. 5 51 .08 6: Certai n P ubl i c P ow e r Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters
- P urchase P o wer Update
Sec. 5 51 :07 4: P ersonnel M atters
Co nsideratio n of the appointment, emplo yment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or
dismissal
- Municipal Court J udge
- City Secretary
Page 1 of 97
Adjournme nt
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R o b yn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary fo r the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas , d o hereb y certify that
this No tic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet,
G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily ac ces sible to the general pub lic as required by law, on
the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at __________, and remained s o posted for
at leas t 72 c ontinuous ho urs p receding the s ched uled time o f said meeting.
__________________________________
R o byn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 97
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
Februa ry 25, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding process to address “co st of service” fo r Downtown So lid Waste Services -- Teresa
Chapman, Enviro nmental Services and Ray Miller, Directo r of P ublic Works
I T E M S UMMARY:
Update City Council o n the Solid Waste Downto wn Co st of Service P roject. Reque st guidance or approval for Cost o f
Service billing pro c e ss. Request guidance or appro val to update the City's Solid Waste Ordinance.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
No impact to rates.
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Teresa Chapman
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
C ost of S ervic e - Downto wn S olid Waste
Downto wn Map
Page 3 of 97
Downtown Cost of Solid Waste Service
City Council Workshop 2.25.2020
Page 4 of 97
Purpose:
•Update City Council on Solid Waste Downtown Cost of Service
Project (SWDCSP).
•Request guidance on “Cost of Service” billing process.
•Request guidance on Solid Waste Ordinance update.
Agenda:
•Quick review of SWDCSP
•Update current status
•Request direction on SWDCSP
Purpose: Update Cost of Service Project
Page 5 of 97
6th Street
0
9th Street
7th StreetAu
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ro
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
8th Street
525150
4041
37 38 39
0
6th Street
Page 6 of 97
Cost of Service Timeline
2018
•February: Included as part of the Solid Waste Master Plan
•February and March: Downtown businesses and stakeholder meetings and
discussions about challenges and options
•April: Overview of SWMP & Downtown strategies City Council
•April: Overview of SWMP & Downtown strategies with GTAB
•November: City Council update on SWMP combined comments from GTAB
•October: Meet with Stakeholders (business and property owners)
•November: Meet with Stakeholders (business and property owners)
2019
February: SWMP update with P&Z
March: Waste Audit
April: Review Downtown Solid Waste Options with City Council
May: Solid Waste Master Plan adopted
May: Final scope of work for downtown solid waste services approved
Page 7 of 97
Cost of Service Review of Downtown Challenges
Solid Waste Master Plan Key Objective:
•Improve understanding of solid waste and recycling service needs of the
City’s Downtown Square customers and involve a variety of Downtown
businesses -Presentation to Council April 24, 2018
•Solid Waste Master Plan was adopted May, 2019
Review Current System Research Alternate Systems
Page 8 of 97
Cost of Service Review of Downtown Challenges
Challenges included:
•Limited space and access
•Illegal & improper disposal
•Overflowing dumpsters
•Stashes of trash
•Litter
•Overall need for cleanliness
•Equity Pricing
City Council requested staff come back
with options to address challenges.
Page 9 of 97
Cost of Service Input from Downtown Stakeholders
7
Placement of dumpsters on private property is not guaranteed
and likely to be eliminated with continued growth; City-owned
property needed for shared facilities; limited options.
Current system of carts & dumpsters has negative aesthetics
that is unattractive, encourages inappropriate/unauthorized
use, and has the potential to attract pests.
Access &
Space
Growth of Downtown will continue and challenges of current
system will be intensified. Transition to a new system will
become more difficult with growth.
Aesthetics/
Public Health
Growth
Support for volume-based rates; at minimum, rates need to be
adjusted for equity in current system; with a new system, new
rates would need to be developed.
Service
Charges
Page 10 of 97
•Removes carts & dumpsters on
sidewalks, streets, parking spaces
•Allows for 3-stream system in future
•Siting of 2-3 compactors is challenging
•Customers transport material offsite
•Minimal impact on overflow, litter,
illegal dumping
Cost of Service Options & Costs
1. CARTS & SHARED DUMPSTERS 2. SHARED DUMPSTERS
3. SHARED COMPACTORS 4. CONCIERGE SERVICE
ANNUAL COST
$300,000
ANNUAL COST
$276,000
ANNUAL COST
$274,000
•Current system
•Development of new rate structure
•No impact on operational
challenges
•Removes carts on sidewalks and streets
•Allows for 3-stream system in future
•More dumpster locations are
challenging… leasing/purchasing of
private property
•No impact on overflow, litter illegal
dumping
•All containers removed, space
constraints eliminated
•Prevents illegal dumping and overflow
•Allows for 3-stream system
•Convenient for businesses
•Requires close coordination between
businesses & City
ANNUAL COST
Current: $120,000
Future: $150,000
Page 11 of 97
Cost of Service: Downtown Solid Waste Services
Scope of Work Approved May, 2019
Objective:Find all pricing inequities and propose method(s) for moving
customers into the correct solid waste rate class
1.Raise revenue to $150,000 to cover cost of service
2.Determine pricing inequities
3.Adjust billing to cover cost of service without a rate increase
Solid Waste Master Plan April, 2019
Because of cost and complexity of options presented, staff
recommended, and Council concurred, to address the Cost of Service
pricing inequities first.
Page 12 of 97
Cost of Service: Process Development
•Field Study: Initial review was a field study
to determine which blocks had challenges
and which ones were appropriately
managing waste
•Waste Audit: Determined volume of
materials collected on included blocks
•Property List: Acquired a list of all
properties with their associated “Real
Numeric Property ID” (R-NPID) from WCAD
•Business List: Based on WCAD, Personal
Numeric Business ID or P-NBID data,
businesses were added and combined to
each R-NPID property
•Data Analysis: Each property or R-NPID was
analyzed for cost of service.
= R-NPID]
Individual
Business
= P-NBID
Page 13 of 97
11
Block Business Challenges Action
Y/N
0 Courthouse None N
37 Bank of America None N
38 Burger University •Shared dumpsters
•Collection costs
Y
39 Galaxy Bakery None N
40 Jaiwai Thai, Gumbos, 600
Degrees
•Shared dumpsters
•Collection Costs
•Overflow
Y
41 Blue Corn, Mesquite Creek •Overflow
•Shared dumpsters
Y
50 Wildfire, Georgetown Palace None N
51 Roots, Thundercloud Subs •Carts on Streets Y
52 600 Degrees, Divine Treasure •Shared dumpsters
•Overflow
Y
Cost of Service Initial Block Review Results
Page 14 of 97
Cost of Service Summary Analysis
Block Business Action
38 Burger University •Price Adjustments
40 Jaiwai Thai & Gumbos •Price Adjustments
41 Blue Corn •Move to shared dumpsters
•Price Adjustments
51 Roots &
Thundercloud Subs
•Update solid waste ordinance to
remove carts on sidewalks
•Provide dumpster location options
52 600 Degrees •Provide dumpster location option
Page 15 of 97
Cost of Service Billing Process Development
1. Cost of service per individual businesses was developed. Data
varied based on availability but overall included:
Waste audit data
Business type
Materials generated
Hours of operation
Comparison data
2. Costs per business were combined to provide an overall fee to
each property based on the R-NPID.
Page 16 of 97
Cost of Service Billing Process Recommendation
Office
Base Fee
$54.18
Office
Base Fee
$54.18
Office
Base Fee
$54.18
John Smith’s Building
Restaurant
8 cy landfill 3x per week = $433.30
4 cy recycler 1x per week = $102.54
$433.30 + $102.54 = $535.84
Total billed to property owner
$54.18 * 3 + $535.84 = $698.84
Key Points
1.Process changes from billing
businesses to billing
property/building owner
2.Property owner (or
representative) will decide how
cost is shared among tenants
3.Rates only change if a
significantly different type of
business moves in or out
Page 17 of 97
Cost of Service Consideration and Guidance
15
•Request guidance on “Cost of Service” billing process.
•Request guidance on Solid Waste Ordinance update.
Next Steps based on feedback:
•Spring/Summer 2020: Public Engagement
•Summer/Fall 2020: Implementation
Page 18 of 97
Questions?
16Page 19 of 97
Page 20 of 97
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
Februa ry 25, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding creating a vide o pro duction studio in the seco nd flo or o f the Georgetown Art
Center -- Aly Van Dyke, Communications and P ublic Engagement Director; and Eric Lashley, Georgetown P ublic
Library Directo r
I T E M S UMMARY:
The City of G e orgetown needs additional, large r video productio n space. The existing studio is a small conference roo m
in the Counc il and Co urt building shared with our award-winning Teen Court pro gram. With the growth o f the City and
increased need for video production space, sharing the ro om has contributed to challe nges fo r both programs.
The Georgetown Art Center, 816 S. Main, has signific antly more space on its seco nd flo or. The City proposes using
funding from the 1 % P ublic, Education, Government fee, which cable subscribers pay in accordance with State law, to
make renovations to the second floor of the Art Cente r to add an additional video studio fo r City productions. The
creation of a se c ond video studio will provide the additio nal space needed for our co mmunications team and will benefit
Teen Court and our partnership with the Georgeto wn Art Center.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
Fewer than $50,0 00 , from P EG fees
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Aly Van Dyke
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
Vid eo S tudio P res entatio n
Page 21 of 97
Georgetown Video
Studio
Council Workshop
Feb. 25, 2020
Page 22 of 97
Agenda
PEG funds
Current challenges
Proposed solution
Project timeline
Page 23 of 97
PEG
Fund
Overview
•What are they?
•How can we spend the
fund?
•How much funding do we
have?
•What have we purchased
before with this fund?
Page 24 of 97
Past PEG Fund
Projects
•Council Chambers
•Cameras
•Tripod
•Lights
•Video effects
•Slider
•GoPro
•Computers
Page 25 of 97
Current
Challenges
•Space
•Teen Court
•Video
Demands
•Current space
Page 26 of 97
Page 27 of 97
Proposed
solution
•Art Studio Space
•Scope details
•Uses & Partnerships
•Budget
•Current space
Page 28 of 97
Page 29 of 97
Project
Timeline
•Feedback tonight
•RFP completed end of
March
•Select contractor end of
April
•Construction complete end
of Summer
Page 30 of 97
Discussion/Direction
QUESTIONS?ADDITIONAL DETAIL?
Page 31 of 97
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
Februa ry 25, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding the Electric Line Extension P olicy -- Danie l Bethapudi, General M anager of the
Electric Utility
I T E M S UMMARY:
As a part of the e lectric utility restructuring, all cost recovery models are being evaluated and updated as needed. The
Electric Line Extensio n P o licy has been evaluate d and identified for revision.
With a growing utility it is vital to have effective , streamlined pro c e sse s in place to properly plan for and address the
challenges of system growth.
P ast policy did not co llect all costs prior to construc tion. The City often spent significant time and reso urces ahead of
co nstruction. This sometimes made it difficult fo r the City to recoup these costs once construction began. The updated
policy evaluates eac h job and collects all fees and infrastructure co sts ahead of co nstruction. The revised process wo rks
well for both the City and developers as both are aware of the process and costs.
The new electric line extension policy allows for a streamlined process by which gro wth pays for growth as it happe ns.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
N O N E
S UBMI T T ED BY:
Daniel Bethapudi - General Manager, Electric U tility
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
G eo rgeto wn Elec tric C ap ital F und ing W hite P ap er
Line Extens ion P olic y P res entation
Page 32 of 97
Memorandum
Economics | Strategy | Stakeholders | Sustainability
www.newgenstrategies.net
225 Union Boulevard
Suite 305
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: (720) 633-9514
To: Daniel N Bethapudi, General Manager – Electric; City of Georgetown, Texas
From: Scott Burnham, Grant Rabon
Date: February 17, 2020
Re: Balanced Capital Funding for the Electric Utility
A well-managed municipal electric utility should have defined policies for its retail rate strategy,
contributions in aid of construction (CIAC or collectively referred to as Line Extension Fees), and debt that
are complementary, balanced, and in alignment with the overall goals and objectives of the city it serves.
These policies need to be interrelated since capital projects must be funded from some combination of
revenue from each of these funding sources. To the extent one
of these three funding sources is underutilized, undue
pressure is placed on the other funding sources. This can lead
to suboptimal outcomes, such as equity issues between
existing and future customers. The purpose of this document
is to describe each of these three funding sources as they apply
the City of Georgetown (City) and the Georgetown Electric
Utility.
CIAC
A properly developed set of line extension policies will ensure
new customers of the utility contribute sufficiently and
appropriately to the cost of expanding the utility’s facilities,
thereby avoiding the need to subsidize this cost from existing
customers. The cost of expanding the electric utility’s facilities
may include costs beyond just the cost of the service drop and
meter. This may include upstream impacts, including resized distribution extensions or facilities,
additional transmission capacity, and additional generation, as necessary. Whether all or a portion of the
cost impacts are recovered from new customers through Line Extension Fees is a policy decision and
should be balanced with projected new revenues.
For example, the City could decide to subsidize the cost of extending facilities to serve new customers for
economic development reasons. However, whatever portion of these costs is not recovered through Line
Extension Fees must be funded through some combination of debt and rates (or existing cash reserves),
either of which implies that some portion of the costs will be paid by existing customers. Such a decision
has equity implications. For example, how much should existing customers pay to defray the cost of
connecting new customers? Many communities opt to recover as much of the cost of expanding the
Page 33 of 97
Memorandum
February 17, 2020
Page 2
utility’s facilities to new customers through Line Extension Fees as is practical, minimizing the subsidy from
existing rate payers.
Debt Issues
The capital structure of a municipal electric utility may vary significantly depending upon the philosophy,
asset mix, and breadth of business ventures. Municipal electric utility debt is most often associated with
the issuance of revenue bonds, which are pledged against the revenues of a utility or enterprise fund. The
City should establish policies that support an optimal mix of new debt and cash funding for its capital
projects.
The City’s financial policies should consider the following objectives:
Ongoing routine preventive maintenance and basic renewals and replacements should be funded
on a pay-as-you-go (i.e., cash) basis,
Capital projects should be financed through a combination of cash and debt with a ratio between
35% and 60% debt to capitalization being desirable,
The term of debt generally should not exceed the useful life of the asset, and
The City’s financial projections should adhere to existing and future debt covenants.
If the Electric Utility opts to cash fund an excessive portion of its capital projects, it can contribute to
misalignment of cost recovery and cost causation between rate classes over time (otherwise known as
intergenerational inequity). This is because prior and current customers of the utility will pay (through
retained earnings) for an asset that may have a useful life of 30 years (or more). The future customers
that are receiving the beneficial use of the asset should be paying toward the cost of such an asset. The
issuance of debt and resulting annual debt service is the most logical means to facilitate this recovery
from all customers who benefit from the operation of such a long-lived asset.
Credit rating agencies guidelines may also assist the City in determining appropriate levels of debt funding,
as determined by its desired credit rating. For example, a 2014 Fitch Ratings report on public power
indicated the median “A+” rated retail utility had an implied 40% debt to capitalization ratio. However,
this may be greatly influenced by the mix of assets owned by the utility; those with significant generation
assets will have greater degree of equity. This type of benchmarking could inform the City’s policies on
the future issuance of debt. Regardless of the basis, the City should set a target or range of debt financing
that is optimal for its objectives.
Rate Strategy
The Electric Utility’s rate strategy should complement the policies on CIAC and debt funding. Rate revenue
is generally the largest source of revenue to a utility. Rate levels should be established that fully fund
ongoing routine preventative maintenance, basic renewals and replacements, and the remaining portion
of capital projects that is not funded through debt. Rate design should also address a number of other
objectives as well, such as sufficient fixed cost recovery to ensure the financial stability of the utility,
equitable recovery of costs from properly developed customer classes, and overall alignment of pricing
signals with desired customers usage behavior (e.g., conservation).
Page 34 of 97
Memorandum
February 17, 2020
Page 3
Fixed costs generally compose the majority of costs for an electric utility. Ideally, rates would recover
fixed costs through fixed rates (such as customer and demand charges). However, it is most common to
recover some portion of electric fixed costs through variable rates (e.g., energy charges). This is especially
true for customers that are not billed a demand charge (e.g., residential customers). However, this
misalignment between cost causation and cost recovery results in the need to carefully design rates to
ensure the financial stability of the utility under conditions of low energy use (e.g., increased net metering
usage).
Conclusion
The City should establish policies for its Electric Utility to balance the three primary capital funding options
to best achieve the objectives of the community. The policies on CIAC should sufficiently minimize the
subsidy from existing customers to fund infrastructure to support customer growth. The policies on the
issuance of debt should reflect the City’s financial objectives and its position on intergenerational equity.
The policies on rates should, among other objectives, fully fund ongoing routine preventative
maintenance, basic renewals and replacements, and the remaining portion of capital projects that is not
funded through debt. Through an optimal combination of these three primary revenue sources available
to the Electric Utilities, the City can help ensure a fair and equitable balance for operational and long-term
investment needs.
Page 35 of 97
Electric Line Extension Policy
Updates
Scott Burnham -NewGen Strategies
Rex Woods P.E. -McCord Engineering
Mike Westbrook -City of Georgetown
Leticia Zavala -City of Georgetown
Daniel N Bethapudi -City of Georgetown
Page 36 of 97
•Line Extension Policy & Rates -Financial
•History of Line Extension Policy @ City of
Georgetown
•Reason for the proposed Line Extension Policy
changes
•Objectives of the proposed Line Extension
Policy changes
•Recommended Line Extension Policy Changes
•Other changes
•Next Steps
2Page 37 of 97
Line Extension Policy & Rates
•Three primary funding source options
–Rate revenue
–Debt issues
–Line Extension Fees (CIAC)
•Complementary
•Balanced
•Aligned with City policy
3Page 38 of 97
Line Extension Policy & Rates
•Line Extension
–Growth pays for growth.
–Lack of certainty that growth pays for growth adds to
rate pressure.
•Debt Issue
–Leverage debt reduces rate pressure.
–Increases equity in cost recovery.
•Rate Revenue
–Ongoing routine maintenance.
–Renewals and replacements.
–Contribution to capital.
4Page 39 of 97
History of Electric Infrastructure
Additions
•Prior to January 2019
–How were the additions paid for?
•Total costs split between the Developer and
Electric Utility
–Challenges
•Inconsistent policy
•January 2019: Sec. 13.04.095:
Contribution in Aid of Construction
(CIAC) Policy enacted.
5Page 40 of 97
Reason for Proposed Changes
•As part of the electric utility restructuring,
all cost recovery models are being
evaluated.
•Address the confusion associated with the
electric infrastructure additions:
–Process of requesting electric infrastructure additions
–Costs for non-standard development
–Payment of the costs for infrastructure additions
6Page 41 of 97
Reason for Proposed Changes
(Contd.)
•Opportunity to evaluate the entire “life
cycle” of electric infrastructure additions.
•Opportunity to identify City cost saving
opportunities.
•Opportunity to simplify the City’s process
of electric infrastructure planning.
7Page 42 of 97
Objectives of the Proposed
Changes
•Clearly identify the processes to evaluate
and plan for electric infrastructure
additions to meet new growth.
•Streamline the electric infrastructure
planning process in order to avoid
confusion about costs and design.
•Better recovery of costs associated with
electric infrastructure additions.
8Page 43 of 97
Objectives of the Proposed Changes
(Contd.)
•Address the shortcomings of the current
CIAC policy’s inability to properly address
different electric service requests.
–Office Building vs Parking garage?
–Lift stations
–Small cell
•Allow for planning for non-standard service
requests.
–Redundant feeders
–Special equipment and service requirements
9Page 44 of 97
Objectives of the Proposed
Changes (Contd.)
•All infrastructure costs required/attributable to the
service request will be paid by the requestor.
–If not paid by the requestor the costs have to be
recovered by the rate payers.
•Growth pays for growth.
•Collect the costs of electric infrastructure
additions through the line extension fees upfront
and leave minimal connection fees to home
builder/owner.
10Page 45 of 97
Objectives of the Proposed
Changes (Contd.)
•Utilize improved service delivery standards
based on industry best practices.
•Utilize existing technology investments
that reduce costs and increase the ease of
doing business with the City.
•Optimize Cash Flows.
11Page 46 of 97
Recommended Line Extension Policy
Changes
1.Current CIAC policy renamed Line Extension
policy.
2.Electric Utility Infrastructure Evaluation Fee.
3.Use of Residential Meter Pedestals as the
Service Delivery Point on the front lot line.
4.Revise Line Extension Policy and update Fees
based on updated cost analysis.
12Page 47 of 97
Electric Utility Infrastructure
Evaluation Fee
2. Electric Utility Infrastructure Evaluation Fee
–Electric Utility Infrastructure Engineering
Evaluation Fee: $ 500 + engineer review fees
@ $150/hr.
–A preliminary cost estimate shall be provided
based on the electric utility evaluation.
–Consistent with Evaluation Fees associated
with Water/Waste Water infrastructure
planning.
13Page 48 of 97
Electric Utility Infrastructure
Evaluation Fee (Contd.)
•The preliminary cost estimate is meant to
be for informational/planning purposes
only.
•Line Extension Fees (final cost estimate)
is developed based on depth engineering
based on the submitted plats and/or
construction plans.
-Line Extension Fees will be paid in full before the
“Electric Services Availability” letter is issued.
14Page 49 of 97
Electric Utility Infrastructure
Evaluation Fee (Contd.)
•The Electric Utility will not order materials
or schedule construction until the
developer makes full payment based on
the final cost estimate.
–Some electric material could take up to 18 weeks
for delivery after payment. Examples include:
»Three-phase pad transformers
»Switchgears
»Concrete poles
15Page 50 of 97
Recommended Line Extension Policy
Changes
3. Use of Residential Meter Pedestals as the
Service Delivery Point on the front lot line.
–Continued use of AMI (Advanced Metering
Infrastructure) meters with remote connect capability.
16Page 51 of 97
Issues with the current process
•Current Service Delivery Point is typically
on the side of the house.
–This causes significant variation in length of
service.
–Challenges in running service from the
transformer to the meter on the side of the
house.
•Service installation delayed by other construction
activity.
17Page 52 of 97
Issues with the current process
(Contd.)
•The home builder/electrician has to
request temporary power (T-pole) to build
the home and has to wait on City crews to
power up the T-pole.
•The home builder/electrician has to
request removal of temporary power.
•Temporary power poles are often found by
our crews on the ground causing a safety
issue.
18Page 53 of 97
Issues with the current process
(Contd.)
•With the current set up, City crews (2 linemen +
equipment) have to make, an average of, 3-5
additional trips between transformer installation,
T-pole installation, T-pole removal, and
permanent power.
19Page 54 of 97
Proposed Residential Meter
Pedestal Benefits
•With the residential meter pedestal design, the
electric utility is agnostic to the type of residential
service request as the service length is
standardized.
–Lot sizes.
–Number of lots.
•Eliminates the need for separate temporary
power as the meter pedestals have GCFI
enabled temporary power option.
20Page 55 of 97
Proposed Residential Meter
Pedestal Benefits (Contd.)
•Eliminates the need for T-pole and related
safety issues.
•Consistent with local utility practices.
•Use of AMI meters and meter pedestals
result in cost savings:
-Fewer truck rolls
-Reduces design costs
-Simpler installation
21Page 56 of 97
Proposed Residential Meter
Pedestal Benefits (Contd.)
22
New Costs Cost Savings
Meter Pedestal $1000
$1500*
AMI Meter $50 (remote connect
functionality)
* Savings based on eliminating 3 truck rolls of a 2 lineman crew.
Page 57 of 97
Meter Pedestals
23Page 58 of 97
Meter Pedestals
24Page 59 of 97
Recommended Line Extension Policy
Changes
4. Revise Line Extension Policy and update
Fees
25Page 60 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees
•At the direction of Georgetown Electric,
McCord Engineering developed new
residential line extension fees based on:
–New design standards. (meter pedestal/AMI
Meter)
–Updated material and labor costs.
–Historical job database of City of Georgetown
to come up with cost per lot
recommendations.
26Page 61 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
•Process by which McCord Engineering
developed the proposed updated fees:
–Applied all items listed on the previous slide to
the following historical projects:
•Multifamily: Live Oak Apartments, Wolf Ranch
Apartments, and Carroll at Rivery Ranch.
•Townhome/Duplex: Brownstone at Summit West
and River Bend at NW Subdivision.
•Residential: Sun City Neighborhoods 67, 69, 70,
and 71.
27Page 62 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
•Consolidate the residential service request
categories for residential underground
services from 3 to 1:
–Four lots or less
–Average width up to 70 ft
–Average width greater than 70ft.
•Cost per platted lot developed for
subdivisions and other residential service
requests.
28Page 63 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
•Cost per unit developed for multi-
family/apartments/duplex/townhomes.
•In addition to cost per lot/unit, applicable
additional design requirement costs shall
be estimated and collected upfront.
–The extension and/or upgrade of three-phase
electric power lines to serve new
developments (commercial or residential).
29Page 64 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
–The relocation and/or upgrade of any existing
underground or overhead electric facilities.
–Installations that require temporary power.
–System protection devices necessitated by
the developer/service request and/or required
to meet the utility design guidelines and
NESC.
30Page 65 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
–Specialized power quality/power factor
devices required by the developer/service
request and/or required to meet the utility
design guidelines and NESC.
–Dual feeds required by the developer/service
request.
–Costs associated with serving club houses,
pumping loads, pools, signage, mail kiosks
etc.
31Page 66 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
•Consistent with the current practices, the
complete installation along with any
associated cost for necessary civil
infrastructure, such as, but not limited to,
material and installation of conduit and
transformer and pedestal pads, is not
included in this fee and is an obligation of
the builder/developer.
32Page 67 of 97
Revise Line Extension Policy and
update Fees (contd.)
•Meter Connect fees are significantly
lowered for all service categories.
•The line extension fees for all other
service requests including commercial
developments and non-standard requests
will be based on the job requirements.
33Page 68 of 97
Current Vs. Proposed
Current Proposed
Service Type CIAC Connect
Fees
Total Line
Extension
Fee
Connect
Fees
Total
Residential
Subdivision –4
Lots or Less
$3000 $800 $3800
$2600 $200 $2800
Residential
Subdivision –
more than 4 Lots
–Less than 70ft
(width)
$1500 $800 $2300
Residential
Subdivision –
more than 4 Lots
–greater than
70ft (width)
$2000 $800 $2800
34Page 69 of 97
Current Vs. Proposed
Current Proposed
Service Type CIAC Connect
Fees
Total Line
Extension
Fee
Connect
Fees
Total
Residential
Multi-Family
Development-
Apartment
$800 $800 $1600 $800 $200 $1000
Residential
Multi-Family
Development-
Townhome/
Duplex
$800 $800 $1600 $2400 $200 $2600
35Page 70 of 97
Other Proposed Changes:
•Clean up changes
–Low income electric discount
•30% discount applies to customer charge ($24.80)
–Nomenclature changes to rate classes
•“Industrial” changes to “Commercial & Industrial (C&I)”
–kW load between 500 and 2,000
•“Large Industrial” changes to “Large Commercial &
Industrial (Large C&I)”
–kW load exceeds 2,000
36Page 71 of 97
Next Steps
•Questions and Feedback
•3/10/2020: Adopt the proposed Electric Line
Extension Policy
•4/28/20 –Council Legislative Agenda
–1st Reading of Electric Rate Ordinance
•5/12/20 –Council Legislative Agenda
–2nd Reading of Electric Rate Ordinance
37Page 72 of 97
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
Februa ry 25, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation and discussion regarding the propose d Budget Calendar for the F Y202 1 Annual Budget and Five Year C IP --
P aul Diaz, Budge t Manager
I T E M S UMMARY:
Discussion and dire c tion relating to the F Y2021 budget development calendar.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
none
S UBMI T T ED BY:
P aul Diaz, Budge t Manager
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentatio n
Page 73 of 97
FY2021 Annual Budget
FY2021 Proposed Budget
Calendar
Page 74 of 97
FY2021 Annual Budget
FY2021 Proposed Budget Calendar
•March 2 –CIP Kick Off
•March 23 –Base Budget/Request Kick Off
•April 6 –CIP Coordination Meeting
•April 17 –Base Budgets are due
•May 5 –Departmental meetings with City
Manager
•May/June –CIP Review & Special Topics
Presentations with Council
Page 75 of 97
FY2021 Annual Budget
FY2021 Proposed Budget Calendar
•July 21 and July 22 Budget Workshops *SPECIAL
MEETING*
•Aug 11: Normal Meeting: City Manager’s
Proposed Budget; set max tax rate, & set dates for
Public Hearings
•Sep 9: Normal Meeting: public hearings, 1st
reading of the budget, 1st reading of the tax rate
•Sep. 22: Normal Meeting: 2nd reading of the
budget, 2nd reading of the tax rate
Page 76 of 97
FY2021 Annual Budget
Questions?
Page 77 of 97
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Council Workshop
Februa ry 25, 2020
S UBJEC T:
P resentation, update , and discussion on the 2018 Eco nomic Development Strategic P lan -- Michaela Dollar, Economic
Development D irector
I T E M S UMMARY:
Update on the implementation of the 2018 Economic Development Strategic P lan, adopted by council in J anuary 2 01 8.
F I NANC I AL IMPAC T:
N/A
S UBMI T T ED BY:
M ichaela Dollar, Ec ono mic Development Director
AT TAC HMENT S :
Description
P resentatio n
2019 Annual R ep o rt
Page 78 of 97
Economic
Development
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
Page 79 of 97
Background
Fast-paced growth residentially and
commercially
Prior studies:
•Retail Market Study (2016)
•Workforce Analysis (2017)
•Target Industry Analysis (2017)
Time for a strategic plan
Adopted by council January 2018
Page 80 of 97
Community Involvement
Georgetown City Council
Georgetown Economic Development
Corporation
Georgetown Main Street Advisory Board
Georgetown City Manager’s Office
Georgetown Department Directors
Georgetown Economic Development Staff
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Board
Georgetown Development Alliance
Georgetown Active Retiree Focus Group
Page 81 of 97
Economic Development
Department
Kim McAuliffe
Downtown Development Manager
Jennifer Schoenradt
Marketing Coordinator
Conchita Gusman
Business Retention Manager
Michaela Dollar
Economic Development Director
Page 82 of 97
Summary
City Council Vision
Georgetown: A caring community honoring our past and
innovating for the future
Economic Development Mission
To purposefully support a business friendly environment
where companies can and want to grow
Our Strategy
Overarching Goal: Tell our story to a broader local audience.
Strategic Goal 3: Diversify workforce
development and recruitment initiatives.
Strategic Goal 1: Support existing
businesses and industries.
Strategic Goal 4: Encourage speculative
development.
Strategic Goal 2: Enhance targeted
recruitment of identified industries.
Page 83 of 97
Strategic Goal 1
Support existing businesses and industries
Completed 83 in-person business visits with major employers,
primary employers, and small businesses in Georgetown.
Partnered with the Georgetown Chamber to create the
Georgetown Healthcare Alliance and grow the Georgetown
Manufacturers Alliance.
Held four Breakfast Bites meetings with record high
attendance.
Held the 3rd Annual Business Appreciation Lunch & Bowl event.
Launched the Georgetown Works social media campaign to
highlight local employers.
Partnered with the Georgetown Chamber and Downtown
Georgetown Association to host a Small Business Saturday
event that included 35 small businesses in Georgetown.
Page 84 of 97
Strategic Goal 2
Enhance targeted recruitment of identified
industries
Twelve economic development project wins, worth an estimated
$75 million in capital investment.
Increased active project activity by over 30%.
Utilized the Swirl, Red Poppy Festival, and Blazin’ Beer Crawl for
signature prospect and broker events.
Attended the international BIO trade show with the Governor’s
Office and THBI.
Page 85 of 97
Strategic Goal 3
Diversify workforce development and recruitment
initiatives.
Partnered with the Georgetown Independent School District and
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce on Manufacturers Day and
the high school career fair.
Worked to connect the Georgetown Independent School District
with Georgetown’s major employers and local residential
realtors through the Twelve@12 program.
Partnered with Rural Area Capital Workforce Solutions and the
Georgetown Chamber to host the second annual Veterans and
Military Spouses job fair.
Continued involvement in Georgetown Young Professionals and
sponsored the Austin Young Chamber Lead Summit to promote
Georgetown as a place to work.
Page 86 of 97
Strategic Goal 4
Encourage speculative development.
Approved an infrastructure incentive agreement for Sedro
Crossing, the City’s largest professional office development at
170,000 square feet.
Continued working with large property owners to market
property for investment and encourage development of “shovel-
ready” sites.
Page 87 of 97
Over-Arching Objective
Tell our story to a broader local audience.
Held the 3rd Annual Economic Development Symposium with keynote speaker Revathi Greenwood, Americas Head of Research for Cushman & Wakefield.
Continued growing the Twelve@12 program by meeting with major employers, commercial developers, downtown property owners, and residential realtors.
Participated in Opportunity Austin recruitment trips and WilCoEDP trade shows including SIOR, ICSC, and BIOMEDevice.
Updated marketing materials including the community profile, aerial map, and retail recruitment documents.
Worked to maintain the “Small Town Charm” identified in the 2030 Comp Plan by awarding $70,000 in Façade & Sign Grant funds from the Main Street Program and raised over $69,000 through annual fundraising efforts.
Page 88 of 97
New in 2020
Small Business Resource program in partnership with the Georgetown Chamber
Semi-annual industry tours with economic development stakeholders
Direct recruitment campaigns for targeted industries
Creation of an executive relocation portal
Georgetown Manufacturers Workforce Grant initiative
Launch all new website content
Development of a quarterly economic development newsletter
Host the WilCo EDP inaugural site selector tour.
Page 89 of 97
2019 Top Projects
by Target Industry
Page 90 of 97
Business Retention
Program
36 Assistance Requests
83 Business Retention Visits
209 Touches
Page 91 of 97
Downtown Development
Page 92 of 97
Downtown Development
In Downtown Reinvestment$11.5M
Awarded for Façade & Sign Grants$70K
Annual Georgetown Swirl had 550
attendees10th
Attendees at the inaugural Blazin’
Beer Crawl500+
Page 93 of 97
Active Projects
Page 94 of 97
Economic
Development
STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
Page 95 of 97
TOP PROJECTS IN EACH TARGET INDUSTRY
TEXAS SPEED WBW SEDRO CROSSING COSTCO
Advanced Manufactuer
& Speculative Development
100 Jobs
200,000 Square Feet
$11,500,000 Investment
Professional Services
Engineering HQ
40 Jobs
20,000 Square Feet
$3,000,000 Investment
Professional Office
Speculative Development
170,000 Square Feet
$9,000,000 Investment
Retail Development
235 Jobs
150,000 Square Feet
$24,000,000 Investment
ACTIVE PROJECTS
DOWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT
DEVEL
O
P
M
E
N
T
CO O L
W
A
R
M HOT
1817
23 19
30.5%
increase
in 2019
BUSINESS RETENTION
PROGRAM
83 209
36
$11.5M $70K
500+10th
10 NEW BUSINESSES
In Downtown Reinvestment
Annual Georgetown Swirl had 550 attendees
Awarded for Façade & Sign Grants
Attendees at the inagural Blazin’ Beer Crawl
Retail Restaurants
& Cafes
Bars &
Tasting
Rooms
4 4 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT2019 ANNUAL REPORT
Page 96 of 97
STRATEGIC PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Strategic Goal 1 | Support existing businesses and industries.
• Completed 83 in-person business visits with major employers, primary employers, and small
businesses.
• Partnered with the Georgetown Chamber to create the Georgetown Healthcare Alliance and grow the
Georgetown Manufacturers Alliance.
• Launched the Georgetown Works social media campaign to highlight local employers.
• Twelve economic development project wins, worth an estimated $75 million in capital investment.
• Increased active project activity by over 30%.
• Utilized the Swirl, Red Poppy Festival, and Blazin’ Beer Crawl for signature prospect and broker events.
• Partnered with the Georgetown Independent School District and Georgetown Chamber of Commerce
on Manufacturers Day and the high school career fair.
• Worked to connect the Georgetown Independent School District with Georgetown’s major employers
and local residential realtors through the Twelve@12 program.
• Partnered with Rural Area Capital Workforce Solutions and the Georgetown Chamber to host the
second annual Veterans and Military Spouses job fair.
Strategic Goal 3 | Diversify workforce development and recruitment initiatives.
Strategic Goal 4 | Encourage speculative development.
Strategic Goal 2 | Enhance targeted recruitment of identified industries.
• Approved an infrastructure incentive agreement for Sedro Crossing, the City’s largest professional office
development at 170,000 square feet.
• Continued working with large property owners to market property for investment and encourage
development of “shovel-ready” sites.
• Held the 3rd Annual Economic Development Symposium with keynote speaker Revathi Greenwood,
Americas Head of Research for Cushman & Wakefield
• Continued growing the Twelve@12 program by meeting with major employers, commercial developers,
downtown property owners, and residential realtors.
• Participated in Opportunity Austin recruitment trips and WilCo EDP trade shows including SIOR, ICSC,
and BIOMEDevice.
• Updated marketing materials including the aerial map and retail recruitment documents.
• Worked to maintain the “Small Town Charm” identified in the 2030 Comp Plan by awarding $70,000 in
Façade & Sign Grant funds from the Main Street Program and raised over $69,000 through annual
fundraising efforts.
Overarching Goal | Tell our story to a broader local audience.
Page 97 of 97