Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 08.11.2020 CC-WThe Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, August 11 2020 at 3:00 PM at Teleconference The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. ; Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at SOS Martin Luther King Jr. Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The following Council Members were in attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Mike Triggs, Council Member District;3; Steve Fought, Council Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District. Council District 2 is vacant. All Council Members present via videoconferencing and a roll call was performed. Policy Development/Review Workshop = Call to order at 3:00 PM A. ` Presentation and discussion regarding the outreach efforts with the San Jose and TRG neighborhoods in support of small area planning -- Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP Long Range Planner and Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Waggoner presented the item and explained what the neighborhood plan will do including describing concerns, defining the vision, and listing actions. He noted that the feedback requested by staff is to answer the question: Does the City Council support the process to gather information from the neighborhood? Waggoner explained the path to partnership and noted that staff has the following plan in place: in July meet with trusted leaders and listen by asking questions, being present, and showing interest; in August learn by understanding citizen concerns, values, and vision; in September plan by developing a partnership to co - achieve vision and develop a scope of plan; and in October confirm if this is the partnership is going to achieve the vision. He stated that staff will work with community leadership to: connect by building a core team of existing neighborhood leadership; discuss by engaging leaders to help identify the best ways to engage with the neighborhoods; plan by strategizing together to establish tools and process; and implement by taking action and evaluating feedback together. Waggoner noted that outreach will consist of the San Jose Neighborhood that is 0.06 square miles and Track Ridge Grasshopper (TRG) Neighborhood that is 0.19 square miles. He then reviewed the path to partnership and feedback requested. For more information contact either Susan Watkins or Nat Waggoner. Watkins will be working with the TRG neighborhood directly and Waggoner will be working with the San Jose neighborhood directly. Gonzalez stated that he would like to have a vote on who the initial neighborhood leaders are going to be and give the residents the option to decide who is going to represent then and speak for them. He noted that having Council vote on every single aspect of the project would be cumbersome, so the residents need to be comfortable with the identified leaders. Gonzalez noted that the resident should be able to decide what they do and don't want. Jonrowe asked for clarification on the role of the trusted community leaders. Waggoner responded that at this point staff is wanting to make sure that residents provide input and decision making will come later in the process. He added that staff wants to make sure they get as much information as possible and verify if there are any additional representatives that the residents want to participate in the leadership role. Jonrowe asked if specifics of the project would be discussed once the contract comes on board. Waggoner responded yes and the current phase of the project is focused on creating an inventory of things the contractor needs to address. Jonrowe stated that she supported the use of as many volunteers as possible for the project. She then asked if anyone has expressed concerns regarding the unintentional acceleration of gentrification. Waggoner responded no, not in recent conversation. He added that the protection of longtime residents is a concern. Jonrowe asked about the possibility for the City to host and outdoor presentation on a large inflatable movie screen. Waggoner responded that he would look into that possibility and that staff is looking into all possible options for providing safe options to relay information. Jonrowe stated that, if safe, and outdoor presentation combined with a movie may be a potential option. He added that she supports the current direction that staff is headed in with the project. Mayor Ross asked that Waggoner clarify the feedback staff is seeking from Council. Waggoner produced the slide that had the following question: Does the City Council support the process to gather information from the neighborhood? Mayor Ross stated that Jonrowe's comments showed support and then asked Gonzalez his stance. Gonzalez responded that he supports the process. Pitts asked if the process for collecting feedback has been run through the neighborhood leaders. He stated that people living in those neighborhoods would be the experts on how to engage the residents. Waggoner responded that staff did ask the leaders and he was grateful that they did. He added that block walking was strongly suggested for engaging the residents. Pitts stated that based on his conversations with some residents in the Ridge neighborhood he wasn't sure that they fully understood the goal of the project. He continued that the residents felt like they had been engaged several times with no results and staff should assure them that their input will be used going forward. Fought stated that he was fine with the way staff was engaging the public. He added that his concern is related to cost as Council initially agreed to $100,000 and now there are higher U numbers being mentioned. Fought stated that he would not support more than $100,000 for the project. He stated that he thinks this is a worthwhile project. Fought noted the need for the contact to be done well because of the long-range implications the feedback could have.: He added that both sides of the project need to be understood and the project feels like signing on to a neighborhood association in reverse. Mayor Ross asked the impact of Council only allocating $100,000 instead of $200,000 for the project. Waggoner responded by explaining how staff determined the process for determining project costs. He added that consultants came back with a range of costs and to would be prudent for staff to understand the needs of the neighborhood for before committing to a final cost at this time. Mayor Ross asked how much money is spent before staff returns providing a total cost for the project. Waggoner responded that only staff time is being used at this point and staff will return in October and ask for final approval by Council. Triggs asked for clarification on having residents using a representative to speak on their behalf. Waggoner responded that based on the current climate with COVID, some possible language barrier, and possible lack of intemet staff will verify that if someone is presenting themselves a someone that is speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, they have buy in from their neighbors to do so. Triggs stated that he agrees with that approach. He added that the City is possibly asking the residents to give up some rights and he wants to make sure that all residents understand both sides of that. Triggs stated that he supports the method of data collection. Calixtro noted that each neighborhood is separate and distinct, and she has lived in both. She added that there will be residents in both neighborhoods who may choose not to participate. Calixtro stated that she is fine with additional costs associated with project. She stated that she agrees that the outreach needs to be done well. Mayor Ross asked when staff would return next with their findings. Waggoner responded that staff will return in October. B. Presentation and discussion regarding Sale of Power Transformers to Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) -- Daniel Bethapudi,'General Manager of Electric Bethapudi presented the item and provided the background and the current configuration for the use of the transformers as follows: 3 Basic Structure of the Electric System rdwgr Blw: t"ranunrirtvron P.enarrUsaHrn 4reez Suarr+mamtauwn acvmr+ tDik8r3nulra»t so, us, 2", -din A Cut Black, Generation pa~Y Cuktamer 13AV arrda kV s. '^`" Gore Miw 5t+6 rra»a'oo— sm tip Frrr+rrwroimer C.'(0 r Ganarsring 3tetron. raxkva.sswv sacywrds+y Cu,rta w Current 7rartsmrssinn Snbstatiors (:anti rit,afi n Transrnisslbn predominantly provided by KRA All substations (toot print etc.) owned by LCRA Substation transformers and associated equipment owned by GtWN. Bethapudi noted that a power transformer in an electric substation transforms the voltage from transmission voltage to distribution Voltage. From 138 kV (transmission) to 7.2 kV and 14.4 KV (distribution) and Georgetown currently owns 11 Power Transformers in 7 substations owned by LCRA. He added that Georgetown currently uses one transformer that is owned by LCRA and pays transformation charges and the transmission service into these 7 substations is pre -dominantly provided by LCRA; and unlike some MOUs, GTWN does not own transmission assets and hence has no transmission revenues. Bethapudi then reviewed the challenges associated with costs which are: compliance burden which requires expensive testing and maintenance; the substation technicians are highly specialized; and the labor market is tight with high employee turnover, 3 out of 5 positions open currently, and high cost of training Substation Technicians; and based on growth, we need to add multiple substations/transformers in the next 5 — 7-years with an estimated capital outlay of approximately $9 million. He then explained the Make or Buy Analysis which: compares the costs and benefits associated with producing a necessary good or service internally to the costs and benefits' involved in hiring an outside supplier for the resources in question. (Investopedia); the outcome of this analysis should be a decision that maximizes the long- term financial outcome for a company; make suggest keeping power transformer assets; and buy suggest selling power transformer assets to LCRA; buy/receive Transformation Service from LCRA. Bethapudi explained the reasoning for selling to LCRA: all the substations where these power transformers are located are currently owned by LCRA; the transmission service to all these substations is provided by LCRA; Georgetown already has an existing transformation agreement with LCRA at Glasscock substation; LCRA's transformation tariff is approved by PUCT and the rate is currently' set at $0.8690per kW of billing demand; LCRA provides these services to other municipally owned utilities like Georgetown. He noted that the study was conducted by McCord Engineering Inc. and Georgetown staff and the study horizon is ' for and includes the following Costs/Expenses: transformation rate charges; personnel and fleet; maintenance and testing; debt service costs; depreciation expense; testing �t equipment; equipment upgrades; and mobile substation/contingency. Bethapudi noted that the cost of in-house transformation (10-year horizon) is $32,861,232; cost of out -Sourced Transformation (10-year horizon) is $30,593,909; 10-year savings from out -sourcing transformation are $2,267,323; annual savings from out -sourcing transformation are $226,732; in addition ,to the savings, proceeds from the sale of 11 Power Transformerswill be $9,659,388.53; and the sale of the power transformers to LCRA maximizes the long-term financial outcome for Georgetown. He explained the business 'benefits as follows: Georgetown will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of the existing Power Transformers leading to a reduction in costs; Georgetown will no longer be responsible for testing and compliance requirements related to these assets; Georgetown will work with LCRA's TSC to plan for future substation/transformation needs; Georgetown's capital outlay will be for distribution infrastructure only and the immediate cash infusion of $9.6 million will help reduce the pressure on our retail rates. Bethapudi then provided the proposed configuration as follows: Basic Structure of the Electric System y Color Kev. W, ue. xr� s a r t was xuau rear DStrl$auboo W, 345, IM" —d in R Stack, Generation staff aasae us 3� cep r2aw tray Proposed Transmission - Substation Configuration - Transmission and Substation (including Pourer Transformers) Will be owned and operated by LCltli -GTWN to own and operate the distribution breakers. - GTWN will receive a one time payment from the sale of the power transformers. -GTWN to pay monthly transformation fees. Bethapudi then explained the sale process noting that the process will be for the sale of 11 power transformers and associated equipment and the valuation of the assets has been completed.' He continued that both parties agreed on the Net Book Value of the assets and LCRA completed the physical inspection of the assets. Bethapudi stated that amendments to agreements are in progress for the interconnect agreements, transformation agreements, and metering agreement. He stated that the close of sale will be on September 1, ;2020 and restricted use will include: approximately $1.3 million of the sale proceeds will be restricted because $1.3 million from 2014 revenue bond proceeds were used to finance the some of the transformers that are to part of the proposed sale; and the proceeds from the proposed sale are included in the FY 2021 budget presented to the city council on July 14, 2020. Bethapudi stated that staff s recommendation is to approve the sale of power transformers to LCRA. Council hadnoquestions and agreed with staffs proposal. C. Presentation and discussion on downtown extended dining and retail -- Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director; Kim McAuliffe, Downtown Development Manager; and Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager Dollar presented the item and noted that staff is trying to address the following issues: social distancing and lower occupancy requirements are in place for retail businesses and restaurants; businesses in other areas of the ; city are able to utilize their parking lots for expanded space if they wish, or participate in property events; downtown businesses are limited in space due to public parking and right-of-way; and crowded sidewalks are dangerous and can discourage patronage. She reviewed the project team that consisted of Economic Development, Main Street, Real Estate Services, Public Works, Legal, Planning, Permitting, and Community Services. Dollar stated that today's update is to inform Council that staff has worked to: identify the components that have to be in place to allow this type of use; consider enforceability, regulation, liability, and public safety; gain an understanding of what the true needs are across all downtown businesses, analyze existing processes and regulations to use as a foundation and modify for a temporary solution; find a short-term alternative while a longer -term solution is finalized; and estimate the cost of the program, in an effort to take the burden off the businesses. McAuliffe presented and reviewed the needs assessment and survey results noting that the "survey ran from July 24 - August 1, 2020, and 24 businesses completed the survey, and 3 additional businesses responded to the e-mail to say that while they are supportive of the effort, they did not want to lose parking in front of their business. She continued that the survey resulted in 5 businesses saying they would NOT benefit from using on -street parking for seating/retail; most businesses that responded to the survey preferred a weekend closure,: then closure for an extended amount of time; and out of 21 food -related businesses in the 9 block area, 9 responded and were in favor of closing parking spaces for additional outdoor dining. McAuliffe then provided. a Survey Results Map. She explained the proposed Pilot Kick Off that would open parking spots in public rights of way to seating and retail. McAuliffe explained the Labor Day Pilot and that the City to test concept over Labor Day weekend and will close select on=street`parking for: pedestrians; food service; and retail. She stated that no special license will be required for businesses to participate, the City will manage traffic control, and the estimated cost is $4,000. McAuliffe then provided a Labor Day Pilot Area Map. Baird stated that staff is considering a longer -term solution and have studied the following example cities: Ft. Worth, San Marcos, Austin, Denton, Houston, Seattle, WA, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, Santa Monica, CA, Portland, OR, Portland, ME, and Toronto, ON. He stated that the possible longer -term solution includes: a license to encroach` that would adjust the existing license program, provide flexibility, and short term changes; S u are possible to the program, through the end of the year, and staff is working to identify basis specifications to ensure safety and function of roadway, streamlining and guide for applicants for the existing process, identify suggested changes to existing license terms related to reduce revocation notification, administrative approval of license, and specific use requirements/limitations. Dollar presented and provided the next steps which include: completing staff coordination on license changes by finalizing an ordinance change recommendations and finalizing submittal path, forms, and guidance; determine funding for the $4,000 needed for Labor Day pilot and $8500 for longer solution which includes traffic control and additional signage for up to four months; and return August 251h with final Program approval and any needed ordinance changes. Pitts stated that, regarding restaurants, it didn't appear that Wildfire or Blue Corn Harvest would receive much direct benefit. Dollar responded that those businesses could possibly require a custom solution. She added that Blue Corn did not indicate in their survey response that they would want to participate due to the fact that they have a patio. Dollar stated that Wildfire indicated interest in the program. Pitts asked about the time frame and how quickly the project could move along. Dollar responded yes, and staff had originally considered kicking it off in the fall but based on business interaction they moved up the timeline. Pitts asked that Council action is required to approve. Dollar responded yes it will require two readings of the ordinance, and staff is 'shortening the timeline for approvals. Pitts asked if based on encroachment requirements, there must be two reading of an ordinance. Dollar responded yes. Pitts noted the need to move as quickly as possible to support business. Skye Masson, City Attorney, responded that staff understand the urgency, but with citizen sitting in the right of way where cars go, is to take the time needed to do an ordinance. Pitts asked if the City was still under a disaster declaration and about the ability to schedule special Council meetings. Masson responded that special Council meetings are an option and the Charter allows for emergency ordinances, but the circumstances at hand to not apply. David Morgan, City Manager stated that the reading of the ordinances could be addressed with special meetings if needed. Fought stated that he appreciates Pitts' enthusiasm. He added that he supports the idea and asked why = money isn't used to pay for this program. Morgan responded that staff is proposing TIRZ funds. Fought stated the idea is well considered and accepted the proposed timeline. Mayor Ross asked what the fastest possible solution was for the project. Masson responded that there are supposed to be 10 days between ordinance readings and special meetings are a possibility. Morgan stated that if Council meets on August 25th, then a special meeting could be called 10 days after that. Mayor Ross aske who was in favor of that. Triggs asked how this project could be enacted before Labor Day. Dollar responded that Labor Day would be a pilot event and applications would open up after that. Morgan stated that is was similar to a special event of the City. Dollar stated no, because events can not be more than 10 people, but staff is managing the blocking of spaces and traffic flow internally. Calixtro had no questions. Gonzalez stated the quicker the better and stated his support. Jonrowe stated that the proposal is a good compromise that will hopefully help local business. D. Presentation and discussion regarding the FY2021 City of Georgetown Budget and Tax Rate -- David Morgan, City Manager Morgan presented the item and provided recognition to budget team that worked on the budget. He explained the budget context for 2020 and 2021 with regards to the COVID-19 Pandernic, noted development growth continues with residential and commercial growth not slowing down, and the City is continuing multi -year projects/initiatives. Morgan reviewed the Budget Contingency Plan that was enacted for FY2020 Budget and Key Themes for FY2021. He noted the budget cost assumptions and provided a summary of financial circumstances for FY2021 Budget. Morgan provided the budget revenue assumptions including a proposed property tax rate of $0.418 which is a decrease from prior year rate of $0.42. He explained the Property Tax Revenue for FY2021 with the General Fund, including operations and maintenance, of $15.9 million in FY2021 and $14.9 million in FY2020 which is a 6.7% increase; and the debt service, including interest and sinking of $18.75 million in FY2021 and $17 million in FY2020 which is a 10.2% increase and includes $350,000 towards prepayment to retire existing debt and allows for shaping future debt plan for mobility bonds. Morgan reviewed budget engagement and the online survey which provided feedback including that citizens want no change to property tax rate and user fees. He also noted the quality ratings that citizens provided which are as 70% of respondents rate the value of city services for the City taxes paid as Good or Excellent. Morgan then noted the budget process and listed all of the workshops where the budget was discussed. He the provided the proposed budget overview. Morgan explained the total budget and major expense categories which is a $396 million total budget composed of: $77 million in planned capital projects, plus $9 million available in GEDCO; $60 million in purchased power expense; $41 million in water; $39.7 million in public safety; and $35 million in debt service. He reviewed how the City would maintain service levels and increase staffing in high growth areas by adding 15.5 new positions. Morgan then reviewed the General Fund for FY 2021 and reviewed the revenue assumptions. He noted the Tax Rate for FY 2021 and stated that property tax valuations will be a total assessed value that is certified at $8.6 billion, which is an increase of 6% over previous year with new value representing $461 million. Morgan noted that the rate of $0.418 per $100 value is anticipated and lower than the FY2020 rate of $0.42 and the average homestead property decrease by 2.3% with the average homeowner paying $34 less in property tax in upcoming year. He continued that this tax rate includes necessary funding for proposed operations and payment of debt, including an additional $350,000 towards X prepaying callable debt service to increase future debt capacity. Morgan then reviewed Sanitation and Parks and Recreation. He noted the base budget cuts that totaled over $796,000 which includes significant service level impacts in Parks and Recreation and reduced travel, training, supplies. Morgan reviewed the following funding areas: public safety; administrative; Council; Community Services; and Communications. He provided a high- level overview of capital improvements including: continued significant investments to address growth pressures; public safety training and operations tactical and firearms training center; Rec Center/Teen Center Renovation; Transfer station; Public Safety Vehicles; Equipment; Parks rollforward of FY 2020 projects not funded during stagnant debt market; sidewalks; intersection improvements; Airport maintenance/equipment storage facility; Stormwater; Electric continue system upgrades; Water projects rolled from FY 2020; and Wastewater. He then reviewed the Electric Fund FY 2020 projections with operating revenues totaling $90 million and operating expenses totaling $83.4 million{. Morgan added that non - operating revenues are projected to total $15.2 million, which is $10.2 million above budget He explained that operating revenues totals $90.4 million which represents 1% growth due to residential and commercial growth and reimbursement from the South Georgetown TIRZ for electric infrastructure expenses. Morgan noted that Electric resource management is conservatively budgeted at $60.3; non -operating revenues total $5.6 million of bond proceeds for capital improvements; non -operating expenses total $9.5 Million for capital improvements; debt service and the ending fund balance is budgeted at $21.1 million with non -operating revenues at $15.8 million above contingency reserves; and reviewed proposed enhancements. He then explained the Water Fund FY 2020 projections; operating revenues totaling $53.2 million which is an increase of 2.27% over FY20 projections; operating expenses totaling $45.5 n-&Iion which represents a 5.42% growth over FY20 projections; non -operating revenues including $35.1 million of bond proceeds for capital improvements and $18.8 million of impact fees; non -operating expenses totaling $39.3 million for capital improvements and for debt service; and ending fund balance is $34.6 million with a $10 million non -operating reserve and available fund balance of $15.4 million after meeting contingency requirements. Morgan then reviewed proposed enhancements for Water. He noted the Airport Fund for FY 2021 with operating revenues totaling $3.4 million; operating expenses totaling $3.5 million; non -operating revenues totaling $700,000 of bond proceeds for an airport storage facility; non -operating expenses totaling $908,000 for capital inprovements and debt service; and a projected ending fund balance of $923,000 by end of FY 2021. Morgan explained the Stormwater Fund for FY 2021 with operating revenues totaling $3.8 million; operating expenses totaling $2.9 million; non -operating revenues totaling $500,000 of bond proceeds for drainage improvements; non -operating expenses totaling $1.5 million for capital improvements and debt service; proposed enhancements include a vehicle for site inspections ($35,400) and a rate study ($30,000); and a projected ending fund balance of $1.6 million by end of FY 2021. He then reviewed the Special Revenue Funds consisting of the Tourism/CVB Fund, Council Discretionary Fund, Street Maintenance Fund, GTEC Fux4 GEDCO Fund, and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones. Morgan reviewed the Internal Service Funds for FY 2021. Fought stated that he is pleased and listed positive attributed of the budget. Triggs stated that he is happy was is glad that Morgan was able to provide increases for public safety and employees. Calixtro stated that she is happy for increases for staff and will take two police officers but wishes it would have been three. Gonzalez stated this is the best budget he has seen, especially under circumstances. He added that he understands that staff did the best with what they had. Jonrowe stated that she agrees with fellow council members and staff did a good job under difficult circumstances. She added that she hopes the public will respond. Pitts stated that staff did a great job. He added that he was afraid it would be ugly process. Pitts noted that there are lots of benefits for citizens and he is hopeful that next year's process will be just a good. Mayor Ross noted that staff put in lots of hours and evert Morgan was doing data entry. Morgan responded that it was a full team effort. Mayor Ross noted that this was the most challenging year in quite a while. Mayor Ross recessed into Executive Session at 4:48 to start at 5:OO p.m. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. E. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Litigation Update - PEC Franchise Sec. 551.072 - Deliberations about Real Property - Purchase of Property -Parks Admin Sec. 551.086 Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters - Competitive Matters — Purchased Power Update - Renewal and Amendment of Shell Energy NA Energy ManagerJQSE Agreement Adjournment t� Approved by the Georgetown City Council on Date Dale Ross, Mayor Attest: Ci ecretary t( i