HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 09.12.2006 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 05:00:00 PM at
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
An agenda packet, containing detailed information on the items listed below, is distributed to the Mayor,
Councilmembers, and the Georgetown Public Library no later than the Saturday preceding the council
meeting. The library's copy is available for public review.
Please Note: This City Council Meeting will be video taped live without editing and shown on the
local cable channel.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 05:00 PM
A Discussion and possible direction to staff to amend Chapter 10.04 and add new section 10.04.045 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Georgetown pertaining to riding of bicycles, velocipedes, mopeds and
similar vehicles, to establish restrictions on the unauthorized use and operation of motor assisted scooters
and mopeds, provide definitions, and establishing parental liability for child's unlawful use and operation of
motor assisted scooters and mopeds --David Morgan, Chief of Police and Paul E. Brandenburg, City
Manager
Executive Session
Regular Session to convene and continue Executive Session, if necessary
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 that follows.
B 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
- Requesting Authorization Lloyd Gosselink to review the electric service agreement for Project Lee — Jim Briggs, Assistant City
Manager for Utility Operations
- Evaluation of the LCRA contract — Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
-Transamerican Underground vs. Arch Insurance Co., C. C. Carleton Industries, and Third Party Defendant the City of
Georgetown, Cause No. 06-121-C277, District Court of Williamson County, 277th Judicial District
- Civil Action No. A -06 -CA -082 SS; Daniel and Carmen Henderson v. City of Georgetown and Bishop Gregory Aymond for the
Diocese of Austin, in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
- Application by MUD 19 for a Sewer Utility Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
C Sec 551.072 - Deliberations about Real Property
- Discussion and possible action related to the aquisition of property within the Williams Drive Gateway Redevelopment Area.
D Sec.551.087: Deliberations Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a
business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which
the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive
to a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with
which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations.
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 06:00 PM
(Council may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of
the Mayor, a Councilmember, or the City Manager for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act,
Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
E Call to Order
City Council Agenda/September 12, 2006
Page 1 of 5 Pages
F Pledge of Allegiance
G Comments from the dais
Welcome to Audience and Opening Comments — Mayor Gary Nelon
Review of procedure for addressing the City Council
Announcement of a vacancy for the Downtown Business Owner position on the Main Street Advisory Board
Proclamation to be presented to Dr. Charles Aguillon of the Georgetown Independent School District
regarding music education
Graduation Ceremony for the participants in the Georgetown Citizen Academy
H Announcements and Comments from City Manager
I Public Wishing to Address Council
J Action from Executive Session
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that Council may act on with
one single vote. A councilmember may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the council
discuss and act upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
K Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop on Monday, August 21,
Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 22, and the Special Public Hearing on August 31, 2006 — Shirley
Rinn, Deputy City Secretary and Sandra D. Lee, City Secretary
L Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution to accept the 2006 Tax Appraisal Roll for the
City of Georgetown as presented by Deborah Hunt, Tax Assessor -Collector — Micki Rundell, Director
Finance & Administration
M Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution approving the 2006/07 Budget and related
Property Tax Assessment for the Georgetown Village Public Improvement District #1 — Micki Rundell,
Director Finance & Administration
N Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution accepting the proposed project list and approving
,t ly the Adopted 2006/07 Budget for the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation — Micki
Rundell, Director Finance & Administration
O Consideration and possible action to approve a professional services contract for $27,567.50 with Matthew
and Company of Georgetown for the production, placement, and streaming of Informational videos to
educate Georgetown voters prior to the November 7 election on the one-quarter cent street maintenance
sales tax ballot item -- Keith Hutchinson, Public Information Officer and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
P Consideration and possible action to approve an amendment to the contract between the City of
Georgetown and Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP for professional services relating to the engineering
review for the remainder of Sun City Texas — David Munk, P.E., Development Engineer and Bobby Ray,
AICP, Director of Planning and Development
Q Consideration and possible action on a Public Review Final Plat for 37.043 acres in the Frederick Foy
Survey, Abstract 229, to known as the Planned'Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood
Forty, located west of Sun City Boulevard and north of Neighborhood 41— Melissa McCollum, AICP,
Planner II and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
Legislative Regular Agenda
Cquncil will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items
Presentation of the "City of Georgetown Street Maintenance Program" to be used for educational
" City Council Agenda/September 12, 2006
Page 2 of 5 Pages
purposes regarding the November 7, 2006 election to reauthorize a 114%, sales tax for street maintenance —
Micki Rundell, Director Finance & Administration
S Consideration and possible action to authorize staff to amend Article VII, Construction, paragraph 7.01
Mandatory Construction of the long tens Airport Ground Lease Agreement as recommended by the
Airport Advisory Board and prepared by the City Attorney -- Travis McLain, Airport Manager and Tom
Yantis, Assistant City Manager
T UiSCligsion and noccible action related to the proposed bus transit station to he develnned bytheCapital
Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) in Georgetown through a grant from the Texas Department of
Transportation -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
U Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution establishing Council policy on the implementation
of conservation subdivision design standards for certain properties within the city limits and ETJ — Tom
Yantis, Assistant City Manager
V Consideration and possible action to award a bid for the construction of approximately 1800 linear feet of
Manager for Utility
JAn f
sidewalk — Mark Miller, Transportation Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City
- 7'�^�'�tC'
Operations
6 v`J
W Item forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS) Board
Consideration and possible action to enter into an Agreement with Operations Management Itemational for
the emergency repair of the Lake Water Treatment Plant Filter #2 for $89,757.50 -- Glenn Dishong, Water
Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations
/
X Second Readings
1. Second Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 15.16, Electrical Code, of the Code of Ordinances,
providing for the adoption of the 2005 National Electrical Code and electrical licensing registration
requirements -- David Hall, Director of Inspection Services and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
2. Second Reading of an ordinance amending Chapters 2.28, 6.04,8.04, 8.08, 8.20, 8.28, 10.04, 10.16,
12.24 eliminating references to the position of Fire Marshal and replacing references to Fire
Marshal with references to various other city personnel consistent with the city's current administrative
divisions and departments — David Hall, Director of Inspection Services and Tom Yantis, Assistant City
Manager
3. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from AG, Agricultural district to C-1, Local Commercial
district, Lot 2, Dicotec Subdivision, also known as The Barn, located at 4405 Williams Drive — Bobby
Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
4. Second Reading on an Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use
from Residential and Office/Retail/Commercial to Office/Retail/Commercial for 2.572 acres in the
William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, located near the northeast comer of Inner Loop and E.
University — Jordan Maddox, Planner I and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and Development
Services
5. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from RS, Residential Single -Family district to C-3, General
Commercial district, 2.572 acres in the William Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, located at the
northeast comer of the Intersection of SH -29 and Inner Loop -- Bobby Ray, AICP, Director of Planning
and Development Services
6. Second Reading on an Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use
from Residential and Office/Retail/Commercial to Office/Retail/Commercial for 42.326 acres in the
William Addison Survey, also to be known as University Plaza, located at the northeast comer of Inner
Loop and E. University — Jordan Maddox, Planner I and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and
Development Services
7. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from RS, Residential Single -Family and AG, Agriculture
districts to C-3, General Commercial district, 42.326 acres in the William Addison Survey, also to be
known as University Plaza, located at the northeast comer of Inner Loop and east SH -29 — Bobby Ray,
AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
City Council Agenda/September 12, 2006
Page 3 of 5 Pages
8. Second Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning from AG, Agricultural district to PUD, Planned Unit
Development district for 37.043 acres in the Frederick Foy Survey, Abstract 229, to known as the
Planned Unit Development of Sun City Georgetown Neighborhood Forty, located west of Sun City
Boulevard and north of Neighborhood 41 – Melissa McCollum, AICP, Planner II and Bobby Ray, AICP,
Director of Planning and Development Services
9. Second Reading of an Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the intensity level
from Level 1 to Level 2 for 154.015 acres in the A.H. Porter Survey, also known as Cimarron Hills –
lancan Trnn1 Inn2Ind nt 200 I 2d na2r SH 90 W—t _ Inrd2n M2ddnv olannar 1 and Rnhhu
Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Services
Y Public Hearings/First Readings
1. First reading of an ordinance levying a tax rate for the City of Georgetown for the tax year 2006 –
Micki Rundell, Director Finance & Administration
2. First reading of an ordinance adopting an Annual Operating Plan Element of the Georgetown
Century Plan (budget) for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2006, and ending September 30, 2007;
adopting the Annual Amendment to the Century Plan. First Reading, Mick! Rundell, Director Finance &
Administration
3. First reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.08.010 "Administrative Divisions and
Departments" of the Georgetown Code of Ordinances – Micki Rundell, Director, Finance &
Administration
4. First Reading of an Ordinance establishing the classifications and number of positions (Strength of
Force) for all the City of Georgetown Fire Fighters and Police Officers pursuant to Chapter 143 of the
Texas Local Government Code pertaining to Civil Service – Kevin Russell, Human Resources Director
and Paul Brandenburg, City Manager
5. First reading of an ordinance denying the rate increase proposed by the ATMOS Energy Corporation,
Mid -Tex Division; requiring the reimbursement of municipal rate case expenses; finding that the
meeting complies with the Open Meetings Act; and making other findings and provisions related to the
subject – Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations and Trish Caris, City Attorney
6. First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, repealing and
replacing chapter 13.20 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances relating to "Sewage Disposal;"
repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an
effective date -- Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for
Utility Operations
7. First Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, repealing and
replacing Chapter 13.10 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances relating to "Utility System
Improvements;" repealing conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; including a severability clause; and
establishing an Effective Date—Glenn Dishong, Water Services Manager and Jim Briggs, Assistant
City Manager for Utility Operations
8. Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 13 ("Infrastructure and Public
Improvements") of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Creation of Special
Districts and Utility Infrastructure in Rural Residential Subdivisions -- Tom Yantis, Assistant City
Manager
9. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.045 of the Code of Ordinances to revise the
Development Process Fees for Planning and Zoning – Bobby Ray, AICP, Director of Planning and
Development Services
10. First Reading of an Ordinance Annexing into the City 145.5779 acres, more or less, in the Joseph
Fish Survey and William Roberts Survey, located south of Shell Road, for Georgetown Village,
Section Nine – Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP, Director Planning
and Development
11. First Reading of an Ordinance Annexing into the City 1.28 acres, more or less, in the Joseph Fish
City Council Agenda/September 12, 2006
Page 4 of 5 Pages
Survey, William B. Lord Survey and William Roberts Survey, located north of Shell Road, for
Georgetown Village, Section Six revised — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Bobby
Ray, AICP, Director Planning and Development
12. First Reading of an Ordinance Annexing into the City 10.158 acres, more of less, in the Williams
Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, located southeast of FM 1460 and Georgetown Inner Loop, for the
remainder of the Avery Tract — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP,
Director Planning and Development
13. First Reading of an Ordinance Annexing into the City 66.737 acres, more of less, in the Williams
Addison Survey, Abstract No. 21, located southeast of FM 1460 and Georgetown Inner Loop, for the
remainder of the Moore Tract — Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Bobby Ray, AICP,
Director Planning and Development
Appointments
1. Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Comprehensive Plan Steering
Committee — Mayor Gary Nelon
2. Consideration and possible action to appoint Taunya Vessels to the Convention and Visitors Bureau
Board to a position that will expire in February, 2007 — Mayor Gary Nelon
Certificate of Posting
I, Sandra Lee, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the day of , 2006, at , and remained so posted for at
least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
City Council Agenda/September 12, 2006
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to award a bid for the
construction of aooroximately 1800 linear feet of sidewalk.
ITEM SUbDULRY:
Bids were taken on September 11th 2006 for the construction of
approximately 1800 linear feet of Sidewalk. This sidewalk contract
consists of adding missing links along 17th Street between Austin
Avenue and Railroad Street. The completion of this walk will
improve safety for this high pedestrian count neighborhood. Other
proposed improvements consist of placing a new sidewalk along
Martin Luther King Street between University Avenue and 10th Street
and extending a section on 4th Street from Martin Luther King Street
to West Street. The sidewalk along Martin Luther King Street will
improve pedestrian access to the new library, the police station
and other City offices. The sidewalk on 4th Street will address an
existing handicap access issue at the corner of 4th and West street
and extend the existing sidewalk at Martin Luther King Street one
block to the West.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
None
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
To be used from Account # 100-134-5803-00 sidewalk
repairs
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NA
COMMENTS:
Ncne
ATTACHMENTS:
Items to be passed out at meeting.
1. Bid Tab
2. map showing proposed sidewalk
Submitted By: Mark Miller Ji BrK6
Transportation Services sistant dity Manacler
Manager for Utility Operati:-,ns
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No. W
SUBTECT:
Consideration and possible action to enter into an agreement between the City and
Operations Management International for the emergency repair of the Lake Water Treatment Plant
Filter #2 for $89,757.50.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The current OMI contract includes a total of $65,000 for the repair and replacement of
equipment at the water treatment plants. The #2 Filter has experienced a failure similar to the
failure of the #3 and #4 filters earlier this year. The repair cost for the #2 Lake Plant Filter will
exceed the current contract amount for repairs. This item provides the funds necessary to conduct
the necessary repairs on the filter to ensure the Lake Water Treatment Plant can operate at full
capacity.
The maximum cost for the repair and OMI overhead is estimated at $89,757.50.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With #2 and #4 filters out of service, the LWTP is unable to produce its rated capacity during
peak summer demands. Repair was commenced by OMI to minimize the need for additional water
conservation measures.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds in the amount of $89,757.50 are currently available and will be paid from the
Water Operations and Maintenance Fund (660-109-5302-00.)
GUS BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
GUS Board approved at a special meeting held on September 7, 2006.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
OMI agreement for LWTP #2 Filter Repair.
,/: r,r,
Submitted By: Glenn Dishong, '— r riggji' %
Water Services Manage Assistant City Manager
for Utility Operations
o�j f 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONALSERVICES
fts Agreement is by and between Operations Management International, Inc. (OMI) and the Client identified below
(collectively, the "Parties").
OMI's Office Address: 9193 S. Jamaica Street, Englewood. CO 80112
Client: Citv of
Client's Office Address: 113 E. 8`" Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Project Name: Filter Two Refurbishment at the Lake Plant
Project Location: Georqetown, TX
Client Project Number. OMI Project Number,
1 SCOPE OF SERVICES
OMI will perform the following Scope of Services:
Labor and Materials to replace under drain in Filter #2
Georgetown Lake Water Treatment Plant and return to service.
2. COMPENSATION
Compensation by Client to OMI shall be paid at OMI's direct
costs plus fifteen percent (15%).
Estimated cost for demolition and replacement: $78,050.00 X
15%= $89,757.50 estimated total cost
irk performed under this AGREEMENT may be performed
labor from affiliated companies of OMI. Such labor will be
to Client under the same billing terms applicable to OMI's
employees.
3 INVOICES AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
3.1 Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, monthly invoices
will be issued by OMI for all Work performed under this
Agreement.
3.2 Invoices are due and payable on receipt. Interest at a rate of
1-1/2 percent per month, or that permitted by law if lesser,
will be charged on all past -due amounts starting 30 days
after date of invoice. Payments will first be credited to
interest and then to principal. In the event of a disputed or
contested billing, only that portion so contested shall be
withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion shall be
paid. Interest shall accrue on any contested portion of the
billing and shall be payable immediately if the contested
billing is resolved in favor of OMI.
3.3 In the event of a disputed billing, only the disputed portion
will be withheld from payment, and Client shall pay the
undisputed portion. Client will exercise reasonableness in
disputing any bill or portion thereof. No interest will accrue
on any disputed portion of the billing until mutually resolved.
3.4 If Client fails to make payment in full within 30 days of the
date due for any undisputed billing, OMI may, after giving 7
days' written notice to Client, suspend services under this
AGREEMENT until paid in full, including interest. In the
event of suspension of services. OMI will have no liability to
Client for delays or damages caused by Client because of
uch suspension.
4 OBLIGATIONS OF OMI
4.1 Standard of Care
The standard of care applicable to OMI's services will be the
degree of skill and diligence normally employed by
professionals performing the same or similar services at the
time OMI's services are performed.
4.2 Opinions of Cost, Financial Considerations, and
Schedules
In providing opinions of cost, financial analyses, economic
feasibility projections, and schedules for the PROJECT, OMI
has no control over cost or price of labor and materials;
unknown or latent conditions of existing equipment or
structures that may affect operation or maintenance costs;
competftive bidding procedures and market conditions; time
or quality of performance by operating personnel or third
parties; and other economic and operational factors that
may materially affect the ultimate PROJECT cost or
schedule. Therefore, OMI makes no warranty that Client's
actual PROJECT costs, financial aspects, economic
feasibility, or schedules will not vary from OMI's opinions,
analyses, projections, or estimates.
If Client wishes greater assurance as to any element of
PROJECT cost, feasibility, or schedule, Client will employ
an independent cost estimator, contractor, or other
appropriate advisor.
4.3 OMI's Insurance
OMI will maintain throughout this AGREEMENT the
following insurance:
Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as
required by the state where the work is performed.
Comprehensive automobile and vehicle liability insurance
covering claims for injuries to members of the public and/or
damages to property of others arising from use of motor
vehicles, including onsite and offsite operations, and owned,
non -owned, or hired vehicles, with $1,000,000 combined
single limits.
Commercial general liability insurance covering claims for
injuries to members of the public or damage to property of
others arising out of any covered negligent act or omission
of OMI or of any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors,
with $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate.
Client will be named as an additional insured with respect to
OMI's liabilities hereunder in insurance coverages identified
above (except with respect to worker's compensation and
employer's liability insurance) and OMI waives subrogation
against Client as to said policies.
4.4 Warran Jes and Completion
• 4.4.1 OMI warrants that all materials and equipment
furnished under this Agreement will be new, unless
otherwise specified, of good quality and free from
defective workmanship and materials. Warranties
shall commence on the date of Completion as
determined by OMI.
4.4.2 OMI will pass through to Client the warranty extended
by the manufacturer for all products, equipment,
systems or materials. There are no warranties that
extend beyond the description on the face thereof
4.4.3 All other warranties, express or implied, including
any warranty of merchantability and any warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose are expressly
disclaimed.
5 OBLIGATIONS OF Client
5.1 Client -Furnished Data
Client will provide to OMI all data in Client's possession
relating to OMI's services on the PROJECT. OMI will
reasonably rely upon the accuracy, timeliness, and
completeness of the information provided by Client.
5.2 Access to Facilities and Property
Client will make its facilities accessible to OMI as required
for OMI's performance of its services and will provide labor
and safety equipment as required by OMI for such access.
Client will perform, at no cost to OMI, such tests of
equipment, machinery, pipelines, and other components of
Client's facilities as may be required in connection with
IOMI's services.
Operations Assistance and Services
Client authorizes OMI to operate, modify, inspect and
otherwise physically manipulate equipment, furnishings,
property and other elements associated with the Work.
Client authorizes OMI to take such actions in these respects
as OMI considers necessary to meet the objectives of the
Work.
5.4 Advertisements, Permits, and Access
Unless otherwise agreed to in the Scope of Services, Client
will obtain, arrange, and pay for all advertisements for bids;
permits and licenses required by local, state, or federal
authorities; and land, easements, rights-of-way, and access
necessary for OMI's services or PROJECT construction.
5.5 Timely Review
Client will examine OMI's studies, reports, sketches,
drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents;
obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor,
accountant, auditor, bond and financial advisors, and other
consultants as Client deems appropriate; and render in
writing decisions required by Client in a timely manner.
5.6 Prompt Notice
Client will give prompt written notice to OMI whenever Client
observes or becomes aware of any development that affects
the scope or timing of OMI's Services, or of any defect in the
work of OMI.
AsbestoIS s or Hazardous Substances
.7.1 If asbestos or hazardous substances in any form are
encountered or suspected, OMI will stop its own work
in the affected portions of the PROJECT to permit
testing and evaluation.
5.7.2 If asbestos is suspected, OMI will, if requested,
manage the asbestos remediation activities using a
qualified subcontractor at an additional fee and
contract terms to be negotiated.
5.7.3 If hazardous substances other than asoestos are
suspected, OMI will, if requested, conduct tests to
determine the extent of the problem and will perform
the necessary studies and recommend the necessary
remedial measures at an additional fee a;,d contract
terms to be negotiated.
5.7.4 Client recognizes that OMI assumes no risk and/or
liability for a waste or hazardous waste site originated
by other than OMI.
5.8 Client's Insurance
5.8.1 Client will maintain property insurance on all pre-
existing physical facilities associated in any way with
the PROJECT.
5.8.2 Client will provide for a waiver of subrogation as to all
Client -carried property damage insurance, in favor of
OMI, OMI's officers, employees, affiliates, and
subcontractors.
5.9 Litigation Assistance
The Scope of Services does not include costs of OMI for
required or requested assistance to support, prepare,
document, bring, defend, or assist in litigation undertaken or
defended by Client. All such Services required or requested
of OMI by Client, except for suits or claims between the
parties to this AGREEMENT, will be reimbursed as mutually
agreed.
5.10 Changes
Client may request changes within the general Scope of
Services in this AGREEMENT. If such changes affect OMI's
cost of or time required for performance of the services, an
equitable adjustment will be made through an amendment to
this AGREEMENT. All requested changes will be made an
in writing and are subject to acceptance by OMI.
6 GENERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Authorization to Proceed
Execution of this Agreement by Client will be authorization
for OMI to proceed with the work, unless otherwise provided
for in this Agreement.
6.2 Force Majeure
OMI is not responsible for damages or delay in performance
caused by acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents, or other
events beyond the control of OMI. In any such event, OMI'S
contract price and schedule shall be equitably adjusted.
6.3 Limitation of Liability
OMI's liability for Client's damages, in the aggregate, shall
not exceed the total compensation received by OMI from
Client for services provided under this Agreement. OMI's
liability to Client under this Agreement specifically excludes
any and all indirect or consequential damages arising from
the Work contemplated under this Agreement. OMI shall
not be liable for fines or civil penalties, which may be
imposed by a regulatory agency, which are occasioned by
the provision of services under this Agreement. The
limitations of liability shall apply whether OMI's liability arises
under breach of contract or warranty; tort, including
negligence; strict liability; statutory liability; or any other
cause, except the limitations shall not apply to willful
misconduct or gross negligence. Said limitations shall apply
to OMI's officers, affiliated corporations, employees, and
subcontractors.
6.4 Indemnification
OMI shall indemnify and hold Client harmless from any and
all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including
litigation cos(s and attorney's fees, to the extent that such
are due to the negligent actions of OMI directly related to
this Work. Similarly, Client shall indemnify and hold OMI
harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, and
expenses, including litigation costs and attorney's fees, to
the extent that such are due to actions or inactions of Client
directly related to this Work. Client's indemnification of OMI
specifically extends to, but is not limited to, the presence,
discharge, release, or escape of contaminants of any kind,
excepting only such liability as may arise out of the sole
negligence of OMI, and limited to the extent that OMI is
negligent in the performance of services under this
Agreement.
6.5 Consequential Damages
To the maximum extent permitted by law, OMI and OMI's
affiliated corporations, officers, employees, and
subcontractors shall not be liable for Client's special,
indirect, or consequential damages, whether such damages
arise out of breach of contract or warranty, tort including
negligence, strict or statutory liability, or any other cause of
action. In order to protect OMI against indirect liability or
third -party proceedings, Client will indemnify OMI for any
such damages.
6.6 Termination
This Agreement may be terminated by OMI for its
convenience on 30 days' written notice; or by either party for
cause upon 30 days' written notice to the other party, if
either party fails to substantially perform through no fault of
the other and does not commence corection of such
nonperformance within 5 days of written notice and diligently
complete the correction thereafter.
On termination, OMI shall be paid for all authorized Work
performed up to the termination date. If termination is for
convenience, OMI shall be paid termination expenses, such
as, but not limited to, reassignment of personnel,
subcontract termination costs, and related closeout costs. If
no notice of termination is given, relationships and
obligations created by this Agreement will be terminated
upon completion of all applicable requirements of this
Agreement, except as provided under Paragraph 6.7
"Severability and Survival).
6.7 Severability and Survival
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held
illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the
remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby.
Limitations of liability indemnities and other express
representations shall survive termination of this Agreement.
6.8 No Conflict of Interest for Future Work
The Work performed by OMI under this Agreement does not
preclude OMI from proposing on or providing such services
to Client in the future. Information and knowledge gained by
OMI in providing services under this contract shall not
constitute a conflict of interest in proposing on or providing
full contract operations, full contract maintenance, or full
contract utility management.
6.9 Jurisdiction
The law of the State where the Scope of Services is being
Performed shall govern the validity of this Agreement, its
interpretation and performance, and any other claims related
to it.
6.10 Third Party Beneficiaries and Scope of Services
This Agreement gives no rights or benefits to anyone other
than Client and OMI and has no third party beneficiaries.
The Work to be performed for Client by OMI is refined
solely by this Agreement, and not by any other contact or
agreement that may be associated with the Work.
6.11 Materials and Samples
Any items, substances, materials, or samples removed from
the project site for testing, analysis, or other evaluation will
be returned to the project site within 60 days of close-out
unless agreed to otherwise. Exceptions to this clause are
items subjected to destructive testing or samples with
nominal intrinsic value, such as samples of liquid, solid or
gaseous materials that are non -hazardous. Client
recognizes and agrees that OMI is acting as a bailee and at
no time assumes title to said items, substances, materials,
or samples.
6.12 Assignments
This is a bilateral personal services Agreement. Neither
party shall have the power to or will assign any of the duties
or rights or any claim arising out of or related to this
Agreement, whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise,
without the written consent of the other party. Any
unauthorized assignment is void and unenforceable. These
conditions and the entire Agreement are binding on the
heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
6.13 Dispute Resolution
The parties will use their best efforts to resolve amicably any
dispute, including use of alternative dispute resolution
options.
6.14 Confidentiality and Nondisclosure
To enable OMI and Client to conduct activities related to the
Scope of this Agreement, it may be necessary for OMI to
disclose proprietary or confidential information of Client. In
that regard, OMI and Client agrees, for a period of five (5)
years from the date of disclosure of information identified as
proprietary or confidential, that OMI will treat the information
in strictest confidence and will not disclose it to third parties
unless the information:
(a) Was part of the public domain when received or
becomes a part of the public domain through no action or
lack of action by OMI or Client.
(b) Prior to disclosure, was already in OMI or Client's
possession and not subject to an obligation of confidence
imposed in another relationship.
(c) Subsequent to disclosure, is obtained from a third party
who is lawfully in possession of the information and not
subject to a contractual relationship with OMI or Client with
respect to the information.
6.15 Ownership of Work Products and Intellectual Property
All of the Work products of OMI in executing this Project
(including all the rights related to such Work Products) shall
be the sole property of OMI, subject to the rights of the
Client, as the case may be. All reports, data, information,
documents, specifications, flow -charts, discoveries, know-
how, inventions, processes, firmware, computer software,
source and object code, and software documentation as well
as any resulting intellectual property, including but not
limited to, invention disclosures, provisional patent
applications, regular patent applications, patents, trade
secrets, proprietary information, copyrights, trademarks,
service marks, domain names, trade dress, and moral rights
developed during the course of, or as a result of, the Project
shall be the sole property of OMI, subject to the rights of the
Client, as the case may be.
7 ATTACHMENTS, SCHEDULES, AND SIGNATURES
This AGREEVENT, including its attachments and
schedules, constitutes the entire AGREEMENT, supersedes
4P
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute below:
all prior written or oral understandings, and may only be
changed by a written amendment executed by both parties.
Approved for Client (Print and sign name) I Approved for OMI (Print and sign name)
By
Name Gary Nelon
Title Mayor City
Date
0
40
By
Name Roger B. Quayle
Title Sr. Vice President
Date
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.
Y 5 -
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBIECT:
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS DENYING THE RATE
INCREASE PROPOSED BY THE ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION, MID-TEX DIVISION; REQUIRING THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF MUNICIPAL RATE CASE EXPENSES; FINDING THAT THE MEETING COMPLIES
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FIRST READING
ITEM SUMMARY:
On May 31, 2006, Atmos Energy Corporation ("Atmos" or "Atmos Energy") filed a rate filing package with the
City Secretary to increase rates by approximately $73 million. Prior to the Atmos' rate filing, the City adopted a
show cause resolution asking Atmos to show cause why its rates should not be reduced.
The City joined a coalition of cities known as the Atmos Texas Municipalities ("ATM"). ATM hired rate
experts to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the Atmos rate filing.
With regard to evaluating the rate increase requested of Atmos Energy, requests for information, requests
for documents and depositions of Atmos witnesses have been on-going at the Railroad Commission. This is the
most efficient method of conducting discovery instead of on a city -by -city basis. Written discovery will conclude
on September 15, 2006. Not until discovery is finally concluded is it possible to make final recommendations but,
at this stage, it does appear that Atmos is not entitled to an increase in rates.
Ahnos has proposed a radical change in rate design. The proposed customer charge is increased 41% over
the current customer charge for residential customers. For base rates, Atmos proposes that the first 3 Mcf be
increased by 57% while cost of gas above that amount be decreased by over 200%x. In other words, the more gas a
customer uses, the cheaper the rate. The rate design proposed by Atmos promotes consumption and waste of a
very finite natural resource. It also means that low use residential customers will be hit the hardest by the
proposed increase in rates.
Atmos has repeatedly failed to provide cost information prior to the acquisition on October 1, 2004 of TXU
Gas Company assets even though Atmos has an agreement with TXU that such information would be transferred
to Atmos. The failure to provide the pre -October 1, 2004 information has made it more difficult to analyze the
reasonableness of requested costs and expenses.
The ATM Cities recommend that the Council deny the requested increase in rates and that rates be set in a
manner that will not be unfair to low use customers or be set in a manner which encourages the wasteful
consumption of natural gas.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
Agenda Information Sheet and Ordinance
Submitted By: %] Jim Briggs, !/ U
UAssistant City Manager
for Utility Operations
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
DENIAL OF ATMOS ENERGY RATE
INCREASE REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2006, Atmos Energy Corporation ("Atmos" or "Atmos Energy") filed
a rate filing package with the City Secretary to increase rates by approximately $73
million. Prior to the Atmos' rate filing, the City adopted a show cause resolution
asking Atmos to show cause why its rates should not be reduced.
The City joined a coalition of cities known as the Atmos Texas Municipalities
("ATM"). ATM hired rate experts to evaluate and make recommendations
regarding the Atmos rate filing.
DENIAL OF RATE INCREASE IS MOST APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME
With regard to evaluating the rate increase requested of Atmos Energy, requests for
information, requests for documents and depositions of Atmos witnesses have been
on-going at the Railroad Commission. This is the most efficient method of
conducting discovery instead of on a city -by -city basis. Written discovery will
conclude on September 15, 2006. Not until discovery is finally concluded is it
possible to make final recommendations but, at this stage, it does appear that
Atmos is not entitled to an increase in rates. Below are a few highlights of some of
the glaring errors in Atmos' filing.
In summary, they are:
❖ Request for Excessive Rate of Return
❖ Request to artificially decrease debt and increase equity
❖ Request for excessive levels of GRIP (infrastructure adjustments)
❖ Radical change in rate design for residential customers to promote
waste of natural gas and shift costs to low use customers
1
PROPOSED RATES PROMOTE WASTE AND HIT LOW USE
CUSTOMERS THE HARDEST
Atmos has proposed a radical change in rate design. The proposed customer
charge is increased 41% over the current customer charge for residential
customers. For base rates, Atmos proposes that the first 3 Mcf be increased by
57% while cost of gas above that amount be decreased by over 200%. In other
words, the more gas a customer uses, the cheaper the rate. The rate design
proposed by Atmos promotes consumption and waste of a very finite natural
resource. It also means that low use residential customers will be hit the hardest by
the proposed increase in rates. Below is a chart showing what the rates look like
for the first 3 Mcf of consumption.
RESH)ENTUL
RATES
Charge
Current
Proposed
% Increase
Customer Charge
$9.00
$13.50
GRIP Adjustments
0.58
0
Total
$9.58
$13.50
41%
0 - 1.5 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$3.546/Mcf
1.5 - 3 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$0.346/Mcf
Total
$2.478
$3.892
57%
ATMOS MISUSED THE GAS RELIABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM ("GRH"')
Atmos has increased the customer charge during the last 18 months by over $1.00
per month for residential customers and by more than $3.68 per month for
commercial customers for its Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program ("GRIP")
adjustments. The GRIP adjustments were to be instituted solely for the purpose of
providing for safety and reliability infrastructure (pipeline) improvements between
general rate cases. Instead, Atmos has included in GRIP costs which have nothing
to do with infrastructure improvements, like the purchase of new computers, office
furniture, signage for trucks and other vehicles and telecommunications systems.
ATMOS' REQUESTED RATE OF RETURN IS TOO HIGH
Atmos is requesting a return on equity ("ROE") of 11.5%. From the analysis so far
by the City's rate expert, a return at this level is far off the mark. In the most
recent Atmos case, the Georgia Public Service Commission decided that the
reasonable rate of return should be 10.12% for Atmos. This is more than 135 basis
points less than what Atmos is asking for in the current rate case.
Atmos is also trying to raise its rates by claiming that regulators should ignore how
much debt it has, but instead, it is asking regulators to treat some of its debt as
equity. The cost of debt is much cheaper (5% - 6%) than the cost of equity (9% -
10.5%). By artificially inflating the cost of equity, the overall return on investment
is increased, thus, making the rate increase request considerably larger than it
should be.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
Atmos has repeatedly failed to provide cost information prior to the acquisition on
October 1, 2004 of TXU Gas Company assets even though Atmos has an
agreement with TXU that such information would be transferred to Atmos. The
4W failure to provide the pre -October 1, 2004 information has made it more difficult to
analyze the reasonableness of requested costs and expenses.
ri
RECOMMENDATION
The ATM Cities recommend that the Council deny the requested increase in rates
and that rates be set in a manner that will not be unfair to low use customers or be
set in a manner which encourages the wasteful consumption of natural gas.
3
the request proposes a radical change in rate design for residential customers,
which promotes waste of natural gas and shifts costs to low use customers.
(I) The 11.5% rate of return proposed by Atmos is 135 basis points more than the
10.12% rate of return considered to be reasonable in Atmos' most recent rate case before the
Georgia Public Service Commission.
(I) Atmos' proposal treats some of its debt (at a cost of 5% to 6%) as equity (at a cost
of 9% to 10.5%), artificially inflating the cost of equity and thereby increasing the overall return
on investments and making the rate increase request considerably larger than justified.
(.1) Contrary to the plain language and intent of the Gas Utilities Regulatory Act,
Texas Utilities Code §104.301, some of the GRIP adjustments proposed by Atmos have nothing
to do with capital investment for infrastructure improvements related to safety and reliability.
Instead GRIP adjustments include the purchase of new computers, office furniture, signage for
trucks and other vehicles and telecommunications systems.
(K) Atmos has proposed a rate design that unjustly shifts costs of the proposed
increase to low use residential customers by increasing the residential customer charge and base
rate cost for the first 3 Mcf of usage. In tum, Atmos has proposed to dramatically decrease the
cost of gas above 3 Mcf thereby promoting consumption and waste of a finite natural resource as
demonstrated in the chart below.
RESIDENTIAL RATES
Charge
Current
Proposed
% Increase
Customer Charge
$9.00
$13.50
GRIP Adjustments
0.58
0
Total
$9.58
$13.50
41%
0 - 1.5 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$3.546/Mcf
1.5 - 3 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$0.346/Mcf
Total
$2.478
$3.892
57%
(L) The failure of Atmos to provide cost information related to assets of TXU Gas
Company prior to the acquisition by Atmos on October 1, 2004, has made it difficult to analyze
the components and reasonableness of the requested costs and expenses.
Ordinance No.
ATMOS — Rate Increase Denial
Page 3 of 4
(M) The meeting at which this ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in
strict compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551.
PART 2. Based upon the foregoing findings the rate increase proposed by Atmos and filed with
the City on May 31, 2006, is denied.
PART 3. Atmos is directed to reimburse all municipal rate case expenses incurred by the City in
relation to the filing.
PART 4. A copy of this ordinance shall be sent to Mr. Richard Reis, Atmos Energy
Corporation, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75240 and to Mr. Jim Finley, City
Attorney, City of Longview, Texas, at fax number 903-239-5539.
PART 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign this ordinance and the City Secretary
to attest. This ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of the Charter
of the City of Georgetown.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING on this day of September, 2006.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING on this day of September, 2006.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Sandra Lee, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia E. Carls
BROWN & Carts, LLP, City Attorney
Ordinance No.
ATMOS — Rate Increase Denial
Page 4 of 4
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No. YL
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
FIRST READING of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
repealing and replacing Chapter 13.20 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances
relating to "Sewage Disposal"; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions;
including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The staff contracted with Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) in 2005 to begin the review of
the City's existing sewer policies and to recommend changes to: 1) promote the use of
organized collection systems and, 2) limit the proliferation of septic systems over the
environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone.
Recommended policy changes encompassing the UDC and the Code of Ordinances
were presented to the GUS Board on October 18, 2005. The changes to the UDC were
approved in the most recent change cycle. The changes to Chapter 13.20 of the Code of
Ordinances were made to: 1) make the policy consistent with the UDC, 2) provide
additional rules regarding discharges into the sewer system that were previously
embedded in the Industrial Waste Ordinance, and 3) Provide more clarity regarding sewer
system maintenance for customers.
ATTACHMENTS:
New copy of Chapter 13.20 Ordinance
Exhibit A
Submitted By: Glenn Dishong
Water Services
Manager
for Utility Operations
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, REPEALING AND REPLACING
CHAPTER 13.20 OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO "SEWAGE DISPOSAL;"
REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown regulates sewage disposal in the City limits to
protect the health and safety of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the sewage disposal regulations and found that they
need to be updated and revised in order to accurately reflect current policies and practices
of the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference
herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby
finds that this ordinance implements the Century Plan as follows:
1. Policy End 12.00 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City owned,
sponsored or managed utilities provide safe, adequate and reliable services to all
customers."
2. Focus End 12.02 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City water and
wastewater customers in all certified areas receive services which exceed state and
federal standards."
3. Policy End 14.00 in the Finance element, which states: "All municipal operations
are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and sufficient financial resources for
both current and future needs are provided."
4. Focus End 14.01 in the Finance element, which states: "Each utility system is a
self -supported operation that provides a desirable and affordable level of service."
5. Focus End 14.03 in the Finance element, which states: "The City's utility rates are
competitive with surrounding communities and with the statewide and national averages
for comparable utility systems."
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Pagel of 5
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict
with any other Century Plan Ends, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative
Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The existing Chapter 13.20 of the City Code entitled "Sewage Disposal,"
is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text set forth in Exhibit A. which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if set forth in full:
SECTION 3. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof, to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its final adoption and
in accordance with the City Charter.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of
September 2006.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of
September 2006.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 2 of 5
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES
CHAPTER 13.20. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Sec. 13.20.010. General.
A. It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of
any premises where any person lives or works, or occupies the same, to
establish, maintain or use any water closet, bathtub, lavatory or sink except by
one of the following means and consistent with the other terms, conditions
and requirements of this Chapter and with the City's Unified Development
Code:
1. connection to an approved Onsite Sewage Facility that is
constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and
regulations of all appropriate state and local agencies having
jurisdiction over such facilities; or
2. connection to a public centralized wastewater collection main
with all wastewater discharged to a centralized public wastewater
collection system.
B. Upon the "Development" of property, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the
Unified Development Code (pertaining to Infrastructure and Public
Improvements) shall govem the provision of wastewater service to the
property. For the purposes of this section, the term "Development" shall have
the same meaning as in Section 16.05 of the City's Unified Development
Code.
C. It is the duty of each such person referenced in subsection (A), above, to
connect such fixtures to an approved wastewater system, and to maintain the
same.
(Prior code § 12-100)
Sec. 13.20.020. On Site Sewage Facilities.
A. General. All On Site Sewage Facilities must be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriate state and local
agencies having jurisdiction over such facilities.
B. Availability of a Public Centralized Wastewater Collection Main. If a public
centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of a property
line, and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity to receive and
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 3 of 5
transport the wastewater flow produced by the property, then property owner
shall connect that property to said utility line at the earliest to occur of either
of the following events: failure of the On Site Sewage Facility servicing the
property, or the date that is five (5) years after receipt of notice of the
availability of a wastewater collection main within 200 -feet of the property
line.
C. Failure of On Site Sewage Facility. When an Onsite Sewage Facility fails, the
following provisions shall apply:
a. If a public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200
feet of the property boundary, and the wastewater collection main has
adequate capacity to receive and transport the wastewater flow produced
by the property, then the property must be connected to said utility line by
the property owner;
b. If no public centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200
feet of the property boundary, the City shall evaluate the feasibility of
providing centralized wastewater collection services to the property via a
gravity or low pressure system. Where the provision of gravity sewer
service or low pressure system is technically feasible, utility system
improvements may be made in accordance with Chapters 13.10;
c. If the City determines that the provision of wastewater service via a
centralized wastewater collection main is not necessary due to existing or
future land use, then the On Site Sewage Facility may be repaired or
replaced.
(Prior code § 12-101)
Sec. 13.20.030. Privies prohibited.
It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of any
premises in the City to establish or maintain any privy or dry closet.
Sec.13.20.040 Low Pressure Sewer Systems
A. A "Low Pressure Sewer System" is an individual lift station located at each utility
customer or property owner location having a private force main connecting to a
public force main or gravity main located in a public utility easement or public
right-of-way.
B. Each property owner and utility customer shall be responsible for the cost of
installation and maintenance of the individual lift station and private force main.
Section 13.20.050. Prohibited Discharges into Sewer System
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 4 of 5
No person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged, either
directly or indirectly into the public sewer system, waste or wastewater from any of the
following sources unless allowed by the City Manager, or his/her designee:
A. Any wastes or wastewater that does not meet the limitations imposed by Section
13.24 of the Code of Ordinances.
B. Any stormwater, groundwater, rainwater, street drainage, subsurface drainage, or
yard drainage;
C. Any unpolluted water, including, but not limited to, cooling water, process water
or blow -down water from cooling towers or evaporative coolers;
D. Any wastes or wastewater, or any object, material, or other substance directly into
a manhole or other opening into the sewer facilities other than wastes or
wastewater through an approved service connection.
E. Any holding tank waste, provided, that such waste may be placed into facilities
designed to receive such wastes and approved by the City Manager, or his/her
designee.
Section 13.20.060 Sewer System Maintenance
A. For properties with gravity wastewater service, the property owner and utility
customer shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs
of the sewer system in the building and the service lateral between the building
and the point of connection into the public sewer main.
B. For properties with low pressure service, the property owner and utility customer
shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of the
sewer system in the building and the service lateral, lift station (grinder pump)
and force main between the building and the point of connection into the public
sewer main.
C. When, as a part of sewer system testing, the City identifies a flaw in a private
service lateral or force main where a repair is necessary to prevent infiltration or
inflow, the property owner and utility customer shall be responsible to cause the
repairs to be made within one (1) year of the date of notification by the City.
D. If repairs are not complete within one year of notification by the City, City may
engage the services of a contractor to make the necessary repairs with the costs
for such repairs to be paid by the City and subsequently charged to property
owner and utility customer.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 5 of 5
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
SUBJECT:
FIRST READING of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
repealing and replacing Chapter 13.10 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances
relating to "Utility System Improvements"; repealing conflicting ordinances and
resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The staff contracted with Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) in 2005 to begin the
review of the City's existing sewer policies and to recommend changes to: 1) promote the
use of organized collection systems and, 2) limit the proliferation of septic systems over the
environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone.
Recommended policy changes encompassing the UDC and the Code of Ordinances
were presented to the GUS Board on October 18, 2005. The changes to the UDC were
approved in the most recent change cycle. The changes to Chapter 13.10 of the Code of
Ordinances were made to simplify the language and to make the policy consistent with the
UDC.
ATTACHMENTS:
New copy of Chapter 13.10 Ordinance
Exhibit A
Submitted By: Glenn Dishong / fkaBs3ggs, U
Water Services Assistant City Manag
Manager for Utility Operations
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, REPEALING AND REPLACING
CHAPTER 13.10 OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO "UTILITY SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS;" REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown operates a water, wastewater, irrigation, and
drainage utility in the City limits to protect the health and safety of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the policies related to City's the water, wastewater,
irrigation, and drainage utility and found that they need to be updated and revised in order
to accurately reflect current policies and practices of the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference
herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby
finds that this ordinance implements the Century Plan as follows:
1. Policy End 12.00 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City owned,
sponsored or managed utilities provide safe, adequate and reliable services to all
customers."
2. Focus End 12.02 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City water and
wastewater customers in all certified areas receive services which exceed state and
federal standards."
3. Policy End 14.00 in the Finance element, which states: "All municipal operations
are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and sufficient financial resources for
both current and future needs are provided."
4. Focus End 14.01 in the Finance element, which states: "Each utility system is a
self -supported operation that provides a desirable and affordable level of service"
5. Focus End 14.03 in the Finance element, which states: "The City's utility rates are
competitive with surrounding communities and with the statewide and national averages
for comparable utility systems."
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 1 of 4
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict
with any other Century Plan Ends, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative
Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The existing Chapter 13.10 of the City Code entitled "Utility System
Improvements," is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text set forth in
Exhibit A. which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes
as if set forth in full:
SECTION 3. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof, to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its final adoption and
in accordance with the City Charter.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of
September 2006.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of
September 2006.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Patricia E. Carts, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 2 of 4
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES
Chapter 13.10 Utility System Improvements
Section 13.10.010 Policy established.
This policy shall apply to improvements to the City's utility systems, including system
upgrades, system expansion, and plant capacity additions. In this Section, the term
"utility system" shall mean the City's water system, wastewater system, reuse irrigation
system, and stormwater drainage system.
Section 13.10.020 System Plannint?.
The City shall maintain and periodically update system plans for each utility so that
system improvements are implemented to maintain adequate capacity for growth while
maintaining proper service levels to existing customers.
Section 13.10.030 Proiect Timine.
A. Projects designed to expand or upgrade a utility system must be completed and
ready for operations such that capacity requirements by state regulatory agencies and City
system plans are met.
B. When possible, the City should coordinate the construction of system
improvements in a particular location with the expansion or maintenance of other utility
infrastructure to minimize the future impact on each utility.
C. Projects should begin the design phase when existing demand at a specific
location exceeds 75% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the
current total capacity.
D. Projects should begin the construction phase when existing demand at a specific
location exceeds 90% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the
current total capacity.
E. Projects required to facilitate the development of a specific tract shall be done in
accordance with the Unified Development Code.
F. Projects required as a result of an annexation service plan shall be provided as
stated in the approved Service Plan for such annexed tracts.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 —Utility System Improvements
Page 3 of 4
Section 13.10.040 Project Financing.
A. Projects required to facilitate the subdivision of a specific tract shall be paid by
the subdivider in accordance with the Unified Development Code, unless otherwise
authorized in writing and approved by the City Council in accordance with the terms of
Section 13.09 of the Unified Development Code or other applicable law.
B. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City's utility service
area, but the City is not otherwise required to provide service or planning to provide
service as reflected in the City's Capital Improvements Plan, the City may nonetheless, at
the City's sole option, facilitate the design and construction of the required utility
extensions or upgrades by managing the project with the cost of such extensions to be
shared and fully paid by the requesting landowners or subdividers prior to
commencement of the project.
C. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City's utility service
area, the City shall evaluate degree to which the project 1) facilitates contiguous growth,
2) maximizes the provision of service to the service area, 3) enhances economic
development, 4) improves system operations, 5) contributes to conservation or other
environmental concern, and 6) facilitates the completion of the utility master plan.
D. At the City's sole option, the City may also facilitate the installation of utility
expansion requests through 1) financial cost contribution, 2) financing of the
improvement using individual contracts between the City and each landowner for a
proportionate share of the project cost to be paid out over a specified period of time at a
specified rate of interest, 3) Impact Fee or connection fee reduction or waiver.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 —Utility System Improvements
Page 4 of 4
(R
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
0UBJECT:
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS DENYING THE RATE
INCREASE PROPOSED BY THE ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION, MID-TEX DIVISION; REQUIRING THE
F461N Or RS&MENT` OF 14UP4 ♦ i O A Ta QkSE EXPENS681 F4001C TLi A T TLIQ I &r rTTAI!"` .lUr rt'C
�3�
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FIRST READING
ITEM SUMMARY:
On May 31, 2006, Atmos Energy Corporation ("Atmos" or "Atmos Energy") filed a rate filing package with the
City Secretary to increase rates by approximately $73 million. Prior to the Atmos' rate filing, the City adopted a
show cause resolution asking Atmos to show cause why its rates should not be reduced.
The City joined a coalition of cities known as the Atmos Texas Municipalities ("ATM"). ATM hired rate
experts to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the Atmos rate filing.
With regard to evaluating the rate increase requested of Atmos Energy, requests for information, requests
for documents and depositions of Atmos witnesses have been on-going at the Railroad Commission. This is the
most efficient method of conducting discovery instead of on a city -by -city basis. Written discovery will conclude
on September 15, 2006. Not until discovery is finally concluded is it possible to make final recommendations but,
at this stage, it does appear that Atmos is not entitled to an increase in rates.
Atmos has proposed a radical change in rate design. The proposed customer charge is increased 41% over
the current customer charge for residential customers. For base rates, Atmos proposes that the first 3 Mcf be
increased by 579/6 while cost of gas above that amount be decreased by over 200%. In other words, the more gas a
customer uses, the cheaper the rate. The rate design proposed by Atmos promotes consumption and waste of a
very finite natural resource. It also means that low use residential customers will be hit the hardest by the
proposed increase in rates.
Atmos has repeatedly failed to provide cost information prior to the acquisition on October 1, 2004 of TXU
Gas Company assets even though Atmos has an agreement with TXU that such information would be transferred
to Atmos. The failure to provide the pre -October 1, 2004 information has made it more difficult to analyze the
reasonableness of requested costs and expenses.
The ATM Cities recommend that the Council deny the requested increase in rates and that rates be set in a
manner that will not be unfair to low use customers or be set in a manner which encourages the wasteful
consumption of natural gas.
PECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
NONE
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NONE
COMMENTS:
NONE
ATTACHMENTS:
Agenda Information Sheet and Ordinance
Submitted By: Jim Briggs, lJ V
UAssistant City Manager
for Utility Operations
•
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
DENIAL OF ATMOS ENERGY RATE
INCREASE REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2006, Atmos Energy Corporation ("Atmos" or "Atmos Energy") filed
a rate filing package with the City Secretary to increase rates by approximately $73
million. Prior to the Atmos' rate filing, the City adopted a show cause resolution
asking Atmos to show cause why its rates should not be reduced.
The City joined a coalition of cities known as the Atmos Texas Municipalities
("ATM"). ATM hired rate experts to evaluate and make recommendations
regarding the Atmos rate filing.
DENIAL OF RATE INCREASE IS MOST APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME
•
With regard to evaluating the rate increase requested of Atmos Energy, requests for
information, requests for documents and depositions of Atmos witnesses have been
on-going at the Railroad Commission. This is the most efficient method of
conducting discovery instead of on a city -by -city basis. Written discovery will
conclude on September 15, 2006. Not until discovery is finally concluded is it
possible to make final recommendations but, at this stage, it does appear that
Atmos is not entitled to an increase in rates. Below are a few highlights of some of
the glaring errors in Atmos' filing.
In summary, they are:
❖ Request for Excessive Rate of Return
❖ Request to artificially decrease debt and increase equity
❖ Request for excessive levels of GRIP (infrastructure adjustments)
❖ Radical change in rate design for residential customers to promote
waste of natural gas and shift costs to low use customers
I
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS DENYING THE RATE
INCREASE PROPOSED BY THE ATMOS ENERGY
CORPORATION, MID-TEX DIVISION; REQUIRING THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF MUNICIPAL RATE CASE
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT; MAKING OTHER
FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Atmos Energy Corporation — Mid -Tex Division ("Atmos") filed a
Statement of Intent with the City of Georgetown, Texas ("City") on May 31, 2006 to increase its
system -wide, annual revenue requirement, by approximately $73 million; and
WHEREAS, the City is a regulatory authority under the Gas Utility Regulatory Act
("GURA') and under §103.001 of GURA has exclusive original jurisdiction over Atmos' rates,
operations, and services of a gas utility within the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the original effective date for the Atmos rate increase request was July 5,
2006, the City has suspended the effective date for the City to take final action until October 3,
2006; and
WHEREAS, the City, acting in concert with other cities known as the Atmos Texas
Municipalities ("ATM"), has employed rate experts to review the testimony, schedules,
workpapers and other documents provided by Atmos in its Statement of Intent and in response to
discovery requests; and
WHEREAS, the City's rate experts have reviewed thousands of pages of the books and
records of Atmos and the review is on-going; and
Ordinance No.
ATMOS — Rate Increase Denial
Page I of 4
WHEREAS, based upon the review of the rate experts the request to increase rates
should be denied.
NOW THREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
PART 1. FINDINGS
(A) On May 31, 2006, Atmos filed a rate filing package with the City based on a test
year ending December 31, 2005, seeking to increase rates by $73 million with a proposed
effective date of July 5, 2006 which was suspended to October 3, 2006.
(B) Based on Company -provided information, Atmos' proposal would result in an
average monthly increase per customer within the City as follows:
Residential - $4.02 or approximately 5.36%
Commercial - $17.16 or approximately 5.25%
Industrial - $7.10 or approximately .21%
(C) The City has exclusive original jurisdiction under the Gas Utilities Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code § 103.001 to evaluate Atmos' proposed rate increase.
(D) The City has joined a coalition of cities, known as Atmos Texas Municipalities
("ATM").
(E) ATM has hired experts to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the
proposed rate increase.
(F) While ATM's experts will not conclude their investigation until September 15,
2006, based on current information, they recommend that Atmos is not entitled to an increase in
rates.
(G) These experts have determined that the rate increase proposed by Atmos is not
just and reasonable based on the following:
The request seeks an excessive rate of return of 11.5%;
the request artificially decreases debt and increases equity;
the request seeks excessive levels of infrastructure adjustments for its Gas
Reliability Infrastructure Program ("GRIP"); and
Ordinance No.
ATMOS — Rate Increase Denial
Page 2 of 4
the request proposes a radical change in rate design for residential customers,
which promotes waste of natural gas and shifts costs to low use customers.
. (II) The 11.5% rate of return proposed by Atmos is 135 basis points more than the
10.12% rate of return considered to be reasonable in Atmos' most recent rate case before the
Georgia Public Service Commission.
(I) Atmos' proposal treats some of its debt (at a cost of 5% to 6%) as equity (at a cost
of 9% to 10.5%), artificially inflating the cost of equity and thereby increasing the overall return
on investments and making the rate increase request considerably larger than justified.
(J) Contrary to the plain language and intent of the Gas Utilities Regulatory Act,
Texas Utilities Code §104.301, some of the GRIP adjustments proposed by Atmos have nothing
to do with capital investment for infrastructure improvements related to safety and reliability.
Instead GRIP adjustments include the purchase of new computers, office furniture, signage for
trucks and other vehicles and telecommunications systems.
(K) Atmos has proposed a rate design that unjustly shifts costs of the proposed
increase to low use residential customers by increasing the residential customer charge and base
rate cost for the fust 3 Mcf of usage. In turn, Atmos has proposed to dramatically decrease the
cost of gas above 3 Mcf thereby promoting consumption and waste of a finite natural resource as
40 demonstrated in the chart below.
0
RESIDENTIAL RATES
Charge
Current
Proposed
% Increase
Customer Charge
$9.00
$13.50
GRIP Adjustments
0.58
0
Total
$9.58
$13.50
41%
0 - 1.5 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$3.546/Mcf
1.5 - 3 Mcf
$1.239/Mcf
$0.346/Mcf
Total
$2.478
$3.892
57%
(L) The failure of Atmos to provide cost information related to assets of TXU Gas
Company prior to the acquisition by Atmos on October 1, 2004, has made it difficult to analyze
the components and reasonableness of the requested costs and expenses.
Ordinance No.
ATMOS — Rate Increase Denial
Page 3 of 4
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.�
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
FIRST READING of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
repealing and replacing Chapter 13.20 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances
relating to "Sewage Disposal"; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions;
including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The staff contracted with Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) in 2005 to begin the review of
the City's existing sewer policies and to recommend changes to: 1) promote the use of
organized collection systems and, 2) limit the proliferation of septic systems over the
environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone.
Recommended policy changes encompassing the UDC and the Code of Ordinances
were presented to the GUS Board on October 18, 2005. The changes to the UDC were
approved in the most recent change cycle. The changes to Chapter 13.20 of the Code of
Ordinances were made to: 1) make the policy consistent with the UDC, 2) provide
additional rules regarding discharges into the sewer system that were previously
embedded in the Industrial Waste Ordinance, and 3) Provide more clarity regarding sewer
system maintenance for customers.
ATTACHMENTS:
New copy of Chapter 13.20 Ordinance
Exhibit A
Submitted By: Glenn Dishong
Water Services
Manager
for Utility Operations
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not inconsistent or in conflict
with any other Century Plan Ends, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative
Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The existing Chapter 13.20 of the City Code entitled "Sewage Disposal,"
is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text set forth in Exhibit A which is
.,llael.e.] herfAo and : . byY f enceforall-PWPOS6S as if SOt fOFth iH fUll!
SECTION 3. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof, to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its final adoption and
in accordance with the City Charter.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of
September 2006.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of
September 2006.
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 2 of 5
Gary Nelon, Mayor
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES
Sec. 13.20.010. General.
A. It is unlawful for any owner or lessee, tenant or other person in possession of
any premises where any person lives or works, or occupies the same, to
establish, maintain or use any water closet, bathtub, lavatory or sink except by
one of the following means and consistent with the other terns, conditions
and requirements of this Chapter and with the City's Unified Development
Code:
1. connection to an approved Onsite Sewage Facility that is
constructed and maintained in accordance with the rules and
regulations of all appropriate state and local agencies having
jurisdiction over such facilities; or
2. connection to a public centralized wastewater collection main
with all wastewater discharged to a centralized public wastewater
collection system.
B. Upon the "Development" of property, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the
Unified Development Code (pertaining to Infrastructure and Public
Improvements) shall govern the provision of wastewater service to the
property. For the purposes of this section, the term "Development" shall have
the same meaning as in Section 16.05 of the City's Unified Development
Code.
C. It is the duty of each such person referenced in subsection (A), above, to
connect such fixtures to an approved wastewater system, and to maintain the
same.
(Prior code § 12-100)
Sec. 13.20.020. On Site Sewage Facilities.
A. General. All On Site Sewage Facilities must be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriate state and local
agencies having jurisdiction over such facilities.
B. Availability of a Public Centralized Wastewater Collection Main. If a public
centralized wastewater collection main is located within 200 feet of a property
line, and the wastewater collection main has adequate capacity to receive and
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 3 of 5
No person shall discharge, cause to be discharged, or permit to be discharged, either
directly or indirectly into the public sewer system, waste or wastewater from any of the
following sources unless allowed by the City Manager, or his/her designee:
A. Any wastes or wastewater that does not meet the limitations imposed by Section
13.24 of the Code of Ordinances.
B. Any stormwater, groundwater, rainwater, street drainage, subsurface drainage, or
yard drainage;
C. Any unpolluted water, including , but not limited to, cooling water, process water
or blow -down water from cooling towers or evaporative coolers;
D. Any wastes or wastewater, or any object, material, or other substance directly into
a manhole or other opening into the sewer facilities other than wastes or
wastewater through an approved service connection.
E. Any holding tank waste, provided, that such waste may be placed into facilities
designed to receive such wastes and approved by the City Manager, or his/her
designee.
Section 13.20.060 Sewer System Maintenance
A. For properties with gravity wastewater service, the property owner and utility
customer shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs
of the sewer system in the building and the service lateral between the building
and the point of connection into the public sewer main.
B. For properties with low pressure service, the property owner and utility customer
shall be responsible for the proper operation, maintenance, and repairs of the
sewer system in the building and the service lateral, lift station (grinder pump)
and force main between the building and the point of connection into the public
sewer main.
C. When, as a part of sewer system testing, the City identifies a flaw in a private
service lateral or force main where a repair is necessary to prevent infiltration or
inflow, the property owner and utility customer shall be responsible to cause the
repairs to be made within one (1) year of the date of notification by the City.
D. If repairs are not complete within one year of notification by the City, City may
engage the services of a contractor to make the necessary repairs with the costs
for such repairs to be paid by the City and subsequently charged to property
owner and utility customer.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.20 — Sewage Disposal
Page 5 of 5
Council Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item No.L
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
FIRST READING of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
repealing and replacing Chapter 13.10 of the City of Georgetown Code of Ordinances
relating to "Utility System Improvements"; repealing conflicting ordinances and
resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The staff contracted with Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) in 2005 to begin the
review of the City's existing sewer policies and to recommend changes to: 1) promote the
use of organized collection systems and, 2) limit the proliferation of septic systems over the
environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone.
Recommended policy changes encompassing the UDC and the Code of Ordinances
were presented to the GUS Board on October 18, 2005. The changes to the UDC were
approved in the most recent change cycle. The changes to Chapter 13.10 of the Code of
Ordinances were made to simplify the language and to make the policy consistent with the
UDC.
ATTACHMENTS:
New copy of Chapter 13.10 Ordinance
Exhibit A
Submitted By: Glenn Dishong
Water Services
Manager
Assistant City 1Janag
for Utility Operations
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, REPEALING AND REPLACING
CHAPTER 13.10 OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO "UTILITY SYSTEM
-040R. OVEMENTS;" REPEA]61NG=C=0?ff4A6TjNG ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown operates a water, wastewater, irrigation, and
drainage utility in the City limits to protect the health and safety of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the policies related to City's the water, wastewater,
irrigation, and drainage utility and found that they need to be updated and revised in order
to accurately reflect current policies and practices of the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS THAT:
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference
herein and expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby
finds that this ordinance implements the Century Plan as follows:
1. Policy End 12.00 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City owned,
sponsored or managed utilities provide safe, adequate and reliable services to all
customers."
2. Focus End 12.02 in the Utilities / Energy element, which states: "City water and
wastewater customers in all certified areas receive services which exceed state and
federal standards."
3. Policy End 14.00 in the Finance element, which states: "All municipal operations
are conducted in an efficient business -like manner and sufficient financial resources for
both current and future needs are provided."
4. Focus End 14.01 in the Finance element, which states: "Each utility system is a
self -supported operation that provides a desirable and affordable level of service."
5. Focus End 14.03 in the Finance element, which states: "The City's utility rates are
competitive with surrounding communities and with the statewide and national averages
for comparable utility systems."
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 1 of 4
and further finds that the enactment of this ordinanc,: is not inconsistent or in conflict
with any other Century Plan Ends, as required by Section 2.03 of the Administrative
Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The existing Chapter 13.10 of the City Code entitled "Utility System
Improvements," is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the text set forth in
TE' h:h:♦ A .6:1:c_afache.d h.eret.And ....�—Y�.�;� 1— refe_.nee Co_ all
puMYeses
as if set forth in full:
SECTION 3. All ordinances that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be,
and the same are hereby, repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof, to any person or
circumstance, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, or
application thereof, of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its final adoption and
in accordance with the City Charter.
PASSED AND APPROVED on First Reading on the day of
September 2006.
PASSED AND APPROVED on Second Reading on the day of
September 2006.
ATTEST:
Sandra D. Lee
City Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Patricia E. Carls, Brown & Carls, LLP
City Attorney
Ordinance No.
THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Gary Nelon, Mayor
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 2 of 4
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
CODE OF ORDINANCES
provements
Section 13.10.010 Policy established.
This policy shall apply to improvements to the City s utility systems, including system
upgrades, system expansion, and plant capacity additions. In this Section, the term
"utility system" shall mean the City's water system, wastewater system, reuse irrigation
system, and stormwater drainage system.
Section 13.10.020 System Planning.
The City shall maintain and periodically update system plans for each utility so that
system improvements are implemented to maintain adequate capacity for growth while
maintaining proper service levels to existing customers.
Section 13.10.030 Proiect Timing.
A. Projects designed to expand or upgrade a utility system must be completed and
ready for operations such that capacity requirements by state regulatory agencies and City
system plans are met.
B. When possible, the City should coordinate the construction of system
improvements in a particular location with the expansion or maintenance of other utility
infrastructure to minimize the future impact on each utility.
C. Projects should begin the design phase when existing demand at a specific
location exceeds 75% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the
current total capacity.
D. Projects should begin the construction phase when existing demand at a specific
location exceeds 90% of current capacity and future demand is expected to exceed the
current total capacity.
E. Projects required to facilitate the development of a specific tract shall be done in
accordance with the Unified Development Code.
F. Projects required as a result of an annexation service plan shall be provided as
stated in the approved Service Plan for such annexed tracts.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 3 of 4
Section 13.10.040 Project Financing.
A. Projects required to facilitate the subdivision of a specific tract shall be paid by
the subdivider in accordance with the Unified Development Code, unless otherwise
authorized in writing and approved by the City Council in accordance with the terms of
Section i iea mun-t Code or Mer applMabla raw.
B. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City's utility service
area, but the City is not otherwise required to provide service or planning to provide
service as reflected in the City's Capital Improvements Plan, the City may nonetheless, at
the City's sole option, facilitate the design and construction of the required utility
extensions or upgrades by managing the project with the cost of such extensions to be
shared and fully paid by the requesting landowners or subdividers prior to
commencement of the project.
C. When utility expansion is requested within a portion of the City's utility service
area, the City shall evaluate degree to which the project 1) facilitates contiguous growth,
2) maximizes the provision of service to the service area, 3) enhances economic
development, 4) improves system operations, 5) contributes to conservation or other
environmental concern, and 6) facilitates the completion of the utility master plan.
D. At the City's sole option, the City may also facilitate the installation of utility
expansion requests through 1) financial cost contribution, 2) financing of the
improvement using individual contracts between the City and each landowner for a
proportionate share of the project cost to be paid out over a specified period of time at a
specified rate of interest, 3) Impact Fee or connection fee reduction or waiver.
Ordinance No.
New Chapter 13.10 — Utility System Improvements
Page 4 of 4