HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 06.28.2011 CC-WThe City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor
George Garver presiding.
Council Present.
Patty Eason, Danny Meigs, Bill Sattler, Tommy
Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, Troy Hellmann
Staff Present.
Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial
Officer; Bridget Chapman, Acting City Attorney; Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager; Laurie Brewer,
Finance Director;
I'll 1 11__ __
Ito
A Update
on the
Interlocal Agreement with
Williamson County for the expansion of Williams Drive and related
costs --
Laurie
Brewer,
Director
and
Micki
Rundell,
Chief
Financial
Officer
Finance
Berryman absent.
Brewer introduced herself and said she would like to give council an update on the Williams Drive widening
project, which was a joint project between the County and City. With a Powerpoint presentation, Brewer gave a
background of the project. She said it was in the city's ten year CIP, the County/City partnership was
contemplated in 2008 to expedite the project and she there was also an opportunity to get money from CAMPO
to assist. She said the interlocal agreement between the City and County was signed in January of 2009. She
said the agreement states the county coordinates the project, the city funds 65% of the project and the county
funds 35% of the project. She said Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Commission (ETEC) funded $1.2
million directly to TXDOT toward the right of way cost and there was also some Chisholm Trail Special Utility
District (CTSUD) betterments that were organized in this project as well. Brewer described the original project
budget, which includes right of way work, utilities, engineering and construction for a total cost of $16,784,000.
She described the payment plan as delineated in the agreement and said the payments the city was expected to
pay was $1.5 million in 2009, $1.5 million in 2010 and in 2011, the city would true -up the cost of the project
which was anticipated at about $2.1 million, which brought the grand total estimated cost to $5.1 million. She
said the city anticipated the CAMPO contribution to be $8,828,900. She listed the changes that occurred
between the time the city signed the agreement and now and noted CAMPO will not fund the utility relocation
costs in that they do not consider that a part of the construction of the road. She said there were also various
change orders and added the most significant one was the one requested by the city to make the improvements
at DB Wood and Williams Drive a little more robust. She said the city was able to put that change order into this
project and received 80% CAMPO funding for it. She said the total cost for that change order project was
$131,427 because of savings from the CAMPO funds. She said the impact of CAMPO not providing utility
relocation costs is significant. She said the city's costs are now expected to be around $6,285,000 which is a
$1.1 million variance from the original estimate. She spoke of potential funding for the project. She said GTEC
is expecting a refund from TXDOT for right of way costs. She listed conclusions and said, the project will cost
the city over $1 million more than expected. She said they have maximized the CAMPO money as much as
possible. She spoke about lessons learned from this project, including the future creation of a finance oversight
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 1 of 4 Pages
committee for these type of projects. She said it would be good to also ensure that there is a decision maker on
the review committee and to ensure that there is adequate time to review all bids/plans prior to bidding a project.
She said it would be good to consider developing future interlocal agreements that will protect the city's
interests. Brewer said the General Government and Finance (GGAF) subcommittee saw this item and was able
to ask the County many questions on this issue.
Meigs asked and Brewer said they have talked with the county about getting some costs such as maintenance
costs back as well as looking at capping some of the consulting costs. She said those are definitely some ideas
and issues that are out there. Meigs asked and Brewer said the county is open to discussions. Sattler asked and
Brettle confirmed we have the video and audio of the meeting where this project was first discussed. Sattler
asked and Chapman confirmed, though she did not look at it originally, she will review the interlocal agreement.
Hellman asked about the betterment line in the interlocal agreement. Brewer said Chisholm Trail had a piece of
this agreement with the county and that line is related to their piece. Mayor asked and Brewer confirmed the
amount of overage on this project and the fact that we could recoup $500,000 of that amount. There was much
discussion regarding how to fund the overage of the project. Rundell said, in the event we don't use our 4B
dollars, the city would get creative with its road bond money. She noted the city could utilize some of those
existing bond proceeds as well as the capping of some of the consulting fees. She said the city is still going
through a lot of these solutions. Mayor asked and Rundell confirmed the original bid was below the cost
estimates. She said, when you go back and look at the tape, everyone believed it would be below the $5.1
million amount in the contract. She said, when the bid came through, they did not have complete drawings for
the project. She noted there were a lot of things that needed to be change ordered but we did not know it at that
time. There were many questions and much discussions about the current project cost and overages.
Gonzalez said he would like to see a good flow chart that demonstrates where the money is coming from and
where it is going. Rundell said the overage relates to the fact that we did not include in our budget the project
cost for the relocation of the utilities, which was originally supposed to be done by CAMPO. Rundell said the City
had no control over the invoices or payments and she added they are just in charge of paying the bill. Gonzalez
said it would be good to go to GTEC with a firm plan for how to pay for that project overage and how to get the
reimbursements. Rundell said you will hopefully not see this again until we have final numbers. She said this
has been going on for over a year and getting this information has not been an easy process. Brewer said the
funds that comes from CAMPO are federal funds and the auditors will look at those a little more carefully
because they fall under our single audit rules. She said there were four people and entities that were party to
this project and the biggest element was that CAMPO did not provide part of the revenue to fund this project.
She said the City's portion was 65% and the County's portion is 35% and we are left the bigger part of the stick.
Rundell said we have audited this project to the best of our abilities. She said there needs to be more protection
in an interlocal to prevent this from happening again. Eason said she is glad everyone is asking these
questions because, when this came to GGAF the same questions were asked. Hellmann asked and Breyer
reviewed our portion of the costs of the project. There were questions about the change orders that were made.
Hellmann asked and Brewer said the project is about 90% done. Hellmann asked and Brewer said the
contingency amount built into the project was a little over a million. Brewer said that amount is a part of the total
cost, so she would say amount is gone. She said the bulk of this issue is because CAMPO is not providing
them with funds that were expected. Sattler asked and Briggs said, when the project cost was originally
estimated, the staff was told everything was ready and out to bid. Briggs reviewed the big process and how the
cost estimates were released to the City. Sattler asked and Briggs confirmed the engineers and all participants
should have errors and omissions insurance. Gonzalez spoke about the lack of fiduciary duty by the County or
the consulting company to let the project with that many holes in it move forward. Mayor spoke about the delay
on the upper coat of the paving at the corner of DB Wood and Williams Drive and what occurred in that
situation. He asked if this took place and who is paying the cost of bringing the material back to the site after
being delayed. Briggs described the situation and who will be paying that cost. There was much discussion.
B 2011 City of Georgetown Property Count and Valuation Statistics -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Rundell introduced Alvin Lankford, Williamson County Chief Appraiser, to the City Council. He said it is protest
season right now and spoke about some of the positive changes that have been made over the past couple of
years within the Appraisal District. He spoke of their website and how they have now included more public
information that was not previously available. He spoke about how the district used Google Analytics to help
enhance their website. He said they now have webcast videos and they have taken opportunities to be as
transparent as possible. He described the various videos that we done last year including an introduction by the
Chief Appraiser, how a home is measured, the valuation process and the protest phase. He spoke about how
new videos were made to show how to fill out some of the forms and applications that go out to the residents.
He showed council their customer service surveys. He said folks who contract the district are normally not that
happy with the valuations they received, but he noted things have been going very well this year. He showed
council the website page with the city's valuation updates that are placed on the website each week. He noted,
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 2 of 4 Pages
this year, they started an online protest process as well and he described this for the council. He said they sent
out 72,000 residential notices that described how someone could protest their property values. He said another
thing they started this year was the visitor check-in process called "The Queue" and he described the benefits of
this to the council. He said one of the interesting things he has learned is that the turnaround time to come in
and protest your property and finish the protest is around 25 to 30 minutes.
Lankford provided a general overview of property count and value breakdown by category in Georgetown. He
displayed graphs to the council showing City of Georgetown Real Property by Value as well as Residential
Value. He said the average home value has risen dramatically since 2006. He showed council a graph of
residential property trends as well as a graph of the commercial values and multi -family values. He showed
council the pie chart for the 2011 commercial trends. He showed council the City of Georgetown commercial by
category parcel count as well as by category value. He continued to show council graphs and charts regarding
the property values throughout Georgetown. He spoke about the number of new residential improvements and
added many cities would like to trade places with Georgetown because the city is still doing well and growing.
He noted there were seventeen new improvements made to commercial development in Georgetown as well.
He said there is an increase in total taxable value from the prior year and he showed council a chart
demonstrating the taxable value.
Eason said this is very timely in that one of her constituents had complained that their property had had a 60%
increase. She noted her constituent went to challenge that her property value went up 60% and was angry
because she was not able to get information on what comparable properties sold for compared to what they
were actually valued. Lankford said he would be happy if the council talk to their legislators about this issue.
Lankford said Texas is a non -sales disclosure state, so the appraisal district does not get every sale that is out
there. He said in 2007, they changed the law to say that they can not give out costs just because they are
asked, unless there is an active protest in place. Hellmann said realtors are good people and added it is the
citizenry who do not want their neighbors in their personal business asking what their house sold for. Hellmann
asked and Lankford said they have an estimated 180,000 accounts and they have received 16,000 protests in
the past year. Hellmann asked and Lankford said, at the informal level, around 50-60% received a reduction on
the account. Sattler said he was not happy three years ago with the protest process and added he has recently
heard many comments about how many improvements have been made and how the process has improved.
Gonzalez said it may be good for them to put the information about active protests on their website. Lankford
said there is an commonly asked questions section of the website and said they are also looking for having a
common misconceptions section on their website. Jonrowe asked and Lankford described from where they get
their sales information. Mayor complimented Lankford on what he has done to improve the appraisal district
and its service to the community. There was much discussion.
C Workshop discussion to preview the City's 2011/2012 Budget -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer and Paul
E. Brandenburg, City Manager
With a Powerpoint presentation, Brandenburg provided the council with the 2011/2012 Budget Preview. He said
growth is really paying for itself and the assessed valuation of the city continues to grow. He spoke about the
economic conditions and budget challenges for 2012. He said the good news is the city's sales tax continues to
grow but noted signs are that it is slowing down. He said the property tax values are holding steady and utility
revenues are also stable. He said there is also slight growth in planning projects that indicates recovery in the
local economy. He spoke about the winery initiative as well as the development out at the Rivery. He said there
is so much money sitting on the sidelines that no one wants to do anything with until the economy picks back
up. He spoke about issues and concerns including increasing fuel prices, the opening of fire station 5 and the
staffing for that and a continued decrease in building inspection revenues. He said another issue is the need to
try and keep the tax rate low and the impacts of debt issues on the tax rate. He spoke about the strategies the
city is implementing with the proposed budget including continuing to "freeze" positions, reallocation of
resources as he does not want to eliminate positions, open positions will be frozen for partial year and the city
will continue to review sales taxes and other indicators during the year and make adjustments. He spoke of
other strategies and said the council priorities for new programs and focus of resources will be completed after
the City Manager budget is reviewed. He added facilities planning is needed to address space issues and open
facilities. He spoke about what is in the budget including funds that are needed to provide current levels of
service, the new fire station impact including 12 firefighters, operations and debt service, the fire training facility,
impact, the impact of debt issues in 2010 and 2011, the public safety STEP at originally approved levels and
one time expenditures. He spoke about what else is in the budget including continued funding of AMI/CIS
project, implementation of 2011/12 CIP Plan, public safety "step" increases, increase in health insurance and a
fully funded annual Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) retirement obligation. He spoke what is not in
the budget, including 15 positions that remain frozen, no funding for employee performance bonuses, no cost of
living or merit adjustments and no operational increases without warranted need.
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 3 of 4 Pages
0
Rundell said this is a lean year on the revenue side. She spoke about financial impacts and said general fund
revenues have stabilized. She said the budget is projecting a 1 % increase in sales tax for 2011/12. She said
development revenues are projected to be flat, interest revenue continues to decrease and property tax revenue
is expected to be relatively flat. She said the utility revenues are growing by they have had slow growth rates
and the electric revenue growth is 1 %. She said the water services funds are always dependent on the weather.
She said there are potential rate adjustments to electric rates and storm water analysis. She described the
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) rates. She spoke about the stormwater analysis and how a possible rate
adjustment for that will be coming to the council in the Fall. She said the sewer rates are also something the city
will be working on next year. She said water rates will also be reviewed and added the volumetric rate has not
been adjusted since 2003. She spoke about the preliminary tax rate and noted the assessed valuation is better
than originally projected. She said the increase in property value is estimated at $90 million. She noted the
existing property is relatively flat and there were minimal changes in frozen valuations. She said the 2010/11 tax
levy total is around $71,000 more than budgeted. She spoke about the debt service rate and how the amount
goes back to the 2008 bonds. She said the estimated effective rate is $0.37532, which is the rate needed to
receive the same amount of funds as previous year on the current assessed value. She added the estimated
2012 tax rate is approximately $0.39500 and said the majority of this is related to the debt that was issued in the
past. She noted all of those costs were voter approved and she described the improvements and projects in the
debt issues effecting the tax rate. She showed council a graph of the components of the tax rate, including
operations and maintenance and debt service. She noted, however, even with this new higher rate we will still
have the lowest rate in the area.
Brandenburg moved on to his conclusions and said this is a lean budget, resources are being reallocated where
needed, the quality of service is maintained, tax rate remains low, financial reserves remain at the current level,
financial policy compliance will be maintained and staff will review the budget status at mid -year next year for
program requests and other increases.
Hellmann asked and Rundell described how much the difference in tax rate from last year would amount to.
Hellmann asked and Rundell said the actual budget will probably be less than the previous year. She spoke
about the effect of the fire station on the budget. Hellmann asked and Rundell described the difference between
the effective tax rate and the tax rate that would effect the residents. Brandenburg spoke about the effect of fuel
costs on the citizens. Sattler asked and Rundell said the debt impact from last year has not been included in
our current tax rate. There were many questions about the various components of the proposed tax rate.
Gonzalez said it is important to remind constituents that we can only control the city bonds, but not the voter
approved bonds. He said, while the City has done a great job holding its debt, we can not control the school
board and other bonds they will see raise their tax bill next year as well. Gonzalez asked about the possibility of
having public workshops about tax rates. Mayor spoke about the public hearings that are required by law
regarding the tax rates. Gonzalez spoke about the possibility of presenting the information to a focus group
before presenting it to the public so they can understand the information that is being considered. Mayor asked
and Brandenburg reviewed the budget calendar over the next few months.
Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.086 and 551.087 -- 4:57 PM
Meeting returned to Open Session and adjourned -- 6:04 PM
• ` t
City Council Meeting Minutes/
Page 4 of 4 Pages
The meeting was adjourned at 06:04 PM.