Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_08.03.2010 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2010\10.5.10\10.5.10DRAFTMinutes8.3.10.doc The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee established by the Georgetown City Council met at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 3, 2010, in the Georgetown Municipal Complex Williamson Room, located at 300-1 Industrial Blvd, Georgetown, Texas. MINUTES These minutes were approved at the October 5, 2010 GGAF Meeting. Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 1. Review minutes from the June 1, 2010 GGAF Meeting – Danella Elliott Micki noted that she is working on Danny’s request from last month for the purpose and guidelines, etc. of the GGAF Subcommittee. The minutes were approved. 2. Summary regarding “Other Finance Agenda Items and Items of Interest” – Micki Rundell A. Consideration and possible action to authorize Specialized Public Finance, Inc. (SPFI) to proceed with the preparation of the required bond offering documents for the upcoming October 2010 General Obligation bond issue – Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer Micki explained that this item is for recommendation to authorize Specialized Public Finance, Inc. (SPFI) to proceed with the preparation of the required bond offering documents for the upcoming October 2010 General Obligation bond issue. This action officially begins the process to issue $12.5 million in General Obligation bonds this October by authorizing the City’s financial advisor (SPFI) to begin work on the Official Statements needed for the issue. This item does not authorize the bond issue itself. Members Present: Dale Ross, Chair, Danny Meigs Members Absent: Patty Eason Staff Present: Paul Brandenburg, Micki Rundell, Laurie Brewer, Leticia Zavala, Mike Peters, Terry Jones, Kevin Russell L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2010\10.5.10\10.5.10DRAFTMinutes8.3.10.doc During the 2010/11 budget process, staff discussed the possibility of issuing General Obligation Bonds for transportation and parks projects that were approved by the voters in November 2008. Market conditions, including lower than normal interest rates, along with lower construction costs, make issuing the bonds at this time advantageous. In July, City Council directed staff to move forward with issuing the bonds this fall. In November 2008, voters approved $46 in bonds for transportation projects, of which $2.545 million has been issued. Voters also approved $35.5 million in bonds to be issued for Parks and Rec projects. To date, none of the parks bonds have been issued. B. Discussion ad possible action to approve a contract for grant consulting services with Langford Community Management Services – Paul Brandenburg Laurie reminded the committee that this item was brought to this committee a couple of months ago for review. The City prepared an Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to invite vendors to assist the City in grant writing services in order to: 1) Reduce the City’s expenditures for capital improvement and other projects. 2) Expedite the City’s grant application process where funding needs and opportunities may exist. 3) Provide grant writing and grant administrative services. 4) Expand the search and assessment of appropriate and applicable grant opportunities. The RFQ was advertised to establish a relationship with a grant consultant to provide services where and when needed. A contract is being drafted to provide a needs assessment to identify opportunities for projects where grant funding is available. Approval would be required before the vendor submits any grant on behalf of the City. An individual task order will be initiated with each grant application that would outline the amount/percentage paid for the grant application, as well as for any administrative services required. The City received numerous inquiries from potential service providers in this area, however only one formal response to the RFQ was received. City staff met with Langford Community Management Services to review the proposal. Staff believes that Langford has the qualifications and experience to provide services that will enhance the City’s grant funding. This company has been very successful in helping others receive grants. There is no monthly fee arrangement; we would know up front what the cost would be on each case by case basis. This item will be on the next Council Agenda requesting authorization to go forward with the contract. 3. Consideration and possible action to approve the architectural selection committee members for Fire Station 5 Terry Jones Micki explained that this is the first project that has been done since the new guidelines were set by Council last year, with the committee made up from one member of the Council, one member from Boards and Commissions, one from the using department being serviced, one at-large staff member, and one member form the Facilities staff. Staff received 24 architectural qualification proposals in late July to provide design services for Fire Station 5. In December 2009 City Council approved a process for the selection of architectural services. This process requires a committee be assembled to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to Council. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2010\10.5.10\10.5.10DRAFTMinutes8.3.10.doc For the purpose of evaluating architectural qualifications for Fire Station 5 design, staff proposes the following committee: Gabe Sansing – GUS Board Matt Painter – GTEC Board (tentative) Robert Fite – using department Kimberly Garrett – Parks & Recreation Department Terry Jones – Facilities and Construction This will be on the consent agenda at the next Council Meeting. 4. Update on Information Technology projects for the current fiscal year, and overview of major initiatives for next fiscal year – Micki Rundell and Mike Peters Micki noted that we have come a long way in the last year. She asked Mike Peters to give a presentation to provide an overview/update on major information technology projects:  Completed in the current year  Currently in progress (objectives, status, next steps)  An update on the Customer Information System (CIS) selection process. He also provided information on the site-visit trip to California. The group of 6 will visit several different sites to see the AMI/CIS systems “live”.  Initiatives incorporated in next year’s budget 5. Presentation and discussion regarding City of Georgetown’s Compensation and Benefits recommendations – Kevin Russell Compensation HR Staff reviews the competitiveness of the pay system and makes recommendations through City management to Council for implementation of any changes.  COLA – Proposed increase 2.5% for all non-Civil Service employees  Merit Based Pay – No salary range movement proposed in current budget. Mid year adjustment possible if revenue exceeds projections.  Performance Based Pay Bonus – No monies earmarked for bonus payouts. Benefits HR Staff and the Benefits Committee has started reviewing information on the current plan and identifying ways to maintain a competitive benefits program while minimizing plan cost increases. Council feedback will be solicited in the following areas:  TML claims and performance  Healthcare Reform and its effect on Plan Design  Request For Proposals for Health, Dental, Vision and Supplemental benefits. Kevin gave a presentation detailing current and proposed changes to the insurance, as well as the history. Council direction will be required to instruct staff in the RFP process, authorize plan design and appropriate use of benefit budgeted funds. The budget is being prepared with a projected 17% increase in Benefits. Staff will work to come up with a recommendation that stays within the monies allocated within the budget. Dale said that he would be in favor to absorb some of the increase for employees, but he would like to see what the impact is going to be. Dale asked Kevin to check on the legislation from Obama Care and make some educated guesses on what the true impact will be for year 2 and 3 and on the horizon and get the background. Danny asked him to L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2010\10.5.10\10.5.10DRAFTMinutes8.3.10.doc check on 100% coverage after $2,500 and $5,000 deductibles as options. Kevin explained that we actually have those options with the coverage we offer now. This item will be on the next Council Agenda to get direction from Council to do an RFP or go ahead with TML and focus on plan design. 6. Review of the City’s participation in the Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan – Kevin Russell The City provides access to a 457b plan to its employees. Currently, ICMA-RC is the only provider available to employees. The City has had this same vendor for almost 30 years. Although this is a program that the City offers to its employees and there are no City funds involved and there is no requirement that proposals or bids be requested when adding providers, the City desires to have a more competitive process and a better value for employees. It was suggested that Kevin check into other plans to offer employees. We have an employee participation of about 15% now. He explained that they are checking into some other options to increase participation. The Central Texas Deferred Compensation Plan is an IRC §457(b) governmental deferred compensation plan that is being created pursuant to Section 609.102(c) of the Texas Government Code and Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code. The Plan is being established in order to provide a better value to the employees/participants of the Plan for each Participating Employer than the Participating Employer could achieve on its own. Council direction will be required to authorize participation in the plan and the appointment of an employee participant and alternate on the Plan Oversight Committee. There are consultant costs for the creation and startup of the plan up to an amount not to exceed $25,000. Subsequent costs are borne by participants. 7. Discussion and possible action to accelerate replacement purchase of the City’s security system as approved in the 2010/11 Annual Budget – Terry Jones Terry gave the committee a “heads up” about a possible acceleration of replacing the current security system. There is $220,000 budgeted in the 2010/11 budget for upgrading the gate, door access and video security systems in our facilities. However, within the last couple of weeks, there have been 2 incidents where the system gone down completely and locks everyone out of the buildings. This is caused by a corruption of the system, which is about 12 years old. They are gathering pricing now for the complete costs. The original date for replacement is scheduled for next fiscal year, but they just wanted to let you know in case it had to be replaced sooner. 8. Adjourned at 3:10 p.m. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2010\10.5.10\10.5.10DRAFTMinutes8.3.10.doc 9.