Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_03.04.2009 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\3.4.09\Minutes\Minutes 3.4.09.doc MINUTES GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas. 1. Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes from February 12, 2009 meeting. Discussion on how to communicate information to the Council from this committee. The decision to make the minutes available to Council by posting them on the website (to ensure members can easily understand what the committee is doing) would be sufficient. Nothing that this committee does precludes what the Council does or decisions they make. The purpose of this committee is only to take a closer look at certain issues, ask questions and provide further information or direction if needed. Clarification: Refer to “Keith” instead of “Mr. Brainard”. On the issue of longevity, change sentence to: Keith has a problem with paying “longevity” to employees after one month of employment. His concern is calling it “longevity” (suggestion would be to call it “bonus” or “morale booster”). Clarification: Patty said that she also suggested setting up educational meetings to try and involve more employees and to get more employees interested in the 457 plan. The minutes were approved with the above clarification and changes. Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross Members Absent: None Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration, Kevin Russell, Human Resources Director, Leticia Zavala, Controller, Finance and Administration, Terry Jones, Facilities (Finance & Administration) L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\3.4.09\Minutes\Minutes 3.4.09.doc 3. Review of the 2008 Longevity Report as requested: Micki went over the Longevity Report (this item was requested at the February 12 meeting). She explained that slightly less than 1/2 of the employees are in the 1-4 year category. There are 67 employees that have 15+ years and these employees are mostly the department heads and managers. Keith asked to change the category 1-4 years to 0-4 years and provide this information to the rest of the Council. 4. Presentation – 2009 Debt Overview: Micki gave a brief overview and explained that this will be presented to entire Council at workshop on Monday, March 9th. This is done annually as a part of the annual debt process to inform Council on what the debt is, what the debt mixture is, etc. She explained that all self supporting debt (GTEC, Airport, Stormwater, GEDCO, etc.) all have to have times coverage. The required is 1.35 times coverage; internally, we have 1.5 times coverage and believe this is a prudent method so that there is never a downturn in the sense that we wouldn’t ever be able to not make the debt payments. We do not ever want that to go back on the tax side. Dale asked for an explanation on the City’s bond rating upgrades. He asked if it was a function of what the City was doing, or if it was due to the way the rating agencies have changed the way they do the evaluation. Micki explained that our bond rating went up before they changed the rating criteria. She said that we could possibly get an additional upgrade due to this change. They will visit with the bond rating agencies when they go on the bond rating trip at the end of March about the unfair advantage some of the other cities have received due to the evaluation change. This upcoming bond issue, we will be getting ratings from Standard and Poors and Fitch. Moody’s will not be included because of the concerns about how they have rated some of the bonding insurances and there are questions in the market about that so the recommendation is not to use Moody’s at this time. We are one of only two utilities in the state that has an electric utility with a AA - rating. We have an AA rating on the GO side, but the AA- rating on the utility side is fantastic, considering that we have an electric utility and with the uncertainties in the electric market deregulation, it makes getting upgrades on the utility side very, very difficult. We are very proud of this rating and it speaks well of what Jim Briggs does on managing the electric power contracts ensuring that we always have cost effective, reliable energy. Tax supported bonds in this issue: $1.1 GO part of road bonds:  Procurement of right-of-way Maple Street extension at SE1  DB Woods (engineering for Williams Drive widening)  We are only issuing amount Jim feels we will spend in the next 9 months  $5.4M CO’s included  $3.9M to reimburse cost of the Albertson’s building  $1.5M is the first payment to the County; realizing debt service is paid by GTEC for the first 5 years The impact on next year’s tax rate will be less than $0.01 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\3.4.09\Minutes\Minutes 3.4.09.doc The steps for bond issuance will be: March 24 Council will be asked to approve the CO Notice of Intent (required within 30 days after reading the Ordinance). It doesn’t lock us in, but it doesn’t allow us to go over the $5.4M. March 30-31 Bond Rating Trip. Jim, Paul, Micki and Mayor Garver will go and meet with the rating agencies April 28 1st Readings (State law requires only one reading) of GO, CO and Revenue Bond Ordinances May 21 Bonds will close and we will have funds in hand Keith thanked Micki for the presentation and all of the work she put into it. 5. Discussion and possible action to recommend approval of the 2009 bond program: The committee is not comfortable making a recommendation. They are comfortable with what they have heard in the presentation. 6. Presentation of criteria used to award professional services contracts – Terry Jones Terry Jones presented handouts, forms and information that the City uses when soliciting for architectural or Construction Manager at Risk services. He noted that this process could probably be used for selection of engineering services as well. Points of interest:  The first step in the process is to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ).  The selection committee (key staff and project manager or using department and sometimes Council members) individually read the RFQ’s (Patty reminded everyone that the reviews are done separately and not with everyone together in a room).  Selection committee compares evaluations and rate firms based on criteria established; committee selects maximum number of firms to interview.  Interviews are set up.  Reevaluate firms based on the interview.  Terry checks the references so that they are checked consistently by one point of contact; there are about15 to 20 questions.  Terry tabulates scores and committee develops a consensus on recommendation to Council.  The high score and low scores are thrown out and the rest are averaged. Dale said that we owe it to the public for the process to be pure and he was very comfortable that it was a fair process. He noted that this is good because the bidders are informed of the scoring system ahead of time and with the number of evaluators, there is no reason for anyone to think that it isn’t a fair process.  Terry noted that there cannot be a local preference with architectural selections, although it is difficult to work with out of town architects due to the availability. With the CM at Risk, we have the option to choose the subcontractors.  State law does not permit us to consider price when selecting professional services.  Patty said that based on previous experience on selection committees, it is important to go by qualifications for specific projects (i.e. you don’t want to go by pricing alone for building a dam).  Professional services include architects, attorneys, engineers, accountants, financial advisors, etc. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\3.4.09\Minutes\Minutes 3.4.09.doc  We do solicit specialization architects who have experience designing similar public-type facilities such as Libraries, Recreation Centers or Police Stations.  Round Rock is sometimes considered “local”.  Dale read some economic development information recently and noted that out of every dollar spent, if you use a local company, 46 cents stays in the community and if you use a national chain, only 17 cents is retained locally.  Dale thanked Terry for the presentation and said when things are presented to Council, he now has a much better understanding. Everyone was very appreciative of the bond overview and the information provided by Terry Jones. In regard to budget items, the committee decided that in fairness to the other colleagues, they will just look at them at the Council level. 7. Meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.