HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_07.07.2009
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.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 1:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, July 7, 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
1:10 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes from the May 7, 2009 meeting.
The minutes were approved.
3. Discussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect for
renovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complex. (Terry Jones)
Terry Jones noted that in the 2008/09 budget, there is approximately $877,000 set aside to do
renovations of the interior of the Georgetown Municipal Complex to better utilize the space. Council
approved the purchase of modular furniture for the Planning and Development area earlier in the
year; this has been done. We would like to do this same type of configuration to the GUS side of the
building. The plan is to take down a lot of the walls and utilize modular furniture. Staff solicited
RFQ’s from architectural firms and received 10 responses. A committee consisting of Glenn
Dishong, Terry Jones and Michael Seery reviewed the responses. The top four firms were selected
and compared to each other. Terry provided information material on the criteria used, as well as the
ratings page from each committee member. Eleven Thirteen and PBS&J were the only firms that
Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Paul Brandenburg, City Manager, Laurie
Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration, Leticia Zavala, Cathy Leloux, Kevin
Russell
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc
were in the top four of each of the selection team member’s choices, so those were selected as the
finalists. The point totals of the selection team for each firm were compared and they were identical.
Eleven Thirteen is a Georgetown firm and we have used them in the past (Community Center, Airport
Terminal, Planning and Development office space) and have been satisfied with their work. Their
current workload would allow them to devote most of their resources to this project. Terry called
Williamson County for references, as they were the architect of record on the Courthouse and on the
County Interloop Annex. They were very satisfied with their work. Patty asked if it could be more
environmentally friendly. Terry explained that they had installed an energy management system at
the GMC, but they were not planning on doing anything additional to the floors or exterior of the
building. Keith asked Terry to request that Eleven Thirteen identify where energy savings might be
implemented. Terry will do this. Keith suggested that we include 3-4 firms instead of 2 for additional
consideration in the future. The committee agreed that it was a fair process and a good choice. It is
the recommendation that Eleven Thirteen be the architect to design renovations for the
Municipal Complex.
4. Presentation of the impacts of "Over 65 & Disabled Tax Freeze" on the City's 2009
Effective Tax Rate. (Micki)
Micki explained that besides falling property values, the other issue impacting this year’s effective
rate is the increase in the amount and number of “frozen” properties. Frozen properties are those
homesteads that also have an Over 65 or Disabled exemption. In 2009, the value of frozen
properties is $1.1B, compared to $892M in 2008. This is a 33% increase in frozen valuation.
Because the revenue generated by frozen properties is capped, State law (Truth in Taxation)
requires that frozen properties be deducted from the total Assessed Valuation used in calculation the
Effective Tax Rate. Because the frozen valuations increased significantly in the past year, the non-
frozen valuation used in this calculation was reduced, thus increasing the Effective Rate. This is the
first year that the baby boomers are turning 65, as well as, Georgetown being the #1 place to retire.
In 2004 the City adopted the Proposition 13 Tax Freeze that impacted the 2005 tax calculation for
fiscal year 2005/06. At that time, only $596K or 22.7% of the total $2.6B valuation was frozen. This
compares to 26.7% of the 2009 valuation. This increase can be attributed to the expansion of age-
restricted developments within Georgetown and an aging society in general. In any case, the impact
to the City’s tax rate is becoming more and more apparent.
While the value of frozen properties has increased each year since Proposition 13 was adopted, the
impacts of those increases were offset by rising values on existing properties. In 2009, the values on
existing properties are estimated to fall by almost 8%. This decrease along with the sharp increase
in frozen values this year has dramatically increased the City’s effective tax rate. This year’s
effective rate is estimated at $0.42191, an increase of over 18%.
In May 2004 the City contracted with an outside actuarial firm to conduct a detailed analysis of the
impact of Proposition 13 on future property tax rates. At the time, the City was also considering
increasing the Over 65 homestead exemption as an option to Proposition 13. A copy of the “Rudd
and Wisdom” report is attached for your review. In addition, the City passed the November 2004
bond authorization that added approximately $0.06 to the tax rate and therefore was not addressed
in the Rudd and Wisdom study. The City also adopted 1/8% sales tax for property tax relief in May
2005 that offsets slightly less than $0.03 of this increase.
On existing properties, $150M is new and annexed property, which is about 4% growth.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc
Keith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties from 2008 to 2009 if
they had not been frozen (we would then be able to determine the effect it has and identify
factors driving the increase). He would also like for Micki to provide for Council, the median
residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood cities, and next to that,
the property tax rate divided by I&S and M&O. Use Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Round Rock,
Leander, Taylor, and Hutto as comparative cities.
Dale suggested taking the first step this year in addressing this now instead of going through one
more budget year and putting it off until 2010.
5. Discussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute
the necessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capital
Fund capital lease to First Texas Bank (Laurie Brewer)
Reedholm Instruments Corporation has requested to refinance their loan on their building that the
City currently owns, as well as obtain additional operating funds by borrowing on the equity in the
facility with their lender, First Texas Bank.
The reason for the City being involved is that the Reedholm Instruments facility was partially
constructed through a Texas Capital Fund grant that was coordinated by the City of Georgetown in
1996. The City also loaned funds for construction of the facility in order to aid in their relocation to
the Georgetown Technology Park. The business borrowed funds using the facility as collateral in
2002 to obtain operating funds and to pay off the City’s loan in 2002. The Texas Capital Fund
program is for economic development purposes and functions as a forgivable grant to the City, but
requires a lease agreement with the business to repay the grant. The original loan/grant through the
TCF was $391,800. This loan is paid through a repayment schedule/lease agreement at 0% interest
over 20 years. The City and the corporation are the parties in the lease agreement, however all
payments are passed through to the state to repay the loan.
The Texas Capital Fund program provides that the City own the facility until the end of the loan
period/lease agreement. The City owns the facility until the end of the loan period with the state.
There is no direct financial impact to the City, as the lease agreement provides that the facility will be
turned over to the corporation at the end of the lease period/repayment of the state loan. However,
should the corporation not fulfill the full term of the lease agreement, the City would be forced to
either get another tenant or sell the facility. This transaction reduces the City’s equity in the facility,
which could impact the ability to sell the facility if necessary.
Mark Lehnick, Chief Lending Officer with First Texas was available for questions.
The Williamson County Appraisal District currently assesses the value of the property at $873,475 for
2009. The loan being requested is $610,610 or approximately 70% of the value. The current
balance of the lease agreement/loan with the state is $151,823.
Staff has contacted the Texas Capital Fund program representatives for their approval of this
transaction.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc
If they defaulted, FTB would just pay it off and sell the assets. Keith asked what the City’s liability is.
Laurie explained that the grant is set up as a forgivable loan from the state, so that if the City didn’t
get the $151K, we really do not have anything at risk. The only thing that the State requires us to do
is make a diligent effort to find a tenant if the Reedholms defaulted, although with this agreement, the
bank would take ownership.
6. Discussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend Chapter 4 of
the Code of Ordinances to add a new Chapter 4.47, authorizing the Judge of the
Municipal Court to assess a Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise to Appear
Fee not to exceed $25.00 (Cathy Leloux)
Discussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend Chapter 4 of the Code of
Ordinances to add a new Chapter 4.47, authorizing the Judge of the Municipal Court to assess a
Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise to Appear Fee not to exceed $25.00.
This ordinance will allow the City to recover administrative costs associated with issuing warrants for
failure to appear and violation of promise to appear. The ordinance will assess $25 per violation
when warrants are issued.
This fee is in addition to the $50 warrant fee. This additional fee is only allowed fail to appear and
violate promise to appear warrants. This fee would not be assessed on capias pro fine (where they
have already had a judgment against them) or on arrest warrants. Since the City issues does not
issue warrants on the original charges, this revenue would represent a small increase to the General
Fund. The judge would still have the discretion to grant jail time credit or order community service
hours in lieu of payment.
Staff projects that the additional fee will generate less than $5,000 annually. This fee will help
support General Fund services.
Justification for the charge is to recover the administrative costs.
The State receives 40% of our collections.
7. Update on the City's on-going Technology project (Leticia Zavala)
Status summary of ongoing technology projects for July 2009.
A. Grant Application – American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
Filing deadline extended to August 6th
Money awarded - Oct 2009
Performance period extended from 2 to 3 years
Finalizing Business case document
Recommendation: Accelerate AMI RFP procurement
The DOE wants to know how many other grant applications the City has completed for other stimulus funding
to find out what other monies we are eligible for or that we have requested for
o Up to now, we have requested 5 grants
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc
B. IT Assessment Project
Interviews conducted with following departments
IT
Fire
Police
GIS
City Management
Records Retention
Financial Analyst
Vehicle Services
Facilities
Accounting
Purchasing
Building Permitting
Planning
Utility Billing
Parks
Library
Court
City Secretary
Human Resources
Water Services
AMR/SCADA
Electric Services
Public Communication/Website
System Engineering
IT Personnel assessment, SWOT analysis, and strategic IT Planning – In process
C. AMI and CIS System Procurement Project Management
AMI RFP development – Advised by grant consultant to accelerated release date
Draft RFP – July 15th
RFP released – July 29th
D. CAD/RMS Public Safety Project
On hold due to network modifications needed prior to securing and implementing software
Evaluating mobile application to replace current equipment
Secured $25k grant from Justice Dept
Recommended vendor: Brazos Technology based in College Station
The committee decided to meet the first Tuesday or first Thursday of every month if
needed. If there are no items of discussion, there will not be a meeting. Micki will poll
the committee to find the best day for everyone.
8. Meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.