HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_09.01.2009
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.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
Tuesday, September 1, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113
East 8th 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 the July 7, 2009 meeting. (Danella Elliott)
The minutes were approved with the recommended changes underlined in red.
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
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.
(Keith wanted clarification on this sentence regarding point totals being identical. After
verifying with Terry Jones, it is noted that the top two firms, as well as, the point totals for
each were indeed identical). Eleven Thirteen is a Georgetown firm and we have used them in the
Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of
Finance and Administration, Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager, Leticia Zavala, Patrick Hurley,
Police, Chris Foster, Lorie Lankford, Kathy Ragsdale, Glenn Dishong
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.doc
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, and that the evaluation committee include
one or more non-city employees. 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.
3. Report finding of initial IT Assessment & Recommendation. (Leticia Zavala)
Westin Engineering interviewed key staff throughout the City departments that rely on the IT
Department for technology services and resources. Initial review identified the following weaknesses
in IT Department’s staff skills and services. Leticia passed out a “Summary of Assessment” of
services typically provided by IT Departments, services provided by our IT Department, services
provided outside our IT Department, and a diagram of the major gap in services that we currently
have.
The IT Department as currently structured does not provide many of the business functions
necessary for effective IT services. Nor do other business units within the City “own” the
missing functions.
There is a significant mistrust in IT Department’s capabilities and/or willingness to provide
appropriate technology support.
IT staff does not support critical applications. Its support is limited to the service desk and
network support.
IT employees do not have the skills necessary to support the future Customer Information
System (CIS), AMI system and other expected future applications.
Many barriers to doing City business efficiently exist that effective IT services could alleviate.
IT Department’s leadership is deficient in skills and the experience to lead the City to achieve
its future technology objectives.
IT staff does not have the skills to design and support a complex network environment with
Active Directory services.
The City lacks consistent, adequate technology standards and practices.
Significant reliance is placed on outside vendors to support the existing technology.
The final IT Plan document will provide a more in-depth assessment and direction to apply
technology to meet the business needs of the City. Some preliminary recommendations are:
Improve IT Governance within the City
Change Organization and Scope of Services provided by City IT Department
Westin believes that the City’s vision and technology direction is consistent with the “best in class”
cities that are leveraging information technology to provide high quality and efficient services to their
citizens.
Micki noted that after the Master Plan is completed and it has been presented and accepted by Council,
the goal is to include it in the 2030 Plan so that it will always be followed and provide more guidance.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.doc
Leticia said that there is a lot of “buy-in” and enthusiasm across various departments to make it work
the way a “best practices” city’s IT department should.
Micki said that the consultant’s take on the IT Director position is a change management
leader..someone to lead the processes. We want someone with the technical skills, as well as, the
leadership and organizational skills to communicate across divisional lines and initiate the change
management that is needed.
Dale asked about disaster back-up/recovery procedures. Past instances were discussed and it was
noted that something that is expected to come out of the Master Plan is what we need to take to
make sure the integrity of our data is protected. We need specific guidelines across the board. Dale
asked that until this process is completed, we discuss with the consultants what steps we
could take now to protect the data and to evaluate all of the back-up systems. Micki said that
she would asked them to do so.
The final report is expected mid to end of September. Flow charts and processes for all departments
will be documented and part of this report. Hopefully the new IT Director will be on board by
November.
Keith skipped to the original Item #7 for discussion.
4. Presentation and discussion for possible purchase of mobile handheld ticket devices
from Brazos Technology, Inc. for $49,028 to replace existing units in Police Services -
Patrick Hurley and Leticia Zavala
Patrick Hurley presented information on the request to replace existing handheld ticket
devices. City traffic officers have been using mobile handheld computers for citation issuance, since
the creation of the first traffic unit in 2001/02. The technology behind the current vendor’s mobile
ticket equipment and software is outdated and has not been modified in several years. Our existing
vendor requires expensive custom programming costs to enhance existing software to meet current
mandates; the new vendor includes such programming costs in their annual base maintenance fee.
Staff recommends replacing 10 mobile citation units through Brazos Technology. A key reason is no
change will be required in the existing IT infrastructure to implement this solution. Brazos
Technology provides full administrative functionality to manage all users, devices, business rules,
and fields without IT assistance. Brazos Technology also partners with our existing Municipal Court
software company thus ensuring compatibility with our existing system.
The police department received a grant from the Justice Department through the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the amount of $25,000 to be used for equipment replacement.
Excess savings in the Police department, due to operational savings, will be used to fund the
additional amount needed.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.doc
5. Discussion of funding/usage/purposes for the Council Discretionary Fund (i.e.
Council Contingency) - Micki Rundell
Micki led the discussion of the use of these funds and other related processes. Each year, Council
Discretionary funds are included in the Annual Budget. Over the years, the amount of appropriation
has ranged from $100,000+ to the current $25,000. These use and authorization for these funds are
included in the City’s Fiscal and Budgetary Policy:
Council Discretionary Account – The budget may contain appropriated funds to be used at the
discretion of the City Council. Actual expenditure of these funds is specifically approved by the City
Council on an item by item basis. The Council Discretionary Account for 2009/10 is $25,000, included
in the General Fund.
Over the years, these funds have been spent on a variety of expense, most notably for special social
service or festival requests. Micki’s recollection of the largest expenditure was for the Community
Clinic for $55,000. Other uses were for festivals, unknown expenditures at the time the budget was
adopted, special Council projects. All expenditures are always voted on and approved by Council.
In the event the funds are not allocated or spent, the remaining balance becomes part of the year-
end “excess funds” and therefore available for re-allocation in the following year. Unexpended
monies go into a pot that becomes available for Council to spend in subsequent years on a one-time
basis, as opposed to lapsing into the General Fund and needing to be re-appropriated for any
purpose that the Council wishes to appropriate it. (Keith asked - For example, if at the end of the
Fiscal year, there is $20,000 remaining in the Council Discretionary Account, is it possible for the
$20,000 left over to be spent on a one time expenditure such as a piece of equipment. Micki
explained that we currently treat the Council Discretionary Fund as an operating expense. We do not
treat it as a one-time expense per the policy. That can be changed if Council wants to, but right now
it is part of the compliance coverage – it is included in operational expenses vs. one-time
discretionary expense. They can be used to replenish the account in the following year’s budget.
Keith thinks that the unspent Council discretionary money should not go into that pot. It should go
into the GF pot and not available for one time expenditures, but rather be available for future
appropriations as the Council sees fit. Micki said that whatever the “net” balance is - whatever “cash”
we have at the end of the year, whether it be over-collection or under-spending, in the next year’s
budget, it is used for one-time money. We start over again with a -0- balance; operating dollars are
covered one to one.
6. Overview and update on the City's internal audit program. - Laurie Brewer
Laurie Brewer gave an overview presentation on our current internal controls and audit practices, and
anticipated changes and enhancements to improve the internal audits to minimize the City’s risk for
loss through employee fraud. She also provided the committee with actual procedures for their
review, as well as reviewing the purpose for the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy.
Laurie explained that one accounting position is currently dedicated primarily to the internal
control/internal audit function. We are currently evaluating the possibility of utilizing an anonymous
fraud reporting service and expect the cost to be approximately $800 annually.
Keith thanked Laurie and said it was a good presentation. He is impressed with all of the efforts
being made. Dale agreed and said that they have done a great job of balance to have controls in
place.
The committee agreed that adding a one-pager in the Quarterly Report would be welcomed.
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.doc
7. Discussion of an ordinance terminating the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment
Zone (TIRZ) to be presented to City Council on the September 8, 2009 agenda - Micki
Rundell
The Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) was put in place as a financing vehicle to
reimburse Simon for the $15 M of public improvements that were put in as part of the Development
Agreement. The Wolf Ranch TIRZ is a continuous geographic area within the City of Georgetown
generally located at the Southwest Corner of IH 35 and SH 29 W as a Reinvestment Zone for Tax
Increment Financing purposes pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code.
In October 2004, the City created the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) that
included $15 million in public improvements at Wolf Ranch that were funded by the developer, Simon
Properties. As part of the development agreement, the City will repay the $15M + 10% interest
through a sales tax rebate to Simon. The development agreement also included a provision that the
City could possibly refinance this obligation if it wished. This TIRZ was put in place as the
mechanism for that refinancing since the TIRZ can issue bonds that would be separate from the City
and which would be repaid through the revenue collected on the tax increment.
The City’s repayment agreement requires the City to pay 53% of the General Fund sales tax
collected at the shopping center towards the repayment of the $15M. The unpaid balance
accumulates at 10% interest annually. The term of the agreement is 20 years from when Wolf Ranch
opened (2005). The agreement does not include a “true up” provision. Meaning, if the 53% collected
over the 20 years is less than the balance owed at the end of the 20 year term, including interest, the
City is not required to pay that balance. And since the revenues at Wolf Ranch are substantially less
than projected, Simon will not fully recover their costs ($15M).
A TIRZ district does impact the City’s effective tax rate calculation, as the value captured within the
TIRZ is deducted from total valuation for calculation purposes. Therefore, since this particular TIRZ
does not have a purpose beyond refinancing the Simon investment, staff recommends that the City
terminate this entity.
Currently, there is $77.5M of incremental value that is captured within the Wolf Ranch TIRZ. The
revenue generated by this TIRZ (approximately $275K annually) is allocated to the General Fund as
directed by the Wolf Ranch TIRZ Board of Directors.
Should this TIRZ be terminated, the captured value will no longer be deducted in the 2010 property
tax calculation and should have a positive impact on the City’s effective rate calculation.
Bill Hammer with Simon Properties has been notified (8-13-09) that this action was being
recommended and had no comment.
8. Discussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate
block changes - Chris Foster and Jim Briggs
Jim Briggs, Glenn Dishong, Kathy Ragsdale and Chris Foster answered questions and provided
explanations for members of the committee. Keith had prepared written questions and staff had
answered them ahead of time. There was a lengthy discussion on the proposed rate changes. Jim
said that the new rates need to be in set by January to have time to educate the public and be able to
take effect in April, which is the beginning of the peak demand period. The committee decided that
L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\9.1.09\Minutes 9.1.09.doc
they were not ready to take action on this item. Keith suggested and encouraged committee
members to put any questions that need answering in writing ahead of time prior to the next
meeting and they will be discussed at that time.
9. Meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.