HomeMy WebLinkAboutGGAF_Agenda&Minutes_2009Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, November 30, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Monday, November 30, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the Main Floor Conference Room of City Hall, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or
at the request of the Chair.
AGENDA
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/11.30.09Agenda.pdf
1. Review and approve minutes from previous meeting – Danella Elliott
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/MinutesCS11.30.09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/Minutes11.23.09.pdf
2. Presentation and possible recommendation to approve a contract with OSSI Sungard Systems for
replacement of current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) for
Public Safety. Leticia Zavala, Patrick Hurley, and Micki Rundell,
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/CAD-RMS_CS11.30.09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/CAD-RMS-GGAFPres11.30.09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/DRAFTLicenseandServicesAgreement11.24.09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/DRAFTMaintenanceAgreement11.24.09.pdf
3. Discussion on proposed revisions to the City's Planning and Development related fees . Elizabeth
Cook
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/DevFeeCS11.30.09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/Exhibit_ADraftFeeSchedule.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/Exhibit_BFeeSchedule.pdf
4. Overview and discussion of the City’s selection process for certain professional services, including
architects and engineers. Terry Jones and Tom Benz
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/Architect-EngineerSelectionProcessCS.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/ArchitecturalServicesSelectionProcess.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/ArchitecturalServicesEvaluationSheet.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/GUS_EngineeringSelectionProcess.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/ProfessionalServicesProcurementProcessMemo.pdf
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, November 30, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday , November 30, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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 Monday, November 30, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room,
located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas.
The November 30, 2009 minutes were approved at the January 5, 2010 GGAF
Meeting.
Keith Brainard called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
Review and approve minutes from previous meeting – Danella Elliott
The minutes from the November 23, 2009 GGAF meeting were approved.
Presentation and possible recommendation to approve a contract with OSSI
Sungard Systems for replacement of current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
and Records Management System (RMS) for Public Safety. Leticia Zavala,
Patrick Hurley, and Micki Rundell,
Patrick Hurley gave a presentation on the OSSI Sungard system. The City of Georgetown
established the current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 1997, and although the City has
kept up with all system upgrades, the advances in technology and changes in industry
standards over the last 12 years have rendered these systems archaic, and in some cases,
obsolete.
Evaluation for replacement of the system began by looking at existing 9-1-1 vendors to see
if they offered a fully integrated CAD/RMS system. None of the vendors offered a fully
integrated solution, therefore, focus groups were conducted and business case needs were
addressed to determine our overall needs. The field was narrowed to two possible
candidates in OSSI and New World. Site visits were conducted and evaluated.
Overall project cost is $1M and includes CAD/RMS software replacement with OSSI
Sungard Systems of $890,000; 3rd party software and hardware purchases of $60,000; and
contingency funding of $50,000.
OSSI is the current software provider for the City of Round Rock and is a finalist with
Williamson County to replace their existing CAD. The potential to have all of the law
enforcement agencies in the County using the same software would be beneficial to the
citizens. We would be able to share data, transfer calls between each agency quicker and
be more efficient of dispatching between agencies. Dale asked if he was comfortable with a
5% contingency and Patrick replied that he wouldn’t mind having more.
Dale Ross asked if this was truly integrated and Patrick assured him that it was. He noted
that the useful life is 10 years. Micki added that we can use previous years’ excess cash
reserves to pay for it. Dale suggested that we start setting aside funds for replacement in
future years.
Funds for this project are included in the 2009/10 budget.
Discussion on proposed revisions to the City's Planning and Development
related fees. Elizabeth Cook
Elizabeth Cook explained the proposed revisions to the Planning and Development related
fees. Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 15.04.045 of the Code of Ordinances to
update the development fees. In an effort to simplify the fee schedule it has been modified
to incorporate all associated fees into one flat fee for each specific application. As an
example, the rezoning application fee would include the notification, publication, and
mapping fees together. The amended schedule would also add fees for new applications or
processes where presently there is not a fee. For example, Special Exceptions are a new
process adopted with the recent UDC amendments and voluntary annexations have not
historically had a fee. The proposal would allow an applicant to combine the applications for
site plan and construction plan review (with a fee less than the individual applications) and
reduce fees for amendments to existing approvals that do not require a full review.
Currently, the City’s fee structure off-sets some of the City’s expenses related to application
processing and review; however, the existing fees do not represent the full cost nor has it
been the City’s policy that they should. With the proposed fee revisions, minimal additional
cost recovery has been factored into the calculations with some fees still highly subsidized
by the general fund. For example, the Engineering and Inspection Fees are collected prior
to issuing each individual building permit. However, the engineering review takes place
prior to construction plan approval and infrastructure inspections take place during
construction of these improvements. This staff work may be completed years before a
building permit is issued. Another example of a fee subsidy is the Certificate of Design
Compliance fees that are nominal and do not reflect the actual costs to process the
applications. See Exhibit A for the proposed changes to the fee schedule that reflect the
existing and proposed fees. A clean version of the fee schedule is included as Exhibit B.
The last development related fee revision took place in 2007 and included changes
regarding how the Traffic Impact Analysis fee was calculated; established and increased
some of the GIS fees; and increased the base fee for final plats. In 2005, there was a fee
added for Certificates of Design Compliance applications. During 2003 and 2004 there
were some minor fee increases and new fees were established for application types that
were either new with the UDC adoption or where there had been no fee charged in the past.
It does not appear that there has been a comprehensive fee review for several years. Dale
Ross said that it would be a good process to review and evaluate fees every 2-3
years. He also asked Elizabeth to provide a model showing what the
increase/decrease in revenue would be if approved. The committee would like it to
coincide with the water rate review every 3 years.
UPDATE
On September 28, 2009, staff presented the proposed fee increase to the GGAF
Subcommittee. During the discussion staff was asked to come back with a description of
the expenses associated with voluntary annexation applications, which currently do not have
a fee. Following are the estimated fees associated with a voluntary annexation application:
Voluntary Annexation – proposed fee $1,000
Estimated City costs:
GIS $ 250
Planning $ 600
Advertising $ 575
Total estimated costs$1425
The Planning and Development Department revenue will be minimally impacted as the
revised fees are collected. There should be a small increase related to collecting fees for
those applications that do not have fees, although some applications have reduced fees for
revisions where before revisions may have resulted in full fees being assessed.
The committee also wanted Elizabeth to add that GGAF didn’t feel the need for a cap
and doesn’t support the cap in the recommendations to Council.
The committee thanked Elizabeth for the presentation and information.
Overview and discussion of the City’s selection process for certain professional
services, including architects and engineers. Terry Jones and Tom Benz
Terry Jones explained that the City Council requested that staff develop a process for the
selection of Architectural/Engineering services that would include the utilization of a
combination of staff, Councilmembers Board Members, and Georgetown citizens. Separate
processes for the two types of services have been developed since both disciplines have
unique differences in the number of projects initiated annually and the different types of
engineering services required.
Dale asked why not throw out the highest/lowest score to do away with a significant
variance. Dale and Keith have concerns with Council members on the selection committee
to award monetary contracts. Patty noted the process followed each time she had been on
the selection committee has been the same except for adding a person from the Boards
and Commissions, and has always worked well. She thinks that as long as Council agrees
to accept the decision and not second-guess it, then it is done professionally and is okay
with the process. Dale thinks that there should be full disclosure and transparency to know
the names of individual scorers. Patty feels that it is a fair process and companies bid again
and again, so they haven’t felt there has been inappropriate or unfair activity.
Patty noted that adding a Boards and Commissions member is new, as well as putting the
sentence about “projects greater than $2M will follow this procedure for architectural
services selection” in writing.
Keith said that the perception of a fair and open process is the goal. GGAF doesn’t feel that
they need to see this again before going to Council.
At the request of GGAF and Council members, the following is what Terry will take
to Council on Tuesday with their suggestions/changes included.
Architectural Services Selection Process
Identify architects to be solicited including local architects, those requesting the solicitation, and those
who have had successful past projects with the City.
The RFQ’s will be evaluated by a selection committee of no less than five (5) people consisting of at
least one (1) members from Facilities Construction Department ; one (1) member from the
using department; one (1) other staff member from a neutral department; and two (2) members at
large (selected by the Council). The members at large would be chosen from an existing City
Board or Commission and have relevant background or experience with the related project.
The evaluation process will consist of an evaluation completed by each team member for each RFQ
submitted. These evaluations will use established criteria to determine the experience/qualification
level of a firm in designing a specific type of facility. (See attached evaluation criteria)
The RFQ’s will be ranked by score. The top three to five firms will then be interviewed by the selection
team.
The interviewed firms are then scored using pre-selected questions that will help determine the best
firm for the project. The scores are tabulated with the highest and lowest interview scores being
thrown out. The firm with the highest combined score is submitted to the GGAF Advisory Board
and City Council for final approval.
**Projects greater than $2 million of construction value will follow this procedure for architectural services
selection.
**Projects less than $2 million will follow the same process except that interviews may or may not be
conducted.
The selection committee will remain the same for both levels of projects and will be selected by City staff.
Architectural Services Evaluation Sheet
Experience of architect team12 pts.
Possess professional license2 pts.
Experience designing Court 20 pts.
facilities
Work completed locally15 pts.
Project affiliations2 pts.
Credentials of local consultant5 pts.
personnel
Local familiarity4 pts.
Present workload5 pts.
Cost/budget adherence on 10 pts.
past projects
Schedule adherence on past10 pts.
projects
Evidence of design excellence10 pts.
Number of professionals and 5 pts
other staff assigned to project
Tom Benz explained the procedure for the Georgetown Utility Systems Selection of Professional
Engineering Services.
Current Process
A request for Engineering Services by Customer department is provided to Systems Engineering.
Systems Engineering evaluates and develops the preliminary Scope of Work statement, coordinating with
the Requestor and/or the Customer. The request can be for one of many different projects, a
planned capital improvement, planned maintenance, regulatory compliance, meeting operational
demands, or other separate reasons.
Based on the preliminary scope of work, we evaluate the qualifications of the Consultant Engineers that
currently have Masters Services Agreements executed with the City. It is the initial intent to assign the
project to a firm currently on this list of qualified engineers. The Consultant Engineer selection is
performed by following city staff: the Systems Engineering Director, the representative project
manager(s), and the representative engineer(s) of the Customer department. If it is determine that we
have no firms qualified to perform the scope of work, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is prepared
and advertised in accordance to city and state rules. Some of the critical projects require a much
more specific qualification statement. We will require the potential firm to outline their approach to
the project, the project team, and the schedule. Ultimately, the selection group will make every
attempt to select the best qualified firm for the project through thorough evaluations of the qualification
statements, provided by each firm.
Once the group makes a selection, that consultant engineer is notified and asked to develop scope of
work and schedule specific to it project, in coordination with the city’s representative project manager
and customer department.
The Systems Engineering Director and the project manager determine the appropriate contract terms and
enter into negations with the consultant engineer. If both parties cannot come to agreement on costs
negotiations seize with this firm and the next qualified firm is approached.
Contract is finalized by both parties and the contract moved forward to approval.
City actions are detailed below:
If the consultant services contract fee is less than $15,000 the agreement is signed and
executed by authorized city staff and work begins.
If the consultant services contract fee is between $15,000 and $50,000 then the contract is
presented to the city council for approval.
If the consultant services contract fee is greater than $50,000 the contract goes first to the
appropriate advisory board for recommendation to take to council. The item is then
presented to the city council for approval.
Upon completion of the scope and schedule the project costs are refined by the consultant and provided
to the city’s representative project manager for review and approval.
Proposed modification to the Engineering Selection Process
Once a year have a general RFQ to create a lists of firms to be used on future planned capital
improvement, maintenance, regulatory, operational, or others projects.
General Engineering Services Selection Process
Identify engineers firms to be solicited using the purchasing lists.
The RFQ’s will be evaluated by a selection committee of no less than eight people consisting of at
least two (2) members from Systems Engineering; one (1) member from the using departments
(Transportation, Energy, Water, and Facilities), and one GUS Board member and one GTAB
Board Member.
The evaluation process will consist of an evaluation completed by each team member for each RFQ
submitted. These evaluations will have preselected questions that will determine the
experience/qualification level of the firms for the general scope of work. The team will select firms
for transportation, structural, drainage, telecommunications, SCADA, pipe lines (water,
wastewater, drainage, etc.), water and wastewater treatment, streets maintenance, electric
distribution, substation, surveying, construction m aterial testing, geotechnical, environmental, and
utility master planning.
In the process the references will be check for each firm.
The RFQ’s will be ranked by score. The committee will decide if interviews are needed.
Approximately 20 firms will then be selected by the team to be used on upcoming fiscal year
Transportation, Drainage, Energy, and Water projects.
The firm with the highest scores will be submitted to the GTAB, GUS, and City Council for final
approval.
The current process above will be used for project specific task orders
The committee thanked Terry and Tom for their information.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of
the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, November 23, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Monday, November 23, 2009 at 02:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or
at the request of the Chair.
AGENDA
1. Approval of minutes from the previous GGAF meetings - Danella Elliott
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/MinutesCS_11.23.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/09.28.09_Minutes.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/10.05.09_Minutes.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/10.26.09_Minutes.pdf
2. Consideration and possible action to recommend selection of National Service Research (NSR) for
$19,500 to conduct the 2010 City of Georgetown Quality of Life Survey - Micki Rundell
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/NSR_2010_SurveyCS.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/Evaluation_Summary.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/NSR_contract.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/NSR_proposal.pdf
3. Overview of the September 30, 2009 year end preliminary financial information - Laurie Brewer
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/PrelimYEReportCS_11.23.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/VarianceReport_08-09.pdf
http://georgetown.org/pdfs/ggaf/PrelimYEReportAnalysis.pdf
Call to Order at 02:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, November 23, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday , November 23, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason
Board Members Absent:
Dale Ross
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Lorie Lankford
Minutes
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 2:30
p.m. on Monday, November 23, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room,
located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas.
Keith Brainard called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m.
Review and approve minutes from previous meetings – Danella Elliott
The September 28, 2009 minutes were approved.
The October 26, 2009 minutes were approved.
The October 5, 2009 minutes were approved with the following change: Item 2 in
the minutes are corrected as follows (in red). “Keith views this initial process as aKeith views this initial process as aKeith views this initial process as aKeith views this initial process as a
guideguideguideguide.... He would likeHe would likeHe would likeHe would like City StaffCity StaffCity StaffCity Staff to have interviews with more qualified people and allowto have interviews with more qualified people and allowto have interviews with more qualified people and allowto have interviews with more qualified people and allow
them give demos and explain what they have to offer and to see if they can beat thethem give demos and explain what they have to offer and to see if they can beat thethem give demos and explain what they have to offer and to see if they can beat thethem give demos and explain what they have to offer and to see if they can beat the
current providercurrent providercurrent providercurrent provider,,,, and to include the current providerand to include the current providerand to include the current providerand to include the current provider.... He would like to involve theHe would like to involve theHe would like to involve theHe would like to involve the
Employee Benefits Committee in the selectionEmployee Benefits Committee in the selectionEmployee Benefits Committee in the selectionEmployee Benefits Committee in the selection.... Kevin asked Keith to send a list ofKevin asked Keith to send a list ofKevin asked Keith to send a list ofKevin asked Keith to send a list of
providers”providers”providers”providers”....
Consideration and possible action to recommend selection of National
Service Research (NSR) for $19,500 to conduct the 2010 City of
Georgetown Quality of Life Survey- Micki Rundell
Micki explained that this item will be on the 11/24 Council agenda. She informed the
committee that In October 2009, an RFP process to conduct the City’s fifth biannual
survey was undertaken. This RFP, which was reviewed by the General Government
and Finance Subcommittee (GGAF) at their September 28, 2009 meeting, was sent to
over 30 firms and 6 proposals were received. A selection committee, consisting of
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director, Keith Hutchinson, PIO, Micki Rundell,
CFO and Mr. Don Anderson, a citizen from District 3 reviewed and scored the
proposals. The committee is unanimously recommending the selection of National
Service Research (NSR) from Fort Worth to conduct this year’s survey.
NSR has conducted numerous surveys throughout Texas and is considered to be highly
qualified to undertake this assignment. References were checked and verified. All
cities contacted, including the City of Richardson and Farmers Branch, were more than
pleased with NSR. In addition, NSR will be able to meet the requirements set forth in
the RFP which include the ability to continue the trend analysis and comparison to the
City’s previous surveys and the time lines for inclusion in the 2010/11 budget process.
The 2010 survey will consist of approximately 50 to 60 questions and require about 15
minutes to complete. NSR will conduct both a telephone and on-line survey; provide
analysis, reports and presentation to City Council. The survey will provide a 95%
confidence level within a margin of error +/- 5%, which is similar in scope to previous
surveys. NSR staff will meet with City staff and others to create the survey instrument.
The survey will also be reviewed by GGAF and City Council prior to being undertaken.
The survey will be conducted in January and presented to the Council in March 2009.
The previous 4 surveys were conducted by Ampersand Agency from Austin.
Ampersand did not bid on this year’s survey. Micki explained that they probably didn’t
bid because they might be tired of us, as well as, it being an election year and their
workload increases during this time. The survey has been a useful tool in providing
feedback to the City Council on community needs and issues, as well as, a gage for
determining future projects. The results from this survey will continue to provide
feedback, as well as, benchmarks for on-going programs and services.
Total cost for this survey will be $19,500. The 2009/10 budget included $23,000 in the
Finance Administration Special Services account. The cost of the 2008 survey
conducted by Ampersand was $20,000.If the contract is approved at Tuesday’s
Council Meeting, Micki and Paul Brandenburg will meet with NSR next week.
Patty and Keith are in agreement that since this item has already been to this
GGAF Committee, they do not see the need for Micki to bring it back before
going to Council. Micki will visit with Dale to make sure he is in agreement with
this recommendation, and if so, then it will move forward to Council.
Overview of the September 30, 2009 year end preliminary financial
information – Micki Rundell
Micki gave an overview and explained that this year end financial report and information
will be on the 11/24 Council Agenda as well.
Overview:
This report compares the preliminary year end balances as of 9/30/09 to the balances
that were projected during the budget process. Year ending fund balances are
projected during the budget process to establish an estimated beginning fund balance
for the upcoming year. Projections are made conservatively, in order to provide
assurance that the upcoming budget will begin with a fund balance that will support the
new year.
Variance Explanations: The following information provides explanations to the
variances in the projected fund balances.
General Fund:
Overall, the General Fund’s balance is $397,938 higher than projected in the budget.
Revenues ended the year with 14.2% overall higher than 2007/08, primarily due to
the new property in the tax base as well as increased revenues from the expansion
of the Recreation Center. Development and building activity was 31.7% lower than
prior year. The decrease is due to the slowdown in the economy and overall
housing market. Expenditures were lower than anticipated in all areas except
Transportation. This variance relates to the timing of street projects.
Other Major Funds:
The Electric Fund working capital is $3.4 million higher than anticipated. While the
revenues were within 1% of projections, costs were lower than anticipated, primarily
due to purchased power contract savings. Micki commended Jim Briggs on his
ability to manage the power contracts making it more cost effective.
Water revenue was 3% higher than projected, while Wastewater revenues were
within 1% of projections. Tap fee revenue, however, was over $497,000 lower than
originally projected due to housing starts. The working capital balance for the Water
Services Fund is $4.5 million higher than anticipated, primarily due to the timing of
capital projects. A budget amendment will be needed for projects from the prior year
that need funding in the current year, including the San Gabriel parallel line and the
Southlake Water Treatment Plan r project.
Internal Service Funds:
The Facilities and Fleet internal service funds both had operational savings resulting
in slightly higher working capital balances. The Information Services fund working
capital was $93,386 lower than anticipated, resulting from the timing of network
improvement projects that were able to start earlier than anticipated. The Joint
Services fund working capital is $125,172 less than anticipated, due to reduced
allocation revenue from lower departmental costs.
CVB Fund:
Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue was over $64,204 less than the prior year, however
was over $50K more than projected. This resulted in a higher fund balance than
anticipated. Ending fund balance was $446,749. Keith asked that Micki send the
committee the State Law information regarding use of Hotel Motel Occupancy
Tax fund use.
Airport Fund:
The Airport Fund working capital balance is $28,993 higher than anticipated,
primarily due to the expense savings, as well as the timing of the capital
improvements partially funded through state grants.
Special Revenue Funds were discussed, and Keith asked that Micki send the
committee the number of actual donations, actual number of donors and the
largest single donation made to the Animal Shelter for the previous year.
Micki explained the difference between “frozen” positions and “open” positions, as
well as, provided information on restricted accounts.
Micki explained that we ended the year on a positive note, based on how we began
the year in an economic downturn.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.Board may, at any time, recess the Regular
Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City
Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to
action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, October 26, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or as
needed at the request of the chair.
AGENDA
1. Review and approve minutes from previous meeting – Danella Elliott
2. Review update of the Public Safety Needs Assessment and related impacts to the City's Facility Plan –
Paul Brandenburg, Micki Rundell, Terry Jones (Consultant will be on hand to present updated
information)
3. Discussion regarding Water utility polices and rates – Jim Briggs, Micki Rundell, Glenn Dishong
(Conservation rates and related financial policies that are impacted)
4. Status update on the RFP process for the 2010 Quality of Life Survey – Micki Rundell
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, October 26, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday , October 26, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Paul Brandenburg, Kathy Ragsdale, Laurie Brewer, Jim Briggs, Lorie Lankford, Glenn
Dishong, Chris Foster, Terry Jones
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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 Monday, October 26, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room,
located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
The October 26, 2009 minutes were approved at the November 23, 2009 GGAF
meeting.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 1:33 p.m.
Review and approve minutes from previous meeting – Danella Elliott
Minutes were not discussed. The members were not able to access the agenda
packet that was e-mailed to them.
Review update of the Public Safety Needs Assessment and related impacts to the City's
Facility Plan – Paul Brandenburg, Micki Rundell, Terry Jones (Consultant will be on
hand to present updated information)
Presentation by Brinkley Sargent Architects.
Four options were presented with discussion on each. The start date for each option
is January 2010.
Paul noted that the most immediate option is D1. This would be an 8 or 9 year
solution. This option was discussed heavily. Option D1 is to renovate the old
Library and split the PD between existing facility and the old library. The Court
staff would move across the street to the existing City Building at 7th and Main.
This space would need to be renovated and the costs are included in the
proposal. Fire Station 5 will be built at a proposed location of Shell Road and Bel
Aire. Fire Admin would move here along with a Public W orks Facility and
satellite location for Police. Utilities will contribute to the construction costs if a
Public Works Facility is located here. Police will move out of the Police
Substation in Sun City.
Dale asked about Fire Station 2. Station 2 does need to remain for response times
and location. Police and Fire have been involved in this process.
Dale has a concern about the size of the Police Evidence Room if they are located
at the old Library. This will be addressed once the interior of the building is
designed.
Option D1 would split the Police Department between three buildings; existing
facility, old library, and GCAT building.
Keith suggested D1 now and D2 in a few years. Patty expressed concern about
having the Police split between three buildings.
Micki said all options will require bond funding. Paul said we could pursue the option
of ESD contributing to the construction Fire Station 5.
We do not have an option on the land at Shell Road. Keith is in favor of moving
forward to purchase the land. He said Option D1 with Shell Road Option A.
Council Workshop is scheduled for November 10th.
The sale of the Albertsons Building will need to go through the bid process again
because none of the previous bidders met the minimum bid requirement. Micki
will be speaking with bond council to determine what we legally can do with
Albertsons if the City has to take a loss. GEDCO 4A will probably need to
involved.
Paul noted that the old Fire Station 1 space will be freed up, but will require
renovation to meet code requirements.
7% inflation factor built into the cost projections.
Discussion regarding Water utility polices and rates – Jim Briggs, Micki Rundell, Glenn
Dishong (Conservation rates and related financial policies that are impacted)
A power point was presented by Jim Briggs. The last time the base rates were
updated was 1985. Conservation rates were put into effect in 1997.
Discussion on various slides. Direction to Staff from Keith:
Summary of Recommended Water Action Plan from Oct. 26th Meeting
As edited by Keith Brainard 11/2/09
Raise the base charge rate on ¾” meters to $18.50 o ver the next 2 years; a $1 change each year.
Revise the volumetric changes over the next 2 years to match the remaining revenue requirement
needed to fund the debt issued on the plant expansion. For example $2.25 goes to $2.30 then in
year 2 $2.30 to 2.35 if needed after fixed rate adjustment is made.
Create a conservation block starting at 75 kgal.
Create a super commercial user block to charge $3 per kgal for usage over 10 million gallons in a
month.
Scale meter charges to meet the AWWA scaling factors. The charges should be phased in over the
next 4 years.
Change the ordinance on water rates to review the water rates every 3 years with proposed changes
reflecting the change in the Regional CPI figure, and those proposed rates to be rounded to the
nearest nickel. These changes should be presented in the same year as the water impact fees.
Establish a “low income” process similar to sewer to assist low income customers.
Establish a “rainy day” reserve independent of the “contingency reserve” in the Water Fund to offset
weather related revenue impacts. Keith will propose from the dais a cap on the size of the rainy
day reserve and welcome suggestions.
Status update on the RFP process for the 2010 Quality of Life Survey – Micki Rundell
Keith requested the Quality of Life Survey results to be e-mailed to the committee.
Meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
Jessica Hamilton, Assistant City Secretary
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, October 5, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Monday, October 5, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or
as needed at the request of the chair.
AGENDA
1. Review of staff recommendations on health care proposals. Kevin Russell
2. Review of RFP for 457 providers. Kevin Russell
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, October 5, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday , October 5, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Paul Brandenburg, Laurie Brewer, Kevin Russell, Jennifer Bills , Mike Stasny
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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 Monday, October 5, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room,
located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
The October 5, 2009 minutes were approved at the November 23, 2009 Meeting
with the following change: Item 2 in the minutes are corrected as follows (in red). “
Keith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guide.... He would likeHe would likeHe would likeHe would like City StaffCity StaffCity StaffCity Staff to have interviewsto have interviewsto have interviewsto have interviews
with more qualified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have towith more qualified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have towith more qualified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have towith more qualified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have to
offer and to see if they can beat the current provideroffer and to see if they can beat the current provideroffer and to see if they can beat the current provideroffer and to see if they can beat the current provider,,,, and to include the currentand to include the currentand to include the currentand to include the current
providerproviderproviderprovider.... He would like to involve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectionHe would like to involve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectionHe would like to involve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectionHe would like to involve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selection....
Kevin asked Keith to send a list of providers”Kevin asked Keith to send a list of providers”Kevin asked Keith to send a list of providers”Kevin asked Keith to send a list of providers”....
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 1:35 p.m.
1111.... Review of staff recommendations on health care proposalsReview of staff recommendations on health care proposalsReview of staff recommendations on health care proposalsReview of staff recommendations on health care proposals....
Kevin Russell gave an overview presentation on the City of Georgetown’s current efforts to
establish and maintain a competitive position in its defined market. HR Staff and the
Benefits Committee reviewed the proposals from the providers for insurance coverage and
Kevin presented their recommendations that will go to Council next Tuesday October 13th
with regards to approving the contracts for next year. Current renewal or health insurance
came in at over 85.5%. He explained that a rise in healthcare claims have risen to $3.35
million vs. $1.2 million over the prior year. That cost is equated to about 7% of our benefit
population, attributed to several large claims. Kevin explained that in continuing with
Council’s feedback over the past years, health coverage has been changed to include a
larger contribution by the employees in the areas of co-insurance and deductibles.
Employee contribution was also increased in the area of office co-pays to reduce the rates to
a more manageable percentage increase.
To ensure the City remains competitive with its benefits, City contributions were also looked
at and recommendations for increases and/or continuation/elimination of
supplements/contributions are being made in the following areas: Dependent/family
supplement; opt out supplement; HAS contribution. Council action will be required to
authorize City supplements and/or incentives and to authorize the city to enter into benefits
contracts. The budget was presented with at 15% increase in benefits.
Staff has worked to come up with a recommendation that stays within the increases allowed
for in the budget. The City will use the previously allocated money that was going to be
contributed to the employees’ HSA account to help “buy-down” and decrease premium
costs, and educate employees on how they can contribute to their HSA and build up that
account by using their longevity pay, etc. Staff recommendation will be to go with TexasStaff recommendation will be to go with TexasStaff recommendation will be to go with TexasStaff recommendation will be to go with Texas
Municipal LeagueMunicipal LeagueMunicipal LeagueMunicipal League ((((TMLTMLTMLTML )))) as the City health insurance provideras the City health insurance provideras the City health insurance provideras the City health insurance provider....
There was discussion and explanation of the option of “opting out” of City insurance
coverage and the effects it would have.
2222.... Review of RFP forReview of RFP forReview of RFP forReview of RFP for 457457457457 providersprovidersprovidersproviders....
Kevin explained that the City provides access to a 457b plan to its employees. Currently,
ICMA-RC is the only provider available to employees. Although this is a program that the
City offers to its employees and there are no City funds involved, no requirement that
proposals or bids be requested when adding providers, the City will be going out for proposal
to secure the best services for its employees. Kevin explained that this is a pass through
program; there is no cost to the city.
It was discussed and decided that it should be an RFQ instead of RFP.
Keith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guideKeith views this initial process as a guide.... He would like to have interviews with moreHe would like to have interviews with moreHe would like to have interviews with moreHe would like to have interviews with more
qualified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have to offer and to seequalified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have to offer and to seequalified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have to offer and to seequalified people and allow them give demos and explain what they have to offer and to see
if they can beat the current providerif they can beat the current providerif they can beat the current providerif they can beat the current provider,,,, and to include the current providerand to include the current providerand to include the current providerand to include the current provider.... He would like toHe would like toHe would like toHe would like to
involve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectioninvolve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectioninvolve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selectioninvolve the Employee Benefits Committee in the selection.... Kevin asked Keith to send aKevin asked Keith to send aKevin asked Keith to send aKevin asked Keith to send a
list of providerslist of providerslist of providerslist of providers....
Meeting adjourned atMeeting adjourned atMeeting adjourned atMeeting adjourned at 2222::::25252525 pppp....mmmm....
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, September 28, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Monday, September 28, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or
as needed at the request of the Chair.
Agenda
1. Approval of the minutes from the September 1, 2009 meeting - Danella Elliott
2. Overview and discussion of the 2009/10 Contract for Services between the City and the Emergency
Services District (ESD) #8 that will be considered on the October 13, 2009 City Council agenda - Laurie
Brewer
3. Discussion regarding proposed changes to the City's Development Fee structure - Elizabeth Cook
4. Discussion and possible recommendation to approve the annual support services and contracts
renewal for fiscal year 2009/10 for Information Technology vendors providing services and support to
the City of Georgetown - Leticia Zavala
5. Discussion regarding water conservation block rates and related policies - Jim Briggs
6. Discussion regarding the RFP Process for the 2010 Quality of Life Survey to be conducted in early 2010
to provide feedback and community input for the 2010/11 budget cycle - Micki Rundell
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, September 28, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Monday , September 28, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Leticia Zavala, Chris Foster
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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 Monday, September 28, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference
Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 1:35 p.m.
The September 28, 2009 minutes were approved at the November 23, 2009 GGAF
Meeting.
Approval of minutes from the September 1, 2009 meeting - Danella Elliott
The minutes were approved.
Original Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda Item ####5555:::: Discussion regarding water conservation block ratesDiscussion regarding water conservation block ratesDiscussion regarding water conservation block ratesDiscussion regarding water conservation block rates
and related policiesand related policiesand related policiesand related policies ---- Jim BriggsJim BriggsJim BriggsJim Briggs
Glenn Dishong provided background information. He noted that they conducted a
conservation pilot in Sun City, trying to test the feasibility of a twice/week watering
schedule and study the effect of feedback on water demand. The information used to
revise it was a water conservation plan, drought contingency plan and conservation rate
structure. The conclusions were that the customers were more likely to conserve on a
two day schedule, but conservation can be achieved on a three day schedule. The
current rate structure has limited influence on water conservation. The customers
recommendations were that the actions be taken in the following order: 1. implement
customer usage feedback, 2. revise the rate structure, 3. implement watering
restrictions, and 4. expand the treatment facilities (increase all rates).
Discussion on the water rate changes: The current rates have been in effect since 2003
and the base rate hasn’t been adjusted since 1985. The committee feels that growing the
base rates according to inflation (over 2 years), and then making it part of the annual
budget process so you are not hit with a major “pop” all at one time is fair and equitable.
This could be incorporated into the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy so that it would be
institutionalized.
Keith asked the committee their thoughts of growing the $2.25 to 1 degree or another,
catching up to inflation since the rates were last changed in 2003. Using the average of
2.5% inflation over the past 6 years, making it about 15% more or less, raising the rate
10-15% over 2 years. The rate could be raised five or ten cents each year, making it
$2.35 to $2.45. Patty wanted to make sure that low income citizens are covered by
being aggressive and seeking them out, not waiting for them to come to us. We should
be very deliberate about education on conservation rates and utilization of water.
Keith also favors changing the threshold of the 2nd tier grades from 9,000 gallons to
20,000 gallons – the lowest rates stay in effect until 20,000 gallons. We don’t want to
send out the message that Georgetown residents shouldn’t have a yard and that the first
drop of irrigation is going to cost you a lot more. Keith asked the committee their opinion
on changing the structure so that the first increase is after 20,000 rather than after 9,000.
The committee agreed to bring the figure 15,000 to 20,000 gallons to the dais and
discuss it then. Suggestion is to agree with all of staff recommendations and grow by
inflation rate to be determined later.
After discussionAfter discussionAfter discussionAfter discussion,,,, Micki will do some modelingMicki will do some modelingMicki will do some modelingMicki will do some modeling,,,, usingusingusingusing 18181818,,,,000000000000 gallons and growing thegallons and growing thegallons and growing thegallons and growing the
proposed rates by an inflationary index related to utilitiesproposed rates by an inflationary index related to utilitiesproposed rates by an inflationary index related to utilitiesproposed rates by an inflationary index related to utilities.... This item will be on theThis item will be on theThis item will be on theThis item will be on the
OctoberOctoberOctoberOctober 26262626thththth agenda againagenda againagenda againagenda again....
Original Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda Item ####2222:::: Overview and discussion of theOverview and discussion of theOverview and discussion of theOverview and discussion of the 2009200920092009////10101010 Contract forContract forContract forContract for
Services between the City and the Emergency Services DistrictServices between the City and the Emergency Services DistrictServices between the City and the Emergency Services DistrictServices between the City and the Emergency Services District ((((ESDESDESDESD)))) ####8888 thatthatthatthat
will be considered on the Octoberwill be considered on the Octoberwill be considered on the Octoberwill be considered on the October 13131313,,,, 2009200920092009 City Council agendaCity Council agendaCity Council agendaCity Council agenda ---- LaurieLaurieLaurieLaurie
BrewerBrewerBrewerBrewer
In May of 2005, a public vote was passed for the formation of Emergency Services
District #8 for the Georgetown Fire Protection District. An Emergency Services District
(ESD), under the Texas Health and Safety Code; Chapter 775, is a geographical area
supported by taxes to provide emergency services within the area that is governed by a
County appointed Commission.
Emergency Service Districts are created to allow for improvements in rural fire
protection areas and intended to build a partnership with municipalities to ensure
adequate service delivery is provided. The geographic area for this district is
Georgetown's Rural Fire Protection District.
In order to provide sufficient funding for an Emergency Service District a tax is charged
based upon property evaluations. The tax rate is set up to a maximum of 10 cents per
$100 evaluation. There are 5 appointed ESD Commissioners that represent a
cross-section of the District and meet on a regular basis to determine administrative
policy and perform financial oversight of the district. Commissioners are appointed for a
two-year term.
The City of Georgetown has provided fire protection in the County through a Rural Fire
Protection Agreement for an annual $60,000 for many years. The costs for such
services far exceed the contracted amount. An Emergency Service District allows for
the continued service delivery of a rural fire protection area that has been covered by
Georgetown for the last half century. The County has begun paying this money to the
ESDs rather than the municipalities.
The City of Georgetown provides the personnel, facilities and equipment to provide fire
protection, emergency rescue services and emergency medical first responder services
to ESD#8. The cost of these services are adjusted annually and are based upon total
cost of services and the number of calls in the ESD.
The proposed contract amount for 2010 is $909,988 for fire and emergency services.
This includes a total contract price of $1,023,321 and a credit of $113,333 for firefighter
costs paid by the district in 2009.
The ESD has also agreed to participate in a joint planning study for a Fire Services
Master Plan and will also turn over the $60,000 mutual aid funds to the City.
This is the figure the County agreed to at their last meeting.
The committee thanked Laurie and Chief Fite for the presentation.
Discussion and possible recommendation to approve the annual support
services and contracts renewal for fiscal year 2009/10 for Information
Technology vendors providing services and support to the City of
Georgetown - Leticia Zavala
This item is for the annual support services and maintenance agreement renewals with
Information Technology vendors for various City computer systems and applications.
This item is also for approval for purchasing equipment and services for IT-supported
systems that are in the approved fiscal year 2009/10 IT internal service fund budget.
All equipment described below has been reviewed by consultants to ensure the City
does not incur stranded costs related to future improvements to network infrastructure.
The following vendors and amounts are approved in the FY09/10 Information
Technology budget and division budgets:
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Queues Enforth
Development, Inc. (QED) in the amount of $38,976. QED provides the City with its
public safety computer aided dispatch (CAD) system currently used by Police and Fire.
The CAD system is a sole-source application.
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Incode, Inc. for the City’s
financial information system in the amount of $83,000. This agreement provides system
service and support, enhancements, and upgrades. The Invision application is a
sole-source system .
The City will renew its annual maintenance agreement with Novell and Lotus Notes
support contracts through Software House Inc. (SHI) for a not-to-exceed amount of
$68,000. This amount includes the annual maintenance renewal for Lotus Notes and
Novell Netware licenses and support. SHI is a Texas Department of Information
Resources (DIR) vendor and has been used by the City for several years for IT-related
purchases .
The City will purchase equipment from EST Group (previously Harding Group) for a
not-to-exceed amount of $162,500. This amount will cover new storage area network
equipment along with annual maintenance and support. EST Group is a Texas
Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor and has been used by the City for
several years for IT-related purchases.
The City will renew its annual contract with CDW-G for a not-to-exceed amount of
$130,000. CDW-G is the government subsidiary of CDW Corporation, a
hardware/software reseller. The City plans to purchase servers and equipment related
to life cycle replacements in the internal service fund. CDW-G is a Department of
Information Resources (DIR) vendor for IT-specific items and has been used by the
City for several years for IT-related purchases, i.e. printers, software and maintenance
contracts .
The City will purchase servers from Integration Holding Corporation for a
not-to-exceed amount of $46,000. The City plans to purchase servers related to
backup appliances and equipment due to life cycle replacements in the internal service
fund. Integration Holding Corporation is a Texas Department of Information Resources
(DIR) vendor and has been used by the City for several years for IT-related purchases
The City will contract with InterNetwork Experts (INX) for a not-to-exceed amount of
$250,000 for Networking and IP telephone system support and service along with
hardware purchases. The original IP telephone system was implemented in 2000/01.
Upgrades have not been implemented on the IP system since the original
implementation and the current equipment is obsolete and no longer supported. A
major software upgrade to the existing phone system is being funded to incorporate
needed functionality for new AMI/CIS systems. INX is a Department of Information
Resources (DIR) vendor .
The City will contract with Active Network, Ltd for $35,000 for the renewal of Class
software (Parks & Recreation) maintenance and Mobile Issue Manager Service
application software and maintenance. The Active Network, Ltd. is a sole-source
vendor of both applications.
The City will purchase 32 PCs and notebooks from Dell Computer Corporation for a
not-to-exceed amount of $32,000. This amount will cover new systems purchases,
maintenance, and support for four years to replace PCs that have exceeded their useful
life and are no longer warrantied. Dell is a Department of Information Resources (DIR)
vendor.
The City will contract with Austin Ribbon and Computer for a not-to-exceed amount of
$92,000 for the purchase of 14 Panasonic Toughbooks for public safety. This amount
will cover new purchases, maintenance, and support for 5 years as part of the ongoing
internal service fund replacement cycle. Austin Ribbon and Computer is a Department
of Information Resources (DIR) vendor.
Vendor Summary Report
The following vendors and amounts are approved in the fiscal year 2009/10 information: Technology budget:
IT Annual Maintenance:
Vendor Product/Service
Queues Enforth Development (QED)Computer Aided Dispatch (911 CAD)
Software maintenance and support
Incode, Inc.Financial Information System maintenanc e
Software maintenance and support
Software House, Inc. (SHI)Lotus Notes Licenses and support
Netware Licenses
XP, SQL, Office 2003
Software maintenance and support
ESTgroup, Inc.Software maintenance and support
InterNetwork Experts (INX)Software maintenance and support
Active Network, LTDParks & Rec software and Service Ticket System
Annual Maintenance
IT Equipment Purchases:
Vendor Product/Service
ESTgroup, Inc.Data Storage/Network Equipment (1)
CDW-G Network Hardware/Software ISF Replacements
Integration Holding CorporationServer Replacement
IBM DirectServer Replacement
InterNetwork Experts (INX)Phone System Upgrades (2)
Dell Computer CorporationPC, Notebook purchases
Austin Ribbon and ComputerPanasonic Toughbooks
(1) Includes $139,000 for network equipment upgrade s for data storage requirements for AMI/CIS project
(2) Includes $140,000 for phone system upgrades - original implementation 2000/01
+
Annual Equipment Purchases
IBM DirectServer Replacement
InterNetwork Experts (INX)Phone System Upgrades (2)
Dell Computer CorporationPC, Notebook purchases
Austin Ribbon and ComputerPanasonic Toughbooks
(1) Includes $139,000 for network equipment upgrade s for data storage requirements for AMI/CIS project
(2) Includes $140,000 for phone system upgrades - original implementation 2000/01
+
Annual Equipment Purchases
Total ISF Contracts/Purchase $937,476
Budget
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-51-341456,181
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-52-330275,234
GL Account Number 570-5-0641-51-745206,061
Original Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda Item ####6666:::: Discussion regarding the RFP Process for theDiscussion regarding the RFP Process for theDiscussion regarding the RFP Process for theDiscussion regarding the RFP Process for the 2010201020102010
Quality of Life Survey to be conducted in earlyQuality of Life Survey to be conducted in earlyQuality of Life Survey to be conducted in earlyQuality of Life Survey to be conducted in early 2010201020102010 to provide feedback andto provide feedback andto provide feedback andto provide feedback and
community input for thecommunity input for thecommunity input for thecommunity input for the 2010201020102010////11111111 budget cycle – Micki Rundellbudget cycle – Micki Rundellbudget cycle – Micki Rundellbudget cycle – Micki Rundell
Georgetown has been conducting a bi-annual quality of life survey since 2000 and has
previously Ampersand Associates (aka Montgomery and Associates) for those surveys.
This year, staff is preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the upcoming 2010
survey. The purpose of the survey is to provide direct citizen feedback on basic
services and programs that the City provides. The 2008 survey was composed of 65
questions that focused on areas including quality of services and value received by
citizens and taxpayers, as well as, success or failure of various City programs. Surveys
in general are the primary method that cities use to garner community feedback and
input on citywide issues.
The information gained will be a tool for the Council in setting priorities for the 2010/11
budget. Because this will be the fifth survey the City has done, it will be important to
continue to measure many of the same issues in order to be able to identify trends and
know if programs and projects have had a successful impact. This information also
provides the City with on-going benchmark information to measure success of various
projects, as well as, where future resources should be focused.
By undertaking an RFP process, the City will be able to possibly improve and expand
the information gathered within the survey and possibly save money in the process. The
issues to be considered include:
Continuity of data for trend analysis and comparison of existing results
Similar polling process to insure compatibility with prior year data
Time line for conducting survey
Survey results should be available no later than March 15, 2010
Reporting results of survey in usable and understandable manner
Because of time constraints, this RFP will be posted in early October, with selection by
City Council no later than December 2009. Micki will bring the questions back to this
committee, or to the Council to tweak and ensure we are measuring the right things.
In 2008, the City paid Ampersand Associates $20,000. There is $23,000 included in the
2009/10 budget to fund the 2010 survey.
Keith made some suggestions for the RFP. He will send these changes
and Micki will incorporate his changes before it is distributed to bidders.
Original Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda ItemOriginal Agenda Item ####3333:::: Discussion regarding proposed changes to the CityDiscussion regarding proposed changes to the CityDiscussion regarding proposed changes to the CityDiscussion regarding proposed changes to the City''''ssss
Development Fee structureDevelopment Fee structureDevelopment Fee structureDevelopment Fee structure ---- Elizabeth CookElizabeth CookElizabeth CookElizabeth Cook
Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 15.04.045 of the Code of Ordinances to
update the development fees. In an effort to simply the fee schedule it has been
modified to incorporate all associated fees into the specific application. As an example,
the rezoning application fee includes the notification, publication, and mapping fees in
the base cost. The update also seeks to add fees for either new applications or
processes where we have not collected a fee, i.e. Special Exceptions (a new process
proposed with a pending UDC amendment) and voluntary annexations where we do not
charge a fee.
Currently, the City’s fee structure off-sets some of the City’s expenses related to
application processing and review; however, the existing fees do not represent the full
cost nor has it been the City’s policy that they should. With the proposed fee revisions,
minimal additional cost recovery has been factored into the calculations with some fees
still highly subsidized by the general fund. For example, the Engineering and Inspection
Fees are collected prior to issuing each individual building permit. However, the
engineering review takes place prior to construction plan approval and infrastructure
inspections take place during construction of these improvements. This staff work may
be completed years before a building permit is issued. Another example of a fee
subsidy is the Certificate of Design Compliance fees that are nominal and do not reflect
the actual costs to process the applications.
The last development related fee revision took place in 2007 and included changes to
how the Traffic Impact Analysis fee was calculated, established and increased some of
the GIS fees, and increased the base fee for final plats. In 2005, there was a fee added
for Certificates of Design Compliance applications. During 2003 and 2004 there were
some minor fee increases and new fees were established for application types that were
either new with the UDC adoption or where there had been no fee charged in the past.
It does not appear that there has been a major fee increase for several years.
The Planning and Development Department revenue will be minimally impacted as the
revised fees are collected. There should be a small increase related to collecting fees
for those applications that do not have fees, although some applications have reduced
fees for revisions where before revisions may have resulted in full fees being assessed.
The committee requested additional information for the next GGAF
Meeting. Elizabeth will do a brief analysis of where we compare to other
communities; some rationale basis for the fee structure. They are okay
with rolling small amounts in to one larger amount and combining the
fees, they would just like more detail.
Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held at least quarterly or
as needed at the request of the chair.
AGENDA
1. Approval of minutes from the last GGAF meeting - Danella Elliott
2. Report finding of initial IT Assessment & Recommendations - Leticia Zavala
3. Overview and update on the City's internal audit program. - Laurie Brewer
4. Discussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate block changes - Chris
Foster and Jim Briggs
5. Discussion of funding/usage/purposes for the Council Discretionary Fund (i.e. Council Contingency) -
Micki Rundell
6. 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
7. 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
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Tuesday , September 1, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Laurie Brewer, Leticia Zavala, Chris Foster, Patrick Hurley
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 1:38 p.m.
Approval of minutes from the July 7, 2009 meeting. (Danella Elliott)
The minutes were approved at the September 1, 20009 GGAF Meeting 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 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.
Report finding of initial IT AssessmentReport finding of initial IT AssessmentReport finding of initial IT AssessmentReport finding of initial IT Assessment &&&& RecommendationRecommendationRecommendationRecommendation. (. (. (. (Leticia ZavalaLeticia ZavalaLeticia ZavalaLeticia 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.
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.
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.
Discussion of fundingDiscussion of fundingDiscussion of fundingDiscussion of funding////usageusageusageusage////purposes for the Council Discretionary Fundpurposes for the Council Discretionary Fundpurposes for the Council Discretionary Fundpurposes for the Council Discretionary Fund ((((iiii....eeee.... CouncilCouncilCouncilCouncil
ContingencyContingencyContingencyContingency ) -) -) -) - Micki RundellMicki RundellMicki RundellMicki 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.
Overview and update on the CityOverview and update on the CityOverview and update on the CityOverview and update on the City''''s internal audit programs internal audit programs internal audit programs internal audit program.... ---- Laurie BrewerLaurie BrewerLaurie BrewerLaurie 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.
Discussion of an ordinance terminating the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment ReinvestmentDiscussion of an ordinance terminating the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment ReinvestmentDiscussion of an ordinance terminating the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment ReinvestmentDiscussion of an ordinance terminating the Wolf Ranch Tax Increment Reinvestment
ZoneZoneZoneZone ((((TIRZTIRZTIRZTIRZ )))) to be presented to City Council on the Septemberto be presented to City Council on the Septemberto be presented to City Council on the Septemberto be presented to City Council on the September 8888,,,, 2009200920092009 agendaagendaagendaagenda ----
Micki RundellMicki RundellMicki RundellMicki 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.
Discussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate blockDiscussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate blockDiscussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate blockDiscussion of rate methodology regarding the proposed water conservation rate block
changeschangeschangeschanges ---- Chris Foster and Jim BriggsChris Foster and Jim BriggsChris Foster and Jim BriggsChris 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 they were not ready to take action on this
item. Keith suggested and encouraged committee members to put any questions thatKeith suggested and encouraged committee members to put any questions thatKeith suggested and encouraged committee members to put any questions thatKeith 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 beneed answering in writing ahead of time prior to the next meeting and they will beneed answering in writing ahead of time prior to the next meeting and they will beneed answering in writing ahead of time prior to the next meeting and they will be
discussed at that timediscussed at that timediscussed at that timediscussed at that time....
Meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 01:00 PM in
the Main Floor Conference Room, City Hall, 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, TX
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee regular meetings are held quarterly or more
frequently on the request of any Subcommittee member or the Director of Finance.
Agenda:
1. Approval minutes from previous meeting
2. Discussion and possible acton to recommend the selection of Eleven Thirteen Architects to perform
design renovations to to the Municipal Complex Building
3. Discussion and possible action to recommend authorization to execute documents to allow Reedholm
Instruments to assign their lease with the City to First Texas Bank
4. Presentation of impacts of "Over 65 & Disabled Tax Freeze" on the City's 2009 Effective Tax Rate
5. 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.
6. Update on the City's on-going technology projects
7. Adjourn
Call to Order at 01:00 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall , 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Tuesday , July 7, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Paul Brandenburg, Laurie Brewer, Terry Jones, Cathy Leloux
Minutes
Regular Meeting
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.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 1:10 p.m.
Approval of minutes from the May 7, 2009 meeting.
The minutes were approved at the July 7, 2009 meeting.
Discussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect forDiscussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect forDiscussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect forDiscussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect for
renovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complexrenovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complexrenovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complexrenovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complex. (. (. (. (Terry JonesTerry JonesTerry JonesTerry Jones ))))
Approval of minutes from the July 7, 2009 meeting. (Danella Elliott)
The minutes were approved at the September 1, 2009 regular meeting 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 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.
Presentation of the impacts ofPresentation of the impacts ofPresentation of the impacts ofPresentation of the impacts of """"OverOverOverOver 65656565 &&&& Disabled Tax FreezeDisabled Tax FreezeDisabled Tax FreezeDisabled Tax Freeze"""" on the Cityon the Cityon the Cityon the City''''ssss 2009200920092009
Effective Tax RateEffective Tax RateEffective Tax RateEffective Tax Rate. (. (. (. (MickiMickiMickiMicki ))))
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.
Keith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties fromKeith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties fromKeith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties fromKeith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties from 2008200820082008 totototo
2009200920092009 if they had not been frozenif they had not been frozenif they had not been frozenif they had not been frozen ((((we would then be able to determine the effect it has andwe would then be able to determine the effect it has andwe would then be able to determine the effect it has andwe would then be able to determine the effect it has and
identify factors driving the increaseidentify factors driving the increaseidentify factors driving the increaseidentify factors driving the increase).).).). He would also like for Micki to provide for CouncilHe would also like for Micki to provide for CouncilHe would also like for Micki to provide for CouncilHe would also like for Micki to provide for Council,,,,
the median residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood citiesthe median residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood citiesthe median residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood citiesthe median residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood cities,,,,
and next to thatand next to thatand next to thatand next to that,,,, the property tax rate divided by Ithe property tax rate divided by Ithe property tax rate divided by Ithe property tax rate divided by I&&&&S and MS and MS and MS and M&&&&OOOO.... Use PflugervilleUse PflugervilleUse PflugervilleUse Pflugerville,,,, CedarCedarCedarCedar
ParkParkParkPark,,,, Round RockRound RockRound RockRound Rock,,,, LeanderLeanderLeanderLeander,,,, TaylorTaylorTaylorTaylor,,,, and Hutto as comparative citiesand Hutto as comparative citiesand Hutto as comparative citiesand 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.
Discussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute theDiscussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute theDiscussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute theDiscussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute the
necessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capitalnecessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capitalnecessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capitalnecessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capital
Fund capital lease to First Texas BankFund capital lease to First Texas BankFund capital lease to First Texas BankFund capital lease to First Texas Bank ((((Laurie BrewerLaurie BrewerLaurie BrewerLaurie 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.
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.
Discussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend ChapterDiscussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend ChapterDiscussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend ChapterDiscussion and possible action to recommend an ordinance to Amend Chapter 4444 ofofofof
the Code of Ordinances to add a new Chapterthe Code of Ordinances to add a new Chapterthe Code of Ordinances to add a new Chapterthe Code of Ordinances to add a new Chapter 4444....47474747,,,, authorizing the Judge of theauthorizing the Judge of theauthorizing the Judge of theauthorizing the Judge of the
Municipal Court to assess a Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise toMunicipal Court to assess a Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise toMunicipal Court to assess a Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise toMunicipal Court to assess a Failure to Appear Fee and a Violate Promise to
Appear Fee not to exceedAppear Fee not to exceedAppear Fee not to exceedAppear Fee not to exceed $$$$25252525....00000000 ((((Cathy LelouxCathy LelouxCathy LelouxCathy 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.
Update on the CityUpdate on the CityUpdate on the CityUpdate on the City''''s ons ons ons on----going Technology projectgoing Technology projectgoing Technology projectgoing Technology project ((((Leticia ZavalaLeticia ZavalaLeticia ZavalaLeticia Zavala ))))
Status summary of ongoing technology projects for July 2009.
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
Up to now, we have requested 5 grants
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
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
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.
Meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 02:00 PM
in the City Hall Main Conference Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee meets at least quarterly or as needed at the
request of the Chair
Agenda
Welcome/Call to order
Approval of minutes from April 29, 2009 meeting
Follow up regarding the CIS/AMR/Technology discussion
2009/10 Compensation and Benefits presentation
Adjourn
Call to Order at 02:00 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Thursday , May 7, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, CFO, Paul Brandenburg, City Manager, Laurie Brewer, Kevin Russell, Chris Foster,
Leticia Zavala
Minutes
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 2:00
p.m. on Thursday, May 7, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room,
located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas.
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order
at 2:00 p.m.
Approval of minutes from the April 29, 2009 meeting.
The minutes were approved.
Follow up regarding the CISFollow up regarding the CISFollow up regarding the CISFollow up regarding the CIS////AMIAMIAMIAMI////Technology discussionTechnology discussionTechnology discussionTechnology discussion....
Micki introduced Chris Foster. Chris presented an overview providing background
information and answered questions raised at the previous meeting regarding the
CIS/AMI/Technology project. Chris explained that his role was to assess the IT department
and to discuss different technology with various departments. He noted that the IT historic
structure has no in depth planning or vision for future plans or goals. Our current network is
made to adapt to individual departmental software needs/requests as they come up. Chris
also showed a diagram of the City’s network and noted that we do not have a Network
Access Control Program, which is something that we really want.
An IT Steering Committee was formed and members were chosen to help evaluate the
CIS/AMI Request for Proposals (RFP). All involved in the selection process are “heavy”
users chosen to help come up with a plan to develop a system that will work faster and be
more productive. Chris showed a grading matrix of the RFP and explained the selection
process. TMG Consulting was actually the lowest score (being the most favorable for all
team members), but their costs were determined to be too expensive for this project and not
recommended by the team.
Interview –Langham
•Langham Consulting
–Mentor project management methodology
–Focus more on change order avoidance
•Not IT or GIS focused
•Simplistic approach
–Providing enhancement suggestions not included
in RFP
•Contract negotiations
Discussion followed the presentation. After the project is up and running, Leticia Zavala will
coordinate the project and Finance will oversee the project. The IT Steering Committee will
be very involved as well. It was noted that it has a very ambitious timeline. Keith asked for
clarification that we are using the potential availability of federal monies as the initial funding
source as a City-wide IT reconstruct, including components that have nothing to do with
utilities or energy. Micki responded that we could not use the money for anything that
doesn’t pertain to things that are in the Department of Energy, but at least a portion could
be funded through the grant. Most all of the current data will be converted into the new
system, and the remainder will be archived after running parallel for a while. Because of the
timeframe, this request needs to go on the Council agenda next Tuesday, May 12th. The
item going to Council will request authorization to proceed with the contract for $1.4
million, (with the potential of ½ of the funds comi ng from the grant). $3.5 million is
already in the budget, and it is necessary to go forward with this project even if we don’t get
grant funding. Keith said he will support this on Tuesday, but would like to have a
meaningful schematic of “where we are” and “where we would like to be”.
2009200920092009////10101010 Compensation and Benefits presentationCompensation and Benefits presentationCompensation and Benefits presentationCompensation and Benefits presentation
Kevin Russell presented the Compensation Philosophy on Merit Based pay. He explained
the differences between attracting and retaining employees. The City has worked for years
on compensation for employees. We previously compared ourselves to Cedar Park,
Temple and Round Rock for competitive pay. We really found out that our real competitor
was Round Rock and made a concerted attempt to start focusing on efforts to make sure
that we are competitive with Round Rock. The decision was made to try and be 95% of
employee compensation with Round Rock, and base our pay scale on that.
Six or seven years ago, the City eliminated including performance-based pay into
employees’ base salary. Eliminating that process actually created another problem. We
now do COLA adjustments, but this does not allow employees to move through the pay
grade…they basically stay the same. When we hire someone new with experience, we
recognize the value of their experience, so we hire them in the higher quartile, thus causing
problems for employees who have been with us for a longer period of time because we
have no mechanism for recognizing the same experience for the tenured employee.
Micki and Kevin explained that the difference between merit-based performance versus the
“bonus program”.
“The City of Georgetown seeks with its compensation strategy to:
attract and retain competent employees through market sensitive pay and benefits
reward employees based on individual and team performance
in order to achieve our business goals and to provide quality services to our customers”.
The “bonus program” is one-time money that measures and rewards performance for that
past year. In order for us to retain our employees, we want to recognize years of
experience. Adding a merit component so that employees are actually able to move
through the pay range would allow employees who have been with employed with the City
of Georgetown for 5 years to be placed in the pay range that recognizes a person with that
type of experience. Kevin explained past procedures of mitigating the problem and not
having the pay range movement and how that has occurred
The recommendation is to add a merit-based pay element to the City’s pay plan that
will value experience by measuring and recognizing performance, based on a matrix
format.
Keith would like to see this implemented with a couple of other reforms, including one to
longevity pay. He would like employees to be recognized for actual longevity, rather than
supplying them with a check just for showing up. He would also like to see the opportunity
to be a little more flexible regarding performance adjustments, making it a little more
frequent and flexible rather than only once per year. The committee also agrees that just
being here should not entitle an employee to a Cost of Living Adjustment. If an employee
doesn’t meet standards, then they shouldn’t automatically receive the COLA
The committee supports the proposal of adding a merit-based component to the
base pay so that we are recognizing our existing employees for the added years of
experience working for the City of Georgetown.
Meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 03:59 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 02:00
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas.
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee meets at least quarterly or as needed at the
request of the Chair.
Call to Order at 02:00 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Welcome/Call to order.
Approval of minutes from March 4, 2009 meeting.
Discussion regarding the selection of Westin, as the project manager for the CIS/AMR project to include
overall assessment and development of Information Technology Plan.
Discussion regarding the funding for the pedestrian bridge in Blue Hole Park.
Discussion regarding the 2009 year-end external audit.
Discussion regarding the upcoming 2009 arbitrage rebate calculation and related process.
Presentation and possible discussion regarding the 2009/10 Compensation and Benefits Plan.
Adjourn.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Wednesday , April 29, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason
Board Members Absent:
Dale Ross
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance, Lorie Lankford,
Accounting Manager Leticia Zavala, Special Projects
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.
.
Approval of minutes from the March 4, 2009 meeting.
Discussion regarding the RFQ/RFP process:
Clarification : Keith noted that we agreed to reconsider the way that we score the dollar response, i.e.,
the difference in scoring should be proportionate to the difference in dollar bids. (For instance one
firm gets 120% of the low bid, the score should be reduced by 20%).
Clarification : Patty noted that during the bid selection process, firms are awarded points for past
relationships working with the City. She wanted to clarify that a firm’s negative experience in the past
with the City could also be reflected in the scoring process by “docking ” points.
Micki said that we will use this feedback during future RFP processes.
The minutes were approved at the April 29, 2009 meeting with the above clarification and
changes.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary
Notice of Meeting of the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board will meet on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 01:30
PM in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
General Government and Finance Advisory Board Members:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
General Government and Finance Advisory Subcommittee meets at least quarterly or as needed at the
request of the Chair.
Call to Order at 01:30 PM
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Welcome/Call to order1.
Approval of minutes from February 12, 2009 meeting 2.
Review of the 2008 Longevity Report as requested3.
Presentation – 2009 Debt Overview4.
Discussion and possible action to recommend approval of the 2009 bond program5.
Presentation of criteria used to award professional services contracts – Terry Jones6.
Adjourn7.
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall , 113 E. 8th Street,a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Hamilton, City Secretary
Minutes of the Meeting of
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
and the Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on
Wednesday , March 4, 2009 presiding.
Board Members Present:
Keith Brainard-Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross
Board Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Leticia Zavala, Controller, Kevin Russell, Human Resources
Director, Terry Jones, Construction Manager, Danella Elliott, Recording Secretary
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the request of the
Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Council Member, or legal
counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and
are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows.
Welcome/Meeting called to order at 1:38 pm by Keith Brainard, Chair1.
Approval of minutes from February 12, 2009 meeting 2.
The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m. on
Thursday, February 12, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113
East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas
These minutes were approved at the March 4, 2009 GGAF Advisory Subcommittee meeting
with the following clarification and changes.
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.
Discussion and direction to staff regarding the scope of items to be reviewed by the
Subcommittee.
Keith Brainard explained that the Charter provides a listing of items that the committee should plan to
address. There are a lot of expenditure items that go to Council that are not overseen by a
subcommittee. The committee discussed what needs to be reviewed before going to Council.
Discussion : They do not want to see everything. Purchases for equipment such as vehicle purchases
(because it is part of facilities), as well as, major contracts or projects such as the animal shelter
remodel or parking lots are seen at the Council level and committee members do not want to see
these items prior to going to Council.
Items to be brought before the GGAF Subcommittee are financial related contracts, bond
issues and major expenditures (play it by ear as to what constitutes “major”). Micki explained
professional contracts $15,000 and over, materials $25,000 and over up to $50,000 are on consent.
Expenditures $50,000 and over are placed as a regular item on the agenda. They have no problem
with thresholds approved during the budget process.
MIcki explained about the IT Steering Committee. It is a cross divisional group of key infrastructure
users charged with creating a “Master Plan” for IT in helping determine direction for technology. The
City is getting ready to make some major decisions and large purchases to replace the CIS and CAD
systems. The committee is going to make sure it is efficient and mandate and develop a strategy. An
RFP is going out next week to hire a consultant and do an assessment of our technology. Since IT
falls under the purview of general government, Micki asked how much involvement the committee
wanted to have regarding the contract. The committee feels they do not have the expertise to be
involved in the choices, but wanted to be kept abreast of what was going on through e-mail or
sharing paperwork .
Compensation and Benefits Discussion : Mr. Brainard wanted to plant the idea of giving the
employees an inducement to not use their sick leave, such as paying 1/4 or 1/2 of their sick leave
upon termination so that they may be less inclined to “use it or lose it”. Mr. Ross thought having PTO
(Paid Time Off) instead of Vacation or Sick days would make employees less likely to “lie” about being
off to save their sick leave.
Longevity: Mr. Brainard has a problem with paying longevity to employees after one month of
employment. He believes we should pay employees fairly and what they are worth, but one month
does not constitute longevity. Micki explained the history of the longevity payments. Local
Government Code also requires that Public Safety be awarded longevity pay and most cities have
elected to pay all employees so that there is no appearance of discrimination. Mr. Brainard would like
to see it be performance based rather than just showing up for work.
He asked for figures on Public Safety and Non-public Safety, broken down into groups (i.e.
0-4 years, etc). Micki said she would break it down by department also.
Review and recommendation to staff regarding the selection of the City’s Investment Advisory
service.
Leticia Zavala explained the bidding and advertising process for selection of the Investment Advisory
Service. We use on-line bidding software, look at previous bidders and send them the link, and we
are required to publish it in the paper. There were 4 responses and any one of them could an
adequate job. The deciding factor was cost. Bidders were asked to include what their costs would be
both per trade and fixed cost. Discussion on how the evaluation grid point system is determined. Mr.
Brainard and Mr. Ross stated that the 10 points for previous relationships seems unfair. Patty Eason
said that it wasn’t always an advantage. It could keep an inadequate company from getting another
job with the city if they performed poorly in the past. Mr. Ross said it was all about process, and he
would like to make sure to give the appearance of a fair process and there could be no biases for any
particular firm or individual. Micki was asked to use her best judgement to re-evaluate the
grading system and break it down to include quality of personnel Mr. Brainard is
uncomfortable with the previous relationship point system and would like to see some criteria
grid for quality of personnel.
Micki explained the difference between the Investment Advisory service and our Financial Advisor.
The committee is comfortable going with the recommended firm of Valley View Investment
Services.
For an informative item on the next agenda, Micki will bring criteria for the different types of
contracts, as different contracts require different detailed criteria and invite Terry Jones to
explain the process taken in the past.
Review of the City’s 457 plan administrator and possible recommendation to City Council
regarding approved City 457 plan administrators.
Kevin Russell explained that we do not have a 457 plan. The City is a plan sponsor and we
participate in ICMA’s 457 plan. We basically contract with people to provide us with a plan and
administration. There is no cost to the City so there is no requirement for a bidding process when
adding providers. The City has previously had only one plan and this year we are trying to offer
employees another plan and provide that as an option. Nationwide has agreed to come and do a
presentation as a possible new provider.
Micki noted that this is a pass-through program and the City has no financial responsibility. Mr.
Brainard said that it is our fiduciary responsibility to provide employees with a cost effective plan that
works to their benefit and would like to bid out this service so that each provider will possibly sharpen
their technology. There are varying levels of service, depending on the provider. Patty Eason
suggested that we get more information out to the employees and have meetings to find out what they
actually want. Dale Ross would like to know what is available out there and the cost. It is all about the
value of the proposition and what you are getting for your dollar. Mr. Brainard said that if we bid this
service, we can change the contract and require that the employees will be able to keep the same
type of funds they currently have, they will just transfer to the new provider “as is” with no cost to the
employee. Mr. Brainard thinks the employees are currently not getting a great deal regarding the
portion of their contribution going to administrative fees each month. The best way to find out what
the best deal is in terms of price and service is to bid it. Mr. Brainard has been through this process
before and realizes that each company will “sharpen their pencils” to provide the best deal to obtain
the business. To just automatically give it to a specific company will not require them to sharpen their
technology or try to provide anything better for the employees. Mr. Ross said that in any organization,
the most valuable asset is the people and we need to do our best to keep the talented employees.
Mr. Brainard’s hope is that by January 1, 2010, the City will have auto enrollment for all new hires and
the City will make matching contributions.
Mr. Brainard will provide “off the shelf” sample contracts to put together an RFI to send out.
After receiving the qualifications and information, Patty Eason would like to get a group
together and involve employees and get their input. Also, they would like to get a group of
employees who are already participating in a 457 plan to identify things they like or don’t like
about their existing service.
Discussion and direction to staff regarding monthly and quarterly financial reports, to include
format and content.
After discussion, the committee would like for the monthly reports to include:
Fast Facts , to include:
Variance reports (with an additional line added with explanations and with the difference
calculated)
Weighted average earnings rate
Average cost of bonded debt
Unobligated funds (i.e., after a reduction in a budgeted item, explanation of what these excess
funds can be used for)
Brief narrative overview
Updated on projects with exceptions included
Completed projects
Building permits and “wildcard” graphs
The targeted goal for the report to be completed and distributed to the committee, Paul Brandenburg
and Council is by the 3rd week of the month.
Determine future meeting dates of the Subcommittee.
The committee decided that they will meet no less than quarterly and there is no need to set a
date for a future meeting at this time. If the committee needs to meet to discuss an item, a meeting
will be set with a time limit. Mr. Brainard asked Micki to share the bond information with the
committee before it goes to Council and they will decide if a meeting should be set. Mr. Brainard
would like to be updated periodically through e-mail or phone calls.
The February 12, 2009 meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Review of the 2008 Longevity Report as requested1.
Presentation – 2009 Debt Overview2.
Discussion and possible action to recommend approval of the 2009 bond program3.
Presentation of criteria used to award professional services contracts – Terry Jones4.
Adjourn5.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 02:33 PM.
Approved :Attest:
_______________________________________________
Board Member Name Secretary