HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_06.25.2014 Minutes of the Meeting of the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD (GGAF)
City of Georgetown, Texas
June 25, 2014
These minutes were approved at the August 27, 2014 GGAF Meeting.
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board met at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 in the
Georgetown Public Library Classroom, located at 402 West 8thth Street, Georgetown, Texas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Brainard, Chair, Tommy Gonzalez, Jerry Hammerlun, Joe Pondrom, Ralph Mason
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Micki Rundell, Susan Morgan, Wayne Nero, Keith Hutchinson, Clay Shell, Steve
Fought, Bridget Chapman
A copy of these minutes, containing detailed information on the items listed below will be available in the Finance
and Administration Office, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, TX and can be found online at
http://agendas.georgetown.org/
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows.
Regular Session – Called to order at 3:30 p.m.
The GGAF Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the
Chair of the GGAF Committee for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code
Chapter 551.)
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form. Clearly print your name and
the letter of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the Chair or Board Liaison, preferably prior to the
start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by contacting the Liaison
prior to the creation of the agenda for the following meeting, with the subject matter of the topic they would like to
address and their name. The Board Liaison can be reached at 512-930-3676 or by email at
danella.elliott@georgetown.org
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that Board may act on with one single
vote. A board member may pull any item from the Consent Agenda in order that the Board discuss and act upon it
individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A. Review minutes from the May 28, 2014 GGAF Meeting - Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
These minutes were unanimously approved.
B. Authorize City staff to negotiate contract with vendor chosen by selection committee for the Website
Assessment and Redesign of City websites – Keith Hutchinson, Public Information Manager
The current budget includes funds for the redesign of City websites. The goal of the website redesign is to align
the City’s online presence with best practices in municipal services and to better integrate the design and
navigation of City websites. The City issued a request for proposals for website assessment and redesign on
April 2, 2014. Nine firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP; only three met the minimum
requirements. Public Communications assembled a committee of City staff representing each City division to
review and score the proposals, and this committee also will be in place for phase two of the project, which is
the assessment and redesign phase. In addition, a Citizen Advisory Board will be created to help guide the City
and the selected vendor.
On June 12, City representatives were given access to review the proposals from nine vendors. On June 18,
feedback was collected from staff via one of two meetings or via email on the proposed vendors. The committee
selected Steel Branding unanimously as the top choice. He noted that this firm also did the City of Austin’s
website, which is very impressive.
Tommy asked if the website would be in Spanish as well. Keith noted that they can negotiate the pricing, since
$100,000 is budgeted, and their price is below the budgeted amount.
Joe asked if the Library would be a part of this redesign as well. Keith explained that there are common
elements.
Motion to authorize City staff to negotiate contract with Steel Branding, including addressing the Spanish
language issue with the additional funds. Unanimously approved.
C. This item was moved after Item E.
D. Consideration and possible recommendation to amend the Contract for Architectural Services with ADG
to expand the scope of services to include design of the Tactical Training Facilities and increase the lump
sum fee in the amount of $139,954—Wayne Nero, Chief of Police
Chief Nero and Bridget explained that the requested component is included in the total budget. It is not a
budget issue, it is a contract issue and we need a contract amendment.
The original contract for Architectural Services did not include architecture and engineering services related to
the Tactical Training Facilities. This proposed amendment will expand the scope of services to cover the
Tactical Training Facilities design and increase the lump sum fee according.
After discussion and clarification on how this was missed and how to prevent it in the future, Tommy asked
Chief for after-action report with “lessons learned” and asked that the changes begin immediately.
Joe asked if a report could be provided for citizens showing a complete breakdown of what the $29.5M is
covering, and what it is not. Keith asked that this be provided in a one page (possibly front to back) format.
Motion to amend the contract for Architectural Services with ADG was unanimously approved as requested.
E. Discussion on proposed changes to the Alarm Ordinance – Council Member Keith Brainard
Proposed changes to the Alarm Ordinance, requested by Council Member Brainard were:
• require that burglar alarm permits be updated every three years, rather than annually
• reduce the permissible number of false alarms that do not result in a fine, from three to two
• establish a fine of $100 for the third through the fifth false alarm each year
• establish a fine of $250 for each false alarm after the fifth
• authorize the chief of police to waive or reduce fines, and to reduce permit fees, for non-profit, educational,
and governmental entities
Objectives were:
• to reduce the incidence of false alarms;
• to more closely match the fines with the cost (financial and otherwise) to the city of responding to them;
• and to reduce the burden on alarm permit holders.
Keith explained that he originated the item above, but he has since been informed by our Legal department that
this is not allowed by State Law. State of Texas regulates the fine structure and we are limited to what we
charge for false alarms. The costs associated with having officers respond to these alarms vs. what we are
allowed to charge doesn’t come close to recovering expenses or risking the officer’s lives.
He went over his original proposed changes and suggested that everyone communicate with the legislature in
Austin to get the law changed, as well as, sending a letter to representative Farney to get the process started.
We can’t really address the fiscal component, but we can see if it is possible to get legislation changed.
Motion to move from a one to three year renewal on burglar alarm permits as specified in the alarm
ordinance, and recommend that Council contact our representatives and other organizations to see if
the legislature can be changed to allow it to have an economic impact on false alarms that occupy
municipality’s resources.
Unanimously approved.
C. Consideration and approval to contract Revenue Rescue, Inc. and Advanced Data Processing, Inc. for the
collection of fees for services provided by the Georgetown Fire Department – Clay Shell, Assistant Fire
Chief
Assistant Chief Shell explained that this was a request to contract Revenue Rescue, Inc., and Advanced Data
Processing, Inc., for the collection of fees for services provided by the Georgetown Fire Department. This
contract will provide revenue recovery for services as stated in Ordinance 2001-75. The contract administers the
billing and collection through a systematic and standard recovery process with insurance providers and citizens.
The contractor will bill for fire services at a rate of 15% commission of the total amount collected, and for
emergency medical services at a flat rate of $18.00 for each incident collected. They provide routine reports on
all accounts and records, and allow for revenue recovery for services requiring the utilization of specialized fire
equipment.
The original contract was awarded on May 17, 2002. In 2007 an RFP was sent out and the contract was
awarded to Revenue Rescue, Inc.
Georgetown received two responses from the recent Request for Proposal. One of those received is from our
current provider, Rescue Recovery Inc., and Advanced Data Processing, Inc. Due to the requirements met in the
Georgetown’s Request for Proposal, low commission rate, the billing procedures governed by laws and
regulations, and the stability of this company, Georgetown Fire Department feels that Revenue Rescue, Inc.,
and Advanced Data Processing, Inc., meet all the requirements set for contracting revenue recovery billing for
fire services.
The GGAF Board requested a recovery rate percentage report for board members and Council. Shell
said he will get that information sent out.
Motion to approve the Revenue Rescue, Inc. and Advanced Data Processing, Inc. contract was unanimously
approved.
F. Discussion on the age restricted development SIP fee project – Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Micki informed the Board that the law that allows the Over 65 and Disable Property Tax freeze was authorized
by the state in 2003 and approved by Georgetown voters in May 2004. Williamson County elected to approve
the freeze by resolution shortly thereafter.
Since 2004, the City’s “frozen” valuation has grown significantly to $1.6B or 30% of the City’s total $5.2B tax
base, thus having a substantial impact to the City’s tax revenues.
The City has been successful in developing strategies to mitigate this financial tax rate impact. New
commercial growth has historically helped in offsetting the increasing growth in frozen value as a percentage of
TOTAL assessed valuation. But as the Frozen Valuation percentage grows, it will be harder to offset the tax
rate and related revenue impacts. The results will be higher taxes for non-frozen residential and commercial
properties. Other strategies that have been implemented include diversifying the City’s revenue sources with
less General Fund dependence on Property Tax revenue (currently approximately 20% of the $45M GF budget
is funded by property taxes), as well as, working to control increases in operational costs.
She explained that discussion was necessary to discuss financial policy issues and related options for potential
new age restricted developments that may be established in the future, that she is not trying to discourage age-
restricted development, just making the Board award of the potential financial impact.
The Board was concerned that this was being researched without being given direction to do so. It was
mentioned that before any time is spent on items such as this, it should be taken to a Board who will provide
direction to either continue with an analysis, or not. Until direction by a Board or Council has been authorized,
it is considered internal and should not be discussed. Tommy suggested that a policy be written for this type of
circumstance.
The Pulte annexation impact will not be completed until after mid-July. City Staff will then complete an “issue
analysis” and bring it back to GGAF in July or August (depending on when staff finishes the project). This
way, the GGAF Board can further discuss the “big picture”, then proceed to Council.
The GGAF Board agreed.
G. A motion that GGAF direct Staff to accomplish an analysis of a 3-year rolling average of property
assessments as the basis for the city tax levy and to present that analysis to GGAF within 90 days -
Council Members Hesser (Originator) and Fought (Co-Sponsor)
Below is information provided:
• Background: Georgetown property values have increased considerably in the past few years following a
period of decline/stagnation. These fluctuations obviously have an impact on the city budget as well as the
property owners’ annual taxes. Variations, both up and down, are natural. However, variation in the
extreme can cause difficulties. Specifically, rapid increases provide a false sense of prosperity for city
planners that may be short-lived and be followed by punishing revenue reductions when market corrections
or downturns occur. These same rapid increases can have dramatic and detrimental effects on property
owners, especially those on fixed income or otherwise tight budgets. It therefore seems reasonable to seek
some modicum of stability and predictability in both city revenues and property owner costs. One way to
accomplish that objective would be to dampen these variations by basing the property tax levy on a rolling
average of assessed value rather than an annual revision.
• Proposal: We propose using a rolling 3-year average on property assessments as the basis for levying city
property tax. The hypothesis behind this proposal is that net impact would be to lessen the increase in city
revenues during a period when property assessments are increasing, and to lower the reduction in city
revenues during a period where property taxes are decreasing. This would increase the stability, and
predictability, of both the city revenues and the property owner taxes.
• Request for Analysis. Staff is asked to provide GGAF with an analysis of the impact this approach would
have had on both city revenues and property owner taxes over the 10-year period of 2005-2014 and a
prediction of the impact on those same areas for a 10-year period, beginning in 2015. The predictive
portion of the analysis should incorporate a reasonable range of variations both up and down. In addition to
aggregate comparisons, we would like to see specific cases displaying the impact on the tax levy (going
forward) for a home valued at $200,000 in 2005 and for a home valued at $200,000 in 2014. If the rolling-
average approach is deemed feasible and advisable GGAF would have the prerogative of forwarding the
analysis, along with its recommendations, to Council.
• Comments: Although this analysis is intended to examine only two factors (city revenues and property tax
levy), there are obviously collateral or spillover effects of any tax policy and issues with regard to
legislative requirements. Staff is encouraged to include these factors in their completed analysis as well as
present other approaches to achieve the same objectives of stability and predictability.
Micki explained that Truth and Taxation rules are determined by state law, and certified by WCAD.
Joe Pondrom explained that a three-year rolling average is a “no-no”, and that the law is very specific.
There is nothing in T&T that would allow for this. Keith said that if Council wished it to be “in the true
spirit of the request”, he suggested an analysis be completed within 90 days.
Motion was made to develop a tax strategy to provide stability and limit or manage violability and
bring this information back to the GGAF Board within the next few months.
Unanimously approved.
Item E was reopened for clarification on that the Board was requesting.
Additionally, a motion to complete, analyze and come up with options for the alarm ordinance.
Motions unanimously approved.
H. Adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm.
_____________________________________
Board Chair