HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_08.27.2014 Minutes of the Meeting of the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD (GGAF)
City of Georgetown, Texas
August 27, 2014
These minutes were approved at the October 7, 2014 GGAF meeting.
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board met at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 in the
Georgetown Public Library Friends of the Library Room, located at 402 West 8thth Street, Georgetown, Texas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Brainard, Chair, Tommy Gonzalez, Ralph Mason
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Pondrom, Jerry Hammerlun
STAFF/OTHERS
PRESENT: Paul Brandenburg, Micki Rundell, Laurie Brewer, Susan Morgan, Mike Peters, Tamera
Baird, Jim Briggs, Wesley Wright, Tadd Phillips, John Sullivan, Clay Shell, Kimberly
Garrett, Eric Nuner, Jennifer Bills, Trish Long, Kathy Ragsdale, Shae Luther, Daniel
Bilbery, John Hesser, Steve Fought
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 3:02 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 th at the Board discuss and act upon it
individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
Council advised on August 26th to not have a Consent Agenda at Boards and Commission meetings; previously
posted items were moved and discussed on the Legislative Regular Agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
A. Review minutes from the June 19, June 25, and July 15, 2014 GGAF Meetings - Danella Elliott, Executive
Assistant
Unanimously approved.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of two Dodge 4500 -Diesel transitional
response vehicles (TRV’s) from Dallas Dodge Chrysler Jeep through the Buy -Board contract purchase
price of $367,740.00 for both units – Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Chief Shell informed the Board that Dallas Dodge Chrysler Jeep is the authorized dealer for the
manufacturer, Frazer, LTD. Currently, Georgetown Fire Department responds to all medical calls in a BRT
(big red truck) and this is often cited as being an “excessive” response for routine medical calls.
Staff proposed the implementation of two (2) transitional response vehicles (TRV’s) to allow for a more cost -
effective and efficient medical response and will be capable of transporting sick and/or injured people to the
hospital or alternate care facility.
The primary role of the TRV will be medical response, care, and transport. The secondary role will include
operational deployment at fire or other specialized eme rgency incidents. This will allow the fire department to
improve its ability to assemble an effective firefighting force (EFF) within 8 -minutes. Currently, we are only
capable of providing the EFF within 8 minutes at approximately 39% of the fire incidents. Their goal is to meet
the national standard of 8 minutes at 90% of the fire incidents.
Cost breakdown:
$179,975.00 – each unit
$3,660.00 – one (1) spare Onan generator
$3,100.00 – one (1) spare self-contained AC unit
$230.00 – one (1) spare Onan fuel pump kit
$800.00 – Buy-Board fee
$367,740.00 – Total
Funding is allocated in 2014-15 proposed budget and payment due upon delivery. Expected delivery date is late
January or early February of 2015.
Tommy said he supports this approved budgetary item, but due to the controversy, not endorsement, that has
arisen over this program, he asked them to double check the numbers and make sure they haven’t missed
anything.
The Board approved the purchase recommendation, but said to wait before placing the order pending Council’s
final approval.
Unanimously approved.
C. Grant award and related funding for Outdoor Warning System from Federal Signal Corporation
Alerting & Notification Systems for contract purchase price of $499,845.12 as planned in the 2014-15
GCP Budget – Clay Shell, Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Chief Shell noted that in 2010, a Citizens Committee recommended to City Council that the existing
outdoor warning system be replaced and expanded to meet the needs of the community. Our current system is
antiquated and inadequate to meet the needs of the community with only seven (7) locations. This request is to
replace and expand the existing outdoor warning system with a new state of the art system. The new system wil l
expand to 23 locations.
In 2012, Federal Signal Corporation through DH Marketing completed a preliminary study and cost
analysis. Direction was given to find grants to assist with this project moving forward.
In 2013 this project was part of the All-Hazard Mitigation plan.
In July of 2014 a final study was completed.
Funding is through an existing grant that will require a 25% match. This match will be met using in -kind
monies and budget allocation. The City’s final match amount and CO issue amount (debt funded) has not
yet been determined.
Chief Sullivan answered the question “is this the best use of funds” as “yes; fo r the $125,000 matching amount;
if it was for the full amount, then “no”.
Unanimously approved.
D. Consideration and possible approval of annual appropriations to several large Information Technology
vendors for maintenance services during the 2015 fiscal year (7 items) - Mike Peters, IT Director
Mike explained that this item is for the annual IT software maintenance agreement renewals for several
recurring vendors for the FY 2015 fiscal year. All items relate to previously purchased products and
maintenance renewals over $50,000 that have been requested each year at this time.
1. Sungard Public Sector, Inc. (Sungard) in the amount of $143,000 for IT software maintenance
expense for the Sungard OSSI CAD/RMS system (Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch System).
OSSI is a sole-source system.
2. Presidio Networked Solutions, Inc. (Presidio) in the amount of $135,000 for IT hardware/software
maintenance expense ($60,000) and VOIP Phone System Maintenance ($65,000). This item is for the
annual IT software maintenance agreement renewals for Cisco networking equipment, Cisco phone
system (servers and software), Cistera call recording system and Xmedius Fax server system. Presidio
is a Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor.
3. SHI Government Solutions (SHI) in the amount of $120,000 for IT software maintenance expenses
related to the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (Microsoft-branded server, database and client software
licensing and maintenance). SHI is a Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor.
4. Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in the amount of $115,600 for wireless data services. Wireless data
services involve communication from City systems to computers in Police and Fire vehicles, GUS
field vehicles, Code Enforcement and other miscellaneous users. GPS tracking for certain vehicles is
also included. Verizon is a Department of Information Resources (DIR) vendor.
5. Tyler Technologies (Tyler) in the amount of $105,000 for IT software maintenance expense for the
Incode system (Financial, Court and Utility Billing Systems). Incode is a sole-source system.
6. Infor Public Sector, Inc., (Infor) in the amount of $6 7,500 for IT software maintenance expense
related to the Infor Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) system. Infor is a Federal General Services
Administration (GSA) Schedule 70 vendor.
7. Electsolve Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. (Electsolve) for the amount of $50,400 for
annual software maintenance of the City’s Meter Data Management System. Electsolve is a sole-
source system.
Mike explained that all items were budgeted during the FY 2015 budget process. Expenses will be recorded in
Annual Contracts account, except for Verizon services which are allocated to the relevant departments using the
service.
Mike answered questions regarding this item
The City has 65-70 total maintenance contracts (including those under $50,000)
The amount of the maintenance contracts are about 15-20% of the actual purchase price
There really is no room for efficiencies; it would be difficult decide which hardware/software to cut
out to save on maintenance costs
The Board said it seems expensive
Unanimously approved.
E. 2015 renewal of MyPermit Now – Tamera Baird, Chief Plans Examiner
Tamera Baird informed the Board that MyPermitNow is the system that Permit and Inspections and Planning
are currently using to process, track, and store all development related applications.
Current volume of applications:
Subscribe to 8,000-10,000 projects for an annual cost of: $45,000.00
Subscribe to the Addressing/GIS Integratio n as well for an annual cost of: $2,760.00
Annual total for the system use $47,760.00
There are additional modules and products that are being analyzed that may increase pro ductivity and customer
service:
GPS module that could facilitate inspection scheduling and ad d some reporting capabilities.
o This system would add an additional $3,456.00 to our annual cost
o Additionally, the project volume is tracked to be sure we are in the correct rate volume
o SCPDC allows for the adjustment of our rate level during the year, if needed
If the analysis shows that our project volume will push us to the next rate, that would be an additional $6,000
per year.
In the event the project volume pushes us into the next rate level and we add the GPS module, this would
increase our annual cost to $57,216.00.
The MyPermitNow system has been paid for by technology fees assessed to each project and paid by the
builders and developers. Staff will continue to monitor project intake against the cost of the system and adjust
technology fees if needed to continue to insure that this system remains revenue neutral.
Tamera explained that they are very happy with the system:
24 hour access
Paperless
Online
Overseen by the IT Steering Committee; run by an outside service
Unanimously approved.
F. Consideration and possible action for the approval of the annual payment for the operation of the county
wide radio communications system to Williamson County in the amount of $134,989.00 – Stan Hohman,
Fleet Services Supervisor and Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
In February 2008 the City Council approved entering into an interlocal agreement with Williamson County for
the establishment, operation and maintenance of the Williamson County Radio Communications System.
This agreement dissolved the old CWICS group which consisted of Williamson County, Georg etown,
Round Rock, Cedar Park and Hutto, and established a Williamson County Radio Communication
System.
The agreement created an organizational and management structure for on -going administration,
operation and maintenance of the system; and creates a budget process, strategic planning/budget
forecasting process, as well as allocation of costs associated with operating, maintaining and upgrading
the system.
In accordance with the agreement, Williamson County bills the City quarterly for operations and
maintenance at a cost of $23.29 per radio per month.
The City currently has 483 radios on the system.
Total amount of the City’s portion of the Williamson County RCS for fiscal year 2014/15 is $134,989.00 based
upon the rate of $23.29 per radio for 483 City of Georgetown radios. $183,000.00 was budgeted in the 2014-15
budget.
Unanimously approved.
G. 2014/15 Fire Department Operations Service Fees and Fire & Life Safety Service Fees - John Sullivan,
Fire Chief
Chief Sullivan informed that Board that Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2014 -41 amending Chapter 2.28 entitled
“Fire Department,” the Fire Chief is required to present the Fire Department Operations Service Fees and Fire
& Life Safety Service Fees and related policies to the City Council for approval.
This fee schedule was attached to the document for review. Numerous fire -based systems have been evaluated
to ensure market competitiveness within the Fee Schedule. It is the intent to review the fee schedule on a n
annual basis to ensure market competitiveness and/or relevance.
Conservative revenue projections were included within proposed FY2014/15 budget. The estimated breakdown
is as follows:
- Fire Department Operation Fees: $92,000 (2013)
- EMS Fees have been newly revised so there is no historic data from GFD
o Budget estimates are $683K in FY2014/15 and $1.3M in FY15/16
- Fire & Life Safety Fees: ($20,550) (2013)
-
Tommy Gonzalez asked Chief to do a flow chart of “how we do it now, from the beginning to the end, then how it
will change”. Chief Sullivan answered questions and agreed to revisit the “numbers” and give a report at a later
time.
Unanimously approved.
H. Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the long-term financial impacts of “frozen” Property
Values due to new age-restricted developments within the City – Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Micki explained that this item was brought before the GGAF Board in June, and was asked to bring back at a
later time. The information requested was provided in the packet and below:
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 31% of the City’s total $5.2B tax base, thus
having a substantial impact to the City’s tax revenues. When the City issues bonds for roads and other public amenities, the
property tax burden associated with those bonds are not spread evenly across the City’s entire tax base. Over time, the
increase in “frozen” homeowners has resulted in a tax inequity or imbalance of over $2M annually in redistributed property
tax burden.
As mentioned previously noted, 31% of the TOTAL City property tax base is frozen. While a large portion of the frozen
property was limited to Sun City, the remainder of the City’s Assessed Valuation (net of Sun City) is still frozen at
approximately 23.5%. In comparison, Cedar Park’s frozen assessed value is 5.9% of total assessed valuation and Leander
is 6.4% of total assessed valuation.
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.
This item is to discuss financial policy issues and related options for potential new age restricted developments that may be
established in the future.
Option could include:
Assessing a per unit fees on new age-restricted development that could be reserved for future property tax relief
o Collected funds would be reserved and amortized against future losses in tax revenue due to those
frozen properties assessed
Limit percentage or number of units in future developments that can be age-restricted through changes to UDC
Micki explained that this item was previously discussed by GGAF at the June meeting, whereby; staff was
directed to review the issue holistically and to bring back the item to GGAF for further d iscussion at the August
meeting. She said that she would be happy to answer any questions.
Tommy asked (based on the frozen amount citywide), what the percentage was for those identifiable as age-
restricted living and the percentage that are frozen and are not age-restricted living. Micki said that currently,
over 31% of the total City property tax base is frozen, which compared to other cities, is large.
Tommy said that we do not want to discourage development. He wanted to know what the economic loss was,
when it comes to sales tax, if we start putting a damper or additional fees that will discourage development .
Micki said that sales tax is not driven on age restricted development; the retirees bring in new money. It is the
number of rooftops or opportunity to create more rooftops that allow citizens to spend in Georgetown, creating
more retail sales.
Tommy asked what prompted staff to look at this. Micki said that it was “due diligence”, and was just an alert
to make the Board and Council aware, as it was part of the property tax calculation, and the recent annexation
study process for Sun City.
Keith said that the problem went beyond due diligence and went into a policy realm that was very sensitive and
affects a large portion of the community. He said that he appreciates staff raising the issue, but should have
stopped there and not presented solutions unless there was a “laundry list of solutions presented for Council
discussion”.
Tommy made the motion that this issue be tabled and reviewed 36 months from now unless something dire
happens or something policy-wise changes, and that we continue with our method of growth and mitigation
that we have done in the past.
Citizen asked for protocol to speak. He was told that there was no public comment at Boards and Commission
meetings, but he was welcome to address the full Council.
The motion was unanimously approved.
I. Presentation and discussion of the West Side Service Center – Wesley Wright, Systems Engineering
Director, Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities
Jim Briggs explained that the Westside Service Center is part of the approved Facility Master Plan. It will be
located at Williams Drive and Jim Hogg. Its construction is intended to serve GUS operations by relieving
overcrowding in the Georgetown Municipal Complex (GMC,) as well as provide for more timely and efficient
service to customers west of IH 35. Jim said that we have owned the GMC for fifteen years, and the City is
outgrowing it. The Westside Service Center will function as a satellite office for the GMC, with a focus on
operational effectiveness and sustainability. All GUS departments will have representation at this facility, in
order to provide the full range of GUS services. The Westside Service Center would not be for “walk-in”
traffic, but would be a secure site, with scheduled appointments, and for these types of services, this is the
appropriate location in his opinion.
Land Purchase December 2012 Final Plat $630,000
Infrastructure Extensions: Water, Wastewater, Driveway $440,000
Architectural RFQ and Selection: PGAL, Austin $176,000
The GUS Board looked at the Architectural RFQ and selection. It will be done “old school”; no CMAR, no
design-build, etc. Funded with utility revenues and $4M CO’s.
With the volume of growth taking place on the west side of IH 35 over the next few years, the obvious benefits
of the Westside Service Center are a reduction in drive time for GUS staff working on the west side of IH 35
and the reduction in fuel and maintenance costs for vehicles making the trip regularly, providing both
operational efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Wesley Wright gave a PowerPoint presentation, and gave an overview of the Westside Service Center
construction process, etc. Questions and suggestions were:
Layout and floor plan are being finalized, as well as finalizing the budget
o Concerned about downsizing to keep the overall cost below $5M
Suggestions to go ahead and leave the 17,000-20,000 sf and have a component built
in for expanding Phase 1, 2, 3, etc.
Make it a 25 year facility, not a 10 year facility
Construction prices will only increase in the future
Tommy feels we will outgrow it sooner rather than later
o 7 acres; using 70-80% of it
Ready to begin architectural design
Bid Fall 2014
Construction to begin Spring 2015
Occupancy Fall 2015
Initially 35-50 to 65 employees; sized for 80
It will open up office space at GMC
Environmental Services will be housed there so that it will be occupied when crews re out
Serves a larger utility service area than the present location
Jim said that this was sufficient guidance and feedback and thanked the board members for their input.
J. Update and discussion of the Conservation Educational Facilities – Kathy Ragsdale, Conservation
Services Manager and Mike Babin, Deputy General Manager
Kathy Ragsdale gave an overview and explained that currently, Conservation Services uses three different
facilities for Education and Demonstrations, all located on the east side of IH 35:
Community Collection Station – 250 WL Walden Dr - (Recycling and solid waste)
Parks and Rec Admin Classroom / Parking Lot – 1101 College St - (Provide public classes and rain
barrel distribution events)
Williamson County Extension Office – 3151 SE Inner Loop - (Partner with Williamson County to provide
presentations and classes)
Options for facilities on the west side of the GUS service area include the CTSUD Woods Pump Station and the
Corp of Engineers offices on DB Wood Rd. The Dove Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on the far, east
side of the GUS service area, is also being considered as an educational facility location.
A strategic consideration in the siting of Conservation Service’s educational facilities is the proximity to available
volunteer labor. Additional and expensive staffing that would ordinarily be necessary for adequate coverage at
multiple locations will be managed through the use of local volunteers, delaying the need for funding of additional
paid Conservation staff. This dedicated and competent workforce is readily available through local garden clubs and
organizations, such as the Master Gardeners and Native Plant Society.
Conservation Services makes incremental use of existing facilities. Costs of specific Educational programs or
Demonstrations are covered under specific projects in ongoing budgets.
Conservation Services finds that the most effective and successful programs and classes take place in the
environment they address. Having multiple educational facili ties located around the GUS service area allows staff
to reach out to those customers that will gain the most benefit from targeted classes, as well as make it more
convenient for the target audience to attend.
The board was appreciative of the update and said “go forward”.
Project update regarding major general capital projects – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and
Kimberly Garrett, Parks Director
Laurie Brewer and Kimberly Garrett gave a status update regarding general capital projects for fiscal year
2014/2015
Downtown parking garage
o Scope was changed
RFQ has been issued and will include an entire assessment of all city owned property
as well as all other property in the downtown, traffic patterns, etc
2 council members will be asked to be on selection committee
Due Oct 1
Will begin evaluations after that date
Study budgeted for “up to $400,000”
Downtown West project
o Preparing RFQ for design services for renovations for Phase 1
Renovations for Communications and Technology Building
Old Library will become City Hall
Municipal Court and Council Chambers will share space
Current Municipal Court / Council Chambers will be returned to the public sector to
partially fund the above; no impact on the tax rate
Board said to keep urgency and drive and make sure this does not linger;
push through to get accomplished because it will take care of a lot of long
term issues
Williams Drive Pool
o Broker’s Appraisal and information from 2001 was included in packet
o Research indicated that the City dedicated the property as parkland in perpetuity
o Value of parkland has to be traded for like value parkland
2 acres of parkland value - $1.1M appraisal
o 2 step process to sell the parkland includes:
Purchase new parkland equal to current value of existing parkland
Submit sale of parkland to voters during an election
o Proceeds from the sale of parkland can only be used to purchase parkland
WCAD appraised the land at Williams Drive and Lakeway at $958,219
Improvements on the properties are valued at $280,280
Any improvements to new parkland would require additional funding
o Estimated construction of a new 50 meter pool could exceed $3M
Questions/suggestions/observations:
Tommy asked if the repurchase of parkland has to be one continuous parcel or can it be multiple
Kimberly noted that there is a stipulation that due diligence is done and that there is a viable need
to sell the parkland
Tommy said proving a viable need is less of a concern due to the dangerous location and
pollutants near the pool, but more concerned about finding a “like” property on one parcel that
is $1M
Keith said that we don’t have the luxury of time to let this property set “as is”; we need to make
improvements and meanwhile look for an alternative location over the longer term for the pool
Tommy said that it is probably a 3 year project, but we can’t wait on the improvements
Tommy would like clarification on the requirement to purchase a single “like” parcel vs multiple
parcels. He said this could feed the long term needs of our growing city
Ralph noted that the land isn’t expandable; no additional parking, etc
Recommendation and direction from the Board to continue with the proposed repairs and improvements, with the
request that staff continue pursuing a viable alternative to this pool.
Southeast Splash Pad - $300,000 includes:
o 2,000 sq ft
o 5-7 features above ground
o No funding for parking/shade, etc.
o Recirculation system underground to not waste water
o Possible locations and examples were presented
McMaster (infrastructure, close restrooms, we already own the land)
San Jose Park (new parking lot; new restrooms; close to residential)
Partnership with another organization
o Tommy G – could the space just cleared in San Jose area be used as the site?
Kimberly G / Eric N – it is in the flood plain and not allowable; possibly could be
used for parking
o Parks Board will be included and should decide
o Keith B – “don’t do it cheap; do it well”; shade is a necessity
o Tommy G - Any options have plus/minus
Possibly do several throughout the city instead of one larger one
Make sure there is shade, etc and make sure it is user-friendly
Kimberly agreed that this was sufficient guidance and feedback.
K. Review/Discuss recommendations for Employee Compensation Market Comparators – Tadd Phillips,
HR Director
Tadd Phillips and the Human Resources staff reviewed and discussed the City’s employee compensation
market comparators for the purpose of GGAF input and eventual City Council endorsement of both market
comparators and strategy.
Tadd explained that a compensation program that attracts, retains, develops and rewards a quality workforce
considers internal and external conditions.
External condition and labor costs trends identified through a salary survey, defines two things:
Benchmark positions to compare
Market comparators relevant factors:
o Proximity
o Size
o Similarity in Services rendered
o Ability to pay, i.e. tax rate, total taxable value
o Similar characteristics, i.e. adjacent to metropolitan area and growth community
Recommended market comparators:
o City of Austin, Cedar Park, Leander, Pflugerville, Round Rock, San Marcos, New Braunfels,
Sugar Land, Grapevine, Denton, Williamson County and Town of Flower Mound
Industry specific disciplines such as Utilities, Fire, and Police would utilize good matches
from this group plus up to 5 additional similar organizations
Some highlights and explanation of terms in his presentation were:
The Public Safety step program rewards service and is consistent with market competitors
o The step plan is inflexible
o Seeks retention
Merit pay ties to performance, and allows individual pay range penetration
The COLA is intended to reflect cost of living increase, based on CPI
o It also moves the ranges, enhances recruitment and retains individual range penetration
Next Steps:
Council Presentation Late September 2014
Review market position October – December 2014
Recommendations on Public Safety pay structure and maintenance January 2015
o to Management, GGAF and Council for consideration April 1, 2015
Recommendations on market-based adjustments for consideration March 2015
o to Management, GGAF and Council for consideration October 1, 2015
Tadd said that they tried to find sufficient comparators with certain data points, but there will always be non -
matches.
Keith said to keep an open mind and no single philosophy should be used. Tommy noted that we can’t race
against ourselves.
The Board thanked Tadd for the presentation and overvi ew.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 pm.
_____________________________________
Board Chair