Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_04.29.2009Notice 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 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\4.29.09\Minutes 4.29.09.doc MINUTES GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, in the City Hall Main Floor Conference Room, located at 113 East 8h Street, Georgetown, Texas. 1. Keith Brainard welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. 2. 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 with the above clarification and changes. Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Members Absent: Dale Ross Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration, Leticia Zavala, Special Projects, Finance and Administration, Lorie Lankford, Accounting Manager, Finance & Administration L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\4.29.09\Minutes 4.29.09.doc 3. Discussion regarding the selection of Westin, as the project manager for the CIS/AMI project to include overall assessment and development of Information Technology Plan. Leticia Zavala updated the committee on the CIS/AMI project. She explained that that we are looking at incorporating an IT assessment plan into this project. Originally this project was looking at 2 RFP’s; one for a technology plan to assess our entire infrastructure to make sure it could support and substantiate such a radical software change into a new CIS/AMI system. We were very concerned that our existing infrastructure could not support that, so we had an RFP out for an IT Technology Plan, along with the Project Manager for the CIS/AMI. A lot of things have progressed in the past months, and we have now negotiated with someone to look at Department of Energy (DOE) stimulus funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which is up to 50-60% of the total cost. In that stimulus funding, there is money appropriated for GIS infrastructure updates, along with IT technology money available. The committee decided that it would make more sense to combine the RFP’s to ensure that it will be substantiated and supported internally through our IT network and we are concerned that at this moment, it may not work. West Monroe was going to come in and do the grant application to the DOE and do a complete Master Plan for the CIS/AMI project. By doing that, the Project Manager would not have to do that master planning, so they would have some ability in their proposal to actually do an IT Assessment for us so we would not have duplication of duties. It makes sense to be able to combine this process and because of the technical ability of Westin were far superior to the others who had responded to the RFP processes individually for the assessment; combined effort saves money and we can’t go forward with CIS until the assessment is done, so from a timing perspective, it allows us to move the whole process along. The IT assessment process is so important so we are going to hold off on moving until we have the assessment. Right now, any investment in any infrastructure is on hold until this happens because we don’t want to throw money into something that might not work. Normally this would go to the GUS Board, but due to timing issues, Jim Briggs suggested that the GGAF Subcommittee provide feedback so that we could get it on the next Council agenda. The overall concept has been to the GUS Board in January and the overall CIS/AMI project was reviewed at the Council level in March. This is taking the Project Manager forward to actually do an RFP for CIS replacement and AMI replacement. It is a 6-7 month process. If we tack an IT Assessment on top of that, it would be end of May, first of June to start with the RFP’s for that July through the need of the year and possibly be on track to get them out on the street by the end of the year. The DOE money has a 24 month window to turn it around. GUS Board has seen the overall scope and signed off on the project itself. They have also looked at the West Monroe contract. Staff will be requesting approval of a contract with West Monroe Partners at the April 21 GUS Board meeting. If recommended by the Board, the contract will be on the April 28th Council Agenda. This contract will be to provide assistance to the City in preparing and attaining DOE grants to offset costs associated with the CIS/AMR replacement project. These funds are part of the recent “stimulus” package. West Monroe is willing to risk 40% of their contract costs on the ability of the City to receive such a grant. Estimates are that the City may receive up to $5M in matching funds. As part of the application, West Monroe will develop a “business plan” for the project. Due to the timing requirements, West Monroe will start the project May 1st if approved. The grant application must be submitted by mid-June. All work associated with this contract will be incorporated into the overall CIS/AMR project manager selection currently underway. The contract for the Project Manager will be presented to the GUS Board in May, with Council consideration planned for May 26th. Discussion: Keith asked if this was specific to utilities. Micki answered yes and it is related to IT in the sense that it all has to run through the city-wide IT network and use the data in the back end of the GIS system. Micki noted that we have a state-of-the-art GIS system but we are unable to use it because use it cannot get over to our network. We want GIS to be the “central core/information” of the entire operation to where it is all updated in one location. Keith asked to get a “picture” or schematic if the City’s IT system (where we are now and where we want to be) so that he can understand how this all fits together. Micki said there is no IT Master Plan, but we will get something together. Keith also asked for a RFP bid tab summary. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\4.29.09\Minutes 4.29.09.doc Patty said that she has heard about this situation for a long time and is ready for it to get on. Micki asked if the committee was comfortable with this going to the next Council meeting. Keith said that it depended upon his conversations with Paul regarding IT. He feels that if Dale were here, he would have the same serious concerns. He encouraged Micki to contact Dale with the information regarding IT that she provided to the committee. The selection committee who interviewed Westin included City Staff from Water/ Wastewater/Electric,SCADA/Utility Billing/Finance /Micki and Jim Briggs. There was a clear break between the top two candidates and the rest. Committee members noted that Westin brought the skillset that we needed to get where we wanted to go. Requested information will be brought to the May 7, 2009 GGAF Subcommittee and we will revisit this subject. Patty said that we had to be careful because of the timeline we are dealing with regarding the additional monies available. 4. Discussion regarding funding for the pedestrian bridge in Blue Hole Park. Initially, the River Place develop agreement included a City possible commitment to construct a pedestrian foot bridge below Blue Hole in the park as a way to further economic development while implementing another element of the Downtown Master Plan (connecting the various trails within the park). Initial cost estimates were $125,000 and bonds were issued in 2005. During 2006, the bridge was engineered, with cost estimates of up to $300,000. Therefore, the bridge project was put on hold, and in the mean time, the River Place incentive package expired. For several years, the City has intended to extend Rock Street to improve traffic flow on Austin Avenue and address traffic issues in front of Sonic. The project was delayed awaiting final engineering for wastewater improvement (including replacement of the lift station on Rock Street). GUS wanted to do the projects in conjunction with improvements to Austin Avenue. The City also issued debt for these improvements, including many of the improvements that ended up being funded by TxDOT. The City also budgeted the wastewater improvements within the wastewater fund. Last week, GUS received bids for the Rock Street project. As part of the bid, GUS requested an alternate for the construction of the pedestrian bridge. The bid for the bridge came in at $281,000 + inspection costs. Staff is requesting that the City move forward with the bridge using funds that were previously issued for other areas of the project that are now funded or have been funded by other sources. By doing this project now, the City will save money and time since all the environmental and TCEQ requirements have already been met. Delaying the bridge will require new permitting when and if the bridge is constructed. Savings will also be realized since the contractor will already be mobilized for the Rock Street project. In conclusion, the bridge will further implement the Downtown Master Plan and improve connectivity of the City’s trail system. Micki explained that the funds will be used as follows: Bond money $600,000 WW funds already allocated Repaint bridge over the Gabriel contaminated with lead Lift station $685,000 Turning movements at Morrow and Austin Improvements to Rock Street Tree wells Landscaping on the north end of Austin Avenue We have TCEQ clearance now for the wastewater, so if we do not do the bridge now, we will have to do all of the clearances again, and it will cost additional money, so the timing is critical. The monies available are limited to bond money as it is part of the Downtown Master Plan. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\4.29.09\Minutes 4.29.09.doc The committee is comfortable taking this forward. Keith thinks we would be foolish not to agree with moving forward with the FT Woods bid; Patty agreed. This will go to GUS Board at their next meeting Keith suggested that when taking this to Council, please make sure it is broken down and tie things together more definitively, i.e. $$$ amount $$$ amount $$$ amount Project Project Project 5. Discussion regarding the 2009 year-end external audit. This is the 5th and final year of the existing contract with Broadway, Gersbach, Franklin and Niemeier, PC. (BGF&N) The fee for the 2009 audit is $35,925 per the contract with additional costs associated with Single Audit. Auditing standards have increased dramatically since the contract was approved, thus the relative cost of doing the audit has increased. Staff is recommending that the City continue with BGF&N for the upcoming year-end, and allocating $7,000 in additional funds to offset the costs associated with these new standards. Staff believes that even with the additional funds, these costs will be significantly lower than other comparable City audits within the area. Staff also recommends an RFP process be conducted in January 2010 for selection of an external auditor for fiscal years beginning in October 2009. These recommendations will be forwarded to City Council in early May. Preliminary work on the September 30, 2009 audit will begin this summer. The committee was in agreement with staff recommendation. 6. Extension of the Depository Agreement with JP Morgan/Chase Currently, the City is in year 3 of a 5 year contract with Chase. Staff will be requesting approval of a 1-year extension as allowed in the original contract. State law requires City’s to bid their depository services at least every 5 years. The City is currently pleased with the services that Chase provides. Due to possible cost savings, the City may conduct the RFP process in the spring of 2010, 1 year earlier than required. The cost involved in changing banks is high, especially staff time, and requires at least 90 days for transition. The current contract ends September 30, 2009. The extension will be presented to Council in May. The committee was in agreement with staff recommendation for a 1-year extension as allowed in the original contract. 7. Discussion regarding the upcoming 2009 arbitrage rebate calculation and related process. First Southwest has prepared the City’s arbitrage rebate calculation for the past 15 years. Their service has been more than adequate. The cost of this calculation is approximately $23,000. Staff is considering an RFP process for the 2009 calculation. Williamson County has approached the City about a combined process. If the County moves forward, we may participate in a joint effort. We will follow up. 8. Presentation and possible discussion regarding the 2009/10 Compensation and Benefits Plan. Kevin Russell is unable to attend due to prior obligations. This item will be presented at the May 7, 2009 GGAF Subcommittee Meeting. 9. Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\4.29.09\Minutes 4.29.09.doc 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