Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_07.07.2009Notice 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 L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc MINUTES GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE (GGAF) ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS The General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Subcommittee met at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 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 1:10 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes from the May 7, 2009 meeting. The minutes were approved. 3. Discussion and possible action to recommend the selection of an architect for renovations at the Georgetown Municipal Complex. (Terry Jones) 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 Members Present: Keith Brainard, Chair, Patty Eason, Dale Ross Members Absent: None Staff Present: Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer, Paul Brandenburg, City Manager, Laurie Brewer, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration, Leticia Zavala, Cathy Leloux, Kevin Russell L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc 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. 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. 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. 4. Presentation of the impacts of "Over 65 & Disabled Tax Freeze" on the City's 2009 Effective Tax Rate. (Micki) 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. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc Keith asked Micki to identify the incremental change in frozen properties from 2008 to 2009 if they had not been frozen (we would then be able to determine the effect it has and identify factors driving the increase). He would also like for Micki to provide for Council, the median residential property value in Georgetown compared to neighborhood cities, and next to that, the property tax rate divided by I&S and M&O. Use Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander, Taylor, and 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. 5. Discussion and possible action to recommend authorization for the City to execute the necessary documents to allow Reedholm Instruments to assign its Texas Capital Fund capital lease to First Texas Bank (Laurie 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. L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc 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. 6. 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 (Cathy 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. 7. Update on the City's on-going Technology project (Leticia Zavala) Status summary of ongoing technology projects for July 2009. A. 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 o Up to now, we have requested 5 grants L:\Division\finance\Share2\GGAFSub\GGAF Meetings\2009\7.7.09\Minutes 7.7.09.doc B. 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 C. 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 D. 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. 8. Meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m. 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