HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_GGAF_07.29.2015Minutes of the Meeting of the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD (GGAF)
City of Georgetown, Texas
July 29, 2015
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board met at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 in the
Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 West 9t" Street, Georgetown,
Texas
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Brainard, Chair, Tommy Gonzalez, John Hesser,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ralph Mason, Thomas Bonham
STAFF/OTHERS
PRESENT: Micki Rundell, David Morgan, Laurie Brewer, Bridget Chapman, Lisa Haines, Paul Diaz,
Trina Bickford, Matt Synatschk, Jack Daly, Terry Putnam (Citizen)
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 8h 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@aeorgetown.org
4�
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
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
Keith Brainard, Chair, called to meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
A. Review minutes from the June 16'h and June 24`", 2015 GGAF meetings — Danella Elliott, Executive
Assistant
Motion by Gonzalez; seconded by Messer. Unanimously approved.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve contracting with Cox Mclain Environmental Consulting,
Inc. in an amount not to exceed $ 90,698.00 for an update to the 1984 and 2007 City of Georgetown
Historic Resource Survey - Matt Synatschk, Historic Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City
Manager
Matt Synatschk explained that this is a request to consider the contract for updating the existing 1984 and 2007
historic resource surveys.
They have been out for bid twice, and 4 applications were received. A scoring committee made up of city staff
and citizens from the community were involved. The applicant selected was a team made up of Cox Mclain
Environmental Consulting and SWCA. They were one of the lowest priced responses, but the primary reason
this firm was selected was because they had recently completed a process similar in scope to this one in a
similar situation such as ours. They were able to do it in about 6-7 months. The proposal is a total of $90,968;
the request is for approval not to exceed this amount.
The Board said to remember to be mindful of any property that was previously missed on the earlier surveys,
and have it thoroughly reviewed and possibly give the option of being historic or not, if this scenario should
arise.
Gonzalez asked for the scope and criteria used to identify historical structures, etc. Synatschk responded that
they used the National Register of Historic Places criteria, which is the standard used. He just wants to make
sure that once a structure has been designated, we have an established written contract policy so that the
owners will know what is going on with their buildings if a property goes from non -important to important, or
vice -versa. Synatschk said that the current survey has 1,574 properties on it. There are about 500 that are
noncontributing (no historic significance). The process/changes will be documented. The RFP was written so
that if there are alterations that caused the property to change in status from 2007, they will have to fill out a
complete historical resource survey form that will clearly identify why the building is historic and the reason it
became more significant, (i.e., because of age, etc) will be clearly outlined.
Brewer said that this will be the survey that is used to categorize properties as contributing and
noncontributing properties, as outlined in the recently adopted Unified Development Code amendments. In
addition the survey will identify potential properties eligible for the new Historic Landmark designation.
Gonzalez questioned the role of the GGAF Board on items such as this. GGAF is supposed to be financial,
and he finds himself getting too deeply involved in the policy just so that he can feel comfortable making the
financial decisions. Brewer explained that it they always try to go through a Board vs. going straight to
Council, just for more input prior to Council consideration. He appreciates the attention paid to this subject as
it will be a highly visible and watched process and wants to make sure we cover all angles to be very
transparent during the process.
Hesser said that he doesn't see getting $90,000 worth of value from the survey. He feels the money could be
used better some other way. His objection is that he doesn't believe we should be placing this burden on
homeowners because if their house is classified as historic, they will have to fall under new governance.
The RFP includes a database of properties to add to our system. There will be public meetings, and the
ultimate goal is to bring completed survey to Council.
Brainard noted that there was over $9,000 left (the current fiscal year 2015 budget includes $50,000 and the
proposed 2016 fiscal year budget includes an additional $ 50,000) in the proposed outline; he suggested to use
this money to formally notify each property owner by certified letter of where their property stands.
Motion to approve the contract with Cox Mclain Environmental Consulting in the amount not to exceed
$90,698for the update of the City of Georgetown historic survey and in addition, not to exceed the $100,000
total to be used to notify allproperty owners of the results.
Motion by Gonzalez, Second by Hesser. Unanimously approved,
C. Updated information and further clarification regarding the selection of JPMorgan Chase for Bank
Depository Services for a two year period beginning September 1, 2015, with an annual option to renew
for up to three more years — Lisa Haines, Controller and Mick! Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Brainard reminded the Board that this item came before GGAF last month, and the unsuccessful bidder wanted
to raise some issues, and did so, and so we agreed to discuss this item again.
Haines explained that this item provided additional clarification regarding the services provided by BBVA
Compass and to validate the continued recommendation of JPMorgan Chase as the City's Depository selection
for the next two year period, beginning September 1, 2015. Haines noted 'that an updated summary was
included in the packet.
The City solicited applications for bank depository services and received back two applications from two well-
known and qualified firms: JI'Morgan Chase and BBVA Compass Bank. The evaluation analysis was
performed by Valley View Consulting,
The proposals were comparable in many of the services solicited. Both institutions had good financial strength
and the ability to provide the bank services requested to meet the City's needs. Both banks offered fixed terms
for the full five years.
® Conversion costs — while BBVA has offered $10,000 cash to offset conversion costs, we believe our true
conversion costs would be closer to $20,000 when you take into account staff time and the various departments
that would be involved — Accounting, Customer Care, Legal, Municipal Court, and IT.
* BBVA has no local references. All references provided were in the surrounding counties.
* We previously had $18M in a MM account with BBVA. Due to changes in the banking industry, the interest
rate on our public funds money market account (I Obp over 3 ) 0 -day LIBOR) was no longer going to be available,
thus we needed to move our funds. Haines clarified that BBVA notified the City of these future changes and
ultimately agreed to work with the City to ensure there was not a loss of anticipated City interest revenue,
® Two Texas public fund entities had BBVA as their depository, and after the initial term, BBVA refused to
extend the contract for the additional years even though their contract specified no changes.
* JPMorgan Chase remains as the staff s recommendation for the City's depository services provider, but felt that
further clarification of the services that BBVA Compass provides is appropriate.
Rundell and Haines noted that we just do not have the resources at this time to go through a conversion, due
staff turnover, as well as preparing for the upcoming CIS • I
Gonzalez suggested that when taking this item to Council, it is important to represent what we want accurately, and
not paint a negative picture. When first presented, if the recommendation had been presented in a manner that
indicated it was not possible to change because of certain things going on within the organization and therefore not
worth considering a conversion at this time, that would have been an acceptable decision. But when the presentation
was made, it seemed like financially it was going to better deal and the other bank didn't live up to the minimums
(which was the appearance to BBVA after the initial recommendation). It was taken as a personal "slap" to the
institution because they felt like that in the public record, they did something negative and were not good enough.
Gonzalez said that we need to be careful in the way we represent what we want accurately and not try to "lead"
something and base information that is not completely accurate because we want a certain outcome. He said to
make certain in the future that we do not paint an institution in a negative manner. Haines explained that was not the
intention at all.
This was an informational item, but for clarification, the primary reason for the recommendation to stay with
JPMorgan Chase is:
JPMorgan Chase
BBVA Compass Bank
Positive Pay with. Payee Name
Yes
Offers Positive Pay without payee
name
Reserve Requirements
No
Yes, 10%
Consumer Bill Pay Processing
Yes
No, possibly 4'J'Qtr
Courier Service
Yes through P party
No
® Conversion costs — while BBVA has offered $10,000 cash to offset conversion costs, we believe our true
conversion costs would be closer to $20,000 when you take into account staff time and the various departments
that would be involved — Accounting, Customer Care, Legal, Municipal Court, and IT.
* BBVA has no local references. All references provided were in the surrounding counties.
* We previously had $18M in a MM account with BBVA. Due to changes in the banking industry, the interest
rate on our public funds money market account (I Obp over 3 ) 0 -day LIBOR) was no longer going to be available,
thus we needed to move our funds. Haines clarified that BBVA notified the City of these future changes and
ultimately agreed to work with the City to ensure there was not a loss of anticipated City interest revenue,
® Two Texas public fund entities had BBVA as their depository, and after the initial term, BBVA refused to
extend the contract for the additional years even though their contract specified no changes.
* JPMorgan Chase remains as the staff s recommendation for the City's depository services provider, but felt that
further clarification of the services that BBVA Compass provides is appropriate.
Rundell and Haines noted that we just do not have the resources at this time to go through a conversion, due
staff turnover, as well as preparing for the upcoming CIS • I
Gonzalez suggested that when taking this item to Council, it is important to represent what we want accurately, and
not paint a negative picture. When first presented, if the recommendation had been presented in a manner that
indicated it was not possible to change because of certain things going on within the organization and therefore not
worth considering a conversion at this time, that would have been an acceptable decision. But when the presentation
was made, it seemed like financially it was going to better deal and the other bank didn't live up to the minimums
(which was the appearance to BBVA after the initial recommendation). It was taken as a personal "slap" to the
institution because they felt like that in the public record, they did something negative and were not good enough.
Gonzalez said that we need to be careful in the way we represent what we want accurately and not try to "lead"
something and base information that is not completely accurate because we want a certain outcome. He said to
make certain in the future that we do not paint an institution in a negative manner. Haines explained that was not the
intention at all.
This was an informational item, but for clarification, the primary reason for the recommendation to stay with
JPMorgan Chase is:
Due to staffing shortages, as well as, upcoming technology changes, staff recoinmends awarding this contract to
the incumbent, JPMorgan Chase. They have provided us with consistent and efficient services and excellent
customer service, have been responsive to our needs and have a proven track record. The current cost would not
jusl�fy the expenditure of adding staff andpeople to do the conversion right now.
D. Follow up discussion on the status of the FY2014 General Fund yearend surplus funds and related
allocation — Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer
Brainard noted that this item came up earlier this year and there was confusion. He feels that the majority of the
board understood that a certain amount of surplus from last year was available and allocated in a certain
manner, and then learned later that things turned out to be different. He asked for clarification in this matter as
to what the size of the surplus was from last year and how those surplus monies were used.
Rundell explained that this item is clarification regarding the FY2014 General Fund yearend surplus funds that
were previously discussed at GGAF. She said that she believes there was misunderstanding about yearend
funds being co -mingled with unappropriated current year (CY) funds. She said that we originally thought we
had $713,000 of YE excess after 9/30. There was a YE audit adjustment because the new auditors didn't like
the way the Rivett' PID revenue was classed, so they asked us to reverse the entry. That left ending
unappropriated excess surplus balance of $476,000. We talked about using that amount to "shore up" the EMS
program. The co -mingled funds were also used to appropriate funding for a Budget Amendment (BA) for the
costs associated with the City Manager search. There was about $450,000 in General Fund revenues that came
from the Western District. We never appropriated the Western District when we adopted the budget, but when
we did the Western District BA, we only appropriated the expenditures out of the Water Fund. We never
recognized the incoming revenues to the General Fund. We knew the revenue was there, not appropriated, and
wanted to take advantage of being able to recognize that offset and this was done through a BA to make the
adjustments necessary to fund the City Manager search.
True reconcilement remaining in the original YE14 unappropriated excess is $26,000. We won't know the
exact CY Western District amount until all revenues are booked for the year. There is approximately $191,000
left of unappropriated money. At the Council Meeting on July 28th, the City Manager presented his proposed
budget, and there were questions about the $1.4M. Included in that amount is the $26,000 for FY 15, as well as
excess unappropriated money from the Western District.
Morgan explained that $550,000 is going to the SRF and will be a segregated account going forward, which will
Z�l
be easier to track. Gonzalez asked where this was, and Rundell replied that it is on the balance sheet and will be
recognized in the future.
Morgan said that when we close the year, we will time it so that it is truly the excess unallocated YE fund
balance after we close the year so there won't be adjustments.
Gonzalez is hoping to "shore up" accounting issues and start with a clean slate and a clearly defined starting
point, budgeting from a true amount from the beginning. He noted that it adds wrinkles when we are trying to
figure percentage of growth. He would like a listing of one time or limited time revenue sources. He would
like a discipline in writing so that it becomes policy. Morgan said that we will make sure we are estimating
correctly.
Brainard felt that coming out of 3/25 meeting, and according to the minutes, there was about $925,000 and this
board voted unanimously to allocate this in a particular manner and somewhere along the way, subsequent to
that, those numbers changed. He remembers that it was brought to GGAF or Council to get their blessing, and
it was not clear to him that we had done that. At the last GGAF meeting, 4 out of 5 members of that board still
had the understanding of what had come out of March meeting, and that had fundamentally changed. What he
would like, in the future, is that if something changes, we don't get into accounting adjustments, but rather say
"this changed", and for example say, "we are no longer allocating $100,000 to cemetery or health insurance
fund, we have only this certain amount." It is not clear to him how it subsequently changed and what has
happened to this surplus.
Morgan said that from a communications standpoint, from the 3/25 GGAF Meeting, we moved forward on 4/14
with a BA for Council consideration, which 2 of those items were specifically related to the direction GGAF
gave on the 25h, including the City Manager transition expenses and also the EMS increased operational cost at
40%, The BA on 4/14 did those two things. What we needed to do was provide clearer communication to
Council on 4/14 about that and follow up to explain what happened. The cemetery and self insurance will
continue to see funding in the proposed budget. There was a need to explain what happened and de the
discussion together and we will continue to do that in the future, but it did not happen like that in this situation.
Gonzalez said that the gap was the accounting adjustment that turned everything upside down and they never
received an explanation.
It was suggested that in the SRF, make a point of spending oldest money first; first in and first out; and
document that and have an accounting for all expenditures. Since the cemetery and health insurance fund were
recommended by GGAF for funding, these should be looked at first.
Brainard wants to include the unfunded liabilities discussion in a future meeting, as he felt it was a very positive
development this Board has taken on.
Hesser asked for clarification on why we do not have the software to provide a financial statement to identify
each entity (fund) as separate funds; he wants a financial statement separate for each entity. Morgan said that
we could provide fund schedules to the Board. Hesser would just like for the financial data to be posted
transparently.
Brainard would like to work with the City Manager and staff to develop a high-level reporting system to
come up with the Board's recommendations, wants and needs, The Board was in agreement.
Brainard recognized citizen Terry Putnam as being in the audience.
IAdjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.
Keith a �rd Date
Board Chair
Thomas Bonham' Date
Board Secretary
Danella Elliott Date
Board Liaison