The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda_GGAF_01.11.2017Notice of Meeting for the General Gov ernment and Finance Adv isory Board of the City of Georgetown January 11, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, TX The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Legislativ e Regular Agenda A Review minutes fro m No vember 30, 2016 General Go vernment and Financ e Advis o ry Bo ard Meeting - Danella Ellio tt, Executive Assistant B Dis cus s ion and pos s ible recommend ation to Counc il to approve c o ntrac ting with Tisc hlerBise fo r $120,000 for a fis c al impac t mo d el that will enhanc e the City’s ab ility to b etter analyze the financ ial imp ac t of d evelop ment projec ts and land use polic ies as well as enhance lo ng range financ ial planning. Laurie Brewer and Wayne Reed C Overview and d is cus s io n o f the City’s Internal Aud it Program -- Leigh Wallac e, Financ e Directo r CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 1 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board January 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Review minutes from Novemb er 30, 2016 General Government and Financ e Ad vis ory Board Meeting - Danella Ellio tt, Exec utive As s is tant ITEM SUMMARY: Review minutes from Novemb er 30, 2016 General Government and Financ e Ad vis ory Board Meeting - Danella Ellio tt, Exec utive As s is tant FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Danella Ellio tt, Exec utive As s is tant ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft minutes 11.30.16 Backup Material Page 2 of 71 Minutes General Government and Finance Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM The General Government and Finance Advisory Board met on Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM at the Georgetown Communications and Technology building (GCAT), located at 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, Texas. Board Members Present: City Staff Present: Keith Brainard, Chair David Morgan, City Manager Tommy Gonzalez, District 7 Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager James Bralski Chris Bryce, IT Director Severine Cushing James Davis, IT Operations Manager Thomas Bonham Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager Dave Hall, Chief Building Official Board Members Absent: Leigh Wallace, Finance Director None Jess Henderson, IT Supervisor Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Mark Moore, Building Inspections Supervisor Legislative Regular Agenda Keith Brainard, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. A Review minutes from the October 26, 2016 General Government and Finance (GGAF) Advisory Board -- Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant Board did not have any comments regarding the minutes from October 26, 2016. Motion to approve the minutes by Tommy Gonzalez, second by Severine Cushing. Approved 5-0 B 2017 renewal of MyPermitNow – Dave Hall, CFM, Chief Planning official Dave Hall explained that Planning is currently using this system to process, track and store all development related permits and applications. They also subscribe to the Addressing/GIS Integration and this year, Fire permits have also been added. The total cost for 2017 funding is $53,760. The cost is based on the number of permits, paid by Technology fees, and is revenue neutral. Motion to approve Item B by Tommy Gonzalez, second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 5-0 C Consideration and possible action to approve the annual contract for facility access control and security technician to be provided by Convergint Technologies of Austin, TX who is the City’s current security, video surveillance, and access control provider in the amount of $81,900.00 – Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent and Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Trish Long explained that this is the annual renewal contract for Convergint. For the past year, Convergint has provided a trained embedded technician to facilitate City-wide security service, preventative maintenance, and installation work. This person is an employee of Convergint Technologies, but has dedicated time to the Page 3 of 71 Minutes General Government and Finance Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM City, and is familiar with the City’s current security systems. They provide all preventive and current maintenance needs. The City is not charged for the maintenance or repair call, just the device charge that may need replacement. The pricing for the 2017 renewal is the same as the prior year cost. This includes card access, video surveillance, fire alarms, etc. Over the past year staff has seen advantages to the City including faster response times and increased service levels as the technician has an intimate awareness of each of the security items, locations, and processes. The dedicated technician is responsible for the overall management of these existing systems: • Lenel OnGuard System • Avigilon Video Management System • Fire Alarm & Life Safety • Preventative Maintenance Inspections/Services Discussion on the salary amount, which seems high to Board members, followed. Laurie and Trish explained that they are employed by Convergint, not the City, and they are just there is not a plan at the moment for bringing it in-house. Tommy suggested that we start training someone to start obtaining their certifications, etc. to be able to move into this position in future years. Motion to approve Item C by Tommy Gonzalez; second by Thomas Bonham. Approved 5-0 D Consideration and possible approval to purchase 25 replacement laptops for emergency service vehicles from Ingram Technologies LLC for an amount of $98,930.00 - Chris Bryce, IT Director Chris Bryce explained that every year we replace roughly 20-25% of the Panasonic Toughbooks used by the EMS, Fire and Police Departments. These are fully rugged laptop computers made to withstand the conditions experienced by our Public Safety personnel. This year we are replacing 25 out of 125 computers and three vehicle docking stations, at a cost of $98,930.00. In the past three years we have decreased our expenses on fully rugged computers through several changes in our purchasing process. We have moved from a four year to a five year replacement cycle on the machines and we have transitioned many users from fully rugged devices to more cost effective semi-rugged devices or standard laptops or tablets. Additionally, Panasonic has seen a major increase in competition in this market which has worked to drive pricing down. Chris answered questions regarding life expectancy and reasons for replacement, which is usually due to the heat. Motion to approve Item D by Thomas Bonham; second by Tommy Gonzalez. Approved 5-0 Page 4 of 71 Minutes General Government and Finance Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM E Consideration and possible approval to purchase upgrade equipment from the EST Group for the City’s IT Storage Area Network (SAN) for an amount of $439,146.28. Chris Bryce, Director, Information Technology Chris noted that this item is a request to purchase the needed equipment and services to upgrade the City’s Dell Compellent Storage Area Network (SAN), which provides disk or flash based storage for server and desktop computers in the City. The upgrades are necessary to meet future storage needs, increase performance, increase data redundancy for disaster recovery, and consolidate data that is stored on other devices so that those devices may be eliminated. It will also replace components of the SAN that will reach end-of-life or end-of-support in the next year. This is the first major upgrade in about 7 years and will only need to add storage, etc. for the next 6 years. Motion to approve Item E by James Bralski; second by Severing Cushing. Approved 5-0 F Discussion and possible recommendation to Council to adopt the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy to be used in preparing the fiscal year 2018 annual budget and to guide financial operations during fiscal year 2017 -- Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Leigh explained that the purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy is to provide the framework for financial operations of the City and to ensure prudent stewardship, financial planning and accountability. Each year the Policy is administratively amended to recognize date and amount changes within the text; and to address any new financial or regulatory requirement that may need to be added. She noted that this policy was overhauled with a major update in April. The substantive changes now are: Expenditure Management, Personnel Costs (page 9) • Vacancy Factor – expanded policy to apply to all major funds with personnel costs greater than $4 million: General Fund, Joint Services, Water, Electric • Benefit Payout Reserve – specifically applies to General Fund and Joint Services Fund Staffing & Compensation, Self-Insurance (page 14) • Stabilize fund revenue and department expenditures by adding policy to return any budgeted and unused health insurance contributions to the fund at the end of the fiscal year Keith said that he appreciates staff’s willingness to add joint services, water, electric, etc and said it is highly commendable. Page 5 of 71 Minutes General Government and Finance Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM Leigh presented Mr. Brainard’s suggestion regarding Section V (see below): Section V, I, 6 – Retirement Benefits Current: The City may elect to make an annual 1-time payment to further fund the City’s unfunded pension liability. Such payment will be approved and authorized by the City Council prior to December 31 in order to be recognized in the following year’s TMRS employer contribution rate calculation. Proposal: The City may elect to pay a higher contribution rate than required by the TMRS, to reduce the City’s unfunded pension liability. Such payment will be approved and authorized by the City Council as part of the city's annual budget process. Keith explained that if we do not want to pay one lump sum, this proposed change would allow Council could approve a higher contribution rate during the budget process. Tommy noted that this is the clearest, most concise version of the policy that he has seen and commended Leigh and staff. Keith agreed. Motion to approve Item F by Severine Cushing; second by James Bralski. Approved 5-0 G Discussion and possible action to recommend to Council the city’s Investment Policy changes for 2017 – Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Leigh noted that the purpose of the Investment Policy is to provide the framework for managing the City’s investments in a way that mitigates risk while optimizing returns. The policy is modeled after Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA) recommendations, and according to the Act, Council must approve the policies on an annual basis. The City’s Investment Advisors, Valley View Consulting, have recommended updates to the policy. Noted changes are: • Resolve conflicting language on maximum length of investments • Operating funds, contingency reserves, bond proceeds • Single maturity may not exceed 3 years • Changes to approved list of Broker/Dealers • Add Hilltop Securities • Add MultiBank Securities • Add Wells Fargo Securities • Add FTN Financial Capital Markets • Remove Coastal Securities • Remove JPMorganChase Securities Leigh introduced Susan Anderson from Valley View who gave an update, discussed current rates and answered questions. Page 6 of 71 Minutes General Government and Finance Advisory Board City of Georgetown, Texas Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM Motion to approve Item G by Severine Cushing Gonzalez; second by Tommy Gonzalez. Approved 5-0 Adjournment Motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:25 p.m. by Severine Cushing, second by Tommy Gonzalez. Approved 5-0 __________________________________ ____________ Keith Brainard Date Board Chair __________________________________ ____________ Thomas Bonham Date Board Secretary __________________________________ ____________ Danella Elliott Date Board Liaison Page 7 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board January 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le rec o mmendatio n to C o uncil to ap p ro ve contrac ting with Tis chlerBis e for $120,000 for a fis c al imp act model that will enhance the City’s ability to b etter analyze the financial imp act o f develo p ment p ro jects and land us e polic ies as well as enhanc e long range financial p lanning. Laurie Brewer and Wayne Reed ITEM SUMMARY: Background The City Co uncil id entified exp ansion and d iversific atio n of the tax base as o ne o f the C ity’s s trategic goals. Staff propos ed a projec t in the 2017 bud get to build a Fisc al Imp ac t Model (FIM), whic h would o b jectively predic t costs and revenue impac ts ass o c iated with d evelopment p ropos als and c itywid e growth d evelopment p atterns . In ad d ition, it can be an effective tool fo r financ ial p lanning. Essentially, the Fisc al Imp act Model is another to o l to as s is t s taff and C ity Counc il unders tand ho w individ ual d ecis ions impac t Geo rgeto wn’s lo ng-term fis cal s ustainability. The C o uncil b udgeted $120,000 fo r this p ro ject. The model c an b e us ed when evaluating various land us e d ecisions , such as annexations , rezonings , site d evelopment plans , Munic ip al Utility Dis tricts , and financ ial inc entive proposals . It is exp ected to es timate the costs o f pro viding s ervic es , suc h as s treet maintenance, p ublic s afety, utilities, and other s ervic es , to new res idential and c o mmercial develo pment. It will also pred ic t ad d itional revenues that are exp ec ted as a res ult o f projec ts . T his info rmatio n will p ro vide Counc il ad d itional information to c o nsider, in additio n to o ther fac tors, when making d evelopment and gro wth d ecisions . This tool will b e benefic ial to long range bud getary and financial planning as well. It can assist in evaluating revenue p ro jectio ns, capital improvement programming, levels of service changes , and operatio nal and maintenance bud gets . The mo d el c an be upd ated and us ed b y existing City s taff as projec ts c o me in to be analyzed and during the annual bud get p roc es s o nc e c ompleted . The Tisc hlerBise c o nsultants will be available o n an on-c all b as is to assist as need ed . Recommendation Staff ad vertis ed a competitive req uest fo r p ro p o s als to c o ns ultants with experience and expertis e in this field and received three respons es fro m qualified cons ultants . A multi-d ep artment team, mad e up o f c ity management, financ e, pub lic s afety, p lanning, economic develo p ment, and utility staff, interviewed two firms and referenc es were checked fo r both firms. The team unanimous ly rec o mmended the s electio n of Tisc hlerBise for the projec t. Tisc herBise’s proposal to c omplete the models is at a c o s t of $108,400. The remaining $11,600 of the p ro ject bud get will b e us ed for ad d itional servic es when need ed for majo r p ro jec t analysis and review. Next Steps If the GG AF and Counc il approve the contrac t, the firs t steps wo uld inc lude a kick-o ff meeting with the p ro ject management team and interviews with key staff in all s ervic e areas. The c o nsultant will als o provide a pres entatio n to the Counc il and GGAF on metho d o lo gy and the final product. T he firm will provide training to City staff and may als o provid e additio nal expertis e when high imp act or complex projec ts are p ro p o s ed (as need ed ). It is expec ted the pro jec t will be completed within s ix months . Page 8 of 71 FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Brewer, As s is tant City Manager and Wayne R eed , As s is tant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Tis chler Bis e Pres entation Pres entation Tis chler Bis e Propos al Backup Material Page 9 of 71 1/6/2017 1 Fiscal Impact Model for Land Use, Budget, and Finance Applications Proposal Presentation Presented By: L. Carson Bise, AICP, President Julie Herlands, AICP, Vice President January 4, 2017 2 City of Georgetown Carson Bise, AICP Principal in Charge Julie Herlands, AICP Project Manager Ben Griffin Project Analyst Project Organization Page 10 of 71 1/6/2017 2 3 Unsurpassed Experience Over 800 fiscal impact analyses completed o Growth scenarios o Specific development projects o Annexation o Redevelopment o Service delivery options TischlerBise’s fiscal impact applications are the most credible available TischlerBise project personnel are leading national experts 4 National Leaders Recent Fiscal Impact Application Implementation o Montgomery County, PA (regional) o Castle Pines, CO o Castle Rock, CO o Centennial, CO o Louisville, CO o Windsor, CT o Victor, ID o Falls Church, VA o Frederick County, VA o Chesapeake, VA o Sahuarita, AZ o Alexandria, VA o Leesburg, VA TischlerBise Texas Clients Bexar County Coppell Corpus Christi Denton San Antonio Sherman Tyler Page 11 of 71 1/6/2017 3 5 Fiscal Impact Considerations Differentiating development in Old Town versus rest of the City Incorporating differences in density and development patterns Developing defensible assumptions for sales tax and leakage Analyzing economic development incentives Understanding impacts from specific/discrete projects versus cumulative effects Modeling multiple scenarios Describing fiscal impacts from age‐restricted housing Showing fiscal results in varying contrasts (e.g., cumulative, average annual, annual) Integrating findings into short‐and long‐term financial planning Identifying and quantifying infrastructure needs and related operating impacts Understanding implications of level of service changes 6 Fiscal Impact Models Project Level Fiscal Impact Model (Average Cost Hybrid Approach) o Geographic location o Timing/phasing of new development o Density o Physical development pattern o Road network (curvilinear vs. grid) o Transportation choices Citywide Fiscal Impact Model (Case Study Marginal Approach) o All of the above, plus…. o Intervention strategies o Cumulative effect of development decisions Page 12 of 71 1/6/2017 4 7 Application Design Developed in Excel and Visual Basic o Allows for a powerful and flexible application •Easily modified •Additional modules can be integrated at a later date o Transparent structure avoids “black box” concerns •Data, assumptions, algorithms fully shown 8 Application Design: Input Options Development projects and growth scenarios are represented through demographic inputs Unlimited number of land use categories can be reflected Can be designed to reflect multiple subareas (fiscal analysis zones) Page 13 of 71 1/6/2017 5 9 Application Design: Input Options 10 Application Design: Input Options Page 14 of 71 1/6/2017 6 11 Fiscal Analysis Zone (FAZ) Example 12 Application Design Revenue o Will include capital and operating revenue o Includes both annual and one‐time revenue o Ability to model “fixed” revenue Page 15 of 71 1/6/2017 7 13 Application Design Capital Facilities o Forecast the need for capital facilities using the model or enter facilities directly o Recognize unused capacities and/or determine growth’s proportionate share of the costs o “Build” new additions instead of o Include lag/lead time for construction o Include financing assumptions o Repurchase after useful life 14 Application Design Operating Expenses o Can be organized by department or program area o Reflects program‐related operating expenses versus facility‐related operating expenses o Forecasts staff and related expenses o Able to factor one‐time costs o Able to factor fixed costs POLICE CALLS FOR SERVICE DATA (1) Land Use Calls (1) Percent Land Use Residential 177,853 75.0% Nonresidential 59,284 25.0% TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 237,137 100.0% CALLS FOR SERVICE PROJECTION FACTORS Current Population 236,172 Current Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 412,043 Calls per Capita 0.75 Calls per Nonresidential Trip 0.144 (1) Based on information provided by City of Chesapeake Police Department and includes officer initiated calls/activity (2014) Page 16 of 71 1/6/2017 8 15 Geographic Differences Date:10/26/2016 Project Name: Project Size:600 Acres Magisterial District:Shawnee Fire and Rescue Service District:Stephens City Elementary School District:Apple Pie Ridge Middle School District:James Wood High School District:James Wood First Projection Year: 2017 Inflation Rate: 0.0% Scale Factor: 1,000 This planning tool was developed by TischlerBise, Inc. to assist the Winchester‐Frederick County Economic Development Commision and Frederick County Government with assessing the fiscal implications of proposed development projects and rezonings in Frederick County, Virginia. The cost and revenue factors contained in this model are based on current year budget information and data provided by various Frederick County departments. This model can be adjusted over time to reflect changes in demographics, budget information and capital facility cost assumptions. Data entry cells that should be reviewed for each fiscal evaluation have yellow backgrounds and are surrounded by blue borders. Data entry cells that should be updated annually or as needed are simply yellow with no border. Cells that are colored green represent annual demand bases. Internally calculated cells have a white background. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL Longview Farm 16 Density and Retail Sales SCENARIO 2:Scenario Two Taxable Sales Captured in Town: 27% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT Potential New Land Use Profile Development Single Family - Low Density 3.04 Persons Per Unit 120 Lin. Ft. Lot Width 5,000 Units Market Value: $350,000 Per Unit 9.70 Vehicle Trips 50% Adj. Factor Construction Value $227,500 Per Unit $140,000 HH Income 32% on Taxables Items Single Family - Medium Density 3.04 Persons Per Unit 80 Lin. Ft. Lot Width 2,800 Units Market Value: $215,000 Per Unit 9.70 Vehicle Trips 50% Adj. Factor Construction Value $139,750 Per Unit $117,000 HH Income 32% on Taxables Items FACILITY SF 4,793 9,586 14,379 19,172 LANE MILES 16.132.248.963.1 CONSTRUCTION VALUE $68,838,250 $68,838,250 $68,838,250 $68,838,250 RESIDENTIAL SPENDING $4,107,370 $8,214,739 $12,322,109 $16,429,478 NONRESIDENTIAL SPENDING $3,281,250 $6,562,500 $9,843,750 $13,125,000 TOTAL RETAIL SALES $7,388,620 $14,777,239 $22,165,859 $29,554,478 Page 17 of 71 1/6/2017 9 17 Density and Retail Sales ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPENDING ACTIVE SCENARIO: Scenario 1 Summary Average Supportable Retail Square Feet 2,900 Average Retail Sales per Square Feet ($) $390 Total Retail Sales $1,131,000 Total Additional City Retail Sales Tax $11,310 Average Supportable Restaurant Square Feet 435 Average Restaurant Sales per Square Feet ($) $500 Total Restaurant Sales $217,500 Total Additional City Meals Tax $8,700 GRAND TOTAL ADDITIONAL SALES AND MEALS TAXES $20,010 MODEL VERSION: Version: FY2016_091616 RUN DATE: 12/29/2016 18 Geography and Density VEHICLE TRIP RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES Reduction for Mixed Use ITE# Land Use Wkdy Trips Ends* Mixed Use** Wkdy Trip Ends Trip Adj Factor 210 Single Family Detached 9.52 29% 6.76 50% 220 Apartment 6.65 29% 4.72 50% 221 Low Rise Apartment 6.59 29% 4.68 50% 222 High Rise Apartment 4.20 29% 2.98 50% 230 Residential Condo/Townhouse 5.81 29% 4.13 50% 240 Mobile Home Park 4.99 29% 3.54 50% 251 Senior Adult Housing‐Detached 3.68 29% 2.61 50% 252 Senior Adult Housing‐Attached 3.44 29% 2.44 50% 254 Assisted Living (per bed) 2.66 29% 1.89 50% Source: ITE Trip Generation Rates (9th edition, 2012) **Conistent with the literature, a recent analysis of mixed‐use developments in six regions of the US found an average 29% in trip generation as a funtion of "D" variables, inlcuding design, diverity, destination accessibility, distance to transit, development scale and demographics. ROADWAYS Land Use/Element Activity Center/Core Urban Service Area Rural Area Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Single-family LOS = D/E LOS = D/E LOS = C/D LOS = C/D LOS = A/B LOS = A/B Trip Rate 7 3 8 4 9 5 Trip Length 3 5 5 7 7 9 % New Trips 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Capacity/Lane 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 Capacity Used 0.0007 0.0005 0.0016 0.00112 0.00315 0.00225 Cost/Lane mile $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,500,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Cost Allocated $3,500 $5,000 $4,000 $7,840 $3,150 $4,500 Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Multifamily LOS = D/E LOS = D/E LOS = C/D LOS = C/D LOS = A/B LOS = A/B Trip Rate 4 2 5 3 6 4 Trip Length 3 5 5 7 7 9 % New Trips 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Capacity/Lane 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 Capacity Used 0.0004 0.000333333 0.001 0.00084 0.0021 0.0018 Cost/Lane mile $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,500,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Cost Allocated $2,000 $3,333 $2,500 $5,880 $2,100 $3,600 Page 18 of 71 1/6/2017 10 19 Direct Entry 20 Modeling of Facility Needs Capital Facilities Standards and Costs Need For Citywide Current Demand Current Inflation Facility LOS by Units Served Cost/Unit Adjustment Facility Type Based On: Capital Facility Per Facility ($000's) (+/‐) Community Parks Acres 538 PARK POPULATION 0.0010 19,788 $1,000 0% USEFUL | CAPACITY FACTORS: Remaining Capacity/ FACILITY | Prototype Facility Size (acres): 20 Initial Construction LIFE: New Facility (years 30 | Estimate of Available Facility Capacity: 30% Threshold (acres): 6 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ LAG/LEAD Funding to | FUNDING METHOD: TIME: Delivery (years): 0 | Percent Bonded: 100% ===================== =============== ========= ======================= =============== ============== ============================= Base Year Inventory Bd to 1st Yr DS (Yrs) 0 Bond Rate:Capital Facilities Data and Adjusted Costs 4.50% Bond Years: Base 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 Fiscal Year‐> 2007 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Community Parks $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Acres Needed Citywide to Maintain Current LOS: 538 539.4 539.6 539.8 540.0 540.2 540.4 Annual Construction Threshold: 6666626 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ New Facilities Needed to Maintain Current LOS : 000010 Acres Added to Inventory: 0000200 =================== ============================= ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== Page 19 of 71 1/6/2017 11 21 Application Design: Model Outputs Top 5 Revenues 1. Real Estate Property Taxes $1,709,500 2. Personal Property Taxes $85,463 3. Charges for Services $57,173 4. Other Taxes $12,361 5. Fines & Forfeitures $7,291 Top 5 Operating Expenses 1. Community Services: Parks, Rec, Library $66,451 2. Community Services: Health and Human Services $48,974 3. Public Works $40,433 4. Public Safety: Fire $31,254 5. Public Safety: Police $19,552 TOP REVENUES & EXPENSES (20-YR Cumulative) 22 Application Design: Model Outputs Operating Impact Output Summary: Annual Revenues & Expenses ACTIVE PROJECT: Scenario 1 Summary Information Total Market Value of Project $40,925,000 Annual Net Fiscal Impact:($44,071)Year 2 Number of Pupils Generated: 36.40 Number of Residential Units in Project: Total Taxable Value of Residential Units: Total Nonresidential SF of Project: Total Taxable Value of Nonresidential SF: $8,925,000 $32,000,000 110 25,500 Page 20 of 71 1/6/2017 12 23 Application Design: Model Outputs PROJECT SUMMARY SCENARIO COMPARISONS NOVUS FAIRFAX GATEWAY APARTMENTS: 1‐BEDROOM UNITS 182 182 182 APARTMENTS: 2‐BEDROOM UNITS 182 182 182 APARTMENTS: 2‐BEDROOM + DEN UNITS 31 31 31 HOUSING UNIT TYPE 4000 HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5000 HOUSING UNIT TYPE 6000 HOUSING UNIT TYPE 7000 HOUSING UNIT TYPE 8000 TOTAL UNITS 395 395 395 POPULATION 881 881 881 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 44 44 67 RETAIL SF 15,000 25,000 0 OFFICE (NON‐PROFIT) SF 4,000 4,000 0 RESTAURANT SF 10,000 0 0 NONRESIDENTIAL TYPE 4 SF 0 0 0 NONRESIDENTIAL TYPE 5 SF 0 0 0 NONRESIDENTIAL TYPE 6 SF 0 0 0 TOTAL SF 29,000 29,000 0 JOBS (Direct) 90 60 0 Scenario 1. Novus Fairfax Gateway As Submitted Scenario 2. Novus Gateway with No Restaurant Scenario 3. Novus Gateway with No Retail/SGR by Bedroom 24 Application Design: Model Outputs Page 21 of 71 1/6/2017 13 25 Application Design: Model Outputs 26 Frederick County, VA, Development Impact Model 14‐member Working Group representing County staff, development community, BOS, and Planning Commission Model is capable of evaluating: o Multiple project scenarios o Variations in levels of service o Account for service areas for specific infrastructure categories Provides critical information used in the negotiation of proffers during the County’s rezoning process Page 22 of 71 1/6/2017 14 27 Oklahoma City Fiscal Impact Analysis Two Phase Study: o Determine fiscal sustainability of two scenarios (trends vs. inner core focus) o Develop fiscal model for evaluating specific development projects and area wide analysis Analysis indicates City benefits from encouraging revitalization of the urban core A surprising result: Deficits to capital budget and surpluses to operating budget Annual Net Fiscal Impacts from New Growth Scenario Comparisons Oklahoma City Fiscal Impact Analysis ($9,000) ($8,000) ($7,000) ($6,000) ($5,000) ($4,000) ($3,000) ($2,000) ($1,000) $0 $1,000 $2,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (X 1 , 0 0 0 ) Current Trends Inner Core Focus 28 Falls Church, VA Small city of ~12,000 residents in greater Washington, DC, area Budget is dominated by education expenses Officials interested in encouraging better balance of commercial and nonresidential development Interest in fiscal impact of mixed‐use development projects Concern over school costs; marginal approach used to evaluate capital planning efforts as excess capacity decreases Detailed model with wide variety of revenue and expenditure components Retail impact module evaluated based on average household spending Page 23 of 71 1/6/2017 15 29 Rushmark 7‐story, mixed‐use development with ground floor commercial o 61 KSF grocery, 176 studio and 1‐bedroom units o 106 2‐bedroom units o 3‐level underground parking Source: City of Falls ChurchEconomicDevelopment Office 30 Rushmark Model estimates total market value of project of $100 million Generation of 36 pupils o $500k expenditure Net fiscal impact is $1.4 million o Large property and sales tax receipts Source: City of Falls Church Economic Development Office Output Summary: Annual Revenues & Expenses RUSHMARK 020413 Summary Information Rushmark w/ 176 studios & 1's & 106 - 2 bdrms all @ $255K, 3110 SF retail 60,800K grocery Total Market Value of Project $103,050,650 Avg. Annual Net Fiscal Impact: $1,330,837 Number of Pupils Generated: 36 Number of Residential Units in Project: Total Taxable Value of Residential Units: Total Nonresidential SF of Project: Total Taxable Value of Nonresidential SF: Gross Annual Revenues Real Estate Property Taxes $1,308,743 Personal Property Taxes $69,346 Non-Assessed Property Taxes $0 Local Sales and Use Taxes $588,440 Other Taxes $70,255 Gross Receipts Business Tax $111,804 Licenses & Permits $4,455 Grant Revenue--Federal $0 Other State Categorical Aid $0 State Non-Categorical $0 State Categorical $0 Other Contributions $0 Charges for Services $83,885 Fines & Forfeitures $21,900 Investment Revenues $0 Rental Income $0 Dispositions & Sales $0 Recovered Costs $0 Payments in Lieu of Taxes $0 Transfer from Water Fund $0 Transfer from School Board $0 Proceeds from sale of bonds $0 Use of Fund Balance $0 School Board $120,893 COP & CIP Capital Revenues $0 Proffers $0 Gross Revenues $2,379,722 Gross Annual Expenditures Legislative $2,673 Constitutional Officers $10,912 Executive $9,460 Administrative Services $30,248 Community Services $126,162 Development Services $10,842 Environmental Services $88,337 Public Safety $146,197 Education $463,596 Non-departmental $0 School Board $160,459 Capital Needs $0 Gross Expenditures $1,048,886 Net Fiscal Impact $1,330,837 $31,140,650 $71,910,000 282 63,910 Page 24 of 71 1/6/2017 16 31 Development Project June 2012 Net Fiscal Impact Per Year ($1.27 tax rate) Original NET Estimated Fiscal Impact per Year (Date & Tax Rate) June 2012 GROSS Tax Revenue from All Sources Annual GROSS Tax Revenue from Pre-Devel. Uses 2011/12 FCCPS Pupils & Pupils per Housing Unit 2010/11 FCCPS Pupils & Pupils per Housing Unit Original Estimate of Total Pupils & Pupils per Housing Unit Land (sf & acres) & Development Total FAR Commercial SF Occupied or Committed by Lease** Commercial FAR, Comm./Total SF, % Commercial Space Housing Unit Characteristics: % Studios & 1's % 2 & 3 Bdrms Byron 513 W. Broad St . (90 condos, 22,527 sf commercial) $551,354 $276,000/acre $306,436 (2003, $1.13) $886,346 $443,000/acre $209,380 (Red Lobster) $105,000/acre 12 in 90 occupied units (0.13) 11 in 90 occupied units (0.12) 14 (0.15) 87,120 sf 2.00 acres 1.76 FAR 19,831 sf (88%) 0.26 FAR 22,527/153,422 sf 14.6% 22% One bdrms 78% 2 & 3 bdrms Pearson Sq. 400/500 S. Maple (230 apts., 102,000 sf commercial) $233,248 $50,000/acre $684,196* (early 2004, $1.13) $1,791,548 $381,000/acre $75,000 (light industrial) $16,000/acre 70 in 230 rented units (0.30) 98 in 219 rented units (0.45) 35 (2004: 0.15) 204,732 sf 4.70 acres 2.10 FAR 96,300 sf (94%) 0.50 FAR 102,000/434,000 sf 25.8% 30% One bdrms 70% 2 & 3 bdrms Read Bldg. 402 W. Broad St. (26 apts., 11,800 sf commercial) $96,395 $142,000/acre $52,690 (2005, $1.03) $161,415 $237,000/acre $15,780 (auto service) $23,000/acre 1 in 26 occupied units (0.04) 0 in 26 occupied units (0.00) 4 (0.15) 30,000 sf 0.68 acres 1.18 FAR 11,850 sf (100%) 0.40 FAR 11,850/35,350 sf 33.5% 92% studios & 1's 8% 2 bdrms Spectrum 444 W. Broad St. (189 condos, 64k sf commercial) $1,066,287 $333,000/acre $721,307 (early 2004, $1.13) $1,654,902 $517,000/acre $43,600 (parking & vacant lots) $14,000/acre 24 in 139 occupied units (0.17) 21 in 98 occupied units (0.21) 29 (0.15) 139,392 sf 3.20 acres 2.54 FAR 37,018 sf (58%) 0.46 FAR 64,000/355,000 sf 18.4% 21% One bdrms 79% 2 bdrms SUBTOTALS $1,947,284 $184,000/acre $1,764,629 $167,000/acre $4,494,211 $425,000/acre $343,760 $32,000/acre 107 in 485 units (0.22) 130 in 433 units (0.30) 82 in 535 units (0.15)10.58 acres 164,999 sf Broadway 502 W. Broad St. (80 condos, 14,503 sf commercial) $511,601 $324,000/acre Fiscal impact model not available at time of project approval $739,348 $468,000/acre $19,800 (Adcom Building) $13,000/acre 7 in 80 occupied units (0.09) 7 in 80 occupied units (0.09) N/A 68,825 sf 1.58 acres 2.74 FAR 9,915 sf (68%) 0.21 FAR 14,508/188,329 sf 11.0% 100% 2 & 3 bdrms GRAND TOTALS $2,458,885 $202,000/acre 2010 Net Fiscal Impact: $2,103,168 $5,233,559 $430,000/acre $363,560 $30,000/acre 114 in 565 units (0.20) 137 in 513 units (0.27) 529,690 sf 12.16 acres 2.20 FAR 174,914 of 214,835 sf (81%) 0.41 FAR 214,615/1,166,101 sf 18.4% 25% studios & 1's (153 units) 75% 2 & 3 bdrms (462 units) Rushmark 301 W. Broad St. (282 apts.; 63,470 net sf commercial) $957,962-$1,323,982 and $364,000- $503,000/acre N/A $2,369,788- $2,456,197 and $901,000- $934,000/acre $97,000 $36,882/acre N/A N/A 35-61 114,563 sf 2.63 acres 3.25 FAR N/A 0.62 FAR 70,522/372,838 gross sf 18.9% 62% studios & 1's (176 units) 38% 2 bdrms (106 units) Lincoln Reserve at Tinner Hill (224 apts.; 43,490 sf commercial) $604,245-$1,196,219 and $276,000- $546,000/acre N/A $1,360,039- $1,982,802 and $621,000- $905,000/acre $79,000 $36,073/acre N/A N/A 26-45 95,396 sf 2.19 acres 2.98 FAR N/A 0.46 FAR 43,940/284,528 sf 15.3% 69% One bdrms (155 units) 31% 2's (69 units) Project Under Construction: Northgate 472 N. Washington (95 apts., 10 towns, 37,075 sf commercial) $459,670 $300,000/acre $195,753 (2007; $1.01) $938,576 $613,000/acre $31,823 (vacant funeral home & rental property) $21,000/acre N/A N/A 19 (0.184) 66,647 sf 1.53 acres 2.42 FAR Under Construction 0.44 FAR 37,075/161,000 sf 23.0% 53% studios & 1's (55 units) 47% 2 & 3 bdrms (50 units) Fiscal impact results reflect actual business tax revenue when available and model generated projections when not. * Re-estimated at $690,083 in July 2007 with $1.01 tax rate & 0.167 pupils per unit. Mixed Use Development Fiscal Impact Report - 2012 NOTES: ** Commercial leases for space unoccupied at 06/12: Beadazzled, Moby Dick's & Sweet Frog (Spectrum); Body Dynamics (Pearson Sq.); Edward Jones (Byron); medical clinic (Broadway). Tracking Model Accuracy Source: City of Falls Church Economic Development Office 32 Other Mitigation Windsor, CT – TIF West Windsor, NJ – TIF Queen Creek, AZ – Local option sales tax Hillsborough County, FL – Impact fees Castle Pines, CO – Developer agreements and CFD Corpus Christi, TX – Revenue enhancement Bexar County, TX – Revenue enhancement Denton, TX – Revenue enhancement Beaufort County, SC – Infrastructure financing strategy Shreveport, LA – Revenue enhancement Page 25 of 71 1/6/2017 17 33 Age Restricted Communities Informed largely through our impact fee practice o Persons per housing unit o Persons determines trip rates o Household income o Spending habits o Calls for public safety services Development Location Homes Head of Household <55 y.o. School Age Children Courtyards at Culp Arbor Durham, NC 69 2 0 Courtyards at Cary Cary, NC 15 0 0 Courtyards at Okelly‐Chapel Cary, NC 22 2 0 Villas at Maple Creek Westerville, OH 52 2 3 158 6 3 Student Generation Rate 0.019 34 Maintenance of Model Annual update o Demographics o Budget data o Capital facility inventories o Capital facility cost factors Implementation of fiscal impact model o User’s Manual with LOS Assumptions as Appendix o Training (3 sessions) o Ongoing technical support Page 26 of 71 1/6/2017 18 35 Distinguishing Features We Bring It All Together User Friendly Design, with Input from City Staff Superior Project Approach Successful Implementation of Similar Models Depth of Experience Realistic Assumptions Page 27 of 71 Page 28 of 71 Page 29 of 71 Page 30 of 71 Page 31 of 71 Page 32 of 71 Page 33 of 71 Page 34 of 71 Page 35 of 71 Page 36 of 71 Page 37 of 71 Page 38 of 71 Page 39 of 71 Page 40 of 71 Page 41 of 71 Page 42 of 71 Page 43 of 71 Page 44 of 71 Page 45 of 71 Page 46 of 71 Page 47 of 71 Page 48 of 71 Page 49 of 71 Page 50 of 71 Page 51 of 71 Page 52 of 71 Page 53 of 71 Page 54 of 71 Page 55 of 71 Page 56 of 71 Page 57 of 71 Page 58 of 71 Page 59 of 71 Page 60 of 71 Page 61 of 71 Page 62 of 71 Page 63 of 71 Page 64 of 71 Page 65 of 71 Page 66 of 71 Page 67 of 71 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board January 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Overview and dis c us s ion of the City’s Internal Audit P ro gram -- Leigh Wallac e, F inance Direc tor ITEM SUMMARY: The F is cal and Budgetary Polic ies es tablish the City’s internal c ontrols , inc luding an internal audit p ro gram. This pres entatio n will provid e an overview and update o n recent ac tivities in Departmental Audits , Trans actio n R eviews , and the Annual Aud it P lan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Leigh Wallace, Financ e Directo r ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Internal Audit Pres entation Pres entation Page 68 of 71 1/6/2017 1 FY2017 Annual Budget GGAF January 11, 2017 Internal Audit Program 2017 1 FY2017 Annual Budget Purpose •Fiscal and Budgetary Policies establish internal controls including internal audit functions •Three main areas of activity include: •Departmental audits of processes and controls •Transaction reviews –petty cash, credit cards, payroll, travel •Annual audit plan –for broader, deeper issues 2 Page 69 of 71 1/6/2017 2 FY2017 Annual Budget Departmental Audits •Information Technology –Review Unused Telecommunications Accounts •Result: run usage report every 6 months to identify and question unused lines 3 Line Type Total accounts # Eliminated Annual Ongoing Savings Analog/VOIP Phone 900 15 $6,700 Wireless Phone 325 45 $20,500 FY2017 Annual Budget Transaction Reviews •Credit Cards and Travel –review 20% of monthly transactions •Approximately 10 –20 issues identified per month •Example findings: •Missed approval deadline •Lack of documentation – missing receipts, approvals, or other explanations •Charging sales tax •Result –contact individuals and supervisors for resolution 4 Page 70 of 71 1/6/2017 3 FY2017 Annual Budget Annual Audit Plan •FY 2017 Annual Budget ‐$75,000 for Internal Audit Plan •Request for Proposals: Audit Plan •Scope and post RFP in spring 2017 •Award in summer 2017 •FY 2018 annual budget – continue funding for outside audit activities •Example activities: •Sales Tax Receipts •Franchise Fee Receipts •Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax •Departmental Audits •Internal Controls 5 FY2017 Annual Budget Customer Information System (CIS) Consulting Services •CIS Consulting RFP issued in September 2016 •Contract awarded in October 2016 to Weaver and Tidwell, LLP •Scope of Services –to provide for a high level of internal controls while configuring UMAX and integrating it with Incode •Deliverable Early 2017 –Transaction Map and Configuration Recommendations 6 Page 71 of 71