HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GGAF_01.15.2016Notice of Meeting for the
General Government and Finance Advisory Board
of the City of Georgetown
January 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM
at Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 West 9th
Street, Georgetown, TX
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four
(4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A Review minutes from the November 19, 2015 GGAF meeting - Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
B Consideration and possible approval to purchase 17 replacement laptops for emergency service vehicles
from ARC IT Services for an amount of $76,831.45 - Chris Bryce, IT Director
C Consideration and possible approval to purchase expansion servers for the City’s server backup system from
LH Computer Services for a total amount of $92,946 - Chris Bryce, IT Director
D Consideration and possible approval to purchase replacement IT servers and networking equipment for the
Georgetown Communications and Technology datacenter for an amount of $678,873.31 - Chris Bryce, IT
Director
E Discussion of the City’s miscellaneous long-term commitments, reservations and other unfunded liabilities –
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
F Overview of the City’s Debt Program, including current outstanding and proposed debt obligations - Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager
G Consideration and possible recommendation on the potential uses of the Council’s Excess Revenues Special
Revenue Fund/Year End 2015 General Fund excess – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, 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 __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72
continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 1 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Review minutes from the November 19, 2015 GGAF meeting - Danella Elliott, Executive
Assistant
ITEM SUMMARY:
Review minutes from the November 19, 2015 GGAF meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
11.19.15 GGAF Draft Minutes Backup Material
Page 2 of 40
Minutes of the Meeting of the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD (GGAF)
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 19, 2015
The General Government and Finance Advisory Board met at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, 2015 in the
Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 West 9th Street, Georgetown, Texas
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Brainard, Chair, Tommy Gonzalez, John Hesser, Thomas Bonham, Ralph Mason
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF/OTHERS
PRESENT: David Morgan, Laurie Brewer, Trina Bickford, Kimberly Garrett, Trish Long, Eric
Nuner, Paul Diaz, Robyn Densmore, Chris Foster, Lisa Haines, Tadd Phillips, Stan
Hohman, Ed Polasek, Jack Daly, Eric Johnson
A copy of these minutes, containing detailed information on the items listed below will be available in the Finance
and Administration Office, located at 113 East 8th Street, Georgetown, TX and can be found online at
http://agendas.georgetown.org/
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session that follows.
Regular Session – Called to order at 3:30 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@georgetown.org
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 September 23, 2015 GGAF meeting – Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant
Motion by Gonzalez; seconded by Mason. Unanimously approved.
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.
B. Consideration and possible recommendation of routine purchases and contracts – Laurie Brewer, Assistant
City Manager
Page 3 of 40
1. Consideration and possible action to approve the annual contract for the City of Georgetown’s access control
and security technician to be provided by Convergint Technologies, the City’s current security, video
surveillance, and access control provider, in the amount of $81,700.00 – Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent
and Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director
No discussion on this item.
2. Consideration and possible approval of the contract for Laserfiche Rio Upgrade – Robyn Densmore,
Records Coordinator and Chris Bryce, IT Director
No discussion on this item.
3. Consideration and possible action for the approval to purchase vehicles and equipment in the amount
of $1,599,313.10 – Stan Hohman, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor
Stan Hohman answered questions on the number of vehicles we now have, where the replacements were going
and funding sources. Also discussed was how the CVB van will be used, and what had been done in the past.
Hohman answered that the previously borrowed it from the VSC. The new van is funded from HOT taxes and
will also be used to take conference planners/organizers on tours, as well as, weekly new employee orientation
tours. It will also be used to haul supplies/people at other times, including during Home and Garden Shows.
Gonzales suggested looking at future maintenance costs to ensure justification of these costs, and monitor growth
well.
Motion by Gonzales; seconded by Bonham. Unanimously approved.
C. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution authorizing staff to conduct business with
Comerica Bank, N.A. and to appoint “Representatives of the Depositor” – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City
Manager and Lisa Haines, Controller
Lisa Haines explained that this resolution authorizes the following employees to be Representatives of the
Depositor and is hereby authorized to enter into letters of credit (LOC) for the purpose of fulfilling the collateral
requirements of our contracts with JPMorgan Venture Energy Corporation (JPMVEC) and Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT).
Representatives of the Depositor:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Lisa Haines, Controller
The City currently has contracts with both JPMVEC and ERCOT for whole sale energy and congestion rights,
respectively. Both contracts have collateral requirements.
Our contracts with JPMVEC were acquired back in 2012 and require us to post collateral to guarantee that the
City will pay on the contracts and not walk away from them in the event that they became obsolete. Our contracts
are from 2016 through 2021 and represent approximately $100 million of purchased power.
ERCOT is the clearing house for all of our congestion rights hedges. They require us to post collateral that
would cover the maximum charge we could see in the event that we won all of our bids at our bid price. ERCOT
requires the collateral to prevent any market participant from entering a bid in an amount that they would be
unable to pay.
The LOC for JPMVEC will cost 110 bps per $1M (total LOC is for $15 million)or approximately $165,000
annually. For the month of October, JPMVEC was paying between 7 – 13 bps on the cash they are currently
holding as collateral. If we invested this cash ourselves, we could earn as much as 90 bps on a 2-year CD. The
LOCs renew annually and the cost is factored into electric’s purchased power.
Gonzales suggested that they check into setting it up for an amount up to $18 million and to renew annually, as
well as, to check on “up-front” charges versus changing the amount in the middle of the contract.
Motion by Gonzales; seconded by Mason. Unanimously approved.
D. Discussion and possible recommendation on a franchise agreement with ATMOS Energy. - Chris Foster –
Resource Planning & Integration Manager and Jim Briggs – General Manager, Utilities
Page 4 of 40
Chris Foster explained that the Atmos’ current Franchise Agreement was originally signed in 2000, was amended
in 2008 for six (6) years and extended for one more year in 2014. This agreement allows Atmos to build
infrastructure and serve customers’ demand for natural gas in the City of Georgetown in return for annual
payments based on the gross revenues of the utility generated in the City. The current payment is based on 5%
of gross revenues as defined in Georgetown’s code of ordinances, Chapter 14.
The City and Atmos have not come to agreement on the terms of a new franchise agreement, but neither wishes
to stop service at the end of the year. Both parties are requesting to extend the current franchise agreement for a
period of five (5) years.
The Council Item will reflect an ordinance change in the following format:
“FIRST READING - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN,
TEXAS AMENDING SECTION 14.04.010 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS RELATING TO THE TERM OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION; REPEALING
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCLUDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.”
Atmos paid the City the amount of $564,986.11 in April, 2015. This amount covers franchise fees from April, 2015 through
March, 2016
Staff requests that the Board recommend approval of a five (5) year extension (through February 15, 2020) of the current
Franchise Agreement with Atmos to allow the City and Atmos to continue to negotiate new terms.
Motion by Gonzales; seconded by Bonham. Unanimously approved.
E. Presentation and discussion on Facilities and Parks Capital Asset Maintenance/Replacement Plans – Eric
Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director, Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager, and Trish Long, Facilities Superintendent
Brainard noted that he asked for this update, as it came up in discussions regarding the Grace Heritage Church.
Eric Nuner explained that Facilities is under Parks and Recreation now, and gave a presentation. Discussion
followed and Tommy suggested that it might be possible to use reserve funds for some of the items discussed,
but asked Eric to possibly bring this back to GGAF and Council in the future. Gonzales also told Eric to always
present the budget for what is really needed, not what he thinks Council will approve. He doesn’t want any items
to fall short in areas that are in need of funding. He also asked that a summary of leased buildings be e-mailed to
the GGAF Board.
Brainard thanked Eric and his staff for the nice presentation.
F. Discuss and Recommend Benefits Management Consultant Services for the City of Georgetown’s Benefits
and Wellness Program - Tadd Phillips, Human Resources Director
Tadd Phillips informed the GGAF Board that the City’s current Benefits Consultant Services agreement will end
on January 31, 2016. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was conducted for these services in order to assure the
City’s partnership with the best available firm going forward. Staff seeks GGAF approval of the RFP Committee’s
recommended selection. The selection committee was composed of the following members: Trina Bickford,
Tadd Phillips, Bert Witcher, Paul Diaz, Jennifer Bills, Laura Maloy, Niki Ross and Daniel Bilbrey.
Six bids were initially submitted for this RFP. Through an initial analysis the bidders were narrowed down to
four. On November 5th and 6th, the committee interviewed the four bidders in person. The interviewees included
McGriff, Seibells & Williams; IPS Advisors; Gallagher; and Holmes Murphy. During that process the committee
narrowed the candidates to two finalists: IPS Advisors and Gallagher. Phillips gave a PowerPoint presentation
that gave an overview of the RFP process.
Staff recommends that GGAF approve the award for the benefits management consultant services to Gallagher
for an annual fee of $48,000. This fee matches current annual budget and is consistent with competitor fees.
Motion by Gonzales; seconded by Mason. Unanimously approved.
Page 5 of 40
G. Discussion of City’s Employee Deferred Compensation Program– Tadd Phillips, Human Resources
Director
Phillips gave a presentation and overview of the Deferred Compensation Program including:
• Administrator Overview
• Program Design & Offerings
• Plan Performance
• Fee Structure
• Participation Levels
Discussion included: The Board agreed that employees need to be more informed or educated on the Deferred
Comp Plan. Brainard suggested making it a supplemental insurance choice. Gonzales suggested combining
TMRS and the 457 into one, and Brainard said that it is not a good idea; it would affect our ability to attract and
retain quality employees. He strongly encourages auto-enrollment during new employee orientation, and
suggested that the City possibly contribute an amount, maybe $25/month towards this. Phillips concurs with this
incentive and thinks this a good idea to help attract and retain good employees. Gonzales doesn’t agree because
he said they could take it out at any time.
The Board thanked Mr. Phillips for his presentation.
Motion by Gonzales; seconded by Bonham to adjourn. Unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
Page 6 of 40
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.
_______________________ ____________
Keith Brainard Date
Board Chair
_______________________ _____________
Thomas Bonham Date
Board Secretary
_______________________ _____________
Danella Elliott Date
Board Liaison
Page 7 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible approval to purchase 17 replacement laptops for emergency service
vehicles from ARC IT Services for an amount of $76,831.45 - Chris Bryce, IT Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
City of Georgetown Police and Fire vehicles are equipped with Panasonic Toughbook ruggedized
laptops that provide access to the mission critical software applications needed by emergency
responders. Each year, the City replaces a portion of those laptops due to wear and tear. This
request will replace 16 older Toughbooks and add one additional device for use in EMS vehicles.
Prior to 2010, the City replaced Toughbooks on an irregular schedule. This often resulted in large,
unexpected costs to replace or repair a large number of failing machines at once. To prevent that,
the City established a replacement schedule for all Toughbooks. They were initially replaced every
three years. However, by tracking maintenance requests on Toughbooks, it has been determined
that a five year replacement schedule is more appropriate and cost effective. Also, five year
extended warranties are purchased on the Toughbooks to prevent excessive repair costs in any
given year. Reconditioned spare Toughbooks are also maintained for use when the primary
machines are out for repair.
ARC IT Services is an Austin based reseller for Panasonic Toughbooks. All pricing is in
accordance with Texas Department of Information Resources contract numbers DIR-TSO-2520
and DIR-SDD-1934.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All items were budgeted during the FY 2016 budget process. Expenses in the amount of
$76,831.45 will be recorded in account 570-0641-52-103 (IT Contracts – Toughbook
replacement).
SUBMITTED BY:
Chris Bryce, IT Director
Page 8 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible approval to purchase expansion servers for the City’s server backup
system from LH Computer Services for a total amount of $92,946 - Chris Bryce, IT Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is a request to purchase two (2) expansion devices for the City’s server backup system.
The City uses an industry leading server backup technology manufactured by the U.S. based
Exagrid company. The technology works by constantly making copies, or “snapshots”, of the
City’s servers and storing them in a way that allows the servers to be instantly restored in the event
of a disaster. It also stores redundant “disaster recovery” snapshots of the servers off-site in the
event that equipment in the City’s primary data center is physically damaged.
The two new expansion appliances will increase the capacity of the system to accommodate
current growth and increase the amount of historical backups the City can store. Currently, the
City maintains “instant” backups for a period of fifteen (15) days and disaster recovery backups
for about seven (7) days. The expansions will allow us to increase the instant backups to thirty
(30) days and disaster recovery backups to one (1) year.
Equipment is being purchased at pricing set in the U.S. General Services Administration contract
#GS-35F-4342D.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All items were budgeted during the FY 2016 budget process as a service level increase. Expenses
in the amount of $92,946 will be recorded in account 570-5-0641-52-101 (IT Contracts – One
Time Program Request). After one year, there will be an increase in ongoing maintenance costs of
about $10.800.
SUBMITTED BY:
Chris Bryce, IT Director
Page 9 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible approval to purchase replacement IT servers and networking
equipment for the Georgetown Communications and Technology datacenter for an amount of
$678,873.31 - Chris Bryce, IT Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This item is a request to purchase the needed equipment and services to replace portions of the
City’s IT infrastructure that have reached end-of-life or end-of-support. The new equipment will
also add capacity needed to accommodate growth in technology use. There are several
components of this project:
1. The City’s main virtual server hosts will be replaced. Seven of these large host servers run 90%
of the City’s mission critical applications. They are seven to eight years old and are no longer
supported by IBM (three to five years is the standard lifespan for critical servers). They will be
replaced by eight (8) Cisco Unified Computing System servers in a more efficient “blade” style
configuration.
2. The increased speeds of the new servers will require that some networking equipment in the
datacenter be upgraded. This will include replacement of the City’s two core network switches.
3. Virtual servers and virtual desktop capacities will be increased to accommodate the
requirements of the new Customer Information System (CIS) software. Two (2) additional Cisco
virtual server hosts and two (2) Hewlett-Packard virtual desktop hosts are specified to meet those
requirements.
The project includes purchases from two separate vendors:
1. Cisco networking equipment and Cisco servers (10) will be purchased from from Presidio
Networked Solutions Group, LLC for an amount of $550,122.77.
2. Hewlett-Packard servers (4) will be purchased from Sequel Data Systems Incorporated for an
amount of $128,750.54.
All purchases will be made in accordance with pricing set in Texas Department of Information
Resources contracts DIR-TSO-2544 and DIR-TS0-2538.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All items were budgeted during the FY 2016 budget process as part of the IT equipment
replacement schedule and as part of the CIS project budget. Expenses in the amount of
$580,907.04 will be recorded in account 570-5-0641-52-330 (IT Contracts – Computer
Equipment) and $97,966.27 will be recorded in the CIS project account.
SUBMITTED BY:
Chris Bryce, IT Director
Page 10 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Discussion of the City’s miscellaneous long-term commitments, reservations and other unfunded liabilities –
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Council requested the GGAF develop recommendations to the Council for the use of the Year End 2015
General Fund excess and other General Fund unallocated revenues.
This list includes items from all fund types, including the utility funds, airport and other special purpose type
funds. Many of these items are future maintenance needs that are currently not addressed within the City’s
budget process, or, they are items that are financial in nature and are addressed through an outside entity
such as the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) who administers the City’s retirement plan. They
also include such items as Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) which is actuarially determined based on
the City’s employee health plan and determined by accounting standards.
The list includes a description of the item, the current status; as well as; any other information about the
unfunded liability and its future financial impacts.
This topic was last reviewed at the General Government and Finance (GGAF) Board’s March 25, 2015
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Schedule - Long-term Commitments, Reservations and Other Unfunded Liabilities
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
LT Unfunded Liabilities Backup Material
Page 11 of 40
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Long-term Commitments, Reservations and Other Unfunded Liabilities
General Government & Finance (GGAF) Review
January 11, 2016
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Description Status
Financial Impact/Notes
Cemetery SRF
City owns several cemeteries including
IOOF and is obligated to maintain facilities,
primarily mowing. Currently no perpetual
fees to plot owners.
Current plot sales are used to offset
maintenance costs. In 2014/15, Council
elected to reserve $75,000 annually for
future costs associated with maintaining the
property. Currently $175,000 is set aside for
perpetual care.
Currently cemetery operations are self-
funded through plot sales of
approximately $50K per year. The
cemetery is managed through Parks
Administration.
Self-Insurance ISF
Established in 2014 to provide and manage
employee health insurance. Includes both
employee contributions (premiums) and
City contributions thru the annual budget.
Initial plan was to build reserve fund over 3
to 5 year period and draw from other City
sources if necessary. Current ISF fund
balance at 9/30/2015 is $2.2M. This fund
balances is significantly higher than originally
proposed, and is due partially to lower
medical claims as well as sweeping all unused
budget allocations for health insurance into
the fund. Staff will work with benefits
consultant on a reserve policy
recommendation for GGAF’s review.
Costs are allocated thru the budget to the
ISF based on employees within each
fund. The ISF is overseen by HR and
Finance, with annual plan elements
determined by the Employee Benefit
Committee.
Unfunded Actuarial
Accrued Liability (UAAL)
Recognizes the outstanding liability for the
City’s employee retirement plan through
TMRS. The City contributes monthly to
fund the UAAL, based on an annual
percentage of payroll.
As of 12/30/14, the UAAL was $17.4M and is
considered 83.3% funded. The UALL is
decreased by $300K from PY and funded %
has increased by 2% since previous report.
The City’s Fiscal & Budgetary Policy sets the
funding target at 80%. The 2016 TMRS
contribution rate is 11.16%
Actual % of payroll costs is recognized
within each fund.
Other Post Employee
Benefits (OPEB)
While the City has no obligation to offer
additional retiree benefits, retirees are
eligible to participate in the City’s health
insurance program. That ability represents
a subsidy that impacts health insurance
costs to the City.
This is an actuarial calculation based on
current and future employees on future City
health insurance costs, and has numerous
and complex factors in its calculation.
Retirees pay their own premiums, and thus
Retirees pay their monthly premiums to
the ISF who in turn processes their health
insurance claims.
Page 12 of 40
the liability is considered “pay as you go”.
With additional employees being added,
potential future retiree impacts increase.
Thus, the 2014 current net OPEB liability is
$627,030 and an updated liability will be
available in the CAFR report in March.
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Description Status
Financial Impact/Notes
Power Contract Credit
Reserve
Financial assurance for wholesale power
contracts
Established to provide assurance to
wholesale power contract providers as fiscal
surety against any potential risk. These funds
are held as collateral at JPMorgan and vary
depending on the volatility of market
conditions in regards to the future value of
power contracts. Because these are future
expenses, the liability is not recognized until
the contract is executed.
At fiscal year end, the PCCR at JPMorgan
was $9.5M and was recognized within
the Electric Fund; however the City has
begun utilizing a Letter of Credit as
security for the contracts since the cash
reserve requirement was growing.
Rate Stabilization
Reserve
Intended to mitigate potential rate impacts
due to increased fuel costs or other
external factors.
Used to defer or minimize the future cost
increases or other impacts related to power
costs. Monitored and adjusted monthly as
needed through the Power Cost Adjustment
(PCA)
The RSR is maintained within the Electric
Fund and was $308,422 as of 9/30/15.
Potentially, a similar reserve could be
developed for the Water Fund.
Compensated Absence
Future costs associated with benefits such
as vacation, and sick leave for City
employees
Compensated Absence is accrued annually to
each proprietary fund type on a GAAP basis
and accounted for on the balance sheet of
each fund. For governmental funds (and for
budgetary basis), the expense is recognized
when due and payable.
Total citywide Comp Absence is $5.02M,
of that $4.7 is considered unfunded in
the Gen Fund. Employee payouts are on
a “pay as you go” basis. $30K is budgeted
annually to offset the costs of employee
benefit payout.
Major Public Safety
Equipment
Items that are either purchased when
employee is hired, then possibly reassigned
to another employee. Examples include
SCBA, body armor, handguns, Fire turnout
equipment
Enables major equipment (below $5,000
capital threshold) to be replaced periodically
so that equipment is up to safety standards
and up to date and avoid 1-time major costs
to replace total number at once.
Beginning in 2014/15, $60,000 was
included in both Fire & PD budget for
Major Equipment Replacement. Each
department developed and manages
replacement schedule. This expense is in
the General Fund.
Page 13 of 40
Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)
Compliance Needs
Federally mandated standards for
accessibility to public buildings, parks,
sidewalks.
The City completed facilities, sidewalks and
parks assessments. A three year funding plan
has been prepared and year one was funded
in the 2016 Budget.
As facilities are built or repurposed,
meeting ADA compliance will be included
in Project Costs. Funding for program
expansion will be needed (General Fund
sources)
Unfunded Liability &
Commitments Description Status
Financial Impact/Notes
Park Equipment
Maintenance &
Replacement
Addresses useful life of equipment type
assets in parks, ensuring maintenance and
public safety
Includes equipment not directly in a Facility,
such as benches, trail lighting, playground
equipment, restrooms, and signage.
Over the past 5 years, funding for Park
Maintenance and Replacement has
increased. $200K included in 2015/16
budget. Staff has listed all assets &
developed replacement schedule funded
by the Gen Fund, soon to be on EAM.
EMS/Fire SRF
2014/15 Annual Budget assumed EMS
Program to be operationally active by June
2015 with revenues to offset operating and
capital costs. Operating deficit would be
funded internally until capital costs were
recovered in 5 years.
Due to delays in program implementation
and negotiations with Williamson County,
operations for the program was delayed until
at 10/1/15. Operations have begun and staff
is monitoring call volume, revenues and
collections.
Capital has been expended, including TRV
and equipment, 9 new paramedics hired.
Additional resource requirements are
currently being evaluated to ensure
response times are met.
Sidewalk Maintenance Funding plan for repairing and maintaining
existing City sidewalks.
Currently, new sidewalks are built as
development occurs. Repairs are funded as
needed or if funding is available, when major
roads are repaired. Useful life of a sidewalk is
estimated at 40 to 50 years
Currently, $75K is budgeted for sidewalk
repair in the General Fund. $10M is
allocated in approved 2015 Bond
Proposition for new sidewalk
construction.
Major Technology
Replacement
City uses ISF for capital replacement of
equipment. Major software (and related
implementation) is funded as needed
through the annual budget.
Current system replacements are funded
when actually purchased, with costs allocated
if applicable
CIS billing to be replaced in 2016, funded
by utility funds. Financial System and
Human Resource System funding should
be allocated to all Funds. GIS and Public
Safety primarily funded by Gen Fund
Radio Equipment
Replacement
Public Safety communication system that is
the Motorola monopoly for emergency
communications
Technology is moving toward a new system
Replacement radios are compatible with
newer technology. Final phase could be
$1M to be funded primarily by Gen Fun
for Police & Fire
Roadway bridges Maintenance of City-owned bridges Average life is 50 years, street maintenance
tax not used for bridge repair.
Verify listing/condition of existing City
owned bridges. Funding from general
fund sources or debt
Airport Maintenance Fund on-going maintenance of the Airport
grounds, runways and taxi ways. Terminal
A plan was developed to increase revenues
towards a self-supporting fund status within
An Airport Master Plan will be developed over
next year to address long term capital
Page 14 of 40
and Tower included in Facilities ISF 3- 5 years. Early assessments indicate the
self-supporting status may occur within 3
years.
maintenance project prioritization.
Page 15 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Overview of the City’s Debt Program, including current outstanding and proposed debt obligations
- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
Each year in preparation for the annual bond issuance process, staff prepares an overview of the
City’s current outstanding debt obligations, as well as, a preview of the upcoming bond issue that
the Council will consider in April 2016. This presentation provides a background on the City’s
debt management program, as well as, debt benchmark and comparison indicators. This annual
presentation is also a requirement of the City’s Fiscal and Budgetary Policy.
This overview will include Revenue Bonds related to the City’s utilities, as well as, both self-
supporting and taxable general debt obligations.
ATTACHMENTS:
2016 Debt Overview Presentation
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2016 Debt Overview Presentation Presentation
Page 16 of 40
1
City of Georgetown
2016 Debt Overview
GGAF Meeting
January 15, 2016
Agenda
• Debt Policy considerations (fiscal and
budgetary policy)
• Types of Debt utilized by the City per
policy
• Current bond ratings
• Existing Debt, Statistics and Trends
• Budgeted/Proposed Debt
• Long Range Debt Planning
Page 17 of 40
2
Fiscal and Budgetary Policy –
Debt Section introduction
•The City of Georgetown recognizes the primary purpose of capital facilities
is to provide services to the community. Using debt financing to meet the
capital needs of the community must be evaluated according to efficiency
and equity. Efficiency must be evaluated to determine the highest rate of
return for a given investment of resources. Equity is resolved by
determining who should pay for the cost of capital improvements. In
meeting demand for additional services, the City will strive to balance the
needs between debt financing and “pay as you go” methods. The City
realizes that failure to meet the demands of growth may inhibit its continued
economic viability, but also realizes that too much debt may have
detrimental effects on the City’s long-range financial condition.
•The City will issue debt only for the purpose of acquiring or constructing
capital assets for the general benefit of its citizens and to allow it to fulfill its
various purposes as a city.
•A Debt Condition Update report will be provided annually.
Policy - Why issue City debt?
Population Growth Demands
Stretches “pay as
you go” resources
– Impacts continued
economic viability
Page 18 of 40
3
Policy - Cost / Benefit of Debt
Funding
• Long-term debt funding considered for
capital improvements when:
– Useful life of asset exceeds any debt repayment
– Future citizens are benefited
• Maintains stability of City’s tax rate
– Shorter term debt provides consistency for
funding and replacement
• Prepares for growth and future citizens help
pay for the cost of the impact of growth
Policy - Debt Type –General
Obligation
• Backed by City’s ability to “tax” for repayment
of debt
– Results in lower interest rates
• General Obligation Bonds
– Repaid through property taxes
– Approved thru referendum by voters
– Usually used for “large” or controversial items &
projects
• Significant impact to the tax payers
• Usually amortized over 20 years
Page 19 of 40
4
Policy - Debt Type -Certificates of
Obligation
• Allowed by Texas State Law and City policy
– Considered for non-discretionary or routine items
• Examples –fire stations, road improvements
– Public Notice required
• Generally considered “Tax Supported”
• Majority - 20 year bonds
– Maturities match life of asset
• City issues self-supporting CO debt
– City saves on interest cost by issuing CO debt
rather than revenue bonds
–Repaid through fees or rates
Policy - Other Types Tax Supported
Debt
• Limited Tax Notes
– Previously used when market conditions are
not favorable or as “bridge” financing
– Doesn’t require “notice of intent”
• Planned for Rivery Summit Project
• Certificates of Participation
– Usually 3 year notes
– Typically used to fund equipment
Page 20 of 40
5
Policy -Debt Type-Revenue
Bonds
• Funds the City’s utility infrastructure
– Issued on Electric/Water/Wastewater system
• Currently 20 year bonds – level debt service
– Repaid through system revenue
• “Coverage” required
– Number of times debt service can be divided into
net operating revenues (before capital)
• 1.35 times - bond covenants
• 1.5 times - City Fiscal & Budgetary Policy
Roles in City Debt Issuance
• Council
– sets policy and authorizes all debt issues
• Financial Advisor
– Provide technical expertise through debt issuance
– Advocates for city
• Bond Counsel
– Legal documents and Attorney General review
• Bond Rating Agencies
– Independent review of city/region financial conditions
– Determines “credit worthiness” for potential bond holders
Page 21 of 40
6
Impacts of Bond Ratings
• Rating Agencies review financial and
management conditions
• Determine City’s “Credit Worthiness”
• Impacts interest rates and cost of debt
• City’s Current Bond Rating:
–Standard & Poor’s – reviewed annually
–AA+ General Obligation
–AA Revenue
–Moody’s
–A2 General Obligation & Revenue
–
Current Bond Rating Report
• Positive Outlook
– Economic conditions
– Financial strength
– Leadership/Management
• “Concerns”
– Overlapping Debt
– Growth – impact of debt issued for growth related infrastructure if
growth stops
– Authorized but unissued debt
Page 22 of 40
7
City’s Current Debt
Outstanding
GO/CO Debt Outstanding
– December 31, 2015
$116,265,260 - Tax Supported
Includes GO Referendums:
• $14,570,000– 2004 Authorization –All issued
• $29,335,000– 2008 Authorization
• $25,950,000 authorized not issued - Roads
• $26,215,000 authorized not issued – Parks
• $29,500,000 – 2011 Authorization –All issued
•$10,000,000 – 2015 Authorization
•$95M authorized not issued
Page 23 of 40
8
General Government
Tax Supported Debt
GO/CO Debt Payments
Page 24 of 40
9
General Debt Capacity
• Allowable Levy -
$1.50 per $100
valuation
• Current levy -
$0.22684
• Percentage of
Allowable used –
15.12%
Self- Supporting
GO/CO Debt Outstanding
As of December 31, 2015:
•$24,729,660- Self-supporting
– $12,015,488 - GTEC
– $4,910,577 – Stormwater Drainage
– $1,333,595 – Airport
– $6,470,000 – Rivery TIRZ
Page 25 of 40
10
CO/GO Debt – YE Historical
Self-supported includes GTEC
Fiscal Year Tax Supported Self-Supported
2005/06 $37,583,855 $21,111,145
2006/07 $52,326,112 $21,068,888
2007/08 $54,293,528 $20,661,472
2008/09 $57,097,773 $25,692,525
2009/10 $68,987,618 $26,217,382
2010/11 $74,674,860 $25,135,140
2011/12 $97,392,121 $19,457,875
2012/13 $102,337,359 $17,892,426
2013/14 $103,056,309 $16,760,348
2014/15 $104,480,260 $24,729,660
GO/CO Debt – Breakdown by Type
Page 26 of 40
11
Revenue Bonds
• Outstanding balances as of
December 31, 2015:
–$30,279,446 - Electric Fund
–$47,800,641 - Water Services Fund
(W/WW)
Revenue Debt - YE Historical
Fiscal Year Water Electric
Services Services
2005/06 $28,076,208 $17,808,792
2006/07 $27,268,155 $23,801,845
2007/08 $32,655,050 $24,624,950
2008/09 $30,359,178 $23,280,822
2009/10 $37,977,843 $24,882,157
2010/11 $35,511,352 $23,218,648
2011/12 $32,467,189 $26,582,814
2012/13 $31,941,806 $26,473,415
2013/14 $41,875,303 $30,278,048
2014/15 $47,800,641 $30,279,446
Page 27 of 40
12
Revenue Debt - Historical
City Debt
Performance &
Comparison
Indicators
Page 28 of 40
13
Total Tax-Guaranteed Debt Per Capita
(Includes Self-supporting Debt)
City Assets Net of Related Debt
Page 29 of 40
14
Debt to Assessed Valuation
Comparison
Utility Revenue Bond Coverage
Page 30 of 40
15
Outstanding Utility Debt per
Customer
Total Electric Debt Compared
to Electric Assets
Page 31 of 40
16
Total Water Service Debt Compared
to Water Service Assets
2016 Budgeted and
Proposed Debt Issues
Page 32 of 40
17
2016 Budgeted Debt
• General Obligation Bonds - $24.7 million
– 2015 Bond Authorization (transportation)- $20M
• $10M issued in November 2015
• $10M planned for April 2016
• Southwest Bypass funding
– 2008 Bond Authorization (parks) - $4.7M
• $1.7M issued in November 2015 (San Gabriel Park)
• $3M planned for April 2016 (Phasing Garey Park)
2016 Budgeted Debt
• Certificates Obligation - $4,998,000
– Austin Avenue Bridge design ($675K)
– Landfill and Transfer station repairs ($210K)
– Facilities and Parks ADA phasing ($392K)
– Design for open space/Downtown West ($460K)
–Police Vehicle Replacement ($199K)*
– Fire apparatus replacements ($750K)
– IT firewall and server replacement ($162K)
–Facilities – Municipal Complex Remodel ($1.9M)*
– Stormwater Drainage projects ($250K)
*staff proposes to not include in 2016 issue
Page 33 of 40
18
2016 Budgeted Debt
• Revenue Bonds - $9.805 M
– Electric improvements - $1.795M
• SCADA and substation improvements
– Water improvements - $2.462M
• Western District/Pastor Pump Station
– Wastewater improvements - $5.548M
• Pecan Branch Interceptor
• Berry Creek Interceptor
2016 Other Debt
• Georgetown Transportation Enhancement
Corporation - $11,150,000
– Mays Street Extension - $10,150,000
– HWY 29 Improvements - $1,000,000
• SH29 Improvements –Haven to I35
• SH29 Bypass
Page 34 of 40
19
Rivery Project
•$8.13M total City debt per development agreement
(proceeds)
– $6,740,000 issued in Spring 2015
• Net proceeds of $6.418
– $1,712,000 to be issued – Spring 2016
• Amount issued will be slightly higher than net proceeds
available for project due to issuance costs
• Does not include 4A/4B Corp contributions
– $750K – GTEC (cash)
– $4.5 M – GEDCO
• $1.5 M cash
• $3 M bonds
2016 Proposed Debt
• Certificates Obligation - $3,449,000
– Austin Avenue Bridge design ($675K)
– Landfill and Transfer station repairs ($210K)
– Facilities and Parks ADA phasing ($392K)
– Design for open space/Downtown West ($460K)
– Fire apparatus replacements ($750K)
– IT firewall and server replacement ($162K)
–EMS equipment ($550K)
•Funded through fees
– Stormwater Drainage projects ($250K)
•Funded through fees
Page 35 of 40
20
Summary – Proposed Debt for
Spring 2016• General Obligation - $13M
– Estimated 2016 tax rate impact - $0.0155
• Cert. of Obligation - $3.449M –
– $250K Stormwater self supporting
– $550K EMS self supporting
– Estimated 2016 tax rate impact - $0.003
– Subtotal – $15.889M
• $0.0158 – total estimate impact, based on
current tax base
– Reduced with continued growth and new
property
Summary – Proposed Debt for
Spring 2016
• Utility Revenue Bonds - $9.805M
– Included in current rates
• GTEC - $11.15M
– Paid through 4B sales tax revenues
• GEDCO - $3M – for Rivery Project agreement
• Rivery/TIRZ - $1.712M
– Paid through Rivery TIRZ revenues
Page 36 of 40
21
5-10 year debt planning
• Closely align 5 year CIP with property tax
model
– Include referendum supported debt, as
outlined in contract with the voters
• Include in Spring 2016 5 year CIP
presentation
Next Steps:
• Council reviews debt -Feb 9, 2016
• Council authorizes SPFI to proceed with
bond documents –Feb 23, 2016
– Council approves “NOTICE OF INTENT”to
issue CO Debt –February 23, 2016
–“Not to Exceed” amount finalized
• Offering documents finalized
• Rating Agency presentation –March 20 week
• April 26 - Bond Sale
– Council adopts Bond Ordinances
• May 17 - Bond Closing
–City receives bond proceeds
Page 37 of 40
City of Georgetown, Texas
Government and Finance Advisory Board
January 15, 2016
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation on the potential uses of the Council’s Excess Revenues Special
Revenue Fund/Year End 2015 General Fund excess – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
In November, the City Council reviewed and discussed the General Fund YE 2015 preliminary year end fund
balances. Council requested that the allocation of these funds be reviewed and discussed by GGAF for
recommendations on the use of the funds.
Staff is currently working with auditors on final balances. As stated in November, there will be additional
revenue over and above what is currently available. We expect to have a final number by the end of January.
The City has $705,143 available currently for allocation:
The City’s Fiscal and Budgetary Policy outlines the uses for such funds as follows:
L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances - Within 90 days after fiscal year end,
staff will report the projected general fund balance to Council. In the event that unexpected, unbudgeted
amounts are determined to be available in the General Fund after year end, these funds may be used for any
of the following purposes, as approved by the City Council:
1. to fund capital projects;
2. to fund equipment purchases in lieu of issuing debt;
3. to reduce outstanding city debt, including bonded indebtedness and unfunded pension liabilities;
4. to fund contingent liabilities such as the benefit payout reserve, cemetery trust fund, and similar
obligations of the city;
5. to take other steps to reduce property tax rates or mitigate any future increases;
6. to hold those funds in reserve for future commitments or contingencies that may be pending, and/or
7. to fund an economic uncertainty reserve of up to three (3) percent of annual General Fund operating
expenditures.
If not allocated in the process outlined above, the funds would remain within the Council’s Special Revenue
Fund for future consideration and allocation.
GGAF’s recommendation regarding the allocation of these funds will be presented for consideration by City
Council as directed by the subcommittee. A budget amendment will be required to allocate any funds
directed to be spent for specific purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
Power point slide from previous council meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
Council SRF (estimated during budget process) $515,714
Additional at preliminary Year End 189,429
$705,143
Page 38 of 40
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Previous Council Meeting Slide Backup Material
Page 39 of 40
Page 40 of 40