Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GGAF_03.30.2016Notice of Meeting for the General Gov ernment and Finance Adv isory Board of the City of Georgetown March 30, 2016 at 3:30 PM at Georgetown Communications and Technology Conference Room, located at 510 W 9th Street, Georgetown, Texas 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 at leas t fo ur (4) d ays prior to the sc heduled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for ad d itional informatio n; TTY users ro ute thro ugh Relay Texas at 711. Legislativ e Regular Agenda A Review minutes fro m the February 25, 2016 GGAF meeting – Danella Elliott, Exec utive As s is tant B Review and d is cus s board purpose and bylaws -- Keith Brainard, Chair C Review of the City Counc il’s Boards and C o mmis s io ns Attendance Policy – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager D Review of the City’s Fiscal & Budgetary Policy and disc ussion of rec o mmended changes for FY2017 – Leigh Wallac e, Financ e Directo r E Review of the City’s Investment Policy and d is cus s io n o f rec o mmend ed c hanges fo r F Y2017 – Leigh Wallac e, F inanc e Direc tor F Self Insurance Fund up d ate and d is cus s ion– Tad d P hillips, Human Res ources Direc tor G Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n to recommend an Ord inance authorizing the Is s uance o f City of Georgetown, Texas Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 autho rizing the p led ge of c ertain revenues in s upport of the bond s , approving a Paying Agent/Regis trar Agreement, an Offic ial Statement, an Es crow Agreement and a P urc has e Agreement, estab lis hing proc ed ures fo r S elling and Delivery o f the Bo nds and authorizing other matters related to the Is s uanc e of the Bond s - Laurie Brewer, As s is tant C ity Manager H Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n to recommend an Ord inance authorizing the Is s uance o f City of Georgetown, Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016, authorizing the levy o f an Ad Valo rem Tax in s up p o rt o f the b o nds, ap p ro ving an Official Statement, a P aying Agent/Regis trar Agreement, a P urc hase Agreement and an Es c row Agreement; es tablishing p ro cedures for Selling and Delivery o f the Bo nds and authorizing other matters relating to the b o nd s – Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager I Co nsideration and rec o mmendatio n o f the Construction Manager-At-Risk Agreement with Balfour Beatty Construction of Austin, Texas for the R enovation of the 1987 Lib rary and the Georgetown Co mmunic ation and Technology Building, A New P laza Canopy and Imp lementation of a Master Signage Plan fo r the C ity C enter – Eric Johnson, C IP Manager and Laurie Brewer, As s is tant City Manager J Election o f General Government and Financ e Ad visory Board (GGAF) Bo ard Offic ers – Keith Brainard , GGAF Chair K Dis cus s dates/times fo r future GGAF Meetings – Keith Brainard, GGAF C hair Page 1 of 163 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 __________________, 2016, 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 2 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Review minutes from the F eb ruary 25, 2016 GGAF meeting – Danella Ellio tt, Executive Assistant ITEM SUMMARY: Review and approve the minutes fro m the Feb ruary 25, 2016 General Go vernment and Financ e Advis o ry Bo ard meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2.25.16 Minutes Backup Material Page 3 of 163 Notice of Meeting of the GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD (GGAF) City of Georgetown, Texas February 25, 2016 The GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY (GGAF) Board of Directors will meet on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016 at 3:30 P.M. in the GEORGETOWN COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING (GCAT), LOCATED AT 510 WEST 9 TH STREET, GEORGETOWN, TX. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Brainard, Chair, Tommy Gonzalez, Ralph Mason, John Hesser MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Bonham STAFF/OTHERS PRESENT: David Morgan, Laurie Brewer, Wayne Reed, Leigh Wallace, Lisa Haines, Nicole Abrego, Stan Hohman, Paul Diaz, John Sullivan, Wayne Nero, Cory Tchida, Adam McCane 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 3:35 p.m. The GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE ADVISORY Board meeting may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of Keith Brainard, Chair 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, Danella Elliott, can be reached at 512-930-3676 or danella.elliott@georgetown.org. 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 meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. A. Review minutes from the January 15, 2016 GGAF meeting - Danella Elliott, Executive Assistant Motion by Hesser; second by Gonzalez. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). B. Acknowledgement of outgoing citizen-at-large member, Ralph Mason and acknowledgement of new Finance Director, Leigh Wallace - Keith Brainard, GGAF Chair Keith Brainard, Chair recognized exiting citizen member Ralph Mason for his 2 years of service. Ralph Mason accepted the recognition by saying that it has been a rewarding experience working with this board and the Georgetown City Council. Page 4 of 163 Mr. Brainard recognized and introduced Leigh Wallace as the new Finance Director giving a little professional background. Mr. Brainard introduced Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and asked that she introduce the rest of the Finance team that was present for the meeting. Laurie proceeded to recognize the staff she had representing the departments under her direction including: Lisa Haines, Paul Diaz, Danella Elliott, Stan Hohman, and Nicole Abrego. Mr. Brainard also recognized new Assistant City Manager Wayne Reed. C. Consideration and possible action approving a resolution giving staff the approval to conduct business with various banking institutions and to appoint “Representatives of the Depositor” - Lisa Haines, Controller and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager informed the board that Lisa will be leaving the City. Took the opportunity to assess the accounting team. Adding SR Accountant Kara McSwiggin and Accounting Supervisor as signatures. Tommy Gonzalez would like to meet Kara and Karrie, since they will have authority to sign for banking transactions. Laurie clarified that the checks and balances are in place to oversee banking transactions. John Hesser inquired about the checks & balances policy and who sets that policy. Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Hesser would both like to see the policy that lines out the City’s checks and balances procedure. Motion by Gonzalez; second by Mason. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). D. Consideration and possible action for the approval to purchase vehicles and equipment in the amount of $282,211.92 for Water and Wastewater Plant Operations - Stan Hohman, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor and Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Stan Hohman, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor listed all of the vehicles needed and identified where the money will come from to cover these vehicles. Mr. Gonzalez asked Stan to confirm that these are new purchases. Stan confirmed that they are new purchases and that they will be purchased at a price about 20% under dealer pricing. Tommy Gonzalez asked about the number of vehicles that Fleet is managing and is concerned that we are adding a lot of vehicles to our fleet. Mr. Gonzalez is concerned that our fleet may be getting too large for us to manage if we don’t keep a handle on these purchases. Stan stated that he is maintaining 548 vehicles as of the end of the year. Motion by Gonzalez; second by Hesser. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). E. Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of emergency medical supplies from Life-Assist established through a competitive RFP process at a cost not to exceed $275,000, for the remainder of fiscal year 2015-2016 - John Sullivan, Fire Chief Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager clarified that this purchase decision was not made through the RFP process but based on low bid meeting certain specifications. John Sullivan, Fire Chief addressed board with information about why they chose Life Assist. Life Assist gives them the best pricing while still giving them an expected level of quality, product longevity, and delivery timelines. John gave the board some details about what they will be purchasing and how the pricing is competitive. Tommy Gonzalez asked if we are working through a learning curve to find the better pricing opportunities for the emergency medical supplies. Also asked where we are with our opportunities to purchase through larger volume vendors. John said that he is working with Legal and Ellis County and Arlington, Texas. Page 5 of 163 Keith Brainard, Chair, asked how the EMS program is going. John feels comfortable. Should have a good feel for accurate numbers at the 6 month mark, about May/June. David Morgan, City Manager, stated that there are plans to bring some information to Council at the second meeting in March. We had more start-up costs than anticipated, will have a clearer picture after summer. More information will be provided as we start into the budget cycle. Tommy Gonzalez asked for more detail about start-up costs. David stated that would be presented to Council at the March meeting. Mr. Gonzalez does expect that there is going to be a bit of a loss up front, but wants this information to be clear to Council. David reminded the board that the decision to move forward with the EMS program wasn’t a purely financial decision; it was also about providing service. John Hesser, would it make sense to have a monthly report to GGAF regarding the EMS program? Submit some performance so a trend can be seen. Ralph Mason, is there a plan to help recover some of the uncollectables? Are there any federal or state sources to help with the uncollectables? John said he is not aware of any. Mr. Mason would encourage Chief to pursue any opportunity to help cover the costs of Medicare patients since the government does require that we provide the service to people that cannot pay. Motion by Hesser, second by Mason. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). F. Consideration and possible action to approve the purchase of emergency medical supplies from Bound Tree Medical established through a competitive RFP process at a cost not to exceed $25,000, for the remainder of fiscal year 2015-2016 - John Sullivan, Fire Chief. John Sullivan, Fire Chief, very similar to previous item. This is for items that are not available through the previous vendor. Will be purchasing medical supplies from the vendor who provides the best pricing and delivery time. Keith Brainard, Chair, suggested that a change be made to the Fiscal & Budgetary Policy to allow purchases from multiple vendors to be combined into 1 item. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). G. Consideration and possible action to approve a proposed plan to expend proje ct savings recognized from the closeout of the Public Safety Operations & Training Center project - Cory Tchida, Assistant Chief of Police Wayne Nero, Police Chief states that there is about $647K in funding remaining, $44K remains in the FFP leaving about $603K. Chiefs are proposing that this funding go toward items that were cut during last year’s budget process. Tommy Gonzalez, how many of the items on the list are items that were cut from the budget and how many are new things that FD & PD would like to do? Are the items being asked for items that would have been asked for anyway, or are just being asked for because there is extra money? Mr. Gonzalez would like the Chiefs to bring back actual vs. estimated numbers. David Morgan, City Manager, clarify that this item is simply to determine if staff is on the right track with this idea. Staff doesn’t want to spend a lot of time getting formal bids if this list of items is not on track with what Council is thinking. Page 6 of 163 Mr. Gonzalez said that we have told the citizens that we are under budget on this project; make sure we think critically about our needs. Mr. Brainard is concerned that we are proposing to use bond funds for items that are short -term items; the life expectancy is considerably less than the amount of time we will be paying on the bonds issued to pay for the items. John Sullivan, Fire Chief stated that there are a few time sensitive items on the list. The Thin Clients and Mopier are needed for the EOC. Mr. Morgan asked that the board consider recommending the purchase of the items need for the EOC Enhancements and the Flash Over Chamber. John Hesser would like to see a list of priorities, the items that are needed vs. the items that are wanted. Motion to approve EOC Enhancements not to exceed $35,000 and Flash Over Chamber purchase not to exceed $56,000 and all other items to come back to a future meeting with more specific numbers and recommended expenditures, second by Mason. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). H. Review and discussion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and results of the audit for Fiscal Year Ended, September 30, 2015 - Lisa Haines, Controller, Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Leigh Wallace, Finance Director Lisa Haines, Controller and Adam McCain, Weaver & Tidwell presented CAFR presentation. Adam McCane, addressed the board and expressed his appreciation of the work that staff does to help prepare this audit. The City has a great finance staff. Adam touched on a few highlights of the document and their auditing procedure. Motion by Hesser, second by Gonzalez. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). I. Discussion of the City’s miscellaneous long-term commitments, reservations and other unfunded liabilities - Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager addressed the board regarding the unfunded liabilities as represented on the attached table. Tommy Gonzalez would like to see some clarification on the revenue amounts from the Cemetery Fund and set and include a target amount. Include this target amount where applicable. Keith Brainard, Chair, would like to see the sick and vacation variable numbers. Tommy Gonzalez see the 240 hour carry over number is too high. Please bring the sick leave and vacation policies to GGAF for further review. Mr. Brainard asked if $60K is enough for the Public Safety replacement amount enough. Please check that during the budget process. Mr. Gonzalez, asked if we have developed a rating system for us to use for the condition of sidewalks? How do we know if we are maintaining the desired level of maintenance? Laurie stated that there are plans to move streets and sidewalks into the Asset Management System. Mr. Brainard commended staff on the continued improvement of the list of the City’s long-term commitment, reservations and unfunded liabilities and noted that it is a valuable piece of information. No action required. Page 7 of 163 J. 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 Laurie Brewer presented the total available in the City Council’s Excess Revenues Special Revenue Fund. Keith Brainard, Chair, took to the board to mark-up board thoughts for uses for these funds. Mr. Brainard noted to the board that they do not need to recommend the use of all of these funds. Recommend an annual required contribution to the Rainy Day Fund from the General Fund of 3% to 5%. David Morgan, City Manager, addressed the board about using some of these funds for the Grace Heritage building. Total available in City Council SRF: $1,085,000 Rainy Day Fund $500,000 Grace Heritage $150,000 Legal Contingency $250,000 ========================================= $900,000 Remaining Funds $185,000 (keep for future use) ========================================= $1,085,000 Tommy Gonzalez asked for clarification on what the “Rainy Day Fund” can be used for. Mr. B rainard responded by saying it can be used for stop gap, not for shiny new items. It’s meant to cover in the case of a loss of revenue. David Morgan recommended that this fund not get to large, and Mr. Gonzalez recommended that a cap be defined and if we hit that mark and a policy will state how those monies will be used. He also suggested that this fund be triggered by a loss in revenues and that specific uses be defined. John Hesser suggested that this fund be used to help protect our assets. Susan Firth addressed the board. Thanked the board. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). K. Adjourn Motion by Gonzalez, second by Hesser. Approved: 4-1 (Bonham absent). Mr. Brainard thanked Ralph Mason and John Hesser for their service on this board. Keith Brainard, Chair, adjourned this meeting at 5:33p.m. ____________________________________ ____________ Keith Brainard Date Board Chair ____________________________________ _____________ Thomas Bonham Date Board Secretary _____________________________________ _____________ Danella Elliott Date Board Liaison Page 8 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Review and dis c us s board purpose and bylaws -- Keith Brainard , Chair ITEM SUMMARY: Annual disc us s io n o f board p urpose and b ylaws to b enefit the new board members . FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GGAF Board ByLaws Backup Material Page 9 of 163 Page 10 of 163 Page 11 of 163 Page 12 of 163 Page 13 of 163 Page 14 of 163 Page 15 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Review o f the C ity C o uncil’s Bo ard s and Commis s ions Attendance Policy – Laurie Brewer, As s is tant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: S ection 4 .9 Atten d a n ceo f the Bylaws of the General Go vernment and Financ e Advis o ry Bo ard states: “Section 4.9. Attendance. Memb ers are required to attend Bo ard meetings p rep ared to d is cus s the issues o n the agend a. A Member s hall no tify the Chairman and the Staff Liais on if the Memb er is unable to attend a meeting. Exc es s ive absenteeism will b e s ub jec t to ac tion und er Counc il polic y and may result in the Memb er being rep laced on the Bo ard . See O rd inance S ection 2 .36.0 1 0D. Exc es s ive ab s enteeis m means failure to attend at least 75% of regularly s cheduled meetings , inc lud ing Board meetings and S ubc o mmittee meetings. If a Memb er is remo ved from the Board that positio n s hall b e cons idered vacant and a new Memb er shall b e appointed to the Board in ac c ordance with Sec tion 2.5 ab o ve.” Additio nally, Chap ter 2.36CITY COMMISS IONS , COMMITTEES, AND BOAR DS , Sec tion 2.36.010(D) –Duties o f Memb ers o f the City o f Georgetown C o d e of Ord inances, also addres s es the City Co uncil’s p o licy on attendanc e fo r Board Memb ers : SEC 2.36.010 DUTIES OF COMMISSION, COMMITTEE & BOARD MEMBERS “D. Attend anc e by Members is integral to s uc cess o f the commissio n, c o mmittee or b o ard . It is Co uncil p o licy to req uire a minimum of 75 p ercent attendanc e of each Memb er at eac h regularly s ched uled meeting inc luding s ub committee meetings . A Memb er s hall be allo wed two exc used ab s enc es fo r the Member's p ers o nal med ical c are, req uired med ical c are of a Memb er's immed iate family memb er (as d efined by City Ordinanc e), or Member's military Servic e that shall not count agains t the 75 perc ent attend anc e req uirement. Written notice shall b e s ent to a Member and the Memb er's City Co uncil rep res entative when it ap p ears the Memb er may violate the attend anc e p o licy b y being abs ent fro m mo re than 25 p erc ent of regularly s c heduled meetings, inc lud ing s ubc o mmittee meetings. Exc es s ive absenteeism may result in the Member b eing replac ed by the Counc il. If a Memb er is remo ved fro m a c o mmittee, c o mmis s io n o r board , that p o s ition shall b e c o nsidered vac ant and a new Memb er s hall be ap p o inted to the Board in acc o rd anc e with Section 2.36.040” The City Sec retary and the Mayo r review attend anc e and determine if warning or removal letters need to be s ent to a Memb er that is in danger o f o r has violated the75% Council mandated attendance policy. Absences are exc us ed fo r medic al reasons or military reas o ns. City Co uncil and S taff Liaisons are notified if any letters are s ent to a Member. Absences for any S p ecial Meetings that are s c hed uled d o no t count to ward the 75% Attend anc e Po licy. The City o f G eo rgeto wn values the vo lunteers that s erve on its Co mmis s ions , Committees o r Boards and is fortunate to have a multitude o f c itizens who apply to be a part of the public proc es s by serving on them. Ac cord ingly, it is very imp o rtant that the memb ers who are appointed to be o n a City of Geo rgeto wn Commis s ion, Committee o r Bo ard unders tand the importanc e o f their attendance and their p artic ip ation at the regularly sc heduled meetings o f these Commission, Committee or Bo ard meetings . FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA Page 16 of 163 SUBMITTED BY: Page 17 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Review o f the C ity’s Fiscal & Budgetary Policy and d is cus s io n o f rec ommend ed c hanges fo r FY2017 – Leigh Wallace, Financ e Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: The p urpos e of the Fi scal and Budgetary Policy (P o licy) is to p ro vid e the framework for financ ial o p erations o f the City and to ens ure prud ent stewardship , financ ial planning and ac countab ility. As p art of the Annual Budget p ro ces s, the City Counc il reviews , amends if necessary and ad o p ts the Po licy b y o rd inance each year. P rio r to any Counc il ac tion, the General Go vernment and Financ e Advis o ry Bo ard (GGAF) will review the Polic y and make rec ommend ations fo r any amend ments o r clarific ations that may b e need ed . Eac h year the Polic y is ad ministratively amend ed to rec o gnize d ate and amount changes within the text; and to address any new financial or regulato ry req uirement that may need to b e ad d ed . Other amend ments may b e rec o mmend ed in order to clarify wo rd ing o r to further granulate a particular Polic y Area. Potential c hanges fo r c o nsideratio n and d is cus s io n b y G GAF are no tated by sec tion and page numbers in the overview p res entation. T he full version o f the p o licies with trac ked changes is als o p ro vided. Onc e rec o mmend ations for any P o licy amendments have been finalized , the revis ed Fisc al and Bud getary Polic y will b e fo rwarded to the City Co uncil for review on April 26, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Redline Fis cal & Budgetary Policy Backup Material Fis cal & Budgetary Pres entation Backup Material Page 18 of 163 1   FY2017 Annual Budget  Fiscal and Budgetary Policy Adopted: April 26, 2016 Contents I. PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................ 2  II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING ....................................................................................... 2  III. OPERATING BUDGET ........................................................................................................................... 3  IV. REVENUE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 6  V. EXPENDITURE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 10  VI. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION ......................................................................................................... 15  VII. FUND BALANCE POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 16  VIII. LONG‐TERM LIABILITY RESERVES ........................................................................................................ 16  IX. BUDGET CONTINGENCY PLAN ............................................................................................................ 17  X. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET ............................................................................... 17  XI. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT ....................................................................................... 19  XII. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING .......................................................................... 21  XIII. ASSET MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 21  XIV. DEBT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 23  XV. OTHER FUNDING ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 26  XVI. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESERVES, AND STABILITY RATIOS .................................................................. 27  XVII. INTERNAL CONTROLS ........................................................................................................................ 30  Page 19 of 163 2   FY2017 Annual Budget  I. PURPOSE    The City of Georgetown is committed to financial management through integrity, prudent stewardship, planning,  accountability, full disclosure and communication.  The broad purpose of the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies is to  enable the City and its related component units, including the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement  Corporation (GTEC) and the Georgetown Economic Development Corporation (GEDCO), to achieve and maintain  a long‐term stable and positive financial condition, and provide guidelines for the day‐to‐day planning and  operations of the City’s financial affairs.      Policy scope generally spans areas of accounting, operational and capital budgeting, revenue and expenditure  management, financial reporting, internal controls, investment and asset management, debt management and  forecasting.  This is done in order to:    A. Demonstrate to the citizens of Georgetown, the investment community, and the bond rating agencies that  the City is committed to a strong fiscal operation;    B. Provide precedents for future policy‐makers and financial managers on common financial goals and  strategies;    C. Fairly present and fully disclose the financial position of the City in conformity to generally accepted  accounting principles (GAAP); and    D. Demonstrate compliance with finance‐related legal and contractual issues in accordance with the Texas Local  Government Code and other legal mandates.    These policies will be reviewed and updated annually as part of the budget preparation process.    II. FUND STRUCTURE AND BASIS OF BUDGETING    The budgeted funds for the City of Georgetown include:     Governmental Funds: General Fund which accounts for all financial resources except those required to  be accounted for in another fund, and include basic governmental services, such  as Street Maintenance, Planning and Development, Police, Fire and Parks, as  well as solid waste management.     Special  Revenue  Funds (SRF) account for specific revenues that are legally  restricted for specified purposes.  The City currently budgets 26 SRF Funds and  includes Tourism, Parkland Dedication, Library Donations, Animal Services  Donations, and Street Maintenance Sales Tax.    Debt Service Fund is used to account for the payment of general long‐term debt  principal and interest.    Capital Project Funds are used to account for the acquisition or construction of  major capital facilities other than those financed by enterprise activities.    Page 20 of 163 3   FY2017 Annual Budget  Proprietary Funds: Internal Service Funds account for good or services provided by one internal  department to another.  The City uses this system to recognize cost for fleet  replacement and maintenance, facility maintenance, computer replacement  and maintenance and employee health insurance costs.    Enterprise Funds include the City’s “business like” activities including all the  utility funds and the airport.    Basis of Accounting and Basis of Budgeting    The City accounts and budgets for all Governmental Funds using the modified accrual basis of accounting.   This basis means that revenue is recognized in the accounting period in which it becomes available and  measurable, while expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred.  Because  the appropriated budget is used as the basis for control and comparison of budgeted and actual amounts,  the basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting.  Exceptions to the modified accrual  basis of accounting include:     Encumbrances, which are treated as expenditures in the year they are encumbered, not when expended   Grants, which are considered revenue when awarded, not received   Principal and interest on long‐term debt, which are recognized when paid.    General government funds include the General Fund, special revenue funds, debt service fund and general  capital project funds.      Proprietary Funds, which include the enterprise and internal service funds are accounted and budgeted using  the full‐accrual basis of accounting.  Under this method, revenues are recognized when they are earned and  measurable, while expenses are recognized when they are incurred regardless of timing or related cash  flows.  The basis for preparing the budget is the same as the basis of accounting except for principal payments  on long‐term debt and capital outlay which are treated as budgeted expenses.  Exceptions include:     Depreciation which is not budgeted   Non‐budgeted accruals such as compensated absences.    III. OPERATING BUDGET    Budgeting is an essential element of the financial planning, control and evaluation process of municipal  government. The operating budget is the City’s annual financial operating plan.  The annual budget includes all  of the operating departments of the General Fund, proprietary funds, debt service funds, special revenue funds,  and capital improvement funds of the City.    A. Form of Government – The Charter (Section 1.03) established a “Council‐Manager Government” wherein the  City vests power in the City Council to “enact legislation, adopt budgets, determine policies, and appoint the  City Manager who shall execute the laws and administer the government of the City.”    B. Comprehensive Plan – The Charter (Section 1.08) requires that the City Council “establish comprehensive  planning as a continuous and ongoing governmental function in order to promote and strengthen the existing  role, processes and powers of the City of Georgetown.” The current comprehensive plan is the 2030 Plan  Page 21 of 163 4   FY2017 Annual Budget  adopted in 2006. The 2030 Plan is written from a perspective of some twenty years into the future.  It  expresses what we envision and desire our community to be in the year 2030, and it reflects on all that we  have accomplished since we launched the revision of our Comprehensive Plan in 2006.  The Plan utilizes a  Vision Statement to guide the desired outcomes for the community.      C. Council Vision – The Council has further defined the City’s Comprehensive Plan by defining its vision to  become the City of Excellence.  This vision is to be accomplished through five (5) focus areas.  These focus  areas become the City’s strategic goals through development and implementation of defined Business  Plans for each focus area.      1. Economic Development  2. Signature Destination  3. Public Safety  4. Transportation  5. Utility Services    C. Five‐Year City of Excellence Business Plan – A “dashboard” plan will be developed that links the 2030 Plan  with the City Council’s City of Excellence vision and five focus areas (strategic goals) that further the  implementation of the Vision.  From those strategic goals an implementation plan for each of the 5 focus  areas will be created.    1. A Five‐Year Financial Forecast will be created and updated annually that will identify potential tax  impacts, rate adjustments and other factors that will impede the implementation of the City of  Excellence Business Plan.    2. Year‐One of this Business Plan is the basis for the Annual Budget.  D.C. Preparation – The Charter (Section 6.02) requires “a proposed budget prepared by the City Manager and  submitted to the City Council at least thirty days prior to the end of the fiscal year.  The budget shall be  adopted not later than the twenty‐seventh day of the last month of the fiscal year.  No budget will be adopted  or appropriations made unless the total estimated revenues, income and funds available shall be equal to or  in excess of such budget or appropriations, except otherwise provided.”  Therefore, the budget will be  presented to the City Council no later than the 1st day of August to provide the City Council time to adopt the  budget in the required time frame.    1. Proposed Budget – A proposed budget shall be prepared by the City Manager with participation of  all of the City’s Division Directors within the provision of the Charter and the 2030 Plan and the City  of Excellence Vision.    a. The budget shall include four basic segments for review and evaluation:     Revenue   Personnel Costs   Operations and Maintenance Costs   Capital and other non‐project Costs    b. The budget review process will include City Council participation in the development of each  segment and allow for resident participation in the process, and will allow for sufficient time to  address policy and fiscal issues by the City Council.    Page 22 of 163 5   FY2017 Annual Budget  c. A copy of the proposed and approved budgets will be filed with the City Secretary when it is  submitted to the City Council and will be available on the City’s website.  A copy will also be  available at the Georgetown Public Library for citizen review.    2. Adoption – Upon finalization of the budget appropriations, the City Council will hold a public hearing,  and subsequently adopt by Ordinance the final budget as amended.  The budget will be effective for  the fiscal year beginning October 1st.      The Annual Budget document will be submitted annually to the Government Finance Officers  Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Distinguished Budget Presentation  Award.      E. Balanced Budget – The goal of the City is to adopt and maintain a balanced operating budget using sustainable  funding sources that are expected to continue to be available in subsequent fiscal years.  Excess balances in  operating funds from previous fiscal years shall remain in the fund in which they were appropriated until  either such excess balances are proposed and adopted pursuant to Section III. C. Preparation of this policy;  until they are used to reduce outstanding debt obligations of the City; or both.     The Charter (Section 6.04) requires that an operating deficit created in any fiscal year shall be paid off and  discharged during the following year.  In practice, deficit has been interpreted to mean City funds as a whole.   The City Council may choose from time to time to allow individual funds to have a negative balance as long  as Operating Reserve requirements for the City as a whole are maintained.    F. Planning – The budget process will be coordinated so that major policy issues are identified prior to the  budget approval date.  This will allow City Council adequate time for consideration of appropriate decisions  and analysis of financial impacts.    G. Reporting – Summary financial reports will be presented to the City Council quarterly.  These reports will be  in a format appropriate to enable the City Council to understand the overall budget and financial status.       H. Control and Accountability – Each Division Director, appointed by the City Manager, will be responsible for  the administration of his/her departmental budget.  This includes accomplishing the Goals and Objectives  adopted as part of the budget and monitoring each department budget for compliance with spending  limitations.  Division Directors may transfer funds up to $20,000 within the operations and maintenance or  capital line items within a departmental budget category without additional approval.  All transfers within  the Personnel line items require approval of the Chief Financial OfficerFinance Director and City Manager.  All other transfers of appropriation or budget amendments require either City Council or City Manager  approval as outlined in Section III.I Budget Amendments and Section V.C.4 Use of Excess Salary Savings.    I. Budget Amendments – The Charter (Section 6.04) provides a method to amend for budget amendments and  emergency appropriations.  The City Council may authorize with a majority plus one vote, an emergency  expenditure as an amendment to the original budget.  This may be done in cases of grave public necessity to  meet an unusual and unforeseen condition that was not known at the time the budget was adopted.  In  practice, this has been interpreted to include revenue‐related expenses within the enterprise funds and  timing differences on capital improvement projects.  The following criteria will be used in evaluation of  budget amendments:     Is the request necessary?   Why was the item not budgeted in the normal budget process?  Page 23 of 163 6   FY2017 Annual Budget   Why can't a transfer be done within the Division to remedy the condition?    The Chief Financial OfficerFinance Director must certify availability of revenues or funding sources prior to  adoption.     The City will amend the budget at year end, if needed, for revenue based expenditures that exceeded  budgeted amounts due to increased revenue and recognize any grant funded expenditures for grants  received after the budget was adopted or last amended.  The City will also amend the budget if necessary  for any capital project timing adjustments from prior year, as well as, any other known adjustments needed  and approved at that time.    J. Contingency Appropriations – The budget may include contingency appropriations within designated  operating department budgets.  These funds are used to offset expenditures for unexpected maintenance  or other unanticipated expenses that might occur during the year. Currently, the City maintains contingency  appropriations for insurance deductibles, unexpected legal expenses and equipment repairs.    K. Council Discretionary Account – The budget may contain appropriated funds to be used at the discretion of  the City Council. Actual expenditure of these funds is specifically approved by the City Council on an item by  item basis. The Council Discretionary Account for 2016 is $10,000 included in the General Fund.    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 according to Section XVI, A, 2, b, Economic Uncertainty Reserve.    IV. REVENUE MANAGEMENT    A. Characteristics – The City will strive for the following optimum characteristics in its revenue system:    1. Simplicity – The City, where possible and without sacrificing accuracy, will strive to keep the revenue  system simple in order to reduce compliance costs for the taxpayer or service recipient.  Page 24 of 163 7   FY2017 Annual Budget    2. Certainty – A knowledge and understanding of revenue sources increases the reliability of the  revenue system.  The City will understand its revenue sources and enact consistent collection policies  to provide assurances that the revenue base will materialize according to budget.    3. Equity – The City shall make every effort to maintain equity in its revenue system; i.e., the City should  seek to minimize or eliminate all forms of subsidization between entities, funds, services, utilities,  and customer classes, and ensure an on‐going return on investment for the City.    a. The City will make every effort to recognize the benefit that City tax payers contribute to City  programs and services.    b. The annual Parks and Recreation residential membership rates are established at 75% of non‐ residential rates plus or minus 10% at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director in  keeping with the targeted market cost recovery.     4. Revenue Adequacy – The City should require there be a balance in the revenue system; i.e., the  revenue base will have the characteristics of fairness and neutrality as it applies to cost of service,  willingness to pay, and ability to pay.    Overall Operational Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation for the Recreation and Tennis Centers is  targeted to be between 50 – 60%, with some variance in individual programs.      5. Realistic and Conservative Estimates – Revenues will be estimated realistically, and conservatively,  taking into account the volatile nature of various revenue streams.    6. Administration – The benefits of a revenue source should exceed the cost of levying and collecting  that revenue.    7. Diversification and Stability – A diversified revenue system with a stable source of income shall be  maintained.  This will help avoid instabilities in two particular revenue sources due to factors such as  fluctuations in the economy and variations in the weather.    B. Other Considerations – The following considerations and issues will guide the City in its revenue policies  concerning specific sources of funds:    1. Cost/Benefit of Incentives for Economic Development – The City will use due caution in the analysis  of any incentives that are used to encourage development.  A cost/benefit (fiscal impact) analysis  will be performed as part of the evaluation.    2. Non‐Recurring Revenues – One‐time or non‐recurring revenues should not be used to finance  current ongoing operations.      3. Sustainable Revenues – “Sustainable" means revenue that is consistently available year after year,  and includes revenues realized subsequent to adopted projections.     4. Property Tax Revenues – All real and business personal property located within the City will be valued  at 100% of the fair market value for any given year based on the current appraisal supplied by the  Williamson Central Appraisal District.   Page 25 of 163 8   FY2017 Annual Budget    Conservative budgeted revenue estimates result in a projected ninety‐eight percent (98%) budgeted  collection rate for current ad valorem taxes.  Two percent (2%) of the current ad valorem taxes will  be projected as the budget for delinquent ad valorem tax collection.  For budgeting purposes, the  City will forecast the proposed property tax rate using the effective maintenance & operations  (M&O) rate plus the interest & sinking (I&S) rate needed to fund tax supported debt service.   Increases to the M&O rate will be deliberated and determined by the City Council.  Proposed tax  revenue will be budgeted at a 98% collection rate.    5. Interest Income – Interest earned from investments will be distributed to the funds in accordance  with the equity balance of the fund from which the monies were provided to be invested.    6. User‐Based Fees and Service Charges – For services associated with a user fee or charge, the direct  or indirect costs of that service will be offset by a fee where possible.  The City will review fees and  charges no less than once every two years to ensure that fees provide adequate coverage for the  cost of services.  The City Council will determine how much of the cost of a service should be  recovered by fees and charges.    7. Enterprise Fund Rates – The City will review and adopt utility rates as needed to generate revenues  required to fully cover operating expenses, meet the legal requirements of all applicable bond  covenants, and provide for an adequate level of working capital.  Utility rates will be reviewed  annually as part of the budget process.   A rate study will be conducted every 3 years to review rate  methodology and ensure revenues will meet future needs.  All utility rates will be based on  standardized “cost of service” methodologies,     Water Rates will recognize at least 75% of the “fixed” cost of service, including debt  payments and ROI costs, within the monthly “base charge” determined by meter size.   “Volumetric charge” will recognize the balance of fixed costs not included in the base rate,  plus all variable costs associated with procuring and treating water.   .   Wastewater Rates are “flat and equal” for all residential customers based on the cost of  providing services.  Commercial customer rates are varied depending on size and  specifications of each commercial customer.     Electric Rates include 100% of fixed costs within the base rate, with all variable costs included  in the kWh rate.      Stormwater Drainage Fees are based a mathematical calculation based on impervious cover  and applied in compliance with State Law.      A restricted Power Contract Credit Reserve has been established to provide financial assurances to  the City’s wholesale power contract providers as fiscal surety against any potential risk on the City’s  behalf and will be maintained as “restricted” fund balance on the City’s financial statements.    A Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Account has been established in the Electric Fund to offset and  mitigate potential impacts to customer rates due to increased fuel costs or other external factors  that may negatively impact Electric Rates.  The Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) may provide funding  for:    Page 26 of 163 9   FY2017 Annual Budget   Deferring or minimizing the rate impact of future cost increases   Costs associated with providing additional power supply   Filling contractual obligations   Balancing of annual power costs     RSR funds will be monitored monthly to ensure the electric rate is being managed per the Policy.   Increases to RSR are made through the Power Cost Adjustment rate as determined by the fund, at  the recommendation of the General Manager for Utilities.      8. Internal Cost Recovery Fees ‐ Additionally, enterprise activity rates will include transfers to and  receive credits from other funds as follows:    a. General and Administrative Charges – Administrative costs should be charged to all funds for  services of general overhead, such as administration, finance, customer billing, legal and other  costs as appropriate.  These charges will be determined through an indirect cost allocation  following accepted practices and procedures and reviewed annually by the City’s external  auditors.    b. Payment for Return on Investment – The intent of this transfer is to provide a benefit to the  citizens for the ownership of the various utility operations they own.  For all utilities except for  Electric:     In‐Lieu‐of‐Franchise‐Fee.  This transfer, currently 3% of operating revenues generated inside  the City, is consistent with the franchise rates charged to investor owned utilities franchised  to operate within the City.       Return on Investment.   The return on investment (ROI) transfer for In‐City utility customers  is currently calculated at 7% of operating revenues for all utilities.  ROI for water and sewer  customers outside the City is 10% of operating revenues. There is no ROI calculated on solid  waste revenues.    The Franchise and Return on Investment for the Electric Utility is derived from the base rate and  based on kWh sold.  The base rate revenue is multiplied by 7% for all customers. For customers  inside the City, a $0.0102 charge per kWh, equivalent to the 3% and 7% paid by other utility  customers, will be included in the cost per kWh.  For customers outside the City, a $0.007253  charge per kWh, equivalent to the 7% ROI paid by utilities, will be included in the cost.     9. Intergovernmental Revenues – All potential grants will be examined for matching requirements and  must be approved by the City Council prior to making application of the grant.  It must be clearly  understood that operational requirements (on‐going costs) set up as a result of a grant program  could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the program have been completed.    10. Revenue Monitoring – Revenues as they are received will be regularly compared to budgeted  revenues and variances will be investigated, and any abnormalities will be included in the quarterly  report to the City Council.     Page 27 of 163 10   FY2017 Annual Budget    V. EXPENDITURE MANAGEMENT    A. Appropriations – The point of budget control is at the department level budget for all funds.  The Charter  (Section 6.03) provides that any transfer of appropriation between funds must be approved by the City  Council and that the City Manager, without City Council approval, is authorized to transfer appropriations  among departments, within the same operational division and fund.  The City Manager may also authorize  transfer of salary adjustment monies between funds that are budgeted in a citywide account.    B. Expenditure Monitoring – Expenditures and encumbrances will be regularly compared to budget, variances  will be investigated, and any abnormalities will be included in the quarterly report to the City Council.  Projected year‐end expenditures will be reported in the annual budget.    B.C. Personnel Costs – Costs related to salaries and benefits are budgeted at 100% total costs, assuming open  positions are filled throughout the fiscal year.  New positions that are added during the budget process may  have staggered hire dates with appropriate costs reflected in the budget.    1. Vacancy Factor – General Fund appropriations will include a vacancy factor equal to 1% of total  General Fund salaries and related benefits to offset salary savings within the budget.  The vacancy  factor will be budgeted as a negative expense within the General Government Department of the  General Fund.  For 2016, the Vacancy Factor equals $456,212.  This factor will be reduced throughout  the year as vacant positions are recognized within the department budget.    2. Benefit Payout Reserve – The City will establish a benefit payout reserve equal to 15% of the accrued  benefit liability for employees who are currently eligible to retire. Only terminating employee benefit  expenses may be paid from this reserve. This reserve shall be funded as an offset to the vacancy  factor.   For 2016, $30,000 is budgeted for this reserve.    3. Position Control – The annual budget includes a set number of positions within departments when  approved and adopted by City Council.  Additional positions cannot be added without approval of  the City Council.  The City Manager may approve the transfer of authorized positions between  departments if funds are available within the department.    4. Use of Excess Salary Savings – Departmental savings generated due to open positions or other salary  line item savings cannot be spent by the department unless previously approved by the City Manager  and validated by Finance as “excess funds”.    C.D. Special Purpose Funding – In order to support community assistance programs, the City designates specific  funding for special purposes, including Social Services, Children’s Programs, and Public Art.  The City reserves  the ability to cap this special purpose funding when necessitated by budget contingency or compliance  issues, such as revenue shortfalls, or other reasons as determined by City Council.     1. Strategic Partnerships for Community Services – The City of Georgetown values partnerships with  organizations that are committed to addressing our communities’ greatest public challenges and has  identified key priorities in the following areas:     Public Safety   Transportation   Housing  Page 28 of 163 11   FY2017 Annual Budget   Parks & Recreation   Veteran Services, and   Safety Net    The City has targeted funding for these programs to be $5.00 per capita, which may be adjusted to  offset the effects of general inflation based upon Consumer Price Index.  If previous funding levels  are higher than the targeted amount, and to avoid significant reductions in levels of funding, the City  Council shall seek to attain this target chiefly through population growth. These funds will be  allocated and paid according to the City Council’s guidelines for such programs.     The funding level for 2016 is $400,049 for these type of initiatives and is the same as in the previous  year.    2. Public Art Funding ‐ The City will annually allocate funding for Public Art on a year to year basis  depending on the availability of funds in an amount to be determined at the discretion of the City  Manager.  Funding priority will be given to projects that include a matching donation, including  contributions from local organizations and sponsors. Any unspent funds will accumulate and be  reallocated in the following budget year.  Disbursement of these funds will be determined by the  City Council at the recommendation of the City’s Arts & Culture Advisory Board.      Every effort will be made to include public art funding in future City facilities whose primary purpose  is for public use.  These projects will include a reasonable allowance for public art that fits the scope  and purpose of the building so long that it does not negatively impact the project cost beyond the  original budget.  In the event there is cost savings in the construction of City Facilities, the City Council  may consider utilizing that savings on the purchase of public art for the facility.     E. Purchasing – The City will maintain and regularly review a written Purchasing Policy.  All City purchases of  goods or services will be made in accordance with the City’s current Purchasing Policy and with State law.         Page 29 of 163 12   FY2017 Annual Budget  The following shows a summary of approval requirements for purchases of commodities.      Dollar Limits: Procurements: Requirements:  Under  $3,000  Under the small purchase  limit  No competitive bids and City credit  cards may be used.  $3,000  up to  $49,99950,000  Within informal bid limit A minimum of three informal  competitive bids required unless  exempted: Historically Underutilized  Business (HUB) requirements apply in  accordance with state law.  $50,000  and above  In excess of the informal bid  limit  Formal solicitations, which includes  public notices, required unless  exempted.  Advisory board review and  recommendation may be  required.  Council approval required.      Common exemptions to the formal solicitation process include the procurement of professional services, the  purchase of goods or services from a sole source provider, and purchases for public health emergencies.    In addition to the above, all purchases must be approved according to preapproved limits within each  department as directed and approved by the City Manager.    F. Contracts and Change Orders – Contracts and related change orders must follow the City Purchasing Policies  and State Law.  In accordance with State Law, change orders are limited to 25% of the total contract amount.   Change orders greater than $50,000 require the same advisory board review and Council approvals as the original  contracts.    G. Prompt Payment – All invoices approved for payment by the proper City authorities shall be paid within thirty  (30) calendar days of receipt of goods or services or invoice date, whichever is later in accordance with State law.   The City will take advantage of all purchase discounts, when possible.    H. Risk Management – The City will pursue every opportunity to provide for the Public’s and City employees’  safety and to manage its risks.  The goal shall be to minimize the risk of loss of resources through liability claims  with an emphasis on safety programs.    I. Retirement Benefits – Proposals to revise benefits administered and provided by the Texas Municipal  Retirement System shall include a written description, and, detailed and summary numerical assessments of the  changes that would result from the proposed benefit revision.      1. The numerical assessments shall include the following:    a. The estimated change to the TMRS contribution rate that would result from the proposed  change in benefits, expressed as a percentage of employee pay and as an annual dollar amount  to the General Fund and to each City fund.    a.b. The estimated change to the City’s unfunded pension liability, expressed as a dollar amount.    Page 30 of 163 13   FY2017 Annual Budget  b.c. The estimated change to the City’s actuarial funding ratio.    2. The description and numerical assessments must be provided to the City Council at least 72  hours prior to consideration and approval, and must be read aloud to the Council prior to Council  consideration.    3. The estimated changes to the City’s contribution rate and the unfunded pension liability  presented pursuant to the section must be based on information provided by the TMRS actuary  or by professional actuary authorized by the TMRS to provide such information.    4. Proposals to revise TMRS benefits must be voted on individually as part of the City Council’s  legislative agenda.    5. The City will amortize any unfunded actuarial liability (UAAL) over a period not to exceed the  amortization period used by the TMRS actuary. The City may amortize its UAAL more quickly by  making contributions to TMRS in excess of the rate specified by TMRS. The City has established  80% as the minimum funding goal for the City’s unfunded pension liability.  The City’s funded  pension liability is 81.3% as of December 31, 2013, as disclosed by TMRS.  The City’s ultimate  goal is 100%, but will be achieved reasonably over time.    6. The City may elect to make an annual 1‐time payment prior 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.    G. Retirement Cost‐of‐Living Adjustment    1. Within 60 days of when the TMRS annual funding update becomes available each year, staff will  review and prepare a summary of costs and options for potential cost‐of‐living adjustment (COLA)  for City of Georgetown retirees.  2. Consistent with state statutes governing the Texas Municipal Retirement System, the City may  provide an automatic COLA for members of the TMRS who are retired from the City of Georgetown  and receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the TMRS.   3. The City Council may adjust the COLA provided to city retirees based upon the funding level of the  City’s pension plan, as calculated by the TMRS, as follows:  When the funding level of the City’s  pension plan is    The COLA  should be    Less than 70.0%    Zero  70.0% to 79.9%    0.3% of CPI  80.0% to 89.9%    0.5% of CPI  90.0% and greater    0.7% of CPI  Page 31 of 163 14   FY2017 Annual Budget      4. Adjustments made pursuant to subsection b. should reflect the effect of the prospective change in  the COLA on the funding level of the City’s pension plan.  H. Deferred Compensation Benefits – In addition to the retirement benefit administered by the TMRS, the  City will sponsor a Deferred Compensation 457 plan, which is a supplementary individual retirement  savings plan.  The City will encourage employee participation in this plan.    XIII. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION    Realizing the importance and contribution of employee’s in achieving and maintaining the City of Excellence, the  City’s goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees who provide excellent, friendly services to  our community in an effective and efficient manner.    A. Adequate Staffing – Staffing levels will be adequate for the fiscal functions of the City to operate effectively.   Workload allocation alternatives will be explored before adding additional staff.    B. Competitive Compensation – In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City is implementing a  Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Policy to address competitive market factors and other  issues impacting compensation.   The program consists of:    1. Cost of Living Adjustment ‐   (COLA) – To protect City employees from the effects of general inflation,  every odd numbered year, the City may fund a COLA adjustment for all regular employees not  included in a defined pay plan.  The COLA will be based on a three‐year rolling average of the  Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for Southern cities  pertinent to Georgetown’s population.    2. Pay Scale Review – To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the market,  every even numbered year, the City will review its pay plan for any potential market adjustments  necessary to maintain the City’s pay scale.    3. Pay for Performance – Each year the City will fund pay adjustments to aid in retaining quality  employees while recognizing increased job experience and rewarding quality performance.    Adjustments are based on the previous year’s annual performance evaluation. The percentage adjustments  are determined by the employee’s position within their pay grade, including merit adjustments for  productivity and quality performance during the previous fiscal year.      In addition, the City may also choose to fund a one‐time on performance that exceeds expectations during  the review period.        C. Self‐Insurance Program – The City is committed to providing quality healthcare insurance that offers the most  flexibility in health benefits and options to its employees.  In order to provide the most cost effective solution,  the City has determined that establishing a self‐funded health insurance plan offers the greatest opportunity  to mitigate future cost increases while offering quality health care services to its employees.  The City has  Page 32 of 163 15   FY2017 Annual Budget  established a mechanism to manage the accounts and payments associated with this program. Per GASB  Statement No. 66, such funding should be accounted for as an Internal Service Fund (ISF).    1. Employee Health Insurance ISF ‐ includes premium contributions from employees and budgeted  health insurance contributions included in the City’s annual budget process.    2. Self‐Insurance Reserve ‐  will be included and maintained within the Employee Self‐Insurance Internal  Service Fund to provide stabilization for employee health insurance premiums.  The amount of the  reserve will be determined by the actuarially determined “maximum” amount risk related to the  potential claims to the plan in one year.  Initially, the reserve is targeted to be $1,000,000 by fiscal  year 2017/18.     3.1. Employee Premiums – Annual premiums will be recommended to City Council through a  collaborative process between the City’s Employee Benefit Committee and external consultants  using historical data and other analytic analysis.    VI.   VI. STAFFING AND COMPENSATION    City Council and Management recognize the importance of attracting, hiring, developing, and retaining the best  people, and compensating them for the value they create.  Our outstanding and innovative City employees work  diligently to bring the Vision of Council to life and deliver exceptional services to our customers while  exemplifying our Core Values. The following programs are subject to available funding in the annual operating  budget.      A. Adequate Staffing – Staffing levels will be adequate for the fiscal functions of the City to operate effectively.   Workload allocation alternatives will be explored before adding additional staff.    B. Competitive Compensation – In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City has implemented a  Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Program to address competitive market factors and other  issues impacting compensation.   The program consists of:    1. Annual Pay Plan Review – To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the  market, the City will review its pay plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary  to maintain the City’s competitive pay plans.    2. Pay for Performance – Each year the City will fund performance based pay adjustments for regular  non‐public safety personnel.  This merit‐based program aids in retaining quality employees by  rewarding their performance.  Pay for Performance adjustments are based on the employee’s most  recently completed performance evaluation.      3. Public Safety Steps – Each year the City will fund anniversary step increases for public safety sworn  personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design.    C. Self‐Insurance Program – The City is committed to providing quality healthcare insurance that offers the most  flexibility in health benefits and options to its employees.  In order to provide the most cost effective solution,  the City has determined that establishing a self‐funded health insurance plan offers the greatest opportunity  to mitigate future cost increases while offering quality health care services to its employees.  The City has  Page 33 of 163 16   FY2017 Annual Budget  established a mechanism to manage the accounts and payments associated with this program. Per GASB  Statement No. 66, such funding should be accounted for as an Internal Service Fund (ISF).    1. Employee Health Insurance ISF – This fund contains premium contributions from employees and  budgeted health insurance contributions included in the City’s annual budget process.    2. Self‐Insurance Reserve – Annually through the budget process, staff and the City’s Health Benefit  Consultant firm will evaluate and recommend to Council the appropriate funding levels for both a  rate stabilization reserve as well as an incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserve.    3. Employee Premiums – Annual premiums will be recommended to City Council through a  collaborative process between the City’s Employee Benefit Committee and external Health Benefits  consulting firm using historical data and other analytic analysis.    VII. FUND BALANCE POLICIES    The City’s Fund Balance is the accumulated difference between assets and liabilities within governmental funds,  and it allows the City to meet its contractual obligations, fund disaster or emergency costs, provide cash flow for  timing purposes and fund non‐recurring expenses appropriated by City Council.  This policy establishes limitations  on the purposes for which Fund Balances can be used in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards  Board (GASB) Statement Number 54.     The City’s Fund Balance will report up to five components:    A. Non‐spendable Fund Balance – includes inherently non‐spendable assets that will never convert to cash, as  well as assets that will not convert to cash soon enough to affect the current financial period.  Assets included  in this category are prepaid items, inventory and non‐financial assets held for resale.  B. Restricted Fund Balance – represents the portion of fund balance that is subject to legal restrictions, such as  grants or hotel/motel tax and bond proceeds.  C. Committed Fund Balance – describes the portion of fund balance that is constrained by limitations that the  City Council has imposed upon itself, and remains binding unless the City Council removes the limitation.    D. Assigned Fund Balance – is that portion of fund balance that reflects the City’s intended use of the resource  and is established in a less formal method by the City for that designated purpose.   E. Unassigned Fund Balance – represents funds that cannot be properly classified in one of the other four  categories.      VIII. LONG‐TERM LIABILITY RESERVES    The City of Georgetown recognizes certain long‐term unfunded commitments and contingencies that will require  substantial funding at some point in the future.  The City is committed to addressing these commitments in a  fiscally prudent method by acknowledging their future financial impacts and developing strategies and  designated reserve funds to mitigate those future impacts.    Cemetery Reserve will be established for the purpose of funding continued maintenance for City owned  cemetery properties  A. The Finance Director will maintain a list of unfunded liabilities. The list will be included in the quarterly financial  report to Council.    Page 34 of 163 17   FY2017 Annual Budget    IX. BUDGET CONTINGENCY PLAN    This policy is designed to establish general guidelines for managing revenue shortfalls resulting from local and  national economic downturns that adversely affect the City's revenue streams.    A. Immediate Action – Once a budgetary shortfall is projected, the City Manager will take the necessary actions  to offset any revenue shortfall with a reduction in current expenses.  The City Manager may:     Freeze all new hire and vacant positions except those deemed to be a necessity.   Review all planned capital expenditures.   Delay all "non‐essential" spending or equipment replacement purchases.    The City Manager shall report in a timely manner to the City Council the projected shortfall and the  actions taken to resolve it.    B. Further Action – If the actions identified in subsection A are insufficient to offset the projected revenue deficit  for the current fiscal year, the City Council may approve the following actions, in the order listed:    1. Apply unspent, unobligated surplus funds from prior fiscal years to fund one‐time costs in the current  fiscal year budget.    2. Notwithstanding Section XVI.A.2.ab. Base Level Reserve Budget Stabilization Reserve of this policy,  authorize a reduction in the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, pursuant to Section  XV.A.2.ab. Budget Stabilization Base Level Reserve of this policy, from 90 to 75 days.     3. Direct other reductions in services, including workforce reductions.    C.  Replenish Fund Balance – As soon as practical practicable, without placing undue strain on City services, the  City Council shall increase the unobligated fund balance in the General Fund, up to the 90‐day amount  required in Section XVI.A.2.ab. Budget Stabilization ReserveBase Level Reserve of this policy.      X. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET    The City’s goal is to maintain City facilities and infrastructure in order to provide excellent services to the  customers within the community, meet growth related needs, and comply with all state and federal regulations.    A. Preparation – The City annually updates and adopts a five‐year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule  as part of the operating budget adoption process. The plan is reviewed and adjusted annually as needed, and  year one is adopted as the current year capital budget.  The capital budget will include all capital projects,  capital resources, and estimated operational impacts.     Needed capital improvements are identified through system models, repair and maintenance  records and growth demands.     Economic development projects that have capital infrastructure needs must be reviewed and  approved for funding by the City no later than March 1 to be included in the annual CIP process.  Any  Page 35 of 163 18   FY2017 Annual Budget  economic development project approved for funding after March 1 will be included in the following  year CIP process unless otherwise authorized by City Council.     A team approach will be used to prioritize CIP projects, whereby City staff from all operational areas  provide input and ideas relating to each project and its effect on operations.      Citizen involvement and participation will be solicited in formulating the capital budget through  neighborhood meetings, public hearings and other forums.     Capital infrastructure necessary to meet the requirements of the City’s Annexation Plan will be  identified separately within the CIP plan, so that funding alternatives can be developed if needed.    Prior to Council adoption, the following Advisory Boards will review the Capital Projects budget:    Georgetown Utility  Systems Advisory  Board   (GUS)  Georgetown  Transportation Advisory  Board (GTAB)  General Government and  Finance   Advisory  Board    (GGAF)      Parks Advisory  Board  Electric  Water  Wastewater  Streets  Stormwater Drainage  Airport  Facilities  Other General  Government Capital  Parks and  Recreation       B. Control – All capital project expenditures must be appropriated in the capital budget.   Availability of  resources must be identified and then reviewed by the Finance Division before any CIP contract is presented  to the City Council for approval.      Prior to presentation to Council, the following Advisory Boards will review:    Georgetown Utility Systems   Advisory Board   (GUS)  Georgetown Transportation  Advisory Board   (GTAB)  General Government and  Finance   Advisory  Board (GGAF)  All utility contracts and  other  utility expenses  greater than $50,000  All Transportation,  Stormwater Drainage and  Airport expenditures and  contracts greater than  $50,000  All General Government  non‐routine contracts and  expenditures greater than  $50,000      C. Financing Programs – Where applicable, assessments, impact fees, pro rata charges, or other fees should be  used to fund capital projects which have a primary benefit to specific identifiable property owners.      Page 36 of 163 19   FY2017 Annual Budget  Recognizing that long‐term debt is usually a more expensive financing method, alternative‐financing sources  will be explored before debt is issued.  When debt is issued, it will be used to acquire major assets with  expected lives equal or exceeding the average life of the debt issue.    Short‐term financing including Capital Leasing and other tax‐supported obligations can be used to fund  vehicles, computers and other operating equipment provided the impact to the tax rate is minimal.    Caution should be used in replacing assets with short‐term, tax‐supported obligations due to the repetitive  nature of the replacements.  The total amount of I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate dedicated  to fund short‐term debt for equipment replacement will not exceed $0.04.        XI. CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT    The City recognizes that deferred maintenance increases future capital costs.  Therefore, a portion of all  individual funds with infrastructure should be budgeted each year to maintain the quality within each system.      A. Infrastructure Maintenance ‐ On‐going maintenance and major repair costs are included as capital expense  within the departmental operating budgets.  These costs are generally considered system repairs and are  not capitalized for accounting purposes.  They include such items as park and recreation facility repairs, street  seal coat, water line repairs and other general system maintenance.      B. Modified Approach ‐ Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ‐ Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement  # 34 provides for an alternative approach to depreciation for measuring the value of infrastructure assets  and the related costs incurred to maintain their service life at a locally established minimum standard.  The  City has elected to implement this modified approach in maintaining its non‐enterprise fund infrastructure  assets. In order to adopt this alternative method, the City has implemented an asset management system  that determines if the minimum standards are being maintained.  This measurement system will be updated  at least every 3 years.  The City has elected to use this alternative method for reporting its street  infrastructure assets.    The City uses the CarteGraph PavementView Pavement Management Information System to track the  condition levels of each of the street sections.  The condition of the pavement is based on the following factors:        Type of Distress   Amount of Distress   Severity of Distress   Deduct Values (function of first three)  The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a measurement scale is based upon a condition index ranging from  zero for a failed pavement to 100 for pavement with perfect condition.  The condition index is used to  classify pavement in the following conditions:             PCI Rating  100  –  85 Good  85  –  45 Fair  45  –  0 Poor  Page 37 of 163 20   FY2017 Annual Budget      The City’s administrative policy is to achieve an average PCI level of 85.  An 85 PCI is considered maintaining  the streets in a “good” condition.  Staff will prepare a street maintenance budget that meets this target for  Council’s consideration during the budget process. The PCI level as of 2014 was 87.30.    C. Internal Service Funds Capital Maintenance & Replacement – The City currently utilizes internal service funds  to maintain and replace existing assets.  Assessments are made to the using funds for the use of equipment  currently in use and to be purchased during the year.  In this way, suitable funds are available for the purchase  of operational assets without the issuance of debt.    1. Fleet Maintenance and Replacement – The City has a major investment in its fleet of cars, trucks,  tractors, and other equipment.  The City will anticipate replacing existing equipment, as necessary  and will establish charges that are assigned to the using departments to account for the cost of that  replacement.  Vehicle maintenance is also allocated in this manner.    2. Technology – It is the policy of the City to plan and fund the maintenance and replacement of its  computer network and other technology systems.  The City currently uses a four‐year replacement  cycle for all desktop computers.  A reserve will be established within the ISF for replacement of major  systems and will be funded over time through excess revenues within the Fund.  Funding for major  systems assumes that 50% of the replacement cost will be debt funded.    3. Facilities Maintenance – The City has established an on‐going maintenance program, which includes  major repairs, equipment, as well as contracts for maintaining City facilities. The City has anticipated  a useful life of such equipment and established a means of charging those costs to the various  departments in order to recognize the City’s continuing costs of maintaining its facilities.   Determination for facility repairs is based on useful life of the various elements of each facility.  A  proportional cost for each element is expensed within the budget for capital replacement.  An  additional unscheduled repair reserve equal to 10% value of annual internal service funding is also  budgeted.  The estimate reserve for 2016 equals $30,000.    D. Departmental Capital Maintenance & Replacement – The City also utilizes department capital maintenance  and replacement schedules for specialized assets and equipment necessary to provide services.     1. Parks and Recreation ‐ As part of the City’s on‐going maintenance program, the City also recognizes  the need to regularly maintain and replace grounds, equipment and facilities that are part of  the  City’s Parks and Recreation system.  Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be  maintained for these items including, but not limited to, playground equipment, buildings, sport  courts, trees and grounds, and restroom facilities.  The City’s goal is to provide level on‐going  funding to ensure safe, well‐maintained facilities for its citizens.    2. Public Safety Equipment – As part of the City’s on‐going maintenance program, the City also  recognizes the need to regularly maintain and replace specialized equipment in Police and Fire.   Separate replacement and maintenance schedules will be maintained for these items including but  not limited to for Fire:   SCBA’s and other firefighting equipment and protective gear; and for Police:  bullet proof vests, armaments and other tactical equipment.  The City’s goal is to provide level on‐ going funding to ensure proper protection for employees and citizens.     Page 38 of 163 21   FY2017 Annual Budget    E. Surplus Property    1. From time to time it is necessary to dispose of certain vehicles or equipment that have been procured  with City funds and used in City services.  Individual surplus property items with expected sales value  in excess of $50,000$10,000 must be approved by the City Council prior to disposition.      2. City staff will maintain reports and records of all surplus property dispositions in accordance with  good internal controls.  A report of all disposed items in excess of $1,000 will be included with the  quarterly financial reports provided to City Council.      XII. ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING    A. Accounting – The City is solely responsible for the recording and reporting of its financial affairs, both  internally and externally.  The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Finance Director is responsible for establishing  the structure for the City’s Chart of Accounts and for assuring that procedures are in place to properly record  financial transactions and report the City’s financial position.    B. General Government and Finance Advisory Board (GGAF) – The City may establish a subcommittee consisting  of at least 2 (3) City Council members and not more than 3 (2) citizens that may meet monthly to provide  additional oversight to the City’s Finance operations.  This subcommittee will also review general government  items that are not reviewed by another City advisory board before being presented to City Council. The City’s  CFO Finance Director will be the liaison for this subcommittee.    C. Audit of Accounts – In accordance with the Charter, an independent audit of the City accounts will be  performed every year.  The auditor is retained by and is accountable directly to the City Council.  The auditing  firm will serve for up to 5 years, at which time, the City will re‐bid these services and changing firms if deemed  necessary by GGAF and City Council.    D. External Reporting – Upon completion and acceptance of the annual audit by the City’s auditors, the City  shall prepare a written Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which shall be presented to the City  Council within 180 calendar days of the City’s fiscal year end.  The CAFR shall be prepared in accordance with  Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and shall be presented annually to the Government  Finance Officer Association (GFOA) for evaluation and consideration for the Certificate of Achievement in  Financial Reporting.      E. Internal Reporting – The Finance Department will prepare internal financial reports, sufficient to plan,  monitor and control the City’s financial affairs.      XIII. ASSET MANAGEMENT    A. Cash Management and Investments – The City Council has formally approved a separate Investment Policy  for the City of Georgetown that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA), Section  2256 of the Texas Local Government Code.  This policy is reviewed annually by the City Council and applies  to all financial assets held by the City and applies to all entities (component units) included in the City’s  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and/or managed by the City.    Page 39 of 163 22   FY2017 Annual Budget  1. Statement of Cash Management Philosophy ‐ The City shall maintain a comprehensive cash  management program to include the effective collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt  deposit of receipts to the City’s depository, the payment of obligations, and the prudent investment  of idle funds in accordance with this policy.    2. Objectives – The City’s investment program will be conducted as to accomplish the following listed  in priority order:     Safety of the principal invested   Liquidity and availability of cash to pay obligations when due   Ensure public trust through responsible actions as custodians of public funds.   Maximize earnings (yield) to the greatest extent possible consistent with the City’s investment  policy.  3. Safekeeping and Custody – Investments may only be purchased through brokers/dealers who meet  the criteria detailed in the investment policy, which also addresses internal controls related to  investments.    4. Standard of Care and Reporting – Investment will be made with judgment and care, always  considering the safety of principal to be invested and the probable income to be derived.  The Chief  Financial OfficerFinance Director is responsible for the overall management of the City’s investment  program and ensures all investments are made in compliance with the investment policy.  An  investment report, providing both summary and detailed information, will be presented to the City  Council quarterly.     5. Authorized Investments – The City can currently invest in the following:     Certificates of Deposit   U.S. Treasury and Agency securities   Investment Pools that meet the requirements of the PFIA   No‐load Money Market Mutual Funds   Fully collateralized  Repurchase Agreements   Obligations of Municipal Issuers in Texas rated not less than A or its equivalent   Other investments as approved by City Council and not prohibited by law.    B. Fixed Assets – These assets will be reasonably safeguarded and properly accounted for, and prudently  insured.     1. Capitalization Criteria ‐ For purposes of budgeting and accounting classification, the following criteria  must be capitalized:     The asset owned by the City   The expected useful life of the asset must be longer than one year, or extend the life of an  identifiable existing asset by more than one year   The original cost of the asset must be at least $5,000  Page 40 of 163 23   FY2017 Annual Budget   The asset must be tangible   On‐going repairs and general maintenance are not capitalized.    2. New Purchases – All costs associated with bringing the asset into working order will be capitalized  as part of the asset cost. This will include startup costs, engineering or consultant type fees as part  of the asset cost once the decision or commitment to purchase the asset is made.  The cost of  land acquired should include all related costs associated with its purchase.    3. Improvements and Replacement – Improvements will be capitalized when they extend the original  life of an asset or when they make the asset more valuable than it was originally.  The replacement  of assets components will normally be expensed unless they are a significant nature and meet all the  capitalization criteria.    4. Contributed Capital – Infrastructure assets received from developers or as a result of annexation will  be recorded as equity contributions when they are received.    5. Distributions Systems – All costs associated with public domain assets, such as streets and utility  distribution lines will be capitalized in accordance with the capitalization policy.  Costs should include  engineering, construction and other related costs including right of way acquisition.    6. Reporting and Inventory – The Finance Division will maintain the permanent records of the City’s  fixed assets, including description, cost, department of responsibility, date of acquisition,  depreciation and expected useful life.  Periodically, random sampling at the department level will be  performed to inventory fixed assets assigned to that department.  Responsibility for safeguarding  the City’s fixed assets lies with the department supervisor or manager whose department has been  assigned the asset.    XIV. DEBT MANAGEMENT    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.    A. Usage of Debt – Long‐term debt financing will be considered for non‐continuous capital improvements of  which future citizens will be benefited.  Alternatives for financing will be explored prior to debt issuance and  include, but not limited to:     Grants   Use of Reserve Funds  Page 41 of 163 24   FY2017 Annual Budget   Use of Current Revenues   Contributions from developers and others   Leases   Impact Fees.    When the City utilizes long‐term financing, it will ensure that the debt is soundly financed by  conservatively projecting revenue sources that will be used to pay the debt.  It will not finance the  improvement over a period greater than the useful life of the improvement and it will determine that  the cost benefit of the improvement, including interest costs, is positive to the community.    The City may utilize the benefits of short‐term debt financing to purchase operating equipment provided  the debt doesn’t extend past the useful life of the asset and the potential impact to the tax rate is within  policy guidelines.  The I & S (interest and sinking) portion of the tax rate cannot exceed $0.04 for short‐ term debt (3‐10 years).    B. Types of Debt     1. General Obligation Bonds (GO’s) – General obligation bonds must be authorized by a vote of the  citizens of Georgetown.  They are used only to fund capital assets of the general government and  are not to be used to fund operating needs of the City.  The City’s ad valorem taxing authority backs  general obligation bonds.  Conditions for issuance of general obligation debt include:     When the project will have a significant impact on the tax rate;     When the project may be controversial even through it is routine in nature; or     When the project falls outside the normal bounds of projects the City has typically done.    For debt programs that include multiple projects that will be issued over multiple years at the  discretion of the City Council, the City may approve a Contract with the Voters to manage future  property tax rate impacts. The Contract with the Voters will be included in educational information  for all applicable GO Bond elections, and will include a maximum annual tax rate increase and a  cumulative total per bond authorization maximum tax rate increase. The City will include these  impacts in its annual Debt Condition report.    The City Council will carefully manage the unissued GO Bond authorization through annual review of  related projects to ensure full disclosure on future timing of projects included in the bond package.   Timing of authorized projects and related bond issuance will be included in the Annual Budget and  published on the City’s website.  Any changes to this schedule require specific Council authorization.      2. Revenue Bonds – Revenue bonds will be issued to provide for the capital needs of any activities  where the capital requirements are necessary for the continuation or expansion of a service.  The  improved activity shall produce a revenue stream to fund the debt service requirements of the  necessary improvement to provide service expansion.  The average life of the obligation should not  exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be funded by the bond issue, and will generally be limited to  no more than twenty (20) years. An exception can be made for plant expansions or related system  expansions whose useful life is in excess of 30 years. A cost benefit analysis will be done to fully  disclose the impacts of extending debt beyond 20 years.    Page 42 of 163 25   FY2017 Annual Budget  3. Certificates of Obligation, Contract Obligations (CO’s) – Certificates of obligation or contract  obligations may be used to fund capital requirements that are not otherwise funded by general  obligation or revenue bonds.  Debt service for CO’s may be either from general revenues (tax‐ supported) or supported by a specific revenue stream(s) or a combination of both.  Typically, the City  may issue CO’s when the following conditions are met:     When the proposed debt will have minimal impact on future effective property tax rates;     When the projects to be funded are within the normal bounds of City capital requirements, such  as for roads, parks, various infrastructure and City facilities and equipment; and     When the average life of the obligation does not exceed the useful life of the asset(s) to be  funded by the issue.    Certificates of obligation will be the least preferred method of financing and will be used with  prudent care and judgment by the City Council.  Every effort will be made to ensure public  participation in decisions relating to debt financing.    4. Self‐supporting General Obligation Debt – Refers to certificates of obligation issued for a specific  purpose and repaid through dedicated revenues other than ad valorem taxes.  The annual debt  requirements are not included in the property tax calculation.  Both the Airport and Stormwater  Drainage funds will issue this type of debt, In addition, the Electric and Water Services Funds can  utilize this method of funding non‐system capital assets. The City also issues debt on behalf of the  Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC) whom then pledges 4B sales tax  revenue for the repayment of that debt.     5. Internal borrowing between City Funds – The City can authorize use of existing long‐term reserves  as “loans” between funds.  The borrowing fund will repay the loan at a rate consistent with current  market conditions.  The loan will be repaid within ten (10) years.  The loan will be considered an  investment of working capital reserves by the lending fund.    6. Other Short‐term Borrowing – The City may authorize the issuance of Public Property Finance  Contractual Obligations (PPFCO) which is short‐term obligations for the acquisition of personal public  property, such as equipment. PPFCOs are payable from either ad valorem taxes or another dedicated  revenue stream.  Each issuance will be assessed to ensure cost effectiveness and the repayment  schedule will not exceed the useful life of the asset.  Multiple equipment acquisitions can be grouped  in a single PPFCO issue in order to develop economies of scale.      C. Method of Sale – The City will use a competitive bidding process in the sale of bonds unless conditions in the  bond market or the nature of the issue warrant a negotiated bid.  In such situations, the City will publicly  present the reasons for the negotiated sale.  The City will rely on the recommendation of the financial advisor  in the selection of the underwriter or direct purchaser.  The financial advisor must meet all licensing  requirements and comply with all Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) regulations.  The City’s  financial advisor will not act as the underwriter on any City bond issue.     D. Disclosure – Full disclosure of operating costs along with capital costs will be made to the bond rating  agencies and other users of financial information.  The City staff, with assistance of the financial advisor and  bond counsel, will prepare the necessary materials for presentation to the rating agencies and will aid in the  Page 43 of 163 26   FY2017 Annual Budget  production of the Preliminary Official Statements.  The City will take responsibility for the accuracy of all  financial information released.    E. Federal Requirements – The City will maintain written procedures to follow post issuance compliance rules,  arbitrage rebate and other Federal requirements.     Post issuance tax compliance rules will include records retention, arbitrage rebate, use of  proceeds, and     Continuing disclosure requirements under SEC Rule 15c2‐12, MSRB standards, or as may be  required by bond covenants or related agreements.     F. Debt Structuring – The City will issue bonds with an average life of twenty (20) years or less, not to exceed  the useful life of the asset acquired.  The structure should approximate level debt service unless operational  matters dictate otherwise. Market factors, such as the effects of tax‐exempt designations, the cost of early  redemption options and the like, will be given consideration during the structuring of long term debt  instruments.  Exceptions to the 20 year average life include debt issues for major system expansions, such as  water, sewer or electric plants, in which case the City may issue debt greater than 20 years since the average  life of the asset exceeds 30 years.  A cost benefit analysis indicating the impacts of extending debt beyond  20 years will be completed.    G. Debt Coverage Ratio – Refers to the number of times the current combined debt service requirements or  payments would be covered by the current operating revenues net of on‐going operating expenses of the  City’s combined utilities (Electric, Water, and Wastewater). The City will maintain a minimum debt service  coverage ratio of 1.5 times for these utilities as a whole. The bond ordinances allow the City to forego a debt  reserve fund for its utility debt if the coverage is maintained at 1.35 times or better.  Debt coverage for 2016  is budgeted at 3.67 times coverage.  A coverage ratio of 1.5 times will also be required for all funds issuing  self‐supporting debt.     H.  Bond Reimbursement Resolutions – The City may utilize bond reimbursements as a tool to manage its debt  issues, due to arbitrage requirements and project timing.   In so doing, the City uses its capital reserve "cash"  to delay bond issues until such time when issuance is favorable and beneficial to the City.    The City Council may authorize a bond reimbursement resolution for General Capital projects that have a  direct impact on the City's ad valorem tax rate when the bonds will be issued within the term of the existing  City Council.  In the event of unexpected circumstances that delay the timing of projects, or market  conditions that prohibit financially sound debt issuance, the approved project can be postponed and  considered by a future council until circumstantial issues can be resolved.    The City Council may also authorize revenue bond reimbursements for approved utility and other self‐ supporting capital projects within legislative limits.  Currently revenue bonds must be issued within 18  months after an eligible bond funded project is begun.    The total outstanding bond reimbursements may not exceed the total amount of the City’s reserve funds.    XV. OTHER FUNDING ALTERNATIVES    When at all possible, the City will research alternative funding opportunities prior to issuing debt or  increasing user‐related fees.    Page 44 of 163 27   FY2017 Annual Budget    A. Grants – All potential grants will be examined for any matching requirements and the source of those  requirements identified. A grant funding worksheet, reviewed by Finance, that clearly identifies funding  sources, outcomes and other relevant information will be presented and approved by the City Council prior  to any grant application being submitted.  It must be clearly understood that any resulting operation  requirements of the grant could be discontinued once the term and conditions of the project have been  terminated.   The City Council must authorize acceptance of any grant funding.    B. Use of Reserve Funds – The City may authorize the use of reserve funds to potentially delay or eliminate a  proposed bond issue.  This may occur due to higher than anticipated fund balances in prior years, thus  eliminating or reducing the need for debt proceeds, or postpone a bond issue until market conditions are  more beneficial or timing of the related capital improvements does not correspond with the planned bond  issue.  Reserve funds used in this manner are replenished upon issuance of the proposed debt.    C. Developer Contributions – The City will require developers who negatively impact the City's utility capital  plans offset those impacts.  These policies are further defined within the City's utility line extension policy  and other development regulations.    D. Leases – The City may authorize the use of lease financing for certain operating equipment when it is  determined that the cost benefit of such an arrangement is advantageous to the City.    E. Impact Fees – The City will impose impact fees as allowable under state law for both water and wastewater  services.  These fees will be calculated in accordance with statute and reviewed at least every three years.   All fees collected will fund projects identified within the Fee study and as required by state laws.     XVI. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, RESERVES, AND STABILITY RATIOS     The City of Georgetown will maintain budgeted minimum reserves in the ending working capital/fund balances  to provide a secure, healthy financial base for the City in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency,  allow stability of City operations should revenues fall short of budgeted projections and provide available  resources to implement budgeted expenditures without regard to actual timing of cash flows into the City.    A. Operational Coverage – The City’s goal is to maintain operations coverage of 1.0 (one), such that operating  revenues will at least equal or exceed current operating expenditures. Deferrals, short‐term loans, or one‐ time sources will be avoided as budget balancing techniques. Reserves will be used only for emergencies or  non‐recurring expenditures, except when balances can be reduced because their levels exceed guideline  minimums as stated below.    1. Operating Reserves – The City will maintain reserves at a minimum of seventy‐five (75) days (20.83%)  of net budgeted operating expenditures.  Net budgeted operating expenditure is defined as total  budgeted expenditures less interfund transfers and charges, general debt service (tax supported),  direct cost for purchased power and payments from third party grant monies. Total reserves for 2016  are $22,330,000 million.  The amount of these funds are allocated within the following operating  funds and using the following guidelines to maintain the fund balance, working capital and retained  earnings (reserves) of the various operating funds at levels sufficient to protect the City’s  creditworthiness, as well as, its financial position from unforeseeable emergencies.      Page 45 of 163 28   FY2017 Annual Budget  2. General Fund – The fund balance reserve in the General Fund should equal ninety (90) days or 25%  of annual budgeted General Fund operating expenditures.  2016 reserves are $7,925,000 million and  are allocated as follows:    a. Base Level Reserve – will equal ninety (90) sixty (60) days of current year budgeted operating  expenditures which will be designated for emergency use only. If the Base Level Reserve is used  during the fiscal year, the balance must return to the ninety (90) day requirement within the  following fiscal year’s adopted budget.  b. Budget Stabilization Reserve – will equal thirty (30) days of current year budgeted operating  expenditures and will be designated to protect the City against short term operating deficits.   The funds will be available for the following purposes:    i. Defer short term tax increases  ii. Cover revenue shortfalls  iii. Fund unanticipated expenditures    If the Budget Stabilization Reserve is depleted during the fiscal year, the balance must return to  the 30 day requirement within the following year’s adopted budget.  c.b. Economic Uncertainty Reserve – will equal up to 6% of current year budgeted operating  expenditures. The reserve will be designated to temporarily offset a decline in any General Fund  revenue source during the current fiscal year or in planning the future budget year. The reserve  may be used when growth in any General Fund revenue source from one fiscal year to the next  is below zero. The reserve will be available to support only existing programs approved in a prior  fiscal year. Used funds shall be restored up to the 6% reserve as soon as practical.    3. Tourism Fund – A minimum sixty days (60) or 16.67% of operating expenditures will be reserved  within the fund balance.  These funds are designated to be used to offset any potential revenue  shortfall that occurs during the fiscal year and should be replenished in the following fiscal year’s  budget.    4. Water  Services Fund – Working capital reserves in should be 25% or ninety (90) days of operating  expenses, net debt service and long‐term water contract costs.  These reserves are designated to be  used to offset potential revenue shortfalls or fund unexpected or emergency expenses that occur  during the fiscal year.  These reserves should be replenished in the following budget cycle.    5. Stormwater Drainage Fund – $250,000 for unforeseen emergencies or other potential revenue  shortfalls.    6. Electric Fund – The remaining balance to meet the citywide requirement of seventy‐five (75) days of  reserve funds will be maintained within this fund.  It can be used for unforeseen emergencies and  expenditures.  The Rate Stabilization Account and the Power Contract Credit Reserve are not  included in this Contingency Reserve.    For all other non‐enterprise funds, the fund balance is an indication of the balance of each particular fund at  a specific time.  The ultimate goal of each such fund is to have expended the fund balance at the conclusion  of the activity for which the fund was established.    Reserve requirements will be calculated as part of the annual budget process and any additional required  funds to be added to the reserve balances will be appropriated within the budget.    Page 46 of 163 29   FY2017 Annual Budget    Funds in excess of the minimum reserves within each fund may be expended for City purposes at the will of  the City Council once it has been determined that use of the excess will not endanger reserve requirements  in future years.  This action requires an amendment to the City’s Annual Budget and is outlined in Section III.  L. Use of Unanticipated and Unappropriated General Fund Balances.    B. Liabilities and Receivables ‐ Procedures will be followed to maximize discounts and reduce penalties offered  by creditors.  Current liabilities will be paid within 30 days of receiving the invoice.  Accounts Receivable  procedures will target collection for a maximum of 30 days of service.   The Chief Financial Officer Finance  Director is authorized to write‐off non‐collectible, non‐utility accounts that are delinquent for more than 180  days, and utility accounts delinquent more than 180 days, provided proper delinquency procedures have  been followed, and include this information in the annual report to the City Council.    C. Capital Project Funds – Every effort will be made for all monies within the Capital Project Funds to be  expended in a timely manner preferably within thirty‐six (36) months of receipt.  The fund balance will be  invested and income generated will offset increases in construction costs or other costs associated with the  project.  Capital project funds are intended to be expended totally, with any unexpected excess to be  transferred to the Debt Service fund to service project‐related debt service.    D. General Debt Service Funds – Revenues within this fund are stable, based on property tax revenues. Balances  are maintained to meet contingencies and to make certain that the next year’s debt service payments may  be met in a timely manner. Fund balance should not fall below 45 days annual debt service requirements, in  accordance with IRS guidelines.    E. Investment of Reserve Funds – The reserve funds will be invested in accordance with the City’s investment  policy.  Existing non‐cash investment would be exempt through retirement of the investment.     F. Ratios/Trend Analysis ‐ Ratios and significant balances will be incorporated into both the mid‐year and annual  reports to the City Council.  This information will provide users with meaningful data to identify major trends  of the City's financial condition through analytical procedures.  The following ratios/balances will be used as  key financial indicators:     Fund Balance/Equity:    Assets ‐ liabilities  FB/E AL (Acceptable level) minimum reserve requirement     Working Capital:   Current assets less current liabilities  CA ‐ CL    AL minimum reserve requirement     Current Ratio:    Current assets divided by current liabilities  CA/CL    AL > 1.00     Quick Ratio: "Liquid" current assets divided by current liabilities   Liquid CA/CL   AL > 1.00     Debt/Assessed AV Taxes    Debt divided by assessed Ad Valorem value  D/AV    AL < 5     Debt Ratio: Current liabilities plus long‐term liabilities divided by total  assets  Page 47 of 163 30   FY2017 Annual Budget   CL +LTL/TA    AL < 1     Enterprise Operating Coverage:  Operating revenue divided by operating expense   OR/OE    AL > 1.25     Times Coverage Ratio: Operating revenue less operating expense divided by  annual debt service   (OR‐OE)/DSV    AL > 1.5    The City will be to develop minimum/maximum levels for the above ratios/balances through analyzing  of City historical trends and future projections.  These ratios will also be compared to other similar or  regional municipalities for further analysis.        XVII. INTERNAL CONTROLS    A. Written Procedures – Wherever possible, written procedures will be established and maintained by the Chief  Financial OfficerFinance Director for all functions involving cash handling and/or accounting throughout the  City.  These procedures will embrace the general concepts of fiscal responsibility set forth in this policy  statement.    B. Internal Audit Program – An internal audit program will be maintained by the Chief Financial OfficerFinance  Director to ensure compliance with City policies and procedures and to prevent the potential for fraud.      1. Departmental Audits – departmental processes will be reviewed to ensure dual control of City assets  and identify the opportunity for fraud potential, as well as, to ensure that departmental internal  procedures are documented and updated as needed.    2. Employees or Transaction Review – Programs to be audited include Petty Cash, City Credit Card  accounts, time entry, and travel.  All discrepancies will be identified, and the employee’s Division  Director will be notified.   The City Manager will also be notified depending on the seriousness of the  infraction.    3. The Finance Director and City Manager will present an annual audit plan to the General Government  and Finance board. Results of all internal audits will be provided to the GGAF and City Council  at  year‐end. on a quarterly basis    B.C. Division Directors Responsibility – Each division Director is responsible for ensuring that good internal controls  are followed throughout their department, that all Finance Division directives are implemented and that all  independent auditor internal control recommendations are addressed.  Departments will develop and  periodically update written internal control procedures.        Page 48 of 163 FY2017 Annual Budget GGAF March 30, 2016 City Council April 26, 2016 Fiscal and Budgetary Policies Investment Policies FY 2017 1 Page 49 of 163 FY2017 Annual Budget Administrative Changes •Order policies according to  a logical flow •Simplify language •Updates to match internal procedures •Convert Chief Financial Officer language to Finance Director •Update fiscal year  or calendar year •Correct grammar and spelling •Add Table  of Contents and page numbers 2 Page 50 of 163 FY2017 Annual Budget Substantive Changes •Update Employee Compensation Program (Policy VI, Pg.  14‐16) •Update Reserves for  Self‐Insurance Fund (Policy VI, Pg. 16) •Establish Economic Uncertainty Reserve  in General Fund  (Policy XVI, Pg. 28) •Enhance requirements for  quarterly financial reporting •Add reporting of expenditures (Policy V, Pg. 10) •Add list of unfunded liabilities (Policy VIII, Pg. 16) •Remove  reporting  of minor surplus property sales (Policy XI, Pg.  21) •Separate reporting of internal audits (Policy XVII, Pg. 30) 3 Page 51 of 163 FY2017 Annual Budget Investment Policies Recommended by Investment Advisors Valley View •Update training component of investment officers  required by state  law (Section 2.3, Pg. 2) •Change Chief Financial Officer to  Finance Director •Add Bonwick Capital as an approved dealer/broker  (Attachment A, Pg. 9) 4 Page 52 of 163 FY2017 Annual Budget Next Steps •Recommendation by GGAF to  Council –March 30 •Preliminary adoption by Council to  guide budget  process –April 26  •Staff updates during budget process – Summer 2016 •Council formally  adopts policies with approved budget  – September 9 5 Page 53 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Review o f the C ity’s Investment Policy and dis c us s ion of recommend ed c hanges for FY2017 – Leigh Wallace, Financ e Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: The p urpos e of the Investm ent Policy (P o licy) is to p ro vide the framewo rk fo r managing the City’s inves tments in a way that mitigates ris k while o p timizing returns . The p o lic y is mo d eled after Public Funds Inves tment Ac t (PF IA) recommend ations . The City’s Investment Advis o rs , Valley View Cons ulting, have reco mmended up d ates to the p o licy that are o utlined in the p res entation. T he full version o f the p o licies with trac ked changes is also p ro vided. Onc e rec o mmend ations for any P o licy amendments have been finalized , the revis ed Fisc al and Bud getary Polic y will b e fo rwarded to the City Co uncil for review on April 26, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Redline Inves tment Policy Backup Material Page 54 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 1   CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS INVESTMENT POLICY As amended April 26, 2016December 9, 2014 SECTION 1: SCOPE & OBJECTIVES 1.1 SCOPE This Investment Policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Georgetown, Texas, which includes the City of Georgetown Economic Development Corporation and the Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation, held in all funds. 1.2 STATEMENT OF CASH MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY The City will maintain a comprehensive cash management program to include the effective collection of all accounts receivable, the prompt deposit of receipts to the City's bank accounts, the payment of obligations to comply with State law and in accord with vendor invoices, and the prudent investment of idle funds in accord with this Policy. 1.3 OBJECTIVES The City's investment program will be conducted to comply with Texas Government Code Chapter 2256 (the Public Funds Investment Act) and accomplish the following objectives, listed in priority order: 1. Safety. The City will give priority to the preservation and safety of the principal invested. Investments will be made in a manner that will mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. 2. Liquidity. The City will maintain the availability of sufficient cash to pay obligations of the City when they are due. 3. Public Trust. Investment Officers shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. Investment Officers shall avoid transactions that might impair public confidence in the City’s ability to govern effectively. 4 Yield. The City will invest idle cash in a manner that will maximize earnings to the greatest extent possible, consistent with State and local laws and the objectives of safety and liquidity listed above. It is also the objective of the City to diversify its investments to eliminate the risk of loss resulting from over concentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific class of investments, when appropriate. It is the intent of the City to hold investments to maturity. SECTION 2: STANDARD OF CARE 2.1 PRUDENCE Investments will be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, that persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital and the probable income to be derived. The City Council recognizes that in maintaining a diversified portfolio, occasional measured losses due to market volatility are inevitable and must be Page 55 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 2   considered within the context of the overall portfolio's investment return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented. In determining whether an Investment Officer has exercised prudence with respect to an investment decision, the determination shall be made taking into consideration: A. The investment of all funds, or funds under the City’s control, over which the Officer had responsibility rather than a consideration as to the prudence of a single investment. B. Whether the investment decision was consistent with the written Investment Policy of the City. The Investment Officer, acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence, shall not be held personally responsible for a specific investment's adverse credit risk or market price changes, provided that these deviations are reported immediately to the City Manager and/or the Council and that appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 2.2 ETHICS & CONFLICT OF INTEREST Investment Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Investment Officers and employees will comply with all disclosure and reporting requirements of Section 2256.005 (I) of the Texas Government Code. 2.3 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The Chief Financial Officer Finance Director and Controller are the City's Investment Officers. The Finance Director Chief Financial Officer is responsible for overall management of the City's investment program and may direct the other Investment Officers in their duties. Accordingly, the Investment Officers are responsible for day-to-day administration of the investment program and for the duties listed below: 1. Maintain current information as to available cash balances in City accounts, and as to the amount of idle cash available for investment; 2. Make investments and maintain written procedures for the operation and internal control of the investment program consistent with this Policy; 3. Ensure that all investments are adequately secured; and 4. Attend training relating to investment responsibilities under this Policy as required by Section 2256.008 (a) of the Texas Government Code and ensure that any staff executing transactions covered by this Policy attend the required training. The investment training shall be attended within twelve (12) months of attaining the position and receive not less than ten (10) hours, and thereafter, not less than once in a two-year period that begins on the first day of the City’s fiscal year and consists of the two consecutive fiscal years after that date and receive not less than 10 8 hours of instruction relating to investment responsibilities under this Policy. The training must be sponsored by: Texas Municipal League Government Finance Officers Association of Texas (GFOAT) Government Finance Officers Association of US and Canada Government Treasurers Organization of Texas (GTOT) Page 56 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 3   University of North Texas Texas Tech University Center for Professional Development Unless authorized by State or local laws as provided above, no person may deposit, withdraw, transfer or manage in any other manner the funds of the City. SECTION 3: INVESTMENT STRATEGIES 3.1 OPERATING FUNDS Operating Funds are defined as cash and investments used for day to day operations that do not fall into one of the other categories. Operating funds will be invested in a manner suitable for funds requiring a high degree of liquidity. Investments of Operating Funds shall be limited to a weighted average maturity no greater than one year, and all investment instruments must meet credit and safety criteria as required by the Public Funds Investment Act and this Policy. Involuntary liquidation of Operating Fund investments is unlikely due to their short term nature. However, should a liquidation of investments prior to maturity be necessary, their short term nature will make material losses unlikely. Operating Fund investments will be diverse and may include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual funds. Investment of Operating Funds will be structured to attain the highest possible yield given the liquidity and safety requirements. 3.2 CONTINGENCY RESERVES (or operating reserves) Contingency Reserves are the minimum fund balance/working capital requirements as defined by Council in the Annual Operating Plan. Contingency Reserve balances may be used to cover any cash operating shortfalls due to the timing of bond issues, revenue receipts, etc. Investments of these funds may exceed 24 months with prior approval of the City Manager if short term cash flow needs are not evident. Any one investment may not exceed 36 months in maturity length. The weighted average maturity for these funds may not exceed 24 months. Involuntary liquidation of Contingency Reserve investments is unlikely due to their nature. However, should a liquidation of investments prior to maturity be necessary, the comparatively longer term nature of some of the investments could result in material losses depending on financial and economic conditions. Contingency Reserve investments will be diverse and may include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual funds. Investment of Contingency Reserves will be structured to attain the highest possible yield given the liquidity and safety requirements. 3.3 DEBT 3.3.1 Reserves. Debt reserves are defined as bond reserve funds required to be set aside in accordance with bond covenants. The City’s bond covenants do not require the City to maintain any reserve funds. Therefore, the City’s investments are not adversely affected by any reserve requirement conditions. 3.3.2 Interest & Sinking (or debt service funds). Interest and sinking funds are defined as those funds accumulated to meet periodic payments required by bond and note maturity schedules. The investment maturities are limited by pertinent debt service requirements and tax laws limiting accumulation and earnings for such funds. Involuntary liquidation of investments is highly unlikely due to the nature of these funds. Interest and sinking fund investments will be diverse and may include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual funds. 3.4 BOND PROCEEDS (capital improvement funds) Page 57 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 4   Bond proceed funds are defined as those funds received from the sales of City bonds or notes and not otherwise set aside for debt service or reserve purposes. These funds typically include money to fund infrastructure construction or other large projects. The investment maturities are limited by pertinent project draw requirements and tax laws governing earnings for such funds, but may not have a weighted average maturity in excess of one year, with no single security greater than 24 months, unless a flexible repurchase agreement is used in accordance with Section 4.1.5 of this Policy. Involuntary liquidation of investment is highly unlikely. Bond proceed investments will be diverse and may include financial institution deposits, U.S. treasuries and agencies, investment pools, and money market mutual funds. SECTION 4: AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS 4.1 ALLOWABLE INVESTMENTS City funds may be invested in the following instruments: 4.1.1 Financial Institution Deposits. Certificates of Deposit and other evidences of deposit at a financial institution that, a) has its main office or a branch office in Texas and is guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or its successor, b) is secured by obligations in a manner and amount provided by law for deposits of the City, or c) is executed through a depository institution or approved broker that has its main office or a branch office in Texas that meets the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act. All financial institution deposits in excess of the FDIC insured amount must be collateralized as described by Section 5.5 COLLATERALIZATION. 4.1.2 U.S. Treasuries and Agencies. Obligations of the United States of America, its agencies and instrumentalities, including other obligations, the principal and interest of which are unconditionally guaranteed or insured by, or backed by the full faith and credit of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities, including obligations that are fully guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or by the explicit full faith and credit of the United States. 4.1.3 Investment Pools. Investment pools that meet the following criteria: a. An investment pool must provide an offering circular or other similar disclosure instruments and provide monthly and transaction reporting as required by Section 2256.016 of the Texas Government Code. b. Investment in a new pool will require the approval of the City Council. c. A public funds investment pool created to function as a money market mutual fund must (1) mark its portfolio to market daily, (2) include in its investment objectives the maintenance of a stable net asset value of $1 for each share and (3) be continuously rated no lower than AAAm or at an equivalent rating by at least one nationally recognized rating service. 4.1.4. Money Market Mutual Funds. No-load money market mutual funds if the fund: a. Is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission; b. Marks its portfolio to market daily; c. Includes in its investment objectives the maintenance of a stable net asset value of $1 for each share; d. Is continuously rated no lower than AAA or at an equivalent rating by at least one nationally recognized rating service. 4.1.5. Repurchase Agreements. Fully collateralized repurchase agreements that: a. Have a defined termination date; Page 58 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 5   b. Are secured by cash or obligations as allowed by the Public Funds Investment Act and this Policy; c. Require independent third party safekeeping of all securities prior to the release of any funds; d. Are placed through a primary dealer or financial institution doing business in this State; and e. Do not create a reverse repurchase agreement by the City. f. Construction, capital improvement and bond proceed funds may utilize a flexible repurchase agreement, or similar agreement, that allows expenditure-related withdrawal of funds, without penalty, with an average life and termination date limitation based on the anticipated draw schedule. 4.1.6. Municipal Issuers. Obligations of: a. This State and its agencies or instrumentalities; and b. Counties, cities, and other political subdivisions of the State of Texas rated as to investment quality by a nationally recognized investment rating firm not less than A or its equivalent. 4.1.7. Other Investments. Other investments as approved by the City Council and not prohibited by law. Investment securities purchased prior to this Policy’s revision, that do not meet the revised requirements of this Policy, are not required to be liquidated. The City shall monitor each security’s status to determine whether it is in the best interest of the City to hold or liquidate the security. 4.2 CREDIT RATING REVIEW AND EFFECT OF LOSS OF REQUIRED RATING Not less than quarterly, the Investment Officers will obtain from a reliable source the current credit rating for each held investment that has a PFIA-required minimum rating. Any Authorized Investment that requires a minimum rating and does not qualify at any time during the period, is considered to not have the minimum rating. The City shall take all prudent measures that are consistent with this Policy to liquidate an investment that does not have the minimum rating. 4.3 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW All authorized investments outlined above must meet the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act. No investment may be made in any instrument except as provided above. 4.4 CASH ON HAND Cash resources required for the immediate needs of the City and not otherwise available for longer term investment will be placed in account(s) at the City's Depository/ Depositories. Such account(s) will earn interest at the highest rate(s) provided in the respective depository contract(s). 4.5 LENGTH OF INVESTMENTS The following general constraints will apply. Maturities exceeding 36 months will require authorization by the City Manager, with no single maturity greater than 60 months. Maturities will be staggered to avoid undue concentration of assets in a specific maturity sector and maturities selected will provide for stability of income and reasonable liquidity. Page 59 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 6   SECTION 5: SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY 5.1 AUTHORIZED BROKER/DEALERS and INVESTMENT POLICY CERTIFICATION Authorized investment securities may be purchased only through brokers/dealers who are licensed and in good standing with the Texas Department of Securities, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or other applicable self-regulatory organization. The Investment Officers will maintain a list of broker/dealers who are authorized to provide investment services. The list is approved and included in Attachment “A” of this Policy. Before engaging in investment transactions with a financial institution, broker/dealer, Investment Pool, or Money Market Mutual Fund, the Investment Officers will have received from said firm a signed Certification Form. This form will attest that the individual responsible for the City’s account with that firm has received and reviewed the City’s Investment Policy and that the firm has implemented reasonable procedures and controls in an effort to preclude imprudent activities arising out of investment transactions conducted between the City and the firm. The letter must be signed by a qualified representative as defined by Section 2256.002, of the Texas Government Code. “Qualified Representative” means a person who holds a position with a business organization who is authorized to act on behalf of the business organization and who is one of the following: (1) a business organization doing business that is regulated by or registered with a securities commission, a person who is registered under the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; (2) for a state or federal bank, a savings bank or state or federal credit union, a member of the loan committee for the bank or branch of the bank or a person authorized by corporate resolution to act on behalf of and bind the banking institution; (3) for an investment pool, the person authorized by the elected official or board with authority to administer the activities of the investment pool to sign the written instrument on behalf of the investment pool, or (4) for an investment management firm registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or, if not subject of registration under the Act, registered with the State Securities Board, a person who is an officer or principal of the investment management firm. 5.2 AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Financial institution deposits and other evidences of deposit may be purchased at qualified City Depositories and other financial institutions. Qualifications will be determined by the Investment Officers. The City must have a written agreement with the Depository and other financial institutions, and that depository and other financial institutions must meet all State Laws for deposit of public funds. The City's main operating Depository/Depositories will be selected as provided by law and the City’s purchasing procedure. 5.3 INTERNAL CONTROLS All investment transactions will be documented by the Investment Officers. The Investment Officers may make investments orally, but will follow promptly with a written confirmation to the financial institution or broker/ dealer, with a copy of such confirmation retained in the City's files. On investments, the Investment Officers will solicit competitive quotes. Where appropriate, at least two (2) quotations will be solicited for each such investment made. Page 60 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 7   Market value of the portfolio and each investment will be monitored at least quarterly through industry standard publications/sources for market data such as, but not limited to, The Wall Street Journal. Market value may also be determined through the City’s investment software application, which uses industry standard publications/sources for its market data. 5.4 SAFEKEEPING All securities purchased by the City under this Policy must be designated as assets of the City, must be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis, and must be protected through the use of a third-party custody/safekeeping agent. The City will enter into a formal agreement with an institution of such size and expertise as is necessary to provide the services needed to protect and secure the investment assets of the City. 5.5 COLLATERALIZATION To the extent not insured by federal agencies that secure deposits, City funds (including financial institution deposits and C.D.’s) must be collateralized or enhanced in compliance with the Texas Public Funds Collateral Act and pertinent federal banking regulations. With the exception of deposits secured with irrevocable letters of credit at 100% of deposit plus accrued interest, the aggregate market value of pledged securities shall be equal to at least one hundred two percent (102%) of the of the deposit (including accrued interest) less an amount insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Should the depository fail to adequately maintain the required collateral level, the City may increase the minimum to 110%. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to accept or reject any form of insurance or collateralization pledged towards depository deposits. Institutions serving as a depository will be required to sign a Depository/Collateral Agreement with the City. The collateralized deposit portion of the Agreement shall define the City’s rights to the collateral in case of default, bankruptcy, or closing and shall establish a perfected security interest in compliance with Federal and State regulations, including:  The agreement must be in writing;  The agreement has to be executed by the Depository and the City contemporaneously with the acquisition of the asset;  The agreement must be approved by the Board of Directors or designated committee of the Depository and a copy of the meeting minutes must be delivered to the City; and  The agreement must be part of the Depository’s “official record” continuously since its execution. Securities pledged as collateral must be retained in an independent third party bank and marked as pledged to the City. The City will be provided the original safekeeping receipt from the custodian on each pledged security. With the exception of the Federal Reserve Bank, the City, financial institution, and the safekeeping bank(s) will operate in accordance with a master safekeeping agreement. The City's Investment Officers must approve in writing the release of collateral prior to its removal from the safekeeping account in accordance with the terms of the depository agreement. The financial institution(s) with which the City invests and/or maintains deposits will require the custodian to provide monthly a listing of the collateral pledged to the City marked to current market prices. The listing will include total pledged securities itemized by name, CUSIP, type and description of the security; safekeeping receipt number; par value; current market value; maturity date; and Moody's or Standard & Poor's rating, if available. Page 61 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 8   SECTION 6: REPORTING 6.1 QUARTERLY REPORTING The Investment Officers shall prepare and submit to the Council a quarterly report on investment transactions for all funds covered by this Policy. The report will be prepared in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act. The report will cover the investment position of the City at the end of the each fiscal quarter. The contents will include at a minimum: 1. Beginning and ending market value of the portfolio; 2. Beginning and ending market value and book value, maturity date, type of funds, interest coupon, accrued interest and yield for each separate security; and 3. A statement as to the compliance with this Policy and State law. 6.2 ANNUAL REPORTING Within 90 days following the end of the fiscal year, the Investment Officers will present to the City Council or the General Government and Finance Advisory Board a comprehensive annual report on the investment program and investment activity. In addition to the information required for quarterly reporting, the annual report will include a review of the activities and return for the twelve months, suggest Policy revisions and improvements that might enhance the investment program, and include an investment plan for the ensuing fiscal year. 6.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS In order to evaluate portfolio performance of funds subject to this Policy, the City establishes “weighted average yield to maturity” as the standard portfolio performance measurement. The portfolio’s performance will be compared against appropriately competitive and reasonable benchmarks, including money market mutual funds or investment pools of similar make-up and maturities. 6.4 COMPLIANCE The quarterly reports shall be formally reviewed and a compliance audit of management controls and adherence to this Policy as it relates to the City’s investments and investing activity will be performed on an annual basis in conjunction with the City’s annual financial audit. The results shall be reported to the City Council. SECTION 7: POLICY REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS This Investment Policy will be reviewed by the City Council on at least an annual basis as required by the Public Funds Investment Act and make amendments as necessary. The Council will review the Policy as part of the annual investment report presented by staff. Page 62 of 163 City of Georgetown Investment Policy Page 9   CITY OF GEORGETOWN INVESTMENT POLICY Attachment “A” Approved Broker/Dealer List Bonwick Capital Coastal Securities Duncan Williams JPMorgan Chase Securities Raymond James Rice Financial UBS Paine Webber, Inc. These broker/dealers meet the City’s Investment Policy requirements. Page 63 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Self Insurance Fund update and disc ussion– Tadd Phillip s , Human Resourc es Directo r ITEM SUMMARY: Staff will give an up d ate o n the S elf-Insuranc e Fund, whic h acc o unts fo r the revenues and exp enses related to emp lo yee health benefits. T he p res entatio n will inc lude a review o f fund his tory, disc ussion of fund res erve s tatus and s trategy, mentio n o f c urrent s taff ac tivities related to fund, and preliminary p ro jectio ns fo r the coming bud get year. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Self Ins urance Fund Pres entation Backup Material Page 64 of 163 Self‐Insurance Fund  Update & Discussion  GGAF March 30, 2016 Self-Insurance Fund Page 65 of 163 Agenda City of Georgetown •History • Fund Reserve Status • Current Activities •Projections • This Budget Cycle Self‐Insurance Fund Page 66 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan History •Self‐Insurance began January 1, 2014 •Plan year  begins January 1, Fiscal year October 1 •Changed administrator/network from Aetna to United  HealthCare January 1, 2015 –Significant reduction in stop‐loss and administrative costs –Employee experience has been positive –Too  early for  good financial data •Expenses significantly under budget in Fiscal 14 & 15 City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 67 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan History •The largest and most volatile expense to the fund are medical  and pharmacy claims.  Fluctuations occur both seasonally and  episodically.  Reinsurance, conservative budgeting, and fund  reserves are essential to a healthy program. City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund  ‐  50,000  100,000  150,000  200,000  250,000  300,000  350,000  400,000  450,000  500,000 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Calendar 2015 Net Claims Page 68 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan History •Key expense history by calendar year •2014 had only 10 to 11 months of claims paid (immature year)  due to transition from full to self insurance •2015 total trend would be 6% against mature 2014 •Trends of 6% and 9% outperform industry rate  of 10% City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Calendar Year 2013 2014* 2015 Funding Methodology Fully Insured Self Funded Self Funded Administrator Aetna Aenta Aenta Employees (in plan) 447 453 493 Cost of Admin, S/L & Claims $    3,364,729 $    3,661,956 $    4,418,941  Cost per Employee $             7,527 $             8,084 $             8,963  Staffing trend 1% 9% Cost per Employee trend 7% 11% Total trend 9% 21% *immature year Page 69 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Looking ahead •Key Expense projections by calendar year •2016 projected flat because S/L & Admin changes offset claims  trend. City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund $3,364,729  $3,661,956  $4,418,941 $4,441,084  $4,890,775  2013 2014* 2015 2016 PROJECTED 2017 PROJECTED Cost of Admin, S/L & Claims Page 70 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Fund Reserve Status •Existing Fiscal & Budgetary Policy targets  $1M  by fiscal 2017. •Reached $2.13M at conclusion of fiscal 2015. •How did it grow? –Claims expense well under budget $527,807 –Insurance funds for  authorized unfilled positions $919,163 –Expenses charged in depts., corrected for  2015 $300,000 approx. •Do not anticipate reserve  to grow again at this  level as growth primarily due to  one‐time items City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 71 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Fund Reserve Status •In updated Fiscal & Budgetary Policy recommend self‐ insurance fund reserve  include: –Incurred but not reported (IBNR) •Industry standard based on potential requirements in the event of a  plan termination •10% of annual claims, admin, and S/L expenses –Premium Stabilization Reserve  (PSR) •Helps mitigate the impact of unanticipated cost increases in future  years •10‐20% of claims, admin, and S/L.  10% considered sufficient for   one bad year.  Appropriate level of PSR to be evaluated each year. –Unreserved balance •Available for one‐time expenses related to employee health City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 72 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Fund Reserve Status City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Reserve Fiscal Year 2015‐2016  Projected Beginning Balance $2,129,907  IBNR 10% of annual expense*$484,576 10% Premium Stabilization Reserve 10‐20% of annual expenses*$969,152 20% Remaining Balance $676,179 *annual  expenses  = claims, admin, and S/L Page 73 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Current Activities •Created employee benefits program goals: 1. Maximize employee health 2. Assure competitive and current plan offerings and  design 3. Maintain program affordability for  City and  employees 4. Facilitate employee plan navigation and  consumerism 5. Compliance and administration •Staff is working tactical plan built from goals City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 74 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Current Activities •Soliciting proposals for   –Employee clinic feasibility –Employee health intervention program –Wellness tracking software •Will solicit proposals for  dental and review  funding methodology City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 75 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Early  Projections •We  hit our fund reserve  target! •Too  early to  project claims expense under UHC,  industry trend: –Administration annual increase 2% –Stop Loss annual increase 15% –Claims annual increase 10% •Based on current known expense trend and fund reserve   status, we do not anticipate a need for  additional contributions  from City or employees next fiscal year. •Staff will continuously track projections working closely with  consultant. City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 76 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan This Budget Cycle •Compensation & any follow ‐up to  this  conversation brought to GGAF in April •City Council workshop on Compensation &  Benefits May 10 •SI Fund cost will be continuously monitored  and projections update through July City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 77 of 163 ADA Transition  Plan Questions or Comments? City of Georgetown Self‐Insurance Fund Page 78 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion to rec o mmend an Ordinanc e autho rizing the Is s uanc e of City o f Geo rgeto wn, Texas Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 authorizing the pledge of certain revenues in s up p o rt o f the b o nds, app ro ving a P aying Agent/Regis trar Agreement, an Official Statement, an Es c ro w Agreement and a Purc has e Agreement, es tablishing p ro c edures for Selling and Delivery o f the Bond s and autho rizing other matters related to the Issuanc e o f the Bo nds - Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City’s Financial Ad visor, Jennifer Do uglas with S p ecialized Pub lic F inance, will b e attend ing GGAF to d is cus s c urrent market cond itions for munic ip al bond s and op p o rtunities for the City to refund /refinanc e o uts tand ing d eb t that holds a higher interest rate than current c o nditio ns. This refunding would require an ordinanc e, the amo unt o f whic h will no t b e determined until the actual s ale o f the bond s , due to market c o nditio ns. This is s ue will refund up to $10 millio n o f Utility S ys tem Revenue Bo nds to refund Series 2006, 2006A, 2007 and 2008 Revenue and Refunding Bond s . The current es timate would issue $9.295 millio n that would p ro vid e an es timated Net Present Value of savings of $1,062,202. Ac tual amounts will b e determined b as ed on market c o nditio ns at the time o f s ale. These b o nds will be hand led as a “nego tiated s ale” due to spec ial struc turing req uirements related to the is s uance o f refund ing bond s and sold at leas t 15 d ays after the vario us 2016 Series b o nds are sold o n April 26. Due to the d elay in the sale itself, the o rdinanc e als o d elegates signing the final refund ing bond d o cuments to the Mayo r or the Mayo r-Pro Tem. This ac tion allows the City’s F inancial Ad visor to p lace the bond s at the mos t opportune time in the market, while meeting all the legal requirements of the sale. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Item Summary SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Preliminary/Es timated Debt Service Schedules Cover Memo Page 79 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Sources & Uses Dated 06/01/2016 | Delivered 06/01/2016 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $9,295,000.00 Reoffering Premium 1,155,081.80 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds 125,000.00 Total Sources $10,575,081.80 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.652%)60,611.25 Costs of Issuance 112,500.00 Deposit to Net Cash Escrow Fund 10,398,782.01 Rounding Amount 3,188.54 Total Uses $10,575,081.80 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 1 Page 80 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Existing D/S Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings 09/30/2016 70,711.11 2,074,300.00 2,141,822.57 2,165,940.63 24,118.06 09/30/2017 759,000.00 707,800.00 1,466,800.00 1,556,081.26 89,281.26 09/30/2018 1,205,700.00 286,000.00 1,491,700.00 1,582,081.26 90,381.26 09/30/2019 1,153,300.00 - 1,153,300.00 1,240,061.26 86,761.26 09/30/2020 1,148,250.00 - 1,148,250.00 1,239,367.50 91,117.50 09/30/2021 1,052,600.00 - 1,052,600.00 1,141,980.00 89,380.00 09/30/2022 1,019,050.00 - 1,019,050.00 1,106,900.00 87,850.00 09/30/2023 1,013,050.00 - 1,013,050.00 1,100,705.00 87,655.00 09/30/2024 1,011,050.00 - 1,011,050.00 1,102,692.50 91,642.50 09/30/2025 1,012,850.00 - 1,012,850.00 1,102,486.26 89,636.26 09/30/2026 1,018,250.00 - 1,018,250.00 1,105,355.02 87,105.02 09/30/2027 833,000.00 - 833,000.00 920,586.26 87,586.26 09/30/2028 624,750.00 - 624,750.00 716,681.26 91,931.26 Total $11,921,561.11 $3,068,100.00 $14,986,472.57 $16,080,918.21 $1,094,445.64 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings 1,062,202.16 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2.407%(AIC)1,062,202.16 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Fund (125,000.00) Contingency or Rounding Amount 3,188.54 Net Present Value Benefit $940,390.70 Net PV Benefit / $9,960,000 Refunded Principal 9.442% Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 6/01/2016 Refunding Delivery Date 6/01/2016 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 2 Page 81 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2 Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 06/01/2016 - - - - - 08/15/2016 - - 70,711.11 70,711.11 - 09/30/2016 - - - - 70,711.11 02/15/2017 - - 172,000.00 172,000.00 - 08/15/2017 415,000.00 2.000% 172,000.00 587,000.00 - 09/30/2017 - - - - 759,000.00 02/15/2018 - - 167,850.00 167,850.00 - 08/15/2018 870,000.00 2.000% 167,850.00 1,037,850.00 - 09/30/2018 - - - - 1,205,700.00 02/15/2019 - - 159,150.00 159,150.00 - 08/15/2019 835,000.00 3.000% 159,150.00 994,150.00 - 09/30/2019 - - - - 1,153,300.00 02/15/2020 - - 146,625.00 146,625.00 - 08/15/2020 855,000.00 3.000% 146,625.00 1,001,625.00 - 09/30/2020 - - - - 1,148,250.00 02/15/2021 - - 133,800.00 133,800.00 - 08/15/2021 785,000.00 3.000% 133,800.00 918,800.00 - 09/30/2021 - - - - 1,052,600.00 02/15/2022 - - 122,025.00 122,025.00 - 08/15/2022 775,000.00 4.000% 122,025.00 897,025.00 - 09/30/2022 - - - - 1,019,050.00 02/15/2023 - - 106,525.00 106,525.00 - 08/15/2023 800,000.00 4.000% 106,525.00 906,525.00 - 09/30/2023 - - - - 1,013,050.00 02/15/2024 - - 90,525.00 90,525.00 - 08/15/2024 830,000.00 4.000% 90,525.00 920,525.00 - 09/30/2024 - - - - 1,011,050.00 02/15/2025 - - 73,925.00 73,925.00 - 08/15/2025 865,000.00 4.000% 73,925.00 938,925.00 - 09/30/2025 - - - - 1,012,850.00 02/15/2026 - - 56,625.00 56,625.00 - 08/15/2026 905,000.00 5.000% 56,625.00 961,625.00 - 09/30/2026 - - - - 1,018,250.00 02/15/2027 - - 34,000.00 34,000.00 - 08/15/2027 765,000.00 5.000% 34,000.00 799,000.00 - 09/30/2027 - - - - 833,000.00 02/15/2028 - - 14,875.00 14,875.00 - 08/15/2028 595,000.00 5.000% 14,875.00 609,875.00 - 09/30/2028 - - - - 624,750.00 Total $9,295,000.00 -$2,626,561.11 $11,921,561.11 - 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 3 Page 82 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $63,195.64 Average Life 6.799 Years Average Coupon 4.1562379% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4243612% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2256124% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.0569936% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4066609% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 2.0116430% Weighted Average Maturity 7.000 Years 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 4 Page 83 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Pricing Summary Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Yield Maturity Value Price YTM Call Date Call Price Dollar Price 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 2.000% 0.960% 415,000.00 101.243% - - - 420,158.45 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 2.000% 1.100% 870,000.00 101.955% - - - 887,008.50 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.210% 835,000.00 105.610% - - - 881,843.50 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.340% 855,000.00 106.764% - - - 912,832.20 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.510% 785,000.00 107.430% - - - 843,325.50 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.000% 1.700% 775,000.00 113.489% - - - 879,539.75 08/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.000% 1.930% 800,000.00 113.860% - - - 910,880.00 08/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.000% 2.100% 830,000.00 114.250% - - - 948,275.00 08/15/2025 Serial Coupon 4.000% 2.240% 865,000.00 114.564% - - - 990,978.60 08/15/2026 Serial Coupon 5.000% 2.410% 905,000.00 123.305% - - - 1,115,910.25 08/15/2027 Serial Coupon 5.000% 2.490% 765,000.00 122.493% c 2.664% 08/15/2026 100.000% 937,071.45 08/15/2028 Serial Coupon 5.000% 2.600% 595,000.00 121.388% c 2.906% 08/15/2026 100.000% 722,258.60 Total ---$9,295,000.00 -----$10,450,081.80 Bid Information Par Amount of Bonds $9,295,000.00 Reoffering Premium or (Discount)1,155,081.80 Gross Production $10,450,081.80 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.652%)$(60,611.25) Bid (111.775%)10,389,470.55 Total Purchase Price $10,389,470.55 Bond Year Dollars $63,195.64 Average Life 6.799 Years Average Coupon 4.1562379% Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4243612% True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2256124% 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 5 Page 84 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Escrow Fund Cashflow Date Principal Rate Interest +Transfers Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance 06/01/2016 - - - - 1.01 - 1.01 08/15/2016 3,912,663.00 0.260% 8,910.88 125,066.78 4,046,640.66 4,046,640.63 1.04 02/15/2017 115,383.00 0.430% 16,903.26 - 132,286.26 132,286.25 1.05 08/15/2017 6,245,735.00 0.530% 16,551.20 - 6,262,286.20 6,262,286.25 1.00 Total $10,273,781.00 -$42,365.34 $125,066.78 $10,441,214.13 $10,441,213.13 - Investment Parameters Investment Model [PV, GIC, or Securities]Securities Default investment yield target Bond Yield Cost of Investments Purchased with Fund Transfers 125,000.00 Cash Deposit 1.01 Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds 10,273,781.00 Total Cost of Investments $10,398,782.01 Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $10,145,177.90 Actual positive or (negative) arbitrage (128,604.11) Yield to Receipt 0.5034523% Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.0569936% State and Local Government Series (SLGS) rates for 2/16/2016 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 6 Page 85 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Summary Of Bonds Refunded Issue Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Maturity Value Call Date Call Price Dated 4/15/2008 | Delivered 5/20/2008 08 REV 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.000% 450,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.000% 470,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.000% 485,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.100% 505,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.250% 530,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.300% 550,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.375% 575,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2025 Serial Coupon 4.400% 600,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2026 Serial Coupon 4.500% 625,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2027 Serial Coupon 4.600% 655,000 08/15/2017 100.000% 08 REV 08/15/2028 Serial Coupon 4.625% 685,000 08/15/2017 100.000% Subtotal --$6,130,000 -- - ---- Dated 8/15/2007 | Delivered 8/15/2007 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.300% 115,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.400% 120,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.500% 125,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.500% 135,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.500% 140,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.600% 145,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.625% 150,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.625% 160,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2025 Serial Coupon 4.625% 165,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2026 Serial Coupon 4.625% 175,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$1,430,000 -- - ---- Dated 8/15/2007 | Delivered 8/15/2007 06A REV-after ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.300% 85,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06A REV-after ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.400% 85,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06A REV-after ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.500% 90,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06A REV-after ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.500% 90,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$350,000 -- - ---- Dated 4/01/2007 | Delivered 5/08/2007 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.000% 215,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.000% 225,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.125% 175,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.250% 185,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.250% 190,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.375% 160,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2023 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 165,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2024 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 170,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2025 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 180,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2026 Term 2 Coupon 4.500% 190,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 REV-after 2014 ref 08/15/2027 Term 2 Coupon 4.500% 195,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$2,050,000 -- Total --$9,960,000 -- 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 7 Page 86 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $9,295,000 Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service To Maturity And To Call Date Refunded Bonds Interest to Call D/S To Call Principal Interest Refunded D/S 08/15/2016 3,830,000.00 216,640.63 4,046,640.63 - 216,640.63 216,640.63 02/15/2017 - 132,286.25 132,286.25 - 216,640.63 216,640.63 08/15/2017 6,130,000.00 132,286.25 6,262,286.25 415,000.00 216,640.63 631,640.63 02/15/2018 - - - - 208,040.63 208,040.63 08/15/2018 - - - 880,000.00 208,040.63 1,088,040.63 02/15/2019 - - - - 190,030.63 190,030.63 08/15/2019 - - - 860,000.00 190,030.63 1,050,030.63 02/15/2020 - - - - 172,183.75 172,183.75 08/15/2020 - - - 895,000.00 172,183.75 1,067,183.75 02/15/2021 - - - - 153,490.00 153,490.00 08/15/2021 - - - 835,000.00 153,490.00 988,490.00 02/15/2022 - - - - 135,950.00 135,950.00 08/15/2022 - - - 835,000.00 135,950.00 970,950.00 02/15/2023 - - - - 117,852.50 117,852.50 08/15/2023 - - - 865,000.00 117,852.50 982,852.50 02/15/2024 - - - - 98,846.25 98,846.25 08/15/2024 - - - 905,000.00 98,846.25 1,003,846.25 02/15/2025 - - - - 78,743.13 78,743.13 08/15/2025 - - - 945,000.00 78,743.13 1,023,743.13 02/15/2026 - - - - 57,677.51 57,677.51 08/15/2026 - - - 990,000.00 57,677.51 1,047,677.51 02/15/2027 - - - - 35,293.13 35,293.13 08/15/2027 - - - 850,000.00 35,293.13 885,293.13 02/15/2028 - - - - 15,840.63 15,840.63 08/15/2028 - - - 685,000.00 15,840.63 700,840.63 Total $9,960,000.00 $481,213.13 $10,441,213.13 $9,960,000.00 $3,177,818.21 $13,137,818.21 Yield Statistics Base date for Avg. Life & Avg. Coupon Calculation 6/01/2016 Average Life 6.911 Years Average Coupon 4.4310853% Weighted Average Maturity (Par Basis) 6.911 Years Weighted Average Maturity (Original Price Basis) 6.785 Years Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 6/01/2016 Refunding Delivery Date 6/01/2016 16 Util Sys Rev Ref (2/16 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 5:54 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 8 Page 87 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion to rec o mmend an Ordinanc e autho rizing the Is s uanc e of City o f Geo rgeto wn, Texas General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016, autho rizing the levy of an Ad Valorem Tax in s upport of the bond s , ap p roving an Offic ial S tatement, a Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement, a Purc has e Agreement and an Es c ro w Agreement; estab lis hing proc ed ures fo r S elling and Delivery o f the Bond s and autho rizing other matters relating to the bond s – Laurie Brewer, As s is tant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: The City’s Financial Ad visor, Jennifer Do uglas with S p ecialized Pub lic F inance, will b e attend ing GGAF to d is cus s c urrent market cond itions for munic ip al bond s and op p o rtunities for the City to refund /refinanc e o uts tand ing d eb t that holds a higher interest rate than current c o nditio ns. This refunding would require an ordinanc e, the amo unt o f whic h will no t b e determined until the actual s ale o f the b o nds, d ue to market cond itions . This is s ue will refund up to $10 million o f General Obligatio n refund ing Bo nds to refund Series 2006 and 2007 Certificates of Obligation, General Obligation and Refunding Bo nds . T he c urrent estimates would is s ue $7.3 million o f refunding bond s that wo uld provide an es timated Net P res ent Value s avings o f $897,334. Ac tual amo unts will be d etermined b as ed on market cond itions at the time of s ale. These b o nds will be hand led as a “nego tiated s ale” due to spec ial struc turing req uirements related to the is s uance o f refund ing bond s and sold at leas t 15 d ays after the vario us 2016 Series b o nds are sold o n April 26. Due to the d elay in the sale itself, the o rdinanc e als o d elegates signing the final refund ing bond d o cuments to the Mayo r or the Mayo r-Pro Tem. This ac tion allows the City’s F inancial Ad visor to p lace the bond s at the mos t opportune time in the market, while meeting all the legal requirements of the sale. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Item Summary SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Preliminary/Es timated Debt Service s chedules Backup Material Page 88 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Sources & Uses Dated 06/01/2016 | Delivered 06/01/2016 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $7,320,000.00 Reoffering Premium 667,372.50 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds 125,000.00 Total Sources $8,112,372.50 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.619%)45,280.00 Costs of Issuance 102,500.00 Deposit to Current Refunding Fund 7,959,515.18 Rounding Amount 5,077.32 Total Uses $8,112,372.50 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 1 Page 89 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Existing D/S Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings 09/30/2016 51,676.67 1,469,025.00 1,515,624.35 1,519,466.26 3,841.91 09/30/2017 2,051,400.00 - 2,051,400.00 2,127,882.52 76,482.52 09/30/2018 882,400.00 - 882,400.00 957,270.02 74,870.02 09/30/2019 841,850.00 - 841,850.00 920,407.52 78,557.52 09/30/2020 846,900.00 - 846,900.00 923,923.76 77,023.76 09/30/2021 851,200.00 - 851,200.00 926,418.76 75,218.76 09/30/2022 774,750.00 - 774,750.00 851,926.26 77,176.26 09/30/2023 778,350.00 - 778,350.00 853,741.26 75,391.26 09/30/2024 780,750.00 - 780,750.00 858,156.26 77,406.26 09/30/2025 311,950.00 - 311,950.00 391,825.02 79,875.02 09/30/2026 315,750.00 - 315,750.00 390,718.76 74,968.76 09/30/2027 126,000.00 - 126,000.00 203,925.00 77,925.00 Total $8,612,976.67 $1,469,025.00 $10,076,924.35 $10,925,661.40 $848,737.05 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings 897,334.30 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 2.122%(AIC)897,334.30 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Fund (125,000.00) Contingency or Rounding Amount 5,077.32 Net Present Value Benefit $777,411.62 Net PV Benefit / $7,800,000 Refunded Principal 9.967% Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 6/01/2016 Refunding Delivery Date 6/01/2016 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 2 Page 90 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 06/01/2016 - - - - - 08/15/2016 - - 51,676.67 51,676.67 - 09/30/2016 - - - - 51,676.67 02/15/2017 - - 125,700.00 125,700.00 - 08/15/2017 1,800,000.00 3.000% 125,700.00 1,925,700.00 - 09/30/2017 - - - - 2,051,400.00 02/15/2018 - - 98,700.00 98,700.00 - 08/15/2018 685,000.00 3.000% 98,700.00 783,700.00 - 09/30/2018 - - - - 882,400.00 02/15/2019 - - 88,425.00 88,425.00 - 08/15/2019 665,000.00 3.000% 88,425.00 753,425.00 - 09/30/2019 - - - - 841,850.00 02/15/2020 - - 78,450.00 78,450.00 - 08/15/2020 690,000.00 3.000% 78,450.00 768,450.00 - 09/30/2020 - - - - 846,900.00 02/15/2021 - - 68,100.00 68,100.00 - 08/15/2021 715,000.00 3.000% 68,100.00 783,100.00 - 09/30/2021 - - - - 851,200.00 02/15/2022 - - 57,375.00 57,375.00 - 08/15/2022 660,000.00 4.000% 57,375.00 717,375.00 - 09/30/2022 - - - - 774,750.00 02/15/2023 - - 44,175.00 44,175.00 - 08/15/2023 690,000.00 4.000% 44,175.00 734,175.00 - 09/30/2023 - - - - 778,350.00 02/15/2024 - - 30,375.00 30,375.00 - 08/15/2024 720,000.00 4.000% 30,375.00 750,375.00 - 09/30/2024 - - - - 780,750.00 02/15/2025 - - 15,975.00 15,975.00 - 08/15/2025 280,000.00 4.000% 15,975.00 295,975.00 - 09/30/2025 - - - - 311,950.00 02/15/2026 - - 10,375.00 10,375.00 - 08/15/2026 295,000.00 5.000% 10,375.00 305,375.00 - 09/30/2026 - - - - 315,750.00 02/15/2027 - - 3,000.00 3,000.00 - 08/15/2027 120,000.00 5.000% 3,000.00 123,000.00 - 09/30/2027 - - - - 126,000.00 Total $7,320,000.00 -$1,292,976.67 $8,612,976.67 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $34,344.67 Average Life 4.692 Years Average Coupon 3.7647087% Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.9533868% True Interest Cost (TIC)1.8227098% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.6828809% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.1220131% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.6149800% Weighted Average Maturity 4.850 Years 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 3 Page 91 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Pricing Summary Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Yield Maturity Value Price YTM Call Date Call Price Dollar Price 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 3.000% 0.860% 1,800,000.00 102.560% - - - 1,846,080.00 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.000% 685,000.00 104.351% - - - 714,804.35 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.110% 665,000.00 105.934% - - - 704,461.10 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.240% 690,000.00 107.189% - - - 739,604.10 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 3.000% 1.410% 715,000.00 107.952% - - - 771,856.80 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.000% 1.600% 660,000.00 114.122% - - - 753,205.20 08/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.000% 1.830% 690,000.00 114.584% - - - 790,629.60 08/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.000% 2.000% 720,000.00 115.063% - - - 828,453.60 08/15/2025 Serial Coupon 4.000% 2.140% 280,000.00 115.463% - - - 323,296.40 08/15/2026 Serial Coupon 5.000% 2.310% 295,000.00 124.329% - - - 366,770.55 08/15/2027 Serial Coupon 5.000% 2.390% 120,000.00 123.509% c 2.571% 08/15/2026 100.000% 148,210.80 Total ---$7,320,000.00 -----$7,987,372.50 Bid Information Par Amount of Bonds $7,320,000.00 Reoffering Premium or (Discount)667,372.50 Gross Production $7,987,372.50 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.619%)$(45,280.00) Bid (108.499%)7,942,092.50 Total Purchase Price $7,942,092.50 Bond Year Dollars $34,344.67 Average Life 4.692 Years Average Coupon 3.7647087% Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.9533868% True Interest Cost (TIC)1.8227098% 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 4 Page 92 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Current Refunding Escrow Date Principal Rate +Transfers Receipts Disbursements Cash Balance 06/01/2016 - - - - - - 07/06/2016 3,002,578.92 - 125,000.00 3,127,578.92 3,127,578.92 - 08/15/2016 4,831,936.26 - - 4,831,936.26 4,831,936.26 - Total $7,834,515.18 -$125,000.00 $7,959,515.18 $7,959,515.18 - Investment Parameters Investment Model [PV, GIC, or Securities]GIC Default investment yield target Unrestricted Cost of Investments Purchased with Fund Transfers 125,000.00 Cost of Investments Purchased with Bond Proceeds 7,834,515.18 Total Cost of Investments $7,959,515.18 Target Cost of Investments at bond yield $7,813,010.76 Yield to Receipt - Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.6828809% 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 5 Page 93 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Summary Of Bonds Refunded Issue Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Maturity Value Call Date Call Price Dated 8/15/2007 | Delivered 8/15/2007 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.250% 205,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.375% 130,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.400% 135,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.500% 140,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.500% 150,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.500% 150,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.600% 160,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.625% 170,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2025 Serial Coupon 4.625% 175,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 06 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2026 Serial Coupon 4.625% 180,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$1,595,000 -- - ---- Dated 4/15/2006 | Delivered 5/18/2006 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2017 Serial Coupon 5.000% 320,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2018 Serial Coupon 5.000% 340,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2019 Serial Coupon 5.000% 355,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.600% 375,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.600% 390,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.700% 410,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2023 Serial Coupon 4.750% 430,000 07/06/2016 100.000% 06 REF-after 2014 ref 02/15/2024 Serial Coupon 4.750% 450,000 07/06/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$3,070,000 -- - ---- Dated 4/01/2007 | Delivered 5/08/2007 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.000% 340,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.000% 50,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.125% 55,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.200% 55,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.250% 60,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.250% 60,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2023 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 60,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2024 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 65,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2025 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 65,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2026 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 70,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 CO-after 2014 ref 08/15/2027 Term 1 Coupon 4.500% 75,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$955,000 -- - ---- Dated 4/01/2007 | Delivered 5/08/2007 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2017 Serial Coupon 4.000% 920,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2018 Serial Coupon 4.000% 170,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2019 Serial Coupon 4.125% 140,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2020 Serial Coupon 4.200% 150,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2021 Serial Coupon 4.250% 155,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2022 Serial Coupon 4.250% 95,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2023 Term 1 Coupon 4.625% 100,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2024 Term 1 Coupon 4.625% 105,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2025 Term 2 Coupon 4.625% 110,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2026 Term 2 Coupon 4.625% 115,000 08/15/2016 100.000% 07 GO & REF-after 2014 ref 08/15/2027 Term 2 Coupon 4.625% 120,000 08/15/2016 100.000% Subtotal --$2,180,000 -- Total --$7,800,000 -- 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 6 Page 94 of 163 Preliminary City of Georgetown, Texas $7,320,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 Debt Service To Maturity And To Call Date Refunded Bonds Interest to Call D/S To Call Principal Interest Refunded D/S 06/01/2016 ------ 07/06/2016 3,070,000.00 57,578.92 3,127,578.92 - - - 08/15/2016 4,730,000.00 101,936.26 4,831,936.26 - 175,441.26 175,441.26 02/15/2017 - - - 320,000.00 175,441.26 495,441.26 08/15/2017 - - - 1,465,000.00 167,441.26 1,632,441.26 02/15/2018 - - - 340,000.00 137,885.01 477,885.01 08/15/2018 - - - 350,000.00 129,385.01 479,385.01 02/15/2019 - - - 355,000.00 122,141.26 477,141.26 08/15/2019 - - - 330,000.00 113,266.26 443,266.26 02/15/2020 - - - 375,000.00 106,274.38 481,274.38 08/15/2020 - - - 345,000.00 97,649.38 442,649.38 02/15/2021 - - - 390,000.00 90,194.38 480,194.38 08/15/2021 - - - 365,000.00 81,224.38 446,224.38 02/15/2022 - - - 410,000.00 73,280.63 483,280.63 08/15/2022 - - - 305,000.00 63,645.63 368,645.63 02/15/2023 - - - 430,000.00 56,976.88 486,976.88 08/15/2023 - - - 320,000.00 46,764.38 366,764.38 02/15/2024 - - - 450,000.00 39,421.88 489,421.88 08/15/2024 - - - 340,000.00 28,734.38 368,734.38 02/15/2025 - - - - 20,912.51 20,912.51 08/15/2025 - - - 350,000.00 20,912.51 370,912.51 02/15/2026 - - - - 12,859.38 12,859.38 08/15/2026 - - - 365,000.00 12,859.38 377,859.38 02/15/2027 - - - - 4,462.50 4,462.50 08/15/2027 - - - 195,000.00 4,462.50 199,462.50 Total $7,800,000.00 $159,515.18 $7,959,515.18 $7,800,000.00 $1,781,636.40 $9,581,636.40 Yield Statistics Base date for Avg. Life & Avg. Coupon Calculation 6/01/2016 Average Life 4.711 Years Average Coupon 4.5670669% Weighted Average Maturity (Par Basis) 4.711 Years Weighted Average Maturity (Original Price Basis) 4.711 Years Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 6/01/2016 Refunding Delivery Date 6/01/2016 16 GO Ref (2/16) | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/16/2016 | 6:22 PM Specialized Public Finance Inc. Austin, Texas Page 7 Page 95 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and recommend ation of the Construction Manager-At-Risk Agreement with Balfour Beatty Construction o f Aus tin, Texas for the Reno vatio n o f the 1987 Library and the Geo rgeto wn Communic atio n and Tec hno lo gy Build ing, A New Plaza Cano p y and Imp lementatio n o f a Mas ter Signage Plan for the City Center – Eric Jo hns o n, CIP Manager and Laurie Brewer, As s is tant City Manager ITEM SUMMARY: On February 9, 2016, the Co uncil unanimous ly ap p o inted a s elec tion committee to make a recommend atio n to C ity Co uncil for a Cons tructio n Manager-At-Ris k. T he members o f the selec tio n committee were R achael Jo nrowe, John Hess er, Eric Johnson, Skye Mas s on, and Trish Lo ng. A Reques t fo r Proposals was issued and a total o f four res p o nses were rec eived. After referenc e checks and p res entations /interviews were cond uc ted with two firms , Balfour Beatty Cons truc tion unanimo us ly received the highes t s core fro m the s election c o mmittee. Under the Agreement the CMR has Preconstruction Phase Responsibilities that include: General C o o rd inatio n with the Pro ject Team Cons truc tability Review o f Co ntract Doc ument and Report Preparation and up d ate o f the Progres s Sc hedule Value Engineering rec o mmendatio ns and propos als Preparation of a Co s t Management Report c o mp aring Owner cost budget to CM cost estimate Preparation of Sc hedule of Values Cons truc tion P lanning Solic itation o f Competitive Sealed P ro p o s als fro m Sub co ntrac to rs in a proc es s where the CM and Owner jo intly agree o n criteria for d eterminatio n o f best value fo r awards . Advantages of the CMR method for this Project at this time include: The CM provid es c ritic al P ro ject Management S ervic es for the City The Projec t is still in the Des ign Development Stage whic h is a good time to include the CM for Prec o ns truc tio n Services Allowing c omparison of d es ign to budget b efo re bids are solic ited The C MR p ro cess allows the Owner to participate in fo rmulating the evaluation c riteria to obtain the b es t value fo r the City and to maximize loc al opportunity for s ubc ontrac tors . City realizes 100% o f savings . Balfo ur Beatty has its U.S. head q uarters in Texas , b ut has b een in o p erating as an Austin area contrac to r fo r 16 years. The pro jec t Sup erintendent and General Sup erintendent reside in Williams o n County. All 80 Aus tin Employees reside in Williamson or Travis County. The Lawrenc e Gro up, the Projec t Architec t, fully s up p o rts mo ving fo rward with the Cons tructio n Manager-At-R is k c ons tructio n d elivery metho d for this projec t. In ad d ition T he Lawrenc e Group sup p orts recommend ing Balfo ur Beatty Cons tructio n, and has s uc cessfully worked with them on past projec ts. ATTACHMENTS Page 96 of 163 Balfo ur Beatty P ro p o s al Balfo ur Beatty P res entation/Interview Handout Evaluatio n Works heet S ummary FINANCIAL IMPACT: The fund ing fo r c o ns truc ting thes e c ity fac ilities c o mes from p ro ceeds as s oc iated with the sale o f the Alberts o n’s build ing, and the prospec tive sale of o ther c ity fac ilities. Current Projec t Cons tructio n Budget is $6,000,000. Near the end o f the Architec tural Des ign phas e o f the p ro ject, Balfo ur Beatty will s ub mit a Guaranteed Maximum Pric e for the projec t and we will return to GGAF fo r approval of that GMP. SUBMITTED BY: LMB/ej ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Balfour Beatty Propos al Backup Material Balfour Beatty Pres entation/Interview Handout Backup Material Evaluation Works heet Summary Backup Material Page 97 of 163 Page 98 of 163 2 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 City of Georgetown CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FOR DOWNTOWN WEST PROJECT ATTACHMENT 2: RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 201628 PROPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE The following information must be completed/attached and returned as a part of proposal. In the event a question does not apply or Proposer is unable to respond, Proposer must indicate either “N/A” (not applicable) or “N/R” (no response) as appropriate, and include a brief explanation for all N/R responses. Additional pages may be attached as necessary. 1.Legal name of the company: Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC Address of office which would be providing service: Mailing address (if different than above): Telephone number: Point of contact for technical and contractual questions with respect to the Proposal: Name: Title: Telephone number: Email address: Number of years in business under present name: Previous company names: Type of Operation: Individual: _____ Partnership: _____Corporation:_____ Number of Employees: 1250 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Building I, Suite 250 Austin, Texas 78746 Same as above 512.445.2424 Gary Miller Operations Director 512.651.3282 (office direct) 512.589.1133 (cell) gmiller@balfourbeattyus.com 82 Centex; SpawMaxwell Company Limited Liability Company 82 employees in the Austin office Page 99 of 163 3 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 corrective actions. Because the process is regularly revisited, the Owner has an on-going platform to provide feedback at various touch points throughout the life of your project. Through partnering in the MAP process, we are able to meet Owner expectations and satisfaction with greater certainty. As your construction manager, Balfour Beatty “walks in your shoes” by providing construction management services that maintain budget and schedule as if it were our own. • We ask questions and listen to you, our design partners and the project’s end users to better understand the needs, challenges and hurdles for a complete understanding and vision of the final product. • We encourage participation from our subcontractor community to generate interest and excitement from the best craftsmen available, and to ensure the best possible pricing. • We collaborate with the City of Georgetown and The Lawrence Group in establishing project goals and expectations, and measure the success on a continual basis throughout the duration of the project. We are proactive and flexible throughout the project and truly become an extension of your team. Q.9 As one of the largest construction management firms in the United States, there are suits and claims pursued against Balfour Beatty Construction. Balfour Beatty Construction typically resolves all disputes in a manner that does not lead to litigation and preserves relationships for future projects. Should negotiation fail, our goal remains to resolve disputes without litigation by using mediation or other alternative dispute resolution methods. Given this dispute management style and the size and financial strength of our organization, disputes do not impact the work performance of our organization. We can provide a list if requested. Balfour Beatty is currently not in default on any loan agreement or financing agreement with any bank, financial institution, or other entity. Gary Miller, operations director at Balfour Beatty Construction in Austin, has worked with Earl Swisher of The Lawrence Group at various times during his more than 30 years of construction in Austin and Central Texas. Mission alignment leads to customer satisfaction. Our “Mission Alignment Process” (MAP) is a customized client feedback tool that serves as a proactive approach to establishing expectations and measuring performance at all phases of the project Prior to the project start, the Owner develops a questionnaire reflecting items of key importance. At predetermined points throughout the project, (including the conclusion), we stop and formally ask the questions included in the survey to determine if Balfour Beatty is meeting Owner objectives through our actions and behaviors. If Owner expectations are not being met, the team takes immediate Q.5 Q.6 Q.7 Q.8 City of Georgetown CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FOR DOWNTOWN WEST PROJECT 22 Annual Sales Volume: Bonding Capacity: $3.9 Billion in 2014 $6.25 Billion 2.Will Proposer provide a copy of its financial statements for the past two (2) years, if requested by the City? Yes: X No: 3.Proposer’s financial rating and any appropriate documentation, including at a minimum a Dunn and Bradstreet analysis, which indicating Proposer’s financial stability. A copy of our Contractor Score with backup is included with our submission under Tab 3. 4.Is Proposer involved in any pending sale or involvement in any transaction to expand or to become acquired by another business entity? If yes, attach explanation of impact both in organizational and directional terms. Yes: No: X 5.Provide details of all past or pending litigation or claims filed against Proposer arising out of or in connection with Proposer’s performance under a contract for construction management and/or construction services, including details of how such suit or claims were resolved. 6.Is Proposer currently in default on any loan agreement or financing agreement with any bank, financial institution,or other entity? If yes, specify date(s), details, circumstances, and prospects for resolution. Yes: No: 7.Does any relationship exist between Proposer and any City officers, employees or the Architect whether by relative, business associate, capital funding agreement or any other such kinship? If yes, please explain. Yes:No: 8.Describe in detail Proposer’s service support philosophy - how is itcarriedout,and how is success in keeping this philosophy is measured? 9.Provide details of any special services or product characteristics, or other benefits offered, or advantages provided to the City by selecting Proposer. 10.Describe demonstrated technical competence and management qualifications with CMAR or construction contracting projects, particularly those for projects similar to this Project. 11.Provide a maximum of ten projects with photos where construction management or construction services closely related to this Project were provided. In determining which projects are most closely related, consider: same or related use of facilities; related size and complexity; whether the project consisted of an expansion of an existing facility or new construction;how many members of the proposed team (and their role) worked on the listed project; and,how recently the project was completed. List the projects in priorityorder,with the most related projects listed first. Page 100 of 163 4 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 The following is a brief technology overview of applications Balfour Beatty Construction has adopted as best practices. We use the secure, cloud-based file sharing application, Egnyte, which is accessible remotely by approved members of the team. Critical project information is available in real time, which improves quality, keeps the schedule on track, and provides accounting transparency. • We remain focused on your vision for the project, cost and schedule by providing a flexible and open book policy throughout the construction process. • We leverage the talents of our highly qualified team members to accomplish established goals and exceed the expectations of all members of the project team. • We provide accounting transparency though completion. We use the term “smarter contracting” to describe how we use technology to streamline the construction process for more efficient project delivery and coordinated commissioning. We try and work smarter with the entire team not just those in the field, but with all project stakeholders. We believe our technology toolbox, and more importantly, our in-house expertise in using the technology, provides the additional benefit the City of Georgetown is looking for in selection of a construction manager. Building Information Modeling (BIM). The best way to mitigate risk and eliminate potential issues from building renovation is to model both the existing conditions and new construction. By comparing existing with new conditions we can coordinate systems prior to installation “virtually,” reducing time, resources and expense in the field from changes due to uncoordinated conditions. We can also use laser scanning, photo telegraphy (3D photos) and in-field verification to bring more clarity and detail to the construction process. We have these tools, talent and technical knowledge in-house to support your project! Q.10 This image shows a 3D model of the overhead ceiling plan for the Luminex Aires Clean Room.Due to the limited above ceiling plenum, all above ceiling MEP was modeled in 3D and clash detected prior to installation. Our team has the in-house technical capability to enhance delivery of your project. Chris Savasky was the project manager. Balfour Beatty uses laser scanning and other ‘advanced Reality Capture Technology’ (with in-house tools and talent) to uncover unforseen conditions early, which can have a dramatic impact on schedule, budget and quality during renovations of older structures. Balfour Beatty was recently selected to complete the transformation of the lobby and plaza at 111 Congress Avenue in downtown Austin. Following more than eight months of preconstruction planning, “Fareground at One Eleven Congress,” is now underway with completion expected spring 2017. During extensive pre-planning efforts, Balfour Beatty used laser scanning, part of a suite of advanced reality capture technology, to scan the lobby and plaza with five existing heritage trees being incorporated into the plaza redesign. Laser scanning the entire plaza allowed our construction team to identify the precise location of the tree canopies to avoid clashing with the new shade structures being installed at the plaza level. Fareground at One Eleven Congress Balfour Beatty develops top talent, uses technology to enhance delivery, eliminate unknowns. Page 101 of 163 5 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 We use Constructware, a powerful web-based project management system that provides easy access to all information necessary to manage a complex project. The system also generates a complete record of the project upon completion. Autodesk BIM 360 Field supports filed operations, and our quality management process. We use iPads to expedite inspections and punch lists. Project plans and specifications are entered into the system, which eliminates the need to carry cumbersome sets of plans on site. We use Navisworks for 3D model (BIM) consolidation to create packages for system coordination with multiple trades. CudaSign is a secure application that allows for pre-approved signatures that helps speed the approval process, and keep project schedules moving forward. Bluebeam is an electronic document editor application allows for 100% digital document management used in the field, for shop drawings and submittals, and other project documentation. BalfourBeatty Construction Sub-contractorsDesign Consultants Local Community Agencies + Inspectors The Lawrence Group VALUE COLLAB O R A T I O N INNO V A T I O N TRANSP A R E N C Y GEORGETOWN, TX The City of Georgetown is always the center of attention during your project! 100 CONGRESS AVENUE LOBBY RENOVATION RenovationQ.11 Original Budget: $5,025,724 GMP: $6,020,548 Final Cost: $6,020,548 (due to owner initiated changes) Project Status: Completed 2015 Type of Contract: Negotiated Owner Name: Brooke Brindle, CBRE (Owner’s rep) Email: brooke.brindle@cbre. com Phone: 512.499.4902 Architect: Edward Folse, Gensler Email: edward.folse@gensler.com Phone: 713.844.0018 Description: The complete gut and build back of the 9,000 SF two-story main lobby at 100 Congress Avenue was completed during concurrent occupancy with tenants occupying offices at both the first and second floors. Night shift and weekend work was used as needed to accommodate building tenants. Team: Chris Savasky, sr. project manager, Travis McGarraugh, general superintendent, McLain Hall, preconstruction, and Gary Miller, operations director. Page 102 of 163 6 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 111 CONGRESS RenovationQ.11 Original Budget: $14,500,000 GMP: $13,500,000 Final Cost: N/A Project Status: Active Type of Contract: CM at Risk Owner Name: Michelle Blood, Parkway Properties Email: mblood@pky.com Phone: 512.744.4783 Architect: Adam Barbe, dwg. / Maija Kreishman, Michael Hsu Office of Architecture Email: abarbe@studiodwg.com; kreishman@husoffice.com Phone: 972.960.4000 Description: Eight months of preconstruction with completion spring 2017. Balfour Beatty used laser scanning, to scan the plaza and the five existing heritage trees being incorporated into the redesign to avoid clashing with the new exterior shade structures, and BIM for MEP clash detection. Scope includes replacing the escalator with a brass staircase, suspending an architectural element in the lobby, and installation of a sustainable exterior water feature. Team: Travis McGarraugh, general superintendent, McLain Hall, preconstruction, and Gary Miller, operations director. HAYS COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX New ConstructionQ.11 Original Budget: $51,790,329 GMP: $49,785,932.00 (A $2M buyout/design-build contingency was returned to Hays County upon completion of the project.) Final Cost: $49,785,932.00 Project Status: Complete Type of Contract: Design-Build, contractor led Owner Name: Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe Commissioner Precinct 1, Hays County Email: debbiei@co.hays.tx.us Phone: 512.393.2243 Architect: HDR, Curtiss Parde Email: Curt.Parde@hdrinc.com Phone: 972.960.4000 Description: New construction of the multipurpose, 234,000 SF Hays County Government Center includes 10 courtrooms, and houses 19 of the county’s functional departments. Page 103 of 163 7 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 HILTON AUSTIN RenovationQ.11 Original Budget: $7,477,702. GMP:$7,477,702 Final Cost: $7,477,702 Project Status: Completed 2014 Type of Contract: general contractor hard bid Owner Name: Teo Gomez Email: teogomez@gmail.com Phone: 512.422.5265 Architect: Stacy Metz, Looney & Associates Email: stacym@looney-associates.com Phone: 214.720.4477 Description: During the $8 million guestroom and corridor makeover we turned over 48 rooms every 32 days, with one dedicated elevator servicing 75-90 guys daily, working restricted hours in an occupied hotel, with limited dock space and intense logistics with multiple deliveries. Team: Jeff Bradley, senior superintendent, Travis McGarraugh, general superintendent, McLain Hall, preconstruction, and Gary Miller, operations director. LIVESTRONG–Phase I RenovationQ.11 Original Budget: $4,700,000.00 GMP: $4,955,640.85 Final Cost: $4,955,640.85 (due to owner initiated changes) Project Status: Complete Type of Contract: AIA A102 Owner Name: Greg Lee, LIVESTRONG Email: greg.lee@laf.org Phone: 512.236.8820 Architect: Ryan Jones, Lake/Flato Email: RJones@lakeflato.com Phone: 210.227.3335 Description: We overcame numerous challenges in the 30,000 SF gut and redo of the 60-year-old warehouse, achieving LEED Gold certification. More than 85% of all building materials – both from demolition and the scrap from new finishes – were salvaged and reused or diverted from the city landfill and recycled. Team: Chris Savasky, sr. project manager and McLain Hall, preconstruction Page 104 of 163 8 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 of our project teams have access to the information technology tools necessary to provide the highest level of customer service to our clients and architect partners. Our standardized approach to record management applies to all of the projects listed in question 11. We’ve included sample documents on the following pages that demonstrate our ability to track, record, analyze and communicate critical project information to our clients and project partners throughout construction. As a company, we have adopted standard operating procedures that help ensure all TFC Improvements to Four Capitol Complex Buildings Preliminary Design Development Budget Insurance Building John H. Reagan Building Price Daniel Building SCB & TCC Building 32.0 wks 86,000 sf 19.0 wks 161,811 sf 20.0 wks 136,129 sf 21.0 wks 179,000 sf Div.Description Quan Unit Unit Cost Cost Quan Unit Unit Cost Cost Quan Unit Unit Cost Cost Quan Unit Unit Cost Cost TFC Improvements to Four Capitol Complex Buildings 65% CD Budget-Updated 8 Doors Frames & Hardware 14,000$ 3,300$ 39,850$ 12,700$ Remove Existing Doors/Hardware 6.0 ea 200.00$ 1,200$ 2.0 ea 200.00$ 400 23.0 ea 200.00$ 4,600$ 5.0 ea 200.00$ 1,000 New HM Frame/Door/Hardware - Rated 1.0 ea 1,500.00$ 1,500$ 21.0 ea 1,500.00$ 31,500 3.0 ea 1,500.00$ 4,500 New HM Pair Doors/Hardware-H4 4.0 ea 1,500.00$ 6,000$ - - - Inspect/Relabel Existing Doors 4.0 ea 400.00$ 1,600$ - - 1.0 ea 400.00$ 400 New Single Doors/Frames & Hdwr-Wood 1.0 ea 1,200.00$ 1,200$ - 1.0 ea 1,800.00$ 1,800$ 2.0 ea 1,800.00$ 3,600$ Patch Existing Door 1.0 ls 400.00$ 400$ - 1.0 ls 400.00$ 400$ - Self Closing Gates 1.0 ea 1,800.00$ 1,800$ - 1.0 ea 1,800.00$ 1,800 New Exterior Penthouse Double Doors 1.0 ea 3,000.00$ 3,000$ New Wood Pair Doors/Frames/Hardware 1.0 ls 1,800.00$ 1,800$ Single HM Door at Capitol Tunnel - 1.0 ls 1,500.00$ 1,500$ - Single HM Door with Card Reader - - - Repair Courtroom Wood Door/Hardware - - 1.0 ea 800.00$ 800 - New hardware for Courtroom Doors - - - 4.0 ea 350.00$ 1,400 Relocate SCB Capitol Tunnel Doors - - 1.0 ls 750.00$ 750 - - - - - - - - - 9 Drywall & Acoustical 50,506$ 43,717$ 51,485$ 17,116$ Drywall 1.0 ls 41,506.00$ 41,506$ 1.0 ls 4,717.00$ 4,717$ 1.0 ls 17,485.00$ 17,485$ 1.0 ls 13,116.00$ 13,116$ Misc. Drywall Patching 1.0 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000$ 1.0 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000$ 1.0 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000$ 1.0 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000$ Ceiling Tile Replacement/Patching 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 35,000.00$ 35,000$ 1.0 ls 30,000.00$ 30,000$ - Draftstop at PDB Building - - - - - - - - 9 Flooring & Base -$ 5,000$ 9,000$ 3,000$ Patch Carpet at Each Floor 1.0 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ - Patch Basement floor in PDB - - 1.0 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000$ - Misc. Flooring and Carpet Patching - - - 1.0 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ - - - - 9 Painting & Wallcovering 16,000$ 15,000$ 23,000$ 18,000$ Misc. Painting & Wall Patching 1.0 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000$ - 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Door & Frame Painting 1.0 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ - 1.0 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 1.0 ls 3,000.00$ 3,000$ Misc. Patching & Painting - 1.0 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 1.0 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ MEP Paiting, Pipes, Sprinklers, Etc.1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 1.0 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ - - - - - - - - - - - - • Produce site logistics plan; separates demolition, construction and the public; enhances safety/efficiencies • Define realistic comprehensive schedule that identifies critical design, permitting and budgeting milestones • Participate in public (neighborhood) outreach • Determine location and capacity of all infrastructure serving the facility: Electrical, Phone and Data, Water size and tap location, Wastewater size and tap, Storm Water capacity and routing • Assess existing infrastructure that support new facility needs– fire protection and technology • Review environmental survey; develop strategy for remediation (during design phase); minimize impact to schedule/character of the building • Assist in determining condition of the exterior building envelope; recommendations for repairs/modifications • Assist in determining condition of all MEP equipment and distribution systems • Determine long lead items; develop procurement strategy to minimize impact on schedule • Assist in development of cost effective ways to route and conceal interior systems while preserving the aesthetic integrity of the building • Collaborate in forensic study during SD & DD • Provide budgeting and constructability reviews at critical design milestones for budget compliance • Leverage our team experience with complex renovations, and prior work history together • Work diligently, safely and pro-actively; keep stakeholders apprised of all facets; finish strong: punch, commissioning, close out documentation OUR APPROACH: HOW WE THINK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION SAMPLE: BUDGET TRACKER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 105 of 163 9 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SAMPLE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION/CLASH DETECTION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 106 of 163 10 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12Meeting Minutes Project Luminex 4 Date 9/30/2014 Attendees Luminex Herb Ganz, Miranda Chavez Balfour Beatty David Perez, Chris Savasky, Leroy Hinton, Brady Logan Studio 8 Paul Detke, Chelsea Livingston MEJ no attendees EEA no attendees Agenda 01- Safety Update 02 - Schedule Update 03 - Review Old Business 04- Review Logs: RFI's, Submittals, Cost (Request for Proposals, Change Orders, and Billings) 05- Round Table for New Business Item Date Title Description BIC 9/10 PR-1 & Strutural Revision 9/23: Received M, E, and Strutural sheets. Need plumbing sheets. Additional CDA has been requested. CDA will be coordinated with modeling. Modeling meeting will be scheduled on Thurs at BBC office. 9/18: Revised structural drawings received. BBC needs complete PR-1 package to complete pricing and install of steel. Work shift may need to be revised. Baseline schedule will need to be revised to show overall time impact. 9/10: Revised structural drawings expected to be issued on 9/11. Once S8 9/10: Revised structural drawings expected to be issued on 9/11. Once received BBC will price and verify fabrication time. Then schedule will be updated to reflected change. 9/10 ATT cable relocate 9/23: ATT has been paid. Install date TBA 9/18: ATT released by Herb. Currently no infrastruture is to be provided by BBC 9/10: Herb will schedule ATT to demo and relocate line. No underground infrastruture needed. Herb will coordinate with BBC if additional above ground infrastruture is needed Luminex 9/23 Plugs on 3 hour wall 9/23: Studio 8 to provide detail/sketch on 3 hour wall plugs (RFI 018)S8 9/23 Additional power in Cleanroom 9/23: Studio 8 to provide detail/sketch on additional power requested by Luminex. Luminex needs to provide final tool layout. S8 9/23 Cleanroom Floor Cracking 9/23: Studio 8 will follow up with Expoxy Floor consultant on concrete repair options (RFI 019) S8 9/23 Generator Pad locaton 9/23: Need dimensions from curb. Studio 8 will follow up with Bay (RFI 015)S8 9/23 Unistrut Size in Cleanroom 9/23: Studio 8 needs to confirm RFI 021. This RFI will affect critical patch S8 CLOSED ITEMS SAMPLE: MEETING MINUTES Page 107 of 163 11 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SAMPLE: PROCUREMENT LOG INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTSQ.12 Page 108 of 163 12 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 t. 512-445-2424 f. 512-445-2434 2424 South Lamar Austin, TX 78704 CSI ID # Rev # Description Subcontractor Type Rcvd from Sub Sent to A/E Due from A/E 096813 2 0 RB.1 Rubber Base 4" Roppe Dark Gray Rockford Samples 6/24 6/24 7/1 Notes: Subcontractor to field verify all dimensions prior to fabrication. Architect's Stamp Submittal No.: Project: Submittal Cover Sheet Luminex McNeil 3 Aries 096813-2-0 Submittal #: 096813-2-0Project: Luminex McNeil 3 Aries This submittal has been reviewed for general compliance with the plans and specification. This review and the response indicated below does not relieve subcontractor/ supplier of any contractual responsibilities including the furnishing of all items required by the contract documents and the confirmation of all quantities and dimensions. Project: Reviewed by: Date: Consultant's Stamp 06/24/14 Brady Logan Luminex McNeil 3 Aries STRAIGHT BASE IS APPROVED AT CARPET, PROVIDE COVE BASE AT HARD FLOORING SURFACES. 09/05/2014 X SAMPLE: SUBMITTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 109 of 163 13 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 INVOICE Date 12/01/14 BBC Invoice #13295000-6 Bill to:Luminex Corporation Attn: Herb Ganz via email Project Name Luminex McNeil 3 Aries Project Location Austin, TX Customer's Job # BBC Project Number 13295000 DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED: Cost of Work 1,649,852.14 Per attached schedule of values Subtotal 1,649,852.14 3.00%Fee 50,025.93 1.04% G.L. Insurance 17,678.73 Subtotal 1,717,556.80 8.25% Remodel Tax 141,698.44 Subtotal (Cost of Work + Fee, Insurance & Tax)1,859,255.23 10.00% Less Retainage (185,925.52) Subtotal 1,673,329.71 Less Previous Amounts Paid 1,017,086.39 AMOUNT DUE: 656,243.32$ Terms- Payment due:30 days 12/31/14 Remit to: Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC 2424 S. Lamar Blvd. Austin, TX 78704 Reference Invoice # 13295000-6 Thank you for your business, Chris Savasky, Senior Project Manager, Balfour Beatty Construction 2424 South Lamar, Austin TX 78704 512.445.2424 main 512.445.2434 fax balfourbeattyus.com SAMPLE: INVOICE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 110 of 163 14 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SAMPLE: INVOICE/BACKUP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 111 of 163 15 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 Sorting Budget Status Descending, No. Descending Items Displayed 21 Luminex McNeil 3 Aires Interior 019 Add (2) Bollards to Generator Pad per RFI #15 10/27/2014 Pending $1,075.76 - Pending subtotal $1,075.76 - 021 Revision #4 10/31/2014 New -- New subtotal -- 010 Change Door 118 to a Double Door per Paul Detke 9/18/2014 Cancelled $3,005.64 - Cancelled subtotal $3,005.64 - 020 019 Temporary Generator for Pinnacle for Electrical Change Over 10/27/2014 Approved $2,619.37 $2,619.37 018 018 Deductive RCO for attaching wrong Hull Supply Quote to Electrical Room Door 131 RCO 10/22/2014 Approved -$1,066.48 -$1,066.48 017 017 Extend Door Openings 120B and 120D and include blocking per RFI #041 10/16/2014 Approved $1,587.05 $1,587.05 016 016 Adjust Window Opening per RFI #017 10/16/2014 Approved $321.27 $321.27 015 015 Revision #3 (RFI #44 included) 10/15/2014 Approved $14,464.94 $14,464.94 014 013 Electrical Room 131 Door Addition 10/15/2014 Approved $3,827.22 $3,827.22 013 012 Double Strut (From Contingency) 9/23/2014 Approved $0.00 $0.00 012 014 PR 1 Revisions (From Contingency) 9/18/2014 Approved $0.00 $0.00 011 011 Revised Steel for RTU (From Contingency) 9/18/2014 Approved $0.00 $0.00 009 008 Complete Steel 9/4/2014 Approved $5,132.39 $5,132.39 Project RCO No. OCO No. Description Date Category Budget Status Submitted Total Approved Total RCO Log Project : [13295000] Luminex McNeil 3 Aires Interior View Date: 11/6/2014 Page 1 of 2RCO Log 11/6/2014https://secure.constructware.com/Common/Report/Report.asp?filt=All&repID=535&Proje... SAMPLE: REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 112 of 163 16 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SAMPLE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ SAMPLE DOCUMENTS Q.12 Page 113 of 163 17 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGIES We believe that a cohesive high-performing team is also a happy and productive one, too. Our intention is to ensure the vision and goals of City of Georgetown and all project stakeholders are clearly understood. As a your construction manager, we strive to deliver a signature experience for every client. What differentiates Balfour Beatty in our management approach is our behavior: we emphasize the 4Cs in everything we do—Communication, Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation. We deliver complete transparency about what we do and how we do it. Our intention is to integrate the City of Georgetown, user-groups, The Lawrence Group, subcontractors and all stakeholders into the process from the beginning. We work to facilitate an atmosphere of teamwork, starting with an early team integration meeting where we establish expectations and develop protocol to assist all parties in working together. Additionally, we are committed to the following team concepts: Open Book: We maintain a true open book approach throughout the preconstruction and construction phases, providing complete transparency throughout the program that promotes a environment of trust between all parties. Continuity: Our construction team is involved in the project from day one, providing assurances that the team is communicating effectively and consistently throughout the entire life of your project. Communication: Our approach and practice is to communicate clearly by asking questions and listening to the City of Georgetown and The Lawrence Group, consultants and the project’s end users. That means open and honest communication – telling you what you need to hear, when you need to hear it. It also means delivering the best value by controlling cost without sacrificing quality or design intent. We want you to know this opportunity with City of Georgetown is an important one for us. What we call our Signature Experience makes each day about positive, differentiating behavior, about viewing Safety through the lens of Zero Harm, and about collaborating with City of Georgetown and The Lawrence Group to remain in alignment with the vision and goals of your project. CONFLICT RESOLUTION The most frequent conflict during construction arises from scope gaps with trade partners. During Preconstruction and throughout the bidding and buyout process, we eliminate the potential for these conflicts by noting every detail of the drawings and specifications for every trade using Bluebeam to eliminate scope gaps. We solve problems by being proactive through clear, consistent, and honest communication. Our Mission Alignment Process, early partnering meetings (see question 25 for more information about SmartStart®), and proactive involvement of senior management throughout our projects is our underlying approach to dispute resolution. In the unlikely event a dispute cannot be resolved internally, we exhaust all opportunities to mediate the dispute before we resort to arbitration or litigation. In the rare event these strategies do not yield a satisfactory resolution, we believe in the use of a third party mediator. The mediation process puts the concerns in the hands of a dispute resolution professional who is trained to assist all parties in reaching a fair and equitable solution. Q.13 Q.14 We want to be your construction partner for this important, and professionally challenging project! CONFLICT RESOLUTION: HILTON AUSTIN CASE STUDY Working in an occupied hotel with restricted hours to minimize disruption to current guests had the potential for daily conflict between the trades, who had to execute the work and push the schedule, and hotel facilities personnel, who had to maintain Hilton’s standard for exceptional customer service. Balfour Beatty and The Hilton Austin found common ground to get the work done while minimizing disruptions to guests during their stay. Clear “rules of engagement” were established by Balfour Beatty at the onset of the project so that all subcontractors knew building requirements and restrictions, which helped to mitigate conflict. Working floor-by-floor with tight working conditions— managing between 75-90 workers daily (lunch breaks, restroom breaks, while maintaining a clean and safe job site)—has the potential for conflict simply due to the limited space for man and materials. The project team established a collaborative mindset at the start to mitigate the potential of conflict from working in close quarters. Sharing a single loading dock with multiple deliveries daily, also required close, ongoing communication with hotel facilities personnel. CONFLICT RESOLUTION: 100 CONGRESS LOBBY RENOVATION CASE STUDY We addressed potential conflicts due to pathways within the building being re-routed during construction by preparing a week-in-advance plan that was approved by the landlord and emailed to tenants weekly, and placed updated wayfinding within the building. Page 114 of 163 18 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 which saved time for the fabricator, who had trustworthy dimensions, and increased confidence that the curtain wall system would fit properly during installation. Laser scanning and BIM were used at the 111 Congress Avenue for back of house MEP routing for the commercial kitchen. Upon selection as your construction manager, we will conduct a cost / benefit analysis of using laser scanning and BIM for the Downtown West project with the City of As much as construction has changed with new delivery methods, technology and materials, the raw ingredients remain the same: imagination, common vocabulary, shared vision and the talent and experience to make it happen. Our essential role, beyond day-to-day delivery of a safe, quality product, is to elevate the overall construction experience, and deliver a level of certainty that your expectations are met or exceeded. The Central Region of Balfour Beatty in Texas began using the 3D laser scan technology during the massive renovation of DFW Airport. The technology was used for “clash detection” to verify and coordinate existing conditions with the 3D model created by the architect. If used on the Downtown West reuse project, we would approach the process from the other direction. Instead of often imprecise and time consuming field measurements, we can perform a 3D laser scan and provide The Lawrence Group with exact measurements of the entire structure during preconstruction. The 3D files are imported into modeling software (Revit), and exact as-built drawings are created for quick, precise verification of the structure prior to construction. Laser scanning was used in support of the 100 Congress lobby renovation to provide accurate rough opening dimensions, ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS Q.15 German prosthetic company Ottobock, selected Balfour Beatty as their construction partner for delivery of their new, 37,782 SF U.S. corporate headquarters in Austin at Domain 7. We took a baseline 3D model and coordinated production of a comprehensive model showing the exact location of each component of the MEP systems: ductwork, chilled water piping, life safety and all electrical systems. These “before and after” images show the precise production we achieved. (note the ceiling, door openings and wall detail). We can do the same for your space. Chris Savasky, senior project manager slated for the Downtown West project, was also the project manager for Ottobock. The image depicts an image of 3D scans being stitched together during preconstruction. Unlocking the benefits of technology requires imagination, a common vocabulary, shared vision and the talent and experience to make it happen–that’s what Balfour Beatty brings to your project. Page 115 of 163 19 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 trade and the specific hold points for first work inspections and mock-ups. At the start of each different assembly or condition identified as a hold point, first work inspections are conducted by our superintendent and project manager, City of Georgetown and The Lawrence Group. Once we verify that the work meets all applicable standards for workmanship, the work will be allowed to proceed. Our team conducts work inspections of all materials received and work performed for verification of adherence to the Contract Documents and approved specialty contractor QC plans, with particular attention to new work activities. When necessary, we schedule and coordinate materials testing by independent testing laboratories, as well as inspections by consultants and authorities having jurisdiction required by code or regulation. When the work is approximately 50% complete, we conduct a project close-out conference with each specialty contractor to review the requirements of completion and close out. We produce a detailed close out manual for each trade, identifying all testing, commissioning, inspection, and documentation requirements along with a detailed completion schedule. Product quality standards are established by the specifications in the design documents: construction materials, approved suppliers, submittal requirements (product samples for quality assurance checks), required testing methods (non- destructive testing as part of production quality assurance), field inspections, RFI and Submittal Register monitoring, and analysis of test reports (both from non-destructive testing and Construction Material Test Reports). Maintaining a quality control regimen is initiated prior to kickoff and is a continuous process throughout the life of a project that incorporates the following: Weekly Owner Meetings: Review all critical items affecting the project, e.g., critical path deliveries, utility shut downs, changes in user requirements, work progress schedule and budget. The primary responsibility for Quality Assurance/Quality Control rests with our on-site Senior Superintendent, Jeff Bradley, who is responsible for day-to-day field operations. Jeff is supported by our project management team of Senior Project Manager Chris Savasky and a project engineer who play an active role in ensuring quality production is maintained throughout the life of your project. Finally, the ultimate responsibility for quality and customer satisfaction rests with Gary Miller, Director of Operations. Gary is a native Austinite who has more than 30 years of construction experience, specializing in interior constructionn. Gary was brought on to support Vice President of Operations Kirk Benken, who leads the Austin office. Our project team implements a comprehensive quality control (QC) plan for the project ensuring that every team member understands their role and responsibilities. Quality is established on the first day and permeates everything the team does for the rest of the project. Our QC plan can be summed up in one word: early. We work to prevent the problems, not identify them to be fixed at a later date. Our first step is to emphasize QC during our first project kick-off meeting. The attendees include the City of Georgetwon, The Lawrence Group, the Balfour Beatty core team and all appropriate specialty subcontractors. The purpose is to gain knowledge and understanding of key quality assurance issues, concerns, and goals for the project. We incorporate the project-specific QC plan, which clearly documents and communicates the quality expectations for the project, into every subcontract, and a commitment to the plan will be signed by the president of each contractor company. The project QC plan also specifically addresses those items and sets out the processes applied to influence, control, measure, and ensure the desired quality. The plan clearly documents and communicates quality expectations for the project. We review it in our pre-bid and post-bid conferences. After award, each specialty contractor must submit their QC plan specific to their work for approval. Those plans incorporate control and verification of all significant requirements in the Contract Documents pertaining to that "Quality means doing it right when no one is looking." Henry Ford A clean job site is a good indication of quality. QUALITY ASSURANCE Q.16 Page 116 of 163 20 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 QUALITY ASSURANCE: HILTON AUSTIN CASE STUDY We developed a 3-phase punch list process to speed completion of guestroom floors to accommodate occupancy during peak demand for rooms, while meeting Hilton’s exacting standards for quality: 1. First punch was conducted with Balfour Beatty Senior Superintendent Jeff Bradley and relevant trades to identify and correct bulk issues. 2. Second punch was conducted with Hilton’s owner’s representative and Superintendent Bradley and his team; at this second punch stage, we were identifying and resolving relatively minor issues. 3. Third and final punch was conducted with members of Hilton’s staff and Superintendent Bradley; at this point we are addressing very minor issues (small paint touch up, for example). Balfour Beatty uses field construction management software called Autodesk BIM 360 Field as part of our quality management process. The software is run on iPad tablets to expedite inspections and punch lists. Project plans and specifications are entered into the system, which eliminates the need to carry a bulky set of plans onsite. Our quality management team members enter inspection items into the tablet while walking the job site and can attach photos to the plans and email this information to applicable parties directly from the field. Using this process can save weeks at the end of the project and get our clients faster occupancy. The information is stored securely on a cloud-based server that allows for pre-approved remote access. QUALITY ASSURANCE: OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE INCLUDES AUTODESK BIM 360 FIELD Balfour Beatty uses field construction management software called Autodesk BIM 360 Field as part of our quality management process. The software is run on iPad tablets to expedite inspections and punch lists. Project plans and specifications are entered into the system, which eliminates the need to carry a bulky set of plans onsite. Our quality management team members enter inspection items into the tablet while walking the job site and can attach photos to the plans and email this information to applicable parties directly from the field. Using this process can save weeks at the end of the project and get our clients faster occupancy. The information is stored securely on a cloud-based server that allows for pre-approved remote access. Weekly subcontractor meetings: Emphasize safety, site progress, quality control, material handling, and any changes in scope. Job site presence: Maintain continuous on-site presence during all work hours; secure the site during non work hours. Submittal process: All shop drawings, samples, cut sheets and specifications, are reviewed, logged into a Submittal Register and date returned by Owner/Architect/Engineer for approval; each submittal stamped by Balfour Beatty as acceptable prior to transmission for verification/approval by the Owner, Architect, and Engineer. Inspection during construction: We are always ready with reasonable notice by the Owner/Architect/Engineer for a visual inspection of the project during construction. Field Mock-ups: In some instances it is necessary to coordinate with the Architect/Engineer the construction of a mock-up of a specified scope item to ensure proper workmanship and compliance to documentation. RFI process: Changes in scope, unforeseen conditions, and all details that are unclear are documented through a Request for Information process and communicated (electronically with hard copy documentation for archival purposes) to the design team for timely clarification. Air Quality: Space adjacent to construction areas are protected as much as possible from debris and dust through the use of sealed barriers; penetrations in floors are protected with secured covers. Security: We acknowledge the security requirements for this project. Thorough background checks (DPS) for all field personnel, and those requiring access to the job site are completed prior to the start of construction. Construction site staging: A detailed staging plan is prepared to coordinate all material handling and construction activities to: maintain service operations, minimize disruption, and protect building occupants. The plan includes procedures to coordinate building support functions: shipping and receiving, utilities, life safety, janitorial, trash and waste removal. Subcontractors with lower tiers of subcontracts have the total responsibility to see that their lower tiers also substantially comply with the subcontractor’s requirements. QUALITY ASSURANCE Q.16 Page 117 of 163 21 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 Savings and Contingencies. Balfour Beatty provides an “open book” accounting practice for our clients. Line item savings and overall savings are clearly identified in our accounting reports. Contingencies and allowances are identified in the bid, and transferred to specific line items in our accounting of each project. The project is reconciled when completed and open for review by our clients. Change Management. For each change order request a Cost Event is created. We use a collaborative web-based tool, Constructware, to track and manage all of our project management items, including Cost Events. Each Cost Event is thoroughly reviewed and challenged for relevancy, accuracy, fairness and equitable pricing. Valid project changes will be submitted via a Request for Change Order (RCO). Each RCO includes a detailed description of the change along with the required subcontractor breakdown clearly identifying the total cost. Cost Event logs are provided and reviewed during each Owners Meeting to allow the Downtown West team to make the necessary decisions on critical issues. This ensures your project is not delayed by delinquent cost issues. Upon approval the cost is incorporated in the Schedule of Values. The Budget Tracker process is and could still be simultaneous, so if there is a change driving costs up we will be working with the team on other unique options of off-setting those costs either within that change itself, or by looking at other areas within the project. Balfour Beatty maintains sustainable and transparent relationships with trade partners, which helps control cost and drives our buy out process. Balfour Beatty does not engage in “bid shopping.” We treat subcontractors as trade partners, which fosters a sense of teamwork, and helps to elevate quality, improve efficiencies and maintain schedule. The specific methodology we use on every project – large and small – to control costs and leverage buy out includes the following: • Advance planning and detailed review of construction documents; proactive communication early with the A/E team to confirm design intent • Production of detailed scopes of work for each trade; assignment of every element shown in the construction documents to a specific trade partner or vendor • Identify and document all existing conditions; conduct a mandatory pre-bid walk through with all trade partners • Confirm and document with each trade partner all existing conditions that may have a cost impact on specific scopes of work Insufficient coordination between the architectural and MEP drawings before final construction documents are issued can result in unexpected costs that can negatively impact a project. Allowing time in the schedule for detailed review and revision before issuing final construction documents prior to bid solicitation helps mitigate the occurrence of unexpected costs. Establishing an appropriate contingency is important to address any unforeseen conditions, or unexpected changes in scope once your project is underway. During Preconstruction, we scope every detail on the plans and specifications, which is the first line of defense of cost escalation. Competition for subcontractors in the robust construction market in Central Texas remains a challenge across the board. Our approach signals to subcontractors that we are bidding the project with constructability in mind, which increases profitability for our partners by eliminating unknowns. It also encourages more competitive bidding when subcontractors know the bid documentation is thorough, scrubbed, and complete. We know and understand the local market after a 16 year history in Austin. We know the current costs for specialty trades unique to the planned scope of work for the Downtown West project. No one likes surprises in construction. We address market volatility by bulk buying materials and aligning with reputable trade partners with a stable labor force. COST CONTROL Q.17 COST CONTROL: OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEURE DELIVERS DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK. Page 118 of 163 22 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 COST CONTROL TEAMQ.18 McLain Hall Chief Estimator Being able to consistently deliver an estimate that accurately reflects project scope is the first hurdle for a general contractor. McLain has developed an expertise for producing complex construction estimates that are based on recognized industry practices, and detailed knowledge of design and construction principles. McLain brings experience, relationships, and an in-depth understanding of market conditions and economic trends that can impact materials pricing moving forward. McLain has elevated the art of estimating to a level that Balfour Beatty clients have come to know and trust for detail, depth and accuracy. Chris Savasky Senior Project Manager Chris has both ground up and extensive interior renovation projects in his portfolio. His training as an architect gives him a unique perspective as a builder. Chris has expert knowledge in LEED, estimating, cost containment, purchasing and management . His work includes the award winning Ultra Electronics and LIVESTRONG, which won numerous awards and is LEED Gold certified. Jeff Bradley Senior Superintendent Jeff has successfully completed more than 450,000 SF of multi-floor, interior construction–renovation and finish out. The larger, faster, and more complex the job, the better Jeff feels driving production on a project. Jeff ensures that his clients appreciate the journey as much as the destination by staying on top of the details. His extensive construction knowledge, and stellar reputation among trade partners and city inspectors are an unbeatable combination. Gary Miller Operations Director Gary brings more than 30 years of commercial construction experience to Balfour Beatty Construction. He served as the Chief of Construction and Inspection for the State Preservation Board during the renovation of the Capitol and the 1857 General Land Office. He is a native Austinite, and has spent his career here building relationships with owners, architects, sub-consultants and the subcontractor community. Page 119 of 163 23 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 Value Management Tracker. This “living document” allows the project team to see where the budget stands on a continuous basis to make decisions that benefit the project. We ensure true competition in every aspect of the work and through our independent estimates, verifying that all costs are reasonable and necessary. Budget Tracker. Budget Tracker is our scope management tool we use to record deviations, or suggested deviations between budget deliverables: Value management items, pricing fluctuations, team decisions regarding design or materials and scope changes. The Budget Tracker help us avoid unnecessary change orders. GMP Approval/Schedule of Values. Once the GMP is approved, the Schedule of Values coincides with the format approved in the GMP, and is used for monthly progress payments. Each month we update the actual cost versus the original budget cost, providing for the current financial status of the project for subcontractor or material buy-out. We also incorporate each subcontractor’s schedule of values into this document and require a breakdown of the subcontractor’s work. The City is always informed of the project’s current financial position. Design Progress Meetings. Regularly design meetings are scheduled, and are critical to the success of the Preconstruction phase and the ability of the project team to maintain the project schedule and GMP. Check and Re-Check. We continually compare the design documents with the GMP documents to ensure that all design assumptions are noted within the established allowances. Likewise, the design team commits to including us in any change to the GMP drawings not discussed in the design meetings so that the established allowances can be managed. By the time 100% Construction Documents are released, there are no surprises; every team member has had a hand in the project’s development. Our approach to developing and monitoring construction budgets begins with an accurate estimate, which is the responsibility of our Chief Estimator McLain Hall. We leverage local and regional relationships with the local subcontractor community to ensure we provide you the best value. Balfour Beatty acts as an extension of your team, translating project expectations into a clear, detailed and accurate GMP that satisfies the design intent. You get a reliable early GMP that is reflective of the final cost. Our commitment to the City of Georgetown: • Develop an internal estimate to determine exact quantities and create alternates to determine the best materials and construction procedures for the Downtown West project. • Measure all cost against historical data and known market conditions. • Stimulate subcontractor interest to ensure adequate coverage of the bid package and scope of work, soliciting a minimum of three bids per division of work. • Identify, quantify, and clarify areas of potential contingency so that subcontractors can provide good competitive pricing. • Provide detailed breakdown of allowances to ensure all project team members know what is and is not included as in the allowance. Developing Costs. We use multiple pieces of software to assist us with providing timely, accurate and pertinent information for our budget deliverables. • On Screen Takeoff Pro allows us to electronically overlay two sets of drawings that helps to alleviate dimensional and scope problems between trades and versions of drawings. This tool also greatly reduces the cost of drawing reproduction and maintenance of electronic records. • MC2 is used to price our quantity surveys and organizes budget information into manageable reporting. We can organize these reports by bid package, CSI, building, or any other owner desired method. Each estimate is priced using our database, which is updated quarterly by region. Every line item unit cost is verified by our estimators with input from local subcontractors and suppliers. • iSqFt is our document control software and budget/bid management system. iSqFt is an internet-based software that allows us to electronically post documents, send bid invitations, and provide addenda notifications to subcontractors and suppliers. The software allows subcontractors to do their quantity surveys online. CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS Q.19 "I like knowing that McLain will be doing a prelim for one of our projects because he thinks beyond what is documented and accounts for a lot of the things we overlook, especially for a preliminary price.  He delves into the scope of work and understands the intricacies involved in unique design elements.  It’s great to have him involved early on so he can be an integral part of the design team.  He’s a good gut-checker. I'm a fan." PollyAnna Little Principal STG Design Page 120 of 163 24 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SCHEDULING: “SNAPSHOT SCHEDULING” @ 100 CONGRESS, CASE STUDY For construction projects that require concurrent occupancy and public access through and around construction areas, we have developed a planning process that combines phasing plans with critical path scheduling. We call it “snapshot scheduling.” This snap- shot method of scheduling allows the project team to work corrob- oratively to solve the competing demands of construction work flow, material deliveries, tenant access, with an eflcient and compressed schedule. The technique combines phasing plans with critical path scheduling, and takes into account multiple factors that can impact the work: the demands of current tenants, landlord requirements (safe public access during construc- tion) and the role of subcontractors in delivering a quality product. Detailed Construction Schedule: The master project schedule is subdivided into specific schedules that follow long-lead activities critical to the overall completion of the project. This schedule serves as the trade contractors’ guide for the remainder of the project. It is updated on a bi-weekly basis by our on- site staff. Interior Sequence Schedule: Provides logical sequencing of multiple activities relating to interior construction. Submittal Schedule: Each selected trade contractor receives a customized submittal schedule to effectively facilitate the submittal process. Look-Ahead Schedule: These are short, interval schedules, prepared in various ways, depending on the activity and its completion date, other impacted activities, and the project’s intervals. In some cases, we prepare hourly look-ahead schedules to coordinate hoisting priorities and equipment installation. Detailed Sub-Schedule - Our sub-schedule system enables us to monitor each trade contractor’s progress at any time throughout the duration of the project. Our schedules go beyond traditional ‘breaking ground’ and ‘substantial completion’ and take a proactive total project solutions approach. Our approach to scheduling helps set expectations in conjunction with the design team and the owner. This ensures we are all focused on the appropriate interim milestones, as well as final completion. We also understand the importance of accurately incorporating all material events that could impact cost or schedule every month. The City of Georgetown reviews and approves all logic changes prior to submission of a pay application. The schedule logic accurately reflects the as-built status of the project and the true critical path of the project going forward every month. No exceptions. The baseline schedule is used throughout the project to manage the work and verify progress. The schedules developed by our team during preconstruction that are used once construction begins include: Master Project Schedule: Identifies milestone targets used by the project delivery team in controlling the overall development of the project. Preconstruction milestone dates are also included making sure every action is completed on time. Procurement Schedule: Identifies the critical project milestones respective to each bid package necessary to bid the project properly. PROJECT SCHEDULESQ.20 Page 121 of 163 25 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 SCHEDULING: LIVESTRONG CASE STUDY The extensive renovation of a 30,000 SF warehouse in East Austin for the LIVESTRONG Foundation followed more than one year of intensive Preconstruction. Due to the unique nature of the design and adaptive reuse of the building, the Balfour Beatty project team found creative ways to workaround the pre-release of construction drawings to keep the project moving forward. Demolition was started early with the release of the demolition package. Balfour Beatty also requested the early release of the concrete and structural steel package, which helped keep the project on schedule. Finally, the early negotiation and release of three primary subcontractors – demolition, concrete and steel – kept the project on track. The client moved in ahead of schedule in February 2009. “You don’t go through a process like we did for the LIVESTRONG project – a massive remodeling including the structure of an old warehouse – without a trusted partner to help you. We wanted a general contractor who had the technology and the expertise, who could work with our design team to make it all come together. The building we created at LIVESTRONG is an experience. It’s an environment. We wanted to have partners involved in the project, like Balfour Beatty, who were passionate about what we were doing, and really engaged in our cause. Chris (SAVASKY) and his team were very good about having an ongoing dialogue; they really know how to listen. We would certainly recommend Balfour Beatty to any and all for either interior remodels or full scale construction.” Greg Lee CEO LIVESTRONG a roof after disconnecting his lifeline. Balfour Beatty safety policy clearly requires personnel to use fall protection when working at heights above six feet. All employees on Balfour Beatty jobsites are required to complete site safety orientation which includes this policy before starting work. Balfour Beatty safety mangers reported this fatality to all project teams across the nation and the necessity and proper use of lifelines was discussed during safety talks with our jobsite workers. Subcontractor foremen were also encouraged to continue this discussion during their daily pre-task planning. Our commitment to Zero Harm requires that every person goes home at the end of every day. We stay diligently focused on creating safe work environments and are continuously working to improve our safety processes. Balfour Beatty requires accurate and complete pre-task planning for every task each day in conjunction with thor- ough job hazard analyses prepared by subcontractors and submitted to Balfour Beatty for review. To that end, it has engaged in a pro- gram to train subcontractors to effectively deliver these plans and analyses. After every safety incident (regardless of whether anyone was actually injured), our safety personnel perform investigations into the reasons for the occurrence to discover new ways to prevent future occurrences and assist in the planning processes. Balfour Beatty Construction is a construction manager that works Balfour Beatty Construction is a construction manager that works throughout the United States, and our recordable incident rate and experience modification rate are well below the industry average. However, there have been three fatalities on Balfour Beatty sites in the last five years. None of the team members proposed for your project were involved in the projects on which these incidents happened. Balfour Beatty has a strong safety program and each project we perform has a job specific safety plan. All workers on our jobsites are required to comply with the requirements of this plan. In 2012, the driver of a catering truck, not under contract with Balfour Beatty, lost control of his vehicle and impacted a laborer. Also, in 2012, a rough terrain forklift operated by a subcontractor employee struck a fellow employee of the same subcontractor. Af- ter these incidents, Balfour Beatty completely revised the way that it looks at site logistics and separation of people from equipment. Balfour Beatty mandated policies that require subcontractors to separate vehicles and equipment from ground personnel. In the summer of 2014, an employee of a subcontractor fell from CONSTRUCTION FATALITYQ.21 PROJECT SCHEDULESQ.20 Page 122 of 163 26 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 “I stand behind this team and your project” 34 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BS/Architectural Engineering and Construction Management UT-Austin REFERENCES Jim Susman STG Design 512.279.8380 Rick Guerra Jose I. Guerra, Inc. 512.445-2090 Marcus P. Bove The Bommarito Group 512.480.8898 Gary Miller Operations Director Gary brings more than 30 years of commercial construction experience to Balfour Beatty Construction. He is a native Austinite, and has spent his career here building relationships with owners, architects, sub-consultants and the subcontractor community. He is adept at all facets of construction, and is a tremendous asset to our team. SELECT EXPERIENCE 7700 Parmer Lobby renovation 100 Congress Lobby renovation Hilton Guest Room Renovations Ottobock Pearson Conference Center PPD Pharmaceutical Facility UT-Austin • Visual Arts Center • Welch Hall Convocation Center • Walter Webb Hall Renovation • Dean of Undergraduate Studies • Ford Career Center St. David’s Hospital Dining Hall & Cafeteria University Medical Center at Brackenridge • Intensive Care Unit Renovation VMware TEAMQ.22 Page 123 of 163 27 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 McLain Hall Chief Estimator Being able to consistently deliver an estimate that accurately reflects project scope is the first hurdle for a general contractor. McLain has developed an expertise for producing complex construction estimates that are based on recognized industry practices, and detailed knowledge of design and construction principles. McLain brings experience, relationships, and an in-depth understanding of market conditions and economic trends that can impact materials pricing moving forward. McLain has elevated the art of estimating to a level that Balfour Beatty clients have come to know and trust for detail, depth and accuracy. SELECT EXPERIENCE 100 Congress Avenue Lobby renovation Akin Gump Amherst Securities Arthrocare Bigcommerce Brackenridge Professional Office Building Frog Design Hilton Austin Norton Rose Fulbright, Austin/San Antonio Google (L-4 LEED-CI Gold) Jackson Walker, Austin/San Antonio HomeAway HQ (LEED-CI Gold) Hope in the City LIVESTRONG (LEED-CI Gold) RGM Advisors, LLC San Clemente Bldg C (LEED Silver) Temple Beth Shalom Treehouse (LEED Certified) Ultra Electronics 816 Congress Ave. Rooftop Vista Equity 13 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION: BS/Business UT-Austin USGBC Green Advantage OSHA 30 REFERENCES Joe Gowing lauckgroup 512.479.0337 Brent Jones American Realty 512.477.1312 Polly Little STG Design 512.899.3500 “I bring cost certainty to your project.” TEAMQ.22 Page 124 of 163 28 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BS/Architecture, UT-Austin USGBC Green Advantage Certified Construction Safety OSHA 30 REFERENCES Greg Lee LIVESTRONG 512.279.8380 John McAlonan Ultra Electronics 512.327.6795 Bill Lindstrom Parkway Properties 512.536.8422 Chris Savasky Senior Project Manager Chris has both ground up and extensive interior renovation projects in his portfolio. His training as an architect gives him a unique perspective as a builder. Chris has expert knowledge in LEED, estimating, cost containment, purchasing and management . His work includes the award winning Ultra Electronics and LIVESTRONG, which won numerous awards and is LEED Gold certified. SELECT EXPERIENCE 100 Congress Avenue Lobby Bigcommerce Google (L-4 LEED Gold) Facebook L-11 GSDM HomeAway/Penn Field JMI Realty LIVESTRONG (LEED Gold) Kendra Scott Luminex (multiple phases) NetSpend (multiple projects) Ottobock San Clemente Bldg C (LEED Silver) Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P. Treehouse (LEED Certified) Ultra Electronics 816 Congress Ave. Rooftop Walter P. Moore “I always put the client first.” TEAMQ.22 Page 125 of 163 29 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 Jeff Bradley Superintendent Jeff has successfully completed more than 450,000 SF of multi-floor, interior construction–renovation and finish out. The larger, faster, and more complex the job, the better Jeff feels driving production on a project. Jeff ensures that his clients appreciate the journey as much as the destination by staying on top of the details. His extensive construction knowledge, and stellar reputation among trade partners and city inspectors are an unbeatable combination. SELECT EXPERIENCE: Accenture Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Avallon Bigcommerce University Medical Center at Brackenridge CB Richard Ellis Charles Schwab Dell Computer Dimensional Fund Advisors Digital Equipment Corp. E-Law Ernst & Young Exterprise Norton Rose Fulbright Google Graves Dougherty Hilton Austin Parsley Energy Progressive Insurance Reliance Energy St. David’s Medical Center Tenura 35 YEARS IN CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 30 REFERENCES Kristin Chiles Google 512.297.5138 Scott Kruse Parsley Energy 512.505-5100 Jim Sussman STG Design 512.899.3500 “I am 100% committed to your project.” TEAMQ.22 Page 126 of 163 30 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 Travis McGarraugh General Superintendent/Safety Travis was promoted to General Superintendent/Safety Coordinator in 2014. Travis has earned the respect from colleagues and trade partners alike, most of whom consider him a friend. In his new role, Travis adds more muscle to our continuing goal of achieving Zero Harm, and strengthens our operational capabilities. Travis exemplifies the kind of character, commitment and leadership qualities that our customers have come to expect from Balfour Beatty employees. Clients know when he is on the job, their project gets the kind of attention and follow through essential for a successful project. His patience, construction knowledge and ability to find solutions quickly as part of a team keep him in high demand. Subcontractors know and respect him, which is invaluable when it’s crunch time and the schedule demands sustained action to get the job done. SELECT EXPERIENCE 7700 Parmer Lane Lobby 100 Congress Lobby Aspyr Media Razorfish Bioware Blackbaud (Convio) Cisco Crescent Management Dimensional Fund Advisors Equity Offices Green Mountain Energy (LEED-CI Silver) Hilton Austin HomeAway HQ (LEED-CI Gold) Kendra Scott Luminex (multiple phases) Mediterranean Resources NXP Parsley Energy TFC State Insurance Building • Air Handler Replacement 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION MBA and Bachelors, Landscape Architecture, Texas Tech University Green Advantage certified Construction Safety Specialist REFERENCES Kendel Martin Luminex 512.381.3220 Stephen Jones Dimensional Fund Advisors 512.306.2356 Melanie Fitzpatrick Blackbaud 512.652.7969 “A safe job site is more productive.” TEAMQ.22 Page 127 of 163 31 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 EXPERIENCE WITH TIGHT SITESQ.23 The 38-story Greenwater Block 1 project, currently under construction at the intersection of Cesar Chavez and Second streets in Austin, is a good example of detailed planning required for construction on a congested urban site. Site Security Constructing site perimeter fencing is the first task on any downtown project. Site fencing protects pedestrians and serves as a security barrier limiting entry to authorized personnel. The project entrance is gated with controlled access. The intense activity on the Greenwater Block 1 project requires two assigned personnel to monitor access during working hours and a security patrol at night. All site personnel are badged and must present this identification before entering the site. We coordinate closely with the City of Austin Police Department on operating hours and site security. We will do the same for the Downtown West project in Georgetown. Separate Worker Access/Egress Maintaining a separation from site personnel and equipment is a critical safety measure during construction on a tight urban site. A detailed site logistic map is used to plan ingress and egress of site personnel and equipment based on construction progress. This provides field and office personnel an action plan that they use as a daily tool to discuss safe routes. Badges are used to control access to sections of the site based on construction activities. This prevents workers from wandering into a section of the project where they may not understand the access and egress for a specific construction activity. Our experience in construction within the urban core will inform our approach to the Downtown West project. Safety Muster Points If an emergency arises on a construction site, locations of safety muster points, must come as second nature to onsite personnel. On Greenwater, muster points are taken very seriously and safety drills are held to help the site team practice reporting to the muster points. In the event someone forgets which muster point to report to, we provide a pocket safety plan that all site personnel are required to carry in their safety vest at all times. If the muster points change due to construction activities, site personnel are updated with these changes during the morning Tool Box talks. These safety meetings are used to discuss anything that is going on within the day/week. The muster points and path of ingress/egress are always one of the first topics of every day, Material Access/Deliveries With downtown projects on time deliveries are very important. We create an expediting log in order to track material lead times with deliveries. We ask that most deliveries be during the morning or late afternoon. The prime reason for this is to protect onsite personnel. With fewer people on-site during these times, the trucks delivering material have a clearer path that requires less coordination to move around personnel. Once the building is structurally far enough along material will be stored in the building to provide longer lead items a more flexible schedule for delivery. This will allow us to stock the building with materials after work hours, which is safer for onsite personnel. Noise Equipment, back-up alarms, concrete trucks, and concrete pumps create noise. The City of Austin noise ordinance regulate noise on construction sites to minimize noise to the downtown residences. We will follow all City of Georgetown ordinances and work closely with City departments and our neighbors adjacent to the site to keep them informed about site activities. Lighting Construction lighting is carefully controlled by select positioning of light towers to face light inward and down on the project. We ensure adequate lighting for site personnel without interfering with surrounding buildings. Proper lighting is a necessary function of construction and a key safety feature. Properly lit entrances and exits is an important part of our safety plan. Greenwater Block 1 Construction in highly congested urban environments, such as the Greenwater Block 1 project in Austin, requires constant communication with City authorities and an intense focus on public safety. We will apply our experience and knowledge with safe, neighborly construction to the Downtown West project in Georgetown. Page 128 of 163 32 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 EXPERIENCE WITH TIGHT SITESQ.23 Building a tiny House of HOPE. The House of Promise & Empowerment (HOPE) is the 174 square foot chapel designed by Sixthriver Architects and was built by volunteers from Balfour Beatty as part of the Mobile Loaves and Fishes Community First! Village in East Austin, which provides affordable housing for the disabled and chronically homeless in Central Texas. The HOPE House was conceived as one of the many 150 “tiny houses” slated for the development; the design team found inspiration from the Biblical story of the Israeli Exodus from Egypt. After construction, the structure was designated by the project organizers as the community chapel. Parking We work with the City of Georgetown to determine the most efficient parking for the project, and enforce it through regular meetings with trade partners. Public Awareness and Involvement Our experience working in Austin has prepared our teams for working within vibrant, urban areas. Part of our planning is to familiarize the team with the calendar of public events in Georgetown. We recognize the need to accommodate civic events while construction is underway. During construction in Austin of the Austonian for example, our team took a proactive approach preparing for events like the Austin Marathon, Capital 10K, ROT Rally and various parades on Congress Avenue. For events such as Formula 1, SXSW, UT Football and many others, we were an active participant supporting the needs of the City. We will do the same with the City of Georgetown! Public Safety Most importantly, we are ever aware of the need for our project team to maintain a safe environment for the public around our active construction site. The safety practices we implement on all of our sites include: well lighted and sturdy pedestrian barricades, traffic control plans, attractive fencing, quality way finding signage, temporary access ramps and manned access points around the site. “This vision (of Greenwater Block 1) includes a pedestrian- friendly area framed by its natural surroundings that supports our community’s core values.” Kevin Johns Economic Development Director City of Austin Page 129 of 163 33 Georgetown, T exas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 During Preconstruction we implement a side-by-side budgeting approach with The Lawrence Group for each element of the project. Once the estimate is complete and validated, we summarize the detailed report in an Estimate Summary Sheet by bid package within each CSI Division. Each time new documents are issued, our Preconstruction team updates the estimate and resubmits it to the project team, which leads to the development of the GMP. Once the GMP is approved, the Estimate Summary Sheet is used as the basis to establish the Schedule of Values for monthly progress payments. Each month we update the actual cost versus the original budget cost, providing for the current financial status of the project for specialty contractor or material buyout. These procedures ensure that City of Georgetown is always informed of the project’s current financial position. We adopt an integrated team approach to working with The Lawrence Group to ensure all costs are accounted for and gaps eliminated. We are an extension of your team, translating project expectations into a clear, detailed and accurate GMP that satisfies the design intent. Having completed a GMP on numerous other similar projects, we provide you with a reliable early GMP that is reflective of the final cost, and will: ƒDevelop internal estimates at critical stages of design to determine exact quantities and create alternates that are priced as a means to determine what materials and construction procedures are the best fit for your project. ƒMeasure all costs against historical data and known market conditions and provide guidance to get back to budget if an overage is detected. ƒStimulate subcontractor interest to ensure adequate coverage of the bid package and scope of work, soliciting a minimum of three bids per division of work. ƒCreate specific, written scopes of work at bid time to minimize scope gaps. ƒIdentify, quantify, and clarify areas of potential confusion so to ensure competitive pricing. We use both in-house preconstruction professionals, as well as subcontractors through all phases of the design process. This creates more accurate budgets and minimizes surprises through the Construction Documents and GMP pricing phases. Local Market Knowledge & Volatility. We know and understand the local and regional market after a 16 year history in Austin. We know the current costs for specialty trades unique to the planned scope of work for the Downtown West project. No one likes surprises in construction. We address market volatility by bulk buying materials and aligning with reputable trade partners with a stable labor force. Value Engineering. Cost is not the only factor to consider. Long-term operational costs are also vital in calculating overall value. Value engineering is about teamwork. We produce a progress summary report with each milestone budget. The majority of the work occurs between those budget presentations. One of our primary goals is to carefully and effectively control cost, while meeting your expectations for function and aesthetics. We record VE options on our Budget Tracker, a tool developed by Balfour Beatty to manage ideas, pricing, decisions, and scope changes. We think of it as a “living” document allowing the project team to see where the budget stands on a continual basis. From there decisions that reflect the goals of the project are made. Competition for subcontractors in the Central Texas robust construction market remains a challenge across the board. Our approach signals to subcontractors that we are bidding the project with constructability in mind, which increases profitability for our partners by eliminating unknowns. It also encourages more competitive bidding when subcontractors know the bid documentation is thorough, scrubbed, and complete. PRECONSTRUCTIONQ.24 Balfour Beatty in Austin was the only general contractor in our class named a “Best Places To Work” by the ABJ in 2015. We believe that our attitude and behaviors translate into discretionary effort, and a better outcome for our clients. Page 130 of 163 34 Georgetown, Texas Construction Manager at Risk/Downtown West RFP#201628 | 02.22.16 • We ask the right questions and we ask them early; we dig deep and investigate thoroughly to ensure timely delivery. • We require proof. • We are relentless in our follow up, documentation, and coordination. Providing a safe construction environment for our trade partners, field personnel and job site visitors is absolute. Any person who undertakes work of any nature is required to complete a Pre-Task Plan(PTP), which communicates step-by-step, detailed technical planning, hazards and means to mitigate, and ultimately promote safe work practices and accountability. Balfour Beatty views safety as a core value and will not sacrifice the safety of our people for production or monetary gains. Savings and Contingencies We provide an “open book” accounting practice for our clients. We use a collaborative web-based tool, Constructware, to support project management. Line item savings and overall savings are clearly identified in our accounting reports. Contingencies and allowances are identified in the bid, and transferred to specific line items in our accounting of each project. The project is reconciled when completed to document any cost savings, and open for review by our clients. Our construction philosophy at its most basic is to be “problem seekers” at the start, and “problem solvers” throughout. PRECONSTRUCTIONQ.24 Our approach to your project is to provide the framework for creation of a tight-knit alliance between the City of Georgetown, The Lawrence Group, subcontractors, sub-consultants and Balfour Beatty by establishing a collaborative communications plan based on clarity, consistency, measurement and follow through. •How we do it. Balfour Beatty helps ensure your goals are met by first establishing a set of communications standards and expectations at the project start that includes input from the entire team. •Leadership makes a difference. Balfour Beatty has deep municipal court experience throughout our organization with a particular expertise in renovations. We are proposing a team of senior construction professionals who have a long history of working together– Chris Savasky, sr. project mgr., and Jeff Bradley, sr. Superintendent, have worked together for more than 15 years–specializing in large, complex renovations. You are in good hands! •Expected results. A well defined communications plan that engenders teamwork improves quality and encourages innovation, while reducing rework and redesign, which saves time and money. SmartStart® is a proven communications process developed and used by Balfour Beatty. Our approach seeks to align all stakeholders, designers and contractors into a unified team at the onset by first articulating the path to success through collaborative team building. The result is creation of a recognizable culture with all the attributes synonymous with a high-functioning team: Inclusive environment that encourages thoughtful recommendations to drive schedule, cost and quality, “buy in” on implementation, active engagement by all team members, and a commitment to measure and follow through. We identify and address the root causes of waste and inefficiency quickly before there is an impact to the overall success of your project. We follow-up with regularly scheduled partnering sessions to measure team effectiveness, which adds to the sustainability of our approach in meeting the goals of your project. All key decision makers among project stakeholders are invited to participate in our SmartStart partner kick-off session. (We define a “stakeholder” as an entity that has the ability to impact design or construction progress.) We cover four topics: Behavioral Alignment. Our project team seeks to understand and pro-actively manage interpersonal dynamics to create a high performance team. Values Alignment. We want to understand your business case and identify the strategies to support the delivery process for your project. We focus efforts on the right tools and strategies to understand what is important to the team, establish productive behaviors, and define success. Milestone Planning. We collaborate on defining critical project milestones and deliverables, and how each stakeholder can affect overall project success. ARCHITECT INTERFACEQ.25 Page 131 of 163 Page 132 of 163 Page 133 of 163 Page 134 of 163 Zurich American Insurance Company 16535-005 American Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. 26247-001 877-945-7378 888-467-2378 certificates@willis.com WILLIS OF TENNESSEE, INC. NASHVILLE OFFICE P. O. BOX 305025 26 CENTURY BLVD. NASHVILLE, TN 37230-5025 3100 McKinnon Street, 10th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 X X X X 3,000,000 1,000,000 15,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 A GLO 6476684-02 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 X X X X 1,000,000ABAP 6476683-02 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 X X 10,000,000 10,000,000 B AUC 0184602-00 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 X 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 A WC 6476685-02 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 City of Georgetown, and any others as may be required are additional insureds on every applicable line of coverage listed on this certificate. A waiver of subrogation in favor of City of Georgetown and any others as may be required is extended on every applicable line of coverage listed on this certificate. Insurance is primary and will not seek contribution from insurance held by the additional insureds. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC 02/16/2016Page 1 of 1 Y Y Y Y 24133404 Georgetown, TX 78626 300-1 Industrial Avenue Attention: Trina Bickford, Purchasing Manager City of Georgetown Coll:4851787 Tpl:2032162 Cert:24133404 DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) PRODUCER INSURED INSR ADDL SUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LIMITSLTRINSD WVD (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY Y / N N / A (Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additonal Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT NAME: PHONE FAX (A/C, NO, EXT):(A/C, NO): E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A: INSURER B: INSURER C: INSURER D: INSURER E: INSURER F: EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $ PREMISES (Ea occurence)CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $GEN’L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $PRO-POLICY LOCJECT OTHER:$ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $(Ea accident) ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ NON-OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $(Per accident) $ EACH OCCURRENCEOCCUR CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $ DED $RETENTION $ PER OTH- STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION ACORD 25 (2014/01) © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Page 135 of 163 Additional Insured – Automatic – Owners, Lessees Or Contractors U-GL-1175-D CW (10/11) Page 1 of 2 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Policy No. Eff. Date of Pol. Exp. Date of Pol. Eff. Date of End. Producer No. Add’l. Prem Return Prem. GLO 6476684-02 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. Named Insured: Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC Address (including ZIP Code): This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an insured any person or organization who you are required to add as an additional insured on this policy under a written contract or written agreement. B. The insurance provided to the additional insured person or organization applies only to "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" covered under Section I – Coverage A – Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability and Section I – Coverage B – Personal And Advertising Injury Liability, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1. Your acts or omissions; or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf, and resulting directly from your ongoing operations or "your work" as included in the "products-completed operations hazard", which is the subject of the written contract or written agreement. C. However, regardless of the provisions of Paragraphs A. and B. above: 1. We will not extend any insurance coverage to any additional insured person or organization: a. That is not provided to you in this policy; or b. That is any broader coverage than you are required to provide to the additional insured person or organization in the written contract or written agreement; and 2. We will not provide Limits of Insurance to any additional insured person or organization that exceed the lower of: a. The Limits of Insurance provided to you in this policy; or b. The Limits of Insurance you are required to provide in the written contract or written agreement. D. The insurance provided to the additional insured person or organization does not apply to: "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering or failure to render any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services including: 1. The preparing, approving or failing to prepare or approve maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; and 2. Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. Page 136 of 163 U-GL-1175-D CW (10/11) Page 2 of 2 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. E. The additional insured must see to it that: 1. We are notified as soon as practicable of an "occurrence" or offense that may result in a claim; 2. We receive written notice of a claim or "suit" as soon as practicable; and 3. A request for defense and indemnity of the claim or "suit" will promptly be brought against any policy issued by another insurer under which the additional insured may be an insured in any capacity. This provision does not apply to insurance on which the additional insured is a Named Insured, if the written contract or written agreement requires that this coverage be primary and non-contributory. F. For the coverage provided by this endorsement: 1. The following paragraph is added to Paragraph 4.a. of the Other Insurance Condition of Section IV – Commercial General Liability Conditions: This insurance is primary insurance as respects our coverage to the additional insured person or organization, where the written contract or written agreement requires that this insurance be primary and non-contributory with respect to any other policy upon which the additional insured is a Named Insured. In that event, we will not seek contribution from any other such insurance policy available to the additional insured on which the additional insured person or organization is a Named Insured. 2. The following paragraph is added to Paragraph 4.b. of the Other Insurance Condition of Section IV – Commercial General Liability Conditions: This insurance is excess over: Any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, available to an additional insured, in which the additional insured on our policy is also covered as an additional insured on another policy providing coverage for the same "occurrence", offense, claim or "suit". This provision does not apply to any policy in which the additional insured is a Named Insured on such other policy and where our policy is required by written contract or written agreement to provide coverage to the additional insured on a primary and non- contributory basis. G. This endorsement does not apply to an additional insured which has been added to this policy by an endorsement showing the additional insured in a Schedule of additional insureds, and which endorsement applies specifically to that identified additional insured. All other terms and conditions of this policy remain unchanged. Page 137 of 163 Copyright, Hawaii Insurance Bureau, Inc., 1999 Includes copyrighted material of the Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission CA 1028 (2-99) CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1999 Page 1 of 1 POLICY NUMBER: BAP 6476683-02 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provi- sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: Countersigned By: Named Insured: Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): City of Georgetown, and any others as may be required (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Coverage Form. Page 138 of 163 WC124 (4-84) Page 1 of 1 WC 00 03 13 Copyright 1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. Uniform FormsTM WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13 (Ed. 04-84) WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule. Schedule City of Georgetown, and any others as may be required Any person or organization for whom the named insured has agreed by written contract to furnish this waiver This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective Policy No. WC 6476685-02 Endorsement No. Insured Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC Premium $ Insurance Company Zurich American Insurance Company Countersigned by Page 139 of 163 Page 140 of 163 Page 141 of 163 Page 142 of 163 Page 143 of 163 Page 144 of 163 Page 145 of 163 Page 146 of 163 Page 147 of 163 Page 148 of 163 Page 149 of 163 Page 150 of 163 Page 151 of 163 Page 152 of 163 Page 153 of 163 Page 154 of 163 Price Experience References Team Financial TOTAL Rank AVG JH 40 12 10 20 10 92 1 EJ 35 12 10 18 10 85 2 RJ 40 15 10 20 10 95 1 TL 37 9 10 14 10 80 2 SM 40 10 10 15 10 85 1 TOTAL 437 87.4 JH 30 10 10 17 8 75 4 EJ 45 12 10 18 8 93 2 RJ 40 15 5 15 10 85 2 TL 43 13 10 18 10 94 1 SM 35 10 10 20 8 83 2 TOTAL 430 86 JH 30 12 10 20 8 80 3 EJ 30 5 10 10 10 65 3 RJ 40 10 5 10 10 75 4 TL 35 11 10 9 4 69 4 SM 40 0 8 10 5 63 3 TOTAL 352 70.4 JH 40 12 8 15 10 85 2 EJ 23 0 10 15 2 50 4 RJ 40 5 10 18 5 78 3 TL 35 11 10 10 5 71 3 SM 40 0 8 10 2 60 4 TOTAL 344 68.8 Balfour Beatty Construction FTWOODS Construction STR Constructors, Ltd. Trimbuilt Construction, Inc DOWNTOWN WEST CMAR RFP EVALUATION SUMMARY Page 155 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Election o f G eneral Go vernment and Financ e Advis o ry Bo ard (GGAF) Board Officers – Keith Brainard, GGAF Chair ITEM SUMMARY: Ac cording to the General Government and Financ e Advis o ry Board Bylaws , Article III - Bo ard Officers , Sec tion 3.1 - Offic ers : The Board Officers are Chairman, Vic e-Chairman and Secretary. The C hairman is recommended b y the Mayor and appointed by the City Co uncil during the annual ap p o intment proc es s . The o ther Bo ard Officers are elected by a majority vo te o f the Members at the firs t meeting after the annual ap p o intment p ro cess. Mayor Ro s s ap p o inted Keith Brainard as Chairman o f the GGAF Bo ard . This item is to elec t a Vic e- Chairman and S ec retary b y a majority vote o f the memb ers . ATTACHMENTS GGAF Bylaws FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GGAF ByLaws Backup Material Page 156 of 163 Page 157 of 163 Page 158 of 163 Page 159 of 163 Page 160 of 163 Page 161 of 163 Page 162 of 163 City of Georgetown, Texas Government and Finance Advisory Board March 30, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc uss dates/times for future GGAF Meetings – Keith Brainard , GGAF Chair ITEM SUMMARY: Bo ard will dis c us s and determine the future d ates /times the General Government and F inance Ad visory Bo ard will meet. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Page 163 of 163