The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 03.09.2009 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas MARCH 9, 2009 The Georgetown City Council will meet on MARCH 9, 2009 at 4:00 P.M. at the Council Chamber at 101 E. 7th Street If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance. Policy Development/Review Workshop - A Presentation and discussion regarding the 2011 Redistricting Process -- Paul E. Brandenburg B Transportation Project Presentation and Update for GTAB and GTEC Projects: 2008 Street Rehabilitation Project, Rock Street Extension, College Street Bridge, Williams Drive Widening, Maple Street Realignment, Maple Street Drainge, Oak Tree Drive Bridge, Lakeway Drive Overpass, Southeast Arterial 1, Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (TIP #14A), Southwest Boulevard (TIP #14B), GTEC Project Update & Status Report -- Thomas R. Benz, Systems Engineering Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations C Overview of Recent Annexations, Annexation Policy and Annexation Infrastructure Requirements -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Acting Director of Community Development. D Presentation and possible direction to staff regarding acquiring and implementing a new Customer Information System (CIS) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to replace the current systems, which are outdated and unreliable -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations E Overview of the City’s current outstanding and proposed debt obligations -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration 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. F Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney 1. Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including this week's agenda items 2. Mark Shelton v. City of Georgetown, et al;Cause No. A07CA063; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division 3. Lear v. Jimmy Lewis Fennell and City of Georgetown,Cause No. A08-CA-719LY, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division 4. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. City of Georgetown,Cause No. D-1-GN-08-02325, 53rd Judicial District, Travis County, Texas 5. Discussion of legal issues related to payment obligations for the Public Utility Improvements under the "Development Agreement with Forestville Associates, a Maryland General Partnership, regarding development of Wolf Ranch" dated September 11, 2003 6. Berry Creek Partners v. City of Georgetown, Cause No. 08-767-C277, in the District Court of Williamson County, 277th Judicial District G Sec.551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Discussion and possible action concerning right of way and easement acquisition related to (1) the SPG- 1 Wastewater Line Project; and (2) the Rock Street Extension Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, GUS Paralegal and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations - Consideration and possible action regarding the purchase of property in the Williams Drive Gateway H Sec.551.074: Personnel Matters - City Secretary Appointment and Compensation - Review of Procedures to be used in City Attorney search Adjournment Certificate of Posting I, Sandra Lee, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2009, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ Sandra Lee, City Secretary City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Presentation and discussion regarding the 2011 Redistricting Process -- Paul E. Brandenburg ITEM SUMMARY: City staff has been working with David Mendez of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP regarding the services their firm can provide the City with its Redistricting Process. The City utilized the services of this firm with its redistricting process after the 2000 Census. Mr. Mendez will provide the Council with a presentation on the services his firm will provide, why they are necessary, and will also provide a timetable and timeline for the entire Redistricting Process. If the Council is receptive to engaging the services of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, an item has been placed on the March 10, 2009 Regular Council Agenda for your consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Timetable for 2011 Redistricting Process 2. Timeline for 2011 Redistricting Process FINANCIAL IMPACT: Current Estimate for Services is $37,650. This amount would need to be budgeted for in the upcoming 2010 fiscal year. SUBMITTED BY: Paul E. Brandenburg ATTACHMENTS: Timetable for 2011 Redistrictng Process Timeline for 2011 Redistricting Process Cover Memo Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 5 Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 2 of 5 Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 3 of 5 Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 4 of 5 Item # A Attachment number 1 Page 5 of 5 Item # A Attachment number 2 Page 1 of 1 Item # A City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Transportation Project Presentation and Update for GTAB and GTEC Projects: 2008 Street Rehabilitation Project, Rock Street Extension, College Street Bridge, Williams Drive Widening, Maple Street Realignment, Maple Street Drainge, Oak Tree Drive Bridge, Lakeway Drive Overpass, Southeast Arterial 1, Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (TIP #14A), Southwest Boulevard (TIP #14B), GTEC Project Update & Status Report -- Thomas R. Benz, Systems Engineering Director and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations ITEM SUMMARY: Staff will present a PowerPoint Presentation on transportation projects. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Thomas R. Benz ATTACHMENTS: Transportation Project Updates Workshop Cover Memo Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 1 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 2 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 3 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 4 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 5 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 6 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 7 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 8 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 9 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 10 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 11 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 12 of 13 Item # B Attachment number 1 Page 13 of 13 Item # B City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Overview of Recent Annexations, Annexation Policy and Annexation Infrastructure Requirements -- Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Principal Planner and Elizabeth Cook, Acting Director of Community Development. ITEM SUMMARY: Along with an update of recent anenxations and annexation policy, staff will present an update on the implementation of recent annexation service plans and the financil impact of those service plans. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Edward G. Polasek, AICP Cover Memo Item # C City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Presentation and possible direction to staff regarding acquiring and implementing a new Customer Information System (CIS) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to replace the current systems, which are outdated and unreliable -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations ITEM SUMMARY: The City of Georgetown established both the current Customer Information System (CIS) and the current Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system in the mid 1990s, and although the City has kept up with all system upgrades, the advances in technology and changes in industry standards, over the last 13 years, have rendered these systems archaic, and in some cases, obsolete. The City is proposing a multi-phase, 3-year project to acquire and implement new CIS and AMI systems. Phase I includes the development of a strategic plan and needs assessment, as well as, a network integration plan. It also includes the selection of an outside project manager to facilitate the completion of the remaining 4 phases. Phases II through IV involve the development of an RFP for each system, vendor selection, and implementation of the CIS and AMI Systems, and will be organized and overseen by the outside project manager. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Over the last year, it has become evident that the AMI system is operating with obsolete technology and a failing infrastructure. As components of the system wear out and require replacement, it has become increasingly difficult to find replacement parts. It is equally difficult to find support for these products. Problems already experienced include inaccurate data, non-responsive equipment and the inability to expand the system to accommodate growth. Without replacement of the current system, the City is leaving itself open to huge increases in cost and manpower, as well as, lost revenues. The most immediate concern, related to the CIS, is that requirements by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT,) as well as federal mandates, concerning electric rates, bill formats, risk avoidance and reporting requirement cannot be implemented through the current CIS software. . FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for the first phase of this project are budgeted in the Electric capital improvement budget and will be funded with short term Utility System revenue bonds issued over several years. Current year project is budgeted at $3,500,000. Fund/AMI System 610-9-0580-90-102 Original Budget Spent To Date Available Budget Balance $3,500,000 $60,000 $3,440,000 SUBMITTED BY: Micki Rundell ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Cover Memo Item # D CIS/ AMR Project Council Workshop March 9, 2009 Item # D Automated Meter Reading (AMR) z Purchased current system in 1995 z Radio frequency (RF) based system z Operational in 1998 z Reads 95-98% of all meters z 70% by fixed network z 25% read by mobile collector z Costs were debt funded z All outstanding bonds paid Item # D AMR System z RF network cannot be expanded z Network infrastructure no longer manufactured z 25% existing meters & new meters can only be read by mobile collector z 50% meters at end of life requiring AMR replacement Overall system has reached its useful life and is technologically obsolete. Item # D Customer Information System (CIS) z Incode “Billing” system z Purchased current system in 1994 z Less than 10,000 customers when implemented z Major system upgrade in 2001 z Current system is ‘Cobal’ based z Difficult to integrate with other software Item # D CIS System z Current customers 24,000+ z City has outgrown current system z Limitations on available customer data z Federal and state requirements (ERCOT,PUCT) cannot be implemented z Continued integration issues with other computer systems z Prevents realization of cost saving efficiencies Item # D Utility Customer Growth Item # D CIS System z Growing customer demands z Conservation driven z Technologically savvy z Request new services such as: z Online information z E-bills z Usage threshold notification Customers demanding more “real- time” information on their usage and cost data. Item # D Current CIS System z Current integrated modules include: z Accounting/Financials z Purchasing and warehouse z Utility Billing z Municipal Court z Building Inspection/Permitting z Modules requiring custom integration z Automated mail processing z Automated outbound calling z Bill printing and mailing Item # D Additional Modules Needed z Work order system z Including use by staff in the field z Interactive voice response (IVR) z Payment processing z Late notices z Asset management system z Integrate with warehouse z Manages maintenance costs z Tracks and measures efficiencies Item # D Developing a Plan z Strategic planning z “Hometown Connections” session z Identified strengths & weaknesses z Replacement of CIS & AMR critical z Developed time line for acquisition and implementation z CIS replacement 1st step Item # D Proposed Plan – Step 1 z Migrate to 2nd generation CIS including: z Asset management system z Workflow process and enhanced billing package z Time of use rates z Ability for demand control and calculate cost of service z Estimated costs = $1M to $1.5M Item # D Proposed Plan – Step 2 z Migrate to 2nd generation AMI z 2 way communication z Becoming more than “read” information z Lays groundwork for “smart grid” z Estimated costs – up to $10M z 40,000 meters at $200 each z Funding phased over 3 years Item # D Project Timeline z Project Coordinator z RFP process underway z Coordinate process and implementation z Procurement of CIS – 1 st Qtr 2010 z Vendor review and selection 2009 z Procurement of AMI – 2 nd Qtr 2010 z Process runs parallel to CIS decision z CIS implementation - late 2010 z Implementation of AMI z Target completion – 1 st Qtr 2012 Item # D Conclusion z Both CIS/AMR must be replaced z Outgrown and obsolete systems z Demand for services increases z “Customers want more!” z Regulatory demands increasing z ERCOT/PUC requirements z Variations in rates z Time of use z Solar buy-back z Project recommended by GUS Board – January 2009 Item # D Next Steps z Approve “Project Manager” – April 2009 z 9 vendors responded to RFP z GUS Board review recommendation in March z Begin selection process z Funded through Utility Revenue Bonds z (Split between Electric & Water) z Current budget includes $3M for Phase 1 Item # D Questions? Item # D City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Overview of the City’s current outstanding and proposed debt obligations -- Micki Rundell, Director of Finance and Administration ITEM SUMMARY: Due to the multiple debt issues that the Council will be considering in April 2009, staff will present an update report of the City’s current outstanding debt and related historical information. This overview will include Revenue Bonds related to the City’s utilities, as well as, both self-supporting and taxable general debt obligations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Micki Rundell ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Cover Memo Item # E City of Georgetown Debt Overview March 9, 2009 Item # E Debt Update • Types of Debt –General Obligation –Certificates of Obligation • Limited Tax Notes • Certificates of Participation –Leases –Revenue Bonds • Current City Debt Conditions • Upcoming Debt Issues Item # E Types of Debt Item # E General Obligation Debt • Tax Supported - 20 Year Bonds • Voter Approved • City GO debt includes amounts approved from November 2004 & November 2008 bond elections Item # E Certificates of Obligation • Allowed under State Law – Considered “routine” – Public Notice required • Generally considered Tax Supported • Majority - 20 year bonds • City issues self-supporting CO debt – City saves on interest cost by issuing CO debt rather than revenue bonds • GTEC - funded thru sales tax revenue • Stormwater Drainage Utility - funded thru user fees • Airport - funded thru user fees Item # E Self-supporting CO Debt • City saves on interest cost by issuing CO debt rather than revenue bonds –GTEC - funded thru sales tax revenue –Stormwater Drainage Utility - funded through user fees –Airport - funded through user fees Item # E Other Tax Supported Debt Limited Tax Notes – Previously used for funding 2004 GTEC projects • Refinanced in 2006 as 20 year CO debt • Certificates of Participation – Usually 3 year notes – Previously used to fund public safety vehicles • City currently has NO outstanding Tax Notes or Certificates of Participation Item # E GO/CO Debt Outstanding As of September 30, 2008: •$54,293,528 - Tax Supported – $20,195,000 – Outstanding GO Debt/2004 Voter Approved •$20,661,472 - Self-supporting – $16,181,522 - GTEC – $3,115,241 - Stormwater – $1,364,709 – Airport – In 09/10 Environmental Services was consolidated into the General Fund, that debt is now considered tax supported debt Item # E CO Debt – Historical Self-supported includes GTEC Fiscal Year Tax Supported Self-Supported 1998/99 $16,378,878 $5,166,122 1999/00 $16,948,092 $5,056,908 2000/01 $21,170,615 $4,939,385 2001/02 $20,065,626 $4,734,374 2002/03 $19,092,455 $7,639,031 2003/04 $20,792,386 $16,663,851 2004/05 $28,140,892 $20,675,095 2005/06 $37,583,855 $21,111,145 2006/07 $52,326,112 $21,068,888 2007/08 $54,293,528 $20,661,472 Item # E General Debt Capacity • Allowable Levy - $1.50 per $100 valuation • Current levy - $.15669 • Percentage of Allowable used – 10.4% Item # E General Gov’t Tax Supported Debt Item # E GO/CO Debt - Historical Item # E Capital Leases • City leases assets • Asset is owned by City at completion of lease – VoIP Telephone System • Current capital lease balance $12,487 Item # E Revenue Bonds • Funds the City’s utility infrastructure – Issued on Electric/Water/Wastewater system • 20 year bonds – Supported through system revenue – “Coverage” required • 1.35 times - bond covenants • 1.5 times - City Fiscal & Budgetary Policy • Outstanding balances: – $24,624,950 - Electric Fund – $32,655,050 - Water Services Fund (W/WW) Item # E Utility Revenue Bond Coverage Item # E Revenue Debt - Historical Fiscal Year Water Services Electric 1998/99 $20,684,335 $8,165,665 1999/00 $22,663,452 $9,426,548 2000/01 $22,115,101 $9,959,899 2001/02 $20,658,178 $9,346,822 2002/03 $25,224,894 $9,273,620 2003/04 $28,845,175 $10,058,588 2004/05 $30,195,976 $9,868,036 2005/06 $28,076,208 $17,808,792 2006/07 $27,268,155 $23,801,845 2007/08 $32,655,050 $24,624,950 Item # E Revenue Debt - Historical Item # E Current City Debt Conditions Item # E Bond Ratings • Rating Agencies review financial and management conditions • Determine “Credit Worthiness” • Impacts cost of issuance and funds • City’s Current Bond Rating: –Moody’s • A2 General Obligation & Revenue –Standard & Poors • AA- General Obligation & Revenue Item # E Population Growth Item # E Total Tax-Guaranteed Debt Per Capita (Includes Self-supporting Debt) Item # E Total Tax Supported Debt per Capita (Funded through Property Tax) Item # E Assessed Valuation Item # E Total Tax Supported Debt Compared to General Sales Tax Revenue Growth Item # E City Assets Net of Related Debt Item # E Debt to Assessed Valuation Comparison Item # E Utility Customer Growth Item # E Outstanding Utility Debt per Customer Item # E Total Electric Debt Compared to Electric Assets Item # E Total Water Service Debt Compared to Water Service Assets Item # E Upcoming Debt Issues Item # E 2009 Bond Issue Total Net Proceeds = $____M • Tax Supported Bonds: –General Obligation - $1,130,000 • 2008 Authorization for Road Projects –CO Bonds - $5.4M includes: • $3.9M to reimburse purchase of Albertson’s Building • $1.5M for Williams Drive payment to Williamson County Item # E 2009 Bond Issue • Revenue Bonds = $_____ –Electric Improvements –Water Improvements –Wastewater Improvements • Funded with current utility rates Item # E Next Steps in Debt Issuance Process • Council approved “NOTICE OF INTENT” to issue CO Debt –April 10 • Offering documents finalized • Rating Agency presentation – March 30 & 31 - Dallas • April 28 - Bond Sale – Council adopts Bond Ordinances • May 21 - Bond Closing – City receives bond proceeds Item # E QUESTIONS? Item # E City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Sec.551.071: Consultation with Attorney 1. Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including this week's agenda items 2. Mark Shelton v. City of Georgetown, et al;Cause No. A07CA063; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division 3. Lear v. Jimmy Lewis Fennell and City of Georgetown,Cause No. A08-CA-719LY, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division 4. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. City of Georgetown,Cause No. D-1-GN-08-02325, 53rd Judicial District, Travis County, Texas 5. Discussion of legal issues related to payment obligations for the Public Utility Improvements under the "Development Agreement with Forestville Associates, a Maryland General Partnership, regarding development of Wolf Ranch" dated September 11, 2003 6. Berry Creek Partners v. City of Georgetown, Cause No. 08-767-C277, in the District Court of Williamson County, 277th Judicial District ITEM SUMMARY: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Hamilton, Assistant City Secretary Cover Memo Item # F City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Sec.551.072: Deliberations about Real Property - Discussion and possible action concerning right of way and easement acquisition related to (1) the SPG-1 Wastewater Line Project; and (2) the Rock Street Extension Project -- Terri Glasby Calhoun, GUS Paralegal and Jim Briggs, Assistant City Manager for Utility Operations - Consideration and possible action regarding the purchase of property in the Williams Drive Gateway ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Hamilton, Assistant City Secretary Cover Memo Item # G City of Georgetown, Texas March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Sec.551.074: Personnel Matters - City Secretary Appointment and Compensation - Review of Procedures to be used in City Attorney search ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: SUBMITTED BY: Jessica Hamilton, Assistant City Secretary Cover Memo Item # H