The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2006-06-15 Agendas ~ CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 15, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. AGENDA The City Council of the City of North Richland Hills will hold a work session on Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the North Richland Hills Recreation Center in Room B, 6720 Northeast Loop 820, North Richland Hills, Texas. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss Planning and Program of Services for Fiscal Year 2006/2007 3. Adjournment POSTED ø-J:¡.oþ Oat€' --"""~'''''''._~ /a.:53 pm Time City Secretary B~ I iii I III I 1IIIIIIII 1 · Planning Workshop - Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Working Agenda June 15, 2006 6:00 pm Room B - Recreation Center ~ Information Report - Mid-Year Budget Update ~ 2004/2005 Year End Fund Balance 0 Operating 0 Capital ~ 2005/2006 Revised Budget 0 Estimated Revenues & Expenditures 0 May 2006 Financial Report - Year-to-Date Actuals ~ 2006/2007 Preliminary Budget 0 Preliminary Tax Rolls 0 Preliminary Estimated Revenues & Expenditures 0 Issues - Current · Post Employment Benefits · Cost Increases · · Tarrant Appraisal District Funding Increase · Permanent Street Maintenance Funding · Compensation Plan · Municipal Wireless Networking · Facility Planning · Taxation on Personal Use Leased Vehicles · Use of Charter and TXU Settlement Dollars · Policy on Uses of Revenues From Mineral Leasing 0 Issues - Future · New Library Operations and Maintenance · Boulevard 26 · Loop 820 Corridor · TCEQ Phase II Stormwater Management Standards 0 Updates · Internal Service Plans · Insurance Fund Update · Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones 1 and 2 · Animal Shelter Expansion ~ Comparison Information ~ Facts and Figures · ~ Budget Calendar INFORMATION REPORT INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR#2006-073 ~ Date: June 15, 2006 T Subject: Planning and Program of Services Workshop Meeting - Fiscal Year 2006/2007 The purpose of this planning and program of services workshop on June 15th is to provide the City Council information regarding the City's 2006/2007 preliminary budget, provide information on some pressing service issues and financial matters affecting our programs for the next 12 to 18 months, to update Council on the planning progress of the current fiscal year and to receive any input Council may want to provide for planning next years program of services and work. The information we will present is very preliminary. The departmental expenditure requests and revenue projections for the coming year will undergo many changes before you see them again at the beginning of August. As mentioned, we plan to provide a general outlook for the current fiscal year as well as the coming fiscal year. We will also provide 2004/2005 year end fund balances, FY 2005/2006 Revised Budget, preliminary tax roll information, preliminary revenue estimates with preliminary requested expenditures. In addition we will also review information regarding current and future issues that we foresee as we continue reviewing the proposed budget. Again, the revenue estimates and expenditures are very preliminary. We expect the preliminary expenditures to be reduced durinq manaqement reviews. Staff will also perform further analysis of estimated revenues to insure these reflect the most accurate figures. Upon first review of the preliminary numbers, it is clear that funds will be tight in the coming fiscal year, as it has been in the current fiscal year. Sales tax numbers have been making some progress since 2005/2006, but have not recovered to the levels they were at in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and prior. This means that very few, if any, of the decision packages (expanded programs or services) proposed by departments will be considered for funding. Once again this year, departments were asked to scrutinize their operations to determine which services, if any, might be reduced in the event that reductions become necessary in order to balance the City's budget. Departments submitted these items as Minimum Service Level Packages. Taking all of the above into consideration, staff intends to place priority on goals objectives and short term action items as set forth by the City Council to ensure we are still working toward meeting these needs. There are a few key issues that need to be addressed in the coming year. The 2005 Citizen Survey has been taken into consideration during budget preparations. The survey identified some concerns the citizens had such as litter, high grass and weeds, street conditions, and traffic flow. Attached is a list of programs we plan to implement in the coming year to address and resolve these concerns. Through these efforts we hope to alleviate the citizens concerns and improve our services. As the economy continues to improve and the demand for public services increases, compensation plans will become increasingly competitive. This issue has already begun to impact the City of North Richland Hills. In the coming year we will need to address maintaining a competitive compensation plan to retain and recruit quality employees. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS · · · It is our goal to avoid employee lay-offs and service reductions for the coming year. We will however, look at all options possible to balance the budget and minimize impact on citizens and services. Thank you for taking time to meet with us and discuss these issues. The purpose of this meeting is to provide information regarding the preliminary budget as well as policy issues that will need to be considered as we move forward with our budget planning process. Attached is the working agenda for the planning workshop. Staff will be available to answer any questions you may have during the presentation. Respectfully Submitted, dM~Î I{ ~~' ./ J Larry J. Cunningham "- City Manager · · · 2005 Citizen Survey As you are aware the 2005 Citizen Survey conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of North Texas found that a large majority of residents rated the City of North Richland Hills good or excellent in a number of areas. There were a few areas of concerns that residents pointed to as needing improvement. Litter Respondents stated that litter code violations were frequently or sometimes seen 56.4% of the time. In response, Neighborhood Services has instituted the "Litter Not" program to combat this resident identified area of concern. The program will be incorporated with the current Adopt-A-Spot Program and will utilize volunteers such as the Youth Advisory Committee, Senior Citizen Center, Teen Court, Honor Roll Students and individuals. This program will be coordinated by Keep NRH Beautiful. They will monitor the public areas within the city and coordinate clean-up efforts on specified dates. Businesses will be encouraged to volunteer to maintain their property from litter, as well as, adjacent properties. Hiqh Grass and Weeds Respondents saw high grass and weed code violations frequently or sometimes 50.9% of the time. Staff hopes that the "Neighborhood Look" program will help avoid high grass and weeds and many other code violations from occurring. The program is designed so that each neighborhood will be walked on an annual basis and all code violations will be addressed accordingly. Ultimately the responsibility of maintaining private property is that of the owner. In cooperation with the Economic Development Department and the development community at large, staff will continue to cite and enforce high grass and weeds code violations for large vacant tracts of land. Street Conditions 76.8% of non-residential streets and 61.2% of residential streets received the lowest ratings in the survey. Staff continues to implement the 2003 Bond Program which will invest over $30 million in street improvements to the City when complete. In addition, the Preventive Street Maintenance Program is in its fourth year and the City will have invested an additional over $6 million to date in prolonging the life of many streets. Traffic Flow 50.6% of respondents rated the traffic flow on major streets as fair or poor and 57% rated traffic signal timing as fair or poor. Traffic flow can be alleviated somewhat through proper signal timing. In 2003, staff initiated the Traffic Signal Light Communication System to connect all signal lights to a central system. This project was then coupled with a 2004 project, Signal Timing and Equipment Upgrades. Staff anticipates that between these two projects traffic flow will improve along the major city corridors. 2004-2005 YEAREND FUND BALANCE WINoow ON STATE GOVERNMFNf CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts I Search ] . Window on Texas Local Government June 2005 Rainy day fund crucial for local governments A Delicate Balance Local governments plan their operating budgets around expenditures necessary for government business. But not having sufficient funds to cover expenditures cause headaches for local government officials. . Denton County's health insurance, for example, has doubled since 2001 and worker's compensation has increased four times in three years, according to James Wells, county auditor in Denton County. At the same time, the county experienced reduced prisoner housing and investment revenue. Having money set aside, however--a "rainy day fund," to some--can help lessen the blow when unexpected expenses arise. Reservations recommended Brightening up rain)' days £w~"'__"'~1IIIt I1IgR~W,,","''''_1IíII NiIMIt.1IIt Ceat!t. ØIIettt ..,..Iq.....1IIei --fMlIIIIIttù ø_h iIId IIIINgIIItIIlhft rllllJtlJfuDI"'lKa,: · OHI~ ..,.,fuMI; · ~got~".IIuIdClpJ; · IInplllllftg,.,...lUnd....ro!K; · ellBNtlDgdlflkBlt~._ · -v.gBmbOtll!lgllmlltw. _._--~---~----------_._-----~-_._- . A fund balance is the net financial resources available in a governmental fund; that is, the difference between the assets and liabilities reported in that fund. This fund balance is further divided into reserved fund balance and unreserved fund balance. Reserved fund balances have already been budgeted for a particular purpose. Unreserved fund balances are the remaining funds available for spending if necessary to liquidate current liabilities. This amount is sometimes called a rainy day fund, which can help a local government avoid a financial crisis in the event of unexpected revenue shortfalls or unpredicted expenditures. It also protects against having to reduce service levels or raise taxes and fees during difficult times and also provides the flexibility to respond to unexpected opportunities. In addition, the rainy day fund balance is a consideration in bond ratings. Credit rating agencies carefully monitor the level of fund balances and unreserved fund balances in a government's general fund when evaluating that government's creditworthiness. · Cash flow is another reason for maintaining reserves. Most property taxes are collected from December through February, a time when sales tax revenues peak as well. Even though some local governments have overall balanced budgets for the year, they may need to borrow money early in the fiscal year, anticipating these future revenues, to pay payroll and other general operating expenditures. Maintaining an adequate fund balance can prevent or reduce the need for this kind of costly short-tenn borrowing. EI Paso County's bond rating increased from AA-minus in 1992 to Al in 2002, due in large part to the county's increase in undesignated reserves, according to El Paso County Auditor Edward Dion. "The Al rating reflects the county's growing economic base, well-managed financial operations characterized by ample reserves and a manageable debt position," he said. Further, the county adopted a policy with a undesignated general fund balance goal of5 to 15 percent of operations. Up to the locals *-------,_.._.- ,._----_._-_._--~-_.__.._--- · Texas has no statutory requirements for the unreserved general fund balances of either the state or local governments. Local governments may have legal requirements of their own, but until 2002 had no guidelines to assist in the establishment of required unreserved fund balances. The policy, according to GFOA, should include a chronological implementation plan, specific plans for increasing or decreasing the level of unreserved funds as needed and criteria for spending. These policies should be publicly available and summarized in budgets and other planning and management reports. Helpful hints lO(l/~."foœUllilUtd1lll"'lIItlØanlllllll~. The4ÎO'ltm_1 FllltlKt (fIfIcm "noel"lOII *~ . few bMIc uktItInts foI "''"*9 louurptM ..~ · I'NdIctab!IhJ 01l""Me; Hi9IIef 1&¥IIb oh.,.,....., btntteledwÞ"" 1/91111I«Inl fMIIuttolWm_tulljKt to_","*Þ!IIIt II~. · \IoIdtyol ~ ItigIttII_ofmerm IIIII'J lit ~""CKptmeJ_ _to y".,.~. · AwIIbIt"'...caNO'IIW...dI.;T!lu¥.lltbillyolltloOllKt5..t1IMI JIIII~ IIII' ttfø the...... ofmolllUS n,,""1It 1IItItMJII fIInð.USfI5 dtftcMi 1n000001uMi..,. ,..1,. ,. .l\Ighet 1m! of ltIoOIIf<allt malftlllntd In lilt elltAI fUIMI. · tlqulllRy:" 61i1t11)' IMIwttnWlltn IIIfIIndal ~IId\NIIJIlecOllltMÞÞIt. .. pt)YntIIU.lI!ftlltllutdatts 01 ftlllOd "Iillts "'" .....meIM*'It1,. 11_,,",011lIOII(6. · \laitnJtIolIS: GòmnmenlU1I1I)' wlslUo "'** IIIgb81tft1sof rtWIUtmlo «llllJllil1l1t for.", porllollO' III'IteMmd fwldlllltlKt.I,....... for. tpt(Ilk pIIlpoM. ktA.?GtNo!ft\I11!M:~t!'IJI!t{l!"~ -.. .~~-,--,-_.~._-,--.....,...-"-,~.--- ~.,.~...._....--~,.,--- -~~.-." .~ .. --, ," ,.,.~.-.__.~~_._---.-.~..-_._.._..~~.-._".- ~ · In 2002, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) issued a recommendation providing guidelines to local governments on the amount of general funds that should be kept in reserve, as well as other recommended policies components. GFOA recommends that governments establish a fonnal policy on the level of unreserved fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund as well as other types of government funds. Denton County's rainy day fund had decreased significantly since 200 I and their bond rating · reflected it, Wells said. County officials worked to increase this ratio and now have a formal policy with a target level for unreserved general fund balances of 12 percent of budgeted general fund balances. Local governments should establish an unreserved fund balance requirement based on their specific circumstances. GFOA recommends that governments maintain, at a minimum, 5 to 15 percent of regular general fund operating revenues, or no less than one to two months (8 to 16 percent) of regular general fund operating expenditures. A stable state _.------~-_._-_.--.- -".---"~_.__."-'--""-'---"'--'--'-¥-'-'"'.-+--'---_._~------------------------- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a privately funded research group, encourages state governments to strengthen state reserve policies and to rebuild any depleted state reserve funds. Texas established its Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF) by constitutional amendment in 1988. It became effective September 1, 1989. It is primarily funded with 75 percent of the amount by which oil and gas tax collections in any year exceed 1987 collections and half of any unencumbered general revenue surplus at the end of each biennium. The amount in the ESF is capped at 10 percent of the general revenue income during the previous biennium. A three-fifths vote in both houses is required to appropriate money in the fund. There is no required balance. · Texas is rebuilding its rainy day fund, and as of January 2005, the ESF contained $831 million, or 3 percent of the general appropriations. The Comptroller estimates the fiscal 2007 ending cash balance in the economic stabilization fund at about $2 billion. If the Senate passes the 2007 appropriations bill already passed by the House of Representatives, the ESF should be at 6 percent of expenditures by the end of fiscal 2007. Donna Keel and Clint Shields -------------------- Carole Keeton Strayhorn Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Window on State Government Contact Us Privacy and Security Policy · FUND DEFINITIONS · General Fund The General Fund is used to account for all revenues and expenditures not accounted for in other funds. The General Fund is primarily supported by property taxes, general sales taxes, franchise fees, license and permit fees, recreation fees and municipal court fines. General Fund expenditures support the functions of streets, traffic, planning, inspections, culture and leisure, communications, public safety and administrative services. Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds are similar to business operations and their operations are supported by the revenues they generate. ~ Utilitv Fund - fund balance in this fund is generally restricted for utility construction, rate stabilization and required debt service reserves. ~ Golf Course - fund balance in this fund is restricted for required debt service reserve and used for golf course projects. ~ AQuatic Park - fund balance in this fund is used for water park purposes Internal Service Funds · Internal service funds function solely to support other departments operations within the City organization. Revenues for these funds are from "user charges" to City departments that use each service. ~ Buildinq Services Fund - fund balance in this fund is restricted for current and future capital projects for replacements of heating and air conditioning systems, roof replacements, floor covering replacements, major renovations of existing buildings, and other major work not normally defined as regular building maintenance. ~ EQuipment Services Fund - fund balance in this fund is restricted for current and future equipment purchases including, cars, trucks, police cars, fire equipment, and large major pieces of equipment. ~ Self Insurance Fund - fund balance in this fund is restricted for future medical claims, worker's compensation claims, liability, etc. It is a contingency to be used in case of an extraordinary year in which medical claims exceed expectations. ~ Information Services Fund - fund balance in this fund is restricted for future technology needs, replacement of major computer systems, and major upgrades of technology. · FUND DEFINITIONS · Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of legally restricted revenue sources and is spent only for the specified purposes. · ~ Promotional Fund - revenues for this fund are generated from hotel/motel taxes. They are to be used for tourism, visitor programs and promoting/advertising the city. ~ Donations Fund - revenues for this fund are primarily generated from contributions made through the monthly utility bills. Amounts that are donated are restricted to be used for the specific purposes that were intended such as public art, the Library, the Animal Adoption and Rescue Center, etc. ~ Special InvestiQation Fund - revenues for this fund are mainly from reimbursements received from other cities that participate in the Police radio, Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) programs as well as funds that have been seized by the Police Department and are released to the City by a Judge. Seized funds can only be used for specific purposes and the reimbursements this fund receives go toward the cost of the radio, MDT and AFIS programs. ~ DrainaQe Utility Fund - revenues for this fund are from the drainage utility fee which is levied against all developed property within the city limits and is included on the monthly utility bill. These revenues can be spent only on drainage projects or to pay debt that has been issued for drainage projects. ~ Park Development Fund - revenues for this fund are mainly from sales taxes. This revenue can only be spent for very specific purposes that are outlined in the 4-B sales tax law. The fund balance in this fund is reserved for future park capital projects and economic development. ~ Crime Control District - revenues for this fund are mainly from sales taxes. This revenue can be spent only for specific purposes dealing with police department activities. The fund balance is restricted for future use as a transition fund only for police purposes if the proposition does not pass when it is time to reauthorize the Crime Control District. · . . . FUND BALANCES FY 2004/05 Audited Endina Balances Operatina Funds Balance General (Undesiqnated) $7,556,230 General (Desiqnated for Economic Development) $3,000,000 Promotional $166, 1 31 Donations (from Water bill) $365,711 Special Investigations $373,554 Drainaqe Utility $338,927 Park Development $5,557,524 Crime Control District $2,650,518 General Debt Service $1,726,095 Enterprise Funds Water/Sewer Utility Fund Operatinq Cash $2,927,160 Water/Sewer Utility Fund Cash Restricted for Construction, Rate $10,712,955 Stabilization, Debt Reserve and other Cash Balances Golf Course Fund $391,801 Aquatic Fund Reserves for I nfrastructure Maintenance & Operation $1,209,748 Park Insurance $600,000 Debt Service Reserve $288,843 Construction Fund $365,475 Total Aquatic Fund $2,464,066 Internal Service Funds Building Services $1,874,872 Equipment Services $1,736,001 Insurance Fund $850,709 Information Services $2,499,081 Capital Proiect Funds Street Funds $0 Project Savings and Interest Earninqs Undesiqnated Balance Drainage Funds $1,163,406 Project Savings and Interest Earninqs Undesignated Balance Pay-As- You-Go Reserve $806,515 Other Capital Facilities $551,811 Page 1 of 3 FUND BALANCES . Fund Reserves Council and Management have had the goal of financial stability for many years. Objectives within that goal include maintaining strong cash reserves, pay-as-you-go for goods and services and capital outlay where possible, and stabilizing the tax rate. Cash balances city-wide have declined over the last few years. Reasons for the decline include but are not limited to increasing costs of services and declining revenue sources such as sales tax. The City has had planned uses of restricted cash and reserves each year for capital projects, capital maintenance and equipment replacement, which have also lowered the reservoir. The City has also experience some extraordinary items such as huge increases in heath care costs and a large legal settlement which further depleted our reserves. . It has been strong direction from Council and good planning and management which have allowed the City to build its reserves over the years. If not for planning for a rainy day, the drawdown over time of over $3 million dollars in the insurance reserve for claims would have been devastating to City finances. As it was, we were able to weather the storm without adversely affecting City services. Council and management have planned for the rebuilding of reserves in the insurance fund. Council approved a multi-year plan which began in 2005 to rebuild insurance fund reserves back to at least $1.8 million by 2010. The rebuilding of insurance reserves will be done through the use of existing general fund and utility fund reserves, employee contributions and prudent management of health plan costs. At the end of fiscal year 2005 the Insurance fund balance of $850,000 was right on target with the plan. Plans for the maintaining of reserves for other needs such as vehicle and equipment replacement, facility capital maintenance and computer and telecommunications replacement have challenged the pay-as-you-go mandate. This year, for the first time since 1998, the City issued $1.5 million in certificates of obligation for equipment replacement. The preliminary multi-year equipment replacement plan indicates that about 50% of equipment will need to be financed over the next ten years to keep us on our replacement schedule and meet cash flow demands. The plan also indicates a draw down of existing reserves and the increase of charges to (allocations from) departments over several years to accomplish our goals. At this time the building services plan and information services plan are pay-as-you-go plans. However both plans will require that existing reserves be drawn down over the next few years. Other pay-as-you-go challenges exist such as permanent street maintenance funding and pay-as-you-go CIP. . While good planning over the years has allowed the City to build strong reserves, the factors we have discussed are challenging this strength as well as our pay-as-you-go ability. In order to help keep strong reserve balances and continue pay-as-you-go where possible we need to seek ways to shore up reserves. The City may have some unique opportunities for the first time to use gas revenues to rebuild reserves. Council may want to consider the use of this new revenue source for reserves in some areas. Page 2 of 3 . . . l FUND BALANCES Fund Reserves (cont.) Another possibility to consider would be to use end-of-the-year budget savings in the general fund to fortify reserves in some of the funds mentioned. Questions: · Would Council be in support of using a portion of gas revenues for reserves in funds such as equipment services, building services, information services, insurance fund, permanent street maintenance, CIP pay-as-you-go? · Would Council be in support of using some of the general fund year-end budget savings for rebuilding reserves in funds such as equipment services, building services, information services, insurance fund, permanent street maintenance, CIP pay-as-you-go? Page 3 of 3 2005/2006 REVISED BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 1 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED Difference ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 Adopted REVENUES Taxes $22,954,899 $22,992,879 $23,696,323 $52,327 Fines & Forfeitures 1,775,902 1,787,359 1,854,473 29,000 Licenses & Permits 1,606,447 1,641,665 1,661,124 145,224 Charges for Service 1,831,681 2,009,019 1,985,768 (5,565) 4-6 Intergovernmental 3,164,230 3,28 3,198,934 0 Miscellaneous 275,320 689,964 123,413 Sub-Total Revenues $31,608,479 $33,086,586 $344,399 Appropriation - Settlement $0 $0 Appropriation - Insurance Reserve 0 0 Appropriation - PY Encumbrance 0 462,654 TOTAL REVENUES $31,608,479 $807,053 EXPENDITURES City Council $13 $132,513 $0 City Manager 492,1 492,109 0 Communications 475,571 475,571 0 City Secretary ,924 437,924 0 Legal 8,783 498,783 0 Human Resources 124,368 124,368 0 Finance 746,104 743,499 (2,605) Budget & Research 326,092 326,092 0 Municipal Court 1,042,381 1,075,806 33,425 Planning and Development 910,957 910,957 0 Economic Development 9 , 95 121,958 121,958 0 Library 1,469,798 1,483,233 1,483,333 100 Neighborhood Servi 1,209,375 1,412,144 1,412,144 0 Public Works 2,727,713 2,863,329 2,863,329 0 Parks & Recr ,287,071 2,352,209 2,353,320 1,111 Police 8,512,867 8,936,054 8,977,087 41,033 Fire 7,708,798 8,254,581 8,311,571 56,990 Buildin 787,377 629,196 629,196 0 Non- 506,787 947,563 1,018,449 70,886 Sub~ $30,109,959 $32,187,069 $32,388,009 $200,940 Reserve for $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 Lump Sum Men 0 92,594 0 (92,594) Market Adjustment 0 0 0 Legal Settl.ement 650,000 650,000 650,000 0 Insurance Reserve Policy 347,250 103,800 103,800 0 Previous Year Encumbrances 462,654 462,654 Sub-Total Other $30,711,527 $31,307,209 $33,133,463 $33,704,463 $571,000 Proposed Service Enhancements 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $30,711,527 $31,307,209 $33,133,463 $33,704,463 $571,000 BALANCE $896,952 $1,971,037 $362,524 $598,577 $236,053 Page 1 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 2 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED Difference ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 Adopted TAXES Current Property Taxes $9,720,352 $10,278,342 $11,233,002 $0 Delinquent Property Taxes 280,075 232,207 150,000 0 Penalty and Interest 160,925 169,005 100,000 0 Franchise Fees 3,592,682 3,541,130 3.452,327 52,327 Utility Fund Franchise Taxes 558,976 615871 618,787 0 Sales Taxes 8,215,869 7,7 4 7,722,225 0 Mixed Beverages 107,164 110,000 0 Payment in Lieu of Taxes 318,856 309,982 0 Sub-Total $22,954,899 $52,327 FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Court Fines $1,545.473 $29,000 Library Fines 60,000 0 Warrant & Arrest Fees 249,000 0 Sub-Total $1,775, $1,854.473 $29,000 LICENSES AND PERMITS Building Permits $650,000 $747,500 $97,500 Electrical Permits 60,000 65,000 5,000 Plumbing Permits 73,000 80,000 7,000 Mechanical Permits , 5 44,000 50,000 6,000 Miscellaneous Permits 69,147 66,250 67,250 1,000 Apartment Inspection 69,781 81,500 71,174 (10,326) Curb & Drainag 46,212 60,000 70,000 10,000 Re-Inspection 15,540 14,000 18,000 4,000 License Fee 13,772 14,000 14,000 0 Contracto 76,328 70,000 73,000 3,000 Plan Re 51,243 45,000 65,500 20,500 Anim 60,139 74,250 65,000 (9,250) Anim 65,956 78,000 76,000 (2,000) Crema 1.456 4,200 15,000 10,800 Auto Impo 11,955 15,000 15,000 0 Food Service 103,978 101,000 101,000 0 Food Managers 18,014 15,000 15,000 0 Fire Inspection/Alarm 12,821 16,500 18,500 2,000 Publicity Fees - Recreatl 33,332 34,200 34,200 0 Sub-Total $1,606,447 $1,641,665 $1,515,900 $1,661,124 $145,224 Page 2 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 2 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED Difference ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2003/04 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Adopted CHARGES FOR SERVICE Park Facility Rental $6,620 $5,865 $5,800 $60 Recreation Center Rental 11,222 10,859 12,000 (2,120) Ambulance Fees 932,246 1,073,923 1,086,285 49,935 Garbage Billing 235,236 232,039 230,000 0 Contributions 10,000 10 0 10,000 0 Maps & Codes 126 100 (50) Recreation Fees 355,401 380,600 (41,117) 6 Cultural Arts 14,129 000 0 Athletic Revenue 126,120 (21,506) 6 Recreation Special Events 8,586 383 Planning & Zoning Fees 30,364 4,000 Sale of Accident Reports 27,619 (1,000) Vital Statistics 56,676 7,000 Mowing 16,811 (1,150) Video Services & Sales 525 0 Sub-Total $1,985,768 ($5,565) INTERGOVERNMENTAL Indirect Costs: General CIP 155,000 $155,000 $0 Utility Fund 1,347,435 1,347,435 0 Park & Rec Facilities Dev. Corp. 261,269 261,269 0 Crime Control District 300,000 300,000 0 Aquatic Park Fund 97,426 97,426 0 Direct Cost - General Fund 1,037,804 1,037,804 0 Police Department Salaries Sub-Total $3,198,934 $3,198,934 $0 Interest I $223,514 $285,000 $400,000 $115,000 Sale of 9,109 0 0 0 Grant 0 12,000 15,125 3,125 Gra 51,302 25,000 30,000 5,000 Overti 13,257 7,000 8,000 1,000 Tax Attorn 68,528 50,000 50,000 0 Other Income 41,186 37,551 36,839 (712) Sponsorships (Fir 0 0 0 0 Special Invest. Fund 7,211 0 0 0 SRO Reimbursement (B 155,083 150,000 150,000 0 Sub-Total $275,320 $569,190 $566,551 $689,964 $123,413 Appropriation - Legal Settlement $0 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $0 Appropriation - Insurance Reserve 0 347,250 103,800 103,800 ° Appropriation - PY Encumbrances 0 0 0 462,654 462,654 TOTAL REVENUES $31,608,479 $33,278,246 $33,495,987 $34,303,040 $807,053 Page 3 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED Difference ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2003/04 FY 2004105 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 Adopted City Council $157,044 $82,833 $132,513 $132,513 $0 City Manager $501,894 $484,804 $492,109 $0 Communications Public Information $201,645 $0 Citicable 274,003 0 Total Communications $475,648 $0 City Secretary City Secretary $231,198 $0 Record Management 174,352 0 Total City Secretary $405,550 $0 Legal $637,012 $498,783 $0 Human Resources $124,368 $0 Finance Accounting & Administration $510,378 ($3,015) Purchasing 233,121 410 Total Finance $743.499 ($2,605) Budget & Research Budget $93,795 $93,795 $0 Tax 191,940 191,940 0 Internal Audit 40,357 40,357 0 Total Budget & Research $326,092 $326,092 $0 Municipal Court Administra . $271,064 $273,711 $307,811 $34,100 Court Re 305,308 328,598 327,923 (675) Warra 284,617 296,998 296,998 0 Teen 57,073 60,863 60,863 0 Ju 82,581 82,211 82,211 0 $1,000,643 $1,042,381 $1,075,806 $33.425 Planning an Administra $0 $0 $55,088 $55,088 $0 Inspections 585,520 616,703 594,356 594,356 0 Planning 233,809 187.494 261,513 261,513 0 Total Planning and $819,329 $804,197 $910,957 $910,957 $0 Economic Development $95,501 $96,995 $121,958 $121,958 $0 Library General Services $185,990 $188,535 $191,110 $191,310 $200 Public Services 687,894 684,807 667,689 667,589 (100) Technical Services 583,284 596.456 624.434 624.434 0 Total Library $1,457,168 $1.469,798 $1.483,233 $1.483,333 $100 Page 4 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED Difference ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2003/04 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 Adopted Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Resources $264,115 $273,852 $0 Humane Division 566,610 600,565 0 Consumer Health 228,428 262,564 0 Code Enforcement 202,937 275,163 0 Total Neighborhood Services $1,262,090 $1,412,144 $0 Public Works General Services $130,039 $0 Traffic Control 844,897 (450) Street & Drainage 1,303,308 450 Total Public Works $2,278,244 $0 Park & Recreation General Services $116,329 $0 Parks Maintenance 1,001,229 679 Recreation Services 755,475 432 Athletic Program Services 202,792 0 Senior Adult Services 152,188 0 Youth Outreach & Cultural 125,307 0 Total Park & Recreation $2,353,320 $1,111 Police General Services $489,615 $489,615 $0 Administrative Services 613,377 618,638 5,261 Criminal Investigation 1,772,731 1,784,481 11,750 Uniform Patrol 3,813,076 3,990,149 4,007,539 17,390 Tactical Unit 25,275 19,759 19,759 0 Technical Servic 702,253 722,885 726,795 3,910 Detention Se 369,768 379,635 380,541 906 Property E 123,467 121,469 121,469 0 Commu . 766,555 826,434 828,250 1,816 $8,512,867 $8,936,054 $8,977,087 $41,033 Fire Ge 61,899 $268,998 $288,266 $288,266 $0 Opera 89,230 5,960,877 6,460,847 6,496,594 35,747 Emergen 694,242 773,182 789,418 793,441 4,023 Fire Inspecti 374,887 413,434 397,649 408,762 11,113 Emergency Man 410,164 292,307 318,401 324,508 6,107 Total Fire $7,330,422 $7,708,798 $8,254,581 $8,311,571 $56,990 Page 5 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ACTUAL FY 2003/04 ACTUAL FY 2004/05 ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2005/06 Building Services $845,124 $787,377 $629,196 REVISED Difference BUDGET Revised vs. FY 2005/06 Adopted $629,196 $0 $1,018,449 $70,886 $0 ($92,594) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $462,654 $462,654 $571,000 $33,704,463 $571,000 Non-Departmental $868,304 $506,787 $947,563 Lump Sum Merit $0 $0 Market Adjustment Reserve for Capital Improvements $550,000 Legal Settlement $0 $0 Operating Transfers Out Previous Year Encumbrances SUB-TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL EXPENDITURES BALANCE $598,577 $236,053 Footnotes: 1 Increase is due to hiqher electricitv and ital, construction of a medical office building and various other projects. 6 Lo ps and participation in athletic leagues. e various General Fund departments. ç¡eted in FY 2003/04 but did not occur until FY 2004/05. Page 6 of 6 . . . INFORMATIONS SERVICES FUND Operating revenues in the Information Services Fund were within budget parameters for the first eight months of fiscal year 2006. I nterest income is high due to an accounting entry made at the beginning of this fiscal year. Included in current year expenditures are prior fiscal year encumbrances for the electronic agenda system and various upgrades to the network in the Data Network division and various upgrades to the public safety communication system. These encumbrances account for the increase from the adopted budget to the revised budget. These encumbrances also account for expenses tracking over sixty seven percent, but they are non-recurring expenses. As mentioned above, these are items that were approved by Council in the prior year, but actually purchased, paid for and completed in the current fiscal year. SUMMARY This financial report reflects activity for the first eight months of fiscal year 2006. Revenues and cash flows are within budgeted parameters, and expenditures are also within budget parameters and reasonable compared to the prior year levels. Staff will continue to monitor financial trends to ensure that goals are met and cash flows are maximized to meet operational needs. Respectfully submitted, ì/ .. ~4' A.."L L {/IÆ/4A/!f;' #cr< Karen R. Bostic Managing Director of Administrative/Fiscal Services 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT May 2006 · 1. Schedule - All Funds Summary i-ii GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 2. General Fund (a) Revenues 1-2 (b) Expenditures 3 3. Promotional Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 4 4. Donations Fund (a) Revenues and Expenditures 5 5. Park & Recreation Facilities Development Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 6 6. Crime Control and Prevention District Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 7 PROPRIETARY FUNDS · ENTERPRISE FUNDS 7. Utility Fund (a) Revenues 8 (b) Expenditures 9 8. Aquatic Park Enterprise Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 10 9. Golf Course Fund 11 (a) Revenues & Expenditures INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 10. Equipment Services (a) Revenues & Expenditures 12 Buildinq Services (a) Revenues & Expenditures 13 11. Insurance Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 14 · 12. Information Services Fund (a) Revenues & Expenditures 15 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS INTERIM SCHEDULE OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 EIGHT MONTHS (66.67%) OF FISCAL YEAR COMPLETED . 2005/06 2005/06 ADOPTED REVISED 2005/06 2005/06 2004/05 2004/05 2004/05 FUND BUDGET BUDGET To Date % Budget Total To Date % Actual General Fund Revenues $33.495,987 $33,958,641 $27,023,053 79.39% $33.708,330 $25,367,976 74.96% Expenditures (33,133.463) (33,596,117) (21.404,135) 63.71% (31,538,071 ) (21,010,797) 66.62% Net Balance $362,524 $362,524 $5,618,918 $2,170,259 $4,357,179 Promotional Fund Revenues $233.413 $234.413 $115,593 49.31% $278.785 $155,137 55.65% Expenditures (233.413) (234.413) (109,303) 46.63% (223,329) (154,377) 69.13% Net Balance $0 $0 $6,290 $55.456 $760 Donations Fund Revenues $190,980 $203,130 $155,134 76.37% $265,682 $204,289 76.89% Expenditures ($116,090) ($128,240) (66.425) 51.80% ( 179.784) (85,720) 47.68% Net Balance $74,890 $74,890 $88,709 $85,898 $118,569 Park Facilities DevlD. Fund .evenues $4,286,362 $4,333,356 $2,917,603 67.34% $4,965,572 $2,833,836 57.03% Expenditures ($4,286,362) ($4,333,356) (2,917,602) 67.33% (4,965,572) (2,833,837) 57.07% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Crime Control District Revenues $4,702,633 $4.710,877 $3,167,343 67.24% $4,607,319 $3,044,048 66.07% Expenditures ($4.702,633) ($4.710,877) (3,167,343) 67.23% (4,607,319) (3,044,049) 66.07% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . Page i CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS INTERIM SCHEDULE OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 EIGHT MONTHS (66.67%) OF FISCAL YEAR COMPLETED 2005/06 2005/06 .D ADOPTED REVISED 2005/06 2005/06 2004/05 2004/05 2004/05 BUDGET BUDGET To Date % Budget Total To Date % Actual utility Fund Revenues $21.665,005 $22.038,370 $14.561,176 66.07% $22,102.093 $12.584.107 56.94% Expenditures ($21.665.005) ($22.038.370) (14.561.175) 66.07% (22,102.093) ($12.584.107) 56.94% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Aauatic Park Fund Revenues $3.595,287 $3,602.221 $738,120 20.40% $3,576.389 $520.739 13.13% Expenditures ($3.595,287) ($3.602,221 ) (1,617,771) 44.91% (3.576,389) (1.416,323) 39.60% Net Balance $0 $0 ($879,651 ) $0 ($895.584) Golf Course Fund Revenues $2,175.914 $2,175,914 $1,569,055 72.11% $2,149.491 $1.258.897 58.57% Expenses ($2,175,914) ($2.175,914) ($1,346.278) 61.87% ($2.149.491) ($1.338,282) 62.26% Net Balance $0 $0 $222.777 $0 ($79.385) Eauipment Services .evenues $2,061,240 $2.078.448 $1,387.594 66.7 6% $2.427,01 6 $1,592.203 65.60% xpenses ($2,061,240) ($2.078.448) (1,387.594) 66.76% (2.427,016) (1,592.202) 65.60% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Buildina Services Revenues $1.835.881 $1,942.152 $1,287,041 66.27% $1,862,554 $1.242,017 66.68% Expenses ($1,835,881 ) ($1.942,152) ( 1,287,041) 66.27% (1,862,554) (1.242,017) 66.68% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Self-Insurance Fund Revenues $7,048,009 $7,048,009 $4.735,581 67.19% $7,006,612 $4,554,908 65.01% Expenses ($7,048,009) ($7,048,009) (4,735,581 ) 67.19% (7,006,612) (4.554,908) 65.01% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Information Services Fund Revenues $2,148,197 $2.426,949 $1,696,943 69.92% $2.530.7 63 $1.650,014 65.20% Expenses ($2,148,197) ($2.426.949) (1,696.943) 69.92% (2,530.763) (1,650.014) 65.20% Net Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . Page ii CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 / -------------------- F is C A L YEA R 2005/06----------------------- / / ----------F I S C A L YEA R 2004/05------------ / ADOPTED REVISED COLLECTED % TOTAL COLLECTED % . BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET COLLECTIONS AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL TAXES Current Property Taxes $11.233,002 $11,233,002 $10,277.528 91.49% $10,278,342 $9,534,562 92.76% Delinquent Property Taxes 150,000 150,000 120,273 80.18% 232,207 200,544 86.36% Penalty and Interest 100,000 100,000 94,698 94.70% 169,005 115.874 68.56% Franchise Taxes 3.400,000 3.400,000 2,929.431 86.16% 3,541,130 2,769,280 78.20% Utility Fund Franchise Taxes 618,787 618.787 407,290 65.82% 615,871 348.749 56.63% Sales Taxes 7.722,225 7.722,225 5,126,215 66.38% 7.711.454 5,036,150 65.31% Mixed Beverages 110,000 110,000 88.387 80.35% 115,143 85,062 73.88% Payment in Lieu of Taxes 309,982 309,982 206,665 66.67% 329,727 219,829 66.67% TOTAL TAXES $23,643,996 $23,643,996 $19,250.487 81.42% $22,992,879 $18.310,050 79.63% FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Courf Fines $1,516.473 $l,516.473 $ 1,111.209 73.28% $1.421,696 $931.614 65.53% Library Fines 60,000 60,000 44,288 73.81% 63.252 39,990 63.22% Warrant & Arrest Fees 249,000 249.000 176,036 70.70% 248,243 164,684 66.34% TOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES $1,825.473 $1.825.473 $1,331,533 72.94% $1,733,191 $1,136,288 65.56% LICENSES AND PERMITS Miscellaneous Permits $191.750 $191,750 $150,141 78.30% $242,606 $120,678 49.74% Building Permits 650,000 650,000 826.739 127.19% 778,535 476.705 61.23% Electrical Permits 60,000 60,000 51,042 85.07% 70,059 43,014 6 1 .40% Plumbing Permits 73,000 73.000 74,284 101.76% 90,962 52,634 57.86% Paving inspections 60,000 60.000 97.494 162.49% 46,212 34,958 75.65% .nspection Fees 14,000 14,000 9,191 65.65% 15.540 10,930 70.33% nse Fees 14,000 14,000 13,690 97.79% 13,772 12,764 92.68% ntractor Registration Fees 70,000 70,000 54.7 63 78.23% 76,328 50,510 66.17% Plan Review/Application Fee 45,000 45,000 102,824 228.50% 51,243 38,163 74.47% Animal License Fees 17,250 17,250 12,292 71.26% 17,537 11,504 65.60% Animal Adoption Fees 57,000 57,000 29,260 51.33% 42,602 28,612 67.16% Animal Impound Fees 78,000 78,000 50.414 64.63% 65,956 53,871 81.68% Crematorium Revenues 4,200 4,200 9,059 215.69% 1.456 742 50.96% Auto Impoundment Fees 15,000 15,000 10,540 70.27% 11,955 6,644 55.58% Food Service Permits 101,000 10 1,000 98.710 97.73% 103,978 97,990 94.24% Food Managers School 15,000 15,000 11,940 79.60% 18,014 10.552 58.58% Fire Inspection Fees 16,500 16,500 20,521 124.37% 12,821 8.763 68.35% Publicity Fees - Recreation 34,200 34,200 19,599 57.31% 33.332 17,907 53.72% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS $l,515.900 $1,515.900 $1,642,503 108.35% $1,692,908 $1,076,941 63.61% . Page 1 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 1 --------------------FIS CA L YEA R 2005106-----------------------1 I----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05------------/ ADOPTED REVISED COLLECTED % TOTAL COLLECTED 01 /0 . BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET COLLECTIONS AS OF 5/05 BUDGET CHARGES FOR SERVICE Park Facility Rental $5.740 $5.740 $4,742 82.61% $5,865 $3,458 58.96% Ambulance Fees 1 ,036,350 1,036,350 528.714 51.02% 1,073,923 549,359 51. 15% Garbage Billing 230,000 230,000 115,902 50.39% 232,039 134,591 58.00% Maps & Codes 150 150 0 0.00% 22 22 100.00% Recreation Revenue 442.837 442,837 250,091 56.47% 399,681 229,347 57.38% Athletic Revenue 126,606 126,606 47,933 37.86% 109,779 46,897 42.72% Recreation Special Events 14,500 14.500 14,933 1 02.99% 17,288 17,288 100.00% Planning & Zoning Fees 30,000 30,000 25,215 84.05% 42,522 24.7 45 58.19% Sale of Accident Reports 25,000 25,000 16,665 66.66% 24,850 16,076 64.69% Vital Statistics 53,000 53,000 51,628 97.41% 59.661 36,501 61.18% Mowing 17,150 17,150 6,881 40.12% 18,265 5,172 28.32% Contributions 10,000 10,000 10,000 100.00% 10,000 10,000 100.00% Citicable 0 0 0 0.00% 16 16 100.00% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $1. 991.333 $1, 991,333 $1.072. 704 53.87% $1,993,911 $1,073,472 53.84% INTERGOVERNMENTAL Indirect Cost - General CIP $155,000 $155.000 $103,339 66.67% $155,000 $103,339 66.67% Indirect Cost - Utility Fund 1.347.435 1,347.435 898.335 66.67% 1,283,271 855,557 66.67% Indirect Cost - Park/Rec. Corp. 261,269 261,269 174,188 66.67% 253,659 169.114 66.67% Indirect Costs - CCD 300,000 300,000 200,010 66.67% 401.941 267,974 66.67% Indirect Cost - NRH20 97.426 97.426 64,954 66.67% 94,588 63.062 66.67% Direct Cost - CCD 1,037,804 1,037.804 691,904 66.67% 1 .092.425 728,320 66.67% . INTERGOVERNMENTAL $3,198,934 $3,198.934 $2,132.729 66.67% $3,280,884 $2,187,365 66.67% MISCELLANEOUS Interest Income $285,000 $285,000 $412,987 144.91% $223,514 $209.406 93.69% Grant Proceeds-CDBG 25,000 25,000 14,574 58.30% 51,302 36,500 71. 15% Criminal Justice Grants 12.000 12,000 15,125 126.04% 6,955 0 0.00% Sale of City Property 0 0 0 0.00% 9.109 0 0.00% Other Income 237,551 237,551 116,267 48.94% 260,972 148,695 56.98% Overtime Reimbursement - Police 7,000 7,000 6.489 92.70% 13,257 6,267 47.27% Special Invest. Fund Loan Reimb. 0 0 0 0.00% 57.464 38,311 66.67% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $566.551 $566,551 $565.442 99.80% $622,573 $439,179 70.54% TOTAL REVENUES $32.742,187 $32.742,187 $25.995,398 79.39% $32.316,346 $24,223,296 74.96% Appropriation - Legal Settlement 650,000 650,000 650,000 100.00% 650,000 650.000 100.00% Appropriation - Insurance Reserve 103,800 103,800 69,203 66.67% 347,250 231,512 66.67% Appropriation - PY Encumbrances 0 462,654 308,451 66.67% 394.734 263,169 66.67% TOTAL RESOURCES $33.495,987 $33,958,641 $27,023,053 79.58% $33.708,330 $25,367,976 75.26% . Page 2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 / --------------------FISCA L YEAR 2005 /06---m----------------- / /----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05------------/ ADOPTED REVISED EXPENDED % TOTAL EXPENDED % D.TMENT: BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET EXPENDITURES AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL City Council $132.513 $132,513 $60,055 45.32% $82,833 $56,184 67.83% City Manager 492,109 492,109 345,096 70.13% 484,804 338.459 69.81% Communications 475,571 475,571 293.981 61.82% 424.237 275.788 65.01% City Secretary 437,924 502,083 321.018 63.94% 420,087 284,981 67.84% Legal 498.783 498.783 198,383 39.77% 462,578 331,554 71.68% Human Resources 124,368 124,368 74,908 60.23% 99,902 67,501 67.57% Finance 746,104 746.793 465.480 62.33% 709,500 469,227 66.13% Budget & Research 326,092 326,092 231.357 70.95% 314,397 203.593 64.7 6% Municipal Court 1,042,381 1,049,300 707.476 67.42% 1,000,643 654,541 65.41 % Planning & Development 910,957 919,875 529,530 57.57% 804,197 536,142 66.67% Economic Development 121,958 121.958 56.731 46.52% 96,995 66,676 68.7 4% Library 1.483,233 1.483,233 1.010.701 68.14% 1.469.798 1,000,124 68.04% Neighborhood Services 1 .4 12, 144 1.420,844 847,899 59.68% 1,209.375 802.459 66.35% ,liC Works 2.463,329 2,594,993 1.644,189 63.36% 2.427.713 1,522,094 62.70% rks and Recreation 2.352,209 2.422,090 1.455,948 60.11% 2,287.071 1.459,926 63.83% Police 8,936,054 8,939,037 5,69l.372 63.67% 8.512,867 5,660.417 66.49% Fire 8,254,581 8,327,092 5.422,313 65.12% 7.708,798 4,983,138 64.64% Building Services 629,196 629,196 419.485 66.67% 787,377 524,944 66.67% Non-Departmental 1,690,157 1.786,387 1,225,660 68.61% 1.313.449 1.158.718 88.22% Permanent Street/Sidewalk 400,000 400,000 266,680 66.67% 300,000 200,010 66.67% Maintenance Self-Insurance Fund 103,800 103,800 69,203 66.67% 372.250 248. 179 66.67% Building Services Fund ° 0 ° 0.00% 49,200 32.802 66.67% Reserve for Capital Improvements 100,000 100,000 66,670 66.67% 200,000 133,340 66.67% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $33,133.463 $33,596,117 $21.404,135 63.71% $3l.538,071 $21.010.797 66.62% NET BALANCE $362,524 $362,524 $5,618,918 $2,170,259 $4,357,179 . Page 3 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PROMOTIONAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 · \ __nn____________mF I S C A L YEA R 2005/06---------------------- \ \ ---------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05------------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL REVENUES Occupancy Taxes $174,900 $174,900 $73,7 63 42.17% $191,848 $97,324 50.73% Other Income 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Sale of History Books 100 100 40 40.00% 40 40 100.00% Interest Income 2,275 2.275 3,696 162.46% 4.174 2.622 62.82% TOTAL REVENUES $177.275 $177,275 $77,499 43.72% $196,062 $99.986 51.00% Appropriation of Fund Balance $56,138 $57,138 $38,094 66.67% $82.723 $55,151 66.67% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $233,4 13 $234,413 $115,593 49.31% $278,785 $155,137 55.65% EXPENDITURES Economic Development $233,413 $234,413 $109.303 46.63% $223,329 $154,377 69.13% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $233,4 13 $234,413 $109,303 46.63% $223,329 $154,377 69.13% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $6,290 $55,456 $760 · · Page 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS DONATIONS FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31. 2006 . \ ---------------------- F I S C A L YEA R 2005/06-------------------\ \-----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05-----------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL REVENUES Contributions from Water Bills $126,000 $126.000 $60.141 47.73% $120,314 $92.036 76.50% Interest Income 5,500 5,500 13,002 236.40% 1l.582 6,590 56.90% Other Income 2l.900 21. 900 35,216 160.80% 87,840 65,584 74.66% Trinity Waste Donation 15,000 15,000 15,000 100.00% 15,000 15,000 100.00% Critter Connection Revenue 3,080 3,080 136 4.42% 2,841 2,823 99.37% Shelter Donations/Contributions 15,500 15,500 21.051 142.26% 15,251 12.898 84.57% Donations-Spay /Neuter Program 1,000 1,000 1,272 127.20% 2,528 1,026 40.59% Transmitter Lease Income ° ° ° 0.00% ° ° 0.00% Sale of Books - Library 3,000 3,000 216 7.20% 2.231 237 10.62% TOTAL REVENUES 190.980 190,980 147,034 76.99% 257,587 196,194 76.17% Appropriation of Fund Balance ° 12,150 8,100 66.67% 8,095 8,095 100.00% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $190,980 $203,130 $155,134 76.37% $265,682 $204,289 76.89% EXPENDITURES Library $60,000 $60,000 $22,276 37.13% $70,105 $95 0.14% Spay/Neuter Services ° ° 177 100.00% ° ° 0.00% Humane Services Capital ° ° ° 0.00% 8,095 8,095 100.00% Advertising 3,016 3,016 3,188 105.70% 2.707 1,867 68.97% 4tter Connection 4,681 4,681 858 18.33% 9,253 1.744 18.85% ep NRH Beautiful 14.893 15.7 43 8,809 55.96% 16,632 11.452 68.86% en era I Public Improvement 33,500 44.800 31.117 69.46% 72.992 62.467 85.58% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $116,090 $128,240 $66.425 51.80% $179,784 $85,720 47.68% NET BALANCE $74,890 $74,890 $88,709 $85,898 $118,569 . Page 5 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 . \ ---------------------FISCAL YEAR 2005/06--------------------\ \----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05-----------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV/EXP aT /0 BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL REVENUES Sales Tax $3,861,112 $3,861.112 $2,563,106 66.38% $3.855,727 $2,518,074 65.31% Tennis Center Revenue 310,750 310.750 178,692 57.50% 282.7 56 146,250 51.72% Youth Assn. Maintenance Fees 28,500 28,500 8,953 31.41% 23,805 5,951 25.00% Other Income 0 0 3,129 100.00% 149 40 26.85% Grant Proceeds 0 0 79,833 100.00% 720.847 105,989 14.70% Interest Income 86,000 86,000 52,559 61. 1 2% 63,198 44,805 70.90% TOTAL REVENUES $4,286,362 $4,286.362 $2,886,272 67.34% $4,946,482 $2,821,109 57.03% Appropriation of Prior Year $0 $46,994 $31,331 66.67% $19,090 $12.727 66.67% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $4,286,362 $4,333,356 $2,917,603 67.33% $4,965,572 $2,833,836 57.07% EXPENDITURES OPERATING EXPENDITURES Indirect Costs $261,269 $261,269 $174,188 66.67% $253,659 $169,114 66.67% Maintenance & Operations 1,818,517 1,865,511 1,052,699 56.43% 1.422,604 921,669 64.79% Tennis Center Operations 491,085 491.085 303,038 61.71% 434,607 265,349 61.05% TOTAL OPERATING EXP. $2.570,871 $2,617,865 $1.529.925 58.44% $2.110.870 $1,356,132 64.25% OTHER EXP. & RESERVES Debt Service $1,208,248 $1.208,248 $805,539 66.67% $1,355,367 $903,623 66.67% .nomic Development 193,056 193,056 128.710 66.67% 250,000 166,675 66.67% erve for Capital Projects 314,187 314,187 453,429 144.32% 1,249,335 407,407 32.61% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $1.715,491 $1.715.491 $1,387,678 80.89% $2,854.702 $1,477.705 51.76% TOTAL EXP. & RESERVES $4,286,362 $4,333,356 $2,917,602 67.33% $4,965,572 $2,833,837 57.07% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . Page 6 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CRIME CONTROL & PREVENTION DISTRICT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31,2006 RaUES \ ---------------------FlSCA L YEAR 2005/06--------------------\ \---------FISCAL YEAR 2004105-----------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL Sales Tax $3,709,661 $3,709,661 $2,444,730 65.90% $3.663,173 $2.419,512 66.05% Other 0 ° ° 0.00% 9,725 0 0.00% Transition Fund Loan 957,972 957,972 638,680 66.67% 873,713 582,504 66.67% Interest Income 35,000 35,000 78.437 224.11% 60,708 42,032 69.24% TOTAL REVENUES $4,702.633 $4,702,633 $3,161,847 67.24% $4,607,319 $3,044,048 66.07% Appropriation of Prior Year $0 $8,244 $5.496 66.67% $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $4,702,633 $4.710,877 $3,167,343 67.23% $4,607.319 $3.044,048 66.07% EXPENDITURES Administration $80,629 $80,629 $49,434 61.31 % $57,389 $44,046 76.75% Administrative Services 535,138 535,138 355,773 66.48% 416,009 344,921 82.91% Investigations 285.407 287,293 176,286 61.36% 269,038 170.481 63.37% Patrol 1,828,267 1,833,125 1,112.433 60.69% 1,502.465 979,364 65.18% Detention Services 298,01 7 298,017 188,726 63.33% 234,520 148,615 63.37% Technical Services 246,295 246,295 139,261 56.54% 218,153 147,241 67.49% Vehicle Impoundment 54,279 55,779 34,632 62.09% 49,328 31,442 63.7 4% Communications 11,797 11,797 6,556 55.57% 10,712 8,316 77.63% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,339,830 $3,348,073 $2,063,101 61.62% $2.757,614 $ 1,874.426 67.97% OTHER EXP. & RESERVES ~eral Fund-Indirect Costs $300,000 $300,000 $200,010 66.67% $401.941 $267,974 66.67% eneral Fund-Salaries 1,037,804 1,037,804 691,904 66.67% 1 ,092.425 728,320 66.67% Un designated Potential Reserve ° 0 ° 0.00% 0 0 0.00% CCD Vehicle Replacement 25,000 25,000 16,668 66.67% 100,000 66,670 66.67% Special Investigation Loan ° 0 ° 0.00% 52,665 35,112 66.67% Reserve for Computer System ° 0 ° 0.00% 0 ° 0.00% Reserve for Transition 0 0 195,664 100.00% 202,675 71,548 35.30% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $1,362,804 $1,362,804 $1,104,245 81.03% $1.849,706 $ 1.169,624 63.23% TOTAL USES $4,702,633 $4,710,877 $3,167,343 67.23% $4,607,319 $3,044,049 66.07% BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . Page 7 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS UTILITY FUND REVENUE FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 . \ --------------------F I S C A L YEA R 2005/06----------------------\ ADOPTED REVISED COLLECTED BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 ar 10 \------------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05--------\ TOTAL COLLECTED % COLLECTIONS AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL BUDGET WATER Water Sales & Adj. Cost Service Charges Water Taps Water Inspection Fees Water Well Revenue TOTAL WATER $12,932,283 $12,932,283 $8,832,595 68.30% $13,427,722 $6,890,756 51.32% 118,200 118,200 80,922 68.46% 127,487 78.205 61.34% 67,593 67.593 44,655 66.06% 70,590 40.345 57.15% 20,000 20.000 31.697 158.49% 16.644 11,741 70.54% 13,000 13.000 5,650 43.46% 9,686 1.462 15.09% $13.151,076 $13,151,076 $8.995.519 68.40% $13.652.129 $7,022.509 51.44% SEWER Sewer Sales & Adj. Cost $7,374.551 $7.374.551 $4.743,805 64.33% $7.219,721 $4,734.208 65.57% Sewer Taps 22.113 22.113 13.637 61.67% 24,400 14.200 58.20% Sewer Inspection Fees 30.000 30.000 25,461 84.87% 14,217 10.691 75.20% TOTAL SEWER $7,426,664 $7,426,664 $4.782,903 64.40% $7.258,338 $4,7 59.099 65.57% MISCELLANEOUS Late Fees $510,000 $510,000 $313,469 61.46% $473,692 $314.066 66.30% Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 721 48.07% 4.053 1,454 35.87% Subdivision Meter Revenue 54.000 54.000 37.500 69.44% 64,800 36,450 56.25% Interest Income 205.000 205.000 194,148 94.71% 131,350 104.210 79.34% Joint Use Reimbursement (Watauç 45.000 45.000 55,730 123.84% 34,470 24.129 70.00% Transfer from Sewer 0 0 0 0.00% 75.000 50.003 66.67% . MISCELLANEOUS $815.500 $815,500 $601.568 73.77% $783.365 $530,312 67.70% TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE $21 .393,240 $21 .393.240 $14.379,990 67.22% $21.693,832 $12,311.920 56.75% Appropriation - Rate Stabilization $237,165 $237,165 $158.118 66.67% $292,511 $195.017 66.67% Appropriation - Insurance Reserve $34,600 $34.600 $23.068 66.67% $115,750 $77,171 66.67% Appropriation - PY Encumbrance $0 $373.365 $248.922 66.67% $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $21.665.005 $22,038.370 $14.561.176 66.07% $22.102.093 $12.584.107 56.94% . Page 8 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS UTILITY FUND EXPENSES & RESERVES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31. 2006 \ ----------------------FISCAL YEAR 2005/06----------------------\ \----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05----------\ . ADOPTED REVISED EXPENSES % TOTAL EXPENSES % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET EXPENSES AS OF 5105 ACTUAL OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATION $236,671 $236,671 $152,880 64.60% $223,961 $144,303 64.43% Water Operations $3,049,367 $3,384,205 $2,176,788 64.32% $2,589,636 $1,673,032 64.60% Purchase of Water FTW 2.532,000 2,532,000 1,458,798 57.61% 2,865,464 ¡ ,652,489 57.67% Purchase of Water TRA 3.781,050 3.781.050 1,909,997 50.51% 3.155,508 1.764,867 55.93% Sewer Operations 933,683 933,683 566,436 60.67% 850,048 528,702 62.20% Sewer Treafment FTW 979,740 979.7 40 557,430 56.90% 1.106,939 567,532 51.27% Sewer Treatment TRA 2,798,500 2,798,500 1,557,176 55.64% 2,077,327 1,208,457 58.17% Development 584.603 584,603 364,251 62.31% 525,520 355,384 67.63% TOTAL UTILITY OPERATIONS $14,658.943 $14,993.781 $8,590,876 57.30% $13,170,442 $7,750,463 58.85% Water Service $348,450 $348,450 $227,717 65.35% $343,242 $231,237 67.37% Customer Service 669,278 669,278 439,958 65.74% 660,145 426,388 64.59% Revenue Collections 214,529 214,529 139,151 64.86% 206,494 136.735 66.22% Accounting 139.720 139.720 78,511 56.19% 124,720 81.351 65.23% Budget & Research 173,201 173.201 113,449 65.50% 155.381 98,809 63.59% Right of Way Mainfenance 125,000 125.000 22,616 18.09% 124.239 42,278 34.03% TOTAL BILLING AND COLLECTION $1.670,178 $1.670.178 $1,021,402 61.16% $1.614,221 $1.016.798 62.99% BUILDING SERVICES $934,170 $934,170 $622,811 66.67% $889,686 $593,154 66.67% NON-DEP ARTMENT AL $375,802 $414.330 $182.205 43.98% $154,621 $164,089 106.12% . OPERATING PENSES $17,875.764 $18,249,130 $10,570,174 57.92% $16,052.931 $9,668,807 60.23% OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES Debt Service $471,290 $471,290 $314,209 66.67% $474.749 $316,515 66.67% Franchise Fees 618.787 618.787 407,290 65.82% 615.871 348.749 56.63% Indirect Cost 1,347,435 1.347,435 898,335 66.67% 1 ,283,271 855,557 66.67% Payment in Lieu of Taxes 309,982 309,982 206,665 66.67% 329,727 219,829 66.67% Allocated Utility CIP Reserve to Information Services Fund 175,000 175,000 116,673 66.67% 175,000 116,673 66.67% Contribution to Insurance Fund for Reserve for Future Claims 34,600 34,600 23.068 66.67% 115.750 77,171 66.67% Contribution to Support Svs. 50,000 50,000 33,335 66.67% 50,000 33,335 66.67% Transfer from Sewer 0 0 0 0.00% 75,000 50,003 66.67% Reserve for Capital Projects 782,147 782,147 782,147 100.00% 2,929.794 897,470 30.63% Potential Undesignated Reserve 0 0 1,209,284 100.00% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES AND RESERVES $3.789,241 $3.789,241 $3,991.005 105.32% $6,049.162 $2.915,300 48.19% TOTAL USES $21,665,005 $22,038,370 $14,561,175 66.07% $22,102.093 $12,584,107 56.94% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . Page 9 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AQUATIC PARK FUND REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 \ --------------------FISCAL YEAR 2005/06----------------------\ \ --m--------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05-------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % R.UES BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET COLLECTIONS AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL Admissions $1, 998,671 $1,998,671 $167,622 8.39% $1,724,214 $93,802 5.44% Advanced & Group Sales 812,684 812.684 369,744 45.50% 982.133 261,697 26.65% Food and Beverage 499,112 499,112 51,886 10 .40% 489,365 42.976 8.78% Merchandise 102,091 102.091 1 2,403 12.15% 103,116 9,377 9.09% Lockers 54,448 54,448 6,157 11.31% 58,061 3,541 6.10% Interest Income 33,000 33,000 80,793 244.83% 35,921 28,780 80.12% Donations 10,000 10,000 20,000 200.00% 10,000 0 0.00% Aquatic Classes 0 0 5,875 0.00% 6,430 4,310 67.03% Special Events 75,167 75,167 15,780 20.99% 64,413 8,391 13.03% Miscellaneous 10,114 10,114 3,237 32.01% 7,290 4,231 58.04% Infrastructure Reserve Loan 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUES $3,595,287 $3,595,287 $733,497 20.40% $3,480.943 $457,105 13.13% Appropriation of Prior Year $0 $6,934 $4,623 66.67% $95,446 $63,634 66.67% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $3.595,287 $3,602.221 $738,120 20.49% $3,576,389 $520,739 14.56% EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES General Services $611,578 $612,554 $30L574 49.23% $606.249 $250,412 41.31% Parks & Public Grounds 67,253 67,253 21.658 32.20% 58,586 15.905 27.15% Business Office 97,510 97,510 45,731 46.90% 86.145 45,815 53.18% Marketing/ Advertising 353,960 353,960 139,991 39.55% 304,978 65,294 21.41 % Aquatics 399,499 405,457 122,464 30.20% 414,342 117,359 28.32% Maintenance 339,979 339,979 196,205 57.71% 304,380 169.633 55.73% 41 Shop 121,800 12l,800 43,669 35.85% 81. 942 22,998 28.07% e ~ream Shop 213,973 213,973 29,361 13.72% 194,620 43.386 22.29% 102,108 102,108 7,904 7.74% 98,586 15,003 15.22% Group Sales 97,701 97,701 48,740 49.89% 89,021 44,608 50.11% Admissions 86,169 86.169 19,588 22.73% 82,487 20,848 25.27% Elements of Fun 11, 110 11.110 3.071 27.64% 11,009 1.764 16.02% Birthday Parties 34,490 34,490 4,231 12.27% 9,940 7,458 75.03% Catering 28,503 28,503 1,456 5.11% 21,069 1,482 7.03% Rentals 11,342 11,342 3,220 28.39% 7,290 3,685 50.55% Non-Departmental 5,016 5,016 3,344 66.67% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $2,581,991 $2,588,925 $992,207 38.33% $2,370,644 $825,650 34.83% OTHER EXP. & RESERVES Reserve for Future Infrastructure $325,000 $325,000 $216,678 66.67% $325,000 $216,678 66.67% Major Repairs Reserve for Aquatic Park Expansiol 74,997 74,997 0 0.00% 319,780 0 0.00% Reserve for Insurance 75,000 75,000 50,003 66.67% 75,000 50,003 66.67% Debt Service Expense 440,873 440,873 293,930 66.67% 391.377 260,931 66.67% Indirect Costs 97,426 97,426 64,954 66.67% 94,588 63,062 66.67% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RES. $1,013,296 $1,013,296 $625,564 61.7 4% $1,205.745 $590,673 48.99% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND RESERVES $3,595,287 $3,602.221 $1.617,771 44.91% $3.576,389 $1.416,323 39.60% NET BALANCE $0 $0 ($879,6511 $0 {$895,5841 e Page 10 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS IRON HORSE GOLF COURSE REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 \ ------------------- FlSCA L YEA R 2005/06-----------------------\ \ -------------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05--------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % . BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET COLLECTIONS AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL ROUNDS 39,650 39,650 30.484 76.88% 50,187 28,516 56.82% REVENUES Green Fees $851,022 $851,022 $590,965 69.44% $936,530 $516.434 55.14% Membership 0 0 31,049 100.00% 69,076 51,849 75.06% Carts 289,598 289,598 195,173 67.39% 352,949 213,522 60.50% Food/Beverage 355.476 355.476 269,031 75.68% 441.428 257,198 58.26% Pro Shop/Driving Range 310,235 310,235 241,808 77.94% 380,684 228,580 60.04% Economic Dev. Sales Tax Revenu 550,000 550.000 366,685 66.67% 0 0 0.00% Other 36,800 36,800 11,918 32.39% 26,727 17,976 67.26% TOTAL REVENUES $2,393,131 $2,393.131 $1,706,629 71.31 % $2,207,394 $1,285,559 58.24% COST OF GOODS SOLD $217,217 $217,217 $137,574 63.33% $250,266 $154,910 61.90% Appropriation of Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 0.00% $192.363 $128,248 66.67% GROSS PROFIT $2,175,914 $2,175,914 $1.569,055 72.11% $2.149.491 $1,258,897 58.57% EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES Pro Shop $246.735 $246.735 $128,965 52.27% $221,375 $136,334 61.59% Driving Range 8,700 8.700 9.660 111.03% 11,007 8,652 78.60% Golf Carts 150,069 150,069 71 .434 47.60% 111,660 66,067 59.17% Course Maintenance 557,513 557,513 324,077 58.13% 594,035 352,553 59.35% Food & Beverage 146.7 60 146,7 60 100,355 68.38% 166,053 100,354 60.43% 4Iteneral and Administrative 189,682 189,682 110,099 58.04% 1 79.405 120,370 67.09% ubhouse 0 0 50,007 100.00% 66,602 44.682 67.09% apital 100,000 100.000 6,509 6.51% 0 0 0.00% Fixed Charges 85,600 85,600 84,579 98.81% 122,319 57,891 47.33% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $1.485,059 $1.485,059 $885,685 59.64% $1.472.456 $886,903 60.23% OTHER EXP. & RESERVES Debt Service $515.499 $515.499 $343,683 66.67% $575,208 $383.491 66.67% Reserve for Equipment Purchases 55,715 55,715 37,145 66.67% 3,098 2,065 66.67% Debt Payment - Equipment 41,172 4 1,1 72 27.449 66.67% 42,275 28,185 66.67% Debt Payment - Water 78.469 78.469 52,315 66.67% 56.454 37,638 66.67% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $690,855 $690,855 $460,593 66.67% $677,035 $451,379 66.67% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND RESERVES $2.175,914 $2,175,914 $1 ,346,278 61.87% $2,149.491 $1,338,282 62.26% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $222.777 $0 ($79.3851 e Page 11 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 \ ___m_______________ F I S C A L YEA R 2005/06--------------------- \ \ ----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05------------\ . ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICE General Fund $665,005 $665,005 $443,359 66.67% $748,880 $499,278 66.67% Utility Fund 882.976 882,976 588,680 66.67% 825,212 550,169 66.67% Utility C:P Fund 129.542 129,542 86,366 66.67% 1 21,068 80,716 66.67% Crime Control District 75,764 75,764 50,512 66.67% 52,462 34.976 66.67% Park & Recreation Dev. Fund. 63,464 63,464 42,311 66.67% 38,987 25,993 66.67% Other Funds 32,915 32,915 21,944 66.67% 30,7 62 20.509 66.67% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $ 1,849,666 $1,849,666 $1,233,172 66.67% $1,817.371 $1,211,641 66.67% OTHER REVENUE Interest Inc ::Jme $82,574 $82.574 $53,503 64.79% $58,358 $35,673 61,13% Sale of Citv Property 54,000 54,000 0 0.00% 33,980 0 0.00% Transfer fro:ìl General/Utility /CCD 75,000 75,000 50,003 66.67% 150,000 100,005 66.67% Other Income 0 ° 39,444 100.00% 0 ° 0.00% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE $211,574 $211,574 $142,950 67.56% $242,338 $135,678 55.99% TOTAL REVENUES $2,061,241 $2,061,241 $1,376,122 66.76% $2,059,709 $1,347,319 65.41 % Appropriation of Fund Balance $0 $17,208 $11,473 66.67% $367,307 $244,884 66.67% TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $0 $17,208 $11,473 66.67% $367,307 $244,884 66.67% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $2,061,240 $2,078,448 $1,387,594 66.76% $2,427,016 $1,592,203 65.60% &t OPERATING EXPENSES Administration $161,437 $161,437 $103,370 64.03% $154,233 $100,960 65.46% Equipment Services 1,356,589 1,358,584 865,340 63.69% 1,237,554 773,922 62.54% Equipment Purchases/Refurbishing 341,945 357,157 299,020 83.72% 638.985 257,877 40.36% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $1,859,971 $1,877,178 $1,267,730 67.53% $2,030,772 $1,132,7 59 55.78% OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES Equipment Services Reserve $1 02,91 6 $ 1 02,91 6 $54,292 52,75% $293,595 $391,008 133.18% Debt Service 98,353 98,353 65,572 66.67% 102,648 68,435 66.67% Potential Reserve for Vehicle Replacement 0 ° 0 0.00% 0 ° 0.00% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $201.269 $201,269 $ 11 9,864 59.55% $396,243 $459,443 115.95% TOTAL EXPENSES & RESERVES $2,061,240 $2,078,448 $1,387,594 66,76% $2,427,016 $1,592.202 65.60% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . PagE. 12 CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS BUILDING SERVICES FUND REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 . \ ------------------- FIS C A L YEA R 2005 /06----------------m--- \ \-----m-FISCAL YEAR 2004/05----------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICE General Fund $629.196 $629,196 $419,485 66.67% $787.377 $524.944 66.67% Utility Fund 934,170 934,170 622,811 66.67% 889,686 593,154 66.67% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $1,563,366 $ 1 ,563,366 $1,042,296 66.67% $1,677,063 $1,l18,098 66.67% OTHER REVENUE Interest Income $60,415 $60,415 $32,487 53.77% $39,432 $27.044 68.58% Sale of City Assets 0 0 0 0.00% 754 0 0.00% Other Income 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE $60,415 $60,415 $32,487 53.77% $40,186 $27.044 67.30% Appropriation of Prior Year $212,100 $318,371 $212,258 66.67% $145,305 $96,875 66.67% TOTAL REVENUES $1,835.881 $1,942,152 $1.287,041 66.27% $1 ,862,554 $1,242,017 66.68% EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES Administration $154,494 $154,494 $98,891 64.01% $138,789 $96,634 69.63% Building Services 1 ,504,328 1,610,599 866,063 53.77% 1,238,826 692,345 55.89% eAL OPERATING EXPENSES $1,658,822 $l,7 65,093 $964,954 54.67% $1,377,615 $788,979 57.27% OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES Undesignated Potential Reserve $0 $0 $204,043 100.00% $0 $0 0.00% ClP Capital Maintenance 134,750 134,750 89,838 66.67% 200,000 133.340 66.67% Contribution to Debt Service 42,309 42,309 28,207 66.67% 43,607 29,073 66.67% Use of Prior Year Appropriations 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Reserve for Capital Projects 0 0 0 0.00% 241,332 290.626 120.43% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $177,059 $177,059 $322,088 181.91% $484,939 $453,039 93.42% TOTAL EXPENSES & RESERVES $1,835,881 $1,942,152 $1,287,041 66.27% $1,862,554 $1.242,017 66.68% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 e Page 13 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS INSURANCE FUND REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31,2006 \-----------------------FISCAL YEAR 2005/06--------------------\ \----------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05-----------\ ADOPTED REVISED COLLECTED % TOTAL COLLECTED % ~ BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL HEALTH/MEDICAL $6,029,635 $6,029,635 $4,019,958 66.67% $5.371.863 $3,581,421 66.67% WORKERS COMPENSATION $483,232 $483.232 $322, 1 71 66.67% $682,510 $455,029 66.67% GENERAL LIABILITY $267,348 $267,348 $178.241 66.67% $144,241 $96.165 66.67% OTHER INCOME Interest Income $10,351 $10,351 $53,580 517.63% $37,587 $14,866 39.55% Electric Franchise Fees 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% Unemployment Insurance 37,418 37,418 24,947 66.67% 34,975 23.318 66.67% General/Utility/Aq. Park Fund Tran! 138,400 138,400 92.271 66.67% 488,000 325,350 66.67% Other Income 81,625 81.625 44,414 54,41 % 247,436 58,759 23.75% TOTAL OTHER INCOME $267.794 $267.794 $215,212 80.36% $807,998 $422,292 52.26% TOTAL REVENUES $7,048,009 $7.048,009 $4.735,581 67.19% $7,006,612 $4,554.908 65.01% Appropriation of Prior Year $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $7,048,009 $7,048,009 $4.735,581 67.19% $7,006.612 $4,554,908 65.01% EXPENSES HEALTH/MEDICAL $5,558,963 $5,558.963 $2,971.269 53.45% $5,248,255 $3,179,590 60.58% .ERS COMPENSATION $451,575 $451,575 $367.7 49 81.44% $464.717 $292,854 63.02% o R INSURANCE EXP. $361,078 $361,078 $119,980 33.23% $299,007 $118,967 39.79% HUMAN RESOURCES OPERATING EXPENSES $450,393 $450,393 $225,400 50.05% $340,333 $226,378 66.52% OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES Life Insurance Premiums $53,000 $53,000 $30,511 57.57% $60,411 $39,295 65.05% Reserve for Insurance Claims 173.000 173,000 173,000 100.00% 593,889 697,824 117.50% Undesignated Potential Reserve 0 0 847,672 100.00% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER EXP. & RESERVES $226,000 $226,000 $1,051, 183 465.13% $654,300 $737,119 112.66% TOT AL USES $7,048.009 $7.048,009 $4.735,581 67.19% $7,006,612 $4,554,908 65.01% NET BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 e Page 14 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS INFORMATION SERVICES FUND REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 2006 \ --------------------- F I S C A L YEA R 2005/06-------------------- \ \---------FISCAL YEAR 2004/05-----------\ ADOPTED REVISED REV /EXP % TOTAL REV /EXP % 11: BUDGET BUDGET AS OF 5/06 BUDGET REV /EXP AS OF 5/05 ACTUAL ~ RGES FOR SERVICE - TELECOMMUNICATIONS General Fund $237,375 $237,375 $158,258 66.67% $226,071 $150,722 66.67% Utility Fund/Utility CIP 54.557 54,557 36,373 66.67% 51,959 34,641 66.67% Support Services Fund 12,878 12,878 8.586 66.67% 12,264 8,176 66.67% Self-Insurance Fund 2,493 2,493 1,662 66.67% 2.374 1,583 66.67% Park/Recreation Facilities Devlp. FI 9,062 9,062 6.042 66.67% 8,630 5,754 66.67% Aquatic Park Fund 12,986 12.986 8,658 66.67% 12,368 8.246 66.67% Crime Control District 12.822 12,822 8,548 66.67% 12.211 8,141 66.67% Promotional Fund 2.753 2.753 1.835 66.67% 2,622 l.748 66.67% TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS $344,926 $344.926 $229,962 66.67% $328,499 $219,010 66.67% CHARGES FOR SERVICE - COMPUTERS General Fund $757.862 $757,862 $505,267 66.67% $851,539 $567,721 66.67% Utility Fund/Utility CIP 458,561 458,561 305,723 66.67% 489,500 326,350 66.67% Support Services Fund 62.960 62.960 41,975 66.67% 67.192 44,797 66.67% Self-Insurance Fund 16.523 16,523 11,016 66.67% 17,633 11,756 66.67% Park/Recreation Facilities Devlp. FI 30,487 30.487 20.326 66.67% 17,880 11.921 66.67% NRH20 Aquatic Park Fund 89,523 89,523 59.685 66.67% 95.538 63.695 66.67% Utility Reserves-Capital Projects 175.000 175,000 116.673 66.67% 175.000 116.673 66.67% Crime Control District 106,494 106,494 71.000 66.67% 98,996 66,001 66.67% Promotional Fund 14,941 14,941 9.961 66.67% 15,948 10.633 66.67% TOTAL COMPUTER $l.712.351 $l.712.351 $1.141,624 66.67% $1,829.226 $1,219.545 66.67% Interest Income $6,920 $6.920 $78.525 1134.75% $30.300 $27,949 92.24% Contribution from Citicable 9,000 9.000 6,000 66.67% 9,000 6,000 66.67% .smitter Lease Income 75.000 75,000 54.887 73.18% 123,819 55.951 45.19% er Income 0 0 100 100.00% 56.115 19,017 33.89% TOTAL REVENUES $2.148.197 $2.148,197 $1.51 1,099 70.34% $2,376,959 $1.547,473 65.10% Appropriation of Prior Year $0 $278,752 $185,844 66.67% $153.804 102.541 66.67% TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES $2,148.197 $2,426.949 $ 1,696,943 69.92% $2.530.763 $1.650,014 65.20% OPERA TING EXPENSES General Services $196.374 $196.374 $124,480 63.39% $179,364 $119,282 66.50% Major Computer Systems 294,781 305,421 184,229 60.32% 329.568 195,777 59.40% Microcomputer Systems 473,848 480,577 296.016 6 1. 60% 330.267 304.248 92.12% Telecommunications 284,251 292.740 184.943 63.18% 232,661 166.185 71.43% Data Network 410,322 645,086 478.050 74.11% 306,883 244.758 79.76% GIS Network 215,532 215.532 132.392 61.43% 152,624 105,081 68.85% Public Safety 216,628 234,758 170.211 72.50% 180.850 157.719 87.21% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $2.09l.736 $2,370,488 $1,570,321 66.24% $l.712,217 $1.293,050 75.52% OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES Contribution to Debt Service $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% Reserve for System Improvements 56,461 56,461 56.461 100.00% 818.546 356.964 43.61% Undesignated Potential Reserve 0 70.161 100.00% 0 0 0.00% TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES & RESERVES $56.461 $56,461 $126,622 224.26% $818.546 $356,964 43.61% TOTAL EXPENSES $2.148.197 $2,426,949 $1.696.943 69.92% $2,530.7 63 $1.650.014 65.20% .CE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 2006/2007 PRELIMINARY BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 4 - SUMMARY OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND DISTRIBUTION NET TAXABLE VALUE: Total Appraised Value as of May 15, 2006 (includes estimated 3% value loss) Less Exemptions: Disabled Veteran Over 65 Homestead Disabled Persons Less: Personal Property Nominal Value Loss Abatement Value Loss Agricultural Value Loss Freeport Inventory Value Loss Pollution Control/Prorated Absolute Total Reduction to Values Add: Estimated Minimum ARB protested values Incomplete Property NET TAXABLE VALUE ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS: Net Taxable Value Proposed Tax Rate per $100 Valuation Estimated Total Tax Levy at 100% Collection Less Estimated 1 % for Unc Less TIF Transfer Less Debt Service Tran TOTAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY T COLLECTIONS(Operations) 9 TO DISTRIBUTION OF Transfer to Debt Service General Fund - Maintenance % of Total Tax Rate 60.0% 40.0% 100% 100% Collection 7,725,000 11,761,754 $19,486,754 $3,830,609,416 (3,612,228) (104,774,263) (289,481,712) (9,704,123) (12,799) o (9,055,739) (2,906,665) (576,223) ($420,123,752) 8,243,074 o $3,418,728,738 $3,418,728,738 $0.57 $19,486,754 (194,868) (825,OOO) (6,900,000) $11,566,886 Tax Rate Distribution $0.341756 $0.228244 $0.57000 Projected Collection 7,725,000 11,566,886 $19,291,886 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 1 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES . GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIM ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 REVENUES Taxes $22,954,899 $22,992,879 $23,696,323 $24,270,333 Fines & Forfeitures 1,775,902 1,787,359 1,854,473 1,857,500 Licenses & Permits 1,606,447 1,641,665 1,661,124 1,595,750 Charges for Service 1,831,681 2,009,019 1,985,768 2,184,970 Intergovernmental 3,164,230 3,28 84 3,198,934 3,080,461 Miscellaneous 275,320 689,964 741,051 Sub-Total Revenues $31,608,479 $33,086,586 $33,730,065 Appropriation - Settlement $0 $0 Appropriation - Insurance Reserve 0 109,800 Appropriation - PY Encumbrance 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $31,608,479 $33,839,865 EXPENDITURES City Council $1 $132,513 $135,252 City Manager 492,1 492,109 538,191 Communications 475,571 475,571 495,629 City Secretary ,924 437,924 455,586 Legal 8,783 498,783 529,132 Human Resources 124,368 124,368 131,053 Finance 746,104 743,499 799,036 Budget & Research 326,092 326,092 336,179 Municipal Court 1,042,381 1,075,806 1,058,279 Planning and Development 910,957 910,957 971,978 Economic Development 96, 95 121,958 121,958 115,560 Library 1,469,798 1,483,233 1,483,333 1,602,253 Neighborhood Servi 1,209,375 1,412,144 1,412,144 1,506,752 Public Works 2,727,713 2,863,329 2,863,329 3,319,277 Parks & Recr 2,287,071 2,352,209 2,353,320 2,496,993 Police 8,512,867 8,936,054 8,977,087 9,320,648 Fire 7,708,798 8,254,581 8,311,571 8,504,298 Buildin 787,377 629,196 629,196 660,656 Non- 506,787 947,563 1,018,449 1,009,704 Sub- $30,109,959 $32,187,069 $32,388,009 $33,986,456 Reserve for $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $550,000 Lump Sum Mer 0 92,594 0 0 Market Adjustment 0 0 0 620,395 Legal Settlement 650,000 650,000 650,000 0 Insurance Reserve Policy 347,250 103,800 103,800 109,800 Previous Year Encumbrances 462,654 Sub-Total Other $30,711,527 $31,307,209 $33,133,463 $33,704,463 $35,266,651 Proposed Service Enhancements 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $30,711,527 $31,307,209 $33,133,463 $33,704,463 $35,266,651 BALANCE $896,952 $1,971,037 $362,524 $598,577 ($1,426,787) Page 1 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 2 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES · GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIM ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 TAXES Current Property Taxes $9,720,352 $10,278,342 $11,233,002 $11,566,886 Delinquent Property Taxes 280,075 232,207 150,000 200,000 Penalty and Interest 160,925 169,005 100,000 160,000 Franchise Fees 3,592,682 3,541,130 3,452,327 3,469,000 Utility Fund Franchise Taxes 558,976 615 871 618,787 625,000 Sales Taxes 8,215,869 7,7 7,722,225 7,799,447 Mixed Beverages 107,164 110,000 150,000 Payment in Lieu of Taxes 318,856 309,982 300,000 Sub-Total $22,954,899 $24,270,333 FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Court Fines $1,545,473 $1,523,500 Library Fines 60,000 64,000 Warrant & Arrest Fees 249,000 270,000 Sub-Total $1,775, $1,854,473 $1,857,500 · LICENSES AND PERMITS Building Permits $650,000 $747,500 $700,000 Electrical Permits 60,000 65,000 70,000 Plumbing Permits 73,000 80,000 80,000 Mechanical Permits , 5 44,000 50,000 55,000 Miscellaneous Permits 69,147 66,250 67,250 66,050 Apartment Inspecti 69,781 81,500 71,174 83,000 Curb & Drainag 46,212 60,000 70,000 60,000 Re-Inspectio 15,540 14,000 18,000 15,000 License Fe 13,772 14,000 14,000 14,000 Contracto 76,328 70,000 73,000 70,000 Plan R 51,243 45,000 65,500 50,000 Anim 60,139 74,250 65,000 65,500 Ani 65,956 78,000 76,000 65,000 Crema 1 ,456 4,200 15,000 16,000 Auto Impo 11,955 15,000 15,000 15,000 Food Service 103,978 101,000 101,000 102,000 Food Managers 18,014 15,000 15,000 16,000 Fire Inspection/Alar 12,821 16,500 18,500 18,800 Publicity Fees - Recreat 33,332 34,200 34,200 34,400 Sub-Total $1,606,447 $1,641,665 $1,515,900 $1,661,124 $1,595,750 · Page 2 of6 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 2 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIM ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2003/04 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 CHARGES FOR SERVICE Park Facility Rental $6,620 $5,865 $5,800 $5,800 Recreation Center Rental 11 ,222 10,859 12,000 12,000 Ambulance Fees 932,246 1,073,923 1,086,285 1,262,680 Garbage Billing 235,236 232,039 230,000 230,000 Contributions 10,000 1 ° 10,000 10,000 Maps & Codes 126 100 100 Recreation Fees 355,401 380,600 387,400 Cultural Arts 14,129 000 7,500 Athletic Revenue 126,120 107,600 Recreation Special Events 8,586 14,890 Planning & Zoning Fees 30,364 32,000 Sale of Accident Reports 27,619 25,000 Vital Statistics 56,676 75,000 Mowing 16,811 15,000 Video Services & Sales 525 0 Sub-Total $1,985,768 $2,184,970 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Indirect Costs: General CIP 155,000 $155,000 $155,000 Utility Fund 1,347,435 1,347,435 1,414,807 Park & Rec Facilities Dev. Corp. 261,269 261,269 274,332 Crime Control District 300,000 300,000 200,000 Aquatic Park Fund 97,426 97,426 102,297 Direct Cost - General Fund 1,092,425 1,037,804 1,037,804 934,024 Police Department Salaries Sub-Total $3,280,884 $3,198,934 $3,198,934 $3,080,461 Interest I $223,514 $285,000 $400,000 $435,000 Sale of 9,109 0 0 0 Gra 0 12,000 15,125 10,000 Gra 51,302 25,000 30,000 50,000 Overti 13,257 7,000 8,000 8,000 Tax Attorn 68,528 50,000 50,000 50,000 Other Income 41 ,186 37,551 36,839 38,051 Sponsorships (Fir ° 0 0 0 Special Invest. Fund 7,211 0 0 0 SRO Reimbursement (B 155,083 150,000 150,000 150,000 Sub-Total $275,320 $569,190 $566,551 $689,964 $741,051 Appropriation - Legal Settlement $0 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 0 Appropriation - Insurance Reserve 0 347,250 103,800 103,800 109,800 Appropriation - PY Encumbrances 0 ° 0 462,654 0 TOTAL REVENUES $31,608,479 $33,278,246 $33,495,987 $34,303,040 $33,839,865 Page 3 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIM ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 City Council $157,044 $82,833 $132,513 $132,513 $135,252 City Manager $501,894 $484,804 $492,109 $492,109 $538,191 Communications Public Information $201,645 $203,322 Citicable 274,003 292,307 Total Communications $475,648 495,629 City Secretary City Secretary $231,198 $257,731 Record Management 174,352 197,855 Total City Secretary $405,550 $455,586 Legal $637,012 $498.783 $529,132 Human Resources $124,368 $131,053 Finance Accounting & Administration $510,378 558,692 Purchasing 233,121 240,344 Total Finance $743,499 799,036 Budget & Research Budget $93,795 $93,795 96,451 Tax 191,940 191,940 197,662 Internal Audit 40,357 40,357 42,066 Total Budget & Research $326,092 $326,092 336,179 Municipal Court Administra . $271,064 $273,711 $307,811 $275,533 Court R 305,308 328,598 327,923 322,589 Warra 284,617 296,998 296,998 310,766 Tee 57,073 60,863 60,863 63,732 Ju 82,581 82,211 82,211 85,659 $1,000,643 $1,042,381 $1,075,806 $1,058,279 Planning a Administra $0 $0 $55,088 $55,088 $74,714 Inspections 585,520 616,703 594,356 594,356 612,615 Planning 233,809 187,494 261,513 261,513 284,649 Total Planning and $819,329 $804,197 $910,957 $910,957 $971,978 Economic Development $95,501 $96,995 $121,958 $121,958 $115,560 Library General Services $185,990 $188,535 $191,110 $191,310 $201,403 Public Services 687,894 684,807 667,689 667,589 743,977 Technical Services 583,284 596,456 624,434 624,434 656,873 Total Library $1,457,168 $1,469,798 $1,483,233 $1,483,333 1,602,253 Page 4 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIM ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2003/04 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Resources $264,115 $273,852 $295,058 Humane Division 566,610 600,565 640,006 Consumer Health 228,428 262,564 277,139 Code Enforcement 202,937 275,163 294,549 Total Neighborhood Services $1,262,090 $1,412,144 $1,506,752 Public Works General Services $130,039 $153,660 Traffic Control 844,897 1,060,442 Street & Drainage 1,303,308 2,105,175 Total Public Works $2,278,244 $3,319,277 Park & Recreation General Services $151,787 $116,329 $122,017 Parks Maintenance 993,944 1,001,229 1,115,663 Recreation Services 750,244 755,475 766,132 Athletic Program Services 195,95 202,792 201,423 Senior Adult Services 142, 152,188 159,103 Youth Outreach & Cultural 111 125,307 132,655 Total Park & Recreation $2,346, $2,353,320 $2,496,993 Police General Services $489,615 $489,615 673,710 Administrative Services 613,377 618,638 552,230 Criminal Investigation 1,772,731 1,784,481 1,801,357 Uniform Patrol 3,813,076 3,990,149 4,007,539 4,026,030 Tactical Unit 25,275 19,759 19,759 21,114 Technical Servic 702,253 722,885 726,795 577,104 Detention S 369,768 379,635 380,541 401,506 Property E 123,467 121,469 121,469 373,111 Commu . 766,555 826,434 828,250 894,486 $8,512,867 $8,936,054 $8,977,087 9,320,648 Fire Ge 61,899 $268,998 $288,266 $288,266 297,852 Opera 589,230 5,960,877 6,460,847 6,496,594 6,589,450 Emergen 694,242 773,182 789,418 793,441 863,152 Fire Inspecti 374,887 413,434 397,649 408,762 421,385 Emergency Man 410,164 292,307 318,401 324,508 332,459 Total Fire $7,330,422 $7,708,798 $8,254,581 $8,311,571 8,504,298 Page 5 of 6 FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 SCHEDULE 3 - SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND Building Services ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 $845,124 $787,377 $868,304 $506,787 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $0 $0 ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2005/06 $629,196 Non-Departmental $947,563 $9~~9~4 Lump Sum Merit Market Adjustment Reserve for Capital Improvements Legal Settlement Operating Transfers Out Previous Year Encumbrances SUB-TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL EXPENDITURES BALANCE Page 6 of 6 REVISED PRELIM BUDGET BUDGET FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 $629,196 $660,656 $1,018,449 $1,009,704 $0 $0 $0 $620,395 $550,000 $0 $109.800 $462,654 $35,266,651 $33,704,463 $35,266.651 $598,577 ($1,426.787) ISSUES - CURRENT CURRENT ISSUES . Post Employment Benefits Staff is preparing for the financial reporting and accounting requirements promulgated by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Pronouncement No. 45. The subject matter of this pronouncement is titled "Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions (OPEB)." For the City of North Richland Hills this pertains to retiree health plan benefits. The effective date for implementation for North Richland Hills is financial statements issued for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. GASB encourages early implementation. Staff recommends implementing in fiscal year 2008, and beginning the preparation necessary to make required calculations in fiscal year 2007. This requires an independent actuarial study which is under consideration for inclusion in the proposed 2006-2007 budget. . The purpose of GASB 45 is to determine the long-term cost of providing health care benefits to current and future retirees. Actuarially determined projections will be based on assumptions such as future employment, mortality rates, and health care cost trends. These projections will be used to establish the long-term liability of the City which will be shown on certain financial statements of the annual financial report. This liability will change from year to year as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about the future (actuarial study required every two years). The plan funding requirements are based on the policy in force which controls the benefits of the plan. Current policy provides that management may adjust the plan from year to year for active and retiree participants based upon the current financial resources available to pay for plan expenses. In addition, historically, management and Council have provided for the rebuilding of insurance fund reserves. Staff anticipates no major changes in plan funding based on GASB 45 financial reporting requirements. The statement only requires the City to recognize the liability and prepare certain note disclosures. The statement does not require funding of the long-term liability. GASB is cognizant of the fact that many municipalities fund such liabilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. As such, funding for active and retiree health plan benefits will continue to be based on city / participant cost sharing (currently 80% / 20%). Plan benefits will continue to be adjusted up or down depending on financial resources available in any given year. . When GASB 45 is implemented, the most likely effect on financial statements will be an increased long-term liability and related increased expense for estimated future retiree health plan benefits which will result in a subsequent reduction in total net assets. The resulting impact on cash flow will probably be the cost of the actuarial study required every two years. A slight increase in audit costs may occur and City staff will also realize an increase in workload as a result of implementation. The cost of an actuarial study is estimated at $1 0,000. Page 1 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES · Cost Increases Costs are broken down into two components: the unit price and the quantity. As the City of North Richland Hills increases in population, the quantity of goods and services needed by the City to deliver municipal services increases which equates to increased costs. However, recent unit price increases have occurred that have multiplied the effect on costs. For fiscal year 2005/06, staff budgeted the per gallon cost of gasoline at $2.05; actual gasoline prices to the City averaged $2.17 per gallon. The first two months of 2006 prices were actually below the 2005 average but by April the price per gallon spiked to $2.71 per gallon. Staff currently anticipates the price per gallon to average $2.75 for what the City pays for gasoline or a 34% increase over the previous year. Staff has projected a 6% increase in usage from 195,000 to 207,000 gallons. Overall, costs are projected to increase by 40%. While staff cannot control the cost per gallon of gas they have purchased smaller more fuel efficient vehicles when possible. Staff has also implemented policies that will assist in conserving fuel such as an area based assignment of jobs and no vehicle idling. · The unit cost of Electricity has acted in much the same manner as gasoline. The cost of electricity per Kilowatt/hour in 2005 averaged $0.094. So far in 2006 the average has been $0.152 or a projected 62% increase over the previous year. On the quantity or usage side of the equation, staff has attempted to purchase more efficient building systems, traffic lights and has developed programs to reduce usage through thermostats, motion-detecting light switches, etc. Two new fire stations have come on- line recently which increases the total square footage of building operations. The replaced facilities still require minimal climate control and electrical power to operate. Staff anticipates a 40% increase in overall costs. As the cost of gasoline has increased so have a number of products also derived from petroleum. Petroleum-based products such as tires, grease, lubricating oils, asphalt and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping have all increased over last fiscal year. The unit price for tires has increased by 15%, grease and lubricants prices have increased 20%, PVC pipe has increased approximately 20%, and asphalt has increased from $25 per ton to $32 or a 28% increase. Commodity Unit Costs Cost Increase Percent Increase 34% 62% · Fuel (Gasoline/Diesel) Electricit Petroleum-based Products Tires (for Tahoe) En ine Oil As halt PVC Pipe (12") 11% 33% 28% 21% Page 2 of 22 · · · CURRENT ISSUES Tarrant Appraisal District FundinQ Increase In 1979 the Texas Legislature, passed legislation requiring that a centralized agency be established in each county for the purpose of appraising property for ad valorem tax purposes. These agencies, called "central appraisal districts" (CAD), were organized to ensure that property taxation was fair and equitable as well as accurate. According to Section 6.06 of the Texas Property Tax Code, "Each taxing unit participating in the district is allocated a portion of the amount of the budget equal to the proportion that the total dollar amount of property taxes imposed in the district by the unit for the tax year..." Until recently, independent school districts financed over half of the central appraisal districts' budgets. Currently in Tarrant County, 56.3% of the Tarrant Appraisal District's budget is supported by schools, 20.3% by cities and 23.3% by the County and county districts. The recent Special Legislative Session on school finance reform has changed the funding percentages. According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), local school property tax revenue is expected to decrease by 11 %, thereby decreasing the amount of financing of CADs by schools. The cities, the County and county districts will need to fund this decrease. TML estimates the increase to cities to fund their CADs will be roughly 6.7%. Staff has included this increase in the preliminary budget in addition to the normal small inflationary increase of the TAD budget. The following year, local school property taxes will be reduced by another 25%. The effect to cities will be an additional increase of 16.5% of the previous year. Please find below the current and estimated costs for the next three years: Fiscal Year 2005/06 Revised Fiscal Year 2006/07 Preliminary Fiscal Year 2007/08 Projected $112,005 $120,571 $140,465 Page 3 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Permanent Street Maintenance Funding Council currently approves $600,000 per year for the City's Preventive Street Maintenance Program. The funding is generally divided into the two maintenance processes shown below. Maintenance Process 2" Asphalt Overlay Slurry Seal Lane Miles 8 13 Blocks Improved 38 61 Streets Improved 15 22 Cost $ 450,000 $ 150,000 2" Asphalt Overlay A 2" overlay is a process where the existing pavement surface has deteriorated to the point of needing a new surface. This process can only be applied when the subgrade and pavement structure are still in good condition. The process consists of placing a 2" layer of asphalt over the existing surface. The life expectancy of a 2" overlay is 7 to 10 years. . The 2" overlay requires the majority of time since the Public Works staff does everything except replace the deteriorating concrete curb and gutter. Public Works identifies the curb and gutter that needs to be replaced, identifies and repairs failing subgrade, and performs the asphalt overlay. An outside contractor removes the deteriorating curb and gutter and replaces it with new curb and gutter. Slurry Seal A slurry seal is a process that requires a seal coat over the surface of the pavement (this seals the pavement). The slurry seal will fill voids and cracks and keep water out of the pavement structure or subgrade. Slurry seals are good for sealing cracks up to 1/8". A slurry seal can extend the life of a street by 5 years. The slurry seal is performed entirely by an outside contractor. It does require some of the Public Works staffs time since Public Works oversees the work being done, coordinates with residents, inspects and approves the work being done by the contractor. The approved funding goes a long way in improving the condition of the City's streets. However, one of the areas identified in the 2005 Citizen Survey as needing improvement was in the condition of residential and non-residential streets. Seventy-seven (77%) percent rated the condition of non-residential streets as excellent or good, while 61.2% rated residential streets as excellent or good. . Since the Preventive Street Maintenance Program is the most cost effective way of improving the condition of the City streets, staff has evaluated how the existing program could be expanded with the current staffing level. Summarized below is how the program could be expanded if additional funding were available. An increase in funding in $200,000 increments was reviewed. Page 4 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Permanent Street Maintenance Fundin~ (cont.) Fundinq at $800,000 Level An increase in funding from $600,000 to $800,000 was reviewed first. The additional $200,000 could be used to increase the number of streets to be overlaid. The table below indicates how the program could be expanded. Maintenance Lane Blocks Streets % % Process Miles Improved Improved Increase Cost Increase I 2"Asphalt 13 61 22 47% $ 650,000 44% i Overlay Slurry Seal 13 61 22 0% $ 150,000 0% The average Condition Rating is estimated to increase from a 79 to an 80 or 81 rating with the additional $200,000. It was determined from the analysis that the current Public Works staff could only handle an increase of about $200,000 in the 2" overlay portion of the program. Since the overlays require the majority of staff's time, the additional $200,000 put into this process will maximize the amount of work that staff can do in-house. . Fundinq at $1 ,000,000 Level An increase from $600,000 to $1,000,000 was reviewed next. Since the current staffing level could only handle the additional overlays generated from a maximum of $200,000, the additional $400,000 could be divided. One half of the $400,000 could fund additional overlays and the other $200,000 could fund additional slurry seals. As mentioned previously, slurry seals do take some of staff's time to coordinate, but are mostly completed by outside contractors. The table below indicates how the program could be expanded with the additional $400,000. Maintenance Lane Blocks Streets % % Process Miles Improved Improved Increase Cost Increase 2" Asphalt 13 61 22 47% $ 650,000 44% Overlay Slurry Seal 29 137 70 218% $ 350,000 133% At this funding level the average Condition Rating is estimated to increase from a 79 to approximately 84. The existing $600,000 funding level improves approximately 37 streets. The $1,000,000 funding level could improve approximately 92 streets. . Page 5 of 22 . CURRENT ISSUES Permanent Street Maintenance Funding (cont.) Fundinq at $1 ,200,000 Level The program was then evaluated if the funding level was increased from $600,000 to $1,200,000, an increase of $600,000. As previously mentioned, the maximum increase that Public Works could handle in the 2" overlay is $200,000. In this scenario, the maximum that staff can increase the funding in the slurry seal is also $200,000 and still be able to effectively manage both processes. That means that $200,000 would need to be used in the program by an outside contractor. Instead of Public Works repairing failing subgrade, identifying curb and gutter removal, and adding the 2 " overlay, this work would need to be contracted out. It is estimated that it would cost twice as much for overlays if 100% completed by outside contractors. In summary, the $600,000 increase would be divided as follows: $200,000 - 2" Overlay by City staff $200,000 - Slurry Seal by outside contractor $200,000 - 2" Overlay by outside contractor The table below indicates how the program could be expanded. . Maintenance Lane Blocks Streets % % Process Miles Improved Improved Increase Cost Increase 2" Asphalt 15 71 25 67% $ 850,000 89% Overlay Slurry Seal 29 137 70 218% $ 350,000 133% . At the $1,200,000 funding level the Condition Rating will not be significantly higher than the $1,000,000 level since we will only be impacting 2 or 3 additional streets. The key to preserving asphalt pavements is to catch deterioration early and perform pavement preservation techniques to eliminate or slow down the damage. Questions: · Are you pleased with the level of improvement gained through our current $600,000 level of investment? · If funding were available, would you desire to increase the investment by the Preventive Street Maintenance Program? . If so, how much? Page 6 of 22 . . . CURRENT ISSUES Compensation Plan During FY 96/97, Council approved a Market Adjustment Plan to keep salaries competitive. The plan involves an annual salary survey of ten cities and a review of the Employment Cost Index to determine the level of adjustment necessary to keep the City's pay ranges competitive with other cities. In March 2003 the City implemented the results of a comprehensive compensation and classification study conducted by the Waters Consulting Group. It had been 10 years since the City's last comprehensive study. The study included a labor market analysis, an internal evaluation of all job classifications, and the preparation of up to date job descriptions. As part of the implementation, Council approved the continuation of the Market Adjustment Plan which reinforced the City's commitment to keeping employee salaries competitive. City employees did not receive a market adjustment in FY 03/04 because the compensation and classification study had just been implemented and because of budget constraints experienced that fiscal year. In FY 04/05, Police and Fire salary ranges moved 3.37%. This move placed Police Officer salaries at the market average and placed Fire Fighter salaries 2.9% above the market average. General Government ranges were adjusted 2.83% to the market average. Due to economic considerations, a market adjustment was not included in the current year budget; however, a lump sum merit payment was approved for those individuals who were at the top of their pay range. Since the implementation of the compensation and classification study in 2003, the competition among employers for qualified employees has risen. This is evident based on recent articles written in the Dallas Morning News and Fort Worth Star Telegram regarding the subject of "pay raises" as well as survey data gathered by the City. For example, survey data shows that since 2003 salary ranges for Police Officers have increased by 11 % while salary ranges for Firefighters have increased 9%. An analysis of the survey data going back to 2003 shows relatively little movement in the market from 2003 to 2005. However, survey data shows significant movement with pay ranges over the last 12 months. This recent increase in salaries can be attributed to improving economic conditions as well as employer's attempts to offset rising health care costs that over the last several years have been passed along to their employees. In comparison, City of North Richland Hills salary ranges for both Police Officer and Firefighter have increased 6.3% during that same time period. Survey data for Police and Fire positions indicate that other cities will increase their pay ranges again in the Fall of 2006, widening the gap between our midpoint averages and the market. This will likely be the same for all other General Government employees as well but history shows that the increase will be at a slower rate. To recruit and retain quality personnel, it will be necessary to adjust the Public Safety and General Government pay ranges next fiscal year. This may necessitate greater consideration than in the past to continue the objective of positioning our salary ranges at the market average. Page 7 of 22 . . . CURRENT ISSUES Compensation Plan (cant.) Therefore, it is anticipated that the Market Adjustment Plan will resume in FY 06/07 to ensure that the City's salary ranges remain competitive and the City can continue to attract and retain quality employees. Questions: · Do we continue the philosophy of maintaining our pay range mid-points at the market average? · Would you be willing to consider a phased in approach to reaching market average? Page 8 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES · Municipal Wireless NetworkinÇl Although there are several issues surrounding municipalities providing broadband service to their citizens, there continues to be a growing need for a City owned wireless network. Several City departments could increase productivity and efficiency by utilizing wireless technology to mobilize their computer applications. With the maturation of wireless technology, many cities are investing in the technology and leveraging their current infrastructure (towers, traffic signals, fiber optic cable, etc.) to implement wireless networks that are capable of providing seamless coverage for mobile applications. The majority of these cities are investing in some form of "mesh network". A mesh network is comprised of both mobile and static wireless devices that connect directly to each other and handle many simultaneous connections. These devices are designed to act as repeaters for each other, as well as provide network connections to mobile computers. The application of this technology can be used to create a true mobile network that builds off of itself as depicted in the image below. · _" ~~'¡::"~'._R"" _A.- \ ·~::;T·..····:·~..I· . I~'·· -"~f . _m~\' _ WI,.! bäC: .IUIIIJ _ OP(lmM '....,~rll:¡~.. . .. ........._... r.-:........p ,Q..I..... w..... In a disaster scenario, where data communications are affected, the mobile units can be used to build an ad-hoc network. This ad-hoc network can bridge sites such as City Hall and Fire Administration together wirelessly allowing continued use of applications such as email, reporting, and public safety systems. · At this point, the primary drivers are to increase government efficiency and productivity by mobilizing public safety, parks, public works, inspections, and neighborhood services computer applications. However, with the use of this technology there are many other opportunities in the areas of economic development and citizen satisfaction that can be addressed in later phases. Both of these areas are currently being lobbied heavily by phone and cable companies to stop municipalities from building their own network for public consumption. They argue cities networks operate under different rules than private providers, providing economic and regulatory advantages. Whatever the outcome, there are pros and cons to the city operating a network for public consumption. Page 9 of 22 . . . CURRENT ISSUES Municipal Wireless NetworkinQ (cont.) Pros · Mobilize public workforce · Provide affordable Internet access to citizens · Offer free access to governmental and education websites · Possible revenue source Cons · Additional resources required to operate network · Bandwidth (satisfaction) relies on backhaul (wired) connection and simultaneous users · Costs · Proposed regulatory issues The City would need to address several questions in order to implement a wireless network. · Identify and prioritize applications to mobilize · Set long and short term goals · Research technology providers to meet identified needs · Plan and design the network · Locate funding · Explore partnership opportunities Should Council be supportive of moving toward a wire mesh networking system, it will be necessary to employ outside assistance to do a comprehensive study on the layout and design for an estimated cost of $20,000. This study would consider the topography and foliage of the City and determine the most optimal placement of technology. Questions: · Currently "hot spot" technology is used for certain wireless applications. Is Council in support of going to more of a "wireless mesh" type system? · Is Council interested in providing a wireless network for citizen use? Page 10 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Facilitv Planning This item is being placed on the Planning Workshop agenda to discuss future facility planning needs for the City. There are a number of relocation or adjustment needs for facilities and/or City departments that need to be considered for the future. Along with proper planning, budgetary resources will be necessary for a number of these decisions. Our briefing to the City Council will involve informing everyone of those needs. In some cases Staff has a pretty good feeling about some of the decisions that need to be made, but in other cases we really do not have the best decision figured out yet. Although some of the facility movements have been planned for some time and the decisions have been essentially made, several other relocations need to have all the options considered. As you will see in the following list of planned facility needs, some amount of outside professional help may be needed to help ascertain the costs associated with relocations involving new facilities or remodeling. The following list of future facility needs is presented for your information. The order is not prioritized as of this time. . Recreation Center - The proposed new Recreation Center will be built in Home Town, which is a central location geographically in North Richland Hills. At this time bonds are scheduled to be issued in 2008, with construction complete in 2010. The current thought is that the existing facility on Loop 820 will likely close due to the impact on the physical arrangement of the building by the widening of Loop 820 and not due to the need for a larger recreational facility. A south side recreational facility could be a joint facility with the City of Richland Hills in the former Food Lion or some other smaller facility. Retaining the current Recreation Center would most likely not be feasible because it would be larger than needed to serve as a smaller community center. Questions: · Are we going to continue consideration of a smaller recreation center on the south side of town? If so, where would this be located? · Is a joint facility with the City of Richland Hills an option to serve the needs of the southern part of the City? . Library - Construction of the future Library in Home Town, also a central location geographically, will begin by October of 2006. It should be completed and ready for occupation by early 2008. The current plan is to close the existing facility on Loop 820 as the central library and either use a portion of it as a smaller branch facility or find a suitable smaller building. This operation will be the first to move from the primary Loop 820 location to the new site. At this time staff is planning to keep this portion of the building closed after the central library moves out, although maybe some temporary storage will be considered. A smaller sized branch library is currently in the plans as the City Council has directed. Options for a south branch include remaining at the current site but operated substantially smaller, a cooperative agreement with the City of Haltom City or Richland Hills, or even use of another City facility on the south side. Page 11 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Facility Plannina (cont.) Library (cont.) Questions: · Previous Councils reached consensus that a south branch library was needed; therefore, what will be the timing, location or magnitude of services offered? · Haltom City will be building a new library near the intersection of Glenview and Highway 377 in the next few years. Is it possible to discuss an inter-local agreement with the City of Haltom City to service our citizens on the south side? · Could an arrangement be reached with the City of Richland Hills about the sharing of library services for our citizens on the south side of the City? · Is it feasible to place a branch library in a renovated Food Lion along with other facilities or is another location better suited? . Citicable - The City's cable television operation is located in the Loop 820 facility. Knowing the central library and the recreation center will be vacating the building or substantially downsizing in the next few years it is assumed that this operation will also be seeking a new home. It would not be feasible to keep this operation in the building along with the Municipal Court as the building space would be too large to suit the remaining needs. This operation does not need to be located central to the community or necessarily convenient to the general public. It would be desirable to be located at City Hall, but currently space is not available. It has been discussed to relocate the operation to the former Fire Station NO.4 on Mid-Cities Boulevard along with Municipal Court. Several opportunities for relocation exist, but the best location has not yet been determined and should be evaluated more fully. Questions: · Would Citicable be better served by being in the old Food Lion building, old Fire Station NO.4 (next to Fire Administration), or elsewhere? Municipal Court - The Municipal Court is also located in the Loop 820 facility. Again the assumption has been made that it too would be relocated on or about the same time as the other city operations at this location. The location of this facility does require easy access to the public because of the high volume of walk in customers. Ideally it would be located near or adjacent to the Police Department, although this is not mandatory. This operation too has been considered to be relocated to the former Fire Station NO.4 on Mid Cities Boulevard or the former Food Lion. This potential move also warrants further study of potential sites. Questions: · What is the best location for the new Municipal Court? · Could it be located within the City Hall/Police Department Complex? · Is the old Food Lion facility the best location or, should another new building be . constructed in close proximity to the Police Department to serve these needs? Page 12 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Facility Plannina (cont.) City Hall (Location) - Serious consideration must be given to the future of City Hall. Although there is not really any need to expand the size of the facility as we already have some unfinished shell space available for expansion, the widening of Loop 820 will likely force the City to make some long term facility decisions about City Hall. The widening of Loop 820 in the near future will result in most of the parking to be eliminated on the south side of the building. At best the City will be able to retain the limited parking up against the building and one half of the drive. To continue the use of this drive will likely result in it being converted to a one-way direction. The impact of the drive and parking makes the front door of City Hall ineffective. The findings of the recent Loop 820 Corridor Study determined that if City Hall was going to remain in this location it would be necessary to effectively remodel City Hall in such a way that the front door is either turned to the east or to the north. To make this work, adjacent houses would need to be acquired to recapture additional parking lost be the widening of Loop 820. A plan had been mapped out to determine the number of houses needed, and strangely enough most of these homeowners are supportive of the buyout, assuming the price is right. In fact, there are a number of homeowners who regularly contact the City asking the potential acquisition. At present two effected landowners have written the City recently and asked what the time frame will be for the buy-out. Because we involved them in the process and they now know of our plans, it seems fair to commit to a schedule so that they can move on with their lives. . Questions: · Should the City focus its City Hall planning needs on a reconfiguration of the existing City Hall including the buy-out of neighboring properties? · If so, what would be the timing of buy-out of properties? Police Department - The existing Police facility is sufficiently sized, however, the widening of Loop 820 also impacts the current configuration of this building. The City must plan for some modification. The Loop 820 Corridor Study also considered a buy- out of properties to the north of the Police Department that would effectively allow for the front door of the Police Department to be flipped over to the north side of the building. Obviously to do this, like in City Hall, a significant amount of internal renovation and remodeling would be necessary. One significant advantage this would allow is the opportunity to create a secure compound for all of the City's vehicles. Most Police Departments have a secure area where the police units are kept. Right now there is no secure area to park City vehicles at the Police Department. . - Questions: · Should the City continue a plan for remodeling and reconfiguring the Police Department at the current location including a buyout of neighboring properties? · Should these plans include the addition of a new Municipal Court located within the facility and the enlargement of the EOC? · Should we develop a conceptual site plan design for both the Police Department and City Hall? Page 13 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES . Facility Planning (cont.) City Hall (Internal) - As most of us see on a regular basis, the size of the Pre-Council Chambers is quite small and often does not adequately accommodate the number of the visitors we receive in meetings. Ironically, there is additional room for expansion to the west of the room. This vacant, unfinished area is currently used for storage. When the City Hall building addition was done unfinished space was established specifically for future needs. Part of the space adjacent to the Pre-Council Chambers was left for the purpose of expanding the Pre-Council Chambers when it was deemed necessary. Another related recognized need is to have the Economic Development Department relocate to another part of City Hall. This would allow some ease to the crowded Human Resource Department and eliminate the intertwining of two very different department operations. There is extreme need to relocate this department elsewhere, but staff is in agreement that they should be placed in very close proximity to the front door of City Hall. It is possible to expand the Pre-Council room and relocate Economic Development into this vacant unfinished area. . Also, the movement of the Records Department upstairs to the unfinished area just to the east of the City Management area has been considered to be an effective and efficient move. The advantages to this move are that these three employees would be adjacent to the City Secretary Staff who oversee their operation. Also, in times of needed backup support, all would be working closely as one unit. Vacating the spot where Records are currently located would potentially free up space for Economic Development, or some other department. Another internal need is to move the Park Administration group to City Hall. There would be great value to have the Parks Administration, including park planning staff, locate at City Hall in close proximity to the City Manager's Office, Engineering and Planning Departments. These groups work very closely together, however making the move would be much more difficult due to the large spatial needs to make it work. A remodeling of City Hall might accommodate such a move. Of course, if this were to be considered, there would be no need to plan for this additional space in the new Recreation Center that will begin design next year. Many of these decisions will be dependent on the reimbursement by the Texas Department of Transportation to the City of North Richland Hills for the damages and impact to City Hall due to the widening of Loop 820. . Questions: · Should the Pre-Council Chambers be enlarged into the vacant area? · Should the Economic Development Department be relocated into the vacant area also or should the Economic Development Department be relocated to the existing Records if they are moved upstairs adjacent to the City Secretary's Office? · Should the Park Administration staff be moved to City Hall, or should they be planned to locate at the new Recreation Center? · What impact would these moves have on a potential remodel/reconfiguration of City Hall necessitated by the widening of Loop 820? Page 14 of 22 . . . CURRENT ISSUES Facilitv PlanninQ(cont.) Former Fire Station No. 4 Facilitv and Campus Master Planninq - As mentioned previously in consideration of movement of various departments, this existing facility offers some potential for a partial change in use. This facility presently contains Fire Administration on the east wing of the building, five vehicle bays in the middle of the facility, and a former dormitory in the west wing. The Fire Administration area is currently in use and there are no plans for change. Within the bay area, it is desirable to retain the use of four of the five bays for various backup fire equipment, emergency response equipment owned by N.E.F.D.A. and police S.W.A.T. vehicles. However, the one remaining bay to the west along with the dormitory portion of the building have potential for new uses. As mentioned, a variety of uses have been considered for relocation here. Yet another not yet mentioned is a potential need to relocate Neighborhood Services into a permanent building. As you know this operation is currently located within an older portable building that has ongoing needed repairs. Another advantage to moving this facility out of the present location is that this would enable a new Animal Control Facility to be constructed in the next few years with adequate room at the current location. Questions: · Should we evaluate the best uses for this available vacant space at the former Fire Station NO.4? · Should the relocation of Neighborhood Services or other services be considered at this location? · Should we consider additional future uses of adjacent vacant land? As you have seen, number of critical facility decisions need to be worked out. Some of these should be resolved relatively soon, while others have a bit more time to make any final decisions. However, in almost all cases, there will be budgetary impact. The relatively small internal renovation work that might be necessary to modify City Hall, can be done soon and with very little budgetary impact. But the major renovation of the Food Lion, City Hall and the Police Department might take longer to work out and financing might require debt issuance. And the acquisition of additional property for City Hall, Police Department or other new facilities to relocate would most certainly require the City to issue long term debt. Final Question: · Is the City Council supportive of hiring an architectural firm to assist the City in determining spatial needs for the future, location opportunities, cost estimates, etc. for facility planning? Page 15 of 22 · · · CURRENT ISSUES Taxation on Personal Use Leased Vehicles In 1999, Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment that authorized the legislature to exempt leased automobiles from ad valorem property taxes, provided that those automobiles are used for personal use rather than the production of income. The bill that made this amendment law included a section that allowed municipalities to continue the tax by passing an ordinance before January 1, 2002. The City of North Richland Hills passed an ordinance on November 26, 2001 to continue taxing these vehicles. This was done to avoid annual revenue losses estimated to be around $60,000. Auto dealerships and leasing companies are responsible for payment of the property tax on leased vehicles as they remain the owners of the property. These companies pass the tax liability through to customers in lease agreements. Over the last several years numerous citizens have contacted staff and complained about this tax. Currently the City of North Richland Hills is one of six cities in Tarrant County (44 cities) and one of seventy-four cities in the State (1,210 cities) that still has this tax. The other cities assessing this tax in Tarrant County are Benbrook, Forest Hill, Lake Worth, Haltom City and Hurst. Council can rescind the ordinance allowing for taxation of these vehicles at any time. But, a rescission would not take effect until subsequent tax (calendar) years. In other words, a rescission of the tax made in 2006 would not take effect until 2007. The re'1enue impact is now anticipated to be approximately $90,000. Questions: . Does Council support continuing to tax personal use leased vehicles? Page 16 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES · Use of Charter and TXU Settlement Dollars for Public Use · Charter Settlement Over the last few years our City and others have discussed a settlement agreement with Charter Communications related to customer service and non-compliance with the cable franchise agreement. We have now reached a settlement with Charter. It is anticipated that the City of North Richland Hills will receive a total of approximately $80,000, in four annual payments starting in the current fiscal year. Although the money can be used however Council chooses, it seems reasonable that Council might consider the settlement money be used to enhance broadcast capabilities. Using the money in this manner would keep the dollars in the area from which they were received. One significant area of need is the camera and broadcast equipment located in the Council Chamber. The ten year old cameras have become unreliable and parts are very difficult to find when a camera breaks down. Because of technological changes in the last 10 years, it is not possible to purchase new cameras one by one as needed because they are unable to "talk" to each other and unable to "talk" to the other equipment needed to broadcast meetings such as the master controller. All equipment needs to be of the same vintage. Upgrading the cameras and equipment should help with the quality of broadcasting meetings as well as prepare us for future live broadcast of meetings on the internet. Another equipment need in the Council Chamber is the recording system that the City Secretary uses to record the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The equipment is over 14 years old and is becoming unreliable. The current system quits recording during meetings and must be closely monitored. Having gaps in the tape makes it possible that important information that was discussed during a meeting might not get included in the minutes. A new recording system would be a possible use of the Charter funds. Upgrading the electronic voting system is another need for our Chamber and would improve efficiencies for the City Secretary. The current system is manual, is out of date, and is difficult to keep in good repair. It was installed 10 years ago and in need of replacement. Questions: · Would Council be supportive of using these funds to make improvements to our Citicable equipment and upgrade the equipment for public meetings in the Council Chamber? TXU Settlement At the March 27, 2006 City Council meeting, Council approved extension and modification of a settlement agreement with TXU Electric Delivery. The terms of the agreement were to extend an $8 million per year payment to reimburse cities for excessive electricity charges. This equates to an annual payment to the City of $75,294. It is anticipated this payment will continue until 2009 when a final order is entered by the Public Utility Commission. It would appear that this money should remain in the General Fund to reimburse for over expenditures. · Page 17 of 22 · · · CURRENT ISSUES Use of Charter and TXU Settlement Dollars for Public Use (cont.) TXU Settlement (cont.) The settlement agreement also includes two payments of $9 million to cities to be used for "beneficial public use". This payment to the City is $118,739 per year or $237,478 in total. Beneficial public use was not clearly defined in the settlement agreement so it could be for any number of things including street maintenance, library needs and facility needs. But, it may be desirable for Council to consider using all or a part of this money for human service type needs since it was designated for beneficial public use. There continues to be a need for assisting certain citizens within our community who do not have the means to provide for some basic needs. For example, some of this money could be allocated for human service issues such as assisting with utility bills or people who have special needs and who are having health or economic problems. Some possible uses of these funds are: Some funds could be dedicated to the Neighborhood Initiative Program (NIP) to assist with purchasing items such as window units, fans and window screens for special needs families (most likely elderly and handicapped) thereby providing a way for these residents to remain cool in summer as well as avoid possible heat related illnesses should their homes become too warm. Although the NIP receives donations to help fund the program, it often does not have enough dollars available to meet all needs. There are between 85- 95 projects per year that are completed by the NIP which seems to support the belief that there is a need within our community. Dedicating $90,000 to this program would go a long way toward being able to provide assistance to citizens that are unable to provide for themselves. If funds are allocated for these, there would be systems developed to insure funds were spent on needy individuals. An outcome of the citizen's survey that was conducted last fall was the need to focus on litter control within the City. Neighborhood Services is in the process of developing a program called Litter Not to address the litter issues. Dedication of $25,000 as seed money would facilitate this program and enable it to be up and running much quicker than raising the money through donations. It often takes a great deal of time to raise needed money because there are so many competing interests also trying to get donations from area businesses and individuals. The seed money would be used for supplies such as safety vests, trash bags, gloves and litter grabbers and provide dollars to be used toward advertising and flyers to promote the program. Another program being developed by Neighborhood Services that addresses concerns from the citizen's survey is the Neighborhood Looks program. This program will focus attention on neighborhoods to address issues such as high grass, trash and declining home appearance before they get to the magnitude that Code Enforcement is required to get involved. This program will be citizens assisting with monitoring their own neighborhoods coupled with focused code enforcement activity to maintain the appearance of neighborhoods and keep deterioration out. As our community ages, it will become more and more critical for the City and residents to get involved in maintaining the appearance of our older neighborhoods. Seed money of $15,000 to be used toward items such as informational brochures, flyers and advertising is needed to gain buy-in from neighborhoods. Page 18 of 22 · · · CURRENT ISSUES Use of Charter and TXU Settlement Dollars for Public Use (cont.) TXU Settlement (cont.) Additionally, a portion or the balance of the settlement dollars could be set aside to assist residents with payment of utility bills, when they qualify for assistance. Each month we have, on average, 240 accounts disconnected because of non-payment. Although a number of these accounts are disconnected due to forgetfulness and irresponsibility, there are a certain number of these people that truly have a need for assistance. The Utility Billing department receives many calls throughout the year from social service agencies asking if we can assist certain needy residents of our City with their utility bills. Currently, no mechanism is in place to provide assistance, other than establishing a payment plan. Questions: . Would Council be supportive of using the settlement dollars from TXU toward the Neighborhood Services programs? . Would Council consider the establishment of a program and guidelines whereby those that have a proven need can get assistance with their utility bills? Page 19 of 22 CURRENT ISSUES · Policy on Uses of Revenues from Mineral Leasina To date, Council has awarded bids for leasing of minerals at Fossil Creek Park, Linda Spurlock Park, Northfield Park and Richfield Park. Revenues will soon be received for bonuses from the leases, but actual lease revenues and property taxes from the gas wells are still unknown and uncertain. However, it appears that a policy should be established anticipating the next several years, there will be some revenues coming to the City. It also appears a policy should be established to avoid over-reliance on these revenues. First and foremost, there are no guarantees that the gas wells within our City will produce much less be high producers. It is also worth noting that if the City does receive royalty and property tax revenues in the future, that these revenues decrease over time. Three areas of consideration for use of these gas revenues are: 1. To bridge the gap of sales tax revenue reductions; 2. To use "one time" revenues for projects or non-recurring capital needs; 3. To use the revenues for expanding the City's economic base and use for economic development. · With the decline of sales tax revenues in the last three years, it seems reasonable to use a portion of the gas revenue to "bridge" the gap of sales tax revenue to fund General Fund services and operations until new sales tax generators come on line. A portion of the revenue, one time revenues such as bonus money, could be reserved for future park development or for continuation of "pay-as-you-go" for park projects. It could also be used to fund needed future capital projects at the golf course, thereby saving the cost of issuing debt as well as interest expense. Bonus money could also be used for capital purchases or infusion of revenue into existing programs such as the preventive street maintenance program or economic development. Gas revenues could also be used to offset the declining hotel/motel tax revenue and allow for the expansion of economic development programs such as business attraction and retention and provide dollars for a more aggressive and competitive economic development initiative. I. Types of Revenue · The City anticipates receiving revenues from several avenues including property tax, permitting fees, fines, bonuses, royalties, leases and overrides. Bonuses are a "one time" payment as are permitting fees and any fines assessed. The "ongoing" or longer term revenues include property taxes, leases and overrides. Because of the nature of bonuses, it would appear impractical to use these revenues for ongoing operations due to the problems created with recurring expenses and using "one time" funds. It appears these types of revenues lend themselves to more "project" activities versus operating expenses. Other gas revenues appear to be more appropriate to pay for operations and service related costs. Page 20 of 22 · · · CURRENT ISSUES Policv on Uses of Revenues from Mineral Leasing (cont.) II. Proposed Revenue Uses Property TaxlPermittinq Fees/Fines Regardless of the location of a gas well, it seems reasonable that perhaps the property tax, permitting fees and fine revenue should go to the General Fund to cover the additional costs incurred as a result of monitoring gas drilling activities. These costs include well inspections, well permitting, publications, and other expenses related to gas drilling permitting and monitoring. Property taxes would appear reasonable for covering operating and program expenses and help offset reductions in sales tax revenue. Bonuses Bonus revenue does not appear to be practical for funding ongoing, daily operations. As mentioned above, bonuses are one time payments that ideally could be used for one- time, project or capital type purchases. For example, bonus money could be reserved for future park development or for continuation of "pay-as-you-go" for park projects. It could be used to cash fund needed future capital projects at the golf course or for needed equipment, thereby saving the cost of issuing debt as well as interest expense. Bonus money could also be used for capital purchases or infusion of revenue into existing programs such as the preventive street maintenance program or economic development. Rova Ities/Leases/Overrides Revenues generated from these sources are ongoing but the longevity and certainty of the revenues are unknown. Because of this, caution should be taken in use of these revenues for daily operations on an ongoing basis. Too much dependence on these revenues for operations, with the uncertainty of the life line of the well, could create some risks and tough decision in a few years. However, these revenues could potentially offset some of the sales tax dollars that have been lost over the last few years due to declining retail activity. They could "bridge the gap" until sales tax revenues increase. Royalty, lease and override revenue could also be used to offset the declining hotel/motel tax revenue and allow for the expansion of economic development programs such as business attraction and retention and provide dollars for a more aggressive and competitive economic development initiative. It has become more and more challenging to maintain a quality economic development program with the diminished revenues, much less have funds available to expand programs. III. Distribution of Revenues There are an infinite number of ways the revenues could be distributed, but below are ideas for Council consideration on the allocation of the revenues based on the premises listed in the introduction paragraphs. A differentiation has been made between a park purchased with General Fund dollars and one purchased with Sales Tax dollars. This distinction has been made because those parks purchased with General Fund dollars cannot use sales tax dollars toward operating and maintaining the parks. As mentioned previously, allocating revenues to economic development could help to enhance and expand programs to assist current businesses and bring new businesses to our city. Page 21 of 22 . . . CURRENT ISSUES Policy on Uses of Revenues from Mineral Leasing (cont.) Park Site Developed with General Fund Revenue - If a gas well is located within a park or minerals leased within a park that was developed using General Fund revenues, then the following distribution could be used: . General Fund - 85% . Economic Development - 15% Park Site Developed with Sales Tax Revenue - If a gas well is located within or minerals leased within a park that was developed using the ~ cent sales tax, then the following distribution of revenues could be used: · Park Development Fund - 50% · General Fund - 35% · Economic Development - 15% Iron Horse - If a gas well is located on Iron Horse property or minerals are leased on Iron Horse property, bonus, royalty, lease and override revenue could go in its entirety to the golf course. Other City Property - If a gas well is located on property that is considered "utility" property, then 100% of the revenue could be allocated to the Utility Fund. If the property is considered General Fund, then 100% of the revenue could be allocated to the General Fund. If the property is a combination of Utility and General Fund property, then the revenue could be split 50/50 between the two funds. Questions: . Is Council in support of gas revenues being used in the manner outlined above? . Is Council interested in a resolution to approve a plan and policy for use of these funds? Page 22 of 22 ISSUES - FUTURE · · · FUTURE ISSUES New Library Operations and Maintenance As we are winding down now on the design of the new Library and gear up for the year long construction, we are starting to think a little more about the operations of such a facility. The purpose of this item is to brief the City Council on some of the identified cost increases to maintain the new Library. The current library occupies approximately 31,000 square feet. The new library will encompass approximately 48,500 square feet. Currently the library is open six days a week for 65 hours and is closed on Sunday. It is not anticipated that the new library hours will change. The following information is provided to show an estimate of current operational cost versus the proposed operational cost: COST CATEGORY CURRENT FY 06/07 23.34 $1,187,151 200,000 171,887 $ 1,559,038 41,540 62,000 $1,662,578 PROJECTED FY 07/08 26 $1,300,000 250,000 200,000 $1,750,000 150,000 100,000 $2,000,000 FTEs Personnel (Salaries and Benefits) Materials Budget Other Operating TOTAL LIBRARY Utility Costs Maintenance Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING It is a well known phenomenon that when a new library is opened typically the facility will experience a noticeable rise in users. Sometimes this increase can be as much as 25% to 50%. The new facility is being designed to be as efficient an operation as possible and to use technology whenever possible to minimize the use of personnel. No action is required by the City Council at this time. Page 1 of 6 . . . FUTURE ISSUES Boulevard 26 The cities of Richland Hills and North Richland Hills continue to work together to promote and enhance the Boulevard 26 Corridor. An economic feasibility study was completed in 2004 by The Leland Group and HNTB that outlined specific strategies for enhancement. In April 2004 an Interlocal Agreement was established by both cities creating an Oversight Committee made up of 2 City Council members from each city and one at-large local business person. Frank Metts and Joann Johnson were appointed to the initial Oversight Committee from North Richland Hills. The Oversight Committee has been meeting since July, 2004. One of the major strategies identified in the South Grapevine Highway Corridor Strategy was to conduct a branding and design effort for the Corridor. The Jet Powered Group and Carter & Burgess were hired in January 2005 to develop a new image for the area through a branding and design study. After several months of public input and numerous meetings by the Oversight Committee, city staff and both City Councils reviewed and adopted a new name and branding effort in July, 2005. Boulevard 26 incorporates new urban design concepts for unique street signs and a modern theme in an effort to stimulate redevelopment and bring more businesses and visitors to both communities with an emphasis toward young professionals and young families. The cities of Richland Hills and North Richland Hills officially changed the name of Grapevine Highway to Boulevard 26 effective January 1, 2006 with the installation of new, unique street signs. Also, following the adopted design criteria both cities have recently hired Shrickel and Rollins consultants to design new street intersections at Boulevard 26 and Rufe Snow and Boulevard 26 and Glenview. Scott Turnage and David Whitson have recently been appointed as current members of the Boulevard 26 Oversight Committee from North Richland Hills. Jeff Ritter and Phil Heinze are the current members from Richland Hills and Mike Rigby serves as the at- large business person on the Committee. Staff plans to meet in July, 2006 and provide an update to the Boulevard 26 Oversight Committee regarding specific design of intersections and prioritize completion of previously outline strategies. Following are the 10 primary designated strategies for Boulevard 26 as prioritized by both City Councils. Hiqhest Priority for Initial Implementation Efforts Incorporate an Interlocal Agreement Conduct Real Estate Forums Develop Funding Options for Corridor Improvements Establish a Boulevard 26 Business Association Develop "Branding" Program Develop Joint Public Improvement Plans Encourage Consistent Code Enforcement Conduct Regulatory "Audit" Page 2 of 6 Status Completed Ongoing Ongoing Completed Ongoing Completed · · · FUTURE ISSUES Boulevard 26 (cont.) Hiohest Priority for Initial Implementation Efforts Formulate Economic Development Incentives Package Develop Implementation Plans for key Activity Centers Status Questions: . Should the Boulevard 26 Oversight Committee proceed with the implementation of existing prioritized strategies or do you think it is important to have a joint City Council meeting with Richland Hills to review and update priorities? . Intersection improvements at Rufe Snow and Glenview will be completed in the next year and no other capital improvements have been planned at this time for Boulevard 26. Should City Council consider allocating capital funds for new public improvements in the Boulevard 26 Corridor over the next couple of years? Page 3 of 6 . . . . . . FUTURE ISSUES Loop 820 Corridor City of North Richland Hills has taken a proactive approach towards Department of Transportation's upcoming project to widen Interstate Loop 820. The team of Kimley-Horn Associates and Townscape Architects has completed the Loop 820 Corridor Study. The primary purpose of the study has been to plan for the best use of land, promote good access and minimize conflicts between residential and non- residential properties. The Loop 820 study was adopted by the NRH City Council on July 25,2005. major findings of the Loop 820 Study included recommendations the development of specific districts including Iron Horse, Civic, Cross Roads and Designer District with way finding and unique urban design for each area. The 820 improvements will also affect the Library/Recreation Center and City Hall Major recommendations in land use along the Loop 820 Corridor included conversion of some residential properties to retail and conversion of Industrial properties to denser mixed land use developments in the near vicinity of a future commuter rail station. Questions for City Council Discussion fII Should Staff proceed with changing the Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan to reflect changes identified in the Loop 820 Study? fII Staff has requested grant funding to develop a transit oriented sustainable development ordinance in support of both the Loop 820 Corridor the Smithfield Conservation District. Should the City not receive the grant funding, is the Council interested in pursuing an alternate source of funding? Page 4 of 6 . . e t ¡;;¡;;¡ ¡g u .- ø .'!::: ~ Z .S ~ 0 .<.J ø œ t:l. 1'" ø ø Ë $: " c: :5 "'" U -< E .2 ;t -. >- 11 (/)~ c:: 0 E :¡¡ '> :=;J::. . f-4 :; ~ 0. ~ c: &!j 't E * Ii; £ UJ 0 Ë -c: - ::: I- >- j;! ~l r./'J .5 GI ,2- E (/) 5 (/) (I) tIí '" 0 ,¡; ~ 'w 2' '" Z QI :;; :r: ,= 0- '" 0- :::: ...J ~ ~ D f-4 Oè! 3NIl # C . ¡: ~ j . " !l p ~ ~ . 1 S'o'lÐnoa · · · FUTURE ISSUES TCEQ Phase II Stormwater Management Standards The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a tiered implementation strategy for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit / Program. The first phase was implemented several years ago and impacted cities with populations greater than 100,000. The second phase of the tiered approach, Stormwater Permit Phase II, was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999. Phase II requires all cities with a population under 100,000 to obtain a NPDES permit for stormwater discharges for: · Construction activity disturbing one acre or more of land (i.e., small construction activities) · Municipal Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) The permit for the construction activities disturbing one acre or more went into effect March 2003. This permit is submitted to the State by the developer for private developments and by the City's engineering consultant (or contractor) for CIP projects. The permit for the municipal storm sewer systems is more involved. This permit requires the City to establish a Stormwater Management Program that meets the requirements of six (6) control measures. They are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Public Education Public Involvement and Participation Elicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Construction Site Controls Post Construction Controls Pollution Prevention The deadline for the municipal permit was originally set for March 2003 as well. However the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is still in the process of finalizing the requirements for this permit. It is now believed that the TCEQ will issue the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements for stormwater discharges from regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) late this summer or fall. Cities (regulated MS4 operators) will have 180 days to prepare a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the new permit after the new requirements are issued. City staff has proceeded with developing a draft SWMP based on the minimum EPA requirements a few years ago in order to provide Council and staff adequate time to review the program and its impacts to the City before it was due to the State. As soon as the TCEQ requirements are released staff will modify the draft SWMP and bring back to Council for approval. Page 5 of 6 · · · FUTURE ISSUES TCEQ Phase II Stormwater Manaaement Standards (cont.) Since the TCEQ has not released its requirements, it is unclear as this time exactly what the impact will be to the City. Based on the EPA's minimum requirements the impact will be minimal the first 2-3 years. During this time the City will continue with public awareness programs that it currently does. In addition, new ordinances and policies will need to be approved indicating penalties for violating the State's stormwater rules. During years 3, 4, or 5 of the program is when the City could be faced with a financial impact. Depending on the TCEQ requirements issued, testing of the stormwater at various outfalls could be required. The level of testing and reporting could result in additional staff being needed or additional funds for outside consultants. The City is a member of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Regional Stormwater Program. This program allows all of the participating cities to develop and share information that would be common for all cities in the region. This is a way to reduce the cost for everyone by not having to duplicate brochures, ordinances, etc. that would be similar for all cities. Page 6 of 6 UPDATES · · · UPDATES Internal Service Plans Council and Management realize the importance of Maintenance and Replacement of City Facilities and Equipment. Each year management and staff update the Multi-Year Internal Service Plans. Plans include the cost of Internal Service Funds operations, maintenance and capital replacement. City Departments are charged for the maintenance upkeep and replacement of vehicles, equipment, facilities and computer and telecommunications equipment and systems. In addition City departments, employees and retirees are charged for health coverage, workers compensation and other purchased insurance. These plans assume no property tax rate increase and pay- as-you-go funding where possible. The Equipment Replacement & Maintenance Plan is a ten-year plan which includes replacement and maintenance of Police, Fire and Support Services vehicles and equipment. This was a $43 million dollar plan in fiscal year 2006. $1.465 million in debt in the form of Certificates of Obligation were issued in 2006 for equipment replacement. This was the first year since 1998 that debt has been issued for equipment replacement. A preliminary cash flow analysis indicates that debt may need to be issued for equipment replacement in fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2007 preliminary budget includes the replacement of the following vehicles and equipment for which debt financing is proposed: Fire Engine $436,000 and Street Sweeper $170,000. Building Operating and Capital Maintenance Plan is a ten-year plan which includes ongoing upkeep and capital maintenance of city facilities. This was a $22 million dollar plan in FY 2006. No debt has been issued for facility capital maintenance since 1998. A preliminary cash flow analysis indicates that the plan can be continued on a pay-as-you- go basis. The FY 2007 projects will include the replacement of heating, ventilation and cooling systems at various municipal facilities at a budgeted cost of $204,000 The Self-Insurance Fund will receive $183,000 in funding according to the Insurance Reserve Replacement Plan, bringing the balance up to $1,206,709. Funding consists of $109,800 from the General Fund, $36,600 from the Utility Fund and $36,600 from employees and retirees in the City health plan through increased premiums. The ratio of cost sharing to replenish the fund is 80% City funds and 20% employees and retirees. This ratio will continue through 2010 when the plan will be completed. For FY 2007, Information Service proposed to replace 100 older, non-public safety personal computers for City staff at a cost of $160,500 and to begin upgrading the Police Mobile Video System from videotape and video discs to digital video recording. The costs of the upgrade are budget at $336,000 for FY 2007 and $456,000 over the four project timeline. These projects will be implemented on a pay-as-you-go basis. Page 1 of 4 . . . UPDATES Insurance Fund Through April 2006, the City's health plan is performing well. Expenditures are currently under budget; however, we are aware of a significant non-work related injury claim that we anticipate will bring us closer to budget or slightly over budget once the medical providers begin to submit claims to our claims administrator. In November 2005, the City held it's second ever employee/retiree health fair at the City's Recreation Center. The health fair was a great success with 10 vendors and approximately 150 employees, retirees, and family members who participated. North Hills Hospital provided blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose screening free of charge to all participants. With the positive claims experience over the last two years coupled with the significant plan design changes, we do not anticipate any plan design modifications such as increases in co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket maximums for Plan Year 2007. Based on our ongoing review of our medical claims experience, next fiscal year we are projecting an overall cost increase of approximately 9%. Employees will be expected to share in that increase in cost through an increase in monthly medical premiums. To maintain the cost-sharing ratio, we will be increasing employee premiums across the board 6% as well as continuing to follow our six-year strategy for rebuilding reserves by adding an additional $5 to employee monthly health insurance premiums. We are currently in the second year of the plan to rebuild reserves by both the City and it's employees and will continue the third year of the plan in fiscal year 2006/07. Health care costs will continue to be a challenge facing public and private employers. The balance between offering a competitive benefit and the costs associated with doing so will become more difficult. The changes that the City has made over the years to our health plan and its effect on our costs clearly show the benefits of applying creative solutions to a tough problem. It is apparent that the changes to the plan will have long- term positive effects on our health insurance costs. Continuing into the future, the City will "partner" with employees and retirees by sharing in a level of commitment to keep our self insurance fund financially healthy. Long-term, this "partnership" approach will reduce the financial impact of increasing medical costs while ensuring the financial stability of the self insurance fund so that the City of North Richland Hills can continue to provide quality health insurance for our employees, retirees, and family members for years to come. Page 2 of 4 · · · UPDATES Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones 1 and 2 Since creation the real property values in TIF 1 have increased by $6.2 million. When TIF 1 was created in 1998 to help save the Richland Plaza development, the property values were $1.1 million. The TIF made drainage improvements in the amount of $850,000 which diverted flooding water off the parking lot. Shortly thereafter the center was renovated and the name changed to North Richland Hills Village Center. Current value of the real property is $7,300,118. Business personal property value is estimated at $1 million. Over 600 new jobs have been created and 8 tenants occupy over one third of the 300,000 square foot center. Since creation of TIF 2 in 1999, property values have increased nearly $121 million. Since 1999 TIF 2 has collected $4.5 million in property taxes. $1.4 million in property taxes were collected in 2006. TIF 2 is now able to support the Library Project which will completed in late 2007 or early 2008. Page 3 of 4 · · · UPDATES Animal Adoption and Rescue Center's Expansion/Renovation This project entails the redesign and renovation of the existing 6,747 sq. ft. animal shelter with an expansion of roughly 8,000 additional sq. ft. The original conceptual drawings included an expansion of approximately 11,000 additional sq. ft. but were scaled back after Watauga's decision to opt out of the project. The total cost for the renovation and redesign was estimated at $3 million in 2002. General obligation bonds in the amount of $1.3 million were approved by the citizen's in 2003, as well as, $535,000 in accumulated voluntary utility bill donations. Current available funding for this project is $1,835,914. The remaining project monies will need to be raised through an area wide fund raising campaign focused on individual donors, businesses and citizens. The City Council approved a contract to hire Lawrence & Associates, in March 2006, to assist us during the capital campaign, which is estimated to last approximately one year. The final size of the expansion will be largely determined by the amount of monies received during this campaign. Staff has met with Mr. Lawrence and is currently developing a "List of Potential Donors." A public announcement regarding the expansion will not occur until after the "Quiet Phase." During this phase, all the large donors will be contacted and afforded the opportunity to donate before going public with any announcements. We anticipate starting the Design Phase sometime in June of 2007 and construction in late 2008. Final completion should occur around June of 2009. Page 4 of 4 COMPARISON INFORMATION · "C Q) t: S t: cu 0 0 :E C") · U) ~ ~ Q) t: cu ...J - Q) ~ 0 0 - N CJ) o o <D 0 +-' U) I 0 ~ 0 CO 1.0 ~ ...- N 0 N I'- ('f) ex> <0 <0 <0 c; 0 0 0'> ex> I'- I'- <0 <0 <0 <0 Q) L{) L{) v v v v v v v V l- I I <0 L{) V ('f) N ...- 0 0'> ex> I'- 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0'> 0'> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0'> 0'> Z N N N N N N N ...- ...- ...- 0 0 'V o o 0 I "E Q) ~ L... (/) Q) ~ ~ (II !!!. a::: .2 c:: ~ (/) ~ G OJ Z '5 "5 ã> ~ jJ! ::J ::J I "0 Q) >- ~ ::J ..c:: I (II Q) a. Q) "5 E ro "0 · CC ~ W c:: 0 0 .8 S jJ! 0 ü (f) ro ..c:: I u ä:: 0 L!) r------ -------------------- · C"ì I I I I I I 0 ! 0 c> - C"ì C/) I L- eo ~ C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 C'0 c: ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ex:> ~ T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" I I 0 I <.D 10 "o:t C'0 N T"" 0 0> ex:> I'-- L!) a:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> N Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> N N N N N N N T"" T"" T"" o L!) 0 CO c> Q) N ~ « " c CO ..J · - 0 en 0 .9l L!) ::æ ~ co ::J C- OO 0 c> ..- 0 0 Q) Q) L.. ::r: I/) Æ ~ "E +-- (II I/) c: ..I<: ~ a::: I/) ~ 0> '5 ~ Q) Z Q) '5 Ü .Q :J :J I Q) ..r::. ~ "S >- '0 ::r: (II · Cl. "S w ~ E Q) iií '0 ~ 0 0 .9 (Q ~ c: ~ (II C/) ü ro :c ::r: () ã: . 0 ~ 0 0 .~ ci lI) . > .,.... ~ E .c ..J 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o C"Î 0 ....... en I 001.01.00<0..-000 0 .... 0 ro OOI.ON<OI.OI.O<O<OO 0 !J!- O.O.V.N.I"-.CO."-.I.O.I"-."'!.. 0 Ol.Ov\0I"-I.OI.OI.O<OO lI) 1"-<0<0 1"-<0 \0 N ..- NN N c:: ~ NNNNNNN N NN I <0 1.0 V \0 N ..- 0 0) co I"- 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) 0) Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- 0 0 0 0 0 N o o o ci lI) 0 J: '- Q) f/) - 'E co ~ ~ Q) .!!l a::: Q) c:: f/) ~ rn .::s: Z ã) '5 ~ :J $2 :J G '5 J!! I ~ Q) :J J: "0 co >. ..c::. a. w Q) ro E ~ "5 "0 . ~ co $: .8 0 c:: 0 J!! C> ro ü (f) ..c::. J: u ã: · 0 0 0 () 0 .~ IX) t= () CJ) () · .~ 0 0 D.. 0 0 ... ó .E <D .!e. cu 0 0 0 0 0 '<t o o o Ó '<t 0 0 0 0 ..... CJ) Ó I N CDCD..- LO C") 0 LO C") ..- ~ ...... ~ ro COCO..- NCOO'>C")CDC")O'> ~ CD_ ..-_ f"-.._ LOCONCDCDC")f"-.. ..- ..- 0 -.iC:ÔC:ÔLÓoioir-: c: N N N ..- ..- ..- ..- 000'> ~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- I I I I I I 0 I CD LO ~ C") N ..- 0 0'> CO f"-.. 0 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0'> 0'> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0'> 0'> Ó Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- 0 o o o Ó N 0 I II) ~ ~ '§ Q) "E Q) ro !!!. ~ a:: II) 0 c: .12 .::.:. 0> Z ~ Qj :J '5 ~ :J I '5 :J ~ I Q) "U .c. ro >- · w E a. Q) "S (¡j "U ~ .8 ~ (1) 3: c: 0 0 ~ ro (9 (/) .c. Ü I u ä:: 0 0 · (J) 0 0 0 ...... CO en I "- CO ~ CD CD CD CD CD CD V 0'> I'- ..- 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> I'- CD ~ ~ c: 0 Q) L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() L.() 0 ~ t- I CD L.() V ('f) N ..- 0 0'> ex:> I'- 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0> 0'> Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- 0 0 CD ~ :E 0 0 CD l!) .. CIS :;j C" fJ) .. · CD 0 c.. 0 (!? ..t CD (.) E 0 CD .~ 0 0 0 C'f) Do o o N o o 0 0 0 "E ro +-' J: Q) ..... (f .;:- 22 Q) ~ 0) ~ (f c: ~ ~ .g ::J ::J Q) a::: 0 J: -5 Qj ro '5 ""0 ro J: :J Z Q) ~ :c :>. Q) ro w E ""0 Q. "5 ~ · CC ~ .8 c: ~ (5 ~ 0 ro ~ (!) (f') Ü :r: u ¡¡: · o o o ex) 0 0 0 +-' 0 (/) I"- .!!!. I ro .!!!. .... () ro CI:I 00 o-.:;tOl.!)-.:;t"'-o-.:;t en () ~ OI"-I"-N<.00<.ONI.!)ex:> ~ ~ c:: ex:>_ 1"-_ I.!)_ ex:>_ I.!)_ I.!)_ N N_ 0_ <.O_ W LL. Q) I.!) I.!) I.!) <.0 I.!) I.!) '1- ~ ex:> I"- 0 . 0 I- 0 I <.0 I.!) -.:;t ("') N ...- o (J) ex:> I"- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (J) (J) (J) c.D 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (J) (J) (J) Z N N N N N N N...- ...- ...- 0 0 0 L{) Q) .~ ~ Q) en ~ 0 0 LL 0 '<t · oð en :E w r.. .2 0 0 J!l 0 (V) cu () 0 0 0 N o o o 0 Q) "E I ..... en ~ '- Q) ro Æ .!!!. c ~ en ~ ..:.:: C> '5 J2 0::: ::J Q) G ã) ro ::J '5 I Q) '0 Z I "S ~ :c ro >. a. Q) W E "5 1ií ~ '0 · ~ CD .8 ~ 0 c 0 ~ c:> ro cn () ~ I u iŸ <D · 0 ..... (/) I ...... l.() CO ~ c: '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" '<t" ~ I <0 It) '<t" C") N 0r- a (J) co I'-- a a a a a a a (J) (J) (J) 0:: a a a a a a a (J) (J) (J) Z N N N N N N N or- or- or- '<t ø = 0 :¡:J J9 ('i) en · e LL .... 0 ... Q) J:I E ;:, Z N 0 Q) :I: f/) 'Pi ..... i':' 'E ~ Q) ro f/) c 0:: f/) ~ ~ C> '5 Z Q) ::J Qj G .Q '5 ro ::J I Q) :; :I: ~ "0 >.. :c: ro · a. UJ E Q) ~ "5 iií "0 ~ .8 (1) ë5 ~ c 0 ~ C> ro () (f) .r. I u ã: · ~ 0 0 :E "<t ~ ns ~ C" CJ) · I- Q) C. 0 0 ~ r0 .s J: en It: ~ u.. 0 0 N o o r-..: o o 0 0 +-' 0 en CD I ~ m ~ <D <D <D co co co I'- I'- <D <D "-: I'- I'- ~ ~ ~ C'? C'? N N C ~ .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t .;;t I <D LO .;;t C'? N ...- 0 CJ) co I'- 0 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ) CJ) CJ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ) CJ) CJ) o.ri Z N N N N N N N ...- ...- ...- 0 0 ci 'E '§ ro L... .!!l I ~ (/) Q) ~ Q) 0> c::: (/) c: ~ .::.: .2 I :J :J Ü ~ ':S: ":S: ãi ro "'0 I ro Z :J Q) >. ~ .!: Q) "'0 ro E w a. ~ "5 · CO c: š: .8 ~ 0 .!!! 0 .!: ro ø ü en <.) I æ a a · a CD 0 - en I .... a ro a ~ OONcx)C'0~cx)L{')L{')CX) a cx)O<Ol"-l"-or-I"-O>~or- LÖ or-_ 0_ ~_ ~ L{')_ 0>_ 0_ or-_ C'0_ 0>_ e:: ~ L{')<OL{')C'0C'0C'0~~~C'0 I <0 L{') ~ C'0 N 0r- a 0> CX) I"- 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> Z N N N N N N N or- or- 0r- a a a 'V "C ~ a a "C a C C') IV · :x: .!! IV .5 c « a a a N a a a a :r: L.. ~ "E (/) +-' Q) Jg ro Q) ~ a:: ~ U .g (/) ~ c: C> ..:.:: Z (jj ~ ::J .:> I ::J ~ .:> ~ "0 ::J :r: Q) ro L:. >. E Q) w a. "0 1ií "5 ~ · .8 CD œ c: ~ Õ ~ 0 ro C> L:. (J) Ü :r: u ii:: 0 N . ..- 0 - en I ~ 0 ro 0 ~ c:: CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ~ 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> I CD LO V ~ N ..- 0 0> co "- a:::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- o ex) ~ 0 CJ <D C'a C. . C'a 0 ... .s () .r:. <D en 0 0 N ..... 0 () "<t E E ::J (j) t:: () a. 0 .8 -c () Ü () t:: a. 0 >< ro N () .t:: ro ..... t:: 2 ï::: ã) () .s:::. Q) (j) > "E I ro J2 cr:: u -c 0 () Z ....J CD £; £; £; ~ ~ ~ 0 I Z. .... "E () %1 (/) ..... ro () ~ cr:: <3 ~ J2 t:: (/) ~ 0> ~ Z ::J '5 I ~ ã) ::J ~ '5 I -c () ::J ~ ro .s:::. >. E () a. -c LiJ ro "5 ~ . .8 CD ~ t:: 5: 0 ~ 0 ro C) .s:::. (f) Ü I u ¡¡:: 0 0 . CO -----~._---_._-- 0 0 .9 CD (/) I L- eo ~ CD 0 0 ..- L{) L{) I'- I'- I'- V 0 c:: L{) N N 0 I'- I'- CD CD CD CD 0 ~ I'- I'- I'- I'- CD CD CD CD CD CD v I CD L{) V C"') N ..- 0 (j) co I'- D::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (j) (j) (j) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (j) (j) (j) Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- 0 0 N 'C Q) s::: 0 .5 0 0 s::: cu :E 'C s::: . cu -J 0 0 .~ co .c ::¡ Q. - 0 (/) 0 e 0 CD (J oct o o v o o N 0 Q) I Q) I/) .... ~ ~ >. ro 'E .!!!. c: D::: ~ I/) ~ - æ '5 Z J!! ~ ã> ;j '5 G ;j .Q I Q) .c: ;j ~ I >. ro "U 0- "5 w ~ E ro Q) "U . ~ 0 ë5 .8 5: CC c: (!) J!! (/) () ro ..c: I u ~ 0 I.[) · '<:" 0 .9 0 CJ) '<:" I ~ m ~ N 0 0 N <D ~ N f'-.. N 00 c:: ..- <D ..- 0> f'-.. C") 0> 0> <D 0> ~ ~ C") C") N N C") N N N ..- 0 I I I I.[) C") I <D 1.0 ~ C") N ..- 0 0> 00 f'-.. 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- 0 0 C") 0 I.[) ~ N S (/) en · c: CJ) 0 0 ;:, N 0 J: 'i) 0 0 N 0 I.[) o o ..- o I.[) 0 J: ..... UJ ~ Q) 12 Q) '§ ro ~ .!!2 a::: ~ UJ ~ .Q c: 0> Z Qj ~ '5 J!! ·5 ::I ::I G I :::.::: ::I >. .r. "0 Q) J: ro w ~ "5 Q) a. ro E "0 · 0 cc ~ ~ .8 c: 0 J!! Ü en C> ñi .c I u Q:: 0 0 · 0 CO 0 0 ..... 0 (/) 0 I r--: .... ro O1O<.o0101OCO<.oC'?O ~ ml'--mol'--01OT""T""m c 0_ 1'--_ <.0_ "!. <.0_ 0_ m C'?_ v_ 0_ ~ 1'--<.0 <.0 <.0 10 <.0 LÔ10 10 10 J I 0 I <.0 10 V C'? N T"" 0 m co I'-- 0 0::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m cô Z N N N N N N N T"" T"" T"" 0 0 0 1.0 " () :J (/) ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ...f · E ... () a.. C) c 0 ::2 0 0 :J c<i III o o o N 0 0 0 0> 0> ::c ::c S!! S!! .~ .~ ro ro I:: I:: ::J ::J 0 I 0> 'E - ~ 0> L.. III .?;- ro .!!! a: I:: J2 ~ .:><: ~ III G 0) Z "5 :J '5 S!! Q) 0> :J I 0> '0 I >. ..c: ~ :J ro C- O> ~ "5 w E ro '0 · ~ CO '0 .8 S I:: 0 S!! C> Ü C/) ro ..c: I u Q: · a ..0 N ---- 0 ... en I ..... CO 0 ('i) 0> a ~ I"- 0> ..- 0> CD CD CD ('i) ('i) ('i) N CO CO CO "" l"- N a C N ..- ..- N ~ ..- ..- ..- I"- l() l() l() 'V ('I) ..- I I CD l() 'V ('i) N ..- 0 0> CO l"- n::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> Z N N N N N N N ..- ..- ..- a 1.0 .!!l ~ .... Q) ~ · m - Q) ~ J: .... a 0 a rn .~ :!: a 1.0 a ci Q) .... Q) J: ~ (/) ~ ~ 'E ro ~ c: ~ ..x: ~ (/) 01 '5 Q) ~ z '5 ~ :J G .Q :J I Q) ~ .c >- :J J: \J ro a. :5 ~ w E Q) ro \J · ~ 0 0 .8 !D ~ c: ~ <.9 en Ü ro .c J: () ä:: 0 C") . 0 - I/) I .... C\3 1.0 ;? N c: T"" T"" T"" N N N N ~ N N N T"" T"" T"" T"" <0 <0 <0 I I I I <0 L() -.::t C") N T"" 0 0') ex> f'-.. 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0') 0') 0') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0') 0') 0') Z N N N N N N N T"" T"" T"" f/) .:.:: 1.0 ... ns a.. ..... . 0 ... Q) .c E ::::J Z 0 o N 1.0 0 () I -ø en () ~ "'E Z' "- co ~ c: 0:: en ~ ~ C> '5 Z ::::I ~ ~ '5 .Q G ã) ::::I I () I ::::I .s:::. >. "'0 ~ ro Co UJ :J ~ () E ro "'0 . ~ 0 (5 CD .8 :s: c: ø ~ (/) Ü ëõ .s:::. I () ã: · - Q) 0 Q) 0 u. 0 ~ 0 '<t ra ::::s C'" U) L. · S c 0 Q) 0 0 0 0 c ('f) 0 :¡:J ra ~ u Q) ~ 0 0 0 0 N o o o o I'- 0 0 0 ...... 0 f/) 0 I CD '- 0000000000 ('0 ~ 0000000000 0000000000 --...........--...... c rorororororororororo ~ ("')("')("')("') ("')("')("')("')("')("') 0 I <D LO ~ ("') N ...- 0 (J) ro I'-- 0 0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J) (J) (J) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J) (J) (J) 0 Z N N N N N N N ...- ...- ...- LO 0 0 0 0 ..- ..... ..... Q) Q) - ë c Q) Q) () () u u Q) Q) a:: a:: 0 0 z z 0 ..... 'Pi Q) I ~ 'E ro C/ .!!2 Q) ~ ~ c a:: C> C/ ..:.:: ã) ::J '5 Z Ü .Q ::J Q) I ~ '5 ~ I Q) '0 ro ::J .r: >- · c.. E Q) ro w '0 "5 Q) ~ .8 (() S c 0 ~ 0 C9 ro .r: C/) () I u i:t: FACTS AND FIGURES . . . :ê c.. cu o ... (,) Q. (,) ::s cu > (,) .c cu >< cu I- ~ ro c:: E ã3 .... a.. a> 0 0 0 0 I'- 0 0 I'- 0 ("f) 0 0 0 0 ("f) LO 0 0 0> 0 CO ("f) ro 0 "<t LO ..- I'- 0 0 N 0 I'- I'- N I'- ("f) "<t 0 0> 0 CO LO 0 ..- CO "<t CO "<t 0 0> I'- ("f) 0> 00 "<t x '<:f: ("f) ("f) "<t "<t "<t LO "<t "<t LO LO ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2! ("f) CO 00 ..- I'- 0> ..- N CO "<t I'- "<t CO 0> ("f) CO ("f) L() 0> 00 I'- 0> ëi LO 0> CO ..- 0> LO N 0> I'- ..- "<t ro N N ("f) ("f) LO ("f) "<t 00 ..- 0 LO LO ("f) ..- 00 LO LO LO "<t "<t "<t ("f) .... ..- ..- ..- a> a> :J ro > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO LO LO LO LO 0 0> 0 00 N 0 CO CO- N I'- 0> ..- 0 "<t - "<t ~ 00 I'- 00 0 ("f) 0> ..- ..- N N N "<t ("f) "<t ("f) CO LO N ("f) g a.. U; w I'- ("f) ("f) LO N I'- 0 "<t N N CO CO N N LO 00 N "<t N I'- 0> 00 N 0 00 0 "<t_ ..- N I'- I'- 0 0 CO "<t 0 I'- ("f) I'- LO "<t 0> ..- LO LO "<t ("f) N ..- 00 ("f) 0> ("f) I'- 0 00 N I'- ..- a> ("f) N ("f) 0 N 0 CO ..- CO_ ..- I'- :J 00 N 0> ("f) 0> ("f) "<t "<t 0 N 0> ro 0> 0> 0> "<t 00 ..- "<t 0 N CO 00 > I'- I'- 0 00 CO 0 ("f) "<t ..- 0> ("f) a> ("f) N LO N N N ("f) N ..- :0 ro x ro I- "<t N I'- N N I'- "<t ("f) 0> N 00 00 CO I'- 00 "<t ("f) "<t LO "<t LO I'- "<t 0 LO 00 ("f) ("f) 00 ..- N ("f) ("f) ("f) 0> -- LO 00 0 00 N N "<t ..- ..- 00 I'- 0 N 0> ("f) LO LO 0> "<t ..- 00 ..-- ..- <D -- I'- "<t ("f) 0> LO 0> 00 I'- ..-- <D ("f) ..- '+- ("f) 0 "<t ..- N N 00 LO 0> LO ("f) 0 N I'- 0> 00 ..- 0> N LO LO ..- ..-- (f LO LO 00 LO <D 00 0> ("f) 0 0> ("f) ro ("f) N "<t N N ..-- N N ..- a> :J (ij > a> :0 ro x ro I- Q) z :?: ü .!!! .~ a> ~ a> :r: ~ c:: -0 ~ Ü ~ ~ .:; -0 c:: E ~ .... ~ (f :J .s::: .... .E U; (f ro ,g "5 ~ Æ :r: .s::: ~ '0 ro -0 .... a::: .~ ro 0 .... a> a> :J :J ~ ro (/) Ü ~ ~ en :r: z a::: w :r: a::: I- ü a.. ~ ro c:: E ã3 .... a.. ~ -0 a> ¡¡:: :e a> Ü u; ro .....J · · · () E o ::r: () C) cu ... () > « c: o f/) () >< cu I- > ..- L{) ..- ~ C") I'- ~ (J) N N (J) C") N L{) L{) 00 a ..- L{) a ..- CD a ~ ~ I 00 ..- L{) (J) CD L{) CD ~ L{) L{) ~ I'- g ..- ..- (II c: « .5 c: 0 ã) Cf .... a> a.. ........ x (II I- a a a a I'- a a I'- a C") a Q) a a a C") L{) a a (J) a CD C") ro a ~ L{) ..- I'- a a N a I'- I'- N I'- C") ~ a (J) a CD L{) a ..- c::: CD ~ CD ~ a (J) I'- C") (J) 00 ~ x ~ C") C") ~ ~ ~ L{) ~ ~ L{) L{) (II a a a a a a a a a a a l- I'- (J) I'- 00 C") CD ..- CD ~ ~ N CD ~ N ~ ~ 00 ~ CD a (J) a CD CD Q) ..- ~ ~ L{) C") L{) ~ 00 C") 00 L{) a ~ N ..- ..- a C") ~ C") C") CD L{) I'- Z (J) C") L{) N L{) a ..- (J) a (J) I'- CD C") C") ..- N ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a ..- a a L{) a a a a C/) N N ..- N ..- I CD I'- (J) (J) CD C") C") L{) CD C") ~ 00 ~ N a 00 00 C") (J) a ~ a L{) a ..- ~ C") I'- C") ~ 00 00 N 00 (J) a N ~ N (J) C") a (J) ~ C") (J) CD C") a> (J) C") 00 N L{) N C") (J) N (J) 00 :¡ C") C") ..- N ..- ..- ..- ..- ro ~ > - (II (II c: :;::; E c: a> ã) "0 .... ïñ a.. a> ........ c::: ~ (II .... a> > « ~ CD a 00 I'- 00 ~ ~ CD a 00 CD I'- I'- 00 00 L{) CD a a 00 I'- CD a C") a ~ C") I'- ~- ..- I'- a I'- 00 C") (J) L{) -- L{) ~ C") L{) ~ (J) CD N a ~ L{) ..- C") N 00 N 00 ..- ~ N C") (J) N (J) 00 I'- -- I'- C") C") ..- N ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- -- ~ 0 "0 Cf a> (II '+= a> 1:: :¡ Q) (II ü > ¡¡; a> (II E ....J 0 ........ I ~ (II .... a> > « ~ (II .... a> > !!!. « ~ I ~ Ü a> ~ a> ~ c: "0 ~ Ü ~ ~ S "0 c: E a> .... ~ Cf :¡ ..c: .... Q - ~ c.. ~ ¡¡; I Cf (II .8 :¡ (II "0 .... ..c: ~ ro 0 0 .... CD a> :¡ c::: .~ :¡ ?; ro C/) ü 0 ~ cc I Z c::: W I . . tn c:: 0 tn .¡: CO Co E 0 0 . III >< co I- If) Q) Q) r::: r::: r::: r::: ro ro ~ ~ () () E ro ~ () E ..Q Q) £ L.. .~ a... ..- 0 £ N Q) ..- :c .~ g ro -0 I- ~ Ü r::: r::: -0 ro If) 0 L.. E -ro ro Q) () If) -0 'C Qj r::: 0 Q) ~ ro r::: E () U5 0 « ï= ~ "<t ..- ..- C'? 0 1.0 "<t F'- "<t "<t ~ (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) c 0 ~ "<t 1.0 N <D 0 1.0 0> 1.0 ..- CO ro <D "<t CO 1.0 "<t ~ (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) r::: r::: « - ~ ~ Q) ~ CO C .:; « 0 >< 0 ~ ~ ro ~ If) I- IT. 0 "<t ~ > '+- « ~ 0 « Q) ~ I :c Q) E a:: ro ro ro Z Ü (/) u. · ("t') <D co IV '<t <D 0> ~ II) 0> <D Q) N N ("t') ::s IV II) ("t') ..- IV 0 ..- ..- ..- fF) fF) (1) > ... Q) D- o ..- ("t') ("t') co '"t:).. ~ 0 ..- <D <D 0 '"t:).. - 0 ..- CO CO ..- '"t:).. - 0 N '<t 0 0> ~ 0 N <D CO <D N '"t:).. II) N 0> II) 0 <D '"t:).. r:: 0> II) II) 0> ..- <D 0 II) 0) N 0> CO CO II) <D <D <D N ..- 0 ..,¡ - 0> l"- N '<t ("t') ("t') N ("t') ..- ..- ("t') N ("t') N N '<t ("t') ("t') 0 <D ~ :;:; N <D II) CO ("t') ~ N <D ("t') ("t') '<t ~ '<t <D ..- ..- <D IV ..- <D N ..- ..- ..- N ..- ::s fF) 0) II) fF) <D CO fF) N - ..- CO II) '<t '<t N '<t 0 <D fF) '<t_ fF) N fF) D- O) CO l"- fF) fF) fF) I"- ("t') ("t') N N II) CO 0 '<t Q) I"- ("t') I"- .:õ ~ ..- CO ("t') IV_ ("t') N ("t') >< IV CO N 0> IV> 0) Q) 0> Q) 0> Q) ~ I"- ro I"- ro 0 ro ("t') N II) fF) E fF) E fF) E ·x ·x ·X 0 0 0 .... .... .... a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. ~ >- ~ >- ~ >- ã) CO ã) CO ã) CO 0> Q) 0> Q) 0> Q) "0 ro "0 ro "0 ro :J cr: :J cr: :J cr: CO CO CO <D X <D X X r:: <U <U (!) <U 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 I- 0 -- -- -- :;:; II) Q) II) Q) II) Q) .!!! 0 <.> 0 <.> 0 u c: :J c: :J c: :J ::s "0 "0 "0 a- (/) Q) (/) Q) (/) a> 0 0 <U cr: 0 (IJ cr: 0 (IJ cr: D- O a> 0 a> 0 a> :Q :I: ..- :J :2 ..- :J :2 ..- :J -- c: :J -- c: :J -- c: :J ~ I"- a> 0 I"- a> 0 I"- a> 0 Z ~ > Ü ~ > Ü ~ > Ü 0 ro a> Q) ro a> ro a> Q) .... cr: ~ cr: ~ cr: c: a- a> a> ~ a> a> "'> a> a> .:; IV :J E £: :J E >- :J E a> 0 c: :J c: ~ c: a.. a> (IJ a> (IJ a> (IJ ~ ... a> > CI) 0 a> > CI) (5 Q) > CI) Q) Q) a> CI) a> a> Ü a> a> <.9 D- ro a.. :J cr: Q) ro a.. :J cr: Q) ro a.. :J cr: a> E (IJ (IJ ro (/) E (IJ ro ro (/) E (IJ ro ro (/) (/) ü E (¡) (IJ Ü E .... (IJ Ü E (¡) (IJ Q) ~ > ~ > a> ~ > :e (¡) a> c: (/) .... a> c: (/) .... a> c: (/) LU a> .... Q) a.. LU a> Q) .... a> a.. LU a> ~ .... a> a.. 0 a... :a 0 <.9 (IJ a... :a -º <.9 (IJ a... .c 0 (IJ c: (IJ ro ü c: (IJ (IJ Ü c: (IJ ro <.9 Ü ... 0 a> x > .8 .Q ~ x > .8 0 ~ X > Q) .... .... .8 .... ~ ~ (IJ a> § (IJ a> ~ (IJ a> £: ~ "0 .~ "0 .:; "0 .... I- « "0 a... I- « "0 a... >- I- « "0 a... 0 :J £: a> :J a> :J a> .~ a.. :J ~ "0 Q) a.. ~ ~ ro "0 Q) Q) a.. ~ ~ ro "0 a> a> 0 0 a> (IJ Q) E ~ 0 (5 a> a> E 0 (5 a> a> E ~ a... z Õ a... z Õ c: Z Õ ~ CI) Q) (IJ .:; ü a> (IJ .:; a... Ü a> (IJ £: 0> I- Z CI) >- I- Z CI) Q) I- Z CI) 0> 0> a- :J I c: I I a> :5 ~ I c: I I a> :5 a.. I c: I :I: a> :5 cr: cr: cr: ro (5 cr: ïi) cr: cr: ro (IJ cr: ïi) cr: cr: ro a- 0 (/) ~ ~ .... ~ « CI) z ::::> z z cr: ü z ::::> z z cr: <.9 z ::::> z z cr: . ...-- I'- IV C') CO ~ (]) Q) C') LO ::s IV CO LO IV U Ef) Ef) > ... Q) a. 0 ...-- ...-- ...-- CO ~ ~ 0 ...-- I'- I'- LO ~ ~ 0 N C') LO ...-- CO LO N CO 0 LO CO e N LO N N '<:!: 0 LO (]) CO (]) N LO N 0 ~ C') C') ~ (]) C') or- CO C""i LO (]) C') LO ~ ;; C') CO CO CO (]) ~ ~ CO LO I'- CO IV Ef) LO 0 Ef) 0 N ::s 0 0 LO 0 CO C') LO N 0 N Ef) LO Ef) a. LO C') Ef) Ef) LO N CO N N ..!!! Q) LO ~ .~ (]) C') ::s 0 N IV C') (]) > ~ â) CO â) I- CO ro CO ro N N Ef) E Ef) E 'x 'x 0 0 L- L- a.. a.. a.. a.. ~ ~ (j) (j) >- 0> >- OJ IJ) '0 '0 ::J IJ) ::J () CO () IJ) ro CO ro CO c::: e 0 c::: 0 x 0 -- i:O ro ;; LO X I- IV 0 ro 0 ::s e l- e () u Q. (/ () (/ ::J 0 0 ro u ro '0 a. ::J 0 () 0 () '0 0 () c::: J: or- ::J () ...-- ::J -- c: c::: -- c: :!2 c::: I'- () I'- () Z ~ > :!2 ~ > ::J () () 0 0 ro c::: ::J ro c::: u .- 0 Q. () () U () () '0 ::J ::J L- IV c: E L- c: E 0 U ro ~ ro - () () '0 ... () > (j) Qj () > (j) () Q) () () ~ () () IJ) a. ro ::J c::: () ro ::J c::: () E ro ro (/ E ro ro (/ I/) E L- ro a.. E L- ro Q) ~ > () ~ ro > () ;e a.. () c: (/ U () c: (/ W ro () L- () a.. W () L- () a.. U U :0 0 ro L- :0 .Q ro c: ro ro C> u c: () ro ro C> U ... 0 L- 0 a.. Q) () x > .8 L- X > .8 L- ~ a.. ro () ~ '0 ro () J:: I- '0 '0 a.. L- I- '0 '0 a.. .- <{ <{ 0 ::J L- () ::J .2 () . Q. ~ ~ '0 () a.. '0 ~ ro '0 () 0 Qj () ro () E 0 () () E Õ () Õ a.. ~ z () ro '0 a.. IJ) z () ro L- I- Z (j) L- I- Z (j) 0) .2 OJ Q. ~ I .£ I I () :5 '0 I c: I I () :5 Q. Qj c::: (/ c::: c::: ro ~ () c::: ïñ c::: c::: ro ~ <{ ~ z ::::> z z c::: CO z ::::> z z c::: · ., CD o o N s L{) 0 ø 0 0 N U >< s::: CD "C 0 s::: +ï ns CD .~ C.) s::: .¡: nsQ. t» I.. i', I.. CD 0 I E I' ! ' s::: :3 CD ø "'<t s::: . 0 · ø 0 0 ns U N ~ C.) CD s::: J: - - 0 s::: - CD "C C.) CD I.. I.. CD ns Q. c. CD E > 0 +ï C.) ns ø :3 ns E en :3 Ü U ::J "'0 0 ..... a.. "'0 Q) en ro Q) (]) ..... E ro ~ Ü Q) ::J .(3 c: Q) E .:: 0 0 ã: ro ü en ..... Q) ~ ro Q) Ü I W ø a.. I f T . f · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 co CD '<t N C';'J '<t I BUDGET CALENDAR . . . Budget Calendar July 25 - Certified Tax Roll received from Tarrant County Appraisal District July 28 - Proposed budget distributed to City Council August 4 - 5 - Budget Worksession August 14 - Adopt proposed tax rate and set public hearings August 24 - Public hearing on tax rate (Special Council Meeting) August 28 - Public hearing on tax rate and budget September 11 - Adopt proposed budget and tax rate