The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2010-06-16 Agendas CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 16, 2010 — 6:00 P.M. AGENDA The City Council of the City of North Richland Hills will hold a work session on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the North Richland Hills Public Library Community Room, 9015 Grand Avenue, North Richland Hills, Texas. AGENDA: 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss Annual Budget and Plan of Municipal Services for FY 2009/2010 and Discuss Planning and Program of Services for Fiscal Year 2010/2011 3. Adjournment I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on June 11, 2010 at d•'af9rn'l, . &aktice, Xlc&pe City Secretary Planning Workshop -Fiscal Year 2010/2011 6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 Library Community Room - Information Report -Mid-Year Budget Update o Introductory Comments (MH) - 2009/2010 Revised Budget o Estimated Revenues & Expenditures (MM) - 2010/2011 Preliminary Budget o Overview of Local Economic Picture (CH) o Preliminary Tax Rolls (LK) o Preliminary Revenues (MM) o Expenditure Overview (MM) o Budget Considerations o Budget Balancing (MH) - 2008/2009 Year End Fund Balances (LK) - Issues -Future o Southside Community Center (VL) o Animal Shelter (JP) o Consolidated Dispatch and Jail (JP) o CAD/RMS Replacement (JP) o Radio Replacement (JP) - Updates 0 2003 & 1994 Bond Elections (LK) o Debt Service (LK) - Comparison Information (MM & LK) - Facts and Figures (MM & LK) - Budget Calendar (MM) 0 3 o~ 0 a 0 INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR# 2010-045 Date: June 16, 2010 Subject: Budget Planning Workshop Discussion At the Planning Workshop, City Council and staff will discuss the current year revised budget, the preliminary revenues for next year as well as a number of items that will be considered when trying to balance the budget for FY 2010/2011. Council will have the opportunity to give staff direction on these items. Please keep in mind that the budget we will be discussing with Council is very preliminary and will change significantly before the August budget workshop. Revenues will be tight in FY 2010/2011 as we will continue to feel the effects of the economic downturn. As we work to balance the budget, we will take into consideration goals established by City Council. We will also be mindful of service level impacts on residents. If time allows, we will also discuss with you issues that could have a budget impact in future years. We look forward to discussing the upcoming budget year with you and will be available for any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, ~(~' } ,.~ ~~ Mark Hindman City Manager ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 0 0 A co y <p Q G Q fQ tD M Table of Contents 2009/10 Revised Budget NRH Schedule 1 -Summary of Revenues and Expenditures ............................ 1 Schedule 2 -Summary of Revenues ......................................................... 2 Schedule 3 -Summary of Expenditures .................................................... 4 Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Planning Workshop N~2H FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 1 - SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED DIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009H0 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET REVENUES Taxes $27,594,294 $27,070,044 ($524,250) $0 $27,070,044 ($524,250) Fines & Forreitures 2,416,000 2,121,200 (296,800) 0 2,121,200 (296,800) Licenses & Permits 1,055,750 1,148,373 92,623 0 1,148,373 92,623 Charges for Service 3,282,231 3,238,950 (43,281) 0 3,238,950 (43,281) Intergovernmental 2,628,721 2,641,115 12,394 0 2,641,115 12,394 Miscellaneous 1,125,647 1,017,756 (107,891) 0 1,017,756 (107,891) Sub-Total Revenues $38,104,643 $37,237,438 ($867,205) $0 $37,237,438 ($867,205) Appropriation from Fund Balance Legal Settlement $0 $92,500 $92,500 $0 $92,500 $92,500 Insurance Reserves 115,800 115,800 0 0 115,800 0 Golf Course Loans 392,000 392,000 0 0 192,000 0 Retirement Conversion 120,000 120,000 0 0 200,000 0 CCD Designated Reserves 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 Court Technology Funds 0 229,756 229,756 0 229,756 229,756 Utility Assistance Program 0 64,500 64,500 0 64,500 64,500 Previous Year Encumbrances 0 206,646 206,646 206,646 0 0 Sub-Total Appropriations $627,800 $1,221,202 $593,402 $206,646 $1,014,556 $386,756 TOTAL REVENUES $38,732,443 $38,458,640 ($273,603) $206,646 $38,251,994 ($480,449) EXPENDITURES City Council $126,318 $126,318 $0 $0 $126,318 $0 City Manager 510,879 397,230 (113,649) 0 397,230 (113,649) Communications 493,646 512,762 19,116 21,853 490,909 (2,737) City Secretary 498,448 499,737 1,289 1,289 498,448 0 Legal 347,884 647,884 300,000 0 647,884 300,000 Human Resources 103,678 109,678 6,000 0 109,678 6,000 Finance 738,395 738,395 0 0 738,395 0 Budget & Research 360,094 360,094 0 0 360,094 0 Municipal Court 1,217,283 1,453,008 235,725 4,052 1,448,956 231,673 Planning and Inspections 909,329 909,329 0 0 909,329 0 Economic Development 179,995 179,995 0 0 179,995 0 Library 1,912,924 1,918,368 5,444 10,915 1,907,453 (5,471) Neighborhood Services 1,576,225 1,585,422 9,197 0 1,585,422 9,197 Public Works 3,611,554 3,536,066 (75,488) 25,631 3,510,435 (101,119) Parks & Recreation 2,645,257 2,643,178 (2,079) (1,052) 2,644,230 (1,027) Police 10,063,064 10,101,695 38,631 41,632 10,060,063 (3,001) Emergency Management 766,207 788,383 22,176 22,175 766,208 1 Fire 9,284,333 9,310,208 25,875 36,437 9,273,771 (10,562) ~, Building Services 491,893 491,893 0 0 491,893 0 Non-Departmental 1,786,310 1,620,534 (165,776) 43,714 1,576,820 (209,490) Sub-Total Departments $37,623,716 $37,930,177 $306,461 $206,646 $37,723,531 $99,815 Reserves & Other Expenditures Reserves $615,800 $415,800 ($200,000) $0 $415,800 ($200,000) Golf Course Loans 392,000 392,000 0 0 392,000 0 Legal Settlement 0 92,500 92,500 0 92,500 92,500 Sub-Total Reserves and Other $1,007,800 $900,300 ($107,500) $0 $900,300 ($107,500) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $198,961 $206,646 $38,623,831 ($7,685) BALANCE $100,927 ($371,837) ($472,764) $0 ($371,837) ($472,764) ~- ~~~r 2 ' , ~ l PIS _ ; ks3~op -- ~Y 2~}CJ~-'1 ~ ~ ~ °, ,,. ~ , NRH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 2 -SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND TAXES ADOPTED REVISED DIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET Current Property Taxes $13,913,663 $14,082,651 $168,988 $0 $14,082,651 $168,988 Delinquent Property Taxes 150,000 150,000 0 0 150,000 0 Penalty and Interest 115,000 115,000 0 0 115,000 0 Franchise Fees 3,822,480 3,663,943 (158,537) 0 3,663,943 (158,537) Utility Fund Franchise Taxes 718,464 682,750 (35,714) 0 682,750 (35,714) Sales Taxes 8,377,626 7,908,900 (468,726) 0 7,908,900 (468,726) Mixed Beverages 130,000 112,200 (17,800) 0 112,200 (17,800) Payment in Lieu of Taxes 367,061 354,600 (12,461) 0 354,600 (12,461) Sub-Total $27,594,294 $27,070,044 ($524,250) $0 $27,070,044 ($524,250) FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Court Fines $2,038,000 $1,764,200 ($273,800) $0 $1,764,200 ($273,800) Library Fines 80,000 75,000 (5,000) 0 75,000 (5,000) Warrant & Arrest Fees 300,000 282,000 (18,000) 0 282,000 (18,000) Sub-Total $2,418,000 $2,121,200 ($296,800) $0 $2,121,200 ($296,800) LICENSES AND PERMITS Building Permits $330,000 $300,000 ($30,000) $0 $300,000 ($30,000) Electrical Permits 21,000 24,000 3,000 0 24,000 3,000 Plumbing Permits 36,400 43,000 6,600 0 43,000 6,600 Mechanical Permits 65,000 47,000 (18,000) 0 47,000 (18,000) Gas Drilling Permits 20,000 162,000 142,000 0 162,000 142,000 Miscellaneous Permits 78,550 75,650 (2,900) 0 75,650 (2,900) Apartment Inspection Fees 85,000 92,000 7,000 0 92,000 7,000 Curb & Drainage Insp. Fees 5,200 1,003 (4,197) 0 1,003 (4,197) Re-Inspection Fees 3,900 1,000 (2,900) 0 1,000 (2,900) License Fees 18,000 21,000 3,000 0 21,000 3,000 Contractor Registration Fees 75,000 70,500 (4,500) 0 70,500 (4,500) Plan Review/Application Fee 14,000 7,500 (6,500) 0 7,500 (6,500) Animal License/Adoption Fees 42,200 46,000 3,800 0 46,000 3,600 Animal Control Impoundment 55,000 55,000 0 0 55,000 0 Crematorium Revenues 8,000 2,000 (6,000) 0 2,000 (6,000) Auto Impoundment Fees 15,000 12,000 (3,000) 0 12,000 (3,000) Food Service Permits 102,000 120,000 18,000 0 120,000 18,000 Food Managers School 25,000 23,000 (2,000) 0 23,000 (2,000) Fire Inspection/Alarm Fees 24,500 13,720 (10,780) 0 13,720 (10,780) Publicity Fees -Recreation 32,000 32,000 0 0 32,000 0 Sub-Total $1,055,750 $1,148,373 $92,623 $0 $1,148,373 $92,623 ~~, i' i ~ ~ ~ i U NRH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 2 -SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED DIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET CHARGES FOR SERVICE Park Facility Rental $6,500 $11,031 $4,531 $0 $11,031 $4,531 Recreation Center Rental 16,000 19,000 3,000 0 19,000 3,000 Ambulance Fees 2,188,586 2,179,157 (9,429) 0 2,179,157 (9,429) Garbage Billing 315,000 315,000 0 0 315,000 0 Contributions 10,000 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 Recreation Fees 445,445 442,801 (2,644) 0 442,801 (2,644) Cultural Arts 8,200 10,500 2,300 0 10,500 2,300 Athletic Revenue 126,500 116,872 (9,628) 0 116,872 (9,628) Recreation Special Events 15,000 6,989 (8,011) 0 6,989 (8,011) Planning & Zoning Fees 20,000 17,600 (2,400) 0 17,600 (2,400) Sale of Accident Reports 25,000 11,000 (14,000) 0 11,000 (14,000) Vital Statistics 90,000 83,000 (7,000) 0 83,000 (7,000) Mowing 16,000 16,000 0 0 16,000 0 Sub-Total $3,282,231 $3,238,950 ($43,281) $0 $3,238,950 ($43,281) INTERGOVERNMENTAL Indirect Costs: General CIP $170,625 $262,817 $92,192 $0 $262,817 $92,192 Utility Fund 1,637,816 1,554,018 (83,798) 0 1,554,018 (83,798) Park & Rec Facilities Dev. Corp. 317,574 317,574 0 0 317,574 0 Crime Control District 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aquatic Park Fund 118,422 122,422 4,000 0 122,422 4,000 Direct Costs: General Fund Police Salaries 384,284 384,284 0 0 384,284 0 Gas Development Fund 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $2,628,721 $2,641,115 $12,394 $0 $2,641,115 $12,394 MISCELLANEOUS Interestlncome $402,985 $343,284 ($59,701) $0 $343,284 ($59,701) Radio Reimbursement 375,000 351,935 (23,065) 0 351,935 (23,065) Sale of City Property 15,000 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 Grant Proceeds-Grim. Justice 15,000 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 Grant Proceeds-CDBG 25,000 19,815 (5,185) 0 19,815 (5,185) Overtime Reimbursements 5,000 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 Tax Attorney Fees 55,000 55,000 0 0 55,000 0 Otherlncome 37,450 31,175 (6,275) 0 31,175 (6,275) SRO Reimbursement (BISD) 195,212 181,547 (13,665) 0 181,547 (13,665) Sub-Total $1,125,647 $1,017,756 ($107,891) $0 $1,017,756 ($107,891) APPROPRIATION -FUND BALANCE Legal Settlement $0 $92,500 $92,500 $0 $92,500 $92,500 Insurance Reserve 115,800 115,800 0 0 115,800 0 Golf Course Equipment Loan 192,000 192,000 0 0 192,000 0 Golf Course Drainage Project Loan 200,000 200,000 0 0 200,000 0 Retirement Conversion 120,000 120,000 0 0 120,000 0 CCD Designated Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 Court Technology Funds 0 229,756 229,756 0 229,756 229,756 Utility Assistance Program 0 64,500 64,500 0 64,500 64,500 Previous Year Encumbrances 0 206,646 206,646 206,646 0 0 Sub-Total $627,800 $1,221,202 $593,402 $206,646 $1,014,556 $386,756 TOTAL REVENUES $38,732,443 $38,458,640 ($273,803) $206,646 $38,251,994 ($480,449) ~ -- . y .. ~ ... d. -, . ~,. ~,.. NF'.H FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED DIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET City Council $126,318 $126,318 $0 $0 $126,318 $0 City Manager $510,879 $397,230 ($113,649) $0 $397,230 ($113,649) Communications Public Information $211,501 $211,501 $0 $0 $211,501 $0 Citicable 282,145 301,261 19,116 21,853 279,408 (2,737) Total Communications $493,646 $512,762 $19,116 $21,853 $490,909 ($2,737) City Secretary City Secretary $293,108 $293,108 $0 $0 $293,108 $0 Record Management 205,340 206,629 1,289 1,289 205,340 0 Total City Secretary $498,448 $499,737 $1,289 $1,289 $498,448 $0 Legal $347,884 $647,884 $300,000 $0 $647,884 $300,000 Human Resources $103,678 $109,678 $6,000 $0 $109,678 $6,000 Finance Accounting & Administration $522,697 $522,697 $0 $0 $522,697 $0 Purchasing 215,698 215,698 0 0 215,698 0 Total Finance $738,395 $738,395 $0 $0 $738,395 $0 Budget 8 Research Budget $92,227 $92,227 $0 $0 $92,227 $0 Tax 222,057 222,057 0 0 222,057 0 Internal Audit 45,810 45,810 0 0 45,810 0 Total Budget & Research $360,094 $360,094 $0 $0 $360,094 $0 Municipal Court Administration/Prosecution $375,144 $604,420 $229,276 $0 $604,420 $229,276 Court Records 428,567 431,692 3,125 3,424 428,268 (299) Warrants 349,382 352,706 3,324 628 352,078 2,696 Teen Court 64,190 64,190 0 0 64,190 0 Judicial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Municipal Court $1,217,283 $1,453,008 $235,725 $4,052 $1,448,956 $231,673 Planning and Development Administration $84,293 $84,293 $0 $0 $84,293 $0 Inspections 518,659 518,659 0 0 516,659 0 Planning 306,377 306,377 0 0 306,377 0 Total Planning and Development $909,329 $909,329 $0 $0 $909,329 $0 Economic Development $179,995 $179,995 $0 $0 $179,995 $0 Library General Services $225,277 $225,277 $0 $0 $225,277 $0 Public Services 863,979 872,479 8,500 8,500 863,979 0 Technical Services 823,668 820,612 (3,056) 2,415 818,197 (5,471) Total Library $1,912,924 $1,918,368 $5,444 $10,915 $1,907,453 ($5,471) 4 NRH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED DIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Resources $307,485 $307,485 $0 $0 $307,485 $0 Humane Division 687,566 681,763 (5,803) 0 681,763 (5,803) Consumer Health 271,022 271,022 0 0 271,022 0 Code Compliance 310,152 325,152 15,000 0 325,152 15,000 Special Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Neighborhood Services $1,576,225 $1,585,422 $9,197 $0 $1,585,422 $9,197 Public Works General Services $127,240 $127,240 $0 $0 $127,240 $0 Traffic Control 968,076 985,648 17,572 23,391 962,257 (5,819) Street&Drainage 2,516,238 2,423,178 (93,060) 2,240 2,420,938 (95,300) Total Public Works $3,611,554 $3,536,066 ($75,488) $25,631 $3,510,435 ($101,119) Park & Recreation General Services $157,659 $160,912 $3,253 $0 $160,912 $3,253 Parks Maintenance 1,146,458 1,139,126 (7,332) (3,052) 1,142,178 (4,280) Recreation Services 812,709 819,464 6,755 0 819,464 6,755 Athletic Program Services 211,866 205,111 (6,755) 0 205,111 (6,755) Senior Adult Services 177,817 177,817 0 0 177,817 0 Youth Outreach & Cultural 138,748 140,748 2,000 2,000 138,748 0 Total Park & Recreation $2,645,257 $2,643,178 ($2,079) ($1,052) $2,644,230 ($1,027) Police General Services $644,410 $642,705 ($1,705) $1,295 $641,410 ($3,000) Administrative Services 777,213 795,559 18,346 18,346 777,213 (0) Criminallnvestigation 2,019,108 2,019,896 788 0 2,019,896 788 Uniform Patrol 4,530,329 4,530,329 0 0 4,530,329 0 Tactical Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical Services 468,390 467,602 (788) 0 467,602 (788) Detention Services 392,970 392,970 0 0 392,970 0 Property Evidence 305,925 327,915 21,990 21,991 305,924 (1) Communications 924,719 924,719 0 0 924,719 0 Total Police $10,063,064 $10,101,695 $38,631 $41,632 $10,060,063 ($3,001) Emergency Management 766,207 788,383 22,176 22,175 $766,208 1 Fire Department General Services $330,172 $338,472 $8,300 $11,300 $327,172 ($3,000) Operations 7,580,657 7,573,095 (7,562) 0 7,573,095 (7,562) Emergency Medical 692,162 717,299 25,137 25,137 692,162 0 Fire Inspections 480,058 480,058 0 0 480,058 0 Emergency Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fleet Services -Fire 201,284 201,284 0 0 201,284 0 Total Fire $9,284,333 $9,310,208 $25,875 $36,437 $9,273,771 ($10,562) Building Services $491,893 $491,893 $0 $0 $491,893 $0 Non-Departmental $1,786,310 $1,620,534 ($165,776) $43,714 $1,576,820 ($209,490) Sub-Total Departments $37,623,716 $37,930,177 $306,461 $206,646 $37,723,531 $99,815 5 ~~~ FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED RIFF. PRIOR REVISED DIFF. TO BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 ADOPTED ENCUMB. ENCUMB. BUDGET Reserves & Other Expenditures Reserve for Capital Improvements $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 Reserve for Street Maintenance $100,000 $0 ($100,000) $0 $0 ($100,000) Reserve for 820 Facility Planning $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer to CCD $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve for Economic Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Golf Course Equipment Replacement $192,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 Golf Course Drainage Project Loan $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 Legal Settlement $0 $92,500 $92,500 $0 $92,500 $92,500 Reserve for Self Insurance Fund $115,800 $115,800 $0 $0 $115,800 $0 Reserve for Building Services Fund $50,000 $0 ($50,000) $0 $0 ($50,000) Reserve for Equipment Srvcs Fund $50,000 $0 ($50,000) $0 $0 ($50,000) Reserve for Information Srvcs Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY11 Compensation Adjustments $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 Sub-Total Reserves and Other $1,007,800 $900,300 ($107,500) $0 $900,300 ($107,500) Sub-Total Expenditures $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $198,961 $206,646 $38,623,831 ($7,685) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $198,961 $206,646 $38,623,831 ($7,685) BALANCE $100,927 ($371,837) ($472,764) $0 ($371,837) ($472,764) 6 m~ c ~ a~ ~~ ~3 ~ k;, s' Cc~nte~~ts 2010/11 Preliminary Budget NRH Overview of Local Economic Picture ..........................................................1 Schedule 4 -Summary of Property Tax Revenue and Distribution ........... 3 Schedule 1 -Summary of Revenues and Expenditures ............................4 Schedule 2 -Summary of Revenues ......................................................... 5 Schedule 3 - Summary of Expenditures .................................................... 7 Budget Considerations .............................................................................10 Budget Balancing .....................................................................................15 Fiscal Year 201C7t2011 Planning We~rkshop -, ; -, . T-~ FAH ~. : _ ~a Overview of Local Economic Picture The Texas economy, the world's 11 th-largest, continues to fare better than those of many other states, but it did feel the effects of the worldwide recession during 2009. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. economy peaked in December 2007 and then entered into recession. The Texas economy continued to grow through most of 2008 until the month of August when the state began to lose jobs. During 2009, Texas' gross state product (GSP) declined. Despite the state's economy contracting in 2009, Texas' relative economic advantage should continue as the state and U.S. economies rebound in 2010. Although job growth will continue to lag the renewed expansion of economic production, the Comptroller's office estimates that the Texas' GSP will grow during calendar 2010. While it seems that economic conditions are indeed improving, the two largest municipal revenue sources that drive 58% of the General Fund will lag behind (appraised property values and taxable sales). Although FY 2009/2010 sales tax revenues are flat when compared to FY 2008/2009, they effectively remain 8% below FY 2007/2008 levels. From an appraised property value standpoint, local assessment practices take time to catch up with market changes whereby tax bills and collections typically reflect values from the prior 18 months. Therefore the effects of the recent recession on property tax revenues will truly begin to appear in FY 2010/2011. Understanding the significance of sales and property tax revenues on the city's budget capacity, further examination is warranted to properly plan for FY 2010/2011. Property Tax Property tax revenues, which comprise 36% of all General Fund revenues, come from four primary sources. • Residential - 61 % (of total property tax base) • Commercial - 30% • Business Personal Property - 8% • Industrial - 1 2010 residential appraised values, which comprise 61 % of the property tax base, are expected to be slightly below 2009 levels. The general reasons for this are as follows: • Dramatic increase of residential foreclosures • Minor decrease in average value of homes sold • Continued slowdown in new single family residential construction ~ ~`~.~ -' `; ear 2CS10!2011 F'lar~~~in~ 1{Vr~rksho~s 2(}1012011 ~reiirt~ir~ar~• . - ~>R.H The balance of the city's property tax base (39%) comes from property that relies upon the economic climate of businesses. For commercial property specifically, we expect a more significant reduction in 2010 appraised values. The general reasons are as follows: • Increase in commercial property foreclosures in conjunction with decrease in sales price per square foot • Continued slowdown of retail space absorption due to shrinking small business segment compounded with increase of online shopping • Continued slowdown in new commercial construction Sales Tax Sales tax revenues, which comprise 22% of all General Fund revenues, come primarily from taxable sales generated within the City. The 2009 calendar year was a rough year for Northeast Tarrant County cities, which saw an overall 9.1 % reduction in taxable sales. Fortunately the City was slightly better than the region average. Dollar wise across Northeast Tarrant County, the 9.1 translated into a $700 million dollar reduction in consumer spending when compared to 2008. While current sales tax revenues in FY 2009/2010 are relatively flat compared to FY 2008/2009, consumer confidence is slowly increasing and unemployment is slowly decreasing. We expect sales tax revenue to moderatly decrease in FY 2010/2011 due to the North Tarrant Express project and its potential short term impact to businesses along the Loop 820 corridor. Summary While economic conditions are slightly improving, the key sources of local tax revenue are being challenged. Although this challenge is expected to be short term, creativity and continued leadership are needed to develop the FY 2010/2011 budget. The City of North Richland Hills is not alone in this challenge. In fact it finds itself in a better economic position than most cities in Texas and across the Country. Fiscal Year 201 Ot201 _~ Pfanrit~s~ ~v'llorStshop 2 FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 4 -SUMMARY OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND DISTRIBUTION NET TAXABLE VALUE: Total Appraised Value as of May 14, 2010 Less Exemptions: Absolute Exemption Cases Before ARB Disabled Veteran Over 65 Homestead Disabled Persons Less: Personal Property Nominal Value Loss Prorated Absolute 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 MAY 14th Less: Estimated Value Loss at July 25th of 5% ESTIMATED NET TAXABLE VALUE JULY 25th ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS: Net Taxable Value Proposed Tax Rate per $100 Valuation Estimated Total Tax Levy at 100% Collection Less Estimated 1 % for Uncollectables Less TIF Transfer Less Debt Service Transfer TOTAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS(Operations) 99% TAX RATE DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE: General Fund -Maintenance & Operations Debt Service Fund and TIFs TOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF TAX RATE DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE: Transfer to Debt Service Fund General Fund -Maintenance & Operations TOTAL ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE $4,474,411,131 (260,404,312) (28,857,401) (12,374,795) (124,862,552) (330,904,231) (8,894,904) (14,494) (849,555) (10,080,827) (772,378) (221,092) $778,236,541 17,585,424 0 $3,713,760,014 ($185,688,001) $3,528,072,013 $3,528,072,013 $0.57 $20,110,010 (201,100) (1, 350, 000) (4, 550, 000) $14,008,910 of Total Tax Rate Tax Rate Distribution 64.9% $0.370000 35.1 % $0.200000 100% $0.570000 100% Projected Collection Collection 5,900,000 5,900,000 14,210, 010 14, 008, 910 $20,110,010 $19,908,910 f=iscal Year 2G''[~1201 ~ Planninc V.~~;: _ -- ~ ~' ,`~a ~ ~ ~ -~ar~~ C~er~erai F~€rd Budget 3 ~ -- - - ~.~"~ FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 1 -SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND REVENUES Taxes Fines ~ Forfeitures Licenses & Permits Charges for Service Intergovernmental Miscellaneous Sub-Total Revenues Appropriation from Fund Balance Legal Settlement Insurance Reserves Golf Course Loans Retirement Conversion CCD Designated Reserves Court Technology Funds Utility Assistance Program Previous Year Encumbrances Sub-Total Appropriations TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES City Council City Manager Communications City Secretary Legal Human Resources Finance Budget & Research Municipal Court Planning and Inspections Economic Development Library Neighborhood Services Public Works Parks & Recreation Police Emergency Management Fire Building Services Non-Departmental Sub-Total Departments Reserves 8< Other Expenditures Reserves Golf Course Loans Legal Settlement FY11 Compensation Adjustments Sub-Total Reserves and Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES BALANCE ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 $26,642,995 $27,270,506 $27,594,294 $27,070,044 $26,899,660 2,394,919 2,677,901 2,418,000 2,121,200 2,265,620 1,863,271 1,140,070 1,055,750 1,148,373 1,099,650 2,496,786 3,020,051 3,282,231 3,238,950 3,253,361 3,139,268 2,625,366 2,628,721 2,641,115 2,267,302 920,983 965,291 1,125,647 1,017,756 1,038,616 $37,458,222 $37,699,185 $38,104,643 $37,237,438 $36,824,209 $0 $112,308 $0 $92,500 $0 0 47,589 115,800 115,800 0 0 168,064 392,000 392,000 164,500 0 100,000 120,000 120,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 229,756 0 0 0 0 64,500 0 0 590,474 0 206,646 0 $0 $1,218,435 $627,800 $1,221,202 $164,500 $37,458,222 $38,917,620 $38,732,443 $38,458,640 $36,988,709 $84,535 $102,659 $126,318 $126,318 $149,718 559,135 542,214 510,879 397,230 398,144 544,040 472,116 493,646 512,762 523,144 435,167 433,149 498,448 499,737 527,998 249,869 388,953 347,884 647,884 347,885 116,911 111,183 103,678 109,678 117,290 798,302 850,826 738,395 738,395 749,625 318,366 350,133 360,094 360,094 363,689 1,163,551 1,217,321 1,217,283 1,453,008 1,189,655 1,019,389 1,002,554 909,329 909,329 902,162 111,342 165,814 179,995 179,995 201,762 1,803, 813 1, 819,967 1,912,924 1,918,368 1,899,227 1,429, 315 1,414,354 1,576,225 1,585,422 1, 581,086 3,414,340 3,277,452 3,611,554 3,536,066 3,648,164 2,592,714 2,482,675 2,645,257 2,643,178 2,651,694 10, 375,187 10,218,530 10,063,064 10,101,695 10,452,374 332,502 358,329 766,207 788,383 766,306 9,116,349 9,116,813 9,284,333 9,310,208 9,576,843 628,288 641,893 491,893 491,893 491,893 1,169,072 1, 280,499 1,786, 310 1,620, 534 1,727,725 $36,262,187 $36,247,434 $37,623,716 $37,930,177 $38,266,384 $976,647 $547,589 $615,800 $415,800 $300,000 162,000 168,064 392,000 392,000 164,500 0 112,308 0 92,500 0 0 0 0 0 454,736 $1,138,647 $827,961 $1,007,800 $900,300 $919,236 $37,400,834 $37,075,395 $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $39,185,620 $57,388 $1,842,225 $100,927 ($371,837) ($2,196,911) ~ssc `~~~ ~,~t~l~U1~3 F~iannin~ --"~'~t?((i1;1 i 'i~r~ir .. ~_e~IFur~d ~ NRH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 2 -SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007108 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 TAXES Current Property Taxes $12,255,130 $13,678,934 $13,913,663 $14,082,651 $14,008,910 Delinquent Property Taxes 217,299 100,158 150,000 150,000 130,000 Penalty and Interest 172,332 148,199 115,000 115,000 100,000 Franchise Fees 3,913,185 4,008,020 3,822,480 3,663,943 3,765,000 Utility Fund Franchise Taxes 691,338 706,825 718,464 682,750 711,550 Sales Taxes 8,876,924 8,154,321 8,377,626 7,908,900 7,711,000 Mixed Beverages 161,783 117,757 130,000 112,200 120,000 Payment in Lieu of Taxes 355,004 356,292 367,061 354,600 353,200 Sub-Total $26,642,995 $27,270,506 $27,594,294 $27,070,044 $26,899,660 FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Court Fines $2,068,625 $2,301,822 $2,038,000 $1,764,200 $1,887,920 Library Fines 67,216 76,923 80,000 75,000 82,000 Warrant & Arrest Fees 259,078 299,156 300,000 282,000 295,700 Sub-Total $2,394,919 $2,677,901 $2,418,000 $2,121,200 $2,265,620 LICENSES AND PERMITS Building Permits $868,208 $282,368 $330,000 $300,000 $310,000 Electrical Permits 41,947 22,880 21,000 24,000 24,000 Plumbing Permits 63,076 45,376 36,400 43,000 49,500 Mechanical Permits 74,768 74,289 65,000 47,000 50,000 Gas Drilling Permits 32,000 54,929 20,000 162,000 105,000 Miscellaneous Permits 124,873 110,089 78,550 75,650 75,650 Apartment Inspection Fees 86,560 91,255 85,000 92,000 92,000 Curb 8 Drainage Insp. Fees 80,342 21,964 5,200 1,003 1,000 Re-Inspection Fees 3,686 1,884 3,900 1,000 1,000 License Fees 16,824 17,181 18,000 21,000 21,000 Contractor Registration Fees 84,558 85,216 75,000 70,500 70,500 Plan Review/Application Fee 76,161 22,305 14,000 7,500 2,500 Animal License/Adoption Fees 47,728 50,211 42,200 46,000 49,000 Animal Control Impoundment 52,916 46,597 55,000 55,000 57,000 Crematorium Revenues 8,640 5,495 8,000 2,000 2,000 Auto Impoundment Fees 17,812 14,955 15,000 12,000 12,000 Food Service Permits 106,633 112,336 102,000 120,000 106,000 Food Managers School 25,977 24,875 25,000 23,000 23,000 Fire Inspection/Alarm Fees 18,850 21,799 24,500 13,720 15,500 Publicity Fees -Recreation 31,712 34,066 32,000 32,000 33,000 Sub-Total $1,863,271 $1,140,070 $1,055,750 $1,148,373 $1,099,650 Fi~c~l Year ~: ~. 1 F ; ~.. 'o -+`~fJ1{J111 Pr~l .:-~ner,l a- ~., . .... ~~. FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 2 -SUMMARY OF REVENUES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007/08 FY 2008109 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 CHARGES FOR SERVICE Park Facility Rental $9,521 $10,935 $6,500 $11,031 $11,391 Recreation Center Rental 20,362 20,374 16,000 19,000 19,000 Ambulance Fees 1,399,676 1,968,053 2,188,586 2,179,157 2,183,115 Garbage Billing 283,515 309,819 315,000 315,000 320,000 Contributions 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Recreation Fees 441,819 427,427 445,445 442,801 454,048 Cultural Arts 10,337 8,864 8,200 10,500 12,207 Athletic Revenue 130,483 111,575 126,500 116,872 112,600 Recreation Special Events 17,714 5,402 15,000 6,989 7,000 Planning & Zoning Fees 27,691 22,093 20,000 17,600 18,000 Sale of Accident Reports 24,812 16,619 25,000 11,000 11,000 Vital Statistics 92,178 88,845 90,000 83,000 80,000 Mowing 28,678 20,045 16,000 16,000 15,000 Sub-Total 2,496,786 $3,020,051 3,282,231 $3,238,950 3,253,361 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Indirect Costs General CIP $155,000 $162,750 $170,625 $262,817 $209,793 Utility Fund 1,485,547 1,559,825 1,637,816 1,554,018 1,611,592 Park & Rec Facilities Dev. Corp. 288,049 302,451 317,574 317,574 317,574 Crime Control District 200,000 100,000 0 0 0 Aquatic Park Fund 107,412 112,783 118,422 122,422 128,343 Direct Costs: General Fund Police Salaries 803,260 387,557 384,284 384,284 0 Gas Development Fund 100,000 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total $3,139,268 $2,625,366 $2,628,721 $2,641,115 $2,267,302 MISCELLANEOUS Interest Income $530,885 $348,553 $402,985 $343,284 $257,695 Radio Reimbursement 0 0 375,000 351,935 398,786 Sale of City Property 13,950 187,433 15,000 15,000 15,000 Grant Proceeds-Grim. Justice 15,000 12,558 15,000 15,000 15,000 Grant Proceeds-CDBG 63,663 34,379 25,000 19,815 19,750 Overtime Reimbursements 0 12,299 5,000 5,000 5,000 TaxAttomeyFees 81,015 61,834 55,000 55,000 65,000 Other Income 34,944 121,485 37,450 31,175 55,725 SRO Reimbursement (BISD) 181,526 186,750 195,212 181,547 206,660 Sub-Total $920,983 $965,291 $1,125,647 $1,017,756 $1,038,616 APPROPRIATION -FUND BALANCE Legal Settlement $0 $112,308 $0 $92,500 $0 Insurance Reserve 0 47,589 115,800 115,800 0 Golf Course Equipment Loan 0 168,064 192,000 192,000 164,500 Golf Course Drainage Project Loan 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 Retirement Conversion 0 100,000 120,000 120,000 0 CCD Designated Reserve 0 200,000 0 0 0 Court Technology Funds 0 0 0 229,756 0 Utility Assistance Program 0 0 0 64,500 0 Previous Year Encumbrances 0 590,474 0 206,646 0 Sub-Total $0 $1,218,435 $627,800 $1,221,202 $164,500 TOTAL REVENUES $37,458,222 $38,917,620 $38,732,443 $38,458,640 $36,988,709 ~ ~ ~ :~ t" ~ ! _ _ -- I~Y 20111 ~ F ~~ ~~ry ~`~~:: ~ Fund E~ NEZH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 City Council $84,535 $102,659 $126,318 $126,318 $149,718 City Manager $559,135 $542,214 $510,879 $397,230 $398,144 Communications Public Information $198,250 $203,855 $211,501 $211,501 $209,192 Citicable 345,790 268,261 282,145 301,261 313,952 Total Communications $544,040 $472,116 $493,646 $512,762 $523,144 City Secretary City Secretary $236,281 $232,573 $293,108 $293,108 $298,366 Record Management 198,886 200,576 205,340 206,629 229,632 Total City Secretary $435,167 $433,149 $498,448 $499,737 $527,998 Legal $249,869 $388,953 $347,884 $647,884 $347,885 Human Resources $116,911 $111,183 $103,678 $109,678 $117,290 Finance Accounting & Administration $572,789 $616,069 $522,697 $522,697 $533,094 Purchasing 225,513 234,757 215,698 215,698 216,531 Total Finance $798,302 $850,826 $738,395 $738,395 $749,625 Budget & Research Budget $71,515 $86,546 $92,227 $92,227 $90,000 Tax 219,188 217,024 222,057 222,057 227,555 Internal Audit 27,663 46,563 45,810 45,810 46,134 Total Budget & Research $318,366 $350,133 $360,094 $360,094 $363,689 Municipal Court Administration/Prosecution $312,810 $341,748 $375,144 $604,420 $311,350 Court Records 368,885 412,205 428,567 431,692 432,090 Warrants 329,744 323,558 349,382 352,706 379,159 Teen Court 61,451 63,395 64,190 64,190 67,056 Judicial 90,661 76,415 0 0 0 Total Municipal Court $1,163,551 $1,217,321 $1,217,283 $1,453,008 $1,189,655 Planning and Development Administration $79,331 $82,511 $84,293 $84,293 $86,153 Inspections 668,640 631,321 518,659 518,659 547,953 Planning 271,418 288,722 306,377 306,377 268,056 Total Planning and Development $1,019,389 $1,002,554 $909,329 $909,329 $902,162 Economic Development $111,342 $165,814 $179,995 $179,995 $201,762 Library General Services $237,439 $209,311 $225,277 $225,277 $227,514 Public Services 845,672 857,787 863,979 872,479 875,632 Technical Services 720,702 752,869 823,668 820,612 796,081 Total Library $1,803,813 $1,819,967 $1,912,924 $1,918,368 $1,899,227 ~~' Year ~0101~~11 ~ ~-- FY 2£}°1 G(~ 1 Prel .: ~ ~~~ FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Resources $284,664 $286,986 $307,485 $307,485 $311,828 Humane Division 572,608 584,091 687,566 681,763 678,561 Consumer Health 258,873 255,839 271,022 271,022 277,204 Code Compliance 305,740 279,767 310,152 325,152 313,493 Special Programs 7,430 7,671 0 0 0 Total Neighborhood Services $1,429,315 $1,414,354 $1,576,225 $1,585,422 $1,581,086 Public Works General Services $169,643 $140,563 $127,240 $127,240 $132,940 Traffic Control 941,213 843,766 968,076 985,648 1,084,570 Street & Drainage 2,303,484 2,293,123 2,516,238 2,423,178 2,430,654 Total Public Works $3,414,340 $3,277,452 $3,611,554 $3,536,066 $3,648,164 Park & Recreation General Services $145,300 $129,156 $157,659 $160,912 $161,137 Parks Maintenance 1,155,891 1,122,629 1,146,458 1,139,126 1,137,356 Recreation Services 790,360 762,083 812,709 819,464 821,505 Athletic Program Services 195,620 184,261 211,866 205,111 210,629 Senior Adult Services 168,038 171,806 177,817 177,817 180,856 Youth Outreach & Cultural 137,505 112,740 138,748 140,748 140,211 Total Park & Recreation $2,592,714 $2,482,675 $2,645,257 $2,643,178 $2,651,694 Police General Services $707,242 $709,356 $644,410 $642,705 $699,614 Administrative Services 725,049 680,947 777,213 795,559 818,600 Criminallnvestigation 2,049,385 1,956,411 2,019,108 2,019,896 2,044,241 Uniform Patrol 4,620,696 4,672,367 4,530,329 4,530,329 4,776,503 Tactical Unit 0 0 0 0 0 Technical Services 626,695 583,310 468,390 467,602 464,596 Detention Services 394,597 384,830 392,970 392,970 420,820 Property Evidence 294,421 292,204 305,925 327,915 300,458 Communications 957,102 939,105 924,719 924,719 927,542 Total Police $10,375,187 $10,218,530 $10,063,064 $10,101,695 $10,452,374 Emergency Management 332,502 358,329 766,207 788,383 $766,306 Fire Department General Services $327,324 $375,786 $330,172 $338,472 $343,963 Operations 7,347,346 7,393,786 7,580,657 7,573,095 7,734,184 Emergency Medical 943,746 673,173 692,162 717,299 887,734 Fire Inspections 475,092 484,430 480,058 480,058 610,962 Emergency Management 21,825 0 0 0 0 Fleet Services -Fire 1,016 189,638 201,284 201,284 0 Total Fire $9,116,349 $9,116,813 $9,284,333 $9,310,208 $9,576,843 Building Services $628,288 $641,893 $491,893 $491,893 $491,893 Non-Departmental $1,169,072 $1,280,499 $1,786,310 $1,620,534 $1,727,725 Sub-Total Departments $36,262,187 $36,247,434 $37,623,716 $37,930,177 $38,266,384 ~iSCatI Y~2r 20"(01~ : ? 1 1 ~ ~ ,~ ~r°~~ C~~er I ; Bu ~` r9 .-~. NRH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 SCHEDULE 3 -SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 2007108 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Reserves & Other Expenditures Reserve for Capital Improvements $710,847 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Reserve for Street Maintenance $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 Reserve for 820 Facility Planning $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer to CCD $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 Reserve for Economic Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Golf Course Equipment Replacement $162,000 $168,064 $192,000 $192,000 $164,500 Golf Course Drainage Project Loan $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 Legal Settlement $0 $112,308 $0 $92,500 $0 Reserve for Self Insurance Fund $115,800 $47,589 $115,800 $115,800 $0 Reserve for Building Services Fund $50,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Reserve for Equipment Srvcs Fund $100,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Reserve for Information Srvcs Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FY11 Compensation Adjustments $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,736 Sub-Total Reserves and Other $1,138,647 $827,961 $1,007,800 $900,300 $919,236 Sub-Total Expenditures $37,400,834 $37,075,395 $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $39,185,620 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $37,400,834 $37,075,395 $38,631,516 $38,830,477 $39,185,620 BALANCE $57,388 $1,842,225 $100,927 ($371,837) ($2,196,911) ~a `Y` ' 1 Pj~ r ~.~ -- ~Y 2t~~1 t~111 }~rel ~ . ~; : ~ .~r~~ E3~ 9 Budget Considerations North Richland Hills, like most of our neighboring cities, will have a challenging task of balancing the operating budget for FY 2010/2011. It is projected that we will see a further decline in sales tax revenues due to the economy as well as the upcoming reconstruction of Loop 820. Charges for service revenues are projected to be down slightly when compared to the current year adopted budget, as is miscellaneous revenue. We are projecting licenses and permits revenues to be relatively flat, with fines and forfeitures forecasted to be down as well. With revenues flat or declining, and expenses flat or increasing, it becomes clear that some tough decisions are going to have to be made to balance next year's budget. As a service business our greatest asset, as well as greatest expense, is related to employees with 70% of the total budget allocated to employee salaries and benefits. Because the majority of our costs are personnel related, it stands to reason that the budget reductions with the most impact will be related to personnel. Merit As you may recall, in the FY 2009/2010 budget a 2% merit increase was included for all employees who "Meet" or "Exceed Expectations" on their performance evaluation. Merit increases are given on an employee's anniversary date and therefore do not require funding for the entire fiscal year. The full twelve month impact of the raise is not realized until the next budget year. We believe it will be very difficult to budget fora 2% merit increase in the next fiscal year as each percentage costs approximately $200,000 citywide, $135,000 in the General Fund. A survey was conducted by the Human Resources Department in February to determine what other cities in the area are doing as far as pay adjustments were concerned for the current year. Out of the seventeen cities surveyed, eleven stated they are giving no merit increase in FY 2009/2010. It is too early for these same cities to commit to what they plan to do next year as far as merit increases are concerned, but we do not anticipate many cities giving merit increases next year as we see the continuation of tough economic times for cities. Stability One of the ways the FY 2009/2010 operating budget was balanced was to suspend stability pay for all employees, however, longevity pay was included for sworn police officers and fire fighters as required by State law. The stability program was originally implemented to encourage employee retention and to recognize the value of tenure and experience of the City's employees. The stability benefit is provided to all full-time employees in December of each year for those that have completed a minimum of three years of continuous service. The citywide estimated cost of the stability program for FY 2010/2011 is $306,000 and is currently included in the preliminary budget, but it will be evaluated as we work to balance the budget. Longevity pay for sworn police officers and fire fighters is included in the preliminary budget at a cost of $139,000. Market Adjustments Another area to consider in the FY 2010/2011 budget is a market adjustment for position ranges. The survey of seventeen cities mentioned above indicated one city Fiscal Year 2~10I2Q11 Plar,~~ir~g ,,,_ __ 10 20'60/011 Prelisinar~~. <.~_' °- " T~1.H plans on market adjustments for non-public safety personnel this year. Three cities planned market adjustments in the current year for public safety personnel. Because so few cities are adjusting ranges this year, we do not anticipate the need to adjust ranges next year. Funding for market adjustments is not included in the preliminary budget. Health Insurance Over the last 18 months, the City has been monitoring a steady upward trend with our health insurance costs. For the second year in a row, the City has seen a greater than average number of large claims over $25,000. In addition, medical inflation is on the rise and due to the uncertainty associated with the passage of the Federal Healthcare Act, medical network discounts are lower than in previous years. Through April 2010, 21 claims exceeding $25,000 have been paid by the City's self insurance fund for a total of $1.9 million. The average cost per large claim is approximately $92,000 which is an increase of over $14,000 compared to FY 2008/2009. Medical network discounts are approximately 47% compared to prior years where our plan averaged 50%. As you may recall, the City has stop-loss coverage for individual claims exceeding $175,000. With the increase in large claims, the City has received additional revenue from our stop-loss insurance carrier. Year-to-date, the City's stop-loss insurance carrier has paid approximately $490,000. This additional revenue has helped to off-set the actual losses to the Self Insurance Fund. Due to the higher than expected claims cost, we increased our health insurance budget for FY 2009/2010 by $500,000. We are continuing to monitor our health claims costs to see if additional increases to this year's budget will be necessary. For FY 2010/2011 we projected a 10% increase to the health insurance budget. Based on the most recent claims experience and actuarial analysis, this increase to the budget will not be sufficient to fund next year's health insurance costs. The Human Resources Department is working closely with the City's Benefit Review Committee to make plan design changes for the second year in a row to decrease the City's cost for health insurance. Plan design changes being considered include: (1) increasing deductibles; (2) increasing out-of-pocket maximums; (3) lowering co-insurance amounts for both in and out-of-network treatment; and, (4) reducing the number of plan options from two traditional and one high deductible plan to one traditional and one high deductible plan. Along with the plan design changes, we anticipate an increase in the monthly medical premiums paid by employees and retirees. As in the past, the health plan changes proposed to Council for FY 2010/2011 will continue the cost-sharing philosophy of an 80/20 split between the City and plan participants. In November 2009, the City received the "Champions in Health Workforce Wellness Award" sponsored by the Health Industry Council of Tarrant County in recognition of the City's employee workforce wellness program. The City was recognized for the success of the annual health check biometric screening program and the Naturally Slim Program. In consultation with the Wellness Committee, the City will continue to aggressively implement wellness programs to help slow the increase in our health insurance costs. This year's wellness strategy includes continuing the Health Check Biometric Screenings, Weight Watchers at Work Program, skin cancer screenings, Health and Benefits Fair and annual flu shots for employees, retirees and dependents. 11 0101211 "'~ .~`~~ar ~ .. , '-.:: NRH Staff believes it would be beneficial to continue to monitor our claims experience leading up to the budget work session in August, and at that time make final recommendations for plan year 2011. GASB 45 At the January 25th City Council meeting, Council approved a resolution establishing a retiree health care fund. This fund was established to offset the actuarial liability of future retiree health costs. The most recent actuarial study, which is required every two years, indicates the additional amount needed annually to fully fund future benefits is $1.4 million. The resolution designated an initial contribution of $500,000 and an annual contribution of not less than $100,000. The funding is to come from excess reserves in the Self Insurance Fund. While this would not fully fund future liabilities, it was determined that this would show a good faith effort to partially offset future costs. At the same meeting, Council approved Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) as Trustee for the Retiree Health Care Fund. The initial $500,000 was deposited with PARS in April to be invested in a portfolio of moderate and conservative investments with a targeted yield to help offset future costs. The FY 2010/2011 proposed budget will include $100,000 in the Self Insurance Fund for the annual contribution. The Director of Finance and Director of Human Resources will calculate the excess reserves at the conclusion of fiscal year 2010 to determine whether more than $100,000 is available. TMRS The Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) was created by law in 1947 to provide secure retirement for municipal employees. The City of North Richland Hills is one of approximately 820 member cities. In the mid 1980's cities were provided the option of opting out of social security if they participated in a municipal employee retirement system. At that time the City of North Richland Hills opted out of the Federal Social Security program. TMRS retirement accounts are funded by three sources of revenue. The first source is through City contributions, the second source is through employee contributions and the third source is through investment income. Every year TMRS performs an actuarial analysis of our plan. This analysis sets our contribution rate for the upcoming year. The City's contribution rate is impacted by the demographics of our workforce as well as the level of benefits offered to employees. In May, 2010 the City received its contribution rate letter which shows an increase to our ultimate contribution rate from 20% to 20.67%. To allow cities the opportunity to identify long-term funding options, the TMRS Board allowed cities to phase-in the contribution rate increase over a period of eight years. The phase-in period will end in 2016. Council approved the City's adoption of the eight-year phase-in in 2009. To continue with the eight-year phase-in option with the same level of benefits, the 2011 contribution Fist ' '," ~ "C~ .. 12 NR.H rate will increase from the FY 2009/2010 rate of 15.90% to 17.26%. Beginning in 2010, the City removed the Supplemental Death Option which provided employees with a term life insurance policy equal to their annual salary. Soon after the closing of the last state legislative session, several municipal associations formed committees to study the current funding situation with TMRS. The goal of the committees were to look at more flexible funding options and recommend changes to the TMRS law during the 2011 legislative session. Two prominent committees were formed by the Texas Municipal League (TML) and the Texas Municipal Human Resources Association (TMHRA). Both the TML and TMHRA committees are in support of the following changes to the TMRS law: Combine the Municipal Accumulation Fund and the Current Service Annuity Reserve Fund. This change to the law is also supported by TMRS staff. By combining the two funds, TMRS is projecting a 15% reduction to city contribution rates as early as 2012. Add additional flexible cost-of-living options that are not retroactive to the retiree's date of retirement. This could include one time increases tied to the consumer price index or flat percentage increases. TMHRA is also in support of a third change to the law that would allow cities to adopt an alternate plan for new hires. At this time, the position of the TML committee regarding this change to the law is "neutral." This change would only affect those employees hired after the effective date of adoption. Possible options for a second TMRS plan include: (1) longer vesting periods for new employees; (2) increasing the service requirement for retirement age from 20 to 25 years; (3) increasing the normal age of retirement from 60 to 62 or more; and, (4) allowing for different contribution rates and City matching ratios. City Staff will closely monitor the status of these proposals during the next legislative session. With the availability of funds, for FY 2010/2011 staff is proposing that the City continue with the eight-year phase-in option. Staff is not recommending reinstatement of the Supplemental Death Benefit in 2011. Super Bowl On Sunday, February 6, 2011, the North Texas Region and the Cowboys' Stadium will host Super Bowl XLV. The Super Bowl is the finale of a week of related special events (January 28-February 5, 2011). North Texas' first-ever Super Bowl, and all the events surrounding it, will make for a special undertaking for area public safety forces. The security required will result in the largest joint effort ever undertaken for one event in this region. Because of the Super Bowl's enormity, tremendous attention will be focused upon police forces, firefighters, medical units and the many people who devote their lives to protecting the population. Thousands of local, state and federal law enforcement officers will be working the week prior to and on game day. Countless more could be called upon if needed. ~~rs., _ r ~ ~1C~t~~1~11 P6anni~~c~ ~lltc~rks~~c~p 13 20°1002011 Prelir~ir~ar~ }:~t' ~~ i'~t)R.H To this end, the City of North Richland Hills has agreed to assist with providing security for the events leading up to game day, as applicable, and the Super Bowl event itself. In anticipation of the event period, scheduling of time-off for police officers and fire department personnel has been restricted. Officers, sworn supervisors and fire personnel have been informed that time off after the 2010 Christmas/New Year's Season will be restricted. First and foremost, this has been done to ensure sufficient staffing levels for NRH's public safety needs during the Super Bowl events. Secondly, staffing assistance may be provided for the Super Bowl events. It should be understood that the funding of NRH personnel at the Super Bowl events will be the responsibility of NRH. The costs of personnel, provided by cities or other local governing authorities, lie with those agencies and not the Super Bowl Committee or Cowboys' Stadium. As planning for the event moves forward, staff will have a better understanding of what will be required of NRH in the allocation of public safety personnel, associated costs and employee needs. Council will be provided with updates as the event comes closer. Fiscal Yee 2E~"1012J~ 1 Ph ~<1r~ ~ l~' ~~ahap ~a ® ._ . i _`i~. -~ l~)i~.)~"IN Budget Balancing Delayed Investment As a means of balancing the budget the City is evaluating the short and long-term costs and benefits of delaying or deferring a spectrum of asset management investments. Options under consideration for delay or deferral include infrastructure maintenance, equipment replacement, facility improvements and capital improvements. The replacement and maintenance of all of these options are guided by long-term plans. As such, the long-term impact to the overall asset management schedules will be a primary concern when evaluating options. The delay of infrastructure maintenance could entail a reduction in the Preventative Street Maintenance Program, pavement marking projects, traffic sign replacements, general street repairs and general park facility repairs. Reduced investment in infrastructure maintenance would require staff to focus on maintaining minimum maintenance standards. Reductions in this area might not be noticed at first or if the reductions only occurred during one budget year. One challenge is that the need continues to grow with each year and restoring the infrastructure investment to its current level requires a budget increase. Fleet Services is scheduled to replace 18 vehicles in FY 2010/2011. Vehicles scheduled to be replaced include: 3 police cars, 4 police motorcycles, 1 brush fire truck, 1 Fire Suburban, 3 dump trucks, 3 pick-up trucks, 2 Gators and 1 mower. All equipment scheduled for replacement has undergone a thorough evaluation of condition, remaining service life, reliability and maintenance cost. Any unit proposed for delayed replacement will need to have adequate reliable service life capacity to enable it to safely perform the assigned tasks in the manner intended and without undue increases in maintenance costs. One challenge with delaying equipment replacement is that equipment needs can quickly stack up. A delay in equipment replacement would require the long-term equipment replacement schedules to be revised in order to avoid an excessive concentration of replacement costs in any one year. Deferring planned and requested facility improvements is another method under consideration to delay investment. These projects would include modifications and enhancements to existing workspaces and facilities, interior and exterior renovations, floor replacement, replacement of aging HVAC units, and roof replacement projects. Decisions regarding which projects to defer would depend upon the condition, use, and long term plans for the facility or unit in question. The challenge with delaying facility improvements, like delaying equipment replacement, is that the needed repairs and improvements will quickly stack up. The delay of capital improvements is also being considered as a way to reduce investment. These projects are typically funded through certificates of obligation, sales tax, property tax or utilization of reserves. Examples of projects that could be affected by this type of investment reduction include park development projects and the F~is~: ~`'~ ~ `"::"10f~011 Plann~ ~ -: 15 201012d~'!1 F~rolirninarv Bent ~~.N replacement of personal computers. The delay of park development projects, unlike equipment and facility investment delays, will push all projects and associated expenditures back instead of causing them to stack up. Contribution to Internal Service Funds Internal Services Funds are funded by contributions from the General Fund and other City funds. Internal Services Funds include the Equipment Services, Building Services, Information Services, and Self-Insurance Funds. One alternative for balancing the budget is to reduce the contribution to these funds which have positive fund balances. These funds are established with reserve balances that allow the City to build up and spend down the fund balance corresponding with varying annual needs, while keeping the contribution from the General Fund at a fairly constant level. Staff is in the process of evaluating each of the internal service funds, establishing a new minimum level of funding and determining the necessary contribution levels to keep the funds solvent. The 2009-2010 budget did include internal service fund expenditures that were greater than the contributions coming into the funds. At this point the funds have the capacity to handle this deficit spending, but that will not be the case in the future. This action is one of those situations that is viable as a short term solution, but can not be sustained over the long haul. Due to this diminished capability, reducing the contribution to the internal service funds below the updated target levels will likely require a budget increase in future years. Utilization of Reserves A less desirable option is to dip into undesignated/unreserved fund balance as a way to supplement revenues for the coming year. The City adopted policy requires an undesignated/unreserved General Fund balance of at least 15% of the following year's budget. The undesignated/unreserved fund balance currently exceeds 15%. However, using these funds should be considered with caution because all funds spent will need to be restored in future years. In addition, use of these funds would take away from resources needed in case of a catastrophic event. If undesignated/unreserved fund balance is utilized in the budget for the upcoming year, staff recommends they be used for one time, non-recurring expenditures. Changes in Service Levels As discussed in the previous sections, revenues are down and expenditures are up. Living within our means is no fun, but that is what we have to do. As mentioned earlier, the extended nature of the City's budget situation dictates that we make sustainable cuts, not simply short term adjustments or shifting of resources. Making these cuts will undoubtedly result in changes to service levels. There is simply not enough cushion to make the types of cuts needed without changing service levels. In looking at service level changes there are two primary options that we will be considering. One is to eliminate programs that are deemed to be the lowest priority among city services. There may be some activities that we determine we can no longer afford to do. The 16 N iR.IH second option is to reduce service levels. In this case there may be some activities that we do not do as often, as fast, as much or as well. While we will do our best to minimize the impact on our citizens it is unlikely that these service changes will go unnoticed. One thing that we can count on is that someone at the store, at church, in the neighborhood or perhaps even at home will not be happy. As shown earlier, personnel costs compose approximately 70% of the budget. Any significant reduction in the budget usually involves personnel. City government is a people intensive business. While it is not pleasant, it is necessary to consider staffing adjustments in balancing the FY 2010/2011 budget. A Reduction in Force (RIF) is a work force reduction when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions. A reduction in force necessarily compels a thorough evaluation of the accomplishments of specific programs, the need for particular positions and the relative value of specific employees so that the City can provide the highest level of service possible with a reduced work force. Staff would be responsible for determining which programs and positions could be eliminated while minimally affecting service to our citizens. Chapter 23 of the City's Personnel Policies and Procedures manual includes a layoff policy which will be followed should a reduction in force be necessary. An early retirement incentive program is another method of decreasing staff levels within the organization. It provides an incentive geared toward encouraging employees who are approaching or at retirement age to voluntarily retire earlier than they might have otherwise. This approach must be closely analyzed to determine if long term savings are realistic. Savings are achieved when positions can be eliminated or frozen for an extended period of time. However, this type of program can actually cost the City more in the long run if a position needs to be filled to ensure adequate service levels are met. Our eligible population is largely comprised of sworn Police and Fire personnel, whose positions most likely would need to be filled. Salary savings of hiring a less tenured employee are often offset by the cost of the incentive as well as the additional impact to our health insurance plan. Not only would the retiree most likely continue on our health plan, the new employee and possible dependents would be additional lives on our plan. In a hiring freeze, an employer decides to stop hiring employees for all non-essential positions. By not allowing departments to hire for vacancies created through attrition, the City would see a budgetary savings in salary and benefits for that position. Some concerns to be considered with a hiring freeze are an increased workload for employees and departments, and a possible increase in overtime. If not managed carefully, the increased workload could potentially have an adverse affect on employee morale. If staffing levels dropped significantly there could also be an impact on the level of service provided to our citizens. Fi~cai Y~~r 2~1Q!~01'! F'I~rsnir~c~ 1tVarlc~E~a~ 17 .. _ ~., .., . hJIRH A furlough is a measure used by employers to achieve cost savings by reducing payroll costs. A furlough requires employees to work fewer hours, or to take a certain amount of unpaid leave. Implementing furloughs for the City of North Richland Hills would reduce pay for employees and would be a salary savings for the City. There are some concerns to consider when implementing furloughs. Closing non-essential City services for a day or multiple days can impact service to our citizens simply because we are not "open for business" on designated furlough days. Communication is critical with both the employees as well as the general public. Since a furlough day reduces the pay of our employees, it may have an impact on morale. However, many of our employees may view it as a positive to have additional time to spend with family or friends. Most employees would rather have a furlough day than face the potential of a reduction in force. Staffing adjustments are not something that the staff taken lightly. The employees are the City's most important resource. We depend on them; the citizens depend on them. While it is an employers' market today, if won't be forever. To the greatest extent possible the City needs to provide competitive salary and benefits, as well as effective staffing levels. North Richland Hills has a long reputation for retaining quality employees and hopes to retain this approach to the best extent possible within the budget constraints that it now has. City Sponsored Special Events The City of North Richland Hills sponsors many events throughout the year in keeping with the Council Goal of "A Sense of Community." These various special events not only give our residents pride in their community, but also promote a "Positive City Image" and help set NRH apart from our neighboring communities. This fiscal year, the City will sponsor or participate in nearly 50 special events. This includes community events such as the free spring concerts, health and safety initiatives like the Low Cost Pet Vaccination Clinics, and employee activities like the United Way Campaign. It also includes events that the City supports through the purchase of sponsorships and the contribution of staff time such as the Family 4cn Fireworks, Texas Transportation Summit and the Northeast Leadership Forum's Annual Luncheon. While these events bring pride to North Richland Hills, they do come with an expense. Special events will cost the City over $200,000 in FY 2009/2010, which is actually a reduction of $53,139 from FY 2008/2009. Expenses for these events are mostly associated with overtime and supply costs. Our biggest event, Night of Holiday Magic, has costs upwards of $80,000 spread throughout multiple departments: Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Neighborhood Services, Facilities & Construction, Fire and Non-Departmental. This is also the event that brings NRH the most attention with coverage from area news organizations and visitors from around the DFW area. Fiscal h~ae 2a1~12~1'' P(a~r3ing trllsarkshc~p 18 201{7/X}11 ~rclitirtar,~ "~ NR.H While all these special events are important to the City, its residents and area organizations, Council must decide if we would like to continue to support such activities at the current level, or to scale back our special events for the next fiscal year. City Memberships As Council is aware, one of the goals established for the City is "Local and Regional Leadership." The goal enforces the fact that North Richland Hills is, and is expected to be, a local and regional leader. The intent of the goal is for the City to continue building relationships among other cities and parties with similar interest by sitting on committees that set the direction for the region. The primary method used to accomplish this goal is for the City, Mayor and Council, and key Staff members to belong to professional organizations. This method has worked very well; it is evident that North Richland Hills is a regional leader. Several important committee positions are held by representatives from the City of North Richland Hills, including Council and staff members. The level of commitment that the City has placed in this goal however does have a cost. Currently the City is a member (or has the Mayor, Council and/or staff as a member) of approximately 138 different professional organizations. The total cost to the City for these organizations is approximately $100,000 with approximately $75,000 paid out of the General Fund. Because of budget constraints this year staff was not certain if Council preferred to continue funding this goal at the same levels as in past years. As staff continues to look at funding options to provide a balanced budget we want to make sure that we keep Council's priorities in place. Revenue Adjustments While much of our efforts for balancing the budget are focused on expenditure reduction, there are some revenue increases that the City can consider. Naturally, there is always the property tax rate. Based on preliminary tax roll information many NRH residents will be paying less property tax than last year. This would cause the effective tax rate, rate needed to raise the same amount of revenue, to be higher than our last year's tax rate. But unless Council directs staff differently, we will submit a budget utilizing the same 57¢ tax rate we have had for 17 years. Most other revenue sources are non adjustable, but there are some licenses, fees or charges for service that can be adjusted if desired. With Council's permission, staff requests to review our fees and charges for service to determine how they compare to the market and their level of cost recovery. At this point, we do not expect to produce a significant amount of revenue from this process and it may be that adjustments of this type are just not worth the trouble. Still we would like to take a look and determine if there is some room for change. . ~~;_:.,I Year ~~11 ~f2t~1 ~1 Planning ~IV~rkshap 19 0 0 so e a m m 3 H 2008/09 Year End Fund Balances Fund Balance Summary For Fiscal Year 2009 ..........................................1 Fund Definitions ......................................................................................... 2 ~isc~~ Y~~r 2C~1~12G11 Pl~nnir~g Warkshe~p ... .. ~ ew ~° NRH FUND BA FOR FIS LANCE SUMMARY CAL YEAR 2009 FUND AUDITED BALANCE AS OF 09/30/08 AUDITED BALANCE AS OF 09/30/09 INCREASE/ (DECREASE) FY 2009 General Fund (Unreserved/Undesignated) $ 8,354,612 $ 9,612,140 $ 1,257,528 General Fund Designated for Economic Development $ 2,543,875 $ 2,500,000 $ (43,875) General Fund Designated for Municipal Court Technology 8 Security $ 323,518 $ 625,873 $ 302,355 General Fund Designated for Benefit Conversion Program $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 20,000 General Fund Designated for Savings Incentive Program $ 250,360 $ 250,360 $ - General Fund Designated for Retirement Stabilization (TMRS) $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - General Fund Designated for Utility Billing Assistance (TXU Settlement) $ 98,962 $ 94,569 $ (4,393) General Fund Designated for 820 Facility Planning $ 400,000 $ - $ (400,000) General Fund Designated for Crime Control District Contingency $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - General Fund Designated for Rail Station Project $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ - General Fund Designated for FY 2009 Budgeted Loan for Golf Course for Equipment $ 168,064 $ 392,000 $ 223,936 General Fund Designated for Insurance Restoration Plan $ 115,600 $ 115,800 $ General Fund Designated for Education and Training Program $ 34,416 $ - $ (34,416) General Fund Designated for Tuition Assistance Program $ 110,074 $ - $ (110,074) General Debt Service Fund $ 3,149,010 $ 3,673,787 $ 524,777 Utility Fund (Operating and Restricted Cash) $ 21,288,242 $ 24,364,614 $ 3,076,372 Golf Course Fund (Operating & Restricted Cash) $ 808,133 $ 748,976 $ (59,157) Aquatic Park Fund (Operating & Restricted Cash) $ 4,314,710 $ 4,035,906 $ (278,804) Facilities 8 Construction Services Fund $ 2,486,136 $ 1,279,632 $ (1,206,504) Fleet Services Fund $ 2,261,953 $ 2,339,128 $ 77,175 Self Insurance Fund $ 5,086,010 $ 5,440,030 $ 354,020 Information Services Fund (Operating & Restricted Cash Reserved for Improvements) $ 3,055,169 $ 2,857,204 $ (197,965) Promotional Fund $ 345,566 $ 302,962 $ (42,604) Donations Fund $ 669,311 $ 705,320 $ 36,009 Special Investigation Fund $ 427,436 $ 456,618 $ 29,182 Drainage Utility Fund $ 727,425 $ 1,238,844 $ 511,419 Gas Development Fund $ 6,253,307 $ 2,648,837 $ (3,604,470) Traffic Safety Fund (New in FY 2007) $ 82,434 $ 128,884 $ 46,450 Park & Recreation Facilities Development Fund $ 4,753,396 $ 3,544,594 $ (1,208,802) Economic Development Fund (Fund Balance) $ 1,516,919 $ 1,627,732 $ 110,813 Crime Control & Prevention District Fund (Fund Balance) $ 897,448 $ 842,369 $ (55,079) 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. 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 Investigation 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 (APIs) 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. - Drainage 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. ~~ fi ~ ~ ~ _ _ . - .,,, t . pct ~trrat~ - Gas Development Fund- revenues generated from gas development adhere to Council Policy. Mineral leases bring the city royalties on all minerals extracted, and a one time bonus fee based on number of leased acres. Revenues from this fund are meant to offset tax revenues, and help expand economic development programs by lending additional financial support. - Traffic Safety Fund -revenues for this fund are mainly from red light camera citations. Policy guidelines establish three areas in which revenues from this fund are used: 1) overtime or operational expenditures of police or those who work directly with red light camera equipment, 2) equipment that is utilized by the police department for traffic enforcement, and traffic safety education and promotion materials, and 3) equipment that is needed for personnel who work directly with traffic engineering or management. Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds are similar to business operations and their operations are supported by the revenues they generate. - Utility 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. - Facilities/Construction Managemnet 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. - Fleet 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. FY ~fl111 Mid-`' ~~!udget W~ ' S_ r - 2t~08/20Q~ Yer~~r~~t~z~C =~.~s ~- , `_tJ ~ _ ~ . -:~r_,. NRH - Information Services Fund -fund balance in this fund is restricted for future technology needs, replacement of major computer systems, and major upgrades of technology. ~Y 10111 Mid-Year ~~adget Work Se~sio€~ -- ~t?U8l2t~t~9 Y~~r~t~d ~tal~e#F3c~~l~~nc~s y y C ~D y C C Table of Contents TIRH Issues -Future Southside Community Center .................................................................... 1 Animal Shelter ............................................................................................ 3 Consolidated Dispatch and Jail .................................................................. 4 CAD/RMS Replacement ............................................................................ 5 Radio Replacement ................................................................................... 6 Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Planning Workshop C~1[RH Southside Community Center At the December 14, 2009 City Council Work Session, staff presented several service models related to future recreation and library services south of Loop 820. The models were based on the possible renovation and repurposing of the city-owned Food Lion Facility. The service models included a small recreation center with a community room as well as library services ranging from an estop (limited services) to a small branch library with more extended services. The annual estimated operating cost of providing these services ranged from $400,000 to $600,000. The current Municipal Facilities Capital budget includes $2.3 million for renovation and construction of the project. In consideration of the current economic climate reflected by reduced sales taxes and property taxes for the City, and also considering the scheduled opening of the new recreation center in early 2012, Council concurred that the new facility should open after the new recreation center opens. Council also requested that staff gather additional information related to use patterns at the new library for future discussion and consideration. Use patterns related to geographic areas of the City are being compiled and analyzed, and will be available within the next few weeks. While the library does not yet have the demographic data, staff continues to have positive comments from residents south of Loop 820 and it would appear that the new library has equal or increased use from residents south of Loop 820. As the new library continues to set records for circulation and overall use, and as design development of the new recreation center is being finalized, gaps in services and anticipated needs are crystallizing and becoming more evident. Keeping in mind Council's priority of redevelopment in the City's mature and established parts of town, staff offers a unique and viable option for the reuse of the Dan Echols Senior Center. This option would provide non-duplicated programs and services while decreasing the project cost and long-term operational costs. The Dan Echols Senior Center will be vacated in early 2012 when senior programs move to the new recreation center. The facility was purchased in 1961 from the North Richland Civic Association for $2,029 with a conditional clause that the property remain "city offices." The facility is approximately 9,000 square feet and has undergone several renovations. The facility could be renovated or reconstructed for a unique, one-of-a- kind community center that would not marginalize or compete with existing city services. For example, since the new recreation center will have an expansive fitness center and gymnasium but very limited class room space for the existing 800 classes offered each year, the community center could focus on recreational and cultural programs and classes including an art studio for youth and adults. Staffing requirements would be reduced since the programs and classes would be provided through contract ~~ ~'I~sn~~i ~~H instructors. Staff is continuing to refine the programs and facility amenities but possibilities include: • Extensive renovation to both the interior and exterior facility to create an attractive, unique and stylized center • Art rooms for photography, pottery, painting, weaving, and interactive art play • Class rooms for youth development, recreational and educational programs • Cyber lounge for access to computers and the Internet • "Reading room" or comfortable sitting room • Community room for non-profit and neighborhood groups • Kitchen area for cooking programs and classes • Multipurpose space for active programs, art exhibits and small musical showcases Initial thoughts are that the facility would be open only during scheduled class or program times, most likely weekday morning and evening hours and limited hours on Saturday. Since most of the programs will be managed through program instructors, it is possible that only part-time staff would be required to monitor the facility and assist with registration. Revenue from class programs would offset the cost of the instructors. This option contributes to revitalization efforts of the area while providing needed class room space for existing programs. It also includes new and innovative services not currently offered. If Council is interested in exploring this option, staff will continue developing the idea and bring back additional information including estimated operational costs. z NRH Animal Shelter As a part of the 2003 bond election the voters approved $1,300,000 in bonds to help fund a new animal services center. The total cost of the facility was estimated to be approximately $3,000,000 with the balance being made up from private fundraising as well as the City's Donation Fund. As originally envisioned the current 6,747 square foot facility was to be expanded by an additional 11,000 sq. ft. However, part of the original plan included a joint partnership with the City of Watauga. When that city decided to build its own facility the expansion of our shelter was reduced to 8,000 sq. ft. of additional space. Due to increases in construction costs during the past six years the current cost estimates for this option are approximately $3,500,000. We have been in discussions with the City of Keller about our animal shelter expansion. They indicated that their facility was in need of improvements and were interested in partnering with us to construct a joint facility. They have conducted a citizen survey to gauge their community's willingness to participate in this joint project. The preliminary results were presented to the Keller City Council on Tuesday, June 15, 2010. The survey found that 52% of the survey respondents supported enlarging their existing facility. 64% preferred the option of partnering with NRH while 69% supported a joint facility with Southlake. Relative to the cost, the results were split with 46% supporting some type of tax increase while 49% opposed it. Specifically, the respondents gave the highest percentage approval to an additional tax of no more than $1.00 per month per household. This equates to approximately a half cent property tax. The final report will be provided to the Keller City Council in the next few weeks. That Council is expected to make a definitive decision on which direction to proceed shortly thereafter. We should be able to provide the NRH Council with some specific answers and recommended strategies in the next few months. ,- , „ .,~.. .,a , F'I~r~~~l . NRH Consolidated Dispatch and Jail Research into the consolidation plan of local jurisdiction dispatch centers and detention centers is continuing to move forward. Most direct and indirect costs have been identified with the help of the Finance Director using the Keller/Southlake consolidation as a model. Workload measurements have been accumulated from the interested cities, which include Haltom City, Hurst, Richland Hills and NRH. From these figures, estimated staffing requirements have been identified. We are close to having a best estimate on annual budget numbers for each participant. A major obstacle remaining is software compatibility and information flow to the various entities. This challenge is currently being studied for plausible solutions. We are also studying solutions to the radio infrastructure compatibility issue(s). Regarding the Detention Center consolidation, workload measurements have been analyzed and estimated staffing requirements identified. Discussions with various municipal judges concerning arraignment schedules are on-going. The participating cities in this project are Haltom City, Richland Hills and NRH. Annual budget estimates and jurisdictional proposals will be forthcoming in the near future. .~~ ~ ,,, .~ ~ 1 CF?t~~i '~ ;~" ~ , NCH CAD/RMS Replacement We learned in May 2010 that our Public Safety software vendor has announced "end of life" support for our current UNIX-based Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will occur during calendar year 2015. The vendor, Tiburon, stated that the UNIX-based systems are being phased out in favor of Windows-based systems. CAD typically consists of a suite of software packages used to initiate public safety calls for service, dispatch and maintain the status of responding resources in the field. In this day and age of technological advances, these automated CAD capabilities continue to enhance the ability of call takers and dispatchers to efficiently handle incident information, shorten response times, improve first responder safety and better protect the communities they serve. Staff recognizes this software is a component part of the larger Records Management System (RMS) and that these products were first brought on line at the Police/Fire Departments in August 1999 and updated in 2007. In light of the vendor's announcement regarding support issues, coupled with the phasing out of UNIX-based systems, it is time to begin research to seek suitable replacement(s). The pubic safety personnel working in conjunction with our Information Services Department will begin researching our options over the next 12-18 months. We must have sufficient time to evaluate our options prior to the 2015 end date. While it is impossible to accurately quote the expected cost to replace this system, the Director of Information Services estimates the replacement of this software to be in the range of $2-3 million. _ ~~ ~ 3 F'I~nr~i . Nt~.H Radio Replacement The City of North Richland Hills public safety radios are part of the City of Fort Worth area radio system. The radio system was installed in 1992 and all of the equipment, other than the subscriber units (radios), is owned by the City of Fort Worth. The radio system was relatively static until 2005 when a site near Eagle Mountain Lake was installed. Currently the system's coverage area includes approximately 90% of Tarrant County, as well as portions of Johnson, Parker, Wise, Denton and Dallas counties. The expected life of a trunked system such as the one used by North Richland Hills and Fort Worth is 12 to 15 years, according to the system's manufacturer, Motorola. The City of Fort Worth radio system is a five site simulcast radio system that provides the critical communications link between 911 dispatchers and first responders. The system supports approximately 6,000 Fort Worth public safety radios plus 2,800 radios from 22 otherjurisdictions and organizations. The system serves several agencies as their primary public safety radio system. In addition to North Richland Hills and Fort Worth Fire and Police, other agencies include: Tarrant County, The T transit system, Haltom City, Richland Hills, Kennedale, Forest Hill, TCU Police, Tarrant County College Police (in conjunction with Arlington), University of North Texas Health Science Center Police, MedStar, Fort Worth ISD, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, CareFlite, Bureau of Engraving & Printing and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Several other agencies and media outlets also have access to the radio system for mutual aid and other needs. Although Fort Worth has extended the life of the current system, it is now over 18 years old and is beginning to experience increasing failures and service degradations. Key components of the system have now reached their end of life expectancy and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The system has also reached the point of not operating at full capacity. The system typically operates with 90% capacity available but there have been instances of this capacity dropping to 50% available simply due to the age and fragility of the system. When this happens, system users experience "busy signals" preventing them from making calls. Although the system has sufficient capacity for daily operations, significant events stress and, in some cases, overload the system, reducing the system's capacity and preventing communications. The Fort Worth Police Department has had to have officers use back up channels during major events like races at the Speedway to ensure officers at the events have an operational radio system to rely on. Additionally, the current system is unable to support the interoperability goals as set forth in the Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan. In September 2008, the Fort Worth City Council authorized the engagement of Buford Goff and Associates, Inc. (BGA) to conduct an assessment of the system, provide recommendations and develop a strategic plan. In March 2009, BGA recommended Fort Worth act immediately to address obsolescence, dependencies, capacity and coverage issues by implementing a new interoperable radio system. BGA estimated that it would take 24-60 months to complete a new system. Fort Worth has developed cost estimates for a new radio system project. The cost to replace the entire radio system with an interoperable system is estimated at $90.1 million. This includes new infrastructure (transmitter and receiver equipment) and vehicle and personnel radios for all F~a~c E „ ~- r„ a N ~.H users of the system. Through projects already underway and grants received, the cost has been reduced by approximately $16.4 million. Entire S stem Re lacement $90.1 M Fundin Received $16.4M Balance Needed $73.1 M Next steps currently being developed include: 1. Develop a comprehensive Radio System Master Plan and Technical Architecture with negotiated new system costs. The objective is to have a plan that can be phased in to mitigate disruption to the radio system users and be financially achievable. This will ensure that the new system is a cost effective, reliable part of a county wide system. A professional services firm will assist with this detailed planning. 2. Actively participate in the establishment of the regional North Texas Interoperable Communications Committee, forming the governance and technical solution that will ensure a reliable, interoperable and cost effective communication solution for North Richland Hills, Fort Worth, other partner agencies and others jurisdictions in the County. 3. Identify funding sources and develop a funding plan. Radio systems are critical infrastructure supporting public safety. It is imperative that a replacement system continues to move forward in planning to prevent a major failure adversely affecting public safety. Currently NRH has 349 subscriber radio units on the Forth Worth radio system. The majority of these radios were recently changed out as part of the Nextel rebanding project. The City is currently working on a plan to replace the remaining 77 portable radios that are left in the system and are approximately 12 years old. The current budget for maintenance costs for the 349 radios is $33,104. Currently the City of North Richland Hills budgets $112,029 annually for infrastructure payments as required by contract to the City of Fort Worth to utilize Fort Worth's radio system. The City of North Richland Hills has expressed interest to both the Fort Worth and the Northeast Tarrant County Radio Consortium (NETCO) systems for inclusion when those systems change. NETCO includes the cities of Euless, Bedford, Keller, Grapevine, Colleyville and Southlake. The cities of NETCO share a jointly managed radio system, similar to the Fort Worth system. NETCO is exploring combining services with the City of Arlington and the City of Fort Worth into a countywide service. In order to prepare for the change that will come to the NRH public safety radio system, one way or another, it is recommended that the City begin to plan. Fort Worth's system upgrade will require a "buy in". If the Fort Worth and NETCO systems combine, a "buy in" will be required by interested agencies. It can be anticipated that it will cost NRH between $3 to $5 million to join the combined system or continue with one of the single systems. This is a planning figure and will become more solid as systems' development moves forward. The timeline for these projects' completions are in the next 3 to 5 years to completion. ~~~ The City of North Richland Hills will need to begin the formulation of a plan to secure the funding either through the preparation of a bond package or by beginning to set aside saved monies through other means. This will ensure that the City of North Richland Hills will be in a position to take advantage of future radio system opportunities. ~ ~~~t~-'~ ~_, C a a m ... co a Table of Contents NRH Updates 2003 & 1994 Bond Programs ..................................................................... 1 Debt Service .............................................................................................. 3 Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Planning Workshop i - ~~, NRH 2003 & 1994 Bond Programs 2003 Bond Program In 2002, City Council appointed a Citizens Capital Improvements Study Committee to evaluate major capital project needs for the City over the following seven to ten years. The Committee evaluated and prioritized street, drainage and facility improvements that would benefit the citizens of North Richland Hills. City management and staff also analyzed the financial impact of the capital improvements program. The analysis included factors such as existing debt service obligations, the issuance of the remaining 1994 bond authorization, estimations of future property value growth and impact on future operations. The results of the analysis were based on conservative estimates of future property value growth and the scheduled retirement of existing debt. The analysis indicated that the 2003 debt tax rate of 24¢ per hundred dollar valuation would support over $40 million of debt service through the 2010. The committee identified $38.2 million (over $30 million for street improvements alone) in projects needed to improve the infrastructure and provide essential services to the citizens of North Richland Hills. The committee presented the project list to City Council who called a bond election for February 1, 2003. The referendum consisted of five separate propositions including twenty-two street projects (arterial, collector and residential streets), two drainage projects, and five municipal facility projects. All of the propositions, except for the proposed authorization of $1 million in general obligation (G.O.) bonds for Maintenance Service Center improvements, were approved by the voters and are now part of the long-range financial plan of the City. The propositions that were approved are presented in the following table (figures shown in thousands of dollars): Amount Amount Issued 2010 Authorized Authorized To-Date Issue Un-issued Streets $30,010 $16,650 $5,550 $7,810 Drainage 4,000 1,340 300 2,360 Public Safety Facilities 1,900 1,650 0 250 Animal Rescue Center Expansion 1,300 0 0 1,300 Totals: $37,210 $19,640 $5,850 $11,720 Approved street projects included eight arterial streets, six collector streets and eight residential streets. Some of the major street projects were Rufe Snow Drive, North Tarrant Parkway, Glenview Drive and Grapevine Highway (Boulevard 26). The two drainage projects were Holiday West Channel and Meadowview Estates Channel. Approved facilities projects were Fire Training Facility expansion and upgrade, Fire Stations #2 and #3 upgrades, Public Safety Facility upgrade and the Animal Adoption and Rescue Center expansion. The 2010 G.O. bond sale included funds for street improvements to Trinidad Drive, Starnes Road, Douglas Lane, Briley Drive, Colorado Boulevard, Cloyce Court, Terry Drive, Yarmouth Avenue, Tabor Street, Mackey Drive and Shady Grove Road. The sale also included funds for ~~ ~ `~ F'1~~~ni NRH improvements to the Meadowview Estates Channel. In total the sale funded $5,850,000 in improvements. Of the $11,720,000 authorized projects remaining, $2,000,000 was authorized for the Boulevard 26 Widening, $1,000,000 for Boulevard 26 and Harwood Road intersection improvements, $330,000 for Tabor Street, $310,000 for Terry Drive and $290,000 for Starnes Road (part of the $2,000,000 authorized for unspecified street improvements). $2,200,000 more is authorized and unissued for the Meadow Estates Channel Improvements, $250,000 for the Public Safety Facility Upgrade and $1,300,000 for the Animal Adoption and Rescue Center Expansion project. There remains $4,040,000 authorized but unspecified at this point because of projects being awarded for less than was originally estimated. The projects that cost less than their original estimates include Briley Drive, Colorado Boulevard, Flory Street, Glenview Drive, Lola Drive, North Tarrant Parkway and Holiday West Channel. These authorized funds may be reallocated to other like projects (in the same category, e.g. streets, drainage) in the future upon City Council approval. 1994 Bond Program As of June 2010 the City has issued all but $425,000 for projects approved in the 1994 bond election: $19.6 million in street bonds, $1.9 million of drainage bonds and $1.7 million in public safety bonds. The remaining $425,000 was authorized for Holiday Lane (820 to Dick Lewis Drive), which will be issued as progress is made on Loop 820 improvements. ~~`.~"~ Debt Service The City of North Richland Hills maintains amulti-year plan for the capital improvement needs of the City. This plan is part of the ongoing effort by the City Council and staff to meet the needs of a growing community, while stabilizing the tax burden of the citizens of the City. The strategy includes managing the cost of capital projects, paying cash for capital projects when possible and reducing interest expense by managing the borrowing of funds. This includes the structuring of general obligation debt (taxpayer voted debt backed by ad valorem tax levy) and non-general obligation debt (certificates of obligation authorized by the City Council primarily backed by ad valorem tax levy). City policy is to structure debt maturities to match the useful life of capital assets acquired or constructed and to maintain an even-principal repayment schedule. This aggressive payback policy assures a rapid retirement of debt in which approximately 75% to 80% of outstanding debt is retired within 10 years. This practice also saves thousands of dollars in interest expense over the maturity of the debt. Streets, drainage, parks, and facilities projects with a useful life of at least twenty years are structured using atwenty-year pay back period. Debt maturities for equipment replacement are based on the useful life of the financed equipment. The Multi-Year Capital Improvement Plan includes the following assumptions: When it is necessary to finance projects through the issuance of debt, the City of North Richland Hills will continue to issue general obligation bonds and certificates of obligation (or equivalent). Because interest rates have been more favorable than those of revenue bonds, certificates of obligation have been issued to fund Enterprise Fund projects and equipment. An additional benefit of issuing certificates in place of revenue bonds is that no legal reserve is required with the issuance of certificates. 2. If it is necessary to issue debt, the maturity schedule will be designed to coincide with the life of the asset being financed. Every effort will be made to structure the payback at level principal to ensure the most rapid retirement of debt. The vast majority of debt issues in the past several years have achieved these objectives. 3. Enterprise Fund projects, such as infrastructure improvements by the Utility Fund, the Aquatic Park Fund and the Golf Course Fund, funded with ad valorem tax backed debt will be repaid with Enterprise Fund revenues. Thus, the term "self-supporting debt." 4. General debt service fund balances will be used as needed to supplement debt payments and issuance costs. Debt capacity will be calculated annually to ensure adequate revenues for debt payments for both existing issues as well as prospective issues. 5. The plan assumes that the total ad valorem tax rate will remain at the current 57¢ per one hundred dollars of valuation. The debt portion and operations and maintenance portion of the rate will fluctuate depending on those needs in any particular fiscal year. This assumption is in keeping with the Council objective to stabilize the tax burden of the citizens of North Richland Hills. ~~: ~ .,.m.~ ~i~~ 1 ~'i~r~rlir~g ~:. ,' _ NRH The following graphs illustrate outstanding debt for fiscal years 2011 through 2030. The majority of the City's debt is twenty year maturity for street, drainage, utility improvements and new facilities. The City also has twenty year outstanding debt for fire apparatus. Ambulances and some public works equipment are financed over 10 years. $14,000,000 -, i $12,000,000 -r `- $10,000,000 -! i'- $8,000,000 -I~~ '~~- $6,000,000 -I~ $4 000 000 - Total City Debt Payments 2011-2030 ___ __ _- $2,000,000 I .' ,~ o-- ~ J ~~ ~~a This graph shows the city-wide annual debt payments from 2011 through 2030 as of the latest bond sale in May 2010. Principal and interest payments through 2030 total $124.5 million. In ten years, by the end of fiscal year 2020, the City will have paid $91.7 million, or 74% of those obligations. Enterprise Fund Debt The following three graphs are the enterprise funds debt payments. These payments are self- supporting in that they are paid for by the users of each system through the applicable rates charged to water and sewer customers, water park customers and golfers respectively. Water & Sewer Debt Payments 2011 - 2030 700,000 ~ ----- 600, 000 500, 000 - - 400,000 -i -- 300,000 -' - 200,000 -I -- 100, 000 0 .' ~. 4 ~o ~o ~yo ~o ~o ~o ~yo ~o l Aquatic Park Debt Payments 2011- 2030 800,000 --- -------- - ------___.________--.____-- --R ~oo,ooo r 600, 000 ----{ 500, 000 - ~ - ~ ~ ~ i 400, 000 ~~ ~~ ' - i k ~ ,g 300, 000 ,'' # Y 200, 000 - ~, ~ ~ - ~: - , 100,000 ~ a ~ - --~ ~ ;,, f 0 - ~- ` ~J tio~~ tio~~ tio~~ tio~~ do^~ tio`L~ tio`L~ tio`L~ tio`y'1 tio`L~ ~~.~ The original debt for NRH2O has been and is being paid for through the 4B sales tax revenues collected in the Parks Development Fund (see chart below). The debt service payments indicated in the Aquatic Park chart are for new attractions and improvements made to the NRHzO after the initial construction in the early 1990's. The first new attraction was the Green Extreme in 1998. Golf Bonded Debt Payments 2011-2028 600,000 -- - ___.___ _ _____ _ . __.___._. ___.__ _ _____ __ _ _ -_.~ m~ ~ 500,000 400,000 - ' 300,000 - ~ 200 000 -~ - -! , ; _ i I~ ~ I 100,000 = _ ` ~ ~ ' ,~~ ,~~ ~h ,~~ o~~ O~h ,~1 ~~^ O~1 `LO `LO `LO rL `L `L0 `LO ti `L 1 5 NRH. The final payment for the original golf course construction debt will be made in 2011. This chart does not show the repayment of the loans from the General Fund for replacement of course maintenance equipment. Those repayments will begin in 2012. General Government Debt The next series of charts are debt payments paid for from taxes or special fees collected for a specific purpose. Parks Development 4B Debt Payments 2011 - 2020 1, 400, 000 1, 200, 000 1, 000, 000 -' 800, 000 - 600, 000 - 400, 000 -~ ". 200, 000 -~ 0 - s^ a ----- - x:t: < ~.~ ~Y ~I 1 ` S',~ #~ .? ~, - I - 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 The final payment for the original 4B parks projects, including NRH2O will be made in 2012. The City issued revenue bonds for the early projects but has more recently issued certificates of obligation because interest rates for those have been more favorable than those of revenue bonds. An additional benefit of issuing certificates in place of revenue bonds is no legal reserve is required with the issuance of certificates. Drainage Utility Fund Debt Payments 2011 - 2030 1, 000, 000 ~ ~~~ - --- _ _ _ _ ____ _ .-_. _. ..__- 800, 000 - 000 600 , 400, 000 ~~~ 200, 000 I ~ ~, R ~ ~ y~ 0 ww ' \ ~ w (]~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ O~ O~ ~O YO YO YO ~O YO YO Y V Y .. ~ ~ ~',J`~ i ~-~la '.. 6 NR.H These payments are made with fees collected for drainage improvements through the monthly water and sewer utility bills. TIF 1 Debt Payments 2011 - 2019 250, 000 -- ---- - - - -~ 200, 000 --- 150, 000 ~ ~r~~ ~ `-~ ,~: a 100,000 -j t .:~ 4 ~- - ; 50, 000 ~~ ~ _ I , ~~ ~~s:: u~; 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 This debt, which is being paid for with property taxes levied on property within the district, includes the original drainage improvements for the business center in 1998 as well as $1 million in the 2010 sale for Boulevard 26 improvements in the TIF 1 Expansion. Another $2.5 million is planned for Boulevard 26 improvements in the TIF 1 Expansion. The TIF district expires in 2019. Other participants contributing property taxes include BISD, Tarrant County, Tarrant County Hospital District and Tarrant County College District. 3, 500, 000 - -- TIF 2 Debt Payments 2011 ~- - -- - _ -- ---- --- - 2027 ----- 3, 000, 000 - 2, 500, 000 - 000 ~ r 2 000 - ; ~ ~ ~` ~ - ~ ~ , , S E. 1, 500, 000 ~ ~ ~ g. ~ ?~ 5 3 ~ 1, 000, 000 - „ - ,; s . ; 500, 000 ~ .~ s 3> ,r ~. ¢ ~ ~- s4 i, ^~ ~~ ^~ ^1 ~~ ~ O O~' 3 h 1 O~' O~' O~' ~O ~O ~O ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TIF 2 debt, which is being paid for with property taxes levied on property within the district, includes the new library and the recreation center project in progress. It is anticipated that no 1 ~~r : " , : ' 1 PP~nnir 'u ~ ~~~ additional debt will be issued for TIF 2 projects. TIF 2 expires in 2027. Other participants contributing property taxes include Tarrant County, Tarrant County Hospital District and Tarrant County College District. All Other Property Tax Supported Debt 2011 - 2030 $7, ooo, o00 -- -- ---- -- ----- -------__ __ _.~, f $6, 000, 000 i - - $5, 000, 000 ~; ` ~ . $4, 000, 000 ~ - ~~ `N $3, 000, 000 ~ ` ~ {, ~ - ,1 , _ $2 000 000 ~ ~ ~ - $1, 000, 000 E ~ Y ~ ~4 - ~ J~ ~i'~ ~ ~ ~ _ _~ ~_ ~__ ~ _0 $Q ~ ~ - >, - --- - - This represents general obligation debt from the 1994 and 2003 bond programs and some certificate of obligation debt over the years. The total principal and interest payments here are $55.5 million. In ten years $42.5 million or 77% of the total will be retired. _ ,~ 8 n 0 3 a d 0 a 3 v 0 3 Table of Contents NR.H Comparison Information Calls for Police Service ..............................................................................1 Calls for Police Service -Breakdown ........................................................ 2 Police Officers Per Square Mile ................................................................ 3 Calls for EMS & Fire Service ......................................................................4 Fire Fighters Per Square Mile .................................................................... 5 Number of Fire Stations ............................................................................. 6 New Housing Starts ...................................................................................7 Building Permits Issues ..............................................................................8 Number of Parks FY08/09 .......................................................................... 9 Miles of Hike/Bike Trails ...........................................................................10 Recreation Center Square Feet ...............................................................11 Library Visits .............................................................................................12 Animals Handled ......................................................................................13 Shelter Capacity .......................................................................................14 Street Lane Miles Maintained ...................................................................15 Square Miles of Land Area .......................................................................16 Acres of Public Land Maintained ..............................................................17 Fiscal Year 2010!2011 Planning Vrfor{e~h©~ 07 O LL V .~ d V 0 a L U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 M O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 O ~_ 2 ~ ~ M O O t0 CO ~~ M N ~' M M E 00 00 ~ N OD N ~ C = Z Ln O W N t0 ~ I~ ~ 00 N N O ~ ~ ~ O~ 00 ~~ f~ A N N N ~ ~ O M~ CO ~ d' M N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N ON N N N ~. o yr W m m v m ~ Y 2 ~ ~ o m m m v U U 2 L m O 00 O LL W V ^~ ''~^ V/ V a L 0 V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O N O O O O O U w f0 N ~C - ~ 00 ~ N ~ U r Ln - ~ r U O ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ;«_, O ' C O N - N ~ N ZUO co .~ m 0 Z to N "O ~ = N j fU N ~+ ~ ~ N ` ~ _ ~ _ Y ' LL1 N ~' Q E ~ m j ~ O O > (~ U ,~ m U_ _ N W O O ~' LL d tC 7 C' N L a L _V 0 d V .O a 0 0 0 0 0 rn 0 0 O O O O O O i.ci O O O O M 0 0 N O O O O O 0 ~_ 2 m } ~ H c~c~mcomcococ~mm rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrna~rn ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ = X Z O OO f~ CO In ~ M N ~- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N c4 -a y N 2 ~ y ~ C ,._ . N Z ~ Y ~ ~ E W N a m o ca ~ o cv U (j _U = M Q1 O O LL d V .~ d N d L_ _~ W W L U 0 0 0 of O O O O O O O O O 0 O O u'i O 0 O O O O M O O 0 N O O O r O - ~ c6 - U o ~ u~ N W 2 LL N ~ ~ ~ } N (O O O O to O ~ ~' C CO 00 ~ O h 1~ N CO O CO CO O O OO f~ ~ CO ~ lf) N ~ ~ 117 00 lA Ln In CD Ln In ~ = O 00 ~ O lf) ~ M N ~ O X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N C •~ a N C~ -p o N m = ~ Z ~ U E 0 = ~ a~ ~j ` ~ = ~ ~ Y ~ ~ :6 tv ~ ~ ~~ m o U N -v c_CV ~ v O O ~" LL d L L Q L d r t d L 0 0 0 0 co O O O O O O M O O N O O r O O O 0 _~ 2 m m } C = Z cn co cfl co co m o0 00 0o r~ f~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V 'tt M O a0 ~ tD ~ ~ M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N "a ~ m ~ _ ~ ~° ~ ~ N ~ m = Z N ' W ~' E ~ C fl. cL ~ Y N a~i o ~ = C~ U u~ O~ O O LL N 0 ++ •+ d L_ W 0 L Z cfl M N O 0 m a~ c ~ v v v v v v v v v~ = O O H (O Ln ~ M N ~- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N C .~ n N = Z ~ ~ = '= U E 0 ~ ~ a~ m N j W ~ •T a~ p ~ ~ Y N _ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ C~ = U (D O N O O N O O O LL N ~.+ ~ O = O ~N ~ 3 O 2 3 d z 0 0 N } C CO N O O N CO d' N ~ ~ M .-- Cfl ~ O~ M O ~ ~ ~- N~ M M N N M N = 0 0 00 f~ CO In ~' M N ~ O j 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Z 2 N ON N N N N N ON N ON ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Z Z ~ .~ o ~ Y vi ~ W = Z c ,~ a ~ ~ ~ = .~-~' V ~ o ~ O ~ m ~ = ~ o c~ rn ~ ~ ~ U (~ = v C7 O O LL N N Vl r .~ a c v .~ m O O O O O O O O O O d' O O O M 0 0 0 N O O O O O _N f~ ~ ~ O In to CO O ~ ~ 00 } O M B 00 I~ O O ~ O~ C~ O N~ I~ O N Cfl O O ~ M ~ CD fD Cfl CO CO Ln Cp ~ W O E C~ Ln '~ M N ~- O = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N N ~ c c a a N N L L 0 0 Z Z N •7 V = J 2 Z W Y ~ m ~ w Q c _ C7 U ~ = U_ 0 M Q M O N O ~ ~ O 00 N O LL N Y L ~ O a ~ w 0 L ~c G Z O O r O O O O _y 2 L ~ ~ = X Z ~~~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N •- •- •- ~- O) 00 I~ (D lf~ ~ M N ~- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N C .~ a = ~ z ~ ~ = N ~ W N ~ Y ~ ~~ N "~ o N m rT~ U E (0 ~ ~ ~ V1 'C (7 U = rn Q1 O O LL N .~ L F.. d Y m d Y_ w O N d O O M O N O 0 N O l!') 0 0 0 0 0 O N _ c6 ~ } O O N O M O C 0 0 47 I~ O ~ O O O O r ~ N 00 00 00 O O W F ~ N N ~ I~ ~ In In ' ~ ~ = O) ap t c0 u ) a' M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N N N = f/1 N "6 ~ N f// d ~ Z Y = ~ °- w E ~ c o m m o ~ U C7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn O O O O O O O p 0 O O O ~ o L O O '^~ V+ L O O }1 O /~ V O O O O .F~ (a M L V O A/ O Li O O N O O O O O 0 ~_ 2 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >'ooooo00000 ~ o0 op o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ M M M M M M M M M M = O O~ O~~ M N •- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N ~- y N = N ~+ 'D c0 y N ' 0. o Y = Z E N ~ " N Q W N D ~ m ~ ~ ~ f0 O U _ ~ U ~_ 0 LL ~+ .N L J 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O to N O O O O O N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u~ O y _ iy ao f~ O O u) ~ O O ~ ~ (D N O O In N O~~ O N O O~ N I~ W } u) to ~ O to ~ M h N to C O V I~ ~ O n O M N F M N N N N N N N N N i i i _ ~ 00 h CO ~ ~ M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N N a f6 ~ ~ ~ Y T E o N a~i C7 = U O 00 O LL d N ._ Q 0 0 0 v 0 0 ri O O O M O O N 0 0 0 N O O O O O r O O O 0 ,~ ~_ 2 O In In In O O N 00 M ~' Op ~ Cfl f~ t0 00 O CO f~ f~ ~ f~ C Ln CO Cfl ~ O~ 00 l1~ 0 0 ~ M M M~ CO ~ M M M E 2 0 O ti O~~ M N ~ O X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N O O ~ ~ ~ O O O O O Z Z Z E W a~ a m ~ o ~ m ~ o ~ ~ ~ U (~ s 2 v_ 07 O O LL r .~ U d m s N O O r O M O O 0 v 0 N O O N_ f6 N ~ 00 00 cD c0 c0 c0 cfl cD (D Cfl = O W E (O ~~ M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N N 7 L_ S 7 d N t _ ~ 'p N N (p ~ cq N N ~ ~ N ~ ~ - C U m = > Z a 2 ~ m Y - i, E a~ W ~ c a a> m ~ ~ o (~ U 2 v Q~ 0 d .~ w+ .C~ G C~ G J r d L ~+ N 0 0 ca O N O O V O O M 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 _~ 2 `m m } M O N N O N I~ M M ~ M M CO O O M~~ r ~ to to CO ~ st ~ ~ ~ ~ = O) a0 h Cfl V' M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N C = ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ p N . ~ ~O . ~ ~ U J ~ Q Z Y ~ = ~ W ~ .r ~ ~ 00 p ° ~ m ~ U 2 v O O LL d L Q C J w O N d d L N 0 0 v 0 M O O M O N 0 0 N 0 O O r 0 Sri 0 0 0 _~ N } M M M M M M M M M M ~ OD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 - r r •-- ~, r r r r ~ r = 07 00 I~ CO ~ ~ M N ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N N N N N N N N N N c a~ = y ~ ~~, ~ co ~ '> ~ Z ?~ > U ~ o ~ _ a~ Y ~ ~ E = a~i ~°• ~ ~ w o ° m ~ ~ C7 U = v 0 0 O O ~-- O O r O O N r O O O O O O O cD O O O O N O 0 Y N `m N } C ~ = Z CO CO CO O O ~ t[) to f~ I~ ~ N~ N N O I~ ~ tD 00 00 00 I~ ~ ~ ~ (O (O t0 O W ti O to et M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N O. Z W Y = N E N ~ 'o t4 ~ N O ~ m > ~ ~ U 2 n y ?1 !Q G 1 W Table t~f Cc~r~fiertts Facts and Figures I'~tRi--I Taxable Value Per Capita ..........................................................................1 ......................... Taxes on Average Home .................................................. Applying Other Cities Per Cap to NRH Population .....................................3 Tax Bill Compared to Other Services ......................................................... 5 Cumulative Percent Increase in Organization Costs ..................................6 Police Department Overtime Hours ............................................................ 7 North Richland Hills Police Department Sworn Staffing ............................. 8 Fiscal Year 201~J~~011 Planning t~Vorksht~p ~_ Q. R U d a d m e~ N C .~ .~ a f6 C .~ .~ _~ U N l6 J A x H ~ w O ~ N ~ R V d a m R O r O N C. O a N W O r O h d d .~ x ~a m z O O W O N C6 d 7 R d Q R X ea H r d Z U Cp O O O O O O O N O M ~ O O O O O O O ~ O CO M O O O M O ~ O O O I~ M ~!") O ~ 00 ~ N O M N O CO ~ f~ M ~ M ~ r r CD O V M ~ O ~ ~ ~ In ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O N O ~ r ~ CD ~ r ~ O O O C D 0 0 ~ ~ A O C D ~ N V ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ r N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ o ~ o ~ f~ (A I~ ~ (D O ~ ~ M O M O N V O O (A O O W CD V d' N In ~' M M ~ M N N N ~ E A 0 ~ N N O O i 6 C O ~ ~ N C D O r M ~ O V O O ~ ti ~ ~ O Cq to CD ~ (A f~ N ~ N N ~ N 00 O N ~ M O OU CO r ~ ~ f~ O I~ ~- ~ O O V ~ N (A I~ CD ~ CD N O CD V' ~ d) O N M N O ~ N V M In ~ O O O N a0 00 O N ~ r ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ~ N M V N O ~ ~ CD ~ ~ O V' ~ (A I~ ~ O N M O ~ ~ CA ~ M f~ ~ V ~ ~ O (A CD CK) ~ O ~ ~ N N M ~ C D ~ Q C D N ~ C D ~ N ~ M N ~ N M M to - N ~ ~Y N = a> - ~ U 'p a> Y C6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 N ~ ~ ~O N N = ~ ~ (6 Z ° m U W U 2 2 Y ~ c n Q U _y N .~ a a U 7 d O d L a C O y ~ d ~ r O ~ O 00 O r' N 00 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~[') r Cfl N 1~ N ~ O N I~ '~ O M n O F- O 'a = 7 r N r pia ~ Q ~ C vJ O W ~ ~ K N O O M O O 00 O O O O ~ ~ O M O O CO f~ O O O O ~ M O O O r O O O O F' O M o0 O O ~A O M O N ~ N ~+ G1 f~ O ~ O M to O ~ ~ ~ O C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M er ~ ~ M ~ y~ O O O O O O O O O O O L U ~n v cfl rn ao rn ~ co w ~ m r~ ~ M O O t0 t~ I~ M ~ O O ~ M z OO (O O N N M r ~ er 1~ O !} y ~, * ~ ~ M O M I~ ~ t0 O f~ O ~' ~ I~ ~ ~ r N _M O M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R K ~ H d ~ Vl ~ W ~ ~ 0 o 0 ~ 0 o 0 o 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ C O O O O O O O ~ r O O ~ O r N N N r H ~ d O LL 2 y ~ N M O ti ~ ti ti O ~ O N ~ M 00 M CO O ~ M M ~ O ~ ~ 00 OD N O Q1 r O N f~ (fl ~ ~ ' M r ~ CO d' ti ~ O t7 M O ~ ~ O O W r O r N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N r C d ~ ~ M ~ ~ O d N ~ O L d Q (~ y M f0 ~ t~ O N N O I~ n ~ N ~ OO M CO CO N O .- r ~ f~ O 00 ~ O N O QO ~ N r 1(~ ~ O 00 r 00 O OO O N O 00 I~ * ~4 0 O r 00 ~ r O r M N N ~ Lf~ f~ N r ~ O ~ O N ~+ Q N ~ ' 8 ~ N ~ O m ~ L d a ~ ,~ m a~ L ~ U ~ U m c - ' Y c ~ rn > a j ca ~ o ~ m i n f6 ~ _ ~ m ~ 2 W S m Z Y U ~ 3 U N O Q N Q 0 O Q Q f- N fn N ~ L O ~ ~ .O m ~ c ~ •~ x m ~ O ~_ ~ 3 ~ a~ > ~ .r m S~ ~ L (Q ~ x rn~ ~ F.. > ~ Q Z c 0 n E X w ca c~ C 2 O U C N O ~f O ~ I~ A O ~ ~ _ O ~ N 3 e0 R V N ~ ~ K3 ~ b4 ~ ~ a O O O O N O 00 00 V 'd- '61- 00 ~ M O O O ~ O O O O M '61. '61. N G1 ~ O O ~ 00 O ~ M ~ '61. '61- O Of ~ Q1 ~ O O M ~ r O ~ ~ In O N ~ ~ ~ r 00 M ~ r ~ to t0 N O ~ O ~ r ~ ~ CO N CO O O r N ~ I~ N M ~ O ~ ~ O r ~ O N M ~ ~ N ~t ~ ~ ~ t0 EA M 64 N EH O a M ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Cp gy N N O ( p a0 ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ tf) R r ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ER M EA t0 69 M ~ ~ T m m m ~ a1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ m ~ m ~ m O X O X O x ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ rn rn O N ~ O U O U O U C 7 C 7 C O O. N ~ y N tp N a ° ~ ~ ° ~ ° ~ a o i a o i a ~ o i a ~ 3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ? U Z ` > U u? > U ~? > 0 N ~ ~ (6 Q' O N ~' C ~ ,, to ~ ~ t ~ E ~' ~ E ~ c` C i C v O C > n Q ~ > n o ;g > i o ~ c ~ ~- io ~ ~ ~ ca m ~ ~ i w cu m ~ ~ u> ~ U N ~ L ,~ N ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ar O W O O N (6 W ~ O O O (~ W ~ O O N f0 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U G Y X ~ ~ O U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ C N ~ O ~ 1 ~ • a - ~ )( a X a p ~ ~ ~ Q ~ m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ a ~ Q ~ d a i d ~c a ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ - 3 ~ ~ E ~ m 3 `° m ~ ~ o o a i o i a •~ s ~ z cn ~ z cn ~ z cn , 7 2 ~ ~ Z 2 N L m 2 rn C 2 2 ~? ~ a R 2 a, C = _ ~ L Q, ~ O ~ _ w ~ ~ is O ~ to ~ ~ f0 L ~ v~ ~ ~ N a N z ~ z z ~ ~ V z ~ z z ~ ~ C9 z ~ z z ~ ~ N O O O 01 ER O tq 1~ t f) O ~ 00 ~ '~ ~ O 00 M N ~ O (D O a0 ~ M N ~ O ~ ti ~ 07 I~ I~ M ~ ~3 O ER r N O O O EA M to O ~ r ~ ~ i~ O f~ ~ ~ oO ~ ~ N O (O O ~ O ~ ~ CO ~ O ~ O N ~ N ~ EA M Efl O M N O O l1') O N ER ~ ~ W ~ O _ ~ O r O In ~ (O ~_ O (Q T O) N CO b4 M N a 7 m O O C . N O N O N r 7 ~ ~ f0 ~ 7 N C > ~ f/1 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j O ~ ~ 'fl. ~ U N a ~ Y > a> ~ X ~ Z a~ o ~ ~ ~ Q I-~ N a~i ~ O N Z d = ~ _ _ ~ Y z ~ z z ~ O O t0 N 3 C N fC ~ ~ ~ Q cu f6 ~ in U ~ W ~ o ~ O d X ~ ~~ ~ N a O ~ Q ' ~ N N ~ a O + + C Q m z ~ , ~ d ~ ' ~ ~ m z ~ z z O ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ V O O C ~ N N ~ ~ i~ N ~ •~ N O O t0 LlJ O C ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ Q W s _ ~ U X ~ ~ ai ~ Q- ~ X +-• a~ AL, W L ~~ O r.+ L Q 0 U m x m c ~ c ca ~ U C L ~ U L ~ N ~ ~ 1- N U m ~ T N (A L / ~ ~ ~ • Q ~ ~ ~ ~ N C C ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i N ~ ~ ~ ~ N U N a U ~ = - a a - ~ ~ ~-' o ~ m U m U a~ U N _ _ _ •- .- .- ~ O O O j ~ 0 ~ 0 d U U U ~ N N N U U N +~ ~+ ~+ ~+ ~+ •~ •L U U U ~ ~ ~ D Q Q I- r- rn ~ ~ ~ rn v rn ~ o0 0 CO O ~ to M O M Lf> O ~ ~' EA H4 (!3 EF} ~ ~ (t} EA t~} b~} d~} ~ d4 64 t C O ao ao 0 0 o ao ao o~ o m 0 N 00 O CO N O CO O ~ f~ 0p I~ r O Cfl CO M I~ ~ ~ In ~ ~} ~ (f} EA (~} EJ-} T Ef} EA ~ (~) f ~} ~ Ef} b~} C C Q U _ N _ ~ ~ _ m ~ ~ ~ O Y ~ ~ ~ N O ~ 0 ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ Z O . . _ _ ~ - _ .Q N N t ~ Z N U ~ cn D ii N ~.+ N V K C ~ ~ ~ ~.+ ~ ~ N v ca` L O ~_ •~ O ~ U L V S C +' V ~ L L d a a > ~ _ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 U 0 ~, rn ~ °o N • N O N U 7 , O ~, Q- ~ CO i y N N O m U L ~ •i ~ '~ ~ ~ ~• U ~ = v O W O N C7 O d 0 o N O O O O O O O O ~ O 00 CO ~ N N C a~ 0 v v 0 O v a~ .~ 0 v a~ 00 ~+ 0 ~ ~ o~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 c1 ~o 0 v 0 C C i i i i i i i i i i O i i i i i i i i ~ ~ i i i i i it i i i i i i i i i i i O i i i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i `Y `~ i i i i i ~~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \.Y s i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0,~, 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ii o v~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a s o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .~ V ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a _ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ s a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'T i i i i i i ~ ~ i i i i ^~ i i i i i I i i i i i i i i .Q I it i i i i i v i i i i i O i i i i i i i i i i i a ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, s o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as s o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~ o ~ o ~n o ~ `s'O cv ~ ~ o o a~ a~ oo ~ ~~ aannodu~w e ~o ~. n d eo m Budget Preparation Calendar For Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Responsible Date Action Required Department Mon, Jan 4 Distribute Goals, Objective and Performance Measure forms Budget Dept. to Departments Mon, Jan 4 Distribute following to departments: Budget Dept. • Facility Requests Departments • Information Services Requests Mon, Jan 25 Return the following forms to Budget: Departments • Facility Requests • Information Services Requests Wed, Jan 27 Capital Budget Kickoff Budget Dept. Distribute following to departments: Departments • Capital Budget information Wed, Jan 27 Capital Budget database open for data entry Budget Dept. Fri, Feb 19 Capital Projects budgets due to Budget Department Departments Fri, Feb 19 Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures due to Budget Departments Wed, Mar 3 HTE training sessions for data entry, line item detail Budget Dept. workshop, clinic for new budget preparers Departments Fri, Mar 5 - Assistant City Managers review of Capital Projects budgets Assistant CMs Wed, Mar 17 with Departments Departments Wed, Mar 10 Budget Kickoff Meeting with Department Directors City Managers Distribute the following to departments: Dept. Directors • Travel Request Form • Overtime Request Form • Budget Manual • Adjustment to Base Form Wed, Mar 10 HTE open for data entry Departments Fri, Mar 26 Distribute revenue projection forms to depts. Budget Dept. Wed, Mar 31 Return the following to Budget: Departments • Proposed line-item budgets for 2010/11 • Revised budgets for 2009/10 • Travel Request • Overtime Request • Adjustment to Base Forms Mon, Mar 29 - City Manager review of Capital Projects budgets Fri, Apr 16 Mon, Apr 5 Distribute 2010/11 proposed line item detail summaries to departments Mon, Apr 5 - Assistant City Managers review of goals, objectives and Fri, Apr 16 performance measures with Departments Fri, Apr 9 Revenue projections due to Budget Dept. City Managers Budget Dept. Dept. Directors Budget Dept. Assistant CMs Dept. Directors Departments 1 Budget Preparation Calendar For Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Responsible Date Action Required Department Fri, Apr 9 Summaries of increase and decrease due to Budget Dept. Thu, Apr 22 Distribute Budget Review material to City Manager's Office Mon, Apr 26 - Assistant City Managers review of departmental line-item Fri, May 7 budget and decision package with Departments Fri, May 14 Preliminary tax roll received from Tarrant Appraisal District with taxable values Mon, May 24 - City Manager review of departmental line-item, decision Fri, Jun 11 package, goals, objectives, performance measures and revenue projections Wed, Jun 16 Mid-Year Budget Work Session Mon, Jun 21 Final CIP updates due to Budget Department Tue, Jul 6 City Manager final review of Capital Projects budget Wed, Jul 7 All budget decisions finalized Mon, Jul 12 Transmittal letter completed Tue, Jul 27 Certified tax roll received from Tarrant Appraisal District- calculate effective tax rate Wed, Jul 28 Preliminary Budget to printer Wed, Jul 28 - Budget Work Session presentation rehearsals Thu, Aug 5 Fri, Jul 30 Distribute Budget Worksession material to City Council, City Manager's Office Mon, Aug 2 Distribute Budget Worksession material to Department Directors and Citizens (copy placed at public library) Mon, Aug 2 Proposed Budget filed with City Secretary Fri, Aug 6 & Budget Work Session Sat, Aug 7 Fri, Aug 6 Crime Control and Prevention District Board review of proposed budget Sat, Aug 7 Publish Effective Tax Rate Departments Budget Dept. Assistant CMs Dept. Directors Budget Dept. City Managers Budget Dept. Dept. Directors City Council City Managers Budget Dept. Departments City Managers Budget Dept. City Managers City Managers Budget Dept. Finance Dept. Budget Dept. City Managers Budget Dept. City Managers Budget Dept. Budget Dept. Budget Dept City Council City Managers Budget Dept. CCD Board City Managers Budget Dept. Budget Dept. z Budget Preparation Calendar For Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Responsible Date Action Required Department Mon, Aug 9 City Council Meeting: City Council • Record vote on proposed tax rate City Managers • Set date for public hearings on tax rate • Set date for public hearing on Budget, CCD, and Park Development Corp. Fri, Aug 13 IR to City Council with follow-up report on Budget Work City Managers Session (if needed) Budget Dept. Fri, Aug 13 Publish Notice of Budget Hearings Budget Dept. Fri, Aug 13 Publish Notice of Tax Rate Hearings Budget Dept. Mon, Aug 16 or Park and Recreation Facilities Development Corporation Park Corp. Mon, Aug 23 review of proposed budget City Managers Parks Dept. Budget Dept. Mon, Aug 23 City Council Meeting: City Council • Tax rate public hearing City Managers • Budget public hearing • CCD budget public hearing • Park Development Corporation budget public hearing Tue, Aug 24 & Notice of Tax Revenue Increase (if needed) Budget Dept. Tue, Aug 31 Mon, Aug 30 Special City Council Meeting: City Council • Tax rate public hearing City Managers Fri, Sep 9 Publish Notice of Vote on Tax Rate Budget Dept. Mon, Sep 13 City Council Meeting: City Council • Accept certified tax roll City Managers • Adopt proposed budgets • Adopt proposed tax rate 3