HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2012-06-11 Agendas Amended CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
CITY COUNCIL MID YEAR BUDGET WORK SESSION AGENDA
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKROOM
7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2012 — 4:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Discuss Annual Budget and Plan of Municipal Services for FY 2011 -2012 and
Discuss Planning and Program of Services for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013
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 8, 2012 at `A A-� ; a.m.
ic
1
n
Assistant City Secretary
A genda NE��
Mid -Year Budget Work Session — Fiscal Year 2012/2013
4:30 pm, Monday, June 11, 2012
City Council Workroom
➢ Introduction
• Introduction
• Economic Outlook
➢ 2011/2012 Revised Budget
o Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
➢ 2012/2013 Preliminary Budget
• Summary of Property Tax Revenue and Distribution
• Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
➢ Issues
• Multi -Year Financing Plan for Voter Approved Bond Projects
• Debt Issuance Policy
• Regional Consolidation of Detention and Communication Services
• Human Resource Considerations
• Animal Adoption and Rescue Center
➢ Budget Calendar
o Budget Preparation Calendar
➢ Other Information
o Status of Bond Election Programs
o Debt Service- Existing Debt
o 2010/11 Year End Fund Balances and Fund Definitions
Fiscal Year 20/2/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
Table of Contents Nit"
Table of Contents
Introduction
2011/12 Revised Budget
2012/13 Preliminary Budget
Issues
Budget Calendar
Other Information
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
Introduction
Table of Contents "RH
Introduction
EconomicOutlook ........................................................................................................... 1
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
Introduction Nf?H
Economic Outlook
Texas, the last state into and the first state out of the Great Recession, has experienced
slow but steady growth over the last 18 months. While leading indicators such as
unemployment, retail sales and new construction are trending in a positive direction,
continued growth in Texas and North Texas is stunted by new economic pressures; the
European debt crisis, weak prices and demand for natural gas, the rising cost of
healthcare and underemployment.
Regardless of these pressures, economic conditions in North Richland Hills are
improving. Unemployment is close to pre- recession levels (under 6 %); annual single
family housing starts exceeded 100 for the first time since 2007 while taxable sales
have slowly increased over the past two years.
Taxable sales this fiscal year -to -date have grown 2.5% when compared to the previous
period. Regarding property value, the effects of the past recession have started to wear
off while the taxable value of new construction from late 2010, early 2011 are now
recognized by the Tarrant Appraisal District tax roll.
Given the significance of taxable sales and property value on the City's budget capacity,
it's important to understand where the growth is coming from and the areas that need to
be monitored going into FY 12/13.
Property Values
City property tax revenues come from four primary sources.
Single Family Residential 57% of total property tax base
Multi-Family Residential 10%
Commercial & Industrial 28%
Mineral Lease 1%
Other 4%
Single family residential appraised values, which comprise 57% of the property tax base
are expected to be flat in 2012 over 2011 levels. The general reason for the flat outlook
is twofold:
• Existing single family homes are experiencing continued adjustments downward
of appraised property value through homeowner protests, property appraisals
and the lingering effects of foreclosures and short sales.
• However, this reduction in existing single family values is offset by new single
family construction representing $27 million in incremental taxable value.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
Introduction NF?H
The second largest portion of the city's property tax base (36 %) comes from property
that relies upon the business climate. For commercial and industrial property we expect
a nominal increase in value. The general reasons are:
• Stabilization of commercial property values in the wake of past declines.
• New commercial construction representing $10 million in taxable value over the
past two years.
A sector of real estate that benefitted from the recent recession is multi - family
residential. Given the recent history of single family residential foreclosures coupled
with tighter mortgage lending restrictions, the demand for multi - family residential has
increased. Because of this demand, multi - family property values have appreciated in
value.
Finally, with respect to property values, mineral leases within the City increased 237%
over the previous year representing $26 million in incremental taxable value. This
increase is expected to fluctuate on an annual basis given the unpredictable nature of
natural gas drilling. Currently natural gas prices have declined 50% percent during the
last 12 months with little or no drilling activity happening in North Texas.
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenues, which makes up approximately 20% of the General Fund come
primarily from local businesses (76 %), however a significant portion (24 %) comes from
utilities, gas drilling and online /mail order.
Local Business 76% of total taxable sales
Electric / Gas Utilities 7%
Cable / Telecom / Wireless Utilities 7%
Gas Drilling 2%
Other 8%
For FY11/12 year -to -date, Northeast Tarrant County cities combined are experiencing
an overall increase of 4.2% with North Richland Hills at 2.5 %. While taxable sales have
slightly increased, there are three areas that have and will continue to impact taxable
sales growth.
• The cities of Grapevine, Bedford and Hurst all of whom are currently impacted by
highway construction, have a combined sales tax growth of 1.3 %. Therefore the
City's growth of 2.5% will continue to be put to the test as construction
progresses along Loop 820.
• Pressure on both natural gas prices (50% drop in the last 12 months) and electric
prices (7% drop in the last 12 months).
• The City is beginning to see sales tax from natural gas drilling. While positive,
there is very little indication that this revenue source is sustainable.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
2
Introduction N H
Summary
While economic conditions have improved, the key sources of local tax revenue
continue to be challenged. New construction and increasing property values will solidify
the City's economic base. However transportation construction, a slowdown in gas
drilling production and low utility rates will mute the City's growth going into FY12/13.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
3
2011/2012 Revised
Budget
i
I
i
i
I
I
Table of Contents NIftH
2011/2012 Revised Budget
Summary of Revenues and Expenditures ....................................................................... 1
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
2011/12 Revised Budget IVE�H
FISCAL YEAR 2011112
SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GENERALFUND
ADOPTED REVISED DIFF PRIOR REVISED DIFF TO
BUDGET BUDGET REVISED TO YEAR EXCLUDING ADOPTED
FY 2011/12 FY 2011 /12 ADOPTED ENCUMB ENCUMB BUDGET
REVENUES
Taxes $27,810,874 $28,138,990 $328,116 $0 $28,138,990 $328,116
Fines & Forfeitures 2,657,750 2,492,645 (165,105) 0 2,492,645 (165,105)
Licenses & Permits 1,213,675 1,371,909 158,234 0 1,371,909 158,234
Charges for Service 2,605,784 2,851,619 245,835 0 2,851,619 245,835
Intergovernmental 2,474,492 3,495,734 1,021,242 0 3,495,734 1,021,242
Miscellaneous 990,034 936,314 (53,720) 0 936,314 (53,720)
SUB -TOTAL $37,752,609 $39,287,211 $1,534,602 $0 $39,287,211 $1,534,602
APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE
Court Technology Fund $0 $14,185 $14,185 $0 $14,185 $14,185
Utility Assistance Program 20,000 20,000 0 0 20,000 0
Previous Year Encumbrances 0 469,281 469,281 469,281 0 0
SUB -TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $20,000 $503,466 $483,466 $469,281 $34,185 $14,185
TOTAL REVENUES $37,772,609 $39,790,677 $2,018,068 $469,281 $39,321,396 $1,548,787
EXPENDITURES
City Council $123,904 $123,904 $0 $0 $123,904 $0
City Manager 517,090 523,519 6,429 0 523,519 6,429
Communications 328,922 334,074 5,152 3,648 330,426 1,504
City Secretary 442,893 447,717 4,824 0 447,717 4,824
Legal 348,104 348,104 0 0 348,104 0
Human Resources 112,998 113,961 963 0 113,961 963
Finance 724,646 730,593 5,947 0 730,593 5,947
Budget & Research 359,247 360,117 870 0 360,117 870
Municipal Court 1,297,919 1,321,387 23,468 3,957 1,317,430 19,511
Planning and Inspections 835,738 842,071 6,333 0 842,071 6,333
Economic Development 246,696 284,734 38,038 36,260 248,474 1,778
Library 1,950,202 1,974,519 24,317 6,859 1,967,660 17,458
Neighborhood Services 1,586,364 1,635,672 49,308 33,806 1,601,666 15,502
Public Works 3,557,179 3,679,018 121,839 145,262 3,533,756 (23,423)
Parks & Recreation 1,982,480 2,010,261 27,781 16,872 1,993,389 10,909
Police 10,439,174 11,249,827 810,653 5,185 11,244,642 805,468
Emergency Management 790,811 927,337 136,526 136,159 791,178 367
Fire 9,668,900 9,875,607 206,707 78,273 9,797,334 128,434
Building Services 673,270 673,270 0 0 673,270 0
Non - Departmental 1,678,440 2,066,024 387,584 3,000 2,063,024 384,584
SUB -TOTAL DEPARTMENTS $37,664,977 $39,521,716 $1,856,739 $469,281 $39,052,435 $1,387,458
RESERVES & OTHER EXPENDITURES
Reserves $50,000 $105,900 $55,900 $0 $105,900 $55,900
Legal Settlement 0 4,750 4,750 0 4,750 4,750
SUB -TOTAL RESERVES AND OTHER $50,000 $110,650 $60,650 $0 $110,650 $60,650
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $37,714,977 $39,632,366 $1,917,389 $469,281 $39,163,085 $1,448,108
BALANCE $57,632 $158,311 $100,679 $0 $158,311 $100,679
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
2012/2013
Preliminary Budget
i
i
�I
;1
I�
i
�II
Table OfContents PqRH
2012/2013 Preliminary Budget
PreliminaryTax Rolls ...................................................................................................... 1
Summary Of Revenues & Expenditures ........................................................................... 2
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
2012113 Prelimin Bu dget NFZ
FISCAL YEAR 2012 -2013
SCHEDULE 4 - SUMMARY OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND DISTRIBUTION
NET TAXABLE VALUE:
Total Appraised Value as of May 14th $ 4,641,153,041
Less Exemptions:
Absolute Exemptions $ (290,495,192)
Cases Before ARB $ (47,141,038)
Deferred, Special Use, and Partial Exemptions $ 494,492,731
Total Reduction to Values $ 832,128,961
Add: Estimated Minimum ARB protested values as of May 14th $ 28,907,212
NET TAXABLE VALUE May 14th $ 3,837,931,292
Less: estimated value loss at July 25th of: 3.0% $ (115,137,939)
ESTIMATED NET TAXABLE VALUE July 25th $ 3,722,793,353
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS:
Net Taxable Value $ 3,722,793,353
Proposed Tax Rate per $100 Valuation $ 0.60
Estimated Total Tax Levy at 100% Collection $ 22,336,760
Less Estimated 1 % for Uncollectables $ (223,368)
Less Estimated TIF Transfer $ (1,515,270)
Less Debt Service Transfer $ (6,504,970)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS (Operations) 99% $ 14,093,153
% of Total Tax TNT Rate
TAX RATE DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE: Rate Distribution
General Fund - Maintenance & Operations (Not Final) 58% $ 0.345000
Debt Service Fund (Not Final) 43% $ 0.255000
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF TAX RATE 100% $ 0.600000
100% Projected
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE: Collection Collection
Transfer to Debt Service Fund $ 8,020,239 $ 8,020,239
General Fund - Maintenance & Operations $ 14,316,521 $ 14,093,153
TOTAL ESTIMATED TAX REVENUE $ 22,336,760 $ 22,113,392
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
2012/ Prelimi Bud NF?_H
FISCAL YEAR 2012113
SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GENERALFUND
ADOPTED REVISED PRELIMINARY
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13
REVENUES
Taxes $27,805,362 $28,386,801 $27,810,874 $28,138,990 $28,497,858
Fines & Forfeitures 2,631,813 2,665,135 2,657,750 2,492,645 2,382,850
Licenses & Permits 1,301,823 1,502,822 1,213,675 1,371,909 1,187,715
Charges for Service 2,997,039 3,234,480 2,605,784 2,851,619 3,139,430
Intergovernmental 2,628,721 2,356,659 2,474,492 3,495,734 4,227,226
Miscellaneous 845,176 828,308 990,034 936,314 782,361
SUB -TOTAL $38,209,934 $38,974,205 $37,752,609 $39,287,211 $40,217,440
APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE
Legal Settlement & Litigation $196,301 $0 $0 $0 $0
Insurance Reserves 115,800 0 0 0 0
Golf Course Loans 392,000 164,500 0 0 0
Retirment Conversion 120,000 0 0 0 0
Court Technology Fund 232,885 0 0 14,185 0
Utility Assistance Program 64,500 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Previous Year Encumbrances 206,646 256,974 0 469,281 0
SUB -TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $1,328,132 $441,474 $20,000 $503,466 $20,000
TOTAL REVENUES $39,538,066 $39,415,679 $37,772,609 $39,790,677 $40,237,440
EXPENDITURES
City Council $87,871 $74,868 $123,904 $123,904 $126,123
City Manager 413,719 474,546 517,090 523,519 529,324
Communications 472,471 387,882 328,922 334,074 337,866
City Secretary 448,543 418,350 442,893 447,717 447,935
Legal 517,378 473,719 348,104 348,104 338,509
Human Resources 107,312 118,975 112,998 113,961 128,186
Finance 699,961 719,254 724,646 730,593 706,730
Budget & Research 355,273 351,854 359,247 360,117 369,711
Municipal Court 1,182,253 1,224,363 1,297,919 1,321,387 1,309,628
Planning and Inspections 877,091 765,738 835,738 842,071 857,442
Economic Development 180,261 161,426 246,696 284,734 245,717
Library 1,855,966 1,879,608 1,950,202 1,974,519 1,987,018
Neighborhood Services 1,390,725 1,518,222 1,586,364 1,635,672 1,655,560
Public Works 3,414,498 3,116,187 3,557,179 3,679,018 3,781,037
Parks & Recreation 2,369,824 2,181,081 1,982,480 2,010,261 2,118,552
Police 9,779,532 10,108,540 10,439,174 11,249,827 12,052,337
Emergency Management 691,772 800,912 790,811 927,337 917,797
Fire 9,078,592 9,485,177 9,668,900 9,875,607 9,890,610
Building Services 491,893 702,973 673,270 673,270 740,597
Non - Departmental 2,324,365 1,327,013 1,678,440 2,066,024 1,911,609
SUB -TOTAL DEPARTMENTS $36,739,300 $36,290,688 $37,664,977 $39,521,716 $40,452,288
RESERVES & OTHER EXPENDITURES
Reserves $988,929 $880,684 $50,000 $105,900 $300,000
Transfer to CCD 250,000 0 0 0 0
Golf Course Loans 392,000 164,500 0 0 0
Legal Settlement 242,500 1,095,254 0 4,750 0
SUB -TOTAL RESERVES AND OTHER $1,873,429 $2,140,438 $50,000 $110,650 $300,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $38,612,729 $38,431,126 $37,714,977 $39,632,366 $40,752,288
BALANCE $925,337 $984,553 $57,632 $158,311 ($514,848)
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
2
Issues
Table of Contents NEPH
Issues
Multi -Year Financing Plan for Voter Approved Bond Projects ........... ..............................1
DebtIssuance Policy ........................................................................ ............................... 5
Regional Consolidation Detention and Communication Services ..... ............................... 9
Human Resource Considerations .................................................... .............................11
Animal Adoption and Rescue Center ............................................... .............................13
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
I ssues N��H
Multi -Year Financing Plan for Voter Approved Bond Projects
Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds
The City of North Richland Hills currently has authorized but unissued General
Obligation (G.O.) Bonds from the 1994, 2003 and the most recent 2012 election.
Of the 1994 and 2003 elections there is $10,280,000 remaining which is authorized for
the following:
• Streets $7,485,000
• Drainage $1,245,000
• Animal Shelter Project $1,300,000
• EOC Expansion $ 250,000
NRH citizens recently approved $48,000,000 general obligation bonds to be issued for
the municipal facilities complex.
Plans to Issue G.O. Debt
Prior to the bond election in May, management and staff presented preliminary
financing scenarios to the CIP committee and the Mayor and Council. These scenarios
included the financing for the issuance of the remaining 1994 and 2003 bonds as well
as the proposed 2012 referendum G.O.s.
The preliminary scenarios were based on the following major considerations:
• The remaining 1994 and 2003 bonds will be issued over the next 5 to 7 years.
• The municipal facilities complex will not exceed $70 million. Management and
staff will work to reduce costs during design, bid and construction. The needed
debt financing would be issued over a period of 3 to 4 years in order to have the
funds as needed to design and build the project, and be able to budget the
payment of the debt from revenues as they become available from property taxes
and other sources.
• The financing of the municipal complex would include the issuance of G.O.s for
the voter approved $48 million and the use of cash reserves from various
sources to finance or pay -go the additional maximum $22 million. Staff identified
cash reserves from sources such as gas development reserves, 413 sales tax for
economic development reserves, general fund balance, debt service balance,
TXDOT settlement for City right of way, and proceeds from future sale of City
property to help finance the municipal complex.
• Taxable property value growth, which is one factor determining debt levy, was
assumed to be a conservative 1 % over several years.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
Issues NF�H
• Prior to the May election, voters were informed that a 3 to 4 cent property tax rate
increase would be necessary to help finance the project.
• Interest Rates on bonds issued were estimated to be in the range of 3.25% to
3.50 %.
• We left open the idea of structuring the debt differently than past debt issues for
the purpose of budgeting for positive cash flows. We will discuss this in greater
detail below.
What has changed since the preliminary scenarios were developed?
• Preliminary taxable property values for fiscal year 2013 grew 3% instead of the
1 % projected in the preliminary scenarios. Over the short term, 3 to 5 years, we
believe we can revise our projections in the 2% to 2.5% growth range. As a result
we can predict more property tax revenues available to pay for debt than
originally projected.
• Our Financial Advisors are indicating that interest rates on the bonds are
currently at the 3.25% level. There is no guarantee that we will not see higher
rates at the time we sell bonds in August or in future years. Our financial advisors
make the point that interest rates are at record lows and obviously have more
room to move up than down. For that reason the City may want to issue as much
as we can afford in the August sale.
• Staff has not changed the recommendation that the needed debt should be
issued over 3 to 4 years in order to have the funds as needed to design and build
the municipal facility project, and be able to budget the payment of the debt from
revenues as they become available from property taxes and other sources.
Other Considerations for preparing the Long Range Plan and future budgets
• Structuring of the debt payments to meet cash inflows
o Historically NRH has used a level principal payment structure. This means
over the life of the bonds the same principal payment is made. This
method results in higher yearly debt payments in the first years and
significantly lower payments at the end.
o Another option is the level debt structure. This means that the same debt
payment is made each year for the life of the bonds.
o Illustration of Level Principal versus Level Debt structure: Assume the
City Issues $15,000,000 of G.O. bonds with a twenty year maturity.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
2
Is sues - - - -__ - NitH
• The average borrowing cost is currently about 10 basis points
higher for level debt (3.25 %) than level principal (3.15 %)
• Using Level Principal, the first payment is $1.2 million. The 20
year (last) payment is $765,000. Payments in the first 10 years
would total $11.1 million. The total borrowing cost (principal and
interest) over the 20 year payback would be $19.9 million.
• Using Level Debt, each yearly payment (years 1 through 20) would
be $1,030,000. Payments in the first 10 years would total $10.3
million. The total borrowing cost (principal and interest) over the 20
year payback would be $20.6 million.
• Conclusion: In the illustration above, although the total cost of
level debt ($20.6 mil) is more than level principal ($19.9 mil), the
cash outlay in the first 10 years is significantly less ($800,000) with
level debt. This could give us some flexibility in budgeting for debt
payments in the first few years.
• Management and staff are reviewing the option of considering the
level payment method for at least the first issue of the municipal
complex G.O.s in August. A reassessment of the type of structure
would be done each year to determine the most beneficial
structure.
• Tax Rate Considerations
• Prior to the May election, voters were informed that a 3 to 4 cent property
tax rate increase would be necessary to help finance the municipal
complex project.
• Some factors affecting the tax rate increase are:
• The final property tax values in July.
• Future growth in taxable property values.
■ The size of the bond issue in August.
■ The size of future bond issues.
■ Interest rates on the bonds to be issued
o Tax Rate Increase
■ Management and staff are working to propose a tax rate increase
of 3 cents for FY 2013.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
3
Issues "RH
■ If 3 cents is not enough to meet future cash flows for debt service
based on current assumptions, we may need to consider raising the
tax rate (not to exceed a total of 4 cents) in future years.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
4
Issues 1N FrP.H
Debt Issuance Policy
Since the approval by North Richland Hills citizens of the Municipal Facility referendum,
there have been multiple inquiries to public officials, management and staff regarding
the methodology for awarding City of North Richland Hills debt for the financing of this
project. The following is a discussion and recommendation of a written policy based on
past and best practices by the City of North Richland Hills and other municipalities in
certain circumstances. Please refer all inquiries regarding the methodology of debt
issuance to Larry Koonce, Director of Finance, 817 - 427 -6167 or IkoonceCa_)nrhtx.com .
Discussion of Debt Issuance Methods: Competitive Sale or Negotiated Sale
What is a Competitive Sale?
• Bond sale is advertised at least a week prior to scheduled sale date.
• Bonds are sold at a specified date and time though a "sealed bid" process.
• Web -based bidding system restricts access to bid results until sale time is
passed.
• Bonds are sold to the underwriter bidding the lowest borrowing cost.
• Depending on amount of bonds offered, underwriters may team up in
"syndicates" with one firm submitting the bid on behalf of the group.
• Underwriters' compensation is built into the interest rates bid (similar to
mortgage with no points).
What is a Negotiated Sale?
• A team of underwriters is selected by the City before marketing the bonds.
The City can ensure participation of M/WBE firms, if needed.
• Underwriters actively pre- market the bonds to investors.
• Interest rates and underwriters' compensation are determined through
negotiation with the underwriters on a specific date. The City's Financial
Advisor (FA) (First Southwest) works on behalf of the City to assure market
pricing.
• Bond pricing is an iterative process between FA and underwriter lasting
several hours which allows for changes to bond structure during pricing.
• Underwriting expenses are typically higher due to inclusion of underwriter's
legal counsel and management fees.
• Underwriters' compensation is paid from proceeds from bonds (like paying
points on a mortgage).
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
5
Iss ues NRH
Factors Influencing Sale Method
Competitive Negotiated
• High credit quality of bonds • Need for flexibility in pricing due to
• Well known /frequent issuer structure (advanced refundings or
• Stable bond market revenue constraints) and /or timing
• Simple bond structure such that • Need for active pre- marketing due
bond size is not dependent on how to market saturation, complicated or
the bonds are priced troubled credit, or unknown credit
Negotiated Sale Underwriter Selection
If a negotiated sale is needed the following are possible selection criteria.
RFP Process Considerations
• Utilize underwriting firms that
• Have bid on the City's competitive bond sales in the past
• Have submitted unsolicited proposals and ideas of value to the City
• Broad solicitation of underwriters
• Difficult to evaluate based on objective criteria (rankings can vary depending on
time period and universe (i.e. TX vs. all US)
• May not be in the City's best interest to select firms based on proposed expenses
or pricing
Which Method of Sale or RFP Process is Better?
While there is no evidence that either a competitive or negotiated sale will consistently
result in a better outcome for the City, it stands to reason that in a typical new money
deal, more competition will probably result in the lowest borrowing cost for the City.
City of North Richland Hills' Historical Practice
• Bond sales have typically been sold via competitive sales.
• Exceptions include:
)o- Advanced refundings* in which it is preferable to have flexibility to adjust
the size, structure and timing of the sale
➢ Complex transactions in difficult market: Example: 2008 Liquidity Crisis.
*refinancings that occur more than 90 days from the call date on
outstanding bonds.
Fiscal Year 20112/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
6
Issues NEH
Draft Policy
The following is a possible policy guideline for the City of North Richland Hills' issuance
of debt methodology.
A. Competitive Sale
When feasible and economical, obligations shall be issued by competitive sale.
Favorable conditions for a competitive method of sale may include the following:
• The market is familiar with the issuer, and the issuer is a stable and regular
borrower in the public market.
• The issue is neither too large to be easily absorbed by the market nor too small
to attract investors without a concerted sales effort.
• The issue is not viewed by the market as carrying overly complex features or
requiring explanation as to the bonds' soundness.
• Interest rates are relatively stable, market demand is strong and the market is
able to absorb a reasonable amount of buying or selling at reasonable price
changes.
Bidding Parameters for Competitive Sale
The notice of sale will be constructed so as to ensure the best possible bid for the
City based on existing market conditions and other prevailing factors. Parameters to
be examined may include:
• Limits between lowest and highest coupons to maintain City's desired structure.
• Call provisions.
• Requiring ascending coupons or limiting discount bonds after the call date to
preserve the value of the City's call option.
• Use of true interest cost (TIC) for evaluating the bids.
• Use of bond insurance at the bidder's option and expense.
• Serial bonds vs. term bonds with mandatory sinking fund redemptions at the
bidder's option.
B. Negotiated Sale
Bonds issued for the purpose of refunding and /or restructuring outstanding debt
may be sold on a negotiated basis when maximum flexibility is required in order for
the City to respond to day -to -day changes in the marketplace and other
complications associated with issuance of refunding /restructuring debt.
The City will actively participate in the selection of the underwriter(s).
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
7
Issues NFZH
In negotiated sales, the City attempts to involve qualified and experienced firms.
The criteria used to select an underwriter in a negotiated sale may include the
following:
• Participation in the City's past competitive sales.
• Unsolicited ideas of value submitted to City's and /or FA.
• Public finance team and resources.
• Texas Presence and Texas City underwriting rankings.
C. Private Placement (very rare)
When cost - beneficial, the City may privately place its debt. Since underwriting and
rating agency expenses may be avoided, it may result in a lower cost issuance.
Private placement is sometimes an option for small issues. The opportunity may be
identified by the financial advisor and would require the use of a placement agent.
D. All inquiries regarding the methodology employed in the issuance of City of North
Richland Hills debt should be made to the Director of Finance, City of North Richland
Hills.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
8
Issues NIZH
Regional Consolidation Detention and Communication Services
A shared services agreement establishing consolidated detention and emergency
communication services for North Richland Hills, Watauga, Haltom City and Richland
Hills has been fully implemented. These services are provided out of the North
Richland Hills Police facility. After years of preparation, the final agreement was
authorized by City Council on November 14, 2011. The implementation was phased to
allow time to resolve issues that arose. Detention Services went live in December 2011
while Communications became effective in April 2012. To handle the additional
workload, North Richland Hills took on employees of these other cities. In total, twenty -
two employees have been added to the North Richland Hills payroll as part of this
endeavor. To date, the program has worked as expected, both operationally and
financially.
Based on early projections, it was anticipated that the consolidation would save each
city at least $200,000 annually. North Richland Hills anticipates approximately $260,000
in savings when comparing to these functions to operations prior to the merger. During
the startup year (FY 11 -12), it was necessary to utilize a portion of these savings for
one -time start-up expenses. Despite these expenses, a savings of approximately
$180,000 is projected for this fiscal year. The projected savings for Fiscal Year 2012/13
is $172,000, when compared to the original stand -alone program. The primary factor
contributing to this decrease is a one -time regional supplement ($90,000) to be paid to
all shared services employees per the agreement. This is a one -time expense that will
not occur again. Were this payment not required, the expected savings would remain
above the level of the original projection.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
9
SHARED SERVICES
FY 12/13 PROPOSED BUDGET
DETENTION COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY FIBER OPTIC ADMINISTRATIVE ONE -TIME REGIONAL ONE -TIME REGIONAL
DETENTION COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATOR CABLE LEASE FEE SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENT TOTAL
NRH $628,353 $957,887 $42,694 $11,988 $0 $39,369 $50,090 $1,730,381
HALTOM CITY 414,713 571,049 19,924 8,400 24,453 32,219 50,119 1,120,877
WATAUGA 150,805 221,051 5,693 8,400 6,986 16,754 15,465 425,154
RICHLAND HILLS 62,835 92,105 2,846 8,400 3,494 0 7,160 176,840
TOTAL $1,256,706 $1,842,092 $71,157 $37,188 $34,933 $88,342 $122,834 $3,453,252
NRH
SAVINGS COMPARISON
DETENTION COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY FIBER OPTIC ADMINISTRATIVE ONE -TIME REGIONAL ONE -TIME REGIONAL
DETENTION COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATOR CABLE LEASE FEE SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENT TOTAL
NRH - FY 12/13 $628,353 $957,887 $42,694 $11,988 $0 $39,369 $50,090 $1,730,381
NRH - FY 11/12 779,622 1,123,370 0 0 0 0 0 1,902,992
SAVINGS ($151,269) ($165,483) $42,694 $11,988 $0 $39,369 $50,090 ($172,611)
10
I ssues NFZH
Human Resource Considerations
Employee Compensation
Historical data show that in the 1990's and most of 2000's, City employees benefited
from a strong economy by receiving annual salary increases. However, over the last
three years, salary growth for North Texas municipal employees has slowed
considerably. Since the recession of 2009, cities have devoted what revenue is
available to the many service needs of their citizens. With personnel costs absorbing a
large portion of their budgets, cities found it necessary to reduce their salary expense by
implementing a variety of cost saving measures such as: furlough days, base salary
reductions, suspending merit increases and market adjustments and /or reducing the
size of their workforce. These cost reduction measures were not unique to municipal
employers but followed a cost saving trend that had already started in the private sector.
Like other cities in North Texas, North Richland Hills has had to operate with less
revenue which has impacted the funds available for employee salary increases.
Merit Pay Pro-gram
am
Due to economic considerations, in FY 2010/11 funds were not available for the City's
Merit Pay Program; however, funds were allocated for the City's Attendance and
Stability Benefit Programs. In FY 2011/12 funds were available for a 2% merit increase
effective October 1, 2011. Funds were also allocated for the City's Attendance and
Stability Benefit Programs.
For FY 2012/13, funding for the City's Merit Pay Program will be a priority but staff
believes it will be necessary to consider alternatives to the established 4% annual merit
increase. Even in difficult economic times, we strongly believe it is important to provide
incentive and acknowledgement to employees who perform their jobs well. A
recommendation regarding the continuation of the City's Merit Pay Program will be
included in the FY 2012/13 budget.
Pay Range Adjustments
Last year's compensation survey showed that the sluggish economy also slowed the
salary growth of our market comparison cities. This is evident by the modest 2%
adjustment to the City's Public Safety and General Services pay plans.
With the continuing improvement to the local economy, it is anticipated that our market
comparison cities will be increasing their pay ranges next fiscal year. Therefore, Staff
will be looking to allocate funds for adjusting employee pay ranges in FY 2012/13. A
recommendation regarding the pay range adjustment for next fiscal year will be included
in the FY 2012/13 budget.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
11
Issues Nir H
Health Insurance
The City's health plan is performing well and year to date expenditures are under
budget. The plan design changes made in 2011 as well as an overall stabilization of
medical and prescription trend have helped keep the City's insurance expenses under
control. In addition, for the second consecutive year the plan has seen a reduction to
the overall cost of large claim losses. At this time, we are not aware of any significant
medical claims; therefore, we anticipate finishing this fiscal year under budget.
Over 285 employees participated in our 5 th annual Health Check event in December
2011. Participation in Health Check 2011 was our highest ever. As part of the event,
participants received a biometric screening, personal coaching session and access to
Cigna's on -line health assessment. Better nutrition and increased physical activity were
two areas that showed a need for improvement for those who participated. We are
currently researching new physical activity based wellness programs designed to raise
the fitness level of our employees. The Human Resources Department, along with the
Wellness Committee, will continue to work together to provide employees with health
and wellness information, programs and opportunities.
With the positive claims experience this year, we do not anticipate increasing co -pays,
deductibles, or out of pocket maximums for Plan Year 2013. Based on our medical
claims experience, next fiscal year we are forecasting an overall cost increase of
approximately 5 %. To maintain the 80/20 cost sharing ratio, employees will be
expected to share in that increase in cost through an increase in their monthly medical
premiums. Although the City's claims experience has been positive this year, the City
will continue to proactively monitor and address health care costs through plan design
changes as well as wellness education and prevention efforts.
Fiscal Year 2012/20113 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
12
Issues NFZH
Animal Adoption and Rescue Center
The current animal shelter opened in 1987 and was the premier facility due to its unique
and innovated design in animal care. In 2002, after 15 years of use, the City realized
that it needed to upgrade this facility, creating a more modern and efficient design
utilizing the newest philosophies. The plan was to combine City funds with private
donations to expand and modernize the facility. As a part of the 2003 bond election,
$1.3 million in general obligation bonds were approved by the voters. These bonds were
to be combined with funds from the donations account (approximately $535,000) and
approximately $1.1 million obtained through a fundraising campaign; a combined
budget of $3.0 million. This budget was developed through an architectural study that
recommended renovating the existing 6,747 sf. plus constructing 11,342 sf. of new
space. This would result in a combined facility of 18,089 sf. The $3.0 million project
expense was based on a cost of $194 per square foot.
During the past 10 years, several different approaches were studied for the new animal
shelter. Joint projects with the Cities of Watauga, Keller and Hurst have been explored.
North Richland Hills has evaluated different locations including the land in front of Fire
Administration, purchasing land at a new location, city owned land on Rufe Snow (Food
Lion), and expansion on the existing site. These discussions were coupled with an
evaluation of renovating the existing facility, building a smaller annex or constructing an
entirely new facility. Each possibility was evaluated based on costs, accessibility,
operational effectiveness and value to the community.
Throughout this period, staff kept Council informed of the myriad of opportunities and
the resolution of each. In 2009 and 2010, staff made presentations to the City Council
concerning the status of the facility and sought direction to move forward. Staff was
advised to continue moving forward and recommend the best way to construct and fund
a new animal shelter. As the City prepares for the FY 12 -13 budget, specifically the
upcoming bond sale, there are several critical decisions to be made on the direction of
this project. Staff feels that they have vetted the project sufficiently to make a
recommendation and now seek the City Council's concurrence with the next steps.
The original shelter plan in 2002 called for a budget of $3 million. Working with the
architect, staff believes a new 10,800 sf. facility meets the needs and can be
constructed for a maximum budget of $3.4 million. Achieving this goal will be difficult
and will result in the reduction of some planned space or amenities such as the surgical
suite. Considering the 10 -year time frame, staff feels this number is not out of line to
construct what is needed. General Obligation bonds for this project in the amount of
$1.3 million are scheduled to be sold next month. Combined with the donations account
that currently sits at approximately $850,000, an additional $1.25 million would be
required to fund a $3.4 million project. As mentioned previously, the original plan was to
secure this funding from donations and outside sources. While not as prevalent as they
were in 2002, opportunities still exist and staff would attempt to obtain as much as
possible through alternative sources. To move the project forward, the City would need
to be prepared to fund this difference with City funds until other sources are identified.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
13
Issues NFZH
Below are the recommendations from staff on how to proceed:
• Construct an all new facility
o The existing facility is showing signs of age and high use. While
constructed to available standards, it does not meet many of the current
best practices or common building standards.
• Build adjacent to existing facility (current Neighborhood Services building).
o This would involve the elimination of the existing NS building. This facility
had been scheduled to be demolished as part of the new municipal
complex program. The existing animal shelter would also be eliminated to
make room for required parking. This would result in the elimination of two
older, high maintenance facilities providing potential cost savings in
energy efficiencies.
• Set budget at $3.4 million
o The original budgeted amount was $3.0 million for approximately 11,000
sf. of new construction and renovation of the existing 6,747 sf. Based on
current project estimates of $300- $322/sf. a $3.4 million budget would
allow the City to construct approximately 10,800 sf.
• Utilize existing donation fund account to hire architect
o Quorum architect was selected to design the facility and has been doing
some preliminary work since 2007. Based on current estimates
Architecture /Engineering expenses would be approximately $250,000.
Funds are available in the donations account to cover these expenses.
• Delay upcoming bond sale for animal shelter
o There are $1.3 million in GO bonds scheduled to be sold next month. The
City will not be in a position to use these funds until final design work is
complete and additional funds can be identified. Rather than incur the debt
payment, this should be delayed until construction is ready to begin.
• Identify outside funding sources
• Due to the lengthy delay in planning for this facility, staff does not feel it is
possible to seek additional funding sources without a definitive design.
Following the creation of that plan, staff would solicit major donations to
make up the $1.25 million shortfall. The City would need to be prepared to
bridge any gap or delay the construction if donations do not match needs.
• Should the city need to incur the full $1.25 million shortfall, this would
equate to an average debt payment of $83,000 for 20 years at 4%
interest.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
14
Issues NRH
• Understand staffing cost
• Assuming permission is obtained to move forward with the project, it
would likely take 20 -24 months for the design, construction and
demolition. This would place the opening of the new facility in the FY 14-
15 budget year. Currently, the City has the following staff to operate the
facility:
1 Supervisor
2 Kennel technicians (full -time)
1 Kennel technician (part-time)
1 Humane Services Technician (clerk)
4 Field ACO's
• Given the increase in the size of the facility, a preliminary request has
been made for the following new personnel with the associated annual
cost including benefits:
1 full -time Kennel Technician $48,084
1 full -time Humane Services Technician (clerk) $45,455
1 part-time Kennel Technician $29,343
• The total additional cost for the new personnel would be approximately
$122,882 per year. Staff has discussed the ability to reduce these
numbers through the use of volunteers and /or through design features.
Until a design is complete, these costs are hard to estimate and must be
calculated based upon experience with a like -sized facility using the
existing annual workload.
QUESTION:
Does Council agree with this plan and approve moving forward?
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
15
Budget Calendar
Table of Contents N RH
Budget Calendar
BudgetCalendar ............................................................................................................. 1
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
Budget Calendar NCH
Budget Preparation Calendar
Fiscal Year 2012 -2013
Thu, Dec 22 Distribute following to departments: Budget Dept.
• Facility Requests Departments
• Information Services Requests
Tue, Jan 17 Return the following forms to Budget: Departments
• Facility Requests
• Information Services Requests
Fri, Jan 20 Distribute Goals, Objective and Performance Budget Dept.
Measure forms to Departments
Fri, Jan 20 Capital Budget Kickoff Budget Dept.
Distribute following to departments: Departments
• Capital Budget information
Fri, Jan 20 Capital Budget database open for data entry Budget Dept.
Fri, Feb 10 Capital Projects budgets due to Budget Departments
Department
Fri, Feb 24 Distribute Capital Budget Review material to City Budget Dept.
Manager's Office
Mon Feb 27 — Assistant City Managers review of Capital Projects Assistant CMs
Fri, Mar 9 budgets with Departments Departments
Mon, Feb 27 — HTE training sessions for data entry, line item Budget Dept.
Fri, Mar 2 detail workshop, clinic for new budget preparers Departments
Thurs, Mar 8 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
• Tuition Reimbursement Request Form
• Personnel Inventory Forms
Thurs, Mar 8 HTE open for data entry Departments
Fri, Mar 23 Distribute revenue projection forms to depts. Budget Dept.
Mon, Mar 26 — City Manager review of Capital Projects budgets City Managers
Fri, Apr 13 Budget Dept.
Dept. Directors
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
B udget Cal endar NFLH
Wed, Mar 28 Return the following to Budget: Departments
• Proposed line -item budgets for 2012/13
• Revised budgets for 2011/12
• Travel Request
• Overtime Request
• Adjustment to Base Forms
• Tuition Reimbursement Request
• Goals, Objectives & Performance Measures
• Personnel Inventory Forms
Mon, Apr 2 Distribute 2012/13 proposed line item detail Budget Dept.
summaries to departments
Fri, Apr 6 Revenue projections due to Budget Dept. Departments
Fri, Apr 6 Summaries of increase and decrease due to Departments
Budget Dept.
Fri, Apr 20 Distribute Budget Review material to City Budget Dept.
Manager's Office
Mon, Apr 23 — Assistant City Managers review of departmental Assistant CMs
Fri, May 4 line -item budget, adjustment -to -base requests, Dept. Directors
goals, objectives and performance measures
Fri, May 11 Preliminary tax roll received from Tarrant Appraisal Budget Dept.
District with taxable values
Mon, May 21 — City Manager review of departmental line -item, City Managers
Fri, Jun 8 adjustment -to -base requests, goals, objectives, Budget Dept.
performance measures and revenue projections Dept. Directors
Mon, Jun 11 Mid -Year Budget Work Session City Council
City Managers
Budget Dept.
Mon, Jun 18 Final CIP updates due to Budget Department Departments
Mon, Jul 2 City Manager final review of Capital Projects City Managers
budget Budget Dept.
Fri, Jul 6 All budget decisions finalized City Managers
Mon, Jul 16 Transmittal letter completed City Managers
Budget Dept.
Fri, Jul 20 Distribute Budget Worksession material to City City Managers
Council, City Manager's Office Budget Dept.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
2
Budget Calend NFZH
Mon, Jul 23 Distribute Budget Worksession material to Budget Dept.
Department Directors and Citizens (copy placed at
public library)
Mon, Jul 23 Proposed Budget filed with City Secretary Budget Dept.
Mon, Jul 23 — Budget Work Session presentation rehearsals City Managers
Thurs, Jul 26 Budget Dept.
Wed, Jul 25 Certified tax roll received from Tarrant Appraisal Finance Dept.
District - calculate effective tax rate
Fri, Jul 27 Budget Work Session City Council
City Managers
Budget Dept.
Fri, Jul 27 Crime Control and Prevention District Board CCD Board
review of proposed budget City Managers
Budget Dept.
Fri, Aug 3 IR to City Council with follow -up report on Budget City Managers
Work Session (if needed) Budget Dept.
Tues, Aug 7 Publish Effective Tax Rate Budget Dept.
Mon, Aug 13 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.
Wed, Aug 15 Publish Notice of Budget Hearings Budget Dept.
Wed, Aug 15 Publish Notice of Tax Rate Hearings Budget Dept.
Mon, Aug 20 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Park Corp.
Corporation review of proposed budget City Managers
Parks Dept.
Budget Dept.
Mon, Aug 27 City Council Meeting: City Council
• Tax rate public hearing City Managers
• Budget public hearing
• CCD budget public hearing
• Park Development Corporation public hearing
Tue, Aug 21 & Notice of Tax Revenue Increase (if needed) Budget Dept.
Tue, Aug 28
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
3
Bud get Calendar NCH
Mon, Sep 3 Special City Council Meeting (if needed) City Council
• Tax rate public hearing City Managers
Mon, Sep 10 City Council Meeting: City Council
• Accept certified tax roll City Managers
• Adopt proposed budgets
• Adopt proposed tax rate
Fiscal Year 2012 /2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
4
Other Information
Table of Contents NR-H
Other Information
Status of Bond Election Programs ................................................... ............................... 1
Debt Service- Existing Debt .............................................................. ............................... 3
2010/11 Year End Fund Balance ..................................................... ............................... 9
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
Other Inf NRIH
1994 BOND ELECTION PROGRAM
In 1994, a sixteen - member Citizen Advisory Committee was appointed by the City
Council to review the City's capital improvement needs for the following five to seven
years. The Committee spent several months reviewing and assessing various capital
improvement needs. The Committee examined nearly $40,000,000 in needed projects
and recommended $23,540,000 for voter consideration in a bond election package.
Street and drainage improvements were an integral part of the authorized proposal.
Street projects were prioritized according to which projects would provide the most
positive impact on traffic flow and congestion in the City. Drainage projects were
ranked according to which project would protect the most property from flooding and
erosion. All public safety projects recommended by City staff were included in the bond
election. The projects were divided into three propositions according to the type of
project for the bond election. The election was held on September 27, 1994. All three
propositions passed by a 2 to 1 margin. The propositions are outlined as follows (in
thousands of dollars):
Amount
Amount Issued 2012 Authorized
Authorized To -Date Proposed Un- issued
Issue
Streets $20,000 $19,575 $0 $425
Drainage 1,865 1,865 0 0
Public Safety 1,675 1,675 0 0
Totals: $23,540 $23,115 $0 $425
As of June 2012 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. There are no plans to issue the remaining $425,000
authorized 1994 G.O. bonds in 2012. This remaining amount will be issued for Holiday
Lane, from Loop 820 to Dick Lewis Drive as part of the Loop 820 widening project.
2003 BOND ELECTION 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 streets, drainage, and facility improvements
that would benefit the citizens of North Richland Hills. City management and staff
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, estimates of future property value growth, and impact on
future operations.
Fiscal Year 201212013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
1
Other Informa "RH
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 year 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 facilities projects.
All of the propositions, except for the proposed authorization of $1 million in general
obligation bonds for Maintenance Service Center improvements, were approved by the
voters, and are now a part of the long -range financial plan of the City. The propositions
are presented in the following table (in thousands of dollars):
Amount
Amount Issued 2012 Authorized
Authorized To -Date Proposed Un- issued
Issue
Streets $30,010 $22,950 $ 0 $7,060
Drainage 4,000 2,755 1,085 160
Public Safety
Facilities 1,900 1,650 0 250
Animal Rescue
Center Expansion 1,300 0 0 1,300
Totals: $37,210 $27,355 $1,085 $8,770
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 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 proposed 2012 G.O. bond sale will pay for costs of Meadowview Estates Channel
drainage improvements totaling $1,085,000. This leaves an authorized but unissued
balance of $8,770,000 as indicated above.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
2
Other Information NRH
Debt Service- Existing Debt
The City of North Richland Hills maintains a multi -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 a twenty -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:
1. 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 City Council will set an ad valorem tax rate that will assure the
payment of existing debt. This assumption is in keeping with the Council objective to
stabilize the tax burden of the citizens of North Richland Hills.
Fiscal Year 2012/20/3 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
3
Other Information NRH
The following graphs illustrate outstanding debt for fiscal years 2O12 through 2D31. The majority
of the City's debt is twenty year maturity for ntreet, dnainoga, uU|ih/ improvements and new
facilities. The City also has twenty year outstanding debt for fire apparatus. Annbu|onman and
some public works equipment are financed over 1Dyears.
Total City Debt Payments 2012-2013
WO
This graph shows the city-wide annual debt payments from 2012 through 2031 as of the latest
bond oo|e in May 2011. Principal and interest payments through 2031 total $123.3 million. In
ten years, by the and of fiscal year 2021. the City will have paid $91.8 million, or 74.596 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 utility customers, water park customers and golfers respectively.
Utility Debt Payments 2012-2031
200,000 -
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
4
Other Information NRIH
Aquatic Debt Payments 2012 -2031
1,200,000
1,000,000 --
800,000
600,000
400,000 ---
200, 000 _ _
T ""7' -•- m --1-
oti� oti oti otio' otio oti oti
-P -P oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti o� o'�
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti- ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
The original debt for NRH has been and is being paid for through the 46 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 NRH
after the initial construction in the early 1990's. The first new attraction was the Green Extreme
in 1998. The newest attraction is the Viper added in summer of 2011.
Golf Debt Payments 2012 -2031
$350,000
$300,000
.
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000 w 4 ° ::
$100,000
$50,000 _ .....w_........
$0 _ LL F I Fa_m...L�I
oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti otio' °,yo oti oti ati�' 0 o`�
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti- ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
❑GO &CO Debt 0 Utility Loan n General Fund Loan
The final payment for the 1992 original golf course construction debt was made in 2011. This
chart shows the repayment of the loans from the General Fund since 2006. Loans have been
made mostly for replacement of course maintenance equipment. Those loan repayments will
begin in 2012. Also included are certificate obligations sold for course infrastructure
improvements made since the course was opened in 1992.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
5
Other Information NRH
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 413 Debt Payments 2012-2031
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000 - - - - - --------- - - -- - - - - - - -_--_--_- - ---
$800,000 -
$600,000 -
$200,000
$0 J_'r'Ij M__A_rl ■ �_
Jil
$400,000
l- [I
The final payment for the original 4B parks projects, including NRH20 will be made in
2015. 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 Debt Payments 2012-2031
$900
$800,000 -------
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000 . .. ...
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0 4
1 3 4 ) 0 0 4 ) ( 0
These payments are made with fees collected for drainage improvements through the monthly
water and sewer utility bills.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
6
Othe Inf ormation NFZ
TIFs Debt Payments
$3,500,000_
1
$3,000,000
w
$2,500,000
2 000 000
p T �
$
E
0 TI F #2
$1,500,000 ■TIF #1a
�b g a g - - --
zz'
$1,000,000 4 r ■TIF #1
$500,000 - M `
AM
o
x
$0
, y '� y a y h y �o . , ti i � . ti ti y 'L ,1b ti tih 10
, , , , , , , , ,
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. The TIF
district expires in 2018. Other participants contributing property taxes include BISD, Tarrant
County, Tarrant County Hospital District and Tarrant County College District.
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
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 Tax Supported Debt Payments 2012-
2031
$7,000,000 7- -
$6,000,000
$ 5,000,000 _ ._... .......
$4,000,000
$3,000 -
$2,000,000 - --
$1,000,000
$Q - `� -- - - "-- - - r r
y 'L y 3 yU t ^,h ti ti 'y`b tig ' , -V . ti a . y h 4 t° ' ' ' ,5b 3ti
, , _01 , 10 , . , _P , ,. , , , . ,�O 10 , 10 ,
Fiscal Year 201212013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
7
Other I NRH
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
$58.9 million. In ten years $43 million or 78% of the total will be retired.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
8
Other Infor mation NR
FUND BALANCE SUMMARY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
AUDITED AUDITED INCREASE/
BALANCE AS OF BALANCE AS OF (DECREASE)
FUND 09/30/10 09/30111 FY 2011
General Fund (Unassigned) $ 9,639,305 $ 9,838,310 $ 199,005
General Debt Service Fund $ 2,811,528 $ 2,221,581 $ 589,947
Utility Fund $ 21,581,016 $ 18,428,610 $ 3,152,406
Golf Course Fund $ 679,143 $ 656,278 $ (22,865
Aquatic Park Fund $ 4,164,540 $ 5,153,676 $ 989,136
Facilities & Construction Services Fund $ 1,069,377 $ 1,073,799 $ 4,422
Fleet Services Fund $ 2,375,520 $ 2,502,344 $ 126,824
Self Insurance Fund $ 4,508,706 $ 5,945,447 $ 1,436,741
Information Services Fund $ 2,306,681 $ 2,133,946 $ 172,735
Promotional Fund $ 327,780 $ 404,303 $ 76,523
Donations Fund $ 758,943 $ 828,361 $ 69,418
Special Investigation Fund $ 502,350 $ 515,366 $ 13,016
Drainage Utility Fund $ 1,268,501 $ 1,213,497 $ (55,004)
Gas Development Fund $ 4,471,150 $ 4,182,543 $ 288,607
Traffic Safety Fund $ 187,173 $ 264,088 $ 76,915
Park & Recreation Facilities Development Fund $ 3,336,984 $ 5,684,019 $ 2,347,035
Economic Development Fund $ 4,144,468 $ 4,278,679 $ 134,211
Crime Control & Prevention District Fund $ 654,312 $ 769,773 $ 115,461
Fiscal Year 20/212013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
9
Other Information NE�H
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 Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) programs as well as funds that
have been seized by the Police Department and are released to the City by a Judge.
Seized funds can only be used for specific purposes and the reimbursements this
fund receives go toward the cost of the radio, MDT and AFIS programs.
➢ 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.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
10
Other Infor NF2.H
➢ 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 Management 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.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid -Year Budget Work Session
11
Other Information 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.
Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Mid-Year Budget Work Session
12