HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08-23-05 Names Tabs.doc AGENDA
#2516
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M.
4:00-5:00 P.M.
WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
ii.
iii.
IV.
V.
VI.
INVOCATION - City Secretary Nina Wilson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - City Secretary Nina Wilson
INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL - Mayor James H. Holmes, III
INTRODUCTION OF STAFF - City Manager Bob Livingston
AWARDS:
DEPARTMENT PINS: CID INVESTIGATOR KEN ARDANOWSKI, 15 YEARS;
NICK ZAVALA, MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN & D.A.R.E. OFFICER ROBERT
HARDIN, 10 YEARS; DENISE RENCHER, COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR
FOR DISPATCH, 5 YEARS FOR A TOTAL OF 40 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE
CITY
RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUTS
VII. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items on the Consent
Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items may be made
when that item is addressed by the City Council.
VIII.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER: Proposal from R.L. Goodson, Inc. to provide engineering services for
design of underground conduits for relocation of aerial utilities at City Hall -
Smallwood Tab I
B. CONSIDER: Proposal from GSWW, Inc. to provide engineering services for
hydraulic evaluation of certain sanitary sewer capacity and to design permanent flow
metering stations in sanitary sewer collection system - Smallwood Tab II
C. CONSIDER: Appointment of members to Committee to Name Various Public
Facilities - Smith Tab III
D. CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for August 2, 2005 -
Wilson Tab IV
MAIN AGENDA
A. REVIEW: City Manager's Proposed Budget FY2006 - Austin Tab V
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed budget - Austin Tab V
C. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed tax rate - Austin Tab V
D. CONSIDER: Ordinance for No Parking, 6700 block Durham - Corder Tab VI
E. CONSIDER: Resolution for membership in The Cooperative Purchasing Network -
Green Tab VII
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
CONSIDER:
CONSIDER:
CONSIDER:
Tab X
CONSIDER:
Licensing Agreement with SpeeDee Oil Change - Bradley Tab VIII
Memorial Tree and Bench Program - Bradley Tab IX
Landscape plans for Curtis Park at Lovers Lane and Dickens - Bradley
Request from Highland Park Presbyterian Church for use of Goar and
Williams Parks for two-day event for mission program - Bradley Tab XI
CONSIDER: Proposed Ordinance changes to Fire and Building Codes for automatic
fire sprinkler systems - Ledbetter Tab XII
DISCUSS: City Council position regarding proposed changes to the Wright
Amendment - Livingston Tab XIII
As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into
Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on
any agenda items listed herein.
Xo
INFORMATION AGENDA Tab XIV
REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
H.
I.
J.
K.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for August 9, 2005
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
AGENDA MEMO
(08-23-05 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 18, 2005
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider proposal from R.L. Goodson Inc. to provide engineering
services associated with the design of underground conduits for
relocation of aerial utilities at City Hall.
Background. R.L. Goodson has completed the design tasks associated with
the box culvert and the site civil improvements surrounding the proposed expansion
of City Hall. Pursuant to previous discussions with the Council and the oversight
committee, the existing aerial utilities must be relocated as part of the project. The
attached proposal from R.L. Goodson provides for the surveying, engineering, and
consultation services to design the conduits for undergrounding the City's fiber optic
interconnect as well as TXU and cable TV service to the building.
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposal from
R.L. Goodson in the amount of $8,000.00, subject to the deletion of the "limit of
liability" clause.
August10,2005
RAYMOND L, GOODSON JR., INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
4420 Worcola
Dallas, Texas 75206
Re:
TXU Electric and Utility Conduit Plan
RLG File No. 02347.10
Dear Bud:
Pursuant to your request, we are pleased to submit the following proposal for additional civil engineering
services related to the subject project. The scope of work will be as follows:
I. TXU ELECTRICAL AND UTILITY CONDUIT PLAN
Prepare plan and profile (approx. 1,100 LF) for the construction of an electrical and
conduit duct bank containing 2 to 8 - 4" conduits requested by University Park. Plans
prepared by Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc. will include only the design of the conduit duct
bank civil components and will be based on a route design prepared by TXU. The design
of transformers, switchgear, and below grade structures or vaults are excluded from this
scope of work. All electrical components will be designed by TXU or the project MEP
Consultant.
Delineate an easement for TXU to be included on the Final Plat of the site. Scope of
work excludes the preparation of separate instrument easement documents.
Plans will include or reference TXU Electric, Standard Details and Specifications.
LUMP SUM FEE
$7,500.00
II. REIMBURSABLES
Reimbursable items such as reprographics, delivery, travel, etc., are not included in the above
stated fees. Reimbursable will be billed at cost plus 10%.
ESTIMATED COST:
$500.00
IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The following items are not included in the scope of services identified above and will be
considered extra services. Extra service work will not be performed unless authorization for the
work is received.
PE ] ER B. I ARS~)N P E
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
August 10, 2005
Page Two
Ao
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Major changes in the scope of work.
Design for Relocation of Utilities.
Construction Staking.
Geotechnical Investigation.
Trench Safety Design or Program Development.
Landscape and Irrigation Plans.
Site Lighting Plan.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT
A. FEES
Billing for services rendered will be submitted upon completion of the assignment, or for
projects requiring more than 30 days to complete, that portion of the work completed will
be billed approximately the first of each month as work progresses. All invoices are due
and payable in thirty days.
If the contract is based on hourly rates, the standard hourly rates as indicated on the
attached fee schedule are hereby made part of this Agreement. The rates are
periodically updated and are subject to change upon advance written notice. In the event
the project is not carried to completion, services for that portion of the work which has
been completed will be paid for at the standard hourly rates.
IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within twelve
(12) months of the date hereof, through no fault of Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., the
amounts of compensation and rates set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted.
The client agrees to pay to Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., in addition to the stated fee, all
reimbursable items such as reproduction, travel, messenger services, photographs, long
distance telephone calls, filing fees, review and recording fees, etc., at actual cost plus 10
percent, and all applicable sales tax on surveying services according to H.B. 61.
The client agrees to pay Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc. all charges due for surveying
services performed for the purpose of transfer of title whether or not said transfer of title
is consummated.
B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Estimates of probable construction costs prepared by Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc.,
represent our best judgment as design professionals. It is recognized by the client that
Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., has no control over the cost of labor, materials or
equipment, or over the contractors' methods of determining bid prices, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions. Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., cannot and
does not guarantee that bids will not vary from any estimate of probable construction
costs.
Mr. Bud Smallwood
City of University Park
August 10, 2005
Page Three
Unless otherwise stated specifically in the contract, Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., is not
responsible for (1) the means and methods used by the contractor, (2) failure of the
contractor to perform all work per the contract documents, (3) release of any pollutant or
toxic discharges from the site, or (4)job site safety.
CLIENT AND OWNER AGREE TO LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF RA~
~,i~ JR., INC., TO THE CLIENT AND OWNER AND TO ALL~C~CTION
['RA~ND SUBCONTRACTORS ON THE PROJE~Ce~ING FROM THE
ACTS, ERROR~ OMISSIONS OF RAYMOND L. GJ;;;;~3'~N JR., INC.,SUCH THAT
THE TOTAL AGGREG~I~LI~/~O~. GOODSON JR.,
TO
ALL
THOSE NAMED SHAL..~dlI~, ~ii~C~D ~I-~E, OR $25,000.00, WHICHEVER IS
LESS. THE CLIEN'T'"AND OWNER FURTHER TO REQUIRE OF THE
SIMILAR LIMITATION OF THE OF RAYMOND L.
AND OF THE CLIENT AND OWNER, TO TRACTOR(S)
(S) DUE TO THE ACTS, ERRORS, OR
)ND L. GOODSON JR., INC.
According to Section 29 of the Professional Land Surveying Practices Act, complaints
about surveying services may be forwarded to: The Texas Board of Land Surveying,
7703 North Lamar, Suite 304, Austin, Texas 78752
If this proposal is acceptable, please sign on the designated line and return one copy to this office. Thank
you for considering our firm for these services.
....._.--~spectfully submitted,
John F. Stull, P.E.
Chief Executive Officer
/mb
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
ACCEPTED this the __ day of
,2005.
By:
Title:
G:\Projects\Civil~Administrative12002/O2347.101Proposals/05081 O.TXU BectricConduitPlan.bsmallwood.doc
AGENDA MEMO
(08-23-05 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 18, 2005
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider proposal from GSVVVV Inc. to provide engineering
services associated with hydraulic evaluation of certain sanitary
sewer capacity and to design permanent flow metering stations in
the sanitary sewer collection system.
Background. Pursuant to conservations between the mayors of University
Park and Highland Park regarding sanitary sewer flows through the two
communities, staff solicited a proposal from GSWW Inc. to provide the professional
engineering services to accomplish the following tasks:
· Evaluate the hydraulic capacity of large trunk sewers within UP's collection
system;
· Develop a computer model of the downstream impact on flow capacity;
· Develop a flow metering plan and design the permanent metering stations to
provide long term data regarding the City's discharges;
Recommendation. Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposal from
GSWW Inc. in the amount of $21,480.00.
PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PROJECT:
August 3, 2005
City of University Park
3800 University Park
P O Box 8005
Dallas, TX 75205
GSWW, Inc.
Civil/Environmental Engineers
11117 Shady Trail
Dallas, Texas 75229
Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation and
Permanent Flow Metering Plan And Design
University Park, Texas
GSWW Inc. (Engineer) proposed to furnish professional engineering services to the City of University Park,
Texas (Owner) in the Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation of 30-inch and abandoned 27-inch interceptors (Phase I)
and Development of a Permanent Flow Metering Plan and Design (Phase II) in accordance with the following
proposal.
The objectives and goals of the project will be achieved through performance of the following tasks:
I. Scope of work:
Phase I - Hydraulic Capacity Evaluation of New 30-inch and abandoned 27-inch Interceptors
Task 1 - Evaluate Hydraulic Capacity
The City of University Park will provide GSWW the existing as-built drawings containing profiles of the
new 30-inch and abandoned 27-inch interceptors including length and slope information to facilitate the
hydraulic capacity evaluation. The capacity of the existing interceptor will be compared with the design
flows obtained in Task 2 below. The results of the evaluation will be furnished in the form of a brief
report.
Task 2 - Review of Recent Flow and Rainfall Data
GSWW will review the flow and rainfall data collected in year 2004 at gauging stations 3, 4, 5, and 7 in
the City of University Park. The data will be reviewed in the light of its contribution to the new 30-inch
interceptor and abandoned 27-inch interceptor. The flow data collected in the City of Highland Park by
others in relation to the 30-inch interceptor will be also obtained and reviewed.
The flow data will be projected for a design rainfall event (5-year, 6-hour) to evaluate the capacity of
and loading on the new 30-inch interceptor.
Phase II - Development of Permanent Flow Metering Plan and Design
Task 3 - Permanent Flow Metering Site Selection and Preliminary Plan
This task provides for development of a preliminary permanent flow-metering plan and a discussion of
the merits of the plan based on each of the requirements of the project. Upon completion of this
discussion, GSWW will perform the necessary field reconnaissance and investigations to determine the
actual condition of the proposed sites with respect to location, site hydraulics, and appropriateness for
metering the system. The preliminary flow-metering plan will be presented for approval by the project
team that depicts the configuration of the flow metering and rain gage network, telemetry, maintenance
requirements, and the flow metering sub-area configuration. This report will incorporate the results of
the field investigations and will request approval of the preliminary flow-metering plan prior to
development of the final plan and construction documents for the permanent flow metering sites.
Task 4 - Permanent Metering Station Final Plan and Design
This task consists of the development of a final permanent flow-metering plan that will deploy
equipment designed to record wastewater flows and rainfall data throughout the City of University Park
and transmit the data via a secure Internet connection to a dedicated server. It is currently estimated
that three (3) permanent stations will be required. This estimate will be confirmed during Task 3. Data
included in the final metering plan will include, as a minimum:
· Location of proposed permanent metering sites
· Type of flow metering equipment to be used
· Discussion of the various equipment alternatives
· An Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
· Discussion of telemetry options
· Discussion of maintenance requirements
· Discussion of data management techniques
· Discussion of data validation methods
Upon approval of the final metering plans and locations, GSWW will proceed with the development of
construction drawings for the metering sites. The City of University Park may choose to issue an
invitation for bids for the "hard" items, such as concrete pads, security fencing, mounting posts,
conduits, etc. or may choose to complete these items with in-house resources. We recommend that
the flow metering equipment be purchased, installed, and calibrated by GSWW under this contract at
an additional cost or under a separate contract.
II. INFORMATION AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT AND/OR OTHERS
An electronic file of the existing sewer system showing sewer lines and manholes and profiles
of the new 30-inch and 27-inch interceptors to be evaluated.
B. Access to manholes.
Expose for entry, manholes that require excavation, cutting of pavement, and/or have lids
fastened or frozen in place.
D. Historical flow data if not available through other sources.
III.
TIME SCHEDULE
The work for Phase I will be initiated within two weeks of the receipt of Authorization to Proceed.
IV.
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
The total price to cover all services described under the Scope of Work, including the necessary
equipment and supplies for Phase I, is SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS
($ 7,730.00) and for Phase II, is THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($
13,750.00).
Invoices will be rendered monthly based the percent completion of the various tasks and payment is
due upon receipt of our statement.
The following table delineates the price for each task.
TABLE 1
Evaluate Hydraulic Capacity of Existing
1. 30-inch and Abandoned 27-inch Lump Sum $ 4,780.00
Interceptors
2 Review of Recent Flow and Rainfall
Data Lump Sum $ 2,950.00
3. Permanent Flow Metering Site Selection Lump Sum $ 2,150.00
4 Permanent Flow Metering Station Plan
and Design (3 stations)
a. First Metering Station Lump Sum $ 5,200.00
b. Additional Two (2) Metering Stations
Lump Sum $ 6,400.00
@ $3200.00 each
* Purchase, installation and calibration of flow metering equipment is available at additional
costs
V. NOTICETO PROCEED
The performance of the proposed work shall be contingent upon Authorization to Proceed by Client.
GSWW, INC.
Charles G. Wilmut, P.E.
President
Date
PHASEIAPPROVED:
City of University Park, Texas
Title
Date
PHASEIIAPPROVED:
Signature
City of University Park, Texas
Title
Date
Principal
Associate/Sr. Project Manager
Project Manager
Project / Design Engineer
Graduate Engineer
Engineer's Assistant
Senior CADD Drafters/Designer
CAD Operators
Office Services
Direct Expenses
$155.00
$125.00
$ ~o.oo
$ 90.00
$ 75.00
$ 49.00
$ 73.00
$ 50.00
$ 47.50
Cost + 10%
AGENDA MEMO
(08/23/05 AGENDA)
DATE; August 23, 2005
TO; Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM; Kate Smith, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Appointment of members to the Committee to Name Various Public
Facilities
Previously the Council discussed the possibility of appointing a committee to name several parks and
other facilities which, to date have been unnamed. Council direction was to develop a list of possible
naming opportunities and return the item to Council for appointment of the Committee.
Facilities which are unnamed include:
1. The linear park along Central Expressway from south of Lovers Lane to University Blvd.
2. The linear park along Central Expressway from south of University Blvd. to SMU Blvd.
3. The street running along the Central Expressway wall from Westminster south.
4. The street running along the Central Expressway wall from Fondren south.
5. The park on the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Hillcrest.
6. The park on the northwest corner of Lovers Lane and Hillcrest.
7. The new fountain to be constructed east of the Goar Park Gazebo as part of the park
improvements.
The following people have been proposed to serve on the Committee:
Trevor Rees-Jones, Chair
James (Brad) Bradley
Kirk Dooley
Diane Galloway
Irwin Gordon
Bill Pardoe
The Council should provide direction to the Committee regarding a timeline for submission of name
recommendations. Also, the City has received several suggestions of possible names for some of the
facilities listed. Staff will forward this list to the Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint the members of the Committee to Name Various Public Facilities.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
MINUTES
#2515
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2005, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Holmes opened the meeting of the City Council. Present were Pro Tempore Jim Roberts,
Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City
Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Nina Wilson.
AWARDS & RECOGNITION
PROCLAMATION: Mayor Holmes read a proclamation for Constitution Week September 17-23,
2005.
DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented Utility Department Employee
Antonio Reyes with his department pin and thanked him for 30 years of service to the city.
RECOGNITION OF BOYS SCOUTS: Three Boy Scouts introduced themselves and the badges
upon which they were working: Jim Bass, 6301 Westchester; Blake McCartin, 7318 Colgate; Trent
Benefield, 12217 Quincy.
ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT: City Manager Bob Livingston announced that National Night Out
would start this evening at 6:00 p.m. in Curtis Park. Everyone was invited.
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2005 CERTIFIED TAX ROLL: The Dallas Central
Appraisal District (DCAD) provides the city with the certified tax roll, which is a list of all property
parcels in the city and their associated market and taxable values. The total taxable value then
becomes the basis for the city to set its property tax rate for the upcoming budget year. This year's
taxable value is $4,314.149, 841, a 9.84% increase from last year's value of $3,927,730,289. Total
market value rose 9.99% to $5,666,452,010. Of the $514 million increase in market value, over
$125 million is from new construction compared with $90 million from the year before.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
ADOPTING THE 2005 APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT FOR THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR HEALTH SERVICES WITH DALLAS COUNTY DEPARMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: The city agrees to pay the county the sum of $48.00 for
the fiscal year October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, which is the agreed upon city's share of
the total cost less federal and state funding. Health services include tuberculosis control, sexually
transmitted disease control, communicable disease control, and laboratory services.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For July 19, 2005.
MAIN AGENDA
CONSIDER MOVING CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE FROM AUGUST 16th TO
AUGUST 23rd TO ACCOMMODATE TAX RATE HEAR1NG: State Truth in Taxation law
(Chapter 26 of the State Property Tax Code) requires that a public hearing be held at least seven
days after public notice of a proposed effective tax increase greater than three percent. If the
City Council receives the proposed FY2006 budget August 2nd and votes to hold a hearing, this
notice would appear in the August 11th edition of the Park Cities News, the city's official
newspaper. The hearing may then be held no sooner than August 18th. By moving the August
16th city council meeting to August 23rd, the city can satisfy the hearing requirement and hold
the meeting on a Tuesday, consistent with other council meetings. The city's practice has been
to conduct a public hearing. This presents taxpayers an opportunity to comment or question the
proposed rate. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of adding August BOth as a special
meeting for a tax rate hearing. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to
approve moving the city council meeting date from August 16th to August 23rd.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO ABIDE BY
THE CONDITIONS AGREED UPON PREVIOUSLY REGARDING VOTING OF CITY USE
OF CITY PARKS AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW
THE CITY CHARTER: The city council discussed calling a city charter election to consider two
issues that would require a vote by University Park residents before a park could be used for
non-park city purposes. The ballot would read: Ballot Issue No. 1: The City Council shall
submit to popular vote any ordinance or resolution approved by the City Council which, if
implemented, would have the effect of permanently changing the surface use of more than 5, 000
square feet of (i) any green belt, fie/d, wood, creek, pond, lagoon, or other water course that is
one acre or larger in area, that is owned by the city, and that is being used as a park, or (ii)
E/ena's Children's Park. Ballot Issue No. 2. If the area of any land owned by the city and being
used as a park or of any city-owned green space located within or adjacent to any pub/ic street
will be permanently reduced by a proposed, city-initiated pub/ic works project, the city shall give
written notice of the proposed project (i) to the record owner of each lot any portion of which is
located within 500 feet of the area where the reduction will occur (ii) prior to or concurrently
with the advertisement by the city so/iciting pub/ic bids for the proposed project. City officials
also agreed during discussions with representatives of various neighbors that the council would
agree to abide by the conditions of the proposed ballot issues until such time as an election could
be held on these issues. The proposed resolution will state the intent of the city council to follow
these conditions. Nominees for the Charter Review Committee were W. Richard Davis, Chair;
Alan Wasserman, Walt Humann, Gage Prichard and Barbara Hitzelberger. City Attorney Rob
Dillard, who served on the 1989 Charter Committee, will also serve in an advisory capacity to
the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved approval of the resolution and
appointment of the Charter Review Committee. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote
was unanimous to approve the resolution and committee. Ms. Mary Poss spoke on behalf of
Lucy and Henry Billingsley thanking the council for listening to their concerns and working with
them and all the neighbors for an enhanced plan as well as improvements for Goar Park, passing
the resolution and putting the charter on the calendar for May. Mr. Irwin Gordon, 3645 Haynie,
spoke regarding his appreciation for the council's commitment to the city and the legacy they are
leaving. Mayor Holmes expressed the council' s appreciation for their support of a compromise.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
STATING ITS INTENT TO ABIDE BY THE FOLLOWING CONDTIONS UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS AN ELECTION CAN BE HELD UPON THOSE CONDITIONS.
CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER FOR TURTLE CREEK BOX CULVERT, PROJECT NO.
43710: Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Jeske Construction Company for the Turtle
Creek Box Culvert for the City Hall Expansion is in the amount of $9,257.00. City Council
requested staff to develop a contractor employee's background check and identification card
policy for this project because of recent heightened security and safety issues associated with
municipal projects. The proposed policy has been designed to assist the contractor in the
provision of a safe work site for contractor/subcontractors' employees, University Park
employees, and the surrounding community. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of
Change Order No. 1. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve
the change order for Project No. 43710.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO NAME CENTRAL L1NEAR PARK AND
ADJACENT STREET: A suggestion was made to appoint a committee to name several parks
and other facilities which, to date, have been unnamed. The following names were suggested to
the council for possible appointment on the committee: Diane Galloway, Kirk Dooley, Irwin
Gordon, Brad Bradley, Bill Pardoe and Trevor Rees-Jones. A letter will be sent to the nominees
and a report brought before the council at the August 23rd meeting. Facilities which are unnamed
include: the linear park along Central Expressway from south of Lovers Lane to University
Boulevard, the linear park along Central Expressway from south of University Boulevard to
SMU Boulevard, the street running along the Central Expressway wall from Westminster south,
the street running along the Central Expressway wall from Fondren south, the park on the
northeast corner of Lovers Lane and Hillcrest, the park on the northwest corner of Lovers Lane
and Hillcrest, and the new fountain to be constructed east of the Goar Park Gazebo as part of the
Goar Park improvements.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO INCREASE FALSE ALARM FEES: Senate Bill 568 was passed
by the 79th Texas Legislature and provides for an increase in the fines a city may impose for false alarms.
The new legislation, which will go into effect September 1, 2005, allows a city to continue to fine the
permit holder of an alarm $50.00 for three but fewer then six false alarms in a calendar year. In addition,
the new legislation permits a city to fine the permit holder $75.00 for more than five but fewer then eight
false alarms in a calendar year, and to fine a permit holder $100.00 for eight or more false alarms in a
calendar year. In addition, a city may revoke or refuse to reissue an alarm permit for an alarm system that
has had eight or more false alarms in a calendar year. Councilmember Shawver moved approval to
amend the current ordinance to allow for the increase in fines collected for false alarms and to amend the
city's fee schedule to increase false alarm fees. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts seconded, and the vote was
unanimous to approve the increase in the fines a city may impose for false alarms.
ORDINANCE NO. 05/27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE
AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.504 (a) (4) PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR FALSE BURGLARY ALARMS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO CHANGE
FALSE ALARM FEES TO THOSE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts
moved approval of the resolution to amend the Master Fee Schedule to change false alarm fees to
those allowed by state law. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to
amend the Master Fee Schedule.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, AMENDING RESOLUTION 05-05, EXHIBIT "A", SECTION IV "PUBLIC SAFETY
AND JUDICIAL" BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 8 TO READ "ALARM PERMIT/DIRECT
ALARM MONITORING FEES/FALSE ALARM PENALTIES"; ESTABLISHING
PENALTIES FOR THE SIGNALING OF FALSE BURGLARY ALARMS AS AUTHORIZED
BY ARTICLE 4.500 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
REVIEW PRESENTATION OF FY06 BUDGET AND VOTE TO CONDUCT PUBLIC
HEARING ON TAX RATE: Traditionally, council refers the proposed budget to the Employee
Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory Committees. Staff recommended scheduling a public
hearing regarding the proposed FY2006 property tax rate at the city council meeting on August
23, 2005.
REVIEW QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Council reviewed and accepted the
financial reports and quarterly investment reports as of June 30, 2005.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 23rd day of August 2005.
ATTEST:
James H. Holmes III, Mayor
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(08/23/2005 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 18, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
Budget and tax rate public hearings at 8/23/2005 meeting
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Texas statutes require that cities provide notice and hold public hearings before adopting an
annual budget and property tax rate.
Proposed FY2006 budget
State law requires that a budget hearing be held no sooner than 15 days after the proposed budget
is filed with the municipal clerk. Using August 2 as the filing date, a hearing August 23 meets
this requirement. A second budget hearing is scheduled for the August 30 Council meeting; and
a third hearing will occur at the September 6 meeting, when the Council acts upon the proposed
budget and tax rate.
The proposed FY06 budget of $34.749 million is 1.69% larger than the adopted FY05 budget of
$34.173 million. The proposed budget includes a tax rate decrease, no rate increases for water or
sewer service, and $4.876 million in capital project funding. To balance the Sanitation Fund
budget, however, a rate increase of 15-20% is needed. Staff is developing alternatives and
additional detail on this matter.
The Finance Advisory Committee meets August 23 to review the proposed budget. Two other
Advisory Committees - Employee Benefits and Property, Casuality, and Liability Insurance -
have already reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed budget. More detailed
information about the budget is included in the attached August 2 memo from the City Manager
and supporting line item detail.
Proposed property tax rate
The property tax is the General Fund's primary source of revenue. The proposed FY06 rate of
$0.30958 is a 4.86% reduction from last year's adopted rate of $0.32539. The certified taxable
property base rose 9.84%. The proposed budget would collect $555,171 more in current
S: 'NAO'~CEB[DGE"06AGENDAMEMO B dsdand"axRahz e~:inS082305,dec 08 ~8/053:2 PM
1
property taxes than last year, a 4.5% increase. Thus it is correct to say that the City is both
cutting the tax rate and raising taxes.
Due to the intricacies of the official effective tax rate (ETR) calculation, the proposed $0.30958
rate that will raise 4.5% more tax revenue represents an effective tax increase of only 3.93%.
The ETR is significant because it drives the notice and hearing requirements a city must meet per
the Texas Truth-in-Taxation law. Cities proposing an effective tax increase greater than the
prior year must hold two separate public hearings about the tax rate. The Dallas County Tax
Assessor-Collector performs the effective tax rate calculation. Notice of the ETR is occurring in
the August 18 edition of the Park Cities News, as is notice of the upcoming hearings.
The ETR's purpose is to identify the tax rate that produces the same revenue dollars this year as
last year. Instead of using the new 2005 certified tax roll ($4.314 billion) as the base, the ETR
calculation considers only those properties that were on the tax roll one year ago, after
adjustment for changes in exemptions, values under protest, and court-ordered reductions. The
resulting tax base number ($4.193 billion) is known as the "2005 Adjusted Taxable Value" and
omits the $125 million added by new construction in University Park this year. This new
construction makes up 32% of the $386 million increase in the certified taxable value.
At the same time, the taxes levied one year ago are also adjusted for refunds and are known as
the "Adjusted 2004 taxes with refunds." Dividing this figure ($12.49 million) by the adjusted
tax base ($4.193 billion) produces an effective tax rate of $0.297868/$100. Comparing the new
proposed tax rate of $0.30958 against the ETR yields an effective tax increase of 3.93%.
RECOMMENDATION
Holding public hearings regarding the proposed budget and property tax rates will comply with
State law and allow opportunity for input from the community and coverage by the local press.
Formal action by Council on the budget, tax rate, and salary ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday,
September 6, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS:
· City Manager's budget memo of 8/2/2005
· ProposedFY05 line-item detail
S: 'NAO'~CEB[DGE"06AGENDAMEMO B dsdand"axRahz e~:inS082305,dec 08 ~8/053:2 PM
2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(08/02/05 AG EN DA)
August 2, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Bob Livingston
Presentation of the City Manager's Proposed FY 2006 Budget
INTRODUCTION
This memo presents the City Manager's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006, (FY06 or
October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006). Highlights of the proposed $34.749 million budget
include:
· A reduction in the City's property tax rate for the 11th consecutive year. The proposed tax
rate of 30.958 cents is 4.86% lower than last year's 32.539 cents per $100 taxable value.
· Over $4.876 million in pay-as-you-go capital project funding, up 3% from last year.
· Balanced budgets in all budgeted funds including reductions in the overall Utility Fund and
Sanitation Fund expenditure budgets.
· A proposed increase in sanitation rates, the first increase in three years. The Finance
Director, Public Works Director, and Sanitation Superintendent are developing alternatives
that range from an increase sufficient to cover operational costs to one that would continue
contributions to a reserve for future landfill expenses. To achieve this latter goal, it appears
a rate increase of 15-20% is needed.
The table below provides a comparison of total expenditures for the City's three budgeted funds
- General, Utility, and Sanitation. Three other funds - Capital Projects, Equipment Services,
and Self-Insurance - are not included in the formal budget, because their revenues come from
line-items in the three budgeted funds. A summary page showing the proposed budget by fund
and department is attached, as is a worksheet detailing the property tax impact of the proposed
FY06 budget.
~o~a~ ~sua~,le~ea ~-xpena~ures
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Dollar Percent
Fund Adopted Adopted Proposed Change Change
Budget Budget Budget
General $19,923,714 $21,067,545 $22,123,757 $1,056,21 5.00%
2
Utility 9,632,850 10,442,317 9,996,674 -$445,643
4.27%
1
Sanitation 2,496,972 2,663,410 2,629,074 -$34,336
1.29%
Total $32,053,536 $34,173,272 $34,749,505 $576,233 1.69%
The City's FY06 General Fund budget is up 5.00%, and the proposed total budget is up 1.69%.
By comparison, over the past year, the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-AII Urban Consumers for
Dallas-Fort Worth increased 2.8%, and the Municipal Price Index, which more closely tracks
services and goods a municipality purchases, increased 4.1%. The more rapid increase in City
General Fund expenditures compared to the CPI is due to the difference in the goods and
services whose prices are measured. Simply put, the CPI's collection of consumer goods does
not align with the items purchased by the City. Increases of 21% for fuel, 22% for health
insurance, and 41% for software maintenance quickly push overall expenditures above the CPI
measure.
CITYWIDE ISSUES
Several cost issues impact all three City funds for FY 2006, and deserve special attention:
personnel costs, general liability and workers compensation insurance costs, external treatment
costs, capital projects contributions, and fuel/equipment costs.
Personnel costs
Salaries and benefits make up 55.3% ($19.221 million) of the total budget, and they comprise
64% of the General Fund's increase. The proposed FY06 budget includes one new full-time
position, a Public Information Officer in the Executive Department. This increases the total full-
time headcount to 239. The number of total employees is still below the 247 employed in the
early 1990's. One other position change that does not increase headcount is also included:
transfer of the GIS Coordinator from the Engineering Division of Public Works to the Information
Services Department.
The proposed budget includes a market-based raise of 4% for all City employees. Last year's
budget contained no market or cost-of-living increase for employees other than police and fire,
who generally received a 3% increase in FY05. At the same time, all employees were required
to pay more for health insurance coverage even though the City increased its contribution.
Employee health insurance costs for the City again present a challenge. As is the case with
most employers, City expenditures for medical claims and prescription drugs continue to climb.
The proposed budget includes an additional 22%, or $320,107 citywide for health insurance.
This compares to last year's increase of 20%. As you are aware, claims expenses have
exceeded City and employee contributions for several years in the Self-Insurance Fund. I am
optimistic this year will turn out better and that the additional contribution proposed in this
budget will keep the program in balance.
The employer contribution for the City's retirement plan is decreasing from 15.23% to 14.88%, a
welcome contrast from last year's increase of 14.01% to 15.23%. Even with the lower rate in
FY2006, the City is budgeting $64,262 more than in FY2005 due to higher salaries proposed for
all personnel. No changes to the retirement plan's benefits are included or proposed. The
employer contribution rate is set by TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) and is driven
by factors such as employee turnover and tenure. TMRS, unlike many pension funds both
public and private, is not experiencing financial difficulties.
2
Insurance costs
In July, the City awarded bids for general liability and workers compensation insurance that will
produce budgeted savings of $145,505 over last year. The decrease resulted from several
factors, including better overall pricing from insurance carriers and excellent loss experience by
the City.
External treatment costs
Unlike past years, in FY2006 the City expects to pay less to two outside agencies for water
treatment (Dallas County/Park Cities Municipal Utilities District or MUD) and wastewater
treatment (City of Dallas Water Utilities). Although both providers are increasing their wholesale
rates to the City, lower projected volumes are more than offsetting the increases. The MUD is
raising its rate per 1,000 gallons from $1.109 to $1.1125. This is another in a series of
projected increases as the MUD modernizes its plant and establishes a new treatment method.
Assuming City purchase of 2.136 billion gallons, the City projects total purchases of $2,376,322,
compared to the FY2005 budget of $2,546,849, a decrease of $170,527.
Dallas Water Utilities is also increasing its treatment charges, from $1.6802 to $1.7771/1,000
gallons, but this increase is offset by a 17.4% decrease in University Park's winter quarter water
consumption and a 8.3% decrease in the infiltration/inflow (I/I) factor Dallas uses. The winter
quarter consumption and I/I factor form the base upon which Dallas sets its sewer rate. These
changes result in a reduction of $449,254 for wastewater treatment. City retail wastewater
revenues will also decrease, but by a lesser degree.
Capital project contributions
The FY06 budget continues the City's successful practice of funding its capital projects on a
pay-as-you-go basis, rather than a debt-funded basis. Details of the budget's capital project
contributions from the General Fund ($2.866 million) and Utility Fund ($2.009 million) are
provided below:
Contribution description FY05 FY06
General govtl, projects (General Fund) $1,010,993 $1,031,323
Curb and gutter replacement (General Fund) 894,496 921,331
Asphalt overlay program (General Fund) 565,389 582,351
Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement 322,288 331,957
(General Fund)
Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement 1,794,319 1,848,149
(Utility Fund)
Fire hydrant installation (Utility Fund) 156,279 160,967
Total $4,743,764 $4,876,078
The first item, general governmental projects, will be used in FY06 to help fund the Northwest
Parkway wall project. In addition to these budgeted operating contributions, the City sometimes
transfers additional funds to the Capital Projects Fund each year. These transfers are made
from unreserved fund balances in the General and Utility Funds by Council ordinance.
Fuel/equipment costs
The continued rise in gasoline and other fuels is well known. Although the City has three
underground tanks for gasoline and diesel, as well as a propane tank, even bulk purchases
cannot offset the sharp increases. The proposed budget includes a 21% increase in fuel
purchases, from $195,898 to $236,643 citywide. The City budgets for equipment replacement
3
by purchasing vehicles in the Equipment Services Fund and then charging an annual
contribution back to the operating departments. This levels the impact on the annual budget.
For FY06, equipment replacement contributions will total $541,643, up 2.45% ($12,976) from
$528,667 in FY05. Finally, maintenance costs are budgeted to increase 6.28% ($50,134), to
$848,399. This represents the cost of operating the City's garage and warehouse. Even
though it is an increase, the amount is even with the FY2004 actual expenditures of $848,589.
Reduction of personnel in the department and a reduction in the number of vehicles used by the
City have helped mitigate expenditure increases.
GENERAL FUND
The proposed FY06 General Fund budget totals $22.1 million, an increase of $1 million (5.0%),
from FY05's total $21.1 million. As in past years, personnel-related costs are the primary
reason for the increase ($676,557). Increases in Police and Fire personnel costs represent
49% of this total. The downstream cost of automation is also becoming apparent. In FY06 the
City projects spending $305,882 for software programming and maintenance, up $90,146
citywide from FY05. General Fund departments will pay $225,649 of the total and $45,648 of
the increase. Despite this increasing cost, the City's efforts at automation have yielded
improved quality of information, productivity, and efficiencies that probably equate to one or two
full-time positions. Other General Fund increases include capital project transfers ($73,796)
and fuel ($40,745). The proposed budget includes no new major equipment or programs.
Revenue considerations
This year's proposed budget includes a major adjustment to several of the City's key non-
property tax revenues. The projected sales tax amount, $2.5 million, is a 13.11% increase over
FY05's $2.21 million. The projection assumes a substantial increase to sales tax revenues
resulting from an extensive ongoing audit of historic sales tax collections. Staff believes several
hundred thousand dollars a year in sales taxes are being remitted to Dallas because of incorrect
coding by merchants. Correcting this problem should produce annual sales tax revenues of
about $2.5 million. Interest revenues are also expected to rise, from a budget of $350,000 in
FY05 to $450,000 next year. Short-term interest rates have risen above 3%, compared to about
1%, in the past year and a half. Building permit revenues are expected to continue at their
current levels, which already greatly exceed the budgeted amount. Overall, non-property tax
General Fund revenues are projected to increase 6.35%.
Tax rate decrease
The City's total certified taxable value increased 9.84%, compared to 4.2% last year. The FY06
budget proposes to reduce the tax rate from $0.32539 to $0.30958 per $100 taxable value.
VVhile the City is now debt-free and has no debt service portion of its property tax rate, it is
helpful to think of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) as having an operations piece and a
capital piece. The table below compares this year with the past three:
Property tax rate comparison, FY03 - FY06
AdoS)ted Adopted Adopted Proposed
Tax purpose FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Operations $0.25789 $0.25488 $0.25427 $0.24312
Capital 0.07142 0.07113 0.07112 0.06645
Total O&M 0.32932 0.32601 0.32539 0.30958
Debt Service 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
4
I Total Tax Rate I $0.32932 I $0.32601 I $0.32539 I $0.30958 I
For FY06, the market value of the average single-family home in University Park is $816,423, a
10.77% increase from last year's $737,035. The owner of an average home with a homestead
exemption whose value did not increase in assessed value this year would pay $93 less in City
taxes compared to FY05. The owner of a home whose value increased by the citywide average
would pay $103 more in City property taxes -less than $9 a month. The comparison with the
prior three years is shown below:
Property tax levy comparison, FY03 - FY06
Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Assessed Value (Market) $705,739 $717,626 $737,035 $816,423
Less 20% Hmstd Exmp (141,148) (143,525) (147,407) (163,285)
Taxable Value $564,592 $574,101 $589,628 $653,138
Tax Rate per $100 $0.32932 $0.32601 $0.32539 $0.30958
City Tax Levy $1,859.30 $1,871.65 $1,918.59 $2,021.96
Over the period FY03 to FY06, while the average single-family home in University Park
increased 15.7 % in market value, the City tax levy increased 8.7%. Of the three taxing
jurisdictions within the city's boundaries - the City, Dallas County, and HPISD -- the City portion
comprises only 14% of a resident's total tax bill.
UTILITY FUND
The proposed Utility Fund budget includes no rate increases for water or sewer charges. As
noted earlier, the decrease in expected payments for water and wastewater treatment is
resulting in a reduction of the Fund's budget. The decreases also allow the Fund to absorb
personnel cost and capital project contribution increases. The picture may change one year
from now, when the MUD projects a rate of $1.1601/1,000 gallons, a 4.2% increase from the
current $1.1125/1,000 gallons rate. Wastewater treatment charges from Dallas Water Utilities
will also likely rise.
SANITATION FUND
Unlike the General and Utility Funds, Sanitation Fund revenues only increase if rates are raised
or the number of serviced locations increases. In prior years, the Fund routinely expended less
than its budget, which allowed it to finish the year with a positive balance. By the end of
FY2004, however, Sanitation Fund expenditures exceeded revenues by $71,000, and the Fund
is projected to finish FY2005 with a loss of about $84,000.
To avoid a third consecutive year of net losses, Sanitation rates must be raised. The last
increase occurred in 2002, when the monthly charge for residential service rose 16%, from
$12.60 to $14.60. An increase of 15% would raise the monthly rate to $16.80, enough to cover
the Fund's budgeted operational expenditures. Consistent with past years, however, the
Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder (labeled "Disposal Fees Contingency" in the
line-item budget), which is intended to allow accumulation of reserves toward future landfill
needs. A rate increase of 20%, from $14.60 to $17.50, would produce enough revenue to
5
continue accumulation of funds. Increases in rates for recycling and special pickups would
need to mirror the increase in residential and commercial service.
On the expenditure side, proposed Fund expenditures are down 1.29% versus last year's
budget. This reduction is possible through a sharp decrease in current projected landfill costs.
The City had been budgeting over $350,000 for annual landfill fees, but a reduction in charges
in the past two years allows the City to project a lower annual cost, thereby reducing this line
item by $170,000. This decrease more than offsets the $99,505 increase in projected
personnel expenses. No new personnel are proposed.
CONCLUSION
As in the past, the proposed budget will be sent to the Employee Benefits, Finance, and
Insurance Advisory Committees for review. Staff has begun scheduling those meetings.
Changes to the State Truth in Taxation law now require two public hearings for any tax
increase. Staff proposes the following schedule for the FY2006 budget's adoption:
Date Day
August 2 Tuesday
Description
Submit proposed budget to City Council; vote to hold
public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget
August 11 Thursday Public hearing notice appears in Park Cities News
August 23 Tuesday
Receive staff briefing on proposed budget
Hold first public hearing re: proposed tax rate and budget
August 25 Thursday Second public hearing notice appears in News
August 30 Tuesday Hold second public hearing re: proposed tax rate
September 1 Thursday Notice of vote to adopt tax rate appears in News
September 6 Tuesday Approve ordinances adopting budget, tax rate, salary plan
Oct. 1
Saturday New budget takes effect
Staff looks forward to meeting with the City Council and advisory committees to discuss the
budget in more detail. We will be happy to provide any additional information that will be helpful
during your consideration.
6
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY 2006 BUDGET
SUMMARY BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT
8/2/2005
GENERAL FUND
01-11 REVENUES
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
01-02 EXECUTIVE
01-03 FINANCE
01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES
01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES
01-10 COURT
01-19 BUILDING
01-20 ENGINEERING
01-25 TRAFFIC
01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE
01-40 FIRE
01-50 POLICE
01-70 PARKS
01-75 SVVlMMING POOL
01-80 STREETS
01-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
UTILITY FUND
02-11 REVENUES
TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
02-21 UTILITY OFFICE
02-22 UTILITIES
02-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
SANITATION FUND
04-11 REVENUES
TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
04-80 SANITATION
TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
FY04 FY05
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
19,924,227 21,083,215
22,172,114 1,088,899 5.16%
$19,924,227 $21,083,215 $22,172,114
1,088,899 5.16%
618,054 750,884
918,432 955,847
303,261 329,554
485,068 520,191
249,235 262,831
580,616 623,731
872,773 884,966
740,709 778,387
611,069 613,693
3,502,650 3,837,102
4,523,224 4,854,780
2,064,482 2,102,110
166,950 147,969
1,606,128 1,612,334
2,681,063 2,793,166
786 315
998 131
334 340
705 241
275 536
659 492
842 530
797 368
638 929
4,041 469
5,045,813
2,248,508
164,968
1,718,155
2,866,962
35,431 4.72%
42,284 4.42%
4,786 1.45%
185,050 35.57%
12,705 4.83%
35,761 5.73%
(42,436) -4.80%
18,981 2.44%
25,236 4.11%
204,367 5.33%
191,033 3.93%
146,398 6.96%
16,999 11.49%
105,821 6.56%
73,796 2.64%
$19,923,714 $21,067,545 $22,123,757 1,056,212 5.01%
$513 $15,670 $48,357 $32,687
9,451,675 10,222,831 10,012,388 (210,443) -2.06%
$9,451,675 $10,222,831 $10,012,388 ($210,443) -2.06%
5,140,536 5,760,061 5,155,731 (604,330) -10.49%
2,624,069 2,731,658 2,831,827 100,169 3.67%
1,868,245 1,950,598 2,009,116 58,518 3.00%
$9,632,850 $10,442,317 $9,996,674 (445,643) -4.27%
($I 81,175) ($219,486) $15,714 $235,200
2,231,450 2,231,450 2,658,540 0 0.00%
$2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,658,540 $427,090 0.00%
2,496,972 2,663,410 2,629,074 (0)
$2,496,972 $2,663,410 $2,629,074 ($34,336)
($265,5221 ($43I ,960) $29,466 $461,426
0.00%
-1.29%
$31,607,352 $33,537,496 $34,843,042 $1,305,546 3.89%
$32,053,536 $34,173,272 $34,749,505 $576,233 1.69%
($446,184) ($635,776) $93,537 $729,313
FILENAME: Complete FY2006 Budget Summary
LAST PRINTED: 8/18/2005 3:37 PM Page 1 of 27
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2006 PROPOSED BUDGET
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT
8/2/2005
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE (CERTIFIED)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Sales tax
Franchise fees
Building permits
Traffic/parkin9 fines
Service charges
Direct alarm monitorin9 fees
Interest income
Utility Fund contribution
Miscellaneous
TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need
Penalty/interest & attorney's fees
Delinquent (prior years) taxes
TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT
PROPERTY TAX RATE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
Debt Service
Total Property Tax Rate per $100
IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER
Average single-family market value
Less: 20% homestead exemption
Average single-family taxable value
Tax levy
$ 3,553,903,488 3,769,405,331 3,927,730,289 4,314,149,841 $ 386,419,552 9.84%
$ 18,957,713 $ 19,924,227 $ 21,083,215 $ 22,172,114 $ 1,088,899 5.16%
2,160,220 $ 2,160,220 $ 2,210,220 $ 2,500,000 $ 289,780 13.11%
1,650,000 1,805,000 2,060,000 2,060,000 $ 0.00%
700,000 700,000 1,100,000 1,130,000 $ 30,000 2.73%
355,000 355,000 360,000 360,000 $ 0.00%
400,160 452,160 414,160 414,160 $ 0.00%
285,000 350,000 450,000 514,000 $ 64,000 14.22%
650,000 600,000 350,000 450,000 $ 100,000 28.57%
450,000 450,000 550,000 550,000 $ 0.00%
433,228 571,562 596,906 626,906 $ 30,000 5.03%
$ 7,083,608 $ 7,443,942 $ 8,091,286 $ 8,605,066 $ 513,780 6.35%
$ 11,703,605 $ 12,288,785 $ 12,780,429 $ 13,355,548 $ 575,119 4.50%
110,000 115,000 120,000 120,000 $ 0.00%
60,500 76,500 91,500 91,500 $ 0.00%
$ 11,874,105 $ 12,480,285 $ 12,991,929 $ 13,567,048 $
$ $ $ $ $
575,119
4.43%
0.00%
$ 0.32932 $ 0.32601 $ 0.32539 $ 0.30958 $ (0.0158) -4.86%
$ 0.00%
$ 0.32932 $ 0.32601 $ 0.32539 $ 0.30958 $ (0.0158) -4.86%
705,739 $ 717,626 $ 737,035 $ 816,423 $ 79,388 10.77%
(141,148) (143,525) (147,407) (163,285) $ (15,878) 10.77%
564,592 574,101 589,628 653,138 $ 63,510 10.77%
$ 1,859.30 $ 1,871.65 $ 1,918.59 $ 2,021.96 $ 103 5.39%
FILENAME: Complete FY2006 Budget Prop Tax Impact
LAST PRINTED: 8/18/2005 3:37 PM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2006PROPOSED BUDGET
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 1 OF 2
CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET
SECTION 003 ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS
(a)
(b)
Provide a comparison of expenditures in the
proposed budget and actual expenditures for the See attached
preceding year. page.
Budget must contain a complete financial
statement of the municipality that shows:
(1)
Outstanding obligations of the municipality
(7/31/05):
Accounts Payable
Debt
Total
General
95,807
Utility
(2)
Cash on hand to the credit of each fund
(7/31/05):
Cash
TexPool
TexStar
Total
409,662
(3) Funds received from all sources during the
preceding year (FY04)
(4)
Funds available from all sources during the
ensuing year (FY05)
Beginning of year fund balances:
bstlmated revenues
Total funds available from all sources
Sanitation
25,121
(5) Estimated revenue availableto coverthe
proposed budget:
$ 95,807 $ 409,662 $ 25,121
(6) Estimatedtaxraterequiredto coverthe
proposed budget.
250,774
1,883,621
2,539,128
$ 4,673,523
8,967,451
21,400,000
$ 30,367,451
666,649 260,852
1,058,145 306,709
$ 1,724,794 $ 567,561
6,275,926
10,300,000
$ 16,575,926 $
$10,012,388
$22,172,114
$0.30958 / $100
644,541
2,200,000
2,844,541
$2,658,540
Total
530,590
530,590
250,774
2,811,122
3,903,982
6,965,878
15,887,918
33,900,000
49,787,918
Filename: Complete FY2006 Budget Tab: State Law Summary Page 1
Last Printed: 8/18/2005 3:37 PM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2006 PROPOSED BUDGET
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS -- 2 OF 2
CHAPTER 102: MUNICIPAL BUDGET
SECTION 003(a): ITEMIZED BUDGET; CONTENTS
GENERAL FUND
01-11 REVENUES
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
01-02 EXECUTIVE
01-03 FINANCE
01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES
01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES
01-10 COURT
01-19 BUILDING
01-20 ENGINEERING
01-25 TRAFFIC
01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE
01-40 FIRE
01-50 POLICE
01-70 PARKS
01-75 SWIMMING POOL
01-60 STREETS
01-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
UTILITY FUND
REVENUES
02-11 REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
02-21 UTILITY OFFICE
02-22 UTILITIES
02-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
SANITATION FUND
04-11 REVENUES
TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
04-60 SAN ITATION
TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
$21,083,215 $21,086,715 $21,400,000 $22,172,114
$21,063,215 $21,066,715 $21,400,000 $22,172,114
$750,884
$955,847
$329,554
$520,191
$262,831
$623,731
$884,966
$778,387
$613,693
$3,637,102
$4,854,780
$2,102,110
$147,969
$1,612,334
$2,793,166
$21,067,545
$851 884
$974 347
$329 554
$740 259
$262 631
$627 631
$817 033
$788 304
$654 199
$3,952,620
$4,916,467
$2,149,729
$147,969
$1,694,834
$2,793,166
$21,701,026
5.16% $1,088,899
5.16% $1,088,899
$850,000 $786,315 4.72% $35,431
$950,000 $996,131 4.42% $42,264
$300,000 $334,340 1.45% $4,766
$670,000 $705,241 35.57% $165,050
$260,000 $275,536 4.63% $12,705
$600,000 $659,492 5.73% $35,761
$810,000 $842,530 -4.80% ($42,436)
$700,000 $797,368 2.44% $18,981
$630,000 $638,929 4.11% $25,236
$3,900,000 $4,041,469 5.33% $204,367
$4,900,000 $5,045,813 3.93% $191,033
$2,120,000 $2,248,508 6.96% $146,398
$140,000 $164,968 11.49% $16,999
$1,600,000 $1,718,155 6.56% $105,821
$2,790,000 $2,866,962 2.64% $73,796
$21,220,000 $22,123,757 5.01% $1,056,212
$15,670 ($814,3tl) $180,000 $48,357
$10,222,831 $10,222,831 $10,300,000 $10,012,388
$10,222,831 $10,222,831 $10,300,000 $10,012,388
0.00% $ (210,443)
0.00% $ (210,443)
$5,760,061 $5,760,061 $5,300,000 $5,155,731 -10.49% $ (604,330)
$2,731,658 $2,952,965 $3,000,000 $2,831,827 3.67% $ 100,169
$1,950,598 $1,950,598 $1,950,000 $2,009,116 3.00% $ 58,518
$10,442,317 $10,663,624 $10,250,000 $9,996,674
($2t9,488) ($440,793) $50,000 $15,714
-4.27% $ (445,643)
$2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,200,000 $2,658,540 19.14% $427,090
$2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,200,000 $2,658,540 19.14% $427,090
$2,663,410 $2,664,806 $2,300,000 $2,629,074 -1.29%
$2,663,410 $2,664,806 $2,300,000 $2,629,074 -1.29% ($34,338)
($431,980) ($433,358) ($100,000) $29,466
$33~537~496 $33~540~996 $33~900~000 $34~843~042
$34,173,272 $35,029,456 $33,770,000 $34,749,505
($835,778) ($1,488,480) $130,000 $93,537
3.89% $1~305~546
1.69% $576,233
Filename: Complete FY2006 Budget Tab: State Law Summary Page 2
Last Printed: 8/18/2005 3:37 PM
3000 TAXES-CU R R E NT YEAR $12,161,76.~ $12,780,42.( $13,355, 54~ $13,355,548 $575,119 4.50%
SUBTOTAL CURRENT TAXES $12,161,76.~ $12,780,42.( $13,355,548 $13,355,548 $575,119
3047 DELINQUENT TAXES-1997 $73.~ $1,00( $1,00£ $1,000 $0 0%
3048 DELINQUENT TAXES-1998 $1,54( $1,00( $1,00£ $1,000 $0 0%
3049 DELINQUENT TAXES-1999 $1,01,! $1,00( $1,00£ $1,000 $0 0%
3050 DELINQUENT TAXES-2000 $3,73( $2,50( $2,50£ $2,500 $0 0%
3051 DELINQUENT TAXES-2001 $7,91 ' $10,00( $10,00£ $10,00C $0 0%
DELINQUENT TAXES-2002 $35,33: $75,00( $75,00£ $75,00C $0 0%
3095 DELINQUENT TAXES-1995 $( $50£ $50£ $500 $0 0%
3096 DELINQUENT TAXES-1996 $( $50£ $50£ $500 $0 0%
SUBTOTAL DELINQUENT TAXES $50,36L $91,50( $91,50£ $91,50C $0
3098 PENALTY/INTEREST ON TAXES $93,03,! $85,00( $85,00£ $85,00C $0 0%
3099 ATTORNEY FEES-TAXES $27,74~ $35,00( $35,006 $35,00C $0 0%
SUBTOTAL P&I $120,78' $120,00( $120,006 $120,00C $0
3109 UTILITY FUND CONTRIBUTION $450,00( $550,00( $550,006 $550,00C $0 0%
SUBTOTAL UF CONTRIBUTION $450,00( $550,00( $550,006 $550,00C $0
3150 CITY SALES TAX $1,950,25.~ $2,210,22( $2,500,00£ $2,500,00C $289,780 13%
SUBTOTAL SALES TAX $1,950,25.~ $2,210,22( $2,500,006 $2,500,00C $289,780
3300 BUILDING PERMITS $1,577,46: $1,100,00( $1,130,006 $1,130,00C $30,000 3%
SUBTOTAL BUILDING PERMITS $1,577,46: $1,100,00( $1,130,006 $1,130,00C $30,000
3499 DIRECT ALARM REVENUE $407,22: $450,00( $514,006 $514,00C $64,000 14%
SUBTOTAL DIRECT ALARM $407,22: $450,00( $514,006 $514,00C $64,000
3400 TRAFFIC FINES $220,53.~ $230,00( $230,006 $230,00C $0 0%
3403 CROSS'G GUARD(CHILD SFTY) $14,40.~ $15,00( $15,006 $15,00C $0 0%
3404 PARKING TICKETS $84,42( $115,00( $115,00£ $115,00C $0 0%
SUBTOTAL FINES $319,36( $360,00( $360,006 $360,00C $0
3200 T U ELECTRIC $938,16( $1,200,00( $1,200,00£ $1,200,00C $0 0%
3202 TELEPHONE FRANCHISE $310,69( $335,00( $335,006 $335,00C $0 0%
3203 LONE STAR GAS $319, 91 .~ $325,00( $325,00£ $325,00C $0 0%
3204 CABLE FRANCHISE $196,06.~ $200,00( $200,006 $200,00C $0 0%
SUBTOTAL FRANCHISE FEES $1,764,84( $2,060,00( $2,060,006 $2,060,00C $0
3900 INTEREST EARNINGS $309,23; $350,00( $450,006 $450,00C $100,000 29%
SUBTOTAL INTEREST $309,23; $350,00( $450,006 $450,00C $100,000
3155 MIXED BEVERAGE TAX $62,79.~ $65,00( $65,006 $65,00C $0 0%
3510 TENNIS PERMITS $5,06; $6,50( $6,506 $6,50C $0 0%
3511 SWIM POOL PERMIT-RESIDENT $129,62.~ $143,00( $143,006 $143,006 $0 0%
3512 SWIM POOL PERM IT-NONRES $7,88( $7,00( $7,006 $7,006 $0 0%
3513 SWIM POOL PR MTS GATE R CPT $46,04( $40,00( $40,00£ $40,006 $0 0%
3514 SWIM M lNG POOL CONCESSIONS $6,50( $6,00( $6,00£ $6,006 $0 0%
3850 AUCTION/SALE OF EQUIPMENT $( $10,00( $10,00£ $10,006 $0 0%
3901 RENT $33,60( $33,60( $33,606 $33,606 $0 0%
3908 GAIN(LOSS) - FIXED ASSETS $( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3910 GAIN(LOSS) - INVESTMENTS $( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3911 COPIES $2,69.~ $4,00( $4,006 $4,006 $0 0%
3920 PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES $11,08' $11,80( $11,80( $11,806 $0 0%
3995 OTHER SOURCES/EQUITY TRSF $( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3999 OTHER REVENUE $3,812,68' $270,00( $300,006 $300,006 $30,000 11%
SUBTOTAL MISC $4,117,97.~ $596,90( $626,90( $626,906 $30,000
Complete FY2006 Budget 01-11_SUMMARY 8/18/2005 3:44 PM
3302 CONTRACTORS LICNSE/PERMIT $42,09.~ $35,00£ $35,00£ $35,00C $0 0%
3303 ANIMAL CONTROL TAGS/FEES $14,05: $9,00£ $9,006 $9,00C $0 0%
3304 HEALTH/FOOD PER M IT $19, 79.~ $15,00£ $15, 00£ $15,00C $0 0%
3305 FILMING PERMITS $53( $2,00£ $2,006 $2,00C $0 0%
3401 WRECKER FEES $1,40~ $2,16£ $2,166 $2,16C $0 0%
3402 POLICE POUND-STORAGE $( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3405 ALARM BILLING $23,47: $36,00£ $36,006 $36,006 $0 0%
3406 FALSE ALARM FEES $3,85( $10,00£ $10,006 $10,006 $0 0%
3408 AMBULANCE FEES $148,60( $150,00£ $150,006 $150,006 $0 0%
3409 911 SERVICE FEES $128,80; $155,00£ $155,006 $155,006 $0 0%
3410 911 SERVICE FEES-WIRELESS $70,19( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3515 SWIM LESSONS $82; $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
3535 UTILITY CAP OFF $12,80( $£ $£ $0 $0 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL SERVICE CHARGES $466,42' $414,16£ $414,166 $414,166 $0
Totals for REVENUES 01-11 $23,695,69' $21,083,21.¢ $22,172,1 lZ $22,172,114 $1,088,899 5.16%
Complete FY2006 Budget 01-11_SUMMARY 8/18/2005 3:44 PM
$37,712 11%
~50¢ $0 0%
$o 0%
$o o%
11~0 EMPEQ~ERS S~ABE F ] C A 5~8 9~8 $1,258 7%
~'l ~Q EMBBOYEB~ ~BABE ~.M B;~; $~6i20s $( $5,961 12%
~ 12~ R~IREMEN~ SUPPLEMENTAL $~0;000 $0 SE ${ $0 $0 ¢DIV/0!
$181 12%
$0 flDIV/0!
$~ ~,580 48%
S~b~bt~i bf SA~BiES A BENE~i~ $~ee e~2 $~ $56,695 13%
$200 9%
~o o%
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $200 7%
~o o%
~:,~oo :OO/o
~btotai of B~QFBSSiQNA~ ~EBMi~ES $fi~ ~25 $( $4,807 3%
B~Bi $352 19%
a~btotai of B~iBi~iES ~5~8~ ~582~ $( ~5828 $428 8%
~s~ ~u ~o 0%
~ ~::~ ~ $343 52o/o
(~4 ooo) -9~%
S~btotai of iBSDB~B~B ~( ($13342) -24%
~o o%
7150 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS $17;~32 $21 ;968 $20~3~ $( $20;~31 ($1 637) -7%
Z~5~ CONTINGE~C~ FUND $0 $6 $( $( $0 $0 CDIV/O!
Z! ~2 DEB~ SERVICE CQ~TBIBD%IQ~ $0 $6 $( $( $0 $0 CDIV/O!
~ 53 CAPiT~E PROJECTS CON'RiB $0 $6 $( $( $0 $0 ~DIV/O!
~ 70 TR~VEL ~ENSE $2,384 $2~606 $8;90( $( $8,900 $6,300 242%
72~2 MICRO CQMPD~ER SOFTWARE $34! $2~;006 $~;00( $( $1;000 ($20000) -95%
Z22~ OTHER EXPENSE $4;30~ $( $4;300 $0 0%
72A0 TDITiQN & ~RAI~iNG $856 $3,33( $( $2,480 292%
Z2A5 ~D!~IQN REIMBDRSEMENT $0 $6 $( $( $0 $0 ¢DIV/O!
~432 ELECTIONS $0 $3;006 $10;00( $( $~0;000 $7,000 233%
~btotai of ~BE~ ~( 55857) -~%
~ DB~iDB B~DiB~BN $0 0%
(~,soo) -~o%
~( $0 flDIV/0!
~i ~ CABi~E ~BEBDi~BRES $( ($%500) -~0%
Totals for EXECUTIVE 01-02 $634,798 $744,884 $786,31( $( $786,315 $41,431 6%
s:\FINANCE\BUDGET06\Complete FY2006 Budget01-02_SUMMARY 07-31-05 8/18/2005 3:48 PM
$22,913 5%
$~ $1i580 $0 O%
~ 6p~ ~1~ PAY $0 0%
$o o%
196 892 $1,574 4%
~ l~O EMB~OYEB~ ~BABE ~.M B ~ $4,022 5%
~ 130 INSURANCE~EM~bQYEE ElBE $2~50( $117 50/0
~ 95 ~4O/o
,0 CD~V/O~
~9,~ 99 ~ 90/0
Ssb~bt~i bf SA~RiES A BENEBi~S $656 3~5 $B8~ 8~ $( $~ B82 $38,020 6%
$0 ¢D~V/0!
~:oo ZO/o
,o CD~V/0~
$0 ¢DIV/0!
-S~ btota! of SIJ B B~iE-s ~B55 $~8~ $200 7%
,~,000 40/0
~0 CD~V/0~
~ ~ ~Aee (S400) _~ ZO/o
~,~00 ~O/o
$0
CD~V/0~
~ ~!N !N~ ~0 O%
~( $0 ~DIV/0!
$94 1%
$1,067 2%
~2~ ~ ~2~ ~ $( ~2~ ~ $926 0%
~B~T !~B WA B~U! $908 27%
,o Cb~V/O~
so ¢~v/o~
$0 CDIV/0!
~0btotai of i~ $~27 $( ($1 040) -43%
e~9o ~u~e ~E~IBS $0 $C $o CD~V/0i
$0 $0 $o CD~V/0!
~OD ($250) -45%
-s~tot~i of ~i~ ~ {~o) -4~%
7i 50 DUES A SUBSCRIPTIONS $5628 $8323 $632~ $( $6323 $0 0%
~ 70 ~RA~EL ~E~E $5;~ 26 $5;43E $( ~5;~3~ $315 6%
~202 MICRQ COMPUTER SQF~VARE $526 $256 $25( $( $250 $0 0%
~22i O%HER EXPENSE $3,2~0 $~935 $~;98~ $( $i,985 $50 3%
7240 ~UI~!ON ~ TBAIN!NG $3;~68 $2;045 ~2;~2( $( $2;420 $375 18%
$( $( $0 ¢DIV/0!
SSbtotai of Q~BEB $~ 2~ $~B ~ $( $~B ~3 $740 5%
8000 IN~ERES~ CQN~R!B;+BYRD $0 $6 $( $( $0 $0 ¢DIV/0!
.s~tot~i of~ ~o CD~V/0~
~ ~! ~ EQ~!pM~N ~ ~ $0 CD~V/0~
~0 CD~V/0,
~=,~0
$0 CDIV/0!
~o $o
-SSbtotai of G~Bi~E ~BBBi~U RES $~ $~63C $8~8( $( $8~88 $2,570 46%
Totals for FINANCE 01-03 $934,759 $956,385 $998,631 ($500 $998,131 $41,746 4%
Complete FY2006 Budget01-03_SUMMARY 07-31-05 8/18/2005 3:51 PM