Loading...
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